I am just glad its only a few more days till Early Starts, so that I can avoid these forums in trying to define a very very simple term of what is RAID.
While everyone else who is still trying to find out what the hell is Raiding, atleast I will be actually playing the game on the 25th.
Same for all those trying to argue about GW2's Retention rate, atleast on Release it will have me playing it, who knows for how long, as long as I am enjoying myself, being entertained I will keep playing.
Time to do some Theorycrafting !!
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
But seriously. Suggesting that GW2 has raids is doing the game a disservice. It has epic fights, sure. But killing Hogger with 40 people didn't turn that mob into a raid.
Originally posted by grapevine Being res'ed, running back. Same result, and there's no limit to the number of times it can be done.
what's that have to do with the mechanics of the fight? if a group keeps running up to the dragon and dying over and over what good are they doing? if a group spits up and defends the seige weapons and keeps them going who is being more effective?
As long as the dragon dies... could be argued.
true but that's my point you don't know.. I don't know but i don't try to state my opinions on how the game actually works on parts I haven't played. Or base them solely on very old dev footage.
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
"You are not merely watching the battle from a sofa prospective, but watching the battle in a more intimate viewpoint in the middle of the chaos."
"They want you to have your cake and eat it too. Let’s be frank here, ArenaNet will likely want users to win fights more often than lose them. "
"The Shatterer is indeed a very big and visually impressive dragon, but one which only utilizes a handful of animations and doesn’t move at all from its fixed position upon the battlefield."
Not once in that blog did I find the word Simple or Easy. Those are your words.
And of course they would want you to beat it more often than lose them. Taking note from a previous post of yours you said they were designed not to lose, and yet you are here posting a portion of a blog stating that they will win and lose. Make up your mind sir.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Originally posted by grapevine Being res'ed, running back. Same result, and there's no limit to the number of times it can be done.
what's that have to do with the mechanics of the fight? if a group keeps running up to the dragon and dying over and over what good are they doing? if a group spits up and defends the seige weapons and keeps them going who is being more effective?
It negates the difficulty, and removes challenge. I'm still suprised this thread is going to be honest. Its quite clear GW2 doesn't have raids, and the devs don't intend for it to.
Its not a big deal, just live with it. The game is still enjoyable.
Originally posted by Svarcanum But seriously. Suggesting that GW2 has raids is doing the game a disservice. It has epic fights, sure. But killing Hogger with 40 people didn't turn that mob into a raid.
really just depends how you define a raid.. again the term has been so scewed since the wow era and doesn't seem to even mean the same thing as it used to compared to old games according to many people..
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
"You are not merely watching the battle from a sofa prospective, but watching the battle in a more intimate viewpoint in the middle of the chaos."
"They want you to have your cake and eat it too. Let’s be frank here, ArenaNet will likely want users to win fights more often than lose them. "
"The Shatterer is indeed a very big and visually impressive dragon, but one which only utilizes a handful of animations and doesn’t move at all from its fixed position upon the battlefield."
Not once in that blog did I find the word Simple or Easy. Those are your words.
And of course they would want you to beat it more often than lose them. Taking note from a previous post of yours you said they were designed not to lose, and yet you are here posting a portion of a blog stating that they will win and lose. Make up your mind sir.
No contridiction here. They are designed not to lose. Can you lose? Sure, will a group of 30 lose? Highly unlikly. The abilities are designed to only damage a small number of people while leaving the rest unharmed. the dmg area then moves leaving those unharmed free to help the others.
There will be no running back there will be res's a plenty. The chance of the boss leaving combat is slim unless intentional. The fights are designed not to lose.
Of course there is raiding in GW2, but it is very different to raiding in WoW!
WoW
Complicated, have to be trained with a fixed group.
Players have to do a lot of different tasks in a well organized matter.
Only thing to do.
Require a certain Tier of gear.
Gear-oriented.
Timeconsuming.
Target a minority of players, amplifies elitisism.
GW2
Easy to understand, good for random groups.
Players zerg the boss to death.
One of several things one can do.
Do not require anything, everybody can join spontaniously.
Fun-oriented.
Casual.
For everybody.
I prefer rading in GW2, but I understand, that it will never satisfy typical WoW-raiders.
GW2 list isn't really accurate accept for #3, #4, and #5 unless you are talking just the very early stuff then yea
We still have not seen, what happens past level 30. However, we can draw some conlucions from the content that was available during beta. And I assume, that ArenaNet will definitely deliver more casual-oriented raiding - which is a good thing! In the end the devs have to make a decision depending on the experience they want to offer in their games:
WoW
Devs: 'On endlevel we want to give the players the ultimate challenge. They will have to invest a lot of time together with their guildmates and in the end they get the best rewards in the game.'
Players: 'We finally killed boss xyz after weeks of training and it was such a great feeling when everybody cheered in ts. We watched so many guides, tried so many tactics, changed so many things in our templates and setup. And now we are one of the few guilds on our server which killed this boss. Here look at the gread Sword that dropped for me!'
GW2
Devs:'We want to give players an incencitive to play together on a larger scale from level 1 on. Special events with really big monsters may occure from time to time, that can only be defeated by a large group of players.'
Players:'And then this biiiiig dragon from the beta-videos spawned, I called all my guildmates and all players around to join asap. We checked out the strategy, a lot players died again and again, but in the end we succeeded!'
This is a very different experience as a result of a very different approach by the devs. There is raiding in GW2, but it offers a different experience. I think that some old style raiders will not get the same old feeling they had in EQ or WoW. Everybody remembers his first Ragnaros kill, because it took months until it happened. However, I still remember some things from the time I played WoW:
-Even hard-core raiders asked for more open-world raids.
-I will never forget how so many players loved the second half of WotLK, because they could finally experience raiding. Although Blizzard earned much blame for all the nerfs.
One final example: There was this flamelegion-shaman, that was a little to overpowered in the GW2-beta. However, many players just liked that this event created so much chaos and deaths, although the battle itself was very simple.
Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.
"You are not merely watching the battle from a sofa prospective, but watching the battle in a more intimate viewpoint in the middle of the chaos."
"They want you to have your cake and eat it too. Let’s be frank here, ArenaNet will likely want users to win fights more often than lose them. "
"The Shatterer is indeed a very big and visually impressive dragon, but one which only utilizes a handful of animations and doesn’t move at all from its fixed position upon the battlefield."
Not once in that blog did I find the word Simple or Easy. Those are your words.
And of course they would want you to beat it more often than lose them. Taking note from a previous post of yours you said they were designed not to lose, and yet you are here posting a portion of a blog stating that they will win and lose. Make up your mind sir.
No contridiction here. They are designed not to lose. Can you lose? Sure, will a group of 30 lose? Highly unlikly. The abilities are designed to only damage a small number of people while leaving the rest unharmed. the dmg are then moves leaving those unharmed free to help the others.
There will be no running back there will be res's a plenty. The chance of the boss leaving combat is slim unless intentional. The fights are designed not to lose.
Perhaps in the perfect scenario there will be chances of rez's, but we have only seen a few boss encounters. Adds are certainly a part of almost all boss fights. Scaling will add more adds with more people, and it will be much harder to run around healing downed players.
The main part of this entire game imho, is to be less structured, more casual, and above all to have fun doing it. Folks can pick the thing to it's very soul, but until we actually get into it a few weeks it's all speculation.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Of course there is raiding in GW2, but it is very different to raiding in WoW!
WoW
Complicated, have to be trained with a fixed group.
Players have to do a lot of different tasks in a well organized matter.
Only thing to do.
Require a certain Tier of gear.
Gear-oriented.
Timeconsuming.
Target a minority of players, amplifies elitisism.
GW2
Easy to understand, good for random groups.
Players zerg the boss to death.
One of several things one can do.
Do not require anything, everybody can join spontaniously.
Fun-oriented.
Casual.
For everybody.
I prefer rading in GW2, but I understand, that it will never satisfy typical WoW-raiders.
GW2 list isn't really accurate accept for #3, #4, and #5 unless you are talking just the very early stuff then yea
We still have not seen, what happens past level 30. However, we can draw some conlucions from the content that was available during beta. And I assume, that ArenaNet will definitely deliver more casual-oriented raiding - which is a good thing! In the end the devs have to make a decision depending on the experience they want to offer in their games:
WoW
Devs: 'On endlevel we want to give the players the ultimate challenge. They will have to invest a lot of time together with their guildmates and in the end they get the best rewards in the game.'
Players: 'We finally killed boss xyz after weeks of training and it was such a great feeling when everybody cheered in ts. We watched so many guides, tried so many tactics, changed so many things in our templates and setup. And now we are one of the few guilds on our server which killed this boss. Here look at the gread Sword that dropped for me!'
GW2
Devs:'We want to give players an incencitive to play together on a larger scale from level 1 on. Special events with really big monsters may occure from time to time, that can only be defeated by a large group of players.'
Players:'And then this biiiiig dragon from the beta-videos spawned, I called all my guildmates and all players around to join asap. We checked out the strategy, a lot players died again and again, but in the end we succeeded!'
This is a very different experience as a result of a very different approach by the devs. There is raiding in GW2, but it offers a different experience. I think that some old style raiders will not get the same old feeling they had in EQ or WoW. Everybody remembers his first Ragnaros kill, because it took months until it happened. However, I still remember some things from the time I played WoW:
-Even hard-core raiders asked for more open-world raids.
-I will never forget how so many players loved the second half of WotLK, because they could finally experience raiding. Although Blizzard earned much blame for all the nerfs.
One final example: There was this flamelegion-shaman, that was a little to overpowered in the GW2-beta. However, many players just liked that this event created so much chaos and deaths, although the battle itself was very simple.
i can agree with this just your first list was to broad and like you said most haven't seen post 30 content to draw any conclusions on that content.
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
Originally posted by Svarcanum But seriously. Suggesting that GW2 has raids is doing the game a disservice. It has epic fights, sure. But killing Hogger with 40 people didn't turn that mob into a raid.
really just depends how you define a raid.. again the term has been so scewed since the wow era and doesn't seem to even mean the same thing as it used to compared to old games according to many people..
agree - guilds were raiding for four years before WOW, in Everquest
In EQ, you had to compete w other guilds if wanted a chance at participating in a raid kill
not the WOW version of: serve up raid boss in instance, enjoy, everybody wins
my definition of classic raiding:
uncommon mob *requires* multi groups to be taken down -- its not optional
usually mob drops phat loot (but this is not required)
worth noting, World Bosses are returning to WOW in MOP
I call those raid mobs... I think anyone would call a world boss a raid mob
Well when we see footage of the fights after the 25th then we'll know wont we? As has been pointed out already that footage was from a long time ago and it's purpose was to show that GW2 will have raid type content. Numbers can easily be tweaked after. If ANet will make veterans in the 1-15 zone difficult (BWE2, not 3) then why would they make 50+ content trivial?
Agreed. This was a Raid Boss in a Raid, fought by whst could be called a group of Raiders. This happens to be WOW but would be the same in any game with similar setup. The OP posted a World encounter. The word raid does not apply to that.
The word "raid" predates your "WoWesque" description by quite a bit. There were raids well before instanced dungeons became commonplace in MMOs (EQ, DAoC, etc all had raids but they were NOT instanced). "Raid" simply means a large group sieging an above average difficulty encounter.
Agreed. This was a Raid Boss in a Raid, fought by whst could be called a group of Raiders. This happens to be WOW but would be the same in any game with similar setup. The OP posted a World encounter. The word raid does not apply to that.
The word "raid" predates your "WoWesque" description by quite a bit. There were raids well before instanced dungeons became commonplace in MMOs (EQ, DAoC, etc all had raids but they were NOT instanced). "Raid" simply means a large group sieging an above average difficulty encounter.
Yes, but the meaning has changed in the last 8 years due to WoW. Now when one talks of raiding, it conjures a very specific image in most people's minds. Words change like that.
Maybe GW2 will cause the definition to expand to something larger than ever before common parlence. Given the lack of need to group, lack of HT, etc. GW2 "raiding" is very different even from EQ and early MMOs.
Until then, it is more confusing than helpful to call large-scale PvE in GW2 "raiding." The vast majority who like modern raiding will think you mean something else and will be disappointed. The vast majority that dislike modern raiding will be turned off. And the people that are unfamiliar with the term? Well, that doesn't do anything for them.
Agreed. This was a Raid Boss in a Raid, fought by whst could be called a group of Raiders. This happens to be WOW but would be the same in any game with similar setup. The OP posted a World encounter. The word raid does not apply to that.
The word "raid" predates your "WoWesque" description by quite a bit. There were raids well before instanced dungeons became commonplace in MMOs (EQ, DAoC, etc all had raids but they were NOT instanced). "Raid" simply means a large group sieging an above average difficulty encounter.
Yes, but the meaning has changed in the last 8 years due to WoW. Now when one talks of raiding, it conjures a very specific image in most people's minds. Words change like that.
Maybe GW2 will cause the definition to expand to something larger than ever before common parlence. Given the lack of need to group, lack of HT, etc. GW2 "raiding" is very different even from EQ and early MMOs.
Until then, it is more confusing than helpful to call large-scale PvE in GW2 "raiding." The vast majority who like modern raiding will think you mean something else and will be disappointed. The vast majority that dislike modern raiding will be turned off. And the people that are unfamiliar with the term? Well, that doesn't do anything for them.
Anyone with experience pre-WoW can easily equate the large encounters in GW2 to raids. Those who have a scope of understanding that does not go beyond WoW simply need to become more familiar with the genre as a whole before pidgeon-holing the term "raid" into such a small description.
No contridiction here. They are designed not to lose. Can you lose? Sure, will a group of 30 lose? Highly unlikly. The abilities are designed to only damage a small number of people while leaving the rest unharmed. the dmg area then moves leaving those unharmed free to help the others.
There will be no running back there will be res's a plenty. The chance of the boss leaving combat is slim unless intentional. The fights are designed not to lose.
It's unclear. If bosses can heal themselves, then you could certainly never win. That'll result in a loss. If there's a long time limit, like 30 minutes, then you could lose if you fail to win. The boss could slowly become more powerful or be setting up something that will wipe everyone, which could result in a loss (one might be able to stop this with proper tactics).
There are lots of ways to have losing conditions. Heck, rezzing someone takes time, if the group is getting overwhelmed, then you won't have time to rez. I imagine it can get interrupted. Since damage can come from multiple directions and mobs, losing seems far from impossible with just the base mechanics.
I would say it is more accurate to describe the design as one where you aren't inherently locked out of the action if you fall. Or one where the group can recover from being put in a really bad spot. The latter in many ways allows for more epic fights, where fortune can sway back and forth. You don't get that in a game like WoW without it being scripted.
Originally posted by bcbully Originally posted by grapevineOriginally posted by seridanOriginally posted by SvarcanumOriginally posted by AerowynOriginally posted by MephsterRaiding in Guild Wars ? LOL! These are nothing more than dynamic events with little to no thought process involved whatsoever.
I'm sure you put tons of hours into all those high level DE's and dragon fights Serious question: why would you put hours into them if they're designed to be beatable on the first attempt?They are not designed to be beatable on the first attempt. Actually Guild Wars 2 is one of the few games that have the concept of "losing"Which is usually down to simply not enough people there at the time, not skill or challenge.The bosses damanging abilities can only hit a small number of people at a time at a certain point. There is now way that boss can kill a group of 30 before they are able to res.
You must have leveld to 80 and played each of the 1600/1700 dynamic events ? Clearly you seem to know exactly how each event scales and how difficult they are ?
Strange thing is i did play around 30 events and there was 1 particular event that spawnd mages, we had a total of 25 players or so and the event went from easy to hard in a matter of seconds. We killed a few mages but dint focus fire hard enough and the second wave of mages killed all 25 of us.
Now we all did that event for the 1st time, so sorry buddy you will get your arse kicked sometimes when you not play smart enough as a group. This was at level 5 btw lol.
But hey you seem to clearly now that each event is done without any effort right ?
Agreed. This was a Raid Boss in a Raid, fought by whst could be called a group of Raiders. This happens to be WOW but would be the same in any game with similar setup. The OP posted a World encounter. The word raid does not apply to that.
The word "raid" predates your "WoWesque" description by quite a bit. There were raids well before instanced dungeons became commonplace in MMOs (EQ, DAoC, etc all had raids but they were NOT instanced). "Raid" simply means a large group sieging an above average difficulty encounter.
Yes, but the meaning has changed in the last 8 years due to WoW. Now when one talks of raiding, it conjures a very specific image in most people's minds. Words change like that.
Maybe GW2 will cause the definition to expand to something larger than ever before common parlence. Given the lack of need to group, lack of HT, etc. GW2 "raiding" is very different even from EQ and early MMOs.
Until then, it is more confusing than helpful to call large-scale PvE in GW2 "raiding." The vast majority who like modern raiding will think you mean something else and will be disappointed. The vast majority that dislike modern raiding will be turned off. And the people that are unfamiliar with the term? Well, that doesn't do anything for them.
No, the meaning didn't change. A "newbs" perception of a raid may have changed, but the definition is still the same. In fact, the definition of the MMO term RAID is derived from the dictionary term:
Definition of RAID
1
a: a hostile or predatory incursion
b: a surprise attack by a small force
2
a: a brief foray outside one's usual sphere
b: a sudden invasion by officers of the law
c: a daring operation against a competitor
By definition, it's a hostile incurion of players against a competitior (evil force) within the game. It essentially is a "raid" whenver a large group of players tackles a single task/goal. Technically sieges against Stonemist Castle can be called "raids", as that is what they are.
But, what is a raid in MMO terms?
It's a bunch of players (GW2? Check!)
Aiming to kill a big named boss (GW2? Check!)
Different mechanics (GW2? Check!)
Trash mobs (GW2? Check!)
A loot chest at the end (GW2? Check!)
And things that other MMO raids have that GW2 doesn't?
Group size limitations
Weekly/Daily lockouts
Limited loot
Player class limitations
Limited combat approach
Essentially GW2 has everything GOOD from raiding for other games, and completely left out everything that was BAD in them. It's a good thing.
No, the meaning didn't change. A "newbs" perception of a raid may have changed, but the definition is still the same. In fact, the definition of the MMO term RAID is derived from the dictionary term:
Definition of RAID
1
a: a hostile or predatory incursion
b: a surprise attack by a small force
2
a: a brief foray outside one's usual sphere
b: a sudden invasion by officers of the law
c: a daring operation against a competitor
By definition, it's a hostile incurion of players against a competitior (evil force) within the game. It essentially is a "raid" whenver a large group of players tackles a single task/goal. Technically sieges against Stonemist Castle can be called "raids", as that is what they are.
But, what is a raid in MMO terms?
It's a bunch of players (GW2? Check!)
Aiming to kill a big named boss (GW2? Check!)
Different mechanics (GW2? Check!)
Trash mobs (GW2? Check!)
A loot chest at the end (GW2? Check!)
And things that other MMO raids have that GW2 doesn't?
Group size limitations
Weekly/Daily lockouts
Limited loot
Player class limitations
Limited combat approach
Essentially GW2 has everything GOOD from raiding for other games, and completely left out everything that was BAD in them. It's a good thing.
i agree and is why I don't see why people have such an issue with GW2 take on raiding.
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
Agreed. This was a Raid Boss in a Raid, fought by whst could be called a group of Raiders. This happens to be WOW but would be the same in any game with similar setup. The OP posted a World encounter. The word raid does not apply to that.
The word "raid" predates your "WoWesque" description by quite a bit. There were raids well before instanced dungeons became commonplace in MMOs (EQ, DAoC, etc all had raids but they were NOT instanced). "Raid" simply means a large group sieging an above average difficulty encounter.
Yes, but the meaning has changed in the last 8 years due to WoW. Now when one talks of raiding, it conjures a very specific image in most people's minds. Words change like that.
Maybe GW2 will cause the definition to expand to something larger than ever before common parlence. Given the lack of need to group, lack of HT, etc. GW2 "raiding" is very different even from EQ and early MMOs.
Until then, it is more confusing than helpful to call large-scale PvE in GW2 "raiding." The vast majority who like modern raiding will think you mean something else and will be disappointed. The vast majority that dislike modern raiding will be turned off. And the people that are unfamiliar with the term? Well, that doesn't do anything for them.
Anyone with experience pre-WoW can easily equate the large encounters in GW2 to raids. Those who have a scope of understanding that does not go beyond WoW simply need to become more familiar with the genre as a whole before pidgeon-holing the term "raid" into such a small description.
So what...something like less than 5% of the MMO community? Like I said, most people in the MMO world have been affected by WoW and how the term applies to it. Heck, almost all MMORPGs of any note in the last 8 years have been based or significantly affect by WoW's design.
Like it or not, the effect of WoW on how MMO terms are used has been massive.
Agreed. This was a Raid Boss in a Raid, fought by whst could be called a group of Raiders. This happens to be WOW but would be the same in any game with similar setup. The OP posted a World encounter. The word raid does not apply to that.
The word "raid" predates your "WoWesque" description by quite a bit. There were raids well before instanced dungeons became commonplace in MMOs (EQ, DAoC, etc all had raids but they were NOT instanced). "Raid" simply means a large group sieging an above average difficulty encounter.
Yes, but the meaning has changed in the last 8 years due to WoW. Now when one talks of raiding, it conjures a very specific image in most people's minds. Words change like that.
Maybe GW2 will cause the definition to expand to something larger than ever before common parlence. Given the lack of need to group, lack of HT, etc. GW2 "raiding" is very different even from EQ and early MMOs.
Until then, it is more confusing than helpful to call large-scale PvE in GW2 "raiding." The vast majority who like modern raiding will think you mean something else and will be disappointed. The vast majority that dislike modern raiding will be turned off. And the people that are unfamiliar with the term? Well, that doesn't do anything for them.
No, the meaning didn't change. A "newbs" perception of a raid may have changed, but the definition is still the same. In fact, the definition of the MMO term RAID is derived from the dictionary term:
Definition of RAID
1
a: a hostile or predatory incursion
b: a surprise attack by a small force
2
a: a brief foray outside one's usual sphere
b: a sudden invasion by officers of the law
c: a daring operation against a competitor
By definition, it's a hostile incurion of players against a competitior (evil force) within the game. It essentially is a "raid" whenver a large group of players tackles a single task/goal. Technically sieges against Stonemist Castle can be called "raids", as that is what they are.
But, what is a raid in MMO terms?
It's a bunch of players (GW2? Check!)
Aiming to kill a big named boss (GW2? Check!)
Different mechanics (GW2? Check!)
Trash mobs (GW2? Check!)
A loot chest at the end (GW2? Check!)
And things that other MMO raids have that GW2 doesn't?
Group size limitations
Weekly/Daily lockouts
Limited loot
Player class limitations
Limited combat approach
Essentially GW2 has everything GOOD from raiding for other games, and completely left out everything that was BAD in them. It's a good thing.
A raid in MMO terms, as it is commonly used, is something you see in WoW. Raiding guilds there don't mean guilds that go after world bosses alone or ones that go after faction leaders. They mean something very specific. Given that WoW has over 10 timse as many players as its nearest competitor and has been running strong for 8 years, it is no surprise that when you talk about raiding in an MMO context, WoW raiding is what comes to mind.
To pretend otherwise is to pretend WoW is not the massive phenomenon that it obviously is.
But hey, I'm sure insulting everyone who has been most influenced by WoW by calling them "newbs" is a great way to go.
Playing semantic games doesn't help your case. By the dictionary, dungeons are raids, as is most soloing. The dictionary is worthless here, since "raiding" in an MMO is a technical term, and so has a more specific meaning. Heck, even your MMO specific example seems to leave Dungeons as "possible" raids. Certainly any random DE could be considered a raid with enough people. The fact is, this is NOT how most people use the term.
Most people don't go with an EQ-like definition either, though even that would leave out GW2 given the role requirements.
Now, perhaps GW2 will expand what people mean when they talk of Raiding. On the other hand, it might not, given that the raiding community in MMOs has a very specific idea of what they want, and general that isn't what we see in GW2. As others have said, if you really want raiding, then stick to WoW or its brethren. To call GW2 large-scale PvE raiding is to mislead a lot of people about what GW2 is like, unless you include a lot of explanation regarding what you mean when you use that term in that way.
i agree and is why I don't see why people have such an issue with GW2 take on raiding.
I have no issue with GW2's implementation of large-scale PvE. I'm just saying that when you call it "raiding" then you are using a specific term in a very non-specific way. It's fairly misleading to people not familiar with GW2 already. Personally, I prefer GW2's system to classic raiding (and yes, WoW raiding is classic raiding -- I'm not sure why everyone likes to pretend WoW isn't the standard-bearer of MMOs...that's a somewhat unfortunate fact).
Given your sticky on the main page where you go over how GW2 doesn't have raiding, I think you understand what I mean here.
Agreed. This was a Raid Boss in a Raid, fought by whst could be called a group of Raiders. This happens to be WOW but would be the same in any game with similar setup. The OP posted a World encounter. The word raid does not apply to that.
The word "raid" predates your "WoWesque" description by quite a bit. There were raids well before instanced dungeons became commonplace in MMOs (EQ, DAoC, etc all had raids but they were NOT instanced). "Raid" simply means a large group sieging an above average difficulty encounter.
Yes, but the meaning has changed in the last 8 years due to WoW. Now when one talks of raiding, it conjures a very specific image in most people's minds. Words change like that.
Maybe GW2 will cause the definition to expand to something larger than ever before common parlence. Given the lack of need to group, lack of HT, etc. GW2 "raiding" is very different even from EQ and early MMOs.
Until then, it is more confusing than helpful to call large-scale PvE in GW2 "raiding." The vast majority who like modern raiding will think you mean something else and will be disappointed. The vast majority that dislike modern raiding will be turned off. And the people that are unfamiliar with the term? Well, that doesn't do anything for them.
Anyone with experience pre-WoW can easily equate the large encounters in GW2 to raids. Those who have a scope of understanding that does not go beyond WoW simply need to become more familiar with the genre as a whole before pidgeon-holing the term "raid" into such a small description.
So what...something like less than 5% of the MMO community? Like I said, most people in the MMO world have been affected by WoW and how the term applies to it. Heck, almost all MMORPGs of any note in the last 8 years have been based or significantly affect by WoW's design.
Like it or not, the effect of WoW on how MMO terms are used has been massive.
Just because the majority of people think a certain way, doesn't make them right....
The fact remains that, with even a small amount of education in the matter, anyone can draw clear parrallels to raiding pre-WoW and raiding in GW2. The onus for not researching before mouthing off to more experienced MMO gamers (no matter how much the minority) rests on their heads, not ours.
Just because the majority of people think a certain way, doesn't make them right....
The fact remains that, with even a small amount of education in the matter, anyone can draw clear parrallels to raiding pre-WoW and raiding in GW2. The onus for not researching before mouthing off to more experienced MMO gamers (no matter how much the minority) rests on their heads, not ours.
Majority rules on word definitions is how language works (in practice). There are some twists and turns to this, given how words change over time (hence a mix of meanings), but yeah, the majority is right. If 90% of the population decided to switch the meanings of "white" and "black" tomorrow, then the meaning would change.
And drawing parallels doesn't mean the activities are the same or should have the same name applied to them. One can draw parallels between all types of PvP, but that doesn't mean they are all arenas. This is even more the case when you are trying to use an activity from what are now ancient MMOs verses what has been the standard for almost a decade. Especially when there are several very distinct differences between raiding from 8+ years ago and GW2 large-scale PvE.
But yeah, if you don't care about expressing yourself clearly so other people can understand you without doing research into games over a decade old, then you can say the onus is on everyone else's head to figure out what you are talking about.
Frankly, it seems to me that trying to say GW2 has raiding is to try to pretend the game has a certain sort of structured, progressive play that it doesn't have. Or at least make people think it does. GW2 doesn't have raiding. People who want raiding are not going to find it in GW2. That's because the people that want raiding want something very specific and structured (and that's always been true of raiding even in EQ). GW2 does not have that on large scales, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
GW2 is NOT trying to be all things to all people. It is not trying to get raiders to play it for raiding. Playing word games and shifting definitions is not going to convince them that GW2 has what they want, unless they are deceived.
Comments
I am just glad its only a few more days till Early Starts, so that I can avoid these forums in trying to define a very very simple term of what is RAID.
While everyone else who is still trying to find out what the hell is Raiding, atleast I will be actually playing the game on the 25th.
Same for all those trying to argue about GW2's Retention rate, atleast on Release it will have me playing it, who knows for how long, as long as I am enjoying myself, being entertained I will keep playing.
Time to do some Theorycrafting !!
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
agree
EQ had no instances for its first 3 years
instead it had alot of competiton for guilds to get to raid content (when it spawned)
especially the first expansion, Kunark, there were outdoor raid dragons
EQ2 fan sites
true but that's my point you don't know.. I don't know but i don't try to state my opinions on how the game actually works on parts I haven't played. Or base them solely on very old dev footage.
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
Not once in that blog did I find the word Simple or Easy. Those are your words.
And of course they would want you to beat it more often than lose them. Taking note from a previous post of yours you said they were designed not to lose, and yet you are here posting a portion of a blog stating that they will win and lose. Make up your mind sir.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
It negates the difficulty, and removes challenge. I'm still suprised this thread is going to be honest. Its quite clear GW2 doesn't have raids, and the devs don't intend for it to.
Its not a big deal, just live with it. The game is still enjoyable.
really just depends how you define a raid.. again the term has been so scewed since the wow era and doesn't seem to even mean the same thing as it used to compared to old games according to many people..
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
No contridiction here. They are designed not to lose. Can you lose? Sure, will a group of 30 lose? Highly unlikly. The abilities are designed to only damage a small number of people while leaving the rest unharmed. the dmg area then moves leaving those unharmed free to help the others.
There will be no running back there will be res's a plenty. The chance of the boss leaving combat is slim unless intentional. The fights are designed not to lose.
We still have not seen, what happens past level 30. However, we can draw some conlucions from the content that was available during beta. And I assume, that ArenaNet will definitely deliver more casual-oriented raiding - which is a good thing! In the end the devs have to make a decision depending on the experience they want to offer in their games:
WoW
Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.
Perhaps in the perfect scenario there will be chances of rez's, but we have only seen a few boss encounters. Adds are certainly a part of almost all boss fights. Scaling will add more adds with more people, and it will be much harder to run around healing downed players.
The main part of this entire game imho, is to be less structured, more casual, and above all to have fun doing it. Folks can pick the thing to it's very soul, but until we actually get into it a few weeks it's all speculation.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
i can agree with this just your first list was to broad and like you said most haven't seen post 30 content to draw any conclusions on that content.
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
agree - guilds were raiding for four years before WOW, in Everquest
In EQ, you had to compete w other guilds if wanted a chance at participating in a raid kill
not the WOW version of: serve up raid boss in instance, enjoy, everybody wins
my definition of classic raiding:
uncommon mob *requires* multi groups to be taken down -- its not optional
usually mob drops phat loot (but this is not required)
worth noting, World Bosses are returning to WOW in MOP
I call those raid mobs... I think anyone would call a world boss a raid mob
EQ2 fan sites
The word "raid" predates your "WoWesque" description by quite a bit. There were raids well before instanced dungeons became commonplace in MMOs (EQ, DAoC, etc all had raids but they were NOT instanced). "Raid" simply means a large group sieging an above average difficulty encounter.
Yes, but the meaning has changed in the last 8 years due to WoW. Now when one talks of raiding, it conjures a very specific image in most people's minds. Words change like that.
Maybe GW2 will cause the definition to expand to something larger than ever before common parlence. Given the lack of need to group, lack of HT, etc. GW2 "raiding" is very different even from EQ and early MMOs.
Until then, it is more confusing than helpful to call large-scale PvE in GW2 "raiding." The vast majority who like modern raiding will think you mean something else and will be disappointed. The vast majority that dislike modern raiding will be turned off. And the people that are unfamiliar with the term? Well, that doesn't do anything for them.
Anyone with experience pre-WoW can easily equate the large encounters in GW2 to raids. Those who have a scope of understanding that does not go beyond WoW simply need to become more familiar with the genre as a whole before pidgeon-holing the term "raid" into such a small description.
It's unclear. If bosses can heal themselves, then you could certainly never win. That'll result in a loss. If there's a long time limit, like 30 minutes, then you could lose if you fail to win. The boss could slowly become more powerful or be setting up something that will wipe everyone, which could result in a loss (one might be able to stop this with proper tactics).
There are lots of ways to have losing conditions. Heck, rezzing someone takes time, if the group is getting overwhelmed, then you won't have time to rez. I imagine it can get interrupted. Since damage can come from multiple directions and mobs, losing seems far from impossible with just the base mechanics.
I would say it is more accurate to describe the design as one where you aren't inherently locked out of the action if you fall. Or one where the group can recover from being put in a really bad spot. The latter in many ways allows for more epic fights, where fortune can sway back and forth. You don't get that in a game like WoW without it being scripted.
Serious question: why would you put hours into them if they're designed to be beatable on the first attempt?
They are not designed to be beatable on the first attempt. Actually Guild Wars 2 is one of the few games that have the concept of "losing"
Which is usually down to simply not enough people there at the time, not skill or challenge.
The bosses damanging abilities can only hit a small number of people at a time at a certain point. There is now way that boss can kill a group of 30 before they are able to res.
You must have leveld to 80 and played each of the 1600/1700 dynamic events ?
Clearly you seem to know exactly how each event scales and how difficult they are ?
Strange thing is i did play around 30 events and there was 1 particular event that spawnd mages, we had a total of 25 players or so and the event went from easy to hard in a matter of seconds.
We killed a few mages but dint focus fire hard enough and the second wave of mages killed all 25 of us.
Now we all did that event for the 1st time, so sorry buddy you will get your arse kicked sometimes when you not play smart enough as a group.
This was at level 5 btw lol.
But hey you seem to clearly now that each event is done without any effort right ?
No, the meaning didn't change. A "newbs" perception of a raid may have changed, but the definition is still the same. In fact, the definition of the MMO term RAID is derived from the dictionary term:
Definition of RAID
a : a hostile or predatory incursion
b : a surprise attack by a small force
2
a : a brief foray outside one's usual sphere
b : a sudden invasion by officers of the law
c : a daring operation against a competitor
By definition, it's a hostile incurion of players against a competitior (evil force) within the game. It essentially is a "raid" whenver a large group of players tackles a single task/goal. Technically sieges against Stonemist Castle can be called "raids", as that is what they are.
But, what is a raid in MMO terms?
i agree and is why I don't see why people have such an issue with GW2 take on raiding.
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
So what...something like less than 5% of the MMO community? Like I said, most people in the MMO world have been affected by WoW and how the term applies to it. Heck, almost all MMORPGs of any note in the last 8 years have been based or significantly affect by WoW's design.
Like it or not, the effect of WoW on how MMO terms are used has been massive.
A raid in MMO terms, as it is commonly used, is something you see in WoW. Raiding guilds there don't mean guilds that go after world bosses alone or ones that go after faction leaders. They mean something very specific. Given that WoW has over 10 timse as many players as its nearest competitor and has been running strong for 8 years, it is no surprise that when you talk about raiding in an MMO context, WoW raiding is what comes to mind.
To pretend otherwise is to pretend WoW is not the massive phenomenon that it obviously is.
But hey, I'm sure insulting everyone who has been most influenced by WoW by calling them "newbs" is a great way to go.
Playing semantic games doesn't help your case. By the dictionary, dungeons are raids, as is most soloing. The dictionary is worthless here, since "raiding" in an MMO is a technical term, and so has a more specific meaning. Heck, even your MMO specific example seems to leave Dungeons as "possible" raids. Certainly any random DE could be considered a raid with enough people. The fact is, this is NOT how most people use the term.
Most people don't go with an EQ-like definition either, though even that would leave out GW2 given the role requirements.
Now, perhaps GW2 will expand what people mean when they talk of Raiding. On the other hand, it might not, given that the raiding community in MMOs has a very specific idea of what they want, and general that isn't what we see in GW2. As others have said, if you really want raiding, then stick to WoW or its brethren. To call GW2 large-scale PvE raiding is to mislead a lot of people about what GW2 is like, unless you include a lot of explanation regarding what you mean when you use that term in that way.
I have no issue with GW2's implementation of large-scale PvE. I'm just saying that when you call it "raiding" then you are using a specific term in a very non-specific way. It's fairly misleading to people not familiar with GW2 already. Personally, I prefer GW2's system to classic raiding (and yes, WoW raiding is classic raiding -- I'm not sure why everyone likes to pretend WoW isn't the standard-bearer of MMOs...that's a somewhat unfortunate fact).
Given your sticky on the main page where you go over how GW2 doesn't have raiding, I think you understand what I mean here.
Just because the majority of people think a certain way, doesn't make them right....
The fact remains that, with even a small amount of education in the matter, anyone can draw clear parrallels to raiding pre-WoW and raiding in GW2. The onus for not researching before mouthing off to more experienced MMO gamers (no matter how much the minority) rests on their heads, not ours.
Majority rules on word definitions is how language works (in practice). There are some twists and turns to this, given how words change over time (hence a mix of meanings), but yeah, the majority is right. If 90% of the population decided to switch the meanings of "white" and "black" tomorrow, then the meaning would change.
And drawing parallels doesn't mean the activities are the same or should have the same name applied to them. One can draw parallels between all types of PvP, but that doesn't mean they are all arenas. This is even more the case when you are trying to use an activity from what are now ancient MMOs verses what has been the standard for almost a decade. Especially when there are several very distinct differences between raiding from 8+ years ago and GW2 large-scale PvE.
But yeah, if you don't care about expressing yourself clearly so other people can understand you without doing research into games over a decade old, then you can say the onus is on everyone else's head to figure out what you are talking about.
Frankly, it seems to me that trying to say GW2 has raiding is to try to pretend the game has a certain sort of structured, progressive play that it doesn't have. Or at least make people think it does. GW2 doesn't have raiding. People who want raiding are not going to find it in GW2. That's because the people that want raiding want something very specific and structured (and that's always been true of raiding even in EQ). GW2 does not have that on large scales, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
GW2 is NOT trying to be all things to all people. It is not trying to get raiders to play it for raiding. Playing word games and shifting definitions is not going to convince them that GW2 has what they want, unless they are deceived.