1. Hey Guest! If you're more than just a WildStar fan and want to keep up on the latest MMO news, reviews and opinion pieces then I'd like to suggest you visit our sister site MMO Central

Dungeon Accessibility and Community Strength

Discussion in 'WildStar General' started by SituationSoap, Apr 28, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BlindSear

    BlindSear Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, then awesome. So, "The Children of Azeroth are coming..." has a new argument... "who cares? The Gaffinator sure doesn't!"

    This is of course that Jeremy Gaffney does not mind being called the Gaffinator, and if he does, then I'm very sorry to have offended you Mr. The Gaffinator. It will not happen again.

    Temporarily ignored due to lack of citation. Either way simply not wanting to play WoW does not mean players also don't want accessibility. It means they didn't like WoW for some reason or another. It coulda been a number of reasons, including personally experienced drama, or not liking the cartoony graphics.
  2. BlindSear

    BlindSear Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You should check out the thread in my signature if you haven't already. I think you'd be interested.
  3. BlindSear

    BlindSear Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Carbine's already doing that. I'm confused who you're aiming this point at.
  4. salazar

    salazar Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    There was a missunderstanding that muliple raid modes was confirmed, so scooter stopped by wildstar central and explained.

    "Dungeons and raids are two different things, so I apologize if the answers got a bit confusing. What we meant to say was:

    1) Dungeons currently have two difficulties. One you'll be able to play while you're leveling, the other you can attempt at the level cap.
    2) Each raid is designed for 1 raid size; you won't be running the same content with two different-sized raid groups. That is, a 40-man raid is a totally different map/content/zone than a 20-man raid."

    http://wildstar-central.com/index.p...-confirmed-what-do-you-think.1372/#post-20007
    Ellianar and BlindSear like this.
  5. BlindSear

    BlindSear Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for getting that information to this thread.
  6. Ellianar

    Ellianar Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    France
    Ok now it's clear in my mind thanks :D

    Again i think it's really cool for both dungeons and raids.

    Dungeons because you'll be able to do this cool early level dungeon you did and enjoyed big time, it will be like an old pal you meet again.

    And raids because of what i said earlier, unique raids bring desire to the community and variety in the content is always for the better!
  7. BlindSear

    BlindSear Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, with the confirmed structure of PvE endgame, it's likely that the normal dungeons at endgame will start your path to Raiding and be in and of themselves extremely difficult, heroic dungeons will fine tune your skills and communication, and then you can do either 20-man or 40-man raiding depending on your group size, or both. There could also be difficulties discrepancies between 20 man and 40 man.

    This means the "accessible" content will be the solo elder game. Also, since the majority of the endgame lore comes from this content, it's likely to become the natural way to "beat the game" while other games is usually raiding. For instance the way to "beat the game" in WotLK was to defeat the Lich King, by raiding.

    Edit: oops, didn't read close enough there. No heroic dungeons.
  8. Ellianar

    Ellianar Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    France
    If it is planned to have "normal dungeon" at levelcap , ie ICC dungeons, this would be accessible content too imo
  9. BlindSear

    BlindSear Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, misread there. No normal dungeons at level cap vs. heroic. Just that there will be dungeons which can be "attempted" at level cap. This attempted wording seems to point towards a more challenging dungeon environment.
  10. Malorak

    Malorak Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    43
    • Raids WILL be hard.
    • There WON'T be Heroic/Hardmodes.
    • 40 man Raids
    • Not much Gating AFAIK, but that could be changed.
    • Every Dungeon has a Leveling and High-end version
    • Solo Dungeons!
    So...Do I personally like this?
    1. Yes. I love a good challenge.
    2. As long as they're not Ulduar-like I won't miss them in Raids.
    3. Yes. I never played Vanilla and would love being in a 40 man raid
    4. Uh...I liked gating quests, especially since they forced you to see every dungeon atleast once.
    5. Awesome! I love that idea! There are some Dungeons which have awesome design or characters which I can't just rush through on High level since...Well, I'm in Eldergame so it'd be too easy.
    6. Sounds neat :3
    I won't participate in your "1% vs casual raiders" discussion and other ones neither as I have no time to read through all this, sorry.

    All in all until now I'm very happy with Dungeon accesibility but we'll see
  11. Witless

    Witless "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    Likes Received:
    505
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I know I'm beating my head against the wall, but I can't help it.

    This is not about casual or hardcore, as they are not always mutually exclusive. It's more about ease versus challenge and "casual" or "hardcore" doesn't fit in just one or the other, they can fit in both.

    Also I hate the word accessible. It would be more accurate to call it desirable. If you are playing the game then all content is accessible to you! There is nothing in the game or it's mechanics that are keeping you from accessing all of the content in the game. It's only things in your life or your likes that keep you from accessing certain content. I.E. I won't be doing 40 man raids because I don't WANT to, not because I can't or because it's not accessible, it's because it's not desirable.

    This whole argument drives me nuts :) because everybody uses accessibility wrong :speechless:
    MeakGG and John like this.
  12. BlindSear

    BlindSear Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, define ease versus challenge without comparing the accessibility due to skill level. (Casual vs. Hardcore has nothing to do with skill level I completely agree that this is off topic.)

    I think it has to do with advertising the content and motivating the players that will enjoy doing the content. The problem is, when gear becomes the end goal of the players. This happens for many, though they may not admit it. Less skilled groups need more gear to get through equivalent content, so if you want to make it so that everyone who raids simply does it for the challenge, and all the raiders are skilled, you make it so dungeon gear gets you into raids, and raiding drops are simply aesthetic.

    Accessibility speaks to how quickly and easily someone can get to or through a point, and is the topic of how this ties to community strength. The main point it seems that more players is a better community in some people's point of view, while stronger relationships is a better community in other's point of view. The argument should be for Skilled vs. Unskilled players instead of Hardcore vs. Casual, and I think that's where there's misuse of wording. Occasionally Hardcore will be used for a skilled player and casual will be used for unskilled players, but if everyone tests "skilled" for "hardcore" or "unskilled" for "casual" in most of the arguments before, they start to make more sense and consensus and compromise can happen.
  13. Witless

    Witless "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    Likes Received:
    505
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Umm...it's either easy or it's challenging...
  14. BlindSear

    BlindSear Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To whom? Ease and challenge are relative to the perspective they're coming from... Define easy for me for ALL players please. Now define challenging for ALL players. What I'm saying is the actual words "easy" and "challenging" are meaningless unless you're trying to figure out how skilled a player is. In saying that "this was easy, while this was hard" means you have a range which that particular player is, but nothing of the content inherently being "hard" or "easy". It's all pushing buttons at certain times afterall. In order to make it feel more challenging you decrease the margin for the timing, limit the skills able to be used more, increase the amount the player has to pay attention to other things in the environment, increase the amount the player needs to pay attention to other players, etc.

    This thread is attempting to find this balancing point as to how you make a game challenging for skilled players and easy enough for unskilled players. Too challenging and the majority of the playerbase gives up and leaves and the game fails. Too easy and the majority of the playerbase gets bored and leaves and the game fails. I think a strong community can come from the few very skilled players talking up the content to keep the vast majority of less skilled players to keep trying to push their limits, as long as they can still get a sense of accomplishment from somewhere in the game. This speaks to accessibility of content due to ease, but simply being in a game doesn't mean that all content in the game is accessible. It's like saying you are in the universe so the sun is accessible.
  15. Furor

    Furor Cupcake

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    13
    If Raiding requires 4 hours per night of time devoted to the game, and you only have 1-2 hours per night to devote to the game, then that is de facto lack of accessibility. Time constraints are a serious problem for a lot of people. It has nothing to do with their desire to Raid or not. Some people simply have no choice. They have responsibilities outside of the game, be that children, work, family, extra-curricular activities, RL friends, etc. At the end of the day, games are a form of entertainment - not a lifestyle in and of themselves. Demanding that they become a lifestyle for everyone is insane. This is coming from someone that has literally no significant additional responsibilities and spends a huge amount of time gaming. People like me won't worry about time constraints, but I have enough respect for others to fight for their right to access significant content.

    As I've said before, the notion of accessibility hinges on providing people with options and a choice, rather than forcing them to adopt certain habits or activities that they cannot, for numerous legitimate reasons, acclimate to. These choices and options need not require a change to any other significant portion of the game, and they have virtually no negative externalities to consider. Adding in difficulty levels does not harm the game. WoW has proved that. It's one of the most lauded changes made to the game. The hardcore raiding community is stronger than it's ever been.

    The reason why Raiding and other significant content should have higher accessibility is because a great amount of assets, resources, dev time, etc, are put into it. Raiding is significant because of how much effort (at least in quality examples) is put into the content. That content, of course, is funded not just by hardcore raiders but by every single player. If a significant portion of content becomes inaccessible to you, will you continue playing that game? Or will you become disgruntled and demand changes? If those changes don't come, you'll probably quit and go somewhere else where you'll feel that you're being respected as a player and a paying customer.

    There is obviously a limit to how accessible everything can be, and what should be accessible. Significant content like raiding should be highly accessible. Trivial, mundane content need not be worried about. Making the game too easy is a mistake, just like making the game too hard is a mistake - if you ONLY provide one single difficulty level for everyone. That is why WoW added different difficulties. Because it allows a broader spectrum of the community to participate in a larger amount of the game and experience most of its content. It is easier to tweak content to appeal to different relative skill-points, time-requirements, etc, when you have separate difficulty levels. If you only have one difficulty level for everything, it becomes impossible to satisfy both a majority (casual) and a minority (hardcore) at the same time.

    Does anyone seriously believe that raiding in WildStar will provide trivial content? I'm pretty sure it'll be the exact opposite. While it may not become the crux of the storyline or the game itself, quality raiding environments are almost universally woven into the game in such a way that it makes sense, and there's almost always at least a raid-only level storyline to accompany it. So, unless you're actually expecting poor-quality raiding, then it stands to reason that people will want to experience it, even if their time constraints require a pared-down version resembling LFR. If that bothers you as a "hardcore" raider, your priorities are completely screwed up.

    As far as casual vs. hardcore, I'll repeat what I mentioned before: it's the amount of time you spend (or are willing to spend) in a given game. For instance, World 1st guilds start off with a hardcore schedule sometimes approaching 40 hours a week or more to down the content as quickly as possible. After that, once farming commences, they basically only play a few hours a week on any single character (though many have alts). They'd be easier described as Casual once the raid is on farm, often spending far less time than so-called 'casual' guilds do on the game at the same point who are still struggling with progression.

    For instance, I spent roughly 6 hours a week in WoW at the end of MoP once we had H-DS on farm. That includes my 1 alt. Just 3-hour clears for two characters. Most of the guild was simply waiting for the expansion at that point. I considered myself a casual WoW player at that point. But I was still, overall, a hardcore gamer. I was still willing to put in significant time if I needed to.

    If all you're willing to put into a single game is an hour or two a night or every other night, I consider you to be a casual. If you're willing to put in 4+ hours a day into a single game, I'd consider you hardcore, at least in the context of that game. I think the per-game distinction is more important than the overall amount of hours spent gaming especially when considering arguments/discussions within a specific game.
    Celtkhan likes this.
  16. BlindSear

    BlindSear Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with this bit.



    Do not mistake that larger=stronger. The hardcore raiding community is larger than it has ever been, otherwise I'm going to need emperical evidence that it's stronger. Community support of the hardcore raiders simply don't care, except for the world first race. This would be like having sports teams for only the Olympics, and no one watching sport any other time of the year. So I would say larger, not stronger.

    The reasons devs have to spend so much time balancing and developing the raids, is because they have to make sure it's easy enough for the larger quantity of people. If they just straight up make it whatever difficulty they want, they can spend less time on it. As long as it's possible it can be as hard as the devs want.

    This is why they're forgoing the multiple difficulties, to steer less skilled players away from it is actually a good thing, as long as there's something for them to do. This means that raiding guilds can spend less time trying to root through the liars and bad players, and more time trying to find the players that just fit.

    Raiding in Wildstar will be hard. Period. It's been confirmed and stated. It's happening. Hardcore raiders shouldn't have a problem with any of that. On the other hand, this thread is supposed to be about dungeon difficulty, not raids.

    Yes, I think everyone could agree with this, casuals simply spend less time in the game, they can still do a lot of research about the game outside the game, and be naturally skilled players, but not spend as much time in game as the hardcores. Which is why I propose the use of skilled vs unskilled players as the basis of arguments. If anyone gets offended being called an unskilled player, sorry, but it may be true if you're wanting content to be less difficult...

    This is a general timeline of a hardcore raider, that they work very hard and long hours when raid content releases, and once it's on farm, they just log in for farm raids and that's all, if they log in at all. This is of course until the next content is about to release and time starts ramping up for preparing.

    Everyone's exact line for casual versus hardcore will vary a bit, but it is a varying degree of time vs effort.
  17. Witless

    Witless "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    Likes Received:
    505
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Actually the thread has gone through a bunch of transformations from what it's original intent was. And trying to find a balance point is not one of them. It's the continued argument of Risk v Reward, of trying to say ease of acess is better for all and the game and stating that argument as fact when it's not. I'm just commenting on my opinion (just like everyone else) of ease v challenge and accessibility v desirability. And, really, all these words are meaningless then because they all have different meanings and concepts depending on who you are talking too. But I want content that is difficult for the typical gamer. And don't be silly and ask for a definition of typical because you know precisely what i mean.

    Also, I thought I was fairly clear on what I support; challenging and difficult content that may not be able to be completed by everybody and doesn't have to be. and to bring it back to the original topic, I believe differently than the OP and feel a Cross realm LFD is detrimental to a community. As Lethality has stated it creates groups and not teams. And when content is derived fro groups it is easier than content that is designed for teams. And please don't read anything in to teams and groups, the way i am using them is very clear. I also argued about this in a thread that was linked earlier in this thread, so I won't be doing it again.

    I thoroughly and completely disagree. If i am in game I have access to all the game has to offer. The game does not limit what I can and can't access, I do.
  18. Witless

    Witless "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    Likes Received:
    505
    Trophy Points:
    93
    But again, that's not the game limiting you, that's you limiting you. Everything you said after this is valid but it is created by the individual, so it is a lack of want or desire because you can find groups that meet your needs and will work with you.

    Carbine appears to agree and will be providing content of various designs at Elder game other than raids. So either you can do the raids or you can't and if you can't their will be other content for you to do.

    As for what you and others have stated concerning hard raiding currently in WOW and they have a function in place to make it easier to "access" all I have to go on is what stats y'all have provided. And based on that I'd actually say your stats support my argument better. 1.9 % have completed the top teir. .008 have downed the latest greatest boss. I think that's awesome! Obviously the content is challenging and still difficult to get to even with this LFR function. And I would imagine that's from a lack of many wanting to do it or see it.
  19. BlindSear

    BlindSear Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I'm getting at is accessibility is a term which gates casuals (those who have a certain amount of time) while challenge/ease is a term which gates skill level. This is all part of the same thing because at what point does the hardcore skilled player's challenge become more important than the casual skilled player's challenge? It's unreasonable to believe that this is the same spot on ease vs challenging content. This is where accessibility comes in.

    I'd completely agree with this viewpoint and definitions of group vs team. And if you feel this way I'd recommend you check out the thread in my signature.

    That may be because you're skilled enough to complete all the content you want to see. I don't think this is true for every player. Some simply won't have access to content due to the time commitment, whether it be by choice or by game development, you will never see that content. It's a developer's choice to say how long it takes to complete content afterall, so possibly have accessibility defined as that which time gating as opposed to skill gating.
  20. Furor

    Furor Cupcake

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    13
    Name me a single raiding community that can compare to the complexity, nuance, sheer size, tools, passion, competition (both in server and worldwide), etc, that WoW has. You can't. That's proof enough.

    If you want proof of community, look at things like "Learn to Raid" videos coming from top guilds. Look at the Raid AddOn support community. Look at all of the website-design that was devoted almost entirely to WoW as a result of guild raiding. The list goes on.

    I've said it before, but people really need to stop speaking from a place of ignorance/obliviousness. The information is out there, go find it. If you actually played, you'd know. This is not a debatable point.

    This argument makes zero sense.

    A dev could say "this is how it's going to be, deal with it" and screw over 90% of its potential playerbase. Key word here is COULD. Would that be financially reasonable? Would that be reasonable in consideration with its community? Would that be logical? No, it wouldn't. There is not a single bit of logic in that. Why would you intentionally hamstring yourself? Why would you make most of your community angry with you? What happens if you end up not even satisfying the hardcore component that was pushing for this?

    You cannot possibly, with a single difficulty, even sate the desires of a moderately-active raiding community. You would NEVER get the kind of community WoW has with that model. This idea that a single difficulty is adequate has already been proven a failure. I'd argue that 40-man was already proven a relative failure too, but I'm not going to get into that here.

    In fact, your argument makes far more sense in the context of a multi-difficulty raiding system. Then, it's possible to make "hard" as hard as you want as long as "normal" is a safe medium for average raiders. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what WoW is currently doing.

    This is the complete wrong approach, as explained above.

    Advantages to Multi-Difficulty Raiding:

    1. Specific Difficulty Tweaking (no lopsided balancing). You can make Hard frustratingly Hard and Normal suitable for a significant portion of the rest. If we include Easy, you can guarantee that content is being consumed/appreciated by most of your players. Each specific difficulty can receive tweaks to balancing, rather than being subject to the mass whines of people demanding a single difficulty be changed which ends up satisfying nobody.

    2. Longer Duration of Prime Consumption of Content. Essentially, the content will last longer for both casual and hardcore, skilled and less skilled players. As long as the balancing is done via an approach similar to WoW, where mechanics as well as stats are changed per difficulty, it will result in new experiences as players progress up the difficulty ladder, even though the boss might have the same name.

    3. Encourages a Larger Raiding Community. More players participating = more guilds formed. More guilds formed = larger communities. Larger communities = more potent player retention. On top of this, more skilled/hardcore guilds benefit proportionally to the strength and population of the raiding community. Essentially, more raiding activity = more potential for recruits.

    And personally, I don't see any disadvantages. Done right, nearly the entire playerbase has something to satisfy them, including all the way up to the hardest of the hardcore players. It's been done. There's no legitimate argument against it.

    I haven't heard anyone call for universally less-difficult content. I've been calling for multiple difficulties which includes an incredibly hard mode that only a very few will ever complete. But that shouldn't come at the expense of everyone else when it concerns significant content like raids.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page