Talk:Raid

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Perhaps we need to additional clarification on how Anet is handling weekly progression between different groups sharing the same player(s). IE: Player X progresses to point 3 with group 1, then leaves. Player X comes back later with a completely different group (Group 2). How is his progression saved, and are the boss(es) still downed, or are they up and Player X doesn't get drops from them, etc... --XerelinFexdrion 00:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a very delayed answer but here is how it works according to what I have experienced. (Note, tiny raid spoilers below, don't read if you don't want to know).
Option 1) Group one kills Vale Guardian (VG) and does not move further. Leaves and comes back in. VG is still dead but the post event is still up (spirit woods). If a group only completes 1/2 of the events for spirit woods and leaves, both events must be done again. Once the group has reached Gorseval (gorsy), the spiritwood event is marked as completed. The same thing happens for Gorsy fight as VG. Now with Sabetha pre-event, this one respawns until Sabetha has been marked as defeated. That is, if you have killed gorsy and failed to kill Sabetha you will NEED to redo the bandit clearing event.
Option 2) Player A has done NOTHING in the raid all week. Player A join a group which is currently at Gorsy. Player A then kills Gorsy and leaves the group. Player A OPENS a new raid instance, and EVERYTHING IS STILL UP. This is crucial to understand. Player A will enter, VG will be up, upon killing him spirit wood event will be up. After Spirit wood event, Gorsy WILL BE ALIVE; HOWEVER, if the group leaves the instance AFTER clearing spiritwood and Player A re-opens the raid Gorsy will be DEAD.
I do not know if this is the intended behavior but this is how it occurs in game at the moment.
As well, it is good to know that the raid will not load the instance based on the one whom opened the raid but rather THE FIRST LOADED IN. This can, and has, lead to some confusion
If this information is useful, should I try to format it up better and place it on the wiki or is this not relevant enough? - Darqam (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Guild hall reward[edit]

There is a mention of guild hall rewards from raid on this page. Is this an actual thing? I can find no other references to this on the other related pages, and have never seen these in game? Is this maybe something that *will* happen but hasn't yet? - Darqam (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Was added with most recent patch and I just updated it Deloiss (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Raid reset timing[edit]

What time do Raids reset on Monday? We should add that in the page Xiiliea (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Answering here until I figure out the proper wording (or someone beats me to it). Raids reset at 12:30am (PDT) Monday Morning, from a dev post

Referring to the Player Character[edit]

So in any other scenario but raids, the player character most definitely plays the role of the Pact Commander (or the to-be pact commander); to this I have no issue. But so far in every raid instance, the PC has never been refereed to as the Pact Commander. Even in wing 1 with Squad Leader Falgeir, you would assume that him at the very least would talk to the players as if to a leader, but this does not happen. The dialogue from the PC sounds like he/she's in charge but there is no formal indication of it.

From anything I can tell, everyone in the raid squads are simply "mercenaries". So to that end, should we really be making notes of "The pact commander did so and so" inside the raid instance, or should this be swapped to "the player character did so and so"? It seems picky about details, but I also think it's incorrect to say the pact commander did something if, in this respect, the PC does not embody actions taken by the pact commander entity/persona. -Darqam 21:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

What about, instead of referring to an individual, we refer to the entire squad? After all, the raids are designed for a party of 10, and it's rare that a single party member would go off and do something. That way, we avoid referring to an individual and recognise the entire squad. --Rognik (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
"And then the ten Pact Commanders did so and so..." :P
Darq, what situation are you referring to where it says that? The phrase "Pact Commander" doesn't seem to appear on this page, or any of the individual raid wing pages. —Azurem 13:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

"Wing"s more commonly referred to than "Raid"s[edit]

Basically, no one calls Hall of Chains "raid 3", or Mythwright Gambit "raid 4". Everyone calls them by wing name, because it makes way more sense. So, unless anyone objects, I'm going to remove the "raid X" part of the descriptions for raid articles and instead put in "raid wing X" or similar. I can add "{part of} raid X" to the notes somewhere, but that is honestly more just trivia at this point. Even currencies are carried across multiple "raid"s. ~ Fishrock (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I would definitely leave the "raid 3" etc. We could have something like "...is the 3rd raid, or commonly known as the 5th wing, added to the game." Sime (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Quote at the beginning of the article coming from GW2 site describes wings as "units" of one raid; logically, if raid isn't split into more than one part, it's wingless. So it's an error to call Mythwright Gambit W6 because it's not connected to the previous raid instances nor part of them - but seems that player's community doesn't give a skritt excrement about that. Still, I suggest to keep article and terms as they are.--178.43.122.145 20:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
That's a way of looking at it, but it's certainly not useful to people coming here looking for information on the game... ~ Fishrock (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the issue arose because Wing 1-4 were all connected through story dialogue. (White Mantle Storyline). Then since we have the lovely raid lobby area, you can see all the raids in the same "room", so you just call them wings instead of raids. I'm fine with calling them Wings, since that's what the player-base calls them 99% of the time. The wiki is largely for the players, in my opinion, not for advertising game features.--Rain Spell (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Nothing forbids raids from sharing lore but calling raid instance (often separated by distance and location), released months later after last one a wing is an error.--178.43.122.70 19:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Error or not, that is the common terminology, and as such, the wiki should accommodate it to a degree. The article should be changed somewhat to reflect this, or otherwise mention that this is how the raiding community has been calling things. --Rognik (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I basically proposed that, Rognik. "Mythwright Gambit is the 3rd raid, or commonly known as the 6th wing, added to the game." or similar. Totally removing the info about raid number is wrong imo. ~SimeUser Sime Maraca Choya.pngTalk 22:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
If anything, that information should stay inside Notes section but shouldn't be promoted because again, it is wrong acc. to quote at the beginning of article, taken from official GW2 page. So far we got 4 raids and only the first one contains 3 wings.--178.43.118.193 13:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think it's fine being promoted as a wing. The solution Sime brought up, "or commonly known as the 6th wing" is probably the best compromise we're going to get. If you go into the raid section of LFG, you see it being called w6. If the community calls it a wing, let it be known as a wing. --Rain Spell (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)