Talk:Raid

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to 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
On this page, could we please have a separate line that indicates - in the players's local time - when raid reset is. It's currently buried in paragraph 3. I think that the time should be its own line. The Event timers page is an example of this done well, in the numbers immediately above the first bar. The information stands out, and means no timezone conversion. --Hesione (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Raid Downtime[edit]

Time Between Raid Releases
From To Days
W1 W2 112
W2 W3 98
W3 W4 239
W4 W5 293
W5 W6 294
W6 W7 266

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awesumness (talk • contribs) at 17:53, 23 June 2019‎ (UTC).

Raid information accessibility[edit]

Few suggestions I would like to discuss:

  • Merge the raid nav and all the encounter nav templates into a single nav template covering all wings and bosses/encounters. The current situation where you can only access encounters in the same wing makes the current nav templates pretty useless.
  • Right now, the walkthrough for each encounter is located at the wing's page, instead of the encounter page, which is pretty confusing. You're looking for a boss, open its page, then find out you need to perform an extra click to access the strategy/tactics in a different page. The wing page should link to the encounter pages, not the other way around. Having everything in the wing page makes it bloated and hard to navigate as well.
  • Create separate encounter pages for each boss, instead of using the boss page for everything. Every boss has associated events that can be used as reference. This would also normalize event/boss pages into a single model, instead of the mix of event and NPC pages we have now.
  • Use "lazy" names for the encounter pages, instead of the official event names, that never get used by the players. For example, Prison Camp instead of Protect the caged prisoners, Twin Largos instead of Defeat the twin largos, etc. This would require moving some points of interests and NPCs into "NAME (point of interest)" and "NAME (NPC)". It's not "correct" from a technical viewpoint, but it's the only way to direct players to what they're looking for.

There you go.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

My opinion on this (even though I do not raid):
  1. I agree, will try to make a proposed version on my sandbox pages.
  2. I agree with this as well.
  3. I'm not sure what did you mean by this exactly, and how does this not make the same issue you described in the second point. Could you please explain to me?
  4. No. The page name should be technically correct whenever it is possible. However, I have nothing against redirects/{{otheruses}}/links with changed text.
DJemba (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't have much of an opinion on most of this, mainly because I learned all of the boss fights from my raid leaders during encounters. As such, I'm likely in the minority that didn't use the Wiki to educate myself about the raid wings and don't have a stake in this. That being said, I think less clicks necessary to get to the meat of an article (in this case, the boss mechanics and strats) is a crucial thing we could improve upon and having the walkthrough be on the encounter page sounds like a good decision.
  • Definitely opposed to using the lazy names. The redirects are already in place and I agree with Djemba that page names should always be technically correct whenever possible. Muirellthe Moon Geode.png 06:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@DJemba: Look at Twin Largos / Nikare-Kenut for an example. The encounter has its own event page, then each NPC involved in the encounter has its own NPC page.
Right now, many bosses have the event information inside the NPC page. If we're going to move walkthroughs out of the raid pages, they shouldn't go into NPC pages, but their own independent event pages instead.
@MuirelltheMoon: The problem with the current setup is that, when I type "/wiki Twisted Castle" ingame, this is where I'm taken: Twisted Castle (the point of interest), when 99% (1% margin error) players are looking for Traverse the Twisted Castle (the encounter) instead.
Reader usability should be prioritized before "technical correctness", no point at having a "correct" wiki when it's a pain in the ass to use.--Lon-ami (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's the new navigation template: {{Raid encounter nav}}. Compact and to the point, this would be the universal template for all raid pages, replacing the six templates we have now. Opinions?--Lon-ami (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I like it a lot more than what we have now, but i think it should show HoT/PoF somewhere. DJemba (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, but that would be just noise, really. Imagine if we did that on {{Zone nav}} too, it would be a mess.--Lon-ami (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I like that proposal and I agree with Lon-ami, another example could be the elite specializations in {{Professions nav}}. If you want more context, go to the full page. Navs are there primarily for navigation and expansion information is superfluous for that purpose. User Noxx Sig.png 13:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I like this raid nav template, but still not entirely sold on using the incorrect technical terms. I'm reminded of the "lidl kc" slang that was on the Wiki. Never heard it, not once, and it sounds like something silly a streamer or long-term raider in a popular guild created, and not necessarily something that reflects the raiding community slang as a whole. I get that these aren't silly or slang, but my hesitance comes from the same place. I'm probably going to out myself as old school, but I really do believe in learning how to search databases even with some obstacles that show up because of technical correctness. I'm holding onto that out of a matter of personal principle for how things should be documented, so I get that it's a me thing more than a readability thing. All of that being said... in this nav template they're used as redirects to the properly termed pages, so as long as that remains a thing, I'm okay. Muirellthe Moon Geode.png 22:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you're not understanding the problem. Let me give you an example, using W3. Encounter pages are where the walkthrough would be located once we take them out of the raid page.
This is what we have now:
This is what would be "technically correct":
This is what I propose:
We shouldn't use event names for the encounters, because most encounters are formed by multiple events. Event pages are unnecessary, so they would redirect to the encounter, or don't even exist in the first place.
Using the chest/location names for the encounters is a better alternative than using the event names, since that's how most people know them anyway. The problem here is that these "community names" coincide with NPC/location names, which is why I suggest moving those conflicting NPCs and locations to Name (NPC), Name (point of interest), etc.
After all, when a player types "/wiki Twisted Castle" he isn't looking for the poi, he's looking for the encounter.
A good example of this situation would be Gates of Arah and Gates of Arah (point of interest). In this case, the first is a meta event name, so it's technically correct. The problem with raids is that encounters don't have public names we can take as reference for what happens from point A to point B, including the chest reward and the completion checkpoint. In most cases it's just some trash plus a boss, but in others it's multiple events, so what do we do there?--Lon-ami (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware what the encounter names are called. I'm a raider and I feel like I said that somewhere already. I understand where you're coming from. As I stated, my issue with documenting things in a technically correct - if not sometimes slightly more cumbersome - manner is a personal one. I'm going to bow out of this discussion, as I don't feel there is anything more for me to say that would contribute to this dialogue. Good luck with your proposal. Muirellthe Moon Geode.png 01:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, we won't go anywhere if we stay stuck with something as petty as article names. I say let's start with the technically correct names, and we'll discuss what to do with the reader-friendly names later.
Here's the complete list of technically correct names:
I took the first event for each encounter, ignoring intermediate events where nothing happens. If everyone is okay with these, I'll start centralizing the information there.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I double checked the events since the wiki isn't the best of sources right now, and it looks like Mursaat Overseer and Samarog don't have any associated events, that's going to be a problem.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I got pointed towards this discussion when I was going to use Template:Raid encounter nav for all the listed raid encounters to keep everything interconnected. Hopefully I'm not too late? I think that having the general guide of all encounters on each raid wing article works well enough as it is because there's no need to click on every particular boss/encounter page to read what it's about, especially for those who are completely new to raids. I feel like there's already enough stuff going on in the page of each boss, but if it's more intuitive for some users then we could have the best of both worlds by having the walkthrough both on the general wing article and each boss/encounter article. Myriada (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree, I personally do not see any problem with having the info both on the raid page and the boss page. Some of the bosses have Walkthrough part with "see x" linked, but many of them are still missing it and should have it added regardless of what is decided. Having the guide only on the boss page is imho not good enough I think. It is just better to repeat the info on more pages than to have problem accessing it at all. ~Sime 19:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Also as a late addition I agree with Myriada that the raid chests no longer have to be linked from the nav, since after the rework they contain only blue and green gear. ~Sime 20:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback 2022/11/24[edit]

Link to raid training community returns a 404 page not found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.209.123 (talk) at 21:26, 24 November 2022‎ (UTC).

Thanks, have pointed it at the right place. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 22:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=Talk:Raid&oldid=2617484"