Thanks Anet for the changes to the zone meta in Drizzlewood Coast — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Living World

Thanks Anet for the changes to the zone meta in Drizzlewood Coast

Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

A couple of months ago, I made a post about how unhappy I was with having to do strike missions to complete zone meta achievements. I still haven't finished the last two zone metas, which is something that's never happened before. And yeah I know I can. I chose not to, because I didn't want that content to become must do content to complete zone metas.

The thread had a lot of traffic both for and against, but I feel like it had a lot of support. The meta achievements from the episodes that required strike missions were some of the lowest completion rates of any zone meta, at least according to Guild Wars 2 efficiency. I said at that point that Anet would do their own calculations and based on their own metics would decide if strike missions should be part of the zone meta. This is the first time in a couple of months where it hasn't been.

Anyway I'm really happy that I can finally complete a zone meta again, so thanks Anet. I know a lot of people say the developers never listen to fans. I think we all forget that different groups of players often want compeltely different things. And since I was happy enough to make my case, it's only fair that I say thank you when that changes happens, so thanks Anet.

The zone is great, and I'm happy to be playing "my" game again.

Comments

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭

    Yeah the strike missions weren't apart of the meta in the 1st half of Bjora either. Then they added 3 and a bunch of new achieves to do in them and those were apart of the meta. Wasn't a fan of that thread then but hey you still here and happier so that's good I guess

    WvW band wagoners ruin the game mode just like Karen's ruin these forums.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 3, 2020

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    Yeah the strike missions weren't apart of the meta in the 1st half of Bjora either. Then they added 3 and a bunch of new achieves to do in them and those were apart of the meta. Wasn't a fan of that thread then but hey you still here and happier so that's good I guess

    As I said before, if Anet's metrics suggest not enough people are doing the meta, they'll change it. I mean it's unlikely they changed it just because I asked, right? It was changed because enough people were spending less time in the zone..people that used to spend time in new zones.

    Edit: There are two metas in a row I missed, from releases, Shadow in the Ice and Visions of the Past, STell and Fire, both of which require strike missions, though one of them is obviously not a zone meta. It's still a meta released with a living story chapter...or something to do with the living world anyway.

  • Jilora.9524Jilora.9524 Member ✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Jilora.9524 said:
    Yeah the strike missions weren't apart of the meta in the 1st half of Bjora either. Then they added 3 and a bunch of new achieves to do in them and those were apart of the meta. Wasn't a fan of that thread then but hey you still here and happier so that's good I guess

    As I said before, if Anet's metrics suggest not enough people are doing the meta, they'll change it. I mean it's unlikely they changed it just because I asked, right? It was changed because enough people were spending less time in the zone..people that used to spend time in new zones.

    Edit: There are two metas in a row I missed, from releases, Shadow in the Ice and Visions of the Past, STell and Fire, both of which require strike missions, though one of them is obviously not a zone meta. It's still a meta released with a living story chapter...or something to do with the living world anyway.

    I doubt your thread or metrics mattered and it's one episode after 2 that required the strikes in it. Visions didn't need a full group and I didn't finish that more because the collections with JP I just don't feel like doing right now but I'll end up finishing both the latest meta's eventually. There really isn't anything in this strike to put in meta except do it 50 times which is extreme but you can easily get 22/22 w/o it if you craft the weapons. These episodes are worked on by different teams so new strikes could be in a meta again we'll see.

    WvW band wagoners ruin the game mode just like Karen's ruin these forums.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'd still wait before thanking Anet for this before the second part of the map is up. I wouldn't be surprised if that included a strike in the overall map meta, like in the Bjora Marches.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    I'd still wait before thanking Anet for this before the second part of the map is up. I wouldn't be surprised if that included a strike in the overall map meta, like in the Bjora Marches.

    Like I said we'll see. Seems a no brainer to me though. If half hte people completed the meta that required strike missions compared to any other zone meta, ever, even the lower ones, than there's an issue. I'd be very suprised if Anet didn't pick up on that.

    What's the percentage here. No one is going to get mad and play less because a strike mission is in the meta. I played less because a strike mission was. I'm sure I'm not alone. So what's the percentage of including them? It's not like they have to abandon strike missions, after all.

    I mean they did include the strike mission in the meta. They just gave enough other achievements to not make it necessary. I see no downside to this.

  • notebene.3190notebene.3190 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Little late to the discussion, as it takes me awhile to work my way through these, but almost there! I'm down to just needing to craft all the Stormcaller weapons. I've made 5 of them so far. Once they are done, I'll have the meta complete! I might be short on the Charged Lodestones for the core, but found if I take the crafting material coffers when they come up in the repeatable 'Glory' rotations, they have a good chance at giving me some lodestones, so maybe making one every day or two, I'll have what I need by the end (I think I could make them all now but 2 with my own materials).

    Appreciated I didn't have to do the strike. Kinda wishing they through in a step for completing every single one of the special assignments as a possible option, that took a bit of time, but minor quibble. Was a bit nervous about being able to pull off Purrfect Escape, as the mobs before the big boss killed me pretty good the first time through, but saw I could replay from 'just' the escape, which was great because I could just repeat that step, and it didn't split focus between having to worry about the first part of the fight, and then concentrate each time on the run. I managed to do it on my 5th or 6th try.

    And for some reason, this episode I realized I have 'no' idea how to read what rewards are given at what tiers for achievements. I thought I had my head around that, but was not getting things when I thought I would, and getting things 'before' I thought I would (like /playdead was an early pleasant surprise).

    Really enjoying the map. Hope it 'sticks' for some people and groups continue to run it.

    In the event I don't get a chance, thank you all for the company and help when I needed it from time to time.

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Anyway I'm really happy that I can finally complete a zone meta again, so thanks Anet. I know a lot of people say the developers never listen to fans.

    I think you misjudge the situation. This episode was developed last year, your comments from a few months ago had no influence on its meta.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Anyway I'm really happy that I can finally complete a zone meta again, so thanks Anet. I know a lot of people say the developers never listen to fans.

    I think you misjudge the situation. This episode was developed last year, your comments from a few months ago had no influence on its meta.

    You could be right, but I'm guessing you're wrong. We'll see soon enough.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    I'd still wait before thanking Anet for this before the second part of the map is up. I wouldn't be surprised if that included a strike in the overall map meta, like in the Bjora Marches.

    It's also interesting to note that the Cold War strike mission has only ONE achievement, which requires completion 50 times.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    I'd still wait before thanking Anet for this before the second part of the map is up. I wouldn't be surprised if that included a strike in the overall map meta, like in the Bjora Marches.

    It's also interesting to note that the Cold War strike mission has only ONE achievement, which requires completion 50 times.

    Yes, that too. I was definitely not amused by that.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Inculpatus cedo.9234Inculpatus cedo.9234 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    I'd still wait before thanking Anet for this before the second part of the map is up. I wouldn't be surprised if that included a strike in the overall map meta, like in the Bjora Marches.

    It's also interesting to note that the Cold War strike mission has only ONE achievement, which requires completion 50 times.

    One Achievement? It has 11 tiers of Achievements, and two, the first (complete Cold War once) and third (complete Cold War 10 times) reward Mastery Points. Each of the first 5 tiers reward reward 5 APs. Tiers 5, 8, 10 and 11 reward Reliquary of the Bear Ceremonial armor.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    I'd still wait before thanking Anet for this before the second part of the map is up. I wouldn't be surprised if that included a strike in the overall map meta, like in the Bjora Marches.

    It's also interesting to note that the Cold War strike mission has only ONE achievement, which requires completion 50 times.

    One Achievement? It has 11 tiers of Achievements, and two, the first (complete Cold War once) and third (complete Cold War 10 times) reward Mastery Points. Each of the first 5 tiers reward reward 5 APs. Tiers 5, 8, 10 and 11 reward Reliquary of the Bear Ceremonial armor.

    It's only one achievement with multiple tiers, we've had this for a long time but only in the Icebrood Saga achievements started giving different rewards at each tier of completion.

  • Inculpatus cedo.9234Inculpatus cedo.9234 Member ✭✭✭✭

    O..k..
    There's also Priority Cold War Strike Mission and Daily Cold War Strike Mission.
    I don't know; to say there's only one achievement is sort of like saying there's only one achievement in Living World Releases; the Meta.
    I suppose they could have broken it into separate achievements. Just giving names to each tier, and separating them.
    As long as one is rewarded with APs, MPs, and/or rewards, does it make a difference?

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    O..k..
    There's also Priority Cold War Strike Mission and Daily Cold War Strike Mission.
    I don't know; to say there's only one achievement is sort of like saying there's only one achievement in Living World Releases; the Meta.
    I suppose they could have broken it into separate achievements. Just giving names to each tier, and separating them.
    As long as one is rewarded with APs, MPs, and/or rewards, does it make a difference?

    Meta achievements require you to do different things, which is why they are separate achievements.
    To say that Cold War has multiple achievements is like saying Yakslapper consists of 5 achievements (all its tiers) Yakslapper and Morale Breaker are essentially the same thing, only Morale Breaker has vastly different rewards on each tier, unlike Yakslapper which has a variable amount of AP rewards and awards a title at the end. It is still ONE achievement.

    Cold War has only one achievement, to complete the instance a number of times. How could they separate them and give them different names if they all require doing the exact same thing?

  • Pifil.5193Pifil.5193 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 15, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Anyway I'm really happy that I can finally complete a zone meta again, so thanks Anet. I know a lot of people say the developers never listen to fans.

    I think you misjudge the situation. This episode was developed last year, your comments from a few months ago had no influence on its meta.

    You could be right, but I'm guessing you're wrong. We'll see soon enough.

    Yeah, I think that they took recent feedback into consideration with these last few episodes, the way runic armour was made available through different ways, the more reasonable metas, the fact that bear armour has a guaranteed path to obtain it (sure its a long path but it's guaranteed, unlike raven armour). I feel like they're listening and it's silly to believe that they are so rigid that they can't change anything about an episode that's being developed. Particularly when that thing is the number and type of achievements required for a meta.

    We'll see what the next episode brings, of course, but I'd like to think that this one is representative of the new "standard" for metas and will be iterated and improved on.

  • Turkeyspit.3965Turkeyspit.3965 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Well, looking at GW2efficiency for my account I see this:

    Prologue: Bound by Blood - 211/286
    Whisper in the Dark - 133/214
    Shadow in the Ice - 167/250
    Visions of the Past - 143/270
    No Quarter - 248/268

    I'm not even going to say that Drizzlewood is a 'better' map than previous episodes, as they all had things I liked and disliked, but for me it seems, this episode made it easier to get achievements done just by playing the game, without ridiculous levels of repetition.

    In case you're curious what I'm missing from the current episode:
    Special Mission: Apothecary 5/6
    Special Mission: Iron Rain 4/5
    Special Mission: Percussive Maintenance 15/25
    Special Mission: Lies and Statistics 13/50
    Special Mission: Communications Breakdown 1/5
    Special Mission: Pillage the Port 2/10
    Special Mission: Pillage the Fort 1/10
    Special Mission: Fired Up 0/5
    Special Mission: Pillage the Lighthouse 0/10
    Morale Breaker: 1/50

    Now many of those Special Missions are easy to complete, but as I have meta achievement done, got the emotes and all the mastery points outside of Morale breaker, I just don't have any desire to return to the map. Maybe on a day when I'm bored I'll jump over there and finish some of them, but I'm not exactly excited at the idea of having to zone into the map and 'camp' for certain events to pop. I had the same issue with the Dragonfall map. Maybe that's something they will change for future episodes.

    As for Morale breaker, every time I look in the LFG I can never find a group for it, even when it is the daily. I don't care about the Bear armor because I think it looks like kitten, and I've already unlocked two pieces via the WvW and PvP reward tracks, so all I'm missing is the Mastery Point, which I probably won't need anyways as we always end up with extras.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:
    Well, looking at GW2efficiency for my account I see this:

    Prologue: Bound by Blood - 211/286
    Whisper in the Dark - 133/214
    Shadow in the Ice - 167/250
    Visions of the Past - 143/270
    No Quarter - 248/268

    I'm not even going to say that Drizzlewood is a 'better' map than previous episodes, as they all had things I liked and disliked, but for me it seems, this episode made it easier to get achievements done just by playing the game, without ridiculous levels of repetition.

    In case you're curious what I'm missing from the current episode:
    Special Mission: Apothecary 5/6
    Special Mission: Iron Rain 4/5
    Special Mission: Percussive Maintenance 15/25
    Special Mission: Lies and Statistics 13/50
    Special Mission: Communications Breakdown 1/5
    Special Mission: Pillage the Port 2/10
    Special Mission: Pillage the Fort 1/10
    Special Mission: Fired Up 0/5
    Special Mission: Pillage the Lighthouse 0/10
    Morale Breaker: 1/50

    Now many of those Special Missions are easy to complete, but as I have meta achievement done, got the emotes and all the mastery points outside of Morale breaker, I just don't have any desire to return to the map. Maybe on a day when I'm bored I'll jump over there and finish some of them, but I'm not exactly excited at the idea of having to zone into the map and 'camp' for certain events to pop. I had the same issue with the Dragonfall map. Maybe that's something they will change for future episodes.

    As for Morale breaker, every time I look in the LFG I can never find a group for it, even when it is the daily. I don't care about the Bear armor because I think it looks like kitten, and I've already unlocked two pieces via the WvW and PvP reward tracks, so all I'm missing is the Mastery Point, which I probably won't need anyways as we always end up with extras.

    I wasn't looking at efficiency for my own personal stuff. I was looking at the numbers across all GW 2 efficiency accounts. I was comparing the number of people who started the episode with the number of people who got the meta event. Only about a third of the gw2efficiency population (a small percentage of the game, but likeliy to be the most serious) started the new episodes. That means people have moved on or are taking an extended break.

    Of the third left, you can see the percentage of people completing the meta.

    Meta completion rates were higer before strike missions were introduced, by a matter of percents. Even repetitive annoying ones like getting the Meta in Grothmar Wardowns had a much higher completion rate.

    As soon as Anet started including strike missions in mix the number started dropping. It's at an all time low now. Until Shadow in the Ice I never missed a zone meta.

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Pifil.5193 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Anyway I'm really happy that I can finally complete a zone meta again, so thanks Anet. I know a lot of people say the developers never listen to fans.

    I think you misjudge the situation. This episode was developed last year, your comments from a few months ago had no influence on its meta.

    You could be right, but I'm guessing you're wrong. We'll see soon enough.

    Yeah, I think that they took recent feedback into consideration with these last few episodes, the way runic armour was made available through different ways, [...]

    That's easier to implement/change on short notice than a whole meta. My statement stands: I seriously doubt the meta was designed according to "recent" feedback when in reality it was developed last year.

  • Pifil.5193Pifil.5193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Pifil.5193 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Anyway I'm really happy that I can finally complete a zone meta again, so thanks Anet. I know a lot of people say the developers never listen to fans.

    I think you misjudge the situation. This episode was developed last year, your comments from a few months ago had no influence on its meta.

    You could be right, but I'm guessing you're wrong. We'll see soon enough.

    Yeah, I think that they took recent feedback into consideration with these last few episodes, the way runic armour was made available through different ways, [...]

    That's easier to implement/change on short notice than a whole meta. My statement stands: I seriously doubt the meta was designed according to "recent" feedback when in reality it was developed last year.

    I don't think it's that difficult to, for example, reduce the number of achievements required for the meta or to increase the pool of achievements that might count for it.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:
    The Prologue: Bound by BLood was completed by 3.943% of the GW 2 efficiency population.
    Whisper in the Dark Meta was completed by 6.656% FO THE GW 2 effiency population.
    The Shadow in the Ice meta is completed so far by .704% of the GW 2 efficiency population.

    There is a way to check if a map meta is just way too easy to complete, by checking meta completions of much older content than it.
    Whisper in the Dark meta completion is an anomaly because it has a higher completion rate than Path of Fire Act 1/3 mastery, Heart of Thorns Act IV mastery, Long Live the Lich Mastery, All or Nothing mastery, War Eternal mastery, and is 0.02% less than A Bug in the System mastery and 0.1% from A Star to Guide Us mastery. All content that was started/played by far more players than Whisper in the Dark, meaning the meta was probably too easy (or lucrative) to complete. And of course none of that content has anything to do with Strike Missions.

    We'll see the new map's completion rates in a few months, it's way too early to tell now.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:
    The Prologue: Bound by BLood was completed by 3.943% of the GW 2 efficiency population.
    Whisper in the Dark Meta was completed by 6.656% FO THE GW 2 effiency population.
    The Shadow in the Ice meta is completed so far by .704% of the GW 2 efficiency population.

    There is a way to check if a map meta is just way too easy to complete, by checking meta completions of much older content than it.
    Whisper in the Dark meta completion is an anomaly because it has a higher completion rate than Path of Fire Act 1/3 mastery, Heart of Thorns Act IV mastery, Long Live the Lich Mastery, All or Nothing mastery, War Eternal mastery, and is 0.02% less than A Bug in the System mastery and 0.1% from A Star to Guide Us mastery. All content that was started/played by far more players than Whisper in the Dark, meaning the meta was probably too easy (or lucrative) to complete. And of course none of that content has anything to do with Strike Missions.

    We'll see the new map's completion rates in a few months, it's way too early to tell now.

    I don't know that you can compare expansion and living story content. On the surface, there's a lot of similiarty but there's just far more to do when you get an expansion. The people who buy expansions aren't necessarily there for that kind of content. It means a lot of people buy an expansion, play it for a month and leave, throwing off the percentage of people who do that content regulary. Those people wouldn't then be counted in the later content, because they've already left.

    For me, as a dedicated player, I'm here all year around, every year and I do map metas as a matter of course. Presumably the most loyal players are logging in every few months at least to do that new content. There's less to do in those time periods that's new so it'll be done by a bigger percentage.

    I don't see value in tracking people that buy expansions, play a game for a couple of months and move onto the next game. I see value in tracking the Ice Brood Saga against the Ice Brood Saga, specifically because it's all in the same time period.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 16, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    There is a way to check if a map meta is just way too easy to complete, by checking meta completions of much older content than it.
    Whisper in the Dark meta completion is an anomaly because it has a higher completion rate than Path of Fire Act 1/3 mastery, Heart of Thorns Act IV mastery, Long Live the Lich Mastery, All or Nothing mastery, War Eternal mastery, and is 0.02% less than A Bug in the System mastery and 0.1% from A Star to Guide Us mastery. All content that was started/played by far more players than Whisper in the Dark, meaning the meta was probably too easy (or lucrative) to complete. And of course none of that content has anything to do with Strike Missions.

    We'll see the new map's completion rates in a few months, it's way too early to tell now.

    I don't know that you can compare expansion and living story content. On the surface, there's a lot of similiarty but there's just far more to do when you get an expansion. The people who buy expansions aren't necessarily there for that kind of content. It means a lot of people buy an expansion, play it for a month and leave, throwing off the percentage of people who do that content regulary. Those people wouldn't then be counted in the later content, because they've already left.

    For me, as a dedicated player, I'm here all year around, every year and I do map metas as a matter of course. Presumably the most loyal players are logging in every few months at least to do that new content. There's less to do in those time periods that's new so it'll be done by a bigger percentage.

    I don't see value in tracking people that buy expansions, play a game for a couple of months and move onto the next game. I see value in tracking the Ice Brood Saga against the Ice Brood Saga, specifically because it's all in the same time period.

    I think you misunderstood. Less players finished those Act metas of the expansions than the Whisper in the Dark meta, not percentage, but fixed number. So players that bought the expansion but left are highly irrelevant. More players (total number) finished the Whisper in the Dark meta than Path of Fire Act 1 meta. Same with Season 4 content, with the exception of the Daybreak meta, Whisper in the Dark meta has higher or very very similar completion rate.

    You can also compare the number of players that started the respective episodes to have a better comparison. The first instance of a A Bug in the System was completed by 51%, the first instance of Whisper in the Dark was finished by 33%, yet their meta completion rates are both at 8.3% (8.29% for Bug and 8.27% for Whisper) This shows that the 16.3% of those that started Bug finished the meta, while that number is at 25% for Whisper (one in four that started the episode finished the meta). Meaning the Whisper in the Dark meta was very easy compared to most other metas released so far, which is why I called it an anomaly.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    There is a way to check if a map meta is just way too easy to complete, by checking meta completions of much older content than it.
    Whisper in the Dark meta completion is an anomaly because it has a higher completion rate than Path of Fire Act 1/3 mastery, Heart of Thorns Act IV mastery, Long Live the Lich Mastery, All or Nothing mastery, War Eternal mastery, and is 0.02% less than A Bug in the System mastery and 0.1% from A Star to Guide Us mastery. All content that was started/played by far more players than Whisper in the Dark, meaning the meta was probably too easy (or lucrative) to complete. And of course none of that content has anything to do with Strike Missions.

    We'll see the new map's completion rates in a few months, it's way too early to tell now.

    I don't know that you can compare expansion and living story content. On the surface, there's a lot of similiarty but there's just far more to do when you get an expansion. The people who buy expansions aren't necessarily there for that kind of content. It means a lot of people buy an expansion, play it for a month and leave, throwing off the percentage of people who do that content regulary. Those people wouldn't then be counted in the later content, because they've already left.

    For me, as a dedicated player, I'm here all year around, every year and I do map metas as a matter of course. Presumably the most loyal players are logging in every few months at least to do that new content. There's less to do in those time periods that's new so it'll be done by a bigger percentage.

    I don't see value in tracking people that buy expansions, play a game for a couple of months and move onto the next game. I see value in tracking the Ice Brood Saga against the Ice Brood Saga, specifically because it's all in the same time period.

    I think you misunderstood. Less players finished those Act metas of the expansions than the Whisper in the Dark meta, not percentage, but fixed number. So players that bought the expansion but left are highly irrelevant. More players (total number) finished the Whisper in the Dark meta than Path of Fire Act 1 meta. Same with Season 4 content, with the exception of the Daybreak meta, Whisper in the Dark meta has higher or very very similar completion rate.

    You can also compare the number of players that started the respective episodes to have a better comparison. The first instance of a A Bug in the System was completed by 51%, the first instance of Whisper in the Dark was finished by 33%, yet their meta completion rates are both at 8.3% (8.29% for Bug and 8.27% for Whisper) This shows that the 16.3% of those that started Bug finished the meta, while that number is at 25% for Whisper (one in four that started the episode finished the meta). Meaning the Whisper in the Dark meta was very easy compared to most other metas released so far, which is why I called it an anomaly.

    I'm not misunderstanding you're not getting what I''m saying.

    I'd EXPECT expansion meta content to be finished by fewer people by percentage, over all, because people who come back to experience the basic expansion without staying around aren't going for the meta. Drawing ANY conclusion by comparing the two will, in my opinion, be misleading.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 17, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    There is a way to check if a map meta is just way too easy to complete, by checking meta completions of much older content than it.
    Whisper in the Dark meta completion is an anomaly because it has a higher completion rate than Path of Fire Act 1/3 mastery, Heart of Thorns Act IV mastery, Long Live the Lich Mastery, All or Nothing mastery, War Eternal mastery, and is 0.02% less than A Bug in the System mastery and 0.1% from A Star to Guide Us mastery. All content that was started/played by far more players than Whisper in the Dark, meaning the meta was probably too easy (or lucrative) to complete. And of course none of that content has anything to do with Strike Missions.

    We'll see the new map's completion rates in a few months, it's way too early to tell now.

    I don't know that you can compare expansion and living story content. On the surface, there's a lot of similiarty but there's just far more to do when you get an expansion. The people who buy expansions aren't necessarily there for that kind of content. It means a lot of people buy an expansion, play it for a month and leave, throwing off the percentage of people who do that content regulary. Those people wouldn't then be counted in the later content, because they've already left.

    For me, as a dedicated player, I'm here all year around, every year and I do map metas as a matter of course. Presumably the most loyal players are logging in every few months at least to do that new content. There's less to do in those time periods that's new so it'll be done by a bigger percentage.

    I don't see value in tracking people that buy expansions, play a game for a couple of months and move onto the next game. I see value in tracking the Ice Brood Saga against the Ice Brood Saga, specifically because it's all in the same time period.

    I think you misunderstood. Less players finished those Act metas of the expansions than the Whisper in the Dark meta, not percentage, but fixed number. So players that bought the expansion but left are highly irrelevant. More players (total number) finished the Whisper in the Dark meta than Path of Fire Act 1 meta. Same with Season 4 content, with the exception of the Daybreak meta, Whisper in the Dark meta has higher or very very similar completion rate.

    You can also compare the number of players that started the respective episodes to have a better comparison. The first instance of a A Bug in the System was completed by 51%, the first instance of Whisper in the Dark was finished by 33%, yet their meta completion rates are both at 8.3% (8.29% for Bug and 8.27% for Whisper) This shows that the 16.3% of those that started Bug finished the meta, while that number is at 25% for Whisper (one in four that started the episode finished the meta). Meaning the Whisper in the Dark meta was very easy compared to most other metas released so far, which is why I called it an anomaly.

    I'm not misunderstanding you're not getting what I''m saying.

    I'd EXPECT expansion meta content to be finished by fewer people by percentage, over all, because people who come back to experience the basic expansion without staying around aren't going for the meta. Drawing ANY conclusion by comparing the two will, in my opinion, be misleading.

    ...so you did misunderstand and you did it again. I wasn't comparing percentages but raw numbers. And your argument is weird, you are saying that players who come back to experience the basic expansion wont' stay around to finish the meta of the expansion, but finish the meta of the episode? What's so bad about the meta of the expansion that players aren't going to finish compared to the meta of the episodes?

    To clarify one more time: there are MORE players that completed Whisper in the Dark meta, compared to the expansion meta. Percentages and players leaving after trying an expansion are irrelevant. Whisper in the Dark meta is finished by 21,416, Path of Fire Act 1 meta is finished by 20,483.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    There is a way to check if a map meta is just way too easy to complete, by checking meta completions of much older content than it.
    Whisper in the Dark meta completion is an anomaly because it has a higher completion rate than Path of Fire Act 1/3 mastery, Heart of Thorns Act IV mastery, Long Live the Lich Mastery, All or Nothing mastery, War Eternal mastery, and is 0.02% less than A Bug in the System mastery and 0.1% from A Star to Guide Us mastery. All content that was started/played by far more players than Whisper in the Dark, meaning the meta was probably too easy (or lucrative) to complete. And of course none of that content has anything to do with Strike Missions.

    We'll see the new map's completion rates in a few months, it's way too early to tell now.

    I don't know that you can compare expansion and living story content. On the surface, there's a lot of similiarty but there's just far more to do when you get an expansion. The people who buy expansions aren't necessarily there for that kind of content. It means a lot of people buy an expansion, play it for a month and leave, throwing off the percentage of people who do that content regulary. Those people wouldn't then be counted in the later content, because they've already left.

    For me, as a dedicated player, I'm here all year around, every year and I do map metas as a matter of course. Presumably the most loyal players are logging in every few months at least to do that new content. There's less to do in those time periods that's new so it'll be done by a bigger percentage.

    I don't see value in tracking people that buy expansions, play a game for a couple of months and move onto the next game. I see value in tracking the Ice Brood Saga against the Ice Brood Saga, specifically because it's all in the same time period.

    I think you misunderstood. Less players finished those Act metas of the expansions than the Whisper in the Dark meta, not percentage, but fixed number. So players that bought the expansion but left are highly irrelevant. More players (total number) finished the Whisper in the Dark meta than Path of Fire Act 1 meta. Same with Season 4 content, with the exception of the Daybreak meta, Whisper in the Dark meta has higher or very very similar completion rate.

    You can also compare the number of players that started the respective episodes to have a better comparison. The first instance of a A Bug in the System was completed by 51%, the first instance of Whisper in the Dark was finished by 33%, yet their meta completion rates are both at 8.3% (8.29% for Bug and 8.27% for Whisper) This shows that the 16.3% of those that started Bug finished the meta, while that number is at 25% for Whisper (one in four that started the episode finished the meta). Meaning the Whisper in the Dark meta was very easy compared to most other metas released so far, which is why I called it an anomaly.

    I'm not misunderstanding you're not getting what I''m saying.

    I'd EXPECT expansion meta content to be finished by fewer people by percentage, over all, because people who come back to experience the basic expansion without staying around aren't going for the meta. Drawing ANY conclusion by comparing the two will, in my opinion, be misleading.

    ...so you did misunderstand and you did it again. I wasn't comparing percentages but raw numbers. And your argument is weird, you are saying that players who come back to experience the basic expansion wont' stay around to finish the meta of the expansion, but finish the meta of the episode? What's so bad about the meta of the expansion that players aren't going to finish compared to the meta of the episodes?

    To clarify one more time: there are MORE players that completed Whisper in the Dark meta, compared to the expansion meta. Percentages and players leaving after trying an expansion are irrelevant. Whisper in the Dark meta is finished by 21,416, Path of Fire Act 1 meta is finished by 20,483.

    I'm saying the type of people who buy expansions are different than the type of people who stay and play long term. That is the percentage of people who buy expansions and do the story and move on is pretty high. They run from game to game. SO the expansion isn't really showing what the persistent player base is doing. I strongly suspect that people who come for expansions don't come back and do living story. And I suspect that move on to the next game crowd is less likely over all to do metas.

    That means more people buy expansions than play living world stories in between and that absolutely changes the percentages.

    Let's say that half the people who buy expansions are tourists. They're going to be less likely to care about achievement points or achievements at all because they don't intend to stay.

    Obviously some of the people who buy the expansions do plan on staying. The percentage of those people would more likely represent the people who are playing living world.

    The fact that there are so many tourists who drop a few bucks on an expansion and move on quickly is excactly they those percntages are less meaningful to me.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    I strongly suspect that people who come for expansions don't come back and do living story.

    Yes, in most cases this is confirmed by completion rates, with the exception of the Whisper in the Dark meta. Whisper in the Dark meta is finished by 21,416 players while the Path of Fire Act 1 meta is finished by 20,483. So at least 1k players that came for the expansion and left, came back for Whisper in the Dark. Or they simply didn't care about the expansion meta but completed the Whisper meta anyway. And this is similar with the entire Season 4, with the exception of Daybreak, Whisper in the Dark has higher completion rates. Which is again why I called it an anomaly, it has severely inflated rates even compared to the rest of the Icebrood Saga, so either a lot of new players joined at Whisper, finished the meta and then left, or, the more probable cause, Whisper in the Dark was very simplistic compared to the rest and more players just got it. That still makes Whisper an anomaly.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 17, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    I strongly suspect that people who come for expansions don't come back and do living story.

    Yes, in most cases this is confirmed by completion rates, with the exception of the Whisper in the Dark meta. Whisper in the Dark meta is finished by 21,416 players while the Path of Fire Act 1 meta is finished by 20,483. So at least 1k players that came for the expansion and left, came back for Whisper in the Dark. Or they simply didn't care about the expansion meta but completed the Whisper meta anyway. And this is similar with the entire Season 4, with the exception of Daybreak, Whisper in the Dark has higher completion rates. Which is again why I called it an anomaly, it has severely inflated rates even compared to the rest of the Icebrood Saga, so either a lot of new players joined at Whisper, finished the meta and then left, or, the more probable cause, Whisper in the Dark was very simplistic compared to the rest and more players just got it. That still makes Whisper an anomaly.

    It's roughly the same number of people who do it...but there are more people starting an expansion who don't. Thus the percentage of players completeing changes from an expansion to a non-expansion. That's my point. It's not about number of players to me. It's about the percentage of completion of players who started that content. The expansion is going to be less because of the number of people starting and running. That's all I'm saying.

  • Sheader.6827Sheader.6827 Member ✭✭

    lol here we go again.

    What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."
    Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

    Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

    Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

    If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly. That but this blow might be the be-all and the end-all—here.
    Macbeth Act 1, scene 7

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:
    lol here we go again.

    What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."
    Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

    Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

    Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

    That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

    The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

    I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

    Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

    But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.
    It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

    So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

    Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

    You have a heart of gold. Don't let them take it from you.
    Remaster confirmed! Umbasa!

  • Sheader.6827Sheader.6827 Member ✭✭

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:
    lol here we go again.

    What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."
    Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

    Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

    Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

    That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

    The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

    I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

    Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

    But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.
    It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

    So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

    Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

    Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.
    Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

    If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly. That but this blow might be the be-all and the end-all—here.
    Macbeth Act 1, scene 7

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 18, 2020

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:
    lol here we go again.

    What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."
    Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

    Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

    Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

    That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

    The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

    I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

    Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

    But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.
    It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

    So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

    Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

    Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.
    Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

    Except that‘s completely arbitrary. Killing your first monster in the game could be an achievement. It tells you „you are on the way to master this game‘s combat system by understanding the way your skills work“.
    You could phrase pretty much any action like that. It‘s not an achievement, just a progression check tool multiple games use nowadays.

    So no, I don‘t think killing your first raid boss is achievement worthy. Plenty of people are able to do that, you‘re not achieving anything, unless you think bringing down a hp bar the same way everyone else does it is worthy of people singing praises of you, especially when it‘s bound more to group skill and not individual skill, like at the Olympics.
    After all, Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run (raid wing clear) ;-).

    But I‘m okay with the current system, since it is only a progression tracker called „achievements“, just like in several other games.

    You have a heart of gold. Don't let them take it from you.
    Remaster confirmed! Umbasa!

  • Inculpatus cedo.9234Inculpatus cedo.9234 Member ✭✭✭✭

    No 'team achievements' in the Olympics? =P

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 18, 2020

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    No 'team achievements' in the Olympics? =P

    Never said that, just that I value individual skill more ;-)
    I‘m more likely to remember a person‘s name if he achieved the feat and the medal on his own.

    There can still only be one team that achieves the gold medal for their specific sport every 4 years.

    You have a heart of gold. Don't let them take it from you.
    Remaster confirmed! Umbasa!

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:
    lol here we go again.

    What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."
    Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

    Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

    Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

    That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

    The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

    I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

    Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

    But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.
    It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

    So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

    Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

    Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.
    Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

    How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

  • Sheader.6827Sheader.6827 Member ✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:
    lol here we go again.

    What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."
    Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

    Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

    Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

    That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

    The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

    I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

    Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

    But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.
    It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

    So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

    Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

    Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.
    Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

    How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

    Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

    If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly. That but this blow might be the be-all and the end-all—here.
    Macbeth Act 1, scene 7

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:
    lol here we go again.

    What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."
    Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

    Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

    Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

    That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

    The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

    I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

    Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

    But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.
    It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

    So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

    Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

    Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.
    Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

    How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

    Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

    Changes nothing. 5 people can carry 5 people in most raids. The five people carrying are skilled. The people being carried, not so much.

  • Sheader.6827Sheader.6827 Member ✭✭
    edited June 20, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:
    lol here we go again.

    What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."
    Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

    Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

    Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

    That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

    The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

    I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

    Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

    But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.
    It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

    So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

    Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

    Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.
    Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

    How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

    Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

    Changes nothing. 5 people can carry 5 people in most raids. The five people carrying are skilled. The people being carried, not so much.

    Sorry, I can't find any "we will carry you" raid groups in LFG. All of them are either regular FC-s or training groups, neither tell you to "do nothing, let us carry you". Everyone in a raid group does the minimum requirement, i.e. doing the mechanics. Otherwise group leaders kick those pugs to open slots for people who actually want to raid and learn.

    If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly. That but this blow might be the be-all and the end-all—here.
    Macbeth Act 1, scene 7

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 20, 2020

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:
    lol here we go again.

    What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."
    Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

    Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

    Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

    That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

    The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

    I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

    Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

    But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.
    It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

    So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

    Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

    Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.
    Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

    How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

    Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

    Changes nothing. 5 people can carry 5 people in most raids. The five people carrying are skilled. The people being carried, not so much.

    Sorry, I can't find any "we will carry you" raid groups in LFG. All of them are either regular FC-s or training groups, neither tell you to "do nothing, let us carry you". Everyone in a raid group does the minimum requirement, i.e. doing the mechanics. Otherwise group leaders kick those pugs to open slots for people who actually want to raid and learn.

    So what you're sasying is it can be five manned, but miraculously every single group has ten guys capable of actually holding their own, instead of just being a warm body. Not my experience at all, considering I've got victories over raid bosses and I know for a fact i didn't do my job in those circumstances.

    It was the same in Guild Wars 1. Once an achievement is being sold, it's no longer an achievement by any sense of the word as in by looking at it, there's no way to tell who earned it and who was carried and who bought their way through.

    I have a raid boss achievement (just 1) that i paid for, and another raid boss achievement I was carried through and one that I did on my own. 2 out of 3 of my raid achievements I didn't really achieve. You have no way of knowing the percentage of the people who were carried.

  • Sheader.6827Sheader.6827 Member ✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:
    lol here we go again.

    What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."
    Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

    Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

    Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

    That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

    The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

    I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

    Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

    But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.
    It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

    So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

    Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

    Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.
    Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

    How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

    Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

    Changes nothing. 5 people can carry 5 people in most raids. The five people carrying are skilled. The people being carried, not so much.

    Sorry, I can't find any "we will carry you" raid groups in LFG. All of them are either regular FC-s or training groups, neither tell you to "do nothing, let us carry you". Everyone in a raid group does the minimum requirement, i.e. doing the mechanics. Otherwise group leaders kick those pugs to open slots for people who actually want to raid and learn.

    So what you're sasying is it can be five manned, but miraculously every single group has ten guys capable of actually holding their own, instead of just being a warm body. Not my experience at all, considering I've got victories over raid bosses and I know for a fact i didn't do my job in those circumstances.

    It was the same in Guild Wars 1. Once an achievement is being sold, it's no longer an achievement by any sense of the word as in by looking at it, there's no way to tell who earned it and who was carried and who bought their way through.

    I have a raid boss achievement (just 1) that i paid for, and another raid boss achievement I was carried through and one that I did on my own. 2 out of 3 of my raid achievements I didn't really achieve. You have no way of knowing the percentage of the people who were carried.

    So you are just using yourself as a statistic for what is basically raid selling? How does that even help your argument? You bought one FC and pugged another. You aren't even remotely representative in terms of people giving an effort in raids or not. Raid selling is a thing but most average players can't afford to buy a FC so they stick with training guilds till they get the handle of it.

    If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly. That but this blow might be the be-all and the end-all—here.
    Macbeth Act 1, scene 7

  • Linken.6345Linken.6345 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:
    lol here we go again.

    What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."
    Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

    Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

    Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

    That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

    The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

    I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

    Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

    But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.
    It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

    So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

    Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

    Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.
    Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

    How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

    Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

    Changes nothing. 5 people can carry 5 people in most raids. The five people carrying are skilled. The people being carried, not so much.

    Sorry, I can't find any "we will carry you" raid groups in LFG. All of them are either regular FC-s or training groups, neither tell you to "do nothing, let us carry you". Everyone in a raid group does the minimum requirement, i.e. doing the mechanics. Otherwise group leaders kick those pugs to open slots for people who actually want to raid and learn.

    Yea they arent doing that for free you will be paying for the option to do nothing.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Sheader.6827 said:
    lol here we go again.

    What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."
    Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

    Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

    Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

    That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

    The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

    I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

    Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

    But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.
    It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

    So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

    Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

    Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.
    Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

    How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

    Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

    Changes nothing. 5 people can carry 5 people in most raids. The five people carrying are skilled. The people being carried, not so much.

    Sorry, I can't find any "we will carry you" raid groups in LFG. All of them are either regular FC-s or training groups, neither tell you to "do nothing, let us carry you". Everyone in a raid group does the minimum requirement, i.e. doing the mechanics. Otherwise group leaders kick those pugs to open slots for people who actually want to raid and learn.

    So what you're sasying is it can be five manned, but miraculously every single group has ten guys capable of actually holding their own, instead of just being a warm body. Not my experience at all, considering I've got victories over raid bosses and I know for a fact i didn't do my job in those circumstances.

    It was the same in Guild Wars 1. Once an achievement is being sold, it's no longer an achievement by any sense of the word as in by looking at it, there's no way to tell who earned it and who was carried and who bought their way through.

    I have a raid boss achievement (just 1) that i paid for, and another raid boss achievement I was carried through and one that I did on my own. 2 out of 3 of my raid achievements I didn't really achieve. You have no way of knowing the percentage of the people who were carried.

    So you are just using yourself as a statistic for what is basically raid selling? How does that even help your argument? You bought one FC and pugged another. You aren't even remotely representative in terms of people giving an effort in raids or not. Raid selling is a thing but most average players can't afford to buy a FC so they stick with training guilds till they get the handle of it.

    Nope, you're missing my point completely.

    ANYONE can buy a raid. Save up money from wood farming or whatever and buy a raid. Anyone in the game. It's doable by anyone.

    So when someone has that "achievement' It's meaningless because there's no way to tell how they got it. The term achievement as you're trying to imply it means doesn't mean anything because enough people, a percentage, pay for raids and/or get carried through raids. They've realliy achieved nothing...but they have the achievement. It's like portals at jumping puzzles.

    Jumping puzzles are skilled content, but only Mad King's Clock Tower has an achievement that's an actual achievement, or maybe also Winterwonderland. Everything else can be cheesed.

    Even people with the Vampiric build who cheesed Liadri weren't really achieveing anything other than looking up a build and cheesing it. This idea that achievements in games means actually achieveing something is not accurate. Sure some people do the achievement as it's supposed to be done. And some get carried. And some cheese it. And no one knows the percentage of each.