Achievement Point Discussion - Page 6 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Achievement Point Discussion

12346

Comments

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 25, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    It's just impossible to understand this without knowing how you came to this conclusion, as it wasn't from anything I've said. All I've ever proposed is that everyone be required to do the same thing to get the same rewards. I'm not trying to maintain the distinction between players who had access to the lost content and those who did not . . .

    It's not about distinction between players that had access to the lost content, and those who did not. It's about not differentiating between those that already put some work into obtaining those rewards, and those that didn't. I'm not saying that you did that intentionally, mind you, but it's nevertheless a consequence of your solution.

    It's not . . .

    In your solution, someone that was at 35k AP when your fix went in will need to work exactly hard to obtain the removed rewards as someone that had 1 AP.

    No, they'd still have to get all the currently unlocked rewards through ap before they started getting the removed rewards through other means, which gives them the path to catching up for the lost content . . .

    All that past work put into obtaining those 35k AP would be ignored as far as those rewards are concerned.

    This is true in that the current advantage they enjoy over players who did not have access to the lost content would be eliminated. It's why my first thought was to put the unique rewards behind meta cheeves, which are still cheeve related. But other posters said they see them more as loyalty rewards, which means bday gifts . . .

    And unless the new method would require another 7 years of hard work on the level similar to obtaining those ~40k APs (or whatever AP cutoff value you would use for unique reward removal), the 1 AP player would be able to obtain it far easier than it's possible currently.

    This has been mentioned before, but it just doesn't make sense for a new player to be forced to wait as long as original players did for ap. If a new player can burn through the cheeves faster than they were originally released -- and hopefully they can :p -- then so be it /shrug . . .
    EDIT: Though note if they did they would still have to wait for their eighth birthday before unlocking the subsequent rewards, which I suppose was the intent of the players who favored bday rewards as a solution . . .

    And while the second result (low AP players obtaining another, possibly easier path to rewards) could potentially be argued for, the first result (veteran players having all their work invalidated) is definitely not fair and should never be allowed to happen.

    Then find a way to fix the problem while further mitigating the damage to players who had access to the lost content. I've done the best I can. But ignoring the problem or pretending it doesn't exist isn't a better solution, as it leaves the much larger portion of players negatively affected . . .

    And please, don't try to tell me that "this wouldn't happen" unless you're ready to supply an actual proposal of how those rewards would be redistributed that takes this into consideration (notice, that neither the "birthday presents", nor the "future content rewards" one does that - both of those completely ignore any past work someone might have done for those rewards already).

    It is necessary to find a solution that ignores what we have now, as it provides inequitable opportunity. Unless you want to advocate for the selective reintroduction of ap, which was dismissed early on in the discussion but has since been reintroduced with more enthusiasm . . .

  • Etria.3642Etria.3642 Member ✭✭✭✭

    You do realize that birthday presents are not loyalty rewards, right? If I created a character on day one and never played until today, I would receive all the birthday gifts upon logging in?

  • If 'newer' players have the advantage of being able to acquire Achievement Rewards much quicker than those 'veterans' that were around for Season One, isn't that enough?

    If not, where is the 'equitable' solution regarding how much time it takes to acquire rewards for 'new' players vs. 'vets'?

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 25, 2020

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    It's not about distinction between players that had access to the lost content, and those who did not. It's about not differentiating between those that already put some work into obtaining those rewards, and those that didn't. I'm not saying that you did that intentionally, mind you, but it's nevertheless a consequence of your solution.

    It's not . . .

    You saying it's not does not make it so. You have so far failed to supply a solution that would not have such an effect.

    In your solution, someone that was at 35k AP when your fix went in will need to work exactly hard to obtain the removed rewards as someone that had 1 AP.

    No, they'd still have to get all the currently unlocked rewards through ap before they started getting the removed rewards through other means, which gives them the path to catching up for the lost content . . .

    Currently unlocked, yes, but remember, that all that work goes also towards the rewards that aren't unlocked yet. Someone having 39k AP has done over 90% of work needed for 42k reward already. Someone having 30k AP has done ~80%. If you were to move that 42k Ap reward to other method of acquisition, they'd both find yourself at the same point, with that difference in work done ignored. Moreover, they would both find themselves at the same point as someone that has done only 1% of that work. Notice, that all of it is equally true whether they have any lost APs or not - the work put in APs that aren't lost would get eliminated as well.
    Notice: we're talking about the future rewards - those you intend to remove. Not about the current ones.

    All that past work put into obtaining those 35k AP would be ignored as far as those rewards are concerned.

    This is true in that the current advantage they enjoy over players who did not have access to the lost content would be eliminated. It's why my first thought was to put the unique rewards behind meta cheeves, which are still cheeve related. But other posters said they see them more as loyalty rewards, which means bday gifts . . .

    Ah, but it's not only the "current advantages over players that did not have access to the lost content" that would get eliminated (which in itself is worrying - it may be an advantage, but it was not players' fault they put an effort in a content everyone knew would be later removed, while other players didn't). You would also eliminate their "advantage" (meaning, the work they did) over those that did have access to that lost content, but didnt't bother to put even a sloghtest bit of effort in it. You would also eliminate the "advantages" (again, a result of hard work), of players that put effort into content that isn't lost, over players that didn't bother to work for it.
    I mean, in your fix, players that started just after those lost APs became unavailable, and obtained ~30k AP later (so, did ~80% of work towards that 42k Ap reward), would also see all that work towards that reward completely eliminated, and would find themselves in the same spot as someone that is at 1k AP (so, so far did less than 2% of the work towards that reward).

    And unless the new method would require another 7 years of hard work on the level similar to obtaining those ~40k APs (or whatever AP cutoff value you would use for unique reward removal), the 1 AP player would be able to obtain it far easier than it's possible currently.

    This has been mentioned before, but it just doesn't make sense for a new player to be forced to wait as long as original players did for ap. If a new player can burn through the cheeves faster than they were originally released -- and hopefully they can :p -- then so be it /shrug . . .
    EDIT: Though note if they did they would still have to wait for their eighth birthday before unlocking the subsequent rewards, which I suppose was the intent of the players who favored bday rewards as a solution . . .

    Not "wait as long" but "put equal amount of work". If you remove a reward that was supposed to be in 42k AP box, then would obtaining it in te new way require the same effort as getting 42k APs? Or would it end up way easier? And would the work already done by players be counted for it, or would it be ignored? Because so far it looks to me, that on both counts it would be latter, not former.
    Both suggestions you mentioned would treat players exactly like that - both would completely ignore all the past effort, and concentrate only on future effort (in the case of future meta reward option) or pure login time (birthday rewards). Both would also require way, way less effort (effort equal to ~200-300AP instead of 42k in the first case, no effort required at all in the second case) than currently.

    Then find a way to fix the problem while further mitigating the damage to players who had access to the lost content. I've done the best I can. But ignoring the problem or pretending it doesn't exist isn't a better solution, as it leaves the much larger portion of players negatively affected . . .

    No, you are the one saying how wonderful your solution is, so it's your job to make that solution workable. You didn't do that so far. It's not my job to try to make the bad solution you have presented not as bad only so you could continue to claim how wonderful it is.

    You can't propose a solution with glaring holes in it, say it's a good solution and then refuse to acknowledge the holes, or suggest that they are something someone else should fix. If you have done the best you can, and the solution is still filled with flaws you can't fix on your own (and you can't, or at the very least you don't want to), then it should tell you that this suggestion may not be as good as you think it is.

    It is necessary to find a solution that ignores what we have now, as it provides inequitable opportunity.

    Your solution is the one that treats players inequally, as it treats the players that didn't put any work into obtaining those rewards yet better than those that did.

    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.

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    It is necessary to find a solution that ignores what we have now, as it provides inequitable opportunity.

    Your solution is the one that treats players inequally, as it treats the players that didn't put any work into obtaining those rewards yet better than those that did.

    You both are assuming your points matter.

    The first achievements were time limited, and therefore the amount of work will always be different if the content +achievements would return. It would never be equal.

    A good example is festival achievements, which go over 20+ years of time for a new person to possibly catch up on someone who was there every single festival and did every (meta) achievement.

    At some point, you gotta wonder whether these suggestions have actual problems, or whether their negative effects of inequality are all that important at all.

    Personally, achievement points for the sake of achievement points doesnt add anything useful to the game. It needs to come with playable content, that is worthy of it.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    It's not about distinction between players that had access to the lost content, and those who did not. It's about not differentiating between those that already put some work into obtaining those rewards, and those that didn't. I'm not saying that you did that intentionally, mind you, but it's nevertheless a consequence of your solution.

    It's not . . .

    You saying it's not does not make it so. You have so far failed to supply a solution that would not have such an effect.

    Everyone would be doing the same work, they would just be given the same opportunities to do that work, which they don't have rn . . .

    In your solution, someone that was at 35k AP when your fix went in will need to work exactly hard to obtain the removed rewards as someone that had 1 AP.

    No, they'd still have to get all the currently unlocked rewards through ap before they started getting the removed rewards through other means, which gives them the path to catching up for the lost content . . .

    Currently unlocked, yes, but remember, that all that work goes also towards the rewards that aren't unlocked yet.

    And remember that under the system you are trying to defend the vast majority of players will never have the opportunity to work towards those rewards until roughly a year after they are unlocked. Also perhaps take a moment to consider why you are so focused on ppl who are putting 'work' into a video game, whether that is a desirable goal, and what role the current system has played in developing that perspective . . .

    Someone having 39k AP has done over 90% of work needed for 42k reward already. Someone having 30k AP has done ~80%. If you were to move that 42k Ap reward to other method of acquisition, they'd both find yourself at the same point, with that difference in work done ignored. Moreover, they would both find themselves at the same point as someone that has done only 1% of that work. Notice, that all of it is equally true whether they have any lost APs or not - the work put in APs that aren't lost would get eliminated as well.
    Notice: we're talking about the future rewards - those you intend to remove. Not about the current ones.

    Yes, exactly, only removing the future rewards, so everyone would do the same work to unlock the existing rewards. Then they would do the same work for the future rewards as well. The only difference is that everyone would eventually have the chance to do that, which they will never have under the current system . . .

    All that past work put into obtaining those 35k AP would be ignored as far as those rewards are concerned.

    This is true in that the current advantage they enjoy over players who did not have access to the lost content would be eliminated. It's why my first thought was to put the unique rewards behind meta cheeves, which are still cheeve related. But other posters said they see them more as loyalty rewards, which means bday gifts . . .

    Ah, but it's not only the "current advantages over players that did not have access to the lost content" that would get eliminated (which in itself is worrying - it may be an advantage, but it was not players' fault they put an effort in a content everyone knew would be later removed, while other players didn't). You would also eliminate their "advantage" (meaning, the work they did) over those that did have access to that lost content, but didnt't bother to put even a sloghtest bit of effort in it. You would also eliminate the "advantages" (again, a result of hard work), of players that put effort into content that isn't lost, over players that didn't bother to work for it.

    I was going to point out, again, that the lost access is an acknowledged mistake, but really I see all three of your scenarios as positives so I'm not sure it's necessary . . ?

    I mean, in your fix, players that started just after those lost APs became unavailable, and obtained ~30k AP later (so, did ~80% of work towards that 42k Ap reward), would also see all that work towards that reward completely eliminated, and would find themselves in the same spot as someone that is at 1k AP (so, so far did less than 2% of the work towards that reward).

    Yes, they'd all have the same opportunity to earn the ap for the currently released rewards, then they would have the same opportunity to obtain the removed rewards through whatever system they are made available, if any. You have correctly described the solution . . .

    And unless the new method would require another 7 years of hard work on the level similar to obtaining those ~40k APs (or whatever AP cutoff value you would use for unique reward removal), the 1 AP player would be able to obtain it far easier than it's possible currently.

    This has been mentioned before, but it just doesn't make sense for a new player to be forced to wait as long as original players did for ap. If a new player can burn through the cheeves faster than they were originally released -- and hopefully they can :p -- then so be it /shrug . . .
    EDIT: Though note if they did they would still have to wait for their eighth birthday before unlocking the subsequent rewards, which I suppose was the intent of the players who favored bday rewards as a solution . . .

    Not "wait as long" but "put equal amount of work".

    Waiting is the only 'work' involved in receiving birthday rewards . . .

    If you remove a reward that was supposed to be in 42k AP box, then would obtaining it in te new way require the same effort as getting 42k APs? Or would it end up way easier? And would the work already done by players be counted for it, or would it be ignored? Because so far it looks to me, that on both counts it would be latter, not former.

    It would be exactly the same. The only way it would be easier is that as more ap becomes available it will become easier to get to whatever threshold the new system kicks in at . . .

    Both suggestions you mentioned would treat players exactly like that - both would completely ignore all the past effort, and concentrate only on future effort (in the case of future meta reward option) or pure login time (birthday rewards). Both would also require way, way less effort (effort equal to ~200-300AP instead of 42k in the first case, no effort required at all in the second case) than currently.

    Yes, eliminating that discrepancy and having everyone do the same things for the same opportunities is the solution. Note that at present there is no solution, and you have not provided one, other than to suggest that the game do a hard wipe of all player data every day. My solution is vastly superior to either of the other options . . .

    Then find a way to fix the problem while further mitigating the damage to players who had access to the lost content. I've done the best I can. But ignoring the problem or pretending it doesn't exist isn't a better solution, as it leaves the much larger portion of players negatively affected . . .

    No, you are the one saying how wonderful your solution is, so it's your job to make that solution workable.

    And so I have. It's so great that after all this typing no one has been able to improve upon it . . .

    You didn't do that so far.

    Not to your satisfaction, bc the entire purpose of the solution is to give everyone the same opportunities to obtain the rewards, and your interest is in preventing that. Your problem isn't with the solution, it's with admitting the problem . . .

    It's not my job to try to make the bad solution you have presented not as bad only so you could continue to claim how wonderful it is.

    If you'd rather come up with another solution, you can do that too. But ofc you'd have to admit that resolving the consequences of the lost content is a desirable goal, and that's your hiccup . . .

    You can't propose a solution with glaring holes in it, say it's a good solution and then refuse to acknowledge the holes, or suggest that they are something someone else should fix. If you have done the best you can, and the solution is still filled with flaws you can't fix on your own (and you can't, or at the very least you don't want to), then it should tell you that this suggestion may not be as good as you think it is.

    I only think it is the best available . . .

    It is necessary to find a solution that ignores what we have now, as it provides inequitable opportunity.

    Your solution is the one that treats players inequally, as it treats the players that didn't put any work into obtaining those rewards yet better than those that did.

    It gives everyone the same opportunity, which they do not have now. If maintaining that inequity is your goal, then obviously you won't like anything that addresses it . . .

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 25, 2020

    @Gop.8713 said:

    I was going to answer this in order, but i see there's no point. The "inequality" your suggestion strives to "fix" is an "inequality" between people that put an effort into something, and people that didn't. You just want to reward everyone equally, whether they deserve it or not.

    No wonder you want to bring down the core idea of the AP rewards system, as it is about something completely opposite to that.

    We're just not going to ever agree on it, it seems, so i'm bowing out of that discussion. Have fun with it.

    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.

  • Etria.3642Etria.3642 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    I was going to answer this in order, but i see there's no point. The "inequality" your suggestion strives to "fix" is an "inequality" between people that put an effort into something, and people that didn't. You just want to reward everyone equally, whether they deserve it or not.

    No wonder you want to bring down the core idea of the AP rewards system, as it is about something completely opposite to that.

    We're just not going to ever agree on it, it seems, so i'm bowing out of that discussion. Have fun with it.

    Yep. Gop seems to believe that merely waiting a few years is the equivalent to doing 45k in achievements. If they believe that, or just don't want to do 45k in achievements, which seems more and more likely, they just don't want to do the work. Peace out.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    I was going to answer this in order, but i see there's no point. The "inequality" your suggestion strives to "fix" is an "inequality" between people that put an effort into something, and people that didn't.

    Except everyone would have engaged in the same effort. All the solution does is give everyone that opportunity. Which appears to scare the kitten out of you for some reason . . .

    You just want to reward everyone equally, whether they deserve it or not.

    No, just trying to repair the damage done by a recognized error . . .

    No wonder you want to bring down the core idea of the AP rewards system, as it is about something completely opposite to that.

    We're just not going to ever agree on it, it seems, so i'm bowing out of that discussion. Have fun with it.

    Yes, just as I said almost three (!) weeks ago now. You're not concerned with the affected players while I am. But instead of acknowledging a simple difference in perspective, you chose to spend all this time trying to convince yourself that those players didn't exist or didn't matter for some reason. I'm glad you finally came all the way back around to your original position. Thank you . . .

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

    @FrizzFreston.5290 said:
    A good example is festival achievements, which go over 20+ years of time for a new person to possibly catch up on someone who was there every single festival and did every (meta) achievement.

    As a side note, this also means if the game goes into maintenance mode before 20 years pass, they'll stop releasing new achievement rewards, but those festivals will keep awarding points until the game dies. Meaning, if the game doesn't die outright, but rather enters a maintenance period before shutting down, players will still have a way to "catch up" on any missing rewards.

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 26, 2020

    @TheQuickFox.3826 said:
    We REALLY need a solution for all those players who missed Living World season 1 and its achievements.

    Also, I would still love to see ArenaNet's Long-term plans for achievement rewards. I keep wondering for instance what the path is to 60,000, if there ultimately will be more rewards for achievement ranks.

    I also wonder why the recent expansion and living world releases seem to be a bit lacking in AP rewards. Especailly when you compare it to the amount of AP in LW Season 1 and 2 as well as temporary festivals. Players who miss the festivals really will get a hard time to reach the upper levels, as well as players who missed Season 1.

    There is no problem to solve. New players have access to more achievement options than old players at the same moment in their /played life. There are 3 factors involved in achievement progression :

    1. The time cost in getting achievement. More options means more choice in terms of time cost - see above.

    2. Time /played by player. The longer you play the more achieved you get - obviously a player playing for x time should not get a boost over a player with y /played, AP's are not rewards they are recognition for achieving a goals.

    3. How efficiently does the player farm achieves. Again point 1 helps.

    New players have an advantage over older players at any given moment In their /played life in comparison because of increasing choice.

    The real issue is impatient players looking for some kind of fast track and peeking over the fence jealously at other players.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @FrizzFreston.5290 said:
    A good example is festival achievements, which go over 20+ years of time for a new person to possibly catch up on someone who was there every single festival and did every (meta) achievement.

    As a side note, this also means if the game goes into maintenance mode before 20 years pass, they'll stop releasing new achievement rewards, but those festivals will keep awarding points until the game dies. Meaning, if the game doesn't die outright, but rather enters a maintenance period before shutting down, players will still have a way to "catch up" on any missing rewards.

    Yep, just a question of when those unique rewards are removed from the track, now or at the end of the game's lifecycle. Whenever they are, the problem will be resolved, given the continued influx of ap. I still don't see the advantage in waiting . . .

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @TheQuickFox.3826 said:
    We REALLY need a solution for all those players who missed Living World season 1 and its achievements.

    Also, I would still love to see ArenaNet's Long-term plans for achievement rewards. I keep wondering for instance what the path is to 60,000, if there ultimately will be more rewards for achievement ranks.

    I also wonder why the recent expansion and living world releases seem to be a bit lacking in AP rewards. Especailly when you compare it to the amount of AP in LW Season 1 and 2 as well as temporary festivals. Players who miss the festivals really will get a hard time to reach the upper levels, as well as players who missed Season 1.

    There is no problem to solve. New players have access to more achievement options than old players at the same moment in their /played life. There are 3 factors involved in achievement progression :

    1. The time cost in getting achievement. More options means more choice in terms of time cost - see above.

    2. Time /played by player. The longer you play the more achieved you get - obviously a player playing for x time should not get a boost over a player with y /played, AP's are not rewards they are recognition for achieving a goals.

    3. How efficiently does the player farm achieves. Again point 1 helps.

    New players have an advantage over older players at any given moment In their /played life in comparison because of increasing choice.

    The real issue is impatient players looking for some kind of fast track and peeking over the fence jealously at other players.

    But you've missed the main point, which is that old players had access to cheeves that new players will never be able to access, and -- this is the important bit -- that the loss of that content is an acknowledged mistake. So it's not a matter of new players trying to get the rewards faster, it's that no matter how much they do they are forever locked out of the most recent rewards due to a design error . . .

    The real issue is there some players too concerned with jealously guarding the advantage gained through that error to see the effect it has on the larger population . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    As a side note, this also means if the game goes into maintenance mode before 20 years pass, they'll stop releasing new achievement rewards, but those festivals will keep awarding points until the game dies. Meaning, if the game doesn't die outright, but rather enters a maintenance period before shutting down, players will still have a way to "catch up" on any missing rewards.

    Yep, just a question of when those unique rewards are removed from the track, now or at the end of the game's lifecycle. Whenever they are, the problem will be resolved, given the continued influx of ap. I still don't see the advantage in waiting . . .

    Oh there is one, development time, it's rather precious. Actually I see no advantage in not waiting

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    As a side note, this also means if the game goes into maintenance mode before 20 years pass, they'll stop releasing new achievement rewards, but those festivals will keep awarding points until the game dies. Meaning, if the game doesn't die outright, but rather enters a maintenance period before shutting down, players will still have a way to "catch up" on any missing rewards.

    Yep, just a question of when those unique rewards are removed from the track, now or at the end of the game's lifecycle. Whenever they are, the problem will be resolved, given the continued influx of ap. I still don't see the advantage in waiting . . .

    Oh there is one, development time, it's rather precious. Actually I see no advantage in not waiting

    Removing rewards would be negligible dev time, not introducing more would actually save dev time. I am pleased you have come around to see this benefit. Thank you . . .

  • Matt H.6142Matt H.6142 Member ✭✭✭

    I was at a GW2 PAX party, and oh how dejected this fan of asura was when I told her she won’t be getting those AP armors quickly.

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @FrizzFreston.5290 said:
    A good example is festival achievements, which go over 20+ years of time for a new person to possibly catch up on someone who was there every single festival and did every (meta) achievement.

    As a side note, this also means if the game goes into maintenance mode before 20 years pass, they'll stop releasing new achievement rewards, but those festivals will keep awarding points until the game dies. Meaning, if the game doesn't die outright, but rather enters a maintenance period before shutting down, players will still have a way to "catch up" on any missing rewards.

    Yep, just a question of when those unique rewards are removed from the track, now or at the end of the game's lifecycle. Whenever they are, the problem will be resolved, given the continued influx of ap. I still don't see the advantage in waiting . . .

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @TheQuickFox.3826 said:
    We REALLY need a solution for all those players who missed Living World season 1 and its achievements.

    Also, I would still love to see ArenaNet's Long-term plans for achievement rewards. I keep wondering for instance what the path is to 60,000, if there ultimately will be more rewards for achievement ranks.

    I also wonder why the recent expansion and living world releases seem to be a bit lacking in AP rewards. Especailly when you compare it to the amount of AP in LW Season 1 and 2 as well as temporary festivals. Players who miss the festivals really will get a hard time to reach the upper levels, as well as players who missed Season 1.

    There is no problem to solve. New players have access to more achievement options than old players at the same moment in their /played life. There are 3 factors involved in achievement progression :

    1. The time cost in getting achievement. More options means more choice in terms of time cost - see above.

    2. Time /played by player. The longer you play the more achieved you get - obviously a player playing for x time should not get a boost over a player with y /played, AP's are not rewards they are recognition for achieving a goals.

    3. How efficiently does the player farm achieves. Again point 1 helps.

    New players have an advantage over older players at any given moment In their /played life in comparison because of increasing choice.

    The real issue is impatient players looking for some kind of fast track and peeking over the fence jealously at other players.

    But you've missed the main point, which is that old players had access to cheeves that new players will never be able to access, and -- this is the important bit -- that the loss of that content is an acknowledged mistake. So it's not a matter of new players trying to get the rewards faster, it's that no matter how much they do they are forever locked out of the most recent rewards due to a design error . . .

    The real issue is there some players too concerned with jealously guarding the advantage gained through that error to see the effect it has on the larger population . . .

    Your not thinking about this correctly, an achievement is simply a recognition that an objective has been achieved. A player that has 10 points because they spent an hour doing an achievement that is now depricated is no different to a player that got 10 points for an achieve that is not deprecated. Both took the same time to get. The fact the achieve is deprecated is irrelevant, because a player will do another achievement in its place. A player who spent 200 hours farming achieves in 2010 will get the same outcome as the player that spends 200 hours in 2020 - except in 2020 there is more choice, so you could probably cherry pick more quick wins in 2020, although it doesn't matter, achievement points are solo goals.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @FrizzFreston.5290 said:
    A good example is festival achievements, which go over 20+ years of time for a new person to possibly catch up on someone who was there every single festival and did every (meta) achievement.

    As a side note, this also means if the game goes into maintenance mode before 20 years pass, they'll stop releasing new achievement rewards, but those festivals will keep awarding points until the game dies. Meaning, if the game doesn't die outright, but rather enters a maintenance period before shutting down, players will still have a way to "catch up" on any missing rewards.

    Yep, just a question of when those unique rewards are removed from the track, now or at the end of the game's lifecycle. Whenever they are, the problem will be resolved, given the continued influx of ap. I still don't see the advantage in waiting . . .

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @TheQuickFox.3826 said:
    We REALLY need a solution for all those players who missed Living World season 1 and its achievements.

    Also, I would still love to see ArenaNet's Long-term plans for achievement rewards. I keep wondering for instance what the path is to 60,000, if there ultimately will be more rewards for achievement ranks.

    I also wonder why the recent expansion and living world releases seem to be a bit lacking in AP rewards. Especailly when you compare it to the amount of AP in LW Season 1 and 2 as well as temporary festivals. Players who miss the festivals really will get a hard time to reach the upper levels, as well as players who missed Season 1.

    There is no problem to solve. New players have access to more achievement options than old players at the same moment in their /played life. There are 3 factors involved in achievement progression :

    1. The time cost in getting achievement. More options means more choice in terms of time cost - see above.

    2. Time /played by player. The longer you play the more achieved you get - obviously a player playing for x time should not get a boost over a player with y /played, AP's are not rewards they are recognition for achieving a goals.

    3. How efficiently does the player farm achieves. Again point 1 helps.

    New players have an advantage over older players at any given moment In their /played life in comparison because of increasing choice.

    The real issue is impatient players looking for some kind of fast track and peeking over the fence jealously at other players.

    But you've missed the main point, which is that old players had access to cheeves that new players will never be able to access, and -- this is the important bit -- that the loss of that content is an acknowledged mistake. So it's not a matter of new players trying to get the rewards faster, it's that no matter how much they do they are forever locked out of the most recent rewards due to a design error . . .

    The real issue is there some players too concerned with jealously guarding the advantage gained through that error to see the effect it has on the larger population . . .

    Your not thinking about this correctly, an achievement is simply a recognition that an objective has been achieved. A player that has 10 points because they spent an hour doing an achievement that is now depricated is no different to a player that got 10 points for an achieve that is not deprecated. Both took the same time to get. The fact the achieve is deprecated is irrelevant, because a player will do another achievement in its place. A player who spent 200 hours farming achieves in 2010 will get the same outcome as the player that spends 200 hours in 2020 - except in 2020 there is more choice, so you could probably cherry pick more quick wins in 2020, although it doesn't matter, achievement points are solo goals.

    You're not thinking about this correctly. If 6k ap has been removed, the total number of ap attainable for most players has been reduced by that amount. That blocks around a half dozen unique rewards, depending on the specific number of ap a player has when you take the measurement. As new ap is introduced, the total available goes up, but it remains 6k lower than it would have been otherwise, so it will continue to block roughly the same number of unique rewards until the unique rewards are removed. But even that doesn't get to the heart of the point which is that the entire situation springs from an acknowledged mistake . . .

  • Rasimir.6239Rasimir.6239 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:
    If 6k ap has been removed, the total number of ap attainable for most players has been reduced by that amount. That blocks around a half dozen unique rewards, depending on the specific number of ap a player has when you take the measurement.

    It doesn't block anything, it simply delays it .... but I'm sure others in this thread have tried to explain that before.

    A player starting this game today will have hundreds of days and thousands of hours of playtime to go before they can even gather all the achievement points available to them. Your theoretical problem fails to acknowledge this fact. By the time they have all the points they can get, to gather all the rewards they can, things will have changed drastically from the way it is now, and there really is no way predicting how (as that not only includes the continuous introduction of new achievement points and achievement rewards, but also things like the game drastically changing in a way that majorly effects the introduction and gaining of ap).

    Current high-ap rewards are aimed at players that have invested years into playing this game. If you start today, work with what you have (which, as others mentioned, is varied enough to actually make it easier today). You will get to those rewards one day, provided you play this game long enough (and the game stays alive long enough). The system is set up so retired ap (or even just ap given for tasks you don't want to and can't complete) will not block you from gaining the rewards. It will simply delay you, and the amount of delay is in your hands by choosing what content to play and for how long.

    The ap reward system is not built on the premise of being "won". It's a dynamic system, built to last years and years of new and updated content. It is set up to always have another unique reward available for you in the future if you keep playing. And the way you progress along the (theoretically neverending) rewards path is just as dynamic as the whole system, and set up to include the introduction of new ap sources as well as the retirment of old ones. There is no problem here, it's how the system was designed, and it works very well this way.

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    As a side note, this also means if the game goes into maintenance mode before 20 years pass, they'll stop releasing new achievement rewards, but those festivals will keep awarding points until the game dies. Meaning, if the game doesn't die outright, but rather enters a maintenance period before shutting down, players will still have a way to "catch up" on any missing rewards.

    Yep, just a question of when those unique rewards are removed from the track, now or at the end of the game's lifecycle. Whenever they are, the problem will be resolved, given the continued influx of ap. I still don't see the advantage in waiting . . .

    Oh there is one, development time, it's rather precious. Actually I see no advantage in not waiting

    Removing rewards would be negligible dev time, not introducing more would actually save dev time. I am pleased you have come around to see this benefit. Thank you . . .

    And here I thought those removed rewards would be added through some other way. Silly me.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    @Rasimir.6239 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    If 6k ap has been removed, the total number of ap attainable for most players has been reduced by that amount. That blocks around a half dozen unique rewards, depending on the specific number of ap a player has when you take the measurement.

    It doesn't block anything, it simply delays it .... but I'm sure others in this thread have tried to explain that before.

    Yes, and it's an obviously disprovable fallacy so idk why it persists. If you have X ap atm, you would have X+6k if you had all of the lost ap. As more ap is introduced into the game, X changes but the 6k does not. That 6k covers roughly a half dozen unique rewards, depending on the specific amount of ap a player might have atm. So while which specific rewards are blocked changes as X changes, the number of blocked rewards remains roughly the same bc the 6k does not change . . .

    Ofc while few players would have all of the 6k, if available, few would have zero either. So most players are perpetually barred from at least some rewards as they move their way along their track . . .

    A player starting this game today will have hundreds of days and thousands of hours of playtime to go before they can even gather all the achievement points available to them. Your theoretical problem fails to acknowledge this fact. By the time they have all the points they can get, to gather all the rewards they can, things will have changed drastically from the way it is now, and there really is no way predicting how (as that not only includes the continuous introduction of new achievement points and achievement rewards, but also things like the game drastically changing in a way that majorly effects the introduction and gaining of ap).

    The trouble with this perspective is that it assumes a player would wait until they had all other ap before they acquired any of the missing ap. There is no reason to believe this. If the missing ap had not been lost, the significant number of players would have a portion of that ap right now, and so its loss affects them right now, in the present . . .

    Current high-ap rewards are aimed at players that have invested years into playing this game. If you start today, work with what you have (which, as others mentioned, is varied enough to actually make it easier today). You will get to those rewards one day, provided you play this game long enough (and the game stays alive long enough). The system is set up so retired ap (or even just ap given for tasks you don't want to and can't complete) will not block you from gaining the rewards. It will simply delay you, and the amount of delay is in your hands by choosing what content to play and for how long.

    And no matter what you play, or for how long, you will always be up to 6k behind. And that is not an insignificant number. If we averaged the amount of ap currently available over how long the game has been around it would be roughly a year's worth of ap. So by that measure players affected by the lost ap are forever about a year behind in their rewards, which represents a substantial delay. But the truth is the introduction of new ap has not been consistent over the course of the game and at current rates that 6k likely represents a much longer time period . . .

    The ap reward system is not built on the premise of being "won". It's a dynamic system, built to last years and years of new and updated content. It is set up to always have another unique reward available for you in the future if you keep playing. And the way you progress along the (theoretically neverending) rewards path is just as dynamic as the whole system, and set up to include the introduction of new ap sources as well as the retirment of old ones. There is no problem here, it's how the system was designed, and it works very well this way.

    And it's a system that was broken when the 6k ap was lost to a design error. It won't be fixed until the unique rewards have been removed for long enough for another 6k to be introduced after the rewards are removed . . .

    The frustrating bit about all this is that everything I have said up to this point in this post is objectively, provably true. I have not yet introduced any opinion. The opinion comes in considering how important the various considerations are, how to best address the problem, whether the problem is worth addressing, whether the costs of various solutions would be worse than the costs currently being imposed on players atm, etc. But there's been very little interest in discussing any of that. The vast majority of the discussion has been focused on the aspects of the situation that are not debatable lol. It's been curious, but interesting to watch . . .

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    As a side note, this also means if the game goes into maintenance mode before 20 years pass, they'll stop releasing new achievement rewards, but those festivals will keep awarding points until the game dies. Meaning, if the game doesn't die outright, but rather enters a maintenance period before shutting down, players will still have a way to "catch up" on any missing rewards.

    Yep, just a question of when those unique rewards are removed from the track, now or at the end of the game's lifecycle. Whenever they are, the problem will be resolved, given the continued influx of ap. I still don't see the advantage in waiting . . .

    Oh there is one, development time, it's rather precious. Actually I see no advantage in not waiting

    Removing rewards would be negligible dev time, not introducing more would actually save dev time. I am pleased you have come around to see this benefit. Thank you . . .

    And here I thought those removed rewards would be added through some other way. Silly me.

    Another existing way, yes. Moving rewards from the ap track to birthday gifts or future metas is negligible effort. Substituting the rewards into birthday gifts or future metas is negative effort . . .

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @FrizzFreston.5290 said:
    A good example is festival achievements, which go over 20+ years of time for a new person to possibly catch up on someone who was there every single festival and did every (meta) achievement.

    As a side note, this also means if the game goes into maintenance mode before 20 years pass, they'll stop releasing new achievement rewards, but those festivals will keep awarding points until the game dies. Meaning, if the game doesn't die outright, but rather enters a maintenance period before shutting down, players will still have a way to "catch up" on any missing rewards.

    Yep, just a question of when those unique rewards are removed from the track, now or at the end of the game's lifecycle. Whenever they are, the problem will be resolved, given the continued influx of ap. I still don't see the advantage in waiting . . .

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @TheQuickFox.3826 said:
    We REALLY need a solution for all those players who missed Living World season 1 and its achievements.

    Also, I would still love to see ArenaNet's Long-term plans for achievement rewards. I keep wondering for instance what the path is to 60,000, if there ultimately will be more rewards for achievement ranks.

    I also wonder why the recent expansion and living world releases seem to be a bit lacking in AP rewards. Especailly when you compare it to the amount of AP in LW Season 1 and 2 as well as temporary festivals. Players who miss the festivals really will get a hard time to reach the upper levels, as well as players who missed Season 1.

    There is no problem to solve. New players have access to more achievement options than old players at the same moment in their /played life. There are 3 factors involved in achievement progression :

    1. The time cost in getting achievement. More options means more choice in terms of time cost - see above.

    2. Time /played by player. The longer you play the more achieved you get - obviously a player playing for x time should not get a boost over a player with y /played, AP's are not rewards they are recognition for achieving a goals.

    3. How efficiently does the player farm achieves. Again point 1 helps.

    New players have an advantage over older players at any given moment In their /played life in comparison because of increasing choice.

    The real issue is impatient players looking for some kind of fast track and peeking over the fence jealously at other players.

    But you've missed the main point, which is that old players had access to cheeves that new players will never be able to access, and -- this is the important bit -- that the loss of that content is an acknowledged mistake. So it's not a matter of new players trying to get the rewards faster, it's that no matter how much they do they are forever locked out of the most recent rewards due to a design error . . .

    The real issue is there some players too concerned with jealously guarding the advantage gained through that error to see the effect it has on the larger population . . .

    Your not thinking about this correctly, an achievement is simply a recognition that an objective has been achieved. A player that has 10 points because they spent an hour doing an achievement that is now depricated is no different to a player that got 10 points for an achieve that is not deprecated. Both took the same time to get. The fact the achieve is deprecated is irrelevant, because a player will do another achievement in its place. A player who spent 200 hours farming achieves in 2010 will get the same outcome as the player that spends 200 hours in 2020 - except in 2020 there is more choice, so you could probably cherry pick more quick wins in 2020, although it doesn't matter, achievement points are solo goals.

    You're not thinking about this correctly. If 6k ap has been removed, the total number of ap attainable for most players has been reduced by that amount. That blocks around a half dozen unique rewards, depending on the specific number of ap a player has when you take the measurement. As new ap is introduced, the total available goes up, but it remains 6k lower than it would have been otherwise, so it will continue to block roughly the same number of unique rewards until the unique rewards are removed. But even that doesn't get to the heart of the point which is that the entire situation springs from an acknowledged mistake . . .

    "would otherwise have been' is irrelevant thty were removed for a reason, and removing then freed up resource that meant better content (that delivered ap) was delivered.

    Let me isolate the problem in simple terms, et's say:

    Today there is 10 ap available, I get 1 ap

    Tomorrow 1 ap is removed and 3 is added. A new player joins and has more choice. Both earn an ap on that day. The new has more choice on day 1 of /played, those choices make it easier to gain faster. The older player only has more points because he has played more.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    @Gop.8713 said:
    The frustrating bit about all this is that everything I have said up to this point in this post is objectively, provably true.

    That you continue to believe that your opinion is fact or "true" is what is frustrating and leads to a never ending discussion. Case in point, everything you responded with towards Rasimir's post can be answered by the parts you quoted as you didn't disprove anything...

    Another existing way, yes.

    So you are gonna add the title Uncontrollable Achiever as a reward in a future meta event. Or a birthday gift. Good job!

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @FrizzFreston.5290 said:
    A good example is festival achievements, which go over 20+ years of time for a new person to possibly catch up on someone who was there every single festival and did every (meta) achievement.

    As a side note, this also means if the game goes into maintenance mode before 20 years pass, they'll stop releasing new achievement rewards, but those festivals will keep awarding points until the game dies. Meaning, if the game doesn't die outright, but rather enters a maintenance period before shutting down, players will still have a way to "catch up" on any missing rewards.

    Yep, just a question of when those unique rewards are removed from the track, now or at the end of the game's lifecycle. Whenever they are, the problem will be resolved, given the continued influx of ap. I still don't see the advantage in waiting . . .

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @TheQuickFox.3826 said:
    We REALLY need a solution for all those players who missed Living World season 1 and its achievements.

    Also, I would still love to see ArenaNet's Long-term plans for achievement rewards. I keep wondering for instance what the path is to 60,000, if there ultimately will be more rewards for achievement ranks.

    I also wonder why the recent expansion and living world releases seem to be a bit lacking in AP rewards. Especailly when you compare it to the amount of AP in LW Season 1 and 2 as well as temporary festivals. Players who miss the festivals really will get a hard time to reach the upper levels, as well as players who missed Season 1.

    There is no problem to solve. New players have access to more achievement options than old players at the same moment in their /played life. There are 3 factors involved in achievement progression :

    1. The time cost in getting achievement. More options means more choice in terms of time cost - see above.

    2. Time /played by player. The longer you play the more achieved you get - obviously a player playing for x time should not get a boost over a player with y /played, AP's are not rewards they are recognition for achieving a goals.

    3. How efficiently does the player farm achieves. Again point 1 helps.

    New players have an advantage over older players at any given moment In their /played life in comparison because of increasing choice.

    The real issue is impatient players looking for some kind of fast track and peeking over the fence jealously at other players.

    But you've missed the main point, which is that old players had access to cheeves that new players will never be able to access, and -- this is the important bit -- that the loss of that content is an acknowledged mistake. So it's not a matter of new players trying to get the rewards faster, it's that no matter how much they do they are forever locked out of the most recent rewards due to a design error . . .

    The real issue is there some players too concerned with jealously guarding the advantage gained through that error to see the effect it has on the larger population . . .

    Your not thinking about this correctly, an achievement is simply a recognition that an objective has been achieved. A player that has 10 points because they spent an hour doing an achievement that is now depricated is no different to a player that got 10 points for an achieve that is not deprecated. Both took the same time to get. The fact the achieve is deprecated is irrelevant, because a player will do another achievement in its place. A player who spent 200 hours farming achieves in 2010 will get the same outcome as the player that spends 200 hours in 2020 - except in 2020 there is more choice, so you could probably cherry pick more quick wins in 2020, although it doesn't matter, achievement points are solo goals.

    You're not thinking about this correctly. If 6k ap has been removed, the total number of ap attainable for most players has been reduced by that amount. That blocks around a half dozen unique rewards, depending on the specific number of ap a player has when you take the measurement. As new ap is introduced, the total available goes up, but it remains 6k lower than it would have been otherwise, so it will continue to block roughly the same number of unique rewards until the unique rewards are removed. But even that doesn't get to the heart of the point which is that the entire situation springs from an acknowledged mistake . . .

    "would otherwise have been' is irrelevant thty were removed for a reason,

    They were not. They were removed as consequence of a design mistake. This misunderstanding is the crux of your error . . .

    and removing then freed up resource that meant better content (that delivered ap) was delivered.

    Let me isolate the problem in simple terms, et's say:

    Today there is 10 ap available, I get 2 ap

    Tomorrow there 1 ap is removed and 3 by is added. A new player joins and has more choice. Both earn an ap. The new has more choice on day 1 of /played, those choices make it easier to gain faster. The older player only has more points because he has played more.

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    The frustrating bit about all this is that everything I have said up to this point in this post is objectively, provably true.

    That you continue to believe that your opinion is fact or "true" is what is frustrating and leads to a never ending discussion. Case in point, everything you responded with towards Rasimir's post can be answered by the parts you quoted as you didn't disprove anything...

    Nor did I try to. I only described the situation factually, and the inability of other posters to separate the facts they don't like from their opinions is what has been so interesting for me . . .

    Another existing way, yes.

    So you are gonna add the title Uncontrollable Achiever as a reward in a future meta event. Or a birthday gift. Good job!

    Why not? Where do you imagine ap comes from? We know that anet uses an ap budget to determine how many ap are made available through each release. Whenever they release enough ap so that they are far enough along that the title would be made available, they throw it in that release. Makes sense to me . . .

    Other players pointed out that they see ap rewards as loyalty rewards rather than rewards for doing cheeves, so bday gifts would be a better solution to them. If that makes more sense to more players, w/e. It doesn't make much difference to me, really, as it's an opinion question . . .

  • Rasimir.6239Rasimir.6239 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Sometimes I wonder if we're even speaking the same language ...

    @Gop.8713 said:

    The ap reward system was never built on the premise that all players have the same avenue to gaining ap (and the ap-related rewards) at any time they choose. The ap reward system was built in a way that offers players comparable routes to rewards, and it fulfills that goal. Routes to aquire ap change as the game changes, including some dropping off the face of earth, never to be seen again, as well as others introduced that weren't there before.

    Of the 6k ap retired over the life of the game, many were designed to only be available for a limited time, while others were replaced by new ways to gain a comparable number of ap. This is not a design error, it's working as intended. This is an ever-evolving game, not everything in it is persistant, whether by design (like the yearly festifval achievements) or because an update down the line has consequences that weren't anticipated when the content was first introduced. The ap reward system was built so that it's robust enough to deal with these cases.

    Even Season 1, which unarguable turned out less of a success than was hoped for, wasn't a design error as such. It was designed to be time-limited, non-presistent content, up to and including rewards and achievement points. It was later determined that this way of presenting content, while unarguably exciting and truly innovative, had too many drawbacks to continue that way, but all following systems, including the one for achievement rewards, have been built to include the fact that parts of season 1 were non-persistant and to make up for it in other ways.

    @Gop.8713 said:
    The frustrating bit about all this is that everything I have said up to this point in this post is objectively, provably true.

    Maybe it's not so much a different language and more a parallel universe with different rules and different logic?

    What you percieve as objective, provable truth hinges on assumptions that are not objectively true at all, but very much subjective. The system does not strive to give everyone the exact same way to get to the exact same end goal. It is a living, changing system that gives people comparable (but different) ways to progress along at different times, and that does not have any one specific point that is meant to be reached by everyone eventually. No matter what snapshot you take, it doesn't work as basis for arguments of equality since the system is not built to support such a snapshot to begin with, and this is by design. It may not be the kind of design you prefer, but it designed that way, and a very robust design that doesn't get broken by unexpected changes in content delivered, including content that does make previously delivered content obsolete.

    Any static system would either break with more progressive updates or put very strict constraints on future content development to preserve previously built content. Sometimes change is inevitable, and the current ap reward system works very well with change. It may not be to your liking that things change (including avenues towards goals we've set for ourselves), and not all changes are to my liking, either, but change is not only a result of design errors, but more often a healthy thing to improve what's there. As long as the ap reward system is open-ended and reacts to changes in a way that opens new avenues to ap gain where old one closes there is no practical problem in this system. Your theoretical constructs fail to acknowledge that the system is non-static and open-ended, and that's why they fall apart at the foundation (at least according to how logic works in my parallel universe ;) ).

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Rasimir.6239 said:
    Sometimes I wonder if we're even speaking the same language ...

    @Gop.8713 said:

    The ap reward system was never built on the premise that all players have the same avenue to gaining ap (and the ap-related rewards) at any time they choose. The ap reward system was built in a way that offers players comparable routes to rewards, and it fulfills that goal. Routes to aquire ap change as the game changes, including some dropping off the face of earth, never to be seen again, as well as others introduced that weren't there before.

    Of the 6k ap retired over the life of the game, many were designed to only be available for a limited time, while others were replaced by new ways to gain a comparable number of ap.

    Important to note here that I do not care about the number at all. I get so tired of arguing that water is wet that when I find something the other posters will accept I go with it. Other posters told me 6k was the number. Idc what the number is. The facts hold true regardless of the actual number of ap lost due to the design error. If you would like to substitute Y for 6k, as I did before a number was provided to me, that changes nothing . . .

    This is not a design error, it's working as intended.

    You are mistaken. LS1's temporary status is an acknowledged design error . . .

    This is an ever-evolving game, not everything in it is persistant, whether by design (like the yearly festifval achievements) or because an update down the line has consequences that weren't anticipated when the content was first introduced. The ap reward system was built so that it's robust enough to deal with these cases.

    And an acknowledged design error has exacerbated the limitations of the system. We can address it, or whistle past the graveyard . . .

    Even Season 1, which unarguable turned out less of a success than was hoped for, wasn't a design error as such.

    Anet disagrees with you . . .

    It was designed to be time-limited, non-presistent content, up to and including rewards and achievement points. It was later determined that this way of presenting content, while unarguably exciting and truly innovative, had too many drawbacks to continue that way, but all following systems, including the one for achievement rewards, have been built to include the fact that parts of season 1 were non-persistant and to make up for it in other ways.

    In other words, it was a design error . . .

    @Gop.8713 said:
    The frustrating bit about all this is that everything I have said up to this point in this post is objectively, provably true.

    Maybe it's not so much a different language and more a parallel universe with different rules and different logic?

    We can go one by one if you like and you can identify the non-facts, as you please. The first fact I presented was this: If X and Y are both positive integers, the sum of X plus Y will be greater than either X or Y alone and as X increases, the sum of X plus Y will also increase . . .
    Is this a fact or an opinion, to your mind . . ?

    What you percieve as objective, provable truth hinges on assumptions that are not objectively true at all, but very much subjective.

    Identify them . . .

    The system does not strive to give everyone the exact same way to get to the exact same end goal.

    And nothing that I stated in that post to that point had implied otherwise. I've reread it and I cannot find any normative language at all up to that point. Correct or apologize pls . . .

    It is a living, changing system that gives people comparable (but different) ways to progress along at different times, and that does not have any one specific point that is meant to be reached by everyone eventually. No matter what snapshot you take, it doesn't work as basis for arguments of equality since the system is not built to support such a snapshot to begin with, and this is by design. It may not be the kind of design you prefer, but it designed that way, and a very robust design that doesn't get broken by unexpected changes in content delivered, including content that does make previously delivered content obsolete.

    I'll remind you here that I have no preference. The consequence of the error that can still be remedied relates entirely to the cosmetic rewards which are of little interest to me. But as the consequence created an inequity and a remedy is available, I see no reason not to pursue it . . .

    Any static system would either break with more progressive updates or put very strict constraints on future content development to preserve previously built content.

    My solution would actually be a lot more flexible than the current system. They could continue to introduce ap rewards as desired, require players to acquire the 'expansion era' ap prior to participating in the new system, and introduce the rewards at the same pace as previously designed, if desired . . .

    Sometimes change is inevitable, and the current ap reward system works very well with change.

    That's highly debatable, but my proposed change would certainly increase its responsiveness to change, which you identify as desirable. So another vote in favor of the solution here

    It may not be to your liking that things change (including avenues towards goals we've set for ourselves), and not all changes are to my liking, either, but change is not only a result of design errors, but more often a healthy thing to improve what's there. As long as the ap reward system is open-ended and reacts to changes in a way that opens new avenues to ap gain where old one closes there is no practical problem in this system. Your theoretical constructs fail to acknowledge that the system is non-static and open-ended, and that's why they fall apart at the foundation (at least according to how logic works in my parallel universe ;) ).

    Your universe has suddenly become very interesting to me. Can you identify the new avenues of ap gain that cover the gap, meaning avenues that are not available to players who accessed the content lost to design error . . ?

  • I wonder...if this 'solution' to the 'problem' is in everyone's best interest, why are so few players (if there are more than one) advocating it?

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    @Gop.8713 said:

    This is not a design error, it's working as intended.

    You are mistaken. LS1's temporary status is an acknowledged design error . . .

    Again, the lost access to LS1's story is indeed acknowledged as a mistake by devs. That's not what we're talking about however. We're talking about lost access to season 1 achievements. And the devs don;t seem to consider that a mistake, and definitely never made any statement to that end.

    In fact, the same design with access to some achievements getting removed is something that was repeated many times over long after that Anet statement you keep bringing up (with the latest case happening this year), which suggests very strongly that devs think it's perfectly okay.

    Basically, one of the main arguments you keep bringing up to support your idea is completely false.

    It is not the first or second time i am bringing it to your attention in this very thread, by the way.

    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.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    This is not a design error, it's working as intended.

    You are mistaken. LS1's temporary status is an acknowledged design error . . .

    Again, the lost access to LS1's story is indeed acknowledged as a mistake by devs. That's not what we're talking about however. We're talking about lost access to season 1 achievements. And the devs don;t seem to consider that a mistake, and definitely never made any statement to that end.

    In fact, the same design with access to some achievements getting removed is something that was repeated many times over long after that Anet statement you keep bringing up (with the latest case happening this year), which suggests very strongly that devs think it's perfectly okay.

    Basically, one of the main arguments you keep bringing up to support your idea is completely false.

    It is not the first or second time i am bringing it to your attention in this very thread, by the way.

    Nor is this the first or second time that I am refuting it. If you would like to point out a statement from anet about how excited they are that those ap are lost, or how much they regret the continued availability of subsequent story ap and how hard they are working to correct that error, I will concede your point. Otherwise, you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts . . .

    I am extremely pleased that this is the weakest point in my position that you can find to attack. Thank you . . .

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    I wonder...if this 'solution' to the 'problem' is in everyone's best interest, why are so few players (if there are more than one) advocating it?

    My guess would be that it's just not very important . . .

    Just curious, but have you also stopped to wonder why such a small but extremely passionate few posters are so eager to deny the problem's existence, rather than ignore it as irrelevant or seek a solution . . ?

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    It boils down to this: some of the old achieves are now gone be it by design or error. There is an opportunity cost in setting up those old ap, and the benefit ito the whole community is evidently less than other options. I. E other content that ALSO gives ap. This is only an issue if you are focused on what other people have, and not on what you can get.

    A player with 10000 /played will have more ap than a player with 500 /played. If however you compare the ap opportunities available for the first say 500 hours of /played by both players, 1 starting in 2010 and 1 in 2020 you will see that the new player has the richer ap opportunities. Compare ap' points available over a lapsed time period and not a snapshot in time of you want to objectively compare old v new player.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    It boils down to this: some of the old achieves are now gone be it by design or error. There is an opportunity cost in setting up those old ap, and the benefit ito the whole community is evidently less than other options. I. E other content that ALSO gives ap. This is only an issue if you are focused on what other people have, and not on what you can get.

    Important to note that this is only true once the unique rewards stop. Until then, an astute player will be able to discern that the most recent half dozen or so rewards will be forever out of their reach . . .

    A player with 10000 /played will have more ap than a player with 500 /played. If however you compare the ap opportunities available for the first say 500 hours of /played by both players. 1 starting in 2010 and 1 in 2020, you will see that the new player had the richer wp opportunities. Compare timelines not a moment in time.

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    It boils down to this: some of the old achieves are now gone be it by design or error. There is an opportunity cost in setting up those old ap, and the benefit ito the whole community is evidently less than other options. I. E other content that ALSO gives ap. This is only an issue if you are focused on what other people have, and not on what you can get.

    Important to note that this is only true once the unique rewards stop. Until then, an astute player will be able to discern that the most recent half dozen or so rewards will be forever out of their reach . . .

    A player with 10000 /played will have more ap than a player with 500 /played. If however you compare the ap opportunities available for the first say 500 hours of /played by both players. 1 starting in 2010 and 1 in 2020, you will see that the new player had the richer wp opportunities. Compare timelines not a moment in time.

    Yes old achieves that offer old rewards are gone- this will probably happen in the future too. It still boils down to opportunity cost, add the old content at cost x for value Y, or produce new content.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    It boils down to this: some of the old achieves are now gone be it by design or error. There is an opportunity cost in setting up those old ap, and the benefit ito the whole community is evidently less than other options. I. E other content that ALSO gives ap. This is only an issue if you are focused on what other people have, and not on what you can get.

    Important to note that this is only true once the unique rewards stop. Until then, an astute player will be able to discern that the most recent half dozen or so rewards will be forever out of their reach . . .

    A player with 10000 /played will have more ap than a player with 500 /played. If however you compare the ap opportunities available for the first say 500 hours of /played by both players. 1 starting in 2010 and 1 in 2020, you will see that the new player had the richer wp opportunities. Compare timelines not a moment in time.

    Yes old achieves that offer old rewards a e gone. It still boils down to opportunity cost, add the old content at cost x for value Y, or produce new content.

    Sure, that's why I proposed a solution with such a low dev cost. Pleased to see you come around :)

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    I'm gonna have to read your post again now :)

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    I'm gonna have to read your post again now :)

    Basically I just said they should pull unique rewards from the track and have it repeat moving forward. This would eliminate the problem of unique rewards blocked by lost ap but still preserve total ap as 'bragging rights' for ppl to whom that is important. The rewards could then be reintroduced, if desired, by subsequent meta cheeves or bday's or w/e as devs see fit, provided all currently unlocked rewards have been obtained through the existing ap track . . .

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Nor is this the first or second time that I am refuting it. If you would like to point out a statement from anet about how excited they are that those ap are lost, or how much they regret the continued availability of subsequent story ap and how hard they are working to correct that error, I will concede your point. Otherwise, you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts . . .

    Point out a statement from Anet where they, to use your words, acknowledged the loss of achievement points as a design problem, or how hard they are working to "correct" that error and I will concede your point. Otherwise you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts.

    Edit: for someone who likes facts so much you provide zero to prove your point.

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    Ye OK I get that, if the effort to get the reward is comparable to the original in terms of /played and difficulty and we are talking about plugging in a variable value (I. E reward identifier into an existing process that offers a placeholder for rewards) then that doesnt sound expensive from a development point of view and must weigh up favourably against other content I suspect if there was demand for this.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Nor is this the first or second time that I am refuting it. If you would like to point out a statement from anet about how excited they are that those ap are lost, or how much they regret the continued availability of subsequent story ap and how hard they are working to correct that error, I will concede your point. Otherwise, you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts . . .

    Point out a statement from Anet where they, to use your words, acknowledged the loss of achievement points as a design problem, or how hard they are working to "correct" that error and I will concede your point. Otherwise you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts.

    Edit: for someone who likes facts so much you provide zero to prove your point.

    Don't need to, I have other evidence to support my perspective, namely the fact that anet has acknowledged LS1's temporary status as a design error and left all subsequent story ap in place moving forward. There is every reason to believe LS1 would be consistent if possible . . .

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    Ye OK I get that, if the effort to get the reward is comparable to the original in terms of /played and difficulty and we are talking about plugging in a variable value (I. E reward identifier into an existing process that offers a placeholder for rewards) then that doesnt sound expensive from a development point of view and must weigh up favourably against other content I suspect if there was demand for this.

    Yes exactly. Not very impt, but worth considering given the lost ap, particularly since we just hit a threshold with the second back and ap will likely be introduced more evenly moving forward rather than in bursts as it was during the expansion era. Thank you for taking the time to read and understand before replying. In six pages, I think you may be the first. I feel like you deserve a prize :)

    I don't have one, I was just saying :p

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Don't need to, I have other evidence to support my perspective, namely the fact that anet has acknowledged LS1's temporary status as a design error and left all subsequent story ap in place moving forward. There is every reason to believe LS1 would be consistent if possible . . .

    I want to see that quote where they acknowledged the temporary achievement points as a design error. They left all subsequent story AP in place because it wasn't temporary content, nothing about the missing AP though.

    In fact in this month alone they made another achievement impossible to acquire by replacing it with another one. And it's not the only case, Exalted Legend, Primordial Legend and Illustrious Legend were both retired as well, Garnet Sanctum, Troll's End and the miniature achievements were also retired. A lot of these are fairly recent, which means the "design error" was the temporary story and nothing to do with the achievements. There is more than enough evidence to support the opposite perspective to yours so you need to try a bit harder and provide some actual facts to support yours.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Don't need to, I have other evidence to support my perspective, namely the fact that anet has acknowledged LS1's temporary status as a design error and left all subsequent story ap in place moving forward. There is every reason to believe LS1 would be consistent if possible . . .

    I want to see that quote where they acknowledged the temporary achievement points as a design error. They left all subsequent story AP in place because it wasn't temporary content, nothing about the missing AP though.

    In fact in this month alone they made another achievement impossible to acquire by replacing it with another one. And it's not the only case, Exalted Legend, Primordial Legend and Illustrious Legend were both retired as well, Garnet Sanctum, Troll's End and the miniature achievements were also retired. A lot of these are fairly recent, which means the "design error" was the temporary story and nothing to do with the achievements. There is more than enough evidence to support the opposite perspective to yours so you need to try a bit harder and provide some actual facts to support yours.

    I think you may be trying too hard. Let's go step by step. Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

  • Etria.3642Etria.3642 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 27, 2020

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Don't need to, I have other evidence to support my perspective, namely the fact that anet has acknowledged LS1's temporary status as a design error and left all subsequent story ap in place moving forward. There is every reason to believe LS1 would be consistent if possible . . .

    I want to see that quote where they acknowledged the temporary achievement points as a design error. They left all subsequent story AP in place because it wasn't temporary content, nothing about the missing AP though.

    In fact in this month alone they made another achievement impossible to acquire by replacing it with another one. And it's not the only case, Exalted Legend, Primordial Legend and Illustrious Legend were both retired as well, Garnet Sanctum, Troll's End and the miniature achievements were also retired. A lot of these are fairly recent, which means the "design error" was the temporary story and nothing to do with the achievements. There is more than enough evidence to support the opposite perspective to yours so you need to try a bit harder and provide some actual facts to support yours.

    I think you may be trying too hard. Let's go step by step. Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

    Hey how about this. When the achievement track reaches 60,000(the highest datamined amount) just have it cycle back through again, thus allowing those who missed achievements to get the skins. No need to remove anything, fix anything.

    Edit: I don't know why I keep replying, however. Bored in line at Mcdonalds, and tired of reading other threads on Swtor.com, I guess.

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

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Nor is this the first or second time that I am refuting it. If you would like to point out a statement from anet about how excited they are that those ap are lost, or how much they regret the continued availability of subsequent story ap and how hard they are working to correct that error, I will concede your point. Otherwise, you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts . . .

    The facts being that they kept removing achievements long after they said they'd hope to bring LS1 back? The fact that, when they were redoing the holiday achievements, so that each new year would not bring another copy of the same base achievement set, with the previous year set not being available, they didn't retroactively apply it to all the past achieves (even though they could)? The fact that when they brought Queen's Gauntlet back, instead of bringing the achieves back as well they made a completely new copy instead? Or the fact, that, contrary to what you claim, devs never said they regretted the fact that the achievements are no longer available?
    Those facts?

    Just curious, but have you also stopped to wonder why such a small but extremely passionate few posters are so eager to deny the problem's existence, rather than ignore it as irrelevant or seek a solution . . ?

    Who knows, maybe because, like they've already mentioned many times over, they think your "fix" to that irrelevant problem is going to cause not so irrelevant damage to the game?

    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.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Don't need to, I have other evidence to support my perspective, namely the fact that anet has acknowledged LS1's temporary status as a design error and left all subsequent story ap in place moving forward. There is every reason to believe LS1 would be consistent if possible . . .

    I want to see that quote where they acknowledged the temporary achievement points as a design error. They left all subsequent story AP in place because it wasn't temporary content, nothing about the missing AP though.

    In fact in this month alone they made another achievement impossible to acquire by replacing it with another one. And it's not the only case, Exalted Legend, Primordial Legend and Illustrious Legend were both retired as well, Garnet Sanctum, Troll's End and the miniature achievements were also retired. A lot of these are fairly recent, which means the "design error" was the temporary story and nothing to do with the achievements. There is more than enough evidence to support the opposite perspective to yours so you need to try a bit harder and provide some actual facts to support yours.

    I think you may be trying too hard. Let's go step by step. Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

    Yes. Let's go step by step. Provide a link in your post first and you'll see what exactly they acknowledged there.
    Besides that, you are talking about LS1, LS1 provided 1.6k of the missing AP, the rest are from Festivals and many other sources. Are we only gonna talk about the Story AP of Season 1, or you have some developer quote stating anything about the festival, or any other, missing AP?

    As for "my" side:
    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/2020-02-11

    The Truly Nimble Onslaught achievement has been added to the pool of Drakkar achievements.
    This achievement allows for a higher hit-count threshold.
    This achievement rewards a new title.
    The Nimble Onslaught achievement is no longer attainable, and it will be hidden if your progress was incomplete.

    They removed an achievement just 16 days ago, are you saying they started caring about achievement points being missing in the last 16 days or so? This is a fact, that proves my point, now provide some links to prove yours.

    You didn't answer the question. Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

    To answer your question, yes I am only speaking of content lost to error. Intentionally lost content would be intentionally lost. As mentioned many times, your reluctance to engage with facts has led me to use the numbers that you provide. If you are now arguing you provided those numbers in error and would like to adjust them, that's fine. The existence of the number is sufficient, it's value is not impt to my point . . .

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Nor is this the first or second time that I am refuting it. If you would like to point out a statement from anet about how excited they are that those ap are lost, or how much they regret the continued availability of subsequent story ap and how hard they are working to correct that error, I will concede your point. Otherwise, you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts . . .

    The facts being that they kept removing achievements long after they said they'd hope to bring LS1 back? The fact that, when they were redoing the holiday achievements, so that each new year would not bring another copy of the same base achievement set, with the previous year set not being available, they didn't retroactively apply it to all the past achieves (even though they could)? The fact that when they brought Queen's Gauntlet back, instead of bringing the achieves back as well they made a completely new copy instead? Or the fact, that, contrary to what you claim, devs never said they regretted the fact that the achievements are no longer available?
    Those facts?

    So, to be clear, you have nothing to refute the presumption that if LS1 was still available, it would be treated the same as all of the other LS releases. But rather than address that, you prefer to compare it to festivals. Seems desperate . . .

    Just curious, but have you also stopped to wonder why such a small but extremely passionate few posters are so eager to deny the problem's existence, rather than ignore it as irrelevant or seek a solution . . ?

    Who knows, maybe because, like they've already mentioned many times over, they think your "fix" to that irrelevant problem is going to cause not so irrelevant damage to the game?

    The only cost would be to players who feel the advantage gained by the design error should continue. I was surprised to find that there were any, but if you feel the damage to them is relevant, you must necessarily feel the existing damage to players is relevant. It's the same damage, just to different players. You may recall when I pointed this out to you three weeks ago, but instead of just acknowledging that you care about some players and not others, which is completely within your rights, you've twisted yourself into knots trying to deny the existence of the players you don't care about and the damage the existing situation has caused them . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:
    You didn't answer the question.

    You didn't either.

    As mentioned many times, your reluctance to engage with facts has led me to use the numbers that you provide.

    You are the one that doesn't want to engage with facts... where is the link with the developer quote?

  • Rasimir.6239Rasimir.6239 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:
    design error

    Do you have a link where ANet explicitely called season 1 a design error? I remember them saying that in hindsight it turned out to be a mistake, but that's very different from a design error. The design in itself was in fact pretty solid for what it set out to do. The mistake was not in the design but in the fact that an MMO turned out to not be a good medium for releasing continuous time-limited story content. Even that had nothing to do with achievements, but instead with people being unable to catch-up on the story they had missed.

    @Gop.8713 said:
    So, to be clear, you have nothing to refute the presumption that if LS1 was still available, it would be treated the same as all of the other LS releases. But rather than address that, you prefer to compare it to festivals. Seems desperate . . .

    The majority of unavailable ap come from old festivals and wvw seasons. Season 1 story ap is almost tiny in comparison. Basing your arguments solely on Season 1 and ignoring the larger part of unavailable ap does seem a bit desperate to me.

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 28, 2020

    The term design error is really irrelevant, a design error is simply a mistake/deliberate feature with an unforseen effect that may or may not be bad. No design is perfect, so in reality all good designs are living - they evolve over time.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    You didn't answer the question.

    You didn't either.

    As mentioned many times, your reluctance to engage with facts has led me to use the numbers that you provide.

    You are the one that doesn't want to engage with facts... where is the link with the developer quote?

    I don't feel that providing you with facts is constructive, as you do not find them persuasive. It would be a waste of my time to provide you with something you will deny if you don't provide it yourself, as you did with the original ap number . . .

    Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

    @Rasimir.6239 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    design error

    Do you have a link where ANet explicitely called season 1 a design error? I remember them saying that in hindsight it turned out to be a mistake, but that's very different from a design error. The design in itself was in fact pretty solid for what it set out to do. The mistake was not in the design but in the fact that an MMO turned out to not be a good medium for releasing continuous time-limited story content. Even that had nothing to do with achievements, but instead with people being unable to catch-up on the story they had missed.

    @Gop.8713 said:
    So, to be clear, you have nothing to refute the presumption that if LS1 was still available, it would be treated the same as all of the other LS releases. But rather than address that, you prefer to compare it to festivals. Seems desperate . . .

    The majority of unavailable ap come from old festivals and wvw seasons. Season 1 story ap is almost tiny in comparison. Basing your arguments solely on Season 1 and ignoring the larger part of unavailable ap does seem a bit desperate to me.

    The first fact I presented was this: If X and Y are both positive integers, the sum of X plus Y will be greater than either X or Y alone and as X increases, the sum of X plus Y will also increase . . .
    Is this a fact or an opinion, to your mind . . ?

    That's the one I have you working on rn as I recall. How is it coming . . ?

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    The term design error is really irrelevant, a design error is simply a mistake/deliberate feature with an unforseen effect that may or may not be bad. No design is perfect, so in reality all good designs are living - they evolve over time.

    The semantics are just a distraction. We were calling it something else for a while, idr what, and someone complained about it so we started calling it this, now someone wants to complain about that. Anything to avoid the actual subject, where they know they have a losing position . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:
    I don't feel that providing you with facts is constructive, as you do not find them persuasive. It would be a waste of my time to provide you with something you will deny if you don't provide it yourself, as you did with the original ap number . . .

    So you base your entire argument on "facts" that you do not possess. Tells a lot about your argument.

    Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

    What did they acknowledge? Post a link.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    I don't feel that providing you with facts is constructive, as you do not find them persuasive. It would be a waste of my time to provide you with something you will deny if you don't provide it yourself, as you did with the original ap number . . .

    So you base your entire argument on "facts" that you do not possess. Tells a lot about your argument.

    Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

    What did they acknowledge? Post a link.

    I'm not asking you about them. I'm asking you about you. Do you recognize that reality or not? Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    I don't feel that providing you with facts is constructive, as you do not find them persuasive. It would be a waste of my time to provide you with something you will deny if you don't provide it yourself, as you did with the original ap number . . .

    So you base your entire argument on "facts" that you do not possess. Tells a lot about your argument.

    Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

    What did they acknowledge? Post a link.

    I'm not asking you about them. I'm asking you about you. Do you recognize that reality or not? Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

    I'm still waiting for you to post a link with a developer quote that confirms what you are saying, I have a feeling your entire argument revolves around something that you probably never even read. Or didn't understand.