Including Strike Mission Achievements as a Required Part of the Zone Meta - Page 6 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Fractals/Dungeons/Strike Missions/Raids

Including Strike Mission Achievements as a Required Part of the Zone Meta

13468911

Comments

  • Zaklex.6308Zaklex.6308 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:
    But you still have to do the Strike, public or not, that's also the point...I don't like them, I got that from doing the easiest Strike out there, the Grothmar one, therefore I'm not even going to bother with the Map Meta, just like I've ignored many others, it's not important, but putting any of it behind something that most people will already have made a decision on from trying the very first one is not a good or smart choice.

    How do you know "most people" already made a decision not to run Strikes? At least the easier ones

    Do I really have to clarify that statement, I thought it was pretty clear, but let me go ahead and clarify anyways...most people that have done a Strike mission will have made a decision after doing one Strike mission whether or not to keep doing them or forget them after one attempt...that's human nature, one try and you either like it or don't, and you make your decision based on that one body of work. Is that better?

    Yes...no...maybe...what do you want, can't you see I'm busy saving the world...AGAIN!

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

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:
    But you still have to do the Strike, public or not, that's also the point...I don't like them, I got that from doing the easiest Strike out there, the Grothmar one, therefore I'm not even going to bother with the Map Meta, just like I've ignored many others, it's not important, but putting any of it behind something that most people will already have made a decision on from trying the very first one is not a good or smart choice.

    How do you know "most people" already made a decision not to run Strikes? At least the easier ones

    Do I really have to clarify that statement, I thought it was pretty clear, but let me go ahead and clarify anyways...most people that have done a Strike mission will have made a decision after doing one Strike mission whether or not to keep doing them or forget them after one attempt...that's human nature, one try and you either like it or don't, and you make your decision based on that one body of work. Is that better?

    Yes everyone should've made a decision if they like them or not after running the first one. The question is how do you know most people made a decision not to run Strikes after that first try. You said it wasn't a smart choice to put the meta behind something that most people already made a decision for, but how do you know they decided it wasn't something they like? Because if most people liked it, wouldn't it be a smart choice to include it in the meta?

    Not saying that everyone liked the Strike Missions, but is there any kind of evidence to support that most people didn't?

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 18, 2020

    Zone meta achievements can totally include strike missions in my opinion. Seems no different than having other achievements in there, like JPs. Or other meta achievements like the festival ones.

    Its depending on the amount needed ofcourse. If some harder ones are required it becomes silly.

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 18, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:
    But you still have to do the Strike, public or not, that's also the point...I don't like them, I got that from doing the easiest Strike out there, the Grothmar one, therefore I'm not even going to bother with the Map Meta, just like I've ignored many others, it's not important, but putting any of it behind something that most people will already have made a decision on from trying the very first one is not a good or smart choice.

    How do you know "most people" already made a decision not to run Strikes? At least the easier ones

    Do I really have to clarify that statement, I thought it was pretty clear, but let me go ahead and clarify anyways...most people that have done a Strike mission will have made a decision after doing one Strike mission whether or not to keep doing them or forget them after one attempt...that's human nature, one try and you either like it or don't, and you make your decision based on that one body of work. Is that better?

    Yes everyone should've made a decision if they like them or not after running the first one. The question is how do you know most people made a decision not to run Strikes after that first try. You said it wasn't a smart choice to put the meta behind something that most people already made a decision for, but how do you know they decided it wasn't something they like? Because if most people liked it, wouldn't it be a smart choice to include it in the meta?

    Not saying that everyone liked the Strike Missions, but is there any kind of evidence to support that most people didn't?

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:
    But you still have to do the Strike, public or not, that's also the point...I don't like them, I got that from doing the easiest Strike out there, the Grothmar one, therefore I'm not even going to bother with the Map Meta, just like I've ignored many others, it's not important, but putting any of it behind something that most people will already have made a decision on from trying the very first one is not a good or smart choice.

    How do you know "most people" already made a decision not to run Strikes? At least the easier ones

    Do I really have to clarify that statement, I thought it was pretty clear, but let me go ahead and clarify anyways...most people that have done a Strike mission will have made a decision after doing one Strike mission whether or not to keep doing them or forget them after one attempt...that's human nature, one try and you either like it or don't, and you make your decision based on that one body of work. Is that better?

    Yes everyone should've made a decision if they like them or not after running the first one. The question is how do you know most people made a decision not to run Strikes after that first try. You said it wasn't a smart choice to put the meta behind something that most people already made a decision for, but how do you know they decided it wasn't something they like? Because if most people liked it, wouldn't it be a smart choice to include it in the meta?

    Not saying that everyone liked the Strike Missions, but is there any kind of evidence to support that most people didn't?

    Zaklex did not write that most people didn't like it. Just that (probably) most people already made their decision. So it is only your own statement …

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    Not saying that everyone liked the Strike Missions, but is there any kind of evidence to support that most people didn't?

    … that leads you to that conclusion.

    And to give you my answer: IF most players would have made up their mind after the first strike mission and IF most of them (lets say 51%) decided, they like strike missions and will do them again and the other players (49%) decided they do not like strike missions and they will not do them again, it would mean, that the 49% would be excluded from the story-meta-achievement, so it would still be not a good or smart choice on Anets part for the achievements.

    Of course I do not have the numbers, but I do not believe that most players like the strike missions. Do you?

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

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

    @Zok.4956 said:
    Zaklex did not write that most people didn't like it. Just that (probably) most people already made their decision. So it is only your own statement …

    Of course, but they also said it was not a good or smart choice. Implying that people didn't like it, otherwise why wouldn't it be a good or smart/good choice?

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    Zaklex did not write that most people didn't like it. Just that (probably) most people already made their decision. So it is only your own statement …

    Of course, but they also said it was not a good or smart choice. Implying that people didn't like it, otherwise why wouldn't it be a good or smart/good choice?

    Have you actually read the part with the answer that I wrote in the lines after that sentence?

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

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

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    Zaklex did not write that most people didn't like it. Just that (probably) most people already made their decision. So it is only your own statement …

    Of course, but they also said it was not a good or smart choice. Implying that people didn't like it, otherwise why wouldn't it be a good or smart/good choice?

    Have you actually read the part with the answer that I wrote in the lines after that sentence?

    You said it was my "own statement", when I reacted to what was written. If what was said was that most people already know if they like it or not after running the first Strike, which assumes most people run it, I'd leave it at that. But it wasn't, there was the addition of making it a smart/good choice after it with rather clear implications.
    As for your next part, you answered it yourself, we don't have the data, Arenanet does. Or doesn't.

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 18, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    Zaklex did not write that most people didn't like it. Just that (probably) most people already made their decision. So it is only your own statement …

    Of course, but they also said it was not a good or smart choice. Implying that people didn't like it, otherwise why wouldn't it be a good or smart/good choice?

    Have you actually read the part with the answer that I wrote in the lines after that sentence?

    You said it was my "own statement", when I reacted to what was written. If what was said was that most people already know if they like it or not after running the first Strike, which assumes most people run it, I'd leave it at that. But it wasn't, there was the addition of making it a smart/good choice after it with rather clear implications.

    you wrote:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    Yes everyone should've made a decision if they like them or not after running the first one. The question is how do you know most people made a decision not to run Strikes after that first try. You said it wasn't a smart choice to put the meta behind something that most people already made a decision for, but how do you know they decided it wasn't something they like? Because if most people liked it, wouldn't it be a smart choice to include it in the meta?

    I gave you an answer:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    And to give you my answer: IF most players would have made up their mind after the first strike mission and IF most of them (lets say 51%) decided, they like strike missions and will do them again and the other players (49%) decided they do not like strike missions and they will not do them again, it would mean, that the 49% would be excluded from the story-meta-achievement, so it would still be not a good or smart choice on Anets part for the achievements.

    Do you believe that most players like the strike missions?

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

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

    @Zok.4956 said:
    Do you believe that most players like the strike missions?

    Already answered that. And what I believe or not is irrelevant since we don't have any kind of data. But if you want my personal opinion, yes most players can enjoy and run Strike Missions, especially the Shiverpeaks Pass and the Fraenir of Jormag. They have really nothing more going on them than the average world boss or story instance boss. Unless players don't like the story, or the more challenging open world encounters, then what are they doing in the game? They currently lack any good rewards to keep players interested in them and there is still the stigma of instanced content in this game that scares some players away, but other than that, I see little reason for players to actively dislike the Strike Missions. They just need a certain push and not be forgotten/neglected.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:
    Do you believe that most players like the strike missions?

    Already answered that. And what I believe or not is irrelevant since we don't have any kind of data. But if you want my personal opinion, yes most players can enjoy and run Strike Missions, especially the Shiverpeaks Pass and the Fraenir of Jormag. They have really nothing more going on them than the average world boss or story instance boss. Unless players don't like the story, or the more challenging open world encounters, then what are they doing in the game? They currently lack any good rewards to keep players interested in them and there is still the stigma of instanced content in this game that scares some players away, but other than that, I see little reason for players to actively dislike the Strike Missions. They just need a certain push and not be forgotten/neglected.

    I believe most people probably don't enjoy strike missions. I can't prove it, but Anet will have the data and react accordingly. Just like I believe most people didn't run dungeons regularly and most people don't run high level fractals. Most people certainly don't raid.

    The thing is, it's easy to think when you like something that a lot of people feel the same way. I feel that way too. But I've seen over the years that the harder instanced part of the games tend to get less love than easier stuff. It leads me to believe it's not as popular.

    I mean what are the odds that if 70% of the population was running dungeons Anet would have moved away from them?

  • Some content's 'replayability' may be based more on rewards than whether players 'like' it, or not.
    Or, to put it another way, a content's 'likability' may be more based on rewards than just 'fun'.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 18, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    I believe most people probably don't enjoy strike missions. I can't prove it, but Anet will have the data and react accordingly. Just like I believe most people didn't run dungeons regularly and most people don't run high level fractals. Most people certainly don't raid.

    The easier Strike Missions are much easier than dungeons, much easier than high level fractals (or even low level ones) and obviously much easier than Raids. They are also public content that require no group forming or roles. Touch the portal, get teleported inside, paired with 9 other randoms that did the same, kill the boss, profit.

    The thing is, it's easy to think when you like something that a lot of people feel the same way. I feel that way too. But I've seen over the years that the harder instanced part of the games tend to get less love than easier stuff. It leads me to believe it's not as popular.

    Have you finished the zone meta of Daybreak? Or the zone meta of The Head of the Snake? Those two required killing Scruffy 2.0 and Caudecus respectively as part of the story, required for completion of the zone meta. Remember Seeds of Truth and the Dodgy Crowd achievement? That was pure joy, or not. The game regularly had "harder" instance requirements to get zone meta completion.

    You know what was almost always the first suggestion? "Get others to help you!". You know what? They removed that requirement by putting the harder instanced content requirements for the meta inside Strike Missions, where you don't have to group up with others. The story of the Icebrood Saga (mechanic wise) has been a total joke so far, so they took away the harder requirements inside the story (even the story itself!) and put them in Strike Missions where you will get others to help you without trying.

    I mean what are the odds that if 70% of the population was running dungeons Anet would have moved away from them?

    Dungeons, even Ascalonian Catacombs story mode, are significantly harder than Shiverpeak Pass. And more importantly, they require forming a group. Strike Missions do not, they are public "anyone welcome" content.

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    I believe most people probably don't enjoy strike missions. I can't prove it, but Anet will have the data and react accordingly. Just like I believe most people didn't run dungeons regularly and most people don't run high level fractals. Most people certainly don't raid.

    The easier Strike Missions are much easier than dungeons, much easier than high level fractals (or even low level ones) and obviously much easier than Raids. They are also public content that require no group forming or roles. Touch the portal, get teleported inside, paired with 9 other randoms that did the same, kill the boss, profit.

    The thing is, it's easy to think when you like something that a lot of people feel the same way. I feel that way too. But I've seen over the years that the harder instanced part of the games tend to get less love than easier stuff. It leads me to believe it's not as popular.

    Have you finished the zone meta of Daybreak? Or the zone meta of The Head of the Snake? Those two required killing Scruffy 2.0 and Caudecus respectively as part of the story, required for completion of the zone meta. Remember Seeds of Truth and the Dodgy Crowd achievement? That was pure joy, or not. The game regularly had "harder" instance requirements to get zone meta completion.

    You know what was almost always the first suggestion? "Get others to help you!". You know what? They removed that requirement by putting the harder instanced content requirements for the meta inside Strike Missions, where you don't have to group up with others. The story of the Icebrood Saga (mechanic wise) has been a total joke so far, so they took away the harder requirements inside the story (even the story itself!) and put them in Strike Missions where you will get others to help you without trying.

    I mean what are the odds that if 70% of the population was running dungeons Anet would have moved away from them?

    Dungeons, even Ascalonian Catacombs story mode, are significantly harder than Shiverpeak Pass. And more importantly, they require forming a group. Strike Missions do not, they are public "anyone welcome" content.

    And I keep saying over and over again that difficulty is not the motivating factor for many people, rather than having to group. They can just show up at meta events, but a lot of people are simply put off by the necessity to group to get content done. You seem to think the only overriding factor is difficulty but that's never been my contention.

    There is no necessity to group to finish the easier Strike Missions. Just like you simply show up at meta events, you show up at Strike Missions, there is no need to group up for them. They aren't dungeons or fractals where you must open the LFG (or ask guild members) to form a group and join.

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

    @Ameepa.6793 said:
    This new meta I will never complete simply because I do not raid or do anything that requires grouping up.

    Good thing that Strike Missions don't require grouping up, as much as doing an open world meta event does!

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    I believe most people probably don't enjoy strike missions. I can't prove it, but Anet will have the data and react accordingly. Just like I believe most people didn't run dungeons regularly and most people don't run high level fractals. Most people certainly don't raid.

    The easier Strike Missions are much easier than dungeons, much easier than high level fractals (or even low level ones) and obviously much easier than Raids. They are also public content that require no group forming or roles. Touch the portal, get teleported inside, paired with 9 other randoms that did the same, kill the boss, profit.

    The thing is, it's easy to think when you like something that a lot of people feel the same way. I feel that way too. But I've seen over the years that the harder instanced part of the games tend to get less love than easier stuff. It leads me to believe it's not as popular.

    Have you finished the zone meta of Daybreak? Or the zone meta of The Head of the Snake? Those two required killing Scruffy 2.0 and Caudecus respectively as part of the story, required for completion of the zone meta. Remember Seeds of Truth and the Dodgy Crowd achievement? That was pure joy, or not. The game regularly had "harder" instance requirements to get zone meta completion.

    You know what was almost always the first suggestion? "Get others to help you!". You know what? They removed that requirement by putting the harder instanced content requirements for the meta inside Strike Missions, where you don't have to group up with others. The story of the Icebrood Saga (mechanic wise) has been a total joke so far, so they took away the harder requirements inside the story (even the story itself!) and put them in Strike Missions where you will get others to help you without trying.

    I mean what are the odds that if 70% of the population was running dungeons Anet would have moved away from them?

    Dungeons, even Ascalonian Catacombs story mode, are significantly harder than Shiverpeak Pass. And more importantly, they require forming a group. Strike Missions do not, they are public "anyone welcome" content.

    And I keep saying over and over again that difficulty is not the motivating factor for many people, rather than having to group. They can just show up at meta events, but a lot of people are simply put off by the necessity to group to get content done. You seem to think the only overriding factor is difficulty but that's never been my contention.

    There is no necessity to group to finish the easier Strike Missions. Just like you simply show up at meta events, you show up at Strike Missions, there is no need to group up for them. They aren't dungeons or fractals where you must open the LFG (or ask guild members) to form a group and join.

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    I believe most people probably don't enjoy strike missions. I can't prove it, but Anet will have the data and react accordingly. Just like I believe most people didn't run dungeons regularly and most people don't run high level fractals. Most people certainly don't raid.

    The easier Strike Missions are much easier than dungeons, much easier than high level fractals (or even low level ones) and obviously much easier than Raids. They are also public content that require no group forming or roles. Touch the portal, get teleported inside, paired with 9 other randoms that did the same, kill the boss, profit.

    The thing is, it's easy to think when you like something that a lot of people feel the same way. I feel that way too. But I've seen over the years that the harder instanced part of the games tend to get less love than easier stuff. It leads me to believe it's not as popular.

    Have you finished the zone meta of Daybreak? Or the zone meta of The Head of the Snake? Those two required killing Scruffy 2.0 and Caudecus respectively as part of the story, required for completion of the zone meta. Remember Seeds of Truth and the Dodgy Crowd achievement? That was pure joy, or not. The game regularly had "harder" instance requirements to get zone meta completion.

    You know what was almost always the first suggestion? "Get others to help you!". You know what? They removed that requirement by putting the harder instanced content requirements for the meta inside Strike Missions, where you don't have to group up with others. The story of the Icebrood Saga (mechanic wise) has been a total joke so far, so they took away the harder requirements inside the story (even the story itself!) and put them in Strike Missions where you will get others to help you without trying.

    I mean what are the odds that if 70% of the population was running dungeons Anet would have moved away from them?

    Dungeons, even Ascalonian Catacombs story mode, are significantly harder than Shiverpeak Pass. And more importantly, they require forming a group. Strike Missions do not, they are public "anyone welcome" content.

    And I keep saying over and over again that difficulty is not the motivating factor for many people, rather than having to group. They can just show up at meta events, but a lot of people are simply put off by the necessity to group to get content done. You seem to think the only overriding factor is difficulty but that's never been my contention.

    There is no necessity to group to finish the easier Strike Missions. Just like you simply show up at meta events, you show up at Strike Missions, there is no need to group up for them. They aren't dungeons or fractals where you must open the LFG (or ask guild members) to form a group and join.

    There you've said it. There's no need to group to handle the easier strike missions. BUt strike missions are geared to get harder. So what happens with the next zone. As I've said numerous times now if this is a one off and it never happens again, no problem. But I don't suspect that's Anet's plans. They're planning on ramping this up to get people more into raid content. They can't do that if they don't move the bar. And if they move the bar, I believe many people will be disenfranchised.

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    There you've said it. There's no need to group to handle the easier strike missions. BUt strike missions are geared to get harder. So what happens with the next zone. As I've said numerous times now if this is a one off and it never happens again, no problem. But I don't suspect that's Anet's plans. They're planning on ramping this up to get people more into raid content. They can't do that if they don't move the bar. And if they move the bar, I believe many people will be disenfranchised.

    Strike Missions are geared to get harder within the context of the current map/meta, because they started really easy. Which is a good thing, ramping up the difficulty is something Arenanet learned. The Whisper of Jormag is already harder than some of the Raid bosses. Maybe the next group of Strike Missions will end at a higher point than Whisper of Jormag. But if they start at that point, then the concept will be dead. That much I agree with. I expect to see another Fraenir of Jormag, as much as a Claw and Voice and a Boneskinner in the next iteration.

    Now you might be correct and Arenanet blows this but I think, or rather hope, they are smarter than this.

  • @Vilin.8056 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    The Change is about adding Strike Mission into the list, and Strike Mission DO represent challenge. As said, squad based boss fights isn't uncommon among map contents, the difference on a 10 man instance is simply the added difficulty and transparency of personal performance. If you really don't care, then there wouldn't be this thread. In reality, many casual pugs we played with truly don't care, they simply wants to get this over and done with, we cleared the boss all the same.

    How is personal performance transparent inside these strike missions any more than elsewhere?

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    There you've said it. There's no need to group to handle the easier strike missions. BUt strike missions are geared to get harder. So what happens with the next zone. As I've said numerous times now if this is a one off and it never happens again, no problem. But I don't suspect that's Anet's plans. They're planning on ramping this up to get people more into raid content. They can't do that if they don't move the bar. And if they move the bar, I believe many people will be disenfranchised.

    Strike Missions are geared to get harder within the context of the current map/meta, because they started really easy. Which is a good thing, ramping up the difficulty is something Arenanet learned. The Whisper of Jormag is already harder than some of the Raid bosses. Maybe the next group of Strike Missions will end at a higher point than Whisper of Jormag. But if they start at that point, then the concept will be dead. That much I agree with. I expect to see another Fraenir of Jormag, as much as a Claw and Voice and a Boneskinner in the next iteration.

    Now you might be correct and Arenanet blows this but I think, or rather hope, they are smarter than this.

    I'm not sure Anet has a bead on why people don't do raids in the first place. They're making the assumption if people get better at the game they'll suddenly want to do raids. I'm not thinking that's the case. I think the entire premise behind strike missions is flawed. Obviously I could be wrong. But if Anet is aiming at the idea of educating players will make them want to play this content...I'm not sure that's the case. I'm pretty educated about how combat works in this game and I have no interest in this content. It's just not something that interests me. I think a lot of people are in the same boat.

    You are educated, but lots of other players are not.

    I would applaud Anet, if they would make something like a fun little tutorial ingame, that educates players playful how to use weapons, skills, traits, stats, rotations, etc. to better master challenging content without looking at external websites like Metabattle, Trifffon's Guides, Snow Crows etc.

    But strike missions are not that educational tutorial, even if Anet probably thinks, they are.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    There you've said it. There's no need to group to handle the easier strike missions. BUt strike missions are geared to get harder. So what happens with the next zone. As I've said numerous times now if this is a one off and it never happens again, no problem. But I don't suspect that's Anet's plans. They're planning on ramping this up to get people more into raid content. They can't do that if they don't move the bar. And if they move the bar, I believe many people will be disenfranchised.

    Strike Missions are geared to get harder within the context of the current map/meta, because they started really easy. Which is a good thing, ramping up the difficulty is something Arenanet learned. The Whisper of Jormag is already harder than some of the Raid bosses. Maybe the next group of Strike Missions will end at a higher point than Whisper of Jormag. But if they start at that point, then the concept will be dead. That much I agree with. I expect to see another Fraenir of Jormag, as much as a Claw and Voice and a Boneskinner in the next iteration.

    Now you might be correct and Arenanet blows this but I think, or rather hope, they are smarter than this.

    I'm not sure Anet has a bead on why people don't do raids in the first place. They're making the assumption if people get better at the game they'll suddenly want to do raids. I'm not thinking that's the case. I think the entire premise behind strike missions is flawed. Obviously I could be wrong. But if Anet is aiming at the idea of educating players will make them want to play this content...I'm not sure that's the case. I'm pretty educated about how combat works in this game and I have no interest in this content. It's just not something that interests me. I think a lot of people are in the same boat.

    Anet are a thousand times better placed to know why players do things in game than anyone else. Even if players do not trust their metrics they also ask players in and out of game. This isn’t Anet guessing and throwing an idea at a wall and making an assumption , they have actual player feedback on why players do or do not raid.

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 18, 2020

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    There you've said it. There's no need to group to handle the easier strike missions. BUt strike missions are geared to get harder. So what happens with the next zone. As I've said numerous times now if this is a one off and it never happens again, no problem. But I don't suspect that's Anet's plans. They're planning on ramping this up to get people more into raid content. They can't do that if they don't move the bar. And if they move the bar, I believe many people will be disenfranchised.

    Strike Missions are geared to get harder within the context of the current map/meta, because they started really easy. Which is a good thing, ramping up the difficulty is something Arenanet learned. The Whisper of Jormag is already harder than some of the Raid bosses. Maybe the next group of Strike Missions will end at a higher point than Whisper of Jormag. But if they start at that point, then the concept will be dead. That much I agree with. I expect to see another Fraenir of Jormag, as much as a Claw and Voice and a Boneskinner in the next iteration.

    Now you might be correct and Arenanet blows this but I think, or rather hope, they are smarter than this.

    I'm not sure Anet has a bead on why people don't do raids in the first place. They're making the assumption if people get better at the game they'll suddenly want to do raids. I'm not thinking that's the case. I think the entire premise behind strike missions is flawed. Obviously I could be wrong. But if Anet is aiming at the idea of educating players will make them want to play this content...I'm not sure that's the case. I'm pretty educated about how combat works in this game and I have no interest in this content. It's just not something that interests me. I think a lot of people are in the same boat.

    Anet are a thousand times better placed to know why players do things in game than anyone else.

    The metrics only tell them what things players are doing, but not why.

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    Even if players do not trust their metrics they also ask players in and out of game. This isn’t Anet guessing and throwing an idea at a wall and making an assumption , they have actual player feedback on why players do or do not raid.

    Actually, years ago, Anet (Mike or Colin, if I remember correctly) said, that game development is an uncertain business. they throw ideas at a wall and make assumptions. Sometimes the ideas were scrapped early on and sometimes they were scrapped after a long development before releasing them. And sometimes they only find out after releasing them, that they do not work the way they were intended to.

    EDIT: And in the actual state of the studio, with probably not so much content that was released recently, maybe now some ideas got released, that would may be scrapped or reworked in the past before their release. (for example: look at the templates).

    EDIT-EDIT: In another discussion there were severeal ideas, why the raid population is so low in GW2: Mainly because a lot of raiders left because of: Not enough new raids, too much time between new raids, not enough loot (after raiders have finished their legendary), too big difficulty gap between raids/wings, etc. But none of them said "because raids are not attractive for non-raiders." And if Anet would have asked raiders, they would surely got the same answers and would worked on raids and not on strike-missions.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

  • Manasa Devi.7958Manasa Devi.7958 Member ✭✭✭✭

    There actually isn't even a zone meta, technically. There are two LW chapter metas that use the same zone. And indeed, it's weird to have chapter 2 achievements for chapter 1 content. This inconsistency alone would've been a good reason to put the strike mission achievements in their own category.

  • I can't find where the Devs said, "We aren't sure we can support Raids moving forward"; I only see this:

    "...we want to find better ways to support (Raids)..." and "Regardless of if that succeeds or not (Strike Missions), we understand the importance of balancing our efforts between accessible content with broad appeal, and content that appeals to the more hard core audience, and recognize that we need to do a better job of supporting the latter."

    To me, and, of course, that's just me, it sounds like they are committed to creating more 'hard core' content, i.e. Raids.

  • Zaklex.6308Zaklex.6308 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Ameepa.6793 said:
    This new meta I will never complete simply because I do not raid or do anything that requires grouping up.

    Good thing that Strike Missions don't require grouping up, as much as doing an open world meta event does!

    What you should have said is they don't require players to join a group of other people and enter all at once, they do however require you to play with 9 other people in an instance, which is basically a forced grouping. Open World bosses aren't in an instance, if someone so chooses they could find a map with no one or just enough people to keep it open and attempt a World Boss solo(probably won't win, but you can try it)...that's another difference.

    Yes...no...maybe...what do you want, can't you see I'm busy saving the world...AGAIN!

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    I can't find where the Devs said, "We aren't sure we can support Raids moving forward"; I only see this:

    "...we want to find better ways to support (Raids)..." and "Regardless of if that succeeds or not (Strike Missions), we understand the importance of balancing our efforts between accessible content with broad appeal, and content that appeals to the more hard core audience, and recognize that we need to do a better job of supporting the latter."

    To me, and, of course, that's just me, it sounds like they are committed to creating more 'hard core' content, i.e. Raids.

    "the biggest challenge in creating more (raids) is the small audience they attract."

    They have a problem to justify to put more money/devs into development of more raids because of the small audience.

    After raids started, the devs where happy, how many players the raids attracted.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 18, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

    The bosses are part of the zone and each related episode. You just need to get over your bias over instances. Just because they are separated by in instance wall (exactly like story mode is ), does not make it any less a part of the zone.

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

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

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Ameepa.6793 said:
    This new meta I will never complete simply because I do not raid or do anything that requires grouping up.

    Good thing that Strike Missions don't require grouping up, as much as doing an open world meta event does!

    What you should have said is they don't require players to join a group of other people and enter all at once, they do however require you to play with 9 other people in an instance, which is basically a forced grouping. Open World bosses aren't in an instance, if someone so chooses they could find a map with no one or just enough people to keep it open and attempt a World Boss solo(probably won't win, but you can try it)...that's another difference.

    You can attempt (and beat) a Strike Mission solo

  • Manasa Devi.7958Manasa Devi.7958 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

    The bosses are part of the zone and the episode. You just need to get over your bias over instances. Just because they are separated by in instance wall (exactly like story mode is ), does not make it any less a part of the zone.

    3 our of 4 aren't part of the episode.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 18, 2020

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

    The bosses are part of the zone and the episode. You just need to get over your bias over instances. Just because they are separated by in instance wall (exactly like story mode is ), does not make it any less a part of the zone.

    3 our of 4 aren't part of the episode.

    Thank you - I will re-edit what I wrote for clarity as the meta does include the zone and link together two episodes, but not just this one. This meta they intended to include the map as a whole this time and all 4 bosses are a part of this map/zone

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    I can't find where the Devs said, "We aren't sure we can support Raids moving forward"; I only see this:

    "...we want to find better ways to support (Raids)..." and "Regardless of if that succeeds or not (Strike Missions), we understand the importance of balancing our efforts between accessible content with broad appeal, and content that appeals to the more hard core audience, and recognize that we need to do a better job of supporting the latter."

    To me, and, of course, that's just me, it sounds like they are committed to creating more 'hard core' content, i.e. Raids.

    "the biggest challenge in creating more (raids) is the small audience they attract."

    They have a problem to justify to put more money/devs into development of more raids because of the small audience.

    After raids started, the devs where happy, how many players the raids attracted.

    Where do you get the idea that the devs were happy how many people raids attracted? I'm curious because I've never seen a quote about that.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 18, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

    The bosses are part of the zone and the episode. You just need to get over your bias over instances. Just because they are separated by in instance wall (exactly like story mode is ), does not make it any less a part of the zone.

    3 our of 4 aren't part of the episode.

    I will re-edit what I wrote for clarity as the meta does include the zone and all 4 bosses are part of it. This meta they intended to include the map as a whole this time.

    Sorry but if the zone meta doesn't include the actual meta within the zone as part of the achievements, and it has it's own category then strike missions can also have their own category. The reasoning that I have to get over my anti-instance bias (as if it's just mine and not a sizable portion of the game's population) is a misnomer. How can an instanced boss be more a part of the zone than an event that occurs in the zone. Why should that meta event have it's own section of achievements while instanced content that's not even the same type of content as anything else is sprinkled into the zone meta. I'd much rather have the meta event as part of the zone meta achievement.

    Raids were harder content and had their own achievement section. Not sure why this is such a problem to do with strike missions.

    Again, stop trying to bring "a sizeable portion of the playerbase" into this. This is YOUR feedback. YOUR opinion. Whilst other may share your your opinion, you do not speak for anyone else in this game. They can give their own feedback. It is equally as likely players are quite happy with things and are just getting on with it, but we do not know. Your opinion absolutely does not represent a majority of the playerbase since we have no possible way of proving that. You are just hoping that by saying it over and over, it will sway Anet in some way.

    We know that players want to do raids if the obstacles are removed - we know this because Anet have actual players telling them this as per their post the other week

    So stick to your own feedback and stop saying the majority want this, that and the other.

    As far as I am concerned, this is something they got right. It's not new, it's a positive step forward and it brings players together in a variety of content. And I sincerely hope they continue along this path. They've always tried to bring variety and different things to metas and achievements, they've always believed in bringing players together. And I am a so called "casual" (a pathetic useless term), predominantly open world, who will do things out of a comfort zone in a meta or any other achievement if encouraged to do so. Because I accept that is what I signed up to with GW2

    Personally I think the Drakkar meta should have been part of the zone meta. Perhaps they should add that in as an extra option since that seems perfectly reasonable to me

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    I can't find where the Devs said, "We aren't sure we can support Raids moving forward"; I only see this:

    "...we want to find better ways to support (Raids)..." and "Regardless of if that succeeds or not (Strike Missions), we understand the importance of balancing our efforts between accessible content with broad appeal, and content that appeals to the more hard core audience, and recognize that we need to do a better job of supporting the latter."

    To me, and, of course, that's just me, it sounds like they are committed to creating more 'hard core' content, i.e. Raids.

    "the biggest challenge in creating more (raids) is the small audience they attract."

    They have a problem to justify to put more money/devs into development of more raids because of the small audience.

    After raids started, the devs where happy, how many players the raids attracted.

    Where do you get the idea that the devs were happy how many people raids attracted? I'm curious because I've never seen a quote about that.

    I am not sure if it was at a guild chat or on the forum, so I can not give you the exact quote. But I remember that someone from Anet stated, that they were happy about how many players were doing raids, more than expected, without giving the exact numbers/percentages.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • First, the lament is about consistency with zone achievements. Then, the lament is about not separating new World Boss Achievements from zone achievements, as has been done before.

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Pirogen.9561 said:
    Strikes? To me it looks like they don't have enough resources(time, people, skill) to do a proper Raid.

    Actually they said straight out they're not sure they can support raids moving forward because not enough people do them.

    Its not a contradiction. Creating a raid needs much more resssources/devs/money than creating a boss-fight in an instanced version of an already existing map aka a strike-mission. So they probably try the cheaper version and hope that enough players are happy with this cheaper version of 10-player-instanced content and they also hope that players, who like strikes, also will do raids afterwards.

    And a pessimistic person could add: And if this doesn't work, they did burn less money with new strike-missions than with new raids and it can then be used as an excuse, why they can not make any new raids anymore.

    But that is probably only a cynical overinterpretation from my side. ;)

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 18, 2020

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    First, the lament is about consistency with zone achievements. Then, the lament is about not separating new World Boss Achievements from zone achievements, as has been done before.

    No, the lament is about consistency. The second one is a solution to the lament.

    Constructive criticism involves pointing out something you believe can be better and then giving a solution. The bar hasn't moved at all. The original complaint remains the same.

    But if this was a seperate achievment category and not a zone meta, I wouldn't have problem with it. Bringing up the meta event in the conversation was only an example to show they've already done just that. The zone meta is a boss in the zone that doesn't count toward the meta achievement so they can in fact do it. If those achievements didn't affect the zone meta, then I"d not have a problem, this it would solve my original problem.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Okay the number to watch is the number of people finishing the zone meta compared to recent past zone metas. I'm using GW 2 efficiency as a source because it's all I have access to. But you know for one thing, not everyone who creates an efficiency acount is still playing and obviously not all PvE much. However relatively to each other it should give us some indication to take a look at.

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

    That's the number to keep an eye on if time goes by. Obviously I don't have figures for how far along each was at the same time, but if that number remains significantly lower. then we can guess it's had an effect on people. How that will make them feel about the game moving forward is anyones' guess.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

    The bosses are part of the zone and the episode. You just need to get over your bias over instances. Just because they are separated by in instance wall (exactly like story mode is ), does not make it any less a part of the zone.

    3 our of 4 aren't part of the episode.

    I will re-edit what I wrote for clarity as the meta does include the zone and all 4 bosses are part of it. This meta they intended to include the map as a whole this time.

    Sorry but if the zone meta doesn't include the actual meta within the zone as part of the achievements, and it has it's own category then strike missions can also have their own category. The reasoning that I have to get over my anti-instance bias (as if it's just mine and not a sizable portion of the game's population) is a misnomer. How can an instanced boss be more a part of the zone than an event that occurs in the zone. Why should that meta event have it's own section of achievements while instanced content that's not even the same type of content as anything else is sprinkled into the zone meta. I'd much rather have the meta event as part of the zone meta achievement.

    Raids were harder content and had their own achievement section. Not sure why this is such a problem to do with strike missions.

    Again, stop trying to bring "a sizeable portion of the playerbase" into this. This is YOUR feedback. YOUR opinion. Whilst other may share your your opinion, you do not speak for anyone else in this game. They can give their own feedback. It is equally as likely players are quite happy with things and are just getting on with it, but we do not know. Your opinion absolutely does not represent a majority of the playerbase since we have no possible way of proving that. You are just hoping that by saying it over and over, it will sway Anet in some way.

    We know that players want to do raids if the obstacles are removed - we know this because Anet have actual players telling them this as per their post the other week

    So stick to your own feedback and stop saying the majority want this, that and the other.

    As far as I am concerned, this is something they got right. It's not new, it's a positive step forward and it brings players together in a variety of content. And I sincerely hope they continue along this path. They've always tried to bring variety and different things to metas and achievements, they've always believed in bringing players together. And I am a so called "casual" (a pathetic useless term), predominantly open world, who will do things out of a comfort zone in a meta or any other achievement if encouraged to do so. Because I accept that is what I signed up to with GW2

    Personally I think the Drakkar meta should have been part of the zone meta. Perhaps they should add that in as an extra option since that seems perfectly reasonable to me

    You want to know the problem with what you're saying about "my" feedback. Casuals, by and large don't give their opinion. They don't post to reddit. They don't come to the official forums and if they do, they generally lurk. Do you know why HoT had such a negative affect on the game when it came out. Because the hard core players got what they wanted. Because they were louders. There weren't more of them. There were likely never more of them. But they probably account for the vast majority of posts on both forums and reddit.

    Saying this is just my opinion would be true. But there are other people in this thread that share this opinion and I have a guild of 350 people many of whom might tool away at the meta and I see their reaction. I can't claim to have a majority but I absolutely believe you're underestimating this demographic that includes me, just as Anet did when they introduced HoT.

    I know plenty of players on this forum who claim to be "casual" and post on here. The term however is so wishy washy and undefinable it has no place in any argument of defining a "demographic". I'm pretty sure I fit the term casual. I login, I play, I rarely change build, I have no care for a deep understanding of skills and rotations. I go in, play whatever content is on offer on a whim and have a bit of fun and have little care if I am good at it or not.

    And there are others in this thread who are contrary to your opinion. Nothing is proven either way about a sway of opinion. I could counter your Guild claim with players I know and play with who do not share your opinion, but I am not going to because that is as equally meaningless and arbitrary. Everyone represents themselves and that is all they represent on a faceless forum. No one else, no over arching demographic, no widespread group of players. Just themselves.

    I do not agree HoT had the negative effect you think it did. Nor do I understand the utter disdain you have for "hardcore" players wanting raids or harder content just because it doesn't appeal to you personally. I don't like pvp, but I would never begrudge Anet putting resources into it.

    However that is not a discussion for this thread as it far off course from the op. I have no issue with your original feedback even if I wholly disagree with it and the tenuous conclusions posted throughout, however I do take issue with any attempt to represent others who for whatever reason, choose not to post - whether because they don't want to or because in fact they don't care about the issue (possible given so few have contributed despite being 7 pages).

    I will have zero further issue if that can be removed from further discussions. There is no majority here on either side of the argument or any representation of a given demographic

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2020

    It's not "my content". I don't have content. I am a so called "casual" with so called "casual" friends (still a meaningless word no matter how many times you use it - it still doesn't represent any demographic) who plays what is on offer depending on my mood or time or what others want to do even if we suck at it. I don't particularly enjoy JPs, but I accept the need to do them when they appear in a meta or collection I need to do.

    I wont go into the HoT analysis. There are some things there which are incorrect or skewed to fit a narrative which is off topic

    I get that raids aren't your content. But they are the game's content. And Anet has widespread feedback saying players want to raid and want an accessible way in. This is their route- getting more people into content they have been obstructed from doing in the past.

    And I hope it works. The more players encouraged to do more things, the healthier the game will be

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .