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

13468912

Comments

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The started with easier ones and said they would get harder. I can see the earlier ones are much easier. Once we have a new zone, if they continue to get harder it will be a whole different situation.

    Correction: the Bjora Marches Strike Missions have been getting harder. Grothmar has a single Strike of very low difficulty.
    The next map(s) should do the same. I don't think going above Whisper of Jormag would make any kind of sense, it's already high enough on the difficulty chart, so the Strikes of the next map(s) will also go lower in difficulty and start going up as they release more of them.

    The order of the Bjora Marches Strike Missions:
    Fraenir of Jormag
    Voice of the Fallen and Claw of the Fallen
    Boneskinner
    Whisper of Jormag

    There is lots of variety here. And achievements like the freebie "Reflections in the Ice" can be used to give incentive to players to try the harder Strike Missions, to see if they like them. Overall the design isn't bad, and including the Strike Mission achievements as requirements for the zone meta isn't prohibiting any kind of player from finishing the zone meta.

    Even your post, saying well, there are easier ones and harder ones, and I agree. But the trend is that they're getting harder.

    A trend like that makes sense as long as we stay in the same map, since the initial Strike Missions were very very easy. And it's better to go progressively higher, rather than start with something really hard then try to balance the next ones, a lesson that Arenanet (hopefully) learned from their Raids that are known for being all over the place regarding their difficulty.

    You have all the reasons for concern, after all it's Arenanet that is known for changing their attitude and direction quickly, but I think there is little reason to believe that the next Strike Missions will start from the Whisper of Jormag difficulty. It would essentially mean the death of Strike Missions as a concept/idea (and the concept/idea of a map/zone meta) so I'm quite confident they won't do that.

    Also

    I'm worried about the slippery slope here. This is one meta. Yes, you can walk through and get the results now, but strike missions are getting harder and the next zone isn't out yet. I'm not convinced Anet is going to stop here which has been my issue since the beginning of this conversation. If this is the future, it's an issue for me.

    I can understand the problem in the future, if they continue the trend of rising difficulty. But the way you worded your first post was against the idea of instanced group content (Strikes have a public version btw, no need to actually "group") used in the zone meta. So I'm gonna ask, worries about the future aside, was it a terrible idea to have the Strike achievements part of the zone meta? Given their current difficulty progression

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 17, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    So I'm gonna ask, worries about the future aside, was it a terrible idea to have the Strike achievements part of the zone meta? Given their current difficulty progression

    Terrible? i wouldn't go that far, but it's not good; players want consistent offerings ... it's an important indicator that companies understand and deliver what their customers want. Survival is not necessary for Anet; they can choose to dictate to customers if they want to. There are other games.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 17, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    Yes but they included the easy ones as well as the hard ones. They are no different to an open world boss fight or a bounty just with a wall around them. They didn’t include must do the hard ones.

    It’s an mmo and it brings together players from various content and various communities and metas are perfectly set up to do that

    This isn’t new, it isn’t a oroblem that I can see, if anything it is a positive and for players like me and some others, it has worked

    There are clearly differences of opinion but I think everyone reasserting the sane arguments over and over is just causing this thread the cycle around now without moving forward.

    No one represents a majority, there is no single casual community like players think and no one is “right” here. Perhaps it is time to let others have their say or let the thread run its course because repeating as infininum is prob hurting the cause more than anything since it misrepresents how many people actually care about the issue

    The started with easier ones and said they would get harder. I can see the earlier ones are much easier. Once we have a new zone, if they continue to get harder it will be a whole different situation.

    As for no one representing a majority that's simply not true. We may not know the majority but that doesn't mean a majority doesn't exist. For example a while back Mo said that 60% of the playerbase was predominantly PVE, 30% WvW and 10% PvP. That would make PvE players a majority. Saying no one has a majority is factually untrue. You can only say we don't know the who the majority is.

    As for cycling, people continue to try to make this about something it's not. Even your post, saying well, there are easier ones and harder ones, and I agree. But the trend is that they're getting harder.

    Let me ask, if you don't say something at the beginning of the trend, isn't it your fault then if the trend continues unabated? It's an issue worthy of discussion.

    Let me rephrase it .

    No one person in this thread despite their claims to the contrary represents the majority of the playerbase

    Yes they are getting harder, but they almagmated all the ones from the same map - including the easy ones. If they are adding only harder, it is unlikely in my opinion they will add just the harder again ones as mandatory to the meta. They did it this way because it includes a variety of difficulties - keeping ti fair, whilst maintaining the goal of bringing players together. And bringing players together acros communities has been the pillar of GW2 since day one.

    Yes saying something is absolutely right. Yes feeding back is absolutely right. Saying it over and over and over and over and over and over in the same thread to bump it the front page however is cycling the same argument without bringing anything new to the table whilst arbitrarily inflating the thread size to make it look important

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    So I'm gonna ask, worries about the future aside, was it a terrible idea to have the Strike achievements part of the zone meta? Given their current difficulty progression

    Not really. People are right to think otherwise, but it's just a meta and it brings more people to Strikes. If anything I'm seeing more people doing them which is helping to make groups easier to get. There's plenty of difficulty progression here to appeal. Fraenir alone requires virtually no effort

    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. . .

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

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    Let me rephrase it .

    No one person in this thread despite their claims to the contrary represents the majority of the playerbase

    True. Some of the opinions voiced in this thread may however be representative of the opinions shared by majority of playerbase.

    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.

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

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    Let me rephrase it .

    No one person in this thread despite their claims to the contrary represents the majority of the playerbase

    True. Some of the opinions voiced in this thread may however be representative of the opinions shared by majority of playerbase.

    Considering the views are wide and varied, that would be logical

    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. . .

  • Etria.3642Etria.3642 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    Yes but they included the easy ones as well as the hard ones. They are no different to an open world boss fight or a bounty just with a wall around them. They didn’t include must do the hard ones.

    It’s an mmo and it brings together players from various content and various communities and metas are perfectly set up to do that

    This isn’t new, it isn’t a oroblem that I can see, if anything it is a positive and for players like me and some others, it has worked

    There are clearly differences of opinion but I think everyone reasserting the sane arguments over and over is just causing this thread the cycle around now without moving forward.

    No one represents a majority, there is no single casual community like players think and no one is “right” here. Perhaps it is time to let others have their say or let the thread run its course because repeating as infininum is prob hurting the cause more than anything since it misrepresents how many people actually care about the issue

    The started with easier ones and said they would get harder. I can see the earlier ones are much easier. Once we have a new zone, if they continue to get harder it will be a whole different situation.

    As for no one representing a majority that's simply not true. We may not know the majority but that doesn't mean a majority doesn't exist. For example a while back Mo said that 60% of the playerbase was predominantly PVE, 30% WvW and 10% PvP. That would make PvE players a majority. Saying no one has a majority is factually untrue. You can only say we don't know the who the majority is.

    As for cycling, people continue to try to make this about something it's not. Even your post, saying well, there are easier ones and harder ones, and I agree. But the trend is that they're getting harder.

    Let me ask, if you don't say something at the beginning of the trend, isn't it your fault then if the trend continues unabated? It's an issue worthy of discussion.

    No one "represents" a majority. That would be a designated position, elected position, or some other thing that does not currently exist among GW2 players. This is entirely different from majorities existing or not. Of course they do, but then you must also assign definitions of "majority". Majority of whom? Those who login consistently? Those who have an account? Those who have x number of achievements? Those who have ever tried a raid? Those who have not? Those who login once a day? At some point waybackwhen in this thread where half of the posts are from yourself, you claim you are the majority. You then proceeded to pigeonhole where your definition of the majority was.

    The facts are, none of us have the facts. We do not know why the Strike Mission was included. We do not know if future episodes will have Strikes included. All I know, is after all these posts, I have gone from not wanting them included to heartily hoping they are. Thank you, Vayne, for changing my mind.

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

    @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

  • 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.