Including Strike Mission Achievements as a Required Part of the Zone Meta - Page 7 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Fractals/Dungeons/Strike Missions/Raids

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

145791012

Comments

  • 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. . .

  • Inculpatus cedo.9234Inculpatus cedo.9234 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @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.

    The lament is that the Devs should not change how things are done, and then saying they should have changed how things are done (new World Bosses should not have their own meta as they have always had in the past).

    Or, since new World Bosses have their own meta, then content that some do not care for should have its own meta. Again, using that argument, Jumping Puzzles should have their own meta, or Story Achievements should have their own meta, or any number of different aspects of a map that some do not care for should have their own metas.

    I don't really care either way, but if the numbers from gw2efficiency are any indication, not many care about, or at least, actually do finish Metas, anyway.

    Let's just hope the Devs don't want to never change the game, always keep things as they've been, as that would be uninspired and probably boring.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @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.

    The lament is that the Devs should not change how things are done, and then saying they should have changed how things are done (new World Bosses should not have their own meta as they have always had in the past).

    Nope sorry my initial bar has not changed. 10 man instanced content shouldn't be part of the meta and it never was. We have a seperate category for the meta event which I have absolutely no problem with. Saying I'd rather have had it part of the meta instead of strike missions doesn't mean I have a problem with it where it is. As it stands it is indicative of the fact another category in the zone can exist for specifc content. My argument that it's more a part of the zone than strike missions are remains.

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 It seems that that_shaman also partially shares your initial sentiment about the new meta achievement:
    https://twitter.com/that_shaman/status/1229510867173216256

    Yes, that is also just one opinion, but I think it fits this thread.

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

  • Jayden Reese.9542Jayden Reese.9542 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    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.

    The percent of people who finished the meta peaked at 6.6 percent. That means 93 percent at least didn't finish the meta prior to strike missions needed for the meta. That means the majority of the player base doesn't care about finishing the meta. And since it dropped so much the majority of the minority chose not to do this meta possible because of strikes or 20 repeat quests or lack of a substantial reward better then an emote or those have been out much longer who knows. Since Vayne always comes home at 6 pm and resurrects this thread with reply's to people with the opposite opinion the majority of this thread doesn't agree with him but it goes on and on and on and on.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    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.

    The percent of people who finished the meta peaked at 6.6 percent. That means 93 percent at least didn't finish the meta prior to strike missions. That means the majority of the player base doesn't care about finishing the meta. And since it dropped so much the majority of the minority chose not to do this meta possible because of strikes or 20 repeat quests or lack of a substantial reward better then an emote or those have been out much longer who knows. Since Vayne always comes home at 6 pm and resurrects this thread with reply's to people with the opposite opinion the majority of this thread doesn't agree with him but it goes on and on and on and on.

    93 % of all the people who have ever had a GW 2 efficiency account. Asuming even half those are active is probably inaccurate. I mean someone creates an account 5 years ago, stops playing in a year, they're still counted. It's still a relative number and I guarantee you the casual playerbase by and large is less likely to use efficiency at all.

  • Jayden Reese.9542Jayden Reese.9542 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    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.

    The percent of people who finished the meta peaked at 6.6 percent. That means 93 percent at least didn't finish the meta prior to strike missions. That means the majority of the player base doesn't care about finishing the meta. And since it dropped so much the majority of the minority chose not to do this meta possible because of strikes or 20 repeat quests or lack of a substantial reward better then an emote or those have been out much longer who knows. Since Vayne always comes home at 6 pm and resurrects this thread with reply's to people with the opposite opinion the majority of this thread doesn't agree with him but it goes on and on and on and on.

    93 % of all the people who have ever had a GW 2 efficiency account. Asuming even half those are active is probably inaccurate. I mean someone creates an account 5 years ago, stops playing in a year, they're still counted. It's still a relative number and I guarantee you the casual playerbase by and large is less likely to use efficiency at all.

    I agree but it's the best data we as players can find but you linked these stats to prove your point but now these same stats when used against you they are meaningless right?

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    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.

    The percent of people who finished the meta peaked at 6.6 percent. That means 93 percent at least didn't finish the meta prior to strike missions. That means the majority of the player base doesn't care about finishing the meta. And since it dropped so much the majority of the minority chose not to do this meta possible because of strikes or 20 repeat quests or lack of a substantial reward better then an emote or those have been out much longer who knows. Since Vayne always comes home at 6 pm and resurrects this thread with reply's to people with the opposite opinion the majority of this thread doesn't agree with him but it goes on and on and on and on.

    93 % of all the people who have ever had a GW 2 efficiency account. Asuming even half those are active is probably inaccurate. I mean someone creates an account 5 years ago, stops playing in a year, they're still counted. It's still a relative number and I guarantee you the casual playerbase by and large is less likely to use efficiency at all.

    I agree but it's the best data we as players can find but you linked these stats to prove your point but now these same stats when used against you they are meaningless right?

    Let's think about this for a second.

    Efficiency has been around for years. Many years. During that time many people would have left the game.

    Grothmar isn't around nearly as long. I'm not saying that this number represents anything but the relative number of people finishing the meta. THat is to say it's more likely the same players are still playing the last few months by percentage. Which means that you can compare those numbers to get a relative value not an absolute value.

    Knowing the situation I picked a situation where the numbers would likely represent something. It's like ALL statistics. You have to figure out which ones are likely going to be useful.

    On what grounds do you think the last three stories finishing rates as a comparative study isn't useful?

  • Jayden Reese.9542Jayden Reese.9542 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    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.

    The percent of people who finished the meta peaked at 6.6 percent. That means 93 percent at least didn't finish the meta prior to strike missions. That means the majority of the player base doesn't care about finishing the meta. And since it dropped so much the majority of the minority chose not to do this meta possible because of strikes or 20 repeat quests or lack of a substantial reward better then an emote or those have been out much longer who knows. Since Vayne always comes home at 6 pm and resurrects this thread with reply's to people with the opposite opinion the majority of this thread doesn't agree with him but it goes on and on and on and on.

    93 % of all the people who have ever had a GW 2 efficiency account. Asuming even half those are active is probably inaccurate. I mean someone creates an account 5 years ago, stops playing in a year, they're still counted. It's still a relative number and I guarantee you the casual playerbase by and large is less likely to use efficiency at all.

    I agree but it's the best data we as players can find but you linked these stats to prove your point but now these same stats when used against you they are meaningless right?

    Let's think about this for a second.

    Efficiency has been around for years. Many years. During that time many people would have left the game.

    Grothmar isn't around nearly as long. I'm not saying that this number represents anything but the relative number of people finishing the meta. THat is to say it's more likely the same players are still playing the last few months by percentage. Which means that you can compare those numbers to get a relative value not an absolute value.

    Knowing the situation I picked a situation where the numbers would likely represent something. It's like ALL statistics. You have to figure out which ones are likely going to be useful.

    On what grounds do you think the last three stories finishing rates as a comparative study isn't useful?

    Well i'll start with Grothmar has been out 5 months. Bjora part one 3 months and this what less then 3 weeks? The rest is subjective. I could say Grothar metas are more fun and that Bjora part deux is time gated and had alot of stuff I didn't like and had to do in pieces in a way where all strikes are not available and grind 20 events and puzzles took me way longer to finish this meta but yeah the pure time players had to get the meta done is my best reason .

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    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.

    The percent of people who finished the meta peaked at 6.6 percent. That means 93 percent at least didn't finish the meta prior to strike missions. That means the majority of the player base doesn't care about finishing the meta. And since it dropped so much the majority of the minority chose not to do this meta possible because of strikes or 20 repeat quests or lack of a substantial reward better then an emote or those have been out much longer who knows. Since Vayne always comes home at 6 pm and resurrects this thread with reply's to people with the opposite opinion the majority of this thread doesn't agree with him but it goes on and on and on and on.

    93 % of all the people who have ever had a GW 2 efficiency account. Asuming even half those are active is probably inaccurate. I mean someone creates an account 5 years ago, stops playing in a year, they're still counted. It's still a relative number and I guarantee you the casual playerbase by and large is less likely to use efficiency at all.

    I agree but it's the best data we as players can find but you linked these stats to prove your point but now these same stats when used against you they are meaningless right?

    Let's think about this for a second.

    Efficiency has been around for years. Many years. During that time many people would have left the game.

    Grothmar isn't around nearly as long. I'm not saying that this number represents anything but the relative number of people finishing the meta. THat is to say it's more likely the same players are still playing the last few months by percentage. Which means that you can compare those numbers to get a relative value not an absolute value.

    Knowing the situation I picked a situation where the numbers would likely represent something. It's like ALL statistics. You have to figure out which ones are likely going to be useful.

    On what grounds do you think the last three stories finishing rates as a comparative study isn't useful?

    Well i'll start with Grothmar has been out 5 months. Bjora part one 3 months and this what less then 3 weeks? The rest is subjective. I could say Grothar metas are more fun and that Bjora part deux is time gated and had alot of stuff I didn't like and had to do in pieces in a way where all strikes are not available and grind 20 events and puzzles took me way longer to finish this meta but yeah the pure time players had to get the meta done is my best reason .

    Well since what I actually said was this is the number we had to watch, I guess that means I agree with you. So far that's the number. Whether it matters or not, we'll have to watch, just like I said in the post that listed the statistics.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2020

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    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

    This particular thing doesn't make sense. Whatever side it's on, there IS a majority because the probability there isn't is statistically very low, like statistically insignificantly low, only because the number of combinations to get a majority in the population of players is a number most people can't even comprehend. Just because we don't know where this majority feels about this change doesn't mean it's not there. It's a rather pedantic point to take issue with anyways because it's quite irrelevant what the majority of the people feel anyways.

    The relevance is all about how this change impacts the players and if that has a big enough impact to the health of the game. I believe ... it does, because this sort of 'change' to the game isn't new ... Anet has been inconsistent for a LONG time and over time, it's bled players because of it. This is simply another example of it. I do believe it's a more subtle and small example, but at this point, I don't think Anet can afford ANY more examples of inconsistency.

    I don't get how anyone can disagree that offering consistency of content/service to customers isn't important. That's a serious question to you because it seems where your statements are heading. Do you think that being consistent isn't important to people? Forget this is a game. Think about ANY business you have ever patronized that provides you a service. Why would you NOT want to be treated and presented that service in a consistent way unless you are specifically patronizing that provider for an inconsistent approach? Wouldn't you agree that a vendor offering consistent service and offerings to it's customers is a sign of understanding what those customers want and how they want it? If so, how don't you have a problem with it in this case or the MANY cases so far?

    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 19, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    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

    This particular thing doesn't make sense. Whatever side it's on, there IS a majority because the probability there isn't is statistically very low, like statistically insignificantly low, only because the number of combinations to get a majority in the population of players is a number most people can't even comprehend. Just because we don't know where this majority feels about this change doesn't mean it's not there. It's a rather pedantic point to take issue with anyways because it's quite irrelevant what the majority of the people feel anyways.

    The relevance is all about how this change impacts the players and if that has a big enough impact to the health of the game. I believe ... it does, because this sort of 'change' to the game isn't new ... Anet has been inconsistent for a LONG time and over time, it's bled players because of it. This is simply another example of it. I do believe it's a more subtle and small example, but at this point, I don't think Anet can afford ANY more examples of inconsistency.

    I don't get how anyone can disagree that offering consistency of content/service to customers isn't important. That's a serious question to you because it seems where your statements are heading. Do you think that being consistent isn't important to people? Forget this is a game. Think about ANY business you have ever patronized that provides you a service. Why would you NOT want to be treated and presented that service in a consistent way unless you are specifically patronizing that provider for an inconsistent approach? Wouldn't you agree that a vendor offering consistent service and offerings to it's customers is a sign of understanding what those customers want and how they want it? If so, how don't you have a problem with it in this case or the MANY cases so far?

    This isn’t inconsistent though. Anet have always tried to bring players together. Metas have often included multi player achievements and we have at least one example of there being a requirement before as well.

    If anything I find this to be Anet keeping to their core pillars for once.

    This an extremely minor change is not going to do anything significant to bleed the population. It’s just a meta.

    There’s whole essays to be written on how change in strategies are often needed by services and businessses to survive. This is far, far, too small an issue to warrant going that deep and off topic though

    As for their being a majority, you missed my point entirely. One not existing is not in the slightest bit what I said. It’s people proclaiming themselves to be the main representation of the population to sway their argument when they have zero proof of the fact.

    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 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2020

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    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.

    No, they don't. They have feedback saying players want more accessible version of raids, not more accessible way to the current ones. That's a major difference.

    Basically, players in those threads didn't ask to be brought up to raid level - they asked for the raid level to be brought down to them.

    This is their route- getting more people into content they have been obstructed from doing in the past.

    Except the reasons why those players weren't interested in said content remain unchanged - because raids themselves didn't change. Nor do strikes offer anything to people that are truly interested in raids - the strikes do not teach you anything you couldn't learn in raids themselves, and the lessons raids do not teach are missing from strikes as well.
    As a "pathway to raids", strikes are not really a pathway, but more like a glorified "raids this way" guidepost. Or even more like a series of "need to be this tall to pass" checkpoints. The road itself remains as bumpy and winding as it always was, however, and the obstructions you speak of are still there.

    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.

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The Prologue: Bound by BLood was completed by 3.943% of the GW 2 efficiency population.
    Whisper in the Dark Meta was completed by 6.656% FO THE GW 2 effiency population.
    The Shadow in the Ice meta is completed so far by .704% of the GW 2 efficiency population.

    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.

    Interesting to note the previous meta completion rates:

    Daybreak: 11.629%
    A Bug in the System: 8.126%
    Long Live the Lich: 7.003%
    A Star to Guide Us: 7.947%
    All or Nothing: 4.883%
    War Eternal: 3.535%

    Also, Icebrood Saga meta achievements do require quite a bit of grinding and repetition

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    The relevance is all about how this change impacts the players and if that has a big enough impact to the health of the game.

    The players impacted by this change will be the players that go after the meta achievements of the zones. Judging by the gw2efficiency numbers, that number of the population is very low. A tiny minority of the overall population of the game so I'm not sure it can have an impact to the health of the game

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

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The Prologue: Bound by BLood was completed by 3.943% of the GW 2 efficiency population.
    Whisper in the Dark Meta was completed by 6.656% FO THE GW 2 effiency population.
    The Shadow in the Ice meta is completed so far by .704% of the GW 2 efficiency population.

    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.

    Interesting to note the previous meta completion rates:

    Daybreak: 11.629%
    A Bug in the System: 8.126%
    Long Live the Lich: 7.003%
    A Star to Guide Us: 7.947%
    All or Nothing: 4.883%
    War Eternal: 3.535%

    Also, Icebrood Saga meta achievements do require quite a bit of grinding and repetition

    Interesting numbers. With so few people completing these metas (in as far as gw2efficiency is at all representative), I can't help wondering why they would throw up additional barriers. It's a shame we can't see actual ANet data.

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

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The Prologue: Bound by BLood was completed by 3.943% of the GW 2 efficiency population.
    Whisper in the Dark Meta was completed by 6.656% FO THE GW 2 effiency population.
    The Shadow in the Ice meta is completed so far by .704% of the GW 2 efficiency population.

    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.

    Interesting to note the previous meta completion rates:

    Daybreak: 11.629%
    A Bug in the System: 8.126%
    Long Live the Lich: 7.003%
    A Star to Guide Us: 7.947%
    All or Nothing: 4.883%
    War Eternal: 3.535%

    Also, Icebrood Saga meta achievements do require quite a bit of grinding and repetition

    Interesting numbers. With so few people completing these metas (in as far as gw2efficiency is at all representative), I can't help wondering why they would throw up additional barriers. It's a shame we can't see actual ANet data.

    See it this way. Each meta achievement requires the completion of ~200 AP
    This means that the players that finished all the above meta events have approximately 1200 AP, just by finishing the meta achievements. With the 3 Icebrood Saga meta achievements awarding a further ~600 AP which brings the total to 1800 AP. Now this is an approximation, not very accurate. And it doesn't include collection, general and daily achievements a player might finish while going for the meta.

    Given how the turning point for the top 10% of the overall population is at 2870 AP, based on the leaderboards, it's easy to see that most players finishing the meta achievements are at the very least in the top 10% of the overall population. Now if we include POF completion, core game completion and HOT-era achievements, then the number of players satisfying the criteria will be a lot lower. So I believe the percentages of gw2efficiency should be very accurate.

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

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The Prologue: Bound by BLood was completed by 3.943% of the GW 2 efficiency population.
    Whisper in the Dark Meta was completed by 6.656% FO THE GW 2 effiency population.
    The Shadow in the Ice meta is completed so far by .704% of the GW 2 efficiency population.

    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.

    Interesting to note the previous meta completion rates:

    Daybreak: 11.629%
    A Bug in the System: 8.126%
    Long Live the Lich: 7.003%
    A Star to Guide Us: 7.947%
    All or Nothing: 4.883%
    War Eternal: 3.535%

    Also, Icebrood Saga meta achievements do require quite a bit of grinding and repetition

    Interesting numbers. With so few people completing these metas (in as far as gw2efficiency is at all representative), I can't help wondering why they would throw up additional barriers. It's a shame we can't see actual ANet data.

    See it this way. Each meta achievement requires the completion of ~200 AP
    This means that the players that finished all the above meta events have approximately 1200 AP, just by finishing the meta achievements. With the 3 Icebrood Saga meta achievements awarding a further ~600 AP which brings the total to 1800 AP. Now this is an approximation, not very accurate. And it doesn't include collection, general and daily achievements a player might finish while going for the meta.

    Given how the turning point for the top 10% of the overall population is at 2870 AP, based on the leaderboards, it's easy to see that most players finishing the meta achievements are at the very least in the top 10% of the overall population. Now if we include POF completion, core game completion and HOT-era achievements, then the number of players satisfying the criteria will be a lot lower. So I believe the percentages of gw2efficiency should be very accurate.

    I believe GW2E is losing relevance regarding its statistics as time goes on. The steady decline in those numbers might very well be due to less and less GW2E registered accounts being actively played. GW2E might also be "contaminated" by people registering multiple accounts while only playing a single one for real.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2020

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:
    I believe GW2E is losing relevance regarding its statistics as time goes on. The steady decline in those numbers might very well be due to less and less GW2E registered accounts being actively played. GW2E might also be "contaminated" by people registering multiple accounts while only playing a single one for real.

    There is another piece of data we can use, how many players -started- an episode, with their respective meta completions:

    Daybreak: 58.522% / 11.629%
    A Bug in the System: 50.284% / 8.126%
    Long Live the Lich: 51.338% / 7.003%
    A Star to Guide Us: 44.449% / 7.947%
    All or Nothing: 41.004% / 4.883%
    War Eternal: 40.749% / 3.535%
    Bound By Blood: 33.292% / 3.943%
    Whisper in the Dark: 26.712% / 6.656%
    Shadow in the Ice: 22.886% / .704%

    Using this information we can see which map meta was more successful than the others, simply using meta completion rates isn't enough because that doesn't tell us how many players started that episode in the first place. But with the start information we can find out which meta events were more popular and which metas weren't. So far the most popular meta achievement is Whisper in the Dark with 24.9% completion rate out of those that started it, this can tell us, and Arenanet, something.

    There is a spike in Whisper in the Dark AND Bound By Blood meta completion rates, compared to War Eternal, even though less players started them, more players finished the meta achievement. So maybe players didn't like the War Eternal meta, or the rewards of it, or maybe the rewards of the Whisper in the Dark meta are good/exciting, or that the content required for the Whisper in the Dark is better than the one needed for War Eternal. A Star to Guide Us is another curious bump.

    Edit: obviously Shadow in the Ice is at the bottom. We'll see how that goes when some time passes as some of the achievements do require an excessive grind/repetition.

    Edit 2: by using the start information as our "total" we can eliminate many secondary accounts as they won't be calculated. Unless of course a player with 12 accounts registered starts the episode on all of them.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The Prologue: Bound by BLood was completed by 3.943% of the GW 2 efficiency population.
    Whisper in the Dark Meta was completed by 6.656% FO THE GW 2 effiency population.
    The Shadow in the Ice meta is completed so far by .704% of the GW 2 efficiency population.

    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.

    Interesting to note the previous meta completion rates:

    Daybreak: 11.629%
    A Bug in the System: 8.126%
    Long Live the Lich: 7.003%
    A Star to Guide Us: 7.947%
    All or Nothing: 4.883%
    War Eternal: 3.535%

    Also, Icebrood Saga meta achievements do require quite a bit of grinding and repetition

    Interesting numbers. With so few people completing these metas (in as far as gw2efficiency is at all representative), I can't help wondering why they would throw up additional barriers. It's a shame we can't see actual ANet data.

    See it this way. Each meta achievement requires the completion of ~200 AP
    This means that the players that finished all the above meta events have approximately 1200 AP, just by finishing the meta achievements. With the 3 Icebrood Saga meta achievements awarding a further ~600 AP which brings the total to 1800 AP. Now this is an approximation, not very accurate. And it doesn't include collection, general and daily achievements a player might finish while going for the meta.

    Given how the turning point for the top 10% of the overall population is at 2870 AP, based on the leaderboards, it's easy to see that most players finishing the meta achievements are at the very least in the top 10% of the overall population. Now if we include POF completion, core game completion and HOT-era achievements, then the number of players satisfying the criteria will be a lot lower. So I believe the percentages of gw2efficiency should be very accurate.

    I believe GW2E is losing relevance regarding its statistics as time goes on. The steady decline in those numbers might very well be due to less and less GW2E registered accounts being actively played. GW2E might also be "contaminated" by people registering multiple accounts while only playing a single one for real.

    I registered two myself, before realizing you can put multiple APIs on a single registered account. I'm sure not everyone realizes this.

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

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:
    I believe GW2E is losing relevance regarding its statistics as time goes on. The steady decline in those numbers might very well be due to less and less GW2E registered accounts being actively played. GW2E might also be "contaminated" by people registering multiple accounts while only playing a single one for real.

    There is another piece of data we can use, how many players -started- an episode, with their respective meta completions:

    Daybreak: 58.522% / 11.629%
    A Bug in the System: 50.284% / 8.126%
    Long Live the Lich: 51.338% / 7.003%
    A Star to Guide Us: 44.449% / 7.947%
    All or Nothing: 41.004% / 4.883%
    War Eternal: 40.749% / 3.535%
    Bound By Blood: 33.292% / 3.943%
    Whisper in the Dark: 26.712% / 6.656%
    Shadow in the Ice: 22.886% / .704%

    Using this information we can see which map meta was more successful than the others, simply using meta completion rates isn't enough because that doesn't tell us how many players started that episode in the first place. But with the start information we can find out which meta events were more popular and which metas weren't. So far the most popular meta achievement is Whisper in the Dark with 24.9% completion rate out of those that started it, this can tell us, and Arenanet, something.

    There is a spike in Whisper in the Dark AND Bound By Blood meta completion rates, compared to War Eternal, even though less players started them, more players finished the meta achievement. So maybe players didn't like the War Eternal meta, or the rewards of it, or maybe the rewards of the Whisper in the Dark meta are good/exciting, or that the content required for the Whisper in the Dark is better than the one needed for War Eternal. A Star to Guide Us is another curious bump.

    Edit: obviously Shadow in the Ice is at the bottom. We'll see how that goes when some time passes as some of the achievements do require an excessive grind/repetition.

    Edit 2: by using the start information as our "total" we can eliminate many secondary accounts as they won't be calculated. Unless of course a player with 12 accounts registered starts the episode on all of them.

    What criterium do you use to determine when an account has started a meta?

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

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:
    I believe GW2E is losing relevance regarding its statistics as time goes on. The steady decline in those numbers might very well be due to less and less GW2E registered accounts being actively played. GW2E might also be "contaminated" by people registering multiple accounts while only playing a single one for real.

    There is another piece of data we can use, how many players -started- an episode, with their respective meta completions:

    Daybreak: 58.522% / 11.629%
    A Bug in the System: 50.284% / 8.126%
    Long Live the Lich: 51.338% / 7.003%
    A Star to Guide Us: 44.449% / 7.947%
    All or Nothing: 41.004% / 4.883%
    War Eternal: 40.749% / 3.535%
    Bound By Blood: 33.292% / 3.943%
    Whisper in the Dark: 26.712% / 6.656%
    Shadow in the Ice: 22.886% / .704%

    Using this information we can see which map meta was more successful than the others, simply using meta completion rates isn't enough because that doesn't tell us how many players started that episode in the first place. But with the start information we can find out which meta events were more popular and which metas weren't. So far the most popular meta achievement is Whisper in the Dark with 24.9% completion rate out of those that started it, this can tell us, and Arenanet, something.

    There is a spike in Whisper in the Dark AND Bound By Blood meta completion rates, compared to War Eternal, even though less players started them, more players finished the meta achievement. So maybe players didn't like the War Eternal meta, or the rewards of it, or maybe the rewards of the Whisper in the Dark meta are good/exciting, or that the content required for the Whisper in the Dark is better than the one needed for War Eternal. A Star to Guide Us is another curious bump.

    Edit: obviously Shadow in the Ice is at the bottom. We'll see how that goes when some time passes as some of the achievements do require an excessive grind/repetition.

    Edit 2: by using the start information as our "total" we can eliminate many secondary accounts as they won't be calculated. Unless of course a player with 12 accounts registered starts the episode on all of them.

    What criterium do you use to determine when an account has started a meta?

    Started an episode, not a meta. I used the first achievement on the list of the episode, the one you usually get when finishing the first instance that will lead your first character to the next zone. Otherwise just used the most completed achievement on the list. I know the last two episodes are combined which will make this whole thing very confusing

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The Prologue: Bound by BLood was completed by 3.943% of the GW 2 efficiency population.
    Whisper in the Dark Meta was completed by 6.656% FO THE GW 2 effiency population.
    The Shadow in the Ice meta is completed so far by .704% of the GW 2 efficiency population.

    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.

    Interesting to note the previous meta completion rates:

    Daybreak: 11.629%
    A Bug in the System: 8.126%
    Long Live the Lich: 7.003%
    A Star to Guide Us: 7.947%
    All or Nothing: 4.883%
    War Eternal: 3.535%

    Also, Icebrood Saga meta achievements do require quite a bit of grinding and repetition

    It’s been largely argued on this thread, as well as on others, that GW2E isn’t representative of the player base and can’t be used for comparisons. The latter being an incorrect assumption depending on how you do it.

    I see three scenarios that could be gleaned from this:

    • Percentage of total players that complete these is greater than the percentage of total GW2E players that complete them
    • The percentages are the same
    • Percentage of total players that complete these is less than the percentage of total GW2E players that complete them

    The first one would be counter to the belief that GW2E players are more likely to complete these as they’re more ‘hardcore’ players.

    The second one would also counter the same belief but also lend support that GW2E may actually be representative.

    The this scenario is the most likely one in my opinion and is what is continuously used by ‘casual’ players to argue against GW2E’s usage.

    What this means is the the total percentage of GW2 players that complete these meta achievements are lower than the percentage shown on GW2E. This means that Vayne’s doom and gloom argument is grossly over-exaggerated. If less than 10% of the population complete the meta achievements then they’re likely not as big of a deal to the player base as they’re being made out to be.

  • Jayden Reese.9542Jayden Reese.9542 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:
    I believe GW2E is losing relevance regarding its statistics as time goes on. The steady decline in those numbers might very well be due to less and less GW2E registered accounts being actively played. GW2E might also be "contaminated" by people registering multiple accounts while only playing a single one for real.

    There is another piece of data we can use, how many players -started- an episode, with their respective meta completions:

    Daybreak: 58.522% / 11.629%
    A Bug in the System: 50.284% / 8.126%
    Long Live the Lich: 51.338% / 7.003%
    A Star to Guide Us: 44.449% / 7.947%
    All or Nothing: 41.004% / 4.883%
    War Eternal: 40.749% / 3.535%
    Bound By Blood: 33.292% / 3.943%
    Whisper in the Dark: 26.712% / 6.656%
    Shadow in the Ice: 22.886% / .704%

    The troubling info there is the steady decrease in players that even start the story even tho you can bypass it with tele to friends. I think war eternal low number was due to 1 story achieve being required and that was weak spot which I ignored. Whisper in the dark was a easy meta as it is one of the few maps I have full completion on let alone just meta. This new one has a ton of grindy things. The events the doing those puzzles 3 times req me to go back 3 days cause I wanted the end chest etc and easy strike achieves I had to wait 3 weeks to be available. This shows again the decline started well before the strike mission meta req which makes this entire threads premise flawed. I think it's possible the players who wanted an expansion left and those that gave the first couple episodes a chance and saw that this is not expansion level content have just slowly left also.

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

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    What this means is the the total percentage of GW2 players that complete these meta achievements are lower than the percentage shown on GW2E. This means that Vayne’s doom and gloom argument is grossly over-exaggerated. If less than 10% of the population complete the meta achievements then they’re likely not as big of a deal to the player base as they’re being made out to be.

    Vayne's "doom and gloom" is about the abysmal percentage of Shadow in the Ice, which is the lowest percentage the game ever had. But that's normal in my opinion given how much grind the Shadow in the Ice achievements require and how recent it is. Let's wait and see the percentages after 2-3 months and have a better opinion on that data.

    As for the population, GW2efficiency is VERY representative of the top achievement hunters, there are 147 players with Furious Achiever on GW2E and there are 45 (NA)+132(EU) = 177 players on the official leaderboards with 40k AP (so they possess that title). There are 1,862 players with Exalted Achiever (35k) on GW2E and there are 804 players in NA with that amount, all 1000 top EU accounts are beyond 35k and the lowest is at 36437, how many exist between that and 35k is anyone's guess, but it shouldn't be a number in the thousands. Meaning GW2efficiency is very representative of the 35k+ population as well.

    And I'm willing to bet that the results will be very similar for the 30k+ and the 20k+ AP players. Yes there are lots of secondary (or more) accounts but those can be filtered using higher AP amounts. Remember, 90% of the global population is under 2870 AP, meaning 90% of the population doesn't care about meta achievements, if they did, they'd be beyond that point by now because each meta achievement offers more than 200 AP for completion. So yes, no matter the results this affects a tiny minority of the global population, but it's useful data when designing future meta achievements.

  • Jayden Reese.9542Jayden Reese.9542 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @stormseeker.5361 said:
    Doesn't sound like there are any negatives to giving strike missions their own section then. Raid types wont lose AP and already do strikes, people wanting to do strikes for AP will still get it, people not wanting to do strikes but wanting the meta will get it, and people not caring about the meta, don't care anyway and may still do strikes regardless. No one should lose out, except perhaps those that seem to want people to lose out.

    You get that every single person here wouldn't gaf if tuesday they dropped the meta to 30/30 and gave strikes their own category right? It's this thread has 100 replys from one guy arguing that strikes added to this meta is why the majority doesn't do this particular meta and that's why we will lose players when all this evidence shows the decline started well before so he is wrong but won't let this fight end. THe amount after that change would bump up if they did but I doubt with all the grindy stuff included it would go break 5 percent of the total population like others

  • Grindy content is another matter altogether. Was under the impression this thread was about strike missions being included in the meta, making it less accessible than other metas. So I wouldnt say "every single person", I know of quite a few that dislike the requirement, mostly veterans of the game who have stuck around for many years and many thousands of hours, like myself.

  • Jayden Reese.9542Jayden Reese.9542 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2020

    @stormseeker.5361 said:
    Grindy content is another matter altogether. Was under the impression this thread was about strike missions being included in the meta, making it less accessible than other metas. So I wouldnt say "every single person", I know of quite a few that dislike the requirement, mostly veterans of the game who have stuck around for many years and many thousands of hours, like myself.

    My first sentence says that so unless you got someone saying they in no way want strike achieves removed from the meta I stand behind every single person wouldn't be upset if they gave strikes their own catagory. You also fast foward to the end of this thread which is understandable too

  • Ah =) Misread your meaning.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    The relevance is all about how this change impacts the players and if that has a big enough impact to the health of the game.

    The players impacted by this change will be the players that go after the meta achievements of the zones. Judging by the gw2efficiency numbers, that number of the population is very low. A tiny minority of the overall population of the game so I'm not sure it can have an impact to the health of the game

    In the particular instance, sure... I'm talking about something grander than JUST this one instance and I'm sure the OP made a thread about this particular time because THIS particular one (of which there are MANY examples) is the example that affected him. You aren't getting it ... it's not that Anet has been inconsistent THIS time ... it's that Anet is inconsistent LOTS of times and in each instance, it affects some tiny minority, and those tiny minorities over many times becomes a rather significant group of players. Frankly, I already explained this in the thread you are replying to. I can only conclude you can't comprehend this ... or just ignoring it to be disagreeable.

    So while you want to argue that this one instance isn't going to have that big an impact to the health of the game (and that could be right, I don't know), everyone that recognizes the long-term inconsistency is an ongoing issue that has existed for a long time is a mile ahead of you and sees how bad it is for the game.

    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/

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2020

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    This isn’t inconsistent though.

    It sure as hell is inconsistent ... it's EXCEPTIONALLY inconsistent to throw 10 man achievements into OW meta achieves ... I can't even believe I have to explicitly state that.

    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/

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    What this means is the the total percentage of GW2 players that complete these meta achievements are lower than the percentage shown on GW2E. This means that Vayne’s doom and gloom argument is grossly over-exaggerated. If less than 10% of the population complete the meta achievements then they’re likely not as big of a deal to the player base as they’re being made out to be.

    Vayne's "doom and gloom" is about the abysmal percentage of Shadow in the Ice, which is the lowest percentage the game ever had. But that's normal in my opinion given how much grind the Shadow in the Ice achievements require and how recent it is. Let's wait and see the percentages after 2-3 months and have a better opinion on that data.

    As for the population, GW2efficiency is VERY representative of the top achievement hunters, there are 147 players with Furious Achiever on GW2E and there are 45 (NA)+132(EU) = 177 players on the official leaderboards with 40k AP (so they possess that title). There are 1,862 players with Exalted Achiever (35k) on GW2E and there are 804 players in NA with that amount, all 1000 top EU accounts are beyond 35k and the lowest is at 36437, how many exist between that and 35k is anyone's guess, but it shouldn't be a number in the thousands. Meaning GW2efficiency is very representative of the 35k+ population as well.

    And I'm willing to bet that the results will be very similar for the 30k+ and the 20k+ AP players. Yes there are lots of secondary (or more) accounts but those can be filtered using higher AP amounts. Remember, 90% of the global population is under 2870 AP, meaning 90% of the population doesn't care about meta achievements, if they did, they'd be beyond that point by now because each meta achievement offers more than 200 AP for completion. So yes, no matter the results this affects a tiny minority of the global population, but it's useful data when designing future meta achievements.

    Vaynes doom and gloom doesn't believe casual players have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts, but they represent a significant portion of the playerbase. Until you can prove that most players have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts that are playing today, we're only getting a percnetage of people who have accounts on GW 2 efficiency. Many of those are likely harder core players and they may not do zone meta at all because they have their own end game. As this game moves further and further away from what I want, I will personally be looking for another game. Obviously if that happens some of my guild will come with me, probably only a couple of dozen people, because we've played together for years. But you can't just change the game by trying to encourage people who raid who have already basically said they're not interest in raiding. It's like throwing good money after bad.

  • Jayden Reese.9542Jayden Reese.9542 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 19, 2020

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    This isn’t inconsistent though.

    It sure as hell is inconsistent ... it's EXCEPTIONALLY inconsistent to throw 10 man achievements into OW meta achieves ... I can't even believe I have to explicitly state that.

    That's because you cherry picked a few words out of context with the statement I made against the question posed and cut the rest of the line out

    The rest of the statement I made in reply to Anet being consistent in philosophy to how they deliver was;

    "Anet have always tried to bring players together. Metas have often included multi player achievements and we have at least one example of there being a requirement before as well."

    Them including the strikes in the meta is part of that goal and is consistent with the design goals they have strived for over the years

    You're spin doctoring. @""Obtena.7952" is correct.

    Please don't post off topic replies nor twist what I wrote. This is nothing to do with spin doctoring. You just disagree. There is a difference

    "Anet have always tried to bring players together. Metas have often included multi player achievements"

    You are pulling the "anet wants us to be friends" card that has zero relevance to the topic. "Metas" are OPEN WORLD meta events made for large groups of players. FORCING people to do raid "stepping stones" to complete zone achievements is not what MOST people want. If we wanted raids and raid stuff, then we wouldn't have the devs saying they don't want to spend money making more bc the raid population is so small.

    You ARE spin doctoring.

    The majority 94 percent don't even do the meta so MOST people don't care. Some want raids. We already know you don't. I and MOST people don't care raids exist tho for those that enjoys it same as strike missions MOST people don't care if they exist either way. A SMALL minority wants to do the meta and even less of that SMALL minority is upset they can't do it because of not even being willing to do the easy strike missions to get it. I still support this SMALL minority and hope anet removes strikes from meta so those FEW can get the shiver emote.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Amy of Darkness.5248 said:
    34 people thumbs-upped this post, yet there's like, 3 maybe 4 people insisting they are the majority opinion? Risible!

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    This isn’t about consistency, it is just people’s irrational phobias over instanced content.

    NO. I absolutely resent your implication and you are putting words in OP's mouth while making a sweeping generalization about other players. Nobody in this thread has said or even implied even once that they are afraid of it, not OP or anyone else who is unhappy with this change. They said they already tried and they didn't LIKE it.

    Why is it so hard for you all to understand that we want to do this content on our own terms. Funneling people into content as a requirement so they can pretend there's more interest in it than there is, it sets a bad precedent.

    In which case I apologise for a sweeping implication which was not meant in that way so shouldn't have been written by me. I have removed that line completely. My context was based on the OP later saying they hated instances from experiences in other games and was influencing in part their opinion here. Since I can understand you thought I was making a general sweep about players, I have removed that bit since it wasn't really necessary I agree.

    I hate raids in particular for experience in other games, not broadly instanced content, considering Guild Wars 1 was my main game and it was all instanced content and I had no problems at all with any of the instanced content in Guild Wars 1 because it was all segmented. Not beating the Underworld didn't affect my GWAMM title or my ability to get 50/50 in the Hall of Monuments because there were other options. I actually did finish DOA, FIssuer of Woe, Slavers Exile, THe Deep and Urgoz's Warren. In fact, I finished DOA with my wife and six heroes. There were options. And all I'm asking for here is options.

    You want to take people out of their comfort zones after years of playing you do so at your own risk. I'm not saying don't have raids. I'm not saying don't have strike missions. I'm asking that raids and strike missions exist without overtly affecting the game I've been playing for years. I'm not sure who this is unreaonable.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    This isn’t inconsistent though.

    It sure as hell is inconsistent ... it's EXCEPTIONALLY inconsistent to throw 10 man achievements into OW meta achieves ... I can't even believe I have to explicitly state that.

    That's because you cherry picked a few words out of context with the statement I made against the question posed and cut the rest of the line out

    The rest of the statement I made in reply to Anet being consistent in philosophy to how they deliver was;

    "Anet have always tried to bring players together. Metas have often included multi player achievements and we have at least one example of there being a requirement before as well."

    Them including the strikes in the meta is part of that goal and is consistent with the design goals they have strived for over the years

    You're spin doctoring. @""Obtena.7952" is correct.

    Please don't post off topic replies nor twist what I wrote. This is nothing to do with spin doctoring. You just disagree. There is a difference

    "Anet have always tried to bring players together. Metas have often included multi player achievements"

    You are pulling the "anet wants us to be friends" card that has zero relevance to the topic. "Metas" are OPEN WORLD meta events made for large groups of players. FORCING people to do raid "stepping stones" to complete zone achievements is not what MOST people want. If we wanted raids and raid stuff, then we wouldn't have the devs saying they don't want to spend money making more bc the raid population is so small.

    You ARE spin doctoring.

    The majority 94 percent don't even do the meta so MOST people don't care. Some want raids. We already know you don't. I and MOST people don't care raids exist tho for those that enjoys it same as strike missions MOST people don't care if they exist either way. A SMALL minority wants to do the meta and even less of that SMALL minority is upset they can't do it because of not even being willing to do the easy strike missions to get it. I still support this SMALL minority and hope anet removes strikes from meta so those FEW can get the shiver emote.

    If you're getting that number of 94% from GW 2 efficiency all you can really say is that 94% of people who have accounts on efficiency and still play don't do the meta. I mean obvoiusly people who left the game two years ago don't do the meta, but may still have accounts on efficiency. That's why I used it as a recent comparative stat rather than a long term stat. The longer you go out the more inaccurate it becomes. I chose a very small snap shot to make a compartive study not an absolute one.

    Tell me, what percentage of my guild of 400 casuals do you think have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts? I have ten accounts. I do the meta on one of them. Therefore 90% of the meta doesn't get done on GW2 efficiency. My wife has ten accounts and the same applies to her. It's just not a valid source of the over all statement that only 6% of the population does the meta. But we can do an analysis of how many people comparatively do the meta that are guild wars 2 efficiency users from one chapter to the next, because we're ONLY looking at efficiency users.

    On the other topic, I don't believe most casuals even know what efficiency is or have accounts there or entered their API. Most of my guild doesn't. But many of them do go for the metas. Again it's the casual end game. That and collecting stuff like skins. Emotes would bea perfect thing to give a casual as a reward. Role players are the guys who most care about emotes. Are we saying role players are the most likely guys to enjoy strike missions?

    It's just a bad change. It's even a worse change if it doesnt' work to get more people into raids and I don't think it will.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 20, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Amy of Darkness.5248 said:
    34 people thumbs-upped this post, yet there's like, 3 maybe 4 people insisting they are the majority opinion? Risible!

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    This isn’t about consistency, it is just people’s irrational phobias over instanced content.

    NO. I absolutely resent your implication and you are putting words in OP's mouth while making a sweeping generalization about other players. Nobody in this thread has said or even implied even once that they are afraid of it, not OP or anyone else who is unhappy with this change. They said they already tried and they didn't LIKE it.

    Why is it so hard for you all to understand that we want to do this content on our own terms. Funneling people into content as a requirement so they can pretend there's more interest in it than there is, it sets a bad precedent.

    In which case I apologise for a sweeping implication which was not meant in that way so shouldn't have been written by me. I have removed that line completely. My context was based on the OP later saying they hated instances from experiences in other games and was influencing in part their opinion here. Since I can understand you thought I was making a general sweep about players, I have removed that bit since it wasn't really necessary I agree.

    I hate raids in particular for experience in other games, not broadly instanced content, considering Guild Wars 1 was my main game and it was all instanced content and I had no problems at all with any of the instanced content in Guild Wars 1 because it was all segmented. Not beating the Underworld didn't affect my GWAMM title or my ability to get 50/50 in the Hall of Monuments because there were other options. I actually did finish DOA, FIssuer of Woe, Slavers Exile, THe Deep and Urgoz's Warren. In fact, I finished DOA with my wife and six heroes. There were options. And all I'm asking for here is options.

    You want to take people out of their comfort zones after years of playing you do so at your own risk. I'm not saying don't have raids. I'm not saying don't have strike missions. I'm asking that raids and strike missions exist without overtly affecting the game I've been playing for years. I'm not sure who this is unreaonable.

    I have from the beginning both disagreed with you and said your feedback is equally as valid. I have been clear on that multiple times. So no, your feedback is not unreasonable. I just don't support your viewpoint and do support Anet's implementation (and frankly that's somewhat of a miracle given my criticisms of Anet at time over the last year) and do believe this isn't either anything fundamentally new or a long term problem for the game.

    I do think what Anet is doing is the right way forward for all the reasons I have stated previously. I'm not sure why it is unreasonable to so many others to have a contrary opinion. It is allowed. I have put forward my reasons why. I even agreed I wouldn't mind if they did reduce the reqs, despite believing in the current method.

    The only real issues I have had contention with is this belief players have they represent the majority. But I think we eventually got past that for most people.
    The other being that players ignore that Anet have stated players do want raids based on the feedback they gathered. It's the difficulty gap that is being fedback by players most commonly as the cited issue

    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 ✭✭✭✭

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    This isn’t inconsistent though.

    It sure as hell is inconsistent ... it's EXCEPTIONALLY inconsistent to throw 10 man achievements into OW meta achieves ... I can't even believe I have to explicitly state that.

    That's because you cherry picked a few words out of context with the statement I made against the question posed and cut the rest of the line out

    The rest of the statement I made in reply to Anet being consistent in philosophy to how they deliver was;

    "Anet have always tried to bring players together. Metas have often included multi player achievements and we have at least one example of there being a requirement before as well."

    Them including the strikes in the meta is part of that goal and is consistent with the design goals they have strived for over the years

    You're spin doctoring. @""Obtena.7952" is correct.

    Please don't post off topic replies nor twist what I wrote. This is nothing to do with spin doctoring. You just disagree. There is a difference

    "Anet have always tried to bring players together. Metas have often included multi player achievements"

    You are pulling the "anet wants us to be friends" card that has zero relevance to the topic. "Metas" are OPEN WORLD meta events made for large groups of players. FORCING people to do raid "stepping stones" to complete zone achievements is not what MOST people want. If we wanted raids and raid stuff, then we wouldn't have the devs saying they don't want to spend money making more bc the raid population is so small.

    You ARE spin doctoring.

    The majority 94 percent don't even do the meta so MOST people don't care. Some want raids. We already know you don't. I and MOST people don't care raids exist tho for those that enjoys it same as strike missions MOST people don't care if they exist either way. A SMALL minority wants to do the meta and even less of that SMALL minority is upset they can't do it because of not even being willing to do the easy strike missions to get it. I still support this SMALL minority and hope anet removes strikes from meta so those FEW can get the shiver emote.

    If you're getting that number of 94% from GW 2 efficiency all you can really say is that 94% of people who have accounts on efficiency and still play don't do the meta. I mean obvoiusly people who left the game two years ago don't do the meta, but may still have accounts on efficiency. That's why I used it as a recent comparative stat rather than a long term stat. The longer you go out the more inaccurate it becomes. I chose a very small snap shot to make a compartive study not an absolute one.

    Tell me, what percentage of my guild of 400 casuals do you think have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts? I have ten accounts. I do the meta on one of them. Therefore 90% of the meta doesn't get done on GW2 efficiency. My wife has ten accounts and the same applies to her. It's just not a valid source of the over all statement that only 6% of the population does the meta. But we can do an analysis of how many people comparatively do the meta that are guild wars 2 efficiency users from one chapter to the next, because we're ONLY looking at efficiency users.

    On the other topic, I don't believe most casuals even know what efficiency is or have accounts there or entered their API. Most of my guild doesn't. But many of them do go for the metas. Again it's the casual end game. That and collecting stuff like skins. Emotes would bea perfect thing to give a casual as a reward. Role players are the guys who most care about emotes. Are we saying role players are the most likely guys to enjoy strike missions?

    It's just a bad change. It's even a worse change if it doesnt' work to get more people into raids and I don't think it will.

    No you gave me those numbers but you back-peddle so hard now cause that was a mistake. Now in order to win this argument you will never let end I have to prove stuff no one but an anet employee can. A person linked alot more info later and shows a steady decrease from starting story on each map(which I call at least active) to finishing meta like 3-11 percent from the last 9 maps which destroys the entire premise of this thread. Now again you talking how you are going to quit and I still don't care if anet puts strikes into it's own category but you will argue forever if we don't cow tow completely to your every opinion.

    Stop throwing the 10 accounts. Did all 10 start story cause if they didn't they already got weeded out but even if you did 1 outta 11 is 9 percent which is still higher then most overall numbers who completed meta. You love this.

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    This isn’t inconsistent though.

    It sure as hell is inconsistent ... it's EXCEPTIONALLY inconsistent to throw 10 man achievements into OW meta achieves ... I can't even believe I have to explicitly state that.

    That's because you cherry picked a few words out of context with the statement I made against the question posed and cut the rest of the line out

    The rest of the statement I made in reply to Anet being consistent in philosophy to how they deliver was;

    "Anet have always tried to bring players together. Metas have often included multi player achievements and we have at least one example of there being a requirement before as well."

    Them including the strikes in the meta is part of that goal and is consistent with the design goals they have strived for over the years

    You're spin doctoring. @""Obtena.7952" is correct.

    Please don't post off topic replies nor twist what I wrote. This is nothing to do with spin doctoring. You just disagree. There is a difference

    "Anet have always tried to bring players together. Metas have often included multi player achievements"

    You are pulling the "anet wants us to be friends" card that has zero relevance to the topic. "Metas" are OPEN WORLD meta events made for large groups of players. FORCING people to do raid "stepping stones" to complete zone achievements is not what MOST people want. If we wanted raids and raid stuff, then we wouldn't have the devs saying they don't want to spend money making more bc the raid population is so small.

    You ARE spin doctoring.

    The majority 94 percent don't even do the meta so MOST people don't care. Some want raids. We already know you don't. I and MOST people don't care raids exist tho for those that enjoys it same as strike missions MOST people don't care if they exist either way. A SMALL minority wants to do the meta and even less of that SMALL minority is upset they can't do it because of not even being willing to do the easy strike missions to get it. I still support this SMALL minority and hope anet removes strikes from meta so those FEW can get the shiver emote.

    If you're getting that number of 94% from GW 2 efficiency all you can really say is that 94% of people who have accounts on efficiency and still play don't do the meta. I mean obvoiusly people who left the game two years ago don't do the meta, but may still have accounts on efficiency. That's why I used it as a recent comparative stat rather than a long term stat. The longer you go out the more inaccurate it becomes. I chose a very small snap shot to make a compartive study not an absolute one.

    Tell me, what percentage of my guild of 400 casuals do you think have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts? I have ten accounts. I do the meta on one of them. Therefore 90% of the meta doesn't get done on GW2 efficiency. My wife has ten accounts and the same applies to her. It's just not a valid source of the over all statement that only 6% of the population does the meta. But we can do an analysis of how many people comparatively do the meta that are guild wars 2 efficiency users from one chapter to the next, because we're ONLY looking at efficiency users.

    On the other topic, I don't believe most casuals even know what efficiency is or have accounts there or entered their API. Most of my guild doesn't. But many of them do go for the metas. Again it's the casual end game. That and collecting stuff like skins. Emotes would bea perfect thing to give a casual as a reward. Role players are the guys who most care about emotes. Are we saying role players are the most likely guys to enjoy strike missions?

    It's just a bad change. It's even a worse change if it doesnt' work to get more people into raids and I don't think it will.

    No you gave me those numbers but you back-peddle so hard now cause that was a mistake. Now in order to win this argument you will never let end I have to prove stuff no one but an anet employee can. A person linked alot more info later and shows a steady decrease from starting story on each map(which I call at least active) to finishing meta like 3-11 percent from the last 9 maps which destroys the entire premise of this thread. Now again you talking how you are going to quit and I still don't care if anet puts strikes into it's own category but you will argue forever if we don't cow tow completely to your every opinion.

    Stop throwing the 10 accounts. Did all 10 start story cause if they didn't they already got weeded out but even if you did 1 outta 11 is 9 percent which is still higher then most overall numbers who completed meta. You love this.

    I did start the story on most of those accounts, yes. It's how I get characters to those locations. In fact I've finished the story on mutliple accounts without going for the meta. I do it to help guildies, since i don't have any characters that need those stories on my main account anymore. Might as well get alt accounts through. Comes under the playing with friends banner.

    No, it was not a mistake to introduce Guild Wars 2 effiency into this equation. It didn't exactly what I intended it to do in my first post. It talked about recent compartive numbers, which is precisely what it's useful for.

    It's reasonable to assume there's value in recent numbers, but that doesnt' necessarily follow that those numbers would represent everyone in the game. It's very simple. Fortunately for me, Anet has the real numbers and I guarnatee you they're higher than you think.

    Reread your last to yourself a dozen times and realize you can't keep saying you speak for the majority and link numbers to prove a point then dismiss the same numbers to disprove any counterpoint. Just like my and your opinion don't represent every one in the game as every day after work 6pm est you can't wait to argue. And I even get that. I don't get why you can't compromise and see we all are ok with strikes being removed from the meta so you or anyone in guild don't have to do them.

    I can say I speak for the majority if the majority of the players don't have a Guild Wars 2 efficiency account, because they're casual. It's pretty simple. I can guarantee you more hard core players have GW2 efficiency accounts that casual players just logically. I can also guarantee you that most of the 400 people in my guild don't have an efficiency account. If my guild were reprsentative of the game, that would mean less than 15% of the playerbase has an efficiency account. So it's useful to compare people with efficiency accounts but not useful to talk about over all population.

    I've already mentioned about the dev from Lotro who left the game and said that though 50% of forum posts are by raiders and PvPers only 10% of the game's population ever raided or PvPed. The casual playerbase isnt' so loud, generally. Most casuals never come to forums, or reddit and why would they? Most casuals logically wouldn't have a GW 2 efficiency account too. My that logic most casuals don't raid and most casuals wouldn't be here to have this discussion.

    I'm a different kind of casual it's true. But I'm fairly certainly that causual who are often solo players will chip away at zone metas because they can do most of that stuff by themselves. That includes world bosses they can just show up. I've seen this behavior in my guild over and over over the years. People obviously come and go, but the casuals are more into achievements generally and less into instanced harder content.

    You dont' have to believe me. But everything I've said is logical. if you think somehow that most casuals ran out, learned about efficiency, learned with an API code is and took the time to fill it in, I'm not sure what to tell you. Which doesn't at all invalidate a compartive study of efficiency users.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:
    Now you want to speak on behalf of a community you are not apart of. So if you think those who don't have a GW2 efficiency account are the majority and you do wait for it. You are in the minority. So you think this baseline of 3-11 percent completing meta of Hard core gw2 efficiency players numbers will be lower then the vast amount of casuals. Are you really going that route and saying everything you say is logical?

    You mean a guild leader shouldn't talk for his guild. You can be part of a community and still be an outlier. I call myself a hard core casual for a reason. I'm the hardest core casual there is. Doesnt' really stop me from being casual. I do all the same stuff people in my guild do, just more of it. lol

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:
    And don't swap arguments where most don't raid because everyone knows raiders are a minority. And that's where I know you base comes from. You hate raids because they had to adjust stats and builds that affected your pve and I will guess you were a Chrono main. I was too. I never raided but the gold and changes we had to go thru was endless but I still do strikes until I get the achieves.

    I never had a problem with the chrono main changes. I've spent more hours on my soul beast than my chrono btw, and almost as many hours on an engie. I have 14 characters that have played every single story and completed every single map in this game. 8 of them are in full ascended gear (two even have ascended aqua breathers).

    I hate raids because of other games more than how they're implemented in this game. I feel about raids the way I feel about PvP. It's fine that it's there as long as I'm not affected by it. Let me have a PvP lobby, go to that lobby if I want to do that content, which occasionally I do.

    But taking something I've been doing all along and changing it for the benefit of raiders? That's precisely what I was worried about in the first place and it's starting to happen. What should I do? Sit around and wait until it's too late to say something. It's a change I feel is bad for the game, so sure i'm going to say something. And if you haven't noticed I'm not alone.

    And again, a large percentage of casuals will never post here, or even see this thread.