Including Strike Mission Achievements as a Required Part of the Zone Meta - Page 8 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Fractals/Dungeons/Strike Missions/Raids

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

168101112

Comments

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @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

    Yes of course talk to your guild. But the MAJORITY of us are not in your guild so speaking for the entire I'm president of GW2 is what I don't get. Ok. reset time. I do a ton of kitten. Till tomorrow if this thread doesn't die and because of you I know it won't.

    Yes the majority of players aren't in my guild. But the majority of players aren't likely in raid guilds either. Are you suggesting there are more raiders than casuals? Are you suggesting there are more raiders who care about zone metas than casuals. If casuals make up the bulk of the population (and I believe they do) and casuals are more likely to do stuff like zone metas (because that's always been what they do, story stuff and running around the open world) then logically more casuals will care about the zone metas by percentage than raiders.

    If you can accept that logic, then you can also accept this logic. If only 10% of casuals care about zone metas but half the game is casual, that's a much bigger percentage than people likely to love this idea of haivng to do strike missions to get their zone meta. It's really is all about percentage. My best guess is that more people will be annoyed by this change than any advantage gained. And Anet will have some idea of that from zone completion and decide if they want to change it.

    It'll be their decision in the end, not me, not you.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @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.

    But according to Vayne The MAJORITY of those casuals who don't use the forums agree with him. Last one this time no lie.

    Actually I never said that. But I do think it's far more likely that casuals would be interested in zone metas compared to hard core players who tend toward more instanced content.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 20, 2020

    @Jayden Reese.9542

    Sorry pal, but Vayne is right. Confirmed by the devs.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/97028/a-message-from-andrew-gray

    “Raids are a trickier beast. They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support, the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”

    Devs can’t justify spending money on the “small audience they attract”. The majority have spoken on raid and raid stuff over the past 5 years. We don’t want raids or forced 10 person raid junk in open world zones for achieves for that matter. You can say what you like, but ultimately you are wrong period. End of story.

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @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.

    But according to Vayne The MAJORITY of those casuals who don't use the forums agree with him. Last one this time no lie.

    Actually I never said that. But I do think it's far more likely that casuals would be interested in zone metas compared to hard core players who tend toward more instanced content.

    I know you didn't. Was pure sarcasm

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @Jayden Reese.9542

    Sorry pal, but Vayne is right. Confirmed by the devs.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/97028/a-message-from-andrew-gray

    “Raids are a trickier beast. They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support, the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”

    Devs can’t justify spending money on the “small audience they attract”. The majority have spoken on raid and raid stuff over the past 5 years. We don’t want raids or forced 10 person raid junk in open world zones for achieves for that matter. You can say what you like, but ultimately you are wrong period. End of story.

    Ok, waiting on Drakk escort. Never once did I say raids attract a large audience or they aren't the minority. I also say go ahead remove strikes from this meta into it's own category. You guys like to swap between to win any argument. IDK why. It is impressive how you guys keep this thread going tho even if at the core the person agrees but you find something to nitpick to carry on.

    Devs confirmed the large audience do not like raid stuff. Vayne is right period. Accept it or not, but those are the facts.

  • Jayden Reese.9542Jayden Reese.9542 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 20, 2020

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @Jayden Reese.9542

    Sorry pal, but Vayne is right. Confirmed by the devs.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/97028/a-message-from-andrew-gray

    “Raids are a trickier beast. They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support, the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”

    Devs can’t justify spending money on the “small audience they attract”. The majority have spoken on raid and raid stuff over the past 5 years. We don’t want raids or forced 10 person raid junk in open world zones for achieves for that matter. You can say what you like, but ultimately you are wrong period. End of story.

    Ok, waiting on Drakk escort. Never once did I say raids attract a large audience or they aren't the minority. I also say go ahead remove strikes from this meta into it's own category. You guys like to swap between to win any argument. IDK why. It is impressive how you guys keep this thread going tho even if at the core the person agrees but you find something to nitpick to carry on.

    Devs confirmed the large audience do not like raid stuff. Vayne is right period. Accept it or not, but those are the facts.

    I can't. Could you show me by linking a thread or video where they said that? Like there is no way at least 95 percent of us don't raid. Unless you can prove otherwise idk. And don't go use GW2 efficiency cause those don't represent the hard core raider population. I need anets data. Hmu when you get that ty.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 20, 2020

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @Jayden Reese.9542

    Sorry pal, but Vayne is right. Confirmed by the devs.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/97028/a-message-from-andrew-gray

    “Raids are a trickier beast. They're a unique experience and community that we want to find better ways to support, the biggest challenge in creating more is the small audience they attract.”

    Devs can’t justify spending money on the “small audience they attract”. The majority have spoken on raid and raid stuff over the past 5 years. We don’t want raids or forced 10 person raid junk in open world zones for achieves for that matter. You can say what you like, but ultimately you are wrong period. End of story.

    Ok, waiting on Drakk escort. Never once did I say raids attract a large audience or they aren't the minority. I also say go ahead remove strikes from this meta into it's own category. You guys like to swap between to win any argument. IDK why. It is impressive how you guys keep this thread going tho even if at the core the person agrees but you find something to nitpick to carry on.

    Devs confirmed the large audience do not like raid stuff. Vayne is right period. Accept it or not, but those are the facts.

    I can't. Could you show me by linking a thread or video where they said that? Like there is no way at least 95 percent of us don't raid. Unless you can prove otherwise idk. And don't go use GW2 efficiency cause those don't represent the hard core raider population. I need anets data. Hmu when you get that ty.

    I don’t need gw2 efficiency for anything. That’s useless to me. I already quoted Andrew Gray, and the devs don’t want to waste time and money on something for a small audience. That means the large audience has spoken, and we certainly don’t want raid type achievements forced on us for open world achievements.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @NorthernRedStar.3054 said:
    MMO encouraging socializing and playing content in a group? How dare they!

    On a more serious note, though, you can get the emote without doing the strikes, so. Where's the issue? They're seeing what works and what is disliked. If enough people actually voice their discomfort with the choice, they'll change it in the future. Everyone wins, right?

    How can you get the emote without doing strikes?

  • @Vayne.8563 said:

    @NorthernRedStar.3054 said:
    MMO encouraging socializing and playing content in a group? How dare they!

    On a more serious note, though, you can get the emote without doing the strikes, so. Where's the issue? They're seeing what works and what is disliked. If enough people actually voice their discomfort with the choice, they'll change it in the future. Everyone wins, right?

    How can you get the emote without doing strikes?

    IIRC (might be off by 1 achi), if you do every other achievement in the episode category, you will have 37/37 w/o touching the strikes.

  • Nephalem.8921Nephalem.8921 Member ✭✭✭

    @NorthernRedStar.3054 said:
    MMO encouraging socializing and playing content in a group? How dare they!

    Thats the whole point in this argument. Gw2 is a single player mmo outside of fractals, raids and wvsw. As soon as any grouping is required or you even have to talk to other players to work together to synergize builds this happens. build swapping is very easy but some players become extremely toxic when they are asked to change traits, weapons or skills. this is probably why another very popular mmo removed the whole talent system and most of the gear choices. balancing becomes much easier if bad builds cant be created.
    rip 14/14/14/14/14. still one of the high impact systems. traits and sigils can more than double the damage or greatly increase sustain.
    This is also an episode meta achievement. should require all parts of the episode to complete. and strikes are not raids. try them with an actual raid group and they die extremely fast. they are still designed for open world players but they require the players to work together, not having everyone playing unkillable tagging leech builds like open world.

  • @Nephalem.8921 said:

    @NorthernRedStar.3054 said:
    MMO encouraging socializing and playing content in a group? How dare they!

    Thats the whole point in this argument. Gw2 is a single player mmo outside of fractals, raids and wvsw. As soon as any grouping is required or you even have to talk to other players to work together to synergize builds this happens.

    Fancy. Has pretty much never happened to me.

  • Eramonster.2718Eramonster.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 20, 2020

    Do require a few achievement involving Strike in order to get the emote(not sure of the exact number, sorry). Kinda remembered this because I found out about it later, was focusing on map event achievements. Thus, had to put everything else aside, missed a strike rotation and that delayed my completion by a week. (Still have 10-11 incomplete Strike achievement after getting the emote.) Did it by joining players asking/advertising in map chat, LFG and even solo'd some (doesn't require kill).

    From my perspective, no issues with the achievement. PvE players do need to go into WvW to obtain the Warclaw. Players stayed or learned something about it after, while those who doesn't like it; didn't.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @NorthernRedStar.3054 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @NorthernRedStar.3054 said:
    MMO encouraging socializing and playing content in a group? How dare they!

    On a more serious note, though, you can get the emote without doing the strikes, so. Where's the issue? They're seeing what works and what is disliked. If enough people actually voice their discomfort with the choice, they'll change it in the future. Everyone wins, right?

    How can you get the emote without doing strikes?

    IIRC (might be off by 1 achi), if you do every other achievement in the episode category, you will have 37/37 w/o touching the strikes.

    You need 7 achievements from strike missions to get the meta.

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    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.

    Yes Arenanet is known to be inconsistent, that doesn't change the fact that very few players will be affected by this change because very few players even care about map meta achievements. It's a good thing that I only provided data to support that and never made any other connection, nor disputed the OP, nor said that the change is good (or bad).

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 20, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    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.

    I put the "doom and gloom" in quotes because I didn't like the way Ayrilana used it, maybe I should've used different words instead. You used GW2E data to prove that the Shadow in the Ice meta completion is abysmally low (0.7%) and now you discredit yourself???? No, you got it right the first time, the rates for the Shadow in the Ice are very low, we only have to wait a few months to see if they get any better, because it's not only the Strike achievements, there are others that take a considerable amount of time to finish. Do remember that Whisper in the Dark is so far the best episode, in terms of meta completion compared to episode start. One in 4 players that started Whisper in the Dark, finished the map meta. This means they did something good with that meta.

    It's not that most players have a GW2E account. It's that the vast majority of players with high AP counts have a GW2E account, and those are going after map meta achievements. A player with 3k AP or less is not going for map meta achievements, if they did, they wouldn't have 3k AP. It's simple math. Meaning out of the possible players that could go for map meta achievements, GW2E accounts are a very very high percentage. So your initial point about the completion rates being very low is correct. If you used the entire population of the game, then the rates of map meta completion would be considerably lower than the GW2E numbers

    Edit: aimed at the entire last page: when did this turn into casual vs hardcore??????????????? mind blown

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 20, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Tell me, what percentage of my guild of 400 casuals do you think have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts?

    Question: what's the percentage of the players in your guild that have 40k+, 35k+ and 3k+ AP? The numbers are chosen intentionally (they are numbers we have data of) and aren't random. You can go here and check it out: https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu it's faster than using the in-game browser, you can also copy/paste the names into an excel spreadsheet and do the calculations there.
    Better yet, on the page you can see the percentage each member is at, so I guess an even better question is: how many of your guild members are in the 90% of the population (you can see it in front of their name) on the page, not available in-game.

    This isn't a debate question, just statistics. If anyone else wants to participate, feel free.
    In my own Guilds, nobody is at 40k+, only 3 people are in the 35k+ range and about 88% of the members are in the 90% category.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Tell me, what percentage of my guild of 400 casuals do you think have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts?

    Question: what's the percentage of the players in your guild that have 40k+, 35k+ and 3k+ AP? The numbers are chosen intentionally (they are numbers we have data of) and aren't random. You can go here and check it out: https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu it's faster than using the in-game browser, you can also copy/paste the names into an excel spreadsheet and do the calculations there.
    Better yet, on the page you can see the percentage each member is at, so I guess an even better question is: how many of your guild members are in the 90% of the population (you can see it in front of their name) on the page, not available in-game.

    This isn't a debate question, just statistics. If anyone else wants to participate, feel free.
    In my own Guilds, nobody is at 40k+, only 3 people are in the 35k+ range and about 88% of the members are in the 90% category.

    Doesn't really tell me anything, since even people who started recently in my guild go for map meta achievements, having learned from others who do it. It's a list of stuff to do and people like lists..well some people anyway.

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Tell me, what percentage of my guild of 400 casuals do you think have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts?

    Question: what's the percentage of the players in your guild that have 40k+, 35k+ and 3k+ AP? The numbers are chosen intentionally (they are numbers we have data of) and aren't random. You can go here and check it out: https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu it's faster than using the in-game browser, you can also copy/paste the names into an excel spreadsheet and do the calculations there.
    Better yet, on the page you can see the percentage each member is at, so I guess an even better question is: how many of your guild members are in the 90% of the population (you can see it in front of their name) on the page, not available in-game.

    This isn't a debate question, just statistics. If anyone else wants to participate, feel free.
    In my own Guilds, nobody is at 40k+, only 3 people are in the 35k+ range and about 88% of the members are in the 90% category.

    Doesn't really tell me anything, since even people who started recently in my guild go for map meta achievements, having learned from others who do it. It's a list of stuff to do and people like lists..well some people anyway.

    Statistics always tell you a lot. You can count the new people that joined your guild separately if that makes you feel better, if your guild got so many new people in the last few days that will somehow obscure the data. But I'm not sure it makes a difference. That 12% in my own guilds that is below the 90% category are also mostly new players, and secondary/bank accounts, but I've included them because why not.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Tell me, what percentage of my guild of 400 casuals do you think have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts?

    Question: what's the percentage of the players in your guild that have 40k+, 35k+ and 3k+ AP? The numbers are chosen intentionally (they are numbers we have data of) and aren't random. You can go here and check it out: https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu it's faster than using the in-game browser, you can also copy/paste the names into an excel spreadsheet and do the calculations there.
    Better yet, on the page you can see the percentage each member is at, so I guess an even better question is: how many of your guild members are in the 90% of the population (you can see it in front of their name) on the page, not available in-game.

    This isn't a debate question, just statistics. If anyone else wants to participate, feel free.
    In my own Guilds, nobody is at 40k+, only 3 people are in the 35k+ range and about 88% of the members are in the 90% category.

    Doesn't really tell me anything, since even people who started recently in my guild go for map meta achievements, having learned from others who do it. It's a list of stuff to do and people like lists..well some people anyway.

    Statistics always tell you a lot. You can count the new people that joined your guild separately if that makes you feel better, if your guild got so many new people in the last few days that will somehow obscure the data. But I'm not sure it makes a difference. That 12% in my own guilds that is below the 90% category are also mostly new players, and secondary/bank accounts, but I've included them because why not.

    Nah, it's not a few days. I have a guy in the guild who started when the game launched and left for years. He's only come back maybe three months ago. Does every single zone meta, but otherwise isn't really an achievement point hunter. You're making the assumption that anyone who does zone metas are people who care about every achievement. That's not my experience though. Some people simply see that as the game itself. It's part of zone completion. They like to complete the zone itself, but they don't necessarily care about PvP achievements or raid achievements or dungeon achievements. Anyone starting in the last 2-3 years would have far less achievement points. It's just the way it is.

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Tell me, what percentage of my guild of 400 casuals do you think have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts?

    Question: what's the percentage of the players in your guild that have 40k+, 35k+ and 3k+ AP? The numbers are chosen intentionally (they are numbers we have data of) and aren't random. You can go here and check it out: https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu it's faster than using the in-game browser, you can also copy/paste the names into an excel spreadsheet and do the calculations there.
    Better yet, on the page you can see the percentage each member is at, so I guess an even better question is: how many of your guild members are in the 90% of the population (you can see it in front of their name) on the page, not available in-game.

    This isn't a debate question, just statistics. If anyone else wants to participate, feel free.
    In my own Guilds, nobody is at 40k+, only 3 people are in the 35k+ range and about 88% of the members are in the 90% category.

    Doesn't really tell me anything, since even people who started recently in my guild go for map meta achievements, having learned from others who do it. It's a list of stuff to do and people like lists..well some people anyway.

    Statistics always tell you a lot. You can count the new people that joined your guild separately if that makes you feel better, if your guild got so many new people in the last few days that will somehow obscure the data. But I'm not sure it makes a difference. That 12% in my own guilds that is below the 90% category are also mostly new players, and secondary/bank accounts, but I've included them because why not.

    Nah, it's not a few days. I have a guy in the guild who started when the game launched and left for years. He's only come back maybe three months ago. Does every single zone meta, but otherwise isn't really an achievement point hunter. You're making the assumption that anyone who does zone metas are people who care about every achievement. That's not my experience though. Some people simply see that as the game itself. It's part of zone completion. They like to complete the zone itself, but they don't necessarily care about PvP achievements or raid achievements or dungeon achievements. Anyone starting in the last 2-3 years would have far less achievement points. It's just the way it is.

    Players that go for map meta achievements don't want to finish all achievement points, I'm not sure how you believe I think that they do. A player, as you said, might exclusively like finishing zones and their respective meta, that's understandable. I asked for players with 3000 AP as my bottom limit, not an outrageously high sum. Doesn't need to do any kind of PVP or Raid to get to that point. In fact you can reach that point by exclusively finishing map meta achievements. Or rather, if you DO all map meta achievements, you will surpass that point (by a lot)!

    Each map zone meta awards at the very least 200 AP. Each episode has more, because not all of them are needed for meta completion. There are also collections and other achievements not part of the episode as well. Since your guild member does every single meta he must have at least 400 AP just from the 2 latest (excluding Shadow in the Ice) meta achievements. Anyone starting in the last 2 years has access to 12 (!!!) map meta achievements and a full expansion.

    I'm not sure why you don't simply check the statistics to see where they (and the others in your guild) are by oh well not gonna force it.

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

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Tell me, what percentage of my guild of 400 casuals do you think have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts?

    Question: what's the percentage of the players in your guild that have 40k+, 35k+ and 3k+ AP? The numbers are chosen intentionally (they are numbers we have data of) and aren't random. You can go here and check it out: https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu it's faster than using the in-game browser, you can also copy/paste the names into an excel spreadsheet and do the calculations there.
    Better yet, on the page you can see the percentage each member is at, so I guess an even better question is: how many of your guild members are in the 90% of the population (you can see it in front of their name) on the page, not available in-game.

    This isn't a debate question, just statistics. If anyone else wants to participate, feel free.
    In my own Guilds, nobody is at 40k+, only 3 people are in the 35k+ range and about 88% of the members are in the 90% category.

    Doesn't really tell me anything, since even people who started recently in my guild go for map meta achievements, having learned from others who do it. It's a list of stuff to do and people like lists..well some people anyway.

    Statistics always tell you a lot. You can count the new people that joined your guild separately if that makes you feel better, if your guild got so many new people in the last few days that will somehow obscure the data. But I'm not sure it makes a difference. That 12% in my own guilds that is below the 90% category are also mostly new players, and secondary/bank accounts, but I've included them because why not.

    Nah, it's not a few days. I have a guy in the guild who started when the game launched and left for years. He's only come back maybe three months ago. Does every single zone meta, but otherwise isn't really an achievement point hunter. You're making the assumption that anyone who does zone metas are people who care about every achievement. That's not my experience though. Some people simply see that as the game itself. It's part of zone completion. They like to complete the zone itself, but they don't necessarily care about PvP achievements or raid achievements or dungeon achievements. Anyone starting in the last 2-3 years would have far less achievement points. It's just the way it is.

    Players that go for map meta achievements don't want to finish all achievement points, I'm not sure how you believe I think that they do. A player, as you said, might exclusively like finishing zones and their respective meta, that's understandable. I asked for players with 3000 AP as my bottom limit, not an outrageously high sum. Doesn't need to do any kind of PVP or Raid to get to that point. In fact you can reach that point by exclusively finishing map meta achievements. Or rather, if you DO all map meta achievements, you will surpass that point (by a lot)!

    Each map zone meta awards at the very least 200 AP. Each episode has more, because not all of them are needed for meta completion. There are also collections and other achievements not part of the episode as well. Since your guild member does every single meta he must have at least 400 AP just from the 2 latest (excluding Shadow in the Ice) meta achievements. Anyone starting in the last 2 years has access to 12 (!!!) map meta achievements and a full expansion.

    I'm not sure why you don't simply check the statistics to see where they (and the others in your guild) are by oh well not gonna force it.

    197 people in my guild have over 3000 AP.

    Five of us are in the top 1000. There are about 275 people in my guild who are in the top 90%. That's 275 people with 3000 points or higher. Not sure what else I'm looking for here.

    Edit: Looks like my guild list differs from efficinecy not sure why.

  • Inculpatus cedo.9234Inculpatus cedo.9234 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 21, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Tell me, what percentage of my guild of 400 casuals do you think have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts?

    Question: what's the percentage of the players in your guild that have 40k+, 35k+ and 3k+ AP? The numbers are chosen intentionally (they are numbers we have data of) and aren't random. You can go here and check it out: https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu it's faster than using the in-game browser, you can also copy/paste the names into an excel spreadsheet and do the calculations there.
    Better yet, on the page you can see the percentage each member is at, so I guess an even better question is: how many of your guild members are in the 90% of the population (you can see it in front of their name) on the page, not available in-game.

    This isn't a debate question, just statistics. If anyone else wants to participate, feel free.
    In my own Guilds, nobody is at 40k+, only 3 people are in the 35k+ range and about 88% of the members are in the 90% category.

    There are 0 at 40K+, 3 at 35K+ (including Guild Leader), 265 at 3K+, and 146 with less than 3K.

    (OP's Guild)

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Edit: Looks like my guild list differs from efficinecy not sure why.

    Because gw2efficiency doesn't count missing AP, from season 1 for example.
    The official leaderboards are the best source:
    https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu

    There is nothing specific to "look for", it's statistics. If we had the data from 100000 guilds then we could draw positive conclusions but still it's a good statistic to have.
    For example, the 3k+ AP is the point of change between 80% and 90%, you can see in your own guild the majority of the guild members are in the top 10% of the game, while the rest is spread in the other 90% of the game's population. This is rather telling on which side of the boards the majority of the players in guilds (more active?) are and they heavily congregate towards the top 10%

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    There are 0 at 40K+, 3 at 35K+ (including Guild Leader), 265 at 3K+, and 146 with less than 3K.

    Another one with very similar statistics regarding the top 10%, as expected the majority of members are in the top 10% of the global population. What does that tell us? A lot but not on topic for this thread.

    An on-topic result we can see here, is that although the vast majority of the global accounts do not get the map zone meta achievements (if they did, they'd be in the top 10% by those points alone) BUT we can see that the majority of the more active players are in that top 10% to begin with. Meaning, the number of players affected by any change in the zone meta achievements when compared to every account is very low, but when comparing to more -active- players (active = being in guilds in this regard, because being in a guild does indicate a more active player) the percentage of those affected is significantly higher. As Vayne said, those numbers there, the completion of the meta achievements, should be watched, they will provide some important information regarding any future meta achievements.

    And as a side note, GW2 efficiency shows a very similar picture. 63.321% of its accounts are above 5k AP (meaning they are also in the 90%). Now, there is no way to know how many accounts exist between 3k and 5k, but no matter how many they are, the majority of GW2E accounts are in the top 10%. And we know how many they are in number, 151,931 accounts. Using the 11 million accounts that Arenanet announced (I know it should be higher by this point, waiting for the next infographic), we can see that GW2E in the top 10% (which is the majority of the more active players) has a presence of 13.811%. We don't know the current account total, but we also don't know the number of accounts on GW2E between 3k and 5k either, but it's a good start. Now anyone can say if that ~14% is a significant number or not. In my opinion it is, but anyone will have their own.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Edit: Looks like my guild list differs from efficinecy not sure why.

    Because gw2efficiency doesn't count missing AP, from season 1 for example.
    The official leaderboards are the best source:
    https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu

    There is nothing specific to "look for", it's statistics. If we had the data from 100000 guilds then we could draw positive conclusions but still it's a good statistic to have.
    For example, the 3k+ AP is the point of change between 80% and 90%, you can see in your own guild the majority of the guild members are in the top 10% of the game, while the rest is spread in the other 90% of the game's population. This is rather telling on which side of the boards the majority of the players in guilds (more active?) are and they heavily congregate towards the top 10%

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    There are 0 at 40K+, 3 at 35K+ (including Guild Leader), 265 at 3K+, and 146 with less than 3K.

    Another one with very similar statistics regarding the top 10%, as expected the majority of members are in the top 10% of the global population. What does that tell us? A lot but not on topic for this thread.

    An on-topic result we can see here, is that although the vast majority of the global accounts do not get the map zone meta achievements (if they did, they'd be in the top 10% by those points alone) BUT we can see that the majority of the more active players are in that top 10% to begin with. Meaning, the number of players affected by any change in the zone meta achievements when compared to every account is very low, but when comparing to more -active- players (active = being in guilds in this regard, because being in a guild does indicate a more active player) the percentage of those affected is significantly higher. As Vayne said, those numbers there, the completion of the meta achievements, should be watched, they will provide some important information regarding any future meta achievements.

    And as a side note, GW2 efficiency shows a very similar picture. 63.321% of its accounts are above 5k AP (meaning they are also in the 90%). Now, there is no way to know how many accounts exist between 3k and 5k, but no matter how many they are, the majority of GW2E accounts are in the top 10%. And we know how many they are in number, 151,931 accounts. Using the 11 million accounts that Arenanet announced (I know it should be higher by this point, waiting for the next infographic), we can see that GW2E in the top 10% (which is the majority of the more active players) has a presence of 13.811%. We don't know the current account total, but we also don't know the number of accounts on GW2E between 3k and 5k either, but it's a good start. Now anyone can say if that ~14% is a significant number or not. In my opinion it is, but anyone will have their own.

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Edit: Looks like my guild list differs from efficinecy not sure why.

    Because gw2efficiency doesn't count missing AP, from season 1 for example.
    The official leaderboards are the best source:
    https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu

    There is nothing specific to "look for", it's statistics. If we had the data from 100000 guilds then we could draw positive conclusions but still it's a good statistic to have.
    For example, the 3k+ AP is the point of change between 80% and 90%, you can see in your own guild the majority of the guild members are in the top 10% of the game, while the rest is spread in the other 90% of the game's population. This is rather telling on which side of the boards the majority of the players in guilds (more active?) are and they heavily congregate towards the top 10%

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    There are 0 at 40K+, 3 at 35K+ (including Guild Leader), 265 at 3K+, and 146 with less than 3K.

    Another one with very similar statistics regarding the top 10%, as expected the majority of members are in the top 10% of the global population. What does that tell us? A lot but not on topic for this thread.

    An on-topic result we can see here, is that although the vast majority of the global accounts do not get the map zone meta achievements (if they did, they'd be in the top 10% by those points alone) BUT we can see that the majority of the more active players are in that top 10% to begin with. Meaning, the number of players affected by any change in the zone meta achievements when compared to every account is very low, but when comparing to more -active- players (active = being in guilds in this regard, because being in a guild does indicate a more active player) the percentage of those affected is significantly higher. As Vayne said, those numbers there, the completion of the meta achievements, should be watched, they will provide some important information regarding any future meta achievements.

    And as a side note, GW2 efficiency shows a very similar picture. 63.321% of its accounts are above 5k AP (meaning they are also in the 90%). Now, there is no way to know how many accounts exist between 3k and 5k, but no matter how many they are, the majority of GW2E accounts are in the top 10%. And we know how many they are in number, 151,931 accounts. Using the 11 million accounts that Arenanet announced (I know it should be higher by this point, waiting for the next infographic), we can see that GW2E in the top 10% (which is the majority of the more active players) has a presence of 13.811%. We don't know the current account total, but we also don't know the number of accounts on GW2E between 3k and 5k either, but it's a good start. Now anyone can say if that ~14% is a significant number or not. In my opinion it is, but anyone will have their own.

    The problem of course exists with alt accounts. My wife and I both have ten accounts. We've played some of those accounts. Hell I have over 12,000 AP on one of those accounts. I have 3 accounts that have both warclaws in WvW and skyscales. So I sorta play those accounts, usually one at a time in addition my main account, and now I've started to play my fourth account.

    Obvioulsy it's a lot easier to get achievements if you're in a helpful guild and even easier if you've done them before.

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

    I don't think these numbers have any meaning at all for the consideration of current playing habits (neither the GW2E numbers nor ANET's averages) without metrics like "hours played since date x", "last logged in on date y". or "average playing hours per week since date z". I could do a guild count but I won't because the numbers would be meaningless if I include people who haven't logged in for literal years. If I only count people who still play, the numbers are FAR higher than 3k.

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459

    Honestly I didn't intent to respond to this post, so congratulations.

    The fact that only a small population plays raids, doesn't mean that a large population hate them. It's way more likely in my opinion that a lot of people don't care either way.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @yann.1946 said:
    @Swagger.1459

    Honestly I didn't intent to respond to this post, so congratulations.

    The fact that only a small population plays raids, doesn't mean that a large population hate them. It's way more likely in my opinion that a lot of people don't care either way.

    You're right of course. But there was quite an outcry against them before they were in the game, pretty much all along. To think that it was six guys in a room in Michigan is probably understating the matter. But it could be a very loud, very small percentage I suppose.

    I strongly suspect however that more people hate raiding in this this game than currently raid. Just a guess mind you.

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    The problem of course exists with alt accounts. My wife and I both have ten accounts. We've played some of those accounts. Hell I have over 12,000 AP on one of those accounts. I have 3 accounts that have both warclaws in WvW and skyscales. So I sorta play those accounts, usually one at a time in addition my main account, and now I've started to play my fourth account.

    Obvioulsy it's a lot easier to get achievements if you're in a helpful guild and even easier if you've done them before.

    Yes alt accounts will cause "issues", but does it matter in the grand scheme of things? Even if the developers provided official data that's the extend they'll have them as even they won't be able to tell if an account is a second one, or it's a family member playing. If you bought the game (the expansions), and continue supporting the game by buying gems on multiple accounts, either through cash, or gold, then Arenanet can treat all those accounts as a separate person. I don't think they care, and they shouldn't.

    10 accounts, I barely manage one.

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

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:
    I don't think these numbers have any meaning at all for the consideration of current playing habits (neither the GW2E numbers nor ANET's averages) without metrics like "hours played since date x", "last logged in on date y". or "average playing hours per week since date z". I could do a guild count but I won't because the numbers would be meaningless if I include people who haven't logged in for literal years. If I only count people who still play, the numbers are FAR higher than 3k.

    Yes this is the reason why I posted the episode starting rates compared to the meta finish rates and why I believe solo numbers like "10% does this, and 5% does that" are pointless. A player that got a few achievements of the meta, is an active player during this month, get all the players that are active during this month, and your results are much more accurate. GW2E shows which players are active at this point, and comparing those active players with the number of completions can provide some really useful data on the percentage of the -active- players that finished the meta. And as Vayne posted it's below 1%, meanwhile Whisper in the Dark approaches 7%, that's quite a remarkable difference, although as always I must add that's it's a bit early to judge. We'll see how it goes.

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    @Swagger.1459

    Honestly I didn't intent to respond to this post, so congratulations.

    The fact that only a small population plays raids, doesn't mean that a large population hate them. It's way more likely in my opinion that a lot of people don't care either way.

    You're right of course. But there was quite an outcry against them before they were in the game, pretty much all along. To think that it was six guys in a room in Michigan is probably understating the matter. But it could be a very loud, very small percentage I suppose.

    I strongly suspect however that more people hate raiding in this this game than currently raid. Just a guess mind you.

    Honestly, to me the only relevant point was the giant logical fallacies swagger was making through this whole tread.

    I have a question to understand you're point of view some more.

    How would you feel about the strikes and this topic if raids where never introduced to the game?

  • Etria.3642Etria.3642 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 20, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Tell me, what percentage of my guild of 400 casuals do you think have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts?

    Question: what's the percentage of the players in your guild that have 40k+, 35k+ and 3k+ AP? The numbers are chosen intentionally (they are numbers we have data of) and aren't random. You can go here and check it out: https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu it's faster than using the in-game browser, you can also copy/paste the names into an excel spreadsheet and do the calculations there.
    Better yet, on the page you can see the percentage each member is at, so I guess an even better question is: how many of your guild members are in the 90% of the population (you can see it in front of their name) on the page, not available in-game.

    This isn't a debate question, just statistics. If anyone else wants to participate, feel free.
    In my own Guilds, nobody is at 40k+, only 3 people are in the 35k+ range and about 88% of the members are in the 90% category.

    Doesn't really tell me anything, since even people who started recently in my guild go for map meta achievements, having learned from others who do it. It's a list of stuff to do and people like lists..well some people anyway.

    Statistics always tell you a lot. You can count the new people that joined your guild separately if that makes you feel better, if your guild got so many new people in the last few days that will somehow obscure the data. But I'm not sure it makes a difference. That 12% in my own guilds that is below the 90% category are also mostly new players, and secondary/bank accounts, but I've included them because why not.

    Nah, it's not a few days. I have a guy in the guild who started when the game launched and left for years. He's only come back maybe three months ago. Does every single zone meta, but otherwise isn't really an achievement point hunter. You're making the assumption that anyone who does zone metas are people who care about every achievement. That's not my experience though. Some people simply see that as the game itself. It's part of zone completion. They like to complete the zone itself, but they don't necessarily care about PvP achievements or raid achievements or dungeon achievements. Anyone starting in the last 2-3 years would have far less achievement points. It's just the way it is.

    Players that go for map meta achievements don't want to finish all achievement points, I'm not sure how you believe I think that they do. A player, as you said, might exclusively like finishing zones and their respective meta, that's understandable. I asked for players with 3000 AP as my bottom limit, not an outrageously high sum. Doesn't need to do any kind of PVP or Raid to get to that point. In fact you can reach that point by exclusively finishing map meta achievements. Or rather, if you DO all map meta achievements, you will surpass that point (by a lot)!

    Each map zone meta awards at the very least 200 AP. Each episode has more, because not all of them are needed for meta completion. There are also collections and other achievements not part of the episode as well. Since your guild member does every single meta he must have at least 400 AP just from the 2 latest (excluding Shadow in the Ice) meta achievements. Anyone starting in the last 2 years has access to 12 (!!!) map meta achievements and a full expansion.

    I'm not sure why you don't simply check the statistics to see where they (and the others in your guild) are by oh well not gonna force it.

    197 people in my guild have over 3000 AP.

    Five of us are in the top 1000. There are about 275 people in my guild who are in the top 90%. That's 275 people with 3000 points or higher. Not sure what else I'm looking for here.

    Edit: Looks like my guild list differs from efficinecy not sure why.

    Folks who are in the top 90% are not casuals, and are not in the majority. Folks who have TEN accounts are not casuals. At least according to my definitions.

    I looked at my guilds. For one thing, none of them have over 300 members. But of the 27, 87, 123, 285 folks, it is 1/27, 1/87, 3/123, and 2/285. And in the first two, it's the same person. Most members are somewhere over 3k though.

    That said, the folks who probably REALLY care are those who want the presumed legendary trinket that will come since both Aurora and Vision either required it or strongly encouraged it(I believe you could bypass some with wvw reward tracks).

    If you go by THAT, the numbers in my guilds go up. We have several folks gradually working their way through both of those.

    EDIT: Apparently I misunderstood. Anything over 3k IS considered 90%? I guess that means most of all my guilds are that. 3k is exceptionally easy to get. Even my mostly unplayed alt account has that. But there is a huge difference in playtime between 35k ap and 3k ap. Huge. Anyway, my ap is 19.6k, super looking forward to 20.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 20, 2020

    @Etria.3642 said:
    EDIT: Apparently I misunderstood. Anything over 3k IS considered 90%? I guess that means most of all my guilds are that. 3k is exceptionally easy to get. Even my mostly unplayed alt account has that. But there is a huge difference in playtime between 35k ap and 3k ap. Huge. Anyway, my ap is 19.6k, super looking forward to 20.

    Yep. That's the most important revelation I had while browsing the official leaderboards. The "turn point" between 80% and 90% is at approximately 2870 in the EU (in NA it should be slightly lower because NA players have lower AP). If you have a long list of guilds and/or friends you can check it yourself.
    Go here: https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu/achievements/ select your guilds one by one in the list and you will see their place.

    Then check the point where 80% becomes 90% and you have your number.

    This is from one of my 3 guilds, then you can get more specific. The more guilds you have, the more accurate the number.

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Etria.3642 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Tell me, what percentage of my guild of 400 casuals do you think have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts?

    Question: what's the percentage of the players in your guild that have 40k+, 35k+ and 3k+ AP? The numbers are chosen intentionally (they are numbers we have data of) and aren't random. You can go here and check it out: https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu it's faster than using the in-game browser, you can also copy/paste the names into an excel spreadsheet and do the calculations there.
    Better yet, on the page you can see the percentage each member is at, so I guess an even better question is: how many of your guild members are in the 90% of the population (you can see it in front of their name) on the page, not available in-game.

    This isn't a debate question, just statistics. If anyone else wants to participate, feel free.
    In my own Guilds, nobody is at 40k+, only 3 people are in the 35k+ range and about 88% of the members are in the 90% category.

    Doesn't really tell me anything, since even people who started recently in my guild go for map meta achievements, having learned from others who do it. It's a list of stuff to do and people like lists..well some people anyway.

    Statistics always tell you a lot. You can count the new people that joined your guild separately if that makes you feel better, if your guild got so many new people in the last few days that will somehow obscure the data. But I'm not sure it makes a difference. That 12% in my own guilds that is below the 90% category are also mostly new players, and secondary/bank accounts, but I've included them because why not.

    Nah, it's not a few days. I have a guy in the guild who started when the game launched and left for years. He's only come back maybe three months ago. Does every single zone meta, but otherwise isn't really an achievement point hunter. You're making the assumption that anyone who does zone metas are people who care about every achievement. That's not my experience though. Some people simply see that as the game itself. It's part of zone completion. They like to complete the zone itself, but they don't necessarily care about PvP achievements or raid achievements or dungeon achievements. Anyone starting in the last 2-3 years would have far less achievement points. It's just the way it is.

    Players that go for map meta achievements don't want to finish all achievement points, I'm not sure how you believe I think that they do. A player, as you said, might exclusively like finishing zones and their respective meta, that's understandable. I asked for players with 3000 AP as my bottom limit, not an outrageously high sum. Doesn't need to do any kind of PVP or Raid to get to that point. In fact you can reach that point by exclusively finishing map meta achievements. Or rather, if you DO all map meta achievements, you will surpass that point (by a lot)!

    Each map zone meta awards at the very least 200 AP. Each episode has more, because not all of them are needed for meta completion. There are also collections and other achievements not part of the episode as well. Since your guild member does every single meta he must have at least 400 AP just from the 2 latest (excluding Shadow in the Ice) meta achievements. Anyone starting in the last 2 years has access to 12 (!!!) map meta achievements and a full expansion.

    I'm not sure why you don't simply check the statistics to see where they (and the others in your guild) are by oh well not gonna force it.

    197 people in my guild have over 3000 AP.

    Five of us are in the top 1000. There are about 275 people in my guild who are in the top 90%. That's 275 people with 3000 points or higher. Not sure what else I'm looking for here.

    Edit: Looks like my guild list differs from efficinecy not sure why.

    Folks who are in the top 90% are not casuals, and are not in the majority. Folks who have TEN accounts are not casuals. At least according to my definitions.

    I got to nearly 21k AP by just playing PVE, with the occasional dabbling in PVP, and WVW, fractals and raids over the last 7 years im casual as hell with how i spend my time in this game and i -still- got that many AP.

    Amana Silentchild; My Main
    Ember Wandertooth; The Kingslayer, Kianda Redpaw; The Blazing Light
    Why GW is Called Guildwars

  • Etria.3642Etria.3642 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dante.1763 said:

    @Etria.3642 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Tell me, what percentage of my guild of 400 casuals do you think have Guild Wars 2 efficiency accounts?

    Question: what's the percentage of the players in your guild that have 40k+, 35k+ and 3k+ AP? The numbers are chosen intentionally (they are numbers we have data of) and aren't random. You can go here and check it out: https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu it's faster than using the in-game browser, you can also copy/paste the names into an excel spreadsheet and do the calculations there.
    Better yet, on the page you can see the percentage each member is at, so I guess an even better question is: how many of your guild members are in the 90% of the population (you can see it in front of their name) on the page, not available in-game.

    This isn't a debate question, just statistics. If anyone else wants to participate, feel free.
    In my own Guilds, nobody is at 40k+, only 3 people are in the 35k+ range and about 88% of the members are in the 90% category.

    Doesn't really tell me anything, since even people who started recently in my guild go for map meta achievements, having learned from others who do it. It's a list of stuff to do and people like lists..well some people anyway.

    Statistics always tell you a lot. You can count the new people that joined your guild separately if that makes you feel better, if your guild got so many new people in the last few days that will somehow obscure the data. But I'm not sure it makes a difference. That 12% in my own guilds that is below the 90% category are also mostly new players, and secondary/bank accounts, but I've included them because why not.

    Nah, it's not a few days. I have a guy in the guild who started when the game launched and left for years. He's only come back maybe three months ago. Does every single zone meta, but otherwise isn't really an achievement point hunter. You're making the assumption that anyone who does zone metas are people who care about every achievement. That's not my experience though. Some people simply see that as the game itself. It's part of zone completion. They like to complete the zone itself, but they don't necessarily care about PvP achievements or raid achievements or dungeon achievements. Anyone starting in the last 2-3 years would have far less achievement points. It's just the way it is.

    Players that go for map meta achievements don't want to finish all achievement points, I'm not sure how you believe I think that they do. A player, as you said, might exclusively like finishing zones and their respective meta, that's understandable. I asked for players with 3000 AP as my bottom limit, not an outrageously high sum. Doesn't need to do any kind of PVP or Raid to get to that point. In fact you can reach that point by exclusively finishing map meta achievements. Or rather, if you DO all map meta achievements, you will surpass that point (by a lot)!

    Each map zone meta awards at the very least 200 AP. Each episode has more, because not all of them are needed for meta completion. There are also collections and other achievements not part of the episode as well. Since your guild member does every single meta he must have at least 400 AP just from the 2 latest (excluding Shadow in the Ice) meta achievements. Anyone starting in the last 2 years has access to 12 (!!!) map meta achievements and a full expansion.

    I'm not sure why you don't simply check the statistics to see where they (and the others in your guild) are by oh well not gonna force it.

    197 people in my guild have over 3000 AP.

    Five of us are in the top 1000. There are about 275 people in my guild who are in the top 90%. That's 275 people with 3000 points or higher. Not sure what else I'm looking for here.

    Edit: Looks like my guild list differs from efficinecy not sure why.

    Folks who are in the top 90% are not casuals, and are not in the majority. Folks who have TEN accounts are not casuals. At least according to my definitions.

    I got to nearly 21k AP by just playing PVE, with the occasional dabbling in PVP, and WVW, fractals and raids over the last 7 years im casual as hell with how i spend my time in this game and i -still- got that many AP.

    Yeahyeah, I had not realized that 3k was the 90%. So basically this says that really only 10% of the game accounts actually PLAY the game. Kinda sobering.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 20, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    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.

    Yes Arenanet is known to be inconsistent, that doesn't change the fact that very few players will be affected by this change because very few players even care about map meta achievements. It's a good thing that I only provided data to support that and never made any other connection, nor disputed the OP, nor said that the change is good (or bad).

    Your right, I think not many affected negatively by THIS particular inconsistency (didn't I say that already?!?!) ... that doesn't change what I said though, since I'm pretty sure I did say that. It's almost like you want to argue with me about something that you agree with me about but don't like the result of. /shrug.

    I don't really care what numbers you want to argue about or where you got them from or what your motives are. I'm right and at the conceptual level, so is Vayne; inconsistency is bad and whether it's a thousand little ones or few huge ones, it's not good for the game. There is no denying that even at a subconscious level, players leave because of it, just like any consumer would leave a provider for the same inconsistency in products or service offering. I would advise @Vayne stick to the point instead of trying win some academic argument with haters that derails his original, valid point.

    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 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 20, 2020

    And I still think more people will care than you think. It's about how the game feels to people. Doesn't this feel like my game? Is this a game I'm comfortable playing. Each change that takes the game way from that direction makes a percentage of people feel worse about the game for them. If Strike Missions don't get more people into raids and I think it's unlikely to affect a lot of people, than they could well negatively affect more people than positively. I've seen in my guild less people talking about interest in this story than in past episodes. People spending less time in that zone, and this is a story driven guild for the most part.

    Edit: I should mention my wife did finish the zone meta yesterday. I didn't, I'm still quite a ways off. She's really unhappy with strike missions. For one things she hates content where if you die, you're completelyi out of the fight. It's not fun for her. This content along with raids, follows different rules than most of the game. That rule change is part of the reason some people get annoyed.

    Hard core players want less forgiving content. Casual players don't necessarily want that.

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    And I still think more people will care than you think. It's about how the game feels to people. Doesn't this feel like my game? Is this a game I'm comfortable playing. Each change that takes the game way from that direction makes a percentage of people feel worse about the game for them. If Strike Missions don't get more people into raids and I think it's unlikely to affect a lot of people, than they could well negatively affect more people than positively. I've seen in my guild less people talking about interest in this story than in past episodes. People spending less time in that zone, and this is a story driven guild for the most part.

    Can you prove there’s causation between people playing the episode less because of strike mission achievements needed for the meta achievement?

    You taking about the achievement and then about less interest in recent episodes. Based on other posts on these forums, this has nothing to do with the meta achievement requiring some strike mission achievements. If this downturn in participation has been happening the past few episodes, with only the most recent requiring you to participate in strike missions, that’s more evidence that not as many people care about the meta achievement requiring strike mission participation.

  • Perhaps, since ArenaNet is seen as so inconsistent, this inconsistency will apply to future Release Metas. Thus, no need for concern! :tongue:

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:
    Perhaps, since ArenaNet is seen as so inconsistent, this inconsistency will apply to future Release Metas. Thus, no need for concern! :tongue:

    Easy to be flippant about it, but the lack of consisteny has always hurt this game. It stands in the way of a lot of people learning it. You have to be more involved to get into end game content if things aren't consistent. You're right in that inconsistency is one of the only things about this game that has been consistent. I'm pretty sure that's not a selling point though.

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

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't really care what numbers you want to argue about or where you got them from or what your motives are.

    If you really want to know I was getting more data to support Vayne's argument about the GW2E map completion data. And at the same time show how important GW2E numbers are, especially for this particular discussion where the players affected are a sub-category of the total, which is way better represented on GW2E.

    But let's go back to the question about inconsistency, let me ask a question (and Vayne too since he started the topic)
    Do you think the complete lack of any mechanics in the Icebrood Saga story instances and the lack of any challenging achievements in the story instances is also "inconsistent"?

    Now someone might say "but there ARE mechanics" and "there ARE challenging achievements" but I will redirect those types of arguments to every previous episode released as most (if not all) had their challenging bits, either just some achievement like Salt the Wound in War Eternal or entire fights like the fights with Scruffy 2.0 or Palawa Joko and even MORE so challenging extra achievements during already challenging fights. That were required for map zone meta completion.

    Why ask this? Maybe, and bare with me here, the reason they added achievements in the Strike Missions is because they wanted the actual story (and their achievements) to be very easy (which they are) and add more challenging fights / achievements to content done by multiple players. Would you want the Fraenir of Jormag in the story to be like Scruffy 2.0, or is it better to have two versions of the same fight? And to reiterate, Scruffy 2.0 WAS required to beat the meta.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't really care what numbers you want to argue about or where you got them from or what your motives are.

    If you really want to know I was getting more data to support Vayne's argument about the GW2E map completion data. And at the same time show how important GW2E numbers are, especially for this particular discussion where the players affected are a sub-category of the total, which is way better represented on GW2E.

    But let's go back to the question about inconsistency, let me ask a question (and Vayne too since he started the topic)
    Do you think the complete lack of any mechanics in the Icebrood Saga story instances and the lack of any challenging achievements in the story instances is also "inconsistent"?

    Now someone might say "but there ARE mechanics" and "there ARE challenging achievements" but I will redirect those types of arguments to every previous episode released as most (if not all) had their challenging bits, either just some achievement like Salt the Wound in War Eternal or entire fights like the fights with Scruffy 2.0 or Palawa Joko and even MORE so challenging extra achievements during already challenging fights. That were required for map zone meta completion.

    Why ask this? Maybe, and bare with me here, the reason they added achievements in the Strike Missions is because they wanted the actual story (and their achievements) to be very easy (which they are) and add more challenging fights / achievements to content done by multiple players. Would you want the Fraenir of Jormag in the story to be like Scruffy 2.0, or is it better to have two versions of the same fight? And to reiterate, Scruffy 2.0 WAS required to beat the meta.

    I get why they added achievements to strike missions. That was never the question. Tell me what do you think that casuals get out of this? They get to either be carried through it, lying dead on the ground in some cases, unable to be rezzed or even use a revivie orb while other people finish the content? Or have to keep doing this stuff over and over again to get those achievements?

    My biggest concern is some, like me and my wife, will force themselves to do it because they want the emote and then, it'll look like peoiple are doing strike missions when in reality they don't like them. Enough of that stuff loses players.

    Sure players did raids at first because legendary armor was locked behind those raids. People forced themselves to do it and stopped, because at the end of the day, some people play for rewards.

    I wanted the PvP backpiece which I got but going fot it very nearly drove me completely out of the game. It was that frustrating (back before you didn't have to get to the next to top tier). At the end of the day, just because some people do something doesnt' mean they like it. I strongly suspect there are lots of people out there who do this stuff because they're "encouraged" to do it by the game, and sure some people will like and maybe some of those will move on to raids. And some of them will have another reason not to like the game. Enough of those and people leave.

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    I get why they added achievements to strike missions. That was never the question. Tell me what do you think that casuals get out of this?

    A "casual" that finished the earlier challenging achievements to complete the story, or the meta, should have very little trouble with those easier Strike Missions. Especially considering how some of the achievements are simple participation rewards, you don't even have to beat the boss to get it. Even the harder ones start very very easy and some of their achievements are acquired during that easy time.

    My biggest concern is some, like me and my wife, will force themselves to do it because they want the emote and then, it'll look like peoiple are doing strike missions when in reality they don't like them. Enough of that stuff loses players.

    Like you finished Scruffy 2.0 and its associated achievements to get meta completion? I also mentioned earlier in the thread how some of the Strike Mission achievements are even achievable SOLO, or in a group with another person or two. You don't even need a complete squad to beat them. As someone who is in a large guild the simplest solution would be to run Strike Missions with Guild Missions, there is little difference between gathering up for a random bounty, and going to beat the Fraenir of Jormag (in fact some bounties have more mechanics than him), AND on the plus side you don't even have to find them, the portal is always available.

    And some of them will have another reason not to like the game. Enough of those and people leave.

    I can assure you the same is happening with the way the new Story instances are created. As tutorials for the expansion, you literally just watch them unfold instead of participating. Now if they brought the old type of story content back and not this snooze fest, then maybe they could remove the Strike Mission requirements too, to you know "stay consistent". For example, if the next "Fraenir of Jormag" we fight in the story is back to Scruffy 2.0 or Palawa Joko levels, I'm not sure that would be preferred though.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    I get why they added achievements to strike missions. That was never the question. Tell me what do you think that casuals get out of this?

    A "casual" that finished the earlier challenging achievements to complete the story, or the meta, should have very little trouble with those easier Strike Missions. Especially considering how some of the achievements are simple participation rewards, you don't even have to beat the boss to get it. Even the harder ones start very very easy and some of their achievements are acquired during that easy time.

    My biggest concern is some, like me and my wife, will force themselves to do it because they want the emote and then, it'll look like peoiple are doing strike missions when in reality they don't like them. Enough of that stuff loses players.

    Like you finished Scruffy 2.0 and its associated achievements to get meta completion? I also mentioned earlier in the thread how some of the Strike Mission achievements are even achievable SOLO, or in a group with another person or two. You don't even need a complete squad to beat them. As someone who is in a large guild the simplest solution would be to run Strike Missions with Guild Missions, there is little difference between gathering up for a random bounty, and going to beat the Fraenir of Jormag (in fact some bounties have more mechanics than him), AND on the plus side you don't even have to find them, the portal is always available.

    And some of them will have another reason not to like the game. Enough of those and people leave.

    I can assure you the same is happening with the way the new Story instances are created. As tutorials for the expansion, you literally just watch them unfold instead of participating. Now if they brought the old type of story content back and not this snooze fest, then maybe they could remove the Strike Mission requirements too, to you know "stay consistent". For example, if the next "Fraenir of Jormag" we fight in the story is back to Scruffy 2.0 or Palawa Joko levels, I'm not sure that would be preferred though.

    We'll see how the chips fall. Get back to me in six months. Yes I did the achievements with Scruffy 2.0 and enjoyed that a hell of a lot more than strike missions generally. Strike Missions to me are some of the worst content in the game, because I didn't buy a game to stand in an instance, fighting a boss I'd already fought in an open world. made deliberarly harder and artificially harder by not allowing the rezzing of dead people (which you couldn't do anyway because it's all just dancing). There's no disguising that as just a game. Move right. 25% he does this. Move left. Jump the wave. Get out of the circle. This is not the game I want to play period end of story. I know some people like it. But it's just an isolated world boss that isn't attached to anything, in a room that doesn't mean anything and I'm going through hoops to get something that frankly I don't want to get.

    Maybe I'm wrong and this won't affect a lot of people, but I think it'll affect more people than you do. And only the future will tell. Right now it's affecting me, my wife, some of my gulidies that I play with regularly, some people that have bothered posting in this thread. When the cards are counted, probably months from now, we'll have our answer, based on how Anet moves forward.

  • Ameepa.6793Ameepa.6793 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 21, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    My biggest concern is some, like me and my wife, will force themselves to do it because they want the emote and then, it'll look like peoiple are doing strike missions when in reality they don't like them. Enough of that stuff loses players.

    Indeed, I am kinda disappointed that you ended up "voting" it being a good thing to add strikes to meta since all they now see is that it was a success and they got new people doing them.

    I'm gonna hold on to my "no" vote and leave the meta unfinished!

    Often actions are better than just talk.

  • Vinceman.4572Vinceman.4572 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I don't think Anet will call Strikes a success if they see that people are doing them once for the achievements and never set a foot into them again. Their metrics would clearly show that + your overall feedback are heavy indicators against such a theory.

    R.I.P. Build Templates, 15.10.2019

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

    I don’t think they intended strikes to be its own fully fledged mode on the same level as dungeons, fractals, and raids. People doing them over and over probably isn’t what they’re basing a “success” on since it’s not a good measure for what they’re trying to accomplish with them.