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

15681011

Comments

  • 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're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • 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.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 21, 2020

    @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"?

    Honestly, I didn't (and never have) thought about inconsisteny in terms of what mechanics are part of an encounter or not. What I'm talking about HERE is related to how Anet presents content to players and how they have deviated from what players expect when they are presented with content. I think it's fair to say AT THIS POINT that Anet has been so inconsistent in many areas of the game with how they deliver content to people that it's almost impossible to say what the baseline for consistent content delivery should be ... that's a dire situation to be in IMO. That shouldn't give Anet card blanche to do whatever ... it should be a sign to them to PICK a path and take it.

    I can recall a time when there were deviations that frustrated me AND were pleasing ... but in NEITHER instance did Anet continue in either of those directions. It was just like a one off ... an experiment ... at the expense of players struggling to understand what just happened to them. It's happening far too often IMO.

    For instance, I remember at time (can't recall exactly) where I was Caithe in the storyline .. .or I had Caithe's weapon skills. Either way, I was massively frustrated because I was expected to learn and be GOOD with her toolset, not my own. I was in MY character muscle memory and key patterns ... and then I'm Caithe ... what a mess that was. OK, maybe some people thought that was a 'cool' thing to happen. My point being is that 'adopting' characters is massively inconsistent in how people play, how they do content (because frankly, it almost NEVER happens) ... yet, Anet did it. Like, WHAT?!?!?! And I can't recall many other times since that it's ever happened again. So WTH ... when I do content, the LEAST I can expect in consistency is on my side with how I play, what gear I have, etc ... and then POOF, it's gone. That's probably my most memorable example related to this.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Adding another thought to why strike missions dont' work for me, is that they really do feel seperate from everything else. I've always perceived a difference between my character being motivated and me being motivated. Rewards motivate me. But my character needs motivations to do things. The example that comes to mind is actually from Guild Wars 1 and it annoyed me enough to remember it all these years later.

    In the Lahtenda Bog mission, we had to follow a corsair, pretending to be corsairs, in order to meet with a Kournan general. We were under cover. There was suddenly text on my screeen after I killed a Rhinkail monitor that I should kill all the Rhinkal monitors in Latendah Bog. There was no reason given for my character to do this. My character couldn't even see my screen. My character had no motivation to break cover and start running around looking for something when there was urgent business afoot. That's not like an achievement to avoid getting burned in a fight because of couse my character wouldn't get burned in a fight. Or not go down in fight. Why would my character want to go down in a fight.

    When I"m fighting Scruffy 2.0 in a story, even though it's hard, it's not just tacked on to what I'm doing. I'm trying to save Tiami and I have a motivation. I'm trying to avoid attacks and so I have a motivation. When something appears in the open world, my character is motivated, even if it's just a woman asked me to help out and gather her ruined grapes because the guards won't help her. The more motivation that's given to my character the more I don't mind doing something.

    Strike missions are just a boss Iv'e already fought, in another version without any explanation, in an instance he's never coming out of. I have reason to go in there...which is rewards. My character? Not part of the story. Nothing to give me a reason. It takes a living breathing world and turns it into a game. A game with different rules, since rezzing is different, revive orbs are diffrerent, nothing explained. Here's the world, learn the world...but in here the world is different. At least Fractals make some attempt to explain agony resistene.

    This is an interuption in the flow of everything I do. It's just there. It's very much the reason why I don't love SPVP and I don't necessarily mind WvW. WvW I can at least make a justification about fighting for my realm. PvP is just a bunch of quick mini stories that are complete unconnected that make no attempt to motivate my character.

    I know that probably sounds weird to a lot of you, but that's how I feel. Get together with this group of complete strangers and kill this boss for no other reason than the achievemnt panel say so. My character can't see the achievement panel.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 21, 2020

    The strikes do have an in game pointer about them. I am forgetting where the little background context comes from because I'm tired - but it's either mail or a map NPC who talks about threats invading the sanctum and Raven needing our help (iirc). The only one that I recall that still jars with the rest of the world/story is the Fraenir for obvious reasons. Oh and that Whisper thing.

    I would agree with that being an issue. I have no issue with them being "walled off", but I'd like them to be in context as well. The latter two are not, whilst the Icebrood colossus, Boneskinner and two Kodan do fit within the context the game provides

    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. . .

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

    I think we got a mail for the whispers one but I’m not sure about the other three. It may be with an NPC.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ameepa.6793 said:

    @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.

    Well I don't have it yet and I'm not pushing it. I'm still sitting at around 20 achievements. I'm not focused on it. It'll be months before I get it, by which time, Anet will have had their data and either acted on it or not.

  • Nephalem.8921Nephalem.8921 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 22, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Well I don't have it yet and I'm not pushing it. I'm still sitting at around 20 achievements. I'm not focused on it. It'll be months before I get it, by which time, Anet will have had their data and either acted on it or not.

    You also have to do the jumping puzzles 3 times for the meta. Lots of players hate jumping puzzles aswell. Should they be removed too?
    Read in another thread that a player stopped playing just because of this.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nephalem.8921 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Well I don't have it yet and I'm not pushing it. I'm still sitting at around 20 achievements. I'm not focused on it. It'll be months before I get it, by which time, Anet will have had their data and either acted on it or not.

    You also have to do the jumping puzzles 3 times for the meta. Lots of players hate jumping puzzles aswell. Should they be removed too?
    Read in another thread that a player stopped playing just because of this.

    I never said remove anything. If you think I did, please find the quote and paste it. I said give people options. That's all. Give them options like they did with Wintersday. You want the meta you don't have to do the jumping puzzle. But you can if youl ike that sort of things. Giving players more options is not a bad idea. If there are 50 achievements in the zone, don't make 10 of them achievements you need from Strike missions. Then someone can choose I'll do a strike mission or a jumping puzzle and everyone is happy. Do I think it's great design to force someone to do something they don't like that's different from what they've been doing all along? Not really no.

  • Valandil Dragonhart.2371Valandil Dragonhart.2371 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 22, 2020

    I personally am not for the strike missions if they're going to keep them as difficult as they are. To me it looks like they were designed as a prelude to raids - difficulty and all. They're not going to hold onto casual players by keeping these as part of the map achieves either.

    Casual players just follow the story along, do meta content, get a few achieves and that's all.. until the next LS story. It's the same with most LS maps. Including 'elite' content (which if you have to use certain buffs and food to get an optimal outcome, and also have a certain type of team arrangement for success) isn't what casual players sign up for.

    I went out of my way and spent a small fortune on my disused guardian (now dragonhunter) and got him up to raid-spec with gear and utilities just so he could get involved with strike missions and make a difference. Sure it hits harder than most players in the instance, being naturally bursty, but it takes cooperation from ALL team members with their gear/stats/utilities, etc. Winning a strike mission should be about skill not luck. As such I might as well have stayed on my main for all the good it's done so far.

    Regarding the Whisper of Jormag (or whatever it is), towards the end of that strike mission is where it gets most fiddly. Below about 33% the visual noise is far too much, and you can't eliminate it by turning graphic quality down either. It's REALLY hard to know what's going on, especially for some newbie just doing their strike mission for the first time.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Just thought I"d leave this here, since apparently I'm not the only person having issues. This post has 68 upvotes so far on reddit.

    https://old.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/f89qmr/played_strike_missions_for_the_first_time_and/

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

    They were likely doing the whispers strike mission which is far more difficult than the other three. It’s was also their first time so unlikely that they would have gotten many of the achievements other than those handed out for being present.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    They were likely doing the whispers strike mission which is far more difficult than the other three. It’s was also their first time so unlikely that they would have gotten many of the achievements other than those handed out for being present.

    Doesn't really affect what I'm saying. Casual players don't want to do research online to figure out everything like this. They had this experience because this is the experience being offered and a casual will experience this way. There are enough upvotes to that post to make it a pretty common reaction.

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    They were likely doing the whispers strike mission which is far more difficult than the other three. It’s was also their first time so unlikely that they would have gotten many of the achievements other than those handed out for being present.

    Doesn't really affect what I'm saying. Casual players don't want to do research online to figure out everything like this. They had this experience because this is the experience being offered and a casual will experience this way. There are enough upvotes to that post to make it a pretty common reaction.

    You don't need to do research online for strike missions. They're simple enough that you can learn what to do after a few tries.

    Also, upvotes on Reddit don't really mean anything.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    They were likely doing the whispers strike mission which is far more difficult than the other three. It’s was also their first time so unlikely that they would have gotten many of the achievements other than those handed out for being present.

    Doesn't really affect what I'm saying. Casual players don't want to do research online to figure out everything like this. They had this experience because this is the experience being offered and a casual will experience this way. There are enough upvotes to that post to make it a pretty common reaction.

    You don't need to do research online for strike missions. They're simple enough that you can learn what to do after a few tries.

    Also, upvotes on Reddit don't really mean anything.

    Don't kid yourself. Upvotes on reddit mean something. It means people are experiencing what I'm experiencing. I only had a modest number of likes on this post, but I find fewer people using hte like button on forums over all even if they agree with you and said so. Reddit is another story altogther.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 24, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    They were likely doing the whispers strike mission which is far more difficult than the other three. It’s was also their first time so unlikely that they would have gotten many of the achievements other than those handed out for being present.

    Doesn't really affect what I'm saying. Casual players don't want to do research online to figure out everything like this. They had this experience because this is the experience being offered and a casual will experience this way. There are enough upvotes to that post to make it a pretty common reaction.

    You don't need to do research online for strike missions. They're simple enough that you can learn what to do after a few tries.

    Also, upvotes on Reddit don't really mean anything.

    Don't kid yourself. Upvotes on reddit mean something. It means people are experiencing what I'm experiencing. I only had a modest number of likes on this post, but I find fewer people using hte like button on forums over all even if they agree with you and said so. Reddit is another story altogther.

    What it doesn't show are those that disagree with you. Reddit also has a very bipolar hive-mind mentality. What could get upvotes one day can just as well get downvotes the next. Even posts that state complete facts can receive downvotes into the negatives.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    They were likely doing the whispers strike mission which is far more difficult than the other three. It’s was also their first time so unlikely that they would have gotten many of the achievements other than those handed out for being present.

    Doesn't really affect what I'm saying. Casual players don't want to do research online to figure out everything like this. They had this experience because this is the experience being offered and a casual will experience this way. There are enough upvotes to that post to make it a pretty common reaction.

    You don't need to do research online for strike missions. They're simple enough that you can learn what to do after a few tries.

    Also, upvotes on Reddit don't really mean anything.

    Don't kid yourself. Upvotes on reddit mean something. It means people are experiencing what I'm experiencing. I only had a modest number of likes on this post, but I find fewer people using hte like button on forums over all even if they agree with you and said so. Reddit is another story altogther.

    What it doesn't show are those that disagree with you. Reddit also has a very bipolar hive-mind mentality. What could get upvotes one day can just as well get downvotes the next. Even posts that state complete facts can receive downvotes into the negatives.

    While I agree with some of what you say, it's easy to see the % of people who upvoted a post. This post is 83% upvoted. If you don't think that's an issue it's certainly okay. I think it means something. We'll have to agree to disagree.

    I should also mention this is pretty much against the harder core hive mind of reddit.

  • @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    They were likely doing the whispers strike mission which is far more difficult than the other three. It’s was also their first time so unlikely that they would have gotten many of the achievements other than those handed out for being present.

    Doesn't really affect what I'm saying. Casual players don't want to do research online to figure out everything like this. They had this experience because this is the experience being offered and a casual will experience this way. There are enough upvotes to that post to make it a pretty common reaction.

    You don't need to do research online for strike missions. They're simple enough that you can learn what to do after a few tries.

    Also, upvotes on Reddit don't really mean anything.

    Don't kid yourself. Upvotes on reddit mean something. It means people are experiencing what I'm experiencing. I only had a modest number of likes on this post, but I find fewer people using hte like button on forums over all even if they agree with you and said so. Reddit is another story altogther.

    What it doesn't show are those that disagree with you. Reddit also has a very bipolar hive-mind mentality. What could get upvotes one day can just as well get downvotes the next. Even posts that state complete facts can receive downvotes into the negatives.

    While I agree with some of what you say, it's easy to see the % of people who upvoted a post. This post is 83% upvoted. If you don't think that's an issue it's certainly okay. I think it means something. We'll have to agree to disagree.

    I should also mention this is pretty much against the harder core hive mind of reddit.

    The full thread title is "Played Strike Missions for the first time and people are dying all the time in random groups ... it's even worse than in Tier 1 Fractals. what is happening?". That's basically a "why people so bad lol" title, and the title is not expanded on by the OP until further down in the comments. It is highly unlikely that those upvotes are mostly from people who are "experiencing what you're experiencing".

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 24, 2020

    @Cameron.6450 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    They were likely doing the whispers strike mission which is far more difficult than the other three. It’s was also their first time so unlikely that they would have gotten many of the achievements other than those handed out for being present.

    Doesn't really affect what I'm saying. Casual players don't want to do research online to figure out everything like this. They had this experience because this is the experience being offered and a casual will experience this way. There are enough upvotes to that post to make it a pretty common reaction.

    You don't need to do research online for strike missions. They're simple enough that you can learn what to do after a few tries.

    Also, upvotes on Reddit don't really mean anything.

    Don't kid yourself. Upvotes on reddit mean something. It means people are experiencing what I'm experiencing. I only had a modest number of likes on this post, but I find fewer people using hte like button on forums over all even if they agree with you and said so. Reddit is another story altogther.

    What it doesn't show are those that disagree with you. Reddit also has a very bipolar hive-mind mentality. What could get upvotes one day can just as well get downvotes the next. Even posts that state complete facts can receive downvotes into the negatives.

    While I agree with some of what you say, it's easy to see the % of people who upvoted a post. This post is 83% upvoted. If you don't think that's an issue it's certainly okay. I think it means something. We'll have to agree to disagree.

    I should also mention this is pretty much against the harder core hive mind of reddit.

    The full thread title is "Played Strike Missions for the first time and people are dying all the time in random groups ... it's even worse than in Tier 1 Fractals. what is happening?". That's basically a "why people so bad lol" title, and the title is not expanded on by the OP until further down in the comments. It is highly unlikely that those upvotes are mostly from people who are "experiencing what you're experiencing".

    I'm reading comments. I'm definitely not alone here.

    Edit: In fact if he's saying everyone is bad, it intensifies everything I'm saying about strike missions. Why would I want to play with people like that?

  • @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Cameron.6450 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    They were likely doing the whispers strike mission which is far more difficult than the other three. It’s was also their first time so unlikely that they would have gotten many of the achievements other than those handed out for being present.

    Doesn't really affect what I'm saying. Casual players don't want to do research online to figure out everything like this. They had this experience because this is the experience being offered and a casual will experience this way. There are enough upvotes to that post to make it a pretty common reaction.

    You don't need to do research online for strike missions. They're simple enough that you can learn what to do after a few tries.

    Also, upvotes on Reddit don't really mean anything.

    Don't kid yourself. Upvotes on reddit mean something. It means people are experiencing what I'm experiencing. I only had a modest number of likes on this post, but I find fewer people using hte like button on forums over all even if they agree with you and said so. Reddit is another story altogther.

    What it doesn't show are those that disagree with you. Reddit also has a very bipolar hive-mind mentality. What could get upvotes one day can just as well get downvotes the next. Even posts that state complete facts can receive downvotes into the negatives.

    While I agree with some of what you say, it's easy to see the % of people who upvoted a post. This post is 83% upvoted. If you don't think that's an issue it's certainly okay. I think it means something. We'll have to agree to disagree.

    I should also mention this is pretty much against the harder core hive mind of reddit.

    The full thread title is "Played Strike Missions for the first time and people are dying all the time in random groups ... it's even worse than in Tier 1 Fractals. what is happening?". That's basically a "why people so bad lol" title, and the title is not expanded on by the OP until further down in the comments. It is highly unlikely that those upvotes are mostly from people who are "experiencing what you're experiencing".

    I'm reading comments. I'm definitely not alone here.

    Edit: In fact if he's saying everyone is bad, it intensifies everything I'm saying about strike missions. Why would I want to play with people like that?

    I didn't see any comments that mention strike missions being part of the meta achievement. There's a bunch of complaints about it being too difficult, but I'm pretty sure I remember you (and others) saying that it wasn't that strikes were too hard, but rather that they were instanced content in the first place.

    And I don't think the OP was intending to make a "why people so bad lol" thread, but it's very easy to interpret their title in that way. I got the impression from the op's comments further down that it was genuine confusion as to why so many people were dying, but it's not clear. It could be possible that they are a regular raider who stepped into it and was making a comment on how people suck, but I doubt it. But even if he were being disparaging, if getting the strike done was such a big deal for so many people in your guild, I'm not really sure why you'd be doing it with random pugs instead of your guild members, since presumably none of them would act in that way.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cameron.6450 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Cameron.6450 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    They were likely doing the whispers strike mission which is far more difficult than the other three. It’s was also their first time so unlikely that they would have gotten many of the achievements other than those handed out for being present.

    Doesn't really affect what I'm saying. Casual players don't want to do research online to figure out everything like this. They had this experience because this is the experience being offered and a casual will experience this way. There are enough upvotes to that post to make it a pretty common reaction.

    You don't need to do research online for strike missions. They're simple enough that you can learn what to do after a few tries.

    Also, upvotes on Reddit don't really mean anything.

    Don't kid yourself. Upvotes on reddit mean something. It means people are experiencing what I'm experiencing. I only had a modest number of likes on this post, but I find fewer people using hte like button on forums over all even if they agree with you and said so. Reddit is another story altogther.

    What it doesn't show are those that disagree with you. Reddit also has a very bipolar hive-mind mentality. What could get upvotes one day can just as well get downvotes the next. Even posts that state complete facts can receive downvotes into the negatives.

    While I agree with some of what you say, it's easy to see the % of people who upvoted a post. This post is 83% upvoted. If you don't think that's an issue it's certainly okay. I think it means something. We'll have to agree to disagree.

    I should also mention this is pretty much against the harder core hive mind of reddit.

    The full thread title is "Played Strike Missions for the first time and people are dying all the time in random groups ... it's even worse than in Tier 1 Fractals. what is happening?". That's basically a "why people so bad lol" title, and the title is not expanded on by the OP until further down in the comments. It is highly unlikely that those upvotes are mostly from people who are "experiencing what you're experiencing".

    I'm reading comments. I'm definitely not alone here.

    Edit: In fact if he's saying everyone is bad, it intensifies everything I'm saying about strike missions. Why would I want to play with people like that?

    I didn't see any comments that mention strike missions being part of the meta achievement. There's a bunch of complaints about it being too difficult, but I'm pretty sure I remember you (and others) saying that it wasn't that strikes were too hard, but rather that they were instanced content in the first place.

    And I don't think the OP was intending to make a "why people so bad lol" thread, but it's very easy to interpret their title in that way. I got the impression from the op's comments further down that it was genuine confusion as to why so many people were dying, but it's not clear. It could be possible that they are a regular raider who stepped into it and was making a comment on how people suck, but I doubt it. But even if he were being disparaging, if getting the strike done was such a big deal for so many people in your guild, I'm not really sure why you'd be doing it with random pugs instead of your guild members, since presumably none of them would act in that way.

    Well, I think you're taking a pretty narrow view here. Strike mission, people dying and he doesn't know why. But people are dying. I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't really get what they have to do, and are walking away from the whole meta, and possibly the zone. My interest in the zone, because of this is greatly decreased over previous zones. I'm just not interested. I fought against raids being added to the game but they got added anyway. As long as they stayed in their lane, that was fine but now they're moving into a more public area of the game. It's absolutely not the game I want to play and again I'm not alone. in fact, I'd guess there are far more people who don't want this than want it. Just a guess but I think it's a good one.

    You want to add challenging, instanced content to the game, go ahead. Want to put it as part of a meta...you're going to get backlash. How many people will come to forums or reddit to complain is probabliy small compared to the number of people who'll just stop playing or at least not do that content.

    Usually I'm a defender of the game. This is one change I can't defend, and again, at least in my guild it seems there's less interest in the zone, at least partially because of this.

  • Requiring this is already driving some of the casuals away. Whatever your definition of casual is, this is mine; A casual player is one who plays mainly in the PVE world getting levels, achievements and exploring without having to have 'That build with your rotations down to achieve this much DPS' A;ready there are strike LFG's that are saying they are running dps monitor and to you have this or that. I am a casual player who also is an achievement hunter. Yes, I play a lot, but no I am not good at rotations,
    Builds, and Raid mechanics. YET before this I have always been able to achieve the meta map achievement. Yes other maps have had jump puzzles and other things that were bothersome, but you usually could do other map achievements to get it and is not you could get a group of regular 'casual' players to help you get through, but with the newer Strikes they have made it so that just getting a group together that can complete it is hard.

    My husband quit for 4 years after HoT came out. I got him wto come back lately to play yet he has only completed story in the new area and ran around for a few min. I tried to get him to do a strike and he said he would rather go play another game than ever try that kitten where he would feel inferior if we had to carrying him. Why pplay a game if they force you to feel inferior he asked me. He and I are older and just not so coordinated.

    They have already basically banned us from Legendary Armor since if I ever want to get it I would have to do paid Raids since there is no way I doing an LFG for it. I have joined a wonderful WvW group that does not care about builds and stuff but it will be a long hall to 2000 to get that Legendary Armor and most casual players will not take the route I am.