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

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

2456711

Comments

  • @Vayne.8563 said:
    For the first time ever, in order to get a zone meta achievement, people are required to get achievements from ten man instanced content. Anet apparently believes that this will encourage people to try raids. My opinion is this will drive more people from the game than get more people to the content Anet wants us to play. It's too heavy handed. It's not a good enough encouragement.

    I agree that it will do nothing to motivate people to raid if they aren't already interested in it. But, like raiding itself, achievement hunting is meant for a small population of obsessives. If you're a completionist you'll do it anyway. If you're not it'll just go on the Whatever list alongside PvP or crafting ascended gear or the like.

    The Commander will end you.

  • Nephalem.8921Nephalem.8921 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    You're missing the point. Arah itself was a change. The entire personal story could be soloed up till that point. It was a problem because the game changed what was required for a personal story. That was the issue. It was FIXED by making it a solo instance. It had to be done because that change affected too many people. The same was true with me and Rift. Okay I had to do dungeons, fine, but now you want me to raid, but I don't want to raid. Bye bye game. People who got to the end of the storya nd realized it was a five person instance often left feeling betrayed. It's a bad way to leave your player base. Honestly I feel betrayed by this change. And I guarentee you I'm not alone.

    Strikes are not raids. Just treat it like a bounty with 10 player limit.
    The arah story had to be changed because it was too hard to find players for it. only reason to do it was as a story step or to enable the explo path. the lfg was just too empty after years. only new players did it and had a terrible expetience finding players for it.
    The public strike mode needs an overhaul though. players should be able to queue as support or dps and the rest should work like the wvsw queue instead of waiting ages in there doing nothing.

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

    Doesn’t matter. The strike mission requirements should be removed from the completion equation.

    Based on what? That you don't like them? I didn't particularly enjoy grinding events so those should be removed too.

    Refer back to my other posts.

    You don't like them because you feel that they're like raids which only the most recent one is relatively close to that.

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

    Doesn’t matter. The strike mission requirements should be removed from the completion equation.

    Based on what? That you don't like them? I didn't particularly enjoy grinding events so those should be removed too.

    As I've said numerous times, it's not the strike missions that's the problem, it's the change. Do you remember how the personal story had to be changed from a dungeon to a solo instance because people complained? The same thing happened to me in Rift. THe main story line ended in a raid. I didn't want to raid and it was one of the main things that drove me from that game. I suppose I should be thankful on that count.

    But if you want to raise the bar, in my opinion, this isn't the way to do it. It's long been a problem with the nature of open world PvE being so casual in this game. You change the game you lose the playerbase. It's just logic.

    So it's the change. So you had no issue when the Arah dungeon story was changed to be done solo but you have an issue when they added strike missions with this season and not doing some of the strike achievements is required for the meta? It seems as if you only dislike change if it goes against what you want.

    The game isn't being changed by adding strike missions. It's not being changed by having strike mission achievements being included towards an episode's meta achievement.

    You're missing the point. Arah itself was a change. The entire personal story could be soloed up till that point. It was a problem because the game changed what was required for a personal story. That was the issue. It was FIXED by making it a solo instance. It had to be done because that change affected too many people. The same was true with me and Rift. Okay I had to do dungeons, fine, but now you want me to raid, but I don't want to raid. Bye bye game. People who got to the end of the storya nd realized it was a five person instance often left feeling betrayed. It's a bad way to leave your player base. Honestly I feel betrayed by this change. And I guarentee you I'm not alone.

    Strikes are not raids. The only strike that you could probably considered to be the closet to raids would be the newest one. Have you done raids and strikes?

    How many achievements for the map cannot be done solo? Do you feel betrayed by those?

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

    Doesn’t matter. The strike mission requirements should be removed from the completion equation.

    Based on what? That you don't like them? I didn't particularly enjoy grinding events so those should be removed too.

    Refer back to my other posts.

    You don't like them because you feel that they're like raids which only the most recent one is relatively close to that.

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

    Doesn’t matter. The strike mission requirements should be removed from the completion equation.

    Based on what? That you don't like them? I didn't particularly enjoy grinding events so those should be removed too.

    As I've said numerous times, it's not the strike missions that's the problem, it's the change. Do you remember how the personal story had to be changed from a dungeon to a solo instance because people complained? The same thing happened to me in Rift. THe main story line ended in a raid. I didn't want to raid and it was one of the main things that drove me from that game. I suppose I should be thankful on that count.

    But if you want to raise the bar, in my opinion, this isn't the way to do it. It's long been a problem with the nature of open world PvE being so casual in this game. You change the game you lose the playerbase. It's just logic.

    So it's the change. So you had no issue when the Arah dungeon story was changed to be done solo but you have an issue when they added strike missions with this season and not doing some of the strike achievements is required for the meta? It seems as if you only dislike change if it goes against what you want.

    The game isn't being changed by adding strike missions. It's not being changed by having strike mission achievements being included towards an episode's meta achievement.

    You're missing the point. Arah itself was a change. The entire personal story could be soloed up till that point. It was a problem because the game changed what was required for a personal story. That was the issue. It was FIXED by making it a solo instance. It had to be done because that change affected too many people. The same was true with me and Rift. Okay I had to do dungeons, fine, but now you want me to raid, but I don't want to raid. Bye bye game. People who got to the end of the storya nd realized it was a five person instance often left feeling betrayed. It's a bad way to leave your player base. Honestly I feel betrayed by this change. And I guarentee you I'm not alone.

    Strikes are not raids. The only strike that you could probably considered to be the closet to raids would be the newest one. Have you done raids and strikes?

    How many achievements for the map cannot be done solo? Do you feel betrayed by those?

    They can all be done solo if you don't have to group. Having other people there is different than group. Those that don't mind grouping don't really care. You can be invisible in a meta. Harder to be invisible in a strike.

    So you can kill Drakkar solo? You can kill the champions solo? What about all of the achievements on the other side of the map from the previous episode? Group content is still group content whether you need to formally squad up or not.

  • Nephalem.8921Nephalem.8921 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    They can all be done solo if you don't have to group. Having other people there is different than group. Those that don't mind grouping don't really care. You can be invisible in a meta. Harder to be invisible in a strike.

    You can be invisible in strikes aswell. joined the kodan in a no req group today. all chests first try, nobody checked builds or anything.

  • mindcircus.1506mindcircus.1506 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @Zaklex.6308 said:
    I've personally done the Grothmar strike mission once, and that's the one and only time I've done one, it has nothing to do with the difficulty at all, same with Raids, but it does come down to wanting to play the game how I want with the build I want and not some Meta build or what others want me to play.

    There is absolutely zero need for you to run a meta build in the Grothmar strike. The encounter is simple content that everyone can enjoy.
    I tag up and run this strike 3-4 times a week. There's no need for a specific group composition. Every group I have ever done it with has taken the first ten people they could find and burned it down.
    Why misrepresent it as being otherwise?

    "We recognize that some players are not able to complete all content." Gaile Gray 01.10.19

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

    Doesn’t matter. The strike mission requirements should be removed from the completion equation.

    Based on what? That you don't like them? I didn't particularly enjoy grinding events so those should be removed too.

    Refer back to my other posts.

    You don't like them because you feel that they're like raids which only the most recent one is relatively close to that.

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

    Doesn’t matter. The strike mission requirements should be removed from the completion equation.

    Based on what? That you don't like them? I didn't particularly enjoy grinding events so those should be removed too.

    As I've said numerous times, it's not the strike missions that's the problem, it's the change. Do you remember how the personal story had to be changed from a dungeon to a solo instance because people complained? The same thing happened to me in Rift. THe main story line ended in a raid. I didn't want to raid and it was one of the main things that drove me from that game. I suppose I should be thankful on that count.

    But if you want to raise the bar, in my opinion, this isn't the way to do it. It's long been a problem with the nature of open world PvE being so casual in this game. You change the game you lose the playerbase. It's just logic.

    So it's the change. So you had no issue when the Arah dungeon story was changed to be done solo but you have an issue when they added strike missions with this season and not doing some of the strike achievements is required for the meta? It seems as if you only dislike change if it goes against what you want.

    The game isn't being changed by adding strike missions. It's not being changed by having strike mission achievements being included towards an episode's meta achievement.

    You're missing the point. Arah itself was a change. The entire personal story could be soloed up till that point. It was a problem because the game changed what was required for a personal story. That was the issue. It was FIXED by making it a solo instance. It had to be done because that change affected too many people. The same was true with me and Rift. Okay I had to do dungeons, fine, but now you want me to raid, but I don't want to raid. Bye bye game. People who got to the end of the storya nd realized it was a five person instance often left feeling betrayed. It's a bad way to leave your player base. Honestly I feel betrayed by this change. And I guarentee you I'm not alone.

    Strikes are not raids. The only strike that you could probably considered to be the closet to raids would be the newest one. Have you done raids and strikes?

    How many achievements for the map cannot be done solo? Do you feel betrayed by those?

    They can all be done solo if you don't have to group. Having other people there is different than group. Those that don't mind grouping don't really care. You can be invisible in a meta. Harder to be invisible in a strike.

    So you can kill Drakkar solo? You can kill the champions solo? What about all of the achievements on the other side of the map from the previous episode? Group content is still group content whether you need to formally squad up or not.

    I can kill them without grouping. You may not perceive a different, some people do. I'm one of them.

    But you cannot kill them without other players just as you cannot kill the strike mission bosses without other players. Whether you're in an actual group or not is just semantics.

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @mindcircus.1506 said:
    Not being part of either side I find it fascinating which group is consistently labeled as "toxic" and which side is actively amping up the toxicity.

    I see the label "toxic casual" thrown around more often than "toxic elitist". I also wouldn't call myself a casual, but I would never call myself hardcore.

    Hyperbole, thinly-veiled econonomic threats, leaving the game if nothing changes, claims what's good or bad for the game, claims that casualization ruined the game, claims that the hardcore group ruined the game, misrepresentation of dev statements, doomsaying because of devs leaving, labeling as casuals, toxic casuals, elitists, hardcores, furnace taken, just pressing one button and running around, tying open world to solo content, preconception that everyone that dislikes instanced content never did them... and the list goes on.

    Those arguments appear on both sides, it's fascinating.

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

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

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

    Doesn’t matter. The strike mission requirements should be removed from the completion equation.

    Based on what? That you don't like them? I didn't particularly enjoy grinding events so those should be removed too.

    Refer back to my other posts.

    You don't like them because you feel that they're like raids which only the most recent one is relatively close to that.

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

    Doesn’t matter. The strike mission requirements should be removed from the completion equation.

    Based on what? That you don't like them? I didn't particularly enjoy grinding events so those should be removed too.

    As I've said numerous times, it's not the strike missions that's the problem, it's the change. Do you remember how the personal story had to be changed from a dungeon to a solo instance because people complained? The same thing happened to me in Rift. THe main story line ended in a raid. I didn't want to raid and it was one of the main things that drove me from that game. I suppose I should be thankful on that count.

    But if you want to raise the bar, in my opinion, this isn't the way to do it. It's long been a problem with the nature of open world PvE being so casual in this game. You change the game you lose the playerbase. It's just logic.

    So it's the change. So you had no issue when the Arah dungeon story was changed to be done solo but you have an issue when they added strike missions with this season and not doing some of the strike achievements is required for the meta? It seems as if you only dislike change if it goes against what you want.

    The game isn't being changed by adding strike missions. It's not being changed by having strike mission achievements being included towards an episode's meta achievement.

    You're missing the point. Arah itself was a change. The entire personal story could be soloed up till that point. It was a problem because the game changed what was required for a personal story. That was the issue. It was FIXED by making it a solo instance. It had to be done because that change affected too many people. The same was true with me and Rift. Okay I had to do dungeons, fine, but now you want me to raid, but I don't want to raid. Bye bye game. People who got to the end of the storya nd realized it was a five person instance often left feeling betrayed. It's a bad way to leave your player base. Honestly I feel betrayed by this change. And I guarentee you I'm not alone.

    Strikes are not raids. The only strike that you could probably considered to be the closet to raids would be the newest one. Have you done raids and strikes?

    How many achievements for the map cannot be done solo? Do you feel betrayed by those?

    They can all be done solo if you don't have to group. Having other people there is different than group. Those that don't mind grouping don't really care. You can be invisible in a meta. Harder to be invisible in a strike.

    So you can kill Drakkar solo? You can kill the champions solo? What about all of the achievements on the other side of the map from the previous episode? Group content is still group content whether you need to formally squad up or not.

    I can kill them without grouping. You may not perceive a different, some people do. I'm one of them.

    But you cannot kill them without other players just as you cannot kill the strike mission bosses without other players. Whether you're in an actual group or not is just semantics.

    It's absolutely not semantics for a lot of people. If I feel a difference, if I'm willing to do one and not the other than in fact, it's different. You not perceiving that differnece doesn't make it semantics. A lot of people don't group for reasons. I'm a full time carer for a disabled person. I might have to leave the computer at a moments notice. Instanced content in which that group depends on me as one of their limited number is very very different from running up to a champ in the open world and having to leave in the middle. Saying it's semantics is dismissing what for many is a fairly serious concern. There are mothers with children in my guild who have to leave quickly so they don't want to group. But they will participate in a meta, because there are enough people where it doesn't matter if they leave or stay. That's a difference, which is not semantic.

    Strikes don’t require a full group. When I was farming kills for the Sanctifier achievements, there were times when there were only 7 of us because we didn’t want to wait. There are other times where we only did it with 9 because someone started the fight before someone fully loaded into the instance.

    Do you not do dungeons or fractals because you might have to leave at a moment’s notice?

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

    Doesn’t matter. The strike mission requirements should be removed from the completion equation.

    Based on what? That you don't like them? I didn't particularly enjoy grinding events so those should be removed too.

    Refer back to my other posts.

    You don't like them because you feel that they're like raids which only the most recent one is relatively close to that.

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

    Doesn’t matter. The strike mission requirements should be removed from the completion equation.

    Based on what? That you don't like them? I didn't particularly enjoy grinding events so those should be removed too.

    As I've said numerous times, it's not the strike missions that's the problem, it's the change. Do you remember how the personal story had to be changed from a dungeon to a solo instance because people complained? The same thing happened to me in Rift. THe main story line ended in a raid. I didn't want to raid and it was one of the main things that drove me from that game. I suppose I should be thankful on that count.

    But if you want to raise the bar, in my opinion, this isn't the way to do it. It's long been a problem with the nature of open world PvE being so casual in this game. You change the game you lose the playerbase. It's just logic.

    So it's the change. So you had no issue when the Arah dungeon story was changed to be done solo but you have an issue when they added strike missions with this season and not doing some of the strike achievements is required for the meta? It seems as if you only dislike change if it goes against what you want.

    The game isn't being changed by adding strike missions. It's not being changed by having strike mission achievements being included towards an episode's meta achievement.

    You're missing the point. Arah itself was a change. The entire personal story could be soloed up till that point. It was a problem because the game changed what was required for a personal story. That was the issue. It was FIXED by making it a solo instance. It had to be done because that change affected too many people. The same was true with me and Rift. Okay I had to do dungeons, fine, but now you want me to raid, but I don't want to raid. Bye bye game. People who got to the end of the storya nd realized it was a five person instance often left feeling betrayed. It's a bad way to leave your player base. Honestly I feel betrayed by this change. And I guarentee you I'm not alone.

    Strikes are not raids. The only strike that you could probably considered to be the closet to raids would be the newest one. Have you done raids and strikes?

    How many achievements for the map cannot be done solo? Do you feel betrayed by those?

    They can all be done solo if you don't have to group. Having other people there is different than group. Those that don't mind grouping don't really care. You can be invisible in a meta. Harder to be invisible in a strike.

    So you can kill Drakkar solo? You can kill the champions solo? What about all of the achievements on the other side of the map from the previous episode? Group content is still group content whether you need to formally squad up or not.

    I can kill them without grouping. You may not perceive a different, some people do. I'm one of them.

    But you cannot kill them without other players just as you cannot kill the strike mission bosses without other players. Whether you're in an actual group or not is just semantics.

    It's absolutely not semantics for a lot of people. If I feel a difference, if I'm willing to do one and not the other than in fact, it's different. You not perceiving that differnece doesn't make it semantics. A lot of people don't group for reasons. I'm a full time carer for a disabled person. I might have to leave the computer at a moments notice. Instanced content in which that group depends on me as one of their limited number is very very different from running up to a champ in the open world and having to leave in the middle. Saying it's semantics is dismissing what for many is a fairly serious concern. There are mothers with children in my guild who have to leave quickly so they don't want to group. But they will participate in a meta, because there are enough people where it doesn't matter if they leave or stay. That's a difference, which is not semantic.

    Strikes don’t require a full group. When I was farming kills for the Sanctifier achievements, there were times when there were only 7 of us because we didn’t want to wait. There are other times where we only did it with 9 because someone started the fight before someone fully loaded into the instance.

    Do you not do dungeons or fractals because you might have to leave at a moment’s notice?

    I surely don't pug dungeons or fractals. I do them with my guild who knows my situation. One of the main reasons I don't pug is to not inconveninece others with my personal stuff. It's one of the reasons I'll probably never raid, and it's one of the reasons I prefer not to group up to do strikes. There are few enough casuals in my guild who want to do them or feel comfortable doing them to find ten on all at one time. And because of my situation it's harder to make a time.

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

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    Only their metrics will ever really tell that though.

    Their aim is bridge the gap between those who raid and those who don't. They need to do things like this to at least try and make that work. Even if it fails. But unless they commit, then they will never know. Anet are generally pretty bad at following through on things so I am pleased to see them go all in on this as best they can.

    There will be people will get annoyed by it, but I don't think the vast majority ultimately care. Just like the vast majority probably don't have the grievances that many of us on these forums. They just get on with it because the game asks them to - and I suspect that is just fine for most players. I can bang on about Drakkar devolving back to the dull zergfests of old which ignore years of constructive feedback which has kittened me right off, but it's clear people are just getting on and playing it. I don't think adding in a bit of instanced content is going to do much damage to the population.

    I also don't think anything has changed on a fundamental level. I think if anything the way things started off with dungeons and shortly after fractals and players were more conjoined. It was the way raids were implemented that splintered things in probably the strongest way. It feels like they are trying to get back to way things were by building bridges into content again.

    The more they make things like meta one dimensional in their approach, the more they continue to fracture the community in my opinion.

    Even if you don't agree, GW2 is an incredibly varied playerbase and I think trying to separate what players may or might like in the pve environment is probably a headache for the design team. There will always be something that will annoy players. Better to bung it all in and give players all sorts of different things to do. I find that a more positive approach personally.

    We have all the metrics from 2015 that we need. The raid population is small, as mentioned by Andrew Gray, and that means the player base has spoken on the matter... The majority do not want raid type content in their currents forms, and it was a massive oversight to not include things like difficulty scaling in the first place.

    We have no metrics. Only Anet have metrics. Whether they show the strategy is working, they have yet to reveal and perhaps it is too soon because the entire process isn't complete yet since more Strikes are to come (and if my understanding is right, they are going to be harder/more complex)

    I don't believe they have useful metrics for drawing conclusions that are necessarily correct. Take myself for example: the only thing they can possibly know about me is that I have never ever set foot inside a raid. They don't have the first clue why. They never asked me. I'm definitely not in their "it's too hard segment". How much can they actually know about all of the other people who never even tried raids a single time? I'm sure there are plenty of players like that.

  • @Vayne.8563 said:

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    • The labeling of anyone who likes the content as an elitist or hardcore in some pejorative sense.
    • The misrepresentation of developer communication.
    • The constant claims that posters are speaking for a majority of players instead of just offering their personal feedback.
    • The claims that people know what's good or bad for the game without having any data to back it up.
    • The consistent hyperbole.
    • The thinly-veiled economic threats.
    • The outright false claims that Arenanet's long-time practice of encouraging people to participate in a variety of content via collections and achievements is somehow new or a change of direction.

    @Randulf.7614 was correct about the intent of trying to bring two sides of the game together.
    Not being part of either side I find it fascinating which group is consistently labeled as "toxic" and which side is actively amping up the toxicity.

    Well I never use hard core as an insult, just as a descriptor. Not sure where the misrepresentation of developer information comes from, if I'm misrepresenting something show me, so I can correct it.

    As for casuals being more prevalent than hard core players, the top 5% are the top 5% for a reason, but Anet themselves said that the raiding community is small and at least implied they can't afford to support it without more numbers. They said strike missions were a way of getting people into raids. I can link the quote if you need it.

    The thinly veiled economic threats are a reality that every game developer has to deal with. It is my belief, wrongly or rightly, that there are more casuals playing than hard core players. I believe people stopped playing when HoT came out because it was too hard for the general population and people hate dying all the time. I liked it btw. Not the dying but HoT itself. I always defended it..but I can't deny people in my casual guild were put off.

    It is a new change of direction to add something different that wasn't there before period. The change in this case is that I have never had to enter a dungeon or fractal or ten man instanced content to get a meta achievement and now I do. If you don't call that a change, not sure why that is.

    As far as toxic, I'm sure toxic players exist on both sides of the spectrum.

    I'm not sure that's true. The Twilight Arbor Release had a meta, it required instanced content. And, of course, there was the Fractured! release.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    It is a new change of direction to add something different that wasn't there before period. The change in this case is that I have never had to enter a dungeon or fractal or ten man instanced content to get a meta achievement and now I do. If you don't call that a change, not sure why that is.

    I'm not sure that's true. The Twilight Arbor Release had a meta, it required instanced content. And, of course, there was the Fractured! release.

    Also before Twilight Assault, Flame and Frost had a meta too, requiring to enter the Molten Facility dungeon and Sky Pirates of Tyria had the Aetherblade Retreat dungeon. And I'm not sure if someone would qualify Candidate Trials in Cutthroat Politics as instanced group content or not, but that was required for the meta too.
    In other words, in the entire run of Season 1 players had to enter instanced group content to get a meta achievement 4 times, which is quite common.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    • The labeling of anyone who likes the content as an elitist or hardcore in some pejorative sense.
    • The misrepresentation of developer communication.
    • The constant claims that posters are speaking for a majority of players instead of just offering their personal feedback.
    • The claims that people know what's good or bad for the game without having any data to back it up.
    • The consistent hyperbole.
    • The thinly-veiled economic threats.
    • The outright false claims that Arenanet's long-time practice of encouraging people to participate in a variety of content via collections and achievements is somehow new or a change of direction.

    @Randulf.7614 was correct about the intent of trying to bring two sides of the game together.
    Not being part of either side I find it fascinating which group is consistently labeled as "toxic" and which side is actively amping up the toxicity.

    Well I never use hard core as an insult, just as a descriptor. Not sure where the misrepresentation of developer information comes from, if I'm misrepresenting something show me, so I can correct it.

    As for casuals being more prevalent than hard core players, the top 5% are the top 5% for a reason, but Anet themselves said that the raiding community is small and at least implied they can't afford to support it without more numbers. They said strike missions were a way of getting people into raids. I can link the quote if you need it.

    The thinly veiled economic threats are a reality that every game developer has to deal with. It is my belief, wrongly or rightly, that there are more casuals playing than hard core players. I believe people stopped playing when HoT came out because it was too hard for the general population and people hate dying all the time. I liked it btw. Not the dying but HoT itself. I always defended it..but I can't deny people in my casual guild were put off.

    It is a new change of direction to add something different that wasn't there before period. The change in this case is that I have never had to enter a dungeon or fractal or ten man instanced content to get a meta achievement and now I do. If you don't call that a change, not sure why that is.

    As far as toxic, I'm sure toxic players exist on both sides of the spectrum.

    I'm not sure that's true. The Twilight Arbor Release had a meta, it required instanced content. And, of course, there was the Fractured! release.

    It had it's own meta, not a zone meta. I'd have no problem if raids had a meta that was unique to themselves. And I'd have no problem if a meta was made strictly for those strike missions that didn't impinge on the zone meta. But when have you ever seen an open world meta include ten man instanced content. I'm not even sure I'd be as annoyed about five man instanced content, but I'd still prefer that to be optional. Like the migraine achievement in Dragonstand, which was 5-manned instanced content...but it didn't count to any meta. That would be fine.

    When you you ever seen a zone meta that required 5 man instanced content, let alone ten?

    Zone metas didn't exist in Season 1, because they only added one zone in Season 1 (Southsun) and it didn't have a meta.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    It is a new change of direction to add something different that wasn't there before period. The change in this case is that I have never had to enter a dungeon or fractal or ten man instanced content to get a meta achievement and now I do. If you don't call that a change, not sure why that is.

    I'm not sure that's true. The Twilight Arbor Release had a meta, it required instanced content. And, of course, there was the Fractured! release.

    Also before Twilight Assault, Flame and Frost had a meta too, requiring to enter the Molten Facility dungeon and Sky Pirates of Tyria had the Aetherblade Retreat dungeon. And I'm not sure if someone would qualify Candidate Trials in Cutthroat Politics as instanced group content or not, but that was required for the meta too.
    In other words, in the entire run of Season 1 players had to enter instanced group content to get a meta achievement 4 times, which is quite common.

    Looking at the achievement panel in Flame and Frost, though it had individual achievements, there was no meta.

    Edit: Dungeons and Fractals or Raids or Strike missions having their own meta, I have no problem with. Twlight Assault was all about one dungeon. Fractal was about a meta for fractals, again no problem at all. The zone metas were introduced with Season 3 and carried on through Season 4 and so far the Prologue without requiring a multi-man instanced. By all means give Strike Missions their own meta. Insisting on them for the zone meta is a change I can't get behind. It ruins my enjoyment of that zone, either forcing me to abandon a meta I've been getting all along or participate in content I don't want to participate in. If I were alone it wouldn't matter, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one with this problem. I just the loudest.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    I've put this in the raid thread about easy raids, but maybe this would do some good for some players to read here too:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    I think most players in favor this idea that easy mode raids should have been introduced earlier, or now, or at the expense of other content should entertain 1 thought:

    What if: a main part of the revenue of the game was/is coming from the hardcore dedicated fraction of the player base?

    Not saying this is or was the case, though I have stated that I personally believe that players that are more invested are more likely to spend money (and no, I'm not saying only hardcore players can be invested), but what if losing the hardcore crowd actually has a significant impact on this games financial performance? What if aiming all resources at only casual players results in a far worse financial performance, leading into even less resources being available for the game? How would this assumption change past resource allocation desires and if true, what if challenging content had been slowed years earlier to potentially attract more players (many of which might not even be inclined to raid, no matter the difficulty)?

    Obviously, in the current situation the game is in, we can only hope and pray that is not the case since new challenging content is all but dead at the moment (please don't bring up the promised fractal, that's hardly long term challenging content worth mentioning, also given the last few fractals, hopes are low this one will be any fun).

    Overall the game has experienced a loss of players, and this is obviously felt the most in all more niche game modes, see pvp and wvw for example. This does not necessarily have to do with only the content. As a matter of fact, the content could have been perfectly fine, but due to the decline of players, might not warrant the same amount of attention as in the past.

    Now if we apply this assumption, and please realize it is a pure assumption I am making, just trying to entertain a thought over some should ponder:

    What if in the context of the game, the developers have realized that in order for them to be able to perform financially well, they need both parts of the player base, casual players AND hardcore players (defined in this context by players who do challenging instanced content, and those who do not. Not other descriptors should apply and neither term is meant derogatory). Due to lack of resources though, continued development of niche content, which also applies to pvp and wvw, is less possible, while the revenue provided by players of that niche content is still required.

    How would that factor into the discussion about encouraging (requiring would be the more fitting word here) players activity in content they might otherwise never try?

    I personally have a feeling that a vast majority of players who keep arguing for essentially single player content with lots of other players around them, aka how most open world content is designed in this game, are under the fixed perception or impression that this part of the player base will suffice in providing a steady and sufficient revenue stream (and it very well might be). But what if it's not?

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    I've put this in the raid thread about easy raids, but maybe this would do some good for some players to read here too:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    I think most players in favor this idea that easy mode raids should have been introduced earlier, or now, or at the expense of other content should entertain 1 thought:

    What if: a main part of the revenue of the game was/is coming from the hardcore dedicated fraction of the player base?

    Not saying this is or was the case, though I have stated that I personally believe that players that are more invested are more likely to spend money (and no, I'm not saying only hardcore players can be invested), but what if losing the hardcore crowd actually has a significant impact on this games financial performance? What if aiming all resources at only casual players results in a far worse financial performance, leading into even less resources being available for the game? How would this assumption change past resource allocation desires and if true, what if challenging content had been slowed years earlier to potentially attract more players (many of which might not even be inclined to raid, no matter the difficulty)?

    Obviously, in the current situation the game is in, we can only hope and pray that is not the case since new challenging content is all but dead at the moment (please don't bring up the promised fractal, that's hardly long term challenging content worth mentioning, also given the last few fractals, hopes are low this one will be any fun).

    Overall the game has experienced a loss of players, and this is obviously felt the most in all more niche game modes, see pvp and wvw for example. This does not necessarily have to do with only the content. As a matter of fact, the content could have been perfectly fine, but due to the decline of players, might not warrant the same amount of attention as in the past.

    Now if we apply this assumption, and please realize it is a pure assumption I am making, just trying to entertain a thought over some should ponder:

    What if in the context of the game, the developers have realized that in order for them to be able to perform financially well, they need both parts of the player base, casual players AND hardcore players (defined in this context by players who do challenging instanced content, and those who do not. Not other descriptors should apply and neither term is meant derogatory). Due to lack of resources though, continued development of niche content, which also applies to pvp and wvw, is less possible, while the revenue provided by players of that niche content is still required.

    How would that factor into the discussion about encouraging (requiring would be the more fitting word here) players activity in content they might otherwise never try?

    I personally have a feeling that a vast majority of players who keep arguing for essentially single player content with lots of other players around them, aka how most open world content is designed in this game, are under the fixed perception or impression that this part of the player base will suffice in providing a steady and sufficient revenue stream (and it very well might be). But what if it's not?

    I've never argued against fractals. I don't have a problem with WvW. I had a problem specifically with raids, and part of it where we are now. The issue is how heavy handed the company has to try to get me into a type of content I've decided I don't want to do. Is it possible to offer some sort of incentive to people without taking away something that I enjoy going for, ie zone metas? Because that's really the question here.

    Anet could have had a seperate Strike mission meta with a really desirable reward. To me this isn't much different than including PvP in a PvE meta. It feels very different from anything I've been asked to do before for a zone meta. Let Anet encourage people without actually changing what we've been playing for so long. That's the way to encourage without running into this sort of roadblock. Are people saying this isn't possible?

    I fully get where you are coming from, but you do have to realize that your issues are very personal (which is perfectly legitimate). I'm quite sure there is a ton of players who don't care about achievements or the zone meta, but would be outraged about unique rewards being gated behind strikes (we had/have the same issue with raids and players were very vocal in the past about having no access to unique raid rewards).

    I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content.

    I'm not going to tell you you are wrong about how you feel on this issue, how could you be, feeling and opinions are subjective and that is perfectly fine. I'm just trying to get people to consider different reasons as to why certain things are implemented the way they are. I personally do not believe the developers intentionally went:"oh, let's lock achievements behind strikes, that'll kitten enough players off." So there must be a reason. I'm quite sure they were fully aware this might upset part of the player base, yet they implemented it anyway (okay, maybe not the strongest argument, we've had things implemented which found broad disapproval before ;) ).

    My personal assumption on this matter is (and again, very subjective since I partake in all of the games content):
    Strikes, as a design goal, have to succeed in order for enough resources to find their way into more development of further challenging content. Challenging content is required to keep part of the player base. That part of the player base is needed for decent financial performance.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content.

    "You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

    Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

    The simple fact is:
    Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

    The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific case, when in fact creating requirements will always cause displeasure with parts of the player base. We have seen this displeasure often enough (about certain rewards being inaccessible, even if the rewards were new), so I fail to see the necessity to add this quantifier. The outrage here would have been the same in your proposed scenario with a different offered reward, only maybe from other players.

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

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content.

    "You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

    Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

    The simple fact is:
    Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

    Specific content has specific rewards. Always has had, always will have. Complaints about that can be ignored like all the other stuff that gets brought up ad nauseam every few weeks..

    The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific case

    I didn't, where did you get that?

  • RaidsAreEasyAF.8652RaidsAreEasyAF.8652 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @Nephalem.8921 said:
    I haven't seen a single strike achievement selling group. These kind of things usually pop up when the meta is too hard.

    Actually, there are buyers that ask if you not only sell raids, but also strikes. The audience is there. Then again, people also buy jp achievements.
    Though that doesnt mean that the buyers are bad at the game. Some are actually quite decent at the game. They just dont have the time or value other things over raids/strikes. So they just buy them to have them done.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content.

    "You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

    Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

    The simple fact is:
    Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

    Specific content has specific rewards. Always has had, always will have. Complaints about that can be ignored like all the other stuff that gets brought up ad nauseam every few weeks..

    The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific case

    I didn't, where did you get that?

    Your main argument and solution lies in:

    You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    I'm simply saying, that quantifier is not necessary. The argument works perfectly fine as:
    You can have this thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    I referenced past displeasure of parts of the player base as significant reason that any imposed requirements, will always get some players annoyed.

    But we are getting off topic, at least I am. My intent was not to take sides, simply offer some perspective. I personally do not agree with the achievements necessity of strike missions for the meta achievement (I have it complete myself), which makes me consider the reasons even more as to why such a step was taken. Then I try to look at context and the bigger picture, which I've tried to summarize earlier.

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

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content.

    "You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

    Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

    The simple fact is:
    Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

    Specific content has specific rewards. Always has had, always will have. Complaints about that can be ignored like all the other stuff that gets brought up ad nauseam every few weeks..

    The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific case

    I didn't, where did you get that?

    Your main argument and solution lies in:

    You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    I'm simply saying, that quantifier is not necessary. The argument works perfectly fine as:
    You can have this thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    Of course it needs to be a new thing. If there's no new thing, there is no encouragement. If something that was always there has proven to be an insufficient motivator and you decide there needs to be encouragement, you need to add something new into the mix and see if that will do the trick.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content.

    "You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

    Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

    The simple fact is:
    Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

    Specific content has specific rewards. Always has had, always will have. Complaints about that can be ignored like all the other stuff that gets brought up ad nauseam every few weeks..

    The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific case

    I didn't, where did you get that?

    Your main argument and solution lies in:

    You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    I'm simply saying, that quantifier is not necessary. The argument works perfectly fine as:
    You can have this thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    Of course it needs to be a new thing. If there's no new thing, there is no encouragement. If something that was always there has proven to be an insufficient motivator and you decide there needs to be encouragement, you need to add something new into the mix and see if that will do the trick.

    and I'm saying it does not have to be new. As is evident in this release. Meta living world achievements are not new, neither are achievements, nor are strike missions. Yet requiring players do strikes in order to achieve the living world meta achievement encourages them to try strikes.

    Combine that with the fact that, as suggested in this thread, other unique rewards should/could have been used instead of the meta achievement, I have referenced that this has also created controversy in the past. As such I disagree that this would have been a better solution. It would simply have shifted the issue to a different part of the player base.

    I guess we will simply have to disagree here.

  • Manasa Devi.7958Manasa Devi.7958 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Manasa Devi.7958 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content.

    "You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

    Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

    The simple fact is:
    Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

    Specific content has specific rewards. Always has had, always will have. Complaints about that can be ignored like all the other stuff that gets brought up ad nauseam every few weeks..

    The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific case

    I didn't, where did you get that?

    Your main argument and solution lies in:

    You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    I'm simply saying, that quantifier is not necessary. The argument works perfectly fine as:
    You can have this thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

    Of course it needs to be a new thing. If there's no new thing, there is no encouragement. If something that was always there has proven to be an insufficient motivator and you decide there needs to be encouragement, you need to add something new into the mix and see if that will do the trick.

    and I'm saying it does not have to be new. As is evident in this release. Meta living world achievements are not new, neither are achievements, nor are strike missions. Yet requiring players do strikes in order to achieve the living world meta achievement encourages them to try strikes.

    You're really missing my point. When I typed "You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement, that's what they didn't do and should have done instead. What they did in fact do is the other thing I wrote: "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement. There was no encouragement here. Requiring people to play strikes for the meta feels more like goading. I certainly don't feel encouraged. If I was a more hot-headed person, I might call it blackmail and curse the developers for being nasty to me.

    Combine that with the fact that, as suggested in this thread, other unique rewards should/could have been used instead of the meta achievement, I have referenced that this has also created controversy in the past. As such I disagree that this would have been a better solution. It would simply have shifted the issue to a different part of the player base.

    Yeah, unique rewards would've been the "new thing" in my general breakdown. That would be an encouragement. Better the same old, same old non-issue controversy than creating a fresh new one I think. People who after 7.5 years still can't accept that different game modes offer different unique rewards should be ignored by now.

    I guess we will simply have to disagree here.

    It's not all disagreement, I feel there's an element of misunderstanding here too.

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

    @mindcircus.1506 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:
    I've personally done the Grothmar strike mission once, and that's the one and only time I've done one, it has nothing to do with the difficulty at all, same with Raids, but it does come down to wanting to play the game how I want with the build I want and not some Meta build or what others want me to play.

    There is absolutely zero need for you to run a meta build in the Grothmar strike. The encounter is simple content that everyone can enjoy.
    I tag up and run this strike 3-4 times a week. There's no need for a specific group composition. Every group I have ever done it with has taken the first ten people they could find and burned it down.
    Why misrepresent it as being otherwise?

    There's a disconnect between mentioning the Meta builds and the Grothmar Strike. Since I've done the Grothmar Strike I'm well aware that a Meta build isn't required, however, and I've yet to see anyone say otherwise, for the other Strikes and Raids, Meta builds are preferred if not mandated to use Meta builds, that's what I meant by that part of the statement. I've got zero problems with Grothmar, it's the other "challenging" content, the higher level Strikes and Raids that(as far as I've heard) almost no one can do with "play how you want" style.

    Outside of that though, I could care less if the Meta Achievement is tied to having to do Strikes or not, I'll just ignore it like so many others I've done, not that important to get in my opinion, I play for entertainment purposes and if I'm entertained by something I'll keep playing with breaks when I get bored.

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

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

    @Rasimir.6239 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

    I've tried them. Several times. They are in fact a kind of content that I could really enjoy.

    What I absolutely did NOT enjoy were some of the people I encountered in strike missions. I'm 50, with poor eyesight and reflexes, and while I thoroughly enjoy this kind of instanced content, it takes me a LOT of tries to get the mechanics down to a point where I can react to all of them with a reasonable margin of error, even if I know them by heart long before.

    Many people I encountered are nice and relaxed, but the percentage of the ones that were too impatient and started flaming people for not following mechanics flawlessly was just too high for my tastes. I'm in this game to relax and enjoy myself, but I don't have 9 other like-minded people online regularly to do strikes with (if I had, I'd be raiding more than once every blue moon, too), and I really don't want to ruin my entertainment time by having to deal with the kind of people I've encountered in some of the strike missions I was in.

    Fortunate for me, I really couldn't care less about achievements, so I don't worry about not finishing the meta achievement of this episode, but looking around my guilds and ingame friends, many of whom are even older than me, there are a lot of players put off by seeing the meta out of their reach unless they do instanced content with people they don't care to associate with.

    I haven’t encountered anyone that was really toxic when doing strikes except for maybe those groups with strict requirements because they’re going for gold. The vast majority of groups are very mellow with very few players talking to each other if at all. Similar to how you can do all three paths of a dungeon and nobody speaks to each other the entire time.

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

    I think one of the reasons that strikes failed to attract a larger audience, even if those players have no intention to do raids, is because a lot of players are rewards oriented and the strike missions lack any meaningful rewards system.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2020

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
    I doubt losing players over this either way is going to break the game. However, GW2 has already bled players aplenty, and will sooner or later reach a point where such losses will be telling. It's a pity ANet feels the need to risk losing some of one demographic to try to keep the tattered remnants of another. Taking that risk is, to me, a bad sign.

    I don't think it will have any noticeable effect on the population at all. I think any talk of leaving over a meta is a bit silly to be honest. if people want to do that, then that's up to them, but a single stretch of achievement which blocks nothing more than an emote and a few AP, is not something to be overly concerned about and I don't think the majority of players will care or even register a problem here at all.

    MMO's incorporate lots of different aspects and encouraging players to try different things in it is an extremely sound business approach. The game is unlikely to survive if it keeps segregating communities, so it has to try and encourage players to play together in as much content as possible. And this isn't really new. Anet has been doing this in different ways with different modes.

    There's a lot of problems right now in the game from the deteriation of the story, the weakened map design, the poor quality meta/world boss designs (drakkar included), but the bringing together of communities is something I have long wanted them find solutions for. This attitude of "I am a casual therefore don't force me to do something else" is not healthy for an MMO game at all. I would think Anet recognise that too.

    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. . .