Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Vayne.8563

Recommended Posts

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:There you've said it. There's no need to group to handle the easier strike missions. BUt strike missions are geared to get harder. So what happens with the next zone. As I've said numerous times now if this is a one off and it never happens again, no problem. But I don't suspect that's Anet's plans. They're planning on ramping this up to get people more into raid content. They can't do that if they don't move the bar. And if they move the bar, I believe many people will be disenfranchised.

Strike Missions are geared to get harder within the context of the current map/meta, because they started really easy. Which is a good thing, ramping up the difficulty is something Arenanet learned. The Whisper of Jormag is already harder than some of the Raid bosses. Maybe the next group of Strike Missions will
end
at a higher point than Whisper of Jormag. But if they
start
at that point, then the concept will be dead. That much I agree with. I expect to see another Fraenir of Jormag, as much as a Claw and Voice and a Boneskinner in the next iteration.

Now you might be correct and Arenanet blows this but I think, or rather hope, they are smarter than this.

I'm not sure Anet has a bead on why people don't do raids in the first place. They're making the assumption if people get better at the game they'll suddenly want to do raids. I'm not thinking that's the case. I think the entire premise behind strike missions is flawed. Obviously I could be wrong. But if Anet is aiming at the idea of educating players will make them want to play this content...I'm not sure that's the case. I'm pretty educated about how combat works in this game and I have no interest in this content. It's just not something that interests me. I think a lot of people are in the same boat.

Anet are a thousand times better placed to know why players do things in game than anyone else.

The metrics only tell them what things players are doing, but not why.

@Randulf.7614 said:Even if players do not trust their metrics they also ask players in and out of game. This isn’t Anet guessing and throwing an idea at a wall and making an assumption , they have actual player feedback on why players do or do not raid.

Actually, years ago, Anet (Mike or Colin, if I remember correctly) said, that game development is an uncertain business. they throw ideas at a wall and make assumptions. Sometimes the ideas were scrapped early on and sometimes they were scrapped after a long development before releasing them. And sometimes they only find out after releasing them, that they do not work the way they were intended to.

EDIT: And in the actual state of the studio, with probably not so much content that was released recently, maybe now some ideas got released, that would may be scrapped or reworked in the past before their release. (for example: look at the templates).

EDIT-EDIT: In another discussion there were severeal ideas, why the raid population is so low in GW2: Mainly because a lot of raiders left because of: Not enough new raids, too much time between new raids, not enough loot (after raiders have finished their legendary), too big difficulty gap between raids/wings, etc. But none of them said "because raids are not attractive for non-raiders." And if Anet would have asked raiders, they would surely got the same answers and would worked on raids and not on strike-missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pirogen.9561 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:I'm not sure Anet has a bead on why people don't do raids in the first place. They're making the assumption if people get better at the game they'll suddenly want to do raids. I'm not thinking that's the case. I think the entire premise behind strike missions is flawed. Obviously I could be wrong. But if Anet is aiming at the idea of educating players will make them want to play this content...I'm not sure that's the case. I'm pretty educated about how combat works in this game and I have no interest in this content. It's just not something that interests me. I think a lot of people are in the same boat.

I don't do raids/strikes in GW2 because I don't. Its just that.

I did raids in other MMO games. A lot. Too much even. And I have seen, that some do raids and some don't. There is no such thing as "learning" or "skill". Some do, and some don't. Thats it.

Strikes? To me it looks like they don't have enough resources(time, people, skill) to do a proper Raid.

Actually they said straight out they're not sure they can support raids moving forward because not enough people do them. It's not a guess, a dev actually said it. And that same dev said they'd love to support raids but they need to get more people into them, so they designed strike missions. The purpose of strike missions is to prepare people fo raids. And because of what you said (among many other things) I don't think it's going to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't find where the Devs said, "We aren't sure we can support Raids moving forward"; I only see this:

"...we want to find better ways to support (Raids)..." and "Regardless of if that succeeds or not (Strike Missions), we understand the importance of balancing our efforts between accessible content with broad appeal, and content that appeals to the more hard core audience, and recognize that we need to do a better job of supporting the latter."

To me, and, of course, that's just me, it sounds like they are committed to creating more 'hard core' content, i.e. Raids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Ameepa.6793 said:This new meta I will never complete simply because I do not raid or do anything that requires grouping up.

Good thing that Strike Missions don't require grouping up, as much as doing an open world meta event does!

What you should have said is they don't require players to join a group of other people and enter all at once, they do however require you to play with 9 other people in an instance, which is basically a forced grouping. Open World bosses aren't in an instance, if someone so chooses they could find a map with no one or just enough people to keep it open and attempt a World Boss solo(probably won't win, but you can try it)...that's another difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:I can't find where the Devs said, "We aren't sure we can support Raids moving forward"; I only see this:

"...we want to find better ways to support (Raids)..." and "Regardless of if that succeeds or not (Strike Missions), we understand the importance of balancing our efforts between accessible content with broad appeal, and content that appeals to the more hard core audience, and recognize that we need to do a better job of supporting the latter."

To me, and, of course, that's just me, it sounds like they are committed to creating more 'hard core' content, i.e. Raids.

"the biggest challenge in creating more (raids) is the small audience they attract."

They have a problem to justify to put more money/devs into development of more raids because of the small audience.

After raids started, the devs where happy, how many players the raids attracted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

The bosses are part of the zone and each related episode. You just need to get over your bias over instances. Just because they are separated by in instance wall (exactly like story mode is ), does not make it any less a part of the zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@Ameepa.6793 said:This new meta I will never complete simply because I do not raid or do anything that requires grouping up.

Good thing that Strike Missions don't require grouping up, as much as doing an open world meta event does!

What you should have said is they don't require players to join a group of other people and enter all at once, they do however require you to play with 9 other people in an instance, which is basically a forced grouping. Open World bosses aren't in an instance, if someone so chooses they could find a map with no one or just enough people to keep it open and attempt a World Boss solo(probably won't win, but you can try it)...that's another difference.

You can attempt (and beat) a Strike Mission solo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

The bosses are part of the zone and the episode. You just need to get over your bias over instances. Just because they are separated by in instance wall (exactly like story mode is ), does not make it any less a part of the zone.

3 our of 4 aren't part of the episode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Manasa Devi.7958 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

The bosses are part of the zone and the episode. You just need to get over your bias over instances. Just because they are separated by in instance wall (exactly like story mode is ), does not make it any less a part of the zone.

3 our of 4 aren't part of the episode.

Thank you - I will re-edit what I wrote for clarity as the meta does include the zone and link together two episodes, but not just this one. This meta they intended to include the map as a whole this time and all 4 bosses are a part of this map/zone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

The bosses are part of the zone and the episode. You just need to get over your bias over instances. Just because they are separated by in instance wall (exactly like story mode is ), does not make it any less a part of the zone.

3 our of 4 aren't part of the episode.

I will re-edit what I wrote for clarity as the meta does include the zone and all 4 bosses are part of it. This meta they intended to include the map as a whole this time.

Sorry but if the zone meta doesn't include the actual meta within the zone as part of the achievements, and it has it's own category then strike missions can also have their own category. The reasoning that I have to get over my anti-instance bias (as if it's just mine and not a sizable portion of the game's population) is a misnomer. How can an instanced boss be more a part of the zone than an event that occurs in the zone. Why should that meta event have it's own section of achievements while instanced content that's not even the same type of content as anything else is sprinkled into the zone meta. I'd much rather have the meta event as part of the zone meta achievement.

Raids were harder content and had their own achievement section. Not sure why this is such a problem to do with strike missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zok.4956 said:

@"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:I can't find where the Devs said, "We aren't sure we can support Raids moving forward"; I only see this:

"...we want to find better ways to support (Raids)..." and "Regardless of if that succeeds or not (Strike Missions), we understand the importance of balancing our efforts between accessible content with broad appeal, and content that appeals to the more hard core audience, and recognize that we need to do a
better job of supporting the latter
."

To me, and, of course, that's just me, it sounds like they are committed to creating more 'hard core' content, i.e. Raids.

"the biggest challenge in creating more (raids) is the small audience they attract."

They have a problem to justify to put more money/devs into development of more raids because of the small audience.

After raids started, the devs where happy, how many players the raids attracted.

Where do you get the idea that the devs were happy how many people raids attracted? I'm curious because I've never seen a quote about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

The bosses are part of the zone and the episode. You just need to get over your bias over instances. Just because they are separated by in instance wall (exactly like story mode is ), does not make it any less a part of the zone.

3 our of 4 aren't part of the episode.

I will re-edit what I wrote for clarity as the meta does include the zone and all 4 bosses are part of it. This meta they intended to include the map as a whole this time.

Sorry but if the zone meta doesn't include the actual meta within the zone as part of the achievements, and it has it's own category then strike missions can also have their own category. The reasoning that I have to get over my anti-instance bias (as if it's just mine and not a sizable portion of the game's population) is a misnomer. How can an instanced boss be more a part of the zone than an event that occurs in the zone. Why should that meta event have it's own section of achievements while instanced content that's not even the same type of content as anything else is sprinkled into the zone meta. I'd much rather have the meta event as part of the zone meta achievement.

Raids were harder content and had their own achievement section. Not sure why this is such a problem to do with strike missions.

Again, stop trying to bring "a sizeable portion of the playerbase" into this. This is YOUR feedback. YOUR opinion. Whilst other may share your your opinion, you do not speak for anyone else in this game. They can give their own feedback. It is equally as likely players are quite happy with things and are just getting on with it, but we do not know. Your opinion absolutely does not represent a majority of the playerbase since we have no possible way of proving that. You are just hoping that by saying it over and over, it will sway Anet in some way.

We know that players want to do raids if the obstacles are removed - we know this because Anet have actual players telling them this as per their post the other week

So stick to your own feedback and stop saying the majority want this, that and the other.

As far as I am concerned, this is something they got right. It's not new, it's a positive step forward and it brings players together in a variety of content. And I sincerely hope they continue along this path. They've always tried to bring variety and different things to metas and achievements, they've always believed in bringing players together. And I am a so called "casual" (a pathetic useless term), predominantly open world, who will do things out of a comfort zone in a meta or any other achievement if encouraged to do so. Because I accept that is what I signed up to with GW2

Personally I think the Drakkar meta should have been part of the zone meta. Perhaps they should add that in as an extra option since that seems perfectly reasonable to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Zok.4956 said:

@"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:I can't find where the Devs said, "We aren't sure we can support Raids moving forward"; I only see this:

"...we want to find better ways to support (Raids)..." and "Regardless of if that succeeds or not (Strike Missions), we understand the importance of balancing our efforts between accessible content with broad appeal, and content that appeals to the more hard core audience, and recognize that we need to do a
better job of supporting the latter
."

To me, and, of course, that's just me, it sounds like they are committed to creating more 'hard core' content, i.e. Raids.

"the biggest challenge in creating more (raids) is the small audience they attract."

They have a problem to justify to put more money/devs into development of more raids because of the small audience.

After raids started, the devs where happy, how many players the raids attracted.

Where do you get the idea that the devs were happy how many people raids attracted? I'm curious because I've never seen a quote about that.

I am not sure if it was at a guild chat or on the forum, so I can not give you the exact quote. But I remember that someone from Anet stated, that they were happy about how many players were doing raids, more than expected, without giving the exact numbers/percentages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Vayne.8563" said:

Actually they said straight out they're not sure they can support raids moving forward because not enough people do them. It's not a guess, a dev actually said it. And that same dev said they'd love to support raids but they need to get more people into them, so they designed strike missions. The purpose of strike missions is to prepare people fo raids. And because of what you said (among many other things) I don't think it's going to work.

Devs want to fix what is not broken. They may even kill the game.

I did lots of raiding in other MMO games. But not because "The Raids", but because there was not much else to do at cap. At cap basicaly only raids existed. If there would be other things to do, i'd also do that.

Its simple math:

  • if Raid is the only thing to do at cap, 100% of players do it
  • if there is Raid and also big World Boss, then raids drop down to 50% (sort of)
  • if there is Raid and big World Boss and big group meta event and big ... (you get the idea), then raid get even less coverage
  • but its OK. People play the whole game. Isn't that the point?

On the other hand, to get more players into raids, you'd have to "kill" other content(meta events, bosses, bounty, stuff). I mean, day has only 24 hours. Cant do raid and OW group event and fractal and guild mission all in paralel. Or do devs expect that I multi-box?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Pirogen.9561 said:Strikes? To me it looks like they don't have enough resources(time, people, skill) to do a proper Raid.

Actually they said straight out they're not sure they can support raids moving forward because not enough people do them.

Its not a contradiction. Creating a raid needs much more resssources/devs/money than creating a boss-fight in an instanced version of an already existing map aka a strike-mission. So they probably try the cheaper version and hope that enough players are happy with this cheaper version of 10-player-instanced content and they also hope that players, who like strikes, also will do raids afterwards.

And a pessimistic person could add: And if this doesn't work, they did burn less money with new strike-missions than with new raids and it can then be used as an excuse, why they can not make any new raids anymore.

But that is probably only a cynical overinterpretation from my side. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zok.4956 said:After raids started, the devs where happy, how many players the raids attracted.

That might have been true at the time it was said. That's certainly not the message we hear now. I think there is very little value is digging in the archives. For whatever reason, Anet is committing to strike missions ATM, regardless of the popularity of raids. I honestly don't think they have much more road to travel before they fall off that cliff.

I see lots of discussion about who's the majority, who isn't, etc ... it's all very irrelevant. I'm of the belief that if raids was what most people in this game wanted ... we wouldn't HAVE Anet wasting time on making strike missions as a 'raid lite' content to begin with ... they would be PUMPING out the raids. The fact they are pumping the brakes on raids ... it's not a stretch of the imagination to understand why. What is THE most likely reason a game developer stops doing something? Because the majority of people like that something? PFFFT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

The bosses are part of the zone and the episode. You just need to get over your bias over instances. Just because they are separated by in instance wall (exactly like story mode is ), does not make it any less a part of the zone.

3 our of 4 aren't part of the episode.

I will re-edit what I wrote for clarity as the meta does include the zone and all 4 bosses are part of it. This meta they intended to include the map as a whole this time.

Sorry but if the zone meta doesn't include the actual meta within the zone as part of the achievements, and it has it's own category then strike missions can also have their own category. The reasoning that I have to get over my anti-instance bias (as if it's just mine and not a sizable portion of the game's population) is a misnomer. How can an instanced boss be more a part of the zone than an event that occurs in the zone. Why should that meta event have it's own section of achievements while instanced content that's not even the same type of content as anything else is sprinkled into the zone meta. I'd much rather have the meta event as part of the zone meta achievement.

Raids were harder content and had their own achievement section. Not sure why this is such a problem to do with strike missions.

Again, stop trying to bring "a sizeable portion of the playerbase" into this. This is YOUR feedback. YOUR opinion. Whilst other may share your your opinion, you do not speak for anyone else in this game. They can give their own feedback. It is equally as likely players are quite happy with things and are just getting on with it, but we do not know. Your opinion absolutely does not represent a majority of the playerbase since we have no possible way of proving that. You are just hoping that by saying it over and over, it will sway Anet in some way.

We know that players want to do raids if the obstacles are removed - we know this because Anet have actual players telling them this as per their post the other week

So stick to your own feedback and stop saying the majority want this, that and the other.

As far as I am concerned, this is something they got right. It's not new, it's a positive step forward and it brings players together in a variety of content. And I sincerely hope they continue along this path. They've always tried to bring variety and different things to metas and achievements, they've always believed in bringing players together. And I am a so called "casual" (a pathetic useless term), predominantly open world, who will do things out of a comfort zone in a meta or any other achievement if encouraged to do so. Because I accept that is what I signed up to with GW2

Personally I think the Drakkar meta should have been part of the zone meta. Perhaps they should add that in as an extra option since that seems perfectly reasonable to me

You want to know the problem with what you're saying about "my" feedback. Casuals, by and large don't give their opinion. They don't post to reddit. They don't come to the official forums and if they do, they generally lurk. Do you know why HoT had such a negative affect on the game when it came out. Because the hard core players got what they wanted. Because they were louders. There weren't more of them. There were likely never more of them. But they probably account for the vast majority of posts on both forums and reddit.

Saying this is just my opinion would be true. But there are other people in this thread that share this opinion and I have a guild of 350 people many of whom might tool away at the meta and I see their reaction. I can't claim to have a majority but I absolutely believe you're underestimating this demographic that includes me, just as Anet did when they introduced HoT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:First, the lament is about consistency with zone achievements. Then, the lament is about not separating new World Boss Achievements from zone achievements, as has been done before.

No, the lament is about consistency. The second one is a solution to the lament.

Constructive criticism involves pointing out something you believe can be better and then giving a solution. The bar hasn't moved at all. The original complaint remains the same.

But if this was a seperate achievment category and not a zone meta, I wouldn't have problem with it. Bringing up the meta event in the conversation was only an example to show they've already done just that. The zone meta is a boss in the zone that doesn't count toward the meta achievement so they can in fact do it. If those achievements didn't affect the zone meta, then I"d not have a problem, this it would solve my original problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay the number to watch is the number of people finishing the zone meta compared to recent past zone metas. I'm using GW 2 efficiency as a source because it's all I have access to. But you know for one thing, not everyone who creates an efficiency acount is still playing and obviously not all PvE much. However relatively to each other it should give us some indication to take a look at.

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

That's the number to keep an eye on if time goes by. Obviously I don't have figures for how far along each was at the same time, but if that number remains significantly lower. then we can guess it's had an effect on people. How that will make them feel about the game moving forward is anyones' guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

The bosses are part of the zone and the episode. You just need to get over your bias over instances. Just because they are separated by in instance wall (exactly like story mode is ), does not make it any less a part of the zone.

3 our of 4 aren't part of the episode.

I will re-edit what I wrote for clarity as the meta does include the zone and all 4 bosses are part of it. This meta they intended to include the map as a whole this time.

Sorry but if the zone meta doesn't include the actual meta within the zone as part of the achievements, and it has it's own category then strike missions can also have their own category. The reasoning that I have to get over my anti-instance bias (as if it's just mine and not a sizable portion of the game's population) is a misnomer. How can an instanced boss be more a part of the zone than an event that occurs in the zone. Why should that meta event have it's own section of achievements while instanced content that's not even the same type of content as anything else is sprinkled into the zone meta. I'd much rather have the meta event as part of the zone meta achievement.

Raids were harder content and had their own achievement section. Not sure why this is such a problem to do with strike missions.

Again, stop trying to bring "a sizeable portion of the playerbase" into this. This is YOUR feedback. YOUR opinion. Whilst other may share your your opinion, you do not speak for anyone else in this game. They can give their own feedback. It is equally as likely players are quite happy with things and are just getting on with it, but we do not know. Your opinion absolutely does not represent a majority of the playerbase since we have no possible way of proving that. You are just hoping that by saying it over and over, it will sway Anet in some way.

We know that players want to do raids if the obstacles are removed - we know this because Anet have actual players telling them this as per their post the other week

So stick to your own feedback and stop saying the majority want this, that and the other.

As far as I am concerned, this is something they got right. It's not new, it's a positive step forward and it brings players together in a variety of content. And I sincerely hope they continue along this path. They've always tried to bring variety and different things to metas and achievements, they've always believed in bringing players together. And I am a so called "casual" (a pathetic useless term), predominantly open world, who will do things out of a comfort zone in a meta or any other achievement if encouraged to do so. Because I accept that is what I signed up to with GW2

Personally I think the Drakkar meta should have been part of the zone meta. Perhaps they should add that in as an extra option since that seems perfectly reasonable to me

You want to know the problem with what you're saying about "my" feedback. Casuals, by and large don't give their opinion. They don't post to reddit. They don't come to the official forums and if they do, they generally lurk. Do you know why HoT had such a negative affect on the game when it came out. Because the hard core players got what they wanted. Because they were louders. There weren't more of them. There were likely never more of them. But they probably account for the vast majority of posts on both forums and reddit.

Saying this is just my opinion would be true. But there are other people in this thread that share this opinion and I have a guild of 350 people many of whom might tool away at the meta and I see their reaction. I can't claim to have a majority but I absolutely believe you're underestimating this demographic that includes me, just as Anet did when they introduced HoT.

I know plenty of players on this forum who claim to be "casual" and post on here. The term however is so wishy washy and undefinable it has no place in any argument of defining a "demographic". I'm pretty sure I fit the term casual. I login, I play, I rarely change build, I have no care for a deep understanding of skills and rotations. I go in, play whatever content is on offer on a whim and have a bit of fun and have little care if I am good at it or not.

And there are others in this thread who are contrary to your opinion. Nothing is proven either way about a sway of opinion. I could counter your Guild claim with players I know and play with who do not share your opinion, but I am not going to because that is as equally meaningless and arbitrary. Everyone represents themselves and that is all they represent on a faceless forum. No one else, no over arching demographic, no widespread group of players. Just themselves.

I do not agree HoT had the negative effect you think it did. Nor do I understand the utter disdain you have for "hardcore" players wanting raids or harder content just because it doesn't appeal to you personally. I don't like pvp, but I would never begrudge Anet putting resources into it.

However that is not a discussion for this thread as it far off course from the op. I have no issue with your original feedback even if I wholly disagree with it and the tenuous conclusions posted throughout, however I do take issue with any attempt to represent others who for whatever reason, choose not to post - whether because they don't want to or because in fact they don't care about the issue (possible given so few have contributed despite being 7 pages).

I will have zero further issue if that can be removed from further discussions. There is no majority here on either side of the argument or any representation of a given demographic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:For those of you saying that it's content in the zone so it should be part of the zone meta, let me just say that the meta has it's own meta that's not part of the zone meta. WHy is an instanced boss outside the zone more part of the zone than the actual zone meta?

The bosses are part of the zone and the episode. You just need to get over your bias over instances. Just because they are separated by in instance wall (exactly like story mode is ), does not make it any less a part of the zone.

3 our of 4 aren't part of the episode.

I will re-edit what I wrote for clarity as the meta does include the zone and all 4 bosses are part of it. This meta they intended to include the map as a whole this time.

Sorry but if the zone meta doesn't include the actual meta within the zone as part of the achievements, and it has it's own category then strike missions can also have their own category. The reasoning that I have to get over my anti-instance bias (as if it's just mine and not a sizable portion of the game's population) is a misnomer. How can an instanced boss be more a part of the zone than an event that occurs in the zone. Why should that meta event have it's own section of achievements while instanced content that's not even the same type of content as anything else is sprinkled into the zone meta. I'd much rather have the meta event as part of the zone meta achievement.

Raids were harder content and had their own achievement section. Not sure why this is such a problem to do with strike missions.

Again, stop trying to bring "a sizeable portion of the playerbase" into this. This is YOUR feedback. YOUR opinion. Whilst other may share your your opinion, you do not speak for anyone else in this game. They can give their own feedback. It is equally as likely players are quite happy with things and are just getting on with it, but we do not know. Your opinion absolutely does not represent a majority of the playerbase since we have no possible way of proving that. You are just hoping that by saying it over and over, it will sway Anet in some way.

We know that players want to do raids if the obstacles are removed - we know this because Anet have actual players telling them this as per their post the other week

So stick to your own feedback and stop saying the majority want this, that and the other.

As far as I am concerned, this is something they got right. It's not new, it's a positive step forward and it brings players together in a variety of content. And I sincerely hope they continue along this path. They've always tried to bring variety and different things to metas and achievements, they've always believed in bringing players together. And I am a so called "casual" (a pathetic useless term), predominantly open world, who will do things out of a comfort zone in a meta or any other achievement if encouraged to do so. Because I accept that is what I signed up to with GW2

Personally I think the Drakkar meta should have been part of the zone meta. Perhaps they should add that in as an extra option since that seems perfectly reasonable to me

You want to know the problem with what you're saying about "my" feedback. Casuals, by and large don't give their opinion. They don't post to reddit. They don't come to the official forums and if they do, they generally lurk. Do you know why HoT had such a negative affect on the game when it came out. Because the hard core players got what they wanted. Because they were louders. There weren't more of them. There were likely never more of them. But they probably account for the vast majority of posts on both forums and reddit.

Saying this is just my opinion would be true. But there are other people in this thread that share this opinion and I have a guild of 350 people many of whom might tool away at the meta and I see their reaction. I can't claim to have a majority but I absolutely believe you're underestimating this demographic that includes me, just as Anet did when they introduced HoT.

I know plenty of players on this forum who claim to be "casual" and post on here. The term however is so wishy washy and undefinable it has no place in any argument of defining a "demographic". I'm pretty sure I fit the term casual. I login, I play, I rarely change build, I have no care for a deep understanding of skills and rotations. I go in, play whatever content is on offer on a whim and have a bit of fun and have little care if I am good at it or not.

And there are others in this thread who are contrary to your opinion. Nothing is proven either way about a sway of opinion. I could counter your Guild claim with players I know and play with who do not share your opinion, but I am not going to because that is as equally meaningless and arbitrary. Everyone represents themselves and that is all they represent on a faceless forum. No one else, no over arching demographic, no widespread group of players. Just themselves.

I do not agree HoT had the negative effect you think it did. Nor do I understand the utter disdain you have for "hardcore" players wanting raids or harder content just because it doesn't appeal to you personally. I don't like pvp, but I would never begrudge Anet putting resources into it.

However that is not a discussion for this thread as it far off course from the op. I have no issue with your original feedback even if I wholly disagree with it and the tenuous conclusions posted throughout, however I do take issue with any attempt to represent others who for whatever reason, choose not to post - whether because they don't want to or because in fact they don't care about the issue (possible given so few have contributed despite being 7 pages).

I will have zero further issue if that can be removed from further discussions. There is no majority here on either side of the argument or any representation of a given demographic

Hard core players can have all the raids they want as long as it doesn't affect the game I usually play. Once MY game changes to compenstate say for a lack of interest in raids, then I have every right to complain. These strike missions were added to the game as a way to get people into a type of content I have no interest in. Now they're affecting a zone meta I've been doing for years without having to think about stuff like strike missions. That's why I have an issue. If your content didn't affect my content this issue wouldn't even be here.

The evidence that HoT affected the game negatively comes from the way PoF was made, which was essentially an anti HoT. There was very very little that was done in HoT that was repeated in PoF. Metas are timers were still there but not rewarded enough for anyone to care about them. Instead we had bounties, which weren't on a timer, content on demand. The zones were simpler to navigate. The hero points could call be soloed. The "grind" for mastery points was comparatively non-existent. POF was known as a casual expansion because it was. Because HoT was too hard for the masses.

More to the point. Anet went and spent a quarterly update essentially dumbing down HoT. Chnaged some champs to vets, thinned out mobs, decoupled day from night, added a bunch of easy veteran events. If HOT was so good as it was, why did Anet need to spend an entire quarterly update just to make it playable? For the hard core population? I think not.

You may not remember the very very long thread about this game is no longer for casuals that lasted for weeks if not months on the forums but I do. I also run a casual guild with hundreds of players and had to field a whole lot of negative responses and the irony of this whole thing is I loved HOT. It felt dangerous and fun for me to run around and get lost in and not be able to find my way around till I learned it. That was my specific type of content...but raids aren't.

If raids don't affect my game then I'm happy to live and let live. But don't change the game I like to try to get more people into content I'll never care about, because I assure you I'm not alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...