Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Vayne.8563

Recommended Posts

It's not "my content". I don't have content. I am a so called "casual" with so called "casual" friends (still a meaningless word no matter how many times you use it - it still doesn't represent any demographic) who plays what is on offer depending on my mood or time or what others want to do even if we suck at it. I don't particularly enjoy JPs, but I accept the need to do them when they appear in a meta or collection I need to do.

I wont go into the HoT analysis. There are some things there which are incorrect or skewed to fit a narrative which is off topic

I get that raids aren't your content. But they are the game's content. And Anet has widespread feedback saying players want to raid and want an accessible way in. This is their route- getting more people into content they have been obstructed from doing in the past.

And I hope it works. The more players encouraged to do more things, the healthier the game will be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Randulf.7614" said:It's not "my content". I don't have content. I am a so called "casual" with so called "casual" friends (still a meaningless word no matter how many times you use it - it still doesn't represent any demographic) who plays what is on offer depending on my mood or time or what others want to do even if we suck at it. I don't particularly enjoy JPs, but I accept the need to do them when they appear in a meta or collection I need to do.

I wont go into the HoT analysis. There are some things there which are incorrect or skewed to fit a narrative which is off topic

I get that raids aren't your content. But they are the game's content. And Anet has widespread feedback saying players want to raid and want an accessible way in. This is their route- getting more people into content they have been obstructed from doing in the past.

And I hope it works. The more players encouraged to do more things, the healthier the game will be

Raids are the games content, but they weren't for half the life of this game. They were added, against the will of a fairly sizable portion of the forums who objected. It wasn't just one or two people that had problem with raids being added. It creates an us and them mentality and the playerbase has been even more divided since they were released.

Anet has said directly not enough people are raiding. Not only do I predict it will not work but I predict it will backfire. We'll see I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:Okay the number to watch is the number of people finishing the zone meta compared to recent past zone metas. I'm using GW 2 efficiency as a source because it's all I have access to. But you know for one thing, not everyone who creates an efficiency acount is still playing and obviously not all PvE much. However relatively to each other it should give us some indication to take a look at.

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:Okay the number to watch is the number of people finishing the zone meta compared to recent past zone metas. I'm using GW 2 efficiency as a source because it's all I have access to. But you know for one thing, not everyone who creates an efficiency acount is still playing and obviously not all PvE much. However relatively to each other it should give us some indication to take a look at.

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

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

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

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

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

Let's think about this for a second.

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:Okay the number to watch is the number of people finishing the zone meta compared to recent past zone metas. I'm using GW 2 efficiency as a source because it's all I have access to. But you know for one thing, not everyone who creates an efficiency acount is still playing and obviously not all PvE much. However relatively to each other it should give us some indication to take a look at.

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

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

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

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

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

Let's think about this for a second.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Randulf.7614 said:However that is not a discussion for this thread as it far off course from the op. I have no issue with your original feedback even if I wholly disagree with it and the tenuous conclusions posted throughout, however I do take issue with any attempt to represent others who for whatever reason, choose not to post - whether because they don't want to or because in fact they don't care about the issue (possible given so few have contributed despite being 7 pages).

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Randulf.7614 said:However that is not a discussion for this thread as it far off course from the op. I have no issue with your original feedback even if I wholly disagree with it and the tenuous conclusions posted throughout, however I do take issue with any attempt to represent others who for whatever reason, choose not to post - whether because they don't want to or because in fact they don't care about the issue (possible given so few have contributed despite being 7 pages).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Randulf.7614" said:It's not "my content". I don't have content. I am a so called "casual" with so called "casual" friends (still a meaningless word no matter how many times you use it - it still doesn't represent any demographic) who plays what is on offer depending on my mood or time or what others want to do even if we suck at it. I don't particularly enjoy JPs, but I accept the need to do them when they appear in a meta or collection I need to do.

I wont go into the HoT analysis. There are some things there which are incorrect or skewed to fit a narrative which is off topic

I get that raids aren't your content. But they are the game's content. And Anet has widespread feedback saying players want to raid and want an accessible way in.No, they don't. They have feedback saying players want more accessible version of raids, not more accessible way to the current ones. That's a major difference.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Interesting to note the previous meta completion rates:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

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

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

Interesting to note the previous meta completion rates:

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Manasa Devi.7958 said:

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

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

Interesting to note the previous meta completion rates:

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

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

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

Interesting to note the previous meta completion rates:

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

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

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

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

Given how the turning point for the top 10% of the overall population is at 2870 AP, based on the leaderboards, it's easy to see that most players finishing the meta achievements are at the very least in the top 10% of the overall population. Now if we include POF completion, core game completion and HOT-era achievements, then the number of players satisfying the criteria will be a lot lower. So I believe the percentages of gw2efficiency should be very accurate.I believe GW2E is losing relevance regarding its statistics as time goes on. The steady decline in those numbers might very well be due to less and less GW2E registered accounts being actively played. GW2E might also be "contaminated" by people registering multiple accounts while only playing a single one for real.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Manasa Devi.7958 said:

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

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

Interesting to note the previous meta completion rates:

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

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

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

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

Given how the turning point for the top 10% of the overall population is at 2870 AP, based on the leaderboards, it's easy to see that most players finishing the meta achievements are at the very least in the top 10% of the overall population. Now if we include POF completion, core game completion and HOT-era achievements, then the number of players satisfying the criteria will be a lot lower. So I believe the percentages of gw2efficiency should be very accurate.I believe GW2E is losing relevance regarding its statistics as time goes on. The steady decline in those numbers might very well be due to less and less GW2E registered accounts being actively played. GW2E might also be "contaminated" by people registering multiple accounts while only playing a single one for real.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit 2: by using the start information as our "total" we can eliminate many secondary accounts as they won't be calculated. Unless of course a player with 12 accounts registered starts the episode on all of them.What criterium do you use to determine when an account has started a meta?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Manasa Devi.7958 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit 2: by using the start information as our "total" we can eliminate many secondary accounts as they won't be calculated. Unless of course a player with 12 accounts registered starts the episode on all of them.What criterium do you use to determine when an account has started a meta?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

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

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

Interesting to note the previous meta completion rates:

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

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

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

I see three scenarios that could be gleaned from this:

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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
×
×
  • Create New...