Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Vayne.8563

Recommended Posts

@Vayne.8563 said:

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

197 people in my guild have over 3000 AP.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

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

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

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

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

(OP's Guild)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

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

Because gw2efficiency doesn't count missing AP, from season 1 for example.The official leaderboards are the best source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because gw2efficiency doesn't count missing AP, from season 1 for example.The official leaderboards are the best source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yann.1946 said:@Swagger.1459

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

10 accounts, I barely manage one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

197 people in my guild have over 3000 AP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

WBLl5sb.jpg

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Etria.3642 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

197 people in my guild have over 3000 AP.

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

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

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

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

@Dante.1763 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

197 people in my guild have over 3000 AP.

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:So while you want to argue that this one instance isn't going to have that big an impact to the health of the game (and that could be right, I don't know), everyone that recognizes the long-term inconsistency is an ongoing issue that has existed for a long time is a mile ahead of you and sees how bad it is for the game.

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

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

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

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

Nop,e I can't. But this episdoe is no less grindy than Grothmar and you know, I do talk to people in my guild every day (sometimes all day). There are people in my guild who don't mind strike missions obviously but the whole feeling is that once people hear that strike missions are involved, there's this meh attitude, or a lack of interest. We dont' raid as a guild. Most people have never set foot in a dungeon even, and as much as people say it's easy, you can be carried, it doesn't change anything for a portion of my guild. It's not what they signed on for.

Can I prove it? Nah. But I can take a pretty good guess about my people in my guild are not doing stuff because they talk about it. Some people will suck it up and do it anyway, like my wife. But she was kittening about it the whole time. She wasn't happy, she didn't like it and found it frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...