Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Thanks Anet for the changes to the zone meta in Drizzlewood Coast


Vayne.8563

Recommended Posts

@maddoctor.2738 said:

There is a way to check if a map meta is just way too easy to complete, by checking meta completions of much older content than it.Whisper in the Dark meta completion is an anomaly because it has a higher completion rate than Path of Fire Act 1/3 mastery, Heart of Thorns Act IV mastery, Long Live the Lich Mastery, All or Nothing mastery, War Eternal mastery, and is 0.02% less than A Bug in the System mastery and 0.1% from A Star to Guide Us mastery. All content that was started/played by far more players than Whisper in the Dark, meaning the meta was probably too easy (or lucrative) to complete. And of course none of that content has anything to do with Strike Missions.

We'll see the new map's completion rates in a few months, it's way too early to tell now.

I don't know that you can compare expansion and living story content. On the surface, there's a lot of similiarty but there's just far more to do when you get an expansion. The people who buy expansions aren't necessarily there for that kind of content. It means a lot of people buy an expansion, play it for a month and leave, throwing off the percentage of people who do that content regulary. Those people wouldn't then be counted in the later content, because they've already left.

For me, as a dedicated player, I'm here all year around, every year and I do map metas as a matter of course. Presumably the most loyal players are logging in every few months at least to do that new content. There's less to do in those time periods that's new so it'll be done by a bigger percentage.

I don't see value in tracking people that buy expansions, play a game for a couple of months and move onto the next game. I see value in tracking the Ice Brood Saga against the Ice Brood Saga, specifically because it's all in the same time period.

I think you misunderstood. Less players finished those Act metas of the expansions than the Whisper in the Dark meta, not percentage, but fixed number. So players that bought the expansion but left are highly irrelevant. More players (total number) finished the Whisper in the Dark meta than Path of Fire Act 1 meta. Same with Season 4 content, with the exception of the Daybreak meta, Whisper in the Dark meta has higher or very very similar completion rate.

You can also compare the number of players that started the respective episodes to have a better comparison. The first instance of a A Bug in the System was completed by 51%, the first instance of Whisper in the Dark was finished by 33%, yet their meta completion rates are both at 8.3% (8.29% for Bug and 8.27% for Whisper) This shows that the 16.3% of those that started Bug finished the meta, while that number is at 25% for Whisper (one in four that started the episode finished the meta). Meaning the Whisper in the Dark meta was very easy compared to most other metas released so far, which is why I called it an anomaly.

I'm not misunderstanding you're not getting what I''m saying.

I'd EXPECT expansion meta content to be finished by fewer people by percentage, over all, because people who come back to experience the basic expansion without staying around aren't going for the meta. Drawing ANY conclusion by comparing the two will, in my opinion, be misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

There is a way to check if a map meta is just way too easy to complete, by checking meta completions of much older content than it.Whisper in the Dark meta completion is an anomaly because it has a higher completion rate than Path of Fire Act 1/3 mastery, Heart of Thorns Act IV mastery, Long Live the Lich Mastery, All or Nothing mastery, War Eternal mastery, and is 0.02% less than A Bug in the System mastery and 0.1% from A Star to Guide Us mastery. All content that was started/played by far more players than Whisper in the Dark, meaning the meta was probably too easy (or lucrative) to complete. And of course none of that content has anything to do with Strike Missions.

We'll see the new map's completion rates in a few months, it's way too early to tell now.

I don't know that you can compare expansion and living story content. On the surface, there's a lot of similiarty but there's just far more to do when you get an expansion. The people who buy expansions aren't necessarily there for that kind of content. It means a lot of people buy an expansion, play it for a month and leave, throwing off the percentage of people who do that content regulary. Those people wouldn't then be counted in the later content, because they've already left.

For me, as a dedicated player, I'm here all year around, every year and I do map metas as a matter of course. Presumably the most loyal players are logging in every few months at least to do that new content. There's less to do in those time periods that's new so it'll be done by a bigger percentage.

I don't see value in tracking people that buy expansions, play a game for a couple of months and move onto the next game. I see value in tracking the Ice Brood Saga against the Ice Brood Saga, specifically because it's all in the same time period.

I think you misunderstood. Less players finished those Act metas of the expansions than the Whisper in the Dark meta, not percentage, but fixed number. So players that bought the expansion but left are highly irrelevant. More players (total number) finished the Whisper in the Dark meta than Path of Fire Act 1 meta. Same with Season 4 content, with the exception of the Daybreak meta, Whisper in the Dark meta has higher or very very similar completion rate.

You can also compare the number of players that started the respective episodes to have a better comparison. The first instance of a A Bug in the System was completed by 51%, the first instance of Whisper in the Dark was finished by 33%, yet their meta completion rates are both at 8.3% (8.29% for Bug and 8.27% for Whisper) This shows that the 16.3% of those that started Bug finished the meta, while that number is at 25% for Whisper (one in four that started the episode finished the meta). Meaning the Whisper in the Dark meta was very easy compared to most other metas released so far, which is why I called it an anomaly.

I'm not misunderstanding you're not getting what I''m saying.

I'd EXPECT expansion meta content to be finished by fewer people by percentage, over all, because people who come back to experience the basic expansion without staying around aren't going for the meta. Drawing ANY conclusion by comparing the two will, in my opinion, be misleading.

...so you did misunderstand and you did it again. I wasn't comparing percentages but raw numbers. And your argument is weird, you are saying that players who come back to experience the basic expansion wont' stay around to finish the meta of the expansion, but finish the meta of the episode? What's so bad about the meta of the expansion that players aren't going to finish compared to the meta of the episodes?

To clarify one more time: there are MORE players that completed Whisper in the Dark meta, compared to the expansion meta. Percentages and players leaving after trying an expansion are irrelevant. Whisper in the Dark meta is finished by 21,416, Path of Fire Act 1 meta is finished by 20,483.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

There is a way to check if a map meta is just way too easy to complete, by checking meta completions of much older content than it.Whisper in the Dark meta completion is an anomaly because it has a higher completion rate than Path of Fire Act 1/3 mastery, Heart of Thorns Act IV mastery, Long Live the Lich Mastery, All or Nothing mastery, War Eternal mastery, and is 0.02% less than A Bug in the System mastery and 0.1% from A Star to Guide Us mastery. All content that was started/played by far more players than Whisper in the Dark, meaning the meta was probably too easy (or lucrative) to complete. And of course none of that content has anything to do with Strike Missions.

We'll see the new map's completion rates in a few months, it's way too early to tell now.

I don't know that you can compare expansion and living story content. On the surface, there's a lot of similiarty but there's just far more to do when you get an expansion. The people who buy expansions aren't necessarily there for that kind of content. It means a lot of people buy an expansion, play it for a month and leave, throwing off the percentage of people who do that content regulary. Those people wouldn't then be counted in the later content, because they've already left.

For me, as a dedicated player, I'm here all year around, every year and I do map metas as a matter of course. Presumably the most loyal players are logging in every few months at least to do that new content. There's less to do in those time periods that's new so it'll be done by a bigger percentage.

I don't see value in tracking people that buy expansions, play a game for a couple of months and move onto the next game. I see value in tracking the Ice Brood Saga against the Ice Brood Saga, specifically because it's all in the same time period.

I think you misunderstood. Less players finished those Act metas of the expansions than the Whisper in the Dark meta, not percentage, but fixed number. So players that bought the expansion but left are highly irrelevant. More players (total number) finished the Whisper in the Dark meta than Path of Fire Act 1 meta. Same with Season 4 content, with the exception of the Daybreak meta, Whisper in the Dark meta has higher or very very similar completion rate.

You can also compare the number of players that started the respective episodes to have a better comparison. The first instance of a A Bug in the System was completed by 51%, the first instance of Whisper in the Dark was finished by 33%, yet their meta completion rates are both at 8.3% (8.29% for Bug and 8.27% for Whisper) This shows that the 16.3% of those that started Bug finished the meta, while that number is at 25% for Whisper (one in four that started the episode finished the meta). Meaning the Whisper in the Dark meta was very easy compared to most other metas released so far, which is why I called it an anomaly.

I'm not misunderstanding you're not getting what I''m saying.

I'd EXPECT expansion meta content to be finished by fewer people by percentage, over all, because people who come back to experience the basic expansion without staying around aren't going for the meta. Drawing ANY conclusion by comparing the two will, in my opinion, be misleading.

...so you did misunderstand and you did it again. I wasn't comparing percentages but raw numbers. And your argument is weird, you are saying that players who come back to experience the basic expansion wont' stay around to finish the meta of the expansion, but finish the meta of the episode? What's so bad about the meta of the expansion that players aren't going to finish compared to the meta of the episodes?

To clarify one more time: there are MORE players that completed Whisper in the Dark meta, compared to the expansion meta. Percentages and players leaving after trying an expansion are irrelevant. Whisper in the Dark meta is finished by 21,416, Path of Fire Act 1 meta is finished by 20,483.

I'm saying the type of people who buy expansions are different than the type of people who stay and play long term. That is the percentage of people who buy expansions and do the story and move on is pretty high. They run from game to game. SO the expansion isn't really showing what the persistent player base is doing. I strongly suspect that people who come for expansions don't come back and do living story. And I suspect that move on to the next game crowd is less likely over all to do metas.

That means more people buy expansions than play living world stories in between and that absolutely changes the percentages.

Let's say that half the people who buy expansions are tourists. They're going to be less likely to care about achievement points or achievements at all because they don't intend to stay.

Obviously some of the people who buy the expansions do plan on staying. The percentage of those people would more likely represent the people who are playing living world.

The fact that there are so many tourists who drop a few bucks on an expansion and move on quickly is excactly they those percntages are less meaningful to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:I strongly suspect that people who come for expansions don't come back and do living story.

Yes, in most cases this is confirmed by completion rates, with the exception of the Whisper in the Dark meta. Whisper in the Dark meta is finished by 21,416 players while the Path of Fire Act 1 meta is finished by 20,483. So at least 1k players that came for the expansion and left, came back for Whisper in the Dark. Or they simply didn't care about the expansion meta but completed the Whisper meta anyway. And this is similar with the entire Season 4, with the exception of Daybreak, Whisper in the Dark has higher completion rates. Which is again why I called it an anomaly, it has severely inflated rates even compared to the rest of the Icebrood Saga, so either a lot of new players joined at Whisper, finished the meta and then left, or, the more probable cause, Whisper in the Dark was very simplistic compared to the rest and more players just got it. That still makes Whisper an anomaly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:I strongly suspect that people who come for expansions don't come back and do living story.

Yes, in most cases this is confirmed by completion rates, with the exception of the Whisper in the Dark meta. Whisper in the Dark meta is finished by 21,416 players while the Path of Fire Act 1 meta is finished by 20,483. So at least 1k players that came for the expansion and left, came back for Whisper in the Dark. Or they simply didn't care about the expansion meta but completed the Whisper meta anyway. And this is similar with the entire Season 4, with the exception of Daybreak, Whisper in the Dark has higher completion rates. Which is again why I called it an anomaly, it has severely inflated rates even compared to the rest of the Icebrood Saga, so either a lot of new players joined at Whisper, finished the meta and then left, or, the more probable cause, Whisper in the Dark was very simplistic compared to the rest and more players just got it. That still makes Whisper an anomaly.

It's roughly the same number of people who do it...but there are more people starting an expansion who don't. Thus the percentage of players completeing changes from an expansion to a non-expansion. That's my point. It's not about number of players to me. It's about the percentage of completion of players who started that content. The expansion is going to be less because of the number of people starting and running. That's all I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol here we go again.

What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Sheader.6827" said:lol here we go again.

What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@"Sheader.6827" said:lol here we go again.

What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Raknar.4735 said:

@"Sheader.6827" said:lol here we go again.

What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sheader.6827 said:

@Sheader.6827 said:lol here we go again.

What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

Except that‘s completely arbitrary. Killing your first monster in the game could be an achievement. It tells you „you are on the way to master this game‘s combat system by understanding the way your skills work“.You could phrase pretty much any action like that. It‘s not an achievement, just a progression check tool multiple games use nowadays.

So no, I don‘t think killing your first raid boss is achievement worthy. Plenty of people are able to do that, you‘re not achieving anything, unless you think bringing down a hp bar the same way everyone else does it is worthy of people singing praises of you, especially when it‘s bound more to group skill and not individual skill, like at the Olympics.After all, Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run (raid wing clear) ;-).

But I‘m okay with the current system, since it is only a progression tracker called „achievements“, just like in several other games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sheader.6827 said:

@Sheader.6827 said:lol here we go again.

What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Sheader.6827 said:lol here we go again.

What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sheader.6827 said:

@Sheader.6827 said:lol here we go again.

What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

Changes nothing. 5 people can carry 5 people in most raids. The five people carrying are skilled. The people being carried, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Sheader.6827 said:lol here we go again.

What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

Changes nothing. 5 people can carry 5 people in most raids. The five people carrying are skilled. The people being carried, not so much.

Sorry, I can't find any "we will carry you" raid groups in LFG. All of them are either regular FC-s or training groups, neither tell you to "do nothing, let us carry you". Everyone in a raid group does the minimum requirement, i.e. doing the mechanics. Otherwise group leaders kick those pugs to open slots for people who actually want to raid and learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sheader.6827 said:

@Sheader.6827 said:lol here we go again.

What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

Changes nothing. 5 people can carry 5 people in most raids. The five people carrying are skilled. The people being carried, not so much.

Sorry, I can't find any "we will carry you" raid groups in LFG. All of them are either regular FC-s or training groups, neither tell you to "do nothing, let us carry you". Everyone in a raid group does the minimum requirement, i.e. doing the mechanics. Otherwise group leaders kick those pugs to open slots for people who actually want to raid and learn.

So what you're sasying is it can be five manned, but miraculously every single group has ten guys capable of actually holding their own, instead of just being a warm body. Not my experience at all, considering I've got victories over raid bosses and I know for a fact i didn't do my job in those circumstances.

It was the same in Guild Wars 1. Once an achievement is being sold, it's no longer an achievement by any sense of the word as in by looking at it, there's no way to tell who earned it and who was carried and who bought their way through.

I have a raid boss achievement (just 1) that i paid for, and another raid boss achievement I was carried through and one that I did on my own. 2 out of 3 of my raid achievements I didn't really achieve. You have no way of knowing the percentage of the people who were carried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Sheader.6827 said:lol here we go again.

What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

Changes nothing. 5 people can carry 5 people in most raids. The five people carrying are skilled. The people being carried, not so much.

Sorry, I can't find any "we will carry you" raid groups in LFG. All of them are either regular FC-s or training groups, neither tell you to "do nothing, let us carry you". Everyone in a raid group does the minimum requirement, i.e. doing the mechanics. Otherwise group leaders kick those pugs to open slots for people who actually want to raid and learn.

So what you're sasying is it can be five manned, but miraculously every single group has ten guys capable of actually holding their own, instead of just being a warm body. Not my experience at all, considering I've got victories over raid bosses and I know for a fact i didn't do my job in those circumstances.

It was the same in Guild Wars 1. Once an achievement is being sold, it's no longer an achievement by any sense of the word as in by looking at it, there's no way to tell who earned it and who was carried and who bought their way through.

I have a raid boss achievement (just 1) that i paid for, and another raid boss achievement I was carried through and one that I did on my own. 2 out of 3 of my raid achievements I didn't really achieve. You have no way of knowing the percentage of the people who were carried.

So you are just using yourself as a statistic for what is basically raid selling? How does that even help your argument? You bought one FC and pugged another. You aren't even remotely representative in terms of people giving an effort in raids or not. Raid selling is a thing but most average players can't afford to buy a FC so they stick with training guilds till they get the handle of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sheader.6827 said:

@Sheader.6827 said:lol here we go again.

What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

Changes nothing. 5 people can carry 5 people in most raids. The five people carrying are skilled. The people being carried, not so much.

Sorry, I can't find any "we will carry you" raid groups in LFG. All of them are either regular FC-s or training groups, neither tell you to "do nothing, let us carry you". Everyone in a raid group does the minimum requirement, i.e. doing the mechanics. Otherwise group leaders kick those pugs to open slots for people who actually want to raid and learn.

Yea they arent doing that for free you will be paying for the option to do nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sheader.6827 said:

@Sheader.6827 said:lol here we go again.

What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

Achievements are OPTIONAL, for those players who are WILLING to jump out of their shadow and do something to earn their rewards. Giving achievements the kindergarden treatment because a portion of the playerbase is too afraid to give an effort under the excuse "its not fun, and I am casual", but keep complaining that the rewards are unattainable is ruining the impact of getting those achievements in the first place.

Everyone is missing the point why achievements are there in the first place. Doing trivial errands across the map is no achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.

That's like saying a mob is more than one unit because it says so in the dictionary. Mob has a different deifintion in games. If you're going ot apply dictionary definitions to everything in games, you'll not do so well.

The point isn't hard or easy. The point is change. This is a change. I don't like the change I speak out against it. Enough people don't like the change, Anet will change it. It really is that simple. I never said don't have a category for strike mission achievements. Go for it.

I said don't change already existing achievement types to have something new that might put off people and we've seen a fair few people put off by it.

Not to mention that "achieving something" is still completely arbitrary and personal. "Effort", "Skill", "Courage" are not really measurable and differ from person to person.

But if we follow his definition there would be pretty much no achievements at all. How is doing Strike Missions or Raids an achievement at all? Doing trivial instances where your personal skill doesn't matter as much as the group skill is not achievement-worthy at all, you didn't achieve anything, you just killed a monster in a videogame, and you weren't even able to do it alone. Doing content the way it is supposed to be done is not an achievement, and shouldn't be treated as such.It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

So, yeah. Either we use the achievement system already being used in multiple games, just like in GW2, where it is more of a progression-check tool, or we go all the way to "true" achievements. Stuff like "worlds"-best, where your own skill is tested against everyone else, nothing silly like "killed a SM boss", or "cleared a Raid with no deaths".

Giving achievements out any other way is missing the point of why achievements are there in the first place and how devs of multiple games have implemented them ;-)

Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

How many people paid to get that achievement with in game gold?

Not nearly as many who gave the effort to beat it themselves.

Changes nothing. 5 people can carry 5 people in most raids. The five people carrying are skilled. The people being carried, not so much.

Sorry, I can't find any "we will carry you" raid groups in LFG. All of them are either regular FC-s or training groups, neither tell you to "do nothing, let us carry you". Everyone in a raid group does the minimum requirement, i.e. doing the mechanics. Otherwise group leaders kick those pugs to open slots for people who actually want to raid and learn.

So what you're sasying is it can be five manned, but miraculously every single group has ten guys capable of actually holding their own, instead of just being a warm body. Not my experience at all, considering I've got victories over raid bosses and I know for a fact i didn't do my job in those circumstances.

It was the same in Guild Wars 1. Once an achievement is being sold, it's no longer an achievement by any sense of the word as in by looking at it, there's no way to tell who earned it and who was carried and who bought their way through.

I have a raid boss achievement (just 1) that i paid for, and another raid boss achievement I was carried through and one that I did on my own. 2 out of 3 of my raid achievements I didn't really achieve. You have no way of knowing the percentage of the people who were carried.

So you are just using yourself as a statistic for what is basically raid selling? How does that even help your argument? You bought one FC and pugged another. You aren't even remotely representative in terms of people giving an effort in raids or not. Raid selling is a thing but most average players can't afford to buy a FC so they stick with training guilds till they get the handle of it.

Nope, you're missing my point completely.

ANYONE can buy a raid. Save up money from wood farming or whatever and buy a raid. Anyone in the game. It's doable by anyone.

So when someone has that "achievement' It's meaningless because there's no way to tell how they got it. The term achievement as you're trying to imply it means doesn't mean anything because enough people, a percentage, pay for raids and/or get carried through raids. They've realliy achieved nothing...but they have the achievement. It's like portals at jumping puzzles.

Jumping puzzles are skilled content, but only Mad King's Clock Tower has an achievement that's an actual achievement, or maybe also Winterwonderland. Everything else can be cheesed.

Even people with the Vampiric build who cheesed Liadri weren't really achieveing anything other than looking up a build and cheesing it. This idea that achievements in games means actually achieveing something is not accurate. Sure some people do the achievement as it's supposed to be done. And some get carried. And some cheese it. And no one knows the percentage of each.

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...