Jump to content
  • Sign Up

So You're one POI away from Map Completion ....


Ash.5274

Recommended Posts

@Tekoneiric.6817 said:I'm glad they fixed the one POI but The Consul's Tomb POI cost me a Teleport to Friend and I didn't even get a key from map complete.

While I agree that it would be nice for Anet to do the same for The Consul's Tomb POI like they did for The Hammer's Hoard POI, there are more efficient, guaranteed, and less grindy ways to get keys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I don't really see how this is an issue. Map completion is being tied to events in the map. If you don't want to do the events, the items that give you map completion are tradeable on the tp. So players have multiple paths to achieve the goal of map completion and one of those paths is actually, y'know, playing the map. So where's the issue? It's not like some nefarious players swooped in and scooped up all the available items leaving the rest of us with no ready means for acquiring more. I'd say this choice represents a lesson well learned, so kudos to anet :)

If you actually read the thread you'd see that many people have brought up why this is an issue.

If you did read the thread then let me say the following: just because it's not an issue
for you
doesn't mean there's no issue.

Yeah that is really frustrating when ppl post in a thread without reading it and it happens a lot on this forum so I can forgive you for thinking I might have done so, but I did not . . .

Supposing you have also read the thread you would have seen that the poi in question is available by 1) playing the game, 2) letting someone else play the game for you and buying the map completion item off the tp, 3) using a mesmer port or 4) tp to a friend, so there is no issue. Now if anet wants to move the poi or expand its radius so that it is available to players too cheap, lazy and friendless to get it through one of the existing methods I'd have no problem with it, but that wouldn't change the fact that given the variety of means of access to the poi that currently exist, such a change is unnecessary . . .

While the rest of the game, most of it, is alt friendly, this is NOT alt friendly. I like to complete zones on alts. Zone completion in itself is a fun thing to do. Locking this behind 2 different metas, means repeating 2 metas on 41 alts, which is 82 times I'd have to do the meta to get a POI. Or buy them 41 times for the trading post. I don't see why you or anyone would think this is a good design decision.

You're doing it with one character it's no big deal I agree. But punishing people who spent extra on character slots is never good business in my opinion.

Maybe they didn't like the thought of your getting ten bl keys for free. The reason I, specifically, like this is that the last episode offered its rewards to ppl who liked to log in and stand next to the tp. At least so far, this episode is offering greater rewards to ppl who log in to play the game. I like playing the game, so this makes me happy . . .

For free? lol

First of all 41 characters going through isn't likely to give you 10 black lion keys anyway. Secondly well over $300 of character slots is not free either. And I am playing the game.

That said, out of all the zone completes so far, this decision would be the worst of them. In fact, the decision was so bad, Anet changed it and made it so you could get that POI without doing both metas. Apparently they don't care how many characters I complete zones on.

To that end, I currently have 13 characters that have completed every story and zone in the game. I don't do it for the keys. I do it because it's what I enjoy. Essentially Anet is moving the bar by adding the second meta and then a puzzle on top of it. The community called Anet on it and Anet backed down. You can say, I suppose, that Anet wanted to push the limits of what they could "get away" with, with regards to zone complete and found the community was agitated enough that this crossed a line that they previously haven't crossed.

At any rate, as of the last update it's no longer an issue, since you can get that POI without doing the meta. The other POI I get from doing the story which I'll be doing anyway.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Your original complaint was that being forced to play the map for map completion wasn't alt-friendly bc you didn't want to do the metas. Now you're saying you don't care that you still have to do the story bc you were going to do the story anyway. Do all the players who want to do map completion without doing the story not concern you . . ?

Actually my complaint was 2 metas seperated by an hour. Story was never my complaint. In Kourna we have to do a meta to get map complete anyway and an event. But the event appears frequently as does the meta. This complaint is about upping the anti. Making it 2 metas and a puzzle to get that point of interest WHICH ANET FIXED. Obviously they must have thought the complaints had some merit too.

Upping the ante is the problem. If we don't say something now, next time it might be six metas, and four puzzles.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, what I am looking for is the why. Why is it unacceptable to lock a poi behind map metas but acceptable to lock them behind the story? To me the metas are a more natural barrier. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect ppl to play the map in order to complete the map. The relationship of the story to the map is more tenuous. The two things are released concurrently and one introduces the other but the story is less related to the map than the actual events that comprise the map. To say you must complete the story in order to complete the map still seems reasonable to me, but it is less reasonable than saying you must complete the major events in the map in order to complete the map, which is borderline tautological. The only counterargument you've provided is that you don't want to do the metas and you don't mind doing the story, which isn't very persuasive . . .

I guess this is a matter of perspective. I can start a story any time I want, at MY convenience. I don't have to wait for a timer. It doesn't hold me up. If I have ten or fifteen minutes here and there, I can do a story...whenever I want. Waiting on a scheduled time, which might be as much as two hours to get something like that done is not acceptable because Anet now is asking me to go on their schedule. That was one of the complaints about HoT.

A person who plays the same time every night ends up getting the same events every night, even if he wants/needs a different event. The meta in Kourna and the other event you need come up pretty fast, and I was never waiting an hour for it. Now I have to wait up to an hour for each one. Just seems different to me.

Stuff I have to do to complete a zone that I can solo and do on my time I find more acceptable. I mean I have seen, on off maps, this meta fail even, particularly the south meta, if you don't have enough people to defend two outposts. I haven't seen it fail often but I have seen it fail. To me, that means waiting even more to complete a zone.

Do you know what my chances are of failing a story?

Without a bug that would be nil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TheOrlyFactor.8341 said:

@Tekoneiric.6817 said:I'm glad they fixed the one POI but The Consul's Tomb POI cost me a Teleport to Friend and I didn't even get a key from map complete.

While I agree that it would be nice for Anet to do the same for The Consul's Tomb POI like they did for The Hammer's Hoard POI, there are more efficient, guaranteed, and less grindy ways to get keys.

It's not necessarily for keys. You also get 25 map currency, which at least in Jahai is very handy -- meant it only took me a few days and learning a very efficient map completion path to get 750 currency for Requiem skins. I don't know the Keep well enough yet to know what I want out of map completion there but that currency has to be handy. And some people are completionists.

So I agree, that poi should be reachable by cuddling the gate. Poi aside, I haven't even reached the treasure room on my own yet because the one time I had two meta plates thus far the vet bugged and wouldn't drop its plate for me. I tried yesterday and south failed so that was it for the day's attempt. I'd be willing to spend a gold or two, but not 8 to 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Donari.5237 said:

@Tekoneiric.6817 said:I'm glad they fixed the one POI but The Consul's Tomb POI cost me a Teleport to Friend and I didn't even get a key from map complete.

While I agree that it would be nice for Anet to do the same for The Consul's Tomb POI like they did for The Hammer's Hoard POI, there are more efficient, guaranteed, and less grindy ways to get keys.

It's not necessarily for keys. You also get 25 map currency, which at least in Jahai is very handy -- meant it only took me a few days and learning a very efficient map completion path to get 750 currency for Requiem skins. I don't know the Keep well enough yet to know what I want out of map completion there but that currency has to be handy. And some people are completionists.

I definitely agree. For me, map completion is a combination of completionist goals as well as for character story/role playing reasons. It's nice to get rewards from doing map completion but that's not why I do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I don't really see how this is an issue. Map completion is being tied to events in the map. If you don't want to do the events, the items that give you map completion are tradeable on the tp. So players have multiple paths to achieve the goal of map completion and one of those paths is actually, y'know, playing the map. So where's the issue? It's not like some nefarious players swooped in and scooped up all the available items leaving the rest of us with no ready means for acquiring more. I'd say this choice represents a lesson well learned, so kudos to anet :)

If you actually read the thread you'd see that many people have brought up why this is an issue.

If you did read the thread then let me say the following: just because it's not an issue
for you
doesn't mean there's no issue.

Yeah that is really frustrating when ppl post in a thread without reading it and it happens a lot on this forum so I can forgive you for thinking I might have done so, but I did not . . .

Supposing you have also read the thread you would have seen that the poi in question is available by 1) playing the game, 2) letting someone else play the game for you and buying the map completion item off the tp, 3) using a mesmer port or 4) tp to a friend, so there is no issue. Now if anet wants to move the poi or expand its radius so that it is available to players too cheap, lazy and friendless to get it through one of the existing methods I'd have no problem with it, but that wouldn't change the fact that given the variety of means of access to the poi that currently exist, such a change is unnecessary . . .

While the rest of the game, most of it, is alt friendly, this is NOT alt friendly. I like to complete zones on alts. Zone completion in itself is a fun thing to do. Locking this behind 2 different metas, means repeating 2 metas on 41 alts, which is 82 times I'd have to do the meta to get a POI. Or buy them 41 times for the trading post. I don't see why you or anyone would think this is a good design decision.

You're doing it with one character it's no big deal I agree. But punishing people who spent extra on character slots is never good business in my opinion.

Maybe they didn't like the thought of your getting ten bl keys for free. The reason I, specifically, like this is that the last episode offered its rewards to ppl who liked to log in and stand next to the tp. At least so far, this episode is offering greater rewards to ppl who log in to play the game. I like playing the game, so this makes me happy . . .

For free? lol

First of all 41 characters going through isn't likely to give you 10 black lion keys anyway. Secondly well over $300 of character slots is not free either. And I am playing the game.

That said, out of all the zone completes so far, this decision would be the worst of them. In fact, the decision was so bad, Anet changed it and made it so you could get that POI without doing both metas. Apparently they don't care how many characters I complete zones on.

To that end, I currently have 13 characters that have completed every story and zone in the game. I don't do it for the keys. I do it because it's what I enjoy. Essentially Anet is moving the bar by adding the second meta and then a puzzle on top of it. The community called Anet on it and Anet backed down. You can say, I suppose, that Anet wanted to push the limits of what they could "get away" with, with regards to zone complete and found the community was agitated enough that this crossed a line that they previously haven't crossed.

At any rate, as of the last update it's no longer an issue, since you can get that POI without doing the meta. The other POI I get from doing the story which I'll be doing anyway.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Your original complaint was that being forced to play the map for map completion wasn't alt-friendly bc you didn't want to do the metas. Now you're saying you don't care that you still have to do the story bc you were going to do the story anyway. Do all the players who want to do map completion without doing the story not concern you . . ?

Actually my complaint was 2 metas seperated by an hour. Story was never my complaint. In Kourna we have to do a meta to get map complete anyway and an event. But the event appears frequently as does the meta. This complaint is about upping the anti. Making it 2 metas and a puzzle to get that point of interest WHICH ANET FIXED. Obviously they must have thought the complaints had some merit too.

Upping the ante is the problem. If we don't say something now, next time it might be six metas, and four puzzles.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, what I am looking for is the why. Why is it unacceptable to lock a poi behind map metas but acceptable to lock them behind the story? To me the metas are a more natural barrier. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect ppl to play the map in order to complete the map. The relationship of the story to the map is more tenuous. The two things are released concurrently and one introduces the other but the story is less related to the map than the actual events that comprise the map. To say you must complete the story in order to complete the map still seems reasonable to me, but it is less reasonable than saying you must complete the major events in the map in order to complete the map, which is borderline tautological. The only counterargument you've provided is that you don't want to do the metas and you don't mind doing the story, which isn't very persuasive . . .

I guess this is a matter of perspective. I can start a story any time I want, at MY convenience. I don't have to wait for a timer. It doesn't hold me up. If I have ten or fifteen minutes here and there, I can do a story...whenever I want. Waiting on a scheduled time, which might be as much as two hours to get something like that done is not acceptable because Anet now is asking me to go on their schedule. That was one of the complaints about HoT.

A person who plays the same time every night ends up getting the same events every night, even if he wants/needs a different event. The meta in Kourna and the other event you need come up pretty fast, and I was never waiting an hour for it. Now I have to wait up to an hour for each one. Just seems different to me.

Stuff I have to do to complete a zone that I can solo and do on my time I find more acceptable. I mean I have seen, on off maps, this meta fail even, particularly the south meta, if you don't have enough people to defend two outposts. I haven't seen it fail often but I have seen it fail. To me, that means waiting even more to complete a zone.

Do you know what my chances are of failing a story?

Without a bug that would be nil.

I can see that the story is less work, but I don't see that as a persuasive reason to include it as a barrier to map completion while excluding the map's meta events. I don't feel like asking someone to spend an hour on map completion is unreasonable, but even that hour is not required. You only have to log in to do the metas, you don't have to hang out for the break in between if you don't want to. Though that would be a great time to get all the other pois, hearts and vistas. I think forcing a toon to spend some amount of time in a map before it achieves map completion is a good thing . . .

And I too have seen the metas fail, but only on maps I have happened to be in by chance, never when I am actually looking to do the meta and use lfg to find like-minded players. But even if it does fail and you don't have time to wait you can just do it another day. The plate halves don't expire . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I don't really see how this is an issue. Map completion is being tied to events in the map. If you don't want to do the events, the items that give you map completion are tradeable on the tp. So players have multiple paths to achieve the goal of map completion and one of those paths is actually, y'know, playing the map. So where's the issue? It's not like some nefarious players swooped in and scooped up all the available items leaving the rest of us with no ready means for acquiring more. I'd say this choice represents a lesson well learned, so kudos to anet :)

If you actually read the thread you'd see that many people have brought up why this is an issue.

If you did read the thread then let me say the following: just because it's not an issue
for you
doesn't mean there's no issue.

Yeah that is really frustrating when ppl post in a thread without reading it and it happens a lot on this forum so I can forgive you for thinking I might have done so, but I did not . . .

Supposing you have also read the thread you would have seen that the poi in question is available by 1) playing the game, 2) letting someone else play the game for you and buying the map completion item off the tp, 3) using a mesmer port or 4) tp to a friend, so there is no issue. Now if anet wants to move the poi or expand its radius so that it is available to players too cheap, lazy and friendless to get it through one of the existing methods I'd have no problem with it, but that wouldn't change the fact that given the variety of means of access to the poi that currently exist, such a change is unnecessary . . .

While the rest of the game, most of it, is alt friendly, this is NOT alt friendly. I like to complete zones on alts. Zone completion in itself is a fun thing to do. Locking this behind 2 different metas, means repeating 2 metas on 41 alts, which is 82 times I'd have to do the meta to get a POI. Or buy them 41 times for the trading post. I don't see why you or anyone would think this is a good design decision.

You're doing it with one character it's no big deal I agree. But punishing people who spent extra on character slots is never good business in my opinion.

Maybe they didn't like the thought of your getting ten bl keys for free. The reason I, specifically, like this is that the last episode offered its rewards to ppl who liked to log in and stand next to the tp. At least so far, this episode is offering greater rewards to ppl who log in to play the game. I like playing the game, so this makes me happy . . .

For free? lol

First of all 41 characters going through isn't likely to give you 10 black lion keys anyway. Secondly well over $300 of character slots is not free either. And I am playing the game.

That said, out of all the zone completes so far, this decision would be the worst of them. In fact, the decision was so bad, Anet changed it and made it so you could get that POI without doing both metas. Apparently they don't care how many characters I complete zones on.

To that end, I currently have 13 characters that have completed every story and zone in the game. I don't do it for the keys. I do it because it's what I enjoy. Essentially Anet is moving the bar by adding the second meta and then a puzzle on top of it. The community called Anet on it and Anet backed down. You can say, I suppose, that Anet wanted to push the limits of what they could "get away" with, with regards to zone complete and found the community was agitated enough that this crossed a line that they previously haven't crossed.

At any rate, as of the last update it's no longer an issue, since you can get that POI without doing the meta. The other POI I get from doing the story which I'll be doing anyway.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Your original complaint was that being forced to play the map for map completion wasn't alt-friendly bc you didn't want to do the metas. Now you're saying you don't care that you still have to do the story bc you were going to do the story anyway. Do all the players who want to do map completion without doing the story not concern you . . ?

Actually my complaint was 2 metas seperated by an hour. Story was never my complaint. In Kourna we have to do a meta to get map complete anyway and an event. But the event appears frequently as does the meta. This complaint is about upping the anti. Making it 2 metas and a puzzle to get that point of interest WHICH ANET FIXED. Obviously they must have thought the complaints had some merit too.

Upping the ante is the problem. If we don't say something now, next time it might be six metas, and four puzzles.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, what I am looking for is the why. Why is it unacceptable to lock a poi behind map metas but acceptable to lock them behind the story? To me the metas are a more natural barrier. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect ppl to play the map in order to complete the map. The relationship of the story to the map is more tenuous. The two things are released concurrently and one introduces the other but the story is less related to the map than the actual events that comprise the map. To say you must complete the story in order to complete the map still seems reasonable to me, but it is less reasonable than saying you must complete the major events in the map in order to complete the map, which is borderline tautological. The only counterargument you've provided is that you don't want to do the metas and you don't mind doing the story, which isn't very persuasive . . .

I guess this is a matter of perspective. I can start a story any time I want, at MY convenience. I don't have to wait for a timer. It doesn't hold me up. If I have ten or fifteen minutes here and there, I can do a story...whenever I want. Waiting on a scheduled time, which might be as much as two hours to get something like that done is not acceptable because Anet now is asking me to go on their schedule. That was one of the complaints about HoT.

A person who plays the same time every night ends up getting the same events every night, even if he wants/needs a different event. The meta in Kourna and the other event you need come up pretty fast, and I was never waiting an hour for it. Now I have to wait up to an hour for each one. Just seems different to me.

Stuff I have to do to complete a zone that I can solo and do on my time I find more acceptable. I mean I have seen, on off maps, this meta fail even, particularly the south meta, if you don't have enough people to defend two outposts. I haven't seen it fail often but I have seen it fail. To me, that means waiting even more to complete a zone.

Do you know what my chances are of failing a story?

Without a bug that would be nil.

I can see that the story is less work, but I don't see that as a persuasive reason to include it as a barrier to map completion while excluding the map's meta events. I don't feel like asking someone to spend an hour on map completion is unreasonable, but even that hour is not required. You only have to log in to do the metas, you don't have to hang out for the break in between if you don't want to. Though that would be a great time to get all the other pois, hearts and vistas. I think forcing a toon to spend some amount of time in a map before it achieves map completion is a good thing . . .

And I too have seen the metas fail, but only on maps I have happened to be in by chance, never when I am actually looking to do the meta and use lfg to find like-minded players. But even if it does fail and you don't have time to wait you can just do it another day. The plate halves don't expire . . .

You're still missing the point. It's not about how long it takes. It's about having to be on a schedule. You may like to show up at 2 PM to do something. But there's an organic nature to the game that's sacrificed because of timers. Having to remember to do something at a specific time, or having to stop what I really want to do to be there at a specific time makes the game less enjoyable for me, and for other people as well. It was one of the complaints about HOT metas. Do you know why bounties were added instead of more metas in PoF. Because it's content on demand.

Do you know why they included content on demand? Because of player complaints.

If you don't mind, that's fine for you. But Anet isn't going to make a game just for one person. They're making a game for a player base that has vastly different play styles, and vastly different needs. I've given you a good reason why I don't like it, even if it doesn't affect you at all. You've yet to give me a good reason why it's better being that way. All you're really saying is it doesn't bother me, so it's okay. That's not a good enough answer for some of us.

And to be fair, Anet changed it so maybe it's not a good enough answer for them either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I don't really see how this is an issue. Map completion is being tied to events in the map. If you don't want to do the events, the items that give you map completion are tradeable on the tp. So players have multiple paths to achieve the goal of map completion and one of those paths is actually, y'know, playing the map. So where's the issue? It's not like some nefarious players swooped in and scooped up all the available items leaving the rest of us with no ready means for acquiring more. I'd say this choice represents a lesson well learned, so kudos to anet :)

If you actually read the thread you'd see that many people have brought up why this is an issue.

If you did read the thread then let me say the following: just because it's not an issue
for you
doesn't mean there's no issue.

Yeah that is really frustrating when ppl post in a thread without reading it and it happens a lot on this forum so I can forgive you for thinking I might have done so, but I did not . . .

Supposing you have also read the thread you would have seen that the poi in question is available by 1) playing the game, 2) letting someone else play the game for you and buying the map completion item off the tp, 3) using a mesmer port or 4) tp to a friend, so there is no issue. Now if anet wants to move the poi or expand its radius so that it is available to players too cheap, lazy and friendless to get it through one of the existing methods I'd have no problem with it, but that wouldn't change the fact that given the variety of means of access to the poi that currently exist, such a change is unnecessary . . .

While the rest of the game, most of it, is alt friendly, this is NOT alt friendly. I like to complete zones on alts. Zone completion in itself is a fun thing to do. Locking this behind 2 different metas, means repeating 2 metas on 41 alts, which is 82 times I'd have to do the meta to get a POI. Or buy them 41 times for the trading post. I don't see why you or anyone would think this is a good design decision.

You're doing it with one character it's no big deal I agree. But punishing people who spent extra on character slots is never good business in my opinion.

Maybe they didn't like the thought of your getting ten bl keys for free. The reason I, specifically, like this is that the last episode offered its rewards to ppl who liked to log in and stand next to the tp. At least so far, this episode is offering greater rewards to ppl who log in to play the game. I like playing the game, so this makes me happy . . .

For free? lol

First of all 41 characters going through isn't likely to give you 10 black lion keys anyway. Secondly well over $300 of character slots is not free either. And I am playing the game.

That said, out of all the zone completes so far, this decision would be the worst of them. In fact, the decision was so bad, Anet changed it and made it so you could get that POI without doing both metas. Apparently they don't care how many characters I complete zones on.

To that end, I currently have 13 characters that have completed every story and zone in the game. I don't do it for the keys. I do it because it's what I enjoy. Essentially Anet is moving the bar by adding the second meta and then a puzzle on top of it. The community called Anet on it and Anet backed down. You can say, I suppose, that Anet wanted to push the limits of what they could "get away" with, with regards to zone complete and found the community was agitated enough that this crossed a line that they previously haven't crossed.

At any rate, as of the last update it's no longer an issue, since you can get that POI without doing the meta. The other POI I get from doing the story which I'll be doing anyway.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Your original complaint was that being forced to play the map for map completion wasn't alt-friendly bc you didn't want to do the metas. Now you're saying you don't care that you still have to do the story bc you were going to do the story anyway. Do all the players who want to do map completion without doing the story not concern you . . ?

Actually my complaint was 2 metas seperated by an hour. Story was never my complaint. In Kourna we have to do a meta to get map complete anyway and an event. But the event appears frequently as does the meta. This complaint is about upping the anti. Making it 2 metas and a puzzle to get that point of interest WHICH ANET FIXED. Obviously they must have thought the complaints had some merit too.

Upping the ante is the problem. If we don't say something now, next time it might be six metas, and four puzzles.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, what I am looking for is the why. Why is it unacceptable to lock a poi behind map metas but acceptable to lock them behind the story? To me the metas are a more natural barrier. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect ppl to play the map in order to complete the map. The relationship of the story to the map is more tenuous. The two things are released concurrently and one introduces the other but the story is less related to the map than the actual events that comprise the map. To say you must complete the story in order to complete the map still seems reasonable to me, but it is less reasonable than saying you must complete the major events in the map in order to complete the map, which is borderline tautological. The only counterargument you've provided is that you don't want to do the metas and you don't mind doing the story, which isn't very persuasive . . .

I guess this is a matter of perspective. I can start a story any time I want, at MY convenience. I don't have to wait for a timer. It doesn't hold me up. If I have ten or fifteen minutes here and there, I can do a story...whenever I want. Waiting on a scheduled time, which might be as much as two hours to get something like that done is not acceptable because Anet now is asking me to go on their schedule. That was one of the complaints about HoT.

A person who plays the same time every night ends up getting the same events every night, even if he wants/needs a different event. The meta in Kourna and the other event you need come up pretty fast, and I was never waiting an hour for it. Now I have to wait up to an hour for each one. Just seems different to me.

Stuff I have to do to complete a zone that I can solo and do on my time I find more acceptable. I mean I have seen, on off maps, this meta fail even, particularly the south meta, if you don't have enough people to defend two outposts. I haven't seen it fail often but I have seen it fail. To me, that means waiting even more to complete a zone.

Do you know what my chances are of failing a story?

Without a bug that would be nil.

I can see that the story is less work, but I don't see that as a persuasive reason to include it as a barrier to map completion while excluding the map's meta events. I don't feel like asking someone to spend an hour on map completion is unreasonable, but even that hour is not required. You only have to log in to do the metas, you don't have to hang out for the break in between if you don't want to. Though that would be a great time to get all the other pois, hearts and vistas. I think forcing a toon to spend some amount of time in a map before it achieves map completion is a good thing . . .

And I too have seen the metas fail, but only on maps I have happened to be in by chance, never when I am actually looking to do the meta and use lfg to find like-minded players. But even if it does fail and you don't have time to wait you can just do it another day. The plate halves don't expire . . .

You're still missing the point. It's not about how long it takes. It's about having to be on a schedule. You may like to show up at 2 PM to do something. But there's an organic nature to the game that's sacrificed because of timers. Having to remember to do something at a specific time, or having to stop what I really want to do to be there at a specific time makes the game less enjoyable for me, and for other people as well. It was one of the complaints about HOT metas. Do you know why bounties were added instead of more metas in PoF. Because it's content on demand.

Do you know why they included content on demand? Because of player complaints.

If you don't mind, that's fine for you. But Anet isn't going to make a game just for one person. They're making a game for a player base that has vastly different play styles, and vastly different needs. I've given you a good reason why I don't like it, even if it doesn't affect you at all. You've yet to give me a good reason why it's better being that way. All you're really saying is it doesn't bother me, so it's okay. That's not a good enough answer for some of us.

And to be fair, Anet changed it so maybe it's not a good enough answer for them either.

Now you're really talking about two separate things -- whether it's justifiable for the metas to bar map completion and whether it's better for content to play on a schedule or on demand. I would argue for content that requires a significant number of players, it is better to run on a schedule. It is easier to get a large group together at a set time than it is to get a large number of ppl to agree on a time they would all like to show up. And to use your example the lasting popularity of HoT maps and relative unpopularity of PoF maps would bear that theory out. As for the inconvenience, the metas each require a player to show up once at any one of twelve different times on any day. That doesn't seem particularly onerous to me. Expecting large scale content on demand seems inconsistent with the concept of an mmo, which as you point out must cater to all the players, not just the one who wants to do map completion on yet another alt right this very second . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I don't really see how this is an issue. Map completion is being tied to events in the map. If you don't want to do the events, the items that give you map completion are tradeable on the tp. So players have multiple paths to achieve the goal of map completion and one of those paths is actually, y'know, playing the map. So where's the issue? It's not like some nefarious players swooped in and scooped up all the available items leaving the rest of us with no ready means for acquiring more. I'd say this choice represents a lesson well learned, so kudos to anet :)

If you actually read the thread you'd see that many people have brought up why this is an issue.

If you did read the thread then let me say the following: just because it's not an issue
for you
doesn't mean there's no issue.

Yeah that is really frustrating when ppl post in a thread without reading it and it happens a lot on this forum so I can forgive you for thinking I might have done so, but I did not . . .

Supposing you have also read the thread you would have seen that the poi in question is available by 1) playing the game, 2) letting someone else play the game for you and buying the map completion item off the tp, 3) using a mesmer port or 4) tp to a friend, so there is no issue. Now if anet wants to move the poi or expand its radius so that it is available to players too cheap, lazy and friendless to get it through one of the existing methods I'd have no problem with it, but that wouldn't change the fact that given the variety of means of access to the poi that currently exist, such a change is unnecessary . . .

While the rest of the game, most of it, is alt friendly, this is NOT alt friendly. I like to complete zones on alts. Zone completion in itself is a fun thing to do. Locking this behind 2 different metas, means repeating 2 metas on 41 alts, which is 82 times I'd have to do the meta to get a POI. Or buy them 41 times for the trading post. I don't see why you or anyone would think this is a good design decision.

You're doing it with one character it's no big deal I agree. But punishing people who spent extra on character slots is never good business in my opinion.

Maybe they didn't like the thought of your getting ten bl keys for free. The reason I, specifically, like this is that the last episode offered its rewards to ppl who liked to log in and stand next to the tp. At least so far, this episode is offering greater rewards to ppl who log in to play the game. I like playing the game, so this makes me happy . . .

For free? lol

First of all 41 characters going through isn't likely to give you 10 black lion keys anyway. Secondly well over $300 of character slots is not free either. And I am playing the game.

That said, out of all the zone completes so far, this decision would be the worst of them. In fact, the decision was so bad, Anet changed it and made it so you could get that POI without doing both metas. Apparently they don't care how many characters I complete zones on.

To that end, I currently have 13 characters that have completed every story and zone in the game. I don't do it for the keys. I do it because it's what I enjoy. Essentially Anet is moving the bar by adding the second meta and then a puzzle on top of it. The community called Anet on it and Anet backed down. You can say, I suppose, that Anet wanted to push the limits of what they could "get away" with, with regards to zone complete and found the community was agitated enough that this crossed a line that they previously haven't crossed.

At any rate, as of the last update it's no longer an issue, since you can get that POI without doing the meta. The other POI I get from doing the story which I'll be doing anyway.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Your original complaint was that being forced to play the map for map completion wasn't alt-friendly bc you didn't want to do the metas. Now you're saying you don't care that you still have to do the story bc you were going to do the story anyway. Do all the players who want to do map completion without doing the story not concern you . . ?

Actually my complaint was 2 metas seperated by an hour. Story was never my complaint. In Kourna we have to do a meta to get map complete anyway and an event. But the event appears frequently as does the meta. This complaint is about upping the anti. Making it 2 metas and a puzzle to get that point of interest WHICH ANET FIXED. Obviously they must have thought the complaints had some merit too.

Upping the ante is the problem. If we don't say something now, next time it might be six metas, and four puzzles.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, what I am looking for is the why. Why is it unacceptable to lock a poi behind map metas but acceptable to lock them behind the story? To me the metas are a more natural barrier. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect ppl to play the map in order to complete the map. The relationship of the story to the map is more tenuous. The two things are released concurrently and one introduces the other but the story is less related to the map than the actual events that comprise the map. To say you must complete the story in order to complete the map still seems reasonable to me, but it is less reasonable than saying you must complete the major events in the map in order to complete the map, which is borderline tautological. The only counterargument you've provided is that you don't want to do the metas and you don't mind doing the story, which isn't very persuasive . . .

I guess this is a matter of perspective. I can start a story any time I want, at MY convenience. I don't have to wait for a timer. It doesn't hold me up. If I have ten or fifteen minutes here and there, I can do a story...whenever I want. Waiting on a scheduled time, which might be as much as two hours to get something like that done is not acceptable because Anet now is asking me to go on their schedule. That was one of the complaints about HoT.

A person who plays the same time every night ends up getting the same events every night, even if he wants/needs a different event. The meta in Kourna and the other event you need come up pretty fast, and I was never waiting an hour for it. Now I have to wait up to an hour for each one. Just seems different to me.

Stuff I have to do to complete a zone that I can solo and do on my time I find more acceptable. I mean I have seen, on off maps, this meta fail even, particularly the south meta, if you don't have enough people to defend two outposts. I haven't seen it fail often but I have seen it fail. To me, that means waiting even more to complete a zone.

Do you know what my chances are of failing a story?

Without a bug that would be nil.

I can see that the story is less work, but I don't see that as a persuasive reason to include it as a barrier to map completion while excluding the map's meta events. I don't feel like asking someone to spend an hour on map completion is unreasonable, but even that hour is not required. You only have to log in to do the metas, you don't have to hang out for the break in between if you don't want to. Though that would be a great time to get all the other pois, hearts and vistas. I think forcing a toon to spend some amount of time in a map before it achieves map completion is a good thing . . .

And I too have seen the metas fail, but only on maps I have happened to be in by chance, never when I am actually looking to do the meta and use lfg to find like-minded players. But even if it does fail and you don't have time to wait you can just do it another day. The plate halves don't expire . . .

You're still missing the point. It's not about how long it takes. It's about having to be on a schedule. You may like to show up at 2 PM to do something. But there's an organic nature to the game that's sacrificed because of timers. Having to remember to do something at a specific time, or having to stop what I really want to do to be there at a specific time makes the game less enjoyable for me, and for other people as well. It was one of the complaints about HOT metas. Do you know why bounties were added instead of more metas in PoF. Because it's content on demand.

Do you know why they included content on demand? Because of player complaints.

If you don't mind, that's fine for you. But Anet isn't going to make a game just for one person. They're making a game for a player base that has vastly different play styles, and vastly different needs. I've given you a good reason why I don't like it, even if it doesn't affect you at all. You've yet to give me a good reason why it's better being that way. All you're really saying is it doesn't bother me, so it's okay. That's not a good enough answer for some of us.

And to be fair, Anet changed it so maybe it's not a good enough answer for them either.

Now you're really talking about two separate things -- whether it's justifiable for the metas to bar map completion and whether it's better for content to play on a schedule or on demand. I would argue for content that requires a significant number of players, it is better to run on a schedule. It is easier to get a large group together at a set time than it is to get a large number of ppl to agree on a time they would all like to show up. And to use your example the lasting popularity of HoT maps and relative unpopularity of PoF maps would bear that theory out. As for the inconvenience, the metas each require a player to show up once at any one of twelve different times on any day. That doesn't seem particularly onerous to me. Expecting large scale content on demand seems inconsistent with the concept of an mmo, which as you point out must cater to all the players, not just the one who wants to do map completion on yet another alt right this very second . . .

You're right. For content that requires a significant number of players it is better to run on schedule. Which doesn't provide any reason at all to lock map completion behind that sort of schedule.

The idea that there'll always be enough people at every hour of day in every map is just not true. And if you don't happen to get on that first map and it fills you're screwed. Is that really the best way you can think of a year or two down the road to deal with stuff like zone completion? Realistically, zone completion should be a more or less solo experience. I'm not sure why anyone things it's a good idea to make zone complete a group experience anyway.

Again, now it's not a big deal but you can't make an MMO just for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:And to use your example the lasting popularity of HoT maps and relative unpopularity of PoF maps would bear that theory out.I'd say this has less to do with timing (although that is indeed a factor) and more about rewards. Especially when compared to difficulty. HoT metas are just far more rewarding. I doubt many players would try to do Serpent's Ire, for example, for anything else than achievements even if it was on predictable schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I don't really see how this is an issue. Map completion is being tied to events in the map. If you don't want to do the events, the items that give you map completion are tradeable on the tp. So players have multiple paths to achieve the goal of map completion and one of those paths is actually, y'know, playing the map. So where's the issue? It's not like some nefarious players swooped in and scooped up all the available items leaving the rest of us with no ready means for acquiring more. I'd say this choice represents a lesson well learned, so kudos to anet :)

If you actually read the thread you'd see that many people have brought up why this is an issue.

If you did read the thread then let me say the following: just because it's not an issue
for you
doesn't mean there's no issue.

Yeah that is really frustrating when ppl post in a thread without reading it and it happens a lot on this forum so I can forgive you for thinking I might have done so, but I did not . . .

Supposing you have also read the thread you would have seen that the poi in question is available by 1) playing the game, 2) letting someone else play the game for you and buying the map completion item off the tp, 3) using a mesmer port or 4) tp to a friend, so there is no issue. Now if anet wants to move the poi or expand its radius so that it is available to players too cheap, lazy and friendless to get it through one of the existing methods I'd have no problem with it, but that wouldn't change the fact that given the variety of means of access to the poi that currently exist, such a change is unnecessary . . .

While the rest of the game, most of it, is alt friendly, this is NOT alt friendly. I like to complete zones on alts. Zone completion in itself is a fun thing to do. Locking this behind 2 different metas, means repeating 2 metas on 41 alts, which is 82 times I'd have to do the meta to get a POI. Or buy them 41 times for the trading post. I don't see why you or anyone would think this is a good design decision.

You're doing it with one character it's no big deal I agree. But punishing people who spent extra on character slots is never good business in my opinion.

Maybe they didn't like the thought of your getting ten bl keys for free. The reason I, specifically, like this is that the last episode offered its rewards to ppl who liked to log in and stand next to the tp. At least so far, this episode is offering greater rewards to ppl who log in to play the game. I like playing the game, so this makes me happy . . .

For free? lol

First of all 41 characters going through isn't likely to give you 10 black lion keys anyway. Secondly well over $300 of character slots is not free either. And I am playing the game.

That said, out of all the zone completes so far, this decision would be the worst of them. In fact, the decision was so bad, Anet changed it and made it so you could get that POI without doing both metas. Apparently they don't care how many characters I complete zones on.

To that end, I currently have 13 characters that have completed every story and zone in the game. I don't do it for the keys. I do it because it's what I enjoy. Essentially Anet is moving the bar by adding the second meta and then a puzzle on top of it. The community called Anet on it and Anet backed down. You can say, I suppose, that Anet wanted to push the limits of what they could "get away" with, with regards to zone complete and found the community was agitated enough that this crossed a line that they previously haven't crossed.

At any rate, as of the last update it's no longer an issue, since you can get that POI without doing the meta. The other POI I get from doing the story which I'll be doing anyway.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Your original complaint was that being forced to play the map for map completion wasn't alt-friendly bc you didn't want to do the metas. Now you're saying you don't care that you still have to do the story bc you were going to do the story anyway. Do all the players who want to do map completion without doing the story not concern you . . ?

Actually my complaint was 2 metas seperated by an hour. Story was never my complaint. In Kourna we have to do a meta to get map complete anyway and an event. But the event appears frequently as does the meta. This complaint is about upping the anti. Making it 2 metas and a puzzle to get that point of interest WHICH ANET FIXED. Obviously they must have thought the complaints had some merit too.

Upping the ante is the problem. If we don't say something now, next time it might be six metas, and four puzzles.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, what I am looking for is the why. Why is it unacceptable to lock a poi behind map metas but acceptable to lock them behind the story? To me the metas are a more natural barrier. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect ppl to play the map in order to complete the map. The relationship of the story to the map is more tenuous. The two things are released concurrently and one introduces the other but the story is less related to the map than the actual events that comprise the map. To say you must complete the story in order to complete the map still seems reasonable to me, but it is less reasonable than saying you must complete the major events in the map in order to complete the map, which is borderline tautological. The only counterargument you've provided is that you don't want to do the metas and you don't mind doing the story, which isn't very persuasive . . .

I guess this is a matter of perspective. I can start a story any time I want, at MY convenience. I don't have to wait for a timer. It doesn't hold me up. If I have ten or fifteen minutes here and there, I can do a story...whenever I want. Waiting on a scheduled time, which might be as much as two hours to get something like that done is not acceptable because Anet now is asking me to go on their schedule. That was one of the complaints about HoT.

A person who plays the same time every night ends up getting the same events every night, even if he wants/needs a different event. The meta in Kourna and the other event you need come up pretty fast, and I was never waiting an hour for it. Now I have to wait up to an hour for each one. Just seems different to me.

Stuff I have to do to complete a zone that I can solo and do on my time I find more acceptable. I mean I have seen, on off maps, this meta fail even, particularly the south meta, if you don't have enough people to defend two outposts. I haven't seen it fail often but I have seen it fail. To me, that means waiting even more to complete a zone.

Do you know what my chances are of failing a story?

Without a bug that would be nil.

I can see that the story is less work, but I don't see that as a persuasive reason to include it as a barrier to map completion while excluding the map's meta events. I don't feel like asking someone to spend an hour on map completion is unreasonable, but even that hour is not required. You only have to log in to do the metas, you don't have to hang out for the break in between if you don't want to. Though that would be a great time to get all the other pois, hearts and vistas. I think forcing a toon to spend some amount of time in a map before it achieves map completion is a good thing . . .

And I too have seen the metas fail, but only on maps I have happened to be in by chance, never when I am actually looking to do the meta and use lfg to find like-minded players. But even if it does fail and you don't have time to wait you can just do it another day. The plate halves don't expire . . .

You're still missing the point. It's not about how long it takes. It's about having to be on a schedule. You may like to show up at 2 PM to do something. But there's an organic nature to the game that's sacrificed because of timers. Having to remember to do something at a specific time, or having to stop what I really want to do to be there at a specific time makes the game less enjoyable for me, and for other people as well. It was one of the complaints about HOT metas. Do you know why bounties were added instead of more metas in PoF. Because it's content on demand.

Do you know why they included content on demand? Because of player complaints.

If you don't mind, that's fine for you. But Anet isn't going to make a game just for one person. They're making a game for a player base that has vastly different play styles, and vastly different needs. I've given you a good reason why I don't like it, even if it doesn't affect you at all. You've yet to give me a good reason why it's better being that way. All you're really saying is it doesn't bother me, so it's okay. That's not a good enough answer for some of us.

And to be fair, Anet changed it so maybe it's not a good enough answer for them either.

Now you're really talking about two separate things -- whether it's justifiable for the metas to bar map completion and whether it's better for content to play on a schedule or on demand. I would argue for content that requires a significant number of players, it is better to run on a schedule. It is easier to get a large group together at a set time than it is to get a large number of ppl to agree on a time they would all like to show up. And to use your example the lasting popularity of HoT maps and relative unpopularity of PoF maps would bear that theory out. As for the inconvenience, the metas each require a player to show up once at any one of twelve different times on any day. That doesn't seem particularly onerous to me. Expecting large scale content on demand seems inconsistent with the concept of an mmo, which as you point out must cater to all the players, not just the one who wants to do map completion on yet another alt right this very second . . .

You're right. For content that requires a significant number of players it is better to run on schedule. Which doesn't provide any reason at all to lock map completion behind that sort of schedule.

The idea that there'll always be enough people at every hour of day in every map is just not true. And if you don't happen to get on that first map and it fills you're screwed. Is that really the best way you can think of a year or two down the road to deal with stuff like zone completion? Realistically, zone completion should be a more or less solo experience. I'm not sure why anyone things it's a good idea to make zone complete a group experience anyway.

Again, now it's not a big deal but you can't make an MMO just for now.

To me, map completion should be about the map -- both the group and solo content . . .

And I have always heard ppl predict that maps are going to 'die', but I've never actually seen it happen. And I speak from experience. I've done a pretty good job of keeping up with this season but historically I'm always late to the party. Didn't finish ls2 until years after release, didn't even buy HoT until it had been out for a year or so, still have some work to do in PoF, was months behind on finishing a lot of ls3 maps, etc. Yet I have never once found anything in this game that I could not do bc I couldn't find other ppl to do it with me. Until that actually happens, I'm not going to rate that as a serious concern. And if it did come to pass that interest in this map's metas was so low that they became impossible, I would argue that in and of itself would be a problem to solve, regardless of whether map completion was locked behind it or not . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I don't really see how this is an issue. Map completion is being tied to events in the map. If you don't want to do the events, the items that give you map completion are tradeable on the tp. So players have multiple paths to achieve the goal of map completion and one of those paths is actually, y'know, playing the map. So where's the issue? It's not like some nefarious players swooped in and scooped up all the available items leaving the rest of us with no ready means for acquiring more. I'd say this choice represents a lesson well learned, so kudos to anet :)

If you actually read the thread you'd see that many people have brought up why this is an issue.

If you did read the thread then let me say the following: just because it's not an issue
for you
doesn't mean there's no issue.

Yeah that is really frustrating when ppl post in a thread without reading it and it happens a lot on this forum so I can forgive you for thinking I might have done so, but I did not . . .

Supposing you have also read the thread you would have seen that the poi in question is available by 1) playing the game, 2) letting someone else play the game for you and buying the map completion item off the tp, 3) using a mesmer port or 4) tp to a friend, so there is no issue. Now if anet wants to move the poi or expand its radius so that it is available to players too cheap, lazy and friendless to get it through one of the existing methods I'd have no problem with it, but that wouldn't change the fact that given the variety of means of access to the poi that currently exist, such a change is unnecessary . . .

While the rest of the game, most of it, is alt friendly, this is NOT alt friendly. I like to complete zones on alts. Zone completion in itself is a fun thing to do. Locking this behind 2 different metas, means repeating 2 metas on 41 alts, which is 82 times I'd have to do the meta to get a POI. Or buy them 41 times for the trading post. I don't see why you or anyone would think this is a good design decision.

You're doing it with one character it's no big deal I agree. But punishing people who spent extra on character slots is never good business in my opinion.

Maybe they didn't like the thought of your getting ten bl keys for free. The reason I, specifically, like this is that the last episode offered its rewards to ppl who liked to log in and stand next to the tp. At least so far, this episode is offering greater rewards to ppl who log in to play the game. I like playing the game, so this makes me happy . . .

For free? lol

First of all 41 characters going through isn't likely to give you 10 black lion keys anyway. Secondly well over $300 of character slots is not free either. And I am playing the game.

That said, out of all the zone completes so far, this decision would be the worst of them. In fact, the decision was so bad, Anet changed it and made it so you could get that POI without doing both metas. Apparently they don't care how many characters I complete zones on.

To that end, I currently have 13 characters that have completed every story and zone in the game. I don't do it for the keys. I do it because it's what I enjoy. Essentially Anet is moving the bar by adding the second meta and then a puzzle on top of it. The community called Anet on it and Anet backed down. You can say, I suppose, that Anet wanted to push the limits of what they could "get away" with, with regards to zone complete and found the community was agitated enough that this crossed a line that they previously haven't crossed.

At any rate, as of the last update it's no longer an issue, since you can get that POI without doing the meta. The other POI I get from doing the story which I'll be doing anyway.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Your original complaint was that being forced to play the map for map completion wasn't alt-friendly bc you didn't want to do the metas. Now you're saying you don't care that you still have to do the story bc you were going to do the story anyway. Do all the players who want to do map completion without doing the story not concern you . . ?

Actually my complaint was 2 metas seperated by an hour. Story was never my complaint. In Kourna we have to do a meta to get map complete anyway and an event. But the event appears frequently as does the meta. This complaint is about upping the anti. Making it 2 metas and a puzzle to get that point of interest WHICH ANET FIXED. Obviously they must have thought the complaints had some merit too.

Upping the ante is the problem. If we don't say something now, next time it might be six metas, and four puzzles.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, what I am looking for is the why. Why is it unacceptable to lock a poi behind map metas but acceptable to lock them behind the story? To me the metas are a more natural barrier. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect ppl to play the map in order to complete the map. The relationship of the story to the map is more tenuous. The two things are released concurrently and one introduces the other but the story is less related to the map than the actual events that comprise the map. To say you must complete the story in order to complete the map still seems reasonable to me, but it is less reasonable than saying you must complete the major events in the map in order to complete the map, which is borderline tautological. The only counterargument you've provided is that you don't want to do the metas and you don't mind doing the story, which isn't very persuasive . . .

I guess this is a matter of perspective. I can start a story any time I want, at MY convenience. I don't have to wait for a timer. It doesn't hold me up. If I have ten or fifteen minutes here and there, I can do a story...whenever I want. Waiting on a scheduled time, which might be as much as two hours to get something like that done is not acceptable because Anet now is asking me to go on their schedule. That was one of the complaints about HoT.

A person who plays the same time every night ends up getting the same events every night, even if he wants/needs a different event. The meta in Kourna and the other event you need come up pretty fast, and I was never waiting an hour for it. Now I have to wait up to an hour for each one. Just seems different to me.

Stuff I have to do to complete a zone that I can solo and do on my time I find more acceptable. I mean I have seen, on off maps, this meta fail even, particularly the south meta, if you don't have enough people to defend two outposts. I haven't seen it fail often but I have seen it fail. To me, that means waiting even more to complete a zone.

Do you know what my chances are of failing a story?

Without a bug that would be nil.

I can see that the story is less work, but I don't see that as a persuasive reason to include it as a barrier to map completion while excluding the map's meta events. I don't feel like asking someone to spend an hour on map completion is unreasonable, but even that hour is not required. You only have to log in to do the metas, you don't have to hang out for the break in between if you don't want to. Though that would be a great time to get all the other pois, hearts and vistas. I think forcing a toon to spend some amount of time in a map before it achieves map completion is a good thing . . .

And I too have seen the metas fail, but only on maps I have happened to be in by chance, never when I am actually looking to do the meta and use lfg to find like-minded players. But even if it does fail and you don't have time to wait you can just do it another day. The plate halves don't expire . . .

You're still missing the point. It's not about how long it takes. It's about having to be on a schedule. You may like to show up at 2 PM to do something. But there's an organic nature to the game that's sacrificed because of timers. Having to remember to do something at a specific time, or having to stop what I really want to do to be there at a specific time makes the game less enjoyable for me, and for other people as well. It was one of the complaints about HOT metas. Do you know why bounties were added instead of more metas in PoF. Because it's content on demand.

Do you know why they included content on demand? Because of player complaints.

If you don't mind, that's fine for you. But Anet isn't going to make a game just for one person. They're making a game for a player base that has vastly different play styles, and vastly different needs. I've given you a good reason why I don't like it, even if it doesn't affect you at all. You've yet to give me a good reason why it's better being that way. All you're really saying is it doesn't bother me, so it's okay. That's not a good enough answer for some of us.

And to be fair, Anet changed it so maybe it's not a good enough answer for them either.

Now you're really talking about two separate things -- whether it's justifiable for the metas to bar map completion and whether it's better for content to play on a schedule or on demand. I would argue for content that requires a significant number of players, it is better to run on a schedule. It is easier to get a large group together at a set time than it is to get a large number of ppl to agree on a time they would all like to show up. And to use your example the lasting popularity of HoT maps and relative unpopularity of PoF maps would bear that theory out. As for the inconvenience, the metas each require a player to show up once at any one of twelve different times on any day. That doesn't seem particularly onerous to me. Expecting large scale content on demand seems inconsistent with the concept of an mmo, which as you point out must cater to all the players, not just the one who wants to do map completion on yet another alt right this very second . . .

You're right. For content that requires a significant number of players it is better to run on schedule. Which doesn't provide any reason at all to lock map completion behind that sort of schedule.

The idea that there'll always be enough people at every hour of day in every map is just not true. And if you don't happen to get on that first map and it fills you're screwed. Is that really the best way you can think of a year or two down the road to deal with stuff like zone completion? Realistically, zone completion should be a more or less solo experience. I'm not sure why anyone things it's a good idea to make zone complete a group experience anyway.

Again, now it's not a big deal but you can't make an MMO just for now.

To me, map completion should be about the map -- both the group and solo content . . .

And I have always heard ppl predict that maps are going to 'die', but I've never actually seen it happen. And I speak from experience. I've done a pretty good job of keeping up with this season but historically I'm always late to the party. Didn't finish ls2 until years after release, didn't even buy HoT until it had been out for a year or so, still have some work to do in PoF, was months behind on finishing a lot of ls3 maps, etc. Yet I have never once found anything in this game that I could not do bc I couldn't find other ppl to do it with me. Until that actually happens, I'm not going to rate that as a serious concern. And if it did come to pass that interest in this map's metas was so low that they became impossible, I would argue that in and of itself would be a problem to solve, regardless of whether map completion was locked behind it or not . . .

First of all, the game is older now than it was, and it's only going to get older. It's going to die is inevitable for all games. But more to the point, there is plenty of group content now, but there's far less solo content in new zones. So locking zone complete, which was a solo endeavor for most of the game behind stuff you need large groups for makes no sense. People didn't like HoT because of it and that cost the company players and money. You might not personally care, but HOT did not do that well at least in part because it didn't support people who want to solo.

Here we have you,. saying you think it's okay and a portion of the community who clearly doesn't feel it's okay. No one is saying take the metas out. You can still have metas and metas can still be rewarding. But what you're saying here is you think map completion should have a group component, yet you give no reason except that you personally think it's fair game.

Give the solo people something to do, and let them do it, because you won't be hurt by it. The game will be hurt if you drive solo players off, because you know, they support the game as well...probably in bigger quantity than many suspect.

Again again, for the umpteenth time, Anet has already changed this, so this argument is pointless anyway. Obviously enough people complained for Anet to change it, whether any one person cares about this or not. The decision was already made in favor of people who don't want map complete locked behind two metas. Note they didn't change the story component one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Khanco.1584 said:It does seem strange that, after they acknowledged this was an issue in Jahai, they'd make it even worse here. Especially now that there are real issues with locking map completion behind events.

Because the stat meters show the map content and story was devoured by veteran players in less than 4 hours.

I expect MORE of these completion blocking techniques in future maps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the root problem is having fresh story content that keeps players amused for more than a day. The hearts were supposed to draw out the time. Having repeatable hearts with time-gated materials has been a fairly decent mechanism for that, but the heart goals are too often just "Go kill 10 rats".

Personally, I realized finishing map completions and collecting meta objects is so much better in the first day/week of story release that I push myself to be available to crunch it down. If I wait 2 weeks, completion of objectives is nearly impossible because the veteran players are back on hiatus and map population is scant.

Perhaps instead of a single poi gated by a meta or puzzle you could make it 10 pois that are each gated by different lore related exploration chores that give decent rewards and challenge.

( Aside: developing critical mass for a meta is often trashed by threat of impending map closure during the pre-events. This occurs on any map. When this is occurring, be sure to try a few LFGs and get a big squad that has found a single map )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I don't really see how this is an issue. Map completion is being tied to events in the map. If you don't want to do the events, the items that give you map completion are tradeable on the tp. So players have multiple paths to achieve the goal of map completion and one of those paths is actually, y'know, playing the map. So where's the issue? It's not like some nefarious players swooped in and scooped up all the available items leaving the rest of us with no ready means for acquiring more. I'd say this choice represents a lesson well learned, so kudos to anet :)

If you actually read the thread you'd see that many people have brought up why this is an issue.

If you did read the thread then let me say the following: just because it's not an issue
for you
doesn't mean there's no issue.

Yeah that is really frustrating when ppl post in a thread without reading it and it happens a lot on this forum so I can forgive you for thinking I might have done so, but I did not . . .

Supposing you have also read the thread you would have seen that the poi in question is available by 1) playing the game, 2) letting someone else play the game for you and buying the map completion item off the tp, 3) using a mesmer port or 4) tp to a friend, so there is no issue. Now if anet wants to move the poi or expand its radius so that it is available to players too cheap, lazy and friendless to get it through one of the existing methods I'd have no problem with it, but that wouldn't change the fact that given the variety of means of access to the poi that currently exist, such a change is unnecessary . . .

While the rest of the game, most of it, is alt friendly, this is NOT alt friendly. I like to complete zones on alts. Zone completion in itself is a fun thing to do. Locking this behind 2 different metas, means repeating 2 metas on 41 alts, which is 82 times I'd have to do the meta to get a POI. Or buy them 41 times for the trading post. I don't see why you or anyone would think this is a good design decision.

You're doing it with one character it's no big deal I agree. But punishing people who spent extra on character slots is never good business in my opinion.

Maybe they didn't like the thought of your getting ten bl keys for free. The reason I, specifically, like this is that the last episode offered its rewards to ppl who liked to log in and stand next to the tp. At least so far, this episode is offering greater rewards to ppl who log in to play the game. I like playing the game, so this makes me happy . . .

For free? lol

First of all 41 characters going through isn't likely to give you 10 black lion keys anyway. Secondly well over $300 of character slots is not free either. And I am playing the game.

That said, out of all the zone completes so far, this decision would be the worst of them. In fact, the decision was so bad, Anet changed it and made it so you could get that POI without doing both metas. Apparently they don't care how many characters I complete zones on.

To that end, I currently have 13 characters that have completed every story and zone in the game. I don't do it for the keys. I do it because it's what I enjoy. Essentially Anet is moving the bar by adding the second meta and then a puzzle on top of it. The community called Anet on it and Anet backed down. You can say, I suppose, that Anet wanted to push the limits of what they could "get away" with, with regards to zone complete and found the community was agitated enough that this crossed a line that they previously haven't crossed.

At any rate, as of the last update it's no longer an issue, since you can get that POI without doing the meta. The other POI I get from doing the story which I'll be doing anyway.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Your original complaint was that being forced to play the map for map completion wasn't alt-friendly bc you didn't want to do the metas. Now you're saying you don't care that you still have to do the story bc you were going to do the story anyway. Do all the players who want to do map completion without doing the story not concern you . . ?

Actually my complaint was 2 metas seperated by an hour. Story was never my complaint. In Kourna we have to do a meta to get map complete anyway and an event. But the event appears frequently as does the meta. This complaint is about upping the anti. Making it 2 metas and a puzzle to get that point of interest WHICH ANET FIXED. Obviously they must have thought the complaints had some merit too.

Upping the ante is the problem. If we don't say something now, next time it might be six metas, and four puzzles.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, what I am looking for is the why. Why is it unacceptable to lock a poi behind map metas but acceptable to lock them behind the story? To me the metas are a more natural barrier. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect ppl to play the map in order to complete the map. The relationship of the story to the map is more tenuous. The two things are released concurrently and one introduces the other but the story is less related to the map than the actual events that comprise the map. To say you must complete the story in order to complete the map still seems reasonable to me, but it is less reasonable than saying you must complete the major events in the map in order to complete the map, which is borderline tautological. The only counterargument you've provided is that you don't want to do the metas and you don't mind doing the story, which isn't very persuasive . . .

I guess this is a matter of perspective. I can start a story any time I want, at MY convenience. I don't have to wait for a timer. It doesn't hold me up. If I have ten or fifteen minutes here and there, I can do a story...whenever I want. Waiting on a scheduled time, which might be as much as two hours to get something like that done is not acceptable because Anet now is asking me to go on their schedule. That was one of the complaints about HoT.

A person who plays the same time every night ends up getting the same events every night, even if he wants/needs a different event. The meta in Kourna and the other event you need come up pretty fast, and I was never waiting an hour for it. Now I have to wait up to an hour for each one. Just seems different to me.

Stuff I have to do to complete a zone that I can solo and do on my time I find more acceptable. I mean I have seen, on off maps, this meta fail even, particularly the south meta, if you don't have enough people to defend two outposts. I haven't seen it fail often but I have seen it fail. To me, that means waiting even more to complete a zone.

Do you know what my chances are of failing a story?

Without a bug that would be nil.

I can see that the story is less work, but I don't see that as a persuasive reason to include it as a barrier to map completion while excluding the map's meta events. I don't feel like asking someone to spend an hour on map completion is unreasonable, but even that hour is not required. You only have to log in to do the metas, you don't have to hang out for the break in between if you don't want to. Though that would be a great time to get all the other pois, hearts and vistas. I think forcing a toon to spend some amount of time in a map before it achieves map completion is a good thing . . .

And I too have seen the metas fail, but only on maps I have happened to be in by chance, never when I am actually looking to do the meta and use lfg to find like-minded players. But even if it does fail and you don't have time to wait you can just do it another day. The plate halves don't expire . . .

You're still missing the point. It's not about how long it takes. It's about having to be on a schedule. You may like to show up at 2 PM to do something. But there's an organic nature to the game that's sacrificed because of timers. Having to remember to do something at a specific time, or having to stop what I really want to do to be there at a specific time makes the game less enjoyable for me, and for other people as well. It was one of the complaints about HOT metas. Do you know why bounties were added instead of more metas in PoF. Because it's content on demand.

Do you know why they included content on demand? Because of player complaints.

If you don't mind, that's fine for you. But Anet isn't going to make a game just for one person. They're making a game for a player base that has vastly different play styles, and vastly different needs. I've given you a good reason why I don't like it, even if it doesn't affect you at all. You've yet to give me a good reason why it's better being that way. All you're really saying is it doesn't bother me, so it's okay. That's not a good enough answer for some of us.

And to be fair, Anet changed it so maybe it's not a good enough answer for them either.

Now you're really talking about two separate things -- whether it's justifiable for the metas to bar map completion and whether it's better for content to play on a schedule or on demand. I would argue for content that requires a significant number of players, it is better to run on a schedule. It is easier to get a large group together at a set time than it is to get a large number of ppl to agree on a time they would all like to show up. And to use your example the lasting popularity of HoT maps and relative unpopularity of PoF maps would bear that theory out. As for the inconvenience, the metas each require a player to show up once at any one of twelve different times on any day. That doesn't seem particularly onerous to me. Expecting large scale content on demand seems inconsistent with the concept of an mmo, which as you point out must cater to all the players, not just the one who wants to do map completion on yet another alt right this very second . . .

You're right. For content that requires a significant number of players it is better to run on schedule. Which doesn't provide any reason at all to lock map completion behind that sort of schedule.

The idea that there'll always be enough people at every hour of day in every map is just not true. And if you don't happen to get on that first map and it fills you're screwed. Is that really the best way you can think of a year or two down the road to deal with stuff like zone completion? Realistically, zone completion should be a more or less solo experience. I'm not sure why anyone things it's a good idea to make zone complete a group experience anyway.

Again, now it's not a big deal but you can't make an MMO just for now.

To me, map completion should be about the map -- both the group and solo content . . .

And I have always heard ppl predict that maps are going to 'die', but I've never actually seen it happen. And I speak from experience. I've done a pretty good job of keeping up with this season but historically I'm always late to the party. Didn't finish ls2 until years after release, didn't even buy HoT until it had been out for a year or so, still have some work to do in PoF, was months behind on finishing a lot of ls3 maps, etc. Yet I have never once found anything in this game that I could not do bc I couldn't find other ppl to do it with me. Until that actually happens, I'm not going to rate that as a serious concern. And if it did come to pass that interest in this map's metas was so low that they became impossible, I would argue that in and of itself would be a problem to solve, regardless of whether map completion was locked behind it or not . . .

First of all, the game is older now than it was, and it's only going to get older. It's going to die is inevitable for all games. But more to the point, there is plenty of group content now, but there's far less solo content in new zones. So locking zone complete, which was a solo endeavor for most of the game behind stuff you need large groups for makes no sense. People didn't like HoT because of it and that cost the company players and money. You might not personally care, but HOT did not do that well at least in part because it didn't support people who want to solo.

Here we have you,. saying you think it's okay and a portion of the community who clearly doesn't feel it's okay. No one is saying take the metas out. You can still have metas and metas can still be rewarding. But what you're saying here is you think map completion should have a group component, yet you give no reason except that you personally think it's fair game.

Give the solo people something to do, and let them do it, because you won't be hurt by it. The game will be hurt if you drive solo players off, because you know, they support the game as well...probably in bigger quantity than many suspect.

Again again, for the umpteenth time, Anet has already changed this, so this argument is pointless anyway. Obviously enough people complained for Anet to change it, whether any one person cares about this or not. The decision was already made in favor of people who don't want map complete locked behind two metas. Note they didn't change the story component one.

I am a solo person, actually. And I feel like I have plenty to do. I've played the new map for a few hours a day for about a week now . . .

And the reason I gave for thinking it was okay to lock map completion behind the metas on this map was bc the metas are fundamental to the map . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I don't really see how this is an issue. Map completion is being tied to events in the map. If you don't want to do the events, the items that give you map completion are tradeable on the tp. So players have multiple paths to achieve the goal of map completion and one of those paths is actually, y'know, playing the map. So where's the issue? It's not like some nefarious players swooped in and scooped up all the available items leaving the rest of us with no ready means for acquiring more. I'd say this choice represents a lesson well learned, so kudos to anet :)

If you actually read the thread you'd see that many people have brought up why this is an issue.

If you did read the thread then let me say the following: just because it's not an issue
for you
doesn't mean there's no issue.

Yeah that is really frustrating when ppl post in a thread without reading it and it happens a lot on this forum so I can forgive you for thinking I might have done so, but I did not . . .

Supposing you have also read the thread you would have seen that the poi in question is available by 1) playing the game, 2) letting someone else play the game for you and buying the map completion item off the tp, 3) using a mesmer port or 4) tp to a friend, so there is no issue. Now if anet wants to move the poi or expand its radius so that it is available to players too cheap, lazy and friendless to get it through one of the existing methods I'd have no problem with it, but that wouldn't change the fact that given the variety of means of access to the poi that currently exist, such a change is unnecessary . . .

While the rest of the game, most of it, is alt friendly, this is NOT alt friendly. I like to complete zones on alts. Zone completion in itself is a fun thing to do. Locking this behind 2 different metas, means repeating 2 metas on 41 alts, which is 82 times I'd have to do the meta to get a POI. Or buy them 41 times for the trading post. I don't see why you or anyone would think this is a good design decision.

You're doing it with one character it's no big deal I agree. But punishing people who spent extra on character slots is never good business in my opinion.

Maybe they didn't like the thought of your getting ten bl keys for free. The reason I, specifically, like this is that the last episode offered its rewards to ppl who liked to log in and stand next to the tp. At least so far, this episode is offering greater rewards to ppl who log in to play the game. I like playing the game, so this makes me happy . . .

For free? lol

First of all 41 characters going through isn't likely to give you 10 black lion keys anyway. Secondly well over $300 of character slots is not free either. And I am playing the game.

That said, out of all the zone completes so far, this decision would be the worst of them. In fact, the decision was so bad, Anet changed it and made it so you could get that POI without doing both metas. Apparently they don't care how many characters I complete zones on.

To that end, I currently have 13 characters that have completed every story and zone in the game. I don't do it for the keys. I do it because it's what I enjoy. Essentially Anet is moving the bar by adding the second meta and then a puzzle on top of it. The community called Anet on it and Anet backed down. You can say, I suppose, that Anet wanted to push the limits of what they could "get away" with, with regards to zone complete and found the community was agitated enough that this crossed a line that they previously haven't crossed.

At any rate, as of the last update it's no longer an issue, since you can get that POI without doing the meta. The other POI I get from doing the story which I'll be doing anyway.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Your original complaint was that being forced to play the map for map completion wasn't alt-friendly bc you didn't want to do the metas. Now you're saying you don't care that you still have to do the story bc you were going to do the story anyway. Do all the players who want to do map completion without doing the story not concern you . . ?

Actually my complaint was 2 metas seperated by an hour. Story was never my complaint. In Kourna we have to do a meta to get map complete anyway and an event. But the event appears frequently as does the meta. This complaint is about upping the anti. Making it 2 metas and a puzzle to get that point of interest WHICH ANET FIXED. Obviously they must have thought the complaints had some merit too.

Upping the ante is the problem. If we don't say something now, next time it might be six metas, and four puzzles.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, what I am looking for is the why. Why is it unacceptable to lock a poi behind map metas but acceptable to lock them behind the story? To me the metas are a more natural barrier. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect ppl to play the map in order to complete the map. The relationship of the story to the map is more tenuous. The two things are released concurrently and one introduces the other but the story is less related to the map than the actual events that comprise the map. To say you must complete the story in order to complete the map still seems reasonable to me, but it is less reasonable than saying you must complete the major events in the map in order to complete the map, which is borderline tautological. The only counterargument you've provided is that you don't want to do the metas and you don't mind doing the story, which isn't very persuasive . . .

I guess this is a matter of perspective. I can start a story any time I want, at MY convenience. I don't have to wait for a timer. It doesn't hold me up. If I have ten or fifteen minutes here and there, I can do a story...whenever I want. Waiting on a scheduled time, which might be as much as two hours to get something like that done is not acceptable because Anet now is asking me to go on their schedule. That was one of the complaints about HoT.

A person who plays the same time every night ends up getting the same events every night, even if he wants/needs a different event. The meta in Kourna and the other event you need come up pretty fast, and I was never waiting an hour for it. Now I have to wait up to an hour for each one. Just seems different to me.

Stuff I have to do to complete a zone that I can solo and do on my time I find more acceptable. I mean I have seen, on off maps, this meta fail even, particularly the south meta, if you don't have enough people to defend two outposts. I haven't seen it fail often but I have seen it fail. To me, that means waiting even more to complete a zone.

Do you know what my chances are of failing a story?

Without a bug that would be nil.

I can see that the story is less work, but I don't see that as a persuasive reason to include it as a barrier to map completion while excluding the map's meta events. I don't feel like asking someone to spend an hour on map completion is unreasonable, but even that hour is not required. You only have to log in to do the metas, you don't have to hang out for the break in between if you don't want to. Though that would be a great time to get all the other pois, hearts and vistas. I think forcing a toon to spend some amount of time in a map before it achieves map completion is a good thing . . .

And I too have seen the metas fail, but only on maps I have happened to be in by chance, never when I am actually looking to do the meta and use lfg to find like-minded players. But even if it does fail and you don't have time to wait you can just do it another day. The plate halves don't expire . . .

You're still missing the point. It's not about how long it takes. It's about having to be on a schedule. You may like to show up at 2 PM to do something. But there's an organic nature to the game that's sacrificed because of timers. Having to remember to do something at a specific time, or having to stop what I really want to do to be there at a specific time makes the game less enjoyable for me, and for other people as well. It was one of the complaints about HOT metas. Do you know why bounties were added instead of more metas in PoF. Because it's content on demand.

Do you know why they included content on demand? Because of player complaints.

If you don't mind, that's fine for you. But Anet isn't going to make a game just for one person. They're making a game for a player base that has vastly different play styles, and vastly different needs. I've given you a good reason why I don't like it, even if it doesn't affect you at all. You've yet to give me a good reason why it's better being that way. All you're really saying is it doesn't bother me, so it's okay. That's not a good enough answer for some of us.

And to be fair, Anet changed it so maybe it's not a good enough answer for them either.

Now you're really talking about two separate things -- whether it's justifiable for the metas to bar map completion and whether it's better for content to play on a schedule or on demand. I would argue for content that requires a significant number of players, it is better to run on a schedule. It is easier to get a large group together at a set time than it is to get a large number of ppl to agree on a time they would all like to show up. And to use your example the lasting popularity of HoT maps and relative unpopularity of PoF maps would bear that theory out. As for the inconvenience, the metas each require a player to show up once at any one of twelve different times on any day. That doesn't seem particularly onerous to me. Expecting large scale content on demand seems inconsistent with the concept of an mmo, which as you point out must cater to all the players, not just the one who wants to do map completion on yet another alt right this very second . . .

You're right. For content that requires a significant number of players it is better to run on schedule. Which doesn't provide any reason at all to lock map completion behind that sort of schedule.

The idea that there'll always be enough people at every hour of day in every map is just not true. And if you don't happen to get on that first map and it fills you're screwed. Is that really the best way you can think of a year or two down the road to deal with stuff like zone completion? Realistically, zone completion should be a more or less solo experience. I'm not sure why anyone things it's a good idea to make zone complete a group experience anyway.

Again, now it's not a big deal but you can't make an MMO just for now.

To me, map completion should be about the map -- both the group and solo content . . .

And I have always heard ppl predict that maps are going to 'die', but I've never actually seen it happen. And I speak from experience. I've done a pretty good job of keeping up with this season but historically I'm always late to the party. Didn't finish ls2 until years after release, didn't even buy HoT until it had been out for a year or so, still have some work to do in PoF, was months behind on finishing a lot of ls3 maps, etc. Yet I have never once found anything in this game that I could not do bc I couldn't find other ppl to do it with me. Until that actually happens, I'm not going to rate that as a serious concern. And if it did come to pass that interest in this map's metas was so low that they became impossible, I would argue that in and of itself would be a problem to solve, regardless of whether map completion was locked behind it or not . . .

First of all, the game is older now than it was, and it's only going to get older. It's going to die is inevitable for all games. But more to the point, there is plenty of group content now, but there's far less solo content in new zones. So locking zone complete, which was a solo endeavor for most of the game behind stuff you need large groups for makes no sense. People didn't like HoT because of it and that cost the company players and money. You might not personally care, but HOT did not do that well at least in part because it didn't support people who want to solo.

Here we have you,. saying you think it's okay and a portion of the community who clearly doesn't feel it's okay. No one is saying take the metas out. You can still have metas and metas can still be rewarding. But what you're saying here is you think map completion should have a group component, yet you give no reason except that you personally think it's fair game.

Give the solo people something to do, and let them do it, because you won't be hurt by it. The game will be hurt if you drive solo players off, because you know, they support the game as well...probably in bigger quantity than many suspect.

Again again, for the umpteenth time, Anet has already changed this, so this argument is pointless anyway. Obviously enough people complained for Anet to change it, whether any one person cares about this or not. The decision was already made in favor of people who don't want map complete locked behind two metas. Note they didn't change the story component one.

I am a solo person, actually. And I feel like I have plenty to do. I've played the new map for a few hours a day for about a week now . . .

And the reason I gave for thinking it was okay to lock map completion behind the metas on this map was bc the metas are fundamental to the map . . .

But they're still on a schedule which means I still have to watch a clock. Sorry but the reason you gave is not a good enough reason to piss a percentage of players off. As I said, Anet changed it already they probably agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I don't really see how this is an issue. Map completion is being tied to events in the map. If you don't want to do the events, the items that give you map completion are tradeable on the tp. So players have multiple paths to achieve the goal of map completion and one of those paths is actually, y'know, playing the map. So where's the issue? It's not like some nefarious players swooped in and scooped up all the available items leaving the rest of us with no ready means for acquiring more. I'd say this choice represents a lesson well learned, so kudos to anet :)

If you actually read the thread you'd see that many people have brought up why this is an issue.

If you did read the thread then let me say the following: just because it's not an issue
for you
doesn't mean there's no issue.

Yeah that is really frustrating when ppl post in a thread without reading it and it happens a lot on this forum so I can forgive you for thinking I might have done so, but I did not . . .

Supposing you have also read the thread you would have seen that the poi in question is available by 1) playing the game, 2) letting someone else play the game for you and buying the map completion item off the tp, 3) using a mesmer port or 4) tp to a friend, so there is no issue. Now if anet wants to move the poi or expand its radius so that it is available to players too cheap, lazy and friendless to get it through one of the existing methods I'd have no problem with it, but that wouldn't change the fact that given the variety of means of access to the poi that currently exist, such a change is unnecessary . . .

While the rest of the game, most of it, is alt friendly, this is NOT alt friendly. I like to complete zones on alts. Zone completion in itself is a fun thing to do. Locking this behind 2 different metas, means repeating 2 metas on 41 alts, which is 82 times I'd have to do the meta to get a POI. Or buy them 41 times for the trading post. I don't see why you or anyone would think this is a good design decision.

You're doing it with one character it's no big deal I agree. But punishing people who spent extra on character slots is never good business in my opinion.

Maybe they didn't like the thought of your getting ten bl keys for free. The reason I, specifically, like this is that the last episode offered its rewards to ppl who liked to log in and stand next to the tp. At least so far, this episode is offering greater rewards to ppl who log in to play the game. I like playing the game, so this makes me happy . . .

For free? lol

First of all 41 characters going through isn't likely to give you 10 black lion keys anyway. Secondly well over $300 of character slots is not free either. And I am playing the game.

That said, out of all the zone completes so far, this decision would be the worst of them. In fact, the decision was so bad, Anet changed it and made it so you could get that POI without doing both metas. Apparently they don't care how many characters I complete zones on.

To that end, I currently have 13 characters that have completed every story and zone in the game. I don't do it for the keys. I do it because it's what I enjoy. Essentially Anet is moving the bar by adding the second meta and then a puzzle on top of it. The community called Anet on it and Anet backed down. You can say, I suppose, that Anet wanted to push the limits of what they could "get away" with, with regards to zone complete and found the community was agitated enough that this crossed a line that they previously haven't crossed.

At any rate, as of the last update it's no longer an issue, since you can get that POI without doing the meta. The other POI I get from doing the story which I'll be doing anyway.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Your original complaint was that being forced to play the map for map completion wasn't alt-friendly bc you didn't want to do the metas. Now you're saying you don't care that you still have to do the story bc you were going to do the story anyway. Do all the players who want to do map completion without doing the story not concern you . . ?

Actually my complaint was 2 metas seperated by an hour. Story was never my complaint. In Kourna we have to do a meta to get map complete anyway and an event. But the event appears frequently as does the meta. This complaint is about upping the anti. Making it 2 metas and a puzzle to get that point of interest WHICH ANET FIXED. Obviously they must have thought the complaints had some merit too.

Upping the ante is the problem. If we don't say something now, next time it might be six metas, and four puzzles.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, what I am looking for is the why. Why is it unacceptable to lock a poi behind map metas but acceptable to lock them behind the story? To me the metas are a more natural barrier. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect ppl to play the map in order to complete the map. The relationship of the story to the map is more tenuous. The two things are released concurrently and one introduces the other but the story is less related to the map than the actual events that comprise the map. To say you must complete the story in order to complete the map still seems reasonable to me, but it is less reasonable than saying you must complete the major events in the map in order to complete the map, which is borderline tautological. The only counterargument you've provided is that you don't want to do the metas and you don't mind doing the story, which isn't very persuasive . . .

I guess this is a matter of perspective. I can start a story any time I want, at MY convenience. I don't have to wait for a timer. It doesn't hold me up. If I have ten or fifteen minutes here and there, I can do a story...whenever I want. Waiting on a scheduled time, which might be as much as two hours to get something like that done is not acceptable because Anet now is asking me to go on their schedule. That was one of the complaints about HoT.

A person who plays the same time every night ends up getting the same events every night, even if he wants/needs a different event. The meta in Kourna and the other event you need come up pretty fast, and I was never waiting an hour for it. Now I have to wait up to an hour for each one. Just seems different to me.

Stuff I have to do to complete a zone that I can solo and do on my time I find more acceptable. I mean I have seen, on off maps, this meta fail even, particularly the south meta, if you don't have enough people to defend two outposts. I haven't seen it fail often but I have seen it fail. To me, that means waiting even more to complete a zone.

Do you know what my chances are of failing a story?

Without a bug that would be nil.

I can see that the story is less work, but I don't see that as a persuasive reason to include it as a barrier to map completion while excluding the map's meta events. I don't feel like asking someone to spend an hour on map completion is unreasonable, but even that hour is not required. You only have to log in to do the metas, you don't have to hang out for the break in between if you don't want to. Though that would be a great time to get all the other pois, hearts and vistas. I think forcing a toon to spend some amount of time in a map before it achieves map completion is a good thing . . .

And I too have seen the metas fail, but only on maps I have happened to be in by chance, never when I am actually looking to do the meta and use lfg to find like-minded players. But even if it does fail and you don't have time to wait you can just do it another day. The plate halves don't expire . . .

You're still missing the point. It's not about how long it takes. It's about having to be on a schedule. You may like to show up at 2 PM to do something. But there's an organic nature to the game that's sacrificed because of timers. Having to remember to do something at a specific time, or having to stop what I really want to do to be there at a specific time makes the game less enjoyable for me, and for other people as well. It was one of the complaints about HOT metas. Do you know why bounties were added instead of more metas in PoF. Because it's content on demand.

Do you know why they included content on demand? Because of player complaints.

If you don't mind, that's fine for you. But Anet isn't going to make a game just for one person. They're making a game for a player base that has vastly different play styles, and vastly different needs. I've given you a good reason why I don't like it, even if it doesn't affect you at all. You've yet to give me a good reason why it's better being that way. All you're really saying is it doesn't bother me, so it's okay. That's not a good enough answer for some of us.

And to be fair, Anet changed it so maybe it's not a good enough answer for them either.

Now you're really talking about two separate things -- whether it's justifiable for the metas to bar map completion and whether it's better for content to play on a schedule or on demand. I would argue for content that requires a significant number of players, it is better to run on a schedule. It is easier to get a large group together at a set time than it is to get a large number of ppl to agree on a time they would all like to show up. And to use your example the lasting popularity of HoT maps and relative unpopularity of PoF maps would bear that theory out. As for the inconvenience, the metas each require a player to show up once at any one of twelve different times on any day. That doesn't seem particularly onerous to me. Expecting large scale content on demand seems inconsistent with the concept of an mmo, which as you point out must cater to all the players, not just the one who wants to do map completion on yet another alt right this very second . . .

You're right. For content that requires a significant number of players it is better to run on schedule. Which doesn't provide any reason at all to lock map completion behind that sort of schedule.

The idea that there'll always be enough people at every hour of day in every map is just not true. And if you don't happen to get on that first map and it fills you're screwed. Is that really the best way you can think of a year or two down the road to deal with stuff like zone completion? Realistically, zone completion should be a more or less solo experience. I'm not sure why anyone things it's a good idea to make zone complete a group experience anyway.

Again, now it's not a big deal but you can't make an MMO just for now.

To me, map completion should be about the map -- both the group and solo content . . .

And I have always heard ppl predict that maps are going to 'die', but I've never actually seen it happen. And I speak from experience. I've done a pretty good job of keeping up with this season but historically I'm always late to the party. Didn't finish ls2 until years after release, didn't even buy HoT until it had been out for a year or so, still have some work to do in PoF, was months behind on finishing a lot of ls3 maps, etc. Yet I have never once found anything in this game that I could not do bc I couldn't find other ppl to do it with me. Until that actually happens, I'm not going to rate that as a serious concern. And if it did come to pass that interest in this map's metas was so low that they became impossible, I would argue that in and of itself would be a problem to solve, regardless of whether map completion was locked behind it or not . . .

First of all, the game is older now than it was, and it's only going to get older. It's going to die is inevitable for all games. But more to the point, there is plenty of group content now, but there's far less solo content in new zones. So locking zone complete, which was a solo endeavor for most of the game behind stuff you need large groups for makes no sense. People didn't like HoT because of it and that cost the company players and money. You might not personally care, but HOT did not do that well at least in part because it didn't support people who want to solo.

Here we have you,. saying you think it's okay and a portion of the community who clearly doesn't feel it's okay. No one is saying take the metas out. You can still have metas and metas can still be rewarding. But what you're saying here is you think map completion should have a group component, yet you give no reason except that you personally think it's fair game.

Give the solo people something to do, and let them do it, because you won't be hurt by it. The game will be hurt if you drive solo players off, because you know, they support the game as well...probably in bigger quantity than many suspect.

Again again, for the umpteenth time, Anet has already changed this, so this argument is pointless anyway. Obviously enough people complained for Anet to change it, whether any one person cares about this or not. The decision was already made in favor of people who don't want map complete locked behind two metas. Note they didn't change the story component one.

I am a solo person, actually. And I feel like I have plenty to do. I've played the new map for a few hours a day for about a week now . . .

And the reason I gave for thinking it was okay to lock map completion behind the metas on this map was bc the metas are fundamental to the map . . .

But they're still on a schedule which means I still have to watch a clock. Sorry but the reason you gave is not a good enough reason to kitten a percentage of players off. As I said, Anet changed it already they probably agree.

I think it's a great reason. Other ppl are going to feel it is somewhere on the spectrum of a great to terrible reason, and I'm pretty much okay with that . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I don't really see how this is an issue. Map completion is being tied to events in the map. If you don't want to do the events, the items that give you map completion are tradeable on the tp. So players have multiple paths to achieve the goal of map completion and one of those paths is actually, y'know, playing the map. So where's the issue? It's not like some nefarious players swooped in and scooped up all the available items leaving the rest of us with no ready means for acquiring more. I'd say this choice represents a lesson well learned, so kudos to anet :)

If you actually read the thread you'd see that many people have brought up why this is an issue.

If you did read the thread then let me say the following: just because it's not an issue
for you
doesn't mean there's no issue.

Yeah that is really frustrating when ppl post in a thread without reading it and it happens a lot on this forum so I can forgive you for thinking I might have done so, but I did not . . .

Supposing you have also read the thread you would have seen that the poi in question is available by 1) playing the game, 2) letting someone else play the game for you and buying the map completion item off the tp, 3) using a mesmer port or 4) tp to a friend, so there is no issue. Now if anet wants to move the poi or expand its radius so that it is available to players too cheap, lazy and friendless to get it through one of the existing methods I'd have no problem with it, but that wouldn't change the fact that given the variety of means of access to the poi that currently exist, such a change is unnecessary . . .

While the rest of the game, most of it, is alt friendly, this is NOT alt friendly. I like to complete zones on alts. Zone completion in itself is a fun thing to do. Locking this behind 2 different metas, means repeating 2 metas on 41 alts, which is 82 times I'd have to do the meta to get a POI. Or buy them 41 times for the trading post. I don't see why you or anyone would think this is a good design decision.

You're doing it with one character it's no big deal I agree. But punishing people who spent extra on character slots is never good business in my opinion.

Maybe they didn't like the thought of your getting ten bl keys for free. The reason I, specifically, like this is that the last episode offered its rewards to ppl who liked to log in and stand next to the tp. At least so far, this episode is offering greater rewards to ppl who log in to play the game. I like playing the game, so this makes me happy . . .

For free? lol

First of all 41 characters going through isn't likely to give you 10 black lion keys anyway. Secondly well over $300 of character slots is not free either. And I am playing the game.

That said, out of all the zone completes so far, this decision would be the worst of them. In fact, the decision was so bad, Anet changed it and made it so you could get that POI without doing both metas. Apparently they don't care how many characters I complete zones on.

To that end, I currently have 13 characters that have completed every story and zone in the game. I don't do it for the keys. I do it because it's what I enjoy. Essentially Anet is moving the bar by adding the second meta and then a puzzle on top of it. The community called Anet on it and Anet backed down. You can say, I suppose, that Anet wanted to push the limits of what they could "get away" with, with regards to zone complete and found the community was agitated enough that this crossed a line that they previously haven't crossed.

At any rate, as of the last update it's no longer an issue, since you can get that POI without doing the meta. The other POI I get from doing the story which I'll be doing anyway.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Your original complaint was that being forced to play the map for map completion wasn't alt-friendly bc you didn't want to do the metas. Now you're saying you don't care that you still have to do the story bc you were going to do the story anyway. Do all the players who want to do map completion without doing the story not concern you . . ?

Actually my complaint was 2 metas seperated by an hour. Story was never my complaint. In Kourna we have to do a meta to get map complete anyway and an event. But the event appears frequently as does the meta. This complaint is about upping the anti. Making it 2 metas and a puzzle to get that point of interest WHICH ANET FIXED. Obviously they must have thought the complaints had some merit too.

Upping the ante is the problem. If we don't say something now, next time it might be six metas, and four puzzles.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, what I am looking for is the why. Why is it unacceptable to lock a poi behind map metas but acceptable to lock them behind the story? To me the metas are a more natural barrier. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect ppl to play the map in order to complete the map. The relationship of the story to the map is more tenuous. The two things are released concurrently and one introduces the other but the story is less related to the map than the actual events that comprise the map. To say you must complete the story in order to complete the map still seems reasonable to me, but it is less reasonable than saying you must complete the major events in the map in order to complete the map, which is borderline tautological. The only counterargument you've provided is that you don't want to do the metas and you don't mind doing the story, which isn't very persuasive . . .

I guess this is a matter of perspective. I can start a story any time I want, at MY convenience. I don't have to wait for a timer. It doesn't hold me up. If I have ten or fifteen minutes here and there, I can do a story...whenever I want. Waiting on a scheduled time, which might be as much as two hours to get something like that done is not acceptable because Anet now is asking me to go on their schedule. That was one of the complaints about HoT.

A person who plays the same time every night ends up getting the same events every night, even if he wants/needs a different event. The meta in Kourna and the other event you need come up pretty fast, and I was never waiting an hour for it. Now I have to wait up to an hour for each one. Just seems different to me.

Stuff I have to do to complete a zone that I can solo and do on my time I find more acceptable. I mean I have seen, on off maps, this meta fail even, particularly the south meta, if you don't have enough people to defend two outposts. I haven't seen it fail often but I have seen it fail. To me, that means waiting even more to complete a zone.

Do you know what my chances are of failing a story?

Without a bug that would be nil.

I can see that the story is less work, but I don't see that as a persuasive reason to include it as a barrier to map completion while excluding the map's meta events. I don't feel like asking someone to spend an hour on map completion is unreasonable, but even that hour is not required. You only have to log in to do the metas, you don't have to hang out for the break in between if you don't want to. Though that would be a great time to get all the other pois, hearts and vistas. I think forcing a toon to spend some amount of time in a map before it achieves map completion is a good thing . . .

And I too have seen the metas fail, but only on maps I have happened to be in by chance, never when I am actually looking to do the meta and use lfg to find like-minded players. But even if it does fail and you don't have time to wait you can just do it another day. The plate halves don't expire . . .

You're still missing the point. It's not about how long it takes. It's about having to be on a schedule. You may like to show up at 2 PM to do something. But there's an organic nature to the game that's sacrificed because of timers. Having to remember to do something at a specific time, or having to stop what I really want to do to be there at a specific time makes the game less enjoyable for me, and for other people as well. It was one of the complaints about HOT metas. Do you know why bounties were added instead of more metas in PoF. Because it's content on demand.

Do you know why they included content on demand? Because of player complaints.

If you don't mind, that's fine for you. But Anet isn't going to make a game just for one person. They're making a game for a player base that has vastly different play styles, and vastly different needs. I've given you a good reason why I don't like it, even if it doesn't affect you at all. You've yet to give me a good reason why it's better being that way. All you're really saying is it doesn't bother me, so it's okay. That's not a good enough answer for some of us.

And to be fair, Anet changed it so maybe it's not a good enough answer for them either.

Now you're really talking about two separate things -- whether it's justifiable for the metas to bar map completion and whether it's better for content to play on a schedule or on demand. I would argue for content that requires a significant number of players, it is better to run on a schedule. It is easier to get a large group together at a set time than it is to get a large number of ppl to agree on a time they would all like to show up. And to use your example the lasting popularity of HoT maps and relative unpopularity of PoF maps would bear that theory out. As for the inconvenience, the metas each require a player to show up once at any one of twelve different times on any day. That doesn't seem particularly onerous to me. Expecting large scale content on demand seems inconsistent with the concept of an mmo, which as you point out must cater to all the players, not just the one who wants to do map completion on yet another alt right this very second . . .

You're right. For content that requires a significant number of players it is better to run on schedule. Which doesn't provide any reason at all to lock map completion behind that sort of schedule.

The idea that there'll always be enough people at every hour of day in every map is just not true. And if you don't happen to get on that first map and it fills you're screwed. Is that really the best way you can think of a year or two down the road to deal with stuff like zone completion? Realistically, zone completion should be a more or less solo experience. I'm not sure why anyone things it's a good idea to make zone complete a group experience anyway.

Again, now it's not a big deal but you can't make an MMO just for now.

To me, map completion should be about the map -- both the group and solo content . . .

And I have always heard ppl predict that maps are going to 'die', but I've never actually seen it happen. And I speak from experience. I've done a pretty good job of keeping up with this season but historically I'm always late to the party. Didn't finish ls2 until years after release, didn't even buy HoT until it had been out for a year or so, still have some work to do in PoF, was months behind on finishing a lot of ls3 maps, etc. Yet I have never once found anything in this game that I could not do bc I couldn't find other ppl to do it with me. Until that actually happens, I'm not going to rate that as a serious concern. And if it did come to pass that interest in this map's metas was so low that they became impossible, I would argue that in and of itself would be a problem to solve, regardless of whether map completion was locked behind it or not . . .

First of all, the game is older now than it was, and it's only going to get older. It's going to die is inevitable for all games. But more to the point, there is plenty of group content now, but there's far less solo content in new zones. So locking zone complete, which was a solo endeavor for most of the game behind stuff you need large groups for makes no sense. People didn't like HoT because of it and that cost the company players and money. You might not personally care, but HOT did not do that well at least in part because it didn't support people who want to solo.

Here we have you,. saying you think it's okay and a portion of the community who clearly doesn't feel it's okay. No one is saying take the metas out. You can still have metas and metas can still be rewarding. But what you're saying here is you think map completion should have a group component, yet you give no reason except that you personally think it's fair game.

Give the solo people something to do, and let them do it, because you won't be hurt by it. The game will be hurt if you drive solo players off, because you know, they support the game as well...probably in bigger quantity than many suspect.

Again again, for the umpteenth time, Anet has already changed this, so this argument is pointless anyway. Obviously enough people complained for Anet to change it, whether any one person cares about this or not. The decision was already made in favor of people who don't want map complete locked behind two metas. Note they didn't change the story component one.

I am a solo person, actually. And I feel like I have plenty to do. I've played the new map for a few hours a day for about a week now . . .

And the reason I gave for thinking it was okay to lock map completion behind the metas on this map was bc the metas are fundamental to the map . . .

But they're still on a schedule which means I still have to watch a clock. Sorry but the reason you gave is not a good enough reason to kitten a percentage of players off. As I said, Anet changed it already they probably agree.

I think it's a great reason. Other ppl are going to feel it is somewhere on the spectrum of a great to terrible reason, and I'm pretty much okay with that . . .

You didn't give a reason. You only said why it's okay. You didn't elucidate the benefits of having it that way. It's all moot of course. Anet changed it. Feel free to get the last word, since there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I don't really see how this is an issue. Map completion is being tied to events in the map. If you don't want to do the events, the items that give you map completion are tradeable on the tp. So players have multiple paths to achieve the goal of map completion and one of those paths is actually, y'know, playing the map. So where's the issue? It's not like some nefarious players swooped in and scooped up all the available items leaving the rest of us with no ready means for acquiring more. I'd say this choice represents a lesson well learned, so kudos to anet :)

If you actually read the thread you'd see that many people have brought up why this is an issue.

If you did read the thread then let me say the following: just because it's not an issue
for you
doesn't mean there's no issue.

Yeah that is really frustrating when ppl post in a thread without reading it and it happens a lot on this forum so I can forgive you for thinking I might have done so, but I did not . . .

Supposing you have also read the thread you would have seen that the poi in question is available by 1) playing the game, 2) letting someone else play the game for you and buying the map completion item off the tp, 3) using a mesmer port or 4) tp to a friend, so there is no issue. Now if anet wants to move the poi or expand its radius so that it is available to players too cheap, lazy and friendless to get it through one of the existing methods I'd have no problem with it, but that wouldn't change the fact that given the variety of means of access to the poi that currently exist, such a change is unnecessary . . .

While the rest of the game, most of it, is alt friendly, this is NOT alt friendly. I like to complete zones on alts. Zone completion in itself is a fun thing to do. Locking this behind 2 different metas, means repeating 2 metas on 41 alts, which is 82 times I'd have to do the meta to get a POI. Or buy them 41 times for the trading post. I don't see why you or anyone would think this is a good design decision.

You're doing it with one character it's no big deal I agree. But punishing people who spent extra on character slots is never good business in my opinion.

Maybe they didn't like the thought of your getting ten bl keys for free. The reason I, specifically, like this is that the last episode offered its rewards to ppl who liked to log in and stand next to the tp. At least so far, this episode is offering greater rewards to ppl who log in to play the game. I like playing the game, so this makes me happy . . .

For free? lol

First of all 41 characters going through isn't likely to give you 10 black lion keys anyway. Secondly well over $300 of character slots is not free either. And I am playing the game.

That said, out of all the zone completes so far, this decision would be the worst of them. In fact, the decision was so bad, Anet changed it and made it so you could get that POI without doing both metas. Apparently they don't care how many characters I complete zones on.

To that end, I currently have 13 characters that have completed every story and zone in the game. I don't do it for the keys. I do it because it's what I enjoy. Essentially Anet is moving the bar by adding the second meta and then a puzzle on top of it. The community called Anet on it and Anet backed down. You can say, I suppose, that Anet wanted to push the limits of what they could "get away" with, with regards to zone complete and found the community was agitated enough that this crossed a line that they previously haven't crossed.

At any rate, as of the last update it's no longer an issue, since you can get that POI without doing the meta. The other POI I get from doing the story which I'll be doing anyway.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Your original complaint was that being forced to play the map for map completion wasn't alt-friendly bc you didn't want to do the metas. Now you're saying you don't care that you still have to do the story bc you were going to do the story anyway. Do all the players who want to do map completion without doing the story not concern you . . ?

Actually my complaint was 2 metas seperated by an hour. Story was never my complaint. In Kourna we have to do a meta to get map complete anyway and an event. But the event appears frequently as does the meta. This complaint is about upping the anti. Making it 2 metas and a puzzle to get that point of interest WHICH ANET FIXED. Obviously they must have thought the complaints had some merit too.

Upping the ante is the problem. If we don't say something now, next time it might be six metas, and four puzzles.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, what I am looking for is the why. Why is it unacceptable to lock a poi behind map metas but acceptable to lock them behind the story? To me the metas are a more natural barrier. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect ppl to play the map in order to complete the map. The relationship of the story to the map is more tenuous. The two things are released concurrently and one introduces the other but the story is less related to the map than the actual events that comprise the map. To say you must complete the story in order to complete the map still seems reasonable to me, but it is less reasonable than saying you must complete the major events in the map in order to complete the map, which is borderline tautological. The only counterargument you've provided is that you don't want to do the metas and you don't mind doing the story, which isn't very persuasive . . .

I guess this is a matter of perspective. I can start a story any time I want, at MY convenience. I don't have to wait for a timer. It doesn't hold me up. If I have ten or fifteen minutes here and there, I can do a story...whenever I want. Waiting on a scheduled time, which might be as much as two hours to get something like that done is not acceptable because Anet now is asking me to go on their schedule. That was one of the complaints about HoT.

A person who plays the same time every night ends up getting the same events every night, even if he wants/needs a different event. The meta in Kourna and the other event you need come up pretty fast, and I was never waiting an hour for it. Now I have to wait up to an hour for each one. Just seems different to me.

Stuff I have to do to complete a zone that I can solo and do on my time I find more acceptable. I mean I have seen, on off maps, this meta fail even, particularly the south meta, if you don't have enough people to defend two outposts. I haven't seen it fail often but I have seen it fail. To me, that means waiting even more to complete a zone.

Do you know what my chances are of failing a story?

Without a bug that would be nil.

I can see that the story is less work, but I don't see that as a persuasive reason to include it as a barrier to map completion while excluding the map's meta events. I don't feel like asking someone to spend an hour on map completion is unreasonable, but even that hour is not required. You only have to log in to do the metas, you don't have to hang out for the break in between if you don't want to. Though that would be a great time to get all the other pois, hearts and vistas. I think forcing a toon to spend some amount of time in a map before it achieves map completion is a good thing . . .

And I too have seen the metas fail, but only on maps I have happened to be in by chance, never when I am actually looking to do the meta and use lfg to find like-minded players. But even if it does fail and you don't have time to wait you can just do it another day. The plate halves don't expire . . .

You're still missing the point. It's not about how long it takes. It's about having to be on a schedule. You may like to show up at 2 PM to do something. But there's an organic nature to the game that's sacrificed because of timers. Having to remember to do something at a specific time, or having to stop what I really want to do to be there at a specific time makes the game less enjoyable for me, and for other people as well. It was one of the complaints about HOT metas. Do you know why bounties were added instead of more metas in PoF. Because it's content on demand.

Do you know why they included content on demand? Because of player complaints.

If you don't mind, that's fine for you. But Anet isn't going to make a game just for one person. They're making a game for a player base that has vastly different play styles, and vastly different needs. I've given you a good reason why I don't like it, even if it doesn't affect you at all. You've yet to give me a good reason why it's better being that way. All you're really saying is it doesn't bother me, so it's okay. That's not a good enough answer for some of us.

And to be fair, Anet changed it so maybe it's not a good enough answer for them either.

Now you're really talking about two separate things -- whether it's justifiable for the metas to bar map completion and whether it's better for content to play on a schedule or on demand. I would argue for content that requires a significant number of players, it is better to run on a schedule. It is easier to get a large group together at a set time than it is to get a large number of ppl to agree on a time they would all like to show up. And to use your example the lasting popularity of HoT maps and relative unpopularity of PoF maps would bear that theory out. As for the inconvenience, the metas each require a player to show up once at any one of twelve different times on any day. That doesn't seem particularly onerous to me. Expecting large scale content on demand seems inconsistent with the concept of an mmo, which as you point out must cater to all the players, not just the one who wants to do map completion on yet another alt right this very second . . .

You're right. For content that requires a significant number of players it is better to run on schedule. Which doesn't provide any reason at all to lock map completion behind that sort of schedule.

The idea that there'll always be enough people at every hour of day in every map is just not true. And if you don't happen to get on that first map and it fills you're screwed. Is that really the best way you can think of a year or two down the road to deal with stuff like zone completion? Realistically, zone completion should be a more or less solo experience. I'm not sure why anyone things it's a good idea to make zone complete a group experience anyway.

Again, now it's not a big deal but you can't make an MMO just for now.

To me, map completion should be about the map -- both the group and solo content . . .

And I have always heard ppl predict that maps are going to 'die', but I've never actually seen it happen. And I speak from experience. I've done a pretty good job of keeping up with this season but historically I'm always late to the party. Didn't finish ls2 until years after release, didn't even buy HoT until it had been out for a year or so, still have some work to do in PoF, was months behind on finishing a lot of ls3 maps, etc. Yet I have never once found anything in this game that I could not do bc I couldn't find other ppl to do it with me. Until that actually happens, I'm not going to rate that as a serious concern. And if it did come to pass that interest in this map's metas was so low that they became impossible, I would argue that in and of itself would be a problem to solve, regardless of whether map completion was locked behind it or not . . .

First of all, the game is older now than it was, and it's only going to get older. It's going to die is inevitable for all games. But more to the point, there is plenty of group content now, but there's far less solo content in new zones. So locking zone complete, which was a solo endeavor for most of the game behind stuff you need large groups for makes no sense. People didn't like HoT because of it and that cost the company players and money. You might not personally care, but HOT did not do that well at least in part because it didn't support people who want to solo.

Here we have you,. saying you think it's okay and a portion of the community who clearly doesn't feel it's okay. No one is saying take the metas out. You can still have metas and metas can still be rewarding. But what you're saying here is you think map completion should have a group component, yet you give no reason except that you personally think it's fair game.

Give the solo people something to do, and let them do it, because you won't be hurt by it. The game will be hurt if you drive solo players off, because you know, they support the game as well...probably in bigger quantity than many suspect.

Again again, for the umpteenth time, Anet has already changed this, so this argument is pointless anyway. Obviously enough people complained for Anet to change it, whether any one person cares about this or not. The decision was already made in favor of people who don't want map complete locked behind two metas. Note they didn't change the story component one.

I am a solo person, actually. And I feel like I have plenty to do. I've played the new map for a few hours a day for about a week now . . .

And the reason I gave for thinking it was okay to lock map completion behind the metas on this map was bc the metas are fundamental to the map . . .

But they're still on a schedule which means I still have to watch a clock. Sorry but the reason you gave is not a good enough reason to kitten a percentage of players off. As I said, Anet changed it already they probably agree.

I think it's a great reason. Other ppl are going to feel it is somewhere on the spectrum of a great to terrible reason, and I'm pretty much okay with that . . .

You didn't give a reason. You only said why it's okay. You didn't elucidate the benefits of having it that way. It's all moot of course. Anet changed it. Feel free to get the last word, since there's no point in continuing this conversation.

I actually gave my reasons before you accused me of not having any reasons, then responded with reason to that accusation lol . . .

Which makes me suspect you're just trolling me at this point, but that's okay, no harm done :)

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...