Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Recommended Posts

For the first time ever, in order to get a zone meta achievement, people are required to get achievements from ten man instanced content. Anet apparently believes that this will encourage people to try raids. My opinion is this will drive more people from the game than get more people to the content Anet wants us to play. It's too heavy handed. It's not a good enough encouragement.

In fact, zone metas have ever been the purview of casual players, who were probably the main people that played Living Story content and stayed in those zones. By adding Strike Missions to the requirement for getting the zone meta Anet has only made me less interested in doing the zone and I find myself wondering why I should go get achievements in there, if I don't want to do strike missions in the first place.

Raiders keep saying raids don't affect people who don't do them. This proves them wrong. This content has been changed to "encourage" people to get into raids. It encourages me to play less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 537
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't particularly like bounties either. I gave them a try and I don't like them. They're not fun for me. Having them in the zone doesn't bother me. It's simply not my type of content and I absolutely believe it shouldn't be part of a zone meta achievement, regardless. I know I don't like them specifically because I've done them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Randulf.7614 said:I'm OK with it. I like varied content in a meta.

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:I encourage you to use the other 2 threads instead of another of the same. If you wan easy AP theres some simple one's in Kodan and Fraenir plus you get a raven gear if you do 20 from sanctifier. If you just get those 7 you get meta done w/o the hard ones

I haven't seen two other threads that were specifically about this issue and I did do a search on strike missions. I really do believe this will drive people away from the zone, and maybe the game. Encouraging ten man content shouldn't be done at the expense of something we've done without it all along. It's a change that will end up costing...in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might do. There's a reasonable argument for saying it will drive people away.

However, it has done entirely the opposite for me. The map I found rather dull and unvaried. By adding a mix of content in the meta, it has engaged me more than it otherwise would have. The game's foundation is built on cooperation and no matter what side people sit on the whole raids/multi man instanced content argument, I think the meta set up encourages that rather well.

The meta has a lot of variety in it. people will feel equally strongly about the mini Jp/puzzles as you do about the instanced content. I'm no big fan of Jps but the meta did encourage me to do them when perhaps I may not have been quite so enthusaiastic. And whilst a couple frustrated me due to time outs, I actually got a feeling of accomplishment by doing them.

I'm also no raider, but the more I do the strikes, the more I enjoy them and these extra achievements are an additional carrot to aim for as well the actual fun of them.

There is enough stuff in the meta that some of the harder strikes can at least be ignored. I would argue that rather than remove the strikes as a requirement, the better adjustment would be perhaps to lower the number of achievements required to complete. Then everyone wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Vayne.8563" said:For the first time ever, in order to get a zone meta achievement, people are required to get achievements from ten man instanced content. Anet apparently believes that this will encourage people to try raids. My opinion is this will drive more people from the game than get more people to the content Anet wants us to play. It's too heavy handed. It's not a good enough encouragement.

In fact, zone metas have ever been the purview of casual players, who were probably the main people that played Living Story content and stayed in those zones. By adding Strike Missions to the requirement for getting the zone meta Anet has only made me less interested in doing the zone and I find myself wondering why I should go get achievements in there, if I don't want to do strike missions in the first place.

Raiders keep saying raids don't affect people who don't do them. This proves them wrong. This content has been changed to "encourage" people to get into raids. It encourages me to play less.

Yup. It's annoying, and players can become annoying inside of such content. Thumbs down from me.

I'm losing interest in the zone, and game for that matter, and I don't need to be annoyed when playing. If I want that, then I'll go back inside of the mess that is wvw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Randulf.7614 said:It might do. There's a reasonable argument for saying it will drive people away.

However, it has done entirely the opposite for me. The map I found rather dull and unvaried. By adding a mix of content in the meta, it has engaged me more than it otherwise would have. The game's foundation is built on cooperation and no matter what side people sit on the whole raids/multi man instanced content argument, I think the meta set up encourages that rather well.

The meta has a lot of variety in it. people will feel equally strongly about the mini Jp/puzzles as you do about the instanced content. I'm no big fan of Jps but the meta did encourage me to do them when perhaps I may not have been quite so enthusaiastic. And whilst a couple frustrated me due to time outs, I actually got a feeling of accomplishment by doing them.

I'm also no raider, but the more I do the strikes, the more I enjoy them and these extra achievements are an additional carrot to aim for as well the actual fun of them.

There is enough stuff in the meta that some of the harder strikes can at least be ignored. I would argue that rather than remove the strikes as a requirement, the better adjustment would be perhaps to lower the number of achievements required to complete. Then everyone wins.

This is why it makse sense to include extra options. In Wintersday you can get the meta without doing the jumping puzzle if you hate it. Or witout the PvP activity if you hate it. Give people options and you keep more people. It's just logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It had opposite effect for me as well. I am not a raider but the achievements and the fact strikes were supposed to be a way into raids thus easier made me try it. And I liked it. Now it’s something I do daily. If it wasn’t for that push into it I probably wouldn’t go for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two modes in strikes: you can do it with 9 others in {squad} or you can Zerg it in {public}. So it is not the matter of being hardcore orientation or who-carries-who. It gravitates towards player-player cooperation side of things, which seems poisonous to certain type of (solo) players. I don't see why the Meta Achievements should contain an opt-out. I did everything I could, therefore I achieved. It makes my effort worthy and not simply convenient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Iris Ng.9845 said:There are two modes in strikes: you can do it with 9 others in {squad} or you can Zerg it in {public}. So it is not the matter of being hardcore orientation or who-carries-who. It gravitates towards player-player cooperation side of things, which seems poisonous to certain type of (solo) players. I don't see why the Meta Achievements should contain an opt-out. I did everything I could, therefore I achieved. It makes my effort worthy and not simply convenient.

If you run a business, it's important to keep your core customer base happy. I think it's fair to say casuals are the biggest percentage of the playerbase. THe biggest problem isn't doing something, the biggest problem is the change that you ask people to go through to stay with you. This is true in all entertainment venues.

When I took a course from the SFWA (science fiction writers of america) on writing, one of the first things they said was that you should make the genre, your main character and the tone of your book/story known as early as you can. And changing any of that comes with a risk. The bigger trhe change the more you need to justify it or you will lose readers. This is that sort of thing.

Had this been done from the beginning I'd agree with you. But changing the game on a fundamental level, making people have to get into a larger instanced group...that's not an acceptable change to a lot of people. And the game will suffer for it, whether individuals among us like it or not.

It doesn't mattter what a person thinks is fair game if a large percentage of people don't. It will simply hurt the game. And that hurts everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:Here's a thread discussing the issue: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/97518/howto-meta-achievement-for-normal-players#latest

Okay he's asking how a normal player can get those achievements. I'm not really asking for how. I know how to get them. I'm saying it's not something that should exist at all. Perhaps that topic has become that, but the title of the thread doesn't lend itself to this particular discussion. I think it's valid to express this is a direct question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only their metrics will ever really tell that though.

Their aim is bridge the gap between those who raid and those who don't. They need to do things like this to at least try and make that work. Even if it fails. But unless they commit, then they will never know. Anet are generally pretty bad at following through on things so I am pleased to see them go all in on this as best they can.

There will be people will get annoyed by it, but I don't think the vast majority ultimately care. Just like the vast majority probably don't have the grievances that many of us on these forums. They just get on with it because the game asks them to - and I suspect that is just fine for most players. I can bang on about Drakkar devolving back to the dull zergfests of old which ignore years of constructive feedback which has kittened me right off, but it's clear people are just getting on and playing it. I don't think adding in a bit of instanced content is going to do much damage to the population.

I also don't think anything has changed on a fundamental level. I think if anything the way things started off with dungeons and shortly after fractals and players were more conjoined. It was the way raids were implemented that splintered things in probably the strongest way. It feels like they are trying to get back to way things were by building bridges into content again.

The more they make things like meta one dimensional in their approach, the more they continue to fracture the community in my opinion.

Even if you don't agree, GW2 is an incredibly varied playerbase and I think trying to separate what players may or might like in the pve environment is probably a headache for the design team. There will always be something that will annoy players. Better to bung it all in and give players all sorts of different things to do. I find that a more positive approach personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Randulf.7614 said:Only their metrics will ever really tell that though.

Their aim is bridge the gap between those who raid and those who don't. They need to do things like this to at least try and make that work. Even if it fails. But unless they commit, then they will never know. Anet are generally pretty bad at following through on things so I am pleased to see them go all in on this as best they can.

There will be people will get annoyed by it, but I don't think the vast majority ultimately care. Just like the vast majority probably don't have the grievances that many of us on these forums. They just get on with it because the game asks them to - and I suspect that is just fine for most players. I can bang on about Drakkar devolving back to the dull zergfests of old which ignore years of constructive feedback which has kittened me right off, but it's clear people are just getting on and playing it.

I also don't think anything has changed on a fundamental level. I think if anything the way things started off with dungeons and shortly after fractals and players were more conjoined. It was the way raids were implemented that splintered things in probably the strongest way. It feels like they are trying to get back to way things were by building bridges into content again.

The more they make things like meta one dimensional in their approach, the more they continue to fracture the community in my opinion.

Even if you don't agree, GW2 is an incredibly varied playerbase and I think trying to separate what players may or might like in the pve environment is probably a headache for the design team. There will always be something that will annoy players. Better to bung it all in and give players all sorts of different things to do. I find that a more positive approach personally.

Think about what you're saying. WE have raids. We have a small population that raids. We have a theory that people who don't raid don't raid because raiding is hard and they don't know how to play.

But there was a very highly upvoted post on reddit and the reason given for not raiding was not organizing or being part of a ten man team. People didn't wnat to do it.

So let's risk the casual player base to support an admittedly small player base, just in case this works? Committing to that sounds like a bad business decision to me anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Randulf.7614 said:Only their metrics will ever really tell that though.

Their aim is bridge the gap between those who raid and those who don't. They need to do things like this to at least try and make that work. Even if it fails. But unless they commit, then they will never know. Anet are generally pretty bad at following through on things so I am pleased to see them go all in on this as best they can.

There will be people will get annoyed by it, but I don't think the vast majority ultimately care. Just like the vast majority probably don't have the grievances that many of us on these forums. They just get on with it because the game asks them to - and I suspect that is just fine for most players. I can bang on about Drakkar devolving back to the dull zergfests of old which ignore years of constructive feedback which has kittened me right off, but it's clear people are just getting on and playing it.

I also don't think anything has changed on a fundamental level. I think if anything the way things started off with dungeons and shortly after fractals and players were more conjoined. It was the way raids were implemented that splintered things in probably the strongest way. It feels like they are trying to get back to way things were by building bridges into content again.

The more they make things like meta one dimensional in their approach, the more they continue to fracture the community in my opinion.

Even if you don't agree, GW2 is an incredibly varied playerbase and I think trying to separate what players may or might like in the pve environment is probably a headache for the design team. There will always be something that will annoy players. Better to bung it all in and give players all sorts of different things to do. I find that a more positive approach personally.

I agree to a point, but i still think they should have enough achievements that count(they have enough achievements but they made quite a few not count) that one can still pick and choose what content they do.

Would appease i think both sides. hardcore players get credit towards the meta and dont have to deal with players who only want the achievements for the meta, casuals who dont enjoy or cannot(physical/mental limitations) instanced content do not have to do that content.

Hell, they could do a 50/50 split on achievements(strikes/story) per release, and make it so you only need to do all the achievements in one category to get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:Casual players don't care about achievements. So the achievement requirements means literally nothing to casuals. If the player cares about it, then they are not casual players.

Just saying.

Sorry but people who identify as casuals often do care about achievements. I have a guild full of them. So I guess the question is, why is your definition of casuals better than theirs? I mean we can sit and discuss the definition of casuals I suppose but I'd make a thread to do this. I'm a person who always gets the meta, but I'm not a huge fan of getting together with 9 other players, organized or not. It's why I don't raid. Not because I'm not good enough to raid, but becaue it's not a casual activity. I engage, generally in more casual, pick up and play activities. This isn't one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Randulf.7614 said:Only their metrics will ever really tell that though.

Their aim is bridge the gap between those who raid and those who don't. They need to do things like this to at least try and make that work. Even if it fails. But unless they commit, then they will never know. Anet are generally pretty bad at following through on things so I am pleased to see them go all in on this as best they can.

There will be people will get annoyed by it, but I don't think the vast majority ultimately care. Just like the vast majority probably don't have the grievances that many of us on these forums. They just get on with it because the game asks them to - and I suspect that is just fine for most players. I can bang on about Drakkar devolving back to the dull zergfests of old which ignore years of constructive feedback which has kittened me right off, but it's clear people are just getting on and playing it. I don't think adding in a bit of instanced content is going to do much damage to the population.

I also don't think anything has changed on a fundamental level. I think if anything the way things started off with dungeons and shortly after fractals and players were more conjoined. It was the way raids were implemented that splintered things in probably the strongest way. It feels like they are trying to get back to way things were by building bridges into content again.

The more they make things like meta one dimensional in their approach, the more they continue to fracture the community in my opinion.

Even if you don't agree, GW2 is an incredibly varied playerbase and I think trying to separate what players may or might like in the pve environment is probably a headache for the design team. There will always be something that will annoy players. Better to bung it all in and give players all sorts of different things to do. I find that a more positive approach personally.

We have all the metrics from 2015 that we need. The raid population is small, as mentioned by Andrew Gray, and that means the player base has spoken on the matter... The majority do not want raid type content in their currents forms, and it was a massive oversight to not include things like difficulty scaling in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:Casual players don't care about achievements. So the achievement requirements means literally nothing to casuals. If the player cares about it, then they are not casual players.

Just saying.

Sorry but people who identify as casuals often do care about achievements. I have a guild full of them. So I guess the question is, why is your definition of casuals better than theirs? I mean we can sit and discuss the definition of casuals I suppose but I'd make a thread to do this. I'm a person who always gets the meta, but I'm not a huge fan of getting together with 9 other players, organized or not. It's why I don't raid. Not because I'm not good enough to raid, but becaue it's not a casual activity. I engage, generally in more casual, pick up and play activities. This isn't one of them.

I agree with everything you said. Casual is pick up and play activities.

Achievements requires work, that's not a casual pick up and play activity.

We're not in disagreement on what casual is. I disagree on the notion that Achievements are designed for casual players or should be designed to include casual activities. They are not and should not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Randulf.7614 said:Only their metrics will ever really tell that though.

Their aim is bridge the gap between those who raid and those who don't. They need to do things like this to at least try and make that work. Even if it fails. But unless they commit, then they will never know. Anet are generally pretty bad at following through on things so I am pleased to see them go all in on this as best they can.

There will be people will get annoyed by it, but I don't think the vast majority ultimately care. Just like the vast majority probably don't have the grievances that many of us on these forums. They just get on with it because the game asks them to - and I suspect that is just fine for most players. I can bang on about Drakkar devolving back to the dull zergfests of old which ignore years of constructive feedback which has kittened me right off, but it's clear people are just getting on and playing it. I don't think adding in a bit of instanced content is going to do much damage to the population.

I also don't think anything has changed on a fundamental level. I think if anything the way things started off with dungeons and shortly after fractals and players were more conjoined. It was the way raids were implemented that splintered things in probably the strongest way. It feels like they are trying to get back to way things were by building bridges into content again.

The more they make things like meta one dimensional in their approach, the more they continue to fracture the community in my opinion.

Even if you don't agree, GW2 is an incredibly varied playerbase and I think trying to separate what players may or might like in the pve environment is probably a headache for the design team. There will always be something that will annoy players. Better to bung it all in and give players all sorts of different things to do. I find that a more positive approach personally.

We have all the metrics from 2015 that we need. The raid population is small, as mentioned by Andrew Gray, and that means the player base has spoken on the matter... The majority do not want raid type content in their currents forms, and it was a massive oversight to not include things like difficulty scaling in the first place.

We have no metrics. Only Anet have metrics. Whether they show the strategy is working, they have yet to reveal and perhaps it is too soon because the entire process isn't complete yet since more Strikes are to come (and if my understanding is right, they are going to be harder/more complex)

The raid population is small. They want to change that. The feedback they have is that raids are too hard or that players want to do them but feel left out by a perception of elitism. ANet are clearly trying to bring the two groups back together. Even trying to bring your communities together I think is a very sound strategy for a multi player game.

I can't say it will def work, but I agree with the way they are trying. You are correct about difficulty scaling and this their more innovative way of doing that - just a lot later than perhaps it should have been

Link to post
Share on other sites

Casuals are indeed the largest player base of the game but they are not stagnant throughout 7 years the game is in operation. The casual players today do not take two days to have a world first on a open world boss. They are empowered by elite specs, by learning experience from raid training and simply by sharing information across many channels: discords, Reddit, guild chat. Casuals are not represented by a singular group that dislike group contents. They are simply players who spend less than 4 hours a day playing various contents out of habit. Easy access is the keyword. What they don't need is the ability to opt-out. They need a friendly invitation, an incentive hard to ignore and just slightly harder challenge to make an exciting game time. Then they can start incorporate Strike Mission into their daily rotation, much like Fractals. My guild is a casual guild of 500 and none has complained about having to do Strike Missions to finish Meta achievements. They are still slowly enjoying the story mode and still doing Strikes just for the company. So exactly what is the issue?

Meta achievement hunters are not casual. You aim for total completion then you should prepare to do whatever it takes. I find your big words just conveniently project itself onto other players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Randulf.7614 said:Only their metrics will ever really tell that though.

Their aim is bridge the gap between those who raid and those who don't. They need to do things like this to at least try and make that work. Even if it fails. But unless they commit, then they will never know. Anet are generally pretty bad at following through on things so I am pleased to see them go all in on this as best they can.

There will be people will get annoyed by it, but I don't think the vast majority ultimately care. Just like the vast majority probably don't have the grievances that many of us on these forums. They just get on with it because the game asks them to - and I suspect that is just fine for most players. I can bang on about Drakkar devolving back to the dull zergfests of old which ignore years of constructive feedback which has kittened me right off, but it's clear people are just getting on and playing it. I don't think adding in a bit of instanced content is going to do much damage to the population.

I also don't think anything has changed on a fundamental level. I think if anything the way things started off with dungeons and shortly after fractals and players were more conjoined. It was the way raids were implemented that splintered things in probably the strongest way. It feels like they are trying to get back to way things were by building bridges into content again.

The more they make things like meta one dimensional in their approach, the more they continue to fracture the community in my opinion.

Even if you don't agree, GW2 is an incredibly varied playerbase and I think trying to separate what players may or might like in the pve environment is probably a headache for the design team. There will always be something that will annoy players. Better to bung it all in and give players all sorts of different things to do. I find that a more positive approach personally.

We have all the metrics from 2015 that we need. The raid population is small, as mentioned by Andrew Gray, and that means the player base has spoken on the matter... The majority do not want raid type content in their currents forms, and it was a massive oversight to not include things like difficulty scaling in the first place.

We have no metrics. Only Anet have metrics. Whether they show the strategy is working, they have yet to reveal and perhaps it is too soon because the entire process isn't complete yet since more Strikes are to come (and if my understanding is right, they are going to be harder/more complex)

The raid population is small. They want to change that. The feedback they have is that raids are too hard or that players want to do them but feel left out by a perception of elitism. ANet are clearly trying to bring the two groups back together. Even trying to bring your communities together I think is a very sound strategy for a multi player game.

I can't say it will def work, but I agree with the way they are trying. You are correct about difficulty scaling and this their more innovative way of doing that - just a lot later than perhaps it should have been

There are multiple reasons people don't raid....difficulty is only one of them. I don't raid for other reasons. The difficulty I can handle just fine.

Link to post
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...