Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Recommended Posts

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:I've put this in the raid thread about easy raids, but maybe this would do some good for some players to read here too:

@Cyninja.2954 said:I think most players in favor this idea that easy mode raids should have been introduced earlier, or now, or at the expense of other content should entertain 1 thought:

What if: a main part of the revenue of the game was/is coming from the hardcore dedicated fraction of the player base?

Not saying this is or was the case, though I have stated that I personally believe that players that are more invested are more likely to spend money (and no, I'm not saying only hardcore players can be invested), but what if losing the hardcore crowd actually has a significant impact on this games financial performance? What if aiming all resources at only casual players results in a far worse financial performance, leading into even less resources being available for the game? How would this assumption change past resource allocation desires and if true, what if challenging content had been slowed years earlier to potentially attract more players (many of which might not even be inclined to raid, no matter the difficulty)?

Obviously, in the current situation the game is in, we can only hope and pray that is not the case since new challenging content is all but dead at the moment (please don't bring up the promised fractal, that's hardly long term challenging content worth mentioning, also given the last few fractals, hopes are low this one will be any fun).

Overall the game has experienced a loss of players, and this is obviously felt the most in all more niche game modes, see pvp and wvw for example. This does not necessarily have to do with only the content. As a matter of fact, the content could have been perfectly fine, but due to the decline of players, might not warrant the same amount of attention as in the past.

Now if we apply this assumption, and please realize it is a pure assumption I am making, just trying to entertain a thought over some should ponder:

What if in the context of the game, the developers have realized that in order for them to be able to perform financially well, they need both parts of the player base, casual players AND hardcore players (defined in this context by players who do challenging instanced content, and those who do not. Not other descriptors should apply and neither term is meant derogatory). Due to lack of resources though, continued development of niche content, which also applies to pvp and wvw, is less possible, while the revenue provided by players of that niche content is still required.

How would that factor into the discussion about encouraging (requiring would be the more fitting word here) players activity in content they might otherwise never try?

I personally have a feeling that a vast majority of players who keep arguing for essentially single player content with lots of other players around them, aka how most open world content is designed in this game, are under the fixed perception or impression that this part of the player base will suffice in providing a steady and sufficient revenue stream (and it very well might be). But what if it's not?

I've never argued against fractals. I don't have a problem with WvW. I had a problem specifically with raids, and part of it where we are now. The issue is how heavy handed the company has to try to get me into a type of content I've decided I don't want to do. Is it possible to offer some sort of incentive to people without taking away something that I enjoy going for, ie zone metas? Because that's really the question here.

Anet could have had a seperate Strike mission meta with a really desirable reward. To me this isn't much different than including PvP in a PvE meta. It feels very different from anything I've been asked to do before for a zone meta. Let Anet encourage people without actually changing what we've been playing for so long. That's the way to encourage without running into this sort of roadblock. Are people saying this isn't possible?

I fully get where you are coming from, but you do have to realize that your issues are very personal (which is perfectly legitimate). I'm quite sure there is a ton of players who don't care about achievements or the zone meta, but would be outraged about unique rewards being gated behind strikes (we had/have the same issue with raids and players were very vocal in the past about having no access to unique raid rewards).

I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content.

I'm not going to tell you you are wrong about how you feel on this issue, how could you be, feeling and opinions are subjective and that is perfectly fine. I'm just trying to get people to consider different reasons as to why certain things are implemented the way they are. I personally do not believe the developers intentionally went:"oh, let's lock achievements behind strikes, that'll kitten enough players off." So there must be a reason. I'm quite sure they were fully aware this might upset part of the player base, yet they implemented it anyway (okay, maybe not the strongest argument, we've had things implemented which found broad disapproval before ;) ).

My personal assumption on this matter is (and again, very subjective since I partake in all of the games content):Strikes, as a design goal, have to succeed in order for enough resources to find their way into more development of further challenging content. Challenging content is required to keep part of the player base. That part of the player base is needed for decent financial performance.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

@"Cyninja.2954" said:

I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content."You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Vayne.8563" said:Sure it's my choice. I agree. But it's not JUST my choice. It's everyone's choice. And if enough people are affected by that choice it will affect the game negatively. There's one group of players less pissed off than other players. I suggest it's probably not the group of players you'd want to alienate. Just my thought process. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe none of the casual players left in the game care enough about the meta to be frustrated...but I don't think that's the case.

Saying this is my choice is absolutely true. Suggesting that I"m some how alone in my feelings on this probably isn't. Whether this is a good idea or not will depend on the size of that demographic.

I personally haven't touched the game since I realised that I needed 6 strike mission achievements to get the meta achievement. I don't like doing instanced group content. It's not a matter of difficulty, and probably not even one of the time required in the end. It's just that. I don't like instanced group content. But I love getting the meta achievements. I love achievement hunting in general. And then there's the balance patch upcoming that will most likely butcher my main character's class completely for me. But I shouldn't complain about that, since I got off easy all this years, playing happily unnoticed by balance patches in my little niche for far too long. Thinking about playing GW2 makes me demotivated and depressed at the moment. Maybe it's time for a break. I didn't take a break from playing GW2 in 5 years. Or six in april, if I remember correctly. Maybe it's time to take one now. I never understood why some people feel the need to make "I am leaving/I am taking a break" announcement posts. I understand them a little bit better now. I love GW2. I really do. And the idea of distancing myself from my beloved game is kind off depressing. Sorry for the rant. Just had to get this off my chest. Have a nice weekend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Manasa Devi.7958 said:

@"Cyninja.2954" said:

I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content."You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

The simple fact is:Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific case, when in fact creating requirements will always cause displeasure with parts of the player base. We have seen this displeasure often enough (about certain rewards being inaccessible, even if the rewards were new), so I fail to see the necessity to add this quantifier. The outrage here would have been the same in your proposed scenario with a different offered reward, only maybe from other players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cyninja.2954 said:

I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content."You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

The simple fact is:Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

Specific content has specific rewards. Always has had, always will have. Complaints about that can be ignored like all the other stuff that gets brought up ad nauseam every few weeks..

The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific caseI didn't, where did you get that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nephalem.8921 said:I haven't seen a single strike achievement selling group. These kind of things usually pop up when the meta is too hard.

Actually, there are buyers that ask if you not only sell raids, but also strikes. The audience is there. Then again, people also buy jp achievements.Though that doesnt mean that the buyers are bad at the game. Some are actually quite decent at the game. They just dont have the time or value other things over raids/strikes. So they just buy them to have them done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Manasa Devi.7958 said:

I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content."You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

The simple fact is:Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

Specific content has specific rewards. Always has had, always will have. Complaints about that can be ignored like all the other stuff that gets brought up ad nauseam every few weeks..

The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific caseI didn't, where did you get that?

Your main argument and solution lies in:

You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

I'm simply saying, that quantifier is not necessary. The argument works perfectly fine as:You can have this thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

I referenced past displeasure of parts of the player base as significant reason that any imposed requirements, will always get some players annoyed.

But we are getting off topic, at least I am. My intent was not to take sides, simply offer some perspective. I personally do not agree with the achievements necessity of strike missions for the meta achievement (I have it complete myself), which makes me consider the reasons even more as to why such a step was taken. Then I try to look at context and the bigger picture, which I've tried to summarize earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cyninja.2954 said:

I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content."You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

The simple fact is:Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

Specific content has specific rewards. Always has had, always will have. Complaints about that can be ignored like all the other stuff that gets brought up ad nauseam every few weeks..

The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific caseI didn't, where did you get that?

Your main argument and solution lies in:

You can have this
new
thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

I'm simply saying, that quantifier is not necessary. The argument works perfectly fine as:
You can have this thing if you do this", that's encouragement.
Of course it needs to be a new thing. If there's no new thing, there is no encouragement. If something that was always there has proven to be an insufficient motivator and you decide there needs to be encouragement, you need to add something new into the mix and see if that will do the trick.
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.

You sir, must have a limited and restrictive definition of casual, to have arrived at this conclusion. I know plenty of casual players, like myself, who love to get their achievements. They like to get their 5k, 10K or whatever K achievement chests as do I. It's also a friendly bit of competition in my guild to see who can reach the next goal first.But being casual, achievements aren't my[or most of the people I know] only focus. I spend my days doing the stories, playing throughout the entirety of Tyria, helping people when needed, getting dailies, crafting, making legendaries, doing a bit of WvW, PvP, or fractals, but the more content there is the less time I have to do WvW or PvP though.I am a very casual player who doesn't really like organised content such as raids. I find them artificially outside of the world, and are exclusive, not inclusive. MMOs I thought were about being in the world with other players not locked away and needing special requirements such as a certain amount of DPS or skill.

My characters, as are my accounts, many and are always busy in the world of Tyria, being part of a community, never bored, always doing something,. I also hover in and out of the top 100 in NA for achievements and I am a proud casual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Manasa Devi.7958 said:

I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content."You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

The simple fact is:Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

Specific content has specific rewards. Always has had, always will have. Complaints about that can be ignored like all the other stuff that gets brought up ad nauseam every few weeks..

The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific caseI didn't, where did you get that?

Your main argument and solution lies in:

You can have this
new
thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

I'm simply saying, that quantifier is not necessary. The argument works perfectly fine as:
You can have this thing if you do this", that's encouragement.
Of course it needs to be a new thing. If there's no new thing, there is no encouragement. If something that was always there has proven to be an insufficient motivator and you decide there needs to be encouragement, you need to add something new into the mix and see if that will do the trick.

and I'm saying it does not have to be new. As is evident in this release. Meta living world achievements are not new, neither are achievements, nor are strike missions. Yet requiring players do strikes in order to achieve the living world meta achievement encourages them to try strikes.

Combine that with the fact that, as suggested in this thread, other unique rewards should/could have been used instead of the meta achievement, I have referenced that this has also created controversy in the past. As such I disagree that this would have been a better solution. It would simply have shifted the issue to a different part of the player base.

I guess we will simply have to disagree here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cyninja.2954 said:

I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content."You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

The simple fact is:Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

Specific content has specific rewards. Always has had, always will have. Complaints about that can be ignored like all the other stuff that gets brought up ad nauseam every few weeks..

The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific caseI didn't, where did you get that?

Your main argument and solution lies in:

You can have this
new
thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

I'm simply saying, that quantifier is not necessary. The argument works perfectly fine as:
You can have this thing if you do this", that's encouragement.
Of course it needs to be a new thing. If there's no new thing, there is no encouragement. If something that was always there has proven to be an insufficient motivator and you decide there needs to be encouragement, you need to add something new into the mix and see if that will do the trick.

and I'm saying it does not have to be new. As is evident in this release. Meta living world achievements are not new, neither are achievements, nor are strike missions. Yet requiring players do strikes in order to achieve the living world meta achievement encourages them to try strikes.

Combine that with the fact that, as suggested in this thread, other unique rewards should/could have been used instead of the meta achievement, I have referenced that this has also created controversy in the past. As such I disagree that this would have been a better solution. It would simply have shifted the issue to a different part of the player base.

I guess we will simply have to disagree here.

I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content."You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

The simple fact is:Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

Specific content has specific rewards. Always has had, always will have. Complaints about that can be ignored like all the other stuff that gets brought up ad nauseam every few weeks..

The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific caseI didn't, where did you get that?

Your main argument and solution lies in:

You can have this
new
thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

I'm simply saying, that quantifier is not necessary. The argument works perfectly fine as:
You can have this thing if you do this", that's encouragement.
Of course it needs to be a new thing. If there's no new thing, there is no encouragement. If something that was always there has proven to be an insufficient motivator and you decide there needs to be encouragement, you need to add something new into the mix and see if that will do the trick.

and I'm saying it does not have to be new. As is evident in this release. Meta living world achievements are not new, neither are achievements, nor are strike missions. Yet requiring players do strikes in order to achieve the living world meta achievement encourages them to try strikes.

Combine that with the fact that, as suggested in this thread, other unique rewards should/could have been used instead of the meta achievement, I have referenced that this has also created controversy in the past. As such I disagree that this would have been a better solution. It would simply have shifted the issue to a different part of the player base.

I guess we will simply have to disagree here.

Most people know me as a die hard Guild Wars 2 fan. But I'm going to say if this is the future of the game, it will be the future of the game without me. Those zones metas are my game and generally instanced multiplayer content isn't. Anet will have removed my reason to keep playing. I'm playing less already because of this, but if this trend continues in the future, it will continue without me.

There probably isn't another MMO that will hold my interest long term, so I'll just go back to single player games. This change makes me not want to play. And if I feel like that I promise you, a lot of others will too. Maybe not a majority but I suspect a signicant amount of players. And no, this isn't an ultimatum or threat. Anet has to do what they see as best for the game. If they think this is best for the game, then they should keep doing it. But it ruins my fun..and fun is what I play games for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cyninja.2954 said:

I'm not saying it's the correct approach, or ideal approach (again, I have no idea how the games revenue is split up among players), but it is not a new approach. The developers have repeatedly tried "encouraging" players to try different content."You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

What we're looking at here is "you can't have this usual thing unless you do this". That's not encouragement.

Sure, but are you going to tell me there would have been no complaints if something else desirable was locked out behind strikes?

The simple fact is:Anything desirable getting locked out behind any content which a player does not play, will cause issues. The only difference here would have been the players affected.

Specific content has specific rewards. Always has had, always will have. Complaints about that can be ignored like all the other stuff that gets brought up ad nauseam every few weeks..

The fact you are quantifying the desired item as "new" is merely to custom tailors your argument to this specific caseI didn't, where did you get that?

Your main argument and solution lies in:

You can have this
new
thing if you do this", that's encouragement.

I'm simply saying, that quantifier is not necessary. The argument works perfectly fine as:
You can have this thing if you do this", that's encouragement.
Of course it needs to be a new thing. If there's no new thing, there is no encouragement. If something that was always there has proven to be an insufficient motivator and you decide there needs to be encouragement, you need to add something new into the mix and see if that will do the trick.

and I'm saying it does not have to be new. As is evident in this release. Meta living world achievements are not new, neither are achievements, nor are strike missions. Yet requiring players do strikes in order to achieve the living world meta achievement encourages them to try strikes.You're really missing my point. When I typed
"You can have this new thing if you do this", that's encouragement
, that's what they didn't do and should have done instead. What they did in fact do is the other thing I wrote:
"you can't have this usual thing unless you do this"
.
That's not encouragement
. There was no encouragement here. Requiring people to play strikes for the meta feels more like goading. I certainly don't feel encouraged. If I was a more hot-headed person, I might call it blackmail and curse the developers for being nasty to me.

Combine that with the fact that, as suggested in this thread, other unique rewards should/could have been used instead of the meta achievement, I have referenced that this has also created controversy in the past. As such I disagree that this would have been a better solution. It would simply have shifted the issue to a different part of the player base.Yeah, unique rewards would've been the "new thing" in my general breakdown. That would be an encouragement. Better the same old, same old non-issue controversy than creating a fresh new one I think. People who after 7.5 years still can't accept that different game modes offer different unique rewards should be ignored by now.

I guess we will simply have to disagree here.It's not all disagreement, I feel there's an element of misunderstanding here too.
Link to post
Share on other sites

@mindcircus.1506 said:

@"Zaklex.6308" said:I've personally done the Grothmar strike mission once, and that's the one and only time I've done one, it has nothing to do with the difficulty at all, same with Raids, but it does come down to wanting to play the game how I want with the build I want and not some Meta build or what others want me to play.There is absolutely zero need for you to run a meta build in the Grothmar strike. The encounter is simple content that everyone can enjoy.I tag up and run this strike 3-4 times a week. There's no need for a specific group composition. Every group I have ever done it with has taken the first ten people they could find and burned it down.Why misrepresent it as being otherwise?

There's a disconnect between mentioning the Meta builds and the Grothmar Strike. Since I've done the Grothmar Strike I'm well aware that a Meta build isn't required, however, and I've yet to see anyone say otherwise, for the other Strikes and Raids, Meta builds are preferred if not mandated to use Meta builds, that's what I meant by that part of the statement. I've got zero problems with Grothmar, it's the other "challenging" content, the higher level Strikes and Raids that(as far as I've heard) almost no one can do with "play how you want" style.

Outside of that though, I could care less if the Meta Achievement is tied to having to do Strikes or not, I'll just ignore it like so many others I've done, not that important to get in my opinion, I play for entertainment purposes and if I'm entertained by something I'll keep playing with breaks when I get bored.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Longtime casual player here.

Way back at the start of the game, I was a PvE achievement hunter, primarily when those achievements were tied to skins as rewards. Then came LW S2: Seeds of Truth and Dodgy Rodeo, necessary for the Mastery achievement, which is necessary for part of the Luminescent armor, the reward for LW S2 (as I saw it). I tried over and over to get this achievement. Grouped up with others and tried over and over again. Over and over. Frustration built. Over and over. Finally figured out it wasn't going to happen. And then I asked myself, why am I doing the Silverwastes at all if I'm never getting the reward for it? The next episode of LW S2 started and I asked myself, is it worth spending time on this when the final reward is a piece of an armor set I'm never going to complete? The more times you say "I'm not going to bother with this", the easier it is to say "I'm not going to bother with this" again. After getting the glider unlocked, I basically skipped over HoT story; I played through just enough of LW3 to get the mastery points to upgrade the glider. It wasn't until PoF and LW4 that I started getting enthusiastic again, mainly because I never felt I was going to be locked out of rewards because of a stubborn achievement. Still, even then I'd missed enough skins and achievements along the way that there was no longer the same thrill in being a high-scoring achiever or the same sense of missing something when you don't bother to unlock a skin.

And here we are again. We have a long and frustrating map meta involving a HP sink that needs to be done over and over, we have a stack of achievements involving "defeat [Enemy] without getting hit by [Attack]" (insert Dodgy Rodeo flashback here), and we have a strike mission. If I put in the time to try to get the meta achievement and any of those ends up blocking me from getting it, then the time spent on the others is basically wasted. Good thing the meta reward is an emote.

I'm stubborn. I've stuck with GW2 even when the content wasn't to my interest. I just don't know how many casuals who aren't as stubborn are going to stick around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Iris Ng.9845 said:They need a friendly invitation, an incentive hard to ignore and just slightly harder challenge to make an exciting game time.Sorry, no. While I appreciate the kind intentions in the suggestion, I find enough enjoyment and entertainment with GW2 without having the game force me into content that I would otherwise avoid. That is not exciting to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Blocki.4931 said:Every way that gets people to do parts of the game they wouldn't otherwise check out is worth it. If any minor inconvenience drives them away from achieving their goal of completing a meta achievement then I must ask why they wanted to do it in the first place.

Worth it to whom? Not to the player being forced into content that they might otherwise avoid. It is not a minor inconvenience for the studio to significantly alter the way some of us enjoy the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jayden Reese.9542 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

We have 5 years of the majority of players saying they do not want to be forced into raids or forced into raid content, and that was clarified by Andrew Gray.

Did he say players do not want to be forced into it though? Or that it was too difficult for them and there was no bridge for that

@"Fire Attunement.9835" said:We gathered data to determine why, and the most common answer was that there is a giant leap in difficulty between raids and other endgame content, and there >isn't anything to help players work their way up.

That suggests players do want to do raids, but there obstacles players want removing.

I am willing to retract that if I have missed a statement somewhere else

These “stepping stone” will not make raids magically better, not will they finally attract a larger audience. And by forcing raid type content to complete a new zone will only serve to alienate players from that content and the game itself.

Again, the majority hate/dislike/don’t wanna do raids in GW2 period. That is a fact. These strike missions will do nothing to change that.

And you could be spot on. Or you could be wrong. There is no fact here yet because what they are trying to do isn't complete. For all we know, it could actually be working according to their metrics. Or it could be failing miserably. I don't know. You don't know.What we do know is what ANet have gathered feedback about the opinion on raids and that seemingly is players want the obstacles removed and a smoother transition, not that they don't want them at all. Not one of us are better positioned to overturn that feedback.

I guess we can refer back to this in a few months and see if the attempt as indeed successful or not.

But going right the way back to the OP's original concerns. I support what they are doing and have no issues with them continuing to add lots of varied content to the meta achievement. I think such things fit nicely there.

This is the opening sentence in the OP... " For the first time ever, in order to get a zone meta achievement, people are required to get achievements from ten man instanced content."

Forcing players to do raid type content, when the devs full well know that the majority hate said content... and 5 years later the result of raids is... “the small audience they attract”... isn't going to make players happy. We don't need any metrics to know that forcing players to do what they don't want to do is BAD.

As I said above - the feedback that Anet have is that players appear to want to do it, they just find obstacles to doing it and have asked for those obstacles to be removed. The desire seems to exist based on that reply from Andrew Gray. That is why they are pushing these strikes so hard. Any statement from us otherwise flows against the feedback they have gathered.

The question and subject of this thread isn't whether players want to raid. It's whether pushing the strikes as a part of the meta is the right strategy. I am not dismissing the OP's feedback, I just disagree with it because I like how they have implemented it

That's great, you are entitled to feel the way you feel. Just be aware that forcing strike missions on players will backfire and not grow raid participation, and we don't need metrics on what we already know from past experiences.

Edit- And out of curiosity, do you run spvp MATs or seasons?

@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

We have 5 years of the majority of players saying they do not want to be forced into raids or forced into raid content, and that was clarified by Andrew Gray.

Did he say players do not want to be forced into it though? Or that it was too difficult for them and there was no bridge for that

@"Fire Attunement.9835" said:We gathered data to determine why, and the most common answer was that there is a giant leap in difficulty between raids and other endgame content, and there >isn't anything to help players work their way up.

That suggests players do want to do raids, but there obstacles players want removing.

I am willing to retract that if I have missed a statement somewhere else

These “stepping stone” will not make raids magically better, not will they finally attract a larger audience. And by forcing raid type content to complete a new zone will only serve to alienate players from that content and the game itself.

Again, the majority hate/dislike/don’t wanna do raids in GW2 period. That is a fact. These strike missions will do nothing to change that.

And you could be spot on. Or you could be wrong. There is no fact here yet because what they are trying to do isn't complete. For all we know, it could actually be working according to their metrics. Or it could be failing miserably. I don't know. You don't know.What we do know is what ANet have gathered feedback about the opinion on raids and that seemingly is players want the obstacles removed and a smoother transition, not that they don't want them at all. Not one of us are better positioned to overturn that feedback.

I guess we can refer back to this in a few months and see if the attempt as indeed successful or not.

But going right the way back to the OP's original concerns. I support what they are doing and have no issues with them continuing to add lots of varied content to the meta achievement. I think such things fit nicely there.

This is the opening sentence in the OP... " For the first time ever, in order to get a zone meta achievement, people are required to get achievements from ten man instanced content."

Forcing players to do raid type content, when the devs full well know that the majority hate said content... and 5 years later the result of raids is... “the small audience they attract”... isn't going to make players happy. We don't need any metrics to know that forcing players to do what they don't want to do is BAD.

As I said above - the feedback that Anet have is that players appear to want to do it, they just find obstacles to doing it and have asked for those obstacles to be removed. The desire seems to exist based on that reply from Andrew Gray. That is why they are pushing these strikes so hard. Any statement from us otherwise flows against the feedback they have gathered.

The question and subject of this thread isn't whether players want to raid. It's whether pushing the strikes as a part of the meta is the right strategy. I am not dismissing the OP's feedback, I just disagree with it because I like how they have implemented it

That's great, you are entitled to feel the way you feel. Just be aware that forcing strike missions on players will backfire and not grow raid participation, and we don't need metrics on what we already know from past experiences.

Edit- And out of curiosity, do you run spvp MATs or seasons?

I can't see it backfire. Before there were raiders and non-raiders only.Now there are raiders and non-raiders and players who do strikes but not raids.I'm sure some who never raided will try raids after strikes but someone who won't even do strikes when some are easy were never gonna do raids anyway.The only question is will players quit because they couldn't do one meta because they refuse to do strikes I mean maybe but doubt it will be a mass exodus. Now if they continue next meta with and added strikes being even harder it could chase some away

I don't think players quit for one reason. But players accumulate reasons until they quit. For me this is a big one. I really don't want to play and I'm not going to play as much. I'm certainly not feeling like spending money in the gem store. I might not quit but it will affect my hours in game.

And that's your choice. I avoided jumping puzzles forever then over time I did almost them all. Still not a fan. The light puzzles I had no interest but this meta kinda made me do um. Stikes are similar. I don't look forward to new ones but It's just a world boss with a 10 player cap. You join and even if you suck most times the 8 left alive kill it esp groth kodan and fraenir. It's not like after I'm like omg that Vayne dude sucked and send you whispers. You try if you like it great if not do the bare minimum beat um each once or ignore a meta which isn't the end of the world. Up to you but I say at least try.

Sure it's my choice. I agree. But it's not JUST my choice. It's everyone's choice. And if enough people are affected by that choice it will affect the game negatively. There's one group of players less pissed off than other players. I suggest it's probably not the group of players you'd want to alienate. Just my thought process. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe none of the casual players left in the game care enough about the meta to be frustrated...but I don't think that's the case.

Saying this is my choice is absolutely true. Suggesting that I"m some how alone in my feelings on this probably isn't. Whether this is a good idea or not will depend on the size of that demographic.

I never said you were the only one affected. You don't like groups. I even said most likely even the players who don't do well in strikes aren't noticed/remembered and later on you write it's harder to be invisible in strikes which tells me that's what you are worried about. Being forced to join a group like it's going to out you to the world if you do bad. Do I even scroll over the names in a strike um no. You are just a lil icon I will never remember your class/spec name etc.The thing is I hate replaying story. Sometimes anet puts hard story achievement in as req for the meta. Like Dragonfall I don't have meta cause no interest in weak point nonsense but I need that. Why didn't anet give the kill 1000 mobs as progress to it? I would of finished those. Or bitterfrost. No way in hell I'm going thru that long story stop 5 times kill 100 mobs so I can hope not to get hit and you can cheese it too by letting npcs do it and afk for 25m. Some people hate jumping puzzles and sometimes that's included. So if you remove everything everyone thinks shouldn't be in a meta we are all let with do easy story ones do events 20 times etc. Yeah the meta will be done so fast if anet caters to everyone. I bet anet caves too and removes this. Leave it undone instead of letting it affect you and you say I'll leave the game. Or leave the game. Or adjust and try. Def don't ever try FF14 as every raid/dungeon and their harder version or strikes is req to do story/unlock new areas.

Nah, if this doesn't work out, it'll be my last MMO. The potential for MMORPGs is there, but the evolution of them has left, in my opinion, much to be desired. I seriously doubt any MMO will be worth the effort, after my time here.

This has nothing to do to catering to everyone. This has to do with changing something in a way that I find annoying. The anonymous comment wasn't about me, btw, I don't really care if people know who I am or not, it was for other guildies, who aren't such great players perhaps who don't want to get noticed or only play with guildies who know them. I'm sorta that way too. I really don't pug anything. I hang with my mates.

And that's the thing. This entire thing is just unnecessary in my mind and it takes away my personal end game. It may not be your end game and that's fine, but it's mine and it's other people as well. If enough people feel this way Anet will see it in the numbers and they'll be changes appropriately. If enough people don't feel this way they'll continue what they're doing without us. Either way it'll be fine. But yeah, this is a deal breaker for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ayrilana.1396 said:For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes and put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

I've tried them. Several times. They are in fact a kind of content that I could really enjoy.

What I absolutely did NOT enjoy were some of the people I encountered in strike missions. I'm 50, with poor eyesight and reflexes, and while I thoroughly enjoy this kind of instanced content, it takes me a LOT of tries to get the mechanics down to a point where I can react to all of them with a reasonable margin of error, even if I know them by heart long before.

Many people I encountered are nice and relaxed, but the percentage of the ones that were too impatient and started flaming people for not following mechanics flawlessly was just too high for my tastes. I'm in this game to relax and enjoy myself, but I don't have 9 other like-minded people online regularly to do strikes with (if I had, I'd be raiding more than once every blue moon, too), and I really don't want to ruin my entertainment time by having to deal with the kind of people I've encountered in some of the strike missions I was in.

Fortunate for me, I really couldn't care less about achievements, so I don't worry about not finishing the meta achievement of this episode, but looking around my guilds and ingame friends, many of whom are even older than me, there are a lot of players put off by seeing the meta out of their reach unless they do instanced content with people they don't care to associate with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind that they added strike mission achievements to the meta; what I do mind is that if you don't do strike missions (instanced group content), you don't complete the meta.

People don't get to choose their path to victory in this story meta, and that's very odd given that the strikes are just immediate boss fights without story elements behind them (Freezie's lair has more story in it, and that's a goofy holiday event strike).

You can reach into the past for other examples of this kind of thing (WvW to get Warclaw, Raids to get legendary armor, etc.) but past examples of a badfeels thing doesn't make it feel any less bad. I don't like that game modes are being shoved at me rather than offered as an option with additional rewards if I choose to try them (AP, achievements, titles and such).

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rasimir.6239 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:For all of those that don't like having to do strike mission achievements for the meta: have you actually done strikes
and
put as much effort into them as you would have done for any story or open world achievement? I have a suspicion that a lot of those that don't like it probably have never actually done strikes or at least put much effort into it.

I've tried them. Several times. They are in fact a kind of content that I could really enjoy.

What I absolutely did
NOT
enjoy were some of the people I encountered in strike missions. I'm 50, with poor eyesight and reflexes, and while I thoroughly enjoy this kind of instanced content, it takes me a
LOT
of tries to get the mechanics down to a point where I can react to all of them with a reasonable margin of error, even if I know them by heart long before.

Many people I encountered are nice and relaxed, but the percentage of the ones that were too impatient and started flaming people for not following mechanics flawlessly was just too high for my tastes. I'm in this game to relax and enjoy myself, but I don't have 9 other like-minded people online regularly to do strikes with (if I had, I'd be raiding more than once every blue moon, too), and I really don't want to ruin my entertainment time by having to deal with the kind of people I've encountered in some of the strike missions I was in.

Fortunate for me, I really couldn't care less about achievements, so I don't worry about not finishing the meta achievement of this episode, but looking around my guilds and ingame friends, many of whom are even older than me, there are a lot of players put off by seeing the meta out of their reach unless they do instanced content with people they don't care to associate with.

I haven’t encountered anyone that was really toxic when doing strikes except for maybe those groups with strict requirements because they’re going for gold. The vast majority of groups are very mellow with very few players talking to each other if at all. Similar to how you can do all three paths of a dungeon and nobody speaks to each other the entire time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m gonna summarize...

10 person content failed to attract more than a small group of players + Anet forced map completion upon 10 person content = Punch yourself in the nose.

... Like raids failed for most of the GW2 players, and these forced strike mission “stepping stones” will do nothing to change all the reasons why most players do not participate in raids. That’s the fact period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ANet is attempting to shoehorn players who have no interest in ten-player instanced content into such content by tying a reward which had been obtainable in enough other story chapters without ten player instanced content participation to be an expected goal for many. This suggests that ANet wants to continue making raids, but feels they need to make raids appeal to more players to justify the resources spent on them. I wondered whether ANet's desire to try to appeal to the "harder-instanced-content" gamers would survive MO's departure. It would seem that desire is still there.

One issue here is the tacit acknowledgement that GW2 has lost its appeal to sufficient harder-instanced-PvE content gamers to justify development of such content without adding to their number. Another issue is that there is an inherent risk in trying to put square pegs into round holes. It's kind of like the old axiom from the mid twentieth century about American football's forward pass, "Three things can happen, and two of them are bad." Those things for GW2?

  • Good: Targeted players consume strike missions and this leads to them trying and liking raids.
  • Bad: Targeted players try strikes or not, don't like them, and blow off the meta achievement, leaving them with less incentive to play.
  • Bad: Targeted players get incensed at ANet for trying to shoehorn them into content they dislike, and either boycott the gem store or leave the game.

The "forward pass" axiom is now a relic of the past. However, this issue is contemporary in GW2. I have to wonder whether GW2 is more likely to bleed players because it fails to attract more blood to raids or because it alienates a portion of its player-base which has no desire to participate in them, and who will resent the developer for the attempt at manipulation. While I don't know the answer, common sense suggests that the instanced content players have already thinned out -- due to insufficient releases and the ham-handed implementation of "templates." The so-called "casual" player-base, on the other hand, has had fewer disincentives to stay with the game.

I doubt losing players over this either way is going to break the game. However, GW2 has already bled players aplenty, and will sooner or later reach a point where such losses will be telling. It's a pity ANet feels the need to risk losing some of one demographic to try to keep the tattered remnants of another. Taking that risk is, to me, a bad sign.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jayden Reese.9542 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

We have 5 years of the majority of players saying they do not want to be forced into raids or forced into raid content, and that was clarified by Andrew Gray.

Did he say players do not want to be forced into it though? Or that it was too difficult for them and there was no bridge for that

@"Fire Attunement.9835" said:We gathered data to determine why, and the most common answer was that there is a giant leap in difficulty between raids and other endgame content, and there >isn't anything to help players work their way up.

That suggests players do want to do raids, but there obstacles players want removing.

I am willing to retract that if I have missed a statement somewhere else

These “stepping stone” will not make raids magically better, not will they finally attract a larger audience. And by forcing raid type content to complete a new zone will only serve to alienate players from that content and the game itself.

Again, the majority hate/dislike/don’t wanna do raids in GW2 period. That is a fact. These strike missions will do nothing to change that.

And you could be spot on. Or you could be wrong. There is no fact here yet because what they are trying to do isn't complete. For all we know, it could actually be working according to their metrics. Or it could be failing miserably. I don't know. You don't know.What we do know is what ANet have gathered feedback about the opinion on raids and that seemingly is players want the obstacles removed and a smoother transition, not that they don't want them at all. Not one of us are better positioned to overturn that feedback.

I guess we can refer back to this in a few months and see if the attempt as indeed successful or not.

But going right the way back to the OP's original concerns. I support what they are doing and have no issues with them continuing to add lots of varied content to the meta achievement. I think such things fit nicely there.

This is the opening sentence in the OP... " For the first time ever, in order to get a zone meta achievement, people are required to get achievements from ten man instanced content."

Forcing players to do raid type content, when the devs full well know that the majority hate said content... and 5 years later the result of raids is... “the small audience they attract”... isn't going to make players happy. We don't need any metrics to know that forcing players to do what they don't want to do is BAD.

As I said above - the feedback that Anet have is that players appear to want to do it, they just find obstacles to doing it and have asked for those obstacles to be removed. The desire seems to exist based on that reply from Andrew Gray. That is why they are pushing these strikes so hard. Any statement from us otherwise flows against the feedback they have gathered.

The question and subject of this thread isn't whether players want to raid. It's whether pushing the strikes as a part of the meta is the right strategy. I am not dismissing the OP's feedback, I just disagree with it because I like how they have implemented it

That's great, you are entitled to feel the way you feel. Just be aware that forcing strike missions on players will backfire and not grow raid participation, and we don't need metrics on what we already know from past experiences.

Edit- And out of curiosity, do you run spvp MATs or seasons?

@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

We have 5 years of the majority of players saying they do not want to be forced into raids or forced into raid content, and that was clarified by Andrew Gray.

Did he say players do not want to be forced into it though? Or that it was too difficult for them and there was no bridge for that

@"Fire Attunement.9835" said:We gathered data to determine why, and the most common answer was that there is a giant leap in difficulty between raids and other endgame content, and there >isn't anything to help players work their way up.

That suggests players do want to do raids, but there obstacles players want removing.

I am willing to retract that if I have missed a statement somewhere else

These “stepping stone” will not make raids magically better, not will they finally attract a larger audience. And by forcing raid type content to complete a new zone will only serve to alienate players from that content and the game itself.

Again, the majority hate/dislike/don’t wanna do raids in GW2 period. That is a fact. These strike missions will do nothing to change that.

And you could be spot on. Or you could be wrong. There is no fact here yet because what they are trying to do isn't complete. For all we know, it could actually be working according to their metrics. Or it could be failing miserably. I don't know. You don't know.What we do know is what ANet have gathered feedback about the opinion on raids and that seemingly is players want the obstacles removed and a smoother transition, not that they don't want them at all. Not one of us are better positioned to overturn that feedback.

I guess we can refer back to this in a few months and see if the attempt as indeed successful or not.

But going right the way back to the OP's original concerns. I support what they are doing and have no issues with them continuing to add lots of varied content to the meta achievement. I think such things fit nicely there.

This is the opening sentence in the OP... " For the first time ever, in order to get a zone meta achievement, people are required to get achievements from ten man instanced content."

Forcing players to do raid type content, when the devs full well know that the majority hate said content... and 5 years later the result of raids is... “the small audience they attract”... isn't going to make players happy. We don't need any metrics to know that forcing players to do what they don't want to do is BAD.

As I said above - the feedback that Anet have is that players appear to want to do it, they just find obstacles to doing it and have asked for those obstacles to be removed. The desire seems to exist based on that reply from Andrew Gray. That is why they are pushing these strikes so hard. Any statement from us otherwise flows against the feedback they have gathered.

The question and subject of this thread isn't whether players want to raid. It's whether pushing the strikes as a part of the meta is the right strategy. I am not dismissing the OP's feedback, I just disagree with it because I like how they have implemented it

That's great, you are entitled to feel the way you feel. Just be aware that forcing strike missions on players will backfire and not grow raid participation, and we don't need metrics on what we already know from past experiences.

Edit- And out of curiosity, do you run spvp MATs or seasons?

I can't see it backfire. Before there were raiders and non-raiders only.Now there are raiders and non-raiders and players who do strikes but not raids.I'm sure some who never raided will try raids after strikes but someone who won't even do strikes when some are easy were never gonna do raids anyway.The only question is will players quit because they couldn't do one meta because they refuse to do strikes I mean maybe but doubt it will be a mass exodus. Now if they continue next meta with and added strikes being even harder it could chase some away

I don't think players quit for one reason. But players accumulate reasons until they quit. For me this is a big one. I really don't want to play and I'm not going to play as much. I'm certainly not feeling like spending money in the gem store. I might not quit but it will affect my hours in game.

And that's your choice. I avoided jumping puzzles forever then over time I did almost them all. Still not a fan. The light puzzles I had no interest but this meta kinda made me do um. Stikes are similar. I don't look forward to new ones but It's just a world boss with a 10 player cap. You join and even if you suck most times the 8 left alive kill it esp groth kodan and fraenir. It's not like after I'm like omg that Vayne dude sucked and send you whispers. You try if you like it great if not do the bare minimum beat um each once or ignore a meta which isn't the end of the world. Up to you but I say at least try.

Sure it's my choice. I agree. But it's not JUST my choice. It's everyone's choice. And if enough people are affected by that choice it will affect the game negatively. There's one group of players less pissed off than other players. I suggest it's probably not the group of players you'd want to alienate. Just my thought process. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe none of the casual players left in the game care enough about the meta to be frustrated...but I don't think that's the case.

Saying this is my choice is absolutely true. Suggesting that I"m some how alone in my feelings on this probably isn't. Whether this is a good idea or not will depend on the size of that demographic.

I never said you were the only one affected. You don't like groups. I even said most likely even the players who don't do well in strikes aren't noticed/remembered and later on you write it's harder to be invisible in strikes which tells me that's what you are worried about. Being forced to join a group like it's going to out you to the world if you do bad. Do I even scroll over the names in a strike um no. You are just a lil icon I will never remember your class/spec name etc.The thing is I hate replaying story. Sometimes anet puts hard story achievement in as req for the meta. Like Dragonfall I don't have meta cause no interest in weak point nonsense but I need that. Why didn't anet give the kill 1000 mobs as progress to it? I would of finished those. Or bitterfrost. No way in hell I'm going thru that long story stop 5 times kill 100 mobs so I can hope not to get hit and you can cheese it too by letting npcs do it and afk for 25m. Some people hate jumping puzzles and sometimes that's included. So if you remove everything everyone thinks shouldn't be in a meta we are all let with do easy story ones do events 20 times etc. Yeah the meta will be done so fast if anet caters to everyone. I bet anet caves too and removes this. Leave it undone instead of letting it affect you and you say I'll leave the game. Or leave the game. Or adjust and try. Def don't ever try FF14 as every raid/dungeon and their harder version or strikes is req to do story/unlock new areas.

Nah, if this doesn't work out, it'll be my last MMO. The potential for MMORPGs is there, but the evolution of them has left, in my opinion, much to be desired. I seriously doubt any MMO will be worth the effort, after my time here.

This has nothing to do to catering to everyone. This has to do with changing something in a way that I find annoying. The anonymous comment wasn't about me, btw, I don't really care if people know who I am or not, it was for other guildies, who aren't such great players perhaps who don't want to get noticed or only play with guildies who know them. I'm sorta that way too. I really don't pug anything. I hang with my mates.

And that's the thing. This entire thing is just unnecessary in my mind and it takes away my personal end game. It may not be your end game and that's fine, but it's mine and it's other people as well. If enough people feel this way Anet will see it in the numbers and they'll be changes appropriately. If enough people don't feel this way they'll continue what they're doing without us. Either way it'll be fine. But yeah, this is a deal breaker for me.

I tried to explain there's stuff I don't like in meta's to but this is only what annoys you I see that now. Ok, so this was some long emo goodbye GW2 thread then. So goodbye and gl

You probably should reread what I said. I said if this is the future of the game, it's going there without me. I'm not leaving the game at this point. I'm not twelve. I'm saying if this is the road the game is going down, it will do so without me, because it's a deal breaker. That's all.

It's a change to the game that I don't endorse and I don't like and I feel strongly about. Shrugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"IndigoSundown.5419" said:I doubt losing players over this either way is going to break the game. However, GW2 has already bled players aplenty, and will sooner or later reach a point where such losses will be telling. It's a pity ANet feels the need to risk losing some of one demographic to try to keep the tattered remnants of another. Taking that risk is, to me, a bad sign.

I don't think it will have any noticeable effect on the population at all. I think any talk of leaving over a meta is a bit silly to be honest. if people want to do that, then that's up to them, but a single stretch of achievement which blocks nothing more than an emote and a few AP, is not something to be overly concerned about and I don't think the majority of players will care or even register a problem here at all.

MMO's incorporate lots of different aspects and encouraging players to try different things in it is an extremely sound business approach. The game is unlikely to survive if it keeps segregating communities, so it has to try and encourage players to play together in as much content as possible. And this isn't really new. Anet has been doing this in different ways with different modes.

There's a lot of problems right now in the game from the deteriation of the story, the weakened map design, the poor quality meta/world boss designs (drakkar included), but the bringing together of communities is something I have long wanted them find solutions for. This attitude of "I am a casual therefore don't force me to do something else" is not healthy for an MMO game at all. I would think Anet recognise that too.

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...