yann.1946

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > Isn't one of the points of a chill run that you don't mind wiping? > For some players, maybe. For others "chill" means not having to bother with all the organizational stuff, angry people etc. Someone wanting a chill run does not necessarily want to keep wiping, though. Wipes are usually chill mainly for people that have absolutely no problem with succeeding. > Isn't part of not wanting angry people, not getting angry yourself incase things don't go as you want. Otherwise this feels very hypocritical to me. But i have to agree, not minding wiping is probably the biggest help incase you want to raid.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > If you want a *chill, no req group of first timers* then by all means: create the squad in lfg and wait for the people with similar goals to join you. For some reason there are people that seem to think the weight of organizing their time should be on other players or anet. > > > Ah, but that's exactly because for most people that want chill groups, once they end up having to organize it such a group _stops_ being chill. Thus, organizing a chill group with LFG becomes a contradiction. > > > > I fail to see how creating a group in lfg suddenly contradicts a "chill" playstyle preferences or no req raiding. > There's a major difference betweenjust posting a "chill" group in LFG, and posting a group in LFG and ensuring the run will be a success. First can be chill - but only until the first wipe. Second is rarely chill, unless you are already heavily experienced in raiding - which the people you talk about definitely aren't. > Isn't one of the points of a chill run that you don't mind wiping? > > From my point of view I'd say it's not a case of "contradicting" anything, but probably... laziness or even a bit of entitlement (YOU will organize my fun for me!). > From your point of view, maybe. It's _not_ you having an issue here, though. What would be laziness if done by you, doesn't have to be the same when it happens to someone else. > > > >

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > You're missing a small detail though. Maybe squads who ask for only one get filled way faster, so they don't appear for the same time as others. > That was the case during dungeons era, where people complained about speedrun/elitist LFGs dominating the content, not realizing that casual LFGs just tended to disappear very fastm and were really easy to overlook. > > Not saying this is definitely the case here, but that's still a good example why anecdotal evidence is not worth all that much. Yes, it's the same reason high requirement lfgs and raidsellers stay way longer and seem overrepresented

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > That still is very unreliable method. Not only it is based on anecdotal data (no one in reality is going to sit refreshing lfg 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to see what is really happening), but it also completely ignores statics. And we lack the data to say how LFG compares to statics in participation. > > > > Although i agree - there aren't likely many players that run shiverpeaks only. Although there are probably other reasons for that, than just the difficulty. > > Shiverpeak Pass is just an example, the other easy Strike Missions are in the same situation. I don't think there is any reason to form a static just to run Shiverpeak Pass or only the lower tier Strike Missions. You don't really need to check LFG all day, just enough through prime time and remember you it's a comparison, if every time I open LFG I see groups forming for "all strike mission" runs and none for just single Strike Missions (other than some achievement runs), I don't really need to check 24/7. You're missing a small detail though. Maybe squads who ask for only one get filled way faster, so they don't appear for the same time as others.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > This would go against their statement when raids first came out if they were to "depreciate" it. > > > Yes. It would. So? It's clear their original approach did **not** work out. If they're going to keep to it, it means no new raids ever. Is that what you want? > > > > You’re assuming that them not making earlier raids easier is the issue. > No. I am assuming that if something is obviously wrong, and it's clear that the matters don't go in good direction, not doing anything but just continuing on the previous course just because we're sticking to some completely arbitrary prior decision is not the wisest choice. > > Original design decisions should never be considered sacrosanct and completely unviolable - especially when it's clear that something somewhere in those original designs is not working right. Sometimes things need to change. > But their was not anything obviously wrong, the first raids where even beter received then expected. The big problem with you're argument that ,the abandonment of raids was a natural consequence of doing nothing, is ignoring the fact that they didn't do nothing, they decreased the amount of development raids got.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > Then this layer of difficulty serves no purpose as gateway or training mechanism for raids. > > > > Yes. Indeed, the usefulness of such mode for training, while existing, should never be considered as an important factor. It would be less important, than, for example, segregating "players who have different approaches and goals for a mode", so they won't end meeting in the same group. > > > > > > > > > > You nicely skipped the second part of the response where I commented on what another poster suggested that even an easy mode might very well attract players with different goals, which makes the entire approach of segregation meaningless. Besides splitting the player base even further. > > Nah, currently this is a problem, because it's simply not possible for those two groups to play separately. One of those groups can indeed try to filter out the seccond, but the other cannot. That's because, in order to play separately from the first group, and still succeed, they would have to _become_ first group first. > > > > Which is the same as saying: in order to succeed at raids, one would have to adopt a raiding mindset and approach. Agreed. > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > In easy mode those two types of groups could play alongside each other without too much interference. Most people would simply avoid the training runs that would try to do all mechanics - the same way most players ignored the speedclear dungeon runs in the past. And the same way speedclear runners ignored the "casual run" and "all welcome" dungeon LFGs. > > > > And no, it would not split the playerbase further. That split already exists, no new splintering would happen. The "training" groups from easy mode would eventually go up to normal and join the main raider community (perhaps being more prepared for it now, and with lower chances of running face-first into some experience that woudl make them run away). The non-training players would still remain separate from raiding community. Nothing about this split would change. > > > > That's a lot of assumption on your part. I'm just going to say: > - assuming there is enough players who would play easy mode raids is just that: an assumption > - which ties strait into rewards, because easier content in this game often means less exclusive rewards, unless you want to syphon players away from the normal mode which would again be a detriment to regular raids > - I've seen just as toxic "non" raid players in open world content, more even because there is literally no reason to be toxic there. You yourself often bring the argument that there is this huge divide in player skill. No matter how easy content is, there will always be those who find it challenging in this game. Some of the most toxic individuals I have met in this game were semi competent players, some times strait up terrible, who assumed they were far better then they are. > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > In the past there was already constraint on the resources devoted to raid content, which in some of our opinions is the ACTUAL reason for this content decline. Just like Spvp, WvW and fractals, which have seen similar decline due to lack of attention and content. Spreading the same amount of resources across multiple difficulties would have meant even less content in terms of actual raids OR requiring more developer attention, which in turn would have meant less content in other areas, most likely other PvE. > > > > > > So no, it's not a win-win especially if we consider that as some have pointed out, easy raids might not even address some of the issues which players argue for: most notably a better way to enter the content. > > > > > > If this is about only easier access to the rewards, everyone can have their own stance on it, but it is something far different than "we need easy raids for training purposes". > > > > > > As far as the current situation and if there is no development resources allocated, then sure, any resources spent on any part of the mode might be in some way beneficial. That's a very different outset than the past though and again, requires resources be pulled from other content. > > Well, yeah, now it's way too late for that probably, especially seeing as they seem to have some major resource problems at the moment. As for the past though - sure, we can't be sure that it would have worked. But we already know that jealously protecting those resources then **didn't** work. The way of thinking that was too afraid to use some of those resources to try something new in order to potentially save raids was the one that ensured that no attempt was ever made, and thus made raids' demise _certain_. > > > > Yes, any attempt to fix raids would have required taking some risk. It's just that "playing it safe", and avoiding all the risk led to the path where _all_ was lost. > > I find this entire argument so disingenuous (not you specifically but the entire argument that easy mode raids would have beneficially affected this situation almost as though it were guaranteed). > > Where were the big demands to add more developers to raid content in the past? All I recall is players who enjoy and open world content constantly demanding more open world content, especially during the content drought which also hit raids, especially during that time. Why did no one make the argument then to delay open world and season content even more in favor of raid and easy mode raid development? Simple, no one dared make that demand because they would have been crucified by the open world zealots. As a matter of fact, I would have been against this redistribution of resources myself because I never wanted this game to become more raid centric, and I've stated as much in the past multiple times. > > Why is it that the niche game modes, which already see far less developer attention, are supposed to give? The time frame between raid wings was close to 1 year towards the end. Delaying that content even more would have most likely lead to an even faster demise of the player base without additional resources devoted and that is an assumption which can actually be supported in things happening in this game and via basic logic. You can pretend as much as you want that the potential "more players" which this could have drawn might have halted that flow-off, but you have little in way of substantiating this assumption. What we know for certain, and this has been evident in ALL content in this game no matter the mode: lack of developer attention and new content leads to player loss for each and every area of the game. This has been and is visible in Spvp, WvW, fractals, raids, open world, living world, story, etc. EVERYWHERE! > > This entire notion that something might have been different or better is just a baseless assumption based on the premise that more players might be interested in raid content or that the assets used could be reused. They could have just as well made single players story missions with the raid bosses and that would have likely been a wiser asset investment than easy mode raids IF asset share was of a major concern. > > Players who want to raid in this game are raiding, or at least the vast majority is. If sharing assets with other content is of primary concern, there is a ton of stuff which could be done which would be more beneficial than easy mode raids. Harping on half truths from the past because the overall games population is in decline in order to prove some point or make some type of assumption of how things could have been is just baseless speculation, especially when unfounded in recent game developments. I completely agree with the last part you said. But I feel this is more a consequence of people wanting their biases confirmed. Someone wants easy mode and sees raids decline so it must be the lack of easy mode, not the plethora of other problems the game in general has. Although maybe it's more the mindset of some people that niche content is intrinsically bad.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > As i see it, there's nothing wrong about the _idea_ of rotations, but there's indeed quite a lot of problems with how this got implemented in GW2. > > > > > > > You need to understand what a rotation is. Practically any way that a player commonly uses their skills is a rotation. Mashing their skills is a rotation. Removing rotations is practically impossible. > Then we understand the term differently. For me, random mashing buttons is not a rotation. It is random mashing buttons. Rotation for me is having a certain sequence of skills you need to follow in the right order. The alternative would be a dynamic system, where you use skills according to the current situation and certain priorities, and have no set rotation to follow. > This is actually a super interesting point to me, Doesn't a dynamic system eventually lead to rotations? And gw2 system is also pretty dynamic (most things are priority based and the rotation is just the optimum of those priorities)

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > As an important note, what i care about is not only keeping people out of content they won't enjoy, but also get people in content they would enjoy even if they don't think they would > Problem happens when you go too much with the latter. As such, any incentives to see the content should ve relatively shallow and _not_ require massive time investments. Just enough to realize whether you like the content or not. > For example, WvW's Gift of Battle (as well as some WvW unique reward tracks) are mostly okay fo this, as they do allow for very shallow level of participation, but still high enough for you to "get your feet wet" and see the content for yourself before deciding whether to continue or not. Same with SPvP reward tracks. Both WvW and SPvP are not. They _would_ have been okay if PvE offered a mainstream version, instead of being raid-locked. > It is a difficult balance though, i guess the only way to know which amount is acceptable is using data we haven't acces to. > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > The first option solves the problem, by changing the gameplay style of raids. This is not likely to be met with good reception by people that _do_ like how raids are currently. > > > > I agree that this is not a good idea because it removes a specific content type from the game. So it forces people who enjoy the content type to leave the content. > Indeed. > > > > Second option would satisfy current players, but does not solve the problem at all. It just makes it less visible for the raiders. It is also hard to implement (as it's impossible to easily quantify player skill), so runs the heavy risk of being either too weak (and thus ineffective), or too strong (and thus preventing a lot of potential new raiders from trying them) > > > > Maybe we shouldn't create a filter based on skill level ( as thats not the actual problem their). But some filter based on what people would enjoy. Although i can't see a good way to do this. > That would be the third option - the incentives. > the question is if their are other ways then incentive. Say i construct some rpg. And in the beginning i have a few missions where the player tanks, a few where he bursts and a few where he supports, then giving different missions to do it in different ways so the player can get to the end of the story while doing the things they enjoy. Their doesn't need to be an incentive for them to go along the pad they like. > > > Third option removes the problem, by removing the incentives (either by removing them outright, or by making them available through other avenues, that are fit for players that like different playstyles). Again, some raiders may get angry > > > > And it doesn't help the get people who would enjoy raids into raids part. > See my first comment about shallow dipping. I don't believe getting a few players into raids via rewards is worth giving a finger to a probably much bigger group of players that will end up very much disliking the whole experience (and likely not even get the things they wanted) > I won't really make a comment on whether its wrong atm. we don't have the data to make a conclusive truth either way. i do want to say that i don't think the size of the group which feels discomfort matters. Say we have something which 25 percent really enjoys but 75 percent only slightly dislikes, it might still be in the general advantage of the game. See jp for example. Also sometimes theirs can be a positive merit to a player to including things even though their not directly fun for that player. As an example jp's helped to increase my enjoyement of gw2 even though i personnally didn't like them. It made a friend of me start playing. > > > > Fourth option is sort of a variation of the third one, that works by offering several different modes of the content, that are designed for players with different playstyles. Notice, though, that for it to work, you would need to make the stuff non-raiders go into raids for available also through those other, "not true raid" modes. Or at least enough of that stuff to heavily minimize the problem. This option also will make at least some raiders angry. > > > > > > > Do you think making all raid rewards sellable be a good way to make the rewards available to everyone. Or do you think it would create friction as "raiders control the prices"? > It works for ghostly infusions, and for dhuum throne, so why not? At least it would be _some_ kind of solution. > The reason that i question it is because making everything available for gold makes the game feel more uniform. I don't have an informed opinion on this topic though. > > > > > As you can see, there's no option that would be considered good to everyone. There would be some pushback no matter what you picked. I can only tell you that any attempt to make bigger percentage of player population start raiding _without_ changing anything about raids themselves is going to be met with at best a minimal, unnoticeable effect. While possibly causing some fallout elsewhere. > > > > > > > Maybe the solutions are more subtle. It is entirely possible to change behavior patrons of groups of people. (Propaganda is an example of this). > It serves mainly to reinforce existing behaviours or introduce new ones. It doesn't work all that well when you try to change already ingrained patterns though. Meaning, it might work for children and players completely new to genre, but is unlikely to work on older players. Especially on those that have been in this game for years already. Additionally, you'd probably need to ensure they won't be exposed to any conflicting influences (for example, from RL or _other_ games). As such, i wouldn't consider it a viable option. > > > > Technically true, but those very same people always had the option of going for raids directly. For such people Strikes _aren't_ any better to start in than Raids are. The barriers that prevent people from raiding are the same barriers that prevent the same people from participating in more difficult strikes. Players that try Whispers and Boneskinner and decide they like what they see would have the very same reaction after trying out Cairn or VG. And it would _not_ have been any harder for them to do so. > > > > > > basically, for those players, Strikes are _not_ a stairway. They are a _detour_. > > > > > As i said in the beginning of this post, what i care about is not only keeping people out of content they won't enjoy, but also get people in content they would enjoy even if they don't think they would. So a detour isn't that bad of an idea if people wouldn't make the shorter route because of a pletora of different reasons. > Then perhaps one should think of a way to point them the way _without_ making a lot of other players heavily displeased. That's a telemarketer level of advertising. Noone likes telemarketers. > Possibly, why are people displeased with strikes in general. i haven't been following that debate very closly.

As an important note, what i care about is not only keeping people out of content they won't enjoy, but also get people in content they would enjoy even if they don't think they would > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > For the most part, people that attempt raids do know (or learn very fast) whether this is something they might like. One of the problems we run into is that there are people that dislike the gameplay style raids are designed for, but _do_ like/desire some other things that are there. Be it story elements, or plain loot. > > > > > > > Sure, but how would you address that in a reasonable way. > I'll quote part of one of my earlier posts, because it is relevant here: > > Well, the point i am making is that you _won't_ change those players. Most of them either don't want to improve, or are incapable of doing so. As such, there are four realistic options here: > > - adjust the content to those weaker players, so their presence is no longer a problem > > - somehow prevent those weaker players from even trying to join, so their presence will no longer be a problem > > - make it so those players can still join, but (unless they aer interested in the raiding gameplay style itself) are not interested in doing so > > - somehow make it so the players of those differing playstyles aren't grouped together, by utilizing multiple difficulty modes > Notice for clarity that "the problem" we're talking about now (people being incentivized to play raids, while not liking the gameplay raids offer) is slightly different than "the problem" i was mentioning then (which was about toxocity resulting from mixing players of different playstyles and expectations in the same content). For the remaining part, when i would be referring to "the problem", i would be talking about the former, not the latter. > > The first option solves the problem, by changing the gameplay style of raids. This is not likely to be met with good reception by people that _do_ like how raids are currently. I agree that this is not a good idea because it removes a specific content type from the game. So it forces people who enjoy the content type to leave the content. > Second option would satisfy current players, but does not solve the problem at all. It just makes it less visible for the raiders. It is also hard to implement (as it's impossible to easily quantify player skill), so runs the heavy risk of being either too weak (and thus ineffective), or too strong (and thus preventing a lot of potential new raiders from trying them) Maybe we shouldn't create a filter based on skill level ( as thats not the actual problem their). But some filter based on what people would enjoy. Although i can't see a good way to do this. > Third option removes the problem, by removing the incentives (either by removing them outright, or by making them available through other avenues, that are fit for players that like different playstyles). Again, some raiders may get angry And it doesn't help the get people who would enjoy raids into raids part. > Fourth option is sort of a variation of the third one, that works by offering several different modes of the content, that are designed for players with different playstyles. Notice, though, that for it to work, you would need to make the stuff non-raiders go into raids for available also through those other, "not true raid" modes. Or at least enough of that stuff to heavily minimize the problem. This option also will make at least some raiders angry. > Do you think making all raid rewards sellable be a good way to make the rewards available to everyone. Or do you think it would create friction as "raiders control the prices"? > As you can see, there's no option that would be considered good to everyone. There would be some pushback no matter what you picked. I can only tell you that any attempt to make bigger percentage of player population start raiding _without_ changing anything about raids themselves is going to be met with at best a minimal, unnoticeable effect. While possibly causing some fallout elsewhere. > Maybe the solutions are more subtle. It is entirely possible to change behavior patrons of groups of people. (Propaganda is an example of this). > > And aren't strikes a good thing in regard to informing people on whether they enjoy the content type? > > People who don't like strikes because of the mechanics (whisper) or group dynamic is more likely to like raids. > > While people who hate those aspects don't like these aspects probably won't like raids > Technically true, but those very same people always had the option of going for raids directly. For such people Strikes _aren't_ any better to start in than Raids are. The barriers that prevent people from raiding are the same barriers that prevent the same people from participating in more difficult strikes. Players that try Whispers and Boneskinner and decide they like what they see would have the very same reaction after trying out Cairn or VG. And it would _not_ have been any harder for them to do so. > > basically, for those players, Strikes are _not_ a stairway. They are a _detour_. > > As i said in the beginning of this post, what i care about is not only keeping people out of content they won't enjoy, but also get people in content they would enjoy even if they don't think they would. So a detour isn't that bad of an idea if people wouldn't make the shorter route because of a pletora of different reasons.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > Do you think we could reduce toxicity by informing people more about when they would enjoy the game mode vs not. > > > > People who don't find pvp enjoyable don't try to play pvp in general for example. > > I think it's important to make people aware about what parts of the game are for them and which parts aren't. > People that don't like pvp don't play it usually because they feel no need to do so. That's because usually there's nothing there they could not get by any other means. Anytime this happened to be not true (gift of battle, attempts to do some LS parts in WvW, legendary backpack, etc.) it generally always ended up badly, with toxicity levels rising all around. > Still, why do you think there are complains in SPvP about AFKer leechers? I can tell you that those people are definitely _not_ ones that are there because they like the content. > True, but I said informing people better about what parts of the game they enjoy, because it's not only about keeping people out who wouldn't enjoy the content, but getting the people in who would, but don't think they would. > For the most part, people that attempt raids do know (or learn very fast) whether this is something they might like. One of the problems we run into is that there are people that dislike the gameplay style raids are designed for, but _do_ like/desire some other things that are there. Be it story elements, or plain loot. > Sure, but how would you address that in a reasonable way. > Additionally, telling people they probably won't like raids and it's not content for them was the _last_ thing Anet ever wanted to do. For the whole of GW2's raids' history they were doing a lot trying to funnel as much of the normal, core players into them as possible. Even raids were effectively cancelled, Anet didn't stop doing that. If you remember, their whole explanation for strikes was all about doing exactly this. > We'll where talking about what would help, not what anet would do. And aren't strikes a good thing in regard to informing people on whether they enjoy the content type? People who don't like strikes because of the mechanics (whisper) or group dynamic is more likely to like raids. While people who hate those aspects don't like these aspects probably won't like raids

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > While I agree with the assessment, let's rephrase that one part a little please: > > > _you either need to go into groups **with some expectations**, or risk it with a group that will probably fail and then start spreading the blame all around_ > > > > Yes, there are expectations. Yes, those can pertain to setup or a certain performance. Yes, this can mean having to adapt to a groups desire. > > > > No, those expectations are often not high, at least not in all groups. > Those expectations being "not high" is extremely subjective. They may not be high to you. They are too high for a vast majority of GW2 players, though. > > > Please keep an objective perspective on the broad spectrum of groups here. > From an objective perspective, the expectations are way above the level of an average gw2 player. There's a reason why people keep prefiltering players through using different LFG requirements. It's because they _know_, that without doing that they run the very high risk of not getting the clear run they wanted. > > > Not every group treats players like that 200 Dhuum KP static one. Especially groups aimed at newer players or inexperienced players have often a LOT more leeway. > They do have a lot more leeway. But they also tend to _fail_. And, as i pointed out, failure (especially repeated failure) also generates tension. Not to mention, nobody's really interested in failing in the first place. > > > If players who are interested in raids actually interacted with groups intending to introduce those players to raids, a lot of issues would disappear. > Sure, if most players were interested in having to do a lot of training before attempting to clear a content succesfully, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And raids would be the baseline, not the the high-end content. It just so happens however that most players do _not_ play this way. And there's absolutely nothing you, me, devs, or anyone else can do to change that. > > Frankly, the "toxicity" problem never really affected the players with the raider mentality. Those players are, for the most part, always capable of finding the necessary info on their own. The whole issue is caused by the fact that raids are being attempted also by the players whose playing style is inimical to the one raids are designed for. And that is caused by raids having stuff in them (not necessarily the same for everyone) that is interesting on their own to those players (And by Anet trying to funnel them into that content). > > We may spend a ton of time trying to put the blame on one or the other part of the community, but that will not actually solve anything. Nothing will get better that way - at most, the relations between different parts of the community will become even worse than they already are. If you want to fix the problem, you have to accept that some people play differently than the others, and craft the solution based on this. Or, look at what must be done to fix it and decide, that for you the cure is worse than the disease. > > Do you think we could reduce toxicity by informing people more about when they would enjoy the game mode vs not. People who don't find pvp enjoyable don't try to play pvp in general for example. I think it's important to make people aware about what parts of the game are for them and which parts aren't.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > So as a question: What are you're suggestions to reduce this problems. > The only way to do that is to reduce the reasons why tensions happen in the first place. This happens when the group does not match the expectations some (or _all_) of the players in that group have. And the primary expectation is always "i want a group with which i willl be able to clear the content without any major problems". The more likely it will be for the (semi-)randomly matched 10 LFG players to fulfill that expectation, the lower the toxicity is going to get. > > Of course, the consequences of actions leading to that end might not be all that desirable for raiders. > > Spoiler: this mostly worked in dungeons, because they were much, much easier. It isn't going to work for raids though, unless you will somehow find a way to separate players with different expectations in such a way that will make all their expectations able to be fulfilled, without conflicting with each other. Which is not possible in raids as they are now, and to solve would require introducing some things many raiders would definitely not be comfortable with. I wonder if that really true. In essence the perception of toxicity has become so ingrained in how people perceive raids that I don't think decreasing toxicity in a raids would help much. Did the idea that dungeons where full of toxic players decrease because they became easier? Or because interest wained on them?

> @"Nephalem.8921" said: > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > Should ANet not do something about that? Or is it the community that should change its opinion towards "bad" stat combo's? Technically, it **is** possible to achieve victory with every stat combo, I'm sure. Right?!? > > > What should they do? delete bad combos? As a power dps you want power, prec, ferocity. The only stats helping your role. As condi condi dmg expertise, prec, power with grieving in some situations. > Soldier is helping nobody except yourself leeching the content. Tbh, marauder isn't such a decreas in dps. And an argument can be made for it to be effective.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > At some point a trend appeared where more grind-type achievements started to get included into the meta, and the grind on those grindy achievements also started to increase. Additionally, the leeway for completing the meta seemed to get smaller and smaller (or perhaps the number of achievements i considered too annoying that were required to finish the meta increased). At some point (somewhere during early S4, i think?) i didn't manage to finish the meta before next chapter arrived. Due to this i didn't feel as pressured to do the meta for that next chapter, which means the situation repeated. This continued, until i realized i haven't finished the meta on _any_ of the chapters since that, and my meta completion levels get lower and lower every chapter. As such, i wasn't as annoyed by strike requirements for the meta as Vayne was - by that point i have already practically gave up on completing it anyway. > > I find it kind of funny that Anet, increasing the achievement grind in order to keep players longer in the game, in my case caused an exactly opposite effect - i'm now spending far less time on those achievements than before. Did the fact that you can get the "reward" without completing the Meta help?