Vayne.8563

If you're looking for some in game guidance, hit me up in game on Vayne.8563 . I help a lot of people learn the game. Probably would help if you have access to discord as well.

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > @"nthmetal.9652" said:

> > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > > > @"nthmetal.9652" said:

> > > > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > > > > Imagine a certain instance where the loot is 3 x etc and good drops and you can pk players.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It'll be fun. Raid the instance of ppl killing jormag for example

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes. :)

> > > >

> > > > It is fun for the ppl doign the killing. It is not fun for the people there for the jormag meta. You can only do that in an environment, where both sides have signed in to that agreement, and I doubt you'd get many PvE players to do that. Surely not enough to make the whole event fun.

> > > That's why it's the players choice to go into a pk instance. If you go there, you'll know you're prone to being pk'd.

> > >

> >

> > Devs don't want to split the playerbase. They've said so. I agree with them. It's never going to happen because even if you really REALLY want it, not enough people want it, compared to the number of people who are dead set against it. It's not how the game was designed and you don't completely change game design 7 years in becasue a small group of people want something. That's how a lot of games end up going out of business.

>

> You don't speak for the devs bro. Just yourself :)

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > @"nthmetal.9652" said:

> > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > > > @"nthmetal.9652" said:

> > > > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > > > > Imagine a certain instance where the loot is 3 x etc and good drops and you can pk players.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It'll be fun. Raid the instance of ppl killing jormag for example

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes. :)

> > > >

> > > > It is fun for the ppl doign the killing. It is not fun for the people there for the jormag meta. You can only do that in an environment, where both sides have signed in to that agreement, and I doubt you'd get many PvE players to do that. Surely not enough to make the whole event fun.

> > > That's why it's the players choice to go into a pk instance. If you go there, you'll know you're prone to being pk'd.

> > >

> >

> > Devs don't want to split the playerbase. They've said so. I agree with them. It's never going to happen because even if you really REALLY want it, not enough people want it, compared to the number of people who are dead set against it. It's not how the game was designed and you don't completely change game design 7 years in becasue a small group of people want something. That's how a lot of games end up going out of business.

>

> You don't speak for the devs bro. Just yourself :)

Of course I don't speak for the devs. The devs speak for themselves and I just repeat what they've said. Which isn't speaking for the devs. It's not going to happen even if you think there's a chance it will. I'm content with that. You can keep hoping and keep making posts, but they originally seperated PvP and PvE for a reason, they also said they didn't want to divide the player base. I don't speak for the devs. But I do listen when they speak.

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"nthmetal.9652" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > @"nthmetal.9652" said:

> > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > > > Imagine a certain instance where the loot is 3 x etc and good drops and you can pk players.

> > > > >

> > > > > It'll be fun. Raid the instance of ppl killing jormag for example

> > > >

> > > > No.

> > >

> > > Yes. :)

> >

> > It is fun for the ppl doign the killing. It is not fun for the people there for the jormag meta. You can only do that in an environment, where both sides have signed in to that agreement, and I doubt you'd get many PvE players to do that. Surely not enough to make the whole event fun.

> That's why it's the players choice to go into a pk instance. If you go there, you'll know you're prone to being pk'd.

>

Devs don't want to split the playerbase. They've said so. I agree with them. It's never going to happen because even if you really REALLY want it, not enough people want it, compared to the number of people who are dead set against it. It's not how the game was designed and you don't completely change game design 7 years in becasue a small group of people want something. That's how a lot of games end up going out of business.

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > If this were to happen, you'd l;ose a lot of your PvE players in a PvE rich environment. They'd leave the game. I certainly would. At which point, you'd have far less PvE players which make up the bulk of the playerbase. This game is not supported by WvW players alone after all.

> >

> > After a year of this, when a good portion of us have left the game, you'd wonder why the game was shutting down.

> >

> > PvE and PvP are kept seperate in this game for a very good reason. I'm pretty sure it was an intentional design choice. I'm pretty sure it's not going away. But in my opinion this would lose far more players than it would gain.

>

> This is just an assumption :)

>

> They can still pve in the non pk instances as normal. Maybe only those who enjoy pk will risk. Anything could happen.

>

Anything can happen. This forum could turn into a doorway into another dimension. But it's not very likely. This game, and Guild Wars 1 as well, were designed specifically to keep PvP and PvE seperated. What makes you think it could happen?

The problem is, a lot of casual players don't come to forums or reddit. They wouldn't know that they could be killed by players until it happens. And if it happens after all this time, some of those players will leave. You can say this is an opinion but every MMO I've played that has PvE and PvP open world servers has far more PvE open world servers than PVP. There's a reason for this.

People who PvP think it's what the game is about, predominantly. But I guarantee you less than 50% of the population consider themselves PvPers. You'd be pissing off more than 50% of the population. The last stats we got were from Mike O who said bout 10% of the playerbase predominantly PvPs, about 30% predominantly WvW and and about 60% predominatly PvE.

To add to that, if you're built to surviev, like many WvW players are, you'll be able to take down a whole lot of PvE players, without much challenge, because they're not built for that. It's just a bad idea.

If this were to happen, you'd l;ose a lot of your PvE players in a PvE rich environment. They'd leave the game. I certainly would. At which point, you'd have far less PvE players which make up the bulk of the playerbase. This game is not supported by WvW players alone after all.

After a year of this, when a good portion of us have left the game, you'd wonder why the game was shutting down.

PvE and PvP are kept seperate in this game for a very good reason. I'm pretty sure it was an intentional design choice. I'm pretty sure it's not going away. But in my opinion this would lose far more players than it would gain.

> @"Armen.1483" said:

> > @"ASP.8093" said:

> > > @"Armen.1483" said:

> > > Most of this is wrong, lol. What is the point of this post already ?

> >

> > If we actually teach the OP something by adding 2-3 explanatory sentences after our "lol nope," then we will have made it a useful thread anyway.

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"Armen.1483" said:

>

> > What's the point of replying if you aren't going to say how it's wrong? The OP says he's a new player. This is an oppotunity for veterans to share their knowledge with a new player and teach them something. What's the point of your post exactly?

> If I start teaching them the game, you would come and ask why am I doing it. Anyway I see nobody who asks for help/suggestion or advise, there are no polemics, nothing to discuss here... All I see there is some misleading information that can confuse actual new players, so I don't understand what is the point of this post. And I wrote mine to warn players that the new player's observation is far from the reality. Is it wrong what I said ? Is it wrong why I said that ? Is it offensive ?

Saying someone is wrong without saying how they're wrong is the post with no value. The statements made by the OP start a conversation. Saying they're wrong with no context is absolutely meaningless. If you don't say how they're wrong why would anyone believe you?

As far as I'm concerned a post that's well thought out and detailed is far more likely to be believed than a post that just says "that's wrong". Not sure why anyone would think otherwise. Therefore, I still don't see the value of your post. You saying it's wrong, with no context gives no one any reason to accept your version of the truth.

> @"Armen.1483" said:

> Most of this is wrong, lol. What is the point of this post already ?

What's the point of replying if you aren't going to say how it's wrong? The OP says he's a new player. This is an oppotunity for veterans to share their knowledge with a new player and teach them something. What's the point of your post exactly?

I'm talking all day every day. I'm just not talking to you. I mean I might if I'm not already in voice chat with five or six guildies, doing stuff together. But a lot of times, there's very little reason for me to participate in map chat. I'll answer questions, if I see them. I'm help people out if they need it...but my social group is my guild and always has been. There are well over 100 active members of the guild, many who I consider friends, some of whom I've visited in real life. It's hard to play, talk in voice and participate in map chat at the same time.

Of course, if you go to DR or LA there's often a conversation going on, but in the opeen world, while I'm playing? I'll call out events and stuff, but I don't have as much reason to randomly chat.

Edit: This is really fine work. Well done!

The frustration of the PvP community is absolutely growing. Mind you I've seen the PvP community frustrated quite frequently in the past as well. But the PvP community, even years ago, only represented about 10% of the playerbase (according to Mike OBrien anyway. If Anet is short of resources, and they're working on a new expansion, guess what area of the game will get attention last.

I like the story instances the way they are, since I do story on multiple characters. I prefer smaller play times. Plenty of people play this game tons of hours a week, and plenty play this game only a couple of hours a week. You have to make story for all of them. I don't think longer stories are significantly better.

Also I feel like half the story isn't even in instances, or just what you get in the book...the real story is in the zones and that exploration and experience is ALL part of the story.

> @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > > > Please take note that people do Map Completion primarily for the Gift of Exploration, and that is not supposed to be easy to get. If your goal isn't Gift of Exploration then Map Completion is completely optional for you, you don't have to do it.

> > >

> > > This is always a hoot. Wasting time is not "difficult", it's still really easy. Also, legendaries are optional too so...?

> >

> > Perserverence IS difficult for some people. I'm not a grinder and I don't grind map complete, yet I've made 29 legendary weapons, including most of the core game ones. How? By not focusing on map completion. As I run around the world, I do a few things in passing. Disarm a trap. Remove a weed. Kill a centaur. That's it. The game remembers what I did.

> >

> > When I come back through I might do another, or I might not. I also do events sometimes, which fill in hearts incidentally.

> >

> > And at the end of just playing, and that's all I'm doing, suddenly 80% of a heart is done and I can finish it off in a minute. It's only a problem if you want it now, or you're choosing to grind it.

>

> Of course i grind it because they sucks, so the sooner it's over the sooner i can move on, doing it slowly won't change that fact. I only did the PoF hearts that were required for E-spec collections and never did them again.

> Maybe one day i will do full map completion in PoF too but it's not today. If it isn't dull for you then good for you, simplicity itself. I guess we will see if they make them equally boring in cantha.

You miss the point completely. It only sucks if you're doing it all at once, because your'e doing it all at once. There's no way you can convince me that as you're running through a zone to an event, if you stop and do one trap in passing, it's the same thing as grinding out 303 hearts. I'm playing the game and the hearts are getting done, even though I haven't set out to do most of them.

> @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > Please take note that people do Map Completion primarily for the Gift of Exploration, and that is not supposed to be easy to get. If your goal isn't Gift of Exploration then Map Completion is completely optional for you, you don't have to do it.

>

> This is always a hoot. Wasting time is not "difficult", it's still really easy. Also, legendaries are optional too so...?

Perserverence IS difficult for some people. I'm not a grinder and I don't grind map complete, yet I've made 29 legendary weapons, including most of the core game ones. How? By not focusing on map completion. As I run around the world, I do a few things in passing. Disarm a trap. Remove a weed. Kill a centaur. That's it. The game remembers what I did.

When I come back through I might do another, or I might not. I also do events sometimes, which fill in hearts incidentally.

And at the end of just playing, and that's all I'm doing, suddenly 80% of a heart is done and I can finish it off in a minute. It's only a problem if you want it now, or you're choosing to grind it.

> @"hugo.4705" said:

> Gonna agree with above, don't expect more than new decos and eventually scribe 500. About gh, can hope for an echovald forest gh. Would be a nice setting.

The Kurzick is strong in this one. I think I'd prefer a Jade Sea guild hall. Luxons for life. lol

They're not intended to be equal. No it doesn't bother me. I was far more bothered by owning multile salvomatics before shared slots came out than having an extra pass to a different place.

> @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > > @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > > > > > > > > > lol here we go again.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."

> > > > > > > > > > Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.

> > > > > > > Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

> > > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

> >

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

> >

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

>

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

Nope, you're missing my point completely.

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

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

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

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

> @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > > > > > @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > > > > > > > lol here we go again.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."

> > > > > > > > Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > > It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.

> > > > > Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

>

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

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

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

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

> @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > > > @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > > > > > lol here we go again.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."

> > > > > > Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > > It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > >

> > > Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.

> > > Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

> >

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

>

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

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

> @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > @"Sheader.6827" said:

> > > > lol here we go again.

> > > >

> > > > What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."

> > > > Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

> >

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

> > It would be only achievement-worthy if you were the best at something like an Olympic medalists.

> >

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

> >

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

>

> Killing your first raid boss is an achievement. It tells you "you are on your way to master coordination with your team and defeat a mechanically complex boss." Especially in GW2 which ever more so incentivizes solo play. Defeating something that requires more of you than just mashing the boss harder across the head could be considered an achievement by today's standards, especially if you play in a group. Raids and strikes challenge your own skill plus your skill to work with you team in various ways.

> Achievements should be there to challenge you, not to set you up for an hour long farming run.

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

> @"Sheader.6827" said:

> lol here we go again.

>

> What is the point of "achievements"? What does achievement mean? Definition: "a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage."

> Is an achievement supposed to be "oh just go murder 2000 random mobs on the map" like in BDO? Consuming a few hundred items? The more this mentality is pushed the less achievements feel like you actually achieved something. Its not an achievement, you achieved nothing but "don't put strike missions into achievs, cuz actually achieving something is terrible."

>

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

>

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

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

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

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

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > I strongly suspect that people who come for expansions don't come back and do living story.

>

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

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

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > There is a way to check if a map meta is just way too easy to complete, by checking meta completions of much older content than it.

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

> > > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

> >

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

>

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

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > There is a way to check if a map meta is just way too easy to complete, by checking meta completions of much older content than it.

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

> > >

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

> >

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

> >

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

> >

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

>

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

>

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

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

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

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Jayden Reese.9542" said:

> > The Prologue: Bound by BLood was completed by 3.943% of the GW 2 efficiency population.

> > Whisper in the Dark Meta was completed by 6.656% FO THE GW 2 effiency population.

> > The Shadow in the Ice meta is completed so far by .704% of the GW 2 efficiency population.

>

> There is a way to check if a map meta is just way too easy to complete, by checking meta completions of much older content than it.

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

>

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

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

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

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

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> Well, looking at GW2efficiency for my account I see this:

>

> Prologue: Bound by Blood - 211/286

> Whisper in the Dark - 133/214

> Shadow in the Ice - 167/250

> Visions of the Past - 143/270

> No Quarter - 248/268

>

> I'm not even going to say that Drizzlewood is a 'better' map than previous episodes, as they all had things I liked and disliked, but for me it seems, this episode made it easier to get achievements done just by playing the game, without ridiculous levels of repetition.

>

> In case you're curious what I'm missing from the current episode:

> Special Mission: Apothecary 5/6

> Special Mission: Iron Rain 4/5

> Special Mission: Percussive Maintenance 15/25

> Special Mission: Lies and Statistics 13/50

> Special Mission: Communications Breakdown 1/5

> Special Mission: Pillage the Port 2/10

> Special Mission: Pillage the Fort 1/10

> Special Mission: Fired Up 0/5

> Special Mission: Pillage the Lighthouse 0/10

> Morale Breaker: 1/50

>

> Now many of those Special Missions are easy to complete, but as I have meta achievement done, got the emotes and all the mastery points outside of Morale breaker, I just don't have any desire to return to the map. Maybe on a day when I'm bored I'll jump over there and finish some of them, but I'm not exactly excited at the idea of having to zone into the map and 'camp' for certain events to pop. I had the same issue with the Dragonfall map. Maybe that's something they will change for future episodes.

>

> As for Morale breaker, every time I look in the LFG I can never find a group for it, even when it is the daily. I don't care about the Bear armor because I think it looks like kitten, and I've already unlocked two pieces via the WvW and PvP reward tracks, so all I'm missing is the Mastery Point, which I probably won't need anyways as we always end up with extras.

I wasn't looking at efficiency for my own personal stuff. I was looking at the numbers across all GW 2 efficiency accounts. I was comparing the number of people who started the episode with the number of people who got the meta event. Only about a third of the gw2efficiency population (a small percentage of the game, but likeliy to be the most serious) started the new episodes. That means people have moved on or are taking an extended break.

Of the third left, you can see the percentage of people completing the meta.

Meta completion rates were higer before strike missions were introduced, by a matter of percents. Even repetitive annoying ones like getting the Meta in Grothmar Wardowns had a much higher completion rate.

As soon as Anet started including strike missions in mix the number started dropping. It's at an all time low now. Until Shadow in the Ice I never missed a zone meta.