Where are we going from here with the achievement points rivalry?

[Wojciech.8024]

####**Greetings Tyrians!**

 

I wanted to start a new thread concerning AP rivalry spirit as I somehow feel it got lost long ago. I believe all here know what leaderboards are and that it does not need any further clarification. This being said I believe the highest available position that each individual account can reach was determined long ago. Since there were achievements that had a huge impact on the overall score that are no longer available the difference between top-tier players is not really who put more effort in, rather who played more regularly back in 2012, 2013, and so on (generally speaking in the distant past). While I understand that retrieving exact data regarding past achievements and recreating lost content associated with them is nearly impossible I also believe that there are other ways to solve this issue. One of them below

 

####**Diagnosis**

Looking at the leaderboards at the time of writing this thread the player with the highest AP among all players (both NA and EU) is Eil.9385 with the score of 42 509 AP. Let's treat him as a benchmark for future discussion. The amount of AP that he can still earn is not known. but the exact number does not really matter here. Let's just say he can get 42509+X points in total. By this, we got a current maximum of AP theoretically available to players.

 

Thus, I believe, it would be fair for each player to get a chance to reach that score by being dedicated and putting enough effort into the game regardless of the account creation date, being (or not) able to play during the particular time and so on. This is already possible in 99%, but there is an issue with achievements that got lost. So, first of all, let's introduce another variable, this time labeled as Y which is the total amount of AP each particular account can achieve. This way we can state that 42509+X-Y is equal to the AP each account lost because of the past achievements being no longer available. And here comes the easy solution. Let's create an achievements that can make up (more on this later) this amount! All players should have a chance to obtain them, just an amount of AP received for completing them should be limited and not equal for everyone as the goal is to get rid of differences in potential.

 

####**Remedy**

 

So how to make them balanced and fair? Well, as always, there is no "one right answer" to that question. But from my experience, there are generally two types of achievements - time-demanding* (e. g. killing 2500 dolyaks in WvW) or skill-demanding (e. g. slaying Whisper of Jormag without being hit by orbs). To make the compensation AP fair (IMO, and please always keep in mind this is not a definite answer, just my personal opinion I decided to publicly share) is to combine those two types. So what it can exactly mean? Well there are so many possible options that can be included that pointing out one or two does not make much sense.

 

####**Final thoughts**

 

Besides thing said above, to restore a slightly competitive nature of AP I would like to suggest two more things:

 

1. Create more long-term goals for dedicated players to complete. The amount of available achievements is constantly decreasing in a longer perspective (obviously each new release increases this amount temporarily but after a short-time period [once all of them are completed] the situation comes back to where it was before the release). It leads in a straight way to a situation when there will be truly no achievement to be gained (still distant perspective, but each day makes it closer).

2. Please increase the amount of APs obtainable via repetitive achievements such as daily completion, dungeons frequenter, and so on. It is sad, that these have never been increased and many players already reached the cap. Keeping it limited is a very good idea, but not increasing the limit in time is not.

 

I will be more than happy to hear your opinions, feedback, and anything you would like to add. Constructive criticism is also more than welcome :)!

 

* I consider money-based achievements as a time-demanding as they actually come to farming gold (no skill included just dedication + time). Thus these are not a separate category and actually including money-based achievements as a compensation form is not the best way IMHO. Of course, these can be shortened by buying gems and turning them into gold, but well... earning money in real life is also time-consuming ;D!

 

Kind Regards,

Wojciech.8024

[Luthan.5236]

There was already a thread about increasing the cap of AP to be gained from dailies. (Didn't talk about other repeatable achievements though.) I'm against it. Would devalue the permanent achievements.

 

Instead adding new permanent achievements (with new season episodes and expansions) is the best thing to do.

Also keep in mind that the #1 players might still play a lot. So increasing the cap on dailies might just put him further ahead ... giving others on real chance unless they also do their other achievements. (Some preople seem to refuse to do so by only playing one game mode.)

[Wojciech.8024]

Yes but it anyway is going to be a temporary advantage. Adding e.g. 100 AP from dailies per year ain't gonna result in being able to outpace the more recent players. They will still shorten the distance between them and the top players if they play regularly. And if they do not... well expecting to get the same results as the most dedicated players without inputting equal effort is a claim attitude and should not be supported. Yet this ain't the core of the subject, the goal was more to start a discussion about amount lost along with the LS1 and other temporary achievement points which now can't be made up in any way.

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Wojciech.8024" said:

> So how to make them balanced and fair? Well, as always, there is no "one right answer" to that question. But from my experience, there are generally two types of achievements - time-demanding* (e. g. killing 2500 dolyaks in WvW) or skill-demanding (e. g. slaying Whisper of Jormag without being hit by orbs). To make the compensation AP fair (IMO, and please always keep in mind this is not a definite answer, just my personal opinion I decided to publicly share) is to combine those two types. So what it can exactly mean? Well there are so many possible options that can be included that pointing out one or two does not make much sense.

 

What do you mean by combining those two types?

 

> @"Wojciech.8024" said:

> Looking at the leaderboards at the time of writing this thread the player with the highest AP among all players (both NA and EU) is Eil.9385 with the score of 42 509 AP. Let's treat him as a benchmark for future discussion. The amount of AP that he can still earn is not known. but the exact number does not really matter here. Let's just say he can get 42509+X points in total. By this, we got a current maximum of AP theoretically available to players.

 

Keep in mind that the vast majority of accounts (90% of them) has under 3k Achievement Points. They are very far away of the 42k at the top, meaning they have LOADS of achievements to go for already. Meaning any of your suggestions will apply to a tiny subset of the population in the first place.

All players have the chance to reach the AP that the current top has, it will only take them some more time to reach it. Unless the game dies a sudden death that is.

[Donari.5237]

I'm curious as to why you think the "AP rivalry spirit" is a good thing. I'm not saying it's not, but your entire post hinges on the assumption that this is a worthwhile competition and that it matters whether someone new can get to number one or not.

 

I personally am not very competitive as a rule. I'm happy to see others do well. I chase AP for the skins and other rewards and as a way of feeling progress in the game, not to say "ha ha I have more AP nor you." If a particular achieve is too tedious or impossible, I skip it despite the AP and give up on the reward. Thus I would like to know what benefit you see to the game of leveling the field. (This is a sincere question, to be clear. I'm not snarking. I'm interested in the theory).

[Wojciech.8024]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

 

> What do you mean by combining those two types?

 

Let's say it takes a form of a collection. Combining means one part can be obtained via skill-based stuff and another one via time-consuming activities.

 

> Keep in mind that the vast majority of accounts (90% of them) has under 3k Achievement Points. They are very far away of the 42k at the top, meaning they have LOADS of achievements to go for already. Meaning any of your suggestions will apply to a tiny subset of the population in the first place.

 

I don't deny it. Yet does a majority get the right to ignore the needs of the minority? Especially when it has no negative impact on them (it has no impact on them as you've said)

 

> All players have the chance to reach the AP that the current top has, it will only take them some more time to reach it. Unless the game dies a sudden death that is.

 

This statement is not correct. While yes every player will be able to reach 42 000 AP at some point they will never be able to outpace the top because they (we? since I belong to the group) got APs that are no longer available. So unless I decide to skip a certain amount of achievements intentionally they will never be able to get as many (or more than) as I have.

 

> @"Donari.5237" said:

 

> I'm curious as to why you think the "AP rivalry spirit" is a good thing. I'm not saying it's not, but your entire post hinges on the assumption that this is a worthwhile competition and that it matters whether someone new can get to number one or not.

>

> I personally am not very competitive as a rule. I'm happy to see others do well. I chase AP for the skins and other rewards and as a way of feeling progress in the game, not to say "ha ha I have more AP nor you." If a particular achieve is too tedious or impossible, I skip it despite the AP and give up on the reward. Thus I would like to know what benefit you see to the game of leveling the field. (This is a sincere question, to be clear. I'm not snarking. I'm interested in the theory).

 

Let's distinguish two things that got somehow merged in this statement. Rivalry can be fair or not. By fair rivalry, I mean a positive spirit and attitude towards fair play, where some players as you've said give up if "a particular achieve is too tedious or impossible", while others keep doing them and thus deserve a higher place in the ranking. That is a fair rivalry which is generally speaking a positive attitude that helps the community grow and develop. This is worth being promoted. On the other hand, there is a bad rivalry which includes, but is not limited to being toxic and mocking other people (e.g. "ha ha I have more AP nor you" case). This is not worth being promoted.

 

My personal attitude can be described as a slightly competitive "let's see who can get more". I am not going to create obstacles for other competitors (e.g. kicking them out of my squad while doing achievs, because I want to be higher) or chase the wining score at all costs. I actually have many of high-score ppl on my friends list ad we actually cooperate to get certain APs that we need.

 

It is just like sports. You can be a douchebag, or you can be the one who lends a helping hand to the opponent who has fallen. I don't think competetive spirit is bad per se. Toxic attitude of course is, but I believe it is possible to keep being fair and respectfull to other people, while still maintaining the competetive nature of the game.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Wojciech.8024" said:

> Let's say it takes a form of a collection. Combining means one part can be obtained via skill-based stuff and another one via time-consuming activities.

 

I'm curious about the actual implementation of said collection.

 

> I don't deny it. Yet does a majority get the right to ignore the needs of the minority? Especially when it has no negative impact on them (it has no impact on them as you've said)

 

What needs exactly? In order for a player to be impacted by the lack of old achievements they'd first need to acquire all the others, and it's rather easily proven that actually no player has done that, yet. Even the top player is still missing achievements.

 

> This statement is not correct. While yes every player will be able to reach 42 000 AP at some point they will never be able to outpace the top because they (we? since I belong to the group) got APs that are no longer available. So unless I decide to skip a certain amount of achievements intentionally they will never be able to get as many (or more than) as I have.

 

Not sure why a player outpacing the top is so important, or if it should be important, achievements shouldn't be a contest but something you do for yourself/fun and the rewards they provide.

 

The statement is correct, all players will be capable of reaching the current top regardless if missing achievements becoming available again or not. It will only take them more time/releases to reach that top, also assuming all players above a given one continue playing for the next years. The only point where it will matter is when the game stops giving us achievement points completely. At that point the maximum won't be available anymore for players that are missing achievements, but I want to believe it will take us some time to reach that point.

[Funky.4861]

I don't believe it's right to enable the playerbase to catch-up to the one who has earned the most AP; that invalidates the time and effort they put in.

[mindcircus.1506]

If someone has been working on their AP for years, why should they not hold a direct tangible advantage over those who have not?

 

I don't know what the actual number was but someone did a calculation recently of just how many achievements were no longer available in game available in game. Wasn't the attached AP less than 1500?

Are you within that number of the high score you referenced?

 

[Wojciech.8024]

> @"Funky.4861" said:

> I don't believe it's right to enable the playerbase to catch-up to the one who has earned the most AP; that invalidates the time and effort they put in.

 

It will not invalidate if the design of the compensation method is correct. I am not trying to make a 42 000 AP gain an easier task. I am just opting for them being able to make up. It can be much more time-consuming than it used to be. In fact the difference between for example Banshee.9328 (currently 42039 AP) and Eil.9385 does not come from demanding achievements. It derives from the fact that Banshee.9328 was not able to play during LS1. Currently, the achievements from that period are for him doomed. I do not mind them being twice (or more) as long as they used to be to avoid invalidating the effort. But in current circumstances, players who didn't have a chance to play during LS1 for whichever reason have no chance at all to make up the achievs while players who did them and made similar brake in 2018 have such opportunity. This IMO ain't right. The goal is to make chances equal to players no matter when they made a break form the game.

[Wojciech.8024]

> @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> If someone has been working on their AP for years, why should they not hold a direct tangible advantage over those who have not?

>

> I don't know what the actual number was but someone did a calculation recently of just how many achievements were no longer available in game available in game. Wasn't the attached AP less than 1500?

 

The number 1 player (Eil) has 42509. If we extract 1500 from his score we get 41009. A player with 41009 AP (providing he did all but those 1500) currently has no chance to climb over 95th position on leaderboards as there are 94 players who got higher because of that AP.

 

> Are you within that number of the high score you referenced?

 

Yes. Currently, I am 36th within the EU region.

[Lexi.1398]

While, as an AP hunter-albeit nowhere near the top- I would like for AP gaps to be closed, i'm not sure how you could go about it in a fair way.

 

First of all theres the ls1 achievments - achievements which can NEVER be obtained from players now, i didn't even know gw2 existed when ls1 was happening.

 

Next of all theres timegated achievemnts - dalies (about 4 years), festival achievements, of which at least 1 is timegated (crimson assassin, to my knowledge) and the big 50 AP ones for completing annual achievments are all timegated (1000 cap, 50 AP per takes 20 years to complete, meaning currently, if you did not complete this achievment every year since the game came out (8 years ago according to google), SOMEONE has an advantage over you at this very moment in time, and it'll take at least 12 years until that advantage has a chance to disappear for SOME players), most of the other achievements in this category aren't timegated to my knowledge. Not to mention a very small amount locked behind birthdays, which due to the system being bound per character it is theoretically possible a beta player could not have even gotten a second birthday gift if they delete characters before they have a chance.

 

The first, ls1 achievements, can now NEVER be obtained. The second category you could argue that since the gap will close EVENTUALLY it doesn't really exist as a problem, though IMO it is a problem because it means even if they gave all the ls1 AP to us, you /still/ cannot catch up to the top until 20+ years have passed for players starting the game today.

 

But how much do I really think its a problem? If i was in second place i'd definitely be angry if the only thing that prevented me from being on top was content I wasn't around for, but i also think serving the 0.1% of the playerbase in a situation where the only AP they can get is from annual festival + ls1 AP should probably be right at the bottom of the list of priorities. If there was more players in that situation it'd be a bigger problem, but realistically the sheer majority of the playerbase is nowhere even close to that situation. So as much as I hate it and I want it to change, i don't really think it needs to be changed, and for the record I think all AP timegated over more than 1 month (assuming 1 month of waiting, as opposed to "if it takes me x minutes to kill one doylak, itd take y days to kill z doylaks" which i think is fine) shouldn't exist but that's just me.

[Funky.4861]

I don't think people deserve the AP attached to content they weren't around for. Instead of aiming for an unreachable target, set your sights on getting the max AP you can and be content with that. It's not helpful to envy people simply because they have been around longer and had access to content which you didn't. If the gap can't be bridged in a fair way, don't bridge it.

[WorldofBay.8160]

> @"Funky.4861" said:

> I don't think people deserve the AP attached to content they weren't around for. Instead of aiming for an unreachable target, set your sights on getting the max AP you can and be content with that. It's not helpful to envy people simply because they have been around longer and had access to content which you didn't. If the gap can't be bridged in a fair way, don't bridge it.

 

i don't think it is a fair environment if it is important when you were born or heard about this game. LS1 is gone for so long there are lots and lots of players in this game that just have been too young to be eligible to play this game. it is not fair to exclude them visually. either points that are impossible to achieve become shadow points invisible in ranking or there is some other means to get them. on another side people that hunt for the ladder want competitiors and if you're the only one hunting that has been there in LS1 and gotten all the LS1 points, won't you just feel bored that nobody will ever be able to give you a hard time? it is unfair to both sides if they're actual gamers because gamers don't want to win, they want to have a close battle, whatever that battle is (and win that battle then ofc ...). there is no value in competing if you win by default.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

 

There's never going to be a 'fair' way to provide 'missing AP' without a Team to look at each account and individually assign the AP without any content, from now until the end of the game. Which would not provide a good ROI.

If the AP is associated with content, everyone will be able to earn the AP; and if not, someone(s) will feel slighted and feel it is 'unfair'. Also not a good ROI.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Wojciech.8024" said:

> > @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> > If someone has been working on their AP for years, why should they not hold a direct tangible advantage over those who have not?

> >

> > I don't know what the actual number was but someone did a calculation recently of just how many achievements were no longer available in game available in game. Wasn't the attached AP less than 1500?

>

> The number 1 player (Eil) has 42509. If we extract 1500 from his score we get 41009. A player with 41009 AP (providing he did all but those 1500) currently has no chance to climb over 95th position on leaderboards as there are 94 players who got higher because of that AP.

>

> > Are you within that number of the high score you referenced?

>

> Yes. Currently, I am 36th within the EU region.

 

You didn't answer the question on why it's a problem who climbs above who. Is it simply for bragging rights?

[Wojciech.8024]

> @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> If someone has been working on their AP for years, why should they not hold a direct tangible advantage over those who have not?

 

Well... the tangible advantage is ok. Obviously if someone has been working on their AP for years he or she will have a much higher score than the one who has not. The point is that one should be able to achieve the same score by putting same amount of time, resources, and skill into doing achievs as the one mentioned before did. I do not want to say everyone deserves a 42 000 score regardless of the effort. I am trying to say that everybody deserves a chance to get Eil's score providing they input equal effort and resources into achieving it. But at this point a newly created account will never get a chance to reach score permitting them to be in top 50 on leaderboards, thus the compettive nature is doomed for them from the very start and it is not right.

 

> @"Lexi.1398" said:

Timegated achievemnts (...) the big 50 AP ones for completing annual achievments are all timegated (1000 cap, 50 AP per takes 20 years to complete, meaning currently, if you did not complete this achievment every year since the game came out (8 years ago according to google), SOMEONE has an advantage over you at this very moment in time, and it'll take at least 12 years until that advantage has a chance to disappear for SOME players)

 

Not really true as these achievements were added later than the game release so you are missing one or two completions max. But for the rest - yes I agree.

 

> But how much do I really think its a problem? If i was in second place i'd definitely be angry if the only thing that prevented me from being on top was content I wasn't around for, but i also think serving the 0.1% of the playerbase in a situation where the only AP they can get is from annual festival + ls1 AP should probably be right at the bottom of the list of priorities.

 

I agree it is an issue that concerns only a minority, but let's be honest this minority is a group of dedicated players plus as I already showed it in fact affect a lot more people than one may think at first glance. Of course, the majority will never get close to that score, just as majority of people will never reach the score in sports to qualify for Olympic Games, yet it is not fair if a certain set of players got a result that can't be beaten no matter how hard you try. It is like saying a player A weighted most (and thus deserves golden medla) cuz he raised 150 kg, while no one else was permitted to try to weight up more than 140. Yes noone lifted more than him, but was it really a competitive way of selecting the winner or arbitrary saying "you are the winner, now we just have to prove it"? The answer seems obvious to me.

 

> @"Funky.4861" said:

> I don't think people deserve the AP attached to content they weren't around for.

 

How about those who were around at that time and missed some e.g. because they thought infinite achievements such as playing a certain amount of games in Lunatic Inquisition will be doable next year as well? Do these also "do not deserve"? If so why people who passed the opportunity to make some type of achievements e.g. during 2020 New Year celebration deserve and actually receive the opportunity to make them up in the following years?

 

>Instead of aiming for an unreachable target, set your sights on getting the max AP you can and be content with that.

 

Not sure why you think this is unreachable. I proposed a solution, plus as already said I am not that far from the top and those APs missing forever are one of the major drawbacks that prevent me and other players from climbing higher. Also please keep in mind I actually have certain achievements that can no longer be obtained and I miss some so it is a double-edged sword that on one hand will let me climb higher while also will let others make up the APs that I have and that are unobtainable for them at the moment.

 

>It's not helpful to envy people

 

Not sure why you think I envy them. It is an assumption that I actually have negative attitude towards those who have more AP than I do which is an obvious misunderstanding, and please refrain from making assumptions about people you do not even know. I just wanted to point out that in the current scenario if two players put equal effort in maxing out AP some people will get a higher score just because the remaining ones do not receive a chance to do what the others did. This ain't the spirit I believe. The winner should be the one who put the most effort and not the one who was lucky.

 

>They have been around longer and had access to content which you didn't.

 

I already said I actually had access to that content so again not sure why you assume certain things about myself without even verifying it. The reason why I actually didn't play much at that time does not matter, plus I had a slightly different attitude at that time towards repeatable achievements. IMO this should be possible to make up. Just as any achievements from LS2, LS3 and so on are. Not sure why you think LS1 should be treated in a different way.

 

>If the gap can't be bridged in a fair way, don't bridge it.

 

It is your opinion, thou not supported by solid arguments. My opinion is exactly opposite and thus I can opt for the following statement "As the gap can be bridged in a fair way, bridge it."

[Kulvar.1239]

> @"WorldofBay.8160" said:

> > @"Funky.4861" said:

> > I don't think people deserve the AP attached to content they weren't around for. Instead of aiming for an unreachable target, set your sights on getting the max AP you can and be content with that. It's not helpful to envy people simply because they have been around longer and had access to content which you didn't. If the gap can't be bridged in a fair way, don't bridge it.

>

> i don't think it is a fair environment if it is important when you were born or heard about this game. LS1 is gone for so long there are lots and lots of players in this game that just have been too young to be eligible to play this game. it is not fair to exclude them visually. either points that are impossible to achieve become shadow points invisible in ranking or there is some other means to get them. on another side people that hunt for the ladder want competitiors and if you're the only one hunting that has been there in LS1 and gotten all the LS1 points, won't you just feel bored that nobody will ever be able to give you a hard time? it is unfair to both sides if they're actual gamers because gamers don't want to win, they want to have a close battle, whatever that battle is (and win that battle then ofc ...). there is no value in competing if you win by default.

 

Aren't LWS1 AP bundled up in the Daily AP cap ?

Also, I wish for the monthly AP count to be merged/hidden into Daily AP count.

[Wojciech.8024]

> @"Kulvar.1239" said:

 

> Aren't LWS1 AP bundled up in the Daily AP cap ?

 

No, they are not :(

 

> Also, I wish for the monthly AP count to be merged/hidden into Daily AP count.

 

They stay separate thou contribute towards the same cap. In other words the total sum of daily and monthly APs can't exceed 15 000 points.

 

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

>

> There's never going to be a 'fair' way to provide 'missing AP' without a Team to look at each account and individually assign the AP without any content, from now until the end of the game. Which would not provide a good ROI.

> If the AP is associated with content, everyone will be able to earn the AP; and if not, someone(s) will feel slighted and feel it is 'unfair'. Also not a good ROI.

 

And the conclusion is that we live in a non-ideal world. Sorry mate, but this hs already been discovered in ancient Greece by Plato, so nothing really usefull. While I agree with what you wrote it actually has no contribution towards the discussion.

 

 

[Kulvar.1239]

> @"Wojciech.8024" said:

> > @"Kulvar.1239" said:

>

> > Aren't LWS1 AP bundled up in the Daily AP cap ?

>

> No, they are not :(

>

> > Also, I wish for the monthly AP count to be merged/hidden into Daily AP count.

>

> They stay separate thou contribute towards the same cap. In other words the total sum of daily and monthly APs can't exceed 15 000 points.

 

LWS1 AP should be bundled into the Daily AP cap so new players can catch up after some more years of play.

 

And I want the monthly count hidden, I know it's already accounted in the cap ^^

[Tyncale.1629]

> @"Wojciech.8024" said:

> Yes but it anyway is going to be a temporary advantage. Adding e.g. 100 AP from dailies per year ain't gonna result in being able to outpace the more recent players. They will still shorten the distance between them and **the top players** if they play regularly. And if they do not... well expecting to get the same results as the most dedicated players without inputting equal effort is a claim attitude and should not be supported. Yet this ain't the core of the subject, the goal was more to start a discussion about amount lost along with the LS1 and other temporary achievement points which now can't be made up in any way.

>

I consider the top players those that come help out after a map-shout with a difficult event, the commanders who do trains and meta's, the Mesmers that port peeps to JP's for hours on end and helpful players in general. Cheap shot at your post but that phrase rubbed me the wrong way a little bit. "Players at the top of some list" would be more accurate.

 

[Wojciech.8024]

> @"Tyncale.1629" said:

>Cheap shot at your post but that phrase rubbed me the wrong way a little bit. "Players at the top of some list" would be more accurate.

 

The original post mentions leaderboards so yes, by saying top players I was referencing that particular ranking. Your personal tops and bottoms are your right and I am not going to force or even convince anyone that these are "best" (whatever this word is supposed to mean) players.

 

 

 

[Kronos.3695]

I don't agree with some of your statements: if you've been playing since the release of the game and you've put effort on achievements and so on and some people didn't (or weren't playing back then), you deserve that exclusivity.

 

Many people that start this kind of discussion still have thousands of achievements to complete and what they're thinking isn't working towards that goals, but how they will not be able to "reach" someone is some useless leaderboard.

 

Achievements are personal, you should ask ArenaNet for more of them (in term of both quantity and points) and more titles, not to receive a compensation to be able to reach some guys.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Kronos.3695" said:

> I don't agree with some of your statements: if you've been playing since the release of the game and you've put effort on achievements and so on and some people didn't (or weren't playing back then), you deserve that exclusivity.

I think that what's Wojciech 's trying to say is that he treats AP at least a bit competitively, and if he "wins" not due to putting more effort, but due to his "competition" not having access to quite a number of APs (and it's way more than 1500 points, there are also early holiday achieves, wvw seasons etc) then he won't be feeling that much of an accomplishment.

So, while he may "deserve" the exclusivity, he feels that exclusivity diminishes his accomplishments. He'd rather everyone competed fairly. Because he wants his "win" to mean something.

(or, at least i think that's what he's trying to say)

 

Now, that's definitely not a way of thinking shared by everyone (not everyone cares about AP at all, of those that do not everyone treats them competitively, and of those that do, some do not mind the advantage, because they _like_ the system being set in their favour). Still, it is a valid point of view.

 

> Achievements are personal, you should ask ArenaNet for more of them (in term of both quantity and points) and more titles, not to receive a compensation to be able to reach some guys.

You might have missed the point where he wants the "compensation" to apply to others, because he himself doesn't need it.

 

[Wojciech.8024]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

 

> > Achievements are personal, you should ask ArenaNet for more of them (in term of both quantity and points) and more titles, not to receive a compensation to be able to reach some guys.

> You might have missed the point where he wants the "compensation" to apply to others, because he himself doesn't need it.

 

Both sides are partially correct and partially wrong. I have some exclusive ones and miss some of them as well (not a particular event/set as a whole, but here and there one can find achievements I did not manage to finish in time). But generally speaking - yes @"Astralporing.1957" you are right. Fair competition is what I am definitely in for.