Daily AP Cap

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Daddicus.6128" said:

> I just showed how it was invalid.

You actually didn't show anything more than your personal disagreement.

 

> They have to know about how terrible their original decision was,

Or they could believe, as many do, that it was the right call and remains the right call.

 

> Regarding "good for the community", that should be obvious: people will play more.

Again, that's just one side of it. Some play less, some play with less enthusiasm.

 

****

I'll repeat what I said earlier, since you seem to have missed it:

* I hate the cap because it reduced my yearly gain by over 3500 AP

* I love the cap because it means I don't have to worry about missing a day ... or a week. It also means I can leave for months and come back.

 

[Randulf.7614]

I have 28k and I’m nowhere near the cap. Which is fantastic because it doesn’t force me to login to not lose out and when I do login, I can focus on the rest of the game without using up time just for dailies.

 

That is another great reason for me to keep the cap

[trixantea.1230]

How about icreasing the cap by 5000 with each new expansion release? Players who have reached the cap will always find a reason to loging daily.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Daddicus.6128" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > @"Daddicus.6128" said:

> > > Good idea. But, I think any idea that removes ANet's punishing loyal players for being loyal would be good. The cap does nothing but punish long-time players. One would think this would be the group they should most cater to. Instead, they slam them.

> > >

> > > I still love the game, but it really frosts me that they've done this. The cap is wrong on all levels, and **no valid argument** has been presented (EVER, not just in this thread) to give it value.

> >

> > Please don't hyperbole. One of the strongest reasons for the cap was so people aren't forced to do dailies and can take a break. That came directly from some high AP players since low AP players are hardly affected by the cap.

> >

> > You might disagree with this reasoning, but as IWN said: it's nuanced and people can stand on either issue of this. It is a VALID reason even if you disprove of it.

>

> Thanks for making my point (partly). The claim is that high AP players want to keep the cap so they don't have to do grindy daily chores.

>

> So, what are they replaced with? Obviously other grindy chores. Like I said, no **valid** arguments.

 

Given how people complain they don't feel a need to login and/or that AP after finishing the dailies are way harder and seldom to come by, you are once again wrong. Not having to to dailies is a given at 15k AP. There is no additional chores which would not exist if the cap was gone.

 

Again, please stop this hyperbole and exaggeration even if you dislike the reasoning behind the cap. It does not serve your point or any ones. You can disagree with the effect of the cap, but it has an effect and some people enjoy that effect.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > > @"Rasimir.6239" said:

> > > Don't you think there's something off if more than half of your ap comes from doing quick and easy chores and less than half of them from actual achievements???

> >

> > Um..sorry, but dailies aside, a fairly substantial amount of APs are earned by "quick and easy chores". Very very few of them could be honestly described as actual achievements.

>

> Likewise a good few achievements give you a tiny AP reward and ask you to invest a ridiculous amount of time or resources into getting them xD

 

Completely agree. Using the word achievement to describe both Daily Completionist and Glutton for punishment seems odd to me, but then again simplicity is not a bad thing. I'm just pointing out that the descriptor "quick and easy" is not a valid criteria for disqualifying Daily Completionst as an achievement, as that description would also apply to a fairly large chunk of available APs.

[Gop.8713]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Daddicus.6128" said:

> > Good idea. But, I think any idea that removes ANet's punishing loyal players for being loyal would be good. The cap does nothing but punish long-time players. One would think this would be the group they should most cater to. Instead, they slam them.

> >

> > I still love the game, but it really frosts me that they've done this. The cap is wrong on all levels, and **no valid argument** has been presented (EVER, not just in this thread) to give it value.

>

> Please don't hyperbole. One of the strongest reasons for the cap was so people aren't forced to do dailies and can take a break. That came directly from some high AP players since low AP players are hardly affected by the cap.

>

> You might disagree with this reasoning, but as IWN said: it's nuanced and people can stand on either issue of this. It is a VALID reason even if you disprove of it.

 

The absence of a cap didn't force anyone to do dailies. If you have evidence of someone being forced to do dailies, pls notify your local authorities irl. ty . . .

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Please don't hyperbole. One of the strongest reasons for the cap was so people aren't forced to do dailies and can take a break. That came directly from some high AP players since low AP players are hardly affected by the cap.

>

> You might disagree with this reasoning, but as IWN said: it's nuanced and people can stand on either issue of this. It is a VALID reason even if you disprove of it.

To the extent that was ever really true, it only applied back when you _had_ to do all the dailies to get the full achievement value out of them, before they reworked it to the current system.

 

Once you hit the AP cap, your AP gain slows to a crawl and it sucks so much. Especially since Anet's gotten so stingy with new sources of AP lately.

[Rauderi.8706]

> @"Daddicus.6128" said:

> Good idea. But, I think any idea that removes ANet's punishing loyal players for being loyal would be good. The cap does nothing but punish long-time players. One would think this would be the group they should most cater to. Instead, they slam them.

>

> I still love the game, but it really frosts me that they've done this. The cap is wrong on all levels, and no valid argument has been presented (EVER, not just in this thread) to give it value.

 

I really do feel like the proper compromise is a progressive cap raise, something that can be automated per month or year. An extra 100/month or 1000/year is enough to look like progress and keep rewarding participation without *demanding* it every day.

 

Because the cap came about from addictive AP hunters who allegedly couldn't stop themselves, according to self-report. They were "obligated" to do all 12 dailies every day to stay at the edge of some useless leader board. So, instead of 12 tasks and AP per day, it was changed to 3 of 12 and 10 AP per day, so they wouldn't lose their sense of progress.

So it really galls to see the same AP hunters whinging over "10AP dailies are worth more than my super hard content AP" when the source of it was the relentless pursuit of digital cred. #historylesson

[reapex.8546]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Without knowing why ANet went through the effort to install the cap in the first place, it's tricky to offer a compelling argument as to why they should remove it. I love the cap because it means I can take a break from the game (or go on vacation) without worrying that I'm missing something I can't get back. I hate the cap because it slows down AP gain. That doesn't make the cap good or bad; it just means it's a more nuanced situation than a lot of people seem to believe.

 

That was the reason anet stated for putting the cap in the first place. It lets people who started the game later catch up with those that have been playing since the beginning. If AP wasn't capped, new players would never be able to catch up with vets as time went on.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Gop.8713" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > @"Daddicus.6128" said:

> > > Good idea. But, I think any idea that removes ANet's punishing loyal players for being loyal would be good. The cap does nothing but punish long-time players. One would think this would be the group they should most cater to. Instead, they slam them.

> > >

> > > I still love the game, but it really frosts me that they've done this. The cap is wrong on all levels, and **no valid argument** has been presented (EVER, not just in this thread) to give it value.

> >

> > Please don't hyperbole. One of the strongest reasons for the cap was so people aren't forced to do dailies and can take a break. That came directly from some high AP players since low AP players are hardly affected by the cap.

> >

> > You might disagree with this reasoning, but as IWN said: it's nuanced and people can stand on either issue of this. It is a VALID reason even if you disprove of it.

>

> The absence of a cap didn't force anyone to do dailies. If you have evidence of someone being forced to do dailies, pls notify your local authorities irl. ty . . .

 

Just as the presence of a cap does not stop people from enjoying the game. Are we really going to go down the route of why people do things in games and why some might feel pressured to optimize their commitment to a game and others might want some integer in a database to increase? Because that knife slices both ways.

[Gop.8713]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > > @"Daddicus.6128" said:

> > > > Good idea. But, I think any idea that removes ANet's punishing loyal players for being loyal would be good. The cap does nothing but punish long-time players. One would think this would be the group they should most cater to. Instead, they slam them.

> > > >

> > > > I still love the game, but it really frosts me that they've done this. The cap is wrong on all levels, and **no valid argument** has been presented (EVER, not just in this thread) to give it value.

> > >

> > > Please don't hyperbole. One of the strongest reasons for the cap was so people aren't forced to do dailies and can take a break. That came directly from some high AP players since low AP players are hardly affected by the cap.

> > >

> > > You might disagree with this reasoning, but as IWN said: it's nuanced and people can stand on either issue of this. It is a VALID reason even if you disprove of it.

> >

> > The absence of a cap didn't force anyone to do dailies. If you have evidence of someone being forced to do dailies, pls notify your local authorities irl. ty . . .

>

> Just as the presence of a cap does not stop people from enjoying the game. Are we really going to go down the route of why people do things in games and why some might feel pressured to optimize their commitment to a game and others might want some integer in a database to increase? Because that knife slices both ways.

 

Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I was opposed to the cap being implemented but I see no point in going back on that decision now. Just remove the unique rewards from the track and be done with it . . .

 

I only pointed out your misstatement bc I saw you calling the other poster out for hyperbole and thought you would appreciate someone bringing it to your attn when you made the same error . . .

[lare.5129]

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Daily

I was never know what we have dayli cap! is is great!

So now I know what days when I was hard sick wiht temperature and cant' power on pc, or when I make travels whit parents or friends, or have holiday abroad don't eat my AP like I never can return that.

Thanks that Anet think not only for motivate people log in anyway wiht low profile notebook on some non home place to mining ore and rechek vista per 3 minutes and go ofline, but and give way don't worry!

 

[MikeG.6389]

> @"lare.5129" said:

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Daily

> I was never know what we have dayli cap! is is great!

> So now I know what days when I was hard sick wiht temperature and cant' power on pc, or when I make travels whit parents or friends, or have holiday abroad don't eat my AP like I never can return that.

> Thanks that Anet think not only for motivate people log in anyway wiht low profile notebook on some non home place to mining ore and rechek vista per 3 minutes and go ofline, but and give way don't worry!

>

 

Can I adopt you?

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"reapex.8546" said:

> ...the reason anet stated for putting the cap in the first place...

 

They never said much; we've speculated based on the little they have actually posted on the topic.

* [March 2014](https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/pvp-reward-tracks-and-gear-unification/): we felt that **having separate daily and monthly achievement categories was unnecessary and potentially confusing.**

* March 2014: **There will be a limit of 10,000 daily and 5,000 monthly achievement points,**

* [March 2013](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/March_2013): The point amounts obtainable from existing repeatable achievements have been capped as follows: Hobby Dungeon Explorer–200 points; Agent of Entropy–250 points. **This change was made to support competitive PvE leaderboards and to lay the groundwork for a reward structure for total achievement points that is coming in a future update.**

 

****

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/April_2014

 

> https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/pvp-reward-tracks-and-gear-unification/

>! ##### Achievement Unification

>! In the feature pack, we will be unifying daily and monthly achievements. With new systems like the Wardrobe, Gear Unification, and Reward Tracks coming online to help create a consistent experience across different areas of the game, we felt that **having separate daily and monthly achievement categories was unnecessary and potentially confusing.**

>!

>! The PvP and PvE daily and monthly achievements will be merged. There will be enough achievements that you will be able to complete your dailies and monthlies entirely in PvE, WvW, or PvP if you like – but you can also dabble in different game modes and complete your achievements by playing a mix of content.

>!

>! Because the feature pack comes halfway through the month, April’s monthly achievements will be a special case. Until April 15, the PvE and PvP monthly categories will be separate and require only two achievements for completion. After April 15, there will be a single unified set of monthlies and dailies, and monthly completion will again require four total achievements.

>!

>! There are a few other general changes to daily achievements. **There will be a limit of 10,000 daily and 5,000 monthly achievement points,** rotations have been updated, and several relevant achievements have been updated to function in PvP.

 

 

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"MikeG.6389" said:

> They capped it so the Achievement system can be used as a true® measure of account progression, i.e. leaderboards.

Did they? From what i remember, while they never clearly spelled out why they made the change, it happened suspiciously close after a wave of forum threads from people with high level achievements that complained they didn't want to feel forced to do dailies, but they still wanted to keep their leading positions on leaderboards.

No, it had nothing with "helping new players to catch up", because even then it was known that as long as old players will keep playing, new players _won't_ be able to catch up.

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> it happened suspiciously close after a wave of forum threads from people with high level achievements that complained they didn't want to feel forced to do dailies,

"Wave of forum threads" was a couple of individuals (one of whom is ... well, let's just say they post a lot with little empathy for those outside the top 25 of the leaderboards)

 

In fact, all sorts of people prefer a cap (just as all sorts prefer the removal of the cap).

 

Besides which, why on earth would ANet spend energy (and social capital) on pleasing the folks at the top of the leaderboard? They represent a tiny fraction of the total player base (especially back then).

 

> No, it had nothing with "helping new players to catch up", because even then it was known that as long as old players will keep playing, new players won't be able to catch up.

Again, of course it could have _something_ to do with helping new players catch up. With the exception of the LS1-era chieves, new players are able to catch up with _everything_ except (a) uncapped dailies & (b) a minor number of festival points. Sure, a cap on dailies doesn't make up for everything; it does account for a lot, though. The LS1-era AP is big, but it's still amounts to "only" ~16-18 months of dailies, and the cap has been in place since 2014.

 

As an example, with the cap, someone who started around the 2nd anniversary would be missing only the 4-5k from LS1-era chieves compared to the top of boards; the rest, they could have matched. Without a cap, they'd be 8-12k behind, instead of just 4-5k. With the tops pushing past 39.5k this month, that's only a 10% difference. Again, the cap doesn't eliminate the advantage of those who played through since launch; it just keeps it from getting bigger.

 

****

That said, we don't really know ANet's motivations in adding the cap. It could be something as simple as they couldn't figure out what the 70k-100k rewards would be and want an extra 5 years to figure it out (that would also explain why they haven't commented much). It could be helping new players, it could be reducing pressure for AP. Or it could be arbitrary & capricious, as some appear to believe.

[reapex.8546]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"reapex.8546" said:

> > ...the reason anet stated for putting the cap in the first place...

>

Correct the information was limited and I no longer remember the exact location where they specified their reasoning. Was too many years ago.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Gop.8713" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > > > @"Daddicus.6128" said:

> > > > > Good idea. But, I think any idea that removes ANet's punishing loyal players for being loyal would be good. The cap does nothing but punish long-time players. One would think this would be the group they should most cater to. Instead, they slam them.

> > > > >

> > > > > I still love the game, but it really frosts me that they've done this. The cap is wrong on all levels, and **no valid argument** has been presented (EVER, not just in this thread) to give it value.

> > > >

> > > > Please don't hyperbole. One of the strongest reasons for the cap was so people aren't forced to do dailies and can take a break. That came directly from some high AP players since low AP players are hardly affected by the cap.

> > > >

> > > > You might disagree with this reasoning, but as IWN said: it's nuanced and people can stand on either issue of this. It is a VALID reason even if you disprove of it.

> > >

> > > The absence of a cap didn't force anyone to do dailies. If you have evidence of someone being forced to do dailies, pls notify your local authorities irl. ty . . .

> >

> > Just as the presence of a cap does not stop people from enjoying the game. Are we really going to go down the route of why people do things in games and why some might feel pressured to optimize their commitment to a game and others might want some integer in a database to increase? Because that knife slices both ways.

>

> Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I was opposed to the cap being implemented but I see no point in going back on that decision now. Just remove the unique rewards from the track and be done with it . . .

>

> I only pointed out your misstatement bc I saw you calling the other poster out for hyperbole and thought you would appreciate someone bringing it to your attn when you made the same error . . .

 

Fair enough, I should have worded it differently as in: certain people might feel pressured to have to complete the dailies. Ty for pointing that out.

[Gop.8713]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > > > > @"Daddicus.6128" said:

> > > > > > Good idea. But, I think any idea that removes ANet's punishing loyal players for being loyal would be good. The cap does nothing but punish long-time players. One would think this would be the group they should most cater to. Instead, they slam them.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I still love the game, but it really frosts me that they've done this. The cap is wrong on all levels, and **no valid argument** has been presented (EVER, not just in this thread) to give it value.

> > > > >

> > > > > Please don't hyperbole. One of the strongest reasons for the cap was so people aren't forced to do dailies and can take a break. That came directly from some high AP players since low AP players are hardly affected by the cap.

> > > > >

> > > > > You might disagree with this reasoning, but as IWN said: it's nuanced and people can stand on either issue of this. It is a VALID reason even if you disprove of it.

> > > >

> > > > The absence of a cap didn't force anyone to do dailies. If you have evidence of someone being forced to do dailies, pls notify your local authorities irl. ty . . .

> > >

> > > Just as the presence of a cap does not stop people from enjoying the game. Are we really going to go down the route of why people do things in games and why some might feel pressured to optimize their commitment to a game and others might want some integer in a database to increase? Because that knife slices both ways.

> >

> > Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I was opposed to the cap being implemented but I see no point in going back on that decision now. Just remove the unique rewards from the track and be done with it . . .

> >

> > I only pointed out your misstatement bc I saw you calling the other poster out for hyperbole and thought you would appreciate someone bringing it to your attn when you made the same error . . .

>

> Fair enough, I should have worded it differently as in: certain people might feel pressured to have to complete the dailies. Ty for pointing that out.

 

One of the things that I think gw2 does really well is emphasize that not everything is for everyone. It sort of provides the story as everyone's launching pad and then branches out into different areas that aren't meant to appeal to all players. So the fact that there is AP out there that ppl don't have or can't get is something players should just become comfortable with as part of the game's design. It's one of my favorite things about the game . . .

[Ok I Did It.2854]

> @"reapex.8546" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > Without knowing why ANet went through the effort to install the cap in the first place, it's tricky to offer a compelling argument as to why they should remove it. I love the cap because it means I can take a break from the game (or go on vacation) without worrying that I'm missing something I can't get back. I hate the cap because it slows down AP gain. That doesn't make the cap good or bad; it just means it's a more nuanced situation than a lot of people seem to believe.

>

> That was the reason anet stated for putting the cap in the first place. It lets people who started the game later catch up with those that have been playing since the beginning. If AP wasn't capped, new players would never be able to catch up with vets as time went on.

 

Why should they catch up, why should anyone starting the game 1 year, 2 years, after someone else, automatically think thats just not fair that they are so far ahead of me, i want a cap put on them so i can catch up, it was that mentality that made Anet do this,

 

High AP players claiming they "had" to log in and do the dailies

Low AP players calimgin they "couldnt" catch up to higher AP players

 

If AP gave you anything ingame other than bragging rights i could understand, but it doesnt, you might get slightly higher % on some stats ( MF, Gold Gain ) but its marginal at best, i like AP hunting and never once thought OMG i need to log in and get daily for that 10AP, if i missed 1 day, 2 days, a week it didnt make a difference long term, other than im maybe 30 or 70 AP behind someone who is more active than me.

 

The cap was a bad judgement call from Anet to appease players who had to be perfectionists or players who didnt want to put the effort it, and now they are stuck with it, all AP in this game is for personal bragging right or small account upgrades/armor/weapon skins, WHICH everyone can get at there own pace.

[Rasimir.6239]

> @"Ok I Did It.2854" said:

> The cap was a bad judgement call from Anet to appease players who had to be perfectionists or players who didnt want to put the effort it, and now they are stuck with it, all AP in this game is for personal bragging right or small account upgrades/armor/weapon skins, WHICH everyone can get at there own pace.

Or the cap was a good idea from Anet because it fits in with their idea that GW2 is meant to be a game that you play for fun, not because some built-in hamster wheel lures you back each day (or week or month) just so you don't "miss out".

 

There are systems in game that make players feel like they have to come back and do the same thing each day/week/month, as we see in the posts that regularly pop up on the subject of (perceived) grind, but overall Anet seems to try to make the grind as optional as possible. Putting a lid on the rewards achieved by grinding the same thing again and again, be it experience and loot from killing the same respawns in the same place for hours, or achievement points from repeating the same thing again and again (dailies, agent of entropy, ...), fits right into the picture.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > it happened suspiciously close after a wave of forum threads from people with high level achievements that complained they didn't want to feel forced to do dailies,

> "Wave of forum threads" was a couple of individuals (one of whom is ... well, let's just say they post a lot with little empathy for those outside the top 25 of the leaderboards)

>

> In fact, all sorts of people prefer a cap (just as all sorts prefer the removal of the cap).

>

> Besides which, why on earth would ANet spend energy (and social capital) on pleasing the folks at the top of the leaderboard? They represent a tiny fraction of the total player base (especially back then).

Yes, it was a small number of people. I have no idea why Anet would ecide to listen to them. On the other hand, remember, that they once made another change to the game, removing AP from a certain set of achievements, at the behest of only a single person - the very one mentioned by you already.

 

As far as APs go, that small number of players apparently _had_ enough weight for Anet to influence game design.

 

> > No, it had nothing with "helping new players to catch up", because even then it was known that as long as old players will keep playing, new players won't be able to catch up.

> Again, of course it could have _something_ to do with helping new players catch up. With the exception of the LS1-era chieves, new players are able to catch up with _everything_ except (a) uncapped dailies & (b) a minor number of festival points.

At the time the change was made, festival APs were still assigned independently for each year (so, if you missed them, they wee gone). A change to that happened only few years later. If Anet's intention was to "help new players to catch up", they would have changed festival APs back then.

(also, the number of historical, no longer available achievement points is not so small at all - as long as those are no longer earnable, there's absolutely no way for new players to catch up to the top of AP leaderboards. The only way it could happen is if the old players would stop playing. And notice, that the old players no longer need to put as much effort as before to stay ahead. They don't have to log in every day, they don;t need to do dailies, all they have to do is to show up on holidays and for each LS. And now they won't even need to catch up with new expac releases, because there won't _be_ any new expacs.

 

> Sure, a cap on dailies doesn't make up for everything; it does account for a lot, though. The LS1-era AP is big, but it's still amounts to "only" ~16-18 months of dailies, and the cap has been in place since 2014.

So, before, if someone at the top stopped playing, it would take a new player 18 months to catch up by dailies alone (faster, if there were some other new APs). Now however, how much time would it take? I'm pretty sure that we now average far _less_ than 300 new APs per month.

Considering the future, it's quite possible that someone starting now may _never_ be able to catch up to someone on the top of leaderboards, even if said person were to quit the game today. The game would close before enough of new APs would be created.

 

Whatever the reasons for the AP cap, It isn't about new players, because it _doesn't_ help them at all. Quite the opposite - it lets the old players stay ahead with far less effort.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

The math makes it clear that those starting today or starting years ago are in the same boat: they can get everything except the ~5k of no-longer-obtainable AP. Without a cap, someone starting today can **never** catch up to anyone else who doesn't stop playing, let alone anyone at the top of the leaderboard. Any 10AP earned by a new comer is matched by an oldtimer. Instead of missing just the 5k, they'll also be unable to catch up on ever day of dailies before they started.

 

> Yes, it was a small number of people. I have no idea why Anet would ecide to listen to them.

There's really no evidence that this is what happened.

 

> On the other hand, remember, that they once made another change to the game, removing AP from a certain set of achievements, at the behest of only a single person - the very one mentioned by you already.

Isn't it much more likely that they only do things that they think are important, which sometimes coincide with the requests or beliefs of people with whom you (or I) disagree?

 

> As far as APs go, that small number of players apparently _had_ enough weight for Anet to influence game design.

Again, there's no evidence of that.

 

> At the time the change was made, festival APs were still assigned independently for each year (so, if you missed them, they wee gone). A change to that happened only few years later. If Anet's intention was to "help new players to catch up", they would have changed festival APs back then.

Not necessarily. They have made a series of changes to how AP works over there year, some were comprehensive changes, because they involved lots of different things. And some were not.

 

Again, the point is that the cap "helps," even if it doesn't entirely address the issue.

 

> (also, the number of historical, no longer available achievement points is not so small at all - as long as those are no longer earnable, there's absolutely no way for new players to catch up to the top of AP leaderboards.

It's around 5k, including the festival points you mentioned. That's a third of the total obtained by dailies and a seventh of that earned by the top of the leaderboard. It's not small, it's just a decreasing fraction of the total obtainable.

 

> The only way it could happen is if the old players would stop playing.

Yes, of course, which I mentioned. But that 5k is an increasingly small fraction. That would not be the case if there was no cap. Anyone starting "today" would fall further and further behind from the max.

 

> And notice, that the old players no longer need to put as much effort as before to stay ahead.

And staying ahead is important because...?

And sorry, yes, they still have to put in effort to stay on top; it just no longer includes dailies.

 

> And now they won't even need to catch up with new expac releases, because there won't _be_ any new expacs.

What on earth do expacs have to do with daily caps? Expansions or not, each new content release includes new achievements. If there are never any more expansions (which we can't know yet), then it's entirely possible that there will be an equivalent AP released in LS episodes. Or not; we have no information about LS5, so it's baseless speculation.

 

> So, before, if someone at the top stopped playing, it would take a new player 18 months to catch up by dailies alone (faster, if there were some other new APs). Now however, how much time would it take? I'm pretty sure that we now average far _less_ than 300 new APs per month.

If there's no cap, people at the top of the leaderboards keep earning daily AP and therefore no one starting after day one can catch up at all. 10 AP to a new player will be matched by 10 AP from the top of the leaderboards.

 

> Considering the future, it's quite possible that someone starting now may _never_ be able to catch up to someone on the top of leaderboards, even if said person were to quit the game today. The game would close before enough of new APs would be created.

Again, there's only 5k AP unobtainable by new players.

 

 

> Whatever the reasons for the AP cap, It isn't about new players, because it _doesn't_ help them at all. Quite the opposite - it lets the old players stay ahead with far less effort.

The math says it does matter. Again, to be clear, I'm not claiming a cap ensures that new players can "catch up entirely," I'm pointing out that it keeps players starting today from falling further behind. That is: it helps, even if it doesn't entirely solve the issue.

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Again, there's only 5k AP unobtainable by new players.

How many new APs were introduced last year? How many years like that to equal/exceed 5k? How many years do you think this game will last?

 

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"MikeG.6389" said:

> They capped it so the Achievement system can be used as a true® measure of account progression, i.e. leaderboards. Even if you are not into that - I know I'm not - I think it's nice to know that there is a final cap of available Achievement Points in the game. This way I have something against which to measure my own progress.

>

> By the way, the achievement track for salvaging items, Agent of Entropy used to be an infinite source of points, as well. They later capped it at 250 AP for the same reason. (That, and because people were farming it for the achievement rewards.)

 

Actually, it's the other way around (since there's an actual leaderboard), they added it, because without a cap, older players, simply by being online and doing dailies would be infinitely ahead of newer players who would have no way of catching up.

It's bad enough that season 1 was the one that awarded the most AP, and that's never coming back by the way things are going, add a no-cap from daily and monthlies, and older players would simply being leagues ahead of everyone else.

Not to mention, they'd have to either work extra hard in adding more AP rewards, or they'd have to trickle down the actual achievements to one point each due to the infinite daily rewards.

 

Right now, only the top 30 players in Europe and the top 12 in NA have enough points to have unlocked their first AP back skin. Which still leaves years of progress before Arena Net has to add more stuff to the AP rewards.

Now imagine those same guys, if there wasn't a cap on daily AP, they'd have blown through the current rewards ages ago. Remember that there's people that hit that cap years ago!