this is nothing severe but just something that has been bothering me a bit since some time^^
17310 AP —> 90%
3912 AP --> 90%
… that is quite a big difference… and still both 90%…
cant Anet make 1% steps from 80% to Top 1000th place?
guess this also shows how many players stopped playing gw2 before reaching 3.9k
if 3.9k and 17.3k AP is both higher than 90% of the GW2 population
then 90% of gw2 accounts have less than 3.9k AP
but i actually meet more players over 3.9k AP than under that amount of AP….
so instead of seeing 9/10 players being under 3.9k i see roughly 3/10 players being lower than that… means the other 60% are just inactive
so probably 60% of the 90% who are all under 3.9k are just inactive…
thats more than 50% of the entire gw2 population (maybe more / maybe a bit less since this is just some guess based on what i recognize)
Low AP score does not equate inactive. As it stands now, I’m at 4k AP with roughly 100 days and ~1200 hours in the game (about 10-20% of that time is logged from being afk). I’m more than a casual player, but in no way am I a more than casual AP grinder.
Conversely, someone who can only log one to three hours a week could spend every minute grinding achievement progress, and still not have reached 2k AP. Yet they’re not inactive.
I have no idea why people try to measure others by their AP. They say absolutely nothing about that player other than that he/she has too much time or concentrating on farming AP.
Even some other players like the hardcore PvP/WvW players have usually only something between 3k and 10k. At least they know how their characters/builds work and know how to play. Some of the worst players i encountered so far have 15k+.
Basicly the same principle like with the legendary weapons. Having 8+ Legendarys does not make anyone a good player in terms of skill.
I have no idea why people try to measure others by their AP. They say absolutely nothing about that player other than that he/she has too much time or concentrating on farming AP.
Even some other players like the hardcore PvP/WvW players have usually only something between 3k and 10k. At least they know how their characters/builds work and know how to play. Some of the worst players i encountered so far have 15k+.
Basicly the same principle like with the legendary weapons. Having 8+ Legendarys does not make anyone a good player in terms of skill.
I think that’s an excellent suggestion, increasing it by increments of 1% would help give you a sense of progression, as well as allow for a less overall depressive view (that about 90% of the accounts on GW2 are players who have quit)
Unless they add little arrows showing which players have more points than say the week before, there is no way to tell how many players are active. I’ve been playing since Dec 2012, I have 6600+ APs. Most are from minimal number of daily and monthly achievements.
The leaderboard shows the date of when they last “updated” their AP.
eg. Go to https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/na/achievements/world/Eredon%20Terrace?page=40
and hover over the achievement points, and it’ll say “Since mm/dd/yyyy…”
It’s amazing how there’s people, who stopped playing back in April 2013, are still on the leaderboard with only 4240 AP!
If you know the API for the leaderboards, I’m sure you can scrape AP information from those web pages. You won’t get an overview of the whole population, but it’s still interesting to see.
Unless they add little arrows showing which players have more points than say the week before, there is no way to tell how many players are active.
Truly inactive accounts (people that hadn’t even logged in once for months) do not show up on leaderboards. I assume that they are also not counted for percentages.
Edit: checking the leaderboard revealed, that they are shown now (they weren’t before). My mistake
Actions, not words.
Remember, remember, 15th of November
So, apparently the OP is reading the leaderboard entirely wrong. When it says “90%” it means you’re in the bottom 90%. In other words, you dont deserve an actual number for what place you’re in.
