Guild Wars 2

Lishtenbird.2814:

Vayne.8563:

You can proved 90% of the casuals were getting 5-8 ap daily in the old system? I’d be interested to see that.

Vayne.8563:

It’s very easy to say people were getting achievement points by doing nothing, because that’s what was happening. Anet decided to actually make people do something to get achievement points, while giving them the other rewards for free.

We were doing “something” before. You couldn’t get AP simply by logging in, you couldn’t do “nothing”. You had to… surprise! – PLAY the game daily to get daily APs. That’s why they’re called “dailies”. If you were running around the world, killing stuff (naturally applying condies and dodging), gathering mats, for a considerable time, you were boosting ANet’s daily time metrics and getting your APs for playing the game. Would you really argue that people who were actively playing PvE (and not chatting in LA) for 30-60 minutes an evening were not getting AP?

The problem is that now, to get any daily AP, you have to perform pet tricks do specific things instead of doing something. Is it hard to see what people do not like?

Yes before they were called dailies and they came with a daily reward which included as only a part of it achievement points. You now get most of those rewards (and more) just for logging in).

You can get extra rewards you could never get before, even if you don’t get the achievement points, by doing any two of the dailies.

But because it’s an achievement point you’re losing, I think (and have always thought) achievements really shouldn’t be something you get incidentally, certainly not daily achievements.

It’s a flaw in the game that has been occasionally commented upon. Now that you actually have to go out of your way for an achievement point, people are up in arms.

There’s nothing in the game you actually need achievement points for, and there are other ways to get them without dailies.

Vayne.8563:

Lishtenbird.2814:

Vayne.8563:

You can proved 90% of the casuals were getting 5-8 ap daily in the old system? I’d be interested to see that.

Vayne.8563:

It’s very easy to say people were getting achievement points by doing nothing, because that’s what was happening. Anet decided to actually make people do something to get achievement points, while giving them the other rewards for free.

We were doing “something” before. You couldn’t get AP simply by logging in, you couldn’t do “nothing”. You had to… surprise! – PLAY the game daily to get daily APs. That’s why they’re called “dailies”. If you were running around the world, killing stuff (naturally applying condies and dodging), gathering mats, for a considerable time, you were boosting ANet’s daily time metrics and getting your APs for playing the game. Would you really argue that people who were actively playing PvE (and not chatting in LA) for 30-60 minutes an evening were not getting AP?

The problem is that now, to get any daily AP, you have to perform pet tricks do specific things instead of doing something. Is it hard to see what people do not like?

Yes before they were called dailies and they came with a daily reward which included as only a part of it achievement points. You now get most of those rewards (and more) just for logging in).

You can get extra rewards you could never get before, even if you don’t get the achievement points, by doing any two of the dailies.

But because it’s an achievement point you’re losing, I think (and have always thought) achievements really shouldn’t be something you get incidentally, certainly not daily achievements.

It’s a flaw in the game that has been occasionally commented upon. Now that you actually have to go out of your way for an achievement point, people are up in arms.

There’s nothing in the game you actually need achievement points for, and there are other ways to get them without dailies.

And I have always thought that a laurel wreath was something only awarded to the most excellent of achievers. Certainly, it was like that historically. You didn’t see just anyone run around with laurel wreaths on their crown.

In this game, you got them for completing multiple achievements, something that rang more true to the historical (and present) real-life use of laurel wreaths than the current hand-outs we get for just showing up.

In light of that, I would say that the currency “laurel” as it exists in this game, has lost touch with its etymological roots. Therefore, I propose we change the name of the currency to something more appropriate. Something like: “alms” or perhaps “charity”.

Or perhaps we can just stop the nonsense about it being more proper to actually work for achievement points, while getting laurels for free is okay. Those two acquisition methods paired like they are now is wholly arbitrary and not in any way proper or logical.

Manasa Devi.7958:

Vayne.8563:

Lishtenbird.2814:

Vayne.8563:

You can proved 90% of the casuals were getting 5-8 ap daily in the old system? I’d be interested to see that.

Vayne.8563:

It’s very easy to say people were getting achievement points by doing nothing, because that’s what was happening. Anet decided to actually make people do something to get achievement points, while giving them the other rewards for free.

We were doing “something” before. You couldn’t get AP simply by logging in, you couldn’t do “nothing”. You had to… surprise! – PLAY the game daily to get daily APs. That’s why they’re called “dailies”. If you were running around the world, killing stuff (naturally applying condies and dodging), gathering mats, for a considerable time, you were boosting ANet’s daily time metrics and getting your APs for playing the game. Would you really argue that people who were actively playing PvE (and not chatting in LA) for 30-60 minutes an evening were not getting AP?

The problem is that now, to get any daily AP, you have to perform pet tricks do specific things instead of doing something. Is it hard to see what people do not like?

Yes before they were called dailies and they came with a daily reward which included as only a part of it achievement points. You now get most of those rewards (and more) just for logging in).

You can get extra rewards you could never get before, even if you don’t get the achievement points, by doing any two of the dailies.

But because it’s an achievement point you’re losing, I think (and have always thought) achievements really shouldn’t be something you get incidentally, certainly not daily achievements.

It’s a flaw in the game that has been occasionally commented upon. Now that you actually have to go out of your way for an achievement point, people are up in arms.

There’s nothing in the game you actually need achievement points for, and there are other ways to get them without dailies.

And I have always thought that a laurel wreath was something only awarded to the most excellent of achievers. Certainly, it was like that historically. You didn’t see just anyone run around with laurel wreaths on their crown.

In this game, you got them for completing multiple achievements, something that rang more true to the historical (and present) real-life use of laurel wreaths than the current hand-outs we get for just showing up.

In light of that, I would say that the currency “laurel” as it exists in this game, has lost touch with its etymological roots. Therefore, I propose we change the name of the currency to something more appropriate. Something like: “alms” or perhaps “charity”.

Or perhaps we can just stop the nonsense about it being more proper to actually work for achievement points, while getting laurels for free is okay. Those two acquisition methods paired like they are now is wholly arbitrary and not in any way proper or logical.

This isn’t really semantics. Nothing is locked behind achievement points, except skins. Laurels are useful currency to a lot of people. And yes you got the occasional laurel from an achievement point chest, but not quickly enough to make any use of it.

Laurels are simply more useful to more people than achievement points. That’s why Anet couldn’t just take them away. Achievement points, on the other hand, aren’t just an currency, they’re a form of score. Last time I looked there was no laurel leaderboard. So it’s not just a semantic difference, no matter how much you want to make it so.

I haven’t heard of a cap on laurels either.

You don’t spend achievement points, you’re rewarded for attaining them.

You don’t get titles for earning laurels, you do get titles for hitting certain levels of achievement points.

If you want to try to make this a semantic argument, go right ahead. But the in game reality paints laurels as a currency and achievement points as something other than just a currency.

I really hate the new Daily achievements they seem so tailored to the PvP and WvW player. As for the achievement for doing three what the hell it only takes three to finish now so what a frakking waste.

It should also really be taken into account that if the primary concern the lost AP, then really PvE has little to complain about. In terms of both permanent achievements and temporary achievements (Living Story, holiday events), PvE has far far greater AP potential than WvW and PvE. So it really is, “Play as you want,” because the reward you miss out on by skipping the dailies is available through many other sources.

Vayne.8563:

Manasa Devi.7958:

Vayne.8563:

Lishtenbird.2814:

Vayne.8563:

You can proved 90% of the casuals were getting 5-8 ap daily in the old system? I’d be interested to see that.

Vayne.8563:

It’s very easy to say people were getting achievement points by doing nothing, because that’s what was happening. Anet decided to actually make people do something to get achievement points, while giving them the other rewards for free.

We were doing “something” before. You couldn’t get AP simply by logging in, you couldn’t do “nothing”. You had to… surprise! – PLAY the game daily to get daily APs. That’s why they’re called “dailies”. If you were running around the world, killing stuff (naturally applying condies and dodging), gathering mats, for a considerable time, you were boosting ANet’s daily time metrics and getting your APs for playing the game. Would you really argue that people who were actively playing PvE (and not chatting in LA) for 30-60 minutes an evening were not getting AP?

The problem is that now, to get any daily AP, you have to perform pet tricks do specific things instead of doing something. Is it hard to see what people do not like?

Yes before they were called dailies and they came with a daily reward which included as only a part of it achievement points. You now get most of those rewards (and more) just for logging in).

You can get extra rewards you could never get before, even if you don’t get the achievement points, by doing any two of the dailies.

But because it’s an achievement point you’re losing, I think (and have always thought) achievements really shouldn’t be something you get incidentally, certainly not daily achievements.

It’s a flaw in the game that has been occasionally commented upon. Now that you actually have to go out of your way for an achievement point, people are up in arms.

There’s nothing in the game you actually need achievement points for, and there are other ways to get them without dailies.

And I have always thought that a laurel wreath was something only awarded to the most excellent of achievers. Certainly, it was like that historically. You didn’t see just anyone run around with laurel wreaths on their crown.

In this game, you got them for completing multiple achievements, something that rang more true to the historical (and present) real-life use of laurel wreaths than the current hand-outs we get for just showing up.

In light of that, I would say that the currency “laurel” as it exists in this game, has lost touch with its etymological roots. Therefore, I propose we change the name of the currency to something more appropriate. Something like: “alms” or perhaps “charity”.

Or perhaps we can just stop the nonsense about it being more proper to actually work for achievement points, while getting laurels for free is okay. Those two acquisition methods paired like they are now is wholly arbitrary and not in any way proper or logical.

This isn’t really semantics. Nothing is locked behind achievement points, except skins. Laurels are useful currency to a lot of people. And yes you got the occasional laurel from an achievement point chest, but not quickly enough to make any use of it.

Laurels are simply more useful to more people than achievement points. That’s why Anet couldn’t just take them away. Achievement points, on the other hand, aren’t just an currency, they’re a form of score. Last time I looked there was no laurel leaderboard. So it’s not just a semantic difference, no matter how much you want to make it so.

I haven’t heard of a cap on laurels either.

You don’t spend achievement points, you’re rewarded for attaining them.

You don’t get titles for earning laurels, you do get titles for hitting certain levels of achievement points.

If you want to try to make this a semantic argument, go right ahead. But the in game reality paints laurels as a currency and achievement points as something other than just a currency.

I’m not trying to make it about semantics. I’m just, once again, trying to point out the hypocrisy of (quoting you): “I think (and have always thought) achievements really shouldn’t be something you get incidentally, certainly not daily achievements.” but seeing nothing wrong with giving out laurels for free, hell, even going one step further and using that “free-ness” to somehow explain why there’s nothing wrong with this system.

Manasa Devi.7958:

Vayne.8563:

Manasa Devi.7958:

Vayne.8563:

Lishtenbird.2814:

Vayne.8563:

You can proved 90% of the casuals were getting 5-8 ap daily in the old system? I’d be interested to see that.

Vayne.8563:

It’s very easy to say people were getting achievement points by doing nothing, because that’s what was happening. Anet decided to actually make people do something to get achievement points, while giving them the other rewards for free.

We were doing “something” before. You couldn’t get AP simply by logging in, you couldn’t do “nothing”. You had to… surprise! – PLAY the game daily to get daily APs. That’s why they’re called “dailies”. If you were running around the world, killing stuff (naturally applying condies and dodging), gathering mats, for a considerable time, you were boosting ANet’s daily time metrics and getting your APs for playing the game. Would you really argue that people who were actively playing PvE (and not chatting in LA) for 30-60 minutes an evening were not getting AP?

The problem is that now, to get any daily AP, you have to perform pet tricks do specific things instead of doing something. Is it hard to see what people do not like?

Yes before they were called dailies and they came with a daily reward which included as only a part of it achievement points. You now get most of those rewards (and more) just for logging in).

You can get extra rewards you could never get before, even if you don’t get the achievement points, by doing any two of the dailies.

But because it’s an achievement point you’re losing, I think (and have always thought) achievements really shouldn’t be something you get incidentally, certainly not daily achievements.

It’s a flaw in the game that has been occasionally commented upon. Now that you actually have to go out of your way for an achievement point, people are up in arms.

There’s nothing in the game you actually need achievement points for, and there are other ways to get them without dailies.

And I have always thought that a laurel wreath was something only awarded to the most excellent of achievers. Certainly, it was like that historically. You didn’t see just anyone run around with laurel wreaths on their crown.

In this game, you got them for completing multiple achievements, something that rang more true to the historical (and present) real-life use of laurel wreaths than the current hand-outs we get for just showing up.

In light of that, I would say that the currency “laurel” as it exists in this game, has lost touch with its etymological roots. Therefore, I propose we change the name of the currency to something more appropriate. Something like: “alms” or perhaps “charity”.

Or perhaps we can just stop the nonsense about it being more proper to actually work for achievement points, while getting laurels for free is okay. Those two acquisition methods paired like they are now is wholly arbitrary and not in any way proper or logical.

This isn’t really semantics. Nothing is locked behind achievement points, except skins. Laurels are useful currency to a lot of people. And yes you got the occasional laurel from an achievement point chest, but not quickly enough to make any use of it.

Laurels are simply more useful to more people than achievement points. That’s why Anet couldn’t just take them away. Achievement points, on the other hand, aren’t just an currency, they’re a form of score. Last time I looked there was no laurel leaderboard. So it’s not just a semantic difference, no matter how much you want to make it so.

I haven’t heard of a cap on laurels either.

You don’t spend achievement points, you’re rewarded for attaining them.

You don’t get titles for earning laurels, you do get titles for hitting certain levels of achievement points.

If you want to try to make this a semantic argument, go right ahead. But the in game reality paints laurels as a currency and achievement points as something other than just a currency.

I’m not trying to make it about semantics. I’m just, once again, trying to point out the hypocrisy of (quoting you): “I think (and have always thought) achievements really shouldn’t be something you get incidentally, certainly not daily achievements.” but seeing nothing wrong with giving out laurels for free, hell, even going one step further and using that “free-ness” to somehow explain why there’s nothing wrong with this system.

Hello apple, meet orange.

Manasa Devi.7958:

Vayne.8563:

Manasa Devi.7958:

Vayne.8563:

Lishtenbird.2814:

Vayne.8563:

You can proved 90% of the casuals were getting 5-8 ap daily in the old system? I’d be interested to see that.

Vayne.8563:

snip.

snip

The problem is that now, to get any daily AP, you have to perform pet tricks do specific things instead of doing something. Is it hard to see what people do not like?

Yes before they were called dailies and they came with a daily reward which included as only a part of it achievement points. You now get most of those rewards (and more) just for logging in).

You can get extra rewards you could never get before, even if you don’t get the achievement points, by doing any two of the dailies.

But because it’s an achievement point you’re losing, I think (and have always thought) achievements really shouldn’t be something you get incidentally, certainly not daily achievements.

It’s a flaw in the game that has been occasionally commented upon. Now that you actually have to go out of your way for an achievement point, people are up in arms.

There’s nothing in the game you actually need achievement points for, and there are other ways to get them without dailies.

And I have always thought that a laurel wreath was something only awarded to the most excellent of achievers. Certainly, it was like that historically. You didn’t see just anyone run around with laurel wreaths on their crown.

In this game, you got them for completing multiple achievements, something that rang more true to the historical (and present) real-life use of laurel wreaths than the current hand-outs we get for just showing up.

In light of that, I would say that the currency “laurel” as it exists in this game, has lost touch with its etymological roots. Therefore, I propose we change the name of the currency to something more appropriate. Something like: “alms” or perhaps “charity”.

Or perhaps we can just stop the nonsense about it being more proper to actually work for achievement points, while getting laurels for free is okay. Those two acquisition methods paired like they are now is wholly arbitrary and not in any way proper or logical.

This isn’t really semantics. Nothing is locked behind achievement points, except skins. Laurels are useful currency to a lot of people. And yes you got the occasional laurel from an achievement point chest, but not quickly enough to make any use of it.

Laurels are simply more useful to more people than achievement points. That’s why Anet couldn’t just take them away. Achievement points, on the other hand, aren’t just an currency, they’re a form of score. Last time I looked there was no laurel leaderboard. So it’s not just a semantic difference, no matter how much you want to make it so.

I haven’t heard of a cap on laurels either.

You don’t spend achievement points, you’re rewarded for attaining them.

You don’t get titles for earning laurels, you do get titles for hitting certain levels of achievement points.

If you want to try to make this a semantic argument, go right ahead. But the in game reality paints laurels as a currency and achievement points as something other than just a currency.

I’m not trying to make it about semantics. I’m just, once again, trying to point out the hypocrisy of (quoting you): “I think (and have always thought) achievements really shouldn’t be something you get incidentally, certainly not daily achievements.” but seeing nothing wrong with giving out laurels for free, hell, even going one step further and using that “free-ness” to somehow explain why there’s nothing wrong with this system.

Seeing something different doesn’t equal hypocrisy. Just as you try to pass off a legitimate difference with a semantic one, when you run out of valid points, you try to play the hypocrisy card. It doesn’t strengthen your argument.

There is a difference between a currency and a token of accomplishment though in some cases they can be the same. Currency has always been given away in this game.

You can get two free wintersday gifts a day just by talking to Tixx and interacting with a tree. These gifts contain currencies. Those currencies, including ugly wool items, are used at a merchant.

Saying that currencies need to be treated the same as something like achievement points is an opinion. Calling it hypocrisy is a cop out.

Laurels are a currency with which you use to buy stuff. No one can view your laurels. There’s no leaderboard for laurels. Giving away a currency is something games do all the time.

Giving away points that affect a leaderboard? That’s a completely different story.

Not acknowledging that is disingenuous.

Vayne.8563:

Seeing something different doesn’t equal hypocrisy. Just as you try to pass off a legitimate difference with a semantic one, when you run out of valid points, you try to play the hypocrisy card. It doesn’t strengthen your argument.

I’m not saying there’s no difference in fuction or nature between AP and laurels. I’m just saying there’s no rational way to defend why it is more proper to have one for free and the other not, based upon that difference. You’re right, hypocrisy isn’t the right word to describe this irrational opinion. The right word would probably not be tolerated on these forums.

Vayne.8563:

There is a difference between a currency and a token of accomplishment though in some cases they can be the same. Currency has always been given away in this game.

You can get two free wintersday gifts a day just by talking to Tixx and interacting with a tree. These gifts contain currencies. Those currencies, including ugly wool items, are used at a merchant.

And unpacking a few of these free gifts gives you an achievement point. Achievement points have also always been “given away” in this game, and still are in some cases. Especially before the recent daily update. Seeing how both were incredibly easy to rake in, the change seems arbitrary.

Vayne.8563:

Saying that currencies need to be treated the same as something like achievement points is an opinion. Calling it hypocrisy is a cop out.

But they were treated much the same before, especially with regard to dailies. They were given out hand-in-hand. Heck, achievement points came easier than laurels even. I’m saying, the change was arbitrary. If two thing start out being handled the same, and are accepted as being handled the same by everyone, how can anyone perceive any logic in one being handled differently now instead of it being the other way around or both being handled in that same different fashion?

Saying “but one is a currency and the other isn’t” makes no difference at all. Both have a subjective value and that subjectiveness will make people have differing opinions on which one should be handed out for free, and which one should be “worked” for. Some will even insist that neither should be given out for free.

Vayne.8563:

Laurels are a currency with which you use to buy stuff. No one can view your laurels. There’s no leaderboard for laurels. Giving away a currency is something games do all the time.

Giving away points that affect a leaderboard? That’s a completely different story.

Not acknowledging that is disingenuous.

Leaderboards are an abomination that caused the whole obsessive daily problem in the first place. And, as you are fond of pointing out when it favors your arguments, there’s a daily AP cap. This completely invalidates your point that free daily AP would mess with the leaderboards. Eventually, daily AP would only provide a 15k baseline for all active players and the real “leaderboard heroes” will start to shine. It won’t even take very long for the top of the board to max out the new maximum of 15k, many of them already hit 10k and are probably further than most on the way to what was formerly the 5k monthly cap. Now, please don’t respond with how long it will take for all active players to cap out their daily AP. You never accepted that as a counterargument yourself.

And no, currencies are not given away all the time. There have been numerous times that I played for hours without having gotten any free currency at all. I would even say that not getting free currency has always been the norm, and free currency a very occasional perk.

I was busy with the holidays when this first was posted, but excellent post Lishtenbird. What most of the changes come down to in my opinion is less player choice and more directed play. All these changes are making me feel like leaving the game. I liked all the choices I had before.

Lishtenbird.2814:

Filaha.1678:

Lishtenbird.2814:

Filaha.1678:

this system is superior for people who wanted to get the maximum amount of AP but didn’t want to leave PVE.

I am glad that this 1% will now be a lot happier than the other 90% of casual PvEers who were getting 5-8 AP daily in the old system just for playing the game and without wasting any time on pet tricks. That’s a great way to retain players, I agree.

/sarcasm

Proof of numbers, please.

• Rank 1-100: 26500AP – 25100AP
• Rank 100-1000: 25100AP – 21750AP
• Rank 90%: 21750AP – 4130AP
• Rank 50%: 850AP

https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu/achievements/

Even if dead-set AP hunters are more than 1% of population, they’re a clear minority.

people who wanted to get the maximum amount of AP but didn’t want to leave PVE.

How do those numbers represent that? Those numbers don’t appear to include anything about where or how any given person plays, or what their desire is as far as daily APs.

Manasa Devi.7958:

Vayne.8563:

Seeing something different doesn’t equal hypocrisy. Just as you try to pass off a legitimate difference with a semantic one, when you run out of valid points, you try to play the hypocrisy card. It doesn’t strengthen your argument.

I’m not saying there’s no difference in fuction or nature between AP and laurels. I’m just saying there’s no rational way to defend why it is more proper to have one for free and the other not, based upon that difference. You’re right, hypocrisy isn’t the right word to describe this irrational opinion. The right word would probably not be tolerated on these forums.

Vayne.8563:

There is a difference between a currency and a token of accomplishment though in some cases they can be the same. Currency has always been given away in this game.

You can get two free wintersday gifts a day just by talking to Tixx and interacting with a tree. These gifts contain currencies. Those currencies, including ugly wool items, are used at a merchant.

And unpacking a few of these free gifts gives you an achievement point. Achievement points have also always been “given away” in this game, and still are in some cases. Especially before the recent daily update. Seeing how both were incredibly easy to rake in, the change seems arbitrary.

Vayne.8563:

Saying that currencies need to be treated the same as something like achievement points is an opinion. Calling it hypocrisy is a cop out.

But they were treated much the same before, especially with regard to dailies. They were given out hand-in-hand. Heck, achievement points came easier than laurels even. I’m saying, the change was arbitrary. If two thing start out being handled the same, and are accepted as being handled the same by everyone, how can anyone perceive any logic in one being handled differently now instead of it being the other way around or both being handled in that same different fashion?

Saying “but one is a currency and the other isn’t” makes no difference at all. Both have a subjective value and that subjectiveness will make people have differing opinions on which one should be handed out for free, and which one should be “worked” for. Some will even insist that neither should be given out for free.

Vayne.8563:

Laurels are a currency with which you use to buy stuff. No one can view your laurels. There’s no leaderboard for laurels. Giving away a currency is something games do all the time.

Giving away points that affect a leaderboard? That’s a completely different story.

Not acknowledging that is disingenuous.

Leaderboards are an abomination that caused the whole obsessive daily problem in the first place. And, as you are fond of pointing out when it favors your arguments, there’s a daily AP cap. This completely invalidates your point that free daily AP would mess with the leaderboards. Eventually, daily AP would only provide a 15k baseline for all active players and the real “leaderboard heroes” will start to shine. It won’t even take very long for the top of the board to max out the new maximum of 15k, many of them already hit 10k and are probably further than most on the way to what was formerly the 5k monthly cap. Now, please don’t respond with how long it will take for all active players to cap out their daily AP. You never accepted that as a counterargument yourself.

And no, currencies are not given away all the time. There have been numerous times that I played for hours without having gotten any free currency at all. I would even say that not getting free currency has always been the norm, and free currency a very occasional perk.

You’re obviously so blinded by your own argument you’re not even reading what I’m saying.

At no point did I say that the achievement points would affect the leaderboards. I simply said the leaderboards show that it was intended to be a different type of reward, rather than a currency. Obviously, eventually that would balance out…but it has nothing to do with what I’m saying.

You don’t like the dailies, so you’ll attempt to discredit anyone defending them. Which is why this conversation, on my part ends here.

HodimusPrime.8036:

I really hate the new Daily achievements they seem so tailored to the PvP and WvW player. As for the achievement for doing three what the hell it only takes three to finish now so what a frakking waste.

O_O Wow, I find it hard to believe anyone could say that.

There are now 4 tasks for each mode. Before, there were 8 that could be completed in PvE, 2 completable in PvP and two that were WvW specific. Yes, one could do many of the PvE tasks in WvW because they were generic, and afaik Daily Kills could be gotten by killing 50 players in PvP.

What you’re calling “tailored” to WvW and PvP is really a balanced amount for each mode, finally.

Vayne.8563:

At no point did I say that the achievement points would affect the leaderboards.

Oh dear...

Giving away points that affect a leaderboard? That’s a completely different story.

*cough*

You don’t like the dailies, so you’ll attempt to discredit anyone defending them. Which is why this conversation, on my part ends here.

Yeah, we better stop this, because what’s the point in arguing with someone who can’t keep his story straight?

Manasa Devi.7958:

Vayne.8563:

At no point did I say that the achievement points would affect the leaderboards.

Oh dear…

Giving away points that affect a leaderboard? That’s a completely different story.

cough

You don’t like the dailies, so you’ll attempt to discredit anyone defending them. Which is why this conversation, on my part ends here.

Yeah, we better stop this, because what’s the point in arguing with someone who can’t keep his story straight?

lol 4:26 am here, I’d like to see you keep your story half as straight at this hour. G’night.

Vayne.8563:

You don’t like the dailies, so you’ll attempt to discredit anyone defending them.

On a more serious note: yes, I hate the new dailies, but what I’ve grown to hate even more is the attitude with which dissent is answered again and again:

“Oh stop whining, you get your laurels for just logging in now.”

I don’t attempt to discredit anyone in particular, I just try to destroy that insulting counterargument, tooth and nail if I have to.

Have a good what’s left of the night.

Filaha.1678:

Lishtenbird.2814:

Filaha.1678:

Lishtenbird.2814:

Filaha.1678:

this system is superior for people who wanted to get the maximum amount of AP but didn’t want to leave PVE.

I am glad that this 1% will now be a lot happier than the other 90% of casual PvEers who were getting 5-8 AP daily in the old system just for playing the game and without wasting any time on pet tricks. That’s a great way to retain players, I agree.

/sarcasm

Proof of numbers, please.

• Rank 1-100: 26500AP – 25100AP
• Rank 100-1000: 25100AP – 21750AP
• Rank 90%: 21750AP – 4130AP
• Rank 50%: 850AP

https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu/achievements/

Even if dead-set AP hunters are more than 1% of population, they’re a clear minority.

people who wanted to get the maximum amount of AP but didn’t want to leave PVE.

How do those numbers represent that? Those numbers don’t appear to include anything about where or how any given person plays, or what their desire is as far as daily APs.

What does, if not these numbers?

As of 2013, around 860,000 were active players. Top 1000 (1/9th of a percent) has AP from 25100AP to 21750AP – quite a gap. Only 10% of all registered players have more than 4100AP. 50% have less than 850AP. Let’s use common sense: how many dead-set AP hunters at all can there be? A handful, that’s it. Several percent. Now subtract the AP hunters who didn’t want to ever go to PvE – a subset within a subset. So why do global changes which affect all players should be focused on the comfort of a definite minority?

Manasa Devi.7958:

Vayne.8563:

You don’t like the dailies, so you’ll attempt to discredit anyone defending them.

On a more serious note: yes, I hate the new dailies, but what I’ve grown to hate even more is the attitude with which dissent is answered again and again:

“Oh stop whining, you get your laurels for just logging in now.”

I don’t attempt to discredit anyone in particular, I just try to destroy that insulting counterargument, tooth and nail if I have to.

Exactly. I can understand why such changes are made; I can see what can be improved and I ain’t really mad at ANet; who I’m mad at are players willing to defend the changes which suit only them with sadistic pleasure.

Lishtenbird.2814:

Filaha.1678:

Lishtenbird.2814:

Filaha.1678:

Lishtenbird.2814:

Filaha.1678:

this system is superior for people who wanted to get the maximum amount of AP but didn’t want to leave PVE.

I am glad that this 1% will now be a lot happier than the other 90% of casual PvEers who were getting 5-8 AP daily in the old system just for playing the game and without wasting any time on pet tricks. That’s a great way to retain players, I agree.

/sarcasm

Proof of numbers, please.

• Rank 1-100: 26500AP – 25100AP
• Rank 100-1000: 25100AP – 21750AP
• Rank 90%: 21750AP – 4130AP
• Rank 50%: 850AP

https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu/achievements/

Even if dead-set AP hunters are more than 1% of population, they’re a clear minority.

people who wanted to get the maximum amount of AP but didn’t want to leave PVE.

How do those numbers represent that? Those numbers don’t appear to include anything about where or how any given person plays, or what their desire is as far as daily APs.

What does, if not these numbers?

As of 2013, around 860,000 were active players. Top 1000 (1/9th of a percent) has AP from 25100AP to 21750AP – quite a gap. Only 10% of all registered players have more than 4100AP. 50% have less than 850AP. Let’s use common sense: how many dead-set AP hunters at all can there be? A handful, that’s it. Several percent. Now subtract the AP hunters who didn’t want to ever go to PvE – a subset within a subset. So why do global changes which affect all players should be focused on the comfort of a definite minority?

And how many of those are still active players? Or even were active players at the time? At 5 AP per day, you’d reach 900 AP in 180 days. And that’s if you only get AP from doing 5 dailies. However, that won’t happen, as there are achievements that will clearly be picked up along the way, like (enemy) slayers and weapon kills and whatnot.

That means that at least 50% of those numbers apparently were either not “active” or new at the time. Which means they skew numbers because you can’t claim which way they would have or might play eventually, or how many are alternate accounts of a same person, or possibly gold sellers.

Also, the link you posted is specifically for EU, not including NA. Do your numbers reflect both?

Filaha.1678:

Also, the link you posted is specifically for EU, not including NA. Do your numbers reflect both?

You could have easily checked yourself (leaderboards are a click away), but yes, while NA AP numbers are a bit lower than EU, both in average and on extremes, the situation there is mostly the same as far as percentages go.
Yes, some of that people are inactive – but (unless GW2 population suddenly bombed really bad) even after adjusting for that we’re still talking about 1-2% of the active population. At best, that is – it’s more likely the numbers of people that were constantly driven to do all possible APs from dailies day after day is only a fraction of single percent.

Astralporing.1957:

Filaha.1678:

Also, the link you posted is specifically for EU, not including NA. Do your numbers reflect both?

You could have easily checked yourself (leaderboards are a click away), but yes, while NA AP numbers are a bit lower than EU, both in average and on extremes, the situation there is mostly the same as far as percentages go.
Yes, some of that people are inactive – but (unless GW2 population suddenly bombed really bad) even after adjusting for that we’re still talking about 1-2% of the active population. At best, that is – it’s more likely the numbers of people that were constantly driven to do all possible APs from dailies day after day is only a fraction of single percent.

You’re right, I could have checked. But it’s not my job to do someone else’s footwork for their argument.

Still, I’d wager that that 50% who haven’t even gotten 850 points are new, inactive, multiple accounts possibly made for storage, or gold spammers. Using them as evidence of “the majority of players” is therefore misrepresenting the size.

Filaha.1678:

Astralporing.1957:

Filaha.1678:

Also, the link you posted is specifically for EU, not including NA. Do your numbers reflect both?

You could have easily checked yourself (leaderboards are a click away), but yes, while NA AP numbers are a bit lower than EU, both in average and on extremes, the situation there is mostly the same as far as percentages go.
Yes, some of that people are inactive – but (unless GW2 population suddenly bombed really bad) even after adjusting for that we’re still talking about 1-2% of the active population. At best, that is – it’s more likely the numbers of people that were constantly driven to do all possible APs from dailies day after day is only a fraction of single percent.

You’re right, I could have checked. But it’s not my job to do someone else’s footwork for their argument.

Still, I’d wager that that 50% who haven’t even gotten 850 points are new, inactive, multiple accounts possibly made for storage, or gold spammers. Using them as evidence of “the majority of players” is therefore misrepresenting the size.

I don’t think you understand. Even if ALL the people below 850 AP were inactive, we’re still talking about a tiny minority. We’re talking about people in 20k+ AP range. And not even all of them, there’s a number of PvE only players that reached that point as well (and a number of 20k+ players went inactive as well, by the way). You don’t seriously suggest that there are that many of those?

Lishtenbird.2814:

Filaha.1678:

Lishtenbird.2814:

Filaha.1678:

Lishtenbird.2814:

Filaha.1678:

this system is superior for people who wanted to get the maximum amount of AP but didn’t want to leave PVE.

I am glad that this 1% will now be a lot happier than the other 90% of casual PvEers who were getting 5-8 AP daily in the old system just for playing the game and without wasting any time on pet tricks. That’s a great way to retain players, I agree.

/sarcasm

Proof of numbers, please.

• Rank 1-100: 26500AP – 25100AP
• Rank 100-1000: 25100AP – 21750AP
• Rank 90%: 21750AP – 4130AP
• Rank 50%: 850AP

https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu/achievements/

Even if dead-set AP hunters are more than 1% of population, they’re a clear minority.

people who wanted to get the maximum amount of AP but didn’t want to leave PVE.

How do those numbers represent that? Those numbers don’t appear to include anything about where or how any given person plays, or what their desire is as far as daily APs.

What does, if not these numbers?

As of 2013, around 860,000 were active players. Top 1000 (1/9th of a percent) has AP from 25100AP to 21750AP – quite a gap. Only 10% of all registered players have more than 4100AP. 50% have less than 850AP. Let’s use common sense: how many dead-set AP hunters at all can there be? A handful, that’s it. Several percent. Now subtract the AP hunters who didn’t want to ever go to PvE – a subset within a subset. So why do global changes which affect all players should be focused on the comfort of a definite minority?

Manasa Devi.7958:

Vayne.8563:

You don’t like the dailies, so you’ll attempt to discredit anyone defending them.

On a more serious note: yes, I hate the new dailies, but what I’ve grown to hate even more is the attitude with which dissent is answered again and again:

“Oh stop whining, you get your laurels for just logging in now.”

I don’t attempt to discredit anyone in particular, I just try to destroy that insulting counterargument, tooth and nail if I have to.

Exactly. I can understand why such changes are made; I can see what can be improved and I ain’t really mad at ANet; who I’m mad at are players willing to defend the changes which suit only them with sadistic pleasure.

This is a double standard.

You’re mad at players who defend a change to the game that’s good for them , but you’re not mad at players who complain about a change which might well be good for the game, but isn’t good for them. You really can’t have it both ways.

I believe the change does need some tweaking, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good change.

Some food for thought… Since the leaderboard has been brought up. Yes, those at the top benefit from the changes, but let’s not forget, the changes are aimed at moving people around Tyria and exposing them to more content than they otherwise might not otherwise be exposed to. This doesn’t just benefit those at the top. It benefits those at the bottom too! People below 800 AP likely havent had full map completion, and may not even have visited pvp or wvw yet. I know I for one had 3000+ AP before I first set foot in PvP.

Astralporing.1957:

Filaha.1678:

Astralporing.1957:

Filaha.1678:

Also, the link you posted is specifically for EU, not including NA. Do your numbers reflect both?

You could have easily checked yourself (leaderboards are a click away), but yes, while NA AP numbers are a bit lower than EU, both in average and on extremes, the situation there is mostly the same as far as percentages go.
Yes, some of that people are inactive – but (unless GW2 population suddenly bombed really bad) even after adjusting for that we’re still talking about 1-2% of the active population. At best, that is – it’s more likely the numbers of people that were constantly driven to do all possible APs from dailies day after day is only a fraction of single percent.

You’re right, I could have checked. But it’s not my job to do someone else’s footwork for their argument.

Still, I’d wager that that 50% who haven’t even gotten 850 points are new, inactive, multiple accounts possibly made for storage, or gold spammers. Using them as evidence of “the majority of players” is therefore misrepresenting the size.

I don’t think you understand. Even if ALL the people below 850 AP were inactive, we’re still talking about a tiny minority. We’re talking about people in 20k+ AP range. And not even all of them, there’s a number of PvE only players that reached that point as well (and a number of 20k+ players went inactive as well, by the way). You don’t seriously suggest that there are that many of those?

No, I don’t think you understand.

If 50% of the people on that leaderboard don’t really play the game, then that 50% are not “part of the population” of the game. They don’t count towards the population of the game, because they’re not players.

That’s why that number gets skewed. If 50% of a sample size don’t count towards the results of the sample size, then the actual percentage of any given portion of the sample size doubles.

Let’s put it this way.

Let’s say you polled 100 people about which they like more, beef or pork. 25 say beef, 25 say pork, and 50 are vegan and get mad at you for asking such a horrible, murderous question. Those 50 people who are vegan are obviously irrelevant to the question, because they won’t like either more. So while previously, 25% would have said beef and 25% would have said pork, your only valid votes cause that to become 50% beef and 50% pork.

Additionally, none of those numbers state where the points came from. Someone may have sought APs outside of dailies and therefore has more APs from non-daily sources, while another may have foregone many non-daily sources and just focused on those. Looking only at those numbers, without making an assumption that “Having X points means you focused on dailies while having less than X points means you didn’t care about daily APs”, can you tell me who went daily-hunting?

Filaha.1678:

Astralporing.1957:

Filaha.1678:

Astralporing.1957:

Filaha.1678:

Also, the link you posted is specifically for EU, not including NA. Do your numbers reflect both?

You could have easily checked yourself (leaderboards are a click away), but yes, while NA AP numbers are a bit lower than EU, both in average and on extremes, the situation there is mostly the same as far as percentages go.
Yes, some of that people are inactive – but (unless GW2 population suddenly bombed really bad) even after adjusting for that we’re still talking about 1-2% of the active population. At best, that is – it’s more likely the numbers of people that were constantly driven to do all possible APs from dailies day after day is only a fraction of single percent.

You’re right, I could have checked. But it’s not my job to do someone else’s footwork for their argument.

Still, I’d wager that that 50% who haven’t even gotten 850 points are new, inactive, multiple accounts possibly made for storage, or gold spammers. Using them as evidence of “the majority of players” is therefore misrepresenting the size.

I don’t think you understand. Even if ALL the people below 850 AP were inactive, we’re still talking about a tiny minority. We’re talking about people in 20k+ AP range. And not even all of them, there’s a number of PvE only players that reached that point as well (and a number of 20k+ players went inactive as well, by the way). You don’t seriously suggest that there are that many of those?

No, I don’t think you understand.

If 50% of the people on that leaderboard don’t really play the game, then that 50% are not “part of the population” of the game. They don’t count towards the population of the game, because they’re not players.

…you haven’t read what i have written at all. Either that, or you don’t understand how math works.

I will repeat it again: even if we get rid of 50% of the population (everyone below the 850 AP mark), the AP hunters will still be a tiny minority of what’s left. If you decrease population by half, the 1% of old population will become only 2% of the new, decreased one. And looking at the AP levels, the 1% of total players (active and inactive) is an overestimation, and by a big margin.
Kitten, even if we assume that the population of GW2 has dropped below 1 million already (to a 20% of the people shown on leaderboards), the people that hunted all possible AP’s from the previous daily system would still be less than 5% of the total, active and playing population.
Honestly, the majority of the (active and still playing) players likely doesn’t even log in every day.

Astralporing.1957:

Filaha.1678:

Astralporing.1957:

Filaha.1678:

Astralporing.1957:

Filaha.1678:

Also, the link you posted is specifically for EU, not including NA. Do your numbers reflect both?

You could have easily checked yourself (leaderboards are a click away), but yes, while NA AP numbers are a bit lower than EU, both in average and on extremes, the situation there is mostly the same as far as percentages go.
Yes, some of that people are inactive – but (unless GW2 population suddenly bombed really bad) even after adjusting for that we’re still talking about 1-2% of the active population. At best, that is – it’s more likely the numbers of people that were constantly driven to do all possible APs from dailies day after day is only a fraction of single percent.

You’re right, I could have checked. But it’s not my job to do someone else’s footwork for their argument.

Still, I’d wager that that 50% who haven’t even gotten 850 points are new, inactive, multiple accounts possibly made for storage, or gold spammers. Using them as evidence of “the majority of players” is therefore misrepresenting the size.

I don’t think you understand. Even if ALL the people below 850 AP were inactive, we’re still talking about a tiny minority. We’re talking about people in 20k+ AP range. And not even all of them, there’s a number of PvE only players that reached that point as well (and a number of 20k+ players went inactive as well, by the way). You don’t seriously suggest that there are that many of those?

No, I don’t think you understand.

If 50% of the people on that leaderboard don’t really play the game, then that 50% are not “part of the population” of the game. They don’t count towards the population of the game, because they’re not players.

…you haven’t read what i have written at all. Either that, or you don’t understand how math works.

I will repeat it again: even if we get rid of 50% of the population (everyone below the 850 AP mark), the AP hunters will still be a tiny minority of what’s left. If you decrease population by half, the 1% of old population will become only 2% of the new, decreased one. And looking at the AP levels, the 1% of total players (active and inactive) is an overestimation, and by a big margin.
Kitten, even if we assume that the population of GW2 has dropped below 1 million already (to a 20% of the people shown on leaderboards), the people that hunted all possible AP’s from the previous daily system would still be less than 5% of the total, active and playing population.
Honestly, the majority of the (active and still playing) players likely doesn’t even log in every day.

Or there are a bunch of people who don’t care about AP points at all, which is also likely and those people would benefit from the new dailies.

Astralporing.1957:

Filaha.1678:

Astralporing.1957:

Filaha.1678:

Astralporing.1957:

Filaha.1678:

Also, the link you posted is specifically for EU, not including NA. Do your numbers reflect both?

You could have easily checked yourself (leaderboards are a click away), but yes, while NA AP numbers are a bit lower than EU, both in average and on extremes, the situation there is mostly the same as far as percentages go.
Yes, some of that people are inactive – but (unless GW2 population suddenly bombed really bad) even after adjusting for that we’re still talking about 1-2% of the active population. At best, that is – it’s more likely the numbers of people that were constantly driven to do all possible APs from dailies day after day is only a fraction of single percent.

You’re right, I could have checked. But it’s not my job to do someone else’s footwork for their argument.

Still, I’d wager that that 50% who haven’t even gotten 850 points are new, inactive, multiple accounts possibly made for storage, or gold spammers. Using them as evidence of “the majority of players” is therefore misrepresenting the size.

I don’t think you understand. Even if ALL the people below 850 AP were inactive, we’re still talking about a tiny minority. We’re talking about people in 20k+ AP range. And not even all of them, there’s a number of PvE only players that reached that point as well (and a number of 20k+ players went inactive as well, by the way). You don’t seriously suggest that there are that many of those?

No, I don’t think you understand.

If 50% of the people on that leaderboard don’t really play the game, then that 50% are not “part of the population” of the game. They don’t count towards the population of the game, because they’re not players.

…you haven’t read what i have written at all. Either that, or you don’t understand how math works.

I will repeat it again: even if we get rid of 50% of the population (everyone below the 850 AP mark), the AP hunters will still be a tiny minority of what’s left. If you decrease population by half, the 1% of old population will become only 2% of the new, decreased one. And looking at the AP levels, the 1% of total players (active and inactive) is an overestimation, and by a big margin.
Kitten, even if we assume that the population of GW2 has dropped below 1 million already (to a 20% of the people shown on leaderboards), the people that hunted all possible AP’s from the previous daily system would still be less than 5% of the total, active and playing population.
Honestly, the majority of the (active and still playing) players likely doesn’t even log in every day.

Since you brought up the subject of “reading what one has written”, care to go on to this, then?

Additionally, none of those numbers state where the points came from. Someone may have sought APs outside of dailies and therefore has more APs from non-daily sources, while another may have foregone many non-daily sources and just focused on those. Looking only at those numbers, without making an assumption that “Having X points means you focused on dailies while having less than X points means you didn’t care about daily APs”, can you tell me who went daily-hunting?

Look at those numbers. Tell me how many of those were concerned with dailies and how many just let them slide. Factually. Not making an assumption due to number of AP.
Because I can tell you right now that I have less than 10k AP but still tried to get as many AP as possible through dailies, all because I didn’t go out of my way for dungeons or jumping puzzles or whatnot.

Man i love this, Guild Wars 2 have changed a lot, “Play how you want to” is completely gone… and every update its like the make the rope tighter and tighter… oh great we have tons of Styles appeal … but no content.

I love to multi-box! I’ve multibox on many other MMORPG but with so many restrictions… and hey SURPRISE the post for multibox/macro is gone does that mean that a ban stick is coming??

Well in short.. my love for MMORPG is fading really fast.
Best of lucks Anet, its been fun!

Twizya.4075:

Man i love this, Guild Wars 2 have changed a lot, “Play how you want to” is completely gone… and every update its like the make the rope tighter and tighter… oh great we have tons of Styles appeal … but no content.

I love to multi-box! I’ve multibox on many other MMORPG but with so many restrictions… and hey SURPRISE the post for multibox/macro is gone does that mean that a ban stick is coming??

Well in short.. my love for MMORPG is fading really fast.
Best of lucks Anet, its been fun!

How is it completely gone?

Ayrilana.1396:

Twizya.4075:

Man i love this, Guild Wars 2 have changed a lot, “Play how you want to” is completely gone… and every update its like the make the rope tighter and tighter… oh great we have tons of Styles appeal … but no content.

I love to multi-box! I’ve multibox on many other MMORPG but with so many restrictions… and hey SURPRISE the post for multibox/macro is gone does that mean that a ban stick is coming??

Well in short.. my love for MMORPG is fading really fast.
Best of lucks Anet, its been fun!

How is it completely gone?

I don’t know, lately I have trouble finding how it existed in the first place

+1
But no sense in even making a thread anyway cuz anet is notorious for only listening to players that have 10k followers on Twitch, reddit, twitter, etc. Unless everyone knows you then your opinion doesn’t matter.

Nokturnal Lunacy.3186:

+1
But no sense in even making a thread anyway cuz anet is notorious for only listening to players that have 10k followers on Twitch, reddit, twitter, etc. Unless everyone knows you then your opinion doesn’t matter.

I dunno, they listen to me . . . had some conversations with a couple of people wearing ANet tags who explained why a few times.

Also, I’d like to point out there’s “no winning” anyway here. If they listen to one group of players, another group of players is thus “ignored”, if they hear what players want and don’t agree with it, they’re also “not listening” or “destroying the game”.

So really this sort of complaint is obvious to those who can step back from the matter. There’s nothing ANet’s developers can do which isn’t going to earn them the “they don’t listen to players” type of scorn. My advice thus is completely ignore them anyway since you’ll be nailed to a cross over whatever you do.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nokturnal Lunacy.3186:

+1
But no sense in even making a thread anyway cuz anet is notorious for only listening to players that have 10k followers on Twitch, reddit, twitter, etc. Unless everyone knows you then your opinion doesn’t matter.

I dunno, they listen to me . . . had some conversations with a couple of people wearing ANet tags who explained why a few times.

Also, I’d like to point out there’s “no winning” anyway here. If they listen to one group of players, another group of players is thus “ignored”, if they hear what players want and don’t agree with it, they’re also “not listening” or “destroying the game”.

So really this sort of complaint is obvious to those who can step back from the matter. There’s nothing ANet’s developers can do which isn’t going to earn them the “they don’t listen to players” type of scorn. My advice thus is completely ignore them anyway since you’ll be nailed to a cross over whatever you do.

If you look at the track record. All changes have been the ideas of those more popular and gw2 famous players. Anet will talk to individuals, i’ve talked to them but if you look back at who had the idea for this change or the idea for that change you’ll see it came from those “famous” players.

Nokturnal Lunacy.3186:

If you look at the track record. All changes have been the ideas of those more popular and gw2 famous players. Anet will talk to individuals, i’ve talked to them but if you look back at who had the idea for this change or the idea for that change you’ll see it came from those “famous” players.

Oooh, I love a good accusation. So, start citing, and provide links proving it.

Otherwise, I go right back to: “ANet, do whatever you like, you’ll get harassed for it anyway.”

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nokturnal Lunacy.3186:

If you look at the track record. All changes have been the ideas of those more popular and gw2 famous players. Anet will talk to individuals, i’ve talked to them but if you look back at who had the idea for this change or the idea for that change you’ll see it came from those “famous” players.

Oooh, I love a good accusation. So, start citing, and provide links proving it.

Otherwise, I go right back to: “ANet, do whatever you like, you’ll get harassed for it anyway.”

I suppose if I was to look hard enuf and took the time to do it I could. I can’t even remember who said what anymore. But if anyone can remember times and who said what they can always chime in.

Nokturnal Lunacy.3186:

I suppose if I was to look hard enuf and took the time to do it I could. I can’t even remember who said what anymore. But if anyone can remember times and who said what they can always chime in.

It’s mostly moot anyway, and I don’t expect anyone to go hunting it all up. Why? It’s easier to make the claims and claim evidence is out there rather than presenting it. It’s also harder to have a means of proving it is solely this reason the decisions were made and not . . . well, multiple posts asking for the wardrobe or wallet systems? Or some guy making SAB as a lark for April Fool’s and not expecting it to be the smash hit it was?

I mean, I’m sure you could find someone with many followers saying Traits needed to be screwed so thoroughly people are wondering if the crime lab needs to show up with a kit . . . but I don’t think you’ll be finding someone before the release of SAB who demanded it be added. Ditto for several other things. It’s almost certain nobody wanted Scarlet Briar or was demanding for her to show up like she did.

And without even straining myself, I know in the CDI for Horizontal Progression ideas were passed around for the Wardrobe as a fun thing to do, I know several posts here were really asking for a place to store Dungeon Tokens early into the game, and absolutely everyone screamed never to do anything like Lost Shores the same way again.

Vayne.8563:

This is a double standard.

You’re mad at players who defend a change to the game that’s good for them , but you’re not mad at players who complain about a change which might well be good for the game, but isn’t good for them. You really can’t have it both ways.

I can have it both ways.

There are two types of disagreeing:

• The new system fits my needs, and I’m happy. I can now get more rewards and faster, compared to the old system. I’m sorry that your playstyle didn’t fit in it, and you’re unhappy about the change, but my happiness is more important to me than your happiness, so I will defend this system.

• The new system fits my needs, and I don’t care about anyone else’s experience. I had to grind while you were enjoying the game – and now I’m happy that you will be grinding and I will be enjoying the game instead! So shut up and stop whining, your whining means nothing because ANet said that my way is the correct one now, and if you don’t, I’ll keep coming and saying that you’re wrong, completely ignoring your problems and presenting my benefits as absolute.

I can respect the first type of disagreeing, and I loathe the second one.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Also, I’d like to point out there’s “no winning” anyway here. If they listen to one group of players, another group of players is thus “ignored”, if they hear what players want and don’t agree with it, they’re also “not listening” or “destroying the game”.

So really this sort of complaint is obvious to those who can step back from the matter. There’s nothing ANet’s developers can do which isn’t going to earn them the “they don’t listen to players” type of scorn. My advice thus is completely ignore them anyway since you’ll be nailed to a cross over whatever you do.

There is a lot of things that can make the definite majority happy, but

• these things require more resources,
• these things require compromising between business monopoly’s needs and client’s need.

Let’s take the wardrobe system:

• Convert town clothes to dyeable outfits. Even that way, far more people would’ve been happy.
• …or convert town clothes and costumes to mixable armor skins – requires quite a lot of resources, but everyone’s happy.
• …or keep town clothes and costumes along with outfits and armour – requires some system tweaking.
• Remove transmutation cost for sub-80 armour – compromise between money (feeding on clueless newbies and fashion rushers) and user-friendliness.
• Introduce PvP tracks with transmutation charges straight away to please the PvP community.

Let’s take dailies:

• Add more generic but laaarge achievements for players playing PvE for a considerable time each day (view vista in map or kill 50 mobs anywhere; do 4 events in map, 10 events anywhere or do a dungeon; gather 4 plants in map, 10 anything anywhere or salvage 40 items) – compromise between goals and user-friendliness.
• Fix event scaling – lots of resources.
• Make PvP “Profession Wins” random per player.

As you can see, all this things can be done, and most players will be happy. Of course there always will be a very specific minority (hi, AP hunters and WvW solo roamers), and there always will be entitled kids, but there’s also the happy majority which will help you defend any friendly system.

There’s a third kind of disagreement:

The daily system was changed to encourage players into different game modes and areas, and as you cleverly pointed out earlier in this thread, the vast majority of players are noobs (50% of players under 800 AP) and most certainly do benefit from the additional guidance. Furthermore, you can still “Play as you want.” Nothing at all that you were enjoying before has been locked out. You’re still able to wander about aimlessly in open world to your heart’s content. And should you choose to seek out the dailies, they’re entirely doable in a very short time frame.

As a primarily PvE (dungeons) player, I very rarely if ever finished all 5 dailies just by “Playing as I want,” even in the old system. I always ended up going to Brisbane to revive NPCs, or Queensdale to kill ambients, Blazeridge to gather, or whatever the daily is that day to finish off my 5, and gaining 10 AP never happened. That experience is the same for many playing styles. It is in fact only the “wander around open world” group that may have been completing the dailies organically, and even then it was very unlikely that you were completing 10 AP worth. For the rest of us, there isn’t a big change at all, as we were WPing around to complete the dailies anyway.

But my point isn’t just “This is good for me so I’m going to defend it,” even if it is. A.Net is very clearly trying to achieve something with the dailies that the old dailies were simply not accomplishing. You don’t have to like it, but if AP is important to you, then great, you’re earning it at a higher rate. If it’s not, then also great. You can just log in and do whatever you like, as you already have the other rewards.

Lishtenbird.2814:

There is a lot of things that can make the definite majority happy, but

• these things require more resources,
• these things require compromising between business monopoly’s needs and client’s need.

Or C – the majority asking for it have no clue about what they’re asking for, and it would spell a mortal blow for the game. (i.e. “Trammel/Felucca split”)

Let’s take the wardrobe system:

• Convert town clothes to dyeable outfits. Even that way, far more people would’ve been happy.
• …or convert town clothes and costumes to mixable armor skins – requires quite a lot of resources, but everyone’s happy.
• …or keep town clothes and costumes along with outfits and armour – requires some system tweaking.
• Remove transmutation cost for sub-80 armour – compromise between money (feeding on clueless newbies and fashion rushers) and user-friendliness.
• Introduce PvP tracks with transmutation charges straight away to please the PvP community.

A few of those are nice ideas. But Town Clothing was just . . . ill-conceived as it was put into the game, and should have existed differently in the first place. It’s one of three things I really think would be incredibly good to see cut off the game before any refinement to the core begins. The other two? Character-bound dyes and the Personality System.

And the “no cost transmutation for under 80”? Exploitable by using level 78/79 gear. You know what would be better? Exchange Karma/Laurels for Transmutation Charges . . . seriously, I’m not the only one swimming in pools of this disgusting purple stuff. Needs more love.

Let’s take dailies:

• Add more generic but laaarge achievements for players playing PvE for a considerable time each day (view vista in map or kill 50 mobs anywhere; do 4 events in map, 10 events anywhere or do a dungeon; gather 4 plants in map, 10 anything anywhere or salvage 40 items) – compromise between goals and user-friendliness.
• Fix event scaling – lots of resources.
• Make PvP “Profession Wins” random per player.

The first one is going to annoy people of the type who have posted in this thread (and myself I will admit) because of limited play windows per day. Making larger amounts for an achievement puts stress on us to perform in the time limit if we want to do them. Making larger amounts and then sticking an “easy out” on it? Just means the majority are going to do the easy out rather than the other one. So why not just leave it as the “easy out”?

Fixing event scaling needs to be done anyway, but I highly doubt it can be done to the levels players are swarming to events. I was there for Lost Shores, when enough people congregate everything breaks down. But at a certain point the blame does have to stop being on ANet and more on players for basically perpetuating this behavior even knowing it’s going to cause issues. You know it’s badly balanced. You know it brings frustration to you and to others. You know you’re more than likely to have a bad experience. Why, exactly, is everyone still doing this?

(It’s already established why – it’s Easy Mode for those who manage to do it. Which is why it won’t stop, and ANet would be vilified if they tried to do something to actively combat it. Sort of like how comments would crop up during the Assault Knights about how crazy it was to limit to 50 players.)

As you can see, all this things can be done, and most players will be happy. Of course there always will be a very specific minority (hi, AP hunters and WvW solo roamers), and there always will be entitled kids, but there’s also the happy majority which will help you defend any friendly system.

I must disagree. I can see all things can be considered, and I can see it theoretically possible to make it so. I cannot see if they can be done in the way we want, and we probably won’t be told outright if it can be by a coder working with the game code. (For several legitimate reasons.)

I mean, heck, it’s easier to come up with a “better” Daily Achievement system which everyone seemed to like already. In fact it was done before . . . oh, right, people still complained about that one too.

Subdue.5479:

You don’t have to like it, but if AP is important to you, then great, you’re earning it at a higher rate.

Here we go again, with the same “but now 10!” argument. I was fine with getting some 5-8 AP daily by not going out of my way, and only rarely did I have to go to unplanned places, let alone other game modes. Now I have to go and do that stuff, or I will get no AP at all. And I see that as the middle ground for the average “active player” daily system. It’s been here for several years, so it made sense, right?

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

And the “no cost transmutation for under 80”? Exploitable by using level 78/79 gear. You know what would be better? Exchange Karma/Laurels for Transmutation Charges . . . seriously, I’m not the only one swimming in pools of this disgusting purple stuff. Needs more love.

Change to “for level 80 characters”, problem solved.

On a side note, karma and laurels can be converted to gold, and charges can be reliably received free of charge from PvE map completion and PvP tracks.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

The first one is going to annoy people of the type who have posted in this thread (and myself I will admit) because of limited play windows per day. Making larger amounts for an achievement puts stress on us to perform in the time limit if we want to do them. Making larger amounts and then sticking an “easy out” on it? Just means the majority are going to do the easy out rather than the other one. So why not just leave it as the “easy out”?

This is what I currently suggest:

Lishtenbird.2814:

One more try on improving the daily tasks, PvE only:

• Daily Nice View
  • View a vista in {map},
  • complete a jumping puzzle in {region},
  • or kill 50 monsters across the world.

• Daily Resource Manager
  • Gather 4 {resource type} in {map},
  • gather 15 resources across the world,
  • or salvage 50 items.

• Daily Heroic Deeds
  • Complete 4 events in {map},
  • complete 10 events across the world,
  • or complete a dungeon in explorable mode.

• Daily Proficient Fighter
  • Apply 20 conditions to enemies,
  • cleanse 20 conditions from yourself,
  • or dodge 20 attacks.

• Daily Mad Quaggan’s Pick
  • Kill a specific world boss / complete a specific tier of Fractals.

At the moment I think that something like that could please everyone: those who need a daily goal and play just a bit, those who play a lot but prefer specific content, those who hunt for APs, and those who level their 1st characters.

I see it as a fair compromise between different kinds of players. Want it fast? Do the specific short task. Need guidance? Do the specific short task, or a less specific middle task. Want to play how you want? Okay, but you have to play for a considerable time.

This way, the part of people who play just a bit will still be in the zones and will still perform the specific tasks. But those who are contributing to metrics by spending hours online playing how they want are not left out of the system anymore. It’s best of both worlds. Because choice and options.

No more Q Q it’s time to demand what we want from ANet. We want mounts and a house in the personal home instance and we want them now!!!

Tumavotinh.6325:

No more Q Q it’s time to demand what we want from ANet. We want mounts and a house in the personal home instance and we want them now!!!

I think by ‘we’ he mostly means himself. As an unrepresented party in either of these opinions, I would like to declare myself neutral-apathetic on the subject of mounts and neutral-positive on the subject of housing.

In any case, while I agree that anything a company like Anet makes as a design decision will be hated by some segment of the playerbase or another, I can’t help but wonder who exactly was pleased by the current trait locking/unlocking schema.

I don’t know that anyone ever asked for that. I don’t know anybody that wants it, likes it or thinks its even merely ok. I have a hard time finding anything so kindly disposed as general ambivalence on it.

I find no end of dislike for it whenever the topic comes up, and it comes up about daily since I work with new players to get them clipping along in game with one of the guilds I’m in.

I can’t find anybody that -likes- it. Odd, that.

@Lishtenbird:

Seriously? That’s what you took from that? You plucked ONE line from the thorough explanation to respond to?

Ayrilana.1396:

Twizya.4075:

Man i love this, Guild Wars 2 have changed a lot, “Play how you want to” is completely gone… and every update its like the make the rope tighter and tighter… oh great we have tons of Styles appeal … but no content.

I love to multi-box! I’ve multibox on many other MMORPG but with so many restrictions… and hey SURPRISE the post for multibox/macro is gone does that mean that a ban stick is coming??

Well in short.. my love for MMORPG is fading really fast.
Best of lucks Anet, its been fun!

How is it completely gone?

If you don’t want to pay for traits, play the very narrow path that Anet has created. If you want Daily rewards, play the very narrow path that Anet has created. If you want to use costumes you must use the whole costume. etc. Less and less choice every time you turn around.

Nokturnal Lunacy.3186:

If you look at the track record. All changes have been the ideas of those more popular and gw2 famous players. Anet will talk to individuals, i’ve talked to them but if you look back at who had the idea for this change or the idea for that change you’ll see it came from those “famous” players.

One of the silliest things I have ever read on a game forum.

Subdue.5479:

@Lishtenbird:

Seriously? That’s what you took from that? You plucked ONE line from the thorough explanation to respond to?

Shh, it’s more enlightening to watch that way. It means they either don’t see a reason to respond to it or have no response for it. Either way, at least their posts have some creative thinking to them . . . even if I’m not 100% sold on what they’re saying.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Subdue.5479:

@Lishtenbird:

Seriously? That’s what you took from that? You plucked ONE line from the thorough explanation to respond to?

Shh, it’s more enlightening to watch that way. It means they either don’t see a reason to respond to it or have no response for it. Either way, at least their posts have some creative thinking to them . . . even if I’m not 100% sold on what they’re saying.

Frankly, I enjoy posters that quote themselves, AND link their posts from other threads……..as if the self important attitude wasn’t already obvious enough.

Of course, I couldn’t possibly mean any poster on these forums.

Subdue.5479:

@Lishtenbird:

Seriously? That’s what you took from that? You plucked ONE line from the thorough explanation to respond to?

It depends on the content of the post and the poster. I’ve been reading the “daily” threads quite a lot recently (as well as many other threads), and now I have a personal list of posters to whom I see little to no point in answering seriously; with the main reason being that they’re repeating the same things that have been said before many times, and especially luring out responses which have already been given all over again.

Probably you have missed those in this 11-page thread, or they have been posted in the other 38-page thread; or maybe you’re just offering as arguments the same assumptions as other people who are not willing to accept my and others’ real experience on which we’re basing our arguments (“could be completed only by those who wander around the world”, “nothing is locked out from you, go and play how you want”).

Djinn.9245:

Ayrilana.1396:

Twizya.4075:

Man i love this, Guild Wars 2 have changed a lot, “Play how you want to” is completely gone… and every update its like the make the rope tighter and tighter… oh great we have tons of Styles appeal … but no content.

I love to multi-box! I’ve multibox on many other MMORPG but with so many restrictions… and hey SURPRISE the post for multibox/macro is gone does that mean that a ban stick is coming??

Well in short.. my love for MMORPG is fading really fast.
Best of lucks Anet, its been fun!

How is it completely gone?

If you don’t want to pay for traits, play the very narrow path that Anet has created. If you want Daily rewards, play the very narrow path that Anet has created. If you want to use costumes you must use the whole costume. etc. Less and less choice every time you turn around.

You had to pay for traits before only that they were bundled. Now you have the option to pay for them individually or to do tasks to unlock them. They increased your options.

Daily rewards had 12 choices before and still have 12 choices now. You, as a player, are the one limiting your choices.

You cannot mix and match costumes. Hardly game-breaking. You couldn’t even wear them in combat before and now you can. You have more options to adjust your appearance than you did before the costume change.

Lishtenbird.2814:

This is what I currently suggest:

Lishtenbird.2814:

One more try on improving the daily tasks, PvE only:

• Daily Nice View
  • View a vista in {map},
  • complete a jumping puzzle in {region},
  • or kill 50 monsters across the world.

• Daily Resource Manager
  • Gather 4 {resource type} in {map},
  • gather 15 resources across the world,
  • or salvage 50 items.

• Daily Heroic Deeds
  • Complete 4 events in {map},
  • complete 10 events across the world,
  • or complete a dungeon in explorable mode.

• Daily Proficient Fighter
  • Apply 20 conditions to enemies,
  • cleanse 20 conditions from yourself,
  • or dodge 20 attacks.

• Daily Mad Quaggan’s Pick
  • Kill a specific world boss / complete a specific tier of Fractals.

At the moment I think that something like that could please everyone: those who need a daily goal and play just a bit, those who play a lot but prefer specific content, those who hunt for APs, and those who level their 1st characters.

I see it as a fair compromise between different kinds of players. Want it fast? Do the specific short task. Need guidance? Do the specific short task, or a less specific middle task. Want to play how you want? Okay, but you have to play for a considerable time.

This way, the part of people who play just a bit will still be in the zones and will still perform the specific tasks. But those who are contributing to metrics by spending hours online playing how they want are not left out of the system anymore. It’s best of both worlds. Because choice and options.

I love this idea. I hate people saying you can’t please everyone. You may not be able to please every single last person but pleasing the large majority is doable.