Achievement Change - Lazy Design/Out of touch

[Remish]

I wish the "Title" rewards were better

[Knot_D]

PVP:

They like to make achievements that say participate and triumph. They put 5,000 on participation and they use that say exact number for triumphs. Most players are lucky to have a 50% win ratio in pvp. So in reality basically you will need 10,000 participations to maybe win 5,000 games. I just can't tell if SE just doesn't think about it or just says yes this is fine. I think if you are going to do 5,000 participation achievements you should do at least half that in triumphs for the achievements. This type of model applies to every game mode including rival wings which they dont have a queue for and it basically only community ran. I think the community does a great job but still... 1000 participation and 1000 wins for a mode that isn't even in the roulette.

Those achievements mostly are for boomers who played since 2.3 and into PvP, so yes it's not for zoomers who just started playing recently. And yes, I'm that boomer



And also those who did Rival Wings since Astragalos



About the win rate? It's above 50% in my end.

[AzanathEU]

How did you guys even survive gaming before achievements became a thing?

[Raoabolic]

How did you guys even survive gaming before achievements became a thing?

Erm, it's called a gamerscore. The bigger the number, the better you are. Wait, I think that was ilvl. I can't tell anymore. :/

[Malakii]

How did you guys even survive gaming before achievements became a thing?

Searched every corner of a game to make sure we didn't miss anything and used the internet to double-check our progress. Some people like to get everything out of a game. Also, we created our own, pen and paper friend.

[Malakii]

Those achievements mostly are for boomers who played since 2.3 and into PvP, so yes it's not for zoomers who just started playing recently. And yes, I'm that boomer



And also those who did Rival Wings since Astragalos



About the win rate? It's above 50% in my end.

I am not really sure what to say here. I think you proved the point I was making. I said most people are lucky to average 50% which you have a 53% but then you look at your frontline and they average out to around 33%. Which makes sense 1/2 and roughly 1/3 win rates. There are always outliers to the rules but that doesn't make the rule invalid. In this case an average. Still either way is not a 100% win rate. So I still think that participation and triumphs should not be set to the same quantity. Also, they still need to support it in a queue. I am a boomer and played since 1.0. That doesn't mean their doesn't need to be changes.

[TheMightyMollusk]

How did you guys even survive gaming before achievements became a thing?

Way back in the olden days, we just had high scores that we tried to beat.

Or we'd just see how far we could get before the game got too unfair and just murdered us. Or until we hit a kill screen and the game became literally unplayable.

I saw a kill screen in Pac-Man once. Turns out the game literally can't load a level higher than 255 because of the way the hex codes work, so half the screen gets filled with garbage data.

[Iscah]

I said most people are lucky to average 50%

Pure luck will put everyone around 50% in the long run, if teaming up is randomised and you have equal chance of getting good and bad players in every team.

I think the intent of having achievements for things like "1000 matches" and "1000 wins" is exactly intended to be along the lines of having achievements for 1000 and 2000 matches, but ideally you can get there faster with more skill – but on the other hand, adding more frustration and a longer grind for those with less skill, which is possibly not so good for the game mode overall if it means that bad people have to play more often than good people. It's a balancing act.

(Meanwhile I still want to see the Field Commander set achievements changed to be based on a cumulative total of points after far too many down-to-the-wire losses.)

[Vahlnir]

Way back in the olden days, we just had high scores that we tried to beat.

Or we'd just see how far we could get before the game got too unfair and just murdered us. Or until we hit a kill screen and the game became literally unplayable.

I saw a kill screen in Pac-Man once. Turns out the game literally can't load a level higher than 255 because of the way the hex codes work, so half the screen gets filled with garbage data.

I learn something new every day.

[Malakii]

Pure luck will put everyone around 50% in the long run, if teaming up is randomised and you have equal chance of getting good and bad players in every team.

I think the intent of having achievements for things like "1000 matches" and "1000 wins" is exactly intended to be along the lines of having achievements for 1000 and 2000 matches, but ideally you can get there faster with more skill – but on the other hand, adding more frustration and a longer grind for those with less skill, which is possibly not so good for the game mode overall if it means that bad people have to play more often than good people. It's a balancing act.

(Meanwhile I still want to see the Field Commander set achievements changed to be based on a cumulative total of points after far too many down-to-the-wire losses.)

I mean what I am overall saying is that if it going to stay this way then just add more achievements for participation with higher numbers to reflect average win rates. I just want to contextualize on average what se expects from these kinds of achievements. If you are wanting players to win 1000 games, then they are probably going to have to play 2000 x ~10 minutes each give or take in a team v team arena. Or for frontline, since there are three teams with "pure luck" it's going to take you around 3000 games for every 1000 wins in each GC. As the above poster shows this is pretty close to the numbers he has even slightly above average. Personally, I don't think having achievements that ask you to do 9,000 games of frontline is very good design. I think SE is using numbers that are inflated and honestly don't match other parts of their game or philosophy. I think this is more because they just overlook these things and keep following the broken system that are already implemented. I just want that to change in the future.