Achievement Change - Lazy Design/Out of touch

[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.