Achievement points to determine rank, how about honor kills ?

[Obnoxious]

Fair enough, you guys can award points as you want, but how about not redefining the English language while you are at it?
The misnomer of "Activity Rank" needs to be changed to "Achievement Point Rank".

This way no one can say anything about how it is not indicative of Activity, because it will be named Achievement Point Rank and you can fall back on the strong defence of "it is what it is", which is a trickier defence to manage when the thing which is what it is, is named what it is not; as it is now.

This would prevent false expectations and disappointment amongst those who have not yet learnt to avoid inferring information from titles and names.

P.S. I totally agree that how we play and how you reward points are two separate issues.

No amount of points will make me farm achievements ever again. After moltdown I realised that I felt nothing about loosing my achievements except a slight sense of relief that I never wasted my time making premades to finally farm bugged SoTA demos for battlemaster.

It was discussed and achievement points were what was considered the best metric to use to determine activity. There's no misnaming, just you disagreeing with the metric we picked. Can you argue that you can be active without achievement points? Sure. Can you argue that achievements aren't a measurable way to prove activity, even if just one among others? Not really.

[XdeathMage]

It was discussed and achievement points were what was considered the best metric to use to determine activity. There's no misnaming, just you disagreeing with the metric we picked. Can you argue that you can be active without achievement points? Sure. Can you argue that achievements aren't a measurable way to prove activity, even if just one among others? Not really.

Lol, sure you can. Many people are very active, but do the same raids again and again. No new achievements though, so using achievements to say that they're active is literally invalid. Same for people who are active throughout the week but play only BGs or Arena with their team. In both cases a large majority of players are very active, but don't get new achievements. Thus, you can very reasonably argue that achievements aren't a measurable way to prove activity.

Hence they shouldn't be called Activity points, because the name is misleading. They really are just achievement hunter points.

[Movrak]

The way i see it, the new points system targets the Lordaeron server primarily, where new players are encouraged to go through all the motions of the game, do a little bit of everything and get those achievements. This system should wotk on Lordaeron, 'cause hunting for achivements, you will see all aspects of the game.
On the other hand, it sucks for PVP players who insta-leveled up and only fo BG, arena and just PVP.

I'm not yet convinced of the utility of these vote points, not until i can see the VP market and see what exactly are they good for.

[Obnoxious]

Lol, sure you can. Many people are very active, but do the same raids again and again. No new achievements though, so using achievements to say that they're active is literally invalid. Same for people who are active throughout the week but play only BGs or Arena with their team. In both cases a large majority of players are very active, but don't get new achievements. Thus, you can very reasonably argue that achievements aren't a measurable way to prove activity.

Hence they shouldn't be called Activity points, because the name is misleading. They really are just achievement hunter points.

You're just repeating what Kittens said, using different words for more semantics.

The reply is the same: you are active, but not active in a way we are using as a metric to award points.
A role player could say he's more active than you by sitting in a tavern and role playing with NPCs. True or not, that's not counting for what we're using to measure as activity, simple as that.

[SuchaDisgrace]

It's weird though, how can one of my Accounts have 1415 achievement Points (shown on the site), while there's only 1 max level character on it with 460 achievement points. And no i dont farm achievements on lvl 1s. There seem to be a flaw in your system.

[XdeathMage]

You're just repeating what Kittens said, using different words for more semantics.

The reply is the same: you are active, but not active in a way we are using as a metric to award points.
A role player could say he's more active than you by sitting in a tavern and role playing with NPCs. True or not, that's not counting for what we're using to measure as activity, simple as that.

Then the point stands, as you clearly agree that the players in that situation are active. Saying "not active in a way we are using as a metric to award points" is basically you using the word incorrectly. Those are just a lot of words to simply say that achievement hunters will get more points. The metric, after all, is as you said achievements. Therefore, since you agreed that the players are active, but not active in getting achievements, we can conclude the points are not really based on true activity, but really just achievements.

Which was my point to begin with. Hence, as the first person said, you should call them achievement points and not points based off of activity. You're literally redefining the word activity to only include achievements, which it isn't.

[Obnoxious]

Then the point stands, as you clearly agree that the players in that situation are active. Saying "not active in a way we are using as a metric to award points" is basically you using the word incorrectly. Those are just a lot of words to simply say that achievement hunters will get more points. The metric, after all, is as you said achievements. Therefore, since you agreed that the players are active, but not active in getting achievements, we can conclude the points are not really based on true activity, but really just achievements.

Which was my point to begin with. Hence, as the first person said, you should call them achievement points and not points based off of activity. You're literally redefining the word activity to only include achievements, which it isn't.

Except that if you are actually active in general, not simply repeating the same dungeon or raid or just doing Battlegrounds, you will naturally earn achievements. You don't have to "hunt" for achievements, you just have to actually play the game for more than one small aspect of it. Will achievement hunters have an easier time? Yes, but that in no way means it takes being one. It just takes actually playing the game, the whole game. If you only want to play a minor part that's your choice, but we want to encourage people to do more, hence rewarding them.

There's no "word redefining" going on. Activity takes many form. We could have picked "PvP kills" or "PvE kills" as the activity that would be gauged for this. We picked one you didn't like. That's about it.

[Charmanda]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to our questions Obnoxious,

I think what will help us all is when we can finally see the achievement point requirements for each activity rank,
see what is in the vote point shop marketplace,
and see how much everything costs.

I think this metric will work correctly once you extend the fixes placed in Lordaeron to other realms. Lordaeron is cool and i think its really awesome but personally I dont have the time to play on it. So once those fixes get applied to the other realms then it will be easier for players of all expansions and realms to earn these points.

In any case we are really grateful for you making new changes and adding new items for the marketplace. We just trust and hope that what you are doing is for the best and that in the long run everyone will be able to understand and agree on the new system

[Movrak]

Long story short , those who PVP all the time, will have to also do other stuff (PVE) to get achievements (for at least 1000 points) , and viceversa, those who only do PVE and never stepped in a battleground or arena, will have to PVP, at least for the achivements.

It's basic - you want points ? get achivements. Don't feel like doing achievements ? then you get no points.

[Selaya]

You can get 1000 achievement points without pveing.
In fact, you can get 1000 achievement points without really doing anything, actually.
You will also naturally get 1000 achievement points rather sooner than later by just playing the game while paying zero attention to them.

[Deathmastered]

Obnoxious, ok, we do kill idk tbc dungs and vanilla dungs for ONCE, get the achiev points, never return there but we still earn the points. Therefore even if you want us to do more different things again it wont work cus to get the achiev points we only need to clear these places once. And afterwards return to the small amount.
Therefore, this system could work the way you want it, but maximum for 1-2 months, but not longer.

[XdeathMage]

Except that if you are actually active in general, not simply repeating the same dungeon or raid or just doing Battlegrounds, you will naturally earn achievements. You don't have to "hunt" for achievements, you just have to actually play the game for more than one small aspect of it. Will achievement hunters have an easier time? Yes, but that in no way means it takes being one. It just takes actually playing the game, the whole game. If you only want to play a minor part that's your choice, but we want to encourage people to do more, hence rewarding them.

There's no "word redefining" going on. Activity takes many form. We could have picked "PvP kills" or "PvE kills" as the activity that would be gauged for this. We picked one you didn't like. That's about it.

I'm not saying what you're doing is wrong, in my opinion it's good, but my point was just that it's not aptly named. Completing achievements does not mean the player is active. Achievements are a one-time accomplishment, and someone with many achievements could be less active than someone who is doing, as you said, a "minor part of the game" repeatedly. By definition they are more active. Yet they won't get more points, the achievements person will. That's why I'm saying they're not really based off activity.

[aryanprince]

Well I don't say Achivements are not determinating the activity, but what with PVP people? AS you know there is a good part of community that is playing pvp and farming HKS in Battlegrounds. For example I have 100 000+ HKs and I played 3000 battlegrounds and you say I am inactive? Or at least your Activity system indicates that I am inactive? I'm sorry but this is huge injustice. What I think is that, game consists from 2 parts, PVE and PVP. Each should participate in the activity rank by 50%. Those that play both will benefit most. That is only natural solution.

[XdeathMage]

What I think is that, game consists from 2 parts, PVE and PVP. Each should participate in the activity rank by 50%. Those that play both will benefit most. That is only natural solution.

They want to tip the scales in the PvE aspect's favour because they want people to do that more. PvP is not a main aspect of the game, the raids and roleplaying are. That's why it's at a disadvantage in the first place.

[Infinitystar]

There are many achievements that are neither pvp or pve, it is no hardship to get 1000 points and you never have to do pve if you dont want to. And the truth is you cant be a pve player that just does the same dungeons and raids over and over and get alot of achieves either.
What they are saying is they want people to play the whole game and not just part of it. If you do this then you will get achieves for many things including pvp and pve as well as exploring, questing, professions, participating in events and even collecting companions and mounts.
And Obnoxious is trying to tell everyone that they view "activity" as someone who plays the WHOLE game and not just part of it and if you do you will be rewarded.
And i dont believe i have to say this yet again.... IT IS A REWARD and they DO NOT have to give us anything and if we keep complaining about every little thing this is how we lose perks.