Do raids need easy/normal/hard difficulty mode? [merged]

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>No the compilation is done but the one presenting them, I went to great lengths to make the data more valid, by eliminating those who cannot Raid from the total for example.

 

When you start with junk numbers, no amount of juggling them makes them less junk. It is still not actual data, it's just guesswork with numbers in it, so that people who aren't paying attention go "those look like pretty big numbers, math must be involved, so it's probably accurate." Still not *actual* data.

 

>By following common sense and logic it's not so hard to correlate the data with the result.

 

You mean correlate some random numbers with the result you're looking for. Boy, [do I have just the site for you.](http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)

 

>As to your last part, I at least have some data to support my position, where is yours?

 

Again, junk data should never be confused for being of more value than "no data." You can pile up stacks and stacks of junk data, and it isn't worth a single blank page of "no data." No data is better than junk data every time, because at the very least, you know that it's accurate.

 

>You've been debating the validity of the data presented to you, yet you failed to provide your own that prove your point.

 

All I've been doing is pointing out that what some people assert as factual, likely isn't.

 

Two men sit at a crossroads. Someone pulls up in his car, "Hey buddy, which way to Topeka?" One of the men points down the left road, and the driver heads that way. Another man drives up "Hey, do you know how to get to Topeka?" the man points down the right road, and the driver heads that way. The second man asks his friend, "so which *is* the way to Topeka?" The first answers back "I have no idea, but I'm right at least half the time."

 

>OK you are the one that want a change. It's on your end to prove that this change is NEEDED, so the burden of proof is on you. So go ahead start giving us data.

 

No. I have no need to prove any such thing. All I need to do is make a case that there is some interest in it, and discuss the best way to do it if they choose to. It's up to **Arena Net** to actually prove or disprove the actual market size for such a thing, and only they have the tools available to them to acquire such data.

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said:

> > > How can you say this in a other thread but here ask for a source for you not representing the wider community. You have literally told someone that their views and experiences aren't indicative of what the community is feeling yet perpetuate you speak for so many based on the very same.

> >

> > Because I am not making an unreasonable claim.

> >

>

> Sorry, but this just comes across as:"I get to be right because I'm me."

 

Nope.

 

>There is no "reasonable claim" or "unreasonable claim" until proven on this diverse a subject. If one or the other side of this argument was so clear, there would be no argument.

 

Ok, fair enough. Let me pose a question to you then, which of the following two claims do *you* believe is more reasonable, A. Guild Wars 2 players care about their characters' appearance. B. Guild Wars 2 players *do not* care about their characters' appearance.

 

Would you feel it is fair to say that one of those two claims is *more* reasonable to you than the other, without having any hard data to quantify *either* stance?

 

>A.) mechanical experience of boss fights is of paramount importance even above knowing your class and rotation. After a 5 month break even with getting thrown in the deep end with new class rotations and no practice I had no issue pulling my weight and not dying on any wing past and current week. Sure I wasn't bringing Snow Crow or Quantify numbers performance wise but I was well above the required performance for smooth clears. My take away: easy mode raids will do nothing for the harder fights because in order for them to be easier mechanics would have to be changed thus making them useless as practice.

 

My position has been that the timing and "success conditions" for mechanics should be left as intact as possible, with the only change being that the "fail penalties" would be reduced to lead to less wipes. In this case, while players *could* ignore many of the mechanics and still clear the content, if they *intend* to train, then they can engage the mechanics exactly like a hard mode player would, and would be aware each time they failed. Think of it like a paintball fight, if you get hit, you know you got hit and will try to do better, but you don't have a bullet hole to deal with.

 

>B.) Easy Raids because people want loot and skins -> this is what it has always been about, glad people are finally honest enough to admit this. I doubt arenanet will want to invest resources into old raids not to mention even new skins for old content. Even less when a net benefit is not guaranteed and a net less to the game might occur with fracturing the player base even more (see LFR in WoW).

 

I've been up front from the start that rewards are a significant part of my interest. There's nothing wrong with that. If it were wrong for players to care about the rewards then why would they even exist?

 

>D.) making raids more accessible - the actual reason behind this subject and topic. Better LFG, more tools to allow people to find like minded players, guilds, training runs and communities.

 

This topic is about whether there should be easier or harder modes, to which more than half the respondents said "yes." It is *not* about making the current raids easier to find parties for.

 

>E.) elitism and raids and spill over into fractals - not happening, elitism has always been part of dungeons and fractals way before raids were even announced.

 

Not to this degree. There were always *some* elitist groups, but it was never the norm, and you always had other options available.

 

>There, now everyone feel free to circle argue for the next 5 months. I swear some people are so present on the forums, there is no way you don't have the time to actually find a raid guild and raid. If you have 12 hours per day to monitor a game forum, you have the time to clear some of the easier raids.

 

Sure, but I would never enjoy that, so instead I pursue the implementation of content that I *could* enjoy.

 

> @"Ferelwing.8463" said:

> Actually no it isn't... I didn't think I would like WvW at all, in fact I generally dislike PvP period. I was not keen on going into WvW and having to get Gift of Battle in the first place because that was not something I thought I would be interested in. However, guess what? I tried it and got hooked on it. I enjoyed the playstyle of having massive battles and testing my skills against other players more than I thought I would.

 

Right, that's nice, but what if you still hated it? How long should you have to keep doing it to get what you want? I support *short term* unique items that encourage players to *try* new elements of the game, as you did. I do *not* support *long term* unique goals, which require players to *keep* playing a specific mode even after they've decided that it's not for them. I believe that long term goals re good too, but they need to be more flexible, so that they keep you playing *the game,* while not keeping you bound to a game mode that you hate.

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Considering that easy mode is directly subverting the very core idea behind raids (if we are to agree that raids are meant as challenging group content if not the most challenging group content)

 

The *current* raids are balanced around being challenging content, but that doesn't mean that raids *have* to *only* be challenging. An easy mode raid would be its own thing, the more fun elements of raiding without the challenge. Players that don't like that wouldn't have any reason to play it.

 

>and that most people who are in favor of easy mode have stated they basically want the shinnies and couldn't care less about the actual game mode, I'd have to disagree.

 

I haven't seen a single person say that. I've seen some people say that they *only* care about the gameplay, not the shinies, and there are plenty of people like me who want both, but I haven't seen anyone who *only* wants the shinies. That would be fine too, but a separate discussion.

 

> @"yann.1946" said:

> i know why he does it. I'm just of the opinion that the health of the game (Where different modes have different rewards) is more important then the desire of 1 person.

 

Agreed.

 

>I never said raiders should get the best shinies. If you would have read some of my earlier posts you might have read that i'm a advocate for making the leg PvP and WvW actually have legendary skins.

 

You realize that this is *still* only covering a tiny portion of the population, right?

 

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

>A "major catastrophic failure" does not get followed up by two living world seasons and an expansion.

 

Sure it does, what else would ANet do with their time? The point was, they walked back a lot of the design decisions from HoT over those LS chapters and other updates, and PoF reflects some of those corrections too. HoT wasn't Destiny 2 bad, but a lot of us weren't particularly happy with it six months out. They've improved since then though.

 

 

 

 

[mortrialus.3062]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> >No the compilation is done but the one presenting them, I went to great lengths to make the data more valid, by eliminating those who cannot Raid from the total for example.

>

> When you start with junk numbers, no amount of juggling them makes them less junk. It is still not actual data, it's just guesswork with numbers in it, so that people who aren't paying attention go "those look like pretty big numbers, math must be involved, so it's probably accurate." Still not *actual* data.

>

> >By following common sense and logic it's not so hard to correlate the data with the result.

>

> You mean correlate some random numbers with the result you're looking for. Boy, [do I have just the site for you.](http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)

>

> >As to your last part, I at least have some data to support my position, where is yours?

>

> Again, junk data should never be confused for being of more value than "no data." You can pile up stacks and stacks of junk data, and it isn't worth a single blank page of "no data." No data is better than junk data every time, because at the very least, you know that it's accurate.

>

> >You've been debating the validity of the data presented to you, yet you failed to provide your own that prove your point.

>

> All I've been doing is pointing out that what some people assert as factual, likely isn't.

>

> Two men sit at a crossroads. Someone pulls up in his car, "Hey buddy, which way to Topeka?" One of the men points down the left road, and the driver heads that way. Another man drives up "Hey, do you know how to get to Topeka?" the man points down the right road, and the driver heads that way. The second man asks his friend, "so which *is* the way to Topeka?" The first answers back "I have no idea, but I'm right at least half the time."

>

> >OK you are the one that want a change. It's on your end to prove that this change is NEEDED, so the burden of proof is on you. So go ahead start giving us data.

>

> No. I have no need to prove any such thing. All I need to do is make a case that there is some interest in it, and discuss the best way to do it if they choose to. It's up to **Arena Net** to actually prove or disprove the actual market size for such a thing, and only they have the tools available to them to acquire such data.

>

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > @"Sigmoid.7082" said:

> > > > How can you say this in a other thread but here ask for a source for you not representing the wider community. You have literally told someone that their views and experiences aren't indicative of what the community is feeling yet perpetuate you speak for so many based on the very same.

> > >

> > > Because I am not making an unreasonable claim.

> > >

> >

> > Sorry, but this just comes across as:"I get to be right because I'm me."

>

> Nope.

>

> >There is no "reasonable claim" or "unreasonable claim" until proven on this diverse a subject. If one or the other side of this argument was so clear, there would be no argument.

>

> Ok, fair enough. Let me pose a question to you then, which of the following two claims do *you* believe is more reasonable, A. Guild Wars 2 players care about their characters' appearance. B. Guild Wars 2 players *do not* care about their characters' appearance.

>

> Would you feel it is fair to say that one of those two claims is *more* reasonable to you than the other, without having any hard data to quantify *either* stance?

>

> >A.) mechanical experience of boss fights is of paramount importance even above knowing your class and rotation. After a 5 month break even with getting thrown in the deep end with new class rotations and no practice I had no issue pulling my weight and not dying on any wing past and current week. Sure I wasn't bringing Snow Crow or Quantify numbers performance wise but I was well above the required performance for smooth clears. My take away: easy mode raids will do nothing for the harder fights because in order for them to be easier mechanics would have to be changed thus making them useless as practice.

>

> My position has been that the timing and "success conditions" for mechanics should be left as intact as possible, with the only change being that the "fail penalties" would be reduced to lead to less wipes. In this case, while players *could* ignore many of the mechanics and still clear the content, if they *intend* to train, then they can engage the mechanics exactly like a hard mode player would, and would be aware each time they failed. Think of it like a paintball fight, if you get hit, you know you got hit and will try to do better, but you don't have a bullet hole to deal with.

>

> >B.) Easy Raids because people want loot and skins -> this is what it has always been about, glad people are finally honest enough to admit this. I doubt arenanet will want to invest resources into old raids not to mention even new skins for old content. Even less when a net benefit is not guaranteed and a net less to the game might occur with fracturing the player base even more (see LFR in WoW).

>

> I've been up front from the start that rewards are a significant part of my interest. There's nothing wrong with that. If it were wrong for players to care about the rewards then why would they even exist?

>

> >D.) making raids more accessible - the actual reason behind this subject and topic. Better LFG, more tools to allow people to find like minded players, guilds, training runs and communities.

>

> This topic is about whether there should be easier or harder modes, to which more than half the respondents said "yes." It is *not* about making the current raids easier to find parties for.

>

> >E.) elitism and raids and spill over into fractals - not happening, elitism has always been part of dungeons and fractals way before raids were even announced.

>

> Not to this degree. There were always *some* elitist groups, but it was never the norm, and you always had other options available.

>

> >There, now everyone feel free to circle argue for the next 5 months. I swear some people are so present on the forums, there is no way you don't have the time to actually find a raid guild and raid. If you have 12 hours per day to monitor a game forum, you have the time to clear some of the easier raids.

>

> Sure, but I would never enjoy that, so instead I pursue the implementation of content that I *could* enjoy.

>

> > @"Ferelwing.8463" said:

> > Actually no it isn't... I didn't think I would like WvW at all, in fact I generally dislike PvP period. I was not keen on going into WvW and having to get Gift of Battle in the first place because that was not something I thought I would be interested in. However, guess what? I tried it and got hooked on it. I enjoyed the playstyle of having massive battles and testing my skills against other players more than I thought I would.

>

> Right, that's nice, but what if you still hated it? How long should you have to keep doing it to get what you want? I support *short term* unique items that encourage players to *try* new elements of the game, as you did. I do *not* support *long term* unique goals, which require players to *keep* playing a specific mode even after they've decided that it's not for them. I believe that long term goals re good too, but they need to be more flexible, so that they keep you playing *the game,* while not keeping you bound to a game mode that you hate.

>

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > Considering that easy mode is directly subverting the very core idea behind raids (if we are to agree that raids are meant as challenging group content if not the most challenging group content)

>

> The *current* raids are balanced around being challenging content, but that doesn't mean that raids *have* to *only* be challenging. An easy mode raid would be its own thing, the more fun elements of raiding without the challenge. Players that don't like that wouldn't have any reason to play it.

>

> >and that most people who are in favor of easy mode have stated they basically want the shinnies and couldn't care less about the actual game mode, I'd have to disagree.

>

> I haven't seen a single person say that. I've seen some people say that they *only* care about the gameplay, not the shinies, and there are plenty of people like me who want both, but I haven't seen anyone who *only* wants the shinies. That would be fine too, but a separate discussion.

>

> > @"yann.1946" said:

> > i know why he does it. I'm just of the opinion that the health of the game (Where different modes have different rewards) is more important then the desire of 1 person.

>

> Agreed.

>

> >I never said raiders should get the best shinies. If you would have read some of my earlier posts you might have read that i'm a advocate for making the leg PvP and WvW actually have legendary skins.

>

> You realize that this is *still* only covering a tiny portion of the population, right?

>

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> >A "major catastrophic failure" does not get followed up by two living world seasons and an expansion.

>

> Sure it does, what else would ANet do with their time? The point was, they walked back a lot of the design decisions from HoT over those LS chapters and other updates, and PoF reflects some of those corrections too. HoT wasn't Destiny 2 bad, but a lot of us weren't particularly happy with it six months out. They've improved since then though.

>

>

>

>

 

Yeah HoT was put together in a hurry and rushed out the gate before it was ready because the LW model for seasons 1 and 2 were a failure and the game was hemorraging players. It was such a panic emergency situation that they completely changed their business model. And once they released HoT they needed to completely restructure their content pipeline leading to a year long content drought that hemorraged out players again. It wasn't by choice that the raids were the only content. The raid team just happened to kick a lot of ass and delivered the content faster than the LW teams did.

 

The only huge change in philosophy between HoT and PoF is the shift away from zone wide meta events. Other than that PoF is the same philosophy as HoT, just executed better in every regard.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> When you start with junk numbers, no amount of juggling them makes them less junk. It is still not actual data, it's just guesswork with numbers in it, so that people who aren't paying attention go "those look like pretty big numbers, math must be involved, so it's probably accurate." Still not *actual* data.

I don't know why you call them junk numbers, it's very valid statistical data.

 

> All I've been doing is pointing out that what some people assert as factual, likely isn't.

Yet when someone does the same for you, because what you say isn't factual either, you provide nothing to prove your own points.

 

> No. I have no need to prove any such thing. All I need to do is make a case that there is some interest in it, and discuss the best way to do it if they choose to. It's up to **Arena Net** to actually prove or disprove the actual market size for such a thing, and only they have the tools available to them to acquire such data.

Maybe they already did and the market size isn't high enough that's why Raids are the way they are. Ever thought of that? What kind of "proof" do you need that this is actually the case?

[Feanor.2358]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said:

> > > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > > > > @"yann.1946" said:

> > > > > > > @"Ferelwing.8463" said:

> > > > > > > > @"yann.1946" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could fling the exact same words, using the exact same logic, back at you.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > See, Unlike you, I don't want to deprive you of anything

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > That's your own conviction. Mine is that you *will* deprive me of something, regardless if you realize this or not.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Oh dear how mean of me.. so tell me.. outside of self serving ego stroking, what would I be depriving you of?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Possibly the opportunity to play raids at all, by starving them of the required playerbase.

> > > > > > > > > > In any case, more raid releases, as the developers would need to waste time to rebalance all the existing raids for no good reason.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Could make the same argument that they should scrap wvw and pvp because it could make expac and living world faster to complete and ship.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Yes and do you know why they don't? Because it's content marketed for a specific demographic such that that group of people could get interested in GW2.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Please tell me which group of people would get interested to play GW2 because their are easy mode raids?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Actually no it isn't... I didn't think I would like WvW at all, in fact I generally dislike PvP period. I was not keen on going into WvW and having to get Gift of Battle in the first place because that was not something I thought I would be interested in. However, guess what? I tried it and got hooked on it. I enjoyed the playstyle of having massive battles and testing my skills against other players more than I thought I would.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So no, it's NOT about marketing to that group of players. Instanced content however makes it impossible to find out if you would "enjoy" that kind of playstyle. If you can't get in or your group wipes constantly and you waste 10 people's time because you can't figure it out etc (and don't want to sit through and watch 100 videos etc) but would like to just freaking play it... So while it might be fun for some people who feel like it's "fun" to spend hours of time watching a video about how to play then spend however long trying to find a group of people to play it through and then maybe completing the content. Sure, go ahead and tell people again that it's "marketed" for that type of person.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Not everyone knows what is "for them" till they try it and when you have instanced content, well it's obvious that you can't just "try" it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The point is they introduced raids to pull more people in with the HOT expansion. to market to a specific kind of player.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Honestly i don't really see where you're argument would prove me wrong. Rather it explains quite nicely why you should lock rewards to specific content.

> > > > >

> > > > > Well beyond the fact that HoT was a major catastrophic failure... I can't see why this was not a brilliant idea.

> > > >

> > > > A "major catastrophic failure" does not get followed up by two living world seasons and an expansion. A lot of people found reasons to complain about HoT. It doesn't make it a failure. A lot of people always find reasons to complain about everything.

> > >

> > > LOL.. what.. did you think that because HoT failed big time they would cease making Living World? Really?

> > >

> > > And PoF is nothing like HoT.

> >

> > ? hot was a success both commercially and technically and introduced a ton of content.

>

> No it wasn't, in fact, Colin openly admitted as he left the Studio, that HoT didn't go over nearly as well as they had hoped.

 

Still doesn't make it a failure. And as for HoT vs PoF comparison, I encourage you to compare the number of players found on HoT vs PoF maps. Assume much?

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> >A "major catastrophic failure" does not get followed up by two living world seasons and an expansion.

>

> Sure it does, what else would ANet do with their time?

 

Another project, obviously. You don't pour more resources on a sinking ship, you cut your losses short. See SW: Galaxies. None of that happened here, so every attempt to categorize HoT as a "failure" is nothing more than exaggeration.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

>It wasn't by choice that the raids were the only content. The raid team just happened to kick a lot of kitten and delivered the content faster than the LW teams did.

 

Well, I don't know that this is a fair impression either. Basically, they had the "making content" team working on making the HoT story content, and if they had any expectations at all, it would be that the HoT map metas would be popular enough that they would keep players engaged long-term, that players would be farming these maps and that would be the quality content. They also designed some of the early Mastery aspects around long term grinds, but players figured out ways to shortcut that, and also some nerfs were made due to player outrage (my guess is that they didn't intend for players to be able to complete a single character's elite specs until months after launch, but the players demanded near-instant access to them), so players basically "noped" a lot of the progression they'd probably planned to keep them occupied. And let's not even consider Adventures, because nobody else did.

 

So basically a LW chapter takes many months to produce, probably 6 start to finish, maybe more, and yet those teams were probably working on HoT map content and story content up to release, and had to start LWs3e1 from scratch after launch. Not to mention that rumors of the raid team's "small size" have been greatly exaggerated, while I'm sure the "permanent" raid team is relatively small, they *must* draw in talent from all over ANet to actually produce that content, and that took a toll on LW development. Getting *some* semblance of a raid out was a priority over LS, since it was something that had been promised for launch. Now, the raid team likely *had* been working well before launch, and probably had a lot of it finished already, but still needed time to do final polish and perhaps add details.

 

So I think they turned around content at a reasonable rate for what they were ttempting, they did better with PoF because they had content teams working slowly and steadily on that stuff for years while the LW teams worked around them, and the LW team for Istan was probably doing nothing but that for months prior to launch.

 

>The only huge change in philosophy between HoT and PoF is the shift away from zone wide meta events. Other than that PoF is the same philosophy as HoT, just executed better in every regard.

 

There are a number of changes. One major one cited by the community (not that it was personally an issue for me) was that PoF maps were more horizontal, less vertical. The compressed nature of HoT maps really bothered some people. PoF maps rarely have much that is *on top of* other content, at least no more than most core maps. I also don't believe that the new enemies, for the most part, are as annoying to fight as the HoT ones. They certainly aren't as big a difficulty spike as the HoT ones were over core. They also pathed a little better, so that basic travel was far less frustrating, not even counting the mounts. They also streamlined the elite spec acquisition methods, much more convenient. I'm sure there are other things I've forgotten.

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> I don't know why you call them junk numbers, it's very valid statistical data.

 

Again, no.

 

1. The source has a bias to it, so we cannot know how well those figures correlate to the general population. If you have a large theme park, and you poll how many people around the ice-cream stand have had ice cream today, you might find that a very high percentage of them do. That doesn't mean that this percentage in any way carries over to the park as a whole. We can't know for sure what biases are in play at Efficiency, so we can't know how applicable the data is. It's a curiosity, but it can't be used to support or disprove anything about the game as a whole, no matter what you do with the numbers. To use the ice cream example, we can't even know if Efficiency is "near the ice cream" or "far from it." It *could* be 100% accurate, or it *could* present views that are wildly different than the average player, and we can't know which.

 

2. There is no stat on Efficiency to measure "would easy mode raid, but would not normal mode raid." There are a lot of *other* stats, to which you've subjectively applied spurious correlations with the goal of supporting your conclusions. You *assume* that if player does X and Y, that they would also do Z, when there is no basis for making any such assumptions. Even if Efficiency's data could be used as an accurate measure (and see point 1), there is no way to divine the answers to our questions here merely by juggling that data. You've argued that players who have not completely cleared Arah would never do easy mode raids. There is just no reason to believe this is true beyond your subjective *belief* that this is true. Therefore, the entire presentation of "data" boils down to nothing more than your own opinion, with numbers piled on top to give it the *veneer* of science.

 

>Yet when someone does the same for you, because what you say isn't factual either, you provide nothing to prove your own points.

 

Yup. I provide nothing to prove my own points because I'm no more capable of doing so than you are, which, if you've been following along, is "zero" for the both of us. I'm just being up front about that rather than attempting to dazzle with pseudo-science. I'm telling you I *can't* make a rabbit vanish into thin air, and you can't either, rather than trying to cram one into a hidden compartment.

 

>Maybe they already did and the market size isn't high enough that's why Raids are the way they are.

 

Then I would be curious for them to elaborate on it. Until then, I will continue to discuss the issue in hopes that some interesting points might tumble out.

 

>What kind of "proof" do you need that this is actually the case?

 

I would need for them to fully explain their stance. That they *have* done the scientific polling necessary to determine the amount of player interest in such a thing, a comparison between those figures and the current raiding population, a general estimate of the amount of time it would take to implement such a project (and what project they would implement if given the time), and where that developer attention would be pulled from if they did it. Vague "it would be a lot of work so we chose not to do it" is not sufficient, I need details to be satisfied in the response. My concern is that they *could* do it, but merely *choose* not to because they want to continue to promote the existing toxic raider culture. There have been a number of developer statements and projects (such as Tribulation mode and the Mad King's Clocktower) that shows that regardless of the game they crafted and the community it cultivated, there are significant elitism sympathies within the dev team that sometimes get their way.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> 2. There is no stat on Efficiency to measure "would easy mode raid, but would not normal mode raid."

There is no way to have such a stat, it's an impossibility to have statistical data of "what ifs" or things that do not currently exist. That's why you use the huge amount of other stats to "estimate" it.

 

> Yup. I provide nothing to prove my own points because I'm no more capable of doing so than you are

Yet you are quick to ask for a "source" for things you disagree with.

 

> I would need for them to fully explain their stance.

They already did...

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > >A "major catastrophic failure" does not get followed up by two living world seasons and an expansion.

> >

> > Sure it does, what else would ANet do with their time?

>

> Another project, obviously. You don't pour more resources on a sinking ship, you cut your losses short. See SW: Galaxies. None of that happened here, so every attempt to categorize HoT as a "failure" is nothing more than exaggeration.

 

HoT, on its own merits, failed in some ways, although under the circumstances a lot of that was to be expected. *Guild Wars 2,* on the other hand, was resilient enough to survive those missteps, and ANet largely corrected them over the following year, putting the game back on course. You can have failures without that being cause to run off to a country with no extradition treaties.

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > 2. There is no stat on Efficiency to measure "would easy mode raid, but would not normal mode raid."

> There is no way to have such a stat, it's an impossibility to have statistical data of "what ifs" or things that do not currently exist.

 

True, which is why you would need to do *direct* polling of the community to find out their interests. Either that or just do it and see what happens.

 

>That's why you use the huge amount of other stats to "estimate" it.

 

But there are no other stats that would reliably predict that result. You've suggested several, but they are each seriously flawed. If you want to find out how many people like broccoli, you can't do it by tallying up how many people like lettuce, kale, and tomatoes, and how many *don't* like apples, and just say "that's data, that's an estimate, I through a bunch of numbers into a pot and pulled out a result that matches my preconceptions, and therefore must be accurate. Now *you* provide evidence!"

 

>Yet you are quick to ask for a "source" for things you disagree with.

 

Again, only to point out to people who seemed certain of their position that they had no basis of it beyond their opinions.

 

>They already did...

 

*"Vague "it would be a lot of work so we chose not to do it" is not sufficient, I need details to be satisfied in the response. "*

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> True, which is why you would need to do *direct* polling of the community to find out their interests. Either that or just do it and see what happens.

That'ts unlikely to happen

 

> But there are no other stats that would reliably predict that result. You've suggested several, but they are each seriously flawed.

According to you they are flawed, I don't see them as flawed, it's how statistics work.

 

> Again, only to point out to people who seemed certain of their position that they had no basis of it beyond their opinions.

Same as you... You are certain of your position yet you have no basis of it beyond your opinion. Yet you try to make this opinion of yours appear as something that it isn't.

 

> *"Vague "it would be a lot of work so we chose not to do it" is not sufficient, I need details to be satisfied in the response. "*

Did they give any market details regarding Open World PVP so they didn't add it? Did they provide any details for not including Mounts? (Before Path of Fire)

Did they provide any such details when they added Raids with Heart of Thorns?

They did not. I don't think they need to provide any extra details, just like they didn't have to provide any extra details for any other piece of content they've ever added to the game. And no, satisfying your personal curiosity isn't a valid reason.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > True, which is why you would need to do *direct* polling of the community to find out their interests. Either that or just do it and see what happens.

> That'ts unlikely to happen

 

Perhaps, but it's still a method available to ANet, and the only one that would produce actual results.

 

> > But there are no other stats that would reliably predict that result. You've suggested several, but they are each seriously flawed.

> According to you they are flawed, I don't see them as flawed, it's how statistics work.

 

No, that's how *opinions* work. Statistics are something else entirely.

 

> > Again, only to point out to people who seemed certain of their position that they had no basis of it beyond their opinions.

> Same as you... You are certain of your position yet you have no basis of it beyond your opinion. Yet you try to make this opinion of yours appear as something that it isn't.

 

Nope.

 

> > *"Vague "it would be a lot of work so we chose not to do it" is not sufficient, I need details to be satisfied in the response. "*

> Did they give any market details regarding Open World PVP so they didn't add it? Did they provide any details for not including Mounts? (Before Path of Fire)

> Did they provide any such details when they added Raids with Heart of Thorns?

> They did not. I don't think they need to provide any extra details, just like they didn't have to provide any extra details for any other piece of content they've ever added to the game. And no, satisfying your personal curiosity isn't a valid reason.

 

You asked "What kind of "proof" do you need that this is actually the case?" I answered. I don't know what more I can say on the matter.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> No, that's how *opinions* work. Statistics are something else entirely.

Dispute the data all you want, it doesn't make them any less of statistically significant. It's a rather huge sample, and a very varied one. But since you insist on disputing it, should we make polls on these forums? You know, like this one. They are even more statistically insignificant, having such a tiny participation rate, in comparison to that other data set. To use your word, forum polls are "junk". Right?

 

> Nope.

Nope what? You ask for others to provide sources, while you don't do the same.

Or you mean "nope" your position is not an opinion but a fact? In that case, I said it before, tone down your massive ego.

 

> You asked "What kind of "proof" do you need that this is actually the case?" I answered. I don't know what more I can say on the matter.

That they never gave any similar "proof" for any other change they've made to the game? All the proof you need is the path they are taking.

We'll see when the next Raid comes, should be very soon now, if they implement any kind of easy mode for it or not.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>Dispute the data all you want, it doesn't make them any less of statistically significant.

 

*True*. . . but only because it's not possible to reduce the statistical significance of something past zero.

 

>It's a rather huge sample, and a very varied one.

 

Yes, but not one that answers the question posed to it. I can find you some truly massive surveys that would be utterly hopeless at resolving the question at hand. I mean, we could use the California primary results if you like, what would *those,* in your opinion, indicate about whether Californians, nay, about players all over the world, thik should be done about easy mode raids in GW2?

 

>But since you insist on disputing it, should we make polls on these forums? You know, like this one. They are even more statistically insignificant, having such a tiny participation rate, in comparison to that other data set. To use your word, forum polls are "junk". Right?

 

Yes. I point out that this one supports my position over yours, but I also make clear the caveat that there are a number of biases that invalidate it as a scientific result. On the other hand, if you *are* going to run wild with bad data, a direct answer to a polling question "do you want this thing," *would* be more accurate than making a bunch of wild assumptions about "if they did X, and Y in the game, then they *probably* wouldn't want Y (in my opinion, which I will state as though it were a scientific analysis of 'data')."

 

>That they never gave any similar "proof" for any other change they've made to the game?

 

Undisputed, irrelevant to the question posed.

 

> All the proof you need is the path they are taking.

 

No, that would be all the proof *you* need. You asked what *I* needed, and I answered.

 

>We'll see when the next Raid comes, should be very soon now, if they implement any kind of easy mode for it or not.

 

I'll bet you that they don't, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Yes, but not one that answers the question posed to it.

Huh, but they do answer it, they show player participation in relevant pieces of content. I'm not running wild with random data, that's what you are claiming, and you are wrong. I'm making estimated guesses using valid data, it's what the entire field of statistics is all about. But go on, continue feigning ignorance.

 

> No, that would be all the proof *you* need. You asked what *I* needed, and I answered.

And I said what you need won't be given, based on how they responded in the past with anything else they added. So you need to find something else.

 

> I'll bet you that they don't, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't.

I wonder now, at which Raid released would you stop with what they *should* do? When we get 1, 2, 10 next Raids?

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>Huh, but they do answer it, they show player participation in relevant pieces of content.

 

But we discussed many pages ago why they 1. don't actually show player *participation* in that content, they only show player *completionism* in that content, and 2. that participation in that content, or lack thereof, is no indicator as to whether they would want easy mode raid. We even had several people pipe up in the thread to indicate that they do or would raid, without having completed the content you find so "essential" to the process. It's about as reliable for navigation as a [diner children's menu.](https://kidstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/product_kidstar-01.png)

 

>I'm making estimated guesses using valid data, it's what the entire field of statistics is all about.

 

Nate Silver would weep.

 

>And I said what you need won't be given, based on how they responded in the past with anything else they added. So you need to find something else.

 

No, I don't.

 

>I wonder now, at which Raid released would you stop with what they should do? When we get 1, 2, 10 next Raids?

 

When there are easy mode raids added, or when they fully explore the reasons why not.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > >A "major catastrophic failure" does not get followed up by two living world seasons and an expansion.

> > >

> > > Sure it does, what else would ANet do with their time?

> >

> > Another project, obviously. You don't pour more resources on a sinking ship, you cut your losses short. See SW: Galaxies. None of that happened here, so every attempt to categorize HoT as a "failure" is nothing more than exaggeration.

>

> HoT, on its own merits, failed in some ways, although under the circumstances a lot of that was to be expected. *Guild Wars 2,* on the other hand, was resilient enough to survive those missteps, and ANet largely corrected them over the following year, putting the game back on course. You can have failures without that being cause to run off to a country with no extradition treaties.

 

While that much is true, please remember the context: stating HoT was a "major catastrophic failure". No, it wasn't. HoT was by no means perfect, and the content drought following it was a real problem. But "catastrophic failure" is a blatant and obvious exaggeration and cannot be taken seriously. Even more so when the sole point of this exaggeration was to pin the blame on content that was actually successful and keeps getting developed in pretty much the same way.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> But we discussed many pages ago why they 1. don't actually show player *participation* in that content, they only show player *completionism* in that content, and 2. that participation in that content, or lack thereof, is no indicator as to whether they would want easy mode raid.

1. More than enough. It's like saying that Easy mode Raiders will only finish Vale Guardian and not the entire thing

2. Actually it is a very good indicator. It shows the type of content a player enjoys.

 

I find it funny that you talk about what we "discussed" pages ago. When most pages discuss things that were already said in the past, including this one. There is more complaining and arguing about their existence over the important data that they show, which is really pathetic. Probably because you can't find any kind of data that prove otherwise. It's obvious this is getting nowhere, it's impossible to convince me that the data is junk, because to me it's very valid and important statistical data, and it's obvious you won't accept their results because they don't suit your own argument. Pointless going forward.

 

> When there are easy mode raids added, or when they fully explore the reasons why not.

So you will stay playing this game (and posting on the official forums) for how many more years if they don't do either?

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > >A "major catastrophic failure" does not get followed up by two living world seasons and an expansion.

> > > >

> > > > Sure it does, what else would ANet do with their time?

> > >

> > > Another project, obviously. You don't pour more resources on a sinking ship, you cut your losses short. See SW: Galaxies. None of that happened here, so every attempt to categorize HoT as a "failure" is nothing more than exaggeration.

> >

> > HoT, on its own merits, failed in some ways, although under the circumstances a lot of that was to be expected. *Guild Wars 2,* on the other hand, was resilient enough to survive those missteps, and ANet largely corrected them over the following year, putting the game back on course. You can have failures without that being cause to run off to a country with no extradition treaties.

>

> While that much is true, please remember the context: stating HoT was a "major catastrophic failure". No, it wasn't.

 

But that wasn't my point. That was mortrialus's. I was walking his position back a bit, while still acknowledging that HoT had its flaws. Why are you quoting me rather than him?

 

 

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > But we discussed many pages ago why they 1. don't actually show player *participation* in that content, they only show player *completionism* in that content, and 2. that participation in that content, or lack thereof, is no indicator as to whether they would want easy mode raid.

> 1. More than enough. It's like saying that Easy mode Raiders will only finish Vale Guardian and not the entire thing

 

They might. That's not a problem. Plenty of people cleared several dungeon paths and ignored others completely, because they didn't really offer anything unique or interesting. They also weren't arrayed linearly as part of a single story, they were just disconnected assortments of challenges. This is not new information, this was pointed out to you by myself and others several pages ago. Why are you acting as if this is news to you?

 

> 2. Actually it is a very good indicator. It shows the type of content a player enjoys.

 

No, it doesn't, it shows what type of content they have *done.* As we've already pointed out, there are many reasons why a player may not have cleared dungeons, even if he has interest in that content type, while they may be more interested in raiding. I'm sure there are plenty of places in the game where players have cleared content A, while never clearing content B, even if on paper they look very similar to each other.

 

Adventures perhaps. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have cleared some adventures many times, while never clearing others. That doesn't mean that you can take a stat of the ones they did clear and say "this player loves all adventure type content," or take a stat of the ones they haven't and say "this player hates all the adventures." Before you say "well why not take both," remember we're discussing a situation in which the actual data we want does not exist, so for the analogy to work, you have to assume that we only have one of the two stats, and need to make our assumptions based on that, as you have done using dungeon data.

 

> I find it funny that you talk about what we "discussed" pages ago. When most pages discuss things that were already said in the past, including this one.

 

Yeah, you would think that I wouldn't have to re-answer the same questions all over again, but they didn't seem to stick the first time, so here we are.

 

>There is more complaining and arguing about their existence over the important data that they show, which is really pathetic. Probably because you can't find any kind of data that prove otherwise.

 

Again, I can't find data to prove otherwise because such data does not exist any more than data to prove your case exists. You're basically asking me to "counter" the Chewbacca defense. "I have a whole heap of nonsense over here, so provide an equal volume of proof, or I win!"

 

It's obvious this is getting nowhere, it's impossible to convince you that the data is junk, because it's obviously nonsense, and it's obvious you won't accept that because it don't suit your own argument. Pointless going forward.

 

> > When there are easy mode raids added, or when they fully explore the reasons why not.

> So you will stay playing this game (and posting on the official forums) for how many more years if they don't do either?

 

Until I get bored of the game and move on, same as anyone. From a personal standpoint, this is less about keeping me playing, and more about keeping me *engaged.* I might keep playing regardless, but the more *engaged* I am, the more likely I am to *spend* on things. When I'm annoyed at the game, I'm less likely to throw money at a new skin or account upgrade or whatever. I imagine a lot of people are like that.

[maddoctor.2738]

Still at it I see.

 

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> They also weren't arrayed linearly as part of a single story, they were just disconnected assortments of challenges. This is not new information, this was pointed out to you by myself and others several pages ago. Why are you acting as if this is news to you?

Because it's still meaningless. The other paths did provide extra token rewards someone who wanted the rewards of a dungeon would run all the paths for the extra tokens and not run only one of them.

 

> No, it doesn't, it shows what type of content they have *done.*

Which is essentially the metric we have. Enjoying or not is irrelevant, there is no metric that can objectively tell us if someone enjoyed what they played or not.

Many went to get The Ascension in PVP even though they did not enjoy PVP or the process. But the metric gotten out of it, is that people played PVP to get the Ascension.

 

> Yeah, you would think that I wouldn't have to re-answer the same questions all over again, but they didn't seem to stick the first time, so here we are.

That's kind of my line.

 

> Until I get bored of the game and move on, same as anyone.

We are in for a long ride lol

[Ohoni.6057]

Still at it I see.

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>Because it's still meaningless. The other paths did provide extra token rewards someone who wanted the rewards of a dungeon would run all the paths for the extra tokens and not run only one of them.

 

Yes, but there was no rush. It was about using time efficiently. They reset daily, not weekly, and practically no one cleared *every* dungeon every day. Yeah, if you did you could squeak out a few more tokens by clearing all the paths, but in terms of efficiency, many paths were simply not worth bothering. There was no real reward for clearing all of them other than a basic Achievement.

 

I mean even when I was hunting tokens for Dreamer I only did two paths per day, because the third took forever. For most players, it was a more effective use of their time to run 1-2 paths per dungeon, for 1-3 dungeons per day, and then probably do some other things.

 

I fully expect the same with easy mode, that most players will spend most of their time farming a few of the encounters, with the rest mostly being done for completion, or to acquire unique drops, same as many raiders do today.

 

>Which is essentially the metric we have.

 

Agreed. Just because it's the only metric we have, however, does not mean that it's a metric worth considering.

 

>Enjoying or not is irrelevant, there is no metric that can objectively tell us if someone enjoyed what they played or not.

 

Also agreed, which is why actual polling is far more valuable. statistical data alone will never tell you all you need to know about a given situation, and relying on it in a vacuum will only lead you off course.

 

>Many went to get The Ascension in PVP even though they did not enjoy PVP or the process. But the metric gotten out of it, is that people played PVP to get the Ascension.

 

Yup. That was my experience, and not only did it poison me from doing any more PvP, but also poisoned me on "just sucking it up and raiding." That's why you need to combine data with feedback. Now, one type of data that *would* be handy there, and would be more nuanced than anythig we players have, would be to track how often players did PvP *before* The Ascension was available, then how much they played while it was available, and then how often they played after they'd acquired it (or if they quit partway through). You'd have to track these numbers on a per-player basis and then compile them back together. Efficiency does not track this.

 

>That's kind of my line.

 

You ask me questions, and then question why I answer them. I'm really not sure what I'm meant to do about that.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Agreed. Just because it's the only metric we have, however, does not mean that it's a metric worth considering.

> Also agreed, which is why actual polling is far more valuable. statistical data alone will never tell you all you need to know about a given situation, and relying on it in a vacuum will only lead you off course.

 

A game that is based on polls won't be a very good one. Especially a game that has a free version and/or a way to play it without buying all the expansions. A player that spends has a different gravity than a player that doesn't spend. Plus, polls are easy to manipulate, based on their question. "Would you want an easy Envoy Armor" will get lots of "yes" answers regardless of the consequences. Who'd say no to easy loot? Which is the major problem with this poll and why it's so heavily biased towards easy loot.

Btw, what would the question of that poll be like?

 

> Yup. That was my experience, and not only did it poison me from doing any more PvP, but also poisoned me on "just sucking it up and raiding."

I wonder what would the metric for an easy mode look like. It's instanced content so wouldn't it make sense to know if said player was running instant content before they started easy mode raids? Just like you see how many played PVP before the Ascension was added.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> Not when you account for a majority of WoW players leaving the live version to play Vanilla-WotLK legacy servers.

 

Nah. A majority of players weren't raiding at all, and left the game because it was ultimately _too_ raid-centric.

Remember, that of the 10+ millions of players at WoW's peak, maybe 10% raided. Probably less. Raid participation percentages increased only after multiple modes went in (and after millions of casuals left).

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > Agreed. Just because it's the only metric we have, however, does not mean that it's a metric worth considering.

> > Also agreed, which is why actual polling is far more valuable. statistical data alone will never tell you all you need to know about a given situation, and relying on it in a vacuum will only lead you off course.

>

> A game that is based on polls won't be a very good one.

 

Taking a poll is not the same as enslaving yourself to it. Taking in data is a good thing, that doesn't mean that you have to bow to every player request. Mainly, don't ask questions if you don't like both possible answers.

 

 

>Especially a game that has a free version and/or a way to play it without buying all the expansions. A player that spends has a different gravity than a player that doesn't spend. Plus, polls are easy to manipulate, based on their question. "Would you want an easy Envoy Armor" will get lots of "yes" answers regardless of the consequences. Who'd say no to easy loot? Which is the major problem with this poll and why it's so heavily biased towards easy loot.

 

Again, they can ask the questions they want answers to, find out where the community is. If you find that the community definitely wants something, that doesn't mean that you have to give it to them, but it does mean that you should consider that desire, and figure out a way to make that work for them. That said, if a large portion of players reply "yes I want Envoy armor," and you combine that data with raid figures and find that a much smaller portion of the population is actually on track to ever have one, then you might need to rethink the distribution model, figure out how to get it into more players' hands. That alone wouldn't necessarily mean easy mode raids, and it certainly wouldn't mean just mailing it to everyone, but it is an indication that the existing methods are not sufficient.

 

> Btw, what would the question of that poll be like?

 

I don't know, off the top of my head, at least a few questions:

 

**Should raids have alternate difficulty options?:**

 

A. Easy and Hard modes added to existing raids

 

B. Add only easy modes to existing raids, no hard modes

 

C. Add only hard modes to existing raids, no easy modes

 

D. The existing raid model is fine and should be continued

 

E. Raids should change, but differently (please explain)

 

**If there were an easy mode, should it contain a path toward existing raid-exclusive loot?:**

 

A. Yes, there should be a full path to all raid-exclusive loot at the same pace as existing raids.

 

B. Yes, there should be a full path to all raid-exclusive loot, but at a reduced pace compared to existing raids.

 

C. No, it should only contain generic loot (exotics, rares, gold, materials, etc.)

 

D. No, it should contain no loot at all and only be for the experience.

 

E. I don't care either way.

 

F. Other

 

**If there were a harder mode, should it contain a path toward new raid-exclusive loot?:**

 

A. Yes, there should be a full path to brand new loot that is exclusive to this difficulty.

 

B. No, but it should progress existing rewards at a faster pace.

 

C. No, the exclusives should stay the same, but it should have increased generic loot.

 

D. No, it should be no different than the current raids, and just be for fun.

 

E. I don't care either way.

 

F. Other

 

**Do you believe easy mode would be worth adding if it came at the cost of. . . :**

 

A. A slowed pace of Living World updates.

 

B. A slowed pace of existing raid updates.

 

C. A slowed pace of quality of life and other assorted content not listed above.

 

D. All of the above, it's a priority.

 

E. None of the above, it's not worth taking away from anything else.

 

F. Other.

 

I think between those questions they could gauge player interest and basically what they would want out of it, especially if they could correlate individual player answers to each question. Again, that doesn't lock them into going along with whichever options win out, but it can help to inform their own decisions for what to do next.

 

>I wonder what would the metric for an easy mode look like. It's instanced content so wouldn't it make sense to know if said player was running instant content before they started easy mode raids?

 

That's one data point, but the question is, *which* content are they running, *how often* are they running it, and then you'd need to ask *why* they are. We've established that Efficiency doesn't track this well. It keeps track of people who cleared dungeons right after launch, and might not have played for years. It doesn't track players who dungeon regularly, but that don't run every path. If a player *isn't* running dungeons, is it because he "doesn't like instanced content," or is it because he isn't interested in the rewards attached to *that* instanced content, or because it's a bit deprecated and he isn't interested in "old news," or because he just doesn't like *that* specific instanced content, but might enjoy other options? It's hard to tell from data alone, especially from the limited data we as players have access to.

 

ANet has better data than we do, but even with their data, it doesn't tell you everything.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> That's one data point, but the question is, *which* content are they running, *how often* are they running it, and then you'd need to ask *why* they are.

 

Careful there. How often someone runs content isn't a very important metric because lots of content isn't even made to be repeatable.

Or rather as in your case with Ascension you repeat it only for the rewards and then leave. If a great number of players join a piece of content for a specific reward and then ignore it, equals dead content. Like for example Arah Story Mode. How do you know beforehand if the players are going to run it for the rewards and leave, or stay invested and continue running it so it survives? Answer: you can't. So you must use something else to gauge interest.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > That's one data point, but the question is, *which* content are they running, *how often* are they running it, and then you'd need to ask *why* they are.

>

> Careful there. How often someone runs content isn't a very important metric because lots of content isn't even made to be repeatable.

> Or rather as in your case with Ascension you repeat it only for the rewards and then leave. If a great number of players join a piece of content for a specific reward and then ignore it, equals dead content. Like for example Arah Story Mode. How do you know beforehand if the players are going to run it for the rewards and leave, or stay invested and continue running it so it survives? Answer: you can't. So you must use something else to gauge interest.

Careful there. All that doesn't mean how often someone runs the content isn't an important metric (because it _is_). It just means it's not a metric you can analyze alone, it must be complemented with other metrics. Which are often the same - important, but mostly useless if you just look only at them and not on anything else.

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Careful there. How often someone runs content isn't a very important metric because lots of content isn't even made to be repeatable.

 

Well sure, but we're talking about repeatable content. In either case, the data is valuable. Are they repeating it often? That means that something is motivating them to do so. Is it because they enjoy it? Because the reward is good? Did they stop immediately after getting the reward? Outside of that you'd have to ask. If it is repeatable, but they only did it once, is that because they hated it and wouldn't want more? Or did they enjoy it but didn't see a reason to do it again because the rewards aren't great? Again, you'd have to ask, but the data does provide a starting point for a discussion, especially if patterns emerge. If something is meant to be repeated, but few people do it more than once, then it's important to try and find out why.

 

>If a great number of players join a piece of content for a specific reward and then ignore it, equals dead content. Like for example Arah Story Mode. How do you know beforehand if the players are going to run it for the rewards and leave, or stay invested and continue running it so it survives? Answer: you can't.

 

Answer, you ask.

 

Why did you play this today?:

A: I really enjoy it.

B: I'm grinding [the reward] until I get it.

C: The general loot is better than other options.

D: It's a daily.

E: Other.

 

Ideally this one would be pick as many as you like, or split into separate questions on "how much do you enjoy it" and "which matters more, the unique loot or the general loot?"