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

[STIHL.2489]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

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

> > > > I went over with Doc why bad data is *not* better than no data, check back a few pages.

> > > But you never convinced anyone that it actually **is** bad data.

> > I have pointed out the problem with that data to you several times already. (namely, that it's a data about full dungeon completion, but you use it where you'd want either data on numbers of time each path was run, or at the very least _individual path_ completion).

> Or compare Raid wings with full dungeon clears if you want. Doesn't help much, what I was using that data for was to provide at least some evidence that players that run instanced content aren't as many as some around here think they are. Which shouldn't be a surprise and not need data to prove, given how this playerbase is supposed to be like, but anyway, apparently I have to explain the obvious. The argument that "they might not like other instanced content, avoid it like the plague, but they WILL run easy mode Raids", is really weak, because it's still instanced content. Not buying it, someone that is not interested in instanced content won't be interested in easy mode Raids either. And those interested in instances in this game are a minority already.

 

You know.. Dungeons were a failure because they didn't bring in the Casual player. So can we spare us all that it was something to do with being easy that caused them to die, it wasn't.

 

Which is why Fractals were far more successful and this invested in. When I used to put up a T1 -T2, if I waited 30 seconds to fill it felt like I waited too long. It was that ease of entry, progressive tiers so that anyone could do a fractal, enjoy the content, and have fun. This making them far more attractive to a larger player base.

 

In truth.. their sticking to their guns regarding Raid... simply means that the bean counters and the people that control the money don't see raids as directly profitable, (trust me these people don't give a rats ass about your rewards, they are all about RoI, and Raids are not bringing it if they have no plans to revamp them at all) if raids were directly profitable they would be trying to find ways to stuff as many money sardines into them as possible.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > Aside from that, your glasses need some cleaning. Check out the GW2 revenue:

> > https://i.redd.it/e9gq9rd27ue01.png

> > With the exceptions of Q4 2013 and Q2 2015 the game revenue was always declining, even when there were no Raids out. So claiming that the decline is due to Raids makes little sense.

>

> I have better on my system, and their numbers are wrong.

 

 

The creator of that graph clearly states the numbers he used are all directly taken from NCSofts official earnings report. You claiming you have better numbers leads to very few possible conclusions where you do not make a fool of yourself. Maybe some proof of such claim would help though again, I doubt you have better knowledge on Arenanets fiscal performance than NCSoft.

 

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> I gotta ask. no insult meant.. but do you look into this stuff to get a larger understanding, or do you just goggle what you think supports your stand and parrot that?

 

Personal insults don't really go far from someone who claims he has more reliable numbers than the official company earnings reports without providing proof or any type of data.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > Aside from that, your glasses need some cleaning. Check out the GW2 revenue:

> > > https://i.redd.it/e9gq9rd27ue01.png

> > > With the exceptions of Q4 2013 and Q2 2015 the game revenue was always declining, even when there were no Raids out. So claiming that the decline is due to Raids makes little sense.

> >

> > I have better on my system, and their numbers are wrong.

>

>

>

> The creator of that graph clearly states the numbers he used are all directly taken from NCSofts official earnings report.

> You claiming you have better numbers leads to very few possible conclusions where you do not make a fool of yourself. Maybe some proof of such claim would help though again, I doubt you have better knowledge on Arenanets fiscal performance than NCSoft.

 

I got my numbers directly from NcSoft, so we don't have the same numbers, they are wrong.

 

**added** Not to mention other posters pointed out glaring mistakes in their graph, which.. does not build any faith that their numbers are right.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> >

> > > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > Aside from that, your glasses need some cleaning. Check out the GW2 revenue:

> > > > https://i.redd.it/e9gq9rd27ue01.png

> > > > With the exceptions of Q4 2013 and Q2 2015 the game revenue was always declining, even when there were no Raids out. So claiming that the decline is due to Raids makes little sense.

> > >

> > > I have better on my system, and their numbers are wrong.

> >

> >

> >

> > The creator of that graph clearly states the numbers he used are all directly taken from NCSofts official earnings report.

> > You claiming you have better numbers leads to very few possible conclusions where you do not make a fool of yourself. Maybe some proof of such claim would help though again, I doubt you have better knowledge on Arenanets fiscal performance than NCSoft.

>

> I got my numbers directly from NcSoft, so we don't have the same numbers, they are wrong.

 

So do the math, put up your chart and let people see where you are coming out at. That thread has over 250 replies and none challenged the numbers used. You, we can only take your word on it. Not very trustworthy at this point in time.

 

EDIT:

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> **added** Not to mention other posters pointed out glaring mistakes in their graph, which.. does not build any faith that their numbers are right.

 

True, and the creator has updated the graph accordingly when mixups were made. By the time you are viewing this a good couple of months later the graphs are quite accurate. Feel free to do your own graph and math and disprove this.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

I can only question pretty much every statement in this thread. All of it is pretty much speculation worded so it confirms ones own standpoint or is just populistic uncomfirmed blahblah.

[Tyson.5160]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > No, it isn't safe to say that. You cannot know if the sales would not have declined further without endgame. What you *can* know is the devs deemed raids a success **and continue to do so**. As evidenced by the continued development. It's an indirect evidence against what you're trying to conclude.

> >

> > Again, that's no reason to believe that it couldn't be *better.*

>

> Aside from the fact that the people in charge of spending the money for development decided it was OK to continue doing so? Yeah. And it is a miles better reason than whatever you have in mind for believing otherwise.

 

I think you are showing your biases, quite heavily Feanor, I understand you are in this industry, but developers make mistakes, from your line of talk, it makes it sound like they turn water into wine and walk on water, they don’t. Mistakes have been made already, several in fact and they have to live with their decisions.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

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

> > > > > I went over with Doc why bad data is *not* better than no data, check back a few pages.

> > > > But you never convinced anyone that it actually **is** bad data.

> > > I have pointed out the problem with that data to you several times already. (namely, that it's a data about full dungeon completion, but you use it where you'd want either data on numbers of time each path was run, or at the very least _individual path_ completion).

> > Or compare Raid wings with full dungeon clears if you want. Doesn't help much, what I was using that data for was to provide at least some evidence that players that run instanced content aren't as many as some around here think they are. Which shouldn't be a surprise and not need data to prove, given how this playerbase is supposed to be like, but anyway, apparently I have to explain the obvious. The argument that "they might not like other instanced content, avoid it like the plague, but they WILL run easy mode Raids", is really weak, because it's still instanced content. Not buying it, someone that is not interested in instanced content won't be interested in easy mode Raids either. And those interested in instances in this game are a minority already.

>

> You know.. Dungeons were a failure because they didn't bring in the Casual player. So can we spare us all that it was something to do with being easy that caused them to die, it wasn't.

 

Nonsense. Casual players won't be into endgame anyway. The failure of dungeons is they didn't give *enough* to hardcore players. Sure, there are those who farmed them. But the problem is those who got bored and left.

 

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

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

> > > > No, it isn't safe to say that. You cannot know if the sales would not have declined further without endgame. What you *can* know is the devs deemed raids a success **and continue to do so**. As evidenced by the continued development. It's an indirect evidence against what you're trying to conclude.

> > >

> > > Again, that's no reason to believe that it couldn't be *better.*

> >

> > Aside from the fact that the people in charge of spending the money for development decided it was OK to continue doing so? Yeah. And it is a miles better reason than whatever you have in mind for believing otherwise.

>

> I think you are showing your biases, quite heavily Feanor, I understand you are in this industry, but developers make mistakes, from your line of talk, it makes it sound like they turn water into wine and walk on water, they don’t. Mistakes have been made already, several in fact and they have to live with their decisions.

 

Sure, developers make mistakes. Sometimes, once in a blue moon, it is even possible a player to point out those mistakes. But **everyone** criticizing devs thinks they're this one. Which they aren't. And years of persistence on the dev side are a pretty damn strong indicator.

[Tyson.5160]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

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

> > > > > > I went over with Doc why bad data is *not* better than no data, check back a few pages.

> > > > > But you never convinced anyone that it actually **is** bad data.

> > > > I have pointed out the problem with that data to you several times already. (namely, that it's a data about full dungeon completion, but you use it where you'd want either data on numbers of time each path was run, or at the very least _individual path_ completion).

> > > Or compare Raid wings with full dungeon clears if you want. Doesn't help much, what I was using that data for was to provide at least some evidence that players that run instanced content aren't as many as some around here think they are. Which shouldn't be a surprise and not need data to prove, given how this playerbase is supposed to be like, but anyway, apparently I have to explain the obvious. The argument that "they might not like other instanced content, avoid it like the plague, but they WILL run easy mode Raids", is really weak, because it's still instanced content. Not buying it, someone that is not interested in instanced content won't be interested in easy mode Raids either. And those interested in instances in this game are a minority already.

> >

> > You know.. Dungeons were a failure because they didn't bring in the Casual player. So can we spare us all that it was something to do with being easy that caused them to die, it wasn't.

>

> Nonsense. Casual players won't be into endgame anyway. The failure of dungeons is they didn't give *enough* to hardcore players. Sure, there are those who farmed them. But the problem is those who got bored and left.

>

> > @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

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

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

> > > > > No, it isn't safe to say that. You cannot know if the sales would not have declined further without endgame. What you *can* know is the devs deemed raids a success **and continue to do so**. As evidenced by the continued development. It's an indirect evidence against what you're trying to conclude.

> > > >

> > > > Again, that's no reason to believe that it couldn't be *better.*

> > >

> > > Aside from the fact that the people in charge of spending the money for development decided it was OK to continue doing so? Yeah. And it is a miles better reason than whatever you have in mind for believing otherwise.

> >

> > I think you are showing your biases, quite heavily Feanor, I understand you are in this industry, but developers make mistakes, from your line of talk, it makes it sound like they turn water into wine and walk on water, they don’t. Mistakes have been made already, several in fact and they have to live with their decisions.

>

> Sure, developers make mistakes. Sometimes, once in a blue moon, it is even possible a player to point out those mistakes. But **everyone** criticizing devs thinks they're this one. Which they aren't. And years of persistence on the dev side are a pretty kitten strong indicator.

 

Sure, but there is always room for improvement though, I usually not one to criticize the devs because at the end of the day they are the professionals, however I think is there is wiggle room to change things for the positive side.

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> Not sure why you bring this up.. it's almost like you don't know that almost every MMO has a spike at launch and then a drop off. This is a normal trend.

I gave you some reasons, given by the developers too.

 

> I have better on my system, and their numbers are wrong.

...the numbers of NCsoft themselves are wrong?

 

> Laughable conclusion, as core was good enough to get people stay around and cry for more content for years as opposed to moving on to a better game.

Core was good enough to let players BUY the game to try it, then they left.

 

> I gotta ask. no insult meant.. but do you look into this stuff to get a larger understanding, or do you just goggle what you think supports your stand and parrot that?

I look at stuff that easily prove your empty claims wrong

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> You know.. Dungeons were a failure because they didn't bring in the Casual player. So can we spare us all that it was something to do with being easy that caused them to die, it wasn't.

 

Dungeons only died because they were too easy and abandoned.

 

> Which is why Fractals were far more successful and this invested in. When I used to put up a T1 -T2, if I waited 30 seconds to fill it felt like I waited too long. It was that ease of entry, progressive tiers so that anyone could do a fractal, enjoy the content, and have fun. This making them far more attractive to a larger player base.

T1,T2 and T3 were mostly DEAD before they added dailies and the precursor journeys in Heart of Thorns. So much for people enjoying it because it was casual, easy and progressive!

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > Which is why Fractals were far more successful and this invested in. When I used to put up a T1 -T2, if I waited 30 seconds to fill it felt like I waited too long. It was that ease of entry, progressive tiers so that anyone could do a fractal, enjoy the content, and have fun. This making them far more attractive to a larger player base.

> T1,T2 and T3 were mostly DEAD before they added dailies and the precursor journeys in Heart of Thorns. So much for people enjoying it because it was casual, easy and progressive!

 

That's not even getting into the entire fact that tiers in fractals came a lot later. The very original version of fractals was basically open end and you needed exact fractals to progress. People were not searching by T1...T4 back then. Then changed to a tier system when they capped fractals at rank 50 and even then people did not search by T1...T4 but rather by daily xyz. As someone who did both, fractals from basically when they were added to the game (2 weeks in actually) and dungeons, fractals were NOT more successful than dungeons for a very very VERY long time. It was very common to run into the same people over and over just by playing with PUGs, that's how small the fractal community was.

 

Finally the system we have now was sort of implemented with dailies and tiers with the launch of HoT (in June 2015) and only then did people start referring to fractal groups as Tier 1-4. That's what, like 3 years after dungeons were available with launch of the game? How is comparing 3 year old content to reworked and reward increased content even a thing in a serious discussion?

[STIHL.2489]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > You know.. Dungeons were a failure because they didn't bring in the Casual player. So can we spare us all that it was something to do with being easy that caused them to die, it wasn't.

>

> Dungeons only died because they were too easy and abandoned.

 

Not true at all. I get that many _hardcore_ parrot this, but.. the main problem with dungeons had nothing to do with the difficulty of the explorer mode.

 

>

> > Which is why Fractals were far more successful and this invested in. When I used to put up a T1 -T2, if I waited 30 seconds to fill it felt like I waited too long. It was that ease of entry, progressive tiers so that anyone could do a fractal, enjoy the content, and have fun. This making them far more attractive to a larger player base.

> T1,T2 and T3 were mostly DEAD before they added dailies and the precursor journeys in Heart of Thorns. So much for people enjoying it because it was casual, easy and progressive!

 

And you know this how? Maybe you think they were dead because you never saw an LFM up for them, but that was mainly due to the fact that most LFM's filled very quickly in the low tiers, and they still do.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > >

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

> > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > > Aside from that, your glasses need some cleaning. Check out the GW2 revenue:

> > > > > https://i.redd.it/e9gq9rd27ue01.png

> > > > > With the exceptions of Q4 2013 and Q2 2015 the game revenue was always declining, even when there were no Raids out. So claiming that the decline is due to Raids makes little sense.

> > > >

> > > > I have better on my system, and their numbers are wrong.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > The creator of that graph clearly states the numbers he used are all directly taken from NCSofts official earnings report.

> > > You claiming you have better numbers leads to very few possible conclusions where you do not make a fool of yourself. Maybe some proof of such claim would help though again, I doubt you have better knowledge on Arenanets fiscal performance than NCSoft.

> >

> > I got my numbers directly from NcSoft, so we don't have the same numbers, they are wrong.

>

> So do the math, put up your chart and let people see where you are coming out at. That thread has over 250 replies and none challenged the numbers used. You, we can only take your word on it. Not very trustworthy at this point in time.

 

LoL.. 2 of my charts are already in this topic. Try again with the call out.. or maybe learn to do your homework in the future.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> Not true at all. I get that many _hardcore_ parrot this, but.. the main problem with dungeons had nothing to do with the difficulty of the explorer mode.

It's actually the truth though. The easy mode difficulty of dungeons is what killed them.

 

> And you know this how?

The ages old argument "you didn't see them because they were filling quickly" doesn't prove that players were actually running Fractals before Heart of Thorns.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> LoL.. 2 of my charts are already in this topic. Try again with the call out.. or maybe learn to do your homework in the future.

 

So you REALLY want to embaras yourself, I didn't want to do this but if you insist...

 

These are the numbers from the Reddit thread:

3Q12 42,840

4Q12 116,420

1Q13 35,130

2Q13 27,570

3Q13 22,890

4Q13 33,220

1Q14 24,050

2Q14 21,520

3Q14 19,810

4Q14 18,570

1Q15 18,770

2Q15 21,550

3Q15 18,330

4Q15 33,800

1Q16 25,800

2Q16 14,160

3Q16 14,040

4Q16 13,270

1Q17 12,350

2Q17 11,910

3Q17 18,000

4Q17 31,210

 

These are the numbers from NCSoft quarterly reports (I can post you images showing the numbers):

3Q12 45,841

4Q12 119,013

1Q13 36,382

2Q13 28,899

3Q13 24,481

4Q13 33,555

1Q14 25,142

2Q14 22,214

3Q14 19,685

4Q14 19,272

1Q15 20,026

2Q15 22,470

3Q15 20,699

4Q15 37,331

1Q16 30,557

2Q16 15,894

3Q16 15,315

4Q16 14,870

1Q17 14,226

2Q17 13,550

3Q17 20,145

4Q17 34,903

 

Notice how they are very slightly different? I'm gonna tell you something that will BLOW YOUR MIND!

NCSoft quarterly results are in BILLION KOREAN WON, the reddit thread is in MILLION DOLLARS! Ever heard of the word "currency"?

 

The current rate is 1 KRW =0.000923353USD

So, 45,841 (3Q12) BILLION KOREAN WON is 42.3291 MILLION DOLLARS. The reddit thread has 42,840 (3Q12) instead because as everyone should know, currency exchanges change over time and the reddit thread is from 7 months ago.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

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

> > > > I went over with Doc why bad data is *not* better than no data, check back a few pages.

> > > But you never convinced anyone that it actually **is** bad data.

> > I have pointed out the problem with that data to you several times already. (namely, that it's a data about full dungeon completion, but you use it where you'd want either data on numbers of time each path was run, or at the very least _individual path_ completion).

> Or compare Raid wings with full dungeon clears if you want.

Apples and oranges.

 

> Doesn't help much, what I was using that data for was to provide at least some evidence that players that run instanced content aren't as many as some around here think they are.

The data you brought up was insufficient to reach that conclusion. I have explained to you several times why.

 

> Not buying it, someone that is not interested in instanced content won't be interested in easy mode Raids either.

Indeed, i doubt anyone that would not have been interested in earlier instanced content would be interested in easy mode raids.

 

> And those interested in instances in this game are a minority already.

Perhaps, but not necessarily as small as you might think. Remember, the small minority of raiders was big enough for anet to prepare a completely new content for apparently. You'd think that preparing a derivative of that content requiring less effort from devs would not need such a bigger threshold.

 

>

> > Yes, some data is generally better than no data, but you have to know what you can use that data for, and where you can't. Or you run the risk of presenting a mistaken conclusion as something that is at least partially reliable.

> I'll take partially reliable over "junk".

My mistake, must have lost my train of thought there. Was supposed to be "at least partially _unreliable_"

By which i did not mean "may not be accurate, but is partially reliable" but more like "there might be some truth in it, but it also might be completely bonkers"

 

> > That's in addition to you waving away parts of that data that do not fit your conclusion and claiming they are not relevant, which adds up to its unreliability even more.

> Now I would go back and recheck all the data I've posted and do a complete and thorough analysis -again- but you know what, I won't, because then Ohoni will come and call it junk without even reading so why should I bother? I've said my piece on that subject, and used some data to back it up.

Do the words "Ascalonian Catacombs" ring a bell?

 

>

> How large do YOU think the instanced content runner population of this game is?

Based on the data you presented, potentially up to 60%, depending on the target content difficulty and ease of access. I wouldn't be surprised, if (depending on rewards and difficulty of easy mode, of course) the numbers might at least equal the current raid population, if not more.

 

> Do you think those that have no desire whatsoever to run the other instanced content, will for some reason like easy mode Raids?

No. On the other hand, there are people that were okay with dungeons/earlier (non-cm) fractals, but ended up not being interested in raids. Don't you think at least some of those people _might_ be interested in easy mode?

 

@"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Dungeons only died because they were too easy and abandoned.

Err, no. They only died because devs decided to kill them. If they decided to kill raids tomorrow, they'd depopulate very fast too.

 

[STIHL.2489]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > Not true at all. I get that many _hardcore_ parrot this, but.. the main problem with dungeons had nothing to do with the difficulty of the explorer mode.

> It's actually the truth though. The easy mode difficulty of dungeons is what killed them.

 

LOL.. how did Story Mode even affect Explorer mode.. Oh right.. now lets talk real truth.. it was not how hard or easy the content was, it was a lack of _incentive_ to do easy mode that killed dungeons not how hard or easy Explorer mode was. The way that Story Mode was implemented by the infallible Anet team with the intention to be the casual pug content, but due to how it was actually put in had zero replayability,thus it tanked hard, this had nothing to do with how easy explorer mode was, ergo bad implementing of content that was supposed to target the Casual PUG that hurt them, not anything to do with the content that was supposed to target the _hardcore_ players or placating their demand for hard content. , much like it was bad design to not have an LFM system, and a bad design with how they first put in fractals.

 

Funny how you knew the truth but still clung to a lie...

 

The only variable, between fractals, raids and dungeons at this point, is that they made moves to revise fractals to make them more rewarding for the lower tiers and more accessible to the more casual player. Where as they have so far, left Dungeons and Raids to deal with their fate.

>

> > And you know this how?

> The ages old argument "you didn't see them because they were filling quickly" doesn't prove that players were actually running Fractals before Heart of Thorns.

 

The fact that I have a little over 7K fractal relics, and completed the T1 fractal master (before the revision), all open pugged with "all welcome (please have enough AR)" to every run.. and never once did I ever have an issue filling a group or finishing a run, never once did I need to think about a static, and more often then not, each run I met new people, and most of the time they were really nice, I opted out of T3 because it seemed the attitude changed.. not sure what was up with that.. but.. none the less. my own personal experience in game counteract the idea that T1 - T2 was dead content at all.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> Indeed, i doubt anyone that would not have been interested in earlier instanced content would be interested in easy mode raids.

So since the data show a very low turn out for instanced content... and this time you can't say about dungeon completion and individual paths, because this easy mode won't be added to farm Vale Guardian alone right?

 

> Do the words "Ascalonian Catacombs" ring a bell?

The FIRST dungeon of the game? The dungeon that you can solo? No I only check Arah and maybe Honor of the Waves and Crucible of Eternity.

 

> Based on the data you presented, potentially up to 60%, depending on the target content difficulty and ease of access.

Now you want this easy mode to be level 35 content? What's next?

 

> > Do you think those that have no desire whatsoever to run the other instanced content, will for some reason like easy mode Raids?

> No.

Exactly what I wanted to read.

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> LOL.. how did Story Mode even affect Explorer mode.. Oh right.. now lets talk real truth.. it was not how hard or easy the content was, it was a lack of _incentive_ to do easy mode that killed dungeons not how hard or easy Explorer mode was.

I don't know why you bring story mode in here, it's irrelevant.

 

> Funny how you knew the truth but still clung to a lie...

My words exactly.

 

> The only variable, between fractals, raids and dungeons at this point, is that they made moves to revise fractals to make them more rewarding for the lower tiers and more accessible to the more casual player. Where as they have so far, left Dungeons and Raids to deal with their fate.

That happened with Heart of Thorns and you know it.

 

> The fact that I have a little over 7K fractal relics, and completed the T1 fractal master (before the revision), all open pugged with "all welcome (please have enough AR)" to every run.. and never once did I ever have an issue filling a group or finishing a run, never once did I need to think about a static, and more often then not, each run I met new people, and most of the time they were really nice, I opted out of T3 because it seemed the attitude changed.. not sure what was up with that.. but.. none the less. my own personal experience in game counteract the idea that T1 - T2 was dead content at all.

You do remember that tiers were added after Heart of Thorns right... I was talking about the time BEFORE the addition of precursor collections and daily achievements. Which are basically the only reason to run low level fractals and without those they'd die a sudden death.

 

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

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

> > > > > > > I went over with Doc why bad data is *not* better than no data, check back a few pages.

> > > > > > But you never convinced anyone that it actually **is** bad data.

> > > > > I have pointed out the problem with that data to you several times already. (namely, that it's a data about full dungeon completion, but you use it where you'd want either data on numbers of time each path was run, or at the very least _individual path_ completion).

> > > > Or compare Raid wings with full dungeon clears if you want. Doesn't help much, what I was using that data for was to provide at least some evidence that players that run instanced content aren't as many as some around here think they are. Which shouldn't be a surprise and not need data to prove, given how this playerbase is supposed to be like, but anyway, apparently I have to explain the obvious. The argument that "they might not like other instanced content, avoid it like the plague, but they WILL run easy mode Raids", is really weak, because it's still instanced content. Not buying it, someone that is not interested in instanced content won't be interested in easy mode Raids either. And those interested in instances in this game are a minority already.

> > >

> > > You know.. Dungeons were a failure because they didn't bring in the Casual player. So can we spare us all that it was something to do with being easy that caused them to die, it wasn't.

> >

> > Nonsense. Casual players won't be into endgame anyway. The failure of dungeons is they didn't give *enough* to hardcore players. Sure, there are those who farmed them. But the problem is those who got bored and left.

> >

> > > @"Tyson.5160" said:

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

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

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

> > > > > > No, it isn't safe to say that. You cannot know if the sales would not have declined further without endgame. What you *can* know is the devs deemed raids a success **and continue to do so**. As evidenced by the continued development. It's an indirect evidence against what you're trying to conclude.

> > > > >

> > > > > Again, that's no reason to believe that it couldn't be *better.*

> > > >

> > > > Aside from the fact that the people in charge of spending the money for development decided it was OK to continue doing so? Yeah. And it is a miles better reason than whatever you have in mind for believing otherwise.

> > >

> > > I think you are showing your biases, quite heavily Feanor, I understand you are in this industry, but developers make mistakes, from your line of talk, it makes it sound like they turn water into wine and walk on water, they don’t. Mistakes have been made already, several in fact and they have to live with their decisions.

> >

> > Sure, developers make mistakes. Sometimes, once in a blue moon, it is even possible a player to point out those mistakes. But **everyone** criticizing devs thinks they're this one. Which they aren't. And years of persistence on the dev side are a pretty kitten strong indicator.

>

> Sure, but there is always room for improvement though, I usually not one to criticize the devs because at the end of the day they are the professionals, however I think is there is wiggle room to change things for the positive side.

>

 

It goes without saying there's always room for improvement. But I think the vast majority of the criticism is very misdirected. The changes proposed often outright do not work, or would backfire horribly (like in the case of homogenizing rewards by removing their exclusivity). You can see me supporting a particular idea occasionally. Like for instance I'll agree immediately with a criticism against Serpent's Ire. The event is annoying and could use some tuning. When I oppose something, it's never "because devs said so".

[STIHL.2489]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > LOL.. how did Story Mode even affect Explorer mode.. Oh right.. now lets talk real truth.. it was not how hard or easy the content was, it was a lack of _incentive_ to do easy mode that killed dungeons not how hard or easy Explorer mode was.

> I don't know why you bring story mode in here, it's irrelevant.

 

Because they is the only "Easy Mode" for dungeons..

 

>

> > The only variable, between fractals, raids and dungeons at this point, is that they made moves to revise fractals to make them more rewarding for the lower tiers and more accessible to the more casual player. Where as they have so far, left Dungeons and Raids to deal with their fate.

> That happened with Heart of Thorns and you know it.

>

> > The fact that I have a little over 7K fractal relics, and completed the T1 fractal master (before the revision), all open pugged with "all welcome (please have enough AR)" to every run.. and never once did I ever have an issue filling a group or finishing a run, never once did I need to think about a static, and more often then not, each run I met new people, and most of the time they were really nice, I opted out of T3 because it seemed the attitude changed.. not sure what was up with that.. but.. none the less. my own personal experience in game counteract the idea that T1 - T2 was dead content at all.

> You do remember that tiers were added after Heart of Thorns right... I was talking about the time BEFORE the addition of precursor collections and daily achievements. Which are basically the only reason to run low level fractals and without those they'd die a sudden death.

 

LoL.. before the Tiers, all Fractals were classified as _Hardcore_ content regardless of tier, so it's no surprise to anyone they felt dead, it was only after they get revised to Tiers, making them more accessible to a larger demographic of gamers that the content truly came alive. LOL..you see the success of this method in other content.. and still deny..

 

Allow me to quote myself again:

 

> > Funny how you knew the truth but still clung to a lie...

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> LoL.. before the Tiers, all Fractals were classified as _Hardcore_ content regardless of tier, so it's no surprise to anyone they felt dead, it was only after they get revised to Tiers, making them more accessible to a larger demographic of gamers that the content truly came alive.

Fractals from 1 to 25 were the same difficulty before and after Heart of Thorns. They simply added the new carrots.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Notice how they are very slightly different? I'm gonna tell you something that will BLOW YOUR MIND!

> NCSoft quarterly results are in BILLION KOREAN WON, the reddit thread is in MILLION DOLLARS! Ever heard of the word "currency"?

>

> The current rate is 1 KRW =0.000923353USD

> So, 45,841 (3Q12) BILLION KOREAN WON is 42.3291 MILLION DOLLARS. The reddit thread has 42,840 (3Q12) instead because as everyone should know, currency exchanges change over time and the reddit thread is from 7 months ago.

 

LOL, and that is exactly why If they were going to get that involved, they should have used the exchange at the time of the quarter, as opposed to using the current exchange rate when the graph was made,, as that leads to misleading amounts and would make it so that any graph would change based on what it was made.. poor form truth be told.

 

They should have used the base unit that Anet provided to show consistency over the years, as opposed to applying some arbitrary exchange amount applied when the graph was made, as this would make a graph made 6 months prior or 6 months after show different numbers.. real bad way to do statistics.. unless you're trying to push an agenda.

 

Mind Blown Yet?

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> They should have used the base unit that Anet provided to show consistency over the years, as opposed to applying some arbitrary exchange amount applied when the graph was made, as this would make a graph made 6 months prior or 6 months after show different numbers.. real bad way to do statistics.. unless you're trying to push an agenda.

 

It wasn't an arbitrary amount, it was a conversion between korean won to dollars, a currency that reddit users would more likely understand. Who knows the exchange rate of korean won and how it translates in other currencies? If they used the different exchange rates at the different times then the results of each quarter wouldn't be compatible with each other. Instead, they used the same exchange rate for all quarters, which is the sensible thing to do. You on the other hand complaining about those numbers doesn't make any sense, unless you are pushing an agenda.

 

And besides that, the difference in the numbers is so insignificant that doesn't even change the outcome so I don't know what you mean by pushing an agenda. The graphs are exactly the same, identical, the percentage losses are identical, it clearly shows that the drop in the game's population was steady and started way before Heart of Thorns (unlike what you claimed).

 

So here is what I think, you run out of arguments, and instead of tackling the problematic logic of yours, claiming that the decline was after the expansion due to challenging content, you resorted in ignoring the clear truth by feigning ignorance and blaming the "data".

[STIHL.2489]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> The graphs are exactly the same, identical, the percentage losses are identical, it clearly shows that the drop in the game's population was steady and started way before Heart of Thorns (unlike what you claimed

 

1: Yes the flow is the same.. because for no apparent reason.. the maker opted to apply some arbitrary exchange rate, I could change them to current exchange between Won and rupies, and it would have made no difference, as I still would have worked from NcSofts numbers, not that persons numbers, so it makes no sense to even bother to change them to start with.

 

2: Look at the chart again.. compare the downward slope Post HoT to Pre HoT.