Lonami.2987 Posted May 9, 2018 Author Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Blaeys.3102" said: > > Yes, it is VERY clear - both an easy and a hard mode. That includes the addition of an easy mode. Then there are those asking for an easy mode, which also includes the addition of an easy mode. That comes to 51 percent asking for the addition of an easy mode (with the vast majority of those wanting it come ALONGSIDE the use of a hard mode). To think respondents interpreted that any other way really is a significant stretch. > > > > And I said that's one way of interpreting there is also the opposite one. 7% want a hard mode, 31% want them to stay as they are, and 46% want to add a hard mode (ALONGSIDE the use of an easy mode), so 84% want it to be as it is and even get harder. IF you add the easy+hard to easy, then it stands to reason that you must add easy+hard with hard. And in that case you get 84% same or above and 53% for lower. > > Which also doesn't make sense because adding them should add up to 100 (that's how percentages work) Your spinning is getting out of control. * Both easy and hard: 46% * Only easy: 7% * Only hard: 7% * Easy: 53% * Hard: 53% * Nothing: 31% * Some other solution: 7% There, clear as crystal. Don't try to come now and pretend hard mode people do not want easy mode and are for some reason in the same side as those who want no changes. Less than 1/3 is happy with the current state, and that's the major fact here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaeys.3102 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Blaeys.3102" said: > > Yes, it is VERY clear - both an easy and a hard mode. That includes the addition of an easy mode. Then there are those asking for an easy mode, which also includes the addition of an easy mode. That comes to 51 percent asking for the addition of an easy mode (with the vast majority of those wanting it come ALONGSIDE the use of a hard mode). To think respondents interpreted that any other way really is a significant stretch. > > > > And I said that's one way of interpreting there is also the opposite one. 7% want a hard mode, 31% want them to stay as they are, and 46% want to add a hard mode (ALONGSIDE the use of an easy mode), so 84% want it to be as it is and even get harder. IF you add the easy+hard to easy, then it stands to reason that you must add easy+hard with hard. And in that case you get 84% same or above and 53% for lower. > > Which also doesn't make sense because adding them should add up to 100 (that's how percentages work) Except there are not multiple modes currently in the game (and I think you know that people choosing that option understand that). Easy mode and hard mode indicates that every fight (or the instance as a whole) would offer multiple versions - one easy and one hard. While you can debate the definition of easy and hard, I think you know that most people interpret this as needing modes easier than what we have now - a definition that is backed up by Lonami's lead in to the questions in the original post (and by the posts in the thread from those who chose that option). I am sorry, but the idea that people responding thought that response meant adding something harder and that what we have now is the easy mode just isn't realistic. Again, I think you are trying to twist into something you know very well it is not to contradict results you personally disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonami.2987 Posted May 9, 2018 Author Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"Blaeys.3102" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"Blaeys.3102" said: > > > Yes, it is VERY clear - both an easy and a hard mode. That includes the addition of an easy mode. Then there are those asking for an easy mode, which also includes the addition of an easy mode. That comes to 51 percent asking for the addition of an easy mode (with the vast majority of those wanting it come ALONGSIDE the use of a hard mode). To think respondents interpreted that any other way really is a significant stretch. > > > > > > > And I said that's one way of interpreting there is also the opposite one. 7% want a hard mode, 31% want them to stay as they are, and 46% want to add a hard mode (ALONGSIDE the use of an easy mode), so 84% want it to be as it is and even get harder. IF you add the easy+hard to easy, then it stands to reason that you must add easy+hard with hard. And in that case you get 84% same or above and 53% for lower. > > > > Which also doesn't make sense because adding them should add up to 100 (that's how percentages work) > > Except there are not multiple modes currently in the game (and I think you know that people choosing that option understand that). > > Easy mode and hard mode indicates that every fight (or the instance as a whole) would offer multiple versions - one easy and one hard. While you can debate the definition of easy and hard, I think you know that most people interpret this as needing modes easier than what we have now - a definition that is backed up by Lonami's lead in to the questions in the original post (and by the posts in the thread from those who chose that option). > > I am sorry, but the idea that people responding thought that response meant adding something harder and that what we have now is the easy mode just isn't realistic. Again, I think you are trying to twist into something you know very well it is not to contradict results you personally disagree with. Exactly, the OP leaves the easy / normal / hard distinction pretty clear, in bold words. No one wanting only a hard mode would have chosen the "easy+hard" option believing that was supposed to be "normal+hard", specially when there's a "hard" only option right below too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"Blaeys.3102" said: > I am sorry, but the idea that people responding thought that response meant adding something harder and that what we have now is the easy mode just isn't realistic. Again, I think you are trying to twist into something you know very well it is not to contradict results you personally disagree with. I'm not the one adding the 46% of those that voted for **both** with those that voted for easy (and hard) as if to justify a non-existent point. > @"Lonami.2987" said: > * Easy: 53% > * Hard: 53% > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > **53%** Want an easy mode. > **53%** Want a hard mode. I'm sorry but that's not how percentages work. You can use the actual results of the poll: Both easy and hard: 46% Only easy: 7% Only hard: 7% Nothing: 31% Some other solution: 7% Any additions afterward are just trying to twist the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldirtbeard.9834 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Blaeys.3102" said: > > I am sorry, but the idea that people responding thought that response meant adding something harder and that what we have now is the easy mode just isn't realistic. Again, I think you are trying to twist into something you know very well it is not to contradict results you personally disagree with. > > I'm not the one adding the 46% of those that voted for **both** with those that voted for easy (and hard) as if to justify a non-existent point. > > > @"Lonami.2987" said: > > * Easy: 53% > > * Hard: 53% > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > **53%** Want an easy mode. > > **53%** Want a hard mode. > > I'm sorry but that's not how percentages work. > > You can use the actual results of the poll: > Both easy and hard: 46% > Only easy: 7% > Only hard: 7% > Nothing: 31% > Some other solution: 7% > > Any additions afterward are just trying to twist the results. looks evenly matched to me, I picked both because I think everyone should have their cake and eat it to as did the other 46%, then there was 7% in the exclusive categories. Sort of breaks down the same way as political views in the US, you've got your Fringe Left, your Alt Right, and a ton of Moderates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaeys.3102 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Blaeys.3102" said: > > I am sorry, but the idea that people responding thought that response meant adding something harder and that what we have now is the easy mode just isn't realistic. Again, I think you are trying to twist into something you know very well it is not to contradict results you personally disagree with. > > I'm not the one adding the 46% of those that voted for **both** with those that voted for easy (and hard) as if to justify a non-existent point. I am fully in support of "both", which includes the addition of an easy mode. Even without the 7 percent asking for easy mode only, that 46 percent number tells the tale Anet needs to be paying attention to. Again, I think you probably understand that yourself but are trying to convolute things because you simply do not like the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"Blaeys.3102" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"Blaeys.3102" said: > > > I am sorry, but the idea that people responding thought that response meant adding something harder and that what we have now is the easy mode just isn't realistic. Again, I think you are trying to twist into something you know very well it is not to contradict results you personally disagree with. > > > > I'm not the one adding the 46% of those that voted for **both** with those that voted for easy (and hard) as if to justify a non-existent point. > > I am fully in support of "both", which includes the addition of an easy mode. Even without the 7 percent asking for easy mode only, that 46 percent number tells the tale Anet needs to be paying attention to. > > Again, I think you probably understand that yourself but are trying to convolute things because you simply do not like the results. I don't like the results, my choice was "we need a better option", but that's because the hard mode version proposed by the OP wasn't something that can work in the game. I'm honestly more against that 7% that voted for a hard mode and that 46% that included the hard mode, as proposed by the OP, than I'm against those voting for an easy mode. I'm also quite positive a lot of those that voted didn't actually read the OP and only read the options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinceman.4572 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"Lonami.2987" said: > > @"Vinceman.4572" said: > > Actually there are almost no sellers in this forum. nia and I were his only responders and we definitely aren't selling raids. The only one stating openly in this forum that he is selling raids is Samara. So, you better stop provoking and spreading false suggestions. > > Like some other people's false suggestions that we only want easy mode just to get free loot and such? In contrast to a very prominent person here in this thread (and some others) that is actually wanting exactly this, n'est-ce pas? Some others as well but they have only posted once. As nia said, they are not wasting their time here in forums instead they are organizing their squads. xD It's very time consuming and associated with a lot of work which doesn't make it very enjoyable for the average raider that is able to sell from a skill perspective. I mean my static is able to low man certain bosses (6 man VG confirmed for example) but it's just not practical to us. > Also, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. You're the one taking it personally. Well, you responded to a post where you haven't had the need to answer to because it didn't even affect you in the slightest. It was an obvious try to provoke others nothing else. You can't deny that. :) ___ To the numbers: They are not worth the discussion, for neither side. And we better not use "significant" or "representative" in this context otherwise a lot of math teachers, PhD's and profs would start to cry and never stop doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nia.4725 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"Vinceman.4572" said: > > @"Lonami.2987" said: > > > @"Vinceman.4572" said: > > > Actually there are almost no sellers in this forum. nia and I were his only responders and we definitely aren't selling raids. The only one stating openly in this forum that he is selling raids is Samara. So, you better stop provoking and spreading false suggestions. > > > > Like some other people's false suggestions that we only want easy mode just to get free loot and such? > > In contrast to a very prominent person here in this thread (and some others) that is actually wanting exactly this, n'est-ce pas? Some others as well but they have only posted once. As nia said, they are not wasting their time here in forums instead they are organizing their squads. xD It's very time consuming and associated with a lot of work which doesn't make it very enjoyable for the average raider that is able to sell from a skill perspective. I mean my static is able to low man certain bosses (6 man VG confirmed for example) but it's just not practical to us. > > > Also, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. You're the one taking it personally. > > Well, you responded to a post where you haven't had the need to answer to because it didn't even affect you in the slightest. It was an obvious try to provoke others nothing else. You can't deny that. :) > > ___ > > To the numbers: > They are not worth the discussion, for neither side. And we better not use "significant" or "representative" in this context otherwise a lot of math teachers, PhD's and profs would start to cry and never stop doing so. I wonder what would these hardcore raiders think if they read this topic. If only I had the skills to sell raids LOL I have lowmanned too, but one thing is lowman and another one is selling : D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Blaeys.3102" said: > > Yes, it is VERY clear - both an easy and a hard mode. That includes the addition of an easy mode. Then there are those asking for an easy mode, which also includes the addition of an easy mode. That comes to 51 percent asking for the addition of an easy mode (with the vast majority of those wanting it come ALONGSIDE the use of a hard mode). To think respondents interpreted that any other way really is a significant stretch. > > > > And I said that's one way of interpreting there is also the opposite one. 7% want a hard mode, 31% want them to stay as they are, and 46% want to add a hard mode (ALONGSIDE the use of an easy mode), so 84% want it to be as it is and even get harder. Not true, because out of those 84% more than half do _not_ want raids to stay the same. And some of those that "want it to get harder" also "want it to get easier". Basically, it's a nonsensical way to group people because it puts together people that are in direct opposition to each other). > IF you add the easy+hard to easy, then it stands to reason that you must add easy+hard with hard. That's what has been done. That's where 53% for easy mode and 53% for hard mode comes from. > And in that case you get 84% same or above and 53% for lower. Well, if we were counting like you do then we would compare "same or above" (which really isn't, for the reason i already mentioned) with "same and lower" (which also wouldn't be that, for the same reason). And we would get the same result in both cases - 84%. > > Which also doesn't make sense because adding them should add up to 100 (that's how percentages work) The percentages would work that way if you added them correctly. Which you didn't. And the most clear thing is that only 31% of the participants (on the raid subforum, no less) think that raids should stay as they are. All the rest think the system needs to be changed (even if they do not agree how, and are divided pretty much equally on the issue). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > The percentages would work that way if you added them correctly. Which you didn't. 53% + 53% + others do not make 100% no matter how you add them up. Adding those who voted for both to those voting for easy mode and calling it a majority is twisting the data. I wasn't the one that didn't do the math "correctly", I just did the math wrong "the other way". I admit I did it wrong by the way, that's why when I did I used the words "by your logic", not that I agree with it. > 53% may be a slim majority, but it is still a majority, no supermajority is necessary, and even a plaurality view would be worth considering. > 53% want easy mode, and only 31% think raids are fine as they are. Sorry but these are completely false ways to interpret the data available because both are missing that 46% of that 53% do not want -only easy mode-. Which was the entire reason for me entering this faulty discussion in the first place. > All the rest think the system needs to be changed (even if they do not agree how, and are divided pretty much equally on the issue). Sure I think the system should be changed too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonami.2987 Posted May 9, 2018 Author Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"Vinceman.4572" said: > Well, you responded to a post where you haven't had the need to answer to because it didn't even affect you in the slightest. It was an obvious try to provoke others nothing else. You can't deny that. :) What? 1. I did not reply to you, I replied to a someone else talking about raid sellers. 2. I am the creator of this thread, I'd say it does affect me. You're the only one poisoning the well here. And now, playing the victim. Guess you have too much free time waiting that LFG post to ~~sell~~ fill, huh? ;) > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > 53% + 53% + others do not make 100% no matter how you add them up. Adding those who voted for both to those voting for easy mode and calling it a majority is twisting the data. I wasn't the one that didn't do the math "correctly", I just did the math wrong "the other way". I admit I did it wrong by the way, that's why when I did I used the words "by your logic", not that I agree with it. Ever heard of multiple choice polls? Where a single voter can vote for more than one option? Geez, I wonder how percentages work in those cases! It's your problem for not knowing basic math if you insist on doing 53% + 53%, instead of the correct approach: **Wants easy** - 53% * Both - 46% * Only easy - 7% **Does not want easy** - 47% * Only hard - 7% * Raids are fine - 31% * Other solution - 7% Does math make sense for you now? Let me do it with hard mode too: **Wants hard** - 53% * Both - 46% * Only hard - 7% **Does not want hard** - 47% * Only easy - 7% * Raids are fine - 31% * Other solution - 7% Got it now? In both cases, the new mode option wins. I guess you won't care anyway. Feel free to keep making excuses and twisting the results. The numbers don't lie. > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"Blaeys.3102" said: > > > Yes, it is VERY clear - both an easy and a hard mode. That includes the addition of an easy mode. Then there are those asking for an easy mode, which also includes the addition of an easy mode. That comes to 51 percent asking for the addition of an easy mode (with the vast majority of those wanting it come ALONGSIDE the use of a hard mode). To think respondents interpreted that any other way really is a significant stretch. > > > > > > > And I said that's one way of interpreting there is also the opposite one. 7% want a hard mode, 31% want them to stay as they are, and 46% want to add a hard mode (ALONGSIDE the use of an easy mode), so 84% want it to be as it is and even get harder. > Not true, because out of those 84% more than half do _not_ want raids to stay the same. And some of those that "want it to get harder" also "want it to get easier". Basically, it's a nonsensical way to group people because it puts together people that are in direct opposition to each other). > > > IF you add the easy+hard to easy, then it stands to reason that you must add easy+hard with hard. > That's what has been done. That's where 53% for easy mode and 53% for hard mode comes from. > > > And in that case you get 84% same or above and 53% for lower. > Well, if we were counting like you do then we would compare "same or above" (which really isn't, for the reason i already mentioned) with "same and lower" (which also wouldn't be that, for the same reason). And we would get the same result in both cases - 84%. > > > > Which also doesn't make sense because adding them should add up to 100 (that's how percentages work) > The percentages would work that way if you added them correctly. Which you didn't. > > And the most clear thing is that only 31% of the participants (on the raid subforum, no less) think that raids should stay as they are. All the rest think the system needs to be changed (even if they do not agree how, and are divided pretty much equally on the issue). > > Yeah, what kind of twisted logic puts people who wants hard mode together with people who want raids to stay the same? If you want hard mode, you vote "hard mode", not "stay the same". The poll is clear as crystal water. Funny how no one had problems with it until the numbers were brought up and the naysayers realized more than 2/3 of the voters don't like the current status of raids. Way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"Lonami.2987" said: > Got it now? In both cases, the new mode option wins. > Which is the logical conclusion that was sadly omitted from the post I replied to. This is what I quoted when I replied to **you** specifically: > 53% want easy mode, and only 31% think raids are fine as they are. > It's basic math there. You can't spin it. That's twisting the results, or rather conveniently omitting an essential part of the poll data. Last time I checked your poll didn't ask if there should be an easy mode or raids are fine as they are, but there was something more in it, which you outlined in your last post well. Do the math with what you typed and you might figure out why I responded when I did. But anyway let's move along... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sykper.6583 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 There's also another misconception. The mere idea that a simple majority in favor of any change in 'modes' would be enough to warrant attention. That's being fairly optimistic and there's evidence to support that such an ideal is just not going to happen. Not sure if any of you remember when Arenanet was making a series of official polls about minor / major WvW changes, which were tested weeks prior. Things like 'Portable Cannons' were run through the mode and the larger community was involved, since this was a major pillar of the game. Does anyone remember the threshold for the minor changes to be implemented, versus major changes? The votes would have to be either a solid 2/3rds (An actual 66%) or a staggering 75% or higher for something that would change the mode permanently. And this was for a major part of the game that a hell of a lot more people participate in than Raiding. Aiming for something like both easy and hard modes is such an absurd request for a mode that's intended purpose is too far deviated from the suggestion...that even if you removed all other options and had Both Modes, No changes, or 'I don't care' you would most certainly not even come close to a super majority ruling in favor of changes. Because Arenanet would be able to preface that such a change would cost even more development time, that it would take away from other content on something that a definitive amount of people don't care for anyways. The only thing of significance that I see from this poll is that despite your intent that 'easy mode' and 'hard mode' could be made together, some people just hate Raiding with such passion that they don't even consider hard mode in the equation and they want it easy, for the rewards of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > The percentages would work that way if you added them correctly. Which you didn't. > > 53% + 53% + others do not make 100% no matter how you add them up. Obviously... because you're not supposed to add them that way at all. You add 53% of people wanting easy mode to 38% of people not wanting easy mode and 7% of people thinking the problem needs a better solution (they actually do add up to 100%, if we factor in the fact that those numbers are rounded down to full % values). The same for people wanting hard mode, the numbers will be the same. > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > Adding those who voted for both to those voting for easy mode and calling it a majority is twisting the data. No, it isn't. You don't need to twist the data to see that a majority of voting players want an easy mode. Just as a majority of voting players want a hard mode. And only about a third of voters think raids are fine with only one mode. I wasn't the one that didn't do the math "correctly", I just did the math wrong "the other way". I admit I did it wrong by the way, that's why when I did I used the words "by your logic", not that I agree with it. It wasn't by my logic. > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > 53% may be a slim majority, but it is still a majority, no supermajority is necessary, and even a plaurality view would be worth considering. > > 53% want easy mode, and only 31% think raids are fine as they are. > > Sorry but these are completely false ways to interpret the data available because both are missing that 46% of that 53% do not want -only easy mode-. Which was the entire reason for me entering this faulty discussion in the first place. Yes, they want more than just easy mode, but they still _do_ want easy mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Blaeys.3102" said: > > I don't think the phrase "both easy and hard modes" is that hard to interpret. It indicates people wanting multiple modes - one easy and one hard. You then add this to those solely requesting easy mode and you see that 51 percent of those polled want some kind of easy mode, though they may differ in opinion as to what that might be. > > > > But that's not what that option say. It's rather clear that they want both an easy and a hard mode. > > > No matter how you try to spin this, you still have a larger number of people here who have expressed interest in an easier mode in one form or another, with the majority of respondents in favor of multiple modes of raiding (incorporating both). There really is no other logical way to interpret the results of this poll. > > > > Let's use your logic here, 46% want a hard mode (together with an easy mode) and 7% want only a hard mode so 53% of players want a hard mode, together with those that voted that Raids are fine (31%) that means 84% of those polled either want to stay as it is or tilt toward being harder. But you can't discount that the bulk of that number *also* wanted an easy mode. Only 38% voted for "same or harder" with no "easier too" option. I think you could fairly say that "84% would be fine if a harder mode were added" (although even this is debatable since some of the 30% might not want a harder mode to exist), not not that "84% would be happy if it was *only* made the same or harder," because at least half those people would likely be upset if easy mode were not included, according to the poll. > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > **53%** Want an easy mode. > > **53%** Want a hard mode. > > I'm sorry but that's not how percentages work. > > You can use the actual results of the poll: > Both easy and hard: 46% > Only easy: 7% > Only hard: 7% > Nothing: 31% > Some other solution: 7% > > Any additions afterward are just trying to twist the results. I'm not "twisting" anything like you're trying to do. I'm pointing out that 53% of the respondents voted for a choice that *supported* having an easy mode option (whatever else that entailed). I also pointed out that the same number supported a hard mode. The 7%/7% voters were making a more conditional vote, indicating that they either were against or at least agnostic to the idea of one of the two modes, but the 46% vote clearly indicated wanting both, so they can't be lumped into an *"only* one side" position. >I don't like the results, my choice was "we need a better option", but that's because the hard mode version proposed by the OP wasn't something that can work in the game. Even if we consider the "we need a better option" option to mean "against ALL existing options," (which would be an overreach), it is still merely equal to both "one but not the other" options, and even the "better option" + "leave it alone" responses added together would not beat "BOTH." There is no way to spin this poll to indicate that the vote was *against* adding an easy mode (and also a hard mode). >I'm also quite positive a lot of those that voted didn't actually read the OP and only read the options. Perhaps so, perhaps the version of hard mode or easy mode they wanted was not the ones the OP described, btu they are clearly expressing an interest for *some* type of easy and hard mode to be added. They are voting strongly *against* leaving things alone. > @"Vinceman.4572" said: > > @"Lonami.2987" said: > > Like some other people's false suggestions that we only want easy mode just to get free loot and such? > > In contrast to a very prominent person here in this thread (and some others) that is actually wanting exactly this, n'est-ce pas? Who? I only ask because I'm frequently *accused* of this even though it's never been an accurate description of my position. I've read all these threads and can't recall a single person arguing in favor of free loot, except for starwmen generated by people who didn't want easy mode raids at all. > @"Sykper.6583" said: > Does anyone remember the threshold for the minor changes to be implemented, versus major changes? The votes would have to be either a solid 2/3rds (An actual 66%) or a staggering 75% or higher for something that would change the mode permanently. And this was for a major part of the game that a hell of a lot more people participate in than Raiding. The difference there is that it was changing the game for *every* player of that mode. This is not. If they add easy modes and/or hard modes, they are *optional.* Everyone in that 30% "leave it alone" camp can continue to "leave it alone," their mode would still exist and they could continue to play it. The addition of the new modes would only impact those who chose to use them, so there's far less need for everyone to agree on them, all that needs to be shown is that there is an interest in having them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sykper.6583 Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Sykper.6583" said: > > Does anyone remember the threshold for the minor changes to be implemented, versus major changes? The votes would have to be either a solid 2/3rds (An actual 66%) or a staggering 75% or higher for something that would change the mode permanently. And this was for a major part of the game that a hell of a lot more people participate in than Raiding. > > The difference there is that it was changing the game for *every* player of that mode. This is not. > > If they add easy modes and/or hard modes, they are *optional.* Everyone in that 30% "leave it alone" camp can continue to "leave it alone," their mode would still exist and they could continue to play it. The addition of the new modes would only impact those who chose to use them, so there's far less need for everyone to agree on them, all that needs to be shown is that there is an interest in having them. Developing and delaying content impacts everyone. The addition of one or more modes to Raiding is not a flip of a switch change, it takes time and work on top of the current content cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 > @"Sykper.6583" said: > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > @"Sykper.6583" said: > > > Does anyone remember the threshold for the minor changes to be implemented, versus major changes? The votes would have to be either a solid 2/3rds (An actual 66%) or a staggering 75% or higher for something that would change the mode permanently. And this was for a major part of the game that a hell of a lot more people participate in than Raiding. > > > > The difference there is that it was changing the game for *every* player of that mode. This is not. > > > > If they add easy modes and/or hard modes, they are *optional.* Everyone in that 30% "leave it alone" camp can continue to "leave it alone," their mode would still exist and they could continue to play it. The addition of the new modes would only impact those who chose to use them, so there's far less need for everyone to agree on them, all that needs to be shown is that there is an interest in having them. > > Developing and delaying content impacts everyone. The addition of one or more modes to Raiding is not a flip of a switch change, it takes time and work on top of the current content cycle. There is no proof as to how exactly it would impact anything. It might slow new raid development, it might slow LW development, it might slow various side projects that we'd never miss, they might hire on new teams to do it. Hell, they just did an overhaul of underwater combat, that had to have taken someone's time and effort, why couldn't that have been spent on an easy mode raid? We don't know enough to say that it's definitely "not worth the cost," because we have no idea what the total cost would be, or what would need to be sacrificed to pay it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > No, it isn't. You don't need to twist the data to see that a majority of voting players want an easy mode. **Just as a majority of voting players want a hard mode**. And only about a third of voters think raids are fine with only one mode. > I think if you read what I quoted the bold part was sadly missing. Trying to make it something it wasn't doesn't help. But of course the same ones that posted that re-posted later on with the actual data so I guess it's OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > But you can't discount that the bulk of that number *also* wanted an easy mode. Only 38% voted for "same or harder" with no "easier too" option. And the bulk of that number also voted for a hard mode. Only 38% voted for "same or easier" with no harder option. around it goes :) > Even if we consider the "we need a better option" option to mean "against ALL existing options," (which would be an overreach), it is still merely equal to both "one but not the other" options, and even the "better option" + "leave it alone" responses added together would not beat "BOTH." There is no way to spin this poll to indicate that the vote was *against* adding an easy mode (and also a hard mode). > Oh no, I'm personally against adding a hard mode, like the one in the OP, I never said it was a result of the poll. > Perhaps so, perhaps the version of hard mode or easy mode they wanted was not the ones the OP described, btu they are clearly expressing an interest for *some* type of easy and hard mode to be added. They are voting strongly *against* leaving things alone. That's true. Although there has been quite a discussion on the easy mode version, there was hardly any on the hard part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nia.4725 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > But you can't discount that the bulk of that number *also* wanted an easy mode. Only 38% voted for "same or harder" with no "easier too" option. > > And the bulk of that number also voted for a hard mode. Only 38% voted for "same or easier" with no harder option. around it goes :) > > > Even if we consider the "we need a better option" option to mean "against ALL existing options," (which would be an overreach), it is still merely equal to both "one but not the other" options, and even the "better option" + "leave it alone" responses added together would not beat "BOTH." There is no way to spin this poll to indicate that the vote was *against* adding an easy mode (and also a hard mode). > > > > Oh no, I'm personally against adding a hard mode, like the one in the OP, I never said it was a result of the poll. > > > Perhaps so, perhaps the version of hard mode or easy mode they wanted was not the ones the OP described, btu they are clearly expressing an interest for *some* type of easy and hard mode to be added. They are voting strongly *against* leaving things alone. > > That's true. Although there has been quite a discussion on the easy mode version, there was hardly any on the hard part. Because we already have hard modes. We could certainly ask for mode hard modes (Xera and Sabetha would be super cool), but I think few people in the raiding community are interested enough on this to bother trying to reach Anet. I sometimes chat with raider friends about how it would be super cool to have more hard modes, but it is not important enough. I prefer more content to more hard modes, honestly, and I don't think the raiding team has time for more than what they are already doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 > @"nia.4725" said: > Because we already have hard modes. Yeah, first step should be making those achievements and CMs we already have repeatable in some way and then they can think of adding something new. Btw Sabetha has the "last cannon" achievement to make it harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nia.4725 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"nia.4725" said: > > Because we already have hard modes. > > Yeah, first step should be making those achievements and CMs we already have repeatable in some way and then they can think of adding something new. > Btw Sabetha has the "last cannon" achievement to make it harder. Yeah but honestly, that's not hard enough. I mean, I once did the achievement BY MISTAKE because a guildmate forgot to do his cannon and my raid leader just didn't bother asking for a backup. Same could be said about Matthias, he has that no food achievement, but the difference is so little that it doesn't matter at all. In fact I helped some guildmates with this achievement last week, we basically facerolled the boss first try. I don't want easy achievements, I want challenges -like the Slippery Slubbing. Make Sabetha spawn cannons more often every time a cannon is failed, make Xera spawn random pink walls, I don't know. THings like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor.2358 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 > @"nia.4725" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > But you can't discount that the bulk of that number *also* wanted an easy mode. Only 38% voted for "same or harder" with no "easier too" option. > > > > And the bulk of that number also voted for a hard mode. Only 38% voted for "same or easier" with no harder option. around it goes :) > > > > > Even if we consider the "we need a better option" option to mean "against ALL existing options," (which would be an overreach), it is still merely equal to both "one but not the other" options, and even the "better option" + "leave it alone" responses added together would not beat "BOTH." There is no way to spin this poll to indicate that the vote was *against* adding an easy mode (and also a hard mode). > > > > > > > Oh no, I'm personally against adding a hard mode, like the one in the OP, I never said it was a result of the poll. > > > > > Perhaps so, perhaps the version of hard mode or easy mode they wanted was not the ones the OP described, btu they are clearly expressing an interest for *some* type of easy and hard mode to be added. They are voting strongly *against* leaving things alone. > > > > That's true. Although there has been quite a discussion on the easy mode version, there was hardly any on the hard part. > > Because we already have hard modes. We could certainly ask for mode hard modes (Xera and Sabetha would be super cool), but I think few people in the raiding community are interested enough on this to bother trying to reach Anet. I sometimes chat with raider friends about how it would be super cool to have more hard modes, but it is not important enough. **I prefer more content to more hard modes**, honestly, and I don't think the raiding team has time for more than what they are already doing. ^ This right here, the bolded one. More CMs? Yeah, I wouldn't mind, but they are ultimately the same fights. I prefer new bosses, with new, cool looks and mechanics. So since the dev resources are limited - which they always are - I'd rather have more of the normal raids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonami.2987 Posted May 10, 2018 Author Share Posted May 10, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > 53% want easy mode, and only 31% think raids are fine as they are. > > It's basic math there. You can't spin it. > > That's twisting the results, or rather conveniently omitting an essential part of the poll data. Last time I checked your poll didn't ask if there should be an easy mode or raids are fine as they are, but there was something more in it, which you outlined in your last post well. Do the math with what you typed and you might figure out why I responded when I did. But anyway let's move along... In what way is that statement a lie? > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"Blaeys.3102" said: > > > I don't think the phrase "both easy and hard modes" is that hard to interpret. It indicates people wanting multiple modes - one easy and one hard. You then add this to those solely requesting easy mode and you see that 51 percent of those polled want some kind of easy mode, though they may differ in opinion as to what that might be. > > > > > > > But that's not what that option say. It's rather clear that they want both an easy and a hard mode. > > > > > No matter how you try to spin this, you still have a larger number of people here who have expressed interest in an easier mode in one form or another, with the majority of respondents in favor of multiple modes of raiding (incorporating both). There really is no other logical way to interpret the results of this poll. > > > > > > > Let's use your logic here, 46% want a hard mode (together with an easy mode) and 7% want only a hard mode so 53% of players want a hard mode, together with those that voted that Raids are fine (31%) that means 84% of those polled either want to stay as it is or tilt toward being harder. > > But you can't discount that the bulk of that number *also* wanted an easy mode. Only 38% voted for "same or harder" with no "easier too" option. > > I think you could fairly say that "84% would be fine if a harder mode were added" (although even this is debatable since some of the 30% might not want a harder mode to exist), not not that "84% would be happy if it was *only* made the same or harder," because at least half those people would likely be upset if easy mode were not included, according to the poll. If you voted raids are fine, then you don't want a hard mode, else you'd have voted for hard mode. They naysayers are trying to spin this into a "hard mode" vs "easy mode" debate, since they lost the "raids are fine" vs "they're not" debate. Don't fall for it. > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Sykper.6583" said: > > Does anyone remember the threshold for the minor changes to be implemented, versus major changes? The votes would have to be either a solid 2/3rds (An actual 66%) or a staggering 75% or higher for something that would change the mode permanently. And this was for a major part of the game that a hell of a lot more people participate in than Raiding. > > The difference there is that it was changing the game for *every* player of that mode. This is not. > > If they add easy modes and/or hard modes, they are *optional.* Everyone in that 30% "leave it alone" camp can continue to "leave it alone," their mode would still exist and they could continue to play it. The addition of the new modes would only impact those who chose to use them, so there's far less need for everyone to agree on them, all that needs to be shown is that there is an interest in having them. That's what most of this is about at the end of the day, feeling superior to others by exclusivity, instead of a real skilled competitive environment. It's a "no girls allowed" mentality, letting the toy rot rather than letting your little sister play with it too. Easy mode would increase normal mode population, making grouping easier. Right now it's pretty much impossible to find PUGs doing the last boss of each wing, Xera being the worst case. If you're a new player, you can waste hours and hours trying to find a good group that won't disband after the first wipe, or instead pay money to some elitists to carry you and finish the collection. More players means less profit for them. That's why they are against hard mode too, since a good hard mode would require a full party of 10, working like clockwork, so no room for leechers. A good hard mode would kill raid selling for good. At the end of the day, It's like farmers screaming at outsiders for ruining or joining their secret farm spot. > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > Perhaps so, perhaps the version of hard mode or easy mode they wanted was not the ones the OP described, btu they are clearly expressing an interest for *some* type of easy and hard mode to be added. They are voting strongly *against* leaving things alone. > > That's true. Although there has been quite a discussion on the easy mode version, there was hardly any on the hard part. There's examples all over the thread, starting with the very first post. > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > @"nia.4725" said: > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > But you can't discount that the bulk of that number *also* wanted an easy mode. Only 38% voted for "same or harder" with no "easier too" option. > > > > > > And the bulk of that number also voted for a hard mode. Only 38% voted for "same or easier" with no harder option. around it goes :) > > > > > > > Even if we consider the "we need a better option" option to mean "against ALL existing options," (which would be an overreach), it is still merely equal to both "one but not the other" options, and even the "better option" + "leave it alone" responses added together would not beat "BOTH." There is no way to spin this poll to indicate that the vote was *against* adding an easy mode (and also a hard mode). > > > > > > > > > > Oh no, I'm personally against adding a hard mode, like the one in the OP, I never said it was a result of the poll. > > > > > > > Perhaps so, perhaps the version of hard mode or easy mode they wanted was not the ones the OP described, btu they are clearly expressing an interest for *some* type of easy and hard mode to be added. They are voting strongly *against* leaving things alone. > > > > > > That's true. Although there has been quite a discussion on the easy mode version, there was hardly any on the hard part. > > > > Because we already have hard modes. We could certainly ask for mode hard modes (Xera and Sabetha would be super cool), but I think few people in the raiding community are interested enough on this to bother trying to reach Anet. I sometimes chat with raider friends about how it would be super cool to have more hard modes, but it is not important enough. **I prefer more content to more hard modes**, honestly, and I don't think the raiding team has time for more than what they are already doing. > > ^ This right here, the bolded one. More CMs? Yeah, I wouldn't mind, but they are ultimately the same fights. I prefer new bosses, with new, cool looks and mechanics. So since the dev resources are limited - which they always are - I'd rather have more of the normal raids. You're being pretty naive or dishonest here, that's not how programming work. Adjusting stats to implement easy and hard modes on top of the normal mode for every boss would be relatively easy, and it wouldn't take as much time as developing a single new boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now