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

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > That's not the point. The point is Teapot got 5k live viewers when he hosted ERP2. How many would you expect him to get if he streamed Claw of Jormag? Top performance creates interest in other people.

> Now, ask yourself some different questions. How many of those 5k people were not interested in raids already? How many weren't interested in gw2? How many have become interested in gw2 as a result of this stream?

>

> Now, compare that to some of the Woodenpotato's vids on lore.

> Are you so sure still, that raids generate that much interest for the game, that you can say raiders are "gw2 ambassadors"?

 

Yeah. WP vids serve similar function, but are targeted at different player. And as far as I know he never had 5k current viewers. Which by the way isn't that low. Checking WP's recent lore video, it had 11k views *in total*.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever in catering to the "elites," you want to create rewards that most players can meaningfully strive for (even if some get there faster than others).

>

 

Well the elites bring lots of people to a game by providing streams and videos. The elites also provide builds and tactics that allow even bad players to complete content. So there IS lots of benefit in catering to the "elites" in a game

 

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > That's not the point. The point is Teapot got 5k live viewers when he hosted ERP2. How many would you expect him to get if he streamed Claw of Jormag? Top performance creates interest in other people.

> > Now, ask yourself some different questions. How many of those 5k people were not interested in raids already? How many weren't interested in gw2? How many have become interested in gw2 as a result of this stream?

> >

> > Now, compare that to some of the Woodenpotato's vids on lore.

> > Are you so sure still, that raids generate that much interest for the game, that you can say raiders are "gw2 ambassadors"?

>

> Yeah. WP vids serve similar function, but are targeted at different player. And as far as I know he never had 5k current viewers. Which by the way isn't that low. Checking WP's recent lore video, it had 11k views *in total*.

That's also low. You do understand we're talking about a game whose population exceeds a million players. 5k is peanuts. This amount of popularity for vids and streams doesn't even make a splash on popularity of the game itself. Especially when we factor in that most of the viewers (especially for streams, which you do kind of need to know about beforehand) are people that are already playing the game.

Now, a lot of WPs vids do reach much bigger and more respectable viewership numbers.

 

 

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

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

> > > > That's not the point. The point is Teapot got 5k live viewers when he hosted ERP2. How many would you expect him to get if he streamed Claw of Jormag? Top performance creates interest in other people.

> > > Now, ask yourself some different questions. How many of those 5k people were not interested in raids already? How many weren't interested in gw2? How many have become interested in gw2 as a result of this stream?

> > >

> > > Now, compare that to some of the Woodenpotato's vids on lore.

> > > Are you so sure still, that raids generate that much interest for the game, that you can say raiders are "gw2 ambassadors"?

> >

> > Yeah. WP vids serve similar function, but are targeted at different player. And as far as I know he never had 5k current viewers. Which by the way isn't that low. Checking WP's recent lore video, it had 11k views *in total*.

> That's also low. You do understand we're talking about a game whose population exceeds a million players. 5k is peanuts. This amount of popularity for vids and streams doesn't even make a splash on popularity of the game itself. Especially when we factor in that most of the viewers (especially for streams, which you do kind of need to know about beforehand) are people that are already playing the game.

> Now, a lot of WPs vids do reach much bigger and more respectable viewership numbers.

>

>

 

You compare total views with number of live viewers. Come on.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

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

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

> > > > > That's not the point. The point is Teapot got 5k live viewers when he hosted ERP2. How many would you expect him to get if he streamed Claw of Jormag? Top performance creates interest in other people.

> > > > Now, ask yourself some different questions. How many of those 5k people were not interested in raids already? How many weren't interested in gw2? How many have become interested in gw2 as a result of this stream?

> > > >

> > > > Now, compare that to some of the Woodenpotato's vids on lore.

> > > > Are you so sure still, that raids generate that much interest for the game, that you can say raiders are "gw2 ambassadors"?

> > >

> > > Yeah. WP vids serve similar function, but are targeted at different player. And as far as I know he never had 5k current viewers. Which by the way isn't that low. Checking WP's recent lore video, it had 11k views *in total*.

> > That's also low. You do understand we're talking about a game whose population exceeds a million players. 5k is peanuts. This amount of popularity for vids and streams doesn't even make a splash on popularity of the game itself. Especially when we factor in that most of the viewers (especially for streams, which you do kind of need to know about beforehand) are people that are already playing the game.

> > Now, a lot of WPs vids do reach much bigger and more respectable viewership numbers.

> >

> >

>

> You compare total views with number of live viewers. Come on.

 

Oh, i know those aren't all that comparable and that stream numbers will always be lower. Still, 5k _is_ peanuts. Especially since it's not even a consistent viewership, but a peak number for a _single_ stream.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> Oh, i know those aren't all that comparable and that stream numbers will always be lower. Still, 5k _is_ peanuts.

 

And yet we have a forum poll with 668 votes that some consider "significant" and "the community has spoken"

[Vinceman.4572]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > Oh, i know those aren't all that comparable and that stream numbers will always be lower. Still, 5k _is_ peanuts.

>

> And yet we have a forum poll with 668 votes that some consider "significant" and "the community has spoken"

 

Yeah, I was thinking the same. 668 is enough to make a "significant" claim but 5k on the other hand are peanuts.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> Yeah. WP vids serve similar function, but are targeted at different player. And as far as I know he never had 5k current viewers. Which by the way isn't that low. Checking WP's recent lore video, it had 11k views *in total*.

 

You may be talking about his let's play, which is more of a slow burn series. You need to watch them in order and they are fairly long, so average viewers are expected to be low. His videos about the recent Balance patch all average around 28K, his video just collecting rats is at 9.8K. They do a lot better than raid streams do.

 

>You compare total views with number of live viewers. Come on.

 

Why not? If we're talking about raiders as a marketing feature, all that matters is unique eyeballs. Players are unlikely to watch WP's videos more than once, especially in a short period of time, so total views are total views, and that's all that matters.

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>Well the elites bring lots of people to a game by providing streams and videos.

 

No. That's something else entirely. This really isn't that sort of game, where "skill shot" type players are a major draw. This is a more casual game, where people are more likely to watch lore videos and lets-plays. The people who make them might be above average players, or play longer than others, but they are more leveraging personality and performance over "leetness," and aren't in it for the hardcore challenge.

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > Oh, i know those aren't all that comparable and that stream numbers will always be lower. Still, 5k _is_ peanuts.

>

> And yet we have a forum poll with 668 votes that some consider "significant" and "the community has spoken"

 

No, we don't. This is just an anecdotal data point, not a mandate. And really it's a bit silly to compare a poll, where there are people registering multiple positions, to a video stream, where nobody can really vote "I don't like this," unless you count the hundreds of thousands of GW2 players who *didn't* watch it as automatically in the "do not want" category.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> This really isn't that sort of game, where "skill shot" type players are a major draw.

 

Yet streamers bring more people to this game too :) Can't deny that their existence helps the game. There are videos about "skilled play" too and funnily enough the videos that aren't about skill that get many viewers (like WPs) are more often than not, not about gameplay.

 

> No, we don't. This is just an anecdotal data point, not a mandate. And really it's a bit silly to compare a poll, where there are people registering multiple positions, to a video stream, where nobody can really vote "I don't like this," unless you count the hundreds of thousands of GW2 players who *didn't* watch it as automatically in the "do not want" category.

 

I'm not comparing them, I point out that calling 5k players watching a stream "peanuts" means the 668 that voted on this poll are also "peanuts" no matter what they voted for. If 5k people watching a stream is an insignificant number to show how important streamers are to the game, then the result of 668 people voting is also completely insignificant.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > Yeah. WP vids serve similar function, but are targeted at different player. And as far as I know he never had 5k current viewers. Which by the way isn't that low. Checking WP's recent lore video, it had 11k views *in total*.

>

> You may be talking about his let's play, which is more of a slow burn series. You need to watch them in order and they are fairly long, so average viewers are expected to be low. His videos about the recent Balance patch all average around 28K, his video just collecting rats is at 9.8K. They do a lot better than raid streams do.

>

> >You compare total views with number of live viewers. Come on.

>

> Why not? If we're talking about raiders as a marketing feature, all that matters is unique eyeballs. Players are unlikely to watch WP's videos more than once, especially in a short period of time, so total views are total views, and that's all that matters.

>

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> >Well the elites bring lots of people to a game by providing streams and videos.

>

> No. That's something else entirely. This really isn't that sort of game, where "skill shot" type players are a major draw. This is a more casual game, where people are more likely to watch lore videos and lets-plays. The people who make them might be above average players, or play longer than others, but they are more leveraging personality and performance over "leetness," and aren't in it for the hardcore challenge.

>

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > Oh, i know those aren't all that comparable and that stream numbers will always be lower. Still, 5k _is_ peanuts.

> >

> > And yet we have a forum poll with 668 votes that some consider "significant" and "the community has spoken"

>

> No, we don't. This is just an anecdotal data point, not a mandate. And really it's a bit silly to compare a poll, where there are people registering multiple positions, to a video stream, where nobody can really vote "I don't like this," unless you count the hundreds of thousands of GW2 players who *didn't* watch it as automatically in the "do not want" category.

 

I think the point is that this poll is just as if not more irrelevant than the popularity of a raid stream. Its not a silly comparison if you're stay within the context of the argument.

 

I also think the poll will always point more towards "we need an easy mode" because the standard mindset generally is "I cant do this and/or I want that reward". This might not even have much to do with difficulty, because even in the open world with group events the general mindset is: " we need a commander" before "lets try we can do this"

 

Whether or not you believe raids need an easy mode is pretty subjective anyway. The motivation behind is is generally not more than i want the reward i want to pass this obstacle.

 

Considering the large majority of players mostly plays open world catering to that is safer and staying true to that GW2 design rather than searching for value in a game mode that most have determined to be not their thing.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> I also think the poll will always point more towards "we need an easy mode" because the standard mindset generally is "I cant do this and/or I want that reward". This might not even have much to do with difficulty, because even in the open world with group events the general mindset is: " we need a commander" before "lets try we can do this"

 

Not only that but gaming forums tend to attract complainers. There are two major reasons to visit a gaming forum: got a question or got a problem. Those that don't have a problem with the game, or questions about the game will most likely avoid the forums. The sample size is not only tiny, compared to the overall population, but is HEAVILY biased towards complainers by the nature of it being on a gaming forum. Plus the reasons you mentioned of course.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>Yet streamers bring more people to this game too

 

Maybe, I'd need to see some data on that. My point is just that they aren't a big enough draw to actually *matter.* I mean "every bit helps" and all, but it's not worth shaping entire portions of the game around them. I mean when twice as many people watched WP collect rats, maybe they need five wings of "rat hunting" exploration zones, that open up Legendary skins. That would apparently be a bigger marketing draw than raid completion streams.

 

>There are videos about "skilled play" too and funnily enough the videos that aren't about skill that get many viewers (like WPs) are more often than not, not about gameplay.

 

But that's my point, that the bulk of people who are interested in this game are not interested in hardcore gameplay experiences, either watching or playing, they are about casually enjoying lore and exploration.

 

> I point out that calling 5k players watching a stream "peanuts" means the 668 that voted on this poll are also "peanuts" no matter what they voted for.

 

Sure, as I said, it's purely anecdotal. But "5K players streaming" out of a potential audience in the hundreds of thousands or more, is a very weak data point to support any argument, where even a poll with relatively low responses, the *relative* responses do provide some *interesting* data, if not *conclusive* data. Obviously more data is needed either way.

 

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> I also think the poll will always point more towards "we need an easy mode" because the standard mindset generally is "I cant do this and/or I want that reward".

 

Keep in mind the context of this poll though, it's taking place not only on the forums (which would tend to skew towards raiders), but also on the *raid* forums (which. . . do I need to spell that one out?), and yet even with that working against it, still has a majority in favor of having easy mode options. I mean, small sample size, sure, but I wouldn't lay any bets on "the average players don't want an easy mode."

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> The sample size is not only tiny, compared to the overall population, but is HEAVILY biased towards complainers by the nature of it being on a gaming forum.

 

Perhaps, but those complainers would not necessarily skew towards an easy mode. They might be people showing up to complain about how raids aren't hard enough, or there are too many newbs around. The threads seem to indicate a market for that sort of thing. Even if most of the people in the poll were "complainers," you could still expect that "hard mode only" would be decisively beating "easy mode only," and yet they're typically neck and neck, with "both" being a much higher figure.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> My point is just that they aren't a big enough draw to actually *matter.*

 

Well if you have some data to suggest that they don't matter I'd want to read it.

 

> But that's my point, that the bulk of people who are interested in this game are not interested in hardcore gameplay experiences, either watching or playing, they are about casually enjoying lore and exploration.

>

 

Yet there is no interest anywhere watching people just casually exploring. People either watch the more exciting things, or watch videos that have no gameplay value.

 

> Sure, as I said, it's purely anecdotal. But "5K players streaming" out of a potential audience in the hundreds of thousands or more, is a very weak data point to support any argument, where even a poll with relatively low responses, the *relative* responses do provide some *interesting* data, if not *conclusive* data. Obviously more data is needed either way.

 

The potential audience of the stream is the same as the responses of this thread, yet the stream got more people interested than this thread. If the stream is a very weak data point, then this thread is even weaker.

 

> Even if most of the people in the poll were "complainers," you could still expect that "hard mode only" would be decisively beating "easy mode only," and yet they're typically neck and neck, with "both" being a much higher figure.

 

How does that fantasy work? It's more likely for a person to complain when they can't get something, rather than someone complaining that the content isn't hard enough. That argument you posted needs something to back it up because currently there is no common sense or logic that backs it.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > My point is just that they aren't a big enough draw to actually *matter.*

>

> Well if you have some data to suggest that they don't matter I'd want to read it.

 

 

That. . . that isn't making ANY sense. You do *get* that you aren't making any sense, right? Please tell me that you understand that you aren't making sense here.

 

> > But that's my point, that the bulk of people who are interested in this game are not interested in hardcore gameplay experiences, either watching or playing, they are about casually enjoying lore and exploration.

> >

>

> Yet there is no interest anywhere watching people just casually exploring. People either watch the more exciting things, or watch videos that have no gameplay value.

 

But, again, we've determined that an absolutely insignificant number of players watch the "exciting" videos, while *larger* numbers watch people "casually exploring" the game. I have no idea what point you're even trying to make now.

 

> > Sure, as I said, it's purely anecdotal. But "5K players streaming" out of a potential audience in the hundreds of thousands or more, is a very weak data point to support any argument, where even a poll with relatively low responses, the *relative* responses do provide some *interesting* data, if not *conclusive* data. Obviously more data is needed either way.

>

> The potential audience of the stream is the same as the responses of this thread, yet the stream got more people interested than this thread. If the stream is a very weak data point, then this thread is even weaker.

 

That's. . . not how data works. Seriously, I'd like you to stop. Take a look at yourself. Ask yourself if this is the way you want to portray yourself to others in this thread. I've heard you before, I know that you are capable of making better arguments than this, and I think that on some level, you would want you to be doing better than this. This entire post is just *painful* to parse through.

 

> > Even if most of the people in the poll were "complainers," you could still expect that "hard mode only" would be decisively beating "easy mode only," and yet they're typically neck and neck, with "both" being a much higher figure.

>

> How does that fantasy work? It's more likely for a person to complain when they can't get something, rather than someone complaining that the content isn't hard enough. That argument you posted needs something to back it up because currently there is no common sense or logic that backs it.

 

There are currently as many threads complaining about wanting harder content of some sort than there are about easy, give or take. It's clearly an interest of this community.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> That. . . that isn't making ANY sense. You do *get* that you aren't making any sense, right? Please tell me that you understand that you aren't making sense here.

>

 

We both know that they bring players that isn't up for dispute I hope. So if you have any data to suggest anything you can show it. Of course you don't have any it was rhetorical question.

 

> But, again, we've determined that an absolutely insignificant number of players watch the "exciting" videos, while *larger* numbers watch people "casually exploring" the game. I have no idea what point you're even trying to make now.

 

Where did we determine this?

 

> That's. . . not how data works.

 

I hope you have a better argument than this. That's exactly how data works, saying that the target audience of the stream is the entire playerbase and then saying that this poll's target audience isn't, is not an argument. I think you are more intelligent than this.

 

> There are currently as many threads complaining about wanting harder content of some sort than there are about easy, give or take. It's clearly an interest of this community.

 

I really really doubt this.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> We both know that they bring players that isn't up for dispute I hope. So if you have any data to suggest anything you can show it. Of course you don't have any it was rhetorical question.

 

Again, I asked for proof of this, you provided none. All we know for sure is that their reach is insignificantly tiny, so the maximum number of people they can reach is somewhere between 0 and around 1% of the player population. I really don't see why this would be a coveted demographic.

 

>Where did we determine this?

 

The numbers are in the mid six-figures. This is nothing when compared to actually popular streams, and around 1/6th the audience of the average Wooden Potatoes current events video. why do you believe anyone would have reason to care about such small numbers? We aren't talking about "representative data" like in the polling discussion, here we are talking *absolute* numbers of people.

 

>That's exactly how data works, saying that the target audience of the stream is the entire playerbase and then saying that this poll's target audience isn't, is not an argument.

 

I didn't say that the target audience *was* the entire game population, I just pointed out that you would have to *if* you were trying to compare it to a poll, because the point of a poll is to say "X people **of** Y body of people." A single data point in a poll is irrelevant without the context of the sample size, which is why you can't really hope up a poll next to a view count like that. We know that only a few thousand people watch raid videos. We don't know how many other people in the world might be interested and just didn't watch, verses how many definitely aren't interested, all we know is that a whole lot of people *didn't* watch those videos.

 

>I really really doubt this.

 

Then I direct you to the main Fractals, Dungeons & Raids forum and read some of the thread contained therein.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Again, I asked for proof of this, you provided none.

 

If it's insignificantly tiny or not is hardly relevant since you can't have actual data on that. What matters is that it DOES work that's not up for debate I hope.

 

> This is nothing when compared to actually popular streams, and around 1/6th the audience of the average Wooden Potatoes current events video.

 

If I recall those videos aren't LIVE.

 

> We aren't talking about "representative data" like in the polling discussion, here we are talking absolute numbers of people.

 

Are you seriously calling the data of 668 people voting on a biased poll "representative data"?

 

> We know that only a few thousand people watch raid videos. We don't know how many other people in the world might be interested and just didn't watch, verses how many definitely aren't interested, all we know is that a whole lot of people *didn't* watch those videos.

 

We know that only 668 people voted on this thread. We don't know how other players, not in this biased forum, would vote like. All we know is that the vast majority of players didn't even vote here. Which is why this poll is insignificant.

 

> Then I direct you to the main Fractals, Dungeons & Raids forum and read some of the thread contained therein.

 

Cute, and I redirect you to this thread that is larger than all those threads combined.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>If it's insignificantly tiny or not is hardly relevant since you can't have actual data on that.

 

Again, we HAVE the data that it's insignificantly tiny, we just don't know how tiny. We know that the total numbers influenced can't be large enough to make any difference whatsoever, we just don't know for certain how much *less* it might be than that.

 

>What matters is that it DOES work that's not up for debate I hope.

 

That the streats actually bring new players in or hold them firmer to the game? No, we don't know that, more data would be needed. It's a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption. It only starts to become an *un*reasonable assumption if you try to make the case that enough people would fall into that category to *matter* to a game of GW2's scale.

 

>If I recall those videos aren't LIVE.

 

Completely irrelevant. All that matters is eyes on. It doesn't matter whether those are all at once or over weeks or years.

 

>Are you seriously calling the data of 668 people voting on a biased poll "representative data"?

 

It's representative of those 668 people. It's just less representative of larger groups. The point is, it includes multiple options, it's not a one-sided conversation.

 

>We know that only 668 people voted on this thread. We don't know how other players, not in this biased forum, would vote like. All we know is that the vast majority of players didn't even vote here. Which is why this poll is insignificant.

 

Agreed, just as we don't know how the hundreds of thousands of GW2 players that don't want raid streams feel about raid streams. Chances are that they don't much care though, or they would probably be watching raid streams.

 

>Cute, and I redirect you to this thread that is larger than all those threads combined.

 

Length of the thread isn't really relevant to player interest. A handful of people can discuss a single topic over many pages, while a larger group of people can say their piece in only a few pages.

[nia.4725]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> >If it's insignificantly tiny or not is hardly relevant since you can't have actual data on that.

>

> Again, we HAVE the data that it's insignificantly tiny, we just don't know how tiny. We know that the total numbers influenced can't be large enough to make any difference whatsoever, we just don't know for certain how much *less* it might be than that.

>

> >What matters is that it DOES work that's not up for debate I hope.

>

> That the streats actually bring new players in or hold them firmer to the game? No, we don't know that, more data would be needed. It's a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption. It only starts to become an *un*reasonable assumption if you try to make the case that enough people would fall into that category to *matter* to a game of GW2's scale.

>

> >If I recall those videos aren't LIVE.

>

> Completely irrelevant. All that matters is eyes on. It doesn't matter whether those are all at once or over weeks or years.

>

> >Are you seriously calling the data of 668 people voting on a biased poll "representative data"?

>

> It's representative of those 668 people. It's just less representative of larger groups. The point is, it includes multiple options, it's not a one-sided conversation.

>

> >We know that only 668 people voted on this thread. We don't know how other players, not in this biased forum, would vote like. All we know is that the vast majority of players didn't even vote here. Which is why this poll is insignificant.

>

> Agreed, just as we don't know how the hundreds of thousands of GW2 players that don't want raid streams feel about raid streams. Chances are that they don't much care though, or they would probably be watching raid streams.

>

> >Cute, and I redirect you to this thread that is larger than all those threads combined.

>

> Length of the thread isn't really relevant to player interest. A handful of people can discuss a single topic over many pages, while a larger group of people can say their piece in only a few pages.

 

Majority of threads asking for more harder content? Do you have eyes on your face?

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Again, we HAVE the data that it's insignificantly tiny, we just don't know how tiny.

 

Where is this data? I hope we can all agree that this isn't about just one raid stream that got 5k viewers but of all those that are streaming from raids, to fractals, to PVP, to WVW. Streamers do bring players into games no matter what you say. And streamers don't stream Shadow Behemoth kills to get viewers, it's the more exciting content that gets viewers, not only Raids btw, but more involved content in general. Or videos that are not about gameplay at all (lore vids)

 

> Completely irrelevant. All that matters is eyes on. It doesn't matter whether those are all at once or over weeks or years.

 

Watching something LIVE requires the user to be in front of their computer while the LIVE streaming is active. On the other hand watching a pre-recorded video on youtube doesn't require that, you can view it when you want. Watching a stream LIVE means you know that the stream is active AND you have some time to spare at that time. Watching a video on youtube doesn't have any of those requirements. Requirements that have nothing to do with how much someone enjoys the content of the stream and are usually outside the viewers control (blame time zones!).

 

> It's representative of those 668 people.

> Agreed, just as we don't know how the hundreds of thousands of GW2 players that don't want raid streams feel about raid streams.

 

...I sometimes wonder what was the point of the last few posts. I re-post my initial comment:

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/526867/#Comment_526867

If one of them is peanuts then both of them are peanuts yet if you check earlier posts on this thread there are posts claiming otherwise.

 

> Length of the thread isn't really relevant to player interest.

This thread has been merged multiple times, if it wasn't there'd be lots of similar threads around. The poll doesn't show player interest, it shows forum poster interest, those shouldn't be confused.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>Where is this data? I hope we can all agree that this isn't about just one raid stream that got 5k viewers but of all those that are streaming from raids, to fractals, to PVP, to WVW. Streamers do bring players into games no matter what you say. And streamers don't stream Shadow Behemoth kills to get viewers, it's the more exciting content that gets viewers, not only Raids btw, but more involved content in general. Or videos that are not about gameplay at all (lore vids)

 

Againm there is no evidence to indicate that any *significant* number of people watch these streams. The numbers are universally very low. Of this already tiny number, there is no evidence to indicate that a *significant* amount of this *insignificant* group go on to play the game when otherwise they would not. It's an extremely spurious theory, like blaming global warming on leaving the oven on too long.

 

>Watching something LIVE requires the user to be in front of their computer while the LIVE streaming is active. On the other hand watching a pre-recorded video on youtube doesn't require that, you can view it when you want.

 

Yes, I understand how "live," works, my point is that it *doesn't matter.* All that matters is how many people actually watch, not why they *might not* watch.

 

>...I sometimes wonder what was the point of the last few posts.

 

Welcome to me when you started this line of discussion.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> The numbers are universally very low.

The number of people posting on these forums is also universally very low. Which was the entire initial point.

One more time: saying that the viewers of the streams are too few doesn't remove the fact that those that voted on the poll are also very few, in fact many magnitudes fewer. 5000 is way more than 668 in any counting system.

 

Although the numbers of those that voted is abysmally low, some consider it significant and "representative of the playerbase", while a much larger number like the stream viewers is passed as "nothing" and "insignificant". Both have the same potential audience, the entire player base, yet one of them gets way more attention, but the other one is considered the significant one. Why is the weight of 668 voting on a forum poll more important than 5000 watching a stream, or 190k having accounts on gw2efficiency or any other metric that gets significantly higher numbers than any forum poll.

 

I hope my reason for posting https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/526867/#Comment_526867 is clear now

 

> Yes, I understand how "live," works, my point is that it *doesn't matter.* All that matters is how many people actually watch, not why they *might not* watch.

If you understand how it works... then why do you say it doesn't matter. If there is out of your reach reason for not being able to watch something then it means comparing numbers with something that doesn't have the same drawbacks is an essentially flawed comparison.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > The numbers are universally very low.

> The number of people posting on these forums is also universally very low. Which was the entire initial point.

 

But those two numbers are not in competition.

 

>One more time: saying that the viewers of the streams are too few doesn't remove the fact that those that voted on the poll are also very few, in fact many magnitudes fewer.

 

Obviously.

 

The only point I've ever made is that the numbers viewing the stream are irrelevant, and thier interest in those streams do nothing to indicate that resources should be allocated in the direction of those streams.

 

>Although the numbers of those that voted is abysmally low, some consider it significant and "representative of the playerbase",

 

Who?

 

>while a much larger number like the stream viewers is passed as "nothing" and "insignificant".

 

Obviously.

 

>Why is the weight of 668 voting on a forum poll more important than 5000 watching a stream, or 190k having accounts on gw2efficiency or any other metric that gets significantly higher numbers than any forum poll.

 

It's not so much "weight" as "context." The poll is obviously not a representative sampling, but it is *interesting* that in a place that should skew heavily in favor of raiders, a significant number of those who *answer* the poll indicate that easy mode is a good idea. It would be like if you went to the party convention for [insert party here] and a majority of their members expressed positive interest in [insert wedge issue typically considered more the other party's thing]. But as I've said repeatedly, more data is needed.

 

>If you understand how it works... then why do you say it doesn't matter. If there is out of your reach reason for not being able to watch something then it means comparing numbers with something that doesn't have the same drawbacks is an essentially flawed comparison.

 

I'm just talking about the number of people who actually watch these types of gameplay. Your quote in question was "Well the elites bring lots of people to a game by providing streams and videos. The elites also provide builds and tactics that allow even bad players to complete content. So there IS lots of benefit in catering to the "elites" in a game."

 

My point in response was that the number of people who watch streams of "elites" are an insignificant fraction of the people who play the game, and therefore specifically coddling this audience with fancy content and rewards would, by any reasonable measure, be a poor allocation of resources. Regardless of *why* few people watch streams of "elites" playing, the fact still remains that few do, so why should *anyone* care?

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

>> Although the numbers of those that voted is abysmally low, some consider it significant and "representative of the playerbase",

> Who?

Lonami (the poll creator) and Blaeys back on page 51 brought the numbers of this thread to mean something important, there wasn't much discussion about the poll results up to that point. There were more earlier but I'm not gonna search for all of them now, too much work. There are also others like Astralporing that point out how data, for example from gw2efficiency, is biased, while at the same time take data from a poll like this (which is also heavily biased AND has a tiny sample) as something statistically important.

 

> The poll is obviously not a representative sampling, but it is interesting that in a place that should skew heavily in favor of raiders, a significant number of those who answer the poll indicate that easy mode is a good idea.

I'd be more interested to know out of those that voted, how many are Raiders (regardless of their vote). You know, to prove how "heavily" this forum leans on Raiding. Also, you should keep in mind that the poll was posted in General and not on this sub-forum, which means a part of it, before it was moved, wasn't influenced by raiders at all.

 

> My point in response was that the number of people who watch streams of "elites" are an insignificant fraction of the people who play the game, and therefore specifically coddling this audience with fancy content and rewards would, by any reasonable measure, be a poor allocation of resources. Regardless of *why* few people watch streams of "elites" playing, the fact still remains that few do, so why should *anyone* care?

 

Let's make a proper comparison then. How many people watch -gameplay- of none-elite content?

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > Oh, i know those aren't all that comparable and that stream numbers will always be lower. Still, 5k _is_ peanuts.

>

> And yet we have a forum poll with 668 votes that some consider "significant" and "the community has spoken"

The only "significant" think about that poll is that pro-raid option didn't win by overwhelming amount (which is kind of surprising), but that's still more like curiosity than any serious info. I generally only refer to that poll if someone else brings it up first.

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> I'm not comparing them, I point out that calling 5k players watching a stream "peanuts" means the 668 that voted on this poll are also "peanuts" no matter what they voted for. If 5k people watching a stream is an insignificant number to show how important streamers are to the game, then the result of 668 people voting is also completely insignificant.

Oh, i agree. But then again it's usually _pro-raid_ side that brings that poll up.

 

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> I also think the poll will always point more towards "we need an easy mode" because the standard mindset generally is "I cant do this and/or I want that reward".

On the other hand, forums are in general a medium where hardcore players will be massively overrepresented. remember that lotro case where over 50% of forum community represented less than 10% of game community? That wasn't specific to that game, it's a more general trend.

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Let's make a proper comparison then. How many people watch -gameplay- of none-elite content?

Considering that people interested in more casual gameplay do not generally watch streams, it's completely irelevant. Streamers won't get those people interested in the game. You'd need other media and types of advertising for that.

 

Casual gameplay is in general not likely to make for an interesting streaming. Low viewership numbers for that content doesn't mean that people aren't interested in it however. Merely that you'd need to search for those people elsewhere.