Analytics should not drive the direction of the game... - Page 5 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Fractals/Dungeons/Strike Missions/Raids

Analytics should not drive the direction of the game...

1235>

Comments

  • @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    Which is beside the point, by the way. Point being that the "analytics data" tells us that the person is visiting the zone, but it's not necessarily telling us why.

    According to those that claim an extensive knowledge of analytics it does tell us why. There were about 3 pages in this topic discussing it, but were deleted when the topic was moved to the Raid sub forum. For some reason discussing whether analytics can tell us "why" a player is visiting a zone and if they find it enjoyable there, was deemed off topic in a thread about analytics.

    as was linked earlier.

    https://www.datanami.com/2019/08/29/data-analytics-streamlines-gaming-industry-heres-how/

    "Enhancing Game Design
    Data analytics also helps gaming companies boost game design. Building interactive and complex scenarios for games requires a large stock of creativity, but it also needs a proper understanding of what works well for the audience. Here’s where data analytics can lend a helping hand.

    For instance, analytics helps companies detect problematic gameplay moments for users. Indeed, data can show that some levels might be too dull, some might be too challenging, and some might simply contain bugs that don’t let users move forward.
    ...

    There is nothing there on subject of enjoyment in content but it's a good try :)

    Your incorrect, I would read it again.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    Which is beside the point, by the way. Point being that the "analytics data" tells us that the person is visiting the zone, but it's not necessarily telling us why.

    According to those that claim an extensive knowledge of analytics it does tell us why. There were about 3 pages in this topic discussing it, but were deleted when the topic was moved to the Raid sub forum. For some reason discussing whether analytics can tell us "why" a player is visiting a zone and if they find it enjoyable there, was deemed off topic in a thread about analytics.

    as was linked earlier.

    https://www.datanami.com/2019/08/29/data-analytics-streamlines-gaming-industry-heres-how/

    "Enhancing Game Design
    Data analytics also helps gaming companies boost game design. Building interactive and complex scenarios for games requires a large stock of creativity, but it also needs a proper understanding of what works well for the audience. Here’s where data analytics can lend a helping hand.

    For instance, analytics helps companies detect problematic gameplay moments for users. Indeed, data can show that some levels might be too dull, some might be too challenging, and some might simply contain bugs that don’t let users move forward.
    ...

    There is nothing there on subject of enjoyment in content but it's a good try :)

    Your incorrect, I would read it again.

    OK read it again until you figure it out. I did a search for the word enjoyment and couldn't find it in what you posted so if you'd please post where you found that analytics show player enjoyment with content.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    While I agree that it's ridiculous to assume non have raided, their have been lots of people who have made suggestions or comments which show they don't really know how raiding works ingame.

    They either have preconceived notions from other games or the fora.

    So to say they know what their talking about is an giant overstatement.

    Well, you're right - not everyone (on both sides) knows what they're talking about. That's not the reason however to claim that "people who are arguing that raiding is too hard have never actually tried raiding", when in fact many did try it, and a significant number went way beyond "just trying".

    If that were the case then why are people in the Aerodome saying its too easy.

    Massive discrepancies between skill tiers are very much a thing in GW2. The same content can be prohibitively difficult for one, but laughably easy to another. In fact, that's one of the main problems that both balance and design teams have to face, and one of the core issues of this game.

    If the majority of raiders were simply failing to kill bosses ANET would clearly nerf raids (which is why Candy Crush scenario can't apply to guild wars).

    The majority of raiders are, by definition, the people that did not fail to kill bosses. Notice, though, that they are not a majority of players that did attemtp raids. Notice also, that the raid population is so small that Anet does not think putting more resources into them is justifiable.

    But as it turns out the raiders sitting AFK on the Aerodome do get past this barrier you can't get past.

    Why do you mistakenly think (again) that i did not get past that barrier? I just straight out told you that your assumption was wrong, didn't I.

    You ever just thought you're not actually good at the game? Or maybe your group is not good at the game?

    No, why would i?

    There being actual mass of people waiting in the aerodome

    You mean, like 50 (the Aerodrome instance cap)? That mass of people?

    and a lot of people actually having legendary armor means your significant number that went beyond "just trying" is actually insignificant.

    I do have envoy armor as well. Glad you think that makes me significant.

    So, you were saying?

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    Which is beside the point, by the way. Point being that the "analytics data" tells us that the person is visiting the zone, but it's not necessarily telling us why.

    According to those that claim an extensive knowledge of analytics it does tell us why. There were about 3 pages in this topic discussing it, but were deleted when the topic was moved to the Raid sub forum. For some reason discussing whether analytics can tell us "why" a player is visiting a zone and if they find it enjoyable there, was deemed off topic in a thread about analytics.

    as was linked earlier.

    https://www.datanami.com/2019/08/29/data-analytics-streamlines-gaming-industry-heres-how/

    "Enhancing Game Design
    Data analytics also helps gaming companies boost game design. Building interactive and complex scenarios for games requires a large stock of creativity, but it also needs a proper understanding of what works well for the audience. Here’s where data analytics can lend a helping hand.

    For instance, analytics helps companies detect problematic gameplay moments for users. Indeed, data can show that some levels might be too dull, some might be too challenging, and some might simply contain bugs that don’t let users move forward.
    ...

    There is nothing there on subject of enjoyment in content but it's a good try :)

    Your incorrect, I would read it again.

    OK read it again until you figure it out. I did a search for the word enjoyment and couldn't find it in what you posted so if you'd please post where you found that analytics show player enjoyment with content.

    lol i think you may have to apply a little bit of critical thinking, there is more to our language than the word 'enjoyment'

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Aridon.8362 Sorry, you just flushed your entire argument down the toilet when blaming the players for the devs design choices.

  • Jheuloh.4109Jheuloh.4109 Member ✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    Massive discrepancies between skill tiers are very much a thing in GW2. The same content can be prohibitively difficult for one, but laughably easy to another. In fact, that's one of the main problems that both balance and design teams have to face, and one of the core issues of this game.

    My take on this is that Gw2 has a lot of fine print on its traits and abilities. Nowhere near as much as there could be (Gw1 veterans laugh at Gw2's relative simplicity), but for someone who doesn't immediately "get" the way things are supposed to go together I can appreciate it being prohibitively complex. Some fresh faced player is having to pour through the fine details of 45 traits per class, and then 5 weapon skills & the other 5 skills.

    A grand total of 55 things to understand with an extremely high probability of "Wait, my build actually sucks?" after spending potentially hours on it.

    Were I able to adjust these things I would think to heavily simplify traits. Cut the "Pick 3 of 9" aspect entirely to make it so that all a player needs to do is just have the trait line. Also label their role on the end like "Tactics [Support]", "Beast Mastery [Tanking]", "Illusions [Debuffs]" and adjust functionality to be more strongly focused on the listed role.

    For abilities and the actual combat, Gw2 makes itself out to be like a typical MMO where combat works best where you stay planted in 1 spot until the game tells you to move. In practice I would describe Gw2 fights as having more in common with shooters of all things. It behooves you to stay mobile at all times. Except for if you have a channeled ability, and the game isn't consistent about whether you can move while channeling abilities or not. Plus, it's easy to cancel a channeled ability on accident through fat-fingering or just not realizing that it even can be cancelled.

    People who like the high mobility play-style Gw2 promotes will gravitate to it naturally. People who aren't drawn to high mobility have no real alternatives.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:
    Which is beside the point, by the way. Point being that the "analytics data" tells us that the person is visiting the zone, but it's not necessarily telling us why.

    According to those that claim an extensive knowledge of analytics it does tell us why. There were about 3 pages in this topic discussing it, but were deleted when the topic was moved to the Raid sub forum. For some reason discussing whether analytics can tell us "why" a player is visiting a zone and if they find it enjoyable there, was deemed off topic in a thread about analytics.

    as was linked earlier.

    https://www.datanami.com/2019/08/29/data-analytics-streamlines-gaming-industry-heres-how/

    "Enhancing Game Design
    Data analytics also helps gaming companies boost game design. Building interactive and complex scenarios for games requires a large stock of creativity, but it also needs a proper understanding of what works well for the audience. Here’s where data analytics can lend a helping hand.

    For instance, analytics helps companies detect problematic gameplay moments for users. Indeed, data can show that some levels might be too dull, some might be too challenging, and some might simply contain bugs that don’t let users move forward.
    ...

    There is nothing there on subject of enjoyment in content but it's a good try :)

    Your incorrect, I would read it again.

    OK read it again until you figure it out. I did a search for the word enjoyment and couldn't find it in what you posted so if you'd please post where you found that analytics show player enjoyment with content.

    lol i think you may have to apply a little bit of critical thinking, there is more to our language than the word 'enjoyment'

    Care to explain where in that link of yours it explain why a player enjoys some piece of content over some other? Please be specific.

    For instance, analytics helps companies detect problematic gameplay moments for users. Indeed, data can show that some levels might be too dull, some might be too challenging, and some might simply contain bugs that don’t let users move forward.

    This part tells us which part of the game users play, not why. It doesn't tell us if the player playing it enjoys it or runs for the rewards. "Being too dull, being too challenging, having bugs" doesn't tell us why the player plays content and which content they find more enjoyable. It only tells us why some content isn't being played. The rest of that link is about revenue. Maybe you have another link in mind because that one isn't really working.

    You might need to read this:
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/317/how-to-give-good-feedback
    and provide better feedback next time.

  • Aridon.8362Aridon.8362 Member ✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Fueki.4753 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:
    If that were the case then why are people in the Aerodome saying its too easy.

    Mad top percentage people exist in every game.

    If the majority of raiders were simply failing to kill bosses ANET would clearly nerf raids.

    Arenanet once has stated that they want raids only to be beaten by few top percentage players, so they likely won't nerf them for accessibility.

    But as it turns out the raiders sitting AFK on the Aerodome do get past this barrier you can't get past.

    Have you ever thought that the people afki'ng in the Aerodrome might not all be raiders?

    There being actual people waiting in the aerodome and a lot of people actually having legendary armor means your significant number that went beyond "just trying" is actually insignificant.

    I'm pretty certain the number of people in the Aerodrome (who, as mentioned above, might not all be raiders) and the ones wearing legendary raid armour is pretty insignificant in comparison to the total number of players.

    Right, because not all players want to raid to begin with, it's not for everyone. Also people in the Aerodome are raiders. You can ask them for yourself individually (I can tell you because that's something I did personally).

    You asked every person in a given aerodrome instance individually? wow that's some serious dedication!

    I get bored while waiting.

  • Aridon.8362Aridon.8362 Member ✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    While I agree that it's ridiculous to assume non have raided, their have been lots of people who have made suggestions or comments which show they don't really know how raiding works ingame.

    They either have preconceived notions from other games or the fora.

    So to say they know what their talking about is an giant overstatement.

    Well, you're right - not everyone (on both sides) knows what they're talking about. That's not the reason however to claim that "people who are arguing that raiding is too hard have never actually tried raiding", when in fact many did try it, and a significant number went way beyond "just trying".

    If that were the case then why are people in the Aerodome saying its too easy.

    Massive discrepancies between skill tiers are very much a thing in GW2. The same content can be prohibitively difficult for one, but laughably easy to another. In fact, that's one of the main problems that both balance and design teams have to face, and one of the core issues of this game.

    If the majority of raiders were simply failing to kill bosses ANET would clearly nerf raids (which is why Candy Crush scenario can't apply to guild wars).

    The majority of raiders are, by definition, the people that did not fail to kill bosses. Notice, though, that they are not a majority of players that did attemtp raids. Notice also, that the raid population is so small that Anet does not think putting more resources into them is justifiable.

    But as it turns out the raiders sitting AFK on the Aerodome do get past this barrier you can't get past.

    Why do you mistakenly think (again) that i did not get past that barrier? I just straight out told you that your assumption was wrong, didn't I.

    You ever just thought you're not actually good at the game? Or maybe your group is not good at the game?

    No, why would i?

    There being actual mass of people waiting in the aerodome

    You mean, like 50 (the Aerodrome instance cap)? That mass of people?

    and a lot of people actually having legendary armor means your significant number that went beyond "just trying" is actually insignificant.

    I do have envoy armor as well. Glad you think that makes me significant.

    So, you were saying?

    I don't believe you actually have the envoy armor.

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    While I agree that it's ridiculous to assume non have raided, their have been lots of people who have made suggestions or comments which show they don't really know how raiding works ingame.

    They either have preconceived notions from other games or the fora.

    So to say they know what their talking about is an giant overstatement.

    Well, you're right - not everyone (on both sides) knows what they're talking about. That's not the reason however to claim that "people who are arguing that raiding is too hard have never actually tried raiding", when in fact many did try it, and a significant number went way beyond "just trying".

    If that were the case then why are people in the Aerodome saying its too easy.

    Massive discrepancies between skill tiers are very much a thing in GW2. The same content can be prohibitively difficult for one, but laughably easy to another. In fact, that's one of the main problems that both balance and design teams have to face, and one of the core issues of this game.

    If the majority of raiders were simply failing to kill bosses ANET would clearly nerf raids (which is why Candy Crush scenario can't apply to guild wars).

    The majority of raiders are, by definition, the people that did not fail to kill bosses. Notice, though, that they are not a majority of players that did attemtp raids. Notice also, that the raid population is so small that Anet does not think putting more resources into them is justifiable.

    But as it turns out the raiders sitting AFK on the Aerodome do get past this barrier you can't get past.

    Why do you mistakenly think (again) that i did not get past that barrier? I just straight out told you that your assumption was wrong, didn't I.

    You ever just thought you're not actually good at the game? Or maybe your group is not good at the game?

    No, why would i?

    There being actual mass of people waiting in the aerodome

    You mean, like 50 (the Aerodrome instance cap)? That mass of people?

    and a lot of people actually having legendary armor means your significant number that went beyond "just trying" is actually insignificant.

    I do have envoy armor as well. Glad you think that makes me significant.

    So, you were saying?

    I don't believe you actually have the envoy armor.

    Honestly it wouldn't matter if they didn't. but it's really bad sport to assume someone is lying when you have no proof.

  • Aridon.8362Aridon.8362 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    While I agree that it's ridiculous to assume non have raided, their have been lots of people who have made suggestions or comments which show they don't really know how raiding works ingame.

    They either have preconceived notions from other games or the fora.

    So to say they know what their talking about is an giant overstatement.

    Well, you're right - not everyone (on both sides) knows what they're talking about. That's not the reason however to claim that "people who are arguing that raiding is too hard have never actually tried raiding", when in fact many did try it, and a significant number went way beyond "just trying".

    If that were the case then why are people in the Aerodome saying its too easy.

    Massive discrepancies between skill tiers are very much a thing in GW2. The same content can be prohibitively difficult for one, but laughably easy to another. In fact, that's one of the main problems that both balance and design teams have to face, and one of the core issues of this game.

    If the majority of raiders were simply failing to kill bosses ANET would clearly nerf raids (which is why Candy Crush scenario can't apply to guild wars).

    The majority of raiders are, by definition, the people that did not fail to kill bosses. Notice, though, that they are not a majority of players that did attemtp raids. Notice also, that the raid population is so small that Anet does not think putting more resources into them is justifiable.

    But as it turns out the raiders sitting AFK on the Aerodome do get past this barrier you can't get past.

    Why do you mistakenly think (again) that i did not get past that barrier? I just straight out told you that your assumption was wrong, didn't I.

    You ever just thought you're not actually good at the game? Or maybe your group is not good at the game?

    No, why would i?

    There being actual mass of people waiting in the aerodome

    You mean, like 50 (the Aerodrome instance cap)? That mass of people?

    and a lot of people actually having legendary armor means your significant number that went beyond "just trying" is actually insignificant.

    I do have envoy armor as well. Glad you think that makes me significant.

    So, you were saying?

    I don't believe you actually have the envoy armor.

    Honestly it wouldn't matter if they didn't. but it's really bad sport to assume someone is lying when you have no proof.

    He's/she's "tried" raiding and claimed to ragequit them for being too hard and somehow magically completed the collection that takes weeks to get. Wings 1,2, and 3, gimme a break, if he had actually beaten them he/she wouldn't be saying or claiming any of the points he/she stands by. Honestly I don't even care anymore about the game in general. After getting 74 insights and 12 divinations I'm actually getting bored of raids, and subsequently the game itself again. The dopamine just isn't the same.

    Also it's ANETs game if they do implement an easy mode and they feel that's their solution I'll be disappointed but that's all. I also don't expect much out of people who say it's difficult. Just look at the latest story, you even have people leaving public 10 man's on the last boss and dying to it when he's super easy if you just follow the instructions on the screen. I actually had to 5 man it because people just left, pugs couldn't follow simple instructions and they kept dying on the preevent. ANET catered to this community of "dust bunnies who have never experienced mind blowing war" and now it's backfiring.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Aridon.8362Aridon.8362 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    That's because you don't actually think like a game designer you only think about what brings in the most money. There isn't a problem to begin with, not with raiding not with money, not with content, all I said was that I thought strikes being implemented due to analytics is a bad idea, and people lost their minds. Everyone acts like there's a problem when there isn't people are just forming them out of thin air. But that's the kind of people ANET attracts with this game.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    That's because you don't actually think like a game designer you only think about what brings in the most money.

    What I said has nothing to do with the difference between how a game designer things vs. someone that wants to make money. It has EVERYTHING to do with the difference between quantitative based decision making and not. You aren't even making reasonable comparisons here; the people that design the games are not doing this in a bubble; they ALSO have to work within the parameters of the fact that they work (and want to stay employed) by creating the things that the people who think about the money direct them to do.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Aridon.8362Aridon.8362 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    That's because you don't actually think like a game designer you only think about what brings in the most money.

    What I said has nothing to do with the difference between how a game designer things vs. someone that wants to make money.

    In your last statement obviously not in your posts definitely proved otherwise. Your opinions are hands down from someone who would love to make profiteering a maximum as possible. You don't care about quality you only care about quantity.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    That's because you don't actually think like a game designer you only think about what brings in the most money.

    What I said has nothing to do with the difference between how a game designer things vs. someone that wants to make money.

    In your last statement obviously not in your posts definitely proved otherwise. Your opinions are hands down from someone who would love to make profiteering a maximum as possible. You don't care about quality you only care about quantity.

    That doesn't change the truth of what I said. What you believe me to care about is irrelevant to the discussion. The only reason you would deflect to guessing what I care about is because the substance of what you are saying is weak to begin with and you can't warp your head around the things I'm telling you. I suggest you get back on track with things that are relevant to your thread.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Aridon.8362Aridon.8362 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    That's because you don't actually think like a game designer you only think about what brings in the most money.

    What I said has nothing to do with the difference between how a game designer things vs. someone that wants to make money.

    In your last statement obviously not in your posts definitely proved otherwise. Your opinions are hands down from someone who would love to make profiteering a maximum as possible. You don't care about quality you only care about quantity.

    That doesn't change the truth of what I said. What you believe me to care about is irrelevant to the discussion. The only reason you would deflect to guessing what I care about is because the substance of what you are saying is weak to begin with and you can't warp your head around the things I'm telling you. I suggest you get back on track with things that are relevant to your thread.

    Did you literally just paint my generalization of your statements as an attack? Go and read the things you've written and tell me they're not aimed with the basis of making ANET more money. You are literally the ANTI-Fun police if it doesn't make ANET money you literally shrug any idea as a bad one. And when people call you out on it you resort to painting their statements as an insult to you.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    That's because you don't actually think like a game designer you only think about what brings in the most money.

    What I said has nothing to do with the difference between how a game designer things vs. someone that wants to make money.

    In your last statement obviously not in your posts definitely proved otherwise. Your opinions are hands down from someone who would love to make profiteering a maximum as possible. You don't care about quality you only care about quantity.

    That doesn't change the truth of what I said. What you believe me to care about is irrelevant to the discussion. The only reason you would deflect to guessing what I care about is because the substance of what you are saying is weak to begin with and you can't warp your head around the things I'm telling you. I suggest you get back on track with things that are relevant to your thread.

    Did you literally just paint my generalization of your statements as an attack?

    No ... in fact, it's an attempt to keep you on track with the topic of your own thread. I don't care what you think about me and it has no relevance to what we are talking about here.

    What I am saying has NOTHING to do with you believing I'm the anti-fun police. Again, that doesn't change the truth of what I'm saying. You're inability to deal with that shouldn't lead you label me in any way ... unless you simply can't understand the point and want to deflect from the discussion.

    Analytics aren't some way to eliminate fun from the game as you seem to imply. They ARE a way to ensure the game continues to exist so it can provide fun though.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Aridon.8362Aridon.8362 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    That's because you don't actually think like a game designer you only think about what brings in the most money.

    What I said has nothing to do with the difference between how a game designer things vs. someone that wants to make money.

    In your last statement obviously not in your posts definitely proved otherwise. Your opinions are hands down from someone who would love to make profiteering a maximum as possible. You don't care about quality you only care about quantity.

    That doesn't change the truth of what I said. What you believe me to care about is irrelevant to the discussion. The only reason you would deflect to guessing what I care about is because the substance of what you are saying is weak to begin with and you can't warp your head around the things I'm telling you. I suggest you get back on track with things that are relevant to your thread.

    Did you literally just paint my generalization of your statements as an attack?

    No ... in fact, it's an attempt to keep you on track with the topic of your own thread. I don't care what you think about me and it has no relevance to what we are talking about here.

    >

    If you didn't care you wouldn't respond. The same goes vice versa. Just make sure you keep yourself on track too. This thread was never about money or profits or whatever you brought into the conversation to begin with. And while you brought it up I simply decided to take it upon myself to point out the flaw in all of your arguments against the others trying to prove your correct but irrelevant input as being anything but useful to solving any of the problems people have.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    That's because you don't actually think like a game designer you only think about what brings in the most money.

    What I said has nothing to do with the difference between how a game designer things vs. someone that wants to make money.

    In your last statement obviously not in your posts definitely proved otherwise. Your opinions are hands down from someone who would love to make profiteering a maximum as possible. You don't care about quality you only care about quantity.

    That doesn't change the truth of what I said. What you believe me to care about is irrelevant to the discussion. The only reason you would deflect to guessing what I care about is because the substance of what you are saying is weak to begin with and you can't warp your head around the things I'm telling you. I suggest you get back on track with things that are relevant to your thread.

    Did you literally just paint my generalization of your statements as an attack?

    No ... in fact, it's an attempt to keep you on track with the topic of your own thread. I don't care what you think about me and it has no relevance to what we are talking about here.

    >

    If you didn't care you wouldn't respond. The same goes vice versa. Just make sure you keep yourself on track too. This thread was never about money or profits or whatever you brought into the conversation to begin with. And while you brought it up I simply decided to take it upon myself to point out the flaw in all of your arguments against the others trying to prove your correct but irrelevant input as being anything but useful to solving any of the problems people have.

    I didn't say I didn't care and nothing should have given you the indication to comment as such either ... stick to the topic. And to be clear, I'm more on track than you care to acknowledge. Analytics are important, they should be used, they don't kill 'fun' and are necessary to ensure the game can continue to provide that fun. There isn't a 'flaw' in that argument anywhere. Companies don't improve what they don't measure. If you think otherwise, your understanding about the importance of taking measures and analysis of those measures for a business is severely lacking. You should probably educate yourself on how important it is before continuing with the claim analytics shouldn't be used.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Aridon.8362Aridon.8362 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    That's because you don't actually think like a game designer you only think about what brings in the most money.

    What I said has nothing to do with the difference between how a game designer things vs. someone that wants to make money.

    In your last statement obviously not in your posts definitely proved otherwise. Your opinions are hands down from someone who would love to make profiteering a maximum as possible. You don't care about quality you only care about quantity.

    That doesn't change the truth of what I said. What you believe me to care about is irrelevant to the discussion. The only reason you would deflect to guessing what I care about is because the substance of what you are saying is weak to begin with and you can't warp your head around the things I'm telling you. I suggest you get back on track with things that are relevant to your thread.

    Did you literally just paint my generalization of your statements as an attack?

    No ... in fact, it's an attempt to keep you on track with the topic of your own thread. I don't care what you think about me and it has no relevance to what we are talking about here.

    >

    If you didn't care you wouldn't respond. The same goes vice versa. Just make sure you keep yourself on track too. This thread was never about money or profits or whatever you brought into the conversation to begin with. And while you brought it up I simply decided to take it upon myself to point out the flaw in all of your arguments against the others trying to prove your correct but irrelevant input as being anything but useful to solving any of the problems people have.

    I didn't say I didn't care and nothing should have given you the indication to comment as such either. And to be clear, I'm more on track than you care to acknowledge. Analytics are important, they should be used, they don't kill 'fun' and are necessary to ensure the game can continue to provide that fun. There isn't a 'flaw' in that argument anywhere. Companies don't improve what they don't measure. If you think otherwise, your understanding about the importance of taking measures and analysis of those measures for a business is severely lacking to the point where you should probably educate yourself before continuing with the claim analytics shouldn't be used.

    There is a flaw and I'm saying the flaw is you don't need analytics in order to make the game or any game more fun. At all. We're human beings capable of imagination and can certainly tell what's fun to do and what's not without relying on some graph. Your logic certainly applies to general products and businesses, but we're talking about games. You know, like basketball, chess, tag, blackjack.

    If a designer for anything took your approach at making a game you're not making it the people you're selling it to are.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    That's because you don't actually think like a game designer you only think about what brings in the most money.

    What I said has nothing to do with the difference between how a game designer things vs. someone that wants to make money.

    In your last statement obviously not in your posts definitely proved otherwise. Your opinions are hands down from someone who would love to make profiteering a maximum as possible. You don't care about quality you only care about quantity.

    That doesn't change the truth of what I said. What you believe me to care about is irrelevant to the discussion. The only reason you would deflect to guessing what I care about is because the substance of what you are saying is weak to begin with and you can't warp your head around the things I'm telling you. I suggest you get back on track with things that are relevant to your thread.

    Did you literally just paint my generalization of your statements as an attack?

    No ... in fact, it's an attempt to keep you on track with the topic of your own thread. I don't care what you think about me and it has no relevance to what we are talking about here.

    >

    If you didn't care you wouldn't respond. The same goes vice versa. Just make sure you keep yourself on track too. This thread was never about money or profits or whatever you brought into the conversation to begin with. And while you brought it up I simply decided to take it upon myself to point out the flaw in all of your arguments against the others trying to prove your correct but irrelevant input as being anything but useful to solving any of the problems people have.

    I didn't say I didn't care and nothing should have given you the indication to comment as such either. And to be clear, I'm more on track than you care to acknowledge. Analytics are important, they should be used, they don't kill 'fun' and are necessary to ensure the game can continue to provide that fun. There isn't a 'flaw' in that argument anywhere. Companies don't improve what they don't measure. If you think otherwise, your understanding about the importance of taking measures and analysis of those measures for a business is severely lacking to the point where you should probably educate yourself before continuing with the claim analytics shouldn't be used.

    There is a flaw and I'm saying the flaw is you don't need analytics in order to make the game or any game more fun. At all. We're human beings capable of imagination and can certainly tell what's fun to do and what's not without relying on some graph. Your logic certainly applies to general products and businesses, but we're talking about games. You know, like basketball, chess, tag, blackjack.

    Considering what is 'fun' is subjective, there isn't any evidence you can provide to make that claim. It's a big nothing statement as well. I suppose game companies could just get lucky and guess to make a game fun, but that's certainly NOT going to be more effective than actually measuring what people do to see what is fun to them.

    If analytically determining what people find fun in a game is flawed .... determining what they find fun by guessing has to be even more so.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Aridon.8362Aridon.8362 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    That's because you don't actually think like a game designer you only think about what brings in the most money.

    What I said has nothing to do with the difference between how a game designer things vs. someone that wants to make money.

    In your last statement obviously not in your posts definitely proved otherwise. Your opinions are hands down from someone who would love to make profiteering a maximum as possible. You don't care about quality you only care about quantity.

    That doesn't change the truth of what I said. What you believe me to care about is irrelevant to the discussion. The only reason you would deflect to guessing what I care about is because the substance of what you are saying is weak to begin with and you can't warp your head around the things I'm telling you. I suggest you get back on track with things that are relevant to your thread.

    Did you literally just paint my generalization of your statements as an attack?

    No ... in fact, it's an attempt to keep you on track with the topic of your own thread. I don't care what you think about me and it has no relevance to what we are talking about here.

    >

    If you didn't care you wouldn't respond. The same goes vice versa. Just make sure you keep yourself on track too. This thread was never about money or profits or whatever you brought into the conversation to begin with. And while you brought it up I simply decided to take it upon myself to point out the flaw in all of your arguments against the others trying to prove your correct but irrelevant input as being anything but useful to solving any of the problems people have.

    I didn't say I didn't care and nothing should have given you the indication to comment as such either. And to be clear, I'm more on track than you care to acknowledge. Analytics are important, they should be used, they don't kill 'fun' and are necessary to ensure the game can continue to provide that fun. There isn't a 'flaw' in that argument anywhere. Companies don't improve what they don't measure. If you think otherwise, your understanding about the importance of taking measures and analysis of those measures for a business is severely lacking to the point where you should probably educate yourself before continuing with the claim analytics shouldn't be used.

    There is a flaw and I'm saying the flaw is you don't need analytics in order to make the game or any game more fun. At all. We're human beings capable of imagination and can certainly tell what's fun to do and what's not without relying on some graph. Your logic certainly applies to general products and businesses, but we're talking about games. You know, like basketball, chess, tag, blackjack.

    Considering what is 'fun' is subjective, there isn't any evidence to that claim.

    And that kind of comment is why you should never be allowed to be the dungeon master in dungeons and dragons.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    That's because you don't actually think like a game designer you only think about what brings in the most money.

    What I said has nothing to do with the difference between how a game designer things vs. someone that wants to make money.

    In your last statement obviously not in your posts definitely proved otherwise. Your opinions are hands down from someone who would love to make profiteering a maximum as possible. You don't care about quality you only care about quantity.

    That doesn't change the truth of what I said. What you believe me to care about is irrelevant to the discussion. The only reason you would deflect to guessing what I care about is because the substance of what you are saying is weak to begin with and you can't warp your head around the things I'm telling you. I suggest you get back on track with things that are relevant to your thread.

    Did you literally just paint my generalization of your statements as an attack?

    No ... in fact, it's an attempt to keep you on track with the topic of your own thread. I don't care what you think about me and it has no relevance to what we are talking about here.

    >

    If you didn't care you wouldn't respond. The same goes vice versa. Just make sure you keep yourself on track too. This thread was never about money or profits or whatever you brought into the conversation to begin with. And while you brought it up I simply decided to take it upon myself to point out the flaw in all of your arguments against the others trying to prove your correct but irrelevant input as being anything but useful to solving any of the problems people have.

    I didn't say I didn't care and nothing should have given you the indication to comment as such either. And to be clear, I'm more on track than you care to acknowledge. Analytics are important, they should be used, they don't kill 'fun' and are necessary to ensure the game can continue to provide that fun. There isn't a 'flaw' in that argument anywhere. Companies don't improve what they don't measure. If you think otherwise, your understanding about the importance of taking measures and analysis of those measures for a business is severely lacking to the point where you should probably educate yourself before continuing with the claim analytics shouldn't be used.

    There is a flaw and I'm saying the flaw is you don't need analytics in order to make the game or any game more fun. At all. We're human beings capable of imagination and can certainly tell what's fun to do and what's not without relying on some graph. Your logic certainly applies to general products and businesses, but we're talking about games. You know, like basketball, chess, tag, blackjack.

    Considering what is 'fun' is subjective, there isn't any evidence to that claim.

    And that kind of comment is why you should never be allowed to be the dungeon master in dungeons and dragons.

    No problem ... my aspirations in life are a little higher than geeking out to D&D. it didn't take you long to go back to talking about me in order to ignore my points I'm making did it? That's OK ... I will just take that as an indication of how deep you actually thought about your claim.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Aridon.8362Aridon.8362 Member ✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I don't get this thread or it's purpose but I do know this:

    Whatever the attempt is to convince people (and Anet I presume) that analytics shouldn't be used to determine the direction of the game ... is a bad one and it didn't make sense from post #1. If there is something that was done 'right' in the game and it wasn't based on some metric or number to make that decision to do it ... this does NOT mean a metric or number doesn't exist that would have lead to the same decision. Given the correct metrics, there is NO reason analytical assessments should not drive the direction of the game. Even metrics that indirectly measure things that are strongly correlated to what we want to know are worth knowing.

    It's sad to see society depart from quantitative-based facts and evidence to simply conclude whatever they want to believe is correct. It hurts my Science.

    That's because you don't actually think like a game designer you only think about what brings in the most money.

    What I said has nothing to do with the difference between how a game designer things vs. someone that wants to make money.

    In your last statement obviously not in your posts definitely proved otherwise. Your opinions are hands down from someone who would love to make profiteering a maximum as possible. You don't care about quality you only care about quantity.

    That doesn't change the truth of what I said. What you believe me to care about is irrelevant to the discussion. The only reason you would deflect to guessing what I care about is because the substance of what you are saying is weak to begin with and you can't warp your head around the things I'm telling you. I suggest you get back on track with things that are relevant to your thread.

    Did you literally just paint my generalization of your statements as an attack?

    No ... in fact, it's an attempt to keep you on track with the topic of your own thread. I don't care what you think about me and it has no relevance to what we are talking about here.

    >

    If you didn't care you wouldn't respond. The same goes vice versa. Just make sure you keep yourself on track too. This thread was never about money or profits or whatever you brought into the conversation to begin with. And while you brought it up I simply decided to take it upon myself to point out the flaw in all of your arguments against the others trying to prove your correct but irrelevant input as being anything but useful to solving any of the problems people have.

    I didn't say I didn't care and nothing should have given you the indication to comment as such either. And to be clear, I'm more on track than you care to acknowledge. Analytics are important, they should be used, they don't kill 'fun' and are necessary to ensure the game can continue to provide that fun. There isn't a 'flaw' in that argument anywhere. Companies don't improve what they don't measure. If you think otherwise, your understanding about the importance of taking measures and analysis of those measures for a business is severely lacking to the point where you should probably educate yourself before continuing with the claim analytics shouldn't be used.

    There is a flaw and I'm saying the flaw is you don't need analytics in order to make the game or any game more fun. At all. We're human beings capable of imagination and can certainly tell what's fun to do and what's not without relying on some graph. Your logic certainly applies to general products and businesses, but we're talking about games. You know, like basketball, chess, tag, blackjack.

    Considering what is 'fun' is subjective, there isn't any evidence to that claim.

    And that kind of comment is why you should never be allowed to be the dungeon master in dungeons and dragons.

    No problem ... my aspirations in life are a little higher than geeking out to D&D. it didn't take you long to go back to talking about me instead of addressing my points did it?

    Considering you've talked about me A LOT your comment is an overreaction. Learn to take a chill pill after you realize that you're not actually an artistic human being.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 30, 2020

    @Aridon.8362 said:
    Considering you've talked about me A LOT your comment is an overreaction.

    Just waiting for you to get back to my points ... guess I will just repeat myself because I like to help:

    Considering what is 'fun' is subjective, there isn't any evidence you can provide to make that claim. It's a big nothing statement as well because if you aren't going to measure it, how can you claim not measuring and analyzing isn't needed for more fun? I suppose game companies could just get lucky and guess to make a game fun, but that's certainly NOT going to be more effective than actually measuring what people do to see what is fun to them.

    If analytically determining what people find fun in a game is flawed .... determining what they find fun by guessing has to be even more so. I mean, at this point you are literally saying, if you say it's more fun, it must be ... because we know you aren't going to measure it based on what you are claiming. That's just garbage science.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 1, 2020

    @Aridon.8362 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Aridon.8362 said:
    I don't believe you actually have the envoy armor.

    Honestly it wouldn't matter if they didn't. but it's really bad sport to assume someone is lying when you have no proof.

    He's/she's "tried" raiding and claimed to ragequit them for being too hard and somehow magically completed the collection that takes weeks to get. Wings 1,2, and 3, gimme a break, if he had actually beaten them he/she wouldn't be saying or claiming any of the points he/she stands by. Honestly I don't even care anymore about the game in general. After getting 74 insights and 12 divinations I'm actually getting bored of raids, and subsequently the game itself again. The dopamine just isn't the same.

    You can check me on killproof if you have any doubts, but currently it seems i have vastly more experience raiding in gw2 than you do. Even if i didn't touch raids for the last 2 years or so.

    So, good job acting like you were a person with experience explaining things to clueless noobs. You certainly showed me.[/sarcasm]

    Also, you might be mistaking me with someone else. I didn't "ragequit" them from being too hard. I stopped playing because i gained enough LI+LD for 3 sets of armor, and my group fell apart just at that point. I guess i could have pushed on in order to get LDs for the ring, but getting through the phase of creating and training a new static for the 6th or 7th time again was just way too much (and yet i'd still rather do that than try to fit into a group of "true raiders"). If i'll ever feel the need to get the ring, i guess i can still change my mind and just pug it, but i'd rather not if i can avoid it.

    Still, at least envoy heavy looks good (spike light and especially pineapple medium are so atrocious i still haven't actually finished making them).

    Mind you, all of that had not changed my mind on raids in the slightest. If anything, i feel that all the misgivings i had when raids were first announced here turned out to be not only 100% justified, but that also i wasn't worrying enough.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Amy of Darkness.5248 said:
    Ok no, actual artist (and homebrew GM) who is friends with artists here to tell ya that if you think artists don't also use stats/analytics to determine work focus and make important business decisions, then you've never spoken to a real live artist in your entire life. You insult artists by insinuating we don't understand business and basic science, it's disrespectful and ignorant of how the real world works just to make a petty dig at someone who doesn't agree with you.

    I can assure you that the most uncreative, unimaginative, boring person can still come up with a fun game because they also understand what is fun and what is not through studying and understanding human psychology and game design principles. Trying to discredit someone by calling them un-artistic is ridiculous.

    In regards to analytics and games, Mark Rosewater has literally hundreds of columns and podcasts on game design and he is NEVER shy to invoke metrics as one of their guiding lights. He might debate with people what the numbers mean, but he has never cast doubt on their importance or validity. I don't know a single good GM who doesn't take the time to discuss with their players what they liked and didn't like about previous game sessions, and keep a close eye on when players start to stack dice or sketch on the back of their character sheet.

    It's also possible to be wildly imaginative and creative but utterly unskilled in art and make terrible, boring games. In fact it is rather common as game design is often un-intuitive, as it requires us to identify which of our tastes are niche and which resonate with other people. Most people can make a game they'll enjoy, some will be able to make a game they and their close friends will enjoy, but to make a game that will appeal to millions of people you really have to understand people and that requires an understanding usually driven in part by metrics, just as much as a spark of inspiration and a gut creative feeling.

    I just watched a documentary on Darkest Dungeon and they went over how they had a bold and creative design that broke all the rules, but they also clearly mention how they studied the user data to figure out how to refine, improve and polish that experience in order to be the success that they are.

    It's possible to be an artist AND a bean-counter at the same time. EVERY artist just like every business endeavor will suffer financially if they fail to understand and capture what the audience desires, but we cannot conceivably ask every single individual who interacts with our work to tell us exactly what they want.

    Metrics are a compass, you follow the directions but not so rigidly you walk yourself off a cliff or into a lake. It offers you the right direction but acting foolishly with what that information tells you is at your own peril.

    I think the last thing you said is the most important here. Analytics are useful but also inherently flawed and should be looked at criticly. Their are lots of examples where valid data gives very wrong messages, but that doesn't make the data useless.

    @Obtena.7952 saying you have higher assertions then geeking over dnd is quite a nonsensical thing to say. It's like saying I have higher aspirations then play gw. And games aren't played for some weird aspiration most of the time.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 1, 2020

    @yann.1946 said:
    @Obtena.7952 saying you have higher assertions then geeking over dnd is quite a nonsensical thing to say.

    That's not true ... it makes lots of sense but that's neither here or there. We are discussing the topic in this thread, not what I aspire to and if that's not sensible to you.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • @yann.1946 said:
    I think the last thing you said is the most important here. Analytics are useful but also inherently flawed and should be looked at criticly. Their are lots of examples where valid data gives very wrong messages, but that doesn't make the data useless.

    I find it odd to say analytics are inherently flawed. That is like saying engineering is flawed because there are lots of buildings that have fallen down due to bad foundations. Analytics are a pretty well established science, when they give the wrong message it is due to flaws in how they are set up. Charts after all can give very wrong messages too if configured deceptively and improperly, but the presence of charts which are flawed does not mean that charts are inherently flawed.

    If you have a better tool in mind than analytics then by all means offer an example, but thus far no one can seem to come up with one. Analytics allow insight into what players are doing and how they are experiencing content. While data alone can be tricky to read because it doesn't give context and has to be followed up with non-analytical investigation, and bad overly narrow reporting can be created which ignores larger data trends, there are lots of fairly definitive insights one can gain which can then of course be added to data points gathered from non-analytical sources to try and create a definitive picture.

  • Sykper.6583Sykper.6583 Member ✭✭✭

    I'm going to have to disagree with the OP strictly because analytics aren't something to just disregard, they provide a more practical feedback about what happens in game in reality compared to typical vocal opinion expressed on the forum. What someone might say here such as 'SAB is a waste of time and isn't popular at all' can be proven or disproved based on participation metrics in SAB instances compared to both the open world and other festival events. If you get increased player time invested in SAB, and more players in instances, that at the very least proves SAB gets a lot of attention, and players are checking it out. Anytime a player is playing the game is not a waste of time for Anet on content.

    If I had to pry deeper, the OP is arguing that Analytics shouldn't be the end-all, be-all for decision making on content in the game. That Anet should consider even if the numbers aren't showing increased retention in Raids, WvW, certain Living Story maps, that one shouldn't just give up on them. I suppose it's inferred that Arenanet is very much morphing content constantly. Per example dungeons were dropped for fractals, Raids are all but dropped for Strikes, we had Living Story given up for Expansions, and now we are back to Living story, it's inconsistent. Having volatile content types means that Arenanet hasn't quite stuck the landing on what they want from GW2, and yes I realize it's been years but I think everyone here can see this in some manner.

    My reckoning is that the OP wants stability, despite the numbers. Stability implies Arenanet sticks the course on some things and stop dropping the content if the numbers say the retention is low. I think Raids are still a prospect that shouldn't just be ditched for Strikes outright, I think it's opportune to have another raid wing come out sooner than later now that strikes have gotten a foundation going with a dedicated hub. It's also opportune to reinvigorate raids by providing daily incentives to raid so that there's more reason for raiders who have cleared for the week to go back in, maybe bring some new folks in. It could be contrary to metrics / analytics (or maybe Anet has some weird numbers saying Raids are more popular and think they don't need updates? Again it's how they interpret it...) but arguably, I think there's something to be said for the constant swinging of content in this game. There's something to be said that they can't replicate how good the HoT maps are for open world, it's a lack of confidence in a direction unless the numbers finally show it.

    Analytics are important, but so is sticking to a path.

  • Shikaru.7618Shikaru.7618 Member ✭✭✭

    Data informed vs data driven should be the distinction anet should make. Analytics are part of the picture but shouldnt be the end all be all.

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Amy of Darkness.5248 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    I think the last thing you said is the most important here. Analytics are useful but also inherently flawed and should be looked at criticly. Their are lots of examples where valid data gives very wrong messages, but that doesn't make the data useless.

    I find it odd to say analytics are inherently flawed. That is like saying engineering is flawed because there are lots of buildings that have fallen down due to bad foundations. Analytics are a pretty well established science, when they give the wrong message it is due to flaws in how they are set up. Charts after all can give very wrong messages too if configured deceptively and improperly, but the presence of charts which are flawed does not mean that charts are inherently flawed.

    If you have a better tool in mind than analytics then by all means offer an example, but thus far no one can seem to come up with one. Analytics allow insight into what players are doing and how they are experiencing content. While data alone can be tricky to read because it doesn't give context and has to be followed up with non-analytical investigation, and bad overly narrow reporting can be created which ignores larger data trends, there are lots of fairly definitive insights one can gain which can then of course be added to data points gathered from non-analytical sources to try and create a definitive picture.

    Let's get this first out of the way, saying something is inherently flawed doesn't mean i think their is a better tool we have at our disposal.

    Its about realising the limits of what statistics can tell us. Like you said survivorsbias, selectionbias etc are real things which people should be mindful of. And you later mentioned that the raw data doesn't give context, which could cause all kinds of trouble.

    Let me be clear i'm absolutely for using analytics, but we should be mindful about its limitations. Wrong conclusions can be so easy to make without bad intent .
    You might find the book "How Not to be wrong: the power of mathematical thinking" interesting, as it shows some examples on what i was talking about.

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2, 2020

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Amy of Darkness.5248 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    I think the last thing you said is the most important here. Analytics are useful but also inherently flawed and should be looked at criticly. Their are lots of examples where valid data gives very wrong messages, but that doesn't make the data useless.

    I find it odd to say analytics are inherently flawed. That is like saying engineering is flawed because there are lots of buildings that have fallen down due to bad foundations. Analytics are a pretty well established science, when they give the wrong message it is due to flaws in how they are set up. Charts after all can give very wrong messages too if configured deceptively and improperly, but the presence of charts which are flawed does not mean that charts are inherently flawed.

    If you have a better tool in mind than analytics then by all means offer an example, but thus far no one can seem to come up with one. Analytics allow insight into what players are doing and how they are experiencing content. While data alone can be tricky to read because it doesn't give context and has to be followed up with non-analytical investigation, and bad overly narrow reporting can be created which ignores larger data trends, there are lots of fairly definitive insights one can gain which can then of course be added to data points gathered from non-analytical sources to try and create a definitive picture.

    Let's get this first out of the way, saying something is inherently flawed doesn't mean i think their is a better tool we have at our disposal.

    Its about realising the limits of what statistics can tell us. Like you said survivorsbias, selectionbias etc are real things which people should be mindful of. And you later mentioned that the raw data doesn't give context, which could cause all kinds of trouble.

    Let me be clear i'm absolutely for using analytics, but we should be mindful about its limitations. Wrong conclusions can be so easy to make without bad intent .
    You might find the book "How Not to be wrong: the power of mathematical thinking" interesting, as it shows some examples on what i was talking about.

    Totally agree. Analytics data requires professional level tools and expertise to consume and is often outsourced or assigned to dedicated contractors who specialise in its use. People grab on to the world 'analytics' and because they don't understand the science behind it they look at it from their own viewpoint where they cant understand how the data correlation is used, and assume it cant possibly work. Any science or tool can fail if its used incorrectly which is perfectly correct and is not an argument for not using a tool. A chainsaw in the hands of tree surgeon is a good tool, give a 5 year old that chainsaw and you will get carnage.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @Amy of Darkness.5248 said:

    @yann.1946 said:
    I think the last thing you said is the most important here. Analytics are useful but also inherently flawed and should be looked at criticly. Their are lots of examples where valid data gives very wrong messages, but that doesn't make the data useless.

    I find it odd to say analytics are inherently flawed. That is like saying engineering is flawed because there are lots of buildings that have fallen down due to bad foundations. Analytics are a pretty well established science, when they give the wrong message it is due to flaws in how they are set up. Charts after all can give very wrong messages too if configured deceptively and improperly, but the presence of charts which are flawed does not mean that charts are inherently flawed.

    If you have a better tool in mind than analytics then by all means offer an example, but thus far no one can seem to come up with one. Analytics allow insight into what players are doing and how they are experiencing content. While data alone can be tricky to read because it doesn't give context and has to be followed up with non-analytical investigation, and bad overly narrow reporting can be created which ignores larger data trends, there are lots of fairly definitive insights one can gain which can then of course be added to data points gathered from non-analytical sources to try and create a definitive picture.

    Let's get this first out of the way, saying something is inherently flawed doesn't mean i think their is a better tool we have at our disposal.

    Its about realising the limits of what statistics can tell us. Like you said survivorsbias, selectionbias etc are real things which people should be mindful of. And you later mentioned that the raw data doesn't give context, which could cause all kinds of trouble.

    Let me be clear i'm absolutely for using analytics, but we should be mindful about its limitations. Wrong conclusions can be so easy to make without bad intent .
    You might find the book "How Not to be wrong: the power of mathematical thinking" interesting, as it shows some examples on what i was talking about.

    Totally agree. Analytics data requires professional level tools and expertise to consume and is often outsourced or assigned to dedicated contractors who specialise in its use. People grab on to the world 'analytics' and because they don't understand the science behind it they look at it from their own viewpoint where they cant understand how the data correlation is used, and assume it cant possibly work. Any science or tool can fail if its used incorrectly which is perfectly correct and is not an argument for not using a tool. A chainsaw in the hands of tree surgeon is a good tool, give a 5 year old that chainsaw and you will get carnage.

    True, but the reverse is also true, some people seem think you can get all the information could possibly want from analytics. Which is also false.

    It's honestly a really interesting and complicated subject. :)

  • Sykper.6583Sykper.6583 Member ✭✭✭

    Ah, I think we are getting to the crux of the matter really now. I think where it comes down to is how much Arenanet is using the analytics to steer the game. In my opinion Arenanet have a ways to go, in that I sense they are using the numbers to create content for the general population far more than any other kinds of content. I think the only thing recently progressive that's not been the norm for Arenanet is the Dev CMC efforts on PvP balancing over the past few patches, and I imagine they are steering that content because it's plausible getting those game-modes more attention.

    This is why we've got this thread at the moment, it's a jab at the interpretation of the numbers, and I can't disagree with it. Hell not even raids, I'm exceedingly surprised the SAB festival which my impression is that it is RIPE for expansion since it's so well-received after years of nothing really happening. Guild Missions are the silent content crying in the corner at the moment as well. Either way, I think this goes back to the headline of the thread.

    "I disagree with how you are interpreting the numbers, bring more attention to niche content even if the numbers might say its a bad move."

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2020

    @Sykper.6583 said:
    Ah, I think we are getting to the crux of the matter really now. I think where it comes down to is how much Arenanet is using the analytics to steer the game. In my opinion Arenanet have a ways to go, in that I sense they are using the numbers to create content for the general population far more than any other kinds of content. I think the only thing recently progressive that's not been the norm for Arenanet is the Dev CMC efforts on PvP balancing over the past few patches, and I imagine they are steering that content because it's plausible getting those game-modes more attention.

    This is why we've got this thread at the moment, it's a jab at the interpretation of the numbers, and I can't disagree with it. Hell not even raids, I'm exceedingly surprised the SAB festival which my impression is that it is RIPE for expansion since it's so well-received after years of nothing really happening. Guild Missions are the silent content crying in the corner at the moment as well. Either way, I think this goes back to the headline of the thread.

    "I disagree with how you are interpreting the numbers, bring more attention to niche content even if the numbers might say its a bad move."

    op is grabbing on to a label, in this case 'analytics'. If the thread title was 'data about how people play and enjoy the game should not drive the direction of the game..' then the answer is obvious. Analytics produces data at the end of the day, and design decisions needs data. We don't know how the data is analysed so we have no idea if it is being used well or not, smart dev shops use it well, and Anet devs are pretty smart, so i would assume this.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sykper.6583 said:
    This is why we've got this thread at the moment, it's a jab at the interpretation of the numbers, and I can't disagree with it. Hell not even raids, I'm exceedingly surprised the SAB festival which my impression is that it is RIPE for expansion since it's so well-received after years of nothing really happening. Guild Missions are the silent content crying in the corner at the moment as well. Either way, I think this goes back to the headline of the thread.

    There is a very easy answer for that, the developers of that content no longer work for Arenanet or moved to different departments, this is true for Raids, Fractals, SAB and Guild Missions. So they have to decide whether to invest time and effort teaching their current workforce how to "do it properly", or instead focus their attention elsewhere, or something entirely new. It's very common in complex projects like video games to be far easier to create something new, rather than update something old.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 4, 2020

    @yann.1946 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    Totally agree. Analytics data requires professional level tools and expertise to consume and is often outsourced or assigned to dedicated contractors who specialise in its use. People grab on to the world 'analytics' and because they don't understand the science behind it they look at it from their own viewpoint where they cant understand how the data correlation is used, and assume it cant possibly work. Any science or tool can fail if its used incorrectly which is perfectly correct and is not an argument for not using a tool. A chainsaw in the hands of tree surgeon is a good tool, give a 5 year old that chainsaw and you will get carnage.

    True, but the reverse is also true, some people seem think you can get all the information could possibly want from analytics. Which is also false.

    It's honestly a really interesting and complicated subject. :)

    That's true. The thing that is the most important is to remember, that analytics can help you gather the data, it can even help you interpret the data, but it will never give you the whole picture. There are questions it can't answer, and - quite often - there are answers it could give, but won't, because you haven't asked the right question. That's why, while when used right, it is an immense help, but you must always remember that it's also very easy to use it badly, and so must always be used with caution.

    In the end, it is just a tool - and so, the results it can achieve will always be limited by the skill of those that use it.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 8, 2020

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    Totally agree. Analytics data requires professional level tools and expertise to consume and is often outsourced or assigned to dedicated contractors who specialise in its use. People grab on to the world 'analytics' and because they don't understand the science behind it they look at it from their own viewpoint where they cant understand how the data correlation is used, and assume it cant possibly work. Any science or tool can fail if its used incorrectly which is perfectly correct and is not an argument for not using a tool. A chainsaw in the hands of tree surgeon is a good tool, give a 5 year old that chainsaw and you will get carnage.

    True, but the reverse is also true, some people seem think you can get all the information could possibly want from analytics. Which is also false.

    It's honestly a really interesting and complicated subject. :)

    That's true. The thing that is the most important is to remember, that analytics can help you gather the data, it can even help you interpret the data, but it will never give you the whole picture. There are questions it can't answer, and - quite often - there are answers it could give, but won't, because you haven't asked the right question. That's why, while when used right, it is an immense help, but you must always remember that it's also very easy to use it badly, and so must always be used with caution.

    In the end, it is just a tool - and so, the results it can achieve will always be limited by the skill of those that use it.

    Yeah that's it. Skilled users don't need to use caution, they have the skills to use the tools and understand the data which is then used to drive automated reports that they design to provide the valuable views required by the client to make good decisions.

    Its a powerful accurate tool in the right hands, and since no development house is going to argue otherwise, the thread is pretty moot.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    Totally agree. Analytics data requires professional level tools and expertise to consume and is often outsourced or assigned to dedicated contractors who specialise in its use. People grab on to the world 'analytics' and because they don't understand the science behind it they look at it from their own viewpoint where they cant understand how the data correlation is used, and assume it cant possibly work. Any science or tool can fail if its used incorrectly which is perfectly correct and is not an argument for not using a tool. A chainsaw in the hands of tree surgeon is a good tool, give a 5 year old that chainsaw and you will get carnage.

    True, but the reverse is also true, some people seem think you can get all the information could possibly want from analytics. Which is also false.

    It's honestly a really interesting and complicated subject. :)

    That's true. The thing that is the most important is to remember, that analytics can help you gather the data, it can even help you interpret the data, but it will never give you the whole picture. There are questions it can't answer, and - quite often - there are answers it could give, but won't, because you haven't asked the right question. That's why, while when used right, it is an immense help, but you must always remember that it's also very easy to use it badly, and so must always be used with caution.

    In the end, it is just a tool - and so, the results it can achieve will always be limited by the skill of those that use it.

    Yeah that's it. Skilled users don't need to use caution, they have the skills to use the tools and understand the data which is then used to drive automated reports that they design to provide the valuable views required by the client to make good decisions.

    Its a powerful accurate tool in the right hands, and since no development house is going to argue otherwise, the thread is pretty moot.

    Honestly if they don't use caution they are not a skilled user.

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 8, 2020

    @yann.1946 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    Totally agree. Analytics data requires professional level tools and expertise to consume and is often outsourced or assigned to dedicated contractors who specialise in its use. People grab on to the world 'analytics' and because they don't understand the science behind it they look at it from their own viewpoint where they cant understand how the data correlation is used, and assume it cant possibly work. Any science or tool can fail if its used incorrectly which is perfectly correct and is not an argument for not using a tool. A chainsaw in the hands of tree surgeon is a good tool, give a 5 year old that chainsaw and you will get carnage.

    True, but the reverse is also true, some people seem think you can get all the information could possibly want from analytics. Which is also false.

    It's honestly a really interesting and complicated subject. :)

    That's true. The thing that is the most important is to remember, that analytics can help you gather the data, it can even help you interpret the data, but it will never give you the whole picture. There are questions it can't answer, and - quite often - there are answers it could give, but won't, because you haven't asked the right question. That's why, while when used right, it is an immense help, but you must always remember that it's also very easy to use it badly, and so must always be used with caution.

    In the end, it is just a tool - and so, the results it can achieve will always be limited by the skill of those that use it.

    Yeah that's it. Skilled users don't need to use caution, they have the skills to use the tools and understand the data which is then used to drive automated reports that they design to provide the valuable views required by the client to make good decisions.

    Its a powerful accurate tool in the right hands, and since no development house is going to argue otherwise, the thread is pretty moot.

    Honestly if they don't use caution they are not a skilled user.

    Wrong word to use. If you are skilled in a language for e.g you don't use it cautiously, you use it with confidence and precision and with a degree of certainty. Likewise, If you are skilled at mathematics, law, statistics etc etc.

    put it this way, analytics requires precision and deep knowledge. A practitioner that needs to apply caution is unskilled because skill filters out ambiguous data that requires caution in this context.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • yann.1946yann.1946 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @yann.1946 said:

    @vesica tempestas.1563 said:
    Totally agree. Analytics data requires professional level tools and expertise to consume and is often outsourced or assigned to dedicated contractors who specialise in its use. People grab on to the world 'analytics' and because they don't understand the science behind it they look at it from their own viewpoint where they cant understand how the data correlation is used, and assume it cant possibly work. Any science or tool can fail if its used incorrectly which is perfectly correct and is not an argument for not using a tool. A chainsaw in the hands of tree surgeon is a good tool, give a 5 year old that chainsaw and you will get carnage.

    True, but the reverse is also true, some people seem think you can get all the information could possibly want from analytics. Which is also false.

    It's honestly a really interesting and complicated subject. :)

    That's true. The thing that is the most important is to remember, that analytics can help you gather the data, it can even help you interpret the data, but it will never give you the whole picture. There are questions it can't answer, and - quite often - there are answers it could give, but won't, because you haven't asked the right question. That's why, while when used right, it is an immense help, but you must always remember that it's also very easy to use it badly, and so must always be used with caution.

    In the end, it is just a tool - and so, the results it can achieve will always be limited by the skill of those that use it.

    Yeah that's it. Skilled users don't need to use caution, they have the skills to use the tools and understand the data which is then used to drive automated reports that they design to provide the valuable views required by the client to make good decisions.

    Its a powerful accurate tool in the right hands, and since no development house is going to argue otherwise, the thread is pretty moot.

    Honestly if they don't use caution they are not a skilled user.

    Wrong word to use. If you are skilled in a language for e.g you don't use it cautiously, you use it with confidence and precision and with a degree of certainty. Likewise, If you are skilled at mathematics, law, statistics etc etc.

    Honestly most skilled mathematicians i know while having a degree of certainty are not confident about their work.

    put it this way, analytics requires precision and deep knowledge. A practitioner that needs to apply caution is unskilled because skill filters out ambiguous data that requires caution in this context.

    The thing is you always need to apply caution as any person has personal biases, etc. Maybe you don't really mean cautious but i can't really find a word to fit what you want to say.

  • Tails.9372Tails.9372 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2020

    Yes, just using ingame statistics is a pretty bad thing to rely on. They often tell you the "what" but not the "why". The issue I have with A-Net in specific is that they, after identifying an issue, often go into a "trial and error" mode which often times either leads to no progress for a long time or them causing more damage in the process.

    Take strike missions for example, they were supposed to get the "casual player" into raids which of course doesn't really work for reasons obvious to anyone who actually has to do with them on a at least somewhat regular basis. But ok, I understand that playing on the public server is most likely not part of their job requirement. However, the obvious step one would have been to address the target audience directly and ask them why they don't engage with the content in question. Afaik they never done that (and that goes for most of the content in general, not just the "challenge content") so of course their "solutions" have a high chance of not hitting the mark.

  • cptaylor.2670cptaylor.2670 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I always wanted an easy/dungeon difficulty style of raids but I wasn't expecting them to come with equal rewards. There's a lot of brilliant map art in the raids that many players don't even get a chance to see. A lot of story as well.

    Ideally I'd love for a lower difficulty that rewards a small chance at receiving ascended gear, or a very low number of magnetite shards/etc and a weekly lock that still lets you work on the legendary armor collection. I get that won't sit well with people that have obtained them from the current difficulty, but if you look in lfg any given time there are people selling the collection achievements constantly. So if this idea bothers you, remember that there are people out there shelling out 200+ real money and getting it with minimal effort. I guess, on that note, the people selling these runs would probably be widely opposed to this idea.

    If the "raids" were like strike missions in bland one room settings that only rewarded loot, I'd agree with the sentimentality that making them easier degrades the quality of the gamemode. Unfortunately, a lot of art, time, voice acting, and writing goes into them and they have received such little pay off in resource allocation that they've now been seemingly abandoned all together.

    Dungeons were abandoned long ago, and now fractals and raids. All in favor of one room boss encounters that take a 10th of the resources, and I don't thin it's to "train" people who want to step into raids or give them a taste of them. I think it's just because that's all they have the time and the resources to make, especially given we don't know how long they've been working on the expansion. I don't expect dungeons to be reworked and fractals are still pretty niche, but reworking an alternate difficulty of raids to be more like dungeons feels like it would take less time and provide fresh and exciting new content for a vast majority of the playerbase.