Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Recommended Posts

@vesica tempestas.1563 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.

"Enhancing Game DesignData 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 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@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.

"Enhancing Game DesignData 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@vesica tempestas.1563 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.

"Enhancing Game DesignData 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Aridon.8362 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 aerodomeYou 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

"Enhancing Game DesignData 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'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@vesica tempestas.1563 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.

"Enhancing Game DesignData 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-feedbackand provide better feedback next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 aerodomeYou 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Aridon.8362 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 aerodomeYou 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yann.1946 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 aerodomeYou 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...