About rewards

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

The third is a result of the the first two statements, you can not disagree with the third if you agree with the first two.

I sure just did. It is often possible to track why people keep to the content/drop out of it. It's not always easy, but is by no means impossible the way you suggest it is.

 

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

The clear cut at li is a good example why the argument you are trying to make does not work.

 

Their are a plethora of different reasons people who raid. Lets make them analogous with batteries with different amounts of power.

Lets say a social interaction battery, leg armour battery, reward battery, gameplay battery, excitement battery, and a others battery.

now the combination of power of these battery needs to be high enough to surpass some fun/play vallue for people to play the content.

Now the powers of these bateries change over time, excitement in general decrease over time, social interaction is more variable but in general grows over time with big drops if guild break up. etc.

 

Now if you would plot the amount of people playing raids vs li aqcuired you would expect a drop in players at the 150 and 750 li mark because their the armour batery will drop to zero power for some people so their will be an amount of players for which their previous amount of fun/play power suddenly drop under the value they need to play the content.

But that is not the same as them only playing for the rewards, any of these other bateries could have lost power (their guild disbanding for example) would have lead to the same result.

What those cutoffs show is that after passing some initial point of "getting acquainted" with the content, for a very significant amount of players other "batteries" no longer matter as much as the reward one. It is the armor specifically that is driving them to play, nothing more. If armor was just one of the many equal factors, the cutoffs would not be so visible and dropoffs would be far more even and way less dependant on those specific reward checkpoints.

What are you trying to claim here, by the way - that there are no players that did raids only for armor?

 

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

Im just pointing out that you can not conclude from the fact that a player stops after getting a reward, that the only reason they played is because of the reward.

From that fact alone, no. If there are other facts, or you can see some visible patterns in player behaviour, then yes, you can. Perhaps not when applied to specific players, but when talking about trends, group behaviour and statistics it is very much possible.

 

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

This is an argument on how to analyze data, not a moral statement about what is good or not.

Precisely.

Ah, and one more thing, that i meant to mention earlier but kept forgetting about:

The argument you bring up in your opening post to attack is a strawman. It is generally not what gets used around.

The argument as used is not "content X only get played because of rewards as lots of people stop after getting the rewards Y and Z from it". I don't think anybody ever claimed for any content (perhaps not even for farms) that all players do it for rewards and rewards only. It was brought up only in the context of content popularity, and to what degree it was being driven by the rewards.

In fact, it is already visible in the argument you posted - if the claim is that "lots of people" stop after gettingthe rewards, it means that the claim is that "lots of people" play that content for rewards - not that it only gets played due to them (in which case all players would stop after obtaining them).

[yann.1946]

29 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

I sure just did. It is often possible to track why people keep to the content/drop out of it. It's not always easy, but is by no means impossible the way you suggest it is.

I have explained why you cant (atleast if you care about the logic of your argument)

This is also missing the point completely,

because the singular reason they left, for example they got the armour, is not the same as that reason being the only reason they play the content.

 

Quote

What those cutoffs show is that after passing some initial point of "getting acquainted" with the content, for a very significant amount of players other "batteries" no longer matter as much as the reward one. It is the armor specifically that is driving them to play, nothing more. If armor was just one of the many equal factors, the cutoffs would not be so visible and dropoffs would be far more even and way less dependant on those specific reward checkpoints.

It does not, you can pretend it does, but just no. The whole point is that this distinct droppof will happen even if all these batteries are equal. Thats what ive been trying to explain.

 

The reason this dropoff seems distincter then others is because its more easy to plot participation before and after reward acqusition. If theire was a way to easily plot before and after guild breakups you would see the exact same behaviour.

Quote

What are you trying to claim here, by the way - that there are no players that did raids only for armor?

Edit; i forgot to answer this.

No, that would be a ridiculous stance. Imm arguing that the data people use in insuffecient to make a claim about how many of the people who stopped playing after getting rewards did so because the rewards are the only reason they raided and how many stopped after getting the rewards because all the other reasons they play are not enough on themself to make them continue.

 

The difference between those cases is that in the first, any other reason to play is miniscule so removing them from that person would not change them playing the mode, while in the second case the person would probably stop if they lost some social aspect or a plethora of different reasons.

 People not playing without something and people only playing because of that thing are not the same thing. 

Quote

From that fact alone, no. If there are other facts, or you can see some visible patterns in player behaviour, then yes, you can. Perhaps not when applied to specific players, but when talking about trends, group behaviour and statistics it is very much possible.

You can do indeed study group behaviour and statistics, my whole argument is based on those.

But the conclusion you are drawing is not one you can draw from the behavioural paterns you used to do so.

Quote

Precisely.

 

Quote

Ah, and one more thing, that i meant to mention earlier but kept forgetting about:

The argument you bring up in your opening post to attack is a strawman. It is generally not what gets used around.

The argument as used is not "content X only get played because of rewards as lots of people stop after getting the rewards Y and Z from it". I don't think anybody ever claimed for any content (perhaps not even for farms) that all players do it for rewards and rewards only. It was brought up only in the context of content popularity, and to what degree it was being driven by the rewards.

In fact, it is already visible in the argument you posted - if the claim is that "lots of people" stop after gettingthe rewards, it means that the claim is that "lots of people" play that content for rewards - not that it only gets played due to them (in which case all players would stop after obtaining them).

That claim is still wrong because it assumes that the people who stop after getting the reward only play for the reward.

That is the whole point im disagreeing with. And have shown why it is wrong if you read what i wrote

 

 

TLDR: People not playing without something and people only playing because of that thing are not the same thing. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by yann.1946

[yann.1946]

23 minutes ago, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

So, the point of this thread is that you want to change the way people argue, or just prove that they are wrong in their statements, and really has nothing to do with Guild Wars 2; it's just that it's happening on the Guild Wars 2 forums and using Guild Wars 2-related topics.

 

Gotcha. 

Wrong in their argument yes.

i hoped it would give more productive discussions on these fora.

I was planning to do more of these for different bad arguments that get used, but the response here dont seem like it would be worth it tbh.

[Mungrul.9358]

21 hours ago, Kalocin.5982 said:

MMOs are basically a loot simulator existing solely to bait you to play as long as possible so the player themselves become an extension of the content. Sounds more pessimistic than the reality but functionally that's how they work

This basically nails the modern MMO/Games-as-a-Service model, except for not mentioning that the primary goal is to drive people to spend cash.

I like GW2, but its reward system is low-key dialed right down. You'll rarely if ever get anything exciting, as that stuff's either locked behind serious grind or the gem store.

Loot is just enough to tickle your lizard-brain with a constant trickle of dopamine, making sure to keep you engaged at the minimum level possible. The longer you stay engaged, the more you're exposed to the game's monetisation systems.

 

When you do get frustrated and bored of the endless repetition of grinding out mats to make your next Legendary, the gem store will be waiting for you.

This won't be everyone (there's a lot of people playing who simply can't afford to plonk down the cash on mats), but don't fool yourself; ANet's business model is built around this.

[Astralporing.1957]

21 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

I have explained why you cant (atleast if you care about the logic of your argument)

And i happen to disagree with your explanation. Because all you "explains" is saying "no, you can't do that" for things that have already been done before, many times over.

Quote

This is also missing the point completely,

because the singular reason they left, for example they got the armour, is not the same as that reason being the only reason they play the content.

Never said "singular". I said "driving, primary, most important, the only one that actually matters". Because if all other reasons together are not enough to make you play, but that one is, that one is the only one that matters.

Quote

It does not, you can pretend it does, but just no. The whole point is that this distinct droppof will happen even if all these batteries are equal. Thats what ive been trying to explain.

No. If all "batteries" are equal then the dropoffs due to them will be also equal, and will "mask" this specific one. For those cutoffs to be so visible, the "battery" responsible for it must be really significant compared to others.

Quote

That claim is still wrong because it assumes that the people who stop after getting the reward only play for the reward.

No, but it assumes that the reward was the driving factor. If it was not, they would have dropped either earlier or later than those cutoffs.

Quote

That is the whole point im disagreeing with. And have shown why it is wrong if you read what i wrote

I've read what you wrote. And, as i said before, i happen to disagree.

Your whole argument is based on two things:

- misrepresentation of arguments of others

- assumption that you cannot analyze impact of rewards on group behaviour.

First is a misrepresentation, so already puts your whole argument in question. Second is just plain false.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[Epsilon Indi.2031]

 

21 hours ago, Raknar.4735 said:

If content is fun, content will be played. Adding rewards doesn‘t extend the time content is fun. If content is only done due to the rewards and only them and then left immediately it is just bad content. Content that is fun will still be played even after all the rewards have been gained.

So yes, content will be dropped by some once the rewards have been earned, because the content strictly wasn‘t fun in the first place. It doesn‘t extend the time content is fun, it just extends the tediousness because players feel the need to play content they don‘t enjoy because of how rewarding it is.

My last bit isn‘t besides the point, but actually exactly answers your point about content being played indefinately if it is fun. WC3 is fun for those players, so they keep playing it today, 19 years after the game released.

Then there's a lot of bad content in GW2 as not many people inhabit most of the LW maps.  Sure there's a small playerbase still t here, but it's nowhere near what it was at launch of the chapter.

[yann.1946]

9 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

And i happen to disagree with your explanation. Because all you "explains" is saying "no, you can't do that" for things that have already been done before, many times over.

reread what i wrote, because that is not my argument. And funily you have never actually argued against my argument, you have argued against the conclusion.

9 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Never said "singular". I said "driving, primary, most important, the only one that actually matters". Because if all other reasons together are not enough to make you play, but that one is, that one is the only one that matters.

No if a factory needs 100 liters of water to function and you get 30l from four different sources, then turning of any of these sources would should down the factory. That does not mean any of these sources are bigger then the other.

9 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

No. If all "batteries" are equal then the dropoffs due to them will be also equal, and will "mask" this specific one. For those cutoffs to be so visible, the "battery" responsible for it must be really significant compared to others.

No, but it assumes that the reward was the driving factor. If it was not, they would have dropped either earlier or later than those cutoffs.

No, because , and this is the important one,  some of these batteries are easy to plot for and some are not.

Also you would just see dropoffs for these other batteries if you plotted for these.

 

Or dont you think that if you plotted players before and after guilds disbannded you would also see this dropof?

 

9 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

I've read what you wrote. And, as i said before, i happen to disagree.

You disagree with my conclusion, not my arguments because you havbe not actually adressed them.

9 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Your whole argument is based on two things:

- misrepresentation of arguments of others

i did not, if anything most of what you have been doing is misinterpret what i said.

9 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

- assumption that you cannot analyze impact of rewards on group behaviour.

My whole argument is an analysis of rewards on group behaviour. What are you talking about.

9 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

First is a misrepresentation, so already puts your whole argument in question. Second is just plain false.

 

[Klowdy.3126]

7 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

you thank people on average will pvp indefinitly?

Those that PvP for fun, yeah. Those that have been PvPing for 9 years aren't doing it for the rewards. 

[yann.1946]

36 minutes ago, Klowdy.3126 said:

Those that PvP for fun, yeah. Those that have been PvPing for 9 years aren't doing it for the rewards. 

So all those that stopped where not pvping for fun and people do not get bored?

[Klowdy.3126]

4 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

So all those that stopped where not pvping for fun and people do not get bored?

That wasn't the question. You said everyone has their limits, and asked who would play indefinitely without rewards. I showed you a group of people that have shown themselves to have no visible limits, because they've been playing for almost a decade, with very little added to the reward system for those players. I never said that entire game mode has 100% retention. I showed you where to look to find those people you don't believe exist.

[Gehenna.3625]

21 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

And thank you for explaining what people read into my op. It really confused me why people were arguing against some strawmen of my position. 

Perhaps it's due to your writing style. I was confused about what you were saying with your OP and I really had to read it multiple times before I got what you were saying. Just realise that what you write down is usually a reduced version of your thoughts, but people can't read minds, so they miss the context of the rest of your thoughts. In short you don't explain how you came to the conclusions or statements that you make...and when that happens misinterpretations also happen quite easily.

And if I may be frank, there is something about your writing style that is very definitive, absolute and "I'm not ready to accept anything going against my views" about it. It's not what's intended I'm sure but in the threads that I've seen you post a lot in, I often think that you word things in an unfortunate way. Misunderstandings can happen a lot on game forums mind you. However, if you feel like it happens a lot then I'd suggest wording things a little differently. Just something to think about. It's not an attack, just an observation. 

[yann.1946]

16 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Perhaps it's due to your writing style. I was confused about what you were saying with your OP and I really had to read it multiple times before I got what you were saying. Just realise that what you write down is usually a reduced version of your thoughts, but people can't read minds, so they miss the context of the rest of your thoughts. In short you don't explain how you came to the conclusions or statements that you make...and when that happens misinterpretations also happen quite easily.

Thank you. 🙂

Did my clarification at the begin of page 2 make it clearer what i meant.

16 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

And if I may be frank, there is something about your writing style that is very definitive, absolute and "I'm not ready to accept anything going against my views" about it.

Your not the first person to say that to me, i dont really know what it is the though. 

Funilly i also get accused of the opposite, changing my position a lot and not having a firm position on anything. 😛

 

Gehenna, do you have time? I would like to so how i should have worded it from the beginning.

 

16 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

It's not what's intended I'm sure but in the threads that I've seen you post a lot in, I often think that you word things in an unfortunate way. Misunderstandings can happen a lot on game forums mind you. However, if you feel like it happens a lot then I'd suggest wording things a little differently. Just something to think about. It's not an attack, just an observation. 

Tbh, this time it was more of a mater of fact statement. That was because i was attacking a specific argument. 

Maybe i should have started from a less loaded argument (argued it from the persective of social interactions or something).

[yann.1946]

55 minutes ago, Klowdy.3126 said:

That wasn't the question. You said everyone has their limits, and asked who would play indefinitely without rewards. I showed you a group of people that have shown themselves to have no visible limits, because they've been playing for almost a decade, with very little added to the reward system for those players. I never said that entire game mode has 100% retention. I showed you where to look to find those people you don't believe exist.

Well that was the question, thats why i said on average. i am not particularly interested in one specific case but broader trends. and i was not really trying to argue that nobody plays just for the gameplay.

[Klowdy.3126]

Well, I did show you the people that play for fun. That was my only goal. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Klowdy.3126

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I can see why you get 'accused of changing your position' a lot.

[GalenWolffit.3842]

On 9/27/2021 at 9:32 AM, costepj.5120 said:

I level a human commoner every week and enjoy it. Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?

You level a human commoner every week bl because you get a black lion chest key out of it. If they did away with the key would you keep doing it? 

[Rogue.8235]

On 9/27/2021 at 9:10 AM, yann.1946 said:

no not really, everyone has a sort of maximum that they can do content even if they enjoy it.

For example i like pasta a lot, but if i had to eat soly pasta for the rest of my life id probably get over it pretty soon.

 

 Or do you think that people will just keep playing the same thing over and over indefinetly? 

 

Yes, because I enjoy it.  I play chess since childhood because I enjoy it.

I don't respond to Skinner boxes like other players seem to.  I don't have a psychological need to keep triggering dopamine absorption in the hippocampus.

I do, however, trigger it simply by partaking in activities I enjoy, such as playing games, watching a show, "reading" books, etc.  

 

Is it honestly difficult for people to understand the premise of playing a game purely for the enjoyment of playing the game in itself?

 

Since I am not reward-centric, I literally do whatever I want in the game on a whim.  I'm not beholden to making a certain amount of gold per period of time.  I only care that it's fun and I can log off whenever I'm done.

 

The purely reward-driven behaviors that online games illicit really need to be examined in addiction studies.  No single player is at fault here, just the way these games are designed, and not necessarily intentionally.

 

[yann.1946]

4 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

 

Yes, because I enjoy it.  I play chess since childhood because I enjoy it.

 

4 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

I don't respond to Skinner boxes like other players seem to.  I don't have a psychological need to keep triggering dopamine absorption in the hippocampus.

Then you are a special human I guess. 

Quote

I do, however, trigger it simply by partaking in activities I enjoy, such as playing games, watching a show, "reading" books, etc.  

 

 

Quote

Is it honestly difficult for people to understand the premise of playing a game purely for the enjoyment of playing the game in itself?

It's moreso that enjoyment is a combination of factors. 

 

Quote

Since I am not reward-centric, I literally do whatever I want in the game on a whim.  I'm not beholden to making a certain amount of gold per period of time.  I only care that it's fun and I can log off whenever I'm done.

 

The purely reward-driven behaviors that online games illicit really need to be examined in addiction studies.  No single player is at fault here, just the way these games are designed, and not necessarily intentionally.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by yann.1946

[costepj.5120]

6 hours ago, GalenWolffit.3842 said:

You level a human commoner every week bl because you get a black lion chest key out of it. If they did away with the key would you keep doing it? 

I already answered that - yes I would. I STARTED doing it because of the key, but I've kept on doing it because I enjoy the levelling process. All my other characters are lvl 80 with full map completion, so my keyrunner is the only one who has the fun of exploring maps and doing personal story. I also do the run with other guildies some weeks which makes it a sociable thing too; even a little bit of friendly competition as to who hits lvl 10 first or seeing how quickly we can complete a story level. Meanwhile, the keys are accumulating in my bank because there's nothing in the BLCs that I want. Maybe one day 🙂