Need more clarity around 60% success rate in DE meta

[Dante.1508]

Just now, Astralporing.1957 said:

Based  on the past Anet history, that won;t ever happen if the people remain chill and not complain. It's only when there's a loud negative response that Anet ever deigns to react quickly to problems. Without it, any potential fixes might happen only years later, when noone would really care anymore.

Well then over time the maps will get deader and deader, populations will dwindle.. But hey if thats what Anet wants more power to them.. I'm mostly avoiding EoD anyway i have no interest in fishing or raid content, if i never get a useless turtle more power to me..

[Erise.5614]

43 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

For me, it seems weird to include the WR if they would have an active interest to be deceptive, and i trust the competence of the company enough that they would account for the amount of shards that spawn without interest for the meta.

Not deceptive. But obviously ANet has an interest to portray their flagship meta positively. 

Either you call all of advertising / PR deceptive (which is true to some degree) or it's just business as usual. 

44 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Most of the map can be accesed without the meta though

It can. But there's little reason to. The map is built entirely around the meta with a bare minimum of other OW content. Whether it be activities, achievements or otherwise. You have a story instance entry, two running achievements, a few insights, fishing, jade ore and meta event content. That's about it. 

This is less than usual. 

47 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

With key progression do you mean achievement? or some map progression? or the turtle?

Anything desirable in terms of progression. Whether it be legendary items, collections building up to a unique item, mount / mastery tracks in general.

There's a title, flat gold value drops and some mastery points. But there's also deliberately more mastery points than necessary to allow you to avoid specific ones. This is fine.

To clarify. I think items belonging to legendaries can drop. It just shouldn't be locked behind the encounter. This part is actually well done about DE.

52 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Quote

It's too central. It's put directly into the critical path of play that most players will follow. Quite possibly as the first meta they play in EoD if they primarily followed the story. That's not good.

Why would that make the player sad/angry?

Things that are put front and center implicitly communicate that everyone is expected to do it. 

This pushes players harder into the event than is good and has them go into it with wrong expectations. It's 10x worse if you fail when fully expecting to succeed than it is to fail when you expect to fail. 

55 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Honestly, these are things i personally forgive on release. These are to be expected.

As my suggestion lower in the comment. Yes. They are expected. But a harder meta that ANet expects most players to participates in can not have that. It should have gone through a locked beta without rewards or anything to have people play it for the thrill of new content. Where failure means less. Where ANet has time fixing stuff. Where it'll be played primarily by communities and experienced players. 

The presentation as central piece of content plus the difficulty plus the buggyness is a combination that's not good and that they must improve upon the next time around. 

58 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Do you think it would be okay or problematic if they released a meta way harder then DE but communicated in advance that they dont expect players to clear it the first weak?

Yes, but the key point is how its communicated. A blog post is not enough. Release notes are not enough. These do not reach players and would just foster toxicity again. With some people getting annoyed at the same questions and same things being asked / said over and over and over. And others feeling patronized for a snippy answer. 

The design itself needs to communicate the departure in challenge and expected success rate. For example, by putting it a little out of the way. Away from where the story leads you and away from places where ANet expects players to start exploring. 

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

Its anecdotal, but that was not really the point of why i brought it up. Its to explain why i dont use the term gatekeep in this context, as i mean in general how groups are formed etc. Gatekeeping is but a "small" part of it?

And my point is that how groups form has very little to do with it, unless you refer to gatekeeping. 

It really comes down to three factors.

1. How many players know the mechanics and can clear them fast?
2. How good is the commander? Especially, how good are they at communication? Calling early and in a way most players understand.
3. How many high DPS players are on the map.

You can not seriously gauge those. Some indicators that have some amount of correlation with the points. But besides proper gatekeeping you just try to up your subjective chances a little. It's luck in regards to the above three factors. Plus some RNG luck from Soo. 

For successful runs, gatekeeping is the biggest and only remotely reliable factor. Whether it be joining third party communities (e.g. discord), LI or otherwise. 

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

Not nessecarily, (atleast gatekeeping is not nessecary to get consisten results), but we dont really have data to make any claim about that atm.

Would you like to share your method for consistent results then? Because your current suggestion I've followed too with anything but consistent results. Neither consistent failure nor consistent success.

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

BUt these guilds help in the socializing that is so important for MMO retention. (And the TT guild i know isnt that small but that is beside the point)

Not really. I mean, yes. It's valuable. But the more important factor is any form of social circle as well as having a good time. There's guilds that hop games frequently, multi game guilds. There's friend circles who never make or join a guild. Or if they do, not in a serious, social capacity. 

We have seen games take a huge turn in the past ~10-15 years towards not pressuring people into such structures. With massive success. Explicit Clan / Guild support isn't standard in a lot of modern games. More so in MMOs but even there on a general downtrend in favor of automatic matching. It's amazing when it works but when people do not find one they enjoy in a game that pushes them too much, then they are just gone. 

And side note. Guild sizes vs community sizes are weird. Even HardStuck isn't that big with their 20k people. Extremely huge for a guild. But active people on their discord probably don't make up more than single digit percent of the active player base.  

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

The goal of AB is not community forming, and it does not really do that that well. It is to keep players, who dont have communities to group around, playing. Thins like TT and DE are their to get people into these communities. To make more social interactions.

I mean. Maybe? Not sure about DE being built for that purpose. 

But the thing is, which group needs what kind of support by ANet? 

Are they actually fine to have only a small part of the community participate? Because these community building focused events are by definition exclusionary. Extremely so. We know quite well that the general response to unejoyable challenges isn't rallying together and overcoming it. But for most to abandon the challenge. 

A challenge can be hard, but overcoming it must be enjoyable. The more players participate the less fair it feels. The less in control you feel. And the higher the chance to feel antagonized by the game and by those communities who tell you to join them (implicitly suggesting that otherwise you deserve to fail). 
There are a lot of really not good things that can happen there. That we have, in fact, seen play out around DE. It grew some of those communities but also fostered community division and spawned a lot of toxicity and trolling. Whether it be intentionally misleading others to get a map for only their own group, attempting to sabotage the event or good old swearing at one another.

I would not call what happened here good. I would call it a cautionary tale about how such content needs to be created more carefully. 

[yann.1946]

13 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

Not deceptive. But obviously ANet has an interest to portray their flagship meta positively. 

Either you call all of advertising / PR deceptive (which is true to some degree) or it's just business as usual. 

Sure, but then we can throw away most of anet statements unless its about a negative. 

Quote

It can. But there's little reason to. The map is built entirely around the meta with a bare minimum of other OW content. Whether it be activities, achievements or otherwise. You have a story instance entry, two running achievements, a few insights, fishing, jade ore and meta event content. That's about it. 

This is less than usual. 

Yeah, i made to comment more in cmparisson to DS where the map is also build for the meta, but way more then DE is.

Quote

Anything desirable in terms of progression. Whether it be legendary items, collections building up to a unique item, mount / mastery tracks in general.

There's a title, flat gold value drops and some mastery points. But there's also deliberately more mastery points than necessary to allow you to avoid specific ones. This is fine.

To clarify. I think items belonging to legendaries can drop. It just shouldn't be locked behind the encounter. This part is actually well done about DE.

Ok, i thought you meant there still was a lot locked behind the meta.

Quote

Things that are put front and center implicitly communicate that everyone is expected to do it. 

This pushes players harder into the event than is good and has them go into it with wrong expectations. It's 10x worse if you fail when fully expecting to succeed than it is to fail when you expect to fail. 

Personally i dont really expect to succeed perse first try on things in the main path (i dont mind wiping to a storyboss for example) but i can see why this can be perceived that way and why it sould be accounted for. 

Quote

As my suggestion lower in the comment. Yes. They are expected. But a harder meta that ANet expects most players to participates in can not have that. It should have gone through a locked beta without rewards or anything to have people play it for the thrill of new content. Where failure means less. Where ANet has time fixing stuff. Where it'll be played primarily by communities and experienced players. 

Honestly, they should do that more in general. i agree.

Quote

The presentation as central piece of content plus the difficulty plus the buggyness is a combination that's not good and that they must improve upon the next time around. 

 

Quote

Yes, but the key point is how its communicated. A blog post is not enough. Release notes are not enough. These do not reach players and would just foster toxicity again. With some people getting annoyed at the same questions and same things being asked / said over and over and over. And others feeling patronized for a snippy answer. 

Ok

Quote

The design itself needs to communicate the departure in challenge and expected success rate. For example, by putting it a little out of the way. Away from where the story leads you and away from places where ANet expects players to start exploring. 

 

Quote

And my point is that how groups form has very little to do with it, unless you refer to gatekeeping. 

It really comes down to three factors.

1. How many players know the mechanics and can clear them fast?
2. How good is the commander? Especially, how good are they at communication? Calling early and in a way most players understand.
3. How many high DPS players are on the map.

You can not seriously gauge those. Some indicators that have some amount of correlation with the points. But besides proper gatekeeping you just try to up your subjective chances a little. It's luck in regards to the above three factors. Plus some RNG luck from Soo. 

For successful runs, gatekeeping is the biggest and only remotely reliable factor. Whether it be joining third party communities (e.g. discord), LI or otherwise. 

I agree with most of this , but i think we need to go back to what this specific part of the conversation was about. I said that the succes for a big part comes from the creation of the group, and you said that i should call it gatekeeping. 

My main contention with that is that it just comes done to having the above three points in your group, and while you cpould gatekeep to have them more reliably, you dont need to and so i dont think the word gatekeeping was appropriate where i used groupcreation.

Quote

Would you like to share your method for consistent results then? Because your current suggestion I've followed too with anything but consistent results. Neither consistent failure nor consistent success.

Well we first need to agree what is and wath is not gatekeeeping. Do you consider a guildgroup putting up lfg and asking if when possible to get on discord Gatekeeping?

Nothing is enforced here, just suggestions.

Quote

Not really. I mean, yes. It's valuable. But the more important factor is any form of social circle as well as having a good time. There's guilds that hop games frequently, multi game guilds. There's friend circles who never make or join a guild. Or if they do, not in a serious, social capacity. 

True, thats why i didnt say the only way to socialize.

Quote

We have seen games take a huge turn in the past ~10-15 years towards not pressuring people into such structures. With massive success. Explicit Clan / Guild support isn't standard in a lot of modern games. More so in MMOs but even there on a general downtrend in favor of automatic matching. It's amazing when it works but when people do not find one they enjoy in a game that pushes them too much, then they are just gone. 

I think things can be done to incentives joining social circles that are not yet at the level of pressuring.

Quote

And side note. Guild sizes vs community sizes are weird. Even HardStuck isn't that big with their 20k people. Extremely huge for a guild. But active people on their discord probably don't make up more than single digit percent of the active player base. 

 

Quote

 

I mean. Maybe? Not sure about DE being built for that purpose. 

We can never know for sure, but if there is a theme in communication of intend with the general EoD design it is in my opinion socializing (ignoring whether that was succesfull for a moment, because DE did more harm then good in that departement on release)

Quote

But the thing is, which group needs what kind of support by ANet? 

That is the million dollar question isnt it. 🙂

Quote

Are they actually fine to have only a small part of the community participate? Because these community building focused events are by definition exclusionary. Extremely so. We know quite well that the general response to unejoyable challenges isn't rallying together and overcoming it. But for most to abandon the challenge. 

I hope they are, otherwise there planning would have been extremely bad. 

 

Quote

A challenge can be hard, but overcoming it must be enjoyable. The more players participate the less fair it feels. The less in control you feel. And the higher the chance to feel antagonized by the game and by those communities who tell you to join them (implicitly suggesting that otherwise you deserve to fail). 

"implicitly suggesting that otherwise you deserve to fail" is not a thing i have seen, but i cant really look into other peoples head.

(Do you think saying lfging increases your change of succes implicitly suggests those that dont deserve to fail.)

Quote

There are a lot of really not good things that can happen there. That we have, in fact, seen play out around DE. It grew some of those communities but also fostered community division and spawned a lot of toxicity and trolling. Whether it be intentionally misleading others to get a map for only their own group, attempting to sabotage the event or good old swearing at one another.

Yes, and a lot of that could have been avoided without actually touching the difficulty. (I will probably agree for the most part on what changes needed to happen)

Quote

I would not call what happened here good. I would call it a cautionary tale about how such content needs to be created more carefully. 

That i agree with, im mostly against the narrative that such content should not exist.

I agreed from the beginning for example that the turtle should not have been locked etc.

Edited April 19, 2022 by yann.1946

[yann.1946]

1 hour ago, Hesione.9412 said:

1. You continue to make assumptions in the absence of data. None of us have any idea how much the RNG is related to fails. You can't conclude that RNG does not account for the majority of fails, just like I cannot conclude that it does. 

Indeed we dont, but its pretty safe to say that the 40 percent is not exclusivly because of RNG

1 hour ago, Hesione.9412 said:

 

2. Exactly the same people and exactly the same comp are highly unlikely to occur. Even, even, if that were the case, there is the RNG component to it.

I agree, but thats not a comment against me. Thats a comment against Malus who brought this up.

1 hour ago, Hesione.9412 said:

3. As there is no data we have been provided re the 60% win rate, you cannot conclude that the average group has a 60% probability of a win. There appear to be some groups with a close-to 100% probability of winning. We do not know their contribution to the 60% outcome, therefore no conclusions can be drawn about the probability of any other groups. Sample size is important here. If 1 in 500 results are due to these close-to-100% runs, then every other group could have a 60% success rate and the overall rate would be almost 60%. If these close-to-100% runs are 30% of all runs, then we know that there are runs with low success rates to off-set these close-to-100% runs. But we don't have this information.

exactly, thank you for lmaking my point for me. Its always great when people say they disagree to then agree in their counter 🙂

Please explain to Malus who brought up the idea of the average group to begin with. 🙂

 

1 hour ago, Hesione.9412 said:

4. Your use of the phrase "coin toss" is not one with which I am familiar. A coin toss outcome is a random event. If the probability of a win is a consequence of which group a person is in, then there is no coin toss because there is no randomness. The probability is predetermined. With a coin toss, the outcome would be randomly 50% win and 50% loss (assuming a fair-sided coin).

So two things,

1) Why do you suddenly make a claim that the RNG of the bosfight is almost irrelevant. 

"If the probability of a win is a consequence of which group a person is in, then there is no coin toss because there is no randomness. The probability is predetermined."

2) A part of the randomness is in how a player engages with the groupsfinding tools and what things they find on LFG. 

But again, bring this to Malus not me, he brought up the fact that winning DE is like a cointoss, and i disagreed with him specificly because the group you are in is so important.

1 hour ago, Hesione.9412 said:

I'm bowing out at this point because it should be clear that I have countered your points. If you think this is not the case, there is nothing I can add that will change your view. 

Well you have countered Malusses points, but maybe i was not clear enough in how i worded things. The only thing which you "countered" was the notion that i dont have data. Which is true, but then you agree with the original statement later, so funny that. 😛

[Malus.2184]

48 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Please explain to Malus who brought up the idea of the average group to begin with. 🙂

 

So two things,

1) Why do you suddenly make a claim that the RNG of the bosfight is almost irrelevant. 

"If the probability of a win is a consequence of which group a person is in, then there is no coin toss because there is no randomness. The probability is predetermined."

2) A part of the randomness is in how a player engages with the groupsfinding tools and what things they find on LFG. 

But again, bring this to Malus not me, he brought up the fact that winning DE is like a cointoss, and i disagreed with him specificly because the group you are in is so important.

Well you have countered Malusses points, but maybe i was not clear enough in how i worded things. The only thing which you "countered" was the notion that i dont have data. Which is true, but then you agree with the original statement later, so funny that. 😛

I've seldom seen a more dishonest post of someone claiming victory without actually having attained it.

If you were honest you would have addressed that you used one term to mean another. This is normally just a mistake without consequences, however, in this case it's ultra important to know the distinction between mode, average, and median when it comes to performance statistics. And in this case the misunderstanding means that you misunderstand the argument entirely.

And there are two kind of RNG, utterly random RNG and determined RNG. Utterly random RNG is just that. Determined RNG means that a something will only do something random in response to another situation and when one response has been chosen  it can only chosen again when the other response has been chosen.

[Nakasz.5471]

Did it again yesterday. PUG squad, the only difference is that we had alac/quickness/might in each sub, we broke all cc bars and follow commander: done with 7 or 8 min left.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Nakasz.5471

[Swagger.1459]

2 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Well, the Gerent was hard. Then it got nerfed. All the HoT metas were tweaked, but the nerfs to Gerent specifically were truly significant and turned that event from something that could be barely won only by highly oorganized and optimized squads into a pug pinata overnight.

Are you suggesting something like that will happen to DE?

What I'm suggesting to the op is to chill out. That ok with you?

[Astralporing.1957]

3 minutes ago, Swagger.1459 said:

What I'm suggesting to the op is to chill out. That ok with you?

Will chilling out help fix the meta? If people were chill and calm, would Anet have even tried to do any of the fixes? Personally i doubt that.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Astralporing.1957

[Swagger.1459]

18 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Will chilling out help fix the meta? If people were chill and calm, would Anet have even tried to do any of the fixes? Personally i doubt that.

I think we need more clarity on your comments. What percentage of chill people vs not chill people make forum requests? And what percentage of the chill people vs the not chilled people get better results? I mean, are the elite chill groups finding more success with requests? Or are the elite not chilled people more successful in that regard?

 

Come to think of it, wondering if the devs could prove clearer statists on who they listen to most, the chill people, not chill people, or elite chill people, or the elite not chill people. It would be tremendously helpful to know what groups are most successful on the forums so we can gain a better percentage of which forum tactics will gain the most success. And the average throw away percentage won’t do, we need some hard core numbers from Anet to analyze.

 

Know what I mean? 

[Astralporing.1957]

5 minutes ago, Swagger.1459 said:

I think we need more clarity on your comments. What percentage of chill people vs not chill people make forum requests? And what percentage of the chill people vs the not chilled people get better results? I mean, are the elite chill groups finding more success with requests? Or are the elite not chilled people more successful in that regard?

 

Come to think of it, wondering if the devs could prove clearer statists on who they listen to most, the chill people, not chill people, or elite chill people, or the elite not chill people. It would be tremendously helpful to know what groups are most successful on the forums so we can gain a better percentage of which forum tactics will gain the most success. And the average throw away percentage won’t do, we need some hard core numbers from Anet to analyze.

 

Know what I mean? 

No, i don't know what you mean. Doesn;t make much sense to me.

What i do know, that Anet generally does not react fast if there's no visible strong reaction from the community. If people are generally chill about things, Anet assumes that everything is fine and needs no fixing. As such, being chill is detrimental to you if what you want is to get Anet to Do Something.

Additionally, i see that OP is already calm about the whole DE meta debacle. The only way they might have been more "chill" would be to just shut up and not bring up the issue at all. I assume that's exactly what you want. To keep silent, and let the whole thing fester. Personally i don't see how that might improve things however.

[Swagger.1459]

17 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

No, i don't know what you mean. Doesn;t make much sense to me.

What i do know, that Anet generally does not react fast if there's no visible strong reaction from the community. If people are generally chill about things, Anet assumes that everything is fine and needs no fixing. As such, being chill is detrimental to you if what you want is to get Anet to Do Something.

Additionally, i see that OP is already calm about the whole DE meta debacle. The only way they might have been more "chill" would be to just shut up and not bring up the issue at all. I assume that's exactly what you want. To keep silent, and let the whole thing fester. Personally i don't see how that might improve things however.

How do you not know what I mean? Are you not following the thread???

 

Anet has been commenting on the event multiple times already and made adjustments. And this thread came after a recent post, and apparently the 60% comment wasn’t satisfactory to some. Are you not aware of what the devs recently blogged??? If not, I think you should follow dev comments more consistently. 

 

Final Encounter of the Jade Sea Meta-⁠event

From the outset, we designed the final boss of the Guild Wars 2: End of Dragons Jade Sea meta-event to be more challenging than most of our existing open-world experiences. It’s the epic finale of a story arc told over the course of 10 years, after all.

Over the past month we’ve been making incremental balance adjustments to the meta-event’s final boss, with the goal of making it more accessible while still retaining an increased difficulty level. Between the mechanical changes we’ve implemented and the community’s willingness to rise to the challenge, we’ve seen the number of successful clears increase dramatically in recent weeks. For context, in the first few weeks of March, only about 15% of boss attempts ended successfully. Most recently, that number has risen to over 60%, putting it closer to existing world bosses and meta-event success rates while still being more challenging than any of them.

In terms of balance, the fight is very close to where we’d like it to be. However, we’ll continue to monitor community feedback and completion rates and, as always, make adjustments as needed. Next week’s release will also address a bug that causes the final boss to enter the “bite” phase more frequently than intended.

End of Dragons Meta-event Rewards

In the weeks following the release of Guild Wars 2: End of Dragons, we heard you loud and clear that the rewards for the new meta-events needed a little more “oomph”—especially when you consider the difficulty and the time required to complete the events. In other words, there needs to be a stronger incentive to replay the content after the initial playthrough.

Since then, we’ve removed a significant number of junk items from the loot tables (so you’re more likely to get higher value items), increased the value of the reward chest contents, and added a Hero’s Choice Chest for successfully completing these events. And while these are good improvements, we recognize that a stronger incentive is needed if we want these events to be a long-term addition to the endgame open-world experience. This is especially true for Dragon’s End, which contains our most challenging meta-event to date. To help address this, in next week’s update we’ll be adding a new Void-themed infusion as a rare drop to the Bounty of Dragon’s End loot table.

The Bounty of Dragon’s End can be earned daily for successfully completing the meta-event, and up to five additional chests can be purchased each week from the vendor Myung-Hee, located in the Shing Jea Monastery in Seitung Province.

[Gibson.4036]

I don't know why people assume that sharing criticism of the game automatically equals being worked up or even raging. People literally point to page count in some of these threads as evidence of freaking out, as if the amount people write is inherently tied to some sort of emotional storm.

One can be completely "chill", yet interested in discussing where they think the game isn't fun, and why.

[mezuzel.4987]

1 hour ago, Nakasz.5471 said:

Did it again yesterday. PUG squad, the only difference is that we had alac/quickness/might in each sub, we broke all cc bars and follow commander: done with 7 or 8 min left.

I was in a tryhard squad yesterday with subsquads for boons, we broke all bars, we hit the tail, and we failed with 4% left, due to the multiple side-swaps in a row "bug."

[Erise.5614]

To start out. I do think we agree on most points. So I skipped responding to several to keep the comment shorter. But I do wanna mention. I agree with or at least understand and can emphasize with all points I don't explicitly respond to! 

3 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Sure, but then we can throw away most of anet statements unless its about a negative. 

No need to throw them away. It's just important to remember that most PR communication has spin. 

3 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Yeah, i made to comment more in cmparisson to DS where the map is also build for the meta, but way more then DE is.

Fair. But then again, the failure rate of DS is pretty tiny. What such a map accomplishes is pushing players very deliberately into nothing but the meta. Which leads us back to the presentation topic. Funneling people into content like this despite expecting a lot of them if not most to fail is not ideal.

 

3 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Personally i dont really expect to succeed perse first try on things in the main path (i dont mind wiping to a storyboss for example) but i can see why this can be perceived that way and why it sould be accounted for. 

To be fair. Storyboss is something different. Your performance is judged very directly. And you have some real recourse to improve. Group events are different in that regard.

And it's also not about being easy first try. Having the community learn a meta is fine. But there should be a solid learning curve you can rely on. There should be something obvious that makes you fail. Otherwise it's not failing the first time. It may be failing 20, 30, 50 times in a row. Despite strong personal performance. Just for being unlucky in map selection. With gatekeeping being the only possible solution. Or you may be lucky and win lots of runs back to back with hardly any fails.

That is not good. It creates extremely different points of view and also extremely bad experiences. A recipe for frustration and, as result of that, toxicity. 

3 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Well we first need to agree what is and wath is not gatekeeeping. Do you consider a guildgroup putting up lfg and asking if when possible to get on discord Gatekeeping?

Nothing is enforced here, just suggestions.

I mean, technically not. But that's not what I see.

Most guild or community run events start below radar on their discord or what not. Search for an empty map, fill that up with their people. And then, maybe, if there are some slots left will they advertise.

This is a tiny minority of LFG posts with fewer than usual spots for pugers. 

3 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

"implicitly suggesting that otherwise you deserve to fail" is not a thing i have seen, but i cant really look into other peoples head.

(Do you think saying lfging increases your change of succes implicitly suggests those that dont deserve to fail.)

In my opinion this is what caused most of the toxicity towards some of the groups. Like, take HS. There's some idiots in there. Sure. But the vast majority of commanders and organizers within the guild are genuinely excellent people. Truly concerned about helping, sharing knowledge, sharing their enthusiasm for the game.

How did they become the target of so much toxicity for telling people "you can do it! We'll help you!"?

I believe it was people being already insanely frustrated. And viewing this as elitist, like taunting, like they tell you that you suck and need to get carried. As if they are happy about the influx of members and love that others fail. Because it's just growing their community. As "look how easy it is! Just join us!"

Which was an absolute strawman. Sure. But was still received terribly and lead to a lot of toxicity in return.

I don't know for sure. But that is my interpretation of what I saw around the event. 

[Nakasz.5471]

1 hour ago, mezuzel.4987 said:

I was in a tryhard squad yesterday with subsquads for boons, we broke all bars, we hit the tail, and we failed with 4% left, due to the multiple side-swaps in a row "bug."

I think they really need to add more data to that 60%.
60% win rate doesn't say much. I would love to see the arcdps of your run too 😞
Because I can't believe I'm so lucky to have been able to make this event successful so many times in a roll.

[yann.1946]

7 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

I've seldom seen a more dishonest post of someone claiming victory without actually having attained it.

Tell we where I lied then, did you not say that an average group has a 60/40 win rate and that that group has the same people. 

7 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

If you were honest you would have addressed that you used one term to mean another. This is normally just a mistake without consequences, however, in this case it's ultra important to know the distinction between mode, average, and median when it comes to performance statistics. And in this case the misunderstanding means that you misunderstand the argument entirely.

You yourself used the term average group and player, to then later claim that that average would be close to the mean to then claim that that was the player which appears the most. 

 

And I somehow am using words wrong? When you used mean when you needed to use mode? 

7 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

And there are two kind of RNG, utterly random RNG and determined RNG. Utterly random RNG is just that. Determined RNG means that a something will only do something random in response to another situation and when one response has been chosen  it can only chosen again when the other response has been chosen.

This honestly is not worth responding to, mostly because we have gone so far from what I responded to in the beginning. I'll ask two questions just say whether you agree or disagree. 

 

Around 60% of DE runs result in succes. 

And

The moment a DE group is formed it will likely not have a 60% change to win as the people and comp of the group have significant impact in the change of succes. 

[yann.1946]

 

14 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

No need to throw them away. It's just important to remember that most PR communication has spin. 

Thats different then the "i dont believe that the 60 percent is close to the WR of other metas no?

14 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

Fair. But then again, the failure rate of DS is pretty tiny. What such a map accomplishes is pushing players very deliberately into nothing but the meta. Which leads us back to the presentation topic. Funneling people into content like this despite expecting a lot of them if not most to fail is not ideal.

 

14 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

To be fair. Storyboss is something different. Your performance is judged very directly. And you have some real recourse to improve. Group events are different in that regard.

Well yes, but i was more talking about the notion of failure in content (there is a difference in scale though. I think it is important to make failure not feel bad though (as you mentioned a cooler failure animation and potentially some more gradual rewards so the rewards dont feel so binary.

14 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

And it's also not about being easy first try. Having the community learn a meta is fine. But there should be a solid learning curve you can rely on. There should be something obvious that makes you fail. Otherwise it's not failing the first time. It may be failing 20, 30, 50 times in a row. Despite strong personal performance. Just for being unlucky in map selection. With gatekeeping being the only possible solution. Or you may be lucky and win lots of runs back to back with hardly any fails.

Im not oposed to better learning curves in metas, but i dont think that is the reason we have multiple wipes. Any sufficiently hard meta will need to be learned to do conistently and every group in the beginning has some new (to the meta) players in them. thus resulting in a multitude of wipes.

14 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

That is not good. It creates extremely different points of view and also extremely bad experiences. A recipe for frustration and, as result of that, toxicity. 

 

14 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

I mean, technically not. But that's not what I see.

Ok, so that would be a way to complete the meta consistently without gatekeeping.

14 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

Most guild or community run events start below radar on their discord or what not. Search for an empty map, fill that up with their people. And then, maybe, if there are some slots left will they advertise.

Sure, but that is not an exclusive problem to hard metas. Most guild will try to get their peole on the map first. Its slightly "worse" but not to a substential difference.

14 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

This is a tiny minority of LFG posts with fewer than usual spots for pugers. 

Sure, but the question was "How do you complete the meta consistently without gatekeeping" and that is the question i answered (altough you would need to command which can be big hurdle for people)

14 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

In my opinion this is what caused most of the toxicity towards some of the groups. Like, take HS. There's some idiots in there. Sure. But the vast majority of commanders and organizers within the guild are genuinely excellent people. Truly concerned about helping, sharing knowledge, sharing their enthusiasm for the game.

I havent yet interacted with Hardstuck (i just joined their discord yesterday) so ill take your word for it. It makes sense though. 🙂

14 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

How did they become the target of so much toxicity for telling people "you can do it! We'll help you!"?

I believe it was people being already insanely frustrated. And viewing this as elitist, like taunting, like they tell you that you suck and need to get carried. As if they are happy about the influx of members and love that others fail. Because it's just growing their community. As "look how easy it is! Just join us!"

Which was an absolute strawman. Sure. But was still received terribly and lead to a lot of toxicity in return.

Do you think this can be rectified by the way we communicate or do you think gamedesign needs to solve this?

14 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

I don't know for sure. But that is my interpretation of what I saw around the event. 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by yann.1946

[Wolfb.7025]

On 4/14/2022 at 1:30 PM, Pizzous.4783 said:

According to GW2Efficiency player database, 30.153% have unlocked Hook, Line, and Sinker achievement (owned a Fishing Rod). 26.607% have unlocked I Am The Captain achievement (owned a Skiff).

Meanwhile, only 8.995% have unlocked Stomping Around achievement.

If 26.6% of the playerbase has Skiff it means a little above 1/4 of the playerbase has completed the first part of EoD.

and if 8.9% of the playerbase has the stomping around achievement, it means 1/11 of the playerbase.... or rather, 1/3 of the people with a skiff does have the turtle. That's a pretty high amount tbf.

 

You're not sure how many of that 26.6% have reached the Dragon's End meta

You're not sure how many haven't finished the stomping around achievement but already started it (beated meta).

 

Also, that 60% of success doesn't necessarly mean 60% of the playerbase has done the meta. it could also be the same players completing the meta over and over contributing to the success rate.

[Hesione.9412]

8 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

I've seldom seen a more dishonest post of someone claiming victory without actually having attained it.

If you were honest you would have addressed that you used one term to mean another. This is normally just a mistake without consequences, however, in this case it's ultra important to know the distinction between mode, average, and median when it comes to performance statistics. And in this case the misunderstanding means that you misunderstand the argument entirely.

And there are two kind of RNG, utterly random RNG and determined RNG. Utterly random RNG is just that. Determined RNG means that a something will only do something random in response to another situation and when one response has been chosen  it can only chosen again when the other response has been chosen.

 

I was going to make a more detailed answer about how important it is to know the number of runs of organised squads with experienced commanders versus the number that are not. For example, if 35% of the successful runs are from organised squads with a pretty much 100% success rate, then most of the runs of people who are randomly together on a map will fail. However, if the organised squad runs represent, say only 2%, of the total runs, then the probability of success with a random group is greater.

 

I have a feeling that very few of us are interested in this type of information/interpretation of data.

[Malus.2184]

9 hours ago, Hesione.9412 said:

I have a feeling that very few of us are interested in this type of information/interpretation of data.

Oh yes, you've no idea how people think they're able to read statistics because they know numbers. You have to explain it on a level that they can understand and then they think that's too simple >.<

I know this song and dance well. In my profession I deal with how humans engage in activities, any activity, and I get told all the time that I'm wrong "because they know themselves best."

Edited April 20, 2022 by Malus.2184

[Malus.2184]

9 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Tell we where I lied then, did you not say that an average group has a 60/40 win rate and that that group has the same people. 

In how you ignored that the example I gave was a case study and case studies are -always- the optimal example to reach the point that he case wants to show. It's a model, that's what a case study is. It's based on something real, and then turned up to 11 and no longer realistic. So either you've no idea what you're talking about, or you have and you're consciously lying.

It can only be one of the two.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Malus.2184

[Gorem.8104]

Yeah I love their vagueness- Hey guys! DE meta is being done 60% of attempts now! 
With literally no other information. Not "only with Groups who use 5 man subgroups and have Alc and Quickness in each group!" or anything else for that matter, no "Only total attempts have dropped 1,000%" Because I know for a fact that there is less and less people doing the meta daily, which would lead to a higher completion rate... because no one is doing it. I just joined a map earlier today where they were doing the night escorts. The fact that it was possible to join the map means it wasn't full. So the only group running it, were doing it on a non-full map. 

 

Its just like all previous posts about this event, they are treating us like children who don't know any better. They seem to think we are not smart. 

[evlover.6270]

The problem of the DE meta is not its difficulty. It already wasn't with only 15% success rate and it definitely isn't now with its 60% success rate. The problem of the meta is the lack of rewards and time that's "lost" in case it fails. It's not like insta joining a 10 minute thing and failing it, it's getting into a decent map first, building up buffs required to try to get it done comfortably (yes, I know don't necessarily need the buffs but still..). All in all the rewards for succeeding do not outweigh the lack of obtaining anything at all in case you fail, and the addition of a carrot like an infusion isn't changing anything to that. What this meta needs is a progression based reward system based on the amount of events that you did that procs rewards every 10-15mins until the meta is done so that your time "trying" to get the kill is never wasted, even if you don't make it. If that would be the case, the whining about not getting the kill wouldn't be so loud anymore either.

Talking from my own experience: upon release I did it 3 times with pugs and failed but didn't really care as I was learning mechanics. Then I felt like I got the hang of it, joined discord, got the daily kill for a couple of days and stopped doing it after a week or so because it wasn't worth the time despite getting the rewards for getting the kill every attempt. The addition of the daily antique summoning stone didn't change anything to that imo and neither does the addition of the infusion. So I refrain from doing it until rewards are worth the time or when there's a day that I really don't have anything better to do. But then again I'd rather do a Dragon's Stand during more or less the same time and loot 70+ noxious pods on such a day than doing a DE meta.. 

But again the issue is not the fight, it's the lack of guaranteed rewards for the time spent on it (like, even if for example DS would be stuck at towers, you could still loot pods at the 6 camps, in DE you get absolutely nothing, THAT is the major flaw, not the supposed difficulty of the fight.)

Edited April 19, 2022 by evlover.6270

[Labjax.2465]

3 hours ago, Gorem.8104 said:

Its just like all previous posts about this event, they are treating us like children who don't know any better. They seem to think we are not smart. 

That's PR for you. And if we're being real, it often works because a lot of people won't have the time for, or interest in, investigating past fluffy, confidently made claims.

[yann.1946]

7 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

In how you ignored that the example I gave was a case study

Which ones of the two do you think was a casestudy? Your example of an average group having 60/40 WR with the same people or your example where your group failed at 5%?

7 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

and case studies are -always- the optimal example to reach the point that he case wants to show. It's a model, that's what a case study is. It's based on something real, and then turned up to 11 and no longer realistic.

That is not what a casestudy is though, the first of the things I mentioned above can not be a casestudy (as it is mostly a thought experiment) , and the second example could be, but the only thing we can meaningful gleam from that is that sometimes RNG can screw a group over and that it doesn't feel good if that happens, neither where things I disputed. 

 

You have said things which where just really bad uses of statistics or plain lies, I don't yet know which one of these it is. 

7 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

So eitrher you've no idea what you're talking about, or you have and you're consciously lying.

It can onky be one of the two.

I prefer the third, your just missing what I actually have a problem with, and not actually understanding what I'm responding to.