Need more clarity around 60% success rate in DE meta

[yann.1946]

27 minutes ago, Killthehealersffs.8940 said:

Maybe raiders , should avoid with interfering with the casuals ? Or don't ever talk for behalf of us to the Devs...

Have you considered that you have an unreasonable hatred for some subset of players and that that clouds your judgment on some issues?

[Killthehealersffs.8940]

10 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Have you considered that you have an unreasonable hatred for some subset of players and that that clouds your judgment on some issues?

Maybe those kind of people should stop ?

We have people like that poster  going around , that they shoudn't make a 11111push button meta .

But the majority of the casuals don't have problem with the actuals mechanics , but hate high HP  ?

 

Eevery1 should stay on their side of the fence ...

 

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

10 minutes ago, Killthehealersffs.8940 said:

Simple as that , you should not speak about the casuals , if you cannot find the problems , which is not the Core-Events-Mechanics .

The problem is lack of damage, which was enstablished multiple times, but you seemingly continue to ignore that. This problem comes from the lack of prior "difficult" content. If you can play the game without ever looking up how you can CC or having the need of doing more than using your auto attacks you will never learn how to do the bare minimum.
Look at Gerent, in a squad of 10 you 2-3 people around/above 15k DPS, about 5 hovering between 5k and 10k and you have the rest doing 2-3k.
You bring this mentality to DE and scale it up to 50 you'll get the "problem", 20 players doing 5-10k, ~10 being above 20k while the rest is well below 7k. Why is this? Well, in other content your personal contribution didn't matter much, because the boss died anyways, but as soon as your contribution would weigh more your lack of contribution becomes more apparent. 
The logical response to this seems to be visiting the forums and complaining how the meta is difficult, because your usual way of doing things is not enough here. 

People recommended checking your gear, making sure you are running level 80 Exotic, making sure you have trinkets, Runes, Sigils. Some people went as far as linking LI(Low Intensity) builds that can achieve high DPS without any difficulty.

As you can see there are people still complaining about it being difficult, noone should be suprised that at this point the response is simply "then just git gud", you got offered help, you turned it down.

1 minute ago, Killthehealersffs.8940 said:

Maybe those kind of people should stop ?

And these kind of people should stop constantly complaining about the problem when the solution was already presented a while ago.

2 minutes ago, Killthehealersffs.8940 said:

We have people like that poster  going around , that they shoudn't make a 11111push button meta .

Exactly, making everything in OW a reward pinata you hit once and get everything from teaches a bunch that they just have to show up to get rewards. As soon as any difficulty is presented they start having a tantrum that hitting the enemy once didn't give them the reward.

3 minutes ago, Killthehealersffs.8940 said:

But the majority of the casuals don't have problem with the actuals mechanics , but hate high HP  ?

Still none of us are talking about mechanics.

[Killthehealersffs.8940]

10 hours ago, IAmNotMatthew.1058 said:

The problem is lack of damage, which was enstablished multiple times, but you seemingly continue to ignore that. This problem comes from the lack of prior "difficult" content. If you can play the game without ever looking up how you can CC or having the need of doing more than using your auto attacks you will never learn how to do the bare minimum.
Look at Gerent, in a squad of 10 you 2-3 people around/above 15k DPS, about 5 hovering between 5k and 10k and you have the rest doing 2-3k.
You bring this mentality to DE and scale it up to 50 you'll get the "problem", 20 players doing 5-10k, ~10 being above 20k while the rest is well below 7k. Why is this? Well, in other content your personal contribution didn't matter much, because the boss died anyways, but as soon as your contribution would weigh more your lack of contribution becomes more apparent. 
The logical response to this seems to be visiting the forums and complaining how the meta is difficult, because your usual way of doing things is not enough here. 

People recommended checking your gear, making sure you are running level 80 Exotic, making sure you have trinkets, Runes, Sigils. Some people went as far as linking LI(Low Intensity) builds that can achieve high DPS without any difficulty.

As you can see there are people still complaining about it being difficult, noone should be suprised that at this point the response is simply "then just git gud", you got offered help, you turned it down.

And these kind of people should stop constantly complaining about the problem when the solution was already presented a while ago.

Exactly, making everything in OW a reward pinata you hit once and get everything from teaches a bunch that they just have to show up to get rewards. As soon as any difficulty is presented they start having a tantrum that hitting the enemy once didn't give them the reward.

Still none of us are talking about mechanics.

So people for not having problems with the actual mechanics , but cannot do 7k , willforce the company to create more 1111push/netflix/afk metas ?

 

(this is why i hate dps meters and people staring at them..)

Edited April 25, 2022 by Killthehealersffs.8940

[Astralporing.1957]

6 hours ago, Wielder Of Magic.3950 said:

That is not what I said, put a stop to the bad faith arguments and lies please. 

You want DE meta - the meta most OW players can't really participate in, to become a new standard for all OW events. The only sensible conclusion i can take from this is that you want to exclude most current OW players from all futore OW content.

6 hours ago, Wielder Of Magic.3950 said:

As for that huge majority of yours: If the event has a 60% clear rate the majority of people actually gets included. 

You might want to check what this "statistics" they mentioned actually said, because it definitely did not say that 60% of players cleared the event.

6 hours ago, Wielder Of Magic.3950 said:

There comes a point where if you have tried long enough, but people continue to refuse learning, that you leave these people behind because they are starting to hold back everyone else.

That "everyone else" is still a minority.

[AliamRationem.5172]

2 hours ago, IAmNotMatthew.1058 said:

It's perfectly fine having one meta that requires more than 2 braincells firing at the same time.

Dragonfall takes ~2 hours, AB is almost 2 hours, Drizzlewood is some time over an hour. It's not the duration people have problem with. It's the fact that DE is not mindless.

I actually hope Anet gets into the habit of making OW content that's hard enough that you can't watch Netflix on a second monitor while auto attacking enemies.  

No. AB takes about 15 minutes if you show up early enough to not end up on an overflow map.   Time is definitely a factor for me. I like the meta but no way do I want to spend an hour prepping for it to succeed.

[Malus.2184]

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

In case you missed it

 

A case study is a form of research where you take a specific example or a specific set of examples to derive some properties from and try to deduce what caused these properties. (f.e. when trying to figure out what makes serial murders tick we could talk to a specific one to see what makes that on thick and go in depth on that person)

 

Most of the time this gets done to either

A) find  hypothesiss people want to test.

B) make some statement when we have little data or not being able to etchicaly gather data. 

C) Because it makes a better story if you want to convince people.

 

Most forms of case studies are retrospective studies, but they can also be prospective.

I understand, why you might be confused. 

You dont just "make" an real case ideal. 

you can only use that to discuss things which dont depend on the composition. (In this case you could not use the 60 percent number but could discuss how there are RNG components independent of players action.)

 

This is not a case study though, there is no reall case here. This is more a thoughtexperiment.

Possibly yes, 

And this part is wrong. There is no inherent reason why the same performance should always lead to the same result. Almost no game functions like that. The gap in performance where it maters is sometimes really small, but lots of very famous and good games have inherent forms of RNG (Any boardgame with dice, allmost all cardgames etc.) 

 

And at this moment we dont actually know how big this gap where RNG is lickely to screw performance over is.

 

I'm surprised that you answered and gave a clear definition. I'm glad you did though as now I can use a source. Your definition of what a case study is wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_study). In this case the case is whether the RNG has any effect on the outcome. I then extrapolated it to occupational science instead of mathematical science and created an equation based on the conditions of the fight. I based that on a lot of observations (N=X). You then ignored it, and that says a lot about what bias you have.

In this specific case the observations of "this is terrible" are more valid than "this is fine." Since you can find more observational data on what went wrong than what went right. In this case, you can set the P-value in the equation to whatever you want and if you repeat the equation and only changing the numbers oif the RNG, which does chance from attempt to attempt, you get a different benchmark number

I've polished the formula.

(P + ((A)+25%)(ad) + ((Q)+50%)(ad)) + (E(X)*W) - (Ta*Y) - (Bi*Z) = B = A(success)

P = performce in DPS. AN et has this data.

(A) =Alacrity

(Q) = Quickness'

(ad) = Additive

E(Y) = Exposed (time it can be used)

W = the amount of Exposed in the fight.

Ta = Tail

Y = the amount of tails on the fight

Bi = Bite

Z = the amount of bites in the fight

B = Benchmark

A(success) = Activity (success)

[Nakasz.5471]

45 minutes ago, Killthehealersffs.8940 said:

So people for not having problems with the actual mechanics , but cannot do 7k , willforce the company to create more 1111push/netflix/afk metas ?

 

(this is why i hate dps meters and people staring at them..)

Everyone can 7k + dps, its almost impossible that someone cant do this with properly build + jade tech buffs + DE buff

Edited April 25, 2022 by Nakasz.5471

[Zok.4956]

On 4/24/2022 at 1:12 AM, Kuya.6495 said:

Squad organizing to distribute boons correctly is also done in strikes and WvW. There isn't anything challenging about putting 1 quick and 1 alac source in each sub squad. Organization isn't synonymous to raids.

Well, there are "raids" in WvW (the first time I heard about "raids" in WvW was even before PvE raids existed in GW2) and if you are fighting against good enemy players/groups, the PvP part of WvW can be more challenging than PvE-raids.

[Erise.5614]

9 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Not really, that would be the case if we would expect everyone to have that succes rate. But the fora already showed that that is not the case. (For example people who always join guildruns will have an higher winrate, and people joining last minute will have lower win rates.)

The comment was in response to someone claiming to join random LFGs.

This fact you bring up here just means the real win rate of those situations is below 60/40. 

9 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

There also is a subtle difference between the average winrate of a player and the succesrate of a meta. We dont know if anet  counted leftover sharts who fail because nobdoy tries them for example.

Unless we get more context for the data it's really not a good argument one way or the other. Depending on what perspective you wanna push you can interpret whatever you want into the number. It's all baseless assumptions.

Either you accept the number at face value to represent the average player experience or the number is worthless due to lack of data / specificity. 

9 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

As far as i see that absolutely part of the argument ( even if people are not aware they are doing it). If a player plays a dos support build well then there WR will be higher then average because they carry the group to some degree.

A good support build can increase team performance. But since support is inherently about amplifying effectiveness of your team rather than doing everything yourself the impact depends a lot on your team. Meaning it will only affect win rate in close runs. Which again requires more information and more data (like this thread asks for). Whether it would have any impact at all and how large that impact could possibly be. 

Again. There is no data. So either you have to just accept the data we have or make assumptions based on personal belief. 

[Astralporing.1957]

5 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

As a question, do you consider one failure a problem?

Depends how many successes are to that failure, how high the price of failure, and how many people you meant to succeed at all.

For something meant for "average" people, a single failure in a group of successes is definitely not a problem. A single failure for each success may be okay, or may be a problem depending on how often you can repeat the tries, how much time does a repeat take, and how rewarding is a win. A failure in a company of 20 more and few or no successes is a major problem.

On the other hand, if it's something where success is meant to be something exclusive and rare, it becomes the exact opposite. Then too many successes and too few failures would be a problem.

 

[yann.1946]

1 hour ago, Erise.5614 said:

The comment was in response to someone claiming to join random LFGs.

This fact you bring up here just means the real win rate of those situations is below 60/40. 

Most lickely then yes, i didnt read that it was in response to someone claiming random groups. 

There probably is a different in the times they join groups zrx?

1 hour ago, Erise.5614 said:

Unless we get more context for the data it's really not a good argument one way or the other. Depending on what perspective you wanna push you can interpret whatever you want into the number. It's all baseless assumptions.

It doesnt make it worthless though. It means that a minimum of 60 percent tried runs succeed. It might be more based on how they counted, but the 60 becomes a minimum.

1 hour ago, Erise.5614 said:

Either you accept the number at face value to represent the average player experience or the number is worthless due to lack of data / specificity. 

Then the number is apperently worthless. The 60 percent can never represent the average players experience. (even if they specificied because the kind of player the player is is one variable determining their winrate.)

1 hour ago, Erise.5614 said:

A good support build can increase team performance. But since support is inherently about amplifying effectiveness of your team rather than doing everything yourself the impact depends a lot on your team. Meaning it will only affect win rate in close runs.

Sure, but it increase WR that is the point. 

1 hour ago, Erise.5614 said:

Which again requires more information and more data (like this thread asks for). Whether it would have any impact at all and how large that impact could possibly be. 

Well that it would have an impact i dont think is an unreasonable stance. How much that ofcourse is difficult to determine.

1 hour ago, Erise.5614 said:

Again. There is no data. So either you have to just accept the data we have or make assumptions based on personal belief. 

Werent you the one who said that we should take the data with a grain of salt because of PR? I would argue we can draw some conclusions based on some interference. The thing is, we cant just "accept" the data, because then the only thing people could say is that 60 percent of runs succeed. There is no way to know whether that is a problem and what that actually means for the game. 

 

Saying that that 60 percent represent the average experience is drawing conclusions from interference for example, the data doesnt tell you that. (There is what i consider a very good reason why that is not the case, i think groups who are succesfull are more lickely full then groups then fail (this  is ofcourse based on my perception, i have no data atm to back that up, but it doesnt seem unreasonable to me))

 

[yann.1946]

2 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

I'm surprised that you answered and gave a clear definition. I'm glad you did though as now I can use a source. Your definition of what a case study is wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_study).

Where does my definition disagree with the one you linked, where am i wrong?

2 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

In this case the case is whether the RNG has any effect on the outcome.

You dont need a casestudy for that, everyone agrees RNG of the fight has some effect on the outcome. The difference in opiniion is how big that difference is and whether that is a problem. (Also the word case in the context of a casestudy would be "A run of the DE meta" and the goal would be to discuss RNG.)

2 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

I then extrapolated it to occupational science instead of mathematical science and created an equation based on the conditions of the fight. I based that on a lot of observations (N=X). 

 

2 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

You then ignored it, and that says a lot about what bias you have.

The equation is just not really important for anything really, it doesnt clarify anything it doesnt tell you anything new. Its just there to give your argument the pretext of sophistication. 

 

Or shorter, its worthless because it predicts nothing of value.

 

Also, just respond to what im saying instead of just trying to discredit me. 

2 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

In this specific case the observations of "this is terrible" are more valid than "this is fine." Since you can find more observational data on what went wrong than what went right.

That makes no sense, this really needs more qualifiers to say anything. Sometimes lots of things go wrong and the result is still fine, sometimes one thing goes wrong and everything breaks. 

2 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

In this case, you can set the P-value in the equation to whatever you want and if you repeat the equation and only changing the numbers oif the RNG, which does chance from attempt to attempt, you get a different benchmark number

I've polished the formula.

(P + ((A)+25%)(ad) + ((Q)+50%)(ad)) + (E(X)*W) - (Ta*Y) - (Bi*Z) = B = A(success)

P = performce in DPS. AN et has this data.

(A) =Alacrity

(Q) = Quickness'

(ad) = Additive

E(Y) = Exposed (time it can be used)

W = the amount of Exposed in the fight.

Ta = Tail

Y = the amount of tails on the fight

Bi = Bite

Z = the amount of bites in the fight

B = Benchmark

A(success) = Activity (success)

As i said, this tells you nothing new. Their is some gap where some groups might succeed while others dont purely on RNG. THat is not news, everyone agrees there. That still doesnt tell you what that RNG gap is and whether that is a problem.

[yann.1946]

1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Depends how many successes are to that failure, how high the price of failure, and how many people you meant to succeed at all.

That i agree with.

1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

For something meant for "average" people, a single failure in a group of successes is definitely not a problem. A single failure for each success may be okay, or may be a problem depending on how often you can repeat the tries, how much time does a repeat take, and how rewarding is a win. A failure in a company of 20 more and few or no successes is a major problem.

And this i agree with to for the most part (In very specific context, like progression raiding, those 20 failures might be oke but that is not really for the average person) 

1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

On the other hand, if it's something where success is meant to be something exclusive and rare, it becomes the exact opposite. Then too many successes and too few failures would be a problem.

 

This i agree with to.

 

I guess we might differ on where the lines get drawn, but that is just a minor part. I did ask the question to another person because it seemed like that person considered all failure a problem, so i wanted some clarification there (did i misread for example)

[Malus.2184]

1 minute ago, yann.1946 said:

Where does my definition disagree with the one you linked, where am i wrong?

It was technically correct, and technically correct is always contextually wrong.

2 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

You dont need a casestudy for that, everyone agrees RNG of the fight has some effect on the outcome. The difference in opiniion is how big that difference is and whether that is a problem. (Also the word case in the context of a casestudy would be "A run of the DE meta" and the goal would be to discuss RNG.)

Yup, that's the reason a lot of people are expressing that everything is fine in design and there's no RNG in DE. Did you even read anything or are you just spewing warm air in order to look good?

 

4 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

The equation is just not really important for anything really, it doesnt clarify anything it doesnt tell you anything new. Its just there to give your argument the pretext of sophistication. 

Okay, proving that random events can vastly affect the a outcome of the activity is "not really important"? I find it incredibly telling that you say "not really important" instead of "unimportant." The former is negative communication and the latter is positive communication. It signals that subconsciously you know that what you say is wrong. since it's spoken out of emotion and phrased in away that the recipient has to replace "not" with a word that has meaning as "not " has none. For a word to have meaning it has to have an opposite that it can be contrasted again. "Not" has none. The opposite to "any" is "none."

9 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

That makes no sense, this really needs more qualifiers to say anything. Sometimes lots of things go wrong and the result is still fine, sometimes one thing goes wrong and everything breaks. 

Yes, sometimes things goes wrong. This argument in context makes no sense as it's an implicit admission that sometimes RNG is just against people. Which goes against what you said about the RNG being unimportant. If it was unimportant then it would never be able to impact the outcome in the regard that you implied.

Unless there's a mass DC or a mass brain-fart then the only thingthat should be able to make people fail is their own performaance and ability to adapt.

13 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

As i said, this tells you nothing new. Their is some gap where some groups might succeed while others dont purely on RNG. THat is not news, everyone agrees there. That still doesnt tell you what that RNG gap is and whether that is a problem.

Which goes against what you expressed above.

Your argumentation seems solid until one goes into depths with it or knows what to look for then it's just vapid in nature. I'm unable to take anything of what you say seriously sincer post is full of expressed congnitive dissonance.

[Malus.2184]

1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

On the other hand, if it's something where success is meant to be something exclusive and rare, it becomes the exact opposite. Then too many successes and too few failures would be a problem.

No, that's actually how it should evolve naturally. There shoulds never be a natural standstill until much later. The 60% should be 60% at currently instead of a stable 60/40. How long has it been since you've failed at something that had been in the game for a long time? Tripple Trouble excepted.

The last time I failed was because too few people showed up to do something.

Even if people are unable to adapt to new situations they'll eventually learn by rote. As such the success rate on somethingshould stabilize somewhere around 90.

60/40 is unnatural unless it's cased by a performance benchmark. However, even from observing DE one can observe how one group with a barely successfull performance benchmark can fail the next one if it has the exact same internal circumstances.

[Erise.5614]

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

It doesnt make it worthless though. It means that a minimum of 60 percent tried runs succeed. It might be more based on how they counted, but the 60 becomes a minimum.

Technically. In the context of how they counted the data. What counts as attempt has massive impact. Also, this is the average number which is more prone to extreme values than the median. E.g. counting daily successes by a highly active guild as one success a day throughout a month as equivalent to 30 maps worth of players loosing once and never trying again. 

Context matters. 

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

Then the number is apperently worthless. The 60 percent can never represent the average players experience. (even if they specificied because the kind of player the player is is one variable determining their winrate.)

That's the beauty about statistics. It's not about individual experiences. Statistics deliberately drown out individual data points and often even explicitly exclude extreme data points so a global trend can emerge which is more useful than any anecdote would be.  

The real question is about how they collected data and what the distribution looks like.

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

Sure, but it increase WR that is the point. 

Not necessarily, is the point. Or rather. Not necessarily to a significant degree. This is an interpretation and assumption on your end. A valid hypothesis that could be true.

What if I put up the hypothesis that the performance of your map is more important. That if you analyze success rate based on whether the performance of any individual player mattered (by adjusting the result depending on average map performance). If you analyze it like that, I put up the assumption and theory that the impact will not be significant. 

In theory that's just as valid a hypothesis and neither can be proven with the information we have.  

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

Well that it would have an impact i dont think is an unreasonable stance. How much that ofcourse is difficult to determine.

As mentioned above. An impact sure. But does it affect success rate? We can't even say for sure it did in a single attempt. 
It's an easy knee jerk answer. Just support, just do boons, just be early, just get the buff, just ask the comm some simple questions to gauge whether they know the event well enough to assume whether this map has an increased chance of success so with time and experience you can increase your chances by a bit.

It's literally that simple!!!1!

And, you know. As best anyone knows it might be. Just as it might not be. 

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

Werent you the one who said that we should take the data with a grain of salt because of PR? I would argue we can draw some conclusions based on some interference. The thing is, we cant just "accept" the data, because then the only thing people could say is that 60 percent of runs succeed. There is no way to know whether that is a problem and what that actually means for the game. 

 

Saying that that 60 percent represent the average experience is drawing conclusions from interference for example, the data doesnt tell you that. (There is what i consider a very good reason why that is not the case, i think groups who are succesfull are more lickely full then groups then fail (this  is ofcourse based on my perception, i have no data atm to back that up, but it doesnt seem unreasonable to me))

I did. Which is why I think your claim of a minimum of 60% is unfounded. 

Just like your example here is only valid on an assumption of what precise data was evaluated by ANet. It assumes they counted dead maps. It assumes the fight scales down very slowly if at all. 

There's really only 3 things you can do with the statistic as is. Accept it at face value. Attempt to interpret it based on assumptions and personal belief. Disregard it for lack of information.

And none of them are particularly constructive. The thread has a point. 60% doesn't sound good and offers obvious assumptions that guilds and communities are extremely overrepresented. I too would like more data about it.

But then again, more public data doesn't improve the game. It just increases drama. So that's probably not a good idea for ANet to release. I do think it was meant motivationally. But even the 60% number was probably a mistake to release. 

Just like plenty of the design flaws and bugs on the event were a mistake to release. They really need a better beta format for difficult content. A lot of negativity and bad experiences could have been avoided with more solid beta testing. And would have made most of these discussions obsolete.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Erise.5614

[Hesione.9412]

11 hours ago, Wielder Of Magic.3950 said:

That is not what I said, put a stop to the bad faith arguments and lies please. 

As for that huge majority of yours: If the event has a 60% clear rate the majority of people actually gets included. 

So it says more about your own playstyle and the bubble you play in if your experience is 90% failure or something like that. 

I do not wish to exclude anyone, what I DO wish for,  is people finally getting the basics of this game down after so many years. 

Anet has tried to teach these things many times and in many different ways and encounters over the years. 

Perhaps not in the best possible way, but they tried. 

There comes a point where if you have tried long enough, but people continue to refuse learning, that you leave these people behind because they are starting to hold back everyone else.

 

You can't say that a 60% clear rate means the majority of people get included. You don't have the data to draw that conclusion. We don't know how Anet has come to the 60% conclusion, for example whether it includes maps where people start doing events and then give up and don't even start the Soo-Won fight. 

 

You appear to think that having OW metas that are simply too hard for a large proportion of the player base is a good idea. I disagree with that. 

 

This isn't school, or university, or a job. It's a game and people are supposed to have fun. The game is marketed as casual, with no gear grind. Forcing players to change their playstyle, or else they miss out, is antithetical to both these points.

 

It's also not necessarily that players don't "know" how to play their character. Some of them are running older computers that have problems handling the graphics noise (but hey, they should just buy a new computer!). Some of us have higher ping that makes it more difficult to react to events (but hey, let's ignore the players further away from the servers!). Some of us have disabilities, or are older, or both, and that makes the game just a little bit harder to play (but hey, people with disabilities and who are older, why are they playing games anyway!).

 

But, yeah, the players who are having problems are just refusing to improve themselves, so it's their own fault they can't finish the meta. 🙄

[Hesione.9412]

11 hours ago, Wielder Of Magic.3950 said:

Then people should improve to the bare minimum level.  

Pretty much every game in existance demands more of your skill level in newer/later content when compared to older/beginner content.  

GW2 is not doing something weird or wrong here.  

And if people cannot do this unless carried, that is a problem, but not a problem of the meta being overly hard.  

Especially because in order to go from 'getting carried' to 'positively contributing towards succes'  you only need to make such a small investment.  

 

And comparing this to a doctor is a downright ridiculous comparison, nobody's life depends on you clearing an optional event or not. 

 

 

 

Why is the comparison bad? Why is 60% fine in one case, but not in another?

 

And if it's not important, then the event can be somewhat nerfed so the proportion of successes increases. Because nobody's life depends on whether the meta is made easier.

[Zoid.2568]

They could just nerf the HP by 15%-ish and everything is good.

[Wielder Of Magic.3950]

Just did it again. 

No discord. 

Joined a random group ~ 15 minutes or so before escort with no reqs stated. 

Massively active squadchat with good banter. 

Finished Soo Won with 5:30 mins left on the counter.

 

How? 

People listened to the commander, did cc, and on average we put out more than 7k DPS. 

Some more than others, but it was more than enough overall.

 

I rest my case.

41 minutes ago, Hesione.9412 said:

And if it's not important, then the event can be somewhat nerfed so the proportion of successes increases. Because nobody's life depends on whether the meta is made easier.

 

And overly restricting Anet in their future encounter design. 

Can't have bosses with health and a timer because people fail to do damage. 

Can't have bosses with shockwaves because people don't jump over them.

Can't have bosses with dangerous hits because people cannot dodge them. 

Can't have bosses with breakbars because people cannot break them.

 

Anet has tried to better the community for years now, and now they try with slightly more force. 

99.9% of the content is catered to people that do not want to improve. 

this is the 0.1% that is. 

So maybe stop demanding that instead of 99.9% you get 100% of the open world catered to you. 

Succes is within reach for you if you invest the minimum.

50 minutes ago, Hesione.9412 said:

This isn't school, or university, or a job. It's a game and people are supposed to have fun. The game is marketed as casual, with no gear grind. Forcing players to change their playstyle, or else they miss out, is antithetical to both these points.

 

No gear grind does not equal unable to fail, same goes for casual. And I think its hilarious that a minimal investment is equal to school or a job for you. Nobody asks you to change your playstyle, just that you aren't dead weight when you join a squad with others. This is a meta without participation trophies. Don't like it and refuse to do the bare minimum? Go play somewhere else, you have an entire game waiting for you where your play style is 100% fine.

54 minutes ago, Hesione.9412 said:

It's also not necessarily that players don't "know" how to play their character. Some of them are running older computers that have problems handling the graphics noise (but hey, they should just buy a new computer!). Some of us have higher ping that makes it more difficult to react to events (but hey, let's ignore the players further away from the servers!). Some of us have disabilities, or are older, or both, and that makes the game just a little bit harder to play (but hey, people with disabilities and who are older, why are they playing games anyway!).

 

Sorry, but no matter how true those things might be in theory, you cannot continue to cater to the lowest possible theoretical skillfloor every time. I am sure we also have people playing who for example due to a disability have a delayed reaction time of 5+ seconds and cannot do more than 0.5k DPS. In fact, I remember such a player from GW1. They exist sure. But we can't balance every event around those players, because their skill-level is lightyears below that of others.  You have a right to play the game, you have a right to witness the DE meta, but you do not have a right to seeing it succeed just by being there.

57 minutes ago, Hesione.9412 said:

But, yeah, the players who are having problems are just refusing to improve themselves, so it's their own fault they can't finish the meta. 🙄

 

Considering I literally just went in with a random group with no prep.... 

Improve harder. 

Soo-Won is not going to make it any easier for you. 

You can either ask yourself "how can I succeed this very manageable meta event"....
Or you can just complain endlessly on the official forums about it while others clear it daily.

[Hesione.9412]

2 minutes ago, Wielder Of Magic.3950 said:

Just did it again. 

No discord. 

Joined a random group ~ 15 minutes or so before escort with no reqs stated. 

Massively active squadchat with good banter. 

Finished Soo Won with 5:30 mins left on the counter.

 

How? 

People listened to the commander, did cc, and on average we put out more than 7k DPS. 

Some more than others, but it was more than enough overall.

 

I rest my case.

 

And overly restricting Anet in their future encounter design. 

Can't have bosses with health and a timer because people fail to do damage. 

Can't have bosses with shockwaves because people don't jump over them.

Can't have bosses with dangerous hits because people cannot dodge them. 

Can't have bosses with breakbars because people cannot break them.

 

Anet has tried to better the community for years now, and now they try with slightly more force. 

99.9% of the content is catered to people that do not want to improve. 

this is the 0.1% that is. 

So maybe stop demanding that instead of 99.9% you get 100% of the open world catered to you. 

Succes is within reach for you if you invest the minimum.

 

No gear grind does not equal unable to fail, same goes for casual. And I think its hilarious that a minimal investment is equal to school or a job for you. Nobody asks you to change your playstyle, just that you aren't dead weight when you join a squad with others. This is a meta without participation trophies. Don't like it and refuse to do the bare minimum? Go play somewhere else, you have an entire game waiting for you where your play style is 100% fine.

 

Sorry, but no matter how true those things might be in theory, you cannot continue to cater to the lowest possible theoretical skillfloor every time. I am sure we also have people playing who for example due to a disability have a delayed reaction time of 5+ seconds and cannot do more than 0.5k DPS. In fact, I remember such a player from GW1. They exist sure. But we can't balance every event around those players, because their skill-level is lightyears below that of others.  You have a right to play the game, you have a right to witness the DE meta, but you do not have a right to seeing it succeed just by being there.

 

Considering I literally just went in with a random group with no prep.... 

Improve harder. 

Soo-Won is not going to make it any easier for you. 

You can either ask yourself "how can I succeed this very manageable meta event"....
Or you can just complain endlessly on the official forums about it while others clear it daily.

The plural of anecdote is not data. 

 

You are doing are continuing to do both reductio ad absurdum and ad hominem attacks on me. You're not addressing the points. You're failing to engage in good faith.

 

You're also making huge assumptions at how I'm doing in the meta. And your assumptions are wrong.

[Gorem.8104]

5 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

Technically. In the context of how they counted the data. What counts as attempt has massive impact. Also, this is the average number which is more prone to extreme values than the median. E.g. counting daily successes by a highly active guild as one success a day throughout a month as equivalent to 30 maps worth of players loosing once and never trying again. 

Context matters. 

That's the beauty about statistics. It's not about individual experiences. Statistics deliberately drown out individual data points and often even explicitly exclude extreme data points so a global trend can emerge which is more useful than any anecdote would be.  

The real question is about how they collected data and what the distribution looks like.

Not necessarily, is the point. Or rather. Not necessarily to a significant degree. This is an interpretation and assumption on your end. A valid hypothesis that could be true.

What if I put up the hypothesis that the performance of your map is more important. That if you analyze success rate based on whether the performance of any individual player mattered (by adjusting the result depending on average map performance). If you analyze it like that, I put up the assumption and theory that the impact will not be significant. 

In theory that's just as valid a hypothesis and neither can be proven with the information we have.  

As mentioned above. An impact sure. But does it affect success rate? We can't even say for sure it did in a single attempt. 
It's an easy knee jerk answer. Just support, just do boons, just be early, just get the buff, just ask the comm some simple questions to gauge whether they know the event well enough to assume whether this map has an increased chance of success so with time and experience you can increase your chances by a bit.

It's literally that simple!!!1!

And, you know. As best anyone knows it might be. Just as it might not be. 

I did. Which is why I think your claim of a minimum of 60% is unfounded. 

Just like your example here is only valid on an assumption of what precise data was evaluated by ANet. It assumes they counted dead maps. It assumes the fight scales down very slowly if at all. 

There's really only 3 things you can do with the statistic as is. Accept it at face value. Attempt to interpret it based on assumptions and personal belief. Disregard it for lack of information.

And none of them are particularly constructive. The thread has a point. 60% doesn't sound good and offers obvious assumptions that guilds and communities are extremely overrepresented. I too would like more data about it.

But then again, more public data doesn't improve the game. It just increases drama. So that's probably not a good idea for ANet to release. I do think it was meant motivationally. But even the 60% number was probably a mistake to release. 

Just like plenty of the design flaws and bugs on the event were a mistake to release. They really need a better beta format for difficult content. A lot of negativity and bad experiences could have been avoided with more solid beta testing. And would have made most of these discussions obsolete.

This, and following this: 

4 hours ago, Zoid.2568 said:

They could just nerf the HP by 15%-ish and everything is good.

Tbh, if they designed this fight differently, if they had a beta testing server and that was not the live servers, imagine how things would be different. If the fight came out with 10minutes longer on the timer, right now everything would be different and the entire games player base, literally everyone, would have a different perspective on the expansion as a whole. The fight should have released in this state and then be fixed towards the general populace it would be fine, but the fact is raid groups were failing back at launch. People who do this for basically a living were failing. Its almost not just about making the same mistake they have made before, but they actively designed a fight to be on purpose at launch, completable by less then the 1% of the population of players in the game. 

The fact is, they said 60% of attempts are passing now, that means nothing based on the general populace. That means the people still doing the meta are failing in general, 40% of the time. Spending 2 hours in the zone and getting nothing. That is all that essentially means, you have a 40% chance to get nothing for 2 hours of work being amongst the few remaining players still doing the meta. 

If that was the stats back at launch, it would have a lot more credibility. Cause at launch we knew everyone and their cat and dog was doing the meta. Telling us this information now doesn't really tell us anything besides the fact that the meta still has a high fail rate for the people still doing it. 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Gorem.8104

[yann.1946]

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

It was technically correct, and technically correct is always contextually wrong.

Thank you for showing me why you are not actually interested in the conversation.

This is the first time a person has ever said my definition is wrong and then throw my definition back at me. 🙂 

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

Yup, that's the reason a lot of people are expressing that everything is fine in design and there's no RNG in DE. Did you even read anything or are you just spewing warm air in order to look good?

I ask you the same, where did people say their was no RNG in DE? The closest to that statement you can find is that the RNG doesnt affect them.

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

Okay, proving that random events can vastly affect the a outcome of the activity is "not really important"?

You havent shown how big that gap is, and people already agree that RNG can affect the outcome and swap success to failures an vice versa.

Your asking whether it is "not important" that you have shown that the sky is blue.

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

I find it incredibly telling that you say "not really important" instead of "unimportant." The former is negative communication and the latter is positive communication. It signals that subconsciously you know that what you say is wrong. since it's spoken out of emotion and phrased in away that the recipient has to replace "not" with a word that has meaning as "not " has none. For a word to have meaning it has to have an opposite that it can be contrasted again. "Not" has none. The opposite to "any" is "none."

I love the fact that you try to psychoanalyse me. Its very interesting that you seem to need to try to discredit my character instead of my arguments.

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

Yes, sometimes things goes wrong. This argument in context makes no sense as it's an implicit admission that sometimes RNG is just against people. Which goes against what you said about the RNG being unimportant. If it was unimportant then it would never be able to impact the outcome in the regard that you implied.

Ah you actually misread what i wrote. That clarifies a lot.

 

I said your equation is unimportant because it doesnt show anything that people didnt know. That is not the same as the RNG being unimportant.

 

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

Unless there's a mass DC or a mass brain-fart then the only thingthat should be able to make people fail is their own performaance and ability to adapt.

Like i said, thats your opinion, you could argue your opinion, but its far from a fact. Like i said before there are lots of games with randomness in them.

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

Which goes against what you expressed above.

How, honestly how. What words did you read that gave you that impression.

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

Your argumentation seems solid until one goes into depths with it or knows what to look for then it's just vapid in nature. I'm unable to take anything of what you say seriously sincer post is full of expressed congnitive dissonance.

Funnily, i feel the same way. It is even weirder to me that you feel the need to attack my character to "win" the argument.

This will be the last time i respond to you though. There is nothing of value to gained from this conversation atm.

[yann.1946]

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

Technically. In the context of how they counted the data. What counts as attempt has massive impact. Also, this is the average number which is more prone to extreme values than the median. E.g. counting daily successes by a highly active guild as one success a day throughout a month as equivalent to 30 maps worth of players loosing once and never trying again. 

I agree

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

Context matters. 

I agree, i would love to have more info. 

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

That's the beauty about statistics. It's not about individual experiences. Statistics deliberately drown out individual data points and often even explicitly exclude extreme data points so a global trend can emerge which is more useful than any anecdote would be.  

obviously, that doesnt remove my point though. If you say that as long as the 60 percent succesrate doesnt represent the average experience of players it is worthless we just have to say its worthless. 

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

The real question is about how they collected data and what the distribution looks like.

True, that is important.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

Not necessarily, is the point. Or rather. Not necessarily to a significant degree. This is an interpretation and assumption on your end. A valid hypothesis that could be true.

I didnt say how big of an impact that would be (and i agree we cant know for certain without more data).

I moreso brought it up, because i think that we can make some intferences on what increases succesrates of players even though we dont know how big that increase would be.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

What if I put up the hypothesis that the performance of your map is more important. That if you analyze success rate based on whether the performance of any individual player mattered (by adjusting the result depending on average map performance). If you analyze it like that, I put up the assumption and theory that the impact will not be significant. 

In theory that's just as valid a hypothesis and neither can be proven with the information we have.  

That i agree with, but both can be true. You have some impact, but the average of the map can be more important. (for this we dont even need data though, it is selfevidently true (if the map performs better on average it has an higher succesrate))

 

The point is more to try to deduce thing that affect Succes Rates even if we cant know how much they do.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

As mentioned above. An impact sure. But does it affect success rate?

Any impact will affect succes rate, sometimes this impact is very small (we cant tell without more data).

But the point is that we can derive things that can improve sccesrates without having acces to the complete dataset.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

We can't even say for sure it did in a single attempt. 

That is true, but it is true for most statistical truths.

If a person who smoked got lungkitten its almost impossible to know whether the smoking caused it or they would have gotten it anyway.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

It's an easy knee jerk answer. Just support, just do boons, just be early, just get the buff, just ask the comm some simple questions to gauge whether they know the event well enough to assume whether this map has an increased chance of success so with time and experience you can increase your chances by a bit.

It's literally that simple!!!1!

And, you know. As best anyone knows it might be. Just as it might not be. 

You dont think these things increase your chance of succes? I agree we cant know for certain with more data, but dont you think it is more lickely that they do help?

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

I did. Which is why I think your claim of a minimum of 60% is unfounded. 

Just like your example here is only valid on an assumption of what precise data was evaluated by ANet. It assumes they counted dead maps.

Nope, thats why i said minimum. They either evaluated only active maps, in which case it will be closer to 60 percent, or they counted dead shard with would make the actual succesrate of players be higher.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

It assumes the fight scales down very slowly if at all. 

Also nope, that is not the hypothesis i used to conclude that succesfull groups are fuller. 

My logic went more, groups who start last minute are more lickely to fail then groups who prepare for a long time. And that these last minute groups dont always fill while these that have a long time do. 

 

Now it is true that that is just an hypothesis atm, but do you really think it is wrong?

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

There's really only 3 things you can do with the statistic as is. Accept it at face value.

Meaning you just know 60 percent of maps fail, nothing more.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

Attempt to interpret it based on assumptions and personal belief.

Yes, and discuss with people to come closer to what the most lickely. Imperfect info sure, but the best we can do with the info given.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

Disregard it for lack of information.

Also reasonable.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

And none of them are particularly constructive.

I personally would prefer more of this type of data.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

The thread has a point. 60% doesn't sound good

We have no context for it thats true, we have no idea what this WR for other events is.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

and offers obvious assumptions that guilds and communities are extremely overrepresented. I too would like more data about it.

An assumption which is lickely true.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

But then again, more public data doesn't improve the game. It just increases drama. So that's probably not a good idea for ANet to release.

I agree, although its a little sad. Personally i would love a blogpost discussing these WR for different metas and how they are distributed.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

I do think it was meant motivationally. But even the 60% number was probably a mistake to release. 

Just the willingness to communicate is a good thing to me, even if this number might not have helped in itself.

8 hours ago, Erise.5614 said:

Just like plenty of the design flaws and bugs on the event were a mistake to release. They really need a better beta format for difficult content. A lot of negativity and bad experiences could have been avoided with more solid beta testing. And would have made most of these discussions obsolete.

That is true, although sometimes i wonder how much. How much is just bad design (locking the turtle, slightly overblown RNG in the beginning etc) and how much is a problem with how we perceive failure as a community (as in im surprised how many people just suggested making the event unfailable as a solution).

 

Personally i would have given more partial rewards for the even so failing isnt that binary.

 

As a final point, i agree that more data would be interesting, but that it might not be a good idea for the community.