Need more clarity around 60% success rate in DE meta

[phandaria.4891]

13 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

It seems that how good the squad is is of no importance unless you're massively overqualified for the event. In the "average" squads how far you will get is primarily based on the timing and number of boss mechanics you get, nothing more.

I find the commanders with successful run are also able to make a good call. They warn the squad of upcoming CC phase and focus the damage to the head or tail, for example if Soo Won is close to 60%, ignoring the tail would be a time saver.

[Swagger.1459]

On 4/14/2022 at 2:56 PM, Firebeard.1746 said:

In a box, this sounds like excellent news, however, my impression has been that most of the community has stopped playing the meta. The 60% success rate means little if it's only a given community or set of communities that's finally figured out how to clear reliably and they're just doing it with the same groups of people. Because that could mean that if we all try again, we're just going to fail again. Can we get more data on random commanders not associated with a given community succeeding? Did you vet your numbers to make sure people weren't being siphoned off into the failing 40% of maps and that the 60% of maps succeeding weren't stacked? Apparently a commander in Mighty Teapot's hardstuck community was doing that to stack his instance and was boasting a 90% success rate before being caught. 

Also, what about comps? Are the 60% of people succeeding running full raid comps in each sub group? Is that the expectation? some clarity around expectations of the commanders could also go a long way in terms of making sure groups are properly organized in order to succeed. 

And finally, does succeeding in the meta mean i have to play full-on LFG wars? Or is there any hope of just joining a map and it succeeding? Because honestly there are players that never use that tool.

A number is just a number and with no context, I'm timid about believing it's good news. If it is, that's great, but I still saw plenty of complaints after the last set of nerfs, so my gut tells me there's just a few particular communities doing it and succeeding reliably, potentially by being jerks like the Hardstuck commander. 

Seem a bit excessive and unreasonable of you. I mean, the community thought the gerent was hard and there were lots of fails in the beginning, but whoa... I would just chillax a bit and not take it overboard. 

[Dante.1508]

7 hours ago, Wielder Of Magic.3950 said:

Anyway, it is clear we can conclude that:

 

1. People cannot follow a commander's calls. 

2. Are unable to CC despite the big blue bar being an obvious hint and despite most squads providing you with an EMP .

3. Are unable to hit 7k DPS in an era where single button builds parse 20k and the ceiling is 40k+ and the meta itself giving you a +30% damage boost for FREE.

 

4.Players consider the basics mentioned above as raid-tier complexity despite these things being in the game for 10 years. 

5. People demand content that cannot be failed because if they fail they stop playing that content.

6. People absolutely refuse to improve themselves and prefer to complain and demanding nerfs to the content instead.

7. Any attempt to educate or help people to meet the basic requirements mentioned in point 1-3, no matter how polite or soft spoken, will be considered toxic and elitist.

I am not sure if I should laugh or cry at this point.

Or

Players don't want to do all that in open world.. Keep your hardcore content with skill rotations, cc and healing stuff out of open world and there wont be any issues..

Its not fun.

[Nakasz.5471]

17 minutes ago, Dante.1508 said:

Or

Players don't want to do all that in open world.. Keep your hardcore content with skill rotations, cc and healing stuff out of open world and there wont be any issues..

Its not fun.

Do you think follow commander calls is a hardcore thing? Or ccing boss when you see a blue bar is a hardcore thing?

7k dps is a hardcore thing?

Sometimes I think arenanet created a game with many features, but it's not possible to use them, as people will complain. It is "so hard", this is "hardcore". CC bar is a basic mechanic in the game. Also, there's a tutorial about cc on Dragons End story, did you skip this? I think arenanet put this tutorial there for some reason.
What to do then? Will all bosses be like Pinata now?

Edited April 19, 2022 by Nakasz.5471

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

The irony of all this is that if the bite spam bug gets fixed, I wouldn't have lost two of my three failures at this event.  It definitely isn't fun to watch the boss spam the bite attack over and over again... for five minutes straight.

Not gonna lie, this thread does seem like a lot of existential lamentation over something that'll get fixed tomorrow.  

[Lay shenfay.3405]

Again yesterday looking for teams with LFG 1 hour before the event META
 Sadly. Not a team.
There are better options to avoid the effects of RNG.

guild or discord team

LFG has been given up by players for META in DE.

But fortunately, there are still many players willing to participate in this meta. 
Even if the number is less than 50 people know that it is a failure.

In the end, included me in the group of players who did not form a team. 
Only 24 people successfully see the final BOSS soo-won.
finally we failure 3 champions phase .its timeover. then say good try!!

Edited April 19, 2022 by chen lin wu.2806

[HellHound.5480]

On 4/17/2022 at 5:17 PM, Sunshine.4802 said:

Had 0 successes with more or less organized pugs, decided to try once more since i needed mastery for charging crystals anyway. Comm planned, organized and shotcalled literally everything that's possible, but we still failed at 1%. Never doing this meta again unless it gets nerfed. And i hope everyone else who hates it just stops doing it so that anet can finally boast with their 90% success rate with no people playing

Me and the wife found a fun laid back commander who runs the DE daily every evening about 3 weeks ago. Been doing it with him every night since then (already up to 38 stones already). 100% win rate.

We have won the event every single time for the last 3 weeks, and on average we finish with 4-6 mins left on the timer. Tonight we finished with 5:44 left on the timer for example.

This meta is super easy! Soo-won's attacks are clearly telegraphed (claw slam? Run out of the area, jump over the wave. Tail slam? Get in melee range, easy to avoid. Acid spit? Pretty much ignore it and just be ready to CC, since she brings up the CC bar right after 50% of the time. Leaps up into the air? Start moving to the other side...).

We meet up 30-45 mins before the meta, and everyone makes sure to get their 10 events in, and tops up on the Offensive and Defensive protocols. Thats literally all the preparation everyone needs.

The commander doesnt even bother with Alac or Quick builds (he asks if anyone is one anyway, and tries to spread them out, but its not necessary since the protocol buffs give 20+ seconds of quickness anyway).

I think the problem is that most players dont understand that 1) YOU HAVE TO KILL THE VOIDHEART ADDS! Super important! And 2) Attacking her tail is most of the time un-necessary and usually a waste of time. If shes 5% or less away from a phase, just CC and burn her and ignore the tail. The only time we will ever do the tail (and its rare we will do it, we usually ignore it completely in most of our runs) is if she is greater than 7-8% away from phase, and there is no CC.

This meta doesnt need a nerf, its pretty easy to do, and you dont need a raid-level group of players. Just need players who follow directions, pay attention to the mechanics, and at least have their protocols and contributor bonuses... thats it.

EDIT: I made a cute video of me and my wife doing one of the runs from a couple days ago (its about 40mins long) that I wanted to share with my guild, but if you want to see how our daily runs go, watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1AKUu7mqg

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by HellHound.5480

[Labjax.2465]

6 hours ago, daninumbers.4036 said:

 So much frustration in the community while others laugh at it because they can do it with their static groups or were lucky, toxicity in both ways (I haven't insulted anyone so far but that thing about crying about this doesn't sound like a logic argument but as an attack, it's just a game and I play to have fun).

This is a problem I see a lot in general (thankfully not so much in-game) and unless I'm just doing a rose-colored glasses thing, it's usually not this bad in other games I've played. What I suspect is going on in some part is that since this game doesn't have a traditional gear treadmill, there's no regular "reset" so some people get used to being at the top for a very long time with all their permanent account bound bonuses and achievements and gear and so on, and never get any ego check. Similar to how if this game were to be abandoned and a GW3 made, all the people who think they are amazing now would have to start at the same point everyone else does, and instead this game will probably go on for years more with active development, at least, cause even if population declines, the monetization model can make it highly profitable still.

And don't get me wrong, like, the idea that a game like this can continue to get active development so late into its life is amazing in some ways. But then, when the game's main progression is based on permanent account bound bonuses that stack up over time and (some of which) take a long time to get, the gulf between the most veteran players and the newest players becomes kind of absurd and I think contributes to a lot of disagreement in perception about the game and what's most important and needs addressing the most.

[yann.1946]

8 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

The tail reduces the damage she takes by 60% until it's dead, you can power through that, and should, if she raises her tail close to a phase shift. The tail effect is Hardened Shell.

Well, i thought you confused these mechanics because the breakbar does not reduce the damage (i have had multiple runs where she starts the breakbar at 1 percent left and we just phased right there without ccing.

[Silent.6137]

1 hour ago, Labjax.2465 said:

But then, when the game's main progression is based on permanent account bound bonuses that stack up over time and (some of which) take a long time to get, the gulf between the most veteran players and the newest players becomes kind of absurd and I think contributes to a lot of disagreement in perception about the game and what's most important and needs addressing the most.

Someone who has played for only  a year can have exactly the same full set of legendary equipments and build as someone who has been around since GW1 started. Granted the bonuses such as gold+, karma+, xp+ and mf+ will probably be lots greater (depending on the individual AP). I don't see how the differences can be absurd. The newbie just need to grind to get those equipments. The stats will be exactly the same. Grinding in this game to get the items you want will be no different than grinding in any other games.

Also, remember that Ascended and Legendary have exactly the same stats. So it really doesn't take that long to max out the stats for your gears.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Silent.6137

[Nico.9361]

7 hours ago, phandaria.4891 said:

I find the commanders with successful run are also able to make a good call. They warn the squad of upcoming CC phase and focus the damage to the head or tail, for example if Soo Won is close to 60%, ignoring the tail would be a time saver.

Usually 1-3% before phasing is safe to ignore the tail.
Another way to save a bit of time is finishing wisps (greens) before the 75 sec timer is up. Fun fact, you don't need to fly around the arena to get to the top. Usually you can just press jump and move straight up (moving slightly left to right) to catch the orb above. Each orb regens your 6 energy bars. If you fall a bit short, you can use skill 2 to get back the energy. People seem to be doing better with those, though I still see some empty greens on the pug runs.

1 minute ago, Silent.6137 said:

I don't see how the differences can be absurd. The newbie just need to grind to get those equipments. The stats will be exactly the same.

Fully agreed, the difference between legendaries and ascended gear is the QoL.

Since there is no AR needed here, Exotics are perfectly fine. The difference would be minor, about 20 points of each stat (Power, Ferocity etc. depending on combo) on 6 armor pieces. 

[yann.1946]

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

Thjen the event is objectively a failure in design. The averagely performing player is by definition the most commonly appeareding player as the average in these examples are often also the median.

That is not always true, and in this case it most likely isnt. (Also the most commonly appearing player is called the modus, not the median).

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

And they'll feel locked out of content, and as such, they'll go do something else. The average person playing video games only spends around eight hours pr week playing them, and that's eight hours combined for ALL the video games that they play.

True, but there is no reason to care about the average person playing video games, you should care about the average person playing GW2.

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

They're likely to go "yeah, I can spend my time better by doing something where I can participate in everything the game offers me on the surface.

THis is sort of true, it depends if they think they gain something from the event. (Rewards, enjoyement,...)

For some reason you seem to think failure imidiatly means that the event stops being worth it, but that is not completely the case.

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

People like Mighty Teapot, Xanblast, et al. are objectively wrong about everything when it comes to DE.The only influencers I've sen that are even remotely correct on the subject have been Mukluk and KROOF.

Thats a pretty wild statement, objectively wrong about everything. Can you give an example of what they where wrong about and how it was objectively wrong?

 

(And we probably should ignore the statements made in regards to how just setting up subgroups increases your WR substantially as that is pretty indisputably true)

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

When I saw Teapot go "yeah, a 60 success rate for a meta as hard as DE sounds about right," I wanted to do nothing more than sit him down and explain how statistics and activity performance works. A 60% success rate is a coin toss, a 60% success rate would only acceptable if it was a measure of overall success.

Apparently that 60 percent is close to what other hard metas have. So i dont think its a fair analysis to say that it is unacceptable. 

Or to be more precise, you still have not really explained why that WR is a problem, 

9 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

DE has a binary outcome, success or failure, 50/50. Once that has been established the success rate is in what category  the outcome falls in. And suddenly the 60% success rate is abysmally bad as it mean that only 60% of all attempts ends in success, just 10% more than the binary outcome possibilities of the encounter.

Yes it means only 60 percent of outcomes succeed, thats literary what the statistic is. But that does  not mean that is a problem. Also for most people the succes rate will be closer to either 90 or 10, (we can argue that is a problem, but to me that seems more of a good thing, this meta is not a cointoss in execution, its a cointoss in groupgathering).

[Labjax.2465]

1 hour ago, Silent.6137 said:

Someone who has played for only  a year can have exactly the same full set of legendary equipments and build as someone who has been around since GW1 started. Granted the bonuses such as gold+, karma+, xp+ and mf+ will probably be lots greater (depending on the individual AP). I don't see how the differences can be absurd. The newbie just need to grind to get those equipments. The stats will be exactly the same. Grinding in this game to get the items you want will be no different than grinding in any other games.

Also, remember that Ascended and Legendary have exactly the same stats. So it really doesn't take that long to max out the stats for your gears.

? Gear is not the only thing in this game. I'm talking about the whole of it. There's mounts, masteries, enormous amounts of AP and related bonuses. There's lots of QOL stuff people can have obtained over time from getting gold after getting all the main stuff they wanted and funneling it into gems.

And legendaries now offer the possibility of never having to be concerned about gear again on any character if you get all of it in all armor classes.

A year is a ridiculous way of framing the time it takes to get full legendaries, most people won't have the time to play even remotely close to enough for that, even if they direct all of their playtime into the most efficient ways to get legendaries and do nothing else.

And don't tell me it's "optional" or something. That isn't the point at all. The point is the gulf in perception about the game and what matters. Some people will go out of their way to think beyond what personally impacts them, but those who don't bother for whatever reason... well, one example: if they have full legendary, they aren't going to think about how gear impacts people who don't have full legendary, they are not even going to see the system surrounding it as important anymore since they can bypass it entirely. Another example: if somebody has skyscale, they aren't going to think about challenges of vertical maps as much once they get used to it. They might even get so used to it they get confused if someone says that a map is hard to navigate.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Maybe I'm wrong about what's going on, but I'm trying to make sense of the attitudes I encounter and why it appears to differ from other games I've played.

[Dante.1508]

8 hours ago, Nakasz.5471 said:

Do you think follow commander calls is a hardcore thing? Or ccing boss when you see a blue bar is a hardcore thing?

7k dps is a hardcore thing?

Sometimes I think arenanet created a game with many features, but it's not possible to use them, as people will complain. It is "so hard", this is "hardcore". CC bar is a basic mechanic in the game. Also, there's a tutorial about cc on Dragons End story, did you skip this? I think arenanet put this tutorial there for some reason.
What to do then? Will all bosses be like Pinata now?

I have no interest in following a dude with power issues.. or chasing bars that give crap rewards.. No i want to play the story but more and more the story is being enforced into hardcore raid content.

8 hours ago, Despot.3048 said:

Both. 

Or thirdly have no interest in it..

Edited April 19, 2022 by Dante.1508

[Erise.5614]

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

Apparently that 60 percent is close to what other hard metas have. So i dont think its a fair analysis to say that it is unacceptable. 

Or to be more precise, you still have not really explained why that WR is a problem, 

There is absolutely 0 chance that other metas have a comparable success rate. The amount of AB, TD, DS, Pinata, etc failing is hilariously tiny. If you are on a map that taxis in people the success rate ought to be far upward of 95%.

This makes sense if you read the statement carefully. 

Quote

putting it closer to existing world bosses and meta-event success rates while still being more challenging than any of them.

To me, that reads very clearly as: "It's lower than any other"

One could do a lot of nitpicking and interpreting of the numbers. But in the end, there's only really two important questions.

1. What's the community dynamic they are aiming for?
   Should this be OW / PUGable consistently? Or did they implemented it as a gate to push people into communities?
2. What's the actual experience during the encounter like? 
   What is the retention rate of the meta and who plays it? Is that on target for their goals?

We don't even know their goals with the meta so it's kinda hard to call it failed or successful either way. And would need a lot of context to properly interpret the numbers. Are we talking maps that reached Soo Won? Are we talking maps that started the meta? Are we talking all instances that ever got spawned? How do closing maps factor into that? How do hardcore players / out of game communities factor into that success rate? 

What do the numbers look like if we exclude any meta from the data set where a prominent community leader / guild commander was present? What if we exclude any group of metas where 20+ people were the same? Or in other words, what's the success rate of experienced groups like and what is the success rate not counting those?

Lots of questions that we can not hope to answer without a ton more hard data. I don't think ANet should hand out that data as it only stirs drama. But I do hope they look closely at these kinds of details.
And, honestly, hope for a few more small fixes to the fight. The bite fixes are good, Soo Won animations need some level of overhaul, performance is still not ideal, there's still bugs preventing indicators from showing up. That kind of stuff.

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

Also for most people the succes rate will be closer to either 90 or 10, (we can argue that is a problem, but to me that seems more of a good thing, this meta is not a cointoss in execution, its a cointoss in groupgathering).

Groupgathering seems to be a slightly awkward term here. Why not call it by the wide spread name?
Gatekeeping.

It's an excercise in gatekeeping. Now, don't get me wrong. That's not inherently bad. T4s too are gatekept and it's a brilliant system in terms of getting players into instanced content. Outdated content and with lots of other issues. But in terms of learning and community it's really good. A nice balance between being easy enough to pick up others, knowing they have a fair amount of experience with the fundamental mechanics of the map. Just being able to ask in guild chat, etc.

But the balance around this dynamic is really delicate. If people have the wrong expectations going in, if people didn't have time to learn the relevant encounter, if the experience of failure is too annoying. Then you end up with dead raids or as a niche guild event like TT.  
And, at least to me, it doesn't seem like it's intended to become niche content of that kind. 

(To clarify. When I mean learning the relevant encounter I mean having a space to see and learn the mechanics without the punishment or impacting lots of other people. Knowing about CC is not the same as understanding when to go for tail, when to go for CC. For example, waystation skills  gets replaced up to 4 times throughout a fight. You need to be aware of that and remember it. I can't actually think of another meta that does it this excessively where CC is this important. And all of that gets worse the moment thornhearts come into play. Distracting you. Which is a neat little side mechanic but since basically all ads are invisible until you select them it's genuinely hard to spot and kill them unless you know exactly what to do and how to look for it. Those should be excluded from the culling to make them possible to see and clear without killing your performance)
Learning about those in a better environment building up to the epic encounter would have helped a lot. For example, having more thornhearts, target switching and CC during the escort. Instead of that crystal, throw thing at pillar stuff. Which is just a gimmick.)

Edited April 19, 2022 by Erise.5614

[yann.1946]

5 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

There is absolutely 0 chance that other metas have a comparable success rate. The amount of AB, TD, DS, Pinata, etc failing is hilariously tiny. If you are on a map that taxis in people the success rate ought to be far upward of 95%.

This makes sense if you read the statement carefully. 

To me, that reads very clearly as: "It's lower than any other"

Lower but comparable. I honestly dont think that if the other metas all have 95 Winrates that they would say that the 60 would put it closer to the others (while it still would be technicly true, if they actually wanted to be that deceptive they would not have given the WR at all.)

5 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

One could do a lot of nitpicking and interpreting of the numbers. But in the end, there's only really two important questions.

1. What's the community dynamic they are aiming for?
   Should this be OW / PUGable consistently? Or did they implemented it as a gate to push people into communities?

And that would actually be a interesting conversation to have, is TT a good addition to the game because it incentives Guilds?

 

This would ironicly in line with their stated goal for most of the masteries, social interaction and community building.

5 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

1. What's the actual experience during the encounter like? 
   What is the retention rate of the meta and who plays it? Is that on target for their goals?

I agree, this is important to look at. 

5 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

We don't even know their goals with the meta so it's kinda hard to call it failed or successful either way. And would need a lot of context to properly interpret the numbers. Are we talking maps that reached Soo Won? Are we talking maps that started the meta? Are we talking all instances that ever got spawned? How do closing maps factor into that? How do hardcore players / out of game communities factor into that success rate? 

What do the numbers look like if we exclude any meta from the data set where a prominent community leader / guild commander was present? What if we exclude any group of metas where 20+ people were the same? Or in other words, what's the success rate of experienced groups like and what is the success rate not counting those?

Lots of questions that we can not hope to answer without a ton more hard data. I don't think ANet should hand out that data as it only stirs drama. But I do hope they look closely at these kinds of details.

I would love a blogpost or stream where they go over these numbers. Although from what i have seen in this thread it probably is a bad idea, because people suck in interpreting data. On top of the fact that if it comes out that all succesfull runs are for example run by groups using discord people will use that to argue everyone should be on discord while that is not really the case.

5 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

And, honestly, hope for a few more small fixes to the fight. The bite fixes are good, Soo Won animations need some level of overhaul, performance is still not ideal, there's still bugs preventing indicators from showing up. That kind of stuff.

100 percent. The big problem atm is that the lack of accces of the turtle in the beginning soured the experience of a lot of people.

(If the precent system was implemented or some progress towards the turtle for partial completion people wouldnt have kept hitting there head against the meta for longer then was "healthy" for them. and there opinion wouldnt hove soured as much.)

5 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

Groupgathering seems to be a slightly awkward term here. Why not call it by the wide spread name?
Gatekeeping.

Because im not talking about gatekeeping and id rather use words for their intended purpose.

Gibson talked about how the 5 times they participated the 3 times they started early they succeeded and the 2 where they where 15 minutes before the escort they failed.

Thats part of groupforming that has no relation to gatekeeping. 

5 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

It's an excercise in gatekeeping. Now, don't get me wrong. That's not inherently bad. T4s too are gatekept and it's a brilliant system in terms of getting players into instanced content. Outdated content and with lots of other issues. But in terms of learning and community it's really good. A nice balance between being easy enough to pick up others, knowing they have a fair amount of experience with the fundamental mechanics of the map. Just being able to ask in guild chat, etc.

But the balance around this dynamic is really delicate.

 

5 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

If people have the wrong expectations going in, if people didn't have time to learn the relevant encounter, if the experience of failure is too annoying. Then you end up with dead raids or as a niche guild event like TT.  

these things have nothing to do with gatekeeping.

5 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

And, at least to me, it doesn't seem like it's intended to become niche content of that kind. 

For TT we can reference to your point 1. It serves as a community builder.

[Hesione.9412]

2 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Yes it means only 60 percent of outcomes succeed, thats literary what the statistic is. But that does  not mean that is a problem. Also for most people the succes rate will be closer to either 90 or 10, (we can argue that is a problem, but to me that seems more of a good thing, this meta is not a cointoss in execution, its a cointoss in groupgathering).

You're pulling statistics out of thin air with your 90/10 statement. You don't know that, I don't know that, only Anet knows that.

 

There is no coin-toss. Wins are more likely with an organised squad than they are with a group of people put in the same map by chance. 

[Erise.5614]

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

Lower but comparable. I honestly dont think that if the other metas all have 95 Winrates that they would say that the 60 would put it closer to the others (while it still would be technicly true, if they actually wanted to be that deceptive they would not have given the WR at all.)

That's the funny business with statistics. Depending on what you look at things can look significantly different. And ANet is very much into portraying things positively. That's been a very consistent pattern in presentations, releases and so on.

For example. If they count all spawned map instances you will have a disproportionately high amount of DE instances that do the meta because there is very little reason to return to the map after your story. If you compare it to a map that has lots going on despite the meta the success rate will seem lower in the statistic despite the truth being that a large amount of players and possibly several maps had no intention of attempting the meta. 

These kinds of things happen all the time with statistics and depend entirely on what story one wants to tell. Statistics by themselves are not objective. Even if factually correct. 

So long as you don't have access to source data and methodology, there is a lot that can happen that leads to incorrect interpretations. 

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

And that would actually be a interesting conversation to have, is TT a good addition to the game because it incentives Guilds?

 

This would ironicly in line with their stated goal for most of the masteries, social interaction and community building.

Honestly, yes! I actually like a lot of things about TT. Being able to start it at any time while still rooted in the open world is great. An implementation of that kind where you can start a pre event, requiring a DPS check to start Soo Won at any time could be brilliant.

It's also not the only meta on the map nor is the map build exclusively around the meta. There's no key progression items locked behind it. Though it could do with a more consistent way to grind a special event skin. Displaying your mastery of such a hard event. Something along those lines.

But yes! Despite not liking DE, I think there is a lot of room for more challenging OW content. It's mostly a matter of presentation and rewards. 

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

100 percent. The big problem atm is that the lack of accces of the turtle in the beginning soured the experience of a lot of people.

(If the precent system was implemented or some progress towards the turtle for partial completion people wouldnt have kept hitting there head against the meta for longer then was "healthy" for them. and there opinion wouldnt hove soured as much.)

Honestly. I think the problem is larger than just that. It made things worse, but it's not responsible. Just to bring up some examples.

Failure is too "non epic". Like, you are playing this epic finale. The story builds up to it and all that. And then Soo Won is just like. "Thanks you my magnificent audience! But I'm bored and deserve a break. See you in 2 hours!". Failing is extremely non epic. At least show us what failure means to the world and how we have to do better.

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.

It was too buggy. The fight had lots of issues, exploits & co. Honestly. I think it would be extremely nice if there was a CM for certain metas like this. And if they released the fight first as CM, clearly saying it's in beta, they are still polishing it, don't expect the general player base to participate and will release the regular version once it's in the state they were aiming for. With mediocre rewards. Making sure mostly the people who have a high tolerance for failure and are looking for challenge participate. Making sure the event is polished and working as intended in every way. Before pushing it out. If they are aiming for a above usual challenge (and therefore higher failure rate), then the introduction process needs to be smoother. We need guides on day 1 of it hitting the general player base. We need more experienced commanders on day 1. 

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

Because im not talking about gatekeeping and id rather use words for their intended purpose.

Gibson talked about how the 5 times they participated the 3 times they started early they succeeded and the 2 where they where 15 minutes before the escort they failed.

Thats part of groupforming that has no relation to gatekeeping. 

It's also highly anecdotal. My own experience is nothing like that. I've joined runs 30 minutes into escort and succeeded. And my current score is still that the majority of full 2h+ runs failed. Granted, a lot of those before the most recent round of patches. But I've also had several failures since. It's trying to reduce reasons for failure onto something simple. Which is necessarily incorrect due to being oversimplified. 

Comm calls can be extremely important. Something you can not judge until the fight begins. Making the right calls and announcing everything ahead of time. 

And if you have like 15 people with raid levels of DPS output (aka ~20k-25k + map buff) the encounter turns into a joke that's hard to fail. The fight is very easily "outDPS'ed"

But these factors have very little to do with when you join a squad or map. It's just luck or, for consistent results, gatekeeping. 

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

For TT we can reference to your point 1. It serves as a community builder.

It does. But extremely niche and temporary at that. As I mentioned, I think there is room for more such events. The community dynamic around them is nice. But it should not be overestimated either. It does not bring together large parts of the community. It creates small guilds who enjoy the event and might help others to succeed for their achievements. Events like AB play in an entirely different league in terms of adoption and retention. We are talking several orders of magnitude of difference. 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Erise.5614

[yann.1946]

14 minutes ago, Hesione.9412 said:

You're pulling statistics out of thin air with your 90/10 statement. You don't know that, I don't know that, only Anet knows that.

That is true, i just based me on the info i gor from this tread. (and this is true for almost all claims in this tread) That does not take away my overal point though, that the bossfights RNG most likely does not account for the majority of fails, and that given the same group of people and same comp the winrate will most likely not be at 60/40

14 minutes ago, Hesione.9412 said:

There is no coin-toss. Wins are more likely with an organised squad than they are with a group of people put in the same map by chance. 

Well obviously, the cointoss refers to the claim Malus made that for an average group the WR will be 60/40, but that is not how that stat works. Thats why i said that the "cointoss" (the 60/40 winrate) is a consequence of the groups people fall into.

[yann.1946]

3 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

That's the funny business with statistics. Depending on what you look at things can look significantly different. And ANet is very much into portraying things positively. That's been a very consistent pattern in presentations, releases and so on.

For example. If they count all spawned map instances you will have a disproportionately high amount of instances that do the meta because there is very little reason to return to the map after your story. If you compare it to a map that has lots going on despite the meta the success rate will seem lower in the statistic despite the truth being that a large amount of players and possibly several maps had no intention of attempting the meta. 

These kinds of things happen all the time with statistics and depend entirely on what story the other side wants to tell. Statistics by themselves are not objective. Even if factually correct.

I agree that these things happen with statistics all the time. Even if not malicious.

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.

3 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

Honestly, yes! I actually like a lot of things about TT. Being able to start it at any time while still rooted in the open world is great. An implementation of that kind where you can start a pre event, requiring a DPS check to start Soo Won at any time could be brilliant.

This i agree with, altough thats a fine line to walk. 

3 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

It's also not the only meta on the map nor is the map build exclusively around the meta.

Most of the map can be accesed without the meta though

3 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

There's no key progression items locked behind it. Though it could do with a more consistent way to grind a special event skin. Displaying your mastery of such a hard event. Something along those lines.

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

3 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

But yes! Despite not liking DE at all, I think there is a lot of room for more challenging OW content. It's mostly a matter of presentation and rewards. 

Do you think the meta would have been better received if the turtle was a secret mount?

3 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

Honestly. I think the problem is larger than just that. It made things worse, but it's not responsible. Just to bring up some examples.

Failure is too "non epic". Like, you are playing this epic finale. The story builds up to it and all that. And then Soo Won is just like. "Thanks you my magnificent audience! But I'm bored and deserve a break. See you in 2 hours!". Failing is extremely non epic. At least show us what failure means to the world and how we have to do better.

Yes, that a little dissapointing (and the fact you dont get rewards for failing is a problem)

3 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

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?

3 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

It was too buggy. The fight had lots of issues, exploits & co. Honestly. I think it would be extremely nice if there was a CM for certain metas like this. And if they released the fight first as CM, clearly saying it's in beta, they are still polishing it, don't expect the general player base to participate and will release the regular version once it's in the state they were aiming for.

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

3 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

With mediocre rewards. Making sure mostly the people who have a high tolerance for failure and are looking for challenge participate. Making sure the event is polished and working as intended in every way. Before pushing it out. If they are aiming for a above usual challenge (and therefore higher failure rate), then the introduction process needs to be smoother. We need guides on day 1 of it hitting the general player base. We need more experienced commanders on day 1. 

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?

3 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

It's also highly anecdotal. My own experience is nothing like that. I've joined runs 30 minutes into escort and succeeded. And my current score is still that the majority of full 2h+ runs failed. Granted, a lot of those before the most recent round of patches. But I've also had several failures since. 

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?

3 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

Comm calls can be extremely important. Making the right calls and announcing everything ahead of time. And if you have like 15 people with raid levels of DPS output (aka ~20k-25k + map buff) the encounter turns into a joke that's hard to fail. 

But these factors have very little to do with when you join a squad or map. It's just luck or, for consistent results, gatekeeping. 

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

3 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

It does. But extremely niche and temporary at that. As I mentioned, I think there is room for more such events. The community dynamic around them is nice. But it should not be overestimated either. It does not bring together large parts of the community. It creates small guilds who enjoy the event and might help others to succeed for their achievements.

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)

3 minutes ago, Erise.5614 said:

Events like AB play in an entirely different league in terms of adoption and retention. We are talking several orders of magnitude of difference. 

Here i will agre and disagree at the same time. 

Yes they are in a different league, but mostly because you are comparing Soccer and Tennis.

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.

[Hesione.9412]

7 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

That is true, i just based me on the info i gor from this tread. (and this is true for almost all claims in this tread) That does not take away my overal point though, that the bossfights RNG most likely does not account for the majority of fails, and that given the same group of people and same comp the winrate will most likely not be at 60/40

Well obviously, the cointoss refers to the claim Malus made that for an average group the WR will be 60/40, but that is not how that stat works. Thats why i said that the "cointoss" (the 60/40 winrate) is a consequence of the groups people fall into.

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. 

 

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.

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.

 

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).

 

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. 

[Malus.2184]

14 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

That is not always true, and in this case it most likely isnt. (Also the most commonly appearing player is called the modus, not the median).

True, but there is no reason to care about the average person playing video games, you should care about the average person playing GW2.

THis is sort of true, it depends if they think they gain something from the event. (Rewards, enjoyement,...)

For some reason you seem to think failure imidiatly means that the event stops being worth it, but that is not completely the case.

Thats a pretty wild statement, objectively wrong about everything. Can you give an example of what they where wrong about and how it was objectively wrong?

 

(And we probably should ignore the statements made in regards to how just setting up subgroups increases your WR substantially as that is pretty indisputably true)

Apparently that 60 percent is close to what other hard metas have. So i dont think its a fair analysis to say that it is unacceptable. 

Or to be more precise, you still have not really explained why that WR is a problem, 

Yes it means only 60 percent of outcomes succeed, thats literary what the statistic is. But that does  not mean that is a problem. Also for most people the succes rate will be closer to either 90 or 10, (we can argue that is a problem, but to me that seems more of a good thing, this meta is not a cointoss in execution, its a cointoss in groupgathering).

It's called the 'mode' instead of the 'modus.' And 'mode' and 'median are two vastly different things that only have colerational  connection to each other (https://www.khanacademy.org/math/cc-sixth-grade-math/cc-6th-data-statistics/mean-and-median/v/statistics-intro-mean-median-and-mode#:~:text=The mean (average) of a,often in a data set.).

And ANet should care about the average amunt of time a person spends in a video game as those eight hours  includes all games put together. If they spend three hours a week playing CoD and five hours a week playing GW2 then they're still the average customer.

I've also made subgroups optimized so that all of them had Alac, Quick, and Might where possible, I've brought several ULW. I even made a document where sections of the fight are described that I can paste into the Squad Message when it becomes relevant. I lacked the Ascended Feast recipies at the time and that's the reawon they're absent from my list of prep. We lost on 5-3% health and that would had been win if the RNG had just been standard. After that I've never even once gone back to The Jade Sea as I see no reason to do anything that'll decide that I should fail because.

And the 60% chance oif success means that of the 50/50 spread 60% falls in one category and 40% falls in the other. An 'overall' success rate' is impossible to make as the fight has different conditions each time it's run. If Soo-Won always used X amounts of abilities during each fight, each was only set to be used Y times, and would never be used when Z occured then you could as each fight would be the same. The only difference would be the order that the abilities would come in, which would have no affect on the outcome of the fight since, for example, the Defiance bar could never occur shortly before a phase shift.

16 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Well, i thought you confused these mechanics because the breakbar does not reduce the damage (i have had multiple runs where she starts the breakbar at 1 percent left and we just phased right there without ccing.

You missed the point in your focus on something irrelevant in order to justify your belief that there's no war in Ba Sing Se RNG  that affects the DE fight. Even if thgat's possible we would still have lost the increased damge time. Somethingthat in turn caused us to faiuil the fight., The outcome would had been the exact same even if we pushed through it.

On 4/18/2022 at 11:48 PM, Silent.6137 said:

Seems everytime someone does not agree with your narrative, you'll totally ignore what they have to say, and use certain words to subtly deride them. Not just to my comments but to others as well. I had chosen to ignore them. So, I'll just ignore your post henceforth. As you said, "hitting a wall", trying to debate you.

 Except what I say is less of a narrative and objectively how it is. I see no reason to agree with subjective narratives of that all is fine when I under the the minimum requirement for the fight still has failed it due to extrenal effects that fell on a really bad time. If the external effects had affected the fight differently we would have succeeded. My last failure, and attempt, was a close one. If it had been a massive one, like 15% health remaining, then yeah, it was the group that needed to do better and even the most optimal RNG could had done nothing to make us succeed. Instead, we failed with something like 5-3% health remaining. An amount that would had been shaved off her had we gotten the Defiance bars at 59% and 39% instead of at 61% and 41%.

That's the difference and the reason I disagree with the "all is fine " narratives because they're objectively wrong and I know that they've objectively wrong even though to them they're subjectively correct to them since they've never experienced what I have.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Malus.2184

[Astralporing.1957]

11 hours ago, Swagger.1459 said:

Seem a bit excessive and unreasonable of you. I mean, the community thought the gerent was hard and there were lots of fails in the beginning, but whoa... I would just chillax a bit and not take it overboard. 

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?

[Dante.1508]

42 minutes 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?

Yes.

If they really want everybody to do it. Aim at the lowest not the highest.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Dante.1508

[Astralporing.1957]

3 minutes ago, Dante.1508 said:

Yes.

If they really want everybody to do it. Aim at the lowest not the highest.

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.