Do raids need easy/normal/hard difficulty mode? [merged]

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Cyninja.2954" said:GW2 on launch was exactly what you are describing and (granted there were multiple other issues as well)and people were bored 2 weeks in. Turns out, letting people gear up in less than 1-2 weeks (that's how long it took for dedicated players to get their first exotic set together, this goes way faster now btw) was catastrophic as far as player retention goes.

Some people inevitably "get bored quick" on any game. Most GW2 players were fine for many months to come, and it was just the limited amount of actual new content that had players worried. The gear-chase wasn't even a factor in that. Yeah, a lot of the "hardcore" players left GW2 in the early months, but that sort of attrition is expected for any MMO, what matters is that a relatively large population stayed and enjoyed the game that ANet had built.

[STIHL.2489]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"Cyninja.2954" said:GW2 on launch was exactly what you are describing and (granted there were multiple other issues as well)and people were bored 2 weeks in. Turns out, letting people gear up in less than 1-2 weeks (that's how long it took for dedicated players to get their first exotic set together, this goes way faster now btw) was catastrophic as far as player retention goes.

Some

people inevitably "get bored quick" on

any

game.

Most

GW2 players were fine for many months to come, and it was just the limited amount of actual new content that had players worried. The gear-chase wasn't even a factor in that. Yeah, a lot of the "hardcore" players left GW2 in the early months, but that sort of attrition is expected for any MMO, what matters is that a relatively large population

stayed and enjoyed

the game that ANet had built.

This is spot on, I mean really.. GW2 never needed the hardcore players to start with, when you think about it.. GW2's best non-expansion Quarter was Scarlet's Attack on Lions Arch.. this was only beat by the Launch of HoT. Which tells us that is story and fun that sell this game.. not challenge and raids.

Now.. I am not sure what some people call solid numbers.. but a direct 30% drop and continual straight decline is not often considered solid numbers, which is what happened post HoT,, and the introduction of "Challenging" content.

[Feanor.2358]

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"Cyninja.2954" said:GW2 on launch was exactly what you are describing and (granted there were multiple other issues as well)and people were bored 2 weeks in. Turns out, letting people gear up in less than 1-2 weeks (that's how long it took for dedicated players to get their first exotic set together, this goes way faster now btw) was catastrophic as far as player retention goes.

Some

people inevitably "get bored quick" on

any

game.

Most

GW2 players were fine for many months to come, and it was just the limited amount of actual new content that had players worried. The gear-chase wasn't even a factor in that. Yeah, a lot of the "hardcore" players left GW2 in the early months, but that sort of attrition is expected for any MMO, what matters is that a relatively large population

stayed and enjoyed

the game that ANet had built.

This is spot on, I mean really.. GW2 never needed the

hardcore

players to start with, when you think about it.. GW2's best non-expansion Quarter was Scarlet's Attack on Lions Arch.. this was only beat by the Launch of HoT. Which tells us that is story and fun that sell this game.. not challenge and raids.

Now.. I am not sure what some people call solid numbers.. but a direct 30% drop and continual straight decline is not often considered solid numbers, which is what happened post HoT,, and the introduction of "Challenging" content.

It's a business. If it can keep more players, it is better to do it. Raids do just that. It is irrelevant if you can survive just fine with the smaller number. Seeing an opportunity to make better profits and not taking it is sheer lunacy.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"STIHL.2489" said:Now.. I am not sure what some people call solid numbers.. but a direct 30% drop and continual straight decline is not often considered solid numbers, which is what happened post HoT,, and the introduction of "Challenging" content.

Have you checked how huge the drop was from release to the addition of Fractals? Most of it was due to over-hype yes, and massive expectations.However do you remember another reason as given by the developers themselves? I'll remind you the reason: players got bored and left.

Aside from that, your glasses need some cleaning. Check out the GW2 revenue:https://i.redd.it/e9gq9rd27ue01.pngWith the exceptions of Q4 2013 and Q2 2015 the game revenue was always declining, even when there were no Raids out. So claiming that the decline is due to Raids makes little sense.

Plus I'll also remind you of something else that happened with Heart of Thorns: Free to playGuild Wars 2 Heroic Edition was still selling at that time, a revenue stream that was removed with Heart of Thorns. The free to play conversion was very low for a long time. Maybe because the CORE game wasn't enough to force a conversion? Ever thought of that?

Finally something worth noting:http://massivelyop.com/2018/01/30/guild-wars-2-makes-superdatas-top-10-list-of-premium-pc-games-by-revenue-for-2017/Our relevant image: http://massivelyop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/superdata-2017b.jpgEven if Guild Wars 2 revenue is declining it's still on the top of the list, which more than clearly shows that this isn't a problem of this game alone, but a problem with the entire industry. MMORPGs aren't as hot as they used to be

[Ohoni.6057]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"STIHL.2489" said:Now.. I am not sure what some people call solid numbers.. but a direct 30% drop and continual straight decline is not often considered solid numbers, which is what happened post HoT,, and the introduction of "Challenging" content.

Have you checked how huge the drop was from release to the addition of Fractals? Most of it was due to over-hype yes, and massive expectations.However do you remember another reason as given by the developers themselves? I'll remind you the reason: players got bored and left.

Aside from that, your glasses need some cleaning. Check out the GW2 revenue:

https://i.redd.it/e9gq9rd27ue01.png

With the exceptions of Q4 2013 and Q2 2015 the game revenue was always declining, even when there were no Raids out. So claiming that the decline is due to Raids makes little sense.

Plus I'll also remind you of something else that happened with Heart of Thorns: Free to playGuild Wars 2 Heroic Edition was still selling at that time, a revenue stream that was removed with Heart of Thorns. The free to play conversion was very low for a long time. Maybe because the CORE game wasn't enough to force a conversion? Ever thought of that?

Finally something worth noting:

http://massivelyop.com/2018/01/30/guild-wars-2-makes-superdatas-top-10-list-of-premium-pc-games-by-revenue-for-2017/

Our relevant image:

http://massivelyop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/superdata-2017b.jpg

Even if Guild Wars 2 revenue is declining it's still on the top of the list, which more than clearly shows that this isn't a problem of this game alone, but a problem with the entire industry. MMORPGs aren't as hot as they used to be

Right, so it's safe to say that whether or not raids actually harmed player retention, they certainly didn't have a net positive effect, since revenues were on roughly the same glide path they'd been on. I think that's to be expected, the PC MMO just has a lot more competition these days. It's like tracking comic sales, everything is relative because entire industries are in decline.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"STIHL.2489" said:Now.. I am not sure what some people call solid numbers.. but a direct 30% drop and continual straight decline is not often considered solid numbers, which is what happened post HoT,, and the introduction of "Challenging" content.

Have you checked how huge the drop was from release to the addition of Fractals? Most of it was due to over-hype yes, and massive expectations.However do you remember another reason as given by the developers themselves? I'll remind you the reason: players got bored and left.

Aside from that, your glasses need some cleaning. Check out the GW2 revenue:

https://i.redd.it/e9gq9rd27ue01.png

With the exceptions of Q4 2013 and Q2 2015 the game revenue was always declining, even when there were no Raids out. So claiming that the decline is due to Raids makes little sense.

Plus I'll also remind you of something else that happened with Heart of Thorns: Free to playGuild Wars 2 Heroic Edition was still selling at that time, a revenue stream that was removed with Heart of Thorns. The free to play conversion was very low for a long time. Maybe because the CORE game wasn't enough to force a conversion? Ever thought of that?

Finally something worth noting:

http://massivelyop.com/2018/01/30/guild-wars-2-makes-superdatas-top-10-list-of-premium-pc-games-by-revenue-for-2017/

Our relevant image:

http://massivelyop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/superdata-2017b.jpg

Even if Guild Wars 2 revenue is declining it's still on the top of the list, which more than clearly shows that this isn't a problem of this game alone, but a problem with the entire industry. MMORPGs aren't as hot as they used to be

Right, so it's safe to say that whether or not raids actually

harmed

player retention, they certainly didn't have a net positive effect, since revenues were on roughly the same glide path they'd been on. I think that's to be expected, the PC MMO just has a lot more competition these days. It's like tracking comic sales, everything is relative because entire industries are in decline.

No, it isn't safe to say that. You cannot know if the sales would not have declined further without endgame. What you can know is the devs deemed raids a success and continue to do so. As evidenced by the continued development. It's an indirect evidence against what you're trying to conclude.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Right, so it's safe to say that whether or not raids actually harmed player retention, they certainly didn't have a net positive effect, since revenues were on roughly the same glide path they'd been on. I think that's to be expected, the PC MMO just has a lot more competition these days. It's like tracking comic sales, everything is relative because entire industries are in decline.

The important part is even though there is such a decline, GW2 remains on the TOP game list. This means that other games are having a much worse decline.As for Raids not having a positive effect, of course they did not have one, they are a tiny part of the game and if the expansion itself causes players to leave en mass, Raids couldn't help retain players. I think it makes sense that players entering Raids, already finished the respective expansions at least once and judging by simple "expansion boss kill" counts we can deduce that many players that bought either expansion, never actually finished it. Those would never go into Raids.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Feanor.2358 said:No, it isn't safe to say that. You cannot know if the sales would not have declined further without endgame. What you can know is the devs deemed raids a success and continue to do so. As evidenced by the continued development. It's an indirect evidence against what you're trying to conclude.

Again, that's no reason to believe that it couldn't be better.

@"maddoctor.2738" said:The important part is even though there is such a decline, GW2 remains on the TOP game list. This means that other games are having a much worse decline.

Right, I would expect that. What relevance does that have to the conversation?

As for Raids not having a positive effect, of course they did not have one, they are a tiny part of the game and if the expansion itself causes players to leave en mass, Raids couldn't help retain players.

Again, I see no evidence of any "mass exodus." Remember that the sales figures do not reflect players, they reflect money spent. The expansion periods are spikes because most existing players drop $50+ that they otherwise wouldn't have dropped over those quarters, but if you remove those quarters from the chart, the revenues follow a smooth line through from launch to present, so the attrition seems to be about on the same course. If either expansion led to a "mass exodus" then there would be a severe dip between 15.3 and 16.2. There was a dip, but not a massive one.

I've kind of lost what point you're actually trying to make relevant to the topic. What do these numbers add up to for you? What guidance do you believe they give?

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:No, it isn't safe to say that. You cannot know if the sales would not have declined further without endgame. What you

can

know is the devs deemed raids a success

and continue to do so

. As evidenced by the continued development. It's an indirect evidence against what you're trying to conclude.

Again, that's no reason to believe that it couldn't be

better.

Aside from the fact that the people in charge of spending the money for development decided it was OK to continue doing so? Yeah. And it is a miles better reason than whatever you have in mind for believing otherwise.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:No, it isn't safe to say that. You cannot know if the sales would not have declined further without endgame. What you

can

know is the devs deemed raids a success

and continue to do so

. As evidenced by the continued development. It's an indirect evidence against what you're trying to conclude.

Again, that's no reason to believe that it couldn't be

better.

Aside from the fact that the people in charge of spending the money for development decided it was OK to continue doing so? Yeah. And it is a miles better reason than whatever you have in mind for believing otherwise.

I really wish your argument wouldn't keep revolving back to "it is, therefore it must be." Yes, obviously the developers have, so far as we can tell, decided on a particular course. That has nothing to do with whether or not that is the best possible course. They have made numerous choices over the course of this game that have not ended up having a positive impact, some of which they even got around to fixing. On balance, they've made more good calls than bad, but on an individual decision level, "because they decided it" is not a defense of a choice they've made.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Right, I would expect that. What relevance does that have to the conversation?

Ask STIHL

Now.. I am not sure what some people call solid numbers.. but a direct 30% drop and continual straight decline is not often considered solid numbers, which is what happened post HoT,, and the introduction of "Challenging" content.He is the one that brought up the revenue drop and attributed it to the existence of Raids and Challenging Content. I only corrected him.

[Sarrs.4831]

@"Ohoni.6057" said:I really wish your argument wouldn't keep revolving back to "it is, therefore it must be."

If you're worried about these threads becoming repetitive maybe you should consider a different strategy to arguing on the forums to get your legendary.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:No, it isn't safe to say that. You cannot know if the sales would not have declined further without endgame. What you

can

know is the devs deemed raids a success

and continue to do so

. As evidenced by the continued development. It's an indirect evidence against what you're trying to conclude.

Again, that's no reason to believe that it couldn't be

better.

Aside from the fact that the people in charge of spending the money for development decided it was OK to continue doing so? Yeah. And it is a miles better reason than whatever you have in mind for believing otherwise.

I really wish your argument wouldn't keep revolving back to "it is, therefore it must be." Yes, obviously the developers have, so far as we can tell, decided on a particular course. That has

nothing to do

with whether or not that is the best possible course. They have made

numerous

choices over the course of this game that have not ended up having a positive impact, some of which they even got around to fixing. On balance, they've made more good calls than bad, but on an individual decision level, "because they decided it" is not a defense of a choice they've made.

Considering the keep status quo side has been bringing data and logical possible conclusions PLUS that the developers have a similar view, it's enough to discourage change or dismiss opposing views until people actually back their assumptions with data which is reliable.

That and some people in this thread like to revert to multiple times dis-proven personal assumptions trying to back their arguments with basically nonsense.

Again, if you are in favor of change of either easy mode or complete removal you currently don't have to only prove this is potentially worth doing, you have to prove without doubt that this will perform significantly better than the current course of action to both justify the risk involved, the resources spent as well as the shift in the game design philosophy (plus show that you are more competent than the developers of the game). Something hardly doable with the data sets available and the experience shown by present participants.

Simply put a simple:"It will be better because I think so" will not do (even worse when your assumptions are easily challenged with numbers).

While people content or in favor of the current system only need to show that there is no serious detriment to the game currently. Given how GW2 is performing (even if it was not due to raids which is hardly separable with the data available) is easy.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Sarrs.4831 said:

@"Ohoni.6057" said:I really wish your argument wouldn't keep revolving back to "it is, therefore it must be."

revolving

If you're worried about these threads becoming repetitive maybe you should consider a different strategy to arguing on the forums to get your legendary.

Ok, I'm open to suggestions. I'm honestly just doing my best here to field people's questions and comments on the topic. I'm trying to effect positive changes to the game, and I'm trying to explain my position as best I can. How do you believe I should be doing that differently to have better results?

@"Cyninja.2954" said:Considering the keep status quo side has been bringing data and logical possible conclusions PLUS that the developers have a similar view, it's enough to discourage change or dismiss opposing views until people actually back their assumptions with data which is reliable.

There has been no data presented on either side, despite Doc's protestation that Efficiency numbers should could as "data." It's all just theory and philosophy.

That and some people in this thread like to revert to multiple times dis-proven personal assumptions trying to back their arguments with basically nonsense.

Exactly, that's what I'm asking Feanor to stop, and you could join in.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:No, it isn't safe to say that. You cannot know if the sales would not have declined further without endgame. What you

can

know is the devs deemed raids a success

and continue to do so

. As evidenced by the continued development. It's an indirect evidence against what you're trying to conclude.

Again, that's no reason to believe that it couldn't be

better.

Aside from the fact that the people in charge of spending the money for development decided it was OK to continue doing so? Yeah. And it is a miles better reason than whatever you have in mind for believing otherwise.

I really wish your argument wouldn't keep revolving back to "it is, therefore it must be."

And I really wish your argument wouldn't keep revolving back to "I want, therefore it must be".

[Ohoni.6057]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:No, it isn't safe to say that. You cannot know if the sales would not have declined further without endgame. What you

can

know is the devs deemed raids a success

and continue to do so

. As evidenced by the continued development. It's an indirect evidence against what you're trying to conclude.

Again, that's no reason to believe that it couldn't be

better.

Aside from the fact that the people in charge of spending the money for development decided it was OK to continue doing so? Yeah. And it is a miles better reason than whatever you have in mind for believing otherwise.

I really wish your argument wouldn't keep revolving back to "it is, therefore it must be."

And I really wish your argument wouldn't keep revolving back to "I want, therefore it must be".

It never has been. It's always been "I believe that a lot of players would want, therefore it should be." I think there's no reason to believe that isn't true.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"Cyninja.2954" said:Considering the keep status quo side has been bringing data and logical possible conclusions PLUS that the developers have a similar view, it's enough to discourage change or dismiss opposing views until people actually back their assumptions with data which is reliable.

There has been no data presented on either side, despite Doc's protestation that Efficiency numbers should could as "data." It's all just theory and philosophy.

Efficiency numbers are better than no numbers and maddoctor's analysis and interpretation of earnings reports and the current slump in the industry AS WELL as the fact that GW2 overall is performing superbly are better than no numbers too. Also it indicates the developers know what the player base wants so arguing against their chosen course of action and intent, which too was clearly communicated, seems pointless.

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:No, it isn't safe to say that. You cannot know if the sales would not have declined further without endgame. What you

can

know is the devs deemed raids a success

and continue to do so

. As evidenced by the continued development. It's an indirect evidence against what you're trying to conclude.

Again, that's no reason to believe that it couldn't be

better.

Aside from the fact that the people in charge of spending the money for development decided it was OK to continue doing so? Yeah. And it is a miles better reason than whatever you have in mind for believing otherwise.

I really wish your argument wouldn't keep revolving back to "it is, therefore it must be."

And I really wish your argument wouldn't keep revolving back to "I want, therefore it must be".

It never has been. It's always been "I believe that a

lot

of players would want, therefore it

should

be." I think there's no reason to believe that isn't true.

Actually it has, you've been called out on this by multiple people. Now either we are all conspiring against you, you have a miss-understandable way of formulating your points or you're main argument is usually supported by:"I believe thus it must be true." Which is fine, one should stand up for what they believe, but it gets tiresome after 85 pages of basically a same and forth. Especially when it always ends with:"Lalalala I'm right and you are wrong."

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:No, it isn't safe to say that. You cannot know if the sales would not have declined further without endgame. What you

can

know is the devs deemed raids a success

and continue to do so

. As evidenced by the continued development. It's an indirect evidence against what you're trying to conclude.

Again, that's no reason to believe that it couldn't be

better.

Aside from the fact that the people in charge of spending the money for development decided it was OK to continue doing so? Yeah. And it is a miles better reason than whatever you have in mind for believing otherwise.

I really wish your argument wouldn't keep revolving back to "it is, therefore it must be."

And I really wish your argument wouldn't keep revolving back to "I want, therefore it must be".

It never has been. It's always been "I believe that a

lot

of players would want, therefore it

should

be." I think there's no reason to believe that isn't true.

Actually it is "I propose that a lot of players would want what I want so that what I want must be". Baron Munchausen much?

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Cyninja.2954" said:Efficiency numbers are better than no numbers and maddoctor's analysis and interpretation of earnings reports and the current slump in the industry AS WELL as the fact that GW2 overall is performing superbly are better than no numbers too.

I went over with Doc why bad data is not better than no data, check back a few pages. And as for the sales data, it doesn't say anything significant pro or con about raiding, it's too general and there are no significant swings that can be attributed to raids in either direction. GW2 seems to be doing well relative to the industry, it was doing well before raids. Its current positioning could be attributed to raids being good, or to raids being bad, or to raids having no impact whatsoever, there's no way to tell using that data alone.

Also it indicates the developers know what the player base wants so arguing against their chosen course of action and intent, which too was clearly communicated, seems pointless.

Again, they're not omniscient, they make mistakes. "Because they decided it" is no defense of the decision.

Actually it has, you've been called out on this by multiple people.

I have been called out on this by multiple people, and every single one of them was wrong. That shouldn't need explaining. They would like me to shut up, because they disagree with my position on the matter, so they insist that it's purely self-serving, when I've turned down numerous offers to benefit myself without helping others in the process. Would I benefit from an easy mode? Yes. Would I accept just collecting the personal benefits of it if it didn't mean a systemic change that would benefit everyone? NO. This is not about me, no matter how many "multiple people" want to assert that it is.

@"Feanor.2358" said:Actually it is "I propose that a lot of players would want what I want so that what I want must be". Baron Munchausen much?

I have been presented no reason to believe that a lot of players would not want what I want in this matter, given that it would benefit them significantly. You've presented no compelling argument, so why do you believe my position should change?

[Sarrs.4831]

@"Ohoni.6057" said:Ok, I'm open to suggestions. I'm honestly just doing my best here to field people's questions and comments on the topic. I'm trying to effect positive changes to the game, and I'm trying to explain my position as best I can. How do you believe I should be doing that differently to have better results?

I keep bringing up the "why is this argument about loot and not about the content" for a reason. Start there; drop the loot as an argument entirely and just talk about what you'd want to see out of an easy mode.

@"Ohoni.6057" said:It never has been. It's always been "I believe that a lot of players would want, therefore it should be." I think there's no reason to believe that isn't true.

"I like to believe there is an invisible unicorn behind me. I have no reason to believe that isn't true."I'm coming straight from r/atheism and I've got all these burden of proof anecdotes ready to go.

Speaking of burden of proof, didn't we just have a big discussion about that like two seconds ago? It's almost like nothing actually sticks in this discussion.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Ohoni.6057 said:I went over with Doc why bad data is not better than no data, check back a few pages.But you never convinced anyone that it actually is bad data. Only yourself. Check back a few pages. So having data is better than no data.

And as for the sales data, it doesn't say anything significant pro or con about raiding, it's too general and there are no significant swings that can be attributed to raids in either direction.I think you are missing who is making the argument that Raids are bad for the game because of sales data.

[Feanor.2358]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"Feanor.2358" said:Actually it is "I propose that a lot of players would want what I want so that what I want must be". Baron Munchausen much?

I have been presented no reason to believe that a lot of players would not want what I want in this matter, given that it would benefit them significantly. You've presented no compelling argument, so why do you believe my position should change?

That's not how burden of proof works.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"Cyninja.2954" said:Actually it has, you've been called out on this by multiple people.

I

have

been called out on this by multiple people,

and every single one of them was wrong

. That shouldn't need explaining. They would like me to shut up, because they disagree with my position on the matter, so they insist that it's purely self-serving, when I've turned down numerous offers to benefit myself without helping others in the process. Would I benefit from an easy mode? Yes. Would I accept

just

collecting the personal benefits of it if it didn't mean a systemic change that would benefit everyone? NO. This is not about me, no matter how many "multiple people" want to assert that it is.

This right here, it's called arrogance, look it up: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogance

arrogance (according to merriam-webster):

an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

There is a difference between sticking to your opinion and calling every one else stupid when you have provided 0 data, have 0 credibility in the field of discussion and have very clear personal motives.

[Astralporing.1957]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:I went over with Doc why bad data is

not

better than no data, check back a few pages.But you never convinced anyone that it actually

is

bad data.I have pointed out the problem with that data to you several times already. (namely, that it's a data about full dungeon completion, but you use it where you'd want either data on numbers of time each path was run, or at the very least

individual path

completion).

Yes, some data is generally better than no data, but you have to know what you can use that data for, and where you can't. Or you run the risk of presenting a mistaken conclusion as something that is at least partially reliable.

That's in addition to you waving away parts of that data that do not fit your conclusion and claiming they are not relevant, which adds up to its unreliability even more.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Ohoni.6057" said:I went over with Doc why bad data is

not

better than no data, check back a few pages.But you never convinced anyone that it actually

is

bad data.I have pointed out the problem with that data to you several times already. (namely, that it's a data about full dungeon completion, but you use it where you'd want either data on numbers of time each path was run, or at the very least

individual path

completion).Or compare Raid wings with full dungeon clears if you want. Doesn't help much, what I was using that data for was to provide at least some evidence that players that run instanced content aren't as many as some around here think they are. Which shouldn't be a surprise and not need data to prove, given how this playerbase is supposed to be like, but anyway, apparently I have to explain the obvious. The argument that "they might not like other instanced content, avoid it like the plague, but they WILL run easy mode Raids", is really weak, because it's still instanced content. Not buying it, someone that is not interested in instanced content won't be interested in easy mode Raids either. And those interested in instances in this game are a minority already.

Yes, some data is generally better than no data, but you have to know what you can use that data for, and where you can't. Or you run the risk of presenting a mistaken conclusion as something that is at least partially reliable.I'll take partially reliable over "junk".

That's in addition to you waving away parts of that data that do not fit your conclusion and claiming they are not relevant, which adds up to its unreliability even more.Now I would go back and recheck all the data I've posted and do a complete and thorough analysis -again- but you know what, I won't, because then Ohoni will come and call it junk without even reading so why should I bother? I've said my piece on that subject, and used some data to back it up.

How large do YOU think the instanced content runner population of this game is?Do you think those that have no desire whatsoever to run the other instanced content, will for some reason like easy mode Raids?