120916-welp-thought-id-like-it-page-5

Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6
== Content ==
			
{| class="blockquote"
Failing to get through Veteran STL in guild runs 3 nights in a row of 2-3 hours each is what made me give up on the game.
 
For me, getting through an encounter was a relief, not an accomplishment
 
My accounts basically been in maintenance mode since then living off house node income. I log in a couple times a week to sell crap, and that's it.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
So, the major question is: can a low level dungeon be masterd with players at low level experience and gear ?
What would happen, if you take experienced players with low level twinks ?
Do those people telling that dungeons are not difficult, only have their point of view from a level 50 equiped player ?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
To be clear, we were talking about normal mode dungeons losing subs.
 
I do understand that your experience happened a lot, especially when silvers were required. The vet dungeons are certainly a challenge. I had the same experience as you, in fact, but I LOVED it. So I think it's a matter of preference. If they tuned down vet dungeons I'd definitely be gone.
 
As for what would happen if they tuned down normal mode dungeons and nothing else, then no, I probably wouldn't leave now. If they had not been where they are, I might not have made it to cap, which means future player like me might be lost.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I agree, existing content should not be necessarily tuned down.
 
Additional easy content or may be "easy modes" of existing content is needed to broaden the player base.
I think Carbine already understood, and is heading in the right direction.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You've been pissing at me about how I'm ignoring the metrics. I'm not. I'm looking right at them and asking--like ANY critical reviewer of data should--what they're really telling us. And what they're really telling us is nothing relevant to this thread at all. Neither you nor Sly has interpreted them correctly. You in particular demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what TT's metric even was comparing in your last post. 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
... Wow, taking more time didn't help much with comprehension, I guess. You're saying "you're welcome" and I didn't thank you.  :lol:
 
Didn't I just say in my last post how being thorough didn't involve a word count? You just spewed out 3730 words of explaining to me history that I was around for, a loot system that I'm aware of, updates that I already know are coming, and interleaved in huge amounts of the same general hysterics conflating the leveling game with the endgame, with changes to anything being changes to everything, and clinging to the same metrics I just told you were completely misinterpreted. Your response to what I said was a very verbose version of "no no no no no".
 
Oh, I almost forgot. You did have one other thing of note in there. You "owned up" to having never failed to complete a dungeon ever. Not really all that relevant to the discussion, but I hope you found sharing that tidbit to be cathartic. I bow to your mad skillz, sir. You are awesome at playing a video game. I am nothing next to your greatness.
 
But in spite of your gaming prowess, you're still wrong here, because here we're talking about what we actually know, and TT's metrics don't tell us much. They certainly don't tell us anything about whether or not the teeming masses of players of this game love dungeons as much as you do, and here's why.
 
 
The answer, in case you couldn't solve it, was "yes". Yes, he could. Because 180,000/200,000 = 90% who did dungeons quit, 495/500 = 99% who didn't do dungeons quit, and 90%<99%.
 
Unhappy with the numbers? Let me explain something about this hypothetical case. What I'm trying to do here is find out how completely unrealistic a set of numbers could be and yet still be consistent with TT's statement. Why? Because if TT's metric could still be true with >90% of people are running dungeons and a >90% quit rate, then his metric doesn't tell you JACK about whether people love or hate dungeons OR about whether or not dungeons make people stay in the game. His statement could still be true even if every one of the 90% of the playerbase who "did any" dungeon and quit the game, quit explicitly because they hated the dungeons.
 
That is not to say that every single person who left did in fact hate the dungeons, we don't know. And that's the point. We don't know. All that talk about metrics that you and Sly have been claiming backs you up simply isn't in the data you're quoting. Maybe Carbine has it. If so, they haven't shown it. And of course maybe Carbine is making the same mistake in data interpretation that you're making. 
 
And if you think they're being way more careful than you are, here's a little reminder about how carefully they consider what they're doing: "Bug-free drops".
 
You've been pissing at me about how I'm ignoring the metrics. I'm not. I'm looking right at them and asking--like ANY critical reviewer of data should--what they're really telling us. And what they're really telling us is nothing relevant to this thread at all. Neither you nor Sly has interpreted them correctly. You in particular demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what TT's metric even was comparing in your last post. 
 
No wonder when I asked for a link, I didn't get one.
 
Remember this?
 
 
3730 words of deflection later, I still find those kinds of arguments to be really funny. :D
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
The intent of TT's post was clear- he was saying that he believed the metrics said that people enjoyed the dungeons.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
I've highlighted the critical part of your statement.  Anybody who's had to deal with production or interpretation of metrics knows how ridiculously easy it is to misinterpret them.  When yasfan first asked about the quote I was going to weigh in with a statement about how hysterically vague it was.  A much more interesting measurement would have been percentage of people who attempted dungeons without completing one that quit.
 
 
As the Raid and Dungeon lead he's not exactly unbiased.  I'm not even sure he did his own analysis of the data.  I am not saying that he's trying to deceive us, but I do think there's a misinterpretation of some sort or he's focusing on the wrong conclusion.  "We've discovered the people that like our niche, like our game".  If that's what is going on here, that is a problem.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
you're asking us to invalidate our own feelings on the subject, any anecdotes we have proving you wrong, and that there are people who do not lack knowledge that directly stated your suggestion is being directly avoided.  That's quite a leap you're asking us to make, that we should support the outright removal of content we personally enjoy based exclusively around how much you don't know.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
I've highlighted the critical part of your statement.  Anybody who's had to deal with production or interpretation of metrics knows how ridiculously easy it is to misinterpret them.  When yasfan first asked about the quote I was going to weigh in with a statement about how hysterically vague it was.  A much more interesting measurement would have been percentage of people who attempted dungeons without completing one that quit.
 
 
As the Raid and Dungeon lead he's not exactly unbiased.  I'm not even sure he did his own analysis of the data.  I am not saying that he's trying to deceive us, but I do think there's a misinterpretation of some sort or he's focusing on the wrong conclusion.  "We've discovered the people that like our niche, like our game".  If that's what is going on here, that is a problem.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Thanks for the support and offers, but I'm just done, I'm really only still around because it's almost zero effort, hanging on to the long shot hope that there could be a drastic change in philosophy at Carbine.
 
Truly honestly, my dungeon experience was not enjoyable at all. It was miserable. It was a relief when "raid time" was over so I could log out.
 
Additionally, there's zero chance I'm going get into raiding. I've decided that having to play a game by appointment is not something I'm interested in anymore.
 
So, I didn't like WS dungeons, I'm not going to raid, I loathe grinding reputation dailies. WS really just doesn't have anything to offer me.
 
The ironic thing, to misuse the word, is I'm precisely their target audience. I had ~80 days played back in Vanilla WoW clearing MC, BWL and partially through AQ40 before I burned out and had to take a break.
----
			
 
{| class="blockquote"
If your argument was that, given that we don't have the information, it isn't our place to say whether the dungeons need detuned or not, that would be one thing.  But recall, if you've forgotten, you are arguing that Carbine should detune dungeons.  Not that they should if their metrics suggest it, not that we shouldn't make that assumption one way or another, you are arguing Carbine should take a drastic action based exclusively on the evidence of your lack of knowledge and anecdotes.  To do so, you're asking us to invalidate our own feelings on the subject, any anecdotes we have proving you wrong, and that there are people who do not lack knowledge that directly stated your suggestion is being directly avoided.  That's quite a leap you're asking us to make, that we should support the outright removal of content we personally enjoy based exclusively around how much you don't know.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
But really, if there's one conclusion we should walk away from this with about you guys, it's that you don't care one bit what the evidence does or doesn't say. I point out that it could mean exactly the opposite of what you thought it meant. Does it change anything for you? Nah. You just keep right on with the same conclusion. Why? They have metrics. The ones they showed us don't prove the point? They must have metrics they didn't show us. They couldn't possibly have it wrong. They couldn't possibly be going in the wrong direction.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
While I certainly agree there should be more content for players of all play styles, I worry that if they go too far in making content 'easier' is that we will suddenly create a massive loot disparity between the 'easy' players, the 'normal' players, and the raiders.
 
I've seen that forum war happen in... pretty much every progression based MMO ever.
 
I personally think the answer is more accessible content (easier to get raids together, better communication tools in game, better group finder tools, lesser focus on attunement, etc) over less challenging content. Challenge is the major selling point of Wildstar right now.
 
I certainly won't argue with Carbine's decision to make more content for everyone, as that is always a good thing, but I would urge Carbine to be careful in how they implement this. We could end up just exchanging one problem for another.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I have also brought up the idea that if there's a lot of people who just CANNOT live with the idea of detuning ANYTHING, they can always add an "Easy Mode" along with their "Normal Mode" and "Veteran Mode" and then nothing is removed or detuned at all. If there was any response along the lines of anything other than NONOnonoNONOno, I must have missed it.
 
So... was there a response along the lines of anything other than "No"? Did I miss it?
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I said:
 
"My feeling is that it is probably not worth the time to for the developers to create and maintain easier versions of the dungeons, especially when there is easier group content already available (shiphands and adventures). I think there would be a lot of headaches involved in trying to maintain two leveling versions of each dungeon, especially when the community is already having enough time queueing for one version of each. And also, the problem that gear rewards in leveling dungeons aren't that meaningful (making it more difficult to differentiate the two from a risk/reward standpoint)."
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I view the devs having metrics and taking a specific action based on those metrics as evidence.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
To be valid, your evidence requires them to be infallible. They are not infallible. Ergo, your evidence is invalid.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
In other words: No. Good to know I didn't miss it from you.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
What?
 
Really?
 
You are going to just dismiss my thoughts that quickly and simply? I didn't just say "no". I gave reasons.
 
I don't know why I bother with you. The lack of respect you are showing me is very high.
 
Perhaps it is best that we do not converse if that is how you are going to treat me.
----
			
I've not read the entire thread(because dear lord it's like a novel in here lol), but I briefly caught mentions of "Easy mode" versions, and other alternatives.
 
I do think that veteran dungeons are fine, but need tweaking and fixes in various places that have been noted like IA refresh speed, some bugs that come up(some of which have been around forever). However since that's not the specific intended discussion I'll simply say how I feel on the overall and normal dungeons we have.
 
As it is I do feel like KV/STL are harsh for new players currently without a vetted player assisting them either in knowledge and or gear(scaled down higher level players have a significant advantage in normals). I'm hoping the protogames academy helps to bridge people into dungeons more fluidly. However there are others issues that within the  context of the game I feel don't help dungeons in their current state and act almost as a deterrent to some, which a lot of is hinted at or said in the thread noting the issue of queue times.
 
Something I will say though is that after doing content with new players for awhile I'm feeling more and more like there is too much of a focus around IA, which seems to be one of the hardest parts of this game to teach people. Or rather I should say that for the level of importance, it doesn't for some reason seem to be taught well and early enough. That however is it's own topic...	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
 
 
 
I think he is making the exact same mistake you two are making. 
 
But really, if there's one conclusion we should walk away from this with about you guys, it's that you don't care one bit what the evidence does or doesn't say. I point out that it could mean exactly the opposite of what you thought it meant. Does it change anything for you? Nah. You just keep right on with the same conclusion. Why? They have metrics. The ones they showed us don't prove the point? They must have metrics they didn't show us. They couldn't possibly have it wrong. They couldn't possibly be going in the wrong direction.
 
No. They don't have to have metrics they didn't show us. It could be that they think they are going in the right direction because they're using bad data analysis to reinforce what they already believe to be true--and it's pretty clear from their PR leading up to launch what they believed to be true before reality came in and smashed them hard in the face. Self-reinforcement like that is not at all uncommon among people who don't design and interpret methods of collecting and analyzing data rigorously. It is surprisingly easy to do, which is why critical thinking is so important when doing it.
 
Yes, because developers never get it wrong. They never make mistakes. They never tell themselves what they want to hear. They never tell us what we want to hear.  :rolleyes:
Since apparently "bug-free drops" didn't convince you that your premise is nothing more than wishful thinking, I'll try another one for you. "Monthly updates."
 
The argument is that you are not arguing from a position of strength because the metrics you claim to have on your side do not tell you what you think they do. TT is always free to weigh in with more relevant metrics. I'm happy to be proven wrong by data. Being shouted down by "well _I_ believe the data's telling me something even though you just proved that it's not", not so much.
 
We are both arguing from a general feel for where the game is, from our personal experiences and the anecdotes of friends, from watching these forums, and from being inside the game. There's a reason you linked to that thread about how much you love that the game is trying to kill you--because you were pointing to its popularity to make the case that your viewpoint has support. The entirely valid counterpoint is that the people who thought the game was so hard that they up and left aren't here to argue it with you any more, and it was made by the OP before I even showed up in this thread. Since I was here for the mass exodus just like you were, I'm just going to note that I don't share your recollection that everyone loved on the difficulty on the way out the door. 
 
So if we're down to arguing anecdotal evidence because that's all that's available to us, there's been lots of "screw this, I'm leaving" threads. I was here through the mass exodus too, and your claim that people have all just loved the difficulty on the way out the door is cherry-picking at best. I have suggested, in agreement with the OP, that they should detune leveling dungeons, and explicitly NOT veteran dungeons, and I have also brought up the idea that if there's a lot of people who just CANNOT live with the idea of detuning ANYTHING, they can always add an "Easy Mode" along with their "Normal Mode" and "Veteran Mode" and then nothing is removed or detuned at all. If there was any response along the lines of anything other than NONOnonoNONOno, I must have missed it.
 
So... was there a response along the lines of anything other than "No"? Did I miss it?
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I am not trying to offend you, I am trying to get to your answer to what was actually asked. It WAS "no", right? Or do I have that wrong?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
But really, if there's one conclusion we should walk away from this with about you guys, it's that you don't care one bit what the evidence does or doesn't say. I point out that it could mean exactly the opposite of what you thought it meant. Does it change anything for you? Nah. You just keep right on with the same conclusion. Why? They have metrics. The ones they showed us don't prove the point? They must have metrics they didn't show us. They couldn't possibly have it wrong. They couldn't possibly be going in the wrong direction.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You're claiming that the course of action they're taking based on the metrics they've given is--in and of itself--evidence that they're taking the right course of action.
----