serious beta distribution flaw

"

koryman101 wrote:

literally 70%+ of these randoms are members who have NOT logged onto the site in MONTHS, or even THIS YEAR.

Last time I saw someone actually looking at the numbers on this, it was not that high. Given that you've provided no evidence to support your assertion, I'm fairly confident you don't actually mean "literally" there, and are in fact guessing and/or exagerating.

"

koryman101 wrote:

the random system should ONLY give beta keys to members who have AT LEAST logged onto the site THIS month...

Wrong. It should give everyone who's signed up a chance. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is the fact that since long before the beta began, we have advertised that all anyone needs to do to get into beta is sign up. Going back on our word now would be unprofessional, and you haven't even provided any reason for us to do so, just stated that we should like it's a fact.
Also, just because someone hasn't logged in doesn't mean they haven't been visiting the site daily and reading all the news.

"

koryman101 wrote:

honestly those people aren't hardcore fans and 100% do NOT deserve a beta key

No-one "deserves" a beta key. That's not how it works.

"

koryman101 wrote:

when they won't even know the got it. most people don't check there e-mail often either, i know i rarely check my personal e-mail.

So because you don't check your email, that entitles you not only to assume no-one else does (which isn't true), but to also say that our system should change to accommodate you not checking your email, despite the many people who actually do? Really?

"

koryman101 wrote:

i love how everyone assumes I'm saying i deserve one.

I didn't assume that.

"

koryman101 wrote:

i started watching the clock and checked all day for a few days and click on every single profile, I'm not guessing or exaggerating.

And yet you haven't provided any of your data, and your figure of 70%+ is notably higher than the figures I've seen from people who did this and actually did show all the data, recorded all the names, and could actually back up their claims.

"

koryman101 wrote:

a lot of the new beta key's were given to accounts that haven't logged in in over 3 months or more.

And that's not a bad thing. You still haven't given any reason why that's a bad thing apart from assuming that some people "deserve" beta keys.

"

koryman101 wrote:

the proof is in the profiles who received beta keys.

You haven't supplied this "proof" and those who did got lower numbers than you. So I'm still dubious about your claim of 70%+.

"

koryman101 wrote:

grats you don't care.

I care deeply about the timer functioning well.

"

koryman101 wrote:

i knew the game developers who made the system would be defensive and not care.

Then clearly you were wrong.

"

koryman101 wrote:

i was stating a fact that its very flawed.

You were stating it as though it were a fact, but that doesn't make it one. It's your opinion, not a fact. And it's wrong, because the timer is MEANT to let those people in as well as those who do post. The point of the timer isn't to let in the people who've been waiting longest, and ignore everyone who hasn't logged in for a while (which would, as I pointed out, be us breaking our word), it's to get us a good set of beta testers. If we only took the people who's been waiting the longest, and never let in people who didn't post, that would be BAD for the beta, because we need to be getting feedback from as many different kinds of people as possible, not skewing all our feedback towards only certain kinds of people. That's why our beta, like almost all betas, selects people at random.

"

koryman101 wrote:

lower me and my opinion

So you admit it's an opinion and not a fact now?

"

koryman101 wrote:

it won't magically become a good system because of that.

And a system which is fulfilling it's intended purpose well won't magically become seriously flawed because you don't like it.