Talisman beating Torment as most boring league !

"

"

Sure it does. There is no 'objectively best'. Hell, if I would I could just say that Onslaughts league mechanics were superior to Tempest and Invasions. What are you gonna do? Prove that I am objectively wrong? Based on what? Your subjective opinion? The fact that both these leagues had more sophisticated league modifiers? And who says that this is objectively better?

Im not going to prove anything. you're entitled to your opinion. just like my friend in russia is entitled to his opinion stalin was the best ruler in the countrys history, and it's because his ancestors had the most fun under his rule.

Thats the only thing I need. You cant prove that X is objectively better than Y. Which means a leagues quality is based on a players subjective experience. Took a bit longer than I had hoped but glad we still came to a conclusion.

"

there, I quantified some of the attributes. you might not agree with them, but I have specific logic behind them, and not just 'because I had most fun because a shavs dropped for me in that one'

On a second thought, lets keep this going. Why is this objectively better? Because all I see is 'more is better'. Which, last time I checked, isnt an objective parameter unless we are judging a companies economical success or the amount of points you scored in a test. All I see are opinions. You say X is better than Y. Based on what?

Why is 'build diversity' better (which by the way wasnt even that bad in all the other leagues, people just refused to use other stuff, Onslaught is a good example for this)? Build diversity also holds a shit ton of confirmation bias. How do you even know that the way to play was limited? Because people didnt search for other ways? Now, please dont say 'because its more'. Give me an objective response.

"

nynyny wrote:

Go ahead, tell me the objective parameters that make X league better than Y league. Cant wait for this.

Of course, everything can be objectively graded within a certain margin, otherwise you'd never get a winner in something like figure skating.

- The amount of new content
Onslaught would get zero here, tempest, bloodlines or nemesis would get one, anarchy or beyond would get two, warbands would get three and talisman would get four, if we assume five is the most content that can realistically be crammed into a 3m league.

- Challenge
Self-explanatory, invasion or beyond would get full marks, rampage and domination would get a one and so on. And this is pure statistics here, the grade corresponds to the amount of whining on forum and reddit.

- Risk-reward factor
Simple enough, to what extent does the league allow you to profit from putting yourself in danger. Ambush would get a five, torment would get four, beyond a two, invasion one because drops were way too low for the risk, and onslaught would get a zero.

- League-specific uniques
I think we could agree fairly quickly which leagues are the best here, we just need a toll on the amount of chance orbs spent via zana's map device.

- Lasting appeal
This would also be easy, we would just need to know which league retained the highest percentage of starting players in the last month.

And probably a few more. If you get a few PoE players together their grades most likely wouldn't vary much within a category even if their personal impression of the league as a whole may significantly differ, because you just can't give something like rampage a five on risk-reward no matter how you look at it.

I have to say, I didn't read the last two pages, but I 100% agree with nynyny regarding what makes leagues/the game fun.

The mechanics can make it more/less challenging, but without powerful rewards it is pointless. The last few leagues have been less and less fun. Why? Every decent unique has either been nerfed into the ground, or had its build nerfed into the ground.

Does anyone really care if they find a Soul Taker now? A Mjolner? Even Shavs and Kaoms have lost their luster.

Pretty much the only top tier unique that hasn't been nerfed is Void Battery, but crit has been nerfed so many times that it has been indirectly hit.

And look at items like Rathpith and Cloak of Defiance. Once powerful, and immensely sought after. There are so many uniques that just suck anymore.

Without Eternals, we also have no real hope of acquiring mirror-worthy rares either. So there goes the Rare equivalent of an OP item...

BOOOOOOOOORING. Put in some league only items like Voll's Devotion and maybe I'd be find the leagues more interesting.

"

Of course, everything can be objectively graded within a certain margin, otherwise you'd never get a winner in something like figure skating.

- The amount of new content
Onslaught would get zero here, tempest, bloodlines or nemesis would get one, anarchy or beyond would get two, warbands would get three and talisman would get four, if we assume five is the most content that can realistically be crammed into a 3m league.

Look like a bunch of subjective numbers to me. How do you objectively rate this? More is better? Less is better? Impact is good? How much is impact? What is impact? Looks subjective.

"

- Challenge
Self-explanatory, invasion or beyond would get full marks, rampage and domination would get a one and so on. And this is pure statistics here, the grade corresponds to the amount of whining on forum and reddit.

Beyond players were more experienced than Onslaught players, therefore content was more sophisticated yet not necessarily harder. On top of that its incredibly subjective and impossible to properly analyze.

See WoW: was Ahn Qiraj harder than [whatever came out in WotLK] because it took people longer to clear? No it wasnt. People simply werent as used to the mechanics yet.

"

- Risk-reward factor
Simple enough, to what extent does the league allow you to profit from putting yourself in danger. Ambush would get a five, torment would get four, beyond a two, invasion one because drops were way too low for the risk, and onslaught would get a zero.

Subjective. Not even gonna start on the fact that you had to run 140% quant Mazes with GMP in Onslaught to get a return in a Shrine. Or lets at least say that the map drops were so bad that you had to run retarded maps in hope of a return. See below:

"

- League-specific uniques
I think we could agree fairly quickly which leagues are the best here, we just need a toll on the amount of chance orbs spent via zana's map device.

Subjective.

"

- Lasting appeal
This would also be easy, we would just need to know which league retained the highest percentage of starting players in the last month.

Doesnt make it better due to growing community, burned out community, Christman, holidays, other launched games that made people leave earlier. I can millions of reasons why people would leave a league earlier.

"

And probably a few more. If you get a few PoE players together their grades most likely wouldn't vary much within a category even if their personal impression of the league as a whole may significantly differ, because you just can't give something like rampage a five on risk-reward no matter how you look at it.

Subjectively given grades based on their opinions. I mean, hell. You didnt list anything that you can statically prove.

I think it's pretty cool, for some reason I'm looking forward to the hunt for great talisman drops.
It's also going to have an effect on future permanent leagues, not that I care too much but some will for sure.
I find that people find things 'boring' pretty fast. I mean PoE is still an ARPG made by GRINDING Gear Games. I love it for what it is, I don't want it to become some ADHD game that changes even faster. I know a lot of people seem to have time to play 12 hours a day and then complain after a week the game is boring. I play quite a lot and the game even evolves too fast for me. Everything will be boring if you rush through it and/or overplay it eventually.
I think it's a great concept and am glad it's not a 1month this time. The reason I skipped Darkshrines and the 1 month before that is because it's just too short for me to set a personal goal, knowing I won't have enough playing time.
Maybe I'm just easily pleased or I appreciate things more. Maybe many of you should try and take astep back and look at the game from a bit futher away, you might see things that you'll enjoy so much more.

"

nynyny wrote:

"

Of course, everything can be objectively graded within a certain margin, otherwise you'd never get a winner in something like figure skating.

- The amount of new content
Onslaught would get zero here, tempest, bloodlines or nemesis would get one, anarchy or beyond would get two, warbands would get three and talisman would get four, if we assume five is the most content that can realistically be crammed into a 3m league.

Look like a bunch of subjective numbers to me. How do you objectively rate this? More is better? Less is better? Impact is good? How much is impact? What is impact? Looks subjective.

Sure, I can do an example for you.

If we agree on a scale it's more objective than subjective and the scale here is 'quantity and quality of additional content'.
- onslaught brought nothing to the table so zero
- tempest, bloodlines and nemesis had just mods
- beyond had unique bosses
- warbands had unique enemies, bosses a spawn mechanic and creature-specific drops
- talisman has unique enemy mods that can be manipulated to an extent, additional world object, league-specific loot, additional lore and an uber boss

"

"

- Challenge
Self-explanatory, invasion or beyond would get full marks, rampage and domination would get a one and so on. And this is pure statistics here, the grade corresponds to the amount of whining on forum and reddit.

Beyond players were more experienced than Onslaught players, therefore content was more sophisticated yet not necessarily harder. On top of that its incredibly subjective and impossible to properly analyze.

So, you wouldn't say beyond was harder than, say, onslaught? The point isn't to agree on a specific number, that's why there are multiple categories and each can be given different weight if needed. Dunno why I'm even explaining this, the method is being used to quantify a lot more complicated things than a PoE league.

You say it's 'subjective', well of course it is, the question is to what extent. By dividing the subject into multiple criteria you're narrowing the scope of subjectivity. If we did that here and got enough people to participate we would eventually get an objective score for every league so far and see which was the best and which was the worst.

Scientifically approved, and science is objective, or at least it tries to be :)

"

raics wrote:

"

nynyny wrote:

"

Of course, everything can be objectively graded within a certain margin, otherwise you'd never get a winner in something like figure skating.

- The amount of new content
Onslaught would get zero here, tempest, bloodlines or nemesis would get one, anarchy or beyond would get two, warbands would get three and talisman would get four, if we assume five is the most content that can realistically be crammed into a 3m league.

Look like a bunch of subjective numbers to me. How do you objectively rate this? More is better? Less is better? Impact is good? How much is impact? What is impact? Looks subjective.

Sure, I can do an example for you.

If we agree on a scale it's more objective than subjective and the scale here is 'quantity and quality of additional content'.
- onslaught brought nothing to the table so zero
- tempest, bloodlines and nemesis had just mods
- beyond had unique bosses
- warbands had unique enemies, bosses a spawn mechanic and creature-specific drops
- talisman has unique enemy mods that can be manipulated to an extent, additional world object, league-specific loot, additional lore and an uber boss

Again, nothing you state is objective. You just list a bunch of stuff and claim for it to be better. Please, for the love of god, just tell me WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE OBJECTIVELY BETTER about more content. A leather jacket with more zippers isnt better because it has more zippers for fucks sake. Theres a reason the term 'bloated' exists.

If I look at your list and say that Onslaught added the most because it left the base game untouched (which isnt even true) then how do you objectively prove that this is worse than added bosses? Let me spoiler that for you:

"

"

"

- Challenge
Self-explanatory, invasion or beyond would get full marks, rampage and domination would get a one and so on. And this is pure statistics here, the grade corresponds to the amount of whining on forum and reddit.

Beyond players were more experienced than Onslaught players, therefore content was more sophisticated yet not necessarily harder. On top of that its incredibly subjective and impossible to properly analyze.

So, you wouldn't say beyond was harder than, say, onslaught? The point isn't to agree on a specific number, that's why there are multiple categories and each can be given different weight if needed. Dunno why I'm even explaining this, the method is being used to quantify a lot more complicated things than a PoE league.

You say it's 'subjective', well of course it is, the question is to what extent. By dividing the subject into multiple criteria you're narrowing the scope of subjectivity. If we did that here and got enough people to participate we would eventually get an objective score for every league so far and see which was the best and which was the worst.

Scientifically approved, and science is objective, or at least it tries to be :)

You cant objectively say whether or not it was.

Giving something weight is subjective. Onslaught players were less experienced than Beyond players. How do you objectively put that into numbers? Best guess? Onslaught forced you to run 140% quantity Mazes to get a return on maps, Beyond lets you run Blue Courtyards and still gave you a return. Which one is harder?



Were defenses better in Onslaught? What was the popular build? Was that more tanky, therefore made it easier to survive? What were deaths based on? Was server quality worse? Was content more prone to desync? Does that mean that people died due to human error or unfair game mechanics? I could go on forever. If you weight these things yourr not objectively judging them. Even if you add a thousand variables it doesnt become objective, it remains subjective. That has nothing to do with science. Hell, I work in statistical analysis so please dont try to bullshit a bullshitter regarding the legitimacy of statics and made up variables.

To add to this: If you add subjective ratings to a statistic then the entire statistic is flawed from the get-go. It will not objectively prove anything because the base is already rotten due to your made up figures.

Like I said, it doesn't matter if you gave onslaught five and beyond four or vice-versa, that's not how the whole thing works. But there's probably no need to explain it, this internet thingy is a true blessing, there's an expert or two under virtually every proverbial rock. Did you know I once met a specialist for cultivating sea cucumbers?

Anyway, suit yourself, that was the acknowledged scientific method to turn a bunch of subjective opinions into objective, reliable as well as you conduct it. If you don't like it you're free to prove it ineffective or even plain wrong, I'm sure your colleagues will be fascinated.

"

raics wrote:

Like I said, it doesn't matter if you gave onslaught five and beyond four or vice-versa, that's not how the whole thing works. But there's probably no need to explain it, this internet thingy is a true blessing, there's an expert or two under virtually every proverbial rock. Did you know I once met a specialist for cultivating sea cucumbers?

Anyway, suit yourself, that was the acknowledged scientific method to turn a bunch of subjective opinions into objective, reliable as well as you conduct it. If you don't like it you're free to prove it ineffective or even plain wrong, I'm sure your colleagues will be fascinated.

No it isnt. Its the acknowledged way to turn worthless samples into useful information that might indicate connections by throwing multiple variables into the pot. That way you can turn anything into a sample. Its particularly used in medicine and pharmaceutics to find cross connections for DNA, different diseases, reaction to drug etc. Stop making up statistical methods, re-defining their use. Also: correlation not causation.

I mean, how could you even possibly think that subjectively ranking figures turns it into an objective sample? It defies any logic. Because you see a tendency after having asked enough people? The fact that there are different responses automatically is proof that its subjective. Nothing you do will turn this data into something truly objective. Objective data doesnt have two outcomes. There is one fixed value. I mean, what youre suggesting is basically a poll. And polls are the definition of subjectivity. You can say that X is more popular, but sure as hell not that X was better than Y. Since, again, the core of the sample isnt objective.

"

nynyny wrote:

"

raics wrote:

Like I said, it doesn't matter if you gave onslaught five and beyond four or vice-versa, that's not how the whole thing works. But there's probably no need to explain it, this internet thingy is a true blessing, there's an expert or two under virtually every proverbial rock. Did you know I once met a specialist for cultivating sea cucumbers?

Anyway, suit yourself, that was the acknowledged scientific method to turn a bunch of subjective opinions into objective, reliable as well as you conduct it. If you don't like it you're free to prove it ineffective or even plain wrong, I'm sure your colleagues will be fascinated.

No it isnt. Its the acknowledged way to turn worthless samples into useful information that might indicate connections by throwing multiple variables into the pot. That way you can turn anything into a sample. Its particularly used in medicine and pharmaceutics to find cross connections for DNA, different diseases, reaction to drug etc. Stop making up statistical methods, re-defining their use. Also: correlation not causation.

I mean, how could you even possibly think that subjectively ranking figures turns it into an objective sample? It defies any logic. Because you see a tendency after having asked enough people? The fact that there are different responses automatically is proof that its subjective. Nothing you do will turn this data into something truly objective. Objective data doesnt have two outcomes. There is one fixed value. I mean, what youre suggesting is basically a poll. And polls are the definition of subjectivity. You can say that X is more popular, but sure as hell not that X was better than Y. Since, again, the core of the sample isnt objective.

Not to rain on your parade, but raics took the things from leagues that are very much non subjective and graded them, much like you would in any field that uses that form of evaluation.

What you do is you judge path of exile as heaving been the most fun when onslaught was released. That is certainly your perogative, but it really doesnt say anything about the league itself.

Objectively, what did onslaught bring at its deployment that the basegame lacked at that point? A. Slightly faster mobs. B. 4 league specific uniques
Is that siginifcant? No. Compared to all other leagues, this one had the least impact by far.

Was the game more fun back then? Maybe, i had fun back then but i'd miss masters and all the other stuff that came afterwards. But that is "Poe back then" and not "Ze Onslaught league".
Lets stick to comparing oranges with oranges, and not oranges with .. Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopters.