Talisman beating Torment as most boring league !

"

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.

So, you're basically saying there's just as much pattern here as going out on the street and asking a bunch of random people do they prefer cocacola or pepsi? Now that is 100% subjective and a collection of worthless samples. Are you also saying we rate uniques by color and price rares by gut? Of course we don't, we're employing a dominantly objective rating system.

Ok, imagine that Chris sent you a message in which he asks you to have a thousand PoE players grade their past league experiences to gather solid data which would help him put together a new one. We know just asking them which one they liked best won't work and you say the method I suggested isn't good either. How would you do it then?

Really asking, learning new tricks can never hurt.

"

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.

No he didnt. I even provided a dozen reasons why they arent.

Difficulty isnt objective. How would that be objective? Based on how many people died? Let me quickly name a few variables you have to take into consideration when looking at this
balance, internet stability, top played build and its defense, how prone is content to desync, how dangerous must maps be rolled, whats the incentive to run dangerous maps


Let me to the same thing for popularity
what games came out while the league of was live, what games had patches, what other games to PoE players play and what did those change, was there a DotA tournament, were there holidays, was there a political crisis, did we have finals in a certain country

Now tell me, how do you objectively rank difficulty and popularity. Because all these things might have an impact yet are unrelated to the quality of the league or hard to judge.

"

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.

See above. The entire point of this argument is that there isnt an objectively best league and you have no way to prove that there is. Because all the things you see above are subjective variables. So even if you could put them into order the samples base would still be subjective. Sure it would show tendencies, and sure you would come to the conclusion that A was perceived better than B and therefore is statistically speaking better, but that doesnt turn it into an objective conclusion. It simply tells you that more people liked it based on the variables you have, which an infinite amount exists of.

"

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.

I really cant be bothered to type all this shit again.

a) its not only the league mod that makes a league
b) you cant objectively rank that 20% speed is worse than Beyond packs, it will forever remain subjective

"

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.

Not much of a point in continuing this conversation.

__________________________________________________________

"

Ok, imagine that Chris sent you a message in which he asks you to have a thousand PoE players grade their past league experiences to gather solid data which would help him put together a new one. We know just asking them which one they liked best won't work and you say the method I suggested isn't good either. How would you do it then?

Learn to comprehend simple English sentences. What youre looking for is a simple polling system. You ask the players what they liked best and based on that you create a new league because it was the most popular.

You based the decision on the player experience. On their subjective opinions because thats what will net you most profits. What you want is nothing but a fucking poll. However, thats missing the point by a landslide.

This method would make it clear which league is most popular and why. However, it wouldnt tell you which is the best. Because something being the best isnt subjective. But thats ok because for this sort of task you dont need objective data for. In fact, its borderline impossible to get access to it.

Just because something isnt objective that doesnt mean that it isnt good. So stop with this bullshit. If a billion people say that blue is the best and one guys says its red, is blue objectively the best color? No, it isnt. It simply is the most popular and people have a very very strong tendency to like blue. And since only one exception exists I can ignore the outlier and only make blue tshirts. Doesnt mean the question all of a sudden is objective. Its based on opinions after all.

Let me add to this: GGG could for example say that X is better than Y because it netted them more money. Since the companys goal is to make cash they are probably already doing that. Now you would have a way to rank leagues, based on the generated profits. This would be an objective way to rank them.

 Wow, looks like someone (or many) have been playing PoE so long that they are burned out and need to move on to other new software... or to state it extreme old school: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" If you believe that Talisman League is worse than Torment or Beyond mobs (all the difficulty but none of the rewards) then it's time for you to hang it up for awhile and play something else or just live life more.

 I have always agreed that there is (to borrow a line from another well know NPC in another well know arpg) "too much pain, not enough profit". But GGG must have the stats and financial numbers to back up their decision to make PoE a starvation arpg. If GGG is doing well with supporter packs and mtx sales then they have the right to keep PoE on this path and make all who play more "casually" starve for endgame gear all with their goal of keeping us from a level 100 build. I understand why, GGG has nothing much for us to to do after 2.9 playthroughs of the main content. No, it's not 3 playthroughs as GGG screwed up Merciless Act 4. I slugged it out once to kill Merc Malachi ("too much pain, not enough profit" definitely applies here) but having done that once I won't be doing it ever again unless GGG makes the reward 2 passive points same as Piety boss battle. Until then (probably never) he will be skipped. Anyway where was I... oh yes, GGG has nothing but the daily map grind for xp and currency orbs and thus without real endgame quests or serious challenges if level 100 was achievable too quickly there would be many more who would say "game over" and quit. I don't like it and think it's costing them more players by starving them to the point of rage quitting, I just understand GGG's thinking on the endgame. I just disagree on the severity of endgame better gear starvation for us solo players. Of course I also know that GGG doesn't give a rats ass about the more casual players or the solo players. Thus we are unfairly punished just because we choose to solo play < 25 hrs. a week.

 Endgame in PoE is more like the military soldiers life. Major lengths of boredom (daily maps with endless mobs to crit one-shot to hell and beyond) punctuated by end map bosses that are mostly of little challenge or are one-shot death traps to be skipped (actual deadly combat). Any way you view it it's not good.

In Torment I trust.

I like money. People were too busy bitching about finding more strongboxes than ghosts to realize just how many free rares they were getting. I only played half of Torment and still obtained more wealth than when I went ham in Rampage or Warbands.

I also find it quite funny that nynyny and raics have been debating for four pages and have completely different definitions of the words being used.

nynyny, I have one question for you. If the league includes all released content why does GGG refer to stuff as the "1.2 patch" or "we are realeasing Warbands and Tempest along side the 2.0 patch"?

Lastly, you statement that content could only be experienced along side the league is false. You could play that content without the leagues by selecting standard.

Perhaps what you're looking for is operationalising variables, rather than the subjective/objective argument:

"Dependent variables
These are the variables that the experimenter measures - their value depends on how the independent variable has been set. Dependent variables need to be operationalised before they can be measured.

Operationalising variables
A variable is operationalised when it has been turned in to something that can be measured. ‘Memory’ is a variable, but how can it be measured? ‘Memory as measured by the number of items correctly recalled from a list after 5 minutes’ is an operationalised variable. Similarly ‘aggression’ could be operationalised as the number of aggressive acts recorded in a 10 minute observation.

Extraneous variables
These are any variables other than the independent variable that may affect the dependent variable in some way. In the above example time of day could be an extraneous variable as people may be more vigilant at one time of day and less so at another. Other examples could be intelligence level of participants, age of participants, temperature, etc. Extraneous variables therefore need to be controlled in order to reduce or eliminate the influence they have on the DV, which basically means they need to be the same for all participants. In this example it would be sufficient to test all participants at the same time of day and thus eliminate any difference in time of day..."

Which is why Wraeclast may be an experiment in many ways, but couldn't be a white coat one.

A poll is a one-off measure, a different thing, as has been pointed out. Constructing a measure for analysing leagues via participant responses would require psychometrics to develop a valid questionnaire. It could be done, but then GGG have raw data to look at, prolly all they need!

(I go by how busy town is).

I kind of zone out/ flow and that's what I like about the game. I can see how it'd be boring for some. I started Tempest but got sidetracked by other stuff, and this is my first proper league. I'm enjoying it, multiple bloody blue monkey paw talismans and all.

GGG should change talisman upgrade tier mechanic to offer a bigger chance to get a higher rarity talisman than the ones you put on shrine.

Otherwise normal and magic talisman will have no use and no trade value and people will only do 5 rare/unique talisman sacrifices. As we can see right now, when league just started.

Also, this will help diminish the grind needed to get high tier high rarity talisman which is the people feedback and mine also.

Chris has said that getting 125 (!) won't take too long (do GGG even play their own game? lol), but there are 2 aspects that I can definitely see people QQ over and may make talismans a fiasco:

1) The fact that you need 5 different base amulets to trade up. This means that those 125 have to all be different from each other (statistically nigh impossible) and without seriously annoying trading players may need to get around 300+ talismans to actually have the 125 needed. Not taking into account the logistics of storing and organising (admitted a smaller quantity as you trade up) etc, thats still a real pain. Also very small amount of possession monsters with talismans (why so small amount monsters with talisman?)

2) Just how many talismans will need to be stored if we also are keeping normal and magic rarity ones?? Overall its a logistical nightmare, and as has stated who would want to store normal and magic amulets when what we really want are the rare and unique ones? If there is to be any synergy and motivation then the rarity chance should scale up and not scale down as at the moment proposed (except for maybe uniques) - its bad enough the crazy number of talismans that will be needed, but don't forget that even a tier 4 rigwald amulet (which requires considerable effort to get, as it 'should') can have poor rolls and be vendor trash.

Summarizing, the overall concept and idea of talisman is not bad, and the effort for reward can be well balanced, but at the moment needing 5 different base talismans AND the uselessness of normal/magic amules can make the league a total bust.

We need more talisman drop and talisman monsters per location/map and much much MORE higher chance to drop rare talisman!

Change talisman upgrade tier mechanic to offer a bigger (a lot bigger) chance to get a higher rarity talisman than the ones you put on shrine.


And as always ggg ruined very good idea - talisman. Rip

If they so bad at balancing game (how many crash we got now?, how many DC and desync?) ruined balance for gems: now spells and ranger so strong that melee has no use or fun playing it. CA (PA) even more stronger then ever. Cyclone nerfed.

I said few days ago, I start playing PoE with Beyond/Rampage, Talisman it's worst league since then.
Even the Darkshines before this one was much fun, actually a lot more fun.

I'm having a lot of fun, you guys should be more grateful that you are alive and able to smoke weed.

"

nynyny wrote:

"

Ok, imagine that Chris sent you a message in which he asks you to have a thousand PoE players grade their past league experiences to gather solid data which would help him put together a new one. We know just asking them which one they liked best won't work and you say the method I suggested isn't good either. How would you do it then?

Learn to comprehend simple English sentences. What youre looking for is a simple polling system. You ask the players what they liked best and based on that you create a new league because it was the most popular.

You based the decision on the player experience. On their subjective opinions because thats what will net you most profits. What you want is nothing but a fucking poll. However, thats missing the point by a landslide.

This method would make it clear which league is most popular and why. However, it wouldnt tell you which is the best. Because something being the best isnt subjective. But thats ok because for this sort of task you dont need objective data for. In fact, its borderline impossible to get access to it.

Just because something isnt objective that doesnt mean that it isnt good. So stop with this bullshit. If a billion people say that blue is the best and one guys says its red, is blue objectively the best color? No, it isnt. It simply is the most popular and people have a very very strong tendency to like blue. And since only one exception exists I can ignore the outlier and only make blue tshirts. Doesnt mean the question all of a sudden is objective. Its based on opinions after all.

Let me add to this: GGG could for example say that X is better than Y because it netted them more money. Since the companys goal is to make cash they are probably already doing that. Now you would have a way to rank leagues, based on the generated profits. This would be an objective way to rank them.

So, you're basically saying just asking people which league they liked best gives the same quality of data as the method I suggested? And that their cash influx at the time will show which league was the best?

Ok, that's... enlightening. At level four.

All roads lead to standard.