SET FREE THE ASCENDANCY POINTS (or rework the lab) [New ascension methods/lab rework ideas]

Sure, they have some stats to work with at least and a decent data analyst can make them a rough estimate when something starts being an issue, when to do small tweaks and when to go all the way.

On the other side, we have a random bunch of people without even the basic knowledge on gathering data, let alone making sense of it. Dunno about you, but if I was running a game company it would be a fairly clear choice.

I'm simply saying, that if they needed to ask for answers to the questions they asked in the beta feedback thread about the Labyrinth, they must not have that data... it was not gathered by an internal tool, thus, they need to ask.

If they don't have that information in the beta, where I'd expect them to be making full use of all tools at their disposal to evaluate the balance of monsters, and progress of players, etc (the main reasons they have beta testers, aside from finding not-obvious bugs), I highly doubt they have those same tools available to gather said data from the live game realms.

That's all.
I think they're not as all-seeing and all-knowing as some people make them out to be.

As a game designer and writer myself, I also think there is major confirmation bias on their side, that they'd skew the results of whatever data they do have, to show favorably on their own creation. (They must have thought it was a good idea when they made it, so it must be good... I'd think so, anyway.) This is as much confirmation bias as those who don't like it would have, skewing data results in the other direction.

Data point: X percent of players get ascendancy classes for their characters.

Is this very high? Does that mean people like the Labyrinth, or like Ascendancy classes? or both? or just that they think they need the power of the ascendancy points, but hate the labyrinth and go through it anyway?

How long does it take players to finish the Labyrinth? X minutes... is this fast? Is it the expected amount of time? What is the goal time they had in mind for players to spend in the labyrinth? Does the completion time mean that the labyrinth is too easy or too hard? Since the labyrinth changes each day, do the tools separate days for their data, to possibly determine if it's a certain trap layout that changes the data?

Adding more data points helps, but they can almost always be skewed in the direction you want, especially if you're not collecting the right data points. And some data points can only be collected with direct questions, like: Do you like the Labyrinth? A question I doubt they'll ever ask.

None of the data points really measure how fun people find it, or how much satisfaction people get from overcoming the annoying challenges, or if it gets someone's adrenaline flowing or bores them to death, etc.

So, even if they have data on the labyrinth, I don't think it's giving them any more good insight into whether the labyrinth is successful content or not.

That's how I see it.
At the end of the day, GGG has said they're making the game they'd like to play, (now it's a conglomeration of about 100 people on the team's ideas of a fun game, so... yeah) and I think they think they've been successful despite going against the trends of the day, or caring what others have to say, for the most part. (I think some of this has been blowing up in their faces, and they're ignoring it because more people are coming to the game than are willing to leave over the problems they see, like trade, the labyrinth, freeforall loot, etc)

Anyway... I've never argued the existence of traps in this game, since GGG says they fit, they fit; but their implementation is what I see as not fitting the core design of the game. It feels tacked on, (you're tired of hearing me say this, but it ignores MOST of the choices you make in creating your character) and thus feels out of place in PoE, to me and many others. It won't feel "good" to me, until that changes, or I can ignore the labyrinth as a mini-game for loot, instead of being required for character progression.

Keep the labyrinth as is, but provide an alternative to the mini-game [Edit: an alternative that fits the game's core design and established gameplay, not another mini-game] and I'd have nothing to complain about.

None of their collected data points can tell them all this, so there is no way they have a complete picture of the success or failure of the labyrinth in the minds of all their players.

"

Zaludoz wrote:

If they don't have that information in the beta, where I'd expect them to be making full use of all tools at their disposal to evaluate the balance of monsters, and progress of players, etc (the main reasons they have beta testers, aside from finding not-obvious bugs), I highly doubt they have those same tools available to gather said data from the live game realms.

When looking for ways to improve the lab player bias isn't an important factor, that's why it's simpler and better to just ask the questions by way of voluntary feedback, the way they did in beta.

However, they can't do the same thing for 'lab acceptance level' which is what we were talking about because of voluntary bias, and random sample method which would give reliable results is too costly. That's why I assume they do extrapolation based on what they do know, in that particular case it's the faster and cheaper method, it can give you a general idea which is usually good enough.

"Lab acceptance level", or tolerance, of any content, is a pretty low bar to be setting in an entertainment product.

I think that's all they're going for, and that disappoints me.

It's supposed to be just a measure of how much we like/dislike the lab, you can call it whatever you prefer but there's one for every game element, atlas, masters, levelling, maps, socket system...

Goes without saying it's ideally supposed to be as high as possible, but gatekeeper features rarely have a very high acceptance level so it's ok to settle for 'accepted' or even 'mixed' (by Fallout scale) rather than shooting for 'idolized" at any cost because it's unlikely to happen. It might, sure, if it has a popular exploit like the Atlas, but I'd rather see lab stay unpopular than gain stardom in that way.

"

Fruz wrote:

Captain obvious here, but the confirmation bias seems to be huge with you.
The forum's users will never, ever be a good approximation of the whole playerbase, as it has been said and explained many many times.

"

Fruz wrote:

It has been said many ( countless ? ) times in this forum's section, that when people are not happy with something, they are much, much more likely to come here and complain, than people that don't have any problem with the content, just like it, or simply could not bother.

Captain Obvious, that is an argument regarding polls that I happen to agree with. I am not referencing any polls here. It would be an interesting discussion but we're not talking about a poll. Please put on your thinking cap, Captain Obvious.

Here's the calculation. If 0.5% of the players post in the forum then 914/0.5% = 182,000 players have a problem with labyrinth. Since you hopefully have your thinking cap on now, perhaps you could start with explaining how that has anything to do with your poll assertion? Or perhaps just admit that Captain Obvious was mistaken and address the issue? Note, that anyone else with their thinking caps on could also join in.

"

Fruz wrote:

The nonsense is your answer I'm afraid, it's very contradictory.
The labyrinth has to be completed if you want the ascendancy points, period.

To consider my answer contradictory is a bit rich, especially considering your prior 'example.' Also, Please don't patronise me, you're not very good at it.

"

And you not understanding how they can extrapolate from the data that they have, is none of my concern, the facts are that you don't know what's what, and that GGG has infinitely more elements than you to be able to know/understand, and take appropriate decisions.

The only 'facts' here are 'Fruz' pretending he/she knows everything there is to know about the telemetry collected by GGG. We've been here before and unless you've started working for GGG since the last time you made similar claims, you still know about as much as any other outsider.

Bottom line, GGG can collect as much data as they want, however, until GGG can read minds, how the majority of the player base actually feels about the lab and whether they'd prefer alternatives will never be known.

"

Kellog wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

The nonsense is your answer I'm afraid, it's very contradictory.
The labyrinth has to be completed if you want the ascendancy points, period.

To consider my answer contradictory is a bit rich, especially considering your prior 'example.' Also, Please don't patronise me, you're not very good at it.

"

And you not understanding how they can extrapolate from the data that they have, is none of my concern, the facts are that you don't know what's what, and that GGG has infinitely more elements than you to be able to know/understand, and take appropriate decisions.

The only 'facts' here are 'Fruz' pretending he/she knows everything there is to know about the telemetry collected by GGG. We've been here before and unless you've started working for GGG since the last time you made similar claims, you still know about as much as any other outsider.

Bottom line, GGG can collect as much data as they want, however, until GGG can read minds, how the majority of the player base actually feels about the lab and whether they'd prefer alternatives will never be known.

I agree with everything except reading minds is not the only way. The other way I can think of is the sophisticated use of powerful magic. :-)

"

Turtledove wrote:

I agree with everything except reading minds is not the only way. The other way I can think of is the sophisticated use of powerful magic. :-)

We should probably consider burning the next market analyst we meet at the stake. Just in case.

"

Zaludoz wrote:

I'm simply saying, that if they needed to ask for answers to the questions they asked in the beta feedback thread about the Labyrinth, they must not have that data... it was not gathered by an internal tool, thus, they need to ask.

It is a BETA.
The purpose of a beta is to look for information, how hard is that to understand ?
Such a small beta did give them some information obviously, but likely not quite enough yet.
The sample size is small, the beta access is limited, and there are many different ways to play this game on top of that.

The big difference with the player is that they do know where they want to go with what they are doing, and are sticking to their views to a certain extent, quite a bit,.
Players just want stuff to be how they would like it to be, not seeing the picture and not understanding (no one fully can) the big picture for GGG.

And to stay short : they can very easily know if people just over level it and do it quickly to be done with it, or if they stay more time in it, explore, do it when it offers more difficulty (more risk to rip=more risk to start over), etc ...
They are good enough to get their own conclusions, and better than likely any of us here with their own tools, about their own game.


It gives them infinitely more insight than what we have, that's all.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Here's the calculation. If 0.5% of the players post in the forum then 914/0.5% = 182,000 players have a problem with labyrinth. Since you hopefully have your thinking cap on now, perhaps you could start with explaining how that has anything to do with your poll assertion? Or perhaps just admit that Captain Obvious was mistaken and address the issue? Note, that anyone else with their thinking caps on could also join in.

It was not about poll at all, it's about how people that can't be bothered just don't come here to say that they are fine with the lab, or that it's not a big deal, or that they really like it.

"

Fruz wrote:

It has been said many ( countless ? ) times in this forum's section, that when people are not happy with something, they are much, much more likely to come here and complain, than people that don't have any problem with the content, just like it, or simply could not bother.

=> that 0.5% are complaining on the forum about it ( and let's say 0.3% "defending" it), there could as well be 10% of the lab population that really dislike it, which would means that 1/20 of the people would complain here, when 80/0.2 <=> 1/266 of the playerbase that does not care much or like it come here to express what they think about it.

Those numbers are just examples to show you the reasoning, nothing more, they are not in any way accurate or anything.

"

Kellot wrote:

[...]

/rofl
I am saying that we do not have the data, and that GGG has some data, it is a very simple fact.
Now if you cannot understand it, it's none of my concern.

"

raics wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

I agree with everything except reading minds is not the only way. The other way I can think of is the sophisticated use of powerful magic. :-)

We should probably consider burning the next market analyst we meet at the stake. Just in case.

Yeah lol !
Such mystical and powerful powers, it's mind blowing !