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

"

Kellog wrote:

The games growth has absolutely nothing to do with the lab. I would imaging the majority of new players don't even know of it's existence.

"

Kellog wrote:

You keep using this specious argument and it just doesn't hold water. These quests don't remove a player from the main game, they also don't require knowledge of traps and other Prince of Persia like nonsense.

"

Fruz wrote:

Granted, those other side quests are much quicker and easier than the lab, but it does not remove the fact that it is the only reason why people do those.

"

Nishrek wrote:

So you are comparing quest like Deshret to the lab? That they are the same "carrots"?
Lol. I can't even say how much BS this statement is.

"

raics wrote:

"

Kellog wrote:

The games growth has absolutely nothing to do with the lab. I would imaging the majority of new players don't even know of it's existence.

I think his point is more that it isn't hampering its growth, as the lab is accused of 'ruining the game' and being the 'harbinger of downfall' often enough.

"

Quests for bonus points give you more of something you're already getting but don't remove you from the game. Ascending removes you from the game but gives you something you can't get in the game otherwise. Seems fair to me and the amount of power you're getting is relative to the time spent on either.

"

Though we could say that both technically halt your campaign progress. Does it really matter if you're doing it in an area that is closely connected to the compulsory section or a bit further? Not that either is exactly hard to reach.

"

Zaludoz wrote:

There is no issue with the allflame or deshret or deep dweller because they're just normal gameplay quests with better rewards. There IS an issue with the Labyrinth because it's a mini-game, where the obstacles involved ignore most of your character building and the gameplay becomes avoid trap, instead of kill monster.

"

raics wrote:

So, you are basically saying there that you're killing deep dweller and fetching allflame because it's interesting and fun.

"

raics wrote:

Now why am I not surprised at seeing nobody raising a fuss because Ascendancy bonuses are different from the normal quest rewards and it's a crime against nature that labyrinth is different from normal quests.

"

Nishrek wrote:

BTW I've already shown you an example of Deshret, why she is not a "carrot"

"

Fruz wrote:

@Phrazz : I was refering to this :

"

Phrazz wrote:

traps ARE associated with platform games. Trap gameplay are something a lot of us feel doesn't belong in this genre

Maybe I should have said "traps are not completely foreign to arpgs, at all" instead.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

j33bus wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

If you think that is a quote referring to some assumption that I'm making about people liking labyrinth then you are mistaken. It is not.

The study was that for every person that complained there would be 25 people with the same complaint but just never bothered to complain. Therefore that would mean that for every person that complained about labyrinth there would 25 more people would have the same complaint but just never bothered to complain. That means multiplying by 25 NOT dividing by 25. This seems to be another example that indicates you don't have a knack for mathematics.

Ok so I thought I was going to give up trying to explain this but it turns out I was wrong.

The "25 number" come from the idea that 96% of people who have a complaint don't care enough to say anything. On the other hand your 0.5% number is the estimated percent of people who post on the forum. The point is that that the 0.5% number is not a number you want (and yes i know it's just a guess, what I'm saying is what you're trying to guess isn't the correct idea). This is because just because someone doesn't provide feedback doesn't mean that they don't know that they can provide feedback.

The way you're doing the calculation, you define the total population to be the total number of PoE users, which is correct, and your sampled population to be people who have posted on the forum. However, what is the distinction between people who post once, and people who don't post but know that they could?

The 25 number is a research motivated correction to change your sample definition from "people who have said something" to "people who could have said something" which is the correct denominator to use, because just because someone hasn't said anything doesn't mean that they couldn't have voiced their opinion if they wanted to, which is the key difference between a proper survey and dealing with uncontrolled feedback like this.

So instead of your extrapolation of (anti-lab people)/(% of forum users) it's actually (anti-lab people)/((% of users who know about the forum)*(complaining likelihood)

So you want 910/(0.04*(forum accounts/(forum accounts+unlinked steam accounts))

Of course your 910 number also conflates a lot of different types of complaints about the lab to the point that using it to draw any sort of conclusion is pretty meaningless. After all there's no real point in lumping together thoughts about minor balance changes, and claims that the entire thing should be scraped.

The link that you pointed to indicated that a study indicated that for every person that voiced a complaint you might expect 25 people had the same problem but didn't voice their complaint. Now, of course, that 25 number I'd expect to be different in retail versus landscaping versus video games though. But I don't consider that detail very important. Can you link to the place where it means something different from that? Also I don't remember seeing a 96% figure?

I don't understand what you mean when you said, "However, what is the distinction between people who post once, and people who don't post but know that they could?"

At least I think that might be the explanation as to why you think a simple ratio won't work in this case? Meaning that it is unclear to me why you've complicated the equation? Perhaps it's a different way to get at the same answer but that is unclear to me?

Here's my proposed equation again and how it might be derived.

914/total-in-base-with-similar-view = 0.5% which is our hypothetical ratio being used for posters/total-in-base

then simple algebra gets you

914/0.5% = total-in-base-with-similar-view