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

"

j33bus wrote:

The idea is that the group you are sampling is not everyone who uses the forum, it's everyone who knows that they can use the forum, which is everyone who has ever been to this website, because you do not want the ratio of posters/total-on-base you want the ratio of
(people who have the potential to post)/(total in base) 0.04 is the ratio between
(people who have the potential to post)/(number of posters) because even if people don't post at all they still have the potential to voice their opinion, and have chosen not to, but they have still been sampled from.

The point is that you defined the population you sampled from incorrectly, you defined your sample as "people who provided feedback" but what your really sampled from is "people who know they can provide feedback" because if I know I can provide feedback and choose not to I'm still being sampled from. So "people who provided feedback" isn't a meaningful sample population.

The point is that the simple algebra you're using is too simple for the way the data has been collected and leads to an incorrect estimation of the total population.

I think that I get you point now. I have no problem with that.

Going back to the original start, there was a discussion about how many people disliked labyrinth between two posters (maybe it was Nishrek and Fruz??). I pointed out that I thought that the best way for GGG to get an estimate would be to use the number of names in the list and gave a very simple gross equation as an example. I never tried to argue that my equation was a statistical analysis. It was only a demonstration that the number in the list could prove to be a useful starting point.

"

Fruz wrote:

Actually, I missread J33bus' original quote and the mistake is mine there, that's my bad.
Maybe I focused on this part too much and misunderstood :

Spoiler

I understand that, but what I'm saying is that it's not actually your sample size, you don't actually have a sample size in that sense because your didn't conduct a survey, you just tabulated volunteered feedback, and volunteered feedback is known to not get you a representative population sample, so lots of market research has been done to get you to that 1:25 number.

So if we take that 914 complainer, assuming that 0.5% of the population post on the forum, that would only make 914*25 = ~22850 dislikers compared for a (forum population)*0.5% players population.

That isn't what he said either. In the above equation you're totally ignoring the fact that extremely few people in the player base ever post to the forums.

"

Fruz wrote:

It's basically that, only it's not just innacurate, it's blatantly fallacious at this point, it means nothing compared to the silent majority, it's heavily flawed.
( Now I did misunderstand J33bus' quote and since I'm pretty annoyed by the way some people are trying to argue here, I was not patient enough I guess. )


It's as if I would take all the posts that say "hype" ( or such similar content ) in the uber lab release patchnotes post, compare it to the total number of posters ( outside of GGG ) in this particular post, and would multiply it by 0.5% and then claim "look how many people love the lab, absolutely no problem with it" !
How fallacious would that be ?

saying "look, I have a list of 900 players that dislike the lab" is fine ( the accuracy could still be questioned there though ).
Saying, 'look, I am going to multiply it by 0.5% ( assuming that 0.5% of the player base posts on the forum ), and that's a rough estimation of the people disliking the lab !!' is already very different, it's not a rough estimation at all anymore.

The way that I would characterize what J33bus was saying (any clarification or correction from J33bus would be much appreciated) is that my equation is based on the simple ratio and doesn't use any statistical analysis techniques.

Let's take an analogous example. Let's say that posters to the forum somehow automatically had their picture attached to their profile when they posted on the forum. I then went in and looked through all the profiles of people that had posted to the forum and tabulated a list of everyone with blond hair. The equation for extrapolating the number of people in the general population of the player base with blond hair could use the same equation that I was using.

I would say that your characterization of my equation as being "not just innacurate, it's blatantly fallacious" as being inaccurate, bombastic, and a silly overstatement. I'd say that as a gross example my example equation was valid. I would characterize the difference with my equation and J33bus's suggestion was adding statistical analysis to add some factors to the same skeleton equation that I gave to make it more accurate.

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

goetzjam wrote:

Where in this post do you see anything about improving it, they want to be able to get the power, essentially without doing anything at all.

I stopped there. This arrogant attitude is totally lost on me. I almost don't see ANYBODY at all wanting the points "essentially without doing nothing". If YOU view "alternatives" as nothing, that's on YOU, no one else.

I've written about improvements several times in this thread, and so have others. If you CHOOSE to ignore that, that's also on you. You're so far into the "this is what we got, deal with it" bubble, that you don't seem able of consider any possibilities what so ever.

It's almost like you think the lab is PERFECT, and the ULTIMATE way of getting the ascendancy points. Every other option in the world, every idea, every rework, is idiotic just because; "this is what we've got, deal with it".

I wonder have the world would look with that attitude.

Honestly based off streamers remarks I would put Lab Tolerence but not like at 45% and hate at 20% or higher.

Maybe 35% of people LIKE the lab.

i've noticed this thread, after reading it i noticed that it's very old, with so many pages; decided to leave a trace of my passage, meaningless, but none the less: git gud.

"

jeonitsoc wrote:

i've noticed this thread, after reading it i noticed that it's very old, with so many pages; decided to leave a trace of my passage, meaningless, but none the less: git gud.

Thank you for voicing your opinion. Will the responsible person please add jeonitsoc to the git gud list.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

jeonitsoc wrote:

i've noticed this thread, after reading it i noticed that it's very old, with so many pages; decided to leave a trace of my passage, meaningless, but none the less: git gud.

Thank you for voicing your opinion. Will the responsible person please add jeonitsoc to the git gud list.

There isnt a git gud list, if you want to start one by all means do so, i know how much you enjoy useless list.

"

goetzjam wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

jeonitsoc wrote:

i've noticed this thread, after reading it i noticed that it's very old, with so many pages; decided to leave a trace of my passage, meaningless, but none the less: git gud.

Thank you for voicing your opinion. Will the responsible person please add jeonitsoc to the git gud list.

There isnt a git gud list, if you want to start one by all means do so, i know how much you enjoy useless list.

It must be Fruz then. Fruz will add him to the git gud list then.

Hey lists are fine. I keep a *.txt of all my enemies.

"

Saltygames wrote:

Hey lists are fine. I keep a *.txt of all my enemies.

I prefer letting the undertaker do it.

"

Kellog wrote:

"

And the only reason that people go kill the deep dweller or do the Fairgraves' side quest, is also to fill out their character.
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.

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.

It does
There is no "main game", the amount of knowledge you need does not matter either

what does not hold water however is saying "the lab is obviously bad, people go in there to get the AC!!!"
Saying that you don't like the way the lab is however is a different argument all together

"

Nishrek wrote:

So you are comparing quest like Deshret to the lab? That they are the same "carrots"?

They are carrots, the lab is a carrot as much as Deshret is, period, that's all there is about it being a carrot.

"

raics wrote:

So, you are basically saying there that you're killing deep dweller and fetching allflame because it's interesting and fun. Of course it's a carrot, just a smaller one on a shorter stick but the concept is the same.

Pretty much, it's not a hard concept to understand

"

Nishrek wrote:

"

raics wrote:

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

Yes I do. Fetching deep dweller is 100% the same gameplay, as rest of PoE (especially if you play 1st time)

So if the deep dweller had absolutely no reward, you would systematically go there, right ?
No you would not, you would go to something that basically gives you the same experience, but with reward, try to be honest even for a second...

Deshret is a carrot, unless you get lost of course.
People would not look for her if they don't come across is, because it is a carrot.

"

Phrazz wrote:

And when it come to all these "liars" - you know there can be lots of people finding the lab hard and needs help, while A LOT of people finds it easy? Let me ask you directly; How many players claiming to find the lab easy, have YOU proven to be liars?

I don't prove people to be liars, some around here just pretend that it is one of the easiest thing of the game, while some of their other posts do indicate that they do have actual difficulty troubles with it (@it takes a lot of time, for example).
and no, I'm not going to dig into the pile of **** that this thread has become.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

Actually, I missread J33bus' original quote and the mistake is mine there, that's my bad.
Maybe I focused on this part too much and misunderstood :

Spoiler

I understand that, but what I'm saying is that it's not actually your sample size, you don't actually have a sample size in that sense because your didn't conduct a survey, you just tabulated volunteered feedback, and volunteered feedback is known to not get you a representative population sample, so lots of market research has been done to get you to that 1:25 number.

So if we take that 914 complainer, assuming that 0.5% of the population post on the forum, that would only make 914*25 = ~22850 dislikers compared for a (forum population)*0.5% players population.

That isn't what he said either. In the above equation you're totally ignoring the fact that extremely few people in the player base ever post to the forums.

That is what he said:

"

j33bus wrote:

Common market research says about 4% of people with an issue complain. So you only get to multiply by 25 not 200, and of course as stated before you 910 number conflates people who want a minor improvement to the lab, people who are raging because they died, and people who legitimately hate it. Your stats only get you at most 25,000 people, but more likely something like 15,000, when done well.

"

J33bus wrote:

Well a quick google search on the subject actually tells me that many studies say that one complaint is worth only about 25 people regardless of population stats.

But as he pointed out, that's for people knowing that they can use the forums to voice their opinion, and you have taken Bayesan inference into account.

"

Turtledove wrote:

player base with blond hair could use the same equation that I was using.

No it would not, because people with blond hairs don't have a particular incentive to come and complain (unless you can prove me wrong).
People that dislike something do.
He also pointed out what I have been trying to explain you at first :
" Also of course you're not dealing with possible alt account and other trolls, or the fact that people are more likely to post negative feedback so the flat extrapolation isn't correct."
But he focused on other points that also showed flaws in your reasoning.