Curse

Esan · Apr 09, 2008, 08:39 AM // 08:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoriaOrc

Just out of curiosity, what happens when a complex issue has strong believers on multiple sides?

One side arbitrarily wins. Witness abortion, gay marriage, public health, social security, wars, online copyright, and so on, and so on.

If you are lucky, one side doesn't blow up the other with car bombs.

tmakinen · Apr 09, 2008, 08:43 AM // 08:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esan

One side arbitrarily wins. Witness abortion, gay marriage, public health, social security, wars, online copyright, and so on, and so on.

If you are lucky, one side doesn't blow up the other with car bombs.

That is an excellent take on the world we live in, delivered with just the proper amount of cynicism

strcpy · Apr 09, 2008, 09:08 AM // 09:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Make a poll about papal infallibility on a catholic forum? On a protestant forum? Egads, since both outcomes *must* be true, it logically follows that pope lives in a state of quantum entanglement

Unfortunately I'm too slow (someone else beat me to the idea), but you you may want to look up Schrodinger's Cat. That also clearly answers another question posed - what happens if two equally passionate sides collide - they are both correct!!!

Of course, that only works until someone takes the Pope out of his box and looks at him (or maybe out of his Popemobile - that's kinda box like isn't it?).

Fay Vert · Apr 09, 2008, 10:49 AM // 10:49

Sorry about my earlier reply, I was just curious to see if it was possible to post anything that you wouldn't disagree with or call me ignorant over, I'm glad to see that you do have limits. Though I am struggling to see how it could be interpreted as an insult as someone did

So to respond more fully to your criticism of my informed post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

The above post is utter ignorance. You're just making things up. Total fabrication.

No, actually I have a number of qualification in statistics, one being at degree level, as you will see, others since have confirmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

1) A sample size of 30 or more? Statisticians? Huh? The minimum sample size necessary for validity is a function of how large the group is that's being polled. 30 may be a good enough sample size to measure 80 people. But is it large enough to accurately measure a group of 3,000? 300,000? 3 million? Absolutely not!

Population size certainly is relevant, but its a much smaller factor than most people realise, 30 is indeed a pretty good sample for many cases, though I agree it may not be depending on circumstances. However, I have just done the numbers, and for a population size of one million with these poll percentages you only actually need a sample size of 21 to reach 99% confidence in the outcome. 95% is generally accepted as being "statistically significant" and even a smaller sample size is required for that level of confidence. The big factor here is the confidence interval being so massive at 28%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

2) Back to the question of who is voting... It's people that read, and quite possibly post on forums. This is a tiny subset of GW players, not a representative sample across the board. Obviously .001% of GW players are coming here and voting, otherwise we'd have hundreds of thousands of votes on each side.

How many casual (read: don't play/care much) players read forums? How many oblivious new players are here?

How many uber-hour highly invested players are here? Who's more likely to show up here on this bitter, hostile thread (and vote): a new player, a very infrequent player, a female player, young players, or the 25+ hour per week gold farmer?

Unless you're getting a proportional cross-section of all these groups (and more), then this poll is completely invalid horse puckey.

So you agree with me that the population here is not representative, as I clearly state "it can't really represent the true demographic of GW players" who would have though that we could agree on something? There are other factors that should also be considered too, for example, I know of quite a number of players that no longer play GW/visit the forums because the left the game due to the loot scaling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

3) It would not take a "monstrous skew" to overturn 70 to 13 voting. All it takes is polling heavily within one tiny subset that fits a certain profile and you get this invalid bunk.

No, you fail to realise how massive a confidence interval of 28% is ((70-13) / 2), this really will take a monstrous skew. While we can identify a number of factors that would make this forum’s demographic to the GW player-base demographic, some skewing one way and some the other, I do not see any difference that would amount to a monstrous skew. I could well be incorrect, that is just my opinion, I respect that you may have a different opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

4) Your logic is utter failure when you admit that the poll doesn't represent GW players and then say the results are still meaningful. You're basically saying "okay, so the poll doesn't mean anything, but it still tells us everything we want to know."

You say "this poll is not representative, but it is indicative". All it's indicative of is that 69% of a tiny, non-representative segment of people have a certain opinion.

What the fark? Your logic is atrocious.

No, this is precisely why we have things like confidence limits and statistical significance calculation, to put some degree of certainty on things like this. I have calculated the statistical boundaries which identify the scale of skew that can be tolerated. I have identified problems of how representative the sample demographic is and used this logical approach to evaluate the poll. You may not like this approach, but I think it pretty reasonable, there are certainly flaws I would accept, but we have to work with what we have, so I would suggest calling my logic atrocious is a somewhat hysterical outburst.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

PS - You're misusing the term "skew". You can't even spell it. "Indicative" isn't used appropriately either. And for the love of Lyssa, "probablistic" isn't a word...

1) The use of the word skew is perfectly correct so I have no idea how you consider it misused.
2) Yes, got me on the spelling, it was late, “scew” looks real funny now

3) Indicative is completely appropriate, and indeed is often used as a disclaimer on poll results eg "Results are indicative and may not reflect public opinion - BBC News standard poll disclaimer"
4) Probabilistic (probabilistically) is a perfectly fine, correct and appropriate word, so for the love of Melandru, please try not to get so upset if I missed an "i" in my typing.

A simple question for you. Do you actually believe that the poll results are wrong and that the majority of actual GW players are in favour of the loot scaling? Or was your reply to point out what you perceived as errors in my post? In either event, it could save a lot of time if you could clarify your position on this point.

MoriaOrc · Apr 09, 2008, 10:51 AM // 10:51

Fair enough. I don't know that I agree with the basic premise (that the most extreme over-rule the rest of us), but I'll grant that it is often visibly true. Of course, by that measure Ron Paul should be the Republican nominee, so it doesn't always work. (Hey, lots of talk of GWB a page or two back.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

(or maybe out of his Popemobile - that's kinda box like isn't it?).

It's close, but he's observable enough in there that we could probably tell if he's alive or not.

cebalrai · Apr 09, 2008, 11:46 AM // 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

A simple question for you. Do you actually believe that the poll results are wrong and that the majority of actual GW players are in favour of the loot scaling? Or was your reply to point out what you perceived as errors in my post? In either event, it could save a lot of time if you could clarify your position on this point.

I believe that:

1) It's unclear what percentage of GW players are in favor of LS. 68.5% from this population means the actual player base is conceivably 10-20% different and thus the percentage in favor is somewhere around 50%.

2) If you poll conservatives in the USA about George Bush's favorability then you get a HUGELY different result than if you poll the general population. It's a whopping 35% difference. Therefore trying to generalize (and maybe guest-imate) results from one poll to another doesn't work.

3) Clueless people probably voted. Many likely don't know what LS is. Some might not even play GW. Maybe they voted for Cake, maybe not.

R.Shayne · Apr 09, 2008, 12:19 PM // 12:19

I think a lot of people have forgotten pre-loot scaling days. I still remember the drops steadly getting worse until I cam out of a farm with nothing in my inventory because I did not want whites or blues - had enough money. I do not farm for gold, I want unique drops so the new system works for me.

The problem is it does not work for the new player that wants enough gold to afford elite armor for their main character and a full HoM.

I would like to see loot scaling removed in normal mode and hard mode retain loot scaling.

Fay Vert · Apr 09, 2008, 12:25 PM // 12:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

1) It's unclear what percentage of GW players are in favor of LS. 68.5% from this population means the actual player base is conceivably 10-20% different and thus the percentage in favor is somewhere around 50%.

I agree with this, the skew could easily be 10% and quite possibly even 20% difference from the poll we have here. But please consider that the anti-loot scaling players sould still be in the majority. And if we assume that it is a two option pole, with the rest abstaining, then we have a poll distribution (currently) of 84%:16%. That would require a 35% swing in the whole player-base to effect a change of result. This is why I am happy to use terms like monstrous skew within the context of a statistically significant calculation, the maths back it up. With a sample size of 600 out of a total population of one million there is a 99% confidence that the correct result falls withing + or - 4% of 84%

tmakinen · Apr 09, 2008, 12:48 PM // 12:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

With a sample size of 600 out of a total population of one million there is a 99% confidence that the correct result falls withing + or - 4% of 84%

You're forgetting selective bias, among other issues. Quite frankly, your position on the poll issue is indefensible. Have some cake

Fay Vert · Apr 09, 2008, 01:44 PM // 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

You're forgetting selective bias, among other issues. Quite frankly, your position on the poll issue is indefensible. Have some cake

I might point out that 600+ voters represents near 0.1% of the total player base, that is not a small amount in a large population. I'm happy do defend the position, the maths back me up, though I'm not sure how much maths anyone else wants in this thread. So I'll simply ask you the same question.

Do you think that the poll is wrong and that the full player base would prefer loot scaling in?

At the end of the day, there is no way for anyone, especially ANet to know how well received the change is. They know that some are for it and some are against it so the only thing they have to go on to guage customer satisfaction in this area is threads and polls like these. With no evidence to the contrary, it seems that the change was very unpopular. If you have any evidence to suggest that the majority are in favour of it then I will be happy to hear it.

Savio · Apr 09, 2008, 02:01 PM // 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

Do you think that the poll is wrong and that the full player base would prefer loot scaling in?

The majority of the player base doesn't care. Now stop pretending that an online poll is meaningful when the participants are self-selecting and the population is a forum that is made up of dedicated players, a disproportionate amount of them farmers.

Gli · Apr 09, 2008, 02:02 PM // 14:02

I bet if you'd ask a random selection of GW players instead of a specific subgroup that's likely to be much more informed by merit of being, well, forumgoers, you'd have a huge number asking "WTF is lootscaling?"

ogre_jd · Apr 09, 2008, 02:12 PM // 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.Shayne

The problem is it does not work for the new player that wants enough gold to afford elite armor for their main character and a full HoM.

I've been playing for about 5 weeks (P/EotN). I have 55k in the bank. Admittedly, I took a side trip into EotN for the last week or so (and made maybe 20k). I'd have more if I had stuck with the max collector's armor I was wearing instead of buying Templar. In any case, assuming I wasn't going for Asuran Warrior armor (out of preference - looks better than the Prophecies elite armors for Warriors, IMHO), I'd easily have most of a set of elite by now (have the Citadel open, but not the Grotto), and the rest likely by this weekend.

Admittedly, I'm a 5 hour a day (10-12 on weekends

type of player, but elite armors are definitely not out of the question for new players, even those who don't actively work for it, especially if they have EotN (eg, bought the Platinum Edition).

Now, the non-Elite prestige armors (Obsidian, Primeval, Vabbian, etc.), other than the racials, are another matter - those take time and dedication, normally, and that's the way it should be...

As for the HoM, most new players, unless they come here and see all the zombies moaning on and on about how horrible it is that they have no choice but to max out the HoM, are likely to only add one or two items to each spot, and then only to the ones that are most obvious about how to do so (such as for heroes), and consider it a job well done.

Fay Vert · Apr 09, 2008, 03:53 PM // 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savio

The majority of the player base doesn't care. Now stop pretending that an online poll is meaningful when the participants are self-selecting and the population is a forum that is made up of dedicated players, a disproportionate amount of them farmers.

If you bothered to read you will note that I have highlighted the problems of sample representation. Stop pretending that a poll doesn't have relevance, it clearly does, the question is how much and how significant is it.

Feel free to poll the in-game player base and report your findings, but until then, threads and polls like this are all we and ANet have to go on to guage popular opinion on the matter. I see no problem in a discussion on how relevant or not that opinion is. Until ANet starts putting polls in-game this is the best feedback they have got, if they were to simply discount all player feedback on forums as being unrepresentative then there really is no point in the forums existing or the devs bothering to seek feed back at all is there?

This is all we have so we can't ignore it.

Fril Estelin · Apr 09, 2008, 04:37 PM // 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

This is all we have so we can't ignore it.

I can tell you for sure that, if I had the time, I could easily give as many votes for whichever side I want to support. Of course, not to be spotted, I'd go slowly, but surely over the course of a few days to give, say, 1000 more votes to the no-LS-removal side.

No, you can NOT trust these polls, unless Inde and the GWG mods have put in place particular authentication methods. I've seen very serious and important governmental polls completely screwed due to online forums assaulting the voting site with fake IDs so as to fulfill their personal agenda.

It'd be great not to have to read 70 pages (most of which is probably 1/3 interesting, 1/3rd repeating the same stuff in a different way, 1/3rd non-sense and trolling), but anyone who would want to understand this thread would have to do it. And given how busy Anet is, it'd be amazing if one of their employee read it thoroughly (but then, how useful and representative would it be if you'd only taken snapshots of the thread?). Especially since the reward wouldn't be obvious, as (as highlighted before) most people (in game) don't know or care about LS.

MithranArkanere · Apr 09, 2008, 04:37 PM // 16:37

Since LS only affects those that think that farming is the only way to get income, then that poll says that there is a lot of people that wrongly think that solo farming is the way to get income.

Something to be fixed, indeed.

AshenX · Apr 09, 2008, 05:10 PM // 17:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

It would push prices down and increase the availability of items but wait, it's still a good thing. Let me give an example. In the current system I have a rare r9 weapon with a decent skin that can be sold for, say 3k, provided that I find a prospective buyer. Now, however, if I have to use half an hour of my time to find that buyer it just isn't worth my effort since I could have earned twice as much by doing something else. Hence, I'm forced to merch the weapon. I get 250g, the prospective buyer doesn't get the weapon. With an auction house, I need 15 seconds of my time to get the item sold at 1k. I make profit, the buyer gets the item faster and at a greatly reduced price. Everybody wins.

Very well put. Increase the efficiency of connectivity between buyers and sellers and everyone wins.

AshenX · Apr 09, 2008, 05:35 PM // 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by strcpy

Pfft, I went through many years of statistical analysis courses and they taught us that the most vehement people that voted the most in any opt-in poll were the best to listen too (even better if they used automated tools and told all their friends too!). Really, if they cared that much then it *must* be true and all it takes is 5-10 people and after that the number *never* changed at all. I'll point you to some website that says so! Once you get that then a 95% confidence interval means you pretty much throw out anything that disagrees with those numbers and all is good (to note, this will also prove that drops are degraded by my three runs that I recorded).

Are you going to tell me that my world famous statistics teacher and all the textbooks are fooling me? Well, either that or I didn't pay attention in my statistics class very much

*sigh* The world would be much better off if people even had a basic understanding of statistics. I like the phrase that 95% of statistics lie, however if you understand them much at all you can easily see the bias and go from there. There is ample room for argument even in political stuff, but the vast majority of it would be trashed by a first year mathematics student that had statistics 101 and only gets worse the more you understand.

I am sorry but if your point boils down to the "fact" that if a few people believe strongly enough about somethng that is must be true then yes your instructors, etc. have been fooling you. Examples of strongly held beliefs from the past that were vehemently supported..

1) The world is flat
2) There is a gas-like substance called ether that fills the galaxy outside of earth's atmosphere
3) Zeus lives on top of Mount Olympus and turns into a bull on occasion to mate with Greek women.
4) A vehicle will never be able to go more than 60 miles an hour because teh effect would be lethal to passengers
5) Man will never be able to fly because god did not intend us to do so
6) Our planet is only a few thousand years old (note that if you polled the right people you would still get overwhelming support for this one)
7) There was no holocaust. The whole thng is a zionist plot (another one that must be true according to some)

Belief is far too easily manipulated by non-factual influences to be considered an arbiter of truth. This is regardless of the number polled. A million people can be just as mistaken as a few. I wonder how many people in China right now actually believe that the Tibetans are the aggressors (as tehy are being told by their govenrment's spin machine) ?

Loviatar · Apr 09, 2008, 07:17 PM // 19:17

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

If you bothered to read you will note that I have highlighted the problems of sample representation. Stop pretending that a poll doesn't have relevance, it clearly does, the question is how much and how significant is it.

Feel free to poll the in-game player base and report your findings, but until then, threads and polls like this are all we and ANet have to go on to guage popular opinion on the matter.

so far wrong it makes one cringe.

they have the actual game logs being analyzed in real time and can actually see what is working and isnt by seeing how many use it or avoid it.

Quote:

I see no problem in a discussion on how relevant or not that opinion is. Until ANet starts putting polls in-game this is the best feedback they have got, if they were to simply discount all player feedback on forums as being unrepresentative then there really is no point in the forums existing or the devs bothering to seek feed back at all is there?

read and learn your insignificance to the game dev.

from an expert REMINDING the audience of many year consistant INDUSTRY PROVEN FACT not just his opinion

Quote:

JEFF STRAIN KEYNOTE SPEAKER

Pay close attention to complexity creep. Don't assume that most of your players are reading your website and consuming information about your game. Most of your players will never read your website, never visit fansites, and never participate in forum discussions. We are often immersed in the community forums and rants and raves posted to game fansites, and it is easy to lose perspective about the knowledge level of most of our players. Players who participate in fansites and send six-page emails to your community team are experts at your game – they probably know more about it than you do – so it's important to realize that they do not represent the average player. The vast majority of your players are not digging into every detail of every spell or creating lists of animations so that they can react when they see the basilisk twitch its nose. They want to play, not study, so take care to create a game that allows them to do so.

reetkever · Apr 09, 2008, 07:59 PM // 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

Since LS only affects those that think that farming is the only way to get income, then that poll says that there is a lot of people that wrongly think that solo farming is the way to get income.

Something to be fixed, indeed.

That just doesn't make any sense at all.

Loot Scaling affects ANYONE that farms with less party members than is allowed in that area. Wether they think farming is the ONLY source of income or not has nothing to do with it.

In fact, I doupt anyone can be so ignorant to think that solo-farming is the ONLY way of income. It's just the most regular, fastest and most casual way.
Casual farming was there to prevent casual players from becoming Hardcore farmers that farm 5 hours a day.