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

Sure, there is totally no difference between picking a quest item (from a place you will be anyway during the main questline, sometimes even before finding a way to other location) during normal aRPG progress, and totally out of place platformer/arcade content...
Sure both are "same carrots on a stick"

Rotfl...

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

Don't you remember already what you wrote ?

"

Turtledove wrote:

That would clearly indicate that the calculation should be MULTIPLIED by 25 to get a guess at how many people truly dislike labyrinth, instead of dividing which you argued, since for every person complaining there would expected to be 25 people that just never complained. I am not arguing that it should really be increased by x25, instead I'm mentioning this to demonstrate that you don't seem to understand mathematics very well.

Hint : you are the rude person here, and definitely the one that has troubles understanding how statistics work, and also maths of course.
The "really" part really shows that you do think that a big chunk of those not complaining are "lab haters" or something.

By the way, you trying to find "personality issues" is [removed by Fruz] at best, and it's not late night here at all btw.


I'm giving up on trying to explain you stuff regarding this ( maybe regarding other things, all related to maths and statistics would probably be what I should do tbh ).

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.

I don't really have a knack for math either but from what i understood, fruz seems to be saying that the estimation you did while using the hypothesis that 0,5% of the playerbase post in the forums isn't an accurate one, but you already admitted that it's the best you can do with the numbers at hand. So i have no idea why you keep arguing over this...

But, if someone was a math-statistic analyst, or whatever it's called, in this thread, couldn't he calculate the margin of error for the type of estimation you did Turtle? Maybe then we would have something more accurate.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

Don't you remember already what you wrote ?

"

Turtledove wrote:

That would clearly indicate that the calculation should be MULTIPLIED by 25 to get a guess at how many people truly dislike labyrinth, instead of dividing which you argued, since for every person complaining there would expected to be 25 people that just never complained. I am not arguing that it should really be increased by x25, instead I'm mentioning this to demonstrate that you don't seem to understand mathematics very well.

Hint : you are the rude person here, and definitely the one that has troubles understanding how statistics work, and also maths of course.
The "really" part really shows that you do think that a big chunk of those not complaining are "lab haters" or something.

By the way, you trying to find "personality issues" is [removed by Fruz] at best, and it's not late night here at all btw.


I'm giving up on trying to explain you stuff regarding this ( maybe regarding other things, all related to maths and statistics would probably be what I should do tbh ).

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.

"

Fruz wrote:

it does not make traps a "platformer-only" thing, at all.

Good thing I didn't make that claim, then...(?)

"

Fruz wrote:

See ? you also are having a hard time believing some things :)

Yes, based on my experience with communicating with other players. I'm sure you have hundreds of examples on players lying about finding the lab "not hard"...(?)

You are a very strange individual, Mr. Fruz.

"

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

"

Phrazz wrote:

I'm sure you have hundreds of examples on players lying about finding the lab "not hard"...(?)

One thing kinda led to another, we have enough examples of people who do need assistance with it and at the same time we have people claiming the lab is a piss-trivial waste of time that nobody has trouble with. If you put two and two together there are only two possible conclusions, one is that a certain amount of people is lying about it being easy and the other is that the lab is somewhat challenging after all. The latter would directly invalidate the aforementioned claim and you can't really hurt people's feelings by debunking their perfectly valid opinions just like that so it's easier to say 'ah, those other people must be lying then'.

"

Turtledove wrote:

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?

He already simplified it plenty, it would only be more complicated if the analysis was done for real. If anyone could do black magic there would be no need for witches, eh?

"

Kellog wrote:

[...]

Maybe we misunderstood eachother then, I didn't purposely missquoted you.

To make it short, I was originally reacting to :
"I would make an educated guess, based of reading numerous PoE related forums, that the majority of those running the lab, do so, simply because they have to, to acquire the Ascendancy points. "

The majority of the content is essentialy being ran because people want the reward at the end.
Now, you do not enjoy the way to the reward, in a much more unpleasant way ( I guess ) than the rest of the game, fair enough.
But saying that the fact that people are running the lab because of the rewards, implying that it makes it different than the rest of the game ( otherwise, why would you bring that up ? ), is not true because the rest of the game already mostly follows the same "pattern".

"

Turtledove 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 :


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.

"

pyrokar wrote:

I don't really have a knack for math either but from what i understood, fruz seems to be saying that the estimation you did while using the hypothesis that 0,5% of the playerbase post in the forums isn't an accurate one, but you already admitted that it's the best you can do with the numbers at hand. So i have no idea why you keep arguing over this...

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.


@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.

"

raics wrote:

"

Phrazz wrote:

I'm sure you have hundreds of examples on players lying about finding the lab "not hard"...(?)

One thing kinda led to another, we have enough examples of people who do need assistance with it and at the same time we have people claiming the lab is a piss-trivial waste of time that nobody has trouble with. If you put two and two together there are only two possible conclusions, one is that a certain amount of people is lying about it being easy and the other is that the lab is somewhat challenging after all. The latter would directly invalidate the aforementioned claim and you can't really hurt people's feelings by debunking their perfectly valid opinions just like that so it's easier to say 'ah, those other people must be lying then'.

Well put.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Spoiler

"

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

The 96% figure seems to be a fairly well quoted statistic, relating to the number of people that don't complain. The breakdown goes like this:

4% Complain.
96% Don't complain.
91% Don't say anything and just leave.

I'm not sure how relevant those numbers are to this game, but I would assume there's at least some cross over.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Kellog wrote:

[...]

Maybe we misunderstood eachother then, I didn't purposely missquoted you.

To make it short, I was originally reacting to :
"I would make an educated guess, based of reading numerous PoE related forums, that the majority of those running the lab, do so, simply because they have to, to acquire the Ascendancy points. "

The majority of the content is essentialy being ran because people want the reward at the end.
Now, you do not enjoy the way to the reward, in a much more unpleasant way ( I guess ) than the rest of the game, fair enough.
But saying that the fact that people are running the lab because of the rewards, implying that it makes it different than the rest of the game ( otherwise, why would you bring that up ? ), is not true because the rest of the game already mostly follows the same "pattern".

To put the quote back in context:

You said:

"

Let's look at the facts :
Since the lab has been introcued, the game's player base has grown bigger.
We can end the story there I guess.

To which I replied:

"

To suggest the addition of the lab is in some way responsible for any growth in the player base is questionable at best. More likely factors are the expansion and the exodus from Diablo.

Regardless, with the exception of a minority, who may actually have left because of the inclusion of the lab, I would make an educated guess, based of reading numerous PoE related forums, that the majority of those running the lab, do so, simply because they have to, to acquire the Ascendancy points.

The moral here is that an unknown number of those currently running the lab, from the many posts I've read, across numerous forums, would much prefer to acquire their Ascendancy points via alternative means. The only reason they run the lab, is to fill out their character, as best they can. For a lot of those people, the other 'rewards' are just a bonus, they just want to get in and get out as fast as they can.

"

Kellog wrote:

[...]

I already replied to this, I never said that the lab was solely responsible for the game's growth.
But the fact is : the game is growing, with the lab in it, which means that if it actually was an issue, it would not be a big enough one to isgnificantly slow the game down.
Ascendancy being the main things introduced in 2.0.0 ....

It's most likely just fine.


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.