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

"

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

"

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.

"

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.

"

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.

"

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.

"

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.

"

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.

"

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.

"

Saltygames wrote:

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