Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support DONE!!!!!

"

Zalhan2 wrote:

"

j33bus wrote:

Of course this list also conflates fundamental changes with the lab, and minor balance changes, also the list contains a lot of complaints about things that have been fixed, which should be pruned, after perusing the first 20 or so threads about half of them are no longer relevant, while a good few of them do complain about things that are not true (like traps not hurting monsters) many other complain about the lab taking too long, which is just a skill thing, I take a plodding pace through the lab and it's only 25 or so minutes, while a lot of people complain it take 2+ hours to complete. Finally many complain that it's not rewarding other than the points, because it's low level, but are making that complaint pre uber lab which is basically the highest packsize area outside of atziri, and breachstones. But really in order for this thread to mean anything it needs to be regularly pruned every lab update to only contain still relevant complaints, and separate them into some sort of category, at the minimum.

As for Zaludoz's reason why this thread should exist, there really aren't nearly as many people trying to silence lab dislike threads as you claim, it's more people disagreeing that the lab should be fundamentally changed. I haven't seen anyone who disagrees with a balance change here and there. Really the majority of trying to silence the other opinion has come from one person who shall not be named that just tries to bully people with other opinions while simultaneously saying nothing of substance and bullying others.

I don't see the point of balance changes, it's like pouring good money into a lemon car. I would rather they make good content than fix a fundamentally flawed horrible concept that never conceptually worked to begin with.

This was my whole point, this is a very different opinion than, "I think the lab is too long" or "traps do too much damage" or whatever and they're lumped together here.

"

j33bus wrote:

"

Zalhan2 wrote:

"

j33bus wrote:

Of course this list also conflates fundamental changes with the lab, and minor balance changes, also the list contains a lot of complaints about things that have been fixed, which should be pruned, after perusing the first 20 or so threads about half of them are no longer relevant, while a good few of them do complain about things that are not true (like traps not hurting monsters) many other complain about the lab taking too long, which is just a skill thing, I take a plodding pace through the lab and it's only 25 or so minutes, while a lot of people complain it take 2+ hours to complete. Finally many complain that it's not rewarding other than the points, because it's low level, but are making that complaint pre uber lab which is basically the highest packsize area outside of atziri, and breachstones. But really in order for this thread to mean anything it needs to be regularly pruned every lab update to only contain still relevant complaints, and separate them into some sort of category, at the minimum.

As for Zaludoz's reason why this thread should exist, there really aren't nearly as many people trying to silence lab dislike threads as you claim, it's more people disagreeing that the lab should be fundamentally changed. I haven't seen anyone who disagrees with a balance change here and there. Really the majority of trying to silence the other opinion has come from one person who shall not be named that just tries to bully people with other opinions while simultaneously saying nothing of substance and bullying others.

I don't see the point of balance changes, it's like pouring good money into a lemon car. I would rather they make good content than fix a fundamentally flawed horrible concept that never conceptually worked to begin with.

This was my whole point, this is a very different opinion than, "I think the lab is too long" or "traps do too much damage" or whatever and they're lumped together here.

The list of threads is explained in the OP. It is simply a list of threads discussing problems in the labyrinth with a couple of exceptions.

"

I tended to ignore threads about just Izaro or enchants and not list those. My theory about those complaints is that they are not really about the new trap gameplay and other problematic mechanisms added in labyrinth, e.g., no portals. I also ignored the very few threads that had a positive OP regarding labyrinth.

The original thread list was started after a few discussions with individuals trying to claim that there was not really more labyrinth threads than other various content in the game. Now perhaps I should have included Enchant discussions and Izaro discussions? A big previously unmentioned reason why I did not is that I was not interested in even reading the opening post of such threads. I'd guess that including those two topics would probably be less than 100 threads but, maybe getting close to that?

Shovelcut and Empathy have argued that only "valid" threads should be listed. This is a bad suggestion, in my opinion, because what is valid and invalid is too subjective and Shovelcut has already proven on less controversial subjects that he'll argue about something like that until the end of time. So it's simpler and easier to just list the threads as they are. Also Tin_Foil_Hat has argued that the list suffers from "data bias" because it doesn't include the few threads that are not discussing labyrinth problems. But data bias only has an effect when data is being used not when it's being tabulated and he has been unable to explain how that additional data could possibly be used since positive threads about anything in the Feedback and Suggestions forum suffers from severe data selection bias if you tried to use it to prove how many people liked something or anything else that I can think of. My conclusion is that TFH has no clue what data bias even means.

My argument is simple that there are two fundamentally different things being tabulated here, there's "I fundamentally do not like the lab" and "I think the lab is fundamentally fine but could use slight adjustments."

Also it totally does contain confirmation bias because you're not attempting to interact with the few positive threads and many positive comments at all. How you adjust for the intrinsic data biases is indeed something that comes later but there is a bias in the collection method to start with.

"

j33bus wrote:

My argument is simple that there are two fundamentally different things being tabulated here, there's "I fundamentally do not like the lab" and "I think the lab is fundamentally fine but could use slight adjustments."

Also it totally does contain confirmation bias because you're not attempting to interact with the few positive threads and many positive comments at all. How you adjust for the intrinsic data biases is indeed something that comes later but there is a bias in the collection method to start with.

It is really more than just the two categories that you mention. It is supposed to be all threads discussing labyrinth problems with the exception of threads where Izaro and Enchant are the main complaint in the thread OP.

Your confirmation bias statement made no sense to me. The truth is that if you went back and collected all of the positive threads about labyrinth (maybe a half dozen?) they were probably almost all or were all created in direct response to the large number of threads about labyrinth problems. What could this information be used for? We already know that people are reacting to the many labyrinth threads? Of course you're free to go back and collect that data on your own though.

It's ostensibly the same information that you're gathering here. People who enjoy the lab and people who think that the content shouldn't be changed. The thread count is obviously biased so low that it's probably statistically insignificant, but the amount of people who think that major changes shouldn't happen is just as important as the people who do. Which is why I'm saying that the "people in support" should be broken up at least into make major changes, and fix bugs/balance issues, because those are two completely different ideas, these are not at all the same thing and shouldn't be tabulated the same way. Because as you're lumping together vastly different "labyrinth problems" the total number doesn't actually mean anything.

Also it's confirmation bias as described in the first section "bias search for information"

"

j33bus wrote:

It's ostensibly the same information that you're gathering here. People who enjoy the lab and people who think that the content shouldn't be changed. The thread count is obviously biased so low that it's probably statistically insignificant, but the amount of people who think that major changes shouldn't happen is just as important as the people who do. Which is why I'm saying that the "people in support" should be broken up at least into make major changes, and fix bugs/balance issues, because those are two completely different ideas, these are not at all the same thing and shouldn't be tabulated the same way. Because as you're lumping together vastly different "labyrinth problems" the total number doesn't actually mean anything.

Also it's confirmation bias as described in the first section "bias search for information"

Spoiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Biased_search_for_information

Confirmation bias is not even relevant to the discussion as far as I can tell. Your discussion about people makes more sense but is not really relevant to the thread list as far as I can tell. The use that the thread list serves is a historic list showing problems fixed and unfixed. Just going through the thread titles is what I consider an interesting spot history for the topic. The list is fairly convincing to show that many threads discussing labyrinth problems have been written and complained about since the release of labyrinth and can be compared to other controversial content threads in the Feedback and Suggestions forum. A list of labyrinth threads where the OP is not discussing labyrinth problems would likely be totally useless as far as I'd guess. It would be interesting to have a list of people that have argued that Labyrinth is fine and shouldn't be changed though. I'm looking forward to you producing such a list!

"

Turtledove wrote:

The use that the thread list serves is a historic list showing problems fixed and unfixed.

And this is what makes your topic absurd. You put a number on How many people are in support. In support of what? Fixing problems that are already fixed? If somebody said there were 1000 people in support of adding a permanent loot allocation, what would that mean? That 1000 people are unhappy about something that was changed to their satisfaction?

"

mark1030 wrote:

And this is what makes your topic absurd.

It's a fallacy to begin with. It can't not be absurd.

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

The use that the thread list serves is a historic list showing problems fixed and unfixed.

And this is what makes your topic absurd. You put a number on How many people are in support. In support of what? Fixing problems that are already fixed? If somebody said there were 1000 people in support of adding a permanent loot allocation, what would that mean? That 1000 people are unhappy about something that was changed to their satisfaction?

It's really quite simple. If there are questions that can't be answered by this list or if you'd like a list with different criteria then make your own list.

"

Mythabril wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

And this is what makes your topic absurd.

It's a fallacy to begin with. It can't not be absurd.

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Data is not a fallacy. Only how data is used can be a fallacy.

How about this?

For the lazy folks spewing nonsense about data bias and such nonsense here's a finite piece of work for you to do. I went through the whole Changes to the Labyrinth thread and tabulated all of the new account names that were not yet on the list of account names. These are all marked with a "#" in the list with the exception of one account that I changed from a "#" to a "o$". Which makes it 101 account names. If someone does this work then I'll go through the list and count up the number of unique account names arguing that they don't really like labyrinth game play. I'm guessing now that would be around 2 dozen more account names. (The 101 + maybe 2 dozen that were already on the list.) So go through the whole thread and tabulate all of the posts that represent account names that are arguing that Labyrinth should not be changed. It's not really going to prove anything I'll guess but it might be interesting and at least shut up this ridiculous idea that there's some inherent data bias or that something new could be figured out if only we knew this other worthless information.