Meters, why say no?

ekadzati wrote: »

Seems to me to be a mistaken belief that everyone should coddle the lowest common denominator.

If you are talking to that lowest common denominator, then yes, you do.

If you are talking to a specific group of people that you want to engage with you, then you make sure that you talk in a way that they can all understand and follow along.

I'm not sure why this would be something new to you - there is no point talking if no one is listening.

The trick to conveying intelligence to others does not lie in attempting to convey big ideas using big words or terms - especially when those terms belong to a field other than what you are talking about.

Rather, the way to convey intelligence is to take that same big idea and convey it to someone that doesn't understand those big words or terms.

Most people here are smarter than you seem to want to give them credit for, but when you use terms that have no place in a game forum, nobody is going to make the least bit of an effort to understand where you are coming from.

At that point, any and every idea you may have is completely wasted.

This content has been removed.

ekadzati wrote: »

I bet that ignore block is another version of 'you must satisfy me or you don't count'. Man, so many one trick ponies. Ah well.

What ignore block?

Speaking of one trick ponies, got any more googled research papers to link?

Undead Canuck wrote: »

Back to the original question of why say no. Because Steven doesn't want them.

It really doesn't matter what opinion anyone other than the game developers have. We are not making the game. Since they are, they get to decide.

All they get to decide is if the game will have a built in one, if the game will provide API hooks for one, and if the game will provide a log file for one.

Anything other than that is out of their hands.

I want these things to be kept in Intrepids hands, which is why I still argue this point.

This content has been removed.

flameh0t

ekadzati wrote: »

As if explicit developer and publisher statements are taken seriously... p'shaw, say it ain't so. (I'm willing to wager that >90% here think they are going to change development direction or major mechanics of this offering - the foundation assumption being that explicit statements are NOT taken seriously.)

Irony? You betcha.

The issue with that 90%, is the assumption that 100% of all of the game players are forum users. Just because 90% of forums say they want it, doesn't mean that reflects the opinion of everyone in the game. I sure as hell don't want them, I agree with Steven. Yet when the game is released, you probably won't see me on the forums ever again.

This content has been removed.

ekadzati wrote: »

I just like to keep the reality of "revenue > DPS meters" up front and center for those who forget.

Probably the only factual thing I've seen you type out.

However, there is no connection at all to suggest a combat tracker lowers revenue.

Everything to that effect is anecdotal at best, but more often simply made up and completely ignores any advantages that combat trackers bring to the game - including those that relate to revenue.

This content has been removed.

ekadzati wrote: »

My little forum puppy is so cute. Looks how well it heels!

Oh hey, that's easier than attempting to carry on the discussion!

@ekadzati Nevermind the topic of meters,

Simple behavior economics tells you that a pattern of exclusion over time of a limited market is detrimental to any product that uses it.

followed by your 2 quoted articles, neither of them have anything to do with it.

While interesting, the first article, while it feels fundamentally flawed is only out there to find correlation between social structure and guild quitting.
(...)The character level and level change attributes are intended to capture the character’s sense of progress. The underlying theory being that a character that is making progress will be content with their
current guild.
It quotes while using data from wow. I doubt that most people spend their time just leveling. It shows a fundamental flaw in their approach which can't easily be fixed, since measuring "a sense of progress" after that becomes a lot more complicated.
Other than that whole targeted observation followed by the inevitable conclusion is so banal the only purpose of the paper is bringing it down on paper.

(...)
Guild count (and equivalently the number of guild membership) seems to be the strongest feature. This is intuitive — past switching events are indicative of a character’s lack of loyalty, and implies an easy tendency to depart from his/her current guild as well.
The feature time since last event is positively correlated with quitting,i.e., the longer a player stays activity free, the more likely he/she will quit the guild

yeah duh.. I don't need a paper on it to know this to be true. It's good to "prove" it in a limited capacity, but aside from that, once again it has no ramifications on the influence of meters or exclusionary behaviour.
I don't know what the purpose behind you posting those irrelevant articles are but hey, I had an hour to spare.

The 2nd article was at least informative about interesting bonding mechanics and learning new words (dunbar number woop woop).
The two biggest takeaways of it is that the weak ties hypothesis is possibly confirmed and that TSP can be confirmed.

But once again none of it has any relevance to your claim nor the topic of this thread itself.
Neither of this articles even mention excluding behaviour, in fact the only thing that was observed that
could be viewed as destructive are people that purposefully try to be evil which in turn has an evidently positive effect.

(...) These players tend to take enjoyment in destroying other players’ work or see it as their‘task’. Anonymity of the internet facilitates this behavior to some degree since possible social repercussions in real-world repu-tation are absent. For this reason these few individuals tend to cause a lot of offenses to a big number of players. If such a subject is identified by the community (players are very busy in using the forums to keep others up-to-date of the latest offenses), she may receive pre-emptive enemy markings, either by friends of offended friends or by otherwise non-involved players who hap-pen to read the forums. This destructive behavior and the indirect marking mechanism leads to the emergence of ‘public enemies’,i.e. a few characters with a very high in-degree of enemy mark-ings. The strength of positive social ties is likely to be boosted by people who share the same common enemies: “A world that includes self-proclaimed and loudly advertised Evil people run-ning about represents a great boon to those who are hungry tofight for the Good. Without Evil people, who could be Good?”(Castronova, 2005).

It is just a very loose interpretation but I could arguably propose that introducing meters might evolve into such an entity classified by the article as "public enemy" that you would simply seperate people into "enemy" networks and "friend" networks which would strengthen the bonds in the groups itself. This in turn would boost lifetime as outlined by the first article.

grisu wrote: »

It is just a very loose interpretation but I could arguably propose that introducing meters might evolve into such an entity classified by the article as "public enemy" that you would simply seperate people into "enemy" networks and "friend" networks which would strengthen the bonds in the groups itself. This in turn would boost lifetime as outlined by the first article.

That is an interesting take on things.

Don't take it too seriously tho. It's just a joke really, but I did want to use it to lead into the following. (just had to switch devices and sent the first part early)
The thing is tho, I don't disagree per say with the notion of exclusioury behavior dimishng the lifetime of, say, a game.

Fact remains tho that you would have to prove that meters are such a thing and weighed towards being exclusionary VS helpful/engaging.

Anekdotal I can put forward tho that wow was at its most exclusive time with its content towards its peak subscriber count. Bc and wrath are generally viewed as the most overturned raids in wows history.
Empirical data provides that the subscriber count ramped up to its peak during that time.
I can also provide numbers that the ice crown citadel is the most attempted raid by unique groups in all of wows history.
Those datasets are readily available.

Which somewhat supports once again the public enemy suggestion and the stronger this entity is the stronger it bounds the people together that want to bring justice to it. Which clearly outweighs exclusive in favor of engagement.
That's a positive on count of making money for the company. And you could only have that because of readily available selfranking of possible damageoutput

This content has been removed.

Well putting forth an opinion but not following it with supportive arguments, even going so far as misdirection to something uninvolved is considered bad Form.
Being hostile even tho I took the time to read it and see what you want to educate about is also not helping your case.
Yes I did miss that detail, but it somehow invalidates what I say now? Okay then

Going so far as calling what I do a strawmen constructing using Your scientific papers, that you provided without even attempting to initiate a constructive discussion just shows puts up red flags of an useless endeavor.

Sorry for trying to follow your route. I'll keep it in mind going forward.

Edit: time constraints so I'm editing it in.

It is weird to me that you fling around your scientific knowledge without adhering to its basic principles. It is not my place to disprove you, but yours to prove it. Leaning on '' it's out there" isn't not scientific. Noone would take you serious pulling that stunt in a scientific discussion. After you have proven your initial point it has to hold up against scrutiny overlooked.
So once again I am just saying you have to show me that Meyers are exclusivity inducing and only harmful or that it's negative influence is outweigthing its positives.
I gave examples based on your papers that it is indeed having positive influences too that prolong a games lifespan based on a sense of progression that seems to be a leading factor in how much people interact with a game.
At. I gave examples of how exclusivity is outweigh by a sense of progression. Obviously it's not as simple as that but then again I'm voicing an opinion based on some arguments and now scientific evidence that at the very least says This could correlate to be true and isn't inherently wrong.

This content has been removed.

I am still of the opinion that your text does not implicate that the papers are indeed not related to the topic. That aside even then you could just assume I misunderstood. I thought I made a pretty normal response. I gave it an honest shake and I could have missed something in the paper after all.

I haven't interacted with you before and all you have done so far is being a condescending little piece of work hiding behind big words as others have put it.

Since you seem to have no interest in having a fruitful conversation so be it.
Right now you just went down to mix yourself in with exactly what you described you dislike.
Good on you, sorry for trying to understand a little more about a topic I didn't delve into in a more scientific way when presented with the opportunity of a conversation partner.

Attempting to link combat tracker use/support and revenue together seems somewhat foolish when one MMO has the highest of both by quite some margin.

It is a link that simply doesn't hold up over a broad outlook.

grisu wrote: »

Don't take it too seriously tho. It's just a joke really

Oh, here I was about to link in two or three papers that had no connection to what you said, pffer up no real connection between them but repeatedly insist that they are in fact relevant, and that if others can't see that then it is on them rather than on me for not articulating my point well enough.

But I think these forums have had enough of that the last few days.