Battlepass in MMOs

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

The size of post here are going to end up getting details lost, imo its at the point where a voice conversation is the best way to describe things more clearly and get concise answers.

Voice is never the best way to discuss in-depth topics.

Though I mostly think that because it's way easier for me to properly think out a response and then write it out as well as possible, while yapping would never accomplish that. I feel like that preference might be linked to inner monologues and aphantasia-type stuff, but I've never really read up on any research into that topic/idea.

Organized voice is the best way to do it, and forums is the worse place. Allows you to make wild points and not actually defend anything and move onto another direction. It gets based on general feeling and is very bias on certain types of people / players.

Actually, a forum is the best place for something like this - but it requires good faith on both sides.

For example if I point out to Dygz that he has made up numbers that literally don't work to produce the results he said are happening, and he refuses to address that point, that is bad faith.

Forums do not work well in this kind of situation, but then neither does talking to a person.

The reason forums work best in the presence of good faith on both sides is simply because there is an easily accessable record of everything that has been said. You do not need to rely on the person remembering what you said, and what they said, because what was said is still there for both sides to read. This is where the quote function (used properly, as opposed to screenshots) is great, it enables people to instantly move back to that point in the conversation in order to maintain the context by which a specific comment was made.

WE can agree to disagree, based on what is see in the current disccusion there isn't really good faith and its more self centered. Last I'm going to say on that.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

The size of post here are going to end up getting details lost, imo its at the point where a voice conversation is the best way to describe things more clearly and get concise answers.

Voice is never the best way to discuss in-depth topics.

Though I mostly think that because it's way easier for me to properly think out a response and then write it out as well as possible, while yapping would never accomplish that. I feel like that preference might be linked to inner monologues and aphantasia-type stuff, but I've never really read up on any research into that topic/idea.

Organized voice is the best way to do it, and forums is the worse place. Allows you to make wild points and not actually defend anything and move onto another direction. It gets based on general feeling and is very bias on certain types of people / players.

Actually, a forum is the best place for something like this - but it requires good faith on both sides.

For example if I point out to Dygz that he has made up numbers that literally don't work to produce the results he said are happening, and he refuses to address that point, that is bad faith.

Forums do not work well in this kind of situation, but then neither does talking to a person.

The reason forums work best in the presence of good faith on both sides is simply because there is an easily accessable record of everything that has been said. You do not need to rely on the person remembering what you said, and what they said, because what was said is still there for both sides to read. This is where the quote function (used properly, as opposed to screenshots) is great, it enables people to instantly move back to that point in the conversation in order to maintain the context by which a specific comment was made.

WE can agree to disagree, based on what is see in the current disccusion there isn't really good faith and its more self centered. Last I'm going to say on that.

There is often a lack of good faith in discussions on these forums.

That is a result of the people, not the medium.

Good faith requires the knowledge that you may be wrong. Engaging someone in discussion on a topic but then refusing to answer points from them that prove you wrong is bad faith.

If bad faith exists in a discussion, the medium that discussion happens in does not matter - the bad faith exists regardless.

Hinotori

You're some certifiable yappers.

Noaani wrote: »

Good faith requires the knowledge that you may be wrong. Engaging someone in discussion on a topic but then refusing to answer points from them that prove you wrong is bad faith.

If bad faith exists in a discussion, the medium that discussion happens in does not matter - the bad faith exists regardless.

I don't even know what numbers you're talking about, but...
I have had you on ignore for years, so... I miss the vast majority of your posts.
I have a very low opinion of your comprehension abilities, so I'm rarely trying to engage you in any kind of meaningful discussion.
Sometimes I see your quotes in other people's posts and use your quote typically as a counterpoint that helps me explain to others why your position is incorrect.

You can try to re-post whatever numbers you're claiming don't work.

Hinotori wrote: »

You're some certifiable yappers.

Yep.
It's gonna be many, many, many pages any time Noanni, Mag7spy and I are not in agreement.
One of the main reasons I have Noanni on ignore. Helps prevent me from constantly trying to correct him.

Mfcrackers69

Please no battle pass... There is ZERO REASON for one. Except to charge more Money

Reason for a free Battlepass is the same reason MMORPGs have Achievements.
(And Endgame Dungeons and Raids.)

Dygz wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Good faith requires the knowledge that you may be wrong. Engaging someone in discussion on a topic but then refusing to answer points from them that prove you wrong is bad faith.

If bad faith exists in a discussion, the medium that discussion happens in does not matter - the bad faith exists regardless.

I don't even know what numbers you're talking about, but...
I have had you on ignore for years, so... I miss the vast majority of your posts.

Yes, I know - this is why you are an inherently bad-faith poster.

If you reply to someone in a thread, and then do not reply to valid points they then bring up, that is bad faith on your part. You having that poster on ignore is not an excuse - you are the one that replied to them in the first place.

Either fully engage people in discussion, or do not start engaging them in discussion.

Picking and chosing is - again - bad faith.

You can try to re-post whatever numbers you're claiming don't work.

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

For all good MMORPGs:
75% of players stop playing at Endgame.
25% will continue to play Dungeons and Raids until the next new content drop, which is typically an Expansion.
Popluation typically spikes 5x when an Expansion drops - but then players will race through that content in 100 hours and 75% will stop when they complete the new content and then wait 12-18 months for the new Expansion.

Stop making shit up - or, at least, if you are going to make shit up, make sure it is logical.

If only 25% of players remain in a game at the level cap, but then the population spikes 5x with an expansion, that means the population is now 125%. If 75% of players then stop playing after 100 hours (which in gaming terms is longer than the average game time in Skyrim, so fairly damn good for an expansion), that means that the population before the expansion was 25%, the population when the expansion was new was 125%, and the population when the expansion is played out is 31.25%.

With your figures, the population of MMORPG's would be constantly going up.

The actual truth is - of the very few MMORPG's we have figures on, and of games that are more than 5 years old, 65 - 80% of the games population have been subscribed to the game for 3 or more years without breaks (we have hard figures on this from Daybreak in 2020 - EQ2 specifically had 80.5% of it's subscribers having been subbed for 3 or more years).

I know you don't want the truth - you would rather things be the way you think they are - but in this specific case, I'm not going to let you ignore the actual truth and substitute it with your fantasy of how things are.

Better if you just leave the Forums - then I wouldn't have to pick and choose.
If choosing when to respond to you and when not to is bad faith - I will happily embrace bad faith.

It does not take a genius to figure out that 25%/75% are broad guesstimations rather than precise calculations.

If you want to say 4x rather than 5x, we can go with that.
Same difference. The exact math is not relevant enough for me to waste brain space on.
It's also not intended to line up precisely with 25%/75%. It's really a separate guesstimation from the data.
And the primary data is from NW. There was also another peak population source, but I don't remember off the top of my head which one I checked.
I definitely did not check EQ2 data since I stopped playing EQ\EQ2 10 years ago and barely consider EQ/EQ2 relevant. I'm not expecting EQ2 to get a Battlepass - mostly because I consider EQ/EQ2 to be outdated and mostly obsolete. And I'm not expecting Daybreak to innovate much on those games.
Unbroken subs are not the same thing as peak population. I typically stay subbed for several months of not playing before I cancel my sub.

That being said... yes. I think EQ/EQ2 and WoW are also dealing with population issues (which we know they have from server merges and low pop servers) by offering "Classic" Modes as an alternative to "Retail".
So Battlepasses aren't the only method of player retention. Although, I didn't claim that Battlepasses are the only option for retaining players.
We can expect Intrepid to want to maximize population since it's a PvP game - and higher population provides more targets for PvP.

If other people want to drill down into precise evaluations of player retention they can do so and share the numbers. Sure.

Dygz wrote: »

It does not take a genius to figure out that 25%/75% are broad guesstimations rather than precise calculations.

I mean, sure - the problem is you attributed the figures the wrong way around.

You claimed 75% of players leave the game at the level cap, when data suggests that this number is closer to 25%.

Your inference was then that ony 25% of players stay in the game at the level cap, but the actual data suggests that this number is closer to 75%.

If you want to estimate things, that is fine. I don't expect you to have the figures on hand as I do. However, when you are wildly inaccurate with your estimates, you should expect to be corrected.

And that is my point - your numbers were wildly inaccurate. This is not the first time you have been spouting this notion that players leave games en masse when they hit level caps, and is also not the first time I have pointed out that you are objectively wrong.

You can claim EQ2 is not the most relavent game to pull this data from, but we have it for all Daybreak games (which is why I stated a 65 - 80% range, that is the range of their games).

So, unless you want to come up with some reason as to why Daybreak games have around three times the player retention between expansions than what you claim to be the case for MMO's in general, or until you can produce similar figures for other games, then this data from Daybreak is the best factual data we have, and you have no recourse at all to refute said data.

A such, you have no logical option other than to accept it - or admit that you are not interested in factual data.

Abarat

@Dygz @Noaani

LOL. You guys are practically the same person.

A less refined person might call the personality type as 'know it all blowhards that use semantics and mental gymnastics to never "lose" an argument'.

At least Noanni is actually planning on playing the game, which, even though I disagree with almost every condescending post he makes, gives him the leg up, imo.

Love you guys.

Abarat wrote: »

@Dygz @Noaani

LOL. You guys are practically the same person.

A less refined person might call the personality type as 'know it all blowhards that use semantics and mental gymnastics to never "lose" an argument'.

At least Noanni is actually planning on playing the game, which, even though I disagree with almost every condescending post he makes, gives him the leg up, imo.

Love you guys.

Until the game out you can't be sure who is and isn't going to play. Noaani has said his group had little or no interest in AoC from what I gathered from past post at that time.

I wouldn't say he has a leg up at all, even more so in this disccusion saying a battlepass is a loot box.

Abarat

Mag7spy wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

@Dygz @Noaani

LOL. You guys are practically the same person.

A less refined person might call the personality type as 'know it all blowhards that use semantics and mental gymnastics to never "lose" an argument'.

At least Noanni is actually planning on playing the game, which, even though I disagree with almost every condescending post he makes, gives him the leg up, imo.

Love you guys.

Until the game out you can't be sure who is and isn't going to play. Noaani has said his group had little or no interest in AoC from what I gathered from past post at that time.

I wouldn't say he has a leg up at all, even more so in this disccusion saying a battlepass is a loot box.

I stand corrected. At least, though, he does not bring it up in every (or nearly) thread. or does he? I tend to not even read his posts most of the time anymore.

Abarat wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

@Dygz @Noaani

LOL. You guys are practically the same person.

A less refined person might call the personality type as 'know it all blowhards that use semantics and mental gymnastics to never "lose" an argument'.

At least Noanni is actually planning on playing the game, which, even though I disagree with almost every condescending post he makes, gives him the leg up, imo.

Love you guys.

Until the game out you can't be sure who is and isn't going to play. Noaani has said his group had little or no interest in AoC from what I gathered from past post at that time.

I wouldn't say he has a leg up at all, even more so in this disccusion saying a battlepass is a loot box.

I stand corrected. At least, though, he does not bring it up in every (or nearly) thread. or does he? I tend to not even read his posts most of the time anymore.

You would have to dig through hundreds of pages of post. I'd say he doesn't say it all the time. But also Dygz says he will be testing the game in AoC. Which is kind of something that is needed. Playing the game and testing are two different things. So though he won't be playing it, he still will be testing which all the people that are testing will help with the development of the game and bring it to launch.

Zahie

I say no to battlepass. It's a lazy way to create an illusion of new content with rewards.

Abarat wrote: »

I stand corrected. At least, though, he does not bring it up in every (or nearly) thread. or does he? I tend to not even read his posts most of the time anymore.

If I don't bring it up, you will bring it up when you join the thread.

CROW3

Still going …

Mag7spy wrote: »

I wouldn't say he has a leg up at all, even more so in this disccusion saying a battlepass is a loot box.

Doing your usual "reading posts as you want them, rather than how they are".

I didn't say battlepass are lootboxes. I said they are a replacement for them (Epic was forced to remove the aspect of loot boxes that made them so profitable, and so developed battlepass for Fortnite). I also said that in the future there will be random aspects to Fortnites battlepass, akin to lootboxes.

However, I specifically did not say that battlepass is a loot box.

You may actually be a fairly intelligent poster about gaming in general - but until you learn to properly read and understand people's posts, you will do nothing other than continue to come across as the exact opposite of that.

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I wouldn't say he has a leg up at all, even more so in this disccusion saying a battlepass is a loot box.

Doing your usual "reading posts as you want them, rather than how they are".

I didn't say battlepass are lootboxes. I said they are a replacement for them (Epic was forced to remove the aspect of loot boxes that made them so profitable, and so developed battlepass for Fortnite). I also said that in the future there will be random aspects to Fortnites battlepass, akin to lootboxes.

However, I specifically did not say that battlepass is a loot box.

You may actually be a fairly intelligent poster about gaming in general - but until you learn to properly read and understand people's posts, you will do nothing other than continue to come across as the exact opposite of that.

I understood it perfectly well and you are still going on about battlepasses as loot boxes