Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9132210" data-attributes="member: 6801228">And they know that? Remember when we talked before about how to account for biases? And they know that the passionate players are the ones who help influence the casuals.No they aren't.Which I admitted was likely a mistake. But also... again this was literally never a point you were making until just now. Except they aren't ignoring them. They listen to those outliers, that's why the read the comments and follow the social media community. They just don't let the outliers shape every aspect of the game... because they are outliers. Read the article, it is about "are you getting the knowledge" such as knowing why those outliers think your product is too similiar to your competitor. Do you honestly think WoTC isn't hearing ANY of the commentary from people who say "this sucks, Pathfinder does it better"? You can't just assume they are ignoring those voices simply because their general process means seeking 70% consensus.And many times Crawford has straight up said "wow, this surprised us!". Also, guess what, Crawford isn't the guy reading the raw data and making conclusions. Even if they expect a certain answer, that doesn't mean they twist the data to get it. You can have expectations, built from knowing the community, and NOT have confirmation bias.And still has nothing to do with the surveys. Also, seriously? The thing the team credits to their success isn't the thing that is contributing to the success of the game? How do you square that circle? WoTC is too dumb to know what is or is not working for them? They don't know that they used survey data and got good results? Yes, Correlation isn't Causation, but that doesn't mean you can deny causation when it happens just because you don't like it.NopeSo, you want to compare seven static snapshots of a slow moving process to a political campaign, where minute by minute new information and interference from dozens of sources are all working on an active system. And say those are the same thing? By the time a political pollster has collected data and spent a week going over it, every single thing they were looking at could have changed. Crimes revealed, gaffs made, successful rallys, new funding from dark money, foreign interference, a massive societal upheaval like a mass shooting. By the time WoTc takes their data from playtest 7 and spend a week going over it... nothing much has likely changed for the playtest. It is all still pretty much how it was a week ago.You want me to take data that is nearly evenly split, and get an 80% approval from it? Like, you want me to take data, and make it fit a percentage point, to prove that they can take data and find the real percentage point... Do you even hear yourself right now? We both know that me forcing data to match a value you choose is nothing like what they are doing. Now, using a basic weighting method, I can get a value of ~70%, but that doesn't mean that I used the same weighting method they did.Okay, I took your numbers and got a ~70% approval rating. Now what?No. They are making business decisions based on their studied consideration of the metrics they want to hit. Again, I started this conversation with this, but they'd be idiots to ask a question like "do you want us to improve this feature" because the answer is obviously "Yes!". Who would ever say "No, don't improve this"? But they have determined that if a feature has tested below a certain threshold, it isn't worth the time and effort to reiterate on that feature instead of defaulting to what they have and what works. Because, here's a thought, how do you know that most of the features in the game from 2014 weren't testing in the 60 to 70% range? Maybe they know, from their market research, that simply going back to 2014 is acceptable, so they don't see a need to risk 50%'s when they know that means it is doing worse than what they had prior.</blockquote>

Verification