Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gss000" data-source="post: 8644626" data-attributes="member: 7016012">Please reread what I said. You are putting words in my mouth about Roll 20 stats and their meaning, and then attacking my information literacy. I did admit there are problems with it, but I'm discounting the ICV2 ranking that you are assuming automatically means health when all it tells you is ranking based on what little is out there.Yes, exactly. That's my point. You don't have any information about why the numbers changed. Instead you've made a narrative that fits your view. I could make several narratives with vastly different scenarios that fit the ICV2 ranking. I'm not saying any conclusion is wrong or right, I'm just saying it's not a simple ranking is not good indicator with nothing else that backs it up. Read what I wrote again.No, it doesn't allow you to take a temperature. That's the fallacy and the mistake people make with the ICV2 numbers that only show you top 5. I agree it shows you how one is relative to the other, but without something that translates to sales or the equivalent thereof, your assumptions and views are coloring your conclusions. You need more indicators or something from other sites.I'm not saying PF2 is doing poorly. I'm saying you believe it's doing well so you're giving additional meaning to a stat that can't tell you that at all!Again, I didn't say anything to the contrary. You brought in Roll 20. My first point was about Foundry and how there's not enough data for me to conclude it's the one most players are using. I know it's the one that best supports PF2 play, but the two are different. I was speaking mostly about ICV2, which you can't learn anything by general statements like "more players are using Foundry."Okay. What you write and what Mona wrote are actually two different things. He writes, "In terms of the overall timeline, we are not in the "2015" of Pathfinder Second Edition. We are in the "2011" of Pathfinder Second Edition. And the fundamental business (and the game's fundamental design) is much more sound, and the potential for growth much more significant, than it was back then." Erik is saying that in the lifetime of a game, PF2 at 2 years old is at the same stage of it's lifecycle of PF2 when it was two years old and not at the end of it's lifecycle. I sure hope so! But he does not write that it's selling better than PF1 like you stated. He writes the business is "more sound" - it should be with the explosion of roleplaying games because of 5E - and has better growth potential -again, it should with the larger market! Maybe there is another quote but this does not back your statement.Once again for the class, I am not saying that PF2 is doing poorly. All I'm saying is that one fact people quote to support that conclusion doesn't support it one way or another.</blockquote>

Verification