Time to reflect

[Riamus]

If anything hours played should decrease the validity of your statement as you clearly will play the game regardless. I'm joking of course but it's amusing to see everyone post their 200,000 hours played with a join date of a year or two.

Yeah, a lot of those comments about hours played seem to be invalid. Either things other than playing (servers, sitting at the menu, etc) or are made up and perhaps even edited on Steam, which is very easy to do.

 

[Charger265]

Which was I already did? You expressed you opinion while I expressed mine at this point in a normal conversation you would further expand on the context provided between the two comments and a discussion forms. Saying do your research about my opinions better and send me another comment is just saying you dont want to talk, which, if the case than just say that.

As i said im happy to discuss the subject with you when you have investigated why a large number of complaints were made. It will provide a greater insight into the issue you would like to discuss allowing a much more engaging conversation. I am already in discussions with so many other about the same topic which you are welcome to join in on and contribute.

Uggh, I actually didn't notice. Thought storms brewing were out for a lot longer. So forget what I said about review bombing, didn't happen.

This is not a dig at you... You made a wrong call and addressed it. respect gained... Hope we can both agree that there are unhappy players with the game direction and try to work to a solution.

I just wanted to point out that this particular statement is concerning about accuracy. It doesn't say that those who have high numbers of hours are saying that. It is saying people who posted saying that they have high hours said that. That alone makes that a questionable response.

Just look at all the many posts by Grandpa Minion where he keeps saying he has over 20,000 hours of gameplay. I've calculated out his hours from multiple posts and he would have to play the game 12 hours a day every single day for months for that to be accurate. Instead, those hours are either server hours or hours sitting at menus. Add in anyone who does POI design, where all those goes that aren't gameplay add up quickly.

I actually find it odd that the response was being time played on what people say, considering Steam posts give the time played as part of the post.

These are all parts of the data that would need to be looked at and yes there are people would will lie about hours played or have inflated numbers by server hours.. I did have to come up with some measure to define a player with a good understanding of the game mechanics and a good measure for that is time played. So yes the data relied heavily on the player base with 500+ hours and capped it at 4000 hours which just happened to exclude my own contributions. From my own experience players generally around the 1000 hours mark tend to have a very good understanding of the game and would consider them extremely knowledgeable.

The other issue is what you see when you look at posts from people who support the game versus those who don't. From my experience, the vast majority of people who mention their time played are complaining, while those with positive posts don't mention it. That means that is the AI is calculating data based on what people say about time played, it won't be accurate to the larger picture.

Yeah i looked at that in my other data set and tried to apply a data model based on the positive posts vs negative post ratios Its really subjective data because you have factors within steam that skew the results. Normally you would be looking at 3:1 ratio of negative reviews vs positive reviews. Meaning more people would go out of their way to post a negative review vs positive. But steam is different when its designed to engage every player and rewards leaving a review as such you have a much higher ratio of new players (low hours) posting a positive review. I looked at this and best i could do was to eliminate the low hour reviews.

Finally, I think it is safe to say that at least 75% of players of almost any game do not post about liking it disliking the game. That means that no matter how accurate the data is, it is already biased and can't be trusted to be more than a very general idea. It is the same when we talk about what everyone is paying about here. It might be what people here are saying, but doesn't necessarily indicate the view of the majority.

Personally i think its a lot more than 75%. But to take the view that the data is biased is not exactly true. There have been plenty of instances where small data sets have been extremely accurate but statically its more likely to be inaccurate. But we are talking about a product (game) that has engaging and active forums, debates, mods and much more. So the engagement level of players is much higher and much closer to a true representation to the wider standpoint. I did even look at the most download mods from nexus to see what people were doing.

Now, with all that said, I also want to add that you do seem to have a good grasp on the way to use AI. That isn't normal here, which is why people expect the worst and why either a good explanation of your process or the prompts used is helpful, which you did. So it is good that you are making good use of the prompts. But if you were to look at other AI posts here over the past month or two, you will see that they all have invalid information that is easy to recognize as being wrong. That leads to people not liking to see AI posts. It isn't anything against you, but just a general feeling caused by so many bad uses of AI.

Thanks...

 

[Charger265]

But if you were to look at other AI posts here over the past month or two, you will see that they all have invalid information that is easy to recognize as being wrong. That leads to people not liking to see AI posts. It isn't anything against you, but just a general feeling caused by so many bad uses of AI.

Just curious. Because i value your opinion.
From the two point form AI responses i did provide what your gauge on it and its accuracy now knowing the process?
Also what other metrics / methods should i try and apply to make it more accurate?

 

[Riamus]

Just curious. Because i value your opinion.
From the two point form AI responses i did provide what your gauge on it and its accuracy now knowing the process?
Also what other metrics / methods should i try and apply to make it more accurate?

I'd be guessing here, so keep that in mind...

Based on your explanation of how you're getting data and what seems to be a good understanding of how AI and prompts work, I think your accuracy is probably fairly close to as good as possible. But I think "as good as possible" is still not necessarily accurate just due to lack of data. As you said, likely much more than 75% don't post about their experience with the game, especially if they like it. Even with me, I post reviews for some games and not for others. Sometimes I'll post for a game I like, sometimes for one I don't like, and sometimes for one that I find kind of average. But I don't post for every game I like or every game I don't like. And that is from someone who does write reviews. Most don't.

As you said, games are kind of an interesting situation because people can tend to post more because it is something they can get really hooked on. But even so, I think most still don't post. Of course, those include people who like and people who don't like the game. It is possible that the ratio of people who write reviews or post on forums is the same as the ratio of people who do not. As you said, the odds of that are very low, but it is possible. But if it's not the same, which way do they lean? Do more people who don't post like the game? Or do more not like it? I'm not sure there is any way to determine that other than to guess. That leaves the reliability of anything that talks about what the average person thinks about the game questionable, whether that's through the use of AI or some other method.

Of course, you can start to gain some statistical accuracy by increasing the number of data points. If we're talking about let's say 10% of players who post messages or reviews about the game, that's a low level of accuracy, but if you could increase that percentage through use of something like in-game polls that don't require writing anything, you could get a far more accurate result. I'm not saying they should put in-game polls, of course. It's just an example of getting more data to improve accuracy. There is also a general feeling of what percentage of people would be considered relatively accurate results for statistical data. I believe we're below that, at least for things like opinion of the game. But there may be ways to improve that accuracy.

One thing I'd bring up since you mentioned limiting your results to those within a certain range of hours... I don't think it is necessarily fair to ignore people new to the game. You'd be ignoring a large percentage of console players. And if someone likes the game because they haven't played older versions and so aren't stuck on "A16 is the best and it's been downhill ever since" nostalgia, their opinion is just as valid. I understand the idea that someone should have time to experience the game to know if they really like it. But I think people have a good feeling for a game in a much shorter time than 500 hours. After all, people normally don't play 500+ hours in most games even if they like the game. This game is of course different because of the strong replayability factor, but that isn't the norm. I think I'd suggest lowering that to at least 100 hours, if not even lower. For me, if I don't like a game, it would be strange to see me play it for more than 5 hours.

I'd actually be curious to see results that look into time played recently. It would be a hard set of data to really quantify, but if someone has played more than 10 hours in the past week, there is a good chance that they like the game, even if they maybe don't like certain things in the game. Basically, they like it more than they don't like it and so they are playing it. If someone isn't putting in that many hours, then maybe they don't like it. If looked at over the course of the past year, you can get a feel for whether any individual player has increased how much they play or decreased how much they play. You also get an idea of how much they like the game. Putting in 100+ hours, even over the course of a year, isn't something they are likely to do without liking the game. If you see a high number of people's play time dropping off significantly enough after 2.0, then that's a good indication that 2.0 wasn't liked by a large part of the players. If you don't see that happen to more than say 20% of the players, then it's a good indication that 2.0 was liked by a much larger percentage of players than those who don't like it.

Of course, there is the issue of mods. If someone is using overhaul mods, for example, and those mods aren't updated right away, they may stop playing until those get updated, but that isn't necessarily an indication of not liking the game. It can just mean they prefer the overhaul mod. Or someone might keep playing as much after 2.0 once their mod(s) is/are updated and that may not indicate they like the update, but only that their mod(s) make it enjoyable to them, perhaps by changing or removing the changes the update made. So it's not necessarily accurate either.

What I would say is that by using a variety of different ways of reading data, such as what you used and this example, along with others, you can combine the results from all of them to try to increase the accuracy. One "question" for lack of a better word might result in an idea that 80% like the changes and another might show 70% don't like the changes, and a third might show that 60% like the changes. When you start looking at those all as one, you can get results that are more likely to be accurate than using a single "question". Note I'm not really talking about prompts when I say question here. I'm just talking about a different way of collating the data.

One other thing to consider is that new data may not be as accurate as older data. Changes upset people. At least some people. Even a good change that a person will end up thinking was a good change later on may be viewed as bad initially. So it isn't unusual to get new opinions that say the game is bad now, yet if you asked the same person in a few months or so, they may say that the game is good. That leads to questionable results from new data. Add in the changes to 2.0 in both 2.1 and 2.2 and whatever is coming later to improve on the original 2.0 release and are the opinions based on the original 2.0 or on 2.1 or on 2.2? Someone could have hated 2.0, but liked how things were changed with 2.1 or 2.2. Maybe they updated their posts or reviews, maybe not. I think the number of people who change their reviews is extremely low, even if their opinion changed from like to dislike or dislike to like. But how do you handle that? Do you ignore new data? If you did, then you couldn't get any info about 2.0 since it's too new. Do you wait 3-6 months before trying to get results? You'd be more accurate, but that's a long time to wait. Do you weight the results differently? That also makes it so opinions about 2.x aren't going to be visible or not as visible. I don't have an answer to that.

Well, I hope this gave you the answers you were wanting. I want to point out that I'm not a statistician, though I do understand statistics. I'm also not an expert with AI, though I understand many of the pitfalls and restrictions with the use of AI due to a lot of programming and scripting knowledge and a strong grasp of logic that helps with understanding how AI and prompts work. So my views aren't the views of an expert in the field, but also aren't those of a layman either. I think you have a good understanding of the use of AI and your results are probably about as good as is possible with the available data. My initial dismissal of your AI responses was because of the lack of good use of AI over the past couple of months here. Also, even with a conservative look at it, I'd say 95% of people using AI have no real idea of how to properly use prompts to get good results, 4% are like me, where we do understand it but have very limited practical experience with it as it's more for personal use and not because of needing it for work use, and 1% are like you, where you have both a good understanding of it and a lot of practical use of it. And, like I said, that's being conservative. It's probably closer to 99%, 0.9%, and 0.1%. Heh. The point being that I assumed your AI post was what you'd expect from that 95% (or 99%). I was wrong about that, and I apologize for that assumption.

 

[Charger265]

Well, I hope this gave you the answers you were wanting. I want to point out that I'm not a statistician, though I do understand statistics. I'm also not an expert with AI, though I understand many of the pitfalls and restrictions

Thanks a lot to unpack there.
It would appear i have applied a lot of the recommendations to the data set already and attempted to mitigate most issues you have have concerns about. But yeah im no statistician. Have tried various methods to cross reference the methodology tho.

With any statics there is the argument which you have pointed to. That because the data is incomplete the results are unknown and should not be reference to or statistically they would not be for the majority. There is data available and its the only data available to make any reasonable conclusion outside the stand point of "But thats how i feel" Unfortunately because feelings are involved logic is not considered. You also need to include factors like "isolation" Is it an isolated issue created by active campaign or is there a long history of recurring themes.

As for the AI and how i have been able to do this with minimal effort. I have a team of 3 working on a project scraping web data to be used with Adwords. Specifically focusing on market trends and advertising. Which was not hard to change across to scraping forum/steam data on a specific topic. Surprisingly its pretty much the same type of data. What does the end user want and how do they want it.

 

[Roland]

Just wondering aloud here....let's say that in about 2 months time all the current critics get their wishes-- yes, even the return of jars, a hybrid LBD/skill point system for progression, and a hybrid magazine/skill point system for crafting, 10 slots for clothing, and the return of weapon parts and 600 pt quality spectrum, on top of the changes you want for 2.0.

If that were to happen and a slew of angry new people came on criticizing TFP for flipflopping yet again, redoing and removing perfectly fine systems, and just completely hateful of the changes and calling on TFP to revert back to the superior 2.2 version rather than going backwards, yada yada yada-- and all of you who have been hoping for these changes and are now overjoyed about them respond to defend them...

Would those new critics be justified in calling all y'all mindless fanboys who worship the devs and can't think for yourselves or recognize good game design because you're just too interested in being yes men for the devs.....? Just curious.

 

[HammerDano]

Just wondering aloud here....let's say that in about 2 months time all the current critics get their wishes-- yes, even the return of jars, a hybrid LBD/skill point system for progression, and a hybrid magazine/skill point system for crafting, 10 slots for clothing, and the return of weapon parts and 600 pt quality spectrum, on top of the changes you want for 2.0.

If that were to happen and a slew of angry new people came on criticizing TFP for flipflopping yet again, redoing and removing perfectly fine systems, and just completely hateful of the changes and calling on TFP to revert back to the superior 2.2 version rather than going backwards, yada yada yada-- and all of you who have been hoping for these changes and are now overjoyed about them respond to defend them...

Would those new critics be justified in calling all y'all mindless fanboys who worship the devs and can't think for yourselves or recognize good game design because you're just too interested in being yes men for the devs.....? Just curious.

great to see you embracing the spirit of change. sorry, but, nobody is waving a magic wand. you have said THAT yourself...they are going to add what THEY want...what they find fun. in your opinion.
THEY have said that they are going to ask questions or do polls or something...which suggests that any changes coming will actually be discussed.
Will there still be people upset...undoubtedly. That's where better communication could really shine.

 

[Charger265]

Just wondering aloud here....let's say that in about 2 months time all the current critics get their wishes-- yes, even the return of jars, a hybrid LBD/skill point system for progression, and a hybrid magazine/skill point system for crafting, 10 slots for clothing, and the return of weapon parts and 600 pt quality spectrum, on top of the changes you want for 2.0.

If that were to happen and a slew of angry new people came on criticizing TFP for flipflopping yet again, redoing and removing perfectly fine systems, and just completely hateful of the changes and calling on TFP to revert back to the superior 2.2 version rather than going backwards, yada yada yada-- and all of you who have been hoping for these changes and are now overjoyed about them respond to defend them...

Would those new critics be justified in calling all y'all mindless fanboys who worship the devs and can't think for yourselves or recognize good game design because you're just too interested in being yes men for the devs.....? Just curious.

From my stand point if TFP's did that it would be the death of the game because you will never keep everyone from the past happy and reverting all those things as they were before would just anger a new set of players. This is why i tired to focus on having the ideas openly discussed, so by discussions some form of consensus can be made or at the least to provide the dev's quality feedback. They can then make their own judgment.
Its clear that a lot keep falling back to the argument there isnt enough data.. Well here we are providing you data. Is it being accepted as quality criticism or being dismissed? (in context definition - fanboy)

Really i dont see why you cant keep the good of new and the good of the past and combine them into a hybrid system. This is how the development path should have gone but it didnt. Flip flopping as the dev's have done has lead to this issue. Actively restricting players game play to chase out exploits / game restrictions on play style are the main issues that need to be addressed. Not specifics like "we want jars back" But even if they were to change it up again with some major change. Its not like its some wild thing they have never done in the past.

As a direct question regarding "fanboys" This term used by me was to illustrate in the eyes of some there is no issue with the development path or the current game. "delusional"
In your illustration of "fanboys" If those people have the same stand point that there is no issue with the development path or the current game. "delusional" the answer would be yes they are the exact definition of a fanboy.
Just because the opposing view changes it does not clear them of the same actions.

However in the spirit of the discussion taking the stance in the scenario you have provided helps no one. It only further polarizes the 7 Days to Die community.

 

[Soulmonster]

Its just extremely unlikely to be true, thats literally all there is to it. And again, if you really feel that way, I dont judge, Im just surprised/baffled.

Why is it "extremely unlikely to be true" when the recent update has added new content like new POIs, new zombies, improved graphics, and improved perks? I am fascinated that you seem to think it is more likely that I deliberate lie than just like something you don't. The world is FULL of people with different personal preferences, yet you seem utterly stumped when meeting someone who likes some game updates you don't like.

 

[Soulmonster]

There have been plenty of instances where small data sets have been extremely accurate but statically its more likely to be inaccurate.

A small subset can be accurate if it is representative of the whole. So if you want to complete an argument that a small subset is statistically relevant, you have to also argue for why it is representative. I have seen no convincing argument demonstrating that the people complaining are representative of the whole. In fact, from people complaining here at this forum I get the impression that these players are a subset comprised of experienced gamers who have followed the game for a long time and are emotionally invested in previous versions. I doubt the majority of 200k gamers or so are represented by this subset. As far as I am concerned, if I was part of TFP, I'd do some proper surveys to gauge what the average player thinks to get some accurate feedback - if they are concerned about pleasing the masses.

 

[Charger265]

A small subset can be accurate if it is representative of the whole. So if you want to complete an argument that a small subset is statistically relevant, you have to also argue for why it is representative. I have seen no convincing argument demonstrating that the people complaining are representative of the whole. In fact, from people complaining here at this forum I get the impression that these players are a subset comprised of experienced gamers who have followed the game for a long time and are emotionally invested in previous versions. I doubt the majority of 200k gamers or so are represented by this subset. As far as I am concerned, if I was part of TFP, I'd do some proper surveys to gauge what the average player thinks to get some accurate feedback - if they are concerned about pleasing the masses.

You do realize you have just discredited your own argument with your own explanation???
Lets look at this logically. The subset you are basing your "i die on this hill " argument is limited to this forum which by all accounts very mush is an echo chamber of like minded subset (both for and against). Statistically when compared to the some 200,000 + threads i used in the AI analysis of the subject to compile a large data set that have a slim but majority negative outlook of the game development and direction. Which opinion would be "Statically" & "Logically" be consider the small subset? And "Statically" & "Logically" which would be more accurate?

One thing you have been able to identify is the almost 100% majority of the outspoken members here that want change, is they are long term members who have been apart of the community for a long time and have been active in many aspects across multiple forums / discords / social media. The exact definition of the people you are describing are the most experience, most knowledgeable and likely have their game on point when it come to the over all feel for the game and how its portrayed in the community as a whole.

Sometimes i really wonder if people actually think before speaking.

Granted it had been made very clear by a number of people here (including myself) that TFP's should conduct their own polls and gather their own information. This is your time to share your opinion also. Which no one is stopping you from doing. The most reasonable explanation that we have ended up in this situation is because the issues that were raised in the past were dismissed for the simple fact of saying "Oh its only the most experienced long term emotionally invested players that are complaining" IF TFP's want to drop the long term player base thats their choice, The result will be detrimental as a whole as you are already whitnessing.

I would say to you, start your own thread discussing what you dislike about the current game and how you would change it. (Because for the first time in history it would appear TFP's are actually listening) Along with a section explaining what you like and dont want change if you feel strongly about those game aspects. This would provide valuable data for anyone who wants to understand more about the stance different players have. Then i might just take the stance of getting on there and trying to discredit you. Or i could acknowledge there will always be a difference of opinion and work to a solution where we can both have an enjoyable experience with the same game. Even if your view could posiable be the the minority view. Your opinion on how you play the game is just as valid as mine or anyone elses.

 

[Soulmonster]

You do realize you have just discredited your own argument with your own explanation???
Lets look at this logically. The subset you are basing your "i die on this hill " argument is limited to this forum which by all accounts very mush is an echo chamber of like minded subset (both for and against). Statistically when compared to the some 200,000 + threads i used in the AI analysis of the subject to compile a large data set that have a slim but majority negative outlook of the game development and direction. Which opinion would be "Statically" & "Logically" be consider the small subset? And "Statically" & "Logically" which would be more accurate?

Again, you haven't shown that the subset of players that post in threads (or wherever you got your data) represent the majority.

 

[theFlu]

Would those new critics be justified in calling all y'all mindless fanboys who worship the devs and can't think for yourselves or recognize good game design because you're just too interested in being yes men for the devs.....? Just curious.

Yes; roughly as justified as you asking the question. "Mindless fanboys" is mostly an insult, of course; with some form of a direction. Your question is .. quite similar; "what if you're all acting like mindless fanboys already" isn't far.

 

[Roland]

Yes; roughly as justified as you asking the question. "Mindless fanboys" is mostly an insult, of course; with some form of a direction. Your question is .. quite similar; "what if you're all acting like mindless fanboys already" isn't far.

I wasn’t preemptively calling anyone a fanboy ahead of any possible changes. In a thread titled “Time to Reflect” I was making the point that insulting those you disagree with is counterproductive. The OP says he wants discussion in order to find that point where a blending of community desires can result in a game that will succeed but then keeps insulting those who present an opposing view.

Sometimes i really wonder if people actually think before speaking.

This in his latest post is exactly the type of discourse that prevents progress being made in coming to a refined set of suggestions that are more inclusive.

 

[theFlu]

I wasn’t preemptively calling anyone a fanboy ahead of any possible changes. In a thread titled “Time to Reflect” I was making the point that insulting those you disagree with is counterproductive.

Indeed, calling someone a mindless fanboy is a call for self-reflection; insulting perhaps, but at best that.

Conjuring up a hypothetical, where TFP has delivered yet another ham-fisted system and caused upset and a ruckus, to then by proxy call someone a mindless fanboy is ... the same with extra steps. Not an unreasonable scenario, mind you, given the track record. But not that different either.

 

[Kyoji]

Just wondering aloud here....let's say that in about 2 months time all the current critics get their wishes-- yes, even the return of jars, a hybrid LBD/skill point system for progression, and a hybrid magazine/skill point system for crafting, 10 slots for clothing, and the return of weapon parts and 600 pt quality spectrum, on top of the changes you want for 2.0.

If that were to happen and a slew of angry new people came on criticizing TFP for flipflopping yet again, redoing and removing perfectly fine systems, and just completely hateful of the changes and calling on TFP to revert back to the superior 2.2 version rather than going backwards, yada yada yada-- and all of you who have been hoping for these changes and are now overjoyed about them respond to defend them...

Would those new critics be justified in calling all y'all mindless fanboys who worship the devs and can't think for yourselves or recognize good game design because you're just too interested in being yes men for the devs.....? Just curious.

Short answer is yes there would be critics upset for the constant game changes, especially the skill system. How many? Don't know. What we do know is that enough people are unhappy now that there needs to be some change.

Keep in mind this isn't in a vacuum. You have to understand why we ended up at this breaking point to begin with. I think it was a culmination of resentment from lack of proper communication, the perceived direction of the game towards a more linear RPG away from a survival sandbox and the removal of features for subpar versions. The last point is especially important as things like jars were removed for dew collectors which not only did nothing to fix water scarcity it just made finding a tarp annoying. Then they had to make changes to that system as well. The time investment for the dew collector wouldn't be bad if it was better than simply tweaking jars.

So would the same thing happen again? In the near future probably as tensions are still high. But if the developers communicate a lot of this can be alleviated or removed.

 

[Charger265]

This in his latest post is exactly the type of discourse that prevents progress being made in coming to a refined set of suggestions that are more inclusive.

You may want to apply that same sentiment to the band of brothers here. As from the very start including you, set the tone for the forum. Just following your lead.
Would appear there are very much double standards. It reminds me of the five monkey experiment.

 

[Charger265]

I wasn’t preemptively calling anyone a fanboy ahead of any possible changes. In a thread titled “Time to Reflect” I was making the point that insulting those you disagree with is counterproductive. The OP says he wants discussion in order to find that point where a blending of community desires can result in a game that will succeed but then keeps insulting those who present an opposing view.

Its funny how you say that when your own moderators were the first insult. Very much double standards.