Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

MrIllusion

Member Since 09 Oct 2010
Offline Last Active Today, 08:01 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Why hasn't Anet addressed the current zerker or gtfo pve endgame?

Today, 08:01 AM

View PostFeathermoore, on 18 May 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

"If xfire is an application that appeals to hardcore gamers, then on average hardcore gamers play GW2 3+ hours daily."

That statement there, taken from your post, over-extends your observation beyond that of Xfire gamers. You make a fallacious jump from "Xfire gamers are hardcore gamers" to "Xfire's average playtime is the average playtime of hardcore gamers."

The "1 hour per day" dividing line is hardly a mock-able estimate. If you would look back on the post you quoted, you will see how I explain that any number above 1 hour per day would be edging towards absurd to call it casual. Using the word casual to begin with starts with an assumption that there is a line, and socially the maximum possible line would be 2 as the max sitting based upon the acceptable norms in society. As I explained, even 2 is shaky as it shows a high dedication to an activity if it is done daily. Most of these terms we use are social constructions which are, by necessity, based off of gut feelings and hearsay, not hard numbers.

Mocking a person for explaining what they mean by a term is counter productive and only serves to detract from your statements. Please refrain from posting in such a manner in the future. Debate the point in a constructive manner.

You chose to take a very specific choice of wording to fault the spirit of my argument.

I repeatedly drew attention to the use of xfire with a very specific intention - to highlight that different games vary in terms of how long hardcore players spend ingame. Therefore any notion about casual players playing  X hrs or less must be taken in context of the game they are playing.

If you want to play semantics, how about this:

Quote

If xfire is an application that appeals to hardcore gamers, then on average xfire gamers play GW2 3+ hours daily. In comparison, xfire gamers play WoW an average of 5+ hours daily.

Is that better for you?

I chose to link some statistical data so that there is at least some objective numbers to go with. If you wish to debate it's usage by all means go ahead. But I disagree that "most of these terms we use are social constructions which are, by necessity, based off of gut feelings and hearsay, not hard numbers".

If that is the case, how about this:

The cutoff point for casual players is 1.67134 hours per day. No more, no less. Any more and you are a hardcore gamer. Any less and you are not even a serious enough gamer to be considered one.

If we start pulling numbers out of thin air with no other basis other then our own gut feeling, then this entire thread becomes a self-gratifying exercise to see who has the most likeable numbers.

In Topic: Why hasn't Anet addressed the current zerker or gtfo pve endgame?

18 May 2013 - 03:17 AM

View PostFeathermoore, on 15 May 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

If that is the case, than your post is based on such a massive assumption that the point you make is next to worthless. You are saying that since Xfire users play 3+ hours a day, that hardcore gamers should be defined at 4+ hours a day and yet you recognize that only hardcore gamers are using Xfire. You can't use Xfire to define what a casual gamer is since it doesn't have any casual gamers. You also can't use it to define a hardcore gamer because I would bet the majority of hardcore gamers are also not included in Xfire. Xfire caters to a specific subset of hardcore gamers. I would consider myself a hardcore gamer, yet I do not have an Xfire account. I don't think any of the other gamers I spend time with have accounts either.

Xfire statistics can only be used to talk about Xfire users. It is not possible to make a statement about a larger group based upon the Xfire numbers.

The 1 hour a day/7 hours a week is a pretty reasonable definition of a "true" casual gamer. The maximum I could understand would be 2 a day, but that is pushing it. 3+? No way is that a casual gamer. If I ran for 2 or 3 hours a day (that is 35 to 50 kilometers a day) would you consider me a casual runner? (The answer is no.) 2 or 3 hours a day reading would be 4 books a week for fun, far from the normal amount of reading.

If you read my post carefully, you'd see that I was very careful not to over-extend my observation beyond xfire gamers.

Even among xfire gamers, the playtime for "hardcore gamers" varies from game to game (which is why I used the WoW vs GW2 comparison).

I was simply mocking the idea that someone could pull out a number like "1 hr per day / 7 per week" out of their rear end and use that gut-feeling as a legitimate benchmark.

How is this any more authoritative than a tool that gathers actual data? If xfire numbers are only applicable to the few thousand xfire gamers, then surely the "1 hr per day" anecdotal observation should apply to a grand population of one.

That's like saying that "doing a study on the percentage of the population who smokes by surveying people to enter a tobacco store" is less authoritative than asking a non-smoker how many people smoke.

In Topic: Why hasn't Anet addressed the current zerker or gtfo pve endgame?

15 May 2013 - 02:49 PM

View PostDasviidonja, on 15 May 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

lol you can spank the wording or the numbers all you want to but the truth is in the population of WOW vs the population of anything else. Vertical progression rules and horizontal progression is for the "socalled casuals" then. So WOW shows there's a lot more vertical progression players than there are horizontal ones and if you want to broaden that all the MMO's combined that have vertical progression prove that horizontal progression is just a fad, a wannabe sort of thing. When 99% of the MMO's provide vertical progression it has to show for something. It's what works!

If WoW is the only successful implementation then it is the outlier. Which means there's no guarantee the the next WoW-clone will achieve WoW-like results.

WoW took a foothold in this industry because it created its own market of casual gamers at a time when people associated MMO with hardcore gaming. It's the same thing Nintendo did with Wii.

The two most recent successful implementations of gaming created their own market because the developers understood the gaming market had reached saturation.

If GW2 was another threadmill WoW-clone, it would have fared much worse than now. As it is, GW2 is currently one of the top revenue-generators for NCSoft.

They made the right call.

View PostElcee, on 14 May 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

Xfire is a terrible terrible metric. 2500 people that use a gaming chat program does not a good sample make. Also I somehow doubt people using X-fire are "casual" given that it's for people who play lots of games.

Their GW2 users are down from like 35000 to ~2500, so if you want to cite Xfire,  you should probably also note its lost ~93% of its GW2 players. :)

It wasn't good when the fanboys yelled LOOK AT ALL THE PEOPLE PLAYING and it wasn't good when the detractors yelled LOOK AT HOW FEW PEOPLE ARE PLAYING because it's such a tiny tiny fraction of gamers.

View PostFeathermoore, on 14 May 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

Almost all Xfire users are going to fall into the "hardcore" category. It is a communication program for people who play video games which means it is going to have a much higher lean towards hardcore gamers. I would be willing to bet that most people who play video games for a couple hours a week have never even heard of the program, let alone have enough friends that use it to consider using it.

I'm not using xfire to interpret how many people are playing the game. I'm using it to determine how many hours on average xfire gamers play GW2. If xfire is an application that appeals to hardcore gamers, then on average hardcore gamers play GW2 3+ hours daily. In comparison, hardcore gamers play WoW an average of 5+ hours daily.

In Topic: Why hasn't Anet addressed the current zerker or gtfo pve endgame?

14 May 2013 - 04:48 PM

View PostDasviidonja, on 14 May 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

WOW proved Vertical Progression is the ultimate way to play not horizontal.

Sure sure.

So did FFXI. And LOTRO. And DDO. And FFXIV. And SWTOR. And TERA.

So many ultimate MMOs that rocked the entire genre because of their vertical progression.

How many of them ran into revenue problems again?

View PostDasviidonja, on 14 May 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

Also what I mean by casuals is those that can only play 1 hour or less a day or 7 hours or less per week. Those playing 2 hours plus and then one whole day on the weekend are "not" casuals they just call themselves that because they want hardcores down there with them in phat loot. and leveling ranges. Basically they are "jealous" of those that can play more than them. A true casual doesn't care.

I have no idea where you magically fabricated those numbers. And I'm sure your definition of hardcore is widely regarded within the industry.

But xfire shows the average playtime for their users on GW2 to average 3+ hrs daily.

So maybe you'd like to extend your definition of "hardcore" to be 4+ hours. You know, just to make it look like your argument is somewhat coherent.

In Topic: Why hasn't Anet addressed the current zerker or gtfo pve endgame?

14 May 2013 - 10:33 AM

View PostDasviidonja, on 14 May 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

WOW was made for "casual" AND "hardcores" is the key point there. This game was made for "casuals" and casuals only. You don't have to put in every much time to get max gear, now if you want specific gear with the same stats yeah a casual will have to put in the time just like a hardcore would but it's not really a hardcore game or will be like one in the future content. You don't have to grind unless you choose to. But really what is an online MMO for if not for vertical progression it's just boring to remain the same for just colors and armor trinkets. That's what is wrong with GW2..it has no vertical progression to bring in a hardcorelike game. Its just a romper room tinker toy for those that don't have enough time to put into a real MMO like WOW.

The only problem is that you chose the wrong game.

Anet never intended for GW2 to focus on the gear threadmill. How you even missed that is beyond me.

If you think WoW's popularity is attributed to bumping of a few bytes of data in the data file of a virtual item, you need to play more MMOs. The last few major MMO releases were all standard gear threadmills with vertical progression. Did you get the memo about what happened to them?


View PostDasviidonja, on 14 May 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

I think what is funny is you cry about classes being the same and then you cry about one class being able to DPS more than the other. (not you madmaxll just players in general). For me I don't give squat how fast someone can kill something all I care about is that it is balanced enough that I can kill it too even if it takes ae a little while longer. This he's got more DPS than he does (class wise) is just silly. Only PVP is where it might count not PVE and even in PVP there's going to be some times where the other class has skills that will delay your DPS so there.

To me Balance is where everyone can kill something regardless of their class. Time should be no factor.

The whole point behind GW1 was horizontal progression. If GW2 also goes this route, it is a perfectly viable alternative (or supplement).

But in order to do so, there must be some emphasis given to balance between classes. Which is why it does matter how the different classes/roles/playstyles rank against each other.