{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/5/2023 1:45:12 PM
20
Your data analysis is failing you.
It is apparently clear that all of your decisions are strictly based on accumulated data. Whoever is analyzing it is killing your cash cow.
I’m an engineer and all statistics can be manipulated to form any argument or position you’re looking to put forth.
Let’s chose your decision to reduce the number of armor sets because they don’t get used, therefore they’re a waste of resources. By that same metrix I can say you purposely make the worst armor sets free so they won’t be used and can then in time reduce the expected desire to use the free sets. This will lean the users to pay for the dozens of attractive armor sets. Everyone knows dresstiny is the final endgame.
The same is done with weapons. The community at large all find a few weapons in particular “fun” (this could be due to ease of use or sound of the weapon) to use. Due to your analysis you decide to modify it to reduce usage and give a more diverse usage. The original weapon was middle of the road and not a standout performer. So due to analysis you’ve lowered the enjoyment of the community in large for no reason.
Stop shooting yourself in the foot please. We want you to prosper not push us away.
-
Data has to be interpreted. Correctly.
-
their problem is no one at bungie actually plays the game, they jump on for 5 mins and pat themselves on the back
-
1 RespuestaThey balance weapons on a variety of statistics, including usage. You're a little misinformed on that point. As far as the other goes... Yeah, it's dumb they're still making Eververse sets while reducing the number of "free" armor sets
-
21 RespuestasClassic engineer doesn't understand any other discipline. Never fails
-
Yeah I honestly thought it was hilarious how they kept talking about "player feedback" they had been getting that was so positive and amazing with what they are doing with the game, because the whole time I read that I just shook my head and wondered what players they were talking to. Then you see nonsense like their post asking for content creator feedback etc. like they honestly don't listen to anyone and it just seems like they make up whatever data they need to in order to fit their narrative that they are doing a good job with the game.
-
Editado por Scratch: 8/7/2023 9:39:51 PMData analysis shows only 1% of players hold more than 30 golf balls. So, instead of letting you hold 10 in inventory and 10 on each characters post(which are always in danger of being lost) we'll let you hold 30. But.... The reason the 1% HAVE 40 is they haven't lost a stack yet. Ideally hoarders[i] would[/i] have 40 But... They do a strike and lose a stack of 10, bringing their total down to 30 They do a couple of nightfalls bringing them up to 36 But their other character loses a stack of 10 bringing them down to 26 They get more bringing them up to 32, etc. etc. Analysis shows only 1% has 40..... BECAUSE WE'RE LOSING THEM. Analysis shows players average less than 30...Of course it does! Take into account players that use them, players that don't earn many, of course the average is below 40. The only players that would average 40 is someone who 1) NEVER spends them and, 2) runs back to the tower after every activity to clear the post so they don't lose any. But instead of simply solving the problem, players hate losing shards, and removing the danger of losing them, they look to the stats that reflect that players lose them to justify letting you hold LESS??? This was an easy win(you can still hold 40, you just won't lose any to the post) Why? Instead of letting you keep the 40 and remove the danger of losing them, we'll let you hold 30 with no danger of losing them because 99% of players hold less than 30.....BECAUSE THEY LOSE TEN AT A TIME??!? HUH?
-
It's expendable hands that click/vote in that data. Veterans are a minority in the game. New lights who know the state of the game jumping in are a minority. New lights who don't care or don't know are a good chunk of what gets these percentages into the positive. Or you know shills who just regurgitate because they have Stockholm syndrome.
-
1 RespuestaI highly doubt the developers wanted to deliver bad news. If you could have coffee with some of these people I guarantee you'll understand these decisions is not theirs.
-
Editado por A_mo: 8/7/2023 1:05:58 PMThere's just a certain point where if someone has decided they're going to pay for a videogame armor set that I'm just going to back out of their financials. They're not learnin' people to buy dozens of armor sets with real money they're making them because someone wants to buy them.
-
1 RespuestaEditado por ForeverLaxx: 8/5/2023 11:53:51 PMReminds me of way back in the day when I used to play League of Legends and they made a big post about why they were changing Karma to essentially be nothing like her original release version. Riot cited "low character representation" as one of the primary reasons they were completely redesigning her. The problem? She had low representation/adoption rate because she was only in the free rotation [i]ONE[/i] time between her release and the redesign. That time span? [b]Over two years[/b]. What this means was that if you wanted to play her, you had to own the character, and no one is going to buy a character they can't try out, which meant low representation numbers that they referenced to convince players completely stripping the character of her identity and playstyle was the best thing to do. In short, Riot crafted a scenario in order to justify changing a character they didn't like (Morello was infamously anti-healer and Karma was one of the strongest at keeping herself alive). That's what Bungie's been doing forever with their obsession over spreadsheets "guiding" game changes. They've already decided what they're doing and it's up to the numbers to be viewed in a manner that supports the decision they already made.
-
This reminds me of a hilarious conversation my mom had with someone at her work. At the end someone said, "it ends up being mathematical -blam!-, cause in the end you're only pleasing yourself". I feel like Bungie has adopted that stance with their analytics day 1. Probably the finiest story she ever said knowing how prudish she was
-
3 RespuestasAnother of your stats that may be failing you. This is the one indicating players favor a stagnant light level with increasingly difficult game play. I, for one, would rather play any other single-player alternative. Grinding for light level or grinding a mission, night fall, raid over and over till you succeed. At least grinding light level, you see progress. It's your franchise. I don't plan on spending my money on it past final shape or sooner.
-
6 RespuestasSo you telling us gambit actually has big player base but the data guy is lying to their managers huh. Lmao sure buddy sure. Yea i am sure everyone loves gambit i bet people bought Lightfall for gambit smh...
-
7 RespuestasThis is intentional. They make garbage so that no one will use it, giving them the perfect excuse to not make more garbage. Meanwhile Everworse has all your Drestiny needs.
-
I agree. But it's only killing their cash cow if the community can find some self respect & flex their power to this greedy corporation.
-
Nah, the data said exactly what they wanted it to say.
-
9 Respuestas[quote]I’m an engineer[/quote]Wanna know how I know you're lying? [quote]The community at large all find a few weapons in particular “fun” (this could be due to ease of use or sound of the weapon) to use.[/quote]
-
I mean has anyone checked Chegg for Bungie searching for solutions?
-
Exactly how I felt after reading the state of play.. succinctly put, nice. n.b. amazing how even this post has caused toxic arguments.
-
Final nail
