Data from lucky bancho about participation in field content

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renalt

Well if you would like to keep in contact there is an invite to the discord with your name on it. All you gotta do is claim it!

---

Im barley on it mate. So even if I were to accept such a Generous Offer, I probably wouldn't be Very active in it.
Sorry to be a Downer :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VelKallor

This isnt good at all. Basically less than 1/3 of the playerbase went there.



And sorry that is even worse. Less than 20% participation when less than 40% even made it to Pagos??

---

I mean,
less than 6% of players have last seasons PVP mount.
less than 3% of players have the triple triad mount.
less than 4% of players have the Eureka Orthos mount.
less than 2% of players have the BLU morbol mount.
less than 9% have the Shadowbringers Trial mount.
less than 17% of players have the Magicked Bed mount from treasure maps.
less than 23% have the Arden III mount from custom deliveries.

I guess all of these activities need to be removed from the game, since such a small number of players actually do this content.

Only 23.8% of players have the island sanctuary bike from rank 10?
Only 7.5% of players have the rank 15 island sanctuary mount!
Damn this isn't good, less than 1/19th of the playerbase actually did that content! Guess we better get rid of it.

lets get even more perspective going!

More players cleared a savage fight ON PATCH in 5.1 than people have completed island sanctuary rank 10, 3 patches after its release.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zanarkand-Ronso

Im barley on it mate. So even if I were to accept such a Generous Offer, I probably wouldn't be Very active in it.
Sorry to be a Downer :(

---

No worries. The option is always open if you change your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr_Gyactus

That said, Baldesion Arsenal at 19%? This mean that only 19% of characters have completed that story, or to put more easy to read: 81% of the characters DROPPED the place.
if this is not a BAD feedback, I don't know what it could be.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VelKallor

This isnt good at all. Basically less than 1/3 of the playerbase went there.

And sorry that is even worse. Less than 20% participation when less than 40% even made it to Pagos??

---

Uh...collectively, this is your answer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

...and this is compared to an MSQ completion rate of 70%

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

If you're judging clearance rates against 100%, you're out of your mind. Doubly so on NA.

Any content outside the comfort zone of MSQ, normal raids, and alliance raids typically has some 50% of the population that literally just won't do it, ever, no matter what it is, no matter what it gives. Clear rates for Savage tiers typically don't exceed 30% in the best case scenarios (aka JP single-server). NA is typically half that. Sometimes less!

---

No content in this game has much more than 50% clearance rates aside from MSQ, which is somewhere from 70-80%, depending on which metric you're using. Most has much less. Ultimate clears are in the single digits, yet we get 1-2 of those each Expansion.

The "but maybe people don't REALLY like it"; while it is true not everyone really likes it, is this NOT true of other things? There are a lot of people that do Savages or Extremes not because they like them but for other reasons, such as having a group of friends that wants to do them or having a mount or gear or weapon locked behind them that they want. This is true of literally all content in the game. So unless you have a specific metric measuring that - you don't - the best we can do is assume it's at a similar rate to the people doing other forms of content that don't really like those, and thus that the numbers would still be similar to each other relatively. For example, if half of Eureka players don't actually like Eureka, but half Savage players don't actually like Savage, then the ratio holds. And unless you have metrics saying that it doesn't, it's a canard to bring up as you can't substantiate the position and it's a violation of ceteris paribus.

I’m not saying this in a mean way renrathos I just honestly have no idea which side you are taking here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

I’m not saying this in a mean way renrathos I just honestly have no idea which side you are taking here

---

Renathras has a tendency to use a lot more words than he really has to. I'm not sure if it's to try and confuse people or if he thinks having more words makes him look smarter or something, but it just comes out as word vomit. I usually ask for a TLDR or don't bother. There's a time and place for extended paragraphs and longer posts, but when you're writing a good chunk of the bible just to explain very simple concepts, that's just too much.

Quote:

---

I guess all of these activities need to be removed from the game, since such a small number of players actually do this content.

---

I dont ever recall ever saying anything needs to be removed. Kindly dont invent what people didnt say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

I’m not saying this in a mean way renrathos I just honestly have no idea which side you are taking here

---

I think(?) it runs along the lines of...

(A) that completion numbers shouldn't be compared to 100% but instead to the nearest relevant peaks of %completion (e.g., for content of roughly similar broadly perceived value and accessibility or at least as is mindful that 70% completion (MSQ) is our literal absolute ceiling for any content), and

(B) that it's too hard to sort out who plays what for extrinsic rewards to try to count or discount participation accordingly (except, perhaps, if said content is almost ubiquitously perceived to offer virtually nothing else), since those who like the content and those who do not will just argue ceaselessly about what portion had to be baited into participation, to what degree, etc.

So, it's not picking a side, but rather just critiquing a particular method of giving warrant for either side -- be that citing %participation numbers noncritically or with zero content on one side, or relying on nebulous/unprovable read-in contextualization on the other. Granted, much of that critique has already basically been made earlier (see DixieBellOCE's comments and those by Sindele that Ren already quoted).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koros

When have they said that? It was mostly the simps saying it on behalf of SE, with no evidence (ironic).

They didn't make field content because they want to cut costs and milk the players and keep them subbed with less content and development costs.

---

So you state that the "simps" are just making stuff up, and then you ... make stuff up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

I was told it was infested with bots. Are we counting those now?

---

I'm not, no. Just the people I interact with, of which there are many. I'm not making that claim just based on numbers in the zones. It's genuinely very active.