Public Discussion: Community Feedback - Is it being heard?

[Elesh]

Definitely still easily flawed data but I just I want add in statistics you can very successfully extrapolate info from very small subsets. Of course the more data the better, especially if there was an unforeseen flaw, but you can see something like 1% accurately predict 99%. Surprisingly small samples can be used for exceptionally accurate results. Then again given the nature of the -insert anywhere- places of feedback... it does obviously move about the data. People for example are more likely to come here if they have something they want to change rather than something they want to praise. This is where someone would make a mistake if they just blindly followed feedback, but if the players can accurately articulate why they want given feedback I believe some of the consequences of listening to a small portion of the community can be alleviated.

The problem with this is that it is an opt-in sample, which fundamentally biases the data.

You need a truly random sample to do any sort of meaningful extrapolation from small sample sizes - which sadly is not the case for the forums.

[Shougun]

The problem with this is that it is an opt-in sample, which fundamentally biases the data.

You need a truly random sample to do any sort of meaningful extrapolation from small sample sizes - which sadly is not the case for the forums.

I mean I say as much in the post you quoted, but yes the data isn't pristine given how people opt into feedback (encourages views of votes of change, over votes of "I liked this, don't change this").

I wanted to address the "1%" concept though, that it's not terribly important it's not a huge portion of the community (though in-game polls and feedback periods would improve stuff a lot), and the accuracy (as I say in the post) isn't that great since we're biased ("it does move about the data" is what I said, based on the fact people come here to usually change rather than praise), but that given someone who is trying to be attentive and 'massage' everything (including using their internal tools, and other forms of feedback), can still get interesting things out of it (as I said one thing that I believe would help, is understanding why people want, or don't want, something more over than what they "I don't like it" without reason given).

We're not going to easily achieve 90% accurate but the info, using your own judgement of how the game should be as well, I believe is still more valuable than a middle finger to the data all together and humdruming along lol.

The biggest issue is that, presumably, this is the job of the project manager. Whether they take verbal feedback or have it quantified into numerical data and relay it to the team so they can work on what is, at least on the face of it, highly desired by their customers. Who is our project manager? The man who told healers to find engaging content elsewhere? It's sad, but I think we might be stuffed.

It would be interesting to see the devs address the community on expectations of healer gameplay*, I mean they've done this lightly before but to me it's clear that some healers want more to do (usually combat related, often because they don't need to heal in a lot of non-hyper difficult content with well geared / skilled teammates, and moreover doing diverse things not specifically two spells oscillating between them until it's time to cure). I believe the manager of healers doesn't agree, but it would be curious to see what their expectation of it was. Yoshida is indeed the producer and director and has said ultimately responsibility of things falls on him if there is an issue, which is good leadership, but I have to imagine there are many situations where each 'owner' of a concept gets a lot of say on the future of that thing. Alternatively it might be a strong, sizeable group, that feels counter, but there is also a strong sizeable group that feels counter to that lol... stuck between a tug of war XD.

*I imagine they wouldn't be excited to do as much as usually such situations can feel like a lose lose / hostage situation, buuuuuut.... I feel it would be interesting to listen to them, I'd certainly sit in on that meeting .

My personal feelings on it are usually increase support skills, some of which can be offensive, reduce / condense some of the healing power to ensure skill bloat doesn't incur (or bake support into them), consider making one healer have more than usual combat, ensure one of the healers is just relatively more complex (in the skill ceiling type way, not just 'confounding"), meanwhile ensuring one of the healers stays relatively simple, and then make a base line for the others between that. I do think there is some unfortunate realities for healers like the more powerful the team is the less valuable you are, and such... so having more things to do outside of healing is neat even if it isn't always direct damage (like in my mind one job's support might be more debuff / offensive) but another might be coming in with a lot of "enfire - next 5 skills the target deals does 50 potency extra" type stuff (so one healer feels very team oriented and doesn't target the monster very often, and another might feel more frantic, and another can be more monster focused - like sage, etc).

I don't think we're miles off from a good base but I do read the healer comments here . I would note though that one of the issues with healers is tied in with a mammoth of a topic (if for example people didn't get more hp/defense, a lot of healers would be healing a lot more- but such an extreme response would have a profound impact on the game as a whole)... Though that is why I like the idea of more support related skills, to which healers can have things to do of value outside of heal but not necessarily all be expected to do the exact theme of DPSing (some might more, but others would still be targeting friends and giving them boons or what have you).

[BrokentoothMarch]

The problem with this is that it is an opt-in sample, which fundamentally biases the data.

You need a truly random sample to do any sort of meaningful extrapolation from small sample sizes - which sadly is not the case for the forums.

You continue moving the goalposts as things need to conform to your own made-up standards of testing. Why are you so important? With what authority can you claim this to be genuine? Why does a test server not exist like every other multiplayer game exactly for this reason?