The State of Endwalker: A 2 year Recap.

[IkaraGreydancer]

Or they'll complain that content sucks and do it anyway, boosting it's metrics and SE sees it's popular.

Exactly what happened with Eureka to Bozja. So many did Eureka while hating it despite complaining so there came Bozja next expac. I just will never understand putting money into something you don't like largely or aren't really enjoying. In the end it doesn't help. 1.0 got the message cause folks weren't buying into it. Talking on a forum only goes so far. I said months ago that it's time for action yet folks called me a gatekeeper among many other buzzwords n labels. Again, odd behavior.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

Exactly what happened with Eureka to Bozja. So many did Eureka while hating it despite complaining so there came Bozja next expac. I just will never understand putting money into something you don't like largely or aren't really enjoying. In the end it doesn't help. 1.0 got the message cause folks weren't buying into it. Talking on a forum only goes so far. I said months ago that it's time for action yet folks called me a gatekeeper among many other buzzwords n labels. Again, odd behavior.

I played 1.0 for about... 7 months at the start... And 4 months at the end for the legacy campaign. The middle I unsubbed and walked away. It was terrible and boring. Even with a large group of people to play with.



I haven't gotten to that point with the relaunch yet, and my friend group is much smaller than it was in 1.0.

[Renathras]

Exactly what happened with Eureka to Bozja. So many did Eureka while hating it despite complaining so there came Bozja next expac. I just will never understand putting money into something you don't like largely or aren't really enjoying. In the end it doesn't help. 1.0 got the message cause folks weren't buying into it. Talking on a forum only goes so far. I said months ago that it's time for action yet folks called me a gatekeeper among many other buzzwords n labels. Again, odd behavior.

I wonder, though, how do we tell who does content because they enjoy it vs those that do not?

Like I really liked Eureka and, to a lesser extent, liked Bozja (the dour scenery, while fitting, gets old after a while; Eureka did that to me with snow from Pagos AND the first half of Pyros [the first time I zoned into Pyros, expecting lava flows and heat, and saw snow instead, I was legitimately annoyed]). So I enjoy those kinds of content. We can't say everyone doing them disliked them, so how do we determine the difference?

I've done Savage before, but didn't really like it. Does that mean we need to discount the Savage numbers?

.

I guess my thing with this line of thinking is that it's hard to parse out which is which. But maybe that's the point you're making, too? I guess I could see your argument going either way. "SE doesn't know who is doing it that doesn't like it, the only way to show them is not to do it in the first place at all if you don't enjoy it"?

EDIT:

(And for what it's worth, I agree with pretty much everything you said in the post directly above this one - Certain someone starts a lot of crap and prevents discussions/derails/insults and harasses people all the time, and they and their support group frequently make accusations that they can't support with evidence and have to doctor quotes or make "You implied!" accusations because their actual charges, made in anger and spite, don't have facts to support them. They literally have to run with the functional equivalent argument of "We imagined it, therefore it must be true" in order to justify harassing, stalking, and attacking others, which they have to justify so they can continue doing it instead of apologizing, taking people seriously, and being respectful. This is why if you or I or anyone they insult asks for proof, they never give it, instead using other insults, and when you point out that wasn't proof and if they can't proof the accusations, they should stop making them, they just insult more. They refuse to apologize, since that would mean they had been wrong, and they won't admit when their "justification" is invalid, since that would mean they have to argue fairly and can't just try to silence people they oppose with insults and harassment.)

[IkaraGreydancer]

I wonder, though, how do we tell who does content because they enjoy it vs those that do not?

Like I really liked Eureka and, to a lesser extent, liked Bozja (the dour scenery, while fitting, gets old after a while; Eureka did that to me with snow from Pagos AND the first half of Pyros [the first time I zoned into Pyros, expecting lava flows and heat, and saw snow instead, I was legitimately annoyed]). So I enjoy those kinds of content. We can't say everyone doing them disliked them, so how do we determine the difference?

I've done Savage before, but didn't really like it. Does that mean we need to discount the Savage numbers?

.

I guess my thing with this line of thinking is that it's hard to parse out which is which. But maybe that's the point you're making, too? I guess I could see your argument going either way. "SE doesn't know who is doing it that doesn't like it, the only way to show them is not to do it in the first place at all if you don't enjoy it"?

EDIT:

(And for what it's worth, I agree with pretty much everything you said in the post directly above this one - Certain someone starts a lot of crap and prevents discussions/derails/insults and harasses people all the time, and they and their support group frequently make accusations that they can't support with evidence and have to doctor quotes or make "You implied!" accusations because their actual charges, made in anger and spite, don't have facts to support them. They literally have to run with the functional equivalent argument of "We imagined it, therefore it must be true" in order to justify harassing, stalking, and attacking others, which they have to justify so they can continue doing it instead of apologizing, taking people seriously, and being respectful. This is why if you or I or anyone they insult asks for proof, they never give it, instead using other insults, and when you point out that wasn't proof and if they can't proof the accusations, they should stop making them, they just insult more. They refuse to apologize, since that would mean they had been wrong, and they won't admit when their "justification" is invalid, since that would mean they have to argue fairly and can't just try to silence people they oppose with insults and harassment.)

That's the tricky bit there. But yeah you basically understood what I meant. The surefire way for them to know is a lack of participation numbers (like with the likes of Old Diadem). Say new content drops and it booms but falls off a cliff very fast. That's a sure fire way to know people don't like it (accompanied by feedback online). If it still booms you then have to look on feedback to see why folks are doing it (as you should anyways). They clearly did this and made changes to streamline Boz. For some the changes were enough. For others no. But this time they have data on how many skipped the zone and went the alternative route. Valuable stuff to have going into the next (assumed) iteration of that content.


Also fully agree