Data from lucky bancho about participation in field content

[Oizen]

Why do people have to justify player participation in any content?!

"I dont like Custom Deliveries, devs should stop creating this!"
"I dont like Ultimates, devs should stop creating this!"
"I dont like PVP, devs should stop creating this!"
"I dont like Glamours, devs should stop creating this!"

Why do Devs have to cater to your likings, anyway?
If you dont like it, don't do it. I'm not a fan of every piece of content either. So why forcing your dislikes onto others?
Stop acting like your opinion only matters.
And instead of whining about how bad or boring content, give proper feedback.
The only thing that you're allowed to complain is the lack of communication. It's hilarious that we have to rely on a damn Famitsu article to get more information.

This isn't aimed at anyone particularly, but to all forum users btw.

I agree, thats why they should make the content they apparently stopped making because someone didnt like it and give me my Bozja continuation.

[VelKallor]

Exactly this. We have no way of charting retention with any kind of statistical precision without having access to activity data logs and in turn whether the content met some unknown threshold of (sustained) activity or longevity that would likely be irrelevant to the devs' decision-making anyways.

We dont have that metric..but SE does.

I will hazard a guess that this may be why we didnt see a zone like that for Endwalker.

This is no more than speculation, but it MAY be that SE decided to give exploratory zones a pass for THIS expansion, but it may appear in Dawntrail? None of us know what the devs decision making process was, but again ( and I am operating on the proviso I dont know for certain ) it may be possible that they held off, with plans to include it in the new expac, since Endwalker would already have been mapped out beforehand.

All we can do for now is wait till the other Fanfests to happen, as we seem to be getting the full picture in stages. The fact the trailer was partial MIGHT be the key as to how and when the full scope of the new expac will be revealed.

[xbahax92]

I agree, thats why they should make the content they apparently stopped making because someone didnt like it and give me my Bozja continuation.

But people make it out to be based on popularity, what content should exist and what shouldn't. It's not really far fetched.

[Renathras]

I’m not saying this in a mean way...

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

This.

Sorry if it wasn't apparent, but in so much as I'm taking a side, Snow, it's yours. People arguing "it's a small percentage" are countered by noting very little in the game has an overwhelming majority that do it. Even just 19% (nearly 1 in 5) is huge compared to a lot of content that has far less engagement. And Shurrikhan also has (B) right; that absent some full poll of the people to see who did it because they liked it vs who did it just because they wanted rewards, we don't know if this was proportionately higher or lower than for other types of content. Lacking that, the best assumption is that it runs on par with others, so the ratio would hold either way.

Renathras has a tendency to...

I just like being thorough. Shurrikhan got it easy enough. I know you don't read my posts, but that one wasn't hard to understand unless you're willfully trying not to understand it, and it was no wall of text, either. Didn't even need to edit it for length, and that's WITH the quotes. Of all the posts for you to trot out your customary attack against me over, that one ain't it. That post is literally two paragraphs. Not sure how you think that's "a good chunk of the bible".

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be...

I think it's interesting that we argue "retention" with Eureka/Bozja, but no other content in the game. Who was running Eden 1-4 Savage this last week? Probably not many. Should we stop making Savage fights because the "retention" is so low of people playing them 4-5 years later? Hydatos and BA released literally 4 years and 2 expansions ago. Anemos was added 5 years ago. HALF the lifetime of the game later and people are still playing in there. That's a hell of a retention! How many people were still running O5-8 Savage, which released around the same time, this last week?

I'm not sure "keep going in after 5 years" is the metric we need to use to justify content existing, since the ONLY content in the game that likely meets that criteria at a statistically significant level is probably Eureka. The only other thing I imagine comes anywhere close might be PotD.

As for the addition, there was apparently an interview with Yoshi P yesterday (?) where he talked about that "alternate battle content" they mentioned in passing, and in that interview, he also mentioned exploration zones. So it seems its at least on their radar going forward.

/agree with the "continuing to participate in it". I run this stuff all the time since I still like it.

EDIT:

Oh, almost forgot:

I already addressed the "motive" question (we don't know what this is compared to other content - how many run Ultimate because they want the weapon/title, not because they enjoy the content itself, for example? Or Triple Triad because they want the mount, not because they love the card game?), so absent some decisive evidence/poll of those people to see why they played it, we shouldn't assume that the rate of "hated it and just ran it for the reward" was any higher than for other types of content.

[Shurrikhan]

Why do people have to justify player participation in any content?!

Because there are (increasingly, it would seem) limited development hours, and we would logically want to maximize players' enjoyment available through what the game has on offer (in reasonable practice, not just theoretically).

Sometimes that means bringing in people of very specific wants (e.g., those whose goals are almost solely Savage and Ultimate, or solely Island Sanctuary) by providing them just enough content enough to buoy player numbers and subs even if said content sees relatively little breadth or replayability...

...But generally, and especially if forced to choose between two kinds of mid-range "alternative content", it makes sense to prefer the content that provides the greatest product of the number of participants, average (subjectively perceived) quality, enjoyable hours (so far as they'd still find said content more worthwhile to them than other forms of content).

[Jojoya]

Why do people have to justify player participation in any content?!

So if 1 player enjoys the original Diadem, the development team should spend 10% of their allocated budget to continue expanding and making content for it just so that single player is happy? That's not going to happen.

That's why player participation needs to be taken into consideration when the developers are deciding what content needs to be made. That is why players want to justify just how popular their favorite content is - to make sure the developers are giving it due consideration when planning is done.

Some content might have relatively small participation but attracts big attention to the game, potentially drawing in new players. Ultimate is a good example of this. But even Ultimate is created in good part from assets already in the game from the original encounter(s). That saves costs when creating that content, making it easier to justify to executives.

No one is trying to force their likes/dislikes on others. As you said, players are free to ignore content that doesn't interest them (unless there's a highly desirable reward gated by the content).

Very few here act like only their personal opinions matter.

Sometimes saying something is boring is proper feedback. We can't always express why we enjoy one piece of content a lot while the other puts us to sleep. When people resort to calling something boring, there's a good chance what they mean is that it's too repetitive without variety (that was Eureka for me, what kept me going was talking with party members about whatever while we were doing it so it took my mind off the repetitiveness).

People can complain about anything they want. You don't get to decide that. They may be complaining into air because no one else feels the same way but they're allowed to do it.

snip.

I agree on some things but not the others.

In the end, it's the developers that need to be convinced. Convincing each other one way or another the value of a piece of content doesn't do anything.

The dev team knows what sort of participation numbers they hope to see in certain types of content. They decide based on those numbers whether they feel it's worth their time to add more of that content.

[AwesomeJr44]

I know you don't read my posts, but that one wasn't hard to understand unless you're willfully trying not to understand it, and it was no wall of text, either.

I was speaking in general, you generally write entire books to explain concepts that can be explained in a few sentences. Like I said, there's a time and place for long walls of text, but that shouldn't be 80%+ of your posts.

I already addressed the "motive" question (we don't know what this is compared to other content - how many run Ultimate because they want the weapon/title, not because they enjoy the content itself, for example? Or Triple Triad because they want the mount, not because they love the card game?), so absent some decisive evidence/poll of those people to see why they played it, we shouldn't assume that the rate of "hated it and just ran it for the reward" was any higher than for other types of content.

I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of people doing those things 'for the fun of it' was a lot lower than most people think it would be.

Mao likes Ren posts. Mao appreciates thorough but well written discussion. Mao mights not always agree with Ren buts Mao gets pretty good picture where Ren comings from.

Being concise can be just as important as being thorough, and the two aren't mutually exclusive. There does come a point where less is more, and once that point is reached, adding more words to a description becomes pure fluff that only serves to obfuscate your point. If a particular point only requires four sentences to clearly get across, adding more sentences past that doesn't really help the argument being made, it just makes it more of a chore to read.

[Eraden]

This.

I just like being thorough. Shurrikhan got it easy enough. I know you don't read my posts, but that one wasn't hard to understand unless you're willfully trying not to understand it, and it was no wall of text, either. Didn't even need to edit it for length, and that's WITH the quotes. Of all the posts for you to trot out your customary attack against me over, that one ain't it. That post is literally two paragraphs. Not sure how you think that's "a good chunk of the bible".

Mao likes Ren posts. Mao appreciates thorough but well written discussion. Mao mights not always agree with Ren buts Mao gets pretty good picture where Ren comings from.

[Koros]

People can complain about anything they want. You don't get to decide that..

lmao k

...Odd, in that it's difficult to make content that's more development-efficient than Exploratory Missions. Variant Dungeons probably rival the cost of an EM with all of <2% the longevity and flexibility.

If your metric is development cost per player playtime, yes.

If your metric is development cost per revenue generated from players, 100% no.

[Shurrikhan]

If your metric is development cost per player playtime, yes.

If your metric is development cost per revenue generated from players, 100% no.

The result would be the same in either case.

No longevity doesn't just mean fewer player hours of play derived from that content, but also more than likely fewer months subbed.