Circle of logic

"Iy4oy4s;c-2098078" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2098052" wrote:

"Iy4oy4s;c-2098045" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2097911" wrote:

"Iy4oy4s;c-2097728" wrote:
When someone holds all the data and won’t share said data, they can say whatever they want about that data. This coupled with the CGDF, the community loses every time.

calling them names, and saying they dont care is a winning strategy for the community?

I wasnt calling anyone names in the negative sense. Based on my data, CG is wrong on the sandbox issue.

yes, i acknowledged that. I didn't mean to imply you were.

I agree they should not close the door on this, even if its not slated for "the now".

that said, i can understand the choice and how they got to it from the data they can collect from the current state of the game.

But how can they collect data on whether or not a sandbox mode would be used if there is no sandbox mode? You cant compare any event so far to what a sandbox mode would be or what the community wants it to be. GW is a joke and is worthless for testing anything. None of the LS/DS nodes have any enemies with relics. Ahnald is having to use the arena with help of his shard mates to get a "sandbox mode" at the cost of crystals to test team comps. So the whole, "we looked at the data" argument falls really flat.

It just comes down to it not being "free" for them to create as they said. They should have just left it there instead of trying to justify their choice because of "data" Remember their data showed them that we LOVE relics because of the high engagement with them.

they do have some data to work from and they have many feelers out there that they use to talk to players on many platforms.

do they have direct data, no, at least not from this game. 100%. that doesn't mean they can't extrapolate and make educated guesses at what will happen.

we have marquees that went from 1 and done, up to 5 free attempts. I would say that those probably showed almost very little "signs of engagement". sure, they are not what "we want", then they add the JG and still "not it". as a product developer, that would be a scary proposition (with "supporting data") that says its a big risk to try and introduce something with "no incentive", because every thing you miss or dont get right, just lowers the amount of players that will use it, since there is no other incentive. so yes, even with marginal data it is an up hill battle to say, let do it, it will work out in the end. and if you put that against development of every other game mode or event that has been complained about but still has "high levels of engagement" due to the incentives they offer. that seem like an easy choice of where you should focus the effort to maximize the player engagement. is that the end all be all, no, but it does make sense. i'm just speculating, but thats where my head goes on all this.

do you disagree that it would take resources to develop anything useful as a sandbox game mode? I can see that, so yes its not free. They said that in the context (which is always what everyone forgets) of saying that it has a cost which takes away from development of other aspects of the game. if it were free, then they wouldn't have to do that.