Why don't people care anymore?

Dasein wrote:

Just a random question, have you ever taken a statistics class above highschool? I ask because you should know and be able to apply the power of deduction that logic would tell you that forum posts are a very nice "sample" of any player base. While the actual percentages are not always 100% accurate they are really good samples for comparisons and the best samples we have. When there are 2,000 posts (I didn't say that I don't believe) I believe I gave a number of "pages" but to the point if say 1,000 of those 2,000 posts pop up as "General" after posting they've canceled their accounts then you can you guage that half the population has quit. In this case I believe it was in the 60% range that canceled last I counted. Before you say this is speculation then all of medical science (ie science) is speculation then being they use this same approach in determining if medicine is safe.
Back on topic, I say again no matter how you look at this it negativly impacts a large portion of the player base whether they even know it or not. For instance, when the game lost half of its playerbase, they merged servers and still didn't have the population they had just before SC. What this tells you is that this caused a chain reaction or the domino effect if you will. As a significant proportion of the population left, this impacted the "fun-factor" for many players, and many players also felt alienated as their friends no longer played the game - this resulted in even more people leaving the game (almost like trickled down economics) which lead to even more leaving until you have a near 90% impact rating from SC where as if it was just left alone to begin with or even taken back out of the game it would have never gotten this bad.
Lateana@The Bazaar wrote:

This is still true, because if you cancel your account you have "trial access" and nothing more. EQ1 trial is not like the trial here, you are jailed into a one-zone server (its own server). That is their trial, you do not get to speak with the rest of the population or participate in baz trades and stuff. All gear is no-trade and there is absolutely no support for that server however your trial offically never expires. There is just nothing you can really do in "The Mines of Gloomingdeep" once you've played every class to level 10.
In case you are questioning if the folks that posted in that thread had trial access at the time they posted, this is not true... As a member with "General" access, you only have access to post in the trial and newbie forums -- thats it (you can still send PM's irc).
This, maybe SOE's mistake, is a great statistical sample of players =]

Lalen@Everfrost wrote:

Uh, since when are self-selected polls statistically valid? You cannot determine a margin of error for a self-slected poll, so they are worthless beyond simple entertainment. I guess you were absent during that day of post high-school stats

Andok wrote:

You call a dev making a post and players responding with either "Great" or "Cancelled" with general rank self selected? You're views of statistics are very distorted. Perhaps you would rather run another poll today so the people that can't post because they did cancel can't respond to make the numbers more fit for your own agenda?
First of all, lets examine:
From http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/polls.html

• First off: an on-line poll cannot be valid because it is a self selected poll. Even if the objective is to find the opinion of those who select themselves, participation rates will vary according to the answers.
• Secondly: only a very select set of people will even know about any particular on-line poll. It will never be a valid demographic cross section.
• Third: the questions, as with most targeted polls, such as those put forth by political "researchers" are likely to be tailored to get particular answers.
• Most Important, if the poll is on any meaningful subject, it will be stuffed and distorted. The internet enables very fast communications, and the word to stuff the poll will be quickly broadcast within particular interest groups.

First - This was not any particular answer type poll, its a results summary, completely diffrent in statistical annalysis.
Second - demographics do not apply being the "topic" was only targeted to a certain demographic, MMO players. Now if you want to say that other people that do not play MMO's have a diffrent opinion, yeah sure, you're right -- but again they don't play EQ and their "actions" thereof do not effect the outcome of the SC role.
Third - Again there was no question, simply actions.
Fourth and most important - distortions always take place, however when someone says "canceled account" and their rank turns into a trial account, there isn't but one thing that has happened there -- simple and clear as a bell.
Hope that clears up how your definition of a "poll" and a "action sample" are two diffrent things.

Lalen@Everfrost wrote:

Yes, that's exactly what that kind of poll is. You are not polling a representative sample - you are just taking poll results of the people that choose to answer. Yeah, I know that you think I'm wrong, and that just clarifies that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You are not the first person to think some internet poll or forum thread is statistically meaningful of the entire population (of EQ players in this case), and I am sure you wont be the last. Ignorance is bliss.

Dareena@Lucan DLere wrote:

The way I see it, we as players care or we wouldn't still come to forums and post whether it be positive or negative feedback.
I think it's that we feel they ($oE) don't care anymore.
I agree with all your points and to probably be slightly dramatic it's like seeing part of your life slipping away... well hell we've nearly all put a lot of years into it...
'Stop dumbing our game down and let us think you care' would be my message to SoE if I thought anyone was listening.

Andok wrote:

It is most definately a representative sample - and no matter how you fry this, on every "poll" people "choose to answer". Medical studies? They CHOOSE to answer. Official Elections? People CHOOSE to answer. In this case people CHOSE to answer without any pre-loaded opinions provided by SOE which makes it one of the most ACCURATE open-samples out there.
Now if you want to continue your arguement here, please do a little research on Quantitave Research and Theory and then get back with me with a new attitude to how samples are collected and how this sample is one of the most accurate you'll find on the internet. To keep arguing in the method you are without researching how these models (and the scientific model) work is displaying a shining example of ignorance in the matter.
Andok wrote:

Lets delve into this comment a bit shall we? Just some common applications of good 'ole logic and common sense, what would be your reaction to a 2 year old MMO with a website/community with say only 20 posts total (on a perfectly working forum)? Of course and according to your theory, this couldn't possibly be an accurate representation of the _PlayerBase_ because its not an accuate internet poll! But when it comes down to your wallet (assuming you're not using mommy's and daddy's credit card), I betcha a 3-dollar bill your credit card details never get plugged into that site. And that my friend is case and point.
In summary, use of those topics and threads are extremely useful tools for any community or even a prospective player to use in order to find out how healthy a game truely is. They are also wonderful bench-marks for other researchers out there to get a rough idea on how changes effect the population and player base. As an example, there was an MMO that was studying EQ's transition to RMT very closely and because of the forum feedback they choose not to run a RMT or F2P system. This game now has one of the largest growth rates out there (I'm sure the name of this game is pretty obvious as it is one of the most best-looking MMOs out there).

What's funny is Lalen's argument is godawful but his conclusion is spot on.
This game, gentlemen, is in its death throes.

Lalen@Everfrost wrote:

Seriously - LOL!
You apparently know how to do a Google search, but you obviously don't understand what you are reading on Wikipedia.

Andok wrote:

I'm sorry, where did you get your masters??
I know exactly what the term refers to and is popular research techinque on social networking sites -- but from your response(s), I very well doubt you can explain in your own words what quantitive research and statistics is. If you can, without quoting or closely quoting another site, describe it for us here and how it may be applied to "unveil" front-ends such as SOE's statistical data, I'll gladly digress, say I'm wrong, your right, and exit the topic. You got an open ticket - use it wisely =). That is of course if you truely know what quantitive research really is and were not using that childish and ignorant degradation play "Oh yeah, anyone could have found that on google!" that I constantly hear my kids yapping and squabbling with each other about.

Lalen, honey, EQ1 is a TEN-plus year old game...
That it has any population left in 2011 is quite an accomplishment in, and of itself.
Here's a pro tip - Enjoy the game for what it is - a game. You don't like the idea of a cash shop? Don't use it. However, try to avoid berrating those that might choose to use such a service. Also, please keep in mind that EQ is not the only MMO franchise that employs such a thing - they pretty much all do.
Game, and let game.

Lalen@Everfrost wrote:

On ther other hand, take a look at LotRO. They were pretty much left for dead before their switch to a RMT/F2P model. Now, they seem to be doing quite well.
Different strokes for different folks.

Eisrael wrote:

Nice to see someone actually grasps the obvious.

d1anaw wrote:

Should people that don't want a cash shop have a voice?
Should people that don't want dumbed downed soloable at level instances have a voice?
Should people that don't want death to be trivial and/or a faster method of travel (as if that wasn't trivial enough already) have a voice?
You say game and let game, but you don't mean it. You don't want those that want the old game back to be able to have it. How many games do I have to try to dedicate myself to before one will actually stay true to what I started with?

Lalen@Everfrost wrote:

Wow! You sure got got me.
So, when you used the data in that forum poll to determined that 40% of EQ1 players quit due to SC, what is your margin of error?

Lalen@Everfrost wrote:

Your entire argument hinges on there being a causal relationship between the introduction of SC and any decline in population. More than that, you are making a claim that EQ1's population decline by 40% as a direct result of the introduction of SC.
So, we have two claims:
1. SC directly caused EQ1's population to decline and
2. This decline was 40% or more.
Your evidence is rather thin to begin with, and does not address any other possible explanations for the observed phenomena. What allows you to dismiss other explanations for any of the observed data - that there were other motives for server merges, or that ppopulation decline may have been brought about by other cuases, for example. As presented, your argument is a clear example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - that is, that merely because certain events occur in sequence, there must be a direct causal link between them. Such an argument is vulnerable to ommissions which may not support the cause of the author (that is, other events occurred but are left out, even though these events may offer alternate explanations of the end result) and a blindness to possible root causes.
Let's try this alternate explanation: EQ1's population had been steadily declining as players move to newer games. There's only so much you can get out of a 10 year old game, and SOE knows this. Thus, SOE decides to add some SC items as a means of reinvigorating the game. SOE expects some people to leave over this, as they will with any change, and not surprisingly, some do. However, the actual numders lost here are minimal compared to the quiet drain of players over the months for many other reasons, mostly beyond SOE's control. Nonetheless, those opposed to SC take some deep moral offense to it, so they make lots of noise, which creates a distorted view of things.
Thus, while your overall argument that EQ1 has lost population may be correct, the actual causes of the population decline are incorrect.
Further, you seem to be trying to generalize that because of your claim that SC cost EQ1 40% of it's population that SOE will see similar results in EQ2 and other games. Is this accurate? if not, I wonder why you'd even bring up EQ1 in this thread.

Onorem wrote:

You are confusing having a voice with being listened to.

Onorem wrote:

Might I suggest Tic-Tac-Toe?
I'm pretty sure that game will not change.

Dasein wrote:

No, I'm not. Thanks anyway.

Onorem wrote:

Who is squelching you? Who is shouting you down? Last I looked, no one.
You are confusing the two.

Eisrael wrote:

Thanks for the constructive input. </sarcasm>
If you actually feel like discussing a serious question, I'll be over here...