The Math is off on the poll... The results are skewed..
Keep it at the standard 5 players. 126 33.16%
8-10 player content. 190 50.00%
15-20 player content. 97 25.53%
So, there is 108.79%???????
126 is not 33% of 413. 33% of 413 is 137.3
190 is not 50% of 413. 50% of 413 is 206.5
97 is not 25% of 413. 25% of 413 is 103.25
The actual percentages should be:
31%/46%/23% respectively.
Negative.
The numbers are simple, 73% of the voters here want raiding in some shape or form, end of story.
0
v1ctor2kMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited April 2013
Should they ever introduce raids and force players to team up with 9 or possibly more people to complete them, I will quit, and so will all my friends. One of the reasons I'm looking forward to this game is because it doesn't have Raid endgame content.
0
v1ctor2kMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Thats _MY_ opinion. WoW raids are rather HAMSTER,.
You take that back! I'll have to punish you. ;_;
In all seriousness I am no way a WoW Fan Girl. But some of the best times I had in WoW was during 40 man raids in Classic as well as the Burning Crusade raiding content. I haven't raided since Wrath of the Lich King minus a few "Looking for Raid" queues. It isn't what it use to be but I happened to think they did a fine job at their raids.
Personally I wouldn't mind some 8-10 man content, provided the drops do not out class other 5 man dungeons, as not all have the time or (sad to say) ability to play in that environment.
Should they ever introduce raids and force players to team up with 9 or possibly more people to complete them, I will quit, and so will all my friends. One of the reasons I'm looking forward to this game is because it doesn't have Raid endgame content.
So whats your excuse for being *forced* to do dungeons with 4 other people then?
0
v1ctor2kMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Age old agrument is moot in the year 2013, this is a year 1999 argument. Nice try though.
I think he has a point: The average player doesn't read game forums. The people who participate in forums are far more invested in a game, may be more ambitioned in general (more "hardcore" when it comes to video gaming, maybe more experienced too), and may have different expectations. They may be more loyal, but they may not necessarily be the biggest spenders (actually, there are some studies on that in regard to social games: the loudest players are usually the worst spenders, as a group).
I don't know what that may mean in regard to the poll results. I'd guess that there would be more "don't care" or "don't want" votes if the survey was done through the log in screen, but that is speculation. 400 votes are a statistically small sample too, if you consider that tens of thousands of people will play this within a few months. Since the game's F2P, you would probably also need to weigh votes from paying players higher, because they keep the game alive, so you want to satisfy them more than people who only use up resources (but free players are important too because they are content for the paying customers).
Anyway, I don't even know how to vote. I don't mind raids, might even enjoy them. I just oppose higher quality gear rewards, but we went over that a couple times!
I think he has a point: The average player doesn't read game forums. The people who participate in forums are far more invested in a game, may be more ambitioned in general (more "hardcore" when it comes to video gaming, maybe more experienced too), and may have different expectations. They may be more loyal, but they may not necessarily be the biggest spenders (actually, there are some studies on that in regard to social games: the loudest players are usually the worst spenders, as a group).
I don't know what that may mean in regard to the poll results. I'd guess that there would be more "don't care" or "don't want" votes if the survey was done through the log in screen, but that is speculation. 400 votes are a statistically small sample too, if you consider that tens of thousands of people will play this within a few months. Since the game's F2P, you would probably also need to weigh votes from paying players higher, because they keep the game alive, so you want to satisfy them more than people who only use up resources (but free players are important too because they are content for the paying customers).
Anyway, I don't even know how to vote. I don't mind raids, might even enjoy them. I just oppose higher quality gear rewards, but we went over that a couple times!
While I agree to a point, there is a much larger social network online today then there was 10 years ago where this kind of argument would hold water. So the sample size you could get today for a relative result would work on the forums, twitter, facebook etc and what ever other social media networking they use.
However, in regards to the votes, people who don't care would simply just not vote.
Ethier way, it makes no difference, all this would need is a 5 - 10% show in intrest over the whole community to be an a valid and logical buisness oriented move to keep people playing.
10% of 4 to 5 million? No buisness would take a hit of that much player base just because they didn't add something to keep them catered too, also do not forget that when you lose those people, more people go with them, friends, family, other guild mates and it doesn't matter wether they raid or not so that 10% could potentially blow out to maybe 20 - 25%.
Should they ever introduce raids and force players to team up with 9 or possibly more people to complete them, I will quit, and so will all my friends. One of the reasons I'm looking forward to this game is because it doesn't have Raid endgame content.
See, the problem is that the system you advocate failed in WoW, in vanilla and especially TBC.
You realize pretty much every game since has hoped to "fail" like WOW in that era right? As far as why raids have needed gear/items only available on raids, you pretty much answered that in your post. Human nature. Most people don't go to extra effort without a tangible extra result. Find another system that has worked anywhere or even a theory from a legitimate game Dev and I'm all ears.
The Math is off on the poll... The results are skewed..
Keep it at the standard 5 players. 126 33.16%
8-10 player content. 190 50.00%
15-20 player content. 97 25.53%
So, there is 108.79%???????
126 is not 33% of 413. 33% of 413 is 137.3
190 is not 50% of 413. 50% of 413 is 206.5
97 is not 25% of 413. 25% of 413 is 103.25
The actual percentages should be:
31%/46%/23% respectively.
Uhhh, no matter how you try to skew it yourself, the one fact remains that only 33.58% of all voters want to keep it at the standard 5 player content. That is a fact. And to those of you who just try to say that the average gamer doesn't read forums, that is missing the point. If you try to use that point as a basis to say that these percentages don't mean anything, that's like trying to say that only a certain TYPE of gamer reads forums, which is not true. There are many different types of gamers who read the forums, meaning, no matter how you try to cut it, the group of people who felt this point was important enough to vote were and will always be a random group of people from the gamer community as a whole, meaning that the percentages of people who want raid content outweigh the people who don't.
Please stop trying to minimize the importance of these percentages just because it disagrees with what YOU want. That is absurd. Since the beginning of this poll, even when there were only a few voters until now at over 400 voters, the percentages have stayed the same. This fact alone tells us that the majority want some form of raids in this game. Period. End of story.
While I agree to a point, there is a much larger social network online today then there was 10 years ago where this kind of argument would hold water. So the sample size you could get today for a relative result would work on the forums, twitter, facebook etc and what ever other social media networking they use.
However, in regards to the votes, people who don't care would simply just not vote.
Ethier way, it makes no difference, all this would need is a 5 - 10% show in intrest over the whole community to be an a valid and logical buisness oriented move to keep people playing.
10% of 4 to 5 million? No buisness would take a hit of that much player base just because they didn't add something to keep them catered too, also do not forget that when you lose those people, more people go with them, friends, family, other guild mates and it doesn't matter wether they raid or not so that 10% could potentially blow out to maybe 20 - 25%.
Then if they don't care either way their vote is meaningless in this survey.
And again, you are missing the point if you try to say that 400 votes don't mean anything when compared to the thousands who play. Do you understand what a random survey means? A random survey is simply 400 voters out of the entire player community. It's the PERCENTAGES that matter.
Did you notice that the percentages STAYED THE SAME since the beginning of this poll? When the total voters were 60 and now when there are 400, the percentages stayed the same. That fact alone should tell you now that even if the total voters were 5000, the percentages would STILL be the same. Meaning, the percentages are accurate.
I guess people just don't understand the purpose of polls. The entire player community is never meant to take part in the poll, that's unrealistic to expect. It's the percentages that matter.
Age old agrument is moot in the year 2013, this is a year 1999 argument.
Nice try though.
Again, if they don't care, they don't matter here. This is OBVIOUSLY to show how many people want raids, from the ones WHO CARE. Again, if they don't care, why on earth would their vote matter?
If the percentages went the other way in favor of no raids, I could speculate as others have done and ask "But I'm sure there are a silent majority out there that still want raids but never voted so what about them??" And you would say that I was being ridiculous because again, the percentages are what matter. You can never speculate and try to say that there were only a certain TYPE of gamer who voted. The chances of that are so low it's ridiculous to even think.
The chances are so much higher that the people who for whatever strange reasons don't want 8-10 man dungeons would come in here and speculate and try to minimize the poll results just because they don't want raids.
The numbers are simple, 73% of the voters here want raiding in some shape or form, end of story.
Exactly. It is immature and completely illogical to come in here and try to minimize the results of the poll because there is simply no logical method of doing so. Results are results and honestly, this is one of the most successful polls I've been a part of. Over 400 voters and rising? And the majority in favor of raids? My god, and people STILL try to come in here and say it doesn't matter? Ha ha ha, that is just like babies crying because they know they won't get their way. Double /facepalm.
The Math is off on the poll... The results are skewed..
Keep it at the standard 5 players. 126 33.16%
8-10 player content. 190 50.00%
15-20 player content. 97 25.53%
So, there is 108.79%???????
126 is not 33% of 413. 33% of 413 is 137.3
190 is not 50% of 413. 50% of 413 is 206.5
97 is not 25% of 413. 25% of 413 is 103.25
The actual percentages should be:
31%/46%/23% respectively.
Its a multiple choice poll. A person can vote at more than two places. That is why percentage is greater than 100%. But sseeing that it is only 8.8% more out of a range of 200% (100-300% would be the range) it seems that most of the people voted at one place only. So the results are pretty accurate depiction of a single choice poll (as only 9 people out of 300 chose two choices instead of 1; or 6 people out of 300 chose 3 choices instead of 1 - both of them inconsequential numbers)
The numbers are simple, 73% of the voters here want raiding in some shape or form, end of story.
If you are interpreting these results that players like raids over normal content, then you can cut one of the vote.
I voted because I like raids I do, but I like normal content more. That is why I voted in this poll as te questions asked did not specify if this would be interpreted as raids being better than other content.
Overall, it is almost humorous the reasons people use to not have raids. So far I've heard:
1. The results are skewed
2. Only a certain type of gamer takes part in polls
3. The silent majority don't care
4. I don't like them nor have the time
5. They are not D&D
To those I would say as I have already...
1. Percentages are what makes this a lie and they stay the same no matter the number of voters, as seen.
2. Pure speculation. The chances are infinitely higher that multiple types of gamers voted in this poll.
3. If they don't care, their potential vote is meaningless in this poll, and it's meaningless to mention them. And it is also speculation to say they are the majority. The results of this poll itself suggests otherwise.
4. Not a reason as this is simply personal taste, especially since we suggested they implement raids yet provide other means of attaining the best gear.
5. Weak argument. Even if this were true, there are already so many other aspects of the game that isn't "D&D" already. The main thing that is D&D is the lore, just how it was meant to be.
Quite simply: If they provide other methods of attaining gear (hard mode 5 mans, whatever) and people have the CHOICE of doing raid content, there is no reason not to implement them. No matter how you cut it. Why people still wouldn't want raids in game if they aren't "forced" to take part in them is beyond me. It's almost like with some people, just the fact that content they don't prefer exists in game at all offends them, even if they don't have to do them. So weird.
Its a multiple choice poll. A person can vote at more than two places. That is why percentage is greater than 100%. But sseeing that it is only 8.8% more out of a range of 200% (100-300% would be the range) it seems that most of the people voted at one place only. So the results are pretty accurate depiction of a single choice poll (as only 9 people out of 300 chose two choices instead of 1; or 6 people out of 300 chose 3 choices instead of 1 - both of them inconsequential numbers)
If you are interpreting these results that players like raids over normal content, then you can cut one of the vote.
I voted because I like raids I do, but I like normal content more. That is why I voted in this poll as te questions asked did not specify if this would be interpreted as raids being better than other content.
You are reading to much into it. Why? because one, no one would have a reason to select A. plus B. or C. unless they were mentally challenged. If you chose the "keep it at the standard 5" then that is most definitely ONE choice, not multiple as it wouldn't make sense.
And just because someone voted for raids but likes normal content more than raids is also meaningless. Why? because it doesn't matter! If they still voted choice B. or C. then it is STILL important to them to have raids, no matter the level of importance, and that is what this poll is about. If it matters to people then it matters. I could say the same thing: Raids aren't as important to me as crafting because I REALLY enjoy crafting. Does that mean anything in a poll that's about Raids Vs. No raids? Nope.
Besides, as Taemekeg pointed out, even if only 10% of people wanted raids, that percentage would still be important enough to the devs to implement them. But due to this poll, I suspect the number is a lot larger than 10%.
As mine is the only post sandwiched between your triple post below and this post above, is it directed at me?
In that case, probably you should read it once again.
What I have pointed that the results have percentage greater than 100% is because it should have been a single choice poll but it was made a multiple choice one.
Now if you have three choices and a vote is counted only when people vote, each people will have at least one vote and at most three votes.
Thus if total number of people are 408, you will have total number of votes somewhere between 408 and 408*3(=1224).
You have 441 votes in total. This means that 41-8(=33 votes) are invalid as some people clicked on multiple choices. Hence amrgin of error in your results is +/- 33.
This margin is not that much high(less than 10%). Hence the results should be largely indicative of the trend.
~~~~~~~~~~
This way I have given you definite margin of error in your poll in regards to number and shown that error is not very high. It is 33 out of 408 which is less than 10%.
~~~~~~~~~~
Secondly I have point out that number of participants does not mean that people want raids over normal content. If that is your intent you should start another poll and results will probably not be the same.
You cannot ask someone if they like apples and then conclude that if the person says yes then the person like apples better than oranges.
~~~~~~~~~~
So I do not see anything in my post which would require a response which you have posted just after and am unable to understand it when I have clearly spelled out all the facts.
The voters keep going up and the percentages still remain the same.
I wonder, when / if the total voters equals 1000 or even 5000 and the percentages remain the same, would people still come into this thread and try to say that the poll is meaningless because the majority haven't voted? lol
As mine is the only post sandwiched between your triple post below and this post above, is it directed at me?
In that case, probably you should read it once again.
What I have pointed that the results have percentage greater than 100% is because it should have been a single choice poll but it was made a multiple choice one.
Now if you have three choices and a vote is counted only when people vote, each people will have at least one vote and at most three votes.
Thus if total number of people are 408, you will have total number of votes somewhere between 408 and 408*3(=1224).
You have 441 votes in total. This means that 41-8(=33 votes) are invalid as some people clicked on multiple choices. Hence amrgin of error in your results is +/- 33.
This margin is not that much high(less than 10%). Hence the results should be largely indicative of the trend.
~~~~~~~~~~
This way I have given you definite margin of error in your poll in regards to number and shown that error is not very high. It is 33 out of 408 which is less than 10%.
~~~~~~~~~~
Secondly I have point out that number of participants does not mean that people want raids over normal content. If that is your intent you should start another poll and results will probably not be the same.
You cannot ask someone if they like apples and then conclude that if the person says yes then the person like apples better than oranges.
~~~~~~~~~~
So I do not see anything in my post which would require a response which you have posted just after and am unable to understand it when I have clearly spelled out all the facts.
Firstly, it wasn't aimed at you directly, only to your point that the multiple choice vs. single choice affects the results. It doesn't as most people only chose one choice. The majority is still the majority. Also, you sound offended at my post? I was simply making a point, if you can't handle someone disagreeing with you, then you might not want to post. This is a debate as well as a discussion.
Secondly, I never said that the majority want raids OVER normal content, but only that it is important to the majority that raids EXISTS in game. Don't make this about one type of content OVER another type. It is clear by the poll the way it is worded is for people to "Choose the number of players you would like to see additional content added for" which does not make this a one type vs. another type, but only that it is important to people that it is ADDED.
Maybe to put it in your own analogy so you better understand... This isn't about apples vs. oranges. This is about whether or not it's important to most people that both apples AND oranges exists.
Is that clear and understandable to you or should I elaborate more? Why people post irrelevant arguments I'll never know.
And I apologize for my triple post, but I separate each post by who I reply to and most of the time I am replying to multiple people, thus the multiple posts.
While I agree to a point, there is a much larger social network online today then there was 10 years ago where this kind of argument would hold water. So the sample size you could get today for a relative result would work on the forums, twitter, facebook etc and what ever other social media networking they use.
However, in regards to the votes, people who don't care would simply just not vote.
Ethier way, it makes no difference, all this would need is a 5 - 10% show in intrest over the whole community to be an a valid and logical buisness oriented move to keep people playing.
10% of 4 to 5 million? No buisness would take a hit of that much player base just because they didn't add something to keep them catered too, also do not forget that when you lose those people, more people go with them, friends, family, other guild mates and it doesn't matter wether they raid or not so that 10% could potentially blow out to maybe 20 - 25%.
Yes, very solid argument and very true. Even if it were only 10% who wanted a certain type of content, it would still be important enough. And with this poll, we have already shown statistically and with percentages that the majority want some form of content for more than 5 people. That is more than significant to the developers who want to keep the majority playing.
0
hargeoMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 12Arc User
edited April 2013
My vote - Keep it at the standard 5 players.
Why? I'm pretty sure content can continue to be expanded with only 5-player instances, but in different ways. I'd like to see more D&D oriented content refinement (puzzle-solving traps, edge-to-edge dungeon exploration, optional adventure group PvP encounters, party-split puzzles and encounters) that I couldn't even dream how to implement, balance and still make fun when the groups get 8-10 or larger in size. Keep the intimacy I say!!
And as the poll already shows, most people actually want the 8-10 player content in the game. The devs would do well to heed this as only including 5 man content will most definitely get old, especially for guilds who want to do things TOGETHER instead of always having to split up into small groups. Seem perfectly reasonable to me. I am open to others sharing any reason why this should not be added, especially if as I have reiterated, they keep the loot attainable by other means and not force people to do the larger scale raids. Anyone?
The problem is the rest of the guilds that are smaller can not raid, therefore get left out. go back to WOW if you want to raid. I vote to keep it out of this game.
I enjoy raids as much as the next guy, and I have come from everquest raids(72+) to wow raids (40, 15, 10 and 25 man raids)
I have to say that larger is not better at all. More people = more confusion, more time spent managing the raid the actually raiding.
In EQ, it took us 2-3 hours to setup the raid, and the use of chat channels, groups and ect (before voip when people on dial up) and it was a nightmare, plus you never knew all 72 people, you knew your small group of friends.
Wow, 40 man raids, normally meant, 10-15 people were either afk or not paying attention, 10 or so people were just doing poor jobs ( as it was hard to tell back then) Plus they take forever, and harder raids require more people not HAMSTER up ect ect.
More people required, means bigger guilds and less people can do them over all. Its easier to bring two groups together then 5 groups.
Personally the best raid experiences i had was wow 10 mans. gave enough spots for one of every class, and everyone had to be on the ball. It was not hard to setup, nor pug (pick up group). Honestly anything beyond 10 seems to to much or silly to me.
0
dcoy1Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
In EQ, it took us 2-3 hours to setup the raid, o bring two groups together then 5 groups.
Then you were doing it wrong. Same with only knowing a small group of friends in a large raiding guild. In my EQ and WOW guilds I grouped with pretty much everyone multiple times outside of raids. And trusted every one of them to be a competent , back when that mattered.
I voted 5 because with regards to fun group content I found 5 person hardmodes in Rift to be the most fun and personally challenging group content in the game.
I'm not a fan of raids (I've done them in EQ2 and Rift). I hate the drama and control issues. I had that I must dedicate myself to a schedule. It's just not fun to me.
However, if Cryptic is going to add them, then please don't gate the best stuff behind raiding. What point is there playing the game if you have to ride one merry-go-round over and over and over and over and over again just to progress. Second rate progression outside of raiding sucks.
The problem is the rest of the guilds that are smaller can not raid, therefore get left out. go back to WOW if you want to raid. I vote to keep it out of this game.
Most guilds are more than 8-10 players dude. This is the weakest reason I've seen yet. And I don't have to back to wow because I don't play wow. People who just say go back to wow need to think up a less used expression.
Comments
Negative.
The numbers are simple, 73% of the voters here want raiding in some shape or form, end of story.
73% of the voters here are nothing compared to the silent majority who doesn't care about the forum.
You take that back! I'll have to punish you. ;_;
In all seriousness I am no way a WoW Fan Girl. But some of the best times I had in WoW was during 40 man raids in Classic as well as the Burning Crusade raiding content. I haven't raided since Wrath of the Lich King minus a few "Looking for Raid" queues. It isn't what it use to be but I happened to think they did a fine job at their raids.
Age old agrument is moot in the year 2013, this is a year 1999 argument.
Nice try though.
So whats your excuse for being *forced* to do dungeons with 4 other people then?
I'm not talking about 5 man dungeons. l2read. Also, I'm ok with raid content as long as it's optional.
I think he has a point: The average player doesn't read game forums. The people who participate in forums are far more invested in a game, may be more ambitioned in general (more "hardcore" when it comes to video gaming, maybe more experienced too), and may have different expectations. They may be more loyal, but they may not necessarily be the biggest spenders (actually, there are some studies on that in regard to social games: the loudest players are usually the worst spenders, as a group).
I don't know what that may mean in regard to the poll results. I'd guess that there would be more "don't care" or "don't want" votes if the survey was done through the log in screen, but that is speculation. 400 votes are a statistically small sample too, if you consider that tens of thousands of people will play this within a few months. Since the game's F2P, you would probably also need to weigh votes from paying players higher, because they keep the game alive, so you want to satisfy them more than people who only use up resources (but free players are important too because they are content for the paying customers).
Anyway, I don't even know how to vote.
While I agree to a point, there is a much larger social network online today then there was 10 years ago where this kind of argument would hold water. So the sample size you could get today for a relative result would work on the forums, twitter, facebook etc and what ever other social media networking they use.
However, in regards to the votes, people who don't care would simply just not vote.
Ethier way, it makes no difference, all this would need is a 5 - 10% show in intrest over the whole community to be an a valid and logical buisness oriented move to keep people playing.
10% of 4 to 5 million? No buisness would take a hit of that much player base just because they didn't add something to keep them catered too, also do not forget that when you lose those people, more people go with them, friends, family, other guild mates and it doesn't matter wether they raid or not so that 10% could potentially blow out to maybe 20 - 25%.
Right, so they are *forcing* you to group with 9 other players but not 4 other players.
0.o...../faceplam.
You realize pretty much every game since has hoped to "fail" like WOW in that era right? As far as why raids have needed gear/items only available on raids, you pretty much answered that in your post. Human nature. Most people don't go to extra effort without a tangible extra result. Find another system that has worked anywhere or even a theory from a legitimate game Dev and I'm all ears.
Uhhh, no matter how you try to skew it yourself, the one fact remains that only 33.58% of all voters want to keep it at the standard 5 player content. That is a fact. And to those of you who just try to say that the average gamer doesn't read forums, that is missing the point. If you try to use that point as a basis to say that these percentages don't mean anything, that's like trying to say that only a certain TYPE of gamer reads forums, which is not true. There are many different types of gamers who read the forums, meaning, no matter how you try to cut it, the group of people who felt this point was important enough to vote were and will always be a random group of people from the gamer community as a whole, meaning that the percentages of people who want raid content outweigh the people who don't.
Please stop trying to minimize the importance of these percentages just because it disagrees with what YOU want. That is absurd. Since the beginning of this poll, even when there were only a few voters until now at over 400 voters, the percentages have stayed the same. This fact alone tells us that the majority want some form of raids in this game. Period. End of story.
Then if they don't care either way their vote is meaningless in this survey.
And again, you are missing the point if you try to say that 400 votes don't mean anything when compared to the thousands who play. Do you understand what a random survey means? A random survey is simply 400 voters out of the entire player community. It's the PERCENTAGES that matter.
Did you notice that the percentages STAYED THE SAME since the beginning of this poll? When the total voters were 60 and now when there are 400, the percentages stayed the same. That fact alone should tell you now that even if the total voters were 5000, the percentages would STILL be the same. Meaning, the percentages are accurate.
I guess people just don't understand the purpose of polls. The entire player community is never meant to take part in the poll, that's unrealistic to expect. It's the percentages that matter.
Again, if they don't care, they don't matter here. This is OBVIOUSLY to show how many people want raids, from the ones WHO CARE. Again, if they don't care, why on earth would their vote matter?
If the percentages went the other way in favor of no raids, I could speculate as others have done and ask "But I'm sure there are a silent majority out there that still want raids but never voted so what about them??" And you would say that I was being ridiculous because again, the percentages are what matter. You can never speculate and try to say that there were only a certain TYPE of gamer who voted. The chances of that are so low it's ridiculous to even think.
The chances are so much higher that the people who for whatever strange reasons don't want 8-10 man dungeons would come in here and speculate and try to minimize the poll results just because they don't want raids.
Exactly. It is immature and completely illogical to come in here and try to minimize the results of the poll because there is simply no logical method of doing so. Results are results and honestly, this is one of the most successful polls I've been a part of. Over 400 voters and rising? And the majority in favor of raids? My god, and people STILL try to come in here and say it doesn't matter? Ha ha ha, that is just like babies crying because they know they won't get their way. Double /facepalm.
Its a multiple choice poll. A person can vote at more than two places. That is why percentage is greater than 100%. But sseeing that it is only 8.8% more out of a range of 200% (100-300% would be the range) it seems that most of the people voted at one place only. So the results are pretty accurate depiction of a single choice poll (as only 9 people out of 300 chose two choices instead of 1; or 6 people out of 300 chose 3 choices instead of 1 - both of them inconsequential numbers)
If you are interpreting these results that players like raids over normal content, then you can cut one of the vote.
I voted because I like raids I do, but I like normal content more. That is why I voted in this poll as te questions asked did not specify if this would be interpreted as raids being better than other content.
1. The results are skewed
2. Only a certain type of gamer takes part in polls
3. The silent majority don't care
4. I don't like them nor have the time
5. They are not D&D
To those I would say as I have already...
1. Percentages are what makes this a lie and they stay the same no matter the number of voters, as seen.
2. Pure speculation. The chances are infinitely higher that multiple types of gamers voted in this poll.
3. If they don't care, their potential vote is meaningless in this poll, and it's meaningless to mention them. And it is also speculation to say they are the majority. The results of this poll itself suggests otherwise.
4. Not a reason as this is simply personal taste, especially since we suggested they implement raids yet provide other means of attaining the best gear.
5. Weak argument. Even if this were true, there are already so many other aspects of the game that isn't "D&D" already. The main thing that is D&D is the lore, just how it was meant to be.
Quite simply: If they provide other methods of attaining gear (hard mode 5 mans, whatever) and people have the CHOICE of doing raid content, there is no reason not to implement them. No matter how you cut it. Why people still wouldn't want raids in game if they aren't "forced" to take part in them is beyond me. It's almost like with some people, just the fact that content they don't prefer exists in game at all offends them, even if they don't have to do them. So weird.
You are reading to much into it. Why? because one, no one would have a reason to select A. plus B. or C. unless they were mentally challenged. If you chose the "keep it at the standard 5" then that is most definitely ONE choice, not multiple as it wouldn't make sense.
And just because someone voted for raids but likes normal content more than raids is also meaningless. Why? because it doesn't matter! If they still voted choice B. or C. then it is STILL important to them to have raids, no matter the level of importance, and that is what this poll is about. If it matters to people then it matters. I could say the same thing: Raids aren't as important to me as crafting because I REALLY enjoy crafting. Does that mean anything in a poll that's about Raids Vs. No raids? Nope.
Besides, as Taemekeg pointed out, even if only 10% of people wanted raids, that percentage would still be important enough to the devs to implement them. But due to this poll, I suspect the number is a lot larger than 10%.
As mine is the only post sandwiched between your triple post below and this post above, is it directed at me?
In that case, probably you should read it once again.
What I have pointed that the results have percentage greater than 100% is because it should have been a single choice poll but it was made a multiple choice one.
Now if you have three choices and a vote is counted only when people vote, each people will have at least one vote and at most three votes.
Thus if total number of people are 408, you will have total number of votes somewhere between 408 and 408*3(=1224).
You have 441 votes in total. This means that 41-8(=33 votes) are invalid as some people clicked on multiple choices. Hence amrgin of error in your results is +/- 33.
This margin is not that much high(less than 10%). Hence the results should be largely indicative of the trend.
~~~~~~~~~~
This way I have given you definite margin of error in your poll in regards to number and shown that error is not very high. It is 33 out of 408 which is less than 10%.
~~~~~~~~~~
Secondly I have point out that number of participants does not mean that people want raids over normal content. If that is your intent you should start another poll and results will probably not be the same.
You cannot ask someone if they like apples and then conclude that if the person says yes then the person like apples better than oranges.
~~~~~~~~~~
So I do not see anything in my post which would require a response which you have posted just after and am unable to understand it when I have clearly spelled out all the facts.
I wonder, when / if the total voters equals 1000 or even 5000 and the percentages remain the same, would people still come into this thread and try to say that the poll is meaningless because the majority haven't voted? lol
Firstly, it wasn't aimed at you directly, only to your point that the multiple choice vs. single choice affects the results. It doesn't as most people only chose one choice. The majority is still the majority. Also, you sound offended at my post? I was simply making a point, if you can't handle someone disagreeing with you, then you might not want to post.
Secondly, I never said that the majority want raids OVER normal content, but only that it is important to the majority that raids EXISTS in game. Don't make this about one type of content OVER another type. It is clear by the poll the way it is worded is for people to "Choose the number of players you would like to see additional content added for" which does not make this a one type vs. another type, but only that it is important to people that it is ADDED.
Maybe to put it in your own analogy so you better understand... This isn't about apples vs. oranges. This is about whether or not it's important to most people that both apples AND oranges exists.
Is that clear and understandable to you or should I elaborate more? Why people post irrelevant arguments I'll never know.
And I apologize for my triple post, but I separate each post by who I reply to and most of the time I am replying to multiple people, thus the multiple posts.
Yes, very solid argument and very true. Even if it were only 10% who wanted a certain type of content, it would still be important enough. And with this poll, we have already shown statistically and with percentages that the majority want some form of content for more than 5 people. That is more than significant to the developers who want to keep the majority playing.
Why? I'm pretty sure content can continue to be expanded with only 5-player instances, but in different ways. I'd like to see more D&D oriented content refinement (puzzle-solving traps, edge-to-edge dungeon exploration, optional adventure group PvP encounters, party-split puzzles and encounters) that I couldn't even dream how to implement, balance and still make fun when the groups get 8-10 or larger in size. Keep the intimacy I say!!
Just my 2-cents.
The problem is the rest of the guilds that are smaller can not raid, therefore get left out. go back to WOW if you want to raid. I vote to keep it out of this game.
I have to say that larger is not better at all. More people = more confusion, more time spent managing the raid the actually raiding.
In EQ, it took us 2-3 hours to setup the raid, and the use of chat channels, groups and ect (before voip when people on dial up) and it was a nightmare, plus you never knew all 72 people, you knew your small group of friends.
Wow, 40 man raids, normally meant, 10-15 people were either afk or not paying attention, 10 or so people were just doing poor jobs ( as it was hard to tell back then) Plus they take forever, and harder raids require more people not HAMSTER up ect ect.
More people required, means bigger guilds and less people can do them over all. Its easier to bring two groups together then 5 groups.
Personally the best raid experiences i had was wow 10 mans. gave enough spots for one of every class, and everyone had to be on the ball. It was not hard to setup, nor pug (pick up group). Honestly anything beyond 10 seems to to much or silly to me.
Then you were doing it wrong. Same with only knowing a small group of friends in a large raiding guild. In my EQ and WOW guilds I grouped with pretty much everyone multiple times outside of raids. And trusted every one of them to be a competent , back when that mattered.
I'm not a fan of raids (I've done them in EQ2 and Rift). I hate the drama and control issues. I had that I must dedicate myself to a schedule. It's just not fun to me.
However, if Cryptic is going to add them, then please don't gate the best stuff behind raiding. What point is there playing the game if you have to ride one merry-go-round over and over and over and over and over again just to progress. Second rate progression outside of raiding sucks.
Most guilds are more than 8-10 players dude. This is the weakest reason I've seen yet. And I don't have to back to wow because I don't play wow. People who just say go back to wow need to think up a less used expression.