I mean what is the argument against Blizzard continuing content? There was no official ending of them doing so. Why can’t it be picked up where it was left off? Hell, they could even release a new expansion, why not? Would it suck? Probably. But who knows, maybe not. Regardless, what’s the reasoning that says Blizzard cannot touch this game anymore? There was no official end to their custodianship over it’s balance and content.
I don’t think the game needs content updates really. If they are allowing mod support and all like project diablo 2 and others to use the game for their own purposes I’d rather they just do that. Let blizzard have it’s official ladder and others play what they want. If Blizzard can manage to do updates then fine go for it.
Like I said. Most (all?) of the issues with the survey skew in favor of no changes, for the very reasons you point out here. But look at the results.
- Was the collection large enough? No – Yes, 5800 survey takers is a large enough sample for this
- Did the collection represent the entire population? No (it was biased in favor of “no changes”)
- Has the measurement lasted for a long enough period of time? No. (It is an opinion based survey. We are not measuring a change over time. I can’t come up with a reason why this would matter here. The survey was open for a day and a half, which is normal for a survey)
- Did the respondent affect the poll in any way? Yes (this skews toward “no changes”)
- Were the variables defined unambiguously? Can’t remember, probably not that badly.
- Was it anonymous? Yes.
- Who was participating? People who largely agreed with the respondent.
- Did the poll come with a small-scale preliminary study where the attendees could formulate their answers? (basically, Yes)
I might want to argue that the multitude of conversations, videos, etc about D2, D2R and the potential for new content taking place all over the internet server that purpose. Thoughts?
To your Edit: I believe that the last six months of nonstop debate is enough to serve the purpose of providing information and context to the survey takers. They are, after all, obviously following reports and opinions about the topic itself, since they even knew the poll existed, created on a channel dedicated to that conversation. Especially since this is a really basic survey of “do you want this or not”.
I’ve changed the “No” to “Not unless this was the small-scale preliminary study.”
See my post above. The sample size is large enough - not sure why you say it isn’t. 5800 is certainly large enough for a player base of … lets be generous … 30 million players.
6000 isn’t a large enough collection when they all came to watch the man play, or when all of them were alerted to the poll via reddit. Not everyone watch streamers, not everyone watches him specifically, not everyone has reddit accounts, and not everyone cares to voice their concern to absolutely everything just to feed the need of a few to make arguments on the blizzard forums. And yes, it takes time for a poll to grasp attention. And yes, polls, regardless of their result, should be treated with utmost critical reflection, not as fact.
I fully expect them to renege on mod support, similar to how they reneged on TCP/IP support. The only way it can happen is in single player, offline games. There is no way they are going to host and pay for mod servers, and they certainly are not going to let modders host their own servers (nor is that even possible with the modern Battle Net).
The poll was on the forum, reddit, some streams, some discord. There isn’t much more they can do. And yes, not everyone has a cell phone today, but there are polls every day anyway, and these people are never among them. Does that distort the results so far?
That is not an issue with sample size, that is an issue with selection bias, and we covered that in the other bullet points – This selection bias skews in favor of “no changes”. Honestly, a sample of like 400 is more than enough to represent this population, if it is truly random. 5,800 (read: five thousand and eight hundred) is far and away more than is needed to draw accurate conclusions, even if there is a skew to the results.
You have a survey in front of you that is the equivalent of polling moderate/left leaning citizens, asking them if they are in favor of cancelling a fetus, and finding that only 7% are in support of it. Shocking, right? You totally expected more support, because of the selection bias. Perhaps instead of rejecting the survey, consider that perhaps that policy isn’t as popular as you thought.
Forgive the example, but I wanted to illustrate that just because the results displease you, even with a sample that should have turned up favorable results if there were favorable results to be turned up, doesn’t mean it is invalid. It is like that meme of the principal from Simpson’s: “No, it is the survey takers who are wrong”. Nah man, you are in the 7% minority. Sorry.
Perhaps some care just as passionately as others and want their opinion heard, too. This is not a good look for you. People you disagree with have every right to come to a forum and propose and debate topics.
It does, and 1 day is actually not abnormal for a survey. I covered this. Llama’s poll was open for longer than a day.
As for being critical of the survey – I have been. But all the problems I can find with it skew in favor of “no changes”. So, “no changes” people being honest should realize that 7% cannot be too far off the mark and they are an extreme minority.
I don’t think that you are being critical enough when you use it in argument, as people will always fall prey to their own interpretation.
“Let us briefly point out four common sources of error: weak representativeness, poor questions, over-interpretation of the results, and shallow analysis. In summary, this means that we tend to over-interpret details in the data - at the same time as we miss parts of the big pictures.” – L. Gunnar G., “Pitfalls,” in Statistics for University and Colleges, 3rd addition, Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget AS, 2015, p. 391.
The survey is likely to have somewhat weak representativeness. Again, in favor of the 7%.
The survey didn’t have poor questions, but they could have been more granular. Instead of “new content after launch” there could have been more specific questions for different types of content. New Acts, Mapping, Classes, etc. However, the vagueness of the question would have likely shifted people on the fence about new content toward a “No” answer (for fear of unwanted changes/content) more than toward a “Yes” answer.
The results are not being over-interpreted, the question was very simple and straightforward “do you want post launch content patches” or some approximation of that.
I do not think my analysis of the survey or its respondents has been shallow. Do you?
7% dude. Even if its 10%. 15%. 20%. There is no way the survey was that far off with such a selection bias coming out of the gate. What basis can you claim to assert that there is some huge population of Purists that the survey did not reach? I grew up with the game in its prime. I know how to use Twitch, YouTube, and Reddit lmao.
I think the problem with new content, would them having to create it in the OG fashion that d2 was, and then do the reskinning like D2R is.
If im not mistaken, d2r is essentially a mask on the original game, to make the original game look like it was made in the current generation.
Creating new content would essentially be like creating a new game. Wouldn’t it?
Dont bother, people who have no clue how polls work will try to come with any kind of excuse why not take this seriously.
Well hey, if the money’s there, they’d do it.
Diablo 2 is all 2d art assets and sprites. It has been extremely easy for modders to make new content and even import other 2d assets and sprites from other games directly into D2.
I remember I played a mod where they had imported Orcs, Goblins etc from Icewind Dale and Bladur’s Gate into Diablo 2 and made new monsters out of them.
yeah, they would need to make a legacy version of the content and then D2R version, but honestly… legacy sprites and art are pretty basic/easy to create.
im not saying “don’t do it”. I love d2 and would love to play some new stuff. But they would have to follow the same rules d2 currently has, or it turns it into a new game and not d2.
No, unless you think that 1.11 was new game.
Brevik has stated otherwise. Sure if the moneys there they could totally do it. I hope with all what heart i have left that this game explodes. But i really don’t think it’s going to, which leads me to believe it won’t be expanded on.
Nobody wants that. We all want to play D2. We just want new things to do in the game, challenges to conquer, reasons to play it.
the only thing 1.11 added was “New items have been added, and hirelings have been enhanced as well. Blizzard has also made major and minor bug fixes and closed several exploits that some unscrupulous users could use to cheat.”
Hardly creating new content such as a new act.