On the contrary, the author ran different sets of numbers separately to avoid issues regarding bias and the like
Factually, the survey was not conducted using valid survey methodology, and ergo, the results are invalid
No to mention, but throwing out an entire data set because you question the methodology is as unscientific as you can get.
You don’t just give up and declare it “invalid”. You run the numbers again adjusted for the fault in methodology.
What was invalid about it? Can you be specific?
The place it was held in, an enviroment that was already complaining about Mercy.
The questioning is poor at best, surveys should have minimal open questions.
The results are bad as well, a lot of people answer question 1 with “I don’t like Mercy” and proceed to answer question 2 with “I do like Mercy”
I believe I even explained it in that thread in detail
Ooh and to end it, even the creator admitted that the survey was confusing
Bad data is thrown out all the time.
Bad data results in bad conclusions, which is a big problem for anyone using said data. While what we are looking at here is not a case of peoples lives or professions depending on good conclusions, it is often the case
It is also improper to alter raw data, though altering invalid data really isnt per se improper, since it is invalid both before and after said altering
Taken straight from his thread. What are you saying about invulnerability again?
Only in so far as the “fun” argument. Not about everything, but nice try pulling the same old tired strawman strategy. I didn’t claim everything he says is PR/Damage Control. I clearly outlined the issues in my original post. Issues that are clearly mentioned in the Dev Update.
Nice try to strawman but your tactics are at this point incredibly obvious and follow the same pattern all the time.
I’ll be honest, this was the most frustrating thing about the survey.
So many people marked that they wanted a brand new Rework, but when asked if they had any ideas, a ton of these “unique” ideas pretty much just summed up to “Bring back Mass Res, but change the wrapping and add a shiny new bow to go with it.” Which, ya know, was supposed to fall under the “Bring back Mass Res (With or Without changes)” option. Like, I completely understand if you view her getting a new E as more of a rework than a revert, but still, as bad as I can be, I don’t really think that was one of my vague moments.
(Sorry, just saw an opportunity to vent, looking through 2000 responses builds up a little on ya)
Why we need Mercy back!
That’s only for resed teammates. like it always was. He even says it.
“Same as current Resurrect and Resurrect pre-rework”
Where have I stated anything differently?
Although I have spoken against the validity of your survey (and ergo its results) many times, I recognize that you put a lot of work into it, and that is admirable.
that said, and I do not intend to imply anything here, really just asking:
what do you personally want, Mercy-wise?
was the survey conducted with the intent of supporting what you want?
No offense and with respect - but the survey would be inherently biased. The forums are predominantly filled with supports and from those majority are Mercy players. Add to that, majority of people come here with the reason to complain about something. Not to even mention how infinitely small the forum population is compared to the rest of the OW population even if the whole forums united altogether under one vision of Mercy. The forums are not homogeneous, even Mercy players are not homogeneous. The sub-group that actually wants Mass Rez to be back is much smaller than people think. Generally the people visiting these forums are a small percentage.
What environment should it have been held in, then?
Any environment with Overwatch players enthusiastic enough to respond is one where you’re likely to get as many complainers and not.
Depending on the wording, that’s not contradictory. I like Mercy as a concept, but don’t like playing her.
It depends on what makes the data “bad”. Methodology is typically not one of the things which qualifies. Case in point, most scientific surveys or journals will point out flaws or incomplete methodology in their reports so that it can be improved upon in future studies. They RARELY just throw out the the data wholesale.
Yet there’s absolutely no evidence that the majority of players wanted Mercy reworked, and it still happened. Blizz did not conduct any polls, though I think they should consider doing it next time. Put out polls in exchange for XP/Loot boxes .
Yes, that was my entire point.
You pick and choose what is “PR” to you and what isn’t depending on whether or not it agrees with you.
Ah, ok, then that is the one use I see for this survey and its data - to be used as a basis to improve upon
They’re good enough for the purposes of game balance. Perhaps Blizzard should have a mandatory 1-click poll upon log in that rewards a free loot box.
Which DOES NOT mean the original survey is dismissed or invalid. They are not the same thing.
I don’t pick and choose based on whether it agrees with me or not. That has been my position from the start. Even if you discount the fun part altogether, you still have everything else. My position still stands.
I don’t see any evidence demonstrating that support players are disproportionately represented.
As best as i recall, you and I have covered this ground already, and as such, I will simply restate that I respectfully disagree