I’m failing to see a hypothesis. What’s the point of this thread?
Sporefall doesn’t change the methodology.
Whether a raid has one boss or ten, or whether it’s significant to the lore, isn’t what I’m measuring. The unit of analysis is the major patch, not every individual piece of content Blizzard releases.
Sporefall, much like Ruby Sanctum, is an addition to an existing content cycle rather than a new major development milestone, so it isn’t treated as a separate data point.
Likewise, if a major patch contains multiple raids, they’re still counted as one major patch because the analysis is based on the patch itself, not on the amount of content it contains.
In other words, I’m measuring the release cadence of major patches, not the quantity of content delivered within each one.
It’s descriptive, not inferential. The purpose is to describe the data, not test a hypothesis.
….so this is a waste of time, then. Which is fine, we all need ways to spend our time. Who am I to judge?
Your education seems to have been a waste of money too. Which is fine, everyone spends their money however they want. Who am I to judge? 
Was it necessary to insult my intelligence while adding nothing of value?
His whole thread lacks value so why would he start trying to add value now?
1 Like
More than an insult, it was an ironic description using your own wording.
The value was added long before you arrived with a passive-aggressive comment:
If descriptive statistical analysis isn’t something you find valuable, that’s your opinion. But dismissing it as a “waste of time” isn’t a methodological argument, it’s just a condescending remark.
If you interpreted the irony as an insult, that’s understandable. But don’t pretend your own comment wasn’t written with exactly the same intent.
Interesting. For someone who thinks this thread has no value, you’ve invested a remarkable amount of time discussing it. You still haven’t demonstrated why the methodology is invalid, only that you would have chosen a different one. 
P.S.: From Midnight’s launch to “Curse of Ula’tek,” exactly 163 days passed, and here’s where it gets interesting for those keeping score. The median interval across releases sits at approximately 186 days, which actually does generate value in a statistical sense. But sure, let me break it down for the mathematically challenged: from minimum to maximum timeframe (155–293 days) comfortably places this release within the estimated window.
So while Kakana contemplates the existential burden of time spent, and Kyuss declares an entire thread valueless without bothering with math and methodology, the data has already spoken. Sometimes the numbers do the roasting for you.
1 Like
Oh my you are articulate lol.
1 Like
Because it was clearly an insult. There is no other interpretation of “your education was a waste of time/money” except as a means to call me stupid.
I’m not pretending. It wasn’t. I wasn’t calling you stupid, or uneducated, or anything of the sort. I was saying that the analysis you were performing had no value. I was intending to insult your work, not you.
You still haven’t demonstrated why the methodology is invalid, only that you would have chosen a different one.
Nobody’s saying the methodology is invalid. We’re just questioning the purpose of it. I could go take a ruler and start measuring all the mailboxes on my street, and come back and report my findings, and it would be exactly as beneficial to the forum as the analysis you have done. Valid measurements, valid statistical analysis - but not of any particular use.
You said, “We’re just questioning the purpose of it.” I answered that question. Instead of addressing my response, you chose to call the thread “a waste of time” and now compare it to measuring mailboxes.
That’s not questioning the purpose anymore: it’s condescension.
If you expect a respectful discussion, then apply the same standard to your own comments. Respect isn’t one-sided.
Thanks, I appreciate it. 
The problem is that you aren’t actually communicating anything or offering any real qualitative analysis of the patches, and that is why your line of questions and reasoning has no value. Its just one variable in a vacuum.
The 12.0 patch was one of the most packed patches in terms of content in a long time. You got a whole new set of delves, you got 4 raids, you got ritual sites, you got two zones, you got the inaugural season of prey, you got one of the more successful M+ seasons, you’ve got the pvp season with a new battleground, you’ve got the return of bonus rolls, you’ve got refinements on the catalyst system, you’ve got decor duel, you’ve got some other things which I’m certain I’ve missed.
You’ve got it all on a 24 week schedule, and you’re trying to reduce it down to one variable instead of actually examining the fact that you’ve got it all on a schedule.
And again, you’re describing a different research question, not disproving mine.
My analysis was never intended to measure content volume, gameplay quality, or subscription value. It measures one thing only: the release interval between major patches.
A study doesn’t become invalid because it doesn’t answer every possible question. It becomes invalid if it fails to answer the question it set out to answer.
This will be my last reply to you because I’ve already addressed these points multiple times. If my explanations still aren’t clear to you, there’s nothing more I can add.
Right but even after your repeated objections you have failed to represent what you’re actually seeking a description of. If WoW had simply rotated molten core on its axis and changed the elements, dropped it as 1.14, 1.15, and 1.16 would that be considered a “major content patch”?