Guild Wars 2

Slowpokeking.8720:

Ayrilana.1396:

Doesn’t matter with what I was saying but ok. Instead of raids, let’s say TT. How many pugs consistently beat it? There’s an open world example.

TD is lower because people got put off from doing it because of the map design, lack of rewards, and mechanics that could bug (Nuhoch) randomly resulting in a fail. It’s going to take time to get players back into this map. AB also has a very very very lenient timer.

TT is the best example of how Open World Meta could go wrong. TD Meta is even worse than TT because its difficulty was based on DPS, which means knowing the mech won’t help that much.

The bug is fixed days ago, most of the people have tried it before and know the mech(it wasn’t hard) and still fail. Yeah AB is easier, why shouldn’t TD be brought at the same difficulty as well?

So you prefer metas that require no challenge? If you don’t like it then don’t do it. The way that TD, and TT, are now is perfect. Well I still think the gerent’s actions when it’s bar is broke should be swapped. You missed the part that while you need DPS for gerent, it’s not as bad as you may think. There’s a fair amount of flexibility. Of course, having everyone in clerics gear isn’t going to help much.

I won’t address the last part again since I already have at least twice.

Slowpokeking.8720:

Ayrilana.1396:

There’s a difference between knowing and doing. There are many guides out on how to do the three raid bosses. People know the mechanics for them. How many people have beaten all three raid bosses? There’s more to it than just knowing the mechanics.

Raid is different, it’s targeted to elite players with elite rewards. Open World Meta is made for pugs. Many people did do the boss and got nothing wrong with the mechanics, they just couldn’t prevent fail.

I’ve started to play HoT since its release and I can tell meta like AB’s success rate was already above 70-80% as long as it’s organized after 3-4 days of its release, before that people knew NOTHING of it. As for TD, it’s still lower than 30%.

It wasn’t made for organized guilds, you fight with pugs and pugs fail most of the times. Shall we make the personal story into group content, as long as it’s easy for 5 ppl it would be fine?

Doesn’t matter with what I was saying but ok. Instead of raids, let’s say TT. How many pugs consistently beat it? There’s an open world example.

TD is lower because people got put off from doing it because of the map design, lack of rewards, and mechanics that could bug (Nuhoch) randomly resulting in a fail. It’s going to take time to get players back into this map. AB also has a very very very lenient timer.

Slowpokeking.8720:

Ayrilana.1396:

It doesn’t matter how people did before the fix. The lack of decent rewards and some events bugging causing failure due to RNG is what stopped many people from even trying. Now that these have been fixed, it’s going to take time to get people back into the map to give it another chance.

People already know most of the mech even before the fix, so it’s not some brand new meta, and yet it still have a less than 50%, actually 20% success rate with pugs since the fix. It’s certainly not as easy as the other 3 maps’ meta.

What’s wrong to nerf it to the point of other HoT Meta?

There’s a difference between knowing and doing. There are many guides out on how to do the three raid bosses. People know the mechanics for them. How many people have beaten all three raid bosses? There’s more to it than just knowing the mechanics.

It doesn’t need nerfing which is why. An organized guild can kill all four gerents during phase two. I’ve seen the gerent killed during phase one a few times. There’s plenty of flexibility for pugs to beat it as it’s not as big of a DPS check as some make it out to be.

Slowpokeking.8720:

Ayrilana.1396:

It’s been less than a week since they fixed Nuhoch and improved the rewards. It’ll take time to get people to try the meta again and teach them how to do it. It’s really no different than how AB was as it took time before people in general got comfortable enough to beat it consistently.

It has come out for more than a month. People were keep trying it before the fix, the mech aren’t new, yet none of you here have a >50% success rate. And how is the bug our fault?

AB? AB was already a >80% win as long as it’s organized at this point.

It doesn’t matter how people did before the fix. The lack of decent rewards and some events bugging causing failure due to RNG is what stopped many people from even trying. Now that these have been fixed, it’s going to take time to get people back into the map to give it another chance.

JediYoda.1275:

Ayrilana.1396:

The communication Anet has given in the past may or may not have changed. Regardless as to whether it has or hasn’t, this has no relevance as to whether the reviews are legit or not. There’s zero correlation.

Recent earnings report gave no indication of what you seem to be saying. What bigger picture? Where’s your source to the bigger picture? I can use exactly what you said against you and tell you that you need to look at the bigger picture to see the same thing as me.

I never claimed Anets communication past or current had relevance to the reviews you are twisting and trying to put words in my mouth. Like I said I’m just making an obvious observation of how things have changed within Anet on communication over the years which is fact.

When someone says see the Bigger Picture they mean: a broad, overall view or perspective of an issue or problem.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/big-picture

Either you truly don’t know this or you are clearly being a troll/white knight as clearly you can’t see the big picture here regarding the discussion and hostile complaints on the forums which all relevant to the reviews. Since you just want to argue with me, I’m done so have a nice day/evening

So only your opinion is correct and anyone that dissents from it is a troll or white knight? You are more than welcome to disagree with me but insults are a little uncalled for.

You’ve shown little to no evidence to back up what you’re claiming. You referenced the earnings report which did not indicate anything that you were claiming. If I remember correctly, it didn’t include HoT and the reduction in sales (I think it was referring to the gem store) was from a change they did that had nothing to do with employees. Sales also tend to decline over time from release as people tend to buy games/expansions once.

You referenced the review website which has very little to do with what you’re claiming. There will always be negative reviews on those sites, unless you’re someone like Google, and none of them are evidence to how a game is performing.

You had brought up that Anet’s poor decision making and lack of communication (again, opinion) led you to believe without doubt that the reviews on that website were legit. I’m arguing that there’s no connection between them as they’re unrelated.

If I were to find a survey conducted by some gaming website that showed a 90% favor ability among it’s users for the game, would you agree or disagree with it? What if the same site showed a 90% disfavor with the game? Would you hold it any different than if it was in favor?

Slowpokeking.8720:

Anyone? Anyone here had tried at least 8-10 times with pugs and got >50% sucess rate?? Anyone?

“I ran with a pug and we made it nicely!”

But that’s not all what they had experienced!

“But most of the times(>50%, way > for most of them,) we got owned.”

It’s been less than a week since they fixed Nuhoch and improved the rewards. It’ll take time to get people to try the meta again and teach them how to do it. It’s really no different than how AB was as it took time before people in general got comfortable enough to beat it consistently.

Zalashiji.4387:

I hear a good drop is the PvP Smokescale chest for the VB track. Otherwise apparently another good option is farming Auric Basin. Just be mindful of DR, stack magic find and go after vets/champs of smokescales

It was how I got mine. Funny though because after I was finished opening the PvP boxes, I was planning to go farm it.

Kerin.9125:

Ayrilana.1396:

I’ll also add that there’s 21 hero points on the HoT maps that can be done solo as they’re a commune or something that doesn’t require other players. On top of that, there are also a few hero points where you need to kill something but can most often been done solo because the boss mechanics are very simple and easily avoided.

But how many of those only become available once a zone meta completes? An HP capable of being soloed but only when a huge group effort is required to unlock it is worse by far than an HP that is designed for a couple of so players.

That drops it down to 18. There’s plenty of hero points in core Tyria to make up the difference for what can’t be done solo (commune only) in HoT.

There are several hero points with champs that can be done solo. Balthazar in AB can be done solo because of how they programmed the AI and its aggro to work. The spider in TD can be done solo because it has two attacks with one very telegraphed. The vinetooth in AB can be killed solo if you can dodge it’s only attack when in melee.

JediYoda.1275:

Ayrilana.1396:

Anet’s alleged lack of communixation on the forums has no relevance as to whether the reviews are legit (whether negative or positive).

I’m just making an obvious observation of how things have changed within Anet over the years.

Ayrilana.1396:

What earnings report are you even reading? The one that was recently released gave no indication about what you seem to be implying.

Yes the recent ones and if you look at the larger picture instead being just looking at the reviews or earnings report you would see the same thing as I am.

The communication Anet has given in the past may or may not have changed. Regardless as to whether it has or hasn’t, this has no relevance as to whether the reviews are legit or not. There’s zero correlation.

Recent earnings report gave no indication of what you seem to be saying. What bigger picture? Where’s your source to the bigger picture? I can use exactly what you said against you and tell you that you need to look at the bigger picture to see the same thing as me.

JediYoda.1275:

Well giving the GW2 History of bad decision making on several things plus lack of communication with community on important issues unlike with GW1 Anet was on
top of every issue. I have no doubt that these review are from legit current/former employees. The new Quarterly earnings report backups what reviewers are saying and the game is headed in the wrong direction which we already know from how H.OT was done.

Anet’s alleged lack of communixation on the forums has no relevance as to whether the reviews are legit (whether negative or positive).

What earnings report are you even reading? The one that was recently released gave no indication about what you seem to be implying.

Kravick.4906:

No. I pretty much have to disagree with all of this.

Which you are more welcome to do so.

Kravick.4906:

I’ve been around a long time. I’ve seen the stupid twisted things people do. The Glassdoor thing doesn’t reek of any of it. I also only said a “few” of the positive reviews struck me as same person. I didn’t say all. Its a very common thing among HR departments to keep track of this kind of stuff within a company and fill out fake positive reviews and ask their employees to fill out a positive review to counterbalance the negative ones. These aren’t really genuine as they feel “too good” when you read them. Its very easy to spot a PRed positive review just by the tone and way its written. Its also easy to spot a rant designed to discredit a product or company done out of malice. None of the negative reviews felt malicious, and even praised aspects of the company.

So people do not post negative reviews about anything with malicious intent? You’re treating the negative reviews as if they’re more credible than the positive ones simply because they are negative. It’s as if you believe people could not lie when making a negative review.

If it’s such a common thing for HR departments to do that, as if everyone does it, provide a source. It just seems like you’re making it up to back your argument.

So if a review is “too good” then it is likely fake? Well then, if a review is “too bad” then it is likely fake as well. I mean, let’s be fair now and apply your reasoning to both sides.

It’s as I’ve said before, you can’t readily determine what is legit and what isn’t when it comes to reviews. Both sides can be false. Disgruntled employees and players can make false reviews. Ever see the rants some players make about how they were wrongly banned for this or that while it is later revealed that they were in fact justly banned? People have a tendency to paint themselves in a light to gain support and people quite often fall for it.

Don’t trust everything you read on the internet and don’t assume that there is correlation between two things because it fits with your belief. People are also more likely to review a negative experience rather than anything else with the exception of those who routinely do reviews for everything.

Kravick.4906:

Dunno if you’ve seen this, but read it. Don’t just read the headline, I mean read it. The “even the negative ones” doesn’t really apply here since rival corporations only smear products, not workplace employment. Besides, the complaints here for ANet are just to accurate and reflecting of whats going on in the game itself for it to be just random negativity.

http://business.time.com/2012/08/28/why-you-shouldnt-trust-positive-online-reviews-or-negative-ones-for-that-matter/

So corporation wouldn’t smear companies to increase their chances of getting valuable employees over their rivals? Sorry but you’re wrong. The complaints are too accurate to be wrong? Exactly how are you gauging that they’re accurate or is it simply because you agree with them? You know, like how everything that fits your narrative appears more correct over those that do not regardless as to whether there is any credible source behind them.

Labyrinthine Cliffs isn’t Crystal Desert. I’d say it’s what is left of Ice Floe and possibly the eastern part of Ice Caves of Sorrow.

Slowpokeking.8720:

Ayrilana.1396:

JVJD.4912:

26 TD meta attempts
25 fails
1 victory

ITS BALANCEDDDDDD AND ITS FINE . . … >.>

Before or after the recent update?

After the update, the problem is still there, I couldn’t even find a map. Some taxi showed up 30 mins ago that’s all.

I doubt they did that many runs after the update which was what my question was asking. You also have to think about the day of the week, the time of the day, and when you are choosing to look for a map doing the meta.

Kravick.4906:

I don’t buy this. You can easily spot a fake review from the same person by how they type. Penmanship, or typing patterns, is a lot like finger prints. There are just certain words, syntax lay out, and punctuation that people subconsciously fall back on without even realizing it, and you can easily notice these patterns if you know what you’re looking for. A few of those positive reviews scream “The same person wrote this.”, but not one of those negative reviews remotely stands out as one person writing them.

It depends on the person and whether they actively try to differentiate one of the fake reviews with another. I do find it odd that you claim that some of the positive reviews on that site are likely fake yet see no issue with any of the negative ones. Perhaps you’re letting your personal bias/opinion cloud your judgement and seeing only what supports your own predetermined belief. For all we know, every review on that website could be written by a unique person who may have worked for that company. This isn’t something you can readily determine by just reading what someone writes.

Kravick.4906:

Furthermore, all the negative reviews are focusing on the exact same things, and they’re not bashing the company like your typical smear campaign would. In fact, every single negative review also has very positive things to say about the company in general. Its just those key points that keep repeatedly coming up. What gives these negative reviews even more credibility is how they talk about Mike. You can tell the man is rather clueless about his own game just by the blog posts and public posts hes made. If that isn’t enough, its hit home even further by just looking at the state the game is currently in.

There’s only so many things that can be written about. Going back to what you said earlier, if every negative review is about the same thing, wouldn’t the chance of some of them being from the same person be greater? You’re also make presumptions about Mike based on your own personal opinion on how the game should be run. This really has no bearing and you’re just trying to make a connection because it just “fits” regardless as to whether there is any correlation or not.

Kravick.4906:

GW2 is an utter mess. Its a game that doesn’t know what it wants to be. It had all this great content that was slashed, smashed, and gutted, leaving it all a hollow, barely working mess. We have developers actively disincentivizing already existing content to push an agenda from some clueless upper management type. Exactly what the negative reviews say is happening.

An utter mess? Really? I can still do the vast majority of the content just like I could when the game was released. The only major overhaul that they did since then was the trait system but everything else is fundamentally still the same more or less.

The entire mission instance takes roughly 40 minutes solo. If the ally part is taking you 30-40 minutes then up your DPS by… a lot. Like I said earlier, you’re not going to have perma invisibility when gliding so you’re going to have to learn to dodge the rocks. Even if invisibility did let you avoid rocks, you’re still going to run into the same issues that you are now when you’re not under that effect.

JVJD.4912:

26 TD meta attempts
25 fails
1 victory

ITS BALANCEDDDDDD AND ITS FINE . . … >.>

Before or after the recent update?

Ithilwen.1529:

Snark is meaningless. Beside that, one of the methods of avoiding the throws would be stealth gliding if in fact it worked.

Maybe he has the Nuhoch Mastery too.

Seriously though, you cannot perma stealth during that entire phase so you’d still have to learn to avoid the rocks.

You don’t need TS for anything in this game. It just makes things easier. A very organized guild was able to kill three of the gerents during phase two while the last one got to 10%. There’s still plenty of room for random players to come together and beat that meta with or without using TS.

You could, you know, avoid the rocks he throws at you.

Only the HoT precursors and legendary weapons are account bound.

The extra mobs when all three collectors are down don’t spawn. Or at least in theory because I can’t get people to try it. It could possibly make the blighting tower event incredibly easy.

And also difficult since most (random guess) people don’t even know the pods exist.

Lelling.6795:

Ayrilana.1396:

Was there a notification within the 60 minutes that you were on the map?

We’re familiar with that, yeah. We used to have this bug when we would taxi on maps which were closing, and then the message would disappear when we got enough people in – but the map would still close. But this is not it, unfortunately =(

We don’t go on maps that are closing anymore, we make sure that nobody had the message that it’s closing when we’re choosing it. And a lot of people naturally get redirected onto it, which means it shouldn’t be closing.

Then that’s something different from what I have seen.

There is some randomness, perhaps a bug, where the map kick timer doesn’t reset after after a map is filled to capacity. You can get onto a map, get the prompt, ferry people over, and still get booted when the map closes despite the timer disappearing. Or maybe that’s by design (hope not).

paintpixie.7398:

Ayrilana.1396:

paintpixie.7398:

Ayrilana.1396:

paintpixie.7398:

Ayrilana.1396:

Customers are more likely to report about a negative experience than anything contrary to that.

These aren’t customer reviews…

It doesn’t matter. The concepts are the same.

People are more likely to report on negative experience than anything contrary.

Better?

It does matter. People have already said in this thread that employees are less likely to post negative reviews because of the career repercussions.

Also, you are discrediting the fact that companies are very likely to post false positive reviews, as well, and as somebody said earlier, false positives actually happen more than false negatives. For instance, I lived in an apartment complex a few years back that would occasionally get bad reviews. The bad reviews were all true (although I personally didn’t find the things they were complaining about to be a deal breaker for me, personally, and I lived there for six or seven years). But every now and then the staff would go on the review site and give over-the-top reviews because they…wait for it…wanted more customers.

Review sites are hardly the end-all, be-all, but they are a relevant tool and I use them for everything, from buying something, to living somewhere, to jobs, etc. And I know that even one negative review is far more valuable than a million positive ones. Because it is likely to be more honest, and more telling of the product/service. You don’t need to know what a (insert anything here) is like on a good day. You need to know what it’s like on a bad day. That’s the best way to make an informed decision.

Reviews on that website are anonymous. I can go on right now and write one about Anet without having ever worked there.

Companies can post fake positive reviews just as the same employee can post multiple fake ones. I stated somewhere in this thread that neither can be necessarily relied on. Or at least not as your sole source without anything more concrete, credible to back it up. Some negative reviews can be a distortion of the facts are similly a misunderstanding on the reviewers part.

It doesn’t quite work like that. From what I have personally experienced, it takes a few days to verify your review. I doubt that multiple posts by one employee or false posts by non-employees are as big of a problem as you think it is. The reason for the (outward) anonymity is to protect the employee from backlash from the previous or current job.

I agree with you that a review site can’t be relied upon as the sole source of information about something, but that doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. They are actually very useful.

You don’t have to do them all once. You can spread them out over time across various IP addresses. I never said false reports were a big issue. That subject was brought up by someone who mentioned fake positive reviews. My post was just using their argument and showing how it can be the same for the opposite side as well.

paintpixie.7398:

Ayrilana.1396:

paintpixie.7398:

Ayrilana.1396:

Customers are more likely to report about a negative experience than anything contrary to that.

These aren’t customer reviews…

It doesn’t matter. The concepts are the same.

People are more likely to report on negative experience than anything contrary.

Better?

It does matter. People have already said in this thread that employees are less likely to post negative reviews because of the career repercussions.

Also, you are discrediting the fact that companies are very likely to post false positive reviews, as well, and as somebody said earlier, false positives actually happen more than false negatives. For instance, I lived in an apartment complex a few years back that would occasionally get bad reviews. The bad reviews were all true (although I personally didn’t find the things they were complaining about to be a deal breaker for me, personally, and I lived there for six or seven years). But every now and then the staff would go on the review site and give over-the-top reviews because they…wait for it…wanted more customers.

Review sites are hardly the end-all, be-all, but they are a relevant tool and I use them for everything, from buying something, to living somewhere, to jobs, etc. And I know that even one negative review is far more valuable than a million positive ones. Because it is likely to be more honest, and more telling of the product/service. You don’t need to know what a (insert anything here) is like on a good day. You need to know what it’s like on a bad day. That’s the best way to make an informed decision.

Reviews on that website are anonymous. I can go on right now and write one about Anet without having ever worked there.

Companies can post fake positive reviews just as the same employee can post multiple fake ones. I stated somewhere in this thread that neither can be necessarily relied on. Or at least not as your sole source without anything more concrete, credible to back it up. Some negative reviews can be a distortion of the facts are similly a misunderstanding on the reviewers part.

Auralae.7482:

Ayrilana.1396:

If they are representing Anet, they would likely have to follow the same standards elsewhere as well.

As Angus said….larger degree of deniability.

That may or may not be one possible reason. There are other reasons than just that one.

Was there a notification within the 60 minutes that you were on the map?

If they are representing Anet, they would likely have to follow the same standards elsewhere as well.

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

Shen Slayer.3058:

Ayrilana.1396:

Shen Slayer.3058:

That wasn’t just bad review, that was insiders talking, people that worked there.

Doesn’t matter. You think the reviews from all of the other companies don’t have people commenting who used to work there?

Of course it matters and we are not talking about other companies. We are finally seeing where the disconnect internally and the end product of the expansion. Think about it…the disconnect between Anet employees is carried over with disconnect from players and expansion. Disgruntled employees and customers!

From a few people and yes it does matter. People are treating those reviews as if it’s an indication that the company is performing poorly when practically every company is the same.

Performing poorly? Do you play the game? want more evidence than Reddit or this forum?

Small subset of players otherwise you can use your logic and infer that playerbase wants mounts based on what we see on the forums and Reddit. What exactly do you consider performing poorly?

How about balanced patch? WvW? Dungeons? hundreds of topics about problems with the game? how about COMMUNICATION?

What game doesn’t? How much communication is considered successful? Does Anet provide less, about the same, or more communication that other MMO companies? Is communication for everything they do, before they do it, really required?

I guess you have no played any other game and want to be a blind Anet fanboy, be my guess defend everything Anet is doing after the HoT fiasco.

So we’re down to insults now?

The expansion has been pretty successful. There are some bugs that still need to be fixed which they’re working on and the megaserver things still needs to be addressed. Nothing so bad to say that the expansion flopped but then I’m not over exaggerating the severity of the bugs.

Just bugs huh?
I just going to quote this one, I’m done replying to your nonsense and denial, keep paying thinking is a flawless game made by the happiest company in the world

Read the post following that. There was a point to that comment.

I’m done with your nonsense and denial as well.

paintpixie.7398:

Ayrilana.1396:

Customers are more likely to report about a negative experience than anything contrary to that.

These aren’t customer reviews…

It doesn’t matter. The concepts are the same.

People are more likely to report on negative experience than anything contrary.

Better?

Labjax.2465:

Ayrilana.1396:

Labjax.2465:

Ayrilana.1396:

It has nothing to do whether it can or cannot be done. It’s that it likely has not been done at this point and there’s little point is trying to search all over for one that uses that specific example when the concepts are the same regardless.

Customers are more likely to report on a negative experience than otherwise else.

This is fast reaching critical mass of ridiculousness. Context affects the application of the concepts………………….

You are just repeatedly ignoring my point, failing to refute it, and insisting that I’m wrong. This is reminiscent of that Monty Python sketch…

No. That’s what you’re doing.

Context matters little with the concept I was attempting at trying to explain to you. Customers are more likely to report about a negative experience than anything contrary to that.

This thread isn’t about customers…!

See above.

It’s as if everything must be handfed and tailored exactly to the discussion because using a little bit of critical thinking is out of the question.

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

Labjax.2465:

Ayrilana.1396:

Fine, since you seem to still have issues. Read it as needs not met vs otherwise. I don’t see the need to argue over something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

What sources? I have posted sources in a recent post if you would scroll up. The vonvept of people most likely to review or comment about a negative experience is not solely about employee reviews. You need to understand that there are concepts that can be applied to a vast range of subjects.

It does have to do with what you’re talking about though. It seems the only reason you see it as irrelevant is because you believe so firmly that negatives are remembered far more than anything else.

Ok, I see you posted some in response to somebody else. Let’s see, source one:

The researchers found that there was “relatively more positive manipulation than negative manipulation, even though the order of magnitude of the two is similar.” The big takeaway is that the system is being manipulated with fake positive and fake negative reviews—and that’s all negative for consumers who are using them to try and make smart choices.

Ok, so this is just about fake reviews and even says that positive manipulation happens more than negative manipulation.

Second source: Talks entirely about customers. Yes, it references a bias to remember negative more than positive, but it doesn’t talk about employees and the resistance they would face compared to a customer. For instance (as I have stated) an employee might be reluctant to say something negative, for fear of it coming back to them. A customer generally has no such reason to fear repercussions.

Third source:

Take the work of Teresa M. Amabile, a professor of business administration and director of research at the Harvard Business School. She asked 238 professionals working on 26 different creative projects from different companies and industries to fill out confidential daily diaries over a number of months. The participants were asked to answer questions based on a numeric scale and briefly describe one thing that stood out that day.

“We found that of all the events that could make for a great day at work, the most important was making progress on meaningful work — even a small step forward,” said Professor Amabile, a co-author of “The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement and Creativity at Work” (Harvard Business Review Press, 2011). “A setback, on the other hand, meant the employee felt blocked in some way from making such progress. Setbacks stood out on the worst days at work.”

After analyzing some 12,000 diary entries, Professor Amabile said she found that the negative effect of a setback at work on happiness was more than twice as strong as the positive effect of an event that signaled progress. And the power of a setback to increase frustration is over three times as strong as the power of progress to decrease frustration.

As Professor Baumeister noted in his study, “Many good events can overcome the psychological effects of a bad one.” In fact, the authors quote a ratio of five goods for every one bad.

This looks to be the closest to what we’re talking about, in relevance. Unfortunately, it still doesn’t mean much. It says nothing about how likely employees are to report bad events (beyond a confidential journal), if they perceive there may be consequences.

It indicates that conceptually, there is some imbalance, but that if enough positive happens to a particular person, it can outweigh the bad. So I’ll give you that you’re right about the general concept, but there is no reason to believe that you are right about how it applies to the current situation.

You need to understand that you can’t just apply concepts to a wide range of subjects wily nilly, without taking into account the quirks of that particular environment.

Focus on the concepts and not the examples please. You’re not going to find a source that specifically addresses reviews on company review websites.

Why bother anymore with this? she/he is obviously a fan boy and thinks everything is perfect and doesn’t need changes.
HoT forever, peace

And we’re back to insults. If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything. Thanks. See ad hominem.

In what way am I insulting you? by calling you fanboy? and since when is that an insult? or should I call you fangirl?

It’s usually used an an insult or to discredit the character of someone which in most cases has nothing to do with their argument.

It is more like this : A person who is completely loyal to a game or company reguardless of if they suck or not.

So are you? look at all the replies you wrote

I genuinely disagree with you. I’m not blindly siding with Anet. Once again, someone’s character does not have anything to do with their argument.

I’m starting to believe you are just trolling, have bipolar syndrome or something, or do I need to quote on every replies you did? and yet you are trying to imply that the game is perfect, flawless and all the happy people plays the game and only the ones that are upset of how the game is going are posting here.

Did I ever say the game was perfect or treating it as fact? Also, I’m not the one saying that the only ones upset of how the game are only posting on here. That’s actually you and the other poster. All I’ve been saying is that what you see on forums isn’t necessarily representative of the player population and that people are more prone to report about negative experience than to the contrary.

If it seems like I’m all over the place then it’s because you two keep pulling my arguments in those directions. All I was stating was what I said above.

Labjax.2465:

Ayrilana.1396:

It has nothing to do whether it can or cannot be done. It’s that it likely has not been done at this point and there’s little point is trying to search all over for one that uses that specific example when the concepts are the same regardless.

Customers are more likely to report on a negative experience than otherwise else.

This is fast reaching critical mass of ridiculousness. Context affects the application of the concepts………………….

You are just repeatedly ignoring my point, failing to refute it, and insisting that I’m wrong. This is reminiscent of that Monty Python sketch…

No. That’s what you’re doing.

Context matters little with the concept I was attempting at trying to explain to you. Customers are more likely to report about a negative experience than anything contrary to that.

Labjax.2465:

Ayrilana.1396:

Focus on the concepts and not the examples please. You’re not going to find a source that specifically addresses reviews on company review websites.

/facepalm

Yes, because addressing live reviews on companies in a scientific way would be very difficult to do, for reasons that I’ve already stated (mainly, the perception about confidentiality and consequences). Which is why your stuff about negativity being more memorable than positivity turns out to be meaningless, as it could very easily be balanced out (or even trumped) by reluctance to post a negative review that could be linked back to employee name.

How many times do I have to restate the same point.

It has nothing to do whether it can or cannot be done. It’s that it likely has not been done at this point and there’s little point is trying to search all over for one that uses that specific example when the concepts are the same regardless.

Customers are more likely to report on a negative experience than otherwise else.

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

Labjax.2465:

Ayrilana.1396:

Fine, since you seem to still have issues. Read it as needs not met vs otherwise. I don’t see the need to argue over something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

What sources? I have posted sources in a recent post if you would scroll up. The vonvept of people most likely to review or comment about a negative experience is not solely about employee reviews. You need to understand that there are concepts that can be applied to a vast range of subjects.

It does have to do with what you’re talking about though. It seems the only reason you see it as irrelevant is because you believe so firmly that negatives are remembered far more than anything else.

Ok, I see you posted some in response to somebody else. Let’s see, source one:

The researchers found that there was “relatively more positive manipulation than negative manipulation, even though the order of magnitude of the two is similar.” The big takeaway is that the system is being manipulated with fake positive and fake negative reviews—and that’s all negative for consumers who are using them to try and make smart choices.

Ok, so this is just about fake reviews and even says that positive manipulation happens more than negative manipulation.

Second source: Talks entirely about customers. Yes, it references a bias to remember negative more than positive, but it doesn’t talk about employees and the resistance they would face compared to a customer. For instance (as I have stated) an employee might be reluctant to say something negative, for fear of it coming back to them. A customer generally has no such reason to fear repercussions.

Third source:

Take the work of Teresa M. Amabile, a professor of business administration and director of research at the Harvard Business School. She asked 238 professionals working on 26 different creative projects from different companies and industries to fill out confidential daily diaries over a number of months. The participants were asked to answer questions based on a numeric scale and briefly describe one thing that stood out that day.

“We found that of all the events that could make for a great day at work, the most important was making progress on meaningful work — even a small step forward,” said Professor Amabile, a co-author of “The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement and Creativity at Work” (Harvard Business Review Press, 2011). “A setback, on the other hand, meant the employee felt blocked in some way from making such progress. Setbacks stood out on the worst days at work.”

After analyzing some 12,000 diary entries, Professor Amabile said she found that the negative effect of a setback at work on happiness was more than twice as strong as the positive effect of an event that signaled progress. And the power of a setback to increase frustration is over three times as strong as the power of progress to decrease frustration.

As Professor Baumeister noted in his study, “Many good events can overcome the psychological effects of a bad one.” In fact, the authors quote a ratio of five goods for every one bad.

This looks to be the closest to what we’re talking about, in relevance. Unfortunately, it still doesn’t mean much. It says nothing about how likely employees are to report bad events (beyond a confidential journal), if they perceive there may be consequences.

It indicates that conceptually, there is some imbalance, but that if enough positive happens to a particular person, it can outweigh the bad. So I’ll give you that you’re right about the general concept, but there is no reason to believe that you are right about how it applies to the current situation.

You need to understand that you can’t just apply concepts to a wide range of subjects wily nilly, without taking into account the quirks of that particular environment.

Focus on the concepts and not the examples please. You’re not going to find a source that specifically addresses reviews on company review websites.

Why bother anymore with this? she/he is obviously a fan boy and thinks everything is perfect and doesn’t need changes.
HoT forever, peace

And we’re back to insults. If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything. Thanks. See ad hominem.

In what way am I insulting you? by calling you fanboy? and since when is that an insult? or should I call you fangirl?

It’s usually used an an insult or to discredit the character of someone which in most cases has nothing to do with their argument.

It is more like this : A person who is completely loyal to a game or company reguardless of if they suck or not.

So are you? look at all the replies you wrote

I genuinely disagree with you. I’m not blindly siding with Anet. Once again, someone’s character does not have anything to do with their argument.

Ven Zehn.6573:

Getting on the hill is no issue, so teleport/gun wouldn’t do much.
When ever I did it, I’d get lucky n have others there, so some of us would take agro. One time I got it while another who was communing got hit, so after I finished, I tried to take agro from the other guy, not sure if it worked, those spiders really wanted him lol.

Main issue with DS is the time limit to do everything at the end, most of the people are trying to get as many pods as they can before theyre kicked.

But, what I do, for every HP I can’t solo, is ask in map, sometimes I get people, sometimes not, if not, I move on, or I try to solo anyway, but if you still cant get it, just move on, n watch map chat for someone else who wants it, or people doing HP trains, which I see quite often.

If you do it before the meta completes, there is nothing to aggro.

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

Labjax.2465:

Ayrilana.1396:

Fine, since you seem to still have issues. Read it as needs not met vs otherwise. I don’t see the need to argue over something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

What sources? I have posted sources in a recent post if you would scroll up. The vonvept of people most likely to review or comment about a negative experience is not solely about employee reviews. You need to understand that there are concepts that can be applied to a vast range of subjects.

It does have to do with what you’re talking about though. It seems the only reason you see it as irrelevant is because you believe so firmly that negatives are remembered far more than anything else.

Ok, I see you posted some in response to somebody else. Let’s see, source one:

The researchers found that there was “relatively more positive manipulation than negative manipulation, even though the order of magnitude of the two is similar.” The big takeaway is that the system is being manipulated with fake positive and fake negative reviews—and that’s all negative for consumers who are using them to try and make smart choices.

Ok, so this is just about fake reviews and even says that positive manipulation happens more than negative manipulation.

Second source: Talks entirely about customers. Yes, it references a bias to remember negative more than positive, but it doesn’t talk about employees and the resistance they would face compared to a customer. For instance (as I have stated) an employee might be reluctant to say something negative, for fear of it coming back to them. A customer generally has no such reason to fear repercussions.

Third source:

Take the work of Teresa M. Amabile, a professor of business administration and director of research at the Harvard Business School. She asked 238 professionals working on 26 different creative projects from different companies and industries to fill out confidential daily diaries over a number of months. The participants were asked to answer questions based on a numeric scale and briefly describe one thing that stood out that day.

“We found that of all the events that could make for a great day at work, the most important was making progress on meaningful work — even a small step forward,” said Professor Amabile, a co-author of “The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement and Creativity at Work” (Harvard Business Review Press, 2011). “A setback, on the other hand, meant the employee felt blocked in some way from making such progress. Setbacks stood out on the worst days at work.”

After analyzing some 12,000 diary entries, Professor Amabile said she found that the negative effect of a setback at work on happiness was more than twice as strong as the positive effect of an event that signaled progress. And the power of a setback to increase frustration is over three times as strong as the power of progress to decrease frustration.

As Professor Baumeister noted in his study, “Many good events can overcome the psychological effects of a bad one.” In fact, the authors quote a ratio of five goods for every one bad.

This looks to be the closest to what we’re talking about, in relevance. Unfortunately, it still doesn’t mean much. It says nothing about how likely employees are to report bad events (beyond a confidential journal), if they perceive there may be consequences.

It indicates that conceptually, there is some imbalance, but that if enough positive happens to a particular person, it can outweigh the bad. So I’ll give you that you’re right about the general concept, but there is no reason to believe that you are right about how it applies to the current situation.

You need to understand that you can’t just apply concepts to a wide range of subjects wily nilly, without taking into account the quirks of that particular environment.

Focus on the concepts and not the examples please. You’re not going to find a source that specifically addresses reviews on company review websites.

Why bother anymore with this? she/he is obviously a fan boy and thinks everything is perfect and doesn’t need changes.
HoT forever, peace

And we’re back to insults. If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything. Thanks. See ad hominem.

In what way am I insulting you? by calling you fanboy? and since when is that an insult? or should I call you fangirl?

It’s usually used an an insult or to discredit the character of someone which in most cases has nothing to do with their argument.

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

Labjax.2465:

Ayrilana.1396:

Fine, since you seem to still have issues. Read it as needs not met vs otherwise. I don’t see the need to argue over something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

What sources? I have posted sources in a recent post if you would scroll up. The vonvept of people most likely to review or comment about a negative experience is not solely about employee reviews. You need to understand that there are concepts that can be applied to a vast range of subjects.

It does have to do with what you’re talking about though. It seems the only reason you see it as irrelevant is because you believe so firmly that negatives are remembered far more than anything else.

Ok, I see you posted some in response to somebody else. Let’s see, source one:

The researchers found that there was “relatively more positive manipulation than negative manipulation, even though the order of magnitude of the two is similar.” The big takeaway is that the system is being manipulated with fake positive and fake negative reviews—and that’s all negative for consumers who are using them to try and make smart choices.

Ok, so this is just about fake reviews and even says that positive manipulation happens more than negative manipulation.

Second source: Talks entirely about customers. Yes, it references a bias to remember negative more than positive, but it doesn’t talk about employees and the resistance they would face compared to a customer. For instance (as I have stated) an employee might be reluctant to say something negative, for fear of it coming back to them. A customer generally has no such reason to fear repercussions.

Third source:

Take the work of Teresa M. Amabile, a professor of business administration and director of research at the Harvard Business School. She asked 238 professionals working on 26 different creative projects from different companies and industries to fill out confidential daily diaries over a number of months. The participants were asked to answer questions based on a numeric scale and briefly describe one thing that stood out that day.

“We found that of all the events that could make for a great day at work, the most important was making progress on meaningful work — even a small step forward,” said Professor Amabile, a co-author of “The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement and Creativity at Work” (Harvard Business Review Press, 2011). “A setback, on the other hand, meant the employee felt blocked in some way from making such progress. Setbacks stood out on the worst days at work.”

After analyzing some 12,000 diary entries, Professor Amabile said she found that the negative effect of a setback at work on happiness was more than twice as strong as the positive effect of an event that signaled progress. And the power of a setback to increase frustration is over three times as strong as the power of progress to decrease frustration.

As Professor Baumeister noted in his study, “Many good events can overcome the psychological effects of a bad one.” In fact, the authors quote a ratio of five goods for every one bad.

This looks to be the closest to what we’re talking about, in relevance. Unfortunately, it still doesn’t mean much. It says nothing about how likely employees are to report bad events (beyond a confidential journal), if they perceive there may be consequences.

It indicates that conceptually, there is some imbalance, but that if enough positive happens to a particular person, it can outweigh the bad. So I’ll give you that you’re right about the general concept, but there is no reason to believe that you are right about how it applies to the current situation.

You need to understand that you can’t just apply concepts to a wide range of subjects wily nilly, without taking into account the quirks of that particular environment.

Focus on the concepts and not the examples please. You’re not going to find a source that specifically addresses reviews on company review websites.

Why bother anymore with this? she/he is obviously a fan boy and thinks everything is perfect and doesn’t need changes.
HoT forever, peace

And we’re back to insults. If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything. Thanks. See ad hominem.

Labjax.2465:

Ayrilana.1396:

Fine, since you seem to still have issues. Read it as needs not met vs otherwise. I don’t see the need to argue over something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

What sources? I have posted sources in a recent post if you would scroll up. The vonvept of people most likely to review or comment about a negative experience is not solely about employee reviews. You need to understand that there are concepts that can be applied to a vast range of subjects.

It does have to do with what you’re talking about though. It seems the only reason you see it as irrelevant is because you believe so firmly that negatives are remembered far more than anything else.

Ok, I see you posted some in response to somebody else. Let’s see, source one:

The researchers found that there was “relatively more positive manipulation than negative manipulation, even though the order of magnitude of the two is similar.” The big takeaway is that the system is being manipulated with fake positive and fake negative reviews—and that’s all negative for consumers who are using them to try and make smart choices.

Ok, so this is just about fake reviews and even says that positive manipulation happens more than negative manipulation.

Second source: Talks entirely about customers. Yes, it references a bias to remember negative more than positive, but it doesn’t talk about employees and the resistance they would face compared to a customer. For instance (as I have stated) an employee might be reluctant to say something negative, for fear of it coming back to them. A customer generally has no such reason to fear repercussions.

Third source:

Take the work of Teresa M. Amabile, a professor of business administration and director of research at the Harvard Business School. She asked 238 professionals working on 26 different creative projects from different companies and industries to fill out confidential daily diaries over a number of months. The participants were asked to answer questions based on a numeric scale and briefly describe one thing that stood out that day.

“We found that of all the events that could make for a great day at work, the most important was making progress on meaningful work — even a small step forward,” said Professor Amabile, a co-author of “The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement and Creativity at Work” (Harvard Business Review Press, 2011). “A setback, on the other hand, meant the employee felt blocked in some way from making such progress. Setbacks stood out on the worst days at work.”

After analyzing some 12,000 diary entries, Professor Amabile said she found that the negative effect of a setback at work on happiness was more than twice as strong as the positive effect of an event that signaled progress. And the power of a setback to increase frustration is over three times as strong as the power of progress to decrease frustration.

As Professor Baumeister noted in his study, “Many good events can overcome the psychological effects of a bad one.” In fact, the authors quote a ratio of five goods for every one bad.

This looks to be the closest to what we’re talking about, in relevance. Unfortunately, it still doesn’t mean much. It says nothing about how likely employees are to report bad events (beyond a confidential journal), if they perceive there may be consequences.

It indicates that conceptually, there is some imbalance, but that if enough positive happens to a particular person, it can outweigh the bad. So I’ll give you that you’re right about the general concept, but there is no reason to believe that you are right about how it applies to the current situation.

You need to understand that you can’t just apply concepts to a wide range of subjects wily nilly, without taking into account the quirks of that particular environment.

Focus on the concepts and not the examples please. You’re not going to find a source that specifically addresses reviews on company review websites.

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

DoctorDing.5890:

SqualZell.7813:

…A-net is THE company that has THE LEAST amount of communication in my library of games.

That’s because you haven’t played Neverwinter. Anet are positively chatty in comparison and when they do communicate they are mostly honest. Cryptic, the Neverwinter devs, would say that they were listening to the feedback then make changes that made it worse. Complaints about low XP in new areas resulted in a reduction of XP in old areas. At times it felt like some sort of social experiment.

But I’m not bitter. XD

WoW has the same issues of communication that people here are complaining that GW2 has too.

Here’s one such post:

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/18300411650

And another:

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/17605342210

2 threads? please now search how many does Anet have.

I listed two as example. I am not going to go through and post each and every one.

I’ll also add that there’s 21 hero points on the HoT maps that can be done solo as they’re a commune or something that doesn’t require other players. On top of that, there are also a few hero points where you need to kill something but can most often been done solo because the boss mechanics are very simple and easily avoided.

You can get that HP with a leap skill or item that performs that action such as the teleport gun.

Nike.2631:

This is just about the definition of needing to ‘get outside your comfort zone’ then, because this kind of lack of awareness about ‘the mood in the room’ in putting out helpful information not on your own company site borders on self-sabotage.

Colin is setting a terrible example and the troops are following suit.

Can I use the bolded reasoning for those that don’t want to do certain things in the expansion such as adventures?

DoctorDing.5890:

SqualZell.7813:

…A-net is THE company that has THE LEAST amount of communication in my library of games.

That’s because you haven’t played Neverwinter. Anet are positively chatty in comparison and when they do communicate they are mostly honest. Cryptic, the Neverwinter devs, would say that they were listening to the feedback then make changes that made it worse. Complaints about low XP in new areas resulted in a reduction of XP in old areas. At times it felt like some sort of social experiment.

But I’m not bitter. XD

WoW has the same issues of communication that people here are complaining that GW2 has too.

Here’s one such post:

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/18300411650

And another:

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/17605342210

Soa Cirri.6012:

Ayrilana.1396:

Soa Cirri.6012:

Found the manifesto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oav-tDznRq0

(Guess how well this is maintained)

From like five years ago.

……………………………………..

(No one appreciates classic film on these forums sad face)

Maybe if you included popcorn…

eldrin.6471:

A some people have said this was not a promise just a statement of intent to take our money and do whatever the hell they like.

That’s what those typically are.

Soa Cirri.6012:

Found the manifesto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oav-tDznRq0

(Guess how well this is maintained)

From like five years ago.

Labjax.2465:

Ayrilana.1396:

No it didn’t matter. I was talking specifically about negative reviews. If was not talking about those where people had their needs met or exceeded. Please don’t add things to my argument that were not even there. Thanks.

Saying it’s well documents does not mean that I don’t have an argument. I can provide several links and such but people will just be “oh well that’s not credible” and so on. You’re taught in marketing classes about this as well.

Yeah, ok…

It’s not that they are afraid to. People that are disappointed with anything for whatever reason are more likely to go on and review something to vent than someone whose expectations were met or exceeded.

You referenced expectations being met or exceeded as a direct comparison to that of disappointment. I have added nothing.

Twice now you’ve indicated you have sources to back up your claim, but rather than simply post them in the first place (which would save you a lot of trouble in defending yourself) you dodge doing so by insisting that people would say “oh well that’s not credible.” Which means your “credible” sources are either incredibly shaky and non-academic or you don’t actually have any to reference. I see no other reason why you’d go to so much trouble to make a show of having your point backed up, but resist the golden opportunity to end the argument with iron-clad source material.

Furthermore, I’m not sure what marketing classes have to do with employee reviews. That sounds like something that would back up an argument for consumer reviews, not employees.

Fine, since you seem to still have issues. Read it as needs not met vs otherwise. I don’t see the need to argue over something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

What sources? I have posted sources in a recent post if you would scroll up. The vonvept of people most likely to review or comment about a negative experience is not solely about employee reviews. You need to understand that there are concepts that can be applied to a vast range of subjects.

Thanks for posting that Vayne as you beat me to it.

Also note on the earnings report that they specifically state that GW2 sales are down because of in game item promotion scale down. And as mentioned, sales tend to decrease over time as customers tend to only buy the game, or expansion, once.

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

Labjax.2465:

PopeUrban.2578:

“Peer review” sites are inherantly biased toward negative reviews because those with nothing bad to say don’t want to burn bridges, risk their career, or alienate future employers.

Wait, what? Don’t you have this backwards? Why would someone who has only good things to say be afraid to say them?

It’s not that they are afraid to. People that are disappointed with anything for whatever reason are more likely to go on and review something to vent than someone whose expectations were met or exceeded.

You know you are the only one defending Anet’s position right now, if 1 person is happy with the game’s direction and 99 more are not; there is something wrong about it, keep defending all you want and argue all you want, at the end the numbers and the reviews says everything.

I’m the only one? Not really. It’s just that the negative people are more vocal at the moment. I dare say that you should provide your source that it’s 99 percent of players. People who are disappointed are more likely to post about it than those that are not.

ROFL, you want me to bring the CEO of NCsoft to show you numbers? read the THREAD, you’re the only one defending this!! This thread has 104 replies, how many are defending (only you) and how many are there stating something is wrong with the game and the company (the other 99%), you don’t need glassdoor to know that.

This thread, and others, do not represent what players are feeling whether that be positive or negative.

But your does? Or you words are no representing your feelings towards the game? So why replying in the first place?

I never said that mine did.

Well you hell sure sound like you did.

I apologize if any of my posts came off that way. Only one post was intentionally made that way, I just remembered, but it was to make a point. There’s no way that we as players can base whether a game if performing poorly or well on what we see online.

The following below isn’t directed at you but I wanted to include as I brought it up earlier. People are more likely to review something or comment about it if their needs are not met than otherwise. This is something that I was taught in my marketing courses years ago and there have been studies done. Below are a few articles that I tried to find from just sources that people would find credible.

http://business.time.com/2012/08/28/why-you-shouldnt-trust-positive-online-reviews-or-negative-ones-for-that-matter/
http://customerthink.com/bad_is_stronger_than_good_lessons_for_customer_loyalty_experience_by_howard_lax/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/your-money/why-people-remember-negative-events-more-than-positive-ones.html?referer=&_r=0&referer=

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

Labjax.2465:

PopeUrban.2578:

“Peer review” sites are inherantly biased toward negative reviews because those with nothing bad to say don’t want to burn bridges, risk their career, or alienate future employers.

Wait, what? Don’t you have this backwards? Why would someone who has only good things to say be afraid to say them?

It’s not that they are afraid to. People that are disappointed with anything for whatever reason are more likely to go on and review something to vent than someone whose expectations were met or exceeded.

You know you are the only one defending Anet’s position right now, if 1 person is happy with the game’s direction and 99 more are not; there is something wrong about it, keep defending all you want and argue all you want, at the end the numbers and the reviews says everything.

I’m the only one? Not really. It’s just that the negative people are more vocal at the moment. I dare say that you should provide your source that it’s 99 percent of players. People who are disappointed are more likely to post about it than those that are not.

ROFL, you want me to bring the CEO of NCsoft to show you numbers? read the THREAD, you’re the only one defending this!! This thread has 104 replies, how many are defending (only you) and how many are there stating something is wrong with the game and the company (the other 99%), you don’t need glassdoor to know that.

This thread, and others, do not represent what players are feeling whether that be positive or negative.

But your does? Or you words are no representing your feelings towards the game? So why replying in the first place?

I never said that mine did.

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

xbutcherx.3861:

Ayrilana.1396:

Labjax.2465:

PopeUrban.2578:

“Peer review” sites are inherantly biased toward negative reviews because those with nothing bad to say don’t want to burn bridges, risk their career, or alienate future employers.

Wait, what? Don’t you have this backwards? Why would someone who has only good things to say be afraid to say them?

It’s not that they are afraid to. People that are disappointed with anything for whatever reason are more likely to go on and review something to vent than someone whose expectations were met or exceeded.

You know you are the only one defending Anet’s position right now, if 1 person is happy with the game’s direction and 99 more are not; there is something wrong about it, keep defending all you want and argue all you want, at the end the numbers and the reviews says everything.

I’m the only one? Not really. It’s just that the negative people are more vocal at the moment. I dare say that you should provide your source that it’s 99 percent of players. People who are disappointed are more likely to post about it than those that are not.

ROFL, you want me to bring the CEO of NCsoft to show you numbers? read the THREAD, you’re the only one defending this!! This thread has 104 replies, how many are defending (only you) and how many are there stating something is wrong with the game and the company (the other 99%), you don’t need glassdoor to know that.

This thread, and others, do not represent what players are feeling whether that be positive or negative.