PLEASE VOTE: Give Us Real Combat Logs

[Retzilla]

Indeed.

 

~95% of theorycrafting is done off-line from game play anyway, so if anything the Bioware approach gives the theory crafters a more structured method to theorycraft.

 

For example: theorcrafting fan sites could set up a log/parse database for their users to easily review and compare actual log data as a matter of standard process for SWTOR.

 

For example: guilds can benefit by this by creating a systematic process for post encounter review and theorycrafting. They can make log summision a condition for rostering in the next run, they can put any guild specific requirements they want on members performance as shown in the logs. They don't have to take anyone's word for it, and they don't have to worry about if they captured data correctly in game as it is done for them.

 

For theorycrafting, the Bioware approach actually systemizes the process of log file capture for use. The only thing needed is a few people in the community to create the needed web interfaces/parsers to do what the guilds/theorycrafters want to do with the log data. But there has never been a shortage of bright people willing and able to do this.

 

95% of all statistics are made up on the spot. I've been a forefront in theory crafting in WoW and FFXI and my theorycrafting was done hand in hand offline and in-game, more in-game though because it takes time to test what is actually going on. please make up more stuff.

[fungihoujo]

That's fine, you don't have to use it. But in MY group... if I have 2 Marauders and for arguments sake ones doing 10k the other is doing 5k and the average DPS in the raid is 8k, I am going to kick the 5k guy if he doesn't step it up on the next boss. There is nothing I, nor many others in-game hate more then that moocher who doesn't do anything useful except spam auto attack.

 

This here is the typical response- not the 'I would help someone underperforming to perform better', no, it's 'I would make sure someone underperforming gets left out, feels bad and is discouraged from playing again'.

 

If you are the type of player who wants to do better, you can look at what people will put up as the right numbers, specs and gear- and learn from their rotations- hence why we have forums or even a general channel to ask your server's top raiders.

 

But, 90% of the time, in pugs or even in low end guilds- combat meters are nothing more than an excuse to kick people for not getting high numbers.

 

To look at your example compared to, say, WoW. When I do heroics for the first time, if I'm doing randoms and am in full raid gear, I'll likely be doing around 20k damage, for example, because that's what's needed in progression raiding- but the average player in my gear that doesn't know all the rotations, spec and ways to artificially boost your dps- might only do 14k. Let's say though they're actually geared to be doing heroics- so they're doing about 8k damage.

 

We can successfully do that dungeon, pretty easily in fact since I'm alone almost doing enough damage to beat out boss enrage timers- but with a damage meter, the average player would say 'wow, doing less than half damage? /kick'.

 

So what about that makes sense? That person clearly needs gear/tokens to buy gear- I'm just there for the daily reward and a chance at a rare mount, the gear means squat to me.

 

For pugs- which is, I'd imagine, 80%+ of all dungeon runs, combat logs just tend to make pve about being a bad sport. Now, on the flip side- for organized raids which would, more likely, use the combat logs correctly- they will be spending extra time looking at combat logs to begin with, so the extra minute to upload it and share it is hardly an issue, whereas for pugs most wouldn't go through the effort.

 

 

Which is why the new system is completely win-win.

[GalacticKegger]

It's not an inflammatory jab, it was merely stating that his reasoning for being against logs is vain. Saying something about what someone says is not commenting on them as a person. Although at this point, I might be willing to change that.

Most interesting is how some argue with intent to win while some implore others to simply let it go. BioWare's already laid down the law so there is nothing to win. It's all about personal preference and expressing benefits vs disadvantages. Calling someone vain (or anything else for that matter) makes it personal. I believe that is kind of a romper room no-no in these parts. Edited March 14, 2012 by GalacticKegger

[Andryah]

WoW has had combat logs for a long time and yes they get abused and misused from time to time, but that doesn't seem to have stopped casuals from playing the game.

 

You don't know how many people in WoW just guit playing because they were tired of the abuse and misuse of combat logs that you yourself admit happens in that game. None of us know how many people quit becasue of this.

 

But it's not about how many people quit, it's about how many people had their in game enjoyment negatively affected by other players abusing and misusing combat logs on them.

 

I never personally encountered abuse at the hands of another with combat logs in WoW. However, I did observe it being done to others many many times, and I stepped in at times to confront the abusers. I don't want to see that crap in this game. Once it's in, it infects and impacts player enjoyment.

 

In a perfect world, everyone would use the tools properly and it would not be an issue. However, MMO players are very very far from the "perfect world" model. SWTOR is not a griefing focused game. There are MMOs out there for people who like to grief, and I'd prefer to see them go play there and for Bioware to keep doing what they are doing in terms of protecting their population from griefing as much as they can.

[Retzilla]

i love you, bear my children Edited March 14, 2012 by Trineda
removed quote

[Wrrath]

You don't know how many people in WoW just guit playing because they were tired of the abuse and misuse of combat logs that you yourself admit happens in that game. None of us know how many people quit becasue of this.

 

But it's not about how many people quit, it's about how many people had their in game enjoyment negatively affected by other players abusing and misusing combat logs on them.

 

I never personally encountered abuse at the hands of another with combat logs in WoW. However, I did observe it being done to others many many times, and I stepped in at times to confront the abusers. I don't want to see that crap in this game. Once it's in, it infects and impacts player enjoyment.

 

In a perfect world, everyone would use the tools properly and it would not be an issue. However, MMO players are very very far from the "perfect world" model. SWTOR is not a griefing focused game. There are MMOs out there for people who like to grief, and I'd prefer to see them go play there and for Bioware to keep doing what they are doing in terms of protecting their population from griefing as much as they can.

 

Except in the end people who grief will find a way to grief. That is the end of the story. I have already seen griefing in this game, it's going to happen regardless of what happens with combat logs. That is the point I am trying to make. I understand that the combat log gives them more ammunition I just don't see it as a valid reason as why to exclude it. You can argue combat logs are not needed, you can say they will make the game to easy but to exclude it because of people who will misuse it is just laughable in my opinion.

[Vyradder]

I've often felt that something was lost from wow when the focus shifted way too far into the granular tactics from a more story and atmosphere driven situation like it was before third party tools took over completely. Shrug, it's not a big deal to me and I know there are huge amounts of folks who just don't get off on roleplaying these games, and would rather obsess over the numbers.

[Drewser]

Except in the end people who grief will find a way to grief. That is the end of the story. I have already seen griefing in this game, it's going to happen regardless of what happens with combat logs. That is the point I am trying to make. I understand that the combat log gives them more ammunition I just don't see it as a valid reason as why to exclude it. You can argue combat logs are not needed, you can say they will make the game to easy but to exclude it because of people who will misuse it is just laughable in my opinion.

 

Not really. The Devs have to weigh the full pros and cons. Misuse is part of that evaluation. It is certainly not the end all, be all determination but it is part of it.

[Matte_Black]

Because of the minority, who you are given tools and choices online to avoid, you want to exclude something from the game that is considered to be a help.

 

You believe it would help because optimal play is what matters. Many others believe avoiding bad player interactions would help because community expectations are what matters. Different goals and different preferences. Most of your side seems to assume that everyone wants to play optimally and that is the highests pursuit while many others have a very different set of priorities that includes some level of effective play but, likely puts fun as the highest prioroity. Both sides want what they want to help but, again, more are against realtime, public combat logs than for.

 

As I stated earlier taking a poll in which 400 people have voted and/or reading one topic on the matter does in no way give you the ability to claim majority.

 

Show me evidence of it being in the minority.

 

I have seen nothing but, signs tthat point to acceptance of BioWare's compromise and a mistrust of public logs being the majority opinion.

 

1. this thread's poll
   
2. applause at guild summit over the announcement
   
3. preponderance of individual posters in this series of threads
   
4. preponderance of individual posters in similar threads
   
5. theorycrafters and optimizers are split whether combat logs need to be public and realtime
   

[Wrrath]

Not really. The Devs have to weigh the full pros and cons. Misuse is part of that evaluation. It is certainly not the end all, be all determination but it is part of it.

 

If you read it I am not saying anywhere it shouldn't be discussed but the fact I am trying to get across is it should not be used as the main reason to exclude it which by some people in this thread it is.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Wrrath

[DaxRendar]

Except in the end people who grief will find a way to grief. That is the end of the story. I have already seen griefing in this game, it's going to happen regardless of what happens with combat logs. That is the point I am trying to make. I understand that the combat log gives them more ammunition I just don't see it as a valid reason as why to exclude it. You can argue combat logs are not needed, you can say they will make the game to easy but to exclude it because of people who will misuse it is just laughable in my opinion.

 

So we have heard your point that you think "open information" is more important than general community behavior. It's a valid opinion (though one I don't particularly agree with).

 

Why do you keep challenging and responding to people who support BioWare's planned inclusion of Personal, Shareable Logs though? You will be able to get the information you want for you and your guild, and a oft-misused tool for cyber-bullying will be taken out of the hands of said idiots. Why is this an issue for you?

[Parali]

Hi there!

 

We recently had to remove some posts in this thread. We wanted to take a moment and remind everyone of the Forum Rules and Guidelines.

 

If you find that your post focuses more on the behavior of another member rather than contributing to the OP, then you could be in danger of derailing the thread further. If you believe that another member is behaving badly, we strongly encourage you to use the Report feature in the upper right hand corner. Flag, don't fight!

 

Please remember that users are allowed to disagree with one another. We understand that sometimes subjects can get heated, but we do ask that everyone be respectful and polite to each other while expressing an opinion. Here are some quick examples to keep in mind when posting.

• Never insult another community member.
  
• Always discuss the topic and give constructive criticism.
  
• If you feel someone is violates the Rules of Conduct, do not reply to them; simply report (flag) the post.
  
• If someone is being a troll, don’t feed them. Simply do not reply and report (flag) the post.
  
• Be respectful to all community members; while you may not agree with their opinion, you should not be rude to them.

 

Thank you for your cooperation, and please continue the friendly debate!

[Wrrath]

Show me evidence of it being in the minority.

 

I have seen nothing but, signs tthat point to acceptance of BioWare's compromise and a mistrust of public logs being the majority opinion.

 

1. this thread's poll
   
2. applause at guild summit over the announcement
   
3. preponderance of individual posters in this series of threads
   
4. preponderance of individual posters in similar threads
   
5. theorycrafters and optimizers are split whether combat logs need to be public and realtime
   

 

I am done with you after this post because clearly you do not read. Never did I state your opinion is the minority what I stated was NEITHER side can claim minority or majority. Your list is just that a list unless you can tell me DIRECT NUMBERS to the contrary where you have over 50% of population supporting your opinion you cannot and should not claim majority. There is no discussion on that point and to argue it is pointless. It would just be like me claiming majority because most of the people I talk to want combat logs or watching people talk to in general chat I assume they want combat logs. Assumption leads to nothing, without the numbers to back it up you are assuming based on the list you posted which supports your assumption.

[Matte_Black]

If you are so concerend that people won't share their combat logs with you...maybe nicer to them?

 

You'd be amazed how not making demands of people, threatening to kick them or impuning their skill can impact what people will share with you.

[Wrrath]

So we have heard your point that you think "open information" is more important than general community behavior. It's a valid opinion (though one I don't particularly agree with).

 

Why do you keep challenging and responding to people who support BioWare's planned inclusion of Personal, Shareable Logs though? You will be able to get the information you want for you and your guild, and a oft-misused tool for cyber-bullying will be taken out of the hands of said idiots. Why is this an issue for you?

 

I keep challenging them because like you I have an open opinion. Which I have stated as I don't like the fact we are using bullying as a fact and by some the main reason to keep something out of game and make it slightly harder to get. Don't get me wrong I am glad we are getting combat logs in some shape or form. I understand where people are coming from and I respect it but like you I don't agree with it at all and am arguing my point.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Wrrath

[MasterKayote]

Except in the end people who grief will find a way to grief. That is the end of the story. I have already seen griefing in this game, it's going to happen regardless of what happens with combat logs. That is the point I am trying to make. I understand that the combat log gives them more ammunition I just don't see it as a valid reason as why to exclude it. You can argue combat logs are not needed, you can say they will make the game to easy but to exclude it because of people who will misuse it is just laughable in my opinion.

 

Laugh at it all you want, most of us think giving the tools another tool to be tools and thus making things even worse is cause enough to heavily restrict and/or completely exclude their "ammunition."

 

Specially when this "ammunition" is otherwise (at this point) nothing but an extra convenience (to what is already going to be available) to access information that is to this day proven unnecessary in this game, for a few self-proclaimed "hardcores" who'd rather number crunch their way to easier battles.

[Snakke]

If you are so concerend that people won't share their combat logs with you...maybe nicer to them?

 

You'd be amazed how not making demands of people, threatening to kick them or impuning their skill can impact what people will share with you.

 

LOLp, do you not realize that the out of combat logs they are releasing will allow us to see everyone in ops group/ops? Meaning, if we wanted to see someones logs we could, and if people want to make fun of someones performance, guess what? they still can.

[Drewser]

If you read it I am not saying anywhere it shouldn't be discussed but the fact I am trying to get across is it should not be used as the main reason to exclude it which by some people in this thread it is.

 

When you referered to it a "laughable" I thought you meant it was laughable that they should even discuss it as part of the decision making process.

[DaxRendar]

LOLp, do you not realize that the out of combat logs they are releasing will allow us to see everyone in ops group/ops? Meaning, if we wanted to see someones logs we could, and if people want to make fun of someones performance, guess what? they still can.

 

Actually that's very much uncertain/debatable at the moment.

 

Ohlen might have mis-spoken (wouldn't be the first time ) as he somewhat contradicts himself in that interview and what he said doesn't jibe with Georg Zoeller's interview comments on the same topic.

 

Since BW Devs have far more consistently stressed "Personal Only" Combat Logs along with reasoning and justifications, most of us are thinking that is what we are going to be getting.

 

Nobody will know for sure until either a Dev clarifies their position or 1.2 hits the Test Server.

[Matte_Black]

I am done with you after this post because clearly you do not read. Never did I state your opinion is the minority what I stated was NEITHER side can claim minority or majority. Your list is just that a list unless you can tell me DIRECT NUMBERS to the contrary where you have over 50% of population supporting your opinion you cannot and should not claim majority. There is no discussion on that point and to argue it is pointless. It would just be like me claiming majority because most of the people I talk to want combat logs or watching people talk to in general chat I assume they want combat logs. Assumption leads to nothing, without the numbers to back it up you are assuming based on the list you posted which supports your assumption.

 

You won't get a majority of the playerbase to agree to anything or even respond to a forum thread. That semantic argument is folly, you simply won't get a million players or what ever a majority of the subscription base is to respond or agree. We elect our US presidents with a majority that rarely even comes close to half of the registered voters. You'll have to forget your hard numbers that don't happen over such topics and have to take the samples available or you might as well not even enter the discussion.

 

One sample is a flawed poll that the thread is based on and actually biased against it's outcome as it was presented. Another is the vague acceptance of those who showed up to the guild summit and would seem relatively unbiased. You can also look at other threads on the topic in the general discussion boards which should be relatively unbiased and couple it up with the fact that those who agree such information is useful even disagree wheter it should be public.

 

Sure they are flawed or small samples and don't represent hard factual data but taken in total and compared to your side's lack of examples that counter the general collection of evidence, you are hard pressed to convince many people that that imperfect majority isn't highly likely to exist.

[Matte_Black]

LOLp, do you not realize that the out of combat logs they are releasing will allow us to see everyone in ops group/ops? Meaning, if we wanted to see someones logs we could, and if people want to make fun of someones performance, guess what? they still can.

 

Possibly, reading closely there is some conflicting info on this. We'll see but, I believe otherwise. Either way, it's the topic question of the thread.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Matte_Black

[Andryah]

Your list is just that a list unless you can tell me DIRECT NUMBERS to the contrary where you have over 50% of population supporting your opinion you cannot and should not claim majority.

 

The thing you choose to disregard is that polling theory does work and the sample size of this poll is statistically accurate in reflecting the total population with a margin of error of +/- 10% worst case. When you do not have the ability to obtain an vote from every member of a population, you apply accepted poll theory and sample the population to obtain an accurate result +/- an error margin.

 

I know some would like to invalidate the OPs poll on the grounds that it has a limited number of respondents. However, the entire basis of poll theory is that you can sample a small percentage of the population and obtain an accurate representation of the views of the total populations (+/- an error margin).

 

Polls based on samples of populations are subject to sampling error which reflects the effects of chance and uncertainty in the sampling process. The uncertainty is often expressed as a margin of error. The margin of error is usually defined as the radius of a confidence interval for a particular statistic from a survey.

 

One example is the percent of people who prefer product A versus product B (ie: a binary choice poll, such as the one the OP established). When a single, global margin of error is reported for a survey, it refers to the maximum margin of error for all reported percentages using the full sample from the survey. If the statistic is a percentage, this maximum margin of error can be calculated as the radius of the confidence interval for a reported percentage of 50%. For a poll with a random sample of 1,000 people generally accepted poll theory is that the margin of sampling error is ~ +/- 3%.

 

Now, by applying consevative polling theory, since we have a sample size of ~ 400 right now, the margin of error would be on the order of +/- 10% worst case.

 

Given the current majority of respondents to the OPs poll is ~ 70% against, even if you accept a negative margin of error in the extreme (ie: -10%) in order to correlate to the total population, the poll still finds the majority of respondents are not in favor of the OPs proposal.

 

Not that it matters to the final decision by Bioware, it's just that rejecting a poll (that has a statistically relevant sample +/- error) that shows a majority one way or the other is not correct.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Andryah

[Snakke]

Actually that's very much uncertain/debatable at the moment.

 

Ohlen might have mis-spoken (wouldn't be the first time ) as he somewhat contradicts himself in that interview and what he said doesn't jibe with Georg Zoeller's interview comments on the same topic.

 

Since BW Devs have far more consistently stressed "Personal Only" Combat Logs along with reasoning and justifications, most of us are thinking that is what we are going to be getting.

 

Nobody will know for sure until either a Dev clarifies their position or 1.2 hits the Test Server.

 

So people are debating what he confirmed may not be what he meant to say?

[Seregul]

So people are debating what he confirmed may not be what he meant to say?

 

Confirmation bias is the best bias.

[Snakke]

The thing you choose to disregard is that polling theory does work and the sample size of this poll is statistically accurate in reflecting the total population with a margin of error of +/- 10% worst case. When you do not have the ability to obtain an vote from every member of a population, you apply accepted poll theory and sample the population to obtain an accurate result +/- an error margin.

 

I know some would like to invalidate the OPs poll on the grounds that it has a limited number of respondents. However, the entire basis of poll theory is that you can sample a small percentage of the population and obtain an accurate representation of the views of the total populations (+/- an error margin).

 

Polls based on samples of populations are subject to sampling error which reflects the effects of chance and uncertainty in the sampling process. The uncertainty is often expressed as a margin of error. The margin of error is usually defined as the radius of a confidence interval for a particular statistic from a survey.

 

One example is the percent of people who prefer product A versus product B. When a single, global margin of error is reported for a survey, it refers to the maximum margin of error for all reported percentages using the full sample from the survey. If the statistic is a percentage, this maximum margin of error can be calculated as the radius of the confidence interval for a reported percentage of 50%. For a poll with a random sample of 1,000 people generally accepted poll theory is that the margin of sampling error is ~ +/- 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population.

 

Now, by applying consevative polling theory, since we have a sample size of ~ 400 right now, the margin of error would be on the order of +/- 10% worst case.

 

Given the current majority of respondents to the OPs poll is ~ 70% against, even if you accept a negative margin of error in the extreme (ie: -10%) in order to correlate to the total population, the poll still finds the majority of respondents are not in favor of the OPs proposal.

 

Not that it matters to the final decision by Bioware, it's just that rejecting a poll (that has a statistically relevant sample +/- error) that shows a majority one way or the other is not correct.

 

Wouldn't a majority of the population mean that about 800,000 people would have to vote one way or another since there are over 1.2 million people playing this game? and you have...almost 400 total, sooo yea your missing maybe one or two people to claim a majority of the community sorry.