The "Evil Eye"

I am sure there is a general Administrator tool for this already ingame, so I am just asking for it to be made public for players to view.

How about an Evil Eye system report outside the game to see interesting things like this, ( Like a weekly release of Server Data, probably to the forums, to let people delve through it )

A Top 50 list of :

1. Most used Skill In PvE over a week.

2. Most used Skill in PvP over a week.

Note: 1. , 2. , can be also divided further categories into their various proffesions and for PvE, the mode of play too (normal/hard).

3. Number of Players in normal mode instances in a week. ( At least 10~15 mins to ensure that only instances which are actually been utilized are counted )

4. Number of Players in Hard mode instances in a week. ( At least 10~15 mins to ensure that only instances which are actually been utilized are counted )

5. Most entered instance in a week in normal mode]( At least 10~15 mins to ensure that only instances which are actually been utilized are counted )

6. Most entered instance in a week in hard mode]( At least 10~15 mins to ensure that only instances which are actually been utilized are counted )

7. Most Bought/Sold Runes in a week.
And so on and so forth.

Think of it as a good way for players to gauge and make assessments. This give players who scream or whine for a nerf/buff justification to do so in the forums, because there are statistics to back or disprove their statements.

Alot of Analyse / Opinions within the forums can then be validated. Also, this type of news will also alllow players to see trends, flavours of the week.

Edit: Remove 7. about the Runes one

7. Number of instances entered by a single player in a party (solo with H/H) in normal mode instances in a week. ( At least 10~15 mins to ensure that only instances which are actually been utilized are counted )

8. Number of instances entered by a single player in a party (solo with H/H) in hard mode instances in a week. ( At least 10~15 mins to ensure that only instances which are actually been utilized are counted )

9. Number of instances entered by a multiple players in a party in normal mode instances in a week. ( At least 10~15 mins to ensure that only instances which are actually been utilized are counted )

10. Number of instances entered by a multiple players in a party in hard mode instances in a week. ( At least 10~15 mins to ensure that only instances which are actually been utilized are counted )

11. Most used Class In PvE over a week in normal mode in any instance. ( At least 15 mins to ensure the Class is beign utilised )

12. Most used Class In PvE over a week in hard mode in any instance. ( At least 15 mins to ensure the Class is beign utilised )

13. Average Size of parties entering in any instance in normal mode over a week.( At least 15 mins to ensure the instance is beign utilised )

14. Average Size of parties entering in any instance in hard mode over a week.( At least 15 mins to ensure the instance is beign utilised )


Once again I like this idea alot as it can help to separate WHAT is really just OPINION or FACT asserted by forumers here. Alot of people, it seems just likes to make assertions and speculative allegations.

Without justifiable proof or statistics, ALOT of threads on the forum, often just end into "TROLLING" or "FLAMES", when dual opposing sides start trading "barbs" on another's side.

Statistics like this WILL instantly melt any opinion which is non-justified.

5 useless functions and a way for idiots to predict where the rune market will go?


/notsigned.

The 1st 5 AIN'T useless, this is to give statistics and facts to PPLE who scream for certain things being unfair some sort of justifiable proof of their statements.

I am far too annoyed with seeing pple everywhere just making generalised sweeping statements WITHOUT any proof to justify what they just said. And NO, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE from one person's or a guild's or just the surrounding peers or the group he hangs out with DOES not qualify to represent the ENTIRE spectrum of Guild War players.

With these type of statistical releases in game, rebuttals and allegations assessments made in forums can be concrete.

As for 6, if the purpose is to prevent Rune Market assessment for the sake of the economy, I guess drop it then. BUT I don't see how can the 1st 5 can be affecting the economy.

I see no point in adding this to the game.

To separate FACT from OPINION when people start posting threads in the forums. FAR too many threads end up in "FLAMES" or "TROLLING", because one side throws allegations against the other.

With such statistics in place, NO ONE can start making SWEEPING and OVER GENERALISED statements in the forum again, without being shot in the mouth by statistics.

I don't see much point in adding this. While it would be interesting to know some of that information every now and then, I don't see any reason to actually add it.

And I'm not sure what generalizations you're talking about, either. I think most of the assessments like that are common knowledge (I.E., Ectos are cheaper than they were before) or they are obviously generalizations (I.E., Everybody uses Ursan, or everyone makes generalizations without have any statistics to prove their arguement.)

Besides, this is a public forum to facilitate discussions and provide proof thereof. If I were to make a general statement saying something, I would make a statement, and see if others agree with me. We don't need statistics to prove anything, people here provide the proof or the disproof depending on the conversation.

Proof by argument is NOT necessarily enough. Statistics on the other hand is for ALL to see, and will destroy any trollers or flamers who want to just be self manical and egomaniacs, driving such people into silence, when statistics prove them otherwise

Statistics ACTUALLY help to facilitate discussions, because, when there is actual statiscal references to back or disprove opinions being made, people can make more accurate assessments about WHAT is really imbal, and WHAT really needs nerf/buff, and so on and so forth.

Up to now, all that being said is up to personal PERSPECTIVE and PERCEPTIONS, while this is fine to a large extent, A LARGE majority END up being entangled in "FLAME" or "TROLL" wars when disparity in viewpoints appear. This can be seen very frequently.

The statistics here will provide as some sort of concrete proof to justify a player's allegations to a large extent.

In the end, PEOPLE will know, which posters are the ones who are posting JUST based on their opinions, and which posters are the ones doing it based on concrete evidence.

Potentially "OVER GENERALISED" statements which can end up in flame wars.

"PvE is far too easy". ==> Statisics will dispell or backup that statement, based on number of player ratios in Hard/Normal mode instances over a week.

"UB is far too overpowering in PvE" ==> Statistics will prove ONCE and FOR ALL, whether this holds true.

"Certain Skills are TOTALLY IMBAL, NERF IT!" ==> Statistics will once again tell whether this is really true, based on the number of players using it in PvP and PvE, based on the ratio of number of times the skill is used in comparison with others.

"PUGs are non existent anymore! Someone nerf heroes more please !!!" ==> Statistics will once again dispell or prove this myth.

Opinions are fine, but opinions backed up with concrete evidence makes any poster FAR more credible and respectable.

Just being VOCAL over an issue, does not necessarily mean it represents EVERY single player in the GW spectrum.

Anet has better things to do.

PS- LOOK at me use CAPS to make SOME words seem IMPORTANT for use in A pointless arguement.

True, they have better things to do, but its just a suggestion. I apologise if CAPS hurt you.

PS- You have not made a single argument stating that why my idea is bad, so I am assuming I left you speechless.

True statistics can be fine and all but you have to know that this is also a game played by younger players.

About 1 + 2
They'll see the so called "statistics" as ways to say "Hey thats popular lets play that now", doesn't that sort of delete the whole purpose of Guild Wars to new players as they get an idea that there are popular things, whilst it is about playing what you like and finding things out.
Thats just my thought about how some players could think about those statistics.
Statistics would just confuse new players that they should continue following what others do.
For more experienced players it won't be much different as some follow the meta and some don't, atleast they have a better view about this.

I also dont see how 3 till 6 can actually help, this will just show what's being farmed alot, i don't see the point in that.
Sure for some starting farmers it could show that they could farm that, but then again the more people that farm the same thing the bigger the prices will drop.

Runes 7:
This could actually be usefull, but instead of showing how many are bought instead showing the average price at which theyre bought (this shows how much the price has gone up/down when you check @ the trader), this way you could wait a tad for the prices to go down to buy em or further up to sell them.

Other 7 to 14:

I dont see really how this would provide any information needed to prove a certain thing in for example a forum as you stated, could you explain this further?

I will try. Alot of arguments and threads made on forums are concerning imbalances in skills, environments, Player versus Player etc.

Alot of the threads made, while it in essence inself is not bad, have often turned in full out slugfests, creating what we call "flame" and "troll" wars.

This sorely degrades the thread itself, when more and more view points are thrown out one by one.

Having the statistics, will actually help for older and more discerning players to analyse what people are saying, and see whether it is true or otherwise.

Say this:
" PvE is FAR too easy!" ==> By checking the balance of ratio of players who are playing in normal mode and in hard mode, it is actually easier to gauge whether this sentiment holds true.

And please don't say "what about the new players" ? Remember, this game is already 3 years old, I am sure there are enough players who have completed the game.

The ratio itself is NOT perfect, but it provides a statistic or a benchmark for people to decide whether the afore mentioned sentiment holds true.

Just reading a player say "PvE is FAR too easy!" isn't exactly representative of what might be happening to the entire spectrum of GW players engaged in PvE.

Going by this angle, statistics of how much certain skills are being used can help players to justify whether "Imbal SKILL! NERF it!" holds true. This can be seen by the number of times a skill is being used over a week, once player catches wind of it.

This is because if a skill gains popular use over a week, chances are it is much better or too strong, due to relative ease of its usage. This applies to PvP too.

Once again, I am very sure the Dev's already have their own "Evil Eye" actually, which monitors such Server Data already. It all depends on whether they want to reveal it to the players.

IMHO, this can actually solve alot of the Dev's grief when it comes to complaints and whinings and what not from players and forum posters alike.

Statistics here help to create an artifical, while not perfect, measurable benchmark for all to see.

Also if younger players do not understand statistics too deeply, its fine. They are many players who can intepret statistics well on the forums. And those who do, will be more then willing to translate what a certain statistic means to back up their claims or assertions.

Not actually worth ANets time and effort to input, although considering some new implementations (z-title/rank, i suppose it aint that big a deal.

ppl don't care about how many ppl play in HM or NM
they only care about what they do in NM and HM ^.~

I don't see the point of adding this, other then maybe wanting a quick-fix for some QQ'ing.

Though, most of the reasons you gave for wanting to see this; e.g. wanting to see if ursan is really overpowered. Are stupid reasons, I mean.. look at the damn skill?
Same for other skills that are imba, you can SEE that they are imba, why would you need A-net to waste their time on something that would only comfirm what we already knew?

To stop people from making groundless accusations. Alot of threads here have already turned into flame wars.

Some players might actually like to get an overall UNBIASED view of the game, without having to hear coloured opinions of players.

A global release of statistics over a week will help them to gauge for themselves what is truely going on within the GW. Rumours, statements, and just utter animosity is built upon warring sides who often throw barbs at one another, based on:

1. Personal Experience

2. Views from only guilds/alliance

3. The times they spent in outposts.

4. Personal beliefs


ALL these are NOT good indicators of the actual situation within GW, as everyone is and has a limited sphere of influence. Global Data and statistics from the GW world collected provides the best, impartial proof, as numbers DON'T give opinions, they just present facts.

As far as I am concerned, up to this point, the only naysayers are those, who fear that once their opinions and statements can be rebutted with concrete proof, they have no standing or face left. Knowledge is power.

Let the truth come out. This actually benefits all.

Here are the reasons why I believe this is actually doable and realistic.

1. Such a system already exists for the Dev's, for them to release actual data, is no different from releasing statuses report.

2. Gives Dev's concrete proof that whatever patch / updates to skills they make have some form of numerical justification.

OP, stop using caps to exaggerate. There's this and this to do it. Caps are just annoying.

/notsigned since this is a pointless idea.

I don't find it pointless, I feel that when opinions and statements made are backed up with statistical proof, I have a better inclination of believing what they say.

Besides, the only people who argue against such a system, are those who fear having to eat their words in front of the truth.

Let those who dare to express their opinions have also the ability to back up what they say with statistical evidence, not just hearsay.

I wouldn't like to see it in-game, but if they posted this kind of statistic I'd read it all the way through regardless of length. I just like statistics. As far as in-game though, it doesn't really have a point.

Hmm, i get your point, I wouldn't want to read it just inside the game, ( Some of the text rendered actually hurts my eyes.)

Good point. I will edit my initial idea.

To those saying its not worth ANets time, erm Zaishen Rank/Title anyone. Retarded System to split PvE from PvP? Gaile Gray suck up festival? Seriously that argument doesn't stick anymore.

/signed because I am a Statistics Freak

Exactly how would statistics based on personal preference be unbiased? All the statistics will show are popular-to-use skills, not the skills that are gamebreaking. The only way for it to be an unbiased view is if everyone chose only the most efficient skills for each situation, which just isn't true. If anything, what you're looking for is a comparison of skillbars and attributes, comparing their ability to apply their purpose to the game. The trending data may lead toward what you're asking for, but popular does not always mean gamebreaking - look at Reversal of Fortune or Barrage.

You don't need statistics for something as simplistic as Ursan. Why? You only need to look at its ability to knockdown. No cost, decent recharge, adjacent knockdown is extremely strong when compared to other mass knockdown techniques; it's an Earthshaker-like ability. When you mass up Ursans, you're able to chain that Earthshaker-like ability to the point that foes cannot do anything. That's the point where the decent DPS rips through what little defense is left to kill one by one. That's in addition to AoE weakness, +200 max health and a speed boost.

Individually, it's as strong as any other physical character. Massed up like a gimmick build often seen to rake quick wins in PvP, and it becomes a problem because it can ignore many debilitations that would affect physicals while still providing an effect just as strong, if not better than those same physicals. Moreover, any profession can become an Ursan and still be as effective (albeit with the lower AR for the caster Ursans).

So... you want people to have proper debating technique, but instead of educating them on something that will carry on beyond Guild Wars, you're asking ANet to step in and become mediator for something they shouldn't have to? Get the players to explain their actions and their perspectives, and it becomes less of a flame war, and more of a discussion thread. If they don't, they're not adding to the discussion and can safely be ignored. Heated arguments and flamewars are something ANet shouldn't have to deal with - leave it to the forum moderators. Educating them on the facts of the game is another matter entirely, and I don't think trending data would be enough for people to suddenly change their stance (though it may make them think twice before spouting opinions).

I'm not going to say I support every single thing you've listed, but I would like to see some in-game statistics on skills/players/etc. It would be an interesting thing to look at from time to time.

/signed

When a player makes an assertion then a certain skill is gamebreaking in a certain build, it is safe to say, that it is easy to use isn't it. If and when news breaks out of this certain Build and this/skill, people who are interested will try it themselves.

If it proves to become overly popular interms of usage, whereby it far OUTSTRIPS other skills in terms of frequency of use, then some conclusions can drawn, can't it ?

Say this:
First, PvE wise
Week 0: Gaming as per normal. Server Data collected.

Week 1 and 2: A player reveals that a certain build, claiming that certain skills are great for PvE and farming. Players experiment with it.
Server Data Collected.

Server Data in Week 0 is compared with Week 1 and Week 2 data.
Several scenarios appear.

1. Frequency of certain skill usage spikes tremdeously. GW economy significantly altered by the amount of plat changing hands or through sale of items. Rune prices drop alot, especially the expensive ones.

Significant proof that a certain PvE build is indeed far very efficient and given its rate of return, it has proven to be alot more effective. Hence there is indeed proof that the initial claim holds true.

2. Frequency of certain skill usage spikes tremdeously. GW economy does not change significantly.

Proof that the claimed PvE builds work, but its not that back breaking as claimed.

3. Frequency of certain skill usage spikes in Week 1, then tapers off in Week 2. GW economy does not change significantly

Proof that the claimed PvE build is not as good as it might seem.

And if you start arguing about benchmarks. I wager that THOSE exists already. Chances are Anet themselves nerfed farming builds previously, when they started intepreting data from the server. After all, they would need to have significant justification of spikes or changes in the GW world, and can't just nerf something based on a single player's claim right ?

Second, PvP wise.

Week 0. Server Data collected.

Week 1 to 4. PvP player claim that certain builds are uber LeeT and owns all others. Other players experiment. Server Data Collected.

Sever Data is compared with week 0. from Week 1 and 4. Several scenarions appear.

1. Severe spike in frequency of usage of certain skills in PvP, increasingly, certain skills show up ALOT more then others, indicating some sort of build within the Top 50 list from week 0 to week 4.

Good indication that the skill set claim is indeed true. Players uses it for 4 weeks continuous, meaning that no effective counter has been found. ( 4 weeks IS a long time in PvP, given GW's advanced state of the game, if a counter exists, it would have worked. ).

2. Severe spike in frequency of usage of certain skills in PvP. This increase tapers off slowly in Week 1 to Week 2 and finally drops to close to normal in Week 4.

Good indication of a good skill set does exist, but IS not as effective as initially claimed. This is because counter builds has been devised.

3. No significant change takes place.

Players experimented, finds that overall, it is just so so. Myth busts the claim of the Legendary build.

All the above traits could be found in PvE situation 1.

I would be so presumptuous as to do what you ask. But whenever I read what people post, I like to question whether what they say holds any truth. Personal experiences and other limit sphere of influences while nice, DO not really represent the whole picture.

Statistical Data actually HELPS to piece together whether a player is making a concrete claim.

Let me create another scenario.

2 sides arguing out regarding an issue. Say: " PvE is FAR too easy! "

Case 1: Without Data.
Both sides argue continuously, both sides showing their views off. It continues on endlessly, as one side attempts to assert his view upon the other side.

With no specific statistical data to back either side off, circumstantial evidence is given which proves BOTH sides points, but does not draw any definitive conclusion.

This has often been the case, and you can view it even here in this forums. As i shift through mountains and mountains of claims and assertions, I can see diverse views, claims and arguments. But without any hard concrete statistical data to fall back upon, I cannot really say whose claim is more true.

Even in the unlikely event, that one side concedes in his debacle, does that means he is right ? It simply means he won the argument, leaving only a bad after taste in his opponent.

Case 2. With Data.
2 sides starts arguing on the same issue. One side suddenly throws out data to prove what he says. If the opposition cannot dispute the findings, he would have to concede. If he manages to prove otherwise with other data, he wins.

Observers then can look into the statistical evidence and see whether either sides arguments are validated by the statistical data.

And finally to round it off. Just by releasing the data, Anet is NOT actually taking any sides. All they are doing is just letting figures out. The numbers themselves are NOT saying that they prefer one side in the motion.

All the numbers are simply doing is allowing people to interpret the end results, and what they mean.

Unless of course Anet is just cooking up the data, otherwise the numbers won't lie.

A relative ratio of utility by players in hard mode instances in comparision of normal mode instances, is actually a good indication of whether the statement. "PvE is too easy!"

The assumption here made are these:
If the statement holds true, players will breeze through it very easily, so majority of players would actually be in hard mode, rather then in normal mode.

Assuming that it is easy to use determines a difficulty level that only the original poster can ascertain until the build is tried out. Due to the wide playerbase, their ability to play a given build varies widely. While they may be able to play it to some degree, I don't expect the playerbase to be able to play it at maximum efficiency, hampering the statistical data to show that it is gamebreaking.

That's true, but ANet shouldn't have to release skill usage data to the playerbase; the posts on here have shown that nerfing popular skills due to PvP abuse generate a lot of heated comments from PvE-only players because they don't bother with PvP. Even when told about the abuse, I've seen a lot of players ignore it in favour of their own style of play.

How exactly? The most efficient parties aren't actually Ursan parties - Ursan is making up for their lack of ability to play in the first place with overpowered abilities. While this does mean that areas become farmed a bit more than normal, due to now having a handicap that artificially boosts their ability to play in those areas, the movement of the economy is just sped up; it would have happened anyway, just over a longer period of time. If ANet believe the market is moving too fast or whatnot, they will nerf the build/skills/area, which won't directly show in the skill usage data.

Moreover, skills being overpowered shouldn't be based off of trending data because there have always been skills that have been popular but not particularly overpowered. They should be based off of comparisons of other skills that have the same effect, its synergy, and you compare its costs and the professions that can effectively utilise it.

That's why Ursan is overpowered when stacked: It has the same effect as an Earthshaker Warrior, and can be utilised by every profession, all the while synergising with itself. Trending data won't give explanations on why it's overpowered, which is the biggest concern I have with this system, it only indicates that the skill is being used - heavily in some cases. This means it only provides evidence that the skill usage should be looked into further, and not as a definitive resource on why certain skills are overpowered.

While ANet isn't taking sides, they do become mediators on a fansite forum argument, which I just don't see why they should expend the effort for. An internal dissection of the data is more than enough to see what the trending data is, and whether or not the data should be looked into further.

Moreover, interpretation of the data requires making assumptions (which I am loath to do), since the skill usage data don't explain the context the skills were used in, just that they were used. Making an assumption on this data invites bias from the interpreter, which we already see from prominent members. If you really want an unbiased view, it has to be a comparison of skillbar and its usage with a context to develop an argument about - the data you propose ANet to release doesn't provide enough evidence to support any theory except one, "most players use X anyway."

the stats will mean nuthin...

the actively "aware" and "knowledgeable" is a small percentage of the total gw population

the stats for high-end pvp makes sense,
cuz everyone in that circle is quite "aware" and "knowledgeable" of the gw meta
which r good skills and which r not

but in general pve and low end pvp...
the stats will be filled wit numerous randomways and (no offense) nubs who r runnin terribad skills


wiki/pvxwiki helped inform the general public to a degree
but its still pretty random out there

in otherwords, this will rarely, if at all, help win any debates on guru...
only show how smart/informed the gw population actually is

it also defeats the purpose of the stats in the first place
cuz only the "aware" and "knowledgeable" will be able to interpret the stats properly anyways

~~~~

oh, and dun even get me started on ursan
everyone uses ursan...
get over it

(disclaimer: 'everyone' does not include ppl who do not own eotn, do not have the skill, ppl who dun realize how overpowered ursan is, monks, ursan-haters, and on and on and on....)

thats 70%+ of the population who dun use ursan, if u want 'stats'
but i'll say it again:
everyone uses ursan...
get over it

~~~~

having said all that...
sure, lets see teh stats

Exactly.

12plz

^some1 finds out

What i've been thinking about is that statistics are actually quite misleading (definately in this case).
Guild Wars is played by people, not AI.
People often tend not to actually go for efficiency but rather what they enjoy playing (if that is finishing something fast with something overpowered, so be it).

What im trying to get at is that the "popular" builds, therefore having a high number in your statistics, aren't always overpowered.

(looking from a slight PvP perspective)
Why? You might ask, because almost every build has its counter, and the meta builds arent always the most overpowered ones.
For a PvP example see paraspike in HA (dont flame about this, it can be countered aswell im not whining about it), its defensive has great spikes and great healing all at the same time and is almost not countered by the current meta.

Does this make it overpowered? No, ofcourse not this just means that some people adjust to the meta to balance this out.
Ofcourse this doesn't always count for PvE as mobs dont exactly counter by using different things, but which brings me to the following:
PvE is easy because people play with gimmicks, they can make it harder and easier themselves, adding a statistic to it is fine but do know that overfarming isnt exactly a bad thing and things as "overpowered" and "balanced" dont exactly count as much for PvE as for PvP.
Thus making the statistics sort of useless.
Anet made PvE easier for a more mainstream approach, thus also having Ursan (my opinion).
Imho you can make PvE as hard as you want it by running experimental builds and giving yourself a certain challenge instead of Ursan-way'ing your way through.
Short said: QQ about PvE, people play as they like, whine about it if you want but you're the one that should be enjoying yourself instead of whining about what other people play.

The problem these days is that Ursan has become a very popular team and other people are having problems with parties.
My only thought is that these statistics are more at proving how bad Ursan is than actually following the popular builds, as Ursan actually impacts the game because its the only thing played.
As before Ursan people were just playing something they liked.
I dont see how statistics could help out with normal builds as they never have and never will truely dominate for a long period except for farming maybe but that shouldn't affect too much.

All in all the only thing usefull these statistics would have is forum posting letting people whine more about what other people are currently playing, for PvE this wouldn't actually matter anything.
For PvP it could be usefull in some extreme situations, but usually rather instead of QQ'ing about it they shouldn't post and just try and find a counter to that build/team in PvP.

/signed could be good for arguments.

/signed for the people who always have to be right on forums.

/unsigned because I dont give a shit.

~the rat~

I am just going to quote myself on this on:
I am just going to reinforce my points.

Without statistics or any form of concrete proof:

The evidence people give for certain points are based on:

1. Personal Experience.
2. Guild / Alliance Experience.
3. Time spent within a town.

All these things are just a viewpoint from a limited sphere of influence. Any claim you make, can be equally disputed with a personal experience from another person makes. Then who is right?

Its just pitting view point against view point. And from what I say up till now, lots of well meaning threads, just degraded into nothing more then "Flame" and "Trolling" wars, in which alot get locked up. ( Just look around ).

Even if I read through such a thread, and look at the various viewpoints, JUST from the viewpoints themself, do you DARE say that it applies to the WHOLE spectrum of GW players ? ( Do every GW player come to this forum ? )

Remember, I am not disputing what you said, but, I see no real proof that what you said is true. I am not inclined to believe mere hearsay, personal opinions, to solidify what I percieved.

BUT, at least with statistics, recorded correctly, I can actually make some personal benchmark to gauge arguments and viewpoints presented.

Also, some people dislike just arguing using limited viewpoints. They would might want statistics to throw out, to present as a type of evidence. If the opposing side is unable to disprove otherwise, who are you more likely to believe ?

In addition, I am very sure that Anet already has some form of statistical data already. They use it to assist themselves before throwing on a patch or update.

Just by releasing the data, they save themselves alot of grief, if and when they are lamblasted for an update. At least they have some form of numerical justification.

How would you like it if they said: " This was nerfed, because XYZ player / Guild / Alliance complained so. ", somewhere along that line.

While ANet isn't taking sides, they do become mediators on a fansite forum argument, which I just don't see why they should expend the effort for. An internal dissection of the data is more than enough to see what the trending data is, and whether or not the data should be looked into further.

The numbers themselves at least don't scream preferences, they are nothing more then just recorded data, much that the numerical summation of a global video camera. It is how people intepret the numbers.

Finally, releasing data is NOT an sign that Anet is playing mediator. Your argument here is incorrect as, you are automatically assuming that releasing the data is for just that purpose.

Anet could simply say that the information released could be for a variety of other information, not just the what you stated as above.

Assuming that it is easy to use determines a difficulty level that only the original poster can ascertain until the build is tried out. Due to the wide playerbase, their ability to play a given build varies widely. While they may be able to play it to some degree, I don't expect the playerbase to be able to play it at maximum efficiency, hampering the statistical data to show that it is gamebreaking.

My definition of gamebreaking is that a build or skill is so popular that it is so efficient and easy to use in PvE ( PvP wise, my definition of gamebreaking is that THERE is not counter for that build ), that everyone tends to use it.

Based on my definition, even if the players don't use it at maximum efficency, they would still use it, as say, at 50% maximum efficiency, it far outweighs all other builds they have attempted so far.

In this case, the total frequency of usage is actually a good indication that some build / skill usage is somewhat gamebreaking.

That's true, but ANet shouldn't have to release skill usage data to the playerbase; the posts on here have shown that nerfing popular skills due to PvP abuse generate a lot of heated comments from PvE-only players because they don't bother with PvP. Even when told about the abuse, I've seen a lot of players ignore it in favour of their own style of play.

Aye, but just releasing data is just to reinforce or confirm it, but that does not mean Anet have to nerf or buff something right ?

Remember, it is precisely just because people are arguing from a limited sphere viewpoint, that creates the myth that the forums are a representative of the global GW audience.

Finally, I am actually not against separating PvP from PvE. I am hoping that with the most recent update, the "PvP/PvE Bridge" would lessen somewhat.

Remember, i dont dispute what you said, but you are just giving circumstantial evidence once again, and I am just not inclined to solidify personal final judgement upon just one person's viewpoint.

How exactly? The most efficient parties aren't actually Ursan parties - Ursan is making up for their lack of ability to play in the first place with overpowered abilities. While this does mean that areas become farmed a bit more than normal, due to now having a handicap that artificially boosts their ability to play in those areas, the movement of the economy is just sped up; it would have happened anyway, just over a longer period of time. If ANet believe the market is moving too fast or whatnot, they will nerf the build/skills/area, which won't directly show in the skill usage data.

Moreover, skills being overpowered shouldn't be based off of trending data because there have always been skills that have been popular but not particularly overpowered. They should be based off of comparisons of other skills that have the same effect, its synergy, and you compare its costs and the professions that can effectively utilise it.

That's why Ursan is overpowered when stacked: It has the same effect as an Earthshaker Warrior, and can be utilised by every profession, all the while synergising with itself. Trending data won't give explanations on why it's overpowered, which is the biggest concern I have with this system, it only indicates that the skill is being used - heavily in some cases. This means it only provides evidence that the skill usage should be looked into further, and not as a definitive resource on why certain skills are overpowered.

Before we start with the whole " UB is far overpowering thingie ". I never denied that it isn't.

But still, the only thing u gave so far, is just a detailed analysis of how the skill works, and thus why it is overpowering.

I am only interested in " Is UB so far overpowering, that everyone just uses UB parties, while other builds and party systems are completedly neglected? "

Thus that is what i want to ascertain. Alot of people have made statements of proof that what that said is true.

Once again, even if 100% of the posters in the forum say so, is it significant enough to be representative of the entire Guild Wars spectrum ? Every poster is only doing it from their limited sphere of influence. If so, how do they account for the people they didn't see or have contact with ?

At least with Global Data, I can see how true is the claim, without having to resort to mere heresay.

Moreover, interpretation of the data requires making assumptions (which I am loath to do), since the skill usage data don't explain the context the skills were used in, just that they were used. Making an assumption on this data invites bias from the interpreter, which we already see from prominent members. If you really want an unbiased view, it has to be a comparison of skillbar and its usage with a context to develop an argument about - the data you propose ANet to release doesn't provide enough evidence to support any theory except one, "most players use X anyway."

I dont dispute what you say, perhaps they are more variable involved. But data can be correlated with multiple variables, say:

" Most players use X, solo, within an instance, spending how long to do so. "

Globally, other variables like :

1. How much money is changing hands on average.

2. The frequency of items dropped for players.

3. Average amount of money being earned by players.

All these factors indeed by themselves might not mean much, but if compared with past historical data, and against one another, you can actually identify trends. One case in point "Out of Game money transactions".

And lastly, as pretencious as it might sound,

if players start arguments whereby sides start throwing out form of evidence to support what they propose, rather then just personal viewpoints, I find that often, that "flames" and "trolls" are less prevalent, because, everyone would be scrambling around to try to back up what they say with concrete evidence, rather then try to throw personal attacks around, helping to temper emotions.

What im trying to get at is that the "popular" builds, therefore having a high number in your statistics, aren't always overpowered.

I have mentioned that, if the game is supposedly as balanced as it is, then even if they are "popular" builds, I am very sure that they would be just a preferential prominent one.

I truely believe that, in every class, that there is a or many great builds, which people utilise. That does not mean that it in itself is a gamebreaker or overpowered.

However in the case of a truely "overpowered" build, wouldn't it be sticking out like a sore thumb in terms of preferential of usage ?

Case in Point: "Ursan Blessing" Is this skill truely so overpowered that, everyone uses it alot more so that other builds or skill usage pales in comparision with it ?

You could spout out personal experience with regards to the matter, but the fact still stands, you are still using a view point. View points are not representative of an entire spectrum.

(looking from a slight PvP perspective)
Why? You might ask, because almost every build has its counter, and the meta builds arent always the most overpowered ones.
For a PvP example see paraspike in HA (dont flame about this, it can be countered aswell im not whining about it), its defensive has great spikes and great healing all at the same time and is almost not countered by the current meta.

Does this make it overpowered? No, ofcourse not this just means that some people adjust to the meta to balance this out.

Once again, try to look further up at what I mentioned earlier, at the 3 possible scenarios.

My definition of Gamebreaking in PvP is when, a team build found is so effective then, no real meta counter really exists. Or that the only real counter is itself.

If so, would you consider that gamebreaking?

Otherswise, I am very sure, other form of builds or team builds are simply flavours of the month or so, and would eventually taper out, that it would be one of the many preferred builds.

Anywayz, you or I should not be too worried about this issue. I am very sure that Anet themselves have already a benchmark on what they percieve as gamebreaking or otherwise. ( Whether they should release the type of benchmark they use, is another issue entirely )

After all, you don't believe that Anet really watches every single PvP match right ?

Ofcourse this doesn't always count for PvE as mobs dont exactly counter by using different things, but which brings me to the following:
PvE is easy because people play with gimmicks, they can make it harder and easier themselves, adding a statistic to it is fine but do know that overfarming isnt exactly a bad thing and things as "overpowered" and "balanced" dont exactly count as much for PvE as for PvP.
Thus making the statistics sort of useless.
Anet made PvE easier for a more mainstream approach, thus also having Ursan (my opinion).
Imho you can make PvE as hard as you want it by running experimental builds and giving yourself a certain challenge instead of Ursan-way'ing your way through.
Short said: QQ about PvE, people play as they like, whine about it if you want but you're the one that should be enjoying yourself instead of whining about what other people play.

Actually, if you had read all the posts made up until this point, you would have noticed that I have tried not to take sides on this issue. In fact, if you were to dig deeper into my other posts outside this topic, I am actually all for PvE and PvP separation of state. My personal philosphy is that players should be able to play a game the way they like it, without other's implying how they do it.

I am actually only interested in this : When two sides start posting arguments on either end, I want to see how much truth should i place weightage on either side.

That said, just pure arguments and viewpoints in itself is not suffice for me. I have a bad tendency of self asking, " is what the poster saying true ? " and "if so, to what extent ? "

And more often then not, if there were statistics out released, I can at least make some if not simplistic or over-realistic benchmarks about whether their arguments hold any truth.

Without the statistics, both sides could argue till kingdom come ( which is often the truth ), and yet, inspite of everything, I am hardpressed to draw any definitive conclusion.

The problem these days is that Ursan has become a very popular team and other people are having problems with parties.
My only thought is that these statistics are more at proving how bad Ursan is than actually following the popular builds, as Ursan actually impacts the game because its the only thing played.
As before Ursan people were just playing something they liked.
I dont see how statistics could help out with normal builds as they never have and never will truely dominate for a long period except for farming maybe but that shouldn't affect too much.

Actually i am inclined to disagree with you on this point. This is because with the new system in place, say this:

Anet reverts all the previous nerfs to skill changes.

Would the usage of these skills change significantly that is could reduce people's reliance on Ursan builds ?

Once again, people could simply give feedback and viewpoints. But is it representative of the entire spectrum of GW players ?

Statistics can tell whether there is any significant change. Whether it is meaningful or otherwise, would be up to Anet themselves, based on their own benchmarks.

Of course we can all intepret the data differently, and create our own benchmarks, and there would still be differing views.

But would you rather people arguing solely on viewpoints and emotions ? I am sure throwing statistics in on either side, might actually make for good debates.

All in all the only thing usefull these statistics would have is forum posting letting people whine more about what other people are currently playing, for PvE this wouldn't actually matter anything.

I am actually not interested in how people play, I am only interested when people start making over-generalised claims and sweeping statements. I am interested in arguing against such people.

but without any statistical proof, I am not actually doing anything more, other then being a jerk like the person I am opposing. Afterall, we are just arguing from viewpoint. That in itself is already shallow.

For PvP it could be usefull in some extreme situations, but usually rather instead of QQ'ing about it they shouldn't post and just try and find a counter to that build/team in PvP

That should be scenario 2 in a post i mentioned for PvP. Let me post this scenario to you:

What if there actually exists a build or team build in PvP which is so effective so powerful, that no real counter exists or the only counter is itself ?

People can arguing that there is a build counter, spouting possible analytical builds.

BUT, analysis work is just that, accumulated global statistical data can actually help us determine if the counter build really holds true.

One team winning the "Godly build" several times cannot hold justification that it holds true. Other factors would remain. Factors like teamwork, latency etc.

If so, the only way, would be to a globalistic view of all matches pertaining to such build and counter build usage. Enough data collected will help to determine whether it is indeed true to what extent.