1. #1

    Survey Results Look Manipulated - What Do You Think

    Let me be upfront and say that despite my feelings about the game I believe that Ubisoft Paris can turn things around and make GRBP a proper sequel to Wildlands if left alone; no interference from marketing or sales or executives, especially executives. I am posting the below because if I don't someone else will and they may try to spin it as anti-developer where as I'm simply trying to explain why we need to see the raw results of the survey and not a summary of them.

    I'm concerned that the survey results have been presented in a way so that the results presented to us is something more acceptable to Ubisoft then what the real numbers portray. Let me explain....

    1) Add AI Teammates requested by %50+ of respondents - So the most requested change the game needs per the respondents of this survey is a feature that has been in the works since before the games release and is already designated to be added to the game via some later update. How does this not look highly suspicious? Its unbelievably convenient that something the studio has been working on and is already planned for release is listed as the most requested change/addition to the game. Did some survey respondents select Add AI Teammates? Sure but was it more then half? I find it hard to believe that over %50 of respondents selected something that is already coming to the game as being the most important change needed.

    2) Whats with the "+" - The use of the "+" is presumably because the numbers are being rounded so instead of listing a number like %34.76 you would round and list %35. There's no way to know if this is true without seeing the results unfiltered and without any manipulation. The number %35+ could mean %34.57 rounded up or it could mean any value from 35 to 100. For example if %65 of respondents voted for the Removal of Tiered Loot And Gear Score it would still be accurate for me to say that %35+ of respondents voted for this as the most important change because %35+ means more then %35. See how this is easily misleading?

    It also concerns me that only %35+ of respondents listed Remove Gear Score And Tiered Loot from the game as the most important change. Despite the extent of debate within the forums about tiered loot being shoe horned into this game and effectively breaking it in terms of being a ghost recon game, we are to believe that only %35+ selected it as the most important change? This sounds highly questionable to me.


    3) Selling All Weapons/Gear At Once - Why would there be a need for selling all gear and weapons at once if tiered gear is being removed? If Remove Gear Score And Tiered loot is being implemented then why would we still need a Sell All weapons/gear feature? This is HIGHLY concerning because it tells me that Removal Of gear Score and Tiered Loot means that the numbers by which the weapons and gear are identified are going away but we're still going to be running around looking for new/better gear and weapons they just will not have a gear score or any tiers and if that happens then the core issue was not addressed.


    4) Averaging multiple options - It greatly concerns me that Removal of Tiered Loot and Gear Score is grouped in with Enemy AI improvements and Sell all weapons/gear at once. Why would they group these 3 together? Perhaps to get a more desirable average?

    For example if the survey results were as follows:

    %70 removal of tiered loot and gear score
    %10 voted for selling of all weapons at once
    %20 enemy AI improvements

    and you averaged these (%33) and then rounded up to the nearest increment of 5 which the results appear to be doing then you can list all of these as being %35 even though
    the Removal of Tiered loot/gear score form the game would be by far the most wanted change, more so then the addition of AI team mates.

    Why would the survey results be presented this way with manipulated results? To manage the damage.

    SUMMARY

    Currently the survey paints the following picture

    MOST IMPORTANT: Addition of AI Team mates

    2ND MOST IMPORTANT but only at %35: A 3-way tie between Removal of Tiered loot/gear score, Enemy AI Improvements and a Sell All Weapons and Gear Feature


    Do any of you honestly believe that the most important change needed in this game is the addition of AI team mates, something that was already coming to the game?

    Do any of you believe that there were equal number of requests for Removal Of Tiered loot and the addition of a Sell All Weapons/gear feature?

    We need to see the raw results and hopefully without there being altered. We don't need to see any identifying data of the participants just the results because as of current the survey results presented do not line up with the general feeling of the community.
     11 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Actually, the graphic doesn't say 'respondents.' It says 'players.' The survey asked if the respondent owned Breakpoint, played Breakpoint, if they still played Breakpoint, if they were planning on quitting Breakpoint, or if they had already stopped playing Breakpoint.

    Without seeing the raw data, the data set presented could have very well been a cherry-picked sample of 'players' to best fit their agenda and narrative.

    Also, 35%+ could be any number above 35. They didn't release the raw data for a reason.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by Kangamangus556 Go to original post
    Without seeing the raw data, the data set presented could have very well been a cherry-picked sample of 'players' to best fit their agenda and narrative.

    Also, 35%+ could be any number above 35. They didn't release the raw data for a reason.

    Yeah that is what I have been hoping for. I am not sure they have a reason for not releasing the raw data. Seems they make a lot of decisions with little reason to them.. I just don't feel the numbers as presented give enough granularity to understand where the community sits. In general outline though, yeah I'd have to say that it is mostly accurate - they designed the game for the wrong freakin audience and now they are paying the price.
     3 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by Steven527 Go to original post
    Yeah that is what I have been hoping for. I am not sure they have a reason for not releasing the raw data. Seems they make a lot of decisions with little reason to them.. I just don't feel the numbers as presented give enough granularity to understand where the community sits. In general outline though, yeah I'd have to say that it is mostly accurate - they designed the game for the wrong freakin audience and now they are paying the price.
    Yeah...why even bother maintaining an IP if you're just going to try to ape everything else, including a game you've already made? Apparently The Division wasn't enough like Fortnite?
    Share this post

  5. #5
    KingSpawn1979's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,418
    Here we are, Ubisoft. People don't trust you whatever you do.
    That's the Price for ongoing false Advertisement, Disappointing Fan Base, massive Greed and Lying.
     5 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Only 35% requested removal of Gear score? How convenient for them that it's "only" 35% while players are vocal about it since CB. Now they'll be like, 35% is not enough to make a total remake of core gameplay... Players actually like it more... Yeah right....
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  7. #7
    BooMShakalaQ's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    ..
    Posts
    491
    If they are sincere, they should hire a 3rd party firm to do that survey, not the devil in disguise... so to speak.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  8. #8
    JimboSlice11b's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    MI, USA
    Posts
    107
    All statistical results are manipulated. It's kind of the whole point of statistics.
     3 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  9. #9
    It is hard to trust one because there has already been misleading information and two putting the + could mean any figure and they are not directly lying.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    The only way I can imagine that "AI Team Mates" beat getting rid of the online-only requirement was if Ubi fudged the results. Something like only counting the people who clicked Played or Owned or whatever the 1st question was for the issues they wanted to ignore or show a greatly exaggerated lower percentage.

    If Ubi had any integrity left, they would have just released the raw data and strait up said "Yep, we majorly ****ed up here, here, here, and here. Sorry, we'll fix it."
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

Page 1 of 7 123 ... Last ►►