Why we don´t need Haven
- Thread starter Eldrath
- Start date
- Status
Fishing. I had to go through several videos to find out what I felt was basic working information on how to select my rod, line, bait, lure depth etc.
Half the videos rambled on for half an hour about stuff I couldn't care less about. If there was a wiki, I could have skipped straight to the info I needed on the page. And a tooltip wouldn't answer everything I needed to know.
It took five times the effort it would have taken to answer a similar question in Ark.
Yeah. Your standards are arbitrary. "It's not like EVE because EVE is more complex but it's like Rust because Rust has similar PvP. Also because it supports the thinly constructed point I'm trying to force to work."
This game isn't as complex as EVE? Have you tried Alchemy? Fishing? Taming? Breeding? Thieving? Haven shouldn't teach a masterclass on these things but it should hook players who are interested in learning them up with the fundamental skills they need to get the ball rolling.
It's complex enough you can't just assume people will understand 90% of the core mechanics like you're switching from Ark to Conan Exiles or something. Not that that would even be simple if both those games didn't have amazing wikis to easily fill in that remaining 10%.
Getting grief is part of the game. Getting grief when i was noob made me want to get better to dunk these kids. after a Year I went back in the graveyard thinking i was good enough to dunk all these kids. And I get dunk. it motivated me even more to get better at the game.
For sure at the beguining I almost uninstall. I remake 6 character because every time I was getting kill and looted. Before I quit I ask for a guild in helpchat and some gentlemen helped me to go true this madness.
Some sort of Helpchat or Guild recruiting chat is very important for new player. Player interaction is THE most important in MO. All the REEL content is base between player interaction that you want it or not. You cant ignore another player, you always have to keep an eye on people around you.
I was one of the people that Suggested a Newb island on MO1 and on paper its not a bad idee but it was a very bad idee. a newb island dont represent at all what is Mortal Online. What is the point to add an island that dont reflect the actual game, no point.
At the end, even if I joined a guild when I was noob and shit. Yes it helped me to get some gear and basic knowledge. But I had to learn the PvP by myself, I grinded the PvP so much that I finally get good at it and had so much tricks in my pocket.
I think my best proud is when I started to train people. Picking a random newb that have potential in Tindrem and make him become a serial killer.
(Ladystardust was my best apprentice, from the beginning he showed that he have big ballz, he was also barely speaking english and getting better at it everyday.... im very proud of him)
All that to say. A newb island is not the KEY for keeping newb into MO. Player interaction is the way to go, even if your community is toxic, a bunch of people are willing to help and its what make Mortal so great.
You guys should try to remember when you started play MO, what kept you into the game and why. If I would start MO on a newb island and never get kill and shit, I would get bored and never think about this game again.
For sure at the beguining I almost uninstall. I remake 6 character because every time I was getting kill and looted. Before I quit I ask for a guild in helpchat and some gentlemen helped me to go true this madness.
Some sort of Helpchat or Guild recruiting chat is very important for new player. Player interaction is THE most important in MO. All the REEL content is base between player interaction that you want it or not. You cant ignore another player, you always have to keep an eye on people around you.
I was one of the people that Suggested a Newb island on MO1 and on paper its not a bad idee but it was a very bad idee. a newb island dont represent at all what is Mortal Online. What is the point to add an island that dont reflect the actual game, no point.
At the end, even if I joined a guild when I was noob and shit. Yes it helped me to get some gear and basic knowledge. But I had to learn the PvP by myself, I grinded the PvP so much that I finally get good at it and had so much tricks in my pocket.
I think my best proud is when I started to train people. Picking a random newb that have potential in Tindrem and make him become a serial killer.
(Ladystardust was my best apprentice, from the beginning he showed that he have big ballz, he was also barely speaking english and getting better at it everyday.... im very proud of him)
All that to say. A newb island is not the KEY for keeping newb into MO. Player interaction is the way to go, even if your community is toxic, a bunch of people are willing to help and its what make Mortal so great.
You guys should try to remember when you started play MO, what kept you into the game and why. If I would start MO on a newb island and never get kill and shit, I would get bored and never think about this game again.
Here is the best way to sum up why MO is more comparable to EVE than Ark.
Explaining to a newb how to make a spear in Ark:
"Get two flint, eight wood, and 12 fiber. Select then engram in your inventory and use it. You can get blueprints that will increase the stats. The higher the percentage on a blueprint the better the spear. Higher intelligence gives better items when working from a blueprint."
Explaining to a newb how to make a spear in Mortal Online:
"The three primary stats you want to look at are weight, piercing damage, and durability. The lower the weight the better as a lower weight spear has a faster attack timer and less stamina drain. But you also want to consider damage and durability as they generally go down as weight does. Piercing damage is your most important on a spear as that's your thrust attack that's going to do the most damage. It's not a bad idea to look at slashing damage too though as you're going to be doing slashing damage if you swing from the side. Now with durability you want good durability so your weapon doesn't break mid combat. But keep in mind this game is full-loot so having it a bit low can be to your advantage sometimes in that enemies wont get as much when they rob you. The heavier a spear tip the more durability it gives you, but the more materials it costs as well. It's a general theme that holds true for most weapons.
So go through and play with different grip and blade types. See what gives the stats you like the most. Now keep in mind handle materials are generally going to have more effect on durability per weight while the blade/tip is going to have a greater effect on damage. No, I'm not just going to share my spreadsheets with you. If I give it to everyone then our enemies will have it. But you can go through and test all these materials and components on your own."
Explaining to a newb how to make a spear in Ark:
"Get two flint, eight wood, and 12 fiber. Select then engram in your inventory and use it. You can get blueprints that will increase the stats. The higher the percentage on a blueprint the better the spear. Higher intelligence gives better items when working from a blueprint."
Explaining to a newb how to make a spear in Mortal Online:
"The three primary stats you want to look at are weight, piercing damage, and durability. The lower the weight the better as a lower weight spear has a faster attack timer and less stamina drain. But you also want to consider damage and durability as they generally go down as weight does. Piercing damage is your most important on a spear as that's your thrust attack that's going to do the most damage. It's not a bad idea to look at slashing damage too though as you're going to be doing slashing damage if you swing from the side. Now with durability you want good durability so your weapon doesn't break mid combat. But keep in mind this game is full-loot so having it a bit low can be to your advantage sometimes in that enemies wont get as much when they rob you. The heavier a spear tip the more durability it gives you, but the more materials it costs as well. It's a general theme that holds true for most weapons.
So go through and play with different grip and blade types. See what gives the stats you like the most. Now keep in mind handle materials are generally going to have more effect on durability per weight while the blade/tip is going to have a greater effect on damage. No, I'm not just going to share my spreadsheets with you. If I give it to everyone then our enemies will have it. But you can go through and test all these materials and components on your own."
Last edited:
And you think being in a safe area for your first hour or two to learn basic mechanics before getting thrust out into the maingame will HURT player retention?
Of the many full loot PvP games I have played for thousands of hours over the years, I don't think the combat I experienced in my first two hours of play is the reason I stuck with a single one of them for any length of time. First day? Yes. Absolutely. First hour? Nah. Not a single time.
When I took my first step out of tindrem and saw a red mounted fighting a grey with a blue jumping in, it was a proof of concept.
I knew at the very least that pvp in the game looked very fun.
When I got killed I knew it meant that I could get much stronger than I was.
I wouldn't have got any of this on haven.
I´m fairly certain you could explain the mechanic of fishing in a pop-up or in the skill window.
Probably even a tooltip.
So no studies then?
The actual mechanic of crafting a spear is to:
1. Get materials
2. click them into slots at a crafting table
3. click craft.
What exactly do you imagine the tutorial explaining? That steel makes for a better swordblade than wood?
Any pop up could also explain both the mechanic above and give some basic hints on how to craft a decent weapon.
What exactly would a tutorial do better? Guide you through the complicated procedure of clicking materials?
Last edited:
"One study compares three games of varying complexity. Measuring session duration, activity, and return rate from telemetry data for 45,000 players, it finds that a tutorial does increase the return rate for the more complex game, but not for the two simpler ones [5]. In another study, the authors conduct a qualitative text analysis of hundreds of game reviews. They find that tutorials are generally very enjoyable, fun, and rewarding, but recommend developers to add elements of intrigue and more informational mechanics to help players determine that they should continue playing the game [28]"
Original Source
Source [5]
Source [28]
I'm sure you'll have some comment you think is real clever about how that doesn't apply to full-loot PvP games with 1:1 swordplay and two moons because you found a popular game on Steam without a tutorial. For any reasonable person I basically just won the argument as Mortal Online is a highly complex game and no reasonable person is going to sit there and dispute that. I'm not going to devote any further time to defending the idea tutorials increase longterm player retention unless you can link me a study saying they don't or that somehow being full loot changes that.
No. I don't expect the tutorial to sit there and tell newbs my spreadsheet data on sword making. Yes, they might recommend very basic things like "Metal such as steel generally makes a good blade while materials such as wood or bone make a good handle core but don't be afraid to test other options." It should walk the player through the process of choosing item elements and materials with advice such as "The lower the weight of your weapon the faster it swings and the less stamina it drains, but make sure to balance this against factors like durability and damage."
You're convinced this will take too many resources. I'm convinced that you're convinced that because those resources won't directly benefit you or any other person who already understands the basic mechanics and you don't strike me as a person who has much care for others outside themself and immediate friends. It might take a bit of effort for them to make audio pop up as the player does certain actions if they don't already have such a mechanic built-in. Scripting the dialogue and getting the audio should be pretty simple if they use the method I keep mentioning and you keep ignoring of giving the lines they want voiced to the community and picking out the best community submissions either for small prizes or just for the reward of hearing your own voice in-game.
Original Source
Source [5]
Source [28]
I'm sure you'll have some comment you think is real clever about how that doesn't apply to full-loot PvP games with 1:1 swordplay and two moons because you found a popular game on Steam without a tutorial. For any reasonable person I basically just won the argument as Mortal Online is a highly complex game and no reasonable person is going to sit there and dispute that. I'm not going to devote any further time to defending the idea tutorials increase longterm player retention unless you can link me a study saying they don't or that somehow being full loot changes that.
No. I don't expect the tutorial to sit there and tell newbs my spreadsheet data on sword making. Yes, they might recommend very basic things like "Metal such as steel generally makes a good blade while materials such as wood or bone make a good handle core but don't be afraid to test other options." It should walk the player through the process of choosing item elements and materials with advice such as "The lower the weight of your weapon the faster it swings and the less stamina it drains, but make sure to balance this against factors like durability and damage."
You're convinced this will take too many resources. I'm convinced that you're convinced that because those resources won't directly benefit you or any other person who already understands the basic mechanics and you don't strike me as a person who has much care for others outside themself and immediate friends. It might take a bit of effort for them to make audio pop up as the player does certain actions if they don't already have such a mechanic built-in. Scripting the dialogue and getting the audio should be pretty simple if they use the method I keep mentioning and you keep ignoring of giving the lines they want voiced to the community and picking out the best community submissions either for small prizes or just for the reward of hearing your own voice in-game.
Last edited:
I'm all for Haven. Getting griefed by fully skilled players (ingame skilled that is) and geared players isn't a very nice starting experience. I believe our wonderful community have griefed a big chunk of players out of the game before even getting the chance to try it out properly.
As it was before, it was enough that there was a fairly small group of players dedicated to griefing new players to actually make a big impact on the starting experience.
As it was before, it was enough that there was a fairly small group of players dedicated to griefing new players to actually make a big impact on the starting experience.
I'm not sure what the study design is, they appear to be firstly abour Ragnorak, WoW and Forza, then other studies of other study statistics, it's interesting though.
I would actually go along with @Eldraths reference to Rust, DayZ, ARK, and others in that genre, I've played all of those but not found them as in-depth in the way I like MO, I've never played Eve or WoW, so perhaps i have some cognitive bias here too
but to be fair the first study summary which appears to be a 'study of other studies' says "Our results suggest that investment in tutorials may not be justified for games with mechanics that can be discovered through experimentation."
i'd like to see a study with a fully designed spectrum covering community based vs game based instruction/help too,
I still hold that the 'discovery through experimentation' for MO in particular is king and everything from UI, interacctions and discovery in general should flow with more experimentation and less frustration, ie more consistency and intuitive design elements.
Short version - prioritise investment of time, money and real/virtual resources on great consistent and intuitive design and start in the main game environment with community content, also discoverable, i mean if you can't find discord or youtube or google 'MO2 gameplay' you're gonna have a lot of trouble anyway
-edit - i see reference to the MO Haven which has the old flagging system and grief aplenty, the faith in the new standing system should encourage both protection of new players and minimal griefing - having said that it will always happen somehow in any case
You're WILDLY misusing that quote. What they mean by "discovery through experimentation" is likely referring to a game like paper.io where a player of average intelligence can figure out the mechanics in a few minutes by playing the game. Not that the game has elements like alchemy that require hundreds or thousands of experiments.
This goes directly back to the idea of a "simple" vs. "complex" game. This was a broad study with games of many genres. I can promise you if I spoke with the makers of this study they would define Mario 64, League of Legends, and World of Warcraft as complex games. They're talking flappy bird when they say simple games you can discover through experimentation.
And even so, it's the kind of things you discover through experimentation I put into my spreadsheets, and the kind of things I put into my spreadsheets that I say DON'T put into a tutorial.
I would gladly provide a study on full loot PvP fantasy sandbox MMOs and how tutorials affect player retention should that study exist. I am 99.99999999% confident it would support my conclusion that tutorials help new player retention. It's basic common sense to be able to apply the logic of these other studies to games like Mortal Online 2.
However in the absence of needlessly hyperspecific data, as I've said a few times on these forums. "Some data is better than no data." And btw, sourcing that a game can succeed without a tutorial counts as basically no data in supporting the conclusion that tutorials are not useful. That only backs the assertion that in some cases they are not a hard requirement to succeed. I'd be curious to see how it affected numbers in these games if a tutorial were added. Excluding a better / more specific study that contradicts the results of what I've put forth, you're not going to convince me a study that basically just verifies what should be common sense is wrong.
This goes directly back to the idea of a "simple" vs. "complex" game. This was a broad study with games of many genres. I can promise you if I spoke with the makers of this study they would define Mario 64, League of Legends, and World of Warcraft as complex games. They're talking flappy bird when they say simple games you can discover through experimentation.
And even so, it's the kind of things you discover through experimentation I put into my spreadsheets, and the kind of things I put into my spreadsheets that I say DON'T put into a tutorial.
I would gladly provide a study on full loot PvP fantasy sandbox MMOs and how tutorials affect player retention should that study exist. I am 99.99999999% confident it would support my conclusion that tutorials help new player retention. It's basic common sense to be able to apply the logic of these other studies to games like Mortal Online 2.
However in the absence of needlessly hyperspecific data, as I've said a few times on these forums. "Some data is better than no data." And btw, sourcing that a game can succeed without a tutorial counts as basically no data in supporting the conclusion that tutorials are not useful. That only backs the assertion that in some cases they are not a hard requirement to succeed. I'd be curious to see how it affected numbers in these games if a tutorial were added. Excluding a better / more specific study that contradicts the results of what I've put forth, you're not going to convince me a study that basically just verifies what should be common sense is wrong.
Last edited:
For those that have been away, take a look at what you missed.
starvault.se
Crafting with zero skills, infinite safe zone, wardec override, no pvp, no full loot. It's Anti-MO. The features that make MO significant are missing. The features they advertise to attract players are undermined in their own game. Rather than acclimating people to a hardcore game, it works in the opposite direction. Everything in MO then looks tedious and unnecessary. Sad. Delete it.
Haven Update discussion
We have been working on a really massive new update for the last few months. Mortal Online is a very difficult game to grasp, it’s large, unwieldy and complicated. This has always made it very difficult for brand new players to get started. A couple of years ago we tried to make the starting...
Crafting with zero skills, infinite safe zone, wardec override, no pvp, no full loot. It's Anti-MO. The features that make MO significant are missing. The features they advertise to attract players are undermined in their own game. Rather than acclimating people to a hardcore game, it works in the opposite direction. Everything in MO then looks tedious and unnecessary. Sad. Delete it.
"I didn't like how they did something in MO1 therefore it shouldn't exist. Clearly, that is a better solution than fixing the problems."
How many time are you worn out bitter old MO1 vets going to use this same, tired, weak ass argument on every subject imaginable? MO2 is a chance to start fresh, learn from mistake and do things better. Yet you use the assumption things will be implemented in precisely the same manner as the foundation for nearly every "I'm an MO1 vet so muh opinion matters more!" type argument made on these boards.
As stated. No I didn't miss Haven. I played through it within the last month. It was too large and has too much non-tutorial content. Fix that. Don't nix the tutorial, and don't make it so newbs have to deal with trash tier griefers too shit to go out and compete with other vets while learning the basics of gameplay.
The idea that the game is "anti-MO" or "carebear" because newbs aren't getting slaughtered while they take an hour or two to familiarize themselves with controls and basic mechanics is a straight dumbass level assertion. It has zero basis in reality and that should be inherently obvious to anyone who can step back and look at the situation objectively for ten seconds.
Most newbs are going to get introduced to PvP in their first few hours of play with or without a Haven, and they'll get a great deal more enjoyment from it knowing how to fight back to some degree. Getting smacked from behind for half your healthbar while you're still learning the difference between parry and block does not grow a game's playerbase and only a complete and utter fool would believe it does.
I come into games like this knowing, expecting, and hoping for fights. But I don't come in thinking "Man I really hope I get my first fight before I finish my tutorial!" and I have THOUSANDS of hours into titles like this. Griefing newbs (And yes if you're attacking new players in the starter areas as anyone other than another newb you're obviously a griefer. Non chicken-shit vets prefer to fight other vets.) does not help the games you do it in. Never has, never will.
How many time are you worn out bitter old MO1 vets going to use this same, tired, weak ass argument on every subject imaginable? MO2 is a chance to start fresh, learn from mistake and do things better. Yet you use the assumption things will be implemented in precisely the same manner as the foundation for nearly every "I'm an MO1 vet so muh opinion matters more!" type argument made on these boards.
As stated. No I didn't miss Haven. I played through it within the last month. It was too large and has too much non-tutorial content. Fix that. Don't nix the tutorial, and don't make it so newbs have to deal with trash tier griefers too shit to go out and compete with other vets while learning the basics of gameplay.
The idea that the game is "anti-MO" or "carebear" because newbs aren't getting slaughtered while they take an hour or two to familiarize themselves with controls and basic mechanics is a straight dumbass level assertion. It has zero basis in reality and that should be inherently obvious to anyone who can step back and look at the situation objectively for ten seconds.
Most newbs are going to get introduced to PvP in their first few hours of play with or without a Haven, and they'll get a great deal more enjoyment from it knowing how to fight back to some degree. Getting smacked from behind for half your healthbar while you're still learning the difference between parry and block does not grow a game's playerbase and only a complete and utter fool would believe it does.
I come into games like this knowing, expecting, and hoping for fights. But I don't come in thinking "Man I really hope I get my first fight before I finish my tutorial!" and I have THOUSANDS of hours into titles like this. Griefing newbs (And yes if you're attacking new players in the starter areas as anyone other than another newb you're obviously a griefer. Non chicken-shit vets prefer to fight other vets.) does not help the games you do it in. Never has, never will.
Last edited:
instead of being accused of 'WILDLY misusing' a quote, i'll just paste from the study directly then;
no such thing as raw data, analysis and statistics are subjective as is most research and study by design, so that's all out the window anyway.
the point was to show anything can be cherry picked.
common sense logic says 'consistent' and 'intuitive', i mean they're almost synonyms anyway.
anyhoo it's all coming down to winning an argument instead of a discussion now so i'm out.
have fun guys n gals
no such thing as raw data, analysis and statistics are subjective as is most research and study by design, so that's all out the window anyway.
the point was to show anything can be cherry picked.
common sense logic says 'consistent' and 'intuitive', i mean they're almost synonyms anyway.
anyhoo it's all coming down to winning an argument instead of a discussion now so i'm out.
have fun guys n gals
I'm fine with Haven as long as theres only the lowest tier of mats to farm there and theres a time limit. It doesn't have to be rushed, give them a whole week for all I care. But they should NOT be able to just live there indefinetly. Next thing you know, they will be asking for a PVE server, or to let them toggle pvp off in Myrland too...
So the first part you quoted is basically where they were at for the study. "Little is known" about the subject of the paper. That's the problem. How are they going to solve it? They tell you in the next line. "Seeking to estimate this value, we..." *Description of research methods*
Little was known, hence they DID the study and obtained the results.
And again the line right before your second highlighted line basically explains it.
"Although tutorials increase play time by as much as 29% in the most complex games, they did not significantly improve player engagement in the two simpler games." That's their finding.
"Our results suggest that investment in tutorials may not be justified for games with mechanics that can be discovered through experimentation." That's their conclusion which is based on their finding.
If you've taken classes that require you to write abstracts to sum up your research (I have. Business Research Methods 1 and 2. They were part of my degree. Among numerous other classes that built upon those principles.) then this abstract isn't too difficult to break down. You are absolutely wildly misusing what they said here. In this context "Discovered through experimentation" in their conclusion needs to line up with their findings that state "they did not significantly improve player engagement in the two simpler games."
As I stated, if we assume they mean experimentation as in you can easily puzzle out the mechanics yourself by playing the game (slither.io, paper.io, flappy bird etc.) then their findings support their conclusion. If you wildly misuse the quotes and cherrypick the words you want to hear from this, to reach some crazy conclusion that Mortal doesn't need a tutorial because some of it's crafting involves experimentation... then nothing here makes sense. Like how does your conclusion even begin to make sense when you compare it to what they are saying?
This entire abstract is all over the place and makes no sense based on your interpretation. It wouldn't even be a proper abstract, just a rambling blob of disjointed thoughts. It flows perfectly and makes a great deal of sense while following the proper format of an abstract based on mine. If the findings of someone's abstract don't support the conclusion it's either a very bad paper or your interpretation is very wrong. I'm going to go with the latter here. Their abstract is fine if taken in proper context instead of twisting words to suit your own agendas.
Using studies to support the conclusions they were intended to make is not cherrypicking data. The selective hearing you seem to have when it comes to reading academic papers absolutely is cherrypicking.
Little was known, hence they DID the study and obtained the results.
And again the line right before your second highlighted line basically explains it.
"Although tutorials increase play time by as much as 29% in the most complex games, they did not significantly improve player engagement in the two simpler games." That's their finding.
"Our results suggest that investment in tutorials may not be justified for games with mechanics that can be discovered through experimentation." That's their conclusion which is based on their finding.
If you've taken classes that require you to write abstracts to sum up your research (I have. Business Research Methods 1 and 2. They were part of my degree. Among numerous other classes that built upon those principles.) then this abstract isn't too difficult to break down. You are absolutely wildly misusing what they said here. In this context "Discovered through experimentation" in their conclusion needs to line up with their findings that state "they did not significantly improve player engagement in the two simpler games."
As I stated, if we assume they mean experimentation as in you can easily puzzle out the mechanics yourself by playing the game (slither.io, paper.io, flappy bird etc.) then their findings support their conclusion. If you wildly misuse the quotes and cherrypick the words you want to hear from this, to reach some crazy conclusion that Mortal doesn't need a tutorial because some of it's crafting involves experimentation... then nothing here makes sense. Like how does your conclusion even begin to make sense when you compare it to what they are saying?
This entire abstract is all over the place and makes no sense based on your interpretation. It wouldn't even be a proper abstract, just a rambling blob of disjointed thoughts. It flows perfectly and makes a great deal of sense while following the proper format of an abstract based on mine. If the findings of someone's abstract don't support the conclusion it's either a very bad paper or your interpretation is very wrong. I'm going to go with the latter here. Their abstract is fine if taken in proper context instead of twisting words to suit your own agendas.
Using studies to support the conclusions they were intended to make is not cherrypicking data. The selective hearing you seem to have when it comes to reading academic papers absolutely is cherrypicking.
Last edited:
TL : DR - What that paper said is that for complex games (Like Mortal Online 2) playtime can be increased by up to 29% by a good tutorial, but that when you're talking simple games (flappy bird) that's not true.
Based on the fact this kind of shit is literally what I spent the last few years earning a degree in, I'd say those kind of numbers suggest a tutorial is very worth pursuing. Playtime is a rather significant factor for game with a subscription revenue model. The potential to increase their revenue by nearly a third (granted that is the most optimistic projections but you could fall well short of them and still see a significant increase in profit) absolutely merit investment in a decent tutorial.
Would better data back up that conclusion more? Sure. And if SV wants to bring me on as a consultant I'll gladly dig deeper and find more studies or even conduct some within the given budget restraints then apply that data to their specific numbers to make some financial projections. Obviously if studying the need for a tutorial ends up costing more than the tutorial would have, then it would have been better to use secondary research. As I have provided. Using sources that seem extremely credible from an academic perspective. But for the purposes of a forum debate with someone who I'm fairly sure is neither educated on nor in the professional field of business consulting, the sources I provided are pretty damn good.
Again. As I said, I don't feel the need to defend that tutorials are useful anymore based on the study I provided unless contradictory studies can be provided. You've challenged my study on unsound grounds, and I have given a defense of it based on a simple interpretation that just follows the proper format of abstracts where your conclusion must be built upon your findings. I don't feel the need to debate the validity of this study with you anymore unless someone who can demonstrate they understand and can properly interpret an abstract/academic writing cares to carry on with this debate.
Based on the fact this kind of shit is literally what I spent the last few years earning a degree in, I'd say those kind of numbers suggest a tutorial is very worth pursuing. Playtime is a rather significant factor for game with a subscription revenue model. The potential to increase their revenue by nearly a third (granted that is the most optimistic projections but you could fall well short of them and still see a significant increase in profit) absolutely merit investment in a decent tutorial.
Would better data back up that conclusion more? Sure. And if SV wants to bring me on as a consultant I'll gladly dig deeper and find more studies or even conduct some within the given budget restraints then apply that data to their specific numbers to make some financial projections. Obviously if studying the need for a tutorial ends up costing more than the tutorial would have, then it would have been better to use secondary research. As I have provided. Using sources that seem extremely credible from an academic perspective. But for the purposes of a forum debate with someone who I'm fairly sure is neither educated on nor in the professional field of business consulting, the sources I provided are pretty damn good.
Again. As I said, I don't feel the need to defend that tutorials are useful anymore based on the study I provided unless contradictory studies can be provided. You've challenged my study on unsound grounds, and I have given a defense of it based on a simple interpretation that just follows the proper format of abstracts where your conclusion must be built upon your findings. I don't feel the need to debate the validity of this study with you anymore unless someone who can demonstrate they understand and can properly interpret an abstract/academic writing cares to carry on with this debate.
Last edited:
- Status