0.23% of Xbox One Players Have Completed VMA

GrumpyDuckling

Danksta wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Valera Progib wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Lukums1 wrote: »

People can't be that bad.

Seriously.

I wouldn't call it "bad," maybe just not interested. I think a large part of the reason is that the number is so low is because VMA isn't fun... it's mostly about memorizing spawn spots and enemy rotations - not exactly exciting.

Dude, as I mentioned before - do VDSA if you want end game gear and your "group play" if you can't compete VDSA why do you even bother asking for group VMA?

Noobs will remain noobs if they are not ready to overcome any challenges. Saying that VMA requires a lot of time and it isn't fun - well, you need VMA weapons in 99.9% cases because you are DPS and any competent DPS should be able to complete VMA.

Another funny thing - if play solo PvP - VMA should be easy for you, if you are a group noob - well, get gud.

To answer your question - I bother asking for group VMA because:

1) VMA isn't fun - it's about memorizing spawn spots and enemy rotations. A multiplayer component would at least add a new variable to make it more exciting.
2) The option for group play is more inclusive - people who excel in roles other than DPS (such as tanks and healers) would get to strut their stuff and have a chance at Maelstrom end-game weapons.

I vehemently disagree with your "get gud" statement at the end of your post. It speaks down to those who participate in group play.

How is doing vMA as a duo, an arena designed for solo play, going to make it more exciting? Do you realize how incredibly easy vMA would be with a pocket healer? It would be a snore fest. This whole thread is a joke, and a really bad one at that.

Are we taking out the potential for any changes in a multiplayer version? (More damage, altered mechanics, increase in enemies, etc?)

Sigtric

IzakiBrotherSs wrote: »

Ye... Well, fyi the quest where you kill Molag Ball doesn't have more than 1% completion either.

I just looked on PSN and it seems there's nearly a 3% rating for the VMA achieve on PS4. Maybe Xbox just needs to git gud? :P

Danksta

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Danksta wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Valera Progib wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Lukums1 wrote: »

People can't be that bad.

Seriously.

I wouldn't call it "bad," maybe just not interested. I think a large part of the reason is that the number is so low is because VMA isn't fun... it's mostly about memorizing spawn spots and enemy rotations - not exactly exciting.

Dude, as I mentioned before - do VDSA if you want end game gear and your "group play" if you can't compete VDSA why do you even bother asking for group VMA?

Noobs will remain noobs if they are not ready to overcome any challenges. Saying that VMA requires a lot of time and it isn't fun - well, you need VMA weapons in 99.9% cases because you are DPS and any competent DPS should be able to complete VMA.

Another funny thing - if play solo PvP - VMA should be easy for you, if you are a group noob - well, get gud.

To answer your question - I bother asking for group VMA because:

1) VMA isn't fun - it's about memorizing spawn spots and enemy rotations. A multiplayer component would at least add a new variable to make it more exciting.
2) The option for group play is more inclusive - people who excel in roles other than DPS (such as tanks and healers) would get to strut their stuff and have a chance at Maelstrom end-game weapons.

I vehemently disagree with your "get gud" statement at the end of your post. It speaks down to those who participate in group play.

How is doing vMA as a duo, an arena designed for solo play, going to make it more exciting? Do you realize how incredibly easy vMA would be with a pocket healer? It would be a snore fest. This whole thread is a joke, and a really bad one at that.

Are we taking out the potential for any changes in a multiplayer version? (More damage, altered mechanics, increase in enemies, etc?)

Yes, we are taking out "potential for any changes" because there is none. ZoS wouldn't tack on a 2-player mode and they certainly aren't adding mobs and changing mechanics for an arena that's over a year old. If they're going to put that much work into an arena it will be a new one.

GrumpyDuckling

Danksta wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Danksta wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Valera Progib wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Lukums1 wrote: »

People can't be that bad.

Seriously.

I wouldn't call it "bad," maybe just not interested. I think a large part of the reason is that the number is so low is because VMA isn't fun... it's mostly about memorizing spawn spots and enemy rotations - not exactly exciting.

Dude, as I mentioned before - do VDSA if you want end game gear and your "group play" if you can't compete VDSA why do you even bother asking for group VMA?

Noobs will remain noobs if they are not ready to overcome any challenges. Saying that VMA requires a lot of time and it isn't fun - well, you need VMA weapons in 99.9% cases because you are DPS and any competent DPS should be able to complete VMA.

Another funny thing - if play solo PvP - VMA should be easy for you, if you are a group noob - well, get gud.

To answer your question - I bother asking for group VMA because:

1) VMA isn't fun - it's about memorizing spawn spots and enemy rotations. A multiplayer component would at least add a new variable to make it more exciting.
2) The option for group play is more inclusive - people who excel in roles other than DPS (such as tanks and healers) would get to strut their stuff and have a chance at Maelstrom end-game weapons.

I vehemently disagree with your "get gud" statement at the end of your post. It speaks down to those who participate in group play.

How is doing vMA as a duo, an arena designed for solo play, going to make it more exciting? Do you realize how incredibly easy vMA would be with a pocket healer? It would be a snore fest. This whole thread is a joke, and a really bad one at that.

Are we taking out the potential for any changes in a multiplayer version? (More damage, altered mechanics, increase in enemies, etc?)

Yes, we are taking out "potential for any changes" because there is none. ZoS wouldn't tack on a 2-player mode and they certainly aren't adding mobs and changing mechanics for an arena that's over a year old. If they're going to put that much work into an arena it will be a new one.

I am not sure how you can definitively make that claim. I would imagine it would be easier to make tweaks to a current arena than build an entirely new arena - but I'm not a developer so I won't say that is the case.

greylox

It isn't fun for some people, people that don't like mechanics and memorising stuff.

I prefer doing vet dungeons solo when I want something a bit challenging and I prefer them because it's just a case of a tonne of enemies rushing you and you have to stay alive and kill them, block and dodge occasionally and manage resources. Bosses have minimal if any mechanics and that's cool with me. Maelstrom on the other hand is just.....effort, not skill necessarily but effort, and it takes too long.

I can live without a maelstrom weapon so I don't bother with it. I would do it for completion sake if it was a duo arena but that's about it.

code65536

@GrumpyDuckling A bit late to the thread, but I just wanted to say that number by itself doesn't mean much, because, as people pointed out, it could be counting people who are no longer active players.

What would be more interesting is to see how that number compares against other achievements.

How many people have the nMA achievement?

How many people have the achievement for completing the first Wrothgar story quest (i.e., how many people actually bought and played the DLC).

How many people have the achievements for spending 150 CP points per color? (i.e., how many people reached far enough into the CP levels)

How many people have completed Vet Spindle 1? vCoA2? vWGT/vICP? vCoS/vRoM?

Etc.

Bobby_V_Rockit

I am totally and inmovable stuck on stage 5. I made it passed round 1 once, but keep dying (maybe 20 timea now) to all the ranged mobs. A shame really, youtubers like Lukums make it look so easy

DeadlyRecluse

I'd rather a new arena, designed for duo, rather than a slapdash duo addition to maelstrom.

the .23 percent is artificially low, anyway, for a variety of reasons.

Vaoh

Terrible statistics to pull from to support your reasoning. As others have already stated, the percentage of players to do basic things like finish the tutorial, level to 50, finish the main quest, etc are all very low as well.

GrumpyDuckling

Vaoh wrote: »

Terrible statistics to pull from to support your reasoning. As others have already stated, the percentage of players to do basic things like finish the tutorial, level to 50, finish the main quest, etc are all very low as well.

I disagree, @Vaoh .

If Matt Firor is comfortable in using 8.5 million as the total number of ESO players (as of February 2017) as the statistic for ZOS' player base, then I am comfortable using the total number of players as well in this discussion. More specifically, if ZOS totals their player base based on sales, then it is reasonable that I use total numbers to make an argument about how few players have completed part of the end-game content in ESO.

The following quoted information is from mmorpg.com: "At an Elder Scrolls Online press event, Matt Firor confirmed to our own Bill Murphy that the game is sporting 8.5 million players. At E3 2016, ESO had 7 million players and has grown by 1.5 million since then. This number is based off of units sold and is not simply a tally of registered accounts.
According to Firor, the population is split fairly evenly among all platforms. Currently, Elder Scrolls Online is available on PC, PlayStation 4 and XBox One."
http://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online/news/matt-firor-85-million-eso-players-right-now-based-on-sales-1000043197

Accodring to Firor, there are about 2.83 million Xbox One players as of February 2017, and my stats were pulled in May 2017, so that number would have only gone up.

What is 0.23% of 2.83 million?

Pepper8Jack

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Terrible statistics to pull from to support your reasoning. As others have already stated, the percentage of players to do basic things like finish the tutorial, level to 50, finish the main quest, etc are all very low as well.

I disagree, @Vaoh .

If Matt Firor is comfortable in using 8.5 million as the total number of ESO players (as of February 2017) as the statistic for ZOS' player base, then I am comfortable using the total number of players as well in this discussion. More specifically, if ZOS totals their player base based on sales, then it is reasonable that I use total numbers to make an argument about how few players have completed part of the end-game content in ESO.

The following quoted information is from mmorpg.com: "At an Elder Scrolls Online press event, Matt Firor confirmed to our own Bill Murphy that the game is sporting 8.5 million players. At E3 2016, ESO had 7 million players and has grown by 1.5 million since then. This number is based off of units sold and is not simply a tally of registered accounts.
According to Firor, the population is split fairly evenly among all platforms. Currently, Elder Scrolls Online is available on PC, PlayStation 4 and XBox One."
http://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online/news/matt-firor-85-million-eso-players-right-now-based-on-sales-1000043197

Accodring to Firor, there are about 2.83 million Xbox One players as of February 2017, and my stats were pulled in May 2017, so that number would have only gone up.

What is 0.23% of 2.83 million?

I fail to see how Matt Firor's use of those statistics justify yours.

He's making a statement about sales and the growth of the game. In that context, these statistics are relevant and indicate that ESO is continuing to sell well.

You're making a statement about difficulty. Others and myself have proven that there is no connection between your statistics and difficulty, making them therefore irrelevant.

Even if your point was that Matt Firor is using numbers that support his position, despite being exaggerated in order to do so, that doesn't give you justification to do something similar. By that logic, anyone can just do whatever they want, because surely someone, somewhere has done worse.

GrumpyDuckling

Pepper8Jack wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Terrible statistics to pull from to support your reasoning. As others have already stated, the percentage of players to do basic things like finish the tutorial, level to 50, finish the main quest, etc are all very low as well.

I disagree, @Vaoh .

If Matt Firor is comfortable in using 8.5 million as the total number of ESO players (as of February 2017) as the statistic for ZOS' player base, then I am comfortable using the total number of players as well in this discussion. More specifically, if ZOS totals their player base based on sales, then it is reasonable that I use total numbers to make an argument about how few players have completed part of the end-game content in ESO.

The following quoted information is from mmorpg.com: "At an Elder Scrolls Online press event, Matt Firor confirmed to our own Bill Murphy that the game is sporting 8.5 million players. At E3 2016, ESO had 7 million players and has grown by 1.5 million since then. This number is based off of units sold and is not simply a tally of registered accounts.
According to Firor, the population is split fairly evenly among all platforms. Currently, Elder Scrolls Online is available on PC, PlayStation 4 and XBox One."
http://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online/news/matt-firor-85-million-eso-players-right-now-based-on-sales-1000043197

Accodring to Firor, there are about 2.83 million Xbox One players as of February 2017, and my stats were pulled in May 2017, so that number would have only gone up.

What is 0.23% of 2.83 million?

I fail to see how Matt Firor's use of those statistics justify yours.

He's making a statement about sales and the growth of the game. In that context, these statistics are relevant and indicate that ESO is continuing to sell well.

You're making a statement about difficulty. Others and myself have proven that there is no connection between your statistics and difficulty, making them therefore irrelevant.

Even if your point was that Matt Firor is using numbers that support his position, despite being exaggerated in order to do so, that doesn't give you justification to do something similar. By that logic, anyone can just do whatever they want, because surely someone, somewhere has done worse.

I think my statement on difficulty requires Firor's statement on the total number of players in the game so that we can establish that the sample size is ample enough, as well as look at the larger picture.

For example, if there were only 500 ESO players, then one could easily say that the sample size for this discussion is too small. Without the total number, it would be harder to understand the context of the statistic we are looking at.

When I look at the larger picture, this is what I see. The game sells to about 2.83 million Xbox One players. 0.23% of those players have completed part of the end-game content. What does that say about the game when less than one fourth of 1% of its 2.83 million players have completed the end-game? I think it means that players don't find the content enjoyable enough to strive for veteran level status and accomplish/achieve VMA completion, which is why I think a multiplayer option would reinvigorate the game mode and perhaps encourage more players to enjoy it. You can disagree with that, which is fine, but I think the Firor numbers are essential in understanding the context of the 0.23% number that appears on the Xbox achievement list.

tplink3r1

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

0.23% of Xbox One players have earned the achievement "Maelstrom Arena Conqueror" which asks you to "Conquer all challengers in Veteran Maelstrom Arena." Data was pulled from Xbox One achievements list on 5/14/17 at 11:42 p.m. Eastern Time.

I thought this would be interesting to share, especially since the only way to access VMA weapons is through solo play - in a game that widely encourages players to group together. I'd like to see that 0.23% number go up, and to see it go up by implementation of a VMA multiplayer option. Some will like the suggestion, some will hate it, and some will fall between those two extremes. I would like to see VMA receive a multiplayer option because I'm bored of grinding solo, and would like to be reinvigorated by experiencing the arena with friends. I also think that access to VMA weapons, which can help in the abundance of group content that the game offers, should be accessible to more than just the players who excel in solo content such as VMA.

" I'd like to see that 0.23% number go up"
Good, then start teaching people how to play.

Nexus_Emperor

VMA On xnox solo & DC & Lag IDK why!!

Pepper8Jack

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Pepper8Jack wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Terrible statistics to pull from to support your reasoning. As others have already stated, the percentage of players to do basic things like finish the tutorial, level to 50, finish the main quest, etc are all very low as well.

I disagree, @Vaoh .

If Matt Firor is comfortable in using 8.5 million as the total number of ESO players (as of February 2017) as the statistic for ZOS' player base, then I am comfortable using the total number of players as well in this discussion. More specifically, if ZOS totals their player base based on sales, then it is reasonable that I use total numbers to make an argument about how few players have completed part of the end-game content in ESO.

The following quoted information is from mmorpg.com: "At an Elder Scrolls Online press event, Matt Firor confirmed to our own Bill Murphy that the game is sporting 8.5 million players. At E3 2016, ESO had 7 million players and has grown by 1.5 million since then. This number is based off of units sold and is not simply a tally of registered accounts.
According to Firor, the population is split fairly evenly among all platforms. Currently, Elder Scrolls Online is available on PC, PlayStation 4 and XBox One."
http://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online/news/matt-firor-85-million-eso-players-right-now-based-on-sales-1000043197

Accodring to Firor, there are about 2.83 million Xbox One players as of February 2017, and my stats were pulled in May 2017, so that number would have only gone up.

What is 0.23% of 2.83 million?

I fail to see how Matt Firor's use of those statistics justify yours.

He's making a statement about sales and the growth of the game. In that context, these statistics are relevant and indicate that ESO is continuing to sell well.

You're making a statement about difficulty. Others and myself have proven that there is no connection between your statistics and difficulty, making them therefore irrelevant.

Even if your point was that Matt Firor is using numbers that support his position, despite being exaggerated in order to do so, that doesn't give you justification to do something similar. By that logic, anyone can just do whatever they want, because surely someone, somewhere has done worse.

I think my statement on difficulty requires Firor's statement on the total number of players in the game so that we can establish that the sample size is ample enough, as well as look at the larger picture.

For example, if there were only 500 ESO players, then one could easily say that the sample size for this discussion is too small. Without the total number, it would be harder to understand the context of the statistic we are looking at.

When I look at the larger picture, this is what I see. The game sells to about 2.83 million Xbox One players. 0.23% of those players have completed part of the end-game content. What does that say about the game when less than one fourth of 1% of its 2.83 million players have completed the end-game? I think it means that players don't find the content enjoyable enough to strive for veteran level status and accomplish/achieve VMA completion, which is why I think a multiplayer option would reinvigorate the game mode and perhaps encourage more players to enjoy it. You can disagree with that, which is fine, but I think the Firor numbers are essential in understanding the context of the 0.23% number that appears on the Xbox achievement list.

The issue with this statement is that no one contested whether the sample size was large enough. In fact, repeatedly, it was demonstrated that the sample population was so inclusive that it made the statistic non-representative. For example, say you're doing a study on the connection between hospital visits and infection incidents. Your sample population would not include the people who have only ever been in the hospital parking lot, as those people were never within the hospital and therefore never at risk of exposure. Inclusion of these people would artificially drive down the percent of people who developed an infection after a hospital visit. So again, Matt Firor's statement is irrelevant to the discussion of the difficulty of VMA.

This is not to say that I don't agree with the sentiment of increasing the number of people who have completed VMA. In fact, I regularly offer advice and suggestions, both here and in-game, for people who have been struggling with the content.

I do, however, disagree that instituting a multiplayer option would increase the drive to complete the content. In my opinion, the closest multiplayer equivalent (in terms of "Elite Content") of VMA is VMOL. Unfortunately, we have no access to the statistics of completion for this content, but I think we can unquestionably say that VMOL's completion percent would be lower than VMA's.

Data we can look at, however, is for the Shadows of the Hist dungeons. This update was free, so all players have ungated access to this content, so the population of people who can attempt it is not limited like VMA's population is.

Ruins of Mazzatun Vanquisher - 0.98%
Cradle of Shadows Vanquisher - 1%

So despite these dungeons being available as part of the base game, being a multiplayer endeavor, and being substantially less rigorous to learn and complete, these dungeons still have a completion of about 1%.

In short, the solution to the issue of incentivizing people to complete VMA is not to add a multiplayer component. My opinion is that the base game needs to do a better job of educating and challenging its players throughout the game so that when they do reach content like VMA, they aren't absolutely lost as to how completing it is even possible.

GrumpyDuckling

Pepper8Jack wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Pepper8Jack wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Terrible statistics to pull from to support your reasoning. As others have already stated, the percentage of players to do basic things like finish the tutorial, level to 50, finish the main quest, etc are all very low as well.

I disagree, @Vaoh .

If Matt Firor is comfortable in using 8.5 million as the total number of ESO players (as of February 2017) as the statistic for ZOS' player base, then I am comfortable using the total number of players as well in this discussion. More specifically, if ZOS totals their player base based on sales, then it is reasonable that I use total numbers to make an argument about how few players have completed part of the end-game content in ESO.

The following quoted information is from mmorpg.com: "At an Elder Scrolls Online press event, Matt Firor confirmed to our own Bill Murphy that the game is sporting 8.5 million players. At E3 2016, ESO had 7 million players and has grown by 1.5 million since then. This number is based off of units sold and is not simply a tally of registered accounts.
According to Firor, the population is split fairly evenly among all platforms. Currently, Elder Scrolls Online is available on PC, PlayStation 4 and XBox One."
http://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online/news/matt-firor-85-million-eso-players-right-now-based-on-sales-1000043197

Accodring to Firor, there are about 2.83 million Xbox One players as of February 2017, and my stats were pulled in May 2017, so that number would have only gone up.

What is 0.23% of 2.83 million?

I fail to see how Matt Firor's use of those statistics justify yours.

He's making a statement about sales and the growth of the game. In that context, these statistics are relevant and indicate that ESO is continuing to sell well.

You're making a statement about difficulty. Others and myself have proven that there is no connection between your statistics and difficulty, making them therefore irrelevant.

Even if your point was that Matt Firor is using numbers that support his position, despite being exaggerated in order to do so, that doesn't give you justification to do something similar. By that logic, anyone can just do whatever they want, because surely someone, somewhere has done worse.

I think my statement on difficulty requires Firor's statement on the total number of players in the game so that we can establish that the sample size is ample enough, as well as look at the larger picture.

For example, if there were only 500 ESO players, then one could easily say that the sample size for this discussion is too small. Without the total number, it would be harder to understand the context of the statistic we are looking at.

When I look at the larger picture, this is what I see. The game sells to about 2.83 million Xbox One players. 0.23% of those players have completed part of the end-game content. What does that say about the game when less than one fourth of 1% of its 2.83 million players have completed the end-game? I think it means that players don't find the content enjoyable enough to strive for veteran level status and accomplish/achieve VMA completion, which is why I think a multiplayer option would reinvigorate the game mode and perhaps encourage more players to enjoy it. You can disagree with that, which is fine, but I think the Firor numbers are essential in understanding the context of the 0.23% number that appears on the Xbox achievement list.

The issue with this statement is that no one contested whether the sample size was large enough. In fact, repeatedly, it was demonstrated that the sample population was so inclusive that it made the statistic non-representative. For example, say you're doing a study on the connection between hospital visits and infection incidents. Your sample population would not include the people who have only ever been in the hospital parking lot, as those people were never within the hospital and therefore never at risk of exposure. Inclusion of these people would artificially drive down the percent of people who developed an infection after a hospital visit. So again, Matt Firor's statement is irrelevant to the discussion of the difficulty of VMA.

This is not to say that I don't agree with the sentiment of increasing the number of people who have completed VMA. In fact, I regularly offer advice and suggestions, both here and in-game, for people who have been struggling with the content.

I do, however, disagree that instituting a multiplayer option would increase the drive to complete the content. In my opinion, the closest multiplayer equivalent (in terms of "Elite Content") of VMA is VMOL. Unfortunately, we have no access to the statistics of completion for this content, but I think we can unquestionably say that VMOL's completion percent would be lower than VMA's.

Data we can look at, however, is for the Shadows of the Hist dungeons. This update was free, so all players have ungated access to this content, so the population of people who can attempt it is not limited like VMA's population is.

Ruins of Mazzatun Vanquisher - 0.98%
Cradle of Shadows Vanquisher - 1%

So despite these dungeons being available as part of the base game, being a multiplayer endeavor, and being substantially less rigorous to learn and complete, these dungeons still have a completion of about 1%.

In short, the solution to the issue of incentivizing people to complete VMA is not to add a multiplayer component. My opinion is that the base game needs to do a better job of educating and challenging its players throughout the game so that when they do reach content like VMA, they aren't absolutely lost as to how completing it is even possible.

I see what you're trying to say, but we're arguing different points. Your hospital example could be a great an example of a different argument, such as the percent of vet level players who have completed VMA. My argument has always been about total players.

If you'd like to get more specific and use, again, for example, stats using vet level players, then grab that stat (it's about 8% if I recall correctly), and make that point. But my point has always been about total numbers - that about 2.83 million people bought the game and 0.23% haven't completed VMA end-game content. I'm not tossing aside any players who have thus far failed to (for example) reach vet content (I assume these people are those who never entered the hospital, in your example), because to disregard them would be to suggest that they will never play the game again.

I am of the opinion, that a multiplayer option for VMA would help increase the 0.23% number, and consequently it may also increase the percentage of players who reach vet content.

You can absolutely disagree with my opinion about effective ways to raise that number, but I don't see the benefit of ignoring the total number.

Pepper8Jack

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Pepper8Jack wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Pepper8Jack wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Terrible statistics to pull from to support your reasoning. As others have already stated, the percentage of players to do basic things like finish the tutorial, level to 50, finish the main quest, etc are all very low as well.

I disagree, @Vaoh .

If Matt Firor is comfortable in using 8.5 million as the total number of ESO players (as of February 2017) as the statistic for ZOS' player base, then I am comfortable using the total number of players as well in this discussion. More specifically, if ZOS totals their player base based on sales, then it is reasonable that I use total numbers to make an argument about how few players have completed part of the end-game content in ESO.

The following quoted information is from mmorpg.com: "At an Elder Scrolls Online press event, Matt Firor confirmed to our own Bill Murphy that the game is sporting 8.5 million players. At E3 2016, ESO had 7 million players and has grown by 1.5 million since then. This number is based off of units sold and is not simply a tally of registered accounts.
According to Firor, the population is split fairly evenly among all platforms. Currently, Elder Scrolls Online is available on PC, PlayStation 4 and XBox One."
http://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online/news/matt-firor-85-million-eso-players-right-now-based-on-sales-1000043197

Accodring to Firor, there are about 2.83 million Xbox One players as of February 2017, and my stats were pulled in May 2017, so that number would have only gone up.

What is 0.23% of 2.83 million?

I fail to see how Matt Firor's use of those statistics justify yours.

He's making a statement about sales and the growth of the game. In that context, these statistics are relevant and indicate that ESO is continuing to sell well.

You're making a statement about difficulty. Others and myself have proven that there is no connection between your statistics and difficulty, making them therefore irrelevant.

Even if your point was that Matt Firor is using numbers that support his position, despite being exaggerated in order to do so, that doesn't give you justification to do something similar. By that logic, anyone can just do whatever they want, because surely someone, somewhere has done worse.

I think my statement on difficulty requires Firor's statement on the total number of players in the game so that we can establish that the sample size is ample enough, as well as look at the larger picture.

For example, if there were only 500 ESO players, then one could easily say that the sample size for this discussion is too small. Without the total number, it would be harder to understand the context of the statistic we are looking at.

When I look at the larger picture, this is what I see. The game sells to about 2.83 million Xbox One players. 0.23% of those players have completed part of the end-game content. What does that say about the game when less than one fourth of 1% of its 2.83 million players have completed the end-game? I think it means that players don't find the content enjoyable enough to strive for veteran level status and accomplish/achieve VMA completion, which is why I think a multiplayer option would reinvigorate the game mode and perhaps encourage more players to enjoy it. You can disagree with that, which is fine, but I think the Firor numbers are essential in understanding the context of the 0.23% number that appears on the Xbox achievement list.

The issue with this statement is that no one contested whether the sample size was large enough. In fact, repeatedly, it was demonstrated that the sample population was so inclusive that it made the statistic non-representative. For example, say you're doing a study on the connection between hospital visits and infection incidents. Your sample population would not include the people who have only ever been in the hospital parking lot, as those people were never within the hospital and therefore never at risk of exposure. Inclusion of these people would artificially drive down the percent of people who developed an infection after a hospital visit. So again, Matt Firor's statement is irrelevant to the discussion of the difficulty of VMA.

This is not to say that I don't agree with the sentiment of increasing the number of people who have completed VMA. In fact, I regularly offer advice and suggestions, both here and in-game, for people who have been struggling with the content.

I do, however, disagree that instituting a multiplayer option would increase the drive to complete the content. In my opinion, the closest multiplayer equivalent (in terms of "Elite Content") of VMA is VMOL. Unfortunately, we have no access to the statistics of completion for this content, but I think we can unquestionably say that VMOL's completion percent would be lower than VMA's.

Data we can look at, however, is for the Shadows of the Hist dungeons. This update was free, so all players have ungated access to this content, so the population of people who can attempt it is not limited like VMA's population is.

Ruins of Mazzatun Vanquisher - 0.98%
Cradle of Shadows Vanquisher - 1%

So despite these dungeons being available as part of the base game, being a multiplayer endeavor, and being substantially less rigorous to learn and complete, these dungeons still have a completion of about 1%.

In short, the solution to the issue of incentivizing people to complete VMA is not to add a multiplayer component. My opinion is that the base game needs to do a better job of educating and challenging its players throughout the game so that when they do reach content like VMA, they aren't absolutely lost as to how completing it is even possible.

I see what you're trying to say, but we're arguing different points. Your hospital example could be a great an example of a different argument, such as the percent of vet level players who have completed VMA. My argument has always been about total players.

If you'd like to get more specific and use, again, for example, stats using vet level players, then grab that stat (it's about 8% if I recall correctly), and make that point. But my point has always been about total numbers - that about 2.83 million people bought the game and 0.23% haven't completed VMA end-game content. I'm not tossing aside any players who have thus far failed to (for example) reach vet content (I assume these people are those who never entered the hospital, in your example), because to disregard them would be to suggest that they will never play the game again.

I am of the opinion, that a multiplayer option for VMA would help increase the 0.23% number, and consequently it may also increase the percentage of players who reach vet content.

You can absolutely disagree with my opinion about effective ways to raise that number, but I don't see the benefit of ignoring the total number.

The bolded is precisely the point I'm trying to illustrate. The reason myself and others take issue with the number you cite is due to the fact that it does indeed include those that:

-Those actively playing that have reached veteran level
-Those actively playing that have not reached veteran level
-Those that have moved on from the game and will come back
-Those that have moved on from the game and will not come back

With the last two categories able to be further subdivided as follows:

-Those that left the game prior to Orsinium
-Those that left the game after Orsinium

Each of which can further be divided into:

-Those that left the game after reaching veteran level
-Those that left the game before reaching veteran level

With the last category being further divided into:

-Those that bought and played the game for some time but never reached veteran level
-Those that bought and played the game but never completed the tutorial
-Those that bought the game and never made it past the title screen
-Those that played the game during a free to play weekend but never reached veteran level
-Those that played the game during a free to play weekend but never completed the tutorial
-Those that played the game during a free to play weekend but never made it past the title screen

So on and so forth.

As you can see, the number you are quoting is a number that includes so many different categories and sub-categories of populations that the statistic is now non-representative.

In only two of the four major categories of players included, and in one of the two subcategories (excluding the further divisions for the sake of brevity), the difficulty of VMA may have had an impact on whether or not each individual within that category completed VMA. In the remaining categories, the difficulty of VMA had no chance of being a factor as those individuals never had the opportunity to experience the content.

Further, there is so far no evidence to support your claim that the addition of a multiplayer component would indeed lead to an increased completion percentage of the content, as I pointed out in my previous post.

GrumpyDuckling

Pepper8Jack wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Pepper8Jack wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Pepper8Jack wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Terrible statistics to pull from to support your reasoning. As others have already stated, the percentage of players to do basic things like finish the tutorial, level to 50, finish the main quest, etc are all very low as well.

I disagree, @Vaoh .

If Matt Firor is comfortable in using 8.5 million as the total number of ESO players (as of February 2017) as the statistic for ZOS' player base, then I am comfortable using the total number of players as well in this discussion. More specifically, if ZOS totals their player base based on sales, then it is reasonable that I use total numbers to make an argument about how few players have completed part of the end-game content in ESO.

The following quoted information is from mmorpg.com: "At an Elder Scrolls Online press event, Matt Firor confirmed to our own Bill Murphy that the game is sporting 8.5 million players. At E3 2016, ESO had 7 million players and has grown by 1.5 million since then. This number is based off of units sold and is not simply a tally of registered accounts.
According to Firor, the population is split fairly evenly among all platforms. Currently, Elder Scrolls Online is available on PC, PlayStation 4 and XBox One."
http://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online/news/matt-firor-85-million-eso-players-right-now-based-on-sales-1000043197

Accodring to Firor, there are about 2.83 million Xbox One players as of February 2017, and my stats were pulled in May 2017, so that number would have only gone up.

What is 0.23% of 2.83 million?

I fail to see how Matt Firor's use of those statistics justify yours.

He's making a statement about sales and the growth of the game. In that context, these statistics are relevant and indicate that ESO is continuing to sell well.

You're making a statement about difficulty. Others and myself have proven that there is no connection between your statistics and difficulty, making them therefore irrelevant.

Even if your point was that Matt Firor is using numbers that support his position, despite being exaggerated in order to do so, that doesn't give you justification to do something similar. By that logic, anyone can just do whatever they want, because surely someone, somewhere has done worse.

I think my statement on difficulty requires Firor's statement on the total number of players in the game so that we can establish that the sample size is ample enough, as well as look at the larger picture.

For example, if there were only 500 ESO players, then one could easily say that the sample size for this discussion is too small. Without the total number, it would be harder to understand the context of the statistic we are looking at.

When I look at the larger picture, this is what I see. The game sells to about 2.83 million Xbox One players. 0.23% of those players have completed part of the end-game content. What does that say about the game when less than one fourth of 1% of its 2.83 million players have completed the end-game? I think it means that players don't find the content enjoyable enough to strive for veteran level status and accomplish/achieve VMA completion, which is why I think a multiplayer option would reinvigorate the game mode and perhaps encourage more players to enjoy it. You can disagree with that, which is fine, but I think the Firor numbers are essential in understanding the context of the 0.23% number that appears on the Xbox achievement list.

The issue with this statement is that no one contested whether the sample size was large enough. In fact, repeatedly, it was demonstrated that the sample population was so inclusive that it made the statistic non-representative. For example, say you're doing a study on the connection between hospital visits and infection incidents. Your sample population would not include the people who have only ever been in the hospital parking lot, as those people were never within the hospital and therefore never at risk of exposure. Inclusion of these people would artificially drive down the percent of people who developed an infection after a hospital visit. So again, Matt Firor's statement is irrelevant to the discussion of the difficulty of VMA.

This is not to say that I don't agree with the sentiment of increasing the number of people who have completed VMA. In fact, I regularly offer advice and suggestions, both here and in-game, for people who have been struggling with the content.

I do, however, disagree that instituting a multiplayer option would increase the drive to complete the content. In my opinion, the closest multiplayer equivalent (in terms of "Elite Content") of VMA is VMOL. Unfortunately, we have no access to the statistics of completion for this content, but I think we can unquestionably say that VMOL's completion percent would be lower than VMA's.

Data we can look at, however, is for the Shadows of the Hist dungeons. This update was free, so all players have ungated access to this content, so the population of people who can attempt it is not limited like VMA's population is.

Ruins of Mazzatun Vanquisher - 0.98%
Cradle of Shadows Vanquisher - 1%

So despite these dungeons being available as part of the base game, being a multiplayer endeavor, and being substantially less rigorous to learn and complete, these dungeons still have a completion of about 1%.

In short, the solution to the issue of incentivizing people to complete VMA is not to add a multiplayer component. My opinion is that the base game needs to do a better job of educating and challenging its players throughout the game so that when they do reach content like VMA, they aren't absolutely lost as to how completing it is even possible.

I see what you're trying to say, but we're arguing different points. Your hospital example could be a great an example of a different argument, such as the percent of vet level players who have completed VMA. My argument has always been about total players.

If you'd like to get more specific and use, again, for example, stats using vet level players, then grab that stat (it's about 8% if I recall correctly), and make that point. But my point has always been about total numbers - that about 2.83 million people bought the game and 0.23% haven't completed VMA end-game content. I'm not tossing aside any players who have thus far failed to (for example) reach vet content (I assume these people are those who never entered the hospital, in your example), because to disregard them would be to suggest that they will never play the game again.

I am of the opinion, that a multiplayer option for VMA would help increase the 0.23% number, and consequently it may also increase the percentage of players who reach vet content.

You can absolutely disagree with my opinion about effective ways to raise that number, but I don't see the benefit of ignoring the total number.

The bolded is precisely the point I'm trying to illustrate. The reason myself and others take issue with the number you cite is due to the fact that it does indeed include those that:

-Those actively playing that have reached veteran level
-Those actively playing that have not reached veteran level
-Those that have moved on from the game and will come back
-Those that have moved on from the game and will not come back

With the last two categories able to be further subdivided as follows:

-Those that left the game prior to Orsinium
-Those that left the game after Orsinium

Each of which can further be divided into:

-Those that left the game after reaching veteran level
-Those that left the game before reaching veteran level

With the last category being further divided into:

-Those that bought and played the game for some time but never reached veteran level
-Those that bought and played the game but never completed the tutorial
-Those that bought the game and never made it past the title screen
-Those that played the game during a free to play weekend but never reached veteran level
-Those that played the game during a free to play weekend but never completed the tutorial
-Those that played the game during a free to play weekend but never made it past the title screen

So on and so forth.

As you can see, the number you are quoting is a number that includes so many different categories and sub-categories of populations that the statistic is now non-representative.

In only two of the four major categories of players included, and in one of the two subcategories (excluding the further divisions for the sake of brevity), the difficulty of VMA may have had an impact on whether or not each individual within that category completed VMA. In the remaining categories, the difficulty of VMA had no chance of being a factor as those individuals never had the opportunity to experience the content.

Further, there is so far no evidence to support your claim that the addition of a multiplayer component would indeed lead to an increased completion percentage of the content, as I pointed out in my previous post.

1) Why do you keep harping on difficulty? Who asked for VMA to be less difficult?

2) How could I give you evidence to support my opinion that I think a multiplayer VMA option would increase completion percentage? By that logic, you also don't have evidence that says it won't.

Pepper8Jack

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Pepper8Jack wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Pepper8Jack wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Pepper8Jack wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Terrible statistics to pull from to support your reasoning. As others have already stated, the percentage of players to do basic things like finish the tutorial, level to 50, finish the main quest, etc are all very low as well.

I disagree, @Vaoh .

If Matt Firor is comfortable in using 8.5 million as the total number of ESO players (as of February 2017) as the statistic for ZOS' player base, then I am comfortable using the total number of players as well in this discussion. More specifically, if ZOS totals their player base based on sales, then it is reasonable that I use total numbers to make an argument about how few players have completed part of the end-game content in ESO.

The following quoted information is from mmorpg.com: "At an Elder Scrolls Online press event, Matt Firor confirmed to our own Bill Murphy that the game is sporting 8.5 million players. At E3 2016, ESO had 7 million players and has grown by 1.5 million since then. This number is based off of units sold and is not simply a tally of registered accounts.
According to Firor, the population is split fairly evenly among all platforms. Currently, Elder Scrolls Online is available on PC, PlayStation 4 and XBox One."
http://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online/news/matt-firor-85-million-eso-players-right-now-based-on-sales-1000043197

Accodring to Firor, there are about 2.83 million Xbox One players as of February 2017, and my stats were pulled in May 2017, so that number would have only gone up.

What is 0.23% of 2.83 million?

I fail to see how Matt Firor's use of those statistics justify yours.

He's making a statement about sales and the growth of the game. In that context, these statistics are relevant and indicate that ESO is continuing to sell well.

You're making a statement about difficulty. Others and myself have proven that there is no connection between your statistics and difficulty, making them therefore irrelevant.

Even if your point was that Matt Firor is using numbers that support his position, despite being exaggerated in order to do so, that doesn't give you justification to do something similar. By that logic, anyone can just do whatever they want, because surely someone, somewhere has done worse.

I think my statement on difficulty requires Firor's statement on the total number of players in the game so that we can establish that the sample size is ample enough, as well as look at the larger picture.

For example, if there were only 500 ESO players, then one could easily say that the sample size for this discussion is too small. Without the total number, it would be harder to understand the context of the statistic we are looking at.

When I look at the larger picture, this is what I see. The game sells to about 2.83 million Xbox One players. 0.23% of those players have completed part of the end-game content. What does that say about the game when less than one fourth of 1% of its 2.83 million players have completed the end-game? I think it means that players don't find the content enjoyable enough to strive for veteran level status and accomplish/achieve VMA completion, which is why I think a multiplayer option would reinvigorate the game mode and perhaps encourage more players to enjoy it. You can disagree with that, which is fine, but I think the Firor numbers are essential in understanding the context of the 0.23% number that appears on the Xbox achievement list.

The issue with this statement is that no one contested whether the sample size was large enough. In fact, repeatedly, it was demonstrated that the sample population was so inclusive that it made the statistic non-representative. For example, say you're doing a study on the connection between hospital visits and infection incidents. Your sample population would not include the people who have only ever been in the hospital parking lot, as those people were never within the hospital and therefore never at risk of exposure. Inclusion of these people would artificially drive down the percent of people who developed an infection after a hospital visit. So again, Matt Firor's statement is irrelevant to the discussion of the difficulty of VMA.

This is not to say that I don't agree with the sentiment of increasing the number of people who have completed VMA. In fact, I regularly offer advice and suggestions, both here and in-game, for people who have been struggling with the content.

I do, however, disagree that instituting a multiplayer option would increase the drive to complete the content. In my opinion, the closest multiplayer equivalent (in terms of "Elite Content") of VMA is VMOL. Unfortunately, we have no access to the statistics of completion for this content, but I think we can unquestionably say that VMOL's completion percent would be lower than VMA's.

Data we can look at, however, is for the Shadows of the Hist dungeons. This update was free, so all players have ungated access to this content, so the population of people who can attempt it is not limited like VMA's population is.

Ruins of Mazzatun Vanquisher - 0.98%
Cradle of Shadows Vanquisher - 1%

So despite these dungeons being available as part of the base game, being a multiplayer endeavor, and being substantially less rigorous to learn and complete, these dungeons still have a completion of about 1%.

In short, the solution to the issue of incentivizing people to complete VMA is not to add a multiplayer component. My opinion is that the base game needs to do a better job of educating and challenging its players throughout the game so that when they do reach content like VMA, they aren't absolutely lost as to how completing it is even possible.

I see what you're trying to say, but we're arguing different points. Your hospital example could be a great an example of a different argument, such as the percent of vet level players who have completed VMA. My argument has always been about total players.

If you'd like to get more specific and use, again, for example, stats using vet level players, then grab that stat (it's about 8% if I recall correctly), and make that point. But my point has always been about total numbers - that about 2.83 million people bought the game and 0.23% haven't completed VMA end-game content. I'm not tossing aside any players who have thus far failed to (for example) reach vet content (I assume these people are those who never entered the hospital, in your example), because to disregard them would be to suggest that they will never play the game again.

I am of the opinion, that a multiplayer option for VMA would help increase the 0.23% number, and consequently it may also increase the percentage of players who reach vet content.

You can absolutely disagree with my opinion about effective ways to raise that number, but I don't see the benefit of ignoring the total number.

The bolded is precisely the point I'm trying to illustrate. The reason myself and others take issue with the number you cite is due to the fact that it does indeed include those that:

-Those actively playing that have reached veteran level
-Those actively playing that have not reached veteran level
-Those that have moved on from the game and will come back
-Those that have moved on from the game and will not come back

With the last two categories able to be further subdivided as follows:

-Those that left the game prior to Orsinium
-Those that left the game after Orsinium

Each of which can further be divided into:

-Those that left the game after reaching veteran level
-Those that left the game before reaching veteran level

With the last category being further divided into:

-Those that bought and played the game for some time but never reached veteran level
-Those that bought and played the game but never completed the tutorial
-Those that bought the game and never made it past the title screen
-Those that played the game during a free to play weekend but never reached veteran level
-Those that played the game during a free to play weekend but never completed the tutorial
-Those that played the game during a free to play weekend but never made it past the title screen

So on and so forth.

As you can see, the number you are quoting is a number that includes so many different categories and sub-categories of populations that the statistic is now non-representative.

In only two of the four major categories of players included, and in one of the two subcategories (excluding the further divisions for the sake of brevity), the difficulty of VMA may have had an impact on whether or not each individual within that category completed VMA. In the remaining categories, the difficulty of VMA had no chance of being a factor as those individuals never had the opportunity to experience the content.

Further, there is so far no evidence to support your claim that the addition of a multiplayer component would indeed lead to an increased completion percentage of the content, as I pointed out in my previous post.

1) Why do you keep harping on difficulty? Who asked for VMA to be less difficult?

2) How could I give you evidence to support my opinion that I think a multiplayer VMA option would increase completion percentage? By that logic, you also don't have evidence that says it won't.

1) Quite the number of people. There are countless threads stating that VMA is too difficult, and therefore needs to be made easier to allow more people to complete it. While I do acknowledge the fact that this is not what you are requesting, I still identify the difficulty of the content to be the primary barrier for completion. Hence my repeated tying this discussion back to that topic.

2) Quoted from a previous post in this thread:

I do, however, disagree that instituting a multiplayer option would increase the drive to complete the content. In my opinion, the closest multiplayer equivalent (in terms of "Elite Content") of VMA is VMOL. Unfortunately, we have no access to the statistics of completion for this content, but I think we can unquestionably say that VMOL's completion percent would be lower than VMA's.

Data we can look at, however, is for the Shadows of the Hist dungeons. This update was free, so all players have ungated access to this content, so the population of people who can attempt it is not limited like VMA's population is.

Ruins of Mazzatun Vanquisher - 0.98%
Cradle of Shadows Vanquisher - 1%

So despite these dungeons being available as part of the base game, being a multiplayer endeavor, and being substantially less rigorous to learn and complete, these dungeons still have a completion of about 1%.

BNOC

The only 2 stats he needs to compare are:

Maelstrom Arena Champion - 0.79%
Maelstrom Arena Conqueror - 0.24%

That's a base 30% completion rate based on the amount of people that have completed Normal.

It doesn't say how many people have been in there on Vet, how much time they've invested, what level/Cp they were, or any of the other 1,000 factors that would increase this completion percentage.

Let's remember that completing the content on Vet gives you the Normal achievement, so let's get rid of the players that can complete both as they're a redundant addition to the Champion achievement.

0.79% becomes 0.55%

So:
0.55% of players can only complete Normal.
0.24% of players can complete both difficulties

~30% completion on Vet for a figure that's probably closer to or upwards of 50% when you account for everything isn't a problem, stop.

Tenn60

As someone who only beat VMA about 3 weeks ago for the first time, I think it is a perfect challenge. It sucks when your trying to beat it( took me 3 weeks a couple of hours a day and 4 different characters). Honestly mechanics are huge. I found that very little minus the poison lvl is random bad luck. You have to know your play style and know when to be aggressive and when to hold back a bit. Last boss took me the longest to get down now it is one of the easiest fights for me. Don't give up and stop when you get frustrated. I thought about quitting nearly everyday but I felt like I accomplished something when I did beat it and I think a challenge like this is important for a game like this. If you could beat everything first try would the game be fun. To some maybe, but to most I think honestly the answer would be no. Builds and weapons will only take you so far, learn how you play and how to take that advantage of that play style. Good luck!

code65536

BNOC wrote: »

The only 2 stats he needs to compare are:

Maelstrom Arena Champion - 0.79%
Maelstrom Arena Conqueror - 0.24%

That's a base 30% completion rate based on the amount of people that have completed Normal.

It doesn't say how many people have been in there on Vet, how much time they've invested, what level/Cp they were, or any of the other 1,000 factors that would increase this completion percentage.

Let's remember that completing the content on Vet gives you the Normal achievement, so let's get rid of the players that can complete both as they're a redundant addition to the Champion achievement.

0.79% becomes 0.55%

So:
0.55% of players can only complete Normal.
0.24% of players can complete both difficulties

~30% completion on Vet for a figure that's probably closer to or upwards of 50% when you account for everything isn't a problem, stop.

@BNOC Out of curiosity, how many players have the Level 50 Hero achievement?

In any case, I'm actually a bit impressed that almost a third of players who can beat nMA can also beat vMA. With the gigantic difficulty gulf between normal and vet, I expected it to be a much lower ratio.

BNOC

code65536 wrote: »

@BNOC Out of curiosity, how many players have the Level 50 Hero achievement?

In any case, I'm actually a bit impressed that almost a third of players who can beat nMA can also beat vMA. With the gigantic difficulty gulf between normal and vet, I expected it to be a much lower ratio.

@code65536 I did as well, but it was designed around 300CP without the advantages that exist now so I'm not overly surprised.

The Level 50 Hero - 7.54%
Spend a Champ Point - 7.4% (Not sure if a statistic for spending 100CP in one tree exists which would be a better number)

Some other notable ones that are relative to the post about group content:

Complete Aetherian Archive and Hel Ra Citadel at any difficulty within a month. - 0.16%
Defeat the Celestial Serpent in the Sanctum Ophidia, at any difficulty - 0.24%

More or the same amount of players have done the solo content on Veteran, than the group content on any difficulty.

Magdalina

code65536 wrote: »

BNOC wrote: »

The only 2 stats he needs to compare are:

Maelstrom Arena Champion - 0.79%
Maelstrom Arena Conqueror - 0.24%

That's a base 30% completion rate based on the amount of people that have completed Normal.

It doesn't say how many people have been in there on Vet, how much time they've invested, what level/Cp they were, or any of the other 1,000 factors that would increase this completion percentage.

Let's remember that completing the content on Vet gives you the Normal achievement, so let's get rid of the players that can complete both as they're a redundant addition to the Champion achievement.

0.79% becomes 0.55%

So:
0.55% of players can only complete Normal.
0.24% of players can complete both difficulties

~30% completion on Vet for a figure that's probably closer to or upwards of 50% when you account for everything isn't a problem, stop.

BNOC Out of curiosity, how many players have the Level 50 Hero achievement?

In any case, I'm actually a bit impressed that almost a third of players who can beat nMA can also beat vMA. With the gigantic difficulty gulf between normal and vet, I expected it to be a much lower ratio.

Yeah...if anything it's actually a really high number if you look at it this way Showing the direct opposite of what op wanted to show hehe

Smitch_59

Nerf vMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

iMuz86

I finally got to Wave 9 last night on my Stam DK. First time doing VMA. I checked the achievement this morning and its risen up to 0.25% now! Hopefully I will get it done soon - and I can join the few! However I'm a bit worried given the sustain changes with Morrowind!

Curragraigue

PS4 NA

0.4% Vet MA
1.4% Normal MA
12.5% level 50

code65536

iMuz86 wrote: »

I finally got to Wave 9 last night on my Stam DK. First time doing VMA. I checked the achievement this morning and its risen up to 0.25% now! Hopefully I will get it done soon - and I can join the few! However I'm a bit worried given the sustain changes with Morrowind!

It's not too bad. The biggest sustain nerf in Morrowind was to group synergy sustain and that nerf of course has zero effect on solo content. I can't say much about stam DK, but for a mag NB, I was fine with swapping just one of my damage jewelry enchants to a recovery enchant.

Curragraigue wrote: »

PS4 NA

0.4% Vet MA
1.4% Normal MA
12.5% level 50

Cool, thanks for posting that. So it's similar--roughly one out of every three nMA completers can do vMA, which, again, is higher than I would've imagined. And because nMA is so easy, I expect that most people who don't have it simply were never interested in it to try.