Did casuals ruin WoW and if so how?

[Tomana]

It is funny that a lot of casuals play more than the hardcore or regualr players many times.

But many cannot commit to regular hours, or are interrupted a lot etc.
I might add that MOP 5.0 where you got all the stuff to do on top of the raids didn't help.

- - - Updated - - -

As I told someone on the US forums: prove it or shut up.

With actual facts and not opinion.

You're asking a random forum poster who clearly doesn't have a clue to get facts?

[taheen74]

But many cannot commit to regular hours, or are interrupted a lot etc.
I might add that MOP 5.0 where you got all the stuff to do on top of the raids didn't help.

- - - Updated - - -



You're asking a random forum poster who clearly doesn't have a clue to get facts?

Hehe yeah, yeah I know- it's never gonna happen.

[Ronduwil]

Neither am I. Although unlike you I do care what others have, because I want everyone to have content that suits their playstyle.

I was talking about gear, but whatever. The one thing you and I agree on is that everyone should have content that suits their playstyle and Blizzard is not currently providing that.

I watched the game evolve from vanilla to Cata. By far the biggest source of anti-social behavior is LFD and LFR.

Not at all. In WotLK when LFD was first introduced I was constantly queueing LFD with guild mates. If anything, it improved socialization because we could still run instances even if only three of us were around. Personally I think that guild perks unintentionally did far more damage than LFD because new guilds were no longer predominantly formed by like-minded groups of players with common goals and playstyles. Instead they became nameless zergfests whose purpose was to accrue benefits as quickly as possible. There are even players who form guilds with the sole intent to level and then sell them. If you're in a 25-man raiding guild you can still queue for 25-man LFR as a guild if you want to (but there is no incentive to). You can still queue for LFD in 5-man groups if you want to (but there's no incentive to). You have yet to explain reasoning for how LFD is responsible for anti-social behavior. If someone is a jerk in LFD you /ignore them and then you don't have to deal with them again. If they're constantly jerks their queue times will grow ever longer. All this talk of no consequences and AFKing to gear is absolute BS. It might work for the better part of a week but that player will quickly find the game unplayable.

Here goes your ego defense again. End-game raiding isn't actually like that (except maybe in the world first race), you just have concocted this fantasy of how terrible the top guilds and their players are to protect your ego.

When did I say anything about top guilds? Top guilds play on well-progressed servers and have their pick of players. Anyone applying to a top guild knows what they're in for and the time commitment required. I don't know why you keep bringing my ego into this. I have never wanted to join a top guild and I guarantee that I will never want to be in a top guild. A top guild is something that I don't aspire to and have never aspired to. You're under this delusion that everyone in the world looks up to and wants to be in top 10 guilds but the fact of the matter is that the majority of the world's population doesn't even play WoW and couldn't even name a single guild in the top 10. You can claim that's me defending my ego, but that's like me claiming that you're disparaging neurosurgeons because you can never be like them and know you would never make that cut.

You must find flaws,

I have found flaws based on personal experience. Every single guild I have been in since Cataclysm (and note: NONE of them are top guilds) have hit progression walls that could not be surmounted without forcibly dropping one or more players from the roster. That's just how it is. Your solution:

It's a private group that has certain criteria for the players. Ours happened to be very high skill level, because we wanted to clear all the content in 2-3 nights of raiding (which we did). If you didn't match that expectation we wouldn't accept your application, and if you lied in your application you wouldn't pass your trial.

That's not me finding flaws; that's you pointing them out, me stating that those are screwed up criteria for socializing with people in the context of a game, and you turning around and calling it an ego defense mechanism when it is in fact the way normal people think. If you can satisfactorily explain the difference between my experience of kicking players from the raid roster so the raid can move past a wall and your solution of simply excluding them from your guild to begin with I'll rethink my position.

because you cannot admit that in most of the top guilds the players are far more skilled than you and they're also great, nice teammates.

I don't know that most of the players in top guilds are far more skilled than I because I haven't run with any world-top guilds before. I know that I constantly get compliments on my gameplay from players across many guilds, including the then-top guild on my old server. To be honest, though, I could care less. If players in top guilds are more skilled and I, more power to them. If they're also great, nice teammates that's awesome too. The fact remains that I don't know why you keep bringing up top guilds because my post about narcissism was not even about them. It was strictly about you based on posts that you made. I think that your opinion on what makes people fun to play with is narcissistic and I think your criteria for selecting guildies is bad. On the other hand, I acknowledge that Blizzard has forced many guilds to behave the way that you do by making it impossible to run normal raid progression without callously applying such criteria. That has done far more damage to the social aspect of this game than LFR or LFD ever could.

The facts say otherwise. During vanilla and TBC, which saw explosive growth throughout. In WotLK the growth hit a wall and stopped, and since late 2010 the game has been losing 2 million subs per year.

In TBC only 2% of the playerbase was doing high end raids. That's only about 220,000 players. Please explain how 220,000 disenfranchised players account for 2 million losses per year. Correlation is not causation. The facts indicate that your conclusion is deeply flawed.

That argument also conveniently ignores the fact that the Arthas cliffhanger at the end of WC III was driving much of the story from Vanilla to WotLK. When players finally reached that climax in WotLK much of that magic faded. That, to me, was a far bigger reason for players to leave the game than features like LFD and LFR.

[LeperHerring]

If anything, it improved socialization because we could still run instances even if only three of us were around. Personally I think that guild perks unintentionally did far more damage than LFD because new guilds were no longer predominantly formed by like-minded groups of players with common goals and playstyles.

Guild perks are another Blizzard mistake, but nowhere near LFD/LFR. What LFD did is to stop people from making friends on their server for the purpose of being able to quickly create good 5-man groups. Everyone just spams LFD now, zergs through instances in silence (if you're lucky) or among a torrent of insults (if you're unlucky). It's great you managed to keep your two friends, but in TBC I made over a dozen friends through building 5-man groups, and that just doesn't happen anymore. With LFR it's even worse, many people stopped building or joining raiding guilds at all. Sure they're a member of some guild just to get their perks, but it's not anything like the social experience of vanilla/TBC.

You're under this delusion that everyone in the world looks up to and wants to be in top 10 guilds but the fact of the matter is that the majority of the world's population doesn't even play WoW and couldn't even name a single guild in the top 10. You can claim that's me defending my ego, but that's like me claiming that you're disparaging neurosurgeons because you can never be like them and know you would never make that cut.

Why do you think I think that? I don't, I personally don't even care about world top 10. You're (again) trying to fit me into this fantasy you've concocted in your mind which has nothing to do with reality.

If you can satisfactorily explain the difference between my experience of kicking players from the raid roster so the raid can move past a wall and your solution of simply excluding them from your guild to begin with I'll rethink my position.

You really can't see the difference? We didn't treat people like garbage, just using them for progress. If their app didn't meet our criteria, we'd tell them "than you for applying, but we can't offer you a trial this time, good luck in the future". If they failed their trial, we'd tell them "you're good, but unfortunately not good enough to raid with us, so we have to fail your trial this time". If they made member, that meant they had proven themselves and they had earned their spot. We never kicked a member due to progress walls, we worked through those walls by practicing more, helping each other improve and recruiting if necessary. There is absolutely nothing in common between having high admission standards and kicking members when facing tough challenges.

In TBC only 2% of the playerbase was doing high end raids. That's only about 220,000 players. Please explain how 220,000 disenfranchised players account for 2 million losses per year. Correlation is not causation. The facts indicate that your conclusion is deeply flawed.

I've explained this in detail before, and don't feel like repeating. Since you have such a fondness for digging through my post history, I suggest you do that.

[Ronduwil]

With LFR it's even worse, many people stopped building or joining raiding guilds at all. Sure they're a member of some guild just to get their perks, but it's not anything like the social experience of vanilla/TBC.

How quickly we forget that LFR was created because people stopped building and joining raiding guilds. Ratcheting the 10-man difficulty up to 25-man level is what caused that. LFR was supposed to bridge that gap, but it obviously didn't so now we're getting flex. Have you ever tried LFR? As a former raider you should know how crappy the LFR experience is compared to an actual raid. The idea that people are giving up normal and heroic raiding to pursue LFR is ludicrous. The only reason anyone spams LFD anymore is to get to LFR and the only reason they spam LFR is because there's nothing else in the game to do. That's not Blizzard catering to casuals. That's Blizzard catering to hardcore raiders and then putting out minimal effort to give casual players something to do.

Why do you think I think that? I don't, I personally don't even care about world top 10. You're (again) trying to fit me into this fantasy you've concocted in your mind which has nothing to do with reality.

Because you're the one who keeps bringing it up in every freaking post!!! You're obsessed with this idea that I've been snubbed by a the best guilds in the world and you're chalking my opinions up to sour grapes. I think that because you keep posting about it!

We didn't treat people like garbage, just using them for progress. If their app didn't meet our criteria, we'd tell them "than you for applying, but we can't offer you a trial this time, good luck in the future".

You didn't treat them like garbage just using them for progress; instead you treated them like garbage, not letting them into your exclusive club of "elite" players. I find it ironic that the people claiming to want challenging content are primarily the same ones who exclude "inferior" players. Who experiences the bigger challenge? 10 good players taking down a heroic raid boss or five excellent players leading five mediocre ones to victory against that boss? If challenge was actually the goal then guilds would be willing to take anyone with the desire to learn and improve. Sadly the primary motive is usually bragging rights, and that's why raiding has been in decline since Cataclysm.

If they failed their trial, we'd tell them "you're good, but unfortunately not good enough to raid with us, so we have to fail your trial this time". If they made member, that meant they had proven themselves and they had earned their spot. We never kicked a member due to progress walls, we worked through those walls by practicing more, helping each other improve and recruiting if necessary. There is absolutely nothing in common between having high admission standards and kicking members when facing tough challenges.

In both cases you're /gkicking someone who expressed an interest in playing with you. Just because you kick that person after one raid doesn't make them feel any better than kicking them after 5 raids. At least in the latter case they get an opportunity to experience some of the content.

[LeperHerring]

You didn't treat them like garbage just using them for progress; instead you treated them like garbage, not letting them into your exclusive club of "elite" players. I find it ironic that the people claiming to want challenging content are primarily the same ones who exclude "inferior" players.

So I don't have a right to want to clear the content in 2-3 days of raiding and build a guild capable of that? I have some obligation to take anyone that applies to the guild? How entitled and selfish is that? It's like complaining some university or job turned you down because you didn't match the academic or professional requirements they set.

If I was getting paid by Blizzard to run a guild, then sure, I'd be open to taking in weaker players and helping them improve. But it's just a group of players with a specific goal, and reaching that goal requires certain attributes from the players. If you don't meet those requirements then you can't be a member, because then we as a group couldn't reach the goal that we set out to reach. It's nothing against anyone personally, if they go an improve to a point where they match the requirements, then we'd be happy to take them.

In both cases you're /gkicking someone who expressed an interest in playing with you. Just because you kick that person after one raid doesn't make them feel any better than kicking them after 5 raids. At least in the latter case they get an opportunity to experience some of the content.

If we're kicking them after one raid, it's probably because they were not honest in their application about their skill level.

You seem very angry for some reason, calling people sociopaths, and narcissists, and exclusive clubs of "elites" that look down on people. I don't know what your experiences are that have caused that, but I never came across any such guilds. Raiding at the top end, and I don't mean world top 10, but world top 500 (i.e., server top level), is not what you seem to think it is. It's really not healthy to hate people who don't seem to understand at all.

[Ronduwil]

So I don't have a right to want to clear the content in 2-3 days of raiding and build a guild capable of that? I have some obligation to take anyone that applies to the guild? How entitled and selfish is that? It's like complaining some university or job turned you down because you didn't match the academic or professional requirements they set.

You have a right to do whatever you want, but call it for what it is. It's hypocritical to say:

For me it's not about *taking* a shortcut. It's the fact that a shortcut exists that makes the content meaningless to me. What makes me enjoy a gaming experience is a hard challenge that requires great skill and effort, and that you can't just skip to through easymodes or overgearing etc.

and then turn around and say:

We didn't treat people like garbage, just using them for progress. If their app didn't meet our criteria, we'd tell them "than you for applying, but we can't offer you a trial this time, good luck in the future". If they failed their trial, we'd tell them "you're good, but unfortunately not good enough to raid with us, so we have to fail your trial this time". If they made member, that meant they had proven themselves and they had earned their spot.

You can't see that running a 10-man raid by only running with nine other geared and experienced players is just another shortcut? Besides, how will the game ever get new raiders if no one is ever willing to give them a shot? You're quick to blame LFR for raiding's decline but blind to the role your attitude has played. Unfortunately your attitude is widespread, and that's problematic.

You seem very angry for some reason, calling people sociopaths, and narcissists, and exclusive clubs of "elites" that look down on people. I don't know what your experiences are that have caused that, but I never came across any such guilds. Raiding at the top end, and I don't mean world top 10, but world top 500 (i.e., server top level), is not what you seem to think it is. It's really not healthy to hate people who don't seem to understand at all.

I just call things for what they are. I don't have a problem with guilds competing for world firsts because they are up front about their stated intentions. Why go for a world first if not for bragging rights??? I understand their insistence on being exclusive. Besides, they are not the ones complaining about casuals and how Blizzard caters to them. My anger is directed at those who claim that giving players accessibility to content is ruining their own experience. They complain about the lack of challenge in the game while doing everything in their power (i.e. addons, simulators, strategy guides, exclusionary guild policies) to minimize that challenge. They complain about the decline of raiding when they refuse to associate with new raiders. Instead of looking inward they they assign blame to features like LFD/LFR and flying mounts for problems that were of their own making to begin with. High end raiders don't make me angry; hypocrites do.

[Grogo]

My word, imagine that! Paying $180 a year for access to a game and actually wanting the premier components of the game and all of the main storyline to be accessible to the average player!

The people who actually ruin the game are the hardcore raiders and PVPers who believe they deserve some kind of exalted status because they play a video game at a different pace or in a different style or even with a different skill level than other players.

LFR pricked the bubble of exclusivity that raiders once enjoyed and many can't deal with it. So they start topics like this and call people who are paying a lot of money to play WoW "bad people" because they want to experience the entire game that they are paying for.

So you feel entitled to things that you do not want to work for? These ideals are why we cannot have nice things. Entitled people are just so annoyingly unaware.

You pay your monthly fee to be able to access the game, you can. What you choose to do with it is your problem.

[Deleted]

No.

The game needs to be "ruined" first.

[Osmeric]

So you feel entitled to things that you do not want to work for?

I'm pretty sure I work hard for the $180 I send to Blizzard each year (plus extras).

Do you feel entitled to play a game that is mostly paid for by other people, but aimed at you, not them?

[Ronduwil]

So you feel entitled to things that you do not want to work for? These ideals are why we cannot have nice things. Entitled people are just so annoyingly unaware.

We don't work for Blizzard's product. We pay for it. You don't see the difference? If you want to work for rewards get a job. WoW is a game. Demanding value for the money you spend is not entitlement.

You pay your monthly fee to be able to access the game, you can. What you choose to do with it is your problem.

Actually it's not my problem because if there's nothing enjoyable for me to do on the server once I have access to it there's no reason for me to maintain that access. So I unsubscribe and at that point it's Blizzard's problem. Why is this so hard to understand? I'm not going to pay money for access to a game that's all raiding all the time because I don't enjoy raiding. Blizzard created LFR in an attempt to make raiding enjoyable for everyone. I think they failed miserably, but I acknowledge where they were coming from and I think that intentions were good.

I don't belong to a country club because I don't golf and we have pretty good public pools. Are you going to call me entitled because I refuse to learn to golf or get better at it? Are you going to blame the mini-golf courses in town for the decline of country clubs? That's pretty much how your LFR-ruined-raiding argument sounds to me.

[vesseblah]

So you feel entitled to things that you do not want to work for?

The way raiding works today is that there are three different levels of rewards for three differerent levels of effort. You work harder to get better reward, you work less and get rewarded less. How is it possible that something so simple a six year old could grasp is so fucking hard to understand for you and all other whiners?

Entitled people are just so annoyingly unaware.

Ignorance is bliss.

[madmanx]

Casuals did not ruin WoW. WoW was made for casuals and if you are playing WoW you are by definition casual. If you want hardcore, there are lots of games to chose from.

If all you want to be is a big fish in a small pond you can complain about casuals in WoW on the forums till the cows come home but at least be aware that this is all you are, a big fish in a small pond.

[Lord Blackmore]

Ok sorry, it is 97% the reason. I will give the other 3% to your a b and c.

You're free to be as wrong as you want to b3. No skin off of my nose. But make no mistake. You are without any doubt, absolutely wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

I bet if they kept the TBC model, subscriptions would have stayed at peak forever, right? No matter how old the game got, or what other games came out, or how free they were to play, people would just sit around in World of Warcraft looking at your epics and doing hardcore raids until the heat-death of the universe, yeah?.

The assumption that sub numbers wouldn't have declined or even increased if they kept the BC model is a prime reason why that guy (and frankly a lot of others) just don't get it.

[melodramocracy]

I'm pretty sure I work hard for the $180 I send to Blizzard each year (plus extras).

Do you feel entitled to play a game that is mostly paid for by other people, but aimed at you, not them?

Do you feel compelled to buy other products that aren't aimed at your specific interests? I enjoy hockey, maybe I should buy tickets to a baseball game.

[Osmeric]

Do you feel compelled to buy other products that aren't aimed at your specific interests? I enjoy hockey, maybe I should buy tickets to a baseball game.

Not at all. In particular, I didn't buy Cataclysm for ten months in 2011.

Blizzard noticed, and reacted. And people like Grogo gnash their teeth at the affrontery of it all. How dare I spend my money satisfying my own desires! How dare Blizzard react to that! How selfish of us both, to not focus on pleasing Grogo!

[melodramocracy]

We don't work for Blizzard's product. We pay for it. You don't see the difference? If you want to work for rewards get a job. WoW is a game. Demanding value for the money you spend is not entitlement.

Yes, it's a game that requires you to play it to get anywhere. Purchasing any game at all is simply a grant of access, not success. Why do you expect this one to behave differently?

Why not just make a level 1 character, then start putting in tickets asking why you aren't 90 yet?

[Lord Blackmore]

Youre casual, you don't care that your raider is causing you to waste hours of your life every week and the only reason they are in the raid is because they are your friend or you have an e-crush on them.

Raiding with friends, whether successful or not is perfectly fine. If someone is having fun, it's not wasted time.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you feel compelled to buy other products that aren't aimed at your specific interests? I enjoy hockey, maybe I should buy tickets to a baseball game.

Of course not. But if someone isn't getting what they want from whatever it is they're paying for, the common sense solution is to stop paying for it and find something else.

[Kreeshak]

You have yet to explain reasoning for how LFD is responsible for anti-social behavior. If someone is a jerk in LFD you /ignore them and then you don't have to deal with them again. If they're constantly jerks their queue times will grow ever longer. All this talk of no consequences and AFKing to gear is absolute BS. It might work for the better part of a week but that player will quickly find the game unplayable.

Because there are no consequences for being anti-social. Add consequences and it would be a perfect convenient tool.

Last time I asked a gamemaster ignore list does not prevent you from queuing with that person in the future.

What should be done to make LFD social is to make a convenient ignore list interface to deal with special characters and cross realms, with unlimited space, and the option to add a comment as to why you ignored that particular person.

[Lord Blackmore]

Blizzard noticed, and reacted. And people like Grogo gnash their teeth at the affrontery of it all. How dare I spend my money satisfying my own desires! How dare Blizzard react to that! How selfish of us both, to not focus on pleasing Grogo!

The problem is that it doesn't matter what you say to people with Grogo's attitude. They're always have another "answer", often one that uses tortured logic. And TBH, I don't think those kind of people can be satisfied short of wow being a super hardcore game where everything required extreme dedication. You know, a game wow never was.

- - - Updated - - -

Because there are no consequences for being anti-social. Add consequences and it would be a perfect convenient tool.

I can't argue with that. But I also think that the "anti social behavior" thing is exaggerated. I don't think have nearly as much of a bad time as some claim.