0.23% of Players Defeated Heroic Garrosh

[Santoryu]

How is satisfying the larger part of population, one of lower skill and/or accomplishment, "elitism"? It's actually the opposite of elitism.

You're assuming the larger population is one of lower skill and/or accomplishment. But everything you have to go by to make that claim is looking at the posts on the forums. I seriously doubt the majority of the playerbase posts on the forums. And just because 0.9% have killed Garrosh on HC doesn't necessarily mean they're incapable; they might be, but they also might no have the time or the desire to do so.

I wasn't saying satisfying a part of the playerbase was elitism, I was saying that you wanting to screw a population over was.

[CheeseSandwich]

You're assuming the larger population is one of lower skill and/or accomplishment. But everything you have to go by to make that claim is looking at the posts on the forums. I seriously doubt the majority of the playerbase posts on the forums. And just because 0.9% have killed Garrosh on HC doesn't necessarily mean they're incapable; they might be, but they also might no have the time or the desire to do so.

I wasn't saying satisfying a part of the playerbase was elitism, I was saying that you wanting to screw a population over was.

Yes, so Blizz funneling everyone into raiding as the only end game content could be a bad decision, couldn't it? I mean, you can't force people to raid, and if they don't want to raid, shouldn't Blizz be focusing on other rewarding, challenging end game content?

[Santoryu]

yes, so blizz funneling everyone into raiding as the only end game content could be a bad decision, couldn't it? I mean, you can't force people to raid, and if they don't want to raid, shouldn't blizz be focusing on other rewarding, challenging end game content?

of course!

[CheeseSandwich]

of course!

And i think that's why people are concerned. There has been a trend for a while now of lower and lower raid participation at norm and H levels, but Blizz keeps pushing it as the ONLY thing to do at high end game. Surely at some point they have to reign back on raids a bit as a whole, and spend time developing something innovative, challenging and engaging for the majority of the player base.

[Trunksee]

Yes, so Blizz funneling everyone into raiding as the only end game content could be a bad decision, couldn't it? I mean, you can't force people to raid, and if they don't want to raid, shouldn't Blizz be focusing on other rewarding, challenging end game content?

So basically lets change what the game has been for going on 10 years? How does that make sense? If they invest more time into something else and if flops they wont recover. They can be stagnant right now doing what they have always done and still keep making money. I was gone since firelands and only came back a onth ago. I leveled a monk and am already at 550 ilvl. And obviously because i just came back the cloak isnt skewing my numbers. The game is not hard to play right now. People just dont want to take the time to do any research. The information on what to do and how to do it to get things done is out there. On topic though .23% is a bit low. Id rather see 1% at this point. A nerf is not in order yet. In a month maybe a 5-10% would be good if they see large numbers of people stuck. They can see if progression is still being made and it must be if nerfs arent being made.

[MoanaLisa]

I normally agree with ya on your info ML cause you are normally on point with it. This part, however, is very off base. Blizzard lost its sub's during a time of hard 5mans. No one is saying anything different. They lost 300k players while 5mans were deemed "hard" by the community. Blizzard said that some of the losses were due to hard 5mans by the feedback they received.

It's a fair point. Firefly33 has it more correctly. 5-mans that were difficult to do in a random group hurt the game not because they were so difficult but perhaps because there wasn't an alternative. I stand corrected. And there were a lot of other things going on to cause losses too, one of which I've argued incessantly, i.e. new players began to dry up after Wrath and are now a somewhat rare thing to see. Overly simplistic reasoning on my part. That said, with all of the problems of the first nine months or so of Cataclysm, dungeon length and difficulty combined with a new healing methodology that didn't help were among the top things that made it easier for people to leave. Should teach me to stop posting after being up for 18 hours.

[Giscoicus]

It's a fair point. Firefly33 has it more correctly. 5-mans that were difficult to do in a random group hurt the game not because they were so difficult but perhaps because there wasn't an alternative. I stand corrected.

But designing alternatives that will actually be used without killing the use of the other is incredibly challenging. If one path of progression has better easier and faster rewards it will be used more. If there was something other than dungeons thy have the same sort of rewards but at less challenge then dungeons will be dropped, unless the alternative takes a lot of time, when I will be ignored.

[CheeseSandwich]

So basically lets change what the game has been for going on 10 years? How does that make sense? If they invest more time into something else and if flops they wont recover. They can be stagnant right now doing what they have always done and still keep making money. I was gone since firelands and only came back a onth ago. I leveled a monk and am already at 550 ilvl. And obviously because i just came back the cloak isnt skewing my numbers. The game is not hard to play right now. People just dont want to take the time to do any research. The information on what to do and how to do it to get things done is out there. On topic though .23% is a bit low. Id rather see 1% at this point. A nerf is not in order yet. In a month maybe a 5-10% would be good if they see large numbers of people stuck. They can see if progression is still being made and it must be if nerfs arent being made.

Yes, they will still make money. But as a company, shouldn't they be doing all they can to get and retain as many players as possible to maximise profits? I can't accept that Blizz is comfortable with being "stagnant" if it leads to less people playing their game. To accept that would be to depressing, considering my high regard for them. I want them to want us to play the game and not just go "Eh, 10 million subs, 7 million, 4 million, 2, what ever, we will still make money".

[Osmeric]

My last point about all of this is simple. SWToR came out with virtually no endgame content, buggy, and easy. That game lasted a" long time".

SWTOR had multiple problems. I didn't even last a week in it when I tried it back when it released. Crummy client, annoying mechanics, uninteresting stories. I eventually tried one of the "dungeons", logged off, and never logged in again. From my point of view, the quantity of end game content never mattered at all, since I never reached end game.

There is something about the fundamentals of WoW as a game that is just more appealing than the competition. Something as simple as how combat feels, how the animations look, how "smooth" everything is. The competing MMOs haven't even gotten this right, in my experience.

[Skarzog]

By including heroic raid modes, the ego value of the rest of the game is devalued. Basically, it causes the game to remind most players that they aren't very good. Players have defense mechanisms about this ("I don't play enough" "schedule" "not really interested") but these can only go so far. Underneath, the central value proposition of the game, that you are a hero in a heroic world, is being corroded. Far from telling most players that they're heroes, the game is sending them the message "YOU SUCK!"

I don't think it's a coincidence that subs plateaued and began to fall when they added higher difficulty raid modes.

This is exactly the opposite of the message we hear from the elite, that their presence attracts other players. No, I think catering to you guys drives other people away.

As someone who has played since Vanilla I can tell you this is completely and utterly wrong. Before they introduced Normal/Heroic or even LFR or any multiple difficulties, there was one set of difficulties for raiding. Although it did not have any sort of title it was on par with Heroic difficulty today and about the same portion of players were clearing it as those clearing heroic at the moment. So if you think people's egos are bruised now, imagine being in blue quality gear looking at raiders who do content you have never seen wearing a tier set you can't even emulate. At least these days casual players are able to see the content and even get the same tier sets at a lower itemlevel. The game is losing subs because its 9 years old, I don't understand what people expected.

[MoanaLisa]

But designing alternatives that will actually be used without killing the use of the other is incredibly challenging. If one path of progression has better easier and faster rewards it will be used more. If there was something other than dungeons thy have the same sort of rewards but at less challenge then dungeons will be dropped, unless the alternative takes a lot of time, when I will be ignored.

Alternatives in this specific case would be an easier mode of the same dungeon with loot that's a few ilevels lower.

[Giscoicus]

Alternatives in this specific case would be an easier mode of the same dungeon with loot that's a few ilevels lower.

But for most of these dungeons, save for SFK and Deadmines, there WAS an easier version with worse loot. They still went ino the harder modes because they wanted better gear, but still complained.

[Firebert]

Since when is call of duty a subscription based game?

That doesn't make a difference.

It's not a problem, as box cost plus one month's subscription is the same as a normal Activision game.

[Krazzorx]

But for most of these dungeons, save for SFK and Deadmines, there WAS an easier version with worse loot. They still went ino the harder modes because they wanted better gear, but still complained.

That's because there was a queue for it.

[Normie]

you are bad and don't deserve to do the most challenging content there is.

I wasn't under the impression that video games were developed for the "deserving."

- - - Updated - - -

Alternatives in this specific case would be an easier mode of the same dungeon with loot that's a few ilevels lower.

Personally I think many of the problems with "easy" and "difficult" 5-mans would be solved if they dropped the exact same loot.

[Osmeric]

I wasn't under the impression that video games were developed for the "deserving."

He's committing the very common error of confusing the game (where we kill things and get loot) with the meta-game (where we interact with Blizzard to influence how the game is designed.)

[Alandalus]

- - - Updated - - -


Personally I think many of the problems with "easy" and "difficult" 5-mans would be solved if they dropped the exact same loot.

WoW (particularly the endgame dungeons/raids) is primarily about loot. If they drop the exact same loot then why even have a higher difficulty level? No one would do them.

[Pann]

But for most of these dungeons, save for SFK and Deadmines, there WAS an easier version with worse loot. They still went ino the harder modes because they wanted better gear, but still complained.

And why shouldn't they have? Heroics dungeons were open to everyone during Wrath why do think that the majority of players should have content closed off to them? Do you honestly think that players should have just accepted that they then only had seven dungeons, only three of which were intended for level 85 players, to run compared the sixteen, which all had accessible normal and heroic versions, they had at the end of Wrath?

It seems more than a little hypocritical that you seem to think that it was acceptable to cut the available content for the casual audience but not for, the minority, the heroic raiders.

[cFortyfive]

WoW (particularly the endgame dungeons/raids) is primarily about loot. If they drop the exact same loot then why even have a higher difficulty level? No one would do them.

Even better - put a chest in each capital with all the loots you want and remove all other content. Problem solved earnings maximized.

[Santoryu]

It's not a problem, as box cost plus one month's subscription is the same as a normal Activision game.

What are you talking about? A new expansion costs around 45 euros here. Add a 12 month sub on top of that and you end up with 225 euros. Which "normal" activision game costs 225€?