Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
... LastLast
  1. #121
    No u will never get, because:

    1. older - your mind want's differ things, u want it or not, but it changes in time
    2. experienced - u are just feed up with mmo's and maybe even games, u want it or not, but we do get bored after some time and we need new experiences
    3. games evolved with the world - u won't have the same spectrum of fun today like in the old days, u want it or not, but games changed, what gives fun in them has also changed (look at D2 and D3 to get the idea).

    Conclusion: exchange games with smth different, play them rarerly, enjoy life.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    Actually, I did play during Vanilla, though I never raided in it. I was still playing FFXI at the time and couldn't be bothered playing both at a serious level. I did however participate in quite a bit of PvP. I had 3 friends who were in raiding guilds (trying to convince me to play WoW full time) and kept track of what they were upto and such though. Regardless of this, my point still stands. I was actively raiding in TBC and still I didn't see evidence of the gigantic amounts of raiders that you suggest. Most people were just doing Heroic dungeons at best.
    Right, so you try to counter my point, that your statistic could be explained in my different ways, by saying that it absolutely 'fo sure bro' means that there are more raiders now.

    Technically, sure, could make sense, since you don't need to be raider to raid these days, but that percentage can mean anything. Anything. And classic and somewhat tBC had no other pve content besides raid content, so argue what you will. It's futile.

    Also, statistically, factually, theoretically and in practice, you are wrong about higher percentages bringing you the proof you speak of. It's impossible to claim that it definitely means more people raid.

    It could mean that instances are easier.
    It could mean that people have become more skillful
    It could mean that more people raid
    It could mean that people that left weren't raiders.
    It could mean that dungeons that wouldn't count as raids suddenly do count as raids and therefore their statistics add up.

    Whichever it is, it does not mean that all people that didn't clear endgame content, aren't raiders. It also doesn't mean that classic content had less raiders. It could, but that's what I talked about earlier, it's how you decide to explain those statistics. I swear, hands down, that the only reason that 20% could be obtained, is due to the fact that LFR and normal modes are easy to complete for the bad people out there.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespian View Post
    Right, so you try to counter my point, that your statistic could be explained in my different ways, by saying that it absolutely 'fo sure bro' means that there are more raiders now.

    Technically, sure, could make sense, since you don't need to be raider to raid these days, but that percentage can mean anything. Anything. And classic and somewhat tBC had no other pve content besides raid content, so argue what you will. It's futile.
    I swear, hands down, that the only reason that 20% could be obtained, is due to the fact that LFR and normal modes are easy to complete for the bad people out there.
    Again, I'll say it - the easiest/most accessible raid of all time only obtained a 20% population clear ratio. Given that it's almost impossible to not beat LFR if you play it, (hell I've been in LFR raids where there were upto 6 people afk during Madness and still cleared it) how can there have been, in your opinion, more raiders in TBC/Classic?

    Because here's the problem - Dragon Soul was the most cleared raid ever. That means Karazhan had less people clear it. It means every raid in the game had less people clear it. And because the game's population was a similar size at the end of Cata to TBC, I don't see how you can continue to argue this.

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    Again, I'll say it - the easiest/most accessible raid of all time only obtained a 20% population clear ratio. Given that it's almost impossible to not beat LFR if you play it, (hell I've been in LFR raids where there were upto 6 people afk during Madness and still cleared it) how can there have been, in your opinion, more raiders in TBC/Classic?

    Because here's the problem - Dragon Soul was the most cleared raid ever. That means Karazhan had less people clear it. It means every raid in the game had less people clear it. And because the game's population was a similar size at the end of Cata to TBC, I don't see how you can continue to argue this.
    Yer, believe it or not, but ehh, Karazhan was harder. Makes perfect sense to me. Once more, you are explaining the percentage wrong.

    Let me rephrase it;

    I am Blizzard. I'm going to add Wailing Caverns to the LFR, because I deem it worthy to be a raid instance. Yes, it's still level 20 and yes you are now lvl 90. Who cares, it's now a raid instance.

    I, as Blizzard, know what the result will be. 100% of the people in the game will clear this raid. This proves that all people are now raiders and in classic, they weren't. Cool right?

    That! is what they did with Cata. Easier content doesn't mean those people are now "raiders".
    Last edited by Vespian; 2012-10-04 at 12:48 PM.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespian View Post
    Yer, believe it or not, but ehh, Karazhan was harder. Makes perfect sense to me. Once more, you are explaining the percentage wrong.
    So you're suggesting that active raiders would not have beaten Karazhan by the end of TBC? Really?

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    So you're suggesting that active raiders would not have beaten Karazhan by the end of TBC? Really?
    Yes? Back in Vanilla, end Vanilla, I got burned out. I had a Dutch guild in tBC, which had a lot of people that raided, but most plainly sucked. I think it took us about 4 months to clear Karazhan. Never laughed so much before though. I know plenty of guilds that only raided the 2 "single boss" instances and did Karazhan whenever they had the people to do it.

    Please also read my edit above your post.

  7. #127
    Your modified point means nothing. It's the same as saying people that couldn't clear Kara weren't raiders. They're dungeon runners that gave raiding a go. As I said previously, most people in TBC were running Heroic dungeons, because those were hard enough for them. They filled their time up with rep grinds and stuff like that.

    You've just pointed it out yourself - most people didn't raid because they couldn't, whether skill based or otherwise. LFR has opened up the raiding environment, whether or not you regard the people that do it as being raiders is your own concern.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    Your modified point means nothing. It's the same as saying people that couldn't clear Kara weren't raiders. They're dungeon runners that gave raiding a go. As I said previously, most people in TBC were running Heroic dungeons, because those were hard enough for them. They filled their time up with rep grinds and stuff like that.

    You've just pointed it out yourself - most people didn't raid because they couldn't, whether skill based or otherwise. LFR has opened up the raiding environment, whether or not you regard the people that do it as being raiders is your own concern.
    All my point is trying to prove to you, is the fact that the percentage of people that cleared an instance, does not reflect the amount of people that actually raid. DOT. I have no other stake in this. I personally don't consider those people raiders, but to compare those percentages would be folly. They cannot be compared. You cannot claim that vanilla had less raiders through that percentage only.

    The percentage could mean a ton of things and it's influanced by Blizzards stance concerning the *cough* casual gamer.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespian View Post
    All my point is trying to prove to you, is the fact that the percentage of people that cleared an instance, does not reflect the amount of people that actually raid. DOT. I have no other stake in this. I personally don't consider those people raiders, but to compare those percentages would be folly. They cannot be compared. You cannot claim that vanilla had less raiders through that percentage only.

    The percentage could mean a ton of things and it's influanced by Blizzards stance concerning the *cough* casual gamer.
    So, do you basically consider anyone that wanders into a raid instance, regardless of whether or not they clear anything, a raider? If so, then yes, I'm sure millions of people have wandered into a raid instance and then promptly left again or failed severely at the first boss.

    And Vanilla would absolutely have had less raiders. Less players and far harder content, more akin to FFXI's than TBC onwards even.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    So, do you basically consider anyone that wanders into a raid instance, regardless of whether or not they clear anything, a raider? If so, then yes, I'm sure millions of people have wandered into a raid instance and then promptly left again or failed severely at the first boss.

    And Vanilla would absolutely have had less raiders. Less players and far harder content, more akin to FFXI's than TBC onwards even.
    Less players total on which you base a percentage. It seems even basic math escapes you. Whether your point is true or not, it can't be supported by the percentage of people that cleared the hardest instance. That's what I'm saying. I keep repeating cold hard facts here, please just understand or give up.

    If contact is harder, obviously less players can finish the content. That doesn't mean that the percentage of players that started the instance isnt the same.

    I almost feel like having to draw you entire mathmetic models to explain, but I can't make such an effort everytime I encounter a random person that doesn't understand how basic math works. Hell, even Blizzard pretended not to get it.

    I have two servers.
    Each server has 50 people that raid.

    Server 1 has a raid instance called lolcake
    Server 2 has a raid instance called lesslolcakemoarpain

    the 100 people enter their respective instances.
    In the end, 5% of the 50 manage to complete lesslolcakemoarpain, while 25% of the people manage to clear lolcake.

    Blizzard: Clearly Server 1 has more raiders.

    Make the same comparison between tBC and Cata. BADABING, you might suddenly understand!
    Last edited by Vespian; 2012-10-04 at 01:20 PM.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashdummy View Post
    Because in Cata they tried to cater for people like Alyssa. That's why its the first expansion in losing subs.
    Actually I think Cata was a piece of shit.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyHellfire View Post
    Wow, some people ... WOW.

    You do believe that, right?
    Do believe what, Blizzards own statistics? If they claim that DS was the most raided instance ever with only 20% doing the content a fair assumption would be that 10% originally was raiders before LFR and massive nerfs to herd players though content. If you want to discuss something at least make your case instead of pointless troll posts that I really should have reported instead of answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xilurm View Post
    Ok how about this. You have the nice car right? The other guy though is getting slowly behind and he too purchases a nice car. You see that and you hate him for it. So you go and smash his car because in your opinion you're the only one who can have nice cars.
    Nowhere have I argued against giving everyone the same opportunity to experience the content, something your new and "improved" analogy suggests.
    Last edited by Redblade; 2012-10-04 at 01:27 PM.
    Active PoE: @MajorAsshole EvE: Redblade (Reikoku)
    Inactive D3: Armory Rift: Alyssaa @ Icewatch SWTOR: Redblade @ ToFN WoW: My graveyard of characters.
    People just do the strangest things when they believe they're entitled. But they do even stranger things when they just plain believe. - Kevin Smith

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespian View Post
    Less players total on which you base a percentage. It seems even basic math escapes you. Whether your point is true or not, it can't be supported by the percentage of people that cleared the hardest instance. That's what I'm saying. I keep repeating cold hard facts here, please just understand or give up.

    If contact is harder, obviously less players can finish the content. That doesn't mean that the percentage of players that started the instance isnt the same.

    I almost feel like having to draw you entire mathmetic models to explain, but I can't make such an effort everytime I encounter a random person that doesn't understand how basic math works. Hell, even Blizzard pretended not to get it.

    I have two servers.
    Each server has 50 people that raid.

    Server 1 has a raid instance called lolcake
    Server 2 has a raid instance called lesslolcakemoarpain

    the 100 people enter their respective instances.
    In the end, 5% of the 50 manage to complete lesslolcakemoarpain, while 25% of the people manage to clear lolcake.

    Blizzard: Clearly Server 1 has more raiders.

    Make the same comparison between tBC and Cata. BADABING, you might suddenly understand!
    ... Percentages are static. Numbers of players are not. Even if only 5% of the peak number of players cleared WotLK content, it would still be more people clearing content than in Vanilla or TBC.

    A: 5-10% of players clearing content in TBC = less players.
    B: 20% of players clearing content in Cata = A gigantic amount more people raiding.

    If 5-10% of players clearing content in Cata, the numbers would have remained static, though the amount of players increased. Your analogy makes no sense.

  13. #133
    Ok how about this. You have the nice car right? The other guy though is getting slowly behind and he too purchases a nice car. You see that and you hate him for it. So you go and smash his car because in your opinion you're the only one who can have nice cars
    No, all wrong. It goes like this;

    I buy a house that's been finished only yesterday. I feel good, I feel nice. I really worked for that money, but it's worth it. I've been living in that house for about 3 weeks, when the exact same house next door gets sold for half the price. My house, has just dropped in price by 50%. All the effort I put in getting enough money to buy this house has been wasted. Now suddenly some lowlife bumm from the corner has the same house I have and to top it off, mine is worth nothing anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    ... Percentages are static. Numbers of players are not. Even if only 5% of the peak number of players cleared WotLK content, it would still be more people clearing content than in Vanilla or TBC.

    A: 5-10% of players clearing content in TBC = less players.
    B: 20% of players clearing content in Cata = A gigantic amount more people raiding.

    If 5-10% of players clearing content in Cata, the numbers would have remained static, though the amount of players increased. Your analogy makes no sense.
    No, you fail to see the point. If it's about a numeric amount of players, I believe tBC was a peak. Either that, or Wotlk was. Cata is a step down. So either way, even if you want to argue exact numbers, tBC wins in numbers, or both parties are pretty equal.

    The percentage of people that cleared an instance does not proof that there are more raiders Read it again.
    Last edited by Vespian; 2012-10-04 at 01:36 PM.

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    A: 5-10% of players clearing content in TBC = less players.
    B: 20% of players clearing content in Cata = A gigantic amount more people raiding.
    Cata had less players than BC, clearing DS which is what we are talking about here needs to be compared to Karazhan due to accessibility, not the 5% that cleared SW which is a totally different number due to being linear raiding vs segmented.

    Without the Karazhan numbers you simply can't make the comparison as you lack the data point to do so.
    Active PoE: @MajorAsshole EvE: Redblade (Reikoku)
    Inactive D3: Armory Rift: Alyssaa @ Icewatch SWTOR: Redblade @ ToFN WoW: My graveyard of characters.
    People just do the strangest things when they believe they're entitled. But they do even stranger things when they just plain believe. - Kevin Smith

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post
    Actually I think Cata was a piece of shit.
    Keyword: Tried.

    Most people think Cata was bad, but Blizzard did tried to cater to people like you.

    They even mocked casuals in the blog "WoW, Dungeons are Hard".

  16. #136
    I feel the same. If there will be games like that again? I really don't know. Maybe Titan will be like that, maybe Blizzard wants to create a game for different players and let WoW be the casual game. *Fingers crossed*

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashdummy View Post
    Keyword: Tried.
    The really didn't cater to me though, if they had tried to do so they would have gone back to linear raiding with attunements...
    Active PoE: @MajorAsshole EvE: Redblade (Reikoku)
    Inactive D3: Armory Rift: Alyssaa @ Icewatch SWTOR: Redblade @ ToFN WoW: My graveyard of characters.
    People just do the strangest things when they believe they're entitled. But they do even stranger things when they just plain believe. - Kevin Smith

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashdummy View Post
    Keyword: Tried.
    Really? I might try "think" or..maybe "shit".

    Quote Originally Posted by Crashdummy View Post

    They even mocked casuals in the blog "WoW, Dungeons are Hard".
    They mocked bad players. Not casuals. Casuals don't have to be bad, they just have less time. That said, after mocking them, they still tuned down the instances.
    Last edited by Vespian; 2012-10-04 at 01:41 PM.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Alyssa View Post
    Cata had less players than BC, clearing DS which is what we are talking about here needs to be compared to Karazhan due to accessibility, not the 5% that cleared SW which is a totally different number due to being linear raiding vs segmented.

    Without the Karazhan numbers you simply can't make the comparison as you lack the data point to do so.
    Cata had less players than TBC. More people cleared DS than any raid ever - stated by Blizzard, based on their internal server statistics.

    So therefore the number of raiders has irrefutably increased. I still don't understand how this can be argued.

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    Cata had less players than TBC. More people cleared DS than any raid ever - stated by Blizzard, based on their internal server statistics.

    So therefore the number of raiders has irrefutably increased. I still don't understand how this can be argued.
    No, the amount of raiders that completed the last raid instance has increased. see the difference? Read my example again. It's really easy to understand. I think even my..no nvm. just read it =)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •