Page 37 of 38 FirstFirst ...
27
35
36
37
38
LastLast
  1. #721
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    How about you make some sense? Since currently you make none.

    ---------- Post added 2013-06-07 at 02:52 AM ----------



    To me it seems like you are the ones that lost them now that you realised how stupid your previous comparison was, as you completely gave up defending it. Lovely that you agree with me atleast that ICC is the hardest tier ever, since with both my method and your method, ICC was far harder than T15.

    i never said ICC was the hardest but you keep on twisting words to fit your agenda. and NOWHERE have i backtracked from a point i have made.

    ICC had case bosses in heroic that was LOOT PINATAS and grossly undertuned think lootship. Normal LK was harder than heroic Lootship no question about it heck you can make the case that heroic lootship was the 2nd easiest boss in the instance right after normal lootship. there is a reason i was selling unlocks back in the days since LK normal was so much harder than heroic version of Lootship.

    You can NOT take those numbers and make the case that you think you can just cant do.

  2. #722
    Quote Originally Posted by araine View Post
    You can NOT take those numbers and make the case that you think you can just cant do.
    Likewise.

    You entire assumption falls flat on that you think HC Jin'rokh is harder than LS normal.

    And well, actually you said that ICC is the hardest instance, since apparently taking normal mode kills - heroic mode kills is a valid thing to do according to you, and then assuming that there should be 500% more guilds on 12/12 normal compared to 1/13 HC. Which gotta be one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard.
    Volun-told - A supposedly optional event, award, assignment, or activity in which a person (or persons) are required to attend either by persons-in-charge nominating them or their peers expecting them to be there. The individual often has no say in the matter, and non-attendance in frowned upon.

    I am so tired of seeing terrible people, being admired, for being terrible people.

  3. #723
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    Likewise.

    You entire assumption falls flat on that you think HC Jin'rokh is harder than LS normal.

    And well, actually you said that ICC is the hardest instance, since apparently taking normal mode kills - heroic mode kills is a valid thing to do according to you, and then assuming that there should be 500% more guilds on 12/12 normal compared to 1/13 HC. Which gotta be one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard.
    Never said anything about jin'rokh and the difficulty of him what i have been pointing out since day one is we have a very very unhealty decline in the amount of guilds getting shit done in normal and that is a great concern for the future and to that all we hear is crush and remove LFR and L2P neither of which will actually address the issue at hand.

    You have constantly failed to understand that normal mode have in this tier moved more and more towards becoming just the unlock the heroic content and that guilds that actual will end up getting to 12/12 in the last few weeks of this tier is in shockingly steep decline compared to previous tiers. If you cant see that this is unhealthy for the longterm strength of the game to basically have endgame raiding content for guilds that basically only cater to the

    Elite and the super elites. which is what we will approach if we move the current tiers problem further another 3-4 tiers we will end up with 40k guilds tossed to the side since they just arent good enough to be among the elite and allowed to do things with a guild and be happy about it to have a reasonable expectation to reach the end of the instance in 4-5 months. Right now you have to be delusional if you think the 24 guilds that went 16/16N in last tier BEFORE 5.2 came out will also get to 12/12N since right now only 17 guilds have managed 2/12 or better and a handful of those that went 16/16N have folded and are gone right now since there is only so much banging your head on a wall for no gain that folks will tolerate and 90 days of it no lots of people didnt last that long.

    ---------- Post added 2013-06-07 at 05:44 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    Likewise.

    You entire assumption falls flat on that you think HC Jin'rokh is harder than LS normal.

    And well, actually you said that ICC is the hardest instance, since apparently taking normal mode kills - heroic mode kills is a valid thing to do according to you, and then assuming that there should be 500% more guilds on 12/12 normal compared to 1/13 HC. Which gotta be one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard.
    Obviously you missed where i said lootship on heroic was probably the 2nd easiest boss in there #2 to regular mode lootship. you frequently have a habit of ignoring what is written so i think i am done with you

  4. #724
    Field Marshal Abda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    75
    Great article I enjoyed reading, we need more of those. The numbers are speaking for themselves: if blizzard gonna keep the direction they are going now it wont end good. Content for 1% of playerbase is bad designed content.

  5. #725
    As can be seen around the forums recently, much has been made of the “gap” between LFR difficulty raiding, and the normal setting on either 10-man or 25-man. The premise is formed on one of two opinions:

    1) Normal mode is too hard.
    2) LFR and heroic five-man dungeons are too easy.
    And Blizzard have finally admitted that this is an issue. Flexi-raids are here to fill the gap (and devastation) left by the introduction of the Cataclysm raiding system.

    LFR tried but failed to fill the gap. Now we have Flexi raid.

    Not a total move back to the model of Raiding used in Wrath. But admitting that the new system was a mistake - in the only way Blizzard know how - new features.

    Also a implicit admission that LFR doesn't fill this niche.

  6. #726
    There's no feeder into raiding any more. Used to be, you'd go do dungeons, gets some loot, pug some 10s, maybe the prior tier, gear up, and go into 10s or 25 normals. The gear you got from the prior tier was relevant. Now you do your dungeons, grind rep and valor for 2 months, then get into LFR and somebody tells you that this is what raiding is. Well, LFR is really the replacement for the old 5 player heroic dungeons. You zerg it and collect your loots. But it's labeled as raiding. So when new players try out raiding, this is what they get, a mindless zerg fest where nobody even tries to play well, everybody's in a rush, nobody explains anything, and you all end up with achievements and shiny pixels at the end. If that's raiding, what's the incentive to do it? What's the incentive to get better at it, or learn the boss mechanics or learn your class? It's not fun, it's not engrossing, and it's certainly not a feeder for normal mode raiding.

  7. #727
    The Lightbringer The Caretaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    Yet the numbers in DisposableHeroes post shows nothing to indicate an increasing difficulty, if anything the opposite. Also, as we do not know the current sub numbers, and especially since we do not know the amount of players with a max level character, cant be looked at with 100% accuracy.
    Given the staggering drop between WotLK and Cataclysm, it's obvious that raids got harder from that point on because no other explanation regarding the drop off in normal raiders fits. Not even remotely.

    You know this.

    I'm not sure why you're trying to start that argument.

    Again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    The reason that only 8% of guilds had killed Lich King after 3 months of ICC, and 57% of the guilds have killed him is not because people sacked off normal raiding before ever pulling marrowgar. It was because after a while, there are simply no (or almost no) new guilds getting into raiding.
    Stop right there.

    Why are there no new guilds getting into raiding? Because players are sacking it off, perhaps?

    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    Jin: +750
    Hor: +950
    Coun: +1100
    Tort: +1100
    Mega: +1100
    Ji-Kun: +1200
    Durumu: +1200
    Prim: +1100
    Animus: +1000
    IQ: +1000
    Twins: +1000
    LS: +950

    What this tells you is not that people are failing on Jin'Rokh is increasing. Rather it tells you that the amount of new guilds is smaller than the amount of progressing guilds. Which is only logical over 3 months into a tier.
    What is also to note is that a +950 on kills is a much higher % increase in kills relative to say +1200 on Ji-Kun. This is the reason why the kill % goes up and we can likely to expect a 50-60 kill% on LS before 5.4
    The fact later bosses are going up by more shows (as you've implied) that less people are bothering to pull him. Let's face it, guilds with reasonable gear aren't going to get stuck on Jin'rokh; if his numbers are going down it's because people aren't pulling it.

    Quote Originally Posted by araine View Post
    He was making the point that if we chop off 50% of the elevation of everest we are left with a tiny hill that anyone can climb, what my post points out is that the elevation is not a factor in difficulty which he insinuated in the reference of cutting the elevation in half. The Eiger at way less than 1/2 the elevation of most peaks in the Himalayas proves elevation is not a good tool to measure difficulty.
    That's probably the least relevant comment in the thread, and it's gone on a while.

    Firefly's point was that anything difficult, if scaled down significantly, loses prestige. He's right. He only used the "act" of climbing Mount Everest as an EXAMPLE. He could have said winning Wimbledon, qualifying to be in the Royal Marines or joining MENSA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Well, it is possible for people, many people actually, to not think very highly of World of Warcraft. Those self same people may even consider other games in the genre superior due to their own subjective qualifiers. Qualifiers which are just as valid as the subjective qualifiers of those whom believe World of Warcraft is a "23 out of 10".

  8. #728
    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post
    The fact later bosses are going up by more shows (as you've implied) that less people are bothering to pull him. Let's face it, guilds with reasonable gear aren't going to get stuck on Jin'rokh; if his numbers are going down it's because people aren't pulling it.
    This happens every tier, nothing new. It is not because guilds are not pulling him because they cant kill him or has given up. Simple because the people that want to raid, already is raiding, so there are not enough new guilds pulling him, since there are not enough new guilds this far into a tier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post
    Stop right there.

    Why are there no new guilds getting into raiding? Because players are sacking it off, perhaps?
    Think of it like this. When a new raid tier has been released, it is like the start of a sale at a large store, like black friday. Everyone that is currently raiding is racing to get into new tier. To illustrate with a picture.

    <snip>

    Every raider wants to get a piece of the new raiding.


    However, the day after the sale, almost nobody is shopping, since everyone that was shopping was shopping the day(s) before during the sales. Same with raiding 3 months into a tier, the tier is not new anymore, raiders that wanted to raid, already started raiding. Sure, there are some new guilds, but the new guilds after 3 months are a huge minority compared to those already raiding. It would be insane to expect a steady flow of new raiders, it is fairly obvious that there is going to be more new raiders the first month

    <snip>

    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post
    Given the staggering drop between WotLK and Cataclysm, it's obvious that raids got harder from that point on because no other explanation regarding the drop off in normal raiders fits. Not even remotely.

    You know this.

    I'm not sure why you're trying to start that argument.

    Again.
    And you know that I disagree on this as I think there is evidence to that. Sure, raiding in Cataclysm got harder than the 30% nerfed ICC, that is given, however I disagree that raids in release state has gotten harder and harder and harder. And you know very well that you got no evidence to support that theory. Even looking at % of sub numbers dropping, even though we do not know the subnumbers, there is no evidence to support that. And looking at subnumbers also makes no sense since that does not tell us how many % of the people are in US/EU, and how many % of people are level 80/85/90, and how many % of people that are actually interested in raiding.
    Last edited by Sonnillon; 2013-06-09 at 12:34 PM.
    Volun-told - A supposedly optional event, award, assignment, or activity in which a person (or persons) are required to attend either by persons-in-charge nominating them or their peers expecting them to be there. The individual often has no say in the matter, and non-attendance in frowned upon.

    I am so tired of seeing terrible people, being admired, for being terrible people.

  9. #729
    The Lightbringer The Caretaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    And you know that I disagree on this as I think there is evidence to that. Sure, raiding in Cataclysm got harder than the 30% nerfed ICC, that is given, however I disagree that raids in release state has gotten harder and harder and harder. And you know very well that you got no evidence to support that theory. Even looking at % of sub numbers dropping, even though we do not know the subnumbers, there is no evidence to support that. And looking at subnumbers also makes no sense since that does not tell us how many % of the people are in US/EU, and how many % of people are level 80/85/90, and how many % of people that are actually interested in raiding.
    You're entitled to disagree, of course you are, but we've already proven that there is compelling evidence that suggests raiding has become harder, in general, since WotLK; the developer comments and percentage of people raiding each tier show this pretty clearly.

    Now, if you'd like to argue that MoP normals haven't really been any harder than those of Cataclysm, I'd concede that. Tier 11 was good because there were so many options along the progression route that if a raid got stuck, they could move to something else and, in general, the difficulty was found later in the instances. Personally, if Throne of Thunder had been less linear I'd accept quite happily that it was the Cataclysm model in more ways than it wasn't.

    Come 6.0, however, this is going to be a significantly different issue. The new flexi-raid coming in 5.4 has the potential to change the endgame landscape dramatically.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Well, it is possible for people, many people actually, to not think very highly of World of Warcraft. Those self same people may even consider other games in the genre superior due to their own subjective qualifiers. Qualifiers which are just as valid as the subjective qualifiers of those whom believe World of Warcraft is a "23 out of 10".

  10. #730
    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post
    You're entitled to disagree, of course you are, but we've already proven that there is compelling evidence that suggests raiding has become harder, in general, since WotLK; the developer comments and percentage of people raiding each tier show this pretty clearly.
    You mention your compelling evidence a lot, but I am yet to see it. You mind repeating/link to it?
    Volun-told - A supposedly optional event, award, assignment, or activity in which a person (or persons) are required to attend either by persons-in-charge nominating them or their peers expecting them to be there. The individual often has no say in the matter, and non-attendance in frowned upon.

    I am so tired of seeing terrible people, being admired, for being terrible people.

  11. #731
    The Lightbringer The Caretaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    You mention your compelling evidence a lot, but I am yet to see it. You mind repeating/link to it?
    For the seventh or eighth time? Just so you can ignore it all over again and claim it doesn't exist?

    I'm utterly done arguing with you; it's become frustrating, dull and pointless. Your intent to go through it all, yet again, is beyond puzzling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Well, it is possible for people, many people actually, to not think very highly of World of Warcraft. Those self same people may even consider other games in the genre superior due to their own subjective qualifiers. Qualifiers which are just as valid as the subjective qualifiers of those whom believe World of Warcraft is a "23 out of 10".

  12. #732
    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post
    For the seventh or eighth time? Just so you can ignore it all over again and claim it doesn't exist?

    I'm utterly done arguing with you; it's become frustrating, dull and pointless. Your intent to go through it all, yet again, is beyond puzzling.
    You mean like your ability to ignore all evidence that speaks against yours?

    I am being completely honest. I have not seen any compelling evidence of what you state. You keep stating that you have overwhelming evidence. I think that is false. Can you atleast link to a post where in your opinion, your evidence was so overwhelming that it crushes all doubts of it being incorrect?

    I mean, you keep telling me that you are right and I am wrong and that all evidence speaks towards your cause, however your inability to even provide that evidence tells another story.

    Again, not asking for you to write an essay repeating yourself, just wondering if you could link to a post where you had this evidence that proves your claim.
    Since I must have missed it.
    Last edited by Firefly33; 2013-06-08 at 03:57 PM.
    Volun-told - A supposedly optional event, award, assignment, or activity in which a person (or persons) are required to attend either by persons-in-charge nominating them or their peers expecting them to be there. The individual often has no say in the matter, and non-attendance in frowned upon.

    I am so tired of seeing terrible people, being admired, for being terrible people.

  13. #733
    Quote Originally Posted by Kurgosh View Post
    There's no feeder into raiding any more. Used to be, you'd go do dungeons, gets some loot, pug some 10s, maybe the prior tier, gear up, and go into 10s or 25 normals. The gear you got from the prior tier was relevant. Now you do your dungeons, grind rep and valor for 2 months, then get into LFR and somebody tells you that this is what raiding is. Well, LFR is really the replacement for the old 5 player heroic dungeons. You zerg it and collect your loots. But it's labeled as raiding. So when new players try out raiding, this is what they get, a mindless zerg fest where nobody even tries to play well, everybody's in a rush, nobody explains anything, and you all end up with achievements and shiny pixels at the end. If that's raiding, what's the incentive to do it? What's the incentive to get better at it, or learn the boss mechanics or learn your class? It's not fun, it's not engrossing, and it's certainly not a feeder for normal mode raiding.
    :S
    Sadly I must agree with this.
    LFR had a noble goal, but failed to achieve it because of the nature of random stranger groups with no barrier of entry.
    Let us hope that flex fills that gap and reintroduces PuG's which can be sucessful.

  14. #734
    if you actually think normal modes are hard, then you are a bad player or your team just sucks.

    You guys can go LFR and don't ruin our content, ty

    Infracted; Don't attack people. (Sonnillon)
    Last edited by Sonnillon; 2013-06-09 at 12:32 PM.

  15. #735
    The Lightbringer The Caretaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    You mean like your ability to ignore all evidence that speaks against yours?
    I haven't ignored a single point of yours in the last 10 pages and you fucking know it.

    Look, one more time, at the significant drop off in the percentage of raiders playing endgame from WotLK to Cataclysm. It gets cut in half, and that's using DisposableHero's two month model and accounting for HIGHER subscriptions at the start of Cataclysm. This is in tandem with the developers stating that harder 10-man content was designed to be harder to account for the same item level loot (and shared lockout).

    THIS IS BECAUSE THE CONTENT BECAME HARDER.

    There is no other reasonable explanation for this drop, that has remained constant ever since.

    Do not fucking DARE to say there's no evidence to suggest the content got harder. If you do, you're simply making yourself look utterly fucking ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Avalanchlol View Post
    if you actually think normal modes are hard, then you are a bad player or your team just sucks.

    You guys can go LFR and don't ruin our content, ty
    Go away.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Well, it is possible for people, many people actually, to not think very highly of World of Warcraft. Those self same people may even consider other games in the genre superior due to their own subjective qualifiers. Qualifiers which are just as valid as the subjective qualifiers of those whom believe World of Warcraft is a "23 out of 10".

  16. #736
    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post
    I haven't ignored a single point of yours in the last 10 pages and you fucking know it.

    Look, one more time, at the significant drop off in the percentage of raiders playing endgame from WotLK to Cataclysm. It gets cut in half, and that's using DisposableHero's two month model and accounting for HIGHER subscriptions at the start of Cataclysm. This is in tandem with the developers stating that harder 10-man content was designed to be harder to account for the same item level loot (and shared lockout).

    THIS IS BECAUSE THE CONTENT BECAME HARDER.

    There is no other reasonable explanation for this drop, that has remained constant ever since.

    Do not fucking DARE to say there's no evidence to suggest the content got harder. If you do, you're simply making yourself look utterly fucking ridiculous.
    I just do not see how you make the conclusion from % of playerbase = difficulty of content. It is not like you are looking at content in a vacuum. As mentioned several times before. We do not know the exact playerbase, aswell as the amount of people at 80/85/90. We do not have these stats. Basically we are talking about stats that we do not know. You also do not know how many people actually tried to pull a boss and the amount of wipes that were average.

    So you may know the playerbase, but you do not know the amount of players at level cap. Another thing is that late WotLK, the european/us playerbase dropped a lot while the chinese playerbase had a growth to compensate. So basically, at cataclysm the chinese to eu/us ratio was a lot higher, mostly due to WotLK being released in china.

    Since your playerbase data has no way of telling the exact playerbase data, I just do not see how you can make the conclusions you made. You do not know the CN:Eu+US ratio and your kill stats only account for EU/US guilds.

    That is also presuming nothing else has changed. WotLK still had 10/25 system. All those statistics you posted on the front page double uses the 10 and 25 statistics. Do not need a math professor to tell you have stupid this is in a mathematical comparison. So when you count away the double uses the numbers become far closer, however there is no way to know the exact amount of double uses.

    The addition of LFR aswell in T13-T15 makes those uncomparable without knowing the LFR data which we dont.

    Basically, you are taking data we do not know, comparing it with other data, comparing it with completely different data sets and even double counting players in a few data sets, then you have the fucking guts to say that is 'evidence'. I mean comon, who do you think you are fooling?
    Yes, I dare say you how no evidence.

    What we do have however is empirical data (which ironically can be found in your own data aswell) that less % of guilds are wiping to bosses, less % of guilds are getting stuck on bosses and quitting, and less wipes per boss kill than ever before. This is something that can not be denied.
    And that you have the balls to claim your extremely corrupt data set to be a stronger evidence than that is just mind boggling to me.

    But please, explain to me how your data set is more accurate. Double counting people and using an unknown number as baseline, ignoring LFR and not considering the difference in raid participation late/early expansion seems completely legit.
    Volun-told - A supposedly optional event, award, assignment, or activity in which a person (or persons) are required to attend either by persons-in-charge nominating them or their peers expecting them to be there. The individual often has no say in the matter, and non-attendance in frowned upon.

    I am so tired of seeing terrible people, being admired, for being terrible people.

  17. #737
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    I just do not see how you make the conclusion from % of playerbase = difficulty of content.
    It is a FAR more reasonable methodology than looking at percentage of players who have downed at least one boss in (say) normal.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "Almost every time I have gotten to know a critic personally, they keep up with the criticism but lose the venom." -- Ghostcrawler

  18. #738
    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post
    Look, one more time, at the significant drop off in the percentage of raiders playing endgame from WotLK to Cataclysm. It gets cut in half, and that's using DisposableHero's two month model and accounting for HIGHER subscriptions at the start of Cataclysm. This is in tandem with the developers stating that harder 10-man content was designed to be harder to account for the same item level loot (and shared lockout).
    Also. If you look at disposableheroes data, if you would for a second assume that the subbase is numbers are correct (which is an insane overstatement), if you count the 10 man kills of lord marrowgar they account for 4.8% of the playerbase. So 4.8% of the playerbase killed Lord Marrowgar according to that data. 4.25% for beasts

    Now, this is of course no evidence, because a lot of 25 man kills ran double raid teams etc in 10 man, however you say your prayers to these numbers like they were divine, so I guess you find them accurate.

    But 4.8% is hardly a lot higher then the rest of the numbers. What we instead got then is a 4.8%-3.28% variation between T9-T15. Now again, I do not support these numbers at all, only using your own numbers, however I strongly disagree that they are accurate, since it discounts for 10/25 being seperate in WotLK, the very inaccurate subnumbers especially in Cata, LFR in T13-T15.


    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    It is a FAR more reasonable methodology than looking at percentage of players who have downed at least one boss in (say) normal.
    Even looking at his methodology you can notice that the relative difficulty of each boss has just become lower and lower since T10. There are less guilds getting stuck on bosses then ever before. That is also supported by his methodology aswell.

    Also, his methodology also looks at % of players who downed 1 boss. So really, what? Both methodologies are based on people downing 1 boss. You make no sense.
    Last edited by Firefly33; 2013-06-09 at 12:17 PM.
    Volun-told - A supposedly optional event, award, assignment, or activity in which a person (or persons) are required to attend either by persons-in-charge nominating them or their peers expecting them to be there. The individual often has no say in the matter, and non-attendance in frowned upon.

    I am so tired of seeing terrible people, being admired, for being terrible people.

  19. #739
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    Also, his methodology also looks at % of players who downed 1 boss. So really, what? Both methodologies are based on people downing 1 boss. You make no sense.
    I was talking about looking at the percentage of players who have downed at least one boss, not the total number who have downed at least one boss. These are very different things!

    Consider a raid design (not to say any were like this) that had a killer first boss, but the rest were easy. Then, the percentage of those who downed the first boss, who then went on to down all the rest, would be very high. However, the raid as a whole would be hard, since few guilds would down the first boss. See the distinction?

    More reasonably, suppose the first boss is very hard, and the rest of the bosses are of about the same difficulty (flat progression). In that raid, your group is either good enough to do them all, or isn't. So the completion percentage (as percentage of those downing boss #1) will be fairly high, even if the raid overall is quite hard.

    The "internal percentage" metric is more a measure of how the difficulty of the raid ramps up, from beginning to end, rather than the absolute difficulty of the raid. To get the absolute difficulty, you want to look at the percentage of overall players (including those with zero boss kills) who have downed the bosses.

    (Those previous paragraphs are a bit oversimplified, since there's more than one kind of difficulty, and groups can fail for external reasons.)

    BTW, I will agree LK was actually a difficult encounter in T11 (and the stats supported that). IMO it was overtuned, and it damaged many mediocre Wrath guilds. I suspect this didn't help retention once it became clear how difficult Cataclysm was intended to be. The terrible engagement Ruby Sanctum experienced should have been a red flag.
    Last edited by Osmeric; 2013-06-09 at 12:35 PM.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "Almost every time I have gotten to know a critic personally, they keep up with the criticism but lose the venom." -- Ghostcrawler

  20. #740
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    I was talking about looking at the percentage of players who have downed at least one boss, not the total number who have downed at least one boss. These are very different things!

    Consider a raid design (not to say any were like this) that had a killer first boss, but the rest were easy. Then, the percentage of those who downed the first boss, who then went on to down all the rest, would be very high. However, the raid as a whole would be hard, since few guilds would down the first boss. See the distinction?

    More reasonably, suppose the first boss is very hard, and the rest of the bosses are of about the same difficulty (flat progression). In that raid, your group is either good enough to do them all, or isn't. So the completion percentage (as percentage of those downing boss #1) will be fairly high, even if the raid overall is quite hard.

    The "internal percentage" metric is more a measure of how the difficulty of the raid ramps up, from beginning to end, rather than the absolute difficulty of the raid. To get the absolute difficulty, you want to look at the percentage of overall players (including those with zero boss kills) who have downed the bosses.

    BTW, I will agree LK was actually a difficult encounter in T11 (and the stats supported that). IMO it was overtuned, and it damaged many mediocre Wrath guilds. I suspect this didn't help retention once it became clear how difficult Cataclysm was intended to be.
    You are presuming that a large part of the playerbase is wiping on the first boss. Blizzard has stated that this is not the case. They got those statistics so I trust their words over your guts.

    The internal percentage does measure how the difficulty ramps up inside the instance yes, however if you presume that 99% of players that are interested in raiding has the ability to down the first boss, it still remains a valid methodology.

    As we do not have the numbers of overall players, I just do not see how you can look at those to get the absolute difficulty. If anything also, you need to look at the total amount of players that attempted to raid. We do not know how big % of the playerbase is actually attempting to raid, heck, we do not even know the playerbase. How many people are at level cap? How many people have attempted a raid boss? Sure, you can ask blizzard for these numbers, but we are using numbers we do not know as baseline. Again, how can we use numbers we do not know as baseline? If we had the numbers, yes we could use them, but we dont.

    Also, how do we fit LFR into all this? We do not know the numbers of LFR. How do they affect the % of playerbase playing? I have been told that there are more players raiding LFR than normal/heroic. I do not know if this is true or not. But that would mean a lot more people are raiding under the radar since T13.

    But again, checking those exact % of playerbase numbers they posted and presuming they are correct for a moment. 4.25% of playerbase downed beasts in 10 normal, 4.8% down marrowgar in 10 normal. Is this far different from Cata/Mop? No, it is not.

    If anything, the difference between the "peak" of 4.8% compared to the lowest of 3.38% can fall into the category of acceptable variance considering the sources of the 'data'. FL which was the lowest in your 'data', was at 3.38%, however it was also released in the months of the year where WoW has the lowest playerbase. So really, your own data does not even support your conclusion.
    Last edited by Firefly33; 2013-06-09 at 02:49 PM.
    Volun-told - A supposedly optional event, award, assignment, or activity in which a person (or persons) are required to attend either by persons-in-charge nominating them or their peers expecting them to be there. The individual often has no say in the matter, and non-attendance in frowned upon.

    I am so tired of seeing terrible people, being admired, for being terrible people.

Posting Permissions

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