Would you accept less raid content in exchange for no LFR?

[Ferocity]

The question about one's willingness to have less content for the cost of even less content is bizarre on so many levels.

It is hard to believe, however that's what some people propose in LFR-bashing threads without thinking about outcome. OP just shows what would be the outcome of their proposals.

[jbombard]

The question about one's willingness to have less content for the cost of even less content is bizarre on so many levels.

The OP could have done a better job explaining what he meant. Which makes me sad because it is a great question, and one I would have liked to see people's honest opinion on instead of a bunch of knee jerk reactions "OMG WHAT NO LFR WTF".

First of all the question is for people who want to remove LFR not people who enjoy LFR.
Second of all there is an assumption that if LFR is removed, Blizzard will still want to keep those people subscribed and thus have to spend development funds on creating content for those people.
Thirdly, because of those additional costs spent on developing new content, there would be less money for raid development, and because of this a likely outcome would be seeing far less raids get developed. Like maybe 1/4 of what we have now or less.

That brings us to the question, would people who don't want LFR but enjoy raiding be satisified with the above result.

[lunchbox2042]

That makes no sense. Why would removing a difficulty that Blizzard needs to take time to balance around give us less raid content? If anything, adding extra levels of difficulty takes away from extra raid content because they have to do balancing for 6 different levels of difficulty as opposed to just 1 or 2.

[jbombard]

That makes no sense. Why would removing a difficulty that Blizzard needs to take time to balance around give us less raid content? If anything, adding extra levels of difficulty takes away from extra raid content because they have to do balancing for 6 different levels of difficulty as opposed to just 1 or 2.

Because the number of players that actually raid is very small, Blizzard would have to develop content for the non-raiders that are no longer using LFR. Considering they likely have a fixed budget, money spent developing new content for people not using LFR would be unavailable to spend on raids. And that is a sizable chunk of development funds.

[Aquamonkey]

That makes no sense. Why would removing a difficulty that Blizzard needs to take time to balance around give us less raid content? If anything, adding extra levels of difficulty takes away from extra raid content because they have to do balancing for 6 different levels of difficulty as opposed to just 1 or 2.

Balancing would fall upon the raid testing team, not the development team.

[Kaykay]

yes, while i enjoy raiding. I likewise enjoy many other aspects of wow, this would force them to think of improving and innovating on the other things that make this game great.

(5 man content, pvp, professions, exploration)

[nekobaka]

The question about one's willingness to have less content for the cost of even less content is bizarre on so many levels.

If less bosses meant more dungeons then I dont see how it is really giving less content. It would also allow Blizzard to place more focus on rewarding alternatives instead of the focus we have now with LFR being the one stop shop for all which Flex mode is proving is not the case and LFR cannot maintain the focus of all casuals.

[brunnor]

I'd gladly trade LFR for raid bosses. I would take a 6-7 boss instance every 6-7 months over a 12 boss every year tho.

[jbombard]

I'd gladly trade LFR for raid bosses. I would take a 6-7 boss instance every 6-7 months over a 12 boss every year tho.

Yeah I doubt they would ever do it, but if they did, you would probably see much smaller raids every few months as opposed to one big raid at the beginning of the xpack and that's it.

[Eternal Ice]

According to wowprogress and many other sites only a very small part of the player base raids or have raided, indeed, raiding (normal and heroic) is not, and never has been a popular activity, it always has been enjoyed by a very small minority while the vast majority never has cared enough about raids to participate in them or at least kill one single boss.

If LFR is removed they better spend those resources creating more dungeons, scenarios, battlegrounds, events, etc, because spending so much time and so many resources developing an aspect of the game that almost no one likes would make no sense.

And don't bring the old excuse "but it worked before!!", WoW grew because it was the casual option, the game NEVER was supposed to be hardcore or offer content only to a small minority, like it or not, the game owes its success to the casuals, for offering content to everyone, however, the game is no longer new, the game is no longer growing, removing LFR, remvoing content, leaving the vast majority of the player base with less things to do would be a suicide.

At this time, when the game is losing subscribers, the only way to justify the creation of more raids is if more people can access to them, otherwise, is just a question of time until a greedy high directive decides that raids are not profitable and blizzard stop creating new raids.

[MoanaLisa]

The question about one's willingness to have less content for the cost of even less content is bizarre on so many levels.

As strange as it is, it makes perfect sense as a put-up or shut-up question to anyone who thinks LFR should simply be removed entirely from the game. It's about recognizing the potential consequences of such a request were it to be carried out. If LFR goes there's a high probability that the raiding population would drop back down to pre-LFR levels and the consequences that would flow from that: a probable lessening of resources pointed towards raids and a drop in priority to build them.

[Skorpionss]

If Blizzard were to remove LFR from the game and make the raid content exclusive (The doorway would be guarded by the raid guilds to keep the bads out) then would you be willing to accept less raid content less often? I've asked this question in all the LFR hater threads and no one seems to want to answer it so I will place it here as a poll.

Currently Blizzard creates raid content with 12-14 bosses every 6 months. Then they test it in PTR and then release it. LFR takes up no resources as they just nerf the Raid content and then slap some beginning and end code between every 3-4 bosses, they dont even test it in PTR they just live release it.

Without LFR the 90% not in Raid Guilds will need content to keep them in the game so less resources will be used on the 10% that raid and they will get less raid bosses less often. So is 10 Raid bosses every 12 months acceptable in exchange for no LFR?

What the fuck is poeple's problem with LFR? Are they so fucking retarded that they can't accept that other ppl can run a watered down verion of the raid? It's not like some1 forces you to fucking do it, just ignore it and do your normal/heroic.

And no, less content for no LFR is not acceptable wtf... if it was MORE bosses for not LFR then yes I guess I would find that acceptable but seeing as how 5.4 will have more bosses than any other patch ever I don't see how that is in any way relevant... there are 14 bosses in raid and 5 world bosses... that's 19 bosses, what other patch had even nearly as many bosses as 5.4 ?

[jbombard]

What the fuck is poeple's problem with LFR? Are they so fucking retarded that they can't accept that other ppl can run a watered down verion of the raid? It's not like some1 forces you to fucking do it, just ignore it and do your normal/heroic.

And no, less content for no LFR is not acceptable wtf... if it was MORE bosses for not LFR then yes I guess I would find that acceptable but seeing as how 5.4 will have more bosses than any other patch ever I don't see how that is in any way relevant... there are 14 bosses in raid and 5 world bosses... that's 19 bosses, what other patch had even nearly as many bosses as 5.4 ?

You are misunderstanding the point of the OP and the question like 90% of the people posting here.
The point is that if you take away LFR, you have to provide content for those people to keep them subscribed, developing that costs money, Blizzard has a fixed budget, money spent on developing new content to replace LFR would not get spent on raids. The result would be less raids.
The OP doesn't want to remove LFR, he is trying to tell people that if you do Blizzard will have less money to spend on raids.

[Skorpionss]

You are misunderstanding the point of the OP and the question like 90% of the people posting here.
The point is that if you take away LFR, you have to provide content for those people to keep them subscribed, developing that costs money, Blizzard has a fixed budget, money spent on developing new content to replace LFR would not get spent on raids. The result would be less raids.
The OP doesn't want to remove LFR, he is trying to tell people that if you do Blizzard will have less money to spend on raids.

Yeah the first part was just me steaming at ppl who want lfr removed because reasonse not necesarilly at the OP, second part is specifically related to OP.

[-ex-]

They are removing LFR you duffus, just taking it one step at a time... what do you think Flexi-raid is.

LFR is getting the 5man heroic treatment, you're just behind the times.

First it's going to become irrelevant, then when it's cut as a failed experiment you'll have an army of drones like yourself parroting "who cares, it's not like it's useful for anything".

I like how you made a non-bias opening post though
I'd like a reference on where they said that LFR is what's keeping the raiding content pipeline going.. I thought it was all the pet battles and stuff.

So it's Pet Battles = 10-12 bosses a year.
No Pet Battles = 20-28 bosses a year.

What say you we remove pet battles that's so many resources out of the encounter design department, they could be used for LFR.

Except we have had 28 bosses this expansion (not including world bosses), which has been out for less than a year. Pet battles don't require the same amount of resources and are not necessarily worked on by the same team.

[Deleted]

Would you accept less content in exchange for less options? what? o_O

[jbombard]

Would you accept less content in exchange for less options? what? o_O

I really wish the OP would edit his post so people stop misunderstanding this. It would be less raid content for more non-raid options. Costs would be shifted from raid development to new content for all the people who no longer have LFR.

[Aquamonkey]

I really wish the OP would edit his post so people stop misunderstanding this. It would be less raid content for more non-raid options. Costs would be shifted from raid development to new content for all the people who no longer have LFR.

I'm surprised MoanaLisa didn't just edit her clarification into the OP.

[jbombard]

I'm surprised MoanaLisa didn't just edit her clarification into the OP.

Queue next "WTF NO LFR AND LESS RAID, WHAT ARE YOU HIGH!" post in 5.... 4.... 3.... 2....

[Deleted]

Still a big fat no. Might be a bit selfish to say it like that but its a very subjective matter anyway. Good raiding content is one of the main reasons WoW stands out from other MMOs. Really can't get the feeling of defeating a hard boss as a 10 (or 25) man team in any other game, or entertainment media for that matter.