"Players rarely argue for less convenience." - Ghostcrawler

[Endus]

Us ... erm how did you put it? "Neckbeards".. realise the game has changed, we just dont like it. Dont get me wrong im not posting threads QQing about LFR or the direction of the game, but I will show my views on it in already existing threads that are discussing something of this nature. AKA Ill put up with LFR, doesnt mean I think its good for the game AT ALL.
Not to derail, but how on earth can the game retain any respect when you can literally level from 1 - 90 in a weekend, then on the monday evening you can "Kill the bad guys that are somehow so powerful, but so weak that you and 24 retards can auto attack until they fall over and give you shiny lewts and even legendary items". Please explain to me how this is okay for the game to be? How can casual players enjoy (their view of) killing the final bosses with such ease?.

Some people enjoy surmounting a challenge, the struggle to improve themselves and succeed where before they failed.

Other people enjoy seeing new stuff and experiencing a storyline without repeatedly throwing themselves against a brick wall.

Neither is "right". If you don't like LFR, don't run LFR. Same reason if you think grinding at the one boss you're working on in heroic raiding, for 6 hours every night, is a waste of time, don't do it.

There's no factor of "respect". Nobody respects anybody, in the gaming world, based on the length of the leveling treadmill. Reaching 90 isn't an "achievement", just as reaching 85, or 80, 70, or even 60 weren't really achievements. They were grinds. The reason they've accelerated leveling is because of precisely this; the entirety of WoW's "endgame" is at the level cap, and reaching that is the end of the introductory period. There's no real reason to extend that introduction.

If you're not a casual player, and you're into PvE challenge, you're already doing heroic raiding and LFR is utterly meaningless to you. Its existence should not matter one bit.

[Deleted]

Because what is happening on the forums is a miniscule part of the whole picture, but it is all that you see.

How so? Sure the majority of players won't post on the forums at all. If they're happy with the game they just keep playing it.. but then again the majority who are unhappy with the game do the same. They either keep playing till they have had enough or "silently" move on to greener pastures.

It's still a lie as they haven't done any polls to confirm it either way.

[heltvild]

LFR actually allows Blizzard to spend more dev time on making raids. If they removed LFR right now, what % of the people who only do LFR would actually move to normal raiding? A very small % I would argue for.

If there was only normal and heroic raiding now, it would be such a small % of the playerbase that Blizzard wouldn't put much effort/dev time into making raids, they would spend it on other things that the other % of the playerbase was enjoying.

I would argue one of the reasons that in MoP so far we have - 16 bosses - 12 bosses + 1 for hc only - 14 bosses is because with LFR there is such a bigger % of the playerbase acutally doing raids which can allow them to make big tiers again and spend much dev time on them.

[Jessicka]

So apparently people on the forums only account for a small minority of the playerbase? Well then why on earth did blizz listen to the forum complainers in 4.1 and decide to nerf all the heroics...

Because 2m of them quit playing because they had nothing to do.

[Jilor]

LFR actually allows Blizzard to spend more dev time on making raids. If they removed LFR right now, what % of the people who only do LFR would actually move to normal raiding? A very small % I would argue for.

If there was only normal and heroic raiding now, it would be such a small % of the playerbase that Blizzard wouldn't put much effort/dev time into making raids, they would spend it on other things that the other % of the playerbase was enjoying.

I would argue one of the reasons that in MoP so far we have - 16 bosses - 12 bosses + 1 for hc only - 14 bosses is because with LFR there is such a bigger % of the playerbase acutally doing raids which can allow them to make big tiers again and spend much dev time on them.

I've never understood comments like this. WoW grew in subscription numbers by a very large amount during vanilla and TBC. Admittedly, it was the shiny new toy in vanilla, but it kept climbing despite how few people were actually raiding and the even lower number of people who did Naxx or Sunwell. Yet, somehow, there's an argument out there that that doesn't work, despite the evidence to the contrary. Naxx was huge, 15 bosses. And yet, what, less than 1% of the population, something like eight or nine thousand players ever killed Kel'Thuzad at level 60...out of over six million. Yet somehow, they found the time to devote to developing it and only gained subscriptions. I'm not saying it has to go back to that way, but I just don't find that argument valid.

[Belisaurio]

LFR actually allows Blizzard to spend more dev time on making raids. If they removed LFR right now, what % of the people who only do LFR would actually move to normal raiding? A very small % I would argue for.

If there was only normal and heroic raiding now, it would be such a small % of the playerbase that Blizzard wouldn't put much effort/dev time into making raids, they would spend it on other things that the other % of the playerbase was enjoying.

I would argue one of the reasons that in MoP so far we have - 16 bosses - 12 bosses + 1 for hc only - 14 bosses is because with LFR there is such a bigger % of the playerbase acutally doing raids which can allow them to make big tiers again and spend much dev time on them.

I don't see that. They create Raids because they are the endgame.

I don't know, If I was a raid developer, I will be ore proud creating Kil'jaeden than any other LFR boss because people feared in front of him, was a menacing figure and people respected that boss and not for difficult or because a low % saw that boss... Maybe we've got a different idea, but that's my impression.

And eliminating the new-possible dungeon to focus on scenarios and Raids help a lot.

[Kelimbror]

I don't always think Blizzard's statistics will tell the full story either, considering there's people like me that don't really care to bring out the torches and pitchforks for a video game. I'll still do LFR and I won't tell anyone off because of the items they got.

But you have to realize that your 'story' is irrelevant. There's nothing you can say that data doesn't already know the truth of. You even said it yourself, you 'still do LFR'. Ok, so just from their numbers they know you are satisfied enough with the feature to keep running it. I'm not even sure how or why you would get angry at people for getting loot in LFR though...

I'll probably one day cancel my subscription with no fanfare. Where as, if they made changes I find more positive, it's more likely to keep me playing.

They know what activities you do and can infer what you find enjoyable already. They don't develop for you, they develop for the collective. If collective data shows high participation, it doesn't matter what you say you want on the forums. You're doing it, so they have you right now.

Someone made a fair point about the 4 million or so subscribers that simply stopped playing. Not all of them went quietly, but many of us will.

Sad to say, but there's no one who can leave quietly. Even if you refuse to give any information on the exit survery (which is not common, since most people are angry and want Blizzard to know exactly why they've unsubscribed for the 20th time) then they still have exactly what you were doing prior to your cancellation.

Then they can look at the big picture of what everyone was doing who cancelled. Here's an example:

Out of the 100k people that stopped recurring subscriptions this month
- 20% only logged on two nights a week for a few hours.
- 15% of them leveled characters to 90
- 50% of them ran intro LFR
- 80% of them looted epics
etc

Cross referencing other data, using probability, and other various mathetmatical principles they can determine a lot of things with that information. Also looking at your payment history, time spent playing the game, etc. If people who were playing many hours a week for years suddenly have been logging far less hours, then cancel a sub...likely their life doesn't allow them the time to justify paying to play. They likely indicated that on their exit survey. These numbers are likely mostly pulled aside into the 'accesibility thinktank' where they determine how to engage players that only play for a few hours a week.

There are tons and tons of things determined from every player, regardless if they ever utter a single thought to blizzard in any capacity.

[Mawnix]

GC was brain-dead on arrival to Blizzard, so I cannot take seriously anything that is attributed to him as if he were a game developer.

You haven't read anything anyone's said in this thread have you.

Did you just come into this thread to bash GC who isn't even fully responsible for all these changes to the game you hate?

Really?

[lawow74]

I've never understood comments like this. WoW grew in subscription numbers by a very large amount during vanilla and TBC. Admittedly, it was the shiny new toy in vanilla, but it kept climbing despite how few people were actually raiding and the even lower number of people who did Naxx or Sunwell. Yet, somehow, there's an argument out there that that doesn't work, despite the evidence to the contrary. Naxx was huge, 15 bosses. And yet, what, less than 1% of the population, something like eight or nine thousand players ever killed Kel'Thuzad at level 60...out of over six million. Yet somehow, they found the time to devote to developing it and only gained subscriptions. I'm not saying it has to go back to that way, but I just don't find that argument valid.

To which I have to bring up this:



Like the big man said, things have changed since then. The standard that applied then does not apply now, could not apply now, despite a vocal minority's constant cries to the contrary.

[Jessicka]

I don't see that. They create Raids because they are the endgame.

I don't know, If I was a raid developer, I will be ore proud creating Kil'jaeden than any other LFR boss because people feared in front of him, was a menacing figure and people respected that boss and not for difficult or because a low % saw that boss... Maybe we've got a different idea, but that's my impression.

And eliminating the new-possible dungeon to focus on scenarios and Raids help a lot.

Well they do still get that with Heroic bosses with their extra phases and stuff. They were dissapointed with Ra-den because because he wasn't killed in the manner intended.

They're pretty clear themselves that they don't rate LFR kills or loot the same as N/H. GC even ridiculed the guy who asked about "BiS LFR gear", by asking about BiS greens. And rightfully so.

[Mawnix]

Some people enjoy surmounting a challenge, the struggle to improve themselves and succeed where before they failed.

Other people enjoy seeing new stuff and experiencing a storyline without repeatedly throwing themselves against a brick wall.

Neither is "right". If you don't like LFR, don't run LFR. Same reason if you think grinding at the one boss you're working on in heroic raiding, for 6 hours every night, is a waste of time, don't do it.

There's no factor of "respect". Nobody respects anybody, in the gaming world, based on the length of the leveling treadmill. Reaching 90 isn't an "achievement", just as reaching 85, or 80, 70, or even 60 weren't really achievements. They were grinds. The reason they've accelerated leveling is because of precisely this; the entirety of WoW's "endgame" is at the level cap, and reaching that is the end of the introductory period. There's no real reason to extend that introduction.

If you're not a casual player, and you're into PvE challenge, you're already doing heroic raiding and LFR is utterly meaningless to you. Its existence should not matter one bit.

100% agreed.

When I joined a more "hardcore" guild, I just stopped giving a crap about LFR all together.

It shouldn't matter to us.

[Frogged]

Because they have access to far more data than you do which includes how many people drop from groups, how many groups failed to complete the dungeon, the average run time of the dungeon, and the mechanics players tried to skip. It was based on that that they made their changes.

How do any of those data points demonstrate a dislike for hard dungeons? I don't remember being asked whether I liked them or not, and I don't see how they could find out without asking. People dropping groups, failing to complete dungeons, or taking a long time simply means that players had to leave or took a long time to complete the dungeon, not that they didn't enjoy it. I had to leave plenty of BC Heroics, failed to complete plenty, and took a very long time on many, yet I still loved them.

The problem is, the point you're quoting actually makes sense. Blizzard does listen to the vocal minority when it comes to casualization.

[Jessicka]

How do any of those data points demonstrate a dislike for hard dungeons? I don't remember being asked whether I liked them or not, and I don't see how they could find out without asking.

The problem, as they've stated over and over again was the lack of an alternative. There are plenty of players who accept Hard Modes and raiding aren't for them and at that point they'd taken away 10N raiding as it was in ICC, and 5 man heroics as they'd known. These players had had their content taken away from them, and so the game wasn't for them anymore. They quit. In droves.

[Mawnix]

How do any of those data points demonstrate a dislike for hard dungeons? I don't remember being asked whether I liked them or not, and I don't see how they could find out without asking.

If I had to guess it might be on complaints via chat logs, how many people were doing the dungeons, and probably a chart showing a decrease in people doing the content due to its difficulty.

Blizzard is a BIG company. As others have said, they have analysts and what not to see what most players really need/want.

Side note: hi Frog.

[heltvild]

I don't see that. They create Raids because they are the endgame.

I don't know, If I was a raid developer, I will be ore proud creating Kil'jaeden than any other LFR boss because people feared in front of him, was a menacing figure and people respected that boss and not for difficult or because a low % saw that boss... Maybe we've got a different idea, but that's my impression.

And eliminating the new-possible dungeon to focus on scenarios and Raids help a lot.

Endgame yes, but for who? The 300k people that raids normal/heroic or the other 8 million that dont?

Its true that not making new dungeons gives them alot of extra time working on raids sure, but in the current state of the game, I dont think they would spend as much dev time on raids as they currently do, if they removed LFR.

LFR allows alot more players to see and experience the raids, therfore they can justify to spend more dev time on it.

[Otimus]

Most people don't complain in general.

If they like it, they like it, if they don't like it, they quit.


So, if you want to make yourself heard, you need to quit in mass, in a large enough number to matter as to where Blizzard starts asking that large group why you quit. (Protip: There's not enough of those people to matter, most likely!)

[Darsithis]

How do any of those data points demonstrate a dislike for hard dungeons? I don't remember being asked whether I liked them or not, and I don't see how they could find out without asking. People dropping groups, failing to complete dungeons, or taking a long time simply means that players had to leave or took a long time to complete the dungeon, not that they didn't enjoy it. I had to leave plenty of BC Heroics, failed to complete plenty, and took a very long time on many, yet I still loved them.

The problem is, the point you're quoting actually makes sense. Blizzard does listen to the vocal minority when it comes to casualization.

No. My point was Blizzard listens to the community when the data backs them up. In the case of the Cata heroics, the data showed that people were dropping out of dungeons and dungeons were taking hours to complete along with people unsubbing from the game over it. That's why they made those changes.

[Deleted]

Some people enjoy surmounting a challenge, the struggle to improve themselves and succeed where before they failed.

Other people enjoy seeing new stuff and experiencing a storyline without repeatedly throwing themselves against a brick wall.

Neither is "right". If you don't like LFR, don't run LFR. Same reason if you think grinding at the one boss you're working on in heroic raiding, for 6 hours every night, is a waste of time, don't do it.

There's no factor of "respect". Nobody respects anybody, in the gaming world, based on the length of the leveling treadmill. Reaching 90 isn't an "achievement", just as reaching 85, or 80, 70, or even 60 weren't really achievements. They were grinds. The reason they've accelerated leveling is because of precisely this; the entirety of WoW's "endgame" is at the level cap, and reaching that is the end of the introductory period. There's no real reason to extend that introduction.

If you're not a casual player, and you're into PvE challenge, you're already doing heroic raiding and LFR is utterly meaningless to you. Its existence should not matter one bit.

Sure some people enjoy a challenge but the challenge has to be meaningful. Just getting that "well done, youre awesome" at the end doesn't cut it for some people.

For me it used to be seeing new stuff, seeing new bits of the story and getting new exclusive gear. No, not because I wanted "respect", I just wanted to gank some hordies with it:P But it could really be anything practical, like a faster mount, better gear etc.

Now you might be saying "well, you already get better gear when doing HCs, so whats the problem?". The problem is that it's only for PvE.. in other words you kill harder bosses to kill even harder bosses.. but if you already killed the hardest ones, why would you want more gear, especially if it's going to be reset with next patch anyway?

In Vanilla and even during TBC, they also released easier, lower item level raids with unique rewards (like those skill books or gems that dropped only in raids) so raiding was still worth it to future proof yourself. And it was really great for PvP too.

[heltvild]

The problem, as they've stated over and over again was the lack of an alternative. There are plenty of players who accept Hard Modes and raiding aren't for them and at that point they'd taken away 10N raiding as it was in ICC, and 5 man heroics as they'd known. These players had had their content taken away from them, and so the game wasn't for them anymore. They quit. In droves.

Very much this. I had alot of friends only doing ICC 10m normal and they liked it, alot. In Cata when 10 man got harder many of them quit just because they didn't want to spend the extra time/effort or whatever required to actually raid when it was harder than before.

[Otimus]

If you count all the "real" wow players, the ones that actually made it to max level, played for more than a couple of months, dont just use it as Habbo Hotel (I.E they actually play the game). I think it is alot more of the % of players that dislike conveinence than some people think.
Of course convenience is a broad term. Personally I think alot of people hate what LFR has done to the game. at least 25% of real players would argue that I reckon.

While that's all well and good, I bet the amount of people that make up the "real" WoW players are less than around 600,000. (Remember, there's several MILLION of the total players who don't even own MoP, and only about 2 million or so go so far as to even do LFR, last we saw numbers, and that's by far the end game content currently most used.)


I've seen people also argue before, that Blizzard needs to focus on these "real players" because they stay "no matter what", and these "flighty casuals" leave very often. While the latter is true, the former isn't doable, because there just flat out probably isn't enough of them to sustain the game past mere average profitability, at a maximum.