We spend almost 1 month to down this guys that when we did we were almost BIS in normal mode gear that the next week we almost clear all bosses in HC hehe.
You are right maybe i don't know what it is like to be on a normal mode guild, but keep in mind i started playing in TBC and normal mode was the only mode.
I am an HC raider and i run LFR, and will run flex for every possible upgrade.
First week i bet i will do a PUG flex during the afternoon before the evening normal raid.
Bad - This is a bad player, he refuses to learn how to play correctly.
Casual - This is a player that will let everything else take priority over wow.
Hardcore - This is a player that is fine with putting things on hold while he's on wow.
Bad/Good - Measure of Skill.
Casual/Hardcore - Measure of Time
If you ever think about it why should people stay in RaidGuild, to Raid... and than they cant for whatever reason, so if 1 person cant go you must suply the spot or call the raid => very bad situation because other 9 might start drama about "not raiding". Every guild that mind some regular raiding must have +30% over budget of people, idealy in different roles. Once you call raid you are on the road to hell. Basic math says 1 person missing ruin evening for 9 others, 1 or 2 above limit may result in 1 or max 2 ruined evenings, the first variant is clearly worse.
I mean the argument your making is so fucking retarded. It's basically saying content isn't hard or overtuned once you discount the people it's hard or over tuned for. DUH really. I could say content is ridiculously easy all the way across the board if I discount everyone but paragon and method. Just from that sample alone the rest of you scrubs should uninstall immediately.
- - - Updated - - -
Theirs lots to do outside of raiding but none of it actually rewards as well as raiding because as you correctly point out it would undermine raiding. Which it did in cataclysm. I don't see that as a problem but the developers so instead what we get is a million and one difficulties repeating the same bullshit raiding content over and over again and people more desperate than ever for new content to come out at a faster pace. In reality we end up having less. At least when dungeons had decent rewards behind them I broke up raiding by doing that stuff and still getting rewarded for it. Now it's basically just raid raid raid raid raid.
I think the biggest issue with raiding is simply that the tools necessary to do it are not actually part of the game. The dungeon guide went a small way towards helping that, but typically it's hard to tell what effects are doing during a fight, it's hard to tell where the fire is or what it does when you stand in it, it's hard to tell whether your DPS are actually any good and it's hard to find people to raid with. The overall reduction in difficulty of dungeons means that it's hard to tell if anyone is good at their class, or whether they have the will to wipe a few times learning a boss.
Some of these things are gradually improving (flex raiding helps with head count, boss mechanics are getting better at telling you what's up), but some have been steadily getting worse (remember when heroics required a plan and you could wipe without being massively undergeared or suffering from gross incompetence?).
Personally I feel LFR -> Flex -> Heroic is a much better idea, but really, if they want to cover "all skill levels" then they should just create a "Monster Power" system and be done with it.
i.e. You get one Lockout per week, and you can adjust been LFR/Normal/Heroic on a per boss basis. Solves the problem really, and make them all "flex" starting at 8 players (not 10) for small guilds. Problem solved.
For example, take two raiding groups both with equal gear, facing off against a very challenging boss. One group has 2% better dps output than the other. The first group manages after 50 attempts to defeat the boss with 3 seconds left on the enrage timer. The other group keeps wiping on 1%. The first group gets gear upgrades, which boost its dps output by another 2%.
Now let's assume that by the end of the week, group 1 has defeated the first boss, and made progress on the second. The second group have made progress, but didn't beat the first boss. Now in the second week, group 1 will defeat the boss in 1 or 2 attempts, get more gear, and likely defeat boss 2, while group 2 manages to finally defeat boss 1 by the end of the week.
Can you see how, after 2 weeks, group 1, who really were only marginally better than group 2 have managed to obtain 3 times as many gear upgrades in the same space of time? Now do you begin to understand how it is that after a few months the top player will be performing significantly better than the second best?
To illustrate my point:
Your performance (as shown on your graphs) is producing roughly 4 times the output of the median. The 95th percentile is roughly twice the median. And because this data is taken from WoL, it is a good assumption that this is data for people who classify in the 90th percentile of the game at large. Therefore I predict that the 50th percentile of WoL is probably 4 times better than the 50th percentile among non raiders making your performance 16 times greater than the median level 90 player out there.
These stats show how in a game like WoW performance increases exponentially with skill. In other words, being 2% better at the game could translate to a 50% increase in performance. Conversely, a person producing 33% less dps than you might only be 2% less skilled.
The 100m sprint
Usain Bolt does it in approximately 10 seconds. The average person does it in about 14 seconds. So the average person, even with little or no training can still perform at 70% of Usain Bolt's level. At the top level, this is completely the opposite to what happens in WoW, with massively diminishing returns from improving performance.
The bottom line: looking at output as a raw percentage of a theoretical maximum is a very poor indicator of relative ability. It is useful only if you understand what that percentage means in the context of the activity. What is a good indicator of relative ability is seeing where someone sits on the statistical distibution.
Someone performing at 60% of Usain Bolt is bad at running. Someone performing at 80% of Usain Bolt is a very good runner.
Someone performing at 5% (30th percentile maybe) of your dps is bad at dps. Someone performing at even 30% (95th percentile) though is actually a good player.
I can understand why from your perspective, 99% (everything below the 90th percentile of WoL) of the WoW population appear to be bad. In the context of heroic raiding they are bad. In the context of WoW in general, however, they are not.
What I am saying is that you need to find a new adjective because the term "bad" already has a meaning. Or if you want to use the term bad, at least qualify that it is strictly relative to the best players in the world.
Is 535 the ilvl for normal SoO? honestly curious here.
Normal SoO items are ilvl 553, Warforged 559.
about this good and bad thing ... its quite easy to tell difference between good and bad dps - if one is able to time his dps boost abilities with the trinket procs hell get significantly better resoults then the other in same gear - now if u have in group 5 dps who re able to do it vs 5 who cant - the differnece in team performans is enourmous - and some people just reached lv where they no longer remember how aweful was their performance few years ago and expect that since they play on this lv everyone should be able too -_-
But plotting percentiles when the players involved have vastly different gear, and when some specs are quite sensitive (even on 10 minute fights) to random effects, is really a pointless exercise when the topic at hand is "skill."
- - - Updated - - -
Flex and Normal should both be flex, problem solved.
And I'm saying that it's bullshit if he thinks that will actually happen.