Possibly no flying throughout entire xpac.

[Deleted]

According to who?

You are free to bring in an argument that hasnt been countered.

[Dormie]

You are free to bring in an argument that hasnt been countered.

So it can be 'countered' again with more denial? How about someone give us one good reason why flight should stay.

[Selah]

Agreed, they basically make the game forse for most players to:

- Make designing quests easier (faster, cheaper).
- Make designing zones easier (faster, cheaper).
- Add timesink (less content needed as content takes more time).

All of these improvements are on their side, none of these are positive for the players. And that while they supposedly have as many developers and designers as never before and the expansion is the most expensive to date. I guess all these people are busy working on more stuff for the shop.

Except Blizzard explicitly said multiple times during interviews about WoD that is has been created to support flying. Which means Draenor has been designed to be complete (no Silvermoon here).

I'm not sure how you figure it makes designing quests easier, the quests are going to be about the same as they were with MoP considering we couldn't fly there until max level, and I've yet to hear someone complain about the quality of the quests in MoP.

I have no idea if you've played beta or not, but if you have you know that there is so much going on in the terms of PvE on Draenor that flying is only going to save you about 5 or 10 seconds here and there. Nothing substantial enough to be considered a time sink.

You know what's really going to kill flying though, it's not Blizzard, it's something more effective than flying. Portals. Your mage tower in the garrison will give you portals to all of Draenor, which is a very nice alternative to flying. Far more efficient

[Deleted]

So it can be 'countered' again with more denial? How about someone give us one good reason why flight should stay.

You mix up "denial" with "debunking myths".

And why should i give a reason if its you who wants to remove flying and who claims he got enough backup to argument it?

Just go on. Give me the not yet countered argument why flying should be removed.

[Baconeggcheese]

So it can be 'countered' again with more denial? How about someone give us one good reason why flight should stay.

I dunno why you humor rym and barkloud.



Whenever I start a conversation with someone on this forum and their response eventually throws up a red flag on this chart, I stop talking to them. Maneo for instance, done with him. Same as rym, barkloud, and walter.

There are people on the other side of this debate worth talking to, but some of the most active people not so much.

[Deleted]

Whenever I start a conversation with someone on this forum and their response eventually throws up a red flag on this chart, I stop talking to them. Maneo for instance, done with him. Same as rym, barkloud, and walter.

You just list those who dont share your opinion, and freely interpret their counter argument as a breach of your discussion rules.

That wont help to get a discussion going.

I ask you to bring in an argument for the removal of flying that hasnt been demystified yet.

You cant bring an argument?

"Do not argue you do not need evidence."

Oh and about your graphic: No, discussion is not about "changing minds". It's about sharing viewpoints. And to find compromises.

Removing flying is no compromise. It is the decision of a fanatic. That knows no compromise. That only knows on or off. And nothing inbetween.

The word "discussion" is derived from the latin word "discussio", which means "trial" or "check", and a discussion is just a Conversation or debate concerning a particular topic. There is no need you want to change the minds of others.

[Deleted]

rym, the reason bacon and brandon refuse to elaborate and give actual arguments is, they don't have any. It's that easy. So instead they expect their opposition to disprove their never once given arguments and come up with kindergarden esque "no you" posts.

[Deleted]

rym, the reason bacon and brandon refuse to elaborate and give actual arguments is, they don't have any. It's that easy. So instead they expect their opposition to disprove their never once given arguments and come up with kindergarden esque "no you" posts.

Well, baconggcheese also created a great graphic to stop talking to people who oppose him and discredits any other opinion and it's ongoing argumentation as "incapability to change your mind".

He really thinks, a discussion is only a discussion, if people agree to change their mind to his idea.

Thats even more funny.

I think a discussion is a great thing if it brings up solutions which make both opponents in a debate happy. Thats called a "compromise".

[Baconeggcheese]

I didn't create that graphic btw, not even sure who did.

It's just a graphic to show how rational people have discussions.

I'm nowhere near as eloquent as the person who made that graphic.

[Deleted]

I didn't create that graphic btw, not even sure who did.

It's just a graphic to show how rational people have discussions.

I'm nowhere near as eloquent as the person who made that graphic.

Yes, but sorry, that graphic is just wrong. It's not about conquering opinions. It's about finding an agreement.

[Dormie]

I'm all for finding a compromise, but it'd be kind of pointless to talk about other than for entertainment considering we aren't the devs. My personal compromise would be to make it so you can only mount your flying mount at a flight master.

[Deleted]

I'm all for finding a compromise, but it'd be kind of pointless to talk about other than for entertainment considering we aren't the devs. My personal compromise would be to make it so you can only mount your flying mount at a flight master.

Talking in forums like this is always for entertainment. Or do you think our talk has any influence on design decisions?

It's like talking about politics at your local pub. You can argue, you can argument, but your Prime Minister surely will not change a law only because you know a good argument.

My compromise would be to extend the no flying rule for new content up to patch x.1, but bring it in at that patch without any brickwall.

[Baconeggcheese]

I'm all for finding a compromise, but it'd be kind of pointless to talk about other than for entertainment considering we aren't the devs. My personal compromise would be to make it so you can only mount your flying mount at a flight master.

Huh, I hadn't thought of that.

It kinda half solves the problem, you won't be able to swoop out after you've bypassed all the stuff... but you'd still swoop in. They'd also still have to design everything with keeping in mind that you have full control of flying up to it.

[Deleted]

It kinda half solves the problem, you won't be able to swoop out after you've bypassed all the stuff... but you'd still swoop in. They'd also still have to design everything with keeping in mind that you have full control of flying up to it.

It would be fine for me if free flight would return at the point the expansions start content would be deprecated. Means Patch x.1, for example.

[Anzaman]

I'm all for flying with Patch 6.1 (earliest).

After that, I might even myself want them to enable flying in older content (6.0).

[Baconeggcheese]

It would be fine for me if free flight would return at the point the expansions start content would be deprecated. Means Patch x.1, for example.

Except they said themselves they plan to evolve specific areas and entire zones into max level content during major patches.

You understand the implications of that + what you said right?

[Deleted]

You understand the implications of that + what you said right?

Sure, but those special regions could be either excluded, or we would add another agreement, where flying during quests from that region would also be disabled.

As like: If you accept a quest from the region, any flying would cancel it.

[Wingspan]

I dunno why you humor rym and barkloud.


Whenever I start a conversation with someone on this forum and their response eventually throws up a red flag on this chart, I stop talking to them. Maneo for instance, done with him. Same as rym, barkloud, and walter.

There are people on the other side of this debate worth talking to, but some of the most active people not so much.

Interesting chart.


I should point out that debates are rarely about changing the minds of those debating. They are usually more about trying to shape the minds of the spectators.


Another thing is that the problem with "faulty arguments", at least in this debate, is that nearly everything about this is opinion (on both sides). They may be opinions that are formed from tidbits of actual data, but they are still opinions (even in the case of the developer stance).


Truth is, no one absolutely knows how this is going to play out. Developers don't. We don't. No one does. We can only look at what has gone before, assess our feelings and try to guess the overall impact. Very few things in this debate are outright wrong or undeniably correct and the few things that are usually don't have much impact in the grand scheme, because if they did, we would have a better idea of the impact this will have.


Some interesting things (in my mind) is the recent no-daze option for the garrisons and the portal network that seems to be growing in scope. This would suggest (at least to me) that the developers are beginning to see in-game data that is not promising to them, because they are now actually starting to actively counter the slowing mechanisms and "danger" brought about by killing flight (in other words, they are starting to counter their own design). There must be a reason for this.


OR I could view these changes as "part of the plan all along", which would mean that "danger" and slower content consumption was never really the issue. So then it was really just a way to save some money by giving us less. (As a side note, just because they might save a buck by not developing flight in future expansions, does not mean we will get anything extra in its place. So don't walk away believing that to be true.)


In any case, there are SOME things that we will get to see proof of down the road... regardless of any opinions we may have. So it should prove interesting at the very least.


In my personal case, I made that decision 10 months or so ago. I spent the vast majority of my game time (for 8 solid years) in the questing/outdoor world. I prefer being there with flight. When the official announcement hit for the WoD plans, I canceled, and have not been back since. At this point, it is just a morbid fascination for me. If flight returns, I might too, but I have since found a couple of other games that I really enjoy... so maybe not.

[Baconeggcheese]

As like: If you accept a quest from the region, any flying would cancel it.

That's not horrible mechanically, but would require a dumb amount of stipulations for it to not be abused... and still comes with all the other problems.

Anyway work time, you have fun you crazy kids.

[Deleted]

That's not horrible mechanically, but would require a dumb amount of stipulations for it to not be abused... and still comes with all the other problems.

I think we surely could find solutions for those problems. But i think that every solution is better than a complete removal. And if we take that proposition and replace it by an agreement instead of just.. turning it off.. both sides would be happy with it.

The good thing about discussions is that people can bring in the weaks about ideas, and that there can be talk about how to solve it.

Even if i think that flying just should stay in game, as we are used to it. And even if you think, it should be removed completely.