Possibly no flying throughout entire xpac.

[Dragoncurry]

It truly amazes how fucking little people understand about business and investments in our capitalist society.

No flying is a business decision right Maneo? How does it drastically impact their bottom line? Please show numbers from comparative reports from other companies that adopted no flying to suggest that this was a good business decision, and that THIS SPECIFIC DECISION will directly increase their revenue.

You said you worked in a large investment firm and held your Series 7, doing this bit of research should be no problems for you right?? Since you know...working at an investment firm valuing companies has something to do with figuring out how something like "no flying" that doesn't even go on a balance sheet somehow directly and quantifiably affects revenue in way that you can understand.

Yawn, more bullshit.

[Baconeggcheese]

Either that or they're prepping it for conversion to consoles. /shudder

Which would be an entire market of? Cmon you can do it!

Because so far I've only seen beta testers talk about how bad the new content is. I've brought this situation up several times in this thread, and so far the only responses I've gotten are not examples from the beta, but personal opinions on flight. So you're telling me you've done the beta. Tell me if you honestly believe that the content without flying is better because of the removal. Don't talk about flight itself, tell me about how the CONTENT is better.

There are people sprinkled in here and there in this thread as well as many others who are not at all bothered by the removal of flight. You've only seen beta testers talk about how bad the new content is because you've only looked for that specifically. Forum rules 101: people who are upset about something are far more present and louder than people who are happy with something.

As far as giving you examples, I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for. Its been explained so many times in this thread, as well as bashiok explaining in detail in multiple threads far more eloquently than I could.

The problem is people think the game is when we say "better game design" they think its going to completely revolutionize the game into a completely different game that blows your fucking mind and anything less is bullshit.

It's just not reality.

[Dragoncurry]

Which would be an entire market of? Cmon you can do it!



There are people sprinkled in here and there in this thread as well as many others who are not at all bothered by the removal of flight. You've only seen beta testers talk about how bad the new content is because you've only looked for that specifically. Forum rules 101: people who are upset about something are far more present and louder than people who are happy with something.

As far as giving you examples, I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for. Its been explained so many times in this thread, as well as bashiok explaining in detail in multiple threads far more eloquently than I could.

The problem is people think the game is when we say "better game design" they think its going to completely revolutionize the game into a completely different game that blows your fucking mind and anything less is bullshit.

It's just not reality.

Little things make a huge difference. Guns on the backs of hunters instead of polearms, the run animations on your characters, and yes, actually spending time doing tedious shit. If you don't like it, don't play an MMO. WoW is the least grindy of most MMOs anyways. If you think the game is anything like it was in BC, you're super mistaken (with regard to player mentality, how people play the game, what people think is okay in the game (aka it's ok not to be able to raid, etc)).

[Maneo]

No flying is a business decision right Maneo? How does it drastically impact their bottom line? Please show numbers from comparative reports from other companies that adopted no flying to suggest that this was a good business decision, and that THIS SPECIFIC DECISION will directly increase their revenue.

You said you worked in a large investment firm and held your Series 7, doing this bit of research should be no problems for you right?? Since you know...working at an investment firm valuing companies has something to do with figuring out how something like "no flying" that doesn't even go on a balance sheet somehow directly and quantifiably affects revenue in way that you can understand.

Yawn, more bullshit.

I explained it if you are not literate enough to figure out that is on you.

<rolls eyes> kids these days.

[Baconeggcheese]

Those things they instituted that you claim to attract new players are like saying the restaurant is cutting you a deal for free refills, that shit is inconsequential.

lmfao I can't.

Based on what!?!?!?? BASED ON WHAT FACTUAL UNBIASED DATA??? GIVE ME SOMETHING THAT ISN'T MORE BULLSHIT YOU'RE JUST PULLING OUT OF YOUR ASS!

I swear you kids are a bunch of amazing conspiracy theorists. Pulling "fact" out of thin air and and throwing logic and reason to the wind.

[Captainn]

I don't know why people just can't try it out and decide after.

[Drytoast]

I mean... that's like not acknowledging that they've wished they never put flying in the game since BC, and despite that have spent the last 3 expansions since trying to better integrate it into the game using all the methods mentioned in that big ass post which basically covers every single argument that has been made in this very thread before people ever made them.

If you ignore that they spent 3 entire expansions over 6(?) years of development trying to better integrate it into the game to finally come to terms with it just not happening I dunno what you want from them.



Oh this bullshit again...

Hey! blizzard is a company out to make money! You guys keep repeatedly saying so yourself!

How in fuck do you rationalize that they're making a change to intentionally lose subs thus losing money? In what world would a company make a change unless they feel it is going to improve their product in order to increase revenue?

LOL BUSINESS BASICS IS HARD

LOL GET UNCONSCIOUS

You ever heard of new coke?

Under the same conditions (if there was an interwebs back then) You could probably make the safe bet that there would be a 1000 page + reaction to this new coke shit. And of course, some dumbass back then would be screaming "GIVE IT A CHANCE, COCA COLA KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOIN!!!one!"

Sometimes companies just don't have a fucking clue. And Coca Cola was a pretty damn large/successful company when it came up with that mess.

[Deleted]

Oh this list is a real fun list. Lets just debunk it:

Pruning classes so they're less intimidating to new players

I dont think that the removal of cooldowns actually makes the filled actions bars less "intimidating".

Redesigning the talent system so its less intimidating to new players

The talent system combined with the glyph system combined with the secondary stats are still way more complicated than the classic talent tree system. And even with a reduced set of talents, there are cookie cutter builds.

removing needless complication with gearing (reforging, hit / expertise, etc) so its less intimidating to new players.

You mean removing the ability to reforge and to have to run dungeons way more often to finally get the right piece of gear that has your secondary stat. And you surely forgot to add that expertise / hit as cap values get replaced by even more scary secondary stats as like multistrike, versatility and bonus armor.. while people surely still not even know if they would need multistrike.. At the end, the stat system is even more confusing than before.

Free 90 boost, so the whole extremely intimidating 5 expansions of leveling content is irrelevant to new players and they can jump right in with their friends etc.

Yes, which surely will help them to play the new classes properly, as people do not learn their class while leveling.. Oh i forgot.. part of that mantra is that "leveling never really helped people to learn their class".. which is quite a funny development considering the fact blizzard always argumented for leveling with that argument.

Proving grounds, so new players can learn the basics of their class + spec at cap in a safe douchebag free environment.

Yes, because proving grounds have a tutorial.. or no, wait, they dont have a tutorial. They just put you into a group and ask you to play. Thats all.

No, sorry, but proving grounds are completely useless for learning classes. Proving grounds are made to allow skill based gates for components as like heroic dungeons, so its for the more skilled player, and not for a new player.

You can't for a second pretend like any of that shit is cutting costs or is targeted at veteran players.

Actually, proving grounds are great fun for veteran players. The free level 90 boost is for veteran players to switch FOTM classes faster. The new stats are just another part of class knowledge, and ask you to know if your class should use multistrike over a secondary stat up to a soft cap probably. At the end, the new stats are just part of the new system to master, and therefore also made for the more skilled players.

How do you figure out which beta testers you want to listen to?

Blizzard makes it easy. They just dont listen to anyone.

[Baconeggcheese]

"Please show numbers from comparative reports from other companies that adopted no flying to suggest that this was a good business decision, and that THIS SPECIFIC DECISION will directly increase their revenue. "

I explained it if you are not literate enough to figure out that is on you.

<rolls eyes> kids these days.

I fucking love it, calls someone illiterate, clearly doesn't read their post or provide the backing for the information asked for.

It's too good man.

[Dragoncurry]

I explained it if you are not literate enough to figure out that is on you.

<rolls eyes> kids these days.

You didn't explain anything, don't get excited lol. I can see you provided zero comparative analysis, and have no real numbers, just air. Is that what investment firms do? Pitch to their clients with just air? I have no reason to believe you're lying about your credentials, but you're making up theories without any real numbers, it's just a fact from your post. If you disagree, feel free to show a real report, or post real numbers from real balance sheets that back up your claim that no flying is a revenue increase.

If you can't find it on the cash flow statement or balance sheet (or the footnotes), you MANEO can't prove that it is or is not a good business decision.

[Baconeggcheese]

Oh this list is a real fun list. Lets just debunk it:.

Btw, I still completely ignore you. I don't have you on ignore per say (Because this websites ignore feature is awful), but I didn't read any of that shit you just wrote and have no intention to.

[Deleted]

Btw, I still completely ignore you. I don't have you on ignore per say (Because this websites ignore feature is awful), but I didn't read any of that shit you just wrote and have no intention to.

Yes, as you ignore all arguments you cant counter.

Just go on. You are quite amusing.

I just will go to continue to comment the most funny parts of your nonesense.

[SirCowdog]

Which would be an entire market of? Cmon you can do it!

I was only being half-serious. The console market is pretty huge, and I don't doubt that Blizzard would like a bigger piece of that pie. They did it with Diablo 3 to moderate success. But realistically I don't think that a game as complex as WoW could be converted successfully to consoles. That doesn't mean Blizz might not take a shot at it, however.

Anyway, it's beyond the scope of this thread.

There are people sprinkled in here and there in this thread as well as many others who are not at all bothered by the removal of flight. You've only seen beta testers talk about how bad the new content is because you've only looked for that specifically. Forum rules 101: people who are upset about something are far more present and louder than people who are happy with something.

As far as giving you examples, I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for. Its been explained so many times in this thread, as well as bashiok explaining in detail in multiple threads far more eloquently than I could.

The problem is people think the game is when we say "better game design" they think its going to completely revolutionize the game into a completely different game that blows your fucking mind and anything less is bullshit.

It's just not reality.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

Someone from the beta tells me: "The content and questing isn't any different from what we have right now." That's a definitive statement about the content. I can reference that because I already know exactly what we have now to compare the statement to.

Someone like you tells me to go read what Bashiok says. I've read what he says, and it's a lot of talk about what they WANT to do. But what I want to know is if what he says was actually carried out in the beta, and do those changes(if they're done exactly like he says) ACTUALLY make the gameplay significantly better than what we have now.

The two statements are conflicting, and I have yet to hear from a beta tester exactly how content is improved, or even DIFFERENT, from what we have right now with flight. That is my concern: that flight was removed and no improvements were made because of it.

So I'll ask you again, straight out. Do YOU, not someone else, believe that the content created without flight is better, or even different, than the content we have right now with flying? Not if you like that flying is gone. Is the content itself actually different because it was designed with flying out of the equation? And please elaborate. Tell us how or why it's better/different.

[Maneo]

You didn't explain anything, don't get excited lol. I can see you provided zero comparative analysis, and have no real numbers, just air. Is that what investment firms do? Pitch to their clients with just air? I have no reason to believe you're lying about your credentials, but you're making up theories without any real numbers, it's just a fact from your post. If you disagree, feel free to show a real report, or post real numbers from real balance sheets that back up your claim that no flying is a revenue increase.

If you can't find it on the cash flow statement or balance sheet (or the footnotes), you MANEO can't prove that it is or is not a good business decision.

Ok then tell me what company to choose that deals specifically with flight in a video game... There isn't.

I done explaining basic business, if you can't grasp it that is on you.

No flying brings nothing to the game but increased travel times.

[Dragoncurry]

Ok then tell me what company to choose that deals specifically with flight in a video game... There isn't.

I done explaining basic business, if you can't grasp it that is on you.

No flying brings nothing to the game but increased travel times.

OF COURSE THERE ISN'T THAT'S THE POINT. Hahahahhaha there is no way investors who have no idea about the game or genre will ask how no flying affects the bottom line. If it can't be straight up calculated or compared then it's a worthless business decision. The only one who can't grasp this is you.

[Deleted]

OF COURSE THERE ISN'T THAT'S THE POINT. Hahahahhaha there is no way investors who have no idea about the game or genre will ask how no flying affects the bottom line. If it can't be straight up calculated or compared then it's a worthless business decision. The only one who can't grasp this is you.

Read everything about "product diversification".

Product diversification actually requires a company to build new skills to create the product. And thats the problem about blizzard, when it comes to flying. They were not able to acquire skills to actually create content for that product.

It is blizzards incapability to build content based on and incorporating flying. They never really learned how to leave the 2D-space and to enter third dimension properly when it comes to content design.. how to put NPCs or even lore elements and questing / group content anywhere higher than on the ground.

[Aberzombie]

How in fuck do you rationalize that they're making a change to intentionally lose subs thus losing money? In what world would a company make a change unless they feel it is going to improve their product in order to increase revenue?

LOL BUSINESS BASICS IS HARD

LOL GET UNCONSCIOUS

In what world? Try the one we actually live it.

Coca Cola... "New Coke". You cannot tell me that they wanted to piss off so many customers that their revenue stream dried up to the verge of bankruptcy... They were absolutely convinced it was a great idea and spend shit-tons of $ advertising it.

And it failed.

Why? Because they misread their market.

Do NOT try to convince me that Blizzard is immune to that possiblity.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Where you go sour in your argument is making the strawman presumption that Blizz is intentionally making the change to anger/alienate players so they can lose $ Not the case, Buckwheat. But there are many of us on the profly side that see losing subs and $ as a very real possibility; real enough that we've been warning about it almost from the get-go and praying that it doesn't happen.

Try something more substantive and mature.

[Dragoncurry]

In what world? Try the one we actually live it.

Coca Cola... "New Coke". You cannot tell me that they wanted to piss off so many customers that their revenue stream dried up to the verge of bankruptcy... They were absolutely convinced it was a great idea and spend shit-tons of $ advertising it.

And it failed.

Why? Because they misread their market.

Do NOT try to convince me that Blizzard is immune to that possiblity.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Where you go sour in your argument is making the strawman presumption that Blizz is intentionally making the change to anger/alienate players so they can lose $ Not the case, Buckwheat. But there are many of us on the profly side that see losing subs and $ as a very real possibility; real enough that we've been warning about it almost from the get-go and praying that it doesn't happen.

Try something more substantive and mature.

Hahahhahaha, the new coke is nothing like no flying, please do not draw correlations that do not make sense. Also subs are coming back up, looks like more mysterious, inexplicable twists in the market analysis you and Maneo perform.

- - - Updated - - -

Read everything about "product diversification".

Product diversification actually requires a company to build new skills to create the product. And thats the problem about blizzard, when it comes to flying. They were not able to acquire skills to actually create content for that product.

It is blizzards incapability to build content based on and incorporating flying. They never really learned how to leave the 2D-space and to enter third dimension properly when it comes to content design.. how to put NPCs or even lore elements and questing / group content anywhere higher than on the ground.

Great and let me tell you how long a pitch about product diversification and no flying specifically (instead of new char models, garrisons, etc) will be pitched to investors. Zero minutes. Why would they even spend a half second talking about the removal of a feature to investors proves that if ANYONE here doesn't know about business pitches...well yeah. Anyways.

[ghunor]

*opens the door and looks around. He realizes this isn't a party he wants to stay and slowly backs out the door*

[Deleted]

Great and let me tell you how long a pitch about product diversification and no flying specifically will be pitched to investors. Zero minutes.

Removing flying infact removes product diversification. As blizzard only will be able to sell ground mounts. And no flying mounts anymore.