To whom who agreed that accessibility was healthy for WoW

[Unholyground]

Other MMO's do a lot of the same and are fine, at least they are bringing a lot of player agency back and professions requiring other professions for the best stuff is a huge step in the right direction.

[Kolvarg]

Based on my experiences, I have stated, over and over again, that this is not an objective truth but is instead your opinion. My opinion is the opposite. You have obfuscated the point through out your posts via bad analgoies and rough tangents. My stance has been the same since the beginning: the game is as social as you, the player, allow it to be.

The opposite would be "The game is objectively more social".

And from the beggining that stance does not deny mine, yet you keep replying as if it did.

Also still waiting for you to explain why the analogies were bad, since you ignored them all.

[callipygoustp]

The opposite would be "The game is objectively more social".

And from the beggining that stance does not deny mine, yet you keep replying as if it did.

I keep replying: in my experience the game is more social than it was in the past, period.

[Kolvarg]

I keep replying: in my experience the game is more social than it was in the past, period.

Which is entirely irrelevant to everything I've tried to discuss.

But good for you

[callipygoustp]

The opposite would be "The game is objectively more social".

Fine, not the opposite.

And from the beggining that stance does not deny mine, yet you keep replying as if it did.

Heh, I'm starting to think you can't even track your own thoughts. (which is why I quote your original response to my comment)
I keep replying: in my experience the game is more social than it was in the past, period. You keep saying the game is objectively less social. Your stance was an attempt to deny mine. The social aspect of the game cannot be both objectively less but then for some subjectively more. If the game is subjectively more social for some people then it is NOT objectively less social. Conclusion: subjectively the game is more social for some people while less social for others.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is entirely irrelevant to everything I've tried to discuss.

But good for you

Hey man, you replied to me. If you don't want to discuss what you quoted, don't quote it. Further, if you can't follow the thread, that's on you. Cut back on the bad analogies and tangents in the future, might help you stay on track.

smiley smiley smiley

[erifwodahs]

There is absolutly nothing wrong about forced interactions with players. It creates fun experineces even for players what do not want to interact with players. Which btw were absolute minority becouse comening to play mmorpg tham wonder why you have to play with others is like wtf moment. And people what started playing wow with mindset of solo player were never majority.

Forced interactions are ok in very casual environment only, it can go horribly wrong in any competitive environment even if it's a "who will tag a mob first" issue. I have no problems playing with pugs 19 times out of 20 when I can see their rio and I can select them to join my party. It's my volunteer interaction with thap player and we usually have similar mind set. If there was no rio I might have to invite someone who has absolutely no clue about the dungeon and that would not be my volunteering, unless the person told me before the dungeon, if the player got lost/died and we took more time waiting around when I was expecting to be done with it and then watch some netflix/go out or something like that, I would be quite unhappy. I don't mind doing stuff like that, it's just when I am expecting something I volunteer for it and it's fine. When I am forced to do it as there are no tools to check the player, it's bad. You could say "that's why you make friends with good players" which I do in retail. I have received invites from people I tanked for, I have sent invites to people I find to be good at the game. Retail gives you choice so actually social people can be while not so social people can enjoy the game without being bothered

[Elias01]

Forced interactions are ok in very casual environment only, it can go horribly wrong in any competitive environment even if it's a "who will tag a mob first" issue. I have no problems playing with pugs 19 times out of 20 when I can see their rio and I can select them to join my party. It's my volunteer interaction with thap player and we usually have similar mind set. If there was no rio I might have to invite someone who has absolutely no clue about the dungeon and that would not be my volunteering, unless the person told me before the dungeon, if the player got lost/died and we took more time waiting around when I was expecting to be done with it and then watch some netflix/go out or something like that, I would be quite unhappy. I don't mind doing stuff like that, it's just when I am expecting something I volunteer for it and it's fine. When I am forced to do it as there are no tools to check the player, it's bad. You could say "that's why you make friends with good players" which I do in retail. I have received invites from people I tanked for, I have sent invites to people I find to be good at the game. Retail gives you choice so actually social people can be while not so social people can enjoy the game without being bothered

What? Mythic raiding and mythic+ are compettive and they nothing but forced interaction between players lol.

[rrayy]

I never said anything about myself, or implied it, im just talking objectively, sorry, try harder next time.

NO you aren't. YOu are projectiing your opinion as fact and that the majority believes like you do. You have no clue what the majority thinks. You only speak for you.

[Kolvarg]

Your stance was an attempt to deny mine. The social aspect of the game cannot be both objectively less but then for some subjectively more. If the game is subjectively more social for some people then it is NOT objectively less social. Conclusion: subjectively the game is more social for some people for less social for others.

Nah. My stance regarding yours was and is that your subjective experience does not prove or disprove anything.

Of course it can. The game being social (which means the game incentivizing quality social interactions) is an entirely different thing than the actual social experience of individual players.

It seems you are unable to understand that the game is what it is and on average incentivizes certain behaviours regardless of your personal experience.

It is entirely possible for the game to be objectively less social (which means the game design incentivizing quality social interactions less/worse), while individual players still having a better subjective social experience (despite the game design not incentivizing it as much).

Conclusion: The game is less social. Despite this, you and likely many others are still having good social experiences.

Which I have tried to explain in different ways and with multiple supporting arguments and various analogies that you seem to have become such a huge fan of

[callipygoustp]

Nah. My stance regarding yours was and is that your subjective experience does not prove or disprove anything.

If people find the game more social than it has been the past, that means that objectively the game is not less social. How is that so hard to comprehend.

Of course, your opinion is the only one that counts regardless of their being plenty of evidence out there to counter your opinion. Emperor has a fine set of new clothes though, right.

Of course it can. The game being social (which means the game incentivizing quality social interactions) is an entirely different thing than the actual social experience of individual players.

It seems you are unable to understand that the game is what it is and on average incentivizes certain behaviours regardless of your personal experience.

It is entirely possible for the game to be objectively less social (which means the game design incentivizing quality social interactions less/worse), while individual players still having a better subjective social experience (despite the game design not incentivizing it as much).

Conclusion: The game is less social. Despite this, you and likely many others are still having good social experiences.

Which I have tried to explain in different ways and with multiple supporting arguments and various analogies that you seem to have become such a huge fan of

More obfuscation.

Back to my original comment:

Feel kind of sad for the people that don't think WoW is as social as it was. Glad for myself, and others like me, that the game has in fact become more social over the years. Sai la vie.

Where would online forums be without random people trying to tell other people that their opinions were wrong.

[Kolvarg]

If people find the game more social than it has been the past, that means that objectively the game is not less social. How is that so hard to comprehend.

What people "find the game to be" is the opposite of objective.

Of course, your opinion is the only one that counts regardless of their being plenty of evidence out there to counter your opinion. Emperor has a fine set of new clothes though, right.

Evidence which you still, after so many posts, still fail to provide.

More obfuscation.

Is that your go-to reply now? If you don't understand then ask me to try to explain it differently, don't just dismiss it as "obfuscation".

[Nobleshield]

Another thought I had, I think a big part of the issue is that while accessibility isn't a bad thing, the WoW playerbase has gotten more and more toxic and elitist as the years go on. I frequently see posts on say the wow subreddit or forums about someone being booted from and/or cussed out of a leveling dungeon for some petty reason because some asshole is just there on their twentieth alt and wants to finish in 15 minutes. That's the big problem. WoW's playerbase is not welcoming to new players, or returning players, or really anyone for that matter. Other games don't have that problem even if they have accesibility things like group finders.

Fix that and then the game becomes more social. The reason it isn't has more to do with the fact many WoW players are selfish pricks who don't want to help or offer advice to anyone than the game being accessible. If a new player joins and gets booted out of dungeons for not knowing everything or not mastering their class when they are actually new, why the hell would anyone stick around? That's the death knell of a game; when it becomes hostile to people who are new/returning/inexperienced.

[erifwodahs]

What? Mythic raiding and mythic+ are compettive and they nothing but forced interaction between players lol.

It is forced by my own choice, if I wanted I could be a LFR raider as a solo player. It's not forced if you want to play the game at all.
I choose the guild and I choose the people. Forcing social interaction would be like removing all the LFD/LFR systems, removing mob tagging, removing progress tracking tools like rio/wowprogress/armory. In the end you still do the same as you would do in classic or retail - play with people you like to play with, but you can choose not to and still progress.

Edite: And I mean being LFR/LFD player clearly takes out a lot of social game and invites toxicity as you are placed with random people with random expectations. But that is what is happening in "forced social" environment and not the social environment where you choose to be yourself by either using arbitrary progress values or just by people having same goals. What I mean again is being social brings you social people and you have good experience most of the time.

[callipygoustp]

What people "find the game to be" is the opposite of objective.

And yet you continue to argue otherwise. Only your thoughts on the game are objective. Rolling my eyes here.

Evidence which you still, after so many posts, still fail to provide.

This thread contains plenty of samples.

Is that your go-to reply now? If you don't understand then ask me to try to explain it differently, don't just dismiss it as "obfuscation".

Are you going to continually obfuscate the matter? If so, then yes, I will continue to call it out as such and, accordingly, dismiss it. You clearly had an agenda when replying to my, quite simple, comment. I'm not going to chase that agenda around and feed you just because you happened to quote me.

For me, the game has grown in its social aspects. For others the game has not. Happy to be me. Sad for the others.

[Elias01]

It is forced by my own choice, if I wanted I could be a LFR raider as a solo player. It's not forced if you want to play the game at all.
I choose the guild and I choose the people. Forcing social interaction would be like removing all the LFD/LFR systems, removing mob tagging, removing progress tracking tools like rio/wowprogress/armory. In the end you still do the same as you would do in classic or retail - play with people you like to play with, but you can choose not to and still progress.

There is no choice in it. Most people will pick path of least resistance no becouse they want it or becouse its fun but becouse its efficient. In such eviroment is no longer your choice but game made that choice for you and you just follow it.

[Demithio]

Except the numbers prove you wrong. Wrath saw the highest number of subs the game has ever had over the course of the ENTIRE expansion. You really need to stop trying to push your opinions about accessability killing the game because you're 100% wrong.

For starters WoW had been on an upward climb since vanilla because both vanilla and TBC were insanely popular. However, that's not really the entire picture. Timing and player mindset at the time are key. At the time of Wotlk, both hardcore and casual welcomed things like LFG/LFR etc as something 'new and exciting'. We really had no idea where it would lead other then it's 'new and exciting' and seemed like a great idea at the time.

Unfortunately, Blizzard took this ball and ran with it, which eventually took WoW off a cliff. Accessibility and casualization / simplification grew with each subsequent expansion. So although wotlk started the "decline", it's not an accurate yardstick for comparison due to the above mentioned. We have to look at later expansions over x years to determine that.

[Kolvarg]

And yet you continue to argue otherwise. Only your thoughts on the game are objective. Rolling my eyes here.

Nah. Thoughts on the game based on logical reasoning are objective. Thoughts on the game based on personal experience aren't.

It in no way means I'm right, objective thoughts can still be flawed. But it is true that I'm trying to approach from an objective point of view while you are approaching it from an entirely subjective one.

This thread contains plenty of samples.

I haven't seen any. Personal experiences are not evidence of an objective fact about the game. Certainly not with such a small sample.

Are you going to continually obfuscate the matter? If so, then yes, I will continue to call it out as such and, accordingly, dismiss it. You clearly had an agenda when replying to my, quite simple, comment. I'm not going to chase that agenda around and feed you just because you happened to quote me.

If you call trying to discuss an opinion an agenda, sure. Continue dismissing it. And I'll continue interpreting your dismissals as you only wanting to bicker with me because I hold an opinion you don't like, and/or not really being able to argue against the points I made.

[Kralljin]

I frequently see posts on say the wow subreddit or forums about someone being booted from and/or cussed out of a leveling dungeon for some petty reason because some asshole is just there on their twentieth alt and wants to finish in 15 minutes.

That's not a people problem.
You are literally highlighting why this is an issue: You put a completely inexperienced player within the same group as someone who has done something X times and just wants to be done with it ASAP.
That's a problem of the dungeon finder system, you put two people with very different mindsets into the same group, this is the actual problem.

That's why less automated systems are better there, if i make a group with something like "Super fast run" in the title, i doubt anyone who is looking for a relaxing experience will join, let alone a person who is new to the game.
Make a group with "chill run" into the title and you probably won't be having a lot of people joining that want to go super fast, because they obviously see that this group does not offer what they want.

Not to mention that this was an even bigger problem in the past, where they offered [valueable currency] from using LFD / LFR, there you had people that just want to get their daily X ASAP alongside people which is their first time.
It is one explosive powder keg if you let a daily chore reward something that's valueable to any player of every skill level from a system that randomnly puts people together.
Because people want to finish their daily chores very quickly and move on.

It's like if you're at the bus station, someone who's never used a ticket machine has issues getting their ticket and a long queue forms, obviously you will have some disgruntled people in the queue because they can probably get their ticket within less than 30 seconds.
They've done that often enough, just want their ticket and move on.

Toxicity is bred when people of different mindsets are put together, that is the key takeaway.

And as a final note, this goes more than both ways, because some people simply don't want to improve, friend of mine says "he won't help anyone unless they ask for help", because there are also people that instantly consider you "toxic" for pointing out that they could improve and how they could do it - no matter how polite you are.
The most common response in those cases is "don't tell me how to play".

People need to find their own communities with people of a similiar mindset, the game cannot do that for them.

[callipygoustp]

It in no way means I'm right, objective thoughts can still be flawed. But it is true that I'm trying to approach from an objective point of view while you are approaching it from an entirely subjective one.

You're objective thoughts are not objective, they are subjective. Continuing to think otherwise is the major hole in your logic.

I haven't seen any. Personal experiences are not evidence of an objective fact about the game. Certainly not with such a small sample.

Yeah, like the small sample size that says wow is less social, that wow doesn't incentivize socialization. I agree completely.

If you call trying to discuss an opinion an agenda, sure. Continue dismissing it. And I'll continue interpreting your dismissals as you only wanting to bicker with me because I hold an opinion you don't like, and/or not really being able to argue against the points I made.

But you are, quite clearly, not discussing my opinion. You are wanting to discuss your own subjective opinion; in which case you did not need to quote me.

Again my original comment:
Glad for people who find the game social. Sad for people who do not.

[erifwodahs]

There is no choice in it. Most people will pick path of least resistance no becouse they want it or becouse its fun but becouse its efficient. In such eviroment is no longer your choice but game made that choice for you and you just follow it.

So they choose efficiency over social interaction. Having different layers of access to cater for different players is a very good filter to choose people you want to play with, xrealm let's you increase the pool of such players by hundreds of times. RDF/LFR might get toxic very easy as you are randomly placed in the dungeon with someone who has different expectations. Current retail WoW has tons of "forced" social interactions but at least you can filter it out