Is Classic too easy?

[Daymanmb]

I’m not playing this game where I give you the respect of using your data and then when that data turns out bad for you you throw a hissy fit and demand different data. Maybe you should have thought that data through before trying to use it. Get real.

- - - Updated - - -

The best numbers we have for how many people do mythic raids is from 2015, when a huge sample size was pulled about two months after Blackrock foundry opened:

https://www.mmo-champion.com/content...-Rift-Wardrobe

What we see here is that almost two months out around 1% of players were participating in mythic raiding. Looking at the previous tier, only two bosses were killed by more than 2.5% of players.

So, I was being very, very generous by saying 5%. In reality, mythic raiding is probably more like 2%, maybe less.

Could we figure out how many people have cutting edge for n'zoth?

[NineSpine]

Could we figure out how many people have cutting edge for n'zoth?

My understanding is that the armory no longer allows you to slam it for large datasets anymore.

[OrcsRLame]

I’m not playing this game where I give you the respect of using your data and then when that data turns out bad for you you throw a hissy fit and demand different data. Maybe you should have thought that data through before trying to use it. Get real.

- - - Updated - - -

The best numbers we have for how many people do mythic raids is from 2015, when a huge sample size was pulled about two months after Blackrock foundry opened:

https://www.mmo-champion.com/content...-Rift-Wardrobe

What we see here is that almost two months out around 1% of players were participating in mythic raiding. Looking at the previous tier, only two bosses were killed by more than 2.5% of players.

So, I was being very, very generous by saying 5%. In reality, mythic raiding is probably more like 2%, maybe less.

I'm perfectly fine with using the wowprogress data to argue, but only if you agree that it's infallible and cannot be argued in any way. I'm not going to waste my time writing up a long post explaining how you don't understand the data only for you to retreat back to the 5% number you just admitted you pulled out of your ass.

Also, the first tier of WoD was one of the hardest, most brutal raid tiers in wow's history. If EN was way easier than the average, HM and BRF were way harder. There was very little in the way of week to week scaling or catch up mechanics, meaning the people that were clearing it later on were not doing it with a significant advantage compared to people who did it early. This was the tier where lots and lots of people struggled to clear heroic, let alone set foot into mythic.

[NineSpine]

I'm perfectly fine with using the wowprogress data to argue, but only if you agree that it's infallible and cannot be argued in any way. I'm not going to waste my time writing up a long post explaining how you don't understand the data only for you to retreat back to the 5% number you just admitted you pulled out of your ass.

Also, the first tier of WoD was one of the hardest, most brutal raid tiers in wow's history. If EN was way easier than the average, HM and BRF were way harder. There was very little in the way of week to week scaling or catch up mechanics, meaning the people that were clearing it later on were not doing it with a significant advantage compared to people who did it early. This was the tier where lots and lots of people struggled to clear heroic, let alone set foot into mythic.

Look you can be a grown up and admit the data is embarassing for your argument or you can keep making rambling posts like this. It won’t change a thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Let’s recap:

You provided WoW progress data and clearly didn’t realize that it represents guilds that have been manually added and therefore does not represent the population.

You then claimed that based on that data mythic and classic high end raiding have similar participation levels, when the data showed the opposite.

Then you cried that we were using your data and demanded different data.

Then you made excuses for why the data I provided is a fluke, and of course you didn’t have any data to counter it, just a bunch of boring yammering about how right you really are despite your inability to provide any valuable data.

[Kaver]

Youre right, retail isnt hard:

And this is why retail got different levels of difficulty. Classic don’t. Next time why don’t you put a video up of the hardest difficulty in retail. No one ever said that heroic raids in BFA are hard.. especially not in full mythic gear with a broken end-game system.

[Daymanmb]

And this is why retail got different levels of difficulty. Classic don’t. Next time why don’t you put a video up of the hardest difficulty in retail. No one ever said that heroic raids in BFA are hard.. especially not in full mythic gear with a broken end-game system.

Um yeh, the guy I was replying to tried to make the argument that heroic is hard. Try to keep up.

[Daronokk]

But classic also appears to have fewer players than retail. We don't know how many fewer, but based on how many servers there are and their health it's generous to say half as many people play classic

Riiiiight, that's why Retail servers are merged every day and it took a looong time to get Classic servers off layers?

[NineSpine]

Riiiiight, that's why Retail servers are merged every day and it took a looong time to get Classic servers off layers?

There are like eight times as many retail servers as there are classic servers. Retail can be seriously declining and still have more players than classic. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

[OrcsRLame]

Look you can be a grown up and admit the data is embarassing for your argument or you can keep making rambling posts like this. It won’t change a thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Let’s recap:

You provided WoW progress data and clearly didn’t realize that it represents guilds that have been manually added and therefore does not represent the population.

You then claimed that based on that data mythic and classic high end raiding have similar participation levels, when the data showed the opposite.

Then you cried that we were using your data and demanded different data.

Then you made excuses for why the data I provided is a fluke, and of course you didn’t have any data to counter it, just a bunch of boring yammering about how right you really are despite your inability to provide any valuable data.

So will you or will you not admit that the wowprogress data is infallible for the purpose of this discussion? I'm not gonna waste my time replying to you if you're just going to dismiss the data post hoc.

[Jurwi]

Um yeh, the guy I was replying to tried to make the argument that heroic is hard. Try to keep up.

Depends what you compare it to. Compared to Classic, yes, even heroic is hard.

- - - Updated - - -

There are like eight times as many retail servers as there are classic servers. Retail can be seriously declining and still have more players than classic. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

Some people have hard time understanding that Classic is just something extra you get with your retail subscription. If retail was "seriously declining" I have no words to describe the player loss Classic is facing right now.

[NineSpine]

Depends what you compare it to. Compared to Classic, yes, even heroic is hard.

- - - Updated - - -



Some people have hard time understanding that Classic is just something extra you get with your retail subscription. If retail was "seriously declining" I have no words to describe the player loss Classic is facing right now.

What's your evidence of a player loss in classic?

- - - Updated - - -

So will you or will you not admit that the wowprogress data is infallible for the purpose of this discussion? I'm not gonna waste my time replying to you if you're just going to dismiss the data post hoc.

No data is "infallible". I didn't dismiss any data. I literally USED YOUR DATA to prove you wrong. What the hell are you talking about?

[OrcsRLame]

What's your evidence of a player loss in classic?

- - - Updated - - -



No data is "infallible". I didn't dismiss any data. I literally USED YOUR DATA to prove you wrong. What the hell are you talking about?

Quote from you, post 1163.

On top of that, you keep laboring under this delusion that "guilds who have registered themselves on wow progress" is some valuable metric of what anyone is doing. It's not. It's worse than value-less.

That was what you said the last time I tried to discuss the wow progress data. I want your word that when I shove that data back in your face you're not going to retreat to the quoted position from 1163. Without that guarantee it's a waste of time for me to put effort into replying to you.

[NineSpine]

Quote from you, post 1163.



That was what you said the last time I tried to discuss the wow progress data. I want your word that when I shove that data back in your face you're not going to retreat to the quoted position from 1163. Without that guarantee it's a waste of time for me to put effort into replying to you.

And what does that have to do with data being "infallible", which means "impossible to be wrong". Nothing is "infallible". Stop trying to set up an internet tough guy checkmate and make your argument.

The wow progress data is useful in certain contexts and it is not useful in others. It is terrible for figuring out what percentage of players complete content, because it DOESNT COUNT ALL PLAYERS.

[OrcsRLame]

And what does that have to do with data being "infallible", which means "impossible to be wrong". Nothing is "infallible". Stop trying to set up an internet tough guy checkmate and make your argument.

The wow progress data is useful in certain contexts and it is not useful in others. It is terrible for figuring out what percentage of players complete content, because it DOESNT COUNT ALL PLAYERS.

So everything you said in post 1165 was stuff that you didn't even believe, as you yourself just admitted that the data is terrible for what you tried to use it for.

Why would I put in any effort to argue against that post that supposedly proved me wrong when you don't even believe a word of what you wrote? It's like talking to a brick wall.

All I want is for you to stop being evasive. Is that so hard? It's like you're afraid to try and have a genuine discussion.

[NineSpine]

So everything you said in post 1165 was stuff that you didn't even believe, as you yourself just admitted that the data is terrible for what you tried to use it for.

Why would I put in any effort to argue against that post that supposedly proved me wrong when you don't even believe a word of what you wrote? It's like talking to a brick wall.

I didn't try to use it to figure out what percentage of players do anything. I used it to compare how many players completed top end content in retail versus classic, which is not based on what percentage of the overall population raids.

I imagine it is like talking to a brick wall when you keep strawmanning everything I have said. Perhaps you should try addressing my actual points rather than setting up internet tough guy gotchyas.

- - - Updated - - -

All I want is for you to stop being evasive. Is that so hard? It's like you're afraid to try and have a genuine discussion.

It's almost as though sometimes data is good for one thing and bad for another thing. What a wild and crazy concept!

[WhirlwindTV]

All of this screams "I havnt actually done any recent mythic content". Players have those advantages RIGHT NOW and cannot even get half way through mythic after months and months of running it. There are plenty who can't even clear heroic. And yet apparantly, in 3 years, the content will magically get easier and thousands of guilds will be clearing it in an hour? Your level of delusion is higher than most.

Exactly. The argument that the other guy made (near end of expansion stuff) only actually applies to classic to make it easier because the end of expansion talent tree was drastically different from how the talent tree existed even in the normal AQ days for most of the classes as blizzard did individual class revamps one patch at a time (except mage+shaman) and then another retooling/change set near the end. So you could be running AQ40 now with classes that were pretty much unplayable when it was first released, or if not unplayable then potentially much weaker.

On top of that, lots of the encounters actually got nerfed over time to make them more accessable since there were not different raid tiers at the time, and so that is also something that is seen at the end of an expansion gamestate. That argument can apply to some of the raid content that indeed it would be easier with an end of expansion patch state compared to on release state that the top 100 guilds faced, but still also not enough to warrant the as described full clear in the first 10 hours thing that has happened with every classic raid.

[NineSpine]

Exactly. The argument that the other guy made (near end of expansion stuff) only actually applies to classic to make it easier because the end of expansion talent tree was drastically different from how the talent tree existed even in the normal AQ days for most of the classes as blizzard did individual class revamps one patch at a time (except mage+shaman) and then another retooling/change set near the end. So you could be running AQ40 now with classes that were pretty much unplayable when it was first released, or if not unplayable then potentially much weaker.

On top of that, lots of the encounters actually got nerfed over time to make them more accessable since there were not different raid tiers at the time, and so that is also something that is seen at the end of an expansion gamestate. That argument can apply to some of the raid content that indeed it would be easier with an end of expansion patch state compared to on release state that the top 100 guilds faced, but still also not enough to warrant the as described full clear in the first 10 hours thing that has happened with every classic raid.

If you think that 10 years of practice and developing game-breaking strategies won't make people able to crush the content, you are delusional.

[TJ]

There are like eight times as many retail servers as there are classic servers. Retail can be seriously declining and still have more players than classic. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

Classic has always had the same amount of servers, even at release. When Classic was released the data and posts by Blizzard suggest that the subscriber numbers more than doubled, so the server number argument doesn't really hold any merit.

- - - Updated - - -

Some people have hard time understanding that Classic is just something extra you get with your retail subscription. If retail was "seriously declining" I have no words to describe the player loss Classic is facing right now.

Retail has already "seriously declined", I don't think it's going to go much lower or higher, in all honesty. Classic will go up and down with phase/patch releases and then it depends what happens with TBC. I think a lot of players will play only for Naxx when that releases.

[clevin]

Why the hell would a bunch of ultra casual classic players be logging? This is brain-dead easy content for us, we are not chasing perfect kills and high ranked speed clears - just like the majority of classic raiders, we rock up, have some laughs, kill some bosses, and socialise and enjoy ourselves.

Translation - I have no logs because I'm a lying sack of shit.

You did not zone in unprepared, with people newly 60, with no consumes and brute force C'Thun, Emps or Viscidus.

- - - Updated - - -

Guilds =/= players, and wowprogress does not list all guilds. You have to add your guilds or they don't get counted. That's why there's an ADD button.

Another "I don't like your data so just believe me!!" one.

[Hyeonh]

Classic is not any harder just more rewarding for time spent for me, and the actual hard part is the logistics and coordination for large raid groups.