Poll: Care about performance?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
  1. #41
    I am Murloc! Asrialol's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,862
    Let's keep in mind that a overwhelming minority of the playerbase frequents this site. And from what I've seen, a overwhelming majority of players on this site belongs to the few % that does m+ / mythic content.
    Hi

  2. #42
    I simply do not enjoy the game if I can't be top dps during farm. Don't care at all during progress.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Sharnie786 View Post
    I understand that the majority, especially on this site, don't care about their performance but why do they keep saying "the 1-2%" when talking about people who do care about performance?
    Literally nobody has said that, everyone cares about performance to a certain degree. The discussion has always been about to what an extent people care about it.

    For example, I care about doing decent dps so my guild can clear heroic raiding and I can do M+ without dragging anyone down. But at the same time I will chose covenants after what playstyle I enjoy the most, because a few % one way or another isn't going to make or break my contribution. I always perform better and grind more if I enjoy playing my character, so there's a payoff there.

    The problem arises when people go from caring about performance to obsessing about performance, and tries to stop Blizzard from adding interesting mechanics, like actual choices in the covenants, to the game.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by WaltherLeopold View Post
    Is there even a metric for this? Mythic is meant to be the hardest of all pve content in wow and bfa is at the forefront of this, aka the hardest pve ever has been.

    With the middle ground of 12-15% of raiders can clear the hardest content, isnt this an argument that the necessity to min max to the "1-2percenters" level is completely unecessary?
    It's never necessary to min-max to the extent that the top 1-2% do, outside of specific conditions such as the world first race. But when has that EVER stopped obsessive/compulsive people from doing it anyway?

    Again, the problem arises when Blizzard attempts to curtail these kinds of behaviors by creating systems that effect the entire playerbase, even when the entire majority of the playerbase isn't behaving in that way. And even when they are, they aren't doing so to the harmful extent that the top 1-2% do.

    It's making a mountain out of a molehill, then forcing everyone to deal with the mountain when there's not really any fun to be had in it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Azerate View Post
    Even if you do have a guild and a group of friends, you will sometimes find yourself in need to PUG something. Players in casual guilds aren't online 24/7 and you often find yourself lacking people for a group. That's the reality of it. Also, some of the high end meta trickles down to casual guilds too, which is also pretty common knowledge too.
    So what? You're basically arguing that ALL players must be forced to be inconvenienced on the off-chance that it will somehow magically make sub-optimal builds more appealing to PUG groups that don't want them. And I'm sorry to tell you this, but punishing and inconveniencing everyone who wants the option to respec because you think it MIGHT create a situation in PUGs where a sub-optimal player will be taken just isn't fair or objective.

    If you want a real meaningful choice, here's one for you: Choose to play optimally or resign yourself to casual runs and LFR. Stop trying to twist the entire game and all its players to get around the consequences of not playing the meta.




    Quote Originally Posted by Azerate View Post
    Here I will just have to disagree. People in pugs aren't as meta crazed as they are often portrayed to be. For example, many groups might prefer some specs over others, but in general a decent player has no problem getting into groups as a 'sub-optimal' spec right now. There's no reason why the same shouldn't be true for covenants, especially considering that every covenant has a buff in different dungeon. Making covenants more permanent will make it even harder for people to realistically have these kinds of demands. If it's just "one click change" then many more groups will be asking for that.
    You can't have it both ways.

    Earlier you argued the point that PUG leaders would be meta enough to require you to swap. Now you're saying that PUGs aren't meta-crazed and will accept sub-optimal specs.

    If PUGs are willing to accept anyone, then meta-swapping isn't a problem that a player would ever have to face at that level, and it should not be an issue to allow people to do it if they so choose. Where is the problem with allowing some groups to use more stringent respec requirements if there are so many other PUG groups who will take any spec as long as they are a good player?!?

    Literally creating a problem where there doesn't need to be one.



    Quote Originally Posted by Azerate View Post
    Not everyone is in a tight mythic guild of dedicated individuals with 100% attendance who are driven in the same way towards the same goal and have strict loot rules. There are many different dynamics in play in more casual guilds. You have people who show up once a week instead of every raid and you have no strict rules to treat them worse loot-wise than others. You have people who severely underperform. You have people who only join once in a while. On top of that, when you are doing normal/heroic difficulty distributing gear "to benefit the raid in the best way" is not really that important, because the raid is probably easily clearable by a better group without that gear. It's more of a personal achievement to get geared, rather than necessity. Personal loot is great help in all those scenarios I listed. Is it a bit shitty that people aren't straightforward about loot and use the system as an excuse? Maybe a bit. But at the same time, I think that having to have courage to "defend" your loot from some entitled assholes is not something that should be a requirement for raiding. Part of the reason why retail is so much more easy for players to get into than classic is because you don't have to play weird mind games and conduct mental warfare to fight for your loot. It just drops for people and others can do fuck all about it.
    The mistake you're making is that you're conflating a problem that stems from shitty people("entitled assholes" in your own words), and a problem that is NOT created by the game itself.

    "Defending your loot" is not a factor inherent to raiding. It is not a requirement unless you are raiding with a horrible group. The problem lies with trying to force shitty people to not be shitty when you group with them, instead of either removing yourself from the situation entirely, or just putting in the effort to find a better team of people to play with.

    It's also a GROSS misconception that everyone who raids is out to screw you out of your gear, or treat people like farmers that they can ninja from. I don't agree that it's fair to base your argument on that premise. Maybe you've had bad experiences in the past, I don't know. But that's not the fault of the game or of raiding. And attempting to fix that problem with convoluted, unnecessary systems will NEVER work.



    Quote Originally Posted by Azerate View Post
    Well yes, yes The game should be designed in such a way so as to benefit the most players and make the gameplay experience better for them. Making a change that benefits 20% at the cost of 80% of the player base is just a bad change. Learning one class is something a lot of people are capable about than learning 4 classes, which is what effectively learning all 4 covenants would be.
    And yet people can and do learn 3 specs for their class, and re-learn them every expansion. Many players(I'd even go as far as to say MOST players) play alts, learning all of those skills and abilities as well. Not to mention that the game even introduces abilities from all 4 covenants during the leveling process.

    If you can't be bothered to learn 4 sets of new abilities for your class, then I not-so-humbly suggest that you're not playing at a level where it will EVER matter to the groups that are willing to take you on. Again, this is creating an imaginary problem where one doesn't actually exist.

  5. #45
    I think there's more of a concern by the "middle class" of WoW about the "casual" player bases Ilvl than there is anything else in the game. But it's RL spilling into what is meant to be a form of entertainment. You can't escape the human ego.

    I do care about my performance, and always wan't my time in game to be progressing me towards some sort of goal. If not, the game isn't worth the cost.
    I'm a thread killer.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    It's never necessary to min-max to the extent that the top 1-2% do, outside of specific conditions such as the world first race. But when has that EVER stopped obsessive/compulsive people from doing it anyway?

    Again, the problem arises when Blizzard attempts to curtail these kinds of behaviors by creating systems that effect the entire playerbase, even when the entire majority of the playerbase isn't behaving in that way. And even when they are, they aren't doing so to the harmful extent that the top 1-2% do.

    It's making a mountain out of a molehill, then forcing everyone to deal with the mountain when there's not really any fun to be had in it.
    I mean, let's be honest here, there's usually never more than 2 guilds that actually compete, but at a stretch 4-5, so we're speaking about approx 100 players in the world.

    If their actions are curtailed, I have an issue with seeing how this is bad for the game.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by WaltherLeopold View Post
    I mean, let's be honest here, there's usually never more than 2 guilds that actually compete, but at a stretch 4-5, so we're speaking about approx 100 players in the world.

    If their actions are curtailed, I have an issue with seeing how this is bad for the game.
    I'm confused. You mean you don't see how it would be a problem to create systems that effect the entire game....just to mitigate the actions of 100 players?
    Last edited by SirCowdog; 2020-09-10 at 01:18 PM.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    I'm confused. You mean you don't see how it would be a problem to create systems that effect the entire game....just to mitigate the actions of 100 players?
    I don't believe in that interpretation though.

    They create systems that facilitate their vision of the game, at the expense of the enjoyment of 100 players.

    The number, obviously being rather irrelevant wether it's 1% or 100 players total.
    Last edited by WaltherLeopold; 2020-09-10 at 01:52 PM.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Pebrocks The Warlock View Post
    I should have specified I've always been Destruction Warlock. Where has that spec at for high end content?
    Well, in Nyalotha it's the second highest performing DPS spec of all, right below fire mage

  10. #50
    Terribly misleading options. There's about 99% gray area between these extremes.

  11. #51
    If you sell raid potions and stuff on the auction house, you will notice that they get considerably cheaper once Hall of Fame can no longer be acquired. So performance certainly matters to a lot of people.
    TO FIX WOW:1. smaller server sizes & server-only LFG awarding satchels, so elite players help others. 2. "helper builds" with loom powers - talent trees so elite players cast buffs on low level players XP gain, HP/mana, regen, damage, etc. 3. "helper ilvl" scoring how much you help others. 4. observer games like in SC to watch/chat (like twitch but with MORE DETAILS & inside the wow UI) 5. guild leagues to compete with rival guilds for progression (with observer mode).6. jackpot world mobs.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by WaltherLeopold View Post
    I don't believe in that interpretation though.

    They create systems that facilitate their vision of the game, at the expense of the enjoyment of 100 players.

    The number, obviously being rather irrelevant wether it's 1% or 100 players total.
    I guess my point is not that it's only effecting 1% of players. But that Blizzard is making decisions based on those 1% that actually effects EVERYONE in the game.

    Sorry if that wasn't clear.

  13. #53
    I do care about performance, getting stronger feels good. I view power as a tool for downing bosses, if I don't raid, I don't play.

    Feeling stronger feels good to everyone though, be they pet-battle superstars or casuals farming old content. I just find it funny when people with zero intent of organized raiding act as if they have to be as choosy as the top 0.1%.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    I guess my point is not that it's only effecting 1% of players. But that Blizzard is making decisions based on those 1% that actually effects EVERYONE in the game.

    Sorry if that wasn't clear.
    No, it doesn't only affect them, however the negative impact that it has on everyone else is superficial and ultimately, to blizzard doesnt seem to matter in this patch, because they would rather have their vision of the system intact.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •