LFR is a superfluous, meaningless difficulty

[Diabloish]

No, you posted raw data, and from that extrapolated a whole bunch of nonsense that just happens to support your claims. Where in the data does it segregate casuals from non-casuals? Please direct me to that, because it is a core component of your argument.

- - - Updated - - -



This is amazingly ironic - you posted raw data, and then suggest you know what percentage are "casual" vs non casual, without even defining what a casual is to you.

I have told you multiple times now what I believe the data was showing. And for the last time, I said it was to show basic raid participation because someone said people didn’t do it back then. For the very last time, I’m attempting to put a logical explanation to it.

You have literally provided nothing besides “NU UH”. I do not care if you don’t agree with me. But if you’re wanting to talk objectively then you need to post something to support what you’re saying or just shut your mouth.

I’m just going to give you one word responses until you do so.

[arkanon]

I have told you multiple times now what I believe the data was showing. And for the last time, I said it was to show basic raid participation because someone said people didn’t do it back then. For the very last time, I’m attempting to put a logical explanation to it.

You have literally provided nothing besides “NU UH”. I do not care if you don’t agree with me. But if you’re wanting to talk objectively then you need to post something to support what you’re saying or just shut your mouth.

I’m just going to give you one word responses until you do so.

You are telling us what you WANT the data to show - but providing literally zero - I say again - ZERO evidence to support your claim.

[Diabloish]

You are telling us what you WANT the data to show - but providing literally zero - I say again - ZERO evidence to support your claim.

Dataplzthx

[Relapses]

I'm pro LFR but i would not complain if it was replaced with story mode what was you 1 and 19 other NPC's and no loot.

You might not, but there's definitely players who would very much care if the LFR was randomly replaced with a worse version of itself. For better or for worse, the LFR represents the only accessible version of the raid for them (and by proxy, raiding in general). Since raiding represents one of the few things that WoW offers its playerbase that no other game can, it makes little to no sense to remove this unique feature for these players simply because of the personal opinions other players have over the negative consequences its existence brings with it.

[arkanon]

Dataplzthx

Your lack of articulate response simply shows you're incapable of countering any of the multitude of issues raised regarding your understanding (or lack there of) and analysis of the data you are relying on so heavily to support your argument.

You are saying it shows a very high participation level from casuals in ToC - when asked what part of the data shows that, you ignore the question. When asked how the data (or you for that matter) are defining a casual, you ignore the question.

[Diabloish]

I don’t have anything. I’m not saying trust me. I’m saying don’t trust this because it’s quite obviously flawed.

Real data sets are scrubbed for accuracy and to correct for anomalies like “oh, guilds that did both 25 and 10 man are double counted” and to correct for changes in methodology. They aren’t hand counted by a random dude based on data from a 3rd party site that doesn’t claim its data is complete (and that was brand new and being modified constantly over the first part of the data set).

We’ve become a nation of morons who don’t understand math or statistics and so everybody just accepts any data or statistic at face value, even when it’s obviously ridiculous.

Again, no data is better than bad data. Ever heard of “garbage in, garbage out”?

It’s only quite obviously flawed because you say so? Ok.

“Trust me bro”

- - - Updated - - -

Your lack of articulate response simply shows you're incapable of countering any of the multitude of issues raised regarding your understanding (or lack there of) and analysis of the data you are relying on so heavily to support your argument.

You are saying it shows a very high participation level from casuals in ToC - when asked what part of the data shows that, you ignore the question. When asked how the data (or you for that matter) are defining a casual, you ignore the question.

Still nothing?

[arkanon]

Still nothing?

You are saying it shows a very high participation level from casuals in ToC - when asked what part of the data shows that, you ignore the question. When asked how the data (or you for that matter) are defining a casual, you ignore the question.

[Argorwal]

I literally posted the data that you’re arguing against that supports my claim lol I’m just attempting to make sense of the data. You guys have yet to show me anything that says otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you have anything to even hint that this wouldn’t be correct besides the source: “trust me bro”

In your own link they said the data was pulled manually from wowprogress.

Wowprogress doesn’t stop collecting data once a tier is over, or even an expansion, is over. So it is counting any guild clear of ToC even during ICC (or during Cata if done as a guild), etc.

And ToC was so small and fast and easy to knock out guilds would do a quick smash for catchup on alts.

It’s quite obvious at this point you didn’t really read your source.

[Hellobolis]

If the argument is story mode version, I'd probably just remove the other players and have NPCs fill other roles.

im not really against that, but i have a feeling they can't make that work from a PR standpoint when compared to scenarios/the more fancy quests in game. if it deviates too much from "real raiding" you'll just get a different problem. and if you just want to keep it as is but with NPCs instead of people, are you really fixing anything?

(there is also the funny problem that the tank role would be the most in demand role for NPCs to fill, while also requiring the most effort to build. i'd say for it and introduce dps and heal bots into LFR to shorten queue times today to get people used to the idea, but that wouldn't really affects queues too much.)

honestly i think even if blizz really wanted to remove LFR (and other queued content for that matter) they just couldn't without setting it up for years at this point. the addition of the premade group finder obviously isn't enough on it's own. and how would you even go about convincing the player group that doesn't want to interact with others to accept it? 10 years ago i'd say "if you don't want to talk to people, maybe a mmo isn't for you", but now that we've had systems like LFR for 10+ years that's just not realistic anymore and the better answer is "if you want a more hardcore mmo, maybe wow isn't the game for you".

[arkanon]

In your own link they said the data was pulled manually from wowprogress.

Wowprogress doesn’t stop collecting data once a tier is over, or even an expansion, is over. So it is counting any guild clear of ToC even during ICC (or during Cata if done as a guild), etc.

It’s quite obvious at this point you didn’t really read your source.

This is part of the issue - its not that the data is "wrong" - its a bit dirty, for sure, but its not "wrong". What is wrong is taking that data and trying to use it to prove things that the data does NOT prove, or even relate to at all.

[Argorwal]

This is part of the issue - its not that the data is "wrong" - its a bit dirty, for sure, but its not "wrong". What is wrong is taking that data and trying to use it to prove things that the data does NOT prove, or even relate to at all.

Just checked WoWprogress for T9 and it’s last recorded update for 25m was early November 2010, which is 1 month before Cata released.

The “source” he used was compiled in MoP, which means the graph is using all ToC clears when both ToC and ICC were the active raids.

[Th3Scourge]

im not really against that, but i have a feeling they can't make that work from a PR standpoint when compared to scenarios/the more fancy quests in game. if it deviates too much from "real raiding" you'll just get a different problem. and if you just want to keep it as is but with NPCs instead of people, are you really fixing anything?

(there is also the funny problem that the tank role would be the most in demand role for NPCs to fill, while also requiring the most effort to build. i'd say for it and introduce dps and heal bots into LFR to shorten queue times today to get people used to the idea, but that wouldn't really affects queues too much.)

honestly i think even if blizz really wanted to remove LFR (and other queued content for that matter) they just couldn't without setting it up for years at this point. the addition of the premade group finder obviously isn't enough on it's own. and how would you even go about convincing the player group that doesn't want to interact with others to accept it? 10 years ago i'd say "if you don't want to talk to people, maybe a mmo isn't for you", but now that we've had systems like LFR for 10+ years that's just not realistic anymore and the better answer is "if you want a more hardcore mmo, maybe wow isn't the game for you".

When I think about it, I would actually run LFR if it was just with NPCs. I can see the appeal of a 'single player' story version that usually appeals to players who have limited time/don't want to put in time for an organised raid etc. It would be a different experience, sure, but not much different to scenarios, and could act as a gateway to organised group content

[Jastall]

This is part of the issue - its not that the data is "wrong" - its a bit dirty, for sure, but its not "wrong". What is wrong is taking that data and trying to use it to prove things that the data does NOT prove, or even relate to at all.

My favorite part was trying to use it to "prove" that LFR shattered Normal+ participation numbers... when DS's numbers followed the downward trend set by earlier tiers (LFR not affecting that overmuch per the very source they posted), and the only real cutoff is the transition from Wrath to Cata, which made 10M and 25M lockouts shared; most likely what shot 25M participation in the face with extreme prejudice. I'm not 100% sure that poster was even aware LFR started in 4.3, and not in 4.0, since they also thought Sunwell was attunement locked when released.

[Tadkins]

You overestimate it.

I don't think I am. Hundreds of thousands use LFR. Do you think they're going to sit quietly?

As long as rejection, kicking, elitism and gatekeeping exist, LFR needs to stay.

[arkanon]

I don't think I am. Hundreds of thousands use LFR. Do you think they're going to sit quietly?

As long as rejection, kicking, elitism and gatekeeping exist, LFR needs to stay.

I am extremely confident there are more players whos highest raid participation is LFR than any other difficulty. Not sure if anyone linked the quote when I spoke about it recently, but Blizzard have made it very clear that LFR has very high participation rates, and is a large contributing factor for justifying time spent developing raids.

- - - Updated - - -

My favorite part was trying to use it to "prove" that LFR shattered Normal+ participation numbers... when DS's numbers followed the downward trend set by earlier tiers (LFR not affecting that overmuch per the very source they posted), and the only real cutoff is the transition from Wrath to Cata, which made 10M and 25M lockouts shared; most likely what shot 25M participation in the face with extreme prejudice. I'm not 100% sure that poster was even aware LFR started in 4.3, and not in 4.0, since they also thought Sunwell was attunement locked when released.

So this is the point I have been trying to get across - the data itself is SOMEWHAT accurate, but its how we interpret and represent / misrepresent what that data does and does not show.

[Traveler Voltin]

didnt blizzard say around SoO that like 65% of the player base ran LFR?

[Tadkins]

I am extremely confident there are more players whos highest raid participation is LFR than any other difficulty. Not sure if anyone linked the quote when I spoke about it recently, but Blizzard have made it very clear that LFR has very high participation rates, and is a large contributing factor for justifying time spent developing raids.

As am I, by simple virtue of what it is; an accessible raiding difficulty that everyone is allowed to enter, with no human person required to give consent. No other raiding mode can boast that.

[arkanon]

I don't think I am. Hundreds of thousands use LFR. Do you think they're going to sit quietly?

As long as rejection, kicking, elitism and gatekeeping exist, LFR needs to stay.

I would just add to this by saying although the factors you mention to exist, im not sure they are even a factor for many participants in LFR - I know someone who played Overwatch every day - they played it constantly, i could see them in realid. I asked them one day how competitive they were, and they said "oh nah, i dont play actual matches, i just do the vs ai stuff and sometimes do the seasonal pve stuff when its up - but i havnt ever played a competitive game, because i dont have anyone to play with"

We ended up forming a group to do a few matches with him and he was actually pretty good - could easily have played ranked or at very least random matches without raising an eyebrow. His reasons were not "im not good enough, im worried about what they will say, im worried about getting kicked". I suspect that is probably true for some people with LFR as well.

- - - Updated - - -

didnt blizzard say around SoO that like 65% of the player base ran LFR?

I don't remember the number, but i remember it was EXTREMELY high, and at one point, there were more characters completing LFR than all other difficulties combined.

[Tadkins]

We ended up forming a group to do a few matches with him and he was actually pretty good - could easily have played ranked or at very least random matches without raising an eyebrow. His reasons were not "im not good enough, im worried about what they will say, im worried about getting kicked". I suspect that is probably true for some people with LFR as well.

I can relate to that. I don't think I'm the greatest player but I would like to think I'm at least capable. I'm not perfect with my rotation, I'm never going to destroy warcraftlog or raiderio scores, and sometimes can flub mechanics but I do get things eventually. It is basically confidence issues that keep me out of higher difficulties. I'm sure if I had a supportive guild that won't rage at me I could do fine, but those are rare in this game.

[Traveler Voltin]

I would just add to this by saying although the factors you mention to exist, im not sure they are even a factor for many participants in LFR - I know someone who played Overwatch every day - they played it constantly, i could see them in realid. I asked them one day how competitive they were, and they said "oh nah, i dont play actual matches, i just do the vs ai stuff and sometimes do the seasonal pve stuff when its up - but i havnt ever played a competitive game, because i dont have anyone to play with"

We ended up forming a group to do a few matches with him and he was actually pretty good - could easily have played ranked or at very least random matches without raising an eyebrow. His reasons were not "im not good enough, im worried about what they will say, im worried about getting kicked". I suspect that is probably true for some people with LFR as well.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't remember the number, but i remember it was EXTREMELY high, and at one point, there were more characters completing LFR than all other difficulties combined.

i remember them giving percentages out for each difficulty but i dont remember when. (i think around SoO)
i want to say it was like 65% lfr, 30-35% normal, and 5-8% heroic.