Page 37 of 38 FirstFirst ...
27
35
36
37
38
LastLast
  1. #721
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post
    For the seventh or eighth time? Just so you can ignore it all over again and claim it doesn't exist?

    I'm utterly done arguing with you; it's become frustrating, dull and pointless. Your intent to go through it all, yet again, is beyond puzzling.
    You mean like your ability to ignore all evidence that speaks against yours?

    I am being completely honest. I have not seen any compelling evidence of what you state. You keep stating that you have overwhelming evidence. I think that is false. Can you atleast link to a post where in your opinion, your evidence was so overwhelming that it crushes all doubts of it being incorrect?

    I mean, you keep telling me that you are right and I am wrong and that all evidence speaks towards your cause, however your inability to even provide that evidence tells another story.

    Again, not asking for you to write an essay repeating yourself, just wondering if you could link to a post where you had this evidence that proves your claim.
    Since I must have missed it.
    Last edited by mmoc4d8e5d065a; 2013-06-08 at 03:57 PM.

  2. #722
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Kurgosh View Post
    There's no feeder into raiding any more. Used to be, you'd go do dungeons, gets some loot, pug some 10s, maybe the prior tier, gear up, and go into 10s or 25 normals. The gear you got from the prior tier was relevant. Now you do your dungeons, grind rep and valor for 2 months, then get into LFR and somebody tells you that this is what raiding is. Well, LFR is really the replacement for the old 5 player heroic dungeons. You zerg it and collect your loots. But it's labeled as raiding. So when new players try out raiding, this is what they get, a mindless zerg fest where nobody even tries to play well, everybody's in a rush, nobody explains anything, and you all end up with achievements and shiny pixels at the end. If that's raiding, what's the incentive to do it? What's the incentive to get better at it, or learn the boss mechanics or learn your class? It's not fun, it's not engrossing, and it's certainly not a feeder for normal mode raiding.
    :S
    Sadly I must agree with this.
    LFR had a noble goal, but failed to achieve it because of the nature of random stranger groups with no barrier of entry.
    Let us hope that flex fills that gap and reintroduces PuG's which can be sucessful.

  3. #723
    Deleted
    if you actually think normal modes are hard, then you are a bad player or your team just sucks.

    You guys can go LFR and don't ruin our content, ty

    Infracted; Don't attack people. (Sonnillon)
    Last edited by Sonnillon; 2013-06-09 at 12:32 PM.

  4. #724
    Immortal Pua's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Motonui
    Posts
    7,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    You mean like your ability to ignore all evidence that speaks against yours?
    I haven't ignored a single point of yours in the last 10 pages and you fucking know it.

    Look, one more time, at the significant drop off in the percentage of raiders playing endgame from WotLK to Cataclysm. It gets cut in half, and that's using DisposableHero's two month model and accounting for HIGHER subscriptions at the start of Cataclysm. This is in tandem with the developers stating that harder 10-man content was designed to be harder to account for the same item level loot (and shared lockout).

    THIS IS BECAUSE THE CONTENT BECAME HARDER.

    There is no other reasonable explanation for this drop, that has remained constant ever since.

    Do not fucking DARE to say there's no evidence to suggest the content got harder. If you do, you're simply making yourself look utterly fucking ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Avalanchlol View Post
    if you actually think normal modes are hard, then you are a bad player or your team just sucks.

    You guys can go LFR and don't ruin our content, ty
    Go away.

  5. #725
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post
    I haven't ignored a single point of yours in the last 10 pages and you fucking know it.

    Look, one more time, at the significant drop off in the percentage of raiders playing endgame from WotLK to Cataclysm. It gets cut in half, and that's using DisposableHero's two month model and accounting for HIGHER subscriptions at the start of Cataclysm. This is in tandem with the developers stating that harder 10-man content was designed to be harder to account for the same item level loot (and shared lockout).

    THIS IS BECAUSE THE CONTENT BECAME HARDER.

    There is no other reasonable explanation for this drop, that has remained constant ever since.

    Do not fucking DARE to say there's no evidence to suggest the content got harder. If you do, you're simply making yourself look utterly fucking ridiculous.
    I just do not see how you make the conclusion from % of playerbase = difficulty of content. It is not like you are looking at content in a vacuum. As mentioned several times before. We do not know the exact playerbase, aswell as the amount of people at 80/85/90. We do not have these stats. Basically we are talking about stats that we do not know. You also do not know how many people actually tried to pull a boss and the amount of wipes that were average.

    So you may know the playerbase, but you do not know the amount of players at level cap. Another thing is that late WotLK, the european/us playerbase dropped a lot while the chinese playerbase had a growth to compensate. So basically, at cataclysm the chinese to eu/us ratio was a lot higher, mostly due to WotLK being released in china.

    Since your playerbase data has no way of telling the exact playerbase data, I just do not see how you can make the conclusions you made. You do not know the CN:Eu+US ratio and your kill stats only account for EU/US guilds.

    That is also presuming nothing else has changed. WotLK still had 10/25 system. All those statistics you posted on the front page double uses the 10 and 25 statistics. Do not need a math professor to tell you have stupid this is in a mathematical comparison. So when you count away the double uses the numbers become far closer, however there is no way to know the exact amount of double uses.

    The addition of LFR aswell in T13-T15 makes those uncomparable without knowing the LFR data which we dont.

    Basically, you are taking data we do not know, comparing it with other data, comparing it with completely different data sets and even double counting players in a few data sets, then you have the fucking guts to say that is 'evidence'. I mean comon, who do you think you are fooling?
    Yes, I dare say you how no evidence.

    What we do have however is empirical data (which ironically can be found in your own data aswell) that less % of guilds are wiping to bosses, less % of guilds are getting stuck on bosses and quitting, and less wipes per boss kill than ever before. This is something that can not be denied.
    And that you have the balls to claim your extremely corrupt data set to be a stronger evidence than that is just mind boggling to me.

    But please, explain to me how your data set is more accurate. Double counting people and using an unknown number as baseline, ignoring LFR and not considering the difference in raid participation late/early expansion seems completely legit.

  6. #726
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    I just do not see how you make the conclusion from % of playerbase = difficulty of content.
    It is a FAR more reasonable methodology than looking at percentage of players who have downed at least one boss in (say) normal.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  7. #727
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post
    Look, one more time, at the significant drop off in the percentage of raiders playing endgame from WotLK to Cataclysm. It gets cut in half, and that's using DisposableHero's two month model and accounting for HIGHER subscriptions at the start of Cataclysm. This is in tandem with the developers stating that harder 10-man content was designed to be harder to account for the same item level loot (and shared lockout).
    Also. If you look at disposableheroes data, if you would for a second assume that the subbase is numbers are correct (which is an insane overstatement), if you count the 10 man kills of lord marrowgar they account for 4.8% of the playerbase. So 4.8% of the playerbase killed Lord Marrowgar according to that data. 4.25% for beasts

    Now, this is of course no evidence, because a lot of 25 man kills ran double raid teams etc in 10 man, however you say your prayers to these numbers like they were divine, so I guess you find them accurate.

    But 4.8% is hardly a lot higher then the rest of the numbers. What we instead got then is a 4.8%-3.28% variation between T9-T15. Now again, I do not support these numbers at all, only using your own numbers, however I strongly disagree that they are accurate, since it discounts for 10/25 being seperate in WotLK, the very inaccurate subnumbers especially in Cata, LFR in T13-T15.


    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    It is a FAR more reasonable methodology than looking at percentage of players who have downed at least one boss in (say) normal.
    Even looking at his methodology you can notice that the relative difficulty of each boss has just become lower and lower since T10. There are less guilds getting stuck on bosses then ever before. That is also supported by his methodology aswell.

    Also, his methodology also looks at % of players who downed 1 boss. So really, what? Both methodologies are based on people downing 1 boss. You make no sense.
    Last edited by mmoc4d8e5d065a; 2013-06-09 at 12:17 PM.

  8. #728
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    Also, his methodology also looks at % of players who downed 1 boss. So really, what? Both methodologies are based on people downing 1 boss. You make no sense.
    I was talking about looking at the percentage of players who have downed at least one boss, not the total number who have downed at least one boss. These are very different things!

    Consider a raid design (not to say any were like this) that had a killer first boss, but the rest were easy. Then, the percentage of those who downed the first boss, who then went on to down all the rest, would be very high. However, the raid as a whole would be hard, since few guilds would down the first boss. See the distinction?

    More reasonably, suppose the first boss is very hard, and the rest of the bosses are of about the same difficulty (flat progression). In that raid, your group is either good enough to do them all, or isn't. So the completion percentage (as percentage of those downing boss #1) will be fairly high, even if the raid overall is quite hard.

    The "internal percentage" metric is more a measure of how the difficulty of the raid ramps up, from beginning to end, rather than the absolute difficulty of the raid. To get the absolute difficulty, you want to look at the percentage of overall players (including those with zero boss kills) who have downed the bosses.

    (Those previous paragraphs are a bit oversimplified, since there's more than one kind of difficulty, and groups can fail for external reasons.)

    BTW, I will agree LK was actually a difficult encounter in T11 (and the stats supported that). IMO it was overtuned, and it damaged many mediocre Wrath guilds. I suspect this didn't help retention once it became clear how difficult Cataclysm was intended to be. The terrible engagement Ruby Sanctum experienced should have been a red flag.
    Last edited by Osmeric; 2013-06-09 at 12:35 PM.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  9. #729
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    I was talking about looking at the percentage of players who have downed at least one boss, not the total number who have downed at least one boss. These are very different things!

    Consider a raid design (not to say any were like this) that had a killer first boss, but the rest were easy. Then, the percentage of those who downed the first boss, who then went on to down all the rest, would be very high. However, the raid as a whole would be hard, since few guilds would down the first boss. See the distinction?

    More reasonably, suppose the first boss is very hard, and the rest of the bosses are of about the same difficulty (flat progression). In that raid, your group is either good enough to do them all, or isn't. So the completion percentage (as percentage of those downing boss #1) will be fairly high, even if the raid overall is quite hard.

    The "internal percentage" metric is more a measure of how the difficulty of the raid ramps up, from beginning to end, rather than the absolute difficulty of the raid. To get the absolute difficulty, you want to look at the percentage of overall players (including those with zero boss kills) who have downed the bosses.

    BTW, I will agree LK was actually a difficult encounter in T11 (and the stats supported that). IMO it was overtuned, and it damaged many mediocre Wrath guilds. I suspect this didn't help retention once it became clear how difficult Cataclysm was intended to be.
    You are presuming that a large part of the playerbase is wiping on the first boss. Blizzard has stated that this is not the case. They got those statistics so I trust their words over your guts.

    The internal percentage does measure how the difficulty ramps up inside the instance yes, however if you presume that 99% of players that are interested in raiding has the ability to down the first boss, it still remains a valid methodology.

    As we do not have the numbers of overall players, I just do not see how you can look at those to get the absolute difficulty. If anything also, you need to look at the total amount of players that attempted to raid. We do not know how big % of the playerbase is actually attempting to raid, heck, we do not even know the playerbase. How many people are at level cap? How many people have attempted a raid boss? Sure, you can ask blizzard for these numbers, but we are using numbers we do not know as baseline. Again, how can we use numbers we do not know as baseline? If we had the numbers, yes we could use them, but we dont.

    Also, how do we fit LFR into all this? We do not know the numbers of LFR. How do they affect the % of playerbase playing? I have been told that there are more players raiding LFR than normal/heroic. I do not know if this is true or not. But that would mean a lot more people are raiding under the radar since T13.

    But again, checking those exact % of playerbase numbers they posted and presuming they are correct for a moment. 4.25% of playerbase downed beasts in 10 normal, 4.8% down marrowgar in 10 normal. Is this far different from Cata/Mop? No, it is not.

    If anything, the difference between the "peak" of 4.8% compared to the lowest of 3.38% can fall into the category of acceptable variance considering the sources of the 'data'. FL which was the lowest in your 'data', was at 3.38%, however it was also released in the months of the year where WoW has the lowest playerbase. So really, your own data does not even support your conclusion.
    Last edited by mmoc4d8e5d065a; 2013-06-09 at 02:49 PM.

  10. #730
    Deleted
    I'm sorry but is this thread trying to say that normal mode is too difficult ? 'Cause if that's the case, it's incredibly ridiculous.

  11. #731
    Quote Originally Posted by kamran View Post
    I'm sorry but is this thread trying to say that normal mode is too difficult ? 'Cause if that's the case, it's incredibly ridiculous.
    Could you explain the reasoning behind your statement there? Start with a definition of "too difficult".
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  12. #732
    Immortal Pua's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Motonui
    Posts
    7,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly33 View Post
    I just do not see how you make the conclusion from % of playerbase = difficulty of content.
    Other than it's the only reasonable explanation (all of yours have been logically dismissed), it's also because that's not the only reason I'm drawing said conclusion.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    In Cat, we made 10s harder so that 10 and 25 could deliver the same ilevel. But this pushed some out of raiding.
    Here's the source, HE SAID IT YESTERDAY.

    Your entire argument in this thread (and others) can be boiled down to this:

    "There's a very small possibility the drop isn't due to difficulty; therefore, it can't be".

    Now give up and go pick an argument with someone who's interested in talking to a self-repetitive individual who refuses to see beyond the hand in front of his or her own face.

    I'm done with your pointless, skeptical, argumentative and inflammatory shit.

  13. #733
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post
    Other than it's the only reasonable explanation (all of yours have been logically dismissed), it's also because that's not the only reason I'm drawing said conclusion.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    In Cat, we made 10s harder so that 10 and 25 could deliver the same ilevel. But this pushed some out of raiding.
    Here's the source, HE SAID IT YESTERDAY.

    Your entire argument in this thread (and others) can be boiled down to this:

    "There's a very small possibility the drop isn't due to difficulty; therefore, it can't be".

    Now give up and go pick an argument with someone who's interested in talking to a self-repetitive individual who refuses to see beyond the hand in front of his or her own face.

    I'm done with your pointless, skeptical, argumentative and inflammatory shit.
    Likewise.

    What are you on about that it is the only reasonable explanation?
    Step one, the drop is from 4.8% to 3.28% from highest to lowest (ICC10 to FL). That is not a big drop. That is only assuming the playerbase numbers are accurate. As we have no clue on the actual number of players, how many of those are EU/US, how many of those are at max level and how many of those are at level cap. That gives plenty of room for error considering the 4.8% to 3.28% is not a huge difference. Add on top of that the lowest raid, FL was released during the 3 months of the year with the lowest raiding participation (again supported by all data).
    Not to mention the addition of LFR in T13-T15.

    So really, please explain how that is the only "logical" explanation. When clearly the 'drop' is not huge, and you are looking at raiding in a vacuum.

    My entire argument in any thread can be boiled down to "All logical data supports my argument".
    Your argument in every thread can be boiled down to "This fits my agenda so it must be true".

    Add that on top of, again, proved by evidence, less average wipes per boss than ever, less % of guilds getting stuck / quitting on bosses then ever before. And still you have the bloody balls to say that "all evidence" claims you are right.

    If anything, your claim is the only one that is getting disqualified by logic. You are sugarcoating you own numbers by double counting 10 and 25 man guilds in the OP, which is insane. If you fail to see the blatant truth about this, be my guest, but dont try to convince other players that you are right when you are doing such obvious stuff as double counting players.

    All you do is flame my arguments without even reinforcing your own. You got nothing to say about the drop in reality only being much smaller than what you mention. The inaccuracy of what we know the playerbase to be, LFR, raid release times. Double counting, 30%/35% nerf in ICC/DS causing players to be unprepared for the next unnerfed raid, etc. This shows how weak you know your argument is since you cant even defend it so you have to go on offense instead.

    As said, even your own data confirms that the % of guilds getting stuck on bosses is lower than ever. Which is hillarious that you chose to ignore that.'

    Its getting really tiresome that you try to twist the data so much and try to make such ridiculous claims. Your entire data is based on numbers that we dont have, and you make the assumption that raiding participation = difficulty while completely ignoring everything around it.

    This is not even to mention the fact that you so convieniently avoided adding RS to your data. RS had the lowest raiding participation of all raids since T8, by far. RS is the only raid with alarmingly low participation. Could it not stand to logic that the fact that ICC was out for over 12 months, actually got *gasp* people to lose raiding interest. People were simply bored of raiding with having the same instance out for so long. Which means that going into cata, if you are to believe the sub numbers, we actually saw a gigantic increase in raiding participation. Not that I agree with checking sub numbers, but using your own method that is what the numbers say.

    There are several logical reasons why RS had so low participation, however if you choose to ignore all logical reasons from the other tiers, I do not see why you should ignore RS. You cant just cherry pick what to ignore and not.
    Last edited by mmoc4d8e5d065a; 2013-06-10 at 12:14 AM.

  14. #734
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Could you explain the reasoning behind your statement there? Start with a definition of "too difficult".
    Well if you say it's too difficult for the majority of wow players because they are terribly bad, we can agree on this. It's difficult for them because they dont know how to play (why do we have TWO difficulties under normal mode ? 'cos people suck).

    But don't worry, those whining baddies won't kill current raids as they killed t11 (actually they couldn't finish it even with the huge nerfs, saw it). Because they have now 2 "difficulty" modes to pretend they are playing the game.

    See ? No need to nerf normal mode. You can play in your little sandbox called "flexible raid" or "lfr". And let the people who know how to play enjoy the real content.

  15. #735
    Quote Originally Posted by kamran View Post
    Well if you say it's too difficult for the majority of wow players because they are terribly bad, we can agree on this.
    Ok, so you're saying a thread discussing that something is "too difficult" is both "incredibly ridiculous", and also correct?

    Not sure why you feel the need to ridicule a thread discussing something you actually agree with. Perhaps it was ridiculously obvious and didn't need discussion?
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  16. #736
    Immortal Pua's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Motonui
    Posts
    7,552
    Quote Originally Posted by kamran View Post
    Well if you say it's too difficult for the majority of wow players because they are terribly bad, we can agree on this. It's difficult for them because they dont know how to play (why do we have TWO difficulties under normal mode ? 'cos people suck).

    But don't worry, those whining baddies won't kill current raids as they killed t11 (actually they couldn't finish it even with the huge nerfs, saw it). Because they have now 2 "difficulty" modes to pretend they are playing the game.

    See ? No need to nerf normal mode. You can play in your little sandbox called "flexible raid" or "lfr". And let the people who know how to play enjoy the real content.
    Would you mind linking me your main character?

  17. #737
    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post
    Would you mind linking me your main character?
    Zell, don't even bother with these trolls. It's obvious that person didn't even bother to read the thread and just chimed in with the typical "Lol normals are hard? You must be terrible! Good players can clear normal blindfolded with one arm while watching TV and sipping champagne!" nonsense that crops up every couple of pages, instead of actually giving any real insight it's just flames and insults.

  18. #738
    Immortal Pua's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Motonui
    Posts
    7,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Arothand View Post
    Zell, don't even bother with these trolls. It's obvious that person didn't even bother to read the thread and just chimed in with the typical "Lol normals are hard? You must be terrible! Good players can clear normal blindfolded with one arm while watching TV and sipping champagne!" nonsense that crops up every couple of pages, instead of actually giving any real insight it's just flames and insults.
    Mhm. You're probably right; I rise to it far more often than I should.

    In any event, it's nice to see the retirement over; how's the pally levelling going, and is it flexi-mode that's reinvigorated your interest?

  19. #739
    Quote Originally Posted by Zellviren View Post
    Mhm. You're probably right; I rise to it far more often than I should.

    In any event, it's nice to see the retirement over; how's the pally levelling going, and is it flexi-mode that's reinvigorated your interest?
    Gearing up right now, hit 90 the other day (he was left at 85 in Cata). I was shanghaied into tanking for my guild again since they have trouble finding good tanks, and I used to be good on my Warrior and Paladin before him, so I kind of got dragged out of retirement :P I was debating just sticking with my Warrior who was already 90 with like 463 gear from MoP launch, but Pallys are just so OP now that I think it'd be better overall.

  20. #740
    Immortal Pua's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Motonui
    Posts
    7,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Arothand View Post
    Gearing up right now, hit 90 the other day (he was left at 85 in Cata). I was shanghaied into tanking for my guild again since they have trouble finding good tanks, and I used to be good on my Warrior and Paladin before him, so I kind of got dragged out of retirement :P I was debating just sticking with my Warrior who was already 90 with like 463 gear from MoP launch, but Pallys are just so OP now that I think it'd be better overall.
    Yeah, paladins and monks are simply better than warriors at the moment. From both the design and performance standpoint, they do everything that's meaningful far more efficiently.

Posting Permissions

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