Poll: Should flex mythic raiding exist?

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

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
... LastLast
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    That's a lie.

    Fine, ignore the part about inflation completely. What other "term" did you explain that I then said didn't mean what you said it meant?

    Let me know. With quotes, please.

    You're just making wild accusations to get out of having to back your claims.
    Exactly: "Oh you got me, but now I demand you go dig through my posts for more examples!"

    No.

    Like what? Feel free to quote instances of this happening.

    And what do you mean by "explaining your logic"? You can't just prove a claim by going "that makes sense, right?". You have to provide EVIDENCE.

    Let's take an example case of yours:

    You claimed:

    The Claim: "it is necessarily detrimental to balance the game for mythic rather than the average player"
    Your Proof: "the spec disparities at mythic level do not reflect the spec disparities for the average player"

    Can you explain, please, how this works? Where's the causal connection here? You have an OBSERVATION: "spec disparities" are different at the mythic and average level. How do you demonstrate that this is due to BALANCE, and not something else, like, say, sampling bias because mythic players tend to be more skilled than the average player and so their spec performance profile will necessarily be different. And even if you just call that "balance", too, how do you demonstrate that it's MYTHIC balance that causes this, and that we don't just see different disparities in mythic because of how it's balanced for NORMAL, say, or heroic or whatever else.

    You are throwing wild statements out there that you then claim are self-evident or "logical", but they really are not - as I have demonstrated here.

    Feel free to refute any of this with actual evidence, but just going "I've already explained this you just don't want to admit it" only makes it even more clear your claims are baseless and you're trying to wriggle out of owning up to that.
    I never said spec disparities were different at the top than the middle BECAUSE of mythic focused balancing. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You post these giant, absurd tirades over words you put in other peoples' mouths and then demand people comb your posts to litigate every bit of minutia. It's the worst kind of obnoxious, condescending, smug sophistry one can engage in, and it is a waste of time to continue taking it seriously.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Exactly: "Oh you got me, but now I demand you go dig through my posts for more examples!"

    No.
    It's the same as before: you make a claim, BACK IT UP.

    You're just saying things, and when I ask you for proof you just go "oh now you want evidence? NO."

    What kind of clown world logic is this.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I never said spec disparities were different at the top than the middle BECAUSE of mythic focused balancing.
    So how should we interpret "balance the game for mythic" then, if it's not a cause? Especially if you follow it up with "because the spec disparities at mythic level do not reflect the spec disparities for the average player". If you're not suggesting causality here, why use "because"?

    What IS your point, then, if mythic balancing ISN'T to blame?

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by ClassicPeon View Post
    The only thing that WF race has shown us is that larger raid sizes doesnt lead to more class differentiation in the WF race it just leads to class stacking. Noone is going to bring the feral druid unless he is OP.
    And you believe the WF or hardcore raiders are going anywhere, let alone that the Meta will somehow disappear?

    Mate, people follow the Meta in TBCC, where none of this even exists in the same shape or form.

    Let's also make one thing clear: I haven't even used the word "WF" once up until this point, i am however pointing out that what is happening at the upper end is affecting the overall class Meta, which affects what players will play.
    Quote Originally Posted by ClassicPeon View Post
    You also keep using the WF race as if its some sort of gospel as to how players play the game.
    If you want to pretend that people are unaffected by the overall Meta, especially when talking about people that engage in Mythic level content, you're just plain delusional.

    Covenants have shown this beyond the shadow of a doubt that people follow the Meta, especially as you move the (skill) ladder.
    Quote Originally Posted by ClassicPeon View Post
    Its an absolute misconception that people outside WF guilds do class stacking and plan out their comp and so on.
    I didn't say they class stack, but you absolutely see the trend towards the strongest classes and specs.

    Nevermind that extreme forms of class stacking isn't even that common in Mythic raiding outside of some fringe encounters, in most encounters you'd still want a relatively balanced comp.
    Quote Originally Posted by ClassicPeon View Post
    WHen talking about "mandatory" classes its on applicable to wf guilds who are undergeared for the content and on a strict timer to down the content as fast as possible.
    The presence of frankly better classes still makes encounters far easier, which means you need to spend less time progressing, which is what most people prefer.
    Quote Originally Posted by ClassicPeon View Post
    I'm not denying metagaming exists whatsoever. People optimize their spec as much as possible. Doesnt mean everyone FOTM rerolls because its just not needed whatsoever.
    You keep spouting sentences however that imply contrary.

    If you believe that in a 10man Setting you wouldn't a drive towards people the optimal specs, you just plainly lie to yourself.
    Because the presence or absence of a given spec has a much greater impact in a 10man setting than 20 / 25 one.

    One person playing a suboptimal healer / dps in a 20 man setting is far less impactful than one doing the same in a 10man one.
    Quote Originally Posted by ClassicPeon View Post
    And yes by "we" i mean my group - hence the "we".
    And most people play the path of least resistance, which is the Meta.
    Last edited by Kralljin; 2022-08-10 at 03:39 PM.

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    If you believe that in a 10man Setting you wouldn't a drive towards people the optimal specs, you just plainly lie to yourself.
    Because the presence or absence of a given spec has a much greater impact in a 10man setting than 20 / 25 one.

    One person playing a suboptimal healer / dps in a 20 man setting is far less impactful than one doing the same in a 10man one.

    And most people play the path of least resistance, which is the Meta.
    Again: No one is denying hardcore raiders would do that. We're arguing that many casual guilds would NOT do that. They would just play whatever the fuck they enjoy the most.

  5. #105
    nope,raiding improved by leaps when mythic came out

    and adding 10 man mythic isnt a good option either,because we run in to the cataclysm issues all over again

    i think the best compromise here is to bring down mythic to 15 or even 10 man only

  6. #106
    Unfortunately you leave so many specs out in the cold by shrinking the size.

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    It's the same as before: you make a claim, BACK IT UP.

    You're just saying things, and when I ask you for proof you just go "oh now you want evidence? NO."

    What kind of clown world logic is this.
    There is no "proof" when I describe how I am using a term. That's not what proof is for. We use words to communicate ideas. This is alway the horseshit any "conversation" with you turns into: Litigating the meaning of words, trying to keep up with your Gish gallops, you demanding proof for things that proof is a completely illogical concept for, etc..

    So how should we interpret "balance the game for mythic" then, if it's not a cause? Especially if you follow it up with "because the spec disparities at mythic level do not reflect the spec disparities for the average player". If you're not suggesting causality here, why use "because"?

    What IS your point, then, if mythic balancing ISN'T to blame?
    See how we are now litigating your reinterpretation of half a fucking sentence I said by pasting it to another part of the sentence and leaving words out?

    I said "It is necessarily detrimental to balance the game for mythic rather than the average player, because the spec disparities at mythic level do not reflect the spec disparities for the average player."

    That's the whole sentence, and clearly has a completely different meaning than what you are saying. This is why it's a waste of time to talk about anything with you. It turns into total garbage like re-explaining sentences you invented by leaving words out.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  8. #108
    The Undying Lochton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    FEEL THE WRATH OF MY SPANNER!!
    Posts
    36,742
    I don't think so.
    FOMO: "Fear Of Missing Out", also commonly known as people with a mental issue of managing time and activities, many expecting others to fit into their schedule so they don't miss out on things to come. If FOMO becomes a problem for you, do seek help, it can be a very unhealthy lifestyle..

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    There is no "proof" when I describe how I am using a term. That's not what proof is for.
    And that's not the proof I was asking for.

    You CLAIM all I was doing was taking you to task on terminology; I said that's a lie, and to prove otherwise.

    But you're not an honest interlocutor, are you.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    See how we are now litigating your reinterpretation of half a fucking sentence I said by pasting it to another part of the sentence and leaving words out?

    I said "It is necessarily detrimental to balance the game for mythic rather than the average player, because the spec disparities at mythic level do not reflect the spec disparities for the average player."

    That's the whole sentence, and clearly has a completely different meaning than what you are saying.
    EXPLAIN IT, THEN.

    Where's the proof for the claims IN THAT SENTENCE? Explain why this doesn't relate to mythic balance, as you said in your reply; explain how the things you assert are actually the case; and explain why and how one thing must follow from the other, instead of being connected to something else entirely.

    You're not proving ANYTHING, all you're doing is throwing out statements, and when pressed to explain them, instead of, you know, ACTUALLY EXPLAINING THEM, you go on about how people are misrepresenting you and this is all just a giant waste of time.

    PROVE YOUR CLAIMS, or admit you're just making shit up.

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And that's not the proof I was asking for.

    You CLAIM all I was doing was taking you to task on terminology; I said that's a lie, and to prove otherwise.

    But you're not an honest interlocutor, are you.
    I'm not playing this game with you. I said gear inflation, you insisted I meant it in relation to economic inflation, I corrected you, you continued to insist that I meant something like economic inflation. That's what happened. I'm not going to litigate every little sentence with you.

    EXPLAIN IT, THEN.

    Where's the proof for the claims IN THAT SENTENCE? Explain why this doesn't relate to mythic balance, as you said in your reply; explain how the things you assert are actually the case; and explain why and how one thing must follow from the other, instead of being connected to something else entirely.

    You're not proving ANYTHING, all you're doing is throwing out statements, and when pressed to explain them, instead of, you know, ACTUALLY EXPLAINING THEM, you go on about how people are misrepresenting you and this is all just a giant waste of time.

    PROVE YOUR CLAIMS, or admit you're just making shit up.
    There's nothing to prove there. "Proof" is not a coherent concept here. I provided a statement based on logic: What would result in balance is different at different levels of play, therefore balancing for one level of play does not necessarily balance other levels of play.

    What do you want me to do to "prove" that? It's a self-evident statement. Do you want me to spend five hours presenting mathematical formulas demonstrating how this works? If I bothered to do that you'd just start trying to litigate definitions and constructing new sentences I never wrote to argue with me about them. This is why you are a waste of time. Instead of talking about anything of substance whatsoever, every "conversation" with you quickly devolves into this kind of absolute horseshit.

    And you know what? I DID attempt to explain it in more detail. And what did you do? You chose to ignore all that and litigate the use of the word "because" instead.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  11. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I'm not playing this game with you. I said gear inflation, you insisted I meant it in relation to economic inflation, I corrected you, you continued to insist that I meant something like economic inflation. That's what happened. I'm not going to litigate every little sentence with you.
    Did you even READ the original reply? You said that ASIDE FROM THE INFLATION THING I was only quibbling about terminology, and I said fine let's leave inflation aside, prove that THE OTHER THINGS I SAID WERE ONLY ABOUT TERMINOLOGY.

    Are you fundamentally incapable of just arguing honestly?

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    There's nothing to prove there. "Proof" is not a coherent concept here. I provided a statement based on logic: What would result in balance is different at different levels of play, therefore balancing for one level of play does not necessarily balance other levels of play.
    That's a trivial statement, though. Sure, balancing one level of play doesn't NECESSARILY balance other levels. 100% agree there, not a problem.

    How does this relate in any way to your problem with mythic difficulty? All you're saying is balancing mythic doesn't necessarily balance other difficulty levels - you're not saying it DOESN'T or CAN'T balance other difficulty levels, and you're not saying ANYTHING about why that would be "detrimental" (your word, not mine). What's the connection, here, that I'm not seeing?

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Did you even READ the original reply? You said that ASIDE FROM THE INFLATION THING I was only quibbling about terminology, and I said fine let's leave inflation aside, prove that THE OTHER THINGS I SAID WERE ONLY ABOUT TERMINOLOGY.

    Are you fundamentally incapable of just arguing honestly?
    I'm capable of talking about actual substance, which is lot more than I can say for you since the best you could do was move on from terminology to obsessing over the frequency I categorized your word games with. This isn't how genuine people remotely interested in a discussion talk.

    That's a trivial statement, though. Sure, balancing one level of play doesn't NECESSARILY balance other levels. 100% agree there, not a problem.

    How does this relate in any way to your problem with mythic difficulty? All you're saying is balancing mythic doesn't necessarily balance other difficulty levels - you're not saying it DOESN'T or CAN'T balance other difficulty levels, and you're not saying ANYTHING about why that would be "detrimental" (your word, not mine). What's the connection, here, that I'm not seeing?
    It is detrimental to focus your balancing efforts on mythic because balancing mythic doesn't balance the other levels of play. This is why I explained all the stuff you ignored and went on to hyper focus on half a sentence and how I used the word "because".

    I'm also enjoying you obsessing over half a sentence I said, then coming back and complaining after the fact that the sentence is "trivial". No shit it's trivial. I'm not the one obsessing over it.

    Have you considered that you are just too horny to have a fight and it makes you drive right past simple points like this desperately looking for 15 different objections to make in your next masters thesis/post?
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I'm capable of talking about actual substance, which is lot more than I can say for you since the best you could do was move on from terminology to obsessing over the frequency I categorized your word games with. This isn't how genuine people remotely interested in a discussion talk.
    You lied to my face about what I said and did. When I asked you to please prove your outrageous claim, you deflected and avoided the topic.

    Is THAT how "genuine people" who are "interested in a discussion talk" behave?

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    It is detrimental to focus your balancing efforts on mythic because balancing mythic doesn't balance the other levels of play.
    Prove they are "focusing" their balance efforts on mythic. You don't get to smuggle in this unproven premise.

    Once you've proven that, prove two things:

    1. that this DOESN'T "balance the other levels of play" (and just to pre-empt this, that's not the same as claiming it ALWAYS balances the other levels)
    2. that this is is "detrimental"

    None of this is in evidence, neither as logical consequences from your statement, nor as immediate observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I'm also enjoying you obsessing over half a sentence I said, then coming back and complaining after the fact that the sentence is "trivial". No shit it's trivial. I'm not the one obsessing over it.
    The sentence you corrected to is not the same as the one before. Specifically, you added the word NECESSARILY, which changes the logical contingencies of the statement - it's the difference between "A can't cause B" and "A doesn't necessarily cause B". Or, applied to this case, the difference between saying "balancing mythic can't balance normal" and "balancing mythic doesn't necessarily balance normal". The second case allows for it to sometimes happen, and sometimes not happen; the first case specifically excludes it.

    This "obsessing over half a sentence" as you call it IS IMPORTANT WHEN IT COMES TO LOGICAL STATEMENTS.

    You're trying to gloss over key aspects of your argument by handwaving away statements that change the entire content of your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Have you considered that you are just too horny to have a fight and it makes you drive right past simple points like this desperately looking for 15 different objections to make in your next masters thesis/post?
    Have you considered that you're full of shit and just repeating random talking points you picked up on an angry YouTube video somewhere, without regard for whether they're actually true or actually to blame for the things you're claiming?

    Didn't think so.

  14. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    You lied to my face about what I said and did. When I asked you to please prove your outrageous claim, you deflected and avoided the topic.

    Is THAT how "genuine people" who are "interested in a discussion talk" behave?
    I said gear inflation.
    You insisted I was relating it to economic inflation.
    I said I wasn't.
    You kept saying I was anyway.
    I said I wasn't going to keep doing this because it's a waste of time.
    And now your new obsession is how frequently you think I accused you of doing things like this.

    And you claim to be the honest interlocutor. The simple, normal, human response is "You're right. I shouldn't characterize your point incorrectly after you clearly explain it." No, what you do is find the next irrelevant horseshit thing to bitch and moan about so we can continue avoiding anything of substance.

    Prove they are "focusing" their balance efforts on mythic. You don't get to smuggle in this unproven premise.
    I read the balance changes whenever they come out. The vast majority of the time they seem in line with correcting the current high end meta rather than addressing how people are performing at lower tiers. If you think I'm going to spend an hour going through notes and providing examples to someone who has so profoundly demonstrated a complete unwillingness to have a good faith discussion, I'm sorry, but that isn't happening.

    If you expect people to treat you with that kind of respect, learn to give that kind of respect first.

    Once you've proven that, prove two things:

    1. that this DOESN'T "balance the other levels of play" (and just to pre-empt this, that's not the same as claiming it ALWAYS balances the other levels)
    It necessarily, mathematically doesn't. It will balance multiple tiers of play when those tiers are in line with each other, but that typically is not the case. This is as simple as "If I add 5 to 7, I get a different number than if I add 5 to 2". If the difference between the class balance is different between the tiers, changing things in a way that impacts everyone necessarily has a different effect at different levels.

    2. that this is is "detrimental"

    None of this is in evidence, neither as logical consequences from your statement, nor as immediate observations.
    It is detrimental to, for example, nerf fire mages because they are over performing at the high end but average in the mid-tier. Because now for the average player their class that was perfectly in line has been nerfed below the average.

    The sentence you corrected to is not the same as the one before. Specifically, you added the word NECESSARILY, which changes the logical contingencies of the statement - it's the difference between "A can't cause B" and "A doesn't necessarily cause B". Or, applied to this case, the difference between saying "balancing mythic can't balance normal" and "balancing mythic doesn't necessarily balance normal". The second case allows for it to sometimes happen, and sometimes not happen; the first case specifically excludes it.

    This "obsessing over half a sentence" as you call it IS IMPORTANT WHEN IT COMES TO LOGICAL STATEMENTS.
    When you do shit like claim I said "balancing mythic can't balance normal", it is impossible to take these tirades about logic and clarity seriously. You literally make shit up I never said while chastising me for lack of clarity. Yes, in the fictional shit I said in your head, I am super unclear, you got me.

    And then you pretend that you are the honest interlocutor here.

    You're trying to gloss over key aspects of your argument by handwaving away statements that change the entire content of your claim.

    Have you considered that you're full of shit and just repeating random talking points you picked up on an angry YouTube video somewhere, without regard for whether they're actually true or actually to blame for the things you're claiming?

    Didn't think so.
    I mean I could take a page out of your playbook and just say you said shit you never said and then bitch and moan about sentence structure and when the word "because" is appropriate.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I said gear inflation.
    You insisted I was relating it to economic inflation.
    I said I wasn't.
    You kept saying I was anyway.
    I said I wasn't going to keep doing this because it's a waste of time.
    And now your new obsession is how frequently you think I accused you of doing things like this.
    You're not illiterate so it can't be reading comprehension.

    Which means you must be DELIBERATELY deflecting back to a point that isn't and was never at stake.

    Let me help you out by re-stating what was said:

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    There is no "proof" when I use a term, explain what I mean by it, and then you just keep telling me that that's not what I mean over and over and over and over again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    That's a lie.

    Fine, ignore the part about inflation completely. What other "term" did you explain that I then said didn't mean what you said it meant?
    I said, from the start, that this wasn't about the thing with inflation. It was about you claiming that this happened "over and over and over and over again". This is a lie. I asked you to prove this. And all you did, over SEVERAL responses, was go back to the ONE term we disagreed over (inflation) - something I repeatedly said was NOT what I was talking about, and yet it's all you can ever bring up.

    I suspect this is because you know there isn't anything else, and your bold-faced lie about what I supposedly did to you by quibbling over terminologies "over and over etc." is your way of distracting and deflecting from the fact that you made something up and got caught.

    My offer still stands: prove your claim. Or just admit you made it up. Also works for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    "You're right. I shouldn't characterize your point incorrectly after you clearly explain it."
    I've provided quotes to back up my case. Since you're so insistent on this, I expect you to either refute me with proper quotes, or take your own advice and just go "You're right. I shouldn't characterize your point incorrectly after you clearly explain it."

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I read the balance changes whenever they come out. The vast majority of the time they seem in line with correcting the current high end meta rather than addressing how people are performing at lower tiers.
    So your "proof" is "well it just seems like that to me sometimes, idk".

    Cool.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    If you think I'm going to spend an hour going through notes and providing examples to someone who has so profoundly demonstrated a complete unwillingness to have a good faith discussion, I'm sorry, but that isn't happening.
    I expect you to back up claims you make.

    You're openly saying you're not willing to do that.

    Who is arguing in good faith here, and who isn't?

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    It necessarily, mathematically doesn't.
    Provide the math, then.

    You can SAY "it mathematically doesn't make sense", but that doesn't mean it's true. PROVE IT. People can claim all sorts of things, just invoking the almighty power of "math" doesn't magically make it true.

    And in case you go "dude I'm not going to provide math here wtf" - let me preempt this by giving the proof that completely refutes you, on your own terms: "it necessarily, mathematically does".

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    It is detrimental to, for example, nerf fire mages because they are over performing at the high end but average in the mid-tier. Because now for the average player their class that was perfectly in line has been nerfed below the average.
    Even if we accept that example (and let's just do that, to humor the point), all it proves is that in SOME cases, SOME balancing changes things disproportionately between difficulty levels. We can accept that as probably true, because it's fairly trivial for two reasons:

    1. In much the same way, balance on higher levels can ALSO change for the BETTER on lower levels; e.g. with talents designed to be simpler to use, like DH's Demon Blades.
    2. Asking for every balance change to be exactly proportional on ALL difficulty levels is a mathematical impossibility if you account for skill level difference: if Performance is a function of Balance*Skill, then with Balance at a constant value (the goal), Skill would also need to be constant for Performance to remain constant; or, alternatively, Skill would have to be on a linear scale with difficulty in order for Performance to remain on a linear scale with Balance a constant. Which means the only way Performance could remain constant OR in linear proportion is for Balance to NOT be a constant, which doesn't make sense because that would require class balancing to be applied differently across difficulties on the Balance level rather than on the Performance level (e.g. it'd have to be something like "Fireball deals +10% damage on mythic, and +20% dmg on normal", which so far has never ever been done).

    This in turn means that you can find "detrimental" balancing just like you can find "beneficial" balancing, and that makes this a discrete problem, not a continuous one; i.e. it's a case-by-case problem, and is NOT related to the fact that things RESULT in different class performances on different difficulties, which will always be the case whether there is mythic or not. Which makes your point moot for the argument that mythic difficulty is the problem.

    The only "solutions" would be either balancing classes differently PER DIFFICULTY, or removing ALL difficulties except one.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    When you do shit like claim I said "balancing mythic can't balance normal"
    Which is not what I did. I said there's a difference between those two statements, I didn't say that you made either (nor that you made neither). I was very clear about what you said - you added the word "necessarily". The rest is illustration for why that is a problem, not a quote of your statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I mean I could take a page out of your playbook and just say you said shit you never said
    You mean like what you did earlier, which I proved at the beginning of this post? Or heck, even the previous statement just above this one, though I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one and just assume you didn't understand, not that you deliberately misrepresented it. Not for the first one, though.

  16. #116
    No because the mechanics would change in such a way that they become almost meaningless again

  17. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by kiramon View Post
    This has literally been a "thing" people have done since Vanilla...
    So? Who cares. Fuck em. Those people are 1% of 1%. Make it easier for heroic guilds to step into mythic by making raid size flexible and the game will be much healthier.

    To me the game was at its best when we had 10 man raiding. Smaller and tighter group that didn't require constant recruiting and managing of raid rosters.
    Last edited by GreenJesus; 2022-08-11 at 03:15 AM.

  18. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    So? Who cares. Fuck em. Those people are 1% of 1%. Make it easier for heroic guilds to step into mythic by making raid size flexible and the game will be much healthier.

    To me the game was at its best when we had 10 man raiding. Smaller and tighter group that didn't require constant recruiting and managing of raid rosters.
    make mythic 10 man and thats that,adding 10 and 25 mythic or making it flex will defeat the entire point of having a difficulty that can be tuned much better when they dont have to account for so many factors

    also i dont know if you know this,but you still have 10 man raiding,it never whent away

    oh and the raiding improved by leaps when mythic was added,mop already started making good raids but wod mythic just nailed it

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by deenman View Post
    make mythic 10 man and thats that,adding 10 and 25 mythic or making it flex will defeat the entire point of having a difficulty that can be tuned much better when they dont have to account for so many factors

    also i dont know if you know this,but you still have 10 man raiding,it never whent away

    oh and the raiding improved by leaps when mythic was added,mop already started making good raids but wod mythic just nailed it
    There's no way anybody other than the extremely casual playerbase would be happy with 10M Mythic balance in a game with 38 specs and classes. "Fuck em" is an exceptionally bad take when you consider how important the exposure from the RWF is.

  20. #120
    about „flex“ in size, i don’t care. they can still fixate it to 20 ppls. but they should remove the lockout, or make it optional. and offer it crossrealm on day1.

    so ppls can try bosses X times a week, with whichever crossrealm ppls they want. you can handle it exactly the same way, via listing in PUG tool, no difference to heroic and normal, but just with the constraint „you need a group of 20 players, to enter the raid“.

    that would be perfectly fine to me.

    may it be toxic and not a great experience? yes. will it differ from heroic PUG raids or higher m+ keys? no. so why not give ppl options?
    Last edited by Niwes; 2022-08-11 at 04:19 AM.

Posting Permissions

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