Poll: Should flex mythic raiding exist?

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

Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
9
10
... LastLast
  1. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Balancing mythic does not necessarily balance other levels of difficulty. That's self-evident
    It is.

    It's also an irrelevant point that's trivially true, because the same holds for ANY form of balance (as I've demonstrated).

    If your standard was "I only accept balancing that balances all levels of difficulty equally" then the only way to do that would be to remove all other levels of difficulty and have it only be one. As I've also demonstrated.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    My background is in history. Do you think every historian agrees on everything in history?
    Do you think that what historians do is go "I think Caesar was actually a woman, and that's just, like, my opinion take it or leave it" or go "I think Hannibal was the greatest tactician of all time, that's just self-evident"?

    They write entire BOOKS trying to PROVE their claims to the most minute detail; and if someone is NOT WILLING to prove their claim, they are laughed out of the room and their claims are discarded.

    You are seriously confusing "opinion" and "argument" on a fundamental level.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    I never claimed that my arguments are based on 100% rock solid, no questions, PROOF.
    And I never demanded that.

    I demanded more than "this is just self-evident, come on" or "that's just my opinion". I still do. Any reasonable person would, including historians.

    Also: if you CAN'T provide evidence to back a claim, then maybe, just maybe, YOU SHOULDN'T BE MAKING CLAIMS YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE EVIDENCE FOR.

  2. #142
    I agree with OP's sentiment. At the very least they could remove the shitty and outdated raid lockout mechanic from mythic. It basically makes it impossible to PuG anything past first few bosses.

    This thread might be filled with people spouting gatek(r)eepy stuff, but I can relate to the recruitment hell that OP goes through, and I've seen countless guilds fall apart 'cause of it... But sure, keep defending status quo for no reason.

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    It is.

    It's also an irrelevant point that's trivially true, because the same holds for ANY form of balance (as I've demonstrated).

    If your standard was "I only accept balancing that balances all levels of difficulty equally" then the only way to do that would be to remove all other levels of difficulty and have it only be one. As I've also demonstrated.
    If it is trivially true, why are you obsessing over it and demanding evidence?

    Do you think that what historians do is go "I think Caesar was actually a woman, and that's just, like, my opinion take it or leave it" or go "I think Hannibal was the greatest tactician of all time, that's just self-evident"?

    They write entire BOOKS trying to PROVE their claims to the most minute detail; and if someone is NOT WILLING to prove their claim, they are laughed out of the room and their claims are discarded.

    You are seriously confusing "opinion" and "argument" on a fundamental level.
    It is an opinion whether an argument is convincing. That's just a fact of reality.

    For example, there is no way to prove that Jesus existed or did not exist. Reasonable people who have seen all of the evidence can fall on either side of that issue. That is their OPINION. At no point does their OPINION of the evidence magically turn into a fact. Your debate-lord-brain-rot is making it impossible for you to process this concept that every normal person understands.

    The give-away here is that you think "Hannibal was the greatest tactician of all time" is a statement that is either true or false objectively. "Greatest" is a value judgement. It is an OPINION. You fundamentally don't understand these things because you are so profoundly arrogant that you actually believe "If I am convinced of something, then it MUST be a fact".

    And I never demanded that.

    I demanded more than "this is just self-evident, come on" or "that's just my opinion". I still do. Any reasonable person would, including historians.

    Also: if you CAN'T provide evidence to back a claim, then maybe, just maybe, YOU SHOULDN'T BE MAKING CLAIMS YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE EVIDENCE FOR.
    You are calling my claim "trivially true" and then turning right around and demanding evidence for it. Stop trying to have an argument and try to have a conversation.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  4. #144
    The Patient Rathwirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Fargo, ND
    Posts
    328
    If Blizzard wanted to make a certain ability like Blessing of Protection mandatory for a fight, then they could just give an extra action button or put an orb in the room or something that grants a character the ability to cast Blessing of Protection to cover it. Or something that activates a bloodlust effect, etc. Then they could design the raids around 10-man comps and then allow all difficulties to flex to 20 if they want to. I don't see them putting in that kind of work though.

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    If it is trivially true, why are you obsessing over it and demanding evidence?
    I'm not. I've already said it's trivially true (and also explained why it's irrelevant).

    Are you saying that was the ONLY point you made and we're done? My whole problem from the start was that you used a single point to wriggle out of having to explain ALL THE OTHER POINTS you brought up; are you doing the same here again?

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    It is an opinion whether an argument is convincing.
    No. Because opinions are preferences, whereas arguments are based on reasoning. That can be sufficient or insufficient reasoning to convince someone, but calling acceptance or refutation of an argument an "opinion" is seriously misusing the term.

    When presented with evidence that is not convincing, you need to say why it's not convincing; what questions doesn't it answer, for example, or why is it logically incoherent. Or any number of other DISCURSIVE objections that aren't just "well I guess I just have a different opinion!".

    You said you have a background in history; surely you must have encountered this kind of debating practice in the field.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    For example, there is no way to prove that Jesus existed or did not exist. Reasonable people who have seen all of the evidence can fall on either side of that issue.
    But not because of their opinion, but because of the evidence presented. An opinion requires no evidence, and can't be refuted by evidence.

    In fact, most people will retreat to opinion to AVOID engaging with evidence. That's why so many people believe Jesus existed NO MATTER the evidence for or against it.

    You're trying to conflate argument and opinion here to obtain license to dismiss claims for evidentiary substantiation. Opinions are conversation enders. If all you wanted to say is "I believe mythic is ruining WoW, and I'm not interested if that's actually true or not, it's just my opinion" then what was the point of all this? Just getting your voice out there and heard, and have people go "yeah, that guy over there, definitely got an opinion, that one"?

    Opinions are useless in discourse because they don't have to obey any discursive rules. They're of social and personal interest, but in arguments they're utterly without substance or meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    The give-away here is that you think "Hannibal was the greatest tactician of all time" is a statement that is either true or false objectively.
    And it is. Just because we can't necessarily DETERMINE if it was true or false doesn't mean it ISN'T either true or false.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    "Greatest" is a value judgement. It is an OPINION.
    Yes to the first, no to the second. You can define "greatest" in many ways, but within each (sound) definition, there's objective criteria by which to judge how much something does (or doesn't) correspond to that definition. That's very different from an opinion, which requires no framework and no justification, because it's a preference held without evidentiary requirements in the first place.

  6. #146
    Scarab Lord Razorice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Over there --->
    Posts
    4,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Relapses View Post
    You're not wrong; I myself am a bit of a night owl so I can definitely relate. The last time I raided our hours were 2:30a-6:30a, 4 nights a week. That was absolute fucking hell to recruit for. Personally, I've just disengaged with raiding altogether and mostly M+ push like a casual shitlord but I understand that's not always an option. I still think flex Mythic or a smaller raid size would be pretty toxic. They could maybe drop it to 15 but in a world where Blizzard seems to be moving away from class homogenization that seems like a recipe for disaster.
    Yeah, I feel you on this one.

    I know I'll get hate for it but 10man or flex would be oh so fucking good for niche guilds, but that's what they are- niche. I don't even care if Flex or 10man is harder.

    I just want to progress, but as I've said - It is really hard to find people after 1 month into Patch because most quit and the influx of people isn't there anymore and to add - late hours is hell for people with families. As for M+, I enjoy it, but after KSM it just feels like carrot on a stick and I don't really care for Rio, only doing M+ for BiS gear from dungeons then I'm out.

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    I'm not. I've already said it's trivially true (and also explained why it's irrelevant).

    Are you saying that was the ONLY point you made and we're done? My whole problem from the start was that you used a single point to wriggle out of having to explain ALL THE OTHER POINTS you brought up; are you doing the same here again?
    Sounds like a good reason to address the broader substance of what I say rather than litigating the use of terms and conjunctions.

    No. Because opinions are preferences, whereas arguments are based on reasoning. That can be sufficient or insufficient reasoning to convince someone, but calling acceptance or refutation of an argument an "opinion" is seriously misusing the term.

    When presented with evidence that is not convincing, you need to say why it's not convincing; what questions doesn't it answer, for example, or why is it logically incoherent. Or any number of other DISCURSIVE objections that aren't just "well I guess I just have a different opinion!".

    You said you have a background in history; surely you must have encountered this kind of debating practice in the field.

    But not because of their opinion, but because of the evidence presented. An opinion requires no evidence, and can't be refuted by evidence.

    In fact, most people will retreat to opinion to AVOID engaging with evidence. That's why so many people believe Jesus existed NO MATTER the evidence for or against it.

    You're trying to conflate argument and opinion here to obtain license to dismiss claims for evidentiary substantiation. Opinions are conversation enders. If all you wanted to say is "I believe mythic is ruining WoW, and I'm not interested if that's actually true or not, it's just my opinion" then what was the point of all this? Just getting your voice out there and heard, and have people go "yeah, that guy over there, definitely got an opinion, that one"?

    Opinions are useless in discourse because they don't have to obey any discursive rules. They're of social and personal interest, but in arguments they're utterly without substance or meaning.
    "I find the evidence for Jesus' existence to be convincing" is someone describing their opinion. This is basic stuff.

    And it is. Just because we can't necessarily DETERMINE if it was true or false doesn't mean it ISN'T either true or false.
    Do you think "Purple is the greatest color" is either true or false? You are incoherent.

    Yes to the first, no to the second. You can define "greatest" in many ways, but within each (sound) definition, there's objective criteria by which to judge how much something does (or doesn't) correspond to that definition. That's very different from an opinion, which requires no framework and no justification, because it's a preference held without evidentiary requirements in the first place.
    And what would we call someone's idea of what "greatest" should mean? We would call that an "opinion".
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  8. #148
    Many games balance difficulty modes so that a person who completed a previous difficulty mode can easily jump into the next one. Like Witcher III or Diablo III.

    Going from Heroic to Mythic progression is not designed like that. This isn't to say an AotC guild can't go in and do a couple Mythic bosses, sure, this is to say the skill and attitude required for the former is drastically different than the latter.

    It's not as if skill and attitude can't change, they obviously can, it's more if half your raid views raid night as this fun chill not serious time where we kill some bosses and relax, then they're not going to enjoy Mythic.

    If you want to do Mythic, then make your team a late patch Mythic prog guild, and recruit for that. If you can't even recruit enough people to get into the raid, then what makes you think you'll enjoy wiping on every boss 50 times to one shot mechanics and failed damage checks?

  9. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    "I find the evidence for Jesus' existence to be convincing" is someone describing their opinion. This is basic stuff.
    No. That's them accepting an argument as convincing, because if someone goes "oh, and why do you find it convincing?" they'll EXPLAIN WHY instead of going "well it's just, like, my opinion, man". THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE I'm talking about.

    When pressed for any details, your response has either been "explaining it would be a waste of time", "it's self-evident, duh!", or "woah woah just my OPINION dude!".

    And you wonder why you're hard to take seriously on your positions?

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Do you think "Purple is the greatest color" is either true or false?
    That depends. Do you offer a discursive framework within which to define "greatest"? Then we can discuss it argumentatively. In most common vernacular definitions of "greatest" the statement would be FALSE.

    But if you refuse to provide a framework, or deny its relevance? Then this is an opinion, and what it ACTUALLY states is "I think purple is the greatest color" which is TRUE given the assumption that you're being honest about what you think or FALSE if you are lying about it (and you actually think, say, yellow is the greatest color).

    But in either case it's either true or false. Why, do you think it's neither? Have you disproven the Law of Excluded Middle?

    (P.S.: I'm sure what you INTENDED was to provide a statement that doesn't make sense because who could say what color is "the greatest" anyway since that's so subjective; but what you fail to realize is that logic doesn't play around, son)

  10. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    No. That's them accepting an argument as convincing, because if someone goes "oh, and why do you find it convincing?" they'll EXPLAIN WHY instead of going "well it's just, like, my opinion, man". THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE I'm talking about.

    When pressed for any details, your response has either been "explaining it would be a waste of time", "it's self-evident, duh!", or "woah woah just my OPINION dude!".

    And you wonder why you're hard to take seriously on your positions?
    Most people I deal with don't desperately try to redefine opinion to mean fact because they have some kind of weird hang ups and ego issues, so this is rarely a problem.

    That depends. Do you offer a discursive framework within which to define "greatest"? Then we can discuss it argumentatively. In most common vernacular definitions of "greatest" the statement would be FALSE.

    But if you refuse to provide a framework, or deny its relevance? Then this is an opinion, and what it ACTUALLY states is "I think purple is the greatest color" which is TRUE given the assumption that you're being honest about what you think or FALSE if you are lying about it (and you actually think, say, yellow is the greatest color).

    But in either case it's either true or false. Why, do you think it's neither? Have you disproven the Law of Excluded Middle?

    (P.S.: I'm sure what you INTENDED was to provide a statement that doesn't make sense because who could say what color is "the greatest" anyway since that's so subjective; but what you fail to realize is that logic doesn't play around, son)
    I asked you the following: Do you think "Purple is the greatest color" is either true or false?
    You answered the following: Do you think "I think Purple is the greatest color" is either true or false?

    This is the problem over and over and over again (oh no please don't get angry I said that): You keep just changing what I said and then trying to hold me accountable to this phantom argument you are having with a person that doesn't exist.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Most people I deal with don't desperately try to redefine opinion to mean fact
    That's good to hear. Neither do I, nor any of the people I deal with.

    Glad we talked about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I asked you the following: Do you think "Purple is the greatest color" is either true or false?
    You answered the following: Do you think "I think Purple is the greatest color" is either true or false?
    That's... just not true?

    I said that if you just take "greatest" to be the standard everyday understanding of the term, then the statement is false.

    If instead you have a special definition of "greatest" that you won't share or explain, this isn't an argument but just an opinion; in which case I assume it's true, since you told me so and I take you at your word (with the stipulation that if you lied about it, it's false).

    You were trying to lay some kind of logical trap by giving a statement that is subjective but disguised as something objective, not considering that logic doesn't work that way because EVEN IF "greatest" was entirely subjective and whether it applies to purple here really was undecidable in an objective way, the statement would still simply be false, and not "neither true nor false". Because that's how logic works.

    If you have a problem with my argument, refute it.

    Just going into sulk mode about how nobody is representing you accurately is petty and unhelpful. You think I misunderstood you? FINE. Explain what you meant, then. I'm happy to engage with it.

    Though I'm sure your answer will just be "I could and I would, but that's a waste of time, you'd just twist it around again, and so even though my amazing logic would easily defeat you in a humiliating way, I'll simply choose not to demonstrate it here because why would I, I know I have the perfect defeater, you just wouldn't accept it, I totally got you though, and I don't have to show I do because that'd not convince you anyway but I could, I really could".

  12. #152
    making mythic flex from 10-30 or 15-25 would not work.

    but i think the benefits of making it flex from 19-21 or 18-22 would be worth the drawbacks. 1-2 people more or less will only cause minor managable balance concerns while providing significant leeway for guilds struggling with the roster.

  13. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellobolis View Post
    making mythic flex from 10-30 or 15-25 would not work.

    but i think the benefits of making it flex from 19-21 or 18-22 would be worth the drawbacks. 1-2 people more or less will only cause minor managable balance concerns while providing significant leeway for guilds struggling with the roster.
    This becomes a nightmare when ability scaling makes it 1% better to have 19 or 21 people on an encounter and now if you're a "real" guild you need to run an even larger bench than you would normally to counteract the mandatory optimization.

  14. #154
    Brewmaster Depakote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alpha Quadrant
    Posts
    1,469
    This game was better when it catered to the casuals instead of the try hards. Now the community is crap, so many people have left the game and the developers seem to be oblivious to the damage they're causing by continuing on the route they're on.

  15. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by Depakote View Post
    This game was better when it catered to the casuals instead of the try hards. Now the community is crap, so many people have left the game and the developers seem to be oblivious to the damage they're causing by continuing on the route they're on.
    Blizzard: ::goes out of its way to create an entire progression system for WQs in the new zone, designed specifically for casual players which allows them to get up to Normal mode raid quality gear as well as their four-piece set bonuses::

    This guy: BLIZZARD ONLY CARES ABOUT HARDCORE PLAYERS

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Relapses View Post
    Blizzard: ::goes out of its way to create an entire progression system for WQs in the new zone, designed specifically for casual players which allows them to get up to Normal mode raid quality gear as well as their four-piece set bonuses::

    This guy: BLIZZARD ONLY CARES ABOUT HARDCORE PLAYERS
    People like that poster are verifiable idiots. Anyone with a couple brain cells clinking around up top can see that legion onwards is the most casual friendly wow has ever been. Period.

    People just remember running around a random zone for 8 hours a day thinking it was content to press w and grind random mobs for silvers.

  17. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by Echeyakee View Post
    I agree with OP's sentiment. At the very least they could remove the shitty and outdated raid lockout mechanic from mythic. It basically makes it impossible to PuG anything past first few bosses.

    This thread might be filled with people spouting gatek(r)eepy stuff, but I can relate to the recruitment hell that OP goes through, and I've seen countless guilds fall apart 'cause of it... But sure, keep defending status quo for no reason.
    Yes. Just removing the lockout would be huge to allow pugs to do mythic. Right now its extremely risky to pug because the group you join is the only group you can join for the rest of the week (reminder: in a monthly sub game).

    It would also make it easier for guilds to find replacements and fill-ins for bosses where the healer or tank cant make raid that night. Right now who would waste their lockout on filling in for some guild member when you might just get replaced by someone logging in 10 minutes later and you lose your lockout for the rest of the week.

    Ion i know you were guildmaster of "Elitist Jerks", but its time to stop, reevaluate the social systems in raiding and whether all these social blocks are worth thousands of people quitting the game. Its the year 2022. Look at how FF14 does savage. Its time to move on and remove the boundaries. Just let people play the game bro.
    Last edited by GreenJesus; 2022-08-12 at 07:31 AM.

  18. #158
    IMO, Blizzard should officially recognize the RTWF. Create a separate realm, let guilds who want to participate in the race copy their characters over to that realm. The race is a fixed 20 man mythic raid, no flex, everything is just like now. Killing the boss gets your guild a prize money of $x. Once the first 3 guilds kill the endboss, all the characters get copies back to their original realms - complete with everything they got on the other realm like achievements, gear, etc and the race is officially over.

    Meanwhile mythic raiding becomes flex for us, 15-20, 10-20, idk.

  19. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine
    Do you think "Purple is the greatest color" is either true or false?
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega
    ...what it ACTUALLY states is "I think purple is the greatest color"...
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine
    I asked you the following: Do you think "Purple is the greatest color" is either true or false?
    You answered the following: Do you think "I think Purple is the greatest color" is either true or false?
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega
    That's... just not true?
    And round and round and round we go. Which strawmen followed by a rambling sophist tangent we will get, nobody knows.

    Normal people trying to have a normal conversation don't work so hard to redefine simple concepts like "opinion".
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  20. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by dopefishz View Post
    IMO, Blizzard should officially recognize the RTWF. Create a separate realm, let guilds who want to participate in the race copy their characters over to that realm. The race is a fixed 20 man mythic raid, no flex, everything is just like now. Killing the boss gets your guild a prize money of $x. Once the first 3 guilds kill the endboss, all the characters get copies back to their original realms - complete with everything they got on the other realm like achievements, gear, etc and the race is officially over.

    Meanwhile mythic raiding becomes flex for us, 15-20, 10-20, idk.
    Yeah... that sounds nice... but people would probably still dislike the fact that 10 Mythic is easier than 18 mythic or the other way around and throw a tantrum about how blizzard is unable to balance it perfectly.
    I could get behind that however, the 20 player threshold you have to "beat" is a pretty tough boss on its own... and not being able to see certain boss mechanics or a special mythic-phase because you just can't get together 20++ players seems to be such a waste. It's so freaking hard to get people to meet up regulary. At least for me and the guys I'm playing with, it is.

Posting Permissions

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