Should flex mythic raiding exist in DF?

[Depakote]

Back in the day casuals had:

1. A lot of leveling to do.
2. Random dungeons that took a long time to become obsolete for progression.
3. Random BGs that took a long time to become obsolete for progression.
4. Reputations that provided substantive progression rewards and could be targeted.
5. Professions that provided substantive progression rewards.

The game currently has none of that. To the extent that any of those things still exist, you are done with any progression you could get from them in maybe a week. The point is that there used to be pretty long progression paths for people that didn't do challenging endgame content. Now, those progression paths are just gone.

Let me first off state that I hate the phrase casual gamer, it's misleading and has no real world context to anything other than to make those who do content faster somehow better than those who take their time. That being said, most of what you said is true but now with mythic dungeons it seems like the grind never ends. Back before mythic+ was introduced you could make a goal as to what you're grinding towards in pvp or pve content and know exactly what you're aiming for. Now with Mythic+ it's just go fast to get good gear which honestly isn't a good measure of skill at all not to mention it creates an item imbalance in game. The devs now won't ever go back to the formula of old, their arrogance and greed prevents them from seeing the mistakes they've made along the way so they'll just keep cranking out half-assed expansions like Shadowlands and the upcoming Dragonflight until the cash cow that is WoW has been milked dry. It's sad to see what used to be such a great franchise as WoW be treated with such carelessness but that's where we are now.

[Ashana Darkmoon]

Back in the day casuals had:

1. A lot of leveling to do.
2. Random dungeons that took a long time to become obsolete for progression.
3. Random BGs that took a long time to become obsolete for progression.
4. Reputations that provided substantive progression rewards and could be targeted.
5. Professions that provided substantive progression rewards.

The game currently has none of that. To the extent that any of those things still exist, you are done with any progression you could get from them in maybe a week. The point is that there used to be pretty long progression paths for people that didn't do challenging endgame content. Now, those progression paths are just gone.

To the extent that was ever true, it hasn't been for a super long time. Leveling hasn't mattered in like 14 years lol.

And none of that was even close to the progression offered from organized raiding!

[Depakote]

To the extent that was ever true, it hasn't been for a super long time. Leveling hasn't mattered in like 14 years lol.

And none of that was even close to the progression offered from organized raiding!

Leveling has always mattered, it's how the basic story is told. If you can't understand that I'm not sure what to tell you.

[Bee76]

Please keep the 'just get 20 ppl together' or similar comments out of this thread. That's clearly not an option for a lot of guilds today, and this thread is not about removing 20man mythic, its about enabling the difficulty to the many guilds that can't get 20 people together.

1st:

Ofc is "get 20 ppl together an option". Crossrealm, no faction limit, there is no reason why a guild shouldnt get 20 ppl together.

But my main reason to say no is Blizzard balancing. They cant balance classes properly for raiding and m+. They cant even balance heroic raids. They need to hotfix their mythic encounters nearly every week after the race is over.
yes i know they have their metrics, the same metrics that havent showed them that dh tanks recieve way to less damage in nearly complete s1. So flex raiding in Mythic would bring a desaster. And on the end there will be a grp size that is favored and that will be the new "raid size" fpr mythic.

[Biomega]

By this logic, any opinion is objectively false. "Pasta is delicious" is an objectively false statement according to you.

That's a bad example, because it's ambiguous. "Pasta is delicious" can be parsed in different ways:

1. ALL pasta is ALWAYS delicious - this is obviously false, as it's trivial to come up with pasta that wouldn't be delicious (poop noodles)
2. I THINK pasta is delicious - this is a subjective preference, it doesn't require evidence and is not subject to truth claims to begin with
3. SOME pasta CAN BE delicious - this is obviously true, as long as there's at least one person who finds it delicious

In a vernacular, everyday understanding, i.e. if you just said it to someone in random conversation, most people would parse it as 2. in that list. Mostly because 3. is trivial and 1. is contrived.

If you want to specify further, feel free. I'm happy to explain.

Look at how many words it just took you to say "It's an opinion so it can't be assessed factually."

I'm trying to explain to you the epistemological differences between an opinion and an argument. These details are important.

a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert

Dictionaries don't give definitions of terms, they explain usages.

Also: those three are VERY distinct. When you use "opinion" it can mean either; that doesn't mean it means ALL OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME.

That's precisely my point: you're using it in a way that doesn't fit the context. You can't use "belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge" the same way as you use "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter" or "a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert". That's WHY the dictionary lists them separately. Context gives you a clue about which one is used when.

And there's other dictionaries, too, which explain the word differently. That's... how language and dictionaries work.

You are working so hard to redefine the term here

Nobody is redefining anything. I'm explaining that you need to be careful what you're talking about when you use "opinion" because it means different things depending on context - YOUR dictionary quote PROVES that much.

The way that I am using "opinion" is clearly in line with the definition of the term in multiple ways, most prominently the last one there.

That's my point, though. You're using it IN MULTIPLE WAYS but those are not MUTUALLY EXCHANGABLE. You can't just use the first definition THE SAME WAY you use the second or third, and so on. That's WHY THEY'RE SEPARATELY LISTED IN THE DICTIONARY.

It would not be physically possible to prove that a skeleton from 2000 years ago was Jesus.

As much as we can for any historical figure, sure it would. As much as we proved, say, Tutankhamun's remains were Tutankhamun. To the degree that we could be physically certain, it is - at least in principle - possible to do the same for Jesus. Remember, we're talking about a theoretical possibility here; not about the LIKELIHOOD of that actually happening, but about whether or not the laws of nature would preclude it or not (like they do for my example).

There should be a unit of measurement for how long an internet debate lord takes to bring up hard solipsism like it is some deep and profound insight.

Which part of "it can't be solved therefore it's safe to ignore and move on" is deep and profound to you? Seems about as quick and shallow as it can get to me.

It is perfectly normal and reasonable for two people to see the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions. What would you call that? Perhaps you would call it their... opinion.

Yes, but that's a different kind of "opinion" than "I just believe it, no need to explain". You already agree, because you're talking about COMING TO CONCLUSIONS - that's fundamentally different from "I just believe it", which is ALSO what "opinion" can mean.

My whole point is that you can't use one like the other, and pretend that opinion="the sum of my positions on a subject" IS THE SAME OR CAN BE USED THE SAME as opinion="a subjective preference I hold without needing to explain or prove it". Because one is really just an argument (or a sum of arguments); and the other IS NOT, and can't be used like one.

Conflating them is a massive category error.

[Depakote]

That's a bad example, because it's ambiguous. "Pasta is delicious" can be parsed in different ways:

1. ALL pasta is ALWAYS delicious - this is obviously false, as it's trivial to come up with pasta that wouldn't be delicious (poop noodles)
2. I THINK pasta is delicious - this is a subjective preference, it doesn't require evidence and is not subject to truth claims to begin with
3. SOME pasta CAN BE delicious - this is obviously true, as long as there's at least one person who finds it delicious

In a vernacular, everyday understanding, i.e. if you just said it to someone in random conversation, most people would parse it as 2. in that list. Mostly because 3. is trivial and 1. is contrived.

If you want to specify further, feel free. I'm happy to explain.


I'm trying to explain to you the epistemological differences between an opinion and an argument. These details are important.


Dictionaries don't give definitions of terms, they explain usages.

Also: those three are VERY distinct. When you use "opinion" it can mean either; that doesn't mean it means ALL OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME.

That's precisely my point: you're using it in a way that doesn't fit the context. You can't use "belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge" the same way as you use "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter" or "a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert". That's WHY the dictionary lists them separately. Context gives you a clue about which one is used when.

And there's other dictionaries, too, which explain the word differently. That's... how language and dictionaries work.


Nobody is redefining anything. I'm explaining that you need to be careful what you're talking about when you use "opinion" because it means different things depending on context - YOUR dictionary quote PROVES that much.


That's my point, though. You're using it IN MULTIPLE WAYS but those are not MUTUALLY EXCHANGABLE. You can't just use the first definition THE SAME WAY you use the second or third, and so on. That's WHY THEY'RE SEPARATELY LISTED IN THE DICTIONARY.


As much as we can for any historical figure, sure it would. As much as we proved, say, Tutankhamun's remains were Tutankhamun. To the degree that we could be physically certain, it is - at least in principle - possible to do the same for Jesus. Remember, we're talking about a theoretical possibility here; not about the LIKELIHOOD of that actually happening, but about whether or not the laws of nature would preclude it or not (like they do for my example).


Which part of "it can't be solved therefore it's safe to ignore and move on" is deep and profound to you? Seems about as quick and shallow as it can get to me.


Yes, but that's a different kind of "opinion" than "I just believe it, no need to explain". You already agree, because you're talking about COMING TO CONCLUSIONS - that's fundamentally different from "I just believe it", which is ALSO what "opinion" can mean.

My whole point is that you can't use one like the other, and pretend that opinion="the sum of my positions on a subject" IS THE SAME OR CAN BE USED THE SAME as opinion="a subjective preference I hold without needing to explain or prove it". Because one is really just an argument (or a sum of arguments); and the other IS NOT, and can't be used like one.

Conflating them is a massive category error.

You're just here to argue, that much is clear.

[Ashana Darkmoon]

Leveling has always mattered, it's how the basic story is told. If you can't understand that I'm not sure what to tell you.

Sorry, I mean mattered in terms of being a significant amount of content. Leveling has taken 1-2 days of play (out of a 2 year expansion) for over a decade lol.

Even if someone is super casual it cant possibly keep them entertained for long. There hasn't been "meat" to leveling since classic, which is true of most MMO games since the initial experience is like 5+ years of dev work vs expansions being much shorter

[Depakote]

Sorry, I mean mattered in terms of being a significant amount of content. Leveling has taken 1-2 days of play (out of a 2 year expansion) for over a decade lol.

Even if someone is super casual it cant possibly keep them entertained for long. There hasn't been "meat" to leveling since classic, which is true of most MMO games since the initial experience is like 5+ years of dev work vs expansions being much shorter

Now you're just being dishonest. The 'meat' as you say is the story. I'd dare say that most people don't plow through the game at a breakneck speed and instead do every quest they come across. At least they used to. Now in modern WoW that may not be the case but it was for a long, long time.

[ClassicPeon]

BUt changes the approach to it. As for M+, after 15s the partecipation plummets because only the people interested in it for then challenge and not the reward just stop there. Mythic raid will certanily drop in partecipation but people who stick to it will have people actually interested in that content type.

My issue with Mythic raids (and raids in general) si the lack of accessibility and replayability that M+ instead have. Let them go immediately xserver, remove the weekly lockout and so on. WHo cares if someone wants to run a raid 24/7 and then complain about nothing to do - i don't have a problem with it and it's just on its shoulders. And if people feels "forced" to do like it, well, they should just learn that they're playing the game for fun and not because tells them to. If they're not having fun they should just do something else.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree with the most of this, but at this point imho Blizzard should just do what numbers and metrics are showing them - and if they want to. I am no one to tell them to make Mythic raids 10 man, but if it's what majority of people wants, they should listen to this if they want more partecipation in Mythic raids. Needs to be proven true though. The need to do what is best for the game to be fun and engaging for players (which isn't always what some people want).

Blizzard is in a strange situation where the core of the game is rock solid but has a lot of collateral troubles due to the immense attrition they created with the playerbase and the constant drop in players due to their refusal to listen to what players said. It doesn't mean they should adhere to a random angry forum poster that pulls ideas out of his ass, but from Legion onwards we have had a pretty consistent stream of complaints that most of the playerbase was agreeing on and Blizzard was either too slow with the changes or didn't even do anything about it. Cross faction is an emergency toggle because faction imbalance is simply a problem they havenever dealt with and never wanted to manage (though i'm really happy about that, now give me xfaction and xserver guilds plox).

I am really curious, especially after season 4, what changes are they planning for raid structure because we all know that it's a) in need of a revamp and b) needs to get on par with the more modern M+ system which is objectively really really good, like them or not.

Your comparison doesnt hold up though. People dont stop after killing the last boss on hc because they cant cope with the difficulty or because they dont get gear from mythic. They stop beucase they dont have 20 raiders.

It has nothing to do with interest - it has to do with wanting to play with a specific group of people instead of total strangers.

[Ashana Darkmoon]

Now you're just being dishonest. The 'meat' as you say is the story. I'd dare say that most people don't plow through the game at a breakneck speed and instead do every quest they come across. At least they used to. Now in modern WoW that may not be the case but it was for a long, long time.

It's not dishonesty, just personal experience! I imagine a pretty significant % of the population never reads quests. But it's not like we can know this amount so there's no point in speculating. Obviously there are some people who go slow and read everything!

Just saying that even if you take your sweet time and smell the roses and only play 1 hour a day, leveling still is not much content in this game compared to others like ESO or SWTOR, and it hasn't been since before those games even existed lol

- - - Updated - - -

Let them go immediately xserver, remove the weekly lockout and so on. WHo cares if someone wants to run a raid 24/7 and then complain about nothing to do - i don't have a problem with it and it's just on its shoulders. And if people feels "forced" to do like it, well, they should just learn that they're playing the game for fun and not because tells them to. If they're not having fun they should just do something else.

Xserver would be great, but no company is going to ditch lockouts, it's a terrible business model and creates bad incentives among the player base.

Personally I'm also okay with a little bit of protectionism to disincentivize some degenerate behavior. Now they obviously go too far sometimes (like with cov swapping), but in general it's actually something I like about the dev team! Constraining (not eliminating) the advantage of people who can play 16 hours a day is a good thing imo

[Depakote]

It's not dishonesty, just personal experience! I imagine a pretty significant % of the population never reads quests. But it's not like we can know this amount so there's no point in speculating. Obviously there are some people who go slow and read everything!

Just saying that even if you take your sweet time and smell the roses and only play 1 hour a day, leveling still is not much content in this game compared to others like ESO or SWTOR, and it hasn't been since before those games even existed lol

- - - Updated - - -

At this point i'm not sure you're even playing World of Warcraft.

[gd8]

Raiding shouldn't even exist anymore in general it's outdated and too difficult to work into the busy lives of WoW's aging playerbase, they should just make more dungeons and more interesting content that people actually care about

[enigma77]

Nah flex is a bad idea, but what Mythic needs is the Mythic id to work like the Heroic/Normal ID.

Being locked to a specific ID and simply having no chance to get the loot from bosses your guild, but not you, has killed is bad design.

[Relapses]

Nah flex is a bad idea, but what Mythic needs is the Mythic id to work like the Heroic/Normal ID.

Being locked to a specific ID and simply having no chance to get the loot from bosses your guild, but not you, has killed is bad design.

Do you want split Mythic raids?

Because this is how you get split Mythic raids.

[enigma77]

Do you want split Mythic raids?

Because this is how you get split Mythic raids.

There will be split Mythic raids in DF without this qualiy of life improvement, because all loot will be freely tradable. Don't you dare think otherwise for even a second.

[GreenJesus]

Do you want split Mythic raids?

Because this is how you get split Mythic raids.

Who cares if tye 1% of 1% of people with no lives (maybe 10 guilds in the world?) want to smash their face into the wall. Just let people play the game. Designing the game around method and limit is what is killing the game for an aging pkayerbase that doesn't have time to entertain Ion's stubbornness to change.

[Relapses]

Who cares if tye 1% of 1% of people with no lives (maybe 10 guilds in the world?) want to smash their face into the wall. Just let people play the game. Designing the game around method and limit is what is killing the game for an aging pkayerbase that doesn't have time to entertain Ion's stubbornness to change.

It's not just the 1% that would be impacted by this. Guilds would be encouraged to sell IDs for just the last boss.

[trapmaster]

How about remove Lfr and Normal... Only put in heroic/FlexMythic/Mythic 20 man fixed?

[NineSpine]

To the extent that was ever true, it hasn't been for a super long time. Leveling hasn't mattered in like 14 years lol.

And none of that was even close to the progression offered from organized raiding!

What does organized raiding have to do with different players who do different content having things to do?

- - - Updated - - -

That's a bad example, because it's ambiguous. "Pasta is delicious" can be parsed in different ways:

1. ALL pasta is ALWAYS delicious - this is obviously false, as it's trivial to come up with pasta that wouldn't be delicious (poop noodles)
2. I THINK pasta is delicious - this is a subjective preference, it doesn't require evidence and is not subject to truth claims to begin with
3. SOME pasta CAN BE delicious - this is obviously true, as long as there's at least one person who finds it delicious

In a vernacular, everyday understanding, i.e. if you just said it to someone in random conversation, most people would parse it as 2. in that list. Mostly because 3. is trivial and 1. is contrived.

Normal people, as in functioning adults (and honestly most children) understand that it is an opinion and move on. They don't have to write a dissertation about it.

If you want to specify further, feel free. I'm happy to explain.

I'm trying to explain to you the epistemological differences between an opinion and an argument. These details are important.

You are making a very simple concept as complicated as you can because you get some kind of satisfaction out of convincing yourself that you are the smartest person in the room through the use of these tired, obnoxious, long winded rants about simple concepts. I swear someone could ask you your favorite color and you would hand them a 300 page essay with 100 pages of citations.

I've graded enough grad student papers from people like you to be able to tell the difference between these two things:

1. Someone with something to say.
2. Someone who likes to say things.

You are very, very squarely in camp #2.

Dictionaries don't give definitions of terms, they explain usages.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/definition

"the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries."

I know that you are incredibly desperate to make simple things appear complex so that you can position yourself as some kind of authority on it, but this is getting really, really silly.

Also: those three are VERY distinct. When you use "opinion" it can mean either; that doesn't mean it means ALL OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME.

That's precisely my point: you're using it in a way that doesn't fit the context. You can't use "belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge" the same way as you use "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter" or "a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert". That's WHY the dictionary lists them separately. Context gives you a clue about which one is used when.

And there's other dictionaries, too, which explain the word differently. That's... how language and dictionaries work.

Nobody is redefining anything. I'm explaining that you need to be careful what you're talking about when you use "opinion" because it means different things depending on context - YOUR dictionary quote PROVES that much.

That's my point, though. You're using it IN MULTIPLE WAYS but those are not MUTUALLY EXCHANGABLE. You can't just use the first definition THE SAME WAY you use the second or third, and so on. That's WHY THEY'RE SEPARATELY LISTED IN THE DICTIONARY.

As much as we can for any historical figure, sure it would. As much as we proved, say, Tutankhamun's remains were Tutankhamun. To the degree that we could be physically certain, it is - at least in principle - possible to do the same for Jesus. Remember, we're talking about a theoretical possibility here; not about the LIKELIHOOD of that actually happening, but about whether or not the laws of nature would preclude it or not (like they do for my example).

Which part of "it can't be solved therefore it's safe to ignore and move on" is deep and profound to you? Seems about as quick and shallow as it can get to me.

Yes, but that's a different kind of "opinion" than "I just believe it, no need to explain". You already agree, because you're talking about COMING TO CONCLUSIONS - that's fundamentally different from "I just believe it", which is ALSO what "opinion" can mean.

My whole point is that you can't use one like the other, and pretend that opinion="the sum of my positions on a subject" IS THE SAME OR CAN BE USED THE SAME as opinion="a subjective preference I hold without needing to explain or prove it". Because one is really just an argument (or a sum of arguments); and the other IS NOT, and can't be used like one.

Conflating them is a massive category error.

If you believe that Jesus is an historical figure, is that an opinion or a fact?

[Biomega]

Normal people, as in functioning adults (and honestly most children) understand that it is an opinion and move on. They don't have to write a dissertation about it.

That's literally what I said. I'm explaining it to you since clearly you, you know, NEED IT EXPLAINED.

You are making a very simple concept as complicated as you can

I'm surprised that you say you have a background in history, being precise and meticulous about things that seem simple and obvious on the surface should be bread and butter there. As it is in most scholarship and the sciences.

"the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries."

Apparently you don't understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive definitions. I sort of assumed you would, since you said you had an academic background. I guess I was wrong. How does someone who's in history not know the function of dictionaries?

If you believe that Jesus is an historical figure, is that an opinion or a fact?

I assume you're talking about whether WHAT they believe is opinion or fact here, not whether the fact THAT they believe it is opinion or fact?

That depends on what you mean by "opinion" - that's my whole point. You yourself cited three possible meanings earlier (and there's more, of course).

If their justification for the belief is "I just believe it's true, I don't have to justify it" then it's an opinion as in subjective preference outside of truth claims; i.e. it's not an argument, and can't be used as such.

If their justification for the belief is "I believe it's true because there's evidence X, Y, and Z and I accept those for reasons A, B, and C" then it's opinion as the sum of positions on a subject, which IS an argument and can be leveraged as such.