Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallisto View Post
    Yet we have seen with Cataclysm people don't. Hell if we (Not saying you or I, but the wow community with the we) take off the nostalgia goggles for the Mage tower, before everyone was decked out in a mix of Antorus and ToS tier gear that made the mage tower dead simple everyone hated that too because it had a bit of difficulty in it.
    I think there's some differences with Delves as opposed to early Cata Heroics. Part of the reason they were cancer (I loved them, btw) was the lack of communication in random groups. You either had to type everything out or hope that you had good enough players to wing it or be in voice. Hell, somewhere in the archives here there's a post from a player who was named like shamanbob or something about how he was kicked from a LFD group because he wouldn't jump into vent/discord. My group of 4 guildies were the ones that kicked him. This was literally day 1 of heroics and he had worse gear than the 4 of us. Maybe we were assholes, but you know what? The next player came in, got in vent, and we downed the dungeon without issue.

    He probably had a pretty bad impression of the Heroics.

    But Delves can be completed on your own time by yourself (assuming proper balancing/implementation/etc). Shamanbob could have told us to piss off and done it himself and we could have done it as a group and everyone could leave happy.

    Mage Tower is a bit different, as well. It had one difficulty and did not offer any improvements in gear. So if you couldn't do it RIGHT NOW and you didn't think that practice would make the difference, there was no way to keep going forward until you got more gear from other content. The green fire questline was a lot like this, too, in MoP. It could be completed with the gear we had when it first came out, but it was tough and required a lot of very good game-play. It got WAY easier as the expansion continued, because it could be overpowered with gear.

    If you could take the MT and split it into LFR/Normal/HC difficulties, with each offering gear progression of some sort, I imagine it would have had more participation early on.

    Obviously I'm speculating here.

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Xecetoz View Post

    If you are a raider or pushing M+ you want to min/max..
    No you don't. You don't need to. It doesn't matter. It's arbitrary. Play at the pace you want. Unless you're one of the 2,000 people in the top 100 guilds for RWF, you don't need to worry about it, and even then, no one gives a shit unless you're top 10, and by that point you're getting paid to min/max by being a streamer or getting sponsors or something.

    If that isn't you (and it isn't) then you don't need to give a shit.

  3. #163
    I think a lot of people who played the game for a long time got used to the "standing afk in Shattrah/Dalaran/Stormwind/Orgrimmar waiting for something to happen" vibe and in contrast to those days, Legion was a full throttle ADHD expansion. I loved Legion myself (more than the expansions before it, bar TBC) but there was definitely times when it felt too grindy and 'mandatory'. But that's how I felt at the time being a cutting edge raider and wanting to stay with the pack. If I was just Joe Schmoe doing more relaxed casual content I probably wouldn't have felt it AS bad.

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Zantera View Post
    I think a lot of people who played the game for a long time got used to the "standing afk in Shattrah/Dalaran/Stormwind/Orgrimmar waiting for something to happen" vibe and in contrast to those days, Legion was a full throttle ADHD expansion. I loved Legion myself (more than the expansions before it, bar TBC) but there was definitely times when it felt too grindy and 'mandatory'. But that's how I felt at the time being a cutting edge raider and wanting to stay with the pack. If I was just Joe Schmoe doing more relaxed casual content I probably wouldn't have felt it AS bad.
    FWIW, I had issues with guilds who struggled to even get AOTC who made the grinds mandatory. I trialed in or raided a full tier with, I think, 5 guilds over the course of Legion - SL where I received some sort of pressure to keep up with AP regardless of my comparative performance. I bounced from guild to guild and in and out of the game until I found my current group, which doesn't require anything outside of participating in our scheduled raid.

    Those guilds were obviously bad fits for me, both because AOTC isn't a struggle for me with similarly skilled players AND because I could not consistently commit to the same weekly play-time. If the AP grinds hadn't existed and the gear paths were the same as now or as MoP and prior (I don't know how WoD did gear, I didn't play at all), I would have kept up gear-wise on our raid schedule alone. The skill disparity is a separate issue that would have still existed.

    But the problem with the skill disparity is that, counter to what many believe, the "mandatory" content for trivial increases is actually WORSE for lower end guilds than for high end guilds. High end guilds know they need a minimum level of gear and will work towards that fanatically and then will go for the content. They KNOW when it's a skill issue/practice issue or if it's a gear/ilvl issue.

    Less skilled players often default to blaming their gear, rather than their skill, because few people want to admit that they just aren't as good as others. I'm not a M+ player who can do 20+ keys right now. Maybe when I get some more gear, I'll be able to. MAYBE I could practice enough to get there with my current gear BUT, as it is today, I'm just not good enough. For some people, that's hard to admit, so they will focus on improving their gear rather than their performance. Clearing WQs to get AP to improve your output is WAY easier than practicing for hours.
    So players take the easier route. The problem is, they then look at other players who may or may not need to maximize their gear to the same level for equal or greater performance, and say "Hey, my AP level is XYZ, and yours is XYZ *.75, you need to catch up to stay with us"

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by FelPlague View Post
    Subjective opinion can never be fact. If something is fun or not can never be a fact, they may or may not be lying, but their subjective opinion can never be fact and again you are horrible at this.
    There is a difference between saying "I like this" and "everyone likes this" one is speaking your own subjective opinion, which can be truth, as its your subjective opinion about a subjective subject. But to claim others believe the same you suddenly no longer are speaking for your own subjective opinion, but are now trying to say it's a fact others agree. Which requires evidence, and yours is "I said so"

    Seriously, you try to act so super smart here and wiggle your way around everything but it's pathetic.
    If you wanna provide "people say" as evidence, you need to support it with data, do a survey.
    When they say 9/10 dentists reccomend they are not making up shit, they surveyed and have the data to back up their claims. Where the fuck is your data?
    My data is research. Just do your own research, I don't have time to spoon feed you. I've done mine, that's why I can confidently claim that a majority of players enjoy this content because the majority of players said they like it. What's hard to understand?


    Quote Originally Posted by FelPlague View Post
    We exist.
    That's a belief, so it is a "truth" by your definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by FelPlague View Post
    Truth is different then fact cause truth includes belief, fact does not.
    Also literally every dictionary differentiates them...
    Merriam webster - "Fact" - definition 1.a: 'something that has actual existence'
    Merriam webster - "Truth" - definition 1.a.1 and 1.a.2: ' the body of real things, events, and facts', and 'the state of being the case' (with a link to the definition of FACT)

    Quote Originally Posted by FelPlague View Post
    You are literally here trying to semantics argument your way to somehow saying that anecdotal evidence is reality when it is not, and are failing horribly at it.
    Wouldn't the person who is trying to split hairs between 'fact' and 'truth' actually be the one pulling semantics.
    Last edited by Viratan; 2023-11-30 at 08:02 PM.

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by Viratan View Post
    My data is research. Just do your own research, I don't have time to spoon feed you. I've done mine, that's why I can confidently claim that a majority of players enjoy this content because the majority of players said they like it. What's hard to understand?




    That's a belief, so it is a "truth" by your definition.



    Merriam webster - "Fact" - definition 1.a: 'something that has actual existence'
    Merriam webster - "Truth" - definition 1.a.1 and 1.a.2: ' the body of real things, events, and facts', and 'the state of being the case' (with a link to the definition of FACT)



    Wouldn't the person who is trying to split hairs between 'fact' and 'truth' actually be the one pulling semantics.
    Again, asking other people to provide YOUR evidence for you is not how it works.
    Your "research" is worthless because you provide zero supporting evidence of your research, your research does not exist, cause your "research" is literally just your own anecdotal opinion, this is fucking silly, this feels like the seymore meme, You are literally the one here making up a ton of shit with zero evidence and demanding everyone else provide your evidence for you, while also argueing semantics, while trying to say OTHER people are arguing semantics.

Posting Permissions

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