From experience, there will always be people who fail to get irony or sarcasm. Some People thought A Modest Proposal was a good idea. UnironicallyWrex Brogan said:...a point about how appealing to an audience with niche achievements only functions to create social credit when those niche achievements are a shared interest and goal of the audience? 'Cause, I mean, personally, I've never heard of Kaizo Mario, but I've never been one for platformers anyway. Maybe your point would've been better demonstrated within a more niche audience, to elicit the responses you desired?CritialGaming said:Lol i didn't actually do that. So no I didn't enjoy it. I was trying to make a point.....nevermind.Wrex Brogan said:...but did you enjoy it?CritialGaming said:See post #191 above for the answer to your original point.Wrex Brogan said:Congratulations! Did you enjoy it?CritialGaming said:Hey man I beat Kaizo Mario without a single death by turning on autoplay.Wrex Brogan said:...also wasn't this all about single-player games anyway? Who gives a fuck about casuals in a single-player game? You'd have to be some kinda real elitist prick to have a go at someone for playing a game a certain way when it has literally zero impact on you, that's for sure.
All I care about is people enjoying their games. 'You do You', as they say.
To be fair, I thought that came across rather explicitly, but thanks for spelling it out, just in case.erttheking said:He was making a point too. The point being that if someone brags about beating a game via skipping it (fat chance) he doesn't care.
Logical fallacy, a huge one. Correlation does not imply causation.Kerg3927 said:With WoW, there are certainly other factors involved, but on the graph below, you know what happened in Cataclysm, right about the same time that graph starts going downhill? LFR (Looking for Raid) was implemented, trivializing raid content, making it faceroll easy, accessible to everyone, everyone could get all the loot, no need to learn to play, just hop in a queue and go, faceroll to fat loots. And then what happened? Most of the raiding guilds disbanded and all the hardcore and hoping to become hardcore players left. The game's evangelists left.
Millions more got bored and left afterward, and now they return only for new expansions, to spend a few months facerolling through the new content before they leave again.
The casuals wanted the phat loots that the raiding guild members had. But once everyone was able to get it, the phat loot ceased to have any meaning. An Olympic gold medal doesn't mean much if everyone is able to get one for no effort. Turns out, it wasn't the loot that they really wanted. It was the community respect and prestige that it represented.
![]()
I'm not trying to prove a theorem and win the Field's Medal. I said in the first sentence that "there are certainly other factors involved." Some people indicated that it is a poor/stupid business model to produce game content that the majority of the subscriber base won't be able to experience upon release. I disagree, and offered some evidence to support my opinion. No more, no less.kurokotetsu said:Logical fallacy, a huge one. Correlation does not imply causation.Kerg3927 said:With WoW, there are certainly other factors involved, but on the graph below, you know what happened in Cataclysm, right about the same time that graph starts going downhill? LFR (Looking for Raid) was implemented, trivializing raid content, making it faceroll easy, accessible to everyone, everyone could get all the loot, no need to learn to play, just hop in a queue and go, faceroll to fat loots. And then what happened? Most of the raiding guilds disbanded and all the hardcore and hoping to become hardcore players left. The game's evangelists left.
Millions more got bored and left afterward, and now they return only for new expansions, to spend a few months facerolling through the new content before they leave again.
The casuals wanted the phat loots that the raiding guild members had. But once everyone was able to get it, the phat loot ceased to have any meaning. An Olympic gold medal doesn't mean much if everyone is able to get one for no effort. Turns out, it wasn't the loot that they really wanted. It was the community respect and prestige that it represented.
![]()
If you try to show an specific cause, in this case, give a randomized sample of the about million subscribers more or less lost in the Cataclysm expansion. An article and talking to a couple of Youtube personalities is not a proof. You are impying a causaltion out of a correlation, one based on a graph with no actual numbers and no real proof. Ask the players. Maybe the 6 year time means those players where bored of the game, maybe they had financial difficulties (maybe having to buy a new expansion after a recession made some players think it wasn't the financial investment), maybe it is related to other changes and not LFR (for example going for Metacritic User reviews, http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/user-reviews amore people site the levelling restructure than the LFR, for a dip in challenge, and many siting lore changes or burnout or simple unenjoyability anymore), maybe it is related to real life, mybe obsolete hardware, maybe moving out. UNless you can significantly can point a real study and not an interview, you have only some correlation (and a horrible graph that tells very little, as the axis are incorrectly labeled, without a correct scale in the x-axis and inconsistent amount of sampling points, like having almost no data between early 2009 and 2011 bwith three data points ut having six points between 2011 and 2012) and is no baiss to have a real conclussion.
No ome is asking you to proof a theorem (which is pure deductive reasoning and nothing to do with statistic inherently) or much less do something for a freaking Field's Medal (which basic statistics would be far from a result) but you brought math to the table so be prepared to defend it. Beacuae if you want to claim it is evidence, then it has to be robust enough to defy basic scrutiny.Kerg3927 said:I'm not trying to prove a theorem and win the Field's Medal. I said in the first sentence that "there are certainly other factors involved." Some people indicated that it is a poor/stupid business model to produce game content that the majority of the subscriber base won't be able to experience upon release. I disagree, and offered some evidence to support my opinion. No more, no less.snip
No, I didn't. The only information one needs to draw from that graph is more subscribers then, less now. A lot less. And if you don't think that graph is good enough evidence of that, then google it. There are countless other graphs and articles out there talking about the decline in WoW subscriptions. It's fact.kurokotetsu said:... you brought math to the table so be prepared to defend it.
And that's all the evidence I've got. Take it or leave it. I don't care. I'm headed to go see a Texas football game. Hook'em Horns!It doesn't matter who you ask, if they've been playing WoW for a long time they'll all agree that the game was at its 'best' before the release of Cataclysm - and most will point to LFR as the cause for its decline.
You kind of did do more . Let me quote the postKerg3927 said:No, I didn't. The only information one needs to draw from that graph is more subscribers then, less now. A lot less. And if you don't think that graph is good enough evidence of that, then google it. There are countless other graphs and articles out there talking about the decline in WoW subscriptions. It's fact.kurokotetsu said:... you brought math to the table so be prepared to defend it.
And that's enough to get you to correlation. Maybe not enough for you, but I don't care. I'm not going to jump through hoops to obtain your approval and meet your arbitrary threshold of statistical proof.
As far as causation, it is my opinion that LFR was part of the cause of the decline, and I didn't offer any math or data to back that up. I didn't intend to. It's my opinion based upon playing WoW 40 hours a week, every week, for 7 years, most of that as a GM organizing and running a raiding guild. I knew hundreds of raiders over that time, and the topic of the WoW raiding environment was often discussed. Most of them were not a fan of LFR. I also provided that article, which is not the only source on the internet making a similar claim, which states...
And that's all the evidence I've got. Take it or leave it. I don't care. I'm headed to go see a Texas football game. Hook'em Horns!It doesn't matter who you ask, if they've been playing WoW for a long time they'll all agree that the game was at its 'best' before the release of Cataclysm - and most will point to LFR as the cause for its decline.
That sentance, which starts your post is clearly implying a causation of the LFR feature with the decline of players. If you wished to say there was a decline there is no need for that graph, as ypubsay it is quite common knowledge amd easy to optaim information that there are less players now, and then in a separate sentamce state your subjective hypothesis regarding your subjective experience of it being related to LFR, but how you talk about it, you brought the math.[...]happened in Cataclysm, right about the same time that graph starts going downhill? LFR (Looking for Raid) was implemented,[...]
...Well that's just factually wrong. I thought WoW was at it's best during Mists of Pandaria, if we're going by 'it doesn't matter who you ask'. Well, ok, MoP was the best until we were stuck doing Siege for a year and a half, oh boy talk about burn out. But besides that, it was good.Kerg3927 said:No, I didn't. The only information one needs to draw from that graph is more subscribers then, less now. A lot less. And if you don't think that graph is good enough evidence of that, then google it. There are countless other graphs and articles out there talking about the decline in WoW subscriptions. It's fact.kurokotetsu said:... you brought math to the table so be prepared to defend it.
And that's enough to get you to correlation. Maybe not enough for you, but I don't care. I'm not going to jump through hoops to obtain your approval and meet your arbitrary threshold of statistical proof.
As far as causation, it is my opinion that LFR was part of the cause of the decline, and I didn't offer any math or data to back that up. I didn't intend to. It's my opinion based upon playing WoW 40 hours a week, every week, for 7 years, most of that as a GM organizing and running a raiding guild. I knew hundreds of raiders over that time, and the topic of the WoW raiding environment was often discussed. Most of them were not a fan of LFR. I also provided that article, which is not the only source on the internet making a similar claim, which states...
And that's all the evidence I've got. Take it or leave it. I don't care. I'm headed to go see a Texas football game. Hook'em Horns!It doesn't matter who you ask, if they've been playing WoW for a long time they'll all agree that the game was at its 'best' before the release of Cataclysm - and most will point to LFR as the cause for its decline.
The graph in question is tracking subscriber numbers, indisputably subscriber numbers peaked at the end of BC to the middle of Wrath and have mostly (expac launch honeymoon periods aside) been in decline ever since. Blizz used to include sub numbers in their quarterly earnings report, a practice they stopped in November of 2015, so we have reliable numbers from launch to near the end of 2015.Wrex Brogan said:...Well that's just factually wrong. I thought WoW was at it's best during Mists of Pandaria, if we're going by 'it doesn't matter who you ask'.
to be fair, what I said was directed at a specific quote he was using, which stated 'It doesn't matter who you ask, if they've been playing WoW for a long time they'll all agree that the game was at its 'best' before the release of Cataclysm - and most will point to LFR as the cause for its decline', which given the vague definition of 'best' (game quality? subscriber count? Enjoyment? Challenge?), is factually wrong, since if they asked me, my response would be 'well I thought it was best during MoP'.Myria said:The graph in question is tracking subscriber numbers, indisputably subscriber numbers peaked at the end of BC to the middle of Wrath and have mostly (expac launch honeymoon periods aside) been in decline ever since. Blizz used to include sub numbers in their quarterly earnings report, a practice they stopped in November of 2015, so we have reliable numbers from launch to near the end of 2015.Wrex Brogan said:...Well that's just factually wrong. I thought WoW was at it's best during Mists of Pandaria, if we're going by 'it doesn't matter who you ask'.
It's not a matter of when the game was "best", it's a matter of sub numbers peaked at point X and started declining at point Y which correlates with when change Z occurred. As has been pointed out, correlation does not prove causation, and no one is really going to seriously argue that WoW's sub numbers declining can be laid at the foot of any one factor in isolation anyway.
That having been said, I think it rather silly to dismiss the directional and structural changes that occurred from BC to Wrath to Cata as, at the very least, a factor in that decline.
That's good. Glad you are still enjoying it and plugging away. Really. 13 years is impressive.Wrex Brogan said:I've been raiding and part of raiding guilds for... oh, almost 13 years now.
But I'd like to point out that here, you actually agree with my main opinion, which is that LFR was a factor in population decline, even if we have very different opinions of LFR itself. And the latter is to be expected. You stayed because you thought the new direction WoW was taking in later expansions was good or at least acceptable. Myself and many of my guild members didn't like it, and it was big factor in us leaving WoW, although another factor was that many of us wanted to try SWTOR when it came out.Wrex Brogan said:... sure, [LFR] caused a lot of people mad about their lack of E-Peen to bugger off since the raids were no longer 'prestigious' enough, but 6 years on there's still plenty of raiders pushing Heroic and Mythic difficulties...
I think that's the worst idea I've heard all day.maninahat said:A recent Rock Paper Shotgun article [https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/02/assassins-creed-origins-tourism-difficulty/] is getting about ten times the usual number of comments because it asks the question, why can't games - all games, that is - give us a skip boss fight button?
In the wake of Ubisoft's decision to include a "Tourist Mode" in their next Assassin's Creed game, the article goes into how games are the only medium to bar progression based on skill, and this can result in stopping people from getting to see most of a game they paid for. Letting someone skip a bit they find particularly difficult so that they can go and enjoy the rest of the game seems like an obvious solution, and not a technically difficult one to implement. That happens to be something I find quite agreeable, but what are your thoughts?
You seem to be equating trying with enjoyment. Yet what happens when the trying stops being fun.CritialGaming said:I would simply argue that they aren't trying if they skip. And usually games have a difficulty curve right? Meaning the later into the game you go the more challenging the game becomes. Of course there are games with random spikes in difficulty, but typically this isn't the case. That's why I really don't like the skipping notion.
I played WoW from 1.5 straight through to 4.3(ish?), skipped MoP and most of WoD, and returned for Legion for about...two months. Never really was much of a raider, because that part of the community had zero interest for me. The closest I came to it, was PuG'ing into MC, ZG, AQ, and Naxx on the back of having a great reputation on my server (I played paladin). This was back in the day when paladins were so OP, and paladin gear so whacked, hopping into Naxx in MC/ZG (priest) gear was a pretty regular occurrence.Kerg3927 said:But I'd like to point out that here, you actually agree with my main opinion, which is that LFR was a factor in population decline, even if we have very different opinions of LFR itself. And the latter is to be expected. You stayed because you thought the new direction WoW was taking in later expansions was good or at least acceptable. Myself and many of my guild members didn't like it, and it was big factor in us leaving WoW, although another factor was that many of us wanted to try SWTOR when it came out.
As far as that quote in the article, point taken. Reading it again, I guess it is hyperbolic. But I didn't read it at face value, to literally mean that you could ask every single WoW player that question and they'd all respond the same. More like everyone the writer asked answered that way. In other words, he asked a sample of players.
Yeah but what you are saying is that you would have liked to skip a piece of the game that was frankly just poorly designed, not really challenging. So again there is a question as to what you allow players to skip and what you don't.votemarvel said:You seem to be equating trying with enjoyment. Yet what happens when the trying stops being fun.CritialGaming said:I would simply argue that they aren't trying if they skip. And usually games have a difficulty curve right? Meaning the later into the game you go the more challenging the game becomes. Of course there are games with random spikes in difficulty, but typically this isn't the case. That's why I really don't like the skipping notion.
Again I tried for hours to get passed the Bulldozer part of LA Noire and it has stopped being a fun challenge, transforming into an annoying frustration.
After skipping it I went on to have fun in the rest of the game and didn't use the skip option on anything else.
In my case the skip option enabled me to continue in the game, to experience more challenges, more fun experiences. I went back to the game recently and did that section first time, but you know what I don't regret skipping it the first time at all.