Cracks starting to show?

[Rokal]

You think 20% is a positive number? o_O

It's better than 1.35%, sure, but you'd still see people saying "where is the content for the other 80% of players" for the next 6 years.

[Kirth]

You think 20% is a positive number? o_O

It's better than 1.35%, sure, but you'd still see people saying "where is the content for the other 80% of players" for the next 6 years.

Archeology. 

[Paelos]

You think 20% is a positive number? o_O

It's better than 1.35%, sure, but you'd still see people saying "where is the content for the other 80% of players" for the next 6 years.

20% would be a positive step for completion. It's certainly better than what I would expect in previous tiers. I'd like to see ideally 90% of the playerbase that is raiding capable with a kill, and about 65% with the majority of the bosses dead within a 3 month timeframe. I also think they should have a goal of making most account-holders want to try a raid in the 75%+ zone.

You don't have to make it so that everyone is fully done with content every quarter. You have to make it so that people are reasonably progressing, getting kills, and generally having fun without making it completely pushover.

[sinij]

If the reality is closer to 20%, Blizzard would say it or allude to it, or make some statement that the numbers were off by several multiples in a vague sense. It would be a giant fuck you to the community who hates them, and a rallying point for the current marketing. There's a huge gap between 2% and 20%.

Truth is, it's not even close to that. Nobody shedding players just sits on fantastic data that proves they have made adjustments to bring the game more in line with their goals. Nobody sits on good news when the tone is so bad. That CM post sounds like a petulant child saying, "My Daddy knows more than your Daddy!"

They had PLENTY of opportunities to cook the data, for example comparing current active population and post-nerf completion rate would GREATLY inflate %, but they are not doing even that. Why? One reason would be to hide even approximate number of active subscriptions (i.e. it is  much, much lower than we are lead to believe), another reason is that even with cooked numbers it looks like shit or even combination of both.

I fully agree, if they had any good news to share, they would have. Flat-out denial is direct confirmation that things are as bad as they appear.

[Rokal]

The only things you can reasonably conclude from their refusal to provide accurate numbers are: 1) Blizzard is still extremely protective of information and 2) the participation numbers are lower than they would like.

If the participation numbers were 90% they might release that data, since it's almost completely positive. If the participation numbers were 50% they probably would not release that data. I'd guess that the number is probably actually around 10-15%, but we'll never know unless it's mentioned 'looking back' as evidence of how much things have changed when raid X Y and Z in expansion #28 have 90% completion rates. If the message isn't almost entirely positive, we'll never hear it (unless they are forced to give it to us at a shareholder meeting).

[Ingmar]

That statement says the numbers won't prove anything to people that have already made up their minds. What? Really?

It's true. The thing they were saying about SC2 number they have posted, they weren't lying about that. Putting their internal numbers out there won't change the conversation one bit.

[Paelos]

That statement says the numbers won't prove anything to people that have already made up their minds. What? Really?

It's true. The thing they were saying about SC2 number they have posted, they weren't lying about that. Putting their internal numbers out there won't change the conversation one bit.

SC2 win/loss ratio is completely different than showing participation numbers in an activity and their success rate in pve. One is comparing data with two variables outside of Blizzard's direct control. Those numbers can be interpreted in millions of different ways. What skill level disparity was there? When were the matches played? What was the experience differential of the participants? At best, you would have to have a massive one-sided win/loss over a huge data set to prove anything functional.

WoW pve is the variable of the player versus a constant. If participation success rate isn't high enough for Blizzard's standards, they change the constant. The only thing that showing the actual numbers would do is reveal exactly how low a success rate Blizzard intends in order to sustain subs.

[Ingmar]

And I'm saying the people on their forums are going to keep on thinking what they think no matter what you throw in front of their face.

[Paelos]

And I'm saying the people on their forums are going to keep on thinking what they think no matter what you throw in front of their face.

Well, I'll ask you this, then. Do you believe their pve success rate is more than 10% different than what MMO Champion posted?

[Ingmar]

I believe it doesn't really change the conversation regardless. What would actually matter is, "% of people who want to do it and have the time to raid", which would be rough to extract from any pile of statistics.

[sinij]

SC2 win/loss ratio is completely different

Posting overall W:L ratio when system is _designed_ to balance around 50% is ... retarded. It always will be the same, minus error, unless your matchmaker isn't working. Forcing that 50% W:L is one of the reasons why SC2 is frustrating, matchmaking will slam your dick with a door with impossible match if you ever win more than couple games in a row.

As to SC2, it was one of the few polished, but truly frustrating games out there. Its like they forgot to ask "is it fun?". Well kind of like Cata.. A lot like Cata.

[Paelos]

I believe it doesn't really change the conversation regardless. What would actually matter is, "% of people who want to do it and have the time to raid", which would be rough to extract from any pile of statistics.

So you don't believe it's off, then. But that was a valiant dodge.

[Ingmar]

No, I have no idea if it is off or not. I don't care, because the number isn't the right one to think about in the first place.

[Paelos]

No, I have no idea if it is off or not. I don't care, because the number isn't the right one to think about in the first place.

I disagree. If your assets are primarily in raids, you want people to raid as the company. Regardless of the reasons they may not raid, you should be looking at success rates and kill rates against the total population of your game, not just the people participating.

[Kirth]

I disagree. If your assets are primarily in raids, you want people to raid as the company. Regardless of the reasons they may not raid, you should be looking at success rates and kill rates against the total population of your game, not just the people participating.

If as you mentioned the primary game play activity at max level is raiding one of the first things you should be looking at is why don't people do this, perhaps perceived difficulty is a factor or any other number of things.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I think that gets to the root of the issue.  It doesn't matter how many people rai, what matters is how disproportionate the raiding content is to the amount of people seeing it.

If less than 1% of your playerbase ever sees heroic ragnaros than you should be using less than 1% of your staff to create it.

[pxib]

If less than 1% of your playerbase ever sees heroic ragnaros than you should be using less than 1% of your staff to create it.

... but isn't that already the case?

I think the majority of their staff is working on world content for the next expansion. Raids require a tiny amount of effort in comparison. Especially Firelands, where a lot of the art assets look recycled.

[caladein]

I think that gets to the root of the issue.  It doesn't matter how many people rai, what matters is how disproportionate the raiding content is to the amount of people seeing it.

If less than 1% of your playerbase ever sees heroic ragnaros than you should be using less than 1% of your staff to create it.

That's the whole idea behind Heroic modes.  Use the same art assets but add an ability or two and crank the tuning up.  And LFR extends this concept in the opposite direction.

[Rokal]

Reposting from last page since we're back on the same topic...

I think you over-estimate how much effort Blizzard puts into their heroic modes. Stuff like Heroic Rag and Sinestra probably takes a good deal of work from them. The rest of the fights? We're talking about maybe 1-2 new mechanics. Often it's something simple like managing an extra debuff, dealing with extra damage, or a new add (with an identical model to the others). In that sense, it's not a huge 'waste' for blizzard to have low completion rates on heroic fights, because it didn't take them tons of resources to make in the first place. The normal modes contain the majority of the work, and Blizzard needs to be concerned when those see low completion rates there (well, at least when there is nothing else worth doing in the game to keep people subscribed).

[Lakov_Sanite]

If maybe half the playerbase was even doing regular ragnaros I'm not sure heroic modes only having 1% would be a problem but regular mode raids aren't seeing much of a boost in people.

What else do people usually get out of the patches besides raids, daily quests?

[Merusk]

Nothing. Thus the precipitous drop in subs.

[amiable]

One day a game company is going to realize that dungeons requiring more than about a half dozen people suck for a variety of reasons (ironically for some of the same reasons that trying to play a tabletop game with more than a half dozen people suck).  They will just have to become more clever with their cock-blocking.     

[Rokal]

What else do people usually get out of the patches besides raids, daily quests?

4.1 had two "new" 5-mans and a short quest chain
4.2 had a new raid, a daily quest hub, and a short quest chain about thrall's love life
4.3 will have a new raid and three new 5-mans

It's kind of hard to determine what content Blizzard's patches 'usually' contain using recent examples when Cata's patches have been so anemic.

In a fantasy world where Blizzard releases substantial patches regularly, a good patch would include one or more new 5-mans, a new raid, and new solo content (not always dailies). If Blizzard wants to continue doing gear resets every patch, new 5-mans would be a better source for last-raid-tier-equiv gear than another token grind. At least they'll get that part right with 4.3

[Miasma]

I'm hoping none of you guys try to buy Earthen Ring out from under me :)

They are up now, $100 starting bid, many are still unbid on.  Looks like there are about eight blades per realm.  Also - pffft, $89 just to ship it to Canada?  Screw that and fuck you UPS.

[Paelos]

I still think this is the dumbest "donation" idea they've sprung on the public thus far. The Japanese pets idea was probably the best.

[Sjofn]

They've done it before?

[Ingmar]

Yeah they had server blades and such up for auction last Blizzcon too.

[Kirth]

Yeah they had server blades and such up for auction last Blizzcon too.

lol I read server blade and assumed it was some super unique item (single blade to a server or something) and thought why isn't it like going for a million dollars.

[Azazel]

Is it wrong that I hate people for submitting tickets for that kind of shit?

Hate is such a strong word for something you should probably be indifferent about...

[Ironwood]

Seriously, can someone explain to me why boots are still an issue ?

What's the big fucking deal about boots ?  Why can't I get boots in the same set from the same vendor for the same currency ?

WHAT THE FUCK BLIZZARD ?

[caladein]

Seriously, can someone explain to me why boots are still an issue ?

What's the big fucking deal about boots ?  Why can't I get boots in the same set from the same vendor for the same currency ?

WHAT THE FUCK BLIZZARD ?

Aside from the ranged slot items, they cycle the non-set slots between crafting, valor, and reputations.

Last tier's boots were on the valor vendors and were exalted reputation rewards.  This tier boots are crafted.  Belts are the reverse: the T11 ones were crafted and the T12 ones are from the raid reputation.

[Ironwood]

That may have been helpful information to some, but it didn't really address the question ?

 

[Merusk]

Because crafters are whiny, piss-pot children who will spam the forum endlessly with their whines and tears unless given something 'signficant' to do with their wasted time every content patch.

[Ironwood]

Fair enough.

[Merusk]

I knew you'd appreciate the translation from devspeak to Scottish.