Interview with a good gaming company. Not one of these random plebs with a webcam. Seriously… are people oblivious now?
Hardcore is a very subjective term. What you may think is hardcore might not be what other people consider hardcore.
For example: In my guild, we maintained 2 characters for upcoming raid release. Once we found the meta, players with alts or mains that were needed would be geared out while alts that didn’t make an impact were left by the wayside until progression was over.
When I went to trial for a hardcore guild US TOP 5ish after I hung up the reigns raid leading, that guild expected me to maintain all 6 tank specs. I talked with the tank and he said he multiboxxed two accounts 3 on each to get his dailies and stuff done to cut down the time. All while having a full time job. I declined this offer.
So yeah, hardcore means different things to different people but hopefully you can understand what I mean.
1 Like
Question to OP.
You mentioned that you benched a player and we’re in the top 100 guild and are worried about doing it again. Assuming you have a roster of 25, that’s about 2500 people out of the millions who play this game in the top 100?
Can you go over your reasoning they should balance the game around desires of such a small amount of players? There seem to be two groups on this debate, but just curious on your feedback, aside from certain mechanical feedback, do you feel most guilds would go to the extreme your guild went through? Do you feel most guilds would bench players for their choices if they weren’t optimal?
There is no doubt in my mind as you progress into harder group content that you had better be prepared to make choices for the benefit of the group regardless of what you may individually prefer. That’s simply how it has always been done and won’t ever change. How could it? Everyone in your raid knows your numbers. When you are trying to push through on a new boss everyone has to be on the same page. If you are not getting the job done, you will hear about it.
HARDCORE is not subjective. If you are top 50, 90, 5, 100… You are hardcore. It’s not a bad term… It’s just how it is. Casual is no where close to that. So all that’s left is Hardcore or Semi Hardcore.
1 Like
Some will, some will not. It will always be this way. Whether its racials, classes, specs, professions, covenants, or legos, everyone will not be optimal all the time.
This game can’t be balanced around the top 1% or the bottom 1%. Both groups don’t represent actual gameplay.
I don’t consider “I could be more hardcore, but I’m not world first so I’m not hardcore” to be legit.
It’s just like all those mythic raiders who have told us that the only true casuals are cutting edge mythic raiders on temporary leave from mythic raiding while slumming it with the unwashed masses. And that the overwhelming majority of the playerbase was not “casual”, they were “baddies”.
It’s not nearly as subjective as you want to make it sound. Sitting players to keep them from holding back your progression early in Legion because they had the wrong legendaries was hardcore.
That is some poopsock level of toppery
Saw it happen in EN as well and that was the only raid I did in legion
Your disconnect with reality shows big time here
Just because someone is a content creator, does not mean they are suddenly a “pleb with a webcam”. What does that even mean? Having a webcam to make content suddenly removes your ability to provide constructive feedback and to have critical thinking?
Listen to this interview. Tell me a garbage company like IGN would do better, lmao.
That’s what you do in good RPGs.
1 Like
Really good question and I’ll answer in some detail as you seem genuinely curious.
Firstly, I no longer raid or raid lead as it just took too much time after WoD. Legion was insanely grindy, as well as BFA. I only PvP now and raid heroic/mythic raid sometimes for fun on alt runs with another guild.
There is a couple arguments here. One, the systems that blizzard puts in affect these players more. Two, most of these systems impact the entire player base as well. Three, it just isn’t necessary.
-
These systems that lock players through RNG or a choice which could have been right at the time (blizzard likes to adjust things after), have very strong consequences for players who want to push. I had about 27 players on my roster during Nighthold, all of these guys were solid players, better than average. I had two players flat out quit because they just couldn’t get the legos they needed. They don’t want to play in a fun-jokey atmosphere (nothing wrong with this btw), they want to push themselves in the game. They couldn’t justify playing 4+ hours a day only to be benched on progression because their character simply cannot do what is necessary no matter how good you play it. For a guild that is less progression focused and more for a good time and jokes, this doesn’t really matter. You aren’t losing a friend because he gets frustrated at the game. It really sucks to see someone step away from the game because of things they simply cannot control.
-
These systems affect not only us, they also affect you. I’ve pugged a lot in wow. I’ve been playing since BC. I’ve seen pug leaders kick someone because of low DPS. I’ve seen players not accepted to m+ because they didn’t have x legendary. I’ve had applicants to my guild with the reason they left their guild saying “That group doesn’t want to get better/they don’t know what they are doing”. I’ll check their logs and see yeah they aren’t running optimal setups, bad lego/rng for this guy, etc. But this guy just leaves because he thinks that group is bad. When half of it is these guys just didn’t play as much as we did to farm out all of our legendaries / optimal gear. Or even worse, they did farm out but they just didn’t get lucky.
-
It just isn’t necessary to have these systems that lock player power behind an arbitrary decision. Let people make mistakes and learn, allow them to switch back after you nerf something. If you like the Night-Fae, be a god damn fairie dragon even if it isn’t the best for you, I love it. But don’t lock people out of choices.
do you feel most guilds would go to the extreme your guild went through? Do you feel most guilds would bench players for their choices if they weren’t optimal?
No of course not. Most people play this game for social aspects or just for fun. They don’t care about progressing faster each tier and thats completely cool. But you guys can do this with covenants locked or unlocked with no deteriment, we unfortunately cannot. The time investment has driven lots of people I raid / pvp with away from the game. We have jobs, families, etc. We just don’t have enough time to be competitive with systems like this.
3 Likes
If locking the covenants yield an extra month or two of sub time from the “casuals”, it’s a big win. There are a lot more of them than there are people in top 100 guilds.
You can rationalize all you want. Polish a turd, it’s still a turd.
In good RPGs, there are “incivizations”, not “requirements”, and it generally increases replayability by allowing multiple approaches, playstyles and “playthroughs” of different characters that you make up. Having different comps (or characters with different backstories and personalities and classes, I should say) in D&D will change how you approach certain monsters, but it’s ultimately the GM that decides what monsters are there.
So you just hate without reason, without thinking, then.
Trump supporters, man…
Hey, I’m not insulting you. I appreciate your conjecture. I just don’t agree at all.
If you want to increase replayability, locking some content behind a meaningful rp choice is a fantastic method. Locking it behind a meaningful choice at the end (like the Deus Ex 2 endings) is just lazy.
Letting people see all the content on one playthrough means there isn’t much reason to replay.
Insulting me or not doesn’t matter.
You clearly think anyone that creates content is “a turd” or “a random pleb with a webcam”. This is an incredibly backward way of thinking and shows a baseless despise toward these people for no reason. Disgusting mentality.
Cool story, bro