They probably did think it was a good idea, the playerbase for Classic and for Retail are pretty distinct, with players typically sticking with one or the other without much cross over.
So again, you have a fact (Shadowlands was released) with absolutely zero connection between that fact and your conclusion (Blizzard wants Classic to fail).
youre their bottom parser feral dps druid. whats your pally alts name?
it was not a bug. as confirmed by a blue post. in fact, the 2 second tick is a bug resulting from poor oversight during sapphironâs original design. it wasnt intended to clip into its own stack application but it did and the result was the damage occuring every 2 seconds.
Iâm one such person. I only play Classic. Havenât touched retail since Legion. I donât give a **** about Shadowlands.
We both play with a circle of mostly and generally like minded players. I donât know which circle is representative of the larger population. Perhaps among the hard core raiders it divided the community but in the casual player and raider community it didnât divide the community at all.
well neither one of us are presenting any supporting data.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
You assume causality where none might exist.
They simply could have two separate teams that werenât communicating or didnât think there was enough overlap between populations.
your assumptions are your own
Hight says that while Classic was far more popular than anyone at Blizzard expected, they also have found that one version of World of Warcraft is not cannibalizing the other â rather, thereâs not much of overlap at all between people swapping between the two, and both communities are healthy enough he feels comfortable releasing major content updates (such as upcoming raids) in both games around the same time.
woah youre telling me that in an interview, the executive producer told the interviewer that both their games were doing really well? lol trust us, both of our subscription numbers for both our games are through the roof. ok, how many are subscribed? oh well, dont worry about it.
heres some more taken from that article
"And Hight concludes, "When I was a kid, my folks took me to this theme park. And this theme park was in California, we walked through the gates of this place, and Iâm like, âOh, my gosh, what an incredible place.â And they took me on Pirates of the Caribbean and went on the Haunted Mansion. And it was such a wonderful place to go.
âAnd I think that World Warcraft can be just like that: itâs a virtual theme park.â
Since the rona, in the news, everywhere.
First the irony!~
I merely gave a single possible example NOT an assumption.
The latin phrase I wrote iterates the errant assumption that because B follows A that A caused B to occur.
Fasc touched on part of that. With the proliferation of information readily available people now prefer empirical information. However their conclusions, based on that information, are frequently examples of Inductive reasoning and not Deductive reasoningâŚand therefore prone to flaws.
To infer causality is flawed reasoningâŚto prove causality is not.
i never inferred causality. i merely stated facts.
Do you even know what a âfactâ is?
facts are true statements
Wrong. Facts are statements based on evidence.
ok. so what statement did i make that i failed to provide evidence for?
Considering you havenât provided a single link to source yourself whilst Delimicus has provided several? The answer is: all of your statements.
now i know i made you mad when i said your guild has never killed kt, but now youre just being ridiculous
Iâve noticed you do this too whenever someone calls you out on your bs:
Itâs like, whenever youâre backed into a corner, you respond with, âBut youâre not as good a player as I am!â
Joyson: âBlizzard hates us!â
Delimicus: âYouâre wrong. Hereâs a reliable source that proves you wrong: provides source.â
Joyson: âI parse better than you and have cleared more raids. That means youâre wrong and your source is wrong.â