For instance, when hunting lions will single out the young rather than a full grown antelope, even though they have been observed taking down adults. But they don’t go for the adults when given a choice because the effort isn’t worth it. The chance for failure is much higher, and they exert more energy.
There is no data that RDF was bad for the game. There is data that subs continued to grow in a content drought with RDF in the game. This “blizzard knows best” doesn’t cut it.
If the majority prefer it, as several posters keep claiming, then you’ll still have like-minded players to run with. If players decide that the costs outweigh the benefits, then they’ll run RDF. I know I would. LFG does literally nothing for me.
If everyone decided to choose RDF, then that should tell you something about LFG. That something would be it’s just not worth it. If it’s worth it, people will do it. It’s in our nature.
I never said that you can’t find dungeon group through LFG while leveling.
Only that more players could be leveling as tank or healer because of the convenience to simply queue in RDF and then focus on doing quests before the entry prompt pop up on your screen, compared to frequently check LFG if there are some changes from last time and also actively announce on LFG channel and people prefer to play DPS exactly because it’s inconvenient to play tank/healer unless doing dungeons almost all the time. Tank and healer spec obviously perform worse than DPS when they have to do quests solo because other players in their level range already did the quest or they are in completely different zone. Not sure how layering affect this.
When it comes to time-value, well, it isn’t that simple. Some people have said that they find groups faster without RDF. Some people say that even if they find a group faster, they still have to travel to the dungeon and back to where they were before the run. This is more taxing if you are level 19 or below.
Some people have said that introducing RDF with the number of players Wrath currently has, it may make waiting times longer. So it comes down to case-to-case scenarios in which some will result more favorable if you are in a low populated server, or undesirable if you are in a bigger server. We lack the data.
They’ve said they can’t find a way to make both parties happy; they tried the LFG tool that we currently have and I don’t think that was a good solution either. The addition or removal, the system itself affects how people play the game. And that argument works both ways, because it would match the pro-RDF and leave out anti-RDF of that analysis. This was a game-changing system. Most of the issues when it comes down to making groups, come from low populated servers, and they’ve also said that they have little control on how people behave when it comes to server transfers.
So it’s not that we want Blizzard to make that choice: they have to. We don’t know how many players they might lose if they add it. I’d like to believe they have studied the tendencies based on the amount of dungeon completion, mere speculation on my behalf.
Furthermore, if you want to include that cost/benefit analysis, people will be biased towards the one with less effort short-term instead of thinking about the long-term effect. People might gear up faster and burn content faster, leading to a shorter lifespan of this classic run. It isn’t that simple.
You are manipulating data too conviniently; the approximately 4.16% increase may have had more to do with the release of ICC, the conclusion of an arc that started in WC3 and some other changes. There isn’t any data suggesting that RDF was good for the game either. And if you want to use subscribers numbers as an advantage, 11.5mil people did fine without RDF, that’s 95.83% by the end of original Wrath; at it certainly didn’t save Cataclysm from its downfall. So it isn’t conclusive that RDF was good or bad for the game when it comes to subscriptions. That subs push argument doesn’t cut it either.
Now we are going in circles, because the premise is that it is too convinient for the majority not to use it; those like-minded ones will become a significant minority de facto, and the pool will be so low that they will have to use RDF in the end. This is regardless of whether the majority or not want it right now; we can’t tell who’s the majority to begin with.
Brian said this:
They have the data, they know how it changed the game, they know it would be too convenient for don’t want it don’t use it. You are presenting it in a too simplistic way and the truth is that it would be more complex than that. It seems you are presenting it like that $10 vs $100 example. And even under the assumption that half want it and half don’t, you’ll have a players pool divided in two; that can’t be good for either side.
I’ve never said that LFG is a good or efficient tool; I mostly use /who and LFG chat channel to get groups. So we can leave LFG out of the conversation.
I don’t think the role ratio would change if RDF were to be introduced; it wouldn’t change people’s preferences. As far as I rememeber, tanks and healers would get insta-queued for end-game content, but they used to have to wait some minutes for lower level content. This is pretty much how it goes in servers with a good amount of players in them, the same can’t be said for low populated servers. RDF would only distribute that ratio among servers if it were cross-realm, but it wouldn’t make that much of a difference if it were server-only, I think.
You aren’t following the premise… its convenience would lead to the majority of people using RDF, leave those who don’t want it very restricted, to the point they would have to use it as well.
Edit: in other words, not any individual would force them, but social behavior and tendencies would force them to use it.
No it wouldn’t, you would still leave the anti-RDF with a low player pool. And revamping servers is not optional either. Implementing code to just some servers? Unrealistic.
The bias behind RDF doesn’t leave any room for CHOICES. There wouldn’t be an objective, unbiased CHOICE to be taken. It is TOO CONVENIENT.
Nobody’s mind has been changed in the forums. Blizzard has fostered the forum hatred by not adding or discussing the one feature most of us are asking for. They’ve already flip-flopped on their reasoning, so the trust is gone because we already caught them lying about it.
We should be arguing about classes, specs, elitism… but instead we’ve been spent months tearing into each other over easy dungeon access.
I genuinely believe 2010 Blizzard cared about the game. This activision company only cares about money and are losing their loyal fans because they only care about money now.
Right now there are more people raiding than all of previous Classic phases. It sounds to me that RDF is not only not needed by Wrath Classic players, since I don’t see anyone even mentioning RDF in game, nobody even thinks of RDF. Everyone is playing just fine while a handful of you are complaining every day in the forums.
I said “you would”, I never said “you will”. Should I explain the subjunctive mood to you? You would leave them with a low player pool is not the same as “they are the minority”. RDF would be cross-realm; not using RDF would be local server, that automatically leaves them with the lower player pool.
At this point, the anti people have been saying the exact same thing for months now. There is no getting through to them. They don’t want it, and they’re very vocal about it.
No sense, reason, or facts will sway their opinion.