One side uses facts and logic, the other side uses emotion. We refer to the emotion based side as the Anti-Rdfers.
3 Likes
Haha no, the point of my very sarcastic response is that bias is a thing. You might not agree with the reason Blizzard gave, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good reason. In fact, for those of us who do agree with it, it’s quite sound.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anybody wanting RDF (or not wanting it, for that matter). We all just need to recognize that these things land very firmly in the realm of opinion and nothing more.
With that said, I apologize for interrupting the circus and return you to your regularly scheduled accusations of falsehoods based on opinion masqueraded as fact!
Well no people explained in detail why the reasons the devs gave were not great reasons. Because they were either nonsensical, hypocritical like claiming socialization reasons while adding a LFG Tool, or just plain out of touch with the realities of running dungeons on live realms.
They even had one of their gold posters come and ask for feedback. Where the common theme was people would be okay with various adjustments to RDF to address specific complaints as long as it could still do its job and form groups. Either the gold poster failed to communicate properly back to blizzard or blizzard ignored that feedback.
3 Likes
They probably ignored it and removed the gold poster LOL.
2 Likes
You may disagree with them, and that’s fine, but if you’re going to claim that they are nonsensical or hypocritical, then it may be helpful to provide quotes and links with explanations as to why you think so.
“Positive relationships build community, reduce toxicity, and forge friendships that have kept players coming back to our game for many years. We need to nurture and protect these relationships. One very big key to this is providing “Social Proximity” in our game, or what some cognitive scientists call “Repeat serendipitous interactions”. Put a little more simply, you need multiple interactions over time with the same people in a way that feels happy or beneficial. Classic WoW provided this in abundance, where you would often meet the same people from day to day while running through the Stranglethorn Jungle, on your way to a Scarlet Monastery run, or heading into Blackrock Mountain for a raid. ”
https://worldofwarcraft.blizzard.com/en-us/news/23813563/developer-update-a-look-at-whats-ahead-for-wrath-of-the-lich-king-classic
Right so see what I said about being our of touch with how things are actually working on live realms? Thanks for the quote proving it.
3 Likes
I do not, but you know, “birds of a feather…” and all that, I suppose.
Nah…they played a WC where no one was a tank. so an assumed off spec plater said sure I can tank.
and thus the social spirit was seen. RDF can’t have this!
when actually it can. I’ve had LFD runs the tank bailed in SL runs I ghetto tanked frost dk, shorthanded. Very nice pocket healer, dps not standing in fire we made it work. Not the fastest run, but it was a run.
We cleared 3 bosses like that. Tank got qeued in for final boss. they got lucky…a calling completion run for only killing the last boss. about as fast as that could be really lol.
2 Likes
This is working out well 
With todays servers you never get to the point of having multiple interactions with people in the pug scene, much less positive ones.
1 Like
It’s less that there are more dbags, and more that players drasticallly increase the number of pug dungeons they do, and are thus more likely to run into the vast number of dbags who play WoW.
1 Like
This is true, never have to worry about someone needing an item they don’t need when solo questing in the open world.
Yeah, the server populations are very large, yet so top-heavy and filled with raid-loggers, so there are massive bottlenecks causing queues around new content releases, and not nearly as many during non-raid hours.
I really, really enjoyed Skyfury for the few months that I was on it. It showed me that having an active 2K or so people is just about right (for my personal preferences when it comes to community interactions, etc.), but I have no idea how you might go about ensuring that sort of a population remains consistent, since people come and go all the time for various reasons.
Well back in OG Wrath TM, the sub count stayed steady during the one year content draught due to the addition of RDF. So the data here kind of speaks for itself on how you maintain a player base. They didn’t do it this time, despite having ten times less people, and somehow they expected better results. Kinda weird and out of touch honestly.
6 Likes
Technically a seal but it’s the best sea lion video on the net imo
They have created the single best single player MMO ever in regards to leveling.
Kudos to them.
3 Likes
I’d have classic era with HC opt in taking that crown lol.
The thrill of 1 more level, still alive, I saw its appeal as I dabble there. After a spot of the soon av weekend, I will see if I can actually break 20! I got stupid on a level 19…and I was taught my lesson for it. Natural selection wow version lol.
The thing is…that is voluntary yet enforced solo play. Its players opting to take on rules of mostly solo.
right now on some wrath servers you can make a new blood elf and not even see the people to run the couple of 3 man quests for the intro run to 20-ish.
if you can’t get 2 people to fill a 3 man…5 is 2 more problem slots to fill.
At first I read this and gave you the benefit of doubt, especially with only 4 posts on your sock puppet toon.
But then you went and posted this:
Now I know you’re just trying to stir the pot.
Have a spam flag, on the house.
I think most people would have been fine with the exclusion of RDF if Blizzard gave a compelling reason. However, the reason they gave was illogical and flimsy.
Yep.
Its CTA AV weekend that cuts their reason to shreds. The place is packed for 3 days all times of the day.
Its not all bots either.
Lots of people partake of this instanced, qeued, teleporting event.
Even anti-rdf’ers. Some have tried to say its pvp so its different. I have not seen an angle they presented.
All I know is my hunter will be in some place in wrath between matches killing crap to level her pet between AV hits. AV is not really good for pet levelings you see.
I like my pet so don’t mind I will make up like 3-4 levels on the 80 ding. I spam quests at 80 anyway with deadly/hateful gear. The extra gold since no longer needing xp happens anyway. The pet can catch up will happen anyway lol.
You can queue Arenas and BGs cross-realm. You cannot raid cross-realm… (of course this is a recent change).
I think that a major difference of perspective with regards to the socialization aspect of not having RDF is that the massive populations we have on servers make it so that it’s much more rare to run into the same people, even while doing the same content than it would be if the population sizes were much, much smaller. So, people looking at it from the perspective of a mega-server population may not see any difference in social interaction and how that would change versus those on smaller servers, even if that’s a minority of the overall playerbase.
Having said that, nobody seems to be pushing for smaller server sizes, and today’s WoW player seems to want convenience of grouping for content over roleplay and relationships in the online game world. While this seems to be exactly what Retail has prioritized, the whole, “Go to Retail” seems to miss the points that people playing Classic want to enjoy Classic content and classes, and of course that RDF was originally added during Wrath.
If they removed the restriction of guilds, trading items, and grouping for content cross-realm, then that would also be removing any barriers for continuing and encouraging social interactions between players in cross-realm instanced content, such as RDF could bring.
I’m not pro-RDF (not particularly anti-RDF), but if they moved all cross-realm grouping restrictions, I think they’d effectively remove any argument I would make against RDF, as well as potentially resolve a lot of the issues around realm populations.