tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post3742843497766080268..comments2024-01-18T16:20:09.743+01:00Comments on Nils' Blog: When Team B took overNilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-32343970440089827282011-06-20T13:22:19.449+02:002011-06-20T13:22:19.449+02:00Dear all:
I'm not an native speaker, first a...Dear all: <br /><br />I'm not an native speaker, first apologized for my poor English.<br /><br />Here is my two cents about the Catalysm fail.<br />My conclusion is : Blizzard designer destroy the pyramid of raider by share 10/25man raid cooldown, and make them have the same drop list. It decrease the number of raid held each week. In woltk, every guy can join 10man / 25man raid ICC every week, in 10man mode, it is more easy, experience player can help the newbie or less skilled player to grind the equipment, and because 10/25man raid have different drop list, especially some very good trinket, the experience player have to run 10 man raid every week. But in catalysm, experience player only need run 10 man raid in hard mode every week, the newbie /less skilled player have no raid to run. And because the raid difficulty increased so much, it is impossible to invite an new guy to your raid without wiping an whole night to teach him how to defeat the boss.<br /><br />So I think the problem in catalysm is there is not enough raid for normal raider, and after the normal raider quit, the exp hardcore raider have difficulty to find replacement for retired hardcore player. <br /><br />Catalysm ruined the whole system of raider. When hardcore player/normal player can find its position, and have enough raid to play every week.dfbbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425673908095786510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-90479411618534876832011-06-17T21:53:31.166+02:002011-06-17T21:53:31.166+02:00Hehe, thanks Seanas.
I am certainly late to the pa...Hehe, thanks Seanas.<br />I am certainly late to the party. But then, so is 99% of the community.<br /><br />My main point, even in this post however, wasn't that the design philosophy has changed, but what the deciding changes have been and how they affected subscription numbers.Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-7777507444319586942011-06-17T21:49:03.944+02:002011-06-17T21:49:03.944+02:00it's not just Nils' assertion that the B t...it's not just Nils' assertion that the B team is in charge: Eric over at The Elder Game made this observation nearly two years ago in a post entitled "The Warcraft Live Team’s B Squad", and has been developing the point ever since - if anything, Nils is a bit late to the party :)<br /><br />even as a simple observer, i think it's clear that the development philosoph for WoW has changed - and whatever the *reason* for the change, the *destination* of that change is not leading anywhere good.<br /><br />certainly, the Titan team won't have to worry about competing with WoW, when they finally launch, if WoW keeps on as it's going.seanashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04838144101254951127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-85494273723758963632011-06-17T12:27:04.117+02:002011-06-17T12:27:04.117+02:00Neowolf2, agree. It's fair and acceptable that...<i> Neowolf2, agree. It's fair and acceptable that latecomerss don't see all the content. But it is not smart!<br />The content already exists, why should the company not use it? </i><br /><br />Of course it's smart.<br /><br />The company is making it better for its customers to subscribe continuously, not take breaks. It's against the interests of the company to provide fully satisfying ways to consume all the content of the expansion if you subscribe only at the end.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-84420529087027760822011-06-17T12:19:41.206+02:002011-06-17T12:19:41.206+02:00I totally agree with this post.Thanks for this, I ...I totally agree with this post.Thanks for this, I was reading it and in my mind was memories of my 5+ years of wow.<br /><br />I never show classic: Naxramas and never saw black temple and sunwell but believe or not I was happy with the game..I never complained!because as you said<br /><br />I had reasonably challenging content that I could experience in a pleasant social environment at my own pace!Giannishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07618083010241852181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-5547830755615698902011-06-17T11:28:35.704+02:002011-06-17T11:28:35.704+02:00T, this is possible, but I think it is unlikely. L...T, this is possible, but I think it is unlikely. Look at the graph of how abruptly WoW sub numbers stopped to grow. If it was an equilibrium you would exspect a smooth curve.<br /><br />between 2006 and 2009 they added 6 mio players! That's 2 mio a year!! <br />And then they suddenly added 0 and even lose a few.<br /><br />http://www.mmodata.net/Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-69362720639894535432011-06-17T11:21:41.151+02:002011-06-17T11:21:41.151+02:00While you make a compelling point by looking at th...While you make a compelling point by looking at the overall subscriber numbers, if you change it from a single number to 2 numbers, new subscriber and attrition %, you get a different perspective.<br /><br />Pulling numbers out of thin air, what if the subscriber numbers is actually they have say 10 M new customers a year (now), but they lose 50% of their customers a year? <br /><br />If we say for the first year of vanilla they had 5M because they were just ramping up, and every year thereafter had 10M new customers, it still takes quite a few years to reach the 10M equilibrium point.<br /><br />If this model is somewhere close to the truth, then to pick up more subscribers during Wrath would have required an incredible pickup in either new customers, or a huge reduction in loss rates.Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03386589956559350218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-73019835051854370362011-06-17T10:49:37.719+02:002011-06-17T10:49:37.719+02:00Hagu, thanks for dropping in.
(1) The biggest mis...Hagu, thanks for dropping in.<br /><br />(1) The biggest mistake of Cataclysm certainly were the frustratingly hard heroics in combination with a daily quest to do them, the anonymous LFD and an expectation to be done in 30 minutes or less that has been nurtured in WotLK.<br /><br />(2) I agree with you that it had made no sense to spend more money for game designers. But Blizzard could and should have spent more money on content. You can have many, many art teams work in parallel. You need to make sure that the art style stay consistent, but that's a manageable problem. Cataclysm also suffered, because there just wasn't enough end game content.<br />Seeing you talk about a couple of hundred million more, I'd like to remind you that the full development of a game like Rift took $50 millions. So, we are not talking about hundred of millions that would have been subtraced from the 1 billion annual profit.<br /><br />---<br /><br />Of course, Blizzard didn't tell anyone that they are the 'B team'. That's why I call them 'Team A/B'. I could just as well have called them 'Team 1/2'. Or, perhaps even better:<br />'The guys with design philosophy 1/2'.Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-68759716142350274772011-06-17T08:31:11.780+02:002011-06-17T08:31:11.780+02:00I basically agree with what you said.
To avoid be...I basically agree with what you said.<br /><br />To avoid being redundant, let me make two points.<br /><br />1) WotLK subscriptions dropped the day when a couple of million Chinese were no longer allowed to play the game. Exclusive of China I always assumed WotLk was the peak subscriptions. I feel it is the 1337 players who make the "subscriptions are down because it was too easy" argument that led to the disaster that was Cataclysm.<br /><br />2) I am not sure if I see it nearly as obvious as you that extra Blizzard money should have been spent on WoW. <br /><br />Clearly the A team should go to Titan. That is the future of the company. Getting WoW wrong leaves some money on the table in not getting enough sales as the product sunsets. Getting Titan wrong jeopardizes the company.<br /><br />Would giving this B team more money be that great of an idea? Blizzard, like many industry leaders, does not have a shortage of money. What they have is a shortage of talent; skilled employees. ( Managers as well as mere game designers. ) So giving this team an extra hundred million would have helped a bit and made the game better. But I am not as convinced as you it would have been cost effective for Blizzard.<br /><br />------<br /><br />I doubt Blizzard formally set up an "Island of Misfit Toys" and told everyone they were the B team. But I think anyone with ambition within Activision Blizzard is pushing to work on Titan.Haguhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03726885305104254286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-76700272213084732002011-06-17T02:39:27.962+02:002011-06-17T02:39:27.962+02:00This is a great write up. Bliz's number of soc...This is a great write up. Bliz's number of social engineering ploys to appeal to the masses may be regeted when legitamate competition shows up but i guess while they own the field they cant do wrong. Article could use greater mention of item inflation and the pvp changes and philosophies.Asteriskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00249887217353063851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-50424506427569237442011-06-17T02:05:37.579+02:002011-06-17T02:05:37.579+02:00@neowolf2
I'm not talking specifically about ...@neowolf2<br /><br />I'm not talking specifically about any type of player, but all players in general. <br /><br />My "PlayerA" and "PlayerB" examples above happen with brand new players, and those that have been around a while, but haven't raided for one reason or another. <br /><br />There were a LOT of PlayerB type players in WotLK that had played since TBC. <br /><br />Either way, a player is going to miss content - I think we can all agree on that. What I'm asking is this: Why is it bad if they miss the top-tier content (the end of the story), but not bad if they miss the bottom and/or middle tier content (start/middle of story).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-33786603694368898602011-06-17T02:00:28.072+02:002011-06-17T02:00:28.072+02:00What's a better measure of success:
A) A world...What's a better measure of success:<br />A) A world that greatly appeals to a targeted demographic of say, a couple million players, but which persists for a decade.<br />B) A world that moderately appeals to many demographics and has spikes (12M) in subscriptions over a decade, but with an overall average of a couple million players.<br /><br />From a business perspective, it's probably World B, since you sell more boxes (+ expansions). Although it could be argued that sustaining World B is a lot more work (customer service, content demand) and definitely more cost (infrastructure/bandwidth).<br /><br />However, from a gamer's perspective, I think we'd ALL say World A, assuming we were in that targeted demographic.<br /><br />My point is that sometimes I think we use the wrong measure of success. And so does Blizzard. Anyone in politics knows that you can't please everyone, and games are no different. I think as soon as a game developer (Team B) tries to do that, is when they will run into trouble.<br /><br />Put another way, I think that WoW's popularity was a huge contributor to it's so-called decline. "B Team" tried to please everyone, which when there's that much of a playerbase, was doomed to have problems.<br /><br />You hit on a lot of good specifics, but in all reality, I'm not convinced the "A Team" would have done a whole lot better.<br /><br />Good post today. I enjoy reading your well thought philosophical perspectives -- even if I don't always agree. :)Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13023024842593901746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-44821718340300469302011-06-17T01:57:04.845+02:002011-06-17T01:57:04.845+02:00Nils: the point I'm trying to make is that thi...Nils: the point I'm trying to make is that this isn't a "linear" system. You can't add two solutions and get another solution.<br /><br />If a game that has content A would satisfy player X, and if a game that has content B would satisfy player Y, it's not necessarily the case that a game that has content A and B will satisfy both X and Y.<br /><br />Maybe a player would be happy with raid content tuned at some level, until he notices that his level of comfort is down around the 20th percentile of the player population. Or maybe his friends would play with him in that kind of content, but if harder content came along they'd ditch him because he's not good enough for the content they want to do.<br /><br />I think a game with content tuned precisely to the challenge level each player would (by themselves) enjoy would end up being a social disaster.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-34156149906213892172011-06-17T01:36:48.902+02:002011-06-17T01:36:48.902+02:00Neowolf2, my bad that I didn't define 'rea...Neowolf2, my bad that I didn't define 'reasonably challenging'. My (probably lacking) definition is: "Content that is interesting to do for a player."<br /><br />Most players can do much more than they want to do; and that's perfectly fine.<br /><br />Content that is too hard is inaccessible and bad.<br />Content that is too easy is boring and, too, is bad.<br /><br /><br />"Too hard" and "too easy" are things that vary from player to player and also depend on the situation of the player. At first a player might just want to take a quick look at the game. You better make sure to not shock him with the need to read up on thearycrafting!<br /><br />Later he might come back and reads up all that is available on the internet. Now you better make sure to not bore him to death!Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-24932567456774738822011-06-17T01:29:28.512+02:002011-06-17T01:29:28.512+02:00Thanks, Red Skies.
I've just read your linked ...Thanks, Red Skies.<br />I've just read your linked post and agree with many points. I might make a post about that eventually. (Perhaps I already have one? damn, I need to index those).<br /><br />When I said that 'team A' disregarded content I was talking about the classic raids (MC, BWL..) in TBC. They didn't disregard content within those expansion.<br /><br />I'm perfectly fine with blog posts as a response. Some things are too difficult to properly discuss them in comment sections.<br /><br />---<br />Neowolf2, agree. It's fair and acceptable that latecomerss don't see all the content. But it is not smart! <br />The content already exists, why should the company not use it? Besides, if the world has a story this content might be helpful for understanding that story.Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-47302951909549408822011-06-17T01:27:35.339+02:002011-06-17T01:27:35.339+02:00I understand that many players quit when they didn...<i> I understand that many players quit when they didn't find anything to do - in any expansion. That's exactly my point! The developer needs to offer 'reasonably challenging' content for all players at all times. </i><br /><br />Nils: you may be assuming that most players want reasonably challenging content, tuned for their level of competence. This may be true for top players, but I think it's much less true for average players.<br /><br />This is really the big open question that's being tested by Cataclysm's two-track raiding scheme. I suggest it will fail, if the people who were targeted by the last-tier highly nerfed raid are not actually looking for appropriately tuned content, if it means being seen to be in a short bus bracket.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-14800427119195124702011-06-17T01:22:32.365+02:002011-06-17T01:22:32.365+02:00masterlooter: are asking why is it bad that custom...masterlooter: are asking why is it bad that customers who come into an expansion late see less relevant content because they skipped the earlier raids?<br /><br />The reason it's perfectly acceptable is that they have sent Blizzard much less money. So of course they get much less relevant content in return.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-11526963823358396612011-06-17T01:07:05.990+02:002011-06-17T01:07:05.990+02:00@Nils: Ive been making posts about the difference ...@Nils: Ive been making posts about the difference between vanilla and all the other expansions since at least January. These posts may not be all over the blogosphere, but like you, some bloggers are also trying to bring some awareness to the evolution of the game. Some readers may not appreciate it, but I hope they understand we aren't attacking the game so much as pointing out that the design philosophy is night and day ...and well, we miss a lot of the old things that were REALLY good.<br /><br />This is an excellent post, as usual. I don't agree with every single point, but they are all pretty strong arguments that I find hard to disagree with.<br /><br />For one thing, heroics were created to be an alternative for those who didn't raid. They weren't strictly just to vary difficulty. They were a means for those who didn't raid to acquire epic quality items. Second, I don't think I agree that Team A discarded old content at all: a look at 1.0 shows definitevely that they tried always to refresh old content if anything at all. BC slackened up a bit, but they tried it there too. Reference a recent blog post I made on this very topic which points out why:<br /><br />http://goo.gl/z7VVg<br /><br />I'll get lost in my thoughts trying to respond to the entire thing without taking up an equally large amount of space as the original article so I'll link my thoughts. I'd love to hear more of your opinions on this topic.Red Skieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10870968743396599899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-25811619821412082322011-06-16T23:34:28.776+02:002011-06-16T23:34:28.776+02:00Stratagerm, in my opinion Blizzard never really un...Stratagerm, in my opinion Blizzard never really understood the brilliance of the classic/TBC system. That's why they had no clear introductory raids. Even though Karazhan and MC became it later on. During classic a lot of other content was introductory, too.<br /><br />I understand that many players quit when they didn't find anything to do - in any expansion. That's exactly my point! The developer needs to offer 'reasonably challenging' content for all players at all times.<br /><br />WotLK did it for you and many others for a while. But the herding of players into one single raid tier that has only one difficulty is bound to be no reasonably challenge for many other players.<br /><br />Moreover the way the herding worked (grinding anonymous heroics) was terrible and actually replaced another feature that had been the old dungeons.<br /><br />That's why the classic/TBC <b>mechanic</b> was superior. But Blizzard didn't understand this! That's why we had no real introductory raids, no really challening dungeons and that's why WotLK turned out to be the way it was.Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-1520921220390034772011-06-16T23:27:16.754+02:002011-06-16T23:27:16.754+02:00I'll offer a different perspective on Vanilla ...I'll offer a different perspective on Vanilla WoW. There were a huge number of players for whom raiding was basically impossible, due to the time and staffing commitments required. I quit WoW the first time once I came to grips with the difficulty of coordinating 40 person raids. My conclusion was that the game designers were insane to expect 40 person raids to be practical. I spent months at level 60 and only downed a few of bosses in Molten Core and Zul'Gurub.<br /><br />I came back in TBC, leveled a new character and stopped playing the day I hit 70, after deciding that raids weren't for me.<br /><br />I came back in WotLK and enjoyed leveling to 80. Once at 80 I did some occasional raiding in Trial of the Crusader and Icecrown Citadel. Didn't see much of Ulduar, but managed to complete Naxxramas 10 while wearing much better ToC & badge gear. Quit again due to frustration with guild & raid logistics.<br /><br />Naxx 10 is the still the only raid where I've killed the final boss.<br /><br />So for me, I enjoyed WotLK the most because I liked Northrend and got more out of the endgame. Then vanilla, at least while leveling. I didn't like TBC; except for Azuremyst Isles leveling to 60 was mostly a repeat of content I'd done before, and I didn't like Outland or Shattrath City.Stratagermhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16674545127540735737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-9163955369790379112011-06-16T23:12:34.954+02:002011-06-16T23:12:34.954+02:00Carson 63000, this is not a post about the good ol...Carson 63000, this is not a post about the good old days. I agree with you that many things back then were bad. I do think that the vast amount of dungeons back then and the fact that the world was new in combination with 40 players that were required for MC, gave players more content to do that was 'reasonably challenging' for them. Especially if they entered the game a bit later and didn't play from the start.<br /><br />Maybe classic WoW was not accessible for some. But I think this problem was not immanent in the system. It had had been easy to implement another raid dungeon that's easier than MC.<br /><br /><br />You write<br /><i>Look, I loved those days, it's true, but I can't pretend that it was great for everyone. I know that I was in the narrow demographic that "Team A" targeted.</i><br /><br />I argue that classic WoW was more accessible than modern WoW!<br />Not Naxxramas of course. When I say accessible I mean that player found enough interesting content (=reasonably challenging).<br /><br />Classic Naxxramas was accessible to only a few percent. But the smaller raids (UBRS, ZUL, AQ20) and countless dungeons were accessibke content for many other players. Even the gold farming was accessible content back then; although you can argue that it was a grind.<br /><br />Players weren't incentivised to run daily dungeons back then. They did it when they felt like it. The random loot system made sure that they would gain a lot of items early on, but always had a few items that just didn't drop. Thus, this content was fun and felt meaningful for a long time.Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-26844939252414233122011-06-16T22:59:25.733+02:002011-06-16T22:59:25.733+02:00I'm not so much fearful of players missing con...I'm not so much fearful of players missing content because it's inaccessable to them for any reason. I agree with you that each raid should be slightly harder than the last (within an expansion) - otherwise we're just doing the same things with different graphics and gear. Even if that means players will not be able to do content because it's too difficult for them. <br /><br />I was more hinting at why is it bad if players don't see the end-most end-game content (Sunwell/Black Temple, level 60 Naxx), but not bad if players don't see other similar end game content?<br /><br />PlayerA raids Naxx (level 80), and clears it with his guild. They try to do Ulduar but they realize it's too hard for them - they continue to do Naxx and/or do other things. They never enter ToC, nor ICC. <br /><br />PlayerB does heroic 5 mans until he is ready for ICC. Finds a guild, and clears it. He never raids Naxx, nor Ulduar, nor ToC. <br /><br />In both cases each player only saw about 13 bosses and only about 1/4 of the total available raid content. In both cases, a player missed much of the content Blizzard had designed for them - and thus much of the story. I would argue neither "finished the story". But for many players the PlayerA scenario is "bad game deisgn", whereas the PlayerB scenario is fine, because "everyone should get to 'finish' the game".<br /><br />I don't think that's a good counter arguement against seperating players in content - as I don't think players are actually finishing it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-50231567332382289392011-06-16T22:55:56.530+02:002011-06-16T22:55:56.530+02:00Helistar, you write
The fact that still today WoW...Helistar, you write<br /><br /><i>The fact that still today WoW has a huge market share shows that the initial growth could not have lasted.</i><br /><br />That is a hell of an assumption. At best I'd count this as an 'indication', not as evidence. I could just as well argue that the sudden stop atfer a rapid growth shows that 12mio isn't the theoretical optimum.<br /><br />---<br /><br />(1) Adding step stones is not a grind, but content. This is a wide-spread misunderstanding, really: Content becomes grind when it is highly-incentivised and not fun. If content is fun, it is not a grind.<br /><br />(2) I think what Blizzard intends to do right now is going to be good for the game in the short run. I'm not so sure about the long-run. We will have to see. Anyway, they haven't done it yet and I didn't comment much on it in the post.<br /><br />The additional raid will be useful, but not highly so. As long as heroic dungeons are the fastest way to the highest item level, players will use them towards that goal. Even if they are unfun. In that case they are a grind.<br /><br />(3) Point 8 mostly describes what was wrong in WotLK. Blizzard used highly incentivised content (daily heroics) to herd players into a specific raid tier. This content (daily heroic) became a grind, because it was socialy unpleasant and had to be run very, very!! often. Thus players did it although it was boring as hell.<br /><br />I don't really complain about the difficulty, btw. You can't have a daily LFD that pushes players through difficult content. That was the worst mistake in early Cataclysm. It is the reason Rift nerfed its dungeons the moment they introduced the LFD. <br /><br />The social environment in dungeons is better if you don't incentive players to run them as often, and especially if you don't use an anonymous LFD so that do run them very often with people they'll never meet again.<br /><br />I think a anonymous LFD could have its place in WoW. But at least the daily quest should be removed.<br /><br />I can't tell you how I would implement anything 'in detail', because I am not the responsible designer. All I can do is tell what's the problem and I can hint at characteristics a solution would have.Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-5460626300802467272011-06-16T22:50:53.778+02:002011-06-16T22:50:53.778+02:00..the central reason for WoW's success was tha...<i>..the central reason for WoW's success was that all players could always advance their characters by experiencing interesting content..</i><br /><br />I don't think you could write a more incorrect sentence about "the good old days."<br /><br />Look, I was a 40-man raider back in 2005, and I loved it. But the actual fact is that the vast majority of players simply could not advance their characters <b>at all</b> a short time after reaching level cap. <br /><br />40-man raiding was not accessible. It's nice that you got invited to join other guilds' raids because they were short of warm bodies, but that didn't happen on all servers, it didn't happen on most servers. Raid groups were far more insular then than they became later. <br /><br />The PvP honor system was so far beyond inaccessible as to be a total joke. The most anyone could hope to achieve without making it their life's pursuit was a few mediocre blues.<br /><br />Look, I loved those days, it's true, but I can't pretend that it was great for everyone. I know that I was in the narrow demographic that "Team A" targeted.Carson 63000https://www.blogger.com/profile/10900682924502279486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-54191785716756904962011-06-16T22:30:03.699+02:002011-06-16T22:30:03.699+02:00@Nils: your analysis forgets one major detail whic...@Nils: your analysis forgets one major detail which I mentioned: TIME. Time has passed from the 1st, to the 2nd to the subsequent expansions. The landscape has changed, the amount of people available as players has not increased as much as it would have been necessary. The fact that still today WoW has a huge market share shows that the initial growth could not have lasted.<br /><br />As for your suggestions:<br />(1) changes nothing, it's just that instead of normal dungeons + heroics + raids, you add one more stepstone (= more grinding to access the "high tier").<br />(2) get your numbers right: the "grindiness" of dungeons was high in Wrath, it has been/is being decreased in Cataclysm. As of 4.2 it'll be possible to reach the emblem weekly cap with 7 (seven) dungeons per week, and this is for a player who is not raiding at all. BTW this suggestion does not change at all with (1), which would just mean herding players in the 1st raid ties instead of the dungeons. In any case we'll see, this additional raid tier is exactly what will happen at the 4.2 patch, we'll see how it works out.<br />(3) i.e. (8) is the kind of "general and vague suggestion", I'm talking about. How would you implement it in detail? The "social environment" in particular....Helistarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01435861741164342377noreply@blogger.com