120916-welp-thought-id-like-it-page-6

Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6
== Content ==
			
{| class="blockquote"
You're claiming that the course of action they're taking based on the metrics they've given is--in and of itself--evidence that they're taking the right course of action.
The metrics they've given in fact do not validate the course of action they're taking, because the same metrics still occur even in conditions where that course of action would be a disastrous mistake.
Therefore, you're claiming that the course of action they're taking based on invalid metrics is--in and of itself--evidence that they're taking the right course of action.
The only way that can be true is if all possible courses of action that they can take--whether based on valid metrics or not--are the right course of action.
Since there are in fact wrong courses of action that are available and possible for them to take in error, the only way they cannot possibly take those wrong courses of action is if they are incapable of error.
 
That's why I think it does. I don't even know why you think it doesn't.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Close- not "based on the metrics they've given us". They really didn't give us the metrics- they gave us their interpretation of the metrics.
 
It's more correct to say "The fact that Carbine has collected data and made a decision based on that data is evidence that their direction is a good one". Is it 100% certain? No, they could be swayed by misunderstanding the data or bias, but not being 100% is not the same as not being evidence. You have to weight it in light of all the other evidence.
 
I certainly have more faith in Carbine's ability to interpret and respond to metrics than I do your, or even my own, ability to assess the situation given we have very little information. There is little other evidence available, so we go with what we have: an imperfect company making a decision based on the metrics they've captured.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
...No. They gave us an actual result, the same way a result would be reported in any publication. The result was "People who did any dungeon were likelier to stay than people who didn't". That is not an interpretation. That is an objective, data-driven statement of fact. IF they have compiled any other objective, data-driven statements of fact, they haven't shared them with us.
 
You--and they, apparently--then took that objective, data-driven statement of fact and concluded from it what you wanted to conclude anyway, which is "therefore, doing dungeons is the reason why people stay". As my example should make clear, that interpretation simply does not follow from the actual, real, objective result that was presented as part of a chain of logic defending the current difficulty of dungeons. No matter how much Vic screams that it must in a frenzy of verbosity. The result presented simply does not support the interpretation.
 
It just seems like it ought to until you think a bit about what exactly that results means is. I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't think it's obvious how irrelevant it is. It sounds relevant. Until you think it over a bit and realize that actually, it's not telling you anything all that useful.
 
Data analysis, it turns out, is hard.
 
As for them having so much better insight than we do, if they have some more obviously relevant result that clearly justifies their decision, why not simply present that result instead of the one that they did present? Why toss out one that sounds relevant but isn't?
 
I have a simple explanation: because they thought the result they tossed out WAS relevant, just like you and Vic did. What's your explanation?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
This game is made for a VERY select few, mainly close-nit guilds that want to challenge theirselves. This game is extremely too hard and frustrating, questing was fun for a while, but a level 20 dungeon should not be so frustrating(if you for some miracle find a group for low level content) I have nothing but a headache from playing this game. Also this game should lean towards casual players more, you need a lot casuals for a massive player base, all your doing is catering to these hardcore guilds, that complain about everything and leave, come back later when you obey them and leave again. Anyways /endsubscription. Make an enjoyable game, I wanted to play a game not die form high blood pressure doing it
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You are too used to having your hand held and being given success. This is an example of the bad side of World of Warcraft's success.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You are too used to having your hand held and being given success. This is an example of the bad side of World of Warcraft's success.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
To be fair, World of Warcraft, when I first started in it, had no LFD.  [snip for brevity]
 
Believe me, I don't think the dungeons need to be detuned, but I in no way question that the guy is frustrated and wanted to quit.  I just don't think it's because the dungeons are too hard, I think it's because, whatever their intentions, people told him the dungeons are above him.
 
They're not.  I hope he came upon a much better group in the community that will help him develop into the kind of player in a PUG that doesn't just silently do his job, but will also teach other players the ropes himself.  He's capable, I think all people are capable.  Part of that relies on us being better mentors and, at the very least, a friendlier and more accepting community.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
"We've lost the essence of why we play games"
 
 
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Even if not directly affected by WioW, there are players that have been influenced by that which has been influenced by WoW, It's a generation of *very* forgiving games... players are accustomed to participation awards.
 
It never used to be like that. I don't know your era, but, thinking back to games like Final Fantasy VII even. Do you have any idea how many times I had to try before I finally beat Sephiroth? It wasn't hours... it was days upon days of trying! (And think how many times that means I had to listen to the music!)
 
And experiences like that were truly rewarding when I finally beat them. Now players are quitting because that can't do something hard?
 
We've lost the essence of why we play games.
 
Once again, if anyone wants to add me as a friend (Zelda Lethality) and I will gladly group with you for anything.
----
			The thing is the dungeons are hard. I think the first to u get at lv 20 should be easier. To me there is not a real big deference in doing it at 20 or 50 its the same hard ness they need to fix it make it beat able for new people at that lv its like if u are not over geared u cant do it at 20. I think it need to be once u make it to it on the map u can beat it I think u are about lv 18-22 when u make it to it and do all the missions up to it. Carbine need to realize and so do the guilds of hard core that if only hard core play the game wont be that big witch means u don't make money witch all so means the game shuts down. They need to make it less hard core up till the raid part more would of stayed and loved the game if they felt they could some day do them at least make it to them and see what's in side. The way its is right now the old people are not helping pug stuff so the new people stop. Then the game gets smaller cause one of your old players stop so now that's to we lost and so one so if the game is going to be like this it wont be good. They are working on fixing a lot of this stuff but I think they will still need to do some more working on it even after drop 4.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Our explanation is that Timetravel has more than trying to fudge the numbers back and forth, he has the actual numbers.  I mean, it could be that he actually did mean that the people who did dungeons were more likely to stay, at all levels of the game, with no other mitigating data.  And it could have been that Timetravel was pretty sure that, having given his conclusions to the data he had, nobody would assume that his quote was meant to state that he somehow only looked at the dungeon data once, missed something important, and just never looked at the numbers again.  I mean, it could be Timetravel couldn't figure why, considering he's stated in the past that monitoring those numbers is part of his regular job, that he probably didn't toss out an important number.  He sees those numbers weekly, if not more frequently.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Just because you ignore data when you don't like what it says doesn't mean everyone does.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Exactly.
 
You insist on reading TT in a way that almost no rational person would, and it's either because you have been trolling us the whole time, or you are so invested in your point of view that you really can't see what is fairly plain and obvious.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Oh. Hm. That's a very strange reason for him to tell us a result that's not very relevant. I mean, I agree with you, Timetravel has the actual numbers. And he could have used them to say all kinds of things that were relevant to the tuning of dungeons. Instead, he used them to say this:
 
which is really not particularly important or meaningful, although it sounds like it might be. If he monitors these numbers weekly if not more frequently, I'm rather baffled by why he'd do that. Sort of like I'm baffled as to why he'd give us a result that's really not all that relevant, even though he has the ability to look at all those numbers he has and tell us results that would be much more on-topic.
 
Unless, of course, he thinks it's telling him that people stay because they do dungeons. Like you did. And like Sly did. Even though it doesn't. 
 
 
 
 
Dude, I was there too. There were LOTS of complaints about the difficulty. Hell, his post was a direct response to people concerned about the challenge of the dungeons costing the game players. In fact, this thread and that one in which Timetravel posted are astonishing in their similarity, with the exception that there aren't anywhere near as many people left to argue back and forth about it and the people posting managed to keep their posts to less than 3000 words.  :rolleyes: 
 
 
And by the way, I didn't miss the point. His statement of results looks quite relevant to the point. But it's not, even though both you and Sly thought it was. Maybe he thought so too, because the alternative is that he knew that it wasn't and said so anyway. I would prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.
 
Just because you ignore data when you don't like what it says doesn't mean everyone does. I've had to readjust my opinions based on new evidence lots of times. It doesn't upset me at all. Happy to revise my views in the face of new information, as long as the new information is in fact validly obtained and actually differentiates between my old opinion and the new one I'm considering.
 
As for the result not making a damn bit of sense, I think it makes perfect sense with the rest of the post, as long as you don't assume that he's infallible. You should stop doing that. Last I checked, his job title wasn't "researcher". I am not surprised he doesn't do research all that well. I'm sure I wouldn't make a very good version of Stormtalon. 
 
And by the way, I may not have his numbers, but I do know a lot about how to analyze and interpret data and how to reach conclusions based on results. And on the subject of "Does the result he's presented have any real relevance to whether people love the current tuning of dungeons?" I know the answer is "no". Since you didn't even understand how he analyzed the data to make the statement of results that he made, I feel very confident that I know better than you do what his result is and isn't telling us, which makes your continual blathering about how wrong I've got it pretty funny. Lecture me moar about how little I know, plz.
 
By the way, may I mention another little relevant point? He actually doesn't ever say that his result is in fact the rationale for why they aren't changing the tuning. You and Sly have both been insisting that the metrics are the proof that they're going the right direction, but that was, in fact, all you guys. Timetravel never claimed that this result, or in fact any metrics at all, were the basis of their decision. He provided no context at all for the metrics. He simply stated the result. Then he moved on to the actual rationale for why they aren't changing the tuning. I've highlighted it in orange for you.
 
 
 
They're not changing it because they like it that way. No metrics. No evidence. No strategy. Personal preference. They've made other content for people who aren't up to or interested in the challenge. You can just go run a Shiphand instead. Or a housing expedition.
 
I guess if you're not hardcore, the last chapter of each of four large story arcs that sweep across the leveling zones were not designed for you. You don't care about the ending, do you? Just skip that part, it wasn't really designed with you in mind. Here, go run an adventure.
 
They explicitly avoided doing that with the raids because they knew it would be a problem to bury a bunch of story deep inside content that most players wouldn't complete, and instead they did it with the dungeons that everyone hits several times well before endgame.
 
Gold star for design there. I see what you mean, Vic. They really ARE pros.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
You are too used to having your hand held and being given success. This is an example of the bad side of World of Warcraft's success.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I've played WoW a total of maybe 4 hours in my life. The main game I come from is Lineage 2 and its not a handout freebie game, it got a little easier the past year but I've played it for 8 years and 90% of that time it is a hardcore grind mmo  and not quest based, pure kill grind. Where it took literaly years to reach max level, also an open world PvP where you got PK'd many times a day - needless to say dieing in this game is not fun you lose % that could of took hours to days to grind(not so much pking now with the new penalties) and crafting gear would cause cancer, but I'm SO glad you know where I come from. Surely Wildstar is totaly different than L2 but this is not my first action combat game. If current players would pitch a hissyfit and leave over a level 20 normal dungeon being less horrendous to stop discouraging a lot of newbies then I don't know what to say, lol.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I'm not entirely sure why you think that the man who has the numbers and can see them, then came to the opposite conclusion from you, should be directly contradicted because you don't like that it disproves you.  That's a major problem; you're telling me to outright believe he is wrong for absolutely no reason.  You are trying to say, "It could have been something completely different, and if it had, he would be wrong!"  But we have zero reason to think you have an insight into the game (you have directly stated you don't have the information) that Timetravel doesn't have.
 
I'm not sure what is difficult about that concept for you.  You are essentially saying that if Timetravel had information that contradicted his conclusion (which nobody, including you, has any logical reason to accept as the gospel), then his conclusion would be wrong.  That's not how logic works, and you know that.  I can't think you aren't aware of the problem with your idea.  You came to your conclusion first and assumed he was wrong because he directly contradicts you.  That's a major issue here.
 
You are not analyzing data.  You said you have no data.  In fact, you said you did not care that you didn't have data.  What "data" are you examining?  Timetravel has analyzed data, you have not.  Person A has information, comes to a conclusion.  Person B comes to a different conclusion without information, and says you should believe them simply because the other person can't possibly be perfect.  Does that make this make more sense for you?  Sure, Timetravel may be fallible, but not only are you just as, if not more, fallible, you have no data on which to base the conclusion you reached.  If you hadn't reached a conclusion, that wouldn't be an issue, but you did.  You are directly telling me I should believe that level 20 dungeons should be reduced in difficulty because... I can't assume Timetravel is perfect?  But you apparently are, therefore I should assume you are right in direct contravention to the idea that you have nothing to support your conclusion beyond that?
 
I'm asking what you were here for, because you were not hear to see where Timetravel's post actually came from.  You seem surprised that we weren't surprised that was what Timetravel said?  The reason I ask is because if you weren't active in July and August, you can try to twist up Timetravel's word.  If you were around for July and August, you would know what everyone was saying.  There was no exit survey (and the forums were completely flooded with posts from people quitting).  People who were there knew those people were directly stating the rewards and the grind were why they left, but that they liked the dungeon difficulty.  I not only know this because I was there, but because I was talking to those people the same as I'm talking to you now.  Timetravel's post, you think, is coming out of context and you're trying to take it to be something that not only it wasn't intended, but that you wouldn't even understand if you weren't reading three or four posts a day calling the game Grindstar.  That's why Sly and I aren't confused at all, we were here to see exactly what was said and we know exactly what Timetravel is referencing.  We were both here, active on the forums,
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Vic, I'm kind of sick of having to keep telling you that I was in fact there, so I'm going to be clear with you about something. I was, in fact, here and playing this game in July and have been here continually ever since. The first post of mine that I could find was actually a mild poking of fun at the length of one of your posts. In retrospect, you were being incredibly terse.
 
So every one of the times you insist that if only I'd been around, I'd know that nobody was complaining about the difficulty of the dungeons, you are simply wrong. I was here. I did less posting back then, but I still read the forums. People were complaining about difficulty. They have been complaining about difficulty almost continuously since launch. They were complaining about difficulty in the thread that Timetravel posted in, back in October. It's actually WHY he posted. He was responding to people worried about the difficulty.
 
As for your continuing foaming at the lips about whether or not the result Timetravel put forward is meaningful, you don't have to believe me. Go ahead and fall at Timetravel's feet and worship every word he says, I'm fine with that. You are not obliged to look at the objective reality that Timetravel's statement simply cannot be used to support the popularity of dungeons, because he could have made the exact same statement he made with complete and total accuracy even if 90% of the playerbase quit because they hated the dungeons. 
 
You are welcome to completely ignore the fact that he actually gave a rationale for keeping the dungeons hard, and it had no metrics at all. If you don't want to believe ME, fine. Do you believe Timetravel? Because according to him, the dungeons are as difficult as they are because they LIKE having the dungeons difficult. The opinions of the playerbase at large about dungeons didn't figure into his stated rationale for the difficulty of them at all.
 
And in fact, in the same thread that Timetravel made that statement, several players expressed stunned disbelief, and Zyrri posted that she'd probably leave the game if it stayed that way. And apparently, she has.
 
But you can keep spewing as long as you'd like. Tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Tell me I wasn't here. Tell me I don't have anything to base my appraisal of Timetravel's statements on, as if I don't have Timetravel's statements themselves. I'm OK with all those things. They're not hurting MY credibility every time you say them as Vic's Rambling Rant, part (x+1).
 
You can continue to insist that his statement means something really important when all it really means is that people who play the game are likelier to stick with the game than people who don't play the game. Sly can keep insisting that Timetravel claimed that doing any dungeon was the best predictor of player retention in the game even though Timetravel clearly didn't say that at all.
 
I'm really finding both of your behavior a little bit bizarre at this point. I get it. You like Timetravel. By all accounts, he's quite good at what he does. But wow, I've seen people get less worked up arguing over religion than the two of you have gotten over me simply looking at what he said and reading it back to you and explaining what it means.  :lol:
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
which is really not particularly important or meaningful, although it sounds like it might be. If he monitors these numbers weekly if not more frequently, I'm rather baffled by why he'd do that. Sort of like I'm baffled as to why he'd give us a result that's really not all that relevant, even though he has the ability to look at all those numbers he has and tell us results that would be much more on-topic.
 
Unless, of course, he thinks it's telling him that people stay because they do dungeons. Like you did. And like Sly did. Even though it doesn't.
----
			I backed off "best predictor"- I misremebered what TT had said. I'd now say hat he was indicating that the dungeons at their current difficulty are beneficial to the game.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I don't see why I shouldn't question you were there in the actual conversations.  Your first post that you quoted to me was a TL;DR in a shorter post than you write here.  I certainly didn't see you in those quitting posts, and if you did read them, how could you not know where Timetravel was coming from?  It's very obviously and directly referencing a string of quitting posts you apparently read.  That's why I know you weren't reading the forums, certainly not those.  Hell, I had entire dissertations in those quitting posts about gearing and itemization because that's what people were complaining about.  How could you be there, read the posts where people were directly and voluminously complaining about itemization and RNG, and then say, "Obviously, though, more people left because of normal dungeon difficulty than stayed because of it."  I racked up thirty likes on a throwaway post, more than you'll ever quote leaving this game over level 20 dungeon difficulty (which Zyrri in fact completed, she never finished the vets and the vets were what her raiding guild was stuck on, you may have read).
----
			wow these are some long posts. no tl;dr's in sight either.	
----
			Asking for a TL; DR for these posts is like asking the waiter to let you lick the plate that used to have a very tasty turkey on it.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
wow these are some long posts. no tl;dr's in sight either.
----
			
Just thought Id drop my 2c. I read most of the thread, but skimmed some as well.
 
I think the most spot on post was "wildstar is good despite its difficulty, not because of it"
people lose sight of the big picture, they see how wow added easy options and claim its easy mode
 
the thing is, mythic/heroic raiding in wow isnt any easier now than it was in WOTLK or BC, its just that there are options
the "hardcore" get defensive becuase SO MANY PEOPLE TAKE THOSE OPTIONS
 
and to say no one would play wildstar because it would be "just another wow clone if everything wasnt super hardcore" is ridiculous
its scifi, not fantasy, completely different combat system, different approach (kill announcer, comedy ect)
this is the first post ive made in months, why? because of people in this thread
 
if it wasnt for people like yasfan, i would have completely given up by now
so why am i still here? because the GAME IS AWESOME and the story has me hooked
 
but when it comes down to it, and i realize i keep rolling alts and going through story missions, instead of playing with people
and treating wildstar like a skyrim with other people running around that for me it comes down too
 
"wildstar is amazing despite the difficulty, not because of it."
i would edit this to say, the lack of difficulty option rather than outright say its too hard
but OPs point stands, and as others have said, for years and through many games the leveling process has BEEN the training
having the first level 20 a brickwall so high you have to put in a training dungeon at level 10, is a HUGE turn off to a huge percentage of MMO players	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
If we give them long enough I'm fairly certain they'll end up reproducing the works of Shakespeare in their entirety.  :lol:
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 
I think the most spot on post was "wildstar is good despite its difficulty, not because of it"
people lose sight of the big picture, they see how wow added easy options and claim its easy mode
 
the thing is, mythic/heroic raiding in wow isnt any easier now than it was in WOTLK or BC, its just that there are options
the "hardcore" get defensive becuase SO MANY PEOPLE TAKE THOSE OPTIONS
 
 
----
			
WoD is a bad example, even ill admit that, its not so much tiered on difficulty as release, they made a bunch of raids/wings and released them slowly
 
however my point stands, when i want to stop soloing and run a dungeon in wow, i do that
i get xp and and gear equivalent to my effort
a blue or 2 and an XP boost
(talkin about leveling dungeons here)
 
if i want to do that here (assuming there is no pop problem)
i queue up and spend hours in a dungeon, lose gold on repairs compared to the gear i get, and lose potentialexperience from what i could have got from questing
the point i mean is, 1-50 IS the training
the fact that the level 20 dungeon is a wall SO high they need to introduce a level 10 intro/teaching dungeon to do the FIRST level 20 dungeon
is crazy
did you see the outcry on WoW forums for the required silver in training grounds to do heoroics (max level vets)??
now i dont suggest we stoop that low, but if a game of a current 10 mil subs has THAT much outcry becuase people have to learn to interupt FOR HEROICS
what chance does a game have of attracting a bigger audience that expects people to do a training dungeon/perform at a level in the first 20 dungeon
that normal mode wow raiders perform at
actually scratch that, higher than normal mode wow raids, it only takes 1 interrupt to counter 1 shots in ANY wow raid, and in the first 20 wildstar dungeon
we are expected to do team work-within-4-second-multiple-interupts
is it a poor reflection on players its come to this? maybe, but its still a fact, it turns people off
and yes sure throw that statistic about people who tried dungeons stayed subbed
either 90% of people didnt try dungeons, or it simply isnt true, otherwise 60 people would still have jobs and the 2 out 4 worldwide mega servers wouldnt be dead	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
if i want to do that here (assuming there is no pop problem)
i queue up and spend hours in a dungeon, lose gold on repairs compared to the gear i get, and lose potentialexperience from what i could have got from questing
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
WoD is a bad example, even ill admit that, its not so much tiered on difficulty as release, they made a bunch of raids/wings and released them slowly
 
however my point stands, when i want to stop soloing and run a dungeon in wow, i do that
i get xp and and gear equivalent to my effort
a blue or 2 and an XP boost
(talkin about leveling dungeons here)
 
if i want to do that here (assuming there is no pop problem)
i queue up and spend hours in a dungeon, lose gold on repairs compared to the gear i get, and lose potentialexperience from what i could have got from questing
the point i mean is, 1-50 IS the training
the fact that the level 20 dungeon is a wall SO high they need to introduce a level 10 intro/teaching dungeon to do the FIRST level 20 dungeon
is crazy
did you see the outcry on WoW forums for the required silver in training grounds to do heoroics (max level vets)??
now i dont suggest we stoop that low, but if a game of a current 10 mil subs has THAT much outcry becuase people have to learn to interupt FOR HEROICS
what chance does a game have of attracting a bigger audience that expects people to do a training dungeon/perform at a level in the first 20 dungeon
that normal mode wow raiders perform at
actually scratch that, higher than normal mode wow raids, it only takes 1 interrupt to counter 1 shots in ANY wow raid, and in the first 20 wildstar dungeon
we are expected to do team work-within-4-second-multiple-interupts
is it a poor reflection on players its come to this? maybe, but its still a fact, it turns people off
and yes sure throw that statistic about people who tried dungeons stayed subbed
either 90% of people didnt try dungeons, or it simply isnt true, otherwise 60 people would still have jobs and the 2 out 4 worldwide mega servers wouldnt be dead
----
			
I think something as simple as a text box or a little bit of quest text for the dungeon public events (killing bosses) that explain what to do would go a long way.
 
For instance, in KV first boss.  After wiping the first time, an NPC appears that gives you a hint, something like:
"When the big pig gets angry, it swings its tusks wildly in one direction.  It's best for most of the group to stand behind it during the heat of battle.  Watch out for the thrashing it does, as it's hard to avoid!  A seasoned adventurer prepares control abilities and CC breaks to be used at the right time!"
 
An in-game tutorial so to speak.  This really doesn't require much, and would take very little engineering to pull off.  I've found that (even though I'm just now doing veteran dungeons myself), I don't really know what I'm interrupting / what I'm supposed to be doing until AFTER I've wiped a few times.  I get that it's one of the aspects of difficulty of this game, but there's only so much you can do to put challenging content in front of new players.
 
Further, you're not seeing enough player interaction.  With low population, comes a lower amount of guide-making or leadership.  The difference that 1 person can make with a macro that explains the fight to new people is astounding.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I think something as simple as a text box or a little bit of quest text for the dungeon public events (killing bosses) that explain what to do would go a long way.
 
For instance, in KV first boss. After wiping the first time, an NPC appears that gives you a hint, something like:
"When the big pig gets angry, it swings its tusks wildly in one direction. It's best for most of the group to stand behind it during the heat of battle. Watch out for the thrashing it does, as it's hard to avoid! A seasoned adventurer prepares control abilities and CC breaks to be used at the right time!"
 
An in-game tutorial so to speak. This really doesn't require much, and would take very little engineering to pull off. I've found that (even though I'm just now doing veteran dungeons myself), I don't really know what I'm interrupting / what I'm supposed to be doing until AFTER I've wiped a few times. I get that it's one of the aspects of difficulty of this game, but there's only so much you can do to put challenging content in front of new players.
 
Further, you're not seeing enough player interaction. With low population, comes a lower amount of guide-making or leadership. The difference that 1 person can make with a macro that explains the fight to new people is astounding.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I really like this idea a lot. Much better than nerfing the fights. I've been thinking about how to do his (give instruction about the fights) without making it feel clunky- I think this suggestion gets it right, especially if it's a progressive hint system (the more you wipe, the more hints you get)
 
I like this suggestion so much, I think it's a shame it's buried in this thread and likely will go unread. Would it be wrong to start a new thread with this suggestion?
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
either 90% of people didnt try dungeons, or it simply isnt true, otherwise 60 people would still have jobs and the 2 out 4 worldwide mega servers wouldnt be dead
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I really like this idea a lot. Much better than nerfing the fights. I've been thinking about how to do his (give instruction about the fights) without making it feel clunky- I think this suggestion gets it right, especially if it's a progressive hint system (the more you wipe, the more hints you get)
 
I like this suggestion so much, I think it's a shame it's buried in this thread and likely will go unread. Would it be wrong to start a new thread with this suggestion?
----
			
So, I don't know how to say this nicely but some of you have horrible forum manners. What on earth is leading all these threads in the GD to get pages and pages of these petty arguments with massive walls of text on each page? 
 
Please, learn to be concise. 	
----
			
Remember kits!  To post is human, to edit is divine!
 
(To ignore people you consistently disagree with is on an entirely different evolutionary tier that will apparently be reached when we achieve space flight and time travel.)	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Remember kits!  To post is human, to edit is divine!
 
(To ignore people you consistently disagree with is on an entirely different evolutionary tier that will apparently be reached when we achieve space flight and time travel.)
----