tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post2941615022824773609..comments2022-11-11T10:12:34.497-05:00Comments on Player Vs Auction House: OT: Subscription and CorrelationAzurielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16581263347888757710noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-90832167581459913322011-06-25T22:09:12.010-04:002011-06-25T22:09:12.010-04:00If me pointing out fallacies in your writing is a ...<i>If me pointing out fallacies in your writing is a red herring, then your entire post is a red herring.</i><br /><br />A red herring distracting you from what? That subscription numbers <i>can</i> be used logically in the examples at the top of the post? <br /><br />Correct me if I am wrong, but everything you have been typing has been a criticism of my choice of topic on my own blog, rather than anything at all to do with the actual topic itself. That informal writing is rife with fallacies (etc) is 100% irrelevant. If you think it is pointless for me to have brought up this topic at all, again, thank you for your feedback but I disagree.Azurielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16581263347888757710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-66785856828891151112011-06-25T21:38:09.096-04:002011-06-25T21:38:09.096-04:00@Nils
I consider your argument weak because it wa...@Nils<br /><br />I consider your argument weak because it was easier to run out of things to do back in TBC: there was no 10m raiding outside Kara/ZA, daily quests were limited to 10/day (some people enjoy those), and heroic runs were either done in-house, Trade chat pugged, or not done at all. Doing heroics on a daily basis was nearly unheard of. No Alliance guild on Auchindoun killed Illidan before 3.0, let alone zoned into Sunwell - an entire tier of raiding content simply did not exist for my server. I find it unlikely that Auchindoun is alone in that.<br /><br />I would tentatively agree running out of things to do because you did them all is "worse" than running out of things to do because you can't/won't do them (since that can always change in the future). However, <i>in practice</i>, I believe that players having done things is a better scenario than players not having done them.<br /><br />As far as "allowing players to do things at their own pace," I reject that out of hand. The thing that stops players from doing that <i>now</i> is simply finding 9 other players willing to zone back into outdated content and/or wearing blues/greens to compensate for 20% nerf. Nor would I agree that new players/older ones coming back/slow-paced players actually deserve "untouched" content at the direct expense of anyone else that could utilize that outdated content.<br /><br />Fundamentally, I am 100% fine with MMOs being ran under a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence" rel="nofollow">Planned Obsolescence</a> content model, as that is what happens in my experience anyway. Content I have not experience can still grow stale considering the social dimensions of progression and loot lose their luster on the back end of the content curve. Remember the Champion of the Frozen Wastes title? By the time Ulduar came out, no one really cared about that any more than they might have cared about that awesome loot off of Heigan you got the week before. You can be proud of your own progression/gear for your own sake, of course. Then again, if you play solely within that personal bubble, I don't think MMOs are necessarily for you.Azurielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16581263347888757710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-58676991684846618342011-06-25T12:14:23.913-04:002011-06-25T12:14:23.913-04:00Sorry, I meant to say "one has to..., or one ...Sorry, I meant to say "one has to..., or one becomes a giant douchebag." I certainly did not mean to imply that I thought you were at all lacking in that capability.<br /><br />Quibbling, red herring, coffee to Narnia, what have you. If me pointing out fallacies in your writing is a red herring, then your entire post is a red herring. Enjoy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-64892858103395405182011-06-25T09:22:52.067-04:002011-06-25T09:22:52.067-04:00Azuriel, that is your opinion. You haven't eve...Azuriel, that is your opinion. You haven't even said yet why you consider my argument weak without correlation.<br />In my opinion it is very strong and the correlation is just a weak additional hint. (It only becomes powerful if you want to argue that WoW got better, because in that case I'd ask you why the sub numbers didn't grew.)<br /><br />Also, please don't talk about Syncaine and me as if we had the same opinion on the matter. Syncaine is making a different point than I am. He argues that more difficulty is better then less. I am arguing that 'too easy' is as much a problem as 'too hard' content.<br /><br />While I do think that Syncaine is 80% correct in this specific case, we really aren't saying the same thing.Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-45010270749578349382011-06-25T03:02:52.155-04:002011-06-25T03:02:52.155-04:00But seriously, one has to distinguish between the ...<i>But seriously, one has to distinguish between the fallacies present in informal writing that function as lazy shorthand, skipped over by writer and reader alike, and those presented maliciously as deceit.</i><br /><br />"Has to?" What is "worthy of mention" is whatever I feel like is worthy of mention. In any case, we can quibble over the "maliciousness" of the subscription line of reasoning, but there is no question in my mind that it is intended to be deceitful - Nils and Syncaine's accessibility arguments are weak without the "substance" of sub correlation, as they are unable to paint the change as bad without simply saying "I think they're bad" or "They are bad for me." A simple counter-argument of "They are good for me/people I know" derails the whole thing, which is why I imagine they included sub numbers at all ("Hey, it's objectively bad!").<br /><br />As for the fallacy of fallacy fallacies, sure. Then again... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring" rel="nofollow">red herring</a>?Azurielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16581263347888757710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-90650691185153842762011-06-24T23:51:11.658-04:002011-06-24T23:51:11.658-04:00Eating ice cream causes cramping, especially if ha...Eating ice cream causes cramping, especially if hard exercise follows hard upon the consumption, which could theoretically cause drowning if it occurred while swimming. That's why your mother probably told you to wait 30 minutes after eating before swimming. Strictly speaking, was that a fallacy? Yes. Did you wait 30 minutes? Maybe you did, and maybe you didn't, but I hope you didn't yell at your mother about fallacious argumentation. P.s., "("Greater accessibility causes subs to drop as demonstrated by subs dropping with greater accessibility")" isn't petitio principii, it's post hoc ergo propter hoc, which you correctly claimed earlier but now have lost track of. Petitio principii would be "Greater accessibility causes subs to drop, since we know that greater accessibility must cause subs to drop", or some such. Or, ""Even if Syncain and Nils were merely "voicing their opinion," it is a fallacy to use sub numbers like that as a rhetorical device either way."" :P <br /><br />pps. I don't see how to read that clause any other way but "it is a fallacy to use sub numbers fallaciously, either way.", which is clearly circular. I'm not ACTUALLY accusing you of circular argument, because what I really take from that sentence is that you meant "it's a fallacious use, either way", which isn't circular at all. I just accused you of petitio principii to illustrate my main point that informal argument should be read loosely and with a generous interpretation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-21059989142956667392011-06-24T23:50:26.848-04:002011-06-24T23:50:26.848-04:00It is a reasonable view to regard the classic list...It is a reasonable view to regard the classic lists of fallacies as an effort by logicians to classify and refute the persuasive tools of the ancient rhetoricians, such as the famous Sophists of Greece. No one calling themself a rhetorician today would advocate using deductive fallacies as rhetorical tools, and yet they permeate the airwaves nonetheless, showing that rhetoric has not changed, but the types of people referred to as rhetoricians has. In this historical sense, therefore, fallacies and rhetorical devices are virtually synonymous terms. Currently, the term enjoys a much more literary connotation, although the more ancient meaning still functions. As you can see, this is an incredibly long explanation for something that functioned as a mere throwaway remark in my original usage, but I feel that the degree to which this entire situation mirrors this ancient divide amply justifies this diversion. To wit, as a consequence of this historical formation, whereas the prevailing and deductively false means of communication were exhaustively classified; any reasonably informal speech will, on the whole, consist almost entirely of logical fallacies. Quickly redounding from this analysis, is the knowledge that any piece presented as opinion were only redundantly searched for such inevitabilities. So, in brief: chill out, man.<br /><br />But seriously, one has to distinguish between the fallacies present in informal writing that function as lazy shorthand, skipped over by writer and reader alike, and those presented maliciously as deceit. Only the latter type are worthy of mention. In this case, what's present is obviously just shorthand, because it's unnecessary to put in a couple hundred words as disclaimer when it's obvious to "almost" all readers that it's intended as nonrigorous opinion. This is something that Nils and Syncaine have explained at length already, so I'll leave it there.<br />"<br />I remain amused that you continue hanging onto the "nonscientific" nature of the posts as if science has something to do with this. The two articles argue, in spirit, that ice cream causes drowning. I am pointing out that this is not the case. Not only is that circular reasoning ("Greater accessibility causes subs to drop as demonstrated by subs dropping with greater accessibility"), but subscription trends are sufficiently complex in WoW that someone can just about make any argument using them. After all, based on sub numbers, achievements and the Barber Shop killed WoW."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-69735743776149964782011-06-24T23:49:34.804-04:002011-06-24T23:49:34.804-04:00"Claim -verb; to assert or maintain as a fact..."Claim -verb; to assert or maintain as a fact.<br /><br />I prefer using Dictionary.com as a resource in these sort of situations, but if you have a differing definition please share so that we may move on from semantics. I also recommend this Wikipedia article on Argument."<br /><br />Imagine a debate between a subjectivist and an objectivist. The objectivist is looking for a biased judge to moderate the debate in his favor. Could he really do any better than a dictionary author?<br /><br />I counterpropose we examine the etymology of the word "claim". dictionary.com which you love, refers us to -"hlowan", to low, to make a noise like a cow.- I'm tempted to attempt to debate using that definition, although the latin "clamare" - to cry out, shout- would be a more rational alternative. Mooving on.<br /><br />"Actually, you are utilizing the fallacy known as "straw man." What I set out to "prove" was: "[...] this type of thinking (or lack thereof) is what I consider one of the most pernicious, asinine fallacies in any discussion of World of Warcraft.""<br /><br />See, I was referencing one (1), and only one (1), sentence of yours. You have quoted a different sentence. This is a "bait-and-switch" fallacy. Woosh, it sure is fun accusing other people of fallacies, right? It's something I call the "fallacy fallacy", where people start using fallacies as an accusatory method and not as a classification tool. But, I'm right and you're wrong, so I'm going to assign all the blame for falteringly falling into "fallacy fallacy" failure, upon you. (Fallacy fallacy has a different pre-existing meaning, which we also are verging on, of course) Plus you started the fallacy war by basing your entire article on your dislike of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'.<br /><br />"Incidentally, fallacies are not rhetorical devices. I would be interested in hearing about where you found that they were, considering I am not even sure I used "rhetorical device" correctly ("rhetorical bludgeon" would have been safer)."<br /><br />Paraphrased from the wikipedia article on rhetoric, per your recommendation, under Aristotle's theory of:<br />"<br /><br /> ethos: how the character and credibility of a speaker can influence an audience to consider him/her to be believable.<br /> pathos: the use of emotional appeals to alter the audience's judgment.<br /> logos: the use of reasoning, either inductive or deductive, to construct an argument."<br /><br />Broadly speaking, fallacies can be grouped into the fallacies of ethos (appeals to authority, etc), fallacies of pathos (ad hominem, appeal to emotion, appeal to motive, etc), and the more numerous fallacies of logos, in which the logic is applied incorrectly either in structure (formal logical fallacy) or through the relation of content to structure (informal logical fallacy). Historically rhetoricians and more traditional philosophers have often been at odds, as the latter view the use of the first two methods to convince an audience as irrelevant, and the misuse of logos to deceive an audience as being downright offensive. Hence, your post above, yes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-69479513752105884602011-06-22T20:40:58.156-04:002011-06-22T20:40:58.156-04:00That 21 million number has not grown in the last y...<i>That 21 million number has not grown in the last year and a half. What does that say about the likelihood of accessibility in WoW's endgame being the root cause of a lack of growth, as opposed to market saturation and/or the depressed economy keeping players out of subscription-based MMOs?</i><br /><br />The 21 mio number tells us that the number of players leaving equals the number of players joining MMORPGs. Since the leveling game remained mostly untouched during the TBC-WotLK transition, that points towards a faster burnout.<br /><br />Make no mistake: There is a HUGE market out there: players who played MMORPGs at some point and often wish they found another fun MMORPG. And this market is still growing. Even if active sub numbers may not.Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-19763235754063084152011-06-22T20:23:12.279-04:002011-06-22T20:23:12.279-04:00I don't think that was Azuriel's question....<i>I don't think that was Azuriel's question. He asked if you think that WoW would be sitting on 16 million subs today if the "character power progression mechanics" as you call them had been left unchanged. I am also very interested in hearing what you think about that. :) </i><br /><br />If they had released WotLK the way they did, but without the character progression mechanic changes and adjusted the rest of the expansion for that in a smart way?. I think they would have grown, yeah. <br /><br />By 2mio? I don't think so. The progression mechanic change is not the only thing that's responsible for the stop in growth, I think.<br /><br />---<br />Next time I make a post with arguments pointing some problems out, Sven, I will just omit any references to sub numbers. Because no matter whether they grow, stagnate or decrease I am always 'projecting my prejudices on them'. Right?Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-68096205722918653142011-06-22T12:22:14.456-04:002011-06-22T12:22:14.456-04:00@Azuriel
Thanks for an excellent post. It drives ...@Azuriel<br /><br />Thanks for an excellent post. It drives me crazy when people project their own prejudices onto data.<br /><br />Incidentally, if it helps, I did a quick analysis of raid numbers at different tiers last year (see <a href="http://failpug.blogspot.com/2010/05/too-easy-or-too-hard.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>). It broadly supports your "~40% have done the easiest raid content" estimate in section 3.Svenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12093039707591642140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-322468264509408582011-06-22T10:13:09.076-04:002011-06-22T10:13:09.076-04:00@Azuriel
"You can see their floundering even...@Azuriel<br /><br />"You can see their floundering even today in getting people to use the function, abandoning any pretence that it's successful on its own." (re: RBGs)<br /><br />What evidence is there of this? My experiences have been to the contrary - PvP guilds and PUGs popping up everywhere.<br /><br />Regarding the original topic, Nils' hypothesis only accounts for churn, not new subscribers. Who knows why the MMO market isn't growing...Bernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08909382806966279602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-21311705897190045302011-06-22T00:47:53.370-04:002011-06-22T00:47:53.370-04:00There's a hell of a lot of things they could h...<i>There's a hell of a lot of things they could have done.</i><br /><br />Right, but would have player housing, rated battlegrounds*, epic server-wide battles, etc, etc, have continued to grow WoW at 2 million more players per year? Is the growth potential for WoW actually unbounded? Is there no such thing as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_saturation" rel="nofollow">market saturation</a> in MMOs?<br /><br />WoW may have had 12 million subscribers a while ago, but honestly how many MMO players have played WoW at some point in the last six years? MMOData says there were 8 million MMO players worldwide before WoW, and there are 21 million today. <b>That 21 million number has not grown in the last year and a half</b>. What does that say about the likelihood of <i>accessibility in WoW's endgame</i> being the root cause of a lack of growth, as opposed to market saturation and/or the depressed economy keeping players out of subscription-based MMOs?<br /><br />*Rated BGs are the worst design failure Blizzard has ever done in the game. They took a concept players had been asking for for ages (making BGs where players were rewarded for NOT fighting in the road, but rewarded for flags/etc), and instead gave everyone 10v10 Arena. You can see their floundering even today in getting people to use the function, abandoning any pretense that it's successful on its own.Azurielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16581263347888757710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-14834416652563137092011-06-22T00:13:24.298-04:002011-06-22T00:13:24.298-04:00Nils,
I don't think that was Azuriel's qu...Nils,<br /><br />I don't think that was Azuriel's question. He asked if you think that WoW would be sitting on 16 million subs today if the "character power progression mechanics" as you call them had been left unchanged. I am also very interested in hearing what you think about that. :)Oscarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14140224684044151805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-5698724176866975202011-06-21T20:08:08.339-04:002011-06-21T20:08:08.339-04:00On the TBC topic you asked about:
Of course, Bli...On the TBC topic you asked about: <br /><br />Of course, Blizzard needed to do something at the end of TBC. TBC was designed to require new content all the time and it was even designed to require item-resets every now and then.<br /><br />There's a hell of a lot of things they could have done. From adding housing, epic server-wide battles against lich king minions up to rated battlegrounds back then and much, much, much more.<br /><br />Among other things they decided to change the character power progression mechanics. I tried to guess some of the reasons in my original post. <br /><br />In the end that was a mistake, I think. This part of the game was alright. They should have concentrated on adding conent, not on changing central game mechanics.Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-76513346312657534372011-06-21T19:53:06.864-04:002011-06-21T19:53:06.864-04:00This Bashiok quote shows that Blizzard thinks that...This Bashiok quote shows that Blizzard thinks that they are able to make the game better by using metrics. That's the big hype right now. Look at <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3006-Metrics" rel="nofollow">Extra Credits</a>.<br /><br />To some extend this is certainly possible. The problem is that metrics need to be interpreted. And that's <b>extremely</b> hard. Almost as hard as to design the game without metrics, in my opinion.<br /><br />Imagine you put something really fun, but time intensive into WoW that does not give any rewards. 90% of the player base won't do it. <br /><br />Now imagine you put something very boring and repetitive into the game. But you give out rewards for doing it! Suddenly 90% of the players do it. It must be a hell of a lot of fun ...<br /><br />Unfortunately a month later players start to quit, because 'the game is not fun'. And that's just one obvious example of how metrics are extremely dangerous.Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-27046369155193006272011-06-21T16:42:36.829-04:002011-06-21T16:42:36.829-04:00But I don't think that 'game got worse and...<i>But I don't think that 'game got worse and thus lost players' is such a complex theory, really.</i><br /><br />It is pretty complex when I feel the game got better than it was in TBC. <br /><br />And supposing you are 100% accurate in that it was difficulty/accessibility that caused the drop in subs, is your argument that had WoW been TBC 2.0 (same philosophy, new raids), WoW would be sitting at 16+ million subs today? If you do not, then that should indicate more than simply difficulty going on.<br /><br />P.S. Would be interested in your thoughts on the Bashiok quote from my What Players Want post.Azurielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16581263347888757710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-81744239387863353192011-06-21T08:57:03.791-04:002011-06-21T08:57:03.791-04:00Pzychotix, what have you done to show that your th...Pzychotix, what have you done to show that your theory is more plausible than mine? So far I've only seen you argue that burnout and saturation are more plausible, because they are 'simpler'.<br /><br />I agree with Occam's razor. But I don't think that 'game got worse and thus lost players' is such a complex theory, really.Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-23328877076288386192011-06-20T23:16:56.416-04:002011-06-20T23:16:56.416-04:00Nils: When you say that I haven't provided any...<i><b>Nils:</b> When you say that I haven't provided anything but my own word, what do you mean? I can give you massive amounts of links that proof that sub numbers go down.</i><br /><br />No one has even denied that sub numbers have gone down. But it is only your word that tries to use that information as if it means something when that data is not statistically capable of showing anything other than subscription numbers are going down.<br /><br /><i><b>Nils:</b> Mmh .. so you agree? You agree that it is a hint? It seems we agree, actually. ... In absence of other hints and reasons these make it more probable that the hypothesis is correct than that it is wrong.</i> <br /><br />Sure, I agree that it's a hint, but the problem is that you're promoting this particular hypothesis as much more valid than several other much more simpler explanations or hints (player burnout, player saturation, so on, so forth), when so far, we've seen no reason to believe as such.<br /><br />You should realize that your role in this entire ordeal isn't about proving the plausibility of your theory (which is an entirely different matter that needs scrutiny), but rather to show that your theory is MORE plausible than any other theory.Pzychotixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10986040446792447942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-71430573848186532332011-06-20T21:24:05.608-04:002011-06-20T21:24:05.608-04:00@Nils
Had I not given sub numbers, would you be m...@Nils<br /><br /><i>Had I not given sub numbers, would you be more inclinded to believe the hypothesis (that progression mechanics are bad??)</i><br /><br />I would not be inclined to believe your hypothesis because I believe you are wrong. That the sub number "correlation" was used for exactly the purpose you just admitted to (e.g. to make people more inclined to accept an otherwise dubious hypothesis) is exactly the reason why I made this post.<br /><br />@Syncaine<br /><br /><a href="http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~berwin/humour/invalid.proofs.html#1.10Proofbyeminentauthority" rel="nofollow">Proof by Eminent Authority</a> aside, there are two follow-up (somewhat rhetorical) questions that I just have to ask.<br /><br />1) Had Wrath been TBC 2.0, would you have expected subscriptions to continue at the same 2004-2008 rates?<br /><br />2) Understanding that the argument already suggests designers like Ghostcrawler <i>et tal</i> "don't get it," what makes you confident that the designers you talked to know (more of) what they are talking about?<br /><br />I absolutely would agree that difficulty has <i>some</i> impact, just not to the degree you and Nils suggest by linking it explicitly (and solely) with sub numbers. Difficulty should be a level-cap concern, should it not? Would that not suggest some kind of massive exodus in a population most people are aware of (i.e. the heroics/raiding crowd)? Do we even know from which end of the sieve subs are leaking from?<br /><br />Finally, as far as what we <i>can</i> know about numbers, I leave you with a link to an older post of mine called <a href="http://pvsah.blogspot.com/2011/05/ot-what-players-actually-want.html" rel="nofollow">What Players Actually Want</a>, and the words of Bashiok:<br /><br />"By looking at actual stats, actual progression, time spent playing, where, and to what extent, we can see that most people are looking for more accessible raid content, so yes, we absolutely are able to tell without a doubt that the plan we're enacting is actually what players playing the game want and need, and are not just listening to people on the forums."<br /><br />P.S. Sorry about lack of "e."Azurielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16581263347888757710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-25427152426270200512011-06-20T18:59:32.009-04:002011-06-20T18:59:32.009-04:00And a final word on this. Sorry for spamming the b...And a final word on this. Sorry for spamming the blog:<br /><br />Had I not given sub numbers, would you be more inclinded to believe the hypothesis (that progression mechanics are bad??)<br /><br />I don't think so. In fact, if sub numbers had started to grow with 3 mio a year with WotLK release, my hypothesis would be under heavy attack. It would seem unlikely that the progression mechanics are worse when sub number growth increases!Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-92088962947104248702011-06-20T18:54:17.644-04:002011-06-20T18:54:17.644-04:00You're free to do more research on it, but tha...<i>You're free to do more research on it, but that's all your conjecture amounts to: a hint that provides a possible direction towards to truth. Truth is not built on hints. Truth is built on facts. </i><br /><br />Mmh .. so you agree? You agree that it is a hint?<br />It seems we agree, actually.<br /><br />I might undertsand our problem right now. You think that I think that it is 100% proven fact that sub numbers go down, just because of the change in progression mechanics .. ?<br /><br />Of course, I don't. I can't be sure. All I can give is some argumentation. Reasons. Hints. Guesswork.<br /><br />In absence of other hints and reasons these make it more probable that the hypothesis is correct than that it is wrong.<br /><br />If you want the undeiable truth. I'm afraid nobody can give you that. I said before: Not even Blizzard knows why exactly their sub number behave the way they do. <br /><br />If they knew, every human on the planet probably played WoW by now ;)Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-60259730550518427052011-06-20T18:40:58.910-04:002011-06-20T18:40:58.910-04:00When you say that I haven't provided anything ...When you say that I haven't provided anything but my own word, what do you mean? I can give you massive amounts of links that proof that sub numbers go down. <br /><br />Just as well links that prove that new team got into control at that time. The reasons as to why the new progression mechanics are bad, cannot be researched. They nned to be understood.<br /><br />I gave ample reasons to assume that the new progression mechanics are bad. That's analog to the research the magazine did. (You need to comprehend these reasons, of course).<br /><br />There's an obvious causal connection between bad progression mechanics and sub numbers. Sometimes I feel like you are even denying this(?).<br /><br />Sub numbers did go down at the exactly the moment you would expect given the other considerations.<br /><br />Given these hints, is it more probable that there was no causal connection or that there was <b>some</b> causal connection?Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-61173652537197295522011-06-20T18:31:39.105-04:002011-06-20T18:31:39.105-04:00Except:
Your friend tells you that this magazine c...Except:<br /><i>Your friend tells you that this magazine can't be used as proof. After all there are millions of ovens like this around. And most haven't made problems. Really, since your entire argument is based on this report in that magazine, you are making a fool of yourself. </i><br /><br />The magazine, realistically speaking, is going to uphold some basic journalistic responsibilities, and isn't going to say "X oven is likely to burst into flames" without some sort of proof, research study, recall notice, or SOMETHING in the way of showing that their conjecture is believable (e.g. a video of the oven in question, spontaneously bursting into flames).<br /><br />You haven't even provided this much! You haven't provided anything but your own word! No one's trying to deny your possibility. But the fact of the matter is that the possibility that you've provided is no where near the smoking gun that one would need to prove it as such.<br /><br />You're free to do more research on it, but that's all your conjecture amounts to: a hint that provides a possible direction towards to truth. Truth is not built on hints. Truth is built on facts.Pzychotixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10986040446792447942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4935547461251083572.post-2484072489588671402011-06-20T17:07:08.419-04:002011-06-20T17:07:08.419-04:00Elaborating a bit more:
Your friend is right: If ...Elaborating a bit more:<br /><br />Your friend is right: If there weren't smoke and you wouldn't have remembered that your forgot to switch off the oven, the report in the magazie on its own were useless. It would be utterly ridiculous to assume, just because you remember that week-old report that your oven is about to set your house on fire. There's not even smoke!<br /><br />In fact, there are reports about your fridge as well. (Yeah, it could as well be the dance studio- silly).<br /><br />The reason that report in the magazine is actually not completely useless, is because there are other reasons. <br /><br /><b>TOGETHER</b> these reaons make you form a picture. And only together are they useful. There's no other reason to assume it's the dance studio (the fridge). But I have given ample reason as to why the changes in WotLK on their own were actually bad.<br /><br />Add all the things together and even a small hint adds to it. The most ridiculous thing I saw as reaction to the post was to tell me that the entire argument is based on the sub numbers. 90% of my posts were about other reasons.<br /><br />The sub numbers just add nicely to the larger picture.Nilshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com