Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Top 3 reasons why raids only attracted a small audience


Swagger.1459

Recommended Posts

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jilora.9524 said:Yeah it tells me they are consistent with abandoning things or paying little attention to raids, dungeons fractals pvp wvw etc etc for long periods of time.

Yes ... the attempted corporate suicide conspiracy theory again. ... and I'M the one that is wrong and unreasonable. :+1:

Why do you think they act like that? Just random hate?

You are wrong like what you just wrote has nothing to do with anything. When you throw random you think i said there's a conspiracy when they do tend to ignore various aspects of the game for long periods of time idk how to respond. They seem on point now with a road map touching everything except dungeons and I bet if the determine strike missions are sucessful you could even see more raids in the expansion but who knows

You don't know how to respond? OK ... So in your opinion, it's completely reasonable to you that Anet simply decides to ignore raid development, despite the fact that it was really successful at some point? I'm just asking you why you think they would do that? Do you think they are that incompetent? I mean, what is your reasoning? You don't like mine ... obviously you think what you got is way more solid ... let's go down that garden path. I'm ready.

You know kitten right if I tell you why you will go but you don't have numbers to prove that only anet has those. My guess of course is they messed of the difficulty scale and half got stuck and quit and half that got past it the next 2 raids were too easy so they weren't challenged and again with a small base already losing half kills you. They were as successful as anything else in this game or any MMO. Casuals want easy and to take their PVE build and change nothing and roll into any content including raids and expect to win. You can't do that in raids and 2 of the strikes almost so hence why they could of failed also. I can only guess but you also can only guess so stop saying I'm right you just can't follow me. It's very frustrating talking to you but some nights I get bored so lucky you.

Again, I'm not debating raids weren't successful. I'm given a reason why I think they have a low population. You even touched on it in your post ... they don't appeal to the 'casual crowd' ... and who are most of the people that adopted the game in the first place?

And see how we are back to the original adopters. I have no idea how many of the original adopters tried raids and neither do you. I know raids weren't in the game as they aren't in any MMO i played that I bought on release. They are added later. There is only 1 game FF14 that basically makes every casual do difficult content by putting it in mandatory story steps but there is a minimum gear score to join so you can't expect to be carried and every single player has to do that content once. Now until anet auto swaps player to a raid ready build upon entering we will never see 20 percent try raids let alone 100 percent so idk how anet can make us casuals do them

Of course we are back to the original adopters ... do you disagree that most of the people that experienced the first raid were people that WERE NOT original adopters of the game?

I bought the game on release and was in a guild that did them and once in a while we would train but I'm just not good at 3h training or fear of making a mistake so I never kept trying but many did and they beat it then eventually were so good they sold raids. So do you think people bought GW2 after they added raids and no original adopters tried raids? Again we don't know. I think many adopters at least tried raids and I bet many joined GW2 when they added raids. It was successful then it wasn't then abandoned and for some reason raid prep strikes are added so idk what the future holds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 582
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are these people? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game so that most of the people were inline with how that content was offered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

I'm an original adopter and I tried. You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get. How can either of us prove that either way? The players I tried with in that guild could've been original adopters idk. I mean raids came out like 3 years later. I bet many original adopters moved to other games by then. How many do you think have stayed through all 7 years. Have you? I took almost 4 off but played Hot a long time and 4 days of PoF on release before swapping back to FF14 and now here I am again w GW2 only game I play. I'm sorry if you whole argument hinges on something we both can only speculate about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jilora.9524 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cyninja.2954 said:

Sure, that could be one reason. Just as many of the other factors which were mentioned can be reasons.

We can agree that, since neither of us have inside data, we will have to each have our own assumptions as to which reasons lead to where we are now raid population wise. Likely even all of them might or will have contributed.

Since we are unable to disprove the others arguments based on our limited knowledge, we can only agree on:
  1. raids used to be successful enough
  2. stuff happened
  3. raids are not longer successful enough

and that's the full extent one can say for sure.

Just to be clear, I've never disagreed that raids were not 'successful'. It's completely reasonable to believe that a fraction of the people that adopted raids did so simply because it was new content and stuck with it for as long as they weren't bored, frustrated, etc ... I mean, yes, it's natural for things to get old and everything in this game has gotten old, so all populations have declined ... but there is a reason that unlike most other things, Anet pulled back on raid development. Unlike what others would have us believe, I can't bring myself to believe that's simply because of incompetence or some sense of Anet intentionally trying to fail or sabotage the game. There are more reasonable, likely explanations for what is happening.

I would never go that far. I personally think it was a combination of issues culminating in the results we see now (as is often the case):
  • raids were tied to living world releases, which lead to issues in later stages, most notably wing 6 and 7
  • raid rewards past legendary armor failed to incentivize new players (I still don't understand why we have LD, but this suggests there was some plan for them when they got implemented)
  • legendary armor its self causes serious issues within the game (I've always been open about the fact I believe legi armor is to cheap from a balance perspective). This is only so far related that the introduction of legendary armor in spvp and wvw would have increased these issues.
  • side projects and less dedication to GW2 caused issues within the player base and lack of content (which might have perfectly made sense at the time from a studio perspective)
  • overall player base decline due to for example lack of expansion (which again, might have made perfect sense at the time)
  • very strong competitor expansions taking market share (yes, even these things will affect the game. Completely out of control of the devs)

I wouldn't go as far as some who state that raids were murdered. That is a bit hyperbole born of frustration and trying to make a point (which might very well have been incorrect. We might be at this same stage with raids right now even if many of the other factors might not have occurred). I think they (the studio) had to take different steps at a time, and raids were part of the content which there was just not enough resources to go around to any longer based on decline it had seen from multiple factors (some not even raid related).

I like this post ... because I don't disagree with any of that and my view can coexist with it. You see, the question is not if raids were successful or not at the beginning ... the question is HOW successful they were. It's not unreasonable to think that if how raids were offered was more aligned with why people originally adopted the game, raids would have had a higher population to weather out some of the events or policies you mention and likely still be around today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:Yup, you're right. You got it all figured out. Raids were super successful, the best thing that ever happened to this game ... and Anet screwed them over .. for some reason that defies good business sense.

... the convoluted conspiracy theory approach where the corporation tries hard to destroy their own existence, for whatever reason ... instead of the more logical explanation where raids declined because of being an unpopular brand with it's customers. Gotcha. #makessense. :+1: Whatever works for you.

Now you lost me. I never claimed anything you say there.

But I'm gonna repeat my question, because you ignored it:Do delays and bad schedules hurt games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DoRi Silvia.4159 said:My thoughts/reason raids have low pop is because players aren't willing to learn.

Before even getting into a group (for first timers or ppl joining trainings) you should learn your class build from snowcrow, practice dps on the golem till you can get close to bench mark and also listen in discord.

The amount of players I come across in raids that have their own build with your own rotation being out dps'd by the druid is just cringe... its meant to be the hardest content in game and you want to accept the challenge then atleast prepare your self and not the 'oh I'm just gonna play what I want cos I can and face tank all mechanics' attitude. This is one of the issues I see alot. If you dont know mechanics and have joined training group JOIN discord and listen. Very frustrating when you get stuck on one simple mechanic that one person does not do and either downs or dies.

Raids are fun and challenging and definitely a learning curve jump from your average pve open world. BE PREPARED FOR IT.

You don't need snow crows to be good.

My group is only just starting to learn raiding and we nearly got our first boss kill even with the low DPS people who we are willing to teach and grow and not force them into snow crows builds that may not be comfortable with their playstyle, etc. My friend he's hitting for near 20k consistently on his own condi firebrand build and he's having a blast with it.

I have rebuilt my own character to with skills a friend of mine would prefer and not only did some things she like improve my build but I am out DPS-ing her because of technique and understanding of the game because for the most part she is still inexperienced and perfecting her gear with our advice, so teaching is important.

You don't need to be the same BS cookie cutter as snow crows just to be part of raids. You just need people willing to help you grow and making sure you are comfortable and you need people who will be okay with failure.

Our friend who is teaching us mechanics parts because they have the most experience even said playing today regardless of whether we killed the boss or not was more fun than they have had raiding in a long time because we were having fun and excited, regardless.

The raiding community stinks because too many people aren't there to just have fun with people, they are just there to get the kill because somehow that is so fun. At the end of the day, you have killed a lot of things before, it is going to get boring when everyone is the same cookie cutter snow crows build living up to a bunch of jargon in an LFG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Yup, you're right. You got it all figured out. Raids were super successful, the best thing that ever happened to this game ... and Anet screwed them over .. for some reason that defies good business sense.

... the convoluted conspiracy theory approach where the corporation tries hard to destroy their own existence, for whatever reason ... instead of the more logical explanation where raids declined because of being an unpopular brand with it's customers. Gotcha. #makessense. :+1: Whatever works for you.

Now you lost me. I never claimed anything you say there.

But I'm gonna repeat my question, because you ignored it:Do delays and bad schedules hurt games?

I've made my points and responded to your posts. If my point isn't clear to you yet, going of on some tangent isn't going to do it.

How does answering that question relate to my point? I ask because at this time, I don't believe you are discussing in good faith. I'm not going down some path unless I know there is a reason to. And just to remind you, my point is that raids have low population because they way they were offered was inconsistent with the reason why people adopted the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of me.

Wow, I went to bed. Whet the eff is an original adopter then? You keep saying nonsense and then say we are the problem so I'm not even frustrated I just won't bother anymore. Then you take one sentence and act like that was the whole point in the paragraph. You are the problem. You say something then lose argument then change meaning or say you didn't say something you said or forgot you said it. Idk but the problem is def you or 20 people in these forums who talk to you wouldn't get into extended conversations with you. But hey gl with cyn or mad seems really interested lol cause you are the problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really if jumping on something to win then insult because I didn't put almost or the majority when it doesn't make a diff as it's your entire point. If most adopters didn't do raids then most raiders bought gw2 to raid when raids came out. Still something we can't prove and the argument hinges on it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Yup, you're right. You got it all figured out. Raids were super successful, the best thing that ever happened to this game ... and Anet screwed them over .. for some reason that defies good business sense.

... the convoluted conspiracy theory approach where the corporation tries hard to destroy their own existence, for whatever reason ... instead of the more logical explanation where raids declined because of being an unpopular brand with it's customers. Gotcha. #makessense. :+1: Whatever works for you.

Now you lost me. I never claimed anything you say there.

But I'm gonna repeat my question, because you ignored it:Do delays and bad schedules hurt games?

I've made my points and responded to your posts. If my point isn't clear to you yet, going of on some tangent isn't going to do it.

How does answering that question relate to my point? I ask because at this time, I don't believe you are discussing in good faith. I'm not going down some path unless I know there is a reason to. And just to remind you, my point is that raids have low population because they way they were offered was inconsistent with the reason why people adopted the game.

Because you said:

@Obtena.7952 said:There is really just ONE reason raids aren't all that popular ... because it's not the kind of content that most of the people that play this game want to do.

Raids suffered by both delays and bad schedules, and I'm asking if you think delays and bad schedules could've played a role in Raid popularity.I ask again,. do delays and bad schedules hurt games or not? It's not a hard question to answer.

Edit: and to be more specific, by hurt games I mean hurt their popularity. So to refine the question:Would delays and bad schedules hurt the popularity of content or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jilora.9524 said:If most adopters didn't do raids then most raiders bought gw2 to raid when raids came out. Still something we can't prove and the argument hinges on it

It does ... but frankly, it's pretty unlikely most people that raid originate from people that joined the game after HoT was released. It's also unlikely that even the people that joined after HoT was released to do raids would have changed the demographic so much so that it makes what I say incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jilora.9524 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of me.

Wow, I went to bed. Whet the eff is an original adopter then?

You need me to define what an original adopter of the game is? Then you claim I'M the one being nonsensical. Just ... WOW.

My point has never changed. I'm not being cryptic here. I guess we are done if I have to define the English language for you. I just don't have that kind of time.

This is what I'm talking about. You point always changes.

My point has never changed. The only thing that's changing here is what you think I'm talking about. I've even highlighted from your OWN POST that should show you exactly why what I'm saying is true. So the fact that you continue to argue with me demonstrates you're discussing in bad faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of me.

Wow, I went to bed. Whet the eff is an original adopter then?

You need me to define what an original adopter of the game is? Then you claim I'M the one being nonsensical. Just ... WOW.

My point has never changed. I'm not being cryptic here. I guess we are done if I have to define the English language for you. I just don't have that kind of time.

This is what I'm talking about. You point always changes.

My point has never changed. The only thing that's changing here is what you think I'm talking about. I've even highlighted from your OWN POST that should show you exactly why what I'm saying is true. So the fact that you continue to argue with me demonstrates you're discussing in bad faith.

No, we agree on some points but you always grab one sentence and swap it to the original adopters of the game didn't want raids that's why they failed or have small audience. Then we can't prove that either way so this continues. There are many reasons and we mention them but that one is what you use as crutch when proven wrong. Then you don't address questions like where did the raid population come from if not original adopters or players who purchased after raids were added. The grabbing one sentence is the problem cause any slip up you see that you don't agree with you grab that and ignore the rest so this continues. I told you why I think raids attract a small audience and it's way more logical then the original adopters didn't want raid as we can't speak for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jilora.9524 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of me.

Wow, I went to bed. Whet the eff is an original adopter then?

You need me to define what an original adopter of the game is? Then you claim I'M the one being nonsensical. Just ... WOW.

My point has never changed. I'm not being cryptic here. I guess we are done if I have to define the English language for you. I just don't have that kind of time.

This is what I'm talking about. You point always changes.

My point has never changed. The only thing that's changing here is what you think I'm talking about. I've even highlighted from your OWN POST that should show you exactly why what I'm saying is true. So the fact that you continue to argue with me demonstrates you're discussing in bad faith.

No, we agree on some points but you always grab one sentence and swap it to the original adopters of the game didn't want raids that's why they failed or have small audience. Then we can't prove that either way so this continues. There are many reasons and we mention them but that one is what you use as crutch when proven wrong. Then you don't address questions like where did the raid population come from if not original adopters or players who purchased after raids were added. The grabbing one sentence is the problem cause any slip up you see that you don't agree with you grab that and ignore the rest so this continues. I told you why I think raids attract a small audience and it's way more logical then the original adopters didn't want raid as we can't speak for everyone.

There is no swapping. That message has always been consistent. I did address that question ... you just failed to read the response.

The irony is that you already identified with your own thinking as to why what I'm saying is true, which I highlighted for you. Yet you still insist I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of me.

Wow, I went to bed. Whet the eff is an original adopter then?

You need me to define what an original adopter of the game is? Then you claim I'M the one being nonsensical. Just ... WOW.

My point has never changed. I'm not being cryptic here. I guess we are done if I have to define the English language for you. I just don't have that kind of time.

This is what I'm talking about. You point always changes.

My point has never changed. The only thing that's changing here is what you think I'm talking about. I've even highlighted from your OWN POST that should show you exactly why what I'm saying is true. So the fact that you continue to argue with me demonstrates you're discussing in bad faith.

No, we agree on some points but you always grab one sentence and swap it to the original adopters of the game didn't want raids that's why they failed or have small audience. Then we can't prove that either way so this continues. There are many reasons and we mention them but that one is what you use as crutch when proven wrong. Then you don't address questions like where did the raid population come from if not original adopters or players who purchased after raids were added. The grabbing one sentence is the problem cause any slip up you see that you don't agree with you grab that and ignore the rest so this continues. I told you why I think raids attract a small audience and it's way more logical then the original adopters didn't want raid as we can't speak for everyone.

There is no swapping. That message has always been consistent. I did address those questions ... you just failed to read the response.

No, no you didn't. You say the majority of original adopter didn't want raids and it's unlikely the Hot purchasers majority raided so unless you trying to say original adopters were only who bought game on release count and any one that bought it in between release and Hot were the majority of the raiders then no idea where you think these raiders came from. Again can't prove it anyway so again saying I said go read it when you didn't again shows you can't even keep track of your own opinions,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jilora.9524 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:OK ... but that doesn't change my question to you ... if the first raids were not mainly experienced by original adopters ... then who are? You seem to take issue with me bringing you back to the original adopters of the game which is an important part of my point ... but I don't understand why you have that issue unless you don't think the original adopters were the majority of raid participants in the first raids.

The only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters ... it seems unlikely that the population of the game grew prior to raids being announced/released by so much that it changed the demographics of the game to people that favour that kind of content.

You keep trying to say noone who bought the game day one signed up or even tried raids and that's what I don't get.

Really? I KEEP saying that? I've NEVER said that. Let me repeat:

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ORIGINAL ADOPTERS NEVER SIGNED UP OR TRIED RAIDS!

You're frustrated? OK ... It's certainly not because of me.

Wow, I went to bed. Whet the eff is an original adopter then?

You need me to define what an original adopter of the game is? Then you claim I'M the one being nonsensical. Just ... WOW.

My point has never changed. I'm not being cryptic here. I guess we are done if I have to define the English language for you. I just don't have that kind of time.

This is what I'm talking about. You point always changes.

My point has never changed. The only thing that's changing here is what you think I'm talking about. I've even highlighted from your OWN POST that should show you exactly why what I'm saying is true. So the fact that you continue to argue with me demonstrates you're discussing in bad faith.

No, we agree on some points but you always grab one sentence and swap it to the original adopters of the game didn't want raids that's why they failed or have small audience. Then we can't prove that either way so this continues. There are many reasons and we mention them but that one is what you use as crutch when proven wrong. Then you don't address questions like where did the raid population come from if not original adopters or players who purchased after raids were added. The grabbing one sentence is the problem cause any slip up you see that you don't agree with you grab that and ignore the rest so this continues. I told you why I think raids attract a small audience and it's way more logical then the original adopters didn't want raid as we can't speak for everyone.

There is no swapping. That message has always been consistent. I did address those questions ... you just failed to read the response.

No, no you didn't. You say the majority of original adopter didn't want raids and it's unlikely the Hot purchasers majority raided so unless you trying to say original adopters were only who bought game on release count and any one that bought it in between release and Hot were the majority of the raiders then no idea where you think these raiders came from. Again can't prove it anyway so again saying I said go read it when you didn't again shows you can't even keep track of your own opinions,

One thing that will not be acceptable is what you tell me I'm saying. I DID NOT SAY the majority of original adopters didn't want raids ..> EVER, NOT ONCE. If you can't comprehend what you are reading, then there is NO reason for you to discuss this with me.

You're problems with comprehension are NOT based on me changing my point or grasping on to some minute misuse of wording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jilora.9524 said:the only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters.

That is exactly what you said

That's correct, I did say that. We have two scenarios:

  1. Most of the people that experienced the first raids were original adopters. I feel this is the most likely scenario. My point holds.
  2. Most of the people that experience the first raids were people that joined the game when raids were annouced/released likely because of raids. I believe this is not likely but ... even, if this scenario is reality, it's questionable that the size of this group was big enough to sustain raids for the remainder of the game to begin with.

@Jilora.9524 said:deleted cause i bet you would get it deleted

You bet wrong ... I'm just not petty like that. Maybe you take this personally, I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jilora.9524 said:the only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters.

That is exactly what you said

That's correct, I did say that. We have two scenarios:
  1. Most of the people that experienced the first raids were original adopters. I feel this is the most likely scenario. My point holds.
  2. Most of the people that experience the first raids were people that joined the game when raids were annouced/released. I believe this is not likely but ... even, if this scenario is reality, it's questionable that the size of this group was big enough to sustain raids for the remainder of the game to begin with.

I feel like we made progress so I'm going to stop there. Gl with your next forum battle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jilora.9524 said:the only other explanation is that most of the first raiders were NOT original adopters.

That is exactly what you said

That's correct, I did say that. We have two scenarios:
  1. Most of the people that experienced the first raids were original adopters. I feel this is the most likely scenario. My point holds.
  2. Most of the people that experience the first raids were people that joined the game when raids were annouced/released likely because of raids. I believe this is not likely but ... even, if this scenario is reality, it's questionable that the size of this group was big enough to sustain raids for the remainder of the game to begin with.

@Jilora.9524 said:deleted cause i bet you would get it deleted

You bet wrong ... I'm just not petty like that. Maybe you take this personally, I don't.

Well i showed frustration so someone would maybe. The caps lock and saying I can't comprehend annoyed me when I knew you say things and hate scrolling back up to find them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...