Yet another game reports that Raiders and PVP players are a vast minority.....

[TravelersWay]

You might be right. However, it IS a sampling of the people playing EQ Next. I mean in WoW Beta I never thought to myself, 'Man, I really miss the "Death Penalty" from EQ'.

 

And don't kid yourself - said penalty may very well be included. There's a lot of folks who miss the days when mistakes cost people time. I'm not one - but they're out there.

 

Well, as Uruare said, there are still those types of gamers out there. They didn't go anywhere, it's just that, thanks in part to WoW and the genre becoming more accessible to the average person, they just got outnumbered in a relatively short amount of time.

 

It's not surprising at all that a lot of EQN Alpha testers are asking for old school things that EQ has/had - most of those people are probably the classic EQ type of player, like annabethchase said.

 

You see it in every game's forums - that group of players pining away for the "good ole days" of the MMO genre. What they fail to realize is that those days are long gone, and mostly for good cause. Ultimately, the "good ole days" of the genre were not really all that great - for the genre nor the players.

[Lotharofxev]

EQ was great, it was groundbreaking in many ways, but Lord, I had REAMS of paper dedicated to maps, and other things that weren't always available on the net. The "good ol days" are just that, the past.

[LordArtemis]

I remember the days of permadeath and corpse looting. Even the days of corpse running....which now even seems like a distant memory.

[PlasmaJohn]

There's no shortage of those that'll brag about how hardcore they want others to believe they are, but the proof is in the pudding - the 'hardcore' that love brutal death penalties and punitive achievement curves, forced grouping for even the most basic of activities and so on don't exist in sufficient quantity for games to cater to them.

 

They're not a big enough market, fiscally or numerically, to matter much. They're just not, and all the games that don't cater to them prove it.

Very well said. I'm going to respond to the quoted part.

 

There's a market for the uber hardcore (and several other niches) but they won't support a AAA budget by themselves. The persistent worlds built by fans of Bioware's Neverwinter Nights (the one that's not an MMO) came real close to providing the tools to address them. Unfortunately the engine didn't scale well.

 

Time will tell if somebody releases something that players can use to serve their own niche.

[Uruare]

Very well said. I'm going to respond to the quoted part.

 

There's a market for the uber hardcore (and several other niches) but they won't support a AAA budget by themselves. The persistent worlds built by fans of Bioware's Neverwinter Nights (the one that's not an MMO) came real close to providing the tools to address them. Unfortunately the engine didn't scale well.

 

Time will tell if somebody releases something that players can use to serve their own niche.

 

I entirely agree. They do exist, and not in the exaggerated minutiae some would like to portray, buuuut...yep. not in sufficiently fiscally represented quantity to get anyone to make AAA mmos catering to that

playstyle.

 

Demon Souls, Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2 would, however, like to offer a hundred kicks in the pants to anyone trying to declare the to be no market at all though.

 

I'm just not expecting we'll ever see an mmo go hard mode in all the classical ways and succeed for it ever again.

 

New ways though? One can hope. Secret World is an mmo I found to be rather hard of one didn't look up the solutions to missions. I had to first figure out that a van's seemingly mere-bsckground-art flashing lights were actually flashing in a pattern for one memorable mission. .. and then deduce that that pattern was Morse code.

 

And THEN translate it out of Morse. I know Morse a little bit, but that mission made me dive up to my elbows in first figuring out what was even going on at all, then what to do about it.

 

No mmo I've ever played challenged my mind life that one is prone to. Consequently, I bought a lifetime sub and shall return to it with frequency until it dies, or I do.

 

I think hard still has a place, and potentially a very good one. It just won't be the punitive sort of hard that loses you all of your xp gained that week because you sneezed and ran into the lava and died, for example.

 

Our the sort of hard that requires you to join somebody's private cult of personality that they call a guild, jump through whatever hoops they care to invent and so on in order to participate in the 'real game' at all.

 

These are, I think, the last trudging years of things life even classical raiding. Guilds Wars 2 has no difficulty getting scores of people doing massive boss fights together, or world pvp, however.

 

The social requirements for involvement are minimal, is almost all of why I think. You want to go kill the dragon works boss that's up right now? Go join in. You don't even have to beg for a spot in a party, as your contribution will be weighed rather generously no matter.

 

The technical complexity of such content is much less thana classical raider will know from a raid boss, of course.

 

The challenges in something like GW2 are definitely more personal. Achievements have significant importance in teems of coveted rewards, the classes are typically much more streamlined than in action bar mmos amd the sole game was built for its style of pvp, integrating of into the world's and setting alike rather than putting it in another room, under the tons of special rules.

 

I arrogant go so far as to suggest they do everything amazingly, though I do suspect that the MMO of tomorrow will play a lot more like GW2 in terms of focusing the primary challenges on the player versus the designed game, rather than player versus social hurdles versus obtuse mechanics versus lengthy gear treadmills versus manual dexterity tests.

 

SWTOR here. ..it tried way too hard to be like what was accepted yesterday. It's a new car that was designed to outdated and obsolete performance and efficiency specs.

 

They're doing it pretty well, for what it is, but games like this, with the endgame gated by social demands and gameplay that may as well be an entirely different game than the one we spent leveling through aren't on their way in.

 

They're not bellbottom jeans like that, I fear. Obsolete technologies have a way of dying and often staying dead, and this technology is absolutely dying.

 

Fewer amd fewer people want the game they expect to play for years at a stretch to be Dark Souls hard, let alone early Everquest hard.

 

At days end, far more people with the majority of the money relevant to the market like to feel challenged more than actually BE challenged.

 

Most, is go so far as to hazard my speculation, want to be entertained. They do, in fact, want quite a few silver platters to be sent their way on many things, and they'll no more go back to the archaic style of mmo gaming than most of us here would throw our modern conveniences away in favor of only those available in 1975.

 

Bulky cameras with mechanical shutters, VHS, analogue television, $4000 computers that save onto cassette tape and have exactly none of the capabilities ours now have, rotary phones and so on.

 

Some very well would trade all of this for all of that. Heck, there are some that'd be happy as a turtle in the mud to get rid of all I'd if and live minimalistic lives.

 

We won't soon be seeing urban development projects featuring bare caves and crude-weapon-only hunting grounds being set up for bulk populations though.

 

Neither week we find enough demand for rotary phones in mainstream society to justify them even being made in quantity anymore.

 

The parties interested in such things surely exist. Just not in sufficiently represented fiscal quantity to matter much.

 

Though we very well might see new orientations and natures of 'hard' cone around. Likely not returns to old ones that work or very well, however.

[Pinkasaurus]

I would say they are what some have called the 1% though they tend to be a very vocal one on the forums. Though I am new to this game I rarely chat on public channels or even group. Grouping tend to lead to zerging and constant spam from people SPCBR PLZ, and the less said about fleet chat the better. I get people want to blow through content, but this is a form of entertainment for me not a race. Will I even participate in the end game probably not, the various stories are what currently interest me the most

[RandomXChance]

Now, note....though 14 games and counting now have reported the same thing at different times over the last 10 years, that does not mean this game is typical...it is still possible that this game breaks the mold, so to speak, and has a majority PVP and/or Raid playerbase.

 

There are a few things that stand out that might point to this possibility....first, this game does not have a typical cash flow setup with respect to F2P/Sub players and who pays the most, and also the fact that this game now has casual friendly raids and has had bolster for PVP for a while now.

 

But as time passes, more studies are released and more games go public with playerbase information, IMO it becomes less and less likely.

 

A few points that Turbine reported with respect to LotRO....

1) Raiders make up a very small portion of the playerbase.

2) PvMP (their version of PVP) is a slightly larger group of players, but combined they still represent less than 10 percent of the base.

3) The vase majority of forum posters are Raiders and/or PvMP players.

 

That is the 14th public source I have provided from the MMO market so far, as I promised to do long ago when I was challenged to prove that Raiders and PVP players are a minority of the playerbase, generally speaking, in MMOs (unless they are PVP focused). I would once again call to those that asked me to provide this info....here is your next bit.

 

Source

 

I will continue to post more information, as well as links to two new studies that are being released shortly for the 2013/2014 market in December. I expect the results will be typical. I will also try to find those prior links I posted if needed.

 

My problem with these quotes is the lack of transparency on the metrics they use. On one extreme they could be defining raiders as people who log in for raids and nothing else. The other end of the spectrum is anyone who has ever done a raid. There would be a very, very large difference in the numbers between those extremes.

 

When someone does not define the criteria used, it makes me suspicious that the decision was made first and then the numbers defined to justify the decision. It may or may not be the case, but transparency would help.

[Heat-Wave]

At days end, far more people with the majority of the money relevant to the market like to feel challenged more than actually BE challenged.

 

Most, is go so far as to hazard my speculation, want to be entertained. They do, in fact, want quite a few silver platters to be sent their way on many things, and they'll no more go back to the archaic style of mmo gaming than most of us here would throw our modern conveniences away in favor of only those available in 1975.

 

This, thank you, we have a winner...

 

I pay my $150 a year, now entertain me... I work for a living, I don't need to work in a game. Make it fun, make it a mild challenge, humor me and make me laugh. Give me an easy way to group for some casual raiding or FP and make it fun.

 

I've done most of the ops several times, tried hard mode, that was a bit too hard for me, and I'm well geared on my two mains at a mix of 168/180 with full main stat augments (38k health on my commando with a 180 barrel), and even with that I find HM 55 ops too much like work.

 

SM ops are fine, except for DF second boss with 9 waves that if you miss a single interrupt you wipe. I likely will never try that again (and I've beaten it before, but it was work).

[Kackman]

My problem with these quotes is the lack of transparency on the metrics they use. On one extreme they could be defining raiders as people who log in for raids and nothing else. The other end of the spectrum is anyone who has ever done a raid. There would be a very, very large difference in the numbers between those extremes.

 

When someone does not define the criteria used, it makes me suspicious that the decision was made first and then the numbers defined to justify the decision. It may or may not be the case, but transparency would help.

 

In a later chat, the same CM further defined "raiders" as anyone who has ever participated in any sort of group content, be that 3-, 6-, or 12-man content (despite the fact that in LOTRO, only the 12-man content is raid content).

 

That still doesn't answer other questions, like do they mean "player" to mean an individual, or each one of his characters (if I raid on only one of five characters, is that 20%, or 100% because I'm one person?), nor whether the denominator in their calculation is limited only to level cap players or includes anyone who has ever logged into the game, even those that quit at level 1.

 

In any case, while the stat quoted seems ridiculously small - less than 10% of players have tried even one single group instance? - it's certainly possible depending how one fudges the numbers. And, as you say, the lack of transparency into the metrics makes the claim meaningless anyway. Statistics that provide no opportunity for review and verification are useless.

[Kalfear]

I

 

That still doesn't answer other questions, like do they mean "player" to mean an individual, or each one of his characters (if I raid on only one of five characters, is that 20%, or 100% because I'm one person?), nor whether the denominator in their calculation is limited only to level cap players or includes anyone who has ever logged into the game, even those that quit at level 1.

 

In any case, while the stat quoted seems ridiculously small - less than 10% of players have tried even one single group instance? - it's certainly possible depending how one fudges the numbers. And, as you say, the lack of transparency into the metrics makes the claim meaningless anyway. Statistics that provide no opportunity for review and verification are useless.

 

I think its reasonable to assume its account as every character doesnt log into forums, your account does.

 

So if they tracking that way acct wise I highly doubt they suddenly changeing to character wise as you offer up.

 

But the percentages offered up here fit my experience in MMORPGs over last 24 years of playing MMORPGs

[Vincire]

I think its reasonable to assume its account as every character doesnt log into forums, your account does.

 

So if they tracking that way acct wise I highly doubt they suddenly changeing to character wise as you offer up.

 

But the percentages offered up here fit my experience in MMORPGs over last 24 years of playing MMORPGs

 

I tend to agree with your assumption. It isn't like Turbine has anything to gain by fudging numbers or by not doing their due diligence to be sure their statistics are accurate. Their decision is an interesting one and I am wondering how they are going to allocate resources previously dedicated to raids, how that will affect the overall quality of the game, and if any other developers will follow turbine down this path.

[AshlaBoga]

 

New ways though? One can hope. Secret World is an mmo I found to be rather hard of one didn't look up the solutions to missions. I had to first figure out that a van's seemingly mere-bsckground-art flashing lights were actually flashing in a pattern for one memorable mission. .. and then deduce that that pattern was Morse code.

 

And THEN translate it out of Morse. I know Morse a little bit, but that mission made me dive up to my elbows in first figuring out what was even going on at all, then what to do about it.

 

No mmo I've ever played challenged my mind life that one is prone to. Consequently, I bought a lifetime sub and shall return to it with frequency until it dies, or I do.

 

Yeah, there's some really fun missions in TSW.

 

I remember when I was enabling some security cameras and I saw a friend run past them. As in the in-game cameras actually worked:p

[Uruare]

Off topic note: please forgive my garbled posts. Swype on my phone is as much based on luck as patience.

[Rehneu]

I am curious, if those two things are hardly taking place, what are people doing?

[RandomXChance]

I think its reasonable to assume its account as every character doesnt log into forums, your account does.

 

So if they tracking that way acct wise I highly doubt they suddenly changeing to character wise as you offer up.

 

But the percentages offered up here fit my experience in MMORPGs over last 24 years of playing MMORPGs

 

What I am talking about is seeing the difference of taking every account (or character) created versus only using ones that have had a subscription for 1+ years. These would be your core players. Not saying they are fudging, it is just that throwing out a number and giving no context can distort the picture.

[MSchuyler]

In any case, while the stat quoted seems ridiculously small - less than 10% of players have tried even one single group instance? - it's certainly possible depending how one fudges the numbers. And, as you say, the lack of transparency into the metrics makes the claim meaningless anyway. Statistics that provide no opportunity for review and verification are useless.

 

They may be useless to you, especially if you don't like their conclusions. Ask yourself: If the stats had "proven" that PvP was 90% of the players would you be saying, "See? I told you so!" and ignoring the lack of transparency? The reaction of PvP'rs here is predictable. If it doesn't go your way, disbelieve the stats and OCD them to death as if you understood them. Point out how they "might" not be considering thus and such an archaic permutation or irrelevant and pedantic difference you manage to dream up and pretend they never considered. It's OK. This is a time-honored way to stick your head in the sand and pretend what you've been told couldn't possibly be true because you and "all you friends" know differently. If I didn't describe you, Kackman, personally, take it generically. I just happened to respond to your post instead of someone else's.

 

But there are people out there who actually work in the game industry who are charged with making decisions based on the metrics they have developed. Their decisions involve tens of millions of dollars and thousands of investors who are not at all sentimental about what constitutes a proper return on investment. They live and work in a highly competitive environment where accurate statistics are considered proprietary company confidential information. It's not so much that they really want to keep that data from YOU, but they want to keep it from the competition while they reserve the accurate data from their own servers for their eyes only. And if these guys make the wrong decision it's not just a matter of disappointing the players, it's a matter of continuing their personal income. In other words, the stakes are much higher for them to get it right than for you to get what you want. If the game dies for you it's a rage quit as you leave pontificating your infinite knowledge. For them, it's the unemployment line and perhaps a foreclosed mortgage.

 

There is no doubt that we here are starved for data. I wish we had perfect information, too. But not having it does not mean it should be replaced with imaginative fiction, nor does it mean that we are entitled to "review and verification" because the fact of the matter is, our learned input is not necessary and is really none of our business in the first place.

Edited July 15, 2014 by MSchuyler

[Kackman]

I tend to agree with your assumption. It isn't like Turbine has anything to gain by fudging numbers or by not doing their due diligence to be sure their statistics are accurate. Their decision is an interesting one and I am wondering how they are going to allocate resources previously dedicated to raids, how that will affect the overall quality of the game, and if any other developers will follow turbine down this path.

 

In Turbine's case, the quoted percentage is self-serving and a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

Despite the early days of the game offering quite a bit of group content, including main story line quests that required a group, the amount of group content the game has offered has declined with each expansion, to the point that the most recent expansion (Helm's Deep) had zero traditional group content. Not surprisingly, that caused most of the "grouping is the end-game" players to leave, and now there really is a very small percentage of LOTRO players who want group content.

 

That <10% number the LOTRO CM spouted isn't something he just recently said - he's been saying that for years, even back when the game had traditional raids and a rather thriving raiding community. Again - perhaps the number is true, but without knowing how he came up with it, it's kind of meaningless.

 

As for why I consider it self-serving, well... Turbine developed less and less group content, then none. Players who like that content slowly started to leave the game, then left the game en masse when an expansion was released with no group content, and more left when the producer confirmed that no group content was planned for the future - ever. Drive off most of the people who like a certain type of content, and they're sure to become a tiny percentage of the remaining player base; then you can point to how few of them there are, and say that it's not worth your time or money to develop content for them.

[hunterraaze]

I am curious, if those two things are hardly taking place, what are people doing?

 

Well, I speak for myself, but on this game I find my play time being spent on leveling alts, seeing all the class stories, playing them from different perspectives (Gender, light/dark side.) Recently I have been trying to get into end game stuff, but I keep going back to my many alts.

[RandomXChance]

They may be useless to you, especially if you don't like their conclusions. Ask yourself: If the stats had "proven" that PvP was 90% of the players would you be saying, "See? I told you so!" and ignoring the lack of transparency? The reaction of PvP'rs here is predictable. If it doesn't go your way, disbelieve the stats and OCD them to death as if you understood them. Point out how they "might" not be considering thus and such an archaic permutation or irrelevant and pedantic difference you manage to dream up and pretend they never considered. It's OK. This is a time-honored way to stick your head in the sand and pretend what you've been told couldn't possibly be true because you and "all you friends" know differently. If I didn't describe you, Kackman, personally, take it generically. I just happened to respond to your post instead of someone else's.

 

But there are people out there who actually work in the game industry who are charged with making decisions based on the metrics they have developed. Their decisions involve tens of millions of dollars and thousands of investors who are not at all sentimental about what constitutes a proper return on investment. They live and work in a highly competitive environment where accurate statistics are considered proprietary company confidential information. It's not so much that they really want to keep that data from YOU, but they want to keep it from the competition while they reserve the accurate data from their own servers for their eyes only. And if these guys make the wrong decision it's not just a matter of disappointing the players, it's a matter of continuing their personal income. In other words, the stakes are much higher for them to get it right than for you to get what you want. If the game dies for you it's a rage quit as you leave pontificating your infinite knowledge. For them, it's the unemployment line and perhaps a foreclosed mortgage.

 

There is no doubt that we here are starved for data. I wish we had perfect information, too. But not having it does not mean it should be replaced with imaginative fiction, nor does it mean that we are entitled to "review and verification" because the fact of the matter is, our learned input is not necessary and is really none of our business in the first place.

 

On the other hand, many game companies (and non game actually) have been guilty of manipulating the criteria used or the scales used to represent the data so that it fits their need.

 

Saying that only 10% are "raiders" and then saying that a "raider" is someone who has tried ANY group content (according to a previous post) really makes you wonder. Could be true, just really sounds odd. I know people who have played this game only for the storylines. Even they have done a couple of flashpoints. I have never played LOTRO, but can the players be that different?

[LordArtemis]

People can argue the stat is meaningless, and I personally do not think that that is an argument that does not have merit. There are many reasons one could ignore a report like this, as many have pointed out.

 

The importance and relevance is speculative at best.

 

However, it is important to note, IMO, that this is not the first game to report this, nor is this the first time it has been reported in studies either. The information presented does seem to fall in line with use in other games. Naturally the amounts of use vary, but in general terms the games usually report the following.....

 

1) Players that PVP or Raid make up a minority of the playerbase.

2) The majority of a playerbase has never engaged in or completed the most difficult content in the game.

3) The most popular form of PVP for the playerbase is some form of OW PVP. A small group participates in ranked PVP.

3) Casual players are the most transient players, Hardcore players, though a minority, tend to be more loyal to a title.

 

For better or worse, depending on your view, companies are beginning to realize the folly of concentrating on end game without providing "sandboxy" features for casuals. In order to keep casual players playing the game, I feel you have to do the following....

 

1) Provide a seamless leveling experience that does not require grouping.

2) Realize that minigames, housing and appearance are important things to casual players in general.

3) Hardcore players burn through content faster than it is financially viable to produce it. It is important to have a solid casual base invested in the game to support end game expansion for dedicated hardcore players.

4) Changing elements of the game constantly for the benefit of Raiding or PVP players will likely end up hurting the game in the long run by causing casuals to leave the game. Changes that are made should be made to only effect the parts of the game that need that change.

 

I think that if games generally accept this and strive to meet those points they will be healthy....naturally raiders or PVP players may not be very happy in the process and make that clear in the forums, but overall the metrics would likely demonstrate a healthy state for the game.

 

Just my slant.

[Vincire]

People can argue the stat is meaningless, and I personally do not think that that is an argument that does not have merit. There are many reasons one could ignore a report like this, as many have pointed out.

 

The importance and relevance is speculative at best.

 

However, it is important to note, IMO, that this is not the first game to report this, nor is this the first time it has been reported in studies either. The information presented does seem to fall in line with use in other games. Naturally the amounts of use vary, but in general terms the games usually report the following.....

 

1) Players that PVP or Raid make up a minority of the playerbase.

2) The majority of a playerbase has never engaged in or completed the most difficult content in the game.

3) The most popular form of PVP for the playerbase is some form of OW PVP. A small group participates in ranked PVP.

3) Casual players are the most transient players, Hardcore players, though a minority, tend to be more loyal to a title.

 

For better or worse, depending on your view, companies are beginning to realize the folly of concentrating on end game without providing "sandboxy" features for casuals. In order to keep casual players playing the game, I feel you have to do the following....

 

1) Provide a seamless leveling experience that does not require grouping.

2) Realize that minigames, housing and appearance are important things to casual players in general.

3) Hardcore players burn through content faster than it is financially viable to produce it. It is important to have a solid casual base invested in the game to support end game expansion for dedicated hardcore players.

4) Changing elements of the game constantly for the benefit of Raiding or PVP players will likely end up hurting the game in the long run by causing casuals to leave the game. Changes that are made should be made to only effect the parts of the game that need that change.

 

I think that if games generally accept this and strive to meet those points they will be healthy....naturally raiders or PVP players may not be very happy in the process and make that clear in the forums, but overall the metrics would likely demonstrate a healthy state for the game.

 

Just my slant.

 

I agree but I would like to add another point; Casual and Non-Raiders need a source of progression at level cap that complies with their play-style (solo and small group) in order to strengthen brand-loyalty amongst that group. Not many MMOs do a very good job of this right now.

[RandomXChance]

 

For better or worse, depending on your view, companies are beginning to realize the folly of concentrating on end game without providing "sandboxy" features for casuals. In order to keep casual players playing the game, I feel you have to do the following....

 

1) Provide a seamless leveling experience that does not require grouping.

2) Realize that minigames, housing and appearance are important things to casual players in general.

3) Hardcore players burn through content faster than it is financially viable to produce it. It is important to have a solid casual base invested in the game to support end game expansion for dedicated hardcore players.

4) Changing elements of the game constantly for the benefit of Raiding or PVP players will likely end up hurting the game in the long run by causing casuals to leave the game. Changes that are made should be made to only effect the parts of the game that need that change.

 

I think that if games generally accept this and strive to meet those points they will be healthy....naturally raiders or PVP players may not be very happy in the process and make that clear in the forums, but overall the metrics would likely demonstrate a healthy state for the game.

 

Just my slant.

 

I was about to accuse you of using all of this as a backdoor way of claiming that we need to see more sandbox. Could still be the case, but then I looked at it a different way.

 

No game seems to able to maintain the flow of content to keep the players happy. Adding "sandboxy" features gives players toys to play with as they fiddle and finesse things to their hearts content between new content. Certainly better than endlessly grinding the old content or chasing meaningless achievements to keep busy between content updates.

[LordArtemis]

I was about to accuse you of using all of this as a backdoor way of claiming that we need to see more sandbox. Could still be the case, but then I looked at it a different way.

 

No game seems to able to maintain the flow of content to keep the players happy. Adding "sandboxy" features gives players toys to play with as they fiddle and finesse things to their hearts content between new content. Certainly better than endlessly grinding the old content or chasing meaningless achievements to keep busy between content updates.

 

Yea, I have a broad definition for my term "sandboxy"....all it really means is repeatable content that is NOT end game content and will engage casual players.

 

Like the pet battle system in WoW. Or the GTN here. The upcoming housing, orange armor and modding, crafting, etc. etc....all of these things are "sandboxy" in my opinion. They are not traditional end game content, but can engage casuals. Most of them represent some kind of minigame.

 

So, I contend that the items in place to keep casuals engaged need to work seamlessly, and there needs to be plenty of them.

[Vincire]

Yea, I have a broad definition for my term "sandboxy"....all it really means is repeatable content that is NOT end game content and will engage casual players.

 

Like the pet battle system in WoW. Or the GTN here. The upcoming housing, orange armor and modding, crafting, etc. etc....all of these things are "sandboxy" in my opinion. They are not traditional end game content, but can engage casuals. Most of them represent some kind of minigame.

 

So, I contend that the items in place to keep casuals engaged need to work seamlessly, and there needs to be plenty of them.

 

So you don't think "Casuals" or "non-Raiders" should have a gear progression of their own to keep them interested when they hit level cap? I'll tell ya, "mini-games" are not enough to keep me playing my max level characters.

[RandomXChance]

So you don't think "Casuals" or "non-Raiders" should have a gear progression of their own to keep them interested when they hit level cap? I'll tell ya, "mini-games" are not enough to keep me playing my max level characters.

 

The short answer is "no". Gear progression in raiding is about being ready for the next difficulty of content. There is nothing "Casuals" or "non-Raiders" to do in this game that would need even 156, let alone beyond that. Of course people get full 180 without ever raiding "because i have OCD about having the best gear". We all want the best gear. Do not use someone elses condition as an excuse.

 

There should be some type of end game progression for those who do not like to raid, but not the same gear progression as raiding unless they design some content that requires that gear level.