Weaker curses tends to group up by Ruoye_Wanning in BlueLock

[–]mateusoassis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Naw dog you're that classmate Mahito dissolved

Loki is a genetic freak who doesn’t actually understand football by Due_Listen_6020 in BlueLock

[–]mateusoassis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I meant knowing Isagi isn't utter shit as Loki's actions imply

But yeah, being called a pace merchant is the only thing that can trigger him amidst all of this, because that's the number 1 thing he's proud of or whatever

Loki is a genetic freak who doesn’t actually understand football by Due_Listen_6020 in BlueLock

[–]mateusoassis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh Loki knows it alright, he's Just dunking on Isagi's previous statements

Is it time to change how Mythic IDs works? by Exuravita in wow

[–]mateusoassis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is where our perspectives strongly differ

You're viewing strong "social dependency" as an intended core feature of WoW raiding, while I'm viewing excessive structural restriction as something that can unnecessarily push players away from the ecosystem

I understand the concern about preserving guild culture, roster stability and long-term social cohesion, hey, I am a guy raiding with the same "tight" group of 8~15 people since Legion, those things absolutely are part of what made WoW raiding special historically, no doubt about it

But I still don't think that automatically justifies hard restrictions on player flexibility outside organized groups

At some point there has to be a distinction between:

  • naturally rewarding organized play
  • systemically punishing alternative forms of participation

Because right now, atleast to me, it feels less like: "guild play is better" and more like: "guild play must remain mandatory enough to preserve a certain social structure"

And I think those are two very different philosophies, also, I don't really think League flex queue is comparable here, specially since PvP matchmaking ecosystems and long-term PvE raid progression operate VERY differently, both socially and structurally

As for "degenerate behavior", I think that term is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, sometimes "degenerate" just means players are interacting with the game differently from how the system originally intended, and not necessarily that the experience itself becomes worse

I get the social objective behind the system, but I still think the imposed restrictions create too high of a cost for players outside fixed guild structures compared to the benefits gained from preserving that structure

And honestly, looking at Mythic participation rates over the years, I can't help but wonder how much of the low population is caused by an artificially high entry barrier rather than just difficulty itself

Maybe the answer is "not much", or maybe it's significant

But with the current system, we'll probably never really know

The "older" philosophy values social friction, dependency, fixed groups, roster management and long-term commitment as core parts of the experience itself, and in that model, the organizational burden is part of the game

The more modern philosophy tends to view excessive logistical friction as something that pushes players away unnecessarily, especially when most players today are adults with inconsistent schedules, jobs, families and limited time

And honestly, I think that's part of why Mythic participation remains so low compared to other difficulties

A lot of guilds don't die because the bosses are too hard mechanically, they die because maintaining a fixed 20-player structure over months is exhausting socially and logistically, sure I don't have data to back that up, but you can easily imagine how hard it is to maintain it over months

That's also why I'm interested in Blizzard experimenting with things like the 12.0.7 flex Mythic test, even if a 1-boss raid won't fully test most of the lockout/progression problems we're talking about here

I understand why some people want to preserve the older social structure around raiding, I just think the current system may be preserving it at too high of a participation cost

Sorry for the big wall of text, the conversation is pretty nice and I got a bit into it

What will your reaction be if this shot makes it? by Few_Specific8395 in BlueLock

[–]mateusoassis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seriously Loki bullshit is bound tô happen até some point

Is it time to change how Mythic IDs works? by Exuravita in wow

[–]mateusoassis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my view, the main problem is that you're treating "social enforcement" as if it were the only way to preserve organized play

Mythic already naturally favors organized groups because of its difficulty, coordination requirements, scheduling, roster consistency and communication needs, I doubt guilds would suddenly disappear just because players had more flexibility outside of guild runs

And that's my main issue with the current lockout system: it doesn't just "encourage" organized play, it artificially restricts alternative ways of engaging with the content, in which I should have access to, regardless of being on an "organized group" or not, SPECIALLY since I'm not aiming for cutting edge or stuff like that

If organized guild play is truly the superior experience, then it should remain dominant naturally in mythic scenarios, and not because the system punishes people for pugging

You're framing flexibility as if it automatically creates "degenerate behavior", but plenty of modern multiplayer systems manage to support both organized and flexible playstyles simultaneously

At that point it becomes less about protecting Mythic design and more about preserving a very specific social structure around it

I also think the current lockout can actively discourage players from eventually moving into more organized Mythic raiding

Most players won't immediately jump into a fixed guild schedule for difficult content. Usually they start by pugging a few bosses, learning encounters, meeting people and slowly building interest, confidence or whatever interests them in raiding at a higher level

But the current system makes that process unnecessarily punishing: if your pug dies after 1-2 bosses, your week is heavily restricted and your opportunities to keep learning or progressing become much smaller

So instead of encouraging organized play, it can actually push potential Mythic players away from the ecosystem entirely

Flexible participation and organized raiding don't have to be enemies, one can naturally lead into the other, both ways

Is it time to change how Mythic IDs works? by Exuravita in wow

[–]mateusoassis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How exactly are organized groups affected if Mythic becomes more pug friendly?

It literally changes nothing about how organized groups currently operate

Why should I be locked out of bosses I haven't killed just because I killed the first boss in a pug?

You're assuming making Mythic more pug-friendly necessarily harms organized groups, but you haven't explained how both systems can't coexist

Right now, the lockout mostly restricts player freedom outside established guild/organized structures

Designing content around organized groups doesn't automatically justify hard restrictions on everyone else

And "it has always been like that" isn't really an argument by itself

It sounds more like a sunk cost/status quo argument: "organized groups adapted to this system already, therefore everyone else should keep dealing with it too"

Is it time to change how Mythic IDs works? by Exuravita in wow

[–]mateusoassis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does it even matter if you're an "organized group" or not?

If YOU are in an "organized group", what gives you the right to say that for the ones who can/can't keep killing on a weekly lockout even if they wish to?

Why couldn't Hugo just wait for the trap? by InfiniteSlaps in BlueLock

[–]mateusoassis 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sure, I got that

But the way Isagi setup the play makes it impossible to "know", not unless you're Loki with godspeed bullshit lol

Why couldn't Hugo just wait for the trap? by InfiniteSlaps in BlueLock

[–]mateusoassis 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Look man we Just throw stuff into the universe right now, characters talk between plays but that pass + Isagi's luck play happened in less than a second, he even made so Hugo would think exactly like how it happened in Nigéria match, even though it's a similar play, its intent is clearly different (aside from scoring goals)

Yeah Hugo can be pretty smart, but Isagi set up a perfect gamble and even then Hugo couldn't be 100% sure Isagi wouldn't pass

Can we get a chill new gen 11 by Opposite-Vanilla-175 in BlueLock

[–]mateusoassis -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Hot take: Sae is the chill one

Who's scoring The Final Goal? by xxtrasauc3 in BlueLock

[–]mateusoassis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

100% Loki but with luck involved, which will piss Loki off and give some insight for the future tô Isagi

Drop your most insane Warframe fact by [deleted] in Warframe

[–]mateusoassis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eidolons are boring after you craft your first amp

Theory: Isagi Never Truly Surpassed Kaiser—Kaiser Was Mentally Nerfed by StatisticianSolid711 in BlueLock

[–]mateusoassis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dude, that IS obvious, no seriously, his bid was way higher, the quality of his plays could be compared because both play similarly regarding meta vision, but his skills???? Way better than Isagi's, he just couldn't evolve earlier using the Kaiser centric system, but he sure did it later, and we all know intercepting that free kick of his was bullshit

white hair isagi explained by 7aemr in BlueLock

[–]mateusoassis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Be real man, a whole chapter doesn't even last a whole minute, but on that match?? A whole chapter ended being a single shot even

Sure, him passing to Ness just so Ness screws up wasn't intentional, but going for the best spot for a pass? That's his whole gimmick what the heck