Raiding idea to appease all

When a company starts to pander to the lowest common denominator, only their loyal customers will end up suffering.

Let's say for a moment that you're right, how can that not be influenced by the fact that until now they have only been able to play in an environment that conflicts with their view on the accessibility of raid content, and that they would behave differently on a server that provides they raid environment they prefer? The same anecdotal evidence suggests that they would.

I would argue that the very same people that quit because they can't get what they want, will quit once they get what they wanted.

I really don't think that the forums represent most of the population. You would need a poll.

I sure hope not....
No polls allowed

If they polled the population, I would accept whatever the result is. If it's against instancing, then so be it. I agree with your statement. If the majority of the population is against it, then they shouldn't make a 3rd server.

I would argue that if both groups (those for and against instancing) have servers that provide their preferred raid accessibility scheme, there is no evidence to support that one group turns over any faster than the other.

So now, we have an equally valuable sub-population, with plans in place to provide a server for them. Why should we halt those plans?

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence might be a source in beginning the education as to why you shouldn't base an argument on anecdotal evidence.

Also, I remember reading that they didn't want to add instancing to the current servers only because they didn't want to flip-flop on the intended rules for the servers. Otherwise, they did receive a favorable response towards instancing. It wouldn't make sense to announce a possible 3rd server if they didn't receive enough requests for it.

And what of the equally anecdotal people that claim that everything past GoD is worthless and they'll quit when it occurs?

Or the anecdote of people that are irritated with the idea of sharing content with others and only come back when they can box others out of content?

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I quit WoW not too long ago because I preferred a more social group-based game. This fit the bill. I also like the idea of starting from scratch. Sadly, I came after DBG started enforcing rotations. I didn't know that there was a possibility of reversing this. It was very nice having fixed schedules. I could log on and join a raid to take down bosses and mini-bosses that were already up. This is how it was. Instancing would allow us to continue this.

And I wouldn't leave anytime soon, but I would require something to do while I'm logged on. If there wasn't as much to do, then I would be bored and probably leave. I need to be engaged. Who else is here for a long-term stay? I'm not one of those who is here for the short progression cycle and jump to a new one that opens up.

Those efforts/resources would be better utilized to make the existing segment (every current paying customer) have a better experience.
I would prefer phone support for example, over altering 16 year old content.

If a player can't enjoy the game for what it is and has always been, no amount of adjustments will appease them.

Well considering we're on the internet, and i don't have any access to DBG records.... anecdotal evidence is all that can be provided.
Do you have physical evidence to support the claim?
You holding out on us vac?

A business case exists for the server, otherwise they wouldn't be making it. So in DBG's estimation, the value of the subscriptions is greater than that gained from adding features or support. Why should they abandon a path that makes more business sense?

There's concrete evidence out there that demonstrates the result of company inaction. The original version of FFXIV bombed. They could've just left it as it is, but many investors and players were walking away. They had their vision and ignored what the majority of players actually wanted. Luckily, they listened to their investment and player communities. Look where it is now!

On the flipside, they could've just maintained their original servers and the population that resembles EQ's player population. However, they wanted to be successful.

Now we're slipping into business ethics.
Rather than a lengthy reply i'll just state that what makes the most money, is rarely in the best interest of the paying customer.

I'm not asking about business ethics, I'm asking why they should halt plans for a server with instanced raid content. You are providing evasive answers which I have invalidated. The question stands.

He does this. Some perfectly good responses are ignored. Or, he likes to dance around a subject to avoid a direct response. He's like a politician.

False, you are in no position to make that assessment, daybreak is, and have determined the effort and resources are best utilized implementing the server. Try again.