Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • Taemojitsu
  • Member Since Jul 2nd, 2007

Are you Taemojitsu? If So, Login Here.

WoW6 Comments
Massively1 Comment

Recent Comments:

NCsoft to probe Aion players' thoughts on rifting {Massively}

Oct 11th 2010 10:26PM **NCsoft introduces major changes in their game intended to fix PvP**

**revenues drop by 50% in all regions**

Shareholders: "Um, why did you do that..?"

^ that's why they (= NC West) are going to use a survey

It seems that currently, the client is the exact same for all regions (other than language localization and the use of Gameguard™), the only difference is single-variable settings in the server stack such as the soul healing cost or drop rates. Certain changes would need to involve game systems and UI used in all regions, including Korea.

Shifting Perspectives: Druid community speaks out on proposed Lifebloom nerf {WoW}

Mar 6th 2008 12:08AM "A commenter for that same post named Taemojitsu seems to have a different opinion, that, instead of being an outright nerf of overall healing effectiveness, this change is supposed to encourage Druids to stop relying on rolling Lifebloom stacks and instead return to using Lifebloom as a means of timing when to allow the final 'bloom' effect to deploy, and to depend more on a wider variety of other healing abilities."
Actually no, that's what Blizzard WOULD do if they had any clue about what made the use of a variety of abilities fun. The truth is, it's just a kneejerk reaction, probably for PvP. /shrug

My opinion of Blizzard's competence, here or in other matters, is not very high tbh. There are so many things that could be done to improve WoW, from individual ability scaling and how it affects choice, to stuff like the hybrid issue which makes it impossible for a druid to spec feral/resto and fill multiple roles in the same encounter (easily possible at lvl 60), to the continued lack of world PvP in TBC, initially flaunted as "the expansion that will bring back world PvP"... but Blizzard won't do any of them, and it wouldn't help to explain them here either

Hybrid Theory: What's a hybrid? v2.0 {WoW}

Feb 27th 2008 3:11AM Hybrids in WoW are stupidly idioticly broken, due to poor scaling. How to fix: [url][/url]

Don't really care if anyone reads it, or bother to explain anything, but you can read it if you want

GDC08: Live from Rob Pardo talks about Blizzard's approach to MMOs {WoW}

Feb 27th 2008 2:30AM (This is from an MMO perspective)

So Bliz's understanding of how some parts of their game work is pretty bad... but the questions they were asked were scarier. Oh well, nothing very unexpected... tho it is funny how Bliz's devs don't really understand AV (again, the audience was worse tho, from the questions) nor you'd go about fixing it or the rest of WoW's PvP.

I really hope the last few slides were not written by the same person who did the first few slides..

Exclusive Interview: Wowhead and Affinity Media {WoW}

Jul 2nd 2007 8:18PM It's like that little Blood Elf girl in the children's week quest.. =p

"She cannot be held responsible for what she may or may not do"

Exclusive Interview: Wowhead and Affinity Media {WoW}

Jul 2nd 2007 8:12PM I wouldn't want to bring down Wowhead.. >.< It is a good site, no matter that is now owned by a company with strong historical affiliations with the U.S. RMT industry. It will very probably continue to be the cleanest and most aesthetic WoW database site around, with clear and positive benefits to any of the WoW community who use it.

But no matter how good a site looks or how relevant its data is, it is not worth using when there is a strong probability of the company it is owned by engaging in U.S.-market RMT or other questional business activities in the future. Otoh, since it is just a probability, and not a certainty, it isn't justified to actively proselytize against Wowhead nor condemn those who continue to use it. I was just giving a perspective, I don't demand anyone else follow it.

Exclusive Interview: Wowhead and Affinity Media {WoW}

Jul 2nd 2007 6:35PM zomg its Silvertusk :) I got here from your post on the WoW forums four days ago... didn't get around to actually reading it (distracted by tangents) until today.

Selling gold is wrong because it leads to people playing the game for RL benefit and personal financial gain, instead of for fun. Not only does this ruin immersion for other players, but it can lead to farmers doing things which directly impact the play experience of those around them. See, the hilarious lvl 2 speedhackers that went around ninjaing chests, or gold farmers who would spend days or weeks dominating an area for mob spawns. Not to mention even less legitimate, and more harmful behavior like hacking accounts. RL financial gain ruins fun.

Buying gold is wrong because it cheapens the achievements of other players, as well as reduces solidarity within the playerbase. This first effect isn't entirely unique to RMT, however, since the practice of having a high-level main send gold and mats to low-level alts has a somewhat similar effect on the economy, and having someone else farm 100g at lvl 70 for your lvl 40 character's mount isn't morally very different from farming that 100g with your own lvl 70 character. So in WoW at least the macroscopic economic effect of gold buying/selling is pretty low, because the cash flow from "legitimate" farming efforts is already so large. But RMT still has connotation of getting what you did not work for in-game... especially, like Silvertusk alluded to, when it comes to buying characters and accounts! A high-level character is not something you would be able to purchase with in-game gold no matter how rich your main was, so there is absolutely no justification for an RMT purchase of such a character being fair to other players of the game. Achievements within a game are achievements nonetheless, and bypassing the effort normally required to reach a certain stage devalues the effort of anyone else who has reached, or who strives to reach, that stage.

As for that second effect of buying gold, that of reducing solidarity? Why worry about the economic hardship of other players, the difficulty of, for example, obtaining the 5k gold needed at lvl 70 to buy at 280% speed flying mount, when you yourself didn't have to expend that effort, and instead just bought it from a gold-selling site with a purchase made possible from your ample RL financial abundance. Simply put, and apart from the moral connotations of such a purchase and the perception of such by anyone who learns about it (because that would be a circular argument), letting economic disparity in RL influence economic disparity in-game leads to divisiveness, and when you play a game for fun and to make friends while doing mighty deeds and slaying powerful dragons, you don't want the structure to discourage sympathy between players; you want it to encourage it.

So both gold selling, and gold buying are bad for the game. Is this a very serious issue? Is it worth putting anyone in prison over, or hate rallies or impassioned diatribes against the percieved enemy of fun? Hardly. But it is worth modifying your actions over, to use only those intarwebs resources that do not actively work to reduce your fun in playing the game, and the fun of all other legitimate players.

Which brings us to ZAM. cyamarin, you are well-intentioned, but really, you lie to yourself, and so does everyone else who works at your company whom you see as "pretty cool guys". You may see yourself as working for the good of the average gamer, but the truth of the matter is that the company was, and still is, run by those who see this kind of morality (which, again, is not THAT serious, but is nonetheless worth acting over) as nothing more than a convenience. ZAM is not involved with the RMT business in the U.S. anymore because it is simply not profitable. In the future, if for whatever reason it did become profitable again, your company leadership would have absolutely no qualms about reinvesting in RMT, as long as it could be in done in a way which did not negatively impact customer perception of the other "divisions" of your company so as to decrease traffic and thus ad revenue to your sites. Similarly, ZAM will not refrain from other ethically-shady activities which negatively impact the fun of future games; the only discriminating factor is whether it will positively impact the bottom line.

I despise the kind of PR-talk used by John Maffei, and even apparently by Tim Sullivan. I'm sure Wowhead will continue to be "super duper fantastic and wonderful!! ^__^"... but I, at least, will not be around to see it.