Mar 9th 2009 4:51PM Assigning healing is fine if...
1) The assign-er knows the strengths of the various healer specs (how many times have I been asked to raid heal as disc while the CoH priest is asked to tank heal astounds me)
2) The healers haven't already set up a working system. Just because it's not visible doesn't mean they haven't consciously or subconsciously done so. By the time trash is cleared I usually know what the other healer prefers to do just by watching whom they top off first.
The only time I don't like assignments is when people take them TOO rigidly (i.e. they don't help out the other healer if shit hits the fan because "they're supposed to be healing x instead") or when the assigner puts healers in roles that just don't make sense (pally on the raid, CoH priest on the tank). If you want to ask "Hey, whom are you healing CoH priest?" that's cool -- just don't pretend like you know what you're doing if you don't. Just make sure you know your limitations and don't be afraid to ask a question before you make a decision.
Mar 9th 2009 4:41PM I got pulled into a 3's team with my boyfriend's Warrior and his Mage friend.
Their comp: Warrior/Mage/Paladin. Their paladin had very poor situational awareness and would end up with poor decision making (i.e. bubble and heal himself first, rather than the dying DPS; get sapped MID-COMBAT somehow)
Anyway, I play a priest, I have ~800 resilience. I had a higher win/loss ratio compared to the pally in the warrior/mage/priest team.
I was told "Too bad you didn't roll a pally".
Why? Our lost games were due to me just not being able to survive. We couldn't think of any "alternatives" -- unlike the pally's losses where they could say "if you fixed x, we would've won". So despite me being a better player than the pally, they stuck with him (and eventually replaced him with a better pally). As a priest, I was "capped" at a certain level of success no matter what we could've done.
It was quite disappointing.
I am leveling up my alt pally. Hopefully I'll be 80 and gear up before it's too late for me to catch up to the PvP train.
Mar 5th 2009 11:35AM Let's say I'm a hybrid.
Let's say I can do more than 1 role (i.e. dps/heal, dps/tank, heal/tank, etc).
That would (according to you) mean I get 2x as many groups.
However, wouldn't that also mean I need to get twice as much gear in order to actually play multiple roles?
So, twice as many groups, divided by twice as much time to get the gear necessary to perform in those capacities.....
Mar 5th 2009 11:25AM Is there a reason hybrid DPS should be lower than pure DPS besides the simple fact that "they're hybrids and they could respec to not DPS"?
I mean, you don't bring hybrids for their buffs anymore -- buffs are spread out across the board, including "pure specs".
So... what's the justification for removing DPS from hybrids just to remove DPS? I don't get it. Is there some sort of advantage you get during encounters because as a fury warrior, you have a "taunt" button? Is there an advantage as a ret paladin for having the holy light spell? Is there an advantage as a enh shaman for having chain heal?
I mean, to me it sounds... well... "classist". I play a priest healer and have no interest in shadow, so I'm really trying to be a neutral perspective. AFAIK, there's no justification for a 5% reduction in DPS "just because". The ret paladin isn't going to break out and start healing mid-fight. The fury warrior isn't going to rush in and start boss tanking in his DPS gear. The enhancement shaman isn't going to stand at range and cast lightning bolts.
So... why is this "the rule" now that pure classes provide buffs just like hybrid classes? Just because "that's how it always is" seems like a bad reason.
Feb 23rd 2009 2:07PM "If it's an item that required five (or even 25) people to get, everyone should have a chance at it. There are herbs and ores in instances, true, but those can be found elsewhere as well -- they don't need a group to get them. And what about Rogues who unlock chests in instances -- sure, we need them to open the chests, but they need us to get them there"
"...And what about Rogues who unlock chests in instances -- sure, we need them to open the chests, but they need us to get them there"
"...sure, we need them to open the chests, but they need us to get them there"
"...but they need us to get them there"
So... so what if "There are herbs and ores in instances, true, but those can be found elsewhere as well" -- the herbs/ore/leather in instances required us to get them there, same as the chest, and same as the DE'd shard.
As an enchanter, I tell everyone I'm rolling "greed" on anything I don't need, and if they want me to de it, they should all "pass" on stuff they don't need and "need" on things they do.
The way I see it, statistically, is that the shards under the "greed" rule are getting split 5 ways anyway, so why not be "nice" and shard everyone else's stuff along with my 1/5th of the lewt. I'm statistically going to get my share whether I roll on it now or after it's DE'd, so who cares.
I also don't give out shards until the end of the instance, both to speed up the run and to try and discourage people from the bad habit of magically DC'ing or bailing mid-instance.
Feb 19th 2009 12:17PM Am I the only one who's going to be missing WarCrafts?! :(
I've got a bunch of clay moonkins here at my desk thanks to some inspiration from those articles.
Feb 18th 2009 4:06PM "I don't like that analogy simply because in it the artist who actually painted the picture is getting screwed over, whereas with botting the 'person' responsible for the leveling is a computer program. "
Not necessarily true -- note that I said PAY an artist to draw you a painting, and/or copy using a printer.
The artist is still getting paid, therefore (like botting doesn't "harm anyone") since they have a mutually beneficial relationship there's "no harm done", right? You could even go so far as to say that the author knows and agrees with the user selling his artwork under their name. Even if he agrees with it, does that make it right?
"Because I dont sell any mats I gain while botting it doesn't ruin the economy" is one argument. But they ARE impacting the economy via reducing the demand for supplies (by supplying their own through illegitimate means). And since items come so easily to them with little to no work done, what's to stop them from playing the auction house with their excess funds? Or perhaps just buying the things they need at exorbantly high prices, driving up the market for everyone else just because it's so easy for them to farm gold that they don't care how much they spend?
"I just want to play the endgame, I don't want to level. No harm done" is another argument... But then, who's contributing to constant rerolling of FOTM arena comps, taking up that extra spot in a raid that the legitimately-leveled person didn't get (perhaps because, with their RL schedule, they didn't ding 80 as fast).
The analogy is fitting, I think.
Feb 18th 2009 3:49PM From the WoW Mouse's user manual, found on the steelseries website:
"1. Timing Control
Text (Auto Delay) - This option is selected by default and is designed to optimize the delays for proper in-game performance. If you are not sure what option to use - simply leave this option on.
Record Delay - When selected, it will record the delays in real time reflecting your typing speed when creating a macro. This option is useful when you need precise real-life timing for some advance macros.
No Delay - "...
"2. Looping You can loop the macro by enabling the Loop check-box and specifying the number of repetitions."
Compare to a Blue post on timers and delays:
"Multiple key presses/uses of abilities from a single command, spoken or typed? Not okay.
Inserting pauses? Not okay. " -GM Malkorix, http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=5720292152&pageNo=2&sid=1#25
"Just make absolutely certain that you're not making more than one keypress (for the purposes of the word 'keypress' this includes a single key press AND release with no delays), or including delays between key-presses with each action." -GM Malkorix, http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=8765637958&pageNo=1&sid=1#8
More blue posts: http://dual-boxing.com/wiki/index.php/GM_Conversations#Regarding_Delays_.26_Timers_in_out-of-game_Macros
Feb 18th 2009 3:43PM @Usul
I agree wholeheartedly. I reviewed this mouse on my blog and posted a video of its "macros" in action here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj5GVBFXlK4
Think of it this way...
You're doing arenas, and your mage sheeps a target you were just attacking. You hit the factory-default "stopattack" macro and you get the following text typed for you (by the mouse) into your chat window:
Well, what if you were strafing around at the same time (since, after all, it is PvP)...
Is that useful?
Is that "specially designed for World of Warcraft"?
...or is that just a cheap plastic mouse with glowy bits and shiny fake "steel" with a WoW logo on it?
Blog post: http://www.wemultibox.com/blogs/vyndree/steelseries-world-warcraft-mmo-mouse
Feb 18th 2009 12:02PM Except it does affect the economy.
If someone grinds up mats and gets everything themselves through botting...
...who's going to buy my mats I gather?
...who's going to be the market for the enchants/items I craft?
...who's buying BoE drops, Gems, items at incredibly high prices because they have so much extra cash lying around that they can get so easily? That makes things that I need to purchase end up with higher prices, because the bot may be willing to pay much more than I am since it comes so much easier.
They may not be affecting SUPPLY directly through sale of items they gather, but they are impacting the DEMAND. Why buy other people's stuff when you can just set a bot and get it yourself with no work?