Jan 22nd 2008 6:31PM You *really* need to refresh your game mechanics. Parry DOES NOT RESET SWING TIMER. The effect on players is a reduction of, I believe, 20% off the next autoattack, stacking to a maximum of 40% (from memory, numbers might be wrong). Now, due to server/lag issues, NO ONE has viable data on what the exact "parry thrash" effect is on a boss, and indeed there is some experimental data that suggests it is not exactly the same as the mechanic when a player parries. You would know this if you spent 15 seconds researching your article on warrior / paladin forums.
Not taking anticipation is crap. Your build shows you have about 0 understanding of mathematics and game mechanics. Believe it or not, defense is worthwhile after the "magic" number of 490.
Jan 7th 2008 2:38PM I think I've mentioned this before, but essentially what all these readers have done is create several different *heuristics* for how an automated system might determine if a player is not participating in a battleground.
By taking some weighting of the these heuristics, it would be trivial to automate auto-booting of people not participating. Consider for a moment that this kind of heuristic based learning can produce Bach Chorales and Mozart concerti that the majority of music majors can't tell from the real thing, if you don't believe me. The principles are the same.
Blizzard has highly intelligent programmers who work for them. They have people who know all about computational theory. The game could not be created or maintained without it. I think it's an entirely interesting and different question to figure out why this issue hasn't been fixed in such a manner - it might be because intelligent programmers / theory people will have a tough time explaining how such a concept works to management / policy people. My money's on this - happens all the time in the business world.
Consider as a comparison the very clever user mods to phpBB which block ALL, and I do mean all, botting / spam / etc on forums to the amount of spam that shows up on the WoW forums. It's completely fixable, the holdup is in the management, not in the theoretical ability to change.
Jan 2nd 2008 9:57AM I'm actually not going to flame you like some of the other responses that say "you just don't do it. You just. Don't" etc.
There are extremely good reasons not to discuss salary IN THE MANNER that he did. OK, first off, what most decent companies will do is give raises based on percentage (ie 2% 3% 15% etc), they also *tend* to publish statistics which will tell you what percent of people got what raise, so that you can see where you stand compared to your coworkers. This system solves pretty much all the objections and the few idiots who were like "I work in a decent country!" (read: 4th rate power).
The problem with discussing specific details of salary with other coworkers is that it leads to a lot of problems in the workplace. Person A thinks his work was better than Person B, but the manager decided to give Person B a bigger raise for whatever reason. That's the manager's job. It's a universal truth that basically everyone thinks they work for an idiot, and that they "know better," so person A becomes convinced that the manager is out to get him, or discriminating against him, or some other BS, where in reality someone just made an honest assessment that his work wasn't as good. That this could be true defies the comprehension of person A. Chaos ensues.
Let's also examine the manner in which he disclosed his salary. He basically announced it to a roomful of people. The reasons not to do this should be completely obvious...it's one thing to discreetly find out information and try to use it in your next bargaining session (this would be SMART), and quite another to stand up like a dick and tell everyone how your shit doesn't smell. That's stupid. If you add to this the fact that his blog is terribly designed (it's a canned skin actually), and the fact that he has no command of English, we can pretty much assume this guy is a total loser who got exactly what he deserved. I hope he doesn't breed.
Dec 28th 2007 9:31AM I really have to disagree with this, as a recent convert to a PvP server (I play about..12-15 hours a week). It actually just makes it more of a challenge to plan an effective route through what you're doing. ie, you can't say "I'm going to finish THESE five quests," but you need to have several zones in mind where you could get some work done. If you end up getting ganked at one of them, move to the other, etc. Your analysis of skill in PvP vs PvE also doesn't hold up if we take as metrics of skill progression and/or battlgroup/arena standings. It's entirely possible that your experience differs, but on aggregate I think most people would agree that the skill level encountered on PvP is a notch higher. Additionally, I think your every man for himself analogy doesn't hold up against the majority of other posters here - quite on the contrary members of a faction are far more willing to go out of their way to help each other precisely because of the PvP aspect. People know each others classes / skills / abilities much better because they're far more used to having to work with them in fast paced do-or-die situations.
Dec 26th 2007 2:04PM I was excited to see this topic since I just rerolled on a PvP server last week after a whole year of PvE. My thoughts are:
1) No, the neutral guards thing is a terrible idea. As many people have pointed out, the state of "anarchy" in a PvP server is exactly the point.
2) As for the whole "why bother with PvP" etc, for me it was because I did a bit of research and noticed that most of the top guilds seemed to be on PvP servers. Ergo there were either better, or better organized, or more serious players, or some combination of the above, in a greater density on those servers. So far I have to say I've really found that to be the case...I think the point is that you simple have to THINK more on a PvP server, you can't quest as passively as you do on PvE. You have to think about killing your mobs out of sightlines of the main roads, not traveling along the main roads, always keeping your health high, learning how to frequently change your camera angle to check around you, etc.
Oct 23rd 2007 4:25PM @7...fail. I did read the article quite carefully, and your clear inability to think abstractly is what is hurting you. *everyone* understands the gaming mechanic. Name me one "mmorpg gaming mechanic," mentioned inside the article, or otherwise, that would fail because of a generational issue. There are two mechanics mentioned in the wowinsider writeup, one is virtual currency - employers have used a virtual currency system (you earn "something" by doing work, which you then use to get stuff that will do your work better) forever. Sometimes, they even use real currency for it! The second mechanic mentioned is a guild, leveling system. Again, I see nothing new here. A team is tracked as a unit, they get points, they get the best rewards and projects? Again, this has been happening forever. What is new?
If you feel strongly that it is merely the terminology used that will motivate people, and not the concept, that's fine - I strongly disagree, but have only observational data on the subject. Or if the argument is that the rise in popularity of mmorpgs will make the deployment of these systems "easier" in the office, which in turn will lead to an increase in productivity, because they are good systems, then fine.
My issue is when people see "new concepts," or frankly *anything* of pure intellectual value arising from online gaming. It is becoming increasingly easy to forget that online worlds are modeling something else, and are constructed (as they must), by ideas and philosophies that exist OUTSIDE the system. While this may create a laboratory in which real new value is bred, there is also a real danger of claiming value exists where in fact it's something else simply repainted.
The Castronova book, lauded as "genre defining" in the study of virtual worlds, for example, suffers greatly from this problem.
So much in life already functions according to "game mechanics," let's not forget that at a conceptual level, there isn't all that much new in the mmorpg genre. The medium, availability, and terminology - sure those all might be different.
Also, I will honor any kind of reasonable bet that my IQ is far far higher than yours, and that I will outperform you on any intelligence metric (barring something job specific that I wouldn't know about). Kindly do not take to personal insulting unless you are sure you are smarter than me, in which case clearly you have the right.
Oct 23rd 2007 3:18PM This is completely and absolutely ridiculous. An egg is an egg. The statement, "this is an egg, and the whole concept of an egg comes from virtual worlds," would be known as a "lie," or "stupid," in some dialects. So the big idea here is that...you earn something by doing something...which you can then spend? I hate to break it to you, but this is NOT AN IDEA FROM GAMING. Employers have been doing this..well..forever. It's called a salary. Now, the fact that they've created an incentive system within the workplace itself (also not new AT ALL), is nothing worth writing about, except some twit who can barely rub three brain cells together decided that they got the idea from gaming, and some other twit decided it was actually something worth writing about.
Oct 2nd 2007 7:41PM Yeah..so Terra Nova, and you, both completely missed the point. Do you think this is the first time someone has thought about virtually modeling disease spread? Hundreds of models to do this exist, SIR being one of the simplest and most popular. There's an entire field of applied mathematics that does nothing but model these events. The point is that they wanted to use the virtual world to gather human behavior data, to see if it can aid them in that one aspect of the modeling - most models today are statistically based, that is, they'll know that randomly 1 in x number of people will be a Typhoid Mary - but it doesn't analyze WHY this occurs. That's what they're getting at with this, and it's still an excellent idea. Honestly, don't you think that the real scientists might know a BIT more about this than someone who writes wow blogs?
Oct 2nd 2007 2:52PM Voice Chat destroys the illusion of anonymity which, for me, is a great draw of this kind of game. If it becomes widespread, it will also destroy the fascinating text memes which thrive in mmorpgs. I only use vent in large raids, or to chat with people that I've decided are actually kind of OK, and I want to hear more about and from. Now every single pug 5 man I'm in is a constant stream of "SAY SOMETHING!!! I CN HAR YOU!!!" I DON'T WANT TO KNOW that I'm playing with 14 year old adolescent boys, because I'd rather gouge out my eyes. Also because it makes anyone who's older feel a little weird and wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard faces some massive lawsuit the first time a 63 year old pedophile finds a nice 10 year old to instance with and then lures him to a meeting and rapes and kills him. Voice betrays age, and frankly I just prefer not knowing. With Vent, I had the option, because I could choose not to use it. Now everyone is wants to use it in every party.
@15, as others have pointed out, you fail.