Jan 27th 2009 11:49AM Nice try, Korrh, but no.
mb != Mb
"mb" would actually a "millibit" or 1/100oth of a bit. So if we're going to be overly literal, he's actually saying that the patch is 6.9 bits in size... or less than a byte. Impressive, though, to be able to transmit a partial bit.
Mb wouldn't even make sense for this, as it would mean that the patch was still the better part of a GB in size.
He wrote "mb" and meant "KB". It's a ~7MB patch.
Jan 26th 2009 1:21PM I never really bought into the threats to quit reading, but I agree.
Absolutely nothing was gained from analogizing to the Bush/Obama transition except that the author got to brag about being at the Inauguration . . . which is probably the whole point of the reference anyway.
Jan 22nd 2009 4:12PM "I expect to see a lot of people buying gold and trying to claim that Blizzard endorsed it with these ads."
And they're going to have a really good point. If you're really savvy, read a lot of blogs, and otherwise keep up to date with the latest goings on, then you'll know better.
If you're like most of Blizzard's 11 million account-holders, though, seeing an ad on Blizzard's site (that's not even denoted as an ad) will look, quite reasonably, like an endorsement.
Another interesting point: this means that Blizzard is making money off of people stealing accounts from their customers. Nice.
Jan 21st 2009 12:34AM "At the time of this writing, we're about six hours after the patch and the majority of bugs have been found."
...how do you know that?
Jan 20th 2009 3:00PM "The servers are ran by AOL folks"
...really? Good lord. Do you even read this stuff before you hit the publish button?
Jan 15th 2009 10:32AM You missed my point.
"I have over 2400SP and a guild didnt want me to be the MT healer for EoE cause of this 'niche'."
You were in a bad guild. This doesn't mean anything for the rest of us who aren't.
Jan 15th 2009 10:27AM "This is the exact problem with circle of healing. Because it is so smart, there was no reason to cast anything else"
If you actually have a holy priest and can't think of a reason to cast something besides CoH, you need to get out of the healing business (spec shadow, delete your character, or something), because you clearly have no idea what you're doing.
With very rare exception, my effective use of CoH rarely exceeds 35-40% of my total healing (less than 20% for some encounters). That's totally reasonable for the defining spell of a class, it also means that most of my healing output comes from spells that are not CoH. Which ones varies by encounter, but the bottom line is that if there's not a bunch of raid damage being taken, CoH is a pretty terrible use of your mana.
Jan 15th 2009 10:09AM You're one of about a dozen people who actually understands why this nerf is such a terrible idea.
CoH may have been overpowered, but this is about the worst possible way to "fix" it.
Of course, let's be honest about the problem the devs are really trying to fix: the other healers' bruised epeens from not being top of the healing meters in the AoE crazy BC raids. This nerf ought to fix that problem just fine.
Jan 15th 2009 10:03AM So priests should be happy because when they get into bad guilds they'll still be used?
Why not just not join bad guilds?
Jan 15th 2009 10:02AM My "big idea" for a CoH fix is a stacking, 8-10s debuff that increases the CD of the spell each time you use it:
0 stacks: No CD
1 stack: 1.5s CD (not much different than GCD for most)
2 stacks: 3.0s CD
3 stacks: 4.5s CD
4 stacks: 6s CD
So in situations where lots of AoE comes in (the situation where CoH spam is needed) you can still get away with in in short bursts. You could even define the niche that way : priests are burst AoE healers, shaman are steady aoe healers.
If you wanted to really mix things up, you could have the debuff increase the mana cost instead of (or in addition to) the cooldown.