Feb 18th 2009 6:53PM No. No it shouldn't. Having the best content segregated off to a minority of the population sucks.
Giving the best players who have the greatest combination of skill and free time the greatest rewards while still keeping raids available to people who can't commit to a fixed schedule of raiding is a FANTASTIC design decision.
This is not coming from some whiny, lazy casual. I've raided every level of content in the game, sometimes raiding 4-5 nights a week.
The fact is, designing raids to baseline at a high difficulty level simply gates that content from most people. Players who maybe have the semblance of A Life but are just as skilled -- or more skilled -- than the hardcore, deserve a shot at those raids. Hard Modes mean the hardcore can flaunt their epeens all they want, get the challenge they demand, while still opening similar content to the just as deserving masses.
Long story longer, stop being an elitist jerk.
(See what I did there?)
Feb 12th 2009 4:24PM I know this makes me a hater, but let me put my objections to the current state of this class column in a list:
a) Too garrulous. Matthew's problem never seems to be a fear of making a point. He takes some strong stances. He just uses too many, uhh, how do I put it, hmmm, it's coming to me (that sounds kind of dirty), oh yeah. He takes his time getting to the point. He makes a lot of asides and non-sequitors. He's the anti-Hemingway.
b) You can tell Matthew keeps quite abreast of Shaman news, and he clearly has played him some Enh and Resto (more Enh it seems) but he's never shown much interest in or understanding of the Ele spec. His analysis when it comes to a lot of things ele often have little more depth than "I think this is good" or "this looks like a nerf." It would be nice to see more expertise here.
c) Not enough structure. Other classes (except warriors) get articles with specific topics or well contained ideas. Within an article, it would be nice to see resto changes handled separately from Enh changes. When you're listing ideas, try bullet points or headers. Every Shaman article seems to sprawl.
This flowing, stream of consciousness style is cool for a state of the class piece like this. Matt, you're really good at this type of article, and few are. This article is good. But you're bad at getting to the point and you need to show more expertise on Ele, or you'll keep seeing bitchy posts like this one and Threats' post.
Jan 31st 2009 6:23PM There's a lot wrong with this article.
Earnings do not equal revenue. If I buy a pair of shoes for $8 and sell it to you for $10, my revenue is $10 and my earnings are $2.
Maybe the author understands this simple distinction, but it's confusing in the post. And as The Claw pointed out, using 11.5 mil people x $15 is flat-out arbitrary, even if all you are talking about is revenue (instead of earnings). Might as well just multiply $15 x 287 million people and say, "yeah, I could see $400 mil in earnings."
I don't pretend to understand Blizzard's revenue model for WoW outside of the US and Europe, but neither should the author. If you don't understand it, don't touch it. Start by basing it off Blizzard's publicly stated US and EU subscriber base numbers and infer from there. And then say something like "but that's revenue -- remember, blizz needs to pay their employees and for data centers and marketing, etc."
Nov 25th 2008 3:04PM "You laminated my cycle?"
Oct 14th 2008 6:02PM Yeah, they're all Blizz employees. I'm pretty sure the lead singer is a rather important/talented artist @ Blizz, don't remember about the other guys.
Oct 14th 2008 6:00PM I do not know what to make of L80ETC. They're nice guys and they help make some great games.
But are they tongue-in-cheek, or do they think their music is actually good? I mean, I don't know how else to say this but ... they're awful. Is it just me? Is it the new thing in metal to wear a button-down t-shirt and jean shorts for performances?
I'm sorry to be a hater, it's just ... L80ETC makes me wince.
Oct 14th 2008 5:41PM Barbie? I think you mean My Little Pony. Notice the little ponies on his shirt? Those are ponies, not barbies.
Jun 15th 2008 12:00PM Wait, what? Enhancement is currently a mana-inefficient spec. So they're making Int more important. Because enh shamans now have an ability that turns int in to AP. And the crap +mana talent now adds more mana because it adds ... more int.
As pointed out in the article, stacking INT now adds to AP. So INT now gives an Enh Shaman increased melee and spell crit chance, an increased mana pool, and increased Attack Power. And you'd still rather be stacking strength instead?
I think you skipped the part where making Enh shamans more INT dependent is freaking awesome.
Apr 11th 2008 10:57AM "Assume the prices for commodities (repairs, potions, primals, ect) are currently rising. What course of action would you take - in regards to currency - to lower prices to an acceptable level?"
If I were in charge of WoW's economy, I would nominally decrease the cost of gold. Most prices in WoW are variably, particularly on goods and services farmed and provided by users. The fixed prices in WoW are things purchased and sold at vendors. That's a bit of a simplification, but true enough that we can move on.
Fixed = Blizzard
Variable = User
Now, as the head of Blizzard's economy I'd decrease the cost of gold in this period before the next expansion for many reasons. While yes, increasing the supply of gold increases the prices of variable priced items -- basically anything bought off the AH, those price increases are offset by reducing the relative cost of the fixed items. Fixed items are currently the highest priced (in terms of gold) items in the game.
Again, what's already been said many times is that Blizzard is increasing the gold supply to decrease the cost of fixed price items, such as flying mounts. The first unstated part was that it also decreases the cost of fixed price services -- repair and vendor skill/spell training. The second unstated part is that it also increases the price of variable price goods. But clearly, Blizzard considers that last aspect an acceptable trade-off.
Bottom line is that Blizzard knows where gold goes in their economy, and they know much of that gold goes to mounts and repairs -- items they directly control the price of. If they reduce the time needed to acquire a given amount of gold, they decrease the overall incentive to buy gold. They are devaluing the currency, which in turn devalues the service provided by gold sellers.
Again, Imbalance, Blizzard is behaving exactly the way a well run Fed would behave. In this case, increasing the WoW dailies was a huge win for most WoW players and a smart move on Blizzard's part. Cheers to Schramm and Relmstein for their well-written articles.
Apr 10th 2008 9:54PM Imbalance ... I'm going to suggest that you should have refrained from skipping all those Macro 101 classes in order to level up your troll toon.
The fed attempts to regulate the supply of money by raising *or* lowering the interest rate banks pay to borrow money from them. If they raise interest rates, that is meant to decrease the amount of money in the economy. To deflate the economy, if you will. If they decrease their interest rate, that is designed to make money more readily available to banks ... aka inflation.
Yes, this may be a hard concept to grasp (and admittedly it is hard for most, not because most are stupid, but because to most people inflation is just a word for "everything is more expensive, and that sucks.") but in fact, sometimes the fed tries to encourage inflation.
Sorry Imbalance, but you should probably Lrn2MonetaryPolicy before you start ripping a decent post on the best source of WoW news on the entire interwebs.
The daily quests (and their expansion in 2.4) are obviously a game mechanic designed to inflate WoW's economy. In that sense, Schramm and Relmstein are precisely correct ... such behavior is basically an application of monetary policy.