Dec 4th 2010 6:30PM "This is the Garrosh that players meet upon coming to Northrend"
I think you meant Outland
Dec 3rd 2010 10:13PM As long as Med'an isn't involved.
Nov 16th 2010 9:50PM No one asked for my take, but here it comes!
They're on the right track, but some things still disappoint me when comparing Tol Barad to the Isle. I'm still worried that Tol Barad on live servers will be too much "Wintergrasp", not enough "Isle of Quel'Danas".
I wish they just scaled up the Isle, even if mass use of the zone would burden the servers. The Isle had it right. World PvP happened on its own, for no other reason than bragging rights and the joy or making your enemies miserable. Raising the stakes by sanctioning world PvP and making it all about daily quests and raid access seems like a good idea, but in practice it sucks, because we just wont show up if we lose.
It's not just because we're lazy, either. I theorize that incentivizing zone control is a double-edged sword. Based this on the laziness and defeatism I've seen over the years playing this game, people wont "waste their time" in Tol Barard if they've "lost" it. We naturally want get the most reward with the least amount of difficulty, so we can prioritize and wait for the timer to reset. That fine for a quest hub, but for world PvP? That's bad! It takes TWO factions for world PvP!
If your faction doesn't have the extra 6 quests or the raid, why would anyone go there instead of just waiting till their faction wins? Would your friends or guidies go? And if they don't go, why would you? Even if you didn't have anything else to do, why would you do your dailies alone or against overwhelming opposition? Even though there are still 6 quests for the losing faction, it will still FEEL like a punishment (like other classes getting buffed but not yours), and most people would prioritize something else to do.
The incentives to go there should be fun, compelling quests in a small, accessible, neutral zone. That is everything IoQD was and everything WG is not. World pvp is most fun when it is even and the "spoils of war" are either persistent (EVE online) or none (Isle of Quel'Danis).
Nov 13th 2010 3:34PM How many spells have single-handedly wiped entire Alliance raids on Thunder Bluff?
Nov 9th 2010 10:49PM You refused to pretend that a symbol or punctuation is a substitute for a letter. Big ups for that. Now, about *Nsync...
Those people, their faces... all so punchable.
Sep 21st 2010 3:41AM TL;DR: Don't spend big $$$ trying to "Future-Proof" your computer! Just make it "Future-Friendly!"
I love articles like this that show you there are options available out there not named Dell, Apple, HP, or Alienware. However even though I am glad I dropped $2,800 on my Dell desktop coming out of high school 7 years ago, I don't think I want to do it again. Don't get me wrong, it has been a wonderful computer, but even if I get as lucky this time around, I fell into the trap of trying to "future-proof" my computer. By this I mean in an effort to never have to worry about having a "slow computer" ever again, I spent an extra $500 on components that I ended up upgrading a couple years ago anyway. Had I not spent all that money, I'd have the same exact computer I have today. Except I'd be $500 richer. That's a lot of money to me, and probably to most of us.
Here's what I have learned:
-- Know your budget before going in. Try to stick to that budget. Pick a good number, a "sweet spot", and try to build the best computer you can without breaking that threshold.
-- A big money computer can be on top for 2 or 3 years, but after a while It will be outclassed by even mid-range to cheap tech. That's just the way Moore's Law operates.
-- Performance ÷ $$$ = "Value". As time goes on and games become more demanding, the performance gap between a $2,000 system and a $3,000 will feel smaller and smaller. A good $2,000 systems will be powerful for a few years, but you wont cringe at it's performance-per-dollar ("value") depreciation as much a $3,000+ system.
-- Because of this, don't try to solve your computing problems for the next decade in one big chunk. If you're out there thinking: "this is a 5+ year investment", that's good. I consider it a waste of money to spend $300-$400 on a cheapshit computer as a quick fix, only to need a new computer within a year or two. Buying cheap and weak is good if you know what you want. But take it from me: buying big and expensive isn't necessarily smart all the time either.
-- If you want to stay on top for a few years without busting the budget, you'll have to be frugal and restrain yourself from buying features you won't need. Do you REALLY need 16 gigs of RAM? Or will 6 gigs do just fine?
-- Think about which components are at a premium price when new, but drop significantly when they become the mass produced "standard". These are the types of things you could live without for a while until they're cheaper. Modular components like RAM and uber-tier Video Cards fit this description.
-- Another thing to stay away from top of the line components that carry massive premiums on them, but are not likely to remain "top of the line" for more than a year or two. Specifically things like the batshit insane premium on the i7-970 processor. Think that's gonna be worth $900 in 3 years? Will it be any better than the $500 cheaper i7-930 or an i5? How about that $700 Radeon HD 5970? Think you'll be still using it in 3 years when a $150 card run circles around it? Get the best value now, then upgrade in 3 years and be glad you didn't drop hundreds of dollars on that premium component that isn't even that good anymore.
-- There ARE things worth breaking the bank for. A great case will never get old. There's no reason a case like that Antec Twelve Hundred can't last you several complete re-dos. If cosmetics are more important to you than building the best computer for a reasonable price, then why are you still reading my comment?
-- If Value is King then compatibility is God. The motherboard, for example, will determine the number of options you'll have available to you in the future. The more modern connections the longer it'll last. Thank god my 7 year old desktop had a single PCI-e slot on it, or else I would've need to upgrade years ago. Spend big here.
Thank you for these articles. All the comments have been great too. I love healthy discussion between people who know what they're talking about. I've been learning a lot.
Sep 14th 2010 12:41AM god DAMN your taste in music is impeccable! First Massive Attack, then Tool? Unff unnf!
requesting The Black Keys, Sigur Ros, or Gogol Bordello.
Sep 14th 2010 12:24AM You must have a serious problem affecting your performance. Well, at least I hope you do and you can easily solve it. I AM running on minimum settings and getting much better FPS than that (like 15-25FPS). I'm using a 7 year old Dell Dimension 8400. With 3GB of RAM, a Pentium 4 single core @ 2.8Ghz with a 512 MB Geforce 7300 Video Card. Your quad core should be running circles around my system.
Good luck diagnosing any problems you may have.
Sep 14th 2010 12:16AM http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-geforce-radeon,2646-7.html
It is, but I'm sure there are additional factors that determine actual performance e.g. memory size. Isn't there compatibility issues as well?
Sep 14th 2010 12:08AM TBH, you're best off buying the biggest PSU you can afford, for future upgrades and max wattage degeneration over time. Consider it an investment in the long term safety of the rest of your computer's components.