May 18th 2009 8:56PM The problem isn't with the servers going down different roads per-se, it's that MMO-gamers already have a strong tendency to 1)min-max and 2)complain. This is complicated by the fact that shards are not tied together in real-world time. (Server A fights the evil monster on a different day than Server B sets it free.)
If server A and server B make different choices, server C is going to hold off on a decision until they determine which one is better (perfect balance will never happen in an MMO). Server B will then petition that their server be reset so they can make the same decision server A did so they will be treated fairly. A huge development headache.
There is a separate problem that any time a discovery is made on server A (say a rich mining area), other servers do not go through the discovery period: there is no reward for the clever or the lucky, and instead the biggest guilds/groups will be able to quickly dominate resources. Allowing big groups to get bigger without seeding new, competitive groups leads to stagnation for both parties.
If you want to have a sharded game that allows for permanent, player directed change, each shard needs to START OUT as a different world, not just become that way over time i.e. different continents, different resource distribution. Doing that IS a huge development headache. Additionally, I don't know if anyone has done the marketing to see if such a game (unique shards) would sell well.
Oct 7th 2008 11:55AM I completely agree with this sentiment. Spending time as a guild preparing for a raid (by working on resist sets) together instead of raiding feels epic when the raid does start. Needing a low percentage drop in order to skin core hounds that you don't yet have the gear to fight so that you can get the gear to fight them, not so much.
Sep 23rd 2008 4:44PM Sorry Statiek, but you are wrong. Although the reasons you give make sense for Burning Crusade, the paladin thread modifier was 0.25 since before Burning Crusade was released. Gazelem is saying that in Vanilla WoW (when consecrate was a holy-only ability) it was possible for a holy pally to tank in holy pally gear (with plate levels of armor) by sitting there in concentration aura and spamming heals on them self. That is the reason this value sits at its current level. Given the current state of the game, it could probably be changed back without causing any problems.
Sep 23rd 2008 2:08PM Just a different way of looking at it, actually. These tables are presented as "not hits" erasing "hits", in order of top to bottom. When talked about in the article, this is described as "pushing" a hit off the table. Coupled with the provided table, this would suggest that stacking abilities removes hits first, crushing blows second, and crits third, which we all know is not the case.
Angus: Thanks for providing the link! With numbers plugged in the information is more clear.
The table as written would be better described as "overwriting" hits with not hits. The math is right either way, I just think it would be preferable to paint a simpler visual picture for people who are just now learning these concepts.
Sep 23rd 2008 11:23AM I believe you have the damaging attacks portion of your hit table listed in the wrong order. Critical hits should be the first thing that gets pushed off the table and thus be at the bottom. Crushing blows should be above that, with ordinary blow just below block. Thanks!
Aug 27th 2008 12:42PM http://begthequestion.info/
Please update the article. Sorry, I know you mean well, but that does not mean what you think it means =)
Jul 11th 2008 6:38PM One tanking class and one melee damage class was removed from each faction (Order/Destruction). Each side still has two tanking classes and two melee dps classes that can fill the role of those that were removed. I fail to see how this causes a character balance issue between the two sides unless either certain races are barred from certain events (leaving a gap only a melee dwarf could fill, for example) or if the absence causes players to abandon one faction over the other. I don't see either of these two situations occurring, so character balance should be a non-issue.
Fewer capital cities will change the nature of RvR, certainly.
Jul 7th 2008 7:20PM Yes, we all read Penny Arcade, but you should still include a reference for your quote: http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/2/25/a-glimpse-into-the-future/
Jun 27th 2008 9:10PM I understand what you mean by point B, but I think if done properly it's fine to tell someone to go look it up. If the person is legitimately new to the game, they won't have even heard of the website and will appreciate it. There is a world of difference between "www.allanswers.com, noob" and "It's a little difficult to explain that in chat. If you check on www.allanswers.com, there's a pretty good answer. You can find a lot of other good info there too!" You can even macro that and be helpful without any effort at all.