Mar 18th 2011 3:37PM Allow me to propose a more effective soultion. Lower the gold-cap to 10K gold.
That would cap each individual account to no more than 100,000 gold per server. It's still a huge chunk of change, but it would prevent anyone from auctioning anything for over 9,900 gold (and change -- remember AH fees).
The key objection I have to this article's premise is the assumption that it is epic flight or repairs and not, say, 20,000 gold epics on the AH that drive players into the loathsome embrace of the farmers.
Lower the cap to an achievable goal, like 10,000 gold, and anyone who is even moderately interested in buying top-teir gear will be able to acquire a large enough pot in less than 30 hours of gaming +/-. It would also force gold sellers to spread their supply out even farther, or lock it up in guild banks that would be easier to trace -- "hmm, this three member guildbank is consistently recieving and distributing 10K parcels of gold which are then promptly mailed off... odd."
Finally, a 10,000 gold cap would decrease the average purchase volume, since a player is unlikely to buy more gold than he can readily carry and therefore use. That would force the gold sellers to either increase prices per transaction, or increase the number of transactions -- either result creates problems for the farmers. In the first, higher prices would drive off more casual buyers. In the second, higher volume will make their accounts stand out in ways that Blizzard could, if they hired an economist to show them how, use to trace the farmers accounts and shut. them. down.
Dec 7th 2010 9:25AM /roll
Dec 6th 2010 6:46PM Meeee pls. K bye.
May 21st 2010 12:27PM Version numbering serves a purpose... in a code database (or in the old days, on the hard drive you stored the raw code in) you create a "version" so that you have a copy you can work on i.e. change code in, without losing the copy of the safe, stable, released code.
3.3.3 was one copy of the source code.
3.3.5 is the copy with ruby sanctum and battle.net code in it.
3.3.4 could be...
an internal development build to test a fix or feature that didn't work out.
an internal development build to implement a feature that wasn't ready to release before development of 3.3.5's ruby sanctum went into high gear, and just got merged into 3.3.5
possibly reserved... but verisioning isn't really a public consumption thing, they could just as easily label a big patch fix 3.3.3a (or, 3.3.3, if you look at the actual build number we're playing now, there's a lot more digits after that trailing 3).
you might want to break one major feature (e.g. the battle.net integration) away from another major feature (say, Ruby Sanctum) so that the development teams for those two projects could each compile and test their implementations without having to worry about the other teams compile errors or system-murdering bugs interfering with proper testing and error isolation on the code each team has written. So, when you have two major features coming out in one patch, it makes sense that the two may be getting developed on two separate versions before being rolled into each other.
Given that they were doing the SCII battle.net testing over the last several months, it makes a good deal of sense that they would have wanted a QA build of warcraft with the battle.net features enabled in order to tests the WOW - SCII battle.net functionality... which they might not have wanted to release until 3.3.5... timing up rather well with the most recent reset of all the battle.net information in SCII. This would be my guess.
Feb 27th 2010 9:12AM We have plenty of multi-mob threat tools. I've got a heroic / trash build that I use as my off-spec (mostly so I can avoid burning piles of glyphs to make the transition).
Thunderclap, Shield Block (+damage shield of course), Shockwave, Cleave, Challenging Shout, and if you glyphed right for heroics, a multi-target devastate.
Oh, and tab, can't forget the best power we share with everyone else.
Cleave is the one that most folks I know who cannot tank heroics with ease undervalue. It has a truly massive coverage area, well beyond your hit box. It hits for meh damage but good threat. It is *not* aoe heroic strike.
If you're rage starving in heroics, you need to switch to a slower weapon. Rimefang's claw is perfect for heroics and trash because it's high damage, tank appropriate, and relatively slow at 1.7 swing speed. (the difference is 5 attacks per minute, about 100 rage per minute less than a 1.5 swing speed weapon if you're converting all your white damage to cleaves.)
The myth of warrior multi-mob tanking is that there isn't a simple priority list or rotation for it. There is, much more so than boss tanking where you have to watch your debuffs. The set rotation is Cleave, Devastate, Tab, Cleave, Devastate, Tab, Cleave, Devastate ... with shockwave, thunderclap, and shield block thrown in whenever they come off cooldown.
Try it, it works.
Mar 25th 2009 2:42AM er.. he's basically right -- 'locks do well when teamed up with a pally and a DK.
Mar 16th 2009 3:27PM Our game is less fun!? It's your fault!
Jan 27th 2009 11:32AM dude -- almost every piece of equipment in WotLK has the same artwork. Many of the areas and zone reuse chunks of older content. Go run RFC and then take a look at the black dragon shrine, run MC and then go do OS.
They've moved staff over to their other games, and they've been giving us the cold shoulder right along.
The game is fun -- the mechanics of the underlying system are neat -- but Blizzard has pretty obviously moved on to the next cash cow.
Nov 6th 2008 7:54PM It's a tax thing.
If you don't recognize the profits in the 2008-09 tax year you don't pay taxes on that profit till next year (which gives you a little bit more time to invest that money that you will have to pay in taxes and gin up some interest payments).