Nov 7th 2009 6:52AM > this is certainly a socket bonus that's probably not worth going for.
How so? It is basically a choice between 11 spirit (and extra gem colors for metas) or 4 spellpower. For a shadowpriest 11 spirit equals currently 3.75 spellpower, so that is equal. Most classes have some profit from spirit, so I wonder if I lack knowledge or if you dont have your facts straight.
Unless you gem every socket for int.
Sep 23rd 2009 7:35AM It is rather easy to sit on the side and have your opinion ready on how Blizzard should do this, and berate them if they dont perform up to your theoretic standard. I think it is not as easy as you suggest, the above poster already gives a nice example.
Fact: Blizzard manages to keep a game running that services 12 million people. The fact that they have done it and keep doing it supersedes any theoretical complaint regarding how it could be done better. If you truly think it can be done better, either join them and help us all, or make a similar system and show Blizzard. As long as that challenge is not met, any complaint should be softened by the admission that the complainer may not know all facts.
Sep 23rd 2009 1:37AM Actually, pre-WoW, Blizzard was one of the very few software producers worldwide who managed an almost perfect record on the need for patches. They only brought out games when they could not find any more bugs, and patches generally only affected game balance. The downside, though a minor one in my eyes, is that they never gave release dates. Which is rather logical, just annoying for the anticipation :).
It makes me wonder if another company could right now pull off this kind of game. If a "good quality assurance" company with a long sustained record of success has so much troubles with patches, how would other companies, with lower standards, manage?
Sep 23rd 2009 1:32AM I do think that Blizzard did not act smart by bringing out this patch during Brewfest.
But I also think that defending Blizzard in the errors encountered from a patch makes me sanctimoneous - I rather call it realistic. No amount of testing can prepare a single company for all the possible combinations that lead to errors in the live game. IN terms of size and magnitude this game is unique in the whole world, so expect unique problems.
Sep 23rd 2009 1:20AM Well, maybe your imagination lacks. The tv is a well established piece of equipment, repairing it is something you can expect a lot of experience on.
WoW is an enigma, with 12 million players and it seems 120+ different patches. I am actually surprised they manage so well most of the time, the order of magnitude is so high that no company ever had to manage this before.
If you think you know better, why dont you make a game like this, and then show the world (and Blizzard) how to pull it off? You might learn a thing or two in the process, including to be less fast in the blame game.
Sep 22nd 2009 1:49PM I much like the approach, its needed to make a reasonable attempt to pr new games to wow players - and that is a large group.
Having said that, the writers did not do a very good job.
- How does combat compare to WoW? In WoW we have the agro mechanism... what is it in these new games that gives incentive to teamplay?
- The problem (if any) for factions in Wow is (or was, but now for rl money) that you cant change between factions. How *hard* is that in the new setup?
- The guild options in wow are actually outdated - new games have much better synergies and goals. How sophisticated is guild management and are guildgoals in the new games?
- One of WoWs strongest points is pve, and then the encounter designs - raids are immensely popular, and for a reason. How are the efforts on this? Most new games secretly hold efforts back here and opt for pvp since that is much more based on player action than design.
There are probably more things that are open for comparison. Also, the reviews were pretty "nice" - tell where in the reviewers opinion wow wins, or where the new game wins, and why.
Aug 26th 2009 12:35AM @ KodiakJack:
You, like some others on this forum, are pretty negative about the concept. But then, that is not surprising when I read that you have been in many guilds. The concept offered is basically something that strengthens the bond between members and guild, and works against people who change guild a lot, no matter the reasons for changing guild.
I am now guildleader for over 3.5 years. To me, this concept is wonderful as it provides me an extra tool to make my guild stronger; I do everything I can to keep members in the guild and happy, and we are pretty good at that. To you this concept is not interesting as you possibly will be gone from your current guild after a while; you make it quite clear that you are not interested in investing in a guild, you expect to be abused from the start.
I am sorry for you and the others who see this only as something to fear, a tool that will be abused. Hopefully Blizzard will make this concept in reality. Hopefully you will at some point come in a situation where you can profit from it and enjoy this game a little more because of it.
Aug 24th 2009 7:52PM The current guild structure is very smartly put together; I wont see Blizzard change it soon, as any other system than strictly hierarchical is bound to become subjective at some point. You sound like an idealist, but the current guild leading system is created by realists. If you dont believe me, try to come up with a system that combines objective decision making with availability of few willing and able leaders and least time consuming decision making processes. I doubt democracy will pass the filtering ;).
So... you (read: any member) dislikes how the guildleader(s) manage this new resource? They can leave any time they want (and that is why democracy is not needed). The worst effects I can see actually are:
- People will faster leave a guild if they suspect power abuse; it will be harder to gain trust as guildleader.
- There will be more of a magnetic effect in small guilds flocking to large ones, especially when the large guild has managed to build trust. Meaning that small guilds have to work harder on cohesion, and large guild have to work harder on good application filtering.
Neither is disastrous. And as remarked about by others, both are in fact happening all the time. I bet that stats on how many guilds are started and on the longevity of each guild create a fascinating picture - few will survive beyond a few months. And as guildleader of an average sized guild (some 110 accounts) it is not uncommon already to see small groups ask for admittance because they are tired of management issues.
Aug 24th 2009 7:39PM Where people gather, clashes and misunderstandings occur. Any guild that exists for longer than, say, 2 months will have to deal with that. Addition of this system wont change that fact, it might just cause stronger feelings when there is danger of being removed. Yet I bet that for people in a good guild, being removed from the relations they built up in that guild will probably be more important than loosing these perks.
Aug 24th 2009 7:35PM So, you are in a guild that is fine but its leader seems to abuse its power.
What keeps you from gathering the members that agree with you and form your own guild wherre you treat everyone more fair?
The large potentially dictatorial powers a guildleader has are perfectly balanced by the individual power of people to leave whenever they wish. When considering that system you might even come to the conclusion that to be a successful guild a guildleader has to treat its guild fair... and avoid abuse of said powers.