Mar 31st 2010 6:44PM " I did sell my Pet Rock on the AH, I wish I could have the little fella back."
Go back to Dire Maul (east I think). If you are level 80 you should be able to solo it now. You may have to run it two or three times, but more likely then not if you kill everyone in there once and loot them all you will get a pet rock in the first run. Takes about 10 min on my pally. My wife takes somewhat longer on her mage (cloth makes it harder - she can do 3x my DPS, but I can recover from pulling 20 ogres at once).
She has run it about 10x more then I have (she is going for the insane title...and I would like it, but I always seem to have other stuff to do).
Feb 2nd 2010 5:46PM " the doom condition of bots controlling EVERYTHING"
Not really. In the real world bots have access to stock and futures data and news wire feeds and all manner of things. The bots don't control the real world market. They react quickly to it. Sometimes in fantastically poor (i.e. exploitable by non-bot) ways.
It would reduce the length of time things with "under market value" buyout prices stay in the AH. It would reduce the number of non-buyout items that sell for under market value, or expire at under market value.
So there is a diminished chance you will snipe that cheap frost lotus or iLevel X disenchant able. There is a radically improved chance that anything you chuck onto the market with no buyout will actually sell, and sell for a reasonable price.
So the buyers bargains will be harder to find, but by the EXACT SAME AMOUNT buyers bargains are removed, sellers bargains are created.
Also the buyers bargains (on buyout items) don't vanish, they will tend to go to people running bots...just like they do now. Almost every great bargain on the AH currently goes to someone with an addon (auction sniper, simple auction, auctioneer, homegrown addons, and addons neither of us have heard of). It just gets more efficient.
I donno if it would be good for "the game" -- what makes a good efficient market in the real world, isn't the same as what makes a fun part of a game. I also don't know that Blizzard intends anything other then "see current auction prices on the web".
I do know there is almost zero reason I would pay extra to see auction prices. I might think about paying extra to run the AH from my own programs (less risky then writing code to buy/sell real stocks/futures, but enough upside to make it fun to do it to see if I can make "real fake gold")
I'm not the target market for all products though, maybe they figure enough folks would pay to see auction prices -- exiting web sites think that, and seem to survive. Who can tell.
Jan 11th 2010 2:43PM From an entirely greedy standpoint I don't want mandatory authenticators. Not because I find them inconvenient to use, I have one and find it easy.
I don't want the rest of you to all have them.
You see as long as there are a bunch of people without them, those folks are the low hanging fruit. Once everyone has an authenticator, then attacks will have to focus on getting into accounts that have authenticators.
Maybe social/phishing attacks that convince you to enter your authenticator code into a web site just once, and then logs in to your account within 30 seconds so it can drain it of goods before the code expires. Maybe keyloggers that when the attacker is ready for a new account, sends your login info next time you enter your keycode and then shut off your network access before letting the game actually log you in. Maybe just an active TCP hijack attack. Or maybe the authenticators-on-a-phone will get attacked next.
So yeah, I prefer to let folks who think the authenticators are too costly, too much of a pain, or too anything shield me from the attacks. Come on blizz, don't nerf my human shield! QQ!
Dec 2nd 2009 4:30PM "I'd say his latter point did make sense, we are all really a person behind the toon, same issues, emotions and prejudices. What I can't accept though, is that playing WoW changes the world in an discernible way, other than removing our presence from it for a few hours a day/week."
Some people are depressed. Some of those people play WoW. Your interaction with them may help them become less depressed. Without interacting with them nothing might have caused them to become less depressed before they decided they couldn't handle it any longer and killed themselves. A life saved is a discernible change to the real world.
(likewise someone interactions might cause a depressed person to become more depressed, and kill themselves when they might otherwise have lived, again a discernible change to the real world)
Both of those cases are hypothetical, but I expect have happened for real. More then once. I just don't happen to know specifically of cases.
However in the "for real" category I _do_ know people that have met in WoW and ended up dating in real life, and sometimes becoming married, and that marriage having lasted for years (not more then five years, given that WoW is only that old, but still...)
So I would say those also have had real world changes.
I'm sure other people have lost jobs, and/or found jobs.
Oh! Speaking of jobs! I'm sure there are people who make they're living selling not-real-world-WoW gold. That is definitely a real world impact. (gold selling good or bad is still an impact on the real world)
So while the primary act of playing WoW has very little impact on "the real world", the people that play WoW can (and sometimes do) have real world impact on each other.
Nov 9th 2009 3:03PM "I want to know why they are called microtransactions?"
I would guess because a lot of "free" games have microtransactions to buy in-game things with real money. So people have latched onto "microtransaction" being "buying in-game stuff with real money" as opposed to "a really really small transaction".
Even the games that use it to mean "small transaction" have significantly shifted it from the original meaning, which was "a transaction small enough that you would pay it to view a web page, like less then a penny". That never caught on, it ran into the technical problem of charging far far less then a bank wants to handle a credit card payment for (or the technical problem of making a non-credit card system, that acts a lot like credit cards or debit cards, but can make a profit, or at least break even on transactions two or three orders of magnitude smaller then existing systems). It also ran into the problem of people not liking to feel nickeled and dimed (even if it is one tenth of a penny, not ten pennies). Then the advertising driven model started working out, and hey, who wants to pay even a fraction of a cent when you can read for FREE with a little blinking ad?
So microtransaction can either be the word for "something that didn't work in the past, and is unlikely to be dusted off and done in the future", or we can ignore the "micro" part and make it stand for larger transactions.
Personally I would like to keep "microtransaction" to "under a buck" (which isn't all that micro), but language is a hard thing to steer, and it is going to mean whatever most people think it means.
It'll still bug me though. At least amazon isn't referring to $10 kindle e-book purchases as "microtransactions". Nor is McDonnald's calling a $7 burger a "microtransaction".
Nov 9th 2009 1:15PM $10 isn't a microtransaction, it is a regular transaction. So is buying a book from amazon for your kindle at $10.
That said, there are things I don't think Blizzard should sell with transactions, microtransactions, or megatransactions.
One of them they already sell, and have sold for longer then I've been playing. XP gain. They sell a 300% XP gain up to level 60 in the form of refer-a-friend, which works out to $15/month, has logistical issues, and is clearly NOT targeted at being a "send us money and get an XP boost".
They also sell mounts which I am borderline with, as they are somewhat sizable in-game costs (the first time I ding'ed 60 I didn't have the gold for my epic mount...and I'm pretty sure when I hit 40 I didn't have the gold for my regular mount, but since I was a pally, I got it for peanuts anyway).
I don't think Blizz should sell "old epics that nobody would grind for anymore" since some people do have them, and did get them the hard way. It is "bad enough" that a level 80 can faceroll the grind they had to do at 60, or 70 and get it, but at least they would have had to see what it was like, and could imagine what it would have been like at level 60/70. Just plunking down $10 (or whatever) doesn't seem right.
I _would_ be ok with similar (or maybe identical) 3d models, a new but similar name, and no in-game effects (sort of like the arcanite axe that is a guitar as opposed to the original which was a badass weapon).
I _would_ be ok with similar things to all the TCG loot I know of. Again I think it would be unfair to people who collected the things in the first place to recycle identical items, but that would not wreck WoW, it would wreck TCG, and I don't play that, so I'm ok with it :-)
I'm ok with pretty much any cosmetic-only items.
To stretch the bounds of what is being done, I'm ok with items with significant in-game stats IF, and ONLY IF you have to trade in an identically stat'ed item. For example if they had a T10 set that looked better then the existing T10 set, but to get it you have to trade in existing T10 items. In fact don't think of that as selling a T10 item, think of it as selling "paint that only works on the T10 item" (even if it is more then paint). After all if this came to pass the thing you buy with money is still only decoration.
I'm not ok with buying items that help with leveling, or raiding. That way lies madness.
Not just the madness of guilds insisting that you have the bought items in order to join. Not just the madness of Blizz now trying to resist amping up raids so you _have_ to buy the better gear. It also brings the madness of Blizz resisting that final step, but eveyone assuming the new raid is hard just because Blizz wants to sell more raid gear. No, madness is in that direction.
For leveling, we have seen the madness that lays that direction. Games designed with grinds that wear you down until you buy the potion/scroll/whatever that lets you bypass it. WoW doesn't need any of that either.
Ditto for items that let you level or craft faster or better.
So +1000Coolness items are fine. +1 Attack Power is not. +1 XP is not. +1 crafting is not. +1 gathering is not. +1 gold is not.
Store bought items are fine by me, so long as they are limited to things that look pretty. Look terrifying. Look cool. Sound cool. Even have cool (non-combat, non-XP, non-gathering) effects. Like the stuff in TCG. Even some stuff past that.
Nov 6th 2009 4:31PM "Yeah, we will have to see if Questhelper is better or if this one beats it out"
QuestHelper, at least when I used it, had logic in it to help minimize total travel distance. That is frequently different from "do the closest thing next", since your closest quest might be next to a turn in for something you haven't done yet. QH also has some party quest tracking stuff.
So I would guess the built-in version will have a nicer UI, be simpler to use, uses fewer resources, and NOT do the whole job. You would still level somewhat faster with QH.
Or you might decide QH just uses too many resources, and live with sub-optimal quest ordering. Which is what I did :-)
Nov 5th 2009 4:42AM Ohhh! Me! Me! Pick me! Me! Pick me!
Oct 30th 2009 7:05PM "I like the idea of being able to play an alt while you wait for a spot to open up in the dungeon you are queued for."
Or better yet, let you queue on LFG and leave that active until you logout (or get into a group), even if you swap toons, even if you put another toon into LFG.
So you could level your hunter, and have your pally up for 'roics, and your 'lock waiting for some level 60 instance action... and group forming up tells you all the current stuff (who the other people are, what instance), and reminds you who you queued on. If you reject it, nothing special happens. Make sure the dialog can survive zoning in so you can hearth/ancestral recall/scroll or recall/whatnot to an inn. If you accept the group, if it wasn't queued from the current toon the game switches toons for you. No matter what toon you accepted from all your other queued group requests are canceled (or suspended until you are done with the group).
Well, I guess it would be better UI to let you manage any of your toon's queues from any other toon. More transparent what is happening. It may or may not be simpler to code too. It would definitely be better UI to have an option to hearth, but it would be more painful to cover all the _ways_ to hearth (unless LFG gives you a magic free hearth).
Any way you slice it, that would make LFG "even more better", but it also makes it "even more code!", which would make it "even longer before the next patch". If I were a PM at Blizz (and I'm not, I don't work for Blizz, and I'm not a PM) I would leave that set of features for a future release. I would actually want them there rather then using "future release" as a euphemism for "never" though.
Oct 30th 2009 6:51PM "You guys seem to be missing the point. There will be no more waiting around for groups. "
Um...why won't their be?
Ok, so there are now people from all the realms in my battlegroup all in one big pool. So if the bottleneck was waiting for SOMEONE who wanted to run a heroic, then I'm set. Golden. Great. Cool.
That isn't what the bottleneck is.
For most people it is waiting for a tank and a healer who wants to run.
For me I just have to wait for a tank, since I heal.
Why can't people find tanks/healers? Given how fast I can find 3 DPS I would say "because way more DPS wants to run heroics then tanks!".
So what does adding in 10 more realms full of people do? It adds 10 times as many tanks and healers! Cool! Oh, plus 10 times as many DPS. Same imbalance between tanks/healers as DPS. Same wait.
So if you want to run instances at off hours, this will help you. A lot.
If you run a peak hours, I'm not so sure.