Dec 18th 2010 6:22AM Blizzard really hasnt done well without outdoor PvP, and battlegrounds in general have had a good share of non-starters (Gurubashi Catacombs, that one in Azshara). Wintergrasp had faulty cap mechanics from the start, so its surprising that they attempted it again with Tol Barad.
What were they thinking?
Oct 30th 2010 5:50PM I disagree. Nothing I like better than dropping some tree's right on top some unsuspecting healer in PvP and watching them run round for ages trying to lose them.
Oct 7th 2010 5:50AM If this were the case, then Blizzard's own statistic's suggest they have nothing to worry about...
Oct 7th 2010 5:48AM "That seems... irrelevant..."
Its been stated many times already, you may wish to review some of the other comments, however it is relevant because it means Blizzard's statistics on the number of guilds of a certain is inaccurate, hence any decision they make must be in some degree flawed (even from their own perspective as a business, they'd be better off with accurate data).
The guilds that have split up are in the same boat as those who have gone over the soft cap, they are just managing it differently. Both groups would like the same outcomes (more or less), and are therefor "affected".
Oct 7th 2010 5:44AM Guild achievements are capped in any case, the 600 limit is likely to have no real impact.
Oct 7th 2010 5:35AM I'm not sure I buy the memory argument. Sure, 600 is divisible by 8, but thats presupposing that the underlying mechanism for storing the guild roster is somehow related directly to memory consumption, which is pretty unlikely at that level of abstraction. The data will be stored in a database, where it is more likely to be the length of individual fields which affect memory, rather than the number of fields themselves. Its also unlikely to be related to the UI or bandwidth constraints, as the Auction House has managed a large data set for some time, and that seems to be working okay.
Jul 13th 2010 10:55PM This is pretty inexcusable. Any organisation which takes email privacy seriously NEVER uses mass-email to communicate, but has in place a system which is CAN-SPAM compliant and protects the privacy of its stakeholders. Such as system would automatically preclude an event like this from occurring.
The fact that an organisation with the level of responsibility of the ESRB does not have such a system represents a serious management failure, and I would have thought it had potentially serious legal ramifications, let alone issues of trust or responsibility.
You have to ask what else they are getting wrong...
Apr 29th 2010 8:27PM Maybe adobe can take out their erroneous debugger calls this time as well?