Mar 19th 2011 1:43PM Does anyone know of a good resource for rogue PA scripts? I have osme of my own to track things like combo points and energy to let me know when I can Mutilate, but seeing how other people have handled similar issues might be a good way to find a betetr system for this.
Dec 28th 2009 6:58PM As GL and sole remaining founder of my guild, I can agree with the vast majority of these suggestions, excluding #9. I operate with a group of officers who provide recruitment for the guild, raid leadership and -most importantly- serve as a representative council for me to discuss issues with and to formulate policy. I can proudly and thankfully say that we have had very few true "drama" issues in the guild, partially because I have endeavored to make all rules and policies as transparent and definable as possible. What issues we have had revolve more around "personalities" and "progression" and have so far generally been handled with equanimity.
I welcome members to provide insights and commentary and have never shut down a suggestion without discussing it with my officers. We've only had a single person leave the guild on a policy issue and I am pleased at that number.
That being said, if I discussed an issue with a member and then took that issue before the officers for discussion and the consensus was that the policy should stay as established and then heard of said member actively trying to sway guild opinion, i would summarily remove them. As stated, guilds are not democracies. The popularity and stability of the guild are directly the result of the equality and the effort of both its leadership and its members. Pushing an issue past the point where the leadership has decided against change is fomenting drama where none should exist. Simply put, if the policy is good, the guild will prosper. If not, the guild will suffer, either in terms of membership loss or some other tangible measure. IF these are not present and a member is STILL lobbying for change, then they are clearly not a fit for what is a working and solid part of guild life and policy.
Dec 6th 2009 3:20PM First of all, I'm going to admit that *yes*, i do enjoy on a subtle level the provocative attire they sometimes give female toons. That being said, I think the single greatest defense for the sexualizing of gear in WoW is just this: this is a FANTASY roleplaying game. Nothing we do is not stylized or exagerrated in some way. Pauldrons so huge no normal being could lift them, let alone fight in them? check. Swords and dagger twice as big as our toons, check. Monster that an entire ARMY would have trouble slaying yet is usually slain by anywhere betwene 5-25 people? check. It's fantasy, it's expected. This isn't real life. And as often or not, that sexy female belf in a titanium thong and saronite D cup is the one wielding a colossal man-cleaver of a sword and screaming at the casters for MOAR DOTS! MOAR DOTS! It's empowered and it's good fantasy.
Oct 30th 2009 8:55PM I'm not a RP player, but the lore and storyline do play into my enjoyment of WoW quite a bit. As a long-time Horde player, I can say that I'd much prefer serving under a leader like Thrall than Garrosh. Whether I'm prepared to faction swap or not is irrelevant, although I'm not.
I can understand why Blizzard is considering this move though, from a storytelling point of view:
1. Peace is Boring. A cooperative Horde and Alliance makes factions worthless and battlegrounds nonsensical. The more peaceful the two sides are, the less interesting the story becomes. The drama and angst generated in the plot when we're facing dire peril like Ulduar and Arthas are heightened when there's a conflict between two sides that should be working together.
2. The leaders must be in balance. Right now, Thrall is disproportionately more noble and egalitarian than Varian, his equal in the Alliance. Varian is an embittered (perhaps rightly so) xenophobe and warmonger. He is not looking to protect his people, he's looking to eradicate the Orcs and conquer the Horde. Thrall has no such plans against the Alliance. Blizzard is looking to give each side their own despot so one side doesn't come off as more noble than the other.
3. Thrall is a noble leader, but not a *good* leader. Peaceful intentions can only get you so far and Thrall has made some serious missteps. He's blind to some of the threats within his own kingdom, notably Garrosh, but also Sylvanas. I'm personally a big fan of Sylvanas; I love the lore around her and of all the figures in this game, i can emphasize with her the most. She watched her kingdom destroyed and laid barren. He people become defiled. She herself was slain and violated as well. Her hatred is well-deserved and I honestly hope she gets to pull a Maiev on Arthas. However, she obviously has plans that are in contradiction to the noble aims of Thrall and the Wrathgate event is proof that Thrall is no longer a good administrator, even if he IS a good role-model and heroic beyond measure.
My real concern is that with Garrosh as leader the Horde will shift farther to the shadows than expected. Varian is an idiot and a zealot, but he's not disloyal or machiavellian. From all indications, Garrosh is planning the assassination of Carne, the elevation of the Grimtotems (who are unequivocably evil) to his preferred Tauren allies and the complete segregation of Ogrimmar between Orc/Tauren and all the other Horde races. This definitely pitches the Horde into the evil side of things, far more so than just putting a more aggressive leader in charge would merit.
The lore behind WoW has always been careful to not let any one side come out as the "good" guys. Each is fundamentally flawed in some way. Each is just and noble in some way. With Garrosh in charge, the Horde will become very dark, very malign. Maybe Blizzard will have Varian handing out quests to go slaughter some Tauren younglings or helpless Orc peons so the Alliance will gain the same sense of unease at serving under an outright monster.