Jan 14th 2012 3:57PM I don't see the game surviving the patch notes that tell a player her main's spec is being dropped from the game. Oh, and her alts' specs. And if she wants to keep playing, she will have to learn a spec that has never interested her. Bye-bye WoW. It's been fun.
Jan 13th 2012 6:41PM I'm genuinely interested to know what specific differences in the European and North American EULAs or TOUs would be in conflict by allowing a North American customer to pair with a European customer to run a dungeon.
Also, the European customer base is attended to by a different division of Blizzard. Okay, but why does this rule out in-game socializing between players on different sides of the pond from each other? Are you implying that rule sets under which each customer base operates is incompatible? If so, could you please provide an example or two?
Lag, well, that's often a problem with the system the way it is. And then again, for many people, like Nick from Scotland, it's a non-issue.
So it seems that the premise of your comment is that the author is doing the Wow Insider community a disservice by posing questions that he has not thoroughly researched answers to beforehand. Why? Are you saying that he should settle the matter for us and close the debate, or are you proposing that he is a hack for opening up the topic?
But seriously, I really am curious to know what you know about those EULA, TOU & different division issues. Personally, I believe that there really may be some serious hurdles to overcome before the two communities can seamlessly merge. I don't claim to have enough information to know specifically what those issues may be. I do know I am not upset that someone is putting the question to me and my fellow gamers. And I also know that there are people out there who may have some relevant facts to share that just may educate me.
Jan 5th 2012 7:16PM Rather than restrict what a player can win, why not make it so bosses in LFR don't drop two of the same item? Their loot tables are large enough to drop four(or however many) unique items. More variety engages more players per fight.
If you remove the ability to trade items won within the LFR raids, I fear people will roll need just to vendor the items for a small sum of gold. I'd rather people were bargaining than vendoring. However, we could perhaps mitigate the problem somewhat by making the following changes:
1. LFR loot cannot be sold to a vendor or disenchanted.
2. A gold button is added alongside the disenchant button during the rolling phase for people who want to make a greed roll on the item with the intention of selling it. If they win it, they get gold, not the item, and they get no +100 need bonus to their roll.
3. We live with the fact that many people will roll need on loot with the intention of trading it. After all, the alternative is that loot is not tradeable and Blizzard again has to field the many tickets from players saying that oops, they are sorry, but they rolled need on the wrong item and would like so and so to have it. I don't see the system going back to the way it used to be here. And making loot not tradeable still does not account for people who will roll need on everything and simply delete what they won't end up using.
4. Blizzard continues to improve the system over time by making the game smart enough to identify a player's main role and favors that role in loot rolls. Tokens are an exception to this, and players should be able to purchase whichever piece they like(appropriate to the token type) regardless of spec.
5. Blizzard adds code to check what you own, and prevents people from rolling need on unique equip items(items such as some weapons that can be used in pairs are exempted) which they already possess. The downside here may be that some people might want two of the same item because they plan to gem and enchant them differently, but it's a sacrifice I would be willing to make, as I think the upside outweighs the downside.
6. Perhaps a more controversial suggestion, and one I am not sold on myself -- players may only win one need roll per boss. It physically hurts me when I take three toons though LFR over three weeks only to lose every single need roll I make, and I constantly see some people win two, three or even four items in a single fight. Want to add some decision to the mix? Only allow players to make a single need roll per boss. Of the three eligible items there, make them choose the one that they really want. This may slow down the rolling a bit though as people spend more time analyzing, so maybe this is too much.
I recognize these are not all changes that can be made quickly or easily.
Jan 4th 2012 9:58PM It is entirely possible to perceive something someone says as laughable without ever actually laughing at them. For instance, the irony in hillbillyrod's comment amuses me, but I won't tease him.
Dec 29th 2011 1:18PM Deathwing can get his big butt to Outland same as everyone else. WTB mage port Shatt 10g.
Dec 28th 2011 4:27PM I have to disagree, Ata. What it sounds to me that you are saying is that you place a higher value on some of the things Blizzard spends our subscription money on, and that content updates are not the highest on that list -- not essential, but a bonus, and that is fine. But don't believe for a moment that Blizz doesn't budget a certain percentage of every fee collected to spend on content patches and mid-expansion features. Also, while I'm sure Blizzard would love it if they could count on all of their customers to be more like you, they understand that many people are like me. I only continue to give them money because, in addition to the things you mentioned, they give me content in between expansions. My attention cannot last two years in between expansions with little to no new content. It's a business contract I have with them. They have the option not to give me content, and I have the option not to pay my subscription fee.
Dec 28th 2011 1:59PM Now if I were paying $15/mo for these forums, I would be signing a different song about fixing the reply button bug! :)
(Obviously this was meant as a reply to styopa's comment about hard-mode toggles.)
Dec 28th 2011 1:56PM @styopa: You are absolutely correct that because we give more money to Blizzard that we should receive more. I have spent over $2,000 dollars on WoW between my account and my wife's. I spent $70 on Skyrim. Where you and I disagree is that I believe that I DO receive much more from Blizzard. They have kept this game fresh for me for over five years, and I get easily bored with things after the initial excitement wears off. Let's say that right now I am intending to someday get back to Skyrim.
@Rhuarc: "Wow (comparatively speaking) is pretty bug free." While I don't subscribe to styopa's initial assessment, I can't buy this as an argument. Throughout WoW's history, Blizzard has been tracking over 100,000 bugs at any given time. http://wow.joystiq.com/2009/09/17/blizzard-is-tracking-180-000-bugs-in-wow/2 (Yes, it's an old article. No, I don't believe they've finally eliminated them all without introducing many new ones.) I know I encounter a dozen or more bugs on a daily basis playing WoW. Many of them are "old friends". Many of them are discussed in these forums. Bugs and complicated software will always coexist. I believe Blizzard does an adequate job eliminating enough of them that I am not too distracted by bugs to enjoy my sessions.
@ Ata: "... Blizzard gives out relatively free updates to the game with you only having to pay for expansions. " This is just not the case at all. I'll accept the claim that $15/mo. is a great value for what we get, but no, it's not relatively free. As mentioned above, I have paid $2k for those content updates. Without the patches, there is no way I am still a subscriber.
Bottom line for me is that I pay more for this game than any other. I expect more from this game than any other. I get more from this game than any other. And I do not think it is fair to single out a small feature (like hard-mode toggles) and play the "we pay $15/mo card". That subscription fee goes to Blizzard because your overall experience is worth that much. Or it isn't to you, and you should then stop paying and playing.
Dec 26th 2011 5:27AM North America
Dec 22nd 2011 7:25PM Yes, please