No Profile Found
Mar 26th 2009 12:34PM I forgot to add this. Keep in mind who actually conducted the name change, and circumvented the game mechanics for ex-BOB. A GM. And employee of CCP who has access to the data base and all the reporting tools would need to enact such things inside the game.
After a rather lengthy uproar on the official forums, with many threads being locked and deleted, CCP finally released a second statement regarding the incident indicating they would roll back the name change. The excuse they used was they hadn't known that the KenZoku alliance had actually been in existence previous to the incident which resulted in BOB having its alliance dissolved.
Does anyone serious believe this? Anyone with the power to make changes inside the game has the access required to look up anything they require. Either someone was extraordinarily incompetent, or extraordinarily prefabricating. They took several weeks to make a decision on the petition afterall. You mean no one, in all that time, took the time to verify any of the facts of the petition? That in and of itself is worrisome.
Mar 26th 2009 12:24PM I don't see anyone mentioning this yet, but the issue pertaining to the name change is about two things. First, that CCP is showing favortism again; something a company needs to steadfastly remain apart from. Same issue arose in WoW with Blizzard Devs allowing their friends and guilds to jump from PVE to PVP servers when their policy publicly stated no one would be allowed to do that. People get really ticked off by that sort of thing, and this isn't the first time CCP has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar so to speak. What I think a lot of people are left asking is, what other favors have they done that they haven't been caught doing?
And secondly there is a particular game mechanic that was avoided in how CCP conducted the name change. Control of 0.0 space in EVE is a big deal. When an alliance wants to change its name they either have to create an entirely new alliance--incuring a rather large expense and loss of sovereignty over their existing space, or jump into another already existing alliance. Ex-BOB didn't want to do either in this case. They wanted to regain their old lost alliance name, not incur the rather large expense of starting a new alliance, and not lose their remaining sovereignty over their remaining systems.
CCP changed their existing alliance name and circumvented the game mechanics that would have cost the alliance the money and the loss of sovereignty. That's never been done for anyone else in the history of EVE, and on the very face of it, should show everyone the extraordinary lengths to which CCP was treating with ex-BOB.
Rules are their for a reason. When you start making exceptions for some--especially with CCPs track record with BOB, then you also have to make them for others. And in this case it really had very little to do with the name specifically, and everything to do with those game mechanics that everyone but ex-BOB was having to live with.
Dec 31st 2008 5:38PM Seems like a nice start, but I think he needs to do a little more work on his loot prioritizations. I got tons of caster gear listed for the two death knights I put in for Naax.
Nov 6th 2008 1:58PM Woot for the mountz!
Nov 1st 2008 9:31AM ""Well if you are standing in a pallys DS and consecrate range while he destroys you deserve to die. Period. End.""
Now, isn't this the most ridiculous comment we've read today? Talk about nonsensical and ridiculous. And this is what passes for logic in the Paladin class these days I suppose.
Take for instance a group of--lets say 3 people--guarding a flag in AB, AV, or EoTS. In comes a Paladin who drops right down into the middle of them. Using the commenters logic we're supposed to simply leave because "aw crap, Paladins here, game over". And the Paladin then either taps the flag, or picks it up and goes about his merry way.
In the real world--as opposed the wonderland the commenter lives in--those three people commence to beating on the Paladin, who pops his DS, consecrate and lays people out methodically. He kills the three people, THEN picks up the flag, or taps it, and then goes about his merry way.
Folks, there isn't another single class in the game right now that can do this with regularity and with the relative ease that Paladins can do it in. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.
Nov 1st 2008 9:25AM Now you see, you are just being disingenuous. Your comments are full of such misinformation and exaggeration that it's impossible to even count them as sensible. Druids have owned every bracket of Arenas? Please point to real evidence of that, because I can take 3 seconds and show you that you are wrong. I'll wait for your documentation though. And if you believe that Druids have never been touched by the nerf bat, then you simply have no idea what you are talking about. I don't even need to say anything more on that subject.
You didn't bother to respond to the core of the arguements people are making against Paladins right now. And that is they are literally dominating battlegrounds. A Ret paladin can waltz into entire groups--be they small or even larger--and kill everything standing around the Paladin, who then is still able to walk away from the fight. And that isn't a fluke because we all see it on every battleground, every day. Once may be a fluke, perhaps even twice. But to see it with regularity speaks volumes. And no amount of willful ignorance on your part is going to change the fact that you are going to receive much deserved nerfs.
Nov 1st 2008 7:34AM I can not believe that you are going to compare the Druid situation -- in one bracket of arenas, not the entire arena format as you comment--to how over powered Paladins were made. First of all Druids are only powerful in 2v2, where it makes sense that the lack of CC coupled with a Druids mobility and the fact that their heals tick over time make them what they are. They can run away, hide and their heals are still working. Sorry that no other healing class can really do that, but that is in no way shape or form anywhere even close what is going on with paladins. And you very well know it.
Paladins, by comparison, aren't getting all the hate they are getting because of healing. No, they're getting it because they can literally walk into a group of people--1,2,3,5 people!--and actually kill everyone with little effort and walk away without dieing themselves. I've seen it myself, and if you haven't then you are as blind as your post implies you are. I'm all for Ret finally getting the love they deserve, but right now Ret isn't even in the same ballpark as everyone else. Not even Warriors can do what Ret does right now and survive.
And the warnings about all this were loud and clear in Beta for a very long time, yet the Paladin partisans pooh-pooh'ed it and told everyone to stop QQing. And Blizzard basically hid their heads in the sand. Honestly I haven't heard this much complaining--universally--about a class since the great Druid nerf between patch 1.8 and BC.
Druids tried to do exactly what you are doing now. They tried, as you are trying now to use reason to counter many of the comments and impressions people have and weren't able to get people to speak logically about the issues then. And you Paladins aren't going to be able to do it now. Nerfs suck, but not even Druids in the hey-day of post-1.8 could charge into a group of 5 people and lay them all out on the floor. So I'm a little surprised here that the people playing these Ret paladins couldn't see the utter unfairness here.
Jul 15th 2008 5:20PM I'll even go one further Raven. I'm a technical person working in the IT industry. And this precedent, once set, is just too dangerous to let stand. A precedent doesn't just work for Blizzard alone, it can and WILL be used by anyone. There are very far reaching ramifications here, that will affect a great deal more people than just us gamers. This my friend, is a travesty waiting to unfold.
Besides I'm convinced the ruling will be overturned on appeal for technical reasons.
Anyway, my .02
Jul 15th 2008 4:10PM What a tremendously misleading article title. Blizzard has won absolutely nothing yet. In fact it hasn't even gone to trial, or been through any appeals process.
There are years left in that fight. And I still say that what Blizzard is pursuing is dangerous. And others agree with me on that score. Blizzard argued, in effect, that they can deem anything to be a copyright violation simply because of how computers work.
For instance, any mod writer could be slapped with a lawsuit if Blizzard decided to do so. Remember the turf battle Blizzard had with Gatherer? The owner of Gatherer gave in and changed her mod, but had she not done so she could be sued according to Blizzard's legal theory. And keep in mind Gatherer did nothing that Blizzard's system didn't implicitly allow. Mods **can't ** do anything Blizzard doesn't allow them to do, since they all rely the hooks Blizzard created in the first place.
To me, this entire lawsuit is akin to throughing out the baby with the bathwater. In the end they might win, but at what cost, and who else is going to be damaged along the way?
Aug 8th 2007 11:35AM Isn't it odd how every new MMO is going to be a "WoW Killer!"? Yet they never seem to pan out? Vanguard and LOtR Online come to mind. And now Warhammer. they're all the same.
Seriously folks, if you are unhappy with WoW and the fact that the uber hardcore players can't shut out casual players completely, then please do leave and go play Warhammer. Or Pirates of the Caribbean, or whatever else you want to play. WoW is popular, to the extent that it's popular, exactly because it's inclusive. It caters to hardcore and casual alike.
I am fairly happy with this move, though I still wish to see the final details. I'm sure things will work out though.