Apr 18th 2011 4:13AM I think it's less that Thrall is giving him a chance to change because he's helpless nice, and more that he doesn't know enough about Bilgewater internal politics to be willing to appoint a new leader. He's leaving in charge the goblin he found in charge, and letting the goblins deal with their own politics.
p.s. Long live Her Tallness!
Apr 4th 2011 1:57PM For those a little older still, " 'Tis not hereafter; Present mirth hath present laughter."
Jan 28th 2011 6:40PM Matthew: I can't control what sits well with you, and that's fine :) But I can tell you I have spent a lot of time thinking and talking and working on related issues to this, and that I have a lot of reasons to make the claim I made.
Xsinthis: indeed, they are getting a crappy shadow of the game (at least, from everything I've heard, I have no direct evidence on that). Which makes it sound to me like it's people who either don't care enough about the game for it to be worth their $15 a month, but it is worth a couple hours here and there; or because they don't like some aspect of the official servers enough that they're willing to put up with a crappy version, in order to have some ability to play in a different set up.
In either case, I'd argue that a lot of them already made their decision to not pay for the game, private server or no. And I'd also argue that for some of them, the private server keeps them engaged in the game, and might eventually bring them back to a non-crappy version; whereas if the simply stopped playing, they would move on and not come back.
But again, I am in agreement on the point of Blizzard put a lot of time and energy and money into developing this game, and they deserve your money if you're going to play it.
Jan 28th 2011 6:29PM You almost got me to upvote CC's comment, Charles, just to prove you wrong. On content alone, I would have upvoted it.
But I went back, and the overly combative and ornery language of the original post annoyed me.
An the lesson is: guess what? People aren't getting downvoted because they disagree with the establishment, it's because they are making no attempt to be a reasonable member of a conversation.
Jan 28th 2011 6:24PM I agree with your basic message: Blizzard does an enormous amount of work to provide us with continually updating content, and if you want to access it, they deserve your money.
60,000 non-paying customers. 60,000 retail box copies not bought.
This is a fallacy. Quite a lot of piracy of any media (I'd say "most" but i'm not prepared to prove it, so I'll stick with "quite a lot") is not by people who would be buying the product, were it not for the option of pirating. It's by people who would otherwise pass on the product, because they've decided that buying it is not for them, for one reason or another.
Jan 14th 2011 3:54PM I have bad news for you, SeniorGato. You're not actually omniscient. So unless you're prepared to prove that either a) there exists not one person who is on work disability, or b) no one who is on work disability would ever, ever tell anyone; then you are the one who is making "****" up.
Jan 3rd 2011 3:49PM "We are (from the chart) less than 1k ahead of the top 5."
Actually that's 1k above #4, not #5. After #4 (Destruction Warlock), there's a big drop off to #5 (Shadow Priest).
But in either cases, comparing to the other leading specs is the wrong comparison to make. We're discussing only hunters here, but that doesn't mean we believe only hunters need a nerf. The other 3 specs in the top 4 are also more than 10% above the mean, and they should also be pulled back slightly.
"1k is a one sidestep or avoiding a area damage spell."
That is similarly true for most specs. It is easy to lose 1k damage. If Survival is losing 1k damage occasionally form mistakes, and Balance is losing 1k damage occasionally from mistakes, that would only increase the percent that Survival was leading by.
"I think some have Copenhagen syndrome."
You mean Stockholm Syndrome. Unless you are drawing some link between calling for a nerf and anterior vertebral fusion. Or possible the desire to not have to look at poverty.
Jan 3rd 2011 3:25PM Look, JT, you're simply making up the fact that he says he's going to ignore any data that disagrees with him. You're creating a strawman out of his comment about what he is asking people not to contribute to the argument.
What he is asking is to not have to plow through 200 hunters chiming in saying they don't top their dps meters, with no numbers or context.
"Maybe the spell coefficients do need to be lowered, but looking at only the top raiders (when the majority of WoW players are not top players) is not a good way to determine that."
You seem to be conflating problems. We are attempting to work on one problem at a time. That problem is whether the mechanics of the game give Survival Hunters too much power. We can only do that by comparing players of equal skill and preparation. The only reasonable way I can think of to get data we can reasonably assume is players of equal skill and preparation are top raiders who are playing near the limit of what the game will allow them to do.
The fact that most players cannot play at that level is irrelevant to the single, tiny little discussion we're having right this minute. Either they need to improve their skill (not a factor which should be considered in nerfing Survival), or the ideal rotations for some specs are too complicated (which would also need to be addressed by the designers).
But neither of these things are what we're talking about right this minute, so that information is not relevant.
If YOU would LIKE to talk about one of those things, that is of course, fine. But so far you haven't talked about either of those things, so your claims of what data is relevant still have no basis.