Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • John
  • Member Since May 2nd, 2010

Are you John? If So, Login Here.

WoW64 Comments

Recent Comments:

Why is Blizzard still OK with gender inequality in World of Warcraft? {WoW}

Apr 3rd 2012 5:53PM I have to agree there. As I mentioned in a post just above yours, I'm a guy, but I play female characters quite often and have an easier time identifying with women. The only people who know I'm a guy are my guildies, and we treat our members with respect regardless of any 'differences.' Nonetheless, when I'm in a dungeon or walking around, I rarely encounter someone who even does a /flirt or /kiss to me, much less openly harass me or make fun of me. As far as they know, I'm a girl playing a girl character. It's only when you start running around parading that you have boobs or that you take sexual harassment extremely seriously that it becomes an issue.

And concerning your last paragraph, I also mentioned I found Ji's behavior actually amusing, and quite necessary to add more depth to the game. This isn't a world of equality. It's the opposite. Yeah, women should be able to wear the same-looking gear as a guy if they want to. I mean if you pick it up off a dead mob, you'd think it would look the same, no? However, by a world of inequality, I mean there's a lot of racism in this game (Orcs are quite orc-supremacist, humans hate orcs because they're orcs, etc.), and having some sex-inequality isn't out of the ordinary. Yeah, it doesn't need to be widespread, certainly not, but we do need those characters floating around on occasion to say "Hey, I'm not like the rest of the characters in this game."

Plus, I like creepy humor, to some extent :P As long as they're not trying to get with me, I think I can live just fine with the occasional remark.

Why is Blizzard still OK with gender inequality in World of Warcraft? {WoW}

Apr 3rd 2012 5:41PM I'll say first off that I'm a guy, though I've had a an easier time identifying with women.

Ji Firepaw's behavior really wasn't too big of a deal for me. I took it lightly, and I saw it more in his personality that perhaps he's a feminizer (made up word but you get the point). Thing is, sometimes you need characters who behave this way to have a more realistic world. I mean there's a goblin on the Org zeppelin tower to Grom'Gol who hits on you whenever you talk with her (though it is regardless of sex). So I really can't pick on the guy too much.

However, I do think the armor in the game is a bit of an issue. Though around WotLK they started making less revealing armor, revealing armor from before (and sometimes after) that expansion still exists.
Some solutions that often counter it, and my counterpoint to that:
1. Don't wear it- That's a valid idea, sure. However, sometimes there's a very useful piece of gear that you need. Maybe you're in a 60-cap guild and you do vanilla raids, or 70-cap and do BC raids. Or you're a twink. Sometimes the gear you absolutely must have is revealing. What do you do then?
2. Transmogrify it- I'll say it right now: Yes, transmogrifying is fairly accessible. This solves #1 for twinks and level-capped players, but your average leveling character can't always afford to spend their money transmogrifying revealing armor every time they encounter it. And how often do you find yourself a nice blue piece that has amazing stats that you can't replace, but is revealing? I've encountered it a number of times leveling my various alts.

You're welcome to take options #1 or #2, but something still could be done about this. Maybe an interface option that shows a 'second skin' of sorts, making the armor less revealing?

I wouldn't say to do away with revealing armor entirely, though. Some people like the look, and not just because they're 12 year old perverts polishing their swords to their characters. I just think there needs to be some ways to avoid this issue.

Guilds recruiting this week {WoW}

Mar 9th 2012 4:26PM Guild Name: Tistian Trusaders
Server/Region: Hydraxis/US
Faction: Horde
Guild Website:
Recruiting: Any class, any race. Levels 10-85. Death Knights = 58-85
About: We're an old guild that's been up since around the time the server started up with no collapses (*knock on wood*). We're a very laid back social/leveling guild, but we also raid fairly casually two nights a week. We've got plenty of raid experience, and are at 8/8 in Dragon Soul regular (moving to heroics soon!). In our spare time, we enjoy chatting amongst the guildies, playing League of Legends, long walks on the beach, and bathing in marinara sauce while pretending to be meatballs. Message Trystt for details/general questions. Message Allethosea for raiding details/questions.

Disclaimer: We are not currently looking for raiders at this time. However, you are welcome to join with intentions to raid, as long as it is understood that the chances of getting in the raid group at this time is slim with the recent return of raiders via Scroll of Resurrection, and the insurgence of new raiders we've retrieved in excess as it is.

Looking at the PvP stat changes outlined by Ghostcrawler {WoW}

Mar 6th 2012 5:28PM @laudickj Yeah, most of the gear is quite better than 346 and some 353s, but generally I do end up trading out the blue PvP gear for 353s and 378s. The epic PvP gear, I'm actually quite fine with for heroics, so long as it isn't like a massive amount and they understand that the PvE gear is more suitable for PvE.
@zEagleEye Yeah I've been able to have a lot of sympathy for those trying to make the transition. I've had a lot of time on my hands when I'm not raiding (I simply don't do heroics anymore. Just LFR and regular DS/FL), so I've been jumping more into PvP, and I feel the other side of things. Yeah, I can whip out a ton of damage, but I'm a glass cannon. If I get hit, I'm done for. As a rogue, I can get away with it more, but still, there comes the fact that you're PvPing in PvE gear (by contrast, PvEing in PvP gear)
And I think that's sort of one of the problems with the PvE/PvP entrance requirements. PvP requires practically none on the surface. You could walk into a BG at level 85 with level 20 gear if you wanted, although you wouldn't do well

Not necessarily saying that PvP counts for nothing, although it has regrettably fallen behind in terms of some conveniences, I'm just saying that by the way Blizzard has established the ilevel system, there is no gate blocking PvPers, but there is one for PvE'ers. If someone stuck to PvP constantly, their ilevel wouldn't matter. It could be 1 for all they cared. But if you do a little of both, or are transitioning between them, then obviously you want some sort of reward for all the effort put into getting that gear (As I feel it's a lot more tedious to get geared up for PvP than PvE, but that's just me maybe). An ilevel requirement is necessary for that, then, but I don't believe it should be higher than PvE-equivalent gear. I feel that Blizzard made the right choice in making it slightly lower. It still will be fine to take it, but it's clear that if you're queuing for heroics or whatever comes next, you'll want to grab the PvE gear.
Never would I suggest two separate games though. I just think they need to make the transition a little more sensible.

Looking at the PvP stat changes outlined by Ghostcrawler {WoW}

Mar 6th 2012 3:07PM Hope I don't come across as elitist, but I do think the ilevel change for PvP gear was very necessary, and I'm sure many agree, for various reasons.
First of all, there is no ilevel requirement for battlegrounds, rated or not, or arenas (At least from what I can tell...). If PvP gear was at ilevel 1, it wouldn't affect PvP. On the other hand, as Blizzard has stated, they want to bridge the gap between PvP and PvE... if you had even a single ilevel 1 PvP piece, that's going to drop your ilevel significantly. Nonetheless, it really surprised me that Blizzard made the PvP gear ilevel so high for Cataclysm. I don't understand their reasoning for this...
Second, people seem to get the wrong idea about PvP gear in PvE. I see some people go into HoT heroics, or even raids, in PvP gear. Some are using it for the ilevel and are aware it isn't good, but others are convinced that the ilevel means it's automatically better. They don't realize how much that 2nd stat (that you get instead of resilience from PvE gear) helps output for all roles. It just seems to teach people the wrong idea.
And even for the elitists... yeah it can hold the rest of the group back. I was in a ZA run with 3 people in PvP gear... and we never beat the last boss with that group because the dps was so low and the healer was going oom trying to handle all the madness. So heck this note can go beyond the elitists. I mean even being the nice helpful guy can only go so far before it starts to backlash.
I could go on about this, but after my trip to the bathroom, I forgot everything else I had to say about why the PvP ilevel wasn't necessarily all that helpful as it seemed. Once again, hoping I'm not coming off as an elitist for "hating" the PvP gear. I'm just saying it doesn't help people learn as they gear up.

Ol' Grumpy and the crushing disappointment of roles {WoW}

Feb 16th 2012 4:52PM Here's some suggestions I've come up with in my time playing every spec of every class:

1. Rogues = tanks. This is major. Evasion tanking from BC was just boss, and I still try and do it in Cata (To some success, except on raid bosses). Combat tree can do it with prolongued mitigation and cooldowns, and Sub through active cooldown stacking.

2. Warlocks = tanks or healers. Tanks because... well demonology's demon form was asking for it. Throw in a talent that makes demon form permanent at a cost, and gives additional threat like changing stances, and you're set. Healing... well someone could do a sort of sado-masochist blood mage that deals damage to heal others, or hurts himself or others to heal others (trading health points essentially for a cooldown)

3. Melee hunter. It's been tried many times throughout WoW, but simply never managed to work. And with MoP removing the melee weapon slot for hunters, doubtful we'll see it. Still, I could definitely see the survival hunter tree taking advantage of that, as survival generally means "Survive by any means necessary"

4. Tanking shaman. Well let's see... they can use shields, they have a weapon buff that, when combined with unleash element, causes a taunt. So... this could be something for enhancement.
I don't think I'd see a rogue using a two handed weapon. The blademaster essentially became the arms warrior. However, I do think they could bring two handed weapons to the forefront in other classes, such as the shaman, or heck, a hunter.

WoW's 18 easiest achievements {WoW}

Feb 16th 2012 2:29PM Don't forget the achievement "Shave and a Haircut" (I think that's the achievement name?) where you just have to change your appearance. Obviously if you want, you can change your hair back once you have the achievement.

My main still doesn't have this one. It's an ongoing joke with my guildies that my blood elf's hair is too perfect for even a momentary change.

I write about dragons on the internet, Dad {WoW}

Feb 14th 2012 2:03AM This article was just a delight, very true to many people that I know who play WoW.

In my life, WoW's barely talked about unless it's with people who also play WoW, or are familiar with it. My father never much cared for it (I believe he calls the computer "the devil"), and my mother loved it (It kept me from becoming the party guy, which means drinking and drugs and whatnot), but didn't really understand it.

I live with my aunt and uncle now for college, and though my uncle sometimes asks questions like your father, for the most part it generally gets dismissed. Simply too complicated to explain the game.

Just kinda difficult to explain when you need 10-15 mins before you can take out the trash sometimes. Video games just aren't an excuse for even the simplest of tasks (Certainly not big issues/emegencies, understandable). Honestly wish I could have a sit down and just explain the whole deal to them and do a little Q&A sometimes. Lol

Wouldn't this be cool? The Lost Islands of Draenor {WoW}

Feb 13th 2012 5:03PM To improve upon your idea, there is actually an undead Trollbane in Arathi Highlands now.

Maybe he wants to take Stromgarde for the Forsaken? Especially considering Sylvanas is more in the mood for conquering all of Tirisfal.

Would removing legendaries be a benefit for the World of Warcraft? {WoW}

Jan 28th 2012 2:30PM Here's my opinion on the issue...
I honestly think Legendaries have ended their time on Azeroth, to some extent. At this point, Blizzard is now more focused on giving everyone a legendary, instead of simply plucking out famed weapons of heroes and villains past and making them into legendary weapons. It's essentially down to people whining about "Hey! I didn't get a legendary this expansion, wtf Blizz?" and Blizz saying "Well what class(es) haven't gotten a legendary in a while?"

So with this model in mind... either things need to change or the Legendaries need to end. If anything, they could still be kept around to hopefully promote a lesser played class (i.e. Fangs of the Father to Rogues).

My suggestion: Do things like the Quel'Delar quest chain. As a reward, you get to select the weapon type of your choice. With MoP and the rest of the expansions being focused around the future instead of returning things to the past, the idea of finding or reforging old weapons from heroes/villains won't really apply. Instead, this is a new world, a new future, where we make our own legends. It would make sense that we get to create our own legendaries after an intense quest chain of raiding. In this way, everyone will get a fair shot at a legendary when they release them in an expansion, and they won't need to really make more than 1 legendary quest chain per expansion.