Mar 29th 2010 4:34PM @Dundor:
No, CoE is only a personal dps loss if there is a Moonkin, Unholy DK or another lock. If you are in a raid with 9 paladins, your personal dps will benefit much more from CoE than from CoD/CoA. 13% damage buff >15k damage per minute, hands down.
I would actually suggest deleting the flowchart in the article, as it not only has serious problems with the prios (Immolate has higher prio than conflag, no immo no conflag), the way curses are included will very likely lead to bad playstyle if followed closely. CoD is ALWAYS your highest priority on a mob that lives longer than 1 minute. Best bang for your casting time, it is even more valuable than conflag.
The priorities change dramatically for CoA, especially due to its "backloaded" nature the more ticks you waste at the end, the less important it becomes. I do not cast CoA at all if I am not sure that it will last for its whole duration. If a mob has, say, 15 seconds to live, casting CoA on it will result in a dps loss. The right time to cast a CoA is when your CoD just exploded and the mob has between 25 and 60 seconds to live. Else, just skip the curse. I would actually update the flowchart with no CoA at all (better to teach people not to bother with it at allthan to have them waste a GCD for 3 very low CoA ticks).
May 6th 2009 7:30PM Rilgon: I think its very understandable that they try to protect their business. Its the amazing lack of competence at it that surprises me.
May 6th 2009 7:18PM In the end, the wowmatrix arguments are more believable. I in fact do believe that many addon authors that believe they will make some money by hosting their addons exclusively on curse (there was talk to share a bit of the premium revs with developers, no?) definitely don't want them hosted by wowmatrix. I think maybe every side has its merits and my guess is there wasn't much talking at all from either side, but at least wowematrix never let me down while it lasted. I don't like their practices as well (surpressing donation windows for some addons when it was still allowed to do that), but in the end their client is just vastly superior to what curse has been coming up with after all the time they had.
The timing of cutting wowmatrix off (2 days before patchday or so) was what convinced me that neither wowinterface nor curse will ever see a dime from me. Granted, their god awful updater client (yes Im on a Mac and yes its 10x worse than on Windows) did his part as well, but such a horrible PR stunt trying to create huge impact is inexcusable.
I'm not sure if it will make an impact, but I will also never donate for an addon that is hosted exclusively on either curse or wowinterface. If their authors decide that this is the way to go forward for them, so be it.
Feb 1st 2009 8:10AM The fact that there aren't any achievements yet shows that the faire is very likely due for an overhaul in the near future.
Sep 16th 2008 12:23PM God, this is such a bad article. B12 deficiency is a known problem for vegetarians and much more so for vegans, and it is also known for ages what B12 deficiency causes. Its hard to believe someone actually funded a study to just check again if its still true, and if they actually did, well, kudos.
Oct 19th 2006 5:16AM ME again. Two things in reactions to earlier posts:
1) I think (but this may be due to my English) that having a game on the BPJS index DOES mean it is banned. Indexed games are either "banned" (resulting in lack of public display) and "seized" (effectively meaning that all copies are
2) I know Boris Schneider-Johne's explanations as well and I do not think that Microsoft decided to not release unrated games for youth protection. It is just an economic decision. id deliberately launched Quake 3 in officially in Germany, knowing they would have only a few days it would stay on sale. That didn't go too well, and landing on the index is usually a bad thing economically.
Oct 19th 2006 5:08AM As already stated, the article is incorrect. It is in fact much more complicated.
There are tw organizations, the USK (comparabale to the ESRB) which is maintained by the Games industry itself. And there is the BPJS that actually maintains the german index of media that must not be advertised or sold in public. There is also the pan-european PEGI rating on each game, but that has next to no relevance.
Now, as soon as the USK rated a game (recommended age groups are quite similar to, the BPJS is no longer able to put it on their index. It is a little bit of a strange process, but the structure is quite complicated.
As stated correctly, Gears of War did not get a rating from the USK as they fear that the BPJS may put it on the index. Microsoft may now opt to publish the game anyway without a rating (meaning all carrying stores would have to not publicly advertise it, but may sell it to people older than 18) but they principially opt to not do it for economic reasons: If it's out in stores and gets on the index, a lot of the inventory is immediatey dead stock. They could, though, which means it is not "verboten".
Dead Rising is a different matter - it didn' get an USK rating and major german store chains were importing it from Austria and Switzerland. In September, the USK put it on their index preliminarily and finally in the beginning of October, giving the game the official status "banned". It's still not "verboten" as adults may get their copy, but it may not be publicly displayed, advertised or sold.
Confusing, but the system is actually kind of beautiful. I will have no problems obtaining the game and have the warm and fuzzy feeling that it will be very hard for a minor to get a game that may have bad effects on the not so stable kids. I know the endless discusssions, and I do not think that is very wise to just live with 10 year olds playing Gears of War. Most of them will be stable and smart enough, but some not. And if something goes terribly wrong with those kids, you don't want to have video games blamed for it.