Mar 23rd 2012 12:18PM "I bought an annual pass and assumed I would get a beta invite at some point, but not right away. Beta invites always come out in waves. Anyone who even knows what a Beta is knows that's how it works. The idea that everyone who bought an annual pass to gets in right away is absurd. "
EXACTLY THIS. 100% exactly this. Anyone who thought they were getting in on day 1 is just mad at Blizzard and picking apart wording to express their anger.
I mean, people have a right to be mad, but "I'm mad!" and "Blizz lied to me" are totally different things. How crazy do you have to be to complain that Blizz guaranteed you Day 1 access? It's just people complaining and taking it out on Blizz by picking apart wording. Also known as "This is why we can't have nice things."
Anyways, where's that pony? GC promised me one of those too! RAGE!
Feb 24th 2012 8:06PM You know, I actually agree with you. I am actually in support of the buff too. I think the buff is a good thing. I honestly thing it is a positive move for the game, and I totally support it. Content always gets nerfed. That's how it goes, content gets nerfed, this should come as a surprise to no one-- it gets nerfed so people who are stuck don't become stonewalled and unhappy and stop having fun and quit. Nerfs keeps people raiding, I'm fine with that. And if they're going to nerf, slow +5% nerfs that we are told about WAY in advance and which are planned out and carefully put in place are absolutely the best way to go about it. So I agree with you.
But for god's sake, stop telling unhappy people that turning off the buff makes it all ok.
Turning off the buff is just the stupidest & most irrelevant thing. It's a non-argument. It's basically a troll, and I hate seeing raiders trolled.
I had a longer comment for this but instead I just responded, mostly to your post, in this blog: http://sacredduty.net/2012/02/24/quit-telling-raiders-to-turn-off-the-dragon-soul-buff/
Read if you like.
Just turn it off.... *shakes head* And just when I thought I might agree with WI on something.
Feb 17th 2012 1:02PM I personally think that "casual" guilds and "hardcore" guilds are fundamentally different and here is why. A casual guild puts individual player happiness first. A hardcore guild puts the goal first.
I do not think that those can overlap.
I think that some people are happy with option A, and some people are happy with option B, and that some people start with option B and then later move to option A... but no, I do not think they overlap. I think that when they do overlap, only frustration ensues. A hardcore guild that sacrifices the goal for the sake of keeping people happy (even if that means avoiding addressing mistakes) will frustrate its raid core. A casual guild where people whine and complain and get frustrated at their fellow raiders for silly things like taking the game too seriously-- that too will frustrate its raid core.
I think that of course there is a sliding scale, and I'm not quite sure what the middle would be.
But the scale cannot be progression. I know that progression wise, there are fabulously successful casual guilds that have a blast and down tons and tons of bosses, and there are very unsuccessful hardcore guilds that are super serious and manage to barely kill anything. So I don't think that "casual" and "hardcore" should be a reference to progression at all. I think they are a reference to attitude, and yes, I do not believe the attitudes overlap much.
I think both attitudes produce lots of fun for the respective types of raiders who enjoy them -- to each his own! But I do think that they are fundamentally separate, and only bad things happen & frustration when they overlap.
But I personally don't think casual is an insult or necessarily means that that guild has lower progression. I think it is simply a reference to attitude and how serious you feel about getting everything right in the game. A casual raider is more interested in everyone having a very fun time and balances that with their desire to get everything right and down bosses. Really successful casual guilds, of which you are in one, manage that and also down many bosses and therefore also succeed at progression... which is awesome!
But I think the term casual has to do with attitude, not progression, and so no, I don't think they can overlap. I also think your guild sounds like a lot of fun... I used to play in a guild that liked to call itself a "casual progression" guild for much the same reasons :)
Terminology is fun!
Sep 19th 2011 2:07AM "Players will have to go forward into the future, then back into the past, ultimately climaxing on the dragon's back."
Just about fell over laughing. Looks like the RP before this boss fight is more like E RP...
Jul 1st 2011 3:08PM Actually, you can't! You can cheat many mechanics with our favorite pally spell, but the Shannox trade is not one of them.
Jun 8th 2011 3:59PM Re: the link.
Hehehehehehehe.... sky is falling QQ != research.
Enjoy your trolling. The rest of us who really are tanks, will go back to tanking. ;)
Jun 8th 2011 12:45PM Look bro, I'm really sorry that you disagree, but honestly.
Do you read the tanking forums? Do you read Maintankadin? I highly recommend these sites as effective places to get tanking info. You do not appear to have done much research.
I offer you the Maintankadin 4.2 discussion thread. Please observe the posts there, especially the lengthy posts from Theck. There are one or two tanks who are iffy on the change, but the vast VAST majority of the thread has come down in support of the change.
Complaints and calls of nerf have generally come from people who don't need to make such precise use of their cooldowns, or who think we have too many buttons already. And most of these people appear to be falling into line behind the change once it is explained to them.
Sure, there's still disagreement, but you sir are in the vast minority.
So quit talking like everyone agrees with you. I'd like you to find someone who is tanking hard modes who finds anything effective in your complaints - honestly, go ahead and try. I'll be amused to see what you can come up with.
Personally, I'm really excited about the change.
If you don't like it, macro it to all your keys and call it a day. Those of us who need to make precise use of cooldowns to survive will appreciate another tool in our toolbox. People who don't care as much can just keep it up every 30 seconds and call it a day. Everyone wins.
When Paladins call "nerf" and "sky is falling" about legitament excellent changes, it just makes it more difficult to complain about REAL PROBLEMS.
If you're going to comment on WI, I would recommend doing some research first. Your personal attacks are a lot less effective when they are blatantly (and humorously) full of incorrect information.
Dec 2nd 2010 1:36PM Comments like these are the reason why I don't like to read the Wow Insider comments.
It makes me disgusted to be a wow player who criticises this game, in case I am lumped in with this sort of person.
I have berated the devs about Vengeance. I have bitched and moaned about it for pages and pages. I found Ghostcrawler THREE SEPARATE TIMES at Blizzcon to whine about Vengeance - once at the Q&A and at two separate parties - and i harassed every GM I met for an answer.
And you know what? They talked to me!!
We can disagree with the decisions they make. We can bitch and moan our hearts out in blogs, in forums, and on official forums. And you know what? They listen. They don't always do what we want, but they listen because they care about what we have to say. That is an incredible thing, and it's the opposite of elitist.
Blizzard- the part of it I met, that has impressed the shit out of me since Blizzcon- is the classiest, least elitist and most connected company to its customer base that I've ever seen. The fact that the LEAD GAME DESIGNER takes time out of his day every single day to respond to players and make things clear to us... it's really, really amazing and no other game company I've ever seen does that. The devs relate to players, respond to players, and are clear with players every single day.
You can take your childish, elitist attitude and shove it. You give the rest of us who sometimes disagree with Blizz a bad name.
Dec 2nd 2010 1:16PM Here is the text of my response to GC --
Missing The Mark
As (maybe) the tank referenced in this post – since I’m the one who berated the devs about Vengeance at Blizzcon – I’m pleased to see a response. :)
Unfortunately, it’s not the response we need.
For reference, please see Meloree’s post on the subject here: http://rhida.ch/2010/11/18/it-burns-how-i-learned-to-love-the-fire/ … he laid out the concerns better than I could, and from the perspective of a main tank in a US top 100 guild. I am an 11/12 HM 25 raider, and I and my cotank have noticed the same things although to a lesser extent. Problems are always clearer at the extremes.
I think you’ve missed our concerns a bit here.
Tanking Is Fun!
No need to be so defensive! We love tanking! Tanking has never been about the rotation. Tanking is about the role you play in the raid. If we think it’s fun, we tank. If we don’t, we don’t. I don’t think anyone is arguing that tanking isn’t fun — I certainly am not! I hope no one is doing that.
I guess we complain. Well, I will moan about boring 93939, and I will moan about Vengeance, because they are concerns and because the devs will listen. Also, because it’s part of the contract I signed when I became a paladin that I would QQ about everything. I’m required to QQ about something at length at least once a day.
The Need for Vengeance: We Agree!
I think you’re not giving the community enough credit. I like the idea of Vengeance and I agree with every reason why it should exist. I, at least, appreciate all the concerns raised by the devs, and I don’t need anyone to tell me why they think threat should be hard – I also liked the Misdirection / Tricks change, because I hated fake threat. I, at least, want it to be a challenge. Witness how the tanking community responded to the threat problem in this tier. We geared for threat on farm fights. We like the threat game.
The problem WITH Vengeance, is not that it exists, but how it works.
A stacking buff that is based on the damage we take has very un-tank-like implications.
Vengeance can contribute 150% of a tank’s natural AP. That’s a pretty absurd amount of threat generation dependent on your damage intake and avoidance. Unfortunately, higher avoidance = less Vengeance.
What this means: The first twenty seconds of a fight can look wildly, wildly different depending on if the tank gets an avoidance streak or not. For a ranked progression guild, this is enough of a problem to wipe it if the tank gets a bad avoidance streak at the start. Is this the spirit of Vengeance? No, I know, it’s not. Will it happen? Oh, yes, all the time. It’s already happening.
I don’t like my avoidance harming my threat generation. I don’t like standing in fire to do more threat. I don’t like being even more inclined to put on Strength gemmed gear, and ret gear, in old content – because it gets Vengeance stacked, and in WOTLK old content, I absolutely need it. Vengeance was supposed to solve this problem – taking off tank gear for old content – and instead it has made it worse.
I do appreciate the big numbers, though.
Not Seeing the Logic
I’m just not seeing the logic behind making Vengeance dependent on precisely what the tank is gearing to avoid. All this does is penalize tanks, threat wise, for doing tank like things, and reward us for doing un-tank-like things. Sure, this is an exaggeration… but that doesn’t make it any less true. I feel like the design is weird, and un-tank-like.
Even if the design is just The Way Things Are Meant To Be, the numbers right now are way off. 150% of a tank’s natural AP is far, far too high a number and makes for huge swings of RNG depending on how your avoidance works out.
Don’t get me wrong – I love the threat game. I love looking for a balance between threat and survivability. I love playing with my gear. But I don’t like my threat being inherently tied to my avoidance. I know in Cata, we won’t be seeing these ridiculous avoidance numbers, but the mechanic remains, and I still don’t like the logic.
Dec 2nd 2010 1:15PM I was pretty excited to get (another) response to my Vengeance whining. I don't want to get all full of myself -- it could have been referencing another, female tank, who has not let the question of Vengeance drop -- but I have a distinct feeling it's a response to... me :D
My response, which I posted on his blog, is also located here: http://rhida.ch/2010/12/01/vengeance-part-iii-ghostcrawler-responds/