Mar 9th 2012 6:40PM repeatable quest hubs and the associated achievements (firelands dailies, argent crusade dailies) are excellent sources of cash. Don't just be thinking of Loremaster. 16g x 25 quests = 400g per day.
Mar 9th 2012 6:38PM @pyromelter: I agree with you, except on one point...
> ...BOOM this huge freaking t-rex crashes right on top of me.
> ...sometimes you gotta just attack.
In cases like that, the correct term is "defend".
Although, defense can be carried to extremes. (Cue South Park quote "They're coming right at us!")
Feb 23rd 2012 4:47AM TOR PvP? The Onion Router? :)
Feb 23rd 2012 3:26AM > 1. Consolidate low-population realms.
A Murphy's Law corollary: For any two low-pop realms, chosen at random, there will exist a non-empty set of accounts that cannot be merged while maintaining the limit on # characters per server.
The consequence is that the limit on the number of characters-per-server would have to be abandoned in order to merge servers.
The option of "have some set ( >1) of destination servers per liquidated server" fails in two separate ways: It first does not definitively avoid the problem on a per-account basis unless the destination server set > 9 (10 character limit per server, 50 per account; 6 characters on server being liquidated, 5 on each of the other 9). That makes for difficult "merge" scenario. And second, sending half of a guild to one server and the other half to a different one is a recipe for customer dissatisfaction.
So, yeah. Not likely.
Feb 23rd 2012 3:16AM > "1) yes (randomly choose people's accts, Blizz sends max-lvl toons in-game mail, only allow for authenticators, telling them to visit battlenet to view free transfer options. Close out servers when they drop below threshold x, automatically moving toons if destination not pre-chosen by player.)"
... why max-level only? Especially when you propose automatically moving toons that haven't pre-chosen...
Feb 23rd 2012 3:12AM Just a reminder: those low population servers? They were not always low population (generally). All those characters not being played? Still hanging around in limbo. Their names? Most often unavailable without special dispensation.
Personal experience: EQ had server merges back while I still played. Coming back to the game, I had to hunt for the server my character was now on, having not been playing regularly when the merge happened.
Then: Picture the fun when Returning Player discovers that his character Fourx is now named xxFourxxx. For some players, names ARE important. Say, you've played Dangermouse for years, you know what he's like, you've got a reputation as a good FillInTheBlank, everything. Now you find you're character is named Penfolde and nobody knows you from Adama while mourning the passing of the late Dangermouse.
Re the Global AH, I think that for that to happen, changes to the AH UI would have to be made. That is, yeah, they know how bad it can be on high pop servers, and multiplying that by >100 (= # servers) is not a winning move.
Feb 23rd 2012 3:03AM @llcjay2003: If "buy it" is the only option you care about, then you'll be happy to know that Blizzard implements that with the current interface. You are not required to bid on items that do not have a direct sale price.
Jan 20th 2012 3:21AM @Fletcher: It takes a measurable amount of time to level up, gear up, and/or make progress at particular game stages (IE firelands questing). That time spent is not small. As well, once you have seen the content once, it is nowhere near as entertaining the second time through.
There is also the training aspect to think of. You can force-grow an extra healer (think Danny Kaye in "The Court Jester"), but even if comparably equipped he won't have the same level of experience that someone else's "main" will have.
Jan 20th 2012 2:54AM @Muffin of chaos: I went back and re-read the question.
> Why not transfer *more resources to getting new player models ... ?
The answer was:
- We don't have an army of artists on layaway that we can transfer onto a project. (All our artists are busy on other things right now.)
- if we were to hire several new artists to get this project finished, you certainly wouldn't see the results of that "right this moment." (If we were willing to hire more specifically for this, you still wouldn't get immediate results.)
- Whenever a new expansion is in development there are many, many requests for new art assets. (People are unhappy about clumbsy models. People are quitting because they don't have new content. Which would YOU choose?)
- ...is still a regular topic of discussion for us. (We aren't doing it on the sly, either.)
On consideration, I would have omitted the last paragraph entirely, and simplified the one above it to just the essentials: The new expansion is our current priority.
But all of that is still an answer to the question. What do you think was left unanswered? The second "question" of that question?
Truthfully, the question might have been better phrased. "What can we do, that would affect the priority you give to creating new models?" is perhaps the most direct question, followed by "How BIG a project (estimated man-hours, or time-to-completion) is creating the new models?" In a "please help us adjust our expectations" sort of way...
Jan 20th 2012 2:39AM > without shocking a huge chunk of the playerbase
I can cite an example... At one point, Everquest changed models for armor (and possibly faces, but armor is what you notice the most). It was a VERY noticeable change, and a friend of mine quit playing because of it.
If your character changes significantly in appearance, it may no longer feel like your character. Especially if you have no choice in the matter.