Apr 3rd 2012 5:54PM @Xantenise: I take the "yes, this stuff is a problem and should be fixed" position generally, but on Vereesa I will argue that this is more appropriate. Reasons:
1. Vereesa may lead the Silver Covenant but she is not a member of the Council of Six ruling Dalaran -- Aethas, Modera, and Rhonin are. (My source: wowwiki)
2. Vereesa being given prominence might sort of count "double", as it were; Rhonin might have to deal with accusations of preferential treatment toward the Covenant. By having her a bit behind/"submissive", she takes on the role of more of an advisor, again appropriate befitting not being one of The Six herself.
I'm with you on the overall argument, but I think Vereesa is in a gray area.
Apr 3rd 2012 4:59PM And a quick perusal of these comment threads tells me that you speak for all women about as much as the man who wrote this article does -- if not less.
Apr 3rd 2012 4:21PM Like Saeadame, I'm a guy (and a straight one, for what it's worth) who mostly plays female characters, because I get a kick out of bucking the stereotypes.
I've never been called gay for this (and it's a good thing too, or else your tank or healer may suddenly vanish at an inconvenient moment), although the occasional "Female dwarves? I thought they were a myth!" makes me chuckle.
Apr 3rd 2012 4:17PM The "chainmail bikini" effect would be fine if everyone -- both genders of character -- had an interface option which was a checkbox labeled "Make me cheesecake."
My female dwarf tankadin was played to be a no-nonsense courageous protector of her people and champion of the Light, not to be anyone's eye candy.
My female gnome priest won't wear the Black Mageweave Tunic because she's a healer, not a dominatrix.
I don't have a problem with a player who wants his or her female (or male) character to be eye candy, but let me decline. And if the designing of multiple armor models and the database programming to provide the checkbox is too much work, then err on the side of sensible armor.
Apr 3rd 2012 12:46PM _Seriously_?
I've been having a blast leveling a Disco priest and _this_?
I don't even know if this will make endgame Disco _bad_, but if it's that _different_, it kinda just makes me want to put her on the shelf at current level (43) so I can start learning again when Mists comes out, rather than getting to 85 and then suddenly not being able to function.
Jun 21st 2011 9:29AM Westfall coordinates are wrong. I found the flame near the Moonbrook flight point, not Sentinel Hill. Maybe because Sentinel Hill is now a phased area?
Dec 7th 2010 1:28AM This thread is relevant to my Deathy interests.
Dec 6th 2010 9:10PM And I'm with you, except that about 19 out of every 20 zombies was a griefer, not a player.
There's a reason I play on a non-PvP server and I don't enjoy that option being taken away from me. If I could play on a PvP server where everyone had to sign some sort of code of ethics which would boil down to "I will only pick on people my own size", under penalty of banning, I'd play on PvP servers constantly.
Dec 6th 2010 9:08PM "level available for all your alts elsewhere"
... _unlike_ the zombies, which were invariably able to demolish lowbies.
Dec 6th 2010 8:40PM Al wrote:
"Gave up on the cities after being repeatedly called a F---wit or a ---- just for Cleansing people."
Agreed, Al. Yeah, this was some of the general jerkishness of the community at work.
If you "got into" the event by eagerly being a zombie and griefing, that was "all in good fun."
If like me, you got into it by trying to, you know, be a HERO and cleanse people, people complained that you were ruining their fun.
Why is my fun less important than theirs?