Mar 20th 2012 1:42PM "The primary function of LFR was in fact to get people who didn't have access to raids, to see content."
That was the reason it was implemented. That says absolutely nothing about the motivations of people running it. That's the highest ilevel gear I can get at the moment, aside from valor gear, which I buy as well. As soon as I don't need anything else from LFR, I'll never run it again.
"If your primary reason for running LFR is going for loot, I am sorry to say, #1 you are probably going to be disappointed."
Half my gear is LFR raid gear. I win something maybe every other week, which is more than I won when running Firelands when that came out (I think I got two total pieces). The other half is a mix of valor gear and 378s. I'm not disappointed at all in trying to get gear from LFR. I have No'Kaled and Vial, not to mention some tier pieces. LFR works perfectly fine as a way to get loot. Yeah, it's RNG, but how is that different than any other way of getting loot except for farming currency?
"There's nothing wrong with running LFR for loot, but the whole mechanism of running with a different group of random strangers every time means you're already totally at the mercy of RNG (as opposed to organised raids, where everyone *eventually* gets a chance at the loot). Worse, you're also at the mercy of the grouped asshats who collectively roll Need on everything. I don't see how this is not an improvement on that."
I don't think anyone in this thread has mentioned the changes at all. It's been a discussion of motivation for running LFR. I don't care how the loot is distributed: I'm still going to run it for loot until I don't need anything else. Then the only time I'll ever run it again is if I get bored with the 5-mans and want to supplement my valor with a LFR run.
Mar 20th 2012 1:34PM I don't know why I got downvoted so much, especially when it seems like all the later comments were agreeing with me. Notice I didn't say that any of that was a bad thing, just that Blizzard's #1 goal was making money. That is undeniably true. They are a business, and if they aren't making a profit, they wouldn't be making the game. A lot of people jumped onto my use of the word "ulterior;" OK, maybe it's not the best word for the situation, but I think it still applies. When blues discuss Blizzard's motivations, they don't say, "Yeah, we want people to keep paying us money," they say stuff like, "Yeah, we want more people to experience the content." All I was saying was that boils down to the exact same thing and that, while the original poster's comment maybe lacked in tact and wasn't phrased in the best way, it's essentially true: The only reason you don't get gear every time is so that you keep coming back to the raid, and therefore stay subscribed. I don't know why it's such an anathema to people to think about Blizzard being a company, a business. They exist to make money, not to provide you the best game they can. Providing you the best game they can is the WAY they reach their goal, not their goal. As I said in my first comment, I know that many of the employees truly care about the game and the community, but overall as a company, profit has to be at the forefront. It's simply business.
Mar 20th 2012 12:59AM So now everyone has to play the same way you play? I run LFR for loot. Maybe the first time I ran it, I ran it to see the raid since I'm not actively raiding normal modes now, but how about the many, many times I've run it since, or the times I ran it on my alts? I run LFR for loot.
I can't even begin to express how condescending your post sounds. We're "doing it wrong" when we decide to play the game we pay $15 a month for in a different manner than you? Get over yourself. You say we should run dungeons or stockpile currency or run a regular raid with a guild or other group. What if, like I am, you are already completely geared in 378s, which is the ilevel of the gear dropped from 5-mans? What if, like I am, you hit your valor cap every week, in part due to LFR (because it gives valor too, you know)? What if, like me, your schedule is not only different from everyone you know, but varies, so that you can't even get a group of people who have the same schedule to form a raid because yours might change one week to the next? I guess I shouldn't run LFR for loot, because Mr. omedon666 said so. I must be above such petty concerns as loot (if I were saying this out loud, you would be hearing an epic sneer when I said the word "loot") and concentrate on the access and story.
I don't mean to rant, but damn, presuming to tell me that I'm doing my leisure activity wrong really pisses me off.
Mar 20th 2012 12:45AM "What I don't like about this comment is that it takes a statement in its on way ("Some amount of loot wastage is okay...") and mangles it (now it's "wasted loot is okay", the keyword "some" is pretty important imo), and then this comment automatically infers there's a sinister motive behind Blizzard's intentions.
When in reality, that's not the case."
While I won't say that the motive is necessarily SINISTER, I would say there is decidedly an ulterior motive behind wasted loot ... they say so right in the blue post. "We don't actually want loot accrual to be too efficient or players finish the content too quickly." That is completely Blizzard making you spend more time (i.e. - more money on subscriptions) to do the same content. The MMO design philosophy is not that you beat the game when you beat the final boss of the expansion, it's that you beat the game when you have all the gear you can get. But that sort of flies in the face of the stated purpose of LFR: for more people to see the content. It seems like they have two different motivations behind LFR: one, get people in to see all the content, but two, don't let them "finish" said content by getting completely LFR-geared too quickly. So from my perspective, their goal wasn't to let raids be more accessible so that people can see the content, it was to let raids be more accessible so more people jump on the loot carousel of running the raid every week hoping for that one drop.
While I know they care about the game, Blizzard's first goal is to make money. "If we need for raiding to be more loot-efficient, there are many ways to do that, but we don't want players to gear up too quickly or they run out of things to do [i.e. - unsubscribe from boredom (my addition)]. (We also don't want them to gear up so slowly that they could lose interest.)" So their entire loot philosophy is make players gear up at the perfect speed between getting all the gear they want and getting frustrated from not getting any. They want players to spend the maximum amount of time possible in each raid: that's an ulterior motive if I've ever heard one.
Mar 19th 2012 12:51PM Oh yeah, one other annoying thing about that: I want to have a Pandaren and I want to have a monk, but I didn't want a Pandaren monk. You're going to see those everywhere, and would have preferred to switch it up a little. But now the choice is Pandaren monk or delete one of my other toons so I can roll a Pandaren whatever and a monk of a different race. Sad.
Mar 19th 2012 12:30PM @tydygunn: "While I agree to your positives, adding a toggle would defeat the purpose of not showing the opponent's name in the first place. Trolls and elitist jerks would keep theirs toggled and still bug you."
Not if it's a toggle on your end: i.e. - if you turn yours off, no one sees your name. The toggle could be letting other people see your name. That way each person would be able to be anonymous or have their name shown as they wished. And I just saw in your second paragraph that you saw that that could be the case, but whatever, I'm leaving this in my comment.
Like people said, this sort of boggles my mind. This is an MMO and is supposed to be social, but they're not going to let you see who you're playing with? I know it seems like a little thing, but that just puts a sour taste in my mouth. "The shame of defeat" being a barrier to entry? I have never, ever heard anyone say that. I know people who love PVP, who hate PVP, who will only PVP when I bug them to do so with me and who are indifferent but don't PVP, and not a single one has said they didn't want to play because they might lose. And after losses, no one's said, "I'm so ashamed, I can't PVP any more." They might complain or be frustrated, but even the people I know who get really nervous PVPing aren't worried about what people will think if they lose. The entire idea doesn't make much sense to me.
Mar 19th 2012 12:21PM Adding in auto-attack is a good idea. I'm glad Blizzard saw the error of their ways. In TOR I didn't really like the feel of it, but it was all right because it was the same with everyone. But in WoW with everyone having an auto-attack except monks? Would have been bad. Auto-attack is such a large percent of the DPS for similar classes (rogues, enhancement shaman, etc.) that they would have had to make the monk's abilities really powerful to compensate, which would give the perception of being overpowered in PVP, and in fact probably would be overpowered since there's plenty of time when you're off-target in PVP and monk's would have crazy burst.
Mar 19th 2012 12:14PM How would it be damaging to high-pop servers? No matter how many characters one person has on a server, they can only be logged on to one at a time.
Mar 19th 2012 12:13PM My thoughts exactly. If they had been talking about giving us one more slot the entire time, I would be completely satisfied, but they started giving us the expectation of removing the server limitation completely and just keeping the 50-character account-wide limitation, so this feels decidedly underwhelming. Well, there go my plans for my army of twinks, and I guess one of my level 85 (soon to be 90) characters will have to stay in a guild by himself with no perks to continue to be my bank alt.
Mar 16th 2012 10:38PM Maybe don't link to outdated information next time. The link you posted led to pre-Cata information that just said fish in the Bay of Storms in Azshara, whereas the updated info on El's site in the fish finder (http://www.elsanglin.com/fish/winter_squid.html) mentioned that it's specifically the coastal area at the Ruins of Akkoran. I moved there after not getting the squid after 50 casts at a random spot in the Bay of Storms and got it on my third cast; would have been nice to have done that in the first place.
I will take some of the blame in that I missed the warning at the top of the page saying it was pre-Cata research until I took a closer look, but I missed it because I scrolled down to find the location in which to catch the squid, trusting that a WoW Insider link would lead me to the correct information.