No Profile Found
Nov 17th 2011 6:40PM On the one hand, I can feel for that kind of impulse. You had to work hard for something, and it's a very human impulse to want to have any accomplishment be as significant forever as it was when it was first...well, accomplished. On the other hand, that isn't how anything works anywhere in life, or in games. If you just really can't stand people later getting things more easily than they were for you, maybe MMOs just aren't the game type for you. At least not any MMO I've ever played.
Developers should be allowed to fix design flaws, and crazy amounts of slow on-foot travel was honestly, to my mind, a design flaw. Even my most hardcore of mindsets can't really say "Yeah, what I really loved about WoW Year 1, was how long it took just to get where I was going and get to actually doing the quest." Even at the time, when friends pointed that out to me, I had to admit, it wasn't very good design. It was just that, for me, the things that were good about it outweighed bad decisions like the travel times.
The reward for being a bleeding edge gamer in any MMO, was, is, and probably will continue to be "I had it first". But other people will get it later, and for one reason or another that will become easier, whether it's a shifting economy, developer decision making, knowledge of better practices appearing online...it will happen. Every time, even if we were still on Vanilla servers and nothing had changed, it would be easier now.
It doesn't diminish you, or your accomplishments, that Blizzard decided that mind-numbing foot travel wasn't a good way to stretch out your gameplay. Instead, be happy that they've recognized the flaw and made everyone's gameplay richer. Including yours, if you have rolled any alts since the change to mounts.
Nov 17th 2011 4:53PM There's this big, fat, stinking fallacy that occurs each time just about any ostensibly controversial topic in WoW comes up.
The fallacy is, roughly, as follows:
"Every time I hear someone complaining about something, it is the same group of people. I will pay no attention to the fact that I haven't bothered to keep an exhaustive list of people in WoW and their names. I will heed not that the forums are never 100% representative of the whole playerbase of the game even at the best of times. When I hear a complaint of X, and later a complaint of -X, these are the same people, making both complaints. WoW players don't know what they want."
Remember, to anyone drifting into that territory, that that particular argument is what you're saying when you jump to the last sentence and its associated ideas.
Fine tuning an MMO to your audience is tricky at all times. And WoW, like it or not, is now mainstream. There is no shutting that box, the cat will not go back in the bag. It is not an MMO for those who want to be the hardcore of the hardcore and have items that only 1% of the players have...there are MMOs like that, and I could recommend a few, but WoW is not that game, and it is arguable whether or not it ever was. It has always been the most newbie-friendly of all the MMOs, and all that has changed to my mind is that the definition of newbie-friendly has changed.
WoW has been going strong for 6 years now. Think about that. There are people who started this game as teenagers who are now adults with jobs and responsibilities. People who were in college who have been adults for even longer, possibly with kids who are getting older now. The average gamer is now 32, and WoW statistics fall pretty close to that. While there was a time when it was fun and feasible to spend long hours into the night, grinding face on a raid boss until we finally collapsed at 6am, the thing is most of us, just don't have that kind of time anymore. And WoW decided to be the game to evolve along with that (after what I felt was a stumble at Cataclysm's release). Good for them. As a bonus, it's helped net them one of the broadest customer bases out there. I know a lot of people who otherwise never touched console or PC games who play WoW. And an institution that can manage that without going full-on Wii deserves a tip of the hat in my book, whether that's my thing or not.
There are plllenty of more "hardcore" challenge MMO's out there, and I for one am glad to let WoW have this niche.
Aug 2nd 2011 1:57PM Diablo: Still not an MMO.
Aug 2nd 2011 1:56PM Source please.
Aug 2nd 2011 1:55PM So much QQ.
So many people that have no idea what Diablo is, and think that it's WoW with vaguely scarier monsters.
So many people who don't realize the doom and gloom crap is completely unwarranted.
Jul 17th 2011 7:55AM This is true, maybe I should have been more clear. Obviously if the GM and/or Officers made a clear effort to communicate and the guild member failed to take notice, the egg is on their face.
Jul 17th 2011 7:48AM Well you're askin bout the RealID
Pay for in-game features?
Gotta draw the line somewhere
Gotta stop this money tease
Gonna find ourselves in epics
Bought with credit card fees
Now pets are alright, and mounts? Who cares
But when it comes to ingame features
I already paid my fare
Gotta step off from this greedy
Little scheme to feed the needy
It's just greasy and it's seedy
They're Sylvester and we're Tweety
They're gonna do it either way
So what's a tank with friends to do?
Save my money for a rainy day
I'm out, I'm done, I'm through
*Drops the mic.*
Jul 16th 2011 6:38AM Whatever the policies about a guild's bank are, the first and most important rule is that any rules must be made CLEAR, and communicated effectively to all existing and new members. It's imperative that everyone understand exactly what's expected of them for any deposits or withdrawals. There's a bit of uncertainty hovering all over the OP's letter, and that more than anything else would concern me about the situation. Whether or not their actions were allowed should not have even been a question. They should have known, dead certain, whether or not what they were doing was against the rules. If they did, there's little question the actions of the GM and/or Officers was more than fair. If they did not, the GM and/or officers need to re-evaluate their position and truly have only themselves to blame.
Jul 12th 2011 10:24AM Actually, "double jeopardy" is named after a legal term, specifically something that is not allowed to happen.
"Double jeopardy" in legal terms is defined as being tried twice for the same crime. If you are tried for a murder, and found not guilty, you cannot be tried for that same murder again. Now if new evidence came in that you may have also committed robbery for which you were never tried during the same incident, you may possibly be tried for that crime. However, the murder of the original trial would be strictly off-limits for the proceedings of the new trial.
It's not one that you hear too often because it's now ingrained in our legal system that double jeopardy is against the law.