Apr 29th 2010 6:25AM Oh dear - anything you may have tried to say is destroyed by the casual insult :)
I've been leading raids since MC and, for me, there was a discernible difference between 40 and 25 - a difference I welcomed to be honest. As many have pointed out, unless you were in a bleeding edge guild, 40 man raids tending to carry 10-15 and the roles for players in 40 man raids were horribly restricted compared to now.
In TBC, with 25 man raids and changes to class roles, I felt that Blizzard got things, more or less, right. No matter the class or the spec you could legitimately argue your spot in a raid (providing you could actually play) and the number was small enough that the obvious slackers were obvious, where before they were lost in the 40 man crowd.
The introduction of ZA late in TBC allowed those 'core 10-15 players' that the commentators here keep talking about to have their hard core fix midway through the guilds raiding week without any need for separate lock out 10 and 25 man versions of the same instance. They could challenge themselves with the bear run and the 'casuals' could run the same instances over a couple of nights and miss some timed loot (until they geared up within the instance) and a vanity mount.
The idea of 10 and 25 man groups running the same content in WotLK has had a horrendous level of burnout on players I know (in both 10 and 25 man guilds), much more then the segregated content of TBC. Yes, I realise that roughly 40% of the players were seeing content like Black Temple and even fewer saw Sunwell at it's intended level, but so what? It's not like the people in BT were walking out and insulting folks for wearing vendor gear from Sunwell Isle, both groups were playing the game, at different levels and no-one seemed to have a problem with that.
The PvPers were (and still are) in an entirely separate world of their own and personally I didn't have an issue with that either. If I, in my PvE gear which I've spent hours gathering, get killed in PvP by someone who has spent hours in that gathering their gear, why would I be either surprised or feel that it's unfair - they chose their specialisation in the game, as did I and theirs is killing other players.
In the end players choose to play WoW at different levels, based on available time, interest, ability (minor extent) and situation. Why do people (and Blizzard) think that the rewards should be exactly the same? Yes, I understand it's a game, it's supposed to be about fun, but if Person A spends 15 hours at something and Person B spends 2 hours performing the same task at the same speed why should they receive the same compensation at the end of the week? (assuming equal rates of work, etc). That's what this change boils down to in my eyes. Obviously Person B will welcome the change but why would Person A?
This leave aside the obvious points regarding: using 10 man runs to train 25 man trials in tactics, providing social runs between raiding and 'casual' guild members and building off spec gear sets (as a tank essential these days).
I'm sure many of you will disagree but, in the end, it's my opinion that this is a change which will harmfully impact the current state of the guild I'm in and have been in for the last 5 years - of course I will be against it.
Mar 19th 2010 5:11AM Emeriss (one of the Alliance only PVP FCM destinations) has been campaigning for FCMs in the hope it would resolve our faction imbalance since TBC with three of the top four alliance guilds transferred off server before the last content patch for TBC (Sunwell) due to lack of recruitable players. If you're curious the low point of our imbalance woes was 7k+ active lvl 80 horde to less then 500 active lvl 80 alliance. We've been available for FCM from various realms since mid February now and, while we have received some transfers, we're still at a ratio of 7:1 or thereabouts. Being fair to Blizzard they do seem to have adopted a 'keep the FCM open until the balance is restored' attitude but I'm unsure that this is the answer at this point since the server is so renowned as a dead zone for Alliance. Too little, too late perhaps?
On the subject of Gearscore, one of our guildies ticketed recently after a Gunship Battle encounter where some of our members were seeing up to 7 secs lag and no-one was experiencing less then 4 secs. The GM who replied to him informed him that GS was part of the issue due to the, more or less, constant spam of GS client messages to each other. Apparently it constant calculates the GS of the user and scannable people in range, relaying that information to other users of GS using the add-on comms channels. Now I know very little about LUA or add-on design so I have no idea if thats truth or BS but it's what we've been told by a Blizzard rep.
Jan 5th 2010 8:24AM Given the lore in the Richard Karnakk books I wouldn't be particularly surprised to see a Grim Batol instance in Cataclysm.
Sep 23rd 2009 5:24AM I've had the pleasure of getting riotously drunk in the company of Mr Wallis many years ago at a number of Irish RPG conventions and all I can say is that, while always remaining a complete gentleman, James is one of the most interesting drunken conversationalists I've known. The only caveat to this was his distaste for another one of the Convention circuit 'guests' of the time, which in retrospect I've come to agree with. James, if you're reading this, WARPCON attendee's still remember your visits warmly ; )
Apr 3rd 2009 5:33AM "To sum it up, the day Blizzard becomes more like Relic, is the day I spoon my eyes out and commit suicide because I don't think I would be able to tolerate the sadness."
I sincerely hope not because that would just be a ridiculous over reaction to something, completely out of proportion to the change and surely an indication of an unbalanced mind. I would also debate your capability to commit suicide with a wet spoon after using it to remove your eyes - be funny to watch of course.
Mar 26th 2009 5:42AM Jebus! Whine less please. CloS isn't 100%? Paladin bubble is so why shouldn't CloS? Fair enough - then Priests should be able to dispel CloS and warriors remove it post 3.1 - conveniently the warrior ability should be on an exact CD fit for CloS. While we're at it CloS and Evasion should reduce the rogues damage dealt by 50% and cause a forbearance effect to prevent chaining the abilities or using them simultaneously. CloS isn't 100%? But the Mage Ice Block is, so why shouldn't CloS? Oki doki - when CloS or Evasion is used take no damage, but in return deal no damage and get a debuff which prevents you from using CloS or Evasion for 30 secs (is it 30 or 60? can't remember).
Someone has already listed the range of rogue abilities which are not % chance for X to happen or Y types of attacks to miss. Dismantle, blind, gouge, kidney shot, etc are all 100% (if you're hit capped ofc) and represent the biggest pool of CC available to players in the game, made even more powerful by the fact that a number of them will not break on damage - there's your defensive abilities, being able to attack post a special in the sure knowledge that your opponent very little chance to attack you while also being at a reduced ability to protect themselves.
RNG my arse - that's like complaining that your crits aren't predictable - it's a % chance, don't treat it as if that percent is 100% and just be happy and thankful when it does prevent X% of magical damage (CloS) or helps you avoid X% of physical attacks (Evasion). I suspect you'll find that if your %dodge with evasion is 60% that you avoid 60% of physical attacks and you'll only ever be whining about the ones that get though and not the vast majority which the ability allows you to successfully evade.
Mar 25th 2009 7:21AM And you're not allowed to wear them up into most British shopping centres ;) Damn hoods!