Sep 4th 2008 10:47AM I wouldn't really call this "news", as it was already known at the time the beta started that macros were saved on the server, just like keybindings.
Aug 15th 2008 1:21PM When examining the new Lua code for this floor stuff, I stumbled over many new API functions like GetNumDungeonMapLevels or GetCurrentMapDungeonLevel. Since "Dungeon" is usually equivalent to "Instance", I suspect that this functionality is indeed primarily intended for instance maps.
Apr 14th 2008 6:28PM Well, actually ISPs usually aren't really interested in having those "prolific web users", because those tend to be the users who create rather more than less traffic over their broadband flat-rate accesses.
As an ISP, your ideal client is someone who pays his bills regularly, buys the most expensive sort of internet access that you offer and does not use it at all. That may sound impossible, but actually the majority of the client base of any ISP in the world probably matches this "ideal" pretty well (of course they use their internet access, but not nearly to the extent that would be possible in terms of traffic). So what you actually do want is to catch as many of those customers as possible with an attractive flat-rate model while keeping the number of "prolific users" with the larger traffic usages as low as possible.
Feb 8th 2008 11:18PM This is great news because of one simple fact: it relieves some
unnecessary stress from guilds who are just progressing through Vashj and Kael (just like mine). This will allow us to down Kael until the patch hits the live servers, but we won't be doomed to kill him (and Vashj, though Vashj isn't such a big problem anymore) many times just to get that stupid quest item for every single player.
Getting all the active players through this attunement quest is quite stressing for guilds with a rather large pool of players. Glad to see that won't be a problem anymore.
And for those who're going to cry "they're getting something for free that we had to fight for!": Hey, you got in there way earlier! That's your prize for going through the quest the hard way. Be happy, keep your frickin' elitism to yourself and let some more players have some fun now, too.
Jan 26th 2008 10:10AM (Okay, so this comment system doesn't like the "lower-than"-sign - it simply cuts the text afterwards)
lower than 100% attendance should get at least some loot, proportionally to their attendance.
There's a multitude of ways to prevent situations of this kind (as well as other unfair situations that could emerge, after all this is just one example), but there are still systems out there that don't implement any measures to keep the system stabilized over time. If someone who hasn't seen any loot distribution systems before suffers under such an unstable and inherently unfair system, it's no surprise that he starts to develop an aversion against that system. And since that system is named "DKP system", this aversion is quickly extended to any other loot distribution system that claims to be a "DKP system", because "it must be the same shit under the same name".
Jan 26th 2008 10:06AM The point with DKP is: there are at least as many DKP systems as there are guilds. I usually try to avoid even the term "DKP", since it is usually tied to some specific type of system in peoples minds (and tied to one specific system by history as well) by talking about "raid points" or "loot distribution system" or something like that instead.
Most people don't realize how extremely different those loot distribution systems are, even if 99% of them call themselves "DKP system". Those systems can be well-designed, which is usually the case if the guy(s) who did the design knew some theory about systems design in general, or they can be poorly designed. Poorly designed systems are the main reason why a considerable number of people dislike all "DKP" systems in general, because poorly designed systems tend to be unfair in one way or another.
For example a system that completely ignores inflation tends to favor the guys who are attending every single raid way too much. If more points are given out than taken out all the time, the players all start to build up huge piles of points, with the people with 100% attendance at the top of the list. The result in an extreme case is that even those people can't spend their points as fast as they are building them up, which makes them staying on top of the list and getting all the loot, while everyone with a lower attendance rate keeps sitting on their ever-growing pile of points, unable to spend them. That is unfair, since even those guys with
Jan 22nd 2008 2:52PM Well, those in china pay like 0.06 $ per hour for WoW, and they only pay for the time they actually play. And since those are a big slice of the 10 million playerbase, the actual income is way lower for Blizzard.
Nevertheless, there's still a 40% profit from WoW (at least that's the figure I remember...)
Jan 17th 2008 6:39AM @Thander: Oh well, I expect a company that generates a whopping 40% of revenue from WoW to be able to afford the 343 additional megabytes of storage space necessary to save the gold amounts of maybe 10 characters (average) per WoW account in a 64-bit integer value (okay, some more for backups and transaction logs and stuff, but it's still nothing compared to for example the space necessary to save the "quest completed" flags for each character). And to be able to update their database tables accordingly in a regular maintenance session.
They'll have to do this anyway if gold inflation continues during the next expansions.
Jan 16th 2008 4:04PM Blizzard apparently doesn't have enough storage space to afford the additional 4 bytes for 64-bit integers which would offer more than enough gold "storage" for any human being on earth :D
Jan 14th 2008 1:05PM Definitely an important point! There's too many people already out there who screwed their addon setup by blindly downloading beta versions from the ace SVN. And most of them didn't even know that they were downloading beta stuff there, they were blinded by the convenience offered by the updater.
I really don't have any idea why the ace guys don't implement "stable" branches into their SVN so that addon authors could tag one revision as "stable", while still being able to upload any single code change that came to their mind while sitting on the toilet. The users could then choose between "stable" versions and "cutting-edge" beta/alpha versions, with "stable" as default. That would even serve to seriously lower the traffic on the servers, because updates wouldn't happen that frequently (which in turn would decrease the money drain on the ace guys' pockets).