Sep 4th 2008 6:04PM These days rich people, especially yuppies, care about the environment, so improving gas mileage isn't just about cost.
Feb 8th 2008 2:12PM 100% agree with Quickshiv. Posting strategies for how Alliance can win in the current AV is somewhat missing the point - it is impossible to implement any strategy. On the other hand, Horde strategy boils down to one simple command - defend IBGY. All you need is 5-10 horde to actually listen to you, and you will be fine. For the ally fw rush / rh ninja strat to work, you need at least 15 to cap/defend fw, including enough rogue/druids to do the ninja. In my experience, no more than 5 or 6 players in each AV will actually be listening to instructions in bg chat. Even if there are some well-meaning noobs, there is often a heated debate in bg chat between "veterans" who know the one true strat that will win and everyone else is an idiot.
I would have two suggestions for AV to address this:
1) Blizzard should publish the win-loss ratios. WarcraftRealms stats are not reliable. This might help with some of the QQing - maybe you lost 20 times in a row as ally, but if you knew that you were just being unlucky, you would try again and just chalk it up to randomness.
2) Allow premades in AV. The most audible QQing comes from more hardcore players - let them play against other hardcore players and actually test the strategies against each other, without introducing the randomness of whether any strat will actually be implemented among a random group of 40 ppl.
Jan 10th 2008 5:20PM Alliance / Baelgun / Shadowburn
To the people in this thread and people claim that Shadowburn Alliance only wins AV 0-3% of the time: I was wondering if that was specific to the 70 bracket, because in my experience running lvl 60 AV, Alliance wins about 50% of the time. I'm a pretty casual player, I run mostly on weekday nights, and I usually play 1-3 BGs per session. Sure, there are some nights where you get a really crappy group of people and you can't win a single time, but generally I tend to have fun with AV. Actually the first time I ever ran AV was about a month ago, I had no idea what I was doing, Alliance was behind like 100-40 when someone summoned Ivus the Forest Lord and he started wiping out Horde on the field of strife. We ended up winning on reinforcements 1-0 (!). Sure the game took like an hour and was not very honor efficient, but I had fun.
I'm leveling a prot pally who is useless in PvP, so I mostly heal in BGs. I guess it's kind of sad that I usually end up in the top 3 heal list as an offspec healer, but at least I don't usually have the complain about the lack of healing. My favorite thing to do is find a well-geared warrior and shadow him and see how many groups of horde die before they notice that he has a healer =).
Sep 28th 2007 3:38PM I took a class with Professor Lowood when I was at Stanford called "History of Computer Game Design". The best part of the class was the weekly guest lecturers that would come in. One time the Asheron's Call developers from Microsoft came in and gave everyone a free lifetime subscription (except that AC2 was coming out the next month). The highlight was probably when Will Wright came in for a talk. Anyway, it's always nice to feel like games are a part of higher education, outside of the late night Counterstrike sessions when you procrastinating.
Aug 13th 2007 2:35PM Just a warning, this is going to be a little bit of a "can't we all just get along" post, so if that sort of thing drives you into a frenzy just stop reading now.
I don't understand why we can't have this casual vs hardcore debate without insulting Robin's opinion/employability/writing skills, or making fun of other people's lifestyles. Why do you care if someone else chooses to spend 30 hours a week raiding, and feel the need to make a value judgement on their life?
I would call myself a casual player, I started playing WoW in March because my girlfriend wanted to check it out. I play about 10 hours a week, and my highest character is lvl 50. My main objection to Blizzard's current strategy around the endgame is the minimum single session length, which I consider to be a hard cap for me. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect people to have to play a game for more than 4 hours in one sitting. I can understand that for business reasons it's in Blizzard's best interest to introduce time-consuming elements into the game, like rep grind, but at least I can do those in 1-hour sessions.
Aug 7th 2007 9:59PM Yeah, like what Armath says, the stat that Tigole cites is a classic red herring logical fallacy. The fact that Kara is the most popular instance and the fact that a low percentage of people can run endgame raids can both be true at the same time. Also, when people bring this issue up, I feel like they are talking about raids like MC, Naxx, AQ, BWL, Ony, NOT Kara.
Apr 6th 2007 1:09PM If you're curious about what games some of these characters are from:
Flint - Mother 3 / Earthbound 2
Balloon Person - Balloon Fight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_Fight)
Stafy - Densetsu no Stafy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Densetsu_no_Stafy) - Japan only
Lip - Panel De Pon - The "Lip's Stick" in smash brothers, the one that puts a flower on someone's head, is actually from this game)
Nidorina - Pokemon
Thomas - Kung-Fu Master (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_Master)
Sparkster - Rocket Knight Adventures