Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Anyone had success with a Banned Account Appeal?Follow

#27 Jan 29 2012 at 10:01 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
You tell me. We're watching your shows. Smiley: lol

I guess we do have the benefit of relatively few (serious) channels and a lot of stuff to put on them.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#28 Jan 29 2012 at 10:57 PM Rating: Excellent
**
656 posts
Yeah I'd love to see a "package" where I could pick the half dozen stations that I actually watch and not have to pay for an entire news package to get discovery channel. Gimme showcase, discovery, A&E, CBC and... whoever has the rights to Formula 1 this year I'd be set for all my viewing needs.

Besides it's easier to just buy seasons of shows than to deal with a pvr and skipping commercials, I think it'd be cheaper long term anyway, I don't "Watch" the news as I've already read about it by the time it hits the evening news let alone the daily news papers...
#29 Jan 29 2012 at 11:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Y'know, you have a good point there Gwen. If there's only a handful of shows you like, it would actually be cheaper to just buy the DVD of each season than it would to pay for a cable package all year round. Or alternatively, have a subscription to Netflix and rent them or watch them via streaming. There are lots of alternatives, what gets me is that with the company I used back in Eugene, it was cheaper to have internet and the basic cable package than it was to just have the internet.
#30 Jan 29 2012 at 11:31 PM Rating: Excellent
**
656 posts
I have been considering Netflix to get at some shows that they don't show on cable, I'm just hesitant with my bandwidth limits as "Streaming" video seems to burn 1GB per hour depending on the quality, watching a few shows a week and still doing my podcast downloads... I'd be afraid of bumping the limits and getting all kinds of overage charges. It would allow me to wipe the cable contract... Just sucks the seasons of shows I "REally want" are $60 a season new... I could deal with $20 a season to buy all the shows I enjoy but you start getting up to the price of cable for the month and... not so much.

They are 'big' on bundling services though, the more they get you buying from them instead of their competition...
#31 Jan 30 2012 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
***
3,441 posts
We have 3 TVs already, TVs aren't the problem, it is the sat receiver.

Our current Sat Receiver gives HD to one TV (the one in the living room) and allows 1 TV to have non-HD, which I have hooked up to the gaming room TV.

The gaming room TV is a Widescreen TV and for the life of me, fiddling with its controls I can't produce a decent picture for trying. I either get this tiny little box in the middle of the screen, or if I zoom in, another channel will cut its edges off and I'm playing with the display options every time I change channel.

I don't see why Widescreen TVs can't automatically zoom in until the top and bottom of the display touch the edge of the screen and then paint black bars on either side of the picture for filler, no, it decides to leave black bars on all four sides and give you this tiny little viewing area in the middle of the screen.

At least Kazaa Lite Codec Pack's version of Windows Media Player Classic has a function to "zoom to fit"... sadly, our Sat Receiver does not.

Now, we COULD upgrade the Sat Receiver to get HD on multiple TVs, but... the problem with THAT is that it is outrageously expensive, nearly double the price per month.
#32 Jan 30 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Good
My boyfriend and I heavily used Netflix streaming for over a year and never had any overage problems with our cable company. Unless you have a specified cap, you'll probably be fine. I know that a lot of US companies have an undeclared upper limit in the 100GB range, but we never hit it.

That's really odd Lyr, I've never had that problem with a Widescreen TV. Well, except for my parent's huge *** widescreen downstairs that someone gave them because it's so big and they wanted to get rid of it. But with any of the more recent ones, you shouldn't be having that problem. Do you still have the manual? Maybe something got messed up with the settings.
#33 Jan 30 2012 at 3:48 PM Rating: Excellent
**
656 posts
I've always had that problem with 'widescreen' monitors... movies 'made' for widescreen preserve the stupid black bands top and bottom reducing the viewing area... kind of seems pointless with a 42' tv when the movies in widescreen only use a portion of the vertical space available to them.
#34 Jan 30 2012 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good
*
187 posts
Gwenorgan wrote:
I've always had that problem with 'widescreen' monitors... movies 'made' for widescreen preserve the stupid black bands top and bottom reducing the viewing area... kind of seems pointless with a 42' tv when the movies in widescreen only use a portion of the vertical space available to them.



I believe orignally, for the standard 4:3 (1:33:1) ratio television screens, this was done so you could see the film in it's original state as opposed to pan and scan in which they will focus on the main part of the scene (actors or important settings), crop the sides and pan the shot left or right even though there would be no panning in the original filming. By doing this, they can zoom in on pan and scan and fill the screen. Most cable TV movies are in this format. Many movie fans, producers, etc., etc., hate this format because it can cut a large portion from the original filming. To the point they haev to cut out an actor that may be talking with another actor.

When they go with the original filming ratio, or use anamorphic widescreen, if you or they changed the ratio to fill widescreen or normal 4:3 tv screens and kept the width normal, things will get distorted (mainly people) and look fatter or shorter which can ruin a good movie. However, because eyeballs can trick your brain, you can watch a few movies this way and ultimately it will look normal very quickly.

A good example: Watch Lord of the Rings (any part), in letterbox widescreen and then watch the same version in pan and scan 4:3 ratio on widescreen. It literally cuts out a third or more of the filming, which includes most of the landscaping which IMO, made those films.



Edited, Jan 30th 2012 6:43pm by Seculartwo
#35 Jan 31 2012 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
***
3,441 posts
Seculartwo wrote:
Gwenorgan wrote:
I've always had that problem with 'widescreen' monitors... movies 'made' for widescreen preserve the stupid black bands top and bottom reducing the viewing area... kind of seems pointless with a 42' tv when the movies in widescreen only use a portion of the vertical space available to them.



I believe orignally, for the standard 4:3 (1:33:1) ratio television screens, this was done so you could see the film in it's original state as opposed to pan and scan in which they will focus on the main part of the scene (actors or important settings), crop the sides and pan the shot left or right even though there would be no panning in the original filming. By doing this, they can zoom in on pan and scan and fill the screen. Most cable TV movies are in this format. Many movie fans, producers, etc., etc., hate this format because it can cut a large portion from the original filming. To the point they haev to cut out an actor that may be talking with another actor.

When they go with the original filming ratio, or use anamorphic widescreen, if you or they changed the ratio to fill widescreen or normal 4:3 tv screens and kept the width normal, things will get distorted (mainly people) and look fatter or shorter which can ruin a good movie. However, because eyeballs can trick your brain, you can watch a few movies this way and ultimately it will look normal very quickly.

A good example: Watch Lord of the Rings (any part), in letterbox widescreen and then watch the same version in pan and scan 4:3 ratio on widescreen. It literally cuts out a third or more of the filming, which includes most of the landscaping which IMO, made those films.



Edited, Jan 30th 2012 6:43pm by Seculartwo


That's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about using a Widescreen TV to view a Widescreen picture, you get black bars on the top, bottom, left, AND right of the picture, instead of the picture enlarging to fill the top/bottom or left/right and putting bars on only one pair of edges on the screen.

Windows Media Player Classic has a viewing option that says "Stretch to Fill Screen". This keeps the same aspect ratio of the picture (which prevents distortion/fat or skinny people), but enlarges the picture until either the top/bottom or left/right of the picture meet the edge of the screen, and then it puts the bars on the other edges, depending on what resolution widescreen you have and what type of TV you have.

In the gaming room, my TV is a 16:9. I've noticed that some of the more ultra widescreen will still place a small black bar on top/bottom, but with Windows Media Player Classic's option, that's all I get.

However, when I try to view HD Satellite in the living room (again, 16:9 TV), it doesn't have this option, so I get a tiny picture in the middle of the screen, with huge black bars on all 4 sides.

You can use the "Zoom" option, but yet this differs from channel-to-channel: You might get it just right, or maybe cut off just a little bit of the picture, but change channel and suddenly you're missing 30% or more of the picture and have to change your viewing option, again.
#36 Jan 31 2012 at 3:39 PM Rating: Good
Yeah that is really bizarre. If you only have that problem with you satellite tv, maybe try calling customer service and see if they can help you.
#37 Jan 31 2012 at 7:39 PM Rating: Good
*
187 posts
Quote:
However, when I try to view HD Satellite in the living room (again, 16:9 TV), it doesn't have this option, so I get a tiny picture in the middle of the screen, with huge black bars on all 4 sides.


This is anamorphic widescreen format; when you have the bars all the way around the picture.

A lot of programming is in this format, but the sat/cable reciever will usually automatically strecth it width wise which will also fill in most of the vertical viewing without losing ratio. Which is working fine in your other rooms. They use this format because it will mostly fill the widescreen TV's without ratio distortion; hence just a small horizontal letterbox. If they do it right, it will compeltely fill the screen. If this is happening on a lot of your game rooms channels, or all, then something in your reciver is messed up in which you may need a new one. If it's not the reciever, then there may be something wrong with some internal components in your widescreen TV which is not allowing the reciever to work properly with your TVs picture where it's not showing the changed/full screen anamorphic format.

I hope that makes a little sense? LOL

As you've pointed out, depending on the size of the format, using the zoom TV option sucks, and it will.

#38 Feb 01 2012 at 2:25 AM Rating: Default
I am female and 60, with health issues, but the thought of farming 5+hours a day through boredom - never in a million years ^^

I have my 85s I do dailies on, my 'special' 85 hunter I do achieves on, and now my first horde char, a 42 hunter so I can try different zones and quest chains.

Maybe your mother should have a look at the options in the game rather than spend 5+ hours a day working to support your game play ^^
#39 Feb 02 2012 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that Lyr is taking advantage of his mother. You don't know him. I've read posts of his for well over a year and never seen any indication that he doesn't love and respect his mother implicitly.
#40 Feb 02 2012 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good
***
3,441 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that Lyr is taking advantage of his mother. You don't know him. I've read posts of his for well over a year and never seen any indication that he doesn't love and respect his mother implicitly.


I can't exactly blame this person for thinking that; I've heard others imply the same.

It is a mutually beneficial arrangement -- with her health problems, she cannot really be doing anything physical. This limits her to watching TV, doing things like painting, or playing games. With her lack of coordination, she is restricted to either console games (which she's not the best at, unless it is something like the older J-RPGs) or computer games, ones that allow her to play with one hand.

However, in WoW, to actually play Endgame or PvP, you need to have good reaction times, awareness, and the ability to use the keyboard and mouse simultaneously, which she can't really do.

This leaves farming, doing old reps, solo questing, or pet/mount hunting. She already has most (at least 90%) of all the achievements she can get solo, the General, Reputation, Exploration, and Profession tabs of her achievements on her main character are almost filled in entirely, and we're picking off holidays one by one this year (I do her PvP achievements for her, even though I kinda suck at PvP myself lol).

Some of the dungeons (the ones you can run solo) she has done as well.

So she really doesn't have much she can do. She enjoys playing WoW, she just can't do the endgame/PvP stuff. Now, as I mentioned before, I'm hoping Pet Battles actually make it into the game, and I hope they keep them as turn-based style. This would hopefully give her something new to do.

I don't really "use" her; I help her by doing her PvP/Endgame stuff when I can, she helps me by assisting with material farming and other similar things I don't have time to do because I have a fulltime job.

In the end, we both end up enjoying WoW a lot more than we would if we didn't help each other.
#41 Feb 03 2012 at 12:40 AM Rating: Good
Thinking is one thing, actually accusing someone of using their mother in an internet forum is just wrong.
#42 Feb 03 2012 at 3:46 AM Rating: Excellent
There's a Your Mom joke in here, somewhere, I can feel it.
#43 Feb 04 2012 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
*
161 posts
A thought keeps occuring to me after I read this thread...

I have 7 85's. I've tanked, healed, ranged dps, melee dps, pvp, pve, etc. I've played since mid Vanilla and tried pretty much everything. (I'm pretty mediocre at all of it.)

If someone can't use the mouse and keyboard at the same time very well, if there's a lot of clicking and arrow turning and so forth, I would DEFINITELY reccomend healing. A healer can more easily get away with standing still (or not moving much) than any other role. In fact, to do your best healing spells you generally HAVE to be standing still. This is true of pvp and pve. If you move and react slowly, of course you'll never be as effective as someone who's more mobile, but you can often do an adequate job and help your group decently.

Druid healing is my current fav for BG, and probably holy priest for instances... but if I had to pick a healer to arrow turn and spell click with I would definitely choose paladin. I am 46, have some arthritis in my hands, don't see all that well, and my pally healer is still almost impossible to solo kill in a BG... and it's not like following a flag carrier around is all that challenging.

Just a thought, if your mom might enjoy branching out a bit. With a bit of practice she might have a lot more fun.

#44 Feb 04 2012 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
*
187 posts
Labiarinth wrote:
A thought keeps occuring to me after I read this thread...

I have 7 85's. I've tanked, healed, ranged dps, melee dps, pvp, pve, etc. I've played since mid Vanilla and tried pretty much everything. (I'm pretty mediocre at all of it.)

If someone can't use the mouse and keyboard at the same time very well, if there's a lot of clicking and arrow turning and so forth, I would DEFINITELY reccomend healing. A healer can more easily get away with standing still (or not moving much) than any other role. In fact, to do your best healing spells you generally HAVE to be standing still. This is true of pvp and pve. If you move and react slowly, of course you'll never be as effective as someone who's more mobile, but you can often do an adequate job and help your group decently.

Druid healing is my current fav for BG, and probably holy priest for instances... but if I had to pick a healer to arrow turn and spell click with I would definitely choose paladin. I am 46, have some arthritis in my hands, don't see all that well, and my pally healer is still almost impossible to solo kill in a BG... and it's not like following a flag carrier around is all that challenging.

Just a thought, if your mom might enjoy branching out a bit. With a bit of practice she might have a lot more fun.




This is true. When I heal I just use my right hand playing whack-a-mole and can easily move at that point with my mouse as my hand is already on it. And of course, the stuff that wont kill you (mace fire from Rag for example), you can dispel and heal through in event you can't, don't or won't move in time as a healer. The only issue I'd see from reading the posts above, is the reaction time issue. As a healer, I think we need faster reaction times than anyone. This is situational though, in a raid setting, having 2 or 4 back up healers can fix this; or be a tank healer as it's less reaction time from my experience.

Edited, Feb 4th 2012 9:49am by Seculartwo
#45 Feb 04 2012 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
***
3,441 posts
Seculartwo wrote:
Labiarinth wrote:
A thought keeps occuring to me after I read this thread...

I have 7 85's. I've tanked, healed, ranged dps, melee dps, pvp, pve, etc. I've played since mid Vanilla and tried pretty much everything. (I'm pretty mediocre at all of it.)

If someone can't use the mouse and keyboard at the same time very well, if there's a lot of clicking and arrow turning and so forth, I would DEFINITELY reccomend healing. A healer can more easily get away with standing still (or not moving much) than any other role. In fact, to do your best healing spells you generally HAVE to be standing still. This is true of pvp and pve. If you move and react slowly, of course you'll never be as effective as someone who's more mobile, but you can often do an adequate job and help your group decently.

Druid healing is my current fav for BG, and probably holy priest for instances... but if I had to pick a healer to arrow turn and spell click with I would definitely choose paladin. I am 46, have some arthritis in my hands, don't see all that well, and my pally healer is still almost impossible to solo kill in a BG... and it's not like following a flag carrier around is all that challenging.

Just a thought, if your mom might enjoy branching out a bit. With a bit of practice she might have a lot more fun.




This is true. When I heal I just use my right hand playing whack-a-mole and can easily move at that point with my mouse as my hand is already on it. And of course, the stuff that wont kill you (mace fire from Rag for example), you can dispel and heal through in event you can't, don't or won't move in time as a healer. The only issue I'd see from reading the posts above, is the reaction time issue. As a healer, I think we need faster reaction times than anyone. This is situational though, in a raid setting, having 2 or 4 back up healers can fix this; or be a tank healer as it's less reaction time from my experience.

Edited, Feb 4th 2012 9:49am by Seculartwo


I could try suggesting that, not sure she'd be interested in it tho. We'll see, and thanks for the suggestion.

Thing is though, I've tried late-game healing myself and I found it to be harder than my liking, but then.. I was trying to play a holy priest and I had very little experience with it at the time. And it was CoC and I was likely a little under-geared. We'll see though.
#46 Feb 04 2012 at 11:52 PM Rating: Good
Yeah I find healing to be really stressful. Heroics not so much, but raid healing stresses me out. But one of the other females in my guild finds dps stressful and enjoys tanking much more. I guess it just depends on your personality.
#47 Feb 05 2012 at 7:03 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Tanking is pretty relaxed once you know the tactics. Until then, it's pretty much all about hitting your taunt when people start yelling and blaming wipes on everyone else.

Healing is wtfomgheartattack in heroics until you or the tank outgear them. Raid healing, in my opinion, is pretty relaxed, as long as you can prove that you're pulling your weight in healing done. If people die and you've done a lot of healing then it's obviously not your fault.

Damage dealing is just relaxed non-stop. No matter how much you disconnect, fall out of your chair or go AFK, someone is going to do less damage, which transfers the blame onto them. If all else fails, just get yourself killed on the first wipe mechanic trigger and go AFK while the others do your job.

That's been my impression of PvE for the last seven years anyway.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#48 Feb 05 2012 at 8:41 AM Rating: Good
***
3,441 posts
Mazra wrote:
Healing is wtfomgheartattack in heroics until you or the tank outgear them. Raid healing, in my opinion, is pretty relaxed, as long as you can prove that you're pulling your weight in healing done. If people die and you've done a lot of healing then it's obviously not your fault.


Back during Wrath, she'd start getting nervous and all "wtf is the healer doing!?" anytime her health dipped below 75% when she took a hit or two and I'd explain to her "Um, they have to keep me (tank) alive first! You're not gonna die, it'll be okay!" and then she'll say "I better not die!"

I doubt she'd be good for the healer job, because of how quick she is to start getting nervous. I don't start thinking "oh crap I'm gonna die" until I see health dropping to I dunno 30% or less, at least, depending on situation and even _I_ get the "omgheartattack" sensation when trying to heal later levels. Only it isn't about health, it is about me looking up at my mana meter and seeing it drop steadily while the boss's HP isn't dropping so fast.

IMO, basically Blizz went from "Chain-spam fast heal until end of fight, don't miss a second or tank will die!" to "conserve mana and pray you don't run out until you're well-geared!"

Not much difference IMO. Still just as stressful.

Maybe they'll get it right in MoP...
#49 Feb 05 2012 at 4:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Lyrailis wrote:
Maybe they'll get it right in MoP...


Smiley: laugh

I just don't have a lot of faith in their healing design abilities right now.

Edited, Feb 5th 2012 5:19pm by IDrownFish
#50 Feb 05 2012 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Lyrailis wrote:
IMO, basically Blizz went from "Chain-spam fast heal until end of fight, don't miss a second or tank will die!" to "conserve mana and pray you don't run out until you're well-geared!"


Except it's more like they went to "Chain-spam biggest heal until end of fight or the tank will die!" in heroics and "Chain-spam AOE heal until you run out of mana, or phase 2 starts, then stand around doing nothing while you regenerate mana."

I've healed heroics on a Paladin, Shaman and Druid and while I still haven't tried the Priest, healing heroics, so far, has been all about using your biggest heal and then hoping the boss/trash dies before you run out of mana. Except when you play a Druid it's also "Why is my big heal a small heal, what's this, I don't even...?!" Once your gear improves, you can spam your big heal without worrying about your mana, but you still better spam it.

As for raids, I've only pulled my Shaman through those in Cataclysm and even that has been limited to LFR Dragon Soul and some Firelands trash. In both cases, though, it was all about spamming that AOE heal until OOM or win. In Dragon Soul you get some breathers between phases which allows you to regenerate your mana.

I don't know, the current system seems kind of cool if people didn't drop so fast. They wanted to move away from spike damage, which is why healers run out of mana in ten seconds flat if they spam their biggest heals and why small heals take for freaking ever to cast, but they never moved away from spike damage, so it's now all about spamming your biggest heal until win.

The only difference between now and WotLK is that healers need better gear before venturing into heroics. And raids better bring some mana batteries. Being a Shaman, I'm a mana battery.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#51 Feb 05 2012 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
***
3,441 posts
I always wondered whatever happened to this "Triage Healing" that they kept touting back before Cata was released... and then when I tried healing that CoC with Twilight Quested gear, I saw how much freaking damage the tank was taking and I was "wtf? I thought they said healing was supposed to be more sensible!"

Blizz needs to understand that constantly going OOM and having to chain-spam heals is not fun period. Having a tank go from 100% down to 50% in 3 seconds is just not very good game design. All that creates is a headache-y mess until the healer overgears the content.

From what I could see,of the few times I tried healing, healing is way more stressful than tanking even was, including TBC Prot Warrior.

But God Forbid you ever say something like that on o-boards or you'll get a bunch of elite raiders going "wtf healing is EZ!! you're a scrub!"

And that is why we cannot ever try to talk to Blizz about this stuff, the elite jump up and say "it is fine!"

What they don't understand, is newbies need to learn in some way that doesn't involve everyone dying repeatedly and then getting kicked from the group...

Edited, Feb 5th 2012 8:47pm by Lyrailis
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 230 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (230)