My Petition for Multi-SpecFollow

Oh A flame war! Do these still exist? Takes me back, nice work gentleman + 1 lulz before bed.

I'm with bode when she talks about blizz going for the cash instead of **** people care about.

Activision (sic) wants our money and doesnt care about **** else.

A reasonable enough assertion, on its face, but is it really that easy? What we don't know, and the reason that I say we would need to know what is actually going on at the management level, is how the resources really divide out.

Consider these points: How much of the TCG artwork is done by a sketch artist and then transferred onto the computer? What is the investment of time to knock out a pet or mount that doesn't have to interact with gear, compared to the time to remodel the main races?

Those are just some the time and money questions. Even if we ignore Titan, we don't know how modifications to current WoW content interact with MoP, Diablo III and Heart of the Swarm. We can, however, guess that each of those projects will have vocal supporters who are going to be equally quick to ask why their pet interest didn't get priority. There are other issues as well.

Are there any complications to change things from interacting with the current models to new models? How many players are going to have conniptions if the look of their toon changes but doesn't meet their unspecified dream of how that change should look? For that matter, how much of the view of your toon will be changed if they remodel what you see most -- the ***. Even if you look at a frontal view, you see the helm unless that is disabled; with transmogrification there is less reason to do that. How many months of delay on MoP is a better *** model worth? Can Blizzard really win this one, or if they remodel the main races will they just be blamed for having done something with existing content instead of devoting the resources to a new raid?

Similarly, tri-spec would have been great some time ago, but it may be moot soon. Who knows? As AstarintheDruid noted early in the thread, changes to the way they handle spec could change things and we don't really know how that will work. On the good side, tri-spec might reduce the mess that they seem determined to afflict Ferals with; however, it would make it cheap and easy for any idiot to game the LFD/LFR system by being able to queue as tank, healer and DPS for classes that have all three (and have a justification for needing on just about anything). PUGs are bad enough, I have reservations about anything that could let the cream of the idiots make them worse.

As for money, all businesses want money. Not specifically yours or mine, just money to keep the investors happy. That's simply the nature of a large business and successful small businesses don't stay small long. Some may make a better show of prettying it up, but businesses that don't pay attention to that rule tend to end up getting bought out. I don't know how much of the view of Blizzard as virtuous geeks is wishful retrospect and how much is the product of good PR, but Blizzard has been an investment for larger companies since they stopped being Silicon & Synapse.

I'm not particularly interested in pets and mounts, but I can live with the few that are sold. Sparkle ponies and annoying pets make me happier than a much easier and more obvious way to generate revenue; we still pay the same price for service that we always have and we don't have to buy the sparkle pony. If selling a few mounts and pets keeps my game cards the same price, I'm happy there are collectors who are underwriting my game time.

I don't particularly love Activision, Blizzard or Vivendi, nor do I consider WOW to be perfect in its current, past or future states. I just think that things tend to be over simplified and idealized. When that happens, it generates dissatisfaction that feeds itself through repetition. At the end of the day, I play to waste time and get some amusement. YMMV.

Why in Asia? Because the SC2 competitive scene is dominated by South Korea, big time. This isn't some mystic secret.



Fostering community good will has worked amazingly for Blizzard and Valve. WoW doesn't need subsidising, it's ludicrously profitable.

Edited, Jan 26th 2012 1:36pm by Kavekk

What the hell?

Where does my thread title say "go on a diatribe about gaming here"?

All these conspiracy theories and complaints about Blizzard, spouted from an intelligent person who doesn't realize that no one here cares about your views on the SYSTEM... We were not deprived of tri-spec because of some huge conspiracy at the international level.

Damn... I mean go start a blog somewhere and see how many people read it. This is not the right venue.



Edited, Jan 26th 2012 1:58pm by Jordster

I kind of thought this might have happened reading your last post. You've misread the announcement - the Battle.net event is not Blizzcon. They're seperate. The next Blizzcon will be in 2013, this battle.net thing is in 2012.



As I said before, there's very strong reason to believe they are, because they're in exactly the same area. The blue explanation does not say that these resources aren't fungible, it just says that they're prioritising other things. There's no contradiction.

Keep appealing to uncertainty, though.



That's not my conclusion.

/facepalm

Guys, I don't mind a somewhat civil debate and it helps me work on +1s since I can't just drop Youtube links, but work with me here. Some of ya'll got to work on your reading, your writing, or both.



Kavekk, you just quoted me commenting on Blizzard not doing BlizzCon and wrote the same thing that I quoted in a previous post (and saw no need to repeat in detail since I'd done so).

When you picked up, saying "It's not as though we're comparing apples and oranges here." the point I was addressing was:



Fungibility be hanged, I'm asking how the existence of that spectral jetpack dinosaur proves that Blizzard has been co-opted by Activision (which ignores Vivendi entirely) and is just raking in the buck$.

If something isn't your conclusion, then make your point. Picking up the debate where you did, it appears as if you've adopted that point. If your point is that the art department is a resource, we're in agreement. If your point is that artists working on mini-pets prove Activision is using Blizzard as a sock puppet to despoil our wallets while ignoring a burning need for better pixilated hindquarters, the point I was originally addressing, could I see some evidence of a connection?

Jord, I'm not looking for some big international conspiracy or even hinting one exists. I'm simply asking the folks spouting various theories about how Blizzard is ******** them over -- who had already hijacked the thread -- to put up some proof. My mention of markets outside the NA/EU servers addresses the point that the O-boards don't even begin to reflect conditions across WOW's player base because roughly half the players aren't on NA/EU servers.

Actually, I made a relatively civil observation that is hardly unique to me or to this thread that dead horse is dead but some folks seem determined to litter almost every thread with the same handful of generally unsupported complaints. I figure that I need something to do while drinking my coffee and continuing the debate in one thread works as a form of containment theory. At some point, someone may remember that I'm a retired lawyer and realize that I can keep this up until at least WOW 7.0, at which time the current crop of new players will be looking back with rose colored glasses, complaining about the state of the game, and going on about how things were better when they started, back in Cata.

tl;dr

Better pixilated backsides -- do we really need 'em? [Given the worgen Running Wild animation do we even want to tempt fate?]

Blizzard was cool and geeky, Activision wants our moneys, we don't know who those French guys (Vivendi) are or how they got in here, but pets and mounts that are optional prove we're getting the shaft. Huh?

Well, either you're just unable to decide if Blizzard is cool and geeky (or at least fostering community good will), or you're one of those who sees Blizzard as having been kept from being cool and geeky by Activision. Pick a side, state it clearly, I'm comfortable addressing either proposition.



And I'm still waiting for straight answers on several connected points. You seem to be allergic to supporting your assumptions.

Pets and mounts are selling, sales prove that demand exists. No dancing, True or False?

If false, produce proof. If true, go to next question.

I have proof that demand for improved character models exceeds demand for pets and mounts. True or False?

If true, produce your evidence. If false, go to next question.

Blizzard has specifically addressed allocation of art resources and revised character models. See following quote:



I can produce proof that the quoted language is incorrect and can support my assertion that Blizzard's production of pets/mounts has interfered with revised character models. True or False?

If true, please produce proof. If false, you have an interesting opinion, but no foundation. See, proof by assertion.



Quote please? As far as I can tell, Jordster made two posts (#3, #36) following his OP. In the latest, he actually complained about his thread being hijacked to complain about Blizzard. Since I'm not allergic to proof, reread this bit slowly and carefully:



It seems that:

a) you're putting words in his mouth;

b) you still don't understand that you have no clue what most people want because you don't have any concept about what is going on with roughly half the total player base. Simple math shows that anything less than %50 is not "most". If you choose to take the stance that you are special and want characters with better pixilated asses regardless of how many others might want something different, please clarify if you're even playing WOW.







Edited, Jan 27th 2012 8:55am by Rhodekylle

Good lord man, FLEE! That's how I got pulled into this back in post #7.





Hey, I'm doin' my part. I've already brought up an example of a nekked avatar, the potential of a beer, bacon and rites of Epona derail, and sheep jokes today. It isn't my fault the other camp posts dull stuff and dodges the pixilated *** discussion with all its potential!

Pssst, Jord, how about you talk to the people actually complaining about Blizzard?

I'm the guy who, way back at post #7, noted that the "I don't like Blizzard" stuff was old news. I left it there until Bodhi decided he wanted to talk about my **** and I would have dropped it then except Kavekk keeps thrashing around with his attempts to connect things without proof.

Learn to read man. Bodhi did the derail, I'm the one who commented it was old news. Kavekk is the one who says you're the one who said:



Did you say that? No? Well go ***** at someone else.

What, exactly, did he say he cares about?



Now, if "character model" is code for "tri-spec" send me the memo next time. If it isn't, shoot the right target. Why do I use quotes? Because I support my speculations with some degree of evidence.

I'm tired of anyone who gets tired of the constant rehash of "WOW is taking our money" being shouted down. So, how about you blow off at the folks who derailed your thread? Look about post #9 to see where that happened.

Character models? Let me see, I'm the guy who pointed out that I don't see the fuss, most of what you see is the toon's backside.

Tri-spec?



That should have been simple and clear enough.

tl;dr Why don't you ***** to your buddies for the derail and for keeping it rolling?

Every time the same people bring up the same speculative complaints about Blizzard. They are treated as a sacred cow that is not allowed to be addressed. No, sorry, this time, I'm happy to keep asking for proof of the evil conspiracy and tired of being shouted down.

Thank you for the gift of the thread, now print it out, fold it up and cram it. Or shoot at the right target if you have the sack to address your buddies.

I think it's a little unreasonable to blame me for this derail, considering how late I started posting.



I'm not.



False dichotomy.



Woops, meant to say Bodhi.



If I don't address something it's because I agree with it or deem it irrelevant.



There must be a degree of demand greater than zero. What does that imply?



False, it's an assumption based on the fact that one is something everyone uses and the other is something a few do.



The 'quoted language' doesn't contradict anything I've said.

Like I said, your entire argument is based on some appeal to uncertainty. Reasonable assumptions - e.g. a modeller with a finite amount of time could do a type of modelling if not busy with another - are neccessary. Acting on them is neccessary. Shrugging and saying 'but who can know for sure?' is not convincing. It just makes you look like a fool.

I would have thought anyone in legal practice would have been confronted with that reality at some point in their no doubt illustrious career, but perhaps not.

Edited, Jan 27th 2012 7:35pm by Kavekk

Good lord will you two just take it to pm already? I'm with Jord, this derail is annoying and boring. It's not even a derail anymore, it's just you two bickering and posting huge *** quote boxes. That stuff belongs in the Asylum, not here. Even if it is about Blizzard.