Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Breaking the addiction to WoW - Page 2

Tags:
  • PC gaming
  • World Of Warcraft
  • Games
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 4, 2005 11:36:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"shadows" <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd07n6t.csb.shadows@helena.whitefang.com...
> On 2005-02-04, Nathan Engle <nengle@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> > I feel like I understand why people like these games, and
> > personally I don't find it funny. It may not be the route
> > that people might choose when, in real life, they can be
> > tall and handsome and successful, and in a way that's sort
> > of sad. Yet I still believe that it's valuable when there's
> > SOME place a person can go to feel noble or generous or
> > heroic. It's what I call an "empowering fantasy". Not
> > to mention the fact that the first prerequisite of empathy
> > is the ability to imagine yourself in someone else's shoes.
>
> Maybe some people just find it fun to do PvP online with their
> friends?
>
> Do we *have* to be pathetic to play games?

No ... but it sure helps [grin].
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 5, 2005 1:07:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly Nathan Engle <nengle@indiana.edu> Spake Unto All:

>It's what I call an "empowering fantasy".

You're overanalysing. They just want to bash some brains and enjoy
some scenery from the safety of their chairs.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 5, 2005 3:46:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Damien Neil" <neild-usenet@misago.org> wrote in message
news:040220050153576737%neild-usenet@misago.org...
> In article <Xns95F2BAD0C4683anonnotrealaddycom@216.168.3.44>, Alan
> <anonymous@notrealaddy.com> wrote:
> > "Steve T" <joe_fatties_boo@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1107458628.186985.202310
> > > A game that rewards you for not playing it.
> > >
> > > Hilarious.
> >
> > Your character gains experience while Blizzard gets a monthly fee.
Meanwhile
> > it reduces
> > server load, making it more enjoyable for the players who don't take
> > advantage of this
> > unique offer. Sounds like a winner to me!
>
> Another way to think of it is that you get a certain amount of bonus xp
> for free every week, but you need to play in order to receive it. If
> you don't play enough to level once per week, your rest bonus will cap
> out. If you play enough that the bonus never caps out, you'll get
> roughly the same amount of bonus xp as anyone else

There are alot of ways to look at it.. all I know is that when I was in
the beta test, Blizzard reps specifically stated that the rest state was
NOT meant to be a punishment against those who play alot, or a
bonus to those who play very little. They had some other weird
explanation for why they wanted to implement it. I'm afraid I cannot
remember what it was, which doesn't help my case. But I swear its
true and was right in their FAQ stuff. It was *not* meant to have
anything to do with who played how long. They insisted as such.
Many people speculated it was to discourage botting. That you'd
want to log out for a period of time every day to get into the bonus.

But clearly it was, after all, designed to be a way to give benefit to
people who don't play as much. I don't understand why they say
things that are patently untrue like that. They treated most of us
like saps during the beta test. There was a ton of a people against
the 24 hour clock and they kept it. They always kept saying that
they were open to feedback and would change things if enough
people wanted certain changes, etc. But they always, instead, forced
their ideas down our throats and didn't give up on them.

This is what pisses me off so much about Blizz anymore. They did
the same thing in Warcraft III, as I have ranted about before, with
that stupid "upkeep" thing, which made it a benefit / uneven playing
field for the weaker player. There was no denying that is what it did,
although many did (and still do) try to argue otherwise. But it was
clearly an attempt to give the weaker player a slight advantage during
the time after his army was decimated. They claimed it was not to
give anyone advantage, and it was widely ripped on by beta testers
as being a bad idea. But they still forced it on us.

Blizzard has become incredibly arrogant and rests too much on their
own successes. They feel they can do no wrong anymore. But they
aren't even the same company of people who made all their really
great games. But their arrogance, and touchy feel politcal correctness
are showing brightly in everything they have done since Warcraft III.

I don't even play WoW since the beta, and the current bonus rest state
doesn't sound like a big deal, so I don't want to sound like I'm saying
it's a terrible thing in and of itself. It doesn't unbalance the game as
far
as I'm concerned. I'm talking about the mentality and the principal here..
that Blizzard has move more and more into that touchy feely "let's make
everyone happy and make things fair for every single player even if
they aren't that good a player and they we'll all sit and admire pretty
rainbows in the sky" like a bunch of bigtime liberal hippies.

Starcraft and Diablo II were the best of the best they ever did, and
we'll never see the likes of those games again. They aren't the same
company anymore and they are too arrogant and politically correct
anymore.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 5, 2005 3:46:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Jim Vieira" <whiplashr@wi.rr.com.remove.this.to.reply> wrote in message
news:UHUMd.8498$0h5.7259@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> "Damien Neil" <neild-usenet@misago.org> wrote in message
> news:040220050153576737%neild-usenet@misago.org...
> > Another way to think of it is that you get a certain amount of bonus xp
> > for free every week, but you need to play in order to receive it. If
> > you don't play enough to level once per week, your rest bonus will cap
> > out. If you play enough that the bonus never caps out, you'll get
> > roughly the same amount of bonus xp as anyone else
>
> There are alot of ways to look at it.. all I know is that when I was in
> the beta test, Blizzard reps specifically stated that the rest state was
> NOT meant to be a punishment against those who play alot, or a
> bonus to those who play very little. They had some other weird
> explanation for why they wanted to implement it. I'm afraid I cannot
> remember what it was, which doesn't help my case. But I swear its
> true and was right in their FAQ stuff. It was *not* meant to have
> anything to do with who played how long. They insisted as such.
> Many people speculated it was to discourage botting. That you'd
> want to log out for a period of time every day to get into the bonus.

I'm sure I heard that someone claimed it was to promote socialization.
Since you had to go to the cities and the inns to get the rest bonus, it was
an encouragement for you to go and hang around the inns and talk to people
since you'd get rest points for doing it.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 5, 2005 4:09:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <uy8e42100.fsf@broadpark.no>, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
<tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote:
> "Steve T" <joe_fatties_boo@hotmail.com> writes:
> > A game that rewards you for not playing it.
> >
> > Hilarious.
>
> No, it makes perfect economical sense: Active players represent a
> (bandwidth) cost, the company get the monthly fee no matter how much
> you play.

It's also (as I mentioned earlier) not really a reward for not playing.
You'll always advance more during an hour played than you would have
received in bonus xp for an hour logged off.

Someone who plays an average of 8 hours a day, spending 1/3 their
entire life in-game, will earn about 2/3 of a level in bonus xp every
week. Someone who doesn't play at all for a week will earn 1/3 of a
level more in bonus xp. That's not a major difference.

What the rest xp does do is offer more casual players a gentler
advancement curve. Someone who gains seven levels a week will be
gaining 1/7 their total xp from the bonus. Someone who gains one level
a week will be gaining 1/2 their total xp from the bonus.

- Damien
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 5, 2005 4:12:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <L2VMd.22860$Ck1.1815340@news20.bellglobal.com>, Allan C
Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> I'm sure I heard that someone claimed it was to promote socialization.
> Since you had to go to the cities and the inns to get the rest bonus, it was
> an encouragement for you to go and hang around the inns and talk to people
> since you'd get rest points for doing it.

It's definitely got nice effects on the perception of the world--you
want to get back to civilization before you log off.

- Damien
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 5, 2005 11:33:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Alexei Boukirev <aboukirev@blah.ameritech.net> looked up from reading
the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
signs say:

>Michael Vondung <mvondung@gmail.com> wrote in news:cq9byuowwh32
>$.uicvsxv0ny1v.dlg@40tude.net:
>
>>On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:17:42 -0600, Alexei Boukirev wrote:
>>
>>> ast night my female priest(ess)
>>> character was told by another female character that the robe I had on
>>> looked very nice. ?? I had it because of the nice +sta and +int, lol.
>>
>> Hey, I do choose equipment partly because of the way it looks on my
>> character! I'm male, and heterosexual! ;) 
>
>I'm not totally discarding the looks either: some/most head gear looks
>utterly ridiculous on a Tauren :)  But oftentimes I'm willing to wear it
>just because it's extra armor. Just turn off helmet display in interface
>settings.

As this old cartoon shows, style is important.
http://www.diabloii.net/screenshots/fan_art/031006-aldw...

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 7, 2005 9:27:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:36:28 GMT, shadows <shadows@whitefang.com>
wrote:

>On 2005-02-04, Nathan Engle <nengle@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>> I feel like I understand why people like these games, and
>> personally I don't find it funny. It may not be the route
>> that people might choose when, in real life, they can be
>> tall and handsome and successful, and in a way that's sort
>> of sad. Yet I still believe that it's valuable when there's
>> SOME place a person can go to feel noble or generous or
>> heroic. It's what I call an "empowering fantasy". Not
>> to mention the fact that the first prerequisite of empathy
>> is the ability to imagine yourself in someone else's shoes.
>
>Maybe some people just find it fun to do PvP online with their
>friends?
>
>Do we *have* to be pathetic to play games? Why can't the same be
>said about people who play golf or basketball?
>
or people that watch TV
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 7, 2005 11:08:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 20:11:17 -0500, Allan C Cybulskie wrote:

> I'm sure I heard that someone claimed it was to promote socialization.
> Since you had to go to the cities and the inns to get the rest bonus, it was
> an encouragement for you to go and hang around the inns and talk to people
> since you'd get rest points for doing it.

I remember reading something to that effect as well. Unfortunately I
thought to myself then that no one will use it for that. With being able to
talk to people across the continent why would someone travel to an inn to
socialize. And I was right, the only time I see people in the inns is when
they're ready to log out.
--
RJB
2/7/2005 8:06:55 AM

"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never
try."
- Homer Simpson
February 7, 2005 4:25:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

RJB wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 20:11:17 -0500, Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>
> > I'm sure I heard that someone claimed it was to promote socialization.
> > Since you had to go to the cities and the inns to get the rest bonus, it was
> > an encouragement for you to go and hang around the inns and talk to people
> > since you'd get rest points for doing it.
>
> I remember reading something to that effect as well. Unfortunately I
> thought to myself then that no one will use it for that. With being able to
> talk to people across the continent why would someone travel to an inn to
> socialize. And I was right, the only time I see people in the inns is when
> they're ready to log out.

You're right. It should be impossible to talk to people in other areas.

--

Personal ambition is for people who can't see 100 years into the future.

"Some of us prefer illusion to despair." - Nelson Muntz
February 8, 2005 12:04:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-07, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 20:11:17 -0500, Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>
>> I'm sure I heard that someone claimed it was to promote socialization.
>> Since you had to go to the cities and the inns to get the rest bonus, it was
>> an encouragement for you to go and hang around the inns and talk to people
>> since you'd get rest points for doing it.
>
> I remember reading something to that effect as well. Unfortunately I
> thought to myself then that no one will use it for that. With being able to
> talk to people across the continent why would someone travel to an inn to
> socialize. And I was right, the only time I see people in the inns is when
> they're ready to log out.

Same reason WoW has a real-time night/day cycle. There's a dev
there who managed in cramming in a set of stupid ideas and
despite them WoW still worked well.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
February 8, 2005 4:30:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows wrote:
> Nathan Engle wrote:
> > I feel like I understand why people like these games, and
> > personally I don't find it funny. It may not be the route
> > that people might choose when, in real life, they can be
> > tall and handsome and successful, and in a way that's sort
> > of sad. Yet I still believe that it's valuable when there's
> > SOME place a person can go to feel noble or generous or
> > heroic. It's what I call an "empowering fantasy". Not
> > to mention the fact that the first prerequisite of empathy
> > is the ability to imagine yourself in someone else's shoes.

> Maybe some people just find it fun to do PvP online with their
> friends?
>
> Do we *have* to be pathetic to play games? Why can't the same be
> said about people who play golf or basketball?

You don't "*have* to be pathetic", but by the same token
neither should the people whose chief solace is playing the
game "have" to be the butt of anyone's ridicule or name-calling.

For example, my life is such that I spend a lot of time laying
down and taking heavy duty pain medications, and I guess you're
entitled to call that "pathetic". It isn't what I'd have
chosen to do if given my druthers. But I can log into the
game and have a body that's strong and only wracked by the
pain that the monsters inflict on me.

Some people think posting on Usenet is sort of pathetic too,
but rest assured I don't hold it against you 8D

--
Nathan Engle Computer Support, IUB Psych Dept
nengle@indiana.edu http://mypage.iu.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"
February 8, 2005 10:47:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-08, Nathan Engle <nengle@indiana.edu> wrote:
> shadows wrote:
>> Nathan Engle wrote:
>> > I feel like I understand why people like these games, and
>> > personally I don't find it funny. It may not be the route
>> > that people might choose when, in real life, they can be
>> > tall and handsome and successful, and in a way that's sort
>> > of sad. Yet I still believe that it's valuable when there's
>> > SOME place a person can go to feel noble or generous or
>> > heroic. It's what I call an "empowering fantasy". Not
>> > to mention the fact that the first prerequisite of empathy
>> > is the ability to imagine yourself in someone else's shoes.
>
>> Maybe some people just find it fun to do PvP online with their
>> friends?
>>
>> Do we *have* to be pathetic to play games? Why can't the same be
>> said about people who play golf or basketball?
>
> You don't "*have* to be pathetic", but by the same token
> neither should the people whose chief solace is playing the
> game "have" to be the butt of anyone's ridicule or name-calling.
>
> For example, my life is such that I spend a lot of time laying
> down and taking heavy duty pain medications, and I guess you're
> entitled to call that "pathetic". It isn't what I'd have
> chosen to do if given my druthers. But I can log into the
> game and have a body that's strong and only wracked by the
> pain that the monsters inflict on me.

I'm sorry to hear that. I assure you, when I play an MMO I don't
do it because I have to or because there's nothing else to do. In
fact I place a higher priority on it than other things sometimes.

Not all of us play an MMO due to circumstances beyond our
control. In fact most of us, I bet, do it because we enjoy it.
      • 1
      • 2 / 2
!