My top 5 favorite movies

Well, considering that I was the one who suggested this shared topic, I suppose I need to write about it, don't I? A while ago, I wrote a post about my to 25 favorite songs of all time, and I enjoyed writing it so much that I suggested on Blog Azeroth that other bloggers try writing similar posts. As such, I would like to write a follow-up post to that last one, in which I detail my top 5 favorite movies of all time. I know I said in my to 25 favorite songs post that my tastes in movies aren't diverse enough for me to write a post like this, but I have decided to write it anyways. Before we begin, I just want to say that this is not a list of what I think are the greatest movies of all time; this is a list of the movies that I enjoy the most. As such, there will likely be a movie or two on here that will make you say, "Ugh, why did he put that one on here?" Also, as a relatively young person without much experience with "classic" films, most of these movies will be relatively recent releases; that's just the way the cookie crumbles. So, with that out of the way, let's begin.

5. Dogma
Kevin Smith can make some truly great films, and this is one of them. The plot revolves around two angels who have been banished from heaven but managed to find a loophole to allow themselves back in; however, in doing so, they will destroy existence, because existence is founded on the fact that God's will is absolute. Because of this, an abortion clinic worker (seriously) is tasked with stopping them. In addition to the typical comedic mainstays, the film also takes quite a few jabs at people who take religion in the wrong direction and use it in the wrong ways, while still being respectful of religion in general. As someone who is an atheist but is still respectful of believers and thinks there is no reason that believers and non-believers can't get along, I love the film for this reason. It's a real shame that Kevin Smith will probably not make a sequel to this film, because if any of his films deserve a sequel, it's this one.

4. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Do I really need to explain this film? Either the plot, or why I like it? Now, I'm sure there are some of you out there who can't stand this film because it is over-quoted, over-referenced, etc., etc., but it is still, in my opinion, one of the funniest movies out there. If you really don't know the plot, it's Monty Python's take on the classic tale of King Arthur. If you don't know who Monty Python are, they are a British comedy troupe that had a long-running TV show (Monty Python's Flying Circus), as well as three movies, and Holy Grail is frequently considered to be the best of them, for good reason. It is, quite simply, a classic; the jokes are hilarious, the writing is superb, it is simply the Pythons in full form.

3. the Saw series
Yes, the Saw series (the sixth film is probably my favorite, but I like them all too much to just put that one up here). I have gotten a lot of flack from my friends for liking these films, but I will always stand by my like of them. For those who don't know, the Saw films are about a serial killer called the Jigsaw Killer who puts people in "traps," mechanisms in which they must hurt themselves in some way or else be killed in an even more gruesome way. The traps are usually designed to in some way reflect what Jigsaw perceives as the victim's crimes or flaws. For example, one trap in the first film featured a man who had cut his wrists for attention. He was trapped behind a maze of razor wire, which he was given two hours to find his way through before being trapped in the room he was in. According to Jigsaw, the irony was that if he wanted to die, all he had to do stay where he was (for he would eventually die of starvation), but if he wanted to live, he had to find his way through the maze and "cut himself again." Yep, they're pretty gory (though the first film was surprisingly tame by horror standards), and as you may expect, very psychological.

Now that you know that, you may ask what possible redeeming qualities these films could have that would make me like them. For one thing, I have a penchant for poetic justice, and the traps of the Saw films are based around poetic justice. There's also an unexpectedly good plot behind all of this torture porn (as the genre has been come to be called). I especially appreciate how five sequels later (soon to be six), the series still takes itself seriously. It keeps a cohesive plot and doesn't just hand-wave events of the past films away to allow the plots of the new movies to happen, and it doesn't resort to cheap gimmicks to keep the films interesting (unless you count gore as a cheap gimmick). The movies also use flashbacks liberally, allowing important characters to continue to be a part of the plot without using cheap plot devices to bring them back. I could go on, but I doubt I'll manage to sway those of you who have already rejected the series as potentially being good, so I'll just say that I shamelessly love these movies will continue to do so.

2. Fight Club
There's a reason Chuck Palahniuk (author of the novel version of Fight Club) has said that he considers the film version an improvement. Between the great performances of the actors, the great dialog and quotes (many of which are taken verbatim from the novel), the excellent editing, the issues it address, and the great plot, there's plenty to love about this movie. I especially like how faithfully it is adapted from the novel; sure it takes some liberties with the plot and changes the ending, but so much is unchanged that reading the novel is like seeing an alternate cut of the film, and seeing the film is like reading an alternate draft of the novel. Fight Club follows an unnamed narrator who is generally dissatisfied with his life of consumerism and working as he fights his insomnia and his general dissatisfaction with life. His life changes when he meets a man named Tyler Durden, who helps him take his life in a new direction. I'd explain more, but this is such a great movie that I don't want to give anything else away. Trust me, just see it some time if you haven't already.

1. V for Vendetta
To be honest, the second time I saw this film, I actually thought to myself, "I want to watch this film until I am sick of it." Luckily I didn't, and V for Vendetta remains my favorite film of all time (thus far). The film, like Fight Club, shines because it is so well done. The dialog is well written (with the exchange between Evey and the fingermen in the beginning of the film remaining one of my favorite conversations in all of film), the shots are well choreographed, the music matches the scenes perfectly, etc., etc. The film follows the lives of a woman named Evey, who lives in a dystopial vision of England, and a freedom fighter named V, who fights to change that dystopia. To be honest, this film is a little bit of a guilty pleasure for me because most of the things that make me like it are the kind of devices that directors put in movies to make people like them more without needing to improve the substance of the movie, but hey, they work. To me, V for Vendetta is a lot like Casablanca; there's nothing particularly noteworthy about it that makes it remarkable, but everything about it just works, and it works so well that it is my favorite movie of all time.

There you have it. I know this list is a good deal shorter than my list of my favorite songs, but writing that list was made easier by the fact that I keep a playlist of my favorite songs in iTunes, so all I had to do was copy the list and put the songs in order. I didn't have the same convenience here, and because I didn't have the time to watch each of these movies before writing this list (as opposed to how I was able to listen to each song before writing my previous list), I had to write from memory, so I was only able to write about the movies I really like. But, regardless, I hope you enjoyed reading this.

Why should the final boss of an expansion drop gear?

One of the things that continues to amaze me is the vast variety of places that I can find inspiration for my posts. For example, I was browsing TV Tropes a few days ago and came across an article entitled "Bragging Rights Reward", which describes any practical reward in a video game that takes immense effort to acquire, such that by the time you acquire it, you have already proved you don't need it. It's a fairly frequently used trope, and it got me thinking: are there any such rewards in WoW? One example immediately popped into my mind: any loot that drops from heroic Lich King (or Kil'jaeden in Burning Crusade, or Kel'thuzad in vanilla WoW). After all, those bosses were/are the last boss in their respective expansion, so once you defeat them, you don't need better gear. This, to me, begs the question: why should these bosses drop gear?

The Lich King in an interested exception to this case, because with the Ruby Sanctum being released in patch 3.3.5, the gear that he drops on heroic mode will give players a better chance at defeating the foes in the Ruby Sanctum, and considering that everything in the Ruby Sanctum will be side-grades, rather than upgrades to the things dropped in Icecrown Citadel, they won't be bragging rights rewards either. After all, players could go for Halion first and heroic Lich King after that, or they could have already defeated heroic Lich King and will now be trying to best the Ruby Sanctum. Either way, the rewards from one fight will make the other easier, making neither a clear case of bragging rights rewards. That is, unless Halion isn't a comparable fight to heroic Lich King, and is a good deal easier. in which case the Lich King's heroic drops will still be bragging rights rewards. After all, if he is, by far, the hardest fight in the expansion so far, so by the time you defeat him, you have proven you don't need better gear.

For now, I'm going to write under the assumption that heroic Lich King will remain the hardest fight in the game, even after 3.3.5 is released, for this will not only make writing about the subject more interesting, but will also allow me to consider whether there was any point in Kil'jaeden and Kel'thuzad dropping gear. Now, I'm sure one of the first justifications for them dropping gear that one would point out is that their gear helps people level more quickly through the new content released with each expansion, but if your gear is good enough that you can beat the final boss of an expansion, it's probably good enough that you won't notice the difference between having gear that drops off of that final boss and not having gear that drops off of that final boss; you'll probably be mowing through enemies too quickly to notice the time you save. One could also argue that the gear they drop would give one an advantage when one starts the new expansion's raid content, but considering the rate at which gear has steadily gotten better, the difference between top-end gear and second-best gear becomes even less significant when you enter a new expansion's raids.

So where does that leave us in terms of uses for gear that drops off of the final boss of an expansion? I once said in one of my other posts that gear really serves two purposes: helping you advance through an expansion's content, and serving as a representation of your achievements. The real question is, if gear isn't serving one of those purposes, is it fair that it exist only to serve the other, less practical one? Making the models for that gear takes time away from the design team, time they could be spending on other things, like the gear for the new content. More importantly, though, it reinforces the idea that the main goal of playing WoW is to get better gear, and though that is often an important step in accomplishing other goals, it isn't the reason most of us play. Most of us play for the experience, whether that experience is downing a raid boss, winning a battleground, or just getting exalted with a faction; gear just happens to be a nice consolation that also makes future experiences go more smoothly.

But, you may ask, are there any alternatives? Plenty, actually: mounts, titles, vanity pets (granted, people would probably only be excited about receiving one of the first two of those three), all of which serve the purpose of representing a person's achievements without existing solely as a bragging right reward (by the definition above). And truth be told, I think that rewarding regular old gear for defeating the final boss of an expansion is a bit... underwhelming. Gear was just a necessity to get to that point, and to reward more gear almost seems like mockery to me. Think about it: by beating heroic Lich King, a raid has beaten Wrath of the Lich King. They have overcome the greatest challenge off the expansion, and the reward is just more gear? Just more of the same? Now, granted, beating the Lich King on heroic mode does also grant special titles, depending on which mode you beat him on, as well as a mount for one member of the raid, but rather than giving some other members of the raid gear as a reward, why not give everyone the mount? It seems to me a more fitting reward for what is, in essence, beating Wrath of the Lich King, at least more fitting than just more gear. Maybe that's just me, though.

Why once difficult achievements sometimes need to be demoted

A WoW.com breakfast topic get me thinking about mounts recently. The topic discussed how getting a mount used to be a major achievement, whereas now we get our first mount at level 20 and our epic land mounts at level 40, neither of which requires an exorbitantly large investment. The writer of that topic asked whether we should go back to the days when getting a mount (especially an epic mount) was a real achievement, rather than being treated as a necessity. While I did comment on that post, I want to give the topic some more attention here.

As much as we may miss the days when having and epic mount meant something special, times change. Sixty is no longer the level cap, and there are no longer two levels of riding skill. New challenges have been added (like buying artisan riding skill, a.k.a. epic flying), and new challenges will continue to be added (like being able to buy an upgrade for all of your epic flying mounts that makes them fly at 310% speed, one of the features coming with Cataclysm). Achieving these new achievements is often contingent on achieving those old achievements first; for example, you need to buy journeyman riding (epic riding) before you can buy expert riding (regular flying) and eventually artisan riding (epic flying). This is where things can get problematic.

If you have been playing since before Burning Crusade, and you were one of those who worked hard to save up money for your epic mount (regardless of whether or not you got it), then think about all of the effort you had to put forward to get it. Think of all the time spent saving up money, all those days watching your gold slowly grow, until it finally reached that magic number: 1,000. Remember how good it felt? It's memories like those that make us nostalgic for those days and that make you wish getting an epic mount were the achievement it used to be. Now think back again. Remember all of that effort that you put in to getting your mount? Let's imagine that nothing had changed, that epic land mounts were still as difficult to get as they used to be. However, epic land mounts aren't the final goal of riding skill any more. There are now two more levels of riding skill that can be purchased after getting epic riding, and they themselves are also difficult to acquire. Anyone who wished to have a flying mount, let alone an epic flier, would need to put forth the effort to get the epic land mount first, then put forth the effort to get their regular flier--which, unless you were a druid, was no joke in the olden days of Burning Crusade, when dailies were only available to those with flying mounts--then put forth the effort to get the epic flying mount (which really wasn't a joke). Had nothing changed, the sum of all the effort would border on the effort needed to obtain Insane in the Membrane, and the number of people with epic fliers would probably be in the double digits.

This would have been problematic, for Blizzard designs the game under the assumption that most dedicated players have epic flying, and that most high-level players have flying in some form (epic or not). That's why the mounts rewarded by the harder meta achievements and the rare-drop mounts are epic flying mounts; if epic riding were as difficult to get today as it was before, those achievement mounts would probably need to be land mounts. Having epic riding be as difficult to obtain as it used to be would also create the problem of Blizzard being hesitant to design content with flying in mind. After all, only those who have epic riding can purchase flying mounts, so that would be a fairly small portion of the WoW population. And considering how rare players with epic flying would be, think of what would have happened to Netherwing: either it wouldn't have rewarded awesome drakes, it would have been highly under-experienced by the player-base, or it just wouldn't have existed. (For the record, my Onyx Netherwing Drake is one of my favorite flying mounts, so Netherwing never existing would have made me a very sad panda.)

In short, WoW is not a static game; new content is released, as are new challenges, and when those new challenges require the completion of previous challenges before they can be tackled, those old challenges need to be demoted to allow more players to take a crack at the new challenges. That's why things that were once points of pride sometimes need to be demoted, so that players can experience the new content even if they don't have the same head start as those who got there first.

Musings on our cultural obsession with apocalypses

I'd like to take a break from talking about WoW to talk about something I have been musing over for some time now: namely, our culture's seeming obsession with the idea of the apocalypse. Now, when I say apocalypse, I don't necessarily mean the end of the world (though I don't preclude that definition, either); I just mean a catastrophic event that has the potential to wipe out the human race. The movie 2012 is an example of this obsession, for it is based on the idea of the Mayan apocalypse, an idea which is well-known in our culture and still believed by many (even though a bit of research shows that the traditional Mayan beliefs don't include 2012 being the end of the world). The idea of a zombie apocalypse also seems to have pervaded our culture, not only in the form of media portraying such an event, but in an obsession with the idea. We have Max Brooks' books on the topic, Humans vs. Zombies roleplay events (one of which happened at my college recently), as well as countless movies showing survivors of such a catastrophe. These are two such examples of ways the world could end that seem to have become quite popular in our culture.

It seems appropriate for me to discuss this obsession now, considering that Cataclysm will be a catastrophe of similar proportions for Azeroth. In all of the excitement for Cataclysm, what we seem to forget is that the Cataclysm will indeed be a catastrophe. The world is going to be destroyed, people's lives will be torn apart, and thousands will likely die. Of course, this doesn't concern us players (as Dark Legacy Comics showed so well); in the end, we only care about the fact that it's going to happen. This shows a disturbing parallel to our views toward a real apocalypse, which we as a culture view in a romantic light without stopping to consider the fact that many people would die if such a thing were to happen. We fantasize about a zombie apocalypse without considering the fact that we would likely be one of the walking dead. We joke about robots taking over without realizing that we probably wouldn't be one of the chosen few who save humanity; we would probably be no more than a corpse once it started.

This romanticism surrounding the idea of most of the population being wiped out has always concerned me a bit, but it's only recently that I began to really give it some thought. I think it's origins may be biological. You see, if you take a population of organisms without higher brain functions like us humans and give them all that they need to survive (food, water, shelter, etc.), they will spend all of their time procreating. This will continue until the population surpasses a sustainable size, meaning the members of the population will continue to reproduce until there isn't enough food/water/shelter to support so many offspring, at which point ecology kicks in and kills off members of the population until it is back at a sustainable size.

We humans (at least, those of us in cultures that fantasizes about apocalypses) are in a similar scenario to what I described above. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in a well-off part of society (and if you are reading this blog, I assume you are one of those lucky individuals) don't need to worry about the typical needs of survival: if we want food, we go to the supermarket; if we want water, we turn the faucets on our sink; if we want shelter, we just go back to our house/apartment/dorm. The basic needs of our survival are all met, and we know this, so biologically, our instinct should be to procreate as much as possible. Though you can argue that this does happen, considering how rampant of a problem overpopulation has become, I'm sure most people don't keep breeding once they have what they think of as a reasonable number of children (though the number that is considered "reasonable" varies from person to person).

Considering all of this, we humans are in a unique position, biologically. We are privileged to have all of our basic needs met, and yet we choose not procreate with abandon. We are actively going against our biological instincts, living in a sort of biological equilibrium. What does this have to do with our obsession with the apocalypse? Well, as any biologist will tell you, the only time when our cells are at equilibrium is when we are dead, and that if they do reach true equilibrium, we die (don't ask me how it happens; my major is math, not biology). I would imagine that the same is true on a larger scale; if our lives reach true equilibrium, then we will wish to die.

This may seem like a ludicrous idea, but in practice, it isn't that absurd. Suicide rates are higher among the upper class than among the lower class, and who is living in a state of greater equilibrium? Who doesn't have to work as hard just to live? The idea that it is bad if our lives reach equilibrium can also be seen in the ways that celebrities and people who are generally well off ruin their lives, ways which leave us common folk asking, "How could they have done that when they had it all?" They may have done it precisely because they had it all. Their lives were in equilibrium, and they needed to do something to change that, so they cheat on their marriages or go into petty crime.

To bring this all back to our obsession with the idea of the apocalypse, those of us in the middle and upper class are in a state of biological equilibrium. We don't need to fight for food, water, shelter, or other such things, and yet we aren't breeding ceaselessly to attempt to bring that equilibrium to an end. If our cells die when they reach equilibrium, then I think our obsession with apocalypses arises out of the fact that we have, as a culture, have reached a state of equilibrium. Thus the culture itself is, in a way, ready to die, and what is an apocalypse other than a massive wiping-out of people? We are like so many cells in a body that has reached equilibrium, a state which is not compatible with life, and we desire something to break that equilibrium. If outside forces don't break that equilibrium for us, then our biological desire is to do it ourselves, yet most of us aren't willing to take such drastic measures as ending our own life. That's why we fantasize about the apocalypse, for it would do it for us.

It's a pretty heavy conclusion, I know, but what is more important than the idea is the lessons we take away from it. What lessons can we take away from the fact that our obsession with the apocalypse may be a sign that our culture is ready to self-destruct? We can learn to realize that problems, issues, and suffering in general will always be a part of our lives, for if our lives were truly free of worry and hardship, we wouldn't be able to live. After all, a life without worry or hardship is a life in equilibrium, and thus a life that cannot be lived.

The "gaping chasm" between blog readers and bad players

One of the reasons I love blogging is the commenters. When people comment on my blog, it reassures me that I am not writing for only myself and that people are actually interested in what I write. However, one of the best things about having commenters is when a commenter posts something that makes me think even more deeply about what I have written. That happened on my last post, Damage Meters and compensation, when Mzungu of The Hitchhiker's Guide to Azeroth said, "I get the feeling that there is a world of reasonable minded folk that read and write wow blogs, and then a gaping chasm separating them from the annoying people who post meters, who obsess over gearscore and who sell single arrows on the auction house." This is something I have seen lamented in the comments section on other blogs as well. Whenever someone posts a post with sage advice that would make our gaming experience much more smooth if everyone took it, inevitably someone will comment saying, "Sadly, the people who do [undesirable behavior] will probably never read this." One has to wonder, then: why do we write such posts?

I suppose one of the reasons is camaraderie. When someone writes a post admonishing something the masses are doing, it allows us to rally around a common purpose, the purpose of trying to eradicate that behavior. Whether or not we do eradicate that behavior really doesn't factor into it, for we feel as if we are somehow part of the solution. We feel that by agreeing with the person writing the post and perhaps writing about the topic in our own blog, we are supporting the cause (whether it be the anti-recount cause or the anti-DPS-doing-the-tank's-job cause) in question. This feeling of camaraderie feeds into another aspect of the "gaping chasm phenomenon" that I feel is worth mentioning: feelings of superiority. Don't try to deny it; when you read a post about some bad behavior that the masses are perpetuating that you yourself are not participating in, you feel good knowing that you aren't part of the problem, even if you aren't part of the solution. You feel like a better player, compared to those who pull for the tank or shout "go go go" in party chat. Posts telling people how not to behave help those who don't behave that way feel good about not behaving that way.

But do these posts do the community any good? We know that they allow us feeling smugly superior to those who perpetuate the behaviors we look down upon, but what if that is a bad thing? After all, the idea that there is a "gaping chasm" between blog readers and bad players is a very essentialist* idea, so it precludes the notion that these bad players could improve with the right guidance and advice. By shoving all of the players we encounter in our time in the game into the category of "bad players," we forget that there is nothing inherent in players that makes them bad, and truth be told, that concerns me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are players out there who chose to not improve (those who deserve the title of "noob", rather than the title of "newb"), and the people who maliciously do things like listing single arrows on the auction house at full price or ninja'ing loot probably won't be as eager to change as someone who is just making mistakes in a PuG, but I think there's something wrong about the idea that there are "bad players" and "good players". Now, I'm sure people will be eager to say, "But they can improve; we aren't saying they can't." Perhaps you aren't, but allow me to propose a hypothetical situation. Suppose you are in a heroic. A mage in full ICC gear is AoE'ing everything to death and causing more threat than the tank can keep up with, so he is constantly pulling aggro and drawing the attention of the healer away from the tank. Then, to top it all off, as the run is nearing its end, he posts recount in the party chat to show that he had the highest DPS.

Now, there are a few things you can do in this situation. One is to say nothing to him, to curse his ways silently under your breath, and leave when the run is over, happy to just have your emblems. You can also admonish him by calling him out on his behavior and talking down to him. Finally, you could take the proactive approach in, whispering him if possible, asking him at the beginning of the run to tone down his AoE and give the tank some time to build aggro. I would guess that 99% of people take the first option, while a select few of us take the second from time to time. I have done it in the past, and I can tell you from experience that it doesn't change a thing. That leaves us with the third option, and though many people would like to see it as the ideal way to handle this kind of situation, I bet many of you haven't tried to proactively help people improve their gameplay, and I would bet those who have did so with a person who was clearly just new to heroics, not the kind of person who seemed to be more well-acquainted with the game and more set in their ways, like an overgeared DPS who pulls aggro.

Of course, perhaps these people are capable of change. Perhaps some of those DPS don't realize that they are making the tank's job difficult and are thinking," as long as everything is dying and none of us die, it's ok." Perhaps those DPS that over-aggro the tank and think nothing of it would be willing to change their ways. Perhaps those inconsiderate people who seem set in their ways could change with the right guidance. Or perhaps they're just jerks who will never change and just need to be put up with. If you disagreed with me until that last sentence, then you just proved my previous point about essentialist thinking.

So where does that leave us bloggers? If there is indeed as wide a chasm between blog readers and "bad players" as we seem to think there is, then writing these posts is really a self-serving activity. We do it to feel like we are making a difference while giving us a way to feel superior to other people, boosting our ego. I'm not saying that someone who works with their group rather than against their group shouldn't feel superior to those whose impatience and desire to show off hinder the run, nor am I saying that people who practice fair auction house etiquette shouldn't feel superior to the kind of people who put up single arrows at the price of stacks. What I am saying is that those feelings shouldn't need enforcement. We shouldn't need to encourage each other to feel better about ourselves as players because we engage in these fair practices.

With that said, I am not suggesting that we all accept that these players exist without trying to do anything about it. I fully support healers who refuse to heal DPS who consistently pull aggro, as well as tank who go into DPS mode when that happens. I encourage people to undercut players who put up single arrows for full price or to warn other people about their scam. What I am suggesting, however, is that if we truly believe that the members of the WoW blogosphere are indeed superior in their behavior to the general hoi polloi of Azeroth, then we should focus our efforts on trying to improve the behavior of the non-blog-reading community, rather than on preaching to the choir by writing posts giving advice that we already follow. We should focus on posts that talk about how we can get the community to not focus so intently on damage meters, rather than posts that simply talk about how bad damage meters are. We should focus on posts that talk about how we can discourage worship of the all-mighty gear score, rather than posts that simply talk about how skill is more important than gear. In general, we should focus on mobilizing the blogosphere, rather than telling it things it already knows.

And if I am wrong, and if there are members of the WoW blogosphere who can benefit from being told to not focus exclusively on damage or to not make other such basic mistakes, then there must not be such a gaping chasm between blog readers and bad players in the first place, meaning our posts are good for something.

*For those who don't know, essentialism is the view that if someone or something has a certain identity (such as "WoW player" or "bad player"), then there must be certain aspects of that person or thing that are always true. For example, the idea that all WoW players are anti-social and must be addicted to the game is an essentialist idea.

Damage Meters and compensation

I've been putting off writing a post about damage meters, recount, and other such addons for quite some time, because it always seemed like a very clear-cut issue to me. The addon has its good side in that it can be used to help DPS better themselves and improve their contributions to the group. It also has its bad side in that it can be used as justification for one DPS to belittle another DPS, it can be used by a good DPS to show off how good their DPS is, in both cases serving as an ego boost, and it can cause DPS to become myopic about what really matters in a group setting. As many of you who frequently do heroics know, the people who link damage meters in party chat tend to be the ones doing top DPS, leading to the impression that they are just showing off because they have abnormally small man parts (to quote Frostheim).

It's this latter group that interests me the most, the people who are top DPS in a group and feel the need to show that off publicly. There are also variants of this group, like people who ask for recount to be linked in party chat and just happen to be at the top of the list. What I've always wondered is, why can't they be content to know that they have the highest DPS and not need to show it off? Conventional wisdom says that it's because they are compensating for something, but conventional wisdom never makes any real guesses as to what they are compensating for. That's what I plan to do today.

One of the complaints most frequently lobbed at recount and the like is that it can't measure any of the DPS's contributions to the group other than damage. It can't measure off-healing he may do to lighten the burden of the healer (which, in instances like Halls of Reflection, is a much appreciated contribution), it can't measure when he eschews certain abilities that boost his own damage so that he can increase the sum damage of the group, and it doesn't take into account the drop in damage that comes when the tank dies and a DPS jumps into action to tank the pull. (I've seen a DPS be threatened to be kicked from a group because their recount was low because they tanked when the tank died.) All it can measure is how much damage the DPS put out, a rather shallow way of measuring the contributions of a DPS. That's why it is a tool that is best used sparingly and discretely.

But perhaps that's the reason why it is so popular with DPS that need to compensate for something. Because recount only measures the DPS's damage, all they need to do to top the meters is focus on doing as much damage as possible, or on getting better gear that will boost their damage without them even trying any harder. DPS don't need to try to contribute to the group in any ways other than damage in order to top the meters, and in fact, doing so will probably lower their numbers, since they'll be spending less time and resources on doing damage. In short, it is a very simple matter to reach the top of the meters, even though doing so limits your other valuable contributions to the group and can actually make you more of a burden than anything (tank who's still gearing up + ICC-geared AoE-happy mage = disaster).

Because recount works in this way, perhaps the people who post their numbers in party chat are the ones who can't contribute to the group in any way other than damage. Maybe they aren't skilled enough to take advantage of the full capabilities of their class, or maybe they play a class that doesn't have many valuable ways of contributing to the group's success other than damage (such as rogues), or maybe they are just good at damage but stink at being part of a group, so to compensate for their lacks, they try to cause as much damage as possible and top the meters, thus affirming their only valuable contribution to the group. It's a sad idea, if it's true, but its no surprise, considering that since the dawn of WoW, DPS have been eschewing good group play in favor of doing high damage (of course, when they are new, they do it because they don't know any better, but now the reason may be more complex). Recount and the like just give them the tools to inflate their ego without putting forth much extra work; you can hardly blame the mod for exacerbating what is already a festering problem.

Will I really want to be a part of the beta?

As of Thursday, it is now possible to opt in to the Cataclysm beta test, and though I jumped at the opportunity to do so, I have to wonder whether I really should. You see, I was involved in the Wrath of the Lich King beta, and though it was an enjoyable experience and I was glad to provide feedback before the expansion was released, after some time, I stopped playing on the beta servers. After some time in the Borean Tundra, I realized that I was really spoiling the leveling experience for myself, in more than one sense of the word: I was both showing myself content I wold rather have waited to see, and I was ruining my future enjoyment of the content by making it so that I would need to run it again once the expansion came out. As such, I quit leveling through Northrend, rolled a Death Knight to try them out (and decided against making one my main character when the expansion came out), and then ended my beta career.

Once Wrath of the Lich King came out, my predictions turned out to be true. I enjoyed the earlier quests in Borean Tundra significantly less than I enjoyed the later quests, and once I reached the point where I had stopped during the beta, my enjoyment of the expansion greatly increased. As such, I think you can see why I am hesitant to participate in the Cataclysm beta. As much as I would like to assist the developers of this amazing game and help make the expansion better, the allure of seeing the content before everyone else just doesn't do anything for me, and actually makes me less enthusiastic to participate.

Now, why would I write about these experiences, you may ask? I write about these experiences because I realized today that there is a middle-ground, a way that I can help the Cataclysm beta without spoiling content I will eventually see and ruining the experience for myself. You see, I play Alliance, and my plans for the expansion are two-fold: explore the new end-game zones and content with my Druid, and role a Worgen... something (I still haven't decided what class he'll be; I am leaning towards a priest or a warrior. I know I have a priest already, but hey, why not do it again?) to experience the newly revamped old-world with. This seems to negate all options I have for ways to participate in the Cataclysm beta, but there is another option: Goblins. After all, I have no plans to level a Horde alt any time in the future, so an easy way for me to help the Cataclysm beta without spoiling too much for myself is to roll a Goblin and level him. Sure, I may spoil any changes to the faction-neutral quests, but that's better than spoiling everything.

So let me leave you with this: If you want to take part in the Cataclysm beta but don't want to spoil the new content for yourself, consider rolling an alt of the opposite faction you usually play. And if you play both? Well, sorry, but I guess you're out of luck; maybe roll an alt of the faction you play less?

Spontaneous grouping and what it may mean for the real world

As you know if you spend any significant amount of time reading WoW news (as yours truly does), researchers love to look at WoW for their various projects to gain insight into how humans act in group and how they can apply the things we do in-game to the real world. One of the things that captures their interest frequently (such as in the latest project detailed by WoW.com) is the ability of WoW players to spontaneously form groups to cooperate on a certain task (be it a quest, a heroic, or killing an enemy player who walked too far into your starting zone) then disband the group and continue on their way, perhaps forming another group later. Many of the researchers who look at fluid group formation WoW are interested in how they can get that dynamic to apply to the real world. After all, if we could get people to cooperate more frequently, we could probably solve certain world problems more easily. But is it that easy? Can the elements of WoW that facilitate spontaneous cooperation really be replicated in the real world? Now, keep in mind, I'm only talking about fluid, spontaneous group formation here; I'm only talking about groups you cooperate with but don't get attached to. As such, I will not be going over the various motivating factors for joining raiding guilds and the like.

To answer that question, we must first look at what elements of the game facilitate those spontaneous groups. Some of those elements show themselves while we are out questing in the open world; they include a perceived common purpose and the knowledge that if you cooperate, it means less individual effort for each participant. If you need to kill tigers in Stranglethron Vale and you see another person killing those same tigers, it's reasonable to assume that they are doing so because they are on the same quest as you. This coupled with the knowledge that if you are in a group, you will both get quest credit for the kill, makes it a very reasonable idea for you to simply send the person a group invite without even needing to ask if they are on the same quest, and for the two of you to cooperate to kill the tigers. It means less effort for both of you, and you won't be competing for kills.

Another element that makes grouping up in WoW so easy and lucrative is the fact that, in some cases, it is automated. You want to group up with some allies and fight the opposing faction in a battleground? Automated. You want to run a heroic but don't want to go through the effort of finding a tank, a healer, and/or three DPS? Automated. Simply click a few buttons and you are now automatically grouped up with people with the same goal as you (there's that common purpose, again). For heroics, you are automatically put in a group that, from a composition stand-point, is capable of beating the heroic (assuming no one lied about their role), and for battlegrounds, you are automatically put with people with similar gear and pitted against people of similar gear. The heroic finder contains similar functionality, in that it won't let you queue for a heroic that you don't reach the minimum standard of gear for. So not only is some grouping in WoW completely automated, but those automated grouping systems won't pit you against a challenge you are completely incapable of overcoming.

Another important motivating factor for these groups is that the better rewards in the game are only available to those who are willing to cooperate with other people, and that the more one is willing to cooperate and work with others, the better the rewards get. While heroic raids give the best rewards, they also require commitment and extensive teamwork, something many people aren't willing and/or able to put into the game. However, spontaneous groups allow a middle-ground between the inferior rewards of being a lone wolf and the superior rewards of extended group play. By joining a spontaneous group, one is able to do group quests and run heroics for gear that may not be the best, but is certainly vastly superior to what one could get on his own. It also helps that, thanks to the clear indication of numerical stats, those rewards are objectively better than the rewards one can obtain exclusively through solo play.

So, in review, there are five aspects of WoW that make forming spontaneous groups so lucrative and easy: an implicit common goal between those considering cooperating, clear benefits to that cooperation, automation of the process, said automation limiting you to reasonable challenges, and objectively better rewards for cooperating. While I'm no sociologist or programmer, it seems reasonable to me that these motivating elements could be transitioned into the real world. I imagine that wish some decent programming skill and a good knowledge of how to motivate people, these motivating aspects for spontaneous group formation could be replicated in the real world. Perhaps there could be a web program that has you answering a few questions about things that interest you, for it could then match you with a cause you can feel really motivated about without matching you with one that you aren't capable of doing anything for. It could then match you with other people to work for that same cause. If the satisfaction that comes from doing good isn't enough to motivate people to use such a program, perhaps tax breaks or similar incentives could be given to people who do so, or perhaps the networking involved would be its own reward.

But should these motivating elements really be transitioned into the real world? I know it seems like the obvious answer should be yes, but I am a bit hesitant. Imagine a world where these elements were successfully implemented to get people to more easily cooperate on solving various issues, from intra-office issues to global problems. It seems like a recipe utopia, and it probably would be, but therein lies the problem. As I said in my post on the wisdom of Death Knights (and for the record, what follows in the rest of this post will be much less shocking to you if you have read the wisdom of Death Knights; if you haven't read it, then please, do so for my sake), our lives are defined by how we overcome the difficulties we face, so making those difficulties easier to face and automating the process almost seems... cheap. In other words, copying these elements of fluid group formation into the larger world could vastly reduce the amount of hardship in our lives, which might not be a good thing.

I know this may come as a shock to you to hear me say that there being less suffering in the world could be a bad thing, and I know you may accuse me of having it too easy, as I sit here in my cozy dorm room typing this on my own laptop, to be able to say that a dearth of suffering is a bad thing, but let me explain. As I went over in post on the wisdom of Death Knights, Schopenhauer says that if we don't suffer, our lives become boring and we either "die of boredom or hang ourselves." These may seem like the inane ramblings of a man who is disconnected from the real world, but studies have shown the suicide rates increase as you go up in income brackets, and general satisfaction with life tends to decrease. Having more doesn't make you happier, and it actually makes it more difficult for you to be happy with what you have. I can tell you from personal experience that I am more satisfied with my life when I face some sort of challenge than when I have it easy. Take away that challenge, take away the adversities we face in our lives, and our lives become rather pointless. If you think about it, our lives are defined by the challenges we have overcome and the rewards we have reaped from overcoming them (much like WoW), so it really isn't such a great thing for hardship to be done away with.

However, all is not so bleak as it seems. Now, copying these elements of fluid group formation into the real world probably wouldn't successfully get rid of all of the problems in the world, but it would certain go a long way towards it. After all, if all you have to do to help the world is open up a program that automatically matches you to a cause you can support and groups you with other people who support that cause and can help you further it, people would probably do good more frequently, and if people did good more frequently, perhaps the world's problems could be reduced or even done away with. That's fine and good for the people who are actually doing that good work, for they get the satisfaction of helping other people, and that can replace the satisfaction they would otherwise get from overcoming their own hardship, but what about those that benefit? Well, studies once found that the ideal income in terms of making you happy is somewhere around $40,000 a year, so I'd imagine that as long as those benefiting were being taken out of bad living situations into better ones without having all of their problems disappear, the net effect would be that they would be happier. And if they were the recipient of so much charity that their suffering was relieved to the extent that that they started feeling less satisfied with their lives, they could then open that program and help those in need, and thus it would be a virtuous cycle (opposite of a vicious cycle) that would make lives better for everyone.

That is, of course, assuming people could actually design such a program and market it correctly, and that people would actually use it, but I am in no way qualified to muse on any of those points.

Do we deserve extensive previews of upcoming content?

As we all know, there was a huge leak of information off of the alpha test that got the whole community in a frenzy. There's something not quite right about the situation, though. The alpha is under a non-disclosure agreement, as I discussed earlier, so this should be the kind of thing that Blizzard would want to prevent. As a company with the resources they have (12 million subscribers times $15 a month equals 6 million dollar A DAY to spend on this game), if Blizzard really wanted to prevent these kinds of leaks from happening, they could. For that reason, some people (such as those who commented on WoW.com's post The Failure of Secrecy: The alpha, leaks, and the WoW community, the post that inspired me to write this one) suspect that Blizzard either approved of the leak, or at least were happy it happened. As commenter CrimsonEyedDeath said, "...it's good for them, in a way. Not that there was a massive leak, but that millions of people are so bloody excited for the next bit of WoW that they're F5ing sites like WoW.com/MMO-champion/etc over and over and over again. I'm pretty sure there's at least some people who have went out and pre-ordered Cata off these screens/info alone."

But whether or not Blizzard sanctioned the leak is not what I'm here to ponder; I think we'll know in time whether they did or not. No, what I am here to ponder is the very phenomenon that created this leak in the first place: the players' desire for information on upcoming content. For the past two expansions, I remember reading up on previews of the upcoming content eagerly, but something changed over the course of Wrath of the Lich King. When the data-mined audio files from The Frozen Halls came out, I listed to them, and they were awesome. But there was an unintended consequence of doing so; when I finally worked my way into the Halls of Reflection, the story that unfolded before me was not so amazing as it should have been. Because I knew what was coming, I was much less blown away by it, and I'll even go so far as to say that it was less fun because of what I knew going in.

That experience made me look at spoilers in a new way, a way that affects how I look Cataclysm spoilers today. Now, to be honest, I don't have much self control when it comes to heading the "spoilers ahead" warnings I see anywhere, but with a leak this massive, for once, I held myself back. Though I did pour over the new talent trees, new profession recipes, and other things, I abstained from looking at the screenshots of the zones. That's one of the things I look forward to the most about new content: just seeing it, and I refused to spoil that for myself.

But I digress. There's a difference between giving someone a taste to leave them wanting more and giving them the appetizer long before the meal, and I think this leak crossed that line. And the players? They ate that appetizer greedily. The real question is, do we deserve it?

The time between the final patch before an expansion and the next expansion definitely represents a lull in the game. With no new content coming out, players are restless, especially when they know that amazing things are just around the corner. Of course, Blizzard is doing a much better job this time around trying to keep us interested. We have the Ruby Sanctum coming in patch 3.3.5, as well as Operation Gnomeragon and the retake of Echo Isles in what will probably be patch 3.9. That's better than what little we got to tide us over between Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King (which, if I remember correctly, was only the zombie infestation, something that ruined the game for me). Considering the amount of time between now and when Cataclysm will come out, that may not be enough to completely hold our interests, but it's certainly better than nothing.

Of course, the lull is an unfortunate necessity; Blizzard does need to focus on developing the expansion, after all, and they can't give us content at their usual rate if they need to focus on developing content for the next expansion. As such, we reach the point where the current expansion has taught us to expect content to be released at a certain rate, but Blizzard is unable to deliver it to us at that rate while they develop the next expansion. Sure, they have certain elements to keep us playing the game long after the content has become stale, but when we know new content is coming, those elements just don't work as well, and players lose interest. That's a problem for Blizzard, for if people stop paying their monthly subscription fee, they lose money to spend on developing new content, and if they can't develop new content, then players lose interest and stop paying their subscription fee. It's a cycle that Blizzard can't allow to happen.

But how can they keep our interest if they can't develop new content? One might say that keeping us up-to-date on how Cataclysm's development is coming along is one way, but that won't keep our interest in the game itself alive. Their current plans for a post-Icecrown Citadel raid and two pre-Cataclysm world events seem to be on the right track, but it's clearly not enough to satiate player's desires for information on Cataclysm.

But is the problem that Blizzard isn't doing enough to keep players interested, or are we, the players, the problem? As I said in my post Por que, NDA?, and as we have seen with the frenzy of discussion that the latest Cataclysm leaks have generated, players tend to overreact to information that comes out about upcoming content, especially when we don't have the full story, and that creates a headache for Blizzard in trying to placate the community while still focusing on developing content. Frankly, I don't envy Blizzard for the job they have trying to convince players that they know what they are doing and that there is plenty of time to change things that do go awry.

However, this frenzy happened because the community grew restless with the lack of Cataclysm information coming out. We went through a pretty long drought of information after Blizzcon, and it was probably that long period of little information that lead to the players so eagerly looking for alpha spoilers. I'm sure Blizzard had their reasons for keeping further Cataclysm information under wraps, but it was keeping that info under wraps that lead to the leak being so eagerly received.

Perhaps the best thing Blizzard can do for now (and in the future as they develop future expansion packs) is to release a constant trickle of little tidbits of information about Cataclysm. The Cataclysm screenshot of the day (which they currently have going on their websites) is a good example of a way to give players a taste of things to come without spoiling the whole feast with appetizers (metaphorically speaking). It also has the added benefit of not giving players as much to complain about on the forums as releasing information on talents and spells does. Once the expansion is further along in development and more of the balancing issues have been worked out, they can release information on spells, talents, professions, and other such things to keep the player-base placated. (I know they've already released information on some of the changes coming to talents and spells, but we still got more information that they didn't mention, from the leaks, so we didn't get the whole picture. As such, there is always more to the story than they tell with the initial preview.) That combined with the new content we are getting between now and Cataclysm should keep the player-base satisfied, or at least more satisfied than the drought of information did.

Achievements I would like to see added in Cataclysm

With the slew of Cataclysm announcements that have come out in the past week, my mind has been racing with ideas that have manifested themselves in an interesting way: achievements. With so many changes being made to WoW, there are certain achievements I would like to see implemented to correlate with those changes. Note that many of these will be feats of strength; you'll see why once you start reading.

Back in My Day... (feat of strength)
Reached level 58 before the Cataclysm

Cataclysm is going to change the leveling game to make old-world leveling more interesting, so it only makes sense, I think, to honor those of us who leveled through that old content before it was revitalized. Since you can head to Outland when you reach level 58 (and most people do), I think it makes sense to make this achievement only require reaching level 58.

Barefoot, in the Snow, Uphill Both Ways (feat of strength)
Learn the master [or whatever they call the next level of mount skill] riding skill by obtaining a 310% speed mount.

One of the announced changes coming to Cataclysm is that people will be able to buy a new level of riding skill which will upgrade all of their epic flying mounts to 310% flying speed. Those who already have a 310% speed flying mount will receive the skill automatically. Now, sure, getting one of those mounts is an achievement in and off itself (and they all have their own achievements to go along with them), but I think it would be nice of Blizzard to honor those who earned their 310% flying speed upgrade the hard way by working for one of the mounts, and what better way to honor them than with a feat of strength? Considering that these mounts are supposed to be synonymous with the most difficult achievements in the game, I think an overblown title like "Barefoot, in the Snow, Uphill Both Ways" is in order.

Hoofing It (feat of strength)
Earned Explore Eastern Kingdoms and Explore Kalimdor before the Cataclysm

With flying mounts allowed in Azeroth, getting World Explorer is going to be much easier to obtain, so like reaching level 58, I think its only fair to honor those who did it before Catalcysm made it much easier. Considering that ground mounts are slower than flying mounts, I think "Hoofing It" is an appropriate title.

You Can Have It (50 points)
Pass on a mount that drops in a maximum-level dungeon or raid
Title Reward: The Selfless

Granted, this achievement doesn't have anything to do with Cataclysm, but it's still one I wouldn't mind seeing added to the achievements. Were this implemented now, it would go to the people who pass on the Onyxian Drake or the Sartharion drake. Sometimes we get too caught up in our own personal exploits and forget just how important the people around us are, and an achievement like this would serve to encourage people to be a bit more selfless from time to time.

Should game design trump lore?

Reading Anne Stickney's series of articles on Horde politics on WoW.com has made me consider the role of lore in game design before, and when I considered it, I came to the conclusion that remaining faithful to the lore should come before kowtowing to the player-base's desires. However, I forgot about another important influence on game design and how it affects the lore: the design process itself. What Stickney's articles all point to is that the Horde has less reason to stay together than it ever has before. Of course, were the horde to split, we'd have five micro-factions rather than the unified Horde we have now, and for gameplay reasons, that's not a good idea. However, if the lore of WoW should be put on as high a pedestal as I believe it should, then should the concerns of WoW's design really trump the lore considerations?

Essentially, the reason I stated for WoW's story progression to be based on the lore and not the will of the players is that, as an art form, it is WoW's responsibility to "challenge our perceptions, our beliefs, and make us ask questions about ourselves." The continued progression of the lore in a natural way is necessary for WoW to do just that. However, WoW can't accomplish those purposes if it ceases to exist as a game. That is why many people who discuss lore-based changes will say, "But the game design comes first," and that's why we will likely not have micro-factions when Cataclysm hits: for WoW to continue to exist, game design concerns must trump lore concerns.

Still, I don't think it's that inconceivable from a lore-based perspective that the Horde can stay together when Cataclysm hits, in spite of their differences. After all, with a crisis as huge as the cataclysm on their hands, the various races will need support in the fight for resources and space. To have the five races fighting one another would simply result in them squandering the few resources the Horde will have left, and though Garrosh may not be the smartest leader, the leaders of the other races will know well enough that they can't survive on their own. Survival will be reason enough for the Horde to stay together.

Of course, the cataclysm will arguably only happen because Blizzard needs an excuse for another expansion, as well as an excuse to remake the old world. It's quite convenient that it will give the Horde a reason to stay together in spite of the differences between their goals and the less-than-stellar leadership of Garrosh. Too convenient, in fact, and this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Horde needs a pretty race and the world needs a new continent? Burning Crusade gives us Blood Elves and Outland. WoW needs a hero class and another new continent? Wrath of the Lich King gives us Death Knights and Northrend. Horde needs a silly race, Alliance needs a tough race, the old world needs a makeover, and the Horde needs a reason to stay together? Cataclysm will do all of that. As one of the commenters on WoW.com once said, the plot of each expansions tends to hinge on what the game needs.

When you think about it, that's a rather unsettling prospect, that the larger evolution of the game tends to be guided by what Blizzard thinks the game "needs." After all, if we players were perfectly satisfied with the game as it was, Blizzard wouldn't have needed to add a pretty race and a silly race for the Horde, a tough race for the Alliance, and a remake of the old world. When you think about it that, it almost seems as if the larger evolution of the game's lore is guided by player desires.

But I don't think that's a bad thing. After all, how else should Blizzard decide how the lore is to progress? Sure, there are always the existing conflicts to drive the plot of WoW, but considering that we players have a habit of killing any foes Blizzard throws our way, if new foes weren't added, the only plot points left would be the Alliance vs. Horde conflict. Without new foes to fight, all we'd have to drive the game would be that conflict, and that conflict would probably grow pretty stale after a while. That's why Blizzard needs to constantly provide us with new foes that the Horde and the Alliance can oppose, and what better way to pick new foes than to pick foes with a back-story that allows improvements (such as more diverse races, a new class, and a revamp of the old world) to be implemented into the game?

All in all, I think it's acceptable for the larger evolution of the game's story to be driven by the needs of the game, as long as that evolution makes sense. As long as the smaller details (like who will be the Warchief of the Horde*) remain faithful to the lore, I say let the larger plot points be driven by the game design.

*I know that who is chosen as Warchief of the Horde may not seem like a small detail, but when the entire world is torn asunder by an ancient power, then what are petty political squabbles in the grant scheme of things?

Por que*, NDA?

*For those who don't know, "¿por que?" is Spanish for "why?" and is pronounced "poor kay?" Get it? "Por que" and "NDA" rhyme... and now for your usual blog entry.

With the news that the Friends and Family alpha test will soon begin, it's hard not to be excited, but my excitement is tempered by a little thing called the non-disclosure agreement (abbreviated as NDA). For those who don't know, the NDA states that those involved in the F&F alpha may not release information about the content they play to the public, so if we are to glean anything from the F&F alpha, it will have to be through shady wikis or websites that people covertly send screenshots to (it happened for Wrath, and I'm sure it will happen again). However, the beta test usually follows on the heels of the alpha test, and those who participate in the beta are not bound by the NDA. So why bind those on the F&F alpha by an NDA when that information will be coming out once the beta is released?

There could be a very practical reason that Blizzard doesn't enforce an NDA on the beta. On the F&F alpha, considering that everyone there is a friend or relative of a Blizzard employee, they have some personal stake in following the NDA. If they don't follow it, they risk being shunned by whichever employee brought them in to test the expansion. Beta testers, however, usually have no such personal stake. Since most beta testers are just random WoW players, their stake in the game goes only as deep as the game itself, so they would likely feel no qualms about ignoring an NDA. Blizzard could go so far as to kick people who break a hypothetical NDA off of the beta or even suspect their accounts for a while, but that's where the practical considerations come in. Considering how many people are involved in the beta, to try to police all of them and make sure they never release information to the public would be a nightmare.

However, I remember that when I was on the Wrath of the Lich King beta, I was still able to take screenshots with the F13 key. If Blizzard preferred that beta information not leek out, they could have taken the basic precaution of disabling screenshoting, yet they didn't. This says to me that they don't at all mind information on the beta leaking out, but they do mind information from the alpha leaking out. One must ask, what's the difference?

Perhaps Blizzard sees the alpha as a safe place to perform their preliminary balancing without the players flipping out over extreme changes. Suppose Blizzard adds a new spell to the game. The testers on the alpha try out the spell and show that it is extremely overpowered. Blizzard nerfs the spell to bring it more into balance with the other spells. If anyone had grown attached to the spell and expresses disappointment with it being nerfed, a Blizzard employee can personally reassure them that it was for the greater good, and because there are so few testers, sentiments such as attachment to a particular spell won't be too widespread to be handled by Blizzard.

Now, imagine if Blizzard had no NDA on the alpha. Testers would have released info on that new overpowered spell, and the community would be in a frenzy. Those who play the class receiving the spell would celebrate, while those who don't would freak out over what they perceived as that class getting an unfair advantage. Those who play the class would say "tough" and claim it was their time to shine. Then Blizzard nerfs the spell. While the rest of the playerbase is relieved, the players who were going to receive the spell now freak out because they had grown so excited over the spell, and now they won't be getting it. Now they start complaining about it, while everyone else tells them to deal with it. By handling their major balancing away from the public eye, Blizzard can avoid these kinds of scenarios. Sure, they still see more minor versions of those scenarios on the beta, but at least they can reduce the frequency and severity with which they happen by doing their preliminary balancing on the alpha, away from the public eye. But if Blizzard really does have an NDA with their alpha testers for that reason, I hate to think about what that says about us as a community...

Calm down about the changes to raid loot

What I am about to write will not be as logically rigorous as most of what I write, because this is a piece from my heart, not from my mind. After seeing the furor of indignant responses to the changes coming to raid loot in Cataclysm (namely, that 10-mans and 25-mans will share loot tables), I feel like I need to write a piece in defense of the company that had made the game that has held my interest longer than any other game I have every played. Yes, this post is going to defend Blizzard as a company (not the changes, though), and you may disagree with me. Yes, I am a bit of a Blizzard fanboy, and so you may not enjoy reading this post if you feel more doom and gloom about these changes than I do. With that said, if you are angry by the end of this post because of the optimism contained within, you have only yourself to blame; you have been warned.

Blizzard is a smart company. They have to be to be one of the most successful game companies out there and to design the most successful MMO ever. They've certainly made their fair share of mistakes, but as a smart company, they have likely learned from those mistakes. As such, I trust them. I trust them to make these changes to raid loot without ruining the 25-man raiding scene. They know what a loss it would be to their revenues if 25-man raiders quit the game due to loss of motivation to raid, and they will do their best to make that not happen. They know better than to let 25-man raiding die.

More importantly, the Cataclysm beta hasn't even started yet. Blizzard has many months to observe the effects this change will have on the raiding scene when people start raiding on the beta, and if 25-mans are abandoned by the players, they will do something to make them viable again. Maybe they'll even revoke this change and we'll be able to look back on it as the change that almost killed 25-man raiding. Point is, there is still plenty of time for Blizzard to see exactly effects this change has on the raiding scene and to respond to those changes.

We can speculate all we like, but with the vague kind of information that Blizzard has given us so far about this change, it's hard to say for certain what it will mean for raiding. Maybe the change will drive people to the 10-mans and no one will run 25-man raids; if that does happen, Blizzard will do something to change that. Considering the outcry this change has created, I don't think they can afford not to.