Roxanne Flowers

Member
  • Content count

    471
  • Joined

2 Followers

About Roxanne Flowers

  • Rank
    Specialist
  1. Darrowshire Merge NO

    And hilarity ensues. So out of a 2k population of concurrent logins ... how many should "not count" as people actively playing? 10%? 20%? 50%? 80%? 100%? I've said it before, but it looks like the admonishment needs to be reiterated. Use your NUMBERS ... not your Weasel Words. So you saw THREE whole multiboxers cross your path today? And that's your justification for {fill in the blank here}? And in the interest of returning to the spirit of hilarity ...
  2. Best PvP-melee class right now

    Three Backstab attacks in a row will cost 180 Energy (60 each). That's a LOT of Energy to spend around 2 global cooldowns (Backstab, GCD, Backstab, GCD, Backstab) and doesn't even include the Energy cost of stunning a target in the first place, or even drinking Thistle Tea for up to 100 Energy during the cycle. So please ... enlighten us as to what this stunlock rotation is that allows a Rogue to Backstab for 3 crits while a target is stunned?
  3. Darrowshire Merge NO

    Really what it comes down is a question of ... Divide or Jettison ... which is the bigger risk? Some people will say that Dividing the community of Players is the bigger risk. Others will say that Jettisoning an entire established community would be the bigger risk. As far as I'm concerned, the risks are not symmetrical. Dividing the community is something that would only happen (if at all) AFTER the release of any TBC servers ... but Jettisoning that entire community could begin RIGHT NOW, by sending that community the message that they're not only Not Wanted, but also that They Just Don't Matter. It the difference between saying the Bridge Might Fall after we've crossed it ... or saying we'll burn it before we even get to it. These are asymmetrical risks. The results of being wrong in either case are nowhere near equally problematic. Remember, we're trying to BUILD communities of Players here ... not find reasons excuses to pre-emptively abandon them with a message that amounts to We Don't Serve Your Kind Here. And why don't we want to do that? Because that's what Blizzard did to us ... when they refused to accept that there might be a viable number of players to support vanilla WoW servers. Who here is in a huge rush to repeat Blizzard's mistake(s) in this regard? Anyone?
  4. Darrowshire Merge NO

    Grabbed a Screenshot less than 20 minutes ago in Ironforge on Darrowshire (about 2130p server time on Sunday). Yeah, you're right. There's NOBODY playing on the server right now. It's deader than dead. Completely dead. Zero logins AT ALL. And that's not even including all the people Playing on the Horde Side. Except ... oh wait ... there are zero people playing on Horde Side on Darrowshire too, right? Anyone with a Horde character feel like logging in and doing a /who with no filtering by zone/level like I'm doing here to show what kind of population Darrowshire has on the Horde side? Hmmm ... according to Vanilla Radar, the ratio of Alliance to Horde right now is a about 70:30 ... so 1720*3=516 (or so) Horde characters logged in right now ... and the concurrent logins haven't even peaked yet for today. But as everyone knows 516 is functionally synonymous with ZERO, right? Am I right? So ... there's about 1200 Alliance Players and 500 Horde Players logged in to Darrowshire right now, concurrently, but ... of course ... THEY DON'T COUNT. Am I right? Elysium Project can just switch the Darrowshire server off and no one would miss it, would they? Huh? Huh? Am I right or am I right? /sarcasm
  5. Paladin Threat Generation

    With "permission" ... sure.
  6. Paladin Threat Generation

    12 PPM would average to once per 5 seconds.
  7. Darrowshire Merge NO

    Of course. When people repeatedly insist on being VAGUE and hiding behind their deliberate lack of specificity in order to shield themselves from being revealed as not having a good faith argument to make ... yeah, I get stubborn about that kind of thing. Them: The population needs to be higher. Me: How much higher? Them: Higher. Me: Care to put NUMBERS to your demand of a higher population? Them: Higher. Me: So, no matter what the numbers ACTUALLY ARE ... it's never enough? Them: I never said that. Me: Actually, you've yet to say anything USEFUL ... even after being invited to do so. Them: Well, I think Darrowshire's population is too low to be viable, so there! Me: Then what kind of population numbers do you think WOULD be viable? Them: It's not my place to say. That's a decision that only Elysium Project staff should make. Me: So you're entitled to say what WON'T work, but have no intention of laying a marker down as to what WOULD work, in your opinion? Them: That's right. Me: So you're making an assertion, without evidence of its factual value, with the explicit understanding that your assertion cannot tested for a True/False condition. Them: Yup. Me: And then when your assertion is challenged, you fall back on the circular logic of your assertion being True despite offering no evidence of Truth to support the assertion, while continuing to avoid responsibility for your assertion in the event that your assertion is actually False. Them: You're really stubborn. Me: I merely asked you to provide NUMBERS to benchmark the validity of your OPINION ... but even that standard of proof seems to be ... Anathema to you. Them: Well, Darrowshire's population is too low, the server is dying, and I'm right because I said so. Me: Just because you keep saying that, doesn't mean it's true. Them: Yes it does. Me: You're arguing in Bad Faith™. Them: No I'm not! Me: Let me guess ... you want me to believe that too. Them: DUH!
  8. Talent tree feedback

    Very CONVENIENT assumption you've got going there.
  9. Darrowshire Merge NO

    Care to put (other people's) money where your mouth is? Stop waving your hands in the air while being as vague as possible by omitting ANYTHING remotely resembling, you know ... NUMBERS. You're basically making what amounts to a financial claim based on ... poetry and prose ... rather than numbers used in the maths of finances. C'mon people, this isn't that hard. Use your NUMBERS, not your WORDS. As for the straw man argument of "dividing" the community ... consider that the alternative is to tell the community to GO AWAY because We Don't Serve Your Kind Here™. I find it ironic that some people think that banishment and exile is preferable to having a choice of servers to play on.
  10. Just seen photo of retail wow team

    The 1950s called. They want their bigotry back.
  11. There should be another fresh vanilla wow server

    No, you're an All Blacks fan. These two things aren't necessarily (or even have to be) related.
  12. Darrowshire Merge NO

    Funny you should say that, since your stance on this issue has consistently been in favor of outright ELIMINATING the PvE servers in their entirely in every thread touching on this topic on these forums, so your bias is becoming more than abundantly obvious. Just because you're happier with no loaf at all, doesn't mean that everyone agrees with your option that half a loaf can never be enough. Stop using Weasel Words™ that could mean anything you want to serve your personal vendetta agenda. What is "too low" ... specifically? Use numbers. Really, it's not that hard. How many concurrent logins are "too low of a demand" as you put it. There's no need to exact. Nice round numbers will do. Multiples of 100 will work just fine. 1000 concurrent logins? 1400 concurrent logins? 2000 concurrent logins? 5000 concurrent logins? 6500 concurrent logins? Your use of "too low" demands a benchmark to measure "too low" AGAINST in order to make an INFORMED value judgement about the merit of your assertion. Congratulations on not providing an answer that can be MEASURED in any objective fashion. Note that "No matter what you say I'm right, so there!" is not arguing in good faith.
  13. How long does it take to learn pet skills

    There is no "requirement" to learn all of the ranks of Pet Skills. So yea, you can "skip" learning specific ranks for particular Skills if you want. If your Pet is already Level 60, you can just get the highest rank of the Skills you want to put on your Pet and not bother with any of the lower ranks for that Skill. Reasons why you might want to go with the collector mentality of "gotta get 'em all, gotta get 'em all" is for (yes) Completeness ... but also in case you ever decide to pick up a different Pet (especially a lower level one) and want to grind them up towards Level 60 too. If you've "got" all the skill ranks available to you, then you can just bump up the ranks on your Pet's Skills as you grind levels for them. Anytime you advance in ranks between Skills, you're only paying the difference in the cost between the two ranks. So if rank 2 costs 4 TP and rank 4 costs 10 TP, and you skip from rank 2 to rank 4 on your Pet, it'll only cost you an extra 6 TP to go from rank 2 to rank 4 (because 10-4=6). There's no "need" to have rank 3 in between. It's "nice to have" rank 3 in between, especially if you're a completionist collector, but it's not necessary.
  14. Macros that adjust Buff Ranks due to Target Level

    Okay, for those of us who are (obviously) not familiar with this add-on, what does it do and how does it work (under the hood)?
  15. Paladin Bug Compendium

    SOLD! I'll take it.