Recommended Posts

wish i could say that, guild is stil reliably 1/7 normal ( even After FL Nerfs ), been that way since begining of last month. guild still has problems with chogal and nef.

I'm not really sure what to say. On my server the typical trade pug is doing at least 7/7 normal and many are doing 1 or 2 heroic bosses along the way.

I seriously doubt your guild mates are incapable of doing the encounters, maybe you just don't have a viable strategy?

Related: I'm looking for a mage/moomkin for PTR raiding. Join us, farm 7/7h while you wait for 4.3 -- then do it again on your alt, and your other alt, and your other alt. What else are you doing for the next 2 months?

I'm not really sure what to say. On my server the typical trade pug is doing at least 7/7 normal and many are doing 1 or 2 heroic bosses along the way.

I seriously doubt your guild mates are incapable of doing the encounters, maybe you just don't have a viable strategy?

Related: I'm looking for a mage/moomkin for PTR raiding. Join us, farm 7/7h while you wait for 4.3 -- then do it again on your alt, and your other alt, and your other alt. What else are you doing for the next 2 months?

Im not in control of the strats, GL is, but as far as me downed him last night with mostly random guildies and a couple pugs, only diffrence other then that was the GL/Co-lead wasnt there, so i was doing strats

  • 2 weeks later...

It seems they are slowly putting the new dungeons live. I believe they put out a preset dungeon, and then tune it from the feedback gathered. The PTR has been up for a few weeks and only End Time and Hour of Twilight is running. End Time still needs some fine tuning, but it's looking to be a fun dungeon to run. I haven't been able to complete a full run of Hour of Twilight yet, but it looks promising.

I can't wait until the Raid Finder and Dragon Soul are opened up for testing.

Finally killed Rag last night. Won the T12 shoulders off domo but gave them up. An officer had offered me 40K at the time but I said I didn't need the gold thinking the vial of the sands was still 50-60K and I didn't want to dip into my 15K of gem and enchanting reserves(its all I spend my gold on). Found out how cheap i could get one and so took up the 40K after wards. Really like the new mount.

It's been a while for me in this thread. I started playing again maybe two months ago when 4.2 was well under way and some friends started a guild of their own which I joined. Since then we're at 1/7H in Firelands. Ragnaros is a really cool fight. I still yearn for Ulduar-type heroics though. My guild has geared me up quite nicely too. Alt runs have become a good pass-time gearing up my Death Knight. I have videos if anyone is interested:

http://www.youtube.com/user/xenodubs

My server (horde side) is utter crap though. We only have one guild solidly running Heroic FL then our guild which got a very late start in FL.

Aside from current content, I have had some amazing luck farming for some legendaries. I always ran Molten Core weekly. Since I've come back I have gotten two Eye of Sulfuras one of which I used to craft the Sulfuron, Hand of Ragnaros on my Paladin. With my Death Knight I have seen two times the right binding off Garr drop and just yesterday got the other left binding off Baron Geddon. So I will have the the Thunderfury on my Death Knight. All within about a month. Unfortunate though that I will still have to farm the bindings for my Paladin.

I still yearn for Ulduar-type heroics though. My guild has geared me up quite nicely too. Alt runs have become a good pass-time gearing up my Death Knight.

What exactly about Ulduar heroics was "fun" that you don't get form the current hard mode raids?

Surely you're not talking about Hodir or Vezax but probably No lights, 3 tree, or firefighter. Those encounters most closely match the current model of hardmodes: "Do X before you start, the fight is now harder" rather than "do the fight wrong, or do the fight with some stupid gimmick and now it's harder".

I think the reason people remember certain ulduar hard modes favourably is because they were legitimately good encounters where playing better lead to success. No lights yogg wouldn't have been less fun if you selected "25m heroic" from the drop down rather than just leaving off all the Keepers: the fun was in the nature of the encounter. The same is true of Firefighter (which literally was 'push the button before you start to make the fight harder').

Maybe it's that I'm playing a different game than most people that post here, but I don't think the hard mode Ulduar encounters were any better than lich king, al'akir, sinestra, robot council, putricide, etc. There was some good stuff in ulduar but that's true of nearly every tier.

What exactly about Ulduar heroics was "fun" that you don't get form the current hard mode raids?

Surely you're not talking about Hodir or Vezax but probably No lights, 3 tree, or firefighter. Those encounters most closely match the current model of hardmodes: "Do X before you start, the fight is now harder" rather than "do the fight wrong, or do the fight with some stupid gimmick and now it's harder".

I think the reason people remember certain ulduar hard modes favourably is because they were legitimately good encounters where playing better lead to success. No lights yogg wouldn't have been less fun if you selected "25m heroic" from the drop down rather than just leaving off all the Keepers: the fun was in the nature of the encounter. The same is true of Firefighter (which literally was 'push the button before you start to make the fight harder').

Maybe it's that I'm playing a different game than most people that post here, but I don't think the hard mode Ulduar encounters were any better than lich king, al'akir, sinestra, robot council, putricide, etc. There was some good stuff in ulduar but that's true of nearly every tier.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the encounters still. But you already pointed out the difference that caused me to like Ulduar hard modes more in your second paragraph. I don't like the idea that the raid leader right-clicks his unitframe and selects Heroic to make a fight harder. I much prefer Heroic modes to be a more natural and achievable reward. The key words being achievable and reward because in an encounter like XT, you had to achieve the hard mode. Whereas now, you simply beat the last boss and go back click the button to make it harder then pull. With Freya, you had to make the conscious decision to not kill the mini-bosses and deal with the extra abilities as with Yogg Saron.

It's not that I don't like the non-Ulduar heroics (Lich King was amazing), it's just a lack of user-to-game interaction that I miss.

I much prefer Heroic modes to be a more natural and achievable reward. The key words being achievable and reward because in an encounter like XT, you had to achieve the hard mode. Whereas now, you simply beat the last boss and go back click the button to make it harder then pull. With Freya, you had to make the conscious decision to not kill the mini-bosses and deal with the extra abilities as with Yogg Saron.

I guess I just don't see the difference between talking to an NPC and choosing option 1 and clicking a menu and choosing option 4. I don't think anybody ever found the DPS check for heartbreaker a big deal (nor thorim or hodir) but that could just be a function of the sorts of groups I play in. I generally like blizzard's reason for ditching that style: it's clunky, non-obvious, and error prone. It also makes the new "hard from the start" hard modes much more difficult to execute (or obnoxious to learn).

Imagine heroic al'akir where p1 was activated by something you did in combat: it'd be even more obnoxious than it is now. Rag would be unbearable, and I'm not just complaining because doing it twice in one week was a bad idea.

So last night we got down Heroic Lord Rhyolith which slightly separates us now from the 95% of people who have killed Ragnaros Normal and subsequently Shannox Heroic. On to bigger and better bosses now.

I guess I just don't see the difference between talking to an NPC and choosing option 1 and clicking a menu and choosing option 4. I don't think anybody ever found the DPS check for heartbreaker a big deal (nor thorim or hodir) but that could just be a function of the sorts of groups I play in. I generally like blizzard's reason for ditching that style: it's clunky, non-obvious, and error prone. It also makes the new "hard from the start" hard modes much more difficult to execute (or obnoxious to learn).

Imagine heroic al'akir where p1 was activated by something you did in combat: it'd be even more obnoxious than it is now. Rag would be unbearable, and I'm not just complaining because doing it twice in one week was a bad idea.

It may be unrealistic and problematic to have hard modes in place of heroic modes, I understand. I guess I just had a good experience in Ulduar and it's stuck with me.

We got down Majordomo and Alysrazor now in Heroic. Feeling pretty good about it :). Only have Baleroc and Beth-tilac left. We probably won't be killing Ragnaros Heroic while it's current.

Majordomo is by far the easiest heroic we've done. Lord Rhyolith has proven the most difficult probably due to the RNG nature of the fight.

Finally managed to get Raggy down in normal a month after our first attempt. Quite a big acheivement for our guild as it is the first end game boss we have downed before the new content patch hits.

Taken from GM's view.

Finally managed to get Raggy down in normal a month after our first attempt. Quite a big acheivement for our guild as it is the first end game boss we have downed before the new content patch hits.

It's always nice to "beat" warcraft, however it is you define 'beating' a game like this.

Your druid has some cringe-inducing mistakes (back peddle into engulfing fire, standing in lava waves, etc) but then the next moment he's got an awesome cat form-sprint when somebody knocks a meteor onto him. I suspect 'good' and 'bad' players have similar average levels of skill, but the good player has a much smaller standard deviation. Good players are 75±5%, bad players are 70±20% as opposed to the popular notion that 'good' players are say 80±1% and bad players are 50±1%. That changes the way you complain from 'how do you raise the average skill level' to 'how do you make players more consistent'?

I should probably upload a rag video too - people on youtube have been asking but I'm incredibly lazy.

Only have Baleroc and Beth-tilac left.

IMO beth is down there with shannox now that she's been nerfed twice. If you can handle baelroc you'll get her in short order.

It's always nice to "beat" warcraft, however it is you define 'beating' a game like this.

Your druid has some cringe-inducing mistakes (back peddle into engulfing fire, standing in lava waves, etc) but then the next moment he's got an awesome cat form-sprint when somebody knocks a meteor onto him. I suspect 'good' and 'bad' players have similar average levels of skill, but the good player has a much smaller standard deviation. Good players are 75±5%, bad players are 70±20% as opposed to the popular notion that 'good' players are say 80±1% and bad players are 50±1%. That changes the way you complain from 'how do you raise the average skill level' to 'how do you make players more consistent'?

I should probably upload a rag video too - people on youtube have been asking but I'm incredibly lazy.

IMO beth is down there with shannox now that she's been nerfed twice. If you can handle baelroc you'll get her in short order.

I'd like to know your channel.

Here is our Ragnaros kill. Embedded for convenience.

Channel

A new class and race is cool and all but I want to know what lore content they will be developing with the next expansion pack. Many possibilities... but what would go best with this new race and class?

Edit:

The new expansion will not have a main vilain, it will focus on the Horde vs Alliance war!

Really really lame if you ask me... I know it's really soon to jump to any conclusion but... no main antagonist?

Pandas look cool. New expansion looks cool. God forbid they add something lighthearted and fun for a change. You've had THREE "serious evil bad guy 'gunna blow everyone up oh noes!" expansions, now it's time to kick back and have a laugh.

Or, you know, you could cancel your subscription, not post about it to garner attention and just go play that new Star Wars MMO. Guaranteed serious faces 24/7 in that game. Bye.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!