Time to get rid of Score system

[Sovereign.1093]

winning should matter. wvw isnt that fun by itself alone.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

I'm fine with removing scoring as long as they don't break up servers.

[Sovereign.1093]

try this 1 day before reset is all that matters.

everything becomes paper and then the team who captures the most in proportion to kills wins.

this way everyone can set their day of last push and try to win.

[Sylosi.6503]

@Israel.7056 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Israel.7056 said:How's that working for DAOC?

It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

That's great that it worked at one point in time.

It worked longer and better than WvW did...

[Vayne.8563]

@Sylosi.6503 said:

@Israel.7056 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Israel.7056 said:How's that working for DAOC?

It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

That's great that it worked at one point in time.

It worked longer and better than WvW did...

At a time when there was much less competition. And there are still people to this day that play and enjoy WvW. It's not over yet. Not saying it's not without it's problems, but you know, times have changed. We don't know if it would have been as successful in today's environment. Nothing about this situation is that cut and dried.

[Aeolus.3615]

i actually would prefer that WvW would work more similiar to WOE (war of emperium from ragnarok online)

[Sovereign.1093]

or like ran or perfrct world

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Sovereign.1093 said:winning should matter. wvw isnt that fun by itself alone.

Which created the mess that is T1 in EU and NA.

People don't think the new system will allow it. I hope (though doubt) they are right.

[Israel.7056]

@Sylosi.6503 said:

@Israel.7056 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Israel.7056 said:How's that working for DAOC?

It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

That's great that it worked at one point in time.

It worked longer and better than WvW did...

Did it though?

DAoC apparently came out in 2001, three years before WoW and it apparently tanked very very hard once WoW hit in 2004 and has limped on in terms of actual numbers of players ever since. So while people are still playing DAoC it was really only a thing worth mentioning for about 3 years in an environment where it didn't have any serious competition. GW2, despite having maybe the most incompetent development team I've ever seen in any game I've ever played, has still managed to carve a substantial niche for itself despite having to constantly compete with many other triple A MMOs including WoW and its multiple expansions through the entirety of its existence.

WvW is still quite active though certainly not as active as it once was despite having almost no substantive changes made to it since launch. Almost everything they've added has simply been fluff to dress things up but it's essentially the same game mode it was at launch and people are still playing it.

I really don't think the issue is scoring and I really don't think DAoC should be a working model for any game considering how poorly it's done in the aftermath of WoW.

[starlinvf.1358]

@"Sarrs.4831" said:Does score even do anything? Score for the current skirmish decides your pips which is nice.

Maybe do something when they do the big server rejiggering.

The servers are currently organized in a type of tournament tree, with the scoring system driving a GLICKO ranking. The tree is divided up into Tiers, with a more or less fixed number of Match ups in each tier. The higher your tier, the more narrow your match ups end up being, until you reach T1 which has only 3 servers at any given time. However this game's WVW population simply isn't big enough to support a branching tournament ladder. So, in conjunction with server linking, this has been reduced to a 4 tier ladder with 1 match up in each rank.

The scoring system comes into play with GLICKO to determine a server's "Skill level", and tries to match up servers (or server groups) in as close to an average GLICKO as possible. However..... there is a big problem with population balance directly influencing how match outcomes and scoring occur; and this directly affects how good GLICKO can work for matching servers. Theres also a major distinction between tiers and effective strategy, and has developed into a system where the original top 4 Tiers had server regulars based on preferred playstyles. Before linking, I spent most of my WVW career on T3 servers, which enjoy fighting (and zerg clashes), but are not well organized. T2 Servers were notable for a heavy split between Roamers and Cheesy Objective defense tactics. T1 servers were known for being highly organized, but the limited number of match up options usually resulted in 3rd place being a series of sacrificial offerings that the top 2 servers would toy with, then crush back to T2 if they were not entertaining enough. Now T1 and T2 are mostly political in nature. And T3 and T4 manipulate the rankings to stay there, because those match ups are favorable toward less organized zerg fights, and is less prone to Guild politics.

Now one of the big problems with the current system is GLICKO's difficulty to find match ups based on too few options, and the absurdly high uncertainty in each server's ranking score. Part of that IS due to the behavioral trends of guilds moving servers on a regular basis, combined with a tendency for PUG players to abandon a match up if its not going well in the first 2 days. If the match up is going really badly, entire guilds may give up for the rest of the week. If its really bad for long periods, they may even throw the match to move to a different tier, or move to different server to join a more stable match up. If you've ever heard Commanders in your server complain about PPT, this is why.

This is where the proposed change to get rid of the Server flags comes in. Ironically, the extra abstraction layer of the Servers screw up the Rating system more then it helps, due to the level of uncertainty in player behavior. Especially in the low ranks, where players would rather quit then suffer repeated losses. This flaw is also how Guilds have been manipulating their server rank to keep certain match up between cycles. By eliminating the server grouping, the GLICKO rating now applies to Guilds and Players on a more granular level, giving the system more options to construct match ups, and better data on the groups to determine those match ups. The best part about this is, in theory, alliances being variable in size, eliminating a lot of uncertainty created in the existing system by PUGs participating based solely on week to week server performance.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@starlinvf.1358 said:

@Sarrs.4831 said:

snip GLICKO snip

Matchups are determined based on 1 up 1 down. Glicko hasn't been involved in over a year. You win, you move up. You come in third, you move down. In second, you stay in the same tier.

It's why people can effectively tank.

[MedievalThings.5417]

The new alliance system could easily allow the removal of the scoring system. Since they could just keep using the same metrics used to set up the new system, to reorganize at the end of the 8 weeks. At that point, there is no longer a need to rank server performance. Players log in, fight, take what they can or want, and log out. No more PPT, no more scoring.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Ubi.4136 said:The new alliance system could easily allow the removal of the scoring system. Since they could just keep using the same metrics used to set up the new system, to reorganize at the end of the 8 weeks. At that point, there is no longer a need to rank server performance. Players log in, fight, take what they can or want, and log out. No more PPT, no more scoring.

With purely random matchups, works for me.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Ubi.4136 said:The new alliance system could easily allow the removal of the scoring system. Since they could just keep using the same metrics used to set up the new system, to reorganize at the end of the 8 weeks. At that point, there is no longer a need to rank server performance. Players log in, fight, take what they can or want, and log out. No more PPT, no more scoring.

Take away the scoring system and it essentially could lead to one big karma farm like EotM was. Those who enjoyed the competitive play from WvW would likely just leave the game at that point.

[Vayne.8563]

@Israel.7056 said:

@Sylosi.6503 said:

@Israel.7056 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Israel.7056 said:How's that working for DAOC?

It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

That's great that it worked at one point in time.

It worked longer and better than WvW did...

Did it though?

DAoC apparently came out in 2001, three years before WoW and it apparently tanked very very hard once WoW hit in 2004 and has limped on in terms of actual numbers of players ever since. So while people are still playing DAoC it was really only a thing worth mentioning for about 3 years in an environment where it didn't have any serious competition. GW2, despite having maybe the most incompetent development team I've ever seen in any game I've ever played, has still managed to carve a substantial niche for itself despite having to constantly compete with many other triple A MMOs including WoW and its multiple expansions through the entirety of its existence.

WvW is still quite active though certainly not as active as it once was despite having almost no substantive changes made to it since launch. Almost everything they've added has simply been fluff to dress things up but it's essentially the same game mode it was at launch and people are still playing it.

I really don't think the issue is scoring and I really don't think DAoC should be a working model for any game considering how poorly it's done in the aftermath of WoW.

This is revisionist history at it's worst. DAOC didn't tank hard, because if it did it wouldn't have made it 12 years. WoW it's true was very popular, but lots of people also didn't like it. Lots of DAOC players in particular never made the jump to WoW> It had a hard core niche market for ages, and those people were very very loyal. Comparing any game to WoW is pointless because no one had the advertising budget htat Blizzard did, coming off Warcraft 2 and Star Craft so yeah, no MMO has ever been able to compare to WoW. But compared to every MMO but WoW it was doing fine.

On top of that, this game, was specifically designed, in many ways, to be an anti MMO. The design decisions made in Guild Wars 2, intentionally, by design, doesn't show incompetent. It shows thought process. This game is a game for people who don't like how most other MMOs, including WoW, handle things.

The problem is WOW success spawned clone after clone after clone and people weren't willing to break that pattern. Guild Wars 2 was.

[Israel.7056]

@"Vayne.8563" said:This is revisionist history at it's worst. DAOC didn't tank hard, because if it did it wouldn't have made it 12 years. WoW it's true was very popular, but lots of people also didn't like it. Lots of DAOC players in particular never made the jump to WoW> It had a hard core niche market for ages, and those people were very very loyal. Comparing any game to WoW is pointless because no one had the advertising budget htat Blizzard did, coming off Warcraft 2 and Star Craft so yeah, no MMO has ever been able to compare to WoW. But compared to every MMO but WoW it was doing fine.

On top of that, this game, was specifically designed, in many ways, to be an anti MMO. The design decisions made in Guild Wars 2, intentionally, by design, doesn't show incompetent. It shows thought process. This game is a game for people who don't like how most other MMOs, including WoW, handle things.

The problem is WOW success spawned clone after clone after clone and people weren't willing to break that pattern. Guild Wars 2 was.

Blizzard made over a billion dollars within the first year of releasing WoW, who can blame other developers for trying to capture some of that market by essentially copying WoW? That's how business works right?

We can argue semantics about what it means to "tank hard" because obviously DAoC did enough business to support its expansions but all the sources online I've been able to find about the game indicate that it lost a LOT of players once WoW came out and that it's just a fairly inexpensive game to run and develop due to its engine and the overall simplicity of its design. There are clearly some people who really enjoy a very barebones approach to RvR because as far as I can tell from reading and watching videos of the gameplay the DAoC RvR is very very simple in terms of its design and gameplay.

The original vision for GW2 was pretty smart but the development decisions surrounding PvP and WvW since release have been utterly incompetent and misguided to say the least. They decided to try to make GW2 PvP an esport even though it seemed pretty obvious early on that the game lacked the infrastructure to support it. They then doubled down on PvP for years even though it seemed obvious to anyone watching that it wasn't likely to happen. WvW has been largely ignored relative to PvP even though WvW very very very popular with the players particularly within the first two or three years. So they did three seasons and basically gave up after that. I guess Anet just couldn't figure out what they wanted to do with WvW and so the WvW we're playing now is basically the same WvW I was playing at launch but with a lot more rewards and fancy menus. They haven't even added any more achievements since launch they just made the initial ones even easier to get. The WvW restructuring is a nice idea but I believe it is too little too late. I guess we'll find out.

This is why I say they're incompetent; it seems like most of the developers don't actually play the game or if they do they're so bad at it that they can't really understand what's going on within it at any level beyond beginner to intermediate.

[Vayne.8563]

@Israel.7056 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:This is revisionist history at it's worst. DAOC didn't tank hard, because if it did it wouldn't have made it 12 years. WoW it's true was very popular, but lots of people also didn't like it. Lots of DAOC players in particular never made the jump to WoW> It had a hard core niche market for ages, and those people were very very loyal. Comparing any game to WoW is pointless because no one had the advertising budget htat Blizzard did, coming off Warcraft 2 and Star Craft so yeah, no MMO has ever been able to compare to WoW. But compared to every MMO but WoW it was doing fine.

On top of that, this game, was specifically designed, in many ways, to be an anti MMO. The design decisions made in Guild Wars 2, intentionally, by design, doesn't show incompetent. It shows thought process. This game is a game for people who don't like how most other MMOs, including WoW, handle things.

The problem is WOW success spawned clone after clone after clone and people weren't willing to break that pattern. Guild Wars 2 was.

Blizzard made over a billion dollars within the first year of releasing WoW, who can blame other developers for trying to capture some of that market by essentially copying WoW? That's how business works right?

We can argue semantics about what it means to "tank hard" because obviously DAoC did enough business to support its expansions but all the sources online I've been able to find about the game indicate that it lost a LOT of players once WoW came out and that it's just a fairly inexpensive game to run and develop due to its engine and the overall simplicity of its design. There are clearly some people who really enjoy a very barebones approach to RvR because as far as I can tell from reading and watching videos of the gameplay the DAoC RvR is very very simple in terms of its design and gameplay.

The original vision for GW2 was pretty smart but the development decisions surrounding PvP and WvW since release have been utterly incompetent and misguided to say the least. They decided to try to make GW2 PvP an esport even though it seemed pretty obvious early on that the game lacked the infrastructure to support it. They then doubled down on PvP for years even though it seemed obvious to anyone watching that it wasn't likely to happen. WvW has been largely ignored relative to PvP even though WvW very very very popular with the players particularly within the first two or three years. So they did three seasons and basically gave up after that. I guess Anet just couldn't figure out what they wanted to do with WvW and so the WvW we're playing now is basically the same WvW I was playing at launch but with a lot more rewards and fancy menus. They haven't even added any more achievements since launch they just made the initial ones even easier to get. The WvW restructuring is a nice idea but I believe it is too little too late. I guess we'll find out.

This is why I say they're incompetent; it seems like most of the developers don't actually play the game or if they do they're so bad at it that they can't really understand what's going on within it at any level beyond beginner to intermediate.

Their incompetence is your opinion. They have made mistakes but so has every single MMO publisher out there. The rest of what you said, I disagree with.

If you have a game that's a bit older and a new game comes out, very often people will go to that new game and that's expected. I've worked in the publishing industry and it's the same thing. A game does most of it's success most of the time in the first 3 months that it's out. Guild Wars 2 was no exception to that. And it's still a successful MMO.

You don't judge a game by how many people are lost over time, because that happens to just about all games, including WOW. You judge the success of the game by long term viability, and whether it met expectations of the business plan and the stockholders. Their expectations are always going to go down from launch, unless they're being unrealistic. The entertainment industry anticipates a slide in sales, which is why I laugh when people say this game used to make so much and now it makes less...but that's pretty much true of all games.

At the end of the day, the way success is measure is in longevity and profit. DAOC had both.

[Israel.7056]

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Israel.7056 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:This is revisionist history at it's worst. DAOC didn't tank hard, because if it did it wouldn't have made it 12 years. WoW it's true was very popular, but lots of people also didn't like it. Lots of DAOC players in particular never made the jump to WoW> It had a hard core niche market for ages, and those people were very very loyal. Comparing any game to WoW is pointless because no one had the advertising budget htat Blizzard did, coming off Warcraft 2 and Star Craft so yeah, no MMO has ever been able to compare to WoW. But compared to every MMO but WoW it was doing fine.

On top of that, this game, was specifically designed, in many ways, to be an anti MMO. The design decisions made in Guild Wars 2, intentionally, by design, doesn't show incompetent. It shows thought process. This game is a game for people who don't like how most other MMOs, including WoW, handle things.

The problem is WOW success spawned clone after clone after clone and people weren't willing to break that pattern. Guild Wars 2 was.

Blizzard made over a billion dollars within the first year of releasing WoW, who can blame other developers for trying to capture some of that market by essentially copying WoW? That's how business works right?

We can argue semantics about what it means to "tank hard" because obviously DAoC did enough business to support its expansions but all the sources online I've been able to find about the game indicate that it lost a LOT of players once WoW came out and that it's just a fairly inexpensive game to run and develop due to its engine and the overall simplicity of its design. There are clearly some people who really enjoy a very barebones approach to RvR because as far as I can tell from reading and watching videos of the gameplay the DAoC RvR is very very simple in terms of its design and gameplay.

The original vision for GW2 was pretty smart but the development decisions surrounding PvP and WvW since release have been utterly incompetent and misguided to say the least. They decided to try to make GW2 PvP an esport even though it seemed pretty obvious early on that the game lacked the infrastructure to support it. They then doubled down on PvP for years even though it seemed obvious to anyone watching that it wasn't likely to happen. WvW has been largely ignored relative to PvP even though WvW very very very popular with the players particularly within the first two or three years. So they did three seasons and basically gave up after that. I guess Anet just couldn't figure out what they wanted to do with WvW and so the WvW we're playing now is basically the same WvW I was playing at launch but with a lot more rewards and fancy menus. They haven't even added any more achievements since launch they just made the initial ones even easier to get. The WvW restructuring is a nice idea but I believe it is too little too late. I guess we'll find out.

This is why I say they're incompetent; it seems like most of the developers don't actually play the game or if they do they're so bad at it that they can't really understand what's going on within it at any level beyond beginner to intermediate.

Their incompetence is your opinion. They have made mistakes but so has every single MMO publisher out there. The rest of what you said, I disagree with.

If you have a game that's a bit older and a new game comes out, very often people will go to that new game and that's expected. I've worked in the publishing industry and it's the same thing. A game does most of it's success most of the time in the first 3 months that it's out. Guild Wars 2 was no exception to that. And it's still a successful MMO.

You don't judge a game by how many people are lost over time, because that happens to just about all games, including WOW. You judge the success of the game by long term viability, and whether it met expectations of the business plan and the stockholders. Their expectations are always going to go down from launch, unless they're being unrealistic. The entertainment industry anticipates a slide in sales, which is why I laugh when people say this game used to make so much and now it makes less...but that's pretty much true of all games.

At the end of the day, the way success is measure is in longevity and profit. DAOC had both.

Is that honestly how you evaluate a video game?

I suspect you're just trying to win an online argument I can't imagine anyone playing a game and actually saying to themselves "well it's ugly and the gameplay is atrocious and it doesn't have any modern features but it's been around a while and it turned a profit for its investors so it's a good game I really like it."

[Torolan.5816]

@Limodriver.4106 said:Back to daoc style no score system ppl just play for fun and fight for relics and pride.

If you played DAOC you will probably remember that there were much more statistics to gorge yourself at, including guild statistics and alliances with places and other statitics like the top paladins of a given server for example.

I still agree that a server ranking is something what I find rather uninteresting as it is of absolutly no consequence if you are a silver general on Server 1 or on server 15, you stay a silver general and if you quit tomorrow, nobody will ever notice it if you are not in the top 1000 APs of your given server.

[Israel.7056]

@Torolan.5816 said:

if you quit tomorrow, nobody will ever notice it if you are not in the top 1000 APs of your given server.

If you're actually an important player/commander on your server people will absolutely care if you quit or transfer. If you're some scrub nobody who just pugs around and one pushes half your fights then yeah nobody cares but why would they?

[Torolan.5816]

@Israel.7056 said:

@"Torolan.5816" said:

if you quit tomorrow, nobody will ever notice it if you are not in the top 1000 APs of your given server.

If you're actually an important player/commander on your server people will absolutely care if you quit or transfer. If you're some scrub nobody who just pugs around and one pushes half your fights then yeah nobody cares but why would they?

True, but it stays mouth propaganda which is very fleeting. I can only talk for myself, but I can´t remember the name of any guild group or capable commander that entered or left my own server, I mainly remember the controversial ones. If i would have written it down, I would remember better and more.And an experienced player who doesn´t act as commander doesn´t have to be a nobody, he could have been a high profile roamer, a second in command or versatile zerg supporter. If he is not a loudmouth or a flammer and most of the time only listens on VC, you will loose a valuable player without actually noticing it at the current setup.

When you have a board of who is who, you may one day look at it and say:"Hey, Player X was/is a mithril knight! The guy never spoke much on TS, and I only though of him as so so, but look how well he performed."

[Aeolus.3615]

Structures need to be more meaningfull, same for towers... being "fake strategic" places where zerg spams 10 trebs while they ktrain other side.

IMO we need more deathmatch map design with structures that give decent importance to what guilds needs, rahter than one that search to create content trough cap ktrain trait and cap it back redundancy.

WvW needs to become a enrolling and strong game mode.

[Vayne.8563]

@Israel.7056 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Israel.7056 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:This is revisionist history at it's worst. DAOC didn't tank hard, because if it did it wouldn't have made it 12 years. WoW it's true was very popular, but lots of people also didn't like it. Lots of DAOC players in particular never made the jump to WoW> It had a hard core niche market for ages, and those people were very very loyal. Comparing any game to WoW is pointless because no one had the advertising budget htat Blizzard did, coming off Warcraft 2 and Star Craft so yeah, no MMO has ever been able to compare to WoW. But compared to every MMO but WoW it was doing fine.

On top of that, this game, was specifically designed, in many ways, to be an anti MMO. The design decisions made in Guild Wars 2, intentionally, by design, doesn't show incompetent. It shows thought process. This game is a game for people who don't like how most other MMOs, including WoW, handle things.

The problem is WOW success spawned clone after clone after clone and people weren't willing to break that pattern. Guild Wars 2 was.

Blizzard made over a billion dollars within the first year of releasing WoW, who can blame other developers for trying to capture some of that market by essentially copying WoW? That's how business works right?

We can argue semantics about what it means to "tank hard" because obviously DAoC did enough business to support its expansions but all the sources online I've been able to find about the game indicate that it lost a LOT of players once WoW came out and that it's just a fairly inexpensive game to run and develop due to its engine and the overall simplicity of its design. There are clearly some people who really enjoy a very barebones approach to RvR because as far as I can tell from reading and watching videos of the gameplay the DAoC RvR is very very simple in terms of its design and gameplay.

The original vision for GW2 was pretty smart but the development decisions surrounding PvP and WvW since release have been utterly incompetent and misguided to say the least. They decided to try to make GW2 PvP an esport even though it seemed pretty obvious early on that the game lacked the infrastructure to support it. They then doubled down on PvP for years even though it seemed obvious to anyone watching that it wasn't likely to happen. WvW has been largely ignored relative to PvP even though WvW very very very popular with the players particularly within the first two or three years. So they did three seasons and basically gave up after that. I guess Anet just couldn't figure out what they wanted to do with WvW and so the WvW we're playing now is basically the same WvW I was playing at launch but with a lot more rewards and fancy menus. They haven't even added any more achievements since launch they just made the initial ones even easier to get. The WvW restructuring is a nice idea but I believe it is too little too late. I guess we'll find out.

This is why I say they're incompetent; it seems like most of the developers don't actually play the game or if they do they're so bad at it that they can't really understand what's going on within it at any level beyond beginner to intermediate.

Their incompetence is your opinion. They have made mistakes but so has every single MMO publisher out there. The rest of what you said, I disagree with.

If you have a game that's a bit older and a new game comes out, very often people will go to that new game and that's expected. I've worked in the publishing industry and it's the same thing. A game does most of it's success most of the time in the first 3 months that it's out. Guild Wars 2 was no exception to that. And it's still a successful MMO.

You don't judge a game by how many people are lost over time, because that happens to just about all games, including WOW. You judge the success of the game by long term viability, and whether it met expectations of the business plan and the stockholders. Their expectations are always going to go down from launch, unless they're being unrealistic. The entertainment industry anticipates a slide in sales, which is why I laugh when people say this game used to make so much and now it makes less...but that's pretty much true of all games.

At the end of the day, the way success is measure is in longevity and profit. DAOC had both.

Is that honestly how you evaluate a video game?

I suspect you're just trying to win an online argument I can't imagine anyone playing a game and actually saying to themselves "well it's ugly and the gameplay is atrocious and it doesn't have any modern features but it's been around a while and it turned a profit for its investors so it's a good game I really like it."

Wow, you really aren't getting what I'm saying at all.

No, it's not how I judge a video game. It's how I judge the success of a business. The problem you have is you think your opinion is universally shared by everyone. But everyone plays games for different reasons.

So I do think this is a good game. I don't PvP, so I don't care as much about balance per se, but all the parts of the game I'm interested work just fine. I have little to no problems with WvW, except for latency from Australia, which you can hardly blame the company for.

If the game were as bad as you say it wouldn't be successful. You not liking something doesn't make it bad. It could simply mean the stuff you care about isn't the focus of the company.

I'm sure WoW is a good game. I don't like it. I'm sure they make mistakes, but some things people see as mistakes are just then not getting what's going on.