Welcome to Crestfall Gaming

Register now to Crestfall Gaming. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

DeTosc

Member
  • Content count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About DeTosc

  • Rank
    Corporal
  1. But the bear's extra health is only useful as long as the bear manages to hold the aggro. "Growl" has a CD, "Screech" has no CD, so a resisted "Growl" is an almost secure "aggro-lose", while with "Screech" the bird has a second chance to get the full attention of the mob back again right after a resist.
  2. Well, if the devs implement the "Screech" skill like is was back in Vanilla aka "OP AoE Taunt without a CD", I will go for a vulture, no doubt about it. The screeching sound and the flapping of the wings will annoy the hell out of the reds as well. Your mileage may vary ofc.
  3. Patch 1.7: http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Patch_1.7.0#Hunters Out of curiosity I checked the sources of the "usual" emulators like (c)MaNGOS, Trinity. All of them calculate the pets experience gain based on the level difference between the hunter and the target. I have to admit, that my development skills are a "little bit rusty", so I might be terribly wrong. But based on these sources - which are pretty much identical btw - I am pretty sure that it is not a big deal to recalculate the exp of the pet instead of simply passing over the hunter's exp. I assume that none of these private server developers plays a hunter. Leveling up a low level pet is a real P.I.T.A., so this change this more than just a small QoL for hunters. I would like to ask @Asura how the Hunter pets experience gain will be calculated here? Based on the difference between the Hunter and the target? Based on the difference between the Pet and the target?
  4. "Saint-Émilion" ... damn ... that's really classy Sir.
  5. In english: Less premades to dodge, more randoms to stomp. That's why I will queue for AV only. And I strongly encourage all the other filthy casuals here to do the same, so the rankers actually have to PvP (against other premades) instead of avoiding it (against randoms).
  6. Frankly ... I doubt that somebody, who is spending most of his free time behaving like a DB in a MMORPG, has a GF at all The more people play on PvE, the less people to harass on PvP, so it is more like stealing them mobs.
  7. Me too. The never-ending drama on /r/wowservers is quite amusing.
  8. I simply do not get it, how many times the devs have to repeat that the cap will be 6K? /facepalm
  9. IMHO it is impossible to predict. It is even possible, that it will never be an issue, or 3 RL friends living in the same area are getting blocked on launch day. My point is, that it is no longer safe to assume, that two different players will have 2 different IPv4s as well.
  10. I would like to quote myself from a different thread: So it is possible that two different players are sharing the same public IPv4 even without knowing that. "1 connection per IP" will potentially screw up the players in the EU who are customers of the big ISPs like i.e. Vodafone
  11. AFAIK he was not even asking them for help. AKAMAI believed that they are able to protect as simple website pro bono. My point is: if somebody really hates you, he will find a way to take you offline. Because unleashing a heavy DDoS is much cheaper than protecting yourself against a DDoS. Edit: If I am wrong, I will be very happy of course.
  12. This journalist http://krebsonsecurity.com/ recently dismantled the guys behind a site which was offering "DDoS as a service". In return his blog was hit by a 620 Gigabit-per-Second DDoS. So even AKAMAI was not able to protect his site and finally surrendered taking his site offline. Please don't get me wrong, I really hope that the team is able to mitigate the inevitable DDoS attacks. And I wish them/us all the best. But it is easy to launch a DDoS attack flooding the internet connection of a data center. As soon as the other clients are suffering too much as collateral damage, the hosting provider will pull the plug. Unfortunately, the best anti-DDoS-protection is: failing to deliver a great Vanilla experience.
  13. It is even worse, due to the IPv4 scarcity some ISPs in the EU are no longer assigning "public" IPv4 addresses to the modems of their customers. Instead they assign them a "private" IPv4 address, usually from the 10.0.0.0/8 or 192.168.0.0/16 network. At their gateways to the internet they are using pools of "public" IPv4 addresses to "NAT" several "private" IPv4 addreses to one "public" IPv4. So several customers of the ISP are sharing the same public IPv4!
  14. Well, the problem is: Ranking up to 14 is insane time-consuming, no fun at all and ironically the most efficient way to rank up is "avoiding PvP at all cost". Because of this, some guys will not be able to resist if there is a way to exploit the queue(s). Which is - to some extend - understandable. IMHO, it is almost impossible to risolve this technically due to ... the "human creativity" in finding a "shortcut". So I would like to suggest a more "social" approach: Set up clear rules which "behaviour" is considered to be ok and which is not. Implement an extensive logging of all BG/queues activities. Enforce rules consequently based on the evidence from the logs.