One of the reasons WoW had 14 million subscribers

[TheAngryEwok]

Your right, I do, which means less money for SE and less content for its players in the long run

Because losing your $12-14 is really gonna put a damper on SE's wallet..

[Coraline]

I somehow doubt 14 million people subbed to Wow because of instant abilities.

[Jinko]

I'm a little confused. Where did I say they didn't have shareholders? My point was that Blizz has majority say in their game over Vivendi and Activision just like Activision has a majority say in their games over Blizzard. And this was in reply to you saying "Blizzard and Activision have merged so they can't do as they please any more either.", no where in this did you mention shareholders so I was not talking about them at all.

Wow selective reading much ? my whole post was centred around shareholders, so why would I have meant anything else, you just saw a chance to one up me and try and put me in my place and act all superior and it failed.

Good try though. /thumbsup

[Althea]

WoW *HAD* 14 million subscribers because it did a lot of things right.

The netcode was probably some of the best of any game I've ever seen. That had a LOT to do with it. Everything was clean, responsive, and well paced. The boss fights had fun and interesting mechanics, where the netcode came into play. They gave us interesting rotations (for the most part).

They also have ALWAYS been very transparent with the customers. If something was game breaking, they'd immediately be on it, and release a statement about what's causing it and how they plan to fix it, and an ETA instead of letting their customers sit there and stew (like what's being done here).

[Tricksy]

I think its sad that the whiteknights jump to defend an obviously less than ideal failing of the game by saying "you can go play wow".

How sad of our community.

Facts are facts. Its not great that it lags and is not instant. Give us your positive spin or something , not some vitriol about how he should just peace the fuk out

[Calypsx]

Games play differently and have different mechanics? *gasp*

You have to know manage your animation times and know them as well. it's part of the game.

[Elegance]

Games play differently and have different mechanics? *gasp*

You have to know manage your animation times and know them as well. it's part of the game.

They should just not label them instant then, because they well, aren't.
If they had cast times listed instead I'd be fine, but I expect something saying instant to be well... instant.

[xxAllonblack]

People are dumb. You really think a shorter gcd is what made WoW 14 mil subscribers? Then why have they lost 7 mil.. Considering the gcd is much shorter now with haste. OP's point is invalid, nothing left to see here.

[Calypsx]

They should just not label them instant then, because they well, aren't.
If they had cast times listed instead I'd be fine, but I expect something saying instant to be well... instant.

So if they had cast times listed instead would this "issue" vanish for everyone?

Though it's easier if the player base just learns for themselves because changing "instant" to "cast time" isn't going to change a single thing and the attack will still come out at the same speed it always has. Just now you'll have a fancy cast time label on them.

Animation times take a factor in how the game plays out. To inform players of that they should add that to the help section in game if it is causing confusion or an issue for players.

[Althea]

People are dumb. You really think a shorter gcd is what made WoW 14 mil subscribers? Then why have they lost 7 mil.. Considering the gcd is much shorter now with haste. OP's point is invalid, nothing left to see here.

The pacing of the combat? Considering combat is 95% percent of raiding, I'd say it's important. Not the sole reason for 14 million subscribers, but prob a good portion.