Was that a pony?

| Wednesday, April 21, 2010
My hunter's most recent random PUG had a new warrior tank. He said he was new, so I offered to misdirect the pulls for him. That was in case he didn't know them. But no, he seemed to know what he was doing, so off we went. In the end he tanked just fine, even noticing when the huntard managed to pull aggro and didn't feign fast enough; using his in-combat charge to great effect. Or maybe it was intervention.

He would even mark a target or two, usually the oh so annoying runecasters. I relearned that tranq shot dispells magic, having forgotten hunters had that ability since it was removed from arcane shot. Great against the shields. And convenient since the runecasters and their bubbles were marked as the kill target. Well done!

Sounds fairly competent, right?

WRONG!

He had a pony, and as we all know, only complete idiots buy the pony. I'm confused as to how such a moron, such a fool, could manage to tank the instance without problems. Maybe blanket generalizations of intelligence and competence are inaccurate when based on buying one item. Nah, that doesn't make any sense. With something like that, the world couldn't be easily split into us and them. Nope, the warrior must have been an idiot. I bet he was botting. That fits perfectly since it also shows he's lazy and cheats.

There we go, it's all worked out: only idiots buy ponies and if they appear to be good, it's because they're botting, so report them to a GM. Makes perfect sense.

11 comments:

Okrane S. said...

wow, you're trolling your own blog again... (Troll Racials are overpowered, I should have guessed it).

Dwism said...

At least he ain't posting a blog about a horse, claiming that everyone who blogs about that horse are mindless sheep and social idiots...
(..that does makes sense!!)

Klepsacovic said...

Of course it makes sense; it's a post about posts, which makes it okay. It's just like when the media talks about the media frenzy about stupid topics. "Is Tiger Wood's affair getting too much attention? Find out, next, when we analyze his affair and the media reaction!" See, perfectly sensible and not at all feeding the hysteria.

Gevlon said...

I wrote idiots and kids buy it. Some kids are pretty good in video game, yet lack common sense and buy an imaginary horse. Or rather get it for free after whining for it to their parents.

Klepsacovic said...

What's the difference between an imaginary horse and a subscription to an imaginary world? Certainly the horse has much less value, so there are major diminishing returns on the extra money spent, but that's just from my perspective. Maybe other people place greater value in horses than I do, or have much more money and are already hitting DRs; who are we to judge that? After all, everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.

River said...

Botters have better sense then to buy a sparkly horse.

LabRat said...

Well, let's see, I'm nearly thirty and have a non-parent's larger disposable income, and I have a sparkly horse and a warrior tank that still hasn't seem some instances, so I must be...

Oh. Oh damn. My life is a lie. :(

We Fly Spitfires said...

We forget though that it's the smart people who get other people to buy ponies for them! :P

Klepsacovic said...

Perhaps I shouldn't have bothered with that other post today. No one sees to have noticed it!

@River: Yes, risking losing everything is smarter than 'wasting' $25.

@LabRat: Quit your job and avoid the shame when your coworkers find out.

@We Fly Spitfires: But only a social would give a gift. You have a social in your gene pool!

Okrane S. said...

@Kleps:

The post and your answers look like those of a spoiled brat who, when bothered by smth, takes it literally ad-nauseam, exagerating it while covering his ears to the reason surrounding him.

Buying a sparkling virtual horse is irrational, for pretty much 99% of the population of the planet. The exceptions are only those filthy rich people, who have bought already what they could and couldnt dream of and have nothing to spend their pile of money on. But I doubt those people play WoW.

Idiot is just another synonym for irrational. Even more, being irrational does not necessarily make one mentally retarded to be unable to control the easy tasks of playing a WoW character....

Paying money for a virtual world: well, let's see: this virtual world takes development time to create.

Anyway, I found Gevlon's post pretty sensitive to begin with. And its message its pretty clear: "stop caring about that damn horse and the idiots who bought it". I can't think of a better way to put it. Can you?

Klepsacovic said...

Yes, it probably is irrational. I imagine there are ways to spend $25 which would yield greater happiness gains. The unfortuante fact is that this applies to just about everything we spend time and money on. Did you really gain much marginal happiness from the time spent responding to a whiny brat?

Sensitive generally doesn't involve calling people idiots. A clearer way to put it would be "Is the horse a better value than other $25 purchases?" That would avoid triggering defensive reactions and make it more likely that people would think about purchases in the future.

Post a Comment

Comments in posts older than 21 days will be moderated to prevent spam. Comments in posts younger than 21 days will be checked for ID.

Powered by Blogger.