Nope. Apparently we have missed the amazing feature in WoW in which we all can telepathically speak to the npc and transport directly to our guild mate. After this step 3 "success" is achieved.

You are correct you did not miscount any steps. You can count from 1 to 14. You are missing steps in your description of traveling in WoW. I never said I disagreed with the core idea of your post and if you go to my post on pg 87 you will see that. What I do disagree with is the logic problem in your comparison and your condescending attitude towards anyone who makes an observation of these errors as not presenting logic to you. You are blind to the logic that defining a problem correctly is important. In order to create well designed algorithm one needs to have defined the problem accurately. But please pat yourself on the back at how many responses you received to your post as an accurate assumption that your definition was correct.

I understood your post as i stated in my original response to your post and I also stated the logical errors in your post. I think acknowledging that there are errors in your description of steps, since it makes a good portion of your post is valid. You state these as minor errors and because the step process is the main meat of your argument the minority are correct. Majority vote does not always mean that the correct or accurate answer has been attained. Again i will state that you are insinuating in the 3 step process that you will magically teleport to a destination point whereas in the 14 step process you have the step of clicking on the shuttle. Most programmers would recognize the innate flaw in your description of the traveling system problem that you perceive.

ha you beat me to it lol

I have found if you get the automated normal responses from the characters, ignore the speaker but if the character says something around the lines of when we get a chance I'd like to talk. They then really want to talk to you.

The OP's main description of the problem with traveling in this post is full of semantic errors and people pointing out these errors tend to set her or him on a polarizing people into a fanboy category or saying they do not have a valid argument in pointing out the logic errors in her description of the problem.

I hope your being sarcastic or otherwise make a valid statement. First, explain of how this game is "bare bones," and how the article is making an excuse. The article the OP posted is explaining the process of a company fixing bugs. How is this an "excuse?"

Really like the article thanks for posting it!

Yes because we all desire to be pandas so we can become legends of ausomeness. Game informer described WoW in an article as a bunch of 36 year old men who like to accesorize. I found that pretty funny.

too funny!

I agree completely with you and posted a similar response. Here is my response link since going through 90 pgs might be tedious. http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=212096&page=87

I read this and then read the OP's answer and found the OP's answer lacking. First of all you are pointing out a legitimate problem in the accuracy of the OP's definition of the problem. The OP's statement "Completely ignore the point of my post and point out a spelling or other minor error instead of responding with a logical or rational counter-argument. " was IMO incorrect. Despite the OP stating that you lacked responding logically, your line of thinking is very logical. There is an inherent logic error a programmer would see evident almost immediately. For instance, the portion of the post in which it lists three steps would infer that the person goes to an npc and then immediately teleports to his or her desired destination. This is definitely incorrect and although the author of this post may have a valid point, it could very likely be disregarded because of his/her defintion. To find the best solution to a problem, there needs to be an accurate defintion. I do not miss the point of the OP that the travel system may be time consuming but it would behoove the OP to identify the logic in what you are saying and reconsider his/her defintion. Perhaps they could define the problem by using time as a comparison instead of using the amount of steps it takes to get from point A to point B. The OP's definition IMO is weak and needs work.

I believe your answer is bioware and EA. lol

First I would take into account all the research the creation of this game involved. Their meticulous testing. Basically all the work they put in. Second, I would give them credit for trying something different in more than one way, including the launch. Staggering the launch, although many people may not agree with it, is a way that they are working to try to solve a common problem amongst many mmo launches. Thirdly, despite people not liking rockjaw, he is communicating and open to communication from us the frustrated customer regarding our happiness, which grading on a curve is far better then SOE has ever done. (DCU online) Now, EA I see lowers there grade slightly with the whole grace period fiasco, which probably could have been handled better. But Bioware then gets extra credit for giving 2 extra days of staggering even if it isn't giving all of the us the 7 days that we now want. So overall a definite A.

soft kitty warm kitty little ball of fur happy kitty sleepy kitty purr purr purr.

Redundancy? or beating a dead horse? shrug...

Although, our perception is somewhat important on the interpretation of what "up to 5 days" means, the real importance is the definition according to the statutes of our government. "Up to 5 days" is a legal way of telling us that they are not promising us 5 days, as well as using the word "may." Your logic, although it may contain some truth to it, may have no validity within our court system.

So somewhat off the subject but a thought originating from the original post, I noticed the amount of errors within the post. For instance the amount of spelling errors are extensive. This thought lead then to the functionality of this forum, meaning does it have some type of editor on it? Ah...and it appears it has an editor, a somewhat inefficient editor, but an editor none the less. I was going to make the statement that the editor button in the upper right hand corner doesn't appear to be able to do anything but change the background because when I typed hep it does not catch this as an error but does catch that physicla is an error. ( it also does not catch grammatical errors such as run on sentences ) and lenthg is an error and thusly underlines some incorrect spellings. (does not catch fragmented sentences) This is good information I believe and although the editor is not highly efficient it is somewhat useful in spelling errors. (Also I have noticed that for some reason it will underline a spelling error and then later on while typing it will disappear and then reappear.) Useful in that using an analogy of students studying rocket science at Harvard might have more credibility and effectiveness for the author if Harvard was spelled correctly. Ah but maybe the author was trying to accomplish irony in his or her post. Oh and there is also an edit function to go back and edit the post later. Nice feature. I have used this several times now in my post.

Negative. Meaning you are incorrect. I was a tester and did not get early access yet. I don't believe there is much of a connection between getting in early access and the testing.