Star Wars Galaxies, for example, originally tried to make the route to becoming a Jedi so incredibly difficult and unpalatable that few would go through with the task. (You had to master several professions which were selected by the game, whether you were actually interested in those professions or not.) The idea was that when the task was made so difficult that nobody would intentionally *try* to complete it, the result would be that only the few who happened to pick their combination by accident would succeed.
What I would have done, which would have caused much whining, is make force sensitivity a random thing. At 100 days, the force sensitivity of the character is revealed (a random chance), and the player is given the choice of becoming a jedi (if the amount of sensitivity is high enough).
That way, you won't have so many jedi, and only the ones who are dedicated to the game have a chance of becoming one. Since its random, it is non-descriminatory.
The point is that not everyone in the SW world was a jedi, or even had a chance of becoming one. They probably all would have loved to be one, but it just wasn't the reality of the situation. As for me? I'd much rather have been Han.
Achievers are probably those least satisfied with WoW. This is the group that contains the most powergamers and by now most of them should probably have atleast one character at level 60. The reason achievers aren't happy with WoW is the same reason WoW is popular. WoW is far from the grind that games like Everquest/FF XI are. It is possible for casual gamers to reach the max level in WoW. Achievers despise this because they want to be better than the casual gamer because they spend more time in the game. They also have nothing to do once they have reached the max level because leveling is what they live for. Raids are still something to do, but there is only so much raid content.
A good deal of the achievers will probably jump ship and play another MMORPG instead but I am fine with that because a single game can't suit everyone. Blizzard knows that and will hopefully continue to support the more casual gamers. More high level content will come out but not at the rate the Achievers want.
Did you see what the PvP system was all about? That is nothing but catered to the achievers. There's nothing an achiever likes better than being called "#1" among all others. This is a ranking system. The rewards are good. This is what they want... and this is what they didn't have in the beginning.
If you are questing in STV, you really are nowhere close to lvl 50.
The higher level areas will have groups of lvl 60's running around just as well as your group, and it's possible that they use teamspeak. The other fun thing is that there could be a raid of lvl 60 people sitting around ganking players that are trying to get into BRD / BRS
I chose PvE on purpose, since it doesn't mean that PvP is completely dead... it just doesn't exist when I don't want it to. I'd rather not deal with the hassle. There are still plenty of raids that happen, and battlegrounds is pure PvP.
If they are going to have a whole new API (which is what.NET really is) then why build it on top of the flaky and ugly Win32 API, when it could be inserted as a peer to the Win32 API (in the same way that Carbon and Cocoa are on OSX).
And now tell me what Carbon and Cocoa choked early on. Apple made the mistake of completely replacing the APIs used in MacOS 9, and then horribly implementing an emulator to run legacy stuff.
Most people have old stuff that they want to run. When they upgrade their hardware, they want to be able to run the old stuff. MacOS X broke this, and forced Apple to reimplement. MS is just doing it backwards, they have old code that isn't broken, and they've created a new API for it. No problems for me, I can write code for the new API, which isn't braindead, and that's it. I don't care if it uses Win32 or not, because as far as I'm concerned, my part is done. The code is written, and it works.
MS can then shift the framework to be native in a future OS, and my.NET program will be sure to work. Build the API before your platform shift, and you can be sure that your new platform will have a larger software library upon release.
In addition to paying attention to previous bodies of work, and what part of the world that they will be working out of...
Try to find out what their ideal design philosophies are. Keep in mind that your company is ultimately going to be the one that maintains that code. Make sure that you agree on those aspects, but don't let on to what you think is right.
Try to find people that are flexible on the platforms that they can write for. The reasoning for this is to avoid the vast number of cookie-cutter developers, the ones that take a version of.NET Nuke and make interface changes to it. If they can accomdate more platforms and languages, it is more than likely that they are more concerned with the design than the language.
Don't let politics determine the language. I view that having strong feelings about the type of language being used as pure idiocy. I can do in Java what I can do in C#, which I can do in PHP, ASP, C/CGI... whatever. They produce the same results. Having someone pound your head with "PHP ROX/ASP.NET SUX" does not affect the inevitable, which is: you will end up with the code in the end.
Lastly? Make sure that none of the devs read/.. It leads to a drastic decrease in efficiency, and increases the likelihood of polarization of opinion.
That's pretty much the truth for any kind of development, not just web development. There is a project that I was handed, which had been in development for about four years prior. It had been through two code changes and rewrites, and was continuously in a state of "beta." I cleaned it up, and got it to about 90% production quality in less than a month.
I agree though, it is important to know the history of the individuals that you will be dealing with. Keep in mind where the code is going to be written as well, and whether or not you will have contact with the devs. Though there may be some fine code coming out India, I would make sure that I'm not hiring a front-end firm for a bunch of off-shore developers. The language barrier is painful. The same goes for eastern Europe, which I hear is the new off-shore development hotbed.
I'm surprised that someone actually modded this tripe insightful. Starting an argument by flaming another group of people, in hopes of avoiding getting flamed is rather trollish.
In response, I have to say: You are entitled to your opinion. It really has no impact whatsoever upon any other player, and it also does not make you an "expert." The definition of an MMORPG is a world that can handle many player-characters, who play roles. WoW fills that definition rather well. If you don't like the mechanics of WoW, that's fine. You're playing something else.
I am a hardcore player, but I have a job. I don't like falling behind other players because of the fact that I have a job. Blizzard solved that problem. I don't care that endgame isn't fleshed out yet. I enjoy helping other people get there. I enjoy the high level instances. I enjoy sitting around doing nothing but chat.
You are just an AC, and in no ways an authority on what or what isn't an MMORPG. There is more to do in the WoW than just grind away and grab loot. That really isn't playing a role at all, it's more like playing an arcade game.
Your argument is fine if you develop something that would take 20 years to recoup your costs, but no version of software will be around in 4 years time , let alone 20 years time, so by reality it must be possible to recoup your costs in a much shorter space of time with software.
The company that I work for uses software that is >15 years old. We also license it out to other companies, and provide support for it.
People who don't know what they are doing should definitely not be running a web server. I'm sorry, but it is far easier for someone to pay $4/month for geocities to host their personal web site than it is to configure IIS, run dyndns (or call ISP and set up a static IP address), etc. etc.
Stupid people running stupid web servers is the reason why we had code red in the first place.
I think that it is about time to shut up about the patents already. This really only amounts to massive amounts of whining.
Seriously. Mono provides an implementation of the unpatented CLR bits, those things which are ISO standard. The MS patents, I believe, exist within the System.Windows.Forms namespace. Mono provides this functionality in one stack, and GTK#/QT# in another stack. If a problem aises because of the System.Windows.Forms stack, there would still be an open option for Mono devs.
There really isn't any reason for.NET programmers to use Windows.Forms anyway. GTK# is LGPL, which allows you to distribute your code without the requirement to open it as well. QT# is also available, but I believe that it is GPL'd, which is perfectly fine if you swing that way.
I'm no fan of MS, but I do know that Windows Server 2003 is shipped with all options off by default. I know this, partially because I've read it, but also because our support/configuration experts whine more about how long it takes to set up a server for one of our offices.
WoW PvP is a bit different than other games. Being on a PvP server in other games means that you could be ganked by anyone. In WoW, PvP means that the opposing faction can freely gank you.
Essentially, you're protected more in the WoW realm than in others. If you stay in non-contested areas, you are not going to be killed. If you are in constested areas, you have to realize that, and deal with consequences of it.
That's why some of the most populated servers in WoW are the PvP ones. I play PvE, mostly because PvP has absolutely no in-game benefit. Battlegrounds will be available for both server types, it will have actual benefits for PvP. Until then, I'm content while collecting big bear bones and furry wolf manes.
heh. It'd be easier just to move the character into the middle of Dun Modr or Stormgarde instead. I remember being "moved" once in the beta, but that was because my body was unretrievable.
You're right, for the most part. There isn't any reason why a warrior couldn't re-roll their character as a rogue. Most people don't like tanking because it is unglamorous, and they'd rather have the 1337 damage instead.
Imagine, though. Once they roll a rogue, they start to realize that they die easier as a rogue. Rogues don't have the armor skills and defensive stances that warriors do. Rogues tend to draw aggro, because they deal so much damage.
The top damage machine, the mage, can only wear cloth armor. Mages are one of the hardest classes to solo, they are best paired with someone else, especially a warrior. Same deal for priests.
Sheesh. I'm so glad I wasn't in his shoes. Imagine being responsible for the health of a server, while a whole crapload of people decide to squat on it.
I have to side with the warriors though. Blizzard has been far too unresponsive about balancing issues. The ones in this game, in particular, since the class can affect the end-game significantly. I've spent many hours working on a druid, and I can say that their end-game abilities suck when compared to classes like the rogue or shaman.
Blizzard needs to provide updates on what they are doing to remedy the situation, just like normal software engineers have to do.
But I really want to know what these scary skills were. I want to hear the stories of various dark-alley applicants who use a garrote like I use a pencil.
nd force Nvidia and ATI to make the specs to their cards public
It likely won't happen. I believe that the stated reason for them not opening up the specs is that they are using patented technology that they've licensed from other people. One of the terms of their agreement is that they have to keep the specs closed.
We're lucky enough to have binary only drivers that work reasonably well.
Seriously, if he's talking about engines, why is he making mention of the character models?
The monsters however seem much more lifelike with their detailed skin combined with many details. The Source Engine has better models, especially human, but combined with the lighting and shadowing, the Doom 3 Engine creates amazing textures.
Though it is important to note how the engine renders the models, but the models themselves are not part of the engine! It's possible to export the human models from HL Source and stick them into Doom3. It's as if he's comparing the artists, and not the engineer of the engine.
He also says something to the effect of Source not having cut-scenes. Last I remember from playing Doom 3, the cut-scenes looked like they were being rendered by the engine, and not pre-recorded.
It looks like he's confused engines for games. If I were going to compare the engines, I'd create my own levels and models, render them with both engines, and base my results off of that.
The code itself, if open sourced, would be considered published. The method for tracing the IP is in the code. The code is the HOWTO of which you speak.
I'm not sure if he is referring to English or not. We have compound words as well, such as doghouse, highway, and software. Germans just tend to smush the adjective and the noun together, making a new, more specific, word.
Giving the advice: "Don't take it" implies that your opinion overrides everyone else's. I, for one, would have no problem moving into a management position. I like dealing with people, and I hold no special attachment to my work. I'm a decent programmer, but I would gladly give it up if I could manage a bunch of people like me for more money.
People that lose happiness when they move into management tend to be more vocal than the happy ones. The managers in my company (a small business base, albeit many nationwide employees) are all rather happy. I see more politics in the cubical-bickering of lesser departments.
In my company, politics is pretty useless. We have a tiny chain of command; the director if IT reports directly to the president/owner of the company. This eliminates the need for politics. When you start getting into two or three middle-managers, it is probably better to look at your business method on the whole... there is money being wasted somewhere.
There's a distinction to be made between "work" and "doing something constructive."
I don't consider sitting on my butt while hitting the level cap in WoW "work," but it is constructive from the game's point of view. I don't consider my fondness of tinkering with cars "work," but it might be constructive.
I consider being told what to do, and running the rat wheel to keep the lights on "work." It has the stigma. I don't always enjoy what I do. (well, actually I do, but that's besides the point.) A lot of times, I find myself thinking that I would much rather being doing something other than my "work."
What most people don't realize is that if they figured out how to do what they'd rather be doing, and get paid for it, then that would be considered their "work." Then they can go find some other hobby to pine after.
At least, that was the original design. Someone needs to take them to court over the 1st ammendment. If someone's sign language is governed by free speech, then it follows that the broadcasts should also be governed by the same. They both travel over electro magnetic waves, right?
From the code snippets, it looks like they borrowed Ruby's concept of blocks.
def y(x) yield(x) end
y(2){|c| puts c }
This would just print out "2" to the console, but it works by passing a block into the y function, and y just executes whatever is in that block.
From O'Reilly:
public string* LoTR(){ yield return "The Fellowship of the Ring"; yield return "The Two Towers"; yield return "The Return of the King"; }
public void PrintTrilogyTitles(){ LoTR().{Console.WriteLine(it)}; }
They borrowed the yield statement, and the way of passing blocks into functions is very similar to Ruby.
There really isn't anything new. I hardly use XML for anything at work, and though I do like the idea of passing blocks of code around, this is similar enough to delegates.
I think that they did the time zone thing to synchronize the in-game time to reality time. Clocks in towns and cities chime the hour, with the number of chimes reflecting the time. The outside environment is affected by the time. There is a town where humans turn into worgs at night.
The Time Zone thing was to take care of those little issues. Now, someone in CA can log on to an eastern server, and they'll be fighting werewolves at 3pm.
Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars Galaxies, for example, originally tried to make the route to becoming a Jedi so incredibly difficult and unpalatable that few would go through with the task. (You had to master several professions which were selected by the game, whether you were actually interested in those professions or not.) The idea was that when the task was made so difficult that nobody would intentionally *try* to complete it, the result would be that only the few who happened to pick their combination by accident would succeed.
What I would have done, which would have caused much whining, is make force sensitivity a random thing. At 100 days, the force sensitivity of the character is revealed (a random chance), and the player is given the choice of becoming a jedi (if the amount of sensitivity is high enough).
That way, you won't have so many jedi, and only the ones who are dedicated to the game have a chance of becoming one. Since its random, it is non-descriminatory.
The point is that not everyone in the SW world was a jedi, or even had a chance of becoming one. They probably all would have loved to be one, but it just wasn't the reality of the situation. As for me? I'd much rather have been Han.
Achievers are probably those least satisfied with WoW. This is the group that contains the most powergamers and by now most of them should probably have atleast one character at level 60. The reason achievers aren't happy with WoW is the same reason WoW is popular. WoW is far from the grind that games like Everquest/FF XI are. It is possible for casual gamers to reach the max level in WoW. Achievers despise this because they want to be better than the casual gamer because they spend more time in the game. They also have nothing to do once they have reached the max level because leveling is what they live for. Raids are still something to do, but there is only so much raid content.
A good deal of the achievers will probably jump ship and play another MMORPG instead but I am fine with that because a single game can't suit everyone. Blizzard knows that and will hopefully continue to support the more casual gamers. More high level content will come out but not at the rate the Achievers want.
Did you see what the PvP system was all about? That is nothing but catered to the achievers. There's nothing an achiever likes better than being called "#1" among all others. This is a ranking system. The rewards are good. This is what they want... and this is what they didn't have in the beginning.
If you are questing in STV, you really are nowhere close to lvl 50.
The higher level areas will have groups of lvl 60's running around just as well as your group, and it's possible that they use teamspeak. The other fun thing is that there could be a raid of lvl 60 people sitting around ganking players that are trying to get into BRD / BRS
I chose PvE on purpose, since it doesn't mean that PvP is completely dead... it just doesn't exist when I don't want it to. I'd rather not deal with the hassle. There are still plenty of raids that happen, and battlegrounds is pure PvP.
If they are going to have a whole new API (which is what .NET really is) then why build it on top of the flaky and ugly Win32 API, when it could be inserted as a peer to the Win32 API (in the same way that Carbon and Cocoa are on OSX).
And now tell me what Carbon and Cocoa choked early on. Apple made the mistake of completely replacing the APIs used in MacOS 9, and then horribly implementing an emulator to run legacy stuff.
Most people have old stuff that they want to run. When they upgrade their hardware, they want to be able to run the old stuff. MacOS X broke this, and forced Apple to reimplement. MS is just doing it backwards, they have old code that isn't broken, and they've created a new API for it. No problems for me, I can write code for the new API, which isn't braindead, and that's it. I don't care if it uses Win32 or not, because as far as I'm concerned, my part is done. The code is written, and it works.
MS can then shift the framework to be native in a future OS, and my .NET program will be sure to work. Build the API before your platform shift, and you can be sure that your new platform will have a larger software library upon release.
In addition to paying attention to previous bodies of work, and what part of the world that they will be working out of...
Try to find out what their ideal design philosophies are. Keep in mind that your company is ultimately going to be the one that maintains that code. Make sure that you agree on those aspects, but don't let on to what you think is right.
Try to find people that are flexible on the platforms that they can write for. The reasoning for this is to avoid the vast number of cookie-cutter developers, the ones that take a version of .NET Nuke and make interface changes to it. If they can accomdate more platforms and languages, it is more than likely that they are more concerned with the design than the language.
Don't let politics determine the language. I view that having strong feelings about the type of language being used as pure idiocy. I can do in Java what I can do in C#, which I can do in PHP, ASP, C/CGI... whatever. They produce the same results. Having someone pound your head with "PHP ROX/ASP.NET SUX" does not affect the inevitable, which is: you will end up with the code in the end.
Lastly? Make sure that none of the devs read /.. It leads to a drastic decrease in efficiency, and increases the likelihood of polarization of opinion.
That's pretty much the truth for any kind of development, not just web development. There is a project that I was handed, which had been in development for about four years prior. It had been through two code changes and rewrites, and was continuously in a state of "beta." I cleaned it up, and got it to about 90% production quality in less than a month.
I agree though, it is important to know the history of the individuals that you will be dealing with. Keep in mind where the code is going to be written as well, and whether or not you will have contact with the devs. Though there may be some fine code coming out India, I would make sure that I'm not hiring a front-end firm for a bunch of off-shore developers. The language barrier is painful. The same goes for eastern Europe, which I hear is the new off-shore development hotbed.
I'm surprised that someone actually modded this tripe insightful. Starting an argument by flaming another group of people, in hopes of avoiding getting flamed is rather trollish.
In response, I have to say: You are entitled to your opinion. It really has no impact whatsoever upon any other player, and it also does not make you an "expert." The definition of an MMORPG is a world that can handle many player-characters, who play roles. WoW fills that definition rather well. If you don't like the mechanics of WoW, that's fine. You're playing something else.
I am a hardcore player, but I have a job. I don't like falling behind other players because of the fact that I have a job. Blizzard solved that problem. I don't care that endgame isn't fleshed out yet. I enjoy helping other people get there. I enjoy the high level instances. I enjoy sitting around doing nothing but chat.
You are just an AC, and in no ways an authority on what or what isn't an MMORPG. There is more to do in the WoW than just grind away and grab loot. That really isn't playing a role at all, it's more like playing an arcade game.
Your argument is fine if you develop something that would take 20 years to recoup your costs, but no version of software will be around in 4 years time , let alone 20 years time, so by reality it must be possible to recoup your costs in a much shorter space of time with software.
The company that I work for uses software that is >15 years old. We also license it out to other companies, and provide support for it.
People who don't know what they are doing should definitely not be running a web server. I'm sorry, but it is far easier for someone to pay $4/month for geocities to host their personal web site than it is to configure IIS, run dyndns (or call ISP and set up a static IP address), etc. etc.
Stupid people running stupid web servers is the reason why we had code red in the first place.
I think that it is about time to shut up about the patents already. This really only amounts to massive amounts of whining.
Seriously. Mono provides an implementation of the unpatented CLR bits, those things which are ISO standard. The MS patents, I believe, exist within the System.Windows.Forms namespace. Mono provides this functionality in one stack, and GTK#/QT# in another stack. If a problem aises because of the System.Windows.Forms stack, there would still be an open option for Mono devs.
There really isn't any reason for .NET programmers to use Windows.Forms anyway. GTK# is LGPL, which allows you to distribute your code without the requirement to open it as well. QT# is also available, but I believe that it is GPL'd, which is perfectly fine if you swing that way.
I'm no fan of MS, but I do know that Windows Server 2003 is shipped with all options off by default. I know this, partially because I've read it, but also because our support/configuration experts whine more about how long it takes to set up a server for one of our offices.
WoW PvP is a bit different than other games. Being on a PvP server in other games means that you could be ganked by anyone. In WoW, PvP means that the opposing faction can freely gank you.
Essentially, you're protected more in the WoW realm than in others. If you stay in non-contested areas, you are not going to be killed. If you are in constested areas, you have to realize that, and deal with consequences of it.
That's why some of the most populated servers in WoW are the PvP ones. I play PvE, mostly because PvP has absolutely no in-game benefit. Battlegrounds will be available for both server types, it will have actual benefits for PvP. Until then, I'm content while collecting big bear bones and furry wolf manes.
heh. It'd be easier just to move the character into the middle of Dun Modr or Stormgarde instead. I remember being "moved" once in the beta, but that was because my body was unretrievable.
You're right, for the most part. There isn't any reason why a warrior couldn't re-roll their character as a rogue. Most people don't like tanking because it is unglamorous, and they'd rather have the 1337 damage instead.
Imagine, though. Once they roll a rogue, they start to realize that they die easier as a rogue. Rogues don't have the armor skills and defensive stances that warriors do. Rogues tend to draw aggro, because they deal so much damage.
The top damage machine, the mage, can only wear cloth armor. Mages are one of the hardest classes to solo, they are best paired with someone else, especially a warrior. Same deal for priests.
Sheesh. I'm so glad I wasn't in his shoes. Imagine being responsible for the health of a server, while a whole crapload of people decide to squat on it.
I have to side with the warriors though. Blizzard has been far too unresponsive about balancing issues. The ones in this game, in particular, since the class can affect the end-game significantly. I've spent many hours working on a druid, and I can say that their end-game abilities suck when compared to classes like the rogue or shaman.
Blizzard needs to provide updates on what they are doing to remedy the situation, just like normal software engineers have to do.
But I really want to know what these scary skills were. I want to hear the stories of various dark-alley applicants who use a garrote like I use a pencil.
nd force Nvidia and ATI to make the specs to their cards public
It likely won't happen. I believe that the stated reason for them not opening up the specs is that they are using patented technology that they've licensed from other people. One of the terms of their agreement is that they have to keep the specs closed.
We're lucky enough to have binary only drivers that work reasonably well.
Seriously, if he's talking about engines, why is he making mention of the character models?
The monsters however seem much more lifelike with their detailed skin combined with many details. The Source Engine has better models, especially human, but combined with the lighting and shadowing, the Doom 3 Engine creates amazing textures.
Though it is important to note how the engine renders the models, but the models themselves are not part of the engine! It's possible to export the human models from HL Source and stick them into Doom3. It's as if he's comparing the artists, and not the engineer of the engine.
He also says something to the effect of Source not having cut-scenes. Last I remember from playing Doom 3, the cut-scenes looked like they were being rendered by the engine, and not pre-recorded.
It looks like he's confused engines for games. If I were going to compare the engines, I'd create my own levels and models, render them with both engines, and base my results off of that.
The code itself, if open sourced, would be considered published. The method for tracing the IP is in the code. The code is the HOWTO of which you speak.
I'm not sure if he is referring to English or not. We have compound words as well, such as doghouse, highway, and software. Germans just tend to smush the adjective and the noun together, making a new, more specific, word.
Subjectivity != Objectivity.
Giving the advice: "Don't take it" implies that your opinion overrides everyone else's. I, for one, would have no problem moving into a management position. I like dealing with people, and I hold no special attachment to my work. I'm a decent programmer, but I would gladly give it up if I could manage a bunch of people like me for more money.
People that lose happiness when they move into management tend to be more vocal than the happy ones. The managers in my company (a small business base, albeit many nationwide employees) are all rather happy. I see more politics in the cubical-bickering of lesser departments.
In my company, politics is pretty useless. We have a tiny chain of command; the director if IT reports directly to the president/owner of the company. This eliminates the need for politics. When you start getting into two or three middle-managers, it is probably better to look at your business method on the whole... there is money being wasted somewhere.
There's a distinction to be made between "work" and "doing something constructive."
I don't consider sitting on my butt while hitting the level cap in WoW "work," but it is constructive from the game's point of view. I don't consider my fondness of tinkering with cars "work," but it might be constructive.
I consider being told what to do, and running the rat wheel to keep the lights on "work." It has the stigma. I don't always enjoy what I do. (well, actually I do, but that's besides the point.) A lot of times, I find myself thinking that I would much rather being doing something other than my "work."
What most people don't realize is that if they figured out how to do what they'd rather be doing, and get paid for it, then that would be considered their "work." Then they can go find some other hobby to pine after.
At least, that was the original design. Someone needs to take them to court over the 1st ammendment. If someone's sign language is governed by free speech, then it follows that the broadcasts should also be governed by the same. They both travel over electro magnetic waves, right?
From the code snippets, it looks like they borrowed Ruby's concept of blocks.
This would just print out "2" to the console, but it works by passing a block into the y function, and y just executes whatever is in that block.
From O'Reilly:
They borrowed the yield statement, and the way of passing blocks into functions is very similar to Ruby.
There really isn't anything new. I hardly use XML for anything at work, and though I do like the idea of passing blocks of code around, this is similar enough to delegates.
I think that they did the time zone thing to synchronize the in-game time to reality time. Clocks in towns and cities chime the hour, with the number of chimes reflecting the time. The outside environment is affected by the time. There is a town where humans turn into worgs at night.
The Time Zone thing was to take care of those little issues. Now, someone in CA can log on to an eastern server, and they'll be fighting werewolves at 3pm.