A Couple of Random Things

[Mirajj]

A couple of random things on my mind.

First off...I've long been curious as to where the practice of using a plural to describe a single came from. I was confused for a while until I figured out that by "mob" a person is actually referring to a single monster. So I was wondering where this practice came from.

Second...In reading the WoW boards a little bit ago, I came across an interesting post. Basically, the OP was someone who trained Gnomish Engineering up to 300, decided he wanted to go Goblin, unlearned the profession, relearned the profession, and worked his way up to 225, only to find that his choice of Gnomish didn't reset.

Blizz says that it's not SUPPOSED to reset, regardless if you abandon the profession with that C. That the choice is permanent (which the trainer says, apparently, I've not taken any production profession high enough to know for sure) but that the intuitive logic leap is that the choice is permanent while you know that profession. If you unlearn the profession, you 'unlearn' ALL aspects of it.

So what do you think? I can see good arguements for both sides, and was wondering what the rest of the Lurkers thought about it.

[Quark]

First off...I've long been curious as to where the practice of using a plural to describe a single came from. I was confused for a while until I figured out that by "mob" a person is actually referring to a single monster. So I was wondering where this practice came from.
[right][snapback]75834[/snapback][/right]

Supposedly this is an old MMORPG thing. Mob stands for "Mobile Object"?

[lfd]

First off...I've long been curious as to where the practice of using a plural to describe a single came from. I was confused for a while until I figured out that by "mob" a person is actually referring to a single monster.

On a pedantic note, "mob" is singular ;-) but I know what you mean, and the same thing confused me for a bit. The Glossary in the back of the manual just says it's short for 'mobile', but I like Quark's "Mobile OBject" definition better.

[Jarulf]

On a pedantic note, "mob" is singular ;-)  but I know what you mean, and the same thing confused me for a bit.  The Glossary in the back of the manual just says it's short for 'mobile', but I like Quark's "Mobile OBject" definition better.
[right][snapback]75869[/snapback][/right]

So if I fight two monsters, I am fight two mobs?? I suppose I fight the two mobs with my fireball mob? Actually, I am a mob myself it seems. By the way, since when is a monster an "object"?

*goes to check dictionary*

Heh, turns out "mob" translate into something definately more than one in Swedish. So I guess the question is still not answered just by looking in the manual, but turns into, why Blizzard in their manual begab to practise the use of worlds meaning multiple "beings" to mean "mobile (objects)"???

Yeah, so I am in a rant mode today... :P



By the way, how come some people have started the practice of using "random" to mean obvious non random questions they have been pondering over for a a long time.... :whistling:

[Alrin]

Supposedly this is an old MMORPG thing.  Mob stands for "Mobile Object"?
[right][snapback]75836[/snapback][/right]

Actually, this goes back to the old days of MUD (Multi User Dungeon) text games.
As quark said, its Mobile Object. Either that or just Mobile.

[Nystul]

So if I fight two monsters, I am fight two mobs??

Yes. Unless this is a grammar quiz. In that case, you are fighting two mobs.

I suppose I fight the two mobs with my fireball mob? Actually, I am a mob myself it seems.

So it would appear.

By the way, since when is a monster an "object"?

Since Blizzard created the monster class. Or the monster type definition, depending on the age of the programmer. Or maybe it is not really an object, just a "virtual object", who knows?

Heh, turns out "mob" translate into something definately more than one in Swedish.

But Blizzard is French, not Swedish, so it doesn't count.

So I guess the question is still not answered just by looking in the manual, but turns into, why Blizzard in their manual begab to practise the use of worlds meaning multiple "beings" to mean "mobile (objects)"???

Begab to practise? Is that a Swedish cussword? Anyways, "mob" is the word that EverQuest players use. Since Blizzard's goal was to make a game as close to EQ as humanly possible, of course they wanted to include some EQ jargon in the manual.

Yeah, so I am in a rant mode today... :P

And I am in the mood to answer rhetorical questions and make bad jokes.

By the way, how come some people have started the practice of using "random" to mean obvious non random questions they have been pondering over for a a long time.... :whistling:

Not really sure about this one. Maybe they write a bunch of questions down and draw random ones out of a hat?

[Taakal]

By the way, how come some people have started the practice of using "random" to mean obvious non random questions they have been pondering over for a a long time....

I think it's got to do with the fact that while it's not random to the OP, it is random to anyone else reading them. 'Random' also has a connotation of having no consequence to the general direction of action, which to me implies that the person has a couple of questions that will seem like nonsequitors to those reading them, but they're not particularly important to the person asking [other than to alleviate their own curiosity].

I find the 'mob' thing rather confusing myself, but this is my first MMORPG, and I've never played a MUD, either. I just try to go with the flow, as far as the slang [or vernacular, if you like] in WoW goes.

The nice thing about a 'mob' is that if you run into one, it might not kill you. A 'mob' by the non-gaming definition in WoW almost certainly would.

[Jarulf]

So I guess the question is still not answered just by looking in the manual, but turns into, why Blizzard in their manual begab to practise the use of worlds meaning multiple "beings" to mean "mobile (objects)"???

Begab to practise?  Is that a Swedish cussword? 
[right][snapback]75877[/snapback][/right]

Just switch the last b into random (THIS is the way to use random) letters on adjacent keys until it makes sense. :D

[Raelynn]

So if I fight two monsters, I am fight two mobs?? I suppose I fight the two mobs with my fireball mob? Actually, I am a mob myself it seems. By the way, since when is a monster an "object"?

[right][snapback]75871[/snapback][/right]

As Alrin had said, this dates back to MUDs, where there were players and there were objects. Monsters were a special type of object that moved around in the world, compared to every other object which was stationary. Because of this, they were called mobs, from mobile object. PC are a class of their own because they weren't objects that were in the world in the same sense. They were controlled by real people and not the program. Same thing for spells, it was an object so much as an effect so there was no need to call it an object.

[Mirajj]

By the way, how come some people have started the practice of using "random" to mean obvious non random questions they have been pondering over for a a long time....  :whistling:
[right][snapback]75871[/snapback][/right]

It's been mentioned in here elsewhere, but yes...while the questions themselves aren't random, they are random in that they have no correlation to each other, save the game they derive from.

If they'd both been about a similar topic, then I'd have had an appropriate title for that. =)

[Jarulf]

It's been mentioned in here elsewhere, but yes...while the questions themselves aren't random, they are random in that they have no correlation to each other, save the game they derive from.

If they'd both been about a similar topic, then I'd have had an appropriate title for that. =)
[right][snapback]75898[/snapback][/right]

Shouldn't it be "a couple of unrelated things" then? :P

[Ynir]

I think that "random" is programmer slang for code that doesn't work predictably, or processes that aren't well organized.

I read that the term originated at Microsoft. :lol:

[lemekim]

Second...In reading the WoW boards a little bit ago, I came across an interesting post. Basically, the OP was someone who trained Gnomish Engineering up to 300, decided he wanted to go Goblin, unlearned the profession, relearned the profession, and worked his way up to 225, only to find that his choice of Gnomish didn't reset.

Blizz says that it's not SUPPOSED to reset, regardless if you abandon the profession with that C. That the choice is permanent (which the trainer says, apparently, I've not taken any production profession high enough to know for sure) but that the intuitive logic leap is that the choice is permanent while you know that profession. If you unlearn the profession, you 'unlearn' ALL aspects of it.

So what do you think? I can see good arguements for both sides, and was wondering what the rest of the Lurkers thought about it.
[right][snapback]75834[/snapback][/right]

The original poster wanted to trick the system, and it did not work. So now he is upset that it didn't. That's my interpretation of what happened. It's his fault for not understanding that permanent is actually PERMANENT.

That said, the consideration for being able to take only one path from what I've seen is the fact that you would be able to get Bind-on-Pickup trinkets from both Gnomish and Goblin Engineering. Same applies for Blacksmithing (some weapons and armors are BoP). With normal (green) and pretty much most crafted rare items this is not overpowering, but I can see how this can get serious with some rare and epic items, especially in the future when new recipies are added.

[MongoJerry]

I read that the term originated at Microsoft.  :lol:

Impossible, because Microsoft never creates anything original.

[Rinnhart]

Impossible, because Microsoft never creates anything original.
[right][snapback]76060[/snapback][/right]

Funny thought; neither does Blizzard. :blink:

[Artega]

The original poster wanted to trick the system, and it did not work. So now he is upset that it didn't. That's my interpretation of what happened. It's his fault for not understanding that permanent is actually PERMANENT.

That said, the consideration for being able to take only one path from what I've seen is the fact that you would be able to get Bind-on-Pickup trinkets from both Gnomish and Goblin Engineering. Same applies for Blacksmithing (some weapons and armors are BoP). With normal (green) and pretty much most crafted rare items this is not overpowering, but I can see how this can get serious with some rare and epic items, especially in the future when new recipies are added.
[right][snapback]76030[/snapback][/right]

You can switch from Armorsmithing to Weaponsmithing by unlearning Blacksmithing.

But Blacksmithing sucks, anyway, so I guess it's a moot point.

[KiloVictor]

I think that "random" is programmer slang for code that doesn't work predictably, or processes that aren't well organized.

I read that the term originated at Microsoft.  :lol:
[right][snapback]76009[/snapback][/right]

Close! MIT, but it's a common hackerism:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/R/random.html

Disclaimer: I am in no way for the hours you may lose to browsing the Jargon File, aka The Hacker's Dictionary.

Kv

[KiloVictor]

By the way, how come some people have started the practice of using "random" to mean obvious non random questions they have been pondering over for a a long time....  :whistling:
[right][snapback]75871[/snapback][/right]

Perhaps it's easier than checking the correct spelling of non-sequitur before posting. Or having to explain the term. Or being corrected by pedants. Or any and all of the above. :)

Kv

[lemekim]

You can switch from Armorsmithing to Weaponsmithing by unlearning Blacksmithing.

But Blacksmithing sucks, anyway, so I guess it's a moot point.
[right][snapback]76063[/snapback][/right]

The last I heard you couldn't - it had something to do with setting faction status with "Armorsmiths" or "Weaponsmiths", and then more specific paths, which would not clear by simply relearning Blacksmithing. Of course, if you have some info to the contrary, that would be an interesting change and put a different light on the topic at hand.

[Ynir]

What a great resource. Thanks!