As I frequently said, my main reward for writing this blog is the feedback I get from my readers. It was very nice to see how many of you replied to my question which class I should play on a new Alliance character, that post got 55 comments, plus some advice by e-mail. Thanks again!
But of course I couldn't help but notice that for example my summary post on the "Why do we play?" series only got 4 comments, in spite of having been linked to by Massively (and that link only resulted in 250 page visits, they'd get more if *I* linked to *them*). The individual posts of the series got somewhat more feedback, but if I don't count the people who replied to several posts several times, the whole series got less feedback than that one "Paladin or Warlock?" post.
I think you'll believe me that writing a 7-part series over the course of two weeks, plus introduction and summary, requires a lot more effort than firing of a half-page post with a question on WoW classes. So now I'm wondering if that effort was worth it. There are basically two explanations: The less charitable being that nobody is interested in such theory posts, and my posts were tl;dr (too long; didn't read) walls of text anyway. The more charitable explanation would be that people read my posts with interest, but didn't feel like giving feedback. I mean, a question automatically evokes more response than some long text full of statements. You're probably not writing comments in the margins of the books you are reading either.
So to find out which of these explanations is closer to the truth, I'd like some feedback here: Are you reading theory posts like my "Why do we play?" series? Are you enjoying them, or shouldn't I bother? Is there some value in my general game design theoretical posts at all?