f13.net

f13.net General Forums => World of Warcraft => Topic started by: Lakov_Sanite on August 14, 2009, 06:45:43 PM



Title: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 14, 2009, 06:45:43 PM
As posted on MMO-champion, I'll edit out the parts that run out to be false.  I will say I'm not sure about re-doing lots of old content, doing molten core again with updated loot, even if a thousand times easier is not something i find interesting at all.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 14, 2009, 07:04:48 PM
I can see this.  Thrall's a bit too nice now that Wrynn is in the picture.  This way, Thrall still gets to be awesome, and the Horde and Alliance can (lore-wise) really go at it.

Still mostly a 'wait and see'.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 14, 2009, 07:08:55 PM
More alleged big spoilers:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 14, 2009, 07:13:35 PM
The number of changes that also are supposed to be in the upcoming patch lead me to believe that stupid fuckers are writing up their fantasies as patch notes again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 14, 2009, 07:22:30 PM
I hope the guild misses me when I defect to the Horde.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nonentity on August 14, 2009, 07:32:27 PM
I hope the guild misses me when I defect to the Horde.  :heart:

Welcome to the right side of the game.

I'll be over here rolling my TAUREN PRIEST

YEAH


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 14, 2009, 07:37:06 PM
Troll druid mon, we got da real mojo.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 14, 2009, 07:55:02 PM
I had a whole lot of bitching all typed out, then I realized, who am I kidding, I'll end up buying it eventually, whether it is like this or not. :cry:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on August 14, 2009, 07:55:36 PM
Troll druid mon, we got da real mojo.
After I got my tauren druid to 80 and raid geared!

While most of those changes do seem quite probable, I will wait and see when it's finally released.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 14, 2009, 07:57:03 PM
But seriously, fuck garrosh....right in the ass.  If saurfang doesn't eventually shove an arcanite reaper down his throat i will be pissed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 14, 2009, 07:57:59 PM
For Gnomeregan!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on August 14, 2009, 08:30:12 PM

Oh, lord, I hope that stuff's inaccurate.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 14, 2009, 08:36:27 PM
They're making it very easy for me to quit after I pwn Arthas and wait out SWTOR while playing some freerealms...

 :uhrr: 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 14, 2009, 08:51:16 PM
I think it's a great idea if it's true.  The old world has gotten stale and boring.  Hasn't pretty much every person posting in the WoW forum here has complained about how awful it is to level because they've already seen everything so often already?  Well, now everything will be new again!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azaroth on August 14, 2009, 08:52:10 PM
Yeah, it'd make an awesome patch.

But recycling content as an expansion?

Yeah, I don't know.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 14, 2009, 08:53:07 PM
I'm actually interested in revamping old zones, not sure if ill like the phasing if i have to do the same quests on every single alt i have....(maybe having to do quests to unphase the capitol cities is meant to help curtail goldspammers?)


it's the lore im not liking.....FUCK garrosh, it's enough to make me roll worgen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hindenburg on August 14, 2009, 09:10:19 PM
Putting a Hellscream in charge sounds like a terrific idea. Thrall really is a tactical genius.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on August 14, 2009, 09:35:20 PM
The game needs this. I have no idea how Blizzard keeps getting new subs with its current old-world content - as a newcomer to the game less than a year ago, I was only able to stomach 1-60 because of RAF. Trying to level a second character, after my triple experience ran out, was terrible, and part of why I quit. A leveling revamp would add to the game's playability and stickiness immensely. Assuming they don't fuck it up, of course. If this is just their way of getting vehicles into the old world... well.

And yeah, generally I don't give a shit about lore, but... Cairne's son? Because TB really needed a less high-profile leader?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 14, 2009, 09:51:46 PM
It's been painfully obvious that Thrall was on the way out and Garrosh on the way in ever since their little scuffle during the WOTLK lead-in. Noise about Saurfang was never anything but fanboy wanking over a character who has been more or less invisible throughout the entire expansion.

And it's about fucking time.

That "Horde and Alliance have to put aside their differences and cooperate against (raid boss) or the world is doomed!" shit wore the fuck out years ago.

Quote from: ME A FEW DAYS AGO
I'm gonna laugh when not only does Varian survive, but they kill off Thrall and make Garrosh the new Warchief. We've watched the whole "Alliance and Horde cooperate" thing go totally out the window this expansion, and the idea that they've done all this just so they can reverse the whole thing at the end and have everyone make up and go out for frosty chocolate milkshakes together is pretty hilarious.

Only difference is that they're putting Thrall out to pasture in a Tirion sort of role rather than killing him off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on August 14, 2009, 09:55:16 PM
Hasn't pretty much every person posting in the WoW forum here has complained about how awful it is to level because they've already seen everything so often already?
The biggest problem is the sheer amount of "go here, now run across the continent and 5 zones to turn something in, then go BACK to another continent and zone to get the actual quest" that was present in the old world.  Flying across Kalimdor and Old Kingdoms is just flat out painful in the time consumption aspect.  If quests were more centralized and actually gave loot that was... you know, itemized well for your class (the sheer amount of +spirit only cloth items or mail with strength only is just unreal) then there would be a reason to do the quests and enjoy.  As it is now, most of the stuff is passable until you get to outlands where itemization improves so much more that it almost becomes trivial.  A revamp of the old world in that nature is really all that is needed, although massive changes as described sure are interesting to think about.  Good thing I already did Loremaster =P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 14, 2009, 10:00:35 PM
Quote from: ME BACK IN MAY
The game could use a revamp. Old world zones refurbished and improved so that you wouldn't hear "The blood elf starter area was cool but then it was back to the barrens or something, bleh!" anymore. The world and engine rebuilt with vehicles and flight and 200 person battles in mind from the beginning. Phasing used tastefully from the start. Things like that, just sort of a second fresh start in general, with the benefit of everything they've learned over the years.

Dunno as they'll really mess with the engine a whole lot or how close they'll come to 200 person battles that actually work all right, but I basically called it. Except for the fact that I immediately followed this up with "Aw, but they'll never do all THAT!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 14, 2009, 10:05:22 PM
I'll believe this shit when I actually see it announced rather than relying entirely upon people speculating in a Something Awful thread (yes that's where all of this came from).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lamaros on August 14, 2009, 10:08:38 PM
This is officially the "all our best guys are working on the new mmo" expansion, but looks to have been planned quite well.

Not going to get me playing, but it should do enough to keep the world ticking over. Flying everywhere, if true, would be very awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Falwell on August 14, 2009, 10:26:48 PM
If this turns out to be accurate, and were I still playing WoW, I'd be borderline insulted. The folks who made WoW the money printing monster that it is deserve better.

This is a glorified content patch, not a retail expansion.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 14, 2009, 10:30:08 PM
It also reeks of fucking Goon.  But nobody is letting that bother them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on August 14, 2009, 10:34:07 PM
And it's about fucking time.

That "Horde and Alliance have to put aside their differences and cooperate against (raid boss) or the world is doomed!" shit wore the fuck out years ago.

The problem is, there IS always a bigger threat which makes the Horde vs. Alliance slapfight look completely retarded.  I mean, all this crap between Garosh and King Humanguy looks completely asinine with The Lich King about to roll over the entire planet.  In theory, anyway, in practice, I suspect it'll take something around ten guys to put an end to his plans for global domination, but I'm getting off track...

If Blizz wants to escalate things, fine.  Do it as a PvP expansion, though.  And I don't think that's what this is, or we wouldn't have all this junk with Azshara and whoever else.  Shouting "WE'RE AT WAR, AAAAARGH" while everyone continues to collect ten rat tails to unlock Azshara's secret base is all kinds of stupid. What's the point of saying the Horde and the Alliance are at War if the players can't do anything about it?  And I don't see any real player involvement in a war in Warcraft as feasable, given how everything has been balanced around static, repeatable content and 5-man arenas for however many years now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 14, 2009, 10:52:11 PM
I'm with you on that, Kail. Part of the reason King Chin the Douchebag irritates me is because it's so forced. His hating the Horde is forced, his being an asshat about it is forced, and him refusing to settle down and realise the Lich King is the Bigger Problem Right Now is also forced. It's all contrived to make it seem like the Alliance and the Horde are on TEH BRINK OF REAL WAR AGAIN - but we ALL KNOW that will never ever ever happen on the PvE servers, so it's stupid and pointless.

My only issues with the leaks (I am assuming they're all true for the sake of my posts, I've taken most of this with the required shakers of salt) thus far are the lore ones. But given Blizzard's lore is in the hands of a bunch of glorified fanfic writers anyway, I'm not really surprised or disappointed by it. I'll just roll my eyes like I always do.

Redoing the world, if it's anywhere near the scope of what it sounds like, is awesome. It's NOT a glorified content patch, because it sounds like they're basically rebuilding the main world (they HAVE to if they let us fly across it). You'd have to be crazy to expect that in a patch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 14, 2009, 10:54:50 PM
Why would RAAR KILL WARRIOR KILL horde dude have someone secretly assassinated. Even if you follow the lollore plot here, that's completely out of character.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 14, 2009, 10:56:51 PM
Real or fake, I think this sounds pretty good. I've stated many times my willingness to pay for the ability to fly in the old world. If a major revamp is what it takes, so be it. The lorelol lives up to everything we've gotten since, well, WoW launched, so I'm not really disappointed there.

Two new races, more race/class combos allowed, at least 3 new zones and a revamp of the entire world...that's just a content patch? Really?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 14, 2009, 11:03:21 PM
I'm going to go 95% that they are making this shit up. It's horrible business if they aren't. I'm not going to pay for an entire expansion where I go back to the same continent I spent the first year on, rerunning the same shit I did with new skins. That's Trials of Atlantis level stupid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 14, 2009, 11:07:22 PM
I'm going to go 95% that they are making this shit up. It's horrible business if they aren't. I'm not going to pay for an entire expansion where I go back to the same continent I spent the first year on, rerunning the same shit I did with new skins. That's Trials of Atlantis level stupid.

Nah, ToA level stupid requires you to level your pants again.

If they make me get level 60 MC gear and have to grind it to 80, then we're ToA.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Falwell on August 14, 2009, 11:17:22 PM
Two new races, more race/class combos allowed, at least 3 new zones and a revamp of the entire world...that's just a content patch? Really?

If you're willing to pay a retail price for that feature list, more power to ya. I think it's shit on a stick considering the amount of rehashed drivel that list drips with. Also, don't make those new race / class combos out to be something glorious. Those are a no shame cash in on faction transfers.


Edit: Again, if this list is accurate. I'm far from sold that it is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 14, 2009, 11:23:15 PM
I'm sorry, were people sleeping when wotlk came out? Now, I've got reservations but if this patch can come anywhere near the scope of wotlk was at release it's worth the money.  Redesigning entire zones is a lot different from re-texturing and isn't a changing game world exactly what people want? 

Now I know that I and anyone else wants to experience new content but new content != new landmass.  If they do this right I'm betting the cut the levelling zones in half and turn the other half into post 80 zones.

also, what happens to mankirks wife? that's the real issue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 14, 2009, 11:27:51 PM
She stood in the fire.

Not sold on what I'm seeing here so far. It'll really all hinge for me on how Goblins are implemented.  Another 5 levels (if done well) is worth a box purchase and a month's sub for me.

I always kind of wanted to make a gnome priest, heh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 14, 2009, 11:28:23 PM
I'm sorry, were people sleeping when wotlk came out? Now, I've got reservations but if this patch can come anywhere near the scope of wotlk was at release it's worth the money.  Redesigning entire zones is a lot different from re-texturing and isn't a changing game world exactly what people want? 

Now I know that I and anyone else wants to experience new content but new content != new landmass.  If they do this right I'm betting the cut the levelling zones in half and turn the other half into post 80 zones.

also, what happens to mankirks wife? that's the real issue.
Emphasis mine. Rather than every expansion just add some new dimension or continent or whatever the fuck, I would prefer the world gradually evolve. I want things to happen TO the world, not just new places appear for us to quest in. That's fucking silly. This is a perfect opportunity to advance the quests we've been grinding out for the last 5 years.

If this info is true, this is the perfect answer to everyone's cry of "let me start at 55/65/75." I wouldn't mind leveling another character if I didn't have to do the same quests for the 10th time.

Bet Mankrik's wife will replace Baron Rivendare in Naxx 3.0


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 14, 2009, 11:33:13 PM
Let me put it this way. They MIGHT redesign the old shit. However, there has to be a new world introduced. It doesn't even have to be huge. To do anything less is simply lazy and will divide the player base.

Example: TBC - new fucking island, Wrath - new fucking island, Cataclysm - new zones on the same...island...with stuff...and goblins...yeah.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 14, 2009, 11:34:54 PM
The problem is, there IS always a bigger threat which makes the Horde vs. Alliance slapfight look completely retarded.

God, I'm so fucking sick of even hearing this. Fuck whatever stupid raid boss (that I'll never see) who's totally going to come out of his instance and destroy the world if 25 poopsocks don't heroically farm him to death first. Fuck that shit right in the ear. I'm tired of the Warchief in Warcraft being some fucking fruitloop who hates war.

Give me some war, give me some new battlegrounds and Wintergrasp type shit to fight over, and let me kill the fucking Horde. I don't care if they stroke the PVE players with a bunch of "Foozle the Lootbag is totally going to take over the universe!" nonsense, because that's what half the game is about. But quit fagging up my half with scene after scene of Thrall and Jaina blowing kisses at each other while everyone learns to just get along.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Falwell on August 14, 2009, 11:43:24 PM
God damnit WUA we're trying to have a content slap / hair pulling / earring yanking fight here. Lore nerd gayery goes over there ---->

I'll just go back to my original point. WoW players deserve better. I'm not part of that community anymore, but Blizzard can do better than drive people back through "classic" content on expansion #3. Changing the old world is a good thing, but it sure as hell shouldn't be the core tenet of a retail expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 14, 2009, 11:45:59 PM
WUA's gonna fag up everything over lore. He's got NOVELS.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 14, 2009, 11:52:39 PM
I think a lot of the "RAWR WAR" stuff will end up being like the PvE quests at the east end of Ashenvale, those lumber related ones and etc.



There are also tons of unused zones they could use for the expansion, not counting anything they rebuild. Just look at the map and all the little 'sections' we can't access currently.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Falwell on August 15, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
WUA's gonna fag up everything over lore. He's got NOVELS.  :why_so_serious:

Oh hell, novels? Alright everyone, fall back and we'll reassess the situation once we've regrouped. We're gonna need much heavier artillery to win this fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 15, 2009, 12:07:13 AM
Yeah. Between never-finished shit like Grim Batol and Hyjal, and abandoned zones like Winterspring and Silithus, there's easily room for a healthy expansion's worth of content if they feel like giving it to us. Even if they don't put it on an island. Or they could be lazy about it and just reskin some bullshit.

And since nothing about this approach really tells us anything either way, let's fight about lore instead! And how I shall bathe myself in the tears of "Horde are really the good guys!" fanboys as they come under the yoke of puppy-kickin' Garrosh Hellscream!

Edit: Please, I've never bought a WoW novel in my life. I just keep up with my fellow lorefags enough to know what happens in them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Falwell on August 15, 2009, 12:12:03 AM
And since nothing about this approach really tells us anything either way, let's fight about lore instead! And how I shall bathe myself in the tears of "Horde are really the good guys!" fanboys as they come under the yoke of puppy-kickin' Garrosh Hellscream!

Horde should be eating kids, not doing diplomacy sessions. THERE CAN WE GO NOW?!?!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 15, 2009, 12:15:39 AM
Edit: Please, I've never bought a WoW novel in my life. I just keep up with my fellow lorefags enough to know what happens in them.

Borrowing novels from your friends counts there, Bucko.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 15, 2009, 12:19:46 AM
I've never even borrowed one. As soon as they come out, lorefags post about them all over this thing called the internet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Falwell on August 15, 2009, 12:22:13 AM
I've never even borrowed one. As soon as they come out, lorefags post about them all over this thing called the internet.

WUA is basically the guy at work that bums smokes off 10 different people every day, yet never buys any so he can still try and claim to be a non smoker.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 15, 2009, 12:24:06 AM
The concept makes sense, because it's a pretty good way to make getting into Grim Batol/Uldum/Hyjal/etc logical instead of borderline stupid like Zul'Aman. ZA was a fun instance and you got to fight a cool lore character but it made no fucking sense in the overall narrative coming at 80. Kinda the same deal with Karazhan.

"WE WOULD LIKE TO INTERRUPT YOUR TOUR THROUGH THE OUTLANDS AND SPACEGOATS TO ASK YOU TO...GO BACK TO AZEROTH AND KILL AN OLD ONE-ARMED TROLL AND CHECK OUT THIS DUSTY TOWER MAYBE."

I just don't believe Blizzard will put the work required into making a major remake of Azeroth work into a semi-coherent narrative.

Unless they make 1-80 possible in the old world, detours into Outlands and Northrend will make no fucking sense whatsoever.

"okay yeah I know you're kinda pissed about that worldwide flood that destroyed your civilization and yeah Deathwing and Azshara and Cthulu summoned Sargeras and they're having a big gay tea party right now but I need you to go through the Dark Portal and fight Illidan since for you to have a reason to go there he needs to not be dead, also after that you need to take a boat to Northrend and kill Arthas too since we really didn't get around to that thanks"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 15, 2009, 12:31:30 AM
Retooling the world for flying would be a MASSIVE overhaul. Everything is piece by piece loaded, and when you actually fly around you see that cities aren't even one piece at all. They are several weird sections that make you fall through the floor.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on August 15, 2009, 12:43:25 AM
Am I the only one who likes the old world content as is? With the low level mounts now travel is a non issue and heck just chop the exp if leveling is too slow.  There's some really good stories and flushed out content there.

Same as Merusk, I'll be done and finish up with WoW. That's not to say like meth addicts people be there getting a fix as other mmo's flop.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 15, 2009, 12:49:08 AM
Unless they make 1-80 possible in the old world, detours into Outlands and Northrend will make no fucking sense whatsoever.

"okay yeah I know you're kinda pissed about that worldwide flood that destroyed your civilization and yeah Deathwing and Azshara and Cthulu summoned Sargeras and they're having a big gay tea party right now but I need you to go through the Dark Portal and fight Illidan since for you to have a reason to go there he needs to not be dead, also after that you need to take a boat to Northrend and kill Arthas too since we really didn't get around to that thanks"

I've worked it all out in chart form.

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e121/GrimDysart/SRSBZNS.png)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 15, 2009, 12:56:16 AM
Am I the only one who likes the old world content as is? With the low level mounts now travel is a non issue and heck just chop the exp if leveling is too slow.  There's some really good stories and flushed out content there.

Same as Merusk, I'll be done and finish up with WoW. That's not to say like meth addicts people be there getting a fix as other mmo's flop.

I like the old world fine, but "just chop the XP required to level" only gets you so far. In fact, it gets those really good stories and shit skipped, because nine times out of ten, the quests with the interesting story are also the quests that make you go from one ass end of the continent to the other, and pretty much no one does those after they've done them the first time. If they cut the "fetch me ten boar asses" quests and steamline the Hey There Is A Narrative Here quests so you don't have to run all over god's creation to fed ex your mcguffin to get your lore pellet, then the old world will flow better and you can still have the interesting stories. And you might even have people DO them!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on August 15, 2009, 12:58:37 AM
I'll just go back to my original point. WoW players deserve better. I'm not part of that community anymore, but Blizzard can do better than drive people back through "classic" content on expansion #3. Changing the old world is a good thing, but it sure as hell shouldn't be the core tenet of a retail expansion.
Technically, an old-world retool wouldn't be part of the expansion, it would be part of WoW patch 4.0. Obviously, players without Cataclysm have to be able to access it, or else where will they level up? This means that Cataclysm itself is going to have to reveal new content in order for there to be something for people to pay for.

Unless they make 1-80 possible in the old world, detours into Outlands and Northrend will make no fucking sense whatsoever.
By that logic, going into Outlands - or any of the 1-60 leveling zones - already makes no sense. WUA said it way better though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Falwell on August 15, 2009, 01:14:16 AM
Technically, an old-world retool wouldn't be part of the expansion, it would be part of WoW patch 4.0. Obviously, players without Cataclysm have to be able to access it, or else where will they level up? This means that Cataclysm itself is going to have to reveal new content in order for there to be something for people to pay for.

Come on now, let's not drive this thread into semantics already on page two. We just got a chart so this bastard is here for the long haul.

Anyways, the new shit will probably rely heavily on phasing so it may be a moot point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 15, 2009, 01:20:13 AM
He makes a good point though. If you expansion overhaul current zones, WTF stops ppl from not paying for it? We're going to phase every damn zone now? That's how stupid the business model is with this supposed "design".

IE - It's horseshit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on August 15, 2009, 01:22:20 AM
Sorry, wasn't trying to nitpick semantics, just pointing out that even if the revamp is the "core tenet" of Cataclysm, that doesn't mean there won't be other stuff to do - sort of like how storming Icecrown and killing Arthas was the core tenet of Wrath, but instead we've mostly been traipsing around forests, collecting swords from young maidens and causing a ruckus among the local gigantic viking populations.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 15, 2009, 01:25:40 AM
THE REVAMP ISN'T REAL


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Falwell on August 15, 2009, 01:27:42 AM
THE REVAMP ISN'T REAL

Jesus, it's caps, he's serious.

Speak my good man, let us in on this nugget of knowledge.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 15, 2009, 01:30:06 AM
I just like caps. I gives me a good quote to come back to and shove it in the face of people who were wrong. If I'm wrong it's just silly, but I live on the edge.

Seriously though, I am as hardcore a financial guy as you'll meet while being a gamer, and to remake old shit in the guise of new shit isn't a business plan. It's a salvage plan.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 15, 2009, 01:47:36 AM
If this is true, this is pretty much my dream expansion. Seriously, there is not one single tiny thing I don't like about it.


....except Forsaken Hunters.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 15, 2009, 01:50:29 AM
So you're lying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 15, 2009, 01:56:47 AM
Seems like there's a lot of potential for new content between the Uldum speculation, and the whole let's go figure out what the fuck this Maelstrom is all about.  I know that most of the info is about the re-doing of old content.  But that doesn't exclude new content at all.  After all, it's Blizzard.  I'm gonna be a Goblin mother fuckers.  Of course, my first reaction to this post was 'fake post is fake.'  So a grain of salt until it's official.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 15, 2009, 03:43:52 AM
Yeah. Between never-finished shit like Grim Batol and Hyjal, and abandoned zones like Winterspring and Silithus, there's easily room for a healthy expansion's worth of content if they feel like giving it to us.
Well, bearing in mind that Hyjal and Uldum were explicitly mentioned as "Hey guys remember these zones that we never added?", plus Grim Batol is Deathwing's crib it's a pretty sure bet. Let alone whatever they're going to do to existing zones (Durotar is gone, Barrens split into two zones with a fucking volcano erupting in the middle, 1K Needles flooding and turning into a thousand islands in the ocean, etc etc).

Quote
And since nothing about this approach really tells us anything either way, let's fight about lore instead! And how I shall bathe myself in the tears of "Horde are really the good guys!" fanboys as they come under the yoke of puppy-kickin' Garrosh Hellscream!
The way they need to frame that to win over the "But I'm on Thrall's side" people is something along the lines of "Well, we tried over and over and over again to work with the Alliance and they are simply unwilling to side with 'savages', especially since King Wrynn reappeared. So they wanna pick a fight? They're gonna get one. FOR THE HORDE!"

Plus the Forsaken and blood elves should be really, really fucking pissed off with what happens with Gilnean worgen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 15, 2009, 06:05:59 AM
Quote
And since nothing about this approach really tells us anything either way, let's fight about lore instead! And how I shall bathe myself in the tears of "Horde are really the good guys!" fanboys as they come under the yoke of puppy-kickin' Garrosh Hellscream!
The way they need to frame that to win over the "But I'm on Thrall's side" people is something along the lines of "Well, we tried over and over and over again to work with the Alliance and they are simply unwilling to side with 'savages', especially since King Wrynn reappeared. So they wanna pick a fight? They're gonna get one. FOR THE HORDE!"

Plus the Forsaken and blood elves should be really, really fucking pissed off with what happens with Gilnean worgen.


It will be that paragraph with a side of "And those fuckers killed Cairne" if this is all true.  Scheming fucking Hellscreams.

The Elves I can see, the Forsaken no so much.  I mean they ARE dead and never really tried to join the Alliance IIRC. Sylvanis just kind of flipped everyone the bird and walked off initially.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 15, 2009, 06:27:25 AM
The Alliance was originally called the Alliance of Lordaeron. Guess which country most of the Forsaken used to be part of?
"So, wait. Let me get this straight: we get cursed by the Lich King - after saving your pitiful arses in the second war, I might add - and you lot effectively declare war on us for even existing. Genn Greymane and his merry band of leghumpers get cursed by a third-rate archmage after turning their back on the Alliance and you turn around and welcome them with open arms? Fuck. That. Shit. Putress was right all along. Now where did I put those barrels of Blight again?" :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 15, 2009, 06:28:21 AM
All of this plus the faction transfer service coming actually makes me think the tauren might split from the horde.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 15, 2009, 08:21:59 AM
Initially I bought it, but now I'm not so sure.  Also I was wondering what they would have done with Nazjatar and the Maelstrom and why it wouldn't be included.  It seems like a ridiculous oversight not to include one of the two main zones people are looking forward to - the Emerald Dream or the Maelstrom.

But if they change up the old world, make leveling easier, retool Azeroth to allow flying mounts, include the new class combos, but also add the Maelstrom, Undermine and a few other bits like the Tomb of Sargeras for people that have the expansion, that might make sense.  Azshara as the big end boss would be a big enough payoff, maybe with Deathwing as a speedbump.   And some new dungeons in Nazjatar.

TLDR version I think the leaks might be mostly on target but I bet there's more, unless Blizzard has totally lost their marbles.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 15, 2009, 09:55:28 AM
I find it hard to believe Blizzard wouldn't include a new continent underneath the Maelstrom. Also, if they add goblins they should add the isle of Kazan as Undermine is there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 15, 2009, 09:59:57 AM
I can't imagine the entire world getting a flying mount redesign since that would take more effort than making an entirely new continent.

Flooding some zones and an old world retune would take more effort than I see Blizz putting into anything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jpark on August 15, 2009, 10:04:30 AM
Flooding some zones and an old world retune would take more effort than I see Blizz putting into anything.

Interesting.  My friend argues that WoW is on cash cow status and whatever Blizzard is focused on it, it is no longer WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: bhodi on August 15, 2009, 10:05:26 AM
The fact that their "A" team programmers, designers, and art team have moved onto other projects after 5 years is a no-brainer. That doesn't mean that "B" team can't come up with new and interesting and cool stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on August 15, 2009, 10:09:12 AM
It wouldn't hurt for them to turn WoW into a testbed for future games.  They already do it to some extent through trial and error.  But having a base game that you test then port the successes over to the A title is win all around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jpark on August 15, 2009, 10:11:43 AM
These extra class/race combinations seem like a simple cash grab by the developers to me.

I am not a "lore guy" but the "vision" blizzard has had or implied for certain races is contradicted by many of these combinations.  Undead hunter?  etc.

If the player base likes it that's a good decision - but it turns me off.

I hereby dubb this the Cash Cow game - hopefully we get a peak soon at whatever game has garnered Blizzard's talent from Wow.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on August 15, 2009, 10:16:26 AM
I hereby dubb this the Cash Cow game - hopefully we get a peak soon at whatever game has garnered Blizzard's talent from Wow.
I wouldn't exactly expect the next Blizzard game to ignore the Low Hanging Enormous Moneyhats when it works so well for them with WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 15, 2009, 10:37:47 AM
They just need to release Diablo already. That way I'll have something else to focus on when I'm not raiding.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 15, 2009, 11:01:53 AM
They just need to release Diablo already. That way I'll have something else to focus on when I'm not raiding.

That way I can stop raiding!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 15, 2009, 11:05:10 AM
These extra class/race combinations seem like a simple cash grab by the developers to me.

I am not a "lore guy" but the "vision" blizzard has had or implied for certain races is contradicted by many of these combinations.  Undead hunter?  etc.

Of course it's a cash grab.  It works on multiple levels.  You get the alt-o-holics loading up the one combination they've always wanted.  You get the min-maxers rolling some new combo they think will rule the day.  And finally, you get a lot more mileage out of your faction transfer service (already mentioned).  The last thing alone will probably buy every dev a new porche.

Undead anything works.  Why is a pulse needed for any job?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 15, 2009, 11:21:10 AM
Certain class/race restrictions never made any sense to me. The only ones that should probably be restricted are Druids, Paladins, and Shamans for the lore reasons. Stuff like humans not being able to shoot a gun, or dwarves not being able to be offensive spellcasters don't really make any sense.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 15, 2009, 11:27:41 AM
No Dwarf Mages is probably a carryover from a traditional D&D view of dwarves. All I can say to belf Warrior is fucking finally. Tauren Pally is nice, although I would've prefered undead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on August 15, 2009, 11:40:42 AM
I will be back in for yet another brand new character if they let me be an Orc mage. I like playing different character classes, but I don't really get into it unless they are Orcs. I have a Gnome mage, because they're pretty much the next best race after Orcs. Tauren, Trolls, Dwarves and Draenei are just okay. All the other races suck. Especially elves.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 15, 2009, 11:41:41 AM
No Dwarf Mages is probably a carryover from a traditional D&D view of dwarves. All I can say to belf Warrior is fucking finally. Tauren Pally is nice, although I would've prefered undead.

They had dwarf mages in the beta.  I recally they got removed shortly before I got in and there was still a little outcry over it.  The logic for removal at the time was "They're already all these other classes, there's just not room for it as we'd rather have another priest race than another mage race."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 15, 2009, 12:49:26 PM
Let me get this straight: we get cursed by the Lich King - after saving your pitiful arses in the second war, I might add - and you lot effectively declare war on us for even existing.

I want to know what game/book/whatever people think this is supposed to have happened during, because everyone who loves Forsaken spits it out like it's unquestioned, but as far as I can tell it's a total fabrication. When Alliance forces first came into contact with the Forsaken in WC3, it was Sylvanus who resorted to betrayal.

edit: Anyway yeah, I'm curious how the hell this is supposed to work. WoW has always functioned with the implicit assumption that the "present" is where/whenever your character is. As I'm standing in Grizzly Hills listening to Gryan Stoutmantle tell me how great it was that we saved Westfall, some newb is in Westfall saving it for Gryan Stoutmantle. The same guy exists in multiple places, but it's implied that those different places also represent different times.

So how do you bring Azeroth forward in time while leaving Outland and Northrend alone? "Yeah, after the Lich King died there was this big cataclysm that made the world all fucked up. Anyway now that you're level 68, go to Northrend and do a bunch of quests where you meet the Lich King." Maybe this IS fake.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ghost on August 15, 2009, 01:13:37 PM
I really haven't been keeping up with WOW much lately.  Any chance that these new races will be a "third faction" or neutral faction?  That would beat War to the punch there again. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 15, 2009, 01:13:45 PM
These extra class/race combinations seem like a simple cash grab by the developers to me.

I am not a "lore guy" but the "vision" blizzard has had or implied for certain races is contradicted by many of these combinations.  Undead hunter?  etc.


Forsaken Hunter would work especially well if instead of being able to tame beasts, they could tame undead.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 15, 2009, 02:21:01 PM
Gotta say, this whole thing reeks to me and I won't be convinced until I hear it come from Blizzard's gaping maws.  Redoing the entire old world, while an interesting prospect, sounds like a fucking task and a half and a whole lot more work than it took to add Outland or even Northrend with all it's phased zones. They were new, this requires substantial changes. Also, the headache, as Paelos implied, in maintaining the vanilla world for those without the expansion?

Of course, I may be wrong.  If I am then I think it's pretty cool. So many people complain that MMOs are static worlds and that nothing changes but this would be Blizzard making huge and significant changes to their persistent world, moving the story along and changing it. I don't think it's a bad business plan either. Make a change to something people are familiar with will get a lot of people who have left come back just to see the changes.  You say "hey! Did you know they flooded 1k needles, destroyed Orgrimmar and blew up the Barrens?" and old players curiosity will no doubt get the better of them.  Offer them flying mounts in the old world and that 12 million subscribers will skyrocket.  Srsly.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet against this. If Cataclysm is the name of the next expansion then yeah, perhaps it'll be the Maelstrom.  Gilneas may well be a new zone. Azshara might get a relevant makeover. But they'd be more likely to add a new continent in the form of the Maelstrom and the Undermine (which would also make sense of the new playable Goblin race too - if that's more than a rumour). Azshara would obviously be a boss and perhaps Deathwing although I see no relation between the two.

Anyway, if Emerald Dream/Nightmare is intended to be an eventual expansion then there's no way they'll do one expansion as an overhaul of the current world followed by another one which is a copy of the current world.

On the other hand, if someone said, WoW 2 rather than an expansion, I'd be less sceptical.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on August 15, 2009, 02:41:28 PM
Even among people who like leveling, the BC/Wrath content is widely considered to be vastly superior to the classic WoW stuff. The constant across-the-board XP increases and introduction of heirloom items indicate that Blizz knows there's a problem with their leveling content, but aren't themselves proper solutions. And old-world flying mounts are one of the most commonly requested features for the game, if not the most commonly.

Again, world revamp != new expansion. It's simply something the game needs, and tying it to the next expansion (which presumably will have plenty of its own new, non-revamped 81-85 content) thematically just makes sense.

I believe it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 15, 2009, 02:56:24 PM
So how do you bring Azeroth forward in time while leaving Outland and Northrend alone? "Yeah, after the Lich King died there was this big cataclysm that made the world all fucked up. Anyway now that you're level 68, go to Northrend and do a bunch of quests where you meet the Lich King." Maybe this IS fake.

Remove them from the 1-85 sequence and then re-use the content to create other shit, like battlegrounds, instances, and starting zones for hero classes and/or appropriate racial/class pairings.  Comparatively speaking retooling the entire old world would take a shitton more work, and landscaping and architecture would be the least part.

But this is all beside the point, because my money is on all you people being trolled by a goon since he saw the Wolvar mask in the PTR files.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on August 15, 2009, 03:03:43 PM
These extra class/race combinations seem like a simple cash grab by the developers to me.

I am not a "lore guy" but the "vision" blizzard has had or implied for certain races is contradicted by many of these combinations.  Undead hunter?  etc.


Forsaken Hunter would work especially well if instead of being able to tame beasts, they could tame undead.  :awesome_for_real:

Scourge generally: crypt fiends, oozes, maggots, golems, bog fiends, abominations.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 15, 2009, 03:18:40 PM
The only thing troubling me is the whole question of how Outland and Northrend would fit in. Otherwise I think this would be a god damned brilliant idea, to take the entire original content of WoW and basically chuck it in the trash in favor of a new-and-improved version. Forget that "LOL REUSING ZONES? LAZY!" noise, this would actually be a hell of a lot MORE ambitious than just opening yet another portal to yet another five-zone Awesomeland while letting the old world get even more abandoned and irrelevant. Some of these changes sound pretty goddamned drastic.

We've all heard the "just let every class start at 55" talk. If you don't want to make the original world totally empty by actually letting everyone start at 55, but don't want to keep making people play your shittiest content for the first 55 levels either, then this makes perfect sense. If you have the resources to be able to scrap that much old content.

I will officially be disappointed as fuck if this is all a hoax and we get just another "hop the portal to New Awesomeland and ding to 90 in these 5 zones, only seeing the old world on your bank alt" expansion. I want to take off from Theramore on my epic flyer and cruise west over the Barrens Volcano.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 15, 2009, 03:47:26 PM
Maybe they've expanded the phasing technology to include terrain? Maybe they'll just Ret-Con the entire old world so the leveling curve will shift into outland/northrend smoothly lore wise.

Clearly the Cataclysm effected time too!  :why_so_serious:



Really, Outland already has this problem, you can do a bunch of crap in Outlands while simultaneously seeing the results of the stuff you haven't done yet. Plenty of Old World stuff also has these issues lore wise. That Un'goro expedition, "halp we are trapped in the jungle!", try the Goblin Griffin master to your left there buddy. They've probably changed the quest text a bit for those, I haven't done them in years.


I think we are just sorta supposed to assume we are fighting the Lich King's remnants, or Illidan's shadow or whatever. Sure, we took out the big bad guys and mostly fixed things, but there are still a jillion zombies and demons to clean out.






Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 15, 2009, 03:56:17 PM
I will officially be disappointed as fuck if this is all a hoax and we get just another "hop the portal to New Awesomeland and ding to 90 in these 5 zones, only seeing the old world on your bank alt" expansion. I want to take off from Theramore on my epic flyer and cruise west over the Barrens Volcano.
So you want to fly from a city built at sea level in a swamp after a giant tsunami rearranges the local geography? Step one: Make sure the city is still there.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 15, 2009, 04:49:44 PM
Clearly the Cataclysm effected time too!  :why_so_serious:

There is a get-out clause: the Infinite Dragonflight. And Nozdormu. That story-arc, to my knowledge, hasn't been resolved yet.





Did I really just call that a story-arc?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 15, 2009, 05:07:37 PM
Well, there's ALREADY plot and time holes in wow, it's inevitable when you add new content...I don't like it but if you gave me the options of

1. Redo all the old zones, give them new looks and totally redo all the questlines for wotlk quality(and by doing so make BC and wotlk seem out of time)

or

2. Discover a new planet and/or continent adding 8 entirely new zones.

I'd pick option 1 every single time, I want to see this world change, hell even with my hatred for garrosh(being a whiny and literally backstabbing little man-child) I still want to see what comes next for azeroth.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 15, 2009, 05:42:56 PM
So you want to fly from a city built at sea level in a swamp after a giant tsunami rearranges the local geography? Step one: Make sure the city is still there.  :grin:

Oh god I hope not. I hope that Horde-loving cunt Jaina ends up on the bottom of the fucking ocean as fish-food.

Also, have you figured out when this whole "Evil Alliance declares war on peace-loving Forsaken JUST FOR EXISTING! BAAAW!" thing was supposed to have actually taken place yet? Because nobody could tell me last time we did this for pages and pages either and I'm really quite curious.

(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:und4oUqWncYUhM:http://dcsleez.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/nerd-fight_thumb.jpg)

Let's do this! We've got a week of empty wanking to do before Blizzcon anyway!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hellinar on August 15, 2009, 06:18:51 PM
If Blizzard can phase whole continents, then they could make the post Cataclysm world only visible the the lvl 80 characters that have done the quest. If you want to visit with lower level buddies, a quick portal to the Caverns of Time fixes the problem.

Maybe their next project will go into phasing bigtime, so it is worth the expense of testing it fully in WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 15, 2009, 06:24:27 PM
Maybe their next project will go into phasing bigtime, so it is worth the expense of testing it fully in WoW.

I can't really see a reason NOT to use the tech in future projects.  It will probably be considered a standard feature, like a customizable UI, in upcoming MMOs as we go through the years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on August 15, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
All phasing does is limit the visibility of characters/mobs (only) in a certain area of a given zone. Rearranging the entire zone (or anything involving a terrain geometry change) wouldn't be phasing - it would just be a new zone.

Yeah, now I'm arguing semantics but the constant association of "any sort of persistent world change" with "phasing" annoys me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 15, 2009, 06:51:08 PM
If Blizzard can phase whole continents, then they could make the post Cataclysm world only visible the the lvl 80 characters that have done the quest. If you want to visit with lower level buddies, a quick portal to the Caverns of Time fixes the problem.

Maybe their next project will go into phasing bigtime, so it is worth the expense of testing it fully in WoW.

I thought of the same thing, but that would eliminate the benefits of ditching the moldy old leveling content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hellinar on August 15, 2009, 07:18:10 PM

Yeah, now I'm arguing semantics but the constant association of "any sort of persistent world change" with "phasing" annoys me.

Call it time travel then. Even if it means copying zones wholesale, it would still be worth it to see time actually advance.

I thought of the same thing, but that would eliminate the benefits of ditching the moldy old leveling content.

They could ditch the old content by letting you start new characters in Dalaran at 70. Then you would have to complete a lvl 80 quest to return to the old world in its post Cataclysm state.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on August 15, 2009, 07:26:14 PM
If Blizzard can phase whole continents, then they could make the post Cataclysm world only visible the the lvl 80 characters that have done the quest. If you want to visit with lower level buddies, a quick portal to the Caverns of Time fixes the problem.

Maybe their next project will go into phasing bigtime, so it is worth the expense of testing it fully in WoW.
I'd think rather than mess with phasing technology which seems rather pointless in this particular case, it'd be much simpler (relatively speaking) to create separate zones representing "post cataclysm old world" and dump the lvl.85 or whatever players there, with the original version of the world locked to them as from their point on the storyline that version of world no longer exists.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on August 15, 2009, 07:29:20 PM
So now we've kept all the "expansion is just a rehash" complaints without any of the "get rid of the crusty old leveling content" benefits but further dividing the playerbase (old-world Orgrimmar is devoid of 80s but and new-world Orcopolis excludes low levels). Plus we have to stretch 5 levels' worth of content across two whole continents, and also the scheme leaves nowhere to shoehorn in that 10-20 Azshara zone.

edit: Oh, and the lore discontinuity still isn't solved because low-level goblins and worgen would be anachronistically stuck in the old world to level.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on August 15, 2009, 07:30:51 PM
Yup. MMO business as usual.

(i wouldn't worry much about the stretching 5 levels of content over 2 continents thing, either. It can become much easier when you don't actually have to keep these 2 continents intact or anywhere near their original form/size. Cataclysms can be a handy device to explain changes like that)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 15, 2009, 07:49:10 PM
So now we've kept all the "expansion is just a rehash" complaints without any of the "get rid of the crusty old leveling content" benefits but further dividing the playerbase (old-world Orgrimmar is devoid of 80s but and new-world Orcopolis excludes low levels). Plus we have to stretch 5 levels' worth of content across two whole continents, and also the scheme leaves nowhere to shoehorn in that 10-20 Azshara zone.

edit: Oh, and the lore discontinuity still isn't solved because low-level goblins and worgen would be anachronistically stuck in the old world to level.

The answer is actually simple: Blizzard probably doesn't give a crap about raping their lore to pieces if they want to.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 15, 2009, 08:10:44 PM
The thing is, WoW is not a world. It's a theme park. (Yes, that's an old point.) But it doesn't make the game very condusive to visiting old content like UO or SWG. We were properly shephereded through those zones in a very specific sequence. Re-visiting them is going "backwards" in the game.

They could have designed the game to have a more broad level range (Imagine SFK having three wings, 20-30, 30-40, and 40-50 level content) but they didn't. And it's kinda too late to take that kind of design back now... it will confuse the players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hindenburg on August 15, 2009, 10:01:15 PM
(Imagine SFK having three wings, 20-30, 30-40, and 40-50 level content)

That'd be horrible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 15, 2009, 10:05:15 PM
It was pretty obvious to me when they yoinked old 40 man Naxx out of thin air, redesigned so cavemen could do it, and put it on a whole new continent that they are about as concerned with lore as I am.  That's not a lot.  It can fly!  Derp.

I know there's a lot of people who will have nostalgia issues, and they've every right.  Won't be too long before those people can roll on gated servers ala EQ Combine to fulfill their nostalgia rub.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 15, 2009, 10:26:36 PM
Just because WoW has a directed leveling experience doesn't mean that it cannot have a new one with revamped zones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 15, 2009, 11:05:40 PM
Just because WoW has a directed leveling experience doesn't mean that it cannot have a new one with revamped zones.

Doesn't it? Vanillla WoW means 1-60. Putting new high level content in the old zones is a 180 from the current design of 'onwards and upwards!' Kara is an odd-fish and I think a new expansion that puts all of it's raid and dungeon content on Kalimdor or Lorderon is going to feel like more recycling, even if they're new areas of old zones.

Assuming this is all more than fanwank, of course.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on August 15, 2009, 11:39:10 PM
The only thing troubling me is the whole question of how Outland and Northrend would fit in.

These problems already exist in the game.  Doing the Death Knight starter chain, you run into books talking about how the Horde and Alliance are heading home from Outlands after killing everything there.  Then, you finish the starter chain and find out that the Horde and Alliance are just heading out into the Outlands to kill everything there.  Everyone in Shattrath is still all worked up over Kil'Jaeden, who'll be eating the world any day now.  You slaughter the Scarlet Crusade and they retreat to Northrend, but once you're done with the starter chain, they're not beaten anymore, until you get to Northrend, at which point they are again.  Kael'thas is in Tempest Keep and Magister's Terrace at the same time.  Katrana Prestor in the throne room while Onyxia's head hangs over the gates.  Blizzard doesn't care.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 15, 2009, 11:48:37 PM
Just because WoW has a directed leveling experience doesn't mean that it cannot have a new one with revamped zones.

Doesn't it? Vanillla WoW means 1-60. Putting new high level content in the old zones is a 180 from the current design of 'onwards and upwards!' Kara is an odd-fish and I think a new expansion that puts all of it's raid and dungeon content on Kalimdor or Lorderon is going to feel like more recycling, even if they're new areas of old zones.

I really, strongly disagree with you there. My biggest problem with Outland is that it's such a random ass detour for the Alliance people. You spend 58 levels in Azeroth and then drop everything to go to some world that you really don't have much of a real connection to (it felt a LOT more natural to want to go there as an orc). I would LOVE to do high level content on the "real" world where my characters supposedly make their home. Northrend was a lot better in that regard, in that it was all stuff happening on THAT world with characters we've known since we were level 12 (Old Blanchy in Grizzly Hills, for example!). Having high level content in the parts of Azeroth that never had stuff before wouldn't really be that weird. I've always found zoning into HIGH LEVEL LAND weirder than in vanilla where the high level stuff was just tucked away like Onyxia's Lair. As you level you just know HERE BE DRAGONS and don't go in there until you've got your big girl pants.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 16, 2009, 12:06:32 AM
I still can't find the reasoning here. To put flying into the old game, you have to redesign the game from scratch. Two entire continents that are already functional would have to be reprogrammed and made into a single mass instead of seperate entities. They would have to fill in every hole and plug every placeholder. They would have to remember what parts they left out and what parts they needed to add on.

It's a ridiculous amount of effort for very little gain. Why not just leave it alone and focus half that effort on something new you can build from the ground up?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 16, 2009, 12:53:54 AM
If this rumor is true, I just see it as the sequel to wow being passed off as an expansion pack.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 16, 2009, 01:14:57 AM
Just because WoW has a directed leveling experience doesn't mean that it cannot have a new one with revamped zones.

Doesn't it? Vanillla WoW means 1-60. Putting new high level content in the old zones is a 180 from the current design of 'onwards and upwards!' Kara is an odd-fish and I think a new expansion that puts all of it's raid and dungeon content on Kalimdor or Lorderon is going to feel like more recycling, even if they're new areas of old zones.

Assuming this is all more than fanwank, of course.
Caverns of Time is another counter example, but I see your point. However I don't expect this to be a problem because, if all this shit is true, they'll be old zones in name only. Vocano'd Barrens != Vanilla Barrens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 16, 2009, 01:21:30 AM
SirBruce time.

I still can't find the reasoning here. To put flying into the old game, you have to redesign the game from scratch. Two entire continents that are already functional would have to be reprogrammed and made into a single mass instead of seperate entities.

There is no actual reprogramming involved.  It would be strictly terrain work to smooth the edges on the mountains, redo the capital city from above (because they buildings are often roofless and use some culling techniques to optimize framerates), put barriers around the edges of the continent so that players cannot fly off into infinity.  Actually placing the  continents on a single instance server is still not required.

Quote
They would have to fill in every hole and plug every placeholder. They would have to remember what parts they left out and what parts they needed to add on.

There aren't actually all that many holes.  Seriously, before you spout shit roll a shaman and tour around a little with far sight, or see if the map viewer is still working.  Most of the glaring errors you could fix with a single pass of a smooth brush, they would have a harder time tracking down every instance of "HELP" scrawled across normally unseen sections of Azeroth.

Quote
It's a ridiculous amount of effort for very little gain. Why not just leave it alone and focus half that effort on something new you can build from the ground up?

Because what you're describing is called mudflation, and it will be the death of this game.  By scattering the majority of the newbies to the four winds and rendering the game a bland RPG; or possibly by making the game a wall of Grunk level stupidity of the poopsocking type, as a natural conclusion of constantly increasing the level cap; or by making the entire early game an incomprehensible mess by massively lowered experience requirements constantly pushing players into new zones without going through the standard breadcrumb -> meaty stuff -> conclusion -> breadcrumb sequence.  All of these options kill all the fun possible in the game for anyone not leveling an alt who just wants to get to endgame at all costs, several may co-exist, and all of them result from not culling out non-endgame game filler that has since lost it's purpose.



Rendakor, Barrens has a volcano right now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 16, 2009, 01:29:36 AM
I still can't find the reasoning here. To put flying into the old game, you have to redesign the game from scratch. Two entire continents that are already functional would have to be reprogrammed and made into a single mass instead of seperate entities.


Why would they have to merge the continents? People just fatigue out if they try to fly across the ocean.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 16, 2009, 01:36:19 AM
Ok, erupted Volcano'd Barrens. Sorry, its 3am and I've been wiping in ToC25 for way too long. (However I just got the awesome tank chest off the Beasts  :drill: )


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 16, 2009, 04:47:01 AM
For the record, I generally dislike any expansion that works like BC and Wrath because it segregates the playerbase into those who have the expansion and those who don't. Granted, most WoW players will have it, but the mindset of leaving areas/zones behind forever rubs me the wrong way. I tolerate it in WoW because that's how it's been designed from the ground up. WoW is doomaged to mudflation, just like EQ and every other DIKU-alike. Leveling boosts like DK's starting at 55, and XP curve boosts are the first signs that things are getting just a bit too top heavy. And the efforts to fix this are going to be band aids. There is no cure, only management of the problem.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hellinar on August 16, 2009, 07:32:47 AM
I still can't find the reasoning here. To put flying into the old game, you have to redesign the game from scratch. Two entire continents that are already functional would have to be reprogrammed and made into a single mass instead of seperate entities. They would have to fill in every hole and plug every placeholder. They would have to remember what parts they left out and what parts they needed to add on.

It's a ridiculous amount of effort for very little gain. Why not just leave it alone and focus half that effort on something new you can build from the ground up?

If they make the new version of the old continents a purely 80+ experience, the Cataclysm could conveniently cut off large sections they don't have to redo right now. To be revealed in later expansions. Also, the new version could be Emerald Dream ready, saving a lot of tricky work. If rebuilding the old continents gives them space for expansions to 100, then it would be worth the effort.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 16, 2009, 09:19:19 AM
If they abuse phasing well enough, it could make all the level 1 alts in the wrong version of stormwind and not lag up everyone's clients on loading, too ;)

Issues with running alts through instances, hrm. Kind of curious how they'll make all this revamping of old content and things like phasing of the new horde city work. While I love phasing when used well (Icecrown is Amazing as a zone, and likely their best work to date), it causes logistical issues with helping friends with quests.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 16, 2009, 09:25:45 AM
If any of this turns out to be true, do you know the best part?  I can finally party with those Trolls in Darkshore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 16, 2009, 09:27:31 AM
Phasing it so you only see the new version of Azeroth after you're level 80 would be god damned idiotic. Now all your newbs/alts are still stuck doing your shittiest content for 50+ levels, only they're doing it in a totally abandoned world since EVERYONE who has already done so is never coming back. What the hell would be the point?

If there's a reason to do this, it's because they've been hearing "Let everyone start at 55!" since death knights came along, and they've interpreted it as "The old 1-55 content sucks!" and decided to replace it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 16, 2009, 09:44:38 AM
If any of this turns out to be true, do you know the best part?  I can finally party with those Trolls in Darkshore.

There's actually a way to get to that village by doing some creative terrain jumping in winterspring and then levitating down, it's a 24/7 party.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Triforcer on August 16, 2009, 10:11:12 AM
If any of this turns out to be true, do you know the best part?  I can finally party with those Trolls in Darkshore.

There's actually a way to get to that village by doing some creative terrain jumping in winterspring and then levitating down, it's a 24/7 party.

I want to find the Pandaren settlement in Stonetalon, but it'll be a cold day in hell before they put a single Pandaren NPC in the game.  The risk of pissing off China somehow is simply too great. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 16, 2009, 10:16:43 AM
There is no actual reprogramming involved.  It would be strictly terrain work to smooth the edges on the mountains, redo the capital city from above (because they buildings are often roofless and use some culling techniques to optimize framerates), put barriers around the edges of the continent so that players cannot fly off into infinity.  Actually placing the  continents on a single instance server is still not required.

This is true.  Oddly enough, I've flown over Org and ?Undercity (on a private server) and there's nothing there.  Just walls that lead to a big gaping hole.  I assume, that big tunnel at the opening allows them to load the instance for the inside of the city itself.  Hence why Org probably has to go.  From the inside it looks like you should be able to fly in, but it's not actually connected to the outside.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 16, 2009, 10:39:16 AM
I honestly can't believe any of yall would be excited about the idea of reskinning the original game and calling it an expansion. If it's so easy to program in flight into the old content, why not release it as a feature patch after an expansion? If it's so hard, why not just say fuck it and focus on something else?

Releasing it as content you pay extra for on top of your monthly fee without at least 8 radically new zones open to the public simply isn't worth it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 16, 2009, 10:47:07 AM
Paelos I don't see what the problem is. A zone that is completely reskinned with altared geography and all new quests is just as much "new" content as one built from the ground up. The thing with flying is, it was too hard, they said fuck it, and people kept bitching (myself included). If Blizzard wants to abandon the old world, they should have let us start at 55. Instead they're trying to bring new life into the old content, which is a better solution. This is obviously more focused on the casual player (and people who like alts), rather than providing a longer, more intesting level treadmill for those already at 80. However, I have no doubt that there will be raids aplenty, so even that complaint isn't valid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hellinar on August 16, 2009, 10:57:52 AM
Phasing it so you only see the new version of Azeroth after you're level 80 would be god damned idiotic. Now all your newbs/alts are still stuck doing your shittiest content for 50+ levels, only they're doing it in a totally abandoned world since EVERYONE who has already done so is never coming back. What the hell would be the point?

If there's a reason to do this, it's because they've been hearing "Let everyone start at 55!" since death knights came along, and they've interpreted it as "The old 1-55 content sucks!" and decided to replace it.

Yeah.  Redoing the old content would be good. Though with higher experience speed, it could be compressed into a lot less zones. So your new alts do a fast run to 60, pop off through the caverns of time to stop the evil guys undoing history in the Outlands and Northrend, then come back to their current time to do post 80 content in the main world.

I'm a big fan of time travel and alternate worlds, so reskinning old content to show the passage of time is fine with me. Or making it an alternate version of reality in the Emerald Dream is good too. Time gates let every character be the hero who saved the world, if only be stopping the bad guys undo the previous victory.  Its as close as you are going to get in a MMOG to being a significant hero.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 16, 2009, 11:04:35 AM
Phasing it so you only see the new version of Azeroth after you're level 80 would be god damned idiotic. Now all your newbs/alts are still stuck doing your shittiest content for 50+ levels, only they're doing it in a totally abandoned world since EVERYONE who has already done so is never coming back. What the hell would be the point?

If there's a reason to do this, it's because they've been hearing "Let everyone start at 55!" since death knights came along, and they've interpreted it as "The old 1-55 content sucks!" and decided to replace it.
My guess is that there's going to be a honking great 4.0 patch that contains all the non-instanced/non-'new' parts of Cataclysm which everyone will get, and the expansion itself will contain the actually-not-in-game-at-all-right-now new content, open the revamped/redone instances*, unlock the new class combos, allow flying, raise the level cap, etc etc.

I also would not be at all surprised if there's a all-in-one expansion pack that also contains TBC & WotLK as well (a la EQ2's expansion) at a slight premium over just the solo expansion.



*For the love of God, if BRD is still around, split it into at least three separate instances!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 16, 2009, 11:34:59 AM
This is obviously more focused on the casual player (and people who like alts), rather than providing a longer, more intesting level treadmill for those already at 80. However, I have no doubt that there will be raids aplenty, so even that complaint isn't valid.

While I would agree that their levelling situation is outdated, I don't think it deserves an overhaul in the guise of expansion. I also don't alt, so I can't give a flying fuck what they do from 1-55.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on August 16, 2009, 11:38:30 AM
You know there are some people who like leveling characters for its own sake? A lot of players get bored with their characters and roll tons of alts long before hitting 80, or even after. I am not one of those people - not by a fucking long shot - but I really don't see what's so bad about throwing them a bone for once instead of focusing 100% on content they don't see or care about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 16, 2009, 11:41:11 AM
I don't see a problem with it at all. Let me say it again: "This is not a bad idea, but DON'T CALL IT AN EXPANSION AND MAKE US PAY FOR IT."

EDIT: To me it smacks of, "Hey pay us more money to redo our fuck-ups."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on August 16, 2009, 11:55:40 AM
Again, world revamp != new expansion. It's simply something the game needs, and tying it to the next expansion thematically just makes sense.
Phasing it so you only see the new version of Azeroth after you're level 80 would be god damned idiotic.
My guess is that there's going to be a honking great 4.0 patch that contains all the non-instanced/non-'new' parts of Cataclysm which everyone will get, and the expansion itself will contain the actually-not-in-game-at-all-right-now new content
Is this okay with you, then?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 16, 2009, 11:59:33 AM
Yeah, except it's a total wank. We have no fucking clue if Blizzard reps are sitting in their office laughing their asses off in front of big maps of the Undermine and Maelstrom.

I still want a new island. I always want a new island. Perhaps it's the explorer in me.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 16, 2009, 12:31:51 PM
New content is new content. If you want to bawl from here to infinity because they don't put it behind a big portal with a blinking NEW sign on top, well, whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 16, 2009, 12:35:01 PM
When Paelos goes shopping for a new car he buys a boat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 16, 2009, 01:15:20 PM
I posted this in the "My top Warcraft wants" thread but as it's come up again, so it's probably worth posting again:

Why your Gryphon can't fly in Azeroth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2727982515832160523&hl=en)

There are huge swathes of flat, empty terrain all over the place that would need to be filled. Sure it could be bordered off but that means there's an artificial border over the area north of Stormwind, for example, that you just can't get into.  Seems to me like there would be an expansions worth of changes and new content added just to fill these areas in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 16, 2009, 01:23:20 PM
Yeah, except it's a total wank. We have no fucking clue if Blizzard reps are sitting in their office laughing their asses off in front of big maps of the Undermine and Maelstrom.

I still want a new island. I always want a new island. Perhaps it's the explorer in me.  :drill:
Theramore is going to technically be an island now.  :awesome_for_real:
(http://i27.tinypic.com/24bw0op.jpg)

Background texture is from an Ulduar globe, the 'vector' lines are from a different Ulduar globe. Before and after, anyone?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 16, 2009, 01:52:29 PM
I would say that was just the ulduar programmers being sloppy with lines but the fact they specifically made an island where there wasn't one smells of easter egg.


edit: Fuck ya, goodbye desolace.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 16, 2009, 02:26:14 PM
Paelos I don't see what the problem is. A zone that is completely reskinned with altared geography and all new quests is just as much "new" content as one built from the ground up. The thing with flying is, it was too hard, they said fuck it, and people kept bitching (myself included). If Blizzard wants to abandon the old world, they should have let us start at 55. Instead they're trying to bring new life into the old content, which is a better solution. This is obviously more focused on the casual player (and people who like alts), rather than providing a longer, more intesting level treadmill for those already at 80. However, I have no doubt that there will be raids aplenty, so even that complaint isn't valid.

I agree with the above 100%. I don't think they like that people basically leave Azeroth and never come back at level 58. After all, that's been their reasoning behind not putting trainers and auction houses in the new expansion capitals. Essentially rebuilding old zones, with all they've learned the past five years? Yeah, sorry, that IS new content, and I find the hand wringing over how it's just a revamp of the entire fuckin' world hilarious. (Assuming this is all true of course. I hope it is!)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 16, 2009, 02:53:25 PM
There are huge swathes of flat, empty terrain all over the place that would need to be filled. Sure it could be bordered off but that means there's an artificial border over the area north of Stormwind, for example, that you just can't get into.  Seems to me like there would be an expansions worth of changes and new content added just to fill these areas in.

Terraining is actually trivial, an area like the one between Redridge and Burning Steppes could easily be done passably in a day by someone experienced with the tools.  It's only when you start adding small things like little painstakingly decorated campsites and towns built on ground of varying height when world construction takes a lot of work, none of which these empty expanses actually require.

The capital cities being freakish when seen from above is due to culling of some sort, "fixing" it might be as easy as selecting and deleting meshes and scripts that partition the city in the way you see it.  If you want to see something comparable the technique is used extensively in Unreal Tournament with depth-less "sheet" brushes (which are invisible in-game but not in the editor) and zoneinfo actors.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 16, 2009, 04:52:17 PM
I still want a new island. I always want a new island. Perhaps it's the explorer in me.  :drill:



There's a new island on the back of a Giant Turtle!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: March on August 16, 2009, 06:02:30 PM
I think its fucking brilliant.

Adding two new races at level 1 and opening up new race/class combos practically screams re-do.

Besides the obvious - Faster Leveling Curve - I smell a 1-20 pace like the Deathknight; not saying that they are going to custom-story-line the 1-20 curve like the DK, just that the quests and rewards may as well be /Level20.

As for 21-60, I expect them to consolidate zones and kill the useless storylines (sorry lore-whores... it is a cataclysm, after all) and blast the zones with quests a'la LK.

As the game matures, Vanilla (and TBC) have been completely eclipsed by better quest/level/play designs... other than nostalgia, there's nothing in vanilla worth saving.

Cataclysm could offer a fresh start and a way to attract new gamers (it may sound odd, but any well run business always looks to add new customers, not just milk the old).

For those already at endgame, the new content will still be new, the zones fresh and the challenges appropriate... with the added benefit of filling up the gameworld for new, returning or re-rolling gamers; the old model of creating a new zone only serves to further fracture the player base and accentuate the massive distance between me and thee.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 16, 2009, 06:20:12 PM
Well, as usual, I don't understand how you people like doing the same thing over again even if it's tweaked. The Onyxia thing doesn't sound ragingly awesome to me, for example. Then again, I don't ever alt anything, and the idea of starting a new character doesn't amuse me at all. I have an awesome one now, and I have no desire to hit the reset button for a fucking furry whatever.

This again is all moot, because I don't believe the expansion will be what they are suggesting. Even if it's true, it's missing something large.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 16, 2009, 06:34:01 PM
Well, if you don't like alts, you don't like alts. Can't argue that. All I can say is that you're in the minority, at least of players I know.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 16, 2009, 06:35:39 PM
Well, as usual, I don't understand how you people like doing the same thing over again even if it's tweaked. The Onyxia thing doesn't sound ragingly awesome to me, for example. Then again, I don't ever alt anything, and the idea of starting a new character doesn't amuse me at all. I have an awesome one now, and I have no desire to hit the reset button for a fucking furry whatever.

This again is all moot, because I don't believe the expansion will be what they are suggesting. Even if it's true, it's missing something large.

You have a very odd definition of "tweaked."

Also, there are lots and lots and lots and lots AND LOTS of people who never did Onyxia when she was endgame, let alone a bajillion times like you apparently did. Not everyone who raids now raided then. It's not even close.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on August 16, 2009, 07:30:11 PM
Well, as usual, I don't understand how you people like doing the same thing over again even if it's tweaked.

The old world content may or may not be revamped, that's all speculation, I grant you.

But I guarantee, you'll be doing the same thing over and over again regardless.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 16, 2009, 08:34:53 PM
I've never done a dungeon beyond Scarlet Monestary.  (Okay, I did go through Onyxia's lair once, tagging along at 55 behind a bunch of 80s.)  As I've had to level pretty much solo my entire way up to 65, it would actually be nice to have a chance to play the game with others at my level.

Kind of like what I've been doing with a Sunday night group that is in the mid-30s Horde side.  It's been a blast.  I'd like more of it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: bhodi on August 16, 2009, 09:37:49 PM
Hopefully an unannounced feature will be sidekicking/exemplaring people. That is one of the things that's truly, truly lacking in the WoW leveling. Friend played for one afternoon without you? OH WELL GUESS YOU CAN'T LEVEL TOGETHER ANYMORE!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on August 16, 2009, 11:27:08 PM
Also, there are lots and lots and lots and lots AND LOTS of people who never did Onyxia when she was endgame, let alone a bajillion times like you apparently did.
In my guild right now it is me and one other person who ever saw Ony when she was end-game (I say "that's a fucking 50dkp minus" and no one gets it).  And the sheer amount of cockblocking that was required to get attuned and go to her was not something most people put up with or PUG'ed years ago (Molten Core was considerably less, but that place can go freeze in hell).  You had to have a guild or group of friends dedicated to wanting to see the endgame to actually get there (granted, it varies from server to server and the general population, but that is how my server was).  TBC was even worse with the amount of keying, heroics, and questing you had to do to get into raids.  It's nothing like that these days and I am glad.

I still have fond memories of Ony, even if it was just a wipefest most of the time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 17, 2009, 01:53:39 AM
Well, as usual, I don't understand how you people like doing the same thing over again even if it's tweaked.

I thought you raided.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Triforcer on August 17, 2009, 01:59:51 AM
Well, as usual, I don't understand how you people like doing the same thing over again even if it's tweaked.

I thought you raided.  :oh_i_see:

 :rimshot:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 17, 2009, 08:35:15 AM
There are huge swathes of flat, empty terrain all over the place that would need to be filled. Sure it could be bordered off but that means there's an artificial border over the area north of Stormwind, for example, that you just can't get into.  Seems to me like there would be an expansions worth of changes and new content added just to fill these areas in.

Terraining is actually trivial, an area like the one between Redridge and Burning Steppes could easily be done passably in a day by someone experienced with the tools.  It's only when you start adding small things like little painstakingly decorated campsites and towns built on ground of varying height when world construction takes a lot of work, none of which these empty expanses actually require.

The capital cities being freakish when seen from above is due to culling of some sort, "fixing" it might be as easy as selecting and deleting meshes and scripts that partition the city in the way you see it.  If you want to see something comparable the technique is used extensively in Unreal Tournament with depth-less "sheet" brushes (which are invisible in-game but not in the editor) and zoneinfo actors.

Where's your red name?


Seriously, as a developer/manager, I inwardly groan everytime someone goes off about how "easy" some particular work is, that "it will only take a week" when the real deal ALWAYS takes longer than you expect by at least double if you don't map out each individual task and estimate at that level.

/estimation rant


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 17, 2009, 04:02:23 PM

Took probably 30 minutes.  A couple of points:

1. This is a flyover area, it doesn't need much detail as long as it isn't flat.
2. Blizzard's tools will be scalable to larger sizes easier, I was working with an 8x8 brush on a 256x256 map.
3. This can all be done with a fractal terrain generator, which will spit out an acceptable result in minutes with no artist involvement aside from inputting parameters.
4. I chose Warcraft III because it's a Blizzard product, I can also do this in Morrowind/Oblivion.  I'm unfortunately not experienced with the terrain generator in UT2004.
5. The little red thing in the middle is a human town hall.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 17, 2009, 04:21:28 PM
Very clever.

I raise an eyebrow that you think Blizzard will just decide not to populate those barren areas with details and leave them as "flyover areas" though. When there's every chance that the explorers are going to land and have a wander around, I very much doubt they wouldn't stick in mobs, resources, perhaps a small quest hub or two and so on. If they'll put stuff in like camps and npcs in areas that you just can't get to but can see from a flight path then how likely is it they'll just make them "flyover areas"?

Also, do you not think that there will be copious amounts of meetings and planning sessions and artwork and pre-design to decide what these areas are going to be and how they're going to look?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on August 17, 2009, 04:47:20 PM
Bringing characters closer together instead of further spreading out the playerbase by simply adding another landmass that everyone eventually congregates in is brilliant. They have so much world that is used so little now, I think it's a great idea.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Gobbeldygook on August 17, 2009, 04:50:30 PM
On ATITD, the developers actually built terrain on the live server.  I once bitched on IRC that the patch had broken the ability for me to walk to the river from my camp without taking a huge detour.  Teppy came over and smoothed out the hill right then and there.  The tools were simple enough to use that all of the GMs had the power to world build.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 17, 2009, 06:05:42 PM
Took probably 30 minutes.  A couple of points:

Did you test it by walking every square inch both ways to make sure there are no holes in the geometry that you can fall through or weird clips?  Did you fly every inch of airspace to make sure there are no weird visual issues? Did you go inside the town hall to make sure no hills clip up through the floor?   Did you check it out and into source control and make sure it got into the build OK and everything works? Did you have a meeting or get an assignment as to which section of the world you're responsible for so two people don't mistakenly work on the same part of the world? These are all complexities and timesinks of working on a team that you don't get working solo, and you have to account for them.

To get a little more "polish" which of course Blizzard is known for, is there a backstory or theme to the area? Possibly tied to some obscure lore? Are there some NPCs there? Do they have names? Any livestock? A field? Let alone any pathing NPCs, a mailman to two different farmsteads?  Flavor text?  A forest that makes sense given the local farms?

It all adds up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 17, 2009, 07:13:26 PM
I raise an eyebrow that you think Blizzard will just decide not to populate those barren areas with details and leave them as "flyover areas" though. When there's every chance that the explorers are going to land and have a wander around, I very much doubt they wouldn't stick in mobs, resources, perhaps a small quest hub or two and so on. If they'll put stuff in like camps and npcs in areas that you just can't get to but can see from a flight path then how likely is it they'll just make them "flyover areas"?

Also, do you not think that there will be copious amounts of meetings and planning sessions and artwork and pre-design to decide what these areas are going to be and how they're going to look?

Do I really need to add creep spawns to my map? :awesome_for_real:  More seriously, you don't do the fancy work until the major revisions are in place, which is editing height and placing doodads like boulders and trees.  But the vast majority of these transition areas are so small that they can't even realistically hold more than a few spawns of nodes/mobs, like the transition areas in most of the TBC/Wrath zones.  And depending on how Blizzard handles their fancy shit even "detailed" decorating like building bandit camps might be easy, it's largely dependent upon whether they do stuff like package a cluttered table as a single model.

You're also severely overestimating the amount of effort that needs to go into fixing up the edge of a zone.  A single zone is probably not an onerous project for one person if he isn't trying to build a new zone on an area equal to or less than the size of elemental plateau.  So you assign zones to landscapers so that nobody is working on the same area at once, they do a circle of the bounding mountain ranges fixing it up, then you compile the changes and assign the next set.  Eventually you work your way down to one or two zones that need work next to each other.  In which case you do them sequentially; or have the developers hold off on the shared areas until the rest of the zone is done and have a single person do the overlap.

EDIT: There is also every reason to believe they would just leave them as flyover areas.  Why?  Uldum. [/discussion]



Jayce, you're missing a crucial bit of information: the vast majority of unfinished spaces are simply inaccesible mountain ranges.  It doesn't need scripting, towns, farms, or anything except a quick pass by someone who isn't fuckstupid.  The other crucial bit your missing is that you don't actually need to check for missing geometry on a heightmap, because they are by design incapable of creating a voided space except in the presence of unpatched editor/engine defects.  The "strange visual errors" I assume are a reference to the way cities display from above, which is actually an intentional performance optimization used only in the cities which effectively cannot be duplicated by accident.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on August 17, 2009, 07:35:34 PM
I really don't see how anyone can with straight face claim this kind of work could be done fast, when it's Blizzard that's supposed to be doing it. :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 17, 2009, 08:19:15 PM
One question: have you ever done this kind of work in a team environment for commercial or open source release?

Two observations: the whole point of filling in these areas is to allow flying in Azeroth.  So why do you keep saying that they are only flyover areas where no one will ever land?  And second observation: I have a friend who fell through the world in Ashenvale a year or so ago, and about a month ago I fell through the a river in Durotar and wound up in the Hinterlands.  True story.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 17, 2009, 08:25:20 PM
Wait, are you (sheep) really implying that if they add flying to the old world in WoW, that random generated/NPCless terrain would be acceptable?

This is a playerbase that LOVES going anywhere no matter how stupid and hanging out. It would be massively unprofessional to just coat terrain with nothing. That's not how Blizzard has gotten where they are.

edit: to my memory, Uldum is not an empty wide space you can wander around in. It's never been Finished, but it's not like it's just Ironforge, minus any NPCs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kageru on August 17, 2009, 10:04:24 PM

It just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Far too much effort with too little return, inevitable cries of laziness and losing lots of existing proven content.

I could see them doing enough to fill in the existing gaps, possibly with high level content that both requires and enables flying in the old world zones, but not much more than that. The maelstrom gives them a nice huge canvas for hidden islands, goblin pirates and sunken cities given that was the center of the ancient elven kingdoms.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 18, 2009, 12:40:31 AM

It just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Far too much effort with too little return, inevitable cries of laziness and losing lots of existing proven content.

Thank you. My point exactly, and I wonder WTF they are thinking as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 18, 2009, 12:50:48 AM
Let's put it this way.

NO ONE WILL HAVE TO PAY MONEY FOR REVAMPING AZEROTH.

that's the 4.0 patch, which will be part of the game, for free.

In addition to that...there will be an expansions worth of content, some zones will be on azeroth and some will be underwater, how is that hard to understand?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 18, 2009, 01:11:21 AM
It's not hard to understand at all. It's the OMG TALK. It's not that fucking exciting. When they release possible talk about expansions, the last thing I expect to hear is that they are gonna rehash shit.

Plus, you don't know. WE don't know. Nobody knows. It's that awesome force of ignorance right before the announcements.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 18, 2009, 01:30:07 AM
One question: have you ever done this kind of work in a team environment for commercial or open source release?

Nothing that's been released, mostly because mapping projects that require more than one person are a complete waste of time because one of the modders is going to turn out to be a complete wanker and give up (so I don't even try beyond submitting a script or what have you).  However, conflicts in map work is handled significantly more smoothly than code is (I presume you are a coder or web developer), due to the nature of heightmaps (terrain data is stored as [x,y,z] and no [x,y] pair can have a duplicate, not can there be two [z] values, ergo you cannot use one to make vertical surfaces, the slope between any grid reference and the adjacent references is easily extrapolated as a real number, and any conflicts result in one set of data being overwritten by the other and the editor simply extrapolating where the two sets of data meet without overlap).  The compile progress is stupid easy for every program I've seen heightmaps used in, you literally just load the files and save it to a third, and in the case of Bethesda's games precedence is determined by date last edited (which can be modified by a hex editor if you want a specific load order).

For these reasons, it is best practice to build the heightmap first and then populate it with doodads.  If you want I could build you a quick example of heightmap conflicts being merged at runtime, however if you've ever played a Fallout, Oblivion, or Morrowind mod which changes the landscape you've already seen it, and it's predictably boring.

Quote
Two observations: the whole point of filling in these areas is to allow flying in Azeroth.  So why do you keep saying that they are only flyover areas where no one will ever land?  And second observation: I have a friend who fell through the world in Ashenvale a year or so ago, and about a month ago I fell through the a river in Durotar and wound up in the Hinterlands.  True story.

Because they don't actually need to be anything other than flyover areas until Blizzard decides that they may want to do something special with it?  Because it's almost as equally trivial to populate it with ore/herb nodes and call it a resource gathering area?  Really, dig out one of Blizzard's world maps and see what kind of area there is left to work with, there isn't much, and the only really large sections remaining are places like Gilneas. (:why_so_serious:)

Also, I've seen my character fall through the world on several different occasions, this does not mean the geometry is at fault (I've only ever seen it occur due to server / client desynchonization, as far as I can tell).  The biggest indicator that it is a collision problem is whether the circumstances of the failure can be reproduced, however this is not necessarily indicative of a problem with the geometry (correlation vs. causation).

Wait, are you (sheep) really implying that if they add flying to the old world in WoW, that random generated/NPCless terrain would be acceptable?

This is a playerbase that LOVES going anywhere no matter how stupid and hanging out. It would be massively unprofessional to just coat terrain with nothing. That's not how Blizzard has gotten where they are.

edit: to my memory, Uldum is not an empty wide space you can wander around in. It's never been Finished, but it's not like it's just Ironforge, minus any NPCs.

Diablo II. :awesome_for_real:

There's a lot of empty places in WoW, you fly over them all the time.  People bitch about them, but they haven't quit yet.

EDIT: I should stop talking, I might inadvertently convince myself that Blizzard is actually ever going to do this.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mrbloodworth on August 18, 2009, 02:00:11 PM
Anyone who uses the word "Easy" to describe any aspect of game development, let alone MMO development, does not know what they are talking about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 18, 2009, 02:30:02 PM
What empty space have I flown over in Northrend or Outlands? There're pretty much something going on within draw distance of everything. I've yet to see "wide open empty field"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 18, 2009, 10:16:19 PM
What empty space have I flown over in Northrend or Outlands? There're pretty much something going on within draw distance of everything. I've yet to see "wide open empty field"

You keep missing the "populate with doodads" thing, which I still consider empty, because it's non-interactive.  Just like the vast majority of mountainous shelves that exist in the aforementioned expansions, and the existing flyover areas on the old world flight paths.  Incidentally, the vast majority of the completely untouched flat sections of the old world would be in mountain ranges if they were made into anything (see DraconianOne's video post).

Anyone who uses the word "Easy" to describe any aspect of game development, let alone MMO development, does not know what they are talking about.

Mythic Entertainment. :awesome_for_real:

Seriously, try modding for yourself, it isn't hard at all if the available tools are good.  Jayce is in fact correct in the assertion that the overhead is often worse than the actual development, I just disagree that the overhead would be onerous in this case.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 20, 2009, 06:51:29 AM
The comments about the Council of Tirisfal in the few pages of the new World of Warcraft comic seem to confirm part of the story, at least the fact that there's presumably going to be a new Guardian.  This seems pretty likely to be largely accurate, or at least partly accurate, given that.

It's interesting and a somewhat interesting shift in the story, though it comes with it's usual story stupidity as they force the story into ways the characters wouldn't really go.  I agree though that the whole emphasizing the conflict between Alliance and Horde seems stupid since unless they start really expanding pvp areas on all servers (which I don't see them doing and with good reason) any war between the two factions is a stupid backdrop that doesn't penetrate into normal gameplay.

I have no idea if I'm ever going to play WoW again, but although I find some of this content interesting (and I always wanted to make a Night Elf Mage) this doesn't really seem to get me interested in playing at all.  Of course, by the time it releases probably mid to late next year that may or may not have changed.  Although I personally hope I'm not interested at the time cause if I am it means every other game between now and then has failed to hold my interest.  Still, if I wasn't tired of the game itself, a complete revamp of Azeroth would really get me excited.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 20, 2009, 07:51:21 AM
I agree though that the whole emphasizing the conflict between Alliance and Horde seems stupid since unless they start really expanding pvp areas on all servers (which I don't see them doing and with good reason) any war between the two factions is a stupid backdrop that doesn't penetrate into normal gameplay.

Unless you do Battlegrounds. Or Wintergrasp. Or want your black war bear. Or are hanging around a capital city when the opposite faction decides it wants black war bears. Or play on a PVP server.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on August 20, 2009, 09:33:42 AM
On a PvP server, the world PvP is largely confined to bored overgeared players massing up to gank solos who are fighting mobs.  Sometimes the PvPers even spice it up by going after people who are close to their level, but only if their numbers/class/gear disparity guarantees them a win.  You know, how PvP usually goes in an open environment.

Sometimes you'll see fighting around a summoning stone, but it's largely pointless around raid stones, as a warlock will fly in, make a TV, and start chain summoning the raid.  Very rarely it gets more interesting around 5 man instances, mostly not though.

Not that long ago, maybe a month, an alliance guild "took over" Orgrimar for a few hours.  Nobody on the horde side noticed, or even cared.  Except that one guy who was trying to turn in his quest to Thrall.  He was kind of pissed.

I don't even regard battlegrounds to be PvP, they're mark dispensing mini-games that are then used to convert to honor so I can buy gems.  Oh boy.  Regrettably, I have to rely on my team to get three marks, rather than the usual one.  WG is a big honor dispenser.  Black war bear is largely a PvE event, it only gets interesting in Stormwind/Org.  Sometimes Ironforge.  The rest of the cities are entirely PvE, as no one even is there to put up a fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 20, 2009, 11:04:47 AM
What exactly would you say IS pvp? short of true death it's got just about every flavor of it to some extent.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 20, 2009, 11:32:51 AM
"I don't know why they would want to put a war in the story. Just because the game has two factions, and organized mini-games dedicated to getting them to kill each other, and rewards them for doing so, and encourages them to kill each other's faction leaders. I mean what the hell. When I signed up for World of Warcraft I expected a game about the Horde and Alliance learning to get along peacefully while teaming up to kill the REAL threat, whatever loot pinata is new this patch cycle!"

Yeah, no.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on August 20, 2009, 12:33:37 PM
PvP that matters in some way.  Such as DAoC's relic system.  Yeah, it was flawed, but it mattered.  More importantly, it mattered in a way that didn't cripple the losing side, and gave incentive for the side without relics to try to get them back.  Of course, there were problems with it, mostly population, but it was more meaningful than anything in WoW.

None of the PvP in WoW matters, not a single bit.  At most, it inconveniences a few people because they can't do a quest turn-in to an NPC that's been PvEed down.  Or you have to run back to your corpse, and then possibly wait five minutes for Ganker McJackass to get bored with waiting for you to show back up.

AV is a hilarious example of a "PvP" BG gone utterly wrong.  The "correct" way to play it is to avoid the other side entirely, and turn it into a PvE race of "who can down towers the fastest?"  Since most people are there for rewards (honor, maybe marks) it is actually beneficial to win a mark every 10 minutes, rather than doing some "awesome" PvP turtle that turns into an hour long grind down of reinforcements... and generally ends up in being one mark anyway, if you're horde on Nightfall.

I'm on a PvP server with medium pop.  Nobody cares if Thrall is getting killed, and as for the other cities?  Forget it.  There's maybe a few RPers in Silvermoon, or lowbies in TB or UC, but no one is going to bother to roll out to try to battle it out with roughly 40 enemies who really just want to get an achievement out of the way, and won't hesitate to run you down if your name shows up red to them.

I certainly wouldn't mind WoW becoming more PvP oriented, but so far their Big Ideas have been zone bonuses no one gives a damn about, or control of a zone that gives special currency when you kill heroic bosses, and access to multiple loot pinatas.  Except they messed up and made it the best honor/hour, and everyone wanted in on it as often as possible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 20, 2009, 01:00:14 PM
Wintergrasp and to a lesser extent the spirit towers in terrokar introduced tangible benefits to wow pvp. The difference between that and daoc's keep relics? just a matter of which stats get buffed and what those benefits are but it's essentially that same system.  The thing is, in daoc that's about all there was to do and lets face it, the game was never widely popular.  At the end of the day, people just don't care that much about real world objectives and even interesting they'd get boring after a while. 

PvP purity in online games will always be niche because even for people like me who enjoy it, most simply don't want to have to deal with it every single time they log on. Whether in the form of a debuff because another realm owns the foozle or by getting ganked when they just want to finish a quest it tends to annoying after a while.

Now, that said I think wow could use a lot of improvement in their pvp, I actually liked warhammers pvp level system or how about making battlegrounds useful or giving team based objectives that multiply honor.  Maybe make the wintergrasp buff more tangibnle or pvp rewards in general but the basic systems wow already has in place are pretty much all you're ever going to expect from an online game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 20, 2009, 01:35:23 PM
PvP that matters in some way.  Such as DAoC's relic system.  Yeah, it was flawed, but it mattered.  More importantly, it mattered in a way that didn't cripple the losing side, and gave incentive for the side without relics to try to get them back.  Of course, there were problems with it, mostly population, but it was more meaningful than anything in WoW.

You mean like how Wintergrasp opens up a dungeon and provides the side that controls the zone the ability to get extra Stone Keeper Shards which can be turned in for items?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 20, 2009, 01:36:05 PM
Wintergrasp and to a lesser extent the spirit towers in terrokar introduced tangible benefits to wow pvp.

The question is, how could you make things like Wintergrasp and the spirit towers available at all times.  Those actually do work to a certain extend, but you only get them every few hours, it would be (theoretically) nice to be able to log on at any time and have meaningful PvP going on.   I realize the shitty things that come with this idea though, such as whoever can sleep the least, or have people on  in the middle of the night, etc.    I don't expect to see this in WoW, but if someone can manage it, maybe its blizzard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 20, 2009, 01:47:25 PM
Anyone who uses the word "Easy" to describe any aspect of game development, let alone MMO development, does not know what they are talking about.

It also depends on the tools and resources available. Something like Redridge could be done in a couple hours in the Dungeon Siege engine, but I hear WoW's editor (which is different from the WC3 editor) is a bit more cludgey.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on August 20, 2009, 02:05:22 PM
PvP that matters in some way.  Such as DAoC's relic system.  Yeah, it was flawed, but it mattered.  More importantly, it mattered in a way that didn't cripple the losing side, and gave incentive for the side without relics to try to get them back.  Of course, there were problems with it, mostly population, but it was more meaningful than anything in WoW.

You mean like how Wintergrasp opens up a dungeon and provides the side that controls the zone the ability to get extra Stone Keeper Shards which can be turned in for items?

I was kind of vague in that post, but I did address this.  Yes, that's sort of nice, but it's only available if you log on when WG is starting or in progress.  Access to VoA is meh, since it's a once a week instance with two loot pinatas.  Stonekeeper shards are either achievement fodder, or currency for pvp items, which is also, at least in my opinion, meh.

Don't get me wrong, I think WG is a good first step, despite my earlier scorn.  I just want there to be -more- PvP.  Although I'm currently a borderline catass raider at the moment, I wouldn't mind having decent PvP options open that weren't BGs that are broadly disorganized PUGs.  (And I could go off on a completely unrelated rant here on how it makes me seethe that BG players can't seem to grasp simple concepts such as "leave one person, at least, at each node in AB" despite repeated requests that someone, anyone, please for the love of god just go guard a node, you useless tools.)

I played DAoC for 5 years, and only did PvE if there were new loots that would benefit me in PvP, or if I was leveling a char to PvP with.  Often as not, my guild would just haul me out to RvR to level up regardless.  It just doesn't feel as possible in WoW, particularly since all PvP, aside from World (which is a complete joke, in my opinion) is very much built around the "carnival ride" model.  Where not only must you be "this tall" to ride, but you have to stand in line just to get on the ride.  I'd much rather PvP be more open to simply joining when I want, rather than sitting in a queue for up to 30 minutes while I wonder if maybe I shouldn't just log off instead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 20, 2009, 02:16:28 PM
Apparently, there will be a playable demo of Cataclysm at Blizzcon. Probably one of the two starter zones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 20, 2009, 02:25:37 PM
Source?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 20, 2009, 02:26:55 PM
One of the same people who leaked the whole thing previously.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on August 20, 2009, 02:50:32 PM
It also depends on the tools and resources available. Something like Redridge could be done in a couple hours in the Dungeon Siege engine, but I hear WoW's editor (which is different from the WC3 editor) is a bit more cludgey.
You mean aside from the time it takes to do the concept art, writing, itemization, quest implementation, QA and all the hours spent in design meetings? And then of course each of those tasks gets atleast two iterations. That's time and money, too. Redridge probably took 500 manhours or more to do and that equates to just 3 guys over a month, which seems really novel in the grand scheme of an MMO. I'm betting a lot more time went into it. WoW as a whole took what, four years to make, with hundreds of team members? Good tools are indeed important (for the sanity of your employees, if nothing else), but they do generally not make or break a deadline.

Also, don't forget a fundamental rule of project management; make an initial time estimation, then double it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on August 20, 2009, 03:17:08 PM
Then add another 20%.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 20, 2009, 03:32:57 PM
It also depends on the tools and resources available. Something like Redridge could be done in a couple hours in the Dungeon Siege engine, but I hear WoW's editor (which is different from the WC3 editor) is a bit more cludgey.
You mean aside from the time it takes to do the concept art, writing, itemization, quest implementation, QA and all the hours spent in design meetings?

Yes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 20, 2009, 03:39:11 PM
Sheepherder says you're wrong.

Anyway, we'll know in 24 hours or something.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on August 20, 2009, 05:03:04 PM
I agree though that the whole emphasizing the conflict between Alliance and Horde seems stupid since unless they start really expanding pvp areas on all servers (which I don't see them doing and with good reason) any war between the two factions is a stupid backdrop that doesn't penetrate into normal gameplay.

Unless you do Battlegrounds. Or Wintergrasp. Or want your black war bear. Or are hanging around a capital city when the opposite faction decides it wants black war bears. Or play on a PVP server.

You're missing the point, I think.  The problem is that this stuff you're talking about is all already in the game.  The game wherein we are allegedly not at war.  Koyasha's (I think) arguing against using the war as an irrelevent background set piece.  You're arguing "but I can do PvP now," which doesn't really address the problem that if there was a major (presumably) PvP development in the storyline without a major development in the PvP gameplay, a lot of players would see it as a pointless story event at best, and a cop-out at worst.  What would be the point of saying "We're at war" if there's no accompanying change to gameplay?  I get that you like BGs and stuff, but it's not like they'd somehow become different or better because the lore says they matter now.

Personally, I'm not saying that I don't want war in Warcraft.  I'm saying I don't want it as an irrelevant background event, a kind of "Oh, by the way, you guys are at war now, BUT NOW ON TO THE IMPORTANT STUFF: NEW RAID ENCOUNTER ONYXIA XVIII REVENGE OF THE REVENGE OF FIRE DEATH MOUNTAIN: THE REVENGE WILL NOW DROP EPIC FUSCHIA SWORD 2% MORE OFTEN"  So far, PvP has been extremely limited to prevent Horde from dicking around with Alliance levelling.  It would take a pretty major change to have the PvP be anything but this, and I don't see this change coming along as a rider to a major PvE expansion.  I wouldn't mind being proven wrong about that.  What I would mind is expecting people to give a shit about being at war when you can't actually do anything about it in the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 20, 2009, 05:11:56 PM
Blizzard's lore logic is completely ridiculous as background, and I think we all know it. I mean the recent iteration of content makes absolutely no sense.

Jaina: "A huge threat looms in Icecrown. The Lich King could strike us down with his horrible undead armies. Our armies are also depleted after dealing with Yogg-Saron. What should we do to stop the apocalypse and turn the tide against Arthas?

Tirion: "We shall build...A REN-FAIRE!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 20, 2009, 05:32:02 PM
Yeah, that's a considerable part of it.  How would they make 'being at war' significantly different than 'not being at war'?  Because if it's not, then the change in the story is meaningless backdrop.  Unless war starts spilling out into the rest of the world regularly, allowing and encouraging people to fight outside of battlegrounds and other ultra-contained locations, then being at war is remarkably similar to not being at war.

WoW would make sense with more pvp, would make sense as a pvp-centric game, but it's not and probably never will be (if they're smart, which they are).  So being 'at war' isn't going to change the gameplay for the vast majority of players one bit, which means it's going to mean squat to people when it comes down to it.  There will still be battlegrounds, still be wintergrasp and whatever comes out of it in the future, and so on, so being at war will be meaningless.  On the upside, at least this expansion won't squeeze Horde and Alliance into the same city, which is one of the most incredibly retarded facets of both existing expansions.

The ren-faire thing is idiotic, but it almost kinda makes sense when you think about how the Lich King specifiically works.  I commented on this myself at one point, but someone made a good point.  When fighting him, you don't want to bring an army, you want to bring those who are least likely to die at all, so you don't have an army that shifts the balance two in favor of the enemy every time one of your soldiers dies.  So yeah, making sure only the strongest and most capable are sent against the Lich King is reasonable, even if they way they're going about it is utterly, completely moronic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soln on August 20, 2009, 06:52:29 PM
I just like caps. I gives me a good quote to come back to and shove it in the face of people who were wrong. If I'm wrong it's just silly, but I live on the edge.

Seriously though, I am as hardcore a financial guy as you'll meet while being a gamer, and to remake old shit in the guise of new shit isn't a business plan. It's a salvage plan.

QFT

the time to QA all these changes makes me suspect this isn't real. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 20, 2009, 06:55:54 PM
There's gonna be a new battleground or two, and some Wintergraspy type of world objective. If you're looking for more than that, you're playing the wrong game. My point is that if you're going to have those things, trying to paint the two sides as not being at war is flamingly fucking idiotic and has been driving me nuts for years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 20, 2009, 07:08:19 PM
It also depends on the tools and resources available. Something like Redridge could be done in a couple hours in the Dungeon Siege engine, but I hear WoW's editor (which is different from the WC3 editor) is a bit more cludgey.

It's not actually possible to get any easier than the War III editor.  However, when a developer sacrifices ease of use they normally do it for the sake of other features, namely the ability to do large portions of work at once, or to allow for exceedingly fine detail work.  Shooters generally get the latter treatment, sprawling RPG's generally get the former.  A good example of the first approach is the heightmap import tools in Oblivion, which imports a bitmap and uses it to generate a heightmap; which allows interoperability with a number of fractal terrain generators as well as allowing the use of image manipulation software to generate terrain at a pace much faster than the editor's tools, yet with comparable detail.

You mean aside from the time it takes to do the concept art, writing, itemization, quest implementation, QA and all the hours spent in design meetings? And then of course each of those tasks gets atleast two iterations.

Because you don't need concept art, writing, itemization, or quests to flatten a path out from Menethil Harbor to the WIP super-sekret back entrance to Ironforge which I checked out on my private realm.  But how's your day?

EDIT: Former/Latter made no fucking sense, I shouldn't post after a mostly sleepless night of fucking with databases combined with beer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 20, 2009, 08:36:35 PM
There's gonna be a new battleground or two, and some Wintergraspy type of world objective. If you're looking for more than that, you're playing the wrong game. My point is that if you're going to have those things, trying to paint the two sides as not being at war is flamingly fucking idiotic and has been driving me nuts for years.
I agree, this is the wrong game to find more than that.  Thing is, story-wise it sounds like they're painting this as a huge, significant change.  So what I'm saying is that's damn silly, because 'more of the same' doesn't equal 'massive lore changes' and Horde shifting from 'cold war' sort of status to full war.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 20, 2009, 08:42:21 PM
Why is it so hard to imagine that instead of killing 10 Naga, we'll Kill 10 Horde NPC Invaders?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 20, 2009, 09:22:48 PM
The amazing thing to me is that as ridiculous as much of the storyline is, they manage to make it simultaneously relevant, compelling and unimportant.  I really get a kick out of the stories told by the lore, and being able to live in the world, while at the same time realizing it would fall apart without the highest level of willing suspension of disbelief I can muster.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 20, 2009, 09:28:11 PM
That presents two possibillities, neither of which works well.  Either the NPCs are pvp flagged. So killing them triggers your pvp flag, in which case people will complain they can't do their quests without going pvp, or they won't be pvp flagged, and the infuriating occurence of people killing those on your side without you being able to do anything about it becomes a centerpiece.  There's some of that already, like in Ashenvale with unflagged Horde and Alliance NPC's, but that tends to be minimal and marginalized in the current game.  An entire expansion based around it would be annoying to anyone who tries to have a "side identity" whenn they play Horde or Alliance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on August 20, 2009, 09:54:16 PM
Why is it so hard to imagine that instead of killing 10 Naga, we'll Kill 10 Horde NPC Invaders?

I'm not saying it would be hard to imagine, just that it would suck (see also: Warhammer PvE, complaints about).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 21, 2009, 12:01:34 AM
Draconian, you need to get a new video.  I was screwing around today on my realm, and the wanker who made that missed some of the really fucking extreme shit, you were in fact dead right.  Blizzard quite literally has enough space for several expansions left in the old world.

As a side note, it looks like large sections were simply cut from release, because some of places are quite complete for a couple hundred feet and then just stop in a massive wall created by a flatten brush.  It may be that some work was actually destroyed in the process on the live servers in order to fit raids but still lives in archives (Hyjal, AQ, and ZG show signs of pretty serious but abandoned development, in the latter two cases behind where the instance portal lies).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on August 21, 2009, 12:27:44 AM
So we're back to saying that randomly filling in unoccupied space would be acceptable? I thought we had moved past that idea. That's a gain of absolutely nothing, because those that can fly have no real business on the old continents. That's just unnecessary tampering with working content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 21, 2009, 12:52:34 AM
So we're back to saying that randomly filling in unoccupied space would be acceptable? I thought we had moved past that idea. That's a gain of absolutely nothing, because those that can fly have no real business on the old continents. That's just unnecessary tampering with working content.

You're going to have to explain to me how "filling in unoccupied space" is the least bit objectionable, because you've lost me.  As I recall, that's what expansion do, among other things, none of which are precluded by building in the old world.

Secondly, it does in fact need to get tampered with, because the old world has no actual purpose now except leveling, and that purpose is constantly being eroded as Blizzard needs to nerf leveling time in order to tack on their brand new big cockblocky leveling grind at the end without utterly fucking crushing the souls of everyone who rolls a brand new character because they're friend tossed them an invite.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on August 21, 2009, 01:17:58 AM
One guy populating an area equals randomly filling in, because you have no fine control over the collective result. Almost exclusively it gives a biased and uneven result with small hints of personal brilliance. The opposite is a team planning, conceptualizing and then implementing an area to a set standard. The latter takes a lot of time and effort.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 21, 2009, 02:05:25 AM
I'm beyond using time and effort as a reason not to do something anymore. The people who like the idea simply don't care. The main point now is that's it's stupid. The old world should be shot to shit. We've stomped it into the ground. The game is 5 years old and more popular than any MMO has ever been. The lore is pointless and there's no reason to hang around on some meaningless rock. Don't try to sell me that we can't just invent a new island in 20 minutes with some fun stuff on it that wouldn't be spread into a patchwork of odd redone zones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 21, 2009, 02:40:42 AM
I'm beyond using time and effort as a reason not to do something anymore. The people who like the idea simply don't care. The main point now is that's it's stupid. The old world should be shot to shit. We've stomped it into the ground. The game is 5 years old and more popular than any MMO has ever been. The lore is pointless and there's no reason to hang around on some meaningless rock. Don't try to sell me that we can't just invent a new island in 20 minutes with some fun stuff on it that wouldn't be spread into a patchwork of odd redone zones.

What I'm getting from this is: "burn the old world to the motherfucking ground!"

It might just be the alcohol or the building of databases talking, but I like the concept of redoing it.  I fucking loved so much of the level 60 game (and hated a good portion of it, too), but it will never be the same, and pretending like it still has value as level 60 endgame content is just retarded.  However, pretending that we won't appreciate it if it's done well, without all the old circa 2004 cockstab, is going too far.  Really though, the way Blizzard has built their game something has to give, and I'd sooner it be the old world than them deciding we get to shoot out into space and kill more demons again, because the premise of that was pretty fucking stupid when they first came up with it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2009, 06:10:25 AM
Inventing a new island every expansion or yet another undiscovered continent....is fucking EQ stupid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 21, 2009, 06:33:52 AM
Inventing a new island every expansion or yet another undiscovered continent....is fucking EQ stupid.

Azeroth has a moon right?  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on August 21, 2009, 09:00:25 AM
Azeroth has a moon right?  :grin:
There's potential here

... for a realm-wide 'collect billion ore and shit so the gnomes can build giant cannon that can shoot all way to the moon' quest. :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 21, 2009, 09:46:32 AM
Upon impact the characters should die, then find out there's no spirit healer on the moon.  It'd be hilarious.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 21, 2009, 10:55:19 AM
With the announcement expected today, the official site is now listing the Azeroth map as "outdated". :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2009, 11:20:04 AM
Cataclysm: So long and thanks for all the fish.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tebonas on August 21, 2009, 11:24:56 AM
The lore is fucked up beyond reason by this. Isn't Thrall personally responsible for the Taurens being in the Horde? With him leaving, you don't even need the Assassination being public knowledge for them to say "Fuck those warmongers" and be neutral.

Good thing nobody plays for the Lore anymore. They would kill themself!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2009, 11:30:34 AM
I doubt the assassination will be blamed on anyone but the alliance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tebonas on August 21, 2009, 11:37:55 AM
So Cairne is called a traitor to the Horde and the Alliance kills him? Plot holes you could ride a Kodo through  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 21, 2009, 11:40:29 AM
Who the fuck is Cairne? I swear you guys are just making this all up.  

tee hee hee



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 11:43:11 AM
See?!  The Alliance is so treacherous all that talk of 'peace' and 'coexistance' that swayed Cairne was just a trick so they could kill him!  Garrosh was right all along!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tebonas on August 21, 2009, 11:49:13 AM
We aren't, Blizzard is.

Cairn Bloodhoof is/was the leader of the Tauren faction, the one that befriended Thrall and united the Tauren tribes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2009, 12:07:09 PM
I think you're reading too much into the spoiler. I think it's going to go along the lines of

~Cairne wants peace, starts pushing for it.

~Garrosh being the full-on retard he is goes and calls cairne a traitor(i doubt there will be witnesses)

~Battle ensues, Garrosh wins using his retard strength but needs to keep it a secret or taurens leave the horde.

~Alliance gets blamed for the murder as an excuse for war.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2009, 01:07:03 PM
Sheep....

(http://i29.tinypic.com/bhlwd3.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 21, 2009, 01:09:51 PM
The rumors were dead spot-on.  Only thing missing was the new progression path and guild leveling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 01:11:59 PM
Yup.  A couple of added tidbits from a live blogging I'm following:

"Guild leveling system. Path of the titans character progression."

But yeah, old world redesign, flying in old world, Goblins to Horde, Worgen to Alliance (because they were attacked by the Forsaken when the Greymane Wall came down, heh), it's all confirmed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 21, 2009, 01:13:19 PM
I'll believe this shit when I actually see it announced rather than relying entirely upon people speculating in a Something Awful thread (yes that's where all of this came from).

I'm going to go 95% that they are making this shit up. It's horrible business if they aren't. I'm not going to pay for an entire expansion where I go back to the same continent I spent the first year on, rerunning the same shit I did with new skins. That's Trials of Atlantis level stupid.

The number of changes that also are supposed to be in the upcoming patch lead me to believe that stupid fuckers are writing up their fantasies as patch notes again.

(http://i30.tinypic.com/35bui3d.png)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 01:17:48 PM
Oh, apparently there's a new profession coming too: Archeology.  No description given but I'm guessing it'll be related somehow to finding and/or using Titan artifacts.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 21, 2009, 01:19:03 PM
New Desolace!  Big improvement!

Need more screenshots, but the changes seem to go from 'meh lava' to 'Whee, whole new look!'.  Tanaris and Desolace being the winners in my book.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 21, 2009, 01:21:56 PM
The most interesting thing to me that I don't think I saw before the confirmation just now is "path of the titans" billed as a new advancement path.  Translation: WoW gets AA abilities, at least from what I can imagine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 21, 2009, 01:26:22 PM
Official site is up. (http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/cataclysm/)
(http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/cataclysm/_images/screenshots/ss1.jpg)
Night Elf:  Well fuck.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Montague on August 21, 2009, 01:28:39 PM
Gnome priests.  :awesome_for_real:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 01:31:11 PM
Gilneas looks like Sherlock Holmes era rainy/fog London.  Nice.

Oh, and one of the screenshots has a Worgen wearing the Druid T8 set so it's probably safe to say Worgen can be Druids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 21, 2009, 01:31:57 PM
I am never going to hear the end of this from my roommate.  He's PM'ing me about how ridiculous it all is. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lum on August 21, 2009, 01:38:27 PM
HEROIC DEADMINES

 :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on August 21, 2009, 01:40:30 PM
Godfuckingdammit.

Okay, so you want war, fine.  Not the optimal way, I'd say, but whatever.

But I still hope to God that the shit about Garrosh and Cairne is false.  Don't make me follow that drooling douche into battle.  Don't "Assassinate" Cairne to goad us into war, because we, the players, are going to know what's going on, and being forced to do stupid shit for an asshole we don't like because our characters don't know something that we do... that's fucking annoying in every game I've ever seen try to pull it off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 21, 2009, 01:44:44 PM
Godfuckingdammit.

Okay, so you want war, fine.  Not the optimal way, I'd say, but whatever.

But I still hope to God that the shit about Garrosh and Cairne is false.  Don't make me follow that drooling douche into battle.  Don't "Assassinate" Cairne to goad us into war, because we, the players, are going to know what's going on, and being forced to do stupid shit for an asshole we don't like because our characters don't know something that we do... that's fucking annoying in every game I've ever seen try to pull it off.

So far, Thrall is still listed as Warchief.

Also:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 01:45:23 PM
HEROIC DEADMINES

 :drill:

And Shadowfang!

There's a faq page up on that Cataclysm page that gives more details on the expansion.  The 'omg I want new zones' people will be happy to see that the Worgen/Goblin starter zones of Gilneas/Lost Islands will be brand new, and have a phasing progression similar to the DK starting area.  We'll also be seeing Uldum, Grim Batol and "the great sunken city of Vashj'ir" and at least one new Wintergrasp type PvP zone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lum on August 21, 2009, 01:45:45 PM
being forced to do stupid shit for an asshole we don't like

Oh, hi, you must play Horde.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3293/2889762438_516ef16d55.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 21, 2009, 01:46:38 PM
HEROIC DEADMINES

 :drill:

And Shadowfang!

There's a faq page up on that Cataclysm page that gives more details on the expansion.  The 'omg I want new zones' people will be happy to see that the Worgen/Goblin starter zones of Gilneas/Lost Islands will be brand new, and have a phasing progression similar to the DK starting area.  We'll also be seeing Uldum, Grim Batol and "the great sunken city of Vashj'ir" and at least one new Wintergrasp type PvP zone.
And the Elemental Planes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 21, 2009, 01:48:36 PM
Except for his anime hair, Varian Wrynn is awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on August 21, 2009, 01:50:09 PM
Our best hopes (and some people's worst fears) are confirmed, it's going to be pretty much what the rumors say. All I can say is SUH-WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!

http://www.wow.com/2009/08/21/blizzcon-2009-opening-ceremony-live-blog/

Edit: pewp, I'm late again... :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lum on August 21, 2009, 01:50:44 PM
Except for his anime hair, Varian Wrynn is awesome.

Sure, if your definition of "awesome" is "insane PTSD-ridden ex-gladiator with almost no backstory who starts a war in the middle of an undead invasion", yes, he's totally awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 21, 2009, 01:54:23 PM
Quote
Yes, we are creating all-new level 1 to 15 starting zones for both races.

 :heartbreak:

 :mob:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Gobbeldygook on August 21, 2009, 01:57:05 PM
edit: thread going fast


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 01:57:28 PM
Quote
Yes, we are creating all-new level 1 to 15 starting zones for both races.

 :heartbreak:

 :mob:

DK style phase-progression starter zones for the new races has you heartbroken and angry...  why?  :headscratch:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Montague on August 21, 2009, 01:59:00 PM
So Gamasutra says they announced "Ranked Team Multiplayer"... isn't that Arena?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 01:59:50 PM
So Gamasutra says they announced "Ranked Team Multiplayer"... isn't that Arena?

Apparently rated BGs are coming, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 21, 2009, 02:00:26 PM
Mass resurrection guild ability - interesting.

And they can phase terrain.

Archaeology is a secondary skill, not a profession, and is used in the Path of the Titans AA  system.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Gobbeldygook on August 21, 2009, 02:01:10 PM
So Gamasutra says they announced "Ranked Team Multiplayer"... isn't that Arena?
No, they announced ranked BGs.
---

From THE EVIL GOON TROLLS,

Best Deals Anywhere, always receive the best possible gold discount, regardless of faction.
Better Living Through Chemistry, Alchemy skill increased by 15.
Pack Hobgoblin, Instant, 30 minute cooldown, Calls in your personal servant, allowing you bank access for 1 min.
Rocket Barrage, 30 yd range, Instant, 2 min cooldown, Launches your belt rockets at an enemy, dealing 30 fire damage.
Rocket Jump, instant, 2 min cooldown, activates your rocket belt to jump forward.
Time is Money, cash in on a 1% increase to attack and casting speed.


Two Forms, instant, 1.5 sec cooldown, Turn into your currently inactive form.
Darkflight, instant, 3 min cooldown, activates your true form increasing movement speed by 70% for 10 sec
Viciousness, passive, increases all damage done by 1%.
Flayer, passive, skinning skill increased by 15 and allows you to skin faster.

---

Fahey:  There will be 20 Guild Levels. With awesome new perks . There will be a guild talent tree.
    Fahey:  Slower durability loss, cheaper repairs, mass ressurection after a wipe. Just an example of Guild talent tree perks. Wow. Impressive.
"Classic world revamp of every zone with updated quests, art and items. Going through the old world with a new character will be a new experience. No more Agility/Spirit boot quest rewards."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 21, 2009, 02:01:17 PM

DK style phase-progression starter zones for the new races has you heartbroken and angry...  why?  :headscratch:

Just the ONE TO FIFTEEN part that irks me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 21, 2009, 02:01:53 PM
So Gamasutra says they announced "Ranked Team Multiplayer"... isn't that Arena?

Apparently rated BGs are coming, too.
Hopefully 'instead of' rather than 'too'.
Because the Arena is fucking terrible and should never have been added.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 21, 2009, 02:02:10 PM
Ashenvale going to the Horde is neat. New races, that's cool, new newbie areas sounds fun. Redoing Desolace is NOT. That is my favorite zone, as is, and should not ever never ever be fucked with.

Fuck.

Regarding that "doing stuff for people we don't like," I felt that way shocking baby gorillas for the mean ol' Wolvars just so I could eventually be friends with the happy slappy Oracles. Hated that. I knew how it was going to end, no need to make me pretend to go on some journey of self discovery.

I wish this would go down like the SWG NGE, but alas, not bloody likely.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 21, 2009, 02:04:00 PM
Redoing Desolace is NOT. That is my favorite zone, as is, and should not ever never ever be fucked with.

You are a bad person and possibly a felon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 21, 2009, 02:04:47 PM
There's a reason why I'm not a betting man... and all I can say is that I am liking this announcement a lot.

Also, Heroic SFK is fucking awesome.  I love that instance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 21, 2009, 02:05:06 PM
Someone liked Desolace?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 21, 2009, 02:07:00 PM
Desolace is the only zone in the game that doesn't feel like a slip-n-slide theme park where Blizzard grabs you by the scruff of the neck and goes "LEVEL NOW ZOOM K DONE NEXT ZONE."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hindenburg on August 21, 2009, 02:08:29 PM
More interested by this expansion that I was by TBC and WotLK.
Racials seem a bit WAY THE FUCK BETTER than any other racial available, save for heroic presence.

Desolace is the only zone in the game that doesn't feel like a slip-n-slide theme park where Blizzard grabs you by the scruff of the neck and goes "LEVEL NOW ZOOM K DONE NEXT ZONE."

Ya mean like how there's a demonic field smack dab in the middle of nowhere for no proper reason?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 21, 2009, 02:10:15 PM
Desolace is the only zone in the game that doesn't feel like a slip-n-slide theme park where Blizzard grabs you by the scruff of the neck and goes "LEVEL NOW ZOOM K DONE NEXT ZONE."

Ya mean like how there's a demonic field smack dab in the middle of nowhere for no proper reason?

Because...demons do that sometimes? For whatever reason, forget the lore, I just want a big open empty space to inhabit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 02:10:21 PM
Ashenvale going to the Horde is neat. New races, that's cool, new newbie areas sounds fun. Redoing Desolace is NOT. That is my favorite zone, as is, and should not ever never ever be fucked with.

Night Elves are definitely in a bad way with Darkshore getting flooded out, Astranaar getting destroyed and losing at least a big chunk of Ashenvale to the Horde.  Teldrassil is still corrupted as far as I know.  That doesn't leave them much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2009, 02:12:14 PM
Fuck night elves.

Fuck them hard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 21, 2009, 02:12:22 PM
Sure, if your definition of "awesome" is "insane PTSD-ridden ex-gladiator with almost no backstory who starts a war in the middle of an undead invasion", yes, he's totally awesome.

I think you mean the guy who got fed up with the Horde's ever-repeating "Totally valid excuse for why our guys did something horrible to you THIS time!" routine and just decided to say fuck it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 21, 2009, 02:13:25 PM
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.wow.com/media/2009/08/ah082209catmapsmall.jpg)

New map.  

Notable new zones:  Mount Hyjal, Twlight Highlands, Vashjr, Uldum, Deepholm.

1:10PM Southshore has been lost to the Horde. "Nobody was defending it."  HAH!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Vash on August 21, 2009, 02:14:43 PM
Desolace is the only zone in the game that doesn't feel like a slip-n-slide theme park where Blizzard grabs you by the scruff of the neck and goes "LEVEL NOW ZOOM K DONE NEXT ZONE."

Ya mean like how there's a demonic field smack dab in the middle of nowhere for no proper reason?

Because...demons do that sometimes? For whatever reason, forget the lore, I just want a big open empty space to inhabit.


Anywhere Blizzard feels like putting a group of Shadow Council/Cultists there should basically be a sign that says "Here Be Demons".  Cultists can be any race and exist anywhere without much lore stretching and worshiping the Burning Legion / summoning demons is basically their whole deal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 21, 2009, 02:17:07 PM
Hmmm...  Goblin DKs?


I'd play one.

EDIT: This just in - underwater mounts.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 21, 2009, 02:19:02 PM
Desolace is the only zone in the game that doesn't feel like a slip-n-slide theme park where Blizzard grabs you by the scruff of the neck and goes "LEVEL NOW ZOOM K DONE NEXT ZONE."
Funny, 'cause it was the one zone where I wish it was LEVEL NOW ZOOM K DONE NEXT ZONE.  (Well, it and Nintendo Crater.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 21, 2009, 02:19:28 PM
Sure, if your definition of "awesome" is "insane PTSD-ridden ex-gladiator with almost no backstory who starts a war in the middle of an undead invasion", yes, he's totally awesome.

I think you mean the guy who got fed up with the Horde's ever-repeating "Totally valid excuse for why our guys did something horrible to you THIS time!" routine and just decided to say fuck it.
Counterpoint: This then lead directly to Warchief Hellscream and then the Alliance losing Ashenvale and Southshore (and God only knows what else). Garrosh is just as big a cock as Wrynn, but at least he's getting results.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on August 21, 2009, 02:19:54 PM
EDIT: This just in - underwater mounts.

Seriously?  My Engineer's been waiting for that, cool.  


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on August 21, 2009, 02:22:30 PM
I really really love the direction they have taken this expansion. Significant changes to the old world is something I've hoped to see for a long time. Love the look of the Worgen and their town.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 21, 2009, 02:23:38 PM
Seriously?  My Engineer's been waiting for that, cool. 

Guess they might be the only way to get to the new underwater zone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 02:25:08 PM
If the race class spoilers (http://www.wow.com/2009/08/21/blizzcon-2009-live-blogging-the-cataclysm-new-starter-zones/) are correct, I'll be making a Worgen Rogue and Goblin Shaman.  Book it.  Done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 21, 2009, 02:32:22 PM
Hopefully they'll be increasing character slots too then.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 21, 2009, 02:36:21 PM
Counterpoint: This then lead directly to Warchief Hellscream and then the Alliance losing Ashenvale and Southshore (and God only knows what else). Garrosh is just as big a cock as Wrynn, but at least he's getting results.

Yeah, it'll just be a totally Horde map with Alliance doing nothing but leveling to 20 in Westfall and quitting. In that same imaginary version of WoW you play where the evil Alliance attacked the Forsaken JUST FOR BEING WHO THEY AAAAARE. Meanwhile in everyone else's game there will presumably be some other territory turnover elsewhere to keep the content more or less balanced.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2009, 02:37:58 PM
Counterpoint: This then lead directly to Warchief Hellscream and then the Alliance losing Ashenvale and Southshore (and God only knows what else). Garrosh is just as big a cock as Wrynn, but at least he's getting results.

Yeah, it'll just be a totally Horde map with Alliance doing nothing but leveling to 20 in Westfall and quitting. In that same imaginary version of WoW you play where the evil Alliance attacked the Forsaken JUST FOR BEING WHO THEY AAAAARE. Meanwhile in everyone else's game there will presumably be some other territory turnover elsewhere to keep the content more or less balanced.

Enjoy your yiff piles btw


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 21, 2009, 02:39:43 PM
Counterpoint: This then lead directly to Warchief Hellscream and then the Alliance losing Ashenvale and Southshore (and God only knows what else). Garrosh is just as big a cock as Wrynn, but at least he's getting results.

Yeah, it'll just be a totally Horde map with Alliance doing nothing but leveling to 20 in Westfall and quitting. In that same imaginary version of WoW you play where the evil Alliance attacked the Forsaken JUST FOR BEING WHO THEY AAAAARE. Meanwhile in everyone else's game there will presumably be some other territory turnover elsewhere to keep the content more or less balanced.

Enjoy your yiff piles btw
:awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 21, 2009, 02:41:39 PM
In other news, new battleground - Battle for Gilneas.  Takes place in streets of the city with the goal of capturing districts.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Vash on August 21, 2009, 02:42:46 PM
Enjoy your yiff piles btw

Whatever the main Inn is for the Worgen starting area will easily replace the Goldshire Inn as the most creepy and disturbing thing in WoW as soon as Cataclysm launches. :cthulu:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Brogarn on August 21, 2009, 02:44:51 PM
Their lore is held together by liberal amounts of duct tape and the occasional use of a shoe horn.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 02:52:56 PM
Yeah, it'll just be a totally Horde map with Alliance doing nothing but leveling to 20 in Westfall and quitting. In that same imaginary version of WoW you play where the evil Alliance attacked the Forsaken JUST FOR BEING WHO THEY AAAAARE. Meanwhile in everyone else's game there will presumably be some other territory turnover elsewhere to keep the content more or less balanced.

What's ironic about this is the Forsaken are attacking the Worgen just for being who they are.  :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2009, 02:56:45 PM
You'd attack them on sight too...

(http://www.tailslap.com/furry/rainfurrest0-2007/slides/DSC_1474.JPG)

For the alliance!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lum on August 21, 2009, 02:59:31 PM
Counterpoint: This then lead directly to Warchief Hellscream and then the Alliance losing Ashenvale and Southshore (and God only knows what else). Garrosh is just as big a cock as Wrynn, but at least he's getting results.

Yeah, it'll just be a totally Horde map with Alliance doing nothing but leveling to 20 in Westfall and quitting. In that same imaginary version of WoW you play where the evil Alliance attacked the Forsaken JUST FOR BEING WHO THEY AAAAARE.

Alliance Levelling Path post-expansion:

1-10 Elwynn Forest
11-20 Westfall
21 /ragequit


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 03:00:49 PM
Alliance will still be 5 years behind the Horde in yiffing.  I'm sure the Tauren will be happy to share tips.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 21, 2009, 03:02:42 PM
I dunno, something tells me that somehow things will work out such that the two factions still split the world more or less exactly 50/50. Call it a hunch.  :oh_i_see:

Enjoy your yiff piles btw

Bet they're rerolls.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 21, 2009, 03:07:36 PM
No Murlocs as a player race. Expansionfail.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 03:07:55 PM
This is second-hand info so keep that in mind:

Quote
Here's basically what they said on the preview panel:

Talent trees are NOT being extended, however, they are adding talents to the current trees, and we'll still get 5 extra points.

Path of the Titans - an Alternate Advancement system. Anybody can pick one of the paths (linked to archaeology somehow,) and receive certain benefits and further specialization from them. All classes share all paths.

Mastery System - Blizzard doesn't like how our talent trees mix "fun" talents with "required" talents, so what they're gonna do is remove the necessary power-up talent effects, and make them passive for those who train in that tree. For example, talents that increase spell power, crit rating, etc. would be removed/altered, instead we'd get those effects - no matter what - just from sinking a certain amount of points into one tree.

These updates more than make up for not getting extended talent trees. The Mastery System alone sounds like the talent trees will be getting much more of a revamp than ever before (without necessarily nerfing us,) while the Path of the Titans provides yet another method of customization.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2009, 03:11:39 PM
You know I always liked that tauren pic, there was a big stink about it when they took it off the main fanart page and I have to say there's a lot more explicit belf/draenei stuff on there.   Truth is though tauren are not/never have been sexy, as it stands they're maybe the least played horde race still so any appeal they would have to the furry community is small at best.

Worgen on the otherhand...well, I can't say I'll feel sorry, we had to deal with belfs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Gobbeldygook on August 21, 2009, 03:23:02 PM
Truth is though tauren are not/never have been sexy, as it stands they're maybe the least played horde race still so any appeal they would have to the furry community is small at best.
False.  Tauren were almost inarguably the best tank race for all of Vanilla and TBC thanks to an AOE stun and more importantly, their bonus health modifier.  They are currently the third most popular after Belfs and Undead.  The least-popular race is by far Troll.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 21, 2009, 03:23:32 PM
If the race class spoilers (http://www.wow.com/2009/08/21/blizzcon-2009-live-blogging-the-cataclysm-new-starter-zones/) are correct, I'll be making a Worgen Rogue and Goblin Shaman.  Book it.  Done.
I would be thinking the same choices.  I'll have to think on it some more.  At least I have a name for my Goblin saved already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 21, 2009, 03:25:27 PM
You know I always liked that tauren pic, there was a big stink about it when they took it off the main fanart page and I have to say there's a lot more explicit belf/draenei stuff on there.

*edits previous post to replace merely risque pic with Tauren yiff porn*
*includes innocent "adding NSFW tag, sorry" to explain the edit*
*quotes your post about how you "like that tauren pic" for posterity*

 :oh_i_see:

Oh, and assuming all the leaked new class/race combinations are for real, I'll roll either a human hunter or a goblin... something. Now that they're giving the Horde some testicles again, why not?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 21, 2009, 03:25:51 PM
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/cataclysm/

Official site is up, from the FAQ:
Quote
Will I need the expansion to be able to experience the Cataclysm changes?

When the Cataclysm occurs, it will occur for all players, whether they have purchased the expansion or not--you will no longer be to play in the original version of Kalimdor or the Eastern Kingdoms. However, certain features such as the new zones, new races, and new level cap will only be accessible to players who purchase the expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 21, 2009, 03:30:22 PM
Oh, and assuming all the leaked new class/race combinations are for real, I'll roll either a human hunter or a goblin... something. Now that they're giving the Horde some testicles again, why not?
The combinations are real.  WoW Site (http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/cataclysm/features/).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soln on August 21, 2009, 03:45:18 PM
well, wow indeed.  Good for them, huge changes.  Have fun.


Edit: how do you all know this lore?  I mean, folks complain about LotRO (deservedly), but this stuff seems way more complicated (more retcon).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hindenburg on August 21, 2009, 03:45:56 PM
I dunno, something tells me that somehow things will work out such that the two factions still split the world more or less exactly 50/50. Call it a hunch.  :oh_i_see:

So Varian's warmongering ways will result in no power gain whatsoever?

Also, I can and should say that you were completely correct about what would happen. Bravo.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 21, 2009, 03:57:52 PM
So Varian's warmongering ways will result in no power gain whatsoever?

Of course not. Now we can just frag each other without a lot of fappery about "a tenuous truce" going on in the background.

Quote
Also, I can and should say that you were completely correct about what would happen. Bravo.

It's all about who punks who. Garrosh was getting the better of Thrall when they broke it up, but the brief Varian/Garrosh scuffle was carefully devised to give no favor to either one. I had a strong hunch when I saw the first, and knew it when I saw the second.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 21, 2009, 04:57:06 PM
Fuuuuuuck.

I enjoy wow for the WC3-related bits.  I'll run around, get lots of SSs of the world as-is and then quit after I've killed Arthas, I guess.

AAs in wow? Fuck that noise, half the fun is NOT having to play one character exclusively so you have x# of "required" AA abilities/ points.  I can't see this being a good thing in the end.

The talent changes sound interesting, but they should have realized that 3 years ago when people were complaining about 'required' talents.  At the least they should have done so with the last revamp when they ALSO said they were focusing on trying to remove 'required' talents.

Meh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 21, 2009, 05:04:07 PM
Okay, so I just watched the trailer. Funny, I was thinking all these years of playing WoW, I enjoyed so many zones that weren't all filled with lava and craters and chasms and OMG EXTREEM DESTRUCTION. And...okay so they poured lava and craters and chasms into every zone. Makes me sadf. I shall look for player-run classic shards when this happens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 21, 2009, 05:06:57 PM
Can I have your stuff?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soln on August 21, 2009, 05:07:16 PM
some of those zones were very purty indeed.  Actually, when you consider the palette and shaders etc. they have to work with many of those zones were/are incredible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 21, 2009, 05:07:36 PM
Hopefully they'll be increasing character slots too then.

WoW.com is reporting that there are no new character slots.

As for the Path of the Titans stuff I doubt it's very much in the EQ2 vein.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2009, 05:09:07 PM
I think most(if not all) of the lava zone shots were the barrens. I believe only three-four of the revamped zones are actually finished.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 05:14:33 PM
I saw a human wearing a Top Hat!



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 21, 2009, 05:19:15 PM
Okay, so I just watched the trailer. Funny, I was thinking all these years of playing WoW, I enjoyed so many zones that weren't all filled with lava and craters and chasms and OMG EXTREEM DESTRUCTION. And...okay so they poured lava and craters and chasms into every zone. Makes me sadf. I shall look for player-run classic shards when this happens.
No, seriously - when you said that you like Desolace you lost all right to complain about WoW's content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 21, 2009, 05:26:29 PM
Have yet to see female worgen models, cause the lowbie preview allows only males, but the concept art was definitely hot, not unattractive like tauren, so I expect them to be more popular by far.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 05:32:57 PM
I haven't seen any Female Worgen art either way, where did you see it?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 21, 2009, 05:34:34 PM
dougwinger.com


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on August 21, 2009, 05:38:36 PM
I think most(if not all) of the lava zone shots were the barrens.
No loss there.  That zone can die in a fire.

Although I guess this means my Loremaster titles will be unobtainable on the rest of my characters.  And with no more slots, they want me to get another account >(  Any idea when all of this is supposed to actually be remotely kindasorta close to release?  I know it's Blizzard and all, so I take it with a grain of salt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 21, 2009, 05:40:34 PM
I figure sometime mid next-year.  Icecrown should pop up around December, giving a good 5-6 months of farming that before moving on to patch 4.0.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 21, 2009, 05:43:38 PM
No, seriously - when you said that you like Desolace you lost all right to complain about WoW's content.

You are wrong for not liking big vacant areas!!!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 05:51:09 PM
dougwinger.com

(http://static.velvetcache.org/pages/2007/5/25/its-a-trap/tarp-30198.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 21, 2009, 06:21:03 PM
Um, some minor stat changes in the pipeline.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Gobbeldygook on August 21, 2009, 06:25:23 PM
In the current panel, GC is a nuclear bomb laying motherfucker.

-Arpen, spellpower, attack power, block value, defense, and mp5 are all going away.  Mp5 is all becoming spirit, every tank is getting a -crit talent, attack power is just gone, block value is just gone, int raises your spellpower now, arpen is replaced with 'Mastery'.
-Haste will make melee regen energy etc faster, not attack faster.  Works same as always for casters.
-Hunters are going back to Focus.  No more mana.

There's more at the Usual Sources, but...yeah.  No cow is too sacred.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 06:32:54 PM
I think most(if not all) of the lava zone shots were the barrens.
No loss there.  That zone can die in a fire.

Although I guess this means my Loremaster titles will be unobtainable on the rest of my characters.  And with no more slots, they want me to get another account >(  Any idea when all of this is supposed to actually be remotely kindasorta close to release?  I know it's Blizzard and all, so I take it with a grain of salt.


They'll rework the Achievements for that, I wouldn't worry.




Also, fuck yes to the stat changes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 06:34:12 PM
It's not WoW II, but it's shaping up to be WoW 2.0


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 21, 2009, 06:35:32 PM
Good times.

Glad to see stats that were basically added in as a for-the-hardcore afterthought late in BC (Haste and Armor Pen) are getting a full working-over.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 21, 2009, 06:44:43 PM
They've been hinting at that for a while now.  What with GC contantly being called on not knowing how it all relates and also saying, "Well shouldn't that stat matter for <class/ spec> as much as <actual required stat>"  pretty often in the last few months. (I.e. arpen on Unholy DKs vs Stacking straight STR and crit)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 07:10:49 PM
The stat system was just getting utterly retarded.


My Balance druid has half a dozen talents that convert X stat into Y stat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 21, 2009, 07:12:39 PM
I haven't seen any Female Worgen art either way, where did you see it?
There was a brief glimpse of it during the slides they showed when they announced worgen at opening ceremonies.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 21, 2009, 07:23:39 PM
I think the best thing is that they actually made Worgen furries.  Hilarious.  I can't help but think what that meeting was like.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 21, 2009, 07:41:37 PM
Technically they're less furry than Tauren, since Worgen can change back into Human form.  :raspberry:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 07:42:10 PM
That just makes it worse in the end, since they'll just mix and match.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2009, 07:55:28 PM
I now trademark the term wor-cock  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on August 21, 2009, 08:00:01 PM
Very happy the rumors are true!  Even though I've always wanted to play a goblin, I am pretty sure I'm going to roll Worgen right off the bat.  I want to see Gilneas (which looks cool as shit so far) and do that whole storyline.  The Lost Island isn't grabbing me, plus it will be chock full of har har Lost TV show references.  OMG I bet there will be a hatch!

Revamped Deadmines and Shadowfang Keep?  Yes please!  I've always wondered why SFK wasn't more popular.  

Strange we are only getting 5 new levels though.  Path of the Titans makes me think 'solo raiding' for some reason. Whatever that means.   Expect cockblocks aplenty!

I'm a bit bummed that Azeroth is changing, I guess I'm one of those guys who enjoys hunting for Mankirk's wife over and over.
But if they allow flying right off the bat it might help me get over it.

Hate to have to join the genocidal Alliance, but what can ya do.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 08:01:54 PM
Very happy the rumors are true!  Even though I've always wanted to play a goblin, I am pretty sure I'm going to roll Worgen right off the bat.  I want to see Gilneas (which looks cool as shit so far) and do that whole storyline.  The Lost Island isn't grabbing me, plus it will be chock full of har har Lost TV show references.  OMG I bet there will be a hatch!



http://www.wowhead.com/?zone=3711#screenshots:id=113230


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on August 21, 2009, 08:08:41 PM
I guarantee you that Mankrik's wife will still be lost, and that there will be some new form of that quest. Too famous to lose it. Now you'll just have to rescue her remains from a lava pit or some such.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on August 21, 2009, 08:10:51 PM
Very happy the rumors are true!  Even though I've always wanted to play a goblin, I am pretty sure I'm going to roll Worgen right off the bat.  I want to see Gilneas (which looks cool as shit so far) and do that whole storyline.  The Lost Island isn't grabbing me, plus it will be chock full of har har Lost TV show references.  OMG I bet there will be a hatch!



http://www.wowhead.com/?zone=3711#screenshots:id=113230

Oh yeah forgot about that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 08:11:34 PM
I guarantee you that Mankrik's wife will still be lost, and that there will be some new form of that quest. Too famous to lose it. Now you'll just have to rescue her remains from a lava pit or some such.




It'll be a CoT instance, the Bronze Dragon flight needs you to go back in time and make sure she dies.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2009, 08:28:14 PM
I guarantee you that Mankrik's wife will still be lost, and that there will be some new form of that quest. Too famous to lose it. Now you'll just have to rescue her remains from a lava pit or some such.




It'll be a CoT instance, the Bronze Dragon flight needs you to go back in time and make sure she dies.  :oh_i_see:

It was her sacrifice that inspired a young warrior who will one day bring slay deathwing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 21, 2009, 08:47:03 PM
Quote
Here's basically what they said on the preview panel:

These updates more than make up for not getting extended talent trees. The Mastery System alone sounds like the talent trees will be getting much more of a revamp than ever before (without necessarily nerfing us,) while the Path of the Titans provides yet another thing for players to bitch about.

Gah. I bet it's glyphs 2 Electric Bogaloo. Take the required optional stuff to make your character a better tank/dps/heal and then forget about it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 21, 2009, 08:52:12 PM
The stat changes are going to make gear some real boring shit.

Basically it's a "we fucking give up trying to itemize. Fuck you"

Armor pen, Mp5 (well this is good, was kinda confusing), spellpower, defense, etc are gone.

So basically it'll be

[generic thing of bad design]
+250 STR
+233 STA

And I guess you just magically get all your stats from that regardless of what you need as a warrior/dk/pally (holy OR ret)/etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 09:00:56 PM



It was sorely needed for casters, with most caster stats just being 'along for the ride' currently.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on August 21, 2009, 09:07:04 PM
Might be boring for the actuaries over at EJ forums, but for the average schmoe there's too many stats and caps to consider when trying to decide if piece A is better than B.  I often enjoy playing the game, but have no desire to spend a ton of time theorycrafting.  It takes away from my experience of the game. 

Hopefully this reigns this in a bit. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 21, 2009, 09:08:07 PM
There's still Haste and Critical Strike.  That said, most of the items I look at as a Discipline Priest are:

[contemporary generic thing of bad design]
+100 Stamina
+100 Intellect
+80 Spirit (or +40 MP5)
+120 Spell Power
+50 Critical Strike (or Haste) Rating

All this does is collapse the regen stats into one, and combines Intellect and Spell Power.  Yay for:

[new generic thing of bad design]
+200 Stamina
+160 Intellect
+160 Spirit
+100 Critical Strike (or Haste) Rating

Progress!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 21, 2009, 09:08:49 PM
Still got to worry about hit, right?  Splendid.  Such a boring stat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Gobbeldygook on August 21, 2009, 09:13:45 PM
The stat changes are going to make gear some real boring shit.

Basically it's a "we fucking give up trying to itemize. Fuck you"

Armor pen, Mp5 (well this is good, was kinda confusing), spellpower, defense, etc are gone.
Defense being gone is an extremely good thing.  Unless you go looking outside the game, you will find no indication as to how vitally important defense is to a tank or how the attack table works.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 09:36:05 PM
Nor would you have any idea how much defense you would need to begin with, since the 'cap' is so bloody arbitrary.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 21, 2009, 09:48:59 PM
Holy fuck.  When rumors of Worgen started surfacing I didn't consider the possibility that everyone at Blizzard went completely batshit insane.

EDIT: The defense cap isn't arbitrary, it's directly related to the notion that a level grants 0.2% crit reduction and the base chance to be crit by a mob in melee is 5%.  It's just not listed anywhere in-game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 09:51:29 PM
Everyone ELSE is crazy.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Falwell on August 21, 2009, 10:08:59 PM
Holy fuck.  When rumors of Worgen started surfacing I didn't consider the possibility that everyone at Blizzard went completely batshit insane.

Signs of that were evident when a big glowing pink crystal spaceship loaded with blue people speaking with Russian accents crash landed in a medieval world to battle the forces of evil.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 10:14:58 PM
Lead by a giant holy windchime!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 21, 2009, 10:16:05 PM
Yeah, but after Wrath was mostly sane I figured Metzen had stopped pranking the office by dumping psilocybin in the HVAC unit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Falwell on August 21, 2009, 10:17:15 PM
Yeah, but after Wrath was mostly sane I figured Metzen had stopped pranking the office by dumping psilocybin in the HVAC unit.

Tauren Priests and Paladins seem to suggest he's back to his old tricks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 10:21:22 PM
If your OK with Forsaken, you should be OK with Worgen. That's all they are in the end.


Well, minus the Yiffing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 21, 2009, 10:25:30 PM
Holy fuck.  When rumors of Worgen started surfacing I didn't consider the possibility that everyone at Blizzard went completely batshit insane.

Signs of that were evident when a big glowing pink crystal spaceship loaded with blue people speaking with Russian accents crash landed in a medieval world to battle the forces of evil.

Oh come on, the Orcs being from another planet was introduced in Warcraft II's expansion pack at the latest.  Warcraft has always been a little... off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 21, 2009, 10:25:50 PM
Now that I've got the stream working for myself I went back and watched the panels.  I missed it if anyone previously mentioned reforging.   Customizing stats on a piece of armor, nice.   They said you can't add stats that are already on, (i.e. no dropping all your hit to max stamina) but if you wanted to drop some stam to add hit, or crit you could.  Fucking nice.

Also I missed the implication that we're getting another BC-like stamina bounce, but this time everyone will be up around the same HPs.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 10:30:21 PM
I'm sure the reforging will be no where as awesome as it sounds. Either that, or it will be immensely overpowered and mandatory!


I really, really, REALLY want to see the details about the new resource systems. Hunters finally getting Focus back? DPS Casters not needing regen? Cats and Dogs living together?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 21, 2009, 10:40:37 PM
Oh come on, the Orcs being from another planet was introduced in Warcraft II's expansion pack at the latest.  Warcraft has always been a little... off.

It was in the manual for Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.

Spear throwers are gimp, nerf crossbowmen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 21, 2009, 11:01:50 PM
EDIT: The defense cap isn't arbitrary, it's directly related to the notion that a level grants 0.2% crit reduction and the base chance to be crit by a mob in melee is 5%.  It's just not listed anywhere in-game.

What I don't get is, why can't we just have bosses crit? Why can't we have spells and abilities that sometimes miss?  Putting in stats that directly counter randomness like that just kind of makes the game predictable and boring.  Or just boring it out and make everything hit and bosses never crit, but don't waste a stat on it.

I suppose that's why there's so much fire you're not supposed to stand in.

Fake edit: maybe I'm alone in my little crusade against stats like hit, defense caps, etc.  :| 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 21, 2009, 11:02:33 PM
I'm sure the reforging will be no where as awesome as it sounds. Either that, or it will be immensely overpowered and mandatory!


I really, really, REALLY want to see the details about the new resource systems. Hunters finally getting Focus back? DPS Casters not needing regen? Cats and Dogs living together?

More details will be revealed at the class panel tomorrow.. including details on this new "Mastery" stat.

On reforging:: All the crafting profs can reforge gear.. (Smith, LW, Engy, Tailor and jeweler) so since at least one of those are "mandatory" for any given class raiding NOW, it's not like they're hurting anyone by making it decent.  Well.. except the people who love to farm mats.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on August 21, 2009, 11:07:09 PM
Srsly, why are you guys so excited about yiffing?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 21, 2009, 11:17:05 PM
Given current trends, it is likely this will be in the soundtrack for Gilneas. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MRu8N2K0NY)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2009, 11:22:10 PM
Given current trends, it is likely this will be in the soundtrack for Gilneas. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MRu8N2K0NY)

worth the price of expansion if it is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2009, 11:24:54 PM
I don't think Mastery will be an actual stat, more like a side effect of speccing into a Talent Tree.



I haven't really sifted through the info in detail though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Falwell on August 21, 2009, 11:29:41 PM
Given current trends, it is likely this will be in the soundtrack for Gilneas. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MRu8N2K0NY)

worth the price of expansion if it is.

Damn straight, could even toss in some of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIoDVVX58Jc&feature=related) from the "Love at First Bite" disco scene and cancel the WoD MMO.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 22, 2009, 12:02:45 AM
Also it's gonna suck fighting every fuckwad plate DPSer for tank gear since I can just talent the crits out now. Well, unless they're leaving dodge, parry, block, and block value in on gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hindenburg on August 22, 2009, 12:07:20 AM
I've always wondered why SFK wasn't more popular.  

Middle of fucking nowhere is why.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 22, 2009, 12:09:32 AM
Yea, getting there as a level appropriate Alliance is pretty much a PitA.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 22, 2009, 12:34:28 AM
Also it's gonna suck fighting every fuckwad plate DPSer for tank gear since I can just talent the crits out now. Well, unless they're leaving dodge, parry, block, and block value in on gear.
Block Value is going away, blocking is going to be a straight percentage mitigation.  But they said nothing about dodge or parry.  I wouldn't be surprised to see some changes to those, but those are straightforward and understandable for the most part, like hit rating, so they'll probably stay.

By the way, I expect that old items will be going away, so if you want to get a Thunderfury or Sulfuras or some other old doodad like that, it would probably be a good idea to work on it soon, especially since those things have random drops that can mean you can clear MC for months and not get the pieces.

I wonder what's going to happen to the classic raiding achievements..  Turning them into Feats of Strength I imagine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 22, 2009, 04:44:46 AM
Goblin mount concept art: http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2009/august/cataclysmpreviewpanel_020.jpg  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 22, 2009, 07:06:52 AM
I'm preparing to go through my normal WoW expansion stuff.

1) See all the changes incoming
2) Think - Meh, most of the changes to game mechanics to make things "simpler" are just going to have to cause me to RELEARN the game mechanics, therefore actually making it more complicated.
3) Say - screw it, I'm not buying this.
4) Eventually buy it anyway.

I am  a little disappointed that they are doing away with so many stats though.  It seems like they want you do be able to see very clearly "this item is better than this item" right away.  My only problem with this is that, well, as it stands items can be good for different things, i.e. BOTH are worth keeping.   Now its just going to be Stack your classes most important stat + stamina and thats it.  I enjoy tweaking my gear slightly to see the results.  I'd also like to add that I haven't raided since about SSC in Burning Crusade, so its not like i'm some hardcore raider who plays this game for theory crafting anymore, but I do like the variety.

Anyway, when you see me in this thread for the next year, it'll be me bitching about the game, right up until I eventually buy it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 22, 2009, 07:55:05 AM
I don't think Mastery will be an actual stat, more like a side effect of speccing into a Talent Tree.

Nope, just rewatched the panel. Mastery is a stat meant to replace AP, ARP, etc.  The exact quote was, "It makes you better at what you do.. more damage, better tanking, your pet gets better if you're a hunter.. etc."   They said they'll go into it in more detail at the systems panel at 1:00 today.

My concern with all of this is that it feels like they're trying to go back to vanilla wow with the stats.  It's been 4 years and people seem to have forgotten why they added spellpower, etc in the first place.   Perhaps they've figured it out by now but I'm almost expecting to see the caster whines from the MC days making a return with int stacking and no mana regen worries for anyone but healers.  Making the current stats easier to understand and less mathy is sensible, returning to a system that didn't work and so you changed it, isn't.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 22, 2009, 08:15:48 AM
I don't think Mastery will be an actual stat, more like a side effect of speccing into a Talent Tree.

Nope, just rewatched the panel. Mastery is a stat meant to replace AP, ARP, etc.  The exact quote was, "It makes you better at what you do.. more damage, better tanking, your pet gets better if you're a hunter.. etc."   They said they'll go into it in more detail at the systems panel at 1:00 today.

My concern with all of this is that it feels like they're trying to go back to vanilla wow with the stats.  It's been 4 years and people seem to have forgotten why they added spellpower, etc in the first place.   Perhaps they've figured it out by now but I'm almost expecting to see the caster whines from the MC days making a return with int stacking and no mana regen worries for anyone but healers.  Making the current stats easier to understand and less mathy is sensible, returning to a system that didn't work and so you changed it, isn't.

It doesn't strike me as a return to that system really.  Now int is going to GIVE spellpower.  It seems designed so a caster can go "Oh, this has higher stats than my last item, therefore its an upgrade" straight up, no decision making, etc.  No more, well, if I take this, I'll have more spell power, but I trade off some other stats, and so forth.  It seems like they are especially doing this for melee.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 22, 2009, 09:07:05 AM
(http://fohguild.org/news/Jan09Gooder.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Drubear on August 22, 2009, 09:26:16 AM
re: confuzzling stats. Actually doesn't the change actually make things easier for (multiclass) itemization: just put STA, {class stat} and Mastery and you're done? Pretty much write a script to apply the fn(#) stats budget for a "Rogue" item @ item level #. Just making less work for themselves. Only 4 rings/necklaces, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on August 22, 2009, 09:33:12 AM
a big glowing pink crystal spaceship loaded with blue catgirls
Fixed..?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 22, 2009, 09:52:57 AM
Yea, getting there as a level appropriate Alliance is pretty much a PitA.
Unless you're a Warlock, then it's just a quick little detour from your run all over the world.  Yay for flight points in zones 15-20 levels above level.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on August 22, 2009, 10:58:04 AM
Yea, getting there as a level appropriate Alliance is pretty much a PitA.

You can say the same about Horde trying to get to Deadmines.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 22, 2009, 11:14:14 AM
I've done both. As an Alliance paladin I had to get into SFK for part of the Verigan's Fist quest. Boy let me tell you, Alliance pretty much doesn't bother with it. Eventually a high-level paladin took pity on me and ran me in there to grab the widget I needed. Fun instance though, with nice loot, and one I'd make a point of hitting whenever I was helping a lowbie friend level.

As a Horde shaman I was in a guild with a lot of my old UO friends, and I used to run them through a lot of stuff since I was on the higher end of our leveling curve. Everyone wanted to go through Wailing Caverns in their late teens, but Wailing Caverns sucks and I fucking hate running it at any level. So instead I would pack up 4 newbs and have them take the zepplin to Grom'gol in STV, cast water walk on them, and jog across the ocean to Westfall to run Deadmines instead.

Mind you, this whole Horde-in-Deadmines adventure was on a PVP server, and it was STILL way less of a pain in the dick than just running Wailing Caverns. Fuck that instance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 22, 2009, 12:38:20 PM
Mind you, this whole Horde-in-Deadmines adventure was on a PVP server, and it was STILL way less of a pain in the dick than just running Wailing Caverns. Fuck that instance.

If they said they'd done a heroic WC instead of SFK, I would quit in a heartbeat.

Although that being said, with the Barrens being divided into two zones and part of the advancing story supposedly being that Naralex (http://www.wowwiki.com/Naralex) succeeded in making the Barrens fertile again then I can't help but feel that there's going to be some return to WC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on August 22, 2009, 12:42:36 PM
I recently solo'ed WC as my 80 Mage and it was STILL annoying!

I think before Cataclysm, I'm going to make an alt and try to do as many Barrens quests as I can, just to remind me of the horror.
Plus I'll call everyone 'faggots' in general chat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on August 22, 2009, 12:48:08 PM
The Goblin starter zone looks very generic Horde lumber fort, not very Goblin. I presume that once you sign up to the Horde you have to follow their cultural zoning laws. Worgen look like playful cuddly dogs, not savage slavering wolves. Can't wait to see how that plays out with the perverts. Meh on the artwork generally apart from a couple of weapons on the Goblin side.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 22, 2009, 12:51:46 PM
I managed to ask about players of widely differing levels playing together, and the answer sounded reasonably positive.  They mentioned having looked into it, and that some of their new systems like the removal of spell ranks and having them scale with level makes it more technically possible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Gobbeldygook on August 22, 2009, 12:54:40 PM
They're choosing to implement rated BGs in a manner customized to piss off arena players.  You gain rating every time you win, but don't lose any when you lose with a weekly cap on how much rating you can gain.  It doesn't matter if you have a 1:10 win:loss ratio, as long as your team -ever- wins and gets in their weekly matches, you get gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 22, 2009, 01:25:26 PM
It sounds like you'll be able to increase rating as much as you want each week if you play enough, it's points that are capped per week.

With the return of titles, it sounds like being Grand Marshal will still be a matter of playing more than anyone else again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on August 22, 2009, 02:02:27 PM
The simplification of itemization just kind of unearths the perennial discussion of whether it's better to have stats or game mechanics be highly streamlined and transparent to players or whether there's some value to having gameplay be a "black box" where it's not always clear what the exact relationship between action and consequence is.

In a theme park MMO like Warcraft, streamlining and transparency seems to me the way to go, but even there you're going to hit a point where it's not clear why you should have more than three classes and more than three stats--everything is going to seem like unnecessary noise if all it comes down to is "fulfill your role with the greatest efficiency possible". You still have to have trade-offs and decision points in gameplay.

In a more sandbox MMO, I think you need less transparency--after all, in the world as we know it, it's not always clear how our actions relate to the consequences of our actions.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 22, 2009, 03:48:15 PM
I'm surprised they didn't replace both attack power and spell power with strength, replace crit with agility, and make int/spirit do something useful for mana-less classes so they could stop itemizing spell power/int/MP5 plate for that one class.

Quick question: for melee, is haste now melee haste and energy regen, or just energy regen?  I'd suspect the former if they want it to have parity for casting haste.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 22, 2009, 04:06:40 PM
Guild leveling introduces something a few people around here have asked for over the years... guild-owned equipment.  Heirloom items a guild profession guy makes and anyone in the guild can wear so long as they're a member.  Interesting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 22, 2009, 04:28:11 PM
Guild leveling introduces something a few people around here have asked for over the years... guild-owned equipment.  Heirloom items a guild profession guy makes and anyone in the guild can wear so long as they're a member.  Interesting.

I believe all the boe epics in naxx and ulduar were for this same purpose, gearing up new recruits.  Now I bet the guild gear won't be awesome but it will probably give new members a footing to compete in raids etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on August 22, 2009, 06:35:46 PM
/sigh

Once again, I find myself falling victim to trailer, artwork, and the brief lore, but ithis time, after Wrath, I don't know if I want to take the quest grinding and stat min/max the game has become.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 22, 2009, 07:11:27 PM
Hmm.. little more info on Mastery.  What will happen is with the talent tree revamp (No more passive bonuses) you'll buff 3 aspects with each point in that tree. 

The first aspect is Tank/Heal/Damage based on the tree (with a side comment of "We don't know what we're going to do for Death Knights here...),
The second is something I forget and can't rewatch yet. I want to say it was the passive stat buffs of the tree, like Str/ Stam/ Dodge/ etc.
The 3rd aspect is your "mastery stat"  This is what the mastery points will buff.. the example they gave was Arms warriors got more armor pen.. and more mastery buffed arpen even higher.   

So we can infer that Arpen isn't going away as a Theorycrafting stat, just as an itemization stat. 

Diminishing returns may apply to the talent points buffs of that tree.  So going a full 61 in combat won't buff you much beyond 51 points, encouraging speccing into a secondary tree like the current system.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: patience on August 22, 2009, 07:21:16 PM
If your OK with Forsaken, you should be OK with Worgen. That's all they are in the end.


Well, minus the Yiffing.

There's only one way to fix this. Give the forsaken (and by extension the Horde) vampiric allies. :pedobear:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dusematic on August 22, 2009, 07:26:26 PM
I'm so fucking relieved this expansh doesn't appeal to me.  If it were a pirate-y/islandy/maritimey expansh, or a Emerald Dream expansh, then, maybe.  But a redone Azeroth?  Look, that's a great idea.  It's convenient to fly in old world.  It will help their bottom line through better retention of new custs.  But fuck my ass if I'm going to delve into this game for that and the chance to YET AGAIN level a new race of the same classes that have been available since 5 years ago.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 22, 2009, 07:39:00 PM
Race change service is coming, so if you want a new race of a class you already have, no problem, just race change.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 23, 2009, 01:20:35 AM
The new starter zones are both very good, from the little we got to see them (about levels 6 through 8). They've worked little mini cut-scene type things in, etc.

More when I am more awake and stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 23, 2009, 02:08:00 AM
I played Gilneas more than the goblin zone, but that's not saying much considering I played WoW twice while there, and the first time I split my time between Worgen and Goblin so I could take a look at them both.  I just decided that I had better chances of winning the prizes in single-player games rather than competing with every other person there for the abomination spawns and forsaken pops (or whatever they had in the goblin zone that was equivalent).  I liked Gilneas, it was ok, seemed interesting. Didn't seem to be any worgen NPC's at all, I'm sure that's different in other areas.

Ran into a guy that claimed his friend who works at Blizzard told him what happens in the super seekrit level 1-5 area that they skipped us past.  In Gilneas it's supposed to be kind of a recap of how things progressed since the Scourge and how the curse came about, and in the goblin areas you're supposedly chilling like a pimp goblin when the ground starts shaking and shit and you have to pay almost everything you own in order to book passage on a boat outta there run by the trade baron or something.  Only you didn't read the fine print and you just paid your entire fortune to sell yourself into slavery, but luckily your ship gets wrecked on this other island.  I sorta believe them because I got hints leading toward both of those when I was playing.  Some of the goblins were cursing the trade baron or whatever, and they did mention that the story behind Gilneas was going to be told so that's a no-brainer on that side.

WoW seems pretty good at catching my attention with expansions, since all three now have been quite interesting and gotten me somewhat interested in playing when I'm tired of the game.  EQ, the only other game I've ever consistently gone back to, never did that with expansions specifically - I just tended to drift back of my own accord.

On another note, I find it interesting that patch 3.3 is going to bring in Icecrown  Unless they take even longer than usual between patches (entirely possible), that probably means about 6 to 8 months before patch 4.0, then Cataclysm a month or so later.  They may be further along with Cataclysm development than they're letting on just yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 23, 2009, 02:50:29 AM
We can always have interim patches; if Icecrown is 3.3 it just means that there's no other major content patches until then. I hope it comes fairly soon though, as the Argent Tournament looks to have very very little longevity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 23, 2009, 04:34:12 AM
I'm so fucking relieved this expansh doesn't appeal to me.  If it were a pirate-y/islandy/maritimey expansh, or a Emerald Dream expansh, then, maybe.  But a redone Azeroth?  Look, that's a great idea.  It's convenient to fly in old world.  It will help their bottom line through better retention of new custs.  But fuck my ass if I'm going to delve into this game for that and the chance to YET AGAIN level a new race of the same classes that have been available since 5 years ago.
So you think Blizzard is expecting people to level from 80 to 85 by the power of positive thinking? Of course there's new content as well. Hell, the 1-60 revamp is being given to everyone in a patch - expansion not needed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 23, 2009, 05:02:20 AM
I've been thinking Icecrown after Christmas and Cataclysm next spring/summer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 23, 2009, 05:14:20 AM
While January for Icecrown sounds about typical for Blizz, with the Argent Tournament hardmodes opening up reset after next that's going to be a long four months with very little novel content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 23, 2009, 08:11:53 AM
I've been thinking Icecrown after Christmas and Cataclysm next spring/summer.

That's been my thinking as well.  We'll get Ony in November (possibly along with the x-server pugs) and  Icecrown shortly after that.  We'll then have the usual 5-6 months of farming that before 4.0.   Blizzard has been maintaining a fairly regular content pace throughout this expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 23, 2009, 08:27:07 AM
I was under the impression that Onyxia 2.0 was supposed to be timed for the anniversary, which is October(ish) isn't it?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 23, 2009, 08:31:58 AM
I was under the impression that Onyxia 2.0 was supposed to be timed for the anniversary, which is October(ish) isn't it?

November, and yes. is it just me or when I watched the trailer for Cataclysm right at the start they said something like "While the heroes match on icecrown deathwing returns..."

It would be funny if 3.3 wasn't icecrown.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: bhodi on August 23, 2009, 10:48:00 AM
Firstly, to all those people who didn't believe or scoffed at SA and the leaks - suck it. Everything was confirmed.

For priests, here's what I gleaned from all the blizzcon info:


All healers will be able to dispel (presumably priests will keep mass dispel as a class ability).

Spells will have no ranks and will now automatically scale with level.

Shadow priests will get a nuke with no cooldown - The cast time is unknown but I highly suspect 1.5 or 2.0s and it might address the 'ramp up time on trash' issue (see below)

No more mp/5, no more +Spellpower, all mp/5 will become spirit

Spirit will be the Spellpower stat for disc/holy priests and the "primary" healer stat, since it provides both mana regen and spellpower (but not mana pool, so there could still be balance issues due to replenishment/spells that are based on total mana). All healers will be given a meditation-like ability (regen % of spirit while in combat)

Disc and Holy will have closer best in slot itemization, disc will no longer poach caster DPS items for BiS due to the +sp/spirit changes. It seems as though an 'all the time healer' will be able to switch between disc and holy without much trouble or gear swapping.

There will be no 3rd spec so you can forget your do-it-all shadow/disc/holy priest.

Huge talent changes mean that a lot of passive talents or ones that don't provide new abilities or twists on current abilities are going away - "boring" ones that provide things like +1% crit/level (and thus presumably ones that provide +2% healing and +5% spirit, spellpower, things like that). Since this is almost all of the talents in all our trees and they said "a lot", not "all", continue to expect some filler +healing talents. They specified "body and soul" as a stellar talent that is in the direction they want to take talents.

New caster Legendary in Icecream Citadel that Shadow Priests will presumably want.

Lots of "mathy" stats will vanish (arpen, dodge) but apparently +hit will stay. (Hurr.) You'll use "Reforging" to exchange one stat on an item for another (like +hit) that is not currently on the item. It should be easier for shadow priests (and other casters) to both reach and not exceed the hit cap using this ability.


No real information about healer mechanics or how to make healing more attractive, nothing about the infinite mana problems, nothing about how to balance healing to make it less 'stressful' or how to make it more challenging without raw DPS on tanks. I'm personally surprised how there were NO healing questions at all answered during the entirety of Blizzcon. Either they are keeping something cool under wraps until it's fleshed out or they don't have a good solution for this and are punting.

No real information about shadow priest's overly complex rotation, lowish DPS and extremely high ramp-up time. Possibly the new no-cooldown spell will fix the high ramp-up time by providing an alternate rotation for quick / trash mobs. Since the shadow priest boss rotation is already full, and mind flay is the current filler, the new spell doesn't really fit into boss rotation without making it even more complex. That is, unless things are wildly changed (possible, I guess).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 23, 2009, 11:00:13 AM
I'm liking the changes so far, though I'm still really REALLY wary of the whole "we're adding an eygpt zone, an underwater zone, and a 10 tier alternate advancement system in the same patch" thing. Part of me just screams NOOOOOOOO, even if they already said the underwater zone totally isn't (fight on the floor, launch up to swim whenever. Sounds like any normal zone with a flying mount to me)

The Worgen starting zone is wonderful, and I want those outfits in an endgame set. CoT Gilneas with those items as epics, please.

I don't expect to see this for another year, but the majority of the changes are pretty solid, once you step back from the "OHGOD they're making the game simpler!" cliff. They said they're going to tweak old racials and bring them up to the new ones, but I'm also thinking that a major revamp will be due for a few of them (+%int/+%spi strike me as being unreasonably well scaling now).

My major oh shit is that Archaeology is looking to be an absolutely required tradeskill now, and should just be considered the new Hodir rep bar. Yeah, in theory you can skip it, but in reality there's no way in hell you can.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 23, 2009, 11:27:11 AM
It's a secondary skill (like cooking/first aid/fishing), not a tradeskill in itself. It's also gated so that people can't just powerlevel through it which, to me, implies that progress should otherwise be fairly quick.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on August 23, 2009, 12:22:28 PM
You'll use "Reforging" to exchange one stat on an item for another (like +hit) that is not currently on the item.

Not sure I'm understanding the mechanics behind this.

So I take a chestpiece which has only +str and +sta on it, I can split the +str up and give the sword a bit of +hit, right?  But I can't give it any more +sta than it already has, because that stat is already on the item, aye?  But say, later, I decide I want more +hit, or I don't actually want that +hit at all and I want my +str back, I can't actually do anything about it because those stats are now on the item? 

That sounds like a dangerous mechanic to me; "permanently fuck up your highest level items, hope you know for a solid fact that you're going to NEED this 20 points of +hit for the next six months or you'll be farming Deathwing's Outhouse for the next six months to get a replacement, P.S. I hope you weren't planning on using this skill without Elitist Jerks open in another window, or you would have forgotten the precise formula which makes all this crap make sense."

How am I misunderstanding this?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 23, 2009, 12:46:36 PM
My major oh shit is that Archaeology is looking to be an absolutely required tradeskill now, and should just be considered the new Hodir rep bar. Yeah, in theory you can skip it, but in reality there's no way in hell you can.

ANYTHING has got to be better than a rep grind.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on August 23, 2009, 12:54:54 PM
They may be further along with Cataclysm development than they're letting on just yet.

(http://www.wineberserkers.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif)



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 23, 2009, 01:24:38 PM
How am I misunderstanding this?

You're not.  That's the first hole I saw in it as well. "Well great, I knocked down some stam and agi to give myself more +hit/whatever and now I've got way too much +hit and could really use that stamina back."

I imagine Blizz saw it as well, since it's a HUGE fucking hole in the system.  Perhaps you can reforge an item back to its original stats.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on August 23, 2009, 02:02:25 PM
It would be funny if 3.3 wasn't icecrown.

It better, one raid doesn't an MMO make, and WotLK was already shamefully lacking in content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 23, 2009, 02:04:11 PM
New caster Legendary in Icecream Citadel that Shadow Priests will presumably want.
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/2/27/Shadowmourne.jpg)
(Obviously a hunter caster weapon.)

The talk about caster legendaries was that they're due for one and it'll probably be top of the list for Cataclysm.  The one from Icecrown is going to be that axe, Shadowmourne.

Also, I didn't hear any specific information saying that Spirit would be +spell power for healers.  It will be mana regen, and it'll only be on healer gear, but I think they still need Int for spell power.

And yeah, I presume you'll be able to reforge an item to remove all previous reforgings, so you can un-fuck an item you've screwed up.  Honestly it didn't even occur to me that you wouldn't be able to.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 23, 2009, 02:55:04 PM
It would be funny if 3.3 wasn't icecrown.

It better, one raid doesn't an MMO make, and WotLK was already shamefully lacking in content.

That'd be one raid doesn't a DIKU make.. and your math is off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 23, 2009, 02:59:06 PM
The talk about caster legendaries was that they're due for one and it'll probably be top of the list for Cataclysm.  The one from Icecrown is going to be that axe, Shadowmourne.

Also, I didn't hear any specific information saying that Spirit would be +spell power for healers.  It will be mana regen, and it'll only be on healer gear, but I think they still need Int for spell power.

Yep.. but damn it being an axe. Human racial has been worthless this whole expansion. Fucking horde bias!  :why_so_serious:

Yeah they did say int = spellpower now. They explicitly stated spirit will only be healer regen and only on healer gear.  Apparently this is because managing resources 'isn't fun' so they want to get away from making casters manage mana. Other than healers, who are the group that has always bitched in the past that managing mana is one of the fun aspects/ ways of showing off for them so they didn't want to see it go away.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 23, 2009, 03:14:09 PM
Well, I think they've officially lost their minds. It's back to basics and I have no desire to do that. Someone tell them to put a rush on Diablo 3 already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 23, 2009, 03:27:24 PM
Yep.. but damn it being an axe. Human racial has been worthless this whole expansion. Fucking horde bias!  :why_so_serious:

Titansteel Destroyer and the poor souls still hitched to one disagree with you.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 23, 2009, 05:01:14 PM
Those people don't matter. Real players farm Ulduar.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 23, 2009, 05:02:56 PM
Well, I think they've officially lost their minds. It's back to basics and I have no desire to do that. Someone tell them to put a rush on Diablo 3 already.
Haha, Blizzard rush? And even if they did, people would probably call the news fake anyway....  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 23, 2009, 05:21:57 PM
It's a secondary skill (like cooking/first aid/fishing), not a tradeskill in itself. It's also gated so that people can't just powerlevel through it which, to me, implies that progress should otherwise be fairly quick.

But unlike cooking or first aid, it at this point appears to be required for character progression. Hence my note that it may as well be a new rep grind. Think Hodir, but only doable by finding those fucking ice shards. :P

I'm hoping I'm wrong or they figure out how horrible an idea that is. But it's akin to making it so you can only eat food you cooked yourself for the end game, which would make cooking a required secondary skill for any high level play.

Now, all this is moot if someone else can dig up shit you can use to advance your path and it turns into inscription-lite.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hellinar on August 23, 2009, 07:09:57 PM
Now, all this is moot if someone else can dig up shit you can use to advance your path and it turns into inscription-lite.

From the systems panel summary:

"You earn these ancient glyphs by using the new Archaeology secondary profession to recover and trade in titan artifacts. "

So it sounds like the artifacts will be an AH item. The sockets that the glyphs go in is what your character has to personally open by "various activities". Filling the sockets gives you your new powers.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kageru on August 23, 2009, 09:13:57 PM
I imagine Blizz saw it as well, since it's a HUGE fucking hole in the system.  Perhaps you can reforge an item back to its original stats.

I watched the panels and I'm pretty sure they said you could re-forge / recover the original item.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 24, 2009, 12:14:03 AM
Well, I think they've officially lost their minds. It's back to basics and I have no desire to do that. Someone tell them to put a rush on Diablo 3 already.

4 raids at launch, there will be plenty for people who aren't interested in leveling a new alt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 24, 2009, 12:44:54 AM
I took that as those 4 raids will be the raids released over the course of the expansions life cycle (like Naxx, Ulduar, ToC and IC).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on August 24, 2009, 12:47:33 AM

Titansteel Destroyer and the poor souls still hitched to one disagree with you.   :awesome_for_real:

Hey, that's my Warrior! I can't take the tedium of raid farming so I never get the good stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on August 24, 2009, 12:50:39 AM

That'd be one raid doesn't a DIKU make.. and your math is off.

From my perspective, the leveling content was gone in a flash and the heroics were ditched in favor of Naxx farming ad nauseam.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 24, 2009, 01:19:22 AM
I took that as those 4 raids will be the raids released over the course of the expansions life cycle (like Naxx, Ulduar, ToC and IC).
I can't be 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure I remember one of them (I think the dungeon designer guy) saying that it would launch with those four raids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on August 24, 2009, 03:20:54 AM
Hey, that's my Warrior! I can't take the tedium of raid farming so I never get the good stuff.

From my perspective, the leveling content was gone in a flash and the heroics were ditched in favor of Naxx farming ad nauseam.

 :headscratch:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on August 24, 2009, 03:56:39 AM

 :headscratch:

Ergo lack of content for me. The guild farmed and my sub lapsed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 24, 2009, 04:46:06 AM
You said Raids, not 5-man dungeons, so yes, your math was off and remains so.  However, even on the 5-man front I'd disagree since there's plenty of dungeons to run at 80.  You just wound up on a lousy low pop server or refuse to PUG.  The first I can empathize with, but haven't ever had to deal with.  Mine still had a steady stream of heroics going before the new badge farming upswing.   The second is not their problem to fix.

I think apo is scratching his head because you said you didn't want to farm raids, but seem to want to farm heroics.  There's a disconnect there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on August 24, 2009, 05:39:04 AM
You said Raids, not 5-man dungeons, so yes, your math was off and remains so.  However, even on the 5-man front I'd disagree since there's plenty of dungeons to run at 80.  You just wound up on a lousy low pop server or refuse to PUG.  The first I can empathize with, but haven't ever had to deal with.  Mine still had a steady stream of heroics going before the new badge farming upswing.   The second is not their problem to fix.

I think apo is scratching his head because you said you didn't want to farm raids, but seem to want to farm heroics.  There's a disconnect there.

There's much more variation when doing heroics, and a smaller group makes for better social dynamics (relaxed banter vs. herding cats). Also, heroics take much, much less time.

Edit: arg, now I get your point. The thing is, I found the 5-mans also sorely lacking, because of the utter itemization failure. There was no incentive to run them, thus it was all pass-by content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 24, 2009, 08:02:28 AM
EDIT: The defense cap isn't arbitrary, it's directly related to the notion that a level grants 0.2% crit reduction and the base chance to be crit by a mob in melee is 5%.  It's just not listed anywhere in-game.

What I don't get is, why can't we just have bosses crit? Why can't we have spells and abilities that sometimes miss?  Putting in stats that directly counter randomness like that just kind of makes the game predictable and boring.  Or just boring it out and make everything hit and bosses never crit, but don't waste a stat on it.

I suppose that's why there's so much fire you're not supposed to stand in.

Fake edit: maybe I'm alone in my little crusade against stats like hit, defense caps, etc.  :| 
Well, i sort of understand why you might not need / want hit, because the random chance of missing spells could "liven" things up a bit, but look at the flip side:  A lot of classes now a days in wow have some pretty complex dps rotations.  If you miss a key attack in your rotation, you can seriously fuck up your damage output.  And no one enjoys that.

As to Defense and being defense capped.  That one is kind of mandatory, due mainly to the whole idea that, while sure, sucking up a crit on a boss can add some spice to your healer's job, NO ONE enjoys wiping on a boss because their tank is 10% below the Crit cap and just got instagibbed from 2 parry hasted crits back to back.  Which can happen VERY frequently when many raid bosses hit your tank like the pimp-hand of god.

Hell, I remember specificly an instance where that happened to my guild during Naxx Progression.  We ended up haavng an enraged Grand Widow 1 shot our tank with a crit for something like 200 damage more then his max health because he had JUST equipped an item he got from Anub and put himself about 2 defense under the defense cap, thereby wiping the raid. 

While it was funny for a few seconds at the time, mainly due to the fact that it was a 1 in 10000 chance or so event, having that kind of chance hovering over your head EVERY time you tanked something that hit decently hard would quickly lose its entertainment value.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 24, 2009, 09:37:52 AM
Holy fuck.  When rumors of Worgen started surfacing I didn't consider the possibility that everyone at Blizzard went completely batshit insane.

Signs of that were evident when a big glowing pink crystal spaceship loaded with blue people speaking with Russian accents crash landed in a medieval world to battle the forces of evil.

Remember when Azeroth was attacked by demon meteors?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 24, 2009, 09:47:58 AM

What I don't get is, why can't we just have bosses crit? Why can't we have spells and abilities that sometimes miss?  Putting in stats that directly counter randomness like that just kind of makes the game predictable and boring.  Or just boring it out and make everything hit and bosses never crit, but don't waste a stat on it.

As to Defense and being defense capped.  That one is kind of mandatory, due mainly to the whole idea that, while sure, sucking up a crit on a boss can add some spice to your healer's job, NO ONE enjoys wiping on a boss because their tank is 10% below the Crit cap and just got instagibbed from 2 parry hasted crits back to back.  Which can happen VERY frequently when many raid bosses hit your tank like the pimp-hand of god.

I think it's no bad thing to use talents and equipment to remove dependence on the RNG.  At the same time you don't want to make everything a set-piece in which there are no random effects to react to. 

Suppose you could never entirely remove crit chance but you could talent into something that gives you total crit immunity for a given period of time after receiving one.  That would keep it interesting but not be a guaranteed raid wipe at the whim of the RNG (assuming your tank can take one full crit's worth of damage).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on August 24, 2009, 10:22:47 AM
Given how spikey damage can be already in 10 man dungeons. It would be darn near impossible currently to keep people alive on some fights unless they seriously over geared if if you could still be crit. It seemed like at the start of WOTLK the devs were okay with people going into naxx non crit immune but even without crushing blows  its still not viable to be crit as a tank with the current mechanics.

The devs keep making testy noises about how tanks ignore threat and DPS stats in favor of stam and defenses but with the current mechanics and how hard mobs hit I cannot see myself ever sacrificing survivability stats for threat stats at this time.

If they do a change like removing defense as a stat it would allow tanks to pick some more high dps/threat type items without making themselves excessivly vulnerable to doom.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 24, 2009, 11:02:53 AM
It's a mentality thing.  I played a tank for a long time, and if I could make up for my healers lack of skill with the addition of defensive stats and my own skill, I'd do it every time.  That's not to say that my healers were that bad, or that I was that good, it's just good sense.  The fact of the matter is that threat, for most of this game's life (yes I know not all), is balanced for people who's threat generation isn't really that good.  So you can get away with sacrificing strength for hp if you know a few tricks.

The devs can cry about it, but the only thing they can really do is tighten the acceptable threat generation, and that really won't fly with the more casual crowd.  I suppose they could change itemization too, but it'd be the same thing.  The cry would be 'catering to the hardcore.'  And they seem to have gotten away from that since Tigole left the project.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 24, 2009, 11:14:35 AM
Hell back in the vanilla days before Vael, we didn't even know what threat was. I was personally much happier as a tank just having the dps count to three. That being said, the devs can't have it both ways. They make fights that slam tanks into the ground in 2 shots, AND they want you to stack items to hold threat? Sorry it just won't work that way. You can have a fight with average damage output but that requires a quick enrage and thus heavy dps, or you can have slammer fights where the tank stacks up enough defense to just hold out.

There are those rare fights that do actually combine both in the beginning, but they get nerfed fairly quickly when they cockblock the general pop.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Thrawn on August 24, 2009, 11:44:27 AM
but they get nerfed fairly quickly when they cockblock the general pop.

I wasn't playing WoW when WotlK was released, did they do the usual nerf of everything difficult shortly after it was released like they do for most content?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 24, 2009, 12:06:00 PM
but they get nerfed fairly quickly when they cockblock the general pop.

I wasn't playing WoW when WotlK was released, did they do the usual nerf of everything difficult shortly after it was released like they do for most content?

Short answer, no. Naxx didn't need to be nerfed much in it's current form because it was designed around being entry-level rehash.

However, all other content releases after that, yes, they followed that pattern. Ulduar came out guns blazing and was progressively nerfed in rather short order. When Crusader finally releases all it's content, I expect they will tune down a couple of fights in there as well for the populace after a month. I doubt they will do that for heroic versions though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dusematic on August 24, 2009, 12:20:50 PM
I'm so fucking relieved this expansh doesn't appeal to me.  If it were a pirate-y/islandy/maritimey expansh, or a Emerald Dream expansh, then, maybe.  But a redone Azeroth?  Look, that's a great idea.  It's convenient to fly in old world.  It will help their bottom line through better retention of new custs.  But fuck my ass if I'm going to delve into this game for that and the chance to YET AGAIN level a new race of the same classes that have been available since 5 years ago.
So you think Blizzard is expecting people to level from 80 to 85 by the power of positive thinking? Of course there's new content as well. Hell, the 1-60 revamp is being given to everyone in a patch - expansion not needed.




OBV. But it doesn't appeal to me to return primarily for 5 levels of redone zones.  Not enough of a hook.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 24, 2009, 01:22:02 PM
...


80-85 is the new zones, 1-60 is the revamped stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 24, 2009, 01:25:16 PM
I think people are having a hard time comprehending just how much is being added/redone here. It's as if there's a disconnect in what they believe a company could release in an expansion vs what blizzard is saying will be in it.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 24, 2009, 01:29:55 PM
I'm calling a "Restoration of Outlands" in the future.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on August 24, 2009, 01:38:11 PM
Outlands now makes absolutely zero sense, that's for sure. No reason to go there, and it is all out of whack with the timeline now. Even new toons will now start "in the time of the Cataclysm", but if you go at 58 to Outland, you'll suddenly be back in a time that precedes the Cataclysm by a very large margin. I assume you'll be able to go up to 68 with new quests in Azeroth anyway, so nobody will bother, in all likelihood.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 24, 2009, 01:49:46 PM
I still hear people saying that this is the lazy way out, that they just redid a few zones and called it a day.

In fact there are seven new zones* - just like the last two expansions - and in addition they redid all of Azeroth for flying mounts and some of it geographically.

*Uldum, Deepholm, Gilneas, Lost Isles, Vashj'zNaz'tatariaville, Hyjal, Twilight Highlands (Grim Batol)


(Actually I guess that with the two starting areas BC had 9 new zones but they didn't revamp the guild system, stats, remake Azeroth for flying, etc)


Regarding the point of Outland, it will especially look strange to Blood Elves and Draenei whose early stories keep going on about fighting the Burning Legion/finding Kael'thas in Outland when Azeroth seems to have its own trouble.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 24, 2009, 01:57:17 PM
Outland was already just a giant detour for the Alliance to begin with. The Alliance didn't have the same draw to it the way the Orcs or Elves would.


There's a small moment of "oh hey, those brave souls that stayed behind to seal the gate aren't all dead! hurrah!", followed by a lot of "but most of them ARE, in fact, dead..." 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on August 24, 2009, 01:59:55 PM
Outlands now makes absolutely zero sense, that's for sure. No reason to go there, and it is all out of whack with the timeline now. Even new toons will now start "in the time of the Cataclysm", but if you go at 58 to Outland, you'll suddenly be back in a time that precedes the Cataclysm by a very large margin. I assume you'll be able to go up to 68 with new quests in Azeroth anyway, so nobody will bother, in all likelihood.

Put Chromie at the entrance and presto, solved. Time travel fixes EVERYTHING.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 24, 2009, 02:36:12 PM
Chromie, leader of the shut up about continuity dragonflight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 24, 2009, 03:08:19 PM
Yea, I guess there's the usual sandy vag at the end of an expansion cycle atm.  But god damn me to hell if every swinin' dick in this thread doesn't read the inevitable "Just Re-Subbed for Cataclysm/Splooge/Holy Shit" thread and resub themselves.

Goblins, dude.  Mother fucking Goblins.  I rerolled horde already.  Time is money, friend.

If anyone is interested, I did some research yesterday and found that Ghostlands (PvE) is a relatively decent server for Horde.  The battlegroup is apparently favoring Horde.  The server itself is a large pop, which I like for Auction Whoring reasons.  It was something like 15k Horde : 11K Alliance.  So the server PvP Wintergraspy stuff should favor Horde, but still be decent games.  I normally don't like PvE servers, but I have crotchety friends who are tired of gankfests.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 24, 2009, 03:18:31 PM
There's a ton of "waah oversimplifying stats" "waah LFG changing" "waaah need more zones" and such.

It doesn't really matter though, since they have on the board a fuckton of content, and probably the largest overhaul of a game I've seen in a single expansion. And it all looks pretty solid. As I've said, I have my lingering doubts on a few things, but blizzcon sold me on the expansion as a whole. It looks great.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 24, 2009, 03:53:27 PM
Well, i sort of understand why you might not need / want hit, because the random chance of missing spells could "liven" things up a bit, but look at the flip side:  A lot of classes now a days in wow have some pretty complex dps rotations.  If you miss a key attack in your rotation, you can seriously fuck up your damage output.  And no one enjoys that.

As to Defense and being defense capped.  That one is kind of mandatory, due mainly to the whole idea that, while sure, sucking up a crit on a boss can add some spice to your healer's job, NO ONE enjoys wiping on a boss because their tank is 10% below the Crit cap and just got instagibbed from 2 parry hasted crits back to back.  Which can happen VERY frequently when many raid bosses hit your tank like the pimp-hand of god.

Hit Options:

1. Fix the rotations to not be retarded.
2. Put the talent tree overhaul to good use and put exceedingly large +hit% modifiers on specific abilities.
3. Give these "vital" abilities a fallback (Overpower-style) that recoups or betters the lost damage, so that a miss can be turned into a DPS gain by someone paying attention.
4. Add abilities to the tree that grant an instant cast of a spell when you miss, like the Destro Warlock's backlash is to being damaged.
5. Remove the chance to miss via talents/the aforementioned passive buff for putting x points into the tree.
6. In the case of melee give out a passive 8% +hit% to cover the specials but not DW auto-attack.

Defense Options:

1. Decrease critical strike damage bonus against attacks that hit you by ~50 - 100% via talents (making crits slightly bigger to the same as normal hits).
2. Remove the damage bonus on mobs critting but give them other benefits (flurry-type buffs?).
3. Make the crit bonus occur as a DoT effect increasing damage as it ticks (for up to the 2x crit modifier worth of damage), possibly removed on the tank reaching >90% health.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dusematic on August 24, 2009, 04:39:57 PM
I still hear people saying that this is the lazy way out, that they just redid a few zones and called it a day.

In fact there are seven new zones* - just like the last two expansions - and in addition they redid all of Azeroth for flying mounts and some of it geographically.

*Uldum, Deepholm, Gilneas, Lost Isles, Vashj'zNaz'tatariaville, Hyjal, Twilight Highlands (Grim Batol)


(Actually I guess that with the two starting areas BC had 9 new zones but they didn't revamp the guild system, stats, remake Azeroth for flying, etc)


Regarding the point of Outland, it will especially look strange to Blood Elves and Draenei whose early stories keep going on about fighting the Burning Legion/finding Kael'thas in Outland when Azeroth seems to have its own trouble.














Aren't someone of those instances rather than zones?  And if so, the previous expansions had a fuckload more.  Regardless, a redone old world just isn't interesting to me.  Not sure why.  I'm sure it will be cool, but everyone has their breaking point or we'd all still be playing Contra everyday.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 24, 2009, 04:40:21 PM
I took that as those 4 raids will be the raids released over the course of the expansions life cycle (like Naxx, Ulduar, ToC and IC).

I didn't, 'cause they kept saying how half the reason the level cap is only going to 85 is because they want to be able to spend a loooooot more resources on raids. I'm also pretty sure Mr. Raid Man said the current plan was 4 raids at release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 24, 2009, 04:59:57 PM
I took that as those 4 raids will be the raids released over the course of the expansions life cycle (like Naxx, Ulduar, ToC and IC).

I didn't, 'cause they kept saying how half the reason the level cap is only going to 85 is because they want to be able to spend a loooooot more resources on raids. I'm also pretty sure Mr. Raid Man said the current plan was 4 raids at release.

If, and this is a big if, they released 4 smaller raid zones at release then I think people in my boat could gloss over all the "new fuzzy world rehaul" stuff. I'd like to see more varied types of raids with fewer bosses, sort of like how 5 man heroics work now. 5 raids in 5 different areas with an end boss that drops the different token slots would be much better to me than a 15 boss raid zone. Hell, I could even get on board with them having 3 raids of 5 bosses.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 24, 2009, 05:00:24 PM
I would MUCH prefer a redo of Outlands rather than a redo of Classic. Outlands seemed like such a step backward.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 24, 2009, 05:06:10 PM
Well, i sort of understand why you might not need / want hit, because the random chance of missing spells could "liven" things up a bit, but look at the flip side:  A lot of classes now a days in wow have some pretty complex dps rotations.  If you miss a key attack in your rotation, you can seriously fuck up your damage output.  And no one enjoys that.

As to Defense and being defense capped.  That one is kind of mandatory, due mainly to the whole idea that, while sure, sucking up a crit on a boss can add some spice to your healer's job, NO ONE enjoys wiping on a boss because their tank is 10% below the Crit cap and just got instagibbed from 2 parry hasted crits back to back.  Which can happen VERY frequently when many raid bosses hit your tank like the pimp-hand of god.

Hit Options:

1. Fix the rotations to not be retarded.
2. Put the talent tree overhaul to good use and put exceedingly large +hit% modifiers on specific abilities.
3. Give these "vital" abilities a fallback (Overpower-style) that recoups or betters the lost damage, so that a miss can be turned into a DPS gain by someone paying attention.
4. Add abilities to the tree that grant an instant cast of a spell when you miss, like the Destro Warlock's backlash is to being damaged.
5. Remove the chance to miss via talents/the aforementioned passive buff for putting x points into the tree.
6. In the case of melee give out a passive 8% +hit% to cover the specials but not DW auto-attack.

Defense Options:

1. Decrease critical strike damage bonus against attacks that hit you by ~50 - 100% via talents (making crits slightly bigger to the same as normal hits).
2. Remove the damage bonus on mobs critting but give them other benefits (flurry-type buffs?).
3. Make the crit bonus occur as a DoT effect increasing damage as it ticks (for up to the 2x crit modifier worth of damage), possibly removed on the tank reaching >90% health.

Unless every miss results in a higher damage skill being triggered, hit will always be the best stat you can take up to your skill/spell cap. And if a higher damage ability does open after every miss, then you'd WANT to miss, which would be stupid.

The rotations aren't exactly retarded, they're just reliant on prior spell effects. Be it diseases being applied, or tighter things like Conflag not missing (and thus not granting backdraft charges)

Hit is a boring stat, yes. But it's really not that hard to deal with these days. Almost everyone can find hit in their talents, or other people's talents.

As for crits: they're going away for tanks. Why are we discussing ways to make them less obnoxious? Defense is dying, people, because it's a stupid fucking mechanic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 24, 2009, 05:14:22 PM
I would MUCH prefer a redo of Outlands rather than a redo of Classic. Outlands seemed like such a step backward.
what


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on August 24, 2009, 05:21:23 PM
Unless every miss results in a higher damage skill being triggered, hit will always be the best stat you can take up to your skill/spell cap. And if a higher damage ability does open after every miss, then you'd WANT to miss, which would be stupid.

That's just because of the weighting of the stats, isn't it?  I mean, you could balance it so that a bonus of +1% hit would be equivalent to a bonus of +X to str, where X is calculated so that the increase in damage for hits makes up for the loss of damage for the misses.  Say your base character will miss 10% of the time, if you could trade your +hit items in for a 12% increase in DPS, wouldn't that be a good trade overall?  

And I don't know why you'd worry about accomodating DPS rotations.  Seeing what's on the boss, what you can apply, and what's on cooldown, and then throwing the spell you think works best seems like a lot more interesting to me than looking up the optimal rotation online and doing the whole "1-2-3-1-4-5-1-2-getoutofthefire-3-1-4-5" dance in every raid for the next year and a half.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 24, 2009, 05:23:53 PM
It was specifically stated in the panel as 4 raids at release - no idea how many they'll add through the patch cycle, they didn't really talk about that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 24, 2009, 05:31:47 PM
Unless every miss results in a higher damage skill being triggered, hit will always be the best stat you can take up to your skill/spell cap. And if a higher damage ability does open after every miss, then you'd WANT to miss, which would be stupid.

That's just because of the weighting of the stats, isn't it?  I mean, you could balance it so that a bonus of +1% hit would be equivalent to a bonus of +X to str, where X is calculated so that the increase in damage for hits makes up for the loss of damage for the misses.  Say your base character will miss 10% of the time, if you could trade your +hit items in for a 12% increase in DPS, wouldn't that be a good trade overall?  


I'm sure Kild will come in Math a blazing, but in short, no.

+hit isn't a flat increase like +dmg or +str or whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 24, 2009, 05:38:54 PM
Aren't someone of those instances rather than zones?  And if so, the previous expansions had a fuckload more.  Regardless, a redone old world just isn't interesting to me.  Not sure why.  I'm sure it will be cool, but everyone has their breaking point or we'd all still be playing Contra everyday.
Those are all full zones.  Some of them sound like they should be instances (Uldum, for example) but they're not.  All of those except for the two starting zones also have announced instances and/or raids within them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 24, 2009, 06:08:55 PM
I would MUCH prefer a redo of Outlands rather than a redo of Classic. Outlands seemed like such a step backward.
what

Way too grindy gameplay, and way too irrelevant world. I still don't know why I had to spend ten levels in outer space gaining rep with giant smurfs before I could get back to WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 24, 2009, 06:18:16 PM
Unless every miss results in a higher damage skill being triggered, hit will always be the best stat you can take up to your skill/spell cap. And if a higher damage ability does open after every miss, then you'd WANT to miss, which would be stupid.

That's just because of the weighting of the stats, isn't it?  I mean, you could balance it so that a bonus of +1% hit would be equivalent to a bonus of +X to str, where X is calculated so that the increase in damage for hits makes up for the loss of damage for the misses.  Say your base character will miss 10% of the time, if you could trade your +hit items in for a 12% increase in DPS, wouldn't that be a good trade overall?  

And I don't know why you'd worry about accomodating DPS rotations.  Seeing what's on the boss, what you can apply, and what's on cooldown, and then throwing the spell you think works best seems like a lot more interesting to me than looking up the optimal rotation online and doing the whole "1-2-3-1-4-5-1-2-getoutofthefire-3-1-4-5" dance in every raid for the next year and a half.

Due to side effects of various spells (or raidwide effects of them), cooldowns, and finally damage, the actual weighting would be ~10% hit = ~25% damage

And even then, you will have a smoother experience of play if you pick the hit. Pulling something off perfectly and then dying due to the RNG instagibbing your tank is some serious gameplay bullshit, as is a string of misses because the RNG is just in a shitty mood and taking you from 7k DPS to 3k DPS because the right spells just aren't landing.

Hit will always be more important than any other stat by a large amount because your enemy in a DIKU pve is randomness. Random is interesting, and random will make people /quit if it's random in the sense of "haha you died because the server rolled a 1"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 24, 2009, 06:33:40 PM
Way too grindy gameplay, and way too irrelevant world. I still don't know why I had to spend ten levels in outer space gaining rep with giant smurfs before I could get back to WoW.

Ditto. Thankfully now it's basically just a ten-level safari to a place that was noteworthy in the lore, that you take on your way up before getting back to real business in Azeroth.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ajax34i on August 24, 2009, 08:47:52 PM
Truth be told, if we can level up to maximum via Azeroth zones only, they can

(a) Close the portal to Outland.
(b) Let Draenor finish blowing up / floating apart / losing its atmosphere (air).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 24, 2009, 08:58:48 PM
Way too grindy gameplay, and way too irrelevant world. I still don't know why I had to spend ten levels in outer space gaining rep with giant smurfs before I could get back to WoW.
It's a very quick ten levels.  Having nearly quit several times just trying to reach Outland, I much perfer them trying to make Azeroth, where I spent 60 levels, a more enjoyable experience.  They can fiddle with Outland next content patch/expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on August 24, 2009, 09:23:08 PM
I think it would be much better if characters did 1-60 in Old Azeroth and the whole world was phased for the 78+ crowd. That way Outland et. al. still makes sense. I was assuming they were going that way with the phasing. The rewrite described in posts above sounds like wank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 24, 2009, 09:43:38 PM
Much of the point is to make the low level experience smooth, like it is in newer expansions, instead of annoying as it was in the old game.  Azeroth was designed with lots of intentional timesinks in the form of quests that want you to go to the other side of the bleeding world just to talk to that one guy and then go back.  Azeroth doesn't "flow."  It's a disconnected experience for new players, and the revamp will allow them to make it a smooth route through the old world, as well as actually changing the world with events.  Some players will make new alts just to see the changed content and quests.  Others will be able to make characters they may have wanted to make for a while, but haven't because of the annoyance of leveling through all that old content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 24, 2009, 09:45:36 PM
Unless every miss results in a higher damage skill being triggered, hit will always be the best stat you can take up to your skill/spell cap. And if a higher damage ability does open after every miss, then you'd WANT to miss, which would be stupid.

You didn't "get" the implied premises, did you?  Let's list them:

1. Blizzard wants a random factor in set rotations, or alternatively FIFO rotations (need I prove this?)

Therefore:

2. The random factor could just as easily be instant cast opportunities off of failed casts, rather than procs off of crits, or hits.
3. The opportunities should be a major DPS upgrade if used perfectly, if not then slightly greater than gearing for 17% hit (let's assume 5% increase across the spectrum of players).
4. Following 3, these upgrades are detrimental if used incorrectly (high percentage of skipped opportunities, canceled casts to use opportunity, delayed casts).
5. In case 4, the player still has the option of acquiring hit and being an average DPS consistently.
6. More balanced in pvp, unlike procs off of crits or hits, which significantly inflate burst damage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 24, 2009, 09:54:45 PM
Unless every miss results in a higher damage skill being triggered, hit will always be the best stat you can take up to your skill/spell cap. And if a higher damage ability does open after every miss, then you'd WANT to miss, which would be stupid.

You didn't "get" the implied premises, did you?  Let's list them:

1. Blizzard wants a random factor in set rotations, or alternatively FIFO rotations (need I prove this?)

Therefore:

2. The random factor could just as easily be instant cast opportunities off of failed casts, rather than procs off of crits, or hits.
3. The opportunities should be a major DPS upgrade if used perfectly, if not then slightly greater than gearing for 17% hit (let's assume 5% increase across the spectrum of players).
4. Following 3, these upgrades are detrimental if used incorrectly (high percentage of skipped opportunities, canceled casts to use opportunity, delayed casts).
5. In case 4, the player still has the option of acquiring hit and being an average DPS consistently.
6. More balanced in pvp, unlike procs off of crits or hits, which significantly inflate burst damage.

Sure, prove to me that blizzard wants a random rotation. Because there is a whole ONE class with any ability that favors a random rotation in the game of World of Warcraft. Every other class/spec has a set rotation.

Beyond this, what you're proposing is a bizarre system in which your damage output is.. completely random. Which is not what they've been going for in PVP at all. In case you've missed it, they've clearly stated such, because random in pvp eliminates skill (plenty of other things could be said to eliminate it as well, but I can state definitively that random in pvp reduces skill in the equation signifigantly)

Why do you think mace stuns were removed? Because, as clearly stated by blizzard, random is not okay. It was either massively overpowered if it happened a lot, or completely useless if it never happened. The same shit is true of any ability used on a miss where it's not a guarantee of greater effect.

Seriously, give me an example of a good "on miss" ability for, say, a warlock in which it's not gimping my damage output, rewards me for understanding it, and does not reward failing to hit. I have Immo up on a target, conflag misses. What spell would possibly reward me for skilled usage of it that would beat 14k damage, a 5s snare, and a 3 shot 30% casting speed buff, but NOT be more powerful simply as a "cast this if you miss and detonate your opponent"

Hit Rating is pretty much the easiest way to solve this. Only better done by eliminating misses from the game entirely, but that doesn't seem to be on the table.

edit: anywho, I "get" your premise, your premise just doesn't make any goddamned sense. Because it's impossible. You add skill to pvp by making complex skills that allow for branching followups based on the situation at hand (you open with a hit. You can now either apply an MS style debuff or a 90% snare, that kind of thing requires you to be aware of the fight and choose the correct option.) Adding in randomness doesn't help shit (hey, if you miss, you have these random options if you use them correctly! That's stupid, because now I'm either praying I miss because it will open doors for me, or even worse my intended move failed and thus the correct debuff I was trying to apply isn't in play, and my "skill" for choosing the right move is being punished by the RNG)

The more you eliminate random, the better the game is. Because random should never, ever decide a fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on August 24, 2009, 10:01:15 PM
Much of the point is to make the low level experience smooth, like it is in newer expansions, instead of annoying as it was in the old game.

That's fine. Why not do that and then phase the post-Cataclysm stuff on separate from that? Just because they're writing new quests for 1-60 at the same time as writing Cataclysm content, there's no reason that the writers have to make everything post-Cataclysm, especially with phasing. If they obsolete all of TBC, they're morons - with phasing it's too easy to keep it all connected. Just because you have Goblins and Worgen at level 1 they don't have to be post-Cataclysm when they start out. They could actually give people the rather fun experience of leveling up free of faction before the Cataclysm aligns them to one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on August 24, 2009, 10:34:16 PM
That's fine. Why not do that and then phase the post-Cataclysm stuff on separate from that? Just because they're writing new quests for 1-60 at the same time as writing Cataclysm content, there's no reason that the writers have to make everything post-Cataclysm, especially with phasing.
Because there's no point in redoing the old world if nobody's going to level in it (again, way too huge for all of it to be 60+ stuff) and allowing access to either version when leveling would be a huge division of the playerbase, which would be batshit insane after putting so much work into making the low-level content popular.


The more you eliminate random, the better the game is. Because random should never, ever decide a fight.
Tell that to a good poker player. I'm not disagreeing with you on the whole, but randomness provides plenty of opportunity for skill - dealing with unexpected situations and having contingency plans for when things go wrong.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 24, 2009, 10:36:38 PM
That's fine. Why not do that and then phase the post-Cataclysm stuff on separate from that? Just because they're writing new quests for 1-60 at the same time as writing Cataclysm content, there's no reason that the writers have to make everything post-Cataclysm, especially with phasing. If they obsolete all of TBC, they're morons - with phasing it's too easy to keep it all connected. Just because you have Goblins and Worgen at level 1 they don't have to be post-Cataclysm when they start out. They could actually give people the rather fun experience of leveling up free of faction before the Cataclysm aligns them to one.

Yeah, so they can do twice the work in not only designing a whole new version of the world to level in, but a whole separate version of the world for high-level people on top of that, in the process guaranteeing that everyone leveling will live in an essentially dead world where every player above level 78 (or whatever) might as well have quit the game. Then for extra fun they can develop extensive faction-neutral goblin/worgen leveling paths for... uh... basically no reason whatsoever.

Even if Blizzard has essentially infinite money, I think they want this expansion to come out before 2015.

I sweated the whole time-paradox thing briefly, until someone in this thread pointed out the obvious: The timeline has been fucked since WOTLK launched, with death knights rebelling against the Lich King and then somehow traveling back in time to fight in Outland and level up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on August 24, 2009, 11:03:28 PM
It's a very quick ten levels.
The way it is now is no way remotely how it was when it was released.  It was a grindfest of epic proportions.  8 hours per level in zones that were very hit or miss as to whether you liked them or not (I *hated* HFP and still do).  Then once that was done it was a 150 quest chain to get into the heroics and eventually raids, plus the rep grind to revered or whatever stupid level it was to even be able to get the keys to do heroics to finish up the chains.  Add into this that it was still an epicly bad grind in the 1-60 world with elite mobs all over the place and dungeons with less than stellar loot that you had to run if you ran out of quests to do at your level (of course all of this was in a world that was much less populated now due to all the l33t 70's being Shatt all night long waving e-peens).  WotLK has improved on this so much it isn't funny.  Sure, the hardest of the hardcore may find it a tad easy, but the barrier for entry is such that the average Joe who at least wants to see if raiding and end-game is for him has a chance to at least begin to see it rather than having to grind his way to the chance to get purples.  And the rest of us with jobs and a casual guild can see a decent chunk of it as well.

I did not like TBC when it came out and took some serious time off from the game because of it. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 25, 2009, 02:38:31 AM
The timeline issues were raised at Blizzcon.  I'm sure I remembered someone asking how come there be goblin and wolfman DKs if it's all post-Wrath.  Apparently the developers just shrugged their shoulders and moved to the next question. 

Personally I believe that there are two types of players: on the one hand you've got those who are likely to say "the existence of goblin and worgen death knight classes shows an inconsideration on behalf of the developing team towards the established holistic canonicty of the Warcraft universe and the pervasive, sequentilization of character and event lore as ludologically determined in this games forebears c.f. Warcraft: Orcs and Humans (and expansion),  Warcraft 2 (and expansion) and Warcraft 3 (and expansion). Thus the meta-paradigm of the very edifices that support the historical imperatives of Azeroth will be rendered inconsistent and illogical."

Then there's the rest: gamers who only speak in exclamation marks and are likely to say simply "Dude! Goblin Death Knights! Ossum!"  I'm in this group.

Anyway, some overview maps of both new and old zones are up on wow.com (http://www.wow.com/2009/08/24/blizzcon-2009-entering-a-brave-new-world/#continued)  Looks like Uldum in particular is actually a zone and will have two 5-man instances in it. Also of note is that some of the old world zones are now geared towards different levels: 1K Needles is 40-45, WPL is 35-40 and EPL is 40-45/45-50.  Looks like they've also reduced the range of levels of zones like Hillsbrad - a zone I liked all but for the constant having to fuck off to somewhere else to level a bit more before doing the next part of the quest chain. Looks like there'll be a neutral port between WPL and Hinterlands too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 25, 2009, 02:59:00 AM
The timeline issues were raised at Blizzcon.  I'm sure I remembered someone asking how come there be goblin and wolfman DKs if it's all post-Wrath.  Apparently the developers just shrugged their shoulders and moved to the next question.
If I remember right, the answer was pretty much that they thought about that, but decided it probably wouldn't be fun to limit them (and presumably any future classes) based on that one lore reason alone, but they hadn't given it too much thought and there's the possibility that it might change before release.  But probably not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 25, 2009, 04:13:05 AM
There's already goblins and worgen running around Silverpine/ Alterac mts.. just assume any DKs were related to those NPCs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 25, 2009, 04:18:08 AM
Sure, prove to me that blizzard wants a random rotation. Because there is a whole ONE class with any ability that favors a random rotation in the game of World of Warcraft. Every other class/spec has a set rotation.

Quote
"We like situational abilities. When specs don’t have situational abilities, it’s easy to fall into a very fixed rotation. We call this the metronome. Push button 1, 2, 3 on your keyboard over and over until the bad guy drops loot. We have made more of an effort in all the classes to have certain moments that require players to pay attention a little more and then reward them when they both cause those situations to happen and then execute on them."

"I think if anything, abilities like this need to be more prominent. You should be less effective at your job if you ignore them, and ideally you’d also be less effective if you just macro’d them in. We like macros (obviously, or we wouldn’t have them in the game), but we like for them to simplify chains of things that you have to do often without making decisions in between point A and B. We don’t like it when playing your class becomes how clever your macro can be to the point at which you are pushing one button to play your class. That’s not playing an RPG -- that’s programming a robot. "

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=18358914172&sid=1

Quoted from the Blizzard Warrior Q&A.  There's also similar, smaller comments for several other classes (balance druid, mutilate rogue, frost mage) where they want to add or fix up situational abilities in order to break up the rotation.

Also, there's these talents: Rime; Eclipse; Lock and Load; Hot Streak; Brain Freeze; The Art of War; Seal Fate (2-4 Combo points per Mutilate use); Ruthlessness (60% chance for combo point after finisher); Honor Among Thieves (totally fucking berserk combo point generation); Maelstrom Weapon (highly variable, highest priority); Sudden Death; Bloodsurge.

That's ignoring most of the talents that are relatively predictable, require minimal adjustment of rotation, generally fall into a different rotation, or have a low chance of being lost (Rogue energy returns, Taste For Blood, Fingers of Frost, Eradication, Decimation, etc.)  that's ignoring tank specs with random bullshit (Sword & Board).  That's also ignoring the plain fucking freaky rage generation inherent to fury at the moment, between Flurry, and Titan's Grip.

Quote
Beyond this, what you're proposing is a bizarre system in which your damage output is.. completely random. Which is not what they've been going for in PVP at all. In case you've missed it, they've clearly stated such, because random in pvp eliminates skill (plenty of other things could be said to eliminate it as well, but I can state definitively that random in pvp reduces skill in the equation signifigantly)

I see...  So what you're saying is that critical strikes occuring entirely at random and then proccing +damage effects is "skillful", as is random % chance procs off of normal hits, but a reactive ability that does a moderate-high amount of damage when otherwise you would do none, or adds an effect that amounts to the same thing, is "bursty."

Quote
Seriously, give me an example of a good "on miss" ability for, say, a warlock in which it's not gimping my damage output, rewards me for understanding it, and does not reward failing to hit. I have Immo up on a target, conflag misses. What spell would possibly reward me for skilled usage of it that would beat 14k damage, a 5s snare, and a 3 shot 30% casting speed buff, but NOT be more powerful simply as a "cast this if you miss and detonate your opponent"

Did I not already explicitly state that rewarding failure to hit (and subsequent adaptation) was the entire fucking point?  Did I not explicitly state that Blizzard's schema of rotations hinging on single abilities which must not fail to hit was retarded?  Or did you just dismiss that, figuring that a 25% buff to all caster DPS (using your figures) was the perfectly acceptable solution, because otherwise the single ability which defines the destro warlock rotation might miss?

The fuck?  You're justifying the rotations being utter shit for perpetuity, based on the fact that the existing rotations are utter shit?  Correct me if I'm wrong here...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 25, 2009, 04:55:03 AM
All the DKs that have ever been or ever will be were made just prior to the Battle of Light's Hope Chapel. Some of them just haven't experienced it yet  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on August 25, 2009, 05:11:11 AM
I think in that quote, what Blizz wants is not random nor a predictable rotation--what they're looking for is situational awareness, with most classes needing to keep abilities that have to be used at particular moments in order to maximize effectiveness. Tanks are already a bit that way, that's what makes tanking a tougher job than just pouring dps on a mob. But I don't know that Blizz can really design a system fully like that back into the game, because it really takes something more like Age of Conan's combat engine, something designed from the bottom up to reward combos, quasi-twitchy ability use, group synergies, and so on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 25, 2009, 06:35:01 AM
I sweated the whole time-paradox thing briefly, until someone in this thread pointed out the obvious: The timeline has been fucked since WOTLK launched, with death knights rebelling against the Lich King and then somehow traveling back in time to fight in Outland and level up.
*handwave*The Dark Portal moves you in time as well as space*handwave*
Gissa job, Metzen. I can do lore.  :awesome_for_real:

Oh, and apparently the F&F alpha for Cataclysm is due to start next month. As in, next week.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 25, 2009, 07:34:01 AM
Also, there's these talents: Rime; Eclipse; Lock and Load; Hot Streak; Brain Freeze; The Art of War; Seal Fate (2-4 Combo points per Mutilate use); Ruthlessness (60% chance for combo point after finisher); Honor Among Thieves (totally fucking berserk combo point generation); Maelstrom Weapon (highly variable, highest priority); Sudden Death; Bloodsurge.

That's ignoring most of the talents that are relatively predictable, require minimal adjustment of rotation, generally fall into a different rotation, or have a low chance of being lost (Rogue energy returns, Taste For Blood, Fingers of Frost, Eradication, Decimation, etc.)  that's ignoring tank specs with random bullshit (Sword & Board).  That's also ignoring the plain fucking freaky rage generation inherent to fury at the moment, between Flurry, and Titan's Grip.

Quote
Beyond this, what you're proposing is a bizarre system in which your damage output is.. completely random. Which is not what they've been going for in PVP at all. In case you've missed it, they've clearly stated such, because random in pvp eliminates skill (plenty of other things could be said to eliminate it as well, but I can state definitively that random in pvp reduces skill in the equation signifigantly)

I see...  So what you're saying is that critical strikes occuring entirely at random and then proccing +damage effects is "skillful", as is random % chance procs off of normal hits, but a reactive ability that does a moderate-high amount of damage when otherwise you would do none, or adds an effect that amounts to the same thing, is "bursty."

Quote
Seriously, give me an example of a good "on miss" ability for, say, a warlock in which it's not gimping my damage output, rewards me for understanding it, and does not reward failing to hit. I have Immo up on a target, conflag misses. What spell would possibly reward me for skilled usage of it that would beat 14k damage, a 5s snare, and a 3 shot 30% casting speed buff, but NOT be more powerful simply as a "cast this if you miss and detonate your opponent"

Did I not already explicitly state that rewarding failure to hit (and subsequent adaptation) was the entire fucking point?  Did I not explicitly state that Blizzard's schema of rotations hinging on single abilities which must not fail to hit was retarded?  Or did you just dismiss that, figuring that a 25% buff to all caster DPS (using your figures) was the perfectly acceptable solution, because otherwise the single ability which defines the destro warlock rotation might miss?

The fuck?  You're justifying the rotations being utter shit for perpetuity, based on the fact that the existing rotations are utter shit?  Correct me if I'm wrong here...

I'm justifying the rotations being relatively standard because there's no other real option beyond going into branching style chain systems. At which point you'll still wind up with a DPS chain, because all a chain is would be "the order you use skills in to maximize damage"

Eclipse: probably one of the only abilities on the list which requires you to actually change shit up. You'll also note that changed it around because as it used to be, it was a skill that would HURT your DPS if it procced half the time.

Actually, every ability on your list barring the rogue ones causes you to simply have fall through macros and Boom, skill averted. "attempt to use overpower on every ability, if it's not up, use normal ability" Taste for blood Solved. Decimation isn't at all random, and is calculated into rotations (it's an execute variant, not something to break up your rotation if things light up)

HaT does not alter rotations at all, you still just hit builder until 5, evis/rupture/SnD depending on what isn't up and how fast you're generating CPs (plus, they seem to want to break HaT spec, because it's a really stupid spec.)

Maelstrom is a terrible example, because Enhance shaman aren't doing jack all with GCD locking, so it's just a bonus when it's ready.

And none of this comes down to your amazingly stupid idea of adding "on miss" abilities. Specifically, you couldn't come up with a single example for my missed spell that would make it better, instead wanting, apparently, to burn the entire skill tree to the ground and make WoW2, instead of something sane like accepting that Missing is not part of the high end game of WoW, and if you want something more skill based and interesting, the question would be "why not make two instants I can burn off of Immolate on a shared cooldown, so I have to pick the right thing to use at the right moment"

But hey, whichever one does ~1dps more for the raid is the only one I'll ever fucking hit. Because that's what PVE is: the best order to click buttons in to deal the most damage. And no matter how much you want to try and make the rotation different, all you do is wind up with the priority system DKs use. Which is just as simple as 1-2-3-4, because it's not that hard to say "oh, and if KM procs, hit 4 I guess"

I'm not trying to justify rotations being utter shit, because my premise is that they're not utter shit. But I do agree with you that random crits and proccing +damage abilities is about as low skill as randomly giving me burst damage on a miss. I'm a huge fan of eliminating crit based specs and never letting crit get over 2-5% on anything. Because Crits make for shitty PVP, as show by how much they've been trying to mitigate burst damage on pvp gear. But nobody will ever let us take away their silly 15k crits because the big number is neat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 25, 2009, 08:10:42 AM
All the DKs that have ever been or ever will be were made just prior to the Battle of Light's Hope Chapel. Some of them just haven't experienced it yet  :oh_i_see:

Let's say this is the case.  Worgen and Goblins were still in existence at the time, so why couldn't they have been made DKs back then?  I imagine they'll be going through the DK tutorial on character creation since they'll be starting at 55 like the other DKs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 25, 2009, 08:28:45 AM
I'm going to guess that Worgen and Goblin DKs may not be in at release, but will be unlocked in patch 4.1


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 25, 2009, 08:59:59 AM
I'm going to guess that Worgen and Goblin DKs may not be in at release, but will be unlocked in patch 4.1

I am absolutely certain Goblin and Worgen DKs will not be available at release, the same way Goblin and Worgens will not be on the Race Reroll list at first, either. Blizzard have fairly implicitely said they don't want the new races to be at end game immediately. You know there are levelling cartels out there that mean there'll be at least 50 L80s of each within a week of Cataclysm going gold but they're the mad minority.

4.1 for DKs/Race Rerolls is a good guess.

I do, however, think that Goblin/Worgen DKs completely futz the timeline, but hey - lolore - fun should always prevail.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on August 25, 2009, 09:31:22 AM
I am so looking forward to this expansion.  Been playing since open beta, leveled plenty of alts, both sides (mostly Alliance though, Horde only through Outlands). 

Azeroth needs an update badly.  If I was new to the game now, I doubt I'd make it through the old-style leveling without a significant xp boost (a la refer-a-friend).  Too much travel for quests.

I'm disappointed that there won't be more character slots added, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 25, 2009, 09:38:19 AM
I see this expansion as "WoW: Roll A Goblin In Azeroth 2.0" This either excites you or it doesn't.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 25, 2009, 10:02:16 AM
It's a very quick ten levels.
The way it is now is no way remotely how it was when it was released.  It was a grindfest of epic proportions.
That's all well and true.  They aren't designing around the game as it was three years ago, they're designing against it as it is now.  That means the 1-60 content is a lot more of a grind than 60-70.  It's also been around longer.  It could use a fresh coat of paint.

Let's say this is the case.  Worgen and Goblins were still in existence at the time, so why couldn't they have been made DKs back then?  I imagine they'll be going through the DK tutorial on character creation since they'll be starting at 55 like the other DKs.
I'm not seeing the disconnect either.  Worgen have been in Silverpine since WoW started.  Goblins have been around a lot longer.  Them starting in the DK area "after" WotLK is no different than anyone else starting a new DK at this point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 25, 2009, 10:15:05 AM
I see this expansion as "WoW: Roll A Goblin In Azeroth 2.0" This either excites you or it doesn't.

The leveling experience will change for all new characters.  I'm definitely planning on starting a new Night Elf and Forsaken when the expansion comes out at the very least.  A Gnome and Troll, too.  Possibly even a Human and Tauren, but we'll see.

Let's say this is the case.  Worgen and Goblins were still in existence at the time, so why couldn't they have been made DKs back then?  I imagine they'll be going through the DK tutorial on character creation since they'll be starting at 55 like the other DKs.
I'm not seeing the disconnect either.  Worgen have been in Silverpine since WoW started.  Goblins have been around a lot longer.  Them starting in the DK area "after" WotLK is no different than anyone else starting a new DK at this point.

Just look at the whole DK tutorial as a flashback.  That solves all the Worgen/Goblin DK time issues.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on August 25, 2009, 10:21:32 AM
That's fine. Why not do that and then phase the post-Cataclysm stuff on separate from that? Just because they're writing new quests for 1-60 at the same time as writing Cataclysm content, there's no reason that the writers have to make everything post-Cataclysm, especially with phasing.
Because there's no point in redoing the old world if nobody's going to level in it (again, way too huge for all of it to be 60+ stuff) and allowing access to either version when leveling would be a huge division of the playerbase, which would be batshit insane after putting so much work into making the low-level content popular.

That's an irrational argument. They are redoing the old world. You are assuming that people require the content to be post-Cataclysm in order to want to play it. If they just don't want to do 1-60, they won't. If they want to do 1-60 because they want to level up new characters and experience the new quests, it will not matter whether it is pre- or post-Cataclysm. Again, if they are redoing the old world and do have phasing technology, there is little added overhead in allowing pre-Cataclysm to exist on the same terrain that post-Cataclysm does. Both can even share the bulk of the same quests. Chief Hawkwind is going to want you to kill those quillboars no matter what period of history you're in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on August 25, 2009, 10:33:39 AM
That would be the second half of the thing I said:
allowing access to either version when leveling would be a huge division of the playerbase, which would be batshit insane after putting so much work into making the low-level content popular.
Pre- and post-cataclysm sharing terrain makes no sense if you look at any of the announced changes. Barrens is being split into two zones. Thousand Needles is being flooded. I don't know what conception of phasing you have that magically allows both versions to exist in the same place at the same time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 25, 2009, 10:40:14 AM
...gamers who only speak in exclamation marks and are likely to say simply "Dude! Goblin Death Knights! Ossum!"  I'm in this group.

Apparently, Blizzard is in this group too.

The timeline issues were raised at Blizzcon.  I'm sure I remembered someone asking how come there be goblin and wolfman DKs if it's all post-Wrath.  Apparently the developers just shrugged their shoulders and moved to the next question.  

Also lolgoblins!11!!!!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 25, 2009, 10:40:44 AM
Plus who gives a fuck? Why would they WANT to create a whole new pre-cataclysm world as well as a whole new post-cataclysm one? Who gives a shit?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 25, 2009, 10:41:05 AM
That's fine. Why not do that and then phase the post-Cataclysm stuff on separate from that? Just because they're writing new quests for 1-60 at the same time as writing Cataclysm content, there's no reason that the writers have to make everything post-Cataclysm, especially with phasing.
Because there's no point in redoing the old world if nobody's going to level in it (again, way too huge for all of it to be 60+ stuff) and allowing access to either version when leveling would be a huge division of the playerbase, which would be batshit insane after putting so much work into making the low-level content popular.

That's an irrational argument. They are redoing the old world. You are assuming that people require the content to be post-Cataclysm in order to want to play it. If they just don't want to do 1-60, they won't. If they want to do 1-60 because they want to level up new characters and experience the new quests, it will not matter whether it is pre- or post-Cataclysm. Again, if they are redoing the old world and do have phasing technology, there is little added overhead in allowing pre-Cataclysm to exist on the same terrain that post-Cataclysm does. Both can even share the bulk of the same quests. Chief Hawkwind is going to want you to kill those quillboars no matter what period of history you're in.

If they phase the old world, how will they sell legacy servers?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on August 25, 2009, 10:42:41 AM
I don't know what conception of phasing you have that magically allows both versions to exist in the same place at the same time.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Modern Angel on August 25, 2009, 10:56:12 AM
You understand that phasing exists when you're dead and ghost running, right?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 25, 2009, 11:56:57 AM
For what it's worth, DKs were on the character select screen for both Worgen and Goblins, but greyed out as they wanted us to play the new area obviously. They were also asked about it in a panel and I believe the answer was "yeah, it is a little weird, and we might or might not get rid of DKs for them because of that, but we're not sure it really matters." Or something along those lines.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 25, 2009, 12:12:30 PM
For what it's worth, DKs were on the character select screen for both Worgen and Goblins, but greyed out as they wanted us to play the new area obviously. They were also asked about it in a panel and I believe the answer was "yeah, it is a little weird, and we might or might not get rid of DKs for them because of that, but we're not sure it really matters." Or something along those lines.

I thought it was "yeah it makes no sense, and we talked about it a LOT, but we'd rather it be fun and let them be DKs than worry about the logic behind it"

Which seemed to be his (joke or not) idea behind worgen priests as well: "worgen shadow priests would just be cool"

They've painted themselves into a lollore corner no matter what, may as well just aim for fun rather than temporal issues. Chromie can take us back in time and have us do an escort quest that brings a pack of worgen and goblins to the Arthas to be converted into death knights. Chromie fixes everything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 25, 2009, 12:53:54 PM
There's lore?

Seriously, arguing about worgen death knights seems akin to arguing about Cobra Commander and Baroness being brother and sister. Surely an issue to some, though I can't fathom why.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 25, 2009, 01:07:35 PM
WoW gave up on lore when they realized their character base just doesn't care.   A steady line of dinggrats keeps people playing long term.   Even people on gaming sites like this, where the majority of us would probably be considered hardcore just by frequenting a site like this, regardless of what or how much we play, aren't going to quit over it is most cases.  What does blizzard really have to gain by shoe horning themselves into the lore when they can just ignore it and make whatever they want up?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on August 25, 2009, 01:14:46 PM
Lore, more often than not, is usually just an excuse.  Some things people just don't like, and they can't really explain it, but the lore contradiction gives them an easy thing to point to.

And then there are some people who cry and moan over time lines and how things should be consistent with how they imagined they should be.  And these people are pretty sad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 25, 2009, 01:40:55 PM
Intelligent design at this point might be to slip a few Goblins in DK armor around Ebon Hold places of interest over the next few content patches. Worgen'll be harder to do because of course the NPC and player models are drastically different but if you consider how many times dear old Sylvanas has changed her spots I don't suppose it'd matter much. It's just an atmospheric thing that'd make the Goblin/Worgen DK transition a lot smoother feeling and perhaps satisfy the lore-zealots to some degree.

Or better still, since Goblins are so damn factional/money hungry, there could always be an entire faction of Goblins who submitted to Arthas' will just to secure trade with an endless supply of customers...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 25, 2009, 02:03:29 PM
Gah!  Do any of the people going 'lollore' actually give a damn about lore?  It's easier to make this work than most of the things they've done in the past.  It just requires enough suspension of disbelief to say "You've simply never crossed paths with one of these guys until now".  They don't have to rewrite or retconn anything.

Why is this even worth discussing?  How about something more important like can I paint my worgen's nails a pretty colour?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 25, 2009, 02:09:34 PM
Ah, I take it you haven't seen the concept art yet:
(http://i32.tinypic.com/2wdx45j.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 25, 2009, 02:20:50 PM
Some of the 'concept' work they showed was blatantly done earlier that morning. The Female Worgen and Worgen Mount are chief suspects.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 25, 2009, 02:46:00 PM
No, I hadn't seen that.  I like it.

Worgen shouldn't have a mount.  They can use horses or other racial mounts in human form, they should get running otherwise.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 25, 2009, 02:47:48 PM
Man, that would really cause some Tauren tears.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 25, 2009, 02:48:02 PM
I don't get the point of rated battlegrounds. I want to get good shit from doing something SOLO, not sign up for a 15v15 arena team.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 25, 2009, 02:48:57 PM
I think it looks pretty good as well.  What did people expect them to look like?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 25, 2009, 02:50:15 PM
They can use horses or other racial mounts in human form, they should get running otherwise.

I would have only played Tauren if they would have given them plains running like originally intended.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 25, 2009, 02:52:08 PM
I don't get the point of rated battlegrounds. I want to get good shit from doing something SOLO, not sign up for a 15v15 arena team.

The blue response to that sentiment:

http://blue.mmo-champion.com/11/19378794913-rated-bgs-disappointing.html

I tend to think they maybe should offer something a little better for the solo PVPer as well, but there's lots of time left I suppose.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 25, 2009, 03:05:02 PM
The way it's been presented so far, rated BGs look like they'll be even less popular than Arenas.  It seems to me that if people were that willing to pre-make their own PUGs to PvP, the Arenas would be a lot more popular than they are.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 25, 2009, 03:07:25 PM
Yeah, although I guess it depends on how much of it is that, and how much of it is a playstyle preference thing. Some people just hate straight deathmatch, and that's what arenas are. BGs support a wider range of specs and team makeups, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 25, 2009, 03:28:16 PM
They can use horses or other racial mounts in human form, they should get running otherwise.

I would have only played Tauren if they would have given them plains running like originally intended.

I really don't see why they didn't.  Besides slowing down the animation, it seems a lot less technically challenging than making actual Kodo mounts.  And I personally have always hated the Kodo animation. Especially the 100% ones look like they are twinkling along rather than thundering, if that makes sense.

They could fix that issue and add worgen running in one shot here. I hope they do.


Regarding lolore, I love the lore but recognize it takes a back seat to game balance, fun, and all sorts of other things.  It takes a lot of effort at suspending disbelief to enjoy it.  If you're the kind of person who bemoaned LOTR movies because they didn't have Tom Bombadil, you're probably the kind of person who gets ragey about WoW lore.  I'm not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 25, 2009, 03:32:29 PM
Plains running died for two reasons: Lots of tauren players in beta begged for a "real" mount, and they couldn't make the plainsrunning thing work in a way they liked. From what I remember, they didn't want you to have to stop and cast to start it up, because that seemed weird, but being able to ramp up into it seemed broken, etc. If they were adding tauren NOW, it might be a different story, but I remember those were the reasons then.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 25, 2009, 03:33:45 PM
What bugs me about it, honestly, is nothing about the 'sanctity' of the lore or anything Bombadil-ish.

There's just a really obvious timeline discrepancy which they should probably cover up somehow. It isn't a lore problem as much as it just is a 'wtf' problem. See WUA's diagram.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 25, 2009, 03:58:20 PM
Actually, every ability on your list barring the rogue ones causes you to simply have fall through macros and Boom, skill averted. "attempt to use overpower on every ability, if it's not up, use normal ability" Taste for blood Solved. Decimation isn't at all random, and is calculated into rotations (it's an execute variant, not something to break up your rotation if things light up)

You can't build fall-through macros for damaging abilities as of patch 2.0, but thanks for the tip.  I'll keep it in mind for when they roll back Cataclysm, Wrath, and TBC.

Also, Decimation wasn't in my list, though I included it as a notable exception.

Quote
HaT does not alter rotations at all, you still just hit builder until 5, evis/rupture/SnD depending on what isn't up and how fast you're generating CPs

Maelstrom is a terrible example, because Enhance shaman aren't doing jack all with GCD locking, so it's just a bonus when it's ready.

:awesome_for_real:

Quote
And none of this comes down to your amazingly stupid idea of adding "on miss" abilities. Specifically, you couldn't come up with a single example for my missed spell that would make it better, instead wanting, apparently, to burn the entire skill tree to the ground and make WoW2, instead of something sane like accepting that Missing is not part of the high end game of WoW, and if you want something more skill based and interesting, the question would be "why not make two instants I can burn off of Immolate on a shared cooldown, so I have to pick the right thing to use at the right moment"

Which is just as simple as 1-2-3-4, because it's not that hard to say "oh, and if KM procs, hit 4 I guess"

Ohh, I get it, random is not random when it's easy. :oh_i_see:

And again, what is it about the instant cast nuke that hits approximately as hard as Soulfire, procs a 20% haste buff on your next three casts, and has a 5 second snare that does not immediately strike you as inherently retarded?

However, to thoroughly answer your question, a decent solution would be to have the Conflag snare and haste proc regardless of the miss, have the reaction ability be an instant that has an average DCPT, and then clone the "lost" damage of the last missed spell as a rolling DoT capable of critting that occurs over ~15 seconds.  The cloning mechanism would need some mathy bits so that it carries over +crit modifiers specific to certain spells as +damage coefficients though.

FAKEEDIT: Gilneas inns will be very disturbing indeed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 25, 2009, 04:52:43 PM
Yeah, although I guess it depends on how much of it is that, and how much of it is a playstyle preference thing. Some people just hate straight deathmatch, and that's what arenas are. BGs support a wider range of specs and team makeups, etc.



The Highest rated BG'ers will be 25 man raid guilds that kill Van/Drek with all four war-masters up.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 25, 2009, 04:55:45 PM
but being able to ramp up into it seemed broken, etc.

Nah the Tauren beta players whined that everyone else got 100% of their mount speed from the start, but they had to 'warm into it.'  At which point a mob may have aggroed them so they couldn't run, or the distance was so short that by the time they were up to full speed they stopped again.   I also always suspected that when they began planning the PVP (which on Blizzard time scale would have been somewhere in beta)  They realized that Tauren running would have been very broken for the BGs.. even moreso than Druid travel form feels.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 25, 2009, 04:58:51 PM
Druid Travel form hasn't been a factor in PvP since WotLK.


For 2 out of 3 specs it's suicide and for Resto they don't care anymore.


/watches the tree walk across WSG with 5 people trying to kill it


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 25, 2009, 05:01:04 PM
I suppose so.. but I only do low level BGs anymore.  L80 pvp can stuff it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 25, 2009, 05:02:17 PM
Actually, every ability on your list barring the rogue ones causes you to simply have fall through macros and Boom, skill averted. "attempt to use overpower on every ability, if it's not up, use normal ability" Taste for blood Solved. Decimation isn't at all random, and is calculated into rotations (it's an execute variant, not something to break up your rotation if things light up)

You can't build fall-through macros for damaging abilities as of patch 2.0, but thanks for the tip.  I'll keep it in mind for when they roll back Cataclysm, Wrath, and TBC.

Also, Decimation wasn't in my list, though I included it as a notable exception.

Quote
HaT does not alter rotations at all, you still just hit builder until 5, evis/rupture/SnD depending on what isn't up and how fast you're generating CPs

Maelstrom is a terrible example, because Enhance shaman aren't doing jack all with GCD locking, so it's just a bonus when it's ready.

:awesome_for_real:

Quote
And none of this comes down to your amazingly stupid idea of adding "on miss" abilities. Specifically, you couldn't come up with a single example for my missed spell that would make it better, instead wanting, apparently, to burn the entire skill tree to the ground and make WoW2, instead of something sane like accepting that Missing is not part of the high end game of WoW, and if you want something more skill based and interesting, the question would be "why not make two instants I can burn off of Immolate on a shared cooldown, so I have to pick the right thing to use at the right moment"

Which is just as simple as 1-2-3-4, because it's not that hard to say "oh, and if KM procs, hit 4 I guess"

Ohh, I get it, random is not random when it's easy. :oh_i_see:

And again, what is it about the instant cast nuke that hits approximately as hard as Soulfire, procs a 20% haste buff on your next three casts, and has a 5 second snare that does not immediately strike you as inherently retarded?

However, to thoroughly answer your question, a decent solution would be to have the Conflag snare and haste proc regardless of the miss, have the reaction ability be an instant that has an average DCPT, and then clone the "lost" damage of the last missed spell as a rolling DoT capable of critting that occurs over ~15 seconds.  The cloning mechanism would need some mathy bits so that it carries over +crit modifiers specific to certain spells as +damage coefficients though.

FAKEEDIT: Gilneas inns will be very disturbing indeed.

Questions: how is this less convoluted and stupid than just "on crit X, spell Y becomes available", because in order to not be a DPS loss on a miss, your rolling dot would need to deal ~30,000 damage over 15 seconds. That would turn PVP into  :drill: in seconds.

But missing isn't needed for what you want. At all. All you want are abilities that light up after X random effect. Which is doable on crit or on non crit. Why reintroduce a horrible mechanic like missing (especially when your solution is to put every effect of the spell onto the target even though I missed. What? We're rewarding failure here..)

That's not even counting opportunity costs of effects. What happens when you miss an interrupt? That can spell a win or a loss immediately if you miss a kick. What, the interrupt happens anyways? That would be silly. Again, doable with less stupidity if you just make new chains available on crits, and keep Missing out of the high end game.

Essentially, the question repeatedly boils down to: what the shit, missing? More over, you want misses with absolutely none of the side effects of missing? (namely, you kept the damage, snare, and self buffs generated by a hit on a miss. So what, exactly, is the point of making it off a miss instead of an extra effect you could press a button for on a crit, exactly?)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 25, 2009, 05:11:37 PM
I suppose so.. but I only do low level BGs anymore.  L80 pvp can stuff it.


It's probably super awesome in the 10-19 WSG, true.




-edit-


My disappointment with the proposed rated BG system, mostly falls under "this is what you were working on and 'holding back' for all those months/years?". Every time they even hinted at it, they made it seem like the BG would somehow gauge each players individual effort and reward them with points or rating accordingly, some kind of magic score keeper technology that would account for how well you could defend that tower, or heal that flag carrier etc.


This, this shouldn't have taken anywhere near this long. This is just Arena++ , with longer Queue's and probably even more absurd team comps.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 25, 2009, 05:30:55 PM
It seems likely to me they spent all this time trying to figure out different ways and doing internal testing/speculation on various different ways to rate battlegrounds.  This is probably the best they could come up with after all this time that makes sense and is feasible given the technology available to them.

The fact that you don't lose rating when you lose will make it so people aren't hesitant to just pug the battlegrounds if they don't have a solid group of their own, so it should work out.  Maybe.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 25, 2009, 05:43:49 PM
Queue times are going to kill it before it even starts is my guess.


Think of how long the average Naxx Pug takes to setup. Now factor in you need to wait for another Naxx Pug to also setup and Queue to fight you. Then you have the usual issues with Pugs, people AFKing, leaving randomly, rage quitting etc. Odds are you'll still get stomped to boot  :awesome_for_real:




The only people going to enjoy this are 25 man raid guilds with the ability to essentially form Mega-Arena teams, or the rare, rare cases of a collection of "real" PvP'ers all coordinating a BG night regularly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 25, 2009, 06:55:27 PM
Questions: how is this less convoluted and stupid than just "on crit X, spell Y becomes available", because in order to not be a DPS loss on a miss, your rolling dot would need to deal ~30,000 damage over 15 seconds. That would turn PVP into  :drill: in seconds.

More over, you want misses with absolutely none of the side effects of missing? (namely, you kept the damage, snare, and self buffs generated by a hit on a miss. So what, exactly, is the point of making it off a miss instead of an extra effect you could press a button for on a crit, exactly?)

You need to explain the reasoning why a 2k DPS DoT over 15s plus instant damage comparable in DPCT to the warlock average as a refund to the cast time lost (~2000 DPS, ~20 000 DPCT - not factoring the instant damage) would be equivalent to a ~10.5k average damage cast occurring every 10 seconds (1050 DPS, 7000 DPCT).  Because now I'm sure you're just talking out your ass.

Second, does the snare/haste applying on a miss bother you?  Because it could just as easily go on the reaction ability (edit: as well as Conflag) with a 5-8s cooldown placed on the appropriate talents to keep things in check.  I just figured you'd like thing the easy way.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that chaining more damage after a crit is probably one of the dumbest concepts imaginable.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on August 25, 2009, 07:00:15 PM
In an odd way, I think lore doesn't matter but mood and feel does. Meaning, the art resources, tone of dialogue, rough sense of humor and so on are pretty consistent in their feel or mood across the game, even with oddities like Outlands and Space Goats and all that. Whereas (for example) something like EQ2 felt like an aesthetic dog's breakfast, with very little sense of a mood or feel. Blizzard can do anything they like to the lore, I suspect, but they might run into a problem if they did something to really seriously break the mood or feel of the game. Cataclysm doesn't seem to me to break the mood, whatever extra incoherencies it piles onto the massive pile of lore contradictions that already exist.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 25, 2009, 07:20:58 PM
Questions: how is this less convoluted and stupid than just "on crit X, spell Y becomes available", because in order to not be a DPS loss on a miss, your rolling dot would need to deal ~30,000 damage over 15 seconds. That would turn PVP into  :drill: in seconds.

More over, you want misses with absolutely none of the side effects of missing? (namely, you kept the damage, snare, and self buffs generated by a hit on a miss. So what, exactly, is the point of making it off a miss instead of an extra effect you could press a button for on a crit, exactly?)

You need to explain the reasoning why a 2k DPS DoT over 15s plus instant damage comparable in DCPT to the warlock average as a refund to the cast time lost (~2000 DPS, ~20 000 DPCT - not factoring the instant damage) would be equivalent to a ~10.5k average damage cast occurring every 10 seconds (1050 DPS, 7000 DPCT).  Because now I'm sure you're just talking out your ass.

Second, does the snare/haste applying on a miss bother you?  Because it could just as easily go on the reaction ability with a 8s cooldown placed on the appropriate talents to keep things in check.  I just figured you'd like thing the easy way.

Conflag: 15k crit, ~60%+ crit rate. Follow up cast = 12-15k crit, 1.2s cast time, ~40% crit rate.

In order to make up for the miss and the GCD loss for using the follow up, it needs to deal as much damage as both of those landing. ~30k. You want a dot over 15s that is better than missing my conflag and wasting a GCD on the follow up. That would be 30k damage via whatever means.

Unless you want to counter this somehow? Because that's what you're doing with a follow up to a miss that makes missing not matter: making the follow up the damage equivalent of the missed spell and whatever would have followed it. In this case, a conflag followed by a chaos bolt. Make it better. Without being a 20-30k DoT over 15 seconds.

In other words: what you just did in your math was make a miss auto apply a DoT equivalent to the damage of the spell. Which isn't what you've been talking about: you want buttons to press. Which means wasting the cast (missed) and the follow up (burning it on the follow up), so even assuming your followup is instant cast, the GCD cost alone means to make it better than the lock's normal rotation you need to apply all the self buffs/debuffs, AND deal 20-30k damage. Which, by the by, would mean missing Conflag would let me oneshot most players with the followup (even as a 15s dot, anything lacking a heal = dead no matter what)

You're not thinking this through, at all. Rewarding a miss with effects greater than actually hitting is.. stupid. It's a second form of crit at that point. There's no negative effect to missing at that point, so why exactly are you harping on all this nonsensical crap on a miss when what you want is already done by critting, and you just need a button that can be cast after a crit or something.

Because please, explain to me why your follow up to conflag doesn't need to deal 20-30k damage in order to not be a net DPS loss. Because you're ignoring that DPS keeps casting, it doesn't cast one spell and go home. As your follow ups roll into further possible casting time, you need to accomidate that, or it's a net DPS loss for missing. Beyond the silliness of all secondary effects applying to a target even though you freaking missed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 25, 2009, 08:08:47 PM
Conflag: 15k crit, ~60%+ crit rate. Follow up cast = 12-15k crit, 1.2s cast time, ~40% crit rate.

What?  Your Conflag has magically gained a thousand damage in a few posts, your follow up cast (Chaos Bolt) has 20% less crit chance, despite the fact that the difference between the two derived from talents is 25%, and you're magically assuming both will always crit back to back?  Then you get on my case because the completely pulled-out-the-ass-by-you number of 30k damage over 15s is too much compared to your existing figure of 30 000 in 3.04s?   The Fuck?

I'm done, this is retarded.

EDIT: Fixed mathy bit for haste buff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hindenburg on August 25, 2009, 08:50:57 PM
Ahm, did they change something in the game mechanics to suddenly make conflag hit/crit for more than chaos bolt?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 25, 2009, 09:49:37 PM
Ahm, did they change something in the game mechanics to suddenly make conflag hit/crit for more than chaos bolt?

For quite some time, it's hit/crit for ~the same damage. Raid buffed in ~naxx 25 gear, that's ~15k crit for both. Mine tend to max and average within 600 damage of each other.

As for Sheep: You're right. This is retarded. Your entire premise is to call Crits Misses, and somehow make a convoluted senseless system in which all needed effects proc off a miss (even on the target, which is  :uhrr:), and you get a damage boost that makes up for the GCD loss of two abilities(since you need to trigger the follow up on miss skill)

Explain to me how any of that makes any goddamned sense, because the easier method of doing what you in essence want (a skill based situationally aware dps boosting skill) would be "on crit, opens spell X which deals more damage than your usual filler nuke", which leaves a logical reason for all the natural effects of your prior skill to have applied properly (instead of "he missed you! Also, your spell got interrupted because he kicked 5 feet to your left") and allows for a situational increase to damage if you're paying attention. Though really, that already exists for a number of classes (even locks, if you proc pyroclasm, you can technically get a DPS boost by altering your rotation to take advantage of it by prioritizing recasting certain spells to take advantage of the boost)

So yeah, this whole thing is retarded, because you keep trying to implement "Miss", which is a Failure Case, as a beneficial event.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 25, 2009, 11:18:42 PM
They realized that Tauren running would have been very broken for the BGs.. even moreso than Druid travel form feels.

Hence my "ramping up into it seemed broken" statement.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: stu on August 25, 2009, 11:28:14 PM
I forgot BlizzCon was this past weekend! Guess I have some reading to do. No new Hero class?  :sad:

The changes in zone terrain will be refreshing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 25, 2009, 11:37:45 PM
I forgot BlizzCon was this past weekend! Guess I have some reading to do. No new Hero class?  :sad:

The changes in zone terrain will be refreshing.


Fuck Hero Classes!



Seriously, DK's broke the game for a god damn year.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: stu on August 25, 2009, 11:42:31 PM
I still haven't played DK, but I've been wanting a Hero-type Healer for a while now.

For me, most of this stuff is good since I haven't even finished slogging through the last expansion yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 25, 2009, 11:45:38 PM
Doesn't really need it's own thread: http://www.wow.com/2009/08/25/grunty-vs-zergling-battle-video/


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on August 26, 2009, 12:51:15 AM
I still haven't played DK, but I've been wanting a Hero-type Healer for a while now.

Already in the game.  They're called "druids".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 26, 2009, 04:10:54 AM
As for Sheep: You're right. This is retarded. Your entire premise is to call Crits Misses, and somehow make a convoluted senseless system in which all needed effects proc off a miss (even on the target, which is  :uhrr:), and you get a damage boost that makes up for the GCD loss of two abilities(since you need to trigger the follow up on miss skill)

Apologies to everyone else, but for once the other guy is digging deeper. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 26, 2009, 04:14:16 AM
I really don't know what the fuck you are arguing about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 26, 2009, 04:19:16 AM
I really don't know what the fuck you are arguing about.

He seems to thing there's something inherently wrong with the presumption that you can add a random factor contingent on failed events.  Overpower must have touched him in a bad way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 26, 2009, 04:30:21 AM
No I fail to see why this matters, just stop it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 26, 2009, 04:43:11 AM
I really don't know what the fuck you are arguing about.

Nobody else does either. They got lost on the way to EJ.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on August 26, 2009, 04:44:53 AM
To get this show back on the road: I predict a deluge of goblins with Warhammer names. Mostly Shamans.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 26, 2009, 05:32:34 AM
To get this show back on the road: I predict a deluge of goblins with Warhammer names. Mostly Shamans.

Hmm, can goblins be hunters, I need to go look at that chart.  Also, what could I pass off as a squig?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 26, 2009, 07:42:11 AM
To get this show back on the road: I predict a deluge of goblins with Warhammer names. Mostly Shamans.

Hmm, can goblins be hunters, I need to go look at that chart.  Also, what could I pass off as a squig?

They can, and maybe this?

(http://www.wowhunterpets.info/images/models/fs_jormungarlarva.jpg)

or maybe

(http://www.wowhunterpets.info/images/models/fs_crawlervar2.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Vash on August 26, 2009, 09:16:22 AM

The only people going to enjoy this are 25 man raid guilds with the ability to essentially form Mega-Arena teams, or the rare, rare cases of a collection of "real" PvP'ers all coordinating a BG night regularly.


Collections of "real" or even just "enthusiastic and willing to follow orders" PvP'ers were quite common in classic WoW and got together pretty much every day/night, especially before cross server BG ques when real rivalries were abundant on most servers.  There were all kinds of PvP only or PvP first guilds.  I was able to get into one of the best collections on my server on a regular basis and even though I was nowhere near a PvP allstar/hero at that time it was pretty much the most fun I've ever had in the game to this day.

I appreciate blizzards intent if they're trying to bring back those days with this change, but I don't really see it working well for a multitude of reasons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on August 26, 2009, 09:59:15 AM
In an odd way, I think lore doesn't matter but mood and feel does. Meaning, the art resources, tone of dialogue, rough sense of humor and so on are pretty consistent in their feel or mood across the game, even with oddities like Outlands and Space Goats and all that. Whereas (for example) something like EQ2 felt like an aesthetic dog's breakfast, with very little sense of a mood or feel. Blizzard can do anything they like to the lore, I suspect, but they might run into a problem if they did something to really seriously break the mood or feel of the game. Cataclysm doesn't seem to me to break the mood, whatever extra incoherencies it piles onto the massive pile of lore contradictions that already exist.



Excellent point, I agree.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 26, 2009, 10:54:20 AM
Queue times are going to kill it before it even starts is my guess.

Think of how long the average Naxx Pug takes to setup. Now factor in you need to wait for another Naxx Pug to also setup and Queue to fight you. Then you have the usual issues with Pugs, people AFKing, leaving randomly, rage quitting etc. Odds are you'll still get stomped to boot  :awesome_for_rea

The only people going to enjoy this are 25 man raid guilds with the ability to essentially form Mega-Arena teams, or the rare, rare cases of a collection of "real" PvP'ers all coordinating a BG night regularly.

I think it will depend on the Battlegroup, and the time of day - as it always has.  Back in the day when you could queue for the first BG's as a group it was either brutal or lol 15 seconds depending on your server.  I was playing on Akama at the time, and the Horde drastically outnumbered Alliance, which made for insta queues for us.  The Horde had time to literally go farm people in Blackrock Mountain in between games.  Now that they have x-server it takes some of the brutality out of it (literally hours), but it can still be pretty painful if you're on the wrong side of the population imbalance.  But at least Blizz can occasionally move servers in and out of Battlegroups to try and balance it out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 26, 2009, 11:59:47 AM
I really don't know what the fuck you are arguing about.

Nobody else does either. They got lost on the way to EJ.

Nah, at EJ Sheepherder would have been banned after his first post, and Kild probably would have been banned for encouraging him.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Vash on August 26, 2009, 12:16:34 PM
I think it will depend on the Battlegroup, and the time of day - as it always has.  Back in the day when you could queue for the first BG's as a group it was either brutal or lol 15 seconds depending on your server.  I was playing on Akama at the time, and the Horde drastically outnumbered Alliance, which made for insta queues for us.  The Horde had time to literally go farm people in Blackrock Mountain in between games.  Now that they have x-server it takes some of the brutality out of it (literally hours), but it can still be pretty painful if you're on the wrong side of the population imbalance.  But at least Blizz can occasionally move servers in and out of Battlegroups to try and balance it out.

The biggest hurdle is that there is no incentive for "real" PvP'ers to participate in the new system to a significant degree.  They already dominate Arena play and receive the spoils and any e-peen bragging rights they need from that.  There's no overcoming the fact that it's much easier to work with and coordinate schedules with 1-4 other people instead of 9-39 others, not to mention many of them prefer the strait up death-match style play anyway.

Back in the Pre-BC days BG's were all you had.  Thus the hardcore PvP crowd was always the major driving force for putting pre-mades together.  However, often times they still had several spots/roles that needed to be filled and would pull in raiders who did occasional PvP or skilled/eager players who they may not have bothered to interact with otherwise.

If the hardcore PvP crowd just sticks to Arenas and only does the occasional rated BG for fun or the minimal honor they need for off-set PvP gear, I just don't see the rated BG system getting the interest and participation it needs to succeed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 26, 2009, 01:57:52 PM
TankSpot interview with Ghostcrawler (http://www.tankspot.com/forums/f64/54708-tankspot-s-interview-w-ghostcrawler.html)

Focuses mostly on tanks of course but some interesting stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 26, 2009, 02:26:35 PM
I think it will depend on the Battlegroup, and the time of day - as it always has.  Back in the day when you could queue for the first BG's as a group it was either brutal or lol 15 seconds depending on your server.  I was playing on Akama at the time, and the Horde drastically outnumbered Alliance, which made for insta queues for us.  The Horde had time to literally go farm people in Blackrock Mountain in between games.  Now that they have x-server it takes some of the brutality out of it (literally hours), but it can still be pretty painful if you're on the wrong side of the population imbalance.  But at least Blizz can occasionally move servers in and out of Battlegroups to try and balance it out.

The biggest hurdle is that there is no incentive for "real" PvP'ers to participate in the new system to a significant degree.  They already dominate Arena play and receive the spoils and any e-peen bragging rights they need from that.  There's no overcoming the fact that it's much easier to work with and coordinate schedules with 1-4 other people instead of 9-39 others, not to mention many of them prefer the strait up death-match style play anyway.

Back in the Pre-BC days BG's were all you had.  Thus the hardcore PvP crowd was always the major driving force for putting pre-mades together.  However, often times they still had several spots/roles that needed to be filled and would pull in raiders who did occasional PvP or skilled/eager players who they may not have bothered to interact with otherwise.

If the hardcore PvP crowd just sticks to Arenas and only does the occasional rated BG for fun or the minimal honor they need for off-set PvP gear, I just don't see the rated BG system getting the interest and participation it needs to succeed.

I think you may be drastically underestimating the competitiveness of internet dickheads.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 26, 2009, 03:33:16 PM
The difference between back in the day and now. Is back in the day people formed pre-set groups to roll the other randoms.



Shit, look how long it takes to even get a queue going for 5v5 Arena these days.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 26, 2009, 03:43:18 PM
5v5 Arenas are a bad example.

Because they suck.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 26, 2009, 03:48:52 PM
I think we are going to get a week of super-hyper participation, then the shocking realization that most people will still get curb-stomped, then the remaining time will be the same 5 teams trading wins against each other.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 26, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
The biggest hurdle is that there is no incentive for "real" PvP'ers to participate in the new system to a significant degree.  They already dominate Arena play and receive the spoils and any e-peen bragging rights they need from that.  There's no overcoming the fact that it's much easier to work with and coordinate schedules with 1-4 other people instead of 9-39 others, not to mention many of them prefer the strait up death-match style play anyway.


Nah, not all "Real" PVPers enjoy Areans.   I've got three of my server's former GMs in my current guild.  None of them arena because they dislike death matches and enjoy the back and forth of a well-played battleground much more.  One of them still regularly BGs, even though she gets creamed because she doesn't get the uber stam/ resil gear due to her lack of arena play.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 26, 2009, 05:42:29 PM
Nah, at EJ Sheepherder would have been banned after his first post, and Kild probably would have been banned for encouraging him.  :oh_i_see:

I actually have an account in good standing there which I basically don't post on at all. :oh_i_see:

As I recall the only infraction I got was a comment that Blizzard should fix the normalization formula to not favour slow weapons, to limit pvp burst (around the same time Hammer of the Righteous was introduced).  Really, if the rule of this forum was "No neckbeard or we infraction you!" I could probably live with that...  I'd just take it to game design. :why_so_serious:

Back in the Pre-BC days BG's were all you had.  Thus the hardcore PvP crowd was always the major driving force for putting pre-mades together.  However, often times they still had several spots/roles that needed to be filled and would pull in raiders who did occasional PvP or skilled/eager players who they may not have bothered to interact with otherwise.

Back in the pre-BC days BG's were all you had, and so you geared up in raids and then rolled retards.

Personally, I don't see why raid gear and pvp gear should have different stat allocations to keep people from jumping from pvp to raiding and vice versa in the same set, so long as they do something to un-break Burst/CC and bridge the gear differences.  I'm hoping that the news concerning instances will be the harbingers of one massive battlegroup merge and gear-based matching for BG pvp, like Warhammer was supposed to have, and actually had me interested.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 26, 2009, 05:49:55 PM
If you really want to go "back in the day" the only thing you had was Terran Mill.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 26, 2009, 05:54:42 PM
If you really want to go "back in the day" the only thing you had was Terran Mill.

And it was goddamn FUN.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on August 26, 2009, 05:57:57 PM
And it was goddamn FUN.
Fun for the 60's steamrolling the 20's.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 26, 2009, 06:36:36 PM
It was only fun for lack of anything else.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 26, 2009, 07:03:53 PM
And it was goddamn FUN.
Fun for the 60's steamrolling the 20's.

Nah, PVE server.  We didn't even push into the town as Alliance because we knew the horde would give up and go away were that the case.  We'd smack guards around until Horde 50s' and 60's started showing up.. then they'd charge us all en masse and the brawl was on for the night, traveling back and forth between southshore and TM for hours on end.  Each side swelling, peaking then ebbing off as the other side grew.   Pointless, but lots of fun.   The only 20's who got killed were those dumb enough to try and pick-off a high level who'd retreated to heal. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 26, 2009, 07:20:56 PM
And it was goddamn FUN.
Fun for the 60's steamrolling the 20's.

Nah, PVE server.  We didn't even push into the town as Alliance because we knew the horde would give up and go away were that the case.  We'd smack guards around until Horde 50s' and 60's started showing up.. then they'd charge us all en masse and the brawl was on for the night, traveling back and forth between southshore and TM for hours on end.  Each side swelling, peaking then ebbing off as the other side grew.   Pointless, but lots of fun.   The only 20's who got killed were those dumb enough to try and pick-off a high level who'd retreated to heal. 

Damn that stupid wandering mushroom seller though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 27, 2009, 12:52:50 AM
Way too grindy gameplay, and way too irrelevant world. I still don't know why I had to spend ten levels in outer space gaining rep with giant smurfs before I could get back to WoW.
It's a very quick ten levels.  Having nearly quit several times just trying to reach Outland, I much perfer them trying to make Azeroth, where I spent 60 levels, a more enjoyable experience.  They can fiddle with Outland next content patch/expansion.

I've leveled characters past 60 twice now, and the big slowdown, and least favorite part is when I step through that goddamn dark portal. Once I just stopped playing. The second time I gritted my teeth and did it, but hated every step.

They can toss the whole thing out of the game for all I care.





Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 27, 2009, 01:58:21 AM
Ratman I've honestly had the exact opposite experience. On my past 3 characters, 50-58 is just a nightmare. After the Hinterlands there are no good questhubs, so you have to bounce around earning half a level here, a level there, etc. Once you get to Hellfire you're back in quest heaven, STV style.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 27, 2009, 05:50:17 AM
Ratman I've honestly had the exact opposite experience. On my past 3 characters, 50-58 is just a nightmare. After the Hinterlands there are no good questhubs, so you have to bounce around earning half a level here, a level there, etc. Once you get to Hellfire you're back in quest heaven, STV style.

Plaguelands?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on August 27, 2009, 07:35:55 AM
Plaguelands?
Felwood, Winterspring.  I finish up at 60 before even getting more than a quest chain or two into the plaguelands these days.  There is no doubt that there is alot of running around in those zones though.  It's nowhere near the nightmare it used to be of being quested out at 52 and having to endure grinding to get past 55-56 where questing picked up again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 27, 2009, 07:42:24 AM
Plaguelands?
Felwood, Winterspring.  I finish up at 60 before even getting more than a quest chain or two into the plaguelands these days.  There is no doubt that there is alot of running around in those zones though.  It's nowhere near the nightmare it used to be of being quested out at 52 and having to endure grinding to get past 55-56 where questing picked up again.

Very true.  They even added in a second flight point into Felwood though (a while ago), so it really cuts down on the running up and down the entire zone that used to happen. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 27, 2009, 08:24:11 AM
And it was goddamn FUN.
Fun for the 60's steamrolling the 20's.

Nah, PVE server.  We didn't even push into the town as Alliance because we knew the horde would give up and go away were that the case.  We'd smack guards around until Horde 50s' and 60's started showing up.. then they'd charge us all en masse and the brawl was on for the night, traveling back and forth between southshore and TM for hours on end.  Each side swelling, peaking then ebbing off as the other side grew.   Pointless, but lots of fun.   The only 20's who got killed were those dumb enough to try and pick-off a high level who'd retreated to heal. 

PVP Server.  You're coming in on the flight path and you see the carnage, but there's no way to stop yourself.  You land.  Dead.  The guards are fighting a Warrior outside of town.  You try to fly out, but the Flight Master was the first to die.  You're rogue raped.  You hide in the church.  Dead again.  You try to run, they mount up and chase you down.  You log.

Fuck Hillsbrad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 27, 2009, 09:51:37 AM
Ratman I've honestly had the exact opposite experience. On my past 3 characters, 50-58 is just a nightmare. After the Hinterlands there are no good questhubs, so you have to bounce around earning half a level here, a level there, etc. Once you get to Hellfire you're back in quest heaven, STV style.

I'm not gonna strut it and say my opinion is the only right one. I did do it on a Pally both times, and they're not the quickest levelers in the pack. But Outlands seems so.... slow... compared to vanilla WoW. I did do the second run after the XP/Leveling boost, and that combined with using Jame's leveling guide took me to 60 pretty quickly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 27, 2009, 10:33:37 AM
I just did Outland on my poor old abandoned warrior, still wearing MC and level 60 craftable epics.

It did seem slower this time through, but fortunately there is so much quest/xp overkill now that you should never have to do a quest you don't like.  I got tired of Hellfire, moved on to Zangarmarsh, then left for Nagrand (my favorite) at the first chance.  I wasn't able to quite pull 68 out of Nagrand so I did Blade's Edge.  All of Terrokar, Shadowmoon and Netherstorm are still untouched.

Flying at 60 is also incredibly, stupendously convenient.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on August 27, 2009, 10:59:17 AM
My eldest just leveled through outland, she doesn't care for HFP at all, but completed enough of the quests there for the achievement.  Zangar got her to 68, and she moved to SMV, where she seems to be having a great old time.  I got to take my ghost seeing helmet out of the bank!

She'll be bugging me to upgrade her account to Wrath this weekend, no doubt. The flying mount (can you send me 200 gold daaaad? sure...why not) was a huge boost for her, so it'll be interesting to see how she handles Northrend.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 27, 2009, 11:40:13 AM
Ratman I've honestly had the exact opposite experience. On my past 3 characters, 50-58 is just a nightmare. After the Hinterlands there are no good questhubs, so you have to bounce around earning half a level here, a level there, etc. Once you get to Hellfire you're back in quest heaven, STV style.

I'm not gonna strut it and say my opinion is the only right one. I did do it on a Pally both times, and they're not the quickest levelers in the pack. But Outlands seems so.... slow... compared to vanilla WoW. I did do the second run after the XP/Leveling boost, and that combined with using Jame's leveling guide took me to 60 pretty quickly.

Once Lich King hit they also lowered the XP curve in Outland to match what they had previously done for 20-60, so if you haven't done it since then, it is much faster. Like, ding 68 in the 2nd or 3rd zone you hit faster.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 27, 2009, 11:51:56 AM
Neither WPL nor Felwood alone have enough quests to get you even from 50-55. EPL and Winterspring are both to high level to quest in at level 50.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 27, 2009, 11:54:07 AM
49-53ish is the "urgh this sucks" zone, still. They seem to be working on it with Cataclysm (one of the stated things was moving to an overlapping and smaller level bracket per zone)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 27, 2009, 11:58:48 AM
49-53ish is the "urgh this sucks" zone, still. They seem to be working on it with Cataclysm (one of the stated things was moving to an overlapping and smaller level bracket per zone)

Burning Steppes/Searing Gorge? Un'Goro? Dare I say... Azshara? Those are the ones I'd think about in that bracket and haven't seen mentioned yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 27, 2009, 11:58:49 AM
Once Lich King hit they also lowered the XP curve in Outland to match what they had previously done for 20-60, so if you haven't done it since then, it is much faster. Like, ding 68 in the 2nd or 3rd zone you hit faster.

Everyone says that, but I usually burn through Hellfire, Zangar, Nagrand and then I'm at 66/67.  I usually go and finish up in Netherstorm because the quests are so tightly grouped together.

Of course, I usually run out of rested EXP for most of it given just how fast you burn through it.

edit: End of old world for me is usually Un'goro (if there's anything left), Felwood, Winterspring and maybe a bit of the Plaguelands until I hit 58 (then goodbye fuckers, off to space).  Azshara is pretty useless for horde too.  By the time I got to it, there were like 3 quests left for my level.  Blasted Lands is good, but by the time I finish with Un'goro I'm past it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 27, 2009, 12:00:25 PM
49-53ish is the "urgh this sucks" zone, still. They seem to be working on it with Cataclysm (one of the stated things was moving to an overlapping and smaller level bracket per zone)

Burning Steppes/Searing Gorge? Un'Goro? Dare I say... Azshara? Those are the ones I'd think about in that bracket and haven't seen mentioned yet.

Azshara is completely useless as a zone for Alliance and I'm glad it's getting blowed up. I like to wander into Silithis once in a while, though, because it's soooooo empty.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 27, 2009, 12:03:34 PM
49-53ish is the "urgh this sucks" zone, still. They seem to be working on it with Cataclysm (one of the stated things was moving to an overlapping and smaller level bracket per zone)

Burning Steppes/Searing Gorge? Un'Goro? Dare I say... Azshara? Those are the ones I'd think about in that bracket and haven't seen mentioned yet.

Searing is green, and Burning and Ungoro are both orange. The problem is that all the zones start or end at 50, and usually have an assumption of you getting a few levels elsewhere. With the XP changes, I found I'd burned all yellow and low orange quests by the time I hit 49, and everything else was a little silly on the difficulty, or effectively grinding greens.

51 gets a lot better, but 51-53 is still a bit obnoxious where you'll run smack into +3 mobs on quests and still lack the massive power boost characters get with TBC gear opening up.

This is just all from my last attempt at leveling. I may level in a really odd pattern.

edit: fuck blowing up Ashzara! I've been waiting for that BG entrance to work longer than you've been waiting on Uldum!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hindenburg on August 27, 2009, 12:03:41 PM
Azshara is useless for everyone, barely has any quests in it as horde. Only good thing about it is killing Azuregos every once in a while, nice gold to it.

Silithus is terrible for leveling, mobs there have more hp and hit harder than everywhere else.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 27, 2009, 12:04:57 PM
Azshara is useless for everyone, barely has any quests in it as horde. Only good thing about it is killing Azuregos every once in a while, nice gold to it.

Silithus is terrible for leveling, mobs there have more hp and hit harder than everywhere else.

But, but, lolsand!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 27, 2009, 12:11:52 PM
Plus the cooking recipe from there!  :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on August 27, 2009, 12:12:16 PM
Azshara had only one use for me: Catching fish to level my cooking skill.  I think there is an engineering recipe there for a water breathing helm as well, but it has been a while.

Silithis sucks.  Period.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hindenburg on August 27, 2009, 12:15:03 PM
I think there is an engineering recipe there for a water breathing helm as well, but it has been a while.

Dude, hydrocane.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 27, 2009, 12:18:02 PM
Burning Steppes and Searing Gorge are so far out of the way (horde) that I had totally forgotten about them tbh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 27, 2009, 12:21:52 PM
I often top off in Silithus if I'm out of low hanging fruit in the other end-of-50s zones, because there are several quests you can do without having to wander too far from the flight point. Basically I do all the 'easy' quests in all of the high level zones (EPL, Winterspring, Silithus, Burning Steppes) and get myself a drink or whatever when flying to the next one.

The zones I always try hardest to skip if I can, personally, are Un'Goro and Desolace.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 27, 2009, 12:23:56 PM
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck Desolace. I'm glad that's getting exploded too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on August 27, 2009, 12:48:22 PM
I kinda like desolace but it was just way the hell to grey. I am glad its getting some love.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on August 27, 2009, 12:49:59 PM
Dude, hydrocane.

Yet another thing I was ignorant of.  Thanks for that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 27, 2009, 01:16:38 PM
Searing is green, and Burning and Ungoro are both orange. The problem is that all the zones start or end at 50, and usually have an assumption of you getting a few levels elsewhere. With the XP changes, I found I'd burned all yellow and low orange quests by the time I hit 49, and everything else was a little silly on the difficulty, or effectively grinding greens.

51 gets a lot better, but 51-53 is still a bit obnoxious where you'll run smack into +3 mobs on quests and still lack the massive power boost characters get with TBC gear opening up.

This is just all from my last attempt at leveling. I may level in a really odd pattern.

Yeah, we noticed you hit that leveling brick wall at around 50.  It took you what?  An hour to get from 50 to 60 instead of your more typical pace of 10 minutes or so?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 27, 2009, 01:21:23 PM
I have a thing for the ambiance of Aszhara, but I agree the quests are few and all involve humping back and forth down that loooong road infested with naga.

For Horde at least the quest giver is more centrally located.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 27, 2009, 01:40:05 PM
Ratman I've honestly had the exact opposite experience. On my past 3 characters, 50-58 is just a nightmare. After the Hinterlands there are no good questhubs, so you have to bounce around earning half a level here, a level there, etc. Once you get to Hellfire you're back in quest heaven, STV style.

I'm not gonna strut it and say my opinion is the only right one. I did do it on a Pally both times, and they're not the quickest levelers in the pack. But Outlands seems so.... slow... compared to vanilla WoW. I did do the second run after the XP/Leveling boost, and that combined with using Jame's leveling guide took me to 60 pretty quickly.

Once Lich King hit they also lowered the XP curve in Outland to match what they had previously done for 20-60, so if you haven't done it since then, it is much faster. Like, ding 68 in the 2nd or 3rd zone you hit faster.

Ah, I was 70 by then.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 27, 2009, 01:43:02 PM
Azshara is useless for everyone, barely has any quests in it as horde. Only good thing about it is killing Azuregos every once in a while, nice gold to it.


I love Azshara. Seriously. I used to farm General Fangferror on my hunter alt for kicks. (and his blue sword drop was worth a fair bit of gold on the AH) And there's not as much competition for Thorium there. (Even if it is a bit sparse and spaced out.)

Maybe I liked it because no one went there.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on August 27, 2009, 01:58:22 PM
I liked it because there is a large amount of stuff which just looks like it should have quests associated with it... but don't.  It's like a throwback to an earlier age - a huge zone filled with oddities that you have to hunt out, and no one leading you by the hand to tell you what or where they are.  I liked it because it was an oddity, not because I want to return to the grind.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 27, 2009, 04:11:43 PM
Badlands is the most pointless zone for alliance really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 27, 2009, 04:24:57 PM
Swamp of Sorrows is even worse, really. Badlands is pretty bad, but hey, you get your first shot at a plate BP reward or something there, I seem to recall from my noob warrior days!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 27, 2009, 04:37:59 PM
Swamp of Sorrows is the worst and most pointless zone for Alliance. It also has the stupidest, longest, most pointless 5 man in the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 27, 2009, 04:43:06 PM
I agree with you on two of those points but in terms of longest you must have blacked out all memories of BRD.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on August 27, 2009, 04:44:29 PM
BRD seemed long and pointless at... I forget if I went in there at 70 or 80.

Either way, it was still ridiculously long.

... wasn't that a 5 man instance?  Now the goddamn raids in WoW take less time than vanilla 5 mans.
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 27, 2009, 04:52:55 PM
BRD was longer, but it at least had many attunements and could be done in chunks. Clearing the whole damn thing wasn't really the goal usually. With Sunken Temple the quest was at the very end, and it required all those stupid intermediate running around in circles activating shit bothers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 27, 2009, 05:07:13 PM
they've mentioned a few times over the years that BRD was one of the first dungeons they designed.  It was intended to be this epic, sprawling place that went on forever and you could spend many levels running around in.  You see this by all the runs you can do.  Ring of Law, The Back doors for the giant, the gate, the fire eles, the salamander dude and the throne room.  Of course, it's way too fucking big and I don't know what made them realize it.

I think  Blackrock Spire with its two distinct experiences via the same entrance came later.  Then, towards the end of beta they designed Scarlet Monastery, and we know how loved that place is based on how every dungeon complex since then has used the hub design.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 27, 2009, 05:16:16 PM
Swamp of Sorrows is awesome for leveling herbalism. Otherwise yeah, useless for zee Alliance. I like it well enough as Horde, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 27, 2009, 05:22:38 PM
they've mentioned a few times over the years that BRD was one of the first dungeons they designed.  It was intended to be this epic, sprawling place that went on forever and you could spend many levels running around in.  You see this by all the runs you can do.  Ring of Law, The Back doors for the giant, the gate, the fire eles, the salamander dude and the throne room.  Of course, it's way too fucking big and I don't know what made them realize it.


Its the kind of thing that makes a ton of sense when you are designing dungeons around the idea of "hey, this is the evil dwarven city"  instead of "hey, this is going to be 30 minutes of trash and 3 bosses."  The former sounds WAY better on paper.  I can almost imagine them sitting around a table thinking about how awesome it will be to explore this hostile city with a bunch of people.  Come to find out, the MMO audience doesn't actually want to explore a city, they want dinggrats.  oops.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 27, 2009, 05:32:59 PM
they've mentioned a few times over the years that BRD was one of the first dungeons they designed.  It was intended to be this epic, sprawling place that went on forever and you could spend many levels running around in.  You see this by all the runs you can do.  Ring of Law, The Back doors for the giant, the gate, the fire eles, the salamander dude and the throne room.  Of course, it's way too fucking big and I don't know what made them realize it.


Its the kind of thing that makes a ton of sense when you are designing dungeons around the idea of "hey, this is the evil dwarven city"  instead of "hey, this is going to be 30 minutes of trash and 3 bosses."  The former sounds WAY better on paper.  I can almost imagine them sitting around a table thinking about how awesome it will be to explore this hostile city with a bunch of people.  Come to find out, the MMO audience doesn't actually want to explore a city, they want dinggrats.  oops.

I really liked exploring it quite a lot... the first time. I bet a lot of other people shared that experience, but the problem with MMOs is you can't get away with stuffing your game with a bunch of stuff people will only do once.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 27, 2009, 05:35:49 PM
The zones I always try hardest to skip if I can, personally, are Un'Goro and Desolace.

Un'goro is awesome.  I only got squashed by a dino once the last time I went.  Although I got mighty sick of the place when leveling mining.  Round and round we go. 

Still, it's a place you can turn in like 15 quests at once as you do a circuit of the entire zone.  Awesome for ding-grats and unintentional comedy (Devilsaur, I choose you!).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on August 27, 2009, 05:42:47 PM
Un'goro is awesome.  I only got squashed by a dino once the last time I went.  Although I got mighty sick of the place when leveling mining.  Round and round we go. 

Still, it's a place you can turn in like 15 quests at once as you do a circuit of the entire zone.  Awesome for ding-grats and unintentional comedy (Devilsaur, I choose you!).
So true.  My warlock just got 55 off of that place starting at 52-53ish or so.  Now that the kill counts are reduced and the mobs required are halved, it's a much happier place (still a good example of circuit quest design).

And for Horde, I am 1 bar from 56 and starting Felwood.  All of the quests are green (only the earliest grey out before 59-60 or so), and when turned in I'll be 57, then on to Winterspring for 58, and then back to Felwood to finish it up for 59 and maybe plaguelands if I haven't hit 60 before finishing the last of Winterspring (nothing greys out in Winterspring before 60).  I've done this on 3 different characters in the last few months, so I've got a pretty good system down for breaking through to 60 and hitting Outlands.  I know, everyone loves to hit it at 58, but I've had nothing but trouble when I tried to do that on some of the quests and the frustration at failing at Zeth'gor over and over was just too much to deal with.  Not to mention until recently you didn't get your epic land mount until 60 and trying to do HFP with mobs that can catch you and kill you on a 60% speed mount was no fun either.

I do Azshara as horde as it's good for one level or so if you hit the one quest hub and hit the other goblin for his quests.  Do all of those and you get a pretty decent amount of experience for the time invested.  Lots of running though.  Azshara does have some pretty nifty quests associated with it, but they are so far buried in elite 60 chains with such lousy rewards and time investments that no one ever bothered to do them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 27, 2009, 05:55:18 PM
I suppose I can stop skipping Un'goro now that mounts can swim, thinking about it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on August 27, 2009, 05:56:22 PM
I love Azshara!  Fairly high level herbs just a skip away from Orgrimmar.  Plus just a beautiful zone and quiet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 27, 2009, 05:57:53 PM
BRD style dungeons would be fine if the trash didn't respawn. They would be better suited as a raid. CoT:BRD would be something I would jump at in a heartbeat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hindenburg on August 27, 2009, 06:07:59 PM
If they reduced the amount of trash by 85%, sure.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 27, 2009, 11:12:34 PM
(http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2009/august/pandarenmonk2.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azaroth on August 27, 2009, 11:52:30 PM
Swamp of Sorrows is the worst and most pointless zone for Alliance. It also has the stupidest, longest, most pointless 5 man in the game.

"Hey man, can you please run me through ST?"



groaaaaaaaaaaan.....


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 28, 2009, 05:24:42 AM
Swamp of Sorrows is the worst and most pointless zone for Alliance. It also has the stupidest, longest, most pointless 5 man in the game.

"Hey man, can you please run me through ST?"



groaaaaaaaaaaan.....

ST isn't THAT bad, but it does have the problem of having a pretty big level gap which makes it almost impossible to do the end stuff when if you've gone in at the right level for the beginning stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 28, 2009, 05:29:31 AM
ST is one of those instances that is interesting to do once; like Uldaman.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Scadente on August 28, 2009, 05:38:48 AM
I always found BRD to be the best instance in WoW, ever. Not design-wise, it was a horrible play experience unless you knew exactly what to do. But the feeling of a sprawling dungeon with multiple paths is unique in WoW. Clearing all of it with a group of five back in Vanilla was a feat, hell just getting to the final boss required some good group coordination. It also had plenty of "fun" quests to complete and secrets (such as the enchantment books, opening of the vaults, several ways to get past the bar etc.). It was an experience, rather then a roller-coaster ride of mobs and bosses.

Ungoro is also, imho, the best old-world zone design-wise. As mentioned, you can do the whole zone in two circuits, and it has plenty of quests that gel well with other zones, such as winterspring and felwood.

As for Cataclysm... I just got a reason to resub, in a year! I think it looks terrific. And I believe that, unless a better alternative presents itself (yeah right), they will probably recoup plenty old and burned-out players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 28, 2009, 07:15:48 AM
You'd hate to be the guy releasing another generic diku who has to compete with "WoW rebuilt from level 1 with everything Blizzard learned over 5 years".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 28, 2009, 09:32:11 AM
Good.  Maybe we'll get some other options then.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 28, 2009, 09:37:10 AM
I always found BRD to be the best instance in WoW, ever. Not design-wise, it was a horrible play experience unless you knew exactly what to do. But the feeling of a sprawling dungeon with multiple paths is unique in WoW. Clearing all of it with a group of five back in Vanilla was a feat, hell just getting to the final boss required some good group coordination. It also had plenty of "fun" quests to complete and secrets (such as the enchantment books, opening of the vaults, several ways to get past the bar etc.). It was an experience, rather then a roller-coaster ride of mobs and bosses.

Agree. The dungeons and raids have evolved to be more efficient, but lost a lot of character doing it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 28, 2009, 10:10:31 AM
I always found BRD to be the best instance in WoW, ever. Not design-wise, it was a horrible play experience unless you knew exactly what to do. But the feeling of a sprawling dungeon with multiple paths is unique in WoW. Clearing all of it with a group of five back in Vanilla was a feat, hell just getting to the final boss required some good group coordination. It also had plenty of "fun" quests to complete and secrets (such as the enchantment books, opening of the vaults, several ways to get past the bar etc.). It was an experience, rather then a roller-coaster ride of mobs and bosses.

Agree. The dungeons and raids have evolved to be more efficient, but lost a lot of character doing it.

Hell, the stupid little gauntlet room in UP seems to trip up PUGs STILL sometimes, imagine if people had to do The Lyceum, ick.

Incidentally, one of my favorite things I did at the end of vanilla when I was overgeared was duoing every boss in BRD with me (druid), and a friend of mine (another druid).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 28, 2009, 10:11:53 AM
Kara was the last raid with character.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 28, 2009, 10:24:13 AM
Oh, I don't know, I like Ulduar's character. But I like Titany crap, so that might be part of it.

I do miss Kara, though. Even though I ran it enough to get exalted on multiple characters.  :why_so_serious: That must count for something, rite?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hindenburg on August 28, 2009, 10:28:25 AM
Eh, I actually liked ToC, made sense and fit the setting somewhat well. Hearing the announcer the first time, with the audience and everything, was very good, and as much as we like to bash jousting, the overall performance increased drastically over the course of a few weeks. When it was just released, it was common to see puggers getting dismounted and killed, nowadays it's a rarity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 28, 2009, 10:41:22 AM
Oh, I don't know, I like Ulduar's character. But I like Titany crap, so that might be part of it.

I do miss Kara, though. Even though I ran it enough to get exalted on multiple characters.  :why_so_serious: That must count for something, rite?

What I've seen of Ulduar so far I've really liked, it's a sort of mad giant's playground. I don't get much of a feeling of genuine hostility off it as yet, more malfunction - I'd be interested to see exactly how it's been corrupted malignantly by Yogg Saron etc - for now it's massive tinkertoys on the rampage! And X(treme) T(antrum) Toddlerbot is the best of all! No no no NO NO NO NO NO NO! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L9RgU8KB6A)

I also really enjoyed Kara, though I've only been once and at a speed that rendered the details somewhat blurred.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2009, 10:55:57 AM
You'd hate to be the guy releasing another generic diku who has to compete with "WoW rebuilt from level 1 with everything Blizzard learned over 5 years".

You'd think. Doesn't seem to stop multimillion dollar development teams from sticking their feet in the beartrap and wiggling vigorously on the trigger.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 28, 2009, 11:40:01 AM
Thinking upon it further, I think PART of what made Karazahn fun for me was the silly little quest line. It totally acknowledged you were going to go in there a jillion times, and I don't mind quest series that take you into a dungeon multiple times if I'm at the level cap, because I AM going to go in there multiple times. WotLK is sorely, sorely lacking in any quests to really tie into the raids (although there will supposedly be one for the three Icecrown five mans, if I remember right), and it does hurt the character of them somewhat, I think.

OS is the very worst offender of this, but I've babbled about that already.

And yes, XT is rad. I love his voice acting. <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nonentity on August 28, 2009, 11:42:22 AM
I remember you...

...in the mountains.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 28, 2009, 11:55:00 AM
Holy shit, that XT song is fantastic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 28, 2009, 12:05:04 PM
I like ulduar most because it's got a single coherent storyline that extends from all the things you were doing in storm peaks including even HOL and HOS. Even Algalon is explained in a reasonable way.  Whether you enjoy the actual aesthetic of the dungeon or not, it's got a purpose other than "there's things to kill in here"

It actually took me a second time doing storm peaks quests to realize razorscale was the broodmother you help thorim get.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on August 28, 2009, 12:06:31 PM
Holy shit, that XT song is fantastic.

That's going to be a mandatory listening download and listening party thing for the XT fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 28, 2009, 12:08:00 PM
I like ulduar most because it's got a single coherent storyline that extends from all the things you were doing in storm peaks including even HOL and HOS. Even Algalon is explained in a reasonable way.  Whether you enjoy the actual aesthetic of the dungeon or not, it's got a purpose other than "there's things to kill in here"

It actually took me a second time doing storm peaks quests to realize razorscale was the broodmother you help thorim get.

I also like that the fights mostly have logic to them. As much as I like doing the Heigan dance in Naxx, it doesn't really make any *sense*.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 28, 2009, 12:19:59 PM
If your friends can't dance then they're no friends of the lich king, obviously.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 28, 2009, 01:09:53 PM
I like ulduar most because it's got a single coherent storyline that extends from all the things you were doing in storm peaks including even HOL and HOS. Even Algalon is explained in a reasonable way.  Whether you enjoy the actual aesthetic of the dungeon or not, it's got a purpose other than "there's things to kill in here"

That's why I hates OS so much in general terms. Yes, apparently the comic explains wtf all that shit is and why we would ever care about it, but in game? There is not even a teeny little peep about it. It's the most blatant "there are things in here to kill for loots" raid, and I guess I prefer to have window dressing for that.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Vash on August 28, 2009, 01:23:37 PM
I like ulduar most because it's got a single coherent storyline that extends from all the things you were doing in storm peaks including even HOL and HOS. Even Algalon is explained in a reasonable way.  Whether you enjoy the actual aesthetic of the dungeon or not, it's got a purpose other than "there's things to kill in here"

That's why I hates OS so much in general terms. Yes, apparently the comic explains wtf all that shit is and why we would ever care about it, but in game? There is not even a teeny little peep about it. It's the most blatant "there are things in here to kill for loots" raid, and I guess I prefer to have window dressing for that.  :oh_i_see:

Actually the Cataclysm announcement explains OS just as good as any comic I imagine.  Deathwing is leading a new dragonflight, the Twilight Dragonflight.  Vesperon, Tenebron, and the other drake in OS are all the first brood of Twilight Drakes, the first sucessful results in attempts to create a new breed of dragons.  Sartharion is there to guard them (presumably under orders from Deathwing).

So really OS was a giant foreshadowing of Cataclysm apparently.   :facepalm:  ( I honestly haven't read the comic or talked to anyone who has, I was able to put all that together just from the Cataclysm annoucements and in game text/dialogue)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 28, 2009, 01:26:32 PM
I remember you...

...in the mountains.
Holy shit, that XT song is fantastic.
From the same bloke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yBY-T2MDkU


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 28, 2009, 01:32:20 PM
I like ulduar most because it's got a single coherent storyline that extends from all the things you were doing in storm peaks including even HOL and HOS. Even Algalon is explained in a reasonable way.  Whether you enjoy the actual aesthetic of the dungeon or not, it's got a purpose other than "there's things to kill in here"

That's why I hates OS so much in general terms. Yes, apparently the comic explains wtf all that shit is and why we would ever care about it, but in game? There is not even a teeny little peep about it. It's the most blatant "there are things in here to kill for loots" raid, and I guess I prefer to have window dressing for that.  :oh_i_see:

Actually the Cataclysm announcement explains OS just as good as any comic I imagine.  Deathwing is leading a new dragonflight, the Twilight Dragonflight.  Vesperon, Tenebron, and the other drake in OS are all the first brood of Twilight Drakes, the first sucessful results in attempts to create a new breed of dragons.  Sartharion is there to guard them (presumably under orders from Deathwing).

So really OS was a giant foreshadowing of Cataclysm apparently.   :facepalm:  ( I honestly haven't read the comic or talked to anyone who has, I was able to put all that together just from the Cataclysm annoucements and in game text/dialogue)

Oh, I know the story behind it, I knew it before the Cataclysm thing, but not from anything at ALL in-game. And that's my objection. I shouldn't have to think "what the fuck are we doing here, anyway?" to myself and then go look it up on WoWwiki or whatever. I don't mind it as much when it's shit that happened in the RTS games (WotLK does do a pretty good job of telling you what the Lich King's deal is through quests though, imo), but throwing in shit from non-game sources and expecting me to know or give a crap about what is going on drives me crazy.

On the other hand, I hate that I knew who Rhonin was before WotLK.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 28, 2009, 01:42:48 PM
From what little I pay attention to, the Lich King has fallen on hard financial times, and has been using the players as an excuse to downsize his management staff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 28, 2009, 02:07:36 PM
I always think of it as part of his plan.  Just like the argent crusade is trying to find the strongest warriors, so is the lich king.  Look at all the vrykuls storylines and the combats that go on between them to find the strongest.  Atm arthas has just about all the expendable ghouls he'll ever need, right now he's looking for champions.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 28, 2009, 02:15:28 PM
That's about the only reasonable and slightly rational explanation for why he repeatedly encounters the player and doesn't smite them.  All in all it feels kind of silly, but there's a slight bit of reason to it so it doesn't feel entirely dumb, only mostly dumb.  Seriously dude, just kill everyone, raise them, and THEN let them fight it out to see who's fit to be your champion.  After they're under your control and pose no serious threat to you.  Besides which, shouldn't he have learned his lesson about strong-willed underlings from Sylvanas, not to mention oh, say, himself (as related to his relationship with Kil'jaeden)?  So yeah, still feels mostly dumb.

On the other hand, they said they want to make Deathwing a strong presence and pointed to how they did the Lich King, but I see no reason why Deathwing would encounter someone and not squash them.  So hopefully they won't do it in the same 'funny, we just keep running into each other' method.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 28, 2009, 03:42:41 PM
There's this good group of dragons, fighting an evil group of dragons. Some of them are flying around their big tower, while others are camping out in their basement. Kill them all. Or is there more?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on August 28, 2009, 04:39:11 PM
The lich king is convinced that you'll corrupt yourself so much in the process of going through Northrend, that you'll end up on his side.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 28, 2009, 04:42:00 PM
The lich king is convinced that you'll corrupt yourself so much in the process of going through Northrend, that you'll end up on his side.

If I could betray my companions mid fight, I would. That would be fantastic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 28, 2009, 05:05:12 PM
Oh, I don't know, I like Ulduar's character. But I like Titany crap, so that might be part of it.

I do miss Kara, though. Even though I ran it enough to get exalted on multiple characters.  :why_so_serious: That must count for something, rite?

Oh I like Ulduar a lot, and it's leaps and bounds ahead of Naxx 2.0, VoA and EoE for atmosphere. Especially the first time after you down Mimiron and you walk the descent into madness, that part of the zone is especially cool. Actually I was probably being overly-hasty saying Kara was the last raid with character.

What I meant to sat is that Kara was the last raid where the all the elements of zone felt like they belonged together. It was a house gone mad, and the layout of the raid felt like you were progressing through a house. This is something which Ulduar sort of has, and does far better than Naxx, but isn't quite on. The scrapyard area makes some sense, and the descent into madness; but a lot of the interior just feels like a nicely painted box to house mobs. In kara, the ballroom was haunted by dancers, the stables by skeletal steeds and the bedrooms by succubi. The element Kara captured best for me was the sense that, even if you weren't there, the mansion and it's denizens would continue on that course. In Ulduar, as with so many other raids, you feel like the mobs are there solely to face you, and aren't linked to any particular part of the instance. What would the Iron Dwarves be doing in Ulduar if you weren't there? The mimiron trash sort of makes sense, but most of the rest of it lacks an implied reason to be there that you are interrupting.





Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 28, 2009, 05:08:40 PM
Thinking upon it further, I think PART of what made Karazahn fun for me was the silly little quest line. It totally acknowledged you were going to go in there a jillion times, and I don't mind quest series that take you into a dungeon multiple times if I'm at the level cap, because I AM going to go in there multiple times. WotLK is sorely, sorely lacking in any quests to really tie into the raids (although there will supposedly be one for the three Icecrown five mans, if I remember right), and it does hurt the character of them somewhat, I think.

OS is the very worst offender of this, but I've babbled about that already.

And yes, XT is rad. I love his voice acting. <3

This too, I really liked the Violet Eye rep, it wasn't necessary in anyway, but you felt like you were getting something even on bad nights. I'm not sure when Blizzard changed to feeling that raid reps were a bad thing; also raid-quests. Ulduar would have been perfect for this as there are NPCs right at the start who's sole purpose is to... vanish. Seems like an undeveloped resource. The voice acting in Ulduar is also really great; although I also like Jaraxxus in ToC, since he's sort of Malchezzar Redux.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 28, 2009, 07:39:19 PM
Nothing beat Darkshire for me in terms of best quest hub. It's probably the only zone that felt immersive to me in the entire old world. I probably made that word up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on August 29, 2009, 05:38:57 AM
What? Immersive? Really?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 29, 2009, 08:48:48 AM
What? Immersive? Really?  :awesome_for_real:

It needs to be added to the spellcheck then.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 29, 2009, 11:49:07 AM
Darkshire is quite possibly the best zone in the game for overall theme, design, and especially writing. There's a lot of good writing that people never see there since people complain about having to run across the zone (you can get mounts at 20 now, so shut the fuck up about it).

You know how all of the vendor NPCs used to have a dialog when you'd click on them to shop? There's a mod that re-enables that as an attached window to the shop window. Get that. There's unique stuff to Darkshire that rules.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 29, 2009, 12:44:03 PM
You know how all of the vendor NPCs used to have a dialog when you'd click on them to shop? There's a mod that re-enables that as an attached window to the shop window. Get that. There's unique stuff to Darkshire that rules.

Oh sweet, I actually miss the dialogue stuff on vendors n' crap. Maybe when I finally start installing mods again (I am so laaaaazy!), I'll try to find that one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 29, 2009, 01:34:02 PM
Damn, I don't know how you all got so much theme and style out of Kara. To me it was the weirdest mish-mash of illogical stuff. You literally walk from a werewolf theater to a trash compactor to a spaceship or some weird stuff, then all of a sudden there's a museum owned by robots next to a feces factory or whatever.

It was someone's mansion all this time?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 29, 2009, 01:42:59 PM
You know how all of the vendor NPCs used to have a dialog when you'd click on them to shop? There's a mod that re-enables that as an attached window to the shop window. Get that. There's unique stuff to Darkshire that rules.

Oh sweet, I actually miss the dialogue stuff on vendors n' crap. Maybe when I finally start installing mods again (I am so laaaaazy!), I'll try to find that one.
Here you go: http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addons/details/gossipmonger.aspx


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 29, 2009, 02:43:45 PM
Yeah, I can get liking Karazhan, but it was pretty fucking out there.

Tempest Keep was also pretty fucking awesome if you had a fetish for extra large elven women. :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on August 29, 2009, 07:37:41 PM
Re-rail:  Today I formed a group and we completed UK and Nexus.  I got four drops and along with my blue quest rewards I gained like seven blues total! 

The reason I bring this up?  I'm just now imagining the old world revamped based on what they've learned from WoTLK.  Holee crap.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 29, 2009, 08:27:44 PM
Re-rail:  Today I formed a group and we completed UK and Nexus.  I got four drops and along with my blue quest rewards I gained like seven blues total! 

The reason I bring this up?  I'm just now imagining the old world revamped based on what they've learned from WoTLK.  Holee crap.

Even though I know the experience will be a ton better, its still going to be bittersweet when I see them take the old dungeons and make them into 20 minute loot factories.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 30, 2009, 12:11:29 AM
They're not gonna do that. They already did their big Old Dungeon Revamp (all the bosses drop blues now and don't stretch over 458784 levels like they used to). Some of the old dungeons are still pretty long, and they might reitemize again, but redesign all the old dungeons? I really, really doubt that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 30, 2009, 12:56:04 AM
...take the old dungeons and make them into 20 minute loot factories.

You're going to need to take me step-by-step through this process, because in my inebriated state (seriously: I can barely walk straight) I can't see 20 minute loot factories as anything but a good thing.  Because if the players return after they've got their loots it's a strong indication that you did, in fact, do an excellent job with the pacing, the architecture, and the general feel.  If not, you've failed, and if you did a passable job of modernization chances are the source you had to work with wasn't too great either.

Really, trivialization of the loot is the least of your worries, simply because the loot itself should have no inherent  connection to the instance except perhaps in looks.  At the top of the list of things you should be worried about I'd put rye whiskey, which is fucking tasty straight and makes a damn good mixer. :why_so_serious:

PS: If you see a news article about someone from some random boonies area in Ontario who succumbed to alcohol poisoning that's me. /wave


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 30, 2009, 02:06:32 AM
I expect if they were going to fully redesign all the old world dungeons, that would have been part of the big reveal. Instead they very specifically said ONLY Deadmines and Shadowfang Keep were getting the heroic treatment, and also went on a bit about how the new Blackrock dungeon was done INSTEAD of re-doing BRS and BRD. They're not going to fully redo the dungeons. I expect them to redo the quests associated with them, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 30, 2009, 04:17:09 AM
Another Report from the Desk of "Why the Fuck are you still awake?" news! :

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/08/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/


Some Re-hashing, a few bits of new info.

Camp Tarujo burns!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 30, 2009, 06:09:53 AM
Quote
Things we would do is to go back and look at quests that say, “Bring me 20 of this item.” These days, we might want to cut that to 10. And maybe we’ll up the spawn rate on the thing you’re looking for. That’s the kind of stuff that we go back and do, and those are things we can do really quickly. So in a zone like that, we can burn through it really quick. But in something like the Barrens, where it’s split in half, it’s regrown, there are huge cracks in it, and Camp Taurajo is burned down and attacked by the Alliance — in that case, you are talking about an entire revamp. And the zones that are big like that, that we think every player will flow through, those are the zones we are going to spend that time on.

Halle-fucking-leuja.

They also confirm certain old-world achieves will go away.  They don't mention which ones, but if you've got old world ones you need to do, get 'em done now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 30, 2009, 09:49:15 AM
We'll have to do a big "let's raid all the Old World dungeons" event.  What else is specifically Old World?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 30, 2009, 10:03:10 AM
The old raids.  With Nef 2.0 and Rag 2.0 in Cat I'd almost bet that MC and BWL will be going away.   AQ is fairly useless right now, too.. so they might remove it.   

The goblin stuff doesn't have related achieves other than the Exalted rep ones, but the Bloodsail Admiral rep does.  We've yet to hear about what happens to the Everlook, BB and Gadgetzan reps.

The Loremaster achieves I don't believe they'd remove, but will just lower the # of quests required so it's possible.  From the way they've been talking they're taking this opportunity to redo a lot of the lowbie stuff as well, so we might see some old quest lines disappear.

I don't think there were achievs associated with the Pally and Lock mount quests, but if there are those would go away, since I'm sure we'll be losing the ability to do them. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 30, 2009, 10:26:18 AM
The goblin stuff doesn't have related achieves other than the Exalted rep ones, but the Bloodsail Admiral rep does.  We've yet to hear about what happens to the Everlook, BB and Gadgetzan reps.

I doubt they'll do anything with the Steamwheedle Goblins since it's likely the Horde Goblins are a different faction.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 30, 2009, 10:29:02 AM
Speaking as somewhat of an altaholic, adding an achievement/title for the Bloodsail stuff was totally retarded.  You can hardly ever even get the quests you need in Booty Bay these days, as all the Goblins are permanently dead.  Poor guys.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on August 30, 2009, 11:38:18 AM
I don't think there were achievs associated with the Pally and Lock mount quests

There are. (http://www.wowwiki.com/Charger_%28achievement%29)

I do wonder how they'll handle legacy stuff in the old world.  My 80 paladin still has Hecular's Rod, waiting for the perfect moment to attack Southshore, and my Rogue and Warlock are both sitting on their level 50 class quest for ST until they can solo it.  I've got a ton of characters who are scattered around the world in mid-chain somewhere.  I am kind of curious how much of this stuff is going to be wiped.  I suspect the current Loremaster quests will be moved to Feats of Strength, since A) they weren't tracked on a per-zone basis the way they are in all the new content, and B) it would make the difficulty of achieving them highly variable between characters who were started before or after the expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 30, 2009, 11:50:53 AM
Interesting stuff.

Quote
Wired.com: For people who are nostalgic for the old world before Cataclysm, is there going to be some way to revisit Azeroth as it was before?

Stockton: I think that’s what Caverns of Time is for.

This sounds neat. Glad they're planning this. I wonder how they'll handle "killing Arthas."

Quote
Level up a new night elf through (original old world areas) Teldrassil and Darkshore… It doesn’t feel as good as going to (Wrath of the Lich King’s) Howling Fjord, brand new at level 70. It just doesn’t feel that same way to us, and I think we all want to bring it up to that level.

Meh. I hate when people try to bring things to the "same level." Then the whole thing is the same intensity. It's like listening to a monotone for five minutes.

Quote
You have...the re-rollers who keep re-starting, but never get past 35. They have eight characters and they are all between 30 and 40. We want to get that player to 80.

This is interesting, if a bit confusing. I wonder why this is a goal for them.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nonentity on August 30, 2009, 12:08:19 PM
I'm sad that Camp Tacobell is burning :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 30, 2009, 12:09:20 PM
The fact a player peters out at 35 consistantly tells them something is messed up at 35 and they should look at what and why that is. And if it's a big enough chunk of players for them to even notice this, it's a big enough chunk of players to investegate.

Also, I think they're talking about the same level of quality, not necessarily difficulty or whatever. Why would making sure everything is as good as <whatever> be a bad thing?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on August 30, 2009, 01:23:05 PM
On the topic of old dungeons going dodo, if you look at Blizzcon maps for old world stuff, you can see that Silithus is still there, but the area where AQ is is now covered in yellow.  I took the yellow to mean 'will be covered in water in Cataclysm'.  I might be wrong though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 30, 2009, 01:31:01 PM
This is interesting, if a bit confusing. I wonder why this is a goal for them.

If you're not raiding, you're not playing WoW. *whipcrack* Start having fun, moron!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 30, 2009, 01:35:38 PM
The fact a player peters out at 35 consistantly tells them something is messed up at 35 and they should look at what and why that is. And if it's a big enough chunk of players for them to even notice this, it's a big enough chunk of players to investegate.

Also, I think they're talking about the same level of quality, not necessarily difficulty or whatever. Why would making sure everything is as good as <whatever> be a bad thing?

I'd say about half my guild are alt-oholics. (Total guess there) Point is, there's a lot of them. If I'm bored of a class, I usually drop out in the late teens-early 20's. I think anyone who makes it to 30-40 is re-rolling because that's generally when they've mastered the class and go "Oh, I could make a Tauren Hunter! Yay!" Alt-oholics are gonna re-roll no matter what Blizz does. They can just change the point where they decide to swtich characters.
In other words, I don't think it's a problem with the game. It's just where the gameplay shakes out the altitus.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 30, 2009, 01:48:08 PM
On the topic of old dungeons going dodo, if you look at Blizzcon maps for old world stuff, you can see that Silithus is still there, but the area where AQ is is now covered in yellow.  I took the yellow to mean 'will be covered in water in Cataclysm'.  I might be wrong though.
Apparently, in the (*sigh*) Warcraft comics, C'thun is back ('even death can die' and all that) and being served by Cho'gall - who is being mutated into some sort of ogre/Thing That Was Not Meant To Be hybrid.

So I'm fully expecting 4.1 or 4.2 to be Ahn'Qiraj redux.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 30, 2009, 02:01:40 PM
The fact a player peters out at 35 consistantly tells them something is messed up at 35 and they should look at what and why that is. And if it's a big enough chunk of players for them to even notice this, it's a big enough chunk of players to investegate.

Also, I think they're talking about the same level of quality, not necessarily difficulty or whatever. Why would making sure everything is as good as <whatever> be a bad thing?

I'd say about half my guild are alt-oholics. (Total guess there) Point is, there's a lot of them. If I'm bored of a class, I usually drop out in the late teens-early 20's. I think anyone who makes it to 30-40 is re-rolling because that's generally when they've mastered the class and go "Oh, I could make a Tauren Hunter! Yay!" Alt-oholics are gonna re-roll no matter what Blizz does. They can just change the point where they decide to swtich characters.
In other words, I don't think it's a problem with the game. It's just where the gameplay shakes out the altitus.

I think that's the point, why should the gameplay wear on a person so much? They ought to have fun playing otherwise, what's the point? I know for a fact I'd love to have a few 80's just so i can play different aspects or, if i chose to raid on another toon instead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 30, 2009, 02:33:33 PM
The fact a player peters out at 35 consistantly tells them something is messed up at 35 and they should look at what and why that is. And if it's a big enough chunk of players for them to even notice this, it's a big enough chunk of players to investegate.

Also, I think they're talking about the same level of quality, not necessarily difficulty or whatever. Why would making sure everything is as good as <whatever> be a bad thing?

I'd say about half my guild are alt-oholics. (Total guess there) Point is, there's a lot of them. If I'm bored of a class, I usually drop out in the late teens-early 20's. I think anyone who makes it to 30-40 is re-rolling because that's generally when they've mastered the class and go "Oh, I could make a Tauren Hunter! Yay!" Alt-oholics are gonna re-roll no matter what Blizz does. They can just change the point where they decide to swtich characters.
In other words, I don't think it's a problem with the game. It's just where the gameplay shakes out the altitus.

I roll a lot of alts myself. You'd never hear me say rolling alts and a lot of 'em is a bad thing. I'm totallyy pissed we're not getting any new character slots in Cataclysm. But I still have made it to cap on several characters (I had 3 60's, then 5 70's, and currently have four 80's).

I suspect Blizzard thinks altaholics rerolling before getting a single character to cap all the time means there's probably an issue. Because it obviously held their attention long enough for 35, what happened that made them stop? I think it's less "rolling alts is bad" and more "people never ever making it to cap means something WE did is wrong."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on August 30, 2009, 02:45:17 PM
Because it obviously held their attention long enough for 35, what happened that made them stop?

Novelty.  Unless they make classes drop all their abilities and gain all new ones and also by the way gain a new look and possibly new faction, they'll never "fix" this issue.  Which btw I don't think is an issue if you couldn't tell.

Alt-aholics just like to level and like to learn all new ways to play.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 30, 2009, 04:18:50 PM
In my experience, even the people who roll a gajillion alts always intend to one day hit the level cap with their various characters. They aren't just people distracted by shineys and go scampering off to investegate it, never to return. What y'all are saying is "they get bored!" Well sure, I know that. I am pretty sure Blizzard knows that. And Blizzard wants them to not get bored. Yes, there's a certain point where you just accept some people have zero attention span, but I sincerely doubt anyone things there aren't boring parts that a lot of people stall in and then go "screw it, I'll make a new character."

That was my problem in CoX. The grind would eventually get bad enough where even if I really LIKED the character, I'd say "screw it, I'll make a new character." I did it with Icewind Dale, too. I'd get my party to level three or so and wonder if Some Other Party would be better. And I've done it with WoW for sure. "Oh God, I'm in the 30's and I don't have a mount and the quests I have left are the annoying ones that make me run all over the world for no reason. Screw it, I'm gonna make another hunter."

I think all Blizzard wants to do is make sure they don't have anything in the game that's so annoying people would rather just roll alt #345234564236 (and again, is ANYONE arguing WoW doesn't have this?). I can't see this as a bad thing, this striving to make the game fun enough that even people that are EXTREMELY easily distracted want to get to cap at least once.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 30, 2009, 04:57:15 PM
In my experience, even the people who roll a gajillion alts always intend to one day hit the level cap with their various characters. They aren't just people distracted by shineys and go scampering off to investegate it, never to return. What y'all are saying is "they get bored!" Well sure, I know that. I am pretty sure Blizzard knows that. And Blizzard wants them to not get bored. Yes, there's a certain point where you just accept some people have zero attention span, but I sincerely doubt anyone things there aren't boring parts that a lot of people stall in and then go "screw it, I'll make a new character."

Nah. What I'm saying is that there's a point where an alt-person will feel that they're done with their class and want to play with a different set of toys. On average, this seems to be 35. I don't even think it's boredom or a factor of 35ish content having some undefinded problem with it that causes players to lose interest. Note that they do not quit the game. They make a new character.

I could be completely wrong here, I'm not a big alt player, and this is only observation. But I think it's a matter of /time played and/or unlocking of abilities and those two happen to intersect at the 35 level range. I don't think it's a content issue, but a character progression issue.

Quote
I think all Blizzard wants to do is make sure they don't have anything in the game that's so annoying people would rather just roll alt #345234564236 (and again, is ANYONE arguing WoW doesn't have this?). I can't see this as a bad thing, this striving to make the game fun enough that even people that are EXTREMELY easily distracted want to get to cap at least once.

Sure. If Blizzard finds some cockblock at 35 and yanks it from the game, good jerb.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 30, 2009, 05:38:59 PM
I doubt they'll do anything with the Steamwheedle Goblins since it's likely the Horde Goblins are a different faction.
Horde goblins are Bilgewater Cartel, iirc.

Camp Tarujo burns!
King Beefslab McFistgroin: "I shall clearly demonstrated that the Horde is evil and must be punished by picking on the closest thing this world has to genuine nice guys and razing one of their towns. This shall unequivocally show that it's all the orcs fault and not, for example, make the Tauren equate the Alliance with the centaur clans that used to do the exact same thing (which nearly drove the tauren to extinction) thereby cementing their bond with the rest of the Horde and giving Bairne Bloodhoof one final reason to give new Warchief Hellscream their full backing".

 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 30, 2009, 05:51:40 PM
To be fair, the tauren kill the shit out of dwarves when they get a chance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 30, 2009, 05:53:17 PM
They do?  Where'd you read that?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 30, 2009, 06:04:09 PM
I think it's got something to do with the dwarves stomping up and excavating tauren burial grounds without so much as a by-your-leave then shooting anyone who comes to complain.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 30, 2009, 06:05:08 PM
Here's my rich lore-derived justification: Fuck 'em, they're in the Horde ain't they?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 30, 2009, 06:32:30 PM
Yep, and it's thinking like that which is going to lose Ashenvale and most of Gilneas for the Alliance.  :awesome_for_real:
Someone needs to point out to Wrynn that the Horde only lost the second war because Gul'dan up and took about a third of the orcish clans on a wild goose chase. Preferably (for the Alliance, at least) before the Blightspreaders are lobbing barrels of bioweapon over the walls of Stormwind.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 30, 2009, 06:43:06 PM
Yep, and it's thinking like that which is going to lose Ashenvale and most of Gilneas for the Alliance.  :awesome_for_real:
Someone needs to point out to Wrynn that the Horde only lost the second war because Gul'dan up and took about a third of the orcish clans on a wild goose chase. Preferably (for the Alliance, at least) before the Blightspreaders are lobbing barrels of bioweapon over the walls of Stormwind.

Also, Southshore.

God, I hope hecular is there and was instrumental in southshore's downfall. Seriously, how awesome would that be?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 30, 2009, 07:06:11 PM
I doubt they'll do anything with the Steamwheedle Goblins since it's likely the Horde Goblins are a different faction.
Horde goblins are Bilgewater Cartel, iirc.

Camp Tarujo burns!
King Beefslab McFistgroin: "I shall clearly demonstrated that the Horde is evil and must be punished by picking on the closest thing this world has to genuine nice guys and razing one of their towns. This shall unequivocally show that it's all the orcs fault and not, for example, make the Tauren equate the Alliance with the centaur clans that used to do the exact same thing (which nearly drove the tauren to extinction) thereby cementing their bond with the rest of the Horde and giving Bairne Bloodhoof one final reason to give new Warchief Hellscream their full backing".

 :uhrr:


Grimtotems?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 30, 2009, 08:04:42 PM
They do?  Where'd you read that?

In my quest text where the tauren go, "Kill those damn dwarves, they're all DIGGING and shit."

While I understand the tauren being a little "wtf," I got the impression THEY were the ones that started shooting, because they said, "Hey dwarves, quit it." And the dwarves said, "Make us." NEVERMIND that's what the Titans put the earthen here to DO, and the dwarves are basically digging up THEIR OWN ANCIENT HISTORY, not the tauren's. The dwarves are clearly 100% bad in this scenario, rite?

(And to be clear, I fucking HATE Kingy McChin Dick, but I get tired of hearing how Pure and Noble the tauren are. Yeah, they're by far the nicest Horde race, and nicer than some of the Alliance races, but they're not pure as the driven snow either.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on August 30, 2009, 08:05:26 PM
I'm seeing something interesting with the guilds I track: a faster and faster cycle between "heavy" and "disengaged" with each expansion. After an expansion, folks play a lot, then suddenly a switch flips and they're doing something else (usually not a MMO, but sometimes). It's feeling after two as if the cycling is growing more frantic: heavier shorter play, quicker harder disengagement.

I think there's an opening for a developer who can figure out how to counterprogram. I also think this is a real signal to Blizzard that they need to not only get content up faster, but also that people are getting really really tired of the mid-expansion content extensions, the stalling tactics. I suspect actually that Blizz knows this--one of my suspicions is that Cataclysm is intended to remove a lot of the small kludges in the design that make content updates slower than they should be, and to test-bed a more rapid content flow for whatever the next Blizz MMO is going to be.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 30, 2009, 09:22:08 PM
There's dwarves doing their archaeology thing in both Mulgore and Barrens; in both cases the taurens basically say, go kill the shit out of those dwarves that are digging shit up!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on August 30, 2009, 09:42:57 PM
There's dwarves doing their archaeology thing in both Mulgore and Barrens; in both cases the taurens basically say, go kill the shit out of those dwarves that are digging shit up!

Also says "Many innocent tauren lost their lives or were forced off their ancestral birthplace when the dwarves of Bael Modan arrived" though, so who knows what the hell is going on there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 30, 2009, 09:55:58 PM
As one of the altaholics in question (highest is a 71 after months of 'grinding'), it's a combination of factors.

The lack of a mount until 40, then 30(?), was a big one.  The areas start getting larger.  The quests start sending you all over the bloody place.  You're contrained to specific areas because of level, so you can't really explore.  Abilities, and levels, have slowed down if you're going solo.  More than likely you are solo, because the rest of the world is playing in whatever the latest high-level content is.  Even as a dedicated soloer it gets lonely and by the 30s you're really starting to feel it.  You can't do instances to break up the monotenty.  Each expansion your friends are ten levels further away.  If you're prone to re-rolling then you're also doing the same content over after a couple of characters.  Then you're doing the content which you found boring over again, still by yourself, and you just sort of give up.

They've lowered mount levels.  They're redesigning the flow of zones.  Cross-server LFG in instances.  Two new races and a revamp so the Old World is populated again.  Only five levels.  It won't stop people making alts, however it does give those getting stuck in those hell levels a few more option in moving further along.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 30, 2009, 10:59:42 PM
I agree with you on all counts Lantyssa. For every 80 I have (3, with a 4th coming soon), I have another stalled somewhere 30-42.

In addition to larger, the areas keep getting further away from major cities.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on August 30, 2009, 11:03:06 PM
Ah, the reason why I chose a mage as my primary character all those years ago.  The ability to teleport from one continent to the other and not need to fly as much.  Was worth it!

The spread-out nature is mostly inherent to the old world though, once in Outlands and Northrend that problem goes away.  It was pretty horrible in the 35-55 range though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 30, 2009, 11:04:06 PM
Camp Tarujo burns!
King Beefslab McFistgroin: "I shall clearly demonstrated that the Horde is evil and must be punished by picking on the closest thing this world has to genuine nice guys and razing one of their towns. This shall unequivocally show that it's all the orcs fault and not, for example, make the Tauren equate the Alliance with the centaur clans that used to do the exact same thing (which nearly drove the tauren to extinction) thereby cementing their bond with the rest of the Horde and giving Bairne Bloodhoof one final reason to give new Warchief Hellscream their full backing".

 :uhrr:

Not-Warchief-yet Faceeater O'Brainwrong: "Rarr! Clearly I must undermine all the goodwill the Horde had left, cause massive political ructions that will devastate the world as much as a cranky Dragon will, and I will have the ancestral, eons old forests of the Nightelves, who's lands we have been happily desecrating for years, burned and chopped down, somehow managing to enlist those noble, spiritual brethren beasts the Tauren who will conveniently turn a blind eye to the disgusting destruction of sacred life; and amazingly, somehow, people will still blame King Beefslab McFistgroin for everything".

:uhrr:

Also: Grimtotems.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 30, 2009, 11:33:47 PM
blarg

I quit paying any attention to your rah-rah-horde bullshit about the third time you started going on about how the Alliance attacked the poor innocent Forsaken and then went suspiciously mute when asked what the fuck you were talking about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 30, 2009, 11:49:57 PM
I suspect Blizzard thinks altaholics rerolling before getting a single character to cap all the time means there's probably an issue. Because it obviously held their attention long enough for 35, what happened that made them stop? I think it's less "rolling alts is bad" and more "people never ever making it to cap means something WE did is wrong."

Yeah, interesting. Players cancelling their account at 35 is wrong. Players rerolling at 35 isn't necessarily wrong, and could very well be something right. It could be that it's the most reliable metric they have to determine the fun factor of a level bracket.





Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 31, 2009, 04:47:54 AM
Going:

Also, Grimtotems every time someone mentions Taurens being nice guys is kind of like going

Also, Dark Irons when someone mentions Dwarves
Also, Naga when someone mentions Night Elves
Also, Defias when someone mentions Humans

etc, etc.

Hell, as far as I am aware, the ONLY race in the whole game that does not have its own actively "evil" (for lack of a better word) offshoot is the Gnomes, who, if it wasn't for Toxic poisoning of their capital, wouldn't even have an excuse for being in the game, and would be happily tinkering away underground oblivious to the world around them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 31, 2009, 05:08:11 AM
There's no evil Drenaei in game as far as I know. The only hostile ones are the ghosts around Achunidoun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: OcellotJenkins on August 31, 2009, 07:27:55 AM
I dusted off a level 30 warrior that I haven't played in years a week or so ago and decided to see what old world leveling was like these days.  What I found was that Duskwallow Marsh solves a good bit of the problems I used to have with the 30-42 leveling range.  Rather than getting stuck in that gap between sets of quests in STV (post Kurzen, pre Bloodsail), I went to Duskwallow and found a steady stream of content that flowed nicely.  A good bit of these were not there on release right?  I do not recall seeing all of those quests available in Theramore before (like Mudsprocket etc.).  Of course the leveling curve changes helped out a lot too and I went from 30-40 in about 5 days of very casual play.

The revamp is going to be awesome though.  I plan on leveling 3 new alts up through the revamped content before even thinking about the new end game stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 31, 2009, 07:34:28 AM
Mudsprocket was added in patch 2.3 or 2.4 as I recall; the overall revamp of Theramore and Dustwallow marsh was really very good. It's possibly the best-done Alliance levelling zone now in terms of quest hubs and progression.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on August 31, 2009, 07:48:27 AM
One of the main reasons I have few alts is once you have epic mounts its REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to go 40 levels to get a basic mount and 60 for a epic one. That stopped my alts so often in their 30s as it just got to annoying running around at the speed of slow. Now though you can get your movement stuff very quickly specially with the increased leveling which helps the game out a TON. I love having a dreadsteed at level 40 on my warlock alt.

After seeing how good they can do quest hubs now in the TBC newbie areas and  TBC and WOTLK main areas its about damn time they go and clean some of the old zones up.

Some old zones like strangle thorn were pretty damn well setup lots of quests decent hubs to get them from. Others like darkwind pass had zero quests at all other than the few ones added when khara opened up. Others were just spread out and sent you hither and yon in a very disjointed experience.

Given what they know now going back and revamping the zones that were laid out badly quest wise and just tweaking a bit ones like elwynn or strangle thorn that were setup fine could really make alts level up experience much more enjoyable.

I also think its good they are bringing the population back to the main land area a bit. One problem in old MMO such as eq1 is eventually after enough expansions people got spread out across such a wide amount of area that you could go a long time without seeing anybody. This hurt the ability to get groups when leveling up and the whole MMO feeling of the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 31, 2009, 08:03:58 AM
There's no evil Drenaei in game as far as I know. The only hostile ones are the ghosts around Achunidoun.

No, because the Draenei are literally the good ones of their race.  The rest of them are evil.  Archimonde, Kil'jaeden, and Velen were contemporaries.

The entire chain of things is indirectly their fault as well.  Kil'Jaeden only found the orc's world because he was chasing Velen's people who had taken a pitstop there.  Any other world, and Warcraft never happens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on August 31, 2009, 08:20:23 AM
There's no evil Drenaei in game as far as I know. The only hostile ones are the ghosts around Achunidoun.

Draeni is what they call themselves, it means "exiled ones" in their native language.  They are actually eredar.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 31, 2009, 08:51:30 AM
Also, Grimtotems every time someone mentions Taurens being nice guys is kind of like going

Also, Dark Irons when someone mentions Dwarves
Also, Naga when someone mentions Night Elves
Also, Defias when someone mentions Humans

Yeah, yeah. But Grimtotems enslave and kill Sprite Darters. I mean, if you're looking for the embodiment of pure evil as displayed by the blackest of dark hearts, killing and enslaving Sprite Darters is it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 31, 2009, 09:04:06 AM
Sprite darters deserve to die.  It's as if care bears were real, you know you'd want to shoot them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ahoythematey on August 31, 2009, 09:06:19 AM
I can sympathise with Grimtotems on this issue.  Sprite darters are a pain to mana-using classes; every faerie dragon killed is one step closer to a better world.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on August 31, 2009, 09:23:35 AM
There's no evil Drenaei in game as far as I know. The only hostile ones are the ghosts around Achunidoun.

There's some in the Swamp of Sorrows.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 31, 2009, 09:24:08 AM
You people are heartless monstrosities!  Stay away from my baby sprite darter. :x


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 31, 2009, 10:07:55 AM
Grimtotems nothing. Until the Horde turns upon the Forsaken and runs those genocidal Scourge-wannabes out of their faction, there can't really be any conversation. I can post all the "Yes they really are that bad!" lore yet again if anyone really wants to force me to. It'll be easy since I can just mine it from previous posts. Pissing and moaning over who's on who's land is pretty minor in comparison to the poor "misunderstood" Forsaken and their "DEATH TO THE LIVING! DEATH TO THE WORLD! MAHAHA!" routine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 31, 2009, 10:27:00 AM
 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on August 31, 2009, 10:27:45 AM
Seriously after the events at wrathgate even the horde should be clueing to the obvious that this plague that kills both the living has been worked on by the forsaken for a long time and the obvious end play for the forsaken is to kill everybody horde and alliance. It was hard enough to justify giving them the benefit of the doubt before wrathgate but now the horde should be about as agressive to the forsaken as the alliance are.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 31, 2009, 10:41:53 AM
Grimtotems nothing. Until the Horde turns upon the Forsaken and runs those genocidal Scourge-wannabes out of their faction, there can't really be any conversation. I can post all the "Yes they really are that bad!" lore yet again if anyone really wants to force me to. It'll be easy since I can just mine it from previous posts. Pissing and moaning over who's on who's land is pretty minor in comparison to the poor "misunderstood" Forsaken and their "DEATH TO THE LIVING! DEATH TO THE WORLD! MAHAHA!" routine.

Technically it wouldn't be genocide. We don't want everyone dead, just UNdead.

It's not "Death to the living" it's "Death To the living" it's a gift, we'd like to share.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 31, 2009, 10:49:27 AM
Depending on your viewpoint, it technically would be genocide.  It's just a kinder, gentler genocide.

If it'll let me roll a banshee, I'm okay with that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 31, 2009, 10:55:33 AM
You people are heartless monstrosities!  Stay away from my baby sprite darter. :x

Don't you have to farm Sprite Darters for that to drop?   :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 31, 2009, 11:10:39 AM
You people are heartless monstrosities!  Stay away from my baby sprite darter. :x

Don't you have to farm Sprite Darters for that to drop?   :grin:

No, the alliance quest for a pet darter is saving them from the grimtotem.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 31, 2009, 11:12:05 AM
No.  I rescued a bunch from the Grimtotems and was given an egg to care for.  I only had to engage in Tauren slaughter.  Darnassus had a week long BBQ party.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 31, 2009, 11:35:21 AM
UNFAIR!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 31, 2009, 12:04:04 PM
I am pretty sure there are living evil draenei inside both Shadow Labyrinth and Auchenai Crypts.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 31, 2009, 12:07:33 PM
I dunno if I would count naga as an OMG EVIL counter to night elves. Satyr are probably a better choice, although there are plain ol' night elves in the Twilight Hammer, so that would be the reeeeeeeal choice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 31, 2009, 12:17:58 PM
Plus Prince whats-his-ass in Dire Maul.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 31, 2009, 12:34:04 PM
Plus most night elves are terminally stupid. Gnomes might've nuked themselves to try and kill off trogs, but they have yet to have a leader that thinks letting out someone like Illidan out was an awesome idea.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 31, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
You people are heartless monstrosities!  Stay away from my baby sprite darter. :x
Don't you have to farm Sprite Darters for that to drop?   :grin:
No, the alliance quest for a pet darter is saving them from the grimtotem.
UNFAIR!

I swear, if I played on a PvP server, I would actively defend the Sprite Darters in Feralas from the murderous Horde scum.
I don't mind that the Horde can now get Sprite Darters as pets, I do mind the way they get them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 31, 2009, 12:42:23 PM
I'll give them this, they are fashionable.

http://www.wowhead.com/?quest=2973

 :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 31, 2009, 01:27:19 PM

I swear, if I played on a PvP server, I would actively defend the Sprite Darters in Feralas from the murderous Horde scum.
I don't mind that the Horde can now get Sprite Darters as pets, I do mind the way they get them.

The worse part is my girlfriend loves collecting pets, but she hates that she has to slaughter the cuter ones over and over to get them.  Sprite Darter is one of those instances.  Having not gotten that high when I played Alliance, I assume everyone got them the same way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 31, 2009, 01:39:09 PM
There's no evil Drenaei in game as far as I know. The only hostile ones are the ghosts around Achunidoun.

No, because the Draenei are literally the good ones of their race.  The rest of them are evil.  Archimonde, Kil'jaeden, and Velen were contemporaries.

The entire chain of things is indirectly their fault as well.  Kil'Jaeden only found the orc's world because he was chasing Velen's people who had taken a pitstop there.  Any other world, and Warcraft never happens.
See, that's how the Burning Legion got their hooks into the orcs in the first place. They were just a bunch of primitive neolithic hunter-gatherer tribes wandering around peacefully when suddenly one day a diamond the size of a mountain comes screaming out of the sky and craters into the ground (totally messing up the local spirit world as a side-effect). Then these ten-foot tall hooved things that bleed blue and can pick orcs up one-handed and snap their necks like twigs wander out waving glowing crystalline devices, wearing tough metal skin, and wielding totally unknown magic. That's enough to make any such primitive people a little nervous.

And then, one day, one of them (actually Kil'Jaeden, but why split hairs?) sneaks into an orc camp and says "Oh by the way, the elders of my people are planning to kill you all and take this planet for their own. But I can give you the strength which you lack. All you need to do is drink this blood...."

Seriously after the events at wrathgate even the horde should be clueing to the obvious that this plague that kills both the living has been worked on by the forsaken for a long time and the obvious end play for the forsaken is to kill everybody horde and alliance. It was hard enough to justify giving them the benefit of the doubt before wrathgate but now the horde should be about as agressive to the forsaken as the alliance are.
Handy hint: The invasion of Gilneas (including the use of Blight) was a direct order from Garrosh to Sylvanas. He doesn't see the Forsaken as a threat, he sees them as a weapon, and one that he's going to use for the greater good of the Horde.

Maybe the Alliance should have negotiated with Thrall when they had the chance....  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 31, 2009, 01:39:42 PM
The worse part is my girlfriend loves collecting pets, but she hates that she has to slaughter the cuter ones over and over to get them.  Sprite Darter is one of those instances.  Having not gotten that high when I played Alliance, I assume everyone got them the same way.

No, only the evil races have to slaughter cute, innocent creatures in order to enslave their young.  The good races get to rescue their eggs and raise them as their own.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 31, 2009, 02:04:53 PM
And then, one day, one of them (actually Kil'Jaeden, but why split hairs?) sneaks into an orc camp and says "Oh by the way, the elders of my people are planning to kill you all and take this planet for their own. But I can give you the strength which you lack. All you need to do is drink this blood...."

And so the Orcs, displaying a lack of willpower and spine, submitted to the will of a Space Demon, and became bloodthirsty psychopaths who committed genocide on the Draenei, had a hand in destroying their own world and then hopped through a portal to Azeroth to destroy that too.

All King Beefslab McFistgroin's fault, of course.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 31, 2009, 02:25:53 PM
Quote
High Overlord Saurfang says: I drank of the same blood your father did, Garrosh. Mannoroth's cursed venom pumped through my veins as well. I drove my weapons into the bodies and minds of my enemies. And while Grom died a glorious death - freeing us all from the blood curse - he could not wipe away the terrible memory of our past. His act could not erase the horrors we committed.

High Overlord Saurfang says: The winter after the curse was lifted, hundreds of veteran orcs like me were lost to despair. Our minds were finally free, yes... Free to relive all of the unthinkable acts that we had performed under the Legion's influence.

<High Overlord Saurfang nods.>

High Overlord Saurfang says: I think it was the sounds of the draenei children that unnerved most of them... You never forget... Have you ever been to Jaggedswine Farm? When the swine are of age for the slaughter... It's that sound. The sound of the swine being killed... It resonates the loudest. Those are hard times for us older veterans.

Garrosh Hellscream says: But surely you cannot think that those children were born into innocence? They would have grown up and taken arms against us!

<High Overlord Saurfang shakes his head.>

High Overlord Saurfang says: I am not speaking solely of the children of our enemies...

High Overlord Saurfang says: I won't let you take us down that dark path again, young Hellscream. I'll kill you myself before that day comes...

Garrosh Hellscream says: How have you managed to survive for so long, Saurfang? Not fallen victim to your own memories?

High Overlord Saurfang says: I don't eat pork...

<High Overlord Saurfang spits.>


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 31, 2009, 02:57:55 PM
And then, one day, one of them (actually Kil'Jaeden, but why split hairs?) sneaks into an orc camp and says "Oh by the way, the elders of my people are planning to kill you all and take this planet for their own. But I can give you the strength which you lack. All you need to do is drink this blood...."

And so the Orcs, displaying a lack of willpower and spine, submitted to the will of a Space Demon, and became bloodthirsty psychopaths who committed genocide on the Draenei, had a hand in destroying their own world and then hopped through a portal to Azeroth to destroy that too.

All King Beefslab McFistgroin's fault, of course.  :why_so_serious:

Medivh opened the door.  

You can blame the whole thing on a couple of people doing stupid shit:  Velen, Kiljaeden, Aegwynn (Medivh's mother), Deathwing and Gul'dan.  Past them it all leads to Sargeras.  And you can blame the Titans because they couldn't give the guy a day off every once and awhile.

And while Thrall is great, I still don't understand why he keeps the Forsaken around after Wrathgate.  Sylvanas basically said, "it wasn't me!" and everything was kosher.  Of course the same thing happened with the Blood Elves and Kael.  And the Defias got Wrynn into his predicament in the first place.  Really, they're all quite fucked except for maybe Cairne and Thrall, and they're both too pacifist to get anything done.  Hence why they're rumored to be replaced.

Whatever.  It's World of Warcraft.  Bring it.  I look forward to killing King FightStab.

The question, what happens to Saurfang that he'd allow Garrosh to run anything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 31, 2009, 03:01:34 PM
He dies fighting Arthas.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 31, 2009, 03:05:27 PM
Yeah I am expecting a lot of deaths and changes with the Icecrown victory event etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 31, 2009, 03:08:19 PM
He dies fighting Arthas.

Perfect.  I like it.

The whole Horde/Alliance thing is quite weird when you realize Varian and Thrall share a voice actor.  And they need to give Thrall a new model.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 31, 2009, 03:18:25 PM
Handy hint: The invasion of Gilneas (including the use of Blight) was a direct order from Garrosh to Sylvanas. He doesn't see the Forsaken as a threat, he sees them as a weapon, and one that he's going to use for the greater good of the Horde.

Maybe the Alliance should have negotiated with Thrall when they had the chance....  :grin:
Yes, because pissing off the large furry critters who delight in rampaging across the country side, and do so with more efficiency than the Legion itself, so much that they join your enemies is a brilliant strategy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 31, 2009, 03:55:26 PM
Going:

Also, Grimtotems every time someone mentions Taurens being nice guys is kind of like going

Also, Dark Irons when someone mentions Dwarves
Also, Naga when someone mentions Night Elves
Also, Defias when someone mentions Humans

etc, etc.

Hell, as far as I am aware, the ONLY race in the whole game that does not have its own actively "evil" (for lack of a better word) offshoot is the Gnomes, who, if it wasn't for Toxic poisoning of their capital, wouldn't even have an excuse for being in the game, and would be happily tinkering away underground oblivious to the world around them.


The Grimtotems have an active role in the politics of the Tauren would be the primary difference. It'll be comparable when Moira finally has that damn baby, maybe.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 31, 2009, 04:09:38 PM
Handy hint: The invasion of Gilneas (including the use of Blight) was a direct order from Garrosh to Sylvanas. He doesn't see the Forsaken as a threat, he sees them as a weapon, and one that he's going to use for the greater good of the Horde.

Maybe the Alliance should have negotiated with Thrall when they had the chance....  :grin:
Yes, because pissing off the large furry critters who delight in rampaging across the country side, and do so with more efficiency than the Legion itself, so much that they join your enemies is a brilliant strategy.

The undead HATE the worgen, too.

Just because of the Sons of Agural that randomly path through newbie quests <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 31, 2009, 04:20:35 PM
The old raids.  With Nef 2.0 and Rag 2.0 in Cat I'd almost bet that MC and BWL will be going away.   AQ is fairly useless right now, too.. so they might remove it.   

It occurred to me today that the  ZA and Sunwell achieves might also go the way of the dodo.  Depends on if you're going to be able to fly to the BE & Dranei areas after the revamp and what theyr plans are for the isle of QD. I'm guessing they won't touch that as it's part of the BC package, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on August 31, 2009, 04:55:52 PM
Handy hint: The invasion of Gilneas (including the use of Blight) was a direct order from Garrosh to Sylvanas. He doesn't see the Forsaken as a threat, he sees them as a weapon, and one that he's going to use for the greater good of the Horde.

Maybe the Alliance should have negotiated with Thrall when they had the chance....  :grin:
Yes, because pissing off the large furry critters who delight in rampaging across the country side, and do so with more efficiency than the Legion itself, so much that they join your enemies is a brilliant strategy.

The undead HATE the worgen, too.

Just because of the Sons of Agural that randomly path through newbie quests <3

YES!  When Gilneas arrives, I will park my 80 Forsaken Mage down at the stupid gate and fry the fur off of every little doggie that sticks his nose out.

You can blame the Sons of Arugal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 31, 2009, 05:41:46 PM
Maybe the Alliance should have negotiated with Thrall when they had the chance....  :grin:

(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt001.gif)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on August 31, 2009, 06:10:53 PM
Everybody should be like, "Hai, guys, there isn't really death as we know it...why *not* die? Cause you pretty much get to keep on going on except maybe some bits and pieces fall off here and there. You even get to eat stuff, kiss frogs, save noble paladins, play in all the reindeer games. Why were we so afraid of death?"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 31, 2009, 06:37:30 PM
I don't get why people like Garrosh when he's basically Varian with an Orc skin. He's just as big of a douche.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 31, 2009, 06:42:06 PM
I think people feel like they own Garrosh's story more, because it is told through a huge long quest chain in Nagrand. King Chin was dumped on us via some shit that happened in a comic, which I think was a big story failure on Blizzard's part, particularly after creating an expectation that we'd get to be involved in the end of the whole kidnapping storyline via the quests they did have in the game.

Also King Chin has stupid hair.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 31, 2009, 06:42:27 PM
Alliance sent the majority of our Douchy players to Horde a while back, so that must be where the love comes from.  Unfortunately it meant we kept the unskilled pvp players.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 31, 2009, 06:45:11 PM
The people who play horde are about half the reason I have never gotten a horde character past 20. The other half is that I hate all of their leveling zones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 31, 2009, 06:52:28 PM
I think people feel like they own Garrosh's story more, because it is told through a huge long quest chain in Nagrand. King Chin was dumped on us via some shit that happened in a comic, which I think was a big story failure on Blizzard's part, particularly after creating an expectation that we'd get to be involved in the end of the whole kidnapping storyline via the quests they did have in the game.

Also King Chin has stupid hair.

His hair level is over 9000.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 31, 2009, 07:01:50 PM
The primary difference between Alliance and Horde players, are Horde players love to pat themselves on the back for rolling Horde.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kageru on August 31, 2009, 08:12:41 PM

If Thrall turned around and reduced Garrosh to a green and red stain on the Carpet I'd be the first to cheer. I don't believe this is an uncommon sentiment.

Though I don't play alliance I get the same feeling from Tirion and their screaming emo child version of Garrosh.

The worse part is my girlfriend loves collecting pets, but she hates that she has to slaughter the cuter ones over and over to get them.  Sprite Darter is one of those instances.  Having not gotten that high when I played Alliance, I assume everyone got them the same way.

You know it doesn't really make that much sense. The guys who are trapping the sprite darters are hostile to the horde as well. There's even a nearby neutral night elf quest giver overlooking their camp from memory.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 31, 2009, 09:24:03 PM
Maybe the Alliance should have negotiated with Thrall when they had the chance....  :grin:

(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt001.gif)

Wow. Freesmileys totally ripped off my wanker smiley!

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v351/Yvash/smilies/wanker.gif)

This one's for Fandral Staghelm.

Sorry, as you were.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on August 31, 2009, 09:42:26 PM

If Thrall turned around and reduced Garrosh to a green and red stain on the Carpet I'd be the first to cheer. I don't believe this is an uncommon sentiment.

Though I don't play alliance I get the same feeling from Tirion and their screaming emo child version of Garrosh.
I was waiting for this to happen in the Thrall/Garrosh fight, but the little fucker seemed to be winning.

Quote
You know it doesn't really make that much sense. The guys who are trapping the sprite darters are hostile to the horde as well. There's even a nearby neutral night elf quest giver overlooking their camp from memory.

Yep.  Horde has a quest in that area to kill the Grimtotems.  But you can't open the cage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 31, 2009, 10:05:24 PM
Alliance sent the majority of our Douchy players to Horde a while back, so that must be where the love comes from.  Unfortunately it meant we kept the unskilled pvp players.  :awesome_for_real:
The primary difference between Alliance and Horde players, are Horde players love to pat themselves on the back for rolling Horde.
(http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/1143749/PvP.jpg)

Merusk wins this round. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 01, 2009, 01:25:50 AM
Yeah, I hate to say it, but the VAST majority of the horde players I play with wish that some shaman would go commune with Grom's spirit, so it could come back from hanging with the other ancestors and Bitch-slap Garrosh upside the head.

ESPECIALLY considering the the whole Nagrand thing, and the fact that the whiny little prick was about ready to slit his own wrists and wallow in self pity for being heir to his Father's "I damned my people with demon's blood" legacy, and now that Thrall has shown him that Grom redeemed his family name by offing Mannoroth, the self absorbed twat is out to drag the entire horde down the path his Father killed himself to free the Orcs from.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on September 01, 2009, 02:05:16 AM
Shit, I just play Horde cos they don't have Night Elves.


We don't talk about Blood Elves, k?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on September 01, 2009, 07:35:59 AM
You people have no idea how hard it is to read this thread and scroll like mad everytime I see the word "Wrathgate", since I just picked up WoTLK recently and am now working my way through Howling Fjord.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 01, 2009, 07:39:12 AM
Quote
We don't talk about Blood Elves, k?

How can you not? There are more blood elves than there are orcs and tauren combined. Night Elves aren't even quite the most popular Alliance race.

You guys are basically the Blood Elf faction.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 01, 2009, 07:47:16 AM
You people have no idea how hard it is to read this thread and scroll like mad everytime I see the word "Wrathgate", since I just picked up WoTLK recently and am now working my way through Howling Fjord.

You can actually finish it as a level 71.  I'd do it early, the rewards are good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on September 01, 2009, 07:49:01 AM
Quote
We don't talk about Blood Elves, k?

How can you not? There are more blood elves than there are orcs and tauren combined. Night Elves aren't even quite the most popular Alliance race.

You guys are basically the Blood Elf faction.  :oh_i_see:

Only way I can be a Horde Paladin sadly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 01, 2009, 07:57:55 AM
http://blue.mmo-champion.com/1/19595171944-dwarf-shamans-and-totems.html
Quote
It would be awfully silly to see Dwarven Shaman lugging those big ol' Draenei totems around, wouldn't it?

You'll see what we have up our sleeves for Shaman in the expansion. ;) After all, I think Tauren are getting tired of sharing theirs, too.
eeeeeeeee (http://i28.tinypic.com/ilx5wi.gif)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on September 01, 2009, 07:59:23 AM
Quote
We don't talk about Blood Elves, k?

How can you not? There are more blood elves than there are orcs and tauren combined. Night Elves aren't even quite the most popular Alliance race.

You guys are basically the Blood Elf faction.  :oh_i_see:

My server has so many that they've coined a term for the BG's and WG:  Belfadin.  

I'm not kidding when I say that half of the horde toons in a given BG are Blood elf paladins.  


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on September 01, 2009, 08:19:12 AM
http://blue.mmo-champion.com/1/19595171944-dwarf-shamans-and-totems.html
Quote
It would be awfully silly to see Dwarven Shaman lugging those big ol' Draenei totems around, wouldn't it?

You'll see what we have up our sleeves for Shaman in the expansion. ;) After all, I think Tauren are getting tired of sharing theirs, too.
eeeeeeeee (http://i28.tinypic.com/ilx5wi.gif)

3 inch tall totems are totally unbalanced.

Also, shoulda been gnome shaman.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on September 01, 2009, 08:24:24 AM
I hope this doesn't mean they'll change Draenai totems into goofy looking crystals.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on September 01, 2009, 08:51:55 AM
I thought the Draenei totems were already unique, no?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on September 01, 2009, 08:56:30 AM
Hmm, you're right.  I guess that comment about Tauren not wanting to share must have been directed at Goblin/Orc/Troll totems.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on September 01, 2009, 09:20:44 AM
Quote
We don't talk about Blood Elves, k?

How can you not? There are more blood elves than there are orcs and tauren combined. Night Elves aren't even quite the most popular Alliance race.

You guys are basically the Blood Elf faction.  :oh_i_see:

That's because the Blood Elves are former fucking alliance.  Pre-BC, Alliance was a repository of retardation.  Now that Horde has a wankable, emo race, both sides fester with lead-paint-chip-eating assbags.  I can only hope the introduction of furries draws them back away from the Horde.

Not that I'm playing anymore, but I'm sure I will come expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on September 01, 2009, 09:39:07 AM
That's because the Blood Elves are former fucking alliance.  Pre-BC, Alliance was a repository of retardation.  Now that Horde has a wankable, emo race, both sides fester with lead-paint-chip-eating assbags.  I can only hope the introduction of furries draws them back away from the Horde.

Not that I'm playing anymore, but I'm sure I will come expansion.

Both sides have always festered with wankers. Don't blame Horde dipshittery on bloofs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 01, 2009, 09:42:37 AM
I know for a fact 50% of all paladins on my server will switch to tauren within 5 minutes of race switching.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on September 01, 2009, 09:52:10 AM
That's because the Blood Elves are former fucking alliance.  Pre-BC, Alliance was a repository of retardation.  Now that Horde has a wankable, emo race, both sides fester with lead-paint-chip-eating assbags.  I can only hope the introduction of furries draws them back away from the Horde.

Not that I'm playing anymore, but I'm sure I will come expansion.

It's like a textbook example of the incredible For the Horde! mindset - part nihlistic (self-imposed) underdog, part false-sense of entitlement elitist, part delusional dipshit. The Horde is full of fuckwits, and they were full of fuckwits before BElfs ever came along. Alliance players already know they have a high fuckwit ratio, they just get on with it and don't piss and moan like a bunch of retarded monkeys who think rolling the 'ugly' race makes them some kind of fucking unique snowflake!  :uhrr:

Seriously. Barrens Chat. Barrens fucking Chat. There is no greater example of asshatery in all of MMOgaming.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on September 01, 2009, 10:28:10 AM

Seriously. Barrens Chat. Barrens fucking Chat. There is no greater example of asshatery in all of MMOgaming.

Sure there is. AV chat.  Last few times in Barrens I was either able to shame or stun them into silence. AV chat is just relentless verbal diarrhea in stark contrast to people actually trying to play.  

There was a time that I'd argue that Alliance had all of the kiddies, bads and assholes, but that time is long, long past.  Just taking a look at the server forums, horde has the backstabbing, drama, ninjaing, and trolling market cornered.  A combination of blood elf rerolls, guild rerolls to Horde, and the allure of evil death knights has weakened the Horde while stabilizing the population of the alliance.  This isn't pre-BC anymore where night elf hunters out number any single horde race.  Those people are all gone (at least it seems like that) save a few.  It's hard to even find someone with a knowledge of MC or BWL.

Horde for me wasn't even a choice. Old school Horde side competitive Warcraft 2 player combined with a like for non-human races and a hatred of elves.  If I were to start anew, my choice of side might be different. My active character is a blood elf and I'm not as bothered by it as I should be.  Would prefer it to be undead or an orc, but continuing with a character that was already past the annoying levels was a bigger draw for me than overcoming my disdain for elf ears.  

edit: Barrens chat cannot even hold a candle to Lake of Ill Omen chat from EQ.  That shit was legendary.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on September 01, 2009, 10:32:59 AM
Even before BC [and in the heyday of the 'pre-teen night elf hunter' stereotype], the average age of alliance players was higher than that of the horde, if Nick Yee's metrics are to be trusted, that is [edit: cba to find the link right now, but it's within the daedalus project somewhere]. IMO both sides suck, and have always sucked. :oh_i_see:
I hope this doesn't mean they'll change Draenai totems into goofy looking crystals.
They need to change the Searing Totem to have a protoss photon cannon model, and the fireball it shoots should look like a photon cannon shot too, imo! Also, gnome shaman >>>>>>>>>> dwarf shaman.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on September 01, 2009, 10:35:26 AM
This thread has gone from zero to deliver in one page.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 01, 2009, 10:38:57 AM
Seriously. Barrens Chat. Barrens fucking Chat.

This was always my counter to "lol u play alliance their dum" crap. The example held up and known to all of a completely fucktarded general chat? Barrens chat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on September 01, 2009, 11:01:27 AM
I really wish that a group of Orcs would break away from the wimpy Horde and give us a third faction. I would be okay with being ganked by both Alliance and Horde while leveling up a character that could kill all elves. I'm pretty sure that a third faction would attract lots of immature assholes, but they've never really bothered me on either side since I always make a chat tab called 'Wibble' and send all public channels to it. Other than guild chat and the odd spam whisper my time in WoW is fairly peaceful.

My observation is that historically (pre-BC) Alliance tended to have a lower proportion of dribbling idiots, except on role-playing servers where the opposite was true. I think that Blizzard managed to balance (fuck) the factions sufficiently that there is no escape from legions of idiots today, no matter what flavor or age of server you pick.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on September 01, 2009, 11:10:05 AM
I've never spent much time on the Horde Side of things (I think my highest horde is 20), but I shudder to think how bad something like Barrens Chat really is, given how horrible the general and trade lines can be in towns. For the most part those seem to be filled with jackasses that seem to think it's actually Tradechan. I just assume the internet is 95% asshat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on September 01, 2009, 11:16:50 AM
Barrens chat, back in the day, would be the equivalent to Something Awful IRC, without the funny. Oh, and throw in a few dozen frat boys. And heaven forbid if a GIRL showed up on local.

Seriously, it was atrocious. Post TBC, it migrated heavily to the BE starter zones I've been told. Dear god though, barrens chat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on September 01, 2009, 11:42:16 AM
Even before BC [and in the heyday of the 'pre-teen night elf hunter' stereotype], the average age of alliance players was higher than that of the horde, if Nick Yee's metrics are to be trusted, that is [edit: cba to find the link right now, but it's within the daedalus project somewhere]. IMO both sides suck, and have always sucked. :oh_i_see:

Here's the images in question.  Old data though.
(http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/03_04/image023.gif)
(http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/03_04/image025.gif)
They found some other things like the average age for female players is higher than the average age for male players.

And Warcraft Realms lists the average ratio across all US realms for Alliance:Horde is 1.1:1.  Worldwide, Humans still edge out Blood Elves as the most popular race, followed closely by Night Elves.  The most popular class is Death Knight, followed by Paladin.  Lowest player race is the Trolls, with the lowest class being the Shaman.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 01, 2009, 11:46:58 AM
What's important is that Midgard has the best players.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on September 01, 2009, 11:52:45 AM
They found some other things like the average age for female players is higher than the average age for male players.

And Warcraft Realms lists the average ratio across all US realms for Alliance:Horde is 1.1:1.  Worldwide, Humans still edge out Blood Elves as the most popular race, followed closely by Night Elves.  The most popular class is Death Knight, followed by Paladin.  Lowest player race is the Trolls, with the lowest class being the Shaman.

How the hell could they know this stuff accurately?  I've been playing this game off and on since beta and I don't think I've ever given personal information beyond billing... and for most players, billing information has nothing to do with who controls the toons.

Surveys, while interesting, rely on the honesty of the participant.  I am too skeptical to believe much of anything from surveys.  Similarly, I'd argue that people willing to give Blizzard these data don't comprise a truly random subset of the gaming populous anyway.  


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on September 01, 2009, 12:01:06 PM
They found some other things like the average age for female players is higher than the average age for male players.

And Warcraft Realms lists the average ratio across all US realms for Alliance:Horde is 1.1:1.  Worldwide, Humans still edge out Blood Elves as the most popular race, followed closely by Night Elves.  The most popular class is Death Knight, followed by Paladin.  Lowest player race is the Trolls, with the lowest class being the Shaman.

How the hell could they know this stuff accurately?  I've been playing this game off and on since beta and I don't think I've ever given personal information beyond billing... and for most players, billing information has nothing to do with who controls the toons.
 
Surveys, while interesting, rely on the honesty of the participant.  I am too skeptical to believe much of anything from surveys.  Similarly, I'd argue that people willing to give Blizzard these data don't comprise a truly random subset of the gaming populous anyway.

The Nick Yee stuff is survey based.

Warcraft Realms is an addon you can download that consistently spams /who 'category' while you're online and then sends the data to their site.  It's as close as we'll get to 'real' numbers unless Blizzard starts letting us search the Armory for that info.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on September 01, 2009, 12:01:29 PM
What's important is that Midgard has the best players.  :oh_i_see:

Now if only they could congregate in groups of more than 8 without going all lord of the flies.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on September 01, 2009, 12:27:42 PM
I think the Nick Yee survey was the one I took, which was that if you visited his site or subscribed to his RSS feed, he asked you to take a quick survey. 

Of course it's not truly random since the audience is self-selecting, but presumably if you were following the project you found it interesting enough not to shit up the data too much, at least.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on September 01, 2009, 02:28:45 PM
Barrens chat, back in the day, would be the equivalent to Something Awful IRC, without the funny. Oh, and throw in a few dozen frat boys. And heaven forbid if a GIRL showed up on local.

Seriously, it was atrocious. Post TBC, it migrated heavily to the BE starter zones I've been told. Dear god though, barrens chat.

You've just perfectly described trade chat on Korgath Alliance. I remember Barrens chat from launch (Durotan Horde) and believe me, it was nowhere near as bad as the trade chat I hear now. 

Now, it's as though the GMs have no bansticks.  People used to have at least a modicum of discretion, but now?  None at all.

Yesterday, I reported a guy for describing how he was fucking his girlfriend.  On trade chat.  Either it took the GMs a half hour to deal with it, or he logged off. 



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 01, 2009, 03:49:11 PM
Doomhammer trade chat is fairly tame for the most part, just lots of Ascii art.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 01, 2009, 04:03:16 PM
The best part of /2 is trolling it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 01, 2009, 04:07:30 PM
Might as well shoot fish in a barrel.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 01, 2009, 04:28:49 PM
Surveys, while interesting, rely on the honesty of the participant.  I am too skeptical to believe much of anything from surveys.  

You trust political polls with a much smaller sampling size : population ratio, right?  If 3,000 random people out of 300 million+ can be an accurate measure of political will, how could a similar number of respondents out of a population 1/150th the size be more wildly inaccurate?   Nick did a Doctorate on this shit, I trust he knows enough about self-selection and other problems usually associated with internet polls.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on September 02, 2009, 08:18:31 AM
The Garrosh / Varian thing represents the Warcraft status quo: no matter how stupid the development, no matter how fucking illogical a character's actions may be, no matter how much you want such and such to die and who SHOULD die, it must always be Alliance vs. Horde. Even though Thrall is effectively an Orc GOD, he will be phased out over Garrosh so the Horde can be more aggressive and think they have some rightful claim to the entirety of Azeroth instead of learning to co-habitate, which will naturally put them at odds with the Alliance. The Alliance aren't exactly angels either but...

Fuck Horde.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on September 02, 2009, 08:38:29 AM
The Garrosh / Varian thing represents the Warcraft status quo: no matter how stupid the development, no matter how fucking illogical a character's actions may be, no matter how much you want such and such to die and who SHOULD die, it must always be Alliance vs. Horde. Even though Thrall is effectively an Orc GOD, he will be phased out over Garrosh so the Horde can be more aggressive and think they have some rightful claim to the entirety of Azeroth instead of learning to co-habitate, which will naturally put them at odds with the Alliance. The Alliance aren't exactly angels either but...

Fuck Horde.
The best part is, looking at all the Cataclysm changes they've shown us, Horde seems to be doing rather well for itself.

We look forward to eating your babies.

(I'm conflicted now I have an Alliance character)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on September 02, 2009, 09:12:09 AM
You trust political polls with a much smaller sampling size : population ratio, right?  If 3,000 random people out of 300 million+ can be an accurate measure of political will, how could a similar number of respondents out of a population 1/150th the size be more wildly inaccurate?   Nick did a Doctorate on this shit, I trust he knows enough about self-selection and other problems usually associated with internet polls.

You make an excellent point, but I still don't trust any poll.  Most polling places don't even understand the statistics nor psychology involved to make the conclusions that they do.  Also, most poll-based pseudoscience produces an R^2 barely above 60%.  I don't find this kind of "evidence" conclusive of anything other than a mood.  While I will confess that I was in a pissy mood when I wrote that AND that Yee is a very smart individual whom I think produced as valid a piece of work as is possible to obtain.

Dewey defeats Truman. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on September 03, 2009, 06:48:10 AM
I seriously wish there was some big arena where we could throw garrosh, wyrnn, staghelm and meh maybe sylvana into it lock the door throw away the key and never let them out ever again.

The alliance rulers other than tyrande and maybe the dwarf leader are a buch of flaming dipshits. The horde current leaders before they throw garrosh at least have sensible behavior if not ideal in the case of the forsaken.

God having to deal with staghelm as a druid and now with mr emo pants in stormwind makes me want to turn green and start slaughtering humies.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on September 03, 2009, 08:45:37 AM
Most polling places don't even understand the statistics nor psychology involved to make the conclusions that they do. 

Most polling places understand the statistics and psychology very well an use that knowledge to get the result that the people paying for the poll want  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 03, 2009, 11:54:52 AM
God having to deal with staghelm as a druid and now with mr emo pants in stormwind makes me want to turn green and start slaughtering humies.

For whatever reason, I love Staghelm. But I still hate King Over 9000. I think it's because Staghelm is a bitch, but the times he's a bitch to me, he sort of has a point. He has shit to do, why AM I bugging him with my little flask of moonwell water? Also he thinks Tyrande is an idiot, which she is, so I like him 'cause he's willing to say so.  :Love_Letters:

King Chin just smolders with generic rage and that's boring.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on September 03, 2009, 12:18:30 PM
For whatever reason, I love Staghelm. But I still hate King Over 9000. I think it's because Staghelm is a bitch, but the times he's a bitch to me, he sort of has a point. He has shit to do, why AM I bugging him with my little flask of moonwell water?

We're bugging him with that little flask of moonwell water because maybe if he'd stop to look at it he'd see that the shit he thinks he has to do is fucking everything up.  Also, apparently that super important shit he spends so much time doing is collecting morrowgrain to feed what looks to be a pretty severe addiction to the stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 03, 2009, 12:19:29 PM
Staghelm = awesome. By all rights he should be the Alliance's Saurfang.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 03, 2009, 01:25:39 PM
We're bugging him with that little flask of moonwell water because maybe if he'd stop to look at it he'd see that the shit he thinks he has to do is fucking everything up.  Also, apparently that super important shit he spends so much time doing is collecting morrowgrain to feed what looks to be a pretty severe addiction to the stuff.

Yeah, but who the fuck are we to bug him with it? Some kid who is probably thousands of years younger than him. What the fuck do we know? If it was really that earthshatteringly important, wouldn't one of his druids, the ones he's been chilling with for a long damn time, bug him instead? I'm not saying he's right, I'm saying he has a fucking point. All the times he's totally bitchy to me, I'm some low level nobody bugging him with seemingly random bullshit. He's "nicer" (condescending but not flat out dismissive) at the higher levels when I tell him about the moonkin and shit. Which he already knew about. But hey, it's cool I know about it now too, have a quest reward.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on September 03, 2009, 02:44:24 PM
Staghelm = awesome. By all rights he should be the Alliance's Saurfang.

Your Saurfang would be Tirion.  Fucker cleansed the Ashbringer by touch. 

Staghelm is a dick and possibly a druggie.  The non-dick Night Elf leader would be Tyrande.  I'm not counting Malfurion because he's a damn super hippy that can't be bothered to rock it with his woman.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 03, 2009, 02:45:52 PM
Staghelm = awesome. By all rights he should be the Alliance's Saurfang.

Your Saurfang would be Tirion.  Fucker cleansed the Ashbringer by touch. 

Staghelm is a dick and possibly a druggie.  The non-dick Night Elf leader would be Tyrande.  I'm not counting Malfurion because he's a damn super hippy that can't be bothered to rock it with his woman.

Tyrande let out Illidan. She's the worst of all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 03, 2009, 02:52:36 PM
Staghelm is a 'dick' because he cannot comprehend why Tyrande & the players are worrying about penny ante shit when there's at least one Old God waking up out there...and he knows what happens then.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on September 03, 2009, 02:57:12 PM
Tyrande let out Illidan. She's the worst of all.
Lost cause then.  Burn Darnassus to the ground.

Quote
Staghelm is a 'dick' because he cannot comprehend why Tyrande & the players are worrying about penny ante shit when there's at least one Old God waking up out there...and he knows what happens then.
Nah.  He's just a dick.

At that's going to happen when the Old Gods wake up is we'll spank them like we did with C'thun and Yogg. 

Quote
Staghelm is among the most ancient of the remaining night elves, having been born about a thousand years after the Sundering (making him over 9,000 years old). Fandral towers most other night elves, standing close to 8 feet in height. He uses this height to his advantage both in battle and conversation, seeking to intimidate all those around him with his massive stature. Staghelm follows many of the beliefs of the ancient night elves, and one in particular has made him unpopular — Fandral is a staunch night elf supremacist, and he believes that night elves are the only true druids, as well as the superior race on the planet.

Then of course, he built his new World Tree... corrupted piece of crap.

If Night Elves are the superior race, why is their blood all over my hammer?  


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 03, 2009, 05:43:21 PM
The morrowgrain isn't for Staghelm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 03, 2009, 06:02:33 PM
Staghelm is a 'dick' because he cannot comprehend why Tyrande & the players are worrying about penny ante shit when there's at least one Old God waking up out there...and he knows what happens then.

Preach it!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 03, 2009, 07:05:16 PM
Night Elves, Blood Elves, and any other elves that crawl out of the woodwork should be lined up and summarily shot. Also, anybody who plays a female worgen in the next expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 03, 2009, 09:13:29 PM
:|

Should I let you shoot me now, or will you give me a running start?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 03, 2009, 09:23:01 PM
:|

Should I let you shoot me now, or will you give me a running start?

There is a chance you will jump, you cannot allow elves to jump.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 03, 2009, 11:14:24 PM
I only have an elf because I'm a Druid.  (I'm very happy about Trolls getting it.)  I was refering to the Worgen line.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 04, 2009, 01:54:35 AM
I have elves, and I refuse to let people with this weird hard-on to hate elves shame me for it! (This also goes for people who hate gnomes.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on September 04, 2009, 04:25:30 AM
I'm thinking worgen druid and goblin rogue for release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on September 04, 2009, 09:09:46 AM
I have elves, and I refuse to let people with this weird hard-on to hate elves shame me for it! (This also goes for people who hate gnomes.)

How meta.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 04, 2009, 12:03:54 PM
Night Elves, Blood Elves, and any other elves that crawl out of the woodwork should be lined up and summarily shot. Also, anybody who plays a female worgen in the next expansion.
Ah, but will we need silver bullets to do so?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on September 04, 2009, 12:12:39 PM
Night Elves, Blood Elves, and any other elves that crawl out of the woodwork should be lined up and summarily shot. Also, anybody who plays a female worgen in the next expansion.

You can kiss my furry elf ass.   :rock_hard:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 04, 2009, 12:47:00 PM
Pear Bear Glare!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on September 05, 2009, 09:56:08 AM
Staghelm is a 'dick' because he cannot comprehend why Tyrande & the players are worrying about penny ante shit when there's at least one Old God waking up out there...and he knows what happens then.

More assine content cockblocks courtesy of Tigole?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on September 05, 2009, 07:32:25 PM
No we have to get to wait for the next MMO for that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 19, 2009, 12:28:43 PM
Upon reflection I'm waiting for more info to come out and dispel the sense of dread I have. I'm worried that their means of "fixing" battlegrounds will be to turn them into 15-man arena teams that nobody does, and I don't really want to be a fucking archaeologist.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on September 20, 2009, 09:57:58 PM
Staghelm is a 'dick' because he cannot comprehend why Tyrande & the players are worrying about penny ante shit when there's at least one Old God waking up out there...and he knows what happens then.
Uh we sorta killed both C'Thun and Yogg. Shit, the primary factions that noticed "oh shit, Yogg is busting out of Ulduar" were part of the Alliance and they moved on it despite having way, WAY more reason to hate Arthas.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 20, 2009, 10:33:49 PM
Staghelm is a 'dick' because he cannot comprehend why Tyrande & the players are worrying about penny ante shit when there's at least one Old God waking up out there...and he knows what happens then.
Uh we sorta killed both C'Thun and Yogg. Shit, the primary factions that noticed "oh shit, Yogg is busting out of Ulduar" were part of the Alliance and they moved on it despite having way, WAY more reason to hate Arthas.
Actually, Im pretty sure that both C'thun and Yogg are very much NOT dead, and probably barely even wounded.   Everything we know about the Old Gods puts them as some kind of ultra level parasitic infection.   Im not really sure about Yogg, but i am willing to bet that for C'thun, all we did was whack one of his appendages, and once he recovers sufficiently, he will be back making efforts to kill us all again.

Hell, my theory is that the "Old Gods" are actually just "limbs" of one bigass parasitic organism with a severe case of Multiple Personality Disorder, and at the best, will only ever be contained or beat back for periods of time, and never actually destroyed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on September 21, 2009, 08:48:26 AM
I don't really want to be a fucking archaeologist.

Yeah, this is really concerning to me.  Lets add a secondary profession that EVERYONE must take to keep progressing...ehhhh pass.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 21, 2009, 11:19:51 AM
I seem to recall that if you don't archaeologize yourself, you can still get the ancient glyphs from other people. Or at least there was talk that it might work like that at Blizzcon, they pretty clearly haven't finalized exactly how it is all going to work.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 21, 2009, 01:38:35 PM
I thought I saw mention that C'Thun would be back at some point.  I'm also skeptical that 10/25 mortals could accomplish what the titans themselves could not, or at the very least, would not, i.e. kill Yogg Saron.

Although the lolore doesn't appear to be static, the basic understanding I have is that the Titans were not actually able to kill the Old Gods, as they were now intrinsic to the planet itself.  This of course begs the question as to why they didn't simply reoriginate the planet, and then whomp the Old Gods.

Also, I'd wager at some point it'll turn out that Sargeras was corrupted by the Old Gods.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on September 21, 2009, 02:25:12 PM
I hope not; that would be some serious retconning (not that Blizzard has an issue with it).  Sargeras was driven to despair by his battling the Nathrezim (dreadlords) and chose to 'go bad'.  At least from what I remember from lore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 21, 2009, 02:29:59 PM
I hope not; that would be some serious retconning (not that Blizzard has an issue with it).  Sargeras was driven to despair by his battling the Nathrezim (dreadlords) and chose to 'go bad'.  At least from what I remember from lore.

That was already retconned when they introduced the draenei, mostly because Metzen forgot and rewrote it as Sargeras corrupting the draenei/eredar rather than vice versa.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on September 21, 2009, 03:03:18 PM
The WoW lore would feel right at home with traditional American storytelling (i.e. comics).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 21, 2009, 05:10:13 PM
I thought I saw mention that C'Thun would be back at some point.  I'm also skeptical that 10/25 mortals could accomplish what the titans themselves could not, or at the very least, would not, i.e. kill Yogg Saron.

Although the lolore doesn't appear to be static, the basic understanding I have is that the Titans were not actually able to kill the Old Gods, as they were now intrinsic to the planet itself.  This of course begs the question as to why they didn't simply reoriginate the planet, and then whomp the Old Gods.

Also, I'd wager at some point it'll turn out that Sargeras was corrupted by the Old Gods.

Yogg only makes sense when you consider you are being aided by the four watchers of ulduar. Essentially storywise I felt that what you 25 people did was free them of their madness and it was their power that ultimately helped kill/banish yogg.

Though I'm also in the parasitic old god category, I don't think they're truly killable in the basic sense.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 21, 2009, 05:31:08 PM
Someone on Garrosh got a world first 25-man kill Yogg without Watchers yesterday.  Is that impressive?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 21, 2009, 05:45:13 PM
Someone on Garrosh got a world first 25-man kill Yogg without Watchers yesterday.  Is that impressive?

It was probably server-first, mmo-champ was reporting world firsts for that a while back.

Still, it is indeed impressive, a pretty small number of guilds have actually done it. We might do it around level 90 or so.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 21, 2009, 10:57:32 PM
I hope not; that would be some serious retconning (not that Blizzard has an issue with it).  Sargeras was driven to despair by his battling the Nathrezim (dreadlords) and chose to 'go bad'.  At least from what I remember from lore.

That was already retconned when they introduced the draenei, mostly because Metzen forgot and rewrote it as Sargeras corrupting the draenei/eredar rather than vice versa.

That still pisses me off. Lazy asshole. ><


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 21, 2009, 11:06:07 PM
It was probably server-first, mmo-champ was reporting world firsts for that a while back.
Yes, server first.  It's not something I follow, and have certainly never seen before, so I didn't remember the exact terminology.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Vash on September 22, 2009, 10:59:57 AM
Someone on Garrosh got a world first 25-man kill Yogg without Watchers yesterday.  Is that impressive?

It was probably server-first, mmo-champ was reporting world firsts for that a while back.

Still, it is indeed impressive, a pretty small number of guilds have actually done it. We might do it around level 90 or so.  :oh_i_see:

It's a good thing they got it in when they did with 3.2.2 dropping today if reports are accurate.  It pretty much requires 2 rogues with throwing specialization to spam FoK in an alternating pattern in order to keep all the adds in Phase 3 locked down (because they can't be killed w/o Hodir, just stay at 1hp).  Otherwise the raid would get wiped hard by all the shadowbolt volley spam from them.   Well 3.2.2 is removing the interupt from FoK in throwing specialization and I believe there was a blue post about how they would likely have to change the hardmode/encounter in some major way because of the nerf.

Now they can claim to be truly hardcore and not a 2nd rate guild that only killed Yogg hardmode after the big nerf/change.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 29, 2009, 02:05:34 PM
More lore lolz.

Apparently Warchief Garrosh decides that all Horde races besides orcs and tauren are fags, and kicks them out of the better parts of Orgrimmar. Since that would mean Vol'jin has to leave, and the gnomes are supposedly going to get Gnomeregan back, it seems like there's a chance the trolls will get their own city. Also, Southshore doesn't get conquered, it just sorta falls into the sea with the cataclysm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 29, 2009, 02:18:23 PM
You think the minor details of it being a) ruins and b) underwater will stop the Forsaken from claiming it?  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on September 29, 2009, 02:33:41 PM
More lore lolz.

Apparently Warchief Garrosh decides that all Horde races besides orcs and tauren are fags, and kicks them out of the better parts of Orgrimmar. Since that would mean Vol'jin has to leave, and the gnomes are supposedly going to get Gnomeregan back, it seems like there's a chance the trolls will get their own city. Also, Southshore doesn't get conquered, it just sorta falls into the sea with the cataclysm.

They say Stranglethorn is getting the most big changes.  My bet is the trolls end up there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 29, 2009, 04:05:02 PM
You think the minor details of it being a) ruins and b) underwater will stop the Forsaken from claiming it?  :grin:

I suppose they'll take what they can get, what with their orcish masters having pushed them to the back of the bus.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: raydeen on September 30, 2009, 09:26:52 AM
You think the minor details of it being a) ruins and b) underwater will stop the Forsaken from claiming it?  :grin:

I suppose they'll take what they can get, what with their orcish masters having pushed them to the back of the bus.  :why_so_serious:

Hopefully it means that every 80 Alliance jack-tard won't be attacking Tarren Mill every 2 minutes. And we don't mind underwater ruins. We can hold our breath longer than you can. ;)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on September 30, 2009, 10:09:59 AM
More lore lolz.

Apparently Warchief Garrosh decides that all Horde races besides orcs and tauren are fags, and kicks them out of the better parts of Orgrimmar. Since that would mean Vol'jin has to leave, and the gnomes are supposedly going to get Gnomeregan back, it seems like there's a chance the trolls will get their own city. Also, Southshore doesn't get conquered, it just sorta falls into the sea with the cataclysm.

Yeah, apparently being exalted with the various Horde cities and the Horde forces doesn't mean you can defend Org...

At the very least, Blizzard is distancing themselves from the happy "let's work together" lovefest of TBC and actully injecting some of the basic war back into Warcraft. Now if they coul donly make world PvP worth a damn....


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on September 30, 2009, 10:16:42 AM
That reminds me, have they said anything about Arthas's role, if any, in Cataclysm?  I assume we don't defeat him, and given that he's big into weakenign by division and calamity, it wouldn't surprise me if he's somehow behind all this after his "defeat".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Teugeus on September 30, 2009, 10:49:28 AM
I think Blizzard have made it fairly clear that we kill Arthas, but unless we utterly destroy Frostmourne and/or incinerate Icecrown from orbit, the essence of the Lich King will linger somewhere for Blizzard to re-use ad nauseum.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 30, 2009, 12:01:08 PM
Hopefully it means that every 80 Alliance jack-tard won't be attacking Tarren Mill every 2 minutes. And we don't mind underwater ruins. We can hold our breath longer than you can. ;)

Well you are gonna have a rebuilt Stromgarde right on the other side of a zone line, so don't go AFK with your flag up too quick.  :oh_i_see:

But the real fun is going to be if the trolls do get a capital in STV, just a momentary epic mount flight away from Stormwind itself. Darkshire will probably be interesting for a while.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 30, 2009, 12:52:51 PM
We really should nuke icecrown from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 30, 2009, 05:27:42 PM
Fuckin' A!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 04, 2009, 02:58:00 PM
Talk to the gnomes, I hear they're good at that sort of thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 04, 2009, 03:55:42 PM
Only by accident. If you mean for things to explode, then you need a goblin.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 04, 2009, 06:05:51 PM
Yeah, gnomes fail so hard at explosions they couldn't even wipe themselves out when they irradiated their entire city.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 05, 2009, 10:45:41 AM
Hey, you know what I wonder? I wonder why the mean racist Alliance couldn't see that the Wrathgate was just an isolated accident caused by a rogue faction, and that everyone should just go right back to trusting one another. Oh wait...

Undercity stripped of guards and placed under orcish occupation in 3.3 (http://www.mmo-champion.com/general-discussions-22/undercity-in-3-3-we-no-longer-trust-you/?PHPSESSID=aee6tl3o9qgugott5df6g9ov62)

By Thrall no less. Back of the bus.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 05, 2009, 12:15:32 PM
Are you still on about that? You should be preparing to evacuate from, well, everywhere instead.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 05, 2009, 12:37:40 PM
Hey, you know what I wonder? I wonder why the mean racist Alliance couldn't see that the Wrathgate was just an isolated accident caused by a rogue faction, and that everyone should just go right back to trusting one another. Oh wait...

Undercity stripped of guards and placed under orcish occupation in 3.3 (http://www.mmo-champion.com/general-discussions-22/undercity-in-3-3-we-no-longer-trust-you/?PHPSESSID=aee6tl3o9qgugott5df6g9ov62)

By Thrall no less. Back of the bus.

Bah, the Forsaken can survive without the Horde.  Much like our Scourge brothers, our numbers only grow in force the more the pathetic Alliance fights.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 05, 2009, 12:41:40 PM
No they don't.


The Forsaken is the only faction with a finite population, hence their constant sense of urgency and utter contempt for their own existence. The only thing they have to look forward too is rotting away in their sewer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 05, 2009, 12:46:00 PM
No they don't.


The Forsaken is the only faction with a finite population, hence their constant sense of urgency and utter contempt for their own existence. The only thing they have to look forward too is rotting away in their sewer.

Finite population?  We can't exactly be killed, and new members join from the ranks of fallen soldiers who manage to escape the Lich King's grasp.  Consdering that, since launch, the Horde's support has been tenuous at best, considering we're on separate continents, I am positive that should the Horde cut ties with us, we'd survive, and also if they attacked us, we'd wouldn't hesitate to use the plague and turn their warriors back on them.

The sense of urgency is to figure out a way to stop the Scourge, because the Forsaken are high on the list of the Lich King.  Re-enslaving us would a goal of his.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 05, 2009, 12:52:45 PM
Another thought is that if the Horde were to sever ties with the Forsaken the Blood Elves would probably join since Sylvanas has been a staunch advocate for them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 05, 2009, 01:01:22 PM
Quote
Are you still on about that? You should be preparing to evacuate from, well, everywhere instead.

As far as I can tell, Southshore goes into the drink while Stromgarde gets rebuilt, your orcish masters trade some tauren land for some night elf land, and the only thing that happens beyond that is the Horde running around comically planting flags in places no one inhabits or cares about. Quick, evacuate the massive Alliance cities in... uh... Azshara? Plaguelands? I guess those four or five guys in the Stranglethorn rebel camp might have to move if my hunch about a troll city going there turns out to be true.

But hey, maybe I'm misinformed and soon everyone will be living under the military bootheels of orcs who hate them. In which case I can only ask the Forsaken... what's it like?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 05, 2009, 01:59:28 PM
No they don't.


The Forsaken is the only faction with a finite population, hence their constant sense of urgency and utter contempt for their own existence. The only thing they have to look forward too is rotting away in their sewer.

Finite population?  We can't exactly be killed, and new members join from the ranks of fallen soldiers who manage to escape the Lich King's grasp.  Consdering that, since launch, the Horde's support has been tenuous at best, considering we're on separate continents, I am positive that should the Horde cut ties with us, we'd survive, and also if they attacked us, we'd wouldn't hesitate to use the plague and turn their warriors back on them.

The sense of urgency is to figure out a way to stop the Scourge, because the Forsaken are high on the list of the Lich King.  Re-enslaving us would a goal of his.

They're not making new Forsaken. When Arthas goes down they really won't be making any more Scourge either. In any kind of long term scenario the Forsaken are screwed relative every other power group in the entire world; that's the whole reason for the fatalism.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 05, 2009, 02:13:29 PM
I always imagined that once arthas was dead the forasaken would just be blighting people indiscriminately and creating more undead.  Without the lich king to control them they could raise thousand of mindless or near mindless corpses. In essence the forsaken would just become a more democratic version of the scourge.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 05, 2009, 02:28:35 PM
I always imagined that once arthas was dead the forasaken would just be blighting people indiscriminately and creating more undead.  Without the lich king to control them they could raise thousand of mindless or near mindless corpses. In essence the forsaken would just become a more democratic version of the scourge.

The Lich King doesn't control the Forsaken unless I am misunderstanding your post.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 05, 2009, 02:29:26 PM
I always imagined that once arthas was dead the forasaken would just be blighting people indiscriminately and creating more undead.  Without the lich king to control them they could raise thousand of mindless or near mindless corpses. In essence the forsaken would just become a more democratic version of the scourge.


You assume that Arthas is defeated and that the Cult of the Damned will simply vanish once he's gone.  2 big assumptions.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 05, 2009, 02:31:25 PM
I always imagined that once arthas was dead the forasaken would just be blighting people indiscriminately and creating more undead.  Without the lich king to control them they could raise thousand of mindless or near mindless corpses. In essence the forsaken would just become a more democratic version of the scourge.

The Lich King doesn't control the Forsaken unless I am misunderstanding your post.

You are misunderstanding it. Point being if they made mindless undead now in theory the Lich King would just take them. I'm not sure that theory holds water given the abominations all over the place (for now) in Forsaken areas.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 05, 2009, 02:56:37 PM
I'm not saying undead automatically become the lich kings thralls but even the forsaken risk falling under his control right now.  If the forsaken were to even begin to build any sort of massive force than the lich king would more than likely end up converting half of them or more.  The only reason he doesn't control the forsaken outright is because they're under the protection of the horde.  When the lich king dies however, the forsaken will be able to create will nilly as much undead as they like whether sentient or not with no consequences(don't think mindless ghouls would attack forsaken without arthas tugging strings)

The only reason the forsaken are part of the horde is because of arthas, without him as a threat they really don't need the other races at all and by all accounts would simply become the scourge again. Of course this all rests on sylvy's morality as she may not actually 'want' that but most forsaken are very much "death to the living" Putress wasn't an outlier, he was just easily wooed by varimathras and thus fell more under the legions control but his sentiments are echoed by many forsaken npc's and pc's as well.  :oh_i_see:

Cataclysm would be the perfect time to add a third more evil faction with the forsaken at the head, even though this won't happen.  What the real question is though, is what becomes of the essence of the lich king. Will it be utterly destroyed or will frostmourne just exchange hands? Will the new owner be able to not have its sould eaten by the blade and master it? 

In my opinion the lich king arthas is going to be destroyed, the armies of icecrown nearly all wiped out and the sword more than likely will be buried or lost but not truly gone.  Plot wise its too tempting for blizzard not to leave the threat of another lich king rising but this will be many years or centuries away from the current timeline.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 05, 2009, 03:35:21 PM
Quote
The only reason he doesn't control the forsaken outright is because they're under the protection of the horde

That has nothing to do with it.  Arthas doesn't give  a rat's ass about his minions.  If he could have enslaved the Forsaken once he put the armor on, he would have done so.   Illdian's actions weakened him, and it's just now that's he's regaining his power.  I suspect that if he were to ever achieve his full power, enslaving the Forsaken would be a trivial manner.

Many people seem to forget that while Arthas is ultimately in control of the Scourge, there is the whole Cult of the Damned that forms with Kel'Thuzard and share in Arthas's vision.  Included in those ranks are powerful necromancers and liches that are capable of controlling the various undead armies created by Arthas.  So, to simply say the Scourge will be gone once Arthas is defeated is a little premature.  However, all of this does rest on the fact that we do somehow stop  Arthas.

As for Sylvanas, unlike the rest of her people, she doesn't seem to have the "Death to the living" attitude, and she does display loyalty to Thrall.  Which is good, because it's only the blind devotion to her that keep most of the Forsaken in check.  So, I don't think she's going to go evil, but given that the Horde, as a whole, really doesn't like the Forsaken, this may cause some hard times.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 05, 2009, 03:43:20 PM
I honestly wonder if the end game for the Forsaken is planned out or if they are just making shit up as they go along. The only reason the Forsaken are still part of the Horde is for game reasons. Everyone would be better off if they were gone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 05, 2009, 03:45:47 PM
They just make shit up as the gameplay requires.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 05, 2009, 03:51:09 PM
As for Sylvanas, unlike the rest of her people, she doesn't seem to have the "Death to the living" attitude, and she does display loyalty to Thrall.  Which is good, because it's only the blind devotion to her that keep most of the Forsaken in check.  So, I don't think she's going to go evil, but given that the Horde, as a whole, really doesn't like the Forsaken, this may cause some hard times.

She may be softening up lately, but she definitely had the Death to the Living attitude. She is/was all over making a new plague.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nonentity on October 05, 2009, 04:02:31 PM
All of this discussion is irrelevant, as I will be a troll girl running around as a bear.

Troll Druids: Best Thing Ever™  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 05, 2009, 04:28:43 PM
They just make shit up as the gameplay requires.

Yep.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on October 05, 2009, 05:56:51 PM
Druids: Best Thing Ever™  :heart:

Edited for the sake of efficiency.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 05, 2009, 06:01:18 PM
Druids are pretty fuckin' awesome, it's true. I'm pretty sure my first-to-85 in Cataclysm will be my druid. The only thing is I feel weird having a dude as my "main." I don't really know why. But Jassan is a dude, dammit, I can't go changing him to a girl. His pornstache is famous.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 05, 2009, 06:16:09 PM
As for Sylvanas, unlike the rest of her people, she doesn't seem to have the "Death to the living" attitude, and she does display loyalty to Thrall.  Which is good, because it's only the blind devotion to her that keep most of the Forsaken in check.  So, I don't think she's going to go evil, but given that the Horde, as a whole, really doesn't like the Forsaken, this may cause some hard times.

She may be softening up lately, but she definitely had the Death to the Living attitude. She is/was all over making a new plague.

I know what the manual states, but I doubt Sylvanas was intricately involved in the development of the plague.  Otherwise, neither Putress nor Varithiamas would have been to get as far a they did.  I assume she trusted him enough, ans was content to rely on reports and presentations.  She is very busy running the day to day affairs of the Undercity.  However, Sylvanas has never been about "death to the living."  She's no angel, she did kill Garithos and force Varithimas to kill his brother, but she was more about survival than slaughter.  She was nobility in her life, and that streak carried over into her undeath.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 05, 2009, 06:21:36 PM
Getting the executive summary, approving of it, and budgeting to keep spending on it are just as bad as being intimately involved in the design.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 05, 2009, 06:26:38 PM
I... cannot... resist...

Wannsee Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 05, 2009, 06:31:35 PM
As for Sylvanas, unlike the rest of her people, she doesn't seem to have the "Death to the living" attitude, and she does display loyalty to Thrall.  Which is good, because it's only the blind devotion to her that keep most of the Forsaken in check.  So, I don't think she's going to go evil, but given that the Horde, as a whole, really doesn't like the Forsaken, this may cause some hard times.

She may be softening up lately, but she definitely had the Death to the Living attitude. She is/was all over making a new plague.

I know what the manual states, but I doubt Sylvanas was intricately involved in the development of the plague.  Otherwise, neither Putress nor Varithiamas would have been to get as far a they did.  I assume she trusted him enough, ans was content to rely on reports and presentations.  She is very busy running the day to day affairs of the Undercity.  However, Sylvanas has never been about "death to the living."  She's no angel, she did kill Garithos and force Varithimas to kill his brother, but she was more about survival than slaughter.  She was nobility in her life, and that streak carried over into her undeath.

Like Ingmar said, specifically setting up the RAP for plague purposes makes her just as guilty as being all "death to the living" as the rest of the Forsaken. I will buy that part of why Putress turned on her was because she's softened on that stance (I doubt she could bring herself to wipe out the blood elves, for example), but claiming she was never very keen on wiping out all life via HER plague instead of ARTHAS' plague is just straight up wrong.


EDIT: Shit, I'll even buy that she wants to kill the living as a pre-emptive strike to ensure the Forsaken's survival. But she still set up a society specifically to create a new plague, and that new plague was to target "the living," not "specific living that I don't like."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on October 05, 2009, 08:09:03 PM
Like Ingmar said, specifically setting up the RAP for plague purposes makes her just as guilty as being all "death to the living" as the rest of the Forsaken. I will buy that part of why Putress turned on her was because she's softened on that stance (I doubt she could bring herself to wipe out the blood elves, for example), but claiming she was never very keen on wiping out all life via HER plague instead of ARTHAS' plague is just straight up wrong.


EDIT: Shit, I'll even buy that she wants to kill the living as a pre-emptive strike to ensure the Forsaken's survival. But she still set up a society specifically to create a new plague, and that new plague was to target "the living," not "specific living that I don't like."

That's just love.  Being Undead is so fucking awesome that they want everyone to join in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 06, 2009, 06:14:36 AM
I'm just not buying it.  I just can't see Sylvanas wanting to wipe out all life in retribution for what Arthas did to her.  She has a streak pf pride in her, which makes sense considering she was a ranger general before dying, and she has a strong sense of survival, giving that she had Garithos killed, which makes sense, because Garithos wasn't exactly a shining examples of the Alliance.  But if she wanted to wage a war against the living, she would have done much more than she did. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 06, 2009, 06:16:55 AM
You know, Cataclysm would be an excellent time to add more undead models.  All of the background lore makes references to undead gnomes, dwarves, and elves as members of the Forsaken, and yet all we can choose are humans...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 06, 2009, 09:26:04 AM
I'm just not buying it.  I just can't see Sylvanas wanting to wipe out all life in retribution for what Arthas did to her.  She has a streak pf pride in her, which makes sense considering she was a ranger general before dying, and she has a strong sense of survival, giving that she had Garithos killed, which makes sense, because Garithos wasn't exactly a shining examples of the Alliance.  But if she wanted to wage a war against the living, she would have done much more than she did. 

I don't think it's a "so THERE, Arthas!" thng, but dude, you are in some wacky denial. The only way "oh, she didn't REALLY want to kill all the living" makes sense is if she is an idiot that has no idea what is going on in her own damn city, in a society she formed and supported, whose only purpose was to research a new plague. What the hell is your version of that? "Hey guys, I have an idea! Why don't we make a Royal Apothecary Society! No no, don't tell me ANYTHING about what you would do as such a thing, I just like the name."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on October 06, 2009, 10:37:52 AM
Hey guise?  Sylvannas?  She's a fucking zombie now.  You herd rite?

On a more serious note.  I'm hoping against hope for a third faction.  That would make shit interesting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mazakiel on October 06, 2009, 02:06:55 PM
I'm just not buying it.  I just can't see Sylvanas wanting to wipe out all life in retribution for what Arthas did to her.  She has a streak pf pride in her, which makes sense considering she was a ranger general before dying, and she has a strong sense of survival, giving that she had Garithos killed, which makes sense, because Garithos wasn't exactly a shining examples of the Alliance.  But if she wanted to wage a war against the living, she would have done much more than she did. 

I don't think it's a "so THERE, Arthas!" thng, but dude, you are in some wacky denial. The only way "oh, she didn't REALLY want to kill all the living" makes sense is if she is an idiot that has no idea what is going on in her own damn city, in a society she formed and supported, whose only purpose was to research a new plague. What the hell is your version of that? "Hey guys, I have an idea! Why don't we make a Royal Apothecary Society! No no, don't tell me ANYTHING about what you would do as such a thing, I just like the name."

It could be more a case of, at the start of the game, she was all for wiping out all of the living, but that as time went on, and the blood elves were brought into the Horde and she reconnected with various aspects of her former life, she mellowed out and backed away from the "DEATH TO THE LIVING!" thing.  As an indication of this, see the Ghostlands quest where you find a pendant that had been given to her by her sister, and how that quest resolved.  Factions of the Forsaken, displeased at this new direction, were easily swayed by Varimithras into doing what eventually happened at the Wrath Gate. 

Overall though, looking for any sort of consistent plot or character behavior in WoW is a waste of time.  They'll shoehorn what they can into their latest direction, and handwave what's left away. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on October 06, 2009, 02:59:44 PM
You know, Cataclysm would be an excellent time to add more undead models.  All of the background lore makes references to undead gnomes, dwarves, and elves as members of the Forsaken, and yet all we can choose are humans...

I think this would be a good feature.  I've always thought that about the Forsaken.  I bet we'll never get gnomes and dwarves, for "silhouette" reasons, but undead blood/high elf models would be cool.  I mean, the leader of the faction is one.

I've always assumed that the reason is that the vast majority of the Forsaken are former Lordaeron humans.  But clearly there's a big knot of undead elves that came out of the razing of Silvermoon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 06, 2009, 03:01:11 PM
I'm just not buying it.  I just can't see Sylvanas wanting to wipe out all life in retribution for what Arthas did to her.  She has a streak pf pride in her, which makes sense considering she was a ranger general before dying, and she has a strong sense of survival, giving that she had Garithos killed, which makes sense, because Garithos wasn't exactly a shining examples of the Alliance.  But if she wanted to wage a war against the living, she would have done much more than she did. 

I don't think it's a "so THERE, Arthas!" thng, but dude, you are in some wacky denial. The only way "oh, she didn't REALLY want to kill all the living" makes sense is if she is an idiot that has no idea what is going on in her own damn city, in a society she formed and supported, whose only purpose was to research a new plague. What the hell is your version of that? "Hey guys, I have an idea! Why don't we make a Royal Apothecary Society! No no, don't tell me ANYTHING about what you would do as such a thing, I just like the name."

It could be more a case of, at the start of the game, she was all for wiping out all of the living, but that as time went on, and the blood elves were brought into the Horde and she reconnected with various aspects of her former life, she mellowed out and backed away from the "DEATH TO THE LIVING!" thing.  As an indication of this, see the Ghostlands quest where you find a pendant that had been given to her by her sister, and how that quest resolved.  Factions of the Forsaken, displeased at this new direction, were easily swayed by Varimithras into doing what eventually happened at the Wrath Gate. 

Overall though, looking for any sort of consistent plot or character behavior in WoW is a waste of time.  They'll shoehorn what they can into their latest direction, and handwave what's left away. 

Well, that was my point. :P She may not be as gung ho about killing everyone anymore, but she had been. Delmania seems to think she never did.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 06, 2009, 03:06:08 PM
Well, that was my point. :P She may not be as gung ho about killing everyone anymore, but she had been. Delmania seems to think she never did.

And I still don't.   Let ye forget what Varithimas was, the Nazer-whatever are experts of deception.  Given that Sylvanas showed a rash of bad judgment in trusting him in the first place, I'd wager he could build on that enough to hide the true intents of the plague.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 06, 2009, 03:06:48 PM
It looks like a lot of the story events we thought would occur in cataclysm will be happening in patch 3.3(thrall stepping aside, cairne dying, etc)  

Makes me wonder if garrosh will only be temp warchief...im holding out for a saurfang still.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on October 06, 2009, 03:08:58 PM
I honestly don't see the big deal with Sylvanas.  The Forsaken are evil for trying to kill people with a plague, rather than good old fashioned swords and fel magic?  Or is it the whole shocking "the Forsaken hate everyone and are only allied with the Horde because otherwise they'll get wiped out" thing which is explained to the player in the intro flyby?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 06, 2009, 03:09:31 PM
Anything that shows Varimathras getting the upper hand completely devalues Sylvanas's build-up as a bad-ass Banshee Queen of the Damned. I hope there's a hand yet to be played by her but it's like her role as Forsaken Leader and an important character coming out of Warcraft III is being trivialized.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 06, 2009, 03:14:27 PM
Well, that was my point. :P She may not be as gung ho about killing everyone anymore, but she had been. Delmania seems to think she never did.

And I still don't.   Let ye forget what Varithimas was, the Nazer-whatever are experts of deception.  Given that Sylvanas showed a rash of bad judgment in trusting him in the first place, I'd wager he could build on that enough to hide the true intents of the plague.

Its a fucking plague, every level 6 forsaken in the world poisons people with pumpkins to test it and you think she's somehow unaware?

You're not like secretly writing self-insertion Sylvanas slash fanfic or something that we're ruining with our trashing of her good name or something are you?

I honestly don't see the big deal with Sylvanas.  The Forsaken are evil for trying to kill people with a plague, rather than good old fashioned swords and fel magic?  Or is it the whole shocking "the Forsaken hate everyone and are only allied with the Horde because otherwise they'll get wiped out" thing which is explained to the player in the intro flyby?

Its not so much the 'killing people' as it is the 'killing all people everywhere'. There's always a certain amount of handwaving about the body counts in fantasy stuff like this, but there's still a difference between 'conquer them!' and 'genocide'.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 06, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
No, and I suppose I am wrong, since I do remember that quest.  I always thought the purpose of the plague was to kill the Scourge and humans, so that the Scarlet Crusade could be wiped out.  The whole "wipe out everything" attitude is portrayed by Forsaken NPC bu not Sylvanas herself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 06, 2009, 03:48:57 PM
You're not like secretly writing self-insertion Sylvanas slash fanfic or something that we're ruining with our trashing of her good name or something are you?
She could seduce me in a second (in-game, I mean, really! :awesome_for_real:) and even I recognize she doesn't care about the living.  At best she wants to protect the blood elves.  Everyone else can hang become undead minions.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 06, 2009, 05:40:25 PM
It looks like a lot of the story events we thought would occur in cataclysm will be happening in patch 3.3(thrall stepping aside, cairne dying, etc) 

Makes me wonder if garrosh will only be temp warchief...im holding out for a saurfang still.
Saurfang will die in Icecrown.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 06, 2009, 05:42:58 PM
It looks like a lot of the story events we thought would occur in cataclysm will be happening in patch 3.3(thrall stepping aside, cairne dying, etc) 

Makes me wonder if garrosh will only be temp warchief...im holding out for a saurfang still.
Saurfang will die in Icecrown.

I think most of that stuff is just getting put in the patch files ahead of time, it isn't going to go live with 3.3. Thrall still has the <Warchief> title in the goblin starter area from the Blizzcon preview we got after all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on October 06, 2009, 05:43:21 PM
It looks like a lot of the story events we thought would occur in cataclysm will be happening in patch 3.3(thrall stepping aside, cairne dying, etc) 

Makes me wonder if garrosh will only be temp warchief...im holding out for a saurfang still.
Saurfang will die in Icecrown.

Sadly he will.  Probably Him and either Proudmoore or Tirion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 06, 2009, 05:54:08 PM
I feel the need to again point out the part of the recent Arthas novel, oft-cited in these loregeek discussions, where Sylvanas basically goes "OH BOY HERE COME SOME OF THE APOTHECARIES TO SHOW ME THE PLAGUE WE HAVE BEEN MAKING. NOW THEY ARE TESTING IT ON SOME PLEADING HUMAN AND A FORSAKEN WHO THEY SAY IS A CRIMINAL. I BET HE IS INNOCENT, BUT I DON'T CARE. OH LOOK THEY ARE BOTH DYING HORRIBLY. GOOD JOB GUYS. WITH THIS PLAGUE I CAN KILL THE HUMANS!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 06, 2009, 06:06:09 PM
I'm pretty sure Tirion is going to eat it in Icecrown. His story is over after Icecrown anyway, basically, it's as good a time as any to kill off Super Farmer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 06, 2009, 06:37:32 PM
I feel the need to again point out the part of the recent Arthas novel, oft-cited in these loregeek discussions, where Sylvanas basically goes "OH BOY HERE COME SOME OF THE APOTHECARIES TO SHOW ME THE PLAGUE WE HAVE BEEN MAKING. NOW THEY ARE TESTING IT ON SOME PLEADING HUMAN AND A FORSAKEN WHO THEY SAY IS A CRIMINAL. I BET HE IS INNOCENT, BUT I DON'T CARE. OH LOOK THEY ARE BOTH DYING HORRIBLY. GOOD JOB GUYS. WITH THIS PLAGUE I CAN KILL THE HUMANS!"

[citation needed]


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 06, 2009, 07:12:51 PM
I'm pretty sure Tirion is going to eat it in Icecrown. His story is over after Icecrown anyway, basically, it's as good a time as any to kill off Super Farmer.


Tirion will be locked in eternal combat with the spirit of the Lich King, to forever safeguard the Frostmourne and the evils within!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on October 06, 2009, 07:13:31 PM
I feel the need to again point out the part of the recent Arthas novel, oft-cited in these loregeek discussions, where Sylvanas* basically goes "OH BOY HERE COME SOME OF THE APOTHECARIES TO SHOW ME THE PLAGUE WE HAVE BEEN MAKING. NOW THEY ARE TESTING IT ON SOME PLEADING HUMAN AND A FORSAKEN WHO THEY SAY IS A CRIMINAL. I BET HE IS INNOCENT, BUT I DON'T CARE. OH LOOK THEY ARE BOTH DYING HORRIBLY. GOOD JOB GUYS. WITH THIS PLAGUE I CAN KILL THE HUMANS!"

[citation needed]

*A Zombie

Happy now?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on October 06, 2009, 07:44:27 PM
Sylvanas basically goes "OH BOY HERE COME SOME OF THE APOTHECARIES TO SHOW ME THE PLAGUE WE HAVE BEEN MAKING. NOW THEY ARE TESTING IT ON SOME PLEADING HUMAN AND A FORSAKEN WHO THEY SAY IS A CRIMINAL. I BET HE IS INNOCENT, BUT I DON'T CARE. OH LOOK THEY ARE BOTH DYING HORRIBLY. GOOD JOB GUYS. WITH THIS PLAGUE I CAN KILL THE HUMANS!"

Wait, she KILLED SOMEONE?!?!  Horrific!  Made an actual person bleed their own blood?!  Holy shit!  I bet the Alliance are going to write some VERY NASTY letters to her in retaliation!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 06, 2009, 07:48:28 PM
[citation needed]

Because maybe I'm making it up, right? I mean, maybe I haven't done this before. Fuck it, I'll just link you to the last time I posted this (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=16085.msg680086#msg680086), where I make reference to the time before that. It has quotes, a WoW Insider reference, and a link to a preview of said novel. Yes, she was in on the whole thing. Yes, she wants to wipe out "the humans" with her plague at the very least.

Wait, she KILLED SOMEONE?!?!  Horrific!  Made an actual person bleed their own blood?!  Holy shit!  I bet the Alliance are going to write some VERY NASTY letters to her in retaliation!

I'm sure if they did, the soppy cunt Horde fanboys would cry to kingdom come about how it proves Varian Wrynn is an evil warmonger who hates the Horde because he's racist and not because of their litany of atrocities.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 06, 2009, 09:57:16 PM
[citation needed]

Because maybe I'm making it up, right? I mean, maybe I haven't done this before. Fuck it, I'll just link you to the last time I posted this (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=16085.msg680086#msg680086), where I make reference to the time before that. It has quotes, a WoW Insider reference, and a link to a preview of said novel. Yes, she was in on the whole thing. Yes, she wants to wipe out "the humans" with her plague at the very least.

Wait, she KILLED SOMEONE?!?!  Horrific!  Made an actual person bleed their own blood?!  Holy shit!  I bet the Alliance are going to write some VERY NASTY letters to her in retaliation!

I'm sure if they did, the soppy cunt Horde fanboys would cry to kingdom come about how it proves Varian Wrynn is an evil warmonger who hates the Horde because he's racist and not because of their litany of atrocities.


You miss the part where none of the forsaken players give a fuck that they're evil. We're pretty much ok with that.


As to saurfang though I'm not sure he'll die, tirion however is a given...and he can rot for all those fucking plaguelands quests.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 06, 2009, 11:21:09 PM
My hunch: The "canon" outcome of the airship battle is going to be that they crash into each other and blow up. Saurfang dies (without his forum fans having to see anyone beat him up) and that clears the way for Garrosh to take over and kick puppies. Muradin dies too, but nobody gives a shit because he already died in WC3, and half of everybody didn't even realize Vegeta had wished him back alive with the dragonballs or what the fuck ever in WOTLK.

As for what Forsaken players think, clearly none of them mind being painted as evil except for all the ones who post. See Delmania and the "Maybe Sylvanas knows less about the RAS than any level 10 who clicks all the exclamation marks in Undercity" argument, and Simond's occasional routine where he cries about the evil racist Alliance turning on the poor innocent Forsaken and then stops posting on the topic for a week when I ask him when that was supposed to have happened.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 06, 2009, 11:43:41 PM
You miss the part where none of the forsaken players give a fuck that they're evil. We're pretty much ok with that.


As to saurfang though I'm not sure he'll die, tirion however is a given...and he can rot for all those fucking plaguelands quests.

Bullshit, they're the worst fucking offenders in the "waaah, we're not evil, we're MISUNDERSTOOD" sweepstakes. It is AMAZING to me how many fucking Forsaken players apparently completely forget about ALL the times they're told to try out Toxin X on Helpless Victim Y.

I'm totally down with people saying the Alliance is no better, but it really drives me mad when people insist the Forsaken are totally cool dudes who really aren't that bad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 06, 2009, 11:55:12 PM
You hate Horde apologist fanboys AND self-important poopsocks.  :Love_Letters:

I wish any of us could've worked up to really giving a damn about that Cho'gall thing, you guys would be fun to play with.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on October 07, 2009, 12:00:40 AM
(http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/963220/likez-u-brainz.gif)

Zombies.  They're evil.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 07, 2009, 03:58:01 AM
You hate Horde apologist fanboys AND self-important poopsocks.  :Love_Letters:

I wish any of us could've worked up to really giving a damn about that Cho'gall thing, you guys would be fun to play with.

Don't make the letter too long, I tend to make excuses for the orcs more than I probably should.  :why_so_serious: I can't help it, I love their females. :(

I keep MEANING to go back to Cho'gall but ... yeah. I've barely logged into Doomhammer lately, even, they're going to forget me!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on October 07, 2009, 06:59:21 AM
As for what Forsaken players think, clearly none of them mind being painted as evil except for all the ones who post. See Delmania and the "Maybe Sylvanas knows less about the RAS than any level 10 who clicks all the exclamation marks in Undercity" argument, and Simond's occasional routine where he cries about the evil racist Alliance turning on the poor innocent Forsaken and then stops posting on the topic for a week when I ask him when that was supposed to have happened.
Indeed.  The Forsaken are only in the Horde because they needed a wall of bodies to shield them while they worked on wiping out the Scourge and the living.  Hell, I'm a Blood Elf, and I acknowledge that those fuckers are quite batshit insane.  You ever listen to the Sunreavers in Dalaran?  Sometimes they laugh for no reason.  Orc are nominally okay, with perhaps a unhealthy hate of trees, until Garrosh takes the car out for a spin.  Trolls are constantly shit on, and Tauren are so good that they're practically the most boring race in WoW.

That said, humans are dicks with King Fight McStab at the front of the line.  His journey mirrors Thrall's, but he ended up at the complete opposite conclusion.  Gnomes are like the Forsaken without malice, they'll end up taking all you Allies down by doing something stupid.  The worst you can say abut the Dwarves is they're drunk.  The Night Elves are led by the stupid, with Teldrassil being right up there with stupid plans.  And the Draenei?  Fuck them.  They're like the Tauren except this entire debacle is their fault.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 07, 2009, 07:36:09 AM
As for what Forsaken players think, clearly none of them mind being painted as evil except for all the ones who post. See Delmania and the "Maybe Sylvanas knows less about the RAS than any level 10 who clicks all the exclamation marks in Undercity" argument, and Simond's occasional routine where he cries about the evil racist Alliance turning on the poor innocent Forsaken and then stops posting on the topic for a week when I ask him when that was supposed to have happened.

Clearly I have issues with being evil.  I mean, the fact that my main is a walking corpse that summons demons and inflicts prolonged damage on people clearly screams innocent!  The issue is that Blizzard tends not to do pure good or pure evil.  Or at least, they did that in TBC. However, based on the lore, the purpose of the New Plague was to wipe out the Scourge and the humans (read Scarlet Crusade).  Then when you watch do the Battle for the Undercity, Sylvanas seems to not be evil in the slightest - calling Thrall warchief and what not.  I have no problems with being evil, it's one of the reason I made an undead warlock, but I wish Blilzz would stop this blending and put some hardlines up. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 07, 2009, 10:21:44 AM
In game I have yet to meet any forsaken players with allusions to being in any way good. Now of course many of them that roleplay will say 'their' character isn't all that bad, which is alright to a point but none seem to think it's all misunderstood angst.

People who post on any wow forums tend to be about 5% if the population at best so trying to form your opinions of alliance or horde based on what you read here or on official forums is going to lead to a lot of confusion. For instance not every alliance player is raging forum troll with an inferiority complex but WUA leads us to believe otherwise. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 07, 2009, 12:19:48 PM
That said, humans are dicks with King Fight McStab at the front of the line.  His journey mirrors Thrall's, but he ended up at the complete opposite conclusion.

Yeah, but a dick for what? Not being cool with the guys you just described half of as being evil or insane? For all his drama with the orcs, what got Wrynn to throw up his hands were the Forsaken, the RAS, and getting a close look at the general depravity of Undercity. Prior to that he'd been at least grudgingly open to diplomacy, even with his former slave master standing at Thrall's side.

However, based on the lore, the purpose of the New Plague was to wipe out the Scourge and the humans (read Scarlet Crusade).

Do I really have to go mine the last couple of threads for text from all the years-old "been there all along" quests where RAS members tell any newbie who needs some silver how they want to bring death to the world? Do I really need to paste the novel quote into this thread in order to point out how much "But when I say I want to wipe out the humans, really I only mean the Scarlet Crusade!" isn't in there?

Quote
Then when you watch do the Battle for the Undercity, Sylvanas seems to not be evil in the slightest - calling Thrall warchief and what not.

This is the single stupidest sentence I have ever read in one of these loredork arguments, and that's saying a lot. Please explain for me what conceivable way in which her being civil to a badly-needed ally during a five-minute conversation has any bearing on any fucking thing whatsoever. "HEY GUYS I SAW SYLVANAS THIS ONE TIME AND SHE DIDN'T HAVE 'EVIL' WRITTEN ON HER FOREHEAD OR A DEAD BABY IN HER JAWS OR NOTHING! DOESN'T SEEM EVIL IN THE SLIGHTEST!"

QQ

Eat a dick, you crabby cunt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 07, 2009, 12:46:18 PM
Yeah, the Forsaken are evil.  There's any question about this?  It's an alliance of convenience while they figure out how to kill everything that's alive, and a few things that aren't.

Orcs?  Not particularly evil in their current form.  Yeah, they did some stupid shit a while back, and fell under the influence of the Burning Legion.  As the instance BM points out, it was necessary for the orcs to come through the dark portal in order to achieve uniting the human kingdoms.  You know, the human kingdoms that were essentially tied up fighting each other to death.

Tauren?  Lifedebt to Thrall.  Not even remotely evil in any way.

Blood Elves?  Crazy fucking fascists with an addiction to magical energy that must be fed or they lose control of their hunger.

Trolls?  I'm not sure what the deal is with the trolls.  I'm not entirely sure I trust them.

But don't try to feed me any bullshit about how the alliance is pure.  You've got the racial supremist NE druid who wants to oust Tyrande, plus decided to create another world tree, against the advice of the arch druid, the human general who ordered the blood elves to essentially exterminate themselves, and crazy ass dwarves frantically digging up god knows what in order to find out that, once again, dwarves were originally earthen that were inflicted with the curse of flesh.  Not to mention the soon-to-be concluded alliance with humans inflicted with a curse brought through a portal to god-knows-where by some crazy ass druid who decided to bring in aliens to fight something or another.

Yeah, the alliance is good and pure.   Riiiiiight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on October 07, 2009, 01:01:19 PM
Yeah, but a dick for what? Not being cool with the guys you just described half of as being evil or insane? For all his drama with the orcs, what got Wrynn to throw up his hands were the Forsaken, the RAS, and getting a close look at the general depravity of Undercity. Prior to that he'd been at least grudgingly open to diplomacy, even with his former slave master standing at Thrall's side.

Point taken.  My perception is a bit off, as shown in the Ulduar cinematic with Thrall just standing by and watching shit devolve as Garrosh and Wrynn measure penis-size.  Which carries over to much of ToC.

Quote
Do I really have to go mine the last couple of threads for text from all the years-old "been there all along" quests where RAS members tell any newbie who needs some silver how they want to bring death to the world? Do I really need to paste the novel quote into this thread in order to point out how much "But when I say I want to wipe out the humans, really I only mean the Scarlet Crusade!" isn't in there?
Sylvanas has mellowed a bit, but she still wants everyone dead.  Her text in Battle for Undercity is the worst copout ever.  'Uh.  Wasn't me!'

Of course, the only thing that Garrosh seems to be doing right is installing Orc guards at the Undercity to watch those crazy bastards.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 07, 2009, 01:03:26 PM
Trolls in WoW are the Darkspear tribe seen in War III.  Same boat as the Tauren.

You argument against dwarves is pretty retarded.  But... they're digging! [pause for shocked silence]


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on October 07, 2009, 01:19:26 PM
Trolls in WoW are the Darkspear tribe seen in War III.  Same boat as the Tauren.

You argument against dwarves is pretty retarded.  But... they're digging! [pause for shocked silence]

Yeah.  Like I said, the worse you can throw at their feet is they're drunk.

The Draenei, those are the real insidious fuckers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 07, 2009, 01:21:38 PM
Plus there was a general in WC3 who was a dick. Of course he was a general of Lordaeron, and the issue of whether the legacy of Lordaeron belongs to the Forsaken or to the humans of Stormwind seems to change by the moment. Okay, Garithos was one of ours. Our bad. Now get off our land. Either that or the Forsaken (as is frequently argued) essentially ARE Lordaeron, in which case they can STFU about what a jerk one of their own was.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 07, 2009, 01:53:28 PM
This is the single stupidest sentence I have ever read in one of these loredork arguments, and that's saying a lot. Please explain for me what conceivable way in which her being civil to a badly-needed ally during a five-minute conversation has any bearing on any fucking thing whatsoever. "HEY GUYS I SAW SYLVANAS THIS ONE TIME AND SHE DIDN'T HAVE 'EVIL' WRITTEN ON HER FOREHEAD OR A DEAD BABY IN HER JAWS OR NOTHING! DOESN'T SEEM EVIL IN THE SLIGHTEST!"

You've seen the event?  It's not like the emotions expressed in those words had some spite behind them.  If you bother to watch what she does, it would indicate she has some real loyalty to Thrall, which may have softened up her stance on the whole "Death to the lviing." 


Plus there was a general in WC3 who was a dick. Of course he was a general of Lordaeron, and the issue of whether the legacy of Lordaeron belongs to the Forsaken or to the humans of Stormwind seems to change by the moment. Okay, Garithos was one of ours. Our bad. Now get off our land. Either that or the Forsaken (as is frequently argued) essentially ARE Lordaeron, in which case they can STFU about what a jerk one of their own was.

What? There's an issue over who owns Lodaeron?  Last I checked, The Forsaken took it over.  You want it back?  Come take it, bitch.  As for the claim that Forsaken = Lodaeron, that's a load of crap. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 07, 2009, 02:35:47 PM
Trolls in WoW are the Darkspear tribe seen in War III.  Same boat as the Tauren.

You argument against dwarves is pretty retarded.  But... they're digging! [pause for shocked silence]

They're digging on Tauren lands without permission.  They're digging on Orc lands without permission.  They are also rooting around in Titan ruins and cities, which isn't exactly the smartest thing to do, since no one knows what could result from that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 07, 2009, 02:41:24 PM
IIRC, Lordaeron was abandoned by humans after Arthas pretty much decimated his homeland.  The Forsaken, again, IIRC, were the undead that were occupying it, and they stayed after Sylvanas managed to break free of the control of the Lich King.

Plus we could get into a loreslapfight over Arthas and Kel'Thuzad as well.  Two humans lured to serve the Lich King.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 07, 2009, 02:45:52 PM

What? There's an issue over who owns Lodaeron?  Last I checked, The Forsaken took it over.  You want it back?  Come take it, bitch.  As for the claim that Forsaken = Lodaeron, that's a load of crap.  

Well.. no actually. There were a whole bunch of human countries - Lordaeron, Gilneas, Kul Tiras, Alterac, Stromgarde, Dalaran. Garithos was from Lordaeron; Stormwind is an entirely different kingdom. The Lordaeron humans are pretty much mostly Forsaken (or Scourge) now. Very few of them got away - one of the missions you do in the Frozen Throne expansion to Warcraft 3 is essentially ensuring this.  The Forsaken didn't come from somewhere *else* to take over, other than the chunk of them from Quel'thalas.

It gets blurry in the lore now that most of them are ruined but Garithos had basically nothing to do with the Stormwind humans, who are the humans involved in the events of the FIRST Warcraft game, not Warcraft 2 or Warcraft 3.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 07, 2009, 03:10:18 PM
You've seen the event?  It's not like the emotions expressed in those words had some spite behind them.  If you bother to watch what she does, it would indicate she has some real loyalty to Thrall, which may have softened up her stance on the whole "Death to the lviing." 
Even if she digs Thrall it's all going to fall apart when Jaina comes around once too often.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on October 07, 2009, 04:00:41 PM
Oooo catfight!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 07, 2009, 04:18:31 PM
This is the single stupidest sentence I have ever read in one of these loredork arguments, and that's saying a lot. Please explain for me what conceivable way in which her being civil to a badly-needed ally during a five-minute conversation has any bearing on any fucking thing whatsoever. "HEY GUYS I SAW SYLVANAS THIS ONE TIME AND SHE DIDN'T HAVE 'EVIL' WRITTEN ON HER FOREHEAD OR A DEAD BABY IN HER JAWS OR NOTHING! DOESN'T SEEM EVIL IN THE SLIGHTEST!"

You've seen the event?  It's not like the emotions expressed in those words had some spite behind them.  If you bother to watch what she does, it would indicate she has some real loyalty to Thrall, which may have softened up her stance on the whole "Death to the lviing." 

Or... wait for it..  she's a deceptive, manipulative evil bitch who's not in the slightest above throwing the blame on anyone but herself so she can maintain power and keep her unlife.  If the Horde AND the Alliance turn on her Forsaken as a common enemy she's proper fucked.  Recall that both sides thought what the RAS did at the Wrathgate was enough to pull forces out of Northrend long enough to throw-down in Undercity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 07, 2009, 04:20:29 PM
You've got the racial supremist NE druid who wants to oust Tyrande, plus decided to create another world tree, against the advice of the arch druid ...

To be fair to Staghelm, who is DEFINITELY someone I like against all reason, Tyrande is a blithering idiot herself. Really, night elves are amazingly stupid in general.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 07, 2009, 04:21:37 PM
Hay guize! I bet my brother the half-demon can help!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 07, 2009, 04:23:46 PM
You've seen the event?  It's not like the emotions expressed in those words had some spite behind them.  If you bother to watch what she does, it would indicate she has some real loyalty to Thrall, which may have softened up her stance on the whole "Death to the lviing."

It might indicate that if you're a mushy-headed fanboy who NOT ONLY believes whatever Sylvanas says (while simultaneously ignoring everything from five-year old quest text to a Blizzard novel that just came out a couple months ago which all paint her as a genocidal bitch) BUT ALSO places a ridiculous and childlike importance on appearance and mannerisms. To anyone else, not so much.

Gee, on one hand we have Blizzard using authorial ominscience to narrate her thoughts while she reflects upon how great it'll be to wipe out both the Scourge AND the humans. On the other hand we saw her in Undercity and she didn't... like... cackle at Thrall or scream "HEY I'M EVIL!" Gee, what a conundrum. I guess it's a total toss-up.

Plus we could get into a loreslapfight over Arthas and Kel'Thuzad as well.  Two humans lured to serve the Lich King.

Of course the Legion never needed to do anything as elaborate as creating the Lich King in order to bring down the orcs. All they had to do there was slap down a big keg of demon blood and go "Hey wanna be evil, bro?" and nearly the entire species chugged it down and started paving their roads with skulls.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 07, 2009, 04:32:32 PM
In the orc's defense, they're all pretty stupid.  Monkey see, monkey do, so they just had to corrupt the Warchief and everyone else followed suit.   To corrupt the Warchief all they had to do was make the standard "MORE POWER" offer.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 07, 2009, 05:37:16 PM
Trolls in WoW are the Darkspear tribe seen in War III.  Same boat as the Tauren.

You argument against dwarves is pretty retarded.  But... they're digging! [pause for shocked silence]
...up sacred burial grounds and shooting anyone who comes to complain.

Of course the Legion never needed to do anything as elaborate as creating the Lich King in order to bring down the orcs. All they had to do there was slap down a big keg of demon blood and go "Hey wanna be evil, bro?" and nearly the entire species chugged it down and started paving their roads with skulls.
Actually, they pretty much tricked Ner'zhul into the whole "Genocide the draenei" thing and then when he went "Wait, what the fuck is going on? Why are the ancestors so pissed off at me?" and started figuring out that he'd been manipulated, the Legion more or less went "Okay, Gul'dan - you're running the show now. Go nuts. Literally. Incidentally, drinking our blood gives you more power. You know, just as a fyi".

To be fair to Staghelm, who is DEFINITELY someone I like against all reason, Tyrande is a blithering idiot herself. Really, night elves are amazingly stupid in general.
Pretty much everything that's gone majorly wrong on Azeroth since the Titans left can be blamed on either a) Old Gods or b) Night elves. I say we kill the lot.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 07, 2009, 07:37:27 PM
You argument against dwarves is pretty retarded.  But... they're digging! [pause for shocked silence]
...up sacred burial grounds and shooting anyone who comes to complain.

Problem solved. (http://www.wowwiki.com/Bael'dun_Digsite)

But... digging!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 07, 2009, 09:35:49 PM
Pretty much everything that's gone majorly wrong on Azeroth since the Titans left can be blamed on either a) Old Gods or b) Night elves. I say we kill the lot.

I hate elves, but really the night elves are no higher than #3 on the "disastrous consequences reaped from trying to make deals with the Legion" list. I mean at least Azeroth didn't explode into floating smithereens, and even Outland is probably a nicer place to hang out than Argus is now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 08, 2009, 12:04:15 PM
You want a good example of how the digging goes bad?

Algalon.  Sent to Azeroth to determine whether to re-originate the planet or not.  Why?  Because Brann can't keep his nose out of where it doesn't belong, managed to point adventurers in the direction of Loken, who's death then triggered Algalon being sent.

Yeah.  It's "just" digging.  That nearly led to the planet being completely destroyed by the Titans.  Nothing wrong with that, right lads?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 08, 2009, 12:07:59 PM
Pretty much everything that's gone majorly wrong on Azeroth since the Titans left can be blamed on either a) Old Gods or b) Night elves. I say we kill the lot.

I hate elves, but really the night elves are no higher than #3 on the "disastrous consequences reaped from trying to make deals with the Legion" list. I mean at least Azeroth didn't explode into floating smithereens, and even Outland is probably a nicer place to hang out than Argus is now.

Azshara.  Her actions resulted in a direct invasion of Azeroth by the Burning Legion, not to mention the destruction of the Well of Eternity, which then destroyed most of a continent.  Not to mention the soon-to-be coming Cataclysm that she will have a direct hand in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 08, 2009, 12:28:26 PM
Draenor, that was literally blow into fragments after planet-wide genocide and corruption.

Argus, that the draenei had to up and flee from completely because most of their race outright decided to become demons.

Like I said, night elves come in no higher than #3. Azeroth is at least still sphere-shaped and inhabitable.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on October 08, 2009, 01:20:08 PM
And like I said, if Velen picks any other planet than the orc homeworld to land?  The whole shebang never happens.  They only found it because the Eredar were chasing the Draenei.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 08, 2009, 01:29:53 PM
Night Elves aren't really as high up either because only a small percentage of their race invited disaster (The Highborne) as opposed to a significant majority of the Orcs and Draenei taking up the Legion cause.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 08, 2009, 03:05:42 PM
Yeah.  It's "just" digging.  That nearly led to the planet being completely destroyed by the Titans.  Nothing wrong with that, right lads?

Good example, I'm certain Loken as the chosen champion of Yogg-Saron wouldn't have gotten up to anything if he had just been left alone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 08, 2009, 03:51:48 PM
He hadn't done much in recent history, and he was clearly in thrall to YS eons ago, as he murdered Thorim's wife, and tricked Thorim into thinking it was the Sons of Hodir (apparently) a long long time ago.  He's been sitting on that throne ever since, waiting for who knows what.  Until we show up, then he uses us to lure Thorim out for a confrontation, captures Thorim, and drags him into Ulduar to guard against those pesky mortals that won't leave well enough alone.  So of course we go running into HoL and peekay his crazy Old God corrupted self.

Then Brann goes rummaging around in Ulduar until he triggers god knows what, and we have to go in there and sort it out.  Thanks Brann.  You twit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 08, 2009, 04:06:56 PM
Yeah.  It's "just" digging.  That nearly led to the planet being completely destroyed by the Titans.  Nothing wrong with that, right lads?

Good example, I'm certain Loken as the chosen champion of Yogg-Saron wouldn't have gotten up to anything if he had just been left alone.

And man, Ulduar was completely impossible to find without any digging!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 08, 2009, 04:20:59 PM
And like I said, if Velen picks any other planet than the orc homeworld to land?  The whole shebang never happens.  They only found it because the Eredar were chasing the Draenei.

At this point you're arguing against plot developments that were necessary to bring us to the current state. Unfortunately I do not see a "What If?" a la Marvel for Warcraft, like "What If? The Draenei Never Landed on Draenor! Medivh Never Opened The Dark Portal! Tyrande Never Freed Illidan!"

Oh, wait. The answer to all of those is the Legion successfully invades Azeroth and there's no extremely popular I.P. to rake in the dough for Blizzard.

Hmmm. Alternative Realities is unexplored fodder though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on October 08, 2009, 05:00:27 PM
Pretty much everything that's gone majorly wrong on Azeroth since the Titans left can be blamed on either a) Old Gods or b) Night elves. I say we kill the lot.

I hate elves, but really the night elves are no higher than #3 on the "disastrous consequences reaped from trying to make deals with the Legion" list. I mean at least Azeroth didn't explode into floating smithereens, and even Outland is probably a nicer place to hang out than Argus is now.

Azshara.  Her actions resulted in a direct invasion of Azeroth by the Burning Legion, not to mention the destruction of the Well of Eternity, which then destroyed most of a continent.  Not to mention the soon-to-be coming Cataclysm that she will have a direct hand in.
It should be noted that as far as the War of the Ancients trilogy seems to show us, she was relatively blameless.  She had her people researching magic and portals and such, yes, but as far as is indicated, at the time there had been no indication that any of this was in any way bad or even dangerous beyond the expected 'if we screw something up this might blow up or something' sort of danger.  Their society was full of magic, they used it often, and to no ill effects.  Then Xavius calls her in, goes 'oh hey look at this' and she looks into the portal he created and falls squarely under the gaze of Sargeras, who basically proceeds to mind-fuck her, at which point pretty much everything else can't really be blamed on her.  And the rest of the indications are somewhat conflicting as to whether she was a good queen before that, but to be beloved to such a degree by what seems like 99% of her people, I would imagine she couldn't have been bad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 08, 2009, 05:07:27 PM
"Her People" were the Highborne.  She saw herself and the elites as separate from the rest of the Night Elves, so yeah, she was pretty much a bitch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 08, 2009, 05:39:53 PM
He's been sitting on that throne ever since, waiting for who knows what.  Until we show up, then he uses us to lure Thorim out for a confrontation, captures Thorim, and drags him into Ulduar to guard against those pesky mortals that won't leave well enough alone.

So should I be submitting a bug report to Blizzard that the dwarf-only Thorim quest is broken?  Because it seems other races than dwarves are rooting around Ulduar.  Really, you have to hand it to Brann though, he isn't throwing a shitfit that people are rooting around in the ruins created by his ancestors.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on October 08, 2009, 07:20:45 PM
Then Xavius calls her in, goes 'oh hey look at this' and she looks into the portal he created and falls squarely under the gaze of Sargeras, who basically proceeds to mind-fuck her [Azshara], at which point pretty much everything else can't really be blamed on her.

Buh?  First of all, the novels show less awareness of the Warcraft continuity than half the people in this thread.

Second of all, it's been a while since I've been able to read those books, but that's not how I remember it.  She was pretty clearly "YES, I WILL MARRY SARGERAS AND BE TEH DARK QUEEN" as soon as he showed up.  If he was doing some kind of woogy-woogy brain melting on her, then she'd have more power to resist it than almost anyone else in the history of the planet, so then you also have to give a pass to the Dranei and the Orcs and Kel'Thuzad and Kael'Thas and damn near everyone else in the Rogue's Gallery.

Azshara.  [Snip]  Not to mention the soon-to-be coming Cataclysm that she will have a direct hand in.

As an aside, do we know this?  I haven't seen anything from Blizzard that even mentions Azshara in the expansion, aside from the fact that the Sundering is sometimes also called the Cataclysm.  It looked to me like Deathwing was going to be the Big Bad of this expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on October 08, 2009, 11:50:16 PM
"Her People" were the Highborne.  She saw herself and the elites as separate from the rest of the Night Elves, so yeah, she was pretty much a bitch.
Pretty much everybody (with like one or two exceptions, not counting the people from the future who already know the story) in the War of the Ancients thinks of her as perfect and wonderful and all.  Even when they know the Highborne are working with the demon army and everything, their assumption right up until the end is that those nasty Highborne and demons must have their beloved queen captured.  Maybe it was just good PR, but I'd say you don't get that beloved without doing something right.

Buh?  First of all, the novels show less awareness of the Warcraft continuity than half the people in this thread.

Second of all, it's been a while since I've been able to read those books, but that's not how I remember it.  She was pretty clearly "YES, I WILL MARRY SARGERAS AND BE TEH DARK QUEEN" as soon as he showed up.  If he was doing some kind of woogy-woogy brain melting on her, then she'd have more power to resist it than almost anyone else in the history of the planet, so then you also have to give a pass to the Dranei and the Orcs and Kel'Thuzad and Kael'Thas and damn near everyone else in the Rogue's Gallery.
As far as I'm aware, the novels have been declared Canon by Blizzard etc, so whatever we might think of them or not, it's part of the story.

And while it's not directly stated in her case, combined with Xavius's first encounter with Sargeras it's pretty well implied that she's highly suspicious until she looks into the portal and bam, power of a Titan in her face.
Quote from: Page 93, The Well of Eternity
He tried to pull back, but it was already too late.  Deep, so very deep within the captured energies of the Well, the mind of the counselor was suddenly dragged beyond the edge of reality, beyond eternity . . . until . . .
I have searched long for you . . . came the voice.  It was life, death, creation, destruction . . . and power infinite.
Had he even desired to do so, Xavius would have been unable to wrench his eyes from the abyss within.  Other eyes now snared his tightly . . . the eyes of the lord counselor's new god.
That was Xavius's first encounter with Sargeras.

Quote from: Page 108-109, The Well of Eternity
"You must see it up close, Light of a Thousand Moons.  Then you'll understand what we have achieved . . ."
Azshara frowned.  She had come without her attendants at his request and perhaps she now regretted that.  Nevertheless, Azshara was queen and it behooved her to show that, even alone, she was in command of any situation.
With graceful strides, Azshara stepped up to the very edge of the pattern.  She first eyed the work of the Highborne currently casting, then deigned to set her gaze on the inferno within.
"It still strikes me as unchanged, dear Xavius.  I expected more from-"
She let out a gasp and though the counselor could not see her expression completely, he made out enough to know that Azshara now understood.
Now, this isn't conclusively stating that he essentially messed with her head, but it seems reasonable and strongly implied.  Especially given the instant subversion of what is clearly shown to be a huge ego on her part.  There really isn't another scenario that makes sense to me that has her going from wise, thoughtful, but highly egotistical queen to totally happy to see the entire world exterminated in an instant while she herself becomes second-fiddle to the guy in the portal.  Azshara may have been the most powerful mortal that ever lived, but she was looking straight into the face of Sargeras, at his full strength.  And she'd been put into the situation with no warning and specifically set up to be caught off guard and lacking in support, and then bam, fallen titan in her face.

I don't know how Sargeras approached the Eredar, but if it was anything like that, I don't blame Archimonde and Kil'jaeden for siding with him either.  Everyone else was after Sargeras was weakened by the destruction of the Well of Eternity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 09, 2009, 12:01:28 AM
So should I be submitting a bug report to Blizzard that the dwarf-only Thorim quest is broken?  Because it seems other races than dwarves are rooting around Ulduar.  Really, you have to hand it to Brann though, he isn't throwing a shitfit that people are rooting around in the ruins created by his ancestors.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but it's not like Brann can really claim any ancestral ownership over any of the Titan Vaults, is it?  Dwarves are directly descendant from animated rock, that was corrupted by the curse of flesh.  Pretty much EVERY Titan related structure ever created that had to do with the Earthen was already fully functional LONG before they mutated into current Dwarves.   And heck, their job was pretty much to maintain the place an help out with the work.  They were essentially menial labour, specificly designed to fit into the small spaces the big guys couldn't reach. 

If people were running around digging up actual Dwarven ruins, i can see this being a problem, but saying we are rooting around in ruins created by his ancestors is a bit of stretch.  That's about like saying that the descendants of servants for royalty should have ancestral claim over the royal castle after the Family line of the king / queen has died out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 09, 2009, 12:26:36 AM
If people were running around digging up actual Dwarven ruins, i can see this being a problem, but saying we are rooting around in ruins created by his ancestors is a bit of stretch.  That's about like saying that the descendants of servants for royalty should have ancestral claim over the royal castle after the Family line of the king / queen has died out.

That being said, it's also stretching a bit to call the dwarven dig sites in Mulgore burial grounds.

Go ahead, check Wowhead.  Quests -> filter with name "burial" (extended search).  I'll wait. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 09, 2009, 12:50:53 AM
He's been sitting on that throne ever since, waiting for who knows what.  Until we show up, then he uses us to lure Thorim out for a confrontation, captures Thorim, and drags him into Ulduar to guard against those pesky mortals that won't leave well enough alone.

So should I be submitting a bug report to Blizzard that the dwarf-only Thorim quest is broken?  Because it seems other races than dwarves are rooting around Ulduar.  Really, you have to hand it to Brann though, he isn't throwing a shitfit that people are rooting around in the ruins created by his ancestors.

What part of "And then we have to go in and clean up his mess" did you miss?

It looks like all of it.

Nice job.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 09, 2009, 12:53:57 AM
So if we're going to call Azshara blameless for attempting to summon Sargeras, I'm sure you'll give the orcs a pass as well, right?  Right?  After all, Nehr'zul just thought he was talking with his dead wife, and didn't realize anything was wrong until the spirits stopped talking with him.  By then it was too late.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 09, 2009, 01:13:17 AM
What part of "And then we have to go in and clean up his mess" did you miss?

It looks like all of it.

Nice job.

Okay, granted Loken and Yogg-Saron are obviously the victims of unprovoked aggression here.  You know, aside from all the wife murdering, madness inducing, plant and animal corrupting, and preparations for war which first appear in level 71 quests.

But go ahead, tell me how exactly it is that Bran is more responsible than the player character for Loken capturing Torim.  You know, while he's sitting across a massive chasm, hasn't actually been near either NPC, and doesn't actually play into either's respective story arcs except as a casual name-dropping; unlike the player character.  I'll wait.

I know, how about you dig a little deeper. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on October 09, 2009, 03:16:09 AM
So if we're going to call Azshara blameless for attempting to summon Sargeras, I'm sure you'll give the orcs a pass as well, right?  Right?  After all, Nehr'zul just thought he was talking with his dead wife, and didn't realize anything was wrong until the spirits stopped talking with him.  By then it was too late.
Ner'zhul does pretty much get a pass in my opinion.  He reneged on his deal with Kil'jaeden, when he realized the bad shit going down, forcing Kil'jaeden to turn to Gul'dan...who does not get a pass, because by that point they knew exactly what they were getting into.

At least, I think.  I haven't read the relevant novel, so perhaps I'm wrong on some detail of this point?  Either way, it's still a little different - in this case they clearly had not been messed with to such a point where they unable to resist - indeed, they were able to resist quite successfuly, when they decided to.  It's not the same as being shoved into Sargeras' face and from that point on never giving a hint of a second thought.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 09, 2009, 04:06:34 AM
Individual's actions aren't exactly something you can pin to a race, either.  Though apparently that's what all the cool kids do these days.

In other news, my shaman is 65, and apparently Garrosh is a whiny emo bitch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 09, 2009, 05:39:50 AM
Garrosh is hilariously Emo in TBC, which makes WotLK Garrosh even more  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 09, 2009, 07:53:56 AM
I'd have been happy with a crazy new warchief, hell he could be the biggest fascist on azeroth. Or maybe a giant hippy or hell...anything but garrosh  :facepalm:  It's hard to have a leader you feel like you could beat up.

On that note, paladin in my guild solo'd king roidrage last weekend.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 09, 2009, 10:31:00 AM
I don't really care about Ner'zhul or even Gul'dan. I'm more amused by the overwhelming majority of the orcish species that just blithely went along with the whole thing. Especially since the one clan with enough sense to go "Hey this is bullshit!" tried to warn everyone else and even managed to escape.

I mean Arthas may be as bad as anyone, but at least 95% of the human race didn't join the Cult of the Damned.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 09, 2009, 10:34:38 AM
Garrosh is hilariously Emo in TBC, which makes WotLK Garrosh even more  :why_so_serious:

Yeah, he went from being this sad little shitface who should be fucking grateful Thrall every came along to pull him out of his stupor into a fucking "HEY NICE PLANET YOU GOT HERE LET'S TAKE IT OVER COMPLETELY."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 09, 2009, 11:10:55 AM
Think maybe Garrosh has a little flask a pit lord blood he's been nipping at on the sly?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 09, 2009, 11:15:29 AM
I think Warcraft lore consists of many individual stories meant to provoke War.  Free will is an illusion, because the Love & Peace types would make the setting boring.  Nearly everyone is an ass and at fault.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 09, 2009, 11:19:55 AM
No, the excuse is that he is a Hellscream so it's genetic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 09, 2009, 11:46:43 AM
So if we're going to call Azshara blameless for attempting to summon Sargeras, I'm sure you'll give the orcs a pass as well, right?  Right?  After all, Nehr'zul just thought he was talking with his dead wife, and didn't realize anything was wrong until the spirits stopped talking with him.  By then it was too late.
Ner'zhul does pretty much get a pass in my opinion.  He reneged on his deal with Kil'jaeden, when he realized the bad shit going down, forcing Kil'jaeden to turn to Gul'dan...who does not get a pass, because by that point they knew exactly what they were getting into.

At least, I think.  I haven't read the relevant novel, so perhaps I'm wrong on some detail of this point?  Either way, it's still a little different - in this case they clearly had not been messed with to such a point where they unable to resist - indeed, they were able to resist quite successfuly, when they decided to.  It's not the same as being shoved into Sargeras' face and from that point on never giving a hint of a second thought.

Should be pointed out that in the Warcraft 3 campaign Grom pretty much tells Thrall flat out that they all went along with the whole demon blood thing willingly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 09, 2009, 12:02:48 PM
Should be pointed out that in the Warcraft 3 campaign Grom pretty much tells Thrall flat out that they all went along with the whole demon blood thing willingly.

Consistency isn't exactly one of the lore's strong suits. Whatever sounds coolest in that immediate moment regardless of pre-existing developments (Draenei, lol) sums it up completely.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: gamerjock on October 09, 2009, 01:37:03 PM
I really haven't been keeping up with WOW much lately.  Any chance that these new races will be a "third faction" or neutral faction?  That would beat War to the punch there again. 

Woah Woah Woah...are you saying there is rumor WAR is going to add a third faction like they fucking should have to start with?  3 factions are a MUST for any true pvp game. 

I need a link to read about this. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on October 09, 2009, 01:46:40 PM
 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on October 09, 2009, 02:27:26 PM
Wat?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Megrim on October 09, 2009, 02:56:41 PM
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on October 09, 2009, 03:16:45 PM
 :hello_kitty:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 09, 2009, 03:52:28 PM
C-c-c-combo breaker!

So should I be submitting a bug report to Blizzard that the dwarf-only Thorim quest is broken?  Because it seems other races than dwarves are rooting around Ulduar.  Really, you have to hand it to Brann though, he isn't throwing a shitfit that people are rooting around in the ruins created by his ancestors.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but it's not like Brann can really claim any ancestral ownership over any of the Titan Vaults, is it?  Dwarves are directly descendant from animated rock, that was corrupted by the curse of flesh.  Pretty much EVERY Titan related structure ever created that had to do with the Earthen was already fully functional LONG before they mutated into current Dwarves.   And heck, their job was pretty much to maintain the place an help out with the work.  They were essentially menial labour, specificly designed to fit into the small spaces the big guys couldn't reach. 

If people were running around digging up actual Dwarven ruins, i can see this being a problem, but saying we are rooting around in ruins created by his ancestors is a bit of stretch.  That's about like saying that the descendants of servants for royalty should have ancestral claim over the royal castle after the Family line of the king / queen has died out.
There's also the minor detail that there's four other races with at least equal claim to the whole "Decended from Titan creations" thing now (and arguably two more, in a rather more vague and indirect manner) so the whole dwarven "Let's go poke around Titan ruins and wake up Things We We Not Meant To Know" excuse got thrown out the window.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 09, 2009, 11:31:55 PM
Speaking of the whole Created by the Titans / Byproduct of the Titans thing, was it ever officially stated WHERE the Humans came from?

Tauren are natives.
Trolls, All Elvish variants, Harpies, Satyr, Naga and a few others all share a "common" ancestory WAYYY back in the beginning.
Dwarves and Gnomes are appearently mutant Titan Constructs.
But where did the Humans come from?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 10, 2009, 12:10:55 AM
Humans are the tiny, sickly, shitty offspring of the Vrykul.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 10, 2009, 07:28:42 AM
Yeah there's a whole Alliance quest line in Howling Fjord that explains that, but I don't think there's a Horde analogue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on October 10, 2009, 10:26:18 AM
Trolls, All Elvish variants, Harpies, Satyr, Naga and a few others all share a "common" ancestory WAYYY back in the beginning.
There was a guild of Troll supremacists on my roleplaying server several years back who insisted that the original elves were just mutant trolls, twisted by bad mojo. When presented with lore to the contrary they'd ramble about how elves exploited their newfangled written language to devalue the oral tradition: "Nighty's way to keep de brother down."

Good times.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 10, 2009, 02:12:41 PM
Yeah there's a whole Alliance quest line in Howling Fjord that explains that, but I don't think there's a Horde analogue.


It also failed to explain the Vrykul though. The Earthern were diggers, The Robognomes were machinists, the Vrykul were... large?


It's like when people say "Life originated from a comet!", so where did the comet get it?!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on October 10, 2009, 03:06:37 PM
A WIZARD DID IT


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: raydeen on October 10, 2009, 07:10:28 PM
"Nighty's way to keep de brother down."

That was good.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 10, 2009, 07:32:14 PM
"Nighty's way to keep de brother down."

That was good.  :awesome_for_real:

Lol lore, alliance/horde bias aside...it makes more sense for night elves to be trolls that drank from the well of eternity and got evolved/corrupted than the other way around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 11, 2009, 02:47:39 AM
If I recall correctly, they diverged from a common ancestor. Night elves were supposedly a nomadic race that settled on the fringes of the Well of Etenity and got all elvish. Trolls...just got weird, as opposed to falling under an arcane influence.

And speaking of arcane stuff, anyone notice the Highborne have blown back into town? They seem pretty insistant that there's Plenty Work Afoot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 11, 2009, 04:47:06 AM
Humans are the tiny, sickly, shitty offspring of the Vrykul.
And the Forsaken are undead humans, which makes them thrice-cursed Titan creations.  :grin:

If I recall correctly, they diverged from a common ancestor. Night elves were supposedly a nomadic race that settled on the fringes of the Well of Etenity and got all elvish. Trolls...just got weird, as opposed to falling under an arcane influence.
It's not quite all spelt out, but night elves are pretty much a bunch of trolls* (the 'mysterious nomadic race') who wandered near the Well and were fel-corrupted 'evolved' into NEs, and then satyrs/harpies/dryads/naga/high, er, blood elves are all corrupted 'evolved' NEs.

Yeah, dryads are just as dodgy as satyr. Listening to extra-planar beings, growing hooves, the males growing horns? Just because its 'nature' magic rather than fel makes it alright, apparently. Just ignore that Ashenvale has purple trees and weird glows everywhere while most actually natural forests are green. It's all good. Just listen to the night elves - when have they ever been wrong?

 :oh_i_see:

Quote
And speaking of arcane stuff, anyone notice the Highborne have blown back into town? They seem pretty insistant that there's Plenty Work Afoot.
They're why there are going to be NE mages in Cataclysm...although try not to think about Highborne fighting against the BEs too hard.


*Trolls had world-spanning empires and were fighting Old Gods back when three-fifths of Alliance races were still automata. One could argue that they were the race Azeroth was actually built for, and everyone else is an invader. Of course, one could also argue that the whole set-up was to ultimately result in the creation of the blood elf race and so they are the apex of all creation. It all depends on your point of view....  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Oban on October 11, 2009, 06:19:52 AM
Well, female Blood Elves do look the best.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on October 11, 2009, 06:22:29 AM
Yeah, dryads are just as dodgy as satyr. Listening to extra-planar beings, growing hooves, the males growing horns? Just because its 'nature' magic rather than fel makes it alright, apparently.

I don't think it was magic, except in the sense of "that magic evening" between Cenarius and some (many?) female night elf friends.  10,000 years is a long time to just hang around in the forests, amirite?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 11, 2009, 07:23:43 AM
It'd be nice if they did something to make Highborn Night Elves look visually distinct from the other Night Elves, or at least gave you the option.
Kind of like how you get a load more options when you pick Death Knight - different fleshtones, faces, hair colours. I doubt they've really considered that, but hey, I can dream, right? I'm most worried about male Night Elves horrible, horrible casting animation. You can just about bear it (no pun intended) as a lowbie Druid when your only option is spamming Wrath, but it's going to be seriously bad as a Mage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on October 11, 2009, 12:08:20 PM
And speaking of arcane stuff, anyone notice the Highborne have blown back into town? They seem pretty insistant that there's Plenty Work Afoot.

Buh the buh?  I thought Highborn Night Elves took the boat across the sea and eventually just started calling themselves "High Elves...."?

Yeah, dryads are just as dodgy as satyr. Listening to extra-planar beings, growing hooves, the males growing horns? Just because its 'nature' magic rather than fel makes it alright, apparently.

I was under the impression that Dryads were the actual daughters of Cenarius (in some mystical demigod way which hopefully does not involve humping a doe) while Satyrs were some mutated form of Night Elf (like the relationship Fel Orcs have to Orcs).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 11, 2009, 12:10:53 PM
And speaking of arcane stuff, anyone notice the Highborne have blown back into town? They seem pretty insistant that there's Plenty Work Afoot.

Buh the buh?  I thought Highborn Night Elves took the boat across the sea and eventually just started calling themselves "High Elves...."?

Yeah, don't think on it too hard.  Apparently the live crew thought that NE Mages and Dwarf Shaman made much more sense than NE Shaman and Dwarf Mages.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 11, 2009, 02:09:55 PM
Dwarf mage was on the little "new race/class combo" chart.

Anyway, apparently the story is that some of the highborne were hanging out in Dire Maul all this time (like the Prince guy) and are now feeling sassy enough to step out again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 11, 2009, 02:39:18 PM
Garrosh is hilariously Emo in TBC, which makes WotLK Garrosh even more  :why_so_serious:

Yeah, he went from being this sad little shitface who should be fucking grateful Thrall every came along to pull him out of his stupor into a fucking "HEY NICE PLANET YOU GOT HERE LET'S TAKE IT OVER COMPLETELY."
Garrosh's story got shortchanged because WotLK was an 'Alliance Expansion' (like TBC was a 'Horde Expansion' i.e. all the good lore & storylines were either that side or neutral).

What it should have been was him carrying on from the Nagrand event and basically doing a Grand Tour of Horde areas on Outland then Azeroth, and his reactions growing from that (namely "Wait, why the fuck are we making nice politically with the arseholes in the Alliance when we're living in fucking deserts and post-apocalyptic wastelands when they have pristine mountains and forests...and they're invading us?"). Combine that with the whole death before dishonour thing and the fact that he's quite happily embracing his heritage now instead of repressing it, and you'd have an interesting story. Especially when you consider that by definition Garrosh had fuck all to do with anything the Horde have done pre-TBC (his skin is the wrong colour, for starters), and quite a lot of the Horde is probably in a similar boat (grew up in the Internment camps for orcs, had fuck-all to do with the original Horde for everyone else; hell, two of the Horde races are ex-Alliance!) so they're not exactly defaulting to 'repentant noble savage' like Saurfang Sr. et. al. - in fact, they probably see the Alliance as holding grudges and spoiling for a fight.

Instead we got: Emo Garrosh *timeskip* "Why in the name of Gul'dan's fel-corrupted ballsack aren't we going to kick the crap out of Arthas now? The plague was an act of cowardice" *timeskip* Hello I am the "Big I Am" in Borean Tundra *timeskip* Rar Imma gon' eat Wrynn's face *timeskip* Sup I'm Warchief now.

And a shitty comic starring King Manbeef McRoidrager and his chillaxed magical twin.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 11, 2009, 05:30:28 PM
The Alliance is invading the Horde now?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 11, 2009, 05:44:20 PM
Simond plays some weird alternate-universe version of WoW. I've quit bothering to question it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on October 11, 2009, 08:34:14 PM
The Alliance is invading the Horde now?  :oh_i_see:

Yeah, they are.  There's a bunch of quests about it.  The Horde is also invading the Alliance, though, I believe.

I'm reminded of that one Terry Pratchett battle, Koom Valley, between Dwarves and Trolls, where both sides ambushed each other somehow.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 11, 2009, 09:36:36 PM
The Alliance is invading the Horde now?  :oh_i_see:

They're digging! :dead_horse:

And no, in no conceivable universe except for Simond's would Garrosh ever be a decent character.  He's like King Beefcake, except he cuts himself when nobody's looking, is a mouthy twat when you see him in Northrend, and then goes on to propose the most ingenious plan since Operation Barbarossa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa): after which Saurfang tells him he's walking down a dangerous road and if he doesn't cut that shit out he's going to get an axe in his whore mouth.

Okay, so I embellished a little.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kageru on October 12, 2009, 11:39:24 PM

Saurfang might die in ice-crown... but I don't think it's that likely. Arthas has always been a primarily human story and it is fitting that the sacrifice / revenge will involve a human who has lived to oppose him. Likewise Saurfang's not in the leadership race (forum fans aside) being more a military adviser. So whether he is alive or dead makes little difference to Garrosh seizing power.

I don't mind the WoW lore, it reads like a soap opera but it still comes up with a whole heap of "I'd like to see that".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 13, 2009, 09:46:48 AM
Quote

Okay, so I embellished a little.

Not really. I don't play horde-side, but I looked up the conversation between those two, and that's pretty much how it went down.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on October 14, 2009, 03:29:33 PM
The Alliance is invading the Horde now?  :oh_i_see:

http://www.wowhead.com/?quest=784
Quote
Led by Admiral Proudmoore, the humans of Kul Tiras encroached on Durotar, violating the Warchief's pact made with Jaina Proudmoore in order to defeat Archimonde years ago.

The human aggression was repelled and Tiragarde Keep fell. But recently, the Admiral's reserves, led by Lieutenant Benedict, have retaken the keep and once again pose a threat to our homeland. These humans show no respect for diplomacy.

Prove your honor and travel south to Tiragarde Keep to eliminate the human invaders.

http://www.wowhead.com/?quest=831
Quote
Humans cannot be trusted. We fought alongside them with a weary heart, knowing they would betray us one day.

Admiral Proudmoore's death was not enough to stop his legacy of deceit. The human scum had his plans well laid out before he ever met his demise.

The second quest gives an indication of why Garrosh would keep the Trolls in Org - Vol'jin doesn't trust humans either.  So Taurens are all hemp-wearing, veggie treehuggers, the Forsaken betrayed the Horde and the Blood elves are, well, elves. You can't blame an orc really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 14, 2009, 05:50:05 PM
Jaina's desire to not bother the Horde has always been unique.   The vast majority of the Alliance really doesn't trust the Horde and wants nothing more than to put them back in internment camps. 

As for Garrosh his character development, even by Blizzard's standards is crappy.  He went from being a depressed self-exile to a overly arrogant jackass with Thrall displaying his typical density.  The Blood Elves don't really need the Horde as they have attained high positions with the Naaru and Kirin Tor.  The Forsaken?  We're all already dead anyways and not going anywhere so we can handle ourselves.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 14, 2009, 06:07:36 PM
Once Kael'thas was cut out of the equation the Blood Elves became pretty decent and strive for excellence.

Yes, Garrosh Hellscream is a giant shoe-horn. Thrall I imagine is too tied up in prophecy giving him something to do. Without a clear direction for his people aside from survival and defending their borders, he's weak.

His title IS Warchief...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 15, 2009, 08:25:10 AM
Man, I'm just glad the Naaru aren't pissed off about the whole "stealing power" thing.  That it was foretold by Velen really lifts a load off of my fabulous shoulders.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 15, 2009, 09:22:42 AM
Holy people / beings are very forgiving.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 15, 2009, 09:27:45 AM
Holy people / beings are very forgiving.

Especially when the act in question fits right in with their plans.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 15, 2009, 09:28:36 AM
The Naaru's? Or Blizzard's?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 16, 2009, 07:58:30 AM
The Alliance is invading the Horde now?  :oh_i_see:
There's Kul Tiras marines in fortresses all down the eastern coast of Kalimdor.
There's Ironforge dwarves in the Barrens and Mulgore.
There's night elves sabotaging the arcane sanctums and dicking with ley lines all over Eversong and the Ghostlands.
There's the Stormpike Expedition attempting to exterminate the Frostwolves.
And the only reason the Forsaken aren't hip-deep in Stormwind troops trying to 'reclaim' Lordaeron is because Stormwind is just funding and working with the Scarlet Crusade instead.

All, except the Crusade, are offical Alliance groups. In contrast:
Warsong Gulch & Arathi Basin - yes, these are about the only genuine Horde invasions...and the latter is debatable as it could be considered a civil war (i.e. the living remnants of the northern kingdom vs the undead remnants of the northern kingdoms).
And Ashenvale, of course. Although the elves struck first in that battle and the Horde is just finishing it.

That's about it, really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 16, 2009, 09:43:40 AM
Regarding the Alliance: Up until recently Stormwind was being manipulated by Onyxia, with the return of the King having only really taken place during late Burning Crusade - Pre-Wrath's time line. So recent fuck-ups could be blamed on the Black Dragonflight undermining the Alliance / increasing tensions with the Horde in order to weaken both sides for an eventual bitch slap. Unfortunately, like Garrosh, we don't really see the long-term, individual developments that led to these situations.

When Varian returned, he added his special brand of prejudice / roidrage to negotations / tactics (Twice the Statesman, indeed. Fuck that was a terrible line.), so the Horde has a right to defend its territory. Unfortunately territorial borders tends to be who has what power where rather than anything mutually agreed upon, and humanity does have somewhat of a claim to areas occupied by Forsaken soldiers.

Kul Tiras could be considered a separatist faction.

The Alliance getting involved in Quel'thalas affairs after their separation seems really, really stupid. But you know, Blizzard isn't Bioware. Nothing subtle / sensible with it's I.P. Just epic, in your face, who cares how we got here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 16, 2009, 10:53:39 AM

And Ashenvale, of course. Although the elves struck first in that battle and the Horde is just finishing it.


...what?

A bunch of ugly monsters invade their homeland and start chopping down all their sacred trees. But the elves started it?  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 16, 2009, 10:56:23 AM
Night elf males have no place calling anyone an ugly monster...just sayin


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 16, 2009, 11:03:23 AM
Remnants of Proudmoore's forces count even though the last incursion was destroyed with the help of his daughter, you know, the current highest-ranking Alliance leader on the continent. The Scarlet Crusade somehow counts as Alliance even though the Alliance has quests to, among other things, kill all the leaders of the Scarlet Crusade. Ashenvale is a totally defensive invasion since someone dared to attack the Horde just because they rolled into their country and started taking things.

The Forsaken count as Lordaeron. Until it's time to make reference to Garithos or internment camps, at which point that will temporarily change (Yet again!) and anything questionable that was ever done by Lordaeron will somehow be pinned on Stormwind. And since the Forsaken are supposed to be the continuation of Lordaeron for the moment, the whole Arathi thing is really just a pre-existing civil war and peripheral to Horde/Alliance affairs. On the other hand, any shenanigans between the night elves and the high/blood elves are totally different, because those two groups are totally unrelated and have always gotten along great before now.

Oh and the dwarves are still DIGGING, with local oversight only sometimes.

Could you at least have picked a few less examples of people the Alliance has killed in the past? I mean Daelin Proudmoore's left-over guys? The freakin' Scarlet Crusade? Are you kidding me? And seriously Simond, how does your brain process that whole "The Forsaken are Lordaeron, unless Lordaeron did something bad in this thread!" thing without your skull rupturing?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 16, 2009, 12:20:56 PM
From what I can tell, the actions of segments of a force count for the whole since the whole don't reprimand / isolate the segments. See: Forsaken at Wrath Gate.

The leaders don't really have a good grasp on all their lieutenants.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on October 16, 2009, 12:46:44 PM
Oh and the dwarves are still DIGGING, with local oversight only sometimes.

The dwarves are still breathing - that's a good enough reason to slaughter as many of the stumpy little shits as possible.  Anyone in their right minds would chop down the trees in Ashenvale just because it pisses off those pointy-eared, motherfucking treehuggers. The Tauren might be druidic hippies too and they might have real issues with the Venture Co. chopping down the trees in Stonetalon but are they going to ask the orcs to stop in Ashenvale? Are they bollocks. Why? Because chopping down those trees pisses off the fucking night elves so it's got to be a good thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 16, 2009, 01:12:26 PM
From what I can tell, the actions of segments of a force count for the whole since the whole don't reprimand / isolate the segments. See: Forsaken at Wrath Gate.

The Scarlet Crusade was formed from the remnants of Lordaeron and repeatedly comes under attack from the Alliance. The marines in the Barrens are remnants of a force that was only crushed with the help of an Alliance leader. But hey, that's totally the same as the Wrathgate. Everyone should have just accepted that whole "No, we didn't mean to kill you YET!" excuse from the Forsaken and patted each other on the back.

Except, whoops, even Thrall wouldn't buy the shit being shovled in this thread right now.

Is Theramore, the legitimate Alliance base in the region, under attack on account of those naughty marines? Why no, guys deserting because they're NOT allowed to fight the Horde is a major plot point there. Clearly SOMEONE sees the difference.

On the other hand, the Forsaken with their totally legit excuse for accidentally killing everyone are about to get a big orcish boot up their ass next patch, meaning even the rest of the Horde doesn't buy that shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 16, 2009, 01:14:10 PM
stupid shit

There's a guy like this at work. He's also very good at patting himself on the back for just happening to roll horde. We usually ignore him, like we would Jehovah's Witness' or some such other nuisance.

Making this stuff up as you go along is weak. Give it a break. Blizzard has always introduced shades of grey into all it's lore. That's not new and is actually a welcome change from most fantasy boilerplate. This stuff, though, is just clownshoes. 



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 16, 2009, 02:17:08 PM

And Ashenvale, of course. Although the elves struck first in that battle and the Horde is just finishing it.


...what?

A bunch of ugly monsters invade their homeland and start chopping down all their sacred trees. But the elves started it?  :uhrr:



"The big talking ones drop more lumber, kill those first!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 16, 2009, 03:25:39 PM
stupid shit

There's a guy like this at work. He's also very good at patting himself on the back for just happening to roll horde. We usually ignore him, like we would Jehovah's Witness' or some such other nuisance.

Making this stuff up as you go along is weak. Give it a break. Blizzard has always introduced shades of grey into all it's lore. That's not new and is actually a welcome change from most fantasy boilerplate. This stuff, though, is just clownshoes. 
Oh dear, you're taking this all very seriously.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Teleku on October 16, 2009, 03:53:19 PM
So I haven't played wow in a long time, but am interested in seeing what the new expansion brings, so I click on this thread.


For fuck sake people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 16, 2009, 04:03:05 PM
Well if that's what you want, I hear it features more twitch gameplay.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on October 16, 2009, 04:08:18 PM
So I haven't played wow in a long time, but am interested in seeing what the new expansion brings, so I click on this thread.


For fuck sake people.


Yah, that's why I tried to keep it contained to just this thread.  WoW lore(lol) battles are pretty goddamn silly except to the people actually taking this tripe seriously.

WUA is a fanfic pk.  But don't worry, everywhere else is mostly Trammelized.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on October 16, 2009, 06:21:43 PM
Ashenvale is a totally defensive invasion since someone dared to attack the Horde just because they rolled into their country and started taking things.
[snip]
Oh and the dwarves are still DIGGING, with local oversight only sometimes.

Seems a bit odd to me to claim that the Horde deserves DEATH for rolling into Night Elf land and chopping some trees, while simultaneously asserting that the Horde are violent maniacs for killing Dwarves who are "just digging."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 16, 2009, 06:37:32 PM
A small group of people conducting archaeology without a permit before belatedly submitting to local oversight (http://www.wowwiki.com/Bael%27dun_Digsite) is exactly like an army marching into a country and building infrastructure for the mass-extraction of natural resources while killing everyone who tries to stop them. Exactly.

Those retards who sneak into Turkey to climb into the mountains and look for Noah's Ark every couple years are the exact same thing as the US Army rolling in and blowing the shit out them to cart away some natural gas tankers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 16, 2009, 06:43:15 PM
It's one thing to debate Warcraft lore and where it might be going, but another to indulge in complete revisionism. We saw most of this stuff in WC3 and trying to "spin" it is just being obtuse. If Blizz retcons something, that's one thing. Weirdo fan revisions, however, are another thing again.

I can ignore most of this, but geez, come on. We're in tinfoil hat territory with some of this stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on October 16, 2009, 08:28:57 PM
A small group of people conducting archaeology without a permit before belatedly submitting to local oversight (http://www.wowwiki.com/Bael%27dun_Digsite) is exactly like an army marching into a country and building infrastructure for the mass-extraction of natural resources while killing everyone who tries to stop them. Exactly.

Those retards who sneak into Turkey to climb into the mountains and look for Noah's Ark every couple years are the exact same thing as the US Army rolling in and blowing the shit out them to cart away some natural gas tankers.

Ah.  So, hypothetically, if the US did send their army into, say, another country for their resources, everyone else would be morally justified in murdering any Americans they came across?  Whereas, in contrast, if some armed group of individuals not in a nation's military came over to the US and (hypothetically) started blowing up their stuff, that's fine because it's not the actual army?  Hmmm.  (AHAHA your retardedly overextended metaphors are NO MATCH FOR MY OWN!)

Seriously, though, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.  Are the Alliance pure, noble beings who never do any wrong?   No, of course not, but neither are the Horde.  Are they personified, baby-devouring evil?  Not there, either.  Both factions are morally fairly gray... but not gray from a "It's all dependent on your point of view" kind of thing, gray in a "this makes no fucking sense" way.  Why ARE the dwarves digging in Bael Modan and shooting anyone who asks them to please stop?  It's never explained, because it's two paragraphs of text for a quest that was supposed to give players a break from killing lions and ostriches for the last week by letting them shoot at some humanoids for once.  Arguing about moral superiority in a situation like this is like arguing about whether or not Neo could kill Goku; either side can fill in the massive, massive blanks with whatever they want to and claim victory.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 16, 2009, 09:23:18 PM
Seriously, though, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.  Are the Alliance pure, noble beings who never do any wrong?   No, of course not, but neither are the Horde.  Are they personified, baby-devouring evil?  Not there, either.

Neither faction is either pure good or pure evil. However, only one has launched a large, unequivocal, no splinter faction, no nonsense invasion of a member of the other... while claiming to be interested in peace. Only one harbors a member nation that has developed biological weapons for the intended purpose of killing everyone in the world. Only one seems to have fanboys who think "Well look what dicks your archaeologists are!" is a valid rebuttal to "Killing everyone in the world is bad!"

Don't blame me, I didn't write it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on October 16, 2009, 10:12:03 PM
I keep clicking on this thread for new infos and am slowly losing faith in mankind as a result.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on October 16, 2009, 10:14:20 PM
It's not our fault the horde is trying to kill your faith in humanity.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on October 16, 2009, 10:26:18 PM
Don't blame me, I didn't write it.

Nobody wrote it, that's the problem. Where you see a full scale invasion of whatever (Ashenvale?), I see a few wandering orcs doing not much of anything.  Which of us is right?  Who knows; it's not explicitly stated, and it's not like it's actually happening or anything so we can't head out and check.  I can point to some quest that says "Orcs Rule," you can go to page seventy four of the comic book where someone makes an offhand comment about Orcs raping babies, and we can run in circles all day.  But when you start saying "sure, they're both kind of ambiguous... but only one side is EVIL while claiming to be GOOD and wants to MURDER EVERYBODY" then it starts looking a bit weird.  Both sides are chock full of stories of the other side being bastards.  That's what the game is about.  You can try to say "Well, Horde has nine million and six points of evil, and the Alliance only has nine million and four, therefore the Alliance is justified in smacking the crap out of the Horde, and in fact doing so makes them less evil since it's a morally defensible act" and so on until you get to this weird extremist point where it's perfectly acceptable to slaughter them by the millions because they're evil and they deserve it (and in fact it would be morally remiss not to cleanse the world of such evil beings), but when they kill us by the millions it's another atrocity to point to when we're trying to prove how EVIL they are.

Sylvanas has the gall to develop an actual weapon for killing actual people, this makes her evil, and therefore we should murder her and anyone who follows her, before someone gets hurt.  Dwarves in Bael Modan are only defending their territory from the Tauren, and are therefore justified in using lethal force against anyone who comes close.  Some Apothecary goes dipshit and bombs both teams, and it's the Horde's fault, so they must die.  These are all things where you can easily view them from the other side and make the exact opposite arguments.  They're completely relative.  What puzzles me is why someone would claim one of these points of view to be "right" and another to be "wrong," given the fact that all of these factions are open to anyone (any player, I mean) who wants to join one of them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 16, 2009, 10:57:58 PM
Successful troll was successful.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 16, 2009, 11:35:24 PM
Don't be That Guy. The guy who cares too much about the topic at hand to just go "lol nerds" like the cool kids, but doesn't like the conclusion being drawn and can't think of a handy rebuttal, so he just posts "WHO REALLY KNOWS ANYWAY" instead. Because I've seen it in a hundred nerd-debates of yore and it never has the intended effect.

Blizzard's writing suffers from having too many cooks in the kitchen, and they (quite rightly) have no compunctions about throwing in all sorts of strange retcons and unlikely circumstances in order to further their game design goals, but pretending it's all a total cipher is just bullshitting.

I can pull up everything from seven-year-old WC3 cutscenes, to five-year-old WoW quests and their related text, to brand-new Cataclysm spoilers to demonstrate that the Horde was/is/will continue to invade Ashenvale. If you don't like it, well, tough shit. That's the fucking story. Same with the rest of it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on October 17, 2009, 12:39:31 AM
Don't be That Guy. The guy who cares too much about the topic at hand to just go "lol nerds" like the cool kids, but doesn't like the conclusion being drawn and can't think of a handy rebuttal, so he just posts "WHO REALLY KNOWS ANYWAY" instead. Because I've seen it in a hundred nerd-debates of yore and it never has the intended effect.

Well, I don't know about having an "intended effect" besides killing a few hours.  I just find your position a bit curious.

I mean, maybe the Horde is "invading" Ashenvale very, very slowly.  I'm not claiming that they're paladins of peace and awesome.  But there are plenty of instances of the Alliance attacking Horde, too, and what gets me is the argument where those ones "don't count" or whatever.  There are a ton of Alliance mobs all over the Horde zones, just as there are Horde mobs all over the Alliance zones.  You've got marines in Durotar, Outriders in the Barrens, Night Elf Saboteurs in Quel'Thalas, Dwarves in Mulgore, and so on  Just about the only Horde zone I can think of that isn't host to some Alliance enemies is Silverpine, depending on if you count the Kirin Tor as Alliance or not.

A few posts up you note that the marines bear the same relationship (basically) to the Alliance that the Apothecaries do to the Horde, yet (as far as I can tell) you continue to hold that the Horde is at fault for the actions of the Apothecaries, while the Alliance isn't at fault for the marines.  I can see both being at fault, or neither, but saying one is and the other isn't seems inconsistent to me.  It's the kind of argument I see a lot in threads where someone is personally invested in one side but not the other, like a PS3 vs. Xbox argument, where one guy only owns one of the consoles and wants to believe he made the right choice.  But here, nothing's stopping you from rolling either side (or both), so it just strikes me as a bit odd to see this level of extremism on a topic which, to me, looks very gray.

I think originally I was going to say something about Warcraft, but I can't remember what it was... anyways, sorry for the derail.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 17, 2009, 01:36:21 AM
I mean, maybe the Horde is "invading" Ashenvale very, very slowly.

Such is the nature of a mostly-static game, but they are, and we know they eventually do take it over.

Quote
There are a ton of Alliance mobs all over the Horde zones, just as there are Horde mobs all over the Alliance zones.  You've got marines in Durotar, Outriders in the Barrens, Night Elf Saboteurs in Quel'Thalas, Dwarves in Mulgore, and so on  Just about the only Horde zone I can think of that isn't host to some Alliance enemies is Silverpine, depending on if you count the Kirin Tor as Alliance or not.

Sure, and there are orcs in Redridge Mountains, Forsaken poisoning people in Hillsbrad, and... shit... at least three completely separate organizations on two different planets all calling themselves "the Horde" right down to having their own Warchiefs. There's a REASON we split hairs when it comes to shit like this. If we actually counted every pack of orcs yelling "For the Horde!" as they raped babies or whatever against Thrall's boys, the list of offenses would be about ten times longer.

Quote
A few posts up you note that the marines bear the same relationship (basically) to the Alliance that the Apothecaries do to the Horde, yet (as far as I can tell) you continue to hold that the Horde is at fault for the actions of the Apothecaries, while the Alliance isn't at fault for the marines.

Except the Apothecaries are an organization that was created by Sylvanas for the express purpose of genocide, and the only thing Putress really did wrong was move too soon at the command of the wrong master. That's why all that stuff about Apothecary questgivers wanting to "bring death to the world" even in five-year-old quest text gets brought up constantly. That's why I keep bringing up Sylvanas and her gloating in that Arthas novel about how she's going to wipe out the humans.

By comparison the marines are just the dead-end remnants of a force that was crushed with the help of an Alliance leader years ago. Dipshits operating outside of any known link to the actual Alliance, who think they're still fighting the Second War. In that regard they're more comparable to the orcs running around Redridge (who nobody cares about) than anything else.

And again, even the rest of the Horde doesn't buy this shit. While nobody seems to give a damn about this marine crap, the Forsaken are about to find themselves second-class citizens thanks to the Apothecaries shenanigans. I don't know how much you keep up on forthcoming patches, but in the next one supposedly all the abomination guards in Undercity are history. They're being replaced with orcish overseers scripted to basically say "Fuck you guys, we don't trust you!" to Forsaken players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 17, 2009, 05:20:03 AM
I keep clicking on this thread for new infos and am slowly losing faith in mankind as a result.
There is no new news yet, and almost certainly won't be until after Arthas dies and/or the F&F beta leaks start happening. Therefore we've moved on to "Well, Wrynn was the one who officially started this war, remember?" vs "but but but but apothecaries!"  :grin:

Well, unless this is a genuine leak of the Cata T11 mage sets:
(http://i37.tinypic.com/r79h00.jpg)
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 17, 2009, 01:57:16 PM
I'm pretty sure the shirt on that human model is painted on.   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 17, 2009, 02:05:48 PM
Technically, everything that isn't a shoulder pad or helm is just painted on in WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 17, 2009, 05:56:19 PM
TEAM HORDE IS BLASTING OFF AGAINNNN!

See you in a couple weeks when it's time for another round of the "Forsaken count as Lordaeron, unless I need Stormwind to count as Lordaeron today!" game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 17, 2009, 06:11:42 PM
I think the orc chick is the hottest in that picture. I am not sure what that means about myself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 17, 2009, 06:21:31 PM
You like a little junk in the trunk?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 17, 2009, 07:35:55 PM
Blood elf needs a sandwich, like always. And the night elf chick looks strangely like a drag queen in that picture.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 18, 2009, 02:55:50 AM
Night elf females have always had suspiciously large hands.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kageru on October 18, 2009, 05:04:32 AM

I still figure the horde was planning to use the forsaken as ablative shielding against an invasion from the plaguelands. So the development of any sort of weaponry they can come up with, when they can expect to face massively superior forces, would have made sense to both Thrall and Sylvanas. Besides, they're far enough away from Orgrimmar we'd probably escape the fall-out.

Of course now that Arthas is besieged in Northrend the forsaken are just a risk without any benefit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on October 18, 2009, 06:25:06 AM
I'm very interested to see the results from the Forsaken being forsaken by the Horde.  For that matter will the trolls be too?  Since they might have a city of their own soon?  Will the Alliance fracture any?  I'm not seeing anything about this.  A BE/Forsaken alliance would be logical; they firmly hold Lordaeron and even take Southshore. But the Alliance will have a powerful new base in Gilneas as well as other smaller ones around I assume.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 18, 2009, 04:54:14 PM
The Alliance isn't a collective Government, it's more like NATO then anything.

The rumor is that the Alliance will fully retake Stromgarde in Arathi, but I haven't seen any 'official' details about that yet. Gilneas probably won't be a significant Alliance holding though, more of a general battle field. One of the key reasons the Gilneas Worgen are going back to the Alliance is because they can't hold out in Gilneas on their own.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 19, 2009, 11:25:58 AM
Re: Ashenvale: Just play Warcraft 3.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 19, 2009, 12:16:38 PM
I can pull up everything from seven-year-old WC3 cutscenes, to five-year-old WoW quests and their related text, to brand-new Cataclysm spoilers to demonstrate that the Horde was/is/will continue to invade Ashenvale. If you don't like it, well, tough shit. That's the fucking story. Same with the rest of it.

Invasion would indicate that the orcs knew the night elves were there and were cutting down wood in support of an offensive against them.  Neither of those claims are remotely true.  Thrall asked Grom to build a base of operations, and the night elves in their typical display of arrogance attacked them without warrant.  The death of Cenarius lies solely on their shoulders.

As for Catalysm itself, there's been very little info.  I think most players are more concerned with 3.3 and the conclusion of Wrath.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 19, 2009, 01:10:13 PM
How many years of military expansion and resource extraction is "Baww, they shot first and asked questions later when we turned up on their land!" supposed to be worth exactly, anyway? Because I guarantee if the Alliance reaction to some dwarf archaeologists getting wasted was "Okay fuck you guys, you're mean so we're gonna contest Mulgore for the next hundred years!" there would be Horde tears from here to infinity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 19, 2009, 01:23:30 PM
IT'S NOT WORTH DISCUSSING.  :ye_gods:

Seriously! Why are you putting more thought into it than Blizzard's game designers?

This isn't Bioware where they break down and analyze every single spoken word to maintain consistency to the universe and the story. They just write the most entertaining fluff that works for the moment and move on.

Everyone in Warcraft acts unrealistically and you can rightly claim that God, a.k.a. Blizzard, influences and enacts all their decisions. Personalities are created out of thin air to guide events towards the intended climaxes (Garrosh).

Cataclysm to me, while it will be real cool, reeks of Dragonlance: The Fifth Age, and because Metzen has such a strong love of Dragonlance, I keep thinking this is a stunt to have his own little Second Cataclysm. That he is huge into comics also explains a *lot* about how things are playing out with Blizzard lore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 19, 2009, 01:48:53 PM
I like Cataclysm from the perspective that it's going to shake up the setting of the game from the fairly static settings it's been since launch.  I can only hope Blizzard continues along this path and makes the world to be dynamic as  players advance through the story, so that it feels like I am playing through something.   

Lore wise, my hope is that Cataclysm gets us back the the core conflict that started this: the orcs versus humans.  Also, I hope the Burning Legion makes a comeback because they are supposed to be the source of all of this.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 20, 2009, 06:16:04 AM
The more I think about this, the more excited I get about Cataclysm if I am reading the signs right.  I always felt that in WoW 2.0, the content was aimed at telling us how the relations between the Horde and the Alliance were improving.  Essentially, that all of these external threats were uniting the 2 factions under a common banner.  In Wrath, however, it seems like they shifted modes and decided to make it more realistic in the sense that while they did have a common enemy, both sides do not trust one another, and in fact, in battling the Lich King, the situation only gets worse (Wrathgate).  With 3.3 and the placement of the Undercity under martial law, it seems the writers are trying to deal with the whole "death to the living thing".

I earnestly hope this means that these world enders, like Arthas and Deathwing will take a back seat to the more interesting and dynamic relationship between the Horde and the Alliance. I also hope to see a resurgence of the Burning Legion, because they are still present.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on October 20, 2009, 08:43:44 AM
I like Cataclysm from the perspective that it's going to shake up the setting of the game from the fairly static settings it's been since launch.  I can only hope Blizzard continues along this path and makes the world to be dynamic as  players advance through the story, so that it feels like I am playing through something.   


You can hardly say that Cataclysm is "dynamic" its just replacing one static world with another.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 20, 2009, 08:50:11 AM
Well it's changing the current static world, and they are making more usage of phasing to have the world change in response to the players' actions.  I am not expecting a Shadowbane type situation, but anything other than current situation is better in my book. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 20, 2009, 11:49:42 AM
Orcs vs Humans isn't even the core conflict.  It's Order vs Chaos.  Titans vs Burning Legion plus Old Gods scrapping over Azeroth for who knows whatever reason.

Pretty much everything that has fallen out from that has been the influence of the Old Gods, or invasions by the forces of the Burning Legion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 20, 2009, 12:02:40 PM
Orcs vs Humans isn't even the core conflict.  It's Order vs Chaos.  Titans vs Burning Legion plus Old Gods scrapping over Azeroth for who knows whatever reason.

Pretty much everything that has fallen out from that has been the influence of the Old Gods, or invasions by the forces of the Burning Legion.

Touche, then again, I heard a rumor that the first Warcraft was originally a Warhammer game that GW pulled the plug on.  Rather then ditch the game, Blizzard re-branded it.   The reasons you for those fights are because the Old Gods were the rulers of Azeroth, the Titans came along and pushed them aside, and then the Burning Legion came along and has since failed 3 times in conquering Azeroth.  But all of that was added in WC3 and WoW.

The core conflict has always been the Horde vs. the Alliance.  Warcraft 1 & 2 were all about that, with the exception that Warcraft 2 added in the "orcs are alien space raiders!".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 20, 2009, 12:34:07 PM
Orcs are alien space raiders that, I might remind you, were fodder in the army of the Burning Legion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on October 20, 2009, 12:39:00 PM
It was so much easier when one side was defending their homelands from the other side that was being manipulated by a larger power bent on world domination. Now they're just kinda hatin' in general.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 20, 2009, 12:42:40 PM
It was so much easier when one side was defending their homelands from the other side

Even better!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 20, 2009, 01:58:53 PM
It was so much easier when one side was defending their homelands from the other side that was being manipulated by a larger power bent on world domination.
You mean like when Deathwing's daughter was running the Alliance, and all the Horde wanted was peace?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 20, 2009, 02:13:52 PM
(http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/2465/822999-ogre01_super.jpg)

And I mean that with the most love possible.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 20, 2009, 02:21:57 PM
You mean like when Deathwing's daughter was running the Alliance, and all the Horde wanted was peace?  :awesome_for_real:
She was obviously less efficient at it than King McBigChinAndHair.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on October 20, 2009, 02:43:53 PM
That he is huge into comics also explains a *lot* about how things are playing out with Blizzard lore.

I hadn't thought about that before.  Comics (in the Superhero sense) have a lot in common with MMO stories, in that they have to keep telling a story (or series of smaller stories) with the same characters forever and give the illusion of change without actually changing anything.

And you have to pay money every month to find out what's going on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on October 20, 2009, 02:53:51 PM
You mean like when Deathwing's daughter was running the Alliance, and all the Horde wanted was peace?  :awesome_for_real:
She was obviously less efficient at it than King McBigChinAndHair.

Onyxia was actively trying to keep the Alliance, Humans specifically, as weak as possible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on October 20, 2009, 04:26:13 PM
Yeah because Humans are the most warlike race in Azeroth.
"Hey the orcs fled our prison camps and sailed across the ocean away from us! Let's go hunt 'em down!"



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 20, 2009, 04:46:34 PM
I'm not sure Onyxia gave a shit about the Horde at all, but figured it was another way to keep the Alliance tied up in stupid shit, so vague aggression rather than Straight Up War was fine for her purposes. King SuperChin is itching for a war (and almost certainly would love to indulge in some genocide on the way), so it's not really surprising he is "better" at getting us involved in one than Onyxia was.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on October 20, 2009, 06:38:46 PM
Oh I'm sure Onxyia doesn't give a crap about the Horde.  I agree that she was keeping the Humans in confusion.  They're the ones with a major base just up the coast from her stronghold.  "Lady Katrana Prestor" is one of my favorite lore threads.  Not sure why I guess I just like the idea of a major dragon running Stormwind.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 20, 2009, 07:04:46 PM
Yeah, I liked the Onyxia thing as well. Especially when I was wee and the game was new and no one knew about it, and I was all like, "That lady is trouble!" and then later oh my God she's a dragon ! :ye_gods:

Good times!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 20, 2009, 09:44:49 PM
King SuperChin is itching for a war (and almost certainly would love to indulge in some genocide on the way), so it's not really surprising he is "better" at getting us involved in one than Onyxia was.

What exactly is this based upon? His first act of foreign policy after escaping from slavery and resuming the throne was to attend a summit meeting and attempt to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the Ashenvale incursion, despite his former 'owner' standing at Thrall's side.

Hell even after a unit of the Horde military went rogue and started blanketing everyone in plague, his reaction was "The Horde has lost Undercity to Putress? Well let's go kill Putress ourselves and keep the city!" The idea that he simply declared war on the entire Horde out of hand while ignoring the fact that Putress was a traitor is just untrue.

it wasn't until he was actually in the heart of Undercity and saw what had been going on all along that he finally went "Okay never mind, fuck the Horde completely!"

Which is why everything is really the fault of the Forsaken. Even with all the slave/gladiator/amensia crap that had gone on, Varian and the orcs were more or less able to potentially get along. It wasn't until Sylvanas and her inability to control her minions blew the lid off her plague project and the general horror of Undercity that things went to hell.

Edit: I think I said all the same stuff like just 5 pages ago, but meh, I like to hear myself talk. See myself type. Whatever. Point is, subtract either the orcs or humans and you still end up with a Dreadlord staging a coup in Undercity and the Forsaken gassing SOMEONE to get at the Lich King. Subtract the Forsaken and the orcs and humans probably manage to cooperate, or at least not kill each other.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 21, 2009, 05:07:13 AM
humans and you still end up with a Dreadlord staging a coup in Undercity and the Forsaken gassing SOMEONE to get at the Lich King. Subtract the Forsaken and the orcs and humans probably manage to cooperate, or at least not kill each other.

I do so enjoy the lore of the Forsaken.  If everyone just got he plague over and done with, we'd all be the same and have no wars.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 21, 2009, 05:39:50 AM
Tell that to the four Forsaken defectors I just had to hunt down!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 21, 2009, 05:41:34 AM
I do so enjoy the lore of the Forsaken.  If everyone just got he plague over and done with, we'd all be the same and have no wars.

Lolwut?

I don't know about you, but if someone killed me to bolster the ranks of their army I would eat them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 21, 2009, 05:47:11 AM
I do so enjoy the lore of the Forsaken.  If everyone just got he plague over and done with, we'd all be the same and have no wars.

Lolwut?

I don't know about you, but if someone killed me to bolster the ranks of their army I would eat them.

The best part of being Forsaken is that you can do exactly that!

http://www.wowhead.com/?spell=20577

Plus we have a lifetime benefits package!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on October 21, 2009, 07:44:29 AM
I do so enjoy the lore of the Forsaken.  If everyone just got he plague over and done with, we'd all be the same and have no wars.

Lolwut?

I don't know about you, but if someone killed me to bolster the ranks of their army I would eat them.

'Army' is such a strong word.  They prefer 'family'.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 21, 2009, 07:52:02 AM
'Army' is such a strong word.  They prefer 'family'.

It's still not a very good definition of world peace if I'm biting off chunks of Sylvanas' face.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 21, 2009, 02:04:01 PM
King SuperChin is itching for a war (and almost certainly would love to indulge in some genocide on the way), so it's not really surprising he is "better" at getting us involved in one than Onyxia was.

Waaah leave king chin alone!

It's based on the fact he is fucking spoiling for a war. I don't care what diplomacy he did at first, the fact is that right now, justified in your eyes or not, he wants war and he wants to wipe out the forsaken (and would toooootally not cry if he killed every single orc in the process).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 21, 2009, 02:59:43 PM
It's based on the fact he is fucking spoiling for a war. I don't care what diplomacy he did at first

...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 21, 2009, 03:10:36 PM
What I mean is he is spoiling for war NOW. I didn't mean he burst onto the scene wanting war.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 21, 2009, 03:17:18 PM
Dammit, I was hoping you would yell at me so I could go "You're spoiling for a flamewar! I mean maybe not before, but you are now!"

 :sad_panda:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 21, 2009, 03:28:59 PM
Oops, I'll try harder next time.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 21, 2009, 03:34:44 PM
Am I supposed to argue against wiping out the Forsaken?  They are the most clearly defined "evil" side in the game, there's not a whole lot of moral ambiguity about a group of people who are the living dead, and are working as hard as possible to wipe out their former side, plus all life on the planet.

I suppose I should, as the only reason why there are any Blood Elves at all is because Sylvanas saved our asses, IIRC.  That still doesn't excuse working on a plague that will wipe out everything that is not the Forsaken.

A lot of the rest of the problems the Horde and Alliance face are things that should be resolvable via diplomatic means.

And don't get me started on Garrosh.  I should have never undergone the effort to bring Thrall to see him.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on October 21, 2009, 05:53:46 PM
Am I supposed to argue against wiping out the Forsaken?  They are the most clearly defined "evil" side in the game, there's not a whole lot of moral ambiguity about a group of people who are the living dead, and are working as hard as possible to wipe out their former side, plus all life on the planet.

I suppose I should, as the only reason why there are any Blood Elves at all is because Sylvanas saved our asses, IIRC.  That still doesn't excuse working on a plague that will wipe out everything that is not the Forsaken.

The Forsaken/Horde relationship is less ideological unity and more "we'd rather have them inside pissing out than outside pissing in" kind of pact of necessity.  They aren't really united in anything except not dying.

Not sure how Sylvanas is responsible for saving the Blood Elves, though.  She's responsible for them being on the Horde, maybe ("Our ancient ancestral home was razed by zombies, plunging us into agonizing magic withdrawl, now the zombies are back and some of them want to be buddies, and they're led by the animated corpse of one of our revered generals.  Hello, horrific mockery of nature, what's that?  You want us to join forces with you, plus a bunch of orcs which we were at war with a few years ago, and a bunch of trolls like the ones we've been at perpetual war with for the last ten thousand years?  Well, our Prince is out spreading love and cheer in Outlands, probably, he'll be back aaaaaaaaaany second now, but until then, I'm going to say that this sounds like an awesome idea!"), maybe for removing whatever threat Dar'Khan was supposed to pose (though it's never really clear how dire that is).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Delmania on October 21, 2009, 06:50:01 PM
The Forsaken/Horde relationship is less ideological unity and more "we'd rather have them inside pissing out than outside pissing in" kind of pact of necessity.  They aren't really united in anything except not dying.

Not sure how Sylvanas is responsible for saving the Blood Elves, though.  She's responsible for them being on the Horde, maybe ("Our ancient ancestral home was razed by zombies, plunging us into agonizing magic withdrawl, now the zombies are back and some of them want to be buddies, and they're led by the animated corpse of one of our revered generals.  Hello, horrific mockery of nature, what's that?  You want us to join forces with you, plus a bunch of orcs which we were at war with a few years ago, and a bunch of trolls like the ones we've been at perpetual war with for the last ten thousand years?  Well, our Prince is out spreading love and cheer in Outlands, probably, he'll be back aaaaaaaaaany second now, but until then, I'm going to say that this sounds like an awesome idea!"), maybe for removing whatever threat Dar'Khan was supposed to pose (though it's never really clear how dire that is).

Dar'khan is a kind of a shoe horn.  He was supposed to have helped Arthas reach the Sunwell, but I sure as heck don't remember him from WC3.  For the Blood Elves, had Sylvanas not intervened on their behalf, they would all wound up a bunch of washed up addicts.  By helping them into the Horde, it set off a chain of events that has enabled the BE to shed themselves of Kael and actually make something of themselves.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on February 10, 2010, 03:08:36 PM
Shocker...

Back Half of 2010 (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62319) for Cataclysm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 10, 2010, 03:12:50 PM
So... Feb, 2011.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on February 10, 2010, 03:13:59 PM
November, for the 6 year anniversary.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on February 10, 2010, 03:17:29 PM
Good to know I'll fail to break my pattern of unsubbing for an extended time before the expansion hits. No way I make it to "last half".  Well, unless I level up my druid or finally play an alliance character to bug the folks on Doomhammer.  Even then..  This isn't a bad thing mind you, I just see my current small group falling well apart before then.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on February 10, 2010, 03:38:35 PM
Well, it'll probably take my guild a good month or so to get ICC all cleared (8/12 atm, but none of the 'hard' bosses).

I wonder if I can stand 4 months of farming ICC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on February 10, 2010, 04:52:15 PM
finally play an alliance character to bug the folks on Doomhammer.

This isn't a bad idea.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 11, 2010, 11:33:42 AM
Watch out for Sofi, though, I hear she's a bitch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on February 11, 2010, 01:08:07 PM
Watch out for Sofi, though, I hear she's a bitch.

Please, how many people have YOU chased out of the guild.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 11, 2010, 01:38:44 PM
Does it count if they come back?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on February 11, 2010, 01:54:00 PM
Yes. Double points if you invite them back and chase them off again within a week.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 11, 2010, 03:36:20 PM
How about if they quit because they were friends with the person I caused to ragequit?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on February 11, 2010, 03:52:42 PM
2 - Double Kill
3 - Mega Kill
4 - Ultra Kill
5 - Mmmoonster Kill


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on February 12, 2010, 09:27:35 AM
Trying to start the Cataclysm early?  I know you want to play a Goblin, but I don't think this will help it come any faster. ;D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 12, 2010, 11:09:15 AM
I wants them so bad.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on February 13, 2010, 04:08:28 AM
Ah, potential customer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 03, 2010, 02:43:29 AM
As this is the generic cataclysm thread....

(http://i40.tinypic.com/kdpl5l.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 03, 2010, 03:43:26 AM
Wow, what the hell did they do to make the engine look so much better there.  I went to MMO champ and the screenshot with the characters looks like the same old WoW, but that one's amazing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 03, 2010, 04:19:58 AM
Other then the new water, it's just higher res textures/models. The Shadows are already in game if you want to crank them up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 03, 2010, 10:57:07 AM
High resolution textures and what looks like DirectX 8 water.  I'd be curious as to whether they'll be adding HDR lighting as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on May 03, 2010, 12:34:17 PM
Did anyone else think that was the "whomping willow" before looking closer?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 03, 2010, 01:10:00 PM
I doubt they add much more in graphical fancy'ness this go around. They have a very generous 'baseline' to maintain.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 03, 2010, 03:39:41 PM
High resolution textures and what looks like DirectX 8 water.  I'd be curious as to whether they'll be adding HDR lighting as well.

HDR would be nice, providing they optimise it better than their shadow effects. Those have consistantly ruined FPS rates on every machine I've played WoW on. Shadows, like water effects, are pretty much the first thing I turn off when tweaking a game. And to be honest, though this may be a smidge of nostalgia, I still don't think any MMO has done water effects as nicely as Asheron's Call 2. Maybe Guild Wars.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 03, 2010, 04:01:57 PM
F&F Alpha just started, by the way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on May 03, 2010, 04:10:59 PM
Employees announcing it on Facebook: good way to spread the word that it's going on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on May 03, 2010, 04:26:49 PM
You sure that's a WoW screenie - looks waaaay more like LOTRO.

Plus, there's no room for my humongous shoulder armor and infeasibly proportioned weapons in realistic terrain like that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 03, 2010, 04:30:21 PM
Also, that's apparently Blasted Lands.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 03, 2010, 04:33:37 PM
I don't understand why people are so blown away by that screen shot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on May 03, 2010, 04:36:18 PM
I don't understand why people would pay $25 for a fake horse in a fake game that provides fake benefits.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 03, 2010, 05:12:56 PM
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on May 03, 2010, 05:14:59 PM
You sure that's a WoW screenie - looks waaaay more like LOTRO.

I agree with what you said.

And it doesn't quite look "blasted" anymore...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 03, 2010, 05:26:42 PM
It's amazing what not-shitty-water will do for the graphics of a game, isn't it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on May 03, 2010, 07:31:41 PM
And fog, and soft ambient lighting, and non-blurry-as-fuck textures, yeah.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 03, 2010, 08:07:13 PM
All the rest of the shit in that screen shot, I've pretty much seen before. I've always played with my graphics maxed though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 03, 2010, 09:45:35 PM
It's a carefully chosen pic.  If you closely examine any small piece of it, you'll see it isn't that different from WoW now.  The water and fog make the largest difference.  The remainder is just due to slightly higher textures and a less cartoony style choice.  (Compare the bridge or tree to any that exist in the game today, for example.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 03, 2010, 11:36:03 PM
I doubt they add much more in graphical fancy'ness this go around. They have a very generous 'baseline' to maintain.

HDR is actually pretty simple.  AFAIK all it takes is adding a shader to the render pipeline, and AFAIK Microsoft actually provides some source code with their SDK.

HDR would be nice, providing they optimise it better than their shadow effects.

You've tried all the various levels of detail, right?

Because I can pull off the lower levels of detail in some places, though Duskwood with all it's scraggly trees kills my card.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 04, 2010, 02:06:03 AM
I doubt they add much more in graphical fancy'ness this go around. They have a very generous 'baseline' to maintain.

HDR is actually pretty simple.  AFAIK all it takes is adding a shader to the render pipeline, and AFAIK Microsoft actually provides some source code with their SDK.

HDR would be nice, providing they optimise it better than their shadow effects.

You've tried all the various levels of detail, right?

Because I can pull off the lower levels of detail in some places, though Duskwood with all it's scraggly trees kills my card.
Did someone say HDR? (http://www.mmo-champion.com/interface-macros/wow-with-hdr/)

Some YouTube Goodness to see it in action:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-NMsGOMSU4&hd=1



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on May 04, 2010, 04:36:48 AM
Looks like Cata alpha begain yesterday - http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/24690639017/cataclysm-alpha-has-begun/ (http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/24690639017/cataclysm-alpha-has-begun/)

Six months out would put them in November, which I'm sure they would be happy about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 04, 2010, 05:51:20 AM
(Compare the bridge or tree to any that exist in the game today, for example.)

Exactly.  Don't let new water fool you, the rest looks just like everything does now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 04, 2010, 11:34:46 AM
I knew it was easy, but I wasn't quite expecting that. :oh_i_see:

"Hey guys, I wrote a config file to go along with a shader package, enjoy HDR!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on May 04, 2010, 11:56:06 AM
I'll just leave this here. (Image)



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on May 04, 2010, 11:57:03 AM
There's no wonder with this game anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 04, 2010, 12:05:35 PM
I never use the front gates anyways.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 04, 2010, 12:35:43 PM
... I'm gonna ride it. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 04, 2010, 01:19:51 PM
... I'm gonna ride it. :awesome_for_real:

Well, the way blizzard is going, I'm sure there will be a DW mount.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on May 04, 2010, 01:20:29 PM
So who is gonna give me an alpha invite!   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 04, 2010, 01:29:35 PM
There's no wonder with this game anymore.

 :uhrr:

Right because they shouldn't even add game files to your pc until you're about to fight the monster. Or maybe just not give any screenshots or test their new expansion at all prior to releasing it for the public, that always works!

If you want wonder, don't read the fucking open spoilered images and stop reading about the expansion.  Honestly I saw the arthas fight/cinematic prior to beating it myself and even watching the entire thing made it not one bit less cool when I did it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on May 04, 2010, 01:49:06 PM
Good for you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 04, 2010, 02:17:32 PM
At least WUA trolls with some kind of skill. Do you even play the game and if not, good for you and if you do then maybe you should find something you actually enjoy doing.  It begs the question why you still post here saying you hate everything, you don't seem me going onto farmville message boards telling people there what a piece of shit it is do you? 

I'm not trying to defend wow as the pinnacle of gaming, I would just like for people to stop douching up threads needlessly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 04, 2010, 02:23:22 PM
Fuck Farmville.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 04, 2010, 02:24:09 PM
I just think his sperginess is showing. He should probably tuck it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 04, 2010, 04:59:37 PM
Fuck Farmville.
Furry.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on May 04, 2010, 05:16:58 PM
I knew it was easy, but I wasn't quite expecting that. :oh_i_see:

"Hey guys, I wrote a config file to go along with a shader package, enjoy HDR!"
That isn't at all HDR though. It's just a bloom filter in overdrive.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 04, 2010, 07:58:09 PM
On second inspection, you're right.  Bloom and Blur is there, but the dynamic colour palette isn't.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on May 04, 2010, 08:04:09 PM
At least WUA trolls with some kind of skill. Do you even play the game and if not, good for you and if you do then maybe you should find something you actually enjoy doing.  It begs the question why you still post here saying you hate everything, you don't seem me going onto farmville message boards telling people there what a piece of shit it is do you?  

I'm not trying to defend wow as the pinnacle of gaming, I would just like for people to stop douching up threads needlessly.

Did someone spill his juice box today? Relax.

Quote
There's no wonder with this game anymore.

WOW, WHAT A DOUCHE!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 04, 2010, 08:56:50 PM
Fuck Farmville.

Hater. :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 04, 2010, 11:16:59 PM
There's no wonder with this game anymore.
Snape kills Dumble.....oh, wait.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 05, 2010, 12:24:12 AM
At least WUA trolls with some kind of skill.

It's nice to be appreciated.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 06, 2010, 12:04:12 AM
A lot of really spoilery shit is now going up at mmo-champion.com. Too much to really list individual stuff here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on May 06, 2010, 12:28:28 AM
Two profession-related things that look to impact my main (Priest) the most:

Six new goddamned cloth transmutes, every fucking one of them on a week-long cooldown. That alone makes me want to strangle kittens.

Also what looks to be a shift away from "always on" weapon enchants to a more proc-based system. I'm not sure how I feel about that one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 06, 2010, 12:30:17 AM

Six new goddamned cloth transmutes, every fucking one of them on a week-long cooldown. That alone makes me want to strangle kittens.


It appears they all transmute into the same thing, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on May 06, 2010, 12:35:12 AM
Serves me for reading info dumps at 3 AM. I totally read that as "The current system, now with more things to make!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 06, 2010, 12:46:38 AM
The most important part is Moonfire spam is back on the table!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 06, 2010, 05:16:43 AM
The most important thing is that the goblins are building a Pleasure Palace in Azshara.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on May 06, 2010, 05:51:18 AM
I really hope the new picture MMO champ identifies as the new Kobold model isn't accurate or gets changed.  

Not a big fan of changing the graphics style from campy to SRS BSNS


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dr. Spoons on May 06, 2010, 10:19:03 AM
I really hope the new picture MMO champ identifies as the new Kobold model isn't accurate or gets changed.  

Not a big fan of changing the graphics style from campy to SRS BSNS

If this (http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2010/may/cataclysm_models_npc/big/kobold10.jpg) looks like Serious Business to you, you've been playing WoW too long.  He's wearing a sweatband with skulls on it!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 06, 2010, 10:22:18 AM
I really hope the new picture MMO champ identifies as the new Kobold model isn't accurate or gets changed.  

Not a big fan of changing the graphics style from campy to SRS BSNSGUILLERMO DEL TORO!!111!!

At least that's what sprung to mind for me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 06, 2010, 10:29:16 AM
More pics up at mmo-champion.

The North Barrens stuff all looks identical; the only change I noticed was the Northwatch Hold has some Alliance banners. Maybe a new Ally outpost?

I guess Camp T is fucked. I hope "Battlescar" is some kind of world PVP area.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 06, 2010, 11:00:58 AM
I don't think the new Kobolds are SRS BSNS but at the same time as liking the models, I really don't want to see them replacing the loveable little buggers around Elwynn and Loch Modan. They just have so much personality, grumpy little rat men with a particular attachment to wax lighting systems. The new ones don't even have candles!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on May 06, 2010, 11:09:13 AM
That's probably because someone took their candles.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on May 06, 2010, 11:32:10 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if there is some story reason behind the different look of the kobolds.

But, yeah, I'm not sure how you get SRS BSNS out of Lemy The Biker Kobold. I can understand not LIKING them (I personally do), but I can't get how they aren't still campy, just a different flavor of camp.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 06, 2010, 11:37:11 AM
I think we are also probably making an awfully big assumption based on filenames and the like that they're actually going to be kobolds.

If I had to guess I'd say those little guys, whatever they are, are going to be running around in Deepholme and the like, and won't be replacing the overworld kobolds at all.

EDIT: And they frankly look more like they're related to troggs than kobolds.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 06, 2010, 11:43:26 AM
As this is the generic cataclysm thread....

(http://i40.tinypic.com/kdpl5l.jpg)

Very nice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 06, 2010, 01:29:06 PM
Your king killed Deathwing's daughter and stuck her head on a pike? What could possibly go wrong!

(http://i39.tinypic.com/mt6rn8.jpg)
Wait, are those...claw marks on those towers?

(http://i42.tinypic.com/5rz7p.jpg)
Oh dear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 06, 2010, 01:37:14 PM
The Goblins turned azshara into a giant horde symbol as thanks for joining. Horde, fuck yeah!

(http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2010/may/cataclysm_worldmaps/jpeg/Aszhara.jpg)

From the forums:

I am Gallywix.

And I have a question for you:

Is a man not intitled to the sweat of his brow?

NO, say the Nobles of Stormwind, it belongs to the King.
NO, says the Warchief, it belongs to the Horde.
NO, say Trade Princes of Kezan, it belongs to us.

I... rejected those answeres.
Instead, I choose something different.
I choose the IMPOSSIBLE.

I CHOOSE... AZSHARA!

A city where the engineers would not fear the censor.
Where the alchemists would not be bound by petty morality.
Where the great would not be constrained by the small.
And with the sweat of your brow, Azshara can become your city as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on May 06, 2010, 01:43:40 PM
I'm glad someone nipped that in the bud before Blizzard had the idea to parody it themselves.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 06, 2010, 04:33:09 PM
Half the NE towns are on fire or underwater now.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 06, 2010, 04:39:16 PM
Half the NE towns are on fire or underwater now.  :ye_gods:

The way god intended.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 06, 2010, 05:00:24 PM
It certainly does seem like the Horde is conquering far more territory than the Alliance is managing to claim in Cata.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on May 06, 2010, 05:05:14 PM
It certainly does seem like the Horde is conquering far more territory than the Alliance is managing to claim in Cata.
About time the Horde got something.  Alliance has all the easy to defend towns and easier questing routes early on.  Horde gets... Crossroads and The Barrens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 06, 2010, 05:29:48 PM
The NE's don't even get to keep their crappy park district in SW!  :why_so_serious:



They totally blew up the park so they didn't have to figure out how to model it properly for flight. It was in a really awkward place relative to the docks and stuff.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on May 06, 2010, 05:44:17 PM
Half the NE towns are on fire or underwater now.  :ye_gods:

The way god intended.

But are all the NEs on fire too?  Inquiring minds want to know.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 06, 2010, 06:26:45 PM
It certainly does seem like the Horde is conquering far more territory than the Alliance is managing to claim in Cata.
About time the Horde got something.  Alliance has all the easy to defend towns and easier questing routes early on.  Horde gets... Crossroads and The Barrens.

Stop whining you sound like Alliance. It makes you tough, so endure.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on May 06, 2010, 06:37:40 PM
Looking at those screenshots almost makes me want to come back for this. Any word on whether or not the expansion will be just a continuation of the "sit in town waiting in queue" model?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 06, 2010, 07:35:46 PM
As opposed to?


It'll be like every other expansion, the first few months will be awesome, new and fun.



Then it won't be once all the newness wears off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 06, 2010, 07:44:38 PM
There is great potential for a longer "newness" feel in this one at least. For me anyway, what with being an alt leveling crazy person.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 06, 2010, 08:01:40 PM
It now occurs to me that I don't really want to look at a "freshly destroyed" world for the next five years. Enthusiasm dimmed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 06, 2010, 08:17:23 PM
Meh, I dunno. If this goes over really well, they might update again in like. THREE years!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 06, 2010, 08:17:57 PM
There is great potential for a longer "newness" feel in this one at least. For me anyway, what with being an alt leveling crazy person.

I think the potential here is not just that things are new, its that they are *changes*  For instance, I don't give a crap about most of Northrend, but damned if I won't rush off to see the new Uther's Tomb as soon as I can.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 06, 2010, 08:22:24 PM
I guess I see what you mean. It all lumps in together for me, personally. I like new shit and I like changed shit. The feeling is so similar I just dub it all as a "newness" feeling.

Also I am going to be a goblin as hard as I can. I can't decide what class to pick though.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 06, 2010, 09:37:43 PM
All of them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 06, 2010, 10:44:50 PM
It's pretty tempting, I tell you what!  :grin:


EDIT: I know I'm going to make a pretty elf boy warrior, though, because I know it will pain every single I HATE BLOOD ELVES dickhead out there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 06, 2010, 11:26:59 PM
I hate blood elves, but when I was Horde I hated night elves and ganked them at every opportunity. Don't those two balance out or something?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 06, 2010, 11:28:36 PM
NE hate is old hat!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on May 06, 2010, 11:32:48 PM
I used to hate both flavours of elves, but then I decided that my Blood Elf paladin was actually gay, and comfortable with that, and now I don't mind them at all. Female blood elves need to eat some sandwiches though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 07, 2010, 12:08:21 AM
NE hate is Blizzard endorsed!
Hey, how's Auberdine/Ashenvale/the Stormwind park district/everywhere the night elves live doing?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on May 07, 2010, 06:22:59 AM
I've been planning on resubbing for Cataclysm since I found out they were redoing the old world.  My last stint a few months ago actually last longer than I thought.  I just need to grind out some badges before the xpac hits for some heirloom gear.

Now I have to choose either Goblin or Worgen.  If I'm a Goblin I can transfer gold/heirlooms to it.  If it's Worgen I have to start from scratch.

Hmm choices.  Goblin Warlock?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on May 07, 2010, 06:25:26 AM
You can transfer heirlooms across factions.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on May 07, 2010, 06:35:29 AM
Yeah but not Factions on another server!

I'm stuck on Mal'ganis and the Alliance population is almost non-existent. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 07, 2010, 06:59:58 AM
You can transfer heirlooms across factions.

Eh ?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 07, 2010, 08:25:46 AM
I know I'm going to make a pretty elf boy warrior, though, because I know it will pain every single I HATE BLOOD ELVES dickhead out there.

Not being able to roll a BElf Warrior was pretty much the deciding factor in me ignoring the Burning Crusade release. I still don't understand why they thought Warriors would make less sense than Paladins. I'm just glad they finally wised up (same with Human Hunters, ffs), and my current BElf Paladin is going to have a cataclysmic breakdown in faith, thankyouverymuch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 07, 2010, 08:33:40 AM
EDIT: I know I'm going to make a pretty elf boy warrior, though, because I know it will pain every single I HATE BLOOD ELVES dickhead out there.

I hate all elves equally!  This includes my 80 warlock  :awesome_for_real: (character was only intially made to see the added newbie area in TBC)  I was thinking of making him an orc, but I know down the line they'll let me make him a goblin, so why bother.

In an ideal world where my wife wouldn't kick me in the shins for paying $100+ for WoW race changes,  I'd end up with nothing but goblins. 



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 07, 2010, 09:20:37 AM

Now I have to choose either Goblin or Worgen. 


Are you a furry?

Y:Worgen
N:Goblin


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 07, 2010, 09:44:05 AM
No more so than Tauren.

I'd love to play a Goblin but I don't know anyone who actually plays Horde.  Oh sure, some guildies say they have Horde alts but they either never play them or they've snuck off to another server.  It's lonely playing Horde. :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on May 07, 2010, 09:58:15 AM
I'm already gathering equipment for a blood elf warrior. Finally a horde warrior race that isn't a barnyard animal or a sideshow freak. About time. Only question is whether it'll be on WW or Kargath. Maybe a transfer. Dunno about that yet.

I"ve always been curious about what happened to Gilneas so a worgen is indicated. Mine will be a druid, since it's the only physical combat class I've never played. Don't know if this one will actually go anywhere post-20, but have to see the starting area.

Couldn't care less about goblins. See comment about sideshow freaks above.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 07, 2010, 09:58:34 AM
Tauren are anthropomorphic cow people, worgen are furries.  Just look at the artwork, hell the concept art for female worgen is a yiffers wet dream. It's all in the presentation here.  They could have made the worgen snarling beast men, they made starfox instead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 07, 2010, 10:35:42 AM
Tauren are anthropomorphic cow people, worgen are furries.  Just look at the artwork, hell the concept art for female worgen is a yiffers wet dream. It's all in the presentation here.  They could have made the worgen snarling beast men, they made starfox instead.

No. There's no difference. If you call Worgen furry and deny the furrydom of Tauren, you're blatantly biased. It's really as simple as that. Just because you nominally ascribe sexual attractiveness to anthropmorphic wolves doesn't mean someone else can't think the exact same thing about anthropmorphic cows.
Keep in mind that the single bit of 'concept art' for female Worgen we've seen was speed-sketched literally 5 minutes before the con and doesn't necessarily bear any relation to how they will appear in-game, and that the male Worgen's faces bear no semblance to humanity bar a noble countenance. I don't doubt that the Worgen will, overall, be a good looking race - Tauren look great to this day (my single problem playing them is their sheer size). But we're not talking /waggle 2.0 here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on May 07, 2010, 10:37:17 AM
The thing that sets the Worgen apart is that the Worgen will be sexy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on May 07, 2010, 10:39:32 AM
The thing that sets the Worgen apart is that the Worgen will be sexy.
(insert "Loyalty level 6" picture here) ... and no, you shouldn't google that at work.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 07, 2010, 11:18:42 AM
I still don't understand why they thought Warriors would make less sense than Paladins.

The reasoning was:

- They wanted to keep the number of class/race combinations on both sides completely equal (this is the same reason we lost dwarf mages in beta, alliance had one more combo total than horde)
- They didn't want to add any new class combinations to old races at the time
- They wanted to make all classes available on both sides, thus Blood Elves *had* to have paladins much like draenei had to have shamans
- They were more or less limited to only 6 classes for Blood Elves because draenei rogues would have been silly and draenei warlocks and druids would have been inappropriate lore-wise. The cloth casters and hunters were obviously iconic elf things from previous Blizzard game lore, so you had to have them.

Essentially the choice was not between having warriors and having paladins; the choice was between having warriors and having *rogues*, and it was decided somewhere along the way that rogues were a better choice. (I'm not speculating here, this was the actual choice they had to make, it was discussed at one point or another publically.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 07, 2010, 11:21:53 AM
But we're not talking /waggle 2.0 here.

I won't believe it til I see it. Until such day as we actually see the model in game, the safest assumption is that we're going to be dealing with Yiff City.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 07, 2010, 11:23:33 AM
I know I'm going to make a pretty elf boy warrior, though, because I know it will pain every single I HATE BLOOD ELVES dickhead out there.

Not being able to roll a BElf Warrior was pretty much the deciding factor in me ignoring the Burning Crusade release. I still don't understand why they thought Warriors would make less sense than Paladins. I'm just glad they finally wised up (same with Human Hunters, ffs), and my current BElf Paladin is going to have a cataclysmic breakdown in faith, thankyouverymuch.

It wasn't so much "made less sense" as "had to cut SOMEthing, and paladins were not cuttable."



As for the blood elf hate, it is much more intense WITHIN YOUR OWN FACTION than night elves. I've never had someone make sure I knew they weren't buffing me because I was an elf as my night elves. My blood elves have taken way more shit than my night elves. Waaaaaaay more. People who go out of their way to be bitches about blood elves also seem to hate the boy ones more, probably because they're afeared of catching the gay. Hence, pretty pretty PRETTY boy elf warrior, because OH GOD WHY YOU SHOULD'VE MADE A GOBLIN.


EDIT: Also to think the worgen ladies aren't going to be YIFFY is just ... well. More optimistic than I will ever be concerning Blizzard and its art direction.

EDIT AGAIN: And you know, taurens are minotaurs, which were not yiffy in the least. Yes, furries <3 the taurens, but I don't think it's totally crazy to make a mental divide between "taurens are based on mythology everyone is familiar with" and "worgens are furry because let's face it if they aren't some kind of cat they're some sort of wolf or fox."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 07, 2010, 11:32:29 AM
Well to be fair werewolves are also one of those mythy things, but they've been co-opted a lot more by pop culture at this point so that kind of lessens the value of that.

Well, at least it isn't goddamn vampires.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 07, 2010, 11:55:21 AM
Taurens are minotaurs in nearly the classical sense and Worgens are werewolves in the way Edward Cullen is a Vampire.  It's not bias, there's a distinct difference here that I'm surprised you can't see. 

As to blood elves, the hate is justified.  They were a race that was simply added to help balance out horde populations, they were the 'pretty' race and flooded hordeside with annoying belf players.  I personally don't mind blood elves and the male/female thing is funny but not overly prevalent.  To me they just still feel forced and tacked on, not to mention that something like 60% of the horde is elves now, it's annoying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 07, 2010, 12:03:51 PM
I don't think "man, that was random" is a legit reason to hate a race. I mean, Alliance got fucking ret-conned-to-not-be-hideous-potato-monster, space-faring draenei, which was way more "wtf" than blood elves. But people don't hate them nearly as much, if they hate them at all. But people love to irrationally hate elves, and Horde people in particular seem to enjoy patting themselves on the back for being special snowflakes who are above petty things like "not looking like a hunched over goon," which gets hurt somewhat when people roll elves.

And you'll excuse me as I snortlaugh at the notion the Horde didn't have its fair share of annoying morons before blood elves. Barrens chat was famous before TBC, after all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 07, 2010, 12:11:50 PM
We had our annoying morons, they just weren't elves as well.  Blood elf influx did help reign in the population imbalance, but it also brought in more morons.. who are now elves.

Yah. Thanks.  

I think we've gotten over it though (I've gotten over it enough to play one as a main for a while).  I don't see a lot of shit over elves anymore, because they're half of our tanks and good portion of our healers.

edit: As for Dranei, who really gives a shit about space goats? They're not worth hating.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 07, 2010, 12:17:08 PM
I haven't played my paladin one lately, but blood elf rogues are not welcome.  :drill: Actually that isn't fair, most people are fine, I just think it's funny that the only time I catch shit for merely existing these days is when I'm playing a blood elf dude.

My favorite was in one group where this tauren guy was all I DON'T BUFF BLOOD ELVES and then spent the entire dungeon hitting on the girl blood elf.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on May 07, 2010, 12:18:22 PM
Well the new races were (A) Enthusiastic cheerful galoots (THIS PLANET HAS EVERYTHING!) and (B) Scrawny drug addicts.  Who do you THINK is more loved?




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 07, 2010, 12:23:57 PM
Honestly, I wish the blood elf guys were scrawnier. Stupid buffing them up because OH GOD THEY'RE SORT OF GAY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T RIP PHONE BOOKS IN HALF panicking by beta testers. >:(

The draenei girls still annoy me a little too, but I think I am the only one on the planet who feels that way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 07, 2010, 01:30:25 PM
I've been planning on resubbing for Cataclysm since I found out they were redoing the old world.  My last stint a few months ago actually last longer than I thought.  I just need to grind out some badges before the xpac hits for some heirloom gear.

Now I have to choose either Goblin or Worgen.  If I'm a Goblin I can transfer gold/heirlooms to it.  If it's Worgen I have to start from scratch.

Hmm choices.  Goblin Warlock?
(http://i41.tinypic.com/348o8io.jpg) / (http://i41.tinypic.com/i3ib1i.jpg)

...or some furry mutt. Take your pick.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 07, 2010, 01:38:46 PM
I'd love to play a Goblin but I don't know anyone who actually plays Horde.  Oh sure, some guildies say they have Horde alts but they either never play them or they've snuck off to another server.  It's lonely playing Horde. :(
I'll play a Goblin or three.  I promise!  And there's that DK group we never did.  You could just poke me and tell me to go over there. :-P

More generally, finding people ties into the new friends list.  I'm debating on whether I want to sign up for it or not.  I like some anonymity, but it'd be handy for seeing where people are.  I wonder if cross-server chat channels for groups of people will be a part of it.

The draenei girls still annoy me a little too, but I think I am the only one on the planet who feels that way.
There are many things about the design which annoy me when I think about it.  But I love them anyways and I won't be ashamed of it!

Added due to new post warning:  Definitely playing a goblin.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on May 07, 2010, 02:05:15 PM
The female Goblin lost a lot of charm in their pursuit of "realistic but cartoony" art design that seems to be influencing new content. Or is it because of the darker tone of the world that they moved away from brighter, silly (but appreciable) style?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 07, 2010, 02:08:20 PM
No, it's because Blizzard realised that hardly anyone wants to play an ugly female PC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 07, 2010, 02:27:11 PM
We probably shouldn't immediately assume that the more traditional goblin female face won't be one of the options you can pick - after all this screenshot is just one of probably 5 or 6 choices.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 07, 2010, 02:40:13 PM
Hopefully they'll make more than one decent troll face in the process.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 07, 2010, 02:52:55 PM
Someone is buying into the troll beauty myth!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 07, 2010, 03:08:32 PM
You can transfer heirlooms across factions.

Eh ?

Since everyone ignored you...

Anything with that light gold title "account bound" toggle can be mailed to ANY of your characters on the same server, Horde or Alliance.  They changed it from "same side only" in 3.2 IIRC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 07, 2010, 04:28:07 PM
Someone is buying into the troll beauty myth!  :why_so_serious:
My Horde characters are predominately Trolls. ;D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 07, 2010, 04:29:11 PM
My female friend who plays and loves trolls "Hates" the stoned troll face with a passion, she says they just look vacant and that is people wanted to look like elves they should have rolled elves.

That said I agree trolls don't get many decent options but I agree, stoned face isnt great.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on May 07, 2010, 05:32:27 PM
Anything with that light gold title "account bound" toggle can be mailed to ANY of your characters on the same server, Horde or Alliance.  They changed it from "same side only" in 3.2 IIRC.
Can we... transfer servers with them too?  Since I've got a bunch of alts on another server and having the heirlooms once I have my 9 80's would sure make things easier...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 07, 2010, 05:38:57 PM
Anything with that light gold title "account bound" toggle can be mailed to ANY of your characters on the same server, Horde or Alliance.  They changed it from "same side only" in 3.2 IIRC.
Can we... transfer servers with them too?  Since I've got a bunch of alts on another server and having the heirlooms once I have my 9 80's would sure make things easier...

Your gear should server transfer with you, yes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 07, 2010, 05:39:37 PM
Another guy with a batch of alpha screenshots and images of models:

http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/leviathonlx2/
http://s108.photobucket.com/albums/n28/leviathonlx/?start=0


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 07, 2010, 05:53:02 PM
Taurens are minotaurs in nearly the classical sense and Worgens are werewolves in the way Edward Cullen is a Vampire.  It's not bias, there's a distinct difference here that I'm surprised you can't see.

No, I can't see it. You're ramming in a trashy after-the-fact pop-cultural reference when there isn't a reasonable equivalent on the other side. I might as well compare Tauren to umpteen cheese or yoghurt commercials and their cartoon cow characters.

Worgen have been a part of the WoW universe long before the Twilight series became part of the national conscience. Worgen culture is total anathema to that portrayed in that woeful franchise.

I should also point out that the Minotaur was a man with the head of a bull, and the Tauren are bipedal cows (with yiffy womens, omg - check out those peculiar udders!). Worgen have far greater stock in mythology.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 07, 2010, 06:31:04 PM
Dranei are like a Tiefling, except not hardcore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 07, 2010, 08:27:37 PM
My female friend who plays and loves trolls "Hates" the stoned troll face with a passion, she says they just look vacant and that is people wanted to look like elves they should have rolled elves.

That said I agree trolls don't get many decent options but I agree, stoned face isnt great.

I also loathe that face, I never ever use it. I love the lady troll voice though. Especially her laugh.  :heart:

Also, squeeeee at the lady goblin hair.

Also also, I hate tieflings.

Also, also, also, it isn't just Twilight that's made werewolves lame. Twilight, generally speaking, does not enter my mind. There's just been a lot more pop shit throughout our lives that has zomg werewolves. They've been defanged (har!) and kept "modern." So they're familiar in a way minotaurs aren't. Anyway, tauren, like I mentioned before, may have their furry followers but there is a much much much much much MUCH MUCH MUCH higher percentage of wolf/fox FURSONAS (that word makes me laugh) than cow ones. Furries are what make worgens so goddamn furry, not anything else.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 07, 2010, 09:14:27 PM
Female worgen, at least, are going to be yiffy as fuck and we all know it. Just look at the female goblin. "Oh shit it's playable now, quick remove all the character in order to make it cute!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 07, 2010, 09:22:44 PM
That's because of an increased... appreciation of canines.  Wolf shirts and statues are popular amongst the general populace because of a false serenity and majesty associated with them.  People love dogs and think of wolves as one step removed.  Cows not so much.  That simply carries over to furry personalities.

I love tieflings, too.  (Original concept, not the 4th Ed stuff as much.)  Demons, gargoyles, dragons,... anything supernatural really.  Draenei package a lot of that together and add in the fake gypsy/Russian/whatever accent I like so much.  And it's not a human, elf, dwarf, orc, or other tired fantasy race re-imagined for the hundredth time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 07, 2010, 09:22:57 PM
Worgen culture is...



No sentence ever needs to start with these words in any conversation ever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 07, 2010, 09:35:02 PM
That's because of an increased... appreciation of canines.  Wolf shirts and statues are popular amongst the general populace because of a false serenity and majesty associated with them.  People love dogs and think of wolves as one step removed.  

... and want to hump them.

Guys, gals, please. The yiff rationalizations are just killing me. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 07, 2010, 09:56:15 PM
I am eagerly awaiting all the "bitch" jokes that will ensue alliance side.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 07, 2010, 10:52:34 PM
Worgen females in game, no textures yet.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/general-discussions/first-look-at-wogen-famale/



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 07, 2010, 11:05:27 PM
So we can stop pretending they'll be anything but yiffy little foxes now, right.


EDIT: In an effort to be somewhat positive, the hairstyles don't fill me with rage and I don't mind how they look in platemail.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 07, 2010, 11:20:52 PM
So I'm looking at the actual female worgen animations and they're a lot better than I had expected. They're not super girly horrible like night elves, and that does please me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 07, 2010, 11:27:36 PM
They're not as hyper-sexualized as the draenei, but are way more than the tauren. (see: walk animation)

Verdict: moderate yiff


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 07, 2010, 11:30:09 PM
You're right, they are not nearly as bad as the draenei ladies. If I peer at them through that lens, they actually did a pretty good job with them.

One thing I have noticed watching the BOY worgen animations is that the boys sort of look more like lions than wolves to me. I guess it's because they have hair and it makes me think of manes?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 07, 2010, 11:33:14 PM
http://img208.imageshack.us/i/goblinhotrod.jpg/


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 08, 2010, 12:07:07 AM
Anyway yeah, everytime I go into Stormwind for the next 5 years (or whatever) it's going to be a giant freshly stepped-on wreck? Bleh. That plus furries plus the whole "five strangers who don't talk and will never see each other again silently farming heroics" state of the game aren't encouraging me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 08, 2010, 12:38:18 AM
Anyway yeah, everytime I go into Stormwind for the next 5 years (or whatever) it's going to be a giant freshly stepped-on wreck? Bleh.

Eh, Shattrath and Light's Hope Chapel still have their Sunwell and old-Naxxramas stuff going on.  Post-Cataclysm Dalaran is probably still going to have that stupid statue in the middle and have the Argent Tournament folks flying in every once in a while.

Cataclysm is in essence about the war coming home and the capitals (at least a few of them) being proper hubs instead of places with Auction Houses.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 08, 2010, 01:04:36 AM
(http://i39.tinypic.com/zivm6q.jpg)

These are not the droids you are looking for..... :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on May 08, 2010, 01:37:24 AM
Anyway yeah, everytime I go into Stormwind for the next 5 years (or whatever) it's going to be a giant freshly stepped-on wreck? Bleh. That plus furries plus the whole "five strangers who don't talk and will never see each other again silently farming heroics" state of the game aren't encouraging me.
I only just started instancing again after like four years of absence and I hate what the dungeon finder has done to PUGs, especially in combination with the turbo-paced loot piñatas that are modern dungeons. When you have to spend more than an hour together, it's kind of important to be civil with eachother. When the instance takes 20 minutes, who cares? Occasionally meeting some nice motherfuckers in PUGs was the only redeeming part of them, really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 08, 2010, 01:55:03 AM
I am the complete opposite. Most of my experience with PUGs before the dungeon finder were unpleasant. Having to be together for an hour certainly did not make people more civil, because the giant pain in the ass it was to form a PUG in the first place kept people in said PUG, even with douchebags. I've done far more PUGs since the dungeon finder change, and had a vastly better experience with them. Yes, doing instances in complete silence is a little odd, but I find if I feel like chatting (which honestly is not that often), people will chat back. I like the all-business let's-do-this-quick PUG, I find it to be a VAST improvement over the old way.

I do realise part of why I have the freedom to feel this way is because I have a guild, and if I want to be a slowpoke that is more interested in chatting and doing something fun with some people rather than LET US DO THIS FAST TALKING SLOWS US DOWN, I will do it with them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on May 08, 2010, 02:10:04 AM
Anyway yeah, everytime I go into Stormwind for the next 5 years (or whatever) it's going to be a giant freshly stepped-on wreck? Bleh. That plus furries plus the whole "five strangers who don't talk and will never see each other again silently farming heroics" state of the game aren't encouraging me.
I only just started instancing again after like four years of absence and I hate what the dungeon finder has done to PUGs, especially in combination with the turbo-paced loot piñatas that are modern dungeons. When you have to spend more than an hour together, it's kind of important to be civil with eachother. When the instance takes 20 minutes, who cares? Occasionally meeting some nice motherfuckers in PUGs was the only redeeming part of them, really.
I've had great groups come together and stay together for hours through LFD. At cap when 3/4 of the players are just running one instance to get their frosties it never happens, but when leveling up people are incentivized to stick with a group they know is decent, and asocial people are more likely to drop the group after one run and be replaced, so quick instances are a good thing in this regard. Of course, there are no tools to make the odds of me seeing any of those people again better than slim to none (yet! global friends lists are finally incoming (http://us.battle.net/realid/faq.html), though they're not quite suited for this sort of casual contact).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 08, 2010, 02:37:48 AM
We probably shouldn't immediately assume that the more traditional goblin female face won't be one of the options you can pick - after all this screenshot is just one of probably 5 or 6 choices.
From the same place as before:

NB: Apparently, customisation is still a WIP for the ladies (i.e. jewellery and the like isn't fully implemented yet).

Male goblins to follow.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 08, 2010, 02:44:30 AM
And the blokes:

According to people who are actually in the alpha, the various nose/ear changes actually change the geometry of the model rather than just being texture changes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 08, 2010, 06:17:44 AM
I don't think anyone complaining that Worgen females are going to be 'sexy' has a leg to stand on now I've seen those Goblin femaless. That's some pretty heavy 'player friendly' remodelling, right there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 08, 2010, 06:20:21 AM
Also should add: fantastic looking hairstyles. Not a pixelated, scraggly end in sight. Blizzard better be goddamn fixing all the hideously crayon drawn old-style hairstyles half the original races are blighted with.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 08, 2010, 07:17:03 AM
Now I love goblin females but sexy would be a stretch.  Oh sure they were given pretty faces but come on, they are still three-foot tall disproportional midgets with giant hands.  I could see people going as far as 'cute' but to think they've somehow ruined goblins by sexualizing them is just silly.


edit to add: Look at the goblin hotrod....is that a fucking back seat? If it's a two player mount then things are getting awesome here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 08, 2010, 07:18:17 AM
Yeah, those popeye gorilla arms on the female goblins are clearly nothing but pure fanservice. Hot!

Besides which, I never said I didn't think they'd tart up the female goblins. It was a fucking given they would, seeing as how the other "ugly" races had their females pan out. The fact they're still short and squat and have long, beefy arms is something of a miracle.


EDIT: Also, they really, really need to give the older races some love. The difference between the goblins and, say, the dwarves is pretty staggering at this point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 08, 2010, 07:24:05 AM
to think they've somehow ruined goblins by sexualizing them is just silly.

Now I want you to think very, very hard about what you've just typed, there.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 08, 2010, 07:28:50 AM
To reiterate:
Worgen females in game, no textures yet.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/general-discussions/first-look-at-wogen-famale/
And adding:
(http://i41.tinypic.com/oks6jt.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 08, 2010, 07:31:33 AM
It's hard to say without seeing their legs (why do people take new-model shots in robes? :( ) but I am pretty sure they haven't really tried for "sexy" with the lady goblins, which I believe was the point. They have boobs and cute faces, but they've always had boobs, and frankly the original lady goblin face is cute, just totally old-ass-graphics style.

The thing with the worgens is they were basically making up the female ones out of thin air (even though there WERE female worgen already, they just looked like the dude ones but God forbid we keep that). And there was never, ever, ever any doubt those made up ladies were going to be teh hawt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 08, 2010, 07:54:29 AM
Blizzard is going to make every new race hawt.  They showed they realized that mistake starting with the Draenei and Blood Elves.  There will never be ugli again.

People are just freaking out that they find something with fur attractive, even if it's not their thing.  It's no different than when guys freak when they find some gal they thought is really a guy in drag.  Human minds are built to find certain shapes pleasing, and the silhouette is often more important to that perception than the 'texture'.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on May 08, 2010, 08:24:08 AM
This stuff is just silly.  Who cares about sexualizing the female worgens or goblins?  I mean really.  If you don't end up liking them, then don't play one.  If you do, grats.

Only thing I care about is emoting, "I got what you need," and then stabbing motherfuckers in the face.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 08, 2010, 10:03:00 AM
I care mostly because I'm sick of being reminded that first and foremost, I am to be found Hot. Everything else is secondary to that. I get enough of that bullshit in real life.

I don't have an issue with the worgen ladies being hot if it makes sense. I'm annoyed because there were female worgens already, but they didn't have boobs and hair and a wiggle in their walk, so of course that couldn't stay as is because shut up that's why. They aren't nearly as terrible as the lady draenei in the "how the fuck are those even the same race" department, but it does make me despair that Priority One for making females is to make them attractive to heterosexual males. You can arglebargle about how zomg men make up most of the playerbase (it's not as lopsided as you think, and still doesn't make it right) and how No One Plays Ugly (which doesn't explain why the males of MOST of the races get played at all), but it still gets tiring and it doesn't make Hot >>>>>> Sense right.

If they took the Guild Wars approach where even the men are beautiful (well, most of them) it wouldn't bug me as much, because at least there's a sense of wanting everyone to be attractive. Blizzard makes it much clearer that they only give a shit if the women are attractive, because that is their Primary Characteristic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 08, 2010, 10:37:27 AM
At a guess, it'd be easier to arglebargle about how lopsided the development team in regards to gender balance.  The Warcraft franchise has always struck me as having an incredibly high machismo factor and a lack of any interest in pursuing ideas or designs which would break that image.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on May 08, 2010, 10:44:25 AM
Remember when Werewolves used to be just Werewolves? I miss those days. I also miss the days before Vampires were defiled by pale self important goth types.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 08, 2010, 10:57:51 AM
inorite ?


Remember we used to be able to say the word Gay ??


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 08, 2010, 11:18:54 AM
ManliGoblininess:
(http://i41.tinypic.com/552ywg.jpg)

(Alternate title: "I got what you need!")


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 08, 2010, 02:03:28 PM
ManliGoblininess:
(http://i41.tinypic.com/552ywg.jpg)

(Alternate title: "I got what you need!")
HOLY FUCK.  There is more animation going on in that goblins HEAD then there is in the entire Undead Femal Dance loop!!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 08, 2010, 02:11:39 PM
Yea, all the goblin animations I've seen, male or female, are about 10x as involved and long as any of the older races.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on May 08, 2010, 03:31:52 PM
Fuck yea, Goblin.

I care mostly because I'm sick of being reminded that first and foremost, I am to be found Hot. Everything else is secondary to that. I get enough of that bullshit in real life.

I don't have an issue with the worgen ladies being hot if it makes sense. I'm annoyed because there were female worgens already, but they didn't have boobs and hair and a wiggle in their walk, so of course that couldn't stay as is because shut up that's why. They aren't nearly as terrible as the lady draenei in the "how the fuck are those even the same race" department, but it does make me despair that Priority One for making females is to make them attractive to heterosexual males. You can arglebargle about how zomg men make up most of the playerbase (it's not as lopsided as you think, and still doesn't make it right) and how No One Plays Ugly (which doesn't explain why the males of MOST of the races get played at all), but it still gets tiring and it doesn't make Hot >>>>>> Sense right.

If they took the Guild Wars approach where even the men are beautiful (well, most of them) it wouldn't bug me as much, because at least there's a sense of wanting everyone to be attractive. Blizzard makes it much clearer that they only give a shit if the women are attractive, because that is their Primary Characteristic.

It's one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't things.  If they don't sexualize the female models, then they might as well not spend the time putting them in the game, because nobody is going to play them.  If you do sexualize them, then you awaken the sleeping feminist in your female players.  But I think if you look at it overall, they've tried their best to put in a little something for everyone.  If you have to play an ugly female, you have your Dwarves, Orcs, Tauren, and of course Trolls.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 08, 2010, 03:47:23 PM
Uh, maybe the females will play them?  I have no interest in playing a male character.  I like to look good, but I do not need to be hyper-sexualized either.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on May 08, 2010, 04:14:56 PM
I'd also like to see non-hypersexualized males. More guys built like Andre Agassi or Andre the Giant. I've had enough of tiny waists and gigantic mutant deltoids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 08, 2010, 04:31:35 PM
Ooh, shiny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jcHnDfph8I


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 08, 2010, 04:48:31 PM
Uh, maybe the females will play them?  I have no interest in playing a male character.  I like to look good, but I do not need to be hyper-sexualized either.

Ha ha ha! It's like you think women count!


EDIT: I also disagree vigorously that the men of WoW are "hypersexualized." The only game I have ever played where you could kind of say the men are as sexually objectified as the women is Guild Wars. The men of WoW aren't the way they look because they hope those interested in males will find them attractive. They look that way so boys can pretend they are SUPER MANLY MENZ.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on May 08, 2010, 05:04:18 PM
You guys really think women are going to play a she-wolf with an A cup and a muffin top?   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 08, 2010, 05:04:48 PM
Nobody plays the non-hawt females. Not even women. Female dwarves and tauren may as well not have been modeled.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 08, 2010, 05:14:19 PM
Ooh, shiny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jcHnDfph8I

That's tantamount to emotional terrorism, using that bit of score.  :cry:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on May 08, 2010, 05:20:12 PM
EDIT: I also disagree vigorously that the men of WoW are "hypersexualized." The only game I have ever played where you could kind of say the men are as sexually objectified as the women is Guild Wars. The men of WoW aren't the way they look because they hope those interested in males will find them attractive. They look that way so boys can pretend they are SUPER MANLY MENZ.
That's what I meant by hypersexualized... not sex as in sexy, but sex as in male. All the male features are exaggerated... lumpy, bulgy louts with square jaws, scowls and scars. The men and the women of WoW are the way they look not because Blizzard hoped people would find them sexually attractive, but because they hoped people would find them attractive to play. They're seven-heads-high Boris Vallejo fantasy archetypes: Fit but unnaturally hourglass women and hulking, gnarly men. Plus dwarves and minotaurs (which have no traditional female archetypes) and gnomes (which have cartoon-character proportions).

I want a less generic set of options.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 08, 2010, 05:21:04 PM
Female Dwarves were hilariously rare this past Easter on my server (US-Wildhammer).  Taurens, not so much.  Hell, I have two these days.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on May 08, 2010, 05:26:39 PM
Female Taurens at least look like cow-people. Female dwarves look less like fantasy dwarves than like short humans. They should have beards.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 08, 2010, 05:27:15 PM
Nobody plays the non-hawt females. Not even women. Female dwarves and tauren may as well not have been modeled.

I have seen many, many, many tauren females. A lot of them are druids, though, so it's not like you can tell when you're in a group with them.

I love my lady dwarf.  :heart:

Anyway, I have yet to see an animation for either new race that I didn't like (except for the female worgen /walk, but whatever). It's exciting!

EDIT: Swap out "tauren" and put in "orc" and you might have a better point. Although I love them too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on May 08, 2010, 05:28:06 PM
I don't have an issue with the worgen ladies being hot if it makes sense. I'm annoyed because there were female worgens already, but they didn't have boobs and hair and a wiggle in their walk, so of course that couldn't stay as is because shut up that's why.
There's only one, male, worgen model.  There are no female worgen already.  If you're saying that some obscure quest happened to refer to some worgen as a 'she' then we're stretching the definition of there already being female worgen pretty far, because art-wise, there are not already female worgen.  I have no doubt that if you ask the artists that designed the existing worgen model, they will tell you that they never intended it to represent both genders, and that they designed it as a male.

Player models must be attractive.  In some way, they must be generally and broadly attractive, they must be appealing in some way.  If they're not, they're going to wind up considerably underplayed.  The only other option is if they are quirky or cute, making them the comedic character.  See: gnomes, particularly male gnomes, who are not attractive, but have the quirkiness going for them.  Their appearance is silly, they're a bit of a joke.  That applies to goblins too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 08, 2010, 05:34:39 PM
Female dwarves look less like fantasy dwarves than like short humans. They should have beards.

This has always, always been my problem with Dwarf representation in games. If it doesn't have a beard, it's not a dwarf. You could give them pretty faces and hourglass figures and dainty hands, but if she doesn't come with a luxurious, silken beard available in a variety of seductive, stylish braids, she's a short human.

Of course, I'm of the opinion Trolls are Silicate life-forms, too. DAoC got that right. I loved DAoC Trolls.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 08, 2010, 05:40:36 PM
I don't have an issue with the worgen ladies being hot if it makes sense. I'm annoyed because there were female worgens already, but they didn't have boobs and hair and a wiggle in their walk, so of course that couldn't stay as is because shut up that's why.
There's only one, male, worgen model.  There are no female worgen already.  If you're saying that some obscure quest happened to refer to some worgen as a 'she' then we're stretching the definition of there already being female worgen pretty far, because art-wise, there are not already female worgen.  I have no doubt that if you ask the artists that designed the existing worgen model, they will tell you that they never intended it to represent both genders, and that they designed it as a male.


Yeah, all of Grizzly Hills, with all those women who turn into worgen. So obscure!

EDIT: This is why I do not, under any circumstances, want furbolgs to be a player race.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on May 08, 2010, 05:40:46 PM
I have no doubt that if you ask the artists that designed the existing worgen model, they will tell you that they never intended it to represent both genders, and that they designed it as a male.
Monsters are (with a few exceptions, like medusae) male. Ogres, gnolls, quillboar, and kobolds have no female models.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 08, 2010, 06:26:00 PM
You guys really think women are going to play a she-wolf with an A cup and a muffin top?   :oh_i_see:
No idea what a muffin top is, but otherwise, yes.  I prefer to play a female character closer in cup size to myself than the MMO norm.  I'm even fine with my reptilian races *gasp*  having no breasts at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on May 08, 2010, 06:37:25 PM
Yeah, all of Grizzly Hills, with all those women who turn into worgen. So obscure!
Actually I'd forgotten about the northrend worgen, so good point.  However, that's still just an art issue - kinda like those female druids that turn into lions with manes.  That's a male worgen model.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on May 08, 2010, 06:48:10 PM
I have no doubt that if you ask the artists that designed the existing worgen model, they will tell you that they never intended it to represent both genders, and that they designed it as a male.
Monsters are (with a few exceptions, like medusae) male. Ogres, gnolls, quillboar, and kobolds have no female models.

I don't think there are any female undead either; forsaken sure, but not undead (bar odd bosses like Lady DW).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on May 08, 2010, 06:48:32 PM
You guys really think women are going to play a she-wolf with an A cup and a muffin top?   :oh_i_see:
No idea what a muffin top is, but otherwise, yes.  I prefer to play a female character closer in cup size to myself than the MMO norm.  I'm even fine with my reptilian races *gasp*  having no breasts at all.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/963220/muffin-top-minimiser.jpg)

Muffin top.

Also.  I get that you think you'd play one.  I'm talking about women in general.  And most won't.  Sad as it may seem.  At least not in the numbers it would take to justify the time they spent making them.  I have no problem with them making a more robust system where you can make the Plain Jane Every Woman Werewolf of your dreams.  But complaining about this is silly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 08, 2010, 07:05:11 PM
More on the whole 'no one's going to find female goblins sexy' argument...

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v351/Yvash/WoW/GoblinFemalewithGun.jpg)

Seriously. If you're happy accepting the fact that people out there are currently fapping/schlicking away to the idea of bipedal wolves, can you honestly, hand on heart claim that no one will do the same over goblins? Don't be fucking daft, people. Fetishes are fetishes. In the grand scheme of things, 3 foot tall green women with noo joizee accents aren't even in the realms of the odd. And yes, I've already seen WoW Goblin pin-up art.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 08, 2010, 07:10:08 PM
I never play anything but humans anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 08, 2010, 07:27:30 PM
What you don't get Mattemeo is that furries are reviled throughout the internet. Seriously. No one likes furries. While people who find small green women attractive are just weird.

I have no doubt that if you ask the artists that designed the existing worgen model, they will tell you that they never intended it to represent both genders, and that they designed it as a male.
Monsters are (with a few exceptions, like medusae) male. Ogres, gnolls, quillboar, and kobolds have no female models.

I don't think there are any female undead either; forsaken sure, but not undead (bar odd bosses like Lady DW).
Banshees are female.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 08, 2010, 07:44:42 PM
Yeah I don't get where you're coming from at all on that. The goblins don't really seem sexed-up really to me. If anything they toned DOWN the Jersey Shore skank makeup.

EDIT: Whoa I missed a new page again. That was in response to Mattemeo.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on May 08, 2010, 07:58:49 PM
You mean you guys don't play a certain race to min\max the racial bonuses and be a better raider\PVPer?  ;-)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 08, 2010, 09:27:57 PM
Fetishes are fetishes.
It's a kink, not a fetish, thankyouverymuch. :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 08, 2010, 09:42:40 PM
You mean you guys don't play a certain race to min\max the racial bonuses and be a better raider\PVPer?  ;-)

Most of my race choices have always been about which attack/casting animations I like best, heh.  Though I do have to admit I chose night elf on my Death Knight because I thought the idea of a shadow melding DK was awesome  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 08, 2010, 10:00:03 PM
I try to have one of everything but within that I do tend to try and match up the racials to what I'm doing at least a little. I still have non-herbalist taurens and such though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on May 08, 2010, 11:42:37 PM
I try to have one of everything but within that I do tend to try and match up the racials to what I'm doing at least a little. I still have non-herbalist taurens and such though.
I am attached to my trolls for some reason (have 4 80's with them).  At least their berserking makes my DPS look good.  I do at least have 1 each of the horde races for those wacky seasonal achievements that come along every now and again that make people like me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on May 09, 2010, 03:26:26 AM
You mean you guys don't play a certain race to min\max the racial bonuses and be a better raider\PVPer?  ;-)

I do like my +1% to hit I have to say.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 09, 2010, 04:02:18 AM
http://db.mmo-champion.com/s/75289/high-society-top-hat/

(http://i44.tinypic.com/2vb7991.jpg)

I say!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on May 09, 2010, 08:11:11 AM
I am attached to my trolls for some reason (have 4 80's with them).  At least their berserking makes my DPS look good.

Trolls be flippin' out, mon.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on May 09, 2010, 09:17:05 AM
http://db.mmo-champion.com/s/75289/high-society-top-hat/

(http://i44.tinypic.com/2vb7991.jpg)

I say!

My future goblin AH alt is going to have a tough choice between that and his pimp hat currently waiting in th bank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 09, 2010, 12:48:39 PM
And yes, I've already seen WoW Goblin pin-up art.
(http://i44.tinypic.com/kcgwnc.jpg)

I believe it's called "refuge in audacity".  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on May 09, 2010, 02:18:22 PM
Nobody plays the non-hawt females. Not even women. Female dwarves and tauren may as well not have been modeled.
This thread makes me and my female taurens and troll sad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: angry.bob on May 09, 2010, 07:40:51 PM
The current world build for Cataclysm is available to download on usenet as a 15 gig package. It's not populated or anything, but it will let you look around at all the changes and get a heads up on stuff. I haven't downloaded it myself since my care/download ratio isn't high enough to download. Just thought some of you might like to know.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 09, 2010, 08:08:52 PM
Anyway yeah, everytime I go into Stormwind for the next 5 years (or whatever) it's going to be a giant freshly stepped-on wreck? Bleh. That plus furries plus the whole "five strangers who don't talk and will never see each other again silently farming heroics" state of the game aren't encouraging me.


There's apparently a lot of geography phasing from what people have been able to dig out of the leaked client. So all the in-construction stuff may be finished through questing or simply patched in as the expansion goes on, how the Argent Tourney was built up.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 09, 2010, 08:09:58 PM
Yeah I don't think we could see stuff that changes in phases in these screenshots. I don't think the model viewer type stuff handles that at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 10, 2010, 05:55:35 AM
Nobody plays the non-hawt females. Not even women. Female dwarves and tauren may as well not have been modeled.
This thread makes me and my female taurens and troll sad.

I think Tauren females are lovely. I don't want to take one to bed, but it doesn't stop them being nicely modelled. They're very feminine. Female Trolls, on the other hand, could do with about 10 new faces to compliment the single 'stoned' face everyone uses, and the 6 or 7 'lightly goosed mad crone' variations. And possibly a little less rod-like posture. I know people's general internal image of a character doesn't necessarily correlate with the in-game graphics, but still. There's a hell of a lot of WoW fan-art out there that is a lot more generous to Troll women than the game is.

Female Dwarves don't exist. There's Dwarves, and stubby angry human women.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 10, 2010, 01:42:35 PM
The Lady Dwarf is great the way they she is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 10, 2010, 01:49:01 PM
Mattemeo has very specific Pratchett-caused expectations for his lady dwarves.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 11, 2010, 02:21:02 AM
Female dwarves look less like fantasy dwarves than like short humans. They should have beards.

This has always, always been my problem with Dwarf representation in games. If it doesn't have a beard, it's not a dwarf. You could give them pretty faces and hourglass figures and dainty hands, but if she doesn't come with a luxurious, silken beard available in a variety of seductive, stylish braids, she's a short human.

Tolkien would be rolling in his grave if those terrible movies hadn't already assraped his corpse into dust.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 11, 2010, 02:48:12 AM
Bitching that dorf women don't have beards means you are broken inside. Fuck Tolkien. Also, you want developers to waste time making models zero people will use.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 11, 2010, 05:06:47 AM
Bitching that dorf women don't have beards means you are broken inside. Fuck Tolkien. Also, you want developers to waste time making models zero people will use.

Just because you wouldn't use them doesn't mean nobody else would. We've already ascertained that you only play humans anyhow.

Giving female Dwarves beards would be pretty much the only reason for me to roll one (never had a dwarf character), and there are shitloads of people out there who would find it funny and/or awesome. Let's face it, I highly doubt there'd be less female Dwarf players than there are now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 11, 2010, 05:15:25 AM
Counterpoint: EQ female dwarf models has a couple of face selections with beards. I think I saw maybe one ever past level five.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 11, 2010, 08:37:00 AM
Bitching that dorf women don't have beards means you are broken inside. Fuck Tolkien. Also, you want developers to waste time making models zero people will use.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raegar on May 11, 2010, 09:29:38 AM
Moving from the Resident Evil horrors that are female dwarves...

I always thought that if there was anything worthy of bringing back for an Azerothian revisit (aka Cataclysm), it would be the feeling of Taurren Mill type open world PvP battles. I hope at least some of you here remember the starting months of WoW PvP. Getting up to Warlord rank has probably been the most genuine fun I've had in WoW ever. Starting the journey will squad/group-based combat, moving to large-scale TM battles (laggy or not, it was fun and thrilling as if something was at stake), then introduction of battlegrounds...something new and exciting at the time.

That feeling is what I wished for with the old-world redesigns. I hoped for the phrase "Contested Zone" to actually mean something other than very little of nothing [you can kill lowbies here]. Cataclysm included the process of redesigning zones in one way or another. This would've been the perfect opportunity to include in each zone 2-3 varying important structures (both in size & design...they could have been known races structure, ancient structures, ruins, etc.), key points if you must, that would be CONTESTED--conquer or defend. This essentially could potentially remove the lag by spreading the server thin enough to handle the load. Now here's the thrill and reason to encourage player in participating, at least the PvPers. Every minute you control these areas, they reward Faction Points seen obviously by the whole faction, much the same way points amass in Arathi Basin. The more zones you have, the faster they accumulate. Depending on the design, twice or thrice per day an instance or multiple instances would open up with X number of bosses accessible based on the accumulated Faction Points. Bosses could drop just Arena gear or whatever to encourage enough participation to be a successful alternative to raiding just like Arena is today.

I always thought something along these lines would make WoW a much more attractive MMO. Now obviously there are problems with this system just like with any other. I mean, AV has had issues since its release up until not to long ago. One of the issues could be server population and faction balance, things that developers have to think through. After all thats why they get payed =)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on May 11, 2010, 10:08:45 AM
Not enough people will use average looking characters to justify making them.  The vast majority of people who do use female dwarves, orcs, taurens, and trolls are like you and me.  We're just making them as a joke, and the joke only works precisely because nobody uses them.  I played a female orc hunter to level cap and used her as a main.  But it was a joke.  I made her as ugly as possible, with red eyes and a stupid haircut.  I left the helm graphic off so that others could revel in my hideousness.  I thought I was awesome that in a game where individualizing your character is pretty hard to do people would say, "Hey, you don't see that every day."

More or less people play pretty characters?  It's not really up for debate.  It's a shame you can't break this down by sex, but look at the pretty races (http://www.warcraftrealms.com/census.php?serverid=-1&factionid=-1&minlevel=80&maxlevel=80&servertypeid=-1).

So why don't they change the old ugly models?  Because they all remember the model change in EQ, and how well that went.  They know there are people like me who get a perverse satisfaction out of being retarded.  They know that if they took that away from me, I would hit them with the power of a thousand suns.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 11, 2010, 10:52:53 AM
Moving from the Resident Evil horrors that are female dwarves...

I always thought that if there was anything worthy of bringing back for an Azerothian revisit (aka Cataclysm), it would be the feeling of Taurren Mill type open world PvP battles. I hope at least some of you here remember the starting months of WoW PvP. Getting up to Warlord rank has probably been the most genuine fun I've had in WoW ever. Starting the journey will squad/group-based combat, moving to large-scale TM battles (laggy or not, it was fun and thrilling as if something was at stake), then introduction of battlegrounds...something new and exciting at the time.

That feeling is what I wished for with the old-world redesigns. I hoped for the phrase "Contested Zone" to actually mean something other than very little of nothing [you can kill lowbies here]. Cataclysm included the process of redesigning zones in one way or another. This would've been the perfect opportunity to include in each zone 2-3 varying important structures (both in size & design...they could have been known races structure, ancient structures, ruins, etc.), key points if you must, that would be CONTESTED--conquer or defend. This essentially could potentially remove the lag by spreading the server thin enough to handle the load. Now here's the thrill and reason to encourage player in participating, at least the PvPers. Every minute you control these areas, they reward Faction Points seen obviously by the whole faction, much the same way points amass in Arathi Basin. The more zones you have, the faster they accumulate. Depending on the design, twice or thrice per day an instance or multiple instances would open up with X number of bosses accessible based on the accumulated Faction Points. Bosses could drop just Arena gear or whatever to encourage enough participation to be a successful alternative to raiding just like Arena is today.

I always thought something along these lines would make WoW a much more attractive MMO. Now obviously there are problems with this system just like with any other. I mean, AV has had issues since its release up until not to long ago. One of the issues could be server population and faction balance, things that developers have to think through. After all thats why they get payed =)
:uhrr:

Fail.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 11, 2010, 11:47:06 AM
Moving from the Resident Evil horrors that are female dwarves...

I always thought that if there was anything worthy of bringing back for an Azerothian revisit (aka Cataclysm), it would be the feeling of Taurren Mill type open world PvP battles. I hope at least some of you here remember the starting months of WoW PvP. Getting up to Warlord rank has probably been the most genuine fun I've had in WoW ever. Starting the journey will squad/group-based combat, moving to large-scale TM battles (laggy or not, it was fun and thrilling as if something was at stake), then introduction of battlegrounds...something new and exciting at the time.

The part I bolded proves you're broken.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 11, 2010, 01:02:23 PM
So why don't they change the old ugly models?  Because they all remember the model change in EQ, and how well that went.  They know there are people like me who get a perverse satisfaction out of being retarded.  They know that if they took that away from me, I would hit them with the power of a thousand suns.
Don't change them.  Add more which aren't hideous.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 11, 2010, 01:07:12 PM
Getting up to Warlord rank has probably been the most genuine fun I've had in WoW ever.
:ye_gods: :ye_gods: :ye_gods: :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on May 11, 2010, 01:23:39 PM
Don't change them.  Add more which aren't hideous.

Yea, that's what they are shooting for with the barber shop.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 11, 2010, 01:24:20 PM
So why don't they change the old ugly models?  Because they all remember the model change in EQ, and how well that went.  They know there are people like me who get a perverse satisfaction out of being retarded.  They know that if they took that away from me, I would hit them with the power of a thousand suns.
Don't change them.  Add more which aren't hideous.

If they want to bring the animations up to the standard of the new races - winking, facial expressions and all - they will pretty much have to change them at least a little.

EDIT: But this - if they did it - would likely not be a wholesale redesign like EQ or DAOC where the entire look and feel of the models change, I wouldn't think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 11, 2010, 01:53:38 PM
Just because you wouldn't use them doesn't mean nobody else would. We've already ascertained that you only play humans anyhow.

Now listen, you're a nice kid. I like you. But you need to understand, this whole bearded dwarf lady thing? That shit is fucked up. This isn't just WUA being a dick because that's what he does. This is WUA seriously and calmly telling you that yes, outside of the very rare occasional jokester, you would be the only female dwarf in WoW.

Counterpoint: EQ female dwarf models has a couple of face selections with beards. I think I saw maybe one ever past level five.

This.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on May 11, 2010, 02:08:22 PM
I thought I was awesome that in a game where individualizing your character is pretty hard to do people would say, "Hey, you don't see that every day."

They know there are people like me who get a perverse satisfaction out of being retarded.  

I had this same kind of mindset once, and made a hideous looking female dwarf.

It didn't take many levels for me to realize that I actually don't want to play an ugly looking freak.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 11, 2010, 03:32:28 PM
So why don't they change the old ugly models?  Because they all remember the model change in EQ, and how well that went.  They know there are people like me who get a perverse satisfaction out of being retarded.  They know that if they took that away from me, I would hit them with the power of a thousand suns.
Don't change them.  Add more which aren't hideous.

If they want to bring the animations up to the standard of the new races - winking, facial expressions and all - they will pretty much have to change them at least a little.

EDIT: But this - if they did it - would likely not be a wholesale redesign like EQ or DAOC where the entire look and feel of the models change, I wouldn't think.
  • Upgrade all existing player models to goblin/worgen standards.
  • Add a "Use old player models?" toggle list like EQ had.

Gissa job, Blizzard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on May 11, 2010, 03:41:46 PM
So I just saw a screen of some level 80 green quest rewards from Cata.

 :awesome_for_real:

Obviously NDA territory.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 11, 2010, 03:57:15 PM
So I just saw a screen of some level 80 green quest rewards from Cata.

 :awesome_for_real:

Obviously NDA territory.

Meh, it's going to be another BC-era "Fuck, why did I bust my hump getting epix I'm replacing in 2 levels.*"  That's obvious because the baseline for the player base is Uld25/ ToC10 level gear due to badges.  No surprises here.   


* If your answer is ever anything beyond "so you could kill the latest raid boss and you had fun doing so" then you really shouldn't be 'busting your hump' to do so.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 11, 2010, 04:03:17 PM
"Two levels" is a little generous if the leaks are correct. Try "First questline of first Cataclysm zone".  :rofl:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 11, 2010, 04:11:22 PM
Keep in mind that Blizzard never wants to see our crit and haste levels ever reaching what they are currently on Live. So all the new itemization reflects that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 11, 2010, 04:16:00 PM
"Two levels" is a little generous if the leaks are correct. Try "First questline of first Cataclysm zone".  :rofl:

To replace the ICC stuff or the badge stuff?  I wouldn't apply "busted my hump to get" to badge stuff at all.  I was thinking replacing ICC stuff within two levels.. which will cause all kinds of tears.  Delicious, delicious tears.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 11, 2010, 04:27:46 PM
Now listen, you're a nice kid. I like you. But you need to understand, this whole bearded dwarf lady thing? That shit is fucked up. This isn't just WUA being a dick because that's what he does. This is WUA seriously and calmly telling you that yes, outside of the very rare occasional jokester, you would be the only female dwarf in WoW.

To be honest, I'm only playing. I like the idea of Dwarves being a stand-apart species with little sexual dimorphism, but I know I'm in a minority and it'll never happen in WoW. Mostly I'm just picking spurious holes in the reasons for the ultra-low Fem-Dorf population. I'm still somewhat staggered that after 5 years, the only thing that's really changed for the original races is the addition of a haircut or two. I don't want them to change the looks particularly (like the expansion that remodelled the entirety of DAoC - total anathema to me, they literally forced the visual charm of the game out), I just want more options than there are now. Who wouldn't want some new... less livid female Dwarf or not-actually-a-bag-lady Troll options to choose from?

That being said, I am now seriously of the mind to try and draw an attractive Dwarf Woman with a beard. Just to prove it could be done.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ajax34i on May 11, 2010, 04:30:21 PM
Shrug, it's why I'm not raiding anymore, Nax 25 gear will be sufficient.  They're introducing too many equipment and stat changes for the old gear to not be replaceable.

Re: dwarves, a lot of the beard and face choices for the males make them look old, and Blizzard could do the same for the females.  Make them look like kind grandmothers (http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID11363/images/100410124240Betty_White_AP.jpg) or something.   Smiling or neutral expressions help, too, as does a more realistic body shape (people don't keep the hourglass after their 60's).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 11, 2010, 04:59:11 PM
Counterpoint: EQ female dwarf models has a couple of face selections with beards. I think I saw maybe one ever past level five.

I think mine got past level 5, but I don't really remember. Of course, mine had big, beautiful sideburns, not a full-on beard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 11, 2010, 05:03:49 PM
Old people faces fall into the same situation ugly people faces do. Never used by 99.4% of the population.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 12, 2010, 09:51:53 AM
From: http://forums.wow-europe.com/thread.html?topicId=13200229268&sid=1 (http://forums.wow-europe.com/thread.html?topicId=13200229268&sid=1)


Looks good all around, especially the Tailoring/Blacksmithing/Leatherworking changes.  Also, finally a Dense bandage... after years of waiting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on May 12, 2010, 11:14:04 AM
Engineering
Engineering is still being designed, but expect new unpredictable gadgets to use on yourself or enemies be nerfed to the ground.

Quote
Toys, explosives, and even a new vanity pet or two. Oh, and powerful mechanical bows and crossbows in addition to guns.
:drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 12, 2010, 07:03:51 PM
I'm glad they're at least aware some classes have totally shitty minor glyphs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on May 12, 2010, 08:01:13 PM
I hope engineering drops the specialization like bs/lw/tailoring.  Doubt it, because it's the only one that matters to me... but I still hope.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on May 12, 2010, 11:54:44 PM
I hope engineering drops the specialization like bs/lw/tailoring.  Doubt it, because it's the only one that matters to me... but I still hope.

I hope as well.  As it is, engineering is worthless for me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on May 13, 2010, 03:18:19 AM
I wouldn't say it's worthless for me, I use Jeeves/mailbox/wormhole all the damn time.  It's not like you need a profession to make money anymore with all the easy peasy daily quests.  Still haven't done the Mechano hog yet.  Not sure I'm up for the grind.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on May 13, 2010, 07:42:53 AM
It may not be the best min max profession but I have enjoyed my engineering gnome. Hell just being an engineer gives you a lot of convience. Being able to use the AH in dalaran alone was almost worth it and then I get things like jeeves, mailboxes, cool mounts. I also have gotten good usage of the parachute cloak enchant and the rocket goves/rocket boots.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on May 13, 2010, 08:59:52 AM
It may not be the best min max profession but I have enjoyed my engineering gnome. Hell just being an engineer gives you a lot of convience. Being able to use the AH in dalaran alone was almost worth it and then I get things like jeeves, mailboxes, cool mounts. I also have gotten good usage of the parachute cloak enchant and the rocket goves/rocket boots.

Depending on class, it can be a min/max profession.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on May 13, 2010, 09:15:56 AM
It's awesome for a huntard.  Plus the rocket boots are a great oh shit button for getting away from slimes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 13, 2010, 11:13:41 AM
Closed beta is coming soon, make sure you're set to opt-in to beta:

https://www.battle.net/account/management/beta-profile.xml


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 13, 2010, 12:36:54 PM
I love Engineering on my Paladin.  Jeeves/MOLL-E/Wormhole are all awesome.  Having an AH in Dalaran is great.  The Enchants and extra Health/Mana from Injectors all add up too, especially if you're a tank.  Even small things like the Gnomish X-Ray Specs (http://www.wowhead.com/item=40895) which actually fix the "load-in and some people are naked bug" when you equip/unequip them.

Hell, even the bag is useful as it can store all Eternals, and my potions, and my gadgets.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 13, 2010, 12:47:56 PM
I don't get the appeal of beta testing an mmo personally.  Sure for the extreme catass it's good to know mob locations etc but do you really want to play and grind in an unfinished product that you know for a fact you're going to buy?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on May 13, 2010, 12:53:02 PM
Betas, for expansions like cataclym, I like to get into so I can learn the new character systems and profession stuff.  I don't really like to do the actual "content" as I know I'm gonna be doing more then my share of it when it goes live. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 13, 2010, 12:59:04 PM
Yeah, from a Systems perspective it's quite useful.  Also, if I'm honest, I'm going to play it 4-5 times anyway in varying configurations over the next few years, why not have a "first" early and with some small chance of positively affecting the product either in general or for my friends.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 13, 2010, 01:24:52 PM
I don't get the appeal of beta testing an mmo personally.  Sure for the extreme catass it's good to know mob locations etc but do you really want to play and grind in an unfinished product that you know for a fact you're going to buy?



Most people just use it as an early free trial, lets be realistic.  For WoW fans, who are probably going to buy it anyway, its just a form of bragging right among your friends/guildies. "Hah, I've seen X and its aweome!" 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 13, 2010, 02:22:45 PM
That's lame.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 13, 2010, 04:28:56 PM
I like beta for watching the systems changes and the bugs.  Oh the glorious, GLORIOUS bugs.   In the WOTLK beta there was this recurring bug with the DK's 2h Weapon Spec that was sheer glee.   When you have the talent and equip a weapon, it gives you a straight 4% boost  the damage capabilities of the weapon.  You can watch the numbers on your character sheet jump after equipping.

Well, several times in beta that boost wouldn't go away after unequipping your weapon.  You could stack it an infinite number of times and do stupidly high damage on a single swing.   You level pretty damn fast when you can run around one-shotting elites in a dungeon, and there was nary a fel-reaver in sight that day.  Such fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 13, 2010, 04:32:55 PM
Like last beta: I'll likely get in (late), install the client, and never play it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 13, 2010, 06:04:39 PM
The way these go for me is Ingmar gets in, installs the client, and then I play the fuck out of it (I actually like testing this shit, I am weird I guess). Then I get an invite months later, and barely play it at all because I will be able to play it soon and I don't want to get sick of it before it exists for realz.

So basically, I make Ingmar look like a dilligent tester (as far as they know, Ingmar is the one who did the DK starter zone eleventy billion times, not me) and myself look like someone who wanted a free trial.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 14, 2010, 05:21:43 AM
For the Horde! :hulk_rock:

(http://i44.tinypic.com/zmo2z6.jpg)

(Official pic, so no :nda: broken).
There's some rumoured storylines for Horde and Alliance floating about as well. Horde-side is awesome, Alliance-side is hilariously awesome.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 14, 2010, 06:14:06 AM
I'm sure they involve burning down more of my NE towns.  :sad:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 14, 2010, 06:29:55 AM
I'd bitch about the Alliance getting the shaft, but after my last round of trying to enjoy PVP as Alliance I think they should all find themselves camped into nothing but the wreckage of Stormwind with a big sign in front of them reading "Hey at least you farmed a lot of mid-field kills, you keyboard-turning cybersexing faggots."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 14, 2010, 06:31:25 AM
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on May 14, 2010, 08:57:02 AM
I don't get the appeal of beta testing an mmo personally.  Sure for the extreme catass it's good to know mob locations etc but do you really want to play and grind in an unfinished product that you know for a fact you're going to buy?

Yeah, aside from the open beta for vanilla back in the day, I haven't been interested in checking out the betas for the xpacs. Why spoil all the fun and discovery? Seems pointless to me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on May 14, 2010, 02:03:29 PM
I'd bitch about the Alliance getting the shaft, but after my last round of trying to enjoy PVP as Alliance I think they should all find themselves camped into nothing but the wreckage of Stormwind with a big sign in front of them reading "Hey at least you farmed a lot of mid-field kills, you keyboard-turning cybersexing faggots."
Well to the Alliance's credit I think they own the southern half of the Barrens, and nearly all of the reclaimed Eastern+Western Plaguelands.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 14, 2010, 03:02:15 PM
...and nearly all of the reclaimed Eastern+Western Plaguelands.

To be fair, those zones weren't really ever contested. Not even the Forsaken wanted them, hence the Bulwark. There were/are some PvP objectives in EPL but really, both zones were staunchly Alliance till the shit hit the corpsegrinder. I'm interested to see how much of a Scourge stronghold Stratholme will remain, or if it will return (at least in part) to halcyon Lordaeron days, and how much the Scarlet Crusade will have wilted along with the plague.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on May 14, 2010, 04:22:33 PM
...and nearly all of the reclaimed Eastern+Western Plaguelands.

To be fair, those zones weren't really ever contested. Not even the Forsaken wanted them, hence the Bulwark. There were/are some PvP objectives in EPL but really, both zones were staunchly Alliance till the shit hit the corpsegrinder. I'm interested to see how much of a Scourge stronghold Stratholme will remain, or if it will return (at least in part) to halcyon Lordaeron days, and how much the Scarlet Crusade will have wilted along with the plague.
Word is that the Scarlet Crusade is donewith completely, with the Argent Dawn owning all their old land. Sad since they literally dropped the Mal'Ganis plotline in WoTLK (he said you'd need his help to kill Arthas before twirling his mustache and teleporting away in the last Scarlet Onslaught quest).

Also fun stuff that was leaked just recently (stolen wholesale from SA):



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 14, 2010, 05:30:24 PM
That actually sounds pretty cool. I like the bit about Garrosh laying the smack on the rogue commander. It's a nice change from Thrall's "make empty talk while the subordinates run unchecked" routine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 14, 2010, 07:14:13 PM
I like how they seem like they're taking two different directions to "solving" the "these two characters are widely considered douchebags" problem. If it's done adequately (I never put my hopes up to "done well" with Blizzard storytelling), I might ... even like King Chin at the end of it all.

Also if it doesn't come up that STORMWIND DON'T PAY ITS BILLS DON'T REBUILD FOR THOSE ASSHOLES in game, I will be horribly disappointed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on May 14, 2010, 09:01:03 PM
I like how they seem like they're taking two different directions to "solving" the "these two characters are widely considered douchebags" problem. If it's done adequately (I never put my hopes up to "done well" with Blizzard storytelling), I might ... even like King Chin at the end of it all.

Also if it doesn't come up that STORMWIND DON'T PAY ITS BILLS DON'T REBUILD FOR THOSE ASSHOLES in game, I will be horribly disappointed.
Actually that's supposed to be part of the problem. I wonder if it'll tie in with heroic deadmines, because that ties directly into that concept.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 14, 2010, 09:26:18 PM
It had better be part of the problem!

MASONS NEVER FORGET, MAN


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 14, 2010, 10:10:23 PM
Quote
because supposedly between the time right now (WoTLK) and the Cataclysm is ~5-6 years.


This is slightly off.  The time between world of warcraft and cataclysm is six years, anduin's been in the game as a child since then so that makes perfect sense.  As for the onyxia killed by wrynn being a ret-con im not sure how since who killed her was never stated explicitly has it?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 14, 2010, 10:14:43 PM
Quote
because supposedly between the time right now (WoTLK) and the Cataclysm is ~5-6 years.


This is slightly off.  The time between world of warcraft and cataclysm is six years, anduin's been in the game as a child since then so that makes perfect sense.  As for the onyxia killed by wrynn being a ret-con im not sure how since who killed her was never stated explicitly has it?

Not in-game, but it was in some comic or book or something.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 14, 2010, 11:26:53 PM
Yeah, he kills her in the comic with some of his friends.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 15, 2010, 05:03:54 AM
Makes sense.  As much as I like the idea of "A band of random heroes from the [horde/alliance] defeated [raid mob X]"  It just doesn't work for every single mob in the game. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 15, 2010, 01:22:46 PM
Makes sense.  As much as I like the idea of "A band of random heroes from the [horde/alliance] defeated [raid mob X]"  It just doesn't work for every single mob in the game. 
Well, It does, for the most part.  The problem is that WoW is such a heavily story driven game that occasionally they pretty much HAVE to give credit to a major lore npc for a boss kill, if they want to move the story along in a certain way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on May 19, 2010, 09:11:39 AM
Female Worgen Models revealed at Wowhead. (http://www.wowhead.com/blog=156818#.)

Not a fan. Look almost catlike, or more like a fox.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 19, 2010, 09:20:35 AM
Let me head off the next 20 posts:

Someone: YIFF.
Mattemeo:  No it's not. TAUREN NIPPLES.

edit: Personally, don't care. I don't visit the Deeprun Tram.  A worgen alt will be a long, long ways off, and probably not until my goblin hits max.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 19, 2010, 09:21:58 AM
I guess you've never seen a greyhound or whippet?  I really hope they don't add human-like hairstyles to that form.  They look much better the way they are now instead of those textureless shots of them with the big hair.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on May 19, 2010, 09:27:08 AM
I guess you've never seen a greyhound or whippet?  I really hope they don't add human-like hairstyles to that form.  They look much better the way they are now instead of those textureless shots of them with the big hair.

Of course I have. I think they still come off more catlike than either  of those two breads. As well, the ears stand up way too much, which bleeds into catlike for me as well.


Edit: And looking at the snouts again, they appear much more bigcat (puma, etc) than it does anything dog like.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 19, 2010, 09:40:48 AM
If you want to get technical worgen aren't related to wolves in any way.  They're from another planet/dimension and have wolf-like features but by not be canine in any way besides general appearance which...could allow the females to look like cats.

Hey, I'm not saying it isnt dumb but it does make sense.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on May 19, 2010, 09:43:04 AM
My displeasure of the choice of design does not mean I do not understand the background of the Worgen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 19, 2010, 09:44:28 AM
I guess you've never seen a greyhound or whippet?  I really hope they don't add human-like hairstyles to that form.  They look much better the way they are now instead of those textureless shots of them with the big hair.

Of course I have. I think they still come off more catlike than either  of those two breads. As well, the ears stand up way too much, which bleeds into catlike for me as well.


Edit: And looking at the snouts again, they appear much more bigcat (puma, etc) than it does anything dog like.

Then it's the ears giving you that impression.  Those snouts aren't catlike.

Puma:

Greyhound:

Also, the pics at wowhead suck.  Here's (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100774-Blizzard-Reveals-WoW-Cataclysms-Female-Worgen) a better link.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on May 19, 2010, 09:47:49 AM
Look at  the ridging of the nose. It still looks far more cat like than dog like to me. The nasal structure on the female models show it sitting above the structure of the mouth in a way that appears far more cat like, as even illustrated in the puma picture you posted. In addition, the nose and how it sits on the face in front looks more cat like, given the triangular like nose that is common on cats.

(also, I know what a god damn big cat and dog look like.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on May 19, 2010, 09:50:31 AM
I can see how you get a catlike impression. I am not a fan of the model, it just looks odd to me. Gives off way more of a furry vibe than the male model.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 19, 2010, 09:56:17 AM
Look at  the ridging of the nose. It still looks far more cat like than dog like to me. The nasal structure on the female models show it sitting above the structure of the mouth in a way that appears far more cat like, as even illustrated in the puma picture you posted. In addition, the nose and how it sits on the face in front looks more cat like, given the triangular like nose that is common on cats.

(also, I know what a god damn big cat and dog look like.)

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be.  I still say they look more like jackals than anything else.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on May 19, 2010, 10:07:50 AM
It still looks far more cat like than dog like to me.

Well, it is CATaclysm, duh!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 19, 2010, 10:13:16 AM
The obsession and over analysis of the Worgen on recent pages of this thread both shocks and scares me.   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 19, 2010, 10:34:51 AM
Any anthropomorphic wolf or cat is by definition a 'furry' isn't it?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 19, 2010, 10:47:21 AM
Any anthropomorphic wolf or cat is by definition a 'furry' isn't it?

More or less, but someone saying something like "man, that wolf person is hot, I'd totally hit that" is way less a problem for me than:
Look at  the ridging of the nose...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 19, 2010, 11:23:44 AM
I guess you've never seen a greyhound or whippet?

Not one wearing eyeshadow. That's the only thing that pushes the model into eye-rolling territory for me I think.

EDIT: TAUREN NIPPLES!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 19, 2010, 11:39:01 AM
I guess you've never seen a greyhound or whippet?  I really hope they don't add human-like hairstyles to that form.  They look much better the way they are now instead of those textureless shots of them with the big hair.


I think they look ridiculous without their hair. It's also why the ears look enormous, since they're supposed to be peaking out through their giant hair styles!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 19, 2010, 11:44:39 AM
I like them better without the hair.

Also I note they kept the Draenei back-breaking ass thrust.  I'm not sure the pose is any different at all, looking at the legs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 19, 2010, 11:56:07 AM
I like them better without the hair.

Also I note they kept the Draenei back-breaking ass thrust.  I'm not sure the pose is any different at all, looking at the legs.

I always attributed the ass-thrust more to the shape and style of the legs than anything else.  You can't have(i forget the name) backwards knees like that in an upright position without having to make the spine bend in different ways and still look natural.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 19, 2010, 12:20:10 PM
True, it'd be very difficult to pull their arse in while thrusting their's bossom out and holding the shoulders back at an unnatural angle.  (You'll note male Draenei do none of this.)

I'm pretty sure it's a T&A thing, but it's a hard call to make without any other examples to draw from.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 19, 2010, 12:31:37 PM
I like them better without the hair.

Also I note they kept the Draenei back-breaking ass thrust.  I'm not sure the pose is any different at all, looking at the legs.

I always attributed the ass-thrust more to the shape and style of the legs than anything else.  You can't have(i forget the name) backwards knees like that in an upright position without having to make the spine bend in different ways and still look natural.
Digitigrade.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on May 19, 2010, 01:37:39 PM
They look really stupid.  Like, not even a funny kind of stupid.

Thing about this whole idea is that no matter what happens, werewolves casting spells is going to be silly.  Because, you know, werewolves eat people with their teeth.  They don't cast magic missle.  And a 'wolf form' ala druid forms is something they want to get away from apparently, because people like looking at their gear.  You start to get the idea that they pasted 'work in progress' on that stuff because they're just floating it out there to see if people will buy it.  From the looks of those screenshots, having not ventured to the official forums, I'm guessing not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 19, 2010, 01:50:55 PM
They look really stupid.  Like, not even a funny kind of stupid.

Thing about this whole idea is that no matter what happens, werewolves casting spells is going to be silly.  Because, you know, werewolves eat people with their teeth.  They don't cast magic missle.  And a 'wolf form' ala druid forms is something they want to get away from apparently, because people like looking at their gear.  You start to get the idea that they pasted 'work in progress' on that stuff because they're just floating it out there to see if people will buy it.  From the looks of those screenshots, having not ventured to the official forums, I'm guessing not.

wut?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on May 19, 2010, 02:02:09 PM
Hablas Ingles?

They look dumb.  They look more like cats than dogs.  I'm thinking this won't be their final form.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 19, 2010, 03:31:58 PM
So you think because the female worgen look like slinky cat/foxwomen rather than hulking monsters they will be reworked?
Did you miss the whole "Blizzard doesn't make ugly females" bit of this thread, or something?  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 19, 2010, 03:46:50 PM
Someone: YIFF.
Mattemeo:  No it's not. TAUREN NIPPLES.

I don't care what animal-man hybrid people jerk off to. What I can't stand is double standards.



Subject at hand; I think they look alright, but I'll take the 'WORK IN PROGRESS' nature of the shots as read.
Also, they don't look a fucking thing like cats. What flavour kool-aid are you kids drinking these days, ketamine?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 19, 2010, 03:51:16 PM
I don't think they look like cats. The real problem (other than maybe the CHEST THRUST DEPLOYED posture) is they have Disney cartoon animal "girl eyes". I really, really hate that in cartoons and don't feel much different about it here.

EDIT: I'll grant it isn't quite as extreme as a Disney cartoon but it is the same sort of thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 19, 2010, 04:16:18 PM
How could you be so cruel?

<makes Bambi eyes at Ingmar>

;D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on May 19, 2010, 05:31:39 PM
You're totally setting yourself up for someone to kill your mom.

So you think because the female worgen look like slinky cat/foxwomen rather than hulking monsters they will be reworked?
Did you miss the whole "Blizzard doesn't make ugly females" bit of this thread, or something?  :grin:

Nah, man.  I was there.  Scroll back.  Not even what I'm talking about, anyway.  I think what's supposed to look like a wolf looks like a cat.  And it's not even a right looking cat.  It just looks fucked up.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/963220/695px-FWCloth.jpg)

Look at that thing.  That's just not right.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 19, 2010, 05:37:25 PM
The whole 'giant claws for hands' thing is probably contributing to that impression more than anything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 19, 2010, 06:07:47 PM
Fine, I'll bite (get it?!)

Doesn't seem THAT far off from what blizzard has going there, granted that was the sassiest looking she-wolf I could find google searching for  3 minutes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 19, 2010, 06:42:13 PM
There's no way they could please people with the graphic because the idea is so stupid. They should have just let everyone play goblins and had some merc goblin on goblin pvp  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 19, 2010, 07:26:22 PM
I think people are confusing canine with wolf.  Worgen females don't look like "wolves" they arent supposed to, they look like jackals.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 19, 2010, 07:34:08 PM
True, it'd be very difficult to pull their arse in while thrusting their's bossom out and holding the shoulders back at an unnatural angle.  (You'll note male Draenei do none of this.)

I'm pretty sure it's a T&A thing, but it's a hard call to make without any other examples to draw from.

 :heart: :heart: :heart:

I call it the stripper heels pose.

The lady worgen legs are at least thick enough that I don't worry one will snap in half while I jog around, though, which is more than I can say for the lady draenei.

I don't like the lady worgen's face at all. I can't really put my finger on why (aside from the aforementioned eye shadow issue). They look way less yiffy without hair, though! There WILL be hairstyles, I am sure, as it would be way boring making one if they didn't (plus the whole Must Be Hot thing), but not having hair as an option is good and I hope it is included (even though I will pick any pigtail option they have because I love pigtails).


EDIT: Also, I don't think they look very cat-ish. The DUDES do, and as I said I think it's because they have hair and it puts me in mind of male lions.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on May 19, 2010, 07:59:58 PM
Yeah, It's really just a "that's not quite right" thing. To me (and others) it comes off cat like, and at least for me, had little to do with the claws. I never meant to infer that it was a werecat or something, it just comes off more feline to me.

Needs something more, I guess. Either way, not really a fan of it at the moment.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 19, 2010, 08:15:37 PM
They look like a jackal to me, so it doesn't feel off at all.

I dunno, maybe I'm okay with that because I liked Silent Striders.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on May 19, 2010, 08:50:42 PM
Someone posted the female hairstyles (http://felfire.com/downloads/worgenfemalehairstyles.jpg), apparently using mocked-up textures but real models.

Some are pretty cool, others are kinda  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 19, 2010, 08:53:11 PM
Ingmar theorized that if they were fuzzier in the face it would look more "right" to the people who are all "they look ... weird." You know, people like me. I kind of think he might be right, at least as far as what it is bugging ME. Even jackals have bushier faces than the worgen ladies do, so ... yeah. Of course, if they had fuzzy faces, it would totally clip into their hair, which they're totally going to have!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on May 19, 2010, 08:56:22 PM
Someone datamined some spells/script event/engine things from the latest beta patch and I guess Cosmetic Armor slots are being tested.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 19, 2010, 08:57:17 PM
Do not even fucking joke about that you son of a bitch.

Seriously, if they added that, it would be the BEST THING EVER.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 19, 2010, 09:11:11 PM
Do not even fucking joke about that you son of a bitch.

Seriously, if they added that, it would be the BEST THING EVER.

Seconded!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 19, 2010, 09:26:33 PM
Shit.. I think I'd never play another MMO. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 19, 2010, 09:47:39 PM
Someone datamined some spells/script event/engine things from the latest beta patch and I guess Cosmetic Armor slots are being tested.
What was that?  Hints that I was right when I said certain decisions were heading in that direction?  (I'll wait for it to be official to properly gloat.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 19, 2010, 09:48:12 PM
Shit.. I think I'd never play another MMO. 

Still needs housing.

And I still don't think they'll let me crack skulls in a purple dinner suit and pimp hat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on May 19, 2010, 09:49:25 PM
It's probably like a trophy belt or some bullshit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on May 19, 2010, 09:51:55 PM
And I still don't think they'll let me crack skulls in a purple dinner suit and pimp hat.
People used to PVP back in the day in UO with their halywacker in a cape, boots, and nothing else, so it's not like it would totally ruin my immersion.  People also raid as pirates, ninjas, and skeletons, so meh there as well.

As far as the worgen goes... I really don't see the big deal.  I might roll one somewhere since I don't really have an alliance server anymore just to see it, but I don't really care too much about the sex appeal (or lack thereof).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 20, 2010, 12:13:49 AM
Do not even fucking joke about that you son of a bitch.

Seriously, if they added that, it would be the BEST THING EVER.
Quote
Cosmetic Slot - Helm[NYI] - Covers Helm with target armor. Will cover the appearance but not the effect of any existing helm armor. Not active in Battlegrounds or Arenas.
Cosmetic Slot - Shoulders[NYI] - Covers Shoulders with target armor. Will cover the appearance but not the effect of any existing shoulder armor. Not active in Battlegrounds or Arenas.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 20, 2010, 01:03:51 AM
Aw fuck these guys. Not active in Battlegrounds? Why don't they just make it "not seen by arena opponents and members of other faction" instead? Then I'd actually get to see my cosmetic gear when I'm playing the game, and not just while I'm sitting in city waiting for a queue to pop. Why do the other tools in my BG need to see my real gear? And why only helmet and shoulders?

Fuck Blizzard, there's some shit they just Don't Understand. They HAVE to have been getting beaten in the face with "appearance tab you assholes" whenever they do any market research, otherwise they'd still be convinced that everyone loves their Iconic Shoulders(tm). This is so counter to their usual bullshit attitude and so half-assed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 20, 2010, 02:52:08 AM
Why do the other tools in my BG need to see my real gear?

Rated Battlegrounds.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 20, 2010, 03:43:10 AM
Yeah, so...? What, are we gonna turn on Trade and see "Ok guys, forming raid for rated battleground. I'm not gonna use gearscore, wowheroes, armory, or even inspect. Everyone fly to Ironforge and let me eyeball you to see how your gear is."

Or did you just not read very closely and miss that part where I specified that enemies should always see your real gear?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 20, 2010, 03:52:39 AM
Shoulders and helms are one of those staple things that let you INSTANTLY identify exactly what class of player that other person is almost immediately by eyeball.  Especially when they are in any form of "set" gear.

Being able to tell at a glance that the person waving their hands over there is a warlock and not a mage or a priest (or shaman or paladin etc) is a very handy thing in PvP.

I figure that is 99% of the reason why they have been leery of letting people custom chose their armor look for a long time.

Looking at someone and going "hey look, its a priest, see the shoulders" and then having a DK in cloth shoulders rip your face off makes that way more complicated.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 20, 2010, 05:03:44 AM
Cosmetic Slot - Shoulders[NYI] - Covers Shoulders with target armor. Will cover the appearance but not the effect of any existing shoulder armor. Not active in Battlegrounds or Arenas.
[/quote]

So long as there's an option in that particular slot to set shoulders to invisible if nothing is selected in the cosmetic slot, I don't really care about anything else.

WoW shoulderpads continue to deeply offend me on an aesthetic level. Not only do they get exponentially more hideous and ridiculous for each ilevel, the bastard art department still can't even sit them right.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 20, 2010, 09:43:36 AM
Shoulders and helms are one of those staple things that let you INSTANTLY identify exactly what class of player that other person is almost immediately by eyeball.  Especially when they are in any form of "set" gear.

Being able to tell at a glance that the person waving their hands over there is a warlock and not a mage or a priest (or shaman or paladin etc) is a very handy thing in PvP.

I figure that is 99% of the reason why they have been leery of letting people custom chose their armor look for a long time.

Looking at someone and going "hey look, its a priest, see the shoulders" and then having a DK in cloth shoulders rip your face off makes that way more complicated.

Because I can't turn my helmet off completely in pvp?  And I don't know, I can kind of tell the difference between the priest and the DK by the giant ass sword the DK is using.  The 'omg, now I can't tell what class it is!!!!1!' excuse seems pretty weak to me when there are all these other graphical indications of exactly what class everyone is.  Hmm, there's a giant blueberry following that guy with the staff.  Let me get closer to look at his shoulders to see what class he is.  And that's not even taking into account how a simple mouseover tells you exactly what that dude is.

That being said, I do think the cosmetic piece should be of the same type of armor as the actual piece.  ie: you can only overlay plate over plate, leather over leather, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 20, 2010, 09:46:11 AM
WoW shoulderpads continue to deeply offend me on an aesthetic level. Not only do they get exponentially more hideous and ridiculous for each ilevel, the bastard art department still can't even sit them right.

The sitting "right" varies wildly from race to race and between genders. I loathe shoulders on my draenei lady because of the Posture Issues, but I actually like the not-completely-hideous ones on, say, my night elf lady. Troll girls look dumb with shoulders because of THEIR posture, but they look alright on tauren girls. And so on.

They've always bothered you way more than they've bothered me, though. I haven't had to wear a pair I have found Truly Hideous in a long time.

No, for me the important slot they add are PANTS. If I have a cosmetic pants slot, I will not cry one bit if they bring back plate thong bullshit, stupid as it is, because I won't have to wear it. It's perfect, the manginas like Fordel can wear their ho armor, and the humorless feminists like me can wear pants.


EDIT: The class outline thing isn't completely trivial, but y'all are missing that WUA said he's fine with ENEMIES seeing his ugly clown suit in PvP, he just doesn't see why HE has to see his own ugly clown suit. I am inclined to agree with him.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 20, 2010, 09:51:05 AM
That being said, I do think the cosmetic piece should be of the same type of armor as the actual piece.  ie: you can only overlay plate over plate, leather over leather, etc.

Bleh, I don't. I figure if you can wear it normally, you can wear it in your cosmetic slot. Why not? Does it really ruin your day if the tank is wearing his or her prettiest pink dress to tank Arthas?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 20, 2010, 09:51:38 AM


Because I can't turn my helmet off completely in pvp? 
If they disable the overlay in pvp expect this to change.

Quote
That being said, I do think the cosmetic piece should be of the same type of armor as the actual piece.  ie: you can only overlay plate over plate, leather over leather, etc.

This is an incredibly stupid idea.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on May 20, 2010, 09:55:13 AM
Thing about this whole idea is that no matter what happens, werewolves casting spells is going to be silly.  Because, you know, werewolves eat people with their teeth.  They don't cast magic missle. 

I agree with this. Mage is one class I really haven't played, but thinking about it there's no way I'd want to make that my Worgen. So I guess it will be Warrior.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 20, 2010, 09:58:50 AM
Mage sucks anyway. It's the only class I've never broken 30 with. And it's only because mounts moved down to 20, a much easier milestonel, that I ever broke 20 with one.


(This is mostly me being broken, for some reason I hate going pew pew with spells. My warlock has been level 50 for something like two years.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 20, 2010, 10:07:59 AM
That being said, I do think the cosmetic piece should be of the same type of armor as the actual piece.  ie: you can only overlay plate over plate, leather over leather, etc.

Bleh, I don't. I figure if you can wear it normally, you can wear it in your cosmetic slot. Why not? Does it really ruin your day if the tank is wearing his or her prettiest pink dress to tank Arthas?

No, it just bothers me on a 'this doesn't make any sense' level, not a 'how dare you wear a dress!' level.  I know, I know.  Fantasy, magic, dragons blah blah blah.

Edit:

Thing about this whole idea is that no matter what happens, werewolves casting spells is going to be silly.  Because, you know, werewolves eat people with their teeth.  They don't cast magic missle.

I agree with this. Mage is one class I really haven't played, but thinking about it there's no way I'd want to make that my Worgen. So I guess it will be Warrior.

You do realize there have been spellcasting Worgen in the game since Day 1, right?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on May 20, 2010, 10:40:14 AM
Doesn't matter, just doesn't feel right. If I'm gonna be a Worgen, I want to be a savage in-your-face kinda fighter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on May 20, 2010, 12:42:38 PM
Aw fuck these guys. Not active in Battlegrounds? Why don't they just make it "not seen by arena opponents and members of other faction" instead? Then I'd actually get to see my cosmetic gear when I'm playing the game, and not just while I'm sitting in city waiting for a queue to pop. Why do the other tools in my BG need to see my real gear? And why only helmet and shoulders?

Fuck Blizzard, there's some shit they just Don't Understand. They HAVE to have been getting beaten in the face with "appearance tab you assholes" whenever they do any market research, otherwise they'd still be convinced that everyone loves their Iconic Shoulders(tm). This is so counter to their usual bullshit attitude and so half-assed.
I get the annoyance but I think you'd probably get more annoyed the fifth time you ran into a premade BG group where everyone was in the twill set.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 20, 2010, 01:34:14 PM
That being said, I do think the cosmetic piece should be of the same type of armor as the actual piece.  ie: you can only overlay plate over plate, leather over leather, etc.

Bleh, I don't. I figure if you can wear it normally, you can wear it in your cosmetic slot. Why not? Does it really ruin your day if the tank is wearing his or her prettiest pink dress to tank Arthas?

It would bother me (as we've gone over before in some thread or another.) MY IMMERSION. On the other hand if they're restricting it to hats and shoulders I don't really care so much if it has to match. Someone tanking Arthas in a brewfest hat isn't quite as irritating as someone doing it in full lederhosen.

Anyway, re: shoulders in arenas/BGs, they're helpful both for target identification purposes and for 'how badass is this guy' evaluation purposes. Seeing how crazy someone's shoulders are is a fairly useful measure of 'should I blow cooldowns on this guy' or whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 20, 2010, 02:03:43 PM
I also wish to add. FUCK noggenfogger in bg's...seriously


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 20, 2010, 02:07:58 PM
I also wish to add. FUCK noggenfogger in bg's...seriously
Hey, at least you can USE noggenfoggers.

I'm a feral druid.  I stare at bear or cat ass 99.99% of my play time.  The ONLY item currently in the game that lets us shift into some other cosmetic form is an INSANELY RARE epic drop from random northrend mobs that gives us the new option of, wait for it, Gorilla ass......

If i could, I would pour that noggenfogger down your throat untill you choked on it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 20, 2010, 02:15:14 PM
Yeah, so...? What, are we gonna turn on Trade and see "Ok guys, forming raid for rated battleground. I'm not gonna use gearscore, wowheroes, armory, or even inspect. Everyone fly to Ironforge and let me eyeball you to see how your gear is."

Or did you just not read very closely and miss that part where I specified that enemies should always see your real gear?

If I can turn off "your" cosmetic options, I have no problem with it in PvP.  Shoulders are still useful information for me as a healer to have in a BG because I'm really not going to remember the other 9-24 people's gear off the top of my head.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 20, 2010, 02:19:29 PM
Anyway, re: shoulders in arenas/BGs, they're helpful both for target identification purposes and for 'how badass is this guy' evaluation purposes. Seeing how crazy someone's shoulders are is a fairly useful measure of 'should I blow cooldowns on this guy' or whatever.


No they aren't. It's very common to have someone with the awesome shoulders then shitty crafted PvP greens in every other slot. You want to know what your up against, check HP/Mana levels.


Plus, Druids  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 20, 2010, 02:40:44 PM
I said "fairly useful", I'm not sure why you decided that I meant "foolproof way of always telling".  :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on May 20, 2010, 02:54:58 PM
If this thread has taught me one thing, it's that only polar arguments are allowed. So, pick a side, we're at war.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 20, 2010, 03:02:07 PM
I'm all for toggles.  You could add all sorts of cosmetic options and I wouldn't care as long as I could turn them off on my end.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 20, 2010, 04:25:44 PM
Man, was I playing a different game throughout WOTLK? Because in the game I was playing, 90% of everyone was wearing identical badge shoulders and you couldn't tell a warrior from a DK from a pally unless you moused over them.

Turning it off in BGs means it may as well not exist. Anymore the BGs and dungeons are the game. All that "world" shit is just a lobby.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 20, 2010, 04:43:46 PM
Seeing someone in PVE badge shoulders is, right there, telling you a potentially useful bit of information.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 20, 2010, 05:14:03 PM
Seeing someone in PVE badge shoulders is, right there, telling you a potentially useful bit of information.


Until it's just their PvE stat stick item and they are actually decked out in full resilience. Or you could also have stuff like http://www.wowhead.com/item=51580 vital class info there.

This ignores the fact you can't see half the items visually to begin with, notably the trinkets which are game changing for caster/healers these days.



There are games where the visual silhouette is very important for identification, WoW is not one of those games.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 20, 2010, 06:07:10 PM
Seeing someone in PVE badge shoulders is, right there, telling you a potentially useful bit of information.


Until it's just their PvE stat stick item and they are actually decked out in full resilience. Or you could also have stuff like http://www.wowhead.com/item=51580 vital class info there.

This ignores the fact you can't see half the items visually to begin with, notably the trinkets which are game changing for caster/healers these days.



There are games where the visual silhouette is very important for identification, WoW is not one of those games.

Once again, I didn't say it was perfect.

But, let's say you're a ret paladin. You run into someone in a BG. Because of how your cooldowns work, you have the choice between popping wings on someone, or saving it for bubble.

You see someone wearing PVE shoulders and a PVE weapon, you can say "this person probably doesn't have very good defenses, but probably DOES have pretty good damage output. I will keep my cooldown for bubble, because my regular damage will probably kill them fine but they might be able to put some extra burst on me so I'll keep that defensive cooldown in reserve just in case."

You see someone wearing PVP shoulders and possibly toting a PVP weapon, you can say "this person probably has a lot of defenses, I probably need to pop wings to kill them fast enough."

You see someone with noggenfogger on and you can say "fucking cosmetic disguise potion took away one of my decision making tools."

YES, you will run across people this decision tree is useless against (oh look a moonkin) or people who will try to disguise themselves a bit. More often than not, though, knowing what different shoulder graphics mean when you see them is actually a little bit helpful.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 20, 2010, 06:09:52 PM
The omg my immersion thing about people tanking in dresses is silly, partly because (at least for Ingmar), it will hardly ever come up. None of the tanks in our guild would tank in a dress (although now I totally would in my BREWFEST REGALIA at least once). I also suspect after the novelty wears off, it won't come up that much in PUGs. It still seems like a ridiculous place to draw a line in the sand to me, because it's not like there's not a fuckton of immersion shattering bullshit in other parts of the game. I'm not one of those people who goes "lol magic, therefore moon bases," but WoW gave up on being an immersive experience (it still can be but not very often) a long time ago.


EDIT: The MAIN reason I object to plate only on plate, etc, it because there's lots of MAIL that would look good on a tank. Just like a druid might want to wear cloth, now that you'd actually see their caster form if they're a healer. I think downgrading material would much more often work like that rather than SLINKY BLACK DRESSES FOR EVERYONE RAAR.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 20, 2010, 06:26:57 PM
You see someone with noggenfogger on and you can say "fucking cosmetic disguise potion took away one of my decision making tools."

YES, you will run across people this decision tree is useless against (oh look a moonkin) or people who will try to disguise themselves a bit. More often than not, though, knowing what different shoulder graphics mean when you see them is actually a little bit helpful.


Or you look at their HP/Mana Totals and instantly recognize what type and level of gear, and usually their spec on top of that.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 20, 2010, 08:38:02 PM
I love how the two members of an arena team approach the validity of visual identification from opposite ends of the spectrum.

EDIT: The MAIN reason I object to plate only on plate, etc, it because there's lots of MAIL that would look good on a tank. Just like a druid might want to wear cloth, now that you'd actually see their caster form if they're a healer. I think downgrading material would much more often work like that rather than SLINKY BLACK DRESSES FOR EVERYONE RAAR.
I'm totally tanking in my slinky PURPLE dress if this comes to pass.  Only on runs where Ingmar can see though. ;D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 20, 2010, 09:04:00 PM
Dudes, arguments against this are bullshit.  It's not like this an appearance tab couldn't be toggled on and off at the drop of a moneyhat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 20, 2010, 09:12:07 PM
You see someone with noggenfogger on and you can say "fucking cosmetic disguise potion took away one of my decision making tools."

YES, you will run across people this decision tree is useless against (oh look a moonkin) or people who will try to disguise themselves a bit. More often than not, though, knowing what different shoulder graphics mean when you see them is actually a little bit helpful.


Or you look at their HP/Mana Totals and instantly recognize what type and level of gear, and usually their spec on top of that.  :oh_i_see:

Or just a quick glance at their weapon(s).  Figuring out who you're fighting has never been very difficult.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 20, 2010, 09:37:35 PM
Dudes, arguments against this are bullshit.  It's not like this an appearance tab couldn't be toggled on and off at the drop of a moneyhat.

I can't turn other people's helmets on when they turn them off right now, FWIW.

Or you look at their HP/Mana Totals and instantly recognize what type and level of gear, and usually their spec on top of that.  :oh_i_see:

If you have time, sure. Plenty of time in arena at the start of a match, not necessarily true in a BG.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 20, 2010, 11:33:52 PM
Dudes, arguments against this are bullshit.  It's not like this an appearance tab couldn't be toggled on and off at the drop of a moneyhat.

I can't turn other people's helmets on when they turn them off right now, FWIW.

Or you look at their HP/Mana Totals and instantly recognize what type and level of gear, and usually their spec on top of that.  :oh_i_see:

If you have time, sure. Plenty of time in arena at the start of a match, not necessarily true in a BG.

1. It's true now, so it must always be true, amirite?
2. Dude, the health/mana bar is right there.  One click and you have all the information you need.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 20, 2010, 11:46:46 PM
Dudes, arguments against this are bullshit.  It's not like this an appearance tab couldn't be toggled on and off at the drop of a moneyhat.

I can't turn other people's helmets on when they turn them off right now, FWIW.

Or you look at their HP/Mana Totals and instantly recognize what type and level of gear, and usually their spec on top of that.  :oh_i_see:

If you have time, sure. Plenty of time in arena at the start of a match, not necessarily true in a BG.


What time? It takes just as long to see shoulders that may or may not be relevant as it does to see HP/Mana(or Runes/Rage/Eng) that is always relevant.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 21, 2010, 12:26:59 AM

1. It's true now, so it must always be true, amirite?
2. Dude, the health/mana bar is right there.  One click and you have all the information you need.

1. If you never assume that an MMO company (even Blizzard) will do things the "right" way, you never have to be disappointed when they don't.
2. I can visually ID a character faster than I can target someone and look at their health and mana bars, and it doesn't draw my eyes off the center of the screen where I can see what they're doing in the meantime.

Christ people, I never said it was some huge advantage, but it isn't nothing, either. Imagine an entire BG filled with nothing but noggenfogger skeletons. That would be really goddamn irritating, right?

EDIT: Is it really worth losing a minor skill facet to PVP just so some asshole can teabag people in a pink Easter dress? I mean, I know what WUA's answer is going to be, but come on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 21, 2010, 12:49:59 AM
I don't give a rat's ass if the Horde can see my real gear, those guys can't even talk as far as I'm concerned.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 21, 2010, 01:28:52 AM
Is it really worth losing a minor skill facet to PVP just so some asshole can teabag people in a pink Easter dress? I mean, I know what WUA's answer is going to be, but come on.

Dude, the datamined descriptions for the shit that's getting tested explicitly states you're not losing it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Stabs on May 21, 2010, 02:10:16 AM
It occurs to me that if there's an appearance slot they can sell you fluff clothes in the cash shop.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 21, 2010, 04:00:42 AM
I believe someone mentioned that before. It was pointed out they should submit it to Blizz Marketing instead of the devs for that reason, because then it'd be placed in there tout de suite.   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on May 21, 2010, 04:57:17 AM
This thread needs more eyes-closed-and-furious-slapping!

 :popcorn:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 21, 2010, 09:45:01 AM
EDIT: Is it really worth losing a minor skill facet to PVP just so some asshole can teabag people in a pink Easter dress? I mean, I know what WUA's answer is going to be, but come on.
Yes. :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 21, 2010, 12:10:28 PM
Female goblin dance = Beyoncé
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVHI95MnIbM


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 21, 2010, 12:44:27 PM
Female goblin dance = Beyoncé
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVHI95MnIbM

Yo blizzard, imma let you finish...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 21, 2010, 01:02:27 PM
was there a dance sequence in any of the teen wolf movies?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 21, 2010, 01:15:29 PM
was there a dance sequence in any of the teen wolf movies?

There's always this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZB7OFRUrA0


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: bhodi on May 21, 2010, 01:26:43 PM
Um, clearly thriller wins.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 21, 2010, 01:43:47 PM
Um, clearly thriller wins.

Well sure, but they do need *two* dances for the worgen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 21, 2010, 01:56:08 PM
After reviewing some of the character creation options and animations for both Goblins and Worgen, I just don't know how Blizzard are going to handle putting them into the game alongside the current races. We're talking worlds apart, different game generation difference, here. They have to be graphically updating the existing races, or it's going to be a visual farce. And that concerns me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on May 21, 2010, 02:10:35 PM
If it means prettier elves, I'm all for it. The detail on new characters have a certain OMFG Ugly to them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 21, 2010, 02:18:22 PM
I want to know why that weird graphical stick keeps showing up on the goblin lady.

I mean, how does that happen, one of you modelers must have some insight or something. It just seems to random, it's not like an arm jerking the wrong way, its just this random bit of... polygon? I dunno.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 21, 2010, 02:22:57 PM
The goblin /cry emote (male and female) both involve pulling out a hanky to blow nose/wipe eyes. That's the hanky.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 21, 2010, 03:23:37 PM
Oh! haha nice.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 21, 2010, 06:07:05 PM
It's probably supposed to toggle off, but the model viewer doesn't handle that well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on May 23, 2010, 04:12:24 PM
The cosmetic appearance slot item things that were "datamined" seem to have turned out to be a hoax by Goons.

Just a head's up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 23, 2010, 11:51:28 PM
The cosmetic appearance slot item things that were "datamined" seem to have turned out to be a hoax by Goons.

Just a head's up.
It could be a hoax.  It could also be somethin that blizz may be considering, since the tech (i think) needed to do it will be present in game when they launch the Reclaiming of Gnomer / Echo Isles questlines event patch.

The Reward for completing the questlines is supposed to be an "over cloak", which essentially changes the graphical appearance of your cloak, without changing the stats on it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 24, 2010, 12:03:49 AM
Oh boy, if only I ever had my cloak set to visible. What a crock of shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on May 24, 2010, 12:55:40 AM
The cosmetic appearance slot item things that were "datamined" seem to have turned out to be a hoax by Goons.

Just a head's up.
It could be a hoax.  It could also be somethin that blizz may be considering, since the tech (i think) needed to do it will be present in game when they launch the Reclaiming of Gnomer / Echo Isles questlines event patch.

The Reward for completing the questlines is supposed to be an "over cloak", which essentially changes the graphical appearance of your cloak, without changing the stats on it.
No, it is a hoax. As in the Goon who made up the fake item entries admitted as much on SA, much to the consternation of the rest of the posters who were incredibly angry that they went out and farmed up a bunch of old tier/dungeon sets in preparaton. I'll provide a link if I can get one, but my source is asleep right now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 24, 2010, 01:43:41 AM
I suspect that due to the NDA, a lot of the stuff you'll be hearing at the moment is utter shite.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on May 24, 2010, 05:14:37 AM
You can't trust anything these days.  Even hoax tales.  Remember when worgen/goblin races were just a hoax and it was just some Halloween masks?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 24, 2010, 06:50:12 AM
You can't trust anything these days.  Even hoax tales.  Remember when worgen/goblin races were just a hoax and it was just some Halloween masks?

I enjoyed that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 24, 2010, 07:50:41 AM
I'm not getting excited about anything until it ships, and being wary even then.  Male Blood Elves were skinny fellas until pretty close to launch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 24, 2010, 08:52:03 AM
If you have the ability to hide mesh (like most MMO's) then you have the ability to toggle the items visually.

However, most of Wow's visuals are locked, and lack customization, to the point where color is a factor in an items worth, because you can't change it. So I would say I don't think they will add visual toggles.  That, and the whole PvP issue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on May 24, 2010, 10:09:41 AM
I think if they really want to add some (more) support for vanity wear they'll create a large bag that can only hold armor/weapons and say to the user base - "get the large armor bag and use the equipment manager.  Whenever you want to look fabulous, just click the equipment load-out called "fabulous!".  Oh yeah, you probably won't want to do that in a dungeon or a BG."

Then they just continue to roll out vanity wear items at their usual pace (there are already a ton of them).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 24, 2010, 10:14:26 AM
However, most of Wow's visuals are locked, and lack customization, to the point where color is a factor in an items worth, because you can't change it.

Dude, the technology to disable models has been in the game since 2004.  I have no clue what the item colour and price has to do with anything either.  Of course the item's price auto-completes based on a function of the item quality and level, that's the fucking smart thing to do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 24, 2010, 10:17:43 AM

 I have no clue what the item colour and price has to do with anything either.


Go on the AH and check out the prices of the tailoring items that have no stats.  Even though many of them have the same materials to make, they aren't all the same price.  WHY COULD THIS BE?!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on May 24, 2010, 11:40:24 AM
Here we go:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 24, 2010, 12:30:59 PM
 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 24, 2010, 01:00:38 PM
Go on the AH and check out the prices of the tailoring items that have no stats.  Even though many of them have the same materials to make, they aren't all the same price.  WHY COULD THIS BE?!

Because price is calculated on item quality, item level, and slot.  So since apparently you're in the know, care to tell me how that would affect your ability to override one model with another as Bloodworth is suggesting?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 24, 2010, 01:35:17 PM
to the point where color is a factor in an items worth, because you can't change it.
I am pretty sure that Bloodworth was not talking about vendor cash value when he made this statement using the word "worth", but rather intrinsic value in regards to such things as color as a factor in visually identifying the item level of a piece of gear with an identical mesh (or for that mater, the way that the color of a particular item affects its value as seen by the user, rather then the vendor).

A perfect example would be the whole: Look, that guy is wearing those shoulders, but they are blue, so they are only the Tx.0 version, not the Tx.5 version, or look, that guy is using that weapon, and it is this color, so it is the heroic version.  There is where the color of similar / identical meshes would have an impact on their percieved worth (in regards to blizzard allowing you to overwrite one with the other)

Also, I am pretty sure that a sexy red dress and a sexy black dress vendor for the same amount, but sell on the AH for WILDLY different values simply due to their color / rarity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 24, 2010, 03:10:53 PM
Go on the AH and check out the prices of the tailoring items that have no stats.  Even though many of them have the same materials to make, they aren't all the same price.  WHY COULD THIS BE?!

Because price is calculated on item quality, item level, and slot.  So since apparently you're in the know, care to tell me how that would affect your ability to override one model with another as Bloodworth is suggesting?

Um, because we aren't talking about what things VENDOR for, but what they SELL FOR ON THE AUCTION HOUSE.  Sorry you missed the boat on this one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 24, 2010, 09:12:07 PM
No, you brought up the auction house.  Bloodworth popped in, apparently concatenated three thoughts into one, and posted it.  As per his usual modus operandi.  It doesn't matter: talking about the impact on the auction house is meaningless, because Blizzard could just as easily require you to have the gear you're duplicating in your inventory and bound to you.  Or append every unique item model you've ever equipped to a list of things you're capable of emulating the look of (so that you can vendor it afterward).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 24, 2010, 09:14:44 PM
No, you brought up the auction house.  Bloodworth popped in, apparently concatenated three thoughts into one, and posted it.  As per his usual modus operandi.  It doesn't matter: talking about the impact on the auction house is meaningless, because Blizzard could just as easily require you to have the gear you're duplicating in your inventory and bound to you.  Or append every unique item model you've ever equipped to a list of things you're capable of emulating the look of (so that you can vendor it afterward).

Uh, Bloodworth was pretty clearly talking about the AH value. You're on a weird tangent here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 24, 2010, 10:36:14 PM
I don't see anything there that suggests auction house, emergent player behaviours, or game economy.  I don't speak Bloodworth.

Even conceding that Bloodworth's inkblot is an auctioneer, it doesn't follow that an appearance tab necessarily deprecates cosmetic items.  Nor is devaluing random armour pieces of little inherent worth even necessarily something Blizzard would avoid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 24, 2010, 11:48:57 PM
No really Sheepherder, it's just you.

However, most of Wow's visuals are locked, and lack customization, to the point where color is a factor in an items worth, because you can't change it.

Why the hell you would take this as a reference to NPC vendor prices is beyond me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 25, 2010, 12:24:22 AM
Because the thought of not introducing a massively requested feature in order to protect the niche of three asshats constantly undercutting each other in a desperate attempt to win the patronage of each other's bank alts could only come from a mind so warped as to be beyond human comprehension?

:oh_i_see:

Clarify: I considered the notion he was talking the player cosmetic economy (see above).  I figured it made more sense if he was working under the misapprehension that Blizzard tacked on a premium (repair/vendor wise) for certain gear using cooler / non-generic models and would need to overhaul item prices for an obscenely large number of items.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 25, 2010, 01:19:29 AM
The reason they won't add cosmetic shit is really quite simple. Their art department would cry because no one would wear their hideous purple and orange abominations, instead prefering the twill set, or some level 15-ish mail "set." Blizzard doesn't want them to cry, especially the colorblind guy, so tough cookies, people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on May 25, 2010, 01:53:09 AM
 :headscratch:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 25, 2010, 02:13:19 AM
The reason they won't add cosmetic shit is really quite simple. Their art department would cry because no one would wear their hideous purple and orange abominations, instead prefering the twill set, or some level 15-ish mail "set." Blizzard doesn't want them to cry, especially the colorblind guy, so tough cookies, people.

Yeah, the artwork for each successive tier would need to actually be good, not just bigger with more shiny bits, if they ever expected anyone to use it.

They mostly get a pass for it, but I've always detected a hint of well-hidden butthurt from Blizzard over certain things. Sure they could just let you choose one random dungeon to opt out of, but they would rather put extra loot in Oculus and just up the deserter penalty. Because you're going to fucking run it whether you like it or not.

Same thing with Isle of Conquest. Now that they've de-incentivized everything but random BGing, there are actually people in there. Sure they probably don't like it any better than they did when it was the one BG that was totally ignored, but at least they're doing it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 25, 2010, 05:59:42 AM
They seem particularly sensitive about their art, though. I remember when T2 came out (that was the one REALLY awesome paladin set, right?) and the hunters fucking freaked out because their set was fucking orange and purple and ugly as shit. It was ugly as shit specifically because they let someone pick orange and purple (hence my conviction they have at least one colorblind dude picking colors, and everyone is too nice to tell him they're terrible). Everyone with even the slightest clue about photoshop redid the colors to something not completely offensive to the eyes, and it looked a zillion times better. But orange and purple it was, bitches. The mages hated theirs too (colors again, although not nearly as bad), I believe they even got a "Nice previews you got there, be a shame if anything happened to 'em" response from Caydiem in an attempt to shut them up.

That and their steadfast conviction that dyes would be the Devil's Work pretty much convinces me we will never see an appearance tab.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 25, 2010, 06:47:46 AM
Just to keep this tangent going: I do not understand the fascination with Paladin Tier 2, at all.  I thought it looked ghastly then and it's only gotten worse in comparison since.

That said, I think the best looking Paladin sets are the latest PvP ones which have mostly been panned... so what the hell do I know?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 25, 2010, 06:58:01 AM
Just to keep this tangent going: I do not understand the fascination with Paladin Tier 2, at all.  I thought it looked ghastly then and it's only gotten worse in comparison since.

That said, I think the best looking Paladin sets are the latest PvP ones which have mostly been panned... so what the hell do I know?

I likes Judgement, it seemed very Inquisition or something.  You could see the paladins wearing that burning people at the stake and kicking some ass.   I think my favorite paladin set was tier 6 though.   As for Dragonstalker, I think the orange and purple was pretty iffy, but I don't remember hating at the time.  Then again, at the time all the armor outside of the couple of raid sets looked like trash anyway, so there wasn't much to choose from.

My favorites in general have been druid sets though, except for tier 4, druids should not wear pants.  Granted, not that anyone ever gets to see druid gear these days anyway.  Though they will change that in cataclysm I guess.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on May 25, 2010, 07:00:00 AM
Yeah, I like the PvP sets that are subdued in general.  One, I like them because they don't scream, "Hey I'm big and bright, SHOOT ME!"  Two, I typically don't like to walk around looking like a clown.

Sleek, distinct style with function in mind (function of killing) and non-abrasive colors are all good in my book.  If they want crap to smoke, blink, glow, etc., limit to in-town only so people can park in front of the banks on their behemoth flying mounts of doom.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 25, 2010, 07:58:12 AM
I like the Judgement set partly because I liked it way better than anything they had come out with prior to that, and I think it's held up since. I totally collected the purple TBC version (I liked the purple better than the original colors, so bonus!). That said, I don't think it looks super great on human females (I don't really like robes on them in general, plus the helm looks weird instead of vaguely intimidating), so I wouldn't bust it out on mine very often, probably. As mentioned, it was sort of Inquisition-y, which I liked. But yeah, I guess because tier 2 in general was so fucking bad, Judgement looked wonderful in comparison.

Druid sets, by and large, are my favorite. Which is another reason why I want to strangle the boo hooing resto druids crying about tree form going away. So many of them claim the druid sets are ugly. Ugly! Bitches don't know how good they have it. My poor DK is going to be SKULLS SKULL SKULLS even after we leave the Skull Expansion behind.  :heartbreak:


EDIT: I totally had warrior set envy in Ulduar, whichever tier THAT was. They all run together!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 25, 2010, 08:05:53 AM
And you know what else drives me crazy? These sets don't have boots. And most of the time, that means my boots DON'T FUCKING MATCH.  :angryfist:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 25, 2010, 10:03:37 AM
Hey Sjofn, at least you get to wear boots. My femtroll warrior has to tank in bare feet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on May 25, 2010, 10:27:32 AM
Hooves >> feet.

The only catch is the boots come up to your knees. Speaking of which, draenei need some graphical updates. We NEED an animated tail. Like right now. Tail swiping gnomes that stand too close to you would be pure-D win. Also, since we have hooves (which are better than feet), we should be able to kick stuff. Like gnomes that stand too close to you.

Hmmm, also shaman armor is weird. The T10 stuff is just flat out bizarre. We need to get back to stuff like the T4 to T7 sets. Those looked good (mostly). And no more kilts for enhance, unless it's a real kilt (that shows knees) instead of a chainmail ballgown.

I could go on...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on May 25, 2010, 11:54:28 AM
Warlocks always had the best looking sets.  Too bad I never played one past level 45 or so.  Maybe in Cata!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 25, 2010, 11:55:11 AM
Felheart clowns.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 25, 2010, 12:26:30 PM
Felheart clowns.

Yeah, Felheart was pretty bad.  Everyone Warlock had the full set in my guild in about a month though because I swear Warlock/Paladin was our drop about every fucking time on every boss.  I remember we went back and three manned Lucifron last year just because we thought it would be funny, and we got felheart/lightforge and we all lost our shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 25, 2010, 01:29:31 PM
My pally just got uglier as WOTLK went on. Gimme an appearance tab and I'll still look like my 78 blue savage saronite set.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 25, 2010, 03:47:21 PM
Being a warrior, giving me the ability to choose means I'm going to be wearing the Dark Iron set for the rest of my days.

Black and red, Baby, Black and red.


(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060422105223/wowwiki/images/thumb/1/1d/Full_Dark_Iron_Set.jpg/180px-Full_Dark_Iron_Set.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 25, 2010, 04:28:26 PM
I've long wished they would make the raid tokens, rather than having their own graphics, just apply their statistics to any given item of the same slot, which is then soul bound to you (even change the name if you want, whatever).  So, if I want my tier 10 helm to look their the defias mask I got at level 12, I can do that, or whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 25, 2010, 08:41:57 PM
Hey Sjofn, at least you get to wear boots. My femtroll warrior has to tank in bare feet.

Your non-matching legwarmers are a concern as well, yes. The troll feet thing doesn't bug me, but I never have played a tanky troll, so that probably helps!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 25, 2010, 09:04:50 PM
I'd like to be able to have my trolls to be shown wearing boots, too.  It's not game-breaking, but it does annoy me with some of the pieces.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on May 25, 2010, 09:06:27 PM
The troll feet thing doesn't bug me, but I never have played a tanky troll, so that probably helps!
I love my tanky troll.  The feet thing doesn't even bug me!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 26, 2010, 12:06:22 AM
The lack of shoes is literally my biggest gripe, appearance wise, about WoW. Forget appearance slots for gear, pile on the ugly fucking shoulders, but let jmy troll wear shoes!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 26, 2010, 01:21:29 AM
The lack of shoes is literally my biggest gripe, appearance wise, about WoW. Forget appearance slots for gear, pile on the ugly fucking shoulders, but let jmy troll wear shoes!
Eh, the lack of troll shoes never really bothered me.  I mean, think about it:  They are based off of Jungle savages, who normally run around in Voodoo like getups.  And they have TWO giant toes, instead of a normal looking foor.  Other then sandals, I really cant picture a troll actually wearing anything that even remptely resembles a shoe.   And really, what exactly would a Chain Mail or Plate sandal look like anyway?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 26, 2010, 08:30:20 AM
Jungle savages aren't normally wearing platemail or high-fantasy leather and mail get-ups either.  Having two toes does not preclude them from wearing protective footwear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 26, 2010, 08:37:27 AM
Put me in the "I want shoes" camp. I'm starting to really dislike races where parts of visible armor isn't available.  Pissed me off in SWG where my dosh couldn't even wear gauntlets or boots.

How about a toggle?  :awesome_for_real: 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 26, 2010, 08:46:47 AM
Finding plate shoes to fit big ginormous feet is one thing.  Taking every shirt I own and ripping the sleeves off at the elbow for no good reason? Fuck you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 26, 2010, 08:48:44 AM
Yeah, I was about to say that while I understand the desire for footwear, the Forsaken's little elbows/knees/spine problem bugs me way more.

EDIT: Shoulders are not elbows.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 26, 2010, 10:03:50 AM
Quote from: blizz
Hunger For Blood, Going away in Cata?

It's going away for Cataclysm. (Source)

THANK YOU. I love required buffs with a prereq debuff that last a single minute.

Now I might actually play an assassination build in a 5 man setting.  Of course, optimizing their damage involves stealth, which given the current pace/nature of dungeons really isn't optimal.  I've never had any assassination build output what I could do with combat even though my gear favored the former.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 26, 2010, 10:08:01 AM
Finding plate shoes to fit big ginormous feet is one thing.  Taking every shirt I own and ripping the sleeves off at the elbow for no good reason? Fuck you.

Look at my new robe guys! ... oh dammit my hip ripped through it again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 26, 2010, 10:34:04 AM
Forsaken should just fight with their claws because our bones are apparently the hardest fucking material in the universe. They can cut through any armor in the game!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on May 26, 2010, 11:15:29 AM
I was about to say something to the effect of complaining that my T9-geared Paladin looked like every other plate wearer at that gear level, and then I decided to see what Paladin T8 looked like on my Draenei.

Yeah, shutting up now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 26, 2010, 12:49:50 PM
Yeah, I was about to say that while I understand the desire for footwear, the Forsaken's little elbows/knees/spine problem bugs me way more.

EDIT: Shoulders are not elbows.
I'm not too fond of the knife-sharp Foresaken bones either.  It looks like Edward Scissorhands dresses me.

I do like how LotR has toggles for all those 'lore' areas where someone might want to hide equipment.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 26, 2010, 07:26:20 PM
I remember suggesting a boot toggle in beta! Me and a bunch of other nerds!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 27, 2010, 01:57:43 AM
I remember suggesting a boot toggle in beta! Me and a bunch of other nerds!


Was this before or after The Great Squirrel Debate?   :grin:





Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 27, 2010, 06:46:45 AM
Was this before or after The Great Squirrel Debate?   :grin:

Oh god, I remember that. I think that may be subliminally why I still haven't ever levelled a Druid past 20...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 27, 2010, 10:43:00 AM
to the point where color is a factor in an items worth, because you can't change it.
I am pretty sure that Bloodworth was not talking about vendor cash value when he made this statement using the word "worth", but rather intrinsic value in regards to such things as color as a factor in visually identifying the item level of a piece of gear with an identical mesh (or for that mater, the way that the color of a particular item affects its value as seen by the user, rather then the vendor).

A perfect example would be the whole: Look, that guy is wearing those shoulders, but they are blue, so they are only the Tx.0 version, not the Tx.5 version, or look, that guy is using that weapon, and it is this color, so it is the heroic version.  There is where the color of similar / identical meshes would have an impact on their percieved worth (in regards to blizzard allowing you to overwrite one with the other)

Also, I am pretty sure that a sexy red dress and a sexy black dress vendor for the same amount, but sell on the AH for WILDLY different values simply due to their color / rarity.

Yes.

Also, in most cases to do any form of tint masking, it typically uses the alpha of the image, however you cant do that, if the alpha is being used for transparency. But yes, I was talking about user worth, colors usually start somewhere in brown and go up to black as the most sought after. Wow's loot system (when you get what)has taken this into account already (unlike LOTRO, tin table areas are gray scale and come pre-equipped with a color value for those areas in the objects data block). Many "appearances" are the same meshes with texture overrides, and sometimes textures created in buffer. Just about all cosmetic appearances (chest, boots hair face, cape) are all in the player model file for reasons of animation, just toggled visibility. Exceptions are helms and shoulders.

Any way, my point being, this would be an ass ton of work, but blizzard does have deep pockets, but thats a major undertaking to convert, AND the tint or transparency trade off would have to be addressed.

Sorry I wasn't clear before, and I could be mistaken about the Tech they are using.

The two "armors" bellow are the same base mesh, nothing about the profile changes, with exception of the shoulder blades and helm (Major reason shoulder blades are the most profile breaking and extravagant visual upgrades) In fact, its the same mesh from when you made your player, there is not layering on the base body, its all about the shoulder blades and helms to break the silhouette/profile. Its also why all the forearms are so beefy in wow, they will be gauntlets later in life. Somewhere along its life span, they have been adding different versions of forearms and such for reasons of sleeves and such, but i think thats a recent addition, and is most likely with in the player model file as well. I don't know, I have never had the opportunity to look at the files.


Being a warrior, giving me the ability to choose means I'm going to be wearing the Dark Iron set for the rest of my days.

Black and red, Baby, Black and red.


(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060422105223/wowwiki/images/thumb/1/1d/Full_Dark_Iron_Set.jpg/180px-Full_Dark_Iron_Set.jpg)

I rest my case.

EDIT: I may be simplifying this to much, they most likely have hundreds of profile meshes across the game and various sets are created by a giant matrix of on and off for visibility.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 27, 2010, 11:28:09 AM
I remember suggesting a boot toggle in beta! Me and a bunch of other nerds!


Was this before or after The Great Squirrel Debate?  :grin:

After!


EDIT: Fuck, the Wrath set was fucking ugly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 27, 2010, 11:43:51 AM
EDIT: Fuck, the Wrath set was fucking ugly.

Witch one is higher in the loot chain?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on May 27, 2010, 11:45:42 AM
All this game needs is /shoulders off

That would appease most people. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 27, 2010, 11:53:50 AM
All this game needs is /shoulders off

That would appease most people.  

Those are the most important part of the armor designs though. Its covers the shoulder deformations, I breaks the profiles and it has just about all the fancy effects. If I recall my times as a noob, its takes forever to even get your first ones, because they are a big deal as far as appearance. I can't see them letting that go.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on May 27, 2010, 12:02:32 PM
Given how the first piece of gear most people seem to buy is the shoulders I suspect the /shoulders off group would be a small minority.

That said, I never understood the fascination with an appearance tab, it's pretty much at the bottom of things I could care about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 27, 2010, 01:35:00 PM
Given how the first piece of gear most people seem to buy is the shoulders I suspect the /shoulders off group would be a small minority.

That said, I never understood the fascination with an appearance tab, it's pretty much at the bottom of things I could care about.

People buy shoulders first because its the best upgrade at the cheapest cost.  35 badges for a shoulder slot epic that probably gives you roughly the same total ugprade as the 50 badge pants, or whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 27, 2010, 02:16:01 PM
Shoulders and Gloves do offer slightly better value as they have 75% of the stats of a Helm/Chest/Legs at only 70% of the cost (Wowwiki: Slot Modifiers (http://www.wowwiki.com/Item_level#Slot_Modifiers)).

Having people running around without shoulder armor would be weird though, as they're really the defining part of a character's silhouette.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 27, 2010, 02:20:28 PM
Love it or hate it, shoulders and helms are the only real visibly defining pieces of armor a character has in WoW. Nobody notices chests, bracers, shirts, legs, boots, etc. Robes are probably the exception for casters.

The rest of it is just weaponry.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 27, 2010, 02:42:54 PM
God, I turn off my helms SO HARD 99% of the time. I want to see my pretty, pretty face and my pretty, pretty hair. I wouldn't turn off my shoulders unless they were well and truly hideous, though. Like the Wrath shoulders.


EDIT: I notice boots though. And sometimes gloves. And pants if they're hilariously ugly or mysteriously MISSING. >< Tabards make chest pieces pretty much irrelevant though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 27, 2010, 03:00:55 PM
I think the pants in WoW look pretty terrible about 90% of the time.  Dresses/robes on the other hand generally look great.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 27, 2010, 04:25:43 PM
Depends on the class, I find. Caster-types usually have HILARIOUS pants. Plate-wearers, once they're out of the thong danger zone, usually have perfectly normal pants.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 27, 2010, 05:36:31 PM
PVP ret pallies don't usually get stuck with plate skirts, but if they do at some point, I will simply refuse to wear them even if it means I'm gimped.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 27, 2010, 05:50:34 PM
Shoulders also hold an easy vendor enchant.  Good reasons all around to buy them.

My DK only uses the PvP shoulders though.  The T9 set is hideous.  (T10 isn't that bad if I recall, but the chances of me getting enough frost badges now is low.)  I liked a lot of the leveling shoulders, too.  Once you start getting the high-end gear though they're all crap as far as my sensibilities go.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on May 27, 2010, 08:09:55 PM
God, I turn off my helms SO HARD 99% of the time. I want to see my pretty, pretty face and my pretty, pretty hair. I wouldn't turn off my shoulders unless they were well and truly hideous, though. Like the Wrath shoulders.
Same.  I love my beautiful Blood Elf hair.  As I tank for my guild, its beauty lights the way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 27, 2010, 11:19:49 PM
The two "armors" bellow are the same base mesh, nothing about the profile changes, with exception of the shoulder blades and helm (Major reason shoulder blades are the most profile breaking and extravagant visual upgrades) In fact, its the same mesh from when you made your player, there is not layering on the base body, its all about the shoulder blades and helms to break the silhouette/profile. Its also why all the forearms are so beefy in wow, they will be gauntlets later in life. Somewhere along its life span, they have been adding different versions of forearms and such for reasons of sleeves and such, but i think thats a recent addition, and is most likely with in the player model file as well. I don't know, I have never had the opportunity to look at the files.


I don't know if I understood your jargon correctly, but if I did, then yes, everything but the the Shoulders and Helm are just part of the Player Model with various parts being turned on and off as each item is equipped. The Gauntlet and Boot art are not separate. They've also had the gauntlet and boot variation in since release, open flared sleeves, bulky gloves, folded gloves etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 27, 2010, 11:41:35 PM
God, I turn off my helms SO HARD 99% of the time. I want to see my pretty, pretty face and my pretty, pretty hair. I wouldn't turn off my shoulders unless they were well and truly hideous, though. Like the Wrath shoulders.
Same.  I love my beautiful Blood Elf hair.  As I tank for my guild, its beauty lights the way.

In Cataclysm, I fully intend to have a beautiful boy blood elf warrior for this exact reason. Follow my beacon, everyone!


EDIT: Also, Lantyssa, tier nine is a LONG FUCKING WAY from "hideous." Take another look at the Wrath set (warrior T2, it's in Bloodworth's spoiler). That is hideous. Tier nine is, at worst, guilty of "meh."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on May 28, 2010, 07:46:48 AM
Now I'm tempted to re-sub and get the BC Wrath set for my DK. Damn you all!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: JWIV on May 28, 2010, 07:50:14 AM
God, I turn off my helms SO HARD 99% of the time. I want to see my pretty, pretty face and my pretty, pretty hair. I wouldn't turn off my shoulders unless they were well and truly hideous, though. Like the Wrath shoulders.
Same.  I love my beautiful Blood Elf hair.  As I tank for my guild, its beauty lights the way.

In Cataclysm, I fully intend to have a beautiful boy blood elf warrior for this exact reason. Follow my beacon, everyone!


EDIT: Also, Lantyssa, tier nine is a LONG FUCKING WAY from "hideous." Take another look at the Wrath set (warrior T2, it's in Bloodworth's spoiler). That is hideous. Tier nine is, at worst, guilty of "meh."

I'm fairly sure that some point soon my wife is going to pay the 25 bucks to change her undead Warlock into a Blood Elf so that she can be pretty.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 28, 2010, 10:08:48 AM
Male goblin and male worgen dances are in now, btw.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 28, 2010, 10:13:16 AM
EDIT: Also, Lantyssa, tier nine is a LONG FUCKING WAY from "hideous." Take another look at the Wrath set (warrior T2, it's in Bloodworth's spoiler). That is hideous. Tier nine is, at worst, guilty of "meh."
I'm not comparing it to prior sets since I have no idea what those look like.  On it's own, the T9 helm and shoulders look terrible.  There reaches a point where degree of eye-gouging doesn't matter, I still don't want to wear it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 28, 2010, 10:18:27 AM
Tier 9 looks perfectly fine.








As long as you're Horde, natch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 28, 2010, 10:32:39 AM
Eh, I personally prefer the Alliance T9 Leather to the Horde version. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 28, 2010, 10:35:06 AM
EDIT: Also, Lantyssa, tier nine is a LONG FUCKING WAY from "hideous." Take another look at the Wrath set (warrior T2, it's in Bloodworth's spoiler). That is hideous. Tier nine is, at worst, guilty of "meh."
I'm not comparing it to prior sets since I have no idea what those look like.  On it's own, the T9 helm and shoulders look terrible.  There reaches a point where degree of eye-gouging doesn't matter, I still don't want to wear it.

I think you're probably in the minority then on the current armor asthetic. T9 was considered to be uninspiredly bland, but never horrible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on May 28, 2010, 10:36:22 AM
T9 plate isn't so bad in and of itself. The real issue with it is that's it's ALL T9 plate for everyone. Kinda bland that way. Both my draenei paladin and DK look almost exactly the same, just slightly different trim colors.  The shoulders are the weakest piece, looks-wise, but they don't really bother me that much. T9 mail was worse.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 28, 2010, 10:58:51 AM
T9 plate isn't so bad in and of itself. The real issue with it is that's it's ALL T9 plate for everyone. Kinda bland that way. Both my draenei paladin and DK look almost exactly the same, just slightly different trim colors.  The shoulders are the weakest piece, looks-wise, but they don't really bother me that much. T9 mail was worse.

See, I think Alliance T9 mail is by far the best-looking T9 set. It is one of my favorite sets this expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 28, 2010, 11:00:23 AM
"Tier 9 is boring" I can accept (although I still like T9 fine), but hideous/ugly/unwearable? No. I've had shoulders that have filled me with despair before, the tier 9 ones barely even register on my radar as something I am even wearing.


EDIT: T9 druid leather was my favorite of the T9s, personally. First time I've displayed a helmet in a long, long time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on May 28, 2010, 11:12:01 AM
T9 Cloth is my favorite set in awhile. No stupid robot facemasks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 28, 2010, 02:08:54 PM
I think y'all are just too used to crappy looking WoW armor.  The three blades on the shoulders?  The matching helm?  Ugly as sin.  I will not wear it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 28, 2010, 02:15:16 PM
I'm with you there.  T9 Alliance plate was ugly as sin.  I was happy to replace it all and threw it away.  T9 leather, though was pretty sweet looking - IF you turned the helmet off.  My elf has cleavage again!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 28, 2010, 03:08:03 PM
Wow, the boob-window on that Alliance T9 Leather would make Power Girl blush (Wowhead Model Viewer (http://www.wowhead.com/itemset=-188#modelviewer:10+1)).  Didn't think there was anything recent worse than this Emblem of Frost chestpiece (http://www.wowhead.com/item=50965#modelviewer:10+1) that a few of our Ret Paladins are in.

Bare Midriff + Plate = :facepalm:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 28, 2010, 04:10:03 PM
Define "worse" :grin:

But yes, the bare-midriff makes me facepalm.  If only because they haven't been using that as a style for plate in so long.  It's ok if the whole ensemble is "zomg plate bikini" but to have the plate-fortress look ruined by one feature is just poor design.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 28, 2010, 06:59:38 PM
My Druid has the T9 leather.  Thankfully a grey woolly shirt blends perfectly.  What's really scary though is a Druid wearing that leather in Culling of Stratholme. :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on May 28, 2010, 07:15:38 PM
My god, it's like being stuck in the girl's restroom of a tranny bar. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on May 28, 2010, 11:13:34 PM
I just hated the T7 shoulders for my mage.  Luckily I got rid of those.  The T10 isn't so hideous, and neither was the T9.  My shammy's enhance off-spec has the 251 shoulders from ICC... and they are extremely hideous (they'd smack me in the ears and head as I walked if they were real!).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: raydeen on May 29, 2010, 06:33:16 AM
Wow, the boob-window on that Alliance T9 Leather would make Power Girl blush (Wowhead Model Viewer (http://www.wowhead.com/itemset=-188#modelviewer:10+1)).  Didn't think there was anything recent worse than this Emblem of Frost chestpiece (http://www.wowhead.com/item=50965#modelviewer:10+1) that a few of our Ret Paladins are in.

Bare Midriff + Plate = :facepalm:

Thanks for that link. After viewing that helm I've now got the Gatchaman theme stuck in my head.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 29, 2010, 10:21:20 AM
The two "armors" bellow are the same base mesh, nothing about the profile changes, with exception of the shoulder blades and helm (Major reason shoulder blades are the most profile breaking and extravagant visual upgrades) In fact, its the same mesh from when you made your player, there is not layering on the base body, its all about the shoulder blades and helms to break the silhouette/profile. Its also why all the forearms are so beefy in wow, they will be gauntlets later in life. Somewhere along its life span, they have been adding different versions of forearms and such for reasons of sleeves and such, but i think thats a recent addition, and is most likely with in the player model file as well. I don't know, I have never had the opportunity to look at the files.


I don't know if I understood your jargon correctly, but if I did, then yes, everything but the the Shoulders and Helm are just part of the Player Model with various parts being turned on and off as each item is equipped. The Gauntlet and Boot art are not separate. They've also had the gauntlet and boot variation in since release, open flared sleeves, bulky gloves, folded gloves etc.

You understood me.

Anyway, when do you get your first shoulder slot item? (and I don't mean from he AH), that should tell you how weighted they are.

All of you complaining about the Wow lack of customization, now may know why I love LOTRO forethought in this area, its simply liberating.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 29, 2010, 01:18:52 PM
The first crappy shoulders (grey/white no stat items) start showing up around level 15 or so. The First shoulders with stats on them, would be the tailored shoulders at 17.


They were definitely a big deal when everyone was leveling up at release 5 years ago. "Woo, finally got shoulders!" Was the same with cloaks that were actually cloaks and not just little bibs you wore on your back.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 31, 2010, 02:46:27 AM
Ahaha. The Grimtotem are joining the Alliance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 31, 2010, 08:13:43 AM
Ahaha. The Grimtotem are joining the Alliance.

The dragonmaw orcs are also joining the horde, something I am none too happy about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 31, 2010, 09:18:43 AM
To be fair, there's at least a sliver of justification for that ("Oh fuck Deathwing and his entire fucking Flight just exploded out of the ground due east of Wetlands and our nearerst group of forces are the fucking Apothecaries in Arathi Mts....wait, there's orcs right next door already? And they're experts in dragons? I'm sure Dragon-Queen Rita Repulsa would understand. Eventually."). The Grimtotems are basically sore losers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on May 31, 2010, 09:23:30 AM
Ahaha. The Grimtotem are joining the Alliance.

Who ordered this? It makes little sense. They're like barking mad. I could see maybe encourging them a little to fuck with the Horde, but join the Alliance? Riiiiiiggghhhht.

My draenei paladin and warrior perpetrated near genocide on these twits in their 30s and 40s. Hell, the warrior still does in her 50s, if she finds herself in Feralas for some reason. We're talking industrial-level job lots here. I forsee trouble.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 31, 2010, 09:38:50 AM
Ahaha. The Grimtotem are joining the Alliance.

Who ordered this? It makes little sense. They're like barking mad. I could see maybe encourging them a little to fuck with the Horde, but join the Alliance? Riiiiiiggghhhht.

My draenei paladin and warrior perpetrated near genocide on these twits in their 30s and 40s. Hell, the warrior still does in her 50s, if she finds herself in Feralas for some reason. We're talking industrial-level job lots here. I forsee trouble.

Well joining the alliance doesn't make sense but if the rumors about magatha slowly having poisoned cairne then they are probably not going to be welcomed in the horde much longer.  all i can think of is all the grimtotem rp guilds on my server, it'll be funny seeing what happens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 31, 2010, 01:48:03 PM
"Tentatively working with the Alliance in one zone" != "joining the alliance"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 31, 2010, 05:19:29 PM
Given the fact that even as a Horde member, I spent a good chunk of my experience in Dustwallow Marsh and Feralas butchering Grimtotem for their shenanigans, I would venture to say that they were already "not terribly welcome" in the horde to begin with.  I mean, from everything I can find, pretty much the ONLY reason they were even nominally considered part of the horde at all is because Magatha Grimtotem carried enough influence as a tribal elder that Cairne couldnt simply expell / banish the lot of them.  Every single instance of any encounter I have ever had with them suggested that their entire clan was pretty much on the way down low of things.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on June 01, 2010, 04:38:13 PM
The Grimtotem also knocked over Camp Aparaje in Stonetalon and attacked Freewind Post in Thousand Needles, earning the repeated reprisals by thousands of heroes in the employ of the local Tauren. There we learned that the Grimtotem are in secret negotiations with the Forsaken. They're probably not as rotten or brutish as the political climate paints them, but they certainly don't share the hippy ethic of the Confederated Tribes of the Tauren.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on June 02, 2010, 03:50:22 AM
While not really Cataclysm info, there's this (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25172039564&sid=1) little tidbit going into 3.3.5:

Quote
We have found that most players using the Dungeon Finder don’t use the Vote Kick feature or abandon groups very often. For these players, we are removing the cooldown on voting to kick players from a dungeon party. In contrast, those players who tend to kick players or abandon groups more frequently will notice that the Vote Kick feature maintains its cooldown. The goal here is to make sure players who are generally patient can make use of the Vote Kick feature when they really need it, without giving a more powerful tool to those who try to kick others or abandon dungeon groups very frequently.

This functionality will adjust itself as a player’s behavior while using the Dungeon Finder changes.

Basically, if you vote-kick people too often or you are that asshole that keeps pulling the first spawn and then bailing, you'll eventually see your ability to do either of those things eventually removed for a while, and vice versa.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on June 02, 2010, 06:04:31 AM
While not really Cataclysm info, there's this (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25172039564&sid=1) little tidbit going into 3.3.5:

Quote
We have found that most players using the Dungeon Finder don’t use the Vote Kick feature or abandon groups very often. For these players, we are removing the cooldown on voting to kick players from a dungeon party. In contrast, those players who tend to kick players or abandon groups more frequently will notice that the Vote Kick feature maintains its cooldown. The goal here is to make sure players who are generally patient can make use of the Vote Kick feature when they really need it, without giving a more powerful tool to those who try to kick others or abandon dungeon groups very frequently.

This functionality will adjust itself as a player’s behavior while using the Dungeon Finder changes.

Basically, if you vote-kick people too often or you are that asshole that keeps pulling the first spawn and then bailing, you'll eventually see your ability to do either of those things eventually removed for a while, and vice versa.

Thats nice actually. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 02, 2010, 07:05:23 AM
That sounds too nice to be true;  is it on test ?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on June 02, 2010, 07:35:57 AM
No idea if it's on test, but that was posted by Zarhym.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 02, 2010, 07:40:55 AM
Sorry, I wasn't going for the whole 'FAKE LIAR' thing but 'Sounds nice but will end up being much more complicated than first thought and dropped like a hot rock'.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 02, 2010, 12:00:21 PM
How exactly are they going to stop you abandoning a group?

Alt-F4 and log in an alt is always going to be available to those people...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 02, 2010, 12:19:32 PM
That should be obvious: you'll be able to drop group and re-queue that same character immediately if you're in good standing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 02, 2010, 12:28:28 PM
How exactly are they going to stop you abandoning a group?

Alt-F4 and log in an alt is always going to be available to those people...

They aren't saying you can't abandon a group. They are saying if you do it repeatedly, you will have the re-queue timer and if you dont, you will have no timer at all for re-queue.  There is no penalization in this change that doesnt already exist.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: March on June 02, 2010, 12:37:23 PM
The way I read it, the only thing affected is the ability to initiate a Gkick.

The change does _not_ imply that you will get instant re-queue... only that you will have Gkick available with no timer if you prove yourself to be nice and not naughty.

If you drop, you will still have the debuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 02, 2010, 01:31:23 PM
Yeah, it's only allowing the you to votekick someone faster.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 02, 2010, 02:09:05 PM
Yeah, it's only allowing the you to votekick someone faster.

I wouldn't mind seeing it expanded to the drop thing as well. However, I do understand the hate of most informal groupings.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on June 02, 2010, 10:42:35 PM
For the last week I've been playing with the LFD and I've had about a 95ish percent favorable groups.  I usually detest pugs but these have been pleasant, and I never seem to see anyone that was unpleasant again.  To quote Tyler Durden, they are my "single serving friends."

Mind you this has all been from 15-33 so far so the dungeons aren't exactly difficult.  I imagine things futz up a bit around 80.

Oh and fuck Deadmines.  I managed to get through life and WoW for 6 years without having to experience that shit.  I can go another 6.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 02, 2010, 11:49:28 PM
How can you hate on The Deadmines?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 03, 2010, 12:19:52 AM
Seeing Deadmines in open beta after years of DAOC was the thing that made me go "Holy shit, THIS is what PVE is supposed to be like," and sold me permanently on switching games.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on June 03, 2010, 07:41:36 AM
Not sure why the hate for Deadmines.  One of the best, in my opinion.  Although, I ran my son through there with one of my 80's and did get some memories of aweful wipes caused by the very quick respawn of patrols.  Even with me clearing the place without hardly stopping, I backed up a bit at one point and had a patrol come from the back.  For a group of the appropriate level, that would be very difficult to survive.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 03, 2010, 08:24:36 AM
I think Deadmines has a lot going on versus the "serious of tunnels" that are most instances.  I feel the same way about Scholomance but that doesn't mean I don't think both are absolutely hateful places at the appropriate levels.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 03, 2010, 08:47:39 AM
My biggest complaint about Deadmines is that the respawning patrols make it incredibly inconvenient if somehow the healer dies and you have no one to rez. Group goes afk while he walks back, he runs right into them, dies again. Rinse, repeat, ragequit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on June 03, 2010, 08:50:26 AM
Deadmines is completely linear, but pretty about it.

And it's FAR nicer since they removed or downgraded the obnoxious amount of trash in it.

And I didn't think the pats respawned in any short amount of time? What DOES happen is every time you kill a boss, a pat spawns behind you and walks towards the boss. If you're killing and quickly moving on, you never see them. If you wait around or die, you'll run into a 2-3 elite spawn walking around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 03, 2010, 10:21:51 AM
Yeah, we just used to wait until our new friends showed up before moving on, I don't really recall any "fast" respawning trash otherwise.

 :heart: Van Cleef  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 03, 2010, 10:46:54 AM
I never really got the Deadmines love as much as most people, or the SFK love because I was alliance and never really ran it at level.

However, my favorite by far in the early instances was the Scarlet Monestary. I would still go back there before the first expansion hit and solo-farm the place over and over for gold because I just enjoyed doing it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on June 03, 2010, 10:52:33 AM
The very first, first, first time I did Deadmines, it was crazy awesome. It was the very first instance I did. I had done several before in Everquest but it was never like this with WoW. Every time after that, I knew what to expect from instances, and while it was great to experience something for the first time, it wasn't the same as your VERY FIRST dungeon clearing. Even doing a FIRST EVER dungeon clearing in another game like Age of Conan was a bit reduced, but still awesome.

What's more, when you take on a role in a group, like tank, and you're surprised you're going toe to toe with these beastly guys, that also creates a very positive feeling. This is for players who might be new to the game or at least saavy enough to get what a tank does but not really know how to optimize it yet. If you're a terrible tank, it'll show and things will suck.

Playing Rammus in League of Legends gives me the same warm fuzzy feeling because I'm not squishy and I'm helping my team; this has kept its appeal through 60 games so far.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 03, 2010, 10:53:44 AM
I was/am Alliance too, but I do understand the SFK love from the few times I've run through it. It just has a great feel to it without drowning you in five hours of trash and wipes like some of their other "really great feel" dungeons (I am looking at you, BRD).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on June 03, 2010, 10:54:50 AM
Only time I ever did Deadmines, someone ninja'd the sword I wanted.  :sad_panda: Loved the Goonies vibe.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 03, 2010, 12:25:13 PM
Male goblin and male worgen dances are in now, btw.
Just realised I never actually got around to posting links.  :uhrr:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObVVe01tQJ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLlWuL0LikE


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on June 03, 2010, 12:32:50 PM
Goblin is "all right" but the worgen one is just... bad.  /opinion


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on June 03, 2010, 12:47:56 PM
I still have no god damn idea what the Worgen dance is supposed to BE.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 03, 2010, 01:06:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atIr849sjOM   :rofl:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 03, 2010, 01:47:16 PM
I think the worgen boys have a Leg Problem. It's hard to make him dance and use his legs when his legs ... are not human legs. If you look at the other races with non-standard legs, they generally don't do a lot of lower-body-work.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on June 03, 2010, 02:15:59 PM
Male Goblin Soulja Boi dance at least is funny, if a little lacklustre.

Male Worgen ...JT/whatever isn't even a dance. It's random ticks in sequence. JT looks like a tit doing it, and he's not hunched/digitigrade. Abysmal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 03, 2010, 04:07:30 PM
It does look like he's just flailing about, but that doesn't make it much different than the Female Blood Elf dance which doesn't even have the excuse of funny legs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 05, 2010, 11:00:21 AM
Default starting pets for all hunter races: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAUkspARZaY&feature=related


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on June 05, 2010, 11:29:19 AM
Looks like hunter gets to be across almost all classes now...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 05, 2010, 11:55:17 AM
WTF Undead hunters? I don't remember them saying that was one of the newly allowed class/race combos.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on June 05, 2010, 12:01:00 PM
Yeah. I think race/class restrictions are stupid in general, but as long as they have them at all, undead hunter makes maybe the least possible sense to allow. Yes, even less than tauren paladins (which are awesome, by the way).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 05, 2010, 12:15:00 PM
They're really opening them up in this expansion.  Warriors are now universal (along with Death Knights), Hunters/Mages/Priests are open to all but one race, and only two races can't be Rogues.

After those six it sort of falls off a cliff though: Warlocks (7), Shamans (6), Paladins (5), Druids (4).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 05, 2010, 12:19:10 PM
How does undead hunter not make sense? you are taming animals and using traps as well as bows/arrows. now ok, i can see some animal caring about being around a rotting corpse but you really think a four foot tall spider gives a shit?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on June 05, 2010, 12:19:49 PM
I was pretty sure we already covered the whole Undead Hunter thingey.  I think we went from, "WTF Undead can't be hunters."  Then, "Sylvannas."  And all the naysayers said, "Meh."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 05, 2010, 12:34:06 PM
Worgen pet is obviously the best.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 05, 2010, 12:59:01 PM
Worgen pet is obviously the best.

My human hunter will have one as soon as he can. Hunting dog ftw


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on June 05, 2010, 01:02:26 PM
How does undead hunter not make sense? you are taming animals and using traps as well as bows/arrows. now ok, i can see some animal caring about being around a rotting corpse but you really think a four foot tall spider gives a shit?
It's the intimate-connection-to-nature bit that bugs me. Hunter pets aren't just tame, they're loyal companions, and undead don't really have the capacity for compassion to make that work.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 05, 2010, 01:06:19 PM
I dunno, sure most forsaken are pretty pissed off but I don't think it's anywhere in the lore that they don't have emotions. The scourge are mindless but afaik the forsaken are just humans with a skin condition.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 05, 2010, 01:15:53 PM
the forsaken are just humans with a skin condition.

I'm sure this has been discussed at length before, but I so, so, SO want there to be other options for forsaken than just dead humans. Is there something in the lore that precludes this possibility?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on June 05, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
I'm sure this has been discussed at length before, but I so, so, SO want there to be other options for forsaken than just dead humans. Is there something in the lore that precludes this possibility?

The original plague only works on humans.  Non-human scourge are much rarer because it is necessary to specifically reanimate them rather than let the plague do its job.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 05, 2010, 01:29:46 PM
Didn't mean to restart an old argument; I just don't remember reading about Undead Hunters.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on June 05, 2010, 01:39:27 PM
Part of the problem with the whole hunter thing is the slight disconnect between "Hunter" (Ie, the traditional pet class in WoW), and "Ranger" (Ie, the bow wielding Elf forrest warden from WC3; which is what Sylvanas was).

Standing lore has it that "Hunters" are a new thing to the Blood Elves, with the purist Rangers looking down on the Hunters for going with the whole Pet Companion thing.  And the tenuous link for the forsaken having hunters is that there is A human (Nathanial Blightcaller) who managed to become an officially accepted Elven Trained Ranger, who was revived as a Forsaken.   So people cling to the idea that if Blood Elves can have Hunters because they are an offshoot of Rangers, then the Forsaken can have Hunters because there is one forsaken Ranger.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 05, 2010, 04:03:42 PM
Plus Nathanos Blightcaller is awesome.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on June 05, 2010, 04:15:59 PM
How come non-Forsaken can tame blighted animals and spirits, huh?  One makes as much sense as the other.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 05, 2010, 06:49:42 PM
I'm sure this has been discussed at length before, but I so, so, SO want there to be other options for forsaken than just dead humans. Is there something in the lore that precludes this possibility?

The original plague only works on humans.  Non-human scourge are much rarer because it is necessary to specifically reanimate them rather than let the plague do its job.

Not only that, but in WC3 the different races reanimated to different undead types.  Zombies/ ghouls were Human, Banshees were Elves, then there's the spider guys.   You see the theme continued in LK with male Vyrkul being Vargul and females being those sexy Valkir.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 05, 2010, 09:31:28 PM
undead hunter makes maybe the least possible sense to allow.

7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.

8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death*, and with the beasts of the earth.


* Likely referring to the Black Death.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 05, 2010, 10:56:03 PM
The original plague only works on humans.  Non-human scourge are much rarer because it is necessary to specifically reanimate them rather than let the plague do its job.

Not only that, but in WC3 the different races reanimated to different undead types.  Zombies/ ghouls were Human, Banshees were Elves, then there's the spider guys.   You see the theme continued in LK with male Vyrkul being Vargul and females being those sexy Valkir.

Ah well, if there's an actual reason I'll give up on the idea. Shame, undead gnomes would rock.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on June 06, 2010, 12:02:31 AM
Listen, the Horde is already like 75% elf. You let undead be other races, the other 25% is just gonna be zombie elves.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 06, 2010, 03:39:17 AM
It's going to be interesting to see how the new races affect the sides in Cata. I suspect that goblins will have a lot of existing Horde people rerolling plus a handful of the "I only play short races" subset, but worgen are going to end up having a bunch of people who rolled NE in vanilla and then swapped to BE in TBC heading back to the Alliance.

Especially on the RP servers, if you know what I mean.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on June 06, 2010, 07:52:05 AM
I'll give up on the idea. Shame, undead gnomes would rock.

They already do rock. Roll a Gnome Deathknight (http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Doomhammer&cn=Tiddles).  :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on June 06, 2010, 07:57:51 AM
It's going to be interesting to see how the new races affect the sides in Cata. I suspect that goblins will have a lot of existing Horde people rerolling plus a handful of the "I only play short races" subset, but worgen are going to end up having a bunch of people who rolled NE in vanilla and then swapped to BE in TBC heading back to the Alliance.

Especially on the RP servers, if you know what I mean.  :oh_i_see:

Goblins are going to be immensely popular. I would actually expect to see an increase in Horde players greater than those enticed by the Worgen. People have been asking Blizz to set Goblins as PCs since the Vanilla closed beta, Worgen are as left-field as Draenei but currently lack the /waggle factor. Yes, Furries will probably leap on Worgen like Oprah on a buffet table but they're a minority group - certainly not approaching the demographic more interested in Elves or Goblins. Ain't nobody ditching Second Life for Worgens, let's put it like that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 06, 2010, 08:21:13 AM
Cataclysm: Horde is the new Alliance c.a. Vanilla era.   Enjoy!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 06, 2010, 09:13:17 AM
Goblins are going to be immensely popular.

Gnomes and Dwarves aren't popular on Alliance so without an exclusive class and overpowered racials (hopefully), I don't see why Goblins are going to be any different.

Yes, people have been asking for them for a while, but that's more to do with their obviousness than with any great "I want to an Orc, but shorter!" sentiment among the player base.

The only population trend I see as a result of the new class possibilities is a small collapse in Taurens as they're more supported by their (previously) exclusive class than anyone else by some distance.  (As for Tauren Paladins?  Good fucking luck getting people to roll Cow over Elf :awesome_for_real:.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on June 06, 2010, 09:42:26 AM
Goblins have been popular for a long time.  I think it's their crazed voiceovers.  Who wouldn't want to play a maniacal, greedy, firestarting, exploding, little ball of fury and vengeance?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on June 06, 2010, 10:29:34 AM
(As for Tauren Paladins?  Good fucking luck getting people to roll Cow over Elf :awesome_for_real:.)
My elf is totally going to be a cow when I get the chance!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on June 06, 2010, 12:11:42 PM
I know like a dozen people who want to be a goblin just cause they go "WAAZZAP!!!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on June 06, 2010, 03:37:34 PM
(As for Tauren Paladins?  Good fucking luck getting people to roll Cow over Elf :awesome_for_real:.)
My elf is totally going to be a cow when I get the chance!

This x2. I have 3 80 Tauren already as Shaman and Hunter (Male) and a Female Druid. I'll probably transfer my female human pally to Tauren female because a BE warlock and priest are enough for me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on June 06, 2010, 07:54:40 PM
I know like a dozen people who want to be a goblin just cause they go "WAAZZAP!!!"

or,  "I GOT WHAT YOU NEED!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 06, 2010, 09:11:54 PM
The Goblin population will dwindle down to gnome territory once people use up the new Cata leveling content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 07, 2010, 05:22:29 AM
True. I can see a whole bunch of people making it through the new 1-58 stuff, walking through the Dark Portal then going "Yeah, sod this".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on June 07, 2010, 07:27:41 AM
True. I can see a whole bunch of people making it through the new 1-58 stuff, walking through the Dark Portal then going "Yeah, sod this".

True story.  Its sort of the same reason I still have a level 20 Draenei paladin sitting around somewhere.  Though I did manage to level up a shaman all the way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 07, 2010, 08:34:05 AM
I plan on making a goblin warlock and that will be a very trying time for me.  It'll either make or break me playing the rest of the xpac.  I did make it through with a DK, TBC is easy though, WOTLK on the other hand, might break me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 07, 2010, 12:23:39 PM
As long as they tweak the WotLK xp curve once Cata is ready to go live, it won't be too bad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on June 07, 2010, 12:34:51 PM
The Goblin population will dwindle down to gnome territory once people use up the new Cata leveling content.

Is that a short joke?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 07, 2010, 01:21:55 PM
I know it doesn't reach your usual high standards.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on June 07, 2010, 01:51:20 PM
Worgen pet is obviously the best.

The crab will see you in hell.

Quote
True. I can see a whole bunch of people making it through the new 1-58 stuff, walking through the Dark Portal then going "Yeah, sod this".

I'm rerolling my Shaman as goblin, but that's as far as I'll go.  And he's on second bench.  The Paladin is my main.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 07, 2010, 01:53:39 PM
I don't know what my Worgen/Goblin will be, I want to have one for the new leveling zone, but I don't actually want to level another alt at this point.



I'm hoping the new Cata talents and stuff will reinvigorate my alt desire or something.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on June 07, 2010, 05:34:36 PM
The Goblin population will dwindle down to gnome territory once people use up the new Cata leveling content.
Is that a short joke?
I think that's stretching it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on June 08, 2010, 05:18:01 AM
The Goblin population will dwindle down to gnome territory once people use up the new Cata leveling content.
Is that a short joke?
I think that's stretching it.
you're reaching


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 08, 2010, 05:33:34 AM
I don't know what my Worgen/Goblin will be, I want to have one for the new leveling zone, but I don't actually want to level another alt at this point.



I'm hoping the new Cata talents and stuff will reinvigorate my alt desire or something.
By 'zone' you mean "every zone from 1 - 58", yes?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on June 08, 2010, 07:01:27 AM
I plan on making a goblin warlock and that will be a very trying time for me.  It'll either make or break me playing the rest of the xpac.  I did make it through with a DK, TBC is easy though, WOTLK on the other hand, might break me.

My guess is that they will ripple faster exp gains back down through the older content.  1-60 will be even faster and perhaps have even more content to fill in the old gaps like they did with Mudsprocket, etc.  61-70 will be like 1-60 is now.  71-80 will be like 61-70 is now.  I'm predicting 80-85 will take as long as 71-80 did at WotLK release, which wasn't all that long IMO.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 08, 2010, 07:36:53 AM
You're all killing me here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on June 08, 2010, 12:50:54 PM
The Goblin population will dwindle down to gnome territory once people use up the new Cata leveling content.
Is that a short joke?
I think that's stretching it.
you're reaching

Enough small talk; let's get down to business already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on June 08, 2010, 01:01:29 PM
The Goblin population will dwindle down to gnome territory once people use up the new Cata leveling content.
Is that a short joke?
I think that's stretching it.
you're reaching

Enough small talk; let's get down to business already.
Yes, enough belittling, this topic is important!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 08, 2010, 05:23:02 PM
You guys are being silly.  You must be high on something.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on June 08, 2010, 06:36:14 PM
The Goblin population will dwindle down to gnome territory once people use up the new Cata leveling content.
Is that a short joke?
I think that's stretching it.
you're reaching

Enough small talk; let's get down to business already.
Yes, enough belittling, this topic is important!
And that's no understatement.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 09, 2010, 06:32:38 PM
Official talent previews at : http://www.mmo-champion.com/

Only Druid, Priest, Rogue, and Shaman.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on June 09, 2010, 06:44:27 PM
What happened to the getting away from talents that just increase things by percentages? 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 09, 2010, 06:58:15 PM
The Balance tree has most of those streamlined and removed, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the others really.

mmo-champ has an actual talent calc up for the new talents now as well, if anyone is having issues digesting the raw text.


-edit-

http://cata.wowhead.com/talent Wowhead has one too now, less buggy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 09, 2010, 07:52:55 PM
shadow tree is a joke, it's the same damned thing.  Again, what happened to having mostly 'fun' talents?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 09, 2010, 08:14:15 PM
Improved Holy Nova!  YEAH :drill:!!!

Seriously though, the Discipline tree is also pretty much the same.  Some talents were moved around and they added some Smite-related stuff, but it's all basically the same.

Holy got some new stuff, but I'm not sure if any of its any good...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 09, 2010, 08:30:02 PM
shadow tree is a joke, it's the same damned thing.  Again, what happened to having mostly 'fun' talents?
'

It ran smack into the reality of "we still need to have 75 points worth of talents"  because they're not going to reduce the total pool point. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on June 09, 2010, 08:46:11 PM
NOM NOM NOM!!!

 :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on June 09, 2010, 09:00:43 PM
Theh shaman tree....man, that's some sucktastic shit right there. They'd better come up with something better than that crap for the so-called elemental expansion. Christ on a crutch.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on June 09, 2010, 09:10:30 PM
I'm becoming less and less impressed with all the supposed 'changes'.  At this rate, I'll just go with Clone Wars, Guild Wars 2, and whatever else releases this fall then pick up Cataclysm when I'm bored.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on June 09, 2010, 09:18:03 PM
Frozen Power under the Enhancement tree makes it all worth it.  I might be able to go back to Enhancement now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on June 09, 2010, 09:23:01 PM
Totemic Vigor?  Increase the health of your totems by 3% of your total health?  WTF kind of talent is that besides useless?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 09, 2010, 09:28:28 PM
It goes up to 10% at max rank.  Having 2-3k health on your totems instead of them being wand fodder seems pretty nice for PvP.

The Feral tree has completely burst at the seams though, it's ridiculous.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 09, 2010, 10:24:30 PM
Frozen Power under the Enhancement tree makes it all worth it.  I might be able to go back to Enhancement now.


Umm... it's always been in the Enhancement tree?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on June 09, 2010, 10:26:02 PM
I'm pretty pumped about the Disc changes, myself. If healing has enough low-key moments in Cataclysm to make smiting a few times every so often then popping some empowered Penance on someone who needs healing something you just do over the normal course of things, then it looks pretty damn fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on June 09, 2010, 10:54:53 PM
shadow tree is a joke, it's the same damned thing.  Again, what happened to having mostly 'fun' talents?

Seriously? I thought I had opened a current calculator. Weren't we done with Shadow Weaving? Lost all utility to get a moonkin/elemental shaman aura? And wth did they do with twisted faith!? I thought spirit was a healer stat now? And it's so great they made dispersion more than a situational ability....  :oh_i_see:

Oh and can I add a WTF to the disc tree too, I can't get down below Inner Focus without taking some smite talents, or something equally useless. Seriously? Why is mental agility so deep? ARGH SO DISAPOINTED.

The more I look at it, the more I feel like I need to level that Hunter I abandoned :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 09, 2010, 11:15:16 PM
Why do you hate on free smite awesomeness?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on June 09, 2010, 11:44:12 PM
Shaman resto has one of its "boring" talents swapped for something more interesting (incidentally, "interesting" is the only way to describe it); aside from a new PvP thing and a water shield nerf the rest of the tree is exactly the same. The new talent, assuming people use it at all, actually decreases our talent flexibility because it will also force us to spend a point in Shamanistic Focus. Cool.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 10, 2010, 12:00:20 AM
I thought spirit was a healer stat now?

It is, but since Balance Druids and Elemental Shamans will use "Healer gear" (i.e. Spirit and no Hit) they get a Spirit -> Hit talent.  Their versions, Balance of Power and Elemental Precision, are 100% Spirit -> Hit.

Shadow Priests only get 20% Spirit -> Hit presumably because they have access to proper DPS gear.  I'd be interested to see if Mages and Warlocks get a 20% talent as well so they can get in on Spirit items should they need to or if it's just to help Disc/Holy Priests get some Hit in their off-specs.

Also, I'm pretty sure Archangel is an ability and not an Ebon Plague-style rename and so I'm kind of curious about the cooldown.  Unless we see a huge increase in Base Mana (or Smite's cost) relative to actual Mana pools, at very reasonable values of Max Mana casting five Smites and using Archangel would be a net mana gain (on top of a +15% Healing buff and on-the-move Penance for 18 seconds).

Assuming my understanding of the talents and math involved is all correct (which it probably isn't :awesome_for_real:), it probably isn't good enough to warrant taking a lot other of Smite-related talents, but it's certainly an interesting mechanic.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on June 10, 2010, 01:01:52 AM
I read Archangel as giving only 3% of your total mana back, while the bonus % to healing done is per stack of Evangelism. Getting back 15% of your total mana every 15 seconds (which is what MMO-Champion has the Archangel cooldown listed as) through casting Smites that will probably be sub-10% base mana per cast seems a wee bit much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on June 10, 2010, 01:04:14 AM
That's all well and good but unless smite turns into a disc spell I can't use it in shadow form.

Even if it does, what's the niche for such a spell and how is it different from mindspike. I wouldn't be whining so much if it wasn't for thay 100% complete comment.

edit: It keeps on getting better. I just noticed we lost the threat reduction component of Shadow Form. I'm currently spec'd into shadow affinity (30% more) and I'm fighting with our fury warrior for first spot below the tanks on most fights.

On the bright side apparently our aura buff will be changing to 5% haste.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 10, 2010, 06:44:07 AM
What happened to the getting away from talents that just increase things by percentages? 

Come on, you know that was gonna be horseshit. Look at the feral tree, it's pretty much only percentages.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on June 10, 2010, 08:04:42 AM
They really don't know what to do with Shadow Priests, do they? They created this wonderful little monster and then set it out into the wild, neglected it for years and they have no idea what makes it work.

No Imp. Spirit Tap, which is vital for Mana control.
Mind Melt looks like it has been sabotaged.
Unless the Shadowform tool-tip is just missing half the information, it has been decimated.
Imp. Shadowform has been split into two talents now - you require 'Dark Thoughts' now to receive pushback protection, swapped out for a crit chance buff to party members - nice enough, but hardly anything to be excited about having a SPriest along to the raid.
Twisted Faith now boosts spell hit by 20% instead of spell power? wat?! Is this just me being confused by the simplification of the stats?

I still don't know how Shadow Orbs are going to play, and this 'Shadowy Apparition' dealy seems laughably underpowered for its cost (3 points for a 6% chance to do 15% of Mind Blast's damage?  :uhrr: the 'while moving' addendum makes it slightly more interesting, but it's still a farce)

The Disc tree has now become very problematic for Shadow Priests in that it is impossible to get to Mental Agility without wasting several points and even then, it's likely you won't have enough points left to max it out.


Not pleased right now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 10, 2010, 08:38:44 AM
Shadowy Apparition looks pretty good to me - a 6% chance on every SW:P tick will go off reasonably often, but it's the 20% chance to go off while you're moving that's nice.

EDIT: Also don't use current mana use/management as a basis to judge any of this, all that crap is changing enough in the expansion to make what we know about how it currently works essentially pointless.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on June 10, 2010, 08:54:30 AM
wat?! Is this just me being confused by the simplification of the stats?


If I remember correctly, there is no such thing as spell power in Cataclysm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on June 10, 2010, 09:37:14 AM
wat?! Is this just me being confused by the simplification of the stats?


If I remember correctly, there is no such thing as spell power in Cataclysm.
Not quite. Spellpower will continue to exist, but it will not show up on gear aside from weapons. It will still show up as a stat you look at and has a number beside it on your character sheet, but I dunno how gemming will work for it. It's just that, if I remember, Int converts to spellpower and Spirit is supposed to be The Mana Regen Stat. That's why Shaman and Priests get talents to convert Spirit into +hit rather than raw spellpower.

Also, apparently there is going to be no DPS caster mail (i.e. mail with int, spirit, and +hit on it) in Cataclysm, so Resto and Elemental Shaman will share the exact same gear, only Elemental will have a talent to convert 100% of their Spirit into +hit, as opposed to SPriests who only convert 20%, since they will be sharing +hit gear with Warlocks and Mages.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 10, 2010, 10:01:26 AM
There will also be no DPS caster leather.

The rogue changes seem pretty odd to me; most of it just move low tier talents further down the trees: Blood spatter is now deep in subtlety, Puncturing Wounds moved down one tier so we HAVE to take Remorseless Attacks now, Imp Gouge moved way deep in combat, etc. And some of the new talents just strike me as absurd and useless: Murderous Intent, a Backstab skill, deep in Assassination which was and remains Mutilate focused. Thanks guys.

Because of this, and the fact that all of the good new talents are in the last 2 tiers of the trees, we're now very bottom heavy. To the point that getting a 21p in another tree and still having a viable build is looking pretty difficult. And there are still places where you have to take worthless talents to advance deeper into the tree (Assassination specifically here): 2p after Ruthlessness, 2p after Overkill, 2p after Focused Attacks. Then you have 15p of useful talents in the next two tiers.  :uhrr: You could probably run CttC at 3p and keep your SnD up, which still doesn't leave you with room to get anything more than you could before: DWS, Percision, Relentless Strikes, and Opportunity are all still pretty mandatory, leaving you with 4p to play with. Dropping 2 of either of those 4 talents to get you a 21p in a tree would also probably gimp your build, despite being more fun.

The subtlety tree suffers from similar problems: way too many 5p and 3p mandatory DPS talents in the lower tiers; it's actually got some cool stuff in it (Cheat Death and Enveloping shadows which aren't new, but are still awesome) but you can't get them without gimping your DPS.

I really hope this is just the "add new shit" revision, with the "remove bloated +%dps talents" still to come, because otherwise color me unimpressed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on June 10, 2010, 10:06:01 AM
Frozen Power under the Enhancement tree makes it all worth it.  I might be able to go back to Enhancement now.

As was mentioned, it's always been there. My PvP specced prot pally was so impressed with it, she squashed the cow e-shaman using on her in less than 5 seconds. It's a PvP only power and it does have it uses, but it's also a known quantity.

My real complaint is this stuff is what we have already. The new stuff is just more crap we won't have talent points for. Increased life for totems? That's a bad joke. Hell, we can't free up points for increased life on the shaman, much less borderline useless totems. Granted, we're a long ways from release and I"m sure more changes are in the pipeline, but this crap doesn't inspire any sort of enthusiasm for the expansion. Quite the opposite really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on June 10, 2010, 10:16:42 AM
INT will be where Spell Power comes from in Cataclysm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 10, 2010, 12:30:24 PM
The trees are obviously not done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ragnoros on June 10, 2010, 12:36:49 PM
The trees are obviously not done.

Then why give an "Official Preview" of such a bland and uninspiring lack of changes?

Wait a month or two till you have something cool to show us.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 10, 2010, 01:21:35 PM
The trees are obviously not done.

Then why give an "Official Preview" of such a bland and uninspiring lack of changes?

Wait a month or two till you have something cool to show us.

Blizzard obviously wants you to play as feral.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on June 10, 2010, 01:35:57 PM
Seriously... even if I make both of my druid's specs feral, I have a feeling I'll be missing out.  :awesome_for_real:

(I might just do that anyway... the new-and-improved shaman caster specs/spells seem a bit more interesting to me)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 10, 2010, 01:53:58 PM
The trees are obviously not done.

Then why give an "Official Preview" of such a bland and uninspiring lack of changes?

Wait a month or two till you have something cool to show us.


Because they want your feedback?




Also, none of you are Balance druids clearly! Where we are rocking out right now  :drill:


-edit-

Quote
edit: It keeps on getting better. I just noticed we lost the threat reduction component of Shadow Form. I'm currently spec'd into shadow affinity (30% more) and I'm fighting with our fury warrior for first spot below the tanks on most fights.


Anti-Threat talents are going the way of the Dinosaur, Blizzard just had a post on that recently. They are just going to compensate the threat on the tanks probably, or just make DPS do less threat baseline.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 10, 2010, 02:20:45 PM
Anti-Threat talents are going the way of the Dinosaur, Blizzard just had a post on that recently. They are just going to compensate the threat on the tanks probably, or just make DPS do less threat baseline.

Thank god. I have enough to worry about as a tank to not get fucking owned, rather than watching whatever threat-gen combo I should be maximizing so our dumbass druid doesn't crawl right up my ass.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on June 10, 2010, 03:23:18 PM
Quote
edit: It keeps on getting better. I just noticed we lost the threat reduction component of Shadow Form. I'm currently spec'd into shadow affinity (30% more) and I'm fighting with our fury warrior for first spot below the tanks on most fights.

Anti-Threat talents are going the way of the Dinosaur, Blizzard just had a post on that recently. They are just going to compensate the threat on the tanks probably, or just make DPS do less threat baseline.

I don't mind if they want to get rid of anti-threat talents/make tanks generate much more than they do currently, but the Shadow tree still has Shadow Affinity in it, plain as day - still giving the same values. Mixed messages are confusing  :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 10, 2010, 04:55:28 PM
Keep in mind that while previews, these are still Alpha Talents.

A lot of the talents in the trees currently are just there so the actual Alpha Testers can reach the bottom to play the game. They haven't even really started to organize the talents around builds, its more a focus on the individual talents, to see if they even work or not. GC was just commenting on how some of the Alpha Trees currently, you can't get past the 4 tier of the talent tree, because there just aren't enough talents to spec into yet  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on June 10, 2010, 11:01:26 PM
They really don't know what to do with Shadow Priests, do they? They created this wonderful little monster and then set it out into the wild, neglected it for years and they have no idea what makes it work.

No Imp. Spirit Tap, which is vital for Mana control.
Mind Melt looks like it has been sabotaged.
Unless the Shadowform tool-tip is just missing half the information, it has been decimated.
Imp. Shadowform has been split into two talents now - you require 'Dark Thoughts' now to receive pushback protection, swapped out for a crit chance buff to party members - nice enough, but hardly anything to be excited about having a SPriest along to the raid.
Twisted Faith now boosts spell hit by 20% instead of spell power? wat?! Is this just me being confused by the simplification of the stats?

I still don't know how Shadow Orbs are going to play, and this 'Shadowy Apparition' dealy seems laughably underpowered for its cost (3 points for a 6% chance to do 15% of Mind Blast's damage?  :uhrr: the 'while moving' addendum makes it slightly more interesting, but it's still a farce)

The Disc tree has now become very problematic for Shadow Priests in that it is impossible to get to Mental Agility without wasting several points and even then, it's likely you won't have enough points left to max it out.


Not pleased right now.

I was a sad panda yesterday too, but I had some time to think about it. First off this is Alpha, although these talents are most likely making it into beta, there's still time to fix things. Especally keeping in mind we're talking about shadow priests here, I don't think there's a bigger or more active theory crafting community for a single spec. Cataclysm is not WotLK - looking at these with wotlk in mind doesn't really work. There are a lot of things to be giddy about - we get hasted sw:p, we'll most likely get a mind flay glyph to replace t10 4p, we can't clip dots anymore, etc. Mind Spike and Mind Blast have a syngery that we've never had as a class - two mind spikes give you an Instant Mind Blast - which means we now have some movement dps - DP/MB/SW:D and spamming apparitions while moving seems good. Apparitions themselves are free dps, so you shouldn't whine about them - they don't take up GCDs. The aura is either getting replaced by 5% Haste or 5% haste is getting ADDED ON! Did I mentioned the awesome that is the new SW:D? Orbs are kind of wonky right now, but they work nice within our rotation, which will still be the same btw. It's not that bad at all. We just have to wait for beta, so the good folks over at shadowpriest.com can sink their teeth in and fix stuff up for us. Blizzard has a history of listending to them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 11, 2010, 12:40:24 AM
Blizzard won't finalize their mechanics until into beta, and balance changes will continue until after patch day.  They did this with Wrath too, and that worked out well enough that I was left relatively upbeat about almost every class I had access to at that point.  They even talk with people on the Beta forums, though a few of their developers should limit their talking to stuff they know at least as intimately as their players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on June 11, 2010, 04:48:26 AM
I was a sad panda yesterday too, but I had some time to think about it...

Yeah, on reflection and further inspection I'm not quite as unhappy as I was yesterday, bearing in mind I still don't know how Cataclysm's changes affect gameplay and specifically Shadow Priests, who have been notoriously difficult to balance during WotLK and have usually come out under-powered unless in top 25man raid gear. I still think there are a lot of mixed messages being given at this point, and while the Shadowy Apparition is, indeed, free damage, I still feel it is underwhelming for the cost at this point. I'd actually forgotten about Mind Spike so I'll be interested to see how it works, though I suspect it'll take a while to work out where it fits in a rotation with all the haste... SW:D too, which I just rarely ever use if I'm not moving, currently.
The trouble is, nice as some of these talents may turn out to be, if the Disc tree stays as-is to release, it puts a dampener on a lot of the utility Shadow Priests have enjoyed to date.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on June 11, 2010, 10:54:49 AM
Penance while moving  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 11, 2010, 11:17:04 AM
I always wanted to play a dps Disc priest but it was never viable.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on June 11, 2010, 12:55:59 PM
It looks like somebody spent about ten minutes knocking up those talent previews. In the case of enhancement shaman with their upcoming lack of int itemization on gear, those talents won't work at all. They could make the mana costs on a bunch of shaman spells cheaper so that the future enhancement shaman with tiny mana pools can still cast chain lightning (or healing wave if soloing) on a full maelstrom stack but that would also require them to reduce int itemization on zap and heal mail. If they're going to go forward with their stated intent of having fewer sets of gear tied to one specific class/spec combo (removing int itemization from physical dps mail will actually exacerbate this) and less gear sharing between different talent trees on the same character (would suggest making even more shaman-only caster mail) these aren't even close to the final talents.

If this expansion does ship in 2010, popcorn is indicated.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 11, 2010, 04:03:47 PM
You're underestimating how quickly Blizzard can iterate through talent changes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 13, 2010, 02:50:02 AM
http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/1790-World-of-Warcraft-Cataclysm-Press-Tour


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on June 13, 2010, 05:53:04 AM
http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/1790-World-of-Warcraft-Cataclysm-Press-Tour

Hmmm. A fair bit of back-tracking on the more interesting/difficult systems talked about since Blizzcon 09 there. A bit of a shame, really, but I can sort of figure out why they've dropped/altered so much (besides expediency) - the whole Path of the Titans/forced Archeology thing could cause a lot of unintended competition and camping going by standard MMO rules.

Looking forward to seeing Grim Batol/Skywall, though I'm very disappointed to see that the Heroic Classic instances aren't shipping till later patches. On the other hand... 3000 new quests. Bloody hell.

What I'm going to presume by all this is the game is actually going to ship on time.

(hahaha)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 13, 2010, 06:08:39 AM
I honestly don't mind that they've gutted Archeology; it would've made the new low level content camped to fuck by 85s who needed it for raids. The updated VC and SFK getting delayed doesn't bother me much either. 3000 new quests really only seems like a big number if you forget all the new low level content Cata is shipping with; WotLK had 1000 and that was just the DK noob zone and NR.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on June 13, 2010, 06:11:37 AM
I'm glad they dropped the Path of the Titans thing, that sounded just terrible to me from the beginning.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 13, 2010, 06:15:54 AM
No, I expect the cuts are to hit that ship date.  More and more I see the fingers of Activision seeping into Blizzard and aiming for profits & 'must hit' deadlines over fun and polish with the stuff in WoW and SC2 happening.

Archaeology could have been a lot of fun but would have needed extensive playtesting to work out the problems and make it fun.  So it's cut. The reasons being cited for its cut aren't that it wasn't fun or that it was now mandatory for character advancement, only that it was complicated and felt like the glyph system.

Heroics aren't in? It's that hard to upscale the mob levels on existing instances and retool the loot stats?  I'll expect them to go the way of custom dancing emotes in WOTLK right now. (Anyone remember that?)  Quietly forgotten after all the hype of launch and other raids are thrown at the playerbase.

I still expect the "same loot in 25/10s" to cause too many problems.  Even though you can "downshift" a raid, you can't reform it.  I understand the reasoning, but it means that you're now faced with a dilemma. You either do not raid certain nights (causing raider atrophy) or you find yourself constantly doing 10s after the first night or two, making people wonder why they're bothering with your "25-man" guild.  This is going to put a LOT more pressure on Officers of those 25-man guilds to lower recruiting standards so they can always field that 25m team.

The guild advancement & currency changes make sense, but the reasons they give over on wowhead are iffy.  "We couldn't decide who does the talents, can you respec, who pays, do you min/ max so that all guilds 'feel' the same?"   Really? That's the reasons you didn't do it?  They're not all hand-wringy about only the Guild Master being able to /gdisband why be so over talent picking?  Of course there's respecs and they come out of, oh I dunno, maybe the Guild Bank gold pool you implemented.  As for the min/maxing.. again, no such hand wringing about each class's spec at high-end being a cookie cutter of each other.

Something stinks here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on June 13, 2010, 06:31:03 AM
No, I expect the cuts are to hit that ship date.  More and more I see the fingers of Activision seeping into Blizzard and aiming for profits & 'must hit' deadlines over fun and polish with the stuff in WoW and SC2 happening.


Something stinks here.

Umm, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Blizzard, but this is exactly how they build their games. The amount of stuff that has been cut from every single game they have ever released is astonishing - they even cut two full races from WC3. It's how they get that polish - if stuff isn't fun after a certain while, it gets cut. Every game they've released since Warcraft 1 had significant cuts to content and planned design in order to streamline it and focus in on what works instead of trying to patch up what doesn't.

I know Bobby Kotick is supposed to be the emissary of Satan and all, but in this case he'd need a time machine in order to stop Blizzard cutting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 13, 2010, 07:25:43 AM
Never mind features, they've killed at least two games because they weren't working out - and one of those was even after basically trying to rebuild it halfway through development as well.

Oh, and Archaeology isn't completely gone - just AAs The Path of the Titans.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Drubear on June 13, 2010, 08:33:50 AM
Is there that much of a problem with 2 (3?) 10's happening one night and then picking up again as a 25 next raid night? They wrote that you could join any raid as long as you weren't "ahead" so if your 10's A team kills extra, just let them form up a 25 and let your 10's B team join up and keep going as a 25.

Or am I missing something?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 13, 2010, 12:12:21 PM
I'm glad they dropped the Path of the Titans thing, that sounded just terrible to me from the beginning.

Yeah, that was one of the things I was sort of nervous about. I'm glad archeology is going to be "thing to do for the hell of it" like fishing instead of the "this might sort of wind up mandatory" thing.

I don't mind SFK/Deadmines being pushed off to a patch. I love those instances and I am glad they decided to heroic them, but they're not going to be high on my list of instances to do when I hit 85, you know? I want brand new shit for a while at 85.

I think a lot of the 10/25 fussing is overreacting still, mostly because it sounds like it's going to be a lot of short raids rather than Ulduar-type slogs that are cool but man you don't want to try and squeeze that into one night. I just really can't get too upset about the zomgsharedlockout even if they DO have long raids, it's the way it's always worked for the people who only did 10 mans, and we all still manage to not kill ourselves in despair.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 13, 2010, 12:32:34 PM
The "heroic" Deadmines and Shadowfang aren't going to be just upscaled to 85 versions of the regular ones, from what they told us at Blizzcon last year. They're going to have entirely new fights, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 13, 2010, 12:34:08 PM
Is there that much of a problem with 2 (3?) 10's happening one night and then picking up again as a 25 next raid night? They wrote that you could join any raid as long as you weren't "ahead" so if your 10's A team kills extra, just let them form up a 25 and let your 10's B team join up and keep going as a 25.

Or am I missing something?

Here's the full raid section on Wowhead (source (http://www.wowhead.com/blog=159674)):

Quote
10-Mans and 25-Mans
You guys already know that Blizzard is planning to consolidate 10-man and 25-man raiding into less of a difficulty setting and more of a playstyle choice. This means that 10-man and 25-man encounters will be designed to have roughly the same difficulty level, and will drop items from the same loot table. To compensate for the additional logistical hassle of getting 25 players online rather than 10, Blizzard will be giving out more loot per player in 25-mans—specifically, about 50% more. It was strongly hinted that this extra loot would come in the form of Emblems.

What they hadn't announced previously is the ability to "downshift" your raid. Imagine if you do a 25-man run of a new instance, get about halfway through, and call it a night. The next day you get back together to do another run, but—big surprise—only 20 people show up. Well, now you can "downshift" your raid into two separate 10-man groups, and just keep right on going. The maximum number of 10-mans you can make out of one 25-man is three—meaning, if the remaining five guys show up the next day, they can swap down to a 10-man as well and keep right on going.

Blizzard is not allowing players to "upshift". They explained that they felt this would cause a lot of pressure on guild to pull some really unpleasant maneuvers—for instance, stripping out the bottom 15 players to do some particularly difficult encounter, and then inviting them all back in for trash. They figured the legitimate use-cases for upshifting a raid were much more rare.
Raid Lockouts
Here's another big change—they've added a great deal of flexibility to raid lockouts. Rather than being locked into a particular raid ID, you can now join any raid, as long as it doesn't have any bosses up that you have already killed. Basically, as long as you're not killing the same boss twice in one lockout period—you have total freedom.

So, the 25-man raid lockout essentially ceases to be once it's split into as many as three 10-man lockouts.

Presumably, your raid could start doing 25-mans again, but only if steal another group's lockout that is farther along than any of your 10-man groups.  Now, that might not even work because of this change to IDs and you may be "stuck" doing 10-man for the rest of the week because you've been in a 10-man raid.

On top of that, 50% more per player is 3.75x the loot in a 25-man over a 10-man.  That's quite a lot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on June 13, 2010, 01:48:37 PM
A bit of new race early-going info at this link (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/64249).

:uhrr: At the new vehicle tricks, but the goblin starting zone sounds nuts.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 13, 2010, 03:59:00 PM
 :heart: goblins  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 13, 2010, 11:32:34 PM
Gasoline fight!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on June 14, 2010, 12:01:15 AM
I'm trying to talk some of my guildies to go Horde, because I wanna play a Goblin so bad.   :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 14, 2010, 01:01:15 AM
arrgagrgargagrggrgar


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 14, 2010, 04:01:15 AM
I'm trying to talk some of my guildies to go Horde, because I wanna play a Goblin so bad.   :drill:

I'm trying to convince some of my guildies NOT to go Alliance, because they want to roll Worgen, whereas I'm entirely uninterested and will be levelling a goblin army. Solo if I have to, dammit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on June 14, 2010, 05:25:09 AM
I would never play anything different from female space goat! Blue or bust!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2010, 07:11:51 AM
I'm trying to convince some of my guildies NOT to go Alliance, because they want to roll Worgen, whereas I'm entirely uninterested and will be levelling a goblin army. Solo if I have to, dammit.

Anybody that's that active in seeking out a Worgen, so much so that they will switch server sides, is probably best left alone. I can't imagine wanting to play that race. I can very much understand wanting to play Goblins since they were part of the original games and lore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 14, 2010, 08:43:07 AM
I hear ya. Yeah, it worries me! Are my friends closet furries?  :ye_gods:  One of them is currently playing ST:O so it's only a few short steps down the geek hierarchy....


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on June 14, 2010, 09:38:25 AM
I would never play anything different from female space goat! Blue or bust!

In your case, that's blue AND bust!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 14, 2010, 10:24:44 AM
I'm trying to convince some of my guildies NOT to go Alliance, because they want to roll Worgen, whereas I'm entirely uninterested and will be levelling a goblin army. Solo if I have to, dammit.

Anybody that's that active in seeking out a Worgen, so much so that they will switch server sides, is probably best left alone. I can't imagine wanting to play that race. I can very much understand wanting to play Goblins since they were part of the original games and lore.

I can see wanting to play Worgens well enough, I cannot see ditching the Horde for it, though. I want to play the fuck out of goblins, but I know I won't REALLY switch from primary-Alliance to do it. Tempting as it is.

Oh God, so tempting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 14, 2010, 12:34:35 PM
Oh God, so tempting.

Come to the green side.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on June 14, 2010, 01:49:41 PM
I want to play both (and not give up my Draenei).  I don't have time for my existing alts as is. :cry2:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 14, 2010, 03:27:00 PM
I keep going back and forth over who my Cataclysm main will be, too. THIS EXPANSION IS FULL OF STRESS OMG


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on June 14, 2010, 06:25:16 PM
I know, it's made difficult by there being so many classes that a goblin can be.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 14, 2010, 08:22:16 PM
Ha! It's true.   :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on June 16, 2010, 11:48:52 AM
I keep going back and forth over who my Cataclysm main will be, too. THIS EXPANSION IS FULL OF STRESS OMG
Shaman!  Beatings, my Orc Shaman will contract a horrible disease that will shrink his body!  Beatings the Goblin Shaman!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 16, 2010, 11:50:34 AM
I keep going back and forth over who my Cataclysm main will be, too. THIS EXPANSION IS FULL OF STRESS OMG
Shaman!  Beatings, my Orc Shaman will contract a horrible disease that will shrink his body!  Beatings the Goblin Shaman!

I find myself wondering how long it will be before they open up re-racing to the new races. I am pretty sure they said it won't be available day 1.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on June 16, 2010, 12:14:56 PM
Yeah, I'm curious too... (my orc warlock is definitely about to contract a goblinification virus :awesome_for_real:) I think I read in a recent blue post that they aren't restricting goblins and worgens from rolling DKs, so what could be the harm in allowing 25 extra levels for new gobbos? C'mon Blizz, I got what you need! ($$$)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 16, 2010, 12:23:38 PM
Quote
I Had It in My Hand. - Find a Rare Artifact.
What was Briefly Yours is Now Mine. - Find rare artifacts of the following races: Dwarf, Troll, Night Elf, Orc, Draenei
It Belongs in a Museum! - Find every rare artifact. Yes every one. Stop whining.
:-)

New alpha patch, btw.
Oh, and pygmy voices are the best. THE. BEST. Worgen? Not so much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 16, 2010, 12:58:21 PM
I keep going back and forth over who my Cataclysm main will be, too. THIS EXPANSION IS FULL OF STRESS OMG
Shaman!  Beatings, my Orc Shaman will contract a horrible disease that will shrink his body!  Beatings the Goblin Shaman!

Depending on how much I like the paladin changes, I might actually re-main-ify her. But I like my DK! And my druid! Augh!


At least I know what ROLE I want to play, which is tank. And we already have two warrior tanks in the guild, so I can strike poor Sjofn the Dwarf Warrior (I love her so much but she's so redundant :((((( ) but other than that I CAN'T DECIDE WAAAAAAAAH


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 16, 2010, 01:21:48 PM
Yeah, I'm curious too... (my orc warlock is definitely about to contract a goblinification virus :awesome_for_real:) I think I read in a recent blue post that they aren't restricting goblins and worgens from rolling DKs, so what could be the harm in allowing 25 extra levels for new gobbos? C'mon Blizz, I got what you need! ($$$)

Depends if they're doing server first feats of strength for the new race/class combos I guess.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on June 16, 2010, 01:27:19 PM
Yeah, the realm-first thing was why I thought they'd prevent that, but this post gave me some hope - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25026666097&pageNo=8&sid=1#147
Quote
We weren't going to prevent goblin or worgen DKs from day one. The realm first feats are cool, but I'm not sure we should let them dictate what classes people can and can't play. The entire realm first thing is over in a day or two anyway.

The thread implies you guys heard something different though, possibly from the recent press event.
I mean, it's $$ for Blizz and people get goblins, what could possibly go wrong?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Righ on June 16, 2010, 03:20:15 PM
At least I know what ROLE I want to play, which is tank. And we already have two warrior tanks in the guild, so I can strike poor Sjofn the Dwarf Warrior (I love her so much but she's so redundant :((((( ) but other than that I CAN'T DECIDE WAAAAAAAAH

That's easy - death knight. Goblins can't be paladins or druids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 17, 2010, 01:20:58 AM
Ingmar is going to shoot you with MIND BULLETS.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on June 18, 2010, 07:40:45 AM
Got some time on the internet to dick around, and 'holy shit', I find, new cataclysm talents released (for my class anyways). Fucking sweet. Then I get to read them.

Jesus Christ these things suck! making all talents new and exciting my ass! For my main's spec (Feral Tank), there is one new move, and a whole lot of nothing. And no new 'end tier' (like mangle was for BC, and Berserk for LK)?! Plus, with the five new talents we get we have to spec deeper into the Resto tree! (I apologize to any non ferals, and especially any non druids here) Fuck you Blizzard. With these shit ass talents, and the removal of a whole lot of new stuff (like Path of Titans, and no Heroic SFK and Deadmines right away), this xpac is looking weaker and weaker IMO.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 18, 2010, 07:42:27 AM
Yes.  It is.

What did you expect ?

You can't keep this level of excitement about doling out the same thing time after time.  Welcome to marriage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on June 18, 2010, 07:45:47 AM
Fair enough. But all my married friends bitch about their lives endlessly, so I get to as well!!!  :mob:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 18, 2010, 07:48:37 AM
All I'm able to say is ;  I remember the first time I played WoW and how blown away I was.  I'm not looking forward to this expansion at all.

I think it's done.

It's still massively succesful, I think, and will carry on for YEARS, but I'm pretty much done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 18, 2010, 08:43:29 AM
All I'm able to say is ;  I remember the first time I played WoW and how blown away I was.  I'm not looking forward to this expansion at all.

I think it's done.

It's still massively succesful, I think, and will carry on for YEARS, but I'm pretty much done.


I believe you are bloodworthing comments from the burning crusade thread now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 18, 2010, 08:46:47 AM
I've been done for a while (as being a long term player).  Every time I got back to have some fun I stay for a shorter and shorter amount of time.  The new design direction with WOTLK and badges increase my churn rate significantly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 18, 2010, 09:24:39 AM
All I'm able to say is ;  I remember the first time I played WoW and how blown away I was.  I'm not looking forward to this expansion at all.

I think it's done.

It's still massively succesful, I think, and will carry on for YEARS, but I'm pretty much done.


I believe you are bloodworthing comments from the burning crusade thread now.


Not for me, I don't think.  I don't remember feeling like this for BC.

Anyway, the circumstances are different for me this time.  It just seems so....meh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on June 18, 2010, 09:30:36 AM
I need to see the new zone designs and such, but overall I'm very meh about the expansion. I was hoping for something more interesting with the talent reworking. This just feels like the same thing, with 5 more points to use.

edit: Maybe this lack of amazing changes means their best people were moved to Diablo, and we'll be seeing a release this year!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 18, 2010, 09:32:56 AM
Maybe not you and really I'm being more devil's advocate that fanboy here but every time blizzard does something there's always someone saying "this game is dead, I quit"  after after the 100th or so time you just get tired of hearing it.   Of course there will be a point where subs drop off or even shrink but to call anything with over a million subs dead is ludicrous.

Wow has become this thing, this cultural monster that not going anywhere. Even if the next expansion realised the pony race for horde and kitten race for alliance they'd still have the most subs ever.


Every online game does things people don't like, and inevitably forums get clogged up with "yeah me too" posts decrying the games end and how much it is 'the suck' it's just that it sounds more like people calling a super model a butterface just because they can.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 18, 2010, 09:42:51 AM
Um, I specifically didn't say that, though.  I don't think it'll be badly recieved at all, nor will it mean suddenly millions of players will give up in disgust.

It just doesn't have that 'new shiny' thing for me.  It seems really, really not enough.  Hell, there's not even another hero class.  And, once you get over 'oo, Goblins and wolves' you realise you've just been fooled into running another char up to 85.

Wow.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 18, 2010, 09:50:24 AM
I'm only excited about the new leveling areas.  I've accepted that I dislike the raid system in this game and really like the leveling part.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 18, 2010, 10:25:07 AM
That was only the first talent pass, I'm sure things will change more.

Time for a little cognitive dissonance I have with people who complain about the new talent trees, especially the lack of a new button to push. At this point I don't really understand why people *want* more stuff to clog up their bars. The classes and specs are mostly quite deep now, adding anything without taking something else away is just not at all what I want.

Things like devastate replacing sunder armor, or heart strike replacing blood strike = good. Adding an entirely new button that I have to find a bar/bind for = not good.

It seems really, really not enough.  Hell, there's not even another hero class.  And, once you get over 'oo, Goblins and wolves' you realise you've just been fooled into running another char up to 85.

If you're a person who likes the endgame (PVP or PVE), you'll get to it quicker and the amount of endgame content in Cataclysm should be about the same as in Lich King, it looks like. If you're a person who likes leveling alts, you just got the biggest present of your entire (WoW) life, the biggest single chunk of content in WoW, the 1-60 quest stuff, is being completely rewritten, plus all the new combos etc. etc.

If you're not in either of those categories... what is it that you actually want from the expansion? If it is new classes I personally wouldn't be holding my breath for ever seeing another one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on June 18, 2010, 10:32:47 AM
I looked forward to TBC. I learned to fear change after that (warrior then...god it sucked). Since then, I dread every major change. I was very wary of LK when it shipped. I was pleasently surprised by how it turned out overall. There are a variety of things in it that I don't care for, but overall I've enjoyed it.

Now Cataclysm...again, I'm living in dread. The shaman stuff we've seen so far is clownshoes. I haven't really looked at warrior, pally, or DK stuff, but it's all going to change more so I'm not too worked up over it...yet. I'm hopeful for the raiding changes. On the surface, they look to benefit me, personally. The rest of you on are your own. Again, we won't know until much, much closer to launch. If it turns out to be enough fun, I'll be around for another two years. If not, then...well...I'll find something else to do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 18, 2010, 10:33:01 AM
Much more sensible to wait and see for yourself, I suppose.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 18, 2010, 11:18:27 AM
Honestly I'm more excited about Cata than any other xpac since. The fact that they're making it so you only have to run 10ms alone will make my WoW experience much better. Playing a goblin is going to be awesome as well, and they're redoing the part of the game that I hated the most (Vanilla).

Regarding talent trees, they stated a while ago that they weren't adding a new tier of talents in Cata (and thus, no new click skill). The ones they've shown so far are obviously not done, but I don't think anyone should get so up in arms because the changes aren't BIG enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on June 18, 2010, 12:01:15 PM
That was only the first talent pass, I'm sure things will change more.

Time for a little cognitive dissonance I have with people who complain about the new talent trees, especially the lack of a new button to push. At this point I don't really understand why people *want* more stuff to clog up their bars. The classes and specs are mostly quite deep now, adding anything without taking something else away is just not at all what I want.

Things like devastate replacing sunder armor, or heart strike replacing blood strike = good. Adding an entirely new button that I have to find a bar/bind for = not good.

Depend a lot on how they impliment that new button.  The new feral bear one (Pulverize?) is a good implimentation.  Now, we will actually have a distinct single target and multi target rotation.  Our current Single target rotation is just FF / Mangle when off cooldown, stack lacerate to 5 then lacerate every 12 seconds, and swipe like a madman whenever there isnt another buton to push (have maul macroed to EVERYTHING).  Current Multi Target rotation is exactly the same, except you throw in a Tab after every other button press.

Pulversze will probably see us dropping swipe entirely from a sigle target rotation in favour of a Lacerate to 5, Pulverize, repeat in ten second intervals kind of process


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 18, 2010, 12:14:00 PM
The new implementation of maul pretty much counts as an additional button as well I think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 18, 2010, 12:51:42 PM
The hunters are the only class that seem to really get behind the YAY NO NEW BUTTONS thing. Like there were some people who were all "where's our new stuff :( " and they promptly got told to shut up by the gazillion other hunters. It amused the shit out of me.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 18, 2010, 12:53:57 PM
I'm going to play a Warlock.  I havn't played one since vanilla and there will be lots of new there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 18, 2010, 01:27:28 PM
Hunters are getting an entirely new mechanic though, which makes up for the lack of new buttons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 18, 2010, 01:35:33 PM
My Moonkin is getting desperately needed new buttons!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on June 18, 2010, 01:47:52 PM
I'm ok with no new damage/mitigation/healing abilities.  I'm disappointed that we're continuing to see "increase damage/mitigation/healing from x by y%" in the trees.  I expected there to still be some, but I didn't expect that there would still be most.

I expected more stuff like "increase your run speed by X for 5 seconds after you cast Y", or "shoot butterflies out of your ass when you cast Z".  More fun stuff.  Not a reshuffling of stuff with very little new flavor.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 18, 2010, 01:55:17 PM
Hunters are getting an entirely new mechanic though, which makes up for the lack of new buttons.

They don't want new buttons is my point. Because they already have a billion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 18, 2010, 02:35:34 PM
Ahh, fair enough; I'm just projecting then. Hunter was my main in Vanilla but haven't really played once since, and I'm looking forward to them now that they won't have mana.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 18, 2010, 03:02:32 PM
All I'm able to say is ;  I remember the first time I played WoW and how blown away I was.  I'm not looking forward to this expansion at all.

I think it's done.

It's still massively succesful, I think, and will carry on for YEARS, but I'm pretty much done.


Welcome to my side of the fence.  The grass is brown here but I find I'm getting a lot more work done on things people will still go "oh, nice!" about 10 years from now.  I blame getting older.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on June 18, 2010, 07:04:57 PM
The hunters are the only class that seem to really get behind the YAY NO NEW BUTTONS thing. Like there were some people who were all "where's our new stuff :( " and they promptly got told to shut up by the gazillion other hunters. It amused the shit out of me.  :heart:

Warlocks also seem to be in the "you gave us new spells. Uh, thanks? Hey, could you spell out EXACTLY what we are intended to do with this, because I think we currently have a button for everything" camp

Though I do think every Lich King raid boss is designed to have a run around phase JUST long enough for all your stacks of things to fall off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on June 18, 2010, 10:48:40 PM
All I'm able to say is ;  I remember the first time I played WoW and how blown away I was.  I'm not looking forward to this expansion at all.

I think it's done.

It's still massively succesful, I think, and will carry on for YEARS, but I'm pretty much done.


I started to feel this way about Wrath. Momentum from being in a guild kept me going. I haven't played in a while, and have little enthusiasm for Cata. I've played the damn thing since release. I can't blame Blizz for anything except keeping me entertained for years with WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 18, 2010, 10:55:12 PM
Hell, I'm not throwing blame around.  It's entirely possible that they could redesign the whole thing with nothing but fun puppies and I'd still say 'meh'.

The hunter Focus thing is cool, but I'd imagine it'd get really confusing to figure out what's what at first. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 19, 2010, 08:07:50 AM
Hell, I'm not throwing blame around.  It's entirely possible that they could redesign the whole thing with nothing but fun puppies and I'd still say 'meh'.

The hunter Focus thing is cool, but I'd imagine it'd get really confusing to figure out what's what at first. 

I've stopped playing except for two hours on Sundays. I never have the desire to do a 25 man ever again now, and I barely have the desire to show up for the last part of a 10 man that's way over-geared trying to get a kill on the Lich King.

I will say that I'm happy we will see the death of 25 mans for the casuals in Cataclysm, and we get some fun revamps. However, I don't level alts, and I'm questioning the need to bother with the expansion if the whole point was revamping lands for lower levels.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 19, 2010, 11:37:10 AM
I suspect the "I don't level alts" crowd is down to like. Four people at this point.

I am curious, though. Why don't you have any alts at all? Do you love whatever you've been playing just that much? And when you say you don't level alts, does that mean you've not ever gotten past X level with an alt, or do you seriously have nothing but your main (and maybe some bank alts) or what? I ask because I only know one other person who honestly doesn't have any alts at all and I find it sort of fascinating.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 19, 2010, 11:41:02 AM
If you don't level alts, don't like the endgame and don't like pvp that's fine, you don't like the game anymore.  Lord knows I got sick of raiding, I'll eventually probably get tired of the game in general. I just dont think that means the game is dying or getting stale, it just means you personally are tired of it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 19, 2010, 11:45:14 AM
I suspect the "I don't level alts" crowd is down to like. Four people at this point.

I am curious, though. Why don't you have any alts at all? Do you love whatever you've been playing just that much? And when you say you don't level alts, does that mean you've not ever gotten past X level with an alt, or do you seriously have nothing but your main (and maybe some bank alts) or what? I ask because I only know one other person who honestly doesn't have any alts at all and I find it sort of fascinating.

I have a full stable of characters. I've tried every class. I got a priest into the 30s, a shaman and hunter into the 20s, and the rest of them into the teens. At some point, I just looked at them and went, "I'm a warrior tank playstyle, this is stupid," and I never picked them up again. I did most of this during the second year of vanilla, then i did a shaman after the first year of BC, then I put two levels into a DK about three months ago.

By "I don't have alts," I mean I don't have a secondary set of characters that have seen daylight after about a weekend of diversion. I should have deleted them all, but I was too lazy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 19, 2010, 12:16:40 PM
So it's the first one, you just wuvvums your main that much. The other guy I know, he hates doing quests. I don't really know why (or how) he stuck with WoW to get ONE character to cap, frankly, but there you have it!

Ditching a class in the teens seems a bit early to me, but if you really love warrior tanking SO MUCH you can't even imagine playing something else, I guess it isn't.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on June 19, 2010, 03:21:28 PM
This one kid (and I do mean kid; he's no older than 15) in my guild has multiple 80s. Absolutely hates questing in any way, shape, or form. For a long time he refused to even do dailies until he found out they were good money. I doubt any character on his account has any achievement for completed quests higher than 500, if that. Apparently the only things he will do to level are running dungeons and battlegrounds.

I suspect that if he were around in vanilla or TBC he'd never have gotten past 30.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 19, 2010, 03:35:23 PM
Battleground wins on BG weekends are the fastest way to level in the game atm.  I went from 77 to 80 in...4 hours of AV this weekend?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 19, 2010, 05:21:46 PM
So it's the first one, you just wuvvums your main that much. The other guy I know, he hates doing quests. I don't really know why (or how) he stuck with WoW to get ONE character to cap, frankly, but there you have it!

Ditching a class in the teens seems a bit early to me, but if you really love warrior tanking SO MUCH you can't even imagine playing something else, I guess it isn't.  :grin:

IMO, since I've been playing from release, it's the only kind of tank we should have.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on June 19, 2010, 05:25:25 PM
Wow.  I just like alts I guess.  I have 7 80's, a 74, and a 70.  I quest like crazy though, I've got multiple Loremasters.  The only class I don't have is a hunter, and that's mostly because every one I run into is a complete drooling retard and I want to avoid the corrupting stench on my own account.

Battleground wins on BG weekends are the fastest way to level in the game atm.  I went from 77 to 80 in...4 hours of AV this weekend?
You must be alliance.  Our AV win rate as Horde is absolutely abyssal on my server\battlegroup.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 19, 2010, 06:41:12 PM
So it's the first one, you just wuvvums your main that much. The other guy I know, he hates doing quests. I don't really know why (or how) he stuck with WoW to get ONE character to cap, frankly, but there you have it!

Ditching a class in the teens seems a bit early to me, but if you really love warrior tanking SO MUCH you can't even imagine playing something else, I guess it isn't.  :grin:

IMO, since I've been playing from release, it's the only kind of tank we should have.  :grin:

I've been playing since release too, and I dispute that nonsense!

I like alts too, Selby, although I only have ... 5 80's? DK, warrior, paladin, druid, hunter? Sure. A couple others that are 70+, but I find myself less motivated to level alts since the dual speccing thing has come in. Yes. Five eighties is "less motivated."  :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 19, 2010, 07:27:10 PM
I'm in the ton of alts category too: I've got DK, Rogue, Mage, Druid, Warrior, and Shaman at 80, Warlock and Pally both in the 70s. A couple of those were powerleveled 1-60 in instances though. Looking forward to Gobbo hunter (and maybe Shaman since I transferred mine to my girlfriend's account) in Cata.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 19, 2010, 08:58:24 PM
I suspect the "I don't level alts" crowd is down to like. Four people at this point.

I am curious, though. Why don't you have any alts at all? Do you love whatever you've been playing just that much? And when you say you don't level alts, does that mean you've not ever gotten past X level with an alt, or do you seriously have nothing but your main (and maybe some bank alts) or what? I ask because I only know one other person who honestly doesn't have any alts at all and I find it sort of fascinating.

I don't level alts.  However when I quit the game and come back I sometimes make a new toon.  But I never play multiple characters at the same time in any meaningful way. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 19, 2010, 09:58:37 PM
IMO, since I've been playing from release, it's the only kind of tank we should have.  :grin:

I've been playing since release too, and I dispute that nonsense!

Do you now? I think, given a free and open choice, every tank would be a warrior. If there weren't already 3-4 other people in the guild/alliance/way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 19, 2010, 10:05:57 PM
lolwut? I've played DK, Warrior and Druid tanks at 80, and pally to the mid 70s, and in all honesty Warrior felt like the worst to play. Their AOE threat generation is both poor and annoying (tab devastate tab devastate) when compared with any of the other 3. DKs have superior cooldowns, while Pallies and Druids both bring more utility to the raid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 19, 2010, 10:36:14 PM
Warrior is a definite second on my list of preferred classes to tank with.  It has a few more toys than a Paladin but I really can't dial into the rotation.

A Paladin's rotation is really just a DPS-style cycle (which some might dislike) and a lot of the tanking debuffs (-Attack Speed, -Attack Power) are put up passively with Judgements instead of having to look at timers for Thunderclap and Demo Shout.

I'll admit that makes it a lot easier to do the basic task of "Sit there and get hit in the face" but I kind of enjoy that.  When I was playing my Warrior I felt like I had to be on top of every proc and timer or everything was going to go terribly wrong.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on June 19, 2010, 10:51:36 PM
When I was playing my Warrior I felt like I had to be on top of every proc and timer or everything was going to go terribly wrong.
Same here.  I switched my warrior to Fury today purely because I got tired of PUGs shitting on me every time something went wrong (usually due to them pulling the next patrol and expecting me with all my abilities on cooldown to pick them up) making running heroics a stressful and un-fun experience.  So I switched to DPS and basically get to sit back and give the middle finger to the rest of the group if I choose.  My DK doesn't have these issues when she tanks and it's so much simpler (still have to be on top of things to manage AoE and whatnot).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 20, 2010, 12:14:06 AM
IMO, since I've been playing from release, it's the only kind of tank we should have.  :grin:

I've been playing since release too, and I dispute that nonsense!

Do you now? I think, given a free and open choice, every tank would be a warrior. If there weren't already 3-4 other people in the guild/alliance/way.

As much as I heart my dwarf warrior, it isn't really my favorite class to tank with, although it might be partly because I'm so out of practice at this point. I have to disagree with DKs being "so much" simpler than warriors, though. Maybe I just suck.  :why_so_serious:

Druids, though. Druids are so awesomely easy to tank with. They're my "taking a break from thinking at all" tank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on June 20, 2010, 12:34:03 AM
IMO, since I've been playing from release, it's the only kind of tank we should have.  :grin:

I've been playing since release too, and I dispute that nonsense!

Do you now? I think, given a free and open choice, every tank would be a warrior. If there weren't already 3-4 other people in the guild/alliance/way.

As much as I heart my dwarf warrior, it isn't really my favorite class to tank with, although it might be partly because I'm so out of practice at this point. I have to disagree with DKs being "so much" simpler than warriors, though. Maybe I just suck.  :why_so_serious:

Druids, though. Druids are so awesomely easy to tank with. They're my "taking a break from thinking at all" tank.
Yep.  I have been leveling a DK tank, and after playing a Druid tank as main through the last 4 tiers of raid content, DK sometimes leaves me confused.  Druids are stupidly easy to tank with.  As long as i have enough rage to hit swipe, aoe tanking is a breeze.  With the DK, I often find myself out of runes when i desperately need one, or half way through a tank "rotation" when something random happens and throws my rhythim completely off.   Druid?  I can practically roll my face across the keyboard, and as long as i have rage, nothing is going to stop me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on June 20, 2010, 05:56:11 AM
As a blood tank, I find it's fairly easy with a DK.  (My own personal stress, freak-out, OMG We're All Going to Die issues aside.)

Death and Decay of course, then I'm glyphed to spread and refresh disease on everything which makes keeping disease up easy.  Heart Strike lets me spread the love and hits hard enough that your primary target isn't going anywhere unless you're majorly outgeared.  Maybe it would change in a raid environment, but all the level 80 heroics are small groups.  If you do lose mobs to groupies who can't assist, you've got two taunts, one of which brings the offender to you, and the knowledge that if DPS can't assist, they deserve to get smacked.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2010, 07:54:02 AM
YMMV, but the rest aren't really tanks to me. They are certainly easier to play as tanks, but their "Hey I just farted, look at me!" or "Grrr swipe swipe swipe swipe" talents make them too simple for my tastes. I like the action of the warrior tank, and the skills it takes to play it well in all situations.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on June 20, 2010, 08:24:54 AM
I prefer playing a protection warrior...when it's just me. In groups, not so much. They're a class that needs to be micro-managed. In PuGs this is a recipe for a headache.

I prefer my paladin when running heroics. The basic attack cycle is essentially a faceroll and that allows me more situational awareness (situation being keeping an eye on any weirdness from the dps).

DK is somewhere in between, but preferred (mostly) for PvP. They do have a lot of flexibility, but that's playing as blood. As frost...there you have the rune cooldown issues, though I love the animation of draenei DW frost DK tanks. Haven't tanked as unholy in about a year and don't plan to start. Blood is just easier to manage overall (although, after the righteous asswhuppin' my prot pally laid on a blood dk the other night in AV, I'm thinking unholy might get me back in that venue...maybe).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 20, 2010, 08:57:39 AM
My prefs are Pally, DK, Warrior.  Never leveled a druid, so I can't comment on their tanking.  I'd bet they'd come in before the Warrior, though.

The class has some nice tools so that I enjoy dinking around with it from time to time.  I can't help thinking when you have to be a macro master or have a UI that looks like a 737 to tank better than "so so" there's a problem.   The Ego of warrior tanks doesn't help, either.

My time with the class and the understanding of how much time it takes to play it very well also explains why the folks I know who have no alts are all warriors.  They always make comments along the lines of; "If you focus on more than one class, you're just going to be terrible at all of them."  Well, if they were all as time and micromanagement intensive as Warriors they'd have a point.   However, the classes aren't and so they don't.  Enjoy that pigeonholing, boyos.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on June 20, 2010, 09:21:10 AM
They always make comments along the lines of; "If you focus on more than one class, you're just going to be terrible at all of them."
Oh please.  I have 4 characters that are all at least 11/12 in ICC (with several LK kills on the main character) and I would hardly consider myself a terrible player.  I like DPSing, tanking, and healing and know how to do them all in heroics and raid environments, sometimes better than other people who only have 1 "main" class they play.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 20, 2010, 10:54:39 AM
The problem with warriors is the kludgy shit left in the class design which isn't looking like it's going to be addressed anytime soon.  Case in point: Spell Reflect requires a macro to be usable by a non-shield using warrior.  Okay, so they just macro it for a quick swap, crisis averted.  Except the players with a high ping, who are doublefucked reaction-speed wise because the spell reflect won't fire off until the client confirms that the shield equip occured at the server.  Likewise for interrupting casts in battle stance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on June 20, 2010, 11:26:19 AM
Yeah, I like warrior finesse (you can do charge-intercept-intervene-to-healer at the start of a pull for extra style points, be sure to have some pinball sounds playing!), but serious tanking / pvp with my ping (600+)? Fuck that noise. Incidentally I found the same thing with arms, it was so GCD hungry / timing-critical that I was really frustrated with it.

Druid tanking is nice and relaxing... the flashy druid tanking moments come from brezzing a healer while tanking (between boss swings / during a cast), innervating (ditto, though not really needed except as a downtime reducer nowadays), using caster-form CC spells and switching into cat to kite/dps at opportune moments. That said, I'm really looking forward to cata druid tanking, pulverize looks interesting at least.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 20, 2010, 11:57:24 AM
Ghostcrawler seems hell-bent on being clueless. (http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/25170615186/warriors-the-truth-part-2-cata/)

Quote
I'm not trying to say that clunkiness is a good cost for an ability. What I am trying to say is that if we just wanted Spell Reflect or whatever to be super easy to use that we would take away the shield requirement or just have it auto-switch to a shield. Being able to pull it off at the right time is the hallmark of a great warrior. If you watch some of these really skilled players play, yeah I'd argue their intuition does seem to border on ESP.
Quote
Quote
What are you going to do differently? I mean, if you designed the gear / warrior abilities with the intention that they were balanced...and they ended up tending to be overpowered on the damage charts, what evidence is there that you can produce balanced gear / warrior abilities?

Normalizing rage for one. Getting rid of armor pen for two. Defining swings as AE or single target for three.

Someone should tell him they never actually rolled back rage normalization.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on June 20, 2010, 12:45:44 PM
Spell reflect was a shitty, shitty idea. It's too powerful to work in 80% of the situations where it would be useful and in the remaining situations it's not defined what it does. Even when using it the feedback isn't very helpful (if it works at all, if it just negates the damage done, if the spell reflects and the mob is immune or if the spell *actually* reflects like it says in the tin.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on June 20, 2010, 01:19:20 PM
The best use of spell reflect was 1-shotting wannabe ganker POM pyro mages in BC.  :awesome_for_real:

In pvp it actually works pretty well (reflecting CCs can be pretty clutch... if you have less than 100 ping), but I agree it is not a good ability in pve (I just use it as a ghetto grounding totem when tanking and I have tons of excess rage against caster trash mobs).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2010, 02:54:33 PM
What I'm mostly hearing is that people don't like tanking as a warrior because it's more difficult than say a druid or a paladin. To that point, I'd certainly agree. There are certainly easier tanking classes out there with less to worry about. That line of thinking was a reactionary decision by Blizzard because tanks were incredibly unpopular as a group in the early game.

Tanks were rare. Warriors do have egos. Some of them are well-deserved, and others are flat-lining at the simplest of tasks. However, I would put dollars to donuts that you'd have a hard time finding a warrior tank that played from release who was outright terrible. Most of the shitty ones are converts. The reality is that I think if you really want to shine as a tank, you have more room to show your skills as a warrior. If you want more consistency or ease of play, there are the other classes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on June 20, 2010, 03:21:33 PM
Yeah, a good warrior tank is literally worth his / her weight in gold (full set of plate armor included).  The things a good warrior can do are astounding.  The problem is finding those "good" warriors.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 20, 2010, 03:22:48 PM
However, I would put dollars to donuts that you'd have a hard time finding a warrior tank that played from release who was outright terrible.
This would apply to players of any class, I would think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 20, 2010, 03:45:07 PM
Fuck Warriors. Yea I said it!  :oh_i_see:

Tanks were rare because there was all of one class in the entire game that Blizzard thought of as a legitimate tank. They have Ego's because Blizzard spoon-fed them the top position in the PvE Hierarchy for some 3 odd years of game play. It has shit all to do with magical warrior player tanking prowess and everything to do with being the 'go-to guy' by default through total lack of other options.


It's not like Prot Paladins and Feral Druids weren't trying to tank in Vanilla and only Warriors were answering the call. It just wasn't mechanically possible for either to legitimately tank, it wasn't supported at all by Blizzard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arinon on June 20, 2010, 04:14:49 PM
I didn't find warriors to be rare at all in vanilla.  Quite the opposite and for the exact reason you state.  There was just the one class that tanked.  Who picked a class first and role second at release?  That was doing it backwards.

The ego thing I can agree with.   It was worse only because a warrior's ego could stop a raid while a hunter's ego would, well, result in bringing less hunters.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 20, 2010, 04:28:40 PM
Who picked a class first and role second at release?  That was doing it backwards.

Everyone who never played an MMORPG before?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2010, 05:28:38 PM
Fuck Warriors. Yea I said it!  :oh_i_see:

Tanks were rare because there was all of one class in the entire game that Blizzard thought of as a legitimate tank. They have Ego's because Blizzard spoon-fed them the top position in the PvE Hierarchy for some 3 odd years of game play. It has shit all to do with magical warrior player tanking prowess and everything to do with being the 'go-to guy' by default through total lack of other options.


It's not like Prot Paladins and Feral Druids weren't trying to tank in Vanilla and only Warriors were answering the call. It just wasn't mechanically possible for either to legitimately tank, it wasn't supported at all by Blizzard.

Yep, because paladins and druids are actually supposed to be healers.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on June 20, 2010, 05:46:10 PM
Fuck no. That's the priests' job.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on June 20, 2010, 06:11:26 PM
Warriors are the hardest tanks the play, but the trade off is that they're unquestionably the best all around in the right hands.  Always have been (minus those few months before they nerfed DKs), always will be as long as Furor works at Blizzard.  Yes, some of their mechanics are overtly retarded - notably AoE tanking.  But it's better now than it has ever been.

Also, the ego thing.  Not really a warrior exclusive.  I think it has more to do with the type of person who wants to be in that role, and it doesn't matter what class.  But I've seen more epeen wars over DPS than over who should be the tank.  Healing meter wars are cute.  Blizzard does cater to warriors, though.  I won't deny that.  Again, see Furor.  Somewhere buried in one of his rants is the reason warriors have rend.  And I'll give you a hint:  It's not for keeping rogues out of stealth.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on June 20, 2010, 06:13:59 PM
Who picked a class first and role second at release?  That was doing it backwards.

Everyone who never played an MMORPG before?

When I rolled my Ranger in DAOC I put stat points into.. I think Charisma? It was my first EQ clone, and I didn't realize how restrictive the role system was until then. Played that fucker to max level with gimped stats.  :x


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2010, 06:34:58 PM
Warriors are the hardest tanks the play, but the trade off is that they're unquestionably the best all around in the right hands.

Yes, that's a better way of putting it. I'm always going to be locked into the old ways when I asked a paladin to come along and they healed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on June 20, 2010, 06:43:26 PM
Fuck no. That's the priests' job.

Say that again after I've melted your face off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 20, 2010, 06:55:29 PM
Fuck no. That's the priests' job.

Say that again after I've melted your face off.

I'm a shadow priest myself but in vanilla wow the tree was a joke and not allowed in raids


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on June 20, 2010, 07:17:56 PM
Warriors are the hardest tanks the play, but the trade off is that they're unquestionably the best all around in the right hands.
Oh I definitely agree.  I love tanking on my warrior and a good warrior tank friend was the one who convinced me to take mine from level 13 where I left after I started 2-3 years ago to 80 and try to learn it.  And I did just fine, but the stress from the assholes who unleash AoE DPS and then shit all over me was too much to deal with so I stopped tanking with my warrior.  I'll probably finish the DPS set and then put the tank set back together (it was mostly ilvl 187-200 blues with all the crafted 226-245 pieces, but I was def capped and almost hit capped so it wasn't like I didn't know what I was doing).  People took one look at the GearScore and go "fuck this" and bail.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 20, 2010, 07:31:39 PM
Warriors are the hardest tanks the play, but the trade off is that they're unquestionably the best all around in the right hands.

Yes, that's a better way of putting it. I'm always going to be locked into the old ways when I asked a paladin to come along and they healed.

Yes, because spending 175 days of play time on a character (http://www.wowhead.com/profile=us.wildhammer.cauthrien) (yes, that's my main) and being able to do one thing, one way, in one set of gear is fucking awesome.

Seriously, anyone who looks back on Classic with even a hint of nostalgia either loved huge raids and started early with one of Blizzard's chosen classes (Warrior, Mage, maybe Rogue) or is a complete mental.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2010, 07:38:25 PM
Warriors are the hardest tanks the play, but the trade off is that they're unquestionably the best all around in the right hands.

Yes, that's a better way of putting it. I'm always going to be locked into the old ways when I asked a paladin to come along and they healed.

Yes, because spending 175 days of play time on a character (http://www.wowhead.com/profile=us.wildhammer.cauthrien) (yes, that's my main) and being able to do one thing, one way, in one set of gear is fucking awesome.

Seriously, anyone who looks back on Classic with even a hint of nostalgia either loved huge raids and started early with one of Blizzard's chosen classes (Warrior, Mage, maybe Rogue) or is a complete mental.

Classic was terrible in a lot of ways. 40 man raids were completely inane and I wouldn't be able to toss one together today. That being said, the idea of a priest not having a healing spec irks me to this day. I feel the same way about paladins and druids. They designed them as hybrid healers. Sure I like the idea of you flopping to roles when needed. What I don't want to hear is that you don't have a healing spec in dual spec land.

You're a failure as a hybrid if that's the case.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 20, 2010, 08:13:52 PM
Paladins and Druids have DPS/Tank/Heal specs, priests only have Heal/Kind of Heal/DPS.  Priests not having an offspec for healing makes sense, paladins and druids have two viable options besides dps, to expect them to be all be heal/dps is dumb.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 20, 2010, 08:19:26 PM
You're a failure as a hybrid if that's the case.

Or you like to pvp. Or you're raiding at a high level and swap between trash/boss specs. Or you know, you just don't want to heal, god forbid.

EDIT: I should add as a raid leader I'd MUCH rather tank/dps hybrids than tank/heal hybrids in my raids, you always carry enough healers anyway, so on fights where you don't need every tank it is far more useful for them to be able to switch to dpsing rather than to being a redundant healer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 20, 2010, 08:23:37 PM
Yep.  I have been leveling a DK tank, and after playing a Druid tank as main through the last 4 tiers of raid content, DK sometimes leaves me confused.  Druids are stupidly easy to tank with.  As long as i have enough rage to hit swipe, aoe tanking is a breeze.  With the DK, I often find myself out of runes when i desperately need one, or half way through a tank "rotation" when something random happens and throws my rhythim completely off.   Druid?  I can practically roll my face across the keyboard, and as long as i have rage, nothing is going to stop me.

DK doesn't confuse me, as I've been playing one as a tank for as long as I have been able to make, but yeah, I still have those moments where I'm doing my rotation and then something unusual happens and then it's all Oh Shit My Threat Just Died and stuff, with the very occassional "oh god I'm out of the rune I need RIGHT NOW AUGH" and stuff. Which is fine, it keeps it interesting, I just find the paladin and druid much easier and disagree that DK tanking is a LOT easier than a warrior. Just ... I dunno, generically easier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2010, 08:35:50 PM
You're a failure as a hybrid if that's the case.

Or you like to pvp. Or you're raiding at a high level and swap between trash/boss specs. Or you know, you just don't want to heal, god forbid.

EDIT: I should add as a raid leader I'd MUCH rather tank/dps hybrids than tank/heal hybrids in my raids, you always carry enough healers anyway, so on fights where you don't need every tank it is far more useful for them to be able to switch to dpsing rather than to being a redundant healer.

Yeah, but you decided on the tanks in the raid first. Hell, when you built the raid, you knew that was the easiest thing to figure out. That's your base in any 25 man, since it's the least amount of people you need, three. I need about six pure healers on top of that with about 2/3 hybrid dps/heals.

Tank/heal is a useless dual. You're covering one of the needed key points already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 20, 2010, 08:36:20 PM
And on the other topic:

The only time I get annoyed someone doesn't have a heal offspec is when it's a dpser who starts whining they got left off the raid that week because we have 459876238562345 dpsers and barely scraped together the healing needed. I try to keep that buried deep inside, though. I know some people just really don't like healing. I just wish some DPSers would accept THERE ARE A BILLION OF YOU.

Amusingly, I have been bitten in the ass by not having a real DPSer for five-mans (my hunter got transfered to a Horde server to make room for a new character in Cataclysm). Lots of people in the guild have tank/healer alts that they may or may not try to gear up, and I don't really have anyone to play with them, because I don't like DPSing as a DK (also, I suck at it).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on June 20, 2010, 08:49:23 PM
You're a failure as a hybrid if that's the case.

Or you like to pvp. Or you're raiding at a high level and swap between trash/boss specs. Or you know, you just don't want to heal, god forbid.

EDIT: I should add as a raid leader I'd MUCH rather tank/dps hybrids than tank/heal hybrids in my raids, you always carry enough healers anyway, so on fights where you don't need every tank it is far more useful for them to be able to switch to dpsing rather than to being a redundant healer.

Yeah, but you decided on the tanks in the raid first. Hell, when you built the raid, you knew that was the easiest thing to figure out. That's your base in any 25 man, since it's the least amount of people you need, three. I need about six pure healers on top of that with about 2/3 hybrid dps/heals.

Tank/heal is a useless dual. You're covering one of the needed key points already.

Wait.  One minute ago you said all Druids must have a heal spec or they are 'failures' and now you're saying tank/heal is useless.  So in your world, Druids aren't allowed to ever tank because that violates points one and two?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on June 20, 2010, 08:58:31 PM
I have a ret PVP spec and a ret PVE spec on my paladin, and I only have the PVE spec because I paid for dual and need to have SOMETHING. Of course, you couldn't pay me to sit through any dungeon that takes more than like 30 minutes to complete. It's also my only character except for a bank alt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on June 21, 2010, 01:13:21 AM

Seriously, anyone who looks back on Classic with even a hint of nostalgia either loved huge raids and started early with one of Blizzard's chosen classes (Warrior, Mage, maybe Rogue) or is a complete mental.

Umm, I'm sorry but what? Mages?

How on earth were mages favoured? They had to use their lowest damage spec for the first two raid instances of the game thanks to immunities, had several severe flaws in the design that wasn't corrected until late on (they were one of the last classes to get fixed through their class patch - new icon for mage armour and all!), and the only point where they were overpowered is due to the rolling ignite bug in Naxxramus, where one mage could do stupid damage by being the first to start an ignite and then every other mage would keep it rolling through sustained crits?

I'm not sure really what you are referring too regarding "chosen classes", unless you were playing a warlock. Any class looks chosen compare to warlocks in the original game, but thankfully they fixed that and more in TBC. Mages were certainly not top of the heap, or in any way "chosen". Heck, you could argue any caster class was shafted in the original game because Blizzard didn't even start itemising for casters until the dire maul patch, and spell hit wasn't found on gear until Ahn Qiraj except for 2 or 3 pieces in BWL.

Re. tanks - Paladins are generally better equipped to be tanks than warriors nowadays. Not sure why anyone would believe differently. Warriors have some abilities that are extremely useful on certain fights (shockwave on LK, intervene etc when you need to move around fast), but a geared paladin tank will rock the house in ways a warrior can't touch thanks to Argent Defender for survival and Seal of Command for AE tanking. Paladins are *stupendous* tanks nowadays.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 21, 2010, 01:36:32 AM
Warriors have been the worst tanks for quite some time now.

This is not to say that every warrior is a bad tank (speaking as someone who's been tanking since the start, fuck you), but it's pretty much a given right now that tanking as DK, Druid or Pally is just miles easier.  This is undeniable.  Anyone who disgrees should have those as alts (as I do) and weep.

I still prefer playing the warrior tho.  He's more FUN.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 21, 2010, 02:47:33 AM
Umm, I'm sorry but what? Mages?

In Classic, if you wanted to be a caster DPS, what was your other option besides Mage?  Broken.
If you wanted to be a physical DPS, what was your other option besides Rogue? Occasionally broken.
If you wanted to tank, you were a Warrior.
If you wanted to heal, you had some options but then you were totally helpless outside of a group.

Sure, a lot of Classic was completely stupid and I have no idea how I put up with any of it, but pretending that some classes weren't more equally stupid than others is just deluding yourself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 21, 2010, 03:28:19 AM
Yep.  I have been leveling a DK tank, and after playing a Druid tank as main through the last 4 tiers of raid content, DK sometimes leaves me confused.  Druids are stupidly easy to tank with.  As long as i have enough rage to hit swipe, aoe tanking is a breeze.  With the DK, I often find myself out of runes when i desperately need one, or half way through a tank "rotation" when something random happens and throws my rhythim completely off.   Druid?  I can practically roll my face across the keyboard, and as long as i have rage, nothing is going to stop me.

DK doesn't confuse me, as I've been playing one as a tank for as long as I have been able to make, but yeah, I still have those moments where I'm doing my rotation and then something unusual happens and then it's all Oh Shit My Threat Just Died and stuff, with the very occassional "oh god I'm out of the rune I need RIGHT NOW AUGH" and stuff. Which is fine, it keeps it interesting, I just find the paladin and druid much easier and disagree that DK tanking is a LOT easier than a warrior. Just ... I dunno, generically easier.

Runetap and Empower Rune Weapon get me through those.  If I need an emergency 1 rune ability more than every 1min or a multi more than every 5 there's larger problems to address.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on June 21, 2010, 03:31:19 AM
What I don't want to hear is that you don't have a healing spec in dual spec land.

You're a failure as a hybrid if that's the case.

My main is a Shadow Priest. Emphasis on Shadow. I bought Dual Spec when it became available and tried out Discipline on a few Heroics but it became painfully obvious that it was not for me. I don't have the moxy to play healer, and never have done, through my entire history of MMO gaming. It's just a mindset anathema to me. I'm going to give Resto Druid a shot in Cataclysm but I honestly don't think I'll ever be able to stick it.
My Priest's second spec is currently empty waiting for me to finalise a PvP Shadow Spec on my (hopefully) eventual return to the game.

What I am good at when it comes to healing is emergency spot healing in Raid or Heroic situations - I figure if I'm needed to heal, the shit has hit the fan. Oftentimes, I can help save a Raid or Heroic doing it, and it's a good feeling even though a lot of the time no one knows I did it (cause I'm discrete like that, gotta keep up the Witchy appearance). But it's certainly not something I crave.

So yeah, thanks, but no. I think I'm better suited to the small unique DPS niche I bring to a Raid as Shadow spec (our Guild doesn't have many, certainly not at Raid level) and if I'm not needed/DPS overspill I don't bitch about it. No one wants a healer who isn't interested in doing their job in a Raid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on June 21, 2010, 03:55:08 AM
In Classic, if you wanted to be a caster DPS, what was your other option besides Mage?  Broken.
If you wanted to be a physical DPS, what was your other option besides Rogue? Occasionally broken.
If you wanted to tank, you were a Warrior.
If you wanted to heal, you had some options but then you were totally helpless outside of a group.

Sure, a lot of Classic was completely stupid and I have no idea how I put up with any of it, but pretending that some classes weren't more equally stupid than others is just deluding yourself.

Erm, no.

For caster DPS, *all* the classes were broken. Mages in Naxx ended up the only ones worthwhile, but that's like saying your the best at the special Olympics. Classic dps was dominated by hunters / rogues / warriors throughout the entire game, and only the aforementioned ignite bug gave mages any time of day in Naxx at all. Prior to Naxx, caster dps was just a joke full stop because neither the itemisation, the fight design or the class design supported it.

For melee DPs, warriors were broken throughout the entire game. At first due to the really badly thought out weapon speed fiasco with the Arcanite Reaper and Mortal Strike, and later on just because warriors scaled insanely well. DPS warriors were happily equal with rogues in BWL and beyond, and were the top standard damage class in Naxxramus bar the afore mentioned sole mage who was getting all the ignite damage from his fellow casters.

Tanking - yes, definitely warriors only. No argument there, and that was the case throughout the original game and most of TBC. Got to remember also that Blizzard are on record as saying they were aiming for DPS warriors to be the equivalent of a pure DPs class as well, as you didn't need 5 tanks per encounter. How on earth that one got through the design stage is beyond me, but that's the reason for warriors always being so good at DPS - they were supposed to be, unlike every other hybrid out there. Lunacy.

Don't get your comment about healing at all. No class was helpless outside of a group, right from day 1. Shadowpriests were one of the fastest and easiest classes to level in the game, and paladins have always been very good. I agree completely that it was a lot harder for healers to do solo stuff outside of a group unless they were picking up off-spec gear, but at what point did that matter? What was there to do outside of groups? Not sure what the point here was, as all the healing classes were useful back in the original game, albeit Paladins being a bit too useful than others.

Fundamentally, classic was an extremely broken game in terms of class balance, absolutely. But I don't think calling mages as being one of those broken classes makes much sense when you look at the dungeons, the performance and the fights. Hunters / Warriors / Rogues definitely, due to the itemisation at the time and the fiasco over weapon speeds. But of those, I'd say the only one where Blizzard were *deliberately* trying to overpower the class was warriors, and they're on record as admitting that. After 5 years, it would be nice for warriors to not be one of the best dps classes in the game again... :). But outside of warriors I don't think there were any "chosen" classes - just bad design, ignorance of game mechanics and pure luck that pushed others ahead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 21, 2010, 05:04:41 AM
I don't believe Blizzard was deliberately overpowering anyone, Warriors were just the case that, "Hey, you're the tanking class."  The pure DPS classes were the same way, when they worked, as they were not so much overpowered as just supported by the game.  A Feral Druid just wasn't.  The "chosen" comment was more meant that some classes had it better than others as all-rounders.

That said, my recollections about Mages being THE answer for all ranged DPS, AOE, and CC needs could be wrong, I've never really been in a truly top tier guild and definitely wasn't in Classic.

The healers thing was about people spec'd as healers and needing materials, or farming reputations, or needing to finance raiding and PvP habits.  Sure, if you were able to cobble together some decent off-spec gear and had enough time to make 100g respec cycles a net gain going to a DPS spec between raid nights could work.  That really wasn't that case for me until uh... mid-2007.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on June 21, 2010, 05:52:30 AM
I don't believe Blizzard was deliberately overpowering anyone, Warriors were just the case that, "Hey, you're the tanking class."  The pure DPS classes were the same way, when they worked, as they were not so much overpowered as just supported by the game.  A Feral Druid just wasn't.  The "chosen" comment was more meant that some classes had it better than others as all-rounders.

That said, my recollections about Mages being THE answer for all ranged DPS, AOE, and CC needs could be wrong, I've never really been in a truly top tier guild and definitely wasn't in Classic.

The healers thing was about people spec'd as healers and needing materials, or farming reputations, or needing to finance raiding and PvP habits.  Sure, if you were able to cobble together some decent off-spec gear and had enough time to make 100g respec cycles a net gain going to a DPS spec between raid nights could work.  That really wasn't that case for me until uh... mid-2007.

You're probably right re. "overpowered". What Blizzard actually said was that Warriors were a unique class, and for Launch / TBC they were balanced differently to everyone else. Unlike all other classes with a dps spec and a healing spec, warriors dps specs were balanced as if they were a pure dps class. This was unique, and explains why they were so good through the original game. Every other hybrid class was given lower dps than a pure spec, and corresponding buffs & abilities to compensate. I never understood why they took this stance, and it left the game in the high end oddly unbalanced - you could happily bring 10 warriors to a raid and still want more.

Hunters were appallingly good in the original game, but it required someone who knew how to play the class, and timing their shots around their auto-shot rate which was not easy. I don't think a macro was invented to cover it until near the end of classic / TBC, but in essence it was the exact same as warriors with arcanite reapers issue - slow weapons allowed for unbelievably hard hitting shots. They were certainly harder to play right than any other dps class.

Overall, balance in the original game was very much hit and miss. The majority of strengths and weaknesses came not from deliberate design, but purely from ignorance or bugs. Once we reached TBC they started to have a paradigm around which to design, and they *mostly* got it right, with the only upset really being moonkin / retri paladins / mages being underpowered at the very high end.

Re. CC - apart from Majordomo in MC, mage CC wasn't used at all in raiding. If you're talking about 5 players, then it's a different kettle of fish as mages have always been extremely powerful, and a joy to play, in 5 player groups because they have so manytools and tricks which they never get to use in raiding at all. A well played mage is obscene in 5 player stuff, especially in the original game as frost spec.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 21, 2010, 06:05:34 AM
Any class looks chosen compare to warlocks in the original game, but thankfully they fixed that and more in TBC.

SM / Ruin wasn't bad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on June 21, 2010, 06:51:15 AM
Any class looks chosen compare to warlocks in the original game, but thankfully they fixed that and more in TBC.

SM / Ruin wasn't bad.

Pre negative resist fix, warlocks were the slot machines of one shotting people in pvp.

Locks have always been decent, just difficult to use well and weak against multiple attackers. Plus early on the running all over creation for your fucking pets was stupid.

edit: IMO what fixed locks in pve was lifetap scaling, which was.. mid TBC? Before that they just had shitty mana issues and a lot of useful buffs and debuffs in pve.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on June 21, 2010, 07:20:58 AM
Who picked a class first and role second at release?  That was doing it backwards.

/raise hand

I picked a shaman.  I had a lot of damage doing spells and also melee boosting abilities.  I thought at maybe some point I could DPS.  Instead I spent most of vanilla (before I made my rogue alt) staring at health bars and casting Lesser Healing Wave (because the scaling on everything else was fucking broken before I quit).

I play really casually, so I like to have fun when I play.  I have the most fun when I DPS, but in the past played characters that most people wanted me to heal with (shaman, druid) or tank with (DK, druid).  I've gotten so sick of being expected to do either of those that I spend most of my time playing my warlock or rogue.  The druid is retired, the DK is a mining/JC alt, and the shaman only heals for friends.  My next character is going to be a goblin hunter. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on June 21, 2010, 07:38:45 AM
I like healing, some raid nights just stress me the hell out though. But in general I'm happiest when I can heal people. I get unhappy and want my dps alt when we get to the point where we need to cast one heal every 30s because the tanks outgear the encounter too much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arinon on June 21, 2010, 07:57:30 AM
Who picked a class first and role second at release?  That was doing it backwards.

/raise hand


Maybe I'm the odd man out then.  Grabbing some class that sounds cool and running with it is too much of a leap of faith for me.  I screwed up anyway though. Leveled a priest to 60 expecting to never have to heal before settling down into warrior for most of Vanilla and TBC.  At least I rarely had to tank with it!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 21, 2010, 08:08:13 AM
Umm, I'm sorry but what? Mages?

In Classic, if you wanted to be a caster DPS, what was your other option besides Mage?  Broken.
If you wanted to be a physical DPS, what was your other option besides Rogue? Occasionally broken.
If you wanted to tank, you were a Warrior.
If you wanted to heal, you had some options but then you were totally helpless outside of a group.

Sure, a lot of Classic was completely stupid and I have no idea how I put up with any of it, but pretending that some classes weren't more equally stupid than others is just deluding yourself.

Fury Warriors were sick with good gear in Vanilla.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on June 21, 2010, 08:52:18 AM
I seem to remember that in vanilla, back before the great Debuff slot revamp, the main reason warlocks sucked in a raid environment was because every boss had like 20 debuff "slots" maximum, and applying a new debuff to the boss could potentially push "good" debuffs off the mob.  And since good dps from a lock required you to put up like 3 or 4 debuffs PER lock on the boss, having more then 2 or 3 locks in a a 40 man raid usually ended up being a bad thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on June 21, 2010, 09:18:49 AM
Not particular to warlocks but even worse, for the same reason Defensive Stance tended to be pushed off of the tanks which resulted in a prompt wipe. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on June 21, 2010, 11:20:21 AM
Warriors have been the worst tanks for quite some time now.

This is not to say that every warrior is a bad tank (speaking as someone who's been tanking since the start, fuck you), but it's pretty much a given right now that tanking as DK, Druid or Pally is just miles easier.  This is undeniable.  Anyone who disgrees should have those as alts (as I do) and weep.

I still prefer playing the warrior tho.  He's more FUN.

I stopped my BC druid and switched over to a Pally to take the easy way out. Seriously cone swipe was silly because DPS in WoTLK have no concept of aggro and just go hog wild on AOE. After they changed the swipe to an AOE taunt it helped out quite a bit but Pally tank DPS is still incredible (first or second in 90% of pugs).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on June 21, 2010, 11:31:29 AM
I seem to remember that in vanilla, back before the great Debuff slot revamp, the main reason warlocks sucked in a raid environment was because every boss had like 20 debuff "slots" maximum, and applying a new debuff to the boss could potentially push "good" debuffs off the mob.  And since good dps from a lock required you to put up like 3 or 4 debuffs PER lock on the boss, having more then 2 or 3 locks in a a 40 man raid usually ended up being a bad thing.

Yeah, but one was nearly required due to how negative resists worked (random chance for up to double damage) made CoE/S the most powerful debuff in the game for a bit. You rarely wanted many around though. Barring the gimmick banish fight in MC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 21, 2010, 11:41:50 AM

You're probably right re. "overpowered". What Blizzard actually said was that Warriors were a unique class, and for Launch / TBC they were balanced differently to everyone else. Unlike all other classes with a dps spec and a healing spec, warriors dps specs were balanced as if they were a pure dps class. This was unique, and explains why they were so good through the original game. Every other hybrid class was given lower dps than a pure spec, and corresponding buffs & abilities to compensate. I never understood why they took this stance, and it left the game in the high end oddly unbalanced - you could happily bring 10 warriors to a raid and still want more.


It wasn't completely deliberate so much as a natural consequence of the way rage worked at release, and to an extent still does now. When you hit harder you get more rage and can hit more buttons, so there's a little extra dps feedback loop that other classes don't have. Warriors are always overpowered at the end of expansion cycles because of it. The normalization thing should help with that, if they actually stick to their guns with it this time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on June 21, 2010, 12:05:13 PM

You're probably right re. "overpowered". What Blizzard actually said was that Warriors were a unique class, and for Launch / TBC they were balanced differently to everyone else. Unlike all other classes with a dps spec and a healing spec, warriors dps specs were balanced as if they were a pure dps class. This was unique, and explains why they were so good through the original game. Every other hybrid class was given lower dps than a pure spec, and corresponding buffs & abilities to compensate. I never understood why they took this stance, and it left the game in the high end oddly unbalanced - you could happily bring 10 warriors to a raid and still want more.


It wasn't completely deliberate so much as a natural consequence of the way rage worked at release, and to an extent still does now. When you hit harder you get more rage and can hit more buttons, so there's a little extra dps feedback loop that other classes don't have. Warriors are always overpowered at the end of expansion cycles because of it. The normalization thing should help with that, if they actually stick to their guns with it this time.

No, it was a deliberate policy. You could always balance rage to simply hit less dps - warriors scaling stupidly is just part of their badly balanced rage system. For all of the original game and TBC, they were aiming to have dps warriors deal the same amount of damage in a raid as a rogue / hunter / mage / warlock. That was unique - it was a specific design goal, and no other class got that. Blizzard took this route because "you never need 5 tanks and warriors have a dps spec that should be used". All it actually meant in reality was you brought your 3 tanks or whatever, AND then 5+ dps warriors because warriors were so good. Every other hybrid got screwed with a dps spec that was vastly under the pure dps classes, whereas warriors got to be the sole takning class with a unique raid role AND dps equal to the pure dps classes.

It's beyond me why they thought this was a good idea to give warrios an absolutely vital unique raid role AND make their off-specs the equal to the pure dps classes, but that's how they operated for the original game and TBC - from their own lips, not mine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 21, 2010, 12:26:12 PM
That all sounds like absolute bullshit.

Warriors never used to have any Threat control at all.  If it was that bad in raids, they'd just be wiping like little suicide bombs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 21, 2010, 12:29:25 PM
Threat control was eventually a major issue for warriors back then, particularly because HS had inherent bonus threat. By the time they hit original Naxx a lot of warriors were using cleave instead of HS for their rage dump a lot of the time just to keep threat under better control.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on June 21, 2010, 02:04:59 PM
That all sounds like absolute bullshit.

Warriors never used to have any Threat control at all.  If it was that bad in raids, they'd just be wiping like little suicide bombs.

To quote:

Quote from: Ghostrcrawler"
This philosophy largely evolved in Wrath of the Lich King and is the design we plan on carrying forward to Cataclysm. In vanilla WoW, every class typically had one role. In BC, we tried to promote other roles for some classes, but we still didn’t make everyone play by the same rules. Warriors, and I hate to pick on them, were intended to be the best tank while also deliver dps that we would now label as competitive with rogues. By contrast, druids, paladins, priests and shaman were intended to be competitive healers, but have dramatically lower dps than pures and warriors.

Obviously the point about threat really depended upon which side you were on. Alliance had such massive advantages re threat thanks to paladins, it's really embarrassing looking back at how grossly unfair the paladin  shaman divide was for raiding. But even without paladins, our DPS warriors were top of the meters in BWL and beyond, purely through going slow at the start and making sure your tanks had windfury and every buff possible to boost their threat. Threat was a huge issue in some BWL fights, but most fights after then the bosses were tauntable anyways so threat was not a huge issue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 21, 2010, 02:49:59 PM
Wait.  One minute ago you said all Druids must have a heal spec or they are 'failures' and now you're saying tank/heal is useless.  So in your world, Druids aren't allowed to ever tank because that violates points one and two?

Sure why not?  :awesome_for_real:

In a raid format I've had very few druids who didn't prefer healing or dps actually.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 21, 2010, 03:32:45 PM
Who picked a class first and role second at release?  That was doing it backwards.


A lot of people did pick classes with their desired roles.

Blizzard then decided that those classes that didn't start with W and end with 'arrior' weren't really supposed to fill those roles. The roles they had entire talent trees and class defining features devoted too. They got one job, or half a job sometimes, Innervate bot go!

Of course Warriors got to do both of their jobs without penalty, because... well because Blizzard said so and you other classes need to shut up and heal.  :oh_i_see:





Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 21, 2010, 03:40:28 PM
Is there a good reason we're rehashing 5 year old class drama at this point anyway?

Yes there are a bunch of douchebag attitude-laden warriors out there, apparently including in this thread, but warriors haven't been atop the tanking totem pole for a couple years now and surely they'll all quit eventually. None of the other tanks have any justification for the chip on the shoulder attitude at this point, they can all do the job, and have been able to for literally years.

Can we move on now?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 21, 2010, 03:41:30 PM
You would say that, Warrior!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 21, 2010, 03:46:29 PM
Is there a good reason we're rehashing 5 year old class drama at this point anyway?

I accidentally started a horrible, horrible derail.

So how 'bout those new talents? :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 21, 2010, 04:08:39 PM
It wasn't completely deliberate so much as a natural consequence of the way rage worked at release, and to an extent still does now. When you hit harder you get more rage and can hit more buttons, so there's a little extra dps feedback loop that other classes don't have. Warriors are always overpowered at the end of expansion cycles because of it. The normalization thing should help with that, if they actually stick to their guns with it this time.

Say it with me: the rage normalization scheme they added with TBC was never removed.  Read the Patch.txt file.

Obviously the point about threat really depended upon which side you were on. Alliance had such massive advantages re threat thanks to paladins, it's really embarrassing looking back at how grossly unfair the paladin  shaman divide was for raiding. But even without paladins, our DPS warriors were top of the meters in BWL and beyond, purely through going slow at the start and making sure your tanks had windfury and every buff possible to boost their threat. Threat was a huge issue in some BWL fights, but most fights after then the bosses were tauntable anyways so threat was not a huge issue.

1. The point you start with contradicts the point you end with.
2. Sanctuary didn't make initial threat any easier.  Because it's a coefficient on threat it only becomes statistically significant at the end of the fight, where even horde apparently had no problems.
3. Windfury.

By the time they hit original Naxx a lot of warriors were using cleave instead of HS for their rage dump a lot of the time just to keep threat under better control.

Cleave also has a threat constant, and the amount of bonus damage gained per added threat is less than Heroic Strike.  AFAIK even when it was fully talented.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on June 21, 2010, 04:37:20 PM
Salv was far, FAR better than windfury when dealing with new or difficult raid content. There's a reason it went away.

Windfury was crazy in pvp and crazy for fights you could do in your sleep, it greatly increased raid damage if you were melee heavy.

Why, exactly, are we having vanilla wow conversations, though? Are we comparing this to class balance in a just released game, or are we all just having rose colored the grass was always greener conversations for fun?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 21, 2010, 04:48:25 PM
I blame the Warriors.



There's also not much to discuss without going to the heavy NDA breaking leak site info.  :cry:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 21, 2010, 05:23:35 PM
It wasn't completely deliberate so much as a natural consequence of the way rage worked at release, and to an extent still does now. When you hit harder you get more rage and can hit more buttons, so there's a little extra dps feedback loop that other classes don't have. Warriors are always overpowered at the end of expansion cycles because of it. The normalization thing should help with that, if they actually stick to their guns with it this time.

Say it with me: the rage normalization scheme they added with TBC was never removed.  Read the Patch.txt file.


You're just wrong. They backed off on the initial TBC rage normalization in 2.0.10:

"* The rage normalization equation has been adjusted to grant more rage. The typical warrior should see an increase of 15% to 20% in their rage generation"

This led directly to warriors becoming ridiculous at the end of TBC as usual (the ones with warglaives were particularly... special.)

No it was not removed *entirely*. Just gutted. That is what GC is referring to when they say they tried normalizing in TBC and it didn't work. And he's right.

By the time they hit original Naxx a lot of warriors were using cleave instead of HS for their rage dump a lot of the time just to keep threat under better control.

Cleave also has a threat constant, and the amount of bonus damage gained per added threat is less than Heroic Strike.  AFAIK even when it was fully talented.

Making a big assumption that current bonus threat values at these ranks are the same as what they were then:

Level 60, talented cleave was 2.09 bonus damage per bonus point of threat.
Level 60 HS was 1.14 bonus damage per bonus point of threat (assuming rank 9 trained by that book from AQ20.)

The real downside of cleave was that it cost quite a bit more rage than HS but at the gear levels where they started switching that conveniently mattered less because as I mentioned earlier, rage was a really badly broken mechanic in vanilla.

EDIT: I forgot they increased the damage on cleave at some point, the level 60 number should be more like 1.1 bonus damage/threat. Roughly the same as HS, but less threat in an absolute sense so better to use given rage was not a concern.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on June 21, 2010, 05:37:33 PM
I seem to remember that in vanilla, back before the great Debuff slot revamp, the main reason warlocks sucked in a raid environment was because every boss had like 20 debuff "slots" maximum, and applying a new debuff to the boss could potentially push "good" debuffs off the mob.  And since good dps from a lock required you to put up like 3 or 4 debuffs PER lock on the boss, having more then 2 or 3 locks in a a 40 man raid usually ended up being a bad thing.

Original debuff limit was 8 per mob.

Meant in raiding Molten Core/BWL we would have: 1 Hunter's Mark, 1 Stack of Sunders, 1 Serpent sting, 1 CoE, 1 CoS, 1 Warlock DoT spell, and one Mortal Strike/Wound Poison which would leave 1 spot open at all times for a Taunt debuff to go up if needed. I knew raid leaders who would kick people for wasting debuff slots with fireball DoTs etc.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 21, 2010, 06:48:17 PM
(assuming rank 9 trained by that book from AQ20.)

SPEAKING of total bullshit from the vanilla days. I had almost forgotten they fuckin' did that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 21, 2010, 08:10:34 PM
As yes, making you raid for skill upgrades; I'd forgotten about that was well. That and the helmet upgrade trash patterns from Sunwell are probably the silliest things they've ever done in terms of drops. God, I still shake my head over the stupidity that was "trash teams."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on June 21, 2010, 10:39:20 PM
I always loved the initial 20 man raid: twice the difficulty of anything else at the time, 10% chance per boss of an epic! Otherwise, you just got decent blues <3

Seriously, old WoW compared to new WoW are totally different games as far as the players they want to cater to.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 22, 2010, 12:19:29 AM
Is there a good reason we're rehashing 5 year old class drama at this point anyway?
We're all waiting for the :nda: to drop, so there's nothing better to do than pointing out warriors are all a bunch of prima donnas with entitlement complexes.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 22, 2010, 01:21:12 AM
When the :nda: drops, there's gonna be screaming.  Guarantee it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 22, 2010, 05:54:58 AM
Is there a good reason we're rehashing 5 year old class drama at this point anyway?
We're all waiting for the :nda: to drop, so there's nothing better to do than pointing out warriors are all a bunch of prima donnas with entitlement complexes.  :grin:

To bad we run the raids!  :awesome_for_real:

But on another topic, the game is a fucking ghost town right now for my friends list, guild roster, and raid channels. It's pretty obvious for the last month that nobody gives a shit about playing right now, myself included. I'm wondering if we'll see a spike for the next few weeks with the introduction of the Ruby Sanctum fight, but who knows. I don't think I can get motivated to fight it in 10 man while the Lich King isn't dead yet, and I'm certainly not motivated enough to stright a 25 together.

Also ME2 is just tons more intersting atm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 22, 2010, 06:01:55 AM
Wait, how come Warriors are suddenly getting bashed here ?

Is it because of the Dancing Monkey ?

I thought I was being reasonable in the points I was making...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arinon on June 22, 2010, 07:24:24 AM
It's because Warriors aren't the only ones with complexes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 07:53:23 AM
WOW as a whole made a gigantic swing from Hardcore Raid Game in Vanilla to Very Casual Raid Game now in WOTLK (with additional solo/5man/pvp options).

A very big swing in player base.  I wonder where the game will swing to next.  I think more of the same in Cata.  I don't see how you can get more casual.  Maybe badge armor will be cheaper.  Does 10 mans = 25 mans count?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 22, 2010, 08:33:54 AM
WOW as a whole made a gigantic swing from Hardcore Raid Game in Vanilla to Very Casual Raid Game now in WOTLK (with additional solo/5man/pvp options).

A very big swing in player base.  I wonder where the game will swing to next.  I think more of the same in Cata.  I don't see how you can get more casual.  Maybe badge armor will be cheaper.  Does 10 mans = 25 mans count?

25man ICC is not casual, I've seen pugs do 10man but I'm not sure many of those even get LK kills, nor do hardmodes.  I think the hardcore game is certainly there it's just been shuffled into a dark corner where you have to go looking to find it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on June 22, 2010, 08:49:00 AM
/level?

Honestly though, I think they've gone too far. I consider flying mounts, LFD and many things regarding badges to be irretractable long-term mistakes. I know I won't get many to agree about the flying mounts, but I really do feel they were a mistake and not in the "not hardcore enough" sense.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 08:53:16 AM
WOW as a whole made a gigantic swing from Hardcore Raid Game in Vanilla to Very Casual Raid Game now in WOTLK (with additional solo/5man/pvp options).

A very big swing in player base.  I wonder where the game will swing to next.  I think more of the same in Cata.  I don't see how you can get more casual.  Maybe badge armor will be cheaper.  Does 10 mans = 25 mans count?

25man ICC is not casual, I've seen pugs do 10man but I'm not sure many of those even get LK kills, nor do hardmodes.  I think the hardcore game is certainly there it's just been shuffled into a dark corner where you have to go looking to find it.

I've heard of plenty of PUGs finishing ICC25 normal mode.

/level?

Honestly though, I think they've gone too far. I consider flying mounts, LFD and many things regarding badges to be irretractable long-term mistakes. I know I won't get many to agree about the flying mounts, but I really do feel they were a mistake and not in the "not hardcore enough" sense.

I've had a discussion recently on FOH about progression in WOW.  I also agree that they went a bit to far with badge gear.  I never really though about Flying mounts though you may have a point.

As far as progression though, when I went back to play around the time ICC came out.  I leveled a toon, grinding all my badge gear and 5 man loot.  Then I was "dumped" into the end game scene which was somewhere between TOC and ICC.  There was no sense of progression anymore. 

I'd much rather do the whole level 1-80, do end game dungeons for better gear, get ready for raids.  Then I would like to raid Naxx until I'm ready for Ulduar.  Raid Ulduar until I'm read for... and so on.  I know Blizzard wants people to see the end game dungeons but instead of throwing badge gear at people, I'd like to see old raids have their raid ID taken away and added buffs so you can work through them.

For example, Naxx, Ulduar and TOC don't have lockouts anymore with ICC in play.  You can run them as many times as you like.  Naxx would have a damage/healing buff on it that's pretty strong.  Ulduar and ToC would be the same but as you get higher in progression the buff gets weaker.  Then you geto ICC.

I hate the idea of skipping content.  You get to a point where you're pretty directionless.  I love working towards something, whether it's the end of a storyline or through gear.  I don't like getting dropped in the middle and being told to "Go get em!".



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on June 22, 2010, 09:26:56 AM
I agree about the raids. I dinged 80 in patch 3.3, so ICC was the only raid that was relevant to run. Only, I didn't want to do ICC. The new content isn't always better or more exciting if you've never done the older stuff. I went back and did BT with a boost raid and it was great to see the place. WoW hasn't evolved in a way that old content becomes outdated (aside gear) that quickly.

On flying mounts - the issues all boil down to the fact that it hinders interaction. You no longer interact with players, the terrain, mobs or "the world" in general. In addition, WoW looks its absolute worst from high up in the air, because the engine can't handle the view distances. The zones become contrived and silly with absolutely no grounding in reason, Storm Peaks and Netherstorm, to name two, which have untraversable obstacles just to justify flying mounts. Compare the design quality of Grizzly Hills to Storm Peaks - it's clearly visible which one took effort and which one is basically five strokes with the elevation brush. It also encourages some rather stupid and unimmersive player behaviour, like "bombing" farmable nodes.

Yes, I used the I-word in relation to WoW. I do however think that flying mounts has caused much, much greater harm to the sense of world and immersion than any number of Gnomish motorcycles could ever do. Immersion is malleable in that regard, but when you are 300 feet in the air in an empty nothing, there's nothing to immerse in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on June 22, 2010, 09:35:46 AM
Also ME2 is just tons more intersting atm.

It's amazing what you end up discovering once you poke your head up out of WoW.  ME2, I'd argue, would always be more interesting than WoW (well, maybe not on your 4th play through).  

When I'm playing WoW, I'm happy playing WoW, but I'm unhappy with how much it usually cuts into my other gaming.  The last time I didn't let that happen and took weeks off at a time for ME2, DA and others.  

Easy to do when you don't raid.  :why_so_serious:

edit: most pug raids that actually get shit done aren't very casual. Casual raiding isn't very casual either.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on June 22, 2010, 09:57:17 AM
[...]
I'd much rather do the whole level 1-80, do end game dungeons for better gear, get ready for raids.  Then I would like to raid Naxx until I'm ready for Ulduar.  Raid Ulduar until I'm read for... and so on.  I know Blizzard wants people to see the end game dungeons but instead of throwing badge gear at people, I'd like to see old raids have their raid ID taken away and added buffs so you can work through them.
[...]

This would require that you had someone to raid WITH.  They have stated that the biggest driver is not forcing a guild to bootstrap a recruit through all the old content just to get the guild back to raiding the current level.

As a counter-point to the "flying mounts ruined the game", cold weather flying in WOTLK ended up causing me to quit when it first came out.  Playing a druid, being able to shift into crow became such a large part of the fun that I had with the class/game, I got disgusted with having that taken away.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 22, 2010, 10:02:52 AM
No it was not removed *entirely*. Just gutted. That is what GC is referring to when they say they tried normalizing in TBC and it didn't work. And he's right.

EDIT: I forgot they increased the damage on cleave at some point, the level 60 number should be more like 1.1 bonus damage/threat. Roughly the same as HS, but less threat in an absolute sense so better to use given rage was not a concern.

That still isn't removed, and it has nothing to do with why it doesn't work.  The formula is a standard linear equation, with the scaling factor attached to damage nerfed and a constant added derived from weapon speed and type.  At some point in any expansion it will break, the only way to make it not break would have been to make the scaling on damage dealt so punitive that it is effectively zero.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 22, 2010, 10:07:26 AM
That's what they're doing, I think, and I seem to recall that they also tried that during the TBC beta, but it has been a long time and I'm getting old.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on June 22, 2010, 10:16:30 AM
As a counter-point to the "flying mounts ruined the game", cold weather flying in WOTLK ended up causing me to quit when it first came out.  Playing a druid, being able to shift into crow became such a large part of the fun that I had with the class/game, I got disgusted with having that taken away.
That's mostly a combination of conditioning and the lack of alternatives. I have no issues with fast land mounts. It's the flying that's the issue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 10:18:38 AM
[...]
I'd much rather do the whole level 1-80, do end game dungeons for better gear, get ready for raids.  Then I would like to raid Naxx until I'm ready for Ulduar.  Raid Ulduar until I'm read for... and so on.  I know Blizzard wants people to see the end game dungeons but instead of throwing badge gear at people, I'd like to see old raids have their raid ID taken away and added buffs so you can work through them.
[...]

This would require that you had someone to raid WITH.  They have stated that the biggest driver is not forcing a guild to bootstrap a recruit through all the old content just to get the guild back to raiding the current level.

As a counter-point to the "flying mounts ruined the game", cold weather flying in WOTLK ended up causing me to quit when it first came out.  Playing a druid, being able to shift into crow became such a large part of the fun that I had with the class/game, I got disgusted with having that taken away.

Making old raids (or 10 man versions) just big dungeons, i.e. like UBRS back in the day, would make them incredibly accessible.  Especially if you boost the old ones with big buffs.  Example, 4 guys in ICC gear get a new buddy and want to get him up to snuff gear wise.  They might be able to 5 man the first few raid tiers.  You can do it also as many times as you want, just like 5 man dungeons.

I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping current expansion content relevant throughout the expac's lifetime.  I would love to see Blizzard make 1.0 and 2.0's raids relevant somehow for things other than achievements.  Take them off raid counters and put some cool items or quest components to farm if that's something you're into.

I just hate skipping content.  Maybe it's my partial OCD, but I like to do things in order and not miss anything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Outlawedprod on June 22, 2010, 10:27:46 AM
I wonder where the game will swing to next.

80% of Activision's Operating Profit? =p

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29052/Kotick_70_Of_Activision_Operating_Profit_Comes_From_NonConsoleBased_Games.php


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on June 22, 2010, 10:29:31 AM
As far as progression though, when I went back to play around the time ICC came out.  I leveled a toon, grinding all my badge gear and 5 man loot.  Then I was "dumped" into the end game scene which was somewhere between TOC and ICC.  There was no sense of progression anymore.  

I'd much rather do the whole level 1-80, do end game dungeons for better gear, get ready for raids.  Then I would like to raid Naxx until I'm ready for Ulduar.  Raid Ulduar until I'm read for... and so on.  I know Blizzard wants people to see the end game dungeons but instead of throwing badge gear at people, I'd like to see old raids have their raid ID taken away and added buffs so you can work through them.

For example, Naxx, Ulduar and TOC don't have lockouts anymore with ICC in play.  You can run them as many times as you like.  Naxx would have a damage/healing buff on it that's pretty strong.  Ulduar and ToC would be the same but as you get higher in progression the buff gets weaker.  Then you geto ICC.

I hate the idea of skipping content.  You get to a point where you're pretty directionless.  I love working towards something, whether it's the end of a storyline or through gear.  I don't like getting dropped in the middle and being told to "Go get em!".
The problem is, that you are likely in a small minority of players.    The average player is not likely to go for "progression" just to get to end content unless the Progression is almost so easy it isn't really progression any more (especially not the second or thrid time around).  

Progression makes sense when you are dealing with main characters, working through "Current" content, or maybe 1 tier behind.   Once you get into the guy wanting to gear up his alt, who has already done the progression scene once, Progressing through 3 tiers of content for the Xth time just to get to the stuff you actually want tends to lose its fun for most people. It can also get kind of expensive if your raid community is the kind that expects you to have all your shit fully enchanted / gemmed.  Imagine how expensive progressing through Naxx, Ulduar and Toc in 2 weeks and having to enchant / gem all your shit could be, especially when you probably would be replacing shit on a daily basis.

Of course, this does leave the new player, who got his first toon to 80 in the middle of the 3rd raid tier of progression in the lurch, but that is where the badge gear thing helps out.

Also, as previously mentioned, you also need someone to raid WITH to do those old tiers.   On my server, it is practically impossible to actually find people who want to run Naxx or Ulduar for gear (or even for badges) any more, unless it happens to be a Naxx raid weekly.  Im not even sure removing old tier raid lockouts and forcing people to gear up in them by removing badge gear would help.   High end guilds would just end up carrying undergeared people / alts through top content to gear them up, instead of running low tier content, and new people would be stuck in a veritable ghost town, where your average Naxx / Ulduar pug would probably be a nightmare the likes of which would make the bad groups forum experiences with 5 mans seem like paradise by comparison.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 22, 2010, 10:37:38 AM
That's what they're doing, I think, and I seem to recall that they also tried that during the TBC beta, but it has been a long time and I'm getting old.

Almost what they're doing, but it should be interesting.  Haste, Hit, and Crit scaling might be an issue.  Then again, they aren't exactly consistently great right now unless you stack crit to the point where you get into the "HOLY FUCK NEVERENDING MEATSPLOSION AGILITY HAS SEP > 1 LOLOLOL" point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 22, 2010, 10:42:34 AM
The only time anyone runs Naxx or Ulduar (aside from the weekly) on my server is when they're doing title or mount runs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 11:01:13 AM
Long Post.

The current paradigm in WOW doesn't allow what I want to see done.  People loved the whole 1-80 ding grats part of the game, I think people would equally like the same sort of progression with PVE content.  I think that plenty of people might think the way I do.

The whole "gearing up alts" thing shouldn't be an excuse to kill off content from the current xpac.  Maybe you didn't read the part where I said that, taking the current raid setup in WOW, Naxx, Ulduar and TOC would be fully farmable and open without lockouts.  Especially with buffs, you won't need to have your shit enchanted or gemmed up.  Or even if you did, non epic/blue gems would work just fine.  You would tune the buffs associated with those zones to make up for it.

As far as finding people, of course no one runs old raids now with any consistency because there is no real incentive to do it.  If high end guilds want to pull people through current raid content, that's fine.  It's what they did back in the day.  I'm talking about people who aren't in the high end guilds but still want to raid.  If you design the system with a progression based end game in mind, it will most definitely work.  But right now you have built in cheat codes in the form of heroic dungeon farming.

If people love the 1-80 progression path then there should be an equal set path for max level progression.  Not a confusing mess that is dictating by an addon that ranks everyone with a number.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 22, 2010, 11:10:12 AM
I think people would equally like the same sort of progression with PVE content.  I think that plenty of people might think the way I do.

I think this is unlikely simply for the reason that you end up beholden to other people for your ding grats. You can level 1-80 solo. You can't solo your way through Naxx, so unless you progress along with your friends you're either stuck trying to 'catch up' by raiding with strangers (sometimes a pretty horrible prospect, even in Naxx at times), or you're forcing your play group to repeat old content that they dislike. Let's remember this is exactly how it worked at level 60 - guilds were stuck running Molten Core *forever* because they had to gear up new people to replace ones who left, etc. What you're suggesting is essentially going back to this system, which was largely hated and they ditched for a reason.

The catch-up gearing is really, really important for people who play the game with guilds, especially the more casual ones. It means that when our guild's version of Rasix wanders off for a few months to do other things, when he comes back he can get in shape to raid with us quickly and without other people having to sink a bunch of time into playing catch-up for him.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 22, 2010, 11:14:50 AM
You don't like skipping raids, so you want to add a bunch of stupid busy work for people? I think on the whole you will find people prefer being able to catch up with their friends gear-wise through the Magic of Five Mans over "hay guyz let's go do the raid you people were sick of months ago because I need gear to get more gear to get more gear to finally raid with you."

Nothing is stopping you from "grabbing some ICC geared friends" and rolling through the old raids. You don't need to "progress" through them repeatedly in order to get a sense of them, and this way no one else has to suffer through tiered content bullshit because you feel fussy you missed out on some farming.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 11:22:11 AM
You can't compare my scenario with the Molten Core days.  There were no zone wide buffs.  Don't you think more guilds would be able to kill Rag if they had a 25% damage buff across the board?

You're completely overblowing the whole stuck or catch up scenarios.  Plenty of people PUG their way through raids these days.  Plenty of people are forced to repeat content to gear up (hi2u badge grind).

I also think you're stuck on this whole catch up thing.  For example; say your Rasix version wanders off during Naxx and he comes back during ICC.  What is an acceptable amount of time for him to "catch up" to raid with you guys?  Currently that would take 2-3 weeks depending on his catass speed to grind out a full set of badge gear.  He can pug the 5 mans over and over.

Now in my scenario, you can now PUG 10 man raids from Naxx, Ulduar, and TOC.  You can even compare this to UBRS back in the day.  I pugged the shit out of that zone for dungeon sets back in the day.  Most groups were successful, some were not.  I think you'd be able to PUG it even better these days with a dungeon finder system.

Now you're not even thinking about 10 man version of these raids with damage/healing buffs added on to them.  You could potentially get geared up even faster with this system.  Or at least sufficiently enough that he can join your ICC group where you wouldn't have to carry him as fast.

But he also has to go through the progression, which I think, gives the game a better footing.

I also think that is more fun that running heroic dungeons over and over and over again for 100's of badges.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 11:26:32 AM
You don't like skipping raids, so you want to add a bunch of stupid busy work for people? I think on the whole you will find people prefer being able to catch up with their friends gear-wise through the Magic of Five Mans over "hay guyz let's go do the raid you people were sick of months ago because I need gear to get more gear to get more gear to finally raid with you."

Nothing is stopping you from "grabbing some ICC geared friends" and rolling through the old raids. You don't need to "progress" through them repeatedly in order to get a sense of them, and this way no one else has to suffer through tiered content bullshit because you feel fussy you missed out on some farming.

Compare and contrast pugging your way through 10 man raids where you get a decent amount of gear vs. pugging your way through 5 man content for badges.  Which is more busy work? 

Of course nothing is stopping me from attempting to find some people to roll through old raids, but it's meaningless to me.  I don't want to steam roll content out of order.  I want to go through the games natural progression as it was built to do.

You sound pretty offended too, calm down cupcake.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 22, 2010, 11:28:22 AM
Frankly, that sounds boring as fuck to me. I raided the shit out of 10 man Naxx, I have no interest in farming it again for one person who will most likely need repeat visits to get the gear he needs, especially if part of this theoretical scenario is pulling the plug on gearing up 100% through badges. The RNG is a harsh mistress.

Incidently, it doesn't need a buff at this point to be easy unless I want to leave my DoppelRasix to the tender mercies of people who are geared as shittily as he theoretically is. Which would be sorely tempting, given I finished Naxx as hard as I fucking could already.

EDIT: Also I much prefer "badge grinding" in 5 mans where there's nothing I need because it does still drop something I need. Badges! If you're casting away the badge gear completely to encourage "progression," it's punishing a guild with a new member even harder because they'd be running old shit they're tired of for one person and good god who wants to do that. The other alternative is booting them into PUG raids for  god knows how long (again, drop-only loot farming can be really, really terrible), which would be a damn shame because one assumes they bothered to re-up and gear up to play with their friends.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 11:54:12 AM
Frankly, dinging 80 and then grinding heroic dungeons for a month to get badge gear only to be slightly undergeared for the latest and greatest dungeons seems incredibly boring to me.  I find it synonymous with hitting level 30 farming some random drops for a few weeks and then turning them in and dinging level 79.

Who says that you have to farm anything?  Whoever is gearing up can go back and do it on their own with other PUGs, just like he has to do with Heroics.  If you really want badges, just keep the badges tiered up with their own raid and offer similiar tier gear.  That'll kill the RNG.  Also the farther away from the top tier it is, the cheaper the gear is to buy with badges.

Naxx sure does need a buff if you're progressing through it as a new or returning player.  If your crawling out of 5 man dungeons and heroics you should be able to hop right into a Naxx pug and grab some gear.  Buffing the players makes the experience easier to farm.

Everyone seems to be worried about this one guy who's coming back to the game and you want to catch him up to your current level.  Well he has to play the game to catch up.  So go about it and play.  Mindlessly doing 5 mans is just as mindless as grinding Naxx a few times for gear.  I mean really, who are you punishing?  If a guild is accepting a lower geared player, then they are taking on the responsibility of helping him catch up.  If it's a friend?  Well be friendly and help him out otherwise. 

I just think the main difference is that you think it's ok to force someone to grind 5 man dungeons for a month to get badge gear but it's boring as hell to make someone grind/progress through a series of raids (which are much more well made than 5 mans imo).  I just think if you want to do a top tier raid, then you should raid to get your gear. 

I don't know why you're putting badge grinding in quotes, because that's what it is. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 22, 2010, 12:00:03 PM
I also think you're stuck on this whole catch up thing.  For example; say your Rasix version wanders off during Naxx and he comes back during ICC.  What is an acceptable amount of time for him to "catch up" to raid with you guys?  Currently that would take 2-3 weeks depending on his catass speed to grind out a full set of badge gear.  He can pug the 5 mans over and over.

It doesn't take nearly that long, unless he's running like, one dungeon a day. I got a fresh 80 ret paladin into 'could do the front 4 bosses in ICC 10' shape in under a week, without being tremendously catassy. The X factor is really just how long it takes you to get your needed weapon drops from the ICC heroics.

EDIT: His GS isn't going to get him into *pug* ICCs after a week, but it would be enough to run him in a guild run certainly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 22, 2010, 12:04:11 PM
So Draegan, your solution is to have people run the old dungeons with higher buffs instead of running five mans as a launching pad? Would the old raid content be five mannable in this case?

I can see a case for removing badge gear and making the old way of progression if I could do Naxx in a 5 man group, get 25 old man loot, and be done in an hour and change while making great gold rewards for the rest of the crew you bring along. If that's the scenario, sure.

If it's anything other than that, with no real rewards for the people at the top redoing content, or the people in the bottom having to organize themselves into larger groups, your plan makes no sense.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on June 22, 2010, 12:10:18 PM
I'd hate the focus to move from pug 5 mans to pug raiding entirely due to the complexity of certain raid fights. You know, it's hard enough explaining 5 man mechanics to single serving friends from LFD. I really don't want to explain say, heigan to them. Every. Goddamned. Time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 22, 2010, 12:36:22 PM
I just think the main difference is that you think it's ok to force someone to grind 5 man dungeons for a month to get badge gear but it's boring as hell to make someone grind/progress through a series of raids (which are much more well made than 5 mans imo).  I just think if you want to do a top tier raid, then you should raid to get your gear. 

It's boring as hell for his friends to help him farm raids. And I know that personally, I would rather eat my own face off than do PUG raids. I know they get done and with some regularity, but no one I know that participates in them actually enjoys doing them. I don't want to add more unenjoyable crap to the game.

The main difference is in reality, it would be sucking other people into your boring-ass grind rather than trucking along in your Dungeon Finder enabled boring-ass grind (although I don't find doing five mans particularly boring ... I also don't run them until my eyes bleed in order to gear up an alt, though, which helps). When it's just a 5 man, it's easy to set up, easy to explain, and pretty quick to get through. Raids are much longer, have more complex fights (even when you overgear the fuck out of them, you still generally have to know how a raid fight works to do it) and involve more people. That's why no one wants to have to do old raids. They do still get run, but instead for fun/achievements/mounts/the weekly. Which I think is better overall.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 01:57:55 PM
So Draegan, your solution is to have people run the old dungeons with higher buffs instead of running five mans as a launching pad? Would the old raid content be five mannable in this case?

I can see a case for removing badge gear and making the old way of progression if I could do Naxx in a 5 man group, get 25 old man loot, and be done in an hour and change while making great gold rewards for the rest of the crew you bring along. If that's the scenario, sure.

If it's anything other than that, with no real rewards for the people at the top redoing content, or the people in the bottom having to organize themselves into larger groups, your plan makes no sense.

5 mannable?  I have no problem with that.  Maybe buffing it to the point where 5 peeps can do it sure.  I still don't see the major difference of pugging 5 people and 10 people.  People did i a lot with UBRS back in the day.  That's what I'm looking at right now. 

My main thought process is now that I hit max level I would like to see some "epic" progression rather than doing slightly harder dungeons that I've been doing while leveling and then popping into the latest and greatest raid.  The transition doesn't feel right to me.

I'm not trying to stir up a casual vs. hardcore style debate.  Or solo vs. raider debate or whatever argument that gets peoples' panties in a bunch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 22, 2010, 02:03:38 PM
What exactly is stopping you from just doing Naxx/Ulu/Etc. to "progress" now?


No one is putting a gun to your head to badge farm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 22, 2010, 02:09:36 PM
5 mannable?  I have no problem with that.  Maybe buffing it to the point where 5 peeps can do it sure.  I still don't see the major difference of pugging 5 people and 10 people.  People did i a lot with UBRS back in the day.  That's what I'm looking at right now. 


UBRS wasn't as complex though, fight-wise, was it? I honestly don't remember, I only went into that place, like ... twice. Ever. Because I had no interest in doing a PUG that consisted of more than 5 people.  :why_so_serious: I've never had a good experience in a real PUG that was more than 5 people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on June 22, 2010, 02:25:06 PM
Honestly though, I think they've gone too far. I consider flying mounts, LFD and many things regarding badges to be irretractable long-term mistakes. I know I won't get many to agree about the flying mounts, but I really do feel they were a mistake and not in the "not hardcore enough" sense.
MUDflation I can agree is a problem.  Flying mounts I can see an argument for since they change the dynamics of moving about the world and trivialize getting from point A to B.  (There's good and bad to it, and counters they could implement but haven't.)

As the owner of two green proto-drakes though, I don't care.  They're probably my favorite creature design in the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 22, 2010, 02:44:35 PM
What exactly is stopping you from just doing Naxx/Ulu/Etc. to "progress" now?


No one is putting a gun to your head to badge farm.

Let's give the argument a little credit. Everyone knows that the average MMOG player will ALWAYS take the path of least resistance even if it's 80% less fun, so you already know the answer to that question.

However, if the logistics were changed to allow people to actually progress through content in a way that offered the noobs/alts gear, and my powerleveling ass a good amount of gold...Fuck, I'd just like a switch where they let me turn off loot and just got paid for running instances. Instead of gear, drop more coinage. That would rule.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 22, 2010, 02:51:59 PM
Honestly though, I think they've gone too far. I consider flying mounts, LFD and many things regarding badges to be irretractable long-term mistakes. I know I won't get many to agree about the flying mounts, but I really do feel they were a mistake and not in the "not hardcore enough" sense.
MUDflation I can agree is a problem.  Flying mounts I can see an argument for since they change the dynamics of moving about the world and trivialize getting from point A to B.  (There's good and bad to it, and counters they could implement but haven't.)

As the owner of two green proto-drakes though, I don't care.  They're probably my favorite creature design in the game.

Flying around is just plain fun. See: CoX.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 02:55:24 PM
What exactly is stopping you from just doing Naxx/Ulu/Etc. to "progress" now?


No one is putting a gun to your head to badge farm.

Let's give the argument a little credit. Everyone knows that the average MMOG player will ALWAYS take the path of least resistance even if it's 80% less fun, so you already know the answer to that question.

However, if the logistics were changed to allow people to actually progress through content in a way that offered the noobs/alts gear, and my powerleveling ass a good amount of gold...Fuck, I'd just like a switch where they let me turn off loot and just got paid for running instances. Instead of gear, drop more coinage. That would rule.

Being able to switch from loot drops to gold is a pretty good idea.

Thank you for giving my idea some credit.  Heh.

What exactly is stopping you from just doing Naxx/Ulu/Etc. to "progress" now?


No one is putting a gun to your head to badge farm.

Yeah no one is putting a gun to my head farm badges, but that's a pretty stupid argument.  Why would I play a game and make it difficult on myself?  The game is currently not set up to do progression raiding (unless you're doing it as content is released).  Since it's not set up that way, finding people to do each raid in order like that would be impossible and even if I did all the while I'd be thinking to myself, "I'm fucking dumb.  I could get better gear quicker and easier. I feel stupid."  

Badge gear feels like a cheat code almost among other things.

UBRS wasn't as complex though, fight-wise, was it? I honestly don't remember, I only went into that place, like ... twice. Ever. Because I had no interest in doing a PUG that consisted of more than 5 people.  :why_so_serious: I've never had a good experience in a real PUG that was more than 5 people.

It was a different era, some of those fights were tough though, but mostly simple.  Some 5 mans today are harder than anything that was in Vanilla.  But Raids are pugged today, I don't see how facerolling Naxx with people is hard.  If you are power boosted enough it takes some of the DPS checks out of things.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on June 22, 2010, 03:05:12 PM
UBRS wasn't as complex though, fight-wise, was it? I honestly don't remember, I only went into that place, like ... twice. Ever. Because I had no interest in doing a PUG that consisted of more than 5 people.  :why_so_serious: I've never had a good experience in a real PUG that was more than 5 people.
Does Leeroy Jenkins mean anything to you? :-P It was complicated enough for people in those days. The bosses were, relatively speaking, hard for their time. In the haydays I probably had a ~50% success rate in UBRS with PuGs. The 15-man raids probably wiped more than the 10-man raids though (they lowered the player cap in 1.7 or something.)

That said, I think Draegan's point was that the content should be reused rather than just making people farm more of the same thing. For example, practically give away some decent blues and a few epics at the badge vendors if you want to let players catch up, then let people go raid Naxx with twice the drop rates rather than repeat the 5-man instances five bazillion times. How many badges do you need to get an ICC-ready set? 150ish? Plus some semi-rare drops you will probably want? That's a lot of runs to be a catch-up mechanism, if you ask me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 22, 2010, 03:08:02 PM
Badge gear feels like a cheat code almost among other things.

One that they added deliberately to make sure people can actually see the content they're creating in a reasonable time frame, which is something huge numbers of people had been asking for for years. The badge system has been massively popular ever since they added the first version of it in TBC, participation in various types of endgame PVE massively increased in TBC compared to vanilla and then massively increased again in Wrath compared to TBC, all because of accessibility - and the badge system is a central part of that.

Remember, TBC raiding essentially forced you to do what you're suggesting via attunement quests (must do instances in order), and they got rid of it because it was massively unpopular. Basically I think you are severely overestimating the number of people who would actually want what you're suggesting. Blizzard is always going to cater to the majority, that is why they have money hats.

EDIT: I used the word massively a few too many times in that post.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 22, 2010, 03:16:13 PM
Is there a good reason we're rehashing 5 year old class drama at this point anyway?
We're all waiting for the :nda: to drop, so there's nothing better to do than pointing out warriors are all a bunch of prima donnas with entitlement complexes.  :grin:

To bad we run the raids!  :awesome_for_real:

Really? News to me, we haven't had a warrior tank in a year.


As to raid forced raid progression vs badges.  It was that way in EQ.. it sucked.  Nobody goes back to help folks, so you'd have been sitting on your ass or not subbing.  Or you're relying on (mostly vain) hopes that your guild will want to carry you until you're geared-up.  With badges they have mini-resets for folks to catch-up or take a break for a raid cycle then jump back in.   It's a better system and thinking otherwise is either nostalgia or a lack of experience in the crappiness of forced tiered raiding.  

That's also discounting that when it WAS in vogue there were no other choices out there.  It's hard enough keeping 25 folks regularly interested in raiding for an entire expansion cycle as things are in "too easy casual-land."  You want to force that bullshit on the player base you'll either watch it evaporate or realize you're spending a lot of time and money pushing out 'features' that nobody uses.  Last i checked this was WoW, not Microsoft Office.

If you're having to "run heroics for a month" I don't know what you're doing.  Most heroics give you 5 badges per run, which can be accomplished in 15-20 mins.  It takes 210 badges to get a full set of T9, meaning 42 runs.  Run 5 a day and it'll take you 9 days to gear-up.  That doesn't include getting a nice weapon out of one of the IC 5-mans.  Find a PUG to do a WRQ or two in that 8 days and you knock a few runs off and get some frost badges to boot.  Run a pug or two for VOA and you might get lucky and pick up some pieces, but you'll snag some additional badges at the very least.  

In short, only if you're too time-starved or friendless to run more than one dungeon a day will it ever take you a month to gear up.  If either of those are the case, why the fuck are you gearing-up as you're not going to be raiding.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evil Elvis on June 22, 2010, 03:17:02 PM
5 mannable?  I have no problem with that.  Maybe buffing it to the point where 5 peeps can do it sure.  I still don't see the major difference of pugging 5 people and 10 people.  People did i a lot with UBRS back in the day.  That's what I'm looking at right now. 


UBRS wasn't as complex though, fight-wise, was it? I honestly don't remember, I only went into that place, like ... twice. Ever. Because I had no interest in doing a PUG that consisted of more than 5 people.  :why_so_serious: I've never had a good experience in a real PUG that was more than 5 people.

You just made me remember the days of pugging General Drakkisath.
: RAGE :


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 22, 2010, 03:19:51 PM
True the badge system was popular as a way to get through the content to the next level. However, it is starting to grate on me now. Everyone wants to do heroics constantly, and I get zero peace in the game when I log in due to this fact. Do they need all the badges? Hell no, they are moderately gearing their 4th alt who will probably never raid seriously, but that doesn't stop them from asking me to do the damn daily. It's something to do, we need to the do daily, want a daily, who needs the daily, DAILY!!!

I don't need the daily anymore. I'm sick of the damn thing. I literally stopped logging into the game for the last two weeks because of that fact. The badge thing is helping people burn through the gear levels almost so fast that there is no point in even finishing an instance beyond epeen. Why would I bother getting into the last wings of ICC 25 man when I can grind 6 bosses for about 2-3 months in a raid, fill in the gaps with 10 man gear, and hit whatever magical gearscore people seem to care about?

To me, I used to think I was totally motivated by the challenge, which I am in 10 man. However, 25 mans are just loot pinatas to me now, and I got sick of trying to bother with the extra hassle. I won't miss them in the next iteration.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on June 22, 2010, 03:21:12 PM
Honestly though, I think they've gone too far. I consider flying mounts, LFD and many things regarding badges to be irretractable long-term mistakes. I know I won't get many to agree about the flying mounts, but I really do feel they were a mistake and not in the "not hardcore enough" sense.
MUDflation I can agree is a problem.  Flying mounts I can see an argument for since they change the dynamics of moving about the world and trivialize getting from point A to B.  (There's good and bad to it, and counters they could implement but haven't.)

As the owner of two green proto-drakes though, I don't care.  They're probably my favorite creature design in the game.

Flying around is just plain fun. See: CoX.

Completely agree - IT'S THE FLYING ITSELF THAT IS FUN.  "Experiencing" the tedium of fighting your way through the environment to get to the area you need to be isn't fun for me.

If designers want me to have to fight my way to a specific point, put that point inside a building, dungeon, or another plane of existence... but let me fly across the world to get there because it's just SO DAMN COOL.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 03:27:33 PM
Badge gear feels like a cheat code almost among other things.

One that they added deliberately to make sure people can actually see the content they're creating in a reasonable time frame, which is something huge numbers of people had been asking for for years. The badge system has been massively popular ever since they added the first version of it in TBC, participation in various types of endgame PVE massively increased in TBC compared to vanilla and then massively increased again in Wrath compared to TBC, all because of accessibility - and the badge system is a central part of that.

Remember, TBC raiding essentially forced you to do what you're suggesting via attunement quests (must do instances in order), and they got rid of it because it was massively unpopular. Basically I think you are severely overestimating the number of people who would actually want what you're suggesting. Blizzard is always going to cater to the majority, that is why they have money hats.

EDIT: I used the word massively a few too many times in that post.

I'm all for getting people to the end.  I'm in no way advocating the cockblock that was Vanilla or TBC raiding.  I'm advocating progressive raiding that as the expansion matures the opening tiers get easier and easier.  

What I'm advocating is that in roughly the same amount of time it takes someone to get full badge loot to be almost ready to raid ICC, it will take someone someone to go through 3 tiers or raiding.

It takes a shit load of time to be full badge loot.  It takes, what 10 dungeons runs for a chest pieces and maybe 5 or 6 for other items?  You're also assuming you're getting drops from the ICC5 mans that you can't even random for until your gear is good enough.

For the average player doing 3-5 dungeons a day, playing everyday, it's still going to take them a few weeks to get fully ready (assuming gold isn't an issue for enchants and gems).  That's only being shortened with help from friends.

Whats wrong with having a player run Naxx a few times in a week to get him the gear he needs to be ready for Ulduar to be ready for TOC to be ready for ICC finally?

That's what I'm advocating.  I'm trying to get the old raids to the point where you're not farming them like old school raiding where you do it once per week for months at a time until you're fully geared.  I want to manipulated the RNG, the amount of loot and the ease of doing the raid to the point that it takes 1-2 weeks of steady play to get passed it.  So if you're making a new character, and you don't know anyone you can go from 80 to ICC ready in about a month, month and a half.

You can even create incentives for overgeared players to go back.  Perhaps you can flag yourself and mats/gold drops from bosses that you kill.  Imagine if you can farm Naxx and each boss drops a stack or multiple stacks of cloth/ore/herbs?  Or enchants scrolls or gems?

In the end, I think people think I'm trying to make everyone have to do old raids in the way they were done back in the day.  That's not the case.  I agree with Blizzard in allowing players see the high end dungeons where they didn't see them in prior expansions.  I just would of gone about it a different way that didn't invalidate content over the course of an expansion.  I want to create the same experience, albeit easier, for new players or returning players that veteran players had.  


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 22, 2010, 03:43:09 PM
True the badge system was popular as a way to get through the content to the next level. However, it is starting to grate on me now. Everyone wants to do heroics constantly, and I get zero peace in the game when I log in due to this fact. Do they need all the badges? Hell no, they are moderately gearing their 4th alt who will probably never raid seriously, but that doesn't stop them from asking me to do the damn daily. It's something to do, we need to the do daily, want a daily, who needs the daily, DAILY!!!

I don't need the daily anymore. I'm sick of the damn thing. I literally stopped logging into the game for the last two weeks because of that fact.

The answer to that is telling people to get bent.  Really, I'm not going to bug someone to speed up my fourth character's queue by ten minutes when I can just go and do my Jewelcrafting daily instead.

That said, I really prefer trivializing earlier raid content to being stuck in it forever.  I really like being able to gear up a character to within ear-shot of my main just because I feel like trying it out.

If anything, the badge-powered gear resets have put the gear treadmill in starker relief, and if that helps people think about what they want to do, that's a huge plus for me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 22, 2010, 03:44:16 PM
True the badge system was popular as a way to get through the content to the next level. However, it is starting to grate on me now. Everyone wants to do heroics constantly, and I get zero peace in the game when I log in due to this fact. Do they need all the badges? Hell no, they are moderately gearing their 4th alt who will probably never raid seriously, but that doesn't stop them from asking me to do the damn daily. It's something to do, we need to the do daily, want a daily, who needs the daily, DAILY!!!

I don't need the daily anymore. I'm sick of the damn thing. I literally stopped logging into the game for the last two weeks because of that fact. The badge thing is helping people burn through the gear levels almost so fast that there is no point in even finishing an instance beyond epeen. Why would I bother getting into the last wings of ICC 25 man when I can grind 6 bosses for about 2-3 months in a raid, fill in the gaps with 10 man gear, and hit whatever magical gearscore people seem to care about?

To me, I used to think I was totally motivated by the challenge, which I am in 10 man. However, 25 mans are just loot pinatas to me now, and I got sick of trying to bother with the extra hassle. I won't miss them in the next iteration.

I just say no.  :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on June 22, 2010, 03:54:28 PM
Even from a hardcore raiding perspective: if you decide you need a new X for your raiding, you're forced to bump the entire raid down a few tiers to get them up through it all. It's a PAIN.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 22, 2010, 03:58:54 PM
UBRS wasn't as complex though, fight-wise, was it? I honestly don't remember, I only went into that place, like ... twice. Ever. Because I had no interest in doing a PUG that consisted of more than 5 people.  :why_so_serious: I've never had a good experience in a real PUG that was more than 5 people.

You missed out on gnome punting?

EDIT: I kind of have to agree with Draegan.  I'd like to see some of the old raids recycled into five mans, or easy-mode 10 man versions with upped loot drops (or the ability to select your own loot), cut trash, and no lockouts.  Then again, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to fully gear a person for ICC in a matter of days rather than weeks.  Or even have have all the loot which drops in not-bleeding-edge raids and instances be BoA.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 22, 2010, 04:20:22 PM
I just say no.  :-P

Yeah, but then when I log in I realize there's not shit to do anyway. The game is pretty f'ing boring atm as it always is once the new expansion talk starts. I've done this twice already when I totally switched to pvp for my daily fix. I'm not even bothering this time around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 22, 2010, 04:35:03 PM
Farm a ton of cash so you can bankroll all your crazy upgrading in the next expansion!

I should take my own advice, but I never do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on June 22, 2010, 04:56:06 PM
Flying around is just plain fun. See: CoX.
Super Jump moreso, but yes.  And now I do it in style. 8-)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 05:05:27 PM
UBRS wasn't as complex though, fight-wise, was it? I honestly don't remember, I only went into that place, like ... twice. Ever. Because I had no interest in doing a PUG that consisted of more than 5 people.  :why_so_serious: I've never had a good experience in a real PUG that was more than 5 people.

You missed out on gnome punting?

EDIT: I kind of have to agree with Draegan.  I'd like to see some of the old raids recycled into five mans, or easy-mode 10 man versions with upped loot drops (or the ability to select your own loot), cut trash, and no lockouts.  Then again, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to fully gear a person for ICC in a matter of days rather than weeks.  Or even have have all the loot which drops in not-bleeding-edge raids and instances be BoA.

I forgot about that.  You could make raid gear BoA to pass on to alts.  I see no problem with that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 22, 2010, 05:10:09 PM
I miss superjump so fucking much. :(

I guess part of my thing with this "zomg force progression" is that you want to water down the raids so much so you can justify forcing people through them ... I just fail to see the point. It seems like a fuckton of work to nerf the shit out of old raids just to coax people back into them after they've been chewed up and spit out. I cannot begin to stress just how shitty I think it would be to take badges out, which seems to be part of this little fantasy of yours. And if you're not taking badges out, people are STILL going to skip the raids because for shit like badge farming people are going to default to the smaller group because it's less of a pain in the ass to get together.

I guess I just do not see the gameplay point of forcing people through farmed-to-death raids. I think it's the "forced" part that's annoying me the most, and it certainly comes across like that's exactly what you want to do, force people to do the raids in order. Why? Because shut up, that's why. Do the crapton of work to make old raids a good option along side farming five mans? Fine, although seemingly pointless to me. But that is not at all what it sounds like you really want to do. It sounds like you want to force people to do the raids in order, even after it's been long since farmed to death by most of the people who are interested in raiding. And I just cannot fathom why you would want to go back to doing that to people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on June 22, 2010, 05:18:01 PM
UBRS wasn't as complex though, fight-wise, was it? I honestly don't remember,

It really wasn't but it was damn hard with a pug because people were there for what was basically crappy gear, which meant they had CRAPPIER gear, and some of the trash pulls were really quite hard at the time, especially post-Rend event.  The last boss also did enough damage that a common strategy was to have a hunter kite the boss as far as he could back through the instance while the rest of the raid killed his adds, which isn't exactly how the fight was "meant" to be done, but it was a somewhat difficult fight/mechanic if you didn't have a competent kiter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 22, 2010, 05:20:40 PM
I miss kiting Rend, it was damn fun.  Hell, I miss the epic hunter quest, too.  So much prep and focus.  You earned that damn bow and loved it.  Then again I loved playing a druid in EQ as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 22, 2010, 05:36:48 PM
didn't have a competent kiter.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ha

Good times.

If any of you guys need me I'll be in the bathroom cutting myself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on June 22, 2010, 05:48:44 PM
I've completed one wing of Naxx and entered it three other times for the weekly raid.  Same with a couple of other raid dungeons.  I have yet to finish any Raid, but still like doing parts of the old ones with my guild.

Your idea keeps me from what little I already manage to do.  I don't like the idea of forced progression at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on June 22, 2010, 05:57:25 PM
Super Jump moreso, but yes.  And now I do it in style. 8-)

I miss superjump so fucking much. :(

It's the one gameplay element that could make me resub CoX at any time. There just simply isn't anything else like it in any other game. Yes, it's retardo-physics. No, I don't fucking care. I just leapt 300 yards, changed direction in mid-air and landed with pinpoint accuracy on an air-vent. Fuck you, physics. Fuck you in the face. BOING!

Don't get me wrong, I love flying in games too, but the happiest I've ever been travelling in WoW was during the Halloween event when my Shadow Priest got to be a proper Witch and zoom around on a broomstick for a week or so. Till it was cruelly ripped from my inventory. Fuck that stupid sparklepony. GIVE ME MY GODDAMN BROOM BACK YOU FUCKS.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 22, 2010, 06:32:45 PM
Fuck you, physics. Fuck you in the face. BOING!

That pretty much sums up how awesome superjump is right there.  :heart: :heart: :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 06:40:26 PM
I miss superjump so fucking much. :(

I guess part of my thing with this "zomg force progression" is that you want to water down the raids so much so you can justify forcing people through them ... I just fail to see the point. It seems like a fuckton of work to nerf the shit out of old raids just to coax people back into them after they've been chewed up and spit out. I cannot begin to stress just how shitty I think it would be to take badges out, which seems to be part of this little fantasy of yours. And if you're not taking badges out, people are STILL going to skip the raids because for shit like badge farming people are going to default to the smaller group because it's less of a pain in the ass to get together.

I guess I just do not see the gameplay point of forcing people through farmed-to-death raids. I think it's the "forced" part that's annoying me the most, and it certainly comes across like that's exactly what you want to do, force people to do the raids in order. Why? Because shut up, that's why. Do the crapton of work to make old raids a good option along side farming five mans? Fine, although seemingly pointless to me. But that is not at all what it sounds like you really want to do. It sounds like you want to force people to do the raids in order, even after it's been long since farmed to death by most of the people who are interested in raiding. And I just cannot fathom why you would want to go back to doing that to people.

How is this forced progression?  You like raiding don't you?  Why are you pissed that when you start a new character you have to go through each level of raiding?  The whole idea is give a path of progression FOR NEW AND RETURNING PLAYERS.  This whole idea, I don't care about your alts.  No one is coaxing anyone "back into them", this is meant to be played out from the beginning of the expansion onward, and not tacked on at the end.  

You're looking at this through the perspective a person who's sitting at the top and not at the perspective of a new player.  Why would you as a veteran player be forced to go back through old raids?  It can't be forced if you haven't done them yet.  If you have done them, there isn't really a reason to go back (or we can include incentives like I said).

I really don't think you understand what I'm discussing here.   This isn't for old players.  This is for returning players and new ones.  I want to put structure back into the raid game.  Not some gear reseting badge collection game to play the latest dungeon.  If you are a returning player and you have a stacked guild waiting for you, then kudos to you if you can get them to help you skip tiers.  That's all fine and dandy.  Game the system for all I care.  

You think getting rid of the badge system is going to make you have to go back and do old raids?  How many people do you have coming back to your guild that you would have to help gear up?  The only thing is that everyone isn't going to have a nearly top tier geared alt.  The whole badge system is retarded anyway.  It's just gearflation at it's pinnacle.  

I enjoyed gearing up toons via raids or dungeons.  Now it's just a fancy flash game that you run through over and over for badges for your 4th alt.  The game just feels cheap that way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on June 22, 2010, 07:00:11 PM
You're looking at this through the perspective a person who's sitting at the top and not at the perspective of a new player.  Why would you as a veteran player be forced to go back through old raids?  It can't be forced if you haven't done them yet.  If you have done them, there isn't really a reason to go back (or we can include incentives like I said).

I really don't think you understand what I'm discussing here.   This isn't for old players.  This is for returning players and new ones.  I want to put structure back into the raid game.  Not some gear reseting badge collection game to play the latest dungeon.  If you are a returning player and you have a stacked guild waiting for you, then kudos to you if you can get them to help you skip tiers.  That's all fine and dandy.  Game the system for all I care.  
I don't think you get it.  I was this new player.  I had to grind my ass off for 80 levels, mostly solo, because everyone else was already way ahead of me.  All I wanted was to play with my friends.  Your system tells me "fuck you, grind out raids now" if I want to play with them.

It's a stupid idea.  I know it's your pet little idea so you think it would be awesome, but it's shit.  Let it go.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on June 22, 2010, 07:05:48 PM
[...]
I enjoyed gearing up toons via raids or dungeons.  Now it's just a fancy flash game that you run through over and over for badges for your 4th alt.  The game just feels cheap that way.

It IS just a fancy flash game that you run through over and over for gear.  The old way put you at the mercy of the RNG.  Also, if YOU needed the loot from an old dungeon, you were dependent on talking people into going through with you.

The new way makes it soul-crushingly obvious how many times you'll need to run the dungeons to get your gear.  Clearly you'd rather have your illusions.  Seems like most folks don't want to be at the mercy of the kindness of strangers/guildmates AND the RNG.

Eventually somedev will invent something less soul draining and everyone will knock themselves out giving them money.  For now, it seems to either/or if you like a game with gear.  (Typhon whispers, "diablo looooooot")


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 22, 2010, 07:06:09 PM
How is it not forced?

I do like raiding. Why am I pissed at the thought of farming old raids to gear up a new alt? Because unless you have something like the badge system, there's a good chance that after I scrape together a raid of returning-and-new-players, I am not only going to be doing a raid I've done a billion million times before, there's a really REALLY good chance that we'll be looking at an asston of spell plate no one wants. Again. Because the random loot droppage does that. There's also a good chance I am bothering to gear up said alt because my guild needs that character for some reason. I don't want to have to farm old content I got sick of the first time through and cross my fingers that everything drops just so and my gear rolls go just right so I can raid with my normal group in a similarly reasonable time frame compared to the way it works now.

I don't like making my guild give me piggyback rides. So in your theoretical world, I can either suck it up with PUGs full of new-and-returning people who don't know the instances that well (which, God help me, means I might have to help lead), or ... make my guild give me a piggyback ride. I will take badge farming over that every single time.


FAKE EDIT: And Lantyssa probably knows much better than me how bad it would suck for your new-and-returning players than I would. MOST people interested in raiding are going to have done the raiding when it was new or almost-new. The badge system helps the people who missed out the first go around (and those with alts, many tasty alts) not have to slog through stuff no one else wants to do. I don't think taking that away and replacing it with "on top of just getting to max level, now you have to do the entire progression with people you don't even know very well to catch up with your guild" is ... going to be well recieved by the majority of people. We've done that. People didn't mind seeing it go.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 07:26:57 PM
I don't think you get it.  I was this new player.  I had to grind my ass off for 80 levels, mostly solo, because everyone else was already way ahead of me.  All I wanted was to play with my friends.  Your system tells me "fuck you, grind out raids now" if I want to play with them.

It's a stupid idea.  I know it's your pet little idea so you think it would be awesome, but it's shit.  Let it go.

There no need to be rude and insulting darl'in.

You see, I was that new player as well.  I quit during Naxx, came back for ICC.  I hated skipping content.  It felt cheesy and cheap.  I grinded the badges and jumped into the Raid game.  There was no structure, no carrot.  I had no clear line of progression.  I just got dumped into the end of the raid game after running 5 mans for a while.  I would of rather taking it step by step just like everyone else and see the content as it was released.

The way WOW is now is lame.  It skips over content and cheapens the experience.  There are plenty of people who would agree with me.  But maybe you don't.  Which is fine.  Both ways are valid.

Now maybe you can open your pretty little eyes and realize there other valid opinions out there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 07:33:16 PM
How is it not forced?

I do like raiding. Why am I pissed at the thought of farming old raids to gear up a new alt? Because unless you have something like the badge system, there's a good chance that after I scrape together a raid of returning-and-new-players, I am not only going to be doing a raid I've done a billion million times before, there's a really REALLY good chance that we'll be looking at an asston of spell plate no one wants. Again. Because the random loot droppage does that. There's also a good chance I am bothering to gear up said alt because my guild needs that character for some reason. I don't want to have to farm old content I got sick of the first time through and cross my fingers that everything drops just so and my gear rolls go just right so I can raid with my normal group in a similarly reasonable time frame compared to the way it works now.

I don't like making my guild give me piggyback rides. So in your theoretical world, I can either suck it up with PUGs full of new-and-returning people who don't know the instances that well (which, God help me, means I might have to help lead), or ... make my guild give me a piggyback ride. I will take badge farming over that every single time.


FAKE EDIT: And Lantyssa probably knows much better than me how bad it would suck for your new-and-returning players than I would. MOST people interested in raiding are going to have done the raiding when it was new or almost-new. The badge system helps the people who missed out the first go around (and those with alts, many tasty alts) not have to slog through stuff no one else wants to do. I don't think taking that away and replacing it with "on top of just getting to max level, now you have to do the entire progression with people you don't even know very well to catch up with your guild" is ... going to be well recieved by the majority of people. We've done that. People didn't mind seeing it go.

We obviously don't agree.  I think it would be more fun to grind gear to catch up if there was some sort of LFD for Naxx/Uld/ToC.  You think it's more fun to grind gear to catch up doing the same 5 mans over and over.  

Imagine if there wasn't a LFD system.  No one would be grinding badges as much as they are now.  Raids would probably be more efficient way of doing it.

Shrug.  Both processes involve grinding old content over and over if you are gearing up alts.  Except for a newer player, they are seeing new content as they go up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 22, 2010, 07:36:59 PM
There are plenty of people who would agree with me. 

This is where I'm 99% certain you're wrong.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 22, 2010, 07:37:17 PM
Draegan, your idea sounds awful. You're the only one here supporting it, and if they did this it would make it much more DIFFICULT for a resubbing player.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 22, 2010, 07:38:51 PM
Draegan, your idea sounds awful. You're the only one here supporting it, and if they did this it would make it much more DIFFICULT for a resubbing player.

It's almost like that's why they've moved away from that and attunements in the first place.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 07:40:10 PM
There are plenty of people who would agree with me.

This is where I'm 99% certain you're wrong.

I'm 99.1% sure that I'm not.  

Draegan, your idea sounds awful. You're the only one here supporting it, and if they did this it would make it much more DIFFICULT for a resubbing player.

To you.  Not to me.  I guess you just don't understand what I propose.  Maybe you should read it again.


It's almost like that's why they've moved away from that and attunements in the first place.

Jesus you're being dumb.  Attunements were taken out because they were retarded.  They forced a player to complete old raids, that were still difficult to do.  However in my proposal those old raids could be done in incredible short fashion because trash is taken out, bosses were nerfed, and players are buffed inside the zone.  If you could clear Naxx in an hour or so right now.  Do it 3-4 times in a week with 9 other players and you would be now ready for Ulduar.  With a Looking For Raid system you could probably do this in a single day if you had the time.

How many times do you think you could do TOC with buffed players and nerfed encounters?

They are completely different systems.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 22, 2010, 07:41:56 PM
Yes, everyone else is crazy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 22, 2010, 07:43:01 PM
Make a poll or some shit then if you think this is such a great idea. Go post it in the suggestions forum. Everyone here has told you its a dumb fucking idea but you insist that we're all retarded for saying it.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 22, 2010, 07:43:15 PM
Imagine if there wasn't a LFD system.  No one would be grinding badges as much as they are now.  Raids would probably be more efficient way of doing it.

People were grinding for badges/emblems before LFD came out.  All that did was just move out of Trade Chat/Dungeon Finder into an automated, cross-server, system.

Raids aren't really more efficient to grind emblems with, even in some crazy world where you could do them multiple times in a week.  And really, if the whole point of the current emblem system is to have gear resets, it should be lowest-common-denominator-at-80: Heroic 5-mans.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 22, 2010, 07:48:48 PM
Imagine if there wasn't a LFD system.  No one would be grinding badges as much as they are now.  Raids would probably be more efficient way of doing it.

People were grinding for badges/emblems before LFD came out.  All that did was just move out of Trade Chat/Dungeon Finder into an automated, cross-server, system.

Raids aren't really more efficient to grind emblems with, even in some crazy world where you could do them multiple times in a week.  And really, if the whole point of the current emblem system is to have gear resets, it should be lowest-common-denominator-at-80: Heroic 5-mans.
Pretty much this. Before /LFD we would go do a loop of all the easy heroics: start at Nexus, fly to AN/OK, then UP/UK, then DTK, then Gundrak. That was our badge grind for Naxx, Ulduar and ToC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 22, 2010, 07:52:02 PM
Make a poll or some shit then if you think this is such a great idea. Go post it in the suggestions forum. Everyone here has told you its a dumb fucking idea but you insist that we're all retarded for saying it.  :uhrr:

This place is extremely casual when it comes to WOW.  Most people here hated the idea of doing anything with more than 1 group of people most of the time.  

I'll stop because it won't happen in WOW anyway so the point is silly to discuss.

Imagine if there wasn't a LFD system.  No one would be grinding badges as much as they are now.  Raids would probably be more efficient way of doing it.

People were grinding for badges/emblems before LFD came out.  All that did was just move out of Trade Chat/Dungeon Finder into an automated, cross-server, system.

Raids aren't really more efficient to grind emblems with, even in some crazy world where you could do them multiple times in a week.  And really, if the whole point of the current emblem system is to have gear resets, it should be lowest-common-denominator-at-80: Heroic 5-mans.
Pretty much this. Before /LFD we would go do a loop of all the easy heroics: start at Nexus, fly to AN/OK, then UP/UK, then DTK, then Gundrak. That was our badge grind for Naxx, Ulduar and ToC.

The proliferation of badge gear is no where near the level it was prior to the LFD system. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 22, 2010, 08:12:15 PM
Part of that is that ToC introduced Emblems for Tier pieces so there's more slots that can be filled.  (For example, my DK's eventual set is all badge gear except for 4 crafted pieces, a PvP necklace, a drop off Ahune, and Quel'Delar.)

The bigger part is that not only does LFD makes it easier to get groups, it makes it a lot easier for people with marginal gear to get groups.  Pick-up Groups always want people to vastly overgear places so as a just-starting-out DPSer, you'd be hard pressed to get into groups without well-geared friends to tag along with.  Now, you can actually do dungeons you can get gear from!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 22, 2010, 08:15:23 PM
Yes, it's clearly a step backwards when you don't have to beg your friends to drag you along on a few raids just so you can do a heroic dungeon without them.   People who fall behind the gear curve should just wait out until the next expansion pack and its hard gear reset.  It's not like this is a game, it's srs bznz.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on June 22, 2010, 08:28:57 PM
Draegan's suggestions sound like trying to bring back some of the structured feel of EQ raiding to me.  I like that.  I don't know if his idea specifically would be good, but the general goal he's aiming at, that you do this, then that, then the next thing, and you don't skip shit, is entirely good in my point of view.  So I'm one of the people who does agree with him.  I liked doing Velious progression > Luclin progression > Planes > etc, and I would have liked to see the same thing in WoW.

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure this is generally a smaller subset of people who want to do everything in order.  Most people want to 'cheat' and shortcut to victory.  Even if it means they actually experience vastly less content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on June 22, 2010, 08:54:16 PM
I don't see why it's necessary.  It definitely shits on players like Lantyssa.  Sometimes I think extremely casual players like her would be okay if someone 'more hardcore' showed her a few tricks.  It's been my experience that most come away with a different view on the hardcore endgame after they've had a chance to experience it - even if they only figure out it's not for them.  I just don't see how making that mandatory for her is is a good thing at all, and that cock-block pretty much trumps whatever good comes from linear progression.  And even then, I think the argument for linear progression being a good thing is murky at best.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 22, 2010, 08:58:46 PM
You see, I was that new player as well.  I quit during Naxx, came back for ICC.  I hated skipping content.  It felt cheesy and cheap.  I grinded the badges and jumped into the Raid game.  There was no structure, no carrot.  I had no clear line of progression.  I just got dumped into the end of the raid game after running 5 mans for a while.  I would of rather taking it step by step just like everyone else and see the content as it was released.

The way WOW is now is lame.  It skips over content and cheapens the experience.  There are plenty of people who would agree with me.  But maybe you don't.  Which is fine.  Both ways are valid.

You didn't miss anything between the two points. Blizzard tried two totally different raiding ideas, and both of them sucked on the whole while succeeding at other things. Ulduar gave us the hard modes, which was a good idea. They also gave us a 14 boss dungeon which still is a shitty idea. Then, ToC brought us raid extensions and hardcore modes, which are awesome. They also tried zero trash, and a raid pvp fight in pve, both of which should never be done again.

ICC was just a combination of all the good things they figured out along the way. I was also with you up to a point, but you're heading into very specific territory. I think players might enjoy a watered-down version of the content, but inevitably you're suggesting that people run one thing instead of lots of things. In a game where people might already be very bored with the content, but looking to get enough for the next level, you'd create an unhappy situation of people feeling forced to redo content in order to increase the raiding pool.

Either that, or you'd create a group of people who feel forced to run something when they intentionally left the game to avoid it. A lot of people thought Ulduar and ToC were terribly shitty wastes of time, and they only gave a damn about ICC. At least in the current scenario, Blizzard can tell those like yourself "Hey there's still that content with all the achievements, ready to go for you and your close group of friends, should you decide to use it." Let's also face the reality that a lot of the content in this raiding tier is pretty much the same as the previous tier. There's always going to be dragons, there's always going to be dps races, and there's always going to be an annoying survival dance fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on June 22, 2010, 09:07:24 PM
There no need to be rude and insulting darl'in.

You see, I was that new player as well.  I quit during Naxx, came back for ICC.  I hated skipping content.  It felt cheesy and cheap.  I grinded the badges and jumped into the Raid game.  There was no structure, no carrot.  I had no clear line of progression.  I just got dumped into the end of the raid game after running 5 mans for a while.  I would of rather taking it step by step just like everyone else and see the content as it was released.

The way WOW is now is lame.  It skips over content and cheapens the experience.  There are plenty of people who would agree with me.  But maybe you don't.  Which is fine.  Both ways are valid.

Now maybe you can open your pretty little eyes and realize there other valid opinions out there.
Well, sweetheart, you're so fundamentally wrong I can't help myself.  You are showing a complete lack of knowledge about gamer psychology, social behavior, and existing examples of why this won't be enjoyed when compared to the overwhelmingly successful changes brought about with WotLK and the introduction of the LFD system.

You want a progression that makes sense.  That's fine.  I like that, too.  You've got it already.  Go run the raid dungeons in order.  What, you can't because finding a group is difficult?  Your system won't change that.  It'll only make the people you can scrape together resentful of being there.

Sure there are valid systems out there.  I even recognize other people would like different things from their games.  There's a lot I'd do differently about it were I picking what I want versus what sells.  Your idea?  It won't sell because it's a step back.

So instead of me opening my "pretty little eyes", why don't you open your pretty little mouth and suck my clit?

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure this is generally a smaller subset of people who want to do everything in order.  Most people want to 'cheat' and shortcut to victory.  Even if it means they actually experience vastly less content.
At least you understand it's a vastly smaller number of people that would want this.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on June 22, 2010, 10:46:47 PM
I have guildies constantly bring up the "I wish Naxx and Uld were still required to progress!" and I resoundingly tell them "NO."  Many of these people weren't around for the good ol' bad days of 40-m MC, AQ, and BWL.  The days of having to sit in trade for hours trying to get a dungeon run to farm your loot (where no one wanted to heal and the tank only wanted people in awesome gear), beg to get carried in MC, and if you reached 60 on a 2nd character, you got to start.  ALL.  OVER.  AGAIN.  Or you just abandoned the character or PVP'ed with them.  I explain how this all went, and I mostly get "wow, that sure doesn't sound like fun" and I say "yeah, but that's what you are suggesting!"

Then there's the occasional weirdo who wants attunements, rep grinds, and progression from 60->80 to be mandatory.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on June 22, 2010, 11:44:43 PM
I wish they were still relevant.  I really don't care for them being necessary.

If they turned them into heroics or Wrathgate events it would be pretty awesome, just walking into Naxxrammas alone and cockslapping a lich.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on June 22, 2010, 11:47:17 PM
Then there's the occasional weirdo who wants attunements, rep grinds, and progression from 60->80 to be mandatory.

Draegan's suggestions sound like trying to bring back some of the structured feel of EQ raiding to me.  I like that.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 23, 2010, 02:48:38 AM
I just had to wade through the last 3 pages.  WADE.

SO.  About Cataclysm ????

Stop having the same fucking stupid fights over and over.  It was a shit idea, already tried.  Let's move on.


Goblins Suck.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on June 23, 2010, 04:44:54 AM
There really was nothing like chewing glass on C'thun and still feeling pressure to kill Ragnaros every week for t2 pants.  Or, for that matter, having a healer burn out and needing to gear up some new guy in MC and BWL for 2 months.  This was not good.  If you remember it being good, you are wrong, if you didn't do it and think it would be good, you are also wrong.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 23, 2010, 05:34:08 AM
The way WOW is now is lame.  It skips over content and cheapens the experience.  There are plenty of people who would agree with me.  
Having the usual "EQ was the apex of MMO design and WoW should add camp checks and AAs" suspects piping up in agreement on FoH when you posted the same argument over there a couple of weeks ago <> "plenty of people".

Just FYI.

E: speelin'


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on June 23, 2010, 08:02:42 AM
SO.  About Cataclysm ????
Nothing new to chew on.  All we can do is grind the same old topics until we're fed something.  Be glad there's not a pre-req to discuss all old topics before we get to a new one though. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on June 23, 2010, 09:27:54 AM
[...]

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure this is generally a smaller subset of people who want to do everything in order.  Most people want to 'cheat' and shortcut to victory.  Even if it means they actually experience vastly less content.

I not in the "cheat" camp, mostly because I don't really care about gear or gear progression.  Don't get me wrong, it's really nice to get a good item, but I don't want the reason that I go to a dungeon to be based upon gear.  The sucks my will to play the game.

I'm in the "I'd like to do whatever dungeon I feel like doing today, and that will probably be one that I've done the least".

My camp would involve re-tooling EVERY dungeon in the game to have it scale itself to your level.  Oh yeah, and gear would all be random-drop.  Oh yeah, and you'd have gear that effected how you look, but was purely cosmetic, and gear that effected your stats.  Oh yeah, and the gear would be able to have (rare chance) extremely cool procs that didn't work in PvP.

Oh yeah, and higher level players in "lower level" dungeons would be facing a different pattern of enemy. It would be like the CoX idea where there would be the cannon fodder mobs, lieutenant mobs, and captain mods.  So if you are level-appropriate for that dungeon, only cannon fodder spawns.  If you are level + 5 to level + 10, lieutenants spawn and direct the mobs in intelligent ways (i.e. the encounter changes to something challenging, but at the same time you are pretty much one-shotting the canon fodder).  When the captains spawn, the lieutenants change into support-type mobs (high priority targets because they can fuck you up).

I think that covers it.  You'd basically have a reason for experiencing/playing every dungeon in the game not matter when you join the game.  No player would be locked into the same X number of dungeons that are "level appropriate" that they'll have to run a billion freaking times.  New dungeons could be released that most players could just start experiencing.  To prevent it from throwing out the concept of story, the "story" mobs only spawn when you are level appropriate for that story.  I'd actually make it even more like Diablom (2) in that the story mobs drop great loot, but only for your first time through the story (and you don't roll for that loot, it's just yours - should only drop loot that is class appropriate).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 23, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
Typhon, your idea is interesting. But it wouldn't work in WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 23, 2010, 10:58:24 AM
Post.

I think a portion of disagreement is trying to wedge the current dungeons into my "crazy idea".  I would hope that if that they did what I would like, they would design it from the ground up with that in mind.  I'm also assuming the content is good as well.  

Lesson learned is that not everyone can be pleased.  Gotta do it one way or another.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 23, 2010, 11:00:42 AM
Well, sweetheart, you're so fundamentally wrong I can't help myself.  You are showing a complete lack of knowledge about gamer psychology, social behavior, and existing examples of why this won't be enjoyed when compared to the overwhelmingly successful changes brought about with WotLK and the introduction of the LFD system.

You want a progression that makes sense.  That's fine.  I like that, too.  You've got it already.  Go run the raid dungeons in order.  What, you can't because finding a group is difficult?  Your system won't change that.  It'll only make the people you can scrape together resentful of being there.

Sure there are valid systems out there.  I even recognize other people would like different things from their games.  There's a lot I'd do differently about it were I picking what I want versus what sells.  Your idea?  It won't sell because it's a step back.

So instead of me opening my "pretty little eyes", why don't you open your pretty little mouth and suck my clit?


 :-)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 23, 2010, 11:01:24 AM
Someone did what you suggested, from the ground up. I suggest you try it out (http://escapetonorrath.station.sony.com/).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 23, 2010, 11:12:47 AM
Jesus christ, I'm not advocating this shitty raid game that EQ came up with.  I'm just saying that I would like to see some order and sequence to the end game in WOW.  You hit 80, you go from point A to B to C to D.  The farther you get away from A the easier A gets.  So easy in fact you can do it with a less people and less time (you define less, half?  2/3rds?).  There are no attunements either.  If you can strong arm through content with help of other people then you can even skip point A or B or whatever.

What I'm not advocating is:
1.  Farming old raids for months at a time so you can get to a raid that's just slightly newer.
2.  Making people complete old raids to be flagged for the next. 

Much like how you go from level 1, 2 3... 78, 79, 80, there is a similar progression at the end.  And just like when WOW added more levels to the cap, the old leveling curve got made easier.

I'm sorry Lant if you find the idea so offensive you had to go batshit insane on the idea.  For fuck sake.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on June 23, 2010, 11:32:21 AM
Thing is, bro, you are advocating those things because they're part and parcel to linear content.  In fact, at this point I'm not even sure you're advocating anything other than you winning an internet argument.  Because the more I read what you just posted, the less it makes any sense at all.  I'm particularly having a problem with:

(I'm not advocating:)
2.  Making people complete old raids to be flagged for the next. 

Which is directly follwed by:

Quote
Much like how you go from level 1, 2 3... 78, 79, 80, there is a similar progression at the end.

Do you understand how you can't really have one without the other?  Explain how you would accomplish gating content without a mechanic that looks a whole lot like flagging.  You can somehow make it easy to strong-arm the content (which you also are vague about how you would provide a mechanic for), but then what the fuck is the point?  Why make people do it if it's just going to be easy?  Aren't you just wasting people's time?  What is motivating you to have this old-ass argument?  I'm pretty sure I know.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 23, 2010, 11:49:57 AM
Do you understand how you can't really have one without the other?  Explain how you would accomplish gating content without a mechanic that looks a whole lot like flagging.  You can somehow make it easy to strong-arm the content (which you also are vague about how you would provide a mechanic for), but then what the fuck is the point?  Why make people do it if it's just going to be easy?  Aren't you just wasting people's time?  What is motivating you to have this old-ass argument?  I'm pretty sure I know.

You can get the help of over geared players to do higher tiers.  That's skipping content.  So your friends can help you out, if you have them.  There is no artificial flag that says, "You can't enter here."

I find the gameplay of doing dungeons and raids in a certain sequenced fashion with increasing difficulty more entertaining than grinding 5 man dungeons endlessly to skip over the content.  That's just my opinion.  I enjoy moving through the ranks, it's a form of character advancement.  What my motivation is to make it not a fucking pain in the ass as the current expansion gets older, hence making it easier.

I could ask the same question, "What the fuck is the point [in grinding badges]?"  Why not do a quest that just gives you the gear, why make people grind incredibly easy content, old content in order to get to the new stuff?  What's the difference between maybe 20-30 hours of game play of badge grinding vs. just giving the player the gear after doing some fluff quest titled "Intro to ICC"?  Why not cut out all the hours of grinding 5 man dungeons?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on June 23, 2010, 12:08:30 PM
You can get the help of over geared players to do higher tiers.  That's skipping content.  So your friends can help you out, if you have them.  There is no artificial flag that says, "You can't enter here."

I still don't follow this, man.  You say there's not an artificial flag.  But your friends have to help you do something or you can't move on.  See, I know how willing over geared players are to grab that 4k gear score noob friend and drag his useless ass through top end content.  That's my problem with your thingey here.  Because it's walking and talking an artificial flag.

As far as the badge grind, it's there because before it was there, there were definitely other -worse- artificial flags.  I'm not promoting the badge grind, but I just understand that the reality of things only presents so many alternatives given existing factors.  And while the badge grind is tedious, it's better than the MC gear grind because people can easily solo it, among many other reasons.  It could be better.  I agree.  But give me something less ambiguous than magical 'linear content that isn't gated.'


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on June 23, 2010, 12:16:49 PM
I could ask the same question, "What the fuck is the point [in grinding badges]?"  Why not do a quest that just gives you the gear, why make people grind incredibly easy content, old content in order to get to the new stuff?  What's the difference between maybe 20-30 hours of game play of badge grinding vs. just giving the player the gear after doing some fluff quest titled "Intro to ICC"?  Why not cut out all the hours of grinding 5 man dungeons?

That's pretty much what they do every expansion. (And by "every" I mean "both".) It's worked fine so far. (And by "fine" I mean I like it and lol at people who think it's cheap.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on June 23, 2010, 12:18:38 PM

I could ask the same question, "What the fuck is the point [in grinding badges]?"  Why not do a quest that just gives you the gear, why make people grind incredibly easy content, old content in order to get to the new stuff?  What's the difference between maybe 20-30 hours of game play of badge grinding vs. just giving the player the gear after doing some fluff quest titled "Intro to ICC"?  Why not cut out all the hours of grinding 5 man dungeons?

The answer is retaining players.  Every single time I've gone back to WoW I've grinded gear on my max level characters, MAYBE leveled one more character to level (max), and then cancelled again (recently cancelled again for that matter).  I don't raid anymore, I don't have an interest in doing it, it takes too long, it requires me to play at a certain time, and I certainly won't PUG a raid so that I can do it when I happen to be on.  There is no way I'd last longer than a month back in WoW if I had to raid.  Or, if I was just gifted the gear.  WoW is a collection game.  Its about collecting loot, mounts, pets, recipes, or whatever you happen to like getting heaps of.  Badges for 5 mans are an easily accessible shinies collection system and allow for anyone to play the collection game.    Your assumption is that everyone will/wants to see the latest content and isn't just there to shoot the shit with some friends and hang around in Dalaran with some new shinies.  WoW has become infinitely more enjoyable for me since embracing that.  When I'm in the mood for it, WoW is where I go, when I'm sick of it, I ditch it and go play something else.  Diablo 3 will probably replace WoW for me for this reason.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 23, 2010, 12:38:53 PM

I still don't follow this, man.  You say there's not an artificial flag.  But your friends have to help you do something or you can't move on.  See, I know how willing over geared players are to grab that 4k gear score noob friend and drag his useless ass through top end content.  That's my problem with your thingey here.  Because it's walking and talking an artificial flag.

As far as the badge grind, it's there because before it was there, there were definitely other -worse- artificial flags.  I'm not promoting the badge grind, but I just understand that the reality of things only presents so many alternatives given existing factors.  And while the badge grind is tedious, it's better than the MC gear grind because people can easily solo it, among many other reasons.  It could be better.  I agree.  But give me something less ambiguous than magical 'linear content that isn't gated.'


Spoiled for the people who don't want to read it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 23, 2010, 12:43:42 PM
 Your assumption is that everyone will/wants to see the latest content and isn't just there to shoot the shit with some friends and hang around in Dalaran with some new shinies.  WoW has become infinitely more enjoyable for me since embracing that.  When I'm in the mood for it, WoW is where I go, when I'm sick of it, I ditch it and go play something else.  Diablo 3 will probably replace WoW for me for this reason.

That I understand also.  Not everyone likes Raids, and sometimes when I've come back to WOW it was for the leveling content and then run a few dungeons when I finished leveling and also hanging out with old e-friends.  I usually then unsub.

I've always been an advocate of a seperate 5 man dungeon progressive system.  Like I said in the previous post, create a series of 5 man dungeons (like they did with ICC) with every raid.  Gives people who hate raiding something to do other than dailies.

My system is only there for the raid game.  I'm sure there are things people can come up with to create a grind for 5 man players that offer them shiny rewards. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 23, 2010, 12:45:44 PM
 :uhrr: :oh_i_see: :uhrr:

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on June 23, 2010, 12:51:19 PM
Anyone got a sock and some duct tape?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on June 23, 2010, 01:01:07 PM
Anyone got a sock and some duct tape?

Feel free to den the last page or so then.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on June 23, 2010, 01:05:31 PM
Heigan dance with a raid of 10/25 fresh 80 puggies pulled from the random-queue system is sure to be a snap. If you don't like that, insert any other raid mechanic slightly more complex than those of 5-mans, where "Quit standing in the purple shit!" can still be a problem.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 23, 2010, 01:28:17 PM
Heigan dance with a raid of 10/25 fresh 80 puggies pulled from the random-queue system is sure to be a snap. If you don't like that, insert any other raid mechanic slightly more complex than those of 5-mans, where "Quit standing in the purple shit!" can still be a problem.

Have you done the new 5man icc heroics? Hell just getting people to understand things like "stop hitting the boss while you have a big glowing light connecting you both"  are too complicated for most


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on June 23, 2010, 01:31:41 PM
Instructor.  25 man.  Good luck finding two spriests.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 23, 2010, 01:33:45 PM
Heigan dance with a raid of 10/25 fresh 80 puggies pulled from the random-queue system is sure to be a snap. If you don't like that, insert any other raid mechanic slightly more complex than those of 5-mans, where "Quit standing in the purple shit!" can still be a problem.

The biggest stumbling blocks in Naxx PUGs back in the day for me were always:

- Instructor Razuvious, (25 man version only) - finding 2 priests who could handle the mind control job was... difficult
- The entire abomination wing other than Patchwerk, but especiallyThaddius
- 4 Horsemen

The one nice thing about Heigan is that as long as a few people can handle it, and one of them is a healer that can cure disease and another one is a tank, you can eventually beat it even after most of the yahoos explode on the first dance phase.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on June 23, 2010, 01:48:44 PM
Anyone got a sock and some duct tape?

Feel free to den the last page or so then.



/Signed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 23, 2010, 01:52:45 PM
The one nice thing about Heigan is that as long as a few people can handle it, and one of them is a healer that can cure disease and another one is a tank, you can eventually beat it even after most of the yahoos explode on the first dance phase.

The best part about that is you can make the idiots who exploded sit there and watch you do it right for the 15 minutes or whatever it winds up taking to kill him if most of your raid is dumb.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on June 23, 2010, 02:12:09 PM
Typhon, your idea is interesting. But it wouldn't work in WoW.

Agree it's not something that WoW is going to do.  I just can't understand why if content is so expensive to create, no one has attempted to implement something like that.  90% of an MMOs content sits idle waiting for someone to level an alt?  Seems stupid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 23, 2010, 02:13:39 PM
I have sat dead, watching a 30min hiegan fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 23, 2010, 02:25:10 PM
And you deserved it, no doubt! ;)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on June 23, 2010, 03:33:09 PM
I miss old unholy aura, where you could kill your good dancers by turning on a random 15% runspeed buff <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on June 24, 2010, 07:42:22 AM
The one nice thing about Heigan is that as long as a few people can handle it, and one of them is a healer that can cure disease and another one is a tank, you can eventually beat it even after most of the yahoos explode on the first dance phase.

You can kill him before the first teleport now, easily.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mnemon on June 28, 2010, 11:21:29 AM
Typhon, your idea is interesting. But it wouldn't work in WoW.

Agree it's not something that WoW is going to do.  I just can't understand why if content is so expensive to create, no one has attempted to implement something like that.  90% of an MMOs content sits idle waiting for someone to level an alt?  Seems stupid.

I completely agree. The content is out there. There are always going to instances folks miss out on grinding up the first time, so why not have worthwhile, top level versions people can do?

Especially for some of the old favorite places like SM, ZG, BWL, UBRS/LBRS, etc.

Heck some of them can even be broken into three or four instances, ala SM.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mnemon on June 28, 2010, 11:49:50 AM
Gotta say after recently jumping back into WoW I like the whole badge/dungeon finder system they have in place. And I also like Blizzard making the 10 and 25 man dungeons have the same loot table, making the 25 man runs optional.

A big reason?

I'm tired of having to spend time in game with people I'd rather not deal with. Especially the egomaniac guild officers who tend to make up the upper echelons of a lot of middling raiding guilds.

been there, done that. and when its all said and done, it wasn't worth dealing with to get a few extra 0s and 1s next to my name in a database some where.

Instead you and a handful of friends can create a guild, login and run dungeons whenever you're on - regardless of whether there's 1 of you on or 5. And when Cataclysm comes out, it isn't going to be too hard to find 15 or so people who can run the 10 mans together.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratama on June 28, 2010, 01:06:12 PM
90% of an MMOs content sits idle waiting for someone to level an alt?  Seems stupid.
I think this is more of an issue with Dikus in general; spending millions of developer/designer hours on content that has an artificial shelf life IS pretty stupid.

Not as stupid as any idea that adds more grind between yourself and being able to play with your friends/family's chars, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on June 30, 2010, 04:12:05 PM
Closed beta has officially begun (http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?100630) according to Blizzard...

Cue fake beta emails in 3, 2, 1...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on June 30, 2010, 04:33:01 PM
90% of an MMOs content sits idle waiting for someone to level an alt?  Seems stupid.
I think this is more of an issue with Dikus in general; spending millions of developer/designer hours on content that has an artificial shelf life IS pretty stupid.

Not as stupid as any idea that adds more grind between yourself and being able to play with your friends/family's chars, though.

Well, thats the trick.  As long as people have bars to fill people will keep chasing the carrot, and stay subscribed to the game.  I've noticed a growing trend of people questioning why there are even level systems to begin with in lots of games lately.   Frankly I've been more or less done with RPGs and MMORPGs especially (but not exclusively)lately simply because I just can't be fucked to level up AGAIN in another game.   Its a fairly major switch for me, as RPGs have been my favorite genre for over a decade, but maybe i'm just burnt out on the concept at this point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 30, 2010, 05:10:31 PM
http://cata.wowhead.com/item=53412

 :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 30, 2010, 06:56:30 PM
God, even the goblin quest rewards are fucking awesome. Arrrrrrrrgh, why did we have to pick Alliance all those years ago!

Oh right, because they had dwarves.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on June 30, 2010, 08:50:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQqIPjT9ulM&feature=player_embedded

Female Worgen /flirts. Let's see how many of these survive to see Live.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 30, 2010, 10:15:27 PM
Holy shit are the troll feral forms ugly. The bear ones are slightly less hideous than the cat but wow. Colorblind artist guy is in FULL EFFECT.


EDIT: Maybe you'd like a link! http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2010/cataclysm/cataclysm_models/cataclysm_druid_troll_bear.jpg

http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2010/cataclysm/cataclysm_models/cataclysm_druid_troll_cat.jpg


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 30, 2010, 10:33:45 PM
I kind of think I want to stay a Tauren Druid now... :uhrr:.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on June 30, 2010, 10:37:55 PM
Haha.  Those are awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 30, 2010, 11:10:24 PM
Dear god! I automatically twitched my mouse hand to apply a hue/saturation layer to those  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on June 30, 2010, 11:26:26 PM
Holy shit are the troll feral forms ugly. The bear ones are slightly less hideous than the cat but wow. Colorblind artist guy is in FULL EFFECT.


EDIT: Maybe you'd like a link! http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2010/cataclysm/cataclysm_models/cataclysm_druid_troll_bear.jpg

http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2010/cataclysm/cataclysm_models/cataclysm_druid_troll_cat.jpg

I just saw those and came here to post the same thing.  Dear God those forms are hideous.  :ye_gods:

The worgen ones look good, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 30, 2010, 11:31:46 PM
So far the best part of the NDA dropping is all the BUT SYLVANNAS ISN'T EVIL HONEST people losing their shit because oh oops she totally fucking is. And they're acting like it came out of no where, as if the Forsaken starter quests didn't have you poisoning and plaguing from level 6 or so.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 30, 2010, 11:41:42 PM
The Forsaken are totally assholes, and that's what I kind of like(d) about them.  It's race that can't decide if it's the Black Knight or just a bunch of badasses.  At this point though, with the Horde going through its angst-y phase, I'm not sure I like doubling down on that part of their character.

Still, LOL LORE and all that.

Edit: Its, not it's.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 01, 2010, 12:03:13 AM
Closed beta has officially begun (http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?100630) according to Blizzard...

Cue fake beta emails in 3, 2, 1...

I've gotten 4 so far.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 01, 2010, 12:07:02 AM
Sylvannas plaguing anything that moves (and some stuff that doesn't) seems entirely in character and a completely logical next step for her, provided you weren't heavily invested in fooling yourself that she barely had anything to do with its development and she would never ever REALLY kill everything on the planet even though that's been the Forsaken's Mission Statement from day one. Some of the other shit she's pulling is even more hilariously evil, and I look forward to people trying to rationalize the shit out of it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 01, 2010, 02:55:12 AM
Can you clarify? Are you talking about using the plague despite what Warchief Pinhead said, the recruiting of errant Val'kyr to raise the dead as new Forsaken, eradicating that Stormwind-occupied military outpost known as Southshore, or killing Prince Galen Trollbane and then, ahem, 'recruiting' him to the Horde?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on July 01, 2010, 03:10:59 AM
Oh, HAI Baron Ünderbheit!



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 01, 2010, 03:24:51 AM
Can you clarify? Are you talking about using the plague despite what Warchief Pinhead said, the recruiting of errant Val'kyr to raise the dead as new Forsaken, eradicating that Stormwind-occupied military outpost known as Southshore, or killing Prince Galen Trollbane and then, ahem, 'recruiting' him to the Horde?


So raising new undead? That's fine? No problems raising people against their will to serve you? Not a single precious qualm about that?

You're adorable. <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on July 01, 2010, 04:14:17 AM
Can you clarify? Are you talking about using the plague despite what Warchief Pinhead said, the recruiting of errant Val'kyr to raise the dead as new Forsaken, eradicating that Stormwind-occupied military outpost known as Southshore, or killing Prince Galen Trollbane and then, ahem, 'recruiting' him to the Horde?


So raising new undead? That's fine? No problems raising people against their will to serve you? Not a single precious qualm about that?

You're adorable. <3

Killing is OK, but using the spare parts left behind isn't?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 01, 2010, 08:23:13 AM
I think he's asking for the details of what happens in the expansion that makes sylvannus evil(er)


EDIT:  So I looked it up and on the expac sylvannus has recruited leftover val'kyr to raise already dead corpses as forsaken(minds intact).  Now while I'm not sure this counts as a good act it doesn't seem wholly puppy killing evil either.(except for the parts where they kill worgen)  Basically they are trying to procreate(eww) and they are picking the lesser of two evils, since its actually ~worse~ if they go around giving people the plague. This way they're just digging up some corpses.

edit2 spoilered text between garrogh and sylvy



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 01, 2010, 09:23:19 AM
Three factions next expansion.  Totally calling it now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 01, 2010, 09:42:19 AM
Three factions would be neat but is going to be near impossible for them to manage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on July 01, 2010, 09:55:01 AM
If they keep their static faction system, then yes, it will be impossible to manage.  People would be pissed if their characters were suddenly enemies to half their guild.

However, it would be plausible if they make the factions more malleable and allow for "traitors."  They'd have to get rid of the language barrier though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 01, 2010, 10:04:04 AM
They'd just make the language barrier faction-specific. It wouldn't make sense for traitor-orcs not to be able to talk to Horde-orcs, but then, it doesn't make sense now that living humans speak common but undead humans speak orcish.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 01, 2010, 10:06:03 AM
The female Blood Elf salute is what turns this from morally questionable to awesome.

More generally, I wouldn't be surprised if this just worked out the same way as well... the last two expansions.  "Oh no, the Alliance and Horde are coming to blows.  Wait, over there, a new big bad!  Let's all work together, yaaaaaaaaaaaay."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 01, 2010, 10:07:47 AM
Finally.  About time Sylvanas acted like an undead monstrosity. :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 01, 2010, 10:39:16 AM
I'm trying hard to think of how the factions could be split three way(I doubt they'd do four) but blood elves and undead being together I would think is a given. Also, I hear vol'jin is getting very pissy at the orcs now. so it might be ud/be/troll and goblins/orc/tauren


edit to add new version of garrosh that looks decidedly less douchy

(http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2010/cataclysm/cataclysm_models/garrosh.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 01, 2010, 11:20:03 AM
It seems unlikely to me they'd ever do something that would, you know, blow up everyone's guids.

In any case story-wise elves+trolls in the same faction without the orcs and taurens mediating would be kind of ridiculous.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on July 01, 2010, 11:31:44 AM
It's never going to happen, it fucks up the starting zones far too much.

...

that said, if you were going to do this, you could just have the horde kick the undead out, and every existing character chooses to either be/stay a part of the horde/alliance (as fits their race), or choose to be undead (because all these assets already exist - there is a death knight model for every race).  New characters get the same choice.  You still have a starting zone question, but it seems possible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 01, 2010, 11:54:43 AM
It's never going to happen, it fucks up the starting zones far too much.

...

that said, if you were going to do this, you could just have the horde kick the undead out, and every existing character chooses to either be/stay a part of the horde/alliance (as fits their race), or choose to be undead (because all these assets already exist - there is a death knight model for every race).  New characters get the same choice.  You still have a starting zone question, but it seems possible.

Wouldn't this kind of hose the current undead who want to stay Horde?  I guess you'd have to award them a free race transfer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 01, 2010, 12:01:02 PM
What would the point of the third faction be exactly? More useless pvp?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 01, 2010, 12:08:36 PM
Aside from a huge bullet point on the next expansion's list, yea.

But they could do a bunch of different things with PvP and three factions.  If they did it right, it might even make PvP much less useless.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on July 01, 2010, 12:13:10 PM
The only reason to have a third faction would be to somewhat account for faction imbalance in world pvp.  Given all the headaches involved with creating a whole new faction (and even more if they split the current factions) and the fact that world pvp is little more than a footnote in WoW, I think Hell will be a frozen tundra long before you see a third faction in WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 01, 2010, 12:21:31 PM
Not to mention the fact that there is no significant world pvp in WoW. It's entirely instanced. Sometimes it's even against people within your own faction.

Until it gets to the point where we are actively taking meaningful towns, pvp will always just be something to distract you between raids, or an "esport" for the hardcores.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 01, 2010, 12:44:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQqIPjT9ulM&feature=player_embedded

Female Worgen /flirts. Let's see how many of these survive to see Live.
Male goblin ones are  :awesome_for_real:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMKLwqUxHJk


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 01, 2010, 01:01:24 PM
Sylvannas plaguing anything that moves (and some stuff that doesn't) seems entirely in character and a completely logical next step for her, provided you weren't heavily invested in fooling yourself that she barely had anything to do with its development and she would never ever REALLY kill everything on the planet even though that's been the Forsaken's Mission Statement from day one. Some of the other shit she's pulling is even more hilariously evil, and I look forward to people trying to rationalize the shit out of it.

Sure it may seem bad at first blush that even Garrosh fucking Hellscream, the new super hardcore face-eating Warchief of the Horde, openly compares Sylvanus to the Lich King. But you have to understand the Alliance... uh... that is to say the humans... umm... I got nothing. It's Varian's fault somehow for not being understanding enough.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 01, 2010, 01:09:45 PM
LORELOL


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 01, 2010, 01:30:10 PM
"Lets make sweet, sweet profit together"

Sold.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 01, 2010, 01:50:03 PM
LORELOL

And I didn't even start it this time, it was my young Nerd Apprentice!

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y295/_deejay_/lots/lots-210/lots-210-16.jpg)

Muahahaha!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 01, 2010, 02:05:00 PM
Lorewise...and nerd as a nerd argument but how much has alliance changed? It seems like the horde keep having things going on internally but afaik all alliance got was king chin back. Argue as much as you like about who's good/evil but it seems like blizzard doesn't really know where do go with the alliance lorewise beyond "lol good guys"

  I mean hell the last addition was lawful good space paladins, it doesn't get much more exciting than that.!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 01, 2010, 02:13:11 PM
Lorewise...and nerd as a nerd argument but how much has alliance changed? It seems like the horde keep having things going on internally but afaik all alliance got was king chin back. Argue as much as you like about who's good/evil but it seems like blizzard doesn't really know where do go with the alliance lorewise beyond "lol good guys"

  I mean hell the last addition was lawful good space paladins, it doesn't get much more exciting than that.!

Mostly because Blizzard knows that their lore matters only insofar as it leads to selling more subscriptions, and frankly, no one cares, or at least, no one cares enough to stop subscribing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 01, 2010, 02:13:52 PM
There's some stuff with the dwarf leadership going on, but honestly I've been half assedly avoiding reading too much about the Alliance because that's where I'm going to spend a lot of my Cataclysming days.

By the way, the goblin girl accent is all over the friggin' east coast. I can hear her trying for Jersey but ... it's not solid, let's say that. Although her accent is better than both worgens.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 01, 2010, 02:24:32 PM
All I know is that in terms of story, all this bickering between factions can only lead to one of two things.  The first being a happy ending to Cataclysm where all these rifts in inter-faction politics are are mended.  The second being that they aren't mended.  And the only conclusion I can draw from that arc is that the factions split into three (or even four).  I'm just sitting here thinking about what advantage the first one gets them in terms of advancing the plot, and I can't think of s single thing.  They would essentially have to start over.  While with the other, the advantages from a story telling perspective are obvious.  War for years to come.  Yippee.  The titular cataclysm shakes deeper than just a Barrens face-lift.

If you would have asked any of us before Cataclysm if we thought they'd ever go back and re-do the old world, we all would have said, "Maybe they'll gloss over the parts that they need to do for flight, but that's it."  None of us could have predicted that they'd do the whole damn thing.  So it's pretty silly to sit here and say they won't do it because it's too much work.  They'll do it if they want to and it helps the game.

Also, I'm a little confused as to what problems a third faction would cause.  I never played DAoC, so I don't know about that other than what I've heard from others.  And as far as PVP goes, all the factions would have all the classes, so it's not going to be a balance problem - unless you count racials.  Yea there's no world PvP in WoW.  Yea it's pointless now.  I know.  But who's to say it's not a PvP focused expansion?  New battlegrounds that take advantage.  More complex Wintergrasp type zones.  This is all stuff they're going to be doing anyway.  Why is it that much harder for three factions?  As far as matchmaking, the only problem would be for the worldy Wintergrasp stuff, but that's as good as instanced now anyway.  It's not a huge deal to cap three faction populations for the zone instead of two.

Maybe it won't be for the next expansion.  Maybe they're building it up for WoW 2.  Who knows.  But I'm sticking with my prediction.  Three factions, or maybe even four ala Warcraft 3.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 01, 2010, 02:29:39 PM
I think it is much too late in the game for a 3rd faction to be able to catch up population-wise, and they'd have to redo the entire block of leveling content *including* TBC and Wrath to do it.

There's just no way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 01, 2010, 02:31:56 PM
Anyone see some of the hilarious stats on the crafted gear?  Not that mudflation is surprising, but it is kind of funny as always.  Especially when you consider that the crafted stuff is going to be extremely low end past the first raid cycle.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 01, 2010, 02:47:29 PM
Anyone see some of the hilarious stats on the crafted gear?  Not that mudflation is surprising, but it is kind of funny as always.  Especially when you consider that the crafted stuff is going to be extremely low end past the first raid cycle.

Yeah one of the crafted epic chestpieces for tanks had 340+ str 500+ stam with about 3500 armor. That's about 3x the strength and stam and 70% of the total armor on the combined T2 8-piece set...for one chestpiece that's not even a raiding item.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on July 01, 2010, 02:53:53 PM
Don't worry about Sylvanas, I'm sure she'll do something vindicating and show she has a good side after all right before she dies that makes up for it all (vader, lol) and the entire Forsaken creedo gets rewritten to people who are voluntarily resurrected because they're such warrior spirits or some such shit. Or maybe there's a cutoff point, they create a whole new model for Forsaken, something maybe based off Orcs, same abilities, same everything, something that makes anyone who's currently a Forsaken a legacy model. It wouldn't be that much work to create two new player character models with animations and faces compared to the landscaping job they did on the Old Kingdoms.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Stabs on July 01, 2010, 07:01:31 PM
I think it is much too late in the game for a 3rd faction to be able to catch up population-wise, and they'd have to redo the entire block of leveling content *including* TBC and Wrath to do it.

There's just no way.

A third faction would not need parity to be significant. That's the point of a three faction system. If you have 4000 Alliance and 4000 Horde then a 1000 strong third faction would be kingmaker. Rather like the LibDems in British politics.

If winning gave you stuff and battles were always won by either Alliance-3rd or Horde-3rd coalitions then being in the 3rd faction would give you stuff faster because you'd always win.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 01, 2010, 07:09:09 PM
Except for when the Horde or Alliance smears your third faction across the battlefield before turning on each other, which often happens in three-sided PvP. But that is not an argument that needs to be made again.

I do think they have potential to have Sylvannas & her Forsaken leave/get kicked out, but the more strong-willed (that is, the PCs) be allowed to stay with the Horde because "Man seriously, she went off the fucking deep end, can we crash on your couch?"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 01, 2010, 07:29:43 PM
The female Blood Elf salute is what turns this from morally questionable to awesome.

More generally, I wouldn't be surprised if this just worked out the same way as well... the last two expansions.  "Oh no, the Alliance and Horde are coming to blows.  Wait, over there, a new big bad!  Let's all work together, yaaaaaaaaaaaay."

It is getting old, isn't it? It's like Star Trek Voyager. Kinda comforting in a way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 01, 2010, 09:58:25 PM
I think it is much too late in the game for a 3rd faction to be able to catch up population-wise, and they'd have to redo the entire block of leveling content *including* TBC and Wrath to do it.

There's just no way.

A third faction would not need parity to be significant. That's the point of a three faction system. If you have 4000 Alliance and 4000 Horde then a 1000 strong third faction would be kingmaker. Rather like the LibDems in British politics.

If winning gave you stuff and battles were always won by either Alliance-3rd or Horde-3rd coalitions then being in the 3rd faction would give you stuff faster because you'd always win.

Yeah make this argument to a guy who WASN'T playing the low pop crappy 3rd realm for years on his DAOC server. Does. Not. Work. Like. That.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 01, 2010, 11:06:39 PM
Even the Wintergrasp stuff has population caps now.  And every other form of PvP aside from ganking noobs in STV is instanced.  So population doesn't mean anything in WoW, unless you're an auction house whore.  Unless they're going to start trying to make world PvP viable.  But I can't see them trying to do that again, since they couldn't even get it right with two factions, much less three.  They're going to stick with stuff like Wintergrasp, since they've gotten it to a point where it at least works, sorta.  And they can balance the games like they're currently doing with as many factions as you want.  Of course there will be servers where low pops struggle.  But it's like that now, anyway.

And as far as the leveling up content, I wouldn't imagine they'd change almost any of it.  They'd just give the new faction the same content as Horde.  The only thing they'd have to change is which zones belong to who and who's neutral where.  Oh and the quests where you have to go to major cities.  But most of those all have counterparts in all the cities anyway.  I'm sure there's a couple things like faction leader quests that they'd have to iron out, but it wouldn't be a huge revamp.  Plus with phasing, anything that needs to stay can just be retconned - like that quest where you have to go to Undercity and fight Varimathras.  That quest is already phased anyway.

I just don't see a whole lot of obstacles that don't have a pretty easy fix.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Cadaverine on July 01, 2010, 11:44:46 PM
I do think they have potential to have Sylvannas & her Forsaken leave/get kicked out, but the more strong-willed (that is, the PCs) be allowed to stay with the Horde because "Man seriously, she went off the fucking deep end, can we crash on your couch?"

This seems the mostly likely course to me.  PC Forsaken stay with the Horde under new management, and there's a week long event that culminates with Sylvannas getting kicked out of the Undercity.  At that point, they could kill her off, or make her a boss in a new dungeon, or whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 02, 2010, 01:17:03 AM
I think he's asking for the details of what happens in the expansion that makes sylvannus evil(er)

No, he seemed pretty clear on the gist of it. I think he's really trying to think of a way to spin his way out of his pet faction being pushed square into the cackling supervillain camp.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 02, 2010, 02:01:41 AM
Obvious Spoilers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8St2DUJk40


Shows some of the changes, and at the end... I don't know if I want to laugh or cry.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 02, 2010, 02:29:10 AM
I think he's asking for the details of what happens in the expansion that makes sylvannus evil(er)

No, he seemed pretty clear on the gist of it. I think he's really trying to think of a way to spin his way out of his pet faction being pushed square into the cackling supervillain camp.
Actually I'm waiting for context. All we have is "Sylvanas is using Val'Kyr to raise the dead as Forsaken". Dead what, though - Alliance humans, the remnants of the Scarlet Crusade, re-raising ex-Scourge or Thule Ravenclaw's pets as free-willed undead, Forsaken who fell in battle, the stitched-up remains of any Gilneans who were torn apart and gnawed on by the nice furries who just joined the Alliance?

...actually, that's a fun point. Yet Another Way the Worgen parallel the Forsaken: The only way either can 'reproduce' is by effectively destroying humans. Give it another expansion or two and everyone will be talking about how evil Genn Greymane is for using the Staff of Elune on the poor native population of wherever.  :oh_i_see:

The female Blood Elf salute is what turns this from morally questionable to awesome.

More generally, I wouldn't be surprised if this just worked out the same way as well... the last two expansions.  "Oh no, the Alliance and Horde are coming to blows.  Wait, over there, a new big bad!  Let's all work together, yaaaaaaaaaaaay."
Um, did you actually play WotLK? King Lump Beefbroth unilaterally declared war on the Horde and there was an airship battle above Icecrown Citadel between the Horde and the Alliance. The only "working together" was the Argent Crusade and the Knights of the Ebon Blade both frantically trying to steer both sides to killing Arthas before open warfare kicked off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 02, 2010, 02:36:11 AM
Obvious Spoilers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8St2DUJk40


Shows some of the changes, and at the end... I don't know if I want to laugh or cry.  :oh_i_see:

oh god, that's so  :awesome_for_real:

Quote
.actually, that's a fun point. Yet Another Way the Worgen parallel the Forsaken: The only way either can 'reproduce' is by effectively destroying humans. Give it another expansion or two and everyone will be talking about how evil Genn Greymane is for using the Staff of Elune on the poor native population of wherever

Don't you know anything about furries? They'll yiff their way to a new population.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 02, 2010, 03:05:53 AM
Actually I'm waiting for context. All we have is "Sylvanas is using Val'Kyr to raise the dead as Forsaken". Dead what, though - Alliance humans, the remnants of the Scarlet Crusade, re-raising ex-Scourge or Thule Ravenclaw's pets as free-willed undead, Forsaken who fell in battle, the stitched-up remains of any Gilneans who were torn apart and gnawed on by the nice furries who just joined the Alliance?

...actually, that's a fun point. Yet Another Way the Worgen parallel the Forsaken: The only way either can 'reproduce' is by effectively destroying humans. Give it another expansion or two and everyone will be talking about how evil Genn Greymane is for using the Staff of Elune on the poor native population of wherever.  :oh_i_see:

Unless Sylvannas has signed release forms from every single dead person she raises that say "Why yes, I WOULD like to become part of your Dark Undead Army," it's evil, dude. Sorry. The default state as far as consent goes is "no" until expressed otherwise.

Also, where is this crazy bullshit about worgens being unable to reproduce come from? They're still alive, they can still fuck, and I suspect there's nothing written down saying "PS: Worgen are suddenly sterile when they become worgen." They don't really need to worry about Gilneans dying out anyway ... they don't all have the worgen curse, although I will not be surprised if the non-worgen ones bite it when Sylvannas unleashes her Purely Peaceful Plague on them. Even so, if they mostly still consider themselves human, just with ehm ... new abilities, they're EXTRA not going to be worried about dying out the way the Forsaken do. Humans reproduce just fine.

But you know what, fine, let's pretend it's the same. If my worgen newbie quests talk about how I need to spread this shit around to every living thing on Azeroth, you know, just in case, I will freely admit the worgen are evil in the same way the Forsaken are.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Stabs on July 02, 2010, 06:08:49 AM
Worgen can definitely make puppies. I used to steal them from the Worgen village in Dragonblight to sell to evil Walrusmen slavers (or something, never actually read the quest).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 02, 2010, 06:19:14 AM
The female Blood Elf salute is what turns this from morally questionable to awesome.

More generally, I wouldn't be surprised if this just worked out the same way as well... the last two expansions.  "Oh no, the Alliance and Horde are coming to blows.  Wait, over there, a new big bad!  Let's all work together, yaaaaaaaaaaaay."
Um, did you actually play WotLK? King Lump Beefbroth unilaterally declared war on the Horde and there was an airship battle above Icecrown Citadel between the Horde and the Alliance. The only "working together" was the Argent Crusade and the Knights of the Ebon Blade both frantically trying to steer both sides to killing Arthas before open warfare kicked off.

The Horde has the chance to kill not one, but two Bronzebeards but instead goes "Oh, let's kill the big bad instead."  Our quest NPCs may be very very cross with each other, but as players-not-in-a-battleground we always join the Argent Dawn, and the Shattered Sun Offensive, and the Ashen Verdict.

I mean, I as a Horde player am supposed to be cool with old human guy's plan of "Yes, let's give another one of my race's heroes a crack at being the Lich King.  What could possibly go wrong?"?  Of course, because he's a good guy, not like Prince Douchebag and Douchebag "I am the Road Warrior" Hellscream.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 02, 2010, 06:21:46 AM
Worgen can definitely make puppies. I used to steal them from the Worgen village in Dragonblight to sell to evil Walrusmen slavers (or something, never actually read the quest).
Er, those were Wolvar, not Worgen.

Though I'm sure the furries will be quite happy to have giant orgies which result in new little furries.  I've never seen anything saying Worgen can't breed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 02, 2010, 06:50:51 AM
Good news, everyone!
http://cata.wowhead.com/quest=25160
http://cata.wowhead.com/quest=25158
http://cata.wowhead.com/quest=25161



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on July 02, 2010, 07:01:48 AM
I mean, I as a Horde player am supposed to be cool with old human guy's plan of "Yes, let's give another one of my race's heroes a crack at being the Lich King.  What could possibly go wrong?"?  Of course, because he's a good guy, not like Prince Douchebag and Douchebag "I am the Road Warrior" Hellscream.

Don't you mean King Douchebag?  The same douchebag who let Saurfang Sr leave with the body of his son?

Good news, everyone!
http://cata.wowhead.com/quest=25160
http://cata.wowhead.com/quest=25158
http://cata.wowhead.com/quest=25161

I'm shocked!  What will they do next, add Professor Farnsworth in as a boss in Icecrown Citadel?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 02, 2010, 08:24:26 AM
They could hire James Brown to do mood music.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on July 02, 2010, 09:08:56 AM
Since it's still so early in beta and obviously things will be changing a lot as development progresses (they've already done away with the parry changes, for example) I've been withholding comment on the preliminary spell/talents lists that are up.  I do have a couple of thoughts, though:

Feral Druid's Stampeding Roar looks like a completely useless waste of time skill, but talented Skull Bash is pure awesome on a stick.  Thus, Stampeding Roar will go in as is and Skull Bash will be watered down to near uselessness.  :oh_i_see:

Although I was looking forward to Hunters getting Focus instead of Mana, and still am to a certain extent, it currently looks like they're redesigning Hunters to be much less mobile by forcing them to rely heavily on Steady/Cobra/Aimed shot (Aimed now has a cast time instead of being instant) with the occasional instant shot worked in when they aren't on cooldown and the Focus is available.  The specific numbers don't concern me since those will be changing up to and after release, but I'm disappointed in the basic design since it turns Hunters into physical damage casters much more so than they are on live now.  It'll especially hurt in PvP.

On the other hand, I predict Camouflage will be the most bitched about (by non-Hunters) new skill out of all the new skills since the current version provides actual stealth when not moving.  I kind of doubt it'll make it live in its current form.

I have some thoughts on Shaman, Rogues (Honor Among Thieves nerf  :heartbreak:) and DKs (Pillar of Frost  :grin:) but it's mostly about their talents and those will be changing a lot for a while yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 02, 2010, 11:05:55 AM
But you know what, fine, let's pretend it's the same. If my worgen newbie quests talk about how I need to spread this shit around to every living thing on Azeroth, you know, just in case, I will freely admit the worgen are evil in the same way the Forsaken are.

It's fucking great how five years worth of fanwank excuses have suddenly gone up in a cloud of smoke.

"She probably barely knows about the plague. The plague is probably only meant to work on undead. Okay it works on humans but it's probably only meant to defend them from the Scarlet Crusade. They have you spread it around, but those quests are like 5 years old and barely count. Sylvanas has mellowed out with time."

Whoops!

I mean, I as a Horde player am supposed to be cool with old human guy's plan of "Yes, let's give another one of my race's heroes a crack at being the Lich King.  What could possibly go wrong?"?  Of course, because he's a good guy, not like Prince Douchebag and Douchebag "I am the Road Warrior" Hellscream.

The whole conclusion to the Lich King story (at least until Fire Mode Lich King turns up as the boss 2 expansions from now) is the biggest lore fail in the history of the game. The less said about it, the better.

The Lich King novel claims that Arthas has usurped Ner'zhul as the dominant personality. But he still tells you "I was once a shaman!" when you meet him in Howling Fjord.

The book says Arthas killed off his remaining humanity. The game backs this up by having you run into that little boy ghost that represents his lost humanity, and by having Tirion destroy his heart after realizing he's unredeemable. Then the Lich King gets owned by Tirion and as he's laying there, not only does he no longer remember being a shaman or show any sign of Ner'zhul, he has a touching little "Is it over?" moment with the ghost of his father.

Then we get a load of crap from Tirion and Bolvar about how the Scourge will run rampant over the world without a Lich King. Which along with "Is it over?" implies that Arthas was still good deep down and was holding them back. And anyway, why should they run rampant now that Arthas is dead? Shouldn't they all "wake up" like the Forsaken?

Whatever, they throw the Lich King hat on Bolvar so he can take control of the Scourge. At least it's over now. But wait, now we've got Sylvanas blathering about how the Val'kyr became "unemployed" when Arthas bought it. The hell? Didn't we just hear how they were using Bolvar as a stand-in Lich King to prevent shit like that?

It's not even strictly their usual routine of throwing in silly retcons to facilitate gameplay, which I understand and approve of. They contradict themselves repeatedly within the space of a single expansion for no obvious reason.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 02, 2010, 11:34:20 AM
Then we get a load of crap from Tirion and Bolvar about how the Scourge will run rampant over the world without a Lich King. Which along with "Is it over?" implies that Arthas was still good deep down and was holding them back. And anyway, why should they run rampant now that Arthas is dead? Shouldn't they all "wake up" like the Forsaken?
Which is sad since Arthas as a human was as good as Sylvanas is now.  The whole "holding back the Scourge" routine bothers me to no end.

Well, pretty much anything involving Arthas bothers me to no end.  It's like Mary Sue meets black and white morality when they can't even get right and wrong straight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 02, 2010, 11:42:51 AM
The arthas shtick is dumb no to ways about it but that said..

I have played undead for 5 years.
When I started playing, I felt they were evil.
I still believe they are evil.
It looks like they will be getting evil(er)
I'm ok with that.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 02, 2010, 11:59:13 AM
The arthas shtick is dumb no to ways about it but that said..

I have played undead for 5 years.
When I started playing, I felt they were evil.
I still believe they are evil.
It looks like they will be getting evil(er)
I'm ok with that.



Ditto.  If anything it keeps my rogue undead instead of an eventual goblin change.  Ankle stabbing is rather tempting, however.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on July 02, 2010, 12:24:10 PM
In other news, I've just received a beta invite. Checked it, it's legit.

Very conflicted.... on the one hand I love me some beta testing and it'd be kinda cool to do, but on the other hand I don't wanna spoil it for myself plus I am still trying to restrict my WoW time because so much of my work involves sitting, which is still bad for me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 02, 2010, 12:30:14 PM
Do you have to be subbed currently to get a beta invite?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 02, 2010, 01:13:06 PM
Feral Druid's Stampeding Roar looks like a completely useless waste of time skill, but talented Skull Bash is pure awesome on a stick.  Thus, Stampeding Roar will go in as is and Skull Bash will be watered down to near uselessness.  :oh_i_see:


What's your problem with group sprint? I can think of half a dozen wotlk encounters and tons of pvp situations where it would be useful.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 02, 2010, 02:01:45 PM
Feral Druid's Stampeding Roar looks like a completely useless waste of time skill, but talented Skull Bash is pure awesome on a stick.  Thus, Stampeding Roar will go in as is and Skull Bash will be watered down to near uselessness.  :oh_i_see:


What's your problem with group sprint? I can think of half a dozen wotlk encounters and tons of pvp situations where it would be useful.

Everyone wants something that will be useful to 'them' such is the way of the world....of warcraft.

Life grip is still in though! go go gadget griefing!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 02, 2010, 02:28:22 PM
But even if you use it just for yourself, it's an extra sprint!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 02, 2010, 02:32:23 PM
In other news, I've just received a beta invite. Checked it, it's legit.

Very conflicted.... on the one hand I love me some beta testing and it'd be kinda cool to do, but on the other hand I don't wanna spoil it for myself plus I am still trying to restrict my WoW time because so much of my work involves sitting, which is still bad for me.

You can give your invite to meeeeee.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 02, 2010, 03:21:24 PM
Feral Druid's Stampeding Roar looks like a completely useless waste of time skill, but talented Skull Bash is pure awesome on a stick.  Thus, Stampeding Roar will go in as is and Skull Bash will be watered down to near uselessness.  :oh_i_see:


What's your problem with group sprint? I can think of half a dozen wotlk encounters and tons of pvp situations where it would be useful.

Considering what happened with Unholy Aura I don't see Stampeding Roar go live without a rather large cooldown.  It's that good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 02, 2010, 04:09:41 PM
It's currently 2 minutes. Six second duration.


Beta blah blah changes etc though, so who knows!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 02, 2010, 05:01:23 PM
Feral Druid's Stampeding Roar looks like a completely useless waste of time skill, but talented Skull Bash is pure awesome on a stick.  Thus, Stampeding Roar will go in as is and Skull Bash will be watered down to near uselessness.  :oh_i_see:


What's your problem with group sprint? I can think of half a dozen wotlk encounters and tons of pvp situations where it would be useful.

Considering what happened with Unholy Aura I don't see Stampeding Roar go live without a rather large cooldown.  It's that good.

They'll just balance encounters with it in mind.  "Bring the person not the class" doesn't apply to 25-mans, after all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 02, 2010, 06:48:46 PM

They'll just balance encounters with it in mind.  "Bring the person not the class" doesn't apply to 25-mans, after all.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on July 02, 2010, 10:32:31 PM
Feral Druid's Stampeding Roar looks like a completely useless waste of time skill, but talented Skull Bash is pure awesome on a stick.  Thus, Stampeding Roar will go in as is and Skull Bash will be watered down to near uselessness.  :oh_i_see:


What's your problem with group sprint? I can think of half a dozen wotlk encounters and tons of pvp situations where it would be useful.

Because it's only 6 seconds of 40% runspeed in a whole 10' radius (that's almost melee range) every 2 minutes, and it does nothing about roots and snares.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 02, 2010, 10:57:10 PM
10 Yards is two yards larger then the area a Hurricane or Blizzard will cover, that's plenty of coverage to get the melee group out of danger in any "don't stand here or you'll explode" effect.


Six seconds at that speed will give you like 45 yards of separation.


Two minutes is decent cool down for a group ability.






Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on July 02, 2010, 11:27:01 PM
If there's a sudden need for everyone to move faster for some reason, I would imagine a lot more people would be using Swiftness Potions, which is a 50% runspeed increase for 15 seconds usable every minute, which a character can use starting at level 5.  But I've had yet to have a raid leader say 'don't forget your Swiftness Potions' because that kind of need for speed is rarely, if ever, needed in PvE.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 02, 2010, 11:49:57 PM
Swiftness potions used in combat work like any potions - they lock you out of all other potions until you're out of combat again, which is why you'd typically never expect to use one in a raid encounter currently - it is too important for people to be able to pop their mana pots or wild magic or haste or stoneskin type potions instead.

Even so a read through the swiftness potion comments on Wowhead lists several encounters they're handy in. I liked this comment:

Quote
A must have for people (like me) who repeatedly fail at the Thaddius jump.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on July 03, 2010, 02:16:46 AM
You can give your invite to meeeeee.  :why_so_serious:

It's OK, my conflict has been resolved by the fact that the beta downloader tracker hasn't been responding for 12 hours now.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 03, 2010, 05:42:45 AM
How about a different tack?  A run speed buff is completely useless to someone like me who doesn't raid.  At least I don't have to worry about finding button realestate for yet another highly situational ability.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on July 03, 2010, 06:06:56 AM
I can see a group runspeed buff being useful for... skipping the mobs on the approach to the ice tunnel in PoS, or running down quickly after a mage/hunter/rogue has bugged Hadronox in AN.

Other than that PvP will be the best use of it. WSG flag-cap squads will love it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 03, 2010, 10:58:47 AM
So, apparently the Friends and Family Beta NDA (http://azeroth.metblogs.com/2010/07/01/blizzard-lifts-cataclysm-nda-closed-beta-begins/) is now over and I'm allowed to talk about it.

YOU CHAPS HAVE BEEN BUGGING ME FOR PAGES AND PAGES NOW AND I WASN'T ALLOWED TO SAY ANYTHING.  YOU SUCK.


YOU JUDGEMENTAL NUTJOBS.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 03, 2010, 12:40:16 PM
Raid encounters where a group runspeed buff will be useful:

Lady Deathwhisper: D&D dropped on melee, Switching from adds to boss in P1
Rotface: Ooze Explosion
Blood Princes: Empowered Shock Vortex
Sindragosa: Blistering Cold
Lich King: Spreading for Defile, Moving onto and off of the platform during phase transitions

And that's just in regular ICC, off the top of my head. It's not an amazing ability, although it wouldn't surprise me if it becomes required in Cataclysm due to encounters being balanced around it. This is even more likely due to the fact that it's a core druid skill, not a talent (which is what I had originally thought it was).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on July 03, 2010, 12:50:40 PM
...and I'm allowed to talk about it.
It was a buggy mess 95% of the time I tried to log in and run it.  Random crashes and random inabilities to log in were most of my problem.  I was a good tester and submitted my error reports every time =P  So even if I wanted to talk about it I had nothing exciting to report except "not ready for primetime."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 03, 2010, 02:11:57 PM
Both starting zones were bug free and working as intended for me.

...

And both were UTTER shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 03, 2010, 02:30:21 PM
Both starting zones were bug free and working as intended for me.

...

And both were UTTER shit.


When I played them at Blizzcon they were both pretty cool, I thought.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 03, 2010, 02:32:01 PM
Not that I don't often agree with your opinions, IW, but could you elaborate a bit?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 03, 2010, 02:54:43 PM
Yes.

The Worgen is much better and much more fun.  Why ?  Because you're a Worgen.  Also, the story makes some kind of sense, though not much.  But it's still not very good.  You're a human, minding your own business, smack, damn, you're cursed, whoops, you're now cured and stable, arg, undead invasion, eep, cataclysm, things sink into the sea, rawr, running to find your place in the world. Now done a bit of revenge and some loot gathering and, hey, thrown into the wide world to level in the usual shitty zones.  Poop.  Total poop, though linear, with a little bit of story and some fun.

But it's not enough.  It's tiny, teeny toaty and by the time you're done, you're once again totally up against the wall that is 'hey, time to level another fucking toon.  No thanks'.  With no new class to make it interesting and, frankly, the Worgen idea merely being a different skin (forget the race powers, they're totally forgettable), it's an utter waste of time with nothing to reccomend it.

Seriously, without a new class or anything to differentiate you, you're doing Tranquillien again.  Except, and here's the REAL kicker, it's nowhere NEAR as much fun, excitement or interest as the starting Blood Elf zone.  It's phased crap.  The phasing itself is seven different types of annoying as you can actually phase yourself out of quests and, amusingly, phase yourself out of wife.  We loved that one.  I totally got accused of ditching her on purpose.

I'll talk a little bit more on the Goblin in a bit, but it's worse.  Much, much, much worse.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 03, 2010, 02:59:00 PM
 It's phased crap.

I was hoping that would stop it with that crap in this expansion, not that I really am going to buy it at this point anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 03, 2010, 03:29:20 PM
Yes, they were planning to stop using phasing in an expansion where one of the selling points is "Phasing is great and we're going to use it to show the world changing over time in response to player actions"  :uhrr:

And I'm guessing Ironwood doesn't like the goblin zones because they have too much fun and not enough Serious Business?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 03, 2010, 03:33:17 PM
Phasing while solo is cool.  The problem with phasing arises when you get to a group and can't see each other because you're in a different phase.  It's like long chain quests taken to their natural, completely retarded, conclusion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 03, 2010, 03:38:52 PM
OK, hoping they would stop with the "phasing crap" in this expansion. That is ... not likely the majority opinion. Or even a sizable minority opinion. By and large, people seem to like phasing, because it makes quests you do do something. If you don't like phasing, you are probably going to be hugely disappointed forever, because I think it's going to become more common, not less.

Also anyone who thinks worgen > goblin is fundamentally broken. The mere act of being a goblin means the goblin starter zone wins.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 03, 2010, 04:11:40 PM
"The worgen area is great but it ends and then you need to level again"

Thank you Captain, your invaluable insight emboldens us all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 03, 2010, 05:09:51 PM
Honestly, I really like phasing. The annoyance of not being able to use the summoning stone outside of ICC is outweighed by the feeling that your actions have changed the world. Even though its not about player choice, it still shows the world moving forward. I want much more of that, not less.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 03, 2010, 05:14:39 PM
because it makes quests you do do something.

No, it doesn't.  It makes quests you do advance a predetermined plotline.  You are effectively saying that turning a page in a book influences what is on the next page.  Whats worse, is if you aren't on the same page as someone else, they no longer exist! :uhrr:  Questing is stupid, phasing just makes it more stupid.

Yeah, I'm probably in the minority, but whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 03, 2010, 05:25:05 PM
You're making a poor analogy. Pre-phasing, when you complete a quest, you sit there and watch 20 other guys do it immediately after you. With phasing, you complete the quests, the area changes. You push back the bad guys, build a new base, whatever. It's exactly like turning a page in a book: there is PROGRESS, change.

The next logical step would be branching quests, with multiple phased outcomes. Take Desolace, with the two warring centaur clans. Imagine if you completed the quests with one, the other was wiped out, and a more robust quest hub opened at whichever faction you chose. Keep it limited to solo stuff so there's no "WAHHHH I CANT PLAY WITH MY FRIENDS", and it'd actually be cool. This is the only way we'll ever see "changing" worlds in an MMO: the world changes differently for everyone. As long as they don't make it affect the endgame, it won't piss off anyone who isn't already bitter and jaded.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 03, 2010, 05:30:30 PM
the world changes differently for everyone.

I guess progress in MMO means progress towards single player games.  I've got lots of those already, no thanks.  Yeah, I'm THAT guy. :geezer:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 03, 2010, 05:38:41 PM
The leveling quest-grind has always been solo focused. That's one of WoW's biggest innovations to the genre. Honestly though, if you and a friend are somehow phased out of content for whatever level range, there's plenty of other options: you can go to another zone, /lfd, or do some BGs until you out-level it. Unless it affected the endgame somehow, there's no way it could be a deal breaker.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 03, 2010, 05:47:14 PM
The leveling quest-grind has always been solo focused. That's one of WoW's biggest innovations to the genre. Honestly though, if you and a friend are somehow phased out of content for whatever level range, there's plenty of other options: you can go to another zone, /lfd, or do some BGs until you out-level it. Unless it affected the endgame somehow, there's no way it could be a deal breaker.

I guess while you and others like the feel it gives the game, for me personally it just makes it feel very artificial.  Its like saying "We know this isn't actually changing anything for real, so we are going to patronize you by making the changes in graphics in addition to the text so you don't feel so bad about collecting 10 floozles."  If I've already chosen to play a game where I'm going to have to collect 10 floozles, I don't need that kind of patronizing, just let me get my floozles and move on and at least still be playing in the same game world as everyone else.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 03, 2010, 05:55:20 PM
More artificial than the hundreds of other immersion-breaking elements in WoW? Off the cuff: language barrier, hardcoded factions, sanctuary cities, the endless retconning of the lore, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 03, 2010, 06:05:10 PM
What do you think isn't patronizing?  Grinding the same set of monsters for a certain amount of time until you move on to the next?  Progress Quest?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 03, 2010, 06:14:54 PM
What do you think isn't patronizing?  Grinding the same set of monsters for a certain amount of time until you move on to the next?  Progress Quest?

Diablo 2.  Basically WoW has moved further and further towards that model of game, except kept just enough MMO to justify charging monthly.   I've noticed it more and more every time I've gone back.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 03, 2010, 06:20:34 PM
Different genre, WoW is not for you, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 03, 2010, 06:26:02 PM
Different genre, WoW is not for you, etc.

Yes and No.  At their heart both are just loot collection games, and while the gameplay mechanics can differ slightly, the endless "ooh a new thing I found" as the main reason for playing are the same.  You can argue WoW isn't that, but I really think it has evolved to that point now.   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 03, 2010, 06:33:02 PM
Yes, if "Ooh a new thing I found" is the main reason to play either game, then Diablo 2 is much more suited to that than WoW.

For me though, the loot treadmill has been mostly irrelevant (and occasionally a means-to-an-end) since late-Classic at the latest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 03, 2010, 06:47:32 PM
Yes, if "Ooh a new thing I found" is the main reason to play either game, then Diablo 2 is much more suited to that than WoW.

For me though, the loot treadmill has been mostly irrelevant (and occasionally a means-to-an-end) since late-Classic at the latest.

More power to you if you manage to play the game for some other reason, but it doesn't seem to have many other saving graces as far as I'm concerned.  I guess the only reason I go back is because I made some friends in the game early on that I still like to play with from time to time, but I'd much prefer to play a different game with them to be honest, if we had one incommmon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 03, 2010, 07:20:42 PM
Rendakor is in my brain.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 03, 2010, 07:22:02 PM
This all just reads to me as "I'm tired of WoW." Cataclysm isn't going to change it magically into a different game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 03, 2010, 07:27:21 PM
Rendakor is in my brain.  :ye_gods:
Sorry. >_>


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 03, 2010, 07:27:36 PM
This all just reads to me as "I'm tired of WoW." Cataclysm isn't going to change it magically into a different game.

Thats a fair assessment.  I just think phasing in particular (which started this part of the discussion off) is a particularly bad mechanic from WotLK that could've been trashed for this.  


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 03, 2010, 07:30:01 PM
Well, that's just like your opinion, man.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 03, 2010, 07:33:44 PM
I think they recognize that outdoor leveling content is a solo experience for most of their customer base and that people in general want it to stay that way. When you approach how you want to design for that market phasing is a logical improvement.

I love it, personally. Obviously that sort of thing could interfere if it was a game where people were constantly grouping up in the outside world but that's not the kind of game WoW is. It can't be all things to all people, and it hasn't been trying to be all things to all people for a very long time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 03, 2010, 08:57:03 PM
Also anyone who thinks worgen > goblin is fundamentally broken. The mere act of being a goblin means the goblin starter zone wins.  :grin:
While I'm going to love playing a goblin girl, the things I've heard about their starter zones are making me weary about getting far enough along to enjoy her.  Cars and motorcycles everywhere.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on July 03, 2010, 09:33:50 PM
You're making a poor analogy. Pre-phasing, when you complete a quest, you sit there and watch 20 other guys do it immediately after you. With phasing, you complete the quests, the area changes. You push back the bad guys, build a new base, whatever. It's exactly like turning a page in a book: there is PROGRESS, change.

The next logical step would be branching quests, with multiple phased outcomes. Take Desolace, with the two warring centaur clans. Imagine if you completed the quests with one, the other was wiped out, and a more robust quest hub opened at whichever faction you chose. Keep it limited to solo stuff so there's no "WAHHHH I CANT PLAY WITH MY FRIENDS", and it'd actually be cool. This is the only way we'll ever see "changing" worlds in an MMO: the world changes differently for everyone. As long as they don't make it affect the endgame, it won't piss off anyone who isn't already bitter and jaded.

Thats kinda what Guild Wars 2 wants to do.

Edit: Phasing is cool.  If you don't think phasing is cool then you're broken or you don't get it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 03, 2010, 09:58:23 PM
While I'm going to love playing a goblin girl, the things I've heard about their starter zones are making me weary about getting far enough along to enjoy her.  Cars and motorcycles everywhere.

That's part of what goblins are.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 03, 2010, 10:06:11 PM
YouTube - [HQ] All Male Goblin Voice Overs (World of Warcraft Cataclysm) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xstSp2U5C3k)

YouTube - [HQ]All Female Goblin Voice Overs (World of Warcraft Cataclysm) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0UlFkDctiE)

YouTube - [HQ]All Male Worgen Voice Overs (World of Warcraft Cataclysm) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QkjDunNuPM)

YouTube - [HQ]All Female Worgen Voice Overs (World of Warcraft Cataclysm) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js-XNLDeasc)

Clear Goblin supremacy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 03, 2010, 11:02:17 PM
You're making a poor analogy. Pre-phasing, when you complete a quest, you sit there and watch 20 other guys do it immediately after you. With phasing, you complete the quests, the area changes. You push back the bad guys, build a new base, whatever. It's exactly like turning a page in a book: there is PROGRESS, change.

The next logical step would be branching quests, with multiple phased outcomes. Take Desolace, with the two warring centaur clans. Imagine if you completed the quests with one, the other was wiped out, and a more robust quest hub opened at whichever faction you chose. Keep it limited to solo stuff so there's no "WAHHHH I CANT PLAY WITH MY FRIENDS", and it'd actually be cool. This is the only way we'll ever see "changing" worlds in an MMO: the world changes differently for everyone. As long as they don't make it affect the endgame, it won't piss off anyone who isn't already bitter and jaded.

Thats kinda what Guild Wars 2 wants to do.

Edit: Phasing is cool.  If you don't think phasing is cool then you're broken or you don't get it.
Yea GW2's stuff looks promising.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 03, 2010, 11:10:49 PM
"Explosi-time!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 03, 2010, 11:47:08 PM
My only issue with the lady goblin voice is that her accent is all over the east coast. Oh well!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 03, 2010, 11:54:21 PM
"The worgen area is great but it ends and then you need to level again"

Thank you Captain, your invaluable insight emboldens us all.

Quote
Also anyone who thinks worgen > goblin is fundamentally broken. The mere act of being a goblin means the goblin starter zone wins.  


Righto.  Came back to post my thoughts on the Goblin area but strongly tempted to not fucking bother now.  This above doesn't represent what I said at all.  Particularly the 'Worgen area is great'.  It ain't.  Yeah, there's fucking levelling, no shit and whatnot;  but there ain't anything BUT levelling.  You'd be as well starting again with another race.  Worgen/Goblin add precisely FUCK ALL to the mix.  That's my point.  There's not even any special racial tweaks.  Further, it's not that the Goblin area ain't serious;  I like a laugh as much as the next man.  I just prefer when the joke's are, you know, Funny.  I got a large dose of Thug Life in my WoW instead.  Utter excrement.

Actually, feel free to go away and get your own insights, I can't be arsed arguing with you.

I'm going to continue playing my Hunter;  the Focus change is really quite good and so are the Rogue ones.  Haven't fucked about with Lock Soul Shards yet (weren't working when I was playing) but it looks nice.  Cataclysm (the event) has utterly fucked the old world though.  That, at least, was really extremely cool in some areas.  The new instances were also really interesting though the placeholder loot was just MASSIVELY overpowered.


As to the phasing discussion that ensued :  I Like Phasing.  I think it's awesome.  But the wrinkle in Icecrown (whoops, you've lost your group and no-one in your guild can help you because they're not at the right stage) is massively apparent.  In a fucking STARTING ZONE.  They need to really, really THINK about that shit before putting it in or at least put in a sidekicking switch that you can regroup up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 04, 2010, 12:23:19 AM
I find the f13 goblin love utterly mystifying. I get exactly as much of the WoW goblin schtick as I care to deal with just playing the game as whatever. I don't really want the Joisey accent and blatant anachronisms rammed in my face every single time I play.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 04, 2010, 12:57:58 AM
I guess what I don't get is why it even matters in a starting zone if you get out of sync with someone briefly. You're going to be in the zone for what, a day or two? The ICC phasing problem with the summoning stone seems like a much bigger problem in that it interferes in its small way with you every week.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on July 04, 2010, 01:03:28 AM
I'm going to continue playing my Hunter;  the Focus change is really quite good

The changes to the shots don't force the Hunter to stand still more?  That's the way it looks on paper and one of the things I like about my Hunter currently is how I can still use shots it I need to move around a lot.  Has a very different feel from casters.

Quote
As to the phasing discussion that ensued :  I Like Phasing.  I think it's awesome.  But the wrinkle in Icecrown (whoops, you've lost your group and no-one in your guild can help you because they're not at the right stage) is massively apparent.  In a fucking STARTING ZONE.  They need to really, really THINK about that shit before putting it in or at least put in a sidekicking switch that you can regroup up.

The DK starting area has phasing and the same thing could happen.  Didn't seem like that big a deal to me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 04, 2010, 01:09:39 AM
I find the f13 goblin love utterly mystifying. I get exactly as much of the WoW goblin schtick as I care to deal with just playing the game as whatever. I don't really want the Joisey accent and blatant anachronisms rammed in my face every single time I play.

On my part, it's because I am from New Jersey and they crack my ass up. I've wanted to play one since I first met one. Easiest roleplaying evar! Why other people like them, I have no idea.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 04, 2010, 01:16:08 AM
I'm going to continue playing my Hunter;  the Focus change is really quite good

The changes to the shots don't force the Hunter to stand still more?  That's the way it looks on paper and one of the things I like about my Hunter currently is how I can still use shots it I need to move around a lot.  Has a very different feel from casters.


Hunters already have to stand still in PVE though, they can't mash steady shot otherwise, no?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on July 04, 2010, 01:45:08 AM
My PvE spec is Survival and I don't really need to use Steady all that much.  Maybe somewhere around one out of three or four shots?  Due to the global cooldown, Serpent Sting not auto-refreshing and Lock & Load procs.  It's the reason I use Survival in PvE instead of Marks, where I had to use Steady a lot more.  Being immobile is what my Shaman is for.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on July 04, 2010, 03:01:35 AM
Clear Goblin supremacy.


Mmm... don't know if it's that cut and dry. The Male Worgen was unexpectedly good - Human form sounds like the bastard love-child of Patrick Stewart and Neil Gaiman, and Worgen form is clearly Disney's Beast. That's pretty damn great.

However, the Female Worgen - Human voice at any rate, since the Worgen is non-existent so far - was pretty poor. They don't really sound like they're from the same place, for a start.

Both races have some pretty cringeworthy sayings, but that's true enough for every race. I still don't get why 'I like to fart in the tub!' even exists.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 04, 2010, 03:02:39 AM
You're going to be in the zone for what, a day or two?

LOL.  Try and hour or tw...  an hour.  Max.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 04, 2010, 03:04:17 AM
The DK starting area has phasing and the same thing could happen.  Didn't seem like that big a deal to me.

Indeed, you're quite right.  However, my view on the DK starting zone was that it was pretty much a solo event and I judged it as such.  It was still mega annoying that what I consider a really, really good idea (phasing) is still being implented in a half-arsed fashion.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on July 04, 2010, 05:47:40 AM
Well my beta install finally finished and I've spent about an hour in the goblin starter zone.

I don't see how the phasing could be a problem at all. If you're new to the game and playing with someone else, for instance, you'll be doing the quests together. There's no other reason to have to group for them, they're super easy. Either way, the phasing won't be an issue.

Yeah the starter zone style and goblin sytle in general is completely OTT and you're either going to love it or hate it. That's just personal taste. If you hate it then don't roll a goblin. Personally I like it now and I found the goblin starter zone quite fun. It's a a lot busier than the old starting zones and clearly it's been designed with 5 years of hindsight in comparison, but I've no idea if they've tarted up the old zones at all or not.

Saying that the new races add nothing new to WoW seems a bit strange to me. They're races, not classes. None of the races really add anything new to the game - they're all just cosmetic shells for the classes with a couple of racial abilities that have long since had any game-changing power to them nerfed. What exactly did you want from a new race? They can't make them OMG overpowered, all they can do is make the cosmetic changes really good, and from what I've seen of goblins so far that's exactly what they've done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on July 04, 2010, 06:30:24 AM
Phasing is annoying in the same way that dungeon or raid flags/keys/attunements are annoying.  It's less annoying in degree because (at least til now) you can catch up with all your missing "phase attunements" via solo questlines, but if the mechanic became more widespread, so would the annoyance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 04, 2010, 06:31:26 AM

I don't see how the phasing could be a problem at all. If you're new to the game and playing with someone else, for instance, you'll be doing the quests together. There's no other reason to have to group for them, they're super easy. Either way, the phasing won't be an issue.


*Its day 1 of the expansion release*

"Hey, I just started a goblin an hour ago"

"Ok, cool, I'll log in and make one too!"

"Ok, I'll help you catch u...oh wait"


I'm sure most people don't really deal with this sort of thing, but I have a long tradition of leveling up partly with one person, then with other, or switching characters along the way to and the syncing problems were always a pain in the ass enough when you had to worry about just getting on the same step in all the quests.  But with phasing, now you can't even help the first person catch up to you quicker.

Again, I've never really played an MMO "solo" for any length of time, Im always trying to find guilds ASAP when I start a new one, and if I can't find one I like in short order, I generally end up quitting.  So to me, this flies in the face of how I play.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on July 04, 2010, 07:01:03 AM
Couple of questions for people in the beta - what are the worgen racials? What is the Draenei hit aura changed to?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on July 04, 2010, 07:59:14 AM
My PvE spec is Survival and I don't really need to use Steady all that much.  Maybe somewhere around one out of three or four shots?  Due to the global cooldown, Serpent Sting not auto-refreshing and Lock & Load procs.  It's the reason I use Survival in PvE instead of Marks, where I had to use Steady a lot more.  Being immobile is what my Shaman is for.  :oh_i_see:

Auto-shot, volley, and multi-shot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 04, 2010, 08:17:18 AM
Hmm, I don't find myself staying still all that much as a Hunter, even now.

It's entirely possible that I'm playing wrong. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on July 04, 2010, 08:27:13 AM

I don't see how the phasing could be a problem at all. If you're new to the game and playing with someone else, for instance, you'll be doing the quests together. There's no other reason to have to group for them, they're super easy. Either way, the phasing won't be an issue.


*Its day 1 of the expansion release*

"Hey, I just started a goblin an hour ago"

"Ok, cool, I'll log in and make one too!"

"Ok, I'll help you catch u...oh wait"


"Oh wait you're not in my phase"

"Ok let me catch up"

"Ok I'll go grab a smoke"

... 5 minutes later ...

"Ok you're caught up"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 04, 2010, 08:34:37 AM
Yes, but there's no reason I shouldn't just be able right-click a party member and go "Enter this player's phase of the world."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on July 04, 2010, 09:10:02 AM
Couple of questions for people in the beta - what are the worgen racials? What is the Draenei hit aura changed to?

Not done anything Alliance yet. I always feel dirty after playing Alliance characters so I'll save that for an hour before I plan to take a shower anyway  :awesome_for_real:

Yes, but there's no reason I shouldn't just be able right-click a party member and go "Enter this player's phase of the world."

That could work as long as you were only allowed to back-phase, not forward-phase, if you see what I mean. The entire reason for the phasing is story-telling so it would break horribly if you could travel forwards through your story's phases.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 04, 2010, 09:31:33 AM
*Its day 1 of the expansion release*

"Hey, I just started a goblin an hour ago"

"Ok, cool, I'll log in and make one too!"

"Ok, I'll help you catch u...oh wait"

You're going to be in the zone for what, a day or two?

LOL.  Try and hour or tw...  an hour.  Max.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 04, 2010, 09:38:32 AM
Yes, but there's no reason I shouldn't just be able right-click a party member and go "Enter this player's phase of the world."

This.

Also, don't use me as an excuse Rendakor;  I was COMPLAINING about the starting zone being tiny, not about the Phasing mechanic.  Mal's right;  It needs FIXED.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 04, 2010, 09:38:45 AM
I'm not seeing the big deal then.  It's not like newbie leveling needs groups or even encourages them.  It'll be over in a sitting and you'll all be in the same phase.

And, I don't see Icecrown as a counter-point to phasing at all.  That zone was just a poorly implemented mess.  Way too many gating 3 and 5 man group quests.

edit: Just for clarification, how long (in levels) is the goblin newbie content?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 04, 2010, 09:53:23 AM
I've been as big a goblin fanboy as any.  With that said, I'm not sure when goblins went from funny little money grubbing monsters, to New Jersey Mafiosos.  I like Sopranos as much as the next guy, but after having heard their voices, I think they should have stuck with the high pitched goblin voices.  And I'm kind of disappointed they didn't.  The Jersey shtick - it's dumb.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 04, 2010, 10:28:53 AM
My only issue with the lady goblin voice is that her accent is all over the east coast. Oh well!
As opposed to the female worgen, which is just flat out bad. At least the male VA made an attempt at faux-English - the female sounds like she just couldn't be bothered.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 04, 2010, 10:30:20 AM
On my part, it's because I am from New Jersey and they crack my ass up. I've wanted to play one since I first met one. Easiest roleplaying evar! Why other people like them, I have no idea.  :why_so_serious:

You know I'm going to "hear" everything you post in that accent now, right?  :awesome_for_real:

After hearing the accent on the male worgen, I totally want to make a worgen death knight. The most dark/emo/goth combination possible. Then play him as this cheerful optimistic Hugh Grant type.

Yes I was infected with the curse of Arugal and turned into a hairy beast, and then the Forsaken blew up my homeland, and then the Lich King turned me into an unholy death knight, and then the world blew up. Or something to that effect, I'm not really clear on the order of events. Haw haw, am I right? But there's no reason to be a Negative Nancy about the whole thing, it's a lovely day. It's a lovely day, we're sitting in Stormwind, there's a naked elf dancing on the mailbox. Let's have tea.

Then find a bunch of angsty roleplayers and irritate the shit out of them!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 04, 2010, 10:45:27 AM
The Jersey shtick - it's dumb.

Oh, you have no idea.  By the time you're level 10 you JUST.  WANT.  TO.  KILL.  YOURSELF.

 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 04, 2010, 11:07:46 AM
You know I'm going to "hear" everything you post in that accent now, right?  :awesome_for_real:

That's fine, although much to the disappointment to Ingmar's Californian friends, I don't have much of an accent ... although I'm pretty sure he would've dumped me if I had.  :ye_gods:

And yeah, the female worgen is hrrbl. I like the dude one though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 04, 2010, 11:21:24 AM
So, Ironwood - I'm guessing that you didn't like GTA?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 04, 2010, 11:44:15 AM
I liked the first couple.  More to do with the gameplay sucking though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 04, 2010, 12:34:21 PM
Yes, but there's no reason I shouldn't just be able right-click a party member and go "Enter this player's phase of the world."

This.

Also, don't use me as an excuse Rendakor;  I was COMPLAINING about the starting zone being tiny, not about the Phasing mechanic.  Mal's right;  It needs FIXED.
I'm not arguing the phasing thing again. This isn't like vehicles where they tried it out, realized it was dumb, and backed off. Love it or hate it, it's here to stay.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on July 04, 2010, 02:10:32 PM
phasing is pretty awesome when you look at it as a method of advancing the game world in a single player manner. It's a story telling aid.

However, when you actually start pretending WoW is a multi player game, it's deep flaws show up.

.. maybe this is just me by far being the most antisocial MMO player ever, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 04, 2010, 10:51:52 PM
Nonsense.  You group up more than I do.  And you're hardly ever on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 05, 2010, 01:37:03 AM
That's how antisocial he is, he doesn't even log in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on July 05, 2010, 05:08:54 AM
That's how antisocial he is, he doesn't even log in.

I'm protesting the lack of an anon flag to avoid even the people I like.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ghost on July 05, 2010, 06:47:44 AM
Do people typically play with the sound on?  I haven't played WoW with the sound on in years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on July 05, 2010, 07:17:15 AM
Since WoW's sound effects (all five of them!) are about as inspiring as stale oatmeal, no, not since 2005.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 05, 2010, 07:50:42 AM
Yes.  I can't play anything with the sound off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 05, 2010, 07:54:07 AM
Sound on. Music off.  I typically leave music on for like a day after reinstalling.

I can't play games with sound off.  It used to annoy me a lot when my friends would listen to music while playing something like Street Fighter or Madden.  

Plus, when raiding or pvping, sound conveys some advantage if you know what to listen for.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 05, 2010, 07:57:39 AM
Same here.  There's too many audio-cues to have sound off when raiding.  I'll turn music on for new zones, then turn it off again after a few hours.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on July 05, 2010, 08:20:17 AM
Sound on but low volume, loud enough to hear the things I need to hear when raiding or the "your dungeon is ready" noise when tabbed out.

Most of the time I play I'm on voice comms so I have it low enough not to bleed through into Skype. Nothing more annoying than hearing someone else's WoW when you're playing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on July 05, 2010, 09:05:42 AM
Have never even considered playing without sound and music. I frequently play the game with headphones on - there are some cool ambient sounds, and I've never found the music overpowering, with maybe the exception of Stormwind.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 05, 2010, 09:09:19 AM
I run without music as I almost always have some going on in the background.  Everything else (except error speech, which is annoying) is on but low.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 05, 2010, 11:02:00 AM
Do people typically play with the sound on?  I haven't played WoW with the sound on in years.

Tanking with the sound on is like playing in a blender with a bunch of christmas lights.

I haven't had the sound on in the game since leveling in Goldshire.

EDIT: Sound off, sports game on the TV in the background, vent on high issuing orders / shooting the shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 05, 2010, 12:10:46 PM
Music off, Sound on low. Usually with my own music running on top of it, unless I'm raiding.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 05, 2010, 12:34:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jg11_E3DfQ


Interesting lore stuff. I'm thinking Garrosh won't be warchief by the end of the expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 05, 2010, 01:08:37 PM
I can't imagine PvPing with sound off, that little "vooou" noise stealth'ers make is usually my only real warning that they are near.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 05, 2010, 01:45:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jg11_E3DfQ


Interesting lore stuff. I'm thinking Garrosh won't be warchief by the end of the expansion.

Nah, Blizzard doesn't do nuance and they're putting too much effort into reforming Garrosh's image, what with him throwing that general off a cliff for committing atrocities, etc. At some point Garrosh and Vol'jin will end up making up, is my guess. Or they'll just bicker forever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 05, 2010, 01:58:19 PM
I'm not talking anytime soon but in one-two years? Sure.  They're already showing that nothing is sacred, thrall was a very popular character and still is but they decided to give him up in favor of emochief. Plus with that little conversation and his words towards sylvanus I'm not sure Garrosh has much(if any) support within the horde. 

Consider that he's got the forsaken/elves/trolls against him and goblins only going where the money is or holding loyalty to thrall, things do not look good.  I mean hell, in that video vol'jin pretty bluntly said the moment garrosh was weak, he was gonna kill him. If garrosh isn't deposed than they are building up a lot of lore and in game flavor for nothing and that doesn't make a lot of sense.  In BC and wotlk almost all storylines went 'somewhere' hell they even went back and cleaned up the whole tirion fordring questline that went nowhere by having him create the argent crusade.

I think the days of vanilla static wow are over and they've leaned more towards couple year story arcs.  Things in cataclysm are pointing places and it fits the new pattern that we'll see some resolution to them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 05, 2010, 03:07:22 PM
Do people typically play with the sound on?  I haven't played WoW with the sound on in years.

Tanking with the sound on is like playing in a blender with a bunch of christmas lights.

I haven't had the sound on in the game since leveling in Goldshire.

EDIT: Sound off, sports game on the TV in the background, vent on high issuing orders / shooting the shit.

I'm the opposite, I cannot tank with the sound off. I usually have the music on, I just lower it when I'm raiding. I really like the music in WoW, generally.

I miss you, Karazhan organ!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 05, 2010, 07:11:10 PM
I think they recognize that outdoor leveling content is a solo experience for most of their customer base and that people in general want it to stay that way. When you approach how you want to design for that market phasing is a logical improvement.

I love it, personally. Obviously that sort of thing could interfere if it was a game where people were constantly grouping up in the outside world but that's not the kind of game WoW is. It can't be all things to all people, and it hasn't been trying to be all things to all people for a very long time.

I'd argue that the reason most want to solo non-instance content is because Bilzz screwed the pooch pretty badly in making it fun to group for. Now it's irrelevant since they design towards that, but it's another step on the road towards massivley single player gaming.

Oh, and I despise phasing on that ground too. Those people at the Wrathgate are still fucking screaming at me!  :ye_gods: :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 05, 2010, 07:22:46 PM
No, I'm pretty sure people prefer to solo non-instance stuff because it means you can do whatever the hell you want in whatever order you want for as long as you want.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 05, 2010, 08:36:07 PM
No, I'm pretty sure people prefer to solo non-instance stuff because it means you can do whatever the hell you want in whatever order you want for as long as you want.

Yeah, this is the reason.  I've leveled 2 character "with" someone else, and while its fun to have a Ventrilo buddy to chat it up with while levelling, it is NOT efficient or convenient.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on July 05, 2010, 09:32:40 PM
Yeah, this is the reason.  I've leveled 2 character "with" someone else, and while its fun to have a Ventrilo buddy to chat it up with while levelling, it is NOT efficient or convenient.
Which is a consequence of game design that isn't conducive to grouping. Unless you consider easily groupable leveling content to be inherently bad for some reason (which may be a valid viewpoint, but certainly not one I share), then yeah, Blizzard did a shitty job in this regard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 05, 2010, 09:48:48 PM
Unless you can invent a video game that can bend the laws of time and space, it will never be convenient to group-based level.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 05, 2010, 09:51:57 PM
It's not inherently bad but generally speaking, people like being able to do their own thing at their own pace without having anyone else be even the tiniest consideration. Even in CoX, where it was generally more fun to play in a group than solo, I liked to solo a lot of the time because it meant the only person I had to keep track of was me. And I'm someone who has a gamer husband who is perfectly happy to play with me whenever I ask. Unless it's doing a thing, like raiding or five mans or PvP, I think you'll find most people want to just do their own thing without having to worry about anyone else. And even the smallest thing, such as "do we have the same quests?" is still having to worry about someone else.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on July 05, 2010, 10:06:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jg11_E3DfQ


Interesting lore stuff. I'm thinking Garrosh won't be warchief by the end of the expansion.

Nah, Blizzard doesn't do nuance and they're putting too much effort into reforming Garrosh's image, what with him throwing that general off a cliff for committing atrocities, etc. At some point Garrosh and Vol'jin will end up making up, is my guess. Or they'll just bicker forever.
I'm still thinking the time-warp with going from cataclysm Azeroth to Outlands to Northrend will confuse some players who bother reading the lore. You go from present day to 4 years ago (in game time) for Outlands to 2 years ago for Northrend and then pop out back into the present day Azeroth.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on July 05, 2010, 10:16:47 PM
They can just stick a Bronze Dragon outside the Dark Portal that says "I'll show you how things used to be!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 05, 2010, 10:27:55 PM
They can but they don't seem to have done so. I really wish they would, seeing Garrosh being a giant crybaby in Nagrand would be a little weird for new people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 06, 2010, 03:25:11 AM
It's not inherently bad but generally speaking, people like being able to do their own thing at their own pace without having anyone else be even the tiniest consideration. Even in CoX, where it was generally more fun to play in a group than solo, I liked to solo a lot of the time because it meant the only person I had to keep track of was me. And I'm someone who has a gamer husband who is perfectly happy to play with me whenever I ask. Unless it's doing a thing, like raiding or five mans or PvP, I think you'll find most people want to just do their own thing without having to worry about anyone else. And even the smallest thing, such as "do we have the same quests?" is still having to worry about someone else.

Which is why I think a game that kept all the MMORPG trappings, but ditched all the group and raid content, focusing on the single player experience with social aspects would be a 'better' (or more focused anyway) game than shoehorning soloing into a game designed for grouping at the 'endgame'.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 06, 2010, 07:14:38 AM
Yeah, this is the reason.  I've leveled 2 character "with" someone else, and while its fun to have a Ventrilo buddy to chat it up with while levelling, it is NOT efficient or convenient.
Which is a consequence of game design that isn't conducive to grouping. Unless you consider easily groupable leveling content to be inherently bad for some reason (which may be a valid viewpoint, but certainly not one I share), then yeah, Blizzard did a shitty job in this regard.

Well, its pretty darn hard to do when you have quest based leveling at the very least, because if you aren't on the same steps, its a pain to get back on the same steps across the board.  So basically if you want to level together with someone you have to be really disciplined about only playing together on those characters, its just hard to pull off, there is always one person who ends up with more free time and ends up pushing ahead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 06, 2010, 07:19:22 AM
I don't understand why people like leveling together. It brings back horrible memories of getting into forced groups in DAOC at spawn camps in order to get on the "Fins list." Blech.

I've always preferred questing at my own pace, but I do like grouping for dungeons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on July 06, 2010, 07:22:04 AM
Even doing quests together with someone that are on the same step is incredibly annoying.  For example, I played with a friend of mine and all he did was wander around killing stuff randomly rather than running through the quest sequence.  I got impatient and went off on my own and he played at his own pace.

Unless you play with someone with your same play style, it's annoying to level together unless you're doing dungeons wholesale.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on July 06, 2010, 09:03:46 AM
Doing a drop quest in a group is pure frustration.  Want people to group?  Then everyone should get the drop whenever it drops.

Also, there needs to be some way to differentiate a quest that is more a "task" from quests that are intended to tell a story.  I would choose to do only "task" quests while in a group.  "Story" quests end up not being read with grouping (to not slow down the group), which seriously degrades the value of that content.  Either that, or make all quests play out via scripting rather than giving us a wall of text to read. (too expensive, I know)

All of this is why I thought that public quests were such a good idea.  WARs implementation needed significant work, but the core idea was good.  The encounter plays out and all you need to follow the action is on-screen the whole time.

Adding the concept of scaling the PQ to match the current number of users (scaling the rewards as well) alone would go a long way toward making these more interesting.  Give everyone a token for participating, give the major contributors the fixed loot.  Allow the player the option to take random loot instead of fixed loot to promote participation in the case where the player already has the fixed loot, or it's not appropriate for their character.  I know that tokens are viewed as immersion-breaking, but joining a quest that is already halfway complete, giving you no chance to get anything, kind of sucks.  Would be nice if everyone got something for their effort.

Also, don't have the same PQ play out everytime, have PQs be more reactive to player activity.  For example, based upon the outcome of a PQ spawn alternate PQs , essentially telling something like a story in that zone.  Two opposing forces within a zone push each other back and forth across the zone based upon the outcome of PQs that players do.   Also seems like an interesting way to do a PvP PQ.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 06, 2010, 09:06:29 AM
Even doing quests together with someone that are on the same step is incredibly annoying.  For example, I played with a friend of mine and all he did was wander around killing stuff randomly rather than running through the quest sequence.  I got impatient and went off on my own and he played at his own pace.

Unless you play with someone with your same play style, it's annoying to level together unless you're doing dungeons wholesale.
This.

If you want to level with your friend but you or he can't be bothered to not play without each other, go do dungeons or BGs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 06, 2010, 09:11:17 AM
<stuffs>
All this is why I'm hoping Guild Wars 2 pulls off everything they're trying.  It could alter all games in the future if it works.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on July 06, 2010, 09:51:09 AM
Yeah, this is the reason.  I've leveled 2 character "with" someone else, and while its fun to have a Ventrilo buddy to chat it up with while levelling, it is NOT efficient or convenient.
Which is a consequence of game design that isn't conducive to grouping. Unless you consider easily groupable leveling content to be inherently bad for some reason (which may be a valid viewpoint, but certainly not one I share), then yeah, Blizzard did a shitty job in this regard.
Well, its pretty darn hard to do when you have quest based leveling at the very least, because if you aren't on the same steps, its a pain to get back on the same steps across the board.  So basically if you want to level together with someone you have to be really disciplined about only playing together on those characters, its just hard to pull off, there is always one person who ends up with more free time and ends up pushing ahead.
Grant full quest XP to everyone in the party who participated, even if they aren't on that quest. Problem solved.

Even doing quests together with someone that are on the same step is incredibly annoying.  For example, I played with a friend of mine and all he did was wander around killing stuff randomly rather than running through the quest sequence.  I got impatient and went off on my own and he played at his own pace.
It's not inherently bad but generally speaking, people like being able to do their own thing at their own pace without having anyone else be even the tiniest consideration. Even in CoX, where it was generally more fun to play in a group than solo, I liked to solo a lot of the time because it meant the only person I had to keep track of was me.
If you solo because you don't want to deal with people, that's fine. If you solo because you don't want to deal with the game stimying your efforts to group at every turn, through level-limited content, quests that can't be grouped, stupid travel times, and making you vanish out of each others' world at X geographical location because it's totally more immersive that way, that's bad design.

If you don't ever want to group I'm not sure why you're not just playing Dragon Age.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 06, 2010, 10:27:03 AM
Apparently (third hand beta info here) group leaders will be able to 'summon' people into the phase that they are currently in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 06, 2010, 10:51:59 AM
I don't understand why people like leveling together.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 06, 2010, 12:02:17 PM
If you solo because you don't want to deal with the game stimying your efforts to group at every turn, through level-limited content, quests that can't be grouped, stupid travel times, and making you vanish out of each others' world at X geographical location because it's totally more immersive that way, that's bad design.

OK, no, "I don't like this game personally" is not the same thing as "bad design". You design for what your audience wants, and the audience for WoW overwhelmingly likes the way it is now.

They're not making the game for the small minority of people who want to have to group all the time for every activity. That doesn't make it 'bad'. It just makes it not aimed at your particular playstyle preference. Where are all the people going to say, the Eve subforum and complaining that there's not enough questing content and what's with making me join a corp to participate in pvp and omg I got podkilled by some teabagging Russian douchebag and holy crap it took me 45 minutes to fly to somewhere to buy a ship and oh god this game sucks?
 
You people (/points fingers vaguely) need to be better at admitting when a game just isn't aimed at you and just moving on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on July 06, 2010, 01:19:41 PM
Again, if the audience overwhelmingly wants a game where they're forced to solo, why are they playing an MMO?

I'm not arguing that groups should be required to level. In fact I think most quests that require groups (in the context of WoW) are silly and annoying. I'm arguing that you shouldn't be forced to solo, when the structure of the game actually makes such a thing easy to avoid. Sidekicking, shared quest rewards, and the jump-to-party-leader's-phase thing are all pretty straightforward, non-controversial ways to fix the mechanics that currently render grouping a pain in the ass without changing the game at all for people who like to solo.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 06, 2010, 01:20:08 PM
I don't understand why people like leveling together.

 :oh_i_see:

Yeah I don't understand what you're going for there, either.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 06, 2010, 02:42:09 PM
Can we stop arguing about this stupid topic?  They make part of the game OK for solo.  Then they make part of the game OK for grouping.  They make battlegrounds where it's OK to queue by yourself.  Then they make others where you have to be grouped.  It seems to be working out okay for them, no?  Okay.  Cool.  Just checking.  If you absolutely have to RP every quest as a guilded group, then you can do it.  But god damn.  Have fun, I guess.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 06, 2010, 04:53:24 PM
Again, if the audience overwhelmingly wants a game where they're forced to solo, why are they playing an MMO?

I don't play MMOs for the people. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on July 06, 2010, 05:17:31 PM
Again, if the audience overwhelmingly wants a game where they're forced to solo, why are they playing an MMO?

I don't play MMOs for the people. 

Why do you play them, then?

The whole point of an MMO is supposed to be about being a part of something larger than yourself. Playing in a big, living and breathing world with a large amount of other players. Whether you're working together with friends or strangers towards a common goal, playing the market, or just speaking with people.

It's been awhile since I played WoW, but I remember leaving because little by little, the game's sense of community was being systemically killed by the new things introduced in the game. By the time I left the game (towards the end of Burning Crusade), the game was little more than a single player game with a multiplayer lobby.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 06, 2010, 05:51:40 PM
Graphical chat.  I can't talk with my guildies when playing Mass Effect.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 06, 2010, 05:56:12 PM
Exactly.

Also, because you still have the option to get together and do a dungeon or roll around Emain or whatever the particular game you're playing offers for group content - even if you're solo 90% of the time that 10% of the time you're doing group content with people still has value very different than what a single player game offers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on July 06, 2010, 06:21:49 PM
So instead of playing a full fledged single player RPG, you'd rather play a watered down version of one so that you can chat with your friends... Something that can be accomplished with Steam, mIRC, or Ventrilo/Teamspeak (applications already actively used by WoW players)

Maybe I'm not supposed to understand it.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 06, 2010, 06:37:41 PM
So instead of playing a full fledged single player RPG, you'd rather play a watered down version of one so that you can chat with your friends... Something that can be accomplished with Steam, mIRC, or Ventrilo/Teamspeak (applications already actively used by WoW players)

Maybe I'm not supposed to understand it.

The MMOG genre is no longer about all that stuff you mentioned in a previous post, its not about big worlds, or persistence, or working towards a common goal, heck, its not even about social gaming anymore.  Its just about gaming on a social platform.  Soon every new MMO will be a higher budget facebook game.  Or at least, most of them.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 06, 2010, 06:44:16 PM
So instead of playing a full fledged single player RPG, you'd rather play a watered down version of one so that you can chat with your friends... Something that can be accomplished with Steam, mIRC, or Ventrilo/Teamspeak (applications already actively used by WoW players)
I don't do voice and the other two I can't do at the same time I'm playing a game.

There are other aspects to it.  I'm picking the main social one since that's a big point of online games.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on July 06, 2010, 07:04:44 PM
*I* play with no sound.  Music is on unless it's a raid =P

I don't do voice and the other two I can't do at the same time I'm playing a game.

There are other aspects to it.  I'm picking the main social one since that's a big point of online games.
This is exactly my feelings too.  I enjoy playing a game while chatting with my friends when they are on.  The others are only for chatting, which I don't really care for overly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 06, 2010, 07:12:17 PM
So instead of playing a full fledged single player RPG, you'd rather play a watered down version of one so that you can chat with your friends... Something that can be accomplished with Steam, mIRC, or Ventrilo/Teamspeak (applications already actively used by WoW players)
I don't do voice and the other two I can't do at the same time I'm playing a game.

There are other aspects to it.  I'm picking the main social one since that's a big point of online games.

Well, i think this is where the divide happens.  To me "the social one" is that I'm PLAYING with other people, not just talking to them.  If I want to talk to people while playing a game I will sit with my laptop off to the side of my desk and have aim, skype, irc, or whatever open while playing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 06, 2010, 07:38:25 PM
You have the option to play with those other people when they're all in the same game as you. I am perfectly happy to solo to 80 repeatedly, but I also like having the option to say "Me!" when someone asks if anyone wants to do an instance or could someone help them with some group quest or whatever. That's the major difference between an MMO and a single player game for me. It's a shared experience, but I don't have to depend on anyone if I don't want to.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on July 06, 2010, 08:15:40 PM
You have the option to play with those other people when they're all in the same game as you. I am perfectly happy to solo to 80 repeatedly, but I also like having the option to say "Me!" when someone asks if anyone wants to do an instance or could someone help them with some group quest or whatever. That's the major difference between an MMO and a single player game for me. It's a shared experience, but I don't have to depend on anyone if I don't want to.

People here seem to be under the impression that having a more group oriented game will somehow rob them of the option to go solo if they so choose. The problem I have with WoW is that it's no longer a world. The overworld, once the expansion rush is over, is packed with three types of players. The type of player running around like a worker ant to get his dailies done, the guy who sits in town waiting for his queue to pop, and the guy who only logs on to raid. I'm not sure why people bother paying a subscription fee for something that can barely qualify as a persistent world at this point. If it gets any worse, you're going to have some shit like CRIMECRAFT.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 06, 2010, 08:21:34 PM
Again, if the audience overwhelmingly wants a game where they're forced to solo, why are they playing an MMO?

I don't play MMOs for the people. 

Why do you play them, then?


Because they're games and I'm a gamer. I may approach this genre different than most people, but MMOs are games to me first.  If it fails to me as a game, then I won't play it.  This why primarily I don't jump into every single goddamn MMO like a lot of people here.  I'm not looking for the next best broken piece of shit that lets me chat at the same time. 

WoW is a huge game.  Leveling a new character provides over 240 hours of content (even the longest RPGs rarely crack 100) even if you know where to look and are packing heirlooms.  The gameplay isn't honestly worse than a single player RPGs except for the fact that you're not getting cutscenes and expensive voice overs.  WoW's hotkey driven combat is just about as deep as anything Bioware's put out.  There's large landmasses, neat environments and quests, quests and more quests.  There's bank space, guild bank space to share between characters, an economy, tradeskills, PVP when I want to, and also, a couple of my friends play.  But for the most part, those other people could be NPCs and I really wouldn't care that much. 

I play WoW as long as WoW works as a game for me.  When I run out of stuff I can do, I stop playing. Once I stopped raiding, this would happen very quickly in Vanilla and TBC.  For various reasons which you probably disliked, WOLK kept me busy for much longer stretches of time.  Heroics were no longer off limits because I wasn't a well geared healer or cc and in ICC5 they even let me get some sweet weapons. I also didn't have to spend my precious game time organizing a group or sitting in a guild chat full of people I thought were rather odious but offered an opportunity to do content I couldn't do on my own.

SWTOR will probably work rather well for me.  WoW may continue to work rather well for me.  But I'll play them because I find them to be decent games worthy of my time.  I'll likely continue to ignore all of the other crap that releases in a sad state and thinks it can make money off me because it's on the internets.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 06, 2010, 08:24:50 PM
I'll take another lap at this. I'm currently playing some ChampO for a change of scenery. And I'm mostly soloing it, or duoing with Sly once in a while. There does need to be a concession to the fact that sometimes your buddies aren't online, and you hate the seething cesspool of PUGing, and still want to play a bit. But ChampO and a lot of other games activley discourage grouping and set up soloing as the leveling paradigm. It's expected now, and that's how the content is done up.

As I said before, I blame a lot of soloing on the actual design of the game, where it has fallen out to be more desirable to play on your own except for clearly marked and segregated group content. And IMO that's a flaw in the design, not a feature.
Others may disagree, but they're wrong and should feel bad.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 06, 2010, 08:29:34 PM
WoW is a huge game.  Leveling a new character provides over 240 hours of content (even the longest RPGs rarely crack 100) even if you know where to look and are packing heirlooms.

If Mass Effect made you grind 1000's of foozles it would have hundreds of hours of 'content' too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 06, 2010, 08:48:08 PM
People here seem to be under the impression that having a more group oriented game will somehow rob them of the option to go solo if they so choose.

That's because that's always what happens when people set out to make a more group-oriented game. You get Vanguard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 06, 2010, 08:57:46 PM
WoW is a huge game.  Leveling a new character provides over 240 hours of content (even the longest RPGs rarely crack 100) even if you know where to look and are packing heirlooms.

If Mass Effect made you grind 1000's of foozles it would have hundreds of hours of 'content' too.

Sounds grand?  (I've spent a couple hundred or so hours in the ME universe counting replays).

WoW isn't making me do anything.  It's presenting content in a manner that has me voluntarily killing 1000s of foozles.  This is something WAR and AoC did poorly enough that I gave up on them rather early.  Their powers of compulsion seem to be lacking.

I just don't play for other people.  My friends played a lot of Dark Age, but  I found that game so lacking that I gladly just listened to them bitch on the phone about it rather than play.  I don't really care if a game encourages grouping or not, but the current trends of catering to a solo style gameplay works for me.  This might be different if I had a stable group of people to play with and a set time when I could expect to play, but that just isn't happening.  And really, it'll never happen. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 06, 2010, 09:54:19 PM
People here seem to be under the impression that having a more group oriented game will somehow rob them of the option to go solo if they so choose.

That's because that's always what happens when people set out to make a more group-oriented game. You get Vanguard.
Or FFXI, which was many people's ideal game, except you couldn't do anything solo past level 10.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on July 06, 2010, 10:34:25 PM
If Mass Effect made you grind 1000's of foozles it would have hundreds of hours of 'content' too.
All of the single player RPGs from days of yore included sessions where you had to kill stuff repeatedly to actually advance to the next level of content.  Some were really bad about this too.  Hardly any different from WoW, except you can't use a hex editor to skip the parts you dislike in WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on July 06, 2010, 10:43:11 PM
If Mass Effect made you grind 1000's of foozles it would have hundreds of hours of 'content' too.
All of the single player RPGs from days of yore included sessions where you had to kill stuff repeatedly to actually advance to the next level of content.  Some were really bad about this too.  Hardly any different from WoW, except you can't use a hex editor to skip the parts you dislike in WoW.
Yep, with very few exceptions, you usually played the game in mixed blocks of "do shit + advance story" and "Kick around and level till you slaughter everything in the area easily".   And after you had trained yourself to eat, sleep and breathe that kind of playstyle, it made it REALLY fun when you actually ran into the odd game that could actively punish you for leveling too quickly (7th saga, im looking at you, you fucking bastard).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on July 06, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
WoW is a huge game.  Leveling a new character provides over 240 hours of content (even the longest RPGs rarely crack 100) even if you know where to look and are packing heirlooms.

If Mass Effect made you grind 1000's of foozles it would have hundreds of hours of 'content' too.
Except that mass effect is less of a traditional RPG, and rather more a mission driven shooting game, with pseudo-rpg trappings and a cool story.   I mean, hell, Experience is almost completely meaningless in ME simply because it is impossible to "out level" your opponents, since all the mobs in the game scale to your current level.  Exp in ME is simply a clever way of gateing skill progression.  They could have simply removed the EXP system entirely, and given you X new skill points for every Y missions accomplished, and absolutely nothing would have changed in the way the game worked.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on July 06, 2010, 10:48:50 PM
(7th saga, im looking at you, you fucking bastard).
While a fun game in places, it was so evil with it's leveling system.  You could get overleveled, then get utterly stomped by the next area's worth of monsters - who gave barely any XP or $$ differences from the old, so you had to grind yourself on content for days.  Then if your companion died or you wanted another, you had to face these COMPLETELY over-powered monstrosities in the form of the other 6 NPCs who pretty much 1-shot you.  Yes, that game had moments of fun I really enjoyed but I wanted to punch whoever designed the leveling system in the junk.  And this was when I was 14.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on July 06, 2010, 10:54:42 PM
(7th saga, im looking at you, you fucking bastard).
While a fun game in places, it was so evil with it's leveling system.  You could get overleveled, then get utterly stomped by the next area's worth of monsters - who gave barely any XP or $$ differences from the old, so you had to grind yourself on content for days.  Then if your companion died or you wanted another, you had to face these COMPLETELY over-powered monstrosities in the form of the other 6 NPCs who pretty much 1-shot you.  Yes, that game had moments of fun I really enjoyed but I wanted to punch whoever designed the leveling system in the junk.  And this was when I was 14.

The worst part about it was that Key NPC's leveled up directly in relation to your level, however, if an NPC reached a level where new skills and abilities became available, they AUTOMATICALLY got them, where as you had to actually progress far enough story wise through the game to find a store and buy them.   This could be devistating in some fights, like the pre-determined nemesis boss fights, where your character's nemesis would come out and fight you, and you would have Fireball 2 and Healing spell 2, and your opponent woul have Ice Spell 4, and Heal spell 3, AND a 3rd spell that you didnt even have access to yet.

Sort of like a Warrior in WoW hitting level 60, and having to fight a level 60 rogue, except the warrior hasnt been able to buy any new abilities or gear since level 40, while the rogue has access to everything he normally would have.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on July 06, 2010, 11:07:13 PM
The worst part about it was that Key NPC's leveled up directly in relation to your level, however, if an NPC reached a level where new skills and abilities became available, they AUTOMATICALLY got them, where as you had to actually progress far enough story wise through the game to find a store and buy them.   This could be devistating in some fights, like the pre-determined nemesis boss fights, where your character's nemesis would come out and fight you, and you would have Fireball 2 and Healing spell 2, and your opponent woul have Ice Spell 4, and Heal spell 3, AND a 3rd spell that you didnt even have access to yet.
Exactly.  Most of my fights were "NPC uses barrier spell\B Power, I use something and miss\not kill them, NPC 1-shots me with something I've never seen."  Then they take your stupid runes and gain EVEN MORE power.  I think my SNES reset button still has dents from my fingers hitting it so much learning to play that stupid game (I moved the console right next to my chair specifically to avoid getting up and hitting it every 5 minutes).

Kind of like going in to MC and being made the bomb, which hit for 4k damage and the highest you could muster up in blues was 3200.  You prayed for the RNG to not choose you long enough in that fight to win it without having to eat a repair bill.  An exercise in frustration and anger.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on July 06, 2010, 11:07:57 PM
People here seem to be under the impression that having a more group oriented game will somehow rob them of the option to go solo if they so choose.

That's because that's always what happens when people set out to make a more group-oriented game. You get Vanguard.

That doesn't necessarily mean it HAS to be like that though.

Quote
I just don't play for other people.  My friends played a lot of Dark Age, but  I found that game so lacking that I gladly just listened to them bitch on the phone about it rather than play.  I don't really care if a game encourages grouping or not, but the current trends of catering to a solo style gameplay works for me.  This might be different if I had a stable group of people to play with and a set time when I could expect to play, but that just isn't happening.  And really, it'll never happen.  

I don't exactly have a group of people I play with either, but games today do little to encourage team work and cooperation. Forcing people to do it isn't the same as encouraging it, when you force people to group you get shit communities like the one in FF11; where White Mages were allowed to be giant pricks because they were an exceedingly rare and valuable party member, far moreso than in any other game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on July 06, 2010, 11:37:53 PM
I don't exactly have a group of people I play with either, but games today do little to encourage team work and cooperation. Forcing people to do it isn't the same as encouraging it

OK, I do have a group of people I play WoW with. It's a small group (often only 2-3 of us online, occasionally 5-6) but we find that WoW gives us a perfect balance between soloing, small group content and large group content. We are all perfectly happy solo levelling, or using the RDF to do dungeons solo, and if someone else is online then we can choose to either just carry on doing our respective solo things whilst chatting on Skype or we have a range of group stuff we can do.

Couple of us going into a random heroic (or lower level dungeon if we're wanting to level lowbies) is more fun than doing them solo. Having 2 or 3 of us about gives the couple of shy/anti-social/low-geared guildies more confidence to join random dungeons with strangers. Joining up for a group quest with someone who's struggling to solo that level 58 elite is more fun than doing it at a higher level solo, although that option is always there if nobody is about. If there's 5 of us on then we can do dungeons as proper guild groups! We can do old raid content, we can do things like the arena combat quests in Nagrand/Zul-Drak/Icecrown etc.

There's plenty of raid PUGs going on our server most days. The weekly raid quest makes it easier for inexperienced and badly geared people to get into raids and means people run raids for content that isn't current - and often you can get people to do more than just the quest boss if you advertise it as such beforehand. We're on a low-population Horde side which means that you get to know people outside your guild and if you get a good reputation it's remembered. Our guild is a mature, friendly, helpful and well-behaved guild entirely lacking in retards. We all get groups easily.

Yes, it's perfectly possible to solo to 80 and solo dailies and use the RFD to do heroics solo. But WoW encourages us to do stuff together when we can because it's more fun and by providing content that is better done with more people. If you're simply min-maxing your levelling then solo is the most efficient way to do it, i.e. shortest route to 80. But not necessarily the most fun. Having a few good friends with which to do whatever content we like (and there is a LOT more content that you can do with friends than solo) has made WoW greatly more enjoyable for us. Voice comms play a big part in it for us, we have a great laugh most evenings regardless of whether we're grouped or not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 07, 2010, 12:01:55 AM
In particular I find the random dungeon finder has really transformed the level-up process - I group far more than I ever did before while leveling up now that I can queue up and go back to questing instead of having to wait around in a LFG channel and drum up interest to get anywhere.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on July 07, 2010, 12:22:11 AM
Plus with some thinking and a friend or two you can reduce the queue waiting times drastically. I've dual-specced or respecced a bunch of my alts so that I now have either a tank or a healer at 50-ish, 60-ish and 70-ish. Any of my guildies levelling a DPS in those level ranges can group with me if I'm on and get a few mins queue instead of a 30-40 min one.

How is that not encouraging grouping?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on July 07, 2010, 02:20:07 AM
How is that not encouraging grouping?

BECAUSE MY DICK ISN'T BLEEDING.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 07, 2010, 09:01:47 AM
In particular I find the random dungeon finder has really transformed the level-up process - I group far more than I ever did before while leveling up now that I can queue up and go back to questing instead of having to wait around in a LFG channel and drum up interest to get anywhere.

Yeah, the DPS queues are long enough during the mid-levels that you can spend a half-hour or so questing and then hop into a dungeon for another half-hour for a change of pace.  It's great.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DLRiley on July 07, 2010, 09:46:02 AM
Again, if the audience overwhelmingly wants a game where they're forced to solo, why are they playing an MMO?

I don't play MMOs for the people. 

Why do you play them, then?


Because they're games and I'm a gamer. I may approach this genre different than most people, but MMOs are games to me first.  If it fails to me as a game, then I won't play it.  This why primarily I don't jump into every single goddamn MMO like a lot of people here.  I'm not looking for the next best broken piece of shit that lets me chat at the same time. 

WoW is a huge game.  Leveling a new character provides over 240 hours of content (even the longest RPGs rarely crack 100) even if you know where to look and are packing heirlooms.  The gameplay isn't honestly worse than a single player RPGs except for the fact that you're not getting cutscenes and expensive voice overs.  WoW's hotkey driven combat is just about as deep as anything Bioware's put out.  There's large landmasses, neat environments and quests, quests and more quests.  There's bank space, guild bank space to share between characters, an economy, tradeskills, PVP when I want to, and also, a couple of my friends play.  But for the most part, those other people could be NPCs and I really wouldn't care that much. 

I play WoW as long as WoW works as a game for me.  When I run out of stuff I can do, I stop playing. Once I stopped raiding, this would happen very quickly in Vanilla and TBC.  For various reasons which you probably disliked, WOLK kept me busy for much longer stretches of time.  Heroics were no longer off limits because I wasn't a well geared healer or cc and in ICC5 they even let me get some sweet weapons. I also didn't have to spend my precious game time organizing a group or sitting in a guild chat full of people I thought were rather odious but offered an opportunity to do content I couldn't do on my own.

SWTOR will probably work rather well for me.  WoW may continue to work rather well for me.  But I'll play them because I find them to be decent games worthy of my time.  I'll likely continue to ignore all of the other crap that releases in a sad state and thinks it can make money off me because it's on the internets.

I'm the same. I play games because their games not because its facebook. Why play a game that sucks? Is local chat seriously that awesome that I need to spend $15 a month for it?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on July 07, 2010, 11:03:17 AM
So, they're completely changing the talent tree thing. (http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/25626290449/cataclysm-class-amp-mastery-systems-update/)

Quote
When we first announced our design goals for class talent trees back at BlizzCon 2009, one of our major stated focuses was to remove some of the boring and "mandatory" passive talents. We mentioned that we wanted talent choices to feel more flavorful and fun, yet more meaningful at the same time. Recently, we had our fansites release information on work-in-progress talent tree previews for druids, priests, shaman, and rogues. From those previews and via alpha test feedback, a primary response we heard was that these trees didn’t incorporate the original design goals discussed at BlizzCon. This response echoes something we have been feeling internally for some time, namely that the talent tree system has not aged well since we first increased the level cap beyond level 60. In an upcoming beta build, we will unveil bold overhauls of all 30 talent trees.

Talent Tree Vision

One of the basic tenets of Blizzard game design is that of “concentrated coolness.” We’d rather have a simpler design with a lot of depth, than a complicated but shallow design. The goal for Cataclysm remains to remove a lot of the passive (or lame) talents, but we don’t think that’s possible with the current tree size. To resolve this, we're reducing each tree to 31-point talents. With this reduction in tree size we need to make sure they're being purchased along a similar leveling curve, and therefore will also be reducing the number of total talent points and the speed at which they're awarded during the leveling process.

As a result, we can keep the unique talents in each tree, particularly those which provide new spells, abilities or mechanics. We’ll still have room for extra flavorful talents and room for player customization, but we can trim a great deal of fat from each tree. The idea isn’t to give players fewer choices, but to make those choices feel more meaningful. Your rotations won’t change and you won’t lose any cool talents. What will change are all of the filler talents you had to pick up to get to the next fun talent, as well as most talents that required 5 of your hard-earned points.

We are also taking a hard look at many of the mandatory PvP talents, such as spell pushback or mechanic duration reductions. While there will always be PvP vs. PvE builds, we’d like for the difference to be less extreme, so that players don’t feel like they necessarily need to spend their second talent specialization on a PvP build.

The Rise of Specialization

We want to focus the talent trees towards your chosen style of gameplay right away. That first point you spend in a tree should be very meaningful. If you choose Enhancement, we want you to feel like an Enhancement shaman right away, not thirty talent points later. When talent trees are unlocked at level 10, you will be asked to choose your specialization (e.g. whether you want to be an Arms, Fury or Protection warrior) before spending that first point. Making this choice comes with certain benefits, including whatever passive bonuses you need to be effective in that role, and a signature ability that used to be buried deeper in the talent trees. These abilities and bonuses are only available by specializing in a specific tree. Each tree awards its own unique active ability and passives when chosen. The passive bonuses range from flat percentage increases, like a 20% increase to Fire damage for Fire mages or spell range increases for casters, to more interesting passives such as the passive rage regeneration of the former Anger Management talent for Arms warriors, Dual-Wield Specialization for Fury warriors and Combat rogues, or the ability to dual-wield itself for Enhancement shaman.

The initial talent tree selection unlocks active abilities that are core to the chosen role. Our goal is to choose abilities that let the specializations come into their own much earlier than was possible when a specialization-defining talent had to be buried deep enough that other talent trees couldn’t access them. For example, having Lava Lash and Dual-Wield right away lets an Enhancement shaman feel like an Enhancement shaman. Other role-defining examples of abilities players can now get for free at level 10 include Mortal Strike, Bloodthirst, Shield Slam, Mutilate, Shadow Step, Thunderstorm, Earth Shield, Water Elemental, and Penance.

More info in the link above.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on July 07, 2010, 11:08:23 AM
Completely new talent system. (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25626290449&sid=1)

Summary:
  • Each tree will be 31 talent points
  • Players will have 41 talent points to spend at level 85
  • At level 10, a talent tree must be chosen.  You will be locked into that tree and cannot spend points on the other two until you have invested 31 points into your chosen specialty, at level 70.
  • Upon choosing your tree at 10, you automatically get passive bonuses and 'class defining' skills (Dual Wield for Enhancement or Penance for Disc, for example)
While their are aspects of this that sound pretty nice for leveling (Shadowstep at 10!), it also sounds like they solved the 'cookie cutter build' problem by forcing everyone to have the same builds.  :awesome_for_real:  Having to invest at least 31 points into a tree and only having 41 total points to work with doesn't leave a whole lot for customization.


Edit:  My post is better than Draegan's because I didn't just cut and paste half the blue post. ;)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 07, 2010, 11:15:00 AM
To be fair, everyone pretty much has the same build now.  I'm more worried that they're just dumbing it down now but it'll just get filled up with more bloat later.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ragnoros on July 07, 2010, 11:17:07 AM
Bah, you both beat me to it.

Having said that, I really like the changes. It will make leveling alts much nicer, having your spec defining skill(s) / passive(s) at level 10 rather then 30, 40 50, etc.

I also like their idea to trim the amount of counter skills and talents in PvP down a notch. Playing a Holy Pally I had something like 3 buttons that were just for escaping, mitigating or preemptively avoiding a single mechanic, like snare or silence. Too much for us old guys to keep track of.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 07, 2010, 11:24:08 AM
Love the change. There are too many classes now that are stuck waiting until level 30 or 40 before they start to play even a little like they do at 80. Letting people really do their jobs properly at lower levels can only improve the PUG dungeon experience.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on July 07, 2010, 11:28:10 AM
Getting dual wield at 10 as Enhancement or Shadow Form (I assume that's what Shadow will get) = awesome!

Not having access to Improved Ghost Wolf or Spirit Tap until 70 if you aren't Enhancement or Shadow, respectively = not so awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 07, 2010, 11:30:59 AM
Getting dual wield at 10 as Enhancement or Shadow Form (I assume that's what Shadow will get) = awesome!

Not having access to Improved Ghost Wolf or Spirit Tap until 70 if you aren't Enhancement or Shadow, respectively = not so awesome.

Yeah, that is the downside.  There were some oddball leveling builds that were nice to get a 5 points or so in just one talent at the top of one tree, and then invest in another tree.  Going to suck not to have those now.  Hopefully getting the passive/feature abilities earlier will make up for it though.

I don't even know why I'm posting here, i'm going not going to buy this.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 07, 2010, 11:33:07 AM
I like that you're getting class-defining abilities at level 10 now; however, I don't like the decreased diversity in builds this will lead to. The odds of there being even a few free talent points to spend beyond the core "build" for most specs are pretty slim.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 07, 2010, 11:37:33 AM
Getting dual wield at 10 as Enhancement or Shadow Form (I assume that's what Shadow will get) = awesome!

Not having access to Improved Ghost Wolf or Spirit Tap until 70 if you aren't Enhancement or Shadow, respectively = not so awesome.

I don't see shamans being taken down a notch or two for lowbie WSG as a real downside.  :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on July 07, 2010, 11:41:18 AM
Sounds great to me, particularly like the idea of defining specs right away. Will help the more normal and casual players (i.e. not us min-maxer forum reading, Rawr-using nerds) understand the difference between class specs better.

What needs to happen alongside this is clearer information about what stats/gear each kind of spec should be using. One of my guildies was very annoyed when we explained to them that Enhance shaman should be stacking melee stats, not spellpower, after they'd spent a week buying blues and grinding rep to gear up... wrongly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on July 07, 2010, 11:41:38 AM
Getting dual wield at 10 as Enhancement or Shadow Form (I assume that's what Shadow will get) = awesome!

Not having access to Improved Ghost Wolf or Spirit Tap until 70 if you aren't Enhancement or Shadow, respectively = not so awesome.

I don't see shamans being taken down a notch or two for lowbie WSG as a real downside.  :-P

Elementals are getting Thunderstorm at 10 so they'll be a lot meaner in lowbie BGs. ;)   I liked Improved Ghost Wolf for leveling just for the convenience of insta-casting it.  Getting from mob to mob faster is a quality of life thing, not a power thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 07, 2010, 11:56:20 AM
Well, presumably non-Enhance specs will actually be able to just use their nukes effectively now, so they won't need it as much. As far as spirit tap goes, I sort of expect that talent is one of the ones that will just be gone, based on all the other regen changes.

It seems to me like feral druids are going to be the hardest to handle properly, since there are really 2 and a half specs in that single tree already. Will be interesting to see what they come up with, I bet that tree will take a few tries to get right.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on July 07, 2010, 12:01:31 PM
Are the trees out yet?

I'm quite happy as I'm rerolling a Goblin Shaman, and my Orc Shaman was originally Enhancement leveling.  Which was quite lame early on, as it played mostly like Elemental.

Quote
Not having access to Improved Ghost Wolf or Spirit Tap until 70 if you aren't Enhancement or Shadow, respectively = not so awesome.
Eh, early Elemental basically killed the target before it got there.  Or Earthbind helped.  It was Enhancement that needed to run away quickly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 07, 2010, 12:20:28 PM
Trees aren't available anywhere yet from what I've seen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on July 07, 2010, 02:16:23 PM

Summary:
  • Less skills on the trees
  • Less skill points awarded
  • Less choice of where to put skill points
  • Needed skills (likely) available sooner

...did some people get moved from the Diablo team to the WoW team recently?   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DLRiley on July 07, 2010, 03:01:09 PM
someone is making wow shit in their own backyard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 07, 2010, 03:06:29 PM
someone is making wow shit in their own backyard.

HELP CHANGE IS SCARY


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on July 07, 2010, 03:51:43 PM
Ha.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 07, 2010, 04:01:25 PM
Ha.

So Azuregos is the deadpool of wow?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on July 07, 2010, 04:17:16 PM
Nice. More dragons need to be bored and sarcastic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 07, 2010, 05:36:46 PM
I like that you're getting class-defining abilities at level 10 now; however, I don't like the decreased diversity in builds this will lead to. The odds of there being even a few free talent points to spend beyond the core "build" for most specs are pretty slim.

It's been heading this way for a while now. Next stop: drop the talent fiddling and just pick one of the trees. Done-done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 07, 2010, 05:48:20 PM
I mostly like the talent tree change, but between this and the "abilities scale with level automagically now" change, they're going to wind up with an awful lot of "empty" levels, I would think, and I don't think people will like that very much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on July 07, 2010, 05:58:06 PM
They did say you'd get a talent point every other level and an ability all the other levels.  Or at least for a while I suppose.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 07, 2010, 06:01:27 PM
Ah, did they? I must've glazed right over it, my apologies. It's good they realised the same thing though.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on July 07, 2010, 06:09:00 PM
In particular I find the random dungeon finder has really transformed the level-up process - I group far more than I ever did before while leveling up now that I can queue up and go back to questing instead of having to wait around in a LFG channel and drum up interest to get anywhere.

You find a group, but that's all it is. A group of strangers you'll likely never see again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 07, 2010, 06:14:04 PM
You're a sad, sad little man.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 07, 2010, 06:19:21 PM
And you have my pity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on July 07, 2010, 06:48:10 PM
You're a sad, sad little man.

I'm not the one playing WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 07, 2010, 06:49:18 PM
Rasix isn't the one who apparently needs to form a Lifelong Bond with anyone he braves Deadmines with.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on July 07, 2010, 07:05:27 PM
Rasix isn't the one who apparently needs to form a Lifelong Bond with anyone he braves Deadmines with.

Yes, because that is precisely what I was talking about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on July 07, 2010, 07:37:56 PM
You're a sad, sad little man.
I'm not the one playing WoW.

I'm not sure trolling the subforum of a game you hold your nose at scores you points.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on July 07, 2010, 07:56:41 PM
You're a sad, sad little man.
I'm not the one playing WoW.

I'm not sure trolling the subforum of a game you hold your nose at scores you points.

I'm not sure you know what trolling actually is.

All I was trying to say was that the measures put into place hinder the communities the game's individual servers used to have. If you're going to make everything a cross server individual instance, what's the point of having persistent world servers in the first place?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 07, 2010, 08:03:19 PM
All I was trying to say was that the measures put into place hinder the communities the game's individual servers used to have. If you're going to make everything a cross server individual instance, what's the point of having persistent world servers in the first place?

Ah that would be those awesome communities that couldn't form an instance PUG for anything below level 70 before the heat death of the universe, right?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on July 07, 2010, 08:29:19 PM
Vanilla WoW only had select communities that are still together anyways. You had the PVP crews and the raid crews. Everything else was a guild or something out of game entirely. You still have that, you just have less focus for them to talk about (PVP crews are no longer HWL trading, so there's no need to be tight knit. Raids are more accessible and less focused on poaching players because you need X class/spec/gear to progress)

There's never really been a tight knit trade spamming for groups community. If you start to form one, you friend each other and stop trolling trade for groups.

Basically, I'm calling bullshit on the community being lesser in any form: WoW was never a gather your realm and retake a keep kind of game. There was never a reason to make some massive community. LFG essentially took the issue of a dead server under the level cap and removed it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 07, 2010, 08:30:58 PM
Yeah the realm forums were never anything like those for DAOC or even WAR (for better and for worse.) To me that says the idea of a tight server community in WoW that was 'damaged' by all these changes is mostly BS. There was a little bit of rivalry/action around when the servers had their own battlegrounds, and that's about it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 07, 2010, 08:33:46 PM
Even when the BGs expanded to battlegroups, there was a little back and forth, it just changed to "Doomhammer? More like NOOBHAMMER LOL" instead of "lol alliance has no ohner."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on July 07, 2010, 08:39:56 PM
Vanilla WoW only had select communities that are still together anyways. You had the PVP crews and the raid crews. Everything else was a guild or something out of game entirely. You still have that, you just have less focus for them to talk about (PVP crews are no longer HWL trading, so there's no need to be tight knit. Raids are more accessible and less focused on poaching players because you need X class/spec/gear to progress)

There's never really been a tight knit trade spamming for groups community. If you start to form one, you friend each other and stop trolling trade for groups.

Basically, I'm calling bullshit on the community being lesser in any form: WoW was never a gather your realm and retake a keep kind of game. There was never a reason to make some massive community. LFG essentially took the issue of a dead server under the level cap and removed it.

Maybe my server was the only one who had an active community in the vanilla days. Tarren mill, Crossroads, the widespread chaos that followed the introduction of the honor system, and even the early days of the battlegrounds. Now, the only time the world is active and rife with players is when the latest expansion goes and wipes out the progress the players were working the past year or so towards. Are you suggesting that the WoW's current condition is identical or even similar to the way it was during the Vanilla days?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 07, 2010, 08:43:31 PM
 :rofl:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on July 07, 2010, 08:45:32 PM
Vanilla WoW only had select communities that are still together anyways. You had the PVP crews and the raid crews. Everything else was a guild or something out of game entirely. You still have that, you just have less focus for them to talk about (PVP crews are no longer HWL trading, so there's no need to be tight knit. Raids are more accessible and less focused on poaching players because you need X class/spec/gear to progress)

There's never really been a tight knit trade spamming for groups community. If you start to form one, you friend each other and stop trolling trade for groups.

Basically, I'm calling bullshit on the community being lesser in any form: WoW was never a gather your realm and retake a keep kind of game. There was never a reason to make some massive community. LFG essentially took the issue of a dead server under the level cap and removed it.

Maybe my server was the only one who had an active community in the vanilla days. Tarren mill, Crossroads, the widespread chaos that followed the introduction of the honor system, and even the early days of the battlegrounds. Now, the only time the world is active and rife with players is when the latest expansion goes and wipes out the progress the players were working the past year or so towards. Are you suggesting that the WoW's current condition is identical or even similar to the condition that it was in the early days? Back when people actually did world bosses and attacked capitals?

They still do the latter (there's an achievement for it!), the prior are good to be gone (non instanced raid targets were essentially a grief magnet, at least on the servers I played. It was bad enough that Blizz had to put in a no interference policy that essentially made them instanced for all intents and purposes. You'd eat a ban if you mucked with another raid's pull.)

TM wasn't a community, it was just the Only Thing To Do. It was the Emain of WOW. Once BGs got off the ground, people had something else to do with their time. Basically, the community you're talking about was shit raiders did when waiting for raids to run.

WoW's current condition is the same as it used to be, with more actual gameplay happening, and less wasting time. They've been steadily removing the grindy bits and the boring bits and accepting that at it's core, it's a fun game. And people will play it for being a fun game. So I don't recognize the pug mage in my group anymore. It's not like I ever talked to him beyond "seriously, sheep that" or "no seriously, stop trying to fucking tank" in the old system, now I just have a faster time getting to the actual GAME.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on July 07, 2010, 09:07:41 PM

They still do the latter (there's an achievement for it!), the prior are good to be gone (non instanced raid targets were essentially a grief magnet, at least on the servers I played. It was bad enough that Blizz had to put in a no interference policy that essentially made them instanced for all intents and purposes. You'd eat a ban if you mucked with another raid's pull.)

TM wasn't a community, it was just the Only Thing To Do. It was the Emain of WOW. Once BGs got off the ground, people had something else to do with their time. Basically, the community you're talking about was shit raiders did when waiting for raids to run.

WoW's current condition is the same as it used to be, with more actual gameplay happening, and less wasting time. They've been steadily removing the grindy bits and the boring bits and accepting that at it's core, it's a fun game. And people will play it for being a fun game. So I don't recognize the pug mage in my group anymore. It's not like I ever talked to him beyond "seriously, sheep that" or "no seriously, stop trying to fucking tank" in the old system, now I just have a faster time getting to the actual GAME.

So people actually do city raids again? Does the server still implode each times it happens? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just curious.

Either way, I can see what you're saying. and I agree with streamlining  the more annoying bits of the game; I just think they went a little too far in removing the parts that made the world actually feel like one. However flawed some of those aspects were, I actually liked them. Now, all you seem to do in the game is sit in town and wait for a lobby to pop. I can do that in games I don't have to pay a monthly fee for.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pants on July 07, 2010, 09:23:28 PM

So people actually do city raids again? Does the server still implode each times it happens? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just curious.


Not really - the server doesn't notice.  Because everyone is in Dalaran, so the populations of even Stormwind and Org are nowhere near as high as they used to be way back when.  And the other capitals are ghost towns.  Its unusual for defenders to even bother if they hear a raid is on, especially if its in buttfucknowhere like Silvermoon or the space goat city.

"Cmon guys, the alliance are raiding Silvermoon!  Help us kill them"
"Bah, who cares, let em have it"

is the normal discussion in trade chat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 07, 2010, 09:26:55 PM
We save Magni from the horde all the time on Doomhammer!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on July 07, 2010, 09:30:38 PM
Yeah, the raids happen weekly because of the Achievement.  Defense? Depends on the city.  Orgrimmar, nope.  Stormwind, sorta.  Ironforge...yes, since you go directly through the center.   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 07, 2010, 09:34:50 PM
City Raids happen like once a week, if not more often. The servers handle them just fine, your video card might not, but /shrug



WoW has plenty of community, it's just incomprehensible and retarded to most of us. All those morons spamming ANAL [FIREBALL] in trade chat? They all know each other, have their own cliques, groups, friends and drama. Instead of shitting around in IRC, they all shit around in Vent. Instead of flaming each other on old forums, they flame each other in blog-comments and twitter and that reverse twitter thing.


It really hit home how alien the community was to me, the last time I went on a City Raid ironically enough. I was hoping the retards would just be able to brute force their way through it after enough attempts, but I was very surprised. The Raid leader/organizer, was talking like a total E-Thug, but at the same time, he wasn't berating anyone, or being particularly vulgar or anything. Once I was able to parse what the shit he was saying, it turned out he actually had a solid plan, with a bunch of guys buying into it, organized, executed and most surprisingly, done with TONS of patience.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pantastic on July 07, 2010, 09:46:08 PM
I like that you're getting class-defining abilities at level 10 now; however, I don't like the decreased diversity in builds this will lead to. The odds of there being even a few free talent points to spend beyond the core "build" for most specs are pretty slim.

How is that different than now? Most classes have 2-4 PVE builds that maybe have 5 points you can shift, unless you just want to gimp your character. There isn't any real diversity in builds, you either pick one of a few or choose to play badly. And lots of the talents are just boring - sure getting 5% more damage on your main nuke is useful, but spending 5 levels picking up +1% damage at a time is not interesting. I think they can actually provide much more variety if they take out all of the 'must have' stuff that provides basic abilities or major damage/healing/tanking boosts and just put stuff you don't have to have into the talents you pick.

I'd gladly exchange the occasional odd leveling talent build for actually playing like an arms warrior, enhancement shaman, or assasination rogue while leveling. Most of the not-one-tree leveling builds are there either for one ability that should probably be baseline (like spirit tap for priests) or to compensate for not having any good stuff at low levels.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on July 07, 2010, 10:00:32 PM
...it's just incomprehensible and retarded to most of us. All those morons spamming ANAL [FIREBALL] in trade chat? They all know each other, have their own cliques, groups, friends and drama.

Yes, well; the type of idiots that troll trade channel aren't exactly the type of the community I'm referring to; but I see what you're saying. Still, every thing is just kind of isolated now... Though as the game grows; it might actually be for the best.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 07, 2010, 10:10:38 PM
I don't see why you would think they are isolated.


Most of "us" isolate our selves from them, because we are all old and cranky and want them off our lawns. We also isolate ourselves from each other because we can't stand each other either anymore.  :why_so_serious:




We weren't any different when we first hit the MMO scene or whatever you want to call it, and I'm sure the older generation playing with us thought we were all crazy too. I can't throw stones at the people making trade chat jokes when we had 'New Patch' thread and stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 07, 2010, 10:39:08 PM
Don't you dare mock "New Patch." Don't you dare. Especially since Ingmar will yell at us for being in-jokey again. :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 07, 2010, 10:44:44 PM
I'm just saying what we found hilarious, wasn't hilarious to everyone and someone else was shaking their fists at us for our silly ways.


I'm sure in 2025 when we are all playing World of Starwars Quest or whatever, we'll have the current retards going "man, remember the good old days of sensible trade chat fun!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Brennik on July 08, 2010, 12:34:38 AM
I don't see why you would think they are isolated.


Most of "us" isolate our selves from them, because we are all old and cranky and want them off our lawns. We also isolate ourselves from each other because we can't stand each other either anymore.  :why_so_serious:

This. Like someone mentioned earlier, the tradechat spammers know each other and they're from all over the place. A good example is our guild (old, established for years) when we transferred servers, most of us weren't trying to integrate. It was all "set up in a corner and scoff at the outsiders".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on July 08, 2010, 03:46:31 AM
Most of "us" isolate our selves from them, because we are all old and cranky and want them off our lawns. We also isolate ourselves from each other because we can't stand each other either anymore.  :why_so_serious:

Haha, yeah. You guys think I've not logged in for 5 months is because my laptop's GPU died!  :why_so_serious:





No, really. Is there even going to be anyone there when I ever get back in game...?  :?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 08, 2010, 07:46:34 AM
Haha, yeah. You guys think I've not logged in for 5 months is because my laptop's GPU died!  :why_so_serious:
:cry2:

There will probably be people around.  Maybe.  If RealID doesn't scare everyone off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on July 08, 2010, 08:14:01 AM
The amount of people who actually quit will be minimal. Forum readers, let alone posters are a very very small percentage of the playerbase.

Hell, I think I can count on one hand the people who are threatening to quit from our group.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 08, 2010, 08:21:18 AM
Who knew they meant Cataclysm referred to their forums?

Still, even without this I keep finding myself less and less interested.  I'm not to the point of saying I won't get it though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on July 08, 2010, 08:24:19 AM
Who knew they meant Cataclysm referred to their forums?

Still, even without this I keep finding myself less and less interested.  I'm not to the point of saying I won't get it though.

You made two assumptions. One that "maybe" people will be around, and "if" RealID doesn't scare them off. I understand peoples dislike of RealID, but if you don't post, it's not much of an issue. That was my point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on July 08, 2010, 09:01:19 AM
Except that exposing your real name on the forums is likely only the first step of a broad range of integrations with Facebook.  It's already shown that RealID is exposed to friends of friends you have given RealID to, not to mention to any mods you have installed.

It's not a matter of "I don't want to post on the forums with my real name."  It's a matter of I value my privacy, and I don't want anyone knowing personal information about me, unless I decide to give it to them myself.  Blizzard is not only removing my decision from the reveal of my personal information, they're broadcasting it to potentially millions of people, and no doubt have plans to monetize it as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on July 08, 2010, 09:06:52 AM
Except that exposing your real name on the forums is likely only the first step of a broad range of integrations with Facebook.  It's already shown that RealID is exposed to friends of friends you have given RealID to, not to mention to any mods you have installed.

It's not a matter of "I don't want to post on the forums with my real name."  It's a matter of I value my privacy, and I don't want anyone knowing personal information about me, unless I decide to give it to them myself.  Blizzard is not only removing my decision from the reveal of my personal information, they're broadcasting it to potentially millions of people, and no doubt have plans to monetize it as well.

They already have the facebook integration, though. I don't see how we immediately assume the jump is there, if it were, it would be using the Facebook login API. I don't doubt they will add stuff, but as everything else has been, I imagine it will be optional.

right now, there is no reason to assume that Blizzard is making the jump to broadcasting the information, openly. Even Facebook doesn't do that if you close off your account.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 08, 2010, 09:19:42 AM
I like that you're getting class-defining abilities at level 10 now; however, I don't like the decreased diversity in builds this will lead to. The odds of there being even a few free talent points to spend beyond the core "build" for most specs are pretty slim.

How is that different than now? Most classes have 2-4 PVE builds that maybe have 5 points you can shift, unless you just want to gimp your character. There isn't any real diversity in builds, you either pick one of a few or choose to play badly. And lots of the talents are just boring - sure getting 5% more damage on your main nuke is useful, but spending 5 levels picking up +1% damage at a time is not interesting. I think they can actually provide much more variety if they take out all of the 'must have' stuff that provides basic abilities or major damage/healing/tanking boosts and just put stuff you don't have to have into the talents you pick.

I'd gladly exchange the occasional odd leveling talent build for actually playing like an arms warrior, enhancement shaman, or assasination rogue while leveling. Most of the not-one-tree leveling builds are there either for one ability that should probably be baseline (like spirit tap for priests) or to compensate for not having any good stuff at low levels.
I guess I just like having those 5 points to shift around, and don't imagine we'll have that much play with only 41 points total. And honestly I've never used a cookie cutter build on my rogue, yet have still consistently lead DPS despite doing things contrary to traditional (EJ) spec, rotation, etc. The real reason I had been psyched for Cata was all the interesting hybrid builds it could have lead to (hybrid meaning 21/51/x).

To everyone bitching in this thread about Facebook, RealID, etc., could you guys please take it to the RealID thread?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 08, 2010, 09:23:47 AM
You made two assumptions. One that "maybe" people will be around, and "if" RealID doesn't scare them off. I understand peoples dislike of RealID, but if you don't post, it's not much of an issue. That was my point.
I was being fascetious.  And amused at the coincidence.  My loss of interest is due to actual game-related reveals.  Nothing of late has made me go OMG I MUST GET THIS GAME NOW.  Rather quite the opposite with a "Why am I bothering?"

Let's keep the serious RealID stuff to its own thread.  It's a subject that will devour anything it touches.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on July 08, 2010, 10:09:29 AM
Put me in the camp that likes the tree changes - IF they manage to meet their design goals (a big if, I think).  I'd much rather see talents that  add abilities or add odd effects to abilities rather than "add +1% damage".  It also seems to make more sense from a balancing perspective - the relative DPS that a player does is consistent throughout level, they just get access to a variety of flavor in how they deal damage (heal, etc).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pantastic on July 08, 2010, 10:27:45 AM
I guess I just like having those 5 points to shift around, and don't imagine we'll have that much play with only 41 points total.

I think there will be much more play with the new tree, as you won't be spending most of your points on stuff like '5 points of +1% to ability 1, 5 points of +1% to crit, 1 point to get the special move that defines this tree, 6 points for the boosts to the special move that make it really good, 4 points in something random that doesn't do much so I can get to the stuff later on the tree'. I don't really see the appeal of '5 points that don't make much difference', if they do the new trees right you'll be spending talents for interesting abilities instead of either 'eh, whatever' or '+1%'. When they know you'll spec 'arms' while leveling, they can give you all of the important arms stuff without worrying about a fury/arms spec being overpowered by combining things, leaving the talents for real choices.

Quote
And honestly I've never used a cookie cutter build on my rogue, yet have still consistently lead DPS despite doing things contrary to traditional (EJ) spec, rotation, etc. The real reason I had been psyched for Cata was all the interesting hybrid builds it could have lead to (hybrid meaning 21/51/x).

Can you post one of the builds on a calculator or at tell me how many talent points it has that differ from one of the standard shadowpanther builds? How different is your rotation from the traditional one, are you just using 1 or 2 things in a different order, or are you contradicting most of a standard rotation? Generally the last few points of a spec or the fine points of a rotation are only a tiny % difference or only work on certain fights, so I doubt you're really deviating as much as you think from a cookie cutter build. I made most of the standard mutilate build when I decided to try mutilate while leveling and grabbed talents that look like they'd be good based on the description, I just don't see that there are a lot of non-obvious choices.

I can come in first in a race across the park if the other competitors decide to just stroll around. Unless you're in a hardcore guild or running with DPSers with that mindset, 'leading the chart' is pretty much meaningless. Lots of people just don't play the game all that well, and lots of other people will slack off most of the time, so if you just show up to a PUG or casual guild, have decent gear for the instance, and actually try hard to top charts you probably will. I don't really want to get into an argument about whether or not your guild or groups are good, it's just that 'topping the charts' is not a useful fact because there's a good chance that the rest of the chart isn't anything to write home about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 08, 2010, 11:24:45 AM
TtT over CQC, gemming Agi over AP, and the inclusion of Rupture into the rotation are the major changes. Numerous rogues (even those from more serious guilds, or who were better geared than me) have argued with me up and down about both points, and lost DPS parses. Of course, my evidence is anecdotal, but comparing "my" spec/rotation with the EJ one I've always come up with better dps using my own. Of course it's as you say, there isn't that much room for deviation, and I'm not trying to turn this into a "MAH ROUGE IS AWSUM!" thread. I just feel that with less talent points available, there will be even less room for deviation from the "optimal".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 08, 2010, 11:37:55 AM
There's also the issue that which group buffs you might have on a particular night have a huge effect on the dps of various talents, and also that these other rogues may just not be executing as well as you. In other words, the only person you should really be comparing your dps to on a per spec basis is you, and even then it can be hard to duplicate the right conditions to know for sure whether you're really making the most optimal choice. That's why the spreadsheet environments are pretty valuable for making those choices - they put things into a nice neutral context for comparison.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pantastic on July 08, 2010, 12:07:49 PM
TtT over CQC, gemming Agi over AP, and the inclusion of Rupture into the rotation are the major changes. Numerous rogues (even those from more serious guilds, or who were better geared than me) have argued with me up and down about both points, and lost DPS parses. Of course, my evidence is anecdotal, but comparing "my" spec/rotation with the EJ one I've always come up with better dps using my own. Of course it's as you say, there isn't that much room for deviation, and I'm not trying to turn this into a "MAH ROUGE IS AWSUM!" thread. I  

I think you're proving my point about lack of diversity, since you're following the cookie cutter spec, gemming, and rotation except for incredibly minor chages, less than the '5 points' I mentioned. You shifted 3 talent points from CQC to TtT, that's the only change in spec. Although the non-talent stuff isn't really relevant here,  Shadowpanther only ranks AP as 3% better than agility, so if you have 200 stat points in gems (10 slots) you're looking at a theoretical difference equivalent to 6 agility, which is not even worth mentioning. IIRC rupture or not is only theoretically a small change, and whether it's recommended or not is dependent on your overall gear (though I haven't followed discussions on it for a long while).

I think that your skill in playing the character and issues like latency have a much bigger effect on DPS than the 3 talent points and 6 agility equivalent and arguable rotation thing you deviated from cookie cutter, so the contests don't really show us much. And I think if you shifted significantly more than 5 points in your talent build, you'd end up losing many more contests like that.

Quote
I just feel that with less talent points available, there will be even less room for deviation from the "optimal".

Well, you're deviating from the optimal by following a cookie-cutter build but shifting a whopping 3 talent points. I really can't see how they would end up with less room for deviation unless they actively tried to include no deviation at all, since the current room is just so tiny.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Outlawedprod on July 08, 2010, 02:13:47 PM
REALDID, Talent tree changes, the cataclysm begun it has!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on July 08, 2010, 02:24:07 PM
It'a ALMOST like English, but not quite.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Outlawedprod on July 08, 2010, 04:39:07 PM
It'a ALMOST like English, but not quite.

These announced changes just struck me as well thought out as the Star Wars Clone Wars movie.  I tried to do my best Yoda impersonation.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 08, 2010, 05:39:51 PM
Who knew they meant Cataclysm referred to their forums?

Still, even without this I keep finding myself less and less interested.  I'm not to the point of saying I won't get it though.

That's because you forgot SOE's SW game will be out around the same time..  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 08, 2010, 05:52:54 PM
I didn't forget it.  Even if I love it to death, I doubt it will be able to hold me for months on end as my primary game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 08, 2010, 07:55:59 PM
It'a ALMOST like English, but not quite.

These announced changes just struck me as well thought out as the Star Wars Clone Wars movie.  I tried to do my best Yoda impersonation.

Prequels were awesome.

/derail


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on July 08, 2010, 11:23:04 PM
Who knew they meant Cataclysm referred to their forums?

Still, even without this I keep finding myself less and less interested.  I'm not to the point of saying I won't get it though.

That's because you forgot SOE's SW game will be out around the same time..  :grin:

The SW game coming out is NOT put out by SOE, but by Bioware.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 08, 2010, 11:25:32 PM
They're not talking about SWTOR, there's another one along the lines of Free Realms that SOE is putting out, Clone Wars something something.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 08, 2010, 11:50:13 PM
They're not talking about SWTOR, there's another one along the lines of Free Realms that SOE is putting out, Clone Wars something something.

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=19301.0 (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=19301.0)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 09, 2010, 03:53:18 AM
Yep, that one.  SWTOR is looking more and more like a trainwreck than a fun game.  Free Realms was fun but the setting didn't grab me.  Free Realms with a Star Wars skin will be fun for me and the kids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on July 09, 2010, 10:36:57 AM
They're not talking about SWTOR, there's another one along the lines of Free Realms that SOE is putting out, Clone Wars something something.

Oh crap, right, THAT thing. I don't even register that thing in my mind as an option, for whatever reason. Mea culpa.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 13, 2010, 09:19:50 PM
New Talents and stuff : http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on July 13, 2010, 09:54:41 PM
I'm reserving judgement until the talents are given the pass-over that Blizzard says they're going to get. The trees as they stand at the moment are a mess, to put it charitably. Resto Shaman have almost no incentive to put points outside of Resto for anything but the +mana talent from Enhancement, it seems, and Disc Priests have to sacrifice the entire list of new Smite-oriented talents to be able to pick up essentially anything of utility in Holy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on July 13, 2010, 10:19:23 PM
Yeah, the new trees are a bit of a mess.  Just for kicks, I tried to see what kind of "variation" you could get in a moonkin build.   5pts resto, everything else balance looked to be pretty much your only choice, and that basicly left you with all but 3 talent points in balance completely filled. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 13, 2010, 11:42:00 PM
The Balance Tree specifically is just the 'old' new tree, minus all the 3-5-10% damage increasing talents. More then a few are just complete rough drafts, just to highlight what they are going for.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 14, 2010, 01:45:13 AM
Yeah, they're taking a few things away from Disc that I'll miss: -Cast Time on Mass Dispel and Desperate Prayer being the main two.

That said, the tree's don't play out to differently from how they do now.  Go to the bottom of Disc and then get Inspiration.

As for the Mastery abilities, they're pretty much brilliant all around.  The one lame one that sticks out to me is Holy Priests getting Desperate Prayer, but I imagine it'll get reworked in the mean time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xuri on July 14, 2010, 03:39:59 AM
Why don't they just automate the entire talent tree thing? Like, you pick which type of character you want to play (tank, healer, dps, whatever) and they just automatically fill out the talent tree for you, as they currently do with attributes such as strength, agility, etc. It's not like you'll have any real "choices" to make after the talent tree revamps anyway, so might as well just automate it. -_-


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 14, 2010, 03:55:26 AM
Yeah, they're taking a few things away from Disc that I'll miss: -Cast Time on Mass Dispel and Desperate Prayer being the main two.

That said, the tree's don't play out to differently from how they do now.  Go to the bottom of Disc and then get Inspiration.

As for the Mastery abilities, they're pretty much brilliant all around.  The one lame one that sticks out to me is Holy Priests getting Desperate Prayer, but I imagine it'll get reworked in the mean time.

Desperate Prayer is apparently being changed.


http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25968989947&pageNo=1&sid=1#13



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on July 14, 2010, 06:29:39 AM
Why don't they just automate the entire talent tree thing? Like, you pick which type of character you want to play (tank, healer, dps, whatever) and they just automatically fill out the talent tree for you, as they currently do with attributes such as strength, agility, etc. It's not like you'll have any real "choices" to make after the talent tree revamps anyway, so might as well just automate it. -_-

In practice, as a Prot Paladin, I'm pretty much the same across a smaller spread.  I ended up with a 0/31/10 (http://www.wowtal.com/#k=-8c7ieyBs.9mn.paladin) build, which wasn't much different from what I had before.  So I have no issues with the trees whatsoever.  And I get Improve Crusader Strike for...something.  I dunno.  Never touched it before.

My Enhancement Shaman will be using a weird 5/36/0 (http://www.wowtal.com/#k=B1wIFxp41.9mn.shaman) build so far, but I like getting Dual Wield and Dual Wield Specialization immediately.

So...net gain for me I guess.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on July 14, 2010, 07:30:08 AM
Is it really worth discussing talents right now? They'll be doing a lot of changes in the next couple of months before they get anywhere close to finished.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 14, 2010, 11:10:29 AM
Prot warrior tree looks mostly the same with a few odd changes I have no idea about -

Blood and Thunder: 100% chance for Rend to be applied to every target of a thunderclap, if Rend is on one target - This sounds neat because I could see it being very useful for 4-5 man groups, which are a problem for warrior tanks. Having thunderclap reapply rend to everything would help keep a rolling dot on everything, possibly making it stickier. How it plays out would require some actual testing to see if the threat generation mattered enough.

Sweep and Clear: Your damaging abilities generate 3 rage for each target they hit beyond the first up to 9 rage - the wording sucks here, but if I'm reading the thought correctly, thunderclapping groups of 4+ would yield 9 rage back to the warrior. Glyphed cleaves would yield 6 rage. This brings up a couple of questions about the worthwhile factor. If I'm getting nailed by 4 things, am I really hurting for rage? Also, this is useless on bosses, so wouldn't I be better spent putting the 3 points elsewhere?

For the shitty stuff, they left in Gag Order (silencing shield bash), and Safeguard (Intervene damage reduction), both of which are almost totally useless in pve. Bosses completely ignore the silencing effect, and intervene is mostly used as a movement effect rather than saving someone's ass. I get the feeling they are total PvP abilites and nothing more. I'd like to get away from the pvp stuff in the prot tree, thanks. We have dual specs now, we don't need it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: March on July 14, 2010, 11:32:53 AM
Is it really worth discussing talents right now? They'll be doing a lot of changes in the next couple of months before they get anywhere close to finished.

Fair enough, no sense commenting on specific talents at this stage... but it seems to me that reducing the points spent, increasing the required spending in "your" tree to 31 minimum means that I felt my last 10 points were completely _wasted_ on low (high?) tier soaker talents that were definitely not "Concentrated Awesome"

And like others have noted, my response to every talent except 1 or 2 odd (or obviously PvP) ones was: "Yep, need that... Yep, that one too... and that... ok 31. Done."

I also felt like the 5 points per tier no longer worked... reducing the points per tier to 3 would probably go a long way towards making this model get closer to their stated aim.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 14, 2010, 11:45:26 AM
They are still struggling with spriests. Aside from the actual number of points is still the same, 10pts disc and 31shadow with still not a single damned reason to ever go into holy. I'm more interested in the new version of mindspike and how that will play out but talent wise ain't shit really different.

I will note that both disc and holy get meditation for mana regen but shadow gets nadda, just mindflay and reduced pushback on spells.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 14, 2010, 11:50:05 AM
Sweep and Clear: Your damaging abilities generate 3 rage for each target they hit beyond the first up to 9 rage - the wording sucks here, but if I'm reading the thought correctly, thunderclapping groups of 4+ would yield 9 rage back to the warrior. Glyphed cleaves would yield 6 rage. This brings up a couple of questions about the worthwhile factor. If I'm getting nailed by 4 things, am I really hurting for rage? Also, this is useless on bosses, so wouldn't I be better spent putting the 3 points elsewhere?

For the shitty stuff, they left in Gag Order (silencing shield bash), and Safeguard (Intervene damage reduction), both of which are almost totally useless in pve. Bosses completely ignore the silencing effect, and intervene is mostly used as a movement effect rather than saving someone's ass. I get the feeling they are total PvP abilites and nothing more. I'd like to get away from the pvp stuff in the prot tree, thanks. We have dual specs now, we don't need it.

Gag order is *far* from useless in PVE, are you crazy? Having a ranged silence to make casters come up to use is hugely useful, and you can use the silence on shield bash similarly with the zipping around that charge/intercept/intervene in combat lets you do. I'll agree that safeguard is useless more or less in regular PVE (although I think people doing hardmodes have found it occasionally handy as an external cooldown for whoever is tanking some big burst thing.) "It doesn't work on bosses" is not a reason to complain about it, there are plenty of nasty casters in trash packs and the like that it helps handle extremely well, especially on the pull with heroic throw.

As far as rage generation goes, keep in mind we're losing all of our 'costs X less rage' talents and they're trying normalization again.

Also: PVP protection is a shitload of fun to play, you can have my pvp prot talents when you pry them from my cold dead fingers. Unfortunately it looks like Blizzard already pried out improved disarm and improved spell reflect, both of which hurt a lot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 14, 2010, 12:06:11 PM
If we're talking about speccing for trash, I'd like them to focus more on AE stuff. Gag order shouldn't be a spec issue. It should be a part of shield bash as normal. I'd like to see them do something else creative with that area.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 14, 2010, 12:19:14 PM
I'm completely underwhelmed.  Still curious about the world changes, but unless they make some amazing changes to these preliminary talents changes (plus other areas), I think I'm done with WoW as my primary game.

If it weren't for my once a week ground with RL friends I never get to see anymore, I think it'd be completely over when my sub runs out from canceling because of RealID.  It may still be.  Meh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 14, 2010, 12:21:16 PM
Personally I prefer a spec option where I *can't* spend every point on abilities that matter in a boss fight. It makes the 90% of the time when you're not fighting a boss much more interesting. I also think they've overdone the AE stuff at this point. I'd rather they spread CC abilities out more and we go back to using them a little more, while at the same time cutting down the total number of trash pulls a bit. Fewer more interesting fights, that take about the same amount of time. Not like, 'you must CC 3 mobs out of 4 on this pull or you will die' but more along the lines of those ghost waves in Halls of Reflection. There's room for more variety in the trash pulls than we tend to get currently.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 14, 2010, 12:21:30 PM
Rend has always had a shitload of threat.  It's always been intended as a tanking tool.  See Furor's rant about want for a tank DoT in EQ circa 2000ish.  It's floating around on the internet somewhere.  Basically it was just to keep up with heal aggro when you were single targeting, and of course the odd 'accidental' aoe from reckless dpsers.  I used it in vanilla all the time in 5 mans.  Also Garr adds.  It's just people never talk about using it because it's such a pain in the ass.  

The change makes it awesome.  In fact it addresses one of the biggest problems with warrior tanks: shitty aoe tanking.  Instead of rending everything costing 10 cooldowns, it's down to one.  Basically free threat, even if the threat coefficient isn't the same now as it was in vanilla.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nissl on July 14, 2010, 12:21:58 PM
Just had a look at the new prot warrior tree, which is the only build I've played somewhat recently... basically it looks like you MUST take everything but 4 abilities.  Safeguard is crap for PVE so toss it, then you decide between taking one of Sweep and Clear, Blood and Thunder, and Damage Shield depending on whether you want a little AoE rage or a little AoE dps boost (although with Blood and Thunder... rend was not in my leveling warrior's rotation at ALL).  Maybe put a few additional points into one of those instead of a few points into arms.

I guess that does meet their objective of "put the last 5-10 points wherever you want" but it feels like idiot-proofing.  

Gag Order is in most of the cookie-cutter PVE instance tanking builds, by the way, and I found it useful as I was leveling through dungeon finder. Idiot DPS often like to pull, or body pull by mistake... either way, they don't respect multi-caster packs and that's one of the few things that is at all risky.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 14, 2010, 12:25:25 PM
I haven't had trouble AE tanking since TBC. I'm not sure where this meme about 'omg warriors suck at AE threat' came from but I really do not have any problems and haven't for a long, long time. Yes, there are the occasional things like Onyxia whelps we don't handle all that well. That stuff is pretty rare though, and it really isn't the end of the world, plus it tends to be balanced out by things like the advantage our fear break gives us on tanking Onyxia herself, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 14, 2010, 12:30:30 PM
Clearly you've never been a Huntard trying to pop an explosive trap and volley over the top of a warrior trying to aoe tank.  The problem isn't that they can't do it.  The problem is that everyone else does it way better.  Every other class can just faceroll and hold aggro over my 20K+ dps.  Most warriors I've met, can't do it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 14, 2010, 12:34:52 PM
Agreed, it's not a function of warriors being unable, it's simply that the warrior has be on point to do it well without losing out a ton of dps by holding back your damagers. Any pally can run in there, fart on the ground, and kick your ass. They needed to make it more integral to the warrior abilities you already use, and thunderclap is the best way to do that. They have continued to expand thunderclap in that regard in major patches.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 14, 2010, 12:39:42 PM
All this assumes that they're *not* going to make AE tanking for the other classes require more brain cells, of course, which I think is a stated goal.

Even if they don't, however, I'd rather they not turn warriors into a similar facerolling experience for AE tanking. I like that I have to use my abilities correctly to do the job.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 14, 2010, 12:45:23 PM
Yeah, they're taking a few things away from Disc that I'll miss: -Cast Time on Mass Dispel and Desperate Prayer being the main two.

That said, the tree's don't play out to differently from how they do now.  Go to the bottom of Disc and then get Inspiration.

As for the Mastery abilities, they're pretty much brilliant all around.  The one lame one that sticks out to me is Holy Priests getting Desperate Prayer, but I imagine it'll get reworked in the mean time.

Desperate Prayer is apparently being changed.


http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25968989947&pageNo=1&sid=1#13


That's quite good actually.  I was wracking my brain trying to think of what they could give Holy Priests since they're keeping all the group stuff (Barrier, Beacon of Light, CoH/WG) near the bottom, and an early version of Binding Heal is not bad at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 14, 2010, 01:14:34 PM
All this assumes that they're *not* going to make AE tanking for the other classes require more brain cells, of course, which I think is a stated goal.

Even if they don't, however, I'd rather they not turn warriors into a similar facerolling experience for AE tanking. I like that I have to use my abilities correctly to do the job.

Oh, they can make it harder for other classes and easier for warriors and meet in the middle somewhere.  The other tanking classes barely even have to change their rotation, and they just automatically pick up aoe aggro.  And the abilities the other classes require to do it are abilities they actually use in other situations.  Not just some relic from an older time, whose only explanation is buried in the 'shaw on FoH.  It's retarded, and needs to change.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 14, 2010, 01:28:15 PM
All this assumes that they're *not* going to make AE tanking for the other classes require more brain cells, of course, which I think is a stated goal.

Even if they don't, however, I'd rather they not turn warriors into a similar facerolling experience for AE tanking. I like that I have to use my abilities correctly to do the job.

Oh, they can make it harder for other classes and easier for warriors and meet in the middle somewhere.  The other tanking classes barely even have to change their rotation, and they just automatically pick up aoe aggro.  And the abilities the other classes require to do it are abilities they actually use in other situations.  Not just some relic from an older time, whose only explanation is buried in the 'shaw on FoH.  It's retarded, and needs to change.


I think you may just be really out of date on warrior mechanics. It really isn't that hard to AE tank, the only time that it gets a little squirrely is in situations where adds trickle in one by one (whelps) or when dpsers are being stupid. Misdirect and tricks of the trade trivialize it even more. We also haven't used rend when tanking in years, any button we can push basically outperforms it at this point.

How it goes:

- put vigilance on your highest AE dpser
- thunderclap the pack to group them up then shockwave them all
- cleave instead of HS, prioritize revenge and thunderclap, shockwave on cooldown

Optional:

- bitch out the moonkin who starts with hurricane before the mobs are even up to you over voice chat

Ta-da, you can now AE tank just fine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on July 14, 2010, 01:29:38 PM
Yeah, trees are super broken.

After some review... for Prot Pallies:  Hammer of the Righteous...no cooldown.  Talented Crusader Strike, no cooldown.  Consecration, now 15 seconds base, with talents up to 45 seconds, no cooldown.  According to some on Maintankadin, laying a new Conc down makes the other disappear.

And Ardent Defender is now a clicky (fine) with the same effects (huh?).

So, I assume big changes are coming.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 14, 2010, 01:31:13 PM
All this assumes that they're *not* going to make AE tanking for the other classes require more brain cells, of course, which I think is a stated goal.

Even if they don't, however, I'd rather they not turn warriors into a similar facerolling experience for AE tanking. I like that I have to use my abilities correctly to do the job.

Being distinguishable is a good thing. But we're talking about trash mobs. First of all, I believe there should be a glyph to lower the cooldown of shockwave in half, but you lose the stunning effect. 20s is laughable in an AE situation for most dungeons. You can get off 3 Thunderclaps before it even comes back, and most of the shit is already dead. That, and this rend reapply would basically solve the majority of the good warrior's issues with being annoyed by AE tanking, and still leave the shitty ones plenty of room to fail.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 14, 2010, 01:34:51 PM
All this assumes that they're *not* going to make AE tanking for the other classes require more brain cells, of course, which I think is a stated goal.

Even if they don't, however, I'd rather they not turn warriors into a similar facerolling experience for AE tanking. I like that I have to use my abilities correctly to do the job.

Being distinguishable is a good thing. But we're talking about trash mobs. First of all, I believe there should be a glyph to lower the cooldown of shockwave in half, but you lose the stunning effect. 20s is laughable in an AE situation for most dungeons. You can get off 3 Thunderclaps before it even comes back, and most of the shit is already dead. That, and this rend reapply would basically solve the majority of the good warrior's issues with being annoyed by AE tanking, and still leave the shitty ones plenty of room to fail.

I'd never use that glyph. The stun is fantastic for stopping the mobs that might try to split off early due to an overeager dpser from actually getting anywhere. Locking everything down in one spot and stopping incoming damage for a few seconds helps in a lot of small ways, including adding a few seconds before your healers have to toss that first heal that might pull a straggler mob that wasn't in the first thunderclap onto them instead of you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 14, 2010, 01:58:18 PM
The Shockwave stun is actually our 'official' "YOU MAY NOW AE" signal for the most part.




AutomaticZen: Your assumptions are correct! http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25968569991&pageNo=1&sid=1#9



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 14, 2010, 02:07:17 PM
The fact that some would use the glyph and others wouldn't to me makes it the perfect type of glyph. It offers a real trade-off in the stun v. usability department. Some may prefer the lockdown of larger groups and burn approach because they like 5 man style. Some may prefer the decreased cooldown because they like the ability to produce higher threat on a smaller amount of bigger mobs in a shorter period.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 14, 2010, 02:08:41 PM
I actually have the first hallway in ICC in mind when I'm thinking about all this.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 14, 2010, 02:25:05 PM
I actually have the first hallway in ICC in mind when I'm thinking about all this.

I'm hoping they never design anything like that ever again. It's the most trash in the instance and it's entirely front end loaded. If I'm doing more than four pulls to get to a boss, I think it's an uninspired waste of time. It felt like an outlier in an otherwise well-paced instance. Although you could make the argument that the Putricide stuff can get a little silly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 14, 2010, 02:59:51 PM
All this assumes that they're *not* going to make AE tanking for the other classes require more brain cells, of course, which I think is a stated goal.

Even if they don't, however, I'd rather they not turn warriors into a similar facerolling experience for AE tanking. I like that I have to use my abilities correctly to do the job.

Oh, they can make it harder for other classes and easier for warriors and meet in the middle somewhere.  The other tanking classes barely even have to change their rotation, and they just automatically pick up aoe aggro.  And the abilities the other classes require to do it are abilities they actually use in other situations.  Not just some relic from an older time, whose only explanation is buried in the 'shaw on FoH.  It's retarded, and needs to change.

Blood DK tanks do not exactly have a magical fun time AE tanking. Paladins and druids, fine whatever, but my DK sometimes has issues and I don't even have a fucking AE taunt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 14, 2010, 03:07:46 PM
D&D, IT, PT, Pest, Blood Tap, BB. Works best with 2p t10, but even without I've never had issues AE tanking on a DK. Pally is easier, but DK > druid and warrior.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 14, 2010, 03:11:12 PM
We can use our own varying levels of experience all we want, but it really isn't a debatable point that the warrior is the least-favored/easiest/whatever in terms of AE tanking.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 14, 2010, 03:20:12 PM
I actually have the first hallway in ICC in mind when I'm thinking about all this.

And there are few warriors who can keep mobs off people in that hallway.  The rotation you describe - she's not enough for my dudes, captain.  Not with tricks.  Not with misdirect.  Not with feign death after that.  It's not remotely trivial.  You would have to tab target.  Most people don't do that.  Warriors just don't have the ability to generate the same kind of threat in as few cool-downs without doing so.  And even if you are tabbing, it's very easy to overlook one or two - or just plain not do it fast enough.  Then what?  Also, I wasn't even typically the highest dps on those AoE pulls.  There's usually at least a mage and a ret pally ahead of me.

I know you don't use rend now.  I also know that the mechanics of all the other classes are brainless compared with what warriors have to do.  The ability to apply rend to multiple targets with one cool-down substantially alleviates that.  Assuming of course they don't fuck up the threat coefficient.

Blood DK tanks do not exactly have a magical fun time AE tanking. Paladins and druids, fine whatever, but my DK sometimes has issues and I don't even have a fucking AE taunt.

Not really talking about the act of getting aggro.  More-so the act of keeping it once you have it.  I think they've come a long way in giving warriors a good way to get aggro at the beginning of an aoe pull.  And I don't have any objection to giving a DK an aoe taunt.  (Although, frankly the ability to deathgrip and re-taunt single runners without even moving kind of makes up for that.)  But the simple fact is that it's easier for DK's to keep their aoe up.

e:  I said rage coefficient, but meant threat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 14, 2010, 03:20:38 PM
D&D, IT, PT, Pest, Blood Tap, BB. Works best with 2p t10, but even without I've never had issues AE tanking on a DK. Pally is easier, but DK > druid and warrior.

I was assuming a too-early volley/explosive trap, which is the only time I ever see warriors lose AE aggro as well. I know the stupid rotations, for heaven's sake.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 14, 2010, 03:28:55 PM
If you're pulling aggro back after a feign, someone in your raid, I don't know who exactly, is doing something really really wrong.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 14, 2010, 03:50:06 PM
Both my mage and my boomkin pull threat off warriors on large packs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 14, 2010, 04:06:50 PM
D&D, IT, PT, Pest, Blood Tap, BB. Works best with 2p t10, but even without I've never had issues AE tanking on a DK. Pally is easier, but DK > druid and warrior.
Yeah, um, I'm guessing you haven't seen the pestilence & wandering plague changes in Cataclysm?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 14, 2010, 04:31:08 PM
If you're pulling aggro back after a feign, someone in your raid, I don't know who exactly, is doing something really really wrong.

It's easier than it sounds.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 14, 2010, 04:37:29 PM
I'm talking about current rotations, not theoretical Cataclysm ones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 14, 2010, 05:58:51 PM
On a related note, lately I've been throwing on a blue mace and shield I bought off a rep vendor and ghetto tanking the low WOTLK normals for guildies with my PVP ret gear/spec. It's kinda fun. Haven't they said that a DPS is supposed to be able to just throw on a shield and tank 5 mans in Cataclysm?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 14, 2010, 06:00:30 PM
On a related note, lately I've been throwing on a blue mace and shield I bought off a rep vendor and ghetto tanking the low WOTLK normals for guildies with my PVP ret gear/spec. It's kinda fun. Haven't they said that a DPS is supposed to be able to just throw on a shield and tank 5 mans in Cataclysm?

I'm not sure anyone has said that since vanilla wow...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 14, 2010, 06:03:27 PM
They have said that, yeah, for the leveling instances at least. I'm not sure they intend that to work for heroic+ though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 14, 2010, 06:48:34 PM
I'm thinking that design philosophy went away with many other design goals.  Look at all the bitching it took for them to actually do something more than "Here's the 3.0 talents with three or four tweaks per class" and how that turned out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 14, 2010, 06:52:41 PM
I'm thinking that design philosophy went away with many other design goals.  Look at all the bitching it took for them to actually do something more than "Here's the 3.0 talents with three or four tweaks per class" and how that turned out.

You keep bagging on the talent trees and I just don't understand it. I do not understand what you want, and I do not understand why you think the trees not being done yet (which they never have been this early in their various betas, I might add) means anything at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 14, 2010, 06:57:50 PM
Because they're so shallow that no amount of tweaking is going to make them any more varied than picking "Protection Paladin" at char creation, paying 1k for "Ret Paladin" at level 40 and doing away with them entirely?

Nah, that couldn't be it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 14, 2010, 07:12:52 PM
You could argue they're essentially that way already, though. They've just taken out a lot of the "spec this or you're a moron" shit. I'm not saying it's perfect or anything, I just don't really get what people want. Talent trees were never super deep to start with.


EDIT: However, part of my confusion in this instance is "wtf do talent trees have to do with a different design goal entirelyl."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on July 14, 2010, 07:58:01 PM
EDIT: However, part of my confusion in this instance is "wtf do talent trees have to do with a different design goal entirelyl."

I'm guess it has to do with all tanking talents sitting in one tree...good luck throwing on a shield and tanking when you can be crit by mobs, don't get the 20-30% stam buff, and have way longer tanking cooldowns.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 14, 2010, 08:04:31 PM
That was always going to be the case, though, even before they decided to shrink the talent trees. And when you're leveling up as a tank, you get crit by mobs now, because you're almost never going to be in the magic no-crit zone in your shitty leveling gear, your stamina isn't that awesome (especially pre-TBC stamina plumping), etc. They never said they wanted any spec to be able to tank, like, raids. But the leveling shit, that they wanted anyone to do, and I am still not seeing much to indicate they've changed their minds one way or the other.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on July 14, 2010, 08:05:25 PM
Because they're so shallow that no amount of tweaking is going to make them any more varied than picking "Protection Paladin" at char creation, paying 1k for "Ret Paladin" at level 40 and doing away with them entirely?

Nah, that couldn't be it.

That's pretty much how it is now.  There may be some extra flavor, but in practice, most don't actually use it.

As I said, my Protection spec using that funky beta tree really isn't different from the one I have now.  Just shallower.  In the end, there's still shit I have to take to move down the tree, and there's still a smattering of points I throw in the Ret tree for extra crap like Pursuit of Justice.

How many of us actually use a 41/30 spec all the time?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 14, 2010, 08:06:49 PM
Dual specs make this argument moot.  This has never been Diablo, where it's all about trying out creative builds.  The EJ nerds have always commanded talent decisions down to the last point from their nerd kingdom.  Nothing changes here.  The only difference is now, when they add the next expansion, there's more room to grow the trees without all the superfluous shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 14, 2010, 08:15:03 PM
Talent trees are pretty useless. Frankly, I've never even wanted them in the game at all, but dual speccing took away most of my old complaints. Now, with the exception of 1-2 choices, most of which will be min-maxxed to death, there is absolutely no freedom at all. They wanted to remove the straight damage or passive talents, but the reality is that the majority of gamers simply won't allow deviation when it comes to pve.

For example, there will always be a set of talents that will mathematically produce the most dps when combined with the right gear and set rotation. Even small increments will be tested to death and distilled into the perfect spec. Does that allow any more freedom than if they had just said, pick this spec and go? Sure, but that freedom is ability to choose something that's less efficient. You're given the freedom to screw up. Why not just cut out all the bullshit and standardize the talents? Should we hold to the idea of talents because it provides an illusion that we can be uniquely awesome?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on July 14, 2010, 08:23:26 PM
Talent trees are pretty useless. Frankly, I've never even wanted them in the game at all, but dual speccing took away most of my old complaints. Now, with the exception of 1-2 choices, most of which will be min-maxxed to death, there is absolutely no freedom at all. They wanted to remove the straight damage or passive talents, but the reality is that the majority of gamers simply won't allow deviation when it comes to pve.

For example, there will always be a set of talents that will mathematically produce the most dps when combined with the right gear and set rotation. Even small increments will be tested to death and distilled into the perfect spec. Does that allow any more freedom than if they had just said, pick this spec and go? Sure, but that freedom is ability to choose something that's less efficient. You're given the freedom to screw up. Why not just cut out all the bullshit and standardize the talents? Should we hold to the idea of talents because it provides an illusion that we can be uniquely awesome?

On Maintankadin (http://maintankadin.failsafedesign.com/forum/index.php?f=41&t=29197&rb_v=viewtopic), within the first page of discussion about the talents, there were four different random specs just thrown out there.  Each and every one "this is what I would do"

http://talent.mmo-champion.com/?paladin#-pbE9oGPN,HOr-e3,12479
http://talent.mmo-champion.com/?paladin#-ptS-t0UD,,12479
http://talent.mmo-champion.com/?paladin#qEuXTb4nC,,12479
http://talent.mmo-champion.com/?paladin#-ptSvu0Vh,,12479

What more do people want?  How much more special snowflake can you be without sitting in a corner alone?  I just don't get it.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 14, 2010, 08:30:58 PM
They can preemptively toss out whatever they like. The reality is that when you get enough testing, people can field enough mathematical evidence to prove out one spec to rule them all, and that will be that. There's not enough variation in the type of job people are expected to do in a spec to warrant a lot of different choices.

EDIT: Tank speccing also slightly different than healing or dps because it's less of a numbers game, but not a lot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 14, 2010, 08:36:48 PM
Paelos, what I wanted them to do with Cataclysm was to remove most of the "+dps" talents or make them cost less, so that you have more free points available to spend on optional things: runspeed, reduced damage, pushback resistance, reduced cc duration, etc. Furthermore, I had hoped to be able to go get a 21p talent from a secondary tree, as these had traditionally been useful and interesting. Instead, we get gutted and simplified trees to the point where you should just pick Prot at level 10, then buy Ret at level 40, with the ability to switch at will for 50g.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 14, 2010, 08:41:58 PM
I don't disagree with you at all. They've gutted what they put out and it currently sucks. I just don't believe they are remotely smart enough to give you the kind of options in the talents trees for 10 classes and have them split the playerbase. I don't think the demands of the game set up that way, nor do I believe the type of player that gravitates to the game will simply accept multiple widely varying spec choices as viable. They must have THE ONE, and they will test it harder than a monkey fucking a football.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 14, 2010, 08:59:40 PM
You could argue they're essentially that way already, though. They've just taken out a lot of the "spec this or you're a moron" shit. I'm not saying it's perfect or anything, I just don't really get what people want. Talent trees were never super deep to start with.


EDIT: However, part of my confusion in this instance is "wtf do talent trees have to do with a different design goal entirelyl."
I like the option of being a moron.  I'm not a high-end raider.  For the most part, despite my constant self-depreciation, I'm fairly competent and I can make what I have work just fine.  If you're not raiding, most of the content simply doesn't matter if your build is perfectly spec'd and I really enjoy being able to take some utility over being the Ultimate DPS or Tank.

As for the changing designs, they've gone from "it's advantageous to go down one spec because that's what gives you the specialization bonuses" to "here's your spec, don't bother thinking".  Further, they said the goal was to remove all the required stuff for fun talents.  This?  This just lets you choose whether your forced talent is early or late in its five level range.  Pretty much nothing is optional now.  They might as well drop talents and just make everything a skill.

As to the changing design goals:  In it's unveiling they also said they came up with it after people complained what they had revealed didn't do any of what they initially said.  Now they've removed a lot of the passive bonuses like they wanted, but babies and bathwater and all that.  They said they wanted you to just change weapons, or hit a stance and go, but none of this really allows that.  You will be your spec and nothing else now.

I'm kind of curious how the theory crafters are going to handle this.  Before they could try whacky ideas to see how it stacked up.  They're going to be pretty bored now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 14, 2010, 09:06:11 PM
The reality is that when you get enough testing, people can field enough mathematical evidence to prove out one spec to rule them all, and that will be that.

And this will be true no matter how few or how many possible spec variations they throw at us.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 14, 2010, 09:07:24 PM
For damage dealers, there will always be one spec to rule them all for any given set of variables.  To expect otherwise is madness.

That said, a lot of classes now have easy access to utility talents.  Unholy probably has enough free points to pick up AMZ; all Shamans can easily pick up Run Speed/Instant Ghost Wolf; Rogues have easy access to Run Speed/Healing Received; and most importantly a lot of the "you must get this or fail" talents like Ruin are now just baked into the classes/trees.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 14, 2010, 09:11:55 PM
Yep, my shaman only gains utility under the new system. And elemental was already a 'one true spec' for pve tree.

The only one of my level 80 characters (prot warrior, balance druid, arcane mage, ret paladin, elemental/resto shaman) who I think the changes are going to drive me away from is my arcane mage, and even that I'm not sure about because it isn't entirely clear yet how arcane will function at all. Who knows, maybe the paladin will suck, but the trees we have for them aren't the right trees yet so who knows.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on July 14, 2010, 10:52:13 PM
They are still struggling with spriests. Aside from the actual number of points is still the same, 10pts disc and 31shadow with still not a single damned reason to ever go into holy. I'm more interested in the new version of mindspike and how that will play out but talent wise ain't shit really different.

I will note that both disc and holy get meditation for mana regen but shadow gets nadda, just mindflay and reduced pushback on spells.

Why would you need more than 8 points in disc? And why would you want to go into holy, holy doesn't go into shadow, shadow doesn't go into holy, it's the way it is. I'm pretty happy with the trees as they are, I can see two ways in which to get viable builds, both of which require dual-spec, which in itself is awesome. I'll get a use out of that 1000g I spent some time ago :D

In any case, disc is needed for imp. inner fire, it's obvious why. So the choice is either 3/3 meditation if we run into mana problems or 3/3 twin disciplines for dups. Considering that you need those 8pts, shadow gets pretty interesting further down, because you're short one point. You could either get everything and not get dispersion, or you can skip a point in apparition or empowered orbs, to get dispersion. Hence the dual-spec - you get two builds - one for movement fights and one for stand and nuke.

Like I said earlier though, no point in discussing talents so early. We're more than fine, especially with the changes to dots and MF. I just hope they change the aura to 5% haste, instead of 5% crit, like GC said they might.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 15, 2010, 03:37:17 AM
It's, once again, about the illusion of choice.  IT doesn't matter what reality, elitist jerks, or dedicated raiders do.  Their lifestyle has always been the one of "One True Spec."  Since most here fall into that category, your own playstyle is the one being catered to.  I understand Lant's frustration because I have some alts I dick around with just for goofy solo shit.  I liked those 'useless' talents because they weren't useless if you were just fucking around.   

The rogue in particular is the one that feels gutted.  There were SO MANY odd but viable specs there but now?  "You Are Subtlety or go home."    Having things mandated like this after 5 years kills a good portion of the fun.  Had it started that way, great.  Instead they're removing choice, which has always proven to be a boneheaded move.

Let's not forget what's driving this is GC's previously stated intent of making things simpler for the encounter designers.  Now they don't have to think at all.  You are an Unholy DK, this is what you can do and nothing else.  There's no speccing into frost, unholy and blood.. particularly since once you start down a tree you're locked-in until you hit 31 points.  I suspect the same to prove true of your 10 point sub-spec. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 15, 2010, 03:41:58 AM
particularly since once you start down a tree you're locked-in until you hit 31 points.


When the fuck did THAT happen ??

 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 15, 2010, 03:50:49 AM
particularly since once you start down a tree you're locked-in until you hit 31 points.


When the fuck did THAT happen ??

 :ye_gods:

When they first announced they were scaling them back to 31 points.
http://www.wow.com/2010/07/08/wow-rookie-whats-new-for-leveling-players-in-cataclysm/

It's mentioned specifically in the last section of Zarhym's post, "To Recap"


Also:
Quote
    Q u o t e:
    2. i know you said that when you spend your first point you would be locked into that tree until your at least spend 31 points, but would it be possible to allow you to become a hybrid spec at level cap even if its less attractive than a 31 point spec?



Whenever a popular hybrid spec comes up, it's usually because of some sneaky build that is broken for PvP by snaking down to pick up key talents in two trees. It's not because the player really wants to play as say two specs -- they are just cherry picking the talents. Since those builds almost always feel broken (as in breaking the rules) we don't want to design around them.

Once again, GC showing he doesn't get it.  "We don't like it, so it's broken.  I'm also going to imply you're a cheater because you didn't go down one tree, even though the option not to has always been there.  Cheater!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 15, 2010, 03:52:32 AM
Dear God.


EDIT :  Patched up the Beta and dived right in again.  This blows.  It's utterly horrible.  Thank you and Goodnight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 15, 2010, 07:12:07 AM
Dear God.


EDIT :  Patched up the Beta and dived right in again.  This blows.  It's utterly horrible.  Thank you and Goodnight.

You've been saying that for a good while though. I couldn't imagine talents were going to save the day after your grilling of the new starter zones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 15, 2010, 07:17:02 AM
Nah.  The new starter zones and new races just turned me off that aspect of it (starting again.)

This is turning me off playing my current characters.

Tried the Lock, Rogue and Warrior now.  It's...really kind of lame...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 15, 2010, 07:25:07 AM
I'm really wondering at this point if there is going to be anything at all to do for people who want to play their main in the beginning? The entire focus seems to be rerolling at this point, which I always found kind of odd. I hear rumors of high level zones, but I don't think they have tested anything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 15, 2010, 07:34:49 AM
I'm really wondering at this point if there is going to be anything at all to do for people who want to play their main in the beginning? The entire focus seems to be rerolling at this point, which I always found kind of odd. I hear rumors of high level zones, but I don't think they have tested anything.

Looks like there is going to be the standard leveling content + dungeons + a few raids. I don't know how much testing there is going to be, but I don't get the impression Blizzard is saying "ya'll should just reroll."  I mean, plenty of people will, just on the principle of goblins are awesome, but I think for the people that just want to level up their current characters and get to the old raiding game again, they'll be able to do that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 15, 2010, 07:37:01 AM
I'd love to believe that's the case as well, but with all the resources and testing going into all these redone new zones and starter zones in the old world, I'm having my doubts that they will get enough quality time on anything from the 80-85 level ready for release. That's not to say they won't focus on it for the first big patch 4 months later, but that's a long time to wait if you're not doing the goblin dance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 15, 2010, 07:44:28 AM
I agree.  Everything points to reroll. 

While the new stuff could be great, they're clearly wanting you to reroll given how much the landscape has changed and how much change they've put in to 'The Levelling Experience'.

Sod that.  New game time, methinks.  Between this and the RealID shite, I'll just let the sub lapse.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 15, 2010, 08:27:24 AM
Even "The leveling experience" with a bunch of new shit wouldn't be totally terrible as a distraction, but won't we still have to slog through the same old shit in the outlands and WOTLK? That's practically the longest damn part, and it ain't new.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 15, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
outlands takes a week tops and wotlk is fast enough not to mention that they are going to give it an exp boost like they did with bc. it's not the roadblock people seem to think it is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on July 15, 2010, 08:47:23 AM
So at least the Paladin tree are completely wrong:

Quote
1. Are Sanctified Ret, Swift Ret, Sanctuary, and Imp Dev Aura going to remain 3-pt talents? They feel too expensive this way. Maybe they can be rolled into individual talents, or changed to cost 2-pts each.

One of Sanctified and Swift is 2 points and the other is 1 point. I can't remember which without looking. Imp Dev Aura is dead.

2. The whole reactive Judgement thing feels weird to me. If a Ret is taking a lot of damage in PvP, he no longer has to worry about mana? I'm all for new mechanics and making E4E a strong talent, but I'm not sure I like this. On the same note, how about Purifying Power -- if a Holy Paladin dispels his teammate, will it break CC on the enemy who applied the debuff?

Reactive Judgements is also dead.

I'm going to regret saying this, but the paladin trees are the most changed in the game. There are only a few of the current beta talents that survived the, um, cleansing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 15, 2010, 09:06:14 AM
outlands takes a week tops

That's one shitty week.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 15, 2010, 09:09:30 AM
outlands takes a week tops

That's one shitty week.

It always is. Good thing I only did it twice in WOLK (DK + new warlock).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on July 15, 2010, 09:32:12 AM
All the talent change does for me is makes playing alts more fun since they actually get needed tools early. Yes there is now a pretty clear cookie cutter build for most specs but frankly there always was. You had to spend more points to do it but it was always a case of spec this exact way or you are bad. Yes people could have some loopy builds but most of those were sub optimal.

Also right now a bunch of classes like warlocks/paladins/druids/arcane mages/assassin rogues are very unfinished. The paladin trees are apparently not even what there was supposed to be for this update and GC said to pretty much disregard most of the paladin tree due to coming changes.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on July 15, 2010, 09:34:20 AM
outlands takes a week tops

That's one shitty week.

It always is. Good thing I only did it twice in WOLK (DK + new warlock).

With the dungeon finder it does not even take a week any more. I just leveled my shaman alt up through that level range and doing dungeons as they popped for a DPS class I did most of hellfire quests a handfull of nagrand quests and then headed to northrend. Took about two weekday evenings to do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Gunzwei on July 15, 2010, 09:59:55 AM
I'd love to believe that's the case as well, but with all the resources and testing going into all these redone new zones and starter zones in the old world, I'm having my doubts that they will get enough quality time on anything from the 80-85 level ready for release. That's not to say they won't focus on it for the first big patch 4 months later, but that's a long time to wait if you're not doing the goblin dance.

I'm expecting the 85 content to be messed up for a while and lots of half-ass patching till the 2nd raid tier drops right around some new MMO's release date.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 15, 2010, 10:13:04 AM
Eh, I'm not concerned about the talent trees. You were never a unique snowflake, you were just doing it wrong. Nobody cared about the added utility of your kooky spec, they just wanted you to do more DPS so they could finish their 5000th Heroic Nexus that much faster.

At least this way newbies get cool spec-related shit right away at 10, not at 40 after spending enough points to keep other specs from picking up those talents and becoming overpowered.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 15, 2010, 10:23:26 AM
outlands takes a week tops and wotlk is fast enough not to mention that they are going to give it an exp boost like they did with bc. it's not the roadblock people seem to think it is.

I've done outlands twice, and it crushed my soul each time. I don't recall the numbers, but goddamn if it doesn't feel like forever and ever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 15, 2010, 10:46:54 AM
Eh, I'm not concerned about the talent trees. You were never a unique snowflake, you were just doing it wrong. Nobody cared about the added utility of your kooky spec, they just wanted you to do more DPS so they could finish their 5000th Heroic Nexus that much faster.
I don't care that they don't care.  It's for me, not them.  It's also clear that it's not for me any longer, either.  The game that is.  Maybe the 5001st Heroic Nexus can be more fun for them now that I'm not helping them shave 10 seconds off their instance run.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 15, 2010, 11:02:03 AM
outlands takes a week tops

That's one shitty week.

You don't do alts, right? Outland XP is so fast now that I typically hit 68 and head to Northrend somewhere in Zangarmarsh, if I don't skip anything, especially if I hit a few random dungeons on the way through. It goes by so fast I don't really have time to hate it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 15, 2010, 11:04:24 AM
While you might expect me to pile on the hate, this is correct.  My DK stopped almost exactly a third into Zangermarsh.  Quest XP is just huge this time around.

That said, it means you're doing the shittiest zones in that expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 15, 2010, 11:06:04 AM
My Outland trip is most of Hellfire then most of Nagrand, padded by a few instances after you pick up the quests. Doesn't take long at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 15, 2010, 11:07:16 AM
While you might expect me to pile on the hate, this is correct.  My DK stopped almost exactly a third into Zangermarsh.  Quest XP is just huge this time around.

That said, it means you're doing the shittiest zones in that expansion.

Funny, I don't remember setting foot in Shadowmoon Valley or Blade's Edge!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on July 15, 2010, 11:09:41 AM
The only zone of all of them I am really truly sick of is Hellfire Peninsula, since you can't really avoid it and the old world 55-60s don't compare well at all in XP.  Everything else I can alternate, say Terrokar on one guy, Zangar on another, etc.   WTB new level 58-60 zone kkthx.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 15, 2010, 11:41:25 AM
No, seriously FUCK blades edge.

Now, since you can get a flying mount at 60 it's not so bad but having to do all of that on a land mount? oh hell no.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 15, 2010, 02:24:38 PM
The only zone of all of them I am really truly sick of is Hellfire Peninsula, since you can't really avoid it and the old world 55-60s don't compare well at all in XP.  Everything else I can alternate, say Terrokar on one guy, Zangar on another, etc.   WTB new level 58-60 zone kkthx.

Well some of the old zones they're redoing look like they're going up to 60 so maybe we can skip Hellfire eventually!  :grin:

I really like Zangarmarsh, especially with flight at 60 now. Blade's Edge is less shitty with flight, but that zone can still go fuck itself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on July 15, 2010, 02:27:35 PM
Well some of the old zones they're redoing look like they're going up to 60 so maybe we can skip Hellfire eventually!  :grin:

I really like Zangarmarsh, especially with flight at 60 now. Blade's Edge is less shitty with flight, but that zone can still go fuck itself.

Netherstorm makes my eyes angry.  I'd be happy to see that zone disappear as well.  Fortunately with the xp changes, it's quite easy to bypass the zone entirely. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 15, 2010, 02:31:37 PM
I don't mind Netherstorm but I can see how it would grate on someone to look at for hours. Even back when TBC was it, I would hit 70 before having to do much of it, so it never really wore me out (my first trip to 70 we did Shadowmoon Valley), so I'd only really go there to do dungeons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 15, 2010, 02:32:27 PM
The only zone of all of them I am really truly sick of is Hellfire Peninsula, since you can't really avoid it and the old world 55-60s don't compare well at all in XP.  Everything else I can alternate, say Terrokar on one guy, Zangar on another, etc.   WTB new level 58-60 zone kkthx.

Well some of the old zones they're redoing look like they're going up to 60 so maybe we can skip Hellfire eventually!  :grin:

I really like Zangarmarsh, especially with flight at 60 now. Blade's Edge is less shitty with flight, but that zone can still go fuck itself.

Silithus and Blasted Lands are both listed as 55-60, but while Blasted Lands looks to be getting a makeover, there's no word on Silithus.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 15, 2010, 02:34:19 PM
I find SMV about 200x uglier, but I'm color-blind so maybe there's something about Netherstorm's colors that I'm immune to.

Cal:

All the zones are getting a makeover to one degree or another; certainly the xp rewards will all be updated, at the very least. Silithus is almost certainly going to require a fairly large revamp just due to it involving the Twilight's Hammer people so much, not to mention the Staghelm stuff there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 15, 2010, 02:36:19 PM
Staaaaaaaaaagheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelm


waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arinon on July 15, 2010, 03:12:56 PM
As long as I can completely skip Hellfie I'll be happy.  Fuck that eye-bleed zone.

Also, these talent changes look ass as far as PvP is concerned.  They want to rip out most of the anti-CC stuff but they haven't (so far) shown any changes to the control spells.  Sure combat is supposed to be slower but who wants to go back to eating full duration root/stun/cyclone/poly with minimal counters?  Not me!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on July 16, 2010, 09:00:40 AM
Funny, I don't remember setting foot in Shadowmoon Valley or Blade's Edge!  :why_so_serious:

No, seriously FUCK blades edge.

Blade's Edge is less shitty with flight, but that zone can still go fuck itself.

Next on the expansion agenda: a motion for Blade's Edge to go fuck itself.  All in favor?   :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 16, 2010, 09:06:08 AM
AYE!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on July 16, 2010, 10:43:54 AM
I don't mind Netherstorm but I can see how it would grate on someone to look at for hours. Even back when TBC was it, I would hit 70 before having to do much of it, so it never really wore me out (my first trip to 70 we did Shadowmoon Valley), so I'd only really go there to do dungeons.

I just took my hunter through Outlands last week.  Took maybe 3 days.  HF->Zang->Terrokar->1/2 of land west of Shat (can't think of name right now...) -> Northrend.  It really is about 3.5 zones (take your pick) and you are moving on. 

Little over a week later and my hunter is 78.  All blue exp gains while using 1-2 heirloom items.  Seriously it was way way more painful from 0-58.  All due to the amount of travelling I had to do because quest areas were spread out and you had to leave and come back to keep things moving along.  If they update and improve that in the expansion then even that won't be a big deal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 16, 2010, 10:53:57 AM
Which is all very well, but what you are actually saying is :

They've geared this expansion more to the old zones and the levelling process, whilst at the same time making the levelling easier and quicker, meaning you're going to get to the sucky end, which they haven't put as much into and will probably await a massive patch, sooner.

AWESOME.

Where do I sign up ???


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 16, 2010, 11:04:41 AM
Which is all very well, but what you are actually saying is :

They've geared this expansion more to the old zones and the levelling process, whilst at the same time making the levelling easier and quicker, meaning you're going to get to the sucky end, which they haven't put as much into and will probably await a massive patch, sooner.

AWESOME.

Where do I sign up ???

Which mirrors my earlier fear of STFU AND REROLL BITCHES! Look at the fancy goblin dance! Aren't they awesome? Don't look behind that curtain with 80-85 marked on it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 16, 2010, 11:09:50 AM
Out of curiosity why are we conjecturing that 80-85 isn't going to get any attention?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 16, 2010, 11:12:39 AM
Because we're playing it thus far and it fucking blows.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 16, 2010, 11:16:58 AM
Can you be more specific? I've been following the feedback on the beta forums and it doesn't seem any different than usual.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 16, 2010, 11:24:28 AM
afaik they have only tested a grand total of two of the new levelling zones. i think it's a fair assessment to say there is no high end game right now...because they sort of you know, haven't put it in yet?  Honestly I don't know what people are expecting here. You'll get the same amount of endgame you got in wotlk, maybe a little more because they've commented on the pace with which people were running out of things to do. don't like it fine but that's a taste issue. 

I also love how people are complaining about this endgame shit when every other game expansion for an mmo has been rife with complaints like "All this does is give raiders more things to do, what about me?!" and when cataclysm comes out it's "But what about the end game?!" This is your cake, you can eat it, or look at it so pick one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 16, 2010, 11:36:05 AM
I also love how people are complaining about this endgame shit when every other game expansion for an mmo has been rife with complaints like "All this does is give raiders more things to do, what about me?!" and when cataclysm comes out it's "But what about the end game?!" This is your cake, you can eat it, or look at it so pick one.

My style has always been pretty settled on the endgame, so I made my choice long ago. The concern is that they are spending countless manhours doing nothing but putting an old whore in fancier clothes, instead of focusing on things that established players with mains can jump into right away. Either we're going to end up with a further pushed back release date because they haven't even bothered testing anything in the upper tier, or they are going to release a very mediocre/buggy experience at the top end because they can patch in the good stuff later after people reroll.

I don't believe they will push back the release. I think this thing is slated for November come hell or high water. Pushing it back beyond Christmas into January would be a financial disaster.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 16, 2010, 11:39:17 AM
If it is just that zones aren't open yet that's completely normal for the early part of openclosed beta. It was AGES before Netherstorm or Shadowmoon Valley opened up during TBC beta.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 16, 2010, 12:12:58 PM
If it is just that zones aren't open yet that's completely normal for the early part of openclosed beta. It was AGES before Netherstorm or Shadowmoon Valley opened up during TBC beta.

Exactly, right now it's just doomsaying(ha, cataclysm) people have been spouting the line of "there will be no raiding content" since the expansion was first announced and when you say something enough people start believing it, despite all prior evidence to the contrary.  WoTLK released with a good number of zones to take you to 80 which took people all of what, a month to clear? maybe less...one large raid instance, a handfull of heroics and two single boss raid encounters.  afaik the expansion doesn't have 'less' than that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 16, 2010, 12:14:03 PM
I think the total number of starting raid bosses is roughly the same, just spread more evenly through different instances.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on July 16, 2010, 12:26:14 PM
If it is just that zones aren't open yet that's completely normal for the early part of openclosed beta. It was AGES before Netherstorm or Shadowmoon Valley opened up during TBC beta.

Here's the full list last I checked.  High level zones in yellow.

Hi all,

Quote
Here is a full list of zones, their new level ranges, and which ones are currently ready for quest testing. I will also keep this updated with links to each zone’s official feedback thread. Please try to keep feedback for each zone consolidated into these threads, it would help us keep everything organized!

Alterac - No
Arathi – (25-30) - Yes
Ashenvale – (20-25) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=24702403004&sid=2000
Azshara – (10-20) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=24702204841&sid=2000
Badlands – (35-40) - No
Blasted Lands – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25626291119&sid=2000
Burning Steppes – (45-50) - No
Darkshore - (10-20) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=24702392353&sid=2000
Deepholm – (82-83) - No
Desolace – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=24702403012&sid=2000
Dun Morogh – (1-10) - No
Durotar – (1-10) - Yes
Duskwood – (20-25) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25399922737&sid=2000
Dustwallow Marsh – (35-40) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25712371507&sid=2000
Eastern Plaguelands – (45-50) – No
Echo Isles – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25399603141&sid=2000
Elwynn Forest – (1-10) - Yes
Felwood – (45-50) - No
Ferelas – (35-40) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=24702013601&sid=2000
Gilneas (Worgen Start) – (1-12) - Yes
Hillsbrad – (20-25) - No
Hinterlands – (30-35) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25134814097&sid=2000
Loch Modan – (10-20) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25626189184&sid=2000
Lost Isles (Goblin Start) – (1-12) - Yes
Mount Hyjal – (79-82) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=24702264509&sid=2000
Mulgore – (1-10) - Yes
North Barrens – (10-20) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25171930796&sid=2000
Northshire Valley – (1-5) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25171673370&sid=2000
Redridge – (15-20) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25171930795&sid=2000
Searing Gorge – (45-50) - No
Silithus – (55-60) - No
Silverpine – (10-20) - No
South Barrens – (30-35) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=24702153513&sid=2000
Stonetalon – (25-30) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=24702402939&sid=2000
Stranglethorn – (25-35) - Yes
Swamp of Sorrows – (50-55) - No
Tanaris – (45-50) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=24915354020&sid=2000
Teldrassil – (1-10) - Yes
Thousand Needles – (40-45) - No
Tirisfal Glades – (1-10) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25626048535&sid=2000
Twilight Highlands – (84-85) - No
Uldum – (84-85) - No
Un'Goro – (50-55) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=24915354232&sid=2000
Vashj'ir – (79-82) - Yes
Western Plaguelands – (40-45) - Yes
Westfall – (10-15) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=24915294365&sid=2000
Wetlands – (25-30) – Yes - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25482138230&sid=2000
Winterspring – (50-55) - No

The first dungeon, Blackrock Caverns (80-81), was opened in May.  And Deepholm was just opened Tuesday I believe.   Stonecore Dungeon in Deepholm on Wednesday. WPL yesterday I think. Throne of the Tides (79-81) is partially available apparently.

Levels 84 and 85 are not even implemented.  So yeah, half the shit isn't done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 16, 2010, 01:11:09 PM
Correct. I believe they announced 4 raiding dungeons, but I can't believe they would release all four at once with the expansion. I think they are also redos of MC and BWL first, followed by Grim Batol and something else. Also, Uldum is on the list I believe.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on July 16, 2010, 01:14:29 PM
Didn't they say that all the raid zones are now going to be like 6 bosses?  So instead of 1 giants raid you get 4?  Or someshit?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on July 16, 2010, 01:19:42 PM
Ya, there aren't any huge long raids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 16, 2010, 01:28:46 PM
As long as they homogonize tokens, that's a practical approach. The problem when they tried it in TBC was that the leg and shoulder tokens were in one place, the chest and hand tokens in another place, and the head tokens somewhere else. When people got their chest and hand tokens, they didn't want to keep farming the one place that didn't have anymore loot, and wanted to move on to the other places.

Spreading set pieces across zones is incredibly stupid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 16, 2010, 01:33:38 PM
Correct. I believe they announced 4 raiding dungeons, but I can't believe they would release all four at once with the expansion. I think they are also redos of MC and BWL first, followed by Grim Batol and something else. Also, Uldum is on the list I believe.

They're only "redos" in the sense that they're thematically connected. They're going to be much more new than say, Naxxramas was.

What they I believe they said most recently is that there will be 3 total instances in the first tier of raiding, about a dozen bosses in total.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 16, 2010, 01:39:06 PM
Correct Ingmar; Blackwing Descent (new BWL) and Bastion of Twilight (Cho'gall) are both going to have 4-6 bosses, with the Skywall raid having 2 or so.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 16, 2010, 03:07:18 PM
I don't believe they will push back the release. I think this thing is slated for November come hell or high water. Pushing it back beyond Christmas into January would be a financial disaster.

Yep a disaster just like BC was.  Remember how the game died because it was pushed back 2 months?

As long as they homogonize tokens, that's a practical approach.

Fuck yes.  Gearing up in ToC was so much nicer since EVERYONE used the same token.   My guild still had priests and mages in 3/5 pieces while shaman and warriors were rolling on 3rd spec tokens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 16, 2010, 03:37:27 PM
Correct. I believe they announced 4 raiding dungeons, but I can't believe they would release all four at once with the expansion. I think they are also redos of MC and BWL first, followed by Grim Batol and something else. Also, Uldum is on the list I believe.

Actually I believe they said all four would be released but as said above, with less bosses. think of two malygos' and two 1/2 naxxrammus'  they wanted people to have more variety rather then long 12boss dungeons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 16, 2010, 03:44:58 PM
So I've been playing around with the prot warrior talent tree for a bit today. Conclusion: I'm pretty sure there are *more* potentially viable specs now than there were in the old tree, not less. The option to go for blood craze in the second tier of fury really shakes things up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 16, 2010, 06:35:17 PM
Quote
As long as they homogonize tokens, that's a practical approach.

Fuck yes.  Gearing up in ToC was so much nicer since EVERYONE used the same token.   My guild still had priests and mages in 3/5 pieces while shaman and warriors were rolling on 3rd spec tokens.

I think he means having ICC-style tokens: class-group-specific, but slot-agnostic.  Going back to slot tokens would be clownshoes, especially after doubling down on points/emblems.  


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 16, 2010, 07:49:59 PM
Bunch of Cataclysm-relevant Q&A here:

http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/26137024331/blizzchat-developer-chat-on-twitter-7-16/


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 16, 2010, 07:53:30 PM
Bunch of Cataclysm-relevant Q&A here:

http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/26137024331/blizzchat-developer-chat-on-twitter-7-16/

They are still blissfully ignorant about how little people like realID  "but...but this is the future!!!1!!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 16, 2010, 07:58:37 PM
Keep that in the other thread, IMO.

One thing I took away from the Q&A is that we keep forgetting about the new tier of glyphs when talking about how much customization loss the smaller talent trees represent. There's a lot of design space in the glyph system for customization, if they do it right.

EDIT:

And the most important thing of all:

Quote
Q: Let's talk fashion. Any chance we could get a tophat AND monocle to display at the same time?
A. Why, yes. Indubitably. Tut-tut, my good chap and cheerio!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 16, 2010, 08:26:52 PM
Quote
As long as they homogonize tokens, that's a practical approach.

Fuck yes.  Gearing up in ToC was so much nicer since EVERYONE used the same token.   My guild still had priests and mages in 3/5 pieces while shaman and warriors were rolling on 3rd spec tokens.

I think he means having ICC-style tokens: class-group-specific, but slot-agnostic.  Going back to slot tokens would be clownshoes, especially after doubling down on points/emblems.  

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, but I'd like them not to be class oriented if given a choice. Planted class tokens with slot gear across many instances was possibly the worst "fix" they tried to implement.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 16, 2010, 08:31:49 PM
Quote
Q: Can you give us a sneak peek at one or two of the new Retribution abilities or talents?
A. Templar’s Verdict: An instant weapon attack that causes a percentage of weapon damage. Consumes all applications of Holy Power to increase damage dealt:

1 Holy Power: 55% Weapon Damage
2 Holy Power: 125% Weapon Damage
3 Holy Power: 225% Weapon Damage

So it took them six years to admit that maybe the way paladins worked in vanilla's beta wasn't totally terrible.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 16, 2010, 08:40:38 PM
I don't believe they will push back the release. I think this thing is slated for November come hell or high water. Pushing it back beyond Christmas into January would be a financial disaster.

Yep a disaster just like BC was.  Remember how the game died because it was pushed back 2 months?

Yeah... except TBC was released as the first expansion, not the third. And it was released in 2007, well back before the crippling economy. But that wasn't really the point, that was just the economic conditions that differed between the two.

The early focus of this expansion is to revamp the entire game from level 1 up. One would imagine that you're trying to revitalize your elder playerbase with new content, while also starting word of mouth that WoW is entering the next decade from top to bottom. You keep older players while also attracting previous players and possibly newer players. All that being said, meeting the Christmas deadline is critical for them to get those gift sales to bring those ppl back or grab newer subs. The holiday season won't break the game. Not even close, considering it may be 10 years before they fold up the last server. It will still be a FINANCIAL disaster because they will miss the obvious opportunities provided by hitting the holiday highs.

But if they release in January and sell more boxes than TBC, feel free to call me a jackass and I'll gladly admit that timing is irrelevant when you're top of the heap in the gaming world.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 16, 2010, 09:42:37 PM
Everyone will still be out in line at midnight at their local store to get a copy, it doesn't matter if it releases for the holidays or for any random date.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on July 16, 2010, 10:11:46 PM
But if they release in January and sell more boxes than TBC, feel free to call me a jackass and I'll gladly admit that timing is irrelevant when you're top of the heap in the gaming world.

I think you might want to look back at the games that released in the first quarter of this year. This year proved that games don't need to be crammed into November.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 16, 2010, 10:14:57 PM
Everyone will still be out in line at midnight at their local store to get a copy, it doesn't matter if it releases for the holidays or for any random date.

And yet, they will do it then because it doesn't make sense not to.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on July 17, 2010, 09:00:49 AM
They have SC2 out this month, so their financials for 2010 will be fine - so there will be a Blizzard game (still at full price) for Nana to pick up for xmas for the kids for the holidays.  Given that, and the lack of competition in the MMO space, the smart move would be to hold the release until it's as good as they can make it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on July 17, 2010, 09:47:38 AM
Everyone will still be out in line at midnight at their local store to get a copy, it doesn't matter if it releases for the holidays or for any random date.

It will be out in Nov/Dec because Morhaime told the stock holders it would be out this year.  IMO


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 18, 2010, 03:02:19 PM
source: http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/1872-Cataclysm-Guild-Perks-Stonecore-Boss-Videos (http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/1872-Cataclysm-Guild-Perks-Stonecore-Boss-Videos)

Quote
There are 25 guild levels and each level will automatically reward with an extra perk. The leveling process remains unchanged and your guild will gain experience through PvP, Dungeon and Raid progression, questing, etc ...

Guild currency has also been removed and rewards will just be "unlocked" after you reach a specific level or complete a guild achievement. Once a reward is unlocked, members will be able to purchase it with gold. Some of the rewards include guild tabards, mounts, heirlooms, and it looks like you will finally be able to have a guild tabard on your mount. (Just like the Argent Tournament banners)

New members of a guild won't be able to buy everything directly, they will have to contribute to the progression of the guild before they can access the top rewards. Each time a player helps towards the leveling he will gain reputation with the guild, the best rewards will require players to be exalted with their guild before they can buy it.

Level   Spell            Description
01      Fast Track (Rank 1)   Experience gained from killing monsters and completing quests increased by 5%.
02      Mount Up   Increases speed while mounted by 5%. Not active in Battlegrounds or Arenas.
03      Mr. Popularity (Rank 1)   Reputation gained from killing monsters and completing quests increased by 5%.
04      Cash Flow (Rank 1)   Each time you loot money from an enemy, an extra 5% money is generated and deposited directly into your guild bank.
05      Fast Track (Rank 2)   Experience gained from killing monsters and completing quests increased by 10%.
06      Reinforce (Rank 1)   Items take 5% less durability loss when you die.
07      Hasty Hearth   Reduces the cooldown on your Hearthstone by 15 minutes.
08      Reinforce (Rank 2)   Items take 10% less durability loss when you die.
09      Chug-A-Lug (Rank 1)   The duration of buffs from all guild cauldrons and feasts is increased by 50%.
10      Mobile Banking   Summons your guild bank. Instant, 1 hr cooldown
11      Mr. Popularity (Rank 2)   Reputation gained from killing monsters and completing quests increased by 10%.
12      Honorable Mention (Rank 1)   Increases Honor points gained by 5%.
13      Working Overtime   Increases the chance to gain a skill increase on tradeskills by 10%.
14      The Quick and the Dead   Increases health and mana gained when resurrected by a guild member by 50% and increases movement speed while dead by 100%. Does not function in combat or while in a Battleground or Arena.
15      Cash Flow (Rank 2)   Each time you loot money from an enemy, an extra 10% money is generated and deposited directly into your guild bank.
16      Guild Mail   In-game mail sent between guild members now arrives instantly.
17      Everyone's A Hero (Rank 1)   Increases Heroism points gained by 5%.
18      Honorable Mention (Rank 2)   Increases Honor points gained by 10%.
19      Happy Hour   Increases the number of flasks gained from using a flask cauldron by 100%.
20      Have Group, Will Travel   Summons all raid or party members to the caster's current location. Unlimited range, 6 sec cast / Channeled, 2 hr cooldown
21      Chug-A-Lug (Rank 2)   The duration of buffs from all guild cauldrons and feasts is increased by 100%.
22      Bountiful Bags   Increases the quantity of materials gained from Mining, Skinning, Herbalism, and Disenchanting by 15%.
23      Bartering   Reduces the price of items from all vendors by 5%.
24      Everyone's A Hero (Rank 2)   Increases Heroism points gained by 10%.
25      Mass Resurrection   Brings all dead party and raid members back to life with 35 health and 35 mana. Cannot be cast when in combat. 64% of base mana, Unlimited range, 10 sec cast

I think a lot of these are neat ideas, but I'm concerned about the pace of leveling between guild sizes.  I'm in a rather large guild, but I'd hate to see small, focused, guilds get punched in the nuts.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 18, 2010, 03:11:35 PM
source: http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/1872-Cataclysm-Guild-Perks-Stonecore-Boss-Videos (http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/1872-Cataclysm-Guild-Perks-Stonecore-Boss-Videos)

Quote
There are 25 guild levels and each level will automatically reward with an extra perk. The leveling process remains unchanged and your guild will gain experience through PvP, Dungeon and Raid progression, questing, etc ...

Guild currency has also been removed and rewards will just be "unlocked" after you reach a specific level or complete a guild achievement. Once a reward is unlocked, members will be able to purchase it with gold. Some of the rewards include guild tabards, mounts, heirlooms, and it looks like you will finally be able to have a guild tabard on your mount. (Just like the Argent Tournament banners)

New members of a guild won't be able to buy everything directly, they will have to contribute to the progression of the guild before they can access the top rewards. Each time a player helps towards the leveling he will gain reputation with the guild, the best rewards will require players to be exalted with their guild before they can buy it.

Level   Spell            Description
01      Fast Track (Rank 1)   Experience gained from killing monsters and completing quests increased by 5%.
02      Mount Up   Increases speed while mounted by 5%. Not active in Battlegrounds or Arenas.
03      Mr. Popularity (Rank 1)   Reputation gained from killing monsters and completing quests increased by 5%.
04      Cash Flow (Rank 1)   Each time you loot money from an enemy, an extra 5% money is generated and deposited directly into your guild bank.
05      Fast Track (Rank 2)   Experience gained from killing monsters and completing quests increased by 10%.
06      Reinforce (Rank 1)   Items take 5% less durability loss when you die.
07      Hasty Hearth   Reduces the cooldown on your Hearthstone by 15 minutes.
08      Reinforce (Rank 2)   Items take 10% less durability loss when you die.
09      Chug-A-Lug (Rank 1)   The duration of buffs from all guild cauldrons and feasts is increased by 50%.
10      Mobile Banking   Summons your guild bank. Instant, 1 hr cooldown
11      Mr. Popularity (Rank 2)   Reputation gained from killing monsters and completing quests increased by 10%.
12      Honorable Mention (Rank 1)   Increases Honor points gained by 5%.
13      Working Overtime   Increases the chance to gain a skill increase on tradeskills by 10%.
14      The Quick and the Dead   Increases health and mana gained when resurrected by a guild member by 50% and increases movement speed while dead by 100%. Does not function in combat or while in a Battleground or Arena.
15      Cash Flow (Rank 2)   Each time you loot money from an enemy, an extra 10% money is generated and deposited directly into your guild bank.
16      Guild Mail   In-game mail sent between guild members now arrives instantly.
17      Everyone's A Hero (Rank 1)   Increases Heroism points gained by 5%.
18      Honorable Mention (Rank 2)   Increases Honor points gained by 10%.
19      Happy Hour   Increases the number of flasks gained from using a flask cauldron by 100%.
20      Have Group, Will Travel   Summons all raid or party members to the caster's current location. Unlimited range, 6 sec cast / Channeled, 2 hr cooldown
21      Chug-A-Lug (Rank 2)   The duration of buffs from all guild cauldrons and feasts is increased by 100%.
22      Bountiful Bags   Increases the quantity of materials gained from Mining, Skinning, Herbalism, and Disenchanting by 15%.
23      Bartering   Reduces the price of items from all vendors by 5%.
24      Everyone's A Hero (Rank 2)   Increases Heroism points gained by 10%.
25      Mass Resurrection   Brings all dead party and raid members back to life with 35 health and 35 mana. Cannot be cast when in combat. 64% of base mana, Unlimited range, 10 sec cast

I think a lot of these are neat ideas, but I'm concerned about the pace of leveling between guild sizes.  I'm in a rather large guild, but I'd hate to see small, focused, guilds get punched in the nuts.

I remember in WAR it scaled with guild size, which led to the creation of alt guilds because you wanted as few characters being played as often as possible in your guild to ease the leveling process.  I guess once your guild hits max level you could bring the alts back in.

Don't know how it'll work here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lightstalker on July 18, 2010, 03:13:09 PM
Quote
New members of a guild won't be able to buy everything directly, they will have to contribute to the progression of the guild before they can access the top rewards. Each time a player helps towards the leveling he will gain reputation with the guild, the best rewards will require players to be exalted with their guild before they can buy it.

Great, I have to grind faction with my own guild after re-rolling to fill a needed role or decide I've played X for enough years, or just want to raid on my bank alt.

And once a guild has hit top level new players, recruits, transfers, etc. cannot gain guild rep? 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 18, 2010, 03:14:25 PM
Quote
New members of a guild won't be able to buy everything directly, they will have to contribute to the progression of the guild before they can access the top rewards. Each time a player helps towards the leveling he will gain reputation with the guild, the best rewards will require players to be exalted with their guild before they can buy it.

Great, I have to grind faction with my own guild after re-rolling to fill a needed role or decide I've played X for enough years, or just want to raid on my bank alt.

And once a guild has hit top level new players, recruits, transfers, etc. cannot gain guild rep? 

Yeah, I didn't notice that, thats fucking stupid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on July 18, 2010, 03:49:13 PM
Is there a better way of doing it?  Otherwise you'd have three guilds on a server of 1000+ people each.  Defeats the purpose. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 18, 2010, 03:53:04 PM
It appears to be two different bars: you should still earn "Guild Reputation" even if the guild is at its max level (i.e. no longer needs "Guild XP").


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 18, 2010, 04:26:40 PM
And the most important thing of all:

Quote
Q: Let's talk fashion. Any chance we could get a tophat AND monocle to display at the same time?
A. Why, yes. Indubitably. Tut-tut, my good chap and cheerio!


 :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 18, 2010, 04:29:54 PM
It appears to be two different bars: you should still earn "Guild Reputation" even if the guild is at its max level (i.e. no longer needs "Guild XP").

Yeah I'd be pretty surprised if going 1-85 as a member of the guild (in the case of the aforementioned bank alt) didn't get you to exalted with your guild, or close to it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 18, 2010, 04:42:29 PM
It's possible that you retain guild faction across all your guilded alts.  It seems like it would be a waste to have xp bonuses if this weren't the case.  Even if it's not the case, the xp bonuses are all I imagine caring about.  And they're pretty low in the progression.  So I don't imagine it would take that much to unlock them once they've been unlocked within that particular guild.  And then it's probably just a matter of leveling up while guilded to unlock the rest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on July 18, 2010, 04:42:52 PM
It appears to be two different bars: you should still earn "Guild Reputation" even if the guild is at its max level (i.e. no longer needs "Guild XP").

Yeah I'd be pretty surprised if going 1-85 as a member of the guild (in the case of the aforementioned bank alt) didn't get you to exalted with your guild, or close to it.

It had better be a bit before 85, otherwise those bonus to XP will be pretty worthless.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 18, 2010, 05:41:09 PM
It appears to be two different bars: you should still earn "Guild Reputation" even if the guild is at its max level (i.e. no longer needs "Guild XP").

Yeah I'd be pretty surprised if going 1-85 as a member of the guild (in the case of the aforementioned bank alt) didn't get you to exalted with your guild, or close to it.

It had better be a bit before 85, otherwise those bonus to XP will be pretty worthless.

I think you get those anyway, the rep is for the stuff you can buy with gold like recipes and heirlooms and such I believe?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 18, 2010, 06:30:19 PM
Yeah, as I'm reading it Guild Perks (Mass Rez, etc.) are free and only gated by Guild Level.  Guild Rewards (mount tabards, etc.) are  bought with gold and gated by your Guild Reputation and the guild's Level.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 19, 2010, 05:24:08 AM
Goon Squad supremacy.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 19, 2010, 07:32:23 AM
I don't mind the system if they would remove the stupid raiding points requirement. I don't believe you should have to have X number of guildees in a group to earn points.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on July 19, 2010, 08:33:52 AM
Raiders need extra shit. I just got my flying Burberry fridge mount for killing that one secret boss using only my dick and a cheese grater hooked up to a USB cable, fuck you very much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 19, 2010, 08:42:20 AM
Yes, well dick-grating aside, I think this move completely fucks over raiding alliances and PuGs. If anything this is reverting us back to the old days of the uber-guild poaching everyone. There is no reason why points shouldn't be equalled alotted to any raid regardless of the guild affiliation.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on July 19, 2010, 08:52:01 AM
Well currently at least on my server guilds especially the raiding ones don't seem to have much longevity. They start off they raid stuff drama ensues guild collapses and reforms and begins the cycle again.

Its kinda funny but my family guild I am in probably has a better long term chance of gaining high guild levels just due to stability of membership. We have existed since shortly after wow was released.

Guild levels may be one way of making guilds a bit less of a disposable commodity for raiders than it currently is but I am guessing the drama will still cause the raiding guilds to explode and reform as they currently do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 19, 2010, 09:17:37 AM
Well currently at least on my server guilds especially the raiding ones don't seem to have much longevity. They start off they raid stuff drama ensues guild collapses and reforms and begins the cycle again.

Its kinda funny but my family guild I am in probably has a better long term chance of gaining high guild levels just due to stability of membership. We have existed since shortly after wow was released.

Guild levels may be one way of making guilds a bit less of a disposable commodity for raiders than it currently is but I am guessing the drama will still cause the raiding guilds to explode and reform as they currently do.

Yeah, guild drama is an issue, it comes from the mentality that progression > all.  Gotta find a raiding guild that admits people (player skill AND player quality as a person, not either or) rather than classes, and it goes a long way to helping.  Sure, you probably won't get a lot of server firsts, but you will see all the content, even when its on its current tier.  I think being in a great guild that has been around since literally day 3 of WoW(though I didn't join it until 2006, if I recall correctly) and is still going (funny how I consider myself a member even though I don't play) and has consistently been at the top 5 or so in terms of server progression has spoiled me.  Even though a lot of the members than made the guild are gone now, they started it with a certain mentality that has lasted through 3 or 4 GMs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 19, 2010, 10:08:17 AM
Maybe I'm not privy to the knowledge but I don't see where it says you'll need to raid to gain guild levels. Afaik they have stated only the top ten earners in points would contribute to guild level anyways.   So while your raiding won't count if you're in a pug, that won't be gating your guild as far as levelling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 19, 2010, 10:56:31 AM
Where has it said that your raiding won't count if you're in a PUG? Furthermore, what counts as a PUG for that system? If we can only field 24/25 and have to PUG 1, does that make the raid not worth XP?  :uhrr:

Also, where did it say you had to raid to earn guild XP? Everything I've read suggests that raiding is one way to level the guild, along with dungeons, quests and PVP.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 19, 2010, 11:09:25 AM
For people concerned that larger guilds will have an advantage, last I heard one way they were considering to deal with that was that only the top 10 or so contributors in a given week would actually count towards leveling the guild up regardless of guild size. Don't know if that is final or not or if they're going to do something else entirely, since they were still considering a guild talent tree at the time too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 19, 2010, 11:32:07 AM
Where has it said that your raiding won't count if you're in a PUG? Furthermore, what counts as a PUG for that system? If we can only field 24/25 and have to PUG 1, does that make the raid not worth XP?  :uhrr:

Also, where did it say you had to raid to earn guild XP? Everything I've read suggests that raiding is one way to level the guild, along with dungeons, quests and PVP.

I believe the number is <75%. So you can basically pug 2 people in a 10 man, or 6 in a 25. Also, nobody is suggesting that it's the only way, I'm just suggesting that it may be the fastest way given the emphasis they put on raiding anyway. If it's not, the point is moot. If, however, a full clear of a raid nets 10x the points that clearing out 5 dungeons gives you, then I believe you are unnecessarily punishing raidng alliances and pugs by not allowing them any credit for the exact same effort.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 19, 2010, 11:40:18 AM
Hm, my recollection was that the %-of-members-in-the-raid thing was just for determining if a guild would get the guild achievement associated with the raid in question, not for guild XP - the XP are determined on a per-character basis last we heard (hence the 'top 10 contributors' thing) and they should still be earning some for doing PUG content I think.

The details we have on this stuff are really spotty though, you may end up being right about how it works.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 19, 2010, 11:46:53 AM
I just had assumed it worked the way Ingmar suggests, not the way you read it Paelos. You'd level FASTER if the raid was all guild, because you'd get 10x the points, but it'd still be doable if it was just 3 of you in a PUG. We'll see, I guess.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 19, 2010, 11:49:31 AM
The other bit is there may also be specific rewards associated with specific guild achievements, so if that is the case it is possible that a guild that never does content all by themselves could get left out of something or another even if it doesn't directly affect their leveling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 19, 2010, 12:05:32 PM
Are guild achievements even still in? And have they said there will be any tangible rewards available from them?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 19, 2010, 12:13:35 PM
Dunno, I am just speculating. They haven't said that guild achievements are back out, so I expect they are still in, but any conjecturing about rewards and such is just conjecturing. It wouldn't surprise me to see things like the Ulduar proto-drakes of the future be available for purchase by people in the guild if the guild completes certain achievements, etc., though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on July 19, 2010, 02:07:17 PM
Are guild achievements even still in? And have they said there will be any tangible rewards available from them?

I believe they got replaced with the Guild Perks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 19, 2010, 02:09:46 PM
Are guild achievements even still in? And have they said there will be any tangible rewards available from them?

I believe they got replaced with the Guild Perks.

No, the talent tree got replaced with the perks. Achievements are something different - like regular achievements, but for the guild. Stuff like "Have 10 maxed crafters" or "kill Deathwing" or whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on July 20, 2010, 05:57:59 PM
The entire system is fucking retarded.  The last thing the game needs is more power in the hands of tinpot dictator guild leaders.  This is a solution is search of a problem.  All this shit should be available to everyone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 20, 2010, 06:05:53 PM
They want guilds to matter more, and for folks to stop guild hopping/ creating useless bank guilds.  This is their solution to that, combined with the usual ripping off what was a feature of a few (or was it just WAR) new games that have come out in the last few years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 20, 2010, 06:20:28 PM
So I've been leveling a NE Mage up, to take a gander at the new zones and one thing that I am very pleased with, is all my quest reward armor matches.

It took Blizzard 6 years to figure this out, but you don't look like a god damn clown anymore while leveling! It isn't like wotlk matching either, where everything is just grey skulls on gray skulls. They've just taken already existing armor sets and just made sure all the quest rewards from a zone follow that pattern. They've even gone so far as to make sure that pieces like belts and gloves, can transition between the zone sets and still look like they belong.



I've gotten to 35ish so far and my rough zone per zone impressions are:


Teldrassil
- This zone is basically the same story wise, but all the quests have been streamlined and made much less retarded in actual requirements. The quest givers are all in far more useful places and they'll even show up at points right near your current quest area, so you don't have to run back and forth all across the island to hand in your Moonwell water and stuff. The NPC's will write it off as "I've heard the news of <blah happening> and came as quickly as I could!". They even give you a Sentinel tour guide for the barrow den here. She's a big help in the tight quarters, has a root, will tank furbolgs for you and does decent enough damage. She even literally lights a path to all the various objectives in the barrow den, so newbies stop getting lost in there.


Darkshore - This zone is exploding, sinking, on fire and being sucked into space all at the same time. It's also the zone most likely to depress the shit out of you story wise if you've done the old one. Quest layout wise it is roughly 10,000,000 times better then the original, with the quests being fun, inventive and climatic. The zone has standard flight paths and it has DaoC style horse routes (well, NE riding cat routes), which makes its unique geography much less of a headache. It's currently the zone where Worgens get dumped into after finishing their own starting area, if anyone was trying to join/avoid the worgen leveling wave. It's also the first zone as a NE that you get into The War with The Horde. Actually fighting random Horde NPCs instead of random Murlocs and Naga really does add an extra layer of incentive or whatever you want to call it. This is also the first zone where you see the new quest path play out. Where you start off with usual tasks, then as you progress deeper into chains, the tasks get more inventive and elaborate, with you riding/driving/bombing/exploding something dramatically as a climax. Lots of cinematic in the quests. Deep Ocean, Vast Sea - Has a sequel  :why_so_serious:


Ashenvale - Just like Darkshore, its getting shit rained down on it from every direction and faction imaginable. Lots of the physical geography is different as well. First thing I noticed, is you know all those sub-zones like Maestra's Post or Bathars Haunt? Those people the zones are named after, are actually THERE now, which I found highly amusing! As a NE, first thing you'll note is all your stuff is on fire. The Screenshots you saw for Cata previews were not misleading you, shit is bad for the elves in the forest. Quest wise, its currently a little awkward, in that instead of you slowing spanning across the zone from left to right, the entire zone is more homogeneous level wise. You get another DaoC style horse path between Astrannar (which is on fire, literally, one of the first quests is putting the fires out) and the Crappy Draenei town on the other end of the forest (crappy Draenei town is still crappy which is kinda sad). There are lots of flight paths, but it isn't 100% intuitive that you can start from the eastern hub as well as the western ones. The quests are much like darkshore, start off with the standard fare, then you build up into some kind of climatic encounter or event. There's even more Horde/Alliance questing, where your objectives are to kill Horde NPCs instead of random furbolgs or whatever. They've done a rather clever job of blending the Faction Quest hubs INTO the Faction Quest Mobs. So like, as a NE I am killing the horde forces in one area, while the horde have an actual 'town' inside this area, with their own quests presumably 'countering' what I am doing in my quests. I'm sure this ends hilariously in PvP servers.  :grin:


Stonetalon - This is the real warzone between the Sentinel's and the Horde. You can't throw a rock without it bouncing off half a dozen battles. It isn't just a couple of NPCs randomly beating on each other, its full blown warfare, with hundreds of NPCs, Tanks, Glaives, Ancients of War etc... It's a hoot. This zone is almost entirely based around Horde vs Alliance conflict and it's a blast because of it. The entire zone is one massive scouting/sabotage effort from the NE players point of view, you are like the special forces for your regular army units fighting in the field. It's also the zone where the alliance really sees what kind of problems the goblins are going to give them in the long run story wise. Most of the horde pushes and advancements are a end result of goblin tech. One of the sub-themes of the zone is the goblin/gnome rivalry, and how the NE's are suddenly at a major tech disadvantage in this theater. The zones main plot ends in a bang just like Ashenvale and Darkshore. From stonetalon you can go to the southern barrens or desolace.


Desolace - I went to desolace to keep my NE mage theme going. Desolace is mostly the same, even with its new forest oasis in the middle. The quests are fun enough mechanically, but after the roller coaster ride from darkshore to ashenvale to stonetalon, you really don't give a shit about what some centaurs are doing, or how the Cenarion Circle is planting flowers everywhere. The quest NPCs and zone/level layout is vastly improved, but its still a larger pain to get around compared to the other zones. Maybe it's better for the horde side, but for the alliance, its at best a intermission.


Southern Barrens - I've backtracked here after I finished Desolace (they are both the same level range) and haven't finished it, but first impressions so far are that it just continues the all out warfare theme from stonetalon, with a side-plot of "why the fuck is there a jungle in the middle of the barrens?". Like Stonetalon and Ashenvale, lots of the Faction Quest Hubs are also Enemy Faction Quest Mobs, which gives the zone a real sense of battle to it. This is the first zone that I've seen as a leveling NE where it's the Alliance proper fighting it out, instead of the Sentinel Army. Humans/Dwarves/Gnomes and all that they bring architecture and siege wise. Northwatch is a proper alliance quest hub town finally, since that always frustrated me in Vanilla, that we have this giant keep in the barrens that only exists for the Horde players to farm for linen or whatever.


General Sentiments
- Quests are just so much better in terms of layout and positioning it isn't even funny. Cata OldWorld compared to Vanilla OldWorld makes Vanilla look like DaoC or something with equally shitty PvE. Lots of showing, a lot less 'telling'. You could skip all the quest log text entirely and still follow the story as it all happens in real time as well as in the log.

Item rewards from quests are actually decent, even GOOD. It's mind blowing! Plus the already mentioned it all matches and looks good cosmetically.

They've taken the good parts of vehicle combat and ditched most of the bad. They've also taken my advice of "Every questline should end with riding a stormgiant and slaughtering hundreds of peons under your feet while punching a enemy giant in the balls" to heart. Lots of bombing runs. Some siege engine driving where the engine is all powerful, usually the engine is also your mode of transportation to another quest hub, literally carving a path through the enemy zerg. There are a few "put on this disguise and use these special powers" quests, but they are very brief and simple, so you won't pull your hair out in rage over not being able to use your own spells. Also a few quests where you get a temporary henchman npc as a pet, lets you mix up your own tactics.

The quest mobs themselves actually DO STUFF, instead of just being punching bags. Like, a fire elemental will charge you and leave a trail of fire behind it that will hurt you if you stand in it. Some warlock type mobs will use the "Shadow Crash" attack, that you have to dodge. Mobs will setup lava burst style attacks, or have special attacks that hit for shitloads or rapidly, but cause the mob to be rooted or snared heavily so you can run away for the duration. It's like raid training, don't stand in the fire 101. They are still quest mobs though for the most part, you don't HAVE to avoid every single attack, but you'll certainly be better off if you do.


Everything between the vehicles and the quests mobs is setup so that you almost never get into a rut of "frostbolt, frostbolt, frostbolt, loot, next" for longer then a couple of minutes at worst.


Once the Beta is done patching, I'll finish up south barrens and probably head into Feralas. I did a little ride around tour in Feralas, and it's probably the first NE zone I've seen that is NOT on fire! How Novel!  :oh_i_see:

The New Feathermoon Stronghold is bloody enormous too!.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Triforcer on July 20, 2010, 06:30:59 PM
I'll resub when there are pandarens, and not a moment before.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: angry.bob on July 20, 2010, 07:18:53 PM
outlands takes a week tops and wotlk is fast enough not to mention that they are going to give it an exp boost like they did with bc. it's not the roadblock people seem to think it is.

Leveling is really fast now using PvP. As long as you do the Call to Arms BG you can do level 70 to 80 in a weekend and have earned enough Honor to buy most of the gear you might need from the quartermaster. The downside is that you have to win the bulk of the time to do it, but even losing is faster than quests or grinding.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on July 20, 2010, 07:49:19 PM
Actually, Fordel's post got me a bit excited to see this all from scratch again.  Sounds like rolling a new toon will be a new experience.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on July 20, 2010, 08:31:58 PM
Quote from: Fordel
Deep Ocean, Vast Sea - Has a sequel

Is it any of the following?

  • Indigo Eyes
  • Strange Kind of Love
  • Cuts You Up


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 20, 2010, 08:38:14 PM
-edit- New Beta Patch : http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/

Quote from: Fordel
Deep Ocean, Vast Sea - Has a sequel

Is it any of the following?

  • Indigo Eyes
  • Strange Kind of Love
  • Cuts You Up


Nope.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 21, 2010, 05:38:45 AM
That new worgen looks better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on July 21, 2010, 07:56:58 AM
That new worgen looks better.

Much, much better. Really like the changes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on July 21, 2010, 08:39:41 AM
Yeah.  They should redo the classic races.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 21, 2010, 09:59:48 AM
It does look more defined and slightly more pissed off. Is that a huge leap? I think it's just a nice tweaking, personally.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 21, 2010, 10:10:18 AM
It does look more defined and slightly more pissed off. Is that a huge leap? I think it's just a nice tweaking, personally.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, its certainly better, but drastically better? 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on July 21, 2010, 11:24:44 AM
To me it is, and I'm not even talking about the snarl. The work on the nose and ears make it a lot better for me. That is just an opinion obviously, but yes, it's a lot better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 21, 2010, 11:42:07 AM
Yeah it is much more detailed around the snout, the teeth are a huge improvement too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 21, 2010, 11:46:08 AM
One is a furry. The other is a werewolf. Big difference.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 21, 2010, 11:47:47 AM
One is a furry. The other is a werewolf. Big difference.

Yeah, that is a good summary.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 21, 2010, 02:05:17 PM
I will only reeeeally like it if the ladies are also more werewolfy once they finally appear. They matched the boys pretty well before, now they're too nice (for lack of a better word) compared to 'em.

It doesn't super matter from a personal standpoint though, I'm not sure I'm actually going to have a worgen at all at this point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on July 22, 2010, 07:51:31 AM
The new Worgen male head is bereft of any hairstyle or facial hair at the moment, unlike the old model which was stuck with a 'one size fits all' non-option. So whenever the hair/beard styles go into beta, I expect there will be a fair few 'maney' options. Overall, I think it's a good model change. I don't care quite so much for the savage face above but obviously there will be other ones to choose from; the one on MMOChamp is a little nobler looking, for example. Either way, they don't look so much like lions now, which is a big improvement.

My main concern with the model still doesn't seem to have been addressed, and likely never will - the rather silly plate-like feet. Don't look so bad from the front, but you watch any male Worgen run from behind and their feet look ridiculous. Worse even than male Draenei.

Whatever happens - they really have to update the older races now. The sheer facial detail on both Worgens and Goblins make them look exactly what they are - an entire generation or more advanced than the old races.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 22, 2010, 12:18:56 PM
So I've been leveling a NE Mage up, to take a gander at the new zones and one thing that I am very pleased with, is all my quest reward armor matches.

It took Blizzard 6 years to figure this out, but you don't look like a god damn clown anymore while leveling! It isn't like wotlk matching either, where everything is just grey skulls on gray skulls. They've just taken already existing armor sets and just made sure all the quest rewards from a zone follow that pattern. They've even gone so far as to make sure that pieces like belts and gloves, can transition between the zone sets and still look like they belong.

This is the most interesting and exciting thing I've heard about Cata.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 22, 2010, 06:16:55 PM
-edit- New Beta Patch : http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/

Yet another new patch is up! Lots of changes.

-edit-

Notably:

Quote
    * Cloth Specialization - Increases your Intellect by 5% while wearing only Cloth armor.
    * Leather Specialization - Increases your Agility by 5% while wearing only Leather armor.
    * Wild Leather Specialization - Increases your Stamina in Bear Form by 5% while wearing only Leather armor.
    * Wild Leather Specialization - Increases your Agility in Cat Form by 5% while wearing only Leather armor.
    * Mail Specialization - Increases your Agility by 5% while wearing only Mail armor.
    * Tribal Mail Specialization - Increases your Intellect by 5% while wearing only Mail armor.
    * Plate Specialization - Increases your Strength by 5% while wearing only Plate armor.
    * Defender's Plate Specialization - Increases your Stamina by 5% while wearing only Plate armor.
    * Blessed Plate Specialization - Increases your Intellect by 5% while wearing only Plate armor.
    * Astral Leather Specialization - Increases your Intellect by 5% while wearing only Leather armor.
    * Elemental Mail Specialization - Increases your Intellect by 5% while wearing only Mail armor.
    * Furious Plate Specialization - Increases your Strength by 5% while wearing only Plate armor.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 23, 2010, 12:29:28 AM
The following is a partly political broadcast on behalf of the Forsaken:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDTvRaIuoz4

 :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 23, 2010, 12:41:20 AM
 :awesome_for_real:

"We'd NEVER use the plague without Garrosh' orders"

"What kind of question is that? Of COURSE we're deploying the plague!"






Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 23, 2010, 06:53:23 AM
For warriors, Gag Order finally got more interesting for tanking. It now lowers your heroic throw cooldown by 30s, which makes it a must have for any dungeon tanking spec. Also, I believe they nerfed damage shield by making it scale off of strength instead of AP, making it less cool. Safeguard still sucks.

Also, plate specialization for tanks is  :awesome_for_real:, considering we never downgraded anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on July 23, 2010, 06:54:50 AM
Heh, I was thinking the same thing about cloth specialization.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 23, 2010, 08:05:57 AM
The following is a partly political broadcast on behalf of the Forsaken:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDTvRaIuoz4

Sylvanas is officially taking up the position that her kingdom and people are the continuation of Lordaeron. Fucking awesome. Here's a brief list of shit off the top of my head that the Horde never gets to complain about ever again.

1) Orcish internment camps
2) Thrall's whole upbringing
3) Garithos fucking over the Blood Elves
4) Garithos in general

Fuck you, that was all Lordaeron, take it up with the Forsaken.

Also, I absolutely LOVE the implications of the second speech. So the Forsaken attack Gilneas out of the blue, get beaten by level 10 worgen newbies, and resort to plaguing the whole place rotten rather than just sucking up their defeat. What happened to the poor victimized Forsaken who never wanted to hurt anyone but the Lich King, and their plague that Sylvanas hardly knew about, which was only cooked up as a defensive weapon against the Scarlet Crusade anyway?

Oh yeah, that was never the way it was.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 23, 2010, 08:17:13 AM
They will rationalize it away WuA; they are unwavering in their ability to deny logic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on July 23, 2010, 08:58:10 AM
For warriors, Gag Order finally got more interesting for tanking. It now lowers your heroic throw cooldown by 30s, which makes it a must have for any dungeon tanking spec. Also, I believe they nerfed damage shield by making it scale off of strength instead of AP, making it less cool. Safeguard still sucks.

Also, plate specialization for tanks is  :awesome_for_real:, considering we never downgraded anyway.

The damage shield thing may wind up being a wash given the itemization changes for pure abilities. You get a LOT more str/agil whatever on items than what you currently see and with the last update on beta damage shield gets a bigger percentage than it does on live. Its probably a buff or a wash I doubt it will be a loss in damage.

Just checked the numbers.

# Damage Shield  is now a Tier 4 talent, down from Tier 6. Now causes damage equal to 20/40% of your Strength. (Old - 10/20% of your attack power)

This indeed should be a wash. We get 2 attack power per str so with the change in percentages it should in theory work out to be almost dead even with the current levels and maybe more due to increase in the attribute itemization.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 23, 2010, 09:54:34 AM
You lose out the damage from the armor > AP talent and the battle shout though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 23, 2010, 11:06:37 AM
Battle Shout increases strength and agility in Cataclysm, it is now the same buff as Strength of Earth or that DK horn thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on July 23, 2010, 11:12:05 AM
Looks like all our alts are going to have to stomach the grind to 80 in Northrend every time:

Quote from: Nethaera
In the next beta build the minimum level for entering and questing in Mount Hyjal and Vashj'ir will change from level 78 to level 80. All associated creature will have their levels increased to match the new flow.

Additionally, after careful review and consideration we've decided to increase the hit point values of level 80+ Cataclysm creatures. The new hit point values are roughly double their previous values.

Level 80 (OLD)
16400

Level 80 (NEW)
31000

Players will also now need to be level 80 in order to use the Dungeon Finder System for Throne of Tides and Blackrock Caverns.

http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/26262766074/upcoming-level-and-zone-changes/


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 23, 2010, 11:13:52 AM
As long as they still do the xp speedup that they gave to TBC, it won't be too bad. With heirlooms you can already hit 80 before Icecrown or Storm Peaks if you don't skip stuff. I usually just skip there as soon as I hit 77 and the quests open up though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on July 23, 2010, 11:18:42 AM
I hope that while they do that, they still have Cata-itemized BoE greens that start at 77 or 78 to help fill in the gaps, since some of the Wrath quested stuffs lasts a hell of a long time if you have no dungeons to run.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 23, 2010, 12:10:01 PM
They will rationalize it away WuA; they are unwavering in their ability to deny logic.
That reminds me - there's a rumour about the event that supposedly turned the Horde/Alliance cold war hot.

The Alliance landed an army in Theramore, used it to attack the southern Barrens, razed Camp Taurajo and were only stopped (accidentally) from their planned assaults on Thunder Bluff and Orgrimmar by the cataclysm itself. Everything that's happened since - the invasion of Gilneas, the night elves having the living shit kicked out of them all over Ashenvale and Stonetalon, Stromgarde being turned, Southshore being turned into green goo, etc. - is the Horde's reaction to the Alliance assault.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 23, 2010, 12:29:46 PM
You lose out the damage from the armor > AP talent and the battle shout though.

But it now works with Kings.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 23, 2010, 12:29:56 PM
event that supposedly turned the Horde/Alliance cold war hot

Uh... Wrynn declared war as soon as he got a close look at Undercity and leapt to a bunch of completely correct conclusions about the Forsaken. Fighting was already underway before the Lich King died. Broken Front? Hello?

Also, Gilneas hasn't had contact with anyone since the days when the Horde worked for the Burning Legion, the Alliance was led by Lordaeron, and the Scourge didn't exist yet. Attacking them because you're at war with the modern Alliance is a ridiculous dick move.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on July 23, 2010, 02:20:18 PM
event that supposedly turned the Horde/Alliance cold war hot

Uh... Wrynn declared war as soon as he got a close look at Undercity and leapt to a bunch of completely correct conclusions about the Forsaken. Fighting was already underway before the Lich King died. Broken Front? Hello?

Also, Gilneas hasn't had contact with anyone since the days when the Horde worked for the Burning Legion, the Alliance was led by Lordaeron, and the Scourge didn't exist yet. Attacking them because you're at war with the modern Alliance is a ridiculous dick move.

It fits in the context of the Horde completely not getting that the Forsaken are trying to kill EVERYONE.

Alliance shows up, kicks in Forsaken's door for a gigantic dick move, King Douche also goes all LOLORCS while he's there.

Alliance decides it's totally the horde's fault (because, well, KingDouche never listens to PrincessActuallyNotADesbisableMainCharacter), attacks Horde.

Forsaken goes "we're helping, seriously!" and tries to eradicate random bystanders. Because, well, the forsaken are EVIL.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 23, 2010, 02:45:01 PM
The Horde/Garrosh is having a large manifest destiny thing going on with Kalimdor. I mean that literally, a bunch of horde NPC's actually say "it is our manifest destiny to rule all of Kalimdor!".  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 23, 2010, 02:46:53 PM
Well, it did all belong to the trolls originally....


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 23, 2010, 02:53:32 PM
Originally, everything belonged to the trolls.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 23, 2010, 02:57:37 PM
Originally, everything belonged to the Old Gods too.  :why_so_serious:


The Trolls are also not the Hordes favorite member race currently either  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 23, 2010, 03:35:50 PM
Originally the world was formless and void...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 23, 2010, 03:37:29 PM
It fits in the context of the Horde completely not getting that the Forsaken are trying to kill EVERYONE.
...

Forsaken goes "we're helping, seriously!" and tries to eradicate random bystanders. Because, well, the forsaken are EVIL.


You're missing WUA's point. To wit: There's many a Forsaken player who has insisted long and loudly over the years that neither of these are the case.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pezzle on July 23, 2010, 03:55:13 PM
Forsaken should never have been playable. 

It would kick ass if all those forsaken characters were deleted.  Better yet, convert them into monsters for players to farm. 



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on July 23, 2010, 05:20:24 PM
The following is a partly political broadcast on behalf of the Forsaken:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDTvRaIuoz4

Sylvanas is officially taking up the position that her kingdom and people are the continuation of Lordaeron. Fucking awesome. Here's a brief list of shit off the top of my head that the Horde never gets to complain about ever again.

1) Orcish internment camps
2) Thrall's whole upbringing
3) Garithos fucking over the Blood Elves
4) Garithos in general

Fuck you, that was all Lordaeron, take it up with the Forsaken.

Also, I absolutely LOVE the implications of the second speech. So the Forsaken attack Gilneas out of the blue, get beaten by level 10 worgen newbies, and resort to plaguing the whole place rotten rather than just sucking up their defeat. What happened to the poor victimized Forsaken who never wanted to hurt anyone but the Lich King, and their plague that Sylvanas hardly knew about, which was only cooked up as a defensive weapon against the Scarlet Crusade anyway?

Oh yeah, that was never the way it was.

It's all good.  We can hash it out while Garrosh crushes Wrynn's skull under his meaty boot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 23, 2010, 06:30:10 PM
The Forsaken are evil insofar as they will punch anyone in the way of getting what they want, Big Bad or Innocent Bystander.

I much prefer that to Varian and Garrosh constantly channeling Marcus Fenix.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 23, 2010, 06:37:32 PM
FWIW 90% of all forsaken players are happy with the forsaken being evil. 1 out of 10 you get some tortured rp'er that wants to be good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on July 23, 2010, 07:18:53 PM
Damn lore-freaks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on July 23, 2010, 08:19:31 PM
Is there a readable, chronological version of the official WoW lore?  I enjoy the backstory, but being casual and not playing TBC much, it seems to skip about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on July 23, 2010, 09:28:21 PM
[...], it seems to skip about.

lol, I don't know why it would seem like that


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2010, 09:56:14 PM
FWIW 90% of all forsaken players are happy with the forsaken being evil. 1 out of 10 you get some tortured rp'er that wants to be good.

I was cool with the Blood Elves all being stuck up bastards, and then Blizz pussied out by making Kael'thas a flat out bad guy and raid boss.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 24, 2010, 01:54:25 AM
Is there a readable, chronological version of the official WoW lore?  I enjoy the backstory, but being casual and not playing TBC much, it seems to skip about.


Nope.



Seriously, Warcraft lore is not deep, or even consistent with it self. It's entirely at the mercy of gameplay and when it isn't they fuck it up regardless because the people who are in charge of it are not very good at their jobs. Hell, it is only relatively recently that they established and actual 'story team' or whatever they call it.

Before that it was just Metzen writing out whichever fan fiction caught his eye at the moment.


It's what makes all our lol-lore arguments even more retarded then they already are.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on July 24, 2010, 02:30:33 AM
Ok, I can not WAIT to fight this boss.   Simply imagining a model to go with the voice makes me giggle hysterically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2wEcyo7o-Q&feature=channel


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 24, 2010, 02:45:23 AM
The Forsaken are evil insofar as they will punch anyone in the way of getting what they want, Big Bad or Innocent Bystander.

I much prefer that to Varian and Garrosh constantly channeling Marcus Fenix.

Yeah, the Forsaken are real subtle and nuanced with their whole mustache-twirling "No we won't use the plague. OF COURSE I WAS LYING, USE THE PLAGUE!" routine and Garrosh's for-the-slow-kids speech directly comparing Sylvanas to the Lich King. I haven't seen an evil so thoughtfully shaded since...

(http://deadrooster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/snidely-whiplash.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 24, 2010, 05:27:59 AM
Ok, I can not WAIT to fight this boss.   Simply imagining a model to go with the voice makes me giggle hysterically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2wEcyo7o-Q&feature=channel

oh god.... :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on July 24, 2010, 09:46:42 AM
Is there a readable, chronological version of the official WoW lore?  I enjoy the backstory, but being casual and not playing TBC much, it seems to skip about.


Nope.



Seriously, Warcraft lore is not deep, or even consistent with it self. It's entirely at the mercy of gameplay and when it isn't they fuck it up regardless because the people who are in charge of it are not very good at their jobs. Hell, it is only relatively recently that they established and actual 'story team' or whatever they call it.

Before that it was just Metzen writing out whichever fan fiction caught his eye at the moment.


It's what makes all our lol-lore arguments even more retarded then they already are.  :uhrr:
It doesn't help that a lot of the "lore" is generated via comic books and novels (that, unlike the Star Wars EU, are all considered canon), which tends to lead to kind of "wtf" moments, like the game assuming you already knew all the Kalecgos/Anveena/Dar'Khan backstory in advance. It'll probably have something similar in Cataclysm, when people start wondering why Staghelm is suddenly evil/dead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 24, 2010, 10:29:51 AM
The Forsaken are evil insofar as they will punch anyone in the way of getting what they want, Big Bad or Innocent Bystander.

I much prefer that to Varian and Garrosh constantly channeling Marcus Fenix.

Yeah, the Forsaken are real subtle and nuanced with their whole mustache-twirling "No we won't use the plague. OF COURSE I WAS LYING, USE THE PLAGUE!" routine and Garrosh's for-the-slow-kids speech directly comparing Sylvanas to the Lich King. I haven't seen an evil so thoughtfully shaded since...

No mas.

Enough fucking lore battles. This is stupider than Step Up 3D. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on July 24, 2010, 12:53:39 PM
Rasix to the rescue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 24, 2010, 06:47:44 PM
It doesn't help that a lot of the "lore" is generated via comic books and novels (that, unlike the Star Wars EU, are all considered canon), which tends to lead to kind of "wtf" moments, like the game assuming you already knew all the Kalecgos/Anveena/Dar'Khan backstory in advance. It'll probably have something similar in Cataclysm, when people start wondering why Staghelm is suddenly evil/dead.


They actually do a decent job of explaining where Staghelm is in Teldrassil, it's tied to the moonwell water quests, so every noob elf will be informed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on July 24, 2010, 10:21:33 PM
Several of the new class-race combinations strike me as making absolutely no sense. How the hell is a dwarf able to be a shaman? Nature nature IRONFORGE? No. And please share an occasion where a tauren has shown any inclination to be a holy roller paladin.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on July 24, 2010, 10:24:00 PM
The Earthen [ancestors of the dwarves] are very much 'in tune' with the elements, in fact it's a smaller stretch for them than draenei. You even get to command a squad of Earthen elemental shamans in some Storm Peaks quest where they cast earth shield, lava burst and earth shock. Some of the Earthen Ring representatives (for the Ahune event f'rex) were also dwarf shamans from the wildhammer clan.

Tauren pallies... I got nothin' (other than HOLY COW!). However, when we roll hordeside alts, I'll definitely play a tauren pally over a BE one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on July 24, 2010, 11:07:48 PM
From what I hear, tauren pallies aren't actually paladins; they draw their power from the tauren sun god (to balance out druids, who draw their power from the moon goddess), who just happens to give similar powers as the holy light does to paladins.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 24, 2010, 11:42:53 PM
It's the same thing with Priests.  Everyone has their own source for Priestly powers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 25, 2010, 01:09:46 AM
From what I hear, tauren pallies aren't actually paladins; they draw their power from the tauren sun god (to balance out druids, who draw their power from the moon goddess), who just happens to give similar powers as the holy light does to paladins.


Yea, it's just game mechanics that makes them "paladins" in the end. If you go to the Druid Trainers in Thunderbluff right now, you can see a little conversation between two Taurens about how they start thinking up the whole Sunwalker thing.


Wildhammer dwarves have always had a very strong nature and elemental connection, this is clearly where the dwarven shamans are coming from. Conversely the dwarven mages and warlocks seem to be coming from or taught by the Dark Iron 'allies' as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on July 25, 2010, 01:33:10 AM
How the hell is a dwarf able to be a shaman? Nature nature IRONFORGE? No.

What is it about Mountain King that you do not get?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on July 25, 2010, 02:55:28 AM
How the hell is a dwarf able to be a shaman? Nature nature IRONFORGE? No.

What is it about Mountain King that you do not get?
Other then the fact that absolutely nothing about a Mountain King screams "shaman"?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on July 25, 2010, 05:20:39 AM
You know what makes no sense? Space goats. If you still play this game and ponder the merits of bizarre retcons and poorly explained blamfazoos, drink until the urge to care fades.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 25, 2010, 05:38:42 AM
My only complaint about Tauren Pallies is that we're getting that instead of undead pallies (http://www.wowwiki.com/Sir_Zeliek).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on July 25, 2010, 12:28:01 PM
Other then the fact that absolutely nothing about a Mountain King screams "shaman"?

Dual-wielding hero who grows big and fierce during combat and uses lightning attacks != shaman?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 25, 2010, 12:47:32 PM
Shamans aren't druids, and their being into "the elements" doesn't neccessarily mean they hug trees.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on July 25, 2010, 01:18:58 PM
Other then the fact that absolutely nothing about a Mountain King screams "shaman"?

Dual-wielding hero who grows big and fierce during combat and uses lightning attacks != shaman?
So by extention, storm giants are shaman?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on July 25, 2010, 01:30:35 PM
Hey, don't diss the space goats. Woopee is a sexy one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 25, 2010, 03:08:01 PM
Shamans = Wildhammer dwarves, there's really nothing wrong with it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on July 25, 2010, 03:58:03 PM
Stuff on fire.

Ugh dear god the world changes sound dreadful. It sounds like:

Human newbie area: Shit gets serious. It's all out war. You're dropped off in the middle of the blood war between the brood death and the doom sluts, where you pilot a dragon that pukes death and decay and you fight the doom death fucks while exploding zombies are thrown at you by flaming demons. Quest NPCs follow you around and you don't even have to go anywhere because there are teleporters that everybody starts with that take you to the next town, warp you through all the quest givers, and warp you to the quest mobs. All this while hordes of flaming zombie orcs are raining down from the heavens.

Next area: Shit gets really serious. It's all out war. You parachute down using the skins of dead dragons while demons are firing machine guns filled with acid. Quest givers drop from the sky and lob exploding demons at them while the dead death guild of death makes death out of the dead. The entire zone is volcanos exploding out of other volcanos and dwarves are all cyborg zombies charging from more volcanos. And there's also a big river of blood where zombie pirannhas shoot death.

Next area: Shit gets really really serious. It's all out war. You turn into a dragon that shoots dead zombie whores out of guns that explode on contact. Demons with razor sharp wire for hair are fighting worgen who are all piloting giant ninja cyborg zombie titans. The whole zone is made of bones that are screaming at you all the time and you can't turn the sound off.

Next area: Shit gets really really really serious. It's all out war. You can't see anything except more dragons and death and blood giants and doom demons. You become the cybernetics on a really big death dragon that bleeds death acid.

Jesus fucking christ, is there a game in there?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 25, 2010, 05:57:58 PM
Jesus fucking christ, is there a game in there?


That sounds like a pretty awesome game to me.  :grin:



Unless you long for the time of inspecting whale carcasses on the shoreline and stuff, the Cata storyline is a vast improvement.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pezzle on July 25, 2010, 06:18:12 PM
The whole zone is made of bones that are screaming at you all the time and you can't turn the sound off.

Winner.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on July 25, 2010, 06:29:23 PM
It sounds like...

...what I imagine the proposal for the first level of the next instalment of Painkiller to be like. At least till they have a chance to jazz it up a little.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 25, 2010, 07:13:40 PM
Shit just got serious.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ajax34i on July 25, 2010, 08:40:59 PM
Do they still have the same looting and levelling sounds?  My ding is all I need.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on July 25, 2010, 11:44:34 PM
So by extention, storm giants are shaman?

Yes.  Why does this bother you?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on July 26, 2010, 12:59:17 AM
Unless you long for the time of inspecting whale carcasses on the shoreline and stuff, the Cata storyline is a vast improvement.

At least whale carcasses would give the impression that there's something else going on besides 85 levels of bombing runs.

Seriously though, what strikes me the most is how you described Desolace in its comparative boredom. It reminds me of Burning Crusade, where players went from All Out War in Hellfire Peninsula, to...a forest of giant mushrooms and swamp hippies. Burning Crusade was all uneven and kinda pissed me off, and I liked how Northrend went back to a more gradual build. Plus I hate vehicles.  :grin:

I'll keep an eye on it, but it sounds like Cataclysm is Not For Me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on July 26, 2010, 02:33:45 AM
Next area: Shit gets really really really serious. It's all out war. You can't see anything except more dragons and death and blood giants and doom demons. You become the cybernetics on a really big death dragon that bleeds death acid.

Jesus fucking christ, is there a game in there?

Are you fucking kidding me? This sounds a billion times more fun than... say... the "Alliance and Horde hold to a tenuous truce while adventurers collect beets for hungry farmers and supposedly battle against some great evil force that really only exists inside some instance only 2% of the population will ever access!" bullshit we got in BC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 26, 2010, 06:32:51 AM
Hey for a while there we were collecting cloth and other items to help for the "War Effort" to open up a gate to an Old Evil that only 2% of the server would ever see. They should try something like that again in Cataclysm.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on July 26, 2010, 07:33:00 AM
Hey for a while there we were collecting cloth and other items to help for the "War Effort" to open up a gate to an Old Evil that only 2% of the server would ever see. They should try something like that again in Cataclysm.  :grin:

"Hey Guys, someone sealed an ancient evil behind this gate!"
...."We need to pull everyone together and open it!"

Am I forgetting some reason WHY we opened that gate again?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Brogarn on July 26, 2010, 07:40:22 AM
Am I forgetting some reason WHY we opened that gate again?

That's easy. It's been the standard operating procedure for every adventurer since the entire genre was created: Open everything. There might be treasure in there!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 26, 2010, 09:01:08 AM
We opened the gate because bugs started cracking through the gate, I think. Or something. We needed to stop the big bugs that were causing the other bugs to get all buggy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on July 26, 2010, 09:39:56 AM
It was C'thun who was manipulating the Black Dragonflight.  He was manipulating something, and trying to escape from where he was sealed.  He needed to be dead.  So sayeth Chromie, so shall it be done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on July 26, 2010, 11:05:15 AM
It was C'thun who was manipulating the Black Dragonflight.  He was manipulating something, and trying to escape from where he was sealed.  He needed to be dead.  So sayeth Chromie, so shall it be done.
I think it had more to do with them finally figuring out that the Silithid (who had ben appearing in zones as far away as the Barrens) were actually under the controll of the Evil Eye, and as such, they decided that sending a bunch of adventurers in through the front gate to deal with the problem was a better solution then potentially attempting to wage a war on 4+ fronts if the bugs decided to start pouring out of every hole available to them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on July 26, 2010, 12:24:08 PM
I always felt that Silithius was a forgotten zone.  I didn't play WOW much when AQ came out though so that might be why.  I always felt it was tucked in the corner and forgotten.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 26, 2010, 12:45:48 PM
It wasn't forgotten so much as it made absolutely no sense. It was this weird alien looking place completely covered up by evil insects. There was nowhere else in the game where it fit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 26, 2010, 12:49:53 PM
I was always waiting for the big reveal about the bugs being related to the Zerg.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 26, 2010, 12:53:16 PM
It wasn't forgotten so much as it made absolutely no sense. It was this weird alien looking place completely covered up by evil insects. There was nowhere else in the game where it fit.

Well, the silithids did pop up in a couple hives in other places (most notably Ungoro, but also in Ferelas, and I think Tanaris also).  And I think there were some quest lines that were sort of "WTF are these things"  so there was some sort of attempt at least.

Also, post AQ40 that zone was PACKED, then again, I was in a raiding guild that was competing to open the gates, and we were farming non stop there for the items you needed.   Then after that it was raiding there 3-4 nights a week until C'thun died, not to mention AQ20 on off nights, and lords.

It was a pretty big focal point in the game for a while, is my pioint


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 26, 2010, 01:52:49 PM
Oh it was supremely important for that period of time. Most people I knew hardly left there beyond going to the AH to sell shit. Almost everyone was bound at the Silithus inn to get back there once you went cross country. That being said, it was (and still is) a very odd zone that was really shoehorned into the game early on in the supposed "lore."

In the beginning, there were Trolls...and also these evil bug things. Yeah, that'll do nicely.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on July 26, 2010, 03:01:08 PM
There are also evil bugs in Sholazar. Or maybe they're just normal giant bugs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 26, 2010, 03:07:09 PM
Northrend sort of put the evil bugs up in Azjol-Nerub area, and make them spawn from the "Old Kingdom," which supposedly split off from the Silithus race several thousands of years ago before the Well Explosion and continent formation. That time apart supposedly made them more spiderlike and way different than the Silithus ones.

That's the lolore behind that move.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 26, 2010, 03:23:19 PM
Actually there's a difference in wow lore between the sentient and non sentient bugs. It was more like a caste system I think.  In the beginning there were old gods with elemental princes under them. The silithids were natural creatures of the world but easily controlled and enslaved by the old gods. Some of those bugs were then mutated into the qiraji and nerubians, the humanoid bugs.  Even after the old gods were defeated/planet terraformed they were still around fighting trolls and having fun.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 26, 2010, 03:31:13 PM
Northrend sort of put the evil bugs up in Azjol-Nerub area, and make them spawn from the "Old Kingdom," which supposedly split off from the Silithus race several thousands of years ago before the Well Explosion and continent formation. That time apart supposedly made them more spiderlike and way different than the Silithus ones.

That's the lolore behind that move.

Actually the silithus split is more LOLore than the Northrend Bugs.  The bug kingdom has been in Northrend since the WC3 expansion.  You got a bug hero for the Undead in that one and everything.  He looked like Anub.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/undead/units/cryptlord.shtml


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on July 26, 2010, 03:36:25 PM
The ones in Sholazar are exactly the same, in appearance, as the ones in Un'goro. Which is to say, not Nerubian.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 26, 2010, 04:03:36 PM
There are little baby silithids in the Barrens too! A troll made me go kill some because he wanted to know what the hell they were.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on July 26, 2010, 04:09:02 PM
Northrend sort of put the evil bugs up in Azjol-Nerub area, and make them spawn from the "Old Kingdom," which supposedly split off from the Silithus race several thousands of years ago before the Well Explosion and continent formation. That time apart supposedly made them more spiderlike and way different than the Silithus ones.

That's the lolore behind that move.

Actually the silithus split is more LOLore than the Northrend Bugs.  The bug kingdom has been in Northrend since the WC3 expansion.  You got a bug hero for the Undead in that one and everything.  He looked like Anub.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/undead/units/cryptlord.shtml

Wasn't the hero in the capaign actually Anub?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 26, 2010, 04:11:11 PM
Northrend sort of put the evil bugs up in Azjol-Nerub area, and make them spawn from the "Old Kingdom," which supposedly split off from the Silithus race several thousands of years ago before the Well Explosion and continent formation. That time apart supposedly made them more spiderlike and way different than the Silithus ones.

That's the lolore behind that move.

Actually the silithus split is more LOLore than the Northrend Bugs.  The bug kingdom has been in Northrend since the WC3 expansion.  You got a bug hero for the Undead in that one and everything.  He looked like Anub.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/undead/units/cryptlord.shtml
Yea, it was Anub'arak (the one in AN/TOC, not the one in Naxx) who you had with you during the undead campaign of TFT.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 26, 2010, 04:19:55 PM
The ones in Sholazar are exactly the same, in appearance, as the ones in Un'goro. Which is to say, not Nerubian.

Where are there bugs in Sholazar? I must have done that zone 3 times at least and I don't remember bugs. Are they just critters? If so I wouldn't put too much stock in them one way or the other.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 26, 2010, 04:29:25 PM
Those bugs you have to kill with the wolvar, they're the waspy sort.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 26, 2010, 04:32:19 PM
Oh right, I forgot all about those. Sometimes a giant wasp is just a giant wasp.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on July 26, 2010, 06:02:28 PM
Like Larry Bird.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on July 26, 2010, 10:49:58 PM
It wasn't forgotten so much as it made absolutely no sense. It was this weird alien looking place completely covered up by evil insects. There was nowhere else in the game where it fit.
It wasnt so much this, as the fact that the zone was not actually "finished" even through like 80% of Vanilla.  I mean, hell, 2/3 of the mobs in the zone didnt even have loot tables untill they revamped the place and added the cenarian town quest hub there.

As to the insect infestation, it did sort of make sense, when you realised that there were smaller silithid hives scattered in Barrens, Tanaris, Feralas and Ungoro.  Might only be a Horde thing (they had a few questlines that all tied into attempting to discover exactly what these strange insectoids were) which is where i mention that it all comes together in the realization that those other 4 hive locations are just branch nests of the Main Hive that is silithus.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on July 27, 2010, 06:14:27 AM
I mean, hell, 2/3 of the mobs in the zone didnt even have loot tables untill they revamped the place and added the cenarian town quest hub there.
This was my main complaint with the bugs.  That when questing they didn't have any loot and were hard as hell to kill for some classes (with stupid roaming elites that were even harder AND dropped no loot).  I skipped ALL of the bug quests that I could on my 2nd and on characters.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on July 27, 2010, 01:45:17 PM
I mean, hell, 2/3 of the mobs in the zone didnt even have loot tables untill they revamped the place and added the cenarian town quest hub there.
This was my main complaint with the bugs.  That when questing they didn't have any loot and were hard as hell to kill for some classes (with stupid roaming elites that were even harder AND dropped no loot).  I skipped ALL of the bug quests that I could on my 2nd and on characters.
The best part about that was that you were forced to go there and killl like 300+ elementals (which were on the far side of the zone, so first you had to battle your way through tightly packed spiders and those worms with with the knockback charge move) as part of the early quest to gain hydraxian waterlords rep (as the elementals in silithus were somehow the only elementals in azeroth that gave you waterlords rep) and they STILL didnt have any loot tables, so you slaughtered half a zone for almost no return.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 27, 2010, 02:16:04 PM
(as the elementals in silithus were somehow the only elementals in azeroth that gave you waterlords rep)

Had to do with Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker quest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on July 27, 2010, 02:34:36 PM
Your heart... will explode.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on July 27, 2010, 02:58:57 PM
Ah, just a run-of-the-mill monstrous insect. I see.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on July 27, 2010, 07:47:38 PM
The best part about that was that you were forced to go there and killl like 300+ elementals (which were on the far side of the zone, so first you had to battle your way through tightly packed spiders and those worms with with the knockback charge move) as part of the early quest to gain hydraxian waterlords rep (as the elementals in silithus were somehow the only elementals in azeroth that gave you waterlords rep) and they STILL didnt have any loot tables, so you slaughtered half a zone for almost no return.

The worms with the charge that knocked you (still on your mount I might add) accross half the zone?

And because people bitched about the knockback getting them destroyed by shooting them back into other mobs, then made them stun you for 4 seconds which was just enough time for the spiders to catch up to you and web your feet!



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on July 27, 2010, 10:14:13 PM
the best part about the worms wasnt that the knockback was a very far one, but the fact that there were just so fucking many of them packed into the space that you ended up with a chain reaction, where one worm would charge you, send you flying into another one, which would charge you and knock you into yet another one, and by time you actually landed in a safe spot you had aggro on like 8 of the damn things (and usually you had a spider or a scorpion on you, because that was what was in the "safe" spot that you landed in).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 27, 2010, 10:20:58 PM
the best part about the worms wasnt that the knockback was a very far one, but the fact that there were just so fucking many of them packed into the space that you ended up with a chain reaction, where one worm would charge you, send you flying into another one, which would charge you and knock you into yet another one, and by time you actually landed in a safe spot you had aggro on like 8 of the damn things (and usually you had a spider or a scorpion on you, because that was what was in the "safe" spot that you landed in).


Remember, this is also the zone Blizzard envisioned for world PvP to happen in too!   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 28, 2010, 03:55:52 AM
Unless you long for the time of inspecting whale carcasses on the shoreline and stuff, the Cata storyline is a vast improvement.

It's more dragons doing dragon stuff so we can have dragon bosses that no one* cares about besides their loot tables.

*Except that one guy in the raid who read some obscure trading card fluff text.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on July 28, 2010, 12:42:45 PM
Could someone learned in lolore explain while we had to kill all the trolls that fought off the scourge in Gundrak?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 28, 2010, 12:56:55 PM
the scourge started taking over the zone/city zul'drak and with the scourge looming in the native trolls were losing the battle. So, instead of asking for help(the horde offered if you read quest texts) they decided to cannibilize their own gods for power.  Essentially those trolls are xenophobic and a little crazy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 28, 2010, 01:04:35 PM
Could someone learned in lolore explain while we had to kill all the trolls that fought off the scourge in Gundrak?

The Zandalar trolls asked us to, essentially.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on July 28, 2010, 01:07:37 PM
Unless you long for the time of inspecting whale carcasses on the shoreline and stuff, the Cata storyline is a vast improvement.

It's more dragons doing dragon stuff so we can have dragon bosses that no one* cares about besides their loot tables.

*Except that one guy in the raid who read some obscure trading card fluff text.  :uhrr:

Yeah the feeling I get is, if you go to websites and read articles for hours, THEN you'll think this is cool.

I don't know what a forsaken is, but I know a zombie with a shotgun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on July 28, 2010, 01:34:00 PM
Murderous Zandalar trolls! Made us slaughter those poor Gurubashi too  :oh_i_see:
I mean, if 20 piddly little 60s can take down Hakkar, how big a threat can he be?!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 28, 2010, 03:48:18 PM
A minor detail: The Gundrak trolls originally got exiled from the Amanu & Gurubashi Empires for being too violent and vicious.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on July 28, 2010, 05:25:46 PM
If people want INTERNET DRAGONS, I'm all for seeing that need satisfied.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 29, 2010, 07:00:42 PM
New Beta patch again : http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/

http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2010/july/malfurionstormrage.jpg <---  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 29, 2010, 07:18:40 PM
lawl

That's all I really have to say to that.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 29, 2010, 07:40:00 PM
Just when you think they can't queer up the elves further...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 29, 2010, 07:49:21 PM
Reminds me of:

(http://www.modaruniversity.org/images/SCA/peryton-1.jpg)

QQ can't find the old 1e MM picture.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on July 29, 2010, 07:59:32 PM
Just when you think they can't queer up the elves further...

Hey, they coulda used this as a base:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 29, 2010, 08:41:49 PM
I fuckin' love that monster.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on July 30, 2010, 02:56:26 AM
http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2010/july/malfurionstormrage.jpg <---  :uhrr:

Note to Blizzard: letting the work experience kid design the models for your Dramatis Personae is clearly the right way to go.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on July 30, 2010, 03:30:18 AM
Wow, that's....unfortunate.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mrbloodworth on July 30, 2010, 07:09:50 AM
Just when you think they can't queer up the elves further...

Thats an elf?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 30, 2010, 07:22:55 AM
That's THE elf.  Like the baddest elf dude around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 30, 2010, 07:24:48 AM
Yes, well he used to be. And elves were never that bad-ass. Ever.

In anything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ghost on July 30, 2010, 07:27:24 AM
The elves were pretty bad ass in the Sword of Sha Na Na.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mrbloodworth on July 30, 2010, 07:35:35 AM
He looks fragrant.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on July 30, 2010, 07:47:54 AM
I particularly like his slippers.

(http://www.noveltyslippers.com/images/grizzly-bear-paw-slippers/grizzly-bear-paw-slippers-1-lg.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 30, 2010, 09:51:59 AM
Bird vibe is a little much, but that beard wins me over. :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on July 30, 2010, 10:01:20 AM
What the hell is THAT?   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 30, 2010, 10:40:53 AM
its a moonelfbear, duh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on July 30, 2010, 10:43:54 AM
Of course! What was I thinking...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on July 30, 2010, 10:51:53 AM
I like how his skirt is a giant paw.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 30, 2010, 12:46:24 PM
Ha! I totally didn't notice that the first time. That's hilarious. The WHOLE THING is hilarious.

Keep it in, Blizzard! DO IT!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Teleku on July 30, 2010, 03:57:01 PM
Haven't the Native Americans suffered enough?  First they lose all their land, now you bastards are calling them gay looking:
(http://www.californiaindianeducation.org/events/pictures_2008/balboa_powwow_photos/EagleFeather_Bustle.jpg)

For Shame!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 30, 2010, 05:28:58 PM
"So Malfurion is all aspects of Druidism at once.  Bear, Claw, Raven and Moonkin.. how can we best represent that?"

"Throw them all together in a blender and see what comes out."

"Brilliant, Clyde.  Let's have Eddie do it up tonight."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: LK on July 30, 2010, 05:40:15 PM
And my complete detachment from what happens in World of Warcraft is done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on July 30, 2010, 05:40:52 PM
Yeah. I am not a fan of the Malfurion model. I won't be able to take him very seriously if I ever have to do any quests for him.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 30, 2010, 09:17:07 PM
Jumping the shark?


Also pointing out the undead is the basist for the lvl800 elite tauren chieftens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 31, 2010, 06:46:33 AM
Jumping the shark?
That's been my feeling for some time now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on July 31, 2010, 06:58:02 AM
Paging Sinij.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on July 31, 2010, 08:41:01 AM
Did they really go the full Dr. Evil?

Really?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on July 31, 2010, 09:27:39 AM
Hey, if I can get one of those as a flying mount, my sub for the next two years is assured, no question.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on July 31, 2010, 01:30:18 PM
That one has to be so rare only the most leet of gamers can obtain it, a drop from the terrifying and deformed Lord of Gene Splicing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on August 10, 2010, 08:33:51 AM
Updated models. Apparently we're getting our Venture Brothers crossover finally.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 10, 2010, 09:24:57 AM
Apparently we're getting our Venture Brothers crossover finally.

If the Cata soundtrack was being done by Jim Thirlwell, that would assure my sub for the next two five years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 10, 2010, 09:33:12 AM
...finally?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sickrubik on August 10, 2010, 09:34:11 AM
Touche, sir.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 10, 2010, 01:19:50 PM
Ok, WTF is up with Garosh's arms?  His whole character looks like someone was fucking with the slider settings on the model and bumped everything to "extreemly fucking beefy".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 10, 2010, 01:35:17 PM
Ok, WTF is up with Garosh's arms?  His whole character looks like someone was fucking with the slider settings on the model and bumped everything to "extreemly fucking beefy".

He buys his steroids from Jim Raynor.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on August 10, 2010, 02:05:33 PM
Are you sure he didn't EAT Jim Raynor?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 10, 2010, 03:47:25 PM
Garrosh's model has many things wrong with it, but the thing that makes me laugh most is how he has his pants hiked up, old man style.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 10, 2010, 03:48:33 PM
That's his belt for being a 5 TIME 5 TIME 5 TIME ARENA CHAMPION.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on August 11, 2010, 10:25:39 AM
I understand why the most powerful female beings in the universe need to be half naked. This is, after all, a video game inspired by RPGs; cheesecake art is genetically preordained given this lineage. 

However, I do wonder why that all have ratty, decaying cloaks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 11, 2010, 10:36:48 AM
I understand why the most powerful female beings in the universe need to be half naked. This is, after all, a video game inspired by RPGs; cheesecake art is genetically preordained given this lineage. 

However, I do wonder why that all have ratty, decaying cloaks.

Well for Sylvannas everything is about decay. For the Dragons, I think it's supposed to be wing-like.

I do think Alexstrasza has the best model due to the cool color scheme with the horns/hair. Jaina Proudmoore looks like a slutty dumb blonde, which also fits. My hatred for that chick as our server namesake knows no bounds. She should be in the ground 5x over by now. Everything she says is a cookie cutter repeat of "BUT WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER!" She is the Rachel Ray of WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on August 11, 2010, 04:43:00 PM
Shhh, I'm thinking here


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 11, 2010, 05:44:56 PM
I was mostly indifferent to Jaina until ICC went in. Then I went from "meh" to "I fucking hate her SO GODDAMN MUCH." Every time she has something to say in any of the ICCs, it reminds me of just how terrible the writing is in WoW. It's something I always know, of course, but it's usually in the background where I can ignore it. Jaina makes me REMEMBER.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on August 11, 2010, 07:24:14 PM
it reminds me of just how terrible the writing is in WoW

TOO SOON EXECUTUS!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 11, 2010, 08:40:29 PM
You.

Are not.

PREPARED.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 11, 2010, 09:35:13 PM
You.

Are not.

PREPARED.

That is magnificent writing, if you ask me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 11, 2010, 10:49:14 PM
Merely a setback!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on August 12, 2010, 05:31:39 AM
Forgive me, friend. Your death only adds to my failure!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 12, 2010, 06:25:36 AM
I am no simple jester!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 12, 2010, 06:26:39 AM
Please, Warrior, find some sign of my wife.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 12, 2010, 07:11:17 AM
Please, Warrior, find some sign of my wife.

Cataclysm: Mankrik's revenge.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on August 12, 2010, 09:31:40 AM
it reminds me of just how terrible the writing is in WoW

TOO SOON EXECUTUS!
I finished a quest in Drak'Thon -- where you summon that Troll dude with the mojo, and then the Lich King or something shows up, and OH NO YOU'VE BEEN WORKING FOR THE BAD GUY or something. (I sorta ignored it. I just wanted to my loot).

One of the other players in our random group (LFG thing) hung around and mocked the writing. It was hilarious. I wish I'd gotten screenshots.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 12, 2010, 12:22:57 PM
To be fair and to give some small amount of credit where it may sort of be due, that particular time working for the bad guy was a lot less obvious the first time through than the other times I have worked for bad guys (Stitches guy, on the other hand, is hilariously obvious and that makes it awesome). I sincerely love that entire quest line, because I love how Drakuru cares about my advancement in the ranks of the Lich King's undead army. I actually feel bad about stabbing him in the back eventually. :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 12, 2010, 03:54:09 PM
Good news, everyone! I may have perfected a plague that will destroy all life on Azeroth!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 12, 2010, 03:55:22 PM
To be fair and to give some small amount of credit where it may sort of be due, that particular time working for the bad guy was a lot less obvious the first time through than the other times I have worked for bad guys (Stitches guy, on the other hand, is hilariously obvious and that makes it awesome). I sincerely love that entire quest line, because I love how Drakuru cares about my advancement in the ranks of the Lich King's undead army. I actually feel bad about stabbing him in the back eventually. :(
Plus the drakkari are absolutely bugfuck nutso anyway, so it makes a nice change working for the greater of two evils.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 12, 2010, 04:40:19 PM
Good news, everyone! I may have perfected a plague that will destroy all life on Azeroth!
Two Oozes, One Room.  So Many Delightful Possibilities!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 12, 2010, 07:05:55 PM
Good news, everyone! I may have perfected a plague that will destroy all life on Azeroth!
Two Oozes, One Room.  So Many Delightful Possibilities!

Really, what was Blizzard thinking there? That whole wing is like a circus show! Kinda ruins the epic feel when you defeat a giant plaguehound, then hear a high-voiced squeal, "You killed Stinky!" Then you notice the pink bow on the hound's neck, and any remaining respect you had for ICC Plagueworks disappears.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 12, 2010, 08:18:03 PM
Good news, everyone! I may have perfected a plague that will destroy all life on Azeroth!
Two Oozes, One Room.  So Many Delightful Possibilities!

Really, what was Blizzard thinking there? That whole wing is like a circus show! Kinda ruins the epic feel when you defeat a giant plaguehound, then hear a high-voiced squeal, "You killed Stinky!" Then you notice the pink bow on the hound's neck, and any remaining respect you had for ICC Plagueworks disappears.
And then you fight the professor in "Professor Putricides Alchemical Laboritory of Horror and Fun".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 12, 2010, 09:54:05 PM
ROFL yes, I forgot about Professor Putricide's room name. Just adding to the epic joke feel.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 13, 2010, 11:02:10 AM
Please, Warrior, find some sign of my wife.
If I recall right Mankrik is a warlord or something in Cata.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 13, 2010, 11:15:59 AM
http://www.wowwiki.com/Mankrik



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 13, 2010, 11:28:38 AM
Please, Warrior, find some sign of my wife.
If I recall right Mankrik is a warlord or something in Cata.
He is a Burning Blade Clan Orc, which makes him a Blademaster. Far as i know, there has always been a burning blade banner beside him, even in vanilla.  People just dont realise what the banner stands for.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 13, 2010, 01:39:21 PM
I think it's time for Mankrik to remarry.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 13, 2010, 01:42:28 PM
I think it's time for Mankrik to remarry.

He is married....


....to vengeance!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 13, 2010, 03:01:13 PM
I wish I knew what all the hubbub over Mankrik was about! Never leveled a horde char, maybe that's why.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Teleku on August 13, 2010, 03:50:05 PM
I wish I knew what all the hubbub over Mankrik was about! Never leveled a horde char, maybe that's why.
http://www.wowwiki.com/Mankrik's_Wife


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on August 13, 2010, 05:15:55 PM
He is a Burning Blade Clan Orc, which makes him a Blademaster. Far as i know, there has always been a burning blade banner beside him, even in vanilla.  People just dont realise what the banner stands for.

No one notices the banner because everyone spends as little time is as humanly possible in the Barrens, and when they leave they try to bleach the entire experience from their minds.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 14, 2010, 02:57:26 AM
New beta patch is out. Guild mounts/heirlooms/pets/etc., new zones for testing, bug fixes (having two professions no longer break classs skills, and so on), new loading screens.

Oh, and music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-bVd9t2XA0
Music (http://www.muziboo.com/leviathonlx3/music/night-elves-generic-music/), music (http://www.muziboo.com/leviathonlx3/music/orgrimmar-cataclysm-intro/), music. (http://www.muziboo.com/leviathon4/music/stormwind-variation/)

Music: http://www.worldofraids.com/topic/17521-cataclysm-music/

E: Also this chap - http://www.youtube.com/user/DominikaSents


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on August 14, 2010, 06:23:29 AM
I understand why the most powerful female beings in the universe need to be half naked. This is, after all, a video game inspired by RPGs; cheesecake art is genetically preordained given this lineage. 

However, I do wonder why that all have ratty, decaying cloaks.

Something to do with them all sharing the exact same character model with a palette swap, right up to the underboob?

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on August 14, 2010, 05:48:01 PM
Between a 70 rogue or 70 hunter which account would be better to bring back for cataclysm? and how long do i have to hit 80?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 14, 2010, 06:03:13 PM
Between a 70 rogue or 70 hunter which account would be better to bring back for cataclysm? and how long do i have to hit 80?

Hunter's getting a change in mechanics for Cat.  Might be more interesting, although you'd be learning to play again now and then again whenver they put in the change. 

Getting to 80 doesn't take that long.  It's probably similar to 60-70 at TBC launch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 14, 2010, 06:50:40 PM
Between a 70 rogue or 70 hunter which account would be better to bring back for cataclysm? and how long do i have to hit 80?

Hunter's getting a change in mechanics for Cat.  Might be more interesting, although you'd be learning to play again now and then again whenver they put in the change. 

Getting to 80 doesn't take that long.  It's probably similar to 60-70 at TBC launch.

Odd how a cataclysm can completely change the way a class works.  Or make shammies unable to remove mpoison /rage


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on August 14, 2010, 06:55:54 PM
Odd how a cataclysm can completely change the way a class works.  Or make shammies unable to remove mpoison /rage
If I understand it, they're trying to remake Hunters the way they originally wanted Hunters to be. Which means I have to relearn my main, of course. There's going to be lots of bitching about hunters, I expect, when Cataclysm launches as we relearn DPS and aggro.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on August 14, 2010, 10:22:56 PM
Between a 70 rogue or 70 hunter which account would be better to bring back for cataclysm? and how long do i have to hit 80?

Ugh, I wouldn't choose either of those right now. People have already said how hunters are changing  lot, and rogues are just painful to level right now.

Best classes to level atm are any that can spec tank or healer, since you get very short random dungeon queues and can pretty much ignore shitty questing that you've already done several times.

If I had to choose one of those I'd go hunter but be prepared for big changes. Hunters are great at solo levelling and do excellent DPS in instances. Rogues are just weak, squishy, useless in dungeons and rubbish in PvP now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 15, 2010, 12:25:32 AM
Rogues are useless? Since when? Rogues regularly lead melee-friendly DPS parses in ICC. Also, he isn't ignoring shitty quests he's already done if his characters are both 70.

That said, Hunters are more solo friendly; but they're getting a major overhaul in Cataclysm so you get to relearn the class TWICE. Rogues, on the other hand, aren't receiving any major changes so any skill you develop in the months til Cata launches will be retained.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on August 15, 2010, 12:49:27 AM
Rogues are useless? Since when? Rogues regularly lead melee-friendly DPS parses in ICC. Also, he isn't ignoring shitty quests he's already done if his characters are both 70.

I said while levelling. At 80 with gear, yeah, rogues are great. Getting there? Fucking awful. What exactly is a rogues role in 5-mans before they get FoK? They do the worst DPS of any class, nearly always out-dps'd by the tank. They have very low survivability. Vanish works maybe 30% of the time. There's no need for CC any more. Not even a need for lockpicking chests.

And fair point about the questing, if you've not done the WOTLK levelling already then yeah, good way to level, just a bit slow and with crappy gear compared to being a tank or healer and running random dungeons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 15, 2010, 03:22:12 AM
Good job Cataclysm is deliberately breaking the WotLK-era "herd everything into a clump and AOE down" mechanics, then.

ObMusic: Stormwind (variation) music is depressing - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXhAKAHSe7k


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 15, 2010, 03:34:32 AM
Oh look, Vanish is down to 30% now!  :oh_i_see:






I've gotten around to playing some of the new zones instead of the revamped ones. Finished Hyjal and almost done with Vashjir.


Hyjal is cinematic, more so then any other zone I've experienced. The entire zone is one big "movie", there is one cohesive plot to the place, with major lore figures interacting with you along the way. It has excellent pacing, only one area in the zone did I ever really feel like I was bogged down or stuck with some tedious gimme quests. You start at the top of the mountain, and just work your way down pushing back all the Twilight Cultists and Rags minions as you go. The zone is visually spectacular, if your PC can handle it, set your view distance to max and enjoy.

Mechanics wise it has the full spectrum of quest types. Has some 'vehicle' quests, but they're more like interactive items mostly rather then tank driving. For example, one quest wants you to rescue some baby bear cubs stuck some trees. The trees are the 'vehicles' and you climb up them till you reach a cub and once you grab the cub, you climb to the very top of the tree and get the standard turret targeting interface so you can throw the cub onto a pile of padded furs. To quote the quest giver: "Nothing can go wrong with this plan."

Probably the biggest thing is the single player boss fights. Each quest series caps off with a big fight and it isn't just some random elite you burn down, but an actual mini encounter with mechanics and a strat to follow or you'll just fail and probably die. They aren't like raid boss complex by any means, but they are rather clever. Sometimes instead of a single boss mob, its more of a gauntlet type of encounter. Like, one "boss" is actually a recreation of Joust, as in the old arcade game, silly wing flapping and all!

Hyjal Story Spoilers:
End Hyjal Spoilers






Vashjir, the underwater Naga zone... what can I say about this place. It starts off with a really nice little intro cut-scene/event, with a bunch of SW soldiers talking about how the Cataclysm brought up this new island near SW's coast, and how if the horde gets a foot hold on said island, they can just sail right into SW and etc. So you ride out in your ship and are immediately attacked by a giant squid and sunk. I'm probably about 2/3rds through the zone now and the overall theme is "halp halp, I am underwater." with a side order of "Naga being jerks, again".

Help those people reach a airpocket cave, now help those people find food, now fight off the naga attack, now find a new airpocket cave, now bring all the people to the new cave, now find them food again, now fight off yet another naga attack, now find a new... you do this at least five or six times, it just sorta blurs together. Maybe the zone ends with a bang or something, but I was having a hard time finding any urgency. You never get a sense of "If we don't stop these Naga here and now, we are screwed" the way Hyjal did.

Visually the zone is great, it's half 'The Little Mermaid' and half 'The Abyss'. They really made full use of the Z axis in the zone, which really gives you the sense you are actually underwater. At one point I was questing INSIDE a giant snail creature thing, it was enormous, very cool to see. I didn't actually realize it was a "thing" untill I got to it's head and was like "fuck this thing has eyes and is looking at me". There is also a huge NE/Highborne style ruined city down there, it's also enormous and a real treat to explore.

With that said, they really made full use of the Z axis in this zone, and fuck the Z axis. WoW is better then most MMO's at dealing with the Z axis, but it's still sub-optimal. Having to deal with an entire zone built around it, is just plain old annoying after awhile. Also, I'm pretty good at handling the Z axis, but even I had times where I had to stop and figure out where the shit I was in relation to my nearest quest hub or objective. If you are someone, or know someone who couldn't handle the floating phase in the Kael'thas boss fight... go to Hyjal and stay the fuck away from this place. They'll do nothing but get lost, disoriented and die to the 50 adds they pulled from above or below them.

The way they handle water breathing and travel and crap is by giving you a buff when you enter the zone. It lets you breathe underwater in the zone, swim at your normal run speed and lets you walk on the ocean floor. The ocean floor walking animation is cute, its a little moonwalk hop. You also get a Seahorse for a underwater mount and there are Seahorse "flight paths" between the 50 airpocket cave quest hubs. You can leave the zone by taking the Seahorse flightpath to the new island the Horde and Alliance are fighting over, which has actual griffin flight paths back to Ironforge and stuff. You also eventually get another griffin flight path off a friendly boat too.

The zone has a decent quest spread, but it isn't as good as Hyjal. They couldn't really do a lot of really fancy stuff in this zone due to the Z axis again. There is a neat little recurring quest chain, that has you flashback into this Naga Battle-maiden's life, to give you insight as to what the Naga are actually trying to do in the zone. Helps break up the 72 cave relocation quests you do. You seriously change cave bases like a dozen times. Lots of filler in this zone, that's a good way to put it.



Hyjal is the zone I am probably going to level in once Cata goes live, though I have a Druid Elf bias. Also, Malfurions new model is even more ridiculous in action.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on August 15, 2010, 04:56:40 AM
Oh look, Vanish is down to 30% now!  :oh_i_see:

I haven't *measured* this. I just know it rarely works for me. Definitely fails more often than not.

I agree about Hyjal being better than Vashjir, from the little I've played the beta. Vashjir as Horde didn't seem to have any kind of story or reason for being there other than "hey look new zone, do some quests". But ofc that might just have been because it wasn't finished yet when I was playing it a few weeks ago.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 15, 2010, 06:14:57 AM
Rogues are useless? Since when? Rogues regularly lead melee-friendly DPS parses in ICC. Also, he isn't ignoring shitty quests he's already done if his characters are both 70.

I said while levelling. At 80 with gear, yeah, rogues are great. Getting there? Fucking awful. What exactly is a rogues role in 5-mans before they get FoK? They do the worst DPS of any class, nearly always out-dps'd by the tank. They have very low survivability. Vanish works maybe 30% of the time. There's no need for CC any more. Not even a need for lockpicking chests.

And fair point about the questing, if you've not done the WOTLK levelling already then yeah, good way to level, just a bit slow and with crappy gear compared to being a tank or healer and running random dungeons.

I am in the process of leveling in WotLK as a rogue right now, and I find nothing you've said here to be true except for the comments about CC and lockpicking. Even without Fan of Knives I am beating most of the tanks and DPSers I'm up against (unless they're rockin' heirlooms, usually). Are my fellow groupmates terrible? Probably, but that's been pretty standard in my leveling up process. My survivability has been fine (I can't remember the last time I've died that wasn't an instance wipe), and vanish has worked for me nearly every single time I've needed it - which has not been very often, to be perfectly honest.

Do I have to eat or use bandages? Yep. But this hasn't been a slog by any stretch of the imagination.


EDIT: And I'm doing this entirely without heirlooms. I DO have a flying mount, though, which does make a difference in the getting-to-shit aspect of the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on August 15, 2010, 06:24:16 AM
Interesting, I wonder what I'm doing wrong then?

I'm combat specced, heirloomed out fully, even using buff foods and elixirs. Stuff dies in instance groups too fast for me to get more than 1 or 2 combo points on so it's all I can do to keep S&D up, almost never get to use a real finishing move except on bosses.

I'm always top of the activity chart in Recount, and bottom of the DPS chart. I also use bandages and food since, having played a lot of healers, I know how nice it is to have DPS that make some attempt to heal themselves.

What spec are you and what kind of rotation do you use, if you don't mind me asking?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 15, 2010, 06:43:29 AM
I'm combat, and I should probably stress that I am pretty sure I've had really shitty competition most of the time. Moon Guard's battlegroup is sort of dumb from what I can tell. I also may find it to be more of a problem in the mid 70's than the early 70's, I dunno!  :awesome_for_real: I use food but not elixirs because I am a lazy rogue that doesn't care. Anyway, my "rotation" on trash is putting SnD up at two combo points, then basically sinister striking anything I can hit. :P I also pop blade fury + killing spree whenever it's off cooldown (unless a boss is coming up in the next pull or something). Bosses are just getting SnD up, killing spree, then five point eviscerates.

It IS sort of weird how I've been doing pretty OK in instances in WotLK, because I was generally last of the DPSers in vanilla. I suspect it's partly because I was facing WAY MORE heirloom'd people + gettng way shittier quest rewards.

One place rogues do sort of seem to shine is when interupts are helpful. Or at least that's what I like to tell myself, since I'm the only person who bothers ever in my groups.


EDIT: Just to show how shitty my DPS competition can be, I have hit 1k-ish DPS as a highwater mark (I'm more often 800-900 over the course of an instance). I've had hunters (hunters! Who I see volleying!) at like ... 500 by the end. Maybe they're putting their AE circle no where near the actual mobs.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on August 15, 2010, 08:50:43 AM
I also may find it to be more of a problem in the mid 70's than the early 70's, I dunno!  :awesome_for_real:
My rogue was destroying things until about 68-69 and then only average until hitting the mid 70's, then started to really slow down on DPS compared to the rest of the group.  My rotation wasn't sucking or "doing it wrong" but my DPS was constantly the lowest of the 3 DPS if I had 2 competent DPSers in the group.  I was also not in blues, which probably didn't help me out either.  I don't know, other than lockpicking I didn't really care for my rogue that much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 15, 2010, 09:19:56 AM
Rogues and DKs are falling behind the curve right now because the majority of their skills are Weapon-Damage based rather than AP-based.  "Do x% of weapon damage + <modifier>"  is pretty common for both classes.   Sinister Strike, Plague Strike, etc.  They don't get the boost that Pallies, Wars, Shaman, Mages etc get from the stupidly-high endgame stats because the few skills they do have that use AP use such a small percentage of it when compared to spellpower or Pallie/ War's AP skills.

Why any of you are seeing it without being at the top is beyond me, though, unless you're using Heirlooms on your rogue.  Once you hit 70 they aren't always the best weapon for your level. (Not that it's worth farming the blues that are, just use 'em if you happen across them.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 15, 2010, 09:26:34 AM
My rogue, at ~40, could almost never top the other two dps simply because I had no AoE. Same with my spriest. My single target dps is very high, but I fall behind on AoE pulls.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 15, 2010, 10:03:03 AM
Who gives a shit about pre-max level DPS?  Hit your buttons and don't die.  There, you're better than 90% of the other DPS.

Interesting, I wonder what I'm doing wrong then?

I'm combat specced, heirloomed out fully, even using buff foods and elixirs. Stuff dies in instance groups too fast for me to get more than 1 or 2 combo points on so it's all I can do to keep S&D up, almost never get to use a real finishing move except on bosses.

I'm always top of the activity chart in Recount, and bottom of the DPS chart. I also use bandages and food since, having played a lot of healers, I know how nice it is to have DPS that make some attempt to heal themselves.

What spec are you and what kind of rotation do you use, if you don't mind me asking?

Do you have the right type of weapons?  If you're SSing with a daggers, I'm going to punch you in the groin.

SS spam.  Get SND up if you can. Make sure your weapons have a DPS poison on.   Use Killing Spree (GLYPH THIS) whenever it's up (not with Adrenaline Rush).  Bonus points if you use it with Blade Fury.  Use Adrenaline Rush whenever it's up.  Bonus points if you use it with Blade Fury.  Don't waste your time in stealth.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on August 15, 2010, 10:10:46 AM
Who gives a shit about pre-max level DPS?  Hit your buttons and don't die.  There, you're better than 90% of the other DPS.

This.  I was more concerned about max level/decent gear pvp performance and since it looks like hunter is going to be undergoing some mayor changes i think i'll stick with the rogue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 15, 2010, 10:24:50 AM
Stealth isn't particularly useful for combat rogues. Mine was sub, though, so I could PvP effectively if I wanted.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on August 15, 2010, 12:24:52 PM
I do pretty much exactly what you describe Sjofn. And get about the same DPS, 900-1000ish, putting me right at the bottom of the groups. I think we have very different battlgroups! And yeah, interrupting is what I have decided my most useful role in levelling 5-mans is.

I know it's only low level group stuff, but I like to feel useful! I suppose partly it's because I usually play healers, so I'm used to being the person most likely to rescue the group from a disastrous cock-up. Playing my rogue (who's 65 now) I often feel I could AFK for most of the dungeon and nobody would notice  :oh_i_see:

Interesting that you put DKs in with rogues Merusk, they're the ones who are usually top of the DPS in my groups, along with ret paladins, elemental shamans and afflic warlocks. But yeah, pre-80, it's all irrelevant really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 15, 2010, 02:32:21 PM
Merusk did say that DKs fall behind when mages and such obtain stupidly high stats from end-game raid gear. Didn't mention them at less than maximum level.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 15, 2010, 04:17:39 PM
No wonder you rogues are doing shitty dps, you're playing combat. Respec mutilate, especially if you have access to heirloom daggers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 15, 2010, 05:49:06 PM
Merusk did say that DKs fall behind when mages and such obtain stupidly high stats from end-game raid gear. Didn't mention them at less than maximum level.

Yep.   DKs are strong SOBs when other classes are at their weakest.. which only hurts the class because when leveling or in early PVp all you hear is "Fuck they're OP." 

The way Blizz explained it a few months ago is that there's certain classes that start strong then dwindle as gear progress, others that do the opposite and others that start mid-pack but never fall behind.   They listed DKs as a class that starts off strong at low gear levels and but dwindles as things increase.  Fury wars were on the opposite along with mages and I don't recall the "middle of the pack" example.  The post indicated this was "as intended" but I think it's a lousy design if it is indeed the case the case and the post wasn't just them trying to cover for the imbalances.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 15, 2010, 08:13:28 PM
No wonder you rogues are doing shitty dps, you're playing combat. Respec mutilate, especially if you have access to heirloom daggers.

Combat dps is almost as good as mutilate, and actually better when there's a lot of target switching.  Plus, I personally hate the mutilate rotation.  Sub is actually my favorite spec by far for the actual fun factor, but the dps for Sub is horrible.  Blizzard only considers 3 specs to be broken for dps in pve, and Sub is one of them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 15, 2010, 08:29:07 PM
No wonder you rogues are doing shitty dps, you're playing combat. Respec mutilate, especially if you have access to heirloom daggers.

Combat dps is almost as good as mutilate, and actually better when there's a lot of target switching.  Plus, I personally hate the mutilate rotation.  Sub is actually my favorite spec by far for the actual fun factor, but the dps for Sub is horrible.  Blizzard only considers 3 specs to be broken for dps in pve, and Sub is one of them.

Sub is fun in PvP too, especially at lower levels. Dropping ambushes over 1k on level 20s is lovely.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 15, 2010, 08:29:48 PM
Combat dps is almost as good as mutilate, and actually better when there's a lot of target switching.  Plus, I personally hate the mutilate rotation.  Sub is actually my favorite spec by far for the actual fun factor, but the dps for Sub is horrible.  Blizzard only considers 3 specs to be broken for dps in pve, and Sub is one of them.
At low levels? Really? When I leveled my rogue I leveled combat pre-lvl 50, and had the same experience as people posting here: mediocre dps, barely outparsing the tanks, etc. I could barely hang with my girlfriend's holy priest while duoing ffs. When I respecced into Mut my dps doubled, easily, on quick fights because Mut hits so much harder than SS did.

Edit: added quote for clarity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 15, 2010, 08:47:35 PM
At low levels? Really? When I leveled my rogue I leveled combat pre-lvl 50, and had the same experience as people posting here: mediocre dps, barely outparsing the tanks, etc. I could barely hang with my girlfriend's holy priest while duoing ffs. When I respecced into Mut my dps doubled, easily, on quick fights because Mut hits so much harder than SS did.

PvP. My dps is always below everybody except other rogues in instances. It's the PvP I like. And a sub rogue would probably use Hemorrhage, not SS. SS hits pitifully with daggers, as I'm sure you know.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 15, 2010, 09:01:20 PM
Sorry, I was talking to Nevermore. I'll go throw a quote in to make it look better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 15, 2010, 09:03:38 PM
Sorry, I was talking to Nevermore. I'll go throw a quote in to make it look better.

Oops.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 15, 2010, 10:03:50 PM
No wonder you rogues are doing shitty dps, you're playing combat. Respec mutilate, especially if you have access to heirloom daggers.

Lazy combat rogue for life!

I've considered respeccing to mutilate when I hit 80 just to try it, but I like combat a lot. I want to marry killing spree.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 15, 2010, 10:06:02 PM
Mut is a pain in the ass for instances.  Having to rely on a minute long buff and needing stealth for optimum damage doesn't play out too well.   Combat is brain off, damage ON.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 15, 2010, 10:09:35 PM
mut is good for raiding since bosses don't die before you even get halfway into your rotation.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 15, 2010, 11:20:21 PM
Most of the rogue dps issues in leveling instances can be traced *directly* to not having any AE worth mentioning until late.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 15, 2010, 11:33:38 PM
Combat is brain off, damage ON.  :drill:

Exactly.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on August 15, 2010, 11:43:35 PM
Most of the rogue dps issues in leveling instances can be traced *directly* to not having any AE worth mentioning until late.

This is what it feels like to me. It's just the way people run instances nowadays.

Anyway, this is the Cataclysm thread, not the how-to-rogue thread, sorry for shitting it up! I am struggling to decide who I'm going to level when Cata launches. I don't think I can be arsed to 2-box level this time, too many of the new quest mechanics aren't conducive to it (vehicles, etc.), plus it makes random dungeon queuing impossible.

Think I'll alternate between a tank and a healer and a worgen and a goblin. Probably DK tank (she's a lot of fun), druid healer (he rocks, but I will mourn for tree form) and god knows what for the furry and the greeny.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 16, 2010, 12:50:24 AM
Yeah, I dunno what character to level first either. It'll be a tank, I just dunno which one. Not the warrior, because our guild has an embarrassment of tanking warriors, but otherwise it's pretty open.

Clearly I should punt and just level a goblin.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on August 16, 2010, 02:41:11 AM
Sorry for making a few necros here, but I didn't get to reply to most of the posts I made on the issues. Thankfully, I'm back now and have all the time in the world. In no particular order:

1. Holy shit you people have a lot of alts! I am one of those people that only really has one character (not including one crummy alliance pally I leveled to 80 just to see what the trip was like on that side). I blame achievements for this. As stupid as it is I find it weird to play on a toon who doesn't have Less Rabi, or The Lurker Below lol.

2. At Ingmar (or Sjofn...I forgot who it was I was discussing Bear tanks with): I'm kind of scared for bears in the upcoming expansion. They are a really hard spec to get right, and it's too easy to remember what bears used to be like to welcome any change. They are in a good place now, and I don't really want the rug pulled out from under them. Plus, if rage normalization gets screwed up, they will get hit twice.

3. I really like the new direction they are going with talent trees. I mean, take a look at the new ones, then look at the old bloated stretched out beasts and tell me what they are doing isn't a good thing.

4. Why all the hate for Hellfire?! As funny as it sounds, that is my favorite zone in all of wow. I mean, I have very found memories of running through that gate when BC first launched and laughing as all the old try hards screamed in general chat that the purple they had taken forever to farm from Ony was being replaced by a green dropped from some boar. Hyuk hyuk.

5. Regarding rated battlegrounds. I strongly suspect there is going to be a large scale segregation, where to get on a rated team you are going to have to be a certain class, with a certain spec, with certain gear, while on the other end you are left to queue normally with only the people who don't grasp that the position of the flag, and not their killing blows, is what determines a win. I just feels like the people in the middle are going to get screwed, and I just think the whole thing is a mistake. My fear is that it is going to end up exactly like arena.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on August 16, 2010, 02:49:45 AM
Bear tank is tempting just because I've never played one. DK tank is fun though... and she's a female undead which always makes me laugh when she's tanking. This skinny, frail looking bag of bones holding all the agro off of the giant tauren warriors in their shoulderpads the size of municipal transport vehicles  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on August 16, 2010, 09:36:42 AM
Some talent trees may look OK, but shaman seem to be lacking love in the "some". Well, maybe resto, but enhance is really looking like a soup sandwich so far. Bloat? Hah! It's nothing but bloat. Worse than it is now.

My DK is looking better and better. Blood tank? Could very well be come the expansion. Fortunately, I have 3 level 80 draenei, so I'm covered no matter which train goes off the rails. I hope.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on August 16, 2010, 10:33:23 AM
1. Holy shit you people have a lot of alts!

4. Why all the hate for Hellfire?!

These two things are directly related.   :grin:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xuri on August 16, 2010, 10:58:29 AM
I'm having a hard time trying to decide what to level up first in Cataclysm, my druid or my rogue. One one hand, having a tank/resto specced druid more or less guarantees 1 minute wait-times for random dungeons and such, and on the other hand, rogues can stab stuff in the face with two daggers. Also, there are fewer people playing rogues than druids (at least on my server). Hrm.

I haven't yet as much as glanced at the changes being done to druids and/or rogues in the expansion, I guess I should have a look before I make up my mind. :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 16, 2010, 11:20:39 AM
Hey, do Youtube playlists work in the automedia thingy?

Cataclysm playlist (http://tinyurl.com/267djet)

E: Apparently not. I'll turn it into an ordinary link.
E2: Oh FFS.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 16, 2010, 11:23:54 AM
So with this phasing that's supposedly all over, is my high-level main going to be able to see anyone in the lowbie zones without running around to do a bunch of lowbie quests?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 16, 2010, 02:17:27 PM
So with this phasing that's supposedly all over, is my high-level main going to be able to see anyone in the lowbie zones without running around to do a bunch of lowbie quests?


Probably everywhere but Gilneas. You won't see shit for lowbies in Gilneas.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on August 16, 2010, 02:18:41 PM
1. Holy shit you people have a lot of alts!

4. Why all the hate for Hellfire?!

These two things are directly related.   :grin:


(http://www.papermarc.com.au/images/met-sd_jupiter_red-lg.jpg)



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 16, 2010, 03:15:16 PM
So red's not your favorite color then?  

I still prefer Hellfire to the depressing blue swamp known as Zagarmarsh.   Nagrand definitely gets the "best of show" ribbon for that expansion, though.  That place is still my 2nd favorite zone in the whole game. (The first being Strath.. but it's an instance so I guess that doesn't count.)

My DK is looking better and better. Blood tank? Could very well be come the expansion.

I have no worries about blood tanking.  It's currently the strongest as it is and it's only going to be stronger with all the new toys it's getting. (I'll miss you, Bone Shield,  but not having to recast you all the fucking time.)   What I would worry about is Unholy falling behind dual-wield frost. (And I'm still not convinced 2h frost is going to be viable while dual wield is the tree's focus.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 16, 2010, 03:22:48 PM
The main problem with Hellfire is that its designed to be the very first thing you see of Blizzards first expansion.  It feels really awesome the first time, it introduces a bunch of new mechanics (like bombing runs, the PvP towers, etc).  But after you've done it like three times its just really heavy on travel time, the gimmick quests get old after you've done them a bunch, and so forth.  Then again, Terrokar Forest is way worse. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 16, 2010, 03:28:03 PM
The travel time really isn't bad now that you can fly there. The only quest I really dislike in the zone is Shizz Work.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 16, 2010, 03:29:29 PM
I have no worries about blood tanking.  It's currently the strongest as it is and it's only going to be stronger with all the new toys it's getting. (I'll miss you, Bone Shield,  but not having to recast you all the fucking time.)   What I would worry about is Unholy falling behind dual-wield frost. (And I'm still not convinced 2h frost is going to be viable while dual wield is the tree's focus.)

Last I looked bone shield got moved to blood, which made me curse, because I didn't want it because of the recasting thing. Did it change again? I've been mostly ignoring the talent trees because they're so very Not Done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on August 16, 2010, 03:35:38 PM
The main problem with Hellfire is that its designed to be the very first thing you see of Blizzards first expansion.  It feels really awesome the first time, it introduces a bunch of new mechanics (like bombing runs, the PvP towers, etc).  But after you've done it like three times its just really heavy on travel time, the gimmick quests get old after you've done them a bunch, and so forth.  Then again, Terrokar Forest is way worse. 

On the up side, Terrokar is easy to skip now. Hellfire's pain in the ass is that it's suffer through it or suffer through EPL to skip it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on August 16, 2010, 03:36:51 PM
Hellfire's pain in the ass is that it's suffer through it or suffer through EPL to skip it.
And if you do skip Hellfire you can't do any of the quests in Nagrand because of being unfriendly with the factions that reside there...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 16, 2010, 04:00:26 PM
Hellfire's pain in the ass is that it's suffer through it or suffer through EPL to skip it.
And if you do skip Hellfire you can't do any of the quests in Nagrand because of being unfriendly with the factions that reside there...

I pretty much liked all the OL zones on my 3 times through them. What I did NOT like was the quests that required an absurd number of kills. You had to slaughter a billion ogres in one quest(or 5) in Blade's Edge, and the Nesingwary quests were just stupid. Kill 30x3, TWICE, then a boss-ish beastie. I think they've lowered the number since I did it last, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on August 16, 2010, 04:06:52 PM
Watching people splat from a Fel Reaver was pretty awesome right when the xpac went live though.  That was fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 16, 2010, 04:16:21 PM
Watching people splat from a Fel Reaver was pretty awesome right when the xpac went live though.  That was fun.

It was that one that was bugged, it wouldn't make any noise or ground shaking. That one would always 'sneak' up on folk.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 16, 2010, 04:21:06 PM
I have no worries about blood tanking.  It's currently the strongest as it is and it's only going to be stronger with all the new toys it's getting. (I'll miss you, Bone Shield,  but not having to recast you all the fucking time.)   What I would worry about is Unholy falling behind dual-wield frost. (And I'm still not convinced 2h frost is going to be viable while dual wield is the tree's focus.)

Last I looked bone shield got moved to blood, which made me curse, because I didn't want it because of the recasting thing. Did it change again? I've been mostly ignoring the talent trees because they're so very Not Done.

Nope, still in Blood.  I'll miss it because I'm usually Unholy DPS and I loved the bone graphic and the DPS increase.  I'll fucking hate it when I'm tanking instances, because it's a pain in the ass to watch and manage as a tank (one of the reasons I stopped tanking as UH when it was still a viable tank spec.)

I just realized I'm talking like I'll be playing again. Fuck.  Means I'll probably reup in the next month. I'm doomed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 16, 2010, 04:42:21 PM
Watching people splat from a Fel Reaver was pretty awesome right when the xpac went live though.  That was fun.

It was that one that was bugged, it wouldn't make any noise or ground shaking. That one would always 'sneak' up on folk.  :awesome_for_real:

Tee hee, he never got me. And apparently my phone's new software update allows me to see the movement in you guys' profile pics!

And I just remembered my DK, a 4th char I went through OL with.. the Fel Reaver did get me once or twice on him.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 16, 2010, 05:48:49 PM
Hellfire's pain in the ass is that it's suffer through it or suffer through EPL to skip it.
And if you do skip Hellfire you can't do any of the quests in Nagrand because of being unfriendly with the factions that reside there...

I think that's only true as Horde, I believe the Alliance starts getting their Nagrandeer rep in Zangarmarsh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 16, 2010, 06:13:50 PM
Hellfire's pain in the ass is that it's suffer through it or suffer through EPL to skip it.
And if you do skip Hellfire you can't do any of the quests in Nagrand because of being unfriendly with the factions that reside there...

I think that's only true as Horde, I believe the Alliance starts getting their Nagrandeer rep in Zangarmarsh.


If you mean those Broken guys, then yea.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 16, 2010, 06:58:57 PM
Nope, still in Blood.  I'll miss it because I'm usually Unholy DPS and I loved the bone graphic and the DPS increase.  I'll fucking hate it when I'm tanking instances, because it's a pain in the ass to watch and manage as a tank (one of the reasons I stopped tanking as UH when it was still a viable tank spec.)

I just realized I'm talking like I'll be playing again. Fuck.  Means I'll probably reup in the next month. I'm doomed.
I'm following just to see how much they're changing the Blood Tank I enjoyed before my departure.

I still wouldn't get Bone Shield.  I dislike the graphic and trying to manage it as a tank seems odd since it was originally in a dps tree.  I suppose it has a use as an Oh Shit Big Damage Incoming clicky, but I despise clicky defense powers with a duration of a few hits.

They also moved Sudden Doom and changed it from an automatic free Death Coil cast to a no runic power one.  It was awesome paired with Heart Strike and increased damage glyphs and talents.  (And the times it proc'd off both Heart Strike hits was bliss.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 16, 2010, 08:10:58 PM
Hellfire's pain in the ass is that it's suffer through it or suffer through EPL to skip it.
And if you do skip Hellfire you can't do any of the quests in Nagrand because of being unfriendly with the factions that reside there...

I think that's only true as Horde, I believe the Alliance starts getting their Nagrandeer rep in Zangarmarsh.


If you mean those Broken guys, then yea.

Northern Zangarmarsh, Orebor Harborage or something like that is the first Kurenai settlement, for Alliance. At least.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 16, 2010, 09:28:35 PM
Hellfire's pain in the ass is that it's suffer through it or suffer through EPL to skip it.
And if you do skip Hellfire you can't do any of the quests in Nagrand because of being unfriendly with the factions that reside there...

I think that's only true as Horde, I believe the Alliance starts getting their Nagrandeer rep in Zangarmarsh.

I think you get Kurenai faction at Temple of Telhamat in Hellfire, actually.


If you mean those Broken guys, then yea.

Northern Zangarmarsh, Orebor Harborage or something like that is the first Kurenai settlement, for Alliance. At least.

I think our first chance to get faction there is actually the Temple of Telhamat in Hellfire?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 16, 2010, 09:34:45 PM
The Temple is Draenei faction still. The Horde has an actual quest series where you "discover" that hay there are still orcses that aren't demony here in Hellfire.

Outlands is a lot better as Horde story-wise imo.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xerapis on August 17, 2010, 11:42:30 AM
MMmmmm...CE details. 

Yummay~  :drillf:

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/cataclysm/features/collector.html


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on August 17, 2010, 12:05:52 PM
Interesting no authenticator


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on August 17, 2010, 12:41:52 PM
I think an argument can be made that anyone who would buy the fancy edition already has an authenticator.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 20, 2010, 02:48:58 PM
Sidekicking! (http://www.wow.com/2010/08/20/cataclysm-will-include-a-city-of-heroes-style-mentoring-system/)  Maybe.

I'll hold my breath for it right after they're finished putting in the dance emotes from WOTLK.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 20, 2010, 03:15:21 PM
Sidekicking! (http://www.wow.com/2010/08/20/cataclysm-will-include-a-city-of-heroes-style-mentoring-system/)  Maybe.

I'll hold my breath for it right after they're finished putting in the dance emotes from WOTLK.



Ooh, nifty.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on August 22, 2010, 08:31:09 AM
Well i went back to my rogue, went combat.  I must be doing something right because i was topping dps on the first random dungeon i did.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on August 22, 2010, 05:23:21 PM
Well i went back to my rogue, went combat.  I must be doing something right because i was topping dps on the first random dungeon i did.

Well now that i've been paying more attention i think this has to do a lot more with me being in top of the line level 70 epics and most people ive grouped with being in leveling gear or heirlooms if i'm lucky.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 22, 2010, 07:10:00 PM
I didn't replace some of my 70 epics till 80.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on August 23, 2010, 11:15:18 AM
I didn't replace some of my 70 epics till 80.  :awesome_for_real:

This.

I was still in about 90% of my ZA/T5 gear when I hit 80. It was very rapidly replaced after that, but it served well in the leveling process. I did notice my S2 axes were getting seriously weak around 78, but 78-80 was only a few days of gameplay and I had the BS mace and a plan (Knight's faction offhand) waiting for me when I hit 80. The heroic grind and faction work had the rest mostly gone in a week. Somewhat tellingly, my Stonebreaker's totem held on until...man, Ulduar? Don't recall precisely now, but I had it a long time past 80. The enhancement shaman relics were just that bad. Typical.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 23, 2010, 11:25:49 AM
I think this next iterations content release in Cataclysm will be a much harder slap in the face than the last one. In the last one you could hold onto gear for longer. I'm thinking this will be more like TBC where you were replacing full T2 sets with 74 greens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 23, 2010, 11:31:37 AM
I think this next iterations content release in Cataclysm will be a much harder slap in the face than the last one. In the last one you could hold onto gear for longer. I'm thinking this will be more like TBC where you were replacing full T2 sets with 74 greens.

Well, part of the issue was that for a long of people the tier gear sucked for leveling to begin with, but it was common to keep Naxx or later AQ40 gear all the way up to 70, or at least the high 60s.  Tier 2 gear would be equivalent to Ulduar kill now, basically mid-level epic gear.  Of course then, having T2 was a lot more of an accomplishment than having Ulduar level epics is now, so it definitely felt more jarring then I think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 23, 2010, 11:34:25 AM
I think this next iterations content release in Cataclysm will be a much harder slap in the face than the last one. In the last one you could hold onto gear for longer. I'm thinking this will be more like TBC where you were replacing full T2 sets with 74 greens.
There was a pic from somewhere in the alpha that showed a L82 quest green 2-hander in comparison to Shadowmourne. Let's just say that it didn't exactly encourage anyone still working on the axe questline.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 23, 2010, 11:39:50 AM
Yeah, and the crafted items pretty much faceroll anything you could be carrying around right now as well. We're not even talking about good dungeon drops.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 23, 2010, 01:35:34 PM
Sad that the best things of tooday will be poo tomorrow.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 23, 2010, 01:38:45 PM
Sad that the best things of tooday will be poo tomorrow.

First off, today.  Not twoday or tooday...or even 2day. 

Also, welcome to three years ago, anyone that didn't see this coming is delusional. "but just because it happened the last two times this time will be different, im not wasting my life raiding, really!"  Yes, you are wasting your life if you are raiding for items.  If you enjoy the challenge and comraderie, good on you but don't think for a minute what you do has lasting meaning. 

Not in this online game, not in any of them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 23, 2010, 02:00:14 PM
I've always felt that feeling slapped in the face when you get new better equipment is an awfully odd reaction to have in a game that is set up like WoW. That's kind of the whole point in a lot of ways.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on August 23, 2010, 02:04:31 PM
Expecting Blizzard to not almost instantly nullify all of your phat lewts from a previous level cap within a heartbeat after them doing it twice is silliness.

The only reason that Tier6 level gear lasted as long as it did for people was gem sockets and enchants. My T6 stuff all had epic gems in every socket and the best enchants available at 70 which added a lot (plus having a helm with a meta-gem meant keeping shit with sockets that was a little sub par). There were blue drops out of dungeons in the low 70s that were better by far as singular items. But they did not have gem sockets and I was not about to spend cash on enchanting levelling gear because I was a cheap ass.

Melee weapons had the biggest jump right away. Everyone I knew that played a melee character was replacing their BT/Sunwell Badge weapons with blues before they hit 75 because even without enchants, they were better damage. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 23, 2010, 02:38:35 PM
I plan on maxing out a dps set for my time in the grinding. When primordial prices drop on my server to ~250g I'm going to start buying so I can get my quest ax. I don't really plan on holding that for long, but it will provide the nice buffer I'll need for the early questing until I strap on my tanking gear and start pugging lowbie dungeons like a mofo. The tanking gear always lasted way longer than the dps shit anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 23, 2010, 03:40:58 PM
BC was a huge gear reset because they played with hitpoints.  They said this at the time and it proved true.  Mobs had more so you needed a weapon that did more, meaning epics were replaced quickly.  Since mobs had more HPs, they also rebalanced the classes "to make them closer" (sound familiar?) and so several classes got a lot more HPs.  If you level an alt you still see that jump from 60-61.

BC to WOTLK didn't see that kind of meddling, so epics lasted longer.  That brings us to today, where they're once again meddling with HPs and across-class health levels, which is bringing about the same level of gear reset.. a hard one vs a soft one.   Seems like any time they play with hit points you're going to get that hard reset.   

If you're grousing about epics not lasting into your 80s.. well, EQ1 is still out there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on August 23, 2010, 03:57:17 PM
All i know is that it's going to suck having to give up the 10 extra energy from my pvp armor set bonus when the time comes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 23, 2010, 06:19:18 PM
Sad that the best things of tooday will be poo tomorrow.

First off, today.  Not twoday or tooday...or even 2day. 

Also, welcome to three years ago, anyone that didn't see this coming is delusional. "but just because it happened the last two times this time will be different, im not wasting my life raiding, really!"  Yes, you are wasting your life if you are raiding for items.  If you enjoy the challenge and comraderie, good on you but don't think for a minute what you do has lasting meaning. 

Not in this online game, not in any of them.

I'm sorry my phone frequently adds letters I don't type if this upsets you so much. I miss it sometimes. Big deal. Camaraderie, btw.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 23, 2010, 06:38:24 PM
Is that why everything is a one sentence throw-away post?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 23, 2010, 06:53:45 PM
Is that why everything is a one sentence throw-away post?

Actually, yes. Several times I've been typing out something longer, got pissed at how many times I had to backspace, and just thrown it all out in favor of something shorter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 23, 2010, 07:37:54 PM
Yeah, that's helping your case.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 23, 2010, 07:43:41 PM
Is that why everything is a one sentence throw-away post?

Actually, yes. Several times I've been typing out something longer, got pissed at how many times I had to backspace, and just thrown it all out in favor of something shorter.

Like Porky Pig only text.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 23, 2010, 09:30:15 PM
Yeah, and the crafted items pretty much faceroll anything you could be carrying around right now as well. We're not even talking about good dungeon drops.

Yeah, the 85 crafted epics are sitting at item level 359 (!) and the random 80 greens have a bit more SP (1019) than the Heroic LK-10 or LK-25 weapons (~990).

As a fresh 80, going ~100 item levels from whatever you picked up at the end of Northrend to intro Cataclysm drops is going to be hysterical.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 23, 2010, 11:38:56 PM
Yeah, and the crafted items pretty much faceroll anything you could be carrying around right now as well. We're not even talking about good dungeon drops.

Yeah, the 85 crafted epics are sitting at item level 359 (!) and the random 80 greens have a bit more SP (1019) than the Heroic LK-10 or LK-25 weapons (~990).

As a fresh 80, going ~100 item levels from whatever you picked up at the end of Northrend to intro Cataclysm drops is going to be hysterical.
You mean like the way a non raiding 60 moving out of EPL / WPL and the odd bit of 5 man dungeon gear nearly doubled their health / mana pools and attack power / spellpower simply by completing the first 20 or so quests in hellfire and equipping the appropriate quest reward greens?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 24, 2010, 03:35:41 AM
The health change was an artifact of the different Stamina weights between expansions, but starting Outland greens were only item level 81 (http://www.wowhead.com/quest=10450) compared to the item level ~50 something of the items at non-raiding 60 might have gotten.

It's not really anything interesting since its main cause is the large spread of item levels covered this expansion compared to BC or Classic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 24, 2010, 05:50:36 AM
It's not just a reset. It's a nuclear bomb going off on your gear.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on August 24, 2010, 06:55:59 AM
So are you saying that WoW's mudflation rate has reached Zimbabwean levels?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on August 24, 2010, 07:13:22 AM
Hungary, #1 hyperinflation in the world!!!11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_peng%C5%91#Hyperinflation)  :why_so_serious:

Keep in mind that not only is gear getting a reset, stats are going to change too after you hit 81 (casters will needs spi and int, etc).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 24, 2010, 09:14:43 AM
Clearly a spoiler but this is by far the best quest I've seen in wow.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TotalHalibut#p/u/14/VvF1o1ObPr0



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 24, 2010, 03:02:44 PM
Hungary, #1 hyperinflation in the world!!!11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_peng%C5%91#Hyperinflation)  :why_so_serious:

Keep in mind that not only is gear getting a reset, stats are going to change too after you hit 81 (casters will needs spi and int, etc).

No, stats are changing with patch 4.0, whether you're 81, 80 or 5.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on August 24, 2010, 03:14:21 PM
So are you saying that WoW's mudflation rate has reached Zimbabwean levels?

Lol it's starting to feel like it. Tanks will most likely pass 100k health this x pac (hell I can do that on my bear in WG with like one stack of tenacity and throwing up Survival Instincts), I'm just waiting for some fully raid buffed and geared out cataclysm dps to start throwing around 100k crits. I mean, are they going to have to start tracking the bosses health in scientific notation? 'Oh yeah, death wing only has 1.023 X 10 to the power of 12 hit points left guys!'


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 24, 2010, 04:30:44 PM
Boss health will easily hit 100M+ in this expansion. We're probably one more expansion away from the first billion health boss.

At that point, I'm quitting.


Riiiiight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on August 25, 2010, 04:06:09 AM
Clearly a spoiler but this is by far the best quest I've seen in wow.

Yeah, it's good. Bet it will divide a lot of people as breaking the fourth wall or being too self-referential or some such crap though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 25, 2010, 06:23:23 AM
It goes so far through the fourth wall that I actually appreciate it.  The guy being on the star pony was biting commentary.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 25, 2010, 07:41:22 AM
Star pony coupled with Old Spice guy quotes was easily the best part of that whole quest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on August 25, 2010, 09:03:15 PM
I have  got to get myself a star pony after watching that  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on August 25, 2010, 11:46:34 PM
Haha very cool. I particularly liked the follow-up quest  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on August 26, 2010, 03:25:18 AM
So are you saying that WoW's mudflation rate has reached Zimbabwean levels?

Lol it's starting to feel like it. Tanks will most likely pass 100k health this x pac (hell I can do that on my bear in WG with like one stack of tenacity and throwing up Survival Instincts), I'm just waiting for some fully raid buffed and geared out cataclysm dps to start throwing around 100k crits. I mean, are they going to have to start tracking the bosses health in scientific notation? 'Oh yeah, death wing only has 1.023 X 10 to the power of 12 hit points left guys!'

I really hope they remove several 0s. I always made fun of Korean mmos and their big numbers. Now it feels like they are sane :)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 26, 2010, 04:49:08 PM
No more volley for hunters.   I wonder which dev got their panties in a bunch about being beat.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on August 26, 2010, 05:07:48 PM
No more volley for hunters.   I wonder which dev got their panties in a bunch about being beat.  :grin:

Wait, what?

They are removing the spell entirely because when they adjusted it to be useful they went a little overboard on WotLK?

It is not my fault that they made it have no cooldown and scale with AP and able to crit. Nor is it my fault that I would run instances when we hit 80 using nothing but volley and do 70% of the group's damage. :p



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 26, 2010, 05:11:08 PM
It probably doesn't play nice with a focus system rather than mana. I believe the intent is now for multishot to be the main AE thing for hunters.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on August 26, 2010, 06:29:36 PM
That's what they said.  Of course that's probably part of it.  Volley indeed doesn't really feel like a Huntard ability.  In reality, you know, explosive trap/volley was op.  So rather than do something hard, like fucking with aoe coefficients again, they're just taking that shit out and buffing multishot.  I hope they don't forget why they left multishot relatively unmolested this expansion, which of course was that when it was powerful enough to be part of a Hunter's rotation - he was too stupid not to break CC with it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 26, 2010, 06:38:50 PM
With the reintroduction of CC to dungeons it's going to be just like the old days once more! No groups for huntards!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 26, 2010, 07:01:20 PM
With the reintroduction of CC to dungeons it's going to be just like the old days once more! No groups for huntards!

I'm kind of sad for this.  One of the reasons random heroics are viable is becuase you can AoE tank everything.  Hopefully it won't be back on part with the harder BC heroics, because you seriously didn't want to go anywhere near a PUG for those things, especially when appropriately geared for them.   The ability to faceroll heroics might be lamented a little, but realistically speaking, its one of the things that has made this expansion by far the most accessible, its much harder for shitty players/idiots to ruin your run.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 26, 2010, 07:04:58 PM
They seem to be striving to make this expansion "BC pt 2, Electric Boogaloo"  so I'd almost not count on it not winding up that way.  Just my take on how things are going.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 26, 2010, 07:08:32 PM
Eh, hunters are like the one class that can CC *anything*, if anything an emphasis on CC will make them more desirable, not less. At least that's how I'll think of them as a tank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 26, 2010, 07:08:42 PM
I'd expect the Heroics to be like the ICC heroics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on August 26, 2010, 10:04:37 PM
Yeah, I think surv hunters are the best cc class in game atm. They have two universal CC abilities at range:
- freeze trap: nothing is immune to it (as long as it isn't immune to cc in general) except maybe water elementals; takes a few seconds to arm, but scatter shot can hold the mob in place for that; it can also be fired in the mob's path
- wyvern sting: reliable oh-crap cc that works on all everything not immune to sleeps
They can pull mobs off the healer with distracting shot and control aggro pretty well with feign and MD. They're also not as squishy as a caster (I've deterrence-tanked bosses before while the healer battlerezzed the tank) and have a pet which can sort of offtank. The only thing they lack is a spell interrupt (unless you use a nether ray pet, but that's on a long cooldown).

Now compare this to the CC abilities a shaman's or a warrior/DK's (frost spec has hungering cold, granted)...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 26, 2010, 11:51:31 PM
With the reintroduction of CC to dungeons it's going to be just like the old days once more! No groups for huntards!

I assume you mean "stupid hunters that manage to break their own CC" here. In which case, fuck 'em!

Of course, we will have a lot of hunters (and mages and warlocks and and and) who have no idea how to CC to start with, now. It will be exciting!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 27, 2010, 01:08:41 AM
He did say huntards.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on August 27, 2010, 02:29:14 AM
With the reintroduction of CC to dungeons it's going to be just like the old days once more! No groups for huntards!

I'm kind of sad for this.  One of the reasons random heroics are viable is becuase you can AoE tank everything.  Hopefully it won't be back on part with the harder BC heroics, because you seriously didn't want to go anywhere near a PUG for those things, especially when appropriately geared for them.   The ability to faceroll heroics might be lamented a little, but realistically speaking, its one of the things that has made this expansion by far the most accessible, its much harder for shitty players/idiots to ruin your run.

I am with Malakili on this. I really don't want it to go back to the BC days. A lot of the fun of the current dungeon set up comes from overgearing it; getting a shiny new purple and seeing huge numbers pop up as you AoE your way through UK or something. I really hope it doesn't go back to the days where competent dungeon runners are too few and far between, and many dungeons are just plain not done anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 27, 2010, 03:49:24 AM
Eh, hunters are like the one class that can CC *anything*, if anything an emphasis on CC will make them more desirable, not less. At least that's how I'll think of them as a tank.

Did you not run the difficult heroics in BC or something?  Hunter CC was only of marginal use because it was so short.  Even if they kited the mob while waiting on the CD, that meant their dps wasn't on the burn target.  Hunters in CC situations proved less useful than Mages, Rogues (or even Locks for some dungeons).   On my server it was quite common to see, "LF CC for Steamvaults/ Arcatraz, no hunters."  

With the reintroduction of CC to dungeons it's going to be just like the old days once more! No groups for huntards!

I assume you mean "stupid hunters that manage to break their own CC" here. In which case, fuck 'em!

Of course, we will have a lot of hunters (and mages and warlocks and and and) who have no idea how to CC to start with, now. It will be exciting!

We have a 44 page thread dedicated to idiots in a subforum of a small population website.  Which do you think is going to be more common in your PUG, a good CCing hunter or a multi-shot moron?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on August 27, 2010, 04:13:10 AM
I actually ran most 'hard' bc heroics (including magister's terrace; we didn't raid, so we only had blue gear and some pvp purples) with a hunter guildie. Freeze trap wasn't shabby at all with a group that knew how to use it, and she was always #1 dps. Bringing a hunter was better than bringing almost any other dps class / spec (except mage and - depending on the instance - warlock and RARELY shadowpriest). But that's moot now; hunter CC is a lot more powerful nowadays than it was in BC, especially for survival spec.

As for multishotting huntars: by that token we should include anyone else who carelessly spams aoe near cc'd enemies. Mages can living bomb near CC, warlocks can SOC near CC, melee can use their AOEs carelessly near CC, DKs can place d&d on top of CC'd enemies, stuff like that.

If any class is going to be greatly disadvantaged in cata wrt cc, it's dk / warrior (their only 'cc' is offtanking and in the DK's case zero-dps ghetto kiting) and the two 'CC king' classes are going to be mage and warlock, everyone else has some disadvantages when it comes to ccing. Shaman got the short end of the stick as well with a single humanoid/beast-only cc that has a longer recharge than duration, but it's still a lot better than it was in BC. Rogues still only have one sap, but they can at least provide some short-duration stuns / blind / gouge reliably.

edit: added some BC stuff


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 27, 2010, 05:25:32 AM
I actually ran most 'hard' bc heroics (including magister's terrace; we didn't raid, so we only had blue gear and some pvp purples) with a hunter guildie. Freeze trap wasn't shabby at all with a group that knew how to use it, and she was always #1 dps. Bringing a hunter was better than bringing almost any other dps class / spec (except mage and - depending on the instance - warlock and RARELY shadowpriest). But that's moot now; hunter CC is a lot more powerful nowadays than it was in BC, especially for survival spec.

As for multishotting huntars: by that token we should include anyone else who carelessly spams aoe near cc'd enemies. Mages can living bomb near CC, warlocks can SOC near CC, melee can use their AOEs carelessly near CC, DKs can place d&d on top of CC'd enemies, stuff like that.

If any class is going to be greatly disadvantaged in cata wrt cc, it's dk / warrior (their only 'cc' is offtanking and in the DK's case zero-dps ghetto kiting) and the two 'CC king' classes are going to be mage and warlock, everyone else has some disadvantages when it comes to ccing. Shaman got the short end of the stick as well with a single humanoid/beast-only cc that has a longer recharge than duration, but it's still a lot better than it was in BC. Rogues still only have one sap, but they can at least provide some short-duration stuns / blind / gouge reliably.

edit: added some BC stuff

Thats not especially the point (or at least not MY point).  I can hard BC heroics with 2 hunters some times because I had two of the absolute best hunters I've ever met in my guild and then were magicians when it came to getting mobs to do what they wanted.   If you need a 5 man group of guild members to do the more difficult ones (regardless of class), that kind of defeats the purpose of the random dungeon finder.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on August 27, 2010, 05:30:39 AM
Guild groups are always going to be better than pugs, that wasn't my point either. I was just saying that hunters were not bad at CC then (compared to most other classes), and they're even better off now.

If you want to mourn, mourn the dps warrior/dk/shaman/rogue.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 27, 2010, 05:40:53 AM
Guild groups are always going to be better than pugs, that wasn't my point either. I was just saying that hunters were not bad at CC then (compared to most other classes), and they're even better off now.

If you want to mourn, mourn the dps warrior/dk/shaman/rogue.  :awesome_for_real:


Maybe we were just having two different discussions.  I'm not mourning any class to begin with, I'm mourning the fact that I might not be able to do random dungeons anymore and feel confident that the experience won't suck.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on August 27, 2010, 09:09:03 AM
Maybe we were just having two different discussions.  I'm not mourning any class to begin with, I'm mourning the fact that I might not be able to do random dungeons anymore and feel confident that the experience won't suck.

Try random H:HoR much?  :grin:

The game has gone full retard on AoE, it really needs to be scaled back a bit. In almost all of the non boss fights my warlock is harmed in damage if I don't spam SoC on every single pull.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 27, 2010, 10:24:22 AM
I agree that the game shouldn't be a simple AE fest on every damn pull. However, I never want to go back to the days of requiring CC in every damn group just to get by. Every group was Tank, Healer, Mage, Lock, Other.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 27, 2010, 10:37:31 AM
A lot of it is due to the random dungeon finder being introduced so late in the expansions cycle. Right NOW we think it's an aoe fest because it's easy to go from fresh 80 to full toc level purples but it was a lot harder when naxx was the only thing out there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 27, 2010, 11:07:23 AM
Eh, hunters are like the one class that can CC *anything*, if anything an emphasis on CC will make them more desirable, not less. At least that's how I'll think of them as a tank.

Did you not run the difficult heroics in BC or something?  Hunter CC was only of marginal use because it was so short.  Even if they kited the mob while waiting on the CD, that meant their dps wasn't on the burn target.  Hunters in CC situations proved less useful than Mages, Rogues (or even Locks for some dungeons).   On my server it was quite common to see, "LF CC for Steamvaults/ Arcatraz, no hunters."  


We found it to be generally long enough to be useful. The only classes that had 'hand' over hunters for BC grouping in every instance were mages and arguably rogues, but I always liked trapping better than sap as a tank because you could re-apply it if everyone was gooning it up on the other mobs. The real classes that were getting shut out of BC heroics were dps shamans, warriors, feral druids, even warlocks and shadow priests, that sort of thing. The ones who couldn't do any kind of useful CC at all or who had CC that was too corner case to be reliable - "sorry DarkBob, there are no elementals or demons in this one for you to banish."

I mean yes, if you were going to do Shadow Lab suddenly the warlock was your best friend, but the trap was useful anywhere.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on August 27, 2010, 11:24:03 AM
A lot of it is due to the random dungeon finder being introduced so late in the expansions cycle. Right NOW we think it's an aoe fest because it's easy to go from fresh 80 to full toc level purples but it was a lot harder when naxx was the only thing out there.

Yeah.  I can remember wiping on Skadi several times and having to stop and plan things.  Or pulling and working on positioning for Trollgore in DTK to avoid the consume.  VH could screw you over if you got the "wrong" random bosses.  It took several tries and some luck with wave spawns in CoT to ensure the extra badge as well. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 27, 2010, 12:56:39 PM
Keristraza was difficult if people didn't jump or move to clear their stacks. The commander in Nexus was also difficult if you didn't pull him back far enough.

HoL was a nightmare all around: retards pulling the first boss while his lightning shield was up, people pulling hate and dying while training through the elementals, the big spear throwing trash leading up to Loken, and Loken himself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 27, 2010, 01:05:53 PM
I never found Nexus to be hard early on, and it was usually one of the more popular ones given the number of badges it dropped. Both Halls were awful for all the reasons listed.

In the early stages, when we first saw heroic Gundrak, we failed miserably on the snake boss several times. We didn't have the dps at the time to really crash through him before we would get overwhelmed by snakes or novas. Plus we were just doing it wrong.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 27, 2010, 01:34:37 PM
I was very lucky in BC. I leveled my shaman with one of the best warrior tanks I've ever seen. At 70, he could do pulls of 5 or 6 with no CC (and this was when even Thunderclap only hit 4 targets and Shockwave didn't exist) and he almost never lost aggro. That rare event would only happen when I frontloaded and got a double WF crit... but anyway, I never got left out for lacking CC because of him. Then I switched to healing, and facerolled Chain Heal for the rest of the xpac.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 27, 2010, 01:36:33 PM
I think the biggest boon to tanking ever was when Blizzard finally added Lucky Charms into their UI for marking. Fights like Garr used to take 15 minutes just to set up correctly for banish rotations.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 27, 2010, 01:38:30 PM
Eh, hunters are like the one class that can CC *anything*, if anything an emphasis on CC will make them more desirable, not less. At least that's how I'll think of them as a tank.

Did you not run the difficult heroics in BC or something?  Hunter CC was only of marginal use because it was so short.  Even if they kited the mob while waiting on the CD, that meant their dps wasn't on the burn target.  Hunters in CC situations proved less useful than Mages, Rogues (or even Locks for some dungeons).   On my server it was quite common to see, "LF CC for Steamvaults/ Arcatraz, no hunters."  

He had me. I was survival spec, and I was awesome.  :grin: Back then as survival, my trap cooldown would be up juuuuust about the time it was wearing off. It certainly wasn't unusual to leave my CC'd mob until last, because I was better at keeping the mob in the exact same place than some of our mages.  :heart: If it was resisted, yes it absolutely sucked and not being able to reapply immediately was shitty, but I certainly was miles above any non-mage in terms of CCing. If I remember right, though, survival was not the favored spec back then, so that probably didn't help the hunter cause in general.

We have a 44 page thread dedicated to idiots in a subforum of a small population website.  Which do you think is going to be more common in your PUG, a good CCing hunter or a multi-shot moron?

I can't really weep for the people who suck continuing to suck, just in new and exciting ways. It is annoying when people dismiss you outright because of your class, but since I've played both a hunter AND a DK, I'm pretty well immune to giving a fuck about that as well by this point.

I don't really like how heavy the emphasis on AE EVERYTHING GO GO GO is in WotLK. I don't really want to go back to TBC either, but there is surely a happy medium somewhere.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 27, 2010, 01:42:51 PM
The happy medium is more large HP tank n' spank trash with some cool abilities, rather than 6 things in a pull every pull. They need to break it up better instead of just tossing more junk at you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 27, 2010, 02:15:31 PM
We found it to be generally long enough to be useful. The only classes that had 'hand' over hunters for BC grouping in every instance were mages and arguably rogues, but I always liked trapping better than sap as a tank because you could re-apply it if everyone was gooning it up on the other mobs. The real classes that were getting shut out of BC heroics were dps shamans, warriors, feral druids, even warlocks and shadow priests, that sort of thing. The ones who couldn't do any kind of useful CC at all or who had CC that was too corner case to be reliable - "sorry DarkBob, there are no elementals or demons in this one for you to banish."


Why the heck did you make a distinction of feral druids? What the shit was my Moonkin CC'ing in TBC?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 27, 2010, 02:17:58 PM
Nothing, because you were facerolling your paladin tank instead.


EDIT: Wait, I lied, you were cycloning whatever I just taunted.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on August 27, 2010, 02:33:22 PM
The happy medium is more large HP tank n' spank trash with some cool abilities, rather than 6 things in a pull every pull. They need to break it up better instead of just tossing more junk at you.

If they just stopped making every pull a social aggro pack that you either CC, AoE, or die to and let you split up packs it would allow for different ways of doing things.

After playing Aion where you could leash/split pretty much anything, I never ever want to play a game where you absolutely had to kill all 6 mobs standing near each other at the same time. That is not saying Aion was perfect by any means, but we could do shit with 2 empty group spots that you would never be able to do in pre-WotLK WoW (vanilla or TBC). It made me realize how much the static linking of packs in WoW (and the oh shit it's a wipe try to zone out! pull) was meh.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on August 27, 2010, 02:34:12 PM
Nothing, because you were facerolling your paladin tank instead.


EDIT: Wait, I lied, you were cycloning whatever I just taunted.

Only because typhoon hadn't been invented yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 27, 2010, 02:55:42 PM
Keristraza was difficult if people didn't jump or move to clear their stacks. The commander in Nexus was also difficult if you didn't pull him back far enough.

HoL was a nightmare all around: retards pulling the first boss while his lightning shield was up, people pulling hate and dying while training through the elementals, the big spear throwing trash leading up to Loken, and Loken himself.

I mean, MAYBE.  HoL was sort of hard compared to the rest, but even when I first got there, and even though I didn't get the game exactly at release, Naxx was still the only raid instance, so it wasn't like I walked into the face roll stage immediately,  I still almost exclusive did the "burn down Loken" strategy where you just spam heal everyone.  Then again, druid healing in 5man is kind of easy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on August 27, 2010, 03:49:46 PM
I remember his AoE blast one-shotting people, if they weren't topped off or they were a mage or priest, I used the "up and down the line" method quite a lot. A good druid healer makes a lot of difference though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 27, 2010, 06:58:27 PM
Nothing, because you were facerolling your paladin tank instead.


EDIT: Wait, I lied, you were cycloning whatever I just taunted.


You taunted what I cycloned! There wouldn't be an issue the other way around  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 27, 2010, 07:00:38 PM
I remember his AoE blast one-shotting people, if they weren't topped off or they were a mage or priest, I used the "up and down the line" method quite a lot. A good druid healer makes a lot of difference though.

Yeah, it could one shot people sometimes.  I always told the DPS, first AoE is on you (use suvivability cooldowns), second one is on me, and he should be dead before the third.  Even when it was the hardest it was still well worth doing for the badges.   Of course, I didn't pug more than a DPS or two most of the time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on August 27, 2010, 09:33:49 PM
I remember his AoE blast one-shotting people, if they weren't topped off or they were a mage or priest, I used the "up and down the line" method quite a lot. A good druid healer makes a lot of difference though.

Yeah, it could one shot people sometimes.  I always told the DPS, first AoE is on you (use suvivability cooldowns), second one is on me, and he should be dead before the third.  Even when it was the hardest it was still well worth doing for the badges.   Of course, I didn't pug more than a DPS or two most of the time.
Does a Hunter's Deterrence mitigate an AoE blast like that? I admit, for what's a particularly powerful skill, it's not one I'm called upon to use often.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 28, 2010, 12:51:08 AM
I remember his AoE blast one-shotting people, if they weren't topped off or they were a mage or priest, I used the "up and down the line" method quite a lot. A good druid healer makes a lot of difference though.

Yeah, it could one shot people sometimes.  I always told the DPS, first AoE is on you (use suvivability cooldowns), second one is on me, and he should be dead before the third.  Even when it was the hardest it was still well worth doing for the badges.   Of course, I didn't pug more than a DPS or two most of the time.
Does a Hunter's Deterrence mitigate an AoE blast like that? I admit, for what's a particularly powerful skill, it's not one I'm called upon to use often.
As far as i know, deterrence should completely prevent something like Lokens AoE.

I have always wanted to know if it is possible to prevent Saurfang in ICC from putting a mark on you by popping deterrence / iceblock.  I know rogues (if they are quick) can prevent themselves from being marked.  SInce the mark has a cast time (like 1 second or something), a rogue could vanish before the mark landed, and since the vanish caused you to no longer be a valid target, the mark never landed.  Always wondered if Iceblock / Bubble / deterrence would do the same thing, but no one i raid with is ever fast enough to try it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on August 28, 2010, 07:04:58 AM
Looks like i didn't really have to decide between rogue and hunter, i was able to transfer them to the same account, something i wasn't allowed to do before as they were under different names.  Yay for improved security! :)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 28, 2010, 10:16:58 AM
No, iceblock/deterrence/bubble can't avoid the mark. The reason rogues can is not using Cloak of Shadows, but using Vanish. The mage skill that would serve the same purpose is Invis, but because of the fade time it isn't nearly as useful.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 28, 2010, 04:04:38 PM
Now the Huntards can fret a little bit less: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=26560569308&pageNo=1&sid=1#7

Quote
Our current version of Multi-Shot has not target cap. It's a little like Fan of Knives.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 28, 2010, 04:10:41 PM
Nice. That fits well with hunters shaping up to be ranged Rogues rather than Mages in mail.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 28, 2010, 09:05:12 PM
I know similar sentiments have been expressed a thousand times over the last couple years, but there had better not be one single god damned "Ride a giant around! Isn't that awesome? You can't see around your own legs! Have fun killing 400 mobs with two buttons and then dying for reasons you don't really understand!" quest in the entire expansion. I'm not even humoring them this time, those will be insta-dropped.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on August 28, 2010, 09:11:42 PM
You died on the giant ride quest?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 28, 2010, 10:00:04 PM
Man, the giant riding quests were the only vehicle ones I really liked.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 28, 2010, 10:01:43 PM
The one in Sholazar with the 4 bosses that all do different shit, and the one guy has some near-instakill spell you're supposed to run away from, and blah blah blah. Like wow, yeah let me go look up each one of these guys and learn all their tricks, for some shitty random non-repeatable solo quest. Let me get really invested into this, this is worth learning.

Also I just can't fucking see around myself. I can either zoom into first person and feel like I'm wearing blinders, or have 50% of my screen occupied by a giant back and ass.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 29, 2010, 01:08:22 AM
There's a console command that lets you zoom the camera out farther, it is really handy in a lot of situations.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Console_variables#Camera


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 29, 2010, 03:00:09 AM
There's a console command that lets you zoom the camera out farther, it is really handy in a lot of situations.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Console_variables#Camera
Yeah, i have a camera range increase command hotkeyed to a macro that i hit every time i log in.  Problem is, at this point, letting us zoom out that far should be a base option, not an obscure command you have to manually enter every time you need more view distance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 29, 2010, 03:57:52 AM
You shouldn't need to redo it at all.  Either run TweakWoW (http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info13562-TweakWoW.html) or go to \World of Warcraft\WTF\Account\AccountName\config-cache.wtf and change/add these two lines:

SET cameraDistanceMax 25
SET cameraDistanceMaxFactor 2

The actual maximums for those two values are 50 and 4, but the game will just change them down to something equaling 50 when you log in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on August 29, 2010, 05:44:29 AM
There used to be a mod increasedcamerarange or something like that that made the changes and gave you an adjusted zoom slider.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 29, 2010, 12:07:06 PM
The one in Sholazar with the 4 bosses that all do different shit, and the one guy has some near-instakill spell you're supposed to run away from, and blah blah blah. Like wow, yeah let me go look up each one of these guys and learn all their tricks, for some shitty random non-repeatable solo quest. Let me get really invested into this, this is worth learning.

Also I just can't fucking see around myself. I can either zoom into first person and feel like I'm wearing blinders, or have 50% of my screen occupied by a giant back and ass.

I read this as "I'm bad at games"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 29, 2010, 02:27:08 PM
Nah.  I hated it with as much vehemence for the same reasons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on August 29, 2010, 02:46:41 PM
I'd also like to see fewer "gimmicky for the sake of gimmicky" dungeons. Especially with that bullshit vehicle mechanic. I'm thinking especially of Oculus and that Argent Tournament bullshit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 29, 2010, 03:06:32 PM
I must be one of the few people on earth who actually LIKED the occulus.  Was a nice change of pace from the same old same old.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 29, 2010, 03:13:56 PM
It's just a bit too hard for some people to learn those couple new buttons along with the z-axis. But yeah, the ToC jousting was shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 29, 2010, 03:23:04 PM
Oculus stopped being terrible when they put in vehicle scaling with gear; since then it's only mildly annoying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 29, 2010, 04:56:54 PM
I read this as "I'm bad at games"

That's because you're a cockholster.

There has been nothing in WOTLK with vehicles that was not markedly less popular than it's non-vehicle equivalents. From Blizzard having to bribe people into finishing Oculus, to looking at the battleground lists and seeing four Alterac Valleys popped versus one Isle of Conquest or less.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 29, 2010, 05:17:14 PM
I read this as "I'm bad at games"

That's because you're a cockholster.

There has been nothing in WOTLK with vehicles that was not markedly less popular than it's non-vehicle equivalents. From Blizzard having to bribe people into finishing Oculus, to looking at the battleground lists and seeing four Alterac Valleys popped versus one Isle of Conquest or less.

Indeed, vehicles are easily the biggest failure of the expansion.  The fact is (for me at least), I picked a class because I like playing that class.  Getting effectively dumped onto a new set of abilities and a gimmick quest to boot is utterly annoying.  Difficulty of the quests doesn't even really have anything to do with it.  Its just plain less fun than the "normal" stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 29, 2010, 05:51:51 PM
Oh, the new words I add to my vocabulary from this website. Cockholster, windowlicker, and more!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 29, 2010, 05:58:19 PM
I don't mind the Argent Tournament jousting dailies, because they break up the monotony that dailies otherwise are. However, those are only fun because they were well fleshed out: you do 3 days worth of "training" type quests, and the difficulty scales up gradually as you advance through the ranks of the tournament. By the last phase, they're not even difficult because you have considerable practice at them.

That said, I realize many people hate vehicles so I don't mind them existing only as optional, repeatable content. We don't need any more vehicle raids or BGs, kthx.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 29, 2010, 06:08:04 PM
Nah.  I hated it with as much vehemence for the same reasons.

That doesn't change what Lakov said!

OH SNAP

ICE BURN

ET CETERA

I didn't find the Sholozar thing too hard to figure out, but I did have to do a little trial and error and didn't fill with rage when I failed at first. I may have been feeling zen that day, as I haven't done that quest line since (I tend to do the opening Nessingwary stuff, by then I'm 77 and I run off to Icecrown or Storm Peaks.).

I like the Flame Leviathan fight, but if I have to give up that sort of fight to never, ever, ever have another Malygos fight, I am totally cool with that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on August 29, 2010, 06:30:19 PM
Malygos was fuckstupidly complicated by all kinds of ridiculous game mechanics thrown into one place.

Just thinking about how the ginormous dragon hitbox made my life hell on that fight makes me stabby a year and a half after I quit playing the game.





Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 29, 2010, 07:27:47 PM
That doesn't change what Lakov said!
I was wondering if one of you was going to take the bait. :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 29, 2010, 07:41:25 PM
I didn't find the Sholozar thing too hard to figure out, but I did have to do a little trial and error and didn't fill with rage when I failed at first. I may have been feeling zen that day, as I haven't done that quest line since (I tend to do the opening Nessingwary stuff, by then I'm 77 and I run off to Icecrown or Storm Peaks.).

Quest reward - (learning attempts * repair bill) = why bother?

I guess if I really needed one of the helmets it rewards... Or if I got naked before getting on the giant.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on August 29, 2010, 07:45:43 PM
It's just a bit too hard for some people to learn those couple new buttons along with the z-axis. But yeah, the ToC jousting was shit.

It's not a matter of difficulty, it's a matter of not fun. Also, I like playing my actual character.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on August 29, 2010, 07:49:21 PM

It's not a matter of difficulty, it's a matter of not fun. Also, I like playing my actual character.



This.  I, vehicles just totally disrupt the normal flow of the game for me, I like my druid and I don't feel like fucking around with some gimmick.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 29, 2010, 07:51:29 PM
I loved and will always love riding around on that storm giant in Zul'Drak. I like the vehicle stuff in general though, it is usually a nice change of pace and they space stuff out well enough that you're not always doing vehicle shit or whatever.

The only exceptions are Malygos, because OTHER people suck at it which turns the fight into a frustration party (seriously it is not that hard argh) and the Defender type quests (go pick up a guy and fly back to town - there's an Argent one in Icecrown and an Alliance one in Dragonblight that come to mind) because there's no real interaction in those other than 'fly to guy, pick up guy' and the return points are annoyingly far away - they just take way too long.

Pretty much every other vehicle thing is in the acceptable-to-quite-fun range imo.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on August 29, 2010, 08:14:01 PM
While I don't enjoy the vehicle stuff, I can handle it in terms of dailies which are optional (grizzly hills, argent dailies) or one-off like the giant. It shits me up the wall though when it's all-too-often in the random daily quests. With queue times I find I can get 2 runs in the morning before work. This morning, I got the tournament followed by a confused group in oculus.
Bleh


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 29, 2010, 11:00:05 PM
Or if I got naked before getting on the giant.

Hot.

I dunno, I cheerfully ignore repair costs at all times. Having to run back to where I was is the rage trigger for me. Quest rewards are also usually a "whatever" for me, especially now that running instances is soooo much easier to do leveling up. I'm not saying you're wrong for hating that quest, it's just not something that ever bothered me. I think I am way more tolerant of vehicle whatnot than most of the people here anyway.

Also,  :heart: Lantyssa.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 29, 2010, 11:34:01 PM
"I didn't know the fight mechanics before hand and thus had to pay a time penalty."

Sort of like dying in a single player game and going back to an old save?

I will agree, vehicles by and large sucked in wotlk, some though not all. However saying that encounters should all be facerolls with no possibility of failing? Cry me a river.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on August 29, 2010, 11:47:44 PM
There are things worth going to wowhead and learning the mechanics of in advance, and then there are non-repeatable world quests. Unless you're saying I should just go with the "payout minus couple of mechanics-learning repairs = lol" formula and bask in the warm glow of having jerked around for fifteen minutes for a reward of nothing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on August 29, 2010, 11:59:23 PM
See, I agree with you on the suckage factor, but I can much more easily get over it if it's a one-off non-repeatable world quest (or an easily-skippable daily)  than having them come up over and over again in random heroics.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to get shafted into some shitty random heroic pugs.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 30, 2010, 04:58:10 AM
I like the vehicle quests for the exact reasons are lot of you don't: it takes you out of your normal routine.

The raid ones were good because they gave me a small new skill set to master.  The solo ones are generally tuned to very easy and are basically a small puzzle in "How do these abilities interact with each other?" which I think's fantastic.  The Arthas quests are a great example of these.

Some are poorly done of course, just like there are lots of poorly done non-vehicle quests, but in general I think they were a good upgrade from the Bombing Runs of BC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 30, 2010, 07:20:24 AM
Yeah, I have no issue at all at being taken out of my class and into a vehicle for the most part. But I don't like it much in a group or raid situation (Flame Levi being an exception, I like that fight for some reason) because some people are completely terrible at anything involving a vehicle. Then their sucking usually has an impact on ME in a way I can't usually cover for (I have wiped so many goddamn times on Phase 3 of Malygos, waaaah), so then I go into a berserker rage and scare the cats.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 30, 2010, 07:40:09 AM
Malygos is undoubtedly the current low point of Blizzard's boss design. Since then, they made marked improvements to not pull those types of shenannigans again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 30, 2010, 08:32:44 AM
I really liked Flame Leviathan.  That was some of the last raiding I did, and I thought it was a blast.  I wish something like that was available on a more casual scale (although it getting into a FL farm group isn't hard).  I'm also quite partial to the vehicles in Wintergrasp.  I always had fun playing around with that.   They really need to make some sort of Goblin hosted demolition derby using what they've learned from both encounters.

The ride a giant/worm/bomber/possess-some-dude stuff always comes across as a bother.  I don't like doing them.  I prefer actual vehicles that control decently, don't fuck with the camera, or rely on interupt-or-die gimmicks.

I wouldn't be sad to see generally less vehicle fights in Cat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on August 30, 2010, 08:44:55 AM
I like the vehicles in Wintergrasp, Isle and Strand (BGs.)  Those seem well done and fun.

Leave them out of instances, raids, and dailies.  One time occurences in quests as you level up is fine.  Even as a daily though, I'll feel like I need to do it for the rep or money and it will become annoying over time.  I have the same problem with flight paths.  I'm tired of taking one over and over that circles around the town you fly from almost two times before actually heading to the destination.  That was cool once and only once!

As a side note, I was at BBuy this weekend and saw the box for Lich King.  I noticed they had flying vehicles in the Wintergrasp setting.  I seemed to vaguely remember they had planned that.  Am I right and they cut it out at the last moment before they changed the artwork on the boxes on the shelves?

They look like the gnome/goblin helicopters.  I'm guessing you would do bombing runs with them?  That sounds kind of fun too, but probably harder than hell to balance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on August 30, 2010, 09:02:00 AM
There are dailies in icecrown that have you do bombing runs in a variety of aerial vehicles.  Off hand, I remember at least three.  One starts on the ground, the others start on that hidden gnome town high in the air (has at least two, but I think there are more)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on August 30, 2010, 12:39:48 PM
It's just a bit too hard for some people to learn those couple new buttons along with the z-axis. But yeah, the ToC jousting was shit.

It's not a matter of difficulty, it's a matter of not fun. Also, I like playing my actual character.




Maybe not for you, but for the average pug... too much to handle.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on August 31, 2010, 06:33:59 AM
There are dailies in icecrown that have you do bombing runs in a variety of aerial vehicles.  Off hand, I remember at least three.  One starts on the ground, the others start on that hidden gnome town high in the air (has at least two, but I think there are more)

Yeah, I know about several dailies that use aerials, but this picture showed the buildings in Wintergrasp in the background.  I seem to remember them trying to have them there in early Beta maybe?  They took them out due to having trouble balancing things I think.  Hard to remember now. 

I'm thinking that would be a blast to use the planes OR be a gunner on the walls trying to shoot them down.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 31, 2010, 06:51:41 AM
I believe planes were tested, but they were removed because of lag issues for the most part. Also, I think they had a nasty habit of simply DCing people when lag got really bad, and then dropping them to their doom.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on August 31, 2010, 06:54:35 AM
I'm thinking that would be a blast to use the planes OR be a gunner on the walls trying to shoot them down.

I do vaguely remember that was the plan, but something did not work with them.

Planes would argue for the placement of the guns.  Some of them really don't make sense for their placement.

Though Isle has similar placement problems with the cannons, so that's probably a design feature rather than a holdover from an older iteration.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on August 31, 2010, 08:05:10 AM
There are dailies in icecrown that have you do bombing runs in a variety of aerial vehicles.  Off hand, I remember at least three.  One starts on the ground, the others start on that hidden gnome town high in the air (has at least two, but I think there are more)

Yeah, I know about several dailies that use aerials, but this picture showed the buildings in Wintergrasp in the background.  I seem to remember them trying to have them there in early Beta maybe?  They took them out due to having trouble balancing things I think.  Hard to remember now. 

I'm thinking that would be a blast to use the planes OR be a gunner on the walls trying to shoot them down.

Sorry, you definitely typed "Wintergrasp" but my feeble reading skills said "Icecrown".

Agree, that does sound like fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on August 31, 2010, 11:38:44 AM
The absolute worst vehicle combat quest experience was on my hunter.  It's the one where you jump from wyvern to wyvern killing blue people, and you have to kill 7 of them.  Using melee.  Without a pet.  And of course I hadn't bothered to level my melee weapon because, you know, HUNTER.   On the other hand, I thought this was the best quest ever when I did it on my paladin.

I think my poor daughter never finished that quest on her hunter.

Edit:  Just a quick edit to point out that this quest isn't exactly avoidable, since it's part of a chain that is a pre-req to do an honor grind with a faction that is pretty much required in order to raid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 31, 2010, 12:04:31 PM
But the problem with that was the whole archaic weaponskill stat that Blizzard is ditching in Cataclysm, not the quest itself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on August 31, 2010, 12:09:12 PM
But the problem with that was the whole archaic weaponskill stat that Blizzard is ditching in Cataclysm, not the quest itself.

True, but it was still painful for my hunter even at max weapon skill.  It took forever as Marksmanship spec.  Love the quest on every other class (yes, I've done them all.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 31, 2010, 04:18:58 PM
I didn't find it to be a problem on mine, she also had a decent weapon skill. Survival spec though. Survival is awesome at everything.  :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 31, 2010, 08:33:24 PM
It wasn't real fun as a Moonkin, since I had to be in Elf form to ride the drake.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 31, 2010, 09:41:28 PM
Eh, melee, moonfire, insect swarm, wrath once or twice and they die


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 31, 2010, 10:00:45 PM
The dots are a waste of time, spam wrath, next.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 31, 2010, 10:06:05 PM
It wasn't real fun as a Moonkin, since I had to be in Elf form to ride the drake.

I managed it with my elf form feral druid without it being a blip on my annoyance radar, so I can't imagine it was that much worse as a moonkin.  :grin:


EDIT: I could SWEAR on at least one of my characters it had some sort of fail defense though, I got some message about my unconventional (read: shitty) fighting style threw my opponent off balance, knocking them off the drake. Maybe it was on Jassan!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 01, 2010, 12:36:28 AM
http://soundcloud.com/chaud-1/sets/cataclysm-character-narration


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 01, 2010, 01:14:00 AM
It makes my head hurt that the Blood Elves and Draenei are going to hear that speech, then get dropped into their chronologically displaced starter zones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 01, 2010, 01:24:07 AM
Aren't their starter zones in... you know... the world that's getting revamped?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 01, 2010, 04:59:28 AM
As far as I know they've done fuck all to those two starter zones, and that's the way it's going to stay.


EDIT: Even if they DO revamp those zones, which I don't think they plan to, Outlands is still a giant WTF now. And it was already pretty wtf for the Alliance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 01, 2010, 01:17:02 PM
Yeah the TBC content isn't being touched last I heard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 01, 2010, 02:37:16 PM
The Draenei and BE zones have some new Flight Points, that's about it.

Maybe one or two quests have different dialogue, I only did 1-10 quickly to take a gander.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 01, 2010, 02:44:44 PM
Really the BE starter zone could be half assed with mostly new quest text, but the draenei one is a lot more specific.

The Forsaken intro made me laugh, it's a lot more defensive than the current one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 03, 2010, 02:09:15 PM
I've come up with the solution to stupid-ass vehicle quests. Skip the vehicle, run down there and cockpunch that three-hundred foot tall 80 elite the old-fashioned way.


The ground slams were worth a good 18k damage, but you can run under him to avoid them. The normal attacks were nothing special. I wish I remembered to swap out of crusader aura, but with 300k health my ret aura wasn't going to make much difference anyway.

BUT I JUST DUN LIKE VEHICULS CUZ ITS TOO HARD. HUR HUR.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on September 03, 2010, 02:35:22 PM
Any class with self-heals at 80 is able to do that quest that way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on September 03, 2010, 02:42:05 PM
Any class with self-heals at 80 is able to do that quest that way.
I want self-heals. Potions, trinkets, and bandages do jack and shit.

At least I can heal my pet. Although I'm still confused about autocasting pet skills and the pet bar. I can't ever figure out why we have limited pet bar room, but can click things to autocast for pets out of the spell book.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on September 03, 2010, 02:58:11 PM
A hunter being able to heal at all makes no sense. Accept your non-class-ability means of doing so  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 03, 2010, 03:26:07 PM
Any class with self-heals at 80 is able to do that quest that way.

I'm sure. Once you figure out that him about to smash the ground in front of him means you should avoid being in front of him, it's easy. And I'll grind down a million elites by hand before I sit around going "hur hur what abilities does this giant worm have" or whatever ever again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 03, 2010, 04:07:08 PM
Any class with self-heals at 80 is able to do that quest that way.
I want self-heals. Potions, trinkets, and bandages do jack and shit.

At least I can heal my pet. Although I'm still confused about autocasting pet skills and the pet bar. I can't ever figure out why we have limited pet bar room, but can click things to autocast for pets out of the spell book.

Originally you couldn't use anything in the spell book, only what was on the pet bar.  Apparently coding the UI to work or display differently would be some Herculean task not worth the effort.  Much like adding more pet slots (only 3 and no more!) or the ability to swap pets without having to go to a city was for years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 03, 2010, 04:22:20 PM
I've come up with the solution to stupid-ass vehicle quests. Skip the vehicle, run down there and cockpunch that three-hundred foot tall 80 elite the old-fashioned way.


The ground slams were worth a good 18k damage, but you can run under him to avoid them. The normal attacks were nothing special. I wish I remembered to swap out of crusader aura, but with 300k health my ret aura wasn't going to make much difference anyway.

BUT I JUST DUN LIKE VEHICULS CUZ ITS TOO HARD. HUR HUR.

Why Seal of Wisdom and Judgment of Justice you baddie?

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on September 03, 2010, 04:31:32 PM
Hey man, if that thing turned to flee it could have trampled innocent civilians!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on September 03, 2010, 04:54:47 PM
The absurdity of fighting a COLOSSUS as a little human. Not just a colossus, but a metal one. You are not Kratos. Seriously, what can you do to it? Hack its colossal toe? I hear if you hack a giant being's iron toe enough it falls over dead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 03, 2010, 05:07:48 PM
But fighting a giant dragon with 10-40 tiny humans makes sense? Hell, metal colossi make sense?  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on September 03, 2010, 05:21:12 PM
At least a dragon is flesh... and I think 40 humans could overwhelm one dragon, it just wouldn't be a long fight with no human death. The first few in the charge would get munched  :awesome_for_real:

There would be no *slice her face 1000 times, she flies, she lands, slice her more, she dies* though. But if combat was realistic it wouldn't be very fun, right?? LK would be hacked to pieces rather quickly, and an iron colossus would be almost unstoppable, stepping on anyone in its path!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 03, 2010, 05:25:41 PM
You are assuming the Dragon would ever bother to even land!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 03, 2010, 06:09:07 PM
Why Seal of Wisdom and Judgment of Justice you baddie?

 :why_so_serious:

Eh. If someone had told me that I could avoid the smash every single time and that it didn't have any other tricks it could do, I'd have gone with something else. As it was, I ate a smash early on, burned up my whole mana bar healing, and figured I may as well play it safe. JoJ is just on there because I'm so used to mashing it in PVP that I hit it before I realize what I'm doing.

Really I ran in expecting to get smushed by some sort of cheap "No this is a VEHICLE quest assbutt, go get on your vehicle!" one-shot attack anyway. It was pretty fun though, especially after all the quests hyping it up as an invincible army-crushing weapon of doom.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 03, 2010, 06:44:22 PM
The absurdity of fighting a COLOSSUS as a little human. Not just a colossus, but a metal one. You are not Kratos. Seriously, what can you do to it? Hack its colossal toe? I hear if you hack a giant being's iron toe enough it falls over dead.

It's like tank versus mech.

I've soloed this guy (http://www.wowwiki.com/Arzeth_the_Merciless) on my paladin at level 60ish without using the gimmick wand, and the fucking thing didn't give me quest completion.  Dis kid was pist.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 03, 2010, 11:46:38 PM
Yeah, I always get a chuckle out of the idea of Gnome Warror Tanks in particular, tanking bigss raid bosses in game.    Nothing says WTF more then trying to picture someone 3 feet tall, with a shield that is practically taller then he is, who is literally the same size as one of the dragon's claws, attempting to "tank" a dragon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 04, 2010, 12:05:58 AM
Yeah, I always get a chuckle out of the idea of Gnome Warror Tanks in particular, tanking bigss raid bosses in game.    Nothing says WTF more then trying to picture someone 3 feet tall, with a shield that is practically taller then he is, who is literally the same size as one of the dragon's claws, attempting to "tank" a dragon The Beast (http://www.wowhead.com/npc=10430#abilities).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on September 04, 2010, 08:28:21 AM
But if all the dragon could do was breathe on you, she'd get a sore throat!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 05, 2010, 03:51:40 AM
Between the specter of rated battleground trade pugs being the new standard for PVP, the new balancing system potentially locking the more populated faction out of world battles, all the "more than 1 or 2 world mobs kill anyone and dungeons are all about CC" talk, and talent trees being cut down to 31 points again, I'm just really not feeling this expansion anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on September 05, 2010, 06:08:43 AM
Between the specter of rated battleground trade pugs being the new standard for PVP, the new balancing system potentially locking the more populated faction out of world battles, all the "more than 1 or 2 world mobs kill anyone and dungeons are all about CC" talk, and talent trees being cut down to 31 points again, I'm just really not feeling this expansion anymore.

Outdoor mobs? I got into the beta a few days ago, transferred my DK tank over, and I regularly round up 5 or 6 mobs at a time for the kill X quests. His health bar hardly moves. Death strikes easily keep up with the incoming damage.

He is doing this in tank spec/gear so if you're a non tank YMMV.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 05, 2010, 06:27:31 AM
What level are you?



The mob damage scales up dramatically around the 83+ range.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on September 05, 2010, 06:47:42 AM
What level are you?



The mob damage scales up dramatically around the 83+ range.

The DK is 81.

It would have to scale up drastically to force single pulls. I've yet to try his DPS spec since he kills things so fast and takes so little damage in tank spec.





Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 05, 2010, 09:27:06 AM
It does. At 83+. Mob HP roughly triples and their damage roughly quintuples is my guess. There is a huge iLvL jump in gear from the Vashjir/Hyjal quest rewards and what you get at Deepholm.


A tank DK can probably handle 2-3 without to much difficulty still thanks to high armor and self healing, but it won't be like how it is on live where you enter/exit a fight with 100% health. You'll have to use cool downs and you'll probably have to rest before the next pull.

My Moonkin is pretty comfortably in the 2-3 range, thanks to CC/Armor/Heals, but I don't purposefully pull multiples anymore. I'll pop 1-3 lifeblooms every other mob as required and be on my merry way. But the idea of walking into a mob spawn, smashing starfall to pull every mob in 40 yards and AEing them all down? That is completely gone.


Some specs can barely handle 1 mob at a time currently, due to a lack of armor or self healing or just plain sucking due to beta changes.. I hear fury warriors are currently total garbage, can't even handle a single even con without it being a 10% health left nail bitter every pull. Mages and Priests are having issues, I think warlocks are handling it better then the other clothies though. Non-BM hunter pets apparently have a very short life span too.


It's really funny to watch a Ret Paladin dive into 5 mobs, fully expecting said mobs to just explode like they would on live, then see him have to bubble and run before he can bring the first mob to half life. Enhance Shamans are guilty of this too, just diving into shit without any sense of what they are actually taking on. It's always these two specs that seem to do this, they can mow down 1-2's non-stop all day, but once they get that 3rd or 4th mob on them, they just crumple.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on September 05, 2010, 10:02:57 AM
Between the specter of rated battleground trade pugs being the new standard for PVP, the new balancing system potentially locking the more populated faction out of world battles, all the "more than 1 or 2 world mobs kill anyone and dungeons are all about CC" talk, and talent trees being cut down to 31 points again, I'm just really not feeling this expansion anymore.
The talent tree thing is welcome to me really. Like half of each tree was "spend 1 point to get 1% more damage" so cutting that shit out kinda helps.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on September 05, 2010, 10:14:44 AM

It's really funny to watch a Ret Paladin dive into 5 mobs, fully expecting said mobs to just explode like they would on live, then see him have to bubble and run before he can bring the first mob to half life. Enhance Shamans are guilty of this too, just diving into shit without any sense of what they are actually taking on. It's always these two specs that seem to do this, they can mow down 1-2's non-stop all day, but once they get that 3rd or 4th mob on them, they just crumple.


Actually, it's been this way all along for enhance (can't speak for ret, since I hardly play them). Once you were geared (say il219+), you could start to do silly shit like pull 6+ cultists out at the tournament or smackdown Chillmaw and co. solo, but mostly you were in trouble if you got more than 1-2 adds. Enhance always excelled at a quick, steady playstyle. You do have some CC, what with hex and wolves. With what little AoE they had now gone, they're back to the core playstyle. Once we overgear the quest content, then I'm sure silliness will reassert itself. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 05, 2010, 11:29:53 AM
That sounds like every expansion to me, Fordel, when I compare it to my non-raid-geared alts.  Hellfire in BC was still that way for the warrior I dragged through it 4-5 months ago when I decided to finally move her on from the Bank Alt status I'd placed her at the end of vanilla.   Heading through the Outlands content I was regularly upgrading stuff but never was at a point I could take on more than 2 mobs at once, regardless of what spec I tried.   I recall blowing through stuff on my raid priest and hunter that had BWL gear, right up until post-Nagrand.

The same thing happened in Northrend. The Hunter and priest in Hyjal/ BT gear had little to no problems doing things, while my rogue struggled with more than a duo of mobs. (The War stopped at 71 but had the same problem. The DK we'll just ignore because they were stupidly powerful.)

So the biggest change, from what I'm hearing, is that what used to only be a challenge for the "plebes" because they didn't have access to gear beyond the 1st or 2nd raid now becomes a challenge for everyone.  No more cruising through on your high-tier raid purples until the last few levels.  It's just coming as a shock to people who were used to seeing raid-geared folks blow past content in the previous 2 expansions and are now wondering why they can't do the same.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 05, 2010, 03:00:46 PM
Between the specter of rated battleground trade pugs being the new standard for PVP, the new balancing system potentially locking the more populated faction out of world battles, all the "more than 1 or 2 world mobs kill anyone and dungeons are all about CC" talk, and talent trees being cut down to 31 points again, I'm just really not feeling this expansion anymore.
The talent tree thing is welcome to me really. Like half of each tree was "spend 1 point to get 1% more damage" so cutting that shit out kinda helps.

Yeah, I do hope though, that they keep the passive abilities and just make 1/1 the same as the many 5/5 we have now, rather than add too many new active abilities that need button-mashing. I'm out of space on my hotbars as is.

Also, how lovely to see that the playstyle my wife and I favour is not only encouraged in Cata, but mandatory, since we'd be shredded if we tried to solo the solo content instead of duoing it.  :oh_i_see: Hopefully they do a bunch more balancing, since what's been posted here seems a touch painful.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on September 05, 2010, 03:56:51 PM
What fun, I'll have to eat and drink after every pull  :uhrr:

And watching my mana in raids?! Heaven forbid!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 05, 2010, 04:49:10 PM
There is certainly the whole "your raid gear is virtually useless, so you suck like everyone else" factor to it, but the mobs are just plain meaner over all too. They usually have some kind of special ability that you'll have to avoid or double your down time, not a huge ordeal or anything, but you really need to not stand in their fire and back out of their flurry strikes or whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 05, 2010, 05:53:26 PM
I don't wow to be cock-stabbingly hard but I've actually been getting really bored with how easy the game is sometimes especially when soloing. I might as well be asleep for most of it, heroics included these days.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 05, 2010, 07:54:48 PM
OTOH, I like WoW because it's simple and easy to play. If I wanted to play something painful, I'd go back to EQ, or if I wanted painful grind, LotRO. When I get home from work I want to relax.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 05, 2010, 09:51:10 PM
OTOH, I like WoW because it's simple and easy to play. If I wanted to play something painful, I'd go back to EQ, or if I wanted painful grind, LotRO. When I get home from work I want to relax.

There's a difference between killing 10k group required foozles to level and killing a few hundred hard ones solo, in both time and painfulness.  HUGE difference.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 05, 2010, 10:16:46 PM
Sure, but there is also a big difference between needing to be on your toes for every single "solo"'trash/quest mob vs relaxing and not needing to.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 06, 2010, 11:21:53 AM
Dark Simulacrum is hilariously exploitable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flmC1bBd0nI


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on September 06, 2010, 01:20:19 PM
Considering it says "single-target" most of the AOEs shown (Tranquility, Hurricane, Healing Rain) are bugs.  The NPC abilities are just going to get tweaked down or removed since that's in the ability text as well.  Also, beta.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on September 06, 2010, 09:42:46 PM
The absurdity of fighting a COLOSSUS as a little human. Not just a colossus, but a metal one. You are not Kratos. Seriously, what can you do to it? Hack its colossal toe? I hear if you hack a giant being's iron toe enough it falls over dead.

It's like tank versus mech.

I've soloed this guy (http://www.wowwiki.com/Arzeth_the_Merciless) on my paladin at level 60ish without using the gimmick wand, and the fucking thing didn't give me quest completion.  Dis kid was pist.


I did that on my shammy >.< if you soloed Overlord Arazzius or however it's spelled, I'd be imppressed..


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 06, 2010, 11:28:37 PM
I have before, actually.  Wish I had the screenshots to prove it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 07, 2010, 12:55:59 AM
The guy from Cruel's Intentions? Solo'd that on my blood DK; that was in 3.0 though, before the nerfbat. The key is to kick his Infernal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on September 07, 2010, 06:43:29 AM
Azzazius by the broken in the SW corner of the zone is not that rough.  Cruel Intentions though.  That is rough.  I've only managed to solo it twice with DKs.  The first time was pre-nerf bat swings and was cake.  The second was recently.  That I had to wait until I was 63 in a blood DPS spec.  I did have to blow all of my CDs though.  The key I found was interrupting the pyroblast cast as late as possible and then Death Strike to victory. 

The Horde version of Drill the Drillmaster, The Foot of the Citadel (http://www.wowhead.com/quest=10876) is a real bitch though.  The Alliance version is a single 30k elite.  The horde version doubles it to two of them and the second comes with a pair of 11k hp guards.  That took me about 4 tries, consumables, all of my CDs and a healthy dose of luck.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on September 07, 2010, 06:58:26 AM
Fordel's post and this recent  Have me kind of worried about the direction of things.

 (http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/26725672943/lvl85-h-paladin-numbers-abilities-thread/blue post[/url)
Quote from: Ghostcrawler
Almost every "Wow, things are hard" thread I have read on this and other forums are a direct result of not having Uldum and Twilight gear yet. We thought long and hard about whether it was a good idea to bump the level cap without that gear in place. In the end, we thought it was worth getting feedback on the quest design and some of the encounter design. But encounter balance is enormously dependent on having the right gear. Just keep that in mind. Things will feel better when you have ugrades available.

  They seem to have forgotten that prior to the Tournament, heroics, while not cockstabbingly hard, were a challenge.  There were definitely heroics to be skipped as not worth the time.  Heroics only got much easier when everyone and their moron inbred cousin started rocking the ilvl 232 gear.  Even right when that opened, things were still tough as the weapons were not that much better than what was available.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on September 07, 2010, 09:42:42 AM

The Horde version of Drill the Drillmaster, The Foot of the Citadel (http://www.wowhead.com/quest=10876) is a real bitch though.  The Alliance version is a single 30k elite.  The horde version doubles it to two of them and the second comes with a pair of 11k hp guards.  That took me about 4 tries, consumables, all of my CDs and a healthy dose of luck.

I remember soloing this on my BE blood DK tank. I was rather apprehensive going in, but basicaly buried the lot of them without too much trouble. This was in quest gear, too. You've got to use cooldowns, but it was the usually heart strike/death strike spam to victory. There's probably some luck of the draw in here. A couple of missed deathstrikes could break you at a bad moment.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 07, 2010, 12:13:40 PM
Quote from: Ghostcrawler
Almost every "Wow, things are hard" thread I have read on this and other forums are a direct result of not having Uldum and Twilight gear yet. We thought long and hard about whether it was a good idea to bump the level cap without that gear in place. In the end, we thought it was worth getting feedback on the quest design and some of the encounter design. But encounter balance is enormously dependent on having the right gear. Just keep that in mind. Things will feel better when you have ugrades available.

Oh well shit, what's everyone running around in beta with then? WOTLK gear?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 07, 2010, 01:07:20 PM
If I am reading it right I think the issue is they didn't have the leveling instances itemized fully yet?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on September 07, 2010, 01:09:29 PM
If I am reading it right I think the issue is they didn't have the leveling instances itemized fully yet?

It's nice that they'd assume everyone does instances while leveling.  :roll:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 07, 2010, 01:21:09 PM
I was reading it wrong, it is the leveling zones that weren't itemized.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on September 07, 2010, 01:24:28 PM
That could be an issue.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on September 07, 2010, 02:25:52 PM
I think its more the fact that people are jumping straight in to level 85 instances with their level 83 questing gear and getting stomped. He is saying that it should be much easer and doable in level 84 and 85 gear.

People are to used to just mindlessly running through instances these days. And yeah, it did start with ToC. I dont know if anyone tried to do Halls of Lightning with level 76 to 78 characters in questing blues and greens, but it was HARD. I like hard instance as long as its balanced hard. Heroic Shadow Labs, no fucking thanks.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 07, 2010, 02:42:22 PM
Oh well shit, what's everyone running around in beta with then? WOTLK gear?


Some people are, those are the ones that die hilariously all the time because they think their 2% superior DPS is any way comparable to the extra 50k HP you get from the new gear.



But yea, they haven't put quest items in for any zone past Deepholm, and Deepholm is a 82-83 zone. I'm already at like 75,000 HP with my deepholm gear at 85, I fully expect to see 100,000 being the norm and tanks or PvP'ers heading into the 150,000+ HP range.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on September 07, 2010, 03:32:13 PM
Quote from: Ghostcrawler
Almost every "Wow, things are hard" thread I have read on this and other forums are a direct result of not having Uldum and Twilight gear yet. We thought long and hard about whether it was a good idea to bump the level cap without that gear in place. In the end, we thought it was worth getting feedback on the quest design and some of the encounter design. But encounter balance is enormously dependent on having the right gear. Just keep that in mind. Things will feel better when you have ugrades available.

Oh well shit, what's everyone running around in beta with then? WOTLK gear?
The gear shift this time is huge. Between stat changes and item level increases NO ONE will be going into level 85 heroics using more than 1-2 pieces of WotLK gear. WotLK was a lot softer; entry level greens were pretty much Karazhan level (entry BC raid), with level 80 greens/quest blues being vaguely better than BT/Sunwell gear. You're not gonna see people clearing the first tier of raiding in Cataclysm wearing 90% of the gear they had at the end of WoTLK.

I don't mind really, but there's gonna be some serious butthurt when people actually realize they're gonna be tossing Heroic Lich King gear and Shadowmourne for quest greens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 07, 2010, 03:36:22 PM
Once upon a time the numbers seen in Disgaea games were a joke.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 07, 2010, 03:46:18 PM
Okay so basically it's a bunch of 70's running around Shadowmoon Valley still wearing Onyxia purples and blues they got out of Scholomance and wondering why they're getting owned. Lawl. My mind is eased somewhat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 07, 2010, 04:06:10 PM
Don't forget they are also trying to AE down the dungeons like they would in WotLK. That is also full of comedy.




The Mobs DO hit harder though, make no mistake about that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 07, 2010, 05:32:54 PM
People are to used to just mindlessly running through instances these days. And yeah, it did start with ToC. I dont know if anyone tried to do Halls of Lightning with level 76 to 78 characters in questing blues and greens, but it was HARD. I like hard instance as long as its balanced hard. Heroic Shadow Labs, no fucking thanks.

I did and you're precisely right.  People have forgotten what these were like in greens/ blues because the items they have are so over the top compared to what the beginner endgame was.  Hell, when I took a 3-hour-old L80 pally through Icecrown quests I wound-up DEing all of them because I had better crafted stuff, never mind the badge stuff I'd bought after dungeon-running while leveling.  I remember on the DK going "Oh hell I HAVE to do that quest it's got an upgrade."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on September 07, 2010, 08:32:51 PM
I don't mind really, but there's gonna be some serious butthurt when people actually realize they're gonna be tossing Heroic Lich King gear and Shadowmourne for quest greens.

The level 85 dungeon rewards are iLevel 333 vs 284 for Shadowmourne and 277 for LK25H gear.  Although, as discussed elsewhere in this thread, you may need to upgrade for lower ilevel gear for the Cataclysm health boost.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 07, 2010, 10:53:13 PM
I don't mind really, but there's gonna be some serious butthurt when people actually realize they're gonna be tossing Heroic Lich King gear and Shadowmourne for quest greens.

This is why gemming-up aside, I'm not spending any badges on gear for the mages once I get finished with the last pieces for them - chest/hat/gloves/robe/pants. After that, it's heirloom crap all the way until I've got every piece of that which could be useful. The Khadgars' will let us blitz through the many WotLK quests that we haven't done, and we can get into enough of the random dailies now.

Rings and wands and so forth would be nice, but just not worth the effort when everything is going into the bin in a couple of months - dungeon drops are good enough...



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on September 08, 2010, 06:26:21 AM
That's pretty much what I ended up deciding. Heirloom gear now. When I get enough frost badges I'll probably buy the trinket or ring, but I have the full T9 set (plus Wintergrasp belt plus a cloak that's from, I think, from the honor vendor in Stormwind).

I'll probably end up grabbing boots off WG or an honor vendor, since it's an upgrade over what I've got -- but I bought my first heirloom item yesterday (Mage chest -- my poor mage will miss her Dreamweave vest....). So I'm aiming for the full set. My guildies like the random heroics and are geared and skilled, so collecting badges is easy enough.

I know they only go to 80, but that still covers everything to Cataclysm. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on September 08, 2010, 06:39:58 AM
I'll probably end up grabbing boots off WG or an honor vendor, since it's an upgrade over what I've got -- but I bought my first heirloom item yesterday (Mage chest -- my poor mage will miss her Dreamweave vest....). So I'm aiming for the full set. My guildies like the random heroics and are geared and skilled, so collecting badges is easy enough.

I would skip on the badge caster staff.  Just pick up the WG one for 300 Stone Keeper Shards.  I am mostly through a new heirloom mage and am disappointed with the staff I bought.  It's is no way comparable to the melee weapons.  Those are god mode.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on September 08, 2010, 07:11:19 AM
I would skip on the badge caster staff.  Just pick up the WG one for 300 Stone Keeper Shards.  I am mostly through a new heirloom mage and am disappointed with the staff I bought.  It's is no way comparable to the melee weapons.  Those are god mode.
Is the WG one BoA? 'cause my mage is 54. I'm starting with getting the full set of shoulders/chests for the bonus XP, then weapons. Probably have my mage go ahead and add fiery and lifestealing to the swords, since I'm sure my rogue will be happy with that. :) Nice thing about BoA is I can route it all through my enchanter, get it enchanted, and send it on -- and when I get new and better enchants, I can send it back.

Of course, my enchanter is still in Greater Essence hell right now. Might be time to send my main back to Zul'Farrak to farm greens and mageweave.

I got told that for my 20-ish paladin tank, though, that the BoA plate (at 40) is DPS plate. I'm aways away from that, of course.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 08, 2010, 07:29:02 AM
I like the Badge Staff (http://www.wowwiki.com/Dignified_Headmaster%27s_Charge) more than the WG one (http://www.wowwiki.com/Grand_Staff_of_Jordan), personally. Int + Crit > Hit + resil. Throw 30 spellpower on there if you can find someone who has the chant and you're good to go. I don't see the hate for either of the caster weapons; they have a TON of spellpower on them, even during levels where weapons did not always have spellpower. Even though melee classes traditionally scale better than casters, the staff will still be a larger DPS increase than either the shoulders or the robe.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on September 08, 2010, 07:37:50 AM
Is the WG one BoA? 'cause my mage is 54. I'm starting with getting the full set of shoulders/chests for the bonus XP, then weapons. Probably have my mage go ahead and add fiery and lifestealing to the swords, since I'm sure my rogue will be happy with that. :) Nice thing about BoA is I can route it all through my enchanter, get it enchanted, and send it on -- and when I get new and better enchants, I can send it back.

Of course, my enchanter is still in Greater Essence hell right now. Might be time to send my main back to Zul'Farrak to farm greens and mageweave.

I got told that for my 20-ish paladin tank, though, that the BoA plate (at 40) is DPS plate. I'm aways away from that, of course.

Yes, all of the WG weapons are BoA.  The staff is the Grand Staff of Jordan. (http://www.wowhead.com/item=44095)  On the plate shoulders, the cool thing about Heirloom gear is it scales with your needs.  So at lvl 1-39 the plate shoulders are mail for plate wearers.  Same deal with the hunter/shaman shoulders and leather/mail.

Crusader is the goto option for most melee weapons.  If you want to be different though, they did recently buff Unholy so that it now does 40 damage as well as the ap debuff.  The mats are slightly less annoying to acquire.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on September 08, 2010, 07:46:56 AM
Crusader is the goto option for most melee weapons.  If you want to be different though, they did recently buff Unholy so that it now does 40 damage as well as the ap debuff.  The mats are slightly less annoying to acquire.
Speaking of Crusader -- I was in Upper City a few weeks ago and the Fiery enchant dropped (since I was there with my enchanter, I got it) which led me to wonder -- can you purchase fiery now, or is it still a drop?

What other good enchants/schematics/recipes/etc from Vanilla WoW still need to be farmed, rather than appearing on trainers in Outland or Northend?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on September 08, 2010, 07:52:59 AM
I like the Badge Staff (http://www.wowwiki.com/Dignified_Headmaster%27s_Charge) more than the WG one (http://www.wowwiki.com/Grand_Staff_of_Jordan), personally. Int + Crit > Hit + resil. Throw 30 spellpower on there if you can find someone who has the chant and you're good to go. I don't see the hate for either of the caster weapons; they have a TON of spellpower on them, even during levels where weapons did not always have spellpower. Even though melee classes traditionally scale better than casters, the staff will still be a larger DPS increase than either the shoulders or the robe.

I don't hate the caster weapons.  It's just that I have done two melee characters now and the staves are not anywhere near the power boost that the axe or even the sword are for pallys and warriors.  Those things are a beast.  At 54, the badge staff gives me a little over 1% to crit.  Hit is a very rare stat pre 60.  Missing is always a giant DPS loss.  The resilience is completely wasted though.

With that in mind, you generally wind up with Stone Keeper Shards as a product of working to badges and don't have much use beyond the BoA gear.  Badges generally have other uses.  I have aquired shards to buy the staff, a dagger, the gun for my dwarf hunter, shoulders I accidentally deleted on an earlier hunter, leather caster shoulders, at least one stupid mamoth mount just in the course of my daily activities.  Badges are a more rare commodity and the badge weapons are expensive.  So, I think the badge melee weapons are a better time investment than the caster weapons for the boost you are going to get out of them.  

On the armor, you are never really using them for the stats beyond the "Experience gained from killing monsters and completing quests increased by 10%."

They really need to make the SP to weapon enchants more available than the MC drops.  That thing is still stupidly rare for how good it is when you compare it to the easily available melee alternative, Crusader.

As far as I know, the drop enchants are still drops.  Some are more common than they used to be.  Kill demons in fellwood for an hour and you are nearly guaranteed two copies of Unholy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on September 08, 2010, 07:54:56 AM
Oh wait, you guys come from a server where your faction controls Wintergrasp half the time.

I don't. I come from one of those other servers, where the Horde owns Wintergrasp about 80% of the time. And the 20% they don't is called "3 in the fucking morning".

I don't get stone keeper's shards in any real amount.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 08, 2010, 08:30:37 AM
Speaking of Crusader -- I was in Upper City a few weeks ago and the Fiery enchant dropped (since I was there with my enchanter, I got it) which led me to wonder -- can you purchase fiery now, or is it still a drop?

What other good enchants/schematics/recipes/etc from Vanilla WoW still need to be farmed, rather than appearing on trainers in Outland or Northend?
there is almost always a Fiery Enchant recepie on the AH on my server.  If memory serves me, nearly all old world enchants that drop in 5 or 10 man instances (Old world being anything that is not a WolK enchant) now has a 100% drop rate.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 08, 2010, 11:44:41 AM
With that in mind, you generally wind up with Stone Keeper Shards as a product of working to badges and don't have much use beyond the BoA gear.  Badges generally have other uses.  I have aquired shards to buy the staff, a dagger, the gun for my dwarf hunter, shoulders I accidentally deleted on an earlier hunter, leather caster shoulders, at least one stupid mamoth mount just in the course of my daily activities.  Badges are a more rare commodity and the badge weapons are expensive.  So, I think the badge melee weapons are a better time investment than the caster weapons for the boost you are going to get out of them. 
Meh. I've had too many geared toons at 80 for too long; both badges and SKS come very easily, so I figured you'd get the better item since you were going to get 80 levels out of it. Plus I have a tendency to burn SKS into BoA honor tokens to get some PVP gear for new 80s. Badges, on the other hand, only go to epic gems these days. Also as Morat said, you can farm Badges even if you don't own WG.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 08, 2010, 11:45:59 AM
Those honor tokens work really nicely to buy the blue pvp rewards for lower level characters from the WSG/AB vendors and such.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 08, 2010, 11:49:13 AM
Yea, I usually use them for those, or the 264 PVP neck since that's a difficult slot to fill for most characters at 80. (Let's not have the debate on how much better the 232 or 226 ones are again kthx)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on September 08, 2010, 12:19:37 PM
Yea, I usually use them for those, or the 264 PVP neck since that's a difficult slot to fill for most characters at 80. (Let's not have the debate on how much better the 232 or 226 ones are again kthx)
I think I snagged the 245ish WG belt, since finding a fucking belt is a PITA. Neck and boots are being a similar pain.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 08, 2010, 03:02:48 PM
I'll probably end up grabbing boots off WG or an honor vendor, since it's an upgrade over what I've got -- but I bought my first heirloom item yesterday (Mage chest -- my poor mage will miss her Dreamweave vest....). So I'm aiming for the full set. My guildies like the random heroics and are geared and skilled, so collecting badges is easy enough.

I would skip on the badge caster staff.  Just pick up the WG one for 300 Stone Keeper Shards.  I am mostly through a new heirloom mage and am disappointed with the staff I bought.  It's is no way comparable to the melee weapons.  Those are god mode.

I'm going with the WG-stone keepers shards gear over badge stuff at this stage, based on the fact that stone keepers shards are "free". I'll look into badge weapons later. maybe. after I buy chests. and maybe some shoulders. Especially since I have to grind out a set of everything for my wife as well.  :uhrr: She still needs her 80 mage gloves by the end of this weekend, then I start on her heirloom plate chest.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on September 08, 2010, 03:10:17 PM
I'm going with the WG-stone keepers shards gear over badge stuff at this stage, based on the fact that stone keepers shards are "free". I'll look into badge weapons later. maybe. after I buy chests. and maybe some shoulders. Especially since I have to grind out a set of everything for my wife as well.  :uhrr: She still needs her 80 mage gloves by the end of this weekend, then I start on her heirloom plate chest.
I hate you, your server, and everyone associated with you.

Actually, I just hate Blizzard thinking "tenacity" buffs somehow make up for "numbers". When you have equal numbers of Horde guarding the fucking keep while a goddamn roving zerg of 40 Horde run around rampaging through fucking everything, you are goddamn hosed.

You only keep a garage until the zerg arrives. You can't stack enough vehicles to get through the goddamn wall because you keep dropping down to 4 or 8 vehicles max thanks to the damn zerg, and there are enough Horde in the courtyard that they practically insta-gib anything comeing in. And you don't have TIME because the goddamn zerg has killed both towers.

So I don't get shards. :)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 08, 2010, 03:23:14 PM
I got told that for my 20-ish paladin tank, though, that the BoA plate (at 40) is DPS plate. I'm aways away from that, of course.

Tanking gear does not exist in any real quantity until level 50+.  The BoA plate is always up to date with your level however, which usually means it has superior strength (block value), stamina, and armour class compared to anything else you can acquire easily.

I'm going with the WG-stone keepers shards gear over badge stuff at this stage, based on the fact that stone keepers shards are "free". I'll look into badge weapons later. maybe. after I buy chests. and maybe some shoulders. Especially since I have to grind out a set of everything for my wife as well.  :uhrr: She still needs her 80 mage gloves by the end of this weekend, then I start on her heirloom plate chest.

If you buy a two-hander make it the badge axe.  The lower weapon speed is worth the frustration.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 08, 2010, 03:44:39 PM

I hate you, your server, and everyone associated with you.

So I don't get shards. :)


Transfer over - join us on Proudmoore. Paelos is here. We hang out all the time have never met ingame.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 08, 2010, 06:43:26 PM
Heh, I'm pretty sure Azazel plays at times when I'm at work or asleep, given the Aussie > US time exchange.

Also, don't come to Proudmoore. It's a crowded release-day server that hasn't had the hamster replaced in years. We do have a fairly dominant Alliance population though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on September 08, 2010, 08:58:48 PM
We have plenty of room on Whisperwind. Hell, everyone else is here, may as well jump in.

Alliance usually has WG. Horde managed to--briefly--grab it Sunday. It was amusing in /trade. "Since when do horde take WG?!?" Apparently a couple of premade raids waiting for VoA had to disband...  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 08, 2010, 09:32:30 PM
Fuck that, just faction change to Horde. It's better on the dark side.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 08, 2010, 10:34:28 PM
Heh, I'm pretty sure Azazel plays at times when I'm at work or asleep, given the Aussie > US time exchange.

Also, don't come to Proudmoore. It's a crowded release-day server that hasn't had the hamster replaced in years. We do have a fairly dominant Alliance population though.

Yeah, pretty much that. Also, I haven't played in 2 years and raided maybe once or twice in the early days of PMA. I'm sure we've been on at the same time recently, just doing our own things.

I do like PM though, because it's the Aussie Shithole server (unofficial PVE Oceana server at launch, Blackrock for PVP), so there's always people on around the clock. We're also the unofficial (launch) GLBT server.
 :drill: :drillf:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on September 09, 2010, 09:28:12 AM
Troll druid forms are  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 09, 2010, 09:31:00 AM
Troll druid forms are  :uhrr:

That can't be stated enough, seriously retarded.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 09, 2010, 03:07:21 PM
I prefer the term "hideous" when discussing the troll druid forms.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on September 09, 2010, 06:32:00 PM
I prefer the term:  Awesome.  Tea-bagging by a rainbow bright bear is an experience I relish the opportunity to dispense.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 09, 2010, 06:35:56 PM
I find them sort of awesome/hilarious too, they're over the line into so bad they're good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on September 10, 2010, 12:25:40 AM
I think they're hilarious. First person to organise a 100+ strong Troll Pride march wins a prize!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on September 10, 2010, 08:57:49 AM
Heh, I'm pretty sure Azazel plays at times when I'm at work or asleep, given the Aussie > US time exchange.

Also, don't come to Proudmoore. It's a crowded release-day server that hasn't had the hamster replaced in years. We do have a fairly dominant Alliance population though.

I seem to recall Morat is on Tich, which is a VERY crowded release day server.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on September 10, 2010, 09:53:34 AM
Heh, I'm pretty sure Azazel plays at times when I'm at work or asleep, given the Aussie > US time exchange.

Also, don't come to Proudmoore. It's a crowded release-day server that hasn't had the hamster replaced in years. We do have a fairly dominant Alliance population though.

I seem to recall Morat is on Tich, which is a VERY crowded release day server.  :awesome_for_real:
Argent Dawn. RP-geeks one and all. :) I think I picked it for the simple reason that I had a friend on it. Luckily, I started about four or five months after release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 11, 2010, 01:02:47 AM
Heh, I'm pretty sure Azazel plays at times when I'm at work or asleep, given the Aussie > US time exchange.

Also, don't come to Proudmoore. It's a crowded release-day server that hasn't had the hamster replaced in years. We do have a fairly dominant Alliance population though.

I seem to recall Morat is on Tich, which is a VERY crowded release day server.  :awesome_for_real:
I play on tich, and yeah, it has stabalized a fair bit, but it is still a very crouded release day server, and will willingly still shit a brick when any interesting stuff gets released and the swarms decend to check out new content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 11, 2010, 06:42:23 PM
back on topic!

Quote
Originally Posted by Ghostcrawler  (Source)
Archaeology just went in this build for the first time and we don't yet have any of the support around it to teach players what to do. It has been informative to watch players learn to swim by drowning, but we thought it was time to offer a little more direction.

Digsites
Once you train archaeology, you can see digsites on your map (not your minimap - your map). There are always 4 digsites per continent. These will not change until you dig one out. Most of the time, you're probably only going to be concerned with the 4 sites on your current continent, but at higher character and archaeology skill levels, there will be 16 sites active at one time (4 each in Eastern Kingdoms, Kalimdor, Outland and Northrend.)

You will only find sites in zones of your level or lower. A level 25 player will have all 4 sites per continent in level 25 zones. (This means Outland and Northrend will have no sites at this time.) A level 80 player will have all 4 sites in any zone. A low level Kalimdor player might have sites in Ashenvale and Stonetalon, while a level 82 might have Uldum, Ashenvale, Stonetalon and Silithus.

Sites are race specific. You can usually guess the race by the location. Kalimdor tends to have a lot of night elf ruins. Eastern Kingdoms tends to have a lot of dwarf ruins.

Some races are only available on some continents (such as orc and draenei on Outland). You need to have a minimum character level and a minimum archaeology level to use these. Currently you can see them if you are a certain character level but can't gather from them until your archaeology skill is higher. For Outland, the skill is 300. While somewhat consistent with other gathering skills, we think this is confusing and we will change it so that you don't even see the digsites until your archaeology skill is sufficiently high. Tol'vir artifacts are the most rewarding, but also require near max archaeology skill to recover.

Some players are reporting some issues with digsites not showing up correctly. We'll look into these bugs.

Unlike other gathering skills, digsites are player-specific. Other players will be searching in different locations. There is no competition for digsites.

Fragments
Each digsite can be searched 3 times before it despawns and a new site spawns. If there is a digsite somewhere too far away from you or otherwise inconvenient, just ignore it and hit the closer ones. You won't run out.

To search a digsite, use the Survey ability. The survey tool will spawn and point in the approximate direction of the artifact. Red means you're far away. Yellow means you're close. Green means you may be within 40 yards or so. When you discover your find, you'll get fragments specific to a particular race.

There are two main strategies to surveying. You can attempt to triangulate by moving around the outer edge of a digsite. (Like quest blobs, the digsites are not necessarily circular.) Other players just keep surveying, heading in the direction the tool points until they strike paydirt.

Remember, the thing you uncover is yours. There is no competition with other players and nobody can gank your node.

Artifacts
Whenever you get a new fragment for a race, you'll start a research project. You can only work on one artifact per race at a time. When you have enough fragments, click Solve to complete that artifact. You won't waste excess fragments -- they will just start the next project. You can be working on one project for each race at a time.

Most artifacts are common. These give you a little bit of lore or flavor text and an item you can sell for a small profit (presumably to a museum!) The profit increases as the value of the artifact increases. You can estimate this by the number of fragments needed to finish the artifact. You will only find cheaper artifacts at low level, but you can find cheap and valuable artifacts at higher level (the reason for this is we want players to be able to find all the artifacts if they want to). You won't find a second copy of a common object until you have found all the artifacts of that race. If you get stuck at a certain skill level of archaeology or character level, you may find an artifact more than once until you reach the next tier.

Some artifacts are rare. These always make a blue or purple item. Many of these have no in-game power and are toys or for flavor. Some of them are actual weapons and armor. The latter items are all bound to account. They aren't heirlooms in that they don't scale, but you can pass them around. So if you are level 80 and you find a level 60 axe, you can always have another character use it when they are level 60. You will never get a rare artifact more than once.

The future
We designed archaeology to be easily expandable, so we plan to add much more content in future patches, including new races to research (though to be fair, there's a sizable amount of content already). We also have a feature that is not available on beta yet, that allows you to use your archaeology skill for a slight (think Fish Feast-level) bonus in the Cataclysm dungeons.

kinda sounds fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 11, 2010, 08:00:38 PM
I like the idea of BoA gear; it'll make powering it up at 80 (or 85) more useful because at least I'll have things to pass down to alts.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 11, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
I like this casual/fluff/lore version of archaeology a lot better than the previous mandatory character advancement "path of the titans" bullshit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 11, 2010, 10:27:34 PM
Yeah it looks cool, and it seems like they've designed it in a way you won't feel like you have to do it on every single character too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 12, 2010, 02:47:56 AM
One of the archaeology rewards is a rideable-anywhere Qiraji battle tank.  :awesome_for_real:
Oh, and the main Alliance teacher is (of course) Harrison Jones. The Horde get an expy of Belloq.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 12, 2010, 02:54:24 AM
The final nail in our neverending Horde-is-evil nerdfight!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 12, 2010, 03:16:19 AM
Yeah, yeah.  :grin:
Anyway, full (so far) list: http://db.mmo-champion.com/skill/794/archaeology/

Oh, and the 4.0 PTR (live, not Cata beta) servers just went up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 12, 2010, 06:08:38 AM
Quote from: 4.0 PTR Notes
Paladin (Forums / 3.3.5 Talent Calculator / Cataclysm Talent Calculator / Beta Skills/Talents)

    * Paladins now have a new resource bar.

What?  Like a new graphic or did I miss them changing pallies from mana to something else?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 12, 2010, 06:23:59 AM
They're getting Holy Power in addition to mana.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on September 12, 2010, 08:53:45 AM
One of the archaeology rewards is a rideable-anywhere Qiraji battle tank.  :awesome_for_real:
The ultimate fuck you to anyone who did the poopsockin' quest chain way back when. I like it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on September 12, 2010, 08:56:56 AM
Not unless its black, if im not mistaken.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Drubear on September 12, 2010, 09:04:49 AM
There also seems to be a new bind point "<home>" that is likely the reason why anyone besides mount and companion collectors (and a cloth and mail armor item) would do this.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 12, 2010, 01:16:30 PM
Speaking of awesome mounts; the Alliance ground guild-mount is in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jE9ZteQLyY (White bits on saddle = tabard emblem).
Horde one isn't yet, but the menu item for it is - it's a riding scorpion.  :rock:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on September 12, 2010, 02:47:48 PM
Which tokens can i use to buy gems?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 12, 2010, 04:00:32 PM
You have to downgrade your tokens to the lowest one.. Heroisim.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 12, 2010, 07:37:06 PM
There also seems to be a new bind point "<home>" that is likely the reason why anyone besides mount and companion collectors (and a cloth and mail armor item) would do this.

What?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on September 12, 2010, 08:10:06 PM
There also seems to be a new bind point "<home>" that is likely the reason why anyone besides mount and companion collectors (and a cloth and mail armor item) would do this.

What?

http://db.mmo-champion.com/i/64488/the-innkeepers-daughter/ (http://db.mmo-champion.com/i/64488/the-innkeepers-daughter/)



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 12, 2010, 09:07:02 PM
It's just a novelty hearthstone and <home> is the placeholder for the name of your bind point. What did you guys think it meant?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 12, 2010, 09:22:52 PM
It's just a novelty hearthstone and <home> is the placeholder for the name of your bind point. What did you guys think it meant?
I think people were hoping for the rumored ability to have a second bind location that was once mentioned, but never materialized.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 12, 2010, 09:32:13 PM
It's just a novelty hearthstone and <home> is the placeholder for the name of your bind point. What did you guys think it meant?
I think people were hoping for the rumored ability to have a second bind location that was once mentioned, but never materialized.

I'm willing to bet it's a hearthstone with a reduced cast time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 12, 2010, 10:09:34 PM
I'm guessing same as the regular one but with a separate cooldown.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 12, 2010, 10:18:50 PM
It's just a novelty hearthstone and <home> is the placeholder for the name of your bind point. What did you guys think it meant?

I kind of understood the first bit, but the second was purely WTF material. Read his post again. The words are in English but I can't extract a lot of meaning from it.


There also seems to be a new bind point "<home>" that is likely the reason why anyone besides mount and companion collectors (and a cloth and mail armor item) would do this.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on September 12, 2010, 10:35:18 PM
Didn't seem that mangled to me.
Quote
There also seems to be a new bind point, "<home>", which (aside from cloth and mail armor items) is likely the reason why anyone besides mount and companion collectors would do this.
WUA (and Ingmar, I would guess) is right though; hearthstones also refer to <home> on that site.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 13, 2010, 12:25:31 AM
It was pretty fucked up. It sounded like cloth and mail armor items were going to do archaeology because they wanted a hearthstone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on September 13, 2010, 01:01:55 AM
The internet has ruined my standards.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 13, 2010, 05:33:50 AM
You have to downgrade your tokens to the lowest one.. Heroisim.
OTOH in Cataclysm everything is going to two-tier currency format; one for current tier raids + first daily (i.e. Frost badges now) and one to replace all other badges  (including WotLK & TBC).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Drubear on September 13, 2010, 06:41:23 AM
It's just a novelty hearthstone and <home> is the placeholder for the name of your bind point. What did you guys think it meant?

I kind of understood the first bit, but the second was purely WTF material. Read his post again. The words are in English but I can't extract a lot of meaning from it.


Sorry. I was reading <home> to mean a separate bind point vs. <hearth> or somesuch.

As to shorter cooldown, I remember 30 minutes on the tooltip which is same as now, neh?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on September 13, 2010, 08:54:49 AM
Yeah but if you've got 2 of them, on separate timers then it's effectively 15 mins. Kinda like shaman have already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on September 13, 2010, 09:06:44 AM
And if you're already a shaman, that's like 10!  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on September 13, 2010, 09:15:03 AM
One of the archaeology rewards is a rideable-anywhere Qiraji battle tank.  :awesome_for_real:
The ultimate fuck you to anyone who did the poopsockin' quest chain way back when. I like it.

The epeen I extracted from that mount was enough to sustain me for several years until I got bored of that dude and gave the account to a friend, who extracted even more epeen from it.  If you sat parked in a major city riding that thing, you'd be spammed with tells for as long as you were willing to sit there basking in it.  Noobs would literally gather around you like lemmings, asking you to wait while they called their friends just to come see your epic legendary idle.  I'm pretty sure you can't dig that out of archaeology.   :raspberry:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 13, 2010, 09:35:29 AM
One of the archaeology rewards is a rideable-anywhere Qiraji battle tank.  :awesome_for_real:
The ultimate fuck you to anyone who did the poopsockin' quest chain way back when. I like it.

The epeen I extracted from that mount was enough to sustain me for several years until I got bored of that dude and gave the account to a friend, who extracted even more epeen from it.  If you sat parked in a major city riding that thing, you'd be spammed with tells for as long as you were willing to sit there basking in it.  Noobs would literally gather around you like lemmings, asking you to wait while they called their friends just to come see your epic legendary idle.  I'm pretty sure you can't dig that out of archaeology.   :raspberry:

Can you dig up the wasted hours of your life back?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on September 13, 2010, 10:06:04 AM
Hell, about everything you did back in vanilla was a colossal grind. Remember Cultist rep camps? I do, and it's not a fond memory.

Just about anything out of the ordinary bring the looky-loos out of the woodwork. Just yesterday my DK was idling out in Dun Morogh waiting for the Gnomer event to kick off. She's a Bloodsail admiral and I had her parrot out. Man, the /tells I got hit with. "How do you get a blood parrot?" Well, you have to be a pirate...

Really old school stuff like the tank or mini-Diablo, Lord of Terror, really get them going. When I returned my NE warrior to active duty for Wrath, she was still in her T1/T2 armor with her Drillborer's Disk. I got no end of inquiries about "that cool looking armor". Heh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 13, 2010, 10:51:16 AM
The first time in history those tiers of warrior armor were ever described as "cool".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on September 13, 2010, 11:47:18 AM
The first time in history those tiers of warrior armor were ever described as "cool".

Maybe 'cool' is a double meaning slang like 'bad'?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 13, 2010, 02:34:44 PM
Quote
Originally Posted by Daeleht  (Source)
This is an intentional change, however the values may not be final. Tradeskill nodes are intended to give you experience when you loot them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 13, 2010, 09:58:15 PM
The first time in history those tiers of warrior armor were ever described as "cool".

Maybe 'cool' is a double meaning slang like 'bad'?

[Draugen] says: Hey dude, where did you get the cool football helmet and pads made out of axes?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 14, 2010, 03:26:58 PM
I wonder if xp from nodes extends to fishing.

A shame I took mining off the paladin.  Not that I expect it's a lot of xp.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on September 14, 2010, 08:20:31 PM
Speaking of exp, they said heirlooms were stuck at level 80 but is the exp bonus still in effect? and is the expansion balanced around getting 20% extra exp?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 14, 2010, 08:26:30 PM
No, it is balanced with no Heirlooms in mind.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on September 14, 2010, 09:17:17 PM
Isn't it over 6 million xp to hit level 81? 

The 20% heirloom bonus on that is almost a whole WOTLK level :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 14, 2010, 09:38:23 PM
Speaking of exp, they said heirlooms were stuck at level 80 but is the exp bonus still in effect? and is the expansion balanced around getting 20% extra exp?

It's a trap.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 14, 2010, 11:43:40 PM
Level 80 heirlooms do not provide their XP bonus over level 80. You'll need to get new level 85 ones to do so.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 15, 2010, 01:37:13 AM
Level 80 heirlooms do not provide their XP bonus over level 80. You'll need to get new level 85 ones to do so.
I believe it was stated that the gear stats still scale to level 85 however.  it is just the XP bonus that stops working.

A more interesting question is if the level 85 heirlooms will stack with the level 80 ones in the sub 80 range.  45% (assuming you get the ring) boosted exp for leveling that lowbie toon?  Yikes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on September 16, 2010, 02:14:49 AM
Patch 4.0.1 on the background downloader now apparently. Thought it only just hit the test servers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 16, 2010, 03:25:52 AM
It did, but it was also 16GB of data from what I've seen.*  Apparently it includes the zone files for the world revamp (since everyone's getting that) and it takes a long ass time to download. Some of my old guildies said that it took them 2 days of dedicated downloading just to get the test patch fully loaded. 

Since the majority of it is artwork that won't change, they can start the stream now with the stuff that won't change then do mini-patches for anything that does.

*Before you  :ye_gods: the size, the new patcher is apparently really nifty in that you can start playing without fully downloading.  It will just stream the zone files you need to you when you load that zone.  Load it up, let it download the first few hundred MB then hit "play" much like GW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 16, 2010, 03:36:23 AM
I think you misplaced a decimal there.

Patcher says the download is 1.58 gig, which is much more reasonable (even if somewhat large comparatively).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on September 16, 2010, 10:53:42 AM
I think you misplaced a decimal there.

Patcher says the download is 1.58 gig, which is much more reasonable (even if somewhat large comparatively).

I believe he is talking about the patch for the Test Server.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 16, 2010, 11:06:31 AM
Yeah, test server install is enormous.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 16, 2010, 11:11:21 AM
I keep getting a runtime error when the background downloader tries to load, any ideas on how to fix that?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 16, 2010, 12:38:23 PM
Try running the background downloader in 98/ME compatability mode.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on September 16, 2010, 01:03:32 PM
So, when's this bad boy coming out?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 16, 2010, 01:46:00 PM
If scuttlebutt on MMO champ is to be believed, sometime late or early november.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 16, 2010, 02:12:28 PM
The popular rumor date is Nov 2.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 16, 2010, 03:44:04 PM
I'm really not liking what I hear from the forums about ret paladins. Whenever I read anything about my class/spec they may as well be talking about another game. (This is like what, at least the third total redesign?) Then there's the video of one getting soloed by a hunter pet, and numerous reports of shit DPS. But don't worry I'm sure everything will be fixed by the time it comes out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on September 16, 2010, 03:58:54 PM
I'm really not liking what I hear from the forums about ret paladins. Whenever I read anything about my class/spec they may as well be talking about another game. (This is like what, at least the third total redesign?) Then there's the video of one getting soloed by a hunter pet, and numerous reports of shit DPS. But don't worry I'm sure everything will be fixed by the time it comes out.
There seems to be some way to go with tweaking so at this stage I'd put little stock in forums. 

I've been tooling around in the PTR with 4.0 (not the Cataclysm Beta) and there's some egregious bugs like armor not reducing incoming tank damage and dps being a bit flat across the board.  A lot of classes have had major overhauls (eg Warlocks, boomkims) and others will play totally differently (my Resto Druid will no longer spam rejuv).  There's just too much scope to draw bad conclusions right now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 16, 2010, 04:14:18 PM
I'm really not liking what I hear from the forums about ret paladins. Whenever I read anything about my class/spec they may as well be talking about another game. (This is like what, at least the third total redesign?) Then there's the video of one getting soloed by a hunter pet, and numerous reports of shit DPS. But don't worry I'm sure everything will be fixed by the time it comes out.


Hunters are completely 'overturned' in Beta currently, so that doesn't surprise me that much. Most can pretty much walk up to you while mashing their instants from 40 yards out and drop you before they get in range to loot your corpses 12 silver.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on September 16, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
Gilneas BG map is up - looks pretty much like Nordenwatch from WAR. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on September 16, 2010, 06:56:01 PM
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 16, 2010, 07:01:04 PM
If they get the numbers all worked out I might be a happy camper. That shit where I can judge from range and get a speed boost from it sounds :awesome_for_real:.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 16, 2010, 10:33:59 PM
How much is a WoW sub these days? I'm playing off a game card that was sitting around for 2 years, so I'm wondering if it'll be cheaper to sub via Blizzard direct while the aussie dollar is good, or buy another card or two. The official site wante me to add billing info before it'll show me the sub rates, and I don't trust googling random sites for wow info, because I'm scared of the haxors, and I'm not willing to basketcase my computer for a single game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 16, 2010, 10:51:48 PM
$15/month in US dollars.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 16, 2010, 11:52:32 PM
Any difference for 3-month subs?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on September 16, 2010, 11:56:23 PM
Any difference for 3-month subs?

From the FAQ on the WoW site:

Quote
Is there a monthly fee to play the game?
Yes. After the end of the free month included with the game, you need a subscription in order to continue playing the game. There are three subscription options: a month-to-month package at $14.99 per month, a three-month plan at $13.99 per month, and a six-month plan at $12.99 per month. The subscription fees for the three-month plan and the six-month plan must be paid in full.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 17, 2010, 05:34:38 AM
I'm really not liking what I hear from the forums about ret paladins. Whenever I read anything about my class/spec they may as well be talking about another game. (This is like what, at least the third total redesign?) Then there's the video of one getting soloed by a hunter pet, and numerous reports of shit DPS. But don't worry I'm sure everything will be fixed by the time it comes out.
Could be worse, you could have a DK for a main. I suspect there's going to be quite a few DKs played up to about, oh, L83 or so and then abandoned for their old retadin/hunter/warlock main.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: VainEldritch on September 17, 2010, 06:51:35 AM
Could be worse, you could have a DK for a main. I suspect there's going to be quite a few DKs played up to about, oh, L83 or so and then abandoned for their old retadin/hunter/warlock main.

PTR damage number clusterfuckery aside, I'm not too disappointed by the DK and Retadin changes. Then again, as I'd rather not be disappointed at all,  I've finally started to work on that mage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on September 17, 2010, 06:58:29 AM
Well, to be perfectly fair they haven't started putting in the correct numbers yet, right? They're still playing with moving skills/abilities around. They'll do a final pass with numbers right before release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on September 17, 2010, 07:39:11 AM
That is the GC mantra throughout all of this.  My recollection is that "getting the numbers right" is something that frequently has taken them months and years, not something that they were ever able to snap their fingers and nail right out of the box.

Anyone else worried that significantly altered classes won't be "balanced" for another six months post-launch?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 17, 2010, 08:04:09 AM
Not worried since I'm pretty much done with the game, however it is my prediction.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on September 17, 2010, 09:33:14 AM
Anyone else worried that significantly altered classes won't be "balanced" for another six months post-launch?

Yah, it'll be a weird state for a lot of classes.  This beta doesn't sound like something that will be ready for release by November. 

However, I'm personally not too concerned, considering the first few months of an expansion I'm doing nothing but leveling a main and an eventual new main and then going back to a shelved character and making that my new main.  I just can't settle on one class for long, and when multiple classes of mine have major changes, it gets more difficult.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on September 17, 2010, 09:37:26 AM

Anyone else worried that significantly altered classes won't be "balanced" for another six months post-launch?

I play a shaman. Since we've never been balanced properly, I'm kinda used to it. Not so much worried as resigned. I don't much care for what I've been reading on the PTR either.

Things still seem very unsettled, especially if they're shooting for a Nov 2 release. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on September 17, 2010, 09:58:58 AM
I have 10 80's to lvl.  I've got time.  I'm hardly even reading about the Beta.  I really don't care, because I know none of it will be true come launch and then again months later.  I'll play until it stops being fun.  I guess I'm just not that anal to predict when, where, and how sucky it will be in the future.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 17, 2010, 10:29:16 AM
I'm really not liking what I hear from the forums about ret paladins. Whenever I read anything about my class/spec they may as well be talking about another game. (This is like what, at least the third total redesign?) Then there's the video of one getting soloed by a hunter pet, and numerous reports of shit DPS. But don't worry I'm sure everything will be fixed by the time it comes out.
Could be worse, you could have a DK for a main. I suspect there's going to be quite a few DKs played up to about, oh, L83 or so and then abandoned for their old retadin/hunter/warlock main.
The DK tank changes aren't bad; we're getting a couple new toys that were hidden in other trees; my only real complaint is the Death Strike nerf. I haven't played DPS on my DK since the early Naxx days (aside from occasionally spec swapping for fights that didn't require 3 tanks) so I'm not sure if that's what your comment is aimed at.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 17, 2010, 11:47:35 AM
I don't like this strategy of making the 4.0 test public without any attempt whatsoever to balance the numbers. All the reports turn into nothing but "T10 tanks dying to H-UK trash, death knights more worthless than the ret paladins getting soloed by hunter pets, game totally fucked!" and you just KNOW that while it won't be that bad by the time it goes live, the game is going to be a total fucking mess for months.

And seriously, will they ever have any idea of what the fuck to do with paladins, ret in particular? Every single time the version number increments left of the decimal point, my class/spec gets ripped out and replaced with a thematically similar but mechanically totally fucking different one. Like sure, whatever they've settled on now will be totally great, whatever. But I'm about 99% sure that if we could go into the future and look at a 5.0 paladin from the Lich King Strikes Back (or whatever) expansion, it would have NOTHING in common with anything on display right now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 17, 2010, 12:00:49 PM
For the non-holy paladins this is really more of an incremental change it feels like to me. Well for ret anyway, I've never really tried prot. The core 'mash the thing that is lit up' playstyle is still there more or less, there's just the extra choice to make of when/how to blow your holy power.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 17, 2010, 01:52:12 PM
I don't recognize the names of 75% of the abilites that get thrown around on the paladin forum anymore, but I'm sure DPS will remain a matter of standing behind the boss and facerolling. Someone will want to come in here and dispute it, but the fact is that PVE DPS is the easiest task in the game that anyone has any use for, and the macro system is deliberately gimped just to keep it from all being done with one button.

In terms of PVP, I barely recognize what the hell is supposed to be going on. That shit with the long-range judgements giving a speed boost is game-changing in itself. Game. Changing. I'm going to have to learn things from the ground up again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 17, 2010, 03:48:38 PM
judgements giving a speed boost

Seriously, fuck this.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 17, 2010, 03:53:20 PM
That's how PvP is every expansion though, I'm not sure why this surprises you. One of the glaring holes in a Ret toolbox is catching/keeping up with a target that can kite. They've taken away a lot of the old "ret just heals through it" power so they had to compensate with something else.



Ing: Prot Paladins will actually play very differently from the looks of it, in terms of how they approach the actual tanking.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 17, 2010, 04:23:19 PM
Anyone else worried that significantly altered classes won't be "balanced" for another six months post-launch?

The same as it ever was.  This is nothing new. Hunters experienced the nerf cycle in BC, as did Feral Druids.  Retadins and DKs felt it in LK.  All started out "too powerful" and were nerfed down as the xp progressed.   You want a class that doesn't get nerfed to uselessness, play a healer.

So I'm weak and subbed again to check out the changes.  I don't understand the DK whining. I'm getting 10k+ howling blasts back-to-back-to-back as 2h frost.  (Seriously I got a 12k, 10k, 14k on the boss dummy in 3gcds while waiting on runes to refresh)That's going to get a cool-down again right quick as folks actually start figuring things out. Other than that I'm not sure how to work out the spec as I never used it before. 

Unholy was tricky, since there's a lot more to juggle now but you have to understand they WANT you to use haste.  A lot of DK's simply don't have enough and are probably still using the old Frost/Blood pres for damage buff instead of using Improved Unholy.  The spec is lacking in that you don't have enough unholy runes and way, way, waaaaay too many frost.  Seriously I was spamming icy touch more than most of my unholy skills because now that Scourge strike is only 1 UH rune there's no other place to spend them.  Sudden Doom procs a lot. Like a lot a lot, so often I'd say I missed procs because I was hitting rune abilities and Death Coil was hitting for 6-8k.  With speed of the Vyrkul my Heroic Bryntoll was down to 2.0 speed.  Crazy!

The pet seemed to build his 5 stacks of "whupass" pretty slowly, so it's not like you'll be mashing Infusion every time it's available on boss fights.  However, one of my primary worries, a lack of Runic Power generation, was unfounded. I always seemed to have it when I needed it.

Really, the biggest change is it's a prioritization cycle now.. not a set cycle.  "If x is up then hit it, unless y or z is up."  Much more fun and interactive than "1,2,3,4,3,5,5,4,4,4,dc,dc,dc,HoW/Garg"   So yeah, because it's more difficult I totally see folks running back to their hunters, mages and rogues.  They're more than welcome to.

I need to get a beta-friendly DPS tool so I can see if it's just big numbers flashing or if I'm actually doing DPS.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 18, 2010, 02:05:33 AM
Random, but how long do you guys think the shaman and druid knockbacks are going to survive once PVP is focus on rated battlegrounds? I can't imagine "I rode up in EOTS and blew half of the other team off the cliff lolol" is going to last very long when/if Blizz starts paying attention to BGs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 18, 2010, 05:01:31 AM
Random, but how long do you guys think the shaman and druid knockbacks are going to survive once PVP is focus on rated battlegrounds? I can't imagine "I rode up in EOTS and blew half of the other team off the cliff lolol" is going to last very long when/if Blizz starts paying attention to BGs.


Well they added one to the Succubus pet too, so probably for a long, long time. Only the Shaman one is really capable of sending people flying, all the other knockbacks in game really need the other guy to be standing right on the edge. The Shaman one is also avoidable through positioning.

I still remember this one game of AV where I knocked this one guy out of the North bunker a dozen times because he kept standing inside the window. He would run in, cap the bunker, then 'hide' in the window. I would pop out of stealth, typhoon him out and recap the bunker and stealth up again.

Seriously, at least 7 or 8 times, it even topped off that 'defend the bunker' achievement for me.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 18, 2010, 09:30:34 AM
Nah, I give it a few months of "LF3M rated EOTS, shamans only" before they decide "just don't go near the flag" isn't a suitable remedy for having a one-shot multikill in the game, no matter how conditional.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on September 18, 2010, 10:56:47 AM
I only pray they adjust the actual numbers for prot warriors before the expansion drops because on the PTR I am literally useless as a tank unless I'm given like 10+ seconds of headway to get aggro. The change to the playstyle is fine by me (ignoring how I nearly pop a blood vessel not hitting Heroic Strike every time it lights up after like 2 years of doing so), but my threat is in the shitter. I took nothing but threat talents and even after doing the ideal rotation for a group pull (rend, Thunderclap, tab-target devastate/revenge and hitting TC 2 more times, shockwave)  and having NO ONE dps until I was finished it was trivial to pull everything off me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 18, 2010, 11:57:37 AM
Prot warrior dps numbers are all kinds of messed up right now, yeah. Even shield slam, which supposedly gets ridiculously high as you get towards 85, was critting for about what I normally *hit* with it for me. Devastate was ugly too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 18, 2010, 05:47:27 PM
Nah, I give it a few months of "LF3M rated EOTS, shamans only" before they decide "just don't go near the flag" isn't a suitable remedy for having a one-shot multikill in the game, no matter how conditional.


In EoTS, you can (and often should) ignore the flag entirely and win the game. Three Nodes is actually faster then 2 nodes + Flag caps.


Not that I think any number of shamans would really make the flag unassailable to begin with. Punting keyboard turning retards is different then trying to take out semi-organized players.


Plus clearly, the solution is all priest counter teams to MC the shamans.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on September 18, 2010, 09:30:52 PM
Prot warrior dps numbers are all kinds of messed up right now, yeah. Even shield slam, which supposedly gets ridiculously high as you get towards 85, was critting for about what I normally *hit* with it for me. Devastate was ugly too.
If you have a very patient group, you can let mobs beat on you for like 20 seconds and max out your vengeance buff and start critting for like 25k with shield slam. Ironically even if you had 20 seconds to build aggro you'd still lose control of the mobs the instant the DPS opened up hard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 18, 2010, 11:59:28 PM
In EoTS, you can (and often should) ignore the flag entirely and win the game. Three Nodes is actually faster then 2 nodes + Flag caps.


Not that I think any number of shamans would really make the flag unassailable to begin with. Punting keyboard turning retards is different then trying to take out semi-organized players.


Plus clearly, the solution is all priest counter teams to MC the shamans.

I know you don't mean mind control. That spell has a casting time, can be trinketed out of, requires the priest to waste precious seconds steering the enemy, and above all is single target. There must be some other spell abbreviated MC which functions differently, and makes the analogy something other than an insult to the reader's intelligence.

Battlegrounds are poised to become the primary PVP focus of the game for the first time since Vanilla. I can't conceive of them carefully nerfing this stun by 1 second and that nuke by 5% damage, only to leave a potential one-shot multikill just sitting there indefinitely.

If they do, well then I want a big blue X painted on the ground next to... say... the blacksmith flag in Arathi Basin. Then when anyone comes near me while I'm standing on the X, my divine storm can hit them for a million damage instantly. Fuck you, go cap stables or something. Or get someone to mind control me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on September 19, 2010, 12:15:23 AM
Part 2 of 4.0 is background downloading here now. Part 1 was 1.74Gb (EU). Part 2 is 4.5Gb  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on September 19, 2010, 06:39:32 AM
Random, but how long do you guys think the shaman and druid knockbacks are going to survive once PVP is focus on rated battlegrounds? I can't imagine "I rode up in EOTS and blew half of the other team off the cliff lolol" is going to last very long when/if Blizz starts paying attention to BGs.

Tor Annroc is back bitches!!!!

I don't like this strategy of making the 4.0 test public without any attempt whatsoever to balance the numbers. All the reports turn into nothing but "T10 tanks dying to H-UK trash, death knights more worthless than the ret paladins getting soloed by hunter pets, game totally fucked!" and you just KNOW that while it won't be that bad by the time it goes live, the game is going to be a total fucking mess for months.

Yeah I'm with WuA on this. 'Oh it'll be fine, so your getting one shot by some classes now while your class feels like it's duel wielding wiffle bats, everything will be fine once cata comes out and we're all 85' is a rather weak response. So for that length of time, we have to play the game with pvp removed, or in some cases (based on what I'm hearing about tank threat across the board), pve removed? Fuck that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 19, 2010, 07:03:29 AM
Tor Annroc is back bitches!!!!
I loved Tor Annroc!  I used the skills gained there in Tier 4 ORvR to knock two Witch Elves into the lava who thought they could jump me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 19, 2010, 07:19:12 AM
Part 2 of 4.0 is background downloading here now. Part 1 was 1.74Gb (EU). Part 2 is 4.5Gb  :ye_gods:

It's going to be a huge, huge patch.  Remember they're having to replace ALL of the vanilla zones, plus the new textures. That's a lot of artwork.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on September 19, 2010, 07:25:42 AM
Quote
I loved Tor Annroc!

I actually did too, being a swordmaster with a 360 degree knockback did have it's advantages. I only meant, that I have never encountered a more reviled BG in any game.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on September 19, 2010, 07:58:14 AM
Random beta thoughts.

I've given up tanking instances in beta. It's too annoying. Keeping agro is far harder, and if you lose agro the mobs insta kill the healer.

PUGs will be CC nightmares. Those random low DPS idiots who just slow things down a bit now? Wait till you're dependent on their CC skills. They either fail CC altogether, do the same mob, spend so much time applying the CC that the mob is already to the group and in AE range, or actual get the CC right and then forget to change target and break it themselves.

My comments earlier about how easy it is to solo multiple mobs as a DK tank? They heard me and nerfed the hell out of death strike.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on September 19, 2010, 08:38:28 AM
Don't worry too much about it being fun, they'll just tweak some numbers (TM)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 19, 2010, 04:20:50 PM
WUA, were you that Paladin I knocked out of the Bunker a dozen times?   :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 19, 2010, 04:45:05 PM
Tor Annroc is back bitches!!!!
I loved Tor Annroc!  I used the skills gained there in Tier 4 ORvR to knock two Witch Elves into the lava who thought they could jump me.

Atta girl. <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on September 19, 2010, 08:54:26 PM
Part 2 of 4.0 is background downloading here now. Part 1 was 1.74Gb (EU). Part 2 is 4.5Gb  :ye_gods:

I think the 4.5Gb includes part one.  When it started for me the first 1.6 Gb zoomed by... then the rest started downloading at 32kb/s :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 20, 2010, 03:34:19 AM
So I installed recount and hit-up the boss dummy on the DK and reports of  Dks sucking are highly exaggerated.  The gameplay is MUCH different, yes, but I was still hitting 6.6 - 6.8k DPS unbuffed on the dummy just spamming things as they lit-up with no sense of what should be a priority over another. 

Blood tanking, however, is going to be an exercise in pain.  Just trying a few rotations on the dummy meant a lot of rune starvation and sitting around being unable to hit anything at all for aggro. You're going to be relying on Death Grip and Dark Command a LOT it seems.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 20, 2010, 03:49:32 AM
Blood tanking, however, is going to be an exercise in pain.  Just trying a few rotations on the dummy meant a lot of rune starvation and sitting around being unable to hit anything at all for aggro. You're going to be relying on Death Grip and Dark Command a LOT it seems.
Not really up on the DK tank Rotations for Cata, but don't DK tanks require a target that hits back to proc a lot of their "anti-rune-starvation" abilities?  Test dummies are bad for tank testing on, since they dont hit back, meaning things that proc off of blocks / dodges / parries never light up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 20, 2010, 05:33:25 AM
Everybody's tanking is screwed up, to a greater or lesser extent. Expect a whole bunch of changes (read: nerf reversions) post 4.0, and then even more a few months after Cataclysm goes live and Joe Bloggs still can't tank heroics reliably enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on September 20, 2010, 06:08:02 AM
Not really up on the DK tank Rotations for Cata, but don't DK tanks require a target that hits back to proc a lot of their "anti-rune-starvation" abilities?
Yes, Rune Strike requires you either parry or dodge an attack.  It's one of those things I *always* hit when it's up as it generates pretty decent threat and occupies time waiting for runes to come back.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 20, 2010, 06:15:31 AM
Random beta thoughts.
I've given up tanking instances in beta. It's too annoying. Keeping agro is far harder, and if you lose agro the mobs insta kill the healer.
PUGs will be CC nightmares. Those random low DPS idiots who just slow things down a bit now? Wait till you're dependent on their CC skills. They either fail CC altogether, do the same mob, spend so much time applying the CC that the mob is already to the group and in AE range, or actual get the CC right and then forget to change target and break it themselves.

Looks like I've got my Cata game plan worked out then:
In no particular order:

Level mages to 85. do dailies till bored. avoid instances.
Level solo alts as far as I can through TBC/WOTLK till bored.
Level lowbie Blood Elves/Druids/Worgen/Goblins as far through the content as possible until bored.
Quit for 6months-2 years.
Return for newish content and old stuff that's been rererebalanced to no longer cockstabbingly painful.
 :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 20, 2010, 09:07:03 AM
Not really up on the DK tank Rotations for Cata, but don't DK tanks require a target that hits back to proc a lot of their "anti-rune-starvation" abilities?
Yes, Rune Strike requires you either parry or dodge an attack.  It's one of those things I *always* hit when it's up as it generates pretty decent threat and occupies time waiting for runes to come back.
Rune Strike is the only reactive ability I can think of off-hand, and that just uses rune power.  (Amazing how fast one forgets.)  My anti-starvation was making sure I had several of the X Rune becomes Death Rune upon refresh abilities.  Once I was through my first rotation, I either had enough rune power or runes off cool down that I could do something.

I do believe I expressed concern about the new rune mechanics though.  For some builds it might not be a problem, but the way it was described it would have completely messed up my Blood Tank.  I wouldn't be surprised if that is causing problems, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 20, 2010, 11:02:40 AM
Did we see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWI5XTmGrmo ?




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 20, 2010, 11:17:19 AM
Yea, it's being discussed in the God: I Love Blizzard thread.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 20, 2010, 11:18:00 AM
Dammit!  :angryfist:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 20, 2010, 11:22:49 AM
Not really up on the DK tank Rotations for Cata, but don't DK tanks require a target that hits back to proc a lot of their "anti-rune-starvation" abilities?
Yes, Rune Strike requires you either parry or dodge an attack.  It's one of those things I *always* hit when it's up as it generates pretty decent threat and occupies time waiting for runes to come back.
Rune Strike is the only reactive ability I can think of off-hand, and that just uses rune power.  (Amazing how fast one forgets.)  My anti-starvation was making sure I had several of the X Rune becomes Death Rune upon refresh abilities.  Once I was through my first rotation, I either had enough rune power or runes off cool down that I could do something.

I do believe I expressed concern about the new rune mechanics though.  For some builds it might not be a problem, but the way it was described it would have completely messed up my Blood Tank.  I wouldn't be surprised if that is causing problems, too.

Rune Strike under the new system does sort of count as anti-starvation, because it is a GCD where you're pressing RS instead of a rune-using ability, giving them longer to come back or whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on September 20, 2010, 02:23:48 PM
Motherfucking scorpion mount!


DO WANT

Seriously, this is the sort of stuff that makes me want to switch factions. The extent to which this is better than some wank lion is hard to express.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 20, 2010, 02:26:44 PM
wat

The lion blows that thing away, you are craaaaazy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 20, 2010, 02:31:22 PM
 I'm horde, love playing it and hate alliance and I still think the lion is better. I mean I like giant scorpions and all but seriously it just doesn't compete.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 20, 2010, 02:31:56 PM
Lions are cool, but I already have a tiger. I have nothing remotely resembling a scorpion, so I say "Horde, Fuck yea!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 20, 2010, 02:55:30 PM
You have nothing resembling a scorpion because riding something resembling a scorpion is fucking stupid.


EDIT: I suppose there is a single exception to that rule: When you are a baby scorpion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 20, 2010, 02:56:14 PM
Just don't lean back in the seat and you'll be fine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on September 20, 2010, 03:01:08 PM
wat

The lion blows that thing away, you are craaaaazy.

Seriously, that thing doesn't even have a saddle so it's just basically jumping on top of the things you've been killing since level 20.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on September 20, 2010, 03:12:19 PM
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE

It's a motherfucking scorpion!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on September 20, 2010, 03:18:34 PM
It is also pretty stupid looking as far as "things someone would possibly ride around on".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on September 20, 2010, 03:18:56 PM
I don't think they're done with the scorpion.  As is, I'd still take it over the lion.  If the lion didn't have a dumb mask, it might be a closer call.

Just don't lean back in the seat and you'll be fine.

Nothing some bubble wrap and tape can't take care of.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 20, 2010, 03:34:41 PM
Not really up on the DK tank Rotations for Cata, but don't DK tanks require a target that hits back to proc a lot of their "anti-rune-starvation" abilities?
Yes, Rune Strike requires you either parry or dodge an attack.  It's one of those things I *always* hit when it's up as it generates pretty decent threat and occupies time waiting for runes to come back.
Rune Strike is the only reactive ability I can think of off-hand, and that just uses rune power.  (Amazing how fast one forgets.)  My anti-starvation was making sure I had several of the X Rune becomes Death Rune upon refresh abilities.  Once I was through my first rotation, I either had enough rune power or runes off cool down that I could do something.

I do believe I expressed concern about the new rune mechanics though.  For some builds it might not be a problem, but the way it was described it would have completely messed up my Blood Tank.  I wouldn't be surprised if that is causing problems, too.

Rune Strike under the new system does sort of count as anti-starvation, because it is a GCD where you're pressing RS instead of a rune-using ability, giving them longer to come back or whatever.

Yes, Rune Strike is the only reactive tanking ability and requieres a dodge or parry to activate so as a tank it's nearlyalways up (and costs 20runic power).  However, it's a single-target ability and they previously stated they expect pestilence>blood boil to be the way blood tanks hold aggro on more than one target.  The current rune mechanics, however, disagree with what they said.

Since runes refresh one-then another you're constantly cycling only 3 runes after the initial combat.  They expect DK tanks to be spamming Death Strike often, for self-healing.. so that's two runes being used all the time as soon as they refresh.  That leaves One blood rune to cast: Bone shield, Pestilence, Blood Plague, Strangulate and Rune Tap (Granted, you should be using a BT>RT Macro for the last.)

That's a problem.

Runic Empowerment is supposed to "fix" this, but it's a 45% chance to refresh a random rune back to it's original state.  So that's only a 15% chance, per rune strike (Which is also a random based on d/p) of having a rune you need activate. Things start to look grim.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 20, 2010, 03:55:51 PM
I don't think they're done with the scorpion.  As is, I'd still take it over the lion.  If the lion didn't have a dumb mask, it might be a closer call.

Just don't lean back in the seat and you'll be fine.

Nothing some bubble wrap and tape can't take care of.
Real Horde endure the pain. :drill:
Hell, one of the newbie recipes in Durotar is "gather scorpid tails, bake, try not to bite down on the poison sac"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on September 20, 2010, 04:59:07 PM
That's a problem.
We'll see when it goes live.  They have monkeyed with so many classes over the years we always have to re-learn them and end up excelling at one thing or another.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 20, 2010, 05:15:24 PM
I don't think they're done with the scorpion.  As is, I'd still take it over the lion.  If the lion didn't have a dumb mask, it might be a closer call.

Just don't lean back in the seat and you'll be fine.

Nothing some bubble wrap and tape can't take care of.
Real Horde endure the pain. :drill:
Hell, one of the newbie recipes in Durotar is "gather scorpid tails, bake, try not to bite down on the poison sac"
That's not a new recepie, Scorpid Surprise has been in the game since vanilla if i remember correctly.

My only question about the horde mount is : where is the seat / armor / guild tabard thingie?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 20, 2010, 05:23:39 PM
newbie != new

I assume the scorpion mount isn't finished yet, much like they posted the lion mount without all its armor and such first.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 20, 2010, 06:01:55 PM
It is also pretty stupid looking as far as "things someone would possibly ride around on".

That's what I'm sayin'!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on September 21, 2010, 04:24:23 AM
Can't stand the scorpion mount.  I'd rather swap factions to Ally for the lion than ride that thing and that ain't never gonna happen in this lifetime.

The Sandstone Drake alchemy "mount", on the other hand, would make me retrain in Alchemy. Turn into a dragon and be able to carry someone else? Yes please!  Maybe this will mean that Druids will become mountable too?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on September 21, 2010, 04:56:56 AM
Can't stand the scorpion mount.  I'd rather swap factions to Ally for the lion than ride that thing and that ain't never gonna happen in this lifetime.

The Sandstone Drake alchemy "mount", on the other hand, would make me retrain in Alchemy. Turn into a dragon and be able to carry someone else? Yes please!  Maybe this will mean that Druids will become mountable too?  :awesome_for_real:

They already are on certain RP servers. :awesome_for_real: :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Der Helm on September 21, 2010, 05:08:09 AM
They already are on certain RP servers. :awesome_for_real: :ye_gods:
Beat me to it.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 21, 2010, 05:37:26 AM
Speaking of, there's quite a few people on the various fansites complaining about the new-look female worgen. Seems that Blizzard's idea of worgen being barely-constrained snarling animals a hairs-breadth away from snapping and ripping out someone's jugular with their teeth doesn't fit with their RP plans.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on September 21, 2010, 06:12:32 AM
You're all crazy, nothing says "BadAssMoFO!" more than riding up on a GIANT scorpion.

Fricken Sigfried and Roy have ridden lions.  Have they ridden giant scorpions?  NO, no they haven't.

Too bad I play alliance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on September 21, 2010, 09:30:25 AM
Speaking of, there's quite a few people on the various fansites complaining about the new-look female worgen. Seems that Blizzard's idea of worgen being barely-constrained snarling animals a hairs-breadth away from snapping and ripping out someone's jugular with their teeth doesn't fit with their RP plans.

Screw them. It fits in with mine just fine. Such as they are. Which ain't much. Nevertheless, it fits my mental image to a fare-thee-well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 21, 2010, 01:54:25 PM
Can't stand the scorpion mount.  I'd rather swap factions to Ally for the lion than ride that thing and that ain't never gonna happen in this lifetime.

The Sandstone Drake alchemy "mount", on the other hand, would make me retrain in Alchemy. Turn into a dragon and be able to carry someone else? Yes please!  Maybe this will mean that Druids will become mountable too?  :awesome_for_real:
I am almost positive someone posted a datamined link of a "passenger mount" raven form type ability, which indicates that said form may indeed be a possibility for druids.

Edit: Nope, my mistake.  Not a Raven form, but http://db.mmo-champion.com/i/57859/essence-of-the-underworld-nyi/ (Transform yourself into a Twilight Pheonix, allowing you to carry a passenger), so probably not a passenger druid form, but we can always hope.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on September 21, 2010, 02:48:22 PM
You're all crazy, nothing says "BadAssMoFO!" more than riding up on a GIANT scorpion.

Go watch the new Clash of the Titans and then come back and say that without wincing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on September 21, 2010, 02:52:02 PM
You're all crazy, nothing says "BadAssMoFO!" more than riding up on a GIANT scorpion.

Go watch the new Clash of the Titans and then come back and say that without wincing.

That movie never happened.  Harry Hamlin or GTFO.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 21, 2010, 03:33:35 PM
Speaking of, there's quite a few people on the various fansites complaining about the new-look female worgen. Seems that Blizzard's idea of worgen being barely-constrained snarling animals a hairs-breadth away from snapping and ripping out someone's jugular with their teeth doesn't fit with their RP plans.

The thing with the new lady worgen's head is her eyes are a little too ... TOO. I mean, maybe she's supposed to be a wide-eyed crazypants, but instead it just looks like she just had too much coffee.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 23, 2010, 01:36:42 AM
Spoilers for the big pre-Cataclysm event.


Compared to the pre-WOTLK stuff this sounds boring as shit. Loot is a bunch of gear you'll be throwing away for quest greens a week later anyway. No sign so far of any tabards/mounts/anything you might still want to own by December. The zombie invasion was the best thing they ever did, this is more like "Well I don't need any new ilvl 251 PVE gear a week before Cataclysm and I'll probably be in Dalaran anyway, guess I'll forget this exists."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on September 23, 2010, 02:08:58 AM
Sounds more like the skelly-dragon invasion part of the pre-WoTLK event when Thrall and Garrosh were waving handbags at each other.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 23, 2010, 02:11:33 AM
Pre-WotLK event had throwaway gear too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on September 23, 2010, 02:19:58 AM
Looks like the event gear is itemised for Cataclysm and not the current game too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 23, 2010, 03:15:55 AM
Looks like the event gear is itemised for Cataclysm and not the current game too.
Would make sense, since that will probably go live along with the pre-cata balance pass patch where they re do all the talent trees and stuff


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on September 23, 2010, 03:33:58 AM
Yeah, I guess so, although I saw one of the pieces had expertise and i thought that was one of the stats that was being dropped from the game. I may be wrong though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 23, 2010, 10:01:51 AM
Pre-WotLK event had throwaway gear too.

Yeah but they also turned on the old-style Scourge invasion event too, and I got a tabard and novelty trinket out of the deal that I still have. Plus I got to fight zombies and turn into a zombie and so on. This shit is about as exciting as when they used to spawn monsters in town in UO for a month.

Also, lore nerd alert, but what the hell is up with the Scourge in Cataclysm? Sylvanas is recruiting Valkyr, Araj the Summoner is leading a Scourge remnant force in the plaguelands, what the fuck happened to Bolvar and his magic hat keeping them in line? Can't they go one update cycle without contradicting themselves? I'm all for lore retcons where they benefit gameplay, but it should really take more than a couple months for you to need one. This is embarassingly bad writing, even for WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 23, 2010, 10:59:19 AM
I agree it is kind of sloppy. To put on my devil's advocate hat for a bit, I kind of assume the idea is that Bolvar is keeping mostly the giant masses of non-intelligent Scourge in line; there's precedent for intelligent ones breaking free from control, after all. It isn't really clear to me if the more powerful ones like the Valkyr were ever really under any kind of control other than "I can destroy you any time I feel like so you better do what I say", and I don't know if Bolvar can do that with Frostmourne destroyed etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 23, 2010, 11:13:25 AM
Pre-WotLK event had throwaway gear too.

Yeah but they also turned on the old-style Scourge invasion event too, and I got a tabard and novelty trinket out of the deal that I still have. Plus I got to fight zombies and turn into a zombie and so on. This shit is about as exciting as when they used to spawn monsters in town in UO for a month.

Also, lore nerd alert, but what the hell is up with the Scourge in Cataclysm? Sylvanas is recruiting Valkyr, Araj the Summoner is leading a Scourge remnant force in the plaguelands, what the fuck happened to Bolvar and his magic hat keeping them in line? Can't they go one update cycle without contradicting themselves? I'm all for lore retcons where they benefit gameplay, but it should really take more than a couple months for you to need one. This is embarassingly bad writing, even for WoW.

Most intelligent undead followed the lichking not so much because he had direct control over them but more for the fact tha they were evil, uncead and who else are you gonna work for? The lich king's power can raise undead and control the mindless ones and probably the more powerful ones but it's always seemed to have been to a lesser extent. The lich king wasn't directly controlling every single mind, can you imagine that sort of micro-managing in a game like civ? He was their leader, the driving force behind the vast armies of undead and unquestionably powerful but could not be every place.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on September 23, 2010, 11:48:27 AM
The hat takes time to warm up


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 23, 2010, 11:48:52 AM
Ok let's pretend the "kill Araja again" questline isn't going to have a billion mindless zombies to mow down along the way who all apparently don't care who's wearing the Lich King hat. Also, I still don't know who exactly is supposed to care if all the mindless undead go crazy up there in Northrend. Those walrus guys maybe, I guess. But we pwned all those zombies and shit even when they were united and coordinated, so if anything they should be easier to kill now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 23, 2010, 12:04:49 PM
Ok let's pretend the "kill Araja again" questline isn't going to have a billion mindless zombies to mow down along the way who all apparently don't care who's wearing the Lich King hat. Also, I still don't know who exactly is supposed to care if all the mindless undead go crazy up there in Northrend. Those walrus guys maybe, I guess. But we pwned all those zombies and shit even when they were united and coordinated, so if anything they should be easier to kill now.

I don't disagree with you on the whole bolvar "someone should always wear the hat" idiocy but the whole val'kyr working for sylvanas thing makes sense in either case.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 23, 2010, 12:15:35 PM
Ok let's pretend the "kill Araja again" questline isn't going to have a billion mindless zombies to mow down along the way who all apparently don't care who's wearing the Lich King hat. Also, I still don't know who exactly is supposed to care if all the mindless undead go crazy up there in Northrend. Those walrus guys maybe, I guess. But we pwned all those zombies and shit even when they were united and coordinated, so if anything they should be easier to kill now.

Well, we also have precedent for said non-controlled intelligent undead having their own unintelligent guys under their own direct control rather than the LK's. I guess I'm just not sure this is *more* sloppy than usual, they've never been very careful about lore consistency.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on September 23, 2010, 12:18:07 PM
C'mon! "hat needs to warm up"?!  It's the frozen north!  Bolvar is undead!  That hat is never going to warm up!

I can see that you're going to refuse to find any of this funny, so here's my submission to try to make something nonsensical make sense - The orc shaman (name?) had DECADES of bodylessness to get a handle on controlling scourge, and even then some broke free during the Illidan assault.  Bolvar, on the other hand, has neither the orc shaman nor Arthas teaching him how to keep control over the scourge AND a body that is probably in a lot of pain.  Cut him some slack.

"Whoops, a few of the more slippery undead have eluded my mental chains in far off places that I no longer give a shit about.  ...  Sorry, my bad.  HOLY CRAP I'M DEAD AND MY BADLY BURNT BODY STILL HURTS LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER!!!!11!!1!!1!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 23, 2010, 01:01:14 PM
Well, we also have precedent for said non-controlled intelligent undead having their own unintelligent guys under their own direct control rather than the LK's. I guess I'm just not sure this is *more* sloppy than usual, they've never been very careful about lore consistency.

Blizzard still has lolore on their website which indicates that intelligent Scourge are not directly controlled by the LK, but are compelled with the threat of brainfucking them into unintelligent ones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on September 23, 2010, 01:03:43 PM
Question for beta people is there a CC choice in the LFD tool?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 23, 2010, 01:32:34 PM
C'mon! "hat needs to warm up"?!  It's the frozen north!  Bolvar is undead!  That hat is never going to warm up!

I can see that you're going to refuse to find any of this funny, so here's my submission to try to make something nonsensical make sense - The orc shaman (name?) had DECADES of bodylessness to get a handle on controlling scourge, and even then some broke free during the Illidan assault.  Bolvar, on the other hand, has neither the orc shaman nor Arthas teaching him how to keep control over the scourge AND a body that is probably in a lot of pain.  Cut him some slack.

"Whoops, a few of the more slippery undead have eluded my mental chains in far off places that I no longer give a shit about.  ...  Sorry, my bad.  HOLY CRAP I'M DEAD AND MY BADLY BURNT BODY STILL HURTS LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER!!!!11!!1!!1!"

Ner'Zhul.

/nerd


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 23, 2010, 02:05:37 PM
The hat takes time to warm up

That made me laugh.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on September 23, 2010, 02:50:26 PM
Question for beta people is there a CC choice in the LFD tool?

No, the usual tank/heal/DPS choices they have now.

My group today was tank/heals/mage/warrior/warrior. It was a wipefest. I'll check back in on tanking again in a month.

I predict a return to the good old days of BC again with tank/healer/mage/mage/lock.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 23, 2010, 03:59:01 PM
There's a reason I'm leveling a mage now that I'm playing again. 

With the focus changes and ranged traps, hunters might be a better CC choice than rogues so keep an eye out there, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 23, 2010, 04:01:54 PM
Wasn't BC more Warrior/Druid|Priest/mage/lock/lucky dps?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 23, 2010, 04:03:01 PM
Depended how bad your groupmates sucked.  There were a lot of dual-mage PUGs on Alleria.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on September 23, 2010, 04:43:34 PM
Wasn't BC more Warrior/Druid|Priest/mage/lock/lucky dps?

I had precisely 1 good druid tank in all my *many* BC heroics, and only about 5 druid tanks total. Almost all warriors and pallies.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on September 23, 2010, 04:47:24 PM
Me personally, I think they are making a mistake with the whole 'lets make everything tough as hell and teethgrinding to pug' idea. The game, in it's current aoe fest, has never been more accesable, and yes, fun. I dont see how turning the clock back to having only a few people able to relaibly do heroics is a good choice overall.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 23, 2010, 04:49:11 PM
Beginning of TBC, before they got nerfed, druid tanks were the choice. At the end, paladins were the choice. Warriors were kind of #2 through the expansion in terms of desirability. You saw a LOT of "need paladin tank for heroic group" in trade at the end of the expansion, because the paladin enabled you to do the instances without needing CCers much - so all the DPS that couldn't CC would try to put together groups with paladins. (This is all for heroics, raids were another matter, warriors were still king there generally.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 23, 2010, 05:08:53 PM
Me personally, I think they are making a mistake with the whole 'lets make everything tough as hell and teethgrinding to pug' idea. The game, in it's current aoe fest, has never been more accesable, and yes, fun. I dont see how turning the clock back to having only a few people able to relaibly do heroics is a good choice overall.

They'll relent and nerf everything after a couple months of LFD pug hilarity and the ensuing storm of QQ.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 23, 2010, 05:20:33 PM
Me personally, I think they are making a mistake with the whole 'lets make everything tough as hell and teethgrinding to pug' idea. The game, in it's current aoe fest, has never been more accesable, and yes, fun. I dont see how turning the clock back to having only a few people able to relaibly do heroics is a good choice overall.

They'll relent and nerf everything after a couple months of LFD pug hilarity and the ensuing storm of QQ.

The way it should be. Set the bar and bring it down after the gnashing of teeth.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 23, 2010, 06:53:45 PM
Maybe they'll just add a scaling buff to heroics that increases as time goes on.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on September 23, 2010, 07:30:08 PM
Beginning of TBC, before they got nerfed, druid tanks were the choice. At the end, paladins were the choice. Warriors were kind of #2 through the expansion in terms of desirability. You saw a LOT of "need paladin tank for heroic group" in trade at the end of the expansion, because the paladin enabled you to do the instances without needing CCers much - so all the DPS that couldn't CC would try to put together groups with paladins. (This is all for heroics, raids were another matter, warriors were still king there generally.)

I never needed a paladin tank because my warrior tank buddy was amazing.  :awesome_for_real:
He never needed CC regardless of the instance, and only lost aggro when I frontloaded with a double-WF crit before he had a chance to get going. I rarely pugged without him tanking, but I do remember preferring a pally tank for things like... H Shattered Halls. Pulls of 7 mobs suck.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 23, 2010, 08:46:01 PM
Wasn't BC more Warrior/Druid|Priest/mage/lock/lucky dps?

I had precisely 1 good druid tank in all my *many* BC heroics, and only about 5 druid tanks total. Almost all warriors and pallies.

Tank:  Warrior
Healer:  Druid or Priest

Sorry for the confusion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 24, 2010, 12:43:07 AM
Any sign of dual-ride flying mounts that are readily accessible, or is the closest thing that refer-a-friend jobbie?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Brennik on September 24, 2010, 02:20:15 AM
Any sign of dual-ride flying mounts that are readily accessible, or is the closest thing that refer-a-friend jobbie?

Yea, there's an alchemist-only dragon, http://db.mmo-champion.com/s/93328/vial-of-the-sands/ (http://db.mmo-champion.com/s/93328/vial-of-the-sands/). No idea how attainable that will be until they datamine that missing component.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Yoshimaru on September 24, 2010, 02:32:20 AM
Any sign of dual-ride flying mounts that are readily accessible, or is the closest thing that refer-a-friend jobbie?

Yea, there's an alchemist-only dragon, http://db.mmo-champion.com/s/93328/vial-of-the-sands/ (http://db.mmo-champion.com/s/93328/vial-of-the-sands/). No idea how attainable that will be until they datamine that missing component.

It almost makes me want to take up Alchemy right nao. Almost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7txAJXad3o


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on September 24, 2010, 04:40:32 AM
Wasn't BC more Warrior/Druid|Priest/mage/lock/lucky dps?

I had precisely 1 good druid tank in all my *many* BC heroics, and only about 5 druid tanks total. Almost all warriors and pallies.

Tank:  Warrior
Healer:  Druid or Priest

Sorry for the confusion.


Oh, no wonder. I was almost always healing so I almost never think of other healers groups.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 24, 2010, 05:22:21 AM
Another new build up on MMO-C.

E: About the Scourge splinter groups, it's hardly without precedent that such groups form when the LK's attention is distracted (Forsaken via Illidan trying to nuke Icecrown, or the Ebon Blade via the Greatest Living Paladin smacking the Lich King around the head on consecrated ground with a proto-archangel in the form of a sword). It'd be more lore-breaking if none had formed in the gap between "Arthas is beaten like a pinata" and "Bolvar gets a new hat".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 24, 2010, 07:56:10 AM
I'm amazed people still try to rationalize the lore when all the decisions are game-based. If the devs decide they need a raging horde of hive-mind vampire Pandarens that are wandering around the countryside as the result of some earth-shattered event, they would just blame it on the old Gods, the fact that it's always been this way every 1000 years, and that we just hadn't noticed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 24, 2010, 08:50:56 AM
So what you're trying to say is that the people who created these fictional characters can at a whim determine how those characters will act? Moreover that this 'authors' of the characters destiny can shape the world as they see fit?

That's just crazy  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 24, 2010, 09:27:42 AM
More that they like pulling ideas out of their ass.  Any relation to previous arse-ideas is irrelevant.  (Basically what Paelos said.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on September 24, 2010, 09:35:36 AM
Also, at this point, the original asses that the ideas were pulled out of are long gone and working elsewhere either at Blizzard or another company. Hell, I would bet the people who wrote the "story" for the last expansion probably don't even work on the game anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 24, 2010, 09:47:33 AM
Did any of you ever play Everquest and try to follow the lore with every bi-annual expansion?

Just asking.  :uhrr: :why_so_serious: :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 24, 2010, 10:10:13 AM
Nope.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 24, 2010, 10:53:18 AM
Also, at this point, the original asses that the ideas were pulled out of are long gone and working elsewhere either at Blizzard or another company. Hell, I would bet the people who wrote the "story" for the last expansion probably don't even work on the game anymore.
Or, you know, not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Metzen).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 24, 2010, 10:55:13 AM
Did any of you ever play Everquest

No.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 24, 2010, 10:58:09 AM
lolmetzen

That's really all you need to know.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 24, 2010, 12:30:22 PM
WoW storytelling is not the best but it's really not as bad as people want to say it is.  All this lol lore bs is just players getting attached to their characters.  What do I mean by this? Blood elves.

Now, you may not think blood elves joining the horde was a good idea, you may even say it was dumb from a lore stand point but why? There are plenty of reasons for and against the blood elves joining the horde but in the end a plausible enough set of reasons were given. Yet people still disliked them and point to 'lol lore' as the excuse. I believe this is because most horde players felt so attached to their characters and identify with what 'they' believed to be horde that they lashed out against the idea of elves.

No I won't get into draenei because I genuinely think that could have been done better but I believe that most of all this lore bashing really translates into "but that's not how ~I~ would have done it" instead of actually finding great faults in the storylines.

In short it's a fucking video game, not the Iliad


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on September 24, 2010, 12:33:48 PM
Late to the party, but...
Pre-WotLK event had throwaway gear too.
Eh, I disagree. The blood prince in karazhan had a single item in his drop table (a 2h axe with the unique "level70 elite tauren chieftain guitarist" skin that makes you do guitar riffs when you "activate" it) along with a minipet; the quest reward was the "monster slaying kit" that was useless even at level 70, but had some amusing "six demon bag" style novelty value. I still have all of these items on my shaman and the guitar-axe is pretty  :drill:!

The cataclysm event gives... what, some ilevel251 items (probably just recolored stuff at that; heck, like half of the gear in that list is not even visible) that you will replace in the first leveling zone?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 24, 2010, 12:36:24 PM
Late to the party, but...
Pre-WotLK event had throwaway gear too.
Eh, I disagree. The blood prince in karazhan had a single item in his drop table (a 2h axe with the unique "level70 elite tauren chieftain guitarist" skin that makes you do guitar riffs when you "activate" it) along with a minipet; the quest reward was the "monster slaying kit" that was useless even at level 70, but had some amusing "six demon bag" style novelty value. I still have all of these items on my shaman and the guitar-axe is pretty  :drill:!

The cataclysm event gives... what, some ilevel251 items (probably just recolored stuff at that; heck, like half of the gear in that list is not even visible) that you will replace in the first leveling zone?

There were also the undead slaying armor sets from the revamped undead invasion part of the event - 4 piece armor sets for every armor type, ilvl 115 (Kara-level) as I recall.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on September 24, 2010, 12:39:38 PM
Yeah, I ignored that part completely (that wasn't even new iirc, they did something similar at level 60). My point is, the drops/rewards from the karazhan dude were anything but throwaway. If anything, the main problem was that only one person could get the axe per week and the entire event only lasted for a few weeks...

edit: more importantly, the zombie invasion was freaking hilarious! I remember teaming up with old horde nemeses (this was before you could create opposite-side characters on pvp servers) and beating the crap out of all the high-profile people from our server, on both horde and alliance


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 24, 2010, 12:46:07 PM
"monster slaying kit"

I still have it.  It can randomly throw an axe,dagger,holy water or cross.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 24, 2010, 01:00:16 PM
Yeah, I ignored that part completely (that wasn't even new iirc, they did something similar at level 60). My point is, the drops/rewards from the karazhan dude were anything but throwaway. If anything, the main problem was that only one person could get the axe per week and the entire event only lasted for a few weeks...

edit: more importantly, the zombie invasion was freaking hilarious! I remember teaming up with old horde nemeses (this was before you could create opposite-side characters on pvp servers) and beating the crap out of all the high-profile people from our server, on both horde and alliance

While that's fine, the armor sets were what I had in mind when I made the statement in the first place.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 24, 2010, 03:04:59 PM
In short it's a fucking video game, not the Iliad

Sure, but most of the time it's like they're not even trying. You bring up the blood elves. While I did think that was a bit of a shoehorn, that doesn't hold a fucking candle to the draenei. Metzen fucked up his own lore because he was too fucking lazy to check if he had ever written anything about them before. They are SO wtfrandom, they apparently can't even think of anything to do with them in Cataclysm. They have nothing new, no real stake in anything at all in Cataclysm, making them EVEN MORE "wtf" than they were. At least the Blood Elves have their antiquing club.

The problem I have is not so much the lore is bad (while it often is) but it's lazy. When you make a gajillion dollars, surely you can hire a couple of people to write DECENT lore to cover your gameplay decisions instead of, "lol I forgot" or "lol it just sounds cooler."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 24, 2010, 03:58:26 PM
The whole reason we're getting worgen is because someone at a Blizzcon or something a few years ago asked Metzen what was up with Gilneas, and he was like "Uh, who? Oh yeah! I forgot they exist!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 24, 2010, 04:08:52 PM
In short it's a fucking video game, not the Iliad

Sure, but most of the time it's like they're not even trying. You bring up the blood elves. While I did think that was a bit of a shoehorn, that doesn't hold a fucking candle to the draenei. Metzen fucked up his own lore because he was too fucking lazy to check if he had ever written anything about them before. They are SO wtfrandom, they apparently can't even think of anything to do with them in Cataclysm. They have nothing new, no real stake in anything at all in Cataclysm, making them EVEN MORE "wtf" than they were. At least the Blood Elves have their antiquing club.

The problem I have is not so much the lore is bad (while it often is) but it's lazy. When you make a gajillion dollars, surely you can hire a couple of people to write DECENT lore to cover your gameplay decisions instead of, "lol I forgot" or "lol it just sounds cooler."


In the last few builds, there's a few quests about Draenei/Broken in the swamp of sorrows now! Their shitty little broken town has actual buildings finally too! It's like, 3 or 4 extra quests compared to the current mini hub.

The Draenei town in Ashenvale is still the same though :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 24, 2010, 04:19:14 PM
The whole reason we're getting worgen is because someone at a Blizzcon or something a few years ago asked Metzen what was up with Gilneas, and he was like "Uh, who? Oh yeah! I forgot they exist!"
To be fair, Blizzard's "Sure, why not" when someone came up with the whole "Gilneas is still isolated because they're all worgen" thing was canny.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 24, 2010, 05:00:07 PM
The whole reason we're getting worgen is because someone at a Blizzcon or something a few years ago asked Metzen what was up with Gilneas, and he was like "Uh, who? Oh yeah! I forgot they exist!"
To be fair, Blizzard's "Sure, why not" when someone came up with the whole "Gilneas is still isolated because they're all worgen" thing was canny.
I wouldnt be too sure about that.  Remember, there was that List of Leaked Expantion Zones that someone threw up online like 4+ years ago that has, even up to Lich King, managed to be almost 90% accurate.  The WoW team defiantely seems to have had a VERY long reaching plan for where they want to take the game, and while some of it may have changed or they may have tweaked certain aspects of their plan, I somehow doubt that Gilneas and the Worgen thing was just a spur of the moment Metzen idea.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on September 24, 2010, 06:46:14 PM
It could have been a spur of the moment Metzen idea 5 years ago that they decided to shelve.

Hell, I remember when everyone was fucking waiting for the Emerald Dream when the world dragons got put in, only to have fucking Ahn'Qiraj put in instead and the Emerald Dream being relegated to "probably never going to do anything with this, dragons and such are boring."




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on September 24, 2010, 09:10:18 PM
Ner'Zhul.

/nerd

I was hoping that NerZhul would play some kind of part in the Wrath storyline. I also hoped that I'd get to lick tequila off of supermodels this weekend.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 24, 2010, 09:18:24 PM
Ner'Zhul.

/nerd

I was hoping that NerZhul would play some kind of part in the Wrath storyline. I also hoped that I'd get to lick tequila off of supermodels this weekend.
Much the same way people were hopeing that Sylvanas / Jaina would have more of a role to play in ICC then a throw away run for their lives in the 5 man dungeon chain?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 24, 2010, 09:38:45 PM
Fuck those two, what about Mal'ganis? :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 24, 2010, 09:41:07 PM
Mal'Ganis at least had an entire quest chain aside from his cameo in CoT: CoS.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 25, 2010, 03:43:12 AM
Yes, and it ends in him saying YOU'LL NEED ME, BITCHES!!!!!!!

And then he disappears.

I would also argue stupid Jaina and stupid Sylvannas got plenty of pre-ICC bullshit with the Undercity whatnot. Although at least you don't have to hear Mal'ganis burst into tears because he's just so HAPPY King Chin wasn't a dickbag for a second.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on September 25, 2010, 04:46:48 AM
Hell, I remember when everyone was fucking waiting for the Emerald Dream when the world dragons got put in, only to have fucking Ahn'Qiraj put in instead and the Emerald Dream being relegated to "probably never going to do anything with this, dragons and such are boring."

And then we get Wrath where we have 3, 4, 5 dragon bosses in 5 different raids (6 if you include revamped Onyxia) as well as several instances that feature dragons as mobs/bosses/allies/vehicles and a whole zone that's not only about dragons but even has "dragon" in the name.

And now we're getting an expanson about the biggest, baddest dragon of them all and we've still got to kill Nozdormu because it'll turn out as a surprise to no-one that he's the leader of the Infinite Dragonflight thats been dicking around for two expansions. Then we'll have to slaughter Ysera because she'll have been driven mad in the Emerald Dream or caused it or something then we'll murder Alexstrasza because we gotta catch 'em all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 25, 2010, 07:50:13 AM
Quote
kill Nozdormu because it'll turn out as a surprise to no-one that he's the leader of the Infinite Dragonflight thats been dicking around for two expansions.

How would this make any sense at all?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 25, 2010, 07:51:42 AM
You'll have to kill Alex after Deathwing makes her his bitch.  It's the only way.  Once enslaved, you can't ever free a dragon to have a happy ending.

R.I.P. Kerri :heart:

How would this make any sense at all?
He's infinite.  So of course he has an expiration date.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on September 25, 2010, 08:00:49 AM
hc Chromie will be a guild breaking fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 25, 2010, 09:38:32 AM
Quote
kill Nozdormu because it'll turn out as a surprise to no-one that he's the leader of the Infinite Dragonflight thats been dicking around for two expansions.

How would this make any sense at all?
There's a quest that underlines this.  Chromie gives it to you in Dragonblight, from Wyrmrest.  You go off and discover the leader of the Infinite Dragonflight is, in fact, Nozdormu.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on September 25, 2010, 09:50:07 AM
Well, you go and see Noz hanging around a brawl between infinite dragonflight dragons and bronze dragons. What he's actually up to is debatable, but you were sent there to find the leader of the infinites and there he is.

When you report back to Chromie, she's like, "Ummm...well...it's good he's alive and...uhhh...around...and stuff." Cue up up embarrased coughing and shifty eyes...

What it'll actually lead to is anyone's guess, but a bronze beatdown would scarcely be a surprise with past confrontations with black and blue dragonflights. Also, the titans are on the way back and since the dragons seem to have thoroughly buggered up their stewardship of Azeroth, they might have more than a little explaining to do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 25, 2010, 10:00:11 AM
It's all the fault of the Old Gods, so the dragons are in the clear!   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 25, 2010, 10:07:25 AM
We won't find that out until the final boss of the dungeon, after slaughtering all the innocent dragons!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 25, 2010, 03:09:19 PM
You'll have to kill Alex after Deathwing makes her his bitch.  It's the only way.  Once enslaved, you can't ever free a dragon to have a happy ending.

Mostly, although Kalecgos in Sunwell Plateau is an exception.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on September 25, 2010, 09:02:05 PM
You'll have to kill Alex after Deathwing makes her his bitch.  It's the only way.  Once enslaved, you can't ever free a dragon to have a happy ending.

Mostly, although Kalecgos in Sunwell Plateau is an exception.

I always feel bad for Keri when I kill her in Nex. I think the trink must be is to preempt the enslavement and rescue the dragon beforehand! Valithria Dreamwalker was on her way to being enslaved, and she was fine!

By the way, did I see the number wrong or did Alexstrasza have 139.7m hp at the end of the Wrathgate chain in Dragonblight?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 25, 2010, 09:15:56 PM
Valithria was not going to be enslaved; she was going to be killed and raised.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 25, 2010, 09:25:45 PM
By the way, did I see the number wrong or did Alexstrasza have 139.7m hp at the end of the Wrathgate chain in Dragonblight?
Not sure, i would have to go and check.

Personally, I never really put much stock in "non killable raid boss npc" health numbers anyway.  Though sometimes you do get funny things.  Like have you ever looked at the Health values on Varian, Jaina, Tyrion, Thrall and Garrosh when they are in the bleachers inside the Trial Arena?  o.0


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on September 25, 2010, 10:12:34 PM
Ahhh to wish for the heady days of when Vael was the highest HP mob in the game with 3.5 million ish HP if he was full health.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 26, 2010, 08:37:47 AM
I wouldnt be too sure about that.  Remember, there was that List of Leaked Expantion Zones that someone threw up online like 4+ years ago that has, even up to Lich King, managed to be almost 90% accurate.

Quote from: http://wow.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=21&mid=119012268058738816&page=3&howmany=50#msg1251302069155658271
Hello everyone. I'm the OP, if you haven't noticed.

With the announcement of Cataclysm, it seems the lifespan of my list has come to its end.

It's odd how this list, which I wrote myself out of boredom on a fall morning, has taken on a life of its own.

I wrote it in September of 2007, but some swear they saw it during the WoW beta in 2004. To boot, CMs on the official WoW forums deleted this list every time it popped up - at least until this year, when they suddenly stopped caring.

Some things I predicted came to pass. Others didn't.

I was sure I'd be proven right with a Maelstrom expansion, but it seems Blizzard has combined light elements of both the Elemental Planes and Maelstrom into one expansion. Gilneas and Grim Batol are in from the Maelstrom expansion, while the four elemental planes have been introduced - some only as raid dungeons, disappointingly. Why Blizzard has reduced the Firelands to a raid and expanded Uldum into a full zone is beyond me. If you ask me, they should have followed my lead.

Back in 2006, when we were struggling to figure out what race the Alliance would be getting, I started another rumor - the Worgen rumor!


"The people of Gilneas entombed themselves in their isolated peninsula at the outbreak of the Undead Scourge, erecting the Greymane Wall to keep out the demons and walking dead of the cursed army. To this day, refugees from the ravaged villages of Lordaeron gather at it, crying for safe haven from the Forsaken that now claim Silverpine Forest as their own.

Yet it is not much better behind the wall. For agents of the crazed wizard Arugal have infiltrated the once-prosperous land and spread a dark curse among the populace. As the first tainted moon climbed into the sky, screams rendered the countryside as the inhabitants of Gilneas changed forms and became the crazed Worgen. Few retained their minds. Many became wild and bloodthirsty.

Those who remained in control of their thoughts waged a war hidden from the eyes of the rest of the world, slaying former friends and family in an effort to preserve what little life still hoped for survival. Naming themselves the Nightcry after that first terrifying moonrise, they fought until they found themselves drained of resources and the will to continue the bloody battles alone.

Unable to conceal their horrid existence from the world any longer, a new sun rises over Gilneas. The Alliance has opened its gates to the refugees and an effort is now underway to restore humanity to the Nightcry Worgen. As one of their number, you must prove yourself a capable ally to the Alliance's cause and master the powers granted to you against your will in order to free your land...no matter how much blood you must shed. "


That was me as well. I didn't try and pass that one off as fact, though. Some people just ran with it. When you write speculative lore, you might as well pass it off as fact yourself and have a bit of fun with it. Otherwise a stranger will take what you wrote and start the rumor himself.

I can't think of any way I could have hurt anyone by starting this rumor, but it's within the realm of extreme possibility, so to them I apologize. To the rest of you, I've really enjoyed watching you all debate this. Hopefully you didn't spend too many sleepless nights pondering the ramifications of this leak.

I still intend on comparing future content to my list. Cataclysm looks rather fun but the way they're glossing over the Elemental Planes, which could have been four unique regions, bothers me.

Happy trails. Maybe I'll be around more often on 'Zam' now, unless you all don't want me, in which case I will accept my exile to the official forums. I will live in a mud hut and have many sharp sticks with which to jab the trolls who come through my windows demanding I play Aion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 26, 2010, 10:24:22 PM
Here is the first Cata change that REALLY made me go "well, what the fuck Blizzard?"

http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/09/26/cataclysm-beta-removes-portals-from-dalaran-and-shattrath/


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on September 26, 2010, 10:45:43 PM
WTF? One of the things I *love* about WoW atm is that you almost never have to spend 10 minutes doing nothing but travelling, and a large part of that is due to the portals.

I predict an inflationary pressure on the price of mage transportation services.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 26, 2010, 10:51:03 PM
Yeah, that change is pretty "What? What?! Fuck you!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 26, 2010, 10:57:40 PM
I'm not sure it really matters does it? Once you're in old world where else do you really need to go? you have your AH right there in whatever city you pick. I mean there's no need to go immediately from UC if you're already in org or vice versa and dalaran portals didn't take you anywhere else in northrend to make travelling to dungeons/zones faster.

It's a minor inconvenience if anything but I can't say it's surprising.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 26, 2010, 11:38:20 PM
Ohh, new video up of the scorpion mount:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHzTfx46kdQ

That thing is going to be HUGE.  I can just picture what a group of Tauren riding around on them is going to be like  :ye_gods: :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 27, 2010, 12:43:08 AM
The thing is, I don't give a shit if Blizzard wants the old world to feel "lived in".  Dalaran was extremely convenient, not just for my main, but my alts as well.  Being able to hop to a city, then port to any number of places, is really goddamn handy.

If they take that away, it's one more reason for me to not re-up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 27, 2010, 12:51:32 AM
Kind of makes me happy that I have my Expensive "teleport to dalaran ring" and the "teleport to black temple neck" on my druid.  Gives these things a bit more value now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 27, 2010, 02:02:55 AM
Teleport Moonglade and Hearthstone Ironforge is all you need!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 27, 2010, 03:13:04 AM
Or Deathgate/ Hearthstone Darnassus.

Also; yet another reason to level a mage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 27, 2010, 03:34:04 AM
I'm half laughing at all the poor bastards that hearth to Dalaran not knowing about this change. Dalaran without the portals is about as far from anything you would want/need a 80-85 as you can get.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on September 27, 2010, 04:17:59 AM
Unnecessary change is unnecessary; what are they expecting, that everyone will stick around Dal once Cataclysm hits? Or maybe it will end up as a ghost-town, much like Shatt. Shatt would be even more of a ghost town without the portals too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 27, 2010, 05:28:43 AM
Good. Faction-neutral cities were the worst idea ever, and portals shrank the world even more than flying mounts did.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on September 27, 2010, 05:33:43 AM
Valithria was not going to be enslaved; she was going to be killed and raised.

I know. I just meant enslaved as in being forced to serve, dead or alive.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on September 27, 2010, 05:37:39 AM
Faction-neutral cities were the worst idea ever

I agree wholeheartedly, but given the fact of their existence, portals were a necessary evil. Go back and do Shattrath to any city on Kalimdor without using the portal and see how much it sucks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 27, 2010, 08:05:42 AM
I wonder if they will remove the Shat port to the Isle of Queldanas?   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on September 27, 2010, 08:16:11 AM
It would seem pretty petty to do so.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on September 27, 2010, 08:19:04 AM
It would seem pretty petty to do so.

Which means they will.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 27, 2010, 08:20:09 AM
Okay, I realize I've been pretty harsh on WoW of late, but does this honestly surprise any of you?  They've already made a huge number of changes for stupid reasons, even if you liked what the changes were.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on September 27, 2010, 08:42:18 AM
Unnecessary change is unnecessary; what are they expecting, that everyone will stick around Dal once Cataclysm hits? Or maybe it will end up as a ghost-town, much like Shatt. Shatt would be even more of a ghost town without the portals too.

Shatt is only a ghost town because of the portals in Dalaran, if they hadn't been there i guarantee you everyone would be bound in shatt.  Of course everyone would stick around Dalaran once Cata hit if they left the portals in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 27, 2010, 08:46:30 AM
Quote
port to any number of places

This is what I don't get. Dalaran let you travel from your crafting/northrend hub to oldworld content for auction houses and whatever else you needed but most people would have never even left Dalaran were it not for lack of AH.  Is there some great need to go from thunderbluff to orgrimmar to silvermoon back to orgrimmar without any travel time?

What I'm trying to say is that the convenience of dalaran or shattrath portals was a perceived convenience due to restricting them from having an auction house. There was no real reason to ever leave outland or northrend instantly aside from the AH and by the same token is there any reason you need to get to the other continent in cataclysm faster than a flying mount can take you? Dalaran didn't have any portals to the nexus and that was a long ass flight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 27, 2010, 08:58:48 AM
The thing is, this is one more annoyance on top of everything else coming in Cataclysm.  Wrath brought about a lot of conveniences to WoW, that just made the game get less in the way of having fun. Cataclysm is taking big steps back from that, and I don't like it.

They're fucking up healing, because apparently healing needs to hold up everyone else by needing to drink far more frequently, plus healers didn't have enough to do anyway, so we should be forced to manage our mana bars as well as everything else we were managing.

They're making dungeons harder.  Mobs will require CC, because if you don't control the mobs, well, see "They're fucking up healing".

Now they're taking out portals that were a major convenience, and apparently in the name of a "vision" that capitals should be swarming with people, so new players walk into a town packed with annoyed 85s who now have to take blimps everywhere they might want to go that's in a different zone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on September 27, 2010, 09:05:13 AM
Being able to get to any of the major cities quickly isn't something I use every day. But when I do want to use it then it's damned useful.

There are many, many reasons for doing this. Running old dungeons with an 80 and a friend (i.e. not using the random dungeon finder because you don't want strangers in there with you). Doing achievments. Farming for mats from various places in the old world. Deciding to complete some ancient quest chain for fun. Getting around easily for various world/seasonal events.

One of the biggest is levelling alts. New alt? Get mage/warlock portal to Dalaran and bingo they can now get to pretty much any part of the world quickly and easily. Without those portals there's going to be a lot more time spent sitting on wind riders, getting boats, waiting for zeppelins. Great gameplay that is.

Of course we don't know yet how this will pan out but I don't see the need for it - it feels simply like adding annoyance for the sake of it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 27, 2010, 09:12:43 AM
I don't think flying to a destination is the end of the world. The longest FP takes like 17m from the Shattered Staging to Booty Bay, and you'd only take that if you were a dumbass.

Remember when they didn't connect flights and you had to click on each one? Damn spoiled kids and their insta-travel.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 27, 2010, 09:16:51 AM
Let me know when I can fly from Orgrimmar to Undercity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 27, 2010, 09:17:32 AM
Well I certainly agree that when levelling a new alt its almost necessary to get a hearth set to dalaran but why is that? because most of the levelling quests require you running back and forth between continents on a regular basis and its a pain in the ass. Hopefully this is something they will address and also, bored 85's aren't waiting on blimps or whatever, they will have flying mounts.

I just don't see how lack of portals is going to change gameplay dramatically, except that cities aren't going to be crammed like dalaran anymore.

Quote
Insert Quote
Let me know when I can fly from Orgrimmar to Undercity.

When cataclysm comes out


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 27, 2010, 09:22:19 AM
Cataclysm does intend to fix the natural progression of leveling across zones. As it stands now, it's hideous once you're above 30.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on September 27, 2010, 09:25:02 AM
This is a conspiracy to force people to play more bejeweled!

I swear, having that addon made my grind to 80 feel much worse because I never took my tradional "on a bird AFK" breaks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 27, 2010, 09:30:52 AM
Definately another step backwards. I can see myself playing at most for the rest of my time left (40 days?), and probably a single 60-day timecard after that to check out the start of Cata, then taking a break for a year or more again.

Then when I play again, all this bullshit will be nerfed down to make the game more fun and less painful again. Healing, Arcane Mages, portals, etc etc. If they put in portals from city to city for each faction, even if they leave out Shatt and Dal, it'd be worthwhile. I wouldn't expect that early on, but it's the kind of thing that might happen after 6 months or a year or so...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 27, 2010, 09:43:15 AM
Did wow make people this lazy or is it just general bitchiness?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on September 27, 2010, 09:46:27 AM
Being able to get to any of the major cities quickly isn't something I use every day.

I find it quite helpful when there's a holiday going on.  I wouldn't even bother with a lot of them if it weren't for the fact that getting from continent-to-continent isn't a chore at the moment.

So is this portal removal just a way for them to make sure people don't idle in the last expansion while LFD?  :awesome_for_real:

On a whole, WoW didn't need to get harder or less convenient. As the general player base becomes less attached to the game (it's bound to happen sometime.. right?) they need to keep people from feeling like it's a hassle to play.  Of course, I'll judge it when I play it.  My tollerances are different from your typical player that actually raids or plays more than a 90 minutes a day.

Did wow make people this lazy or is it just general bitchiness?

No one who values their time wants to spend any significant amount of time traveling.  Poopsock McGee doesn't give a shit , but I'd rather not spend more than a minute at a time staring at windrider ass.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 27, 2010, 09:56:19 AM
Did wow make people this lazy or is it just general bitchiness?
I play games to have fun.  Not to sit on a mount for X period of time.  If WoW decides to not be fun, I will not play WoW.

I don't understand why this is so hard.

The WoW team strove really hard to make Wrath accessible.  WoW was successful as a result.

Cataclysm appears to be stepping backwards.  It will make WoW less accessible.  I don't understand why Blizzard thinks this is a good idea, and I will not support it with my money.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on September 27, 2010, 10:06:41 AM
Did wow make people this lazy or is it just general bitchiness?

Saw the same thing in Anarchy Online (of all places) whenever they put in new teleport nodes. And you had flying mounts, there, too, so most didn't really care.

I really don't see a problem with this. I hate Dalaran with a white-hot passion and if I never see it again, it'll still be too soon. I think I've been back to Shatt since LK maybe two dozen times (once a month?)--and most of those were to kill unruly horde out in Honor Hold. I could just as easily come via the Blasted Lands.

My shaman has been farming HMgT lately for the shinies there and I've never used the Shatt portal. I always go via IF. Once you're back in the old world, I simply see now reason to worry about any of this. My alts might be a little inconvenianced in some cases, but hell, they're alts. Who cares?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on September 27, 2010, 10:38:50 AM
It's kinda funny how WoW used to be a world (albeit a small one) and now all people want is Guild Wars with a WoW setting. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on September 27, 2010, 10:40:54 AM
World/not-World is a meaningless distinction, especially with WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 27, 2010, 10:51:06 AM
Oh no, without Dalaran portals how will I ever make those trips to super-important places like... uh... Exodar? Darnassus? I mean except for the boat from Stormwind that leads directly to them.

Come on, you guys didn't seriously think they were going to keep everyone packed into Dalaran for all of Cataclysm did you? I spend most of my time in Stormwind anyway. It's got the train to Ironforge, the boat to Exodar and Darnassus, and the PVP vendors, on top of stuff every capital has like the AH and the portal to Blasted Lands. I have my hearth set in Dalaran, but only so I can get back there to do daily quests or sign up for Wintergrasp.

Jesus, to hear you guys tell it, you'd think people still went places in WoW instead of standing around in dungeon/battleground queues. You're going to park in whatever capital is closest to the new daily quest hub and almost never leave and we all know it.

They're fucking up healing, because apparently healing needs to hold up everyone else by needing to drink far more frequently, plus healers didn't have enough to do anyway, so we should be forced to manage our mana bars as well as everything else we were managing.

They're making dungeons harder.  Mobs will require CC, because if you don't control the mobs, well, see "They're fucking up healing".

This is way more relevant. If heroics take more than 30 minutes each, I'm not going to bother. Between this, the primary outlet for PVP being "LF2M healers 4 rated BG, min 8k GS" trade chat pugs, and my particular class/spec being utterly ruined according to people in beta, I'm not the least bit excited about this expansion.

I'm not really picking up that much hype on the boards, either.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 27, 2010, 10:52:12 AM
Let me know when I can fly from Orgrimmar to Undercity.
Right now. You get on a zeppelin.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 27, 2010, 10:59:41 AM
The only characters I really see this hurting are the ones leveling 60-80, but all it will take is easy access to portals to Dalaran and Shat to fix that, which I am guessing are probably in the works. Changes that are meant to happen together often don't because, you know, beta.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 27, 2010, 11:22:06 AM
Let me know when I can fly from Orgrimmar to Undercity.
Right now. You get on a zeppelin.

See, right now, I can port to Dal, run to the correct portal, and be where I want to be.

Or I could run out of Org, pray I hit the zepp, possibly stand around waiting for the goddamn zepp, then fly to outside of UC, then run inside of UC.

I would only do the second one if my hearth was down, or I knew I needed my hearth for a more annoying journey in the next half hour.

WUA, those other reasons I listed are way more annoying to me.  The removal of portals seems to underscore the theme of Cataclysm as "We're going to make the world a whole lot less convenient."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on September 27, 2010, 11:57:39 AM
The WoW team strove really hard to make Wrath accessible.  WoW was successful as a result.

This is true. As we all know, prior to the release of WotLK, WoW was really struggling with its subscription numbers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on September 27, 2010, 01:30:36 PM
The WoW team strove really hard to make Wrath accessible.  WoW was successful as a result.

This is true. As we all know, prior to the release of WotLK, WoW was really struggling with its subscription numbers.

Seriously.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on September 27, 2010, 01:31:21 PM


So, I found a beta invite in my mail last Friday.  That's a long download.

First, this expansion is spread all the fuck around for 80-85.  Which is going to really make that portal removal thing fairly annoying if you want to do something else.  Second, the old world is really big and there are a shit ton of trees.  Actually flying anywhere and trying to find something can be a pain ass as most of place was not designed to be viewed from anywhere other than the ground.  Yes, they did pass through everything and there's lots of new neat things to see when flying, but things like Elwyyn are not really meant to be seen from the air.  I have the suspicion that they are going to use the tree thing to make people ride through the new content, Hyjall has lots of trees.  It's kind of clever, you can fly if you want to, but it's going to be kind of boring as trees block what you can see. 

There are a number of really cool quality of life changes.  First, it took me a bit to figure out, but anyone you might want to talk to for a quest you are on or has a low level quest has their name lit up.  Spell tool tips have changed too.  They now suggest when and how to use a spell.  I need to look around to see if there is a way to turn this off though.  With it on, you can't see damage numbers.  I don't think this is a mod, but instant cast spells via proc have their buttons light up and glow in a "Hey press me now" way.  Your class trainer always shows up on the minimap with a groovy little book icon and their names always glow.  Though, the new spell acquisition scheme takes some getting used to.  You get spells kind of randomly now, not every two levels or in a predictable fashion.  My worgen druid is lvl 11 and still does not have Mark of the Wild.  Lots of things have been jammed into the spell book now and some things have been broken out within it.  Professions now have their own tab/page.  Mounts and pets are also there and have been split up into their own tab/pages.  When a new spell or ability is available, it shows up in your spell book prompting you to go train.  So, my spell book is currently taunting my lock with the availablity of 310 flying.  Speaking of flying, the "old world" flying trainer is next to the flight master in Stormwind for the Alliance.  And the possibly exalted cost for 310% flying is 4000g.

I am not sure where you go for profession training though.  There's no real "look new place starter" town.   That makes things kind of odd actually.  The whole expansion seems kind of abrupt post 80. 

The Worgen start is fairly interesting, though on rails.  I also wonder how it will play later on in the expansion or even after the next expansion.  There's a fair amount of quest material that is immediately dated.  There are also a number of cinematics, but most of them are not in or completed.  Worgen women are rocking the awesome jauntily angled top hat as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 27, 2010, 01:56:01 PM
The Worgen starting experience will probably stay 'locked in time' the way the Draenei one does - it kind of provides the backstory for you and your race, then you get dumped out into the current timeline once you hit the rest of the world. Kind of a flashback thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on September 27, 2010, 02:29:39 PM
I'm not going to lie and say I'd quit over this, but taking portals out really is not a good direction.  If people want to see all the new stuff, great.  If they don't, great.  They are paying either way.  When are developers going to get it.  Forcing content on players is not necessary.

For me, I'd go ride around looking at the new stuff once.  Once.  Then I'll take the short cuts.  I get stabby when I'm forced to "experience content" for the 150th time like flight paths that circle every point of interest along the way, or boats I have to actively sit at my computer doing nothing but fish, which sucks too, or ride my mount from A to B for 5 minutes per trip.

I guess I shouldn't fight against it too much.  The times I log off because I really just don't feel like sitting, staring at my screen while travelling someplace helps me keep balance with real life I guess.  From a game design standpoint, doesn't make much sense.  And no, I'm not worried one least bit about immersion.  Long travel times do nothing for my immersion in WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 27, 2010, 02:45:19 PM
Yes, what wow really needs is to have everyone clustered in a single building where no travel is required and we only need to hit a big red button on our screens.  This big shiny button will produce purples we can then wear and brag about to the others around us. It's genius.

Or how about this, let's just play a zelda game where every dungeon is next to eachother and the bosses all line up in a row to be killed. I can understand wanting to condense a game to make it less tedious but at some point it goes beyond removing bloat and starts gutting the world itself.

I agree with those who say the bg and dungeon queues ruined a lot of the 'world' feel to the game even though I enjoy these features I understand they've made players less connected than ever.  Think about it, you really need a faster way to ironforge from stormwind than the fucking tram?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 27, 2010, 02:57:09 PM
Yes, since it involves two zone transitions, a wait for the tram, and a wait while on the tram.  I do anything I can to avoid that fucking tram.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 27, 2010, 03:21:52 PM
I've always looked at flight baths as built-in AFK time.   Then again, I do the same thing flying places.  Hit the general direction, hit "autorun" and go afk for a few, hoping I come back before fatigue kills me.  Needless to say I liked Outlands better than Northrend for the lack of fatigue death.


dd0029:

Lots of those changes are part of the general UI changes coming in 4.0.  You can check them out on the test realms right now.  I like the light-up skill thing and the spellbook changes.. but finding your mounts and pets the first time is a bitch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 27, 2010, 03:36:12 PM
I'm with Lavkov for once. The game is not obligated to let you travel between any two arbitrary locations in thirty seconds or less. Fuck, how do you dipshits even go from Dalaran to Shadow Vault or Stormwind to Booty Bay without breaking out in a "This isn't fun! I play to have fun! TWO AND A HALF MINUTES WASTED!" hissyfit?

Walking back and forth from the mage district to the auction house isn't fun! I play to have fun! Auction house in the mage tower or I quit! Sometimes I farm Scholomance and it's NOT IN IRONFORGE! MOVE SCHOLOMANCE TO IRONFORGE NAO!!1!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 27, 2010, 03:54:19 PM
There's a lot of room between "There are multiple changes that promise to make this expansion less fun than the previous expansion" and "wah I want everything without effort."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on September 27, 2010, 03:58:28 PM
I'm with Lavkov for once. The game is not obligated to let you travel between any two arbitrary locations in thirty seconds or less. Fuck, how do you dipshits even go from Dalaran to Shadow Vault or Stormwind to Booty Bay without breaking out in a "This isn't fun! I play to have fun! TWO AND A HALF MINUTES WASTED!" hissyfit?

Walking back and forth from the mage district to the auction house isn't fun! I play to have fun! Auction house in the mage tower or I quit! Sometimes I farm Scholomance and it's NOT IN IRONFORGE! MOVE SCHOLOMANCE TO IRONFORGE NAO!!1!

I don't like taking the blimp. Doesn't mean I go into your proposed spergie tantrum (like when you see a bit of troublesome throwaway lore). It just means I'm not having fun and I don't look forward to it.  I'm waiting in fucking line for a ride in a goddamn video game.

I've taken that blimp so many times. Granted, they've made it better as you get announcements, it's a shorter trip, and you can see where it is at all times.  It's still a bother, especially compared to hitting a my recall button and hoping into a portal or taking a flight path.  You'd think by now they'd just put in a goblin rocket-ride by now that shoots you across the ocean without having to climb up the tower and /dance while you wait.

Flight paths in general, I don't mind. Some are a little dumb, like when you circle around Dalaran for a solid minute out of flight that takes 90 seconds in total.  There are still some long ones, but you take them so very rarely (would be nice if they sped them up a little). 

We'll see how this pans out in Cat.  I will miss my teleports and would like to see a transportation option that does away with the blimp experience.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 27, 2010, 03:59:17 PM
Personally, I dont think the Dalaran / Shattrath portals being removed are going to be as much of a problem as everyone thinks.

Think about it for a second.  What was the REAL reason those portals were there, speaking from a "current content while leveling" point of view.  They really only existed for pretty much the express purpose of giving you a quick way to get to your preferred main city Auction House and Class Trainers.   One of those things has been solved: They replaced the portals with Class trainers, and if they added a faction auction house as well,  you would never need to leave Outland or Northrend durring your entire leveling trip through those expantion continents.

Besides, chances are they will just slap portals somewhere in a quest hub in deepholme and everyone will be happy again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 27, 2010, 04:06:09 PM
The only real issue around it I think is how inaccessble Shat and Dalaran themselves become once we're no longer incentivized to keep our hearth locations in Dalaran. That's why I think they probably need to add portals there from the faction capitals, particularly for characters in the 70-73 range who can't get the quest to get into Dalaran. It will be harder to find some random person to port you there since nobody is going to be hanging out there anymore, and there are no trainers out in the regular Northrend areas, so your only other choice is the trip back home every level until you can finally get to Dalaran.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 27, 2010, 04:13:23 PM
I actually really like it because it gets players back into Org/IF and separated, instead of clustered together in a bullshit sanctuary city. At least they should put a port (or give a free FP) to Dal for level 70 players, however, so that people at least have a city while they're questing through NR.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 27, 2010, 04:26:12 PM
I don't like taking the blimp.
So use the portals added to Orgrimmar instead?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 27, 2010, 04:30:08 PM
Assuming they add them. I rate portals to Dalaran and Shat as 'likely' but portals to all the other cities, when they already have direct flight paths and/or orbs of translocation and/or trams and/or boat rides? Not so likely.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 27, 2010, 04:37:29 PM
We'll see how this pans out in Cat.  I will miss my teleports and would like to see a transportation option that does away with the blimp experience.
I heard a rumor that you might be able to use a flying mount in Azeroth come Cataclysm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 27, 2010, 04:45:01 PM
And I would want to fly across the fucking ocean ... why?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 27, 2010, 04:47:12 PM
Yeah, flying mounts in Azeroth is not really a relevant solution to the sorts of travel issues the portals address.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 27, 2010, 06:03:44 PM
Given the choice between FPs and flying mounts, I've always used my flyer instead of the FP; I'd do the same with a Zep if I had the option. I was mostly replying to Rasix with his blimp hatred.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 27, 2010, 06:25:16 PM
Blue post said Shat and Dal are getting auctioneers. I still maintain that when I hear...

"How am I gonna get between X and Y?!"
"There is a boat directly connecting them."
"Those boats can take as much as a minute or two! What kind of McQuaidian hell is this?!"

...someone is just spoiled.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on September 27, 2010, 06:28:40 PM
Um, there IS an Auction House in Dalaran. Or is that engineer only?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 27, 2010, 06:31:06 PM
Engineer only.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morat20 on September 27, 2010, 06:36:58 PM
Engineer only.
While I happily take daily advantage of that, that is sort of lame. On the other hand, engineering as a profession isn't so hot so I guess we did deserve a bone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on September 27, 2010, 06:49:10 PM
Are you kidding? engineering is the best profession around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 27, 2010, 08:50:02 PM
Did wow make people this lazy or is it just general bitchiness?

What Rasix said. "Work" and "Lazy" aren't things I really feel should have to apply to my leisure time activities, as opposed, to, say, my job.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 27, 2010, 09:17:57 PM
The Worgen starting experience will probably stay 'locked in time' the way the Draenei one does - it kind of provides the backstory for you and your race, then you get dumped out into the current timeline once you hit the rest of the world. Kind of a flashback thing.

My understanding is that the Worgen starting experience is going to be like the DK one, or the ones in LOTRO - a newb "phase" of the place that you'll be finished with when you finish the starting quests.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 28, 2010, 12:02:38 AM
Blue post said Shat and Dal are getting auctioneers. I still maintain that when I hear...

"How am I gonna get between X and Y?!"
"There is a boat directly connecting them."
"Those boats can take as much as a minute or two! What kind of McQuaidian hell is this?!"

...someone is just spoiled.

If they're adding an AH to Shat and Dalaran, that takes away most of my "blaaaargh" about it, but it is still a change for essentially no reason at all. Now it's just a silly change instead of an "argh why do you hate me, personally, Blizzard?!" change.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 28, 2010, 02:06:57 AM
If it's to remove the massive congestion and make the old world feel populated, that's perfectly fine, if they add capital city portals to all the capital cities. As I said. I'd liikely expect a 6mo-1yr delay on this because they really want you to see and not skip all the new in-between-cities terraforming they have done. See: BC Flying, Northrend/Cold Weather flying and so forth.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on September 28, 2010, 02:12:29 AM
The congestion will move anyway, look at Shatt post-BC, the only people there are levelling, or people doing old achievements and such. Dalaran in Cataclysm will be exactly the same, there is no reason to be there unless you are doing 68-78 or doing various occasional tradeskill/achievement related tasks. The bulk population will move back to IF, Stormwind and Org.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xeyi on September 28, 2010, 03:28:50 AM
From a horde point of view travel from Orgrimmar to the Eastern Kingdoms is fine, there are two zeppelins right in the centre of town and the portal to blasted lands is still right there.  Travel within Kalimdor is a problem though, the zep to Thunder Bluff moves at flying mount speed so there's no point in catching it whatsoever once you have an epic flying mount.  I've heard there may be portals added to travel to the new zones but as far as I can see there's nothing there yet.

edit - I just found the portals, seems you just have to unlock them.  I now have no complaints about travel as horde  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 28, 2010, 06:14:44 AM
The congestion will move anyway, look at Shatt post-BC, the only people there are levelling, or people doing old achievements and such. Dalaran in Cataclysm will be exactly the same, there is no reason to be there unless you are doing 68-78 or doing various occasional tradeskill/achievement related tasks. The bulk population will move back to IF, Stormwind and Org.

I think most moved from Shatt to Dal was simply because Dal has more portals (Including the one to Shatt) as well as all the item vendors. If IF had that now, with a portal to Dalaran to get to the LK content, no-one would be in Dalaran.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 28, 2010, 07:09:51 AM
When are people going to start screaming about bringing back Captain Placeholder!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on September 28, 2010, 07:15:07 AM
Quote from: Zarhym
The reason the portals from Shattrath were not removed from Outland when Wrath of the Lich King released is that there was a new central hub with portals to all major cities in Northrend. There is no longer a neutral city hub which both factions will be using in Cataclysm. We want to ensure visiting the major faction capitals is still the most attractive thing to do in Cataclysm, rather than having people use Shattrath and Dalaran as easy connector hubs.

Choosy muthas choose mages.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on September 28, 2010, 08:04:39 AM
When are people going to start screaming about bringing back Captain Placeholder!

Que?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 28, 2010, 08:42:04 AM
When are people going to start screaming about bringing back Captain Placeholder!

Que?

http://www.wowwiki.com/Captain_Placeholder (http://www.wowwiki.com/Captain_Placeholder)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: NiX on September 28, 2010, 10:34:25 AM
Have they set a firm date for this yet or is it still "Soon"?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on September 28, 2010, 10:36:00 AM
Have they set a firm date for this yet or is it still "Soon"?

From MMO-champion:

Quote
A few weeks ago I announced that the target release date for Cataclysm was November 2. Well, according to an update I just got, the release has been postponed and Blizzard will try to release the game in early December. (Basically, either December 7 or December 14)

The Cataclysm by itself will happen earlier and will let you play in the "new" zone for a couple of days/weeks before you can buy the expansion and access the level 85 content. Keep in mind that they're mostly inside info, they're not official and I just report them because ... well, I'm sure you all want to know when it's supposed to happen.


edit - I just found the portals, seems you just have to unlock them.  I now have no complaints about travel as horde  :grin:

That sounds promising.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: NiX on September 28, 2010, 10:56:42 AM
Hrm, with the Cataclysm happening earlier, should I start up before the actual expansion is released?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 28, 2010, 11:07:52 AM
Hrm, with the Cataclysm happening earlier, should I start up before the actual expansion is released?

I'd wait until you know for sure that stuff is on the live servers if that's what you were waiting for already. Starting now will just make you miss the new start-from-scratch stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on September 28, 2010, 11:18:54 AM
In playing my worgen druid, I am noticing that the new talent and spell rank thing is kind of meh.  I am finding the lack of "ding, grats, here's something," disconcerting.  Plus, when you do get things seems to have little rhyme or reason.  They forgot these things are skinner boxes.  No weapon skills are nice though.  My staff can occasionally pack quite the punch.  

The quests are better arranged though and do tell more of story now.  Druids lost their class quests though.  I wonder about the other classes with quests.  For worgen and night elves, the Forsaken are becoming way more of a boogey man.  I am interested to see where the Worgen story goes with regards to the Forsaken, because they are real bastards there.  There really need to be Worgen in the Scarlet Crusade.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on September 28, 2010, 12:22:00 PM
In playing my worgen druid, I am noticing that the new talent and spell rank thing is kind of meh.  I am finding the lack of "ding, grats, here's something," disconcerting.  Plus, when you do get things seems to have little rhyme or reason.  They forgot these things are skinner boxes.  

When I was in beta, this bothered me in particular.  It's sad to hear they haven't yet fixed it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lastwolf on September 28, 2010, 02:46:08 PM
Shaman class quests are also gone.

No great loss, they sucked. I suppose they got you out into the world and off a linear leveling process (not that was ever the case with vanilla anyway), but travelling to the other side of the world ... on foot (ghost wolf or mount when available) through hostile zones, to talk to one guy that would say 'Yep, water is an element, go right back to the guy you just spoke to and get it' yay!





Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 28, 2010, 02:51:38 PM
The Water Totem questline is the perfect example of how NOT to do class quests. I didn't even bother with that shit the second time I rolled a shaman til I hit 60 and had a fast mount.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 28, 2010, 04:09:18 PM
When are people going to start screaming about bringing back Captain Placeholder!

Que?

http://www.wowwiki.com/Captain_Placeholder (http://www.wowwiki.com/Captain_Placeholder)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2xuO8JBepM


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on September 28, 2010, 08:00:20 PM
So, I've done two dungeons now in Beta.  WC and DM.  Deadmines got a big change.  But one thing I wanted to mention is that there are now quests inside the enterance of these things like UP.  Kind of niffty.  Granted one of the WC quests is only partially completable in a single run by one member, a quest to pick five of something that appears to only have 4 nodes that are not multi lootable.  But still, quests right there waiting for you.  Oh and there are monkeys in Deadmines now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on September 28, 2010, 08:16:56 PM
I hope they change that up for all dungeon quests, even retro.  It was often spotty to find them before LFD, but once that was in place a lot of my alts missed those quests. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on September 28, 2010, 11:16:54 PM
Is it true they've added a shitty ability queue? Last time I checked the forum there was a 20 page QQ thread demanding it be removed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on September 28, 2010, 11:40:28 PM
Link?

There already is something that acts very similar to an ability queue because of latency and the only thread I could find seemed to be about the window becoming a bit larger (~1s from .3s).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on September 29, 2010, 12:24:16 AM
They've added a single ability queue back in BC: you can hit the hotkey for a spell while you're already casting another spell, and it'll go off as soon as your previous spell is done. Considering that I play from overseas with 500+ (usually 600+) ping, if they removed it I'd be pretty pissed.

Is that it, or are they adding a 'real' queue?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 29, 2010, 12:26:19 AM
I think this (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=26859189988&sid=1) is the thread WUA is talking about; seems to be something new added in Cata/4.0 PTR. What I got from reading the first page or so is that if you push a button while in GCD, that becomes "locked" in queue, leaving you unable to change what skill you would next use (say, to react to a proc).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on September 29, 2010, 12:30:26 AM
I personally don't mind that... anything that reduces buttonmashing is a good thing in my book.  :awesome_for_real:

But seriously, they should allow players to change the queued ability if they want (ie. if you change your mind and press another button while still casting your previous spell, that other ability will replace the ability that was previously in your queue). Or just make the entire functionality toggleable.

edit after reading through the thread: If this was made into a toggle, I'd definitely keep it 'on'. With my ping I end up losing GCDs left and right when using instants (due to not being able to fire them when the client thinks I'm on the GCD), so being able to queue them up would be spiffy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on September 29, 2010, 10:49:18 AM
I think this (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=26859189988&sid=1) is the thread WUA is talking about; seems to be something new added in Cata/4.0 PTR. What I got from reading the first page or so is that if you push a button while in GCD, that becomes "locked" in queue, leaving you unable to change what skill you would next use (say, to react to a proc).

This might be a very real problem for subclasses with priority systems (like arms warriors and especially enhance shaman). Whatever abiilty that is your best damage output changes rapidly and continuously, depending on timers, buffs, debuffs, and a partridge in a pear tree. A large part of really cranking enhance dps is aniticipation of upcoming abilities--then button mashing to make sure it fires. Locking us into a choice that might--and probably will--get superceded before the GCD is up would be...sub-optimal (or teh sux, in the vernacular).

On the other hand, I've heard they've slowed shaman abilities down some, but I still would rather not get locked into anything prior to actually needing the ability.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 29, 2010, 11:00:16 AM
Any kind of queuing system should have a toggle, which I imagine they aren't dumb enough to leave out. There's no way in hell I would want one when tanking, as too many of my abilities are totally dependent on the rage situation at play.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on September 29, 2010, 12:26:52 PM
I personally don't mind that... anything that reduces buttonmashing is a good thing in my book.  :awesome_for_real:

I like button mashing. I hope they dont make this live, or give it a toggle as said above.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lastwolf on September 29, 2010, 02:37:22 PM
I haven't really noticed this.

But then I'm playing an elemental shaman, so I've got a grand total of one proc to watch.

Really, most procs are pretty long these days or at least greater than four seconds so you can hit it up before it fades, unless your really not paying attention in which case that's kind of your own fault. It might be a marginal dps loss if your not tagging the shit out of that proc inside a GCD but the numbers will tell.


I've done a few instances, there are indeed quest givers at the start of all that I've seen. But then, you now need to find the dungeon to queue for it, so usually somewhere along the line you get a quest that tells you 'Hey! go to So MsSoinson at the Halls of Whatever' and it's usually the doorman, it's handy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 29, 2010, 03:21:55 PM
People bitching about queues delaying reactive abilities aren't very clever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on September 29, 2010, 09:29:08 PM
I play games to have fun.  Not to sit on a mount for X period of time.  If WoW decides to not be fun, I will not play WoW.

I don't understand why this is so hard.

Wow needs teleporters between questgivers and quest objectives. I get so fucking aggrivated at that 10 second run.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on September 29, 2010, 10:47:48 PM
 :oh_i_see:

Enough with the retarded hyperbole.  


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 29, 2010, 10:51:48 PM
Actually, there are plenty of quests in Cata, especially the newbie zones, where after you fight you way through the big cave to kill the boss and save the princess, the princess will then teleport everyone outside or back to town.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on September 29, 2010, 10:59:43 PM
Newbies should have to fight their way back out of that shit.  Burning Blade Coven, I'm looking at you.

That's not a terrible mechanic, really.  It's also been used at least once before in WOLK (Icecrown quest if I remember right).  I'm not sure it's something I'd like to see used too much.  I can see these being useful if there's a heavily scripted encounter that's not easily backed out of or there's series of quests similar to the DK starting area. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 30, 2010, 12:09:16 AM
Newbies should have to fight their way back out of that shit.  Burning Blade Coven, I'm looking at you.

That's not a terrible mechanic, really.  It's also been used at least once before in WOLK (Icecrown quest if I remember right).  I'm not sure it's something I'd like to see used too much.  I can see these being useful if there's a heavily scripted encounter that's not easily backed out of or there's series of quests similar to the DK starting area. 
I remember WAY back in the day when that Altar at the very end of Black Fathom Deeps used to teleport you back to the entrance pool outside the instance when you clicked it after finishing the run.  Never did understand why they broke that.

I also never quite managed to figure out why Mechanar and Botanica were both designed so that there was an exit portal right behind the last boss, but Arcatraz just dead ends, forcing you to either hearth out or fucking run 6 minutes to get back to the start of the instance.   I mean, the least thing they could have done was had Millhouse make a portal outside if you saved him.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on September 30, 2010, 07:10:01 AM
Arcatraz is a prison, you don't leave backdoors on a prison, duh!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 30, 2010, 07:15:55 AM
Arcatraz is a prison, you don't leave backdoors on a prison, duh!

Duh, you put REVOLVING doors on them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmwhdDv8VrM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmwhdDv8VrM)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on September 30, 2010, 07:43:42 AM
I personally don't mind that... anything that reduces buttonmashing is a good thing in my book.  :awesome_for_real:

I like button mashing. I hope they dont make this live, or give it a toggle as said above.

It is a toggle.  I checked that yesterday.  It is in the game options menu under one of the many choices.  It defaults to not let you switch the que'ed ability, so remember to change it.  I still have not found the option to revert tooltips to give actual damage numbers instead of the suggestions about how to use the spells.  

As a note, if you don't like vehicle quests, this one may not for you.  There are alot of vehicle quests.  I will say they are much easier.  So far most of the vehicle quests I have run into have two maybe three buttons and they have not interacted so far.  Usuaslly one button is to kill one of the quest objectives and the other is for something else.  For things where you need to react with a specific button, like a console QTE, you usually get a big on screen prompt to press a specific button.  For example, getting the underwater mount means you play a cowboy and "break" the horse.  You ride and have to lean into turns or hold on while it tries to buck you off.  When you need to do something, a big giant message comes up and says "Lean Left" and shows a big graphic of the button you need to press.

The opening week or so is probably going to blow.  There are a ton of cinematics and events that just scream problem to me when you scale it up to several hundred players trying to do it all at once.  For example, getting on the the Vash'jir underwater content is a pretty need little in game RP event, not a cinematic.  But it takes a long time.  If you don't get in on it, you need to wait for it to run again or you won't get the quest for underwater breathing that lets you do the whole area.  And then the area you get to is fairly densely populated with mobs, but the instant spawn that will be necessary for the number of players there to start probably means you are going to wind up in combat forever.  Though there are at least two, maybe three starting areas, Hyjal, Vash'jir and possibly Deepholm.

Back to the Forsaken, I can not wait to see the WUA and the other lore people go off on that stuff.  I have not seen any redemptive or even misunderstood sort of stuff from the Forsaken yet, it's all "evil".

I was also going to suggest that you spend badges before the pre-Cataclysm badge to point change because the costs are all kinds of fucked up atm, but I see on MMO-Champion that they are changing up the conversion factors today.  I had wanted to see what I could get with my points, so I copied my warrior to the Beta.  I had had 30 odd frost badges and 90 odd triumphs.  Had I gone all in with a valor conversion, I could get three or maybe 4 pieces with those.  Post conversion, I could afford slightly more than 1 piece.  But MMO has a blue post saying they are switching from 2.75 points per badge to 11.75 points.  Actually, thinking about it I may have transfered over at the new conversion.  My warrior has something like 1200 odd points.  That sounds like a reasonable number for the 11.75 conversion.  Heirlooms are like 900 points.  So, buy your heirlooms with badges now.  MMO-Champ says patch for the first or second Tuesday in October.  


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 30, 2010, 08:07:34 AM
Are the point conversions per badge, and does the type matter? Or do they just give you the type of points for that particular set? I'm confused about the process involved here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on September 30, 2010, 09:34:01 AM
Frost and Triumph turn into points, other older badges into cash.

Quote from: Bashiok
We’ve revised the Justice Points conversion rate for Emblems of Triumph and Emblems of Frost. When the upcoming 4.0.1 patch goes live, these emblems will be converted into 11.58 Justice Points (up from the previously planned 2.75 Justice Points per emblem). Justice Points accrued above the soft cap of 4,000 will be converted to gold at a rate of 47.5 silver per point (down from 2 gold per point) when patch 4.0.3 goes live.

The original explanation thread (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=26850245012) and the subsequent conversion math update (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=26850245012&sid=1&pageNo=10#184) have been updated to reflect these changes.

The previous conversion rate was intended to devalue Frost and Triumph a bit to discourage some amount of farming and hoarding of points before the conversion, but then we came to the conclusion that no matter what we do people would be farming well above the softcap, and we shouldn't try to make it more difficult for them to do so.

Source (http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/27026323214/currency-conversion-justice-point-update/)

The soft cap is 4000.  Are there really that many people with 4000+ badges?

If you do every single heroic and you do every single boss, both unlikely, you can get 91 badges without repeating an instance.  That's 44 days of doing at least 16 instances a day to hit 4000.  That 700+ instance runs.  Average that at 30 minutes for 5 badges.  I don't want to think about it anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on September 30, 2010, 09:35:27 AM
The soft cap is 4000.  Are there really that many people with 4000+ badges?

4000 justice points. So the soft cap would be 348 total emblems of Frost and Triumph.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on September 30, 2010, 09:41:51 AM
Good point.  That's a much more reasonable number and fairly achievable. Color me foolish.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 30, 2010, 10:06:48 AM
So I need to grind some dungeons now to get to a soft cap, and that soft cap buys me one piece right?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on September 30, 2010, 11:33:28 AM
Pretty much, seems a like a waste of time to me unless you already have them.  60+ dungeon runs for one piece when it will probably take about 4 once you hit 85.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 30, 2010, 11:39:14 AM
Final costs on the items are not correct yet either.   Cant remember where I saw it, but I am positive that a blue was quoted somewhere as saying that when the final numbers are in, an 80 badge item will cost 80 x Y Points, where Y is the conversion rate.  Right now, it is something like an 80 badge item currently costs 300 x Y.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 30, 2010, 11:53:19 AM
Will these points be useful at 85? I assume they'll be wiped before then, or at best used to buy blues, so there's little point in hoarding them unless you still need gear at 80.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 30, 2010, 11:57:00 AM
MMO Champ has the lists of what you buy at 85 with the various types of points. I don't think they're going to wipe them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 30, 2010, 11:58:30 AM
Any kind of queuing system should have a toggle, which I imagine they aren't dumb enough to leave out. There's no way in hell I would want one when tanking, as too many of my abilities are totally dependent on the rage situation at play.

The queue only accepts input past 0.5 seconds into a GCD, and only stores one move.  Realistically you will only lose one GCD at a time to a non-optimal move unless you are a retarded spastic keyboard hammering turd burglar.  GCD locking yourself every second when you have rage to spend will utterly dwarf any TPS/DPS loss from non-optimal use of S&B/Revenge procs.

And it apparently has a toggle if you really want to lose a GCD every 15 seconds on a 100 ms ping connection.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 30, 2010, 12:13:22 PM
Will these points be useful at 85? I assume they'll be wiped before then, or at best used to buy blues, so there's little point in hoarding them unless you still need gear at 80.
From what i can tell, they wont be wipeing them, so it will be possible (if you have a lot of unused Top End badges) to go into cata already at the hard cap, meaning you wont earn new Points untill you spend some on the way to 85.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 30, 2010, 12:14:24 PM
Yeah. I'm just going to use mine to heirloom up before Cataclysm, it isn't like the points are going to be tremendously hard to get at 85.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on October 01, 2010, 01:57:07 AM
MMO-Champ and WowHead reporting that release date for Cataclysm is going to be 7th December.   Extrapolated from datamined date of Arena Season 9 and a Blue saying that the season 9 starts a week after the xpacs release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 01, 2010, 06:22:50 AM
Goblin animations = best animations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGrHuYSmPIA


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on October 01, 2010, 07:12:11 AM
That movie was actually pretty cool.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 01, 2010, 08:19:15 AM
I'd like to see them shift away from one particular crutch they seem to use in a lot of late boss encounters that makes things "hard," but I'm wondering if they really can. What I'm referring to is the random ground effect. I think about every difficult fight we had in WotLK that really frustrated us.

Sapphiron - Ice Storm and Ice Block random ground effects
General Vezax - Random Saronite Vapor effects and shadow crash zones
Anub'arak - Putting floating ice on the ground to avoid burrows and ground effect kiting
Sindragosa - more random freezing blocks thrown in with dots
Lich King - Defiles, oh dear lord the defiles

Some later bosses avoided those cheap abilites, and those fights are lauded as some of the best. Yogg-Saron, Kel-Thuzad, and Mimiron jump to mind.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 01, 2010, 09:37:50 AM
Mimiron?  Really?

Rockets, bomb bots, the flare thingy that could splash nearby people... and that isn't even talking about firefighter, which adds THE FLOOR IS ON FIRE OH GOD plus the frost bomb.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on October 01, 2010, 09:43:27 AM
What Cata needs is another Flame Wreath.

"Ok... blizzard patch, move out. Teleported to middle, move out. Fire patch under me, mov-- OH GOD"  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 01, 2010, 10:08:40 AM
Kel'Thuzad also had instant-kill void zones. In fact, almost every fight in game has something on the ground (fire) that you need to get out of.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 01, 2010, 10:25:02 AM
Kel'Thuzad also had instant-kill void zones. In fact, almost every fight in game has something on the ground (fire) that you need to get out of.

The void zones were 5s before they did anything though, so they didn't really impact the fight at all. But yes, way too many ground effects in everything. It's like if they want a boss to be hard they HAVE to put in some kind of ground effect because that's their one trick pony.

I liked Thaddius, that didn't have a ground effect. Did 4 Horsemen? I can't recall.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 01, 2010, 10:26:50 AM
One of the guys in the back on 4h did.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 01, 2010, 10:29:04 AM
One of the guys in the back on 4h did.

Ah yes, Blameaux or something. It was relatively minor though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 01, 2010, 10:40:02 AM
I think the 4H void zone did more damage if you had a certain stack on yourself from one of them.

Thaddius was H Mech first boss on steroids with the swapping charge, and random lightning bolting, which I think chained.

There were (IIRC) void zones on the tentacles for YS as well, but if you were standing on a giant tentacle, you were going to get what you deserved shortly anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 01, 2010, 10:40:32 AM
The void zones on KT were annoying if you tried to solo-tank it (usually because the OT got himself killed), because the adds were very large and having 4 of them + KT on you didn't leave a lot of ground visibility.

That said, getting out of fire is pretty much the core raid mechanic of WoW besides "Make boss health bar go down".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 01, 2010, 10:56:40 AM
Thaddius had ledges, those were 100x more annoying than void zones because ever since the jump in wailing caverns people have not learned how.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 01, 2010, 11:05:58 AM
Some later bosses avoided those cheap abilites, and those fights are lauded as some of the best. Yogg-Saron, Kel-Thuzad, and Mimiron jump to mind.


These fights all have WORSE 'don't stand in me' problems than (at least some of) the other ones you mention. Yogg-Saron had moving dont-stand-in-me's, KT had the move-or-die-in-one-hit zones, Mimiron had like, everything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 01, 2010, 11:16:54 AM
Closing the lids of his eyes, the glowing orbs that give the forsaken priest sight fade away like the sun at dusk. Dried, gray lips wrap themselves around a cigarette while dead, tar filled lungs take in the smoke as though it were all he ever cared to breath anymore.  When he's finished, when the smoke billows out from his lips and seeps out through a wound in his chest, his eyes open and he looks to you. To say there was emotion in those glowing orbs would be false but there was something, something that you could never understand unless you'd seen what those eyes saw and then, he spoke.

"Have you ever done firefighter with 25 people kid? I have.  I have......"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 01, 2010, 11:27:14 AM
WTF just happened.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 01, 2010, 12:00:27 PM
WTF just happened.  :ye_gods:

I think I started something awful.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 01, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Firefighter with 10 was bad enough.  I can't even imagine how clownshoes it would be with 25.

I think that's what Lakov was getting it.  It's so bad, IT MADE HIM RP REMEMBERING THE ENCOUNTER.

Edit:  I just wanted to add that healing phase 2 of Mimiron made me hate life.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 01, 2010, 12:36:20 PM
Four Horsemen (at least the original) was the worst fight in history for "don't stand there, you will die" due to the huge radius of the marks, and shit like Thane's meteor (meant don't stand spread out), Blowme's void zones (HI HALF THE TIME YOU CAN'T SEE ME), ziliek's chain holy bolt that doubled with each hop (don't be within 5 yards of the dude closer to him or you will die) and there was only the tiny ass "safe zone" in the middle where no marks would hit you but you couldn't do shit. Oh yeah, there was also an enrage timer, and the last one alive also becomes enraged when the others die.

They nerfed it down quite a bit for Naxx 2.0, but it still had a lot of random bullshit that could rape you.

EDIT: Oh yeah, there was also the requirement of needing 8 warriors wearing 4pieces of Dreadnaught for the improved taunt, and having most of them wearing shit like the reel from Z'G for spell hit to keep taunt from being resisted because 1 taunt resist usually meant a wipe since it would drop an extra mark stack on people in the safe zone before someone could wrangle the mob back.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 01, 2010, 12:39:49 PM
I thought that Illidan Council was the worst fight ever for standing in stuff.

Of course, I only saw that fight at 80.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 01, 2010, 12:45:27 PM
I thought that Illidan Council was the worst fight ever for standing in stuff.

Of course, I only saw that fight at 80.   :oh_i_see:

It was called the "Superbowl of not Standing in Things", yeah. But the shit you had to avoid (and the ways you had to avoid them) were no where near as annoying as the damn marks in 4h.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 01, 2010, 12:47:20 PM
Illidan himself was pretty bad for "don't stand here" stuff as well. You had flames, blaze patches, beams, blades, AoEs that are wider than graphics, etc. Ugh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 01, 2010, 12:57:03 PM
The council fight was particularly onerous for he sheer amount of HP they had. The fight took fucking forever!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 01, 2010, 01:49:18 PM
The council fight was particularly onerous for he sheer amount of HP they had. The fight took fucking forever!
And the fact that even though they "shared a HP pool" you could really only effectively DPS the Paladin mob, and he had to be moved around ALL the time to avoid standing in consecration.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 01, 2010, 08:42:03 PM
I liked four horsemen.

I still don't get why they removed the red rider of war.  Just give him a different weapon, for fuck's sake.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 01, 2010, 10:04:46 PM
I liked four horsemen.

I still don't get why they removed the red rider of war.  Just give him a different weapon, for fuck's sake.

He was "redeemed" in one of those questlines in Icecrown so they had to remove Mograine from Naxx.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on October 01, 2010, 10:38:20 PM
"Have you ever done firefighter with 25 people kid? I have.  I have......"

Funnily enough we did firefighter on Thursday night, with 25 people. All level 80 in 6k+ GS's, on vent, with some very experienced raid leaders/guides. We managed it but it took 4 goes and was total chaos and ended up with under 10 people left standing.

This was also my first ever trip deeper into Ulduar than Flame Lev/Razorscale/Ignis and bugger me but that place is impressive. After we finished I spent a happy 10 mins just playing with the train.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 02, 2010, 06:27:28 AM
I liked four horsemen.

I still don't get why they removed the red rider of war.  Just give him a different weapon, for fuck's sake.

He was "redeemed" in one of those questlines in Icecrown so they had to remove Mograine from Naxx.

Mograine was the red rider?  He was redeemed before that, in the Dk starter area, then, when all the other DKs were freed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 02, 2010, 06:30:05 AM
Wait, I thought his dad was the Horseman and was redeemed by mumblemumble and so mumblemumbleprobablyacomicorsomeshitmumble. At least I seem to dimly recall DK Mograine dude mentioning he sacrificed his own soul to redeem daddy or some shit. I could be totally making that up though.

AT ANY RATE. I liked the Baron showing up in Naxx. <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 02, 2010, 06:36:37 AM
The only thing that pissed me off about Naxx was that they STILL made you mind control mobs on Instructor in 25 man, but they didn't in 10. Praying my priests wouldn't completely cock that up week-to-week was always fun.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 02, 2010, 06:43:45 AM
(http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2010/september/sunflower.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 02, 2010, 06:51:17 AM
Kill it.  Kill it with fire!  (Or weedkiller.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 02, 2010, 07:24:59 AM
AT ANY RATE. I liked the Baron showing up in Naxx. <3

But they didn't recolour him red!

How the fuck can you have the four horsemen of the apocalypse without a fucking red rider?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on October 02, 2010, 08:58:16 AM
Praying my priests wouldn't completely cock that up week-to-week was always fun.  :oh_i_see:
Even worse... you HAD to have +hit gear to successfully cast that spell.  Most of our priests were healers... so hit gear was lacking and it was ALWAYS fun watching someone re-cast 3 times before the spell sticks.

And the fact that you just HAD to have 4 of a particular class in a raid for that week or you might as well go home was completely asinine as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 02, 2010, 10:27:32 AM
AT ANY RATE. I liked the Baron showing up in Naxx. <3

But they didn't recolour him red!

How the fuck can you have the four horsemen of the apocalypse without a fucking red rider?

Remind me which rider was the dwarf that shot fire again?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 02, 2010, 10:52:04 AM
Praying my priests wouldn't completely cock that up week-to-week was always fun.  :oh_i_see:
Even worse... you HAD to have +hit gear to successfully cast that spell.  Most of our priests were healers... so hit gear was lacking and it was ALWAYS fun watching someone re-cast 3 times before the spell sticks.

And the fact that you just HAD to have 4 of a particular class in a raid for that week or you might as well go home was completely asinine as well.
The best one about that (before they fixed it) was that being buffed up on that fight actually HURT your chances.  Because the Understudies were considered "Pets" once mind controlled, and Pets inherited some stats from their owner.  In this case, Resists.  Meaning that if your priests were buffed with Mark of the Wild and Shadow Protection, the understudies actually inherited a crapload of bonus shadow resist, which meant that they got a bonus chance for the Mind Controll to break early!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 02, 2010, 12:05:40 PM
Remind me which rider was the dwarf that shot fire again?  :oh_i_see:

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1143749/Lolpocalypse.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 02, 2010, 12:15:01 PM
Mograine was the red rider?  He was redeemed before that, in the Dk starter area, then, when all the other DKs were freed.

I knew he was redeemed somewhere. I just remembered that he was sitting out in icecrown as an NPC and could not remember exactly why.

In original Naxx it was "Highlord Mograine <The Ashbringer>" on his nameplate.

Baron was a fucking pansy in comparison. Mograine had a weapon proc that hit you for 3000 and then added a 500 Dmg each second for 5 seconds of unresistable fire damage. This was on top of the about 1k the hit would do. Needless to say, I got roflstomped a couple times a night while pulling him while we were learning the fight. Esp if the tank had a taunt resist.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 02, 2010, 01:36:18 PM
I knew he was redeemed somewhere. I just remembered that he was sitting out in icecrown as an NPC and could not remember exactly why.

His ghost actually wanders around in ICC.  He's not redeemed, that's the son.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 02, 2010, 01:39:40 PM
Where exactly in ICC does he hang out? I've never noticed him.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on October 02, 2010, 04:56:21 PM
Quote
Highlord Darion Mograine says: Father...
Highlord Alexandros Mograine says: Darion, my son.
Highlord Alexandros Mograine says: At last, I am able to lay my eyes upon you again.
Highlord Darion Mograine says: Father. I feared for your... your sanity.
Highlord Alexandros Mograine says: The Lich King tormented me without end, Darion.
Highlord Alexandros Mograine says: Endlessly, he sought to break my will, to force me to serve him, to bind me to his blade...
Highlord Alexandros Mograine says: Finally, when events demanded his full attention, he left me.
Highlord Alexandros Mograine says: The one memory, I clung to, Darion... The one thought that kept me from giving in...
Highlord Alexandros Mograine says: It was your sacrifice, my son, that again saved me from eternal peril.
Highlord Darion Mograine says: Father... For you, I would give my life a thousand times.

You can save the father if you beat the Lich King while someone is holding Frostmourne, it is actually quite moving..  You get a red dk mount from Darion, a teleport to Dalaran neck form Jaina, a music box that plays that cool song "Lament of the highborne", a frost dwarf transformation from Muradin and a very very very shiny tabbard from Uther.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 02, 2010, 05:10:32 PM
Oh, you see him if you get the Shadowmourne box, cool.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on October 04, 2010, 07:47:29 AM
Quote from: http://investor.activision.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=513855
RVINE, Calif., Oct 04, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. today announced that World of Warcraft(R): Cataclysm(TM), the highly anticipated third expansion for the world's most popular subscription-based massively multiplayer online role-playing game*, will be released starting on December 7, 2010. The expansion will be available on DVD-ROM for Windows(R) XP/Windows Vista(R)/Windows(R) 7 and Macintosh(R) at a suggested retail price of $39.99 and will also be offered as a digital download from the Blizzard Store. A special Collector's Edition packed with bonus items will be available exclusively in retail stores for a suggested retail price of $79.99

Official now


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 04, 2010, 07:51:25 AM
Fuck.  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 04, 2010, 08:26:00 AM
Day before my B-day.

I knew they were shooting for x-mass.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: bhodikhan on October 04, 2010, 08:36:04 AM
December 7th.  Pearl Harbor Day.  :ye_gods:

Those guys from Blizzard are attacking on December 7th. Quick. Encrypt the message and get it to Washington.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: NiX on October 04, 2010, 08:51:31 AM
Gah, I can't seem to find any info on whether or not there will be a new pack or if Cataclysm contains any of the old expansions or even the full game. Anyone know?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 04, 2010, 09:27:57 AM
Expansions from Blizzard require the previous expansion to play. They usually sell a "with all expansion up to this point" box for like 40 bucks around the time they release the new expansion (at least they did at Wrath).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on October 04, 2010, 09:28:07 AM
edit:  Chimpy beat me to it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 04, 2010, 10:41:43 AM
Previous expansions would be implied anyway since you won't be able to level to an appropriate point to access the new areas. You can still play in the old world and enjoy the benefits that aren't tied to new areas or levels without the expansion though. As I recall you don't need wrath to use glyphs for example.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 04, 2010, 02:30:38 PM
New motto for the Cataclysm release: "We are not prepared!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 04, 2010, 02:54:44 PM
You could probably just buy Cata if you had vanilla and level a few goblins to 60.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nija on October 04, 2010, 03:00:17 PM
Is there a good summary for people like me who:

Played release for 8 weeks and then quit
Played burning region for 4 weeks and then quit
Played liche king for 4 weeks and then quit


Basically, I want to know if it's worth $40/mo for one month.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 04, 2010, 03:03:06 PM
Summary:

- Entire old world 1-60 content redone
- New content added for 81-85
- 2 new races
- talent trees redesigned
- new archaeology secondary profession

That's basically the TLDR version. There's plenty of new stuff but if you didn't delve that deeply into it the first time around it may not be all that striking a difference, I don't know.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on October 04, 2010, 03:04:11 PM
Expansion packs don't come with free months, do they? So, essentially it's $55 for one month.

I'm not really planning to play long. I just want to mostly level up a goblin through the new 1-60 and maybe get one character to 85.  I'm not sure it'll hold my interest much past that with how restricted my gaming time is.  Really easy for something shiny to distract me completely.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 04, 2010, 03:06:46 PM
They're redoing the entire old world, updating the quests to match the quality found in WotLK; also changing is most of the geography. They're adding Goblins (H) and Worgen (A), and many new race/class combos (human hunter, troll druid, etc). They're also adding a few new BGs, rated BGs for PVP progression, as well as removing rating requirement from most PVP gear.

If you enjoyed the game when you previously played it, I think you'll get your $40 out of it.

Edit: beaten!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nija on October 04, 2010, 03:11:44 PM
Thanks for the summaries. This info is better than anything I could find via google. Most of the stuff I was finding was very very specific and geared for current players or people who keep up with tier whatever.

I'm not sure I'll buy it at release, but I will end up playing. The release date is quite funny. I have nearly 2 months off work, starting this Friday at 5pm. I return to work on Dec 6th.

I think that's a sign to not buy it. It wouldn't be pretty trying to get back into the swing of things, workwise, while staying up until 3am poopsocking in wow.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 04, 2010, 03:23:20 PM
You could probably just buy Cata if you had vanilla and level a few goblins to 60.

If the activation code did not require a WotLK level account to work already, maybe.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 04, 2010, 05:18:22 PM
With the currency changes I've read about - conversion of Valor and Heroic tokens and so forth to gold, Triumphs and Frosties to "hero" or whatnot - and similar happening to honor points and stonekeepers shards those goblin coins from Grizzly hills and etc etc, can anyone tell me if:

1) Heirloom "PVP" items will still be available? ANy idea how much they will cost (I noticed my honor is at the 75k cap, but I don't have enough AV/WSG/etc badges to do anything with it)

2) Any idea what (if anything) is happening to Champions' badges from the Argent Tournament? I'm wondering i I should keep saving for a Hippogriff, or if I should just spend them on the lower-tier vanity mounts or possibly a piece of Heirloom gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 04, 2010, 06:00:07 PM
With the currency changes I've read about - conversion of Valor and Heroic tokens and so forth to gold, Triumphs and Frosties to "hero" or whatnot - and similar happening to honor points and stonekeepers shards those goblin coins from Grizzly hills and etc etc, can anyone tell me if:

1) Heirloom "PVP" items will still be available? ANy idea how much they will cost (I noticed my honor is at the 75k cap, but I don't have enough AV/WSG/etc badges to do anything with it)

2) Any idea what (if anything) is happening to Champions' badges from the Argent Tournament? I'm wondering i I should keep saving for a Hippogriff, or if I should just spend them on the lower-tier vanity mounts or possibly a piece of Heirloom gear.
From my understanding all the old PvP heirloom items are still there.  Current honor conversion rate is something along the lines of 2000 Old honor (30 Stonekeeper shards) = 50 new honor, with an honor cap of 4k.  So you can use that conversion rate to figure out how much they will cost.

As to the Champion seals, I cant see they would touch those, since they are unique to the tourney, and you have to do a LOT of work unlocking the various factions to buy stuff with them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 04, 2010, 07:11:01 PM
1) Heirloom "PVP" items will still be available? ANy idea how much they will cost (I noticed my honor is at the 75k cap, but I don't have enough AV/WSG/etc badges to do anything with it)
The AV/WSG/etc badges you speak of are now quite useless; all PVP gear (aside from the WG rewards) costs either Honor or Honor and Arena Points. The only remaining use of the old PVP marks is to convert into honor at the old PVP daily quest givers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 04, 2010, 08:21:18 PM
Yeah, I haven't looked at those or cared about them since the end of BC, where the only way for my playstyle to get upgrades was via PvP. Once the conversion comes in, I'll just cash what little of them I have left in for extra honor. Any idea how much the Heirloom PVP stuff will be? I can't access MMO-champion from work.

Good to hear about he Argent badges, I guess. I'll be able to do a week's worth of trial of the crusader till the patch kills the PUG game and then just do dailies, even post-80 to get my griff. :)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 04, 2010, 09:08:37 PM
Don't forget you can buy gems with both honor and tokens. This can cover the inevitable expense after 4.0 when everyone and both their dogs is regemming for the new stats. Not looking forward to this...  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 04, 2010, 09:32:10 PM
Meh, my existing gear will do me just fine through till Cata comes out and I start replacing it. All those spellpower+ gems should just automagically transform into int+ ones, I'm assuming (as opposed to FUCK YOU ALL YOUR GEMS NO LONGER WORK).

I see the game as being at the point of heirlooms, alt levels, mounts and titles to be the only things that will still be worth any kind of value inside just over a month, so my energy will go to that. And hey, if I'm lucky, the equipment and gear rejigging might drop my GS low enough to no longer qualify for HHOR, Pit of Sauron and the other ICC instance.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 04, 2010, 09:51:35 PM
When shaman went from a STR based class to a halfway AGI based class, all our STR gems basically stayed STR gems and, yeah, we had to regem--at enormous expense. I look for a repeat performance, though to somewhat lesser degree.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 04, 2010, 11:05:17 PM
Well, given that they are saying that Int will replace spellpower, and the only thing I have gemmed besides SP is a bit of hit, sta and spi, I'm not too fussed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 05, 2010, 03:25:32 AM
The only real gotcha is going to be a few things change colors (dodge is yellow now for example, I think hit is now blue, int is red) so some socket bonuses or meta gems might break. SP gems are turning into int gems, MP5 gems are turning into spirit gems, AP gems are turning into agility gems, armor pen gems are turning into... crit gems I think? Not sure on that last one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 05, 2010, 09:25:41 AM
Yeah, I haven't looked at those or cared about them since the end of BC, where the only way for my playstyle to get upgrades was via PvP. Once the conversion comes in, I'll just cash what little of them I have left in for extra honor. Any idea how much the Heirloom PVP stuff will be? I can't access MMO-champion from work.

Good to hear about he Argent badges, I guess. I'll be able to do a week's worth of trial of the crusader till the patch kills the PUG game and then just do dailies, even post-80 to get my griff. :)
The PVP token (WSG, AV) conversion is in now, and has been since 3.3.

Edit:
Don't forget you can buy gems with both honor and tokens. This can cover the inevitable expense after 4.0 when everyone and both their dogs is regemming for the new stats. Not looking forward to this...  :uhrr:
As of 4.0.1 you will no longer be able to buy gems with honor. Not sure if they're still on the heroism (or whatever its called now) vendor, but the PVP guy is gone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 05, 2010, 11:26:55 AM
As of 4.0.1 you will no longer be able to buy gems with honor. Not sure if they're still on the heroism (or whatever its called now) vendor, but the PVP guy is gone. [/quote]
Really?

Hmmm.  If that is true, then combined with the removal of the cooldown on Alchemist gem xmutes, Xmute spec alchemists may stand to make a killing immediately after the patch goes live.  Time to stock up on Frozen orbs and blue quality gems perhaps?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sky on October 05, 2010, 01:27:46 PM
Is there a good summary for people like me who:

Played release for 8 weeks and then quit
Played burning region for 4 weeks and then quit
Played liche king for 4 weeks and then quit


Basically, I want to know if it's worth $40/mo for one month.
I think of WoW every now and again, and their pricing is what always turns me away. I only have vanilla, so I'd have to buy 3 expansions to play. A barrier to entry only conceivable by the market pwner. For the price of getting back into WoW, I can pretty much get Rift, TOR and GW2 :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 05, 2010, 01:31:21 PM
FWIW you will be able to go 1-60 in all the new old world content with just the old vanilla box.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 05, 2010, 01:37:49 PM
I'm sure they'll put out a battle chest with Vanilla, BC and WotLK sometime in the near future; probably priced in the $40 range.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sky on October 05, 2010, 01:54:20 PM
So...buy the new expansion for $40 and the two old ones for basically $20/ea? Or buy Rift and TOR :P Sorry, $80 buy-in is still a deal-breaker, especially since I wouldn't get a free month unless I started a new account, so $95 for a month!

That's one thing EQ2 does right - just buy the expansion and you get everything previous included. Oh, well. You'll all play WoW and I won't, same as ever :P Just chiming in with an outsider's opinion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on October 05, 2010, 01:55:06 PM
So...buy the new expansion for $40 and the two old ones for basically $20/ea? Or buy Rift and TOR :P Sorry, $80 buy-in is still a deal-breaker, especially since I wouldn't get a free month unless I started a new account, so $95 for a month!

That's one thing EQ2 does right - just buy the expansion and you get everything previous included. Oh, well. You'll all play WoW and I won't, same as ever :P Just chiming in with an outsider's opinion.

Pretty sure initial box/account purchase comes with a free month.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 05, 2010, 01:56:54 PM
You could also just buy nothing (well, a month of subscription I guess) and see how you like the new lower level stuff when it hits.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 05, 2010, 02:30:31 PM
So...buy the new expansion for $40 and the two old ones for basically $20/ea? Or buy Rift and TOR :P Sorry, $80 buy-in is still a deal-breaker, especially since I wouldn't get a free month unless I started a new account, so $95 for a month!

That's one thing EQ2 does right - just buy the expansion and you get everything previous included. Oh, well. You'll all play WoW and I won't, same as ever :P Just chiming in with an outsider's opinion.

Pretty sure initial box/account purchase comes with a free month.

I believe each expansion comes with a free month, so its more like paying $5 for each expansion, as long as you plan to sub for 3+ months.

This might have changed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 05, 2010, 02:52:56 PM
Probably doesn't affect many people here, but hope nobody's in a big guild. (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=27026377821&sid=2000)
Quote
We will be introducing a new, hard cap of 600 members in a single guild for Cataclysm. This function will go live with patch 4.0.1 and is already live on the beta and PTR's.

As most of you already know, we have supported a soft cap of 500 members in a guild since World of Warcraft launched. We have allowed guilds to exceed the 500 limit up until now since being in a guild really just amounted to ranks and chat channels. With the advent of the new guild system in Cataclysm we are tracking many more things on each individual player in a guild and in order to support that, we need to limit the amount of members to a reasonable level.

The new cap of 600 members is fully supported in the new guild system and that means that everyone will be visible in the ui and able to contribute to all guild functions like experience and reputation gain. We have pulled a large number of statistics to get to the 600 member cap for guilds and we are happy to say that this value covers more than 99.9% of all the active guilds in World of Warcraft.

The small number of guilds that are over the 600 person cap will be able to keep their guilds intact (and fully supported in the new guild system), but they will not be able to add new members until they fall below the 600 member cap.
And to clarify the weasel word, "members" means characters, not accounts.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: NiX on October 05, 2010, 02:56:28 PM
I believe each expansion comes with a free month, so its more like paying $5 for each expansion, as long as you plan to sub for 3+ months.

This might have changed.

I'll be willing to buy in if that's true. Right now I'm in the same boat as Sky, it's looking way too expensive to get started with all the xpacs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 05, 2010, 03:04:04 PM
The idea that any guild would have problems with even the 500 member cap in this day and age boggles the mind.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 05, 2010, 03:04:21 PM
Probably doesn't affect many people here, but hope nobody's in a big guild. (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=27026377821&sid=2000)
Quote
We will be introducing a new, hard cap of 600 members in a single guild for Cataclysm. This function will go live with patch 4.0.1 and is already live on the beta and PTR's.

As most of you already know, we have supported a soft cap of 500 members in a guild since World of Warcraft launched. We have allowed guilds to exceed the 500 limit up until now since being in a guild really just amounted to ranks and chat channels. With the advent of the new guild system in Cataclysm we are tracking many more things on each individual player in a guild and in order to support that, we need to limit the amount of members to a reasonable level.

The new cap of 600 members is fully supported in the new guild system and that means that everyone will be visible in the ui and able to contribute to all guild functions like experience and reputation gain. We have pulled a large number of statistics to get to the 600 member cap for guilds and we are happy to say that this value covers more than 99.9% of all the active guilds in World of Warcraft.

The small number of guilds that are over the 600 person cap will be able to keep their guilds intact (and fully supported in the new guild system), but they will not be able to add new members until they fall below the 600 member cap.
And to clarify the weasel word, "members" means characters, not accounts.

It would have to be a *really goddamn big* guild for that to matter. 60 people with all 10 alt spots used is huge, and most guilds there are plenty of people who don't use all their character slots.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 05, 2010, 03:18:59 PM
Like I said, it probably won't affect most people but it is fucking over some for no apparent reason other than "Programming guild UIs is unfair to some"
Like, say, Taint - the 5000+ strong LGBT guild on US-Proudmore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 05, 2010, 03:22:29 PM
"No apparent reason" could be any number of technical limitations, they don't really owe us an explanation of their database structure or what stresses the new guild functions place on their backend stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 05, 2010, 03:29:04 PM
Tracking 5000 bits and shunting them into the same toggle at the same time shouldn't be a problem, right?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 05, 2010, 03:30:00 PM
I guess we can expect like 50 different Goonsquads.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 05, 2010, 03:54:01 PM
Goon Squad/Ye Olde Goon Squade/Goon Platoon/Goons/Gune Skwad/Gone Squid/Squon Gwad/etc.
What's going to be interesting to see is how many guilds out there are going to be caught unawares when this goes live next week.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on October 05, 2010, 04:09:25 PM
No guild can possibly have 600 active members, even that gay and lesbian guild is probably full of people who never play.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 05, 2010, 04:12:17 PM
Goon Squad probably does have 600+.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 05, 2010, 04:45:39 PM
Goon Squad/Ye Olde Goon Squade/Goon Platoon/Goons/Gune Skwad/Gone Squid/Squon Gwad/etc.
What's going to be interesting to see is how many guilds out there are going to be caught unawares when this goes live next week.

How would being caught unawares by an INCREASE in guild size cause anything interesting?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 05, 2010, 04:48:01 PM
Goon Squad/Ye Olde Goon Squade/Goon Platoon/Goons/Gune Skwad/Gone Squid/Squon Gwad/etc.
What's going to be interesting to see is how many guilds out there are going to be caught unawares when this goes live next week.

How would being caught unawares by an INCREASE in guild size cause anything interesting?

Right now it is a 'soft cap'. The UI breaks over 500 people but they can still be in the guild. They're going to a *hard* cap at 600 instead. I doubt this is likely to be a widespread issue but there are a few really large guilds out there who will have to cull the herd a bit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 05, 2010, 05:23:44 PM
I thought they had a "no more invites over 500" mechanism in place at WotLK release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 05, 2010, 05:26:16 PM
If that is the case then the blue post makes no sense to me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 05, 2010, 06:16:01 PM
I'll be willing to buy in if that's true. Right now I'm in the same boat as Sky, it's looking way too expensive to get started with all the xpacs.
Y'all could also have someone try to send you a Scroll of Resurrection.  Not sure what the account limitations will be based on who's purchased what expansion, but if it works then you'd get to trial a few weeks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 05, 2010, 07:23:16 PM
I'd be willing to Scroll of Resurrect anyone who needs it. Just shoot me a PM if you need one.

To everyone who's saying large guilds are fucked, did you not read the blue post?
Quote
The small number of guilds that are over the 600 person cap will be able to keep their guilds intact (and fully supported in the new guild system), but they will not be able to add new members until they fall below the 600 member cap.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on October 05, 2010, 08:00:09 PM
My personal opinion is that the account limit on guilds should be small, but add alliance functionality in the game for those that want big groups.

Looking back at every guild I've been in, we've always had cliques.  Why not make the cliques the guilds and the other people that you like to be around your alliance?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Register on October 06, 2010, 12:09:38 AM
The key issue for me for Cataclysm is that all my 10 character slots on the server are filled. And mostly with 80s and 70s at that. 

There seems to be some talk back then about the possibility of more character slots with Cataclysm - maybe an option to purchase additional character slots, but are there any further updates on this matter?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 06, 2010, 12:27:38 AM
No guild can possibly have 600 active members, even that gay and lesbian guild is probably full of people who never play.
Goon Squad US had ~900 active characters last month. Taint & AIE have between twice and three times that. And that's a quiet month in the pre-expansion dead time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on October 06, 2010, 03:42:40 AM
Can someone with beta experience tell me
A.  Is the game harder to solo now?
B.  Are group instances harder now, such as you MUST mez a mob or be overwhelmed?

I love Wow, but if the instances are all srs bsns now then it'll be solo for me.  Wotlk dungeon finder instances were my preference.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 06, 2010, 05:01:20 AM
I believe each expansion comes with a free month, so its more like paying $5 for each expansion, as long as you plan to sub for 3+ months.
This might have changed.

It's never been the case, and I've bought each expansion on release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on October 06, 2010, 06:13:29 AM
Can someone with beta experience tell me
A.  Is the game harder to solo now?
B.  Are group instances harder now, such as you MUST mez a mob or be overwhelmed?
A) No.
B) It's not an AoE-fest anymore and some instance do require some thought, but it's not the old days of mandatory classes (yet).  Tanks can still hold aggro provided DPS give them a few to maintain it (and not unleashing the instant they see a tank charge or D&D\consecrate go down).  Some people still complain about healing, but that's mostly because it's changing from what it used to be to something... different.  We'll see how this all plays out once it goes live naturally.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on October 06, 2010, 07:17:28 AM
Can someone with beta experience tell me
A.  Is the game harder to solo now?
B.  Are group instances harder now, such as you MUST mez a mob or be overwhelmed?

I love Wow, but if the instances are all srs bsns now then it'll be solo for me.  Wotlk dungeon finder instances were my preference.

The solo game right at the beginning when you are still in WotLK gear is a bit harder, but only a bit.  Mobs start with 30k health and they hit harder.  The days of deciding to kill all 10 champions at once for a fury warrior are gone.  Once you get the quest greens it is back to what you would expect.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 06, 2010, 07:38:01 AM
I just ordered 2 copies of Crackdown for 360, in anticipation of Cata being as good as the word on the streets suggests.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on October 06, 2010, 07:44:06 AM
I thought they had a "no more invites over 500" mechanism in place at WotLK release.

Yes.  We hit it all the time due to the high number of alts.  We scrub for inactives all the time too.  I don't understand the 600 comment either unless they are actually raising it from where it is today.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on October 06, 2010, 08:06:46 AM
Goon Squad US had ~900 active characters last month. Taint & AIE have between twice and three times that. And that's a quiet month in the pre-expansion dead time.

I still find it hard to believe thats "active" characters and that would be a third or fifth of the server population in one single guild. Kick out all the bank and low level alts to get it down to a practical level. It's not like its useful in any scheme besides a giant chat room(I shudder at the "grats" on achievements), so create a server channel and start pruning the guilds. If you use a census (disclosure: its missing non active, its missing 1-10, and depends on user scan data).

http://www.warcraftrealms.com/census.php
Total Horde:   14,946
Total Horde:   2,734 (taint) 10-80
Total Horde:   1,716 (taint) 80-80

So at worst it fractures to 3-4 guilds.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: NiX on October 06, 2010, 08:45:55 AM
Y'all could also have someone try to send you a Scroll of Resurrection.  Not sure what the account limitations will be based on who's purchased what expansion, but if it works then you'd get to trial a few weeks.

Hrm, I wonder if that works on a new account with just vanilla WoW. Otherwise, doesn't help me because I don't recall my account or anything about it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 06, 2010, 08:54:12 AM
Y'all could also have someone try to send you a Scroll of Resurrection.  Not sure what the account limitations will be based on who's purchased what expansion, but if it works then you'd get to trial a few weeks.

Hrm, I wonder if that works on a new account with just vanilla WoW. Otherwise, doesn't help me because I don't recall my account or anything about it.

The scroll only works on account that are up to Burning Crusade. I know cause I tried it recently for a friend.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 06, 2010, 01:24:55 PM
Yeah, the scroll of resurrection is a Burning Crusade trial, so it should work on a vanilla account.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xeyi on October 06, 2010, 02:31:24 PM
Can someone with beta experience tell me
A.  Is the game harder to solo now?
B.  Are group instances harder now, such as you MUST mez a mob or be overwhelmed?

I love Wow, but if the instances are all srs bsns now then it'll be solo for me.  Wotlk dungeon finder instances were my preference.

The solo game right at the beginning when you are still in WotLK gear is a bit harder, but only a bit.  Mobs start with 30k health and they hit harder.  The days of deciding to kill all 10 champions at once for a fury warrior are gone.  Once you get the quest greens it is back to what you would expect.

It gets harder again once you get to uldum (level 83 ish?).  For some classes killing 2 mobs at once is pretty much the max at that stage, any more than that and you'll need to use cc and cooldowns etc.

I'm purposely avoiding a lot of 80+ content but I did do one normal instance, Blackrock Caverns.  That said 3 of the group were from my guild on live including the tank and healer (me) so it wasn't a pure pug.  Altogether things were slower paced than a heroic on live and we did use cc, however we also survived a couple of accidental double pulls so it wasn't all that bad.  My experience is extremely limited but I didn't see anything that couldn't be achieved by any half decent pug group. This was just one of the first dungeons though, and at level 81 as a healer I still had infinite mana at the time.  Heroics may be an entirely different kettle of fish.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 06, 2010, 03:46:06 PM
I just ordered 2 copies of Crackdown for 360, in anticipation of Cata being as good as the word on the streets suggests.  :why_so_serious:

I know I'm biased since I'm deep into "Nerf my class you pricks? I'm going back to UO!" territory, but I'm just not picking up much buzz for this either. The vibe I'm getting from the boards and shit is a sort of "sitting there with a puckered ass hoping for the best" one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 06, 2010, 04:00:48 PM
I figure if they break my class, I can enjoy the shiny new 1-60 content on something else and by the time I exhaust that my main will be fixed. Everything I've heard about the content has been great. Everything I've heard about the mechanics screams 'work in progress'.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on October 06, 2010, 04:19:26 PM
Put me in the camp of being a bit concerned over the changes.  I mean Blizzard wouldn't screw up their cash cow would they?  Would they?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 06, 2010, 04:54:27 PM
I thnk Ingmar is likely pretty close on the money. Hence my concentration on gathering Heirlooms over the last month. I think one of the major issues with pugs will be that the vast majority of players are trained by now not only into the AOE tanking "pull moar mobs" mode, but also that normal dungeons aren't worth doing and that you MUST immediately dive into heroics.

I've noticed even over the couple of weeks or so, that the quality of players in heroics has taken a sharp drop in boh gear and quality. I put a lot of it down to people getting their alts to 80, then immediately diving into heroics to gear up for the expack asap. I also notice that despite me telling the average pugs "hey want to do all the bosses, since triumphs = frosties next week after the patch?" most still want to barrel through to the boss as quickly as possible.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 06, 2010, 05:23:44 PM
Yeah, the content half sounds pretty good and interesting and fun, the class balance shit sounds pretty fucked up. I would probably care even more about the class shit if I PvP'd, but I don't, because PvP in WoW is stupid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 06, 2010, 06:03:15 PM
Put me in the camp of being a bit concerned over the changes.  I mean Blizzard wouldn't screw up their cash cow would they?  Would they?
They have their A and B teams working elsewhere and they've more than made their money back.  Would they care?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 06, 2010, 06:06:28 PM
Put me in the camp of being a bit concerned over the changes.  I mean Blizzard wouldn't screw up their cash cow would they?  Would they?
They have their A and B teams working elsewhere and they've more than made their money back.  Would they care?

...yes? No company is going to throw away a positive revenue stream like that. Hell *original* EQ just came out with an expansion.

I've never seen any real evidence that they're on their "C" team with this, either. Other than Tigole (who I think it was *good* they moved off of WoW frankly) I'm not sure who is supposedly not working on WoW anymore. The same people seem to be in charge of raid bosses, class design, etc. etc. Even the Evil Kalgan is still hanging around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 06, 2010, 06:10:19 PM
God Damn Evil Kalgan!  :angryfist:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 06, 2010, 07:18:38 PM
Put me in the camp of being a bit concerned over the changes.  I mean Blizzard wouldn't screw up their cash cow would they?  Would they?
They have their A and B teams working elsewhere and they've more than made their money back.  Would they care?

This strikes me as a bit of an odd statement. If they didn't care, they'd surely ditch it and sell it to SOE for their station pass.  :why_so_serious:

I'd wager that WoW, as a continuing monthly revenue stream, makes more money overall than anything else blactivision put out, including the COD brand.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on October 06, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
[...]I think one of the major issues with pugs will be that the vast majority of players are trained by now not only into the AOE tanking "pull moar mobs" mode, but also that normal dungeons aren't worth doing and that you MUST immediately dive into heroics.
[...]
I also notice that despite me telling the average pugs "hey want to do all the bosses, since triumphs = frosties next week after the patch?" most still want to barrel through to the boss as quickly as possible.  :uhrr:

Not such a big deal.  Cata dungeons have average iLvl checks so you won't be able to go straight to heroics at 85.  That and the first Cata quest rewards are iLvl 272 greens replacing ICC25M loot by killing 8 foozles. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on October 06, 2010, 08:32:55 PM
Not such a big deal.  Cata dungeons have average iLvl checks so you won't be able to go straight to heroics at 85.  That and the first Cata quest rewards are iLvl 272 greens replacing ICC25M loot by killing 8 foozles. 

Good... but depressing. I think I say that with every expansion though :)

Question: Can someone please break down the rumours I've heard about tanking not working that well at the moment. From what I can see druids look ok except losing swipe spam (fine if they want us to go back to Vanilla and early BC play style), Pallies I'm hearing mixed reports and warriors/DKs seem quiet. Currently I play each tank class with druid and pally as my favourite so I need to think about who I go with first in cata.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 06, 2010, 08:33:58 PM
I'm hearing nothing about warriors, so I assume they are fine as usual. They don't really screw with us too much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 06, 2010, 08:37:22 PM
Prot Warriors are sorta kinda possibly immortal in pvp in beta currently.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 06, 2010, 08:53:47 PM
Not such a big deal.  Cata dungeons have average iLvl checks so you won't be able to go straight to heroics at 85.  That and the first Cata quest rewards are iLvl 272 greens replacing ICC25M loot by killing 8 foozles. 

I'm not especially worried about that, myself. I just want heroic groups to not be a pack of incompetent idiots and kill bosses so I can get my bloody heirlooms before the 4.0 patch/class changes kill pre-Cata pug groups dead.  :uhrr:

Are warriors fun? I've been tossing up starting one. But they always seemed a little bland to me back in the Vanilla days. How do the DPS versions play?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 06, 2010, 08:58:55 PM
Warriors be OK. I haven't played fury since the second week of TBC (which sucked), but arms and protection are pretty good right now. Prot is stupid fun to grind with and tanks pretty well, though you have to work at it some--unlike facerolly pallies or DKs. Arms is hella fun in PvP...IF...you have a dedicated healer or two. If not, it's just fun. Mostly.

I haven't heard diddly squat about warriors in Cata and haven't even looked at the talent trees, so can't comment at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 06, 2010, 09:03:26 PM
Not such a big deal.  Cata dungeons have average iLvl checks so you won't be able to go straight to heroics at 85.  That and the first Cata quest rewards are iLvl 272 greens replacing ICC25M loot by killing 8 foozles. 

Good... but depressing. I think I say that with every expansion though :)

Question: Can someone please break down the rumours I've heard about tanking not working that well at the moment. From what I can see druids look ok except losing swipe spam (fine if they want us to go back to Vanilla and early BC play style), Pallies I'm hearing mixed reports and warriors/DKs seem quiet. Currently I play each tank class with druid and pally as my favourite so I need to think about who I go with first in cata.

I'd heard a lot of DKs were quitting the class (and jumping back to hunters :awesome_for_real:) so that might account for some of the quiet on that front.   Hell, even the EJ thread on 4.0 tanking is only 13 posts long.  That's not a good sign.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on October 06, 2010, 09:06:15 PM
I'd heard a lot of DKs were quitting the class (and jumping back to hunters :awesome_for_real:) so that might account for some of the quiet on that front.   Hell, even the EJ thread on 4.0 tanking is only 13 posts long.  That's not a good sign.
They aren't boned, the runes just respawn (one has to finish refreshing before the other of that kind can start to refresh) at a different rate so it isn't a button mashing exercise like it used to be.  Threat is fine in blood, but the Icy Touch spam is gone again.  Basically it's like it was in WotLK with slower rune respawn rate.  Heart Strike is godly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 06, 2010, 09:14:28 PM
Well that's heartening. I've only been messing with the DPS specs on test because I despise learning while in pugs and trying to test tanking without doing instances is like sex in the back of a Yugo.

The lack of button mashing in DPS I enjoy as I figure it's going to drive people away (as I'm hearing it is) so I guess it figures that is translating to tanking as well.   As far as threat, I just read that blood pres is being boosted to 200% instead of just 120%, so are you overgearing the people you're testing with?  That would explain why you're not complaining but others are.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 06, 2010, 09:22:43 PM
PTR today buffed tank threat back to roughly live levels so I wouldn't worry about it too much now. Rotations and such will be different, and I'm sure there will be some aches and pains with that, but the threat numbers are a lot closer than they were even a week ago.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on October 06, 2010, 10:41:52 PM
Cheers - good to hear seeing as the first 3 chars I plan on taking through are tanks.

Warrior was quite bland in Vanilla to respond to an earlier question, so bland that I hated leveling mine in TBC and gave up and rolled a druid tank and didn't touch the warr until a few weeks ago. Now I wish I'd just gone prot to level as it is stupid fun to level. More tricks than a Druid to hold aggro and almost as easy as a Pally to tank with. Having said that, I haven't got it to L80 (only 76 so far) let alone run ICC where my Pally and Druid hang out.

Warrior is fun - especially when a shadow priest 2 levels lower sees you on 3 mobs and tries to gank you... only to die (ok, his dots got me before I could kill the mobs and eat, but a kill is a kill, especially when you are prot :p I made the mistake of buying 2 arcanite reaper heirlooms to go fury - waste of tokens that was :D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 07, 2010, 02:12:17 AM
Prot Warrior was terrible until patch 3.0.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 07, 2010, 02:13:21 AM
Oh yeah, which classes/specs are the ones who can dual weild 2-handers in Cata/4.0?  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 07, 2010, 04:45:17 AM
That'd be Fury Warriors (still).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on October 07, 2010, 06:32:30 AM
I'll say my Fury warrior is doing fine at the end of Hyjal.  The big change for solo/grinding is that Victory Rush is now a self heal for I think 25% of your health.  That plus the shorter CD bloodthirst means I am just about never low on health.  Though with Bloodrage gone, there's no reliable way to trigger enrage for Enraged Regeneration, but the change to Victory Rush makes it mostly unnecessary.   Just questing, I will say they kind of missed the boat with spammy and Fury warriors.  I have something to push every GCD. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 07, 2010, 11:58:05 AM
One thing I am not super happy about is just how much better the new races racials are for almost every class. Hello Worgen 1% crit and 3 minute cooldown sprint, or the Goblin 1% haste.

On the bright side, I have a feeling that Worgen will pull the population back from the Blood Elves a bit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on October 07, 2010, 12:42:08 PM
Racials are going to be pretty f'd up [talking about pvp here]. For some reason they made the human racial (which WAS overpowered with two top-end pve trinkets) completely useless by giving it a 3 min cd. And as you said, goblin/worgen will have a much better racial than anyone else.

They also buffed undead, but orcs/gnomes/draenei/dwarves and to an extent trolls are still sitting in the Crap Racial Bin. :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on October 07, 2010, 01:21:16 PM
Are warriors fun? I've been tossing up starting one. But they always seemed a little bland to me back in the Vanilla days. How do the DPS versions play?

I can give you input on leveling one at the moment. I started leveling one (http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=The+Forgotten+Coast&cn=Quadraphonic) about two months ago on the side, and its insanely fun. Past level 15 I have done zero quests besides dungeon, just leveling via LFD insta queues or PVP weekends. Mine is decked out in everything besides the fishing contest heirloom and your a totally unstoppable monster. Cycling between the two shield blocks, last stand and lifeblood you can pretty much tank anything with a marginal healer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 07, 2010, 01:28:29 PM
Racials are going to be pretty f'd up [talking about pvp here]. For some reason they made the human racial (which WAS overpowered with two top-end pve trinkets) completely useless by giving it a 3 min cd. And as you said, goblin/worgen will have a much better racial than anyone else.

They also buffed undead, but orcs/gnomes/draenei/dwarves and to an extent trolls are still sitting in the Crap Racial Bin. :P

Whatever, I get super archaeology, that is all I care about! (Actally the extra 5 expertise with maces is really quite nice too, stoneform has its uses too.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on October 07, 2010, 01:38:45 PM
Stoneform is still pretty useful, but it used to be such a wonderful "fuck you" to the rogues that jumped me in BGs...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 07, 2010, 01:42:44 PM
Yeah I miss the duration aspect to the poison immunity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 07, 2010, 02:19:16 PM
They also buffed undead, but orcs/gnomes/draenei/dwarves and to an extent trolls are still sitting in the Crap Racial Bin. :P

I dont know about that. Draenei get the nice hit racial, which frees up a bunch of stat space, and with reforging, its going to be much more useful. Also Orcs and Trolls have very nice PVE racials.

But yeah, compared to Goblin/Worgen, all the others are pretty crappy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 07, 2010, 03:59:50 PM
That'd be Fury Warriors (still).

Couldn't shammies do something similar at some stage?

And is Fury War worthwhile/fun?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 07, 2010, 04:01:37 PM
I can give you input on leveling one at the moment. I started leveling one (http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=The+Forgotten+Coast&cn=Quadraphonic) about two months ago on the side, and its insanely fun. Past level 15 I have done zero quests besides dungeon, just leveling via LFD insta queues or PVP weekends. Mine is decked out in everything besides the fishing contest heirloom and your a totally unstoppable monster. Cycling between the two shield blocks, last stand and lifeblood you can pretty much tank anything with a marginal healer.

Sounds alright, actually. Are you Prot or fury?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 07, 2010, 04:07:46 PM
Sounds like prot (with alchemyherbalism).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 07, 2010, 05:20:03 PM
Couldn't shammies do something similar at some stage?
No one but Fury Warriors could ever dual wield two-handers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on October 07, 2010, 05:27:19 PM
Yep prot and herbalism (armory (http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=The+Forgotten+Coast&cn=Quadraphonic)).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 07, 2010, 05:28:43 PM
You may be thinking of the 'debate' that raged for a while among shamans as to whether 2h was better to use than DW once they got access to it, I think a lot of times it was summed up as "the 2h/DW argument" so that might have led you to think they were dual wielding 2hs? (It never was even close but the 2h people were really stubborn with their clinging to it.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: NiX on October 07, 2010, 07:03:53 PM
Managed to snag a copy of BC for $10. Now to find vanilla and WotLK for cheap.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on October 07, 2010, 08:41:14 PM
Ok, here's a question for someone that knows about priests and the beta and whatnot.  What happened to Prayer of anything?  I don't have it anymore and can not find anything about it being removed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 07, 2010, 09:31:07 PM
You may be thinking of the 'debate' that raged for a while among shamans as to whether 2h was better to use than DW once they got access to it, I think a lot of times it was summed up as "the 2h/DW argument" so that might have led you to think they were dual wielding 2hs? (It never was even close but the 2h people were really stubborn with their clinging to it.)

This dumbass argument goes on to this day. It's mutated a bit, since even the most brain dead vanilla-addled shammie has figured out that 2h isn't even in the same universe as DW when it comes to actual damage output. Nowadays, it's couched in the "argument" that it was more fun back in vanilla and we were feared and loathed in PvP. Um, yeah. I remember those days on my fury warrior, and I didn't give two shits about horde shaman. They died like everyone else. Occasionally, they got lucky. Note the word "occasionally."

It was a big deal during TBC, too. I recall seeing horde shaman again and again with 2handers in BGs. I always--without exception--destroyed them with my DW shaman. Every. Single. Time. And I did keep track.

It's normally open season on these bozos on the O-fficial forums, but it comes up again and again. Like a zombie.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 07, 2010, 09:44:18 PM
Before they nerfed windfury weapon to the ground in vanilla (about the time Arathi Basin was released) a shaman with the right weapon and decent enhance gear with a lot of crit could roll people almost instantly. But the right weapons were almost never in the hands of shaman at the time as they were "warrior items" for most guilds: Spinal Reaper and Hand of Ragnaros. Or the 2h hammer off trash from BWL was ok as well but I think that may have come after they nerfed WF.

But once they lowered the bonus AP and made it not be able to proc on iteself, it was not all that great anymore. Plus, almost no one played a shaman in BGs spec'd full enhance, they just spec'd deep enough into the tree to use 2handers (and the whining you would hear about having to re-level weapon skill to 300 after any respec was ridiculous).



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 07, 2010, 10:42:03 PM
Before they nerfed windfury weapon to the ground in vanilla (about the time Arathi Basin was released) a shaman with the right weapon and decent enhance gear with a lot of crit could roll people almost instantly.

This.

We had a shaman in my guild who would take out whole groups of Alliance by himself with 2h and windfury. He didnt even have a "super fantastic weapon".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 07, 2010, 10:50:47 PM
That all happened before they even got DW though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 08, 2010, 12:21:50 AM
That all happened before they even got DW though.

I did say "way back in vanilla" :p

There also were a couple of 2h setups in TBC that would do comparable DPS to DW but it required some very specific pieces of gear from BT/Hyjal and a very specific rotation and an oddly stacked group from what I remember reading. But no one would use them just like up until just before Sunwell, everyone was against having a Retty in the raid (which was another "need specific gear/group comp" thing) because it flew in the face of "conventional wisdom".

The real reason that DW shaman were so much better overall than 2h was the relative lack of need for +hit to overcome the DW penalty like warriors and rogues.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: birdsguts on October 08, 2010, 02:41:31 AM
Before they nerfed windfury weapon to the ground in vanilla (about the time Arathi Basin was released) a shaman with the right weapon and decent enhance gear with a lot of crit could roll people almost instantly.

This.

We had a shaman in my guild who would take out whole groups of Alliance by himself with 2h and windfury. He didnt even have a "super fantastic weapon".

Man that's back when I actually played this game. I just had an old crappy Arcanite Reaper and it was hilarious how fast guys would go down when WF actually proc-ed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on October 08, 2010, 05:59:28 AM
Ok, here's a question for someone that knows about priests and the beta and whatnot.  What happened to Prayer of anything?  I don't have it anymore and can not find anything about it being removed.

?

Prayer of Mending and Healing are still there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 08, 2010, 08:08:18 AM
crappy Arcanite Reaper

Heh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 08, 2010, 08:14:37 AM
Ok, here's a question for someone that knows about priests and the beta and whatnot.  What happened to Prayer of anything?  I don't have it anymore and can not find anything about it being removed.

?

Prayer of Mending and Healing are still there.
But what about Prayer of anything?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on October 08, 2010, 08:23:13 AM
Ok smart people, specifically Prayer of Fortitude and Prayer of Shadow Protection.  I can not find anything talking about how they plan to handle the group buff functionality. 

Divine Spirit and it's group buff appear to be completely gone as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 08, 2010, 08:30:26 AM
I believe Fort and Shadow Prot are staying as-is, although there is no longer a talent that improves fortitude.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on October 08, 2010, 08:43:54 AM
I believe Fort and Shadow Prot are staying as-is, although there is no longer a talent that improves fortitude.
That's my point, they are not.  I logged in my priest to the beta and could not find Prayer of Fortitude or Prayer of Shadow Protection.  Wowhead is not showing an active Prayer of Fortitude in their beta section. (http://cata.wowhead.com/search?q=prayer+of+fortitude#items)  They old trainer books have even apparently gone grey.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on October 08, 2010, 09:19:53 AM
I believe Fort and Shadow Prot are staying as-is, although there is no longer a talent that improves fortitude.
That's my point, they are not.  I logged in my priest to the beta and could not find Prayer of Fortitude or Prayer of Shadow Protection.  Wowhead is not showing an active Prayer of Fortitude in their beta section. (http://cata.wowhead.com/search?q=prayer+of+fortitude#items)  They old trainer books have even apparently gone grey.

Oh, plain old fort is both a single and a group buff now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 08, 2010, 09:26:58 AM

There also were a couple of 2h setups in TBC that would do comparable DPS to DW but it required some very specific pieces of gear from BT/Hyjal and a very specific rotation and an oddly stacked group from what I remember reading. But no one would use them just like up until just before Sunwell, everyone was against having a Retty in the raid (which was another "need specific gear/group comp" thing) because it flew in the face of "conventional wisdom".

The real reason that DW shaman were so much better overall than 2h was the relative lack of need for +hit to overcome the DW penalty like warriors and rogues.

Um, no. DW was so far better than any 2 setup in TBC it wasn't even a contest. It didn't matter what wonder 2h you had or cherry-picked group combo. The hit talents in the shaman trees were nice when gearing up, but really didn't have anything to do with that superiority. I ran into horde shaman repeatedly with T6 2handers (when I had S2 axes) and these fights were so one sided it wasn't even amusing (well, actually it was, but I need some sort of superlative here). I never lost a fight to a 2h shaman in TBC. Ever. And they happened a lot.

If you would have tried that 2h stunt in a raid, you'd have been told to knock off the stupid shit and get your real weapons out. I recall spending some time on dummies with both S2 axes and a T5 2hander, and the difference was on the order of 40-50% better with DW in damage output.

Hell, recently, some bozo on the shaman forums was trying to sell this snake oil again and "proved" that 2h was "acceptable" when he pulled 8.8k in ICC--with a 300dps 2hander. I pull 14k in ICC with 205dps 1handers. You can run it on the sim and see the yawning gulf in effectiveness. Moreover the gulf widens--again--in Cataclysm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lastwolf on October 08, 2010, 11:29:17 AM
I believe Fort and Shadow Prot are staying as-is, although there is no longer a talent that improves fortitude.
That's my point, they are not.  I logged in my priest to the beta and could not find Prayer of Fortitude or Prayer of Shadow Protection.  Wowhead is not showing an active Prayer of Fortitude in their beta section. (http://cata.wowhead.com/search?q=prayer+of+fortitude#items)  They old trainer books have even apparently gone grey.

Oh, plain old fort is both a single and a group buff now.


Also doesn't stack with Commanding shout any more, If I recall


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: NiX on October 08, 2010, 11:41:40 AM
So, do the new races hit with the expansion or the changes that are going through prior to the launch?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 08, 2010, 11:44:48 AM
Expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 08, 2010, 11:47:42 AM
So, do the new races hit with the expansion or the changes that are going through prior to the launch?

Races with the expansion, but the new class combinations with 4.0.3.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 08, 2010, 11:53:44 AM
I'm honestly confused as to what exactly is coming and if I should even bother logging in before the expansion is in my hands.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 08, 2010, 12:35:49 PM
Next week is supposedly the stats/talents/spells revamp so its potentially important to come back and learn how your shit got broken/buffed and how to re-play your class.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: NiX on October 08, 2010, 01:20:10 PM
Expansion.

Thank you!

Snagged vanilla WoW for $18. Time to find a copy of WotLK and I'm set.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 08, 2010, 01:28:05 PM
I'm honestly confused as to what exactly is coming and if I should even bother logging in before the expansion is in my hands.

There are some pre-expansion world event things to do, quests, some minibosses, etc. (I should say, there will be, they aren't live yet. Possibly Tuesday.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 08, 2010, 01:45:39 PM
I'm honestly confused as to what exactly is coming and if I should even bother logging in before the expansion is in my hands.

There are some pre-expansion world event things to do, quests, some minibosses, etc. (I should say, there will be, they aren't live yet. Possibly Tuesday.)

This sounds like other people will bother me to do shit I may not want to do. Hmmm.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 08, 2010, 02:26:32 PM
Are they doing the 30% raid boss HP reduction this expansion as well? Or have enough of the population finished the raids that they don't deem it necessary?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 08, 2010, 02:27:08 PM
I don't think they're doing that, no. The 30% buff in ICC sort of serves the same purpose.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 09, 2010, 08:37:42 AM
THIS CAMEL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZbApG7gvB8).

Your wives.

I think you understand the deal, gentlemen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 09, 2010, 10:56:36 AM
Latest patch apparently has broken all Auction addons.  Users are now required to click for every acution they post, so no more mass-posting via auction addons.  I'm of two minds on this change.  I don't normally post tons of crap, but it was nice to be able to list 20-30 auctions without clicking every time.  I can only imagine those of you who talk about keeping 1-200 posted at a time are going to be livid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 09, 2010, 11:15:21 AM
FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Was that a deliberate change?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 09, 2010, 11:26:38 AM
Probably considering that Blizzard has consistently cut out ways of automating in game processes that ostensibly require user input through scripting as much as possible in the past.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 09, 2010, 11:38:04 AM
Can't say I'll miss having to wade through 66 pages of single piece items to find any goddamn stacks thanks to whichever asshole-du-jour thinks they can control the market by swamping it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 09, 2010, 12:02:34 PM
FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Was that a deliberate change?

From what I've read, yes. The Add Auction() and Cancel Auction() functions were changed to require hardware input, aka a mouseclick or Keyboard Macro.  The addons can't do it themselves anymore.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/768666-Auction-Addons-BROKEN-in-4.0.1

The posters there seem to blame one particular addon; "Quick Auctions Poster."  From what the addon description (http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addons/details/quick-auctions-poster.aspx) says I can't blame Blizzard.  That's a bot. Auto-scanning the Ah and posting/ purchasing without interaction.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 09, 2010, 12:51:30 PM
This doesn't break Auctioneer for the way I use it personally I don't think - hopefully anyway. I tend to use the post page rather than the automatic stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 09, 2010, 01:25:05 PM
Can't say I'll miss having to wade through 66 pages of single piece items to find any goddamn stacks thanks to whichever asshole-du-jour thinks they can control the market by swamping it.

This needs bold,italic and font size.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 09, 2010, 03:35:41 PM
Is the default Blizzard "put up 5 stacks of 5 potions each" thing still in and working?




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 09, 2010, 06:21:27 PM
The default UI is still working, I believe.  As is auctioneer according to the thread I linked earlier.  This was meant to break the "open AH window and auto-create auctions" mods.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 10, 2010, 12:42:35 AM
Can't say I'll miss having to wade through 66 pages of single piece items to find any goddamn stacks thanks to whichever asshole-du-jour thinks they can control the market by swamping it.

Jesus Christ, tell me about it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 10, 2010, 07:26:07 AM
It's still going to be possible to list a ton of stacks-of-one, since you can do that with the default Blizzard UI with 1 click. I don't see how you guys expect that to stop.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on October 10, 2010, 10:09:46 AM
Can't say I'll miss having to wade through 66 pages of single piece items to find any goddamn stacks thanks to whichever asshole-du-jour thinks they can control the market by swamping it.

Jesus Christ, tell me about it.

You can use auctioneer to sort by stacksize just as easily as you can use it to create single item auctions.  Then again, if you don't like using addons for some reason, yeah, thats annnoying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 10, 2010, 03:59:22 PM
I don't really expect it to stop, I just wanted to agree it's fucking annoying.

I like to keep my add-ons to a minimum, so I don't use an AH add-on at all, because I can't be bothered to play that minigame to start with.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ragnoros on October 10, 2010, 09:10:58 PM
As a legit non market spamming Jewelcrafter I can tell you right now that the community may have lost a service/convenience if auction mods are broken.

Using two mods my brother turned me onto I was able to scan the AH, find what cut gems were going for and which were actually posted, select gems to cut, automatically assign appropriate prices, and post dozens of cut gems all with a few clicks and 5-10 minutes time. Yes it was essentially a license to print money, but if I would have needed to spend 30 minutes sorting through the dozens of cuts, making lists of which gems to cut, and then posting them all one at a time. Well, players would not have a great deal of low volume cut gems on the AH.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on October 11, 2010, 07:12:23 AM
I wish they would add a craigs-list like function so you could place an order in addition to placing items.  Have the order attempt to auto-match against items already posted, filling preferentially from the oldest item posted that matched (or beat) the order-price.

but I'm sure that has been requested/discussed frequently both here and other places.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 11, 2010, 07:48:13 AM
Buy and Sell orders have been something people have wanted for years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 11, 2010, 08:39:53 AM
Buy and Sell orders have been something people have wanted for years.

Put that in the "never going to happen" file along with an appearence tab. I see the small benefit it could have, but it's not like you can't use the Auction House as is to its full and ridiculous potential already. I just don't think Blizzard would see it as a value-added thing to make it work they way they want.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on October 11, 2010, 09:14:08 AM
Buy/sell would help so much with all the AH tomfoolery, though.  Plus it's thematic with goblins!  Now would be the perfect time!   :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 11, 2010, 11:00:22 AM
Yeeeessssssssssss

(http://imgur.com/MOYUm.jpg)

 :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 11, 2010, 12:30:14 PM
Heh...I wonder if he will face-stomp entire raids of alliance like he used to?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 11, 2010, 08:16:33 PM
Just doing some browsing on WoWwiki, I spotted this n the PTR for Patch 4.0.3 (Cataclysm Live)

Creature damage output has been increased from roughly level 65 and up. These increases scale upward with level. Creatures in exterior zones at level 80 now have 2.5 times the damage output they did previously in beta, 3.2 times at level 81, and 4 times at level 82 and up. To leave feedback about how this change feels with regard to creature spawns in level 80-85 exterior zones, visit our forums here

What. The. Fuck?

They're nerfing players vs half of BC and all of WotLK? (Especially zones like Icecrown?) Please someone tell me I'm misunderstanding this?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on October 11, 2010, 08:19:38 PM
What. The. Fuck?
Am I reading that correctly?  Are they really making mobs hit you harder for more damage as you increase in level?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 11, 2010, 08:30:15 PM
Well, not only that, but they're bumping it as far back as level 65 accoridng to that patch note.
http://www.wowwiki.com/Patch_4.0.3

Which will mean that all the BC stuff that was balanced around the existing itemisation from 65+ will start to, along with all of WotLK.

And, you know. 2.5x dps at 80 is just messed up. Icecrown will me a mess for any levelling players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on October 11, 2010, 08:36:37 PM
People won't get to Icecrown.  As it stands, my third toon through wotlk did 70-80 by doing Borean, Howling, Dragonblight and he dinged 80 about 10 quests into Grizzly.  Add in the random dungeons, and people will be 80 after maybe two zones.  Not to mention that you can likely muddle your way into Cat zones at 78-79. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on October 11, 2010, 09:19:16 PM
There will probably be some odd mobs out on that, but remembering my last level to 80 experience: TBC and Northrend outdoor mobs hit for crap currently unless you're there early and ungeared.

Wearing TBC quest greens at 68 in Northrend? Ow, for two levels. Wearing Northrend greens in northrend? Clothtank!

That said, I kind of LIKE that leveling isn't a royal pain in the ass where I need to concentrate for every one of my kill 40 ghouls.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 11, 2010, 09:21:02 PM
Armor and stamina buffs to gear apply to all gear.

http://www.wowhead.com/item=24481
http://cata.wowhead.com/item=24481


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on October 12, 2010, 03:28:15 PM
After doing some testing in beta on my undergeared bear tank (average ilevel about 220) mob damage and health might not be such an issue. 

It takes a bit longer to kill things (level 80 Hyjal mobs have about 30k health) but my health never really dropped and I finished fights at full health, even against level 80 elites.  At one point I got jumped by 6 level 80 mobs and still didn't have to burn cooldowns.  I'm pretty sure things change at higher levels though.  While flying/exploring I got nuked by a level 82 caster for about 10k.  It's also possible they made level differences have more of an impact on damage done/taken - something I noticed while levelling a noob warrior and seeing mobs +2 levels higher hit harder and take less damage.

That said, I saw a level 80 warlock struggling with one mob so YMMV.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 12, 2010, 05:08:39 PM
iLevel 220 isn't exactly undergeared for a new character levelling up through the content, though. Not exactly an uber LK heroic tank, but better than the average leveller will be.

That's almost triumph purples all round, and beyond the average L200 blues that people end up with if they're lucky in a couple of instances/quest blues. New people levelling up will be in the usual mix of blues and greens with an occasional purple speckled through - and then the new green Cata quest rewards/drops.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on October 12, 2010, 05:42:45 PM
After doing some testing in beta on my undergeared bear tank (average ilevel about 220) mob damage and health might not be such an issue. 

It takes a bit longer to kill things (level 80 Hyjal mobs have about 30k health) but my health never really dropped and I finished fights at full health, even against level 80 elites.  At one point I got jumped by 6 level 80 mobs and still didn't have to burn cooldowns.  I'm pretty sure things change at higher levels though.  While flying/exploring I got nuked by a level 82 caster for about 10k.  It's also possible they made level differences have more of an impact on damage done/taken - something I noticed while levelling a noob warrior and seeing mobs +2 levels higher hit harder and take less damage.

That said, I saw a level 80 warlock struggling with one mob so YMMV.

What lock spec. Right now in Wrath, an 80 destro lock with okay gear pretty much threeshots anything in seconds (immo, conflag, chaos bolt, next. I'm limited more on which cooldown skill to burn per mob to keep the chain going), so I can see higher HP pools meaning things actually GET to the lock now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on October 12, 2010, 05:47:24 PM
iLevel 220 isn't exactly undergeared for a new character levelling up through the content, though. Not exactly an uber LK heroic tank, but better than the average leveller will be.

That's almost triumph purples all round, and beyond the average L200 blues that people end up with if they're lucky in a couple of instances/quest blues. New people levelling up will be in the usual mix of blues and greens with an occasional purple speckled through - and then the new green Cata quest rewards/drops.

I am working a mage up and should hit 80 about the time Cataclysm hits.  I will be interested to see how a quested character will make the transition.  Particularly as most of my quested/dungeon gear will be Borean/Dragonblight stuff.  Going into Hyjal with a 12-15k hp caster is going to be "sweet."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pants on October 12, 2010, 06:32:53 PM
Have a look at the links Sheepherder put in above.  It appears that all gear from lv65 or so and up has had a buff to its values - hes linked a ilvl94 Underbog drop that has had its  sta doubled and int increased by 50%.

If that holds true, I'd say Blizzard are retuning from 65 and up to 'match' the new levels in Cata, since they don't want a huge jump from TBC/Wotlk to Cata.  They want it to be a smoother progression, as distinct from Vanilla/TBC, where you were mad to quest in the old world once you hit 58, since green drops in TBC were far superior.

So to not make 65-80 a complete walkover - they've had to up mob hp and damage to make it challenging.

Have I managed to explain this ok?  It makes sense to me - but I'm feeling really disjointed right now...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 13, 2010, 12:10:10 AM
As far as I can tell they've buffed the armour and stamina on every single piece of non-plate gear in the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 13, 2010, 12:19:49 AM
I have a friend who is recovering from a severe case of amnesia. One of the random things she eventually managed to remember was the WoW server we played on. So every now and then, when she feels like it, I run around the game with her and watch her recall odd little fragments of memories sparked by the visuals.

Other than that, they can pretty much blow this game out their ass for the time being. It feels like they're just randomly changing shit for the hell of it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on October 13, 2010, 06:25:09 AM
Was playing around a bit last night and holy crap they are so going to have to nerf moonfire spam. God I was chuckling evily at my regained ability to moonspam while moving. Basically balance druids get a power that stacks up to 3 times when moving when you cast moonfire. It increases the damage and decreases mana cost. So i was hitting 3-4k crits every time I cast it on the initial hit and all for a cost of 62 mana. Yes thats right SIXTY TWO mana. When I was not refreshing insect swarm and using starsurge procs I pretty much was gaining mana spamming moonfire.

In pvp its so hilariously broken its not even funny. You can just run around doing just non stop moon spam plinking melting people left and right without ever having mana issues.

Rogue popped out on me and then I popped barkskin and threw on thorns. Thorns alone blew the rogue up. It costs a LOT of mana now and has a good sized cooldown but rogues are NOT going to like attacking druids when thorns is up they will incinerate themselves if they try.

All in all I was enjoying the hilarity of it but I have to guess some of that is going to get nerfed as the tears of crying paladins is going to be torrential.  Speaking of paladins its very funny when a ret paladin moves up into melee range and I hit them with solar beam and silence half their powers and I just cower in the beam of light moonspamming them till they croak.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on October 13, 2010, 06:28:20 AM
WTF?  New Tree of Life graphic incoming. (http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2010/october/druidtreeoflife.jpg) :ye_gods:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: NiX on October 13, 2010, 07:10:14 AM
WTF?  New Tree of Life graphic incoming. (http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2010/october/druidtreeoflife.jpg) :ye_gods:



Looks cool. What's the issue?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 13, 2010, 08:27:11 AM
I find this all hilarious.  Cataclysm indeed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on October 13, 2010, 09:04:54 AM
WTF?  New Tree of Life graphic incoming. (http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2010/october/druidtreeoflife.jpg) :ye_gods:



Looks cool. What's the issue?

Looks like it should have a high damage melee attack, imo.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 13, 2010, 09:08:15 AM
I'm getting bad ToA type vibes from this expansion already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on October 13, 2010, 09:15:58 AM
I'm getting bad ToA type vibes from this expansion already.

I thought ToA was just bad from a game direction perspective and the style of game play it required.  

Cataclysm just feels nowhere near done.  Seems like a pretty bad idea to go live with this in 2 months.  Poor Blizzard code monkeys won't see their families for a while.  Divorce lawyers are probably handing out cards outside their office.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 13, 2010, 09:32:33 AM
Doomsaying already? Oh, granted this patch is horribly buggy but the actual changes? I like.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on October 13, 2010, 09:34:59 AM
Not really.  It'll do fine and WoW will be fine.

Just haven't heard a lot of positive feedback for this xpac.  I don't remember this amount of unease over WoLK or BC.  Could just be my selective/faulty memory, however.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 13, 2010, 09:45:37 AM
TBC was buggy as hell and they had to delay it 2 months and release in January. WotLK was pretty stable all around. The difference was how it was tested. Pretty much anyone could go into the WotLK beta and test it, for TBC the only people who got beta keys were Blizzcon attendees and a small subset of the top tier raiding guilds until very very late.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 13, 2010, 10:19:49 AM
The forum monkeys have been repeatedly invoking the SWG NGE in comparison, but that's obviously way too drastic. It reminds me more of the UO:AOS expansion. Lots of seemingly arbitrary changes, unbalanced and unfinished, and enough to send me packing from the game for a good long time. But the game itself as a whole will survive just fine.

Nobody is really deluded enough to start doomcasting WoW, but Rasix is right and I've noticed the same thing. The prevailing feeling seems to be a sort of foreboding rather than anticipation.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on October 13, 2010, 10:21:08 AM
PLAYABLE GOBLINS GOD DAMMIT


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 13, 2010, 10:22:37 AM
The prevailing feeling seems to be a sort of foreboding rather than anticipation.
Well said. Azeroth Flying and Goblins are the only things I'm actually excited about coming in Cata. Everything else varies from 'Oh, nifty' to 'that's gonna be annoying'. Most of these class changes fall into the latter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 13, 2010, 10:29:02 AM
I'm getting bad ToA type vibes from this expansion already.

I thought ToA was just bad from a game direction perspective and the style of game play it required.  

Cataclysm just feels nowhere near done.  Seems like a pretty bad idea to go live with this in 2 months.  Poor Blizzard code monkeys won't see their families for a while.  Divorce lawyers are probably handing out cards outside their office.

It's just similar leadup thoughts that have bad indicators on the speed/direction/timing of the actual product. Most of the changes being made seem to be from an "it ain't broke but we're fixing it anyway" perspective, and the shift is definitely away from the core mechanics of previous expansions to a large world overhaul on the leveling experience. AFAIK we haven't seen anything that leads me to believe there will be more raiding content (than previous expansion if not equal to the same amount), or that any of it will be worth a damn.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 13, 2010, 10:43:19 AM
The reality is their core mechanics were not sustainable due to mudflation and had to be changed at some point. my spriest is almost top of the line gear having 29% haste is close to having mindflays(3sec channel) be capped by the GCD alone which is insane.  Blizzard knows they are going to be making expansions for my grandkids so they are trying to implement better scalability now rather than having a gigantic mess in a couple years.

A couple of things I personally like.

~Getting a tree defining ability at level 10. This helps a lot at making the lower levels more fun.
~Condensed trees. As much as people want to say there is variety, that's bullshit, there was only ever one 'true' spec in each tree, varying only slightly if you wanted pve or pvp.
~Glyphs.  Glyphs as they are now is how they should have been when they created glyphs, it's a really, really good system as is.
~Spellbooks.  I like seeing what abilities I will get later on, also removing ranks altogether is nice as I never liked downranking.
~Masteries.  While I'm not too happy about the shadow tree mastery for priests, I really like the idea of this stat.
~Reforging.  It's just plain fun and really nice to get rid of things like too much +hit on gear


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on October 13, 2010, 10:43:31 AM
The forum monkeys have been repeatedly invoking the SWG NGE in comparison, but that's obviously way too drastic. It reminds me more of the UO:AOS expansion. Lots of seemingly arbitrary changes, unbalanced and unfinished, and enough to send me packing from the game for a good long time. But the game itself as a whole will survive just fine.

Nobody is really deluded enough to start doomcasting WoW, but Rasix is right and I've noticed the same thing. The prevailing feeling seems to be a sort of foreboding rather than anticipation.

To be fair, we get massive class/system design revamps every expansion. It's always like this. Hell, Paladins are so shell shocked they jump when you even mention a spell might be altered a little. The poor things expect to have to relearn their class every tuesday.

That said, I'm not that hyped about the expansion yet. The gameplay changes may be fun, but I haven't had a chance to see them properly yet (right now? Everything is overpowered. And I haven't seen anything about Atonement's current hilarious "heals everyone, not just the lowest health target" state). The selling point for me will be "are the new zones as compelling as the Wrath zones"

Because let's face it: TBC was a huge let down zone wise after you got past the front of hellfire and saw the invasion just.. stop and become a totally peaceful countryside we'd already settled down in. Wrath just kept giving for the most part.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 13, 2010, 10:56:15 AM
Speaking of paladins, can someone tell me where this "Paladins are going to take skill now!" meme is coming from? I was expecting something complicated. As far as I can tell though, pushing whatever is lit up got replaced with pushing CS until the combo points are lit up and then hitting TV. Oh and a bunch of passive "this and that adds a combo point" shit that I don't even need to know about. Three points = push butan.

This doesn't feel complicated, it feels stripped down and newbified with half as many buttons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on October 13, 2010, 11:05:59 AM
Speaking of paladins, can someone tell me where this "Paladins are going to take skill now!" meme is coming from? I was expecting something complicated. As far as I can tell though, pushing whatever is lit up got replaced with pushing CS until the combo points are lit up and then hitting TV. Oh and a bunch of passive "this and that adds a combo point" shit that I don't even need to know about. Three points = push butan.

This doesn't feel complicated, it feels stripped down and newbified with half as many buttons.

Haven't tried mine yet, but was hearing that healy-paladins aren't eye gougingly boring to play anymore.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 13, 2010, 11:07:46 AM
Seemed like roughly the same amount of buttons (CS, judge, exorcism, TV, instead of CS, judge, exorcism, DS) to me, didn't mess with the retnub that much though. The main difference seemed to be that the 'pauses' in the rotation were less predictable and there was an extra proc to pay attention to. Really the big thing that kind of sucks for ret is cleanse.

I am pretty firmly on the 'anticipation' side rather than the 'foreboding' side personally, although I am braced for Metzen to take the story full retard.

I've always (in general) liked these mechanical resets every expansion personally. It keeps things a bit fresher than they would be if I was still tab-sundering every pack of mobs like release, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 13, 2010, 11:44:45 AM
Hint for the 'pointless' changes: Blizzard is basically redesigning how the game works so that it doesn't collapse under its own weight in the next expansion. This is, if not WoW2, at least WoW1.5


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on October 13, 2010, 12:09:55 PM
A few of the Wrath issues could be fixed if they didn't have an inept itemization team, but the talent system definitely needed an overhaul before we got to the point of 75 points of filler before getting your three cool abilities at the bottom.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 13, 2010, 12:15:01 PM
I have a friend who is recovering from a severe case of amnesia. One of the random things she eventually managed to remember was the WoW server we played on. So every now and then, when she feels like it, I run around the game with her and watch her recall odd little fragments of memories sparked by the visuals.

Wow. That must be some strange shit to see.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 13, 2010, 12:20:21 PM
mudflation

Since TBC, Blizzard has been scratching at the mudflation itch. Mechanics are always going to get shuffled around and revamped, sometimes more, sometimes less, but it will never, ever go away unless they gut the entire game like a fish and start over, and it's far too late for that.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 13, 2010, 01:58:52 PM
Hint for the 'pointless' changes: Blizzard is basically redesigning how the game works so that it doesn't collapse under its own weight in the next expansion. This is, if not WoW2, at least WoW1.5
Ten bucks says they redesign everything again for the next expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 13, 2010, 02:18:59 PM
Mark me down as one of the "most of these so-called pointless changes actually had to happen" true believers. I never played ret for real so I can't say much about that, but the other specs/classes I've played, any issues I have are more "this is sort of buggy" rather than "my class is different." Hell, for some of them (holy paladin cough cough) I'm more "Woo hoo! My class is different!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on October 13, 2010, 02:48:35 PM
I played around on the PTR some last week (you can do that without an active account) and while I found the experience wholly unfulfilling, I will say I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the new raid frames yet. Incoming heals, minimalistic graphics, and rudimentary buff filtering are in the stock UI now. You can even replace the default party frames with them for dungeons. They won't be rendering any raid frame mods obsolete, but they will be relegating them to the "really nice to have" category instead of "absolutely not worth trying to play without". I think the only things that still fall into the latter for me now are click-casting and a barmod. Which will be nice if I resub since ShadowedUF isn't going to be updated for 4.x, sigh.

On that note, Scrolls of Resurrection don't work on accounts with Wrath, correct? Are there any promotions that I can use to score me and/or a friend game time and/or lewtz for resubbing?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 13, 2010, 03:05:13 PM
Mark me down as one of the "most of these so-called pointless changes actually had to happen" true believers. I never played ret for real so I can't say much about that, but the other specs/classes I've played, any issues I have are more "this is sort of buggy" rather than "my class is different." Hell, for some of them (holy paladin cough cough) I'm more "Woo hoo! My class is different!"

Which changes had to happen to items that were slowly sinking the ship? To me it seems like they are trying to revert the game away from more options to less because it was getting unweildy, and the old world was too boring for leveling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 13, 2010, 03:14:11 PM
As Merusk said earlier, you only had the illusion of choice before, with maybe DK specs being the only real exception. For example I have about as much flexibility now as I did pre-3.0 as a protection warrior. I can still make a PVP spec that differs from a PVE spec, I am still making the choice between threat and utility with my last few optional points, etc. That seems to be the same on all the classes I have at 80 for the most part, although I haven't really gone into most of them in detail yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 13, 2010, 03:20:39 PM
Wow. That must be some strange shit to see.

At first it was like watching someone from ancient Greece log into WoW and try to figure things out. She remembered the server name, but she was never a "gamer" and remembered nothing about the game itself or even the concept of an MMO. She'd follow an NPC around and watch them go through their script and be like "So this isn't a person?" Stuff like that.

Eventually she got the hang of things and we started running around. She would tell me images she could recall that had to do with the game, images she wasn't even sure were real, and I'd try to figure out what location they applied to and take her there. She remembered the road leading out of Menethil Harbor for some reason. She remembered Scarlet Monastery in a vague sort of way, but thought it was at the end of that road. Other times she'll just swerve off the road while we're riding somewhere and be like "I remember this!" over some seemingly unimportant location.

It's weird, but it's nice. She doesn't really remember much about me either, and it's nice to have something to do together. It's enough to keep me subbed for as long as she remains interested, no matter how badly they screw things up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on October 13, 2010, 04:06:52 PM
It feels like, some day, Keanu Reeves will play you in a movie.  That's only a little snarky, and no ill intent. 

That's actually pretty cool.  I've had experiences with mild and limited amnesia and it's so damn depressing looking into someone's eye that you know well but there is no spark of recognition in return.  You have my sympathies there, chief.

Look on the bright side, though.  At least it's not FFXIV!  She'd remember the same damn hill or tree 11 times in a row!  (yeah, I went there)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on October 13, 2010, 04:11:28 PM
Looool. Atonement was hotfixed out of the game in the last hour or so <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 13, 2010, 04:58:13 PM
Any reason why?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 13, 2010, 05:05:59 PM
It was bugged and healing everyone around instead of just one target, I think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 13, 2010, 05:29:44 PM
Mark me down as one of the "most of these so-called pointless changes actually had to happen" true believers. I never played ret for real so I can't say much about that, but the other specs/classes I've played, any issues I have are more "this is sort of buggy" rather than "my class is different." Hell, for some of them (holy paladin cough cough) I'm more "Woo hoo! My class is different!"

Which changes had to happen to items that were slowly sinking the ship? To me it seems like they are trying to revert the game away from more options to less because it was getting unweildy, and the old world was too boring for leveling.

Well, as a tank, I am really happy they dropped defense.  :grin:  Hell, it made it so some of my dps plate that I never use because I hate DPSing as a DK can actually replace some of my tank crap I never got a goddamn drop for (my boots are STILL from fuckin' Ulduar, for God's sake).

Also, people keep bitching about mudflation, and Cataclysm is obviously going to carry on that tradition, but given the avoidance and crit chance and whatever else people were hitting at the end here in WotLK, that seemed pretty unsustainable to me as well. I actually hope that in the NEXT expansion, they chill out a little on the HP/damage totals next.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on October 13, 2010, 06:02:52 PM
It was bugged and healing everyone around instead of just one target, I think.

This. Atonement was a splash heal around your smite target, which was hilariously overpowered.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 13, 2010, 06:13:22 PM
It's weird, but it's nice. She doesn't really remember much about me either, and it's nice to have something to do together. It's enough to keep me subbed for as long as she remains interested, no matter how badly they screw things up.
I had a friend up in Edmonton get into a terrible wreck and, last I heard, didn't recover much of anything.  Her boyfriend prior to it was a complete stranger but trying to help her reorient to the world, and still trying to do everything he could for her even though it effectively turned them into nothing more than friends.  Probably the nicest guy I've ever met.

Good on you for helping as you can, WUA.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 13, 2010, 06:30:51 PM
Can anyone tell me the Mastery Rating <=> Mastery ratio please? I think I'll have a go at reforging tomorrow, and mastery seems like the fun stat to have right now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 13, 2010, 07:17:49 PM
One nice change I discovered last night, heirloom weapons will accept runeforges now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 13, 2010, 07:21:33 PM
Can anyone tell me the Mastery Rating <=> Mastery ratio please? I think I'll have a go at reforging tomorrow, and mastery seems like the fun stat to have right now.

I can't tell you the ratio, but some classes have stats that are just hilariously overstacked so it shouldn't be too hard to figure out which one to alter.  My priest has 20% hit after turning 5% of it into mastery because of the spirit -> hit talent SPs get.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 13, 2010, 07:29:27 PM
I had a friend up in Edmonton get into a terrible wreck and, last I heard, didn't recover much of anything.  Her boyfriend prior to it was a complete stranger but trying to help her reorient to the world, and still trying to do everything he could for her even though it effectively turned them into nothing more than friends.  Probably the nicest guy I've ever met.

Good on you for helping as you can, WUA.

The amnesia was just the climax to a year and a half of lung cancer and associated problems, so I'm philosophical about the whole thing. Her being alive, back to work, and doing well is such an astronomical longshot in itself (we're talking low single-digit percentage here) that I just can't sweat details like having to make friends with her all over again.

And on the bright side, I now have an unassailable reason to keep playing even if the game pisses me off, and thus an ironclad license to rant about it!

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on October 13, 2010, 08:17:07 PM
Your ulterior motives are peeking through!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 13, 2010, 08:18:11 PM
...and thus an ironclad license to rant about it!

 :awesome_for_real:

Like you ever needed a reason before!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 13, 2010, 08:40:42 PM
Can anyone tell me the Mastery Rating <=> Mastery ratio please? I think I'll have a go at reforging tomorrow, and mastery seems like the fun stat to have right now.

I can't tell you the ratio, but some classes have stats that are just hilariously overstacked so it shouldn't be too hard to figure out which one to alter.  My priest has 20% hit after turning 5% of it into mastery because of the spirit -> hit talent SPs get.

My moonkin was at 29%, I reforged every single piece of spirit and hit gear I had and still landed at 19%.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 14, 2010, 05:31:09 AM
Can anyone tell me the Mastery Rating <=> Mastery ratio please? I think I'll have a go at reforging tomorrow, and mastery seems like the fun stat to have right now.

I can't tell you the ratio, but some classes have stats that are just hilariously overstacked so it shouldn't be too hard to figure out which one to alter.  My priest has 20% hit after turning 5% of it into mastery because of the spirit -> hit talent SPs get.

My moonkin was at 29%, I reforged every single piece of spirit and hit gear I had and still landed at 19%.  :awesome_for_real:
Why the hell does your moonkin have so much spirit gear?  Most of that spirit (unless it is on Tier Pieces) should be haste or crit instead.  Unless all you ever got was spirit pieces i suppose.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 14, 2010, 05:35:24 AM
http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/2012-Tier-11-Models-Class-Balance-Missing-Enchants-Blue-Posts

Lots of hotfixes, planned changes and Mage-Skeletor armour.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on October 14, 2010, 05:46:11 AM
Can anyone tell me the Mastery Rating <=> Mastery ratio please? I think I'll have a go at reforging tomorrow, and mastery seems like the fun stat to have right now.

I can't tell you the ratio, but some classes have stats that are just hilariously overstacked so it shouldn't be too hard to figure out which one to alter.  My priest has 20% hit after turning 5% of it into mastery because of the spirit -> hit talent SPs get.

My moonkin was at 29%, I reforged every single piece of spirit and hit gear I had and still landed at 19%.  :awesome_for_real:
Why the hell does your moonkin have so much spirit gear?  Most of that spirit (unless it is on Tier Pieces) should be haste or crit instead.  Unless all you ever got was spirit pieces i suppose.

iirc, he was a tree pre-patch.

edit: that priest set is just .. what. Is everyone going to get splashed every time we move? Is the whole idea to be a fire resist set? And why is the difference between the male and female sets that the women just decided they didn't like the rest of the shirt?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 14, 2010, 06:27:34 AM
Spirit leather is incredibly common, it is not surprising pve moonkins could be drowning in it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on October 14, 2010, 06:41:43 AM
Is it that hard to find an armor artist? Can't you post an ad for "Armor Artist", demand samples, and then pick someone who has a clue? Given the time between releases of tiers would you need more than one? Do they not make enough that they can hire one person with talent?

If the above is asking too much why not let people copy the look of their old armor onto their new armor? Aion does it, GW2 is going to do it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 14, 2010, 08:08:39 AM
They're either entirely clueless or simply happy to endlessly aesthetically troll their playerbase. The last year or so suggests the new guy on the armour team is almost certainly colourblind for a start. And they know it.

So yeah, until /shoulderpads becomes an toggleable option, I'm going to side with the latter. They just keep getting worse.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on October 14, 2010, 09:06:56 AM
Mixed feelings about the mount speed change.  It's good that they're allowing people to buy it, BUT:  I'm one sinister squashling drop from the violet proto-drake, and with the changes to holiday event boss mobs this is the year I'm finally certain to get it.  And now it won't count and I'll still have to shell out the cash  :ye_gods:

Tanked my first dungeon last night, a non-heroic to get used to the changes.  Not a chance in hell of keeping aggro on a pack of mobs with the idiots going full retard on the DPS.  Single target I had some trouble as well, but since the morons were starting DPS before I even hit some of the mobs, I can only blame them.  Fortunately it WAS a non-heroic, so it didn't matter.

Otherwise, I haven't noticed anything being more difficult, other than soloing Chillmaw.  I've long since stopped using anything other than judgement of light and sacred shield to heal while burning him down, but I wound up using bubble and LoH both.  He was easier when I switched from seal of truth to the new whatever-it's-called seal of "cover-your-ass", but still a lot rougher.  Other than him, I didn't feel any real changes tanking multiple mobs.

I'm still having some trouble figuring out what's worthwhile in the tanking tree, and I'm going to wind up respeccing at least a third time.  First time I just threw it all into the prot tree to play with the talents.  Second time I dropped some fluff and moved points into the ret tree for extended range judgement (since the ranged taunt doesn't do any damage now) and the Crusader Strike damage buff, but I've still got things I'm not sure I need.  Particularly the consecration mana-reducer; I'm swimming in mana I've got no way to dump right now.  

Now, playing around with the wife's holy paladin--I just couldn't unlearn my Flash of Light spam habit.  Had to move the button and put Holy light in its place and the new big heal where Holy Light was.  I also keep forgetting to even use her holy power-based heal.  Going to be a while before I drag her through any heroics...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 14, 2010, 09:08:36 AM
In regards to Warlock pets being renamed:
Quote
For those of you who like your new pet names, we’re working on a feature for a future patch that will allow you to refresh your summons and essentially generate a random pet name without having to level a new warlock.
Yay!  It's only taken five years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 14, 2010, 09:55:04 AM
Better yet, why don't they finally just let Warlocks choose their own names for the pets.

Yes, yes, I'm fully aware of the whole 'to control a demon, first you must know its true name' issue; who's to say the demons I enslaved aren't called Ritalin, Blue Meany, Joizy Goil and Weed Whacker?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 14, 2010, 10:29:38 AM
I am 100% against the idea of dumbasses naming demons. 100%.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on October 14, 2010, 10:36:02 AM
Tree of Life.

What The Hell.

 :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on October 14, 2010, 10:40:31 AM
Lots of hotfixes, planned changes and Mage-Skeletor armour.
:heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 14, 2010, 12:00:20 PM
I wasn't a tree, just every piece of gear I ever got had spirit on it for the most part, outside of some accessory type pieces and my weapon and a couple of the T9 set pieces. Almost all the things that didn't have spirit had hit though.  :awesome_for_real:

I do still have a couple hit enchants to ditch, that should get me down to normal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 14, 2010, 12:44:15 PM
I need to log back in later and see if there's a way to change the whole...

Derpy doo! Push Exorcism now!

...thing in the middle of the screen with the glowing icons and the giant parentheses everytime Art of War procs and all that fucking bullshit. It all just screams YES, YES WE ARE CATERING TO RETARDS. LITERAL RETARDS. PUSH BUTTON TO DO DAMAGE.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 14, 2010, 12:57:44 PM
Actually that change is because one of the most popular addons is power auras, which did exactly the same thing although it was much more customizable. It's an addon that was absolutely necessary for me when playing a mage or fury warr because my eyes simply were not on my buff bar so having something pop up in the middle of the screen is necessary.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 14, 2010, 12:58:45 PM
Yeah they should probably find something in between the way it was before (is art of war procced? try to find the icon in the giant mass of stuff up in the buff icon area) and the super parentheses of doom. For revenge it just lights up the icon on the bar, which isn't bad but it still means looking at the fringes of the screen.

EDIT:

GC's class balance post updated:

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?sid=1&topicId=27187856197&pageNo=1#1


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 14, 2010, 01:25:15 PM
Tree of Life.

What The Hell.

 :heartbreak:

Minor glyph is going in for the old model.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 14, 2010, 01:28:04 PM
On demon names, I always kind of felt like the names you had no control over gave them a little more specific personality in a way. It isn't a pet, it is something that would just as soon eat you if you weren't forcing it to your will or whatever, and it certainly won't stand for being called Scruffles.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 14, 2010, 01:30:08 PM
Actually that change is because one of the most popular addons is power auras, which did exactly the same thing although it was much more customizable. It's an addon that was absolutely necessary for me when playing a mage or fury warr because my eyes simply were not on my buff bar so having something pop up in the middle of the screen is necessary.

I wish they had put in more of the functionality of Power Auras. As it stands right now, anyone who used power auras is just going to turn off the in game "spell alerts" as they are called, and keep using power auras.

I think it could be misleading because if you know what you are doing as Ret, you dont want to cast exorcism instantly every time it procs. It could be as many as 4 GCD later.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on October 14, 2010, 01:52:10 PM
Tree of Life.

What The Hell.

 :heartbreak:


Afro Form = :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on October 14, 2010, 02:38:17 PM
Yeah they should probably find something in between the way it was before (is art of war procced? try to find the icon in the giant mass of stuff up in the buff icon area) and the super parentheses of doom.
I always just used MSBT to announce my procs. On my mage I actually found myself just looking for the buff icon most of the time (not the stock buff UI, of course) but it worked well for my shaman when I went enh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on October 14, 2010, 03:10:40 PM
I need to log back in later and see if there's a way to change the whole...

Derpy doo! Push Exorcism now!

...thing in the middle of the screen with the glowing icons and the giant parentheses everytime Art of War procs and all that fucking bullshit. It all just screams YES, YES WE ARE CATERING TO RETARDS. LITERAL RETARDS. PUSH BUTTON TO DO DAMAGE.

Dude? It was added because it was the single best power user mod to ever exist (to the point that people kept using a mod that was NEVER updated for the patch, and a bitch to configure properly)

Power Auras vs Default UI: massive gameplay difference.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on October 14, 2010, 03:35:30 PM
On demon names, I always kind of felt like the names you had no control over gave them a little more specific personality in a way. It isn't a pet, it is something that would just as soon eat you if you weren't forcing it to your will or whatever, and it certainly won't stand for being called Scruffles.
That would be an awesome implementation.  Give your pet a crappy name and it aggros you!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 14, 2010, 03:43:32 PM
On demon names, I always kind of felt like the names you had no control over gave them a little more specific personality in a way. It isn't a pet, it is something that would just as soon eat you if you weren't forcing it to your will or whatever, and it certainly won't stand for being called Scruffles.
That would be an awesome implementation.  Give your pet a crappy name and it aggros you!

I would send money without subbing just to see that feature implemented.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 14, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
The Beta had some customization of the built in power aura, then it went away and is just a toggle, then it came back for a bit, then away again.


I'm assuming there will be a few more options to customize it eventually.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 14, 2010, 04:40:45 PM
The last year or so suggests the new guy on the armour team is almost certainly colourblind for a start.

Please, the colorblind guy has been working for Blizzard since release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 14, 2010, 04:58:11 PM
On demon names, I always kind of felt like the names you had no control over gave them a little more specific personality in a way. It isn't a pet, it is something that would just as soon eat you if you weren't forcing it to your will or whatever, and it certainly won't stand for being called Scruffles.
That would be an awesome implementation.  Give your pet a crappy name and it aggros you!

I would be perfectly fine with this. As I said, I'm aware of the theoretical reasons why they're not player-nameable. I'm chiefly for Warlocks being able to name their pets because I'm tired of running into the same demon name slaved to a different player all the time. I seriously see about 12 'Gribslxax's every time I log in. Never been able to stick to the class so it's not a personal bug-bear or anything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 14, 2010, 05:05:13 PM
The last year or so suggests the new guy on the armour team is almost certainly colourblind for a start.

Please, the colorblind guy has been working for Blizzard since release.

It's never been like this bad, though. I mean... just look at everything Troll Druid-form related. Every glowing eye now appears to be powered by some sort of super-saturated rainbow radiation. Every recent teir set has at least one variation with just the right ammount of green, blue and purple components to make you projectile vomit your own eyes. Two to three sets if you're unlucky enough to be a cloth caster.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 14, 2010, 05:06:21 PM
Did you just forget about the entirety of Anjihin quinner in vanilla or whatever its called? Sithilus raid shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 14, 2010, 05:07:54 PM
Power Auras vs Default UI: massive gameplay difference.

I'd actually prefer some distinct sound effects, I've always found them to be a better cue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 14, 2010, 05:13:38 PM
Power Auras vs Default UI: massive gameplay difference.

I'd actually prefer some distinct sound effects, I've always found them to be a better cue.

The power auras mod actually lets you use sound effects with a graphic or without a graphic. I had the wicked witch laugh for my warr's slam proc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 14, 2010, 05:14:51 PM
The last year or so suggests the new guy on the armour team is almost certainly colourblind for a start.

Please, the colorblind guy has been working for Blizzard since release.

It's never been like this bad, though. I mean... just look at everything Troll Druid-form related. Every glowing eye now appears to be powered by some sort of super-saturated rainbow radiation. Every recent teir set has at least one variation with just the right ammount of green, blue and purple components to make you projectile vomit your own eyes. Two to three sets if you're unlucky enough to be a cloth caster.

Like Fordel said: You must've put the entire AQ period out of your mind. Orange and purple was extremely common to put together in vanilla. And if that doesn't convince you, TBC set the gold fucking standard in hideous with the Hellfire Clown Suit.

The druid forms are hideous, yes, but the armor is still better than it was in vanilla. By a fucking mile.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 14, 2010, 05:15:44 PM
oh and T2 warrior....'nuff said.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 14, 2010, 05:16:43 PM
That's sort of what I'm getting at - yes. The old stuff was bad.

Shouldn't they know better by now?  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 14, 2010, 05:23:39 PM
They DO know better now. I would take every single WotLK set (I would take that skeletor set too) over almost every single vanilla set.


EDIT: Also you originally said "it's never been this bad." Which it has been.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 14, 2010, 05:26:18 PM
Really the new Tree of Life, I dig it except for the head, the head doesn't seem to fit the rest of the form.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 14, 2010, 05:58:23 PM
People saying that the art department has only been colorblind in recent times never had to walk around looking like Barney the Purple Dinosaur Dragon.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 14, 2010, 06:11:53 PM
They DO know better now. I would take every single WotLK set (I would take that skeletor set too) over almost every single vanilla set.

EDIT: Also you originally said "it's never been this bad." Which it has been.  :oh_i_see:

Bloodfang. Best set ever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on October 14, 2010, 06:29:14 PM
They DO know better now. I would take every single WotLK set (I would take that skeletor set too) over almost every single vanilla set.


EDIT: Also you originally said "it's never been this bad." Which it has been.  :oh_i_see:

I agree. While I can bitch about the new priest set: it's very very pretty, just ... what the hell blizzard with the shoulders. But they always do that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 14, 2010, 07:00:01 PM
People saying that the art department has only been colorblind in recent times never had to walk around looking like Barney the Purple Dinosaur Dragon.

That is the exact set I think of when I bitch about vanilla.


EDIT: The rogue set of these new ones is the one I'm most wtf about. I think it's trying to look like an ethereal but it mostly looks like two different sets mooshed together to make one big WTF.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 14, 2010, 07:29:52 PM
I don't totally buy the notion that there have never been good-looking tier sets. Tier 8 for all classes looked really good I thought, as did Tier 5. Tier 6 was generally outstanding, and most of the Tier 3/7 models were awesome, although the Tier3 skins tend to be the better looking I feel. Tier 9 was a massive letdown, and Tier 1 tended to be a bit dull, as was Tier 4. Tier 10 has some great-looking sets (lock, shaman and DK are all great imo).

So overall not bad. There are definite stand-out sets, and priests and locks have probably had more good looking sets than bad, while other classes (paladins) have had a rough time with some of their sets. The Tier 11 sets are a bit blah, but generally they don't make the entry-level sets too flashy, or so they say.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 14, 2010, 07:40:30 PM
The T3/T7 warrior set still stands head and shoulders above all other iterations.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 14, 2010, 08:49:47 PM
I had a friend up in Edmonton get into a terrible wreck and, last I heard, didn't recover much of anything.  Her boyfriend prior to it was a complete stranger but trying to help her reorient to the world, and still trying to do everything he could for her even though it effectively turned them into nothing more than friends.  Probably the nicest guy I've ever met.

Good on you for helping as you can, WUA.

The amnesia was just the climax to a year and a half of lung cancer and associated problems, so I'm philosophical about the whole thing. Her being alive, back to work, and doing well is such an astronomical longshot in itself (we're talking low single-digit percentage here) that I just can't sweat details like having to make friends with her all over again.

And on the bright side, I now have an unassailable reason to keep playing even if the game pisses me off, and thus an ironclad license to rant about it!

 :awesome_for_real:

Not to piss on your parade, but they're gong to change the topography pretty severely in 2 months, so she won't be able to remember /recognise much of anything after that... :/


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on October 14, 2010, 09:02:36 PM
I think it's funny that people can still remember what armor sets from 2005 looked like. I can't tell you what my characters are wearing now, much less what they had on five years ago (well, they didn't exist five years ago, but you know). If I'm involved in my character's look, I'll remember it - I remember what vanity pets i keep out on all my characters - but WoW outfits are pure numbers to me.

I guess I'm the weird one?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 14, 2010, 09:04:50 PM
Remember? Hell, my warrior still HAS those armor sets from '05. Warrior mastery should be packrat.

That stuff took a lot of work to get. Not giving it up so easily...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on October 14, 2010, 09:10:22 PM
Better yet, why don't they finally just let Warlocks choose their own names for the pets.
Maybe they're reluctant to see happy little bunches of warlocks with their pets: Thousand, Gold, one_usd, Website and .com running about. Bit harder to both put on ignore and to track them down through chat monitoring.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 14, 2010, 09:18:38 PM
Actually that change is because one of the most popular addons is power auras, which did exactly the same thing although it was much more customizable. It's an addon that was absolutely necessary for me when playing a mage or fury warr because my eyes simply were not on my buff bar so having something pop up in the middle of the screen is necessary.

Yeah, playing a trio of mage specs I constantly had to have one eye on my buff bar to see if I had one of the three different "instant cast proc is up NOW" icons flashing. Wasn't to bad for fire or arcane, well, except that I also had to have one eye on my HP, and one on the aggrometer, and one eye on the tank. For the frost mage, that damn icon just blended in with the rest of the procs there so I barely ever knw when it was up.

I welcome this change.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 14, 2010, 11:00:10 PM
Really the new Tree of Life, I dig it except for the head, the head doesn't seem to fit the rest of the form.

You know what they absolutely should do instead?

Keeper of the Grove / Dryad form.  With the requisite rigging for all armour/weapon attachment points except for legs and feet.  Including the one gnarly tree hand on the Keeper of the Grove if they can manage it, because it's pretty awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on October 14, 2010, 11:16:49 PM
They DO know better now. I would take every single WotLK set (I would take that skeletor set too) over almost every single vanilla set.

EDIT: Also you originally said "it's never been this bad." Which it has been.  :oh_i_see:

Bloodfang. Best set ever.

Bloodfang was definitely the best rogue set they made, too bad only 2/3 pieces were actually good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 14, 2010, 11:41:40 PM

Yeah, playing a trio of mage specs I constantly had to have one eye on my buff bar to see if I had one of the three different "instant cast proc is up NOW" icons flashing. Wasn't to bad for fire or arcane, well, except that I also had to have one eye on my HP, and one on the aggrometer, and one eye on the tank. For the frost mage, that damn icon just blended in with the rest of the procs there so I barely ever knw when it was up.

They make an addon for that...several in fact.

Finally got SCT to work, sorta. I have a special hate for the native scrolling text. They really do need to add some ability to move the text around and put bloody spell school colors on it. Then you'd have native SCT and I wouldn't have rely on Grayhoof's slow ass to update this stuff.  Shock and Awe working, but occasional complaints popping up from what seems to be old LUA paths. Was supposedly fixed, but still getting one on startup.

Aside from those administrative quibbles, things are looking pretty good, shaman-wise. Still fiddling with the priorty queue. After a lackluster (though still not bad) run through heroic Culling, a few changes were implemented and a round on the dummies had some truly smokin' numbers popping up--even if the searing totem still couldn't be convinced to attack the dummy. It had no problem blasting a deer that wandered a bit too close into charcoal briquettes, however. Go figure.

Pulled aggro right and left in Culling, but 37% avoidance, 44% mitigation, shamanistic rage, and wolf-on-demand made even that pretty painless. Did need MW pumped GHW a few times. I think I was pissing the healer off, but I was having fun, so screw him. Interestingly, I have about the same hit points now that my DK has in dps gear. Kinda nice having hit points as a shaman for a change.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 14, 2010, 11:52:26 PM
I don't totally buy the notion that there have never been good-looking tier sets. Tier 8 for all classes looked really good I thought, as did Tier 5. Tier 6 was generally outstanding, and most of the Tier 3/7 models were awesome, although the Tier3 skins tend to be the better looking I feel. Tier 9 was a massive letdown, and Tier 1 tended to be a bit dull, as was Tier 4. Tier 10 has some great-looking sets (lock, shaman and DK are all great imo).

So overall not bad. There are definite stand-out sets, and priests and locks have probably had more good looking sets than bad, while other classes (paladins) have had a rough time with some of their sets. The Tier 11 sets are a bit blah, but generally they don't make the entry-level sets too flashy, or so they say.

The sets I had various amounts of wearing/seeing in the years I played:

Hunter Tier 1: ridiculous shoulders that looked like unpainted car doors, a metal headband that made your eyes turn red, and "pants" that were shorts that showed off your lovely orc knees above your Uggs boots.
Hunter Tier 2: Barney with yellow accents.
Hunter AQ40: More big spikes, this time with an awesome pink glow! (which they removed)
Hunter Tier 3: Overall ok, but had a ridiculous helmet with 40 eyeballs and the cuffs on the boots and gloves were dumb. Only good looking hunter shoulders ever made.
Hunter Tier 4: Was overall pretty meh but nothing like the tier1 or 2 travesties, though the viking marauder helmet was a bit much.
Hunter Tier 5: Most ridiculously scaled shoulders ever. They were so wide they made it look like you were going to get stuck in every door, and the spikes were a bit much.
Hunter Tier 6: GIANT EYEBALLS OF RIDICULOUSNESS.
Hunter Tier 7: Tier 3 with bad colors and stupid extra spikes on the shoulders.

Now, the hunter was not always the worst of the sets in a given tier. But most, if not all, classes had at least 1 that was really cool during those 7 tiers. Hunters had 1 that was uninspiring in tier4 (which was a pretty bland tier overall) and 1 that was good if you turned helmets off and did not have an aversion to ridiculous floppy boot and glove cuffs in tier3.

And don't forget, we all spent the better part of Vanilla using a bow that was a green vine that had a flower pop out occasionally and came with a free staff of duct tape and broomsticks!

I have not seen anything past tier7 so I can't comment on those, but I am sure they are probably all equally as ridiculous.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 15, 2010, 01:17:20 AM
Hunter T8:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 15, 2010, 01:49:51 AM
See, for example, I want my hunter to look at least in the neighborhood of a Ranger type.

(http://www.wocstudios.com/images/4e1.jpg)

(http://www.wocstudios.com/images/4e13.jpg)

Most all of the tier armor, to me, doesn't look like anything. Just a hodgepodge of skulls or eyeballs or banannas or spikes. Or, if you're really lucky, all of them at once.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 15, 2010, 02:59:46 AM
One of the issues with Tier Armor, is each race has it's own art style as well as each class.


Like those leafy armors, those would work great on the Elves, but on say Orcs? Dwarves?



Which isn't to excuse how terrible some (most) tier armor looks, but it is tricky to nail down all the class/race themes together.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 15, 2010, 03:06:27 AM
Except orcs would look ridiculous in all that leafy shit.  Plus, they're hunters, not rangers.  The class theme isn't about a bond with nature, and a sensitive but lonely soul blah blah blah like D&D. It's about tracking down then killing things.. more mountain man less Drizzt.  The armors should have a lot more fur and skin themes to it.  

T1 was my favorite hunter set, but I also played a female elf hunter so it looked good on her.  I agree it looked ridiculous on everyone else. Dragonstalker was a good step but was the wrong fucking color.  The recolor mods that made it red or black were much better than the art department's choice of purple.   Too bad they lost the way after that and all of the sets started going with a spike theme rather than looking like you'd gutted whatever creature the set was named after and wore it like a hat.  (Which is why the Gronnstalker eyeballs never bothered me like some people.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on October 15, 2010, 03:39:11 AM
Really the new Tree of Life, I dig it except for the head, the head doesn't seem to fit the rest of the form.

My resto druid doesn't seem to have the new ToL form, he still turns into the old one! What have I done wrong?  :sad:

Finally got SCT to work, sorta. I have a special hate for the native scrolling text. They really do need to add some ability to move the text around and put bloody spell school colors on it. Then you'd have native SCT and I wouldn't have rely on Grayhoof's slow ass to update this stuff.

Have you tried Mik's Scrolling Battle Text? Working fine in 4.0.1 and more configurable than SCT I find.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 15, 2010, 06:25:27 AM
Hunter T8:


That looks like a warrior set, no a hunter. WTF do you need all that armor for when you're plinking shit at range?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 15, 2010, 07:43:01 AM
Better yet, why don't they finally just let Warlocks choose their own names for the pets.

Yes, yes, I'm fully aware of the whole 'to control a demon, first you must know its true name' issue; who's to say the demons I enslaved aren't called Ritalin, Blue Meany, Joizy Goil and Weed Whacker?

Demons are not pets, demons have names already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 15, 2010, 07:54:43 AM
I logged in last night and dicked around killing things with the new warrior talents. There's really no huge differences that I can tell. The proc thing is cool when you get it on an insta-slam in fury, but it's a PITA when you get spam about executes. I get it, I can execute now. That happens all the time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 15, 2010, 09:04:34 AM
My resto druid doesn't seem to have the new ToL form, he still turns into the old one! What have I done wrong?  :sad:
The new tree form isn't in yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 15, 2010, 09:38:57 AM
The shaman tier sets ranged from, "that's kinda cool" to  :ye_gods: . Moreso to the latter sadly.

I didn't play a shaman in a raiding setting in vanilla (no draenei and only dabbled in horde), but I recall the T1 and T2 sets as disctinctly blah. I don't recall T3 at all, so we'll move on. T4 was actually pretty good, other than the bland color. The helm was the high point, decent enough to leave on--no bobbed hair. T5 looked really good--no fucking kilt, but the helm was an abomination. T6 was good looking, but I never had any (-1 to score) and it had a kilt (-10). I liked the T7 set quite a bit, but the hat--again--was clownshoes and left off. It also had the stupid chainmail ballgown, but lots of hunter legs in Naxx, so life was good. T8 was probably the best overall. Outstanding set. Dress was tied to the chestpiece, so I got caught. The helm was simply outstanding, even though the plumb bob thing disappeared into my draenei's cleavage. T9 was so bland it hurt. Anub was good enough to cough up the hunter legs, so I was spared the idiot dress again. T10 was OK. Once everyone got used to the ghost piggy shoulders and quit commenting on them, I kinda grew to like them. Crafted legs avoided the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned kilt.

My other characters mostly didn't have raid gear. My warrior had T1/T2 back in vanilla. All visiable pieces were T1, so I could live with this. My DK and pally have T10 and T9 respectively. T9 was bland like all ToC stuff, but at least she didn't look like a refugee from a thrift shop. DK T10 was pretty bitchin' really, and I"ll miss it--aside from the hat, but it wasn't THAT bad, just clashed with the coathanger horns she has.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on October 15, 2010, 09:42:07 AM
My resto druid doesn't seem to have the new ToL form, he still turns into the old one! What have I done wrong?  :sad:
The new tree form isn't in yet.

That'd explain it. Thanks!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 15, 2010, 09:49:06 AM
Better yet, why don't they finally just let Warlocks choose their own names for the pets.

Yes, yes, I'm fully aware of the whole 'to control a demon, first you must know its true name' issue; who's to say the demons I enslaved aren't called Ritalin, Blue Meany, Joizy Goil and Weed Whacker?

Demons are not pets, demons have names already.

"to control a demon, first you must know its true name"

"to control a demon, first you must know its true name"

"to control a demon, first you must know its true name"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 15, 2010, 10:04:24 AM
The demons would probably appreciate not having a giant "Hi my name is..." tag above their heads with their true name on it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on October 15, 2010, 10:13:35 AM
The demons would probably appreciate not having a giant "Hi my name is..." tag above their heads with their true name on it.

They lead the opposition to realID, in fact.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on October 15, 2010, 10:18:26 AM
I like that demons come with names attached, personally. But logically, just because it has a true name doesn't mean you can't make it respond to a fabulously adorable nickname after you've broken it and bound it to your will.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 15, 2010, 10:25:03 AM
If it weren't open for abuse I'd suggest some sort of anagraminator that obfusticates whatever not-a-pet name you elect to give your demons into something more demon-y...

Say if I called my Void Walker 'Mr Peanut' it'd come out as 'Trupamen' or something equally as meaningless as the current names are - only YOU know what their 'real' demon name is.
Not that I'm trying to give this any more thought than an offhand comment ever needed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 15, 2010, 10:30:53 AM
The demons would probably appreciate not having a giant "Hi my name is..." tag above their heads with their true name on it.
They lead the opposition to realID, in fact.
No wonder I like them so much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 15, 2010, 11:12:18 AM
The demons would probably appreciate not having a giant "Hi my name is..." tag above their heads with their true name on it.

It's Slim Shady.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 15, 2010, 12:45:34 PM
One of the issues with Tier Armor, is each race has it's own art style as well as each class.


Like those leafy armors, those would work great on the Elves, but on say Orcs? Dwarves?



Which isn't to excuse how terrible some (most) tier armor looks, but it is tricky to nail down all the class/race themes together.

They already have armor for the different races. Except they're mostly white armor and WoW doesn't have a social tab.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on October 15, 2010, 12:47:26 PM
Hunter T8:


That looks like a warrior set, no a hunter. WTF do you need all that armor for when you're plinking shit at range?

Ive noticed the rogue sets have similar issues. I was looking at the armory of some rogue with dual axes and I thought it was a fury warrior until I looked up and saw "ROGUE!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 15, 2010, 01:33:43 PM
One of the issues with Tier Armor, is each race has it's own art style as well as each class.


Like those leafy armors, those would work great on the Elves, but on say Orcs? Dwarves?



Which isn't to excuse how terrible some (most) tier armor looks, but it is tricky to nail down all the class/race themes together.

They already have armor for the different races. Except they're mostly white armor and WoW doesn't have a social tab.  :oh_i_see:
There's a level 40-something white cloth outfit that is basically a fantasy version of a pimp suit (except without the hat). I had a bank alt dressed in it with the fishing reward cane.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 15, 2010, 01:55:02 PM
http://thottbot.com/i25680


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on October 15, 2010, 02:03:53 PM

There's a level 40-something white cloth outfit that is basically a fantasy version of a pimp suit (except without the hat). I had a bank alt dressed in it with the fishing reward cane.
Random thought, but "pimp" would make good next grade for the loot. Not sure about the associated colour though, with purple already taken.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 15, 2010, 02:04:02 PM
I preferred the red pimp hat out of Strath myself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 15, 2010, 04:29:27 PM
Speaking of armor sets, the Hunter T11 is  :drill: :uhrr: :why_so_serious:
http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2010/october/hunter_tier11.jpg


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 15, 2010, 04:37:31 PM
Speaking of armor sets, the Hunter T11 is  :drill: :uhrr: :why_so_serious:
http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2010/october/hunter_tier11.jpg

 :ye_gods:

A purple pimp suit would be less silly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 15, 2010, 05:03:37 PM
The hunter one made me cackle, it's true.

The DK one confirmed my suspicion that even though everyone else is going to leave the skull armor period of their lives behind, my DK won't. Well, I guess mages won't either, yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on October 15, 2010, 05:10:24 PM
Quote
Murloc armor!

...Are these people out of their minds?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 15, 2010, 05:11:24 PM
On the plus side the new hunter PVP set is easily in the top 5 best ever sets they've done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 15, 2010, 05:32:29 PM
That looks like a warrior set, no a hunter. WTF do you need all that armor for when you're plinking shit at range?

Are you happy now?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on October 15, 2010, 06:54:09 PM
Speaking of armor sets, the Hunter T11 is  :drill: :uhrr: :why_so_serious:
http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2010/october/hunter_tier11.jpg
Is that really doughnuts hanging all over his armour or am i seeing things?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 15, 2010, 06:59:44 PM
Is that really doughnuts hanging all over his armour or am i seeing things?

It looks like the round stone anchors that fishermen used to weigh down nets, I think?

The armor looks like this guy rolled around on the beach, and whatever stuck is his armor!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 15, 2010, 07:00:04 PM
Did I miss six months?  It's not April, is it?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on October 15, 2010, 07:03:23 PM
Is that really doughnuts hanging all over his armour or am i seeing things?
Ring mail!  Get it? ;-)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 15, 2010, 07:11:14 PM
That looks like a warrior set, no a hunter. WTF do you need all that armor for when you're plinking shit at range?

Are you happy now?

Actually I think the hunter murloc looking thing is freaking hysterical. I would wear that shit all day long on my warrior and run around going Wmrglggrglrlglr! at people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 15, 2010, 07:17:03 PM
(http://www.friendsofpr.com/dalechun/kevshark.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on October 15, 2010, 07:41:36 PM
I think I'll just play alt-itis for the next two years while the rest of you look like stupid fucks in that shit.  Good god.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on October 15, 2010, 07:58:42 PM
Wat? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNuaDWQ5_YM)  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WoopeeTuralyon on October 15, 2010, 09:49:30 PM
I thought the mage T3 set was pretty awesome. Most T3, really, except warlock. I also liked shammy T6 a lot (I like kilts on my female draenei, resto), I enjoyed having lightning swirl around me. And T10 was... decent. Lock and mage T4 was nice, priest T4-6 was very nice, I thought.

But that's really a small number of good-looking sets compared to the ones that are either eyestabbingly hideous or bland. Blizzard's art team just doesn't do a great job all the time. I'll be interested to see if they feel like making hunters look like hunters in this expansion, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 15, 2010, 10:01:26 PM

But that's really a small number of good-looking sets compared to the ones that are either eyestabbingly hideous or bland. Blizzard's art team just doesn't do a great job all the time. I'll be interested to see if they feel like making hunters look like hunters in this expansion, though.

Considering they made them look like some kind of armored fish above....don't count on it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 15, 2010, 11:01:57 PM
The helmet needs an anglerfish lure to really sell it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 16, 2010, 01:50:05 AM
*ahem* you people were telling me that armours aren't getting any worse...?   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 16, 2010, 02:40:39 AM
I still don't get why people don't like the T9 plate. This looks perfectly decent to me. (http://www.wowhead.com/itemset=872#.)  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 16, 2010, 03:16:47 AM
I don't like the Horde T9 plate on anyone except orcs. I actually like the Alliance T9 plate, too, of course. On the whole I like ALL the alliance T9 better than the horde versions.

And yes, the murloc hunter armor is ridiculous, but I think it is merely competitive with some of the truly horrific warrior sets from earlier (although the T11 warrior set also provokes the traditional bellylaughs that warrior sets tend to), rather than worse than anything ever.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 16, 2010, 04:38:57 AM
I didn't like the shark's fin on the Horde T9 helm; otherwise the set was good. This new Murlocstalker set is going to look ridiculous on my gobbo hunter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 16, 2010, 04:45:35 AM
This new Murlocstalker set is going to look ridiculous on my gobbo any hunter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 16, 2010, 01:02:51 PM
This new Murlocstalker set is going to look ridiculoushilarious and awesome on my gobbo any hunter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 16, 2010, 02:35:24 PM
If Captain Ahab played WoW he'd be a hunter, and that's the armour he'd wear.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 16, 2010, 03:04:47 PM
Paladin's continue to outghey every class in their armor sets.

http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2010/october/paladin_tier11.jpg (http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2010/october/paladin_tier11.jpg)  :ye_gods:

I think it's supposed to be carved out of stone, but it just comes off as really odd.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on October 16, 2010, 03:42:23 PM
Ignoring the helmet, I quite like Paladin T11.  Reminds me a lot of Priest T8 which is my favorite set by a mile (and it also had a kind of stupid helmet).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 16, 2010, 03:46:16 PM
Priest T8 was perfect, it's an example of a set that fits the class in all the right ways.

Paladin T11 also reminds me a bit of Tiers 4 and 5, but it's definitely an improvement


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on October 16, 2010, 04:14:15 PM
I liked the druid tier 4 and 5 sets. I wish they would bring them back.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 16, 2010, 04:57:26 PM
Warrior Tier 8 is probably my favorite warrior set ever. The bar isn't very high though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 16, 2010, 05:02:22 PM
I don't like the white version and I don't like the helm (I hardly ever like the helm) but I don't think the paladin T11 is too bad. But like always, I will have Ingmar in his hilarious warrior armor to make me feel better. Except during T8, I totally wanted that set to be MY set.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 17, 2010, 03:44:17 AM
Warrior Tier 8 is probably my favorite warrior set ever. The bar isn't very high though.

Warriors have really had more good sets than bad by a pretty big margin I'd say. Tiers 3(7), 4, 6, 8 and 10 are all good looking. Tier 2 is pretty fun too, and tier 9 certainly was passable for horde. I'd throw Warriors in with Priests and Warlocks as a class that generally has decent tier armour.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on October 17, 2010, 04:35:39 AM
I think the best Shaman set I've seen was the Enhancement Cataclysm Harness from Burning Crusade. Chains over Molten Armpr FTW.

I liked the Druid Malorne set too - still have it in my druid's bank, likewise the Shammie's Cataclysm set



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 17, 2010, 05:33:04 AM
I'm trying... trying to find something to like about any variation of any T11 set across all classes. And I can't. They're all utterly irredeemable; garish, poorly conceived, badly executed. A monumental aesthetic failure on every single count. I defy anyone to provide me an example of an entire tier as ugly (or worse) in comparison.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 17, 2010, 06:06:04 AM
Tier 2.5 says hi  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 17, 2010, 06:08:02 AM
If you don't like mage, DK and hunter T11 you are fundamentally broken.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on October 17, 2010, 07:00:43 AM
If you don't like mage, DK and hunter T11 you are fundamentally broken.

The Mage set is the best of those three, but I wouldn't show the helmet.  The DK/Hunter ones look like the art department just asked a local elementary school class to design them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 17, 2010, 07:32:16 AM
Why does the Rogue set, ostensibly the sneaky class, glow like a friggin' beacon?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 17, 2010, 07:41:57 AM
Because by this point they're so inherently stealthy that even when not trying to hide they fade into the background.  You'd forget they existed if they didn't wear gimp suits and glowy clothes. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on October 17, 2010, 08:28:12 AM
Why does the Rogue set, ostensibly the sneaky class, glow like a friggin' beacon?
Rogues aren't rolled to blend in the background, they're rolled to scream "look at mee, i R deepeeees!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 17, 2010, 08:36:34 AM
Lock T10 is pretty sweet.

Why does the Rogue set, ostensibly the sneaky class, glow like a friggin' beacon?

edit: Rogue Tier 11 is really bad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 17, 2010, 08:48:57 AM
t12 for rogues will be a giant vibrating epeen


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 17, 2010, 02:01:18 PM
Warrior Tier 8 is probably my favorite warrior set ever. The bar isn't very high though.

Warriors have really had more good sets than bad by a pretty big margin I'd say. Tiers 3(7), 4, 6, 8 and 10 are all good looking. Tier 2 is pretty fun too, and tier 9 certainly was passable for horde. I'd throw Warriors in with Priests and Warlocks as a class that generally has decent tier armour.

I didn't care for 3/7 (especiallly the color choice for the 10 man version of 7), 4 was the fugly bug suit so that is right out too. Tier 6 is at best forgettable, and is pretty ugly color-wise. Tier 9 was fine, but I don't really think of it as a 'warrior' set. Of the warrior-only sets I found tier 8 great, tier 10 pretty good, and tier 5 decent if you turned off the helmet. Everything else no thank you.

Of course all this really means is that taste is subjective.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 17, 2010, 02:30:07 PM
roar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq4Y7ztznKc


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on October 17, 2010, 02:37:33 PM
As a proud owner of Murky and Lurky plushes, I deeply regret Blizzard's continued policy of Murloc persecution.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 17, 2010, 03:42:34 PM
So, they're not saving that for Blizzcon?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 17, 2010, 04:31:53 PM
roar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq4Y7ztznKc

(http://www.bustatoons.com/blog_images/blog_stone_deaf.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 17, 2010, 05:18:43 PM
Hm.. between that and the Skeletor mage armor, how many other HeMan connections can you make?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 17, 2010, 05:23:33 PM
roar

I said it in the Blizzcon thread, but that cinematic would've been a lot better if they had characters from the first two cinematics (the better cinematics) running around in the "OH FUCK WORLD ENDING ARGHGHGHGH" scenes.

Also, would they please hire ALL voice actors for ALL their voice acting? Argh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 17, 2010, 05:55:39 PM
Hm.. between that and the Skeletor mage armor, how many other HeMan connections can you make?

Well, the hunter armor is an easy shot.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_J91FN15TrUg/SIp-arsL5TI/AAAAAAAAAvQ/GHQm5iPUZ4E/s400/blog_merman_dramatic.jpg)



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on October 17, 2010, 06:04:28 PM
A bit off topic here; but all this talk of the expansion is giving me that annoying itch again. Would anyone here mind giving me a scroll of resurrection key so I can remind myself why I don't play anymore?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 17, 2010, 06:20:23 PM
A bit off topic here; but all this talk of the expansion is giving me that annoying itch again. Would anyone here mind giving me a scroll of resurrection key so I can remind myself why I don't play anymore?
Done and done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 17, 2010, 06:53:43 PM
At this point, the thread needs reference pictures. Of all races and classes. Clad in all of the differnet armour sets.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 17, 2010, 09:53:01 PM
Of course all this really means is that taste is subjective.

Taste isn't subjective, it's just yours is bad. :heart:

I actually quite liked most of the TBC gear, particularly the T4.  All the little detail work on it was really cool, and it was a particularly fine shade of realistic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 17, 2010, 11:54:14 PM
roar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq4Y7ztznKc

Beautiful cinematic as always, this time they've managed to capture a little of why and how Cataclysm has come to pass, validating Deathwing's actions. Not to mention a showcase of his literally earth-shattering power.

BUT - as Sjofn points out, there's absolutely nothing of the intelligent races of Azeroth's reaction to it all. Not to mention this is now the 4th intro cinematic that's willfully ignored the existence of Trolls and Gnomes and has done nothing to introduce us to Goblins and Worgen. Missed opportunity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on October 18, 2010, 01:17:58 AM
The first two cinematics were about the sort of characters you could play. The last two have been about the bosses you will fight. To an extent the second was halfway there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on October 18, 2010, 01:36:44 AM
(http://www.bustatoons.com/blog_images/blog_stone_deaf.jpg)
I was thinking

(http://www.coveworld.net/kotor-d20/images/malak.jpg)

but yeah, that's probably closer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on October 18, 2010, 03:18:35 AM

Beautiful cinematic as always, this time they've managed to capture a little of why and how Cataclysm has come to pass, validating Deathwing's actions.


How ?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on October 18, 2010, 03:43:25 AM

Beautiful cinematic as always, this time they've managed to capture a little of why and how Cataclysm has come to pass, validating Deathwing's actions.


How ?


Bear in mind validating != justifying. That said, Deathwing's pretty pissed off; he's been hiding for years in pain and humiliation, suffering the ignominy of having lesser races care for his wounds (well, as the cinematic suggests, sealing them up with frigging metal plates). He was once Neltharion, granted dominion over Azeroth. The world is rightfully his. Yes, there was all that torrid business with the Dragon/Demon soul and Old God manipulation that's so tiresome and convoluted I've never really been able to piece it all together; but essentially what I'm getting at is Deathwing has a reason to fuck everything up. Arthas as the Lich King was essentially undead Hitler/Pol Pot/genocidal fucknut of your choice; Illidan is a whinging, emo dickbag. Deathwing just wants everyone off his goddamn lawn.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 18, 2010, 05:12:13 AM
Deathwing came off as pretty emo in that cinematic tbfh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on October 18, 2010, 06:42:17 AM
Beautiful cinematic as always, this time they've managed to capture a little of why and how Cataclysm has come to pass, validating Deathwing's actions. Not to mention a showcase of his literally earth-shattering power.

I will agree that this one looked really, really good and it was much cooler than the WotLK cinematic which I thought was rather underwhelming compared to the BC cinematic even though the lore was much bigger.

However, I'm not buying the why part.  I was wondering what was going on and why deathwing came up out of the ground to get all rowdy.  It kind of looked like a standard movie trope torture thing gone wrong.  But I don't think that's the case.  For that matter, what was he doing under ground?  Is he some sort of anime dude that needs to have a Grrr!! So ANGRY power up moment before he can do his thing?  So, is there somewhere I can go read about why Deathwing decided now was the time?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on October 18, 2010, 06:55:10 AM

That said, Deathwing's pretty pissed off; he's been hiding for years in pain and humiliation, suffering the ignominy of having lesser races care for his wounds (well, as the cinematic suggests, sealing them up with frigging metal plates).
Perusing the wiki there may be some sort of time-lapse there; it seems to be the part where he's sealed into goblin-crafted armour just so he doesn't blow apart at seams from all delusions of grandeur and the power he stole.

Quote
He was once Neltharion, granted dominion over Azeroth. The world is rightfully his. Yes, there was all that torrid business with the Dragon/Demon soul and Old God manipulation that's so tiresome and convoluted I've never really been able to piece it all together; but essentially what I'm getting at is Deathwing has a reason to fuck everything up. Arthas as the Lich King was essentially undead Hitler/Pol Pot/genocidal fucknut of your choice; Illidan is a whinging, emo dickbag. Deathwing just wants everyone off his goddamn lawn.
tl;dr version: guy is given control over lands while other guys are given control over other stuff, guy goes too big in the head from getting too many mental blow jobs from some other guys, guy thinks everyone should bow down to him and he's all that and after they don't he just want them all dead. He's genocidal fucknut of choice just like the rest. And yeah, the whole "pain, misery" whining just sounds like he ran out of eyeliner.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 18, 2010, 07:00:54 AM
I was wondering what was going on and why deathwing came up out of the ground to get all rowdy.

Because we ran out of content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 18, 2010, 08:26:43 AM
Plus a wizard (in this case, an Old God) did it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 18, 2010, 08:33:09 AM
Perusing the wiki there may be some sort of time-lapse there; it seems to be the part where he's sealed into goblin-crafted armour just so he doesn't blow apart at seams from all delusions of grandeur and the power he stole.

No.  He got his shit wrecked by the other dragons and needed to stop in the elemental plane for repairs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 18, 2010, 08:38:19 AM
Pimp my Dragon. He's got some new ground effects, some 20" spinners, and a Playstation 3 in the back.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 18, 2010, 09:32:29 AM
He saw the Hunter Tier 11 armor and decided this shit ends now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on October 18, 2010, 10:31:51 AM
At least it's not the Paladin Tier 11, which I'm calling the 'Stone Peacock'.  I daresay it's worse than Crystalforge.  Which is a feat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 18, 2010, 10:34:58 AM
He saw the Hunter Tier 11 armor and decided this shit ends now.

More like "looks like time for a tasty seafood snack!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 18, 2010, 11:03:22 AM
Regarding trolls and gnomes in cinematics, there's a brief shot of a troll riding a raptor in the TBC trailer, and the mage that turns someone into a sheep might be a gnome, it isn't really clear. I've always figured the intent was he was supposed to be a gnome. It isn't the human from the first cinematic, the hair is all wrong.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2010, 11:33:05 AM
He saw the Hunter Tier 11 armor and decided this shit ends now.

 :awesome_for_real: I loled.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 18, 2010, 11:35:57 AM
And yeah, the whole "pain, misery" whining just sounds like he ran out of eyeliner.
Or, you know, having white-hot armour plate nailed into your body with battering rams to prevent you from exploding into a fire-lava-gutsball might just hurt.
A little.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on October 18, 2010, 11:38:50 AM
Well, the Shade of the Horseman is an annoying little git.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on October 18, 2010, 12:17:39 PM
Or, you know, having white-hot armour plate nailed into your body with battering rams to prevent you from exploding into a fire-lava-gutsball might just hurt.
A little.
He doesn't exactly sound like being in pain, that's what screaming is for. What he does comes across more like self-indulgent navel gazing.

Besides, what's a little pain for the supposed owner of all Azeroth? If that gets him to whine, must suck whenever he's got hiccups and keeps shooting that molten lava all way out through the nostrils.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 18, 2010, 01:38:40 PM
"Please care. Please. You've been speculating about killing Arthas since this game was just a rumor on the internet, and now you have. Please remain interested. Look how big and scary this guy is, rawr!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 18, 2010, 01:55:05 PM
I don't get all the hate. I think its a decent concept, especially when you put it up next to Space Goats and magical flying music notes.

"Please care. Please. You've been speculating about killing Arthas since this game was just a rumor on the internet, and now you have. Please remain interested. Look how big and scary this guy is, rawr!"

Meh, I bet 60%+ of the people playing had no idea who Arthas even was before Wrath came out. Again, big pissed off dragon or space goats.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on October 18, 2010, 01:59:40 PM
Like all expansions, I will never fight the guy on the box.  I'm OK with this.  So, I really don't care that much about him/it. 

I'm with Morf, this is a lot more appealing lore wise than TBC.  But, as not explicitly stated above, I'm not much of a lore guy.  At least Cat gives them a mechanism for the zones being cohesive design wise.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 18, 2010, 02:02:44 PM
I never played warcraft, I knew arthas 'existed' but i never got why some people had nerdgasms over him...or illidan for that matter. I get it, these are characters you know.  Granted I liked having the lich king as a bad guy, I felt like I knew why I was fighting him a lot moreso than some emo elf/demon dude in outland.

As for deathwing? I really dont think deathwing is the draw of this expansion at all.  Raiders will raid no matter what the mob looks like as long as it drops purples and the lore/rp nerds are sated with all the storylines changing/updating. For most though this expansion is all about "look, new stuff and stuff you remember is different."

This expansion isn't a shameless grab to stay relevant with the end game, it's about getting people to level 1-60 all over again and keep them paying long after they did everything pre-cat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 18, 2010, 02:06:30 PM
"Please care. Please. You've been speculating about killing Arthas since this game was just a rumor on the internet, and now you have. Please remain interested. Look how big and scary this guy is, rawr!"
Of course, those of us whose first Warcraft game wasn't WC3 know exactly who Deathwing is. :smug:

Also: Workaround for the gear/cog crash bug - http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=27300876552
Quote
Hey Guys,

There's tons of threads posted and lots of promising solutions. I have one that I've been testing for three days and have not had as much as lag spike when mousing over cogs. This works if you're willing to disable tooltips when you are anywhere a cog icon might show up.

You will need to create two macros, for "turn off tooltips" and "turn on tooltips".

Turn Off Tooltips

/script GameTooltip.Temphide = function() GameTooltip:Hide() end;  GameTooltip:SetScript("OnShow", GameTooltip.Temphide);


Turn On Tooltips

/script GameTooltip:SetScript("OnShow", GameTooltip.Show);



This should get you through until the official fix comes down from Blizzard. Happy hunting!


E: Oh hey, when did we get that emote?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 18, 2010, 02:14:43 PM
Of course, those of us whose first Warcraft game wasn't WC3 know exactly who Deathwing is. :smug:

A silly-named hero unit from the underplayed Warcraft 2 expansion that ultimately has very little to do with the lore around Deathwing as it is constituted today?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 18, 2010, 02:26:39 PM
S'okay.  His lore will have changed by next expansion anyways.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 18, 2010, 04:50:02 PM
Deathwing himself is a giant yawn for me (and I'm in the camp where he sounded like he was reciting his terrible high school goth poetry, although I put that in Metzen's lap entirely), but so was Illidan and Arthas. Because let's face it, none of them are Great Villains for the Ages. Everything else in these expansions are why I get excited for them, and that's why I am totally excited about the world exploding.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2010, 05:37:19 PM
Deathwing himself is a giant yawn for me (and I'm in the camp where he sounded like he was reciting his terrible high school goth poetry, although I put that in Metzen's lap entirely), but so was Illidan and Arthas. Because let's face it, none of them are Great Villains for the Ages. Everything else in these expansions are why I get excited for them, and that's why I am totally excited about the world exploding.

I was most looking forward to seeing Queen Azshara, but after the loretasticness of WoW, I don't wanna no more.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on October 18, 2010, 09:11:27 PM
Am I the only one who thought Deathwing sounded kind of like Baron Ünderbheit?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 18, 2010, 09:31:25 PM
That's who I thought of before Darth Malak or the He-Man guy.  Well, some hideous merger of Ünderbheit, Jay Leno, and an undead dragon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 18, 2010, 10:58:52 PM
"Please care. Please. You've been speculating about killing Arthas since this game was just a rumor on the internet, and now you have. Please remain interested. Look how big and scary this guy is, rawr!"
Of course, those of us whose first Warcraft game wasn't WC3 know exactly who Deathwing is. :smug:

We do?

WC2 (and the Dark Portal(?) expansion) were my introduction to Warcraft, about a million years ago, but I'm fucked if I can remember any of the characters, including Deathwing.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 18, 2010, 11:10:53 PM
I never played warcraft, I knew arthas 'existed' but i never got why some people had nerdgasms over him...or illidan for that matter. I get it, these are characters you know.  Granted I liked having the lich king as a bad guy, I felt like I knew why I was fighting him a lot moreso than some emo elf/demon dude in outland.

Tragic antiheroes are popular.

That's who I thought of before Darth Malak or the He-Man guy.  Well, some hideous merger of Ünderbheit, Jay Leno, and an undead dragon.

He's not undead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 18, 2010, 11:21:28 PM
Am I the only one who thought Deathwing sounded kind of like Baron Ünderbheit?

I merely think he looks like him. He sounds like Thrall with a cold.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 19, 2010, 12:16:57 AM
Something to bear in mind: Deathwing isn't voiced by Metzen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on October 19, 2010, 01:36:38 AM
I only killed Illidan last week.  I eagerly await taking on Deathwing on my 60th birthday.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 19, 2010, 03:12:07 AM
Damn, some of you guys play the way I do. If we were on the same server we could all get together and farm little phoenix pets in that Sunwell dungeon.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 19, 2010, 05:17:54 AM
It's actually the phoenix mount that drops in Sunwell; the little phoenix pet drops in Magister's Terrace (off the same boss, actually).

/nitpick


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 19, 2010, 08:42:33 AM
It's actually the phoenix mount that drops in Sunwell; the little phoenix pet drops in Magister's Terrace (off the same boss, actually).

/nitpick
Phoenix mount drops in the T5 raid in Netherstorm, which is the Naaru spaceship, not Sunwell.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 19, 2010, 08:46:50 AM
It's actually the phoenix mount that drops in Sunwell; the little phoenix pet drops in Magister's Terrace (off the same boss, actually).

/nitpick

I think by Sunwell dungeon he probably means MgT, rather than the raid

/nitpick
/nitpick


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2010, 08:54:36 AM
Whatever, I have the Karazhan flaming horse mount! Who needs a silly Phoenix?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 19, 2010, 09:10:36 AM
Whatever, I have the Karazhan flaming horse mount! Who needs a silly Phoenix?

headless horseman mount?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2010, 09:14:24 AM
No, The Attunemen Mount from Karazhan, Midnight (http://www.wowhead.com/item=30480). It's a flaming undead horse with fangs. Arguably the coolest ground mount I have in the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 19, 2010, 09:27:32 AM
No, The Attunemen Mount from Karazhan, Midnight (http://www.wowhead.com/item=30480). It's a flaming undead horse with fangs. Arguably the coolest ground mount I have in the game.

I know, but isn't the headless horseman mount the same model, except it flies?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 19, 2010, 09:28:16 AM
Same model, different skin I think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2010, 10:50:22 AM
Same model, different skin I think.

The key point is that the horse has FANGS. It's a vampire horse that's on fire. Win!  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 19, 2010, 10:52:37 AM
But there's a vampire horse on fire "that flies" with the new mount speed changes, I really want one now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2010, 10:53:29 AM
But there's a vampire horse on fire "that flies" with the new mount speed changes, I really want one now.

That horse has no fangs. Not a vampire.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on October 19, 2010, 12:15:52 PM
No, The Attunemen Mount from Karazhan, Midnight (http://www.wowhead.com/item=30480). It's a flaming undead horse with fangs. Arguably the coolest ground mount I have in the game.

I wanted that horse to be cool, I really did... maybe it's really cool in-game?  I bet that's it.  Those pictures make it look stupid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 19, 2010, 12:26:55 PM
I should probably have a go at farming him on my priest. Not sure how well it would go, although the new changes to disc and such might make it easier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 19, 2010, 12:54:48 PM
I did Karazhan roughly TEN ZILLION TIMES and I never once saw that motherfucker drop.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 19, 2010, 12:55:52 PM
I did Karazhan roughly TEN ZILLION TIMES and I never once saw that motherfucker drop.

I saw it twice. When I got it, and again a few months later. Of course, the second time I didn't actually see it because unique items wouldn't let you see the roll icon back then.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2010, 12:59:06 PM
Those pictures make it look stupid.

That's fine, I'll just feed your opinions to my flaming vampire horse!  :woot:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 19, 2010, 02:40:43 PM
My green proto-drakes scoff at your vampire horse.

(Seriously, it's just so much cooler looking.  My Druid didn't ever use flight form because green proto-drakes are awesome.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 19, 2010, 03:42:36 PM
Is searing totem broken?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 19, 2010, 09:02:15 PM
Is searing totem broken?

No, just tempermental as hell.

If this is referring to its behavior (or lack thereof) on dummies, it's not broken, it just has some issues with dummies (though, let a critter walk by and it's kitty bar the door!). What I suspect is going on is the dummy is showing up to the totem as tagged from the umpteen bazillion people that were beating on it before you got there. It won't attack a tagged target--ostensibly to prevent it from breaking CC. Also, it won't attack until you throw a flame shock on. It likes flame shock--like draws to like, apparently. Or if it sees a critter. It has a real hate-on for critters.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on October 19, 2010, 09:30:12 PM
Hey! So do I!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 19, 2010, 09:33:25 PM
It's an intended feature.  It's won't attack a target not attacking you unless you "mark" it with flame shock.  Doomguard/Infernal works the same for Bane of Agony and Bane of Doom on a warlock.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on October 19, 2010, 09:47:34 PM
Heh, two full system locks in the past 3 days.  I'm guessing some of my "updated" addons aren't working too well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on October 19, 2010, 09:51:59 PM
Heh, two full system locks in the past 3 days.
There's some bugs that cause some people to crash out when zoning that are not necessarily add-on related.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 19, 2010, 10:40:33 PM
It's actually the phoenix mount that drops in Sunwell; the little phoenix pet drops in Magister's Terrace (off the same boss, actually).

/nitpick

I think by Sunwell dungeon he probably means MgT, rather than the raid

/nitpick
/nitpick

You are correct. I'd have called it the raid if I meant the raid. Couldn't recall the dungeon name or the name of the Island. Quel'Thas of WTF it is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 19, 2010, 10:42:56 PM
Heh, two full system locks in the past 3 days.
There's some bugs that cause some people to crash out when zoning that are not necessarily add-on related.

Yeah, this. Doing godforsaken crazy things like zoning into an instance can (and frequently, have) caused whole system freezes for myself, guildmates and friends.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 19, 2010, 11:10:14 PM
Those pictures make it look stupid.

That's fine, I'll just feed your opinions to my flaming vampire horse!  :woot:

Oh, that thing. I've seen them about occasionally. I probably would never choose to ride it myself, but glad you enjoy it if you got one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 19, 2010, 11:34:36 PM
Frost dps for death knights is the shiz-nite. Two hand, of course.

Unholy was giving me hives. Clunky, weirdo priority and pet management.  :uhrr:

A switch to frost had a tolerable priority, hits like a frieight train, and actually can burn rune power like no tomorrow. Kinda miss death coill, but 10k frost strikes makes that a vague wistfulness that's easily forgotten with the next 15k pt obliterate or 8k howling blast (and that's so going to get nerfed; crazy stuff).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on October 20, 2010, 12:14:24 AM
Heh, two full system locks in the past 3 days.
There's some bugs that cause some people to crash out when zoning that are not necessarily add-on related.

My crashes have both happened during the horseman event right when someone starts it.  Could be something in 4.01 acting oddly with the event.  I didn't have a problem with it last year at all.

It probably isn't my addons, but I'm being safe.  It's weird having no idea what sort of DPS you're doing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 20, 2010, 12:20:26 AM
http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/27300876552/workaround-cog-of-doom-hh-event-bgs/

I made macros, but you'll also be fine if you don't mouse over the pumpkin thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on October 20, 2010, 12:34:43 AM
Those pictures make it look stupid.

That's fine, I'll just feed your opinions to my flaming vampire horse!  :woot:

Oh, that thing. I've seen them about occasionally. I probably would never choose to ride it myself, but glad you enjoy it if you got one.

Raven God mount FTW (finally dropped for my druid after farming it night after night for months)

I think Blizzard looks at your characters and the RNG drops a mount for the character least likely to be played. My rotten DK got Rivendare's mount on her 3rd run through Strat UD, the brewfest kodo 2nd run and the headless horseman's mount first time - and I have only log her on for these events :D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 20, 2010, 02:14:31 AM
Is searing totem broken?

No, just tempermental as hell.

If this is referring to its behavior (or lack thereof) on dummies, it's not broken, it just has some issues with dummies (though, let a critter walk by and it's kitty bar the door!). What I suspect is going on is the dummy is showing up to the totem as tagged from the umpteen bazillion people that were beating on it before you got there. It won't attack a tagged target--ostensibly to prevent it from breaking CC. Also, it won't attack until you throw a flame shock on. It likes flame shock--like draws to like, apparently. Or if it sees a critter. It has a real hate-on for critters.

Right, thanks a lot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 20, 2010, 04:07:00 AM
 :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real:

My paladin got the Headless Horseman mount!

:awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real:

I would've PREFERED it on my death knight but whatever!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on October 20, 2010, 04:51:22 AM
Maybe you could be an Eeevil Paladin?  (or Veterinarian)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 20, 2010, 06:35:55 AM
My paladin got the Headless Horseman mount!
Hate.

Nah, actually happy that you got it on the third year of trying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on October 20, 2010, 07:35:52 AM
My paladin got the Headless Horseman mount!

Grats! Those are fun mounts. I recently finished the Netherwing grind and am very happy with my shiny new Azure Netherdrake.

---------------------------------------

Have they changed the way the inactive/deserter thing works? Last night I was in the BG queue and got IoC. It loaded and the game locked up, forcing me to reboot. All told I was out of the game for ~2 minutes or less, and when I logged back in I had been kicked out of the BG and had a nice 15 minute deserter debuff because I dared to crash out of the game. This ended my battleground-ing for the evening because I didn't have the ~45 minutes required for another wait in the 15-20 minute queue + 20-25 mins for whatever BG I got. Very annoying.

Also a few days ago I was in AV. Of course we zerged Vanndar and of course we wiped. I ended up at a graveyard with 30 seconds to rez, so I quickly went to the kitchen and grabbed a drink of water. This took maybe 60 seconds or so. I came back to the game, buffed, mounted and noticed I had this funny looking debuff on me - "Inactive". I had 30 seconds to engage in pvp and, this being AV, of course I couldn't find an enemy in that time frame even though I frantically ran around searching. Boom, kicked out with deserter debuff. This pissed me off so I logged for a while. When I came back, the deserter debuff had reset back to the full 15 minute duration.

I don't recall Deserter resetting to full duration on relog or the 'inactive' debuff happening THAT quickly before. Have they changed things, or am I the "victim" of some overzealous person marking people inactive all the time?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 20, 2010, 08:43:13 AM
My paladin got the Headless Horseman mount!
Hate.

Nah, actually happy that you got it on the third year of trying.

The best part is my sister can't ride in circles around me on HERS to mock me any more.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2010, 09:21:53 AM
Same deserter shit happened to me.  I think when you crash out, it kicks you out and throws deserter on you.

Awesome, eh ?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 20, 2010, 09:53:00 AM
Shrike, is 2h frost better dps than dw now? DPS has always been my offspec, so I don't mess around with it much but I had assumed Frost was still the dw tree.

:awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real:

My paladin got the Headless Horseman mount!

:awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real:

I would've PREFERED it on my death knight but whatever!

Gratz! Got mine today too! Ohai mount #103.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on October 20, 2010, 11:16:16 AM
Gratz! Got mine today too! Ohai mount #103.

103?!?!@!1!1one!?  So the 100 mounts thing is really possible after all?  Whoa...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 20, 2010, 11:18:00 AM
Shrike, is 2h frost better dps than dw now? DPS has always been my offspec, so I don't mess around with it much but I had assumed Frost was still the dw tree.

No, it's not better. I just have a better 2hander than I have 1handers. Otherwise, I'd be DW by preference. Shouldn't have blown all that honor on gems for my shaman.  :oh_i_see:

Long answer is they're the same, but different. 2h is still GCD constrained and runs best in UP and benefits most from more haste. DW isn't GCD choked, runs best in FP, and benefits most from more STR. They're both about generating tons of rune power, then blowing it in orgies frost strike spam (which does hit remarkably hard).

From my DKs perspective, it's just more fun than unholy, which feels way clunky to me. If I had better tanking gear, I'd say screw it and go blood tank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 20, 2010, 11:19:11 AM
I believe I had around 108 mounts back in April.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 20, 2010, 11:33:19 AM
DW isn't GCD choked, runs best in FP, and benefits most from more STR.

 :oh_i_see:

Yes, this is now my thing, deal with it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 20, 2010, 11:46:25 AM
From my DKs perspective, it's just more fun than unholy, which feels way clunky to me.

To each their own I guess. I find the new Unholy really awesome and smooth. I find Frost to be clunky and unintuitive. I am having a blast with Unholy. I guess part of it could be that my playstyle is fairly spamming and spastic and the speed at which Unholy plays complements that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 20, 2010, 12:00:50 PM
PvP is completely unfun after 2 hours of doing it. My god.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 20, 2010, 12:22:54 PM
Why in particular is PvP unfun?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2010, 12:26:26 PM
It's not even a button fest anymore.  You either get the first hit in or you DIE.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on October 20, 2010, 12:31:44 PM
It's not even a button fest anymore.  You either get the first hit in or you DIE.

And attempting to heal in pvp is pointless. Bubble, spam heal, whatever - no amount of healing keeps people alive.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 20, 2010, 12:34:34 PM
Why in particular is PvP unfun?

The damage is so over the top ridiculous you have zero chance of staying alive for enough time to realize why you're fucked. Stunned by a rogue? You're not waking up. Moonfire spam? Get ready for lots of that. Hunters raping your face? You betcha!

Fuck...that...noise. If you're melee, don't even bother unless you have a bazillion resilience.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 20, 2010, 12:58:29 PM
Why in particular is PvP unfun?

The damage is so over the top ridiculous you have zero chance of staying alive for enough time to realize why you're fucked. Stunned by a rogue? You're not waking up. Moonfire spam? Get ready for lots of that. Hunters raping your face? You betcha!

Fuck...that...noise. If you're melee, don't even bother unless you have a bazillion resilience.

In the sub 80 brackets its not even about stuns. If a rogue gets an ambush crit on you, you die, period. Rogue dps is so ridiculous that I have often been killed in WSG before the rogue even appeared on my screen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2010, 01:02:45 PM
I'm levelling a Fire Mage through PVP since the patch.

Why ?

Because it's fucking easy.

The stun procs, the scorch while moving, the instant THREE AoE abilities that can cook GROUPS of players, makes the fire mage Obscene.  I've not even mentioned Dragons Breath or the after fire effects.  If I'm up against a 78/79, they might last seconds.  Anyone else ? 

PROPER FUCKED.

Yeah, PvP is pretty bad right now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 20, 2010, 01:51:49 PM
:popcorn:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 20, 2010, 01:54:30 PM
PvP is completely unfun after 2 hours of doing it. My god.

What about the 30-ish brackets? I enjoyed the few times I ran my BE through and just attached myself to a tank and healed like a MoFo. People seemed to be both surprised and happy about that kind of thing, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 20, 2010, 01:58:01 PM
As a healer who actually heals, you will usually be fine in all forms of pvp. The team with the most healing is going to win when you look at the final stats.

If you're melee, though,  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on October 20, 2010, 02:36:40 PM
I'm sure the rated battlegrounds will fix everything!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 20, 2010, 02:52:29 PM
Is 85 PvP going to be worthwhile, at least?

I'm still pondering re-upping, and PvP was an activity I could at least bum around casually, although I mostly confined myself to AB and AV.  The state you're describing ranks somewhere around "not fun".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2010, 03:12:51 PM
It seems they're balancing almost everything around 85 gear.  Which means it might be fun at 85, but then you'll have the STA to last longer than 2 and a half seconds.

We'll see.

Or, you will.  I'll be long gone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 20, 2010, 03:15:52 PM
Is 85 PvP going to be worthwhile, at least?

I'm still pondering re-upping, and PvP was an activity I could at least bum around casually, although I mostly confined myself to AB and AV.  The state you're describing ranks somewhere around "not fun".


85 PvP is marginally better, but not much, no.

It's still this "You die INSTANTLY" or "You never die ever again" feel to it. Some class/specs can explode almost anything still, others can't kill shit, some specs just crumple no matter who is attacking them and others are virtually immortal.

Which spec is which changes every beta build.

It doesn't help anything that there are like, 5 of us who actually pvp in beta at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 20, 2010, 04:24:25 PM
Clearly I'm doing something wrong.. my rogue couldn't kill anyone last night when going for G.N.E.R.D Rage.  Time to look some shit up, I guess.

On mages I'm with Ironwood.  It's silly enough with Frost, I haven't even bothered to learn Fire yet but it looks even more hyperpowered.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 20, 2010, 10:15:28 PM
Yes, this is now my thing, deal with it.

Tried it out, didya?

Howling blast is soooooo getting nerfed.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on October 21, 2010, 08:39:35 AM
It's not even a button fest anymore.  You either get the first hit in or you DIE.

And attempting to heal in pvp is pointless. Bubble, spam heal, whatever - no amount of healing keeps people alive.

Wow not sure what is going on there. Healing is WAY OP at the moment I was able to heal myself and my flag carrier in wsg for 3 minutes vs 8 of their 10 people. Holy paladins are even crazier they are pretty much mini raid bosses at the moment 6v1 is about the minimum that has any chance of killing one. Most of the times they will just dance in front of you. I have seen flag carrying holy paladins manage to run around mid field helping ganking people because there is zero danger they would die.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 21, 2010, 08:43:16 AM
It's not even a button fest anymore.  You either get the first hit in or you DIE.

And attempting to heal in pvp is pointless. Bubble, spam heal, whatever - no amount of healing keeps people alive.

Wow not sure what is going on there. Healing is WAY OP at the moment I was able to heal myself and my flag carrier in wsg for 3 minutes vs 8 of their 10 people. Holy paladins are even crazier they are pretty much mini raid bosses at the moment 6v1 is about the minimum that has any chance of killing one. Most of the times they will just dance in front of you. I have seen flag carrying holy paladins manage to run around mid field helping ganking people because there is zero danger they would die.

This seems to happen right around 1500 resil. And yeah, its happening a lot in the Bloodlust battlegroup. Its completely silly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on October 21, 2010, 08:43:34 AM
Forgot to note playing as a range nuker is pretty amusing in pvp at level 80 but playing as any melee is just frustrating. If there is a healer in their group you just feel like you are hitting like a limp noodle. Even with mortal strike you pretty much cannot kill somebody if a healer is around. With people stacking resilience for a while which was getting double effect some people were running with 80% damage mitigation.  As an arms warrior it was just frustrating as hell. As a boomkin you could insect swarm and moonspam the bajeesus out of them hard enough to blow through at least a moderate amount of healing but my warrior just cannot.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on October 21, 2010, 08:48:02 AM
It's not even a button fest anymore.  You either get the first hit in or you DIE.

And attempting to heal in pvp is pointless. Bubble, spam heal, whatever - no amount of healing keeps people alive.

Wow not sure what is going on there. Healing is WAY OP at the moment I was able to heal myself and my flag carrier in wsg for 3 minutes vs 8 of their 10 people. Holy paladins are even crazier they are pretty much mini raid bosses at the moment 6v1 is about the minimum that has any chance of killing one. Most of the times they will just dance in front of you. I have seen flag carrying holy paladins manage to run around mid field helping ganking people because there is zero danger they would die.

This seems to happen right around 1500 resil. And yeah, its happening a lot in the Bloodlust battlegroup. Its completely silly.

scary thing is my druid is only about 1k resil at the moment and is a total beast in resto mode and my resto gear is crap. I know they were taking about making picking the right heal matter and doing things efficiently. Right now though at level 80 I can spam all my instant regens as fast as my lil fingers can go and never lose mana doing it. Hell the only time I ever dip in mana is when I play the FU card and make my team unkillable. AKA I go into tree of life form. In that form regrowth is now an instant cast spell so basically I don't care what your damage out put is I can click my regrowth faster and give HUGE SILLY INSANE amounts of heal instantly to a target. I can take somebody near death and put them full in an eye blink. When tree of life is active I don't think its possible to kill a druid or somebody they are healing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 21, 2010, 08:48:36 AM
Warriors either rock face at pvp with the proper gearing, or they suck wet ass. However, in this iteration, not even correct gearing saves them from said ass sucking.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on October 21, 2010, 09:08:27 AM
Warriors either rock face at pvp with the proper gearing, or they suck wet ass. However, in this iteration, not even correct gearing saves them from said ass sucking.

Ya its like chewing glass playing my warrior in pvp. Heck I can even top the damage done chart and still get hardly any kills and feel like I did nothing. Going to try to deck him out in full wrathful stuff see if that helps but right now the melees seem on the short end of the stick. Ret paladins seem like potentially the most viable but its still hard to get into range.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on October 21, 2010, 11:24:11 AM
Wow not sure what is going on there. Healing is WAY OP at the moment I was able to heal myself and my flag carrier in wsg for 3 minutes vs 8 of their 10 people. Holy paladins are even crazier they are pretty much mini raid bosses at the moment 6v1 is about the minimum that has any chance of killing one. Most of the times they will just dance in front of you. I have seen flag carrying holy paladins manage to run around mid field helping ganking people because there is zero danger they would die.

After the initial resilience buff I was immortal. Then they tweaked it down a bit and fixed the 'ICC 30% buff worldwide' thing and I wasn't anymore. I get <100 honor points a day due to limited playtime and the stupid crash out = deserter crap. After the patch I blew all my initial honor on a weapon, wand and offhand, so I'm still rocking 232 armor. Things will probably change if/when I pick up some wrathful gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 21, 2010, 12:54:45 PM
Warriors either rock face at pvp with the proper gearing, or they suck wet ass. However, in this iteration, not even correct gearing saves them from said ass sucking.
Ret paladins seem like potentially the most viable but its still hard to get into range.

Ret is pretty bad right now. Same problem, with the new combo point.... holy power system, their ramp up time is just horrible. Also, you are way to dependent on the RNG to do damage. The only thing Ret has going for it is every two minutes you can pop wings and smash someone for 20k damage with Hammer of Wrath. But thats only if they have very low resilience. My ret pally is currently rocking 1100 resil, with the Wrathful 2h Sword, and I find PVP is just one long chase. Me chasing ranged and trying to stick on them long enough for do any damage. Sadly its not working very well.

I have seen Warriors doing very well in the last few days. I have been blown up by a few also. Mostly Fury warriors using Bloodthirst. I was getting hit for 18k bloodthirst hits, with my 1100 resil.

Now im not going to get in to Mages and Boomkin. Gah. Fuck them. Really.

On the other hand, I have been having fun with my DK in PVP for the first time in a long time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on October 21, 2010, 01:07:46 PM
Other than execute my arms does not seem to be doing more than 7ish k on mortal strikes and overpowers on average. Just does not seem to have the snap damage needed to take any body out even though over time I appear very competitive damage wise. Oh well patch prior to an expansion is always a silly time balance wise.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on October 21, 2010, 01:19:43 PM
Other than execute my arms does not seem to be doing more than 7ish k on mortal strikes and overpowers on average. Just does not seem to have the snap damage needed to take any body out even though over time I appear very competitive damage wise. Oh well patch prior to an expansion is always a silly time balance wise.

Yeah, if you are a warrior, don't bother right now. You can have all the best shit, all the best pvp weapons, and you will still get beaten by anybody ranged with the exception of a poorly geared hunter.

Unless that hunter has heals. Which would be stupid because who is healing hunters?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 21, 2010, 01:58:26 PM
Other than execute my arms does not seem to be doing more than 7ish k on mortal strikes and overpowers on average. Just does not seem to have the snap damage needed to take any body out even though over time I appear very competitive damage wise. Oh well patch prior to an expansion is always a silly time balance wise.

Like I said, it was mostly Fury Warriors that where blowing me up. Maybe have a look in that direction?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 21, 2010, 04:54:33 PM
Yes, this is now my thing, deal with it.
Tried it out, didya?

Howling blast is soooooo getting nerfed.  :drill:

I'm talking about how everyone is now using rogue/shaman/hunter weapons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 21, 2010, 08:55:11 PM
They always did. Nothing new there--except shaman still can't use swords.

I suppose claws are still sort of exclusive, though everyone I talk to hates them. At least the latest round of art on them wasn't completely asinine.

The big question will be how will itemization on 1handers be in Cataclysm--especially now that fury is back in the hunt for 1hander drops. They've only recently--ICC on--unfucked 1hander drop rates.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 21, 2010, 09:42:06 PM
Prot warrior used to use fast weapons exclusively.
Prot paladin used to be able to use a fast weapon with minimal penalty.
Fury warrior used to use two-handers exclusively.
Frost DK's used to use two-handers exclusively prior to 3.3(?)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 21, 2010, 10:17:46 PM
PvP protection warriors used slow 1handers--devastate spam.
PvP protection paladins used slow 1handers--HotR, well not spam, but it was optimal.
Fury used them in vanilla, will use them in Cataclysm (if inclined).
Frost DKs have used them since they've had DW (dps tends to slow/slow, tank was fast/slow).

Hopefully, Cataclysm itemization will reflect this popularity. I'd like to see tanks stats on them just go away, and I suspect they largely will.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 22, 2010, 12:17:25 AM
Dude, that's really splitting hairs.  I'd be surprised if everyone meeting the description you've listed combined amounted to more than a percent of the people who play this game prior to 4.0.  Even DW Frost has always been exceedingly rare, because until 3.3 there was no reason to spec that way, and there have never been weapons which support the play style.  Which is kind of the fucking problem.

Also, the bit about HotR is wrong.  And the fury warrior bit is irrelevant, because this isn't TBC and I'm not playing in 81+ instances.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 22, 2010, 02:03:44 AM
Sure it is, but there's always been a demand for 1handers across a variety of classes.

Ever since frost got ToT, there's been a very strong demand for slow 1handers for DKs. Hell, even before that they were vacuuming them up, just because they could--despite the fact there was no reason to DW. I know, since I fought with them over weapons until ICC. DW frost tanks tended to go slow for threat. Slow/slow was best threat. If you needed more avoidance, then you went fast MH, slow OH. You could go fast/fast, but threat generation got iffy due to dps loss. I don't recall them being rare. Our guild had two frost tanks through much of ICC. They were a dime-a-dozen in fail PuGs. So much so they were a cliche.

The HotR part was wrong, I was stuck on damage, when it was actually average dps. Thing was, in the 79 bracket all the available weapons with high dps tended to be slow--and that's where I was. Ymiron's Blade was the only thing I ever saw with 120dps before 80--it was 2.6 spd (that puppy hit hard in the BGs, too!). It was back to fast at 80 because of reckoning, availiability, tanking stats, and vengeance. Seal damage was sorta/kinda dependent on weapon speed, but it was a minor factor.

In Cataclysm, things stay the same for frost and enhance. It changes for everyone else. Except maybe hunters, who'll just scavenge for stats like always.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 22, 2010, 08:59:49 AM
Don't forget rogues. They have always wanted Slow/fast one-handers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 22, 2010, 11:51:24 AM
I'm just really not digging the new paladin mechanics at all. I think I might skip the expansion for the time being. My friend only gets a couple of hours per week to play WoW, and at least half of what we do is aimless running around that doesn't earn XP anyway, so I can stay 80 and still be able to run her newbie DK anywhere she might want to go with ease.

How does the sub-cap PVP bracketing work? Will an 80 with no Cata be in the same bracket as people in the seventies, or the bracket with all the 81+ people? Because being the only guy with epics and resilience in a room full of seventy-somethings in greens could be amusing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 22, 2010, 11:56:51 AM
I'm just really not digging the new paladin mechanics at all. I think I might skip the expansion for the time being.

I'm not ether. The ramp up time and RNG reliance is just not really "fun". That seems to be what a lot of the players from the beta where saying too. Ret is just not fun. I agree. I think I might switch to my DK as my main, cause I am really having fun with the new rune mechanics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 22, 2010, 12:00:53 PM
Aren't paladins the most overpopulated class anyway?  Maybe Blizzard is trying to thin out paladin players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ginaz on October 22, 2010, 12:18:28 PM
I actually like the paladin changes, at least when it comes to tanking.  I can still do the aoe thing paladins were known for when it came to tanking (HotR, AS, Consecrate, HW) while doing significantly more dps.  I did a HFoS last night and my dps was around 3.5k, which is a hellva lot more than before, and I ended up having the highest dps and total damage in the group.  Having your Hammer of Wrath crit for over 12k and critting for over 10k after building up 3 holy powers is very nice.  From what I've heard, holy specced paladins seem to be enjoying the changes too, while ret pallys seem to have gotten the short end of the stick for now.  Maybe things will balance out once we get our new skills and more talent points.

On a side note, I got the headless horseman's mount last night.  Squeeee!!!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on October 22, 2010, 12:27:36 PM
How does the sub-cap PVP bracketing work? Will an 80 with no Cata be in the same bracket as people in the seventies, or the bracket with all the 81+ people? Because being the only guy with epics and resilience in a room full of seventy-somethings in greens could be amusing.

Not sure yet on the sub 85 bracket, but I imagine it will work how it currently does for 70.  They will probably extend the AV bracket to 71-80 and you will be in the 80-84 bracket for WSG/AB/EotS and the godforsaken Isle and Strand.  I doubt you will have access to the new BGs as they probably require a Cataclysm subscription, though I may be wrong.  However, you will be able to grind up a full wrathfull set and I imagine that will still be competative in the 80-84 bracket.  I know the full Brutal Gladiator geared I ran across in the 70-79 bracket were often really strong even with the level disparity.  You will most probably absolutely dominate AV.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 22, 2010, 01:04:04 PM
I actually like the paladin changes, at least when it comes to tanking.

I'm pretty sure WUA is a Ret pally if recall correctly, which is also what I play (played?), so I slanted my comment to that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 22, 2010, 01:21:06 PM
Yep, I should have said ret paladin in particular. It's just... lame now. I haven't even done any PVP on it yet, so it's not a "wah I'm gettin' owned" complaint. It just feels lame.

You will most probably absolutely dominate AV.

I wouldn't stay subbed for this alone, but as a side-thing to do now and then since the account is up anyway? Yes please. Between this and all the 1-60 content I'll get for free, who needs the expansion?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 22, 2010, 01:26:17 PM
Yep, I should have said ret paladin in particular. It's just... lame now. I haven't even done any PVP on it yet, so it's not a "wah I'm gettin' owned" complaint. It just feels lame.

You will most probably absolutely dominate AV.

I wouldn't stay subbed for this alone, but as a side-thing to do now and then since the account is up anyway? Yes please. Between this and all the 1-60 content I'll get for free, who needs the expansion?

Hate to break it to you. Ret in PVP is much worse than PVE. I feel fine in PVE with the exception of having our AE abilities neutered. In PVP the ramp up time is just horrible. Ranged has so many ways of keeping you at range that you can never properly ramp up your damage. Basically you pop wings and HoW every 2 minutes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 22, 2010, 01:27:33 PM
Yeah, but I'll be 80 in full PVP epics and they'll be 76 in dungeon blues and quest greens or whatever.  :awesome_for_real:

Not to piss on your parade, but they're gong to change the topography pretty severely in 2 months, so she won't be able to remember /recognise much of anything after that... :/

And just to get to this post a week late because I missed it, that's fine. Two months is plenty of time to finish sightseeing the old world even at just a few hours per week, and the 60-80 game isn't really changing at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 22, 2010, 01:37:45 PM
81+ WUA would get his shit wrecked.  He'd set foot in AB and an 84 lock with 80k health would peer into his soul with rape eyes.

In AV the tables would turn.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 22, 2010, 09:14:28 PM
I'm just really not digging the new paladin mechanics at all. I think I might skip the expansion for the time being. My friend only gets a couple of hours per week to play WoW, and at least half of what we do is aimless running around that doesn't earn XP anyway, so I can stay 80 and still be able to run her newbie DK anywhere she might want to go with ease.

How does the sub-cap PVP bracketing work? Will an 80 with no Cata be in the same bracket as people in the seventies, or the bracket with all the 81+ people? Because being the only guy with epics and resilience in a room full of seventy-somethings in greens could be amusing.

I really need to look at paladins. Just don't have the energy for it right now though.

Bracket PvP will probably be 80-84, then 85. 85s might get lumped in with the lowers, but I kinda doubt it. My guess would be you'd do OK initally, but we don't know what sort of tradeskill gear will appear at 83-84, where the IL gets brutal. My guess is that you'd get handled after a couple of months at 80 with everyone else leveling up. That's how it was in the 79 bracket in this last expansion. My DK saw a lot of people in TBC S2/3 gear when she was 78 and she pretty much crushed them in savage saronite.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 23, 2010, 03:10:29 AM
The ramp up time on the paladin rotation is 4.5 - 9 seconds long and a good chunk is due to abilities with a 40% chance to proc a charge.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 23, 2010, 08:41:03 PM
The ramp up time on the paladin rotation is 4.5 - 9 seconds long and a good chunk is due to abilities with a 40% chance to proc a charge.

Exactly. 9 seconds in PVP to stick to someone, especially a range dps is an eternity. And thats just to get one big hit, which with resilience, isnt going to be a killing blow by far. And you can easily not get a proc, and that pushes it to 14 seconds. Not to mention Seal of Truth is the only worthwhile seal to use, and that also has a pretty big ramp up time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 24, 2010, 03:09:25 AM
New login screen! Goodbye, incredbly annoying and loud roaring dragon and hello....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYFskTHpJ3c

...incredibly annoying and loud roaring dragon.  :facepalm:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on October 24, 2010, 03:53:03 AM
Lame.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 24, 2010, 06:03:16 AM
Well shit, I've got to get this now after seeing that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 24, 2010, 01:55:39 PM
Worgen cinematic/machininima: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwlfJmuY1GI
Gilneans are such snappy dressers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on October 27, 2010, 05:25:01 AM
Because the BC gearing progression was awesome, we're going back to it.

Quote from: Blizzard
*Normal Dungeons/Crafting/Questing to get full set of 85 blues (non-heroic) to do Heroic dungeons.
*Heroic dungeons to get full set of 85 Heroic blues to do Normal mode raids.
*Normal raids to get full set of 85 epics (non-heroic) to do Heroic mode raids."

Source (http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/27387364216/can-we-get-some-info-on-cata-progression-path/)

As it is, there is a shortage of tanks for heroics.  Now they plan to split them between two tiers and add in the need for CC?  So long RDF, you were a good friend.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on October 27, 2010, 06:34:42 AM
Once most people are in epics you'll probably just be able to jump into heroics when you ding 85 if you're DPS.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 27, 2010, 07:06:59 AM
I think the addition of "heroic" blues is retarded.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 27, 2010, 07:11:24 AM
I don't think this really makes a massive difference, all that changes is the colour of the text of the items you are wearing. WoTLK overdid the easy access to epics a little, so a lot of heroic gear (bar trinkets) was sell or shard even around launch. This doesn't cripple the progression curce, it just evens it out. I imagine too that with the changes to tanking (defense gone etc) getting tanks for the normal dungeons will be a lot easier through RDF, and I suspect that there will be craftable and quested tank pieces too. Defense cap was always the barrier to entry that was the biggest problem.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on October 27, 2010, 09:27:37 AM
I knew I wasn't worthy of epics.

Fucking clownshoes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 27, 2010, 09:30:19 AM
Removing defense will just make it easier for poorly geared tanks to queue up and think they can handle content.

This is a change that does very little except try to restore some value to the color purple. One positive side effect is that it will allow them to normalize loot tables; it was always silly trying to remember who dropped what in which version. Ex: Loken dropped a tank trinket in Reg HoL, but not heroic. 2nd boss of AN had one in heroic, but not normal.

Fake edit: lots of rage here over epics, I don't get it. If they went through in WotLK and changed the color of everything that dropped in a 5 man from blue to purple, would anything change for anyone except the [Epic] achievement? Who cares what rarity their gear is?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on October 27, 2010, 09:39:41 AM
Removing defense will just make it easier for poorly geared tanks to queue up and think they can handle content.

This is a change that does very little except try to restore some value to the color purple. One positive side effect is that it will allow them to normalize loot tables; it was always silly trying to remember who dropped what in which version. Ex: Loken dropped a tank trinket in Reg HoL, but not heroic. 2nd boss of AN had one in heroic, but not normal.

Fake edit: lots of rage here over epics, I don't get it. If they went through in WotLK and changed the color of everything that dropped in a 5 man from blue to purple, would anything change for anyone except the [Epic] achievement? Who cares what rarity their gear is?

I thought that the item budget for an item was dependent upon the iLevel and rarity of the item.  If my understanding is correct, I care.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on October 27, 2010, 09:53:34 AM
I like loot does not bother me, its the grind and grind again to grind and grind again.  That only works well at the beginning of the expansion cycle as proven by BC.  By the middle and through to the bitter end, there are not enough people at the beginning of the grind to support it.  It breaks down and when that happens the end breaks down because there are not fresh new people coming in to fill in holes as people burn out on the grind and grind again.  And with the new guild reputation mechanics, if rep grinding is as it has been, there may be less willingness for guild hopping. 

They may complain about the ease of today's raids and the ease of getting good gear, but that has supported the strongest raiding community to date.  The ease of gearing means that, even with the expansion just over a month away, more and more people are still raiding.  At this point in vanilla and BC, raiding had pretty much ground to a halt because there were not enough people in the pipeline to maintain it.  Everyone was PvP'ing because that was the only viable option. 

I am worried that they are looking backwards with decidedly rose colored glasses.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 27, 2010, 10:12:57 AM
I always figured that badge item inflation managed to bring people up to speed; you certainly don't need to progress through Naxx->Ulduar->TOC before doing ICC nowadays, and the badge item model is a lot better now than it was in TBC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 27, 2010, 10:23:39 AM
It's as K9 says. They've built that progression in automatically with the new Justice/Valor points system. At launch you'll use JP for blue stuff and VP for epic stuff (T11 and equivalent). When they release the next content patch (4.1) the launch-era VP stuff will be converted to JP, with new T12 stuff to buy with VP.
I like loot does not bother me, its the grind and grind again to grind and grind again.  That only works well at the beginning of the expansion cycle as proven by BC.  By the middle and through to the bitter end, there are not enough people at the beginning of the grind to support it.  It breaks down and when that happens the end breaks down because there are not fresh new people coming in to fill in holes as people burn out on the grind and grind again.  And with the new guild reputation mechanics, if rep grinding is as it has been, there may be less willingness for guild hopping. 
If people are still running WotLK heroics now, I don't think you have to worry about them not doing so in Cata.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 27, 2010, 10:29:24 AM
The main problem with the badge system is TBC was the difficulty of heroics. If you didn't have CC, you weren't going (i.e. dps warriors and shaman). So you never had the access to badge gear that those who did have CC did. The only other alternative was running Karazhan every week, but that was still limited to how many badges you could pull out of it, which again limited access to the badge gear--particularly the T6 equivalent stuff. Ask me how I know. And, yeah, I spent a lot of time PvPing to get gear because of this (shitty 1hander itemization, I'm looking at YOU).

The present system certainly isn't perfect (not leastways because it encouraged the plague known as gearscore), but it made smooth progression a lot easier--mostly. That's assuming you can overlook the insanity of four tiers of gear and 27 item levels within a tier. Additionally, 1hander itemization still blew goats and was arguably even worse than TBC until ICC came out, but it finally did get fixed. Sorta. Still, it was fairly easy to get stuff to progress.

My real concern is what's going to happen to guilds. Relatively easy PuG raids were a big help in gearing up in this expansion. That looks like it's going to end in Cataclysm. If you find yourself on the outs on your guild's raiding schedule for whatever reason, it doesn't look like it'll be easy to work around that with PuGs or alliance setups.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on October 27, 2010, 10:34:06 AM
I always figured that badge item inflation managed to bring people up to speed; you certainly don't need to progress through Naxx->Ulduar->TOC before doing ICC nowadays, and the badge item model is a lot better now than it was in TBC.

Yeah, you don't need to now.  But with everything I keep seeing, it's all TBC rehashed.  That comment about filling holes also has me curious.  Right now, badges have been a complete gearing method outside of weapons for two tiers which really eased the flow.  I'm just getting really strong "Vision" flashbacks from these endgame comments.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 27, 2010, 12:05:47 PM
This is just the release progression. When the next tier hits, they will add catch-up gear for badge points. Stop worrying so much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 27, 2010, 12:49:32 PM
New Cataclysm beta build. Decent amount of class changes.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on October 27, 2010, 01:08:22 PM
As usual, the poor underpowered Mages get tons of nerfs.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on October 27, 2010, 01:19:38 PM
Yeah, that's a little strange.  I really expected Mages to get hammered.

Also, druid healing is far too easy and low maintenance as it is.  And it got buffed ?

I'm confused.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 27, 2010, 01:35:55 PM
This is the beta build, the mages already got their nerfs on live - the spec passives got whacked on all 3 specs. The numbers are supposedly different at 85 so they're operating off of different passives there I think.

The mana stuff in particular on healers on live doesn't reflect what the 85 raids are showing, because of where ratings are and how large mana pools are relatively speaking.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on October 27, 2010, 01:39:00 PM
This is the beta build, the mages already got their nerfs on live - the spec passives got whacked on all 3 specs. The numbers are supposedly different at 85 so they're operating off of different passives there I think.

The mana stuff in particular on healers on live doesn't reflect what the 85 raids are showing, because of where ratings are and how large mana pools are relatively speaking.

A few of my friends on the beta said mages are a completely different story at 85, and the buffs are indeed needed. It is a bit hard to stomach when getting hit for 25k by a mage in PVP is the norm at 80.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 27, 2010, 03:50:27 PM
These Cata heroic/ raid changes make me glad I focused on my tank/ dps hybrids instead of straight DPS over the last year.  Jebus it's going to suck waiting in queue forever as dps with the lack of Heroic-Geared Tanks for things.

The priest changes confuse me.  Was renew too powerful in beta, or is this simply a "Vision" change because they want priests to use renew less and pom/ poh more?   I should learn more about healing with these damn new chakra mechanics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 27, 2010, 03:53:46 PM
If people are still running WotLK heroics now, I don't think you have to worry about them not doing so in Cata.

The problem here is that A: Cata heroics are supposed to be pretty damn punnishingly hard, which means that they will probably be an exercise in rage inducing failure for 95% of Dungeon Finder groups, which leads directly to B: that trying to find a non dungeon finder group on your server to do heroics with will suffer from the same problem you have now when trying to get an undergeared (or even appropriately geared) character into entry level raids: everyone will want you to overgear the content for an "easy run", making it impossible to get any kind of Pug Heroic group going unless you have a guild to support you.

It will be "LFM Naxx 10 run, must have {insert ulduar equivilent gearscore here}" all over again, execept for 5 man heroics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 27, 2010, 03:59:59 PM
We'll see if "punishingly" is really accurate soon enough I guess. A lot of the early reports on difficulty came from people who wandered into them early (i.e. in their quest greens instead of full normal blues) and with class balance still heavily in flux (and encounters untuned and buggy). The people going in with premades seem to be having better luck.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 27, 2010, 04:03:29 PM
We'll see if "punishingly" is really accurate soon enough I guess. A lot of the early reports on difficulty came from people who wandered into them early (i.e. in their quest greens instead of full normal blues) and with class balance still heavily in flux (and encounters untuned and buggy). The people going in with premades seem to be having better luck.
From what i have been told, unless you have an almost complete set of level 85 dungeon normal blues, level 85 heroic bosses will wreck you.  Especially for tanks and healers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 27, 2010, 04:09:31 PM
Yeah that doesn't sound too surprising. Tanks always have to gear up more urgently than everyone else anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on October 27, 2010, 04:16:49 PM
Honestly, I'm fine with some hard heroics. The most enjoyable 5-man instances Blizzard have ever made were the TBC heroics. Sure they had a clownshoes raiding model back then, but for entertaining 5-man content TBC is still king.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 27, 2010, 05:36:08 PM
I'd prefer somewhere between TBC and WotLK, personally. Some of the TBC ones were just way too stupidly hard for who was supposed to be running them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on October 27, 2010, 06:02:04 PM
My favorite dungeon in WoW at this point? ToC. That's right, the room with three bosses. I no longer base how much I like an instance based on my first run through, because I know the fun of it wears off after the 90th time.

I wish I had the willpower to sit out the beginning of cata and come in when their requirement for things is lower, and decently inflated raid gear is availible for Valor points. Sadly, I don't.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 28, 2010, 01:26:23 AM
This shit where every mount goes whatever your highest trained speed is? I fucking love it. LOVE IT. All my cool looking old normal-speed mounts, totally viable again. Hell yes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on October 28, 2010, 01:33:22 AM
This shit where every mount goes whatever your highest trained speed is? I fucking love it. LOVE IT. All my cool looking old normal-speed mounts, totally viable again. Hell yes.

Now you can ride your normal looking mount whilst wearing your giant flaming / electric crackling shoulder pads adorned with blinking eyeballs and neon lights... That are also on fire.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 28, 2010, 01:48:45 AM
wish I had the willpower to sit out the beginning of cata and come in when their requirement for things is lower, and decently inflated raid gear is availible for Valor points. Sadly, I don't.

Absolutely my plan!  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on October 28, 2010, 03:28:57 AM
This shit where every mount goes whatever your highest trained speed is? I fucking love it. LOVE IT. All my cool looking old normal-speed mounts, totally viable again. Hell yes.

I've been riding around on the Palomino on my mage because I like the look and don't think a heavily-armored warhorse is a good visual fit for a mage.   I got a tell yesterday saying "Ha, Ha, Journeyman mount!"   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 28, 2010, 03:44:00 AM
This shit where every mount goes whatever your highest trained speed is? I fucking love it. LOVE IT. All my cool looking old normal-speed mounts, totally viable again. Hell yes.

I've totally been using my paladin's little horse instead of the charger.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on October 28, 2010, 04:08:54 AM
Yes, I definitely look forward to free 310% speed magic carpets on my Priest whenever I bother resubscribing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on October 28, 2010, 11:41:12 AM
Wasn't something like this (Deathwing is Coming! (http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/27387876560/deathwing-is-coming/) - link is to MMO Champion) done pretty frequently in EQ?  I remember it as sucking each and every time.

The forum (currently) seems to think this idea is genius.  I'm guessing that it will be a common occurrence initially and then dropping off.  I'm still not quite getting how getting killed with no chance of mitigation or escape is fun.

Has this happened in beta?  Can anyone comment?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 28, 2010, 12:08:56 PM
Well, they are at least warning you that it's going to happen AND you get a Feat of Strength. People put up with a lot for those.

To be fair, I also found the whole Waking the Sleeper thing hilarious, as well as the ONE non-leashed mob in Dark Age of Camelot killing everyone in his awesome path (I miss you, Ukobat!).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on October 28, 2010, 01:16:26 PM
Makes me want to play (at all) on a server where they'll never kill him for endless Deathwing insta-gib spam.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on October 28, 2010, 01:47:06 PM
Well, they are at least warning you that it's going to happen AND you get a Feat of Strength. People put up with a lot for those.

This.

Also, Yes, it's very EverQuest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 28, 2010, 02:00:24 PM
Well, they are at least warning you that it's going to happen AND you get a Feat of Strength. People put up with a lot for those.

To be fair, I also found the whole Waking the Sleeper thing hilarious, as well as the ONE non-leashed mob in Dark Age of Camelot killing everyone in his awesome path (I miss you, Ukobat!).


Ukobat just killed people, the Giant Raidboss mushroom in Hib SI used to kill people, then eat their gravestones too. It also ate the forge once.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 28, 2010, 02:15:02 PM
Shit, I forgot about that. That is ALSO awesome.  :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 28, 2010, 02:27:33 PM
Some more tanking changes in the pipe:

http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/27397548532/upcoming-tanking-changes/



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on October 28, 2010, 04:20:47 PM
I know I'm being hypercritical because I think he's a douchebag but the warrior changes seem like a nerf (based upon what shield block was intended to do for warriors, not what it was actually doing) and completely obtuse at the same time.

Ingmar can you explain that shit because I'm reading it like this

0) Bock reduces damage by 30%

1) Warriors could get close to 100% block chance so shield block was essentially worthless

2) Because of this, where it would take you over 100% we have it add to a critical block chance
(what the fuck is critical block?  increased damage absorption?)

3) Mastery increases block chance by 1.5%. 
Is this an increase?  Decrease?  If Warriors were already able to block avoidance cap, why would they increase this? (answered my own question - Wars can cap avoidance, not necessarily block.

4) You only get critical block when Shield Block is up.
Ok, so the maximum that crit block can be increased is the 25% from shield block?

5) The new warrior Mastery is 1.5% block and 1.5% critical block per point of mastery.
Oh, ok, so the maximum that crit block can be is 25% from shield block and whatever you have from your Mastery... but whatever you have from your mastery only applies when you shield block?

What a clusterfuck of a change notice.  I definitely need to stop reading this shit or read it much, much more so that it makes sense.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on October 28, 2010, 04:24:54 PM
2) Because of this, where it would take you over 100% we have it add to a critical block chance
(what the fuck is critical block?  increased damage absorption?)

Critical Block = Block twice the damage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 28, 2010, 04:32:26 PM
I know I'm being hypercritical because I think he's a douchebag but the warrior changes seem like a nerf (based upon what shield block was intended to do for warriors, not what it was actually doing) and completely obtuse at the same time.

Ingmar can you explain that shit because I'm reading it like this

0) Bock reduces damage by 30%

1) Warriors could get close to 100% block chance so shield block was essentially worthless

2) Because of this, where it would take you over 100% we have it add to a critical block chance
(what the fuck is critical block?  increased damage absorption?)

3) Mastery increases block chance by 1.5%.  
Is this an increase?  Decrease?  If Warriors were already able to block avoidance cap, why would they increase this? (answered my own question - Wars can cap avoidance, not necessarily block.

4) You only get critical block when Shield Block is up.
Ok, so the maximum that crit block can be increased is the 25% from shield block?

5) The new warrior Mastery is 1.5% block and 1.5% critical block per point of mastery.
Oh, ok, so the maximum that crit block can be is 25% from shield block and whatever you have from your Mastery... but whatever you have from your mastery only applies when you shield block?

What a clusterfuck of a change notice.  I definitely need to stop reading this shit or read it much, much more so that it makes sense.

It was actually posted by Nethaera and Zarhym....

Anyway, critical block is a chance to block twice as much damage whenever we block (we already had this before from a talent, it is turning into our mastery.)

Chance to critical block on an attack you block is determined by mastery. You can critical block without shield block up, having shield block up will just make it much more likely that any given block is critical.

Mastery is changing from:

- each point adds 1.25% to block chance and 2.5% to critical block chance

to:

- each point adds 1.5% to both block and critical block chance

You have 8 points of mastery base so that will be 12% on each just by default. I don't know if the base chance itself is changing, that is +10% block and +20% critical block just for picking to be a prot warrior. (So that would be I think a starting point of 27% chance to block and 32% chance to critical block.)

EDIT: The thing about 'only critical block when shield block is up' is talking about the conversion of block+avoidance over 100% to critical block chance. You will always get your regular chance to crit block, just now if you push the shield block button and that pushes you over 100%, you get the excess converted to crit block for the duration of shield block.

I think it is a good change in the long term, it was working pretty strangely before. We had not enough block chance when shield block was down, and too much when it was up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 28, 2010, 06:12:17 PM
Some other related changes coming:

Quote
Here are a few additional changes we are making which will be applied in patch 4.0.3a:


    * Guardian of Ancient Kings -- Damage reduction changed from 60% to 50%. Cooldown still 2 minutes (talented). Duration still 12 seconds.

    * Icebound Fortitude -- Damage reduction changed from 30% to 20% (or 60% to 50% talented). Cooldown still 2 minutes. Duration still 12 seconds.

    * Shield Wall -- Damage reduction changed from 40% to 50%. Cooldown still 2 minutes (talented). Duration still 12 seconds.

    * Glyph of Shield Wall -- Now buffs damage reduction by 10% (to 60%), but only adds 1 minute of cooldown.

    * Survival Instincts -- Damage reduction changed from 60% to 50%. Cooldown reduced from 5 minutes to 2 minutes. Duration still 12 seconds.

    * Bear Form -- Stamina bonus lowered from 20% to 10% and Heart of the Wild health bonus from 10% to 6%. Bear health should be close to plate tank health with this change.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on October 28, 2010, 06:30:51 PM
I want to kick Ghostcrawler in the teeth for these changes to Feral Druids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 28, 2010, 06:44:34 PM
I want to kick Ghostcrawler in the teeth for these changes to Feral Druids.

Have you been raiding at 85 on the beta? Apparently they have both way more hp than other tanks and also take less damage. That couldn't be left alone.

EDIT: Really the changes to bring HP totals in line with each other are like 3 years overdue. "I have a lot of HP" is not a playstyle difference, and it makes balancing encounters really squirrely. They can differentiate the tanks through what they do, not what their basic stats are. Especially now that vengeance stacks AP up to 10% of your hp, and savage defense scales with AP. It was very obviously going to spiral out of control very fast.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on October 28, 2010, 06:57:19 PM
Stolen from SA by way of EJ:

Quote
Didn't preorder the digital copy?
Want to pre-download all the Cata Data?

Open up Launcher.WTF and set your accountType from "LK" to "CT"
Do the same in config.wtf.

Enjoy.

Other bonus of this is you don't need to log in to start the pre-load if you did buy the digital copy, which is not happening if your account's lapsed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on October 28, 2010, 07:25:25 PM
Does that work now caladein? Or do we have to wait until the pre-download starts?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on October 28, 2010, 08:08:52 PM
I did it, started up the launcher and it immediately went to work downloading about 800MB.  This is after having patched to 4.0.1 a few weeks ago.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on October 29, 2010, 12:06:26 AM
I've been riding around on the Palomino on my mage because I like the look and don't think a heavily-armored warhorse is a good visual fit for a mage.   I got a tell yesterday saying "Ha, Ha, Journeyman mount!"   :oh_i_see:

I love this on my pally and 'lock journeyman mounts - the lock journeyman owns most other horse models in it's simplicity.

Pity the original kodos still look like ass


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 29, 2010, 12:30:54 AM
I want to kick Ghostcrawler in the teeth for these changes to Feral Druids.

Have you been raiding at 85 on the beta? Apparently they have both way more hp than other tanks and also take less damage. That couldn't be left alone.

EDIT: Really the changes to bring HP totals in line with each other are like 3 years overdue. "I have a lot of HP" is not a playstyle difference, and it makes balancing encounters really squirrely. They can differentiate the tanks through what they do, not what their basic stats are. Especially now that vengeance stacks AP up to 10% of your hp, and savage defense scales with AP. It was very obviously going to spiral out of control very fast.
I am not sure exactly how this change is going to go over.  My biggest concern is Savage Defense not proccing off of Lacerate Ticks.  Bears are in general a fairly slow hiting class, without a huge number of instant attacks that dont already have decently long cooldown attached to them.   

Savage defense is supposed to be our equivilent to block.  However with this change, I am concerned that with any decently fast hitting boss or any time we have more then maybe two mobs on us at once, they will be eating our savage defense procs way faster then we can generate them, which may not balance comparatively to warriors or paladins who can hit fairly absurd block chance percentages in moderately decent gear.

The original tank model was something along the lines of:
Warriors and Paladins had Dodge, Parry and Block (where a lot of their mitigation comes from)
Druids had Dodge (usually equivilent to the combined dodge / parry of plate tanks), and Savage defense with extra HP as a buffer since Savage Defense would never realistically compete with block for amount of damage prevented.

I can understand that Savage Defense scaling off AP and AP scaling off Vengeance and Vengeance scaling wierdly with Massive Bear HP could all end up a bit wonky, but I think removing Savage Defense procs off of Dot crits may be overkill.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kitsune on October 29, 2010, 12:53:28 AM
Bears hit slowly, their spammable attacks are gone, and my feral druid's critical percentage has dropped several percent from the talent changes.  So yeah, I'm now a worse tank in every regard, huzzah.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 29, 2010, 12:56:42 AM
By the way, between "Purples are for raiders, newb!" and "Deathwing is going to one-shot your level 10, isn't that fun?" I'm detecting a particular and uncharacteristic Everquestian stench coming from this expansion. The zombie thing was pretty disruptive back in the day, but there were things to DO during that event besides die and pay repair bills helplessly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 29, 2010, 01:37:21 AM
The original tank model was something along the lines of:
Warriors and Paladins had Dodge, Parry and Block (where a lot of their mitigation comes from)
Druids had Dodge (usually equivilent to the combined dodge / parry of plate tanks), and Savage defense with extra HP as a buffer since Savage Defense would never realistically compete with block for amount of damage prevented.

And the original tank model was shit, because block and parry were never worth gearing for until now, and in the case of parry could be detrimental.  While bears had a sizable lead in effective health.

_____ hit slowly, their spammable attacks are gone, and my __________'s critical percentage has dropped several percent from the talent changes.  So yeah, I'm now a worse tank in every regard, huzzah.

Back of the line.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on October 29, 2010, 02:08:46 AM
By the way, between "Purples are for raiders, newb!" and "Deathwing is going to one-shot your level 10, isn't that fun?" I'm detecting a particular and uncharacteristic Everquestian stench coming from this expansion. The zombie thing was pretty disruptive back in the day, but there were things to DO during that event besides die and pay repair bills helplessly.

The gear progression between Normal 5s, Heroic 5s, and Raids has been an issue at the beginning of each expansion.

With TBC they tried to make it a half-step between dungeon rares and early epics by upgrading the quality but lowering the item level (minus 5 or so).  Players bitched about how they weren't a large enough upgrade and they eventually caved and just made the starting level 70 epics the same item level as the dungeon rares.

In Wrath, the only epics from the initial heroic dungeons were off the end boss and following the TBC model, they were the same item level as the rares that dropped in that instance.  Normal mode dungeons were a full tier behind.  This meant that there was effectively a three tier gap between a normal-mode 80 dungeon drop and a drop from Naxx-25.

Things are reasonably similar in Cataclysm except that 10-man gear and the same-item-level epic off the last boss in a heroic are now gone.  There is again a full tier jump (13 item levels) between normal 5s and heroic 5s and a two tier jump (13 item levels plus rare->epic) from that to T11.

The EQ crowd can take it as a small victory while they still go on about 40-mans being best mans, badges being terrible, and the need for aspirational hierarchies; but the change is only a result of Blizzard not giving a shit about mudflation and having 10s and 25s share the same gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on October 29, 2010, 03:17:59 AM
I'm not a raider; other than weeklies I've never stepped in a raid outside Naxx from this xpac.  I used to raid in Vanilla/BC, though.  I'm 100% okay with not being able to get purples, in fact I think it's for the best.  Gear isn't very 'epic' when everyone is wearing it.  Also, it makes it that much cooler when you're full blues and finally get that first purple.

As far as Deathwing one-shotting lvl 10s, I'm pretty okay with that too.  There's nothing to really be scared of in the world.  Fel Reavers were awesome in Hellfire... watching them one shot people, adding that level of urgency to get out of an area when they were around.  Back in Vanilla there were zones that had big old bosses like in Blasted Lands that would spawn and own folks too. 

People complaining about stuff that hasn't even happened yet...  let's just relax and attempt to enjoy the game.  If it's not fun either Blizzard will change it or you can quit.  It's not a hard decision. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 29, 2010, 04:36:09 AM
The original tank model was something along the lines of:
Warriors and Paladins had Dodge, Parry and Block (where a lot of their mitigation comes from)
Druids had Dodge (usually equivilent to the combined dodge / parry of plate tanks), and Savage defense with extra HP as a buffer since Savage Defense would never realistically compete with block for amount of damage prevented.

And the original tank model was shit, because block and parry were never worth gearing for until now, and in the case of parry could be detrimental.  While bears had a sizable lead in effective health.
We NEEDED that lead in effective health, though, because before Savage Defense, we had quite literally NOTHING else other then higher then usual armor to set us appart from other tanks.  Having 40 - 45% dodge was great, untill you realised that an equally geared warror / Paladin probably had better avoidance then you did after you combined their Parry and Dodge percentages, were rapidly approaching the same amount of armor (yay for shields), and they ALSO had block, which they could get to pretty silly % levels (I knew at least one paladin who regularly soloed Garr in Molten core at 70 beacause he could hit around 95% chance to block, completely negating the damage that all 8 of the bosses adds did).

Expertise and the removal of Parry haste on pretty much every really hard hiting boss in the game when wrath came out also made parry MUCH less of a "bad" thing to gear for.

Quote
_____ hit slowly, their spammable attacks are gone, and my __________'s critical percentage has dropped several percent from the talent changes.  So yeah, I'm now a worse tank in every regard, huzzah.

Back of the line.
I am not really up on warrior and paladin tank mechanics, but do they need land hits to get their block to actually block? Just by putting on a shield, they automatically gain 30% or 40% chance to block when in decently statted tank gear, or somewhere around there dont they?

I am not super worried about it on big boss fights (unless the boss hits like algalon does, with an attack speed like a rogue but damage like a freight-trian), but in any situation where you are dealing with a decent group of things (like, say, instance trash), block style mechanics will destroy SD style ones in terms of efficiency.

Savage Defense (as our equivilent to block style damage absorb / prevent mechanic) ONLY procs on critical hits that we do, and ANY damage taken consumes the entire thing (meaning an add hitting you for 25 damage will consume your 5k absorb SD proc).  Since Bears have a pretty slow attack speed, Mangle, Maul, and Swipe now all have around 5-6 second cooldowns, and our only two spamable abilities (Lacerate and Pulverise) are almost completely useless when spammed, takeing SD procs off of Lacerate ticks may easily put us in a situation where we cant proc SD even remotely often enough to let it compete with block in multi mob encounters.

-------------------------------------

Ninja Edit for Kitsune:  Replacing your tank itemized Strength / Dodge Rings, Cape and Neck with equivilent Ilevel Agility DPS gear will solve that crit problem, while also probably giving you a net gain in Dodge, AP and giving you extra Haste to reforge into mastery to boot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on October 29, 2010, 05:04:21 AM
I'm not a raider; other than weeklies I've never stepped in a raid outside Naxx from this xpac.  I used to raid in Vanilla/BC, though.  I'm 100% okay with not being able to get purples, in fact I think it's for the best.  Gear isn't very 'epic' when everyone is wearing it.  Also, it makes it that much cooler when you're full blues and finally get that first purple.

As far as Deathwing one-shotting lvl 10s, I'm pretty okay with that too.  There's nothing to really be scared of in the world.  Fel Reavers were awesome in Hellfire... watching them one shot people, adding that level of urgency to get out of an area when they were around.  Back in Vanilla there were zones that had big old bosses like in Blasted Lands that would spawn and own folks too. 

People complaining about stuff that hasn't even happened yet...  let's just relax and attempt to enjoy the game.  If it's not fun either Blizzard will change it or you can quit.  It's not a hard decision. 

1) everyone who raids will be wearing it.  So I'll be conservative and say 50% of the playerbase.  So you are correct, not 'everyone' will be wearing it.   :roll:
2) What you described does add tension.  The Ungoro TRexs are another good example.  That is not what Deathwing is.
3) lol, welcome to f13


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 29, 2010, 05:07:55 AM
I am not exactly sure how the Deathwing event works.  There was a video of it in action (sort of) up on MMO-Champ, and the person recording the video was flying around following deathwing across the zone, and landing on the ground running through burning areas that were left behind.  Judging from the look of things, you probably have to practically be standing in his path as he flys over you vomiting fire in order to actually die, so simply getting off to one side of the zone will likely be enough to save you whenever he happens to wander by.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on October 29, 2010, 05:37:39 AM
If there is a chance to avoid it, I have much less of a problem with it because there is some interactivity.  One post (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=27387876560&sid=1&pageNo=2#36) described it as, "If you're in the zone, you're almost definitely screwed."

Re-reading them all seems like there is some chance for avoidance, so I'll stop being so twitchy (but just about this, mind you! twitch!)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 29, 2010, 07:06:55 AM
We NEEDED that lead in effective health, though, because before Savage Defense, we had quite literally NOTHING else other then higher then usual armor to set us appart from other tanks.  Having 40 - 45% dodge was great, untill you realised that an equally geared warror / Paladin probably had better avoidance then you did after you combined their Parry and Dodge percentages, were rapidly approaching the same amount of armor (yay for shields), and they ALSO had block, which they could get to pretty silly % levels (I knew at least one paladin who regularly soloed Garr in Molten core at 70 beacause he could hit around 95% chance to block, completely negating the damage that all 8 of the bosses adds did).

And now you don't. :oh_i_see:

More to the point: a geared defense capped warrior or the equivalent in paladin terms prior to 3.0 was guaranteed to have at least 102.4% avoidance all totaled, because at that point Shield Block and Holy Shield were short cooldowns that gave you something like 50-60% chance to block, and they were required to mitigate crushing blows, which Bear druids were, by design, meant to soak via effective health.  At that point, block rating was also around one third the value in item budget of other avoidance.

Quote
Expertise and the removal of Parry haste on pretty much every really hard hiting boss in the game when wrath came out also made parry MUCH less of a "bad" thing to gear for.

I am not really up on warrior and paladin tank mechanics, but do they need land hits to get their block to actually block? Just by putting on a shield, they automatically gain 30% or 40% chance to block when in decently statted tank gear, or somewhere around there dont they?

I am not super worried about it on big boss fights (unless the boss hits like algalon does, with an attack speed like a rogue but damage like a freight-trian), but in any situation where you are dealing with a decent group of things (like, say, instance trash), block style mechanics will destroy SD style ones in terms of efficiency.

Savage Defense (as our equivilent to block style damage absorb / prevent mechanic) ONLY procs on critical hits that we do, and ANY damage taken consumes the entire thing (meaning an add hitting you for 25 damage will consume your 5k absorb SD proc).  Since Bears have a pretty slow attack speed, Mangle, Maul, and Swipe now all have around 5-6 second cooldowns, and our only two spamable abilities (Lacerate and Pulverise) are almost completely useless when spammed, takeing SD procs off of Lacerate ticks may easily put us in a situation where we cant proc SD even remotely often enough to let it compete with block in multi mob encounters.

Parry haste was of marginal effect.  The fact that point for point it offered only slightly better survivability than agility for paladins and warriors was more than enough to make it shit, however.

Block has never required extra effort, some cooldowns have historically increased block chance.  Block is a single stat now, with lower returns per point of rating and a percentile based mitigation of damage.  Your concerns about instance trash are groundless and have already been addressed.  Read the patch notes and theorycraft, FFS.  Or just listen to Ingmar, who's already told you that bear druids are by far the best trash compactor in the beta currently.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 29, 2010, 08:24:45 AM
I believe he was talking about boss haste when they were parried. I.E. getting parry bombed by Brutallus.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mnemon on October 29, 2010, 09:48:31 AM
This shit where every mount goes whatever your highest trained speed is? I fucking love it. LOVE IT. All my cool looking old normal-speed mounts, totally viable again. Hell yes.

yup. road through Stormwind on my old school black stallion and got a good 10 tells asking where I got it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 29, 2010, 10:59:40 AM
Remember, the other 3 tanks have now lost all the passive miss/dodge/parry/block that they got from having to wear +defense gear to become uncrittable. That really takes the meat out of any avoidance advantage they may have had.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 29, 2010, 12:46:33 PM
I believe he was talking about boss haste when they were parried. I.E. getting parry bombed by Brutallus.

I know, it was of marginal effect.  Because Brutallus never parry hasted.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 29, 2010, 12:59:39 PM
Prince Malchezzar (phase 2) was the poster boss for getting fucked by parry haste, really.

That said, bosses parry hasting has *nothing* to do with gearing for parry yourself. They haste when *they* parry, not when we do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 29, 2010, 02:10:23 PM
Prince Malchezzar (phase 2) was the poster boss for getting fucked by parry haste, really.

That said, bosses parry hasting has *nothing* to do with gearing for parry yourself. They haste when *they* parry, not when we do.


Remember when I used to just stop swinging my sword? Judge, HolyShield, Exorcisim, Cons!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 29, 2010, 02:11:29 PM
Cheating paladins!  :angryfist:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 29, 2010, 02:12:31 PM
Well, really, all I turned off was auto-attack, because that was all that was left in the TBC era.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 29, 2010, 02:39:37 PM
And then half of your raid would stand in the PBAE of an elemental.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on October 29, 2010, 03:11:47 PM
Only half the raid was considered a good run for the first few months with us.  :sad:



-edit-


From the same tank thread: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=27397548532&sid=1&pageNo=14#278




Just about every design decision in Cata that you or I don't like, at it's base, is about the bold bit. When six months down the line, nothing still works, you can blame that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on October 29, 2010, 03:36:33 PM
I want to kick Ghostcrawler in the teeth for these changes to Feral Druids.

Have you been raiding at 85 on the beta? Apparently they have both way more hp than other tanks and also take less damage. That couldn't be left alone.

EDIT: Really the changes to bring HP totals in line with each other are like 3 years overdue. "I have a lot of HP" is not a playstyle difference, and it makes balancing encounters really squirrely. They can differentiate the tanks through what they do, not what their basic stats are. Especially now that vengeance stacks AP up to 10% of your hp, and savage defense scales with AP. It was very obviously going to spiral out of control very fast.

Excuse me Mr. Robot of Logic  and reason, but I didn't say it wasn't merited, or needed, just what my first reaction was  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 29, 2010, 03:39:50 PM
does not compute


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 29, 2010, 03:52:28 PM
Excuse me Mr. Robot of Logic  and reason, but I didn't say it wasn't merited, or needed, just what my first reaction was  :awesome_for_real:

If you want to provoke him, ask him how happy he is that he doesn't have blood rage anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on October 29, 2010, 03:55:28 PM
That said, bosses parry hasting has *nothing* to do with gearing for parry yourself. They haste when *they* parry, not when we do.

Oh...yeah.

I was not really reading the previous posts and was tired when I replied.

I just remember parry bombs shredding tanks on that one annoying guy by the waterfall in BT.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on October 29, 2010, 04:10:41 PM
Making healer mana matter is going to blow up in their face.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 29, 2010, 04:25:53 PM
I bet tying crit block to mastery blows up first. Watch every warrior stack mastery and block then become ridiculously hard to kill.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 29, 2010, 05:53:36 PM
Diminishing returns still apply.

Evidently not at the moment. :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on October 29, 2010, 08:38:24 PM
Diminishing returns still apply.

Evidently not at the moment. :why_so_serious:
They probably still do, but since diminishing returns are now calculated based on a max level of 85, things get wonky at level 80.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 29, 2010, 09:03:41 PM
No, there's absolutely no diminishing return on block.  Everything else is peachy, block isn't.

I expect that will change soon, but you never know.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 29, 2010, 09:12:30 PM
Block has never had DR as far as I know. I'm not sure it really needs it frankly - it is still worse than dodge or parry even when you crit block, and we still are going to want to cap expertise and hit for threat purposes, and we're still going to want to stack stamina since it is a survival AND threat stat now, and bosses are still going to do significant amounts of magic damage. There are enough things pulling at our itemization priorities that I don't really expect stacking mastery exclusively to be a terribly productive choice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 30, 2010, 03:31:48 AM
Yeah, it occurred to me after the fact that block hard caps at ~66.67 mastery skill now, mitigating a maximum of 60% physical damage.  Which is  3061 mastery rating at 80.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on October 30, 2010, 07:34:40 AM
Is the following correct?

-Block mitigates 30% damage
-Crit Block mitigates 60% (thanks Ingmar)
-It's likely that with items, mastery and Shield Block, Block will go above 100% chance of happening. When this happens the overage from Shield Block is applied to Crit Block
-It's possible that with items and mastery, Block can go to 100% chance of happening

-Crit Block chance: with items (?), mastery and Shield Block the chance of Crit Block happening are in the ~30% neighborhood.

-All of this applies only to physical damage.

Altogether this represents:
+18% mitigation from Crit Block (assuming a max 30% chance of Crit Block happening)
+18% mitigation from Block (it's not 100% * 30% mitigation, because in the cases where Crit Block applies, Block doesn't apply.  So it's (100%-30%) * 30%... I think)

-To get to that 36% mitigation you'd have to put a ton into block which would otherwise be better off being spent on Stamina, Dodge, Parry (if we're focusing only on mitigation budget).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 30, 2010, 08:24:38 AM
-Block mitigates 30% damage
-Crit Block mitigates 60% (thanks Ingmar)
-It's likely that with items, mastery and Shield Block, Block will go above 100% chance of happening. When this happens the overage from Shield Block is applied to Crit Block
-It's possible that with items and mastery, Block can go to 100% chance of happening

-Crit Block chance: with items (?), mastery and Shield Block the chance of Crit Block happening are in the ~30% neighborhood.

-All of this applies only to physical damage.

Altogether this represents:
+18% mitigation from Crit Block (assuming a max 30% chance of Crit Block happening)
+18% mitigation from Block (it's not 100% * 30% mitigation, because in the cases where Crit Block applies, Block doesn't apply.  So it's (100%-30%) * 30%... I think)

-To get to that 36% mitigation you'd have to put a ton into block which would otherwise be better off being spent on Stamina, Dodge, Parry (if we're focusing only on mitigation budget).

Critical blocks are two-roll, not one-roll, and the order is roll block -> (true) -> roll crit block.  So 21% chance to block, 9% chance to critically block, and 70% other stuff.

Chance to block hitting 100% from items seems like it would be hard, I'm going to math that one out a bit I think.

EDIT:  Fuck it.  Too many numbers, some of which will be relevant for two months and the rest of which have no context to be placed in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on October 30, 2010, 01:25:16 PM
I understood that the Block role is always applied first.  I was looking at it from a best-case perspective where you are able to max block at 100% (Ghost Crawler's comments seem to indicate that was possible) and your Crit Block block is "maxed" (I don't know what max Crit Block is, I guessed in neighborhood of 30%).

If Block is at 100%, you always block.  Without Crit Blocking your mitigation at this point would be 30% on all block-able physical damage.

If I understand Crit Blocking correctly it takes the place of blocking, so instead of mitigating 30%, you mitigate 60% of a hit in which you Crit Block.  In these cases you don't have both a Block and a Crit block applied, so you have to remove from the Block calculation those times that you Crit Block.

With a 30% chance to Crit Block, you total mitagation is 18% + 18% = 36%.  Versus the 30% for straight Block (at 100% chance), Crit Block doesn't seem like an especially impressive ability.  Which all leads back to what Ingmar was saying - there are better things to get then Block and much better things to get then Crit Block.

Maybe my understanding is off.  If not, the Warrior mastery certainly seems disappointing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on October 30, 2010, 06:48:49 PM
I know it's for balance, and I know it's to prevent whining and what not but this sort of class homogenization:

Quote
We have a few more changes which have just come through the pipeline we'd like to share. Some of these changes override changes previously announced in this thread.

This is the sort of rapid iteration our development teams excel at, which is why we're sometimes unable to share every single tweak we make with the public. Game balance is an ongoing project, but since we have a good platform in this thread for sharing tanking changes, let us have a look at the latest:

    * Guardian of Ancient Kings (talented) – 50% damage reduction, 3 minute cooldown, 12 second duration.
    * Icebound Fortitude (talented) -- 50% damage reduction, 3 minute cooldown, 12 second duration.
    * Survival Instincts (talented) -- 50% damage reduction, 3 minute cooldown, 12 second duration.
    * Shield Wall (talented) – 40% damage reduction, 2 minute cooldown, 12 second duration.
    * Shield Wall (talented and glyphed) – 60% damage reduction, 4 minute cooldown, 12 second duration.

is really starting to piss me off. Yes, I understand, that it has been happening to some degree for years now, but this is really getting blatant.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 30, 2010, 07:33:47 PM
I understood that the Block role is always applied first.  I was looking at it from a best-case perspective where you are able to max block at 100% (Ghost Crawler's comments seem to indicate that was possible) and your Crit Block block is "maxed" (I don't know what max Crit Block is, I guessed in neighborhood of 30%).

If Block is at 100%, you always block.  Without Crit Blocking your mitigation at this point would be 30% on all block-able physical damage.

If I understand Crit Blocking correctly it takes the place of blocking, so instead of mitigating 30%, you mitigate 60% of a hit in which you Crit Block.  In these cases you don't have both a Block and a Crit block applied, so you have to remove from the Block calculation those times that you Crit Block.

With a 30% chance to Crit Block, you total mitagation is 18% + 18% = 36%.  Versus the 30% for straight Block (at 100% chance), Crit Block doesn't seem like an especially impressive ability.  Which all leads back to what Ingmar was saying - there are better things to get then Block and much better things to get then Crit Block.

Maybe my understanding is off.  If not, the Warrior mastery certainly seems disappointing.

Block is the last one on the table, so miss/parry/dodge all happen before block. So in a scenario towards the end of the expansion when we have say, 5% miss 20-something% parry 20-something% dodge or something, you could probably reasonably easily push the total including block over 100% when shield block is up.

I don't think our mastery is necessarily bad, it sort of depends how bad the diminishing returns are on dodge/parry and how easy it will be to cap hit and expertise to know exactly where it will land in the hierarchy. But yeah this is why I don't expect it to have DR, it isn't likely to be overpowered.

============================

On cooldown homogenization, I am not super bothered by it (I know surprise surprise). The main things that need to be close together in terms of capability are our general survivability (armor/hp/avoidance and our roughly comparable "block" type mechanics) and our 'oh shit' survivability - the big 2+ minute cooldowns that work on magic damage etc. Threat totals too, I suppose, but that's easy to keep feeling different. The 4 classes still play pretty differently in terms of what buttons we're pushing and why, resource models, the lesser cooldowns, etc., and as long as that stuff doesn't get too 'same-y' then I think the classes are different enough to still have what class you choose to play be meaningful. I don't think the differences are particularly less than those between the healers or cloth casters or whatever.

If there's one they're in danger of getting too similar on it is paladins and warriors probably, which got a little too close in Wrath. Hopefully with the holy power stuff etc. that is a bit lessened.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 30, 2010, 07:36:56 PM
I understood that the Block role is always applied first.  I was looking at it from a best-case perspective where you are able to max block at 100% (Ghost Crawler's comments seem to indicate that was possible) and your Crit Block block is "maxed" (I don't know what max Crit Block is, I guessed in neighborhood of 30%).

As far as I can tell you have the implications right, but the math wrong.

Block/Parry/Dodge/Hit/Miss is the first roll.  The second roll (critical block) only occurs if the first roll resulted in a block, and will turn a block into a critical block.  If I'm reading the new blue post right, block and critical block scale off the same stat, at the same rate.  So your actual chance to (normal) block is the tooltip amount minus your chance to critical block, and your chance to critical block is your chance to block multiplied by your chance to critical block (which should be the same number).

Or:

Code:
[actual normal block] = [tooltip block] - [actual critical block]
[actual critical block] = [tooltip block] x [tooltip critical block]
[actual total mitigation] = 0.3 x [actual normal block] + 0.6 x [actual critical block]

EDIT: I do all my math in decimal form, it makes it easier to express.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 30, 2010, 07:50:35 PM
It is done as one roll but block is the one that gets cut off if the total is over 100%.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on October 30, 2010, 08:10:59 PM
Yeah you're probably right. This whole thing with Feral Druids is sticking out in  my mind for two reasons.

1. There has been a bunch of municipal elections around me lately, and a friend was asking me if I was going to vote. I said not really, because of disconnected I felt from politics,and that if a politician of any stripe ran on a platform of buffing Feral Druids they would have my vote, as that would have a greater impact on me then most of the bs that they normally deal in. I wasn't expecting that it could go the other way!

2. My sub ran up on the 28th, and I was on the fence about reupping until the xpac drops. Then KA POW! Suck this bears.! That made up my mind. I'm not delusional, I know that I am stuck on crack, but for just this one time I am going to get another dealer's. It's my small little symbolic protest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 31, 2010, 03:57:43 AM
It is done as one roll but block is the one that gets cut off if the total is over 100%.

No, it isn't. (http://www.tankspot.com/showthread.php?69903-Warrior-Critical-Block-Mechanics)

Were you ever curious as to why the original Critical Block talent granted a 60% chance to critically block?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on October 31, 2010, 08:47:23 AM
I understood that the Block role is always applied first.  I was looking at it from a best-case perspective where you are able to max block at 100% (Ghost Crawler's comments seem to indicate that was possible) and your Crit Block block is "maxed" (I don't know what max Crit Block is, I guessed in neighborhood of 30%).

As far as I can tell you have the implications right, but the math wrong.

Block/Parry/Dodge/Hit/Miss is the first roll.  The second roll (critical block) only occurs if the first roll resulted in a block, and will turn a block into a critical block.  If I'm reading the new blue post right, block and critical block scale off the same stat, at the same rate.  So your actual chance to (normal) block is the tooltip amount minus your chance to critical block, and your chance to critical block is your chance to block multiplied by your chance to critical block (which should be the same number).

Or:

Code:
[actual normal block] = [tooltip block] - [actual critical block]
[actual critical block] = [tooltip block] x [tooltip critical block]
[actual total mitigation] = 0.3 x [actual normal block] + 0.6 x [actual critical block]

EDIT: I do all my math in decimal form, it makes it easier to express.

Our math is the same at the point that I was talking about - the theoretical maximum.  Plug my "100% block chance" in for "tooltip block" and "30%" for the tooltip critical block (and since "tooltip block" is 100%, the actual critical block = tooltip critical block).

maximal mitigation from blocking (normal and crit) = 0.3 X (1-max crit block)  + 0.6 X max crit block.

If max crit block is 0.3 this yields:

max mitigation from blocking = 0.3 x (1-0.3) + 0.6 x (0.3) = 0.3 x 0.6 + 0.6 x 0.3 = 0.18 + 0.18 = 36%

I guess I'm still very underwhelmed about the whole thing.  Seems like much more bang for the buck on dodge/parry and if that is the case, why call it a "mastery"?  Using the word "mastery" seems like it should be something noteworthy not "something to get if you max everything important out".



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on October 31, 2010, 08:49:22 AM
This is just about the most boring discussion I've ever endured.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on October 31, 2010, 09:04:57 AM
You've been lucky.  I've worked with accountants for 12 years.  This is lively by comparison.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 31, 2010, 09:44:46 AM
This is the point where I drift off and wait for the summation on EJ so I can just go rip off the results and go play.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on October 31, 2010, 11:37:40 AM
This is the point where I drift off and wait for the summation on EJ so I can just go rip off the results and go play.
Yup.  Besides, I'm sure it will change before 4.0.3 is released and likely will change again even further a few months into the expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 31, 2010, 11:48:34 AM
This is the point where I drift off and wait for the summation on EJ so I can just go rip off the results and go play.

+1.

And, yeah, it'll probably change. For now I say screw it, and I"m concentrating on DK tanking. God help me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on October 31, 2010, 12:23:41 PM
It is done as one roll but block is the one that gets cut off if the total is over 100%.

No, it isn't. (http://www.tankspot.com/showthread.php?69903-Warrior-Critical-Block-Mechanics)

Were you ever curious as to why the original Critical Block talent granted a 60% chance to critically block?

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I am saying? If your miss dodge parry and block total to over 100%, what you lose are blocks, not misses, dodges, or parries. I am not saying anything about critical block at all.

Seems like much more bang for the buck on dodge/parry

And that's why they have diminishing returns.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on October 31, 2010, 02:46:00 PM
This is the point where I drift off and wait for the summation on EJ so I can just go rip off the results and go play.
Yup.  Besides, I'm sure it will change before 4.0.3 is released and likely will change again even further a few months into the expansion.

1. EJ doesn't have anyone paying much attention to prot warriors currently.
2. These are the upcoming changes.

RE: Typhon I see where I'm getting confused by your stuff.  You have a multiplication error in there, the figure for block using your made up numbers should be 21%, that's what first threw me off.

Also, your (tooltip) block chance should equal your (tooltip) critical block chance, because as far as I'm aware there isn't anything in the game that buffs either except mastery rating, and that increases both at the same rate.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I am saying?

I am.  Derp.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on October 31, 2010, 06:36:42 PM
Enough math. It's making my head hurt more than it needs to (thank you, Dogfish 90min IPA...).

Decided to get it over with and got the protection pally back in the saddle. At first, I was like, you have to be kidding me...what is this shit? After about a dozen elites beaten down, it was starting to make sense and I was really digging on this after about an hour. I really, really, REALLY need a G13, but this has possibilities.

My only concern was the priority system seems awfully slow to spool up. I'd be worried about hyperactive dps pulling aggro off the bat. What's impressive about it is it has a stately progression of abilities that flat out crushes targets. I was seeing some really smokin' hits, and this pally is only in average 240 il gear. Right now I"m running at about 23% dodge, 19% parry, and 40-odd percent shield block with holy shield up. Nothing close to the ideal 102.5% thing, but...it's kinda cool.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on October 31, 2010, 11:40:53 PM
I'd be worried about hyperactive dps pulling aggro off the bat.
You know... personally I used to worry about this too.  Then I realized that if DPS is going to be stupid, that's THEIR problem and not mine.  Sure, I make sure I'm not fucking up and keeping aggro efficiently, but if some dipshit decides to unleash on mobs BEFORE I've even hit them, that's HIS problem and not mine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on November 01, 2010, 12:02:21 AM
Right now I"m running at about 23% dodge, 19% parry, and 40-odd percent shield block with holy shield up. Nothing close to the ideal 102.5% thing, but...it's kinda cool.

82%.  It's closer than you think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 01, 2010, 01:25:52 AM
2. My sub ran up on the 28th, and I was on the fence about reupping until the xpac drops. Then KA POW! Suck this bears.! That made up my mind. I'm not delusional, I know that I am stuck on crack, but for just this one time I am going to get another dealer's. It's my small little symbolic protest.
If Blizzard hadn't made that fix, every L85 tank would have been a druid, with the other three classes all speccing as dps because there was no point in even trying to keep up with the bears. Yes, they were really that far out of whack.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 01, 2010, 12:11:40 PM
Quests involving the elementals and Twilight's Hammer went live today.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on November 01, 2010, 03:39:46 PM
Sandwich boards.  Awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on November 01, 2010, 03:52:24 PM
Quote
there was no point in even trying to keep up with the bears. Yes, they were really that far out of whack.

And I demand a piece of that!  :mob:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on November 01, 2010, 03:54:58 PM
So WoW is installed all patched up to date but I'm not currently subscribed. Will upgrading to Cataclysm involve any actual software installation or is it just a matter of providing a code for my account?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 01, 2010, 03:56:29 PM
So WoW is installed all patched up to date but I'm not currently subscribed. Will upgrading to Cataclysm involve any actual software installation or is it just a matter of providing a code for my account?

More install, I think? Mine is still grabbing a few hundred megs of stuff every time I log in since I signed myself up for Cata.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 01, 2010, 03:58:02 PM
Yeah, considering that they're encouraging those who didn't get a copy of the CE to buy digitially and "begin the download."  You're going to have an install.   It's all the new zones, mobs and models, since I'm 90% certain the 4.0 patch had the new files for the old world zones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 01, 2010, 04:43:46 PM
Allegedly you can pre-patch your client with the digital download content even if you don't buy digitally so that when you get your CE box or whatever, you can just put the code in and go. Barring login server failures etc. I probably read it on MMO-Champ or WoW Insider but cba to look it up right this minute.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 01, 2010, 04:45:21 PM
As caladein said earlier, if you want to begin downloading but don't want to buy digital, you can do so with a simple edit:

Stolen from SA by way of EJ:

Quote
Didn't preorder the digital copy?
Want to pre-download all the Cata Data?

Open up Launcher.WTF and set your accountType from "LK" to "CT"
Do the same in config.wtf.

Enjoy.

Other bonus of this is you don't need to log in to start the pre-load if you did buy the digital copy, which is not happening if your account's lapsed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on November 01, 2010, 04:51:18 PM
Oh cool. I didn't realize I could buy digitally now and start the download process. I was planning to resubscribe a month or so before it went live anyway so I'll just get the digital expansion when I do that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 02, 2010, 12:45:38 AM
As caladein said earlier...

Ah, cool. Thanks. Didn't read that far back after I got lobotomised in the face by posts full of theorycrafting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on November 02, 2010, 02:18:52 AM
Ah, cool. Thanks. Didn't read that far back after I got lobotomised in the face by posts full of theorycrafting.

Oh, it's on.  Time to bring out the EH vs. avoidance math.  Ingmar, you up to this?  Draw straws for which side each of us gets to argue?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 02, 2010, 02:40:31 AM
The only way to win is not to play.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on November 02, 2010, 03:22:22 AM
Bartle would contend otherwise! :why_so_serious:

So, aside from the absolute and utter awesomeness that the chance to run around the city wedged between a set of poster boards ranting insane and/or inane shit is, this pre-Cataclysm stuff is pretty "meh" compared to ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE, which is still probably the most fun I've ever had playing this game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 02, 2010, 05:07:50 AM
So, aside from the absolute and utter awesomeness that the chance to run around the city wedged between a set of poster boards ranting insane and/or inane shit is, this pre-Cataclysm stuff is pretty "meh" compared to ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE, which is still probably the most fun I've ever had playing this game.

Puts me in mind of the Necropolis attacks but yes, other than that, it's nowhere near as fun as being a zombie.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on November 02, 2010, 05:24:51 AM
It's supposed to be ramping up.  We'll see.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 02, 2010, 06:21:43 AM
Yep, there's 4 phases, this is the first one.

The next one is supposed to include more quests and loretastic shit until it culminates in full on city assaults by elementals and optional bosses.

Although, I'm confused as to the value of optional bosses if they just drop current items and you are at the raid points cap.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on November 02, 2010, 10:12:24 AM
Although, I'm confused as to the value of optional bosses
They have hit points and those hit points can be reduced.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 02, 2010, 11:26:40 AM
Also they're all nostalgia bosses - giant Gahzrilla, etc., will be fun to go spank them once or twice each I think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 02, 2010, 11:37:41 AM
Also they're all nostalgia bosses - giant Gahzrilla, etc., will be fun to go spank them once or twice each I think.

Meh, that could be fun then. I would love to beat up on a giant Hogger, personally.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 02, 2010, 01:42:47 PM
Hogger is reserved for a revamped Cataclysm instance. :ssh:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 02, 2010, 01:53:14 PM
Hogger is reserved for a revamped Cataclysm instance. :ssh:

The idea of an Onyxia-style giant Hogger raid makes me  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on November 02, 2010, 10:43:35 PM
I've logged maybe five hours yesterday and today.  While the quest text states something along the lines of "By now you've seen the elementals attacking our cities and villages..." I have yet to actually see one.  In any zone.  There's just groups of people hovering over spawn points, but I have yet to see anything.  It's fairly underwhelming.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 02, 2010, 11:53:26 PM
Supposedly the frequency is going to ramp up as the event goes on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on November 03, 2010, 12:15:56 AM
So, aside from the absolute and utter awesomeness that the chance to run around the city wedged between a set of poster boards ranting insane and/or inane shit is, this pre-Cataclysm stuff is pretty "meh" compared to ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE, which is still probably the most fun I've ever had playing this game.

Puts me in mind of the Necropolis attacks but yes, other than that, it's nowhere near as fun as being a zombie.

Sure... Being a zombie... that was cool too, I guess. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on November 03, 2010, 06:04:12 AM
Sure... Being a zombie... that was cool too, I guess. :oh_i_see:
Sure it was.  You could go and grief people because it was part of the game!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 04, 2010, 04:13:28 AM
I definitely prefered zapping zombies with my anti-zombie shit as my paladin to being a zombie.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 04, 2010, 07:00:24 AM
I liked being a zombie.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on November 04, 2010, 08:50:28 AM
I definitely prefered zapping zombies with my anti-zombie shit as my paladin to being a zombie.  :grin:

Ingmar, you have a real classy lady here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 04, 2010, 02:56:17 PM
Tell him something he doesn't know!  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on November 04, 2010, 03:00:22 PM
Tell him something he doesn't know!  :drill:

His wife is crazy?

Oh wait...something he doesn't know.

You got me there.

p.s. go back to the bunny, I can't figure out who is posting anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 04, 2010, 03:00:45 PM
go back to the bunny, I can't figure out who is posting anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on November 04, 2010, 03:58:03 PM
Avatars are for the weak.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 04, 2010, 04:00:27 PM
Halloween is over, so the eye-less, terrifying monkey people are less appropriate anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on November 04, 2010, 04:57:26 PM
Hooray!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 04, 2010, 04:58:18 PM
So is this elemental hoo-ha worth a damn? I'm debating about logging in again if it's remotely interesting. If not, meh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on November 04, 2010, 05:14:07 PM
I find it interesting but I am a lore nut.  Don't know if I'd recommend you drop $15 just to do it though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on November 04, 2010, 06:10:45 PM
So is this elemental hoo-ha worth a damn? I'm debating about logging in again if it's remotely interesting. If not, meh.

Meh.

There's only like 15 minutes of entertainment there with the quests so far.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 04, 2010, 06:59:20 PM
There's a brief quest chain, and an achievement to be had if you kill one of each type of elemental spawning in the world. So far I've seen one pack of elementals out in STV, which despawned right as I rode up to it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on November 04, 2010, 08:19:44 PM
I'm not entirely sure what is happening, but the whole despawning thing on the rifts is everywhere.  I've seen maybe 10 of these rifts in the distance, but as I get up close to them they disappear.  I suspect they're using phasing for them, and that phasing is broken. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on November 04, 2010, 09:58:05 PM
I did the quest chain, it was ok as far as shallow wow storyline stuff goes. I liked the cultist dialogue.

I almost saw a rift this morning. A guildmate called it out, but by the time I got there, it was gone. Yay.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 05, 2010, 01:34:58 AM
The zombie event started slow, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 05, 2010, 03:09:39 AM
I'm not entirely sure what is happening, but the whole despawning thing on the rifts is everywhere.  I've seen maybe 10 of these rifts in the distance, but as I get up close to them they disappear.  I suspect they're using phasing for them, and that phasing is broken. 

Ah, yes. This has happened to me a couple of times in Netherstorm. Thought I was just late to the party. After getting the achievement, I certainly won't be bothering with the daily though. P.I.T.A.

As for the quest chain, the cash/XP is fairly decent for 15-20 minutes running around Org. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on November 05, 2010, 05:06:35 AM
I dont think the elementals despawning is a "phazing" issue, unless maybe they are coded to prevent players who are too high a level from spotting them.

I successfullly killed a group of the earth ones on my 80 druid in Azshara, but had the same "they fade out as you approach" thing happen to me when i spotted a bunch of fire ones in Winterspring 10 minutes later.

I think it is probably more along the lines of there being a residual "despawn" effect if they are not engaged within a certain amount of time from initial spawn, and the game world does not update it untill a player actually gets close enough for it to matter, so what you are seeing is a delayed despawn occuring  (sort of the same way that you occasionally see mobs that have been standing there for what is probably quite a while cast buffs on themselves like frost shields and the like whenever you ride into range).

As to if the event is worth it, I would say not right now.  Give it a few more weeks (or maybe a month) or so to ramp up a bit, and eventually it gets into full on Capital City attacks by level 80 elementals where you need to run around and prep for the attack and then help fight it off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 05, 2010, 06:01:36 AM
Give it a few more weeks (or maybe a month) or so to ramp up a bit

A month from now the expansion is actually here  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 05, 2010, 10:49:13 AM
I think it is phasing. There are occasional bugs you'll notice with phased content when you're looking into a phased area from outside. You can see this happen sometimes with the little ice shard things that you collect for frost giant faction in Storm Peaks - you can see one, fly up to it (crossing a phasing zone in the process) and it fades out. I think this is essentially the same thing; when you're seeing them when they're not really 'up' you happen to be sitting in a spot where the other phase is incorrectly visible.

I think they changed the Halloween stuff to use phasing as well because I found a spot in Auberdine where I could stand and all the Halloween decorations would appear even though the event was over.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on November 05, 2010, 10:57:20 AM
Pretty sure the town decorations for all the seasonal events are not "phazed" in the normal sense, but are more of a trick with the world Meshes or something, and swapping them around is akin to the same mechanic used when changing gear on your character.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Outlawedprod on November 07, 2010, 10:02:28 AM
85 DK solos Naxx
http://warcraftmovies.com/movieview.php?id=166999

I'm seeing some real big numbers here.  This expansion looks to be stat inflation city.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 07, 2010, 10:14:52 AM
When the green weapons are better than the best of the best raiding gear out there, you know it's inflation city.

Heroic raiding epic 2Hers are 703.6 DPS in the Cataclysm raiding game. The Shadowmourne legendary is 347.8 DPS  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on November 07, 2010, 10:21:55 AM
A Paragon member said this on the Cataclysm Beta Dungeons board:

Quote
Enrage timer needs a nerf.

You might want to nerf cleaving from Halfus to make class balance a bit better. We had people at 120k+ DPS on some attempts, peaking at 200k..

I'm not sure if it's intended to be able to pull all mobs at the same time and just kill them. It's possible though :)

We were able to kill all the adds with cleaving damage like hell from Halfus but wiped to enrage timer in the end.


I'm pretty sure by the end of this expansion it'll be "LF1M DPS Deathwing must do 80k+"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 07, 2010, 10:26:04 AM
Yep this is headed to a retarded place. Bosses with a billion HP, 80k DPS requirements, blech.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 07, 2010, 10:28:42 AM
They really need to just divide by 10 or something.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on November 07, 2010, 10:40:02 AM
At what point do they run into floating point precision overruns on boss HP?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on November 07, 2010, 10:43:41 AM
So are you saying that WoW's mudflation rate has reached Zimbabwean levels?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on November 07, 2010, 10:47:19 AM
I am SMRT!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 07, 2010, 11:03:55 AM
It wouldn't have been nearly as bad if they weren't insistent on "plebes" who have level 251 gear needing to be knocked down a peg and replacing gear as they leveled.   Previous expansions, you could use the top-tier raiding gear for at least the first 5 levels, perhaps more if you regemmed.  Now they've decided you have to replace even Heroic ICC gear within the first level, and keep on replacing it as you progress.  That's going to produce some stupid, stupid numbers pretty damn quickly.   They should have just acknowledged their error, shrugged it off and gone with the traditional replacement schedule.  Alts, new and behind-the-curve players are going to get eaten as soon as they hit that first cata zone until they get a few quest upgrades.

That DK had 2 seconds on Patchwerk's Enrage timer.  Pretty sure the only reason she was able to do it at all was the intent that blood be a "self-healing" tank.  Death Strike + Blood Shield + Blood Tap & Blood Worms = lots o' health.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 07, 2010, 11:07:17 AM
Previous gear in high end raiding should carry you to the next level of raid content. But you're right, they have royally messed that up now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on November 07, 2010, 11:09:54 AM
If they continue progression trends, I don't see how casual players will stay.  I guess there are always people out there that have yet to experience the run from 1 - cap, but those numbers will dry up eventually. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 07, 2010, 11:15:24 AM
They honestly should have used this as their chance to overhaul the system in the correct manner. You're blowing up the world, why not blow up all the items? Instead, they ignored that part, fixed some other odd things that didn't seem to be totally broken, and turned the mudflation up to 11.

It's one thing to ignore a problem. It's another thing to completely exacerbate it in the name of progress.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on November 07, 2010, 11:28:47 AM
As long as the art is pwetty! :raspberry:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 07, 2010, 11:52:06 AM
Why does it matter at all what the numbers are? Is there any difference between doing 5k dps and 50k dps? 5m hp and 50m hp? This is just stupid doomcasting for the sake of it. OH NOES SOMEONE HAS 150K HP, SKY FALLING, IM QUITTING FOR FFXIV!!  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on November 07, 2010, 12:06:47 PM
I hear they're going to start forcing everyone to read the quest text too!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on November 07, 2010, 12:28:10 PM
I don't know if the numbers really matter but I always thought the very final tier from the previous expansion (in this case people decked out in 277) should carry you to the very first tier in the new expansion, if for no other reason than to give SOME reason to people to farm that ICC heroic after you've killed H LK.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 07, 2010, 01:07:40 PM
If 277s were useful in Cata raids, you guys would be crying that people had to farm H ICC 25 gear to raid in Cata.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on November 07, 2010, 01:28:26 PM
 :headscratch: It would just mean people who didn't have that gear would have to do extra work gearing up for raids. The heroic 5 man stuff should be better than 277, just not double the stats better. Wasn't this kind of how it worked at the beginning of WotLK?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 07, 2010, 01:42:51 PM
:headscratch: It would just mean people who didn't have that gear would have to do extra work gearing up for raids. The heroic 5 man stuff should be better than 277, just not double the stats better. Wasn't this kind of how it worked at the beginning of WotLK?

Yes, which was my point.  Paelos was the one suggesting raid gear should carry you through to the next raid.  I've never agreed with that, since a gear reset means newer people can get into the raid game via heroics. Top-tier gear = or slightly worse to level-cap Heroics is a good thing.  Top-tier gear being worse than first zone quest gear is silly and short-sighted.  Most players are achievers, and raid for the purpose of loot.  Making that loot worthless means they stop raiding. Which has apparently happened.  I don't even see pugs for the weekly on Alleria anymore, never mind the ICC runs that used to happen with 2-4 raids forming at a time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on November 07, 2010, 02:08:07 PM
:headscratch: It would just mean people who didn't have that gear would have to do extra work gearing up for raids. The heroic 5 man stuff should be better than 277, just not double the stats better. Wasn't this kind of how it worked at the beginning of WotLK?

Yes, which was my point.  Paelos was the one suggesting raid gear should carry you through to the next raid.  I've never agreed with that, since a gear reset means newer people can get into the raid game via heroics. Top-tier gear = or slightly worse to level-cap Heroics is a good thing.  Top-tier gear being worse than first zone quest gear is silly and short-sighted.  Most players are achievers, and raid for the purpose of loot.  Making that loot worthless means they stop raiding. Which has apparently happened.  I don't even see pugs for the weekly on Alleria anymore, never mind the ICC runs that used to happen with 2-4 raids forming at a time.

Its not necessarily just the gear, I have 4k capped justice points on my toons.  I have no reason to run anything else anymore.   If I get on it's to mine a little bit.  My guild is still working on heroic ICC 10 just to get the achievements, and we'll prolly finish that this week.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 07, 2010, 02:59:34 PM
They really need to just divide by 10 or something.  :why_so_serious:

Yeah seriously, it's just completely silly at this point.

If 277s were useful in Cata raids, you guys would be crying that people had to farm H ICC 25 gear to raid in Cata.

Oh shit, you're onto them!  :ye_gods:

I do think the numbers are getting silly just from an asthetic standpoint, but I can't get upset at the whole "oh my God I replace my geeeeeeeeeear" thing. I like replacing gear.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on November 07, 2010, 04:50:16 PM
After watching that DK solo most of Naxx, now I'm wondering how many players it would take to down Gluth.

The most reasonable minimum might be four.  Two tanks to swap on Gluth, one kiter, plus an AE dps to blow up zombies after decimate.  It might be possible to get that down to three.  Maybe even two.  It depends on if the decimate was done while the heal debuff was on the tank.  (It eventually wears off, and in enough time that even an Ulduar geared tank could survive that long, with a bit of luck.)

Of course you'd need at least two on the last guy, because of the mini bosses.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 07, 2010, 05:39:21 PM
:headscratch: It would just mean people who didn't have that gear would have to do extra work gearing up for raids. The heroic 5 man stuff should be better than 277, just not double the stats better. Wasn't this kind of how it worked at the beginning of WotLK?

Yes, which was my point.  Paelos was the one suggesting raid gear should carry you through to the next raid.  I've never agreed with that, since a gear reset means newer people can get into the raid game via heroics. Top-tier gear = or slightly worse to level-cap Heroics is a good thing.

Top tier gear is going to get set on fire after 2 levels. My point was that top tier gear now should let you skip all the 5 man gearing in the next iteration.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Abelian75 on November 07, 2010, 07:33:44 PM
Top tier gear is going to get set on fire after 2 levels. My point was that top tier gear now should let you skip all the 5 man gearing in the next iteration.

I don't necessarily think this is the worst idea ever or anything, but personally I love a total reset each expansion.  While I don't necessarily care if the first quest green I get replaces the item, I do at least like to know that every normal mode 5-man will have new shit for me.  Or at least close to it.  Honestly the first goal I have had so far in each expansion has been to get that filthy old shit off of me, and I'm cool with downgrading to the first quest greens I get if need be... I just don't want it to be a MASSIVE downgrade that I'll feel stupid about.  I really do like each expansion being an absolutely, 100% clean slate though.  It's extremely refreshing, imho.  I like the old feeling of being like, "ooo, this has a gem slot."  Or "ooo, I got my first blue."  Fuck staying in purples forever.  Fuck it.

Granted, it does hurt in the stat inflation department.  Honestly, the idea mentioned earlier about just breaking all your old shit is, in reality, the most distilled form of what I really enjoy about new expansion gear resets, but would be a little too... overt, probably.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 07, 2010, 07:44:58 PM
My point was that top tier gear now should let you skip all the 5 man gearing in the next iteration.
I disagree with what you said.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on November 07, 2010, 10:13:19 PM
My point was that top tier gear now should let you skip all the 5 man gearing in the next iteration.
I disagree with what you said.

So do I.

It means all of that 5 man content (which Blizzard has stated many times takes many more man hours to produce than raid content) is skipped, the first raids are ridiculously easy (hello Naxx 2.0), and your "hardcore" people start getting bitchy months before they would have if they had to, you know, actually gear up for the raids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on November 08, 2010, 12:50:58 AM
After watching that DK solo most of Naxx, now I'm wondering how many players it would take to down Gluth.

The most reasonable minimum might be four.  Two tanks to swap on Gluth, one kiter, plus an AE dps to blow up zombies after decimate.  It might be possible to get that down to three.  Maybe even two.  It depends on if the decimate was done while the heal debuff was on the tank.  (It eventually wears off, and in enough time that even an Ulduar geared tank could survive that long, with a bit of luck.)

Of course you'd need at least two on the last guy, because of the mini bosses.
Yeah, a full clear of naxx (all bosses) would probably require at least 2, but probably 4 people.  You need a minimum of 2 for thaddeus (due to the way the miniboss encounter works), and you would probably need at minimum 2 people to do 4 Horsemen, though 4 would make it signifigantly easier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 08, 2010, 03:18:07 AM
After watching that DK solo most of Naxx, now I'm wondering how many players it would take to down Gluth.

The most reasonable minimum might be four.  Two tanks to swap on Gluth, one kiter, plus an AE dps to blow up zombies after decimate.  It might be possible to get that down to three.  Maybe even two.  It depends on if the decimate was done while the heal debuff was on the tank.  (It eventually wears off, and in enough time that even an Ulduar geared tank could survive that long, with a bit of luck.)

Of course you'd need at least two on the last guy, because of the mini bosses.

From the description on this video (http://www.youtube.com/user/Mionelol#p/a/u/1/Yt4mVdjGqg4) he states that Gluth isn't doable, which makes sense.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 08, 2010, 03:27:00 AM
Also, thinking of other unsoloable bosses, I'm pretty sure Gunship and Putricide, BQL and Valthiria would be explicitly unsoloable due to mechanics, and fights like LK, Sindragosa and Yogg would be presumably unsoloable unless having only one target beaks some of the mechanics. I would suspect that most of the rest of Ulduar and ToC would be soloable at some point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 08, 2010, 07:19:05 AM
So do I.

It means all of that 5 man content (which Blizzard has stated many times takes many more man hours to produce than raid content) is skipped, the first raids are ridiculously easy (hello Naxx 2.0), and your "hardcore" people start getting bitchy months before they would have if they had to, you know, actually gear up for the raids.

5 man content is always there though. It will always have a point in filling in gaps. By resetting everything, you kill any motivation for people that like the raiding side to do anything once they hint at expansion. How many people do you think cancelled subs 6 months ago because they beat ICC and didn't really care about farming it into oblivion when they knew it didn't matter? ICC came out 11 months ago. It's basically pick your poison. Have them bitch during the cycles or have them quit at the end.

Bitchers won't quit in the middle.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 08, 2010, 08:24:58 AM
Valithria could be solo'd assuming you could heal the boss to full without using portals and still kill all the adds. Probably not by the tank-type that traditionally does these, however.

Paelos, people that actually LIKE raiding (and who don't just raid for gear, or progression) won't quit. I know I didn't; even knowing that Cata hits in a few weeks, I'm still running a couple ICC 10 PUGs every week and hitting the weekly (when it isn't something annoying). The hardcore crowd that you speak of will play WoW because it's the only game out there with a decent raid scene. Maybe they take a few months off, but they'll be back for each xpac. The casual crowd is who made WoW a success, and this 'Go back and raid WotLK before you can raid Cata' bullshit would not fly with them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 08, 2010, 09:15:34 AM
Here's my question then: Do you like raiding, or do you like the people and could give a shit less what format you play with them? My guess is you've probably beaten ICC 10 into the ground and/or are doing it on your alts because you generally like your friends you play with.

My point was that many people like the raids, but when they have beaten the challenge of raiding that they enjoy, they are less motivated to stick around if they don't have alts / aren't gear whores / have other games they like to play SP.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 08, 2010, 10:03:25 AM
When I raid lately, it's usually me, two guildies and 7 PUGs, so it's not about the people I'm raiding with. I do have a ton of alts, but I really do just enjoy it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 08, 2010, 10:48:03 AM
The only reason your gear is blowing up after 2 levels instead of 5 this expansion is because they only raised the cap by 5 levels, because they didn't want to mess around with 10 levels worth of talent points etc. Functionally this is going to end up working just like all the other expansions that didn't ruin the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 08, 2010, 11:08:35 AM
The only reason your gear is blowing up after 2 levels instead of 5 this expansion is because they only raised the cap by 5 levels, because they didn't want to mess around with 10 levels worth of talent points etc. Functionally this is going to end up working just like all the other expansions that didn't ruin the game.

You are right, it won't ruin the game. It's a small nitpick I have about continuity. I'm not going to worry about the reset when I hump 5 mans during the winter months because I can't play golf. I just wish they would give us a reason to want to work out our characters in the months leading up to an expansion besides grinding low level resources and heirloom gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on November 08, 2010, 11:20:50 AM
 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on November 08, 2010, 11:35:44 AM
I'm not sure that facepalm is big enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on November 08, 2010, 11:52:25 AM
I found a reason to keep playing until the expansion.  I'm not sure how I missed it, but apparently the 264 PvP weapons can be bought purely by honor now.  You wouldn't know it by the cursor being greyed out or the big red letters saying you need not apply, or the grayed out picture of the item itself.  A guildmate or two told me this after I asked for the 5th time for help farming instances for better weapons on my alts. 

So, I tested it out.  Jumped from a blue 200 ilvl weap on my purely pvp geared hunter to a 264 purple.  Most excellent!  Yeah, I know they'll be replaced after the expansion.  It will still give me reason to log in and have fun upgrading.  That is, afterall, the core reason for the game, no?

Now to have the patience to get like 2550 honor built up on each of my 10 alts.  BG HO!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on November 08, 2010, 11:56:24 AM
After watching that DK solo most of Naxx, now I'm wondering how many players it would take to down Gluth.

The most reasonable minimum might be four.  Two tanks to swap on Gluth, one kiter, plus an AE dps to blow up zombies after decimate.  It might be possible to get that down to three.  Maybe even two.  It depends on if the decimate was done while the heal debuff was on the tank.  (It eventually wears off, and in enough time that even an Ulduar geared tank could survive that long, with a bit of luck.)

Of course you'd need at least two on the last guy, because of the mini bosses.
Yeah, a full clear of naxx (all bosses) would probably require at least 2, but probably 4 people.  You need a minimum of 2 for thaddeus (due to the way the miniboss encounter works), and you would probably need at minimum 2 people to do 4 Horsemen, though 4 would make it signifigantly easier.

The 85 DK in the video soloed 4 Horsemen.  I'll be honest, I didn't think he could do it myself before I watched.

Just to clarify:  The DK soloed every boss in Naxx except Gluth and Thaddeus.  I'm fairly sure.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 08, 2010, 12:10:26 PM
I'm not sure that facepalm is big enough.

Enlighten me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Abelian75 on November 08, 2010, 12:15:27 PM
5 man content is always there though. It will always have a point in filling in gaps. By resetting everything, you kill any motivation for people that like the raiding side to do anything once they hint at expansion. How many people do you think cancelled subs 6 months ago because they beat ICC and didn't really care about farming it into oblivion when they knew it didn't matter?

Bitchers won't quit in the middle.

You do have a point here, and I actually have always stopped playing for a while shortly before expansions were released.  I think there was too long a gap between ICC and cataclysm, personally, and I think halion was a really weird thing to release.  But personally, my motivation is always to just beat all the encounters.  My primary motivation to lust after particular pieces of gear is that I know it will help beat the next boss.  Now, I do like gear upgrades just for the sake of being upgrades, don't get me wrong, but there's a big difference between being like, "Ooo, upgrade" when you finish a quest and see a nice reward, and combing through boss drop tables and being like, "Ooo, upgrade" and then spending a month working on getting that upgrade.  The first is ALWAYS fun.  The second it's nice to have a break from sometimes.  That's why I like gear resets.  For a while, things just get nice and easy again.  You just pick some damn quest rewards that look decent, don't obsess over gemming and stats, and just have some casual fun for a while, doing dungeons and getting obvious upgrades.  Sure, eventually I'll regem obsessively in cataclysm, but for a while, just lemme be a kid again.

And honestly, I even wonder if Blizzard didn't learn (accidentally, almost assuredly) that having a lull before a new expansion is actually a good thing for the longevity of the game.  Maybe it's okay to just let people stop playing for a while rather than having them continuously "hooked" into raiding week after week.  Personally, I really doubt I'd still be playing seriously if there were never periods that I could stop playing without actually missing anything.  I haven't played in months, but I'll be able to start cataclysm and still have done every encounter in WoTLK, excluding most hard modes in ICC (and Halion, which I could give two shits about).  I like that, personally.  I don't want it to ALWAYS be the case that you can stop playing without missing much, because it's cool to keep fighting for progression and such.  But not FOREVER.  Sometimes, I just want a damn break.  I can poopsock again later.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on November 08, 2010, 12:51:55 PM
Vexaz may not be soloable, if only for the "must interrupt or wipe" mechanic, but I think it's every 30s.  Maybe a tank has that many interrupts?  The drain life curse may be a breakable mechanic if it will not land on the tank.

I'm not sure Ignus is soloable.  The whole mechanic of "golems that blow up after heating in the burn then solidifying in water then a player landing a hit for 8k or more to shatter" is probably something that can be handled, but I can't quite remember how it works.  Or maybe a tank can endure the hits.

I think Tantrum bot would be difficult to solo, what with the healing from eating bots, and the enrage timer.

Iron Council, may not be soloable.  Mr "I become a bridge" might be soloable.  Cat lady... not sure.  Fear + some cast that must be interrupted could make it difficult, not to mention the cats.  I think it might be doable.  Thorim, not soloable, because of the hallway.  Hodir, possibly soloable.  Freya, possibly not, because of the waves.  Mimiron, I think phase 2 or 3 would kill any tank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 08, 2010, 01:03:30 PM
Most of Ulduar is going to be tough-to-impossible.

Ignis would be very rough. The way his mechanic worked, as I recall, is his damage ramped up something like 10 or 15% for every golem that is animated and active. In order to kill the golems, you have to heat them up to 10 stacks in his burning aura, then take them into the water, then hit them - and when they die they explode for a decent amount of damage if you're next to them. You'd probably have to deal with the golems since I think it would be pretty difficult to keep up with his damage once he got a few golems going at once, especially since they're all hitting you too.

Auriaya would be rough with the bleeds from her adds, but I can see that one as potentially possible at some point. Iron Council is probably not soloable, I am thinking we're an expansion away from tanks being able to laugh off fusion punch still. Kologarn, it would depend if he will grab you if you're the only one there. If he grabs you, unsoloable. If not, he is doable probably. Freya would be tough simply because the waves are on such a short timer and you have to kill those healing trees on top of dealing with each wave inside a minute. I can't see how a single tank gets through phase 3 of Mimiron, maybe in another expansion or two. You need ranged damage to kill the head.

Razorscale is a maybe, I forget how bad the debuff is during the ground phase. With XT the robot adds mean it is a 2 person job, the healing ones just heal too much I think.

Hodir is probably the easiest one I see on the plate, unless Kolo doesn't grab.

I'm guessing you won't solo Flame Leviathan ever...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on November 08, 2010, 01:15:33 PM
I'm pretty sure you can solo flame leviathan now with no towers up.

I forgot about the damage stacking on Ignus from the golems, yeah, that takes it from "I don't think so" to "I don't see how that's possible".

I think Kolo will not grab the tank.  I think he will laser the tank, but that might be eatable damage.  The problem is Kolo hits damn hard, plus debuffs... defense?  I guess that might not be a problem anymore.

With Iron Council, the problem is Fusion Punch, plus the DoT that gets applied.  Maybe if the tank can cleanse it?  Plus all three of them hit really damn hard.  Additionally, I'm not sure there's a "last one standing" boss in the fight that one tank could survive.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 08, 2010, 01:16:31 PM
Vexaz may not be soloable, if only for the "must interrupt or wipe" mechanic, but I think it's every 30s.  Maybe a tank has that many interrupts?  The drain life curse may be a breakable mechanic if it will not land on the tank.

I'm not sure Ignus is soloable.  The whole mechanic of "golems that blow up after heating in the burn then solidifying in water then a player landing a hit for 8k or more to shatter" is probably something that can be handled, but I can't quite remember how it works.  Or maybe a tank can endure the hits.

I think Tantrum bot would be difficult to solo, what with the healing from eating bots, and the enrage timer.

Iron Council, may not be soloable.  Mr "I become a bridge" might be soloable.  Cat lady... not sure.  Fear + some cast that must be interrupted could make it difficult, not to mention the cats.  I think it might be doable.  Thorim, not soloable, because of the hallway.  Hodir, possibly soloable.  Freya, possibly not, because of the waves.  Mimiron, I think phase 2 or 3 would kill any tank.
Dk's interrupt is on a 10s CD. You could probably just tank Ignus through the golems; I know that is how we do it when Ignus comes up on the weekly now. If your DPS was high enough you could solo XT; just really blow up his heart without killing it every time it comes out. I'm not sure how Kologarn's grip would work with only one target. Cat lady should be fine; I don't think the interrupt thing would still be a one shot in Cata. Regarding Thorim, what happens if you wipe in the arena? If the adds just sit there, you could just go solo the hallway then burn him+adds down together.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on November 08, 2010, 01:24:00 PM
If you wipe in the arena, Thorim does something that inflicts about 300,000 damage to people in the hallway.  IIRC.

The thing with XT is he grabs bots to heal himself, and he enrages.  I'd be willing to bet one player cannot generate enough DPS for quite some time yet to burn through XT's health bar 2 or 3x.  Plus there's the orbs and bomb bots, plus the large bot adds that (as I recall) had to be off tanked.

The DK in the video managed about 12k DPS, as he said that was the minimum to take down Patchwork in 5 minutes.  The DPS requirements to take down Ignus before the buff from golems caused Ignus to kill you dead would probably outrace your DPS.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 08, 2010, 01:45:03 PM
I really think you could solo Ignis. The adds only do 20k damage when they're broken, so you tank him in the scorch, heat the golem up, then drag them into the water, tab over (or cleave) and pop it. He'd never have any stacks of golem buff for more than 10 seconds or so.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 08, 2010, 04:20:23 PM
Most of Ulduar is going to be tough-to-impossible.

Ignis would be very rough. The way his mechanic worked, as I recall, is his damage ramped up something like 10 or 15% for every golem that is animated and active. In order to kill the golems, you have to heat them up to 10 stacks in his burning aura, then take them into the water, then hit them - and when they die they explode for a decent amount of damage if you're next to them. You'd probably have to deal with the golems since I think it would be pretty difficult to keep up with his damage once he got a few golems going at once, especially since they're all hitting you too.

Auriaya would be rough with the bleeds from her adds, but I can see that one as potentially possible at some point. Iron Council is probably not soloable, I am thinking we're an expansion away from tanks being able to laugh off fusion punch still. Kologarn, it would depend if he will grab you if you're the only one there. If he grabs you, unsoloable. If not, he is doable probably. Freya would be tough simply because the waves are on such a short timer and you have to kill those healing trees on top of dealing with each wave inside a minute. I can't see how a single tank gets through phase 3 of Mimiron, maybe in another expansion or two. You need ranged damage to kill the head.

Razorscale is a maybe, I forget how bad the debuff is during the ground phase. With XT the robot adds mean it is a 2 person job, the healing ones just heal too much I think.

Hodir is probably the easiest one I see on the plate, unless Kolo doesn't grab.

I'm guessing you won't solo Flame Leviathan ever...

Well, you could solo FL using vehicles a while back  :grin:  I look forward to the first FL kill without vehicles though, I'm sure it will be done.

Ignis mechanics wouldn't prevent soloing, unless some odd bug occurs with him slag-potting against a single target. The add mechanic is a soft enrage, but if a level 85 DK tank in T11 gear can eat hatefuls off Raz (70K) then I'm guessing they'll be able to mitigate Ignis' damage down to next to nothing.

Kologarn depends on wether he grips you or not yes; Auriaya should be doable, it's just messy. Hodir should be no problem, and I think Freya would be a hassle, but doable. Eonar's gift on 10-man have pretty low HP, so might be killable with attacks like heroic throw or ghouls. Adds should be doable I think for a tank with decent AoE.

Thorim would be impossible because of Lightning Orb, and I'd agree that Mimiron would just be an utter nightmare to try and solo through P2 and P3. I just don't see how you can Solo Vezax or Yogg or Iron Council though.

XT might be doable if you can kill the heart the first time it drops, which might not be entirely unreasonable. If DPS classes are hitting 120K-200K DPS at level 85, then killing the heart should be np, then only adds become the problem. The bigger issue there is Tympanic tantrum since that takes off 80% of your HP every 30s or so, which is a LOT of healing you're going to need.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 08, 2010, 04:24:08 PM
Also, I suspect the only fight that might be unsoloable in ToC would be Champs, depending on the composition. There's just too much CC and debuffs for a single player to handle. Anub could be difficult, but I think every class has an attack that can hit the orbs, and the adds should be no problem to a level 85 toon. DPSing through leeching swarm should be manageable, as there's only a single target to leech off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on November 09, 2010, 12:23:29 AM
I am not sure if vezax works the same way on 10 man as 25 man, but in 25 man, the Flame Aoe Thing and his cast frequency is actuallly somewhat based on the cooldown of the interupt used to stop it.  IE: if a shaman stopped it with wind shock (which is a 6 second cooldown), he would literally almost chain cast it.  Where as if a mage stopped it with a Counterspell, it could be up to 10+ seconds before he cast it again.  The mechanic worked something along the lines that 2 of any class should have been able to keep him permanently locked out of casting it, but if one of them missed the interupt it would go off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: tmp on November 09, 2010, 10:43:11 PM
Hello guys, we'd like to refill our moneyhats (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1116854#blog)

(paid faction transfers to include furries and goblins as soon as expansion launches)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on November 09, 2010, 11:36:41 PM
Ohh, fuck.  I want all my characters to be goblins.  There's no way I can sneak this onto the credit card bill.

I wonder if Blizzard would allow the charges to show up as "Porn".  That would be less embarrassing and easier to explain to my wife.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on November 09, 2010, 11:54:54 PM
Why do I foresee about half the population on the horde becoming goblins?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 10, 2010, 02:05:20 AM
Because goblins are awesome.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on November 10, 2010, 03:28:08 AM
Fantastic. Bye bye blood elves!  :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on November 10, 2010, 03:33:30 AM
Blizzard is about to make an embarrassing amount of money.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 10, 2010, 03:43:50 AM
The howls of outrage from the first race-changed goblin or worgen when they realise that they won't qualify for the first 85 poopsock achievement will be well worth it.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Yoshimaru on November 10, 2010, 04:18:42 AM
I guess I'd rather have an overabundance of goblins than blood elves. However, this does somehow temper my enthusiasm for my goblin shaman, damn you Blizzard! They're lucky that the  warrior-shaman combo of Masa and Mune that my brother and I are planning don't really work on anything other than goblins.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on November 10, 2010, 04:39:45 AM
I can't be the only one in the world that think Goblins suck.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 10, 2010, 05:19:29 AM
I can't be the only one in the world that think Goblins suck.

They're not my first choice of race but they're also not the last. I'll play through Kezan at least once and maybe through revamped Azshara but aside from that, not really bothered.

If I had the funds to be frivolous, I'd race change my Pally to be a Tauren but that's about it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Outlawedprod on November 10, 2010, 05:21:47 AM
Saw on mmo champ this morning.

"Feats of Strength
    * Insane in the Membrane no longer requires the Shen'dralar reputation."

Hide your kids, hide your wives, sell your pristine diamonds before everyone realizes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 10, 2010, 06:40:01 AM
I have no desire to change from Human to Worgen.

The Horde transfers will be insane.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on November 10, 2010, 07:53:22 AM
The howls of outrage from the first race-changed goblin or worgen when they realise that they won't qualify for the first 85 poopsock achievement will be well worth it.  :grin:

From http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1116854#c-1015351578 (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1116854#c-1015351578):

Quote
With two new playable races just on the horizon, many players have been asking when they'll be able to convert their existing characters into goblins or worgen. Paid faction and race changes will be available immediately once Cataclysm is released. Realm First achievements for leveling any class to 85 will be available in Cataclysm. However there will be no Realm First achievements associated with leveling characters of a specific race.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Outlawedprod on November 10, 2010, 10:17:34 AM
"Feats of Strength
    * Insane in the Membrane no longer requires the Shen'dralar reputation."
Hide your kids, hide your wives, sell your pristine diamonds before everyone realizes.

More news on this
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1116855#blog

Quote from: Blizzard
"Bloodsail Buccaneer faction reputation will remain in-game. Also, to ensure that this change does not negatively affect Cataclysm quest progression in Stranglethorn Vale, Booty Bay Bruisers will now provide reputation up through Exalted."
"This will ensure that players will still be able to attain Insane in the Membrane and "The Insane" title in World of Warcraft: Cataclysm."

Gonna be some ubar QQ from all those who went batshit insane trying to grind this out the last couple months =p


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on November 10, 2010, 10:30:31 AM
Quote
Gonna be some ubar QQ from all those who went batshit insane trying to grind this out the last couple months =p

They'll have to take some time out from bitching about their raid gear being obsoleted by the expansion to complain about this properly.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 10, 2010, 10:50:20 AM
Quote
Gonna be some ubar QQ from all those who went batshit insane trying to grind this out the last couple months =p

They'll have to take some time out from bitching about their raid gear being obsoleted by the expansion to complain about this properly.  :awesome_for_real:

 :mob: :oh_i_see: :grin: :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 10, 2010, 12:06:20 PM
I wuvvums the goblins but I doubt I'll actually race change anyone, I like to spread the race love around. I'm actually more likely to worgenize one of my existing characters, but I doubt I'll do that either! The thing I'm most seriously considering is changing my human paladin into a dwarf, but ... man I love diplomacy as a racial.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on November 10, 2010, 12:45:30 PM
The only one I'm sure of switching over is my Paladin from BE to Tauren.

I'm tempted by Goblins, really tempted, but I'd want to play one day-to-day before I think about switching any of my 80s over.  That's what a Hunter (or Mage, I don't have either) alt is for though!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 10, 2010, 12:56:37 PM
My pally is also getting race changed from Belf to Tauren. I'm rolling a gobbo Hunter, and possibly race changing my Undead Rogue into Goblin, since Undead racials are pretty terrible these days.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 10, 2010, 01:00:20 PM
My blood elf boys are totally going to continue blood elfing as hard as they can. My plans for a blood elf dude warrior have been suspended, however, as I already have two blood elves and that's my race limit (like I said, I like to spread the love around) and I don't really want to switch either of them to a different race. Besides, I realised the other day if I made a blood elf warrior, I'd be in the dangerous position of ONLY having caster classes to pick from for my new goblins. And I am ... not good at soloing casters.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 10, 2010, 02:11:18 PM
I can't be the only one in the world that think Goblins suck.

A lot of the goblin love I see on the forums strikes me as wishful thinking from the types who used to scoff at the Alliance with their fruity elves and paladins, then cut themselves when BC launched and 80% of the Horde became elf paladins overnight. A fair number of paladins who don't mind paying for race changes will become Tauren, but I doubt the average slob who rolled an elf because they want to be pretty will change their mind for goblins.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on November 10, 2010, 02:16:08 PM
I just want to stab ankles. Is that so wrong?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on November 10, 2010, 02:19:01 PM
I can't be the only one in the world that think Goblins suck.

A lot of the goblin love I see on the forums strikes me as wishful thinking from the types who used to scoff at the Alliance with their fruity elves and paladins, then cut themselves when BC launched and 80% of the Horde became elf paladins overnight. A fair number of paladins who don't mind paying for race changes will become Tauren, but I doubt the average slob who rolled an elf because they want to be pretty will change their mind for goblins.
That had far less to do with people wanting to roll fruity metrosexual elves, and more to do with the fact that said metrosexual elves were the only way to be a horde paladin, and in BC, paladins were stupidly OP for the longest time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 10, 2010, 02:24:35 PM
Most of the blood elves I see are casters, at least on Moan Guard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 10, 2010, 02:41:30 PM
I just want to stab ankles. Is that so wrong?

That is never wrong. Ever.



Also, I think the blood elves made "real" Horde players depressed because suddenly they had a harder time making the case that they the unique snowflake side that didn't CARE about things like being pretty but oh God why is everyone an elf whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. Personally, I love playing blood elf dudes because of those exact people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on November 10, 2010, 02:50:17 PM
I love people who play Blood Elves to torment those people.  I'd still choose Troll most of the time, with Goblins a nice second.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on November 10, 2010, 03:00:49 PM
Most of the blood elves I see are casters, at least on Moan Guard.

There's not a whole lot of data for MG on WarcraftRealms in general, much less on Horde, but the 80 numbers seem to match the global picture: 1/3 Paladin, 1/3 Clothy, 1/6 Death Knight, 1/6 Everything Else.

Blood Elves are going to be a comfortable plurality of Horde characters for the foreseeable future.  Tauren Paladins, Goblins, or my personal dislike of them, aren't going to change that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on November 10, 2010, 03:07:51 PM
I have two 80's, both are undead.  That will NEVER change!

Forsaken 4ever!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 10, 2010, 03:31:31 PM
I love people who play Blood Elves to torment those people.  I'd still choose Troll most of the time, with Goblins a nice second.

I really like trolls but for some reason whenever I sit down to make a new character, I wind up picking a non-troll race unless I specifically think to myself, "I want to make a troll." I have some sort of mental block that just skips right over them. It's extra doofy considering they can be almost anything! I have a troll shaman, though. She's a peach. <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on November 10, 2010, 03:46:13 PM
I wonder if Blizzard would allow the charges to show up as "Porn".  That would be less embarrassing and easier to explain to my wife.

Lol. Maybe you can convince them to file it under 'online addiction', and let her jump to conclusions.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on November 10, 2010, 04:52:18 PM
Sorry for the double post, but does anyone know if upon buying Cataclysm you get a free, auto subscribed month? or do you have to be actively subbed to play it?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 10, 2010, 05:06:11 PM
No idea man, sorry

The flight form for troll druids is seriously special, definitely something done well there.

Also like Sofjn I am torn on doing the human > worgen switch on my priest. I am sorely tempted, although I would miss diplomacy. I'll have to have a think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on November 10, 2010, 05:15:57 PM
Nope, no free month with adding an expansion to your account.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on November 11, 2010, 08:08:40 PM
Oh yeah, since the old world is getting redone obviously the quest rewards are getting redone too. Since the remake of the old world tightens the level ranges of the various zones so you're leveling in one place instead of like 2-3 at once like it currently is 1-60, each zone has a set of gear that conforms visually.

To be honest, the color scheme and models chosen aren't the best for some sets but at least you're saved from wearing completely random looking clownsuits until you hit BC.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 11, 2010, 09:43:53 PM
Ooh yay, the leather for 20-30 is one of my favorites, I'm glad they're reusing it.

Hopefully all those pairs of pants are PANTS on the ladies, or I will cry. Like this:  :cry:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on November 11, 2010, 09:47:11 PM
the leather 40-50 screams gay biker.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 11, 2010, 09:49:24 PM
For some reason the fur collar on that set amuses me the most.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on November 11, 2010, 09:50:46 PM
Hopefully all those pairs of pants are PANTS on the ladies, or I will cry. Like this:  :cry:

Oh you know they will be pants.

In the British vernacular  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on November 11, 2010, 10:17:19 PM
the leather 40-50 screams gay biker.

...gay bikers trying to steal my pants.  I can't blame them, they are leather, they're a gay man's pants.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on November 11, 2010, 11:09:11 PM
Surreal mangina going on with the 10-20 leather.  :uhrr:

I hope there's some variation between those and, for instance, dungeon gear/blues/purples in those level ranges. Would be a shame if everyone at those levels just looked identical outside of class/race differences.

Other than that, nice idea. Not as nice as an appearance tab ofc but I think we're all resigned to never getting that now, right?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 11, 2010, 11:54:42 PM
Each zone has it's own colour per level range from what I've observed in beta.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 12, 2010, 02:49:14 AM
Hopefully all those pairs of pants are PANTS on the ladies, or I will cry. Like this:  :cry:

Oh you know they will be pants.

In the British vernacular  :grin:

 :cry2:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on November 12, 2010, 05:53:51 AM
I really like that 50s Cloth set.  One can only hope it doesn't go all bare midriff-y on females, but even then, that's what a tabard's for.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on November 12, 2010, 08:08:03 AM
Well pants.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on November 12, 2010, 09:56:52 AM
I was feeling kind of blah about the expansion until I saw those armor sets. I'm a sucker for armor sets, and the fact that they're quest rewards kicks ass. I'll be starting my dwarf shaman day 1 of the expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on November 12, 2010, 10:12:08 AM
So...does this mean the old dungeon sets are gone? What about a T0 revival? No?

Ah, well. I wasn't planning on rerolling anything initially. Some sort of worgen is on the menu eventually, but so far haven't figured out what that might be. I've just about been talked into playing a worgen tank warrior for a dedicated group to play a couple of times a week, but nothing finalized yet. It'll have to wait for the shaman to hit 85 and get blued regardless.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 12, 2010, 11:23:54 AM
So...does this mean the old dungeon sets are gone? What about a T0 revival? No?

Ah, well. I wasn't planning on rerolling anything initially. Some sort of worgen is on the menu eventually, but so far haven't figured out what that might be. I've just about been talked into playing a worgen tank warrior for a dedicated group to play a couple of times a week, but nothing finalized yet. It'll have to wait for the shaman to hit 85 and get blued regardless.

Nothing to do with the old dungeon sets, these are what the green armor from quest rewards will look like. They're not sets in the sense that they have set bonuses and stuff, they're just visually consistent.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 12, 2010, 12:59:20 PM
We're keeping the TBC leveling clownsuits though, right?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on November 12, 2010, 01:32:48 PM
Yes TBC level fancy pants are still there


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 13, 2010, 01:35:04 PM
Hopefully all those pairs of pants are PANTS on the ladies, or I will cry. Like this:  :cry:

What about the gals (and guys, mostly guys) who want to dress their toon up all slutty? Huh? What about them?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on November 13, 2010, 01:40:09 PM
They can burn in their non-flame retardant plate lingerie.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 13, 2010, 08:20:01 PM
Hopefully all those pairs of pants are PANTS on the ladies, or I will cry. Like this:  :cry:

What about the gals (and guys, mostly guys) who want to dress their toon up all slutty? Huh? What about them?

You know, honestly, if there was a way to let them dress like they forgot to put on pants that morning while I don't (*cough cough appearance tab cough*  :dead_horse:) I would be a lot less paranoid about the State of Pants. But I am totally selfish! I don't want to see my own character's ass cheeks, so no one can!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on November 14, 2010, 03:04:03 PM
Cloaks?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 14, 2010, 03:09:45 PM
Cloaks clip with everything, and I hate clipping! I am such a picky bitch!  :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 14, 2010, 03:27:09 PM
Cloaks on Dranaei females are so so so bad  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on November 15, 2010, 11:41:02 AM
Cloaks on Dranaei females are so so so bad  :oh_i_see:

ugh yes. I can stand cloak clipping with most characters but I had to turn mine off with my draenei. The males cloaks are bad and the females the cloaks look damn silly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 15, 2010, 02:14:22 PM
Elementals are actually attacking capital cities now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 15, 2010, 03:46:57 PM
So, does anyone have a rought list of what's going when 4.0.3 hits?

All I know for sure so far is that ZG is going. How about old world quests and such, or are most zones keeping a decent portion of their quests?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 15, 2010, 03:50:25 PM
None of that is changing tomorrow (4.0.3); 4.0.3 is a few minor tweaks and a preparation patch. 4.0.3a is when it's all going to hit the fan. From messing around in beta, what quests are staying/going seems to vary by zone. For example, Tirisfal Glades retained a lot of the vanilla quests and just streamlined the progression throughout the zone; Silverpine Forest however was entirely different.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 15, 2010, 04:20:24 PM
So, does anyone have a rought list of what's going when 4.0.3 hits?

All I know for sure so far is that ZG is going. How about old world quests and such, or are most zones keeping a decent portion of their quests?

ZG is going, Dire Maul is going.  I hear Mankirk stops asking about his wife, and has moved on to being an actual member of the local army.   I imagine Ashenvale is a complete revamp for both sides, because so much is changing there.. ditto for Barrens being a revamp.  I seem to remember hearing that Desolace was totally redone somewhere.

They had originally wiped out the "The Insane" title because Dire Maul and it's faction were being removed, but due to player pressure it's back in, minus the DM faction requirement. That announcement also said Bloodsail Admirals were coming back, so that leads me to believe that STV will be another completely new and revamped zone.   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 15, 2010, 04:31:49 PM
Bloodsail rep was originally out due to the changes in STV, but they put it back in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on November 15, 2010, 04:40:16 PM
How do you get Steamwheedle cartel rep without doing DM north?

This thread is great. I learn another reason why I have no desire to play WoW ever again almost every day. (and this is the only place I go to find out about their changes)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 15, 2010, 04:43:20 PM
There's repeatable goblin faction from that guy in Feralas, no idea if he is staying or going though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 15, 2010, 04:44:44 PM
How do you get Steamwheedle cartel rep without doing DM north?

This thread is great. I learn another reason why I have no desire to play WoW ever again almost every day. (and this is the only place I go to find out about their changes)

You kill shitloads of southsea pirates/ wastewater assassins at 2.5 rep per kill.  (They take you to exalted now.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 15, 2010, 05:04:01 PM
I guess the bigger question is, will my Dartol's Rod of Transformation still be in my inventory, and will it work post 4.0.3a?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 15, 2010, 05:23:59 PM
There's repeatable goblin faction from that guy in Feralas, no idea if he is staying or going though.

The dude on the beach who wants you to kill the elementals? He's still doing his thing last I checked.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on November 15, 2010, 08:12:32 PM
Elementals are actually attacking capital cities now.

Word is invasions every 2 (maybe 3) hours on the hour.  Never seen so many 80s standing around at the Org entrance so patiently before.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 15, 2010, 09:25:51 PM
Elemental event is getting a big thumbs-down from the forum monkeys. I can't be bothered to log in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 15, 2010, 09:41:21 PM
I actually think the invasions are pretty fun; I just find the rewards underwhelming.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on November 15, 2010, 10:15:58 PM
Is there anything besides the gear and the one FoS at this point?  As for the gear, the shield (http://www.wowhead.com/item=53496) is probably the nicest model to recycle especially since it's only available normally off of Heroic Hodir-10 or Normal Hodir-25.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kitsune on November 15, 2010, 11:38:57 PM
The elemental bosses are giving out one level 251 drop per kill.  Which for slackers like me is free sweet loot, so I'm happy.  For no-lifers who're all raid geared up, there's no point.  My plan is to get the four items from these guys that are actually relevant to me as quick and easy upgrades, then see about hitting the now-heavily-nerfed Icecrown stuff to try to kill Arthas.  I didn't feel like devoting weeks to the job before, but hopefully the easy gear upgrade plus the nerfing of the Icecrown raids will put me in a better position to gank the guy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 16, 2010, 12:09:08 AM
I'm rather glad I didn't finish the quest chains. I'm keeping the doomsday sandwich board on my main since there seems to be no point to seeing the chains all the way through.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 16, 2010, 12:21:49 AM
Elemental event is getting a big thumbs-down from the forum monkeys. I can't be bothered to log in.
Blame all the people who whinged about the wotlk zombie event - Blizzard has tried to run an event that foreshadows the destruction of Azeroth without inconveniencing anyone overmuch. As expected, that's not really possible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 16, 2010, 06:36:31 AM
I actually think the invasions are pretty fun; I just find the rewards underwhelming.

This. I looked at the tables, and as expected they matched what I had already.

If they could give away some freaking decent boots...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on November 16, 2010, 10:15:27 AM
Elemental event is getting a big thumbs-down from the forum monkeys. I can't be bothered to log in.

I had a pretty good time elemental-baiting last night. My pally tank was more than up to the task, although you do want to be careful with the multiple elite spawns. There was some whining when the AH got wiped, but, eh, fuck'em. That shit'll be there in an hour when it's done. Small potatoes compared to the angst over the zombie invasion and I was loving that back in the day.

The only issue I had with it were the massively undergeared and inexperienced tanks when queueing for the elemental lords. Man, that was painful. We did learn than a T10 shaman can tank Princess Theouglyass quite successfully.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on November 16, 2010, 10:18:50 AM
I am going to start eavesdropping on this thread once it gets released to see the reactions. I am almost curious enough to start up again just to see the world changes in a free month. This all depends on the employment situation, but I am listening. Just hope to god they bring back Oshur... or wait... n/m.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on November 16, 2010, 10:29:11 AM
Was a blast doing the event last night.  The pyrotechnics reminded me of my last run through TK, though.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on November 16, 2010, 10:45:03 AM
Pretty fun so far. The bosses at least pose a bit of a challenge, not something you can just sleepwalk through like the Horseman holiday boss. The invasions are fun too, though the waiting isn't  ...  I got cocky on my warlock during a Stormwind invasion and pissed off several elite elementals and was quite suddenly dead, so I like that there is at least some danger involved.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 16, 2010, 11:07:00 AM
The bosses all have some trick or another to them yeah. Took me a try or two to notice that you can dodge Princess's knock-up attack, for example. You can dodge the freeze line from the hydra, too, and the glacier heal thing is interruptible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 16, 2010, 11:31:51 AM
Tip for people doing 'zilla: The ice block is dispellable. It would probably be a good idea to dispel it if it hits the tank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 16, 2010, 11:45:20 AM
So far the fire boss seems to have the highest barrier to not dying for PuGs, wind boss is easiest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 16, 2010, 12:46:37 PM
So far the fire boss seems to have the highest barrier to not dying for PuGs, wind boss is easiest.

Fire has one of those 'you have to move or you will burn to death' things like Jaraxxus, that is what is always killing people I think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on November 16, 2010, 12:53:29 PM
Are these bosses something my 80 moonkin can do in crappy quest greens or will I be eaten and kicked out by the raider types?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 16, 2010, 01:15:12 PM
Unlikely that anyone will stop long enough to even look at your gear given that they're only available in 30 minute windows, so the standard operating procedure is GO GO GO.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 16, 2010, 02:39:09 PM
Tip for people doing 'zilla: The ice block is dispellable. It would probably be a good idea to dispel it if it hits the tank.

It's funny, I have a really quick draw on cleanse. I see a THING on someone, I totally dispell it before I even know wtf it is. Back when arcane's build up thing was dispellable, it would make my mages really sad.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 16, 2010, 02:52:46 PM
Unlikely that anyone will stop long enough to even look at your gear given that they're only available in 30 minute windows, so the standard operating procedure is GO GO GO.

The million dollar question is...is it fun?

If it's fun, easy, and interesting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 16, 2010, 02:54:32 PM
I had fun doing it with people I actually knew, I haven't pugged it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 16, 2010, 03:32:18 PM
I had fun doing it with people I actually knew, I haven't pugged it.

I pugged it for 2, it sucked.  Typical PUG behavior.

One guy runs in and starts it up before everyone has the quest (forcing you to do it at least twice. More if you don't figure out to grab the quest before leaving the instance after the boss is dead instead of trying to grab it on zone-in.)   the tank stands in the fire.. or positions the mob so the DPS has to stand in the fire, the healer doesn't heal anyone but the tank but then bitches you're not standing in the fire to dps and he's almost OOM because the kill is taking too long. Then, when it's finally dead one jackass waits until everyone has rolled greed and hits need then drops group thinking he's somehow pulled a fast one by ninjaing a leet item that sells for 6g.   :awesome_for_real:

I can't wait for Cata when all this is magnified by lack of overgearing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 16, 2010, 03:48:30 PM
FWIW I think the way the fire boss works, any fire patches are not so much the fault of where the tank positions it as they are due to some other DPSer with the "Hot Feet" debuff standing around next to you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 16, 2010, 04:03:24 PM
Yep, you got it. There are very few tank gimmicks in these fights ("kite Flamelash" is about it) but there are a few "pay attention, now" things for the DPS (don't stand in fire/cyclone, don't steal aggro* if the tank is iceblocked/knocked back/etc., and so on)
Which, naturally, isn't happening.  :awesome_for_real:

*I was tanking, in my terrible thrown-together tanking set of piecemeal T9+heroic gear, for a DK with full Heroic LK25+Shadowmourne who queued as DPS. When he, natually, grabbed aggro from me after I got feared and then knocked back right afterwards by Fat Princess, it was somehow my fault.  :facepalm:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 16, 2010, 05:05:10 PM
I've pugged the new bosses some, and the main problem seems to be people in their 25-man LK shit thinking they can faceroll it like the Horseman and whoops you actually have to pay the slightest bit of attention on these guys. It hasn't been too terrible REALLY, certainly no ninjaing in the groups I've been in, but yeah, there have been wipes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on November 16, 2010, 05:13:10 PM
The only problem i've had so far is people dying constantly on the fire guy. I'm missing one item for all three of my chars, i hope this lasts for a while.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on November 16, 2010, 05:20:37 PM
Well, this is the final phase so I imagine you've at least got another week or two.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on November 16, 2010, 05:25:21 PM
I just did five bosses in a row, of which we only killed one. 

Two things:

1.  Alt scrubs are in full force.
2.  I fear for what grouping will be like in the xpac.  People have gotten used to AOE killing and really don't know how to handle situations that require awareness.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 16, 2010, 08:17:12 PM
I just did five bosses in a row, of which we only killed one.  

Two things:

1.  Alt scrubs are in full force.
2.  I fear for what grouping will be like in the xpac.  People have gotten used to AOE killing and really don't know how to handle situations that require awareness.

As to 1, that's about what I would expect given the timing and the rewards being tossed about. As for 2, it won't be that bad. It will be hilariously awful for the first three months. Then, the groupthink will kick in, the bads will either have to revert/adapt/quit, and we'll get back to our overgeared facerolling.

EDIT: Maybe six months.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 17, 2010, 01:10:28 AM
I had fun doing it with people I actually knew, I haven't pugged it.

Yeah, the bosses are reasonable fun and actually offer some challenge. The flamelash guy also seems to have an AoE counterspell of some sort. I know on my priest I kept getting locked out of holy for a few seconds. And you're right the fire thing is exactly like Jaraxus/BQL and PuGs are terrible at not standing in it...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 17, 2010, 05:21:59 AM
MMO-Champ reckons the Shattering (aka Patch 4.03a) may happen next week given that it's just happened on PTR.

May roll an undead hunter to celebrate.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on November 17, 2010, 06:27:31 AM
I just did five bosses in a row, of which we only killed one. 

Two things:

1.  Alt scrubs are in full force.
2.  I fear for what grouping will be like in the xpac.  People have gotten used to AOE killing and really don't know how to handle situations that require awareness.

In a moment of madness, I created a couple of new horde toons on a new server.  I wanted to once more do the 1-20 the old way (made troll, orc and undead). 

Leveling is very, very fast, particularly once you hit 15 and can use the random dungeon tool. 

It's so different now, though, due to the revamp of the classes.  Tanks don't really even seem all that necessary.  They are, but not like they used to be.  Practically every tank has been a pally, which is great for AOEing groups down.

So now Blizzard is training people to just aoe their way up - it's this way at least to 35, the level of my highest. 

The new instances are sure to be interesting with the random dungeon tool, once the new folks get up to 80 - assuming that any new folks are playing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on November 17, 2010, 06:50:19 AM
MMO-Champ reckons the Shattering (aka Patch 4.03a) may happen next week given that it's just happened on PTR.

May roll an undead hunter to celebrate.

What? Oh christ now I am going to have to go look up shit on the web... god damn you.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on November 17, 2010, 10:06:41 AM
It's so different now, though, due to the revamp of the classes.  Tanks don't really even seem all that necessary.  They are, but not like they used to be.  Practically every tank has been a pally, which is great for AOEing groups down.
Conversely, if you're a tank, the rest of the team isn't really necessary. I took a warrior from 18-46 just soloing dungeons. There were definitely a couple rough spots, but also quite a few spots where I felt like I was cheating, elites were melting so fast. This is with no heirlooms, though I did have Crusader for much of the time, and some other decent high-level enchants until I replaced all the gear they were on. Stalled out running ZG ZF at 46, not because I couldn't do it, just because I got bored with the increasing xp reqs to level and went back to my bear.

edit for Chimpy: er, yes. That.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on November 17, 2010, 10:36:43 AM
You have to mean ZF. ZG required a raid group and lvl 60 to enter :p


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mnemon on November 17, 2010, 10:46:41 AM
I had fun doing it with people I actually knew, I haven't pugged it.

I pugged it for 2, it sucked.  Typical PUG behavior.

One guy runs in and starts it up before everyone has the quest (forcing you to do it at least twice. More if you don't figure out to grab the quest before leaving the instance after the boss is dead instead of trying to grab it on zone-in.)   the tank stands in the fire.. or positions the mob so the DPS has to stand in the fire, the healer doesn't heal anyone but the tank but then bitches you're not standing in the fire to dps and he's almost OOM because the kill is taking too long. Then, when it's finally dead one jackass waits until everyone has rolled greed and hits need then drops group thinking he's somehow pulled a fast one by ninjaing a leet item that sells for 6g.   :awesome_for_real:

I can't wait for Cata when all this is magnified by lack of overgearing.

these fights aren't that tough, but I agree, they really highlight that a lot of players who think they're hot shit are in for a rude awakening come Cata.

I've seen a hunter die because he didn't realize he shouldn't stand in the fire, and the healer basically told him "if you're not smart enough to figure that out I'm not healing you." This was a hunger in almost full ICC gear.

Saw a fully geared out shadow priest get roflstomped because it didn't know how to manage its threat with a tank that was geared enough for the encounter, but not to be tanking for the priests full blast DPS right from the start of the fight.

A guildie of mine said they almost wiped on the water boss because the tank kept positioning the boss so its conal AoE was hitting the healers and casters - not even realizing he should have faced it away from the group.

And another guildie said they wiped because their tank rushed in to fight the trash in front of the Princess and aggroed the boss, instead of pulling the trash to him.

all were simple lessons veteran gamers raiders, understand and adhere to as habit. but also lessons these puggies never needed to learn because of how overly simplistic WotLK was.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 17, 2010, 11:24:10 AM
New faction-balancing system has gone into effect for Wintergrasp. Underpopulated sides exultant at being able to win for once. Overpopulated sides bitching about literal 2-v-2 Wintergrasps and being unable to get in all day. I don't know why Tol Barad and all that exist in Cataclysm, this "world PVP" experiment appears to have failed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 17, 2010, 11:30:23 AM
MMO-Champ reckons the Shattering (aka Patch 4.03a) may happen next week given that it's just happened on PTR.

May roll an undead hunter to celebrate.

What? Oh christ now I am going to have to go look up shit on the web... god damn you.  :why_so_serious:
Class trainer? Nathanos Blightcaller.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on November 17, 2010, 11:34:33 AM
It'll work this time for sure, no matter that each world pvp experience in vanilla, BC, and now Wrath has failed, and failed fairly miserably.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on November 17, 2010, 11:38:57 AM
It'll work this time for sure, no matter that each world pvp experience in vanilla, BC, and now Wrath has failed, and failed fairly miserably.

Or in any other game with world PvP + DIKU for that matter.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 17, 2010, 11:59:06 AM
New faction-balancing system has gone into effect for Wintergrasp. Underpopulated sides exultant at being able to win for once. Overpopulated sides bitching about literal 2-v-2 Wintergrasps and being unable to get in all day. I don't know why Tol Barad and all that exist in Cataclysm, this "world PVP" experiment appears to have failed.

You either make it world pvp or you don't. When you try to make it "fair," you fuck everyone over. This is why WoW desperately needs a mercenary faction.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on November 17, 2010, 12:06:47 PM
New faction-balancing system has gone into effect for Wintergrasp. Underpopulated sides exultant at being able to win for once. Overpopulated sides bitching about literal 2-v-2 Wintergrasps and being unable to get in all day. I don't know why Tol Barad and all that exist in Cataclysm, this "world PVP" experiment appears to have failed.

You either make it world pvp or you don't. When you try to make it "fair," you fuck everyone over. This is why WoW desperately needs a mercenary faction.

A third faction would be great.  This, in my opinion, is what made DAOC the best pvp mmo ever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on November 17, 2010, 12:08:16 PM
New faction-balancing system has gone into effect for Wintergrasp. Underpopulated sides exultant at being able to win for once. Overpopulated sides bitching about literal 2-v-2 Wintergrasps and being unable to get in all day. I don't know why Tol Barad and all that exist in Cataclysm, this "world PVP" experiment appears to have failed.
I am one of the few people on my server, where WG is pretty much owned by the Horde, who always knew that the only reason we owned the place was because the alliance were nearly always horribly outnumbered.  Every time they managed to field a nearly equal force, the battle always almost came down to the last second, or they occasionally won.   When I would point this out in WG general, that we never really win by skill, but by force of numbers, I would always get shot down viciously by people telling me to "learn to play", or that the Alliance were just terrible, or any number of things.  Recently however, the wailing and gnashing of teeth as Alliance has gone from having the keep for one or two turns a day at the most to having it half the day has been taunting me to pop in and say "I told you so".

I am just glad I no longer need gear or achievements from the place on my main any longer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 17, 2010, 12:44:41 PM
A third faction wouldn't fix shit in WoW's pvp. :dead_horse:


I haven't been able to get into a WG since the change, it makes me weep.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 17, 2010, 12:48:47 PM
A third faction wouldn't fix shit in WoW's pvp. :dead_horse:


I haven't been able to get into a WG since the change, it makes me weep.

If you were able to switch between two of the three, I think it would.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 17, 2010, 12:52:19 PM
Yea, the bandwagon faction, that will fix EVERYTHING.  :awesome_for_real:


2, 3, 14, 72. It doesn't matter, it's a population/participation issue, not a number of sides issue.



If we want to really discuss this again, toss up a new thread for it and I'll rant about it for a few days if you want.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on November 17, 2010, 12:53:15 PM
Conversely, if you're a tank, the rest of the team isn't really necessary. I took a warrior from 18-46 just soloing dungeons. There were definitely a couple rough spots, but also quite a few spots where I felt like I was cheating, elites were melting so fast. This is with no heirlooms, though I did have Crusader for much of the time, and some other decent high-level enchants until I replaced all the gear they were on. Stalled out running ZG ZF at 46, not because I couldn't do it, just because I got bored with the increasing xp reqs to level and went back to my bear.

edit for Chimpy: er, yes. That.

Yes, but then you don't get the awesome bags of blue lewt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 17, 2010, 01:01:44 PM
Yea, the bandwagon faction, that will fix EVERYTHING.  :awesome_for_real:

2, 3, 14, 72. It doesn't matter, it's a population/participation issue, not a number of sides issue.

If we want to really discuss this again, toss up a new thread for it and I'll rant about it for a few days if you want.  :grin:

I don't because PvP isn't the point of WoW, and I think I've stated at times in the past I wouldn't mind it being carpet-bombed out of the game. I just want to play as a criminal merc faction because the lolore surrounding the two other factions trying to work together has made me want to puke.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on November 17, 2010, 01:31:47 PM
Balance numbers in WG?  How about, accept the current queue once it starts.  Even up the numbers by pulling from other servers.  I don't know what that takes for programming, etc., but it sure seems like WG is almost to the point of an instanced BG.  The only difference is after the fight, the zone changes to help out whatever faction won.  That can stay the same.

I really wouldn't mind queuing up for a different server's WG fight as long as I could fight and it isn't so dang lopsided.  I enjoy those fights more than the current BG's.  Perhaps I can't do the quests due to being cross server, but I'd still like the honor rewards you get just for participating and, of course, the kills.

Balance is really the problem with any element of PvP in WoW.  There just isn't enough systems in place to try and make sure the sides that are fighting are evenly matched within a reasonable degree.  This is either by numbers, class/spec, gear level, or coordination (premades.)  I can see where maybe one or two of those things can slide, but to have all of them happening all the time just becomes frustrating.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 17, 2010, 03:18:40 PM
"World PvP"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 17, 2010, 03:19:22 PM
I'm going to laugh when the 10 or 12 active max-level Alliance on some 99% Horde PVP server decide to send their one best fighter to duel over Tol Barad for half an hour.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 17, 2010, 03:25:33 PM
I'm going to laugh when the 10 or 12 active max-level Alliance on some 99% Horde PVP server decide to send their one best fighter to duel over Tol Barad for half an hour.

I demand this happen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 17, 2010, 03:25:59 PM
I'm going to laugh when the 10 or 12 active max-level Alliance on some 99% Horde PVP server decide to send their one best fighter to duel over Tol Barad for half an hour.

Now that would be freaking hysterical.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 17, 2010, 03:39:59 PM
Alas I believe you can always have at least 20 regardless of how few show up from the other side, something like that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on November 17, 2010, 04:33:47 PM
I've played Alliance on Earthen Ring since the day the server launched in Nov 04. 

I've watched as Alliance was overpopulated and we had constant queue times for just about anything we did.  I also watched the near decimation of the Alliance population when faction transfers were allowed.  We are now sitting at nearly 1 Alliance for 2 Horde.  Horde has owned WG for nearly six months straight, losing only in the wee hours of the night.  It wasn't even fun showing up with 20 people vs. ...I don't know how many there were so many red names. 

Anything that helps even this out is welcome, though if they're going to start initiating queues on content, why don't they just make WG/TB an instanced battleground?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 17, 2010, 04:35:03 PM
Because the core idea is to have a form of PVP that isn't a BG. They'll keep tinkering with the formula for years to come, I suspect.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 17, 2010, 06:00:48 PM
Alas I believe you can always have at least 20 regardless of how few show up from the other side, something like that.

There a source on that? Because the forums are already full of tales of 2v2 and 4v4 wintergrasps, and I'd like to know if they're bullshitting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 17, 2010, 06:09:53 PM
They never gave a concrete number for the minimum, so it may be 20, or 10, or 5, or 50. It's pretty damn low, that's for sure. I still haven't been called to battle for a WG yet.


Either way, the zone is officially fucking useless at it's intended goal of 'world pvp' though. It was designed for 50-100+ per side, not this 10v10 horse shit. I've been in enough of those "fuck why are we still all awake at 5 am" WG games where both sides have like a dozen people, it just doesn't work.


Tol Barrad is going to be a complete waste too, using this balancing method. It's already the worlds largest and shittiest AB... and they are going to turn it into actual AB sized teams on a map designed hundreds again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on November 17, 2010, 06:21:53 PM
Being massively outnumbered was actually extremely fun and profitable for my rogue.  All i had to do was shadowstep into the keep and gank people for 6 honor a pop, which wasn't exactly a challenge with 9 tenacity.  I made 120 honor or so per catastrophic WG failure.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 17, 2010, 06:22:47 PM
It looks like what I was remembering was a blue post where they were using 25 as a theoretical number, it wasn't a statement that it absolutely would be 25.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 19, 2010, 02:39:27 AM
Random news:  Next patch (4.03a) will also include a 20% reduction in XP for levelling 70 - 80. 

Which is nice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on November 19, 2010, 02:06:53 PM
Random news:  Next patch (4.03a) will also include a 20% reduction in XP for levelling 70 - 80. 

Which is nice.

Very nice and the reason I haven't levelled my mage and priest from 71-80 - after 7 other chars doing Northrend, it's boring. This will stack with heirlooms I hope.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on November 19, 2010, 02:13:33 PM
Oh, hey.  That's nice.  Perhaps my druid will get leveled at some point now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on November 22, 2010, 11:03:24 AM
4.0.3a Patch Notes appear to be finalized for tomorrow's rollout...  Snipped from another site.


Looks like the nerf bat hit everyone this time...?

(note to self : get ZG fishing done tonight)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on November 22, 2010, 11:51:59 AM
As long as the earth stops shaking every 5min I'll be happy. Of course, starting my orc shaman tomorrow is going to be a hoot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 22, 2010, 12:56:59 PM
Yeah... about that earth shaking. Don't hold your breath.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on November 22, 2010, 12:57:26 PM
Warriors and warlocks got knocked the fuck out!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on November 22, 2010, 12:59:00 PM
Thorns damage has been reduced by 60%.
:heartbreak:

Thorns was the greatest spell ever for a little while there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 22, 2010, 01:10:01 PM
Thorns is going to be awesome when its finally nerfed back down to it's original damage, but still on on a 25 second recast timer.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 22, 2010, 01:41:26 PM
Warriors and warlocks got knocked the fuck out!


Geez, I didn't read anything good on those warrior notes. I guess it was our turn.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on November 22, 2010, 01:53:02 PM
Warriors and warlocks got knocked the fuck out!


Geez, I didn't read anything good on those warrior notes. I guess it was our turn.  :ye_gods:

Our turn again, you mean?  Several talents got neutered previously.   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on November 22, 2010, 03:15:55 PM
I'm sure this will all settle down prior to them moving this expansion out of beta   ...  doh!

Edit: said "patch", meant "expansion"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 22, 2010, 03:41:53 PM
I like the "tweak here, tweak there, and oh yeah, let's just beat every warlock spell down 12%!"

I'm sure there's a reason I don't see (I'm the worst stand-in dps ever), but it just amuses me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on November 22, 2010, 03:44:11 PM
Thorns damage has been reduced by 60%.
:heartbreak:

Thorns was the greatest spell ever for a little while there.
Why do they always go through phazes like this.  I seem to recall a time back in BC (I think it was) where they tweaked the spelldamage coeficients on damage shields, and for a while, having a Paladin and +spellpower druid in your group made you a mele wrecking machine.  Thorns + Ret aura usually ment that any mele class that tried to hit you gibbed themselves with almost no effort on your part.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 22, 2010, 03:47:21 PM
Thorns damage has been reduced by 60%.
:heartbreak:

Thorns was the greatest spell ever for a little while there.
Why do they always go through phazes like this.  I seem to recall a time back in BC (I think it was) where they tweaked the spelldamage coeficients on damage shields, and for a while, having a Paladin and +spellpower druid in your group made you a mele wrecking machine.  Thorns + Ret aura usually ment that any mele class that tried to hit you gibbed themselves with almost no effort on your part.

It's hard to find a point where damage shields matter at all versus where they make you immune to melee dps.

I'm happier when they go "damage shields are for threat generation in pve, fuck it" and let it alone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 22, 2010, 04:45:26 PM
I'm still bitchy about my ret paladin even when they buff it. It seems pretty boned for PVP on a conceptual level, leaving me with little to hope for beyond the inevitable next total redesign.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 22, 2010, 04:49:04 PM
They haven't even been about pve threat in years either. Which is how the cycle begins anew every expansion.

"Oh yea, thorns, I remember that this spell exists again, lets buff it up so it's useful!"



-fake edit- WUA, so next month then?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 22, 2010, 04:52:55 PM
Damage shields have always been full on fail.. some day an MMO designer will finally realize this.  I won't be holding my breath for it, but it'll happen eventually.

So I can't tell, did resto druids take another buff or are those nerfs somehow?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 22, 2010, 05:05:25 PM
I have no idea anymore, I can't keep track of the 14 builds between live, PTR and Beta.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on November 22, 2010, 07:29:18 PM
I like the "tweak here, tweak there, and oh yeah, let's just beat every warlock spell down 12%!"

I'm sure there's a reason I don't see (I'm the worst stand-in dps ever), but it just amuses me.

I guess I shoulda levelled and played my Lock back when they were godlike, for 3 or 4 years there


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on November 22, 2010, 08:49:33 PM
The healing changes were actually pretty big.  We've known about the AOE heal cap for a bit now, but the last few Priest buffs have been huge.

I'm still sure I'd prefer my Holy Paladin to my Disc Priest in Rated BGs (in PvE, the Priest has surged ahead) but the Barrier change brings back fond memories of MxO and CoH.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on November 22, 2010, 11:02:11 PM
Why nerf warrior threat so much? The only problem I'm having with any of the chars I'm playing atm is threat generation on my prot warrior!

Fuck it, time to get him a DPS spec and completely ditch tanking outside of guild groups.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xerapis on November 23, 2010, 03:08:03 AM
And the shattering begins.

Closed out the last night before all hell breaks loose by having a Stormwind Pool Party in the Park.

Of course, the park won't be there when the server comes back up.

I might be dead, but it was worth it ^^


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 23, 2010, 03:34:32 AM
And the shattering begins.

Closed out the last night before all hell breaks loose by having a Stormwind Pool Party in the Park.

Of course, the park won't be there when the server comes back up.

I might be dead, but it was worth it ^^


Likely you'll just be ported to the nearest graveyard, like what happens when you DC in an instance or BG then decide "Fuck it I'm not logging back in today."

I logged out in ZG.. 2 months of taking that trip every three days.. no mounts seen at all.  Fucking RNG.  I did get 2 mage books and a pet, though. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 23, 2010, 03:38:32 AM
I like the "tweak here, tweak there, and oh yeah, let's just beat every warlock spell down 12%!"

I'm sure there's a reason I don't see (I'm the worst stand-in dps ever), but it just amuses me.

I guess I shoulda levelled and played my Lock back when they were godlike, for 3 or 4 years minutes there

Fixed that for ya.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on November 23, 2010, 03:44:49 AM
The Binding Heal and Prayer of Healing buffs could be huge.  I may even start grouping with my Priest again.  For Mages, Arcane Blast did need adjusting and even the lowly mage class got some buffs.  Inconceivable! 

Locks did need a nerf, but "fuck it 12% across the board" doesn't seem well considered.  The xp buff in Northrend will help my 72 lock though.

I'm still not comfortable with the new balance druids.  And now that their thorns are nerfed means that I'm shelving him for a while.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 23, 2010, 04:35:38 AM
Apparently, those figures are not quite the nerfs they appear to be. From a blue post:

Quote
This is one of those moments where reading data-mined material can be sorely misleading. I talked a bit about these changes yesterday here: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=27497534774&pageNo=1&sid=1#14

Most of these abilities have not changed for level 80+, however, they've been changed to scale from 1-79. As an example, Ambush deals a flat 190% weapon damage on live realms. With these changes, it now deals 90% weapon damage when first learned, and increases up to 190% again by the time you hit level 80.

We made these adjustments because healing and damage-dealing at low levels has been way too powerful. These changes will make more sense when you get into the game and see for yourself.

So: weight and sea.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Valmorian on November 23, 2010, 06:28:24 AM
Apparently, those figures are not quite the nerfs they appear to be. From a blue post:

Quote
This is one of those moments where reading data-mined material can be sorely misleading. I talked a bit about these changes yesterday here: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=27497534774&pageNo=1&sid=1#14

Most of these abilities have not changed for level 80+, however, they've been changed to scale from 1-79. As an example, Ambush deals a flat 190% weapon damage on live realms. With these changes, it now deals 90% weapon damage when first learned, and increases up to 190% again by the time you hit level 80.

We made these adjustments because healing and damage-dealing at low levels has been way too powerful. These changes will make more sense when you get into the game and see for yourself.

So: weight and sea.

I love his example.  Ambushing someone to do LESS than regular damage?  Hilarity!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 23, 2010, 06:47:46 AM
I love his example.  Ambushing someone to do LESS than regular damage?  Hilarity!

Pretty sure the example was showing how the percentage modifiers will scale by level than a full working example of Ambush. Ambush has always done (percentage of weapon damage) + (bonus damange) in total, not just the percentage modifier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 23, 2010, 07:24:20 AM
So warriors are going to scale up from  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Valmorian on November 23, 2010, 07:42:34 AM
Pretty sure the example was showing how the percentage modifiers will scale by level than a full working example of Ambush. Ambush has always done (percentage of weapon damage) + (bonus damange) in total, not just the percentage modifier.

Well that makes more sense at least.  Scaling abilities is interesting though.  I wonder if it's just to incorporate the lack of "Ambush rank1, rank2, etc.." in the game now..


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on November 23, 2010, 07:59:09 AM
I love his example.  Ambushing someone to do LESS than regular damage?  Hilarity!

Ambush and autoattack are not mutually exclusive.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on November 23, 2010, 09:41:35 AM
Ambush does (weapon damage X multiplier + bonus damage) x talent/spec modifiers, and before the patch it was good enough to one shot most people in pvp and most mobs while leveling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 23, 2010, 10:00:11 AM
Ambush does (weapon damage X multiplier + bonus damage) x talent/spec modifiers, and before the patch it was good enough to one shot most people in pvp and most mobs while leveling.

Most of the %weapon damage skills were stupid at low levels due to the easy availability of very high damage weapons and relatively low HP pools. It will suck a bit if you aren't a twink of any form (no heirlooms, no starting cash from a main), but it's not all that bad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on November 23, 2010, 10:00:44 AM
The scaling changes pretty much had to happen. There was some crazy shit going on at lower levels especially in pvp. Healers were raid bosses pretty much and many rogues were repeatedly one shotting people for way more damage then they could ever hope to absorb at those levels.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 23, 2010, 10:05:04 AM
Yall remember the scaling changes they made before TBC and how it made hunters gods in pvp? Then scaling kicked in at 70, and they were everyone's bitch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on November 23, 2010, 10:35:06 AM
I guess I shoulda levelled and played my Lock back when they were godlike, for 3 or 4 years minutes there

Fixed that for ya.

haha. you funny. Or deranged.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 23, 2010, 10:58:31 AM
The scaling changes pretty much had to happen. There was some crazy shit going on at lower levels especially in pvp. Healers were raid bosses pretty much and many rogues were repeatedly one shotting people for way more damage then they could ever hope to absorb at those levels.

Between twinking and bad scaling, low level pvp was pretty much "you one shot them or they will never die"

Low level instances with LFD were also hilarious. Especially with a lowbie paladin, because WoG scaling is funny.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 23, 2010, 11:02:05 AM
What, you mean I'm not supposed to be able to solo dungeons 5 levels above me?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Yegolev on November 23, 2010, 11:46:14 AM
Is this today?  I thought it came out next week.  ??


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 23, 2010, 11:50:27 AM
Is this today?  I thought it came out next week.  ??

Today the world ends. It's like a little Azeroth 2012.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Yegolev on November 23, 2010, 11:53:55 AM
Maybe Azeroth 503. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on November 23, 2010, 11:54:56 AM
What, you mean I'm not supposed to be able to solo dungeons 5 levels above me?  :oh_i_see:

You joke, but I wouldn't have upgraded from trial if I'd known this ahead of time. Well, hopefully it's not as bad as I think it will be. Plus I rather like playing a ton of classes, rather than concentrating on one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Yegolev on November 23, 2010, 01:29:51 PM
Is this today?  I thought it came out next week.  ??

Today the world ends. It's like a little Azeroth 2012.

I went away and came back and I think this means there is a world-ending event.  Unfortunately I think no one is going to explain it to me so I'm forced to subscribe and log in to see what is going on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xerapis on November 23, 2010, 01:37:00 PM
Today the world changes. The shattering. Quest removed and introduced and revamped. Zones re-leveled and divided and combined.

New race/class possibilities.

No new races. That's Pearl Harbor day. No new levels. Same. No new skills. Same.

Everybody gets the world change, like it or not. The rest is on the 7th. If you don't buy Cata, you don't get the new races and 80-85. But the old stuff changes for everybody.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 23, 2010, 01:41:50 PM
I won't be logging in. BOOM goes the forums!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xerapis on November 23, 2010, 01:44:37 PM
Nobody is logging in.

It's been pushed to 1700PST anyway.

Not a big surprise. I won't even be shocked if it ends up being tomorrow.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Yegolev on November 23, 2010, 02:01:15 PM
OK that clears it up.  No goblin = no bothering to log in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on November 23, 2010, 02:04:13 PM
My lvl 1 orc shammy is ready to fall into a big hole while trying to figure out where the next quest hub is.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on November 23, 2010, 02:10:05 PM
Nobody is logging in.

It's been pushed to 1700PST anyway.

Not a big surprise. I won't even be shocked if it ends up being tomorrow.

Yeah plus the forum explosion as usual.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on November 23, 2010, 03:29:48 PM
Welp found a bug on live. If your an inscriptionist and use one of the low level scrolls (was looking for a quick way back to the old world), I got the thrown to swamp of sorrows.

Except this time it punts me the fsck out of the game :ye_gods:

That char is stuck in limbo now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on November 23, 2010, 03:36:06 PM
Welp found a bug on live. If your an inscriptionist and use one of the low level scrolls (was looking for a quick way back to the old world), I got the thrown to swamp of sorrows.

Except this time it punts me the fsck out of the game :ye_gods:

That char is stuck in limbo now.

Lots of tears about people not being about to login into certain areas of the game. I been out of the loop for three years and this does not surprise me in the least. Next up.... loot lag!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 23, 2010, 03:38:46 PM
an inscriptionist

Scribe perhaps.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on November 23, 2010, 03:52:30 PM
Scribe perhaps.  :grin:

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on November 23, 2010, 03:52:42 PM
I went away and came back and I think this means there is a world-ending event.  Unfortunately I think no one is going to explain it to me so I'm forced to subscribe and log in to see what is going on.
There is supposedly a global 7 day trial happening until December 1st.  No need to re-sub.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on November 23, 2010, 03:54:43 PM
Character #2 locked out of the game due to zeppelin. Patcher has a note about boat issues and to relaunch the launcher for more data/hotfix.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: craan on November 23, 2010, 04:01:33 PM
I got to take a caravan ride with a worgen named Fiona.   Its great!



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on November 23, 2010, 04:04:30 PM
Heeeeyyyy, new background for Trolls on the character select screen, mon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on November 23, 2010, 04:19:20 PM
Hotfix unlocked my characters, I gotta say there's a lot of new FP's in the old world.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 23, 2010, 04:47:00 PM
New deadmines is epic <3 <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on November 23, 2010, 05:24:54 PM
I'm impressed. First time since AC that I logged in and something in the world had really changed.

(Well other than that not paying the rent in Delve thing.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on November 23, 2010, 06:12:27 PM
I went away and came back and I think this means there is a world-ending event.  Unfortunately I think no one is going to explain it to me so I'm forced to subscribe and log in to see what is going on.
There is supposedly a global 7 day trial happening until December 1st.  No need to re-sub.

Is this just for the long-departed? My sub expired on the weekend, and due to work commitments didn't plan on re-subbing until they are done with (not worth paying to play for 2 hours per week). If it's free even for the recently-expired, I'll log on and do some stuff in the next couple of weeks.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 23, 2010, 06:14:27 PM
All talent points reset again since last time I logged in. Son of a biiiitch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on November 23, 2010, 06:17:46 PM
Yep, from the patch notes they messed with 4(?) classes enough again that they decided to reset them.

...one of these days I'll level my Pally enough to raise inscription some more, heh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 23, 2010, 07:10:18 PM
Pally is still a clunky mess that I have no urge to play, Stormwind is a flaming wreck and will presumably so remain for years to come, I guess there's a bunch of flight points I don't have. I don't care enough about this game right now to view all this as anything but annoying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on November 23, 2010, 07:26:57 PM
Is this just for the long-departed? My sub expired on the weekend, and due to work commitments didn't plan on re-subbing until they are done with (not worth paying to play for 2 hours per week). If it's free even for the recently-expired, I'll log on and do some stuff in the next couple of weeks.
No idea.  I canceled mine over the RealID crap.  While I'm a little curious about the world changes, the main reason is I want to put my DK back in her starter set for the armory.  All the mechanics changes have killed any interest their wanting to be Facebook didn't.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on November 24, 2010, 03:29:11 AM
Pally is still a clunky mess that I have no urge to play, Stormwind is a flaming wreck and will presumably so remain for years to come, I guess there's a bunch of flight points I don't have. I don't care enough about this game right now to view all this as anything but annoying.

I don't know your gaming tastes, but a Prot Pally is a godless, remorseless killing machine now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 24, 2010, 03:42:01 AM
I don't know your gaming tastes, but a Prot Pally is a godless, remorseless killing machine now.

Surely being a Pally by very definition is anything except godless?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on November 24, 2010, 05:58:07 AM
I don't know your gaming tastes, but a Prot Pally is a godless, remorseless killing machine now.
Yeah... my protection pally was soloing the elites in Redridge Mountains yesterday due to my buddies all having vanished leaving me in a lurch.  It was a bit of effort but I did it without too much problem.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on November 24, 2010, 06:51:28 AM
I'm still thinking whether or not to get Cata when it releases, but if I do it's going to be a Goblin I think.  So, should I make a mage or a warlock?  What is the down and dirty on them these days?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Yegolev on November 24, 2010, 06:54:58 AM
I went away and came back and I think this means there is a world-ending event.  Unfortunately I think no one is going to explain it to me so I'm forced to subscribe and log in to see what is going on.
There is supposedly a global 7 day trial happening until December 1st.  No need to re-sub.

Too late.  Was going to anyway.

Turns out I already have a character on Kirin Tor!  A cow named... Yegolev.  Weird.

I'm impressed. First time since AC that I logged in and something in the world had really changed.

(Well other than that not paying the rent in Delve thing.)

Mine was from Horizons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 24, 2010, 07:13:58 AM
I don't know your gaming tastes, but a Prot Pally is a godless, remorseless killing machine now.
Yeah... my protection pally was soloing the elites in Redridge Mountains yesterday due to my buddies all having vanished leaving me in a lurch.  It was a bit of effort but I did it without too much problem.

I actually died a few times tanking instances last night on my pre-20 no twinking palatank.

Mostly because on half the pulls the priest didn't have to heal me, and didn't remember to do so on harder pulls. That and not being crit immune yet (ow two 300ish crits in a row in deadmines on a trash pull)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on November 24, 2010, 07:21:26 AM
I'm impressed, and I've barely scratched the surface of everything new to see. I like the new Undead starting experience - you actually start dead, and a few of your first quests are dealing with fellow newly-forsaken who are having a ... rough time accepting their new fate. Hillsbrad is overrun with Forsaken, it was weird seeing Southshore and the nearby farms in such a state. Orgrimmar is just incredible in every way - love the new interiors - love the Goblin Slums - speaking of which I never really appreciated Goblins until I saw their models ingame.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 24, 2010, 07:26:44 AM
New Org confused me a bit.

New Troll Here land was impossible to level in, due to a few really dickish quest chains requiring everyone to stand in line waiting for a slow spawning mob.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Yegolev on November 24, 2010, 07:28:09 AM
I like the new Undead starting experience - you actually start dead, and a few of your first quests are dealing with fellow newly-forsaken who are having a ... rough time accepting their new fate.

What was the previous startup like?  I seem to recall starting out dead back in 2004...?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 24, 2010, 07:31:31 AM
I like the new Undead starting experience - you actually start dead, and a few of your first quests are dealing with fellow newly-forsaken who are having a ... rough time accepting their new fate.

What was the previous startup like?  I seem to recall starting out dead back in 2004...?

Dunno what the new one is like, but the old one was "you awaken in a crypt, walk out, go to town"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on November 24, 2010, 07:48:49 AM
What was the previous startup like?  I seem to recall starting out dead back in 2004...?

Dunno what the new one is like, but the old one was "you awaken in a crypt, walk out, go to town"

Just tried it out, this time your lying down outside in the graveyard and then you start 2-3 quests around the graveyard before heading to Deathknell.

edit: Side note, this expansion did the exact opposite of what PoP did for EQ. All the quick travel is gone, now there's a market for druid mage ports.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 24, 2010, 08:09:46 AM
Reading around it says that people are already able to raise Gilneas / Bilgewater Cartel and, in the case of the Gobbos, get their racial mount when Exalted. Is this the case? Is the mount in the game before the race is?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on November 24, 2010, 08:23:35 AM
Quote
the fastest way to farm trike, which will probably be hotfixed:

1 get the pilgrim rep buff (sit in each chair in a table and eat 5 servings of each food)
2 go to BRD, and the 7 dwarves event. kill 6 of the dwarves for 66 rep each (60 w/o buff), then go hide in a corner for the 7th dwarf. it'll reset after a minute, talk to the guy to start it up again.

no worries about instance lockouts, you can get 8-10k rep an hour so you'll be done in around 4 hours (33k rep to grind? or 39k?). Nothing to loot either.

Keep in mind however that if you are already exalted with all your cities (hi2u Argent Tourney) you can just wear your tabard while leveling instances 80-85, and probably hit exalted that way too. But I guess 3-5 hours isn't too bad to grind for the trike (is there an alliance worgen mount?) right now.

Here's a way to do to it apparently.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 24, 2010, 08:26:06 AM
What was the previous startup like?  I seem to recall starting out dead back in 2004...?

Dunno what the new one is like, but the old one was "you awaken in a crypt, walk out, go to town"

Just tried it out, this time your lying down outside in the graveyard and then you start 2-3 quests around the graveyard before heading to Deathknell.

edit: Side note, this expansion did the exact opposite of what PoP did for EQ. All the quick travel is gone, now there's a market for druid mage ports.

The portal market will die in two weeks. Right now it only exists because they yanked the portal system out, but the 80s still need to be in northrend. Come the actual expansion, the 80s will move back to the old world and fly themselves around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on November 24, 2010, 09:23:38 AM
What was the previous startup like?  I seem to recall starting out dead back in 2004...?

Yeah I mean now you actually start like, a corpse in the ground and have to click on a spirit rezzer to rez yourself.

Everything just looks ... better, like they added better textures/color/something? The grass/ground clutter also seems improved. I really can't wait to fly in these zones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Yegolev on November 24, 2010, 09:36:50 AM
What was the previous startup like?  I seem to recall starting out dead back in 2004...?

Yeah I mean now you actually start like, a corpse in the ground and have to click on a spirit rezzer to rez yourself.

I don't know what that is, so... OK.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 24, 2010, 09:45:04 AM
To someone who didn't play through WotLK getting raised by a val'kyr probably doesn't have any  :-o value, yeah. To give you some context the thing that rezzes you is from a 'race' of undead that were exclusively working for the lich king until recently.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 24, 2010, 09:51:56 AM
Quote
the fastest way to farm trike, which will probably be hotfixed:

1 get the pilgrim rep buff (sit in each chair in a table and eat 5 servings of each food)
2 go to BRD, and the 7 dwarves event. kill 6 of the dwarves for 66 rep each (60 w/o buff), then go hide in a corner for the 7th dwarf. it'll reset after a minute, talk to the guy to start it up again.

no worries about instance lockouts, you can get 8-10k rep an hour so you'll be done in around 4 hours (33k rep to grind? or 39k?). Nothing to loot either.

Keep in mind however that if you are already exalted with all your cities (hi2u Argent Tourney) you can just wear your tabard while leveling instances 80-85, and probably hit exalted that way too. But I guess 3-5 hours isn't too bad to grind for the trike (is there an alliance worgen mount?) right now.

Here's a way to do to it apparently.
Thanks for that, I was frustrated that the rep gains weren't working in NR and saw that just using Strath for rep (and Baron's Mount runs) would take FOREVER. Is there any trick to getting these guys to reset? I've literally never done BRD before.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 24, 2010, 09:52:32 AM
I don't know your gaming tastes, but a Prot Pally is a godless, remorseless killing machine now.
Yeah... my protection pally was soloing the elites in Redridge Mountains yesterday due to my buddies all having vanished leaving me in a lurch.  It was a bit of effort but I did it without too much problem.

I actually died a few times tanking instances last night on my pre-20 no twinking palatank.

Mostly because on half the pulls the priest didn't have to heal me, and didn't remember to do so on harder pulls. That and not being crit immune yet (ow two 300ish crits in a row in deadmines on a trash pull)


The way lowbie Prot Paladins work is simple.

If the damage incoming can't bring you below half life in 10 seconds, you will never, ever, die. You generate holy power on Crusader Strike (or hammer of the righteous) activation, not hit. Word of Glory will heal you for at least 50% of your health pool, if not more, without any crits or anything. You also have nothing but WoG to spend your holy power on till like level 40.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Yegolev on November 24, 2010, 09:53:17 AM
To someone who didn't play through WotLK getting raised by a val'kyr probably doesn't have any  :-o value, yeah. To give you some context the thing that rezzes you is from a 'race' of undead that were exclusively working for the lich king until recently.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/85916/bubble_wizard.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on November 24, 2010, 10:03:02 AM
To someone who didn't play through WotLK getting raised by a val'kyr probably doesn't have any  :-o value, yeah. To give you some context the thing that rezzes you is from a 'race' of undead that were exclusively working for the lich king until recently.
Can I play one of these or a banshee yet?  That might get me back on a non-trial basis. :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 24, 2010, 10:08:51 AM
I have no idea what that picture is supposed to represent, but it is cracking my ass up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 24, 2010, 10:48:11 AM
I have no idea what that picture is supposed to represent, but it is cracking my ass up.

This.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on November 24, 2010, 10:53:54 AM
Maybe it is a lol-oremaster?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on November 24, 2010, 10:54:18 AM
I concur.

Plus, peacebloom vs ghouls pet is awesome!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on November 24, 2010, 10:55:46 AM
I think Ingmar should make that picture his forum avatar


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on November 24, 2010, 01:46:35 PM
Starting at scratch with an orc shaman last night, hit 22 earlier this afternoon without having to poopsock it. Quests flow, however the familiar ones are all tweaked and I found myself running to a place I recalled the quest was talking about only to find that that spot is either -not there- or the quest mobs/NPC are elsewhere. And this is WITH reading all the quest text. I have to say I'd be in the late 20s by now had I click crushed through and used the stupid map waypoints instead of reading the text. So far so good.

fakeedit: 80 tauren paladin - seems cheap to just transform over without having to cut your teeth with the lore and such, assuming they didn't have a 80 tauren already though. Still, very odd to see, as well as troll locks and orc mages and the one lonely tauren priest I ran into today.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 24, 2010, 04:00:21 PM
I've been trying some of the zone quest series; they're really polished and actually make me want to give the levelling thing another shot (which I swore I'd never do after the second time).

Blizzard has definitely done some good work there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 24, 2010, 04:13:14 PM
The portal market will die in two weeks. Right now it only exists because they yanked the portal system out, but the 80s still need to be in northrend. Come the actual expansion, the 80s will move back to the old world and fly themselves around.

There will still be a market to hop continents, unless you're able to zone across while flying or have dual hearths (Shaman, Druid, DK) so you can hop continents on your own.   It just won't be as expensive as it is right now -  2g per port on Alleria.

 
Everything just looks ... better, like they added better textures/color/something? The grass/ground clutter also seems improved. I really can't wait to fly in these zones.

Yes, they redid all the textures along with reworking and remodeling most, if not all, of the zones.  The new ground clutter is a result of being done for the upgraded graphics engine vs the one from 6 years ago.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 24, 2010, 05:27:30 PM
The downside of course is if your machine is on the older side, the new stuff can really eat your FPS in certain zones.


Any of the forested zones (I'm looking at you Ashenvale) can drop my FPS by a good 20-40 points now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 24, 2010, 05:41:38 PM
I am REALLY not happy with either having to do a bunch of grey lowbie quests or else not see the same things as people who come up afterward. Sure you can see the people, but the scenery is different. Depending on when you leveled and what zones you did, you pretty much don't live in the same world as most other people. Between shit like this and instant dungeon/battleground queues with random people from any server in the game, why is this even a traditional sharded MMO at this point?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 24, 2010, 06:14:56 PM
Why the fuck do you keep harping on that? How often do you really try to quest with some random noob but can't because he did one quest that you didn't?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 24, 2010, 06:27:01 PM
Because it shits up the consistency of the world. One can't even make a definitive statement about it like "There orc camps in Redridge" without it being a "Whoa hold on, when did you level and as what race?" kind of thing. Phasing was one thing when it was in a few places that pretty much every character was going to do. Now it's pretty much like a single-player game, where you'll be flying over Azeroth and what you see depends on whether or not you've done every quest in the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 24, 2010, 06:33:30 PM
Except the "world" has been pretty much a single player game for a while now, and the phasing makes it a better one. If you wanna play with other people, do BGs, dungeons, or raids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on November 24, 2010, 06:38:45 PM
Old troll is old.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 24, 2010, 07:09:38 PM
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/116/286207771_a64f99e7e6.jpg)

I'm on the fence about Cata. My guild is promising to get into PvP with the expansion, and I love raiding with them, but the single player is so (http://www.angelfire.com/ak4/ratman/derp2.jpg) that I'm not looking forward to 80-85.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 24, 2010, 07:23:00 PM
I think Ingmar should make that picture his forum avatar

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/82533/Futurama_Fry_Looking_Squint.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 24, 2010, 08:47:54 PM
I'm not trolling, you just have to understand that I'm damaged this way. As far as I know the "official" version of the state of affairs in any given zone is always the one that takes place after a given quest is completed. So now if I want to see the "real" version of the world I have to do every single quest that involves phasing. It's like being in Hell.

When I troll you, you'll fucking well know it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 24, 2010, 09:55:03 PM
Consider it an excuse to get the Loremaster achievement.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 24, 2010, 11:56:12 PM
The alternative would be to just auto-complete those quests for 80s and then you would have people bitch about not being able to do the new content on their character that they've played since release and etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 25, 2010, 03:37:54 AM
The portal market will die in two weeks. Right now it only exists because they yanked the portal system out, but the 80s still need to be in northrend. Come the actual expansion, the 80s will move back to the old world and fly themselves around.

There will still be a market to hop continents, unless you're able to zone across while flying or have dual hearths (Shaman, Druid, DK) so you can hop continents on your own.   It just won't be as expensive as it is right now -  2g per port on Alleria.

The continent hopping is the main thing bothering me as Alliance, especially as they removed the boat from Wetlands to Auberdine and as far as I can tell haven't replaced it. This means that the quickest non-portal route from Azeroth to either Exodar or Darnassus involves a mandatory 10 minute flight from Theramore. This really is my only major gripe with this current patch. Also, shamans only have a single hearth since Astral Recall points to the same location as your HS.

I'm not trolling, you just have to understand that I'm damaged this way. As far as I know the "official" version of the state of affairs in any given zone is always the one that takes place after a given quest is completed. So now if I want to see the "real" version of the world I have to do every single quest that involves phasing. It's like being in Hell.

I have played through the quests in three zones now (WPL, Blasted Lands and Searing Gorge) and as far as I can tell there isn't any notable phasing in those zones with respect to the landscape. I'll let you know after I try some other zones, but as best I can tell the phasing is quite limited and only relates to the position of NPCs. I kept seeing other players at every stage of the questing, so my impression is that in those zones the phasing is quite tight. From flying around it seems that most of the zones are already fucked up to the maximum extent, so I don't expect phasing to change the landscape much. In short, my feeling is that you'll probably be ok in the long run. Whatever final versions exist will probably involve Alliance Wounded Flower Picker #17 being in camp B rather than camp A within a zone for the most part I suspect.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 25, 2010, 04:24:23 AM
The continent hopping is the main thing bothering me as Alliance, especially as they removed the boat from Wetlands to Auberdine and as far as I can tell haven't replaced it. This means that the quickest non-portal route from Azeroth to either Exodar or Darnassus involves a mandatory 10 minute flight from Theramore. This really is my only major gripe with this current patch. Also, shamans only have a single hearth since Astral Recall points to the same location as your HS.

Oh right, I'd forgotten that about shaman.  It's been ages since I played mine and for some reason I thought they were two different places.  So yeah, total cluster getting to that side of Kalimdor and has been since the LK 3.0 patch.

I'm not trolling, you just have to understand that I'm damaged this way. As far as I know the "official" version of the state of affairs in any given zone is always the one that takes place after a given quest is completed. So now if I want to see the "real" version of the world I have to do every single quest that involves phasing. It's like being in Hell.

I'm now going to completely mindfuck WUA, who previously had a problem with the Azaroth - BC Detour - Northrend progression.

In Westfall, you meet Gyran Stoutmantle and a Dranei shaman who both make several references to their time in Northrend.  The kicker is you meet them at level 10.. a full 65 levels before you'll run into Gyran again in Grizzly Hills... before the first time you met him in the timeline.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tarami on November 25, 2010, 04:27:11 AM
You reach Darkshore from Stormwind, no? The pier farthest to the left. The other goes to Northrend, the ones in Wetlands go to Northrend and Dustwallow Marsh.

Edit: Pretty sure of it actually. They made it that way to accomodate low-level Draenei and NE's who want to level in the Human/Dwarven zones, rather than forcing them nude run through Wetlands.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 25, 2010, 05:27:47 AM
Oh, is that the case? I hadn't registered that because if the portals. If that's true then that's not so bad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 25, 2010, 05:29:31 AM
You reach Darkshore from Stormwind, no? The pier farthest to the left. The other goes to Northrend, the ones in Wetlands go to Northrend and Dustwallow Marsh.

Edit: Pretty sure of it actually. They made it that way to accomodate low-level Draenei and NE's who want to level in the Human/Dwarven zones, rather than forcing them nude run through Wetlands.

Crap you're right.  I had a brain fart and thought the Stormwind boat was the one going to Theramore.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on November 25, 2010, 05:36:38 AM
The portal market will die in two weeks. Right now it only exists because they yanked the portal system out, but the 80s still need to be in northrend. Come the actual expansion, the 80s will move back to the old world and fly themselves around.

There will still be a market to hop continents, unless you're able to zone across while flying or have dual hearths (Shaman, Druid, DK) so you can hop continents on your own.   It just won't be as expensive as it is right now -  2g per port on Alleria.

In a couple weeks it will be the mid-range mages who portal people around, while those in the 70+ range tell you to go fuck yourself in response to random "plz port me I giv 2g" tells.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on November 25, 2010, 05:39:24 AM
I am REALLY not happy with either having to do a bunch of grey lowbie quests or else not see the same things as people who come up afterward. Sure you can see the people, but the scenery is different. Depending on when you leveled and what zones you did, you pretty much don't live in the same world as most other people. Between shit like this and instant dungeon/battleground queues with random people from any server in the game, why is this even a traditional sharded MMO at this point?

yeah, you need to get over this. It'll give you something interesting to do, and on an 80, the zones will be the fastest. episodes. ever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on November 25, 2010, 06:48:08 AM
I'm glad I made the switch to engineering a few months ago.  I tend to hop all around the world, so it has been a huge help.  I do my Shat, Dal and SW fish/cook dailies in about 30 minutes now.  Not the profession for everyone, but the ports made it worthwhile.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 25, 2010, 08:57:27 AM
Wow.. Eastern and Western Plagues have been nerfed to level 30 and 40 zones.  Looks like a tip to Silithus is mandatory now.  That sucketh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Valmorian on November 25, 2010, 09:00:49 AM
Wow.. Eastern and Western Plagues have been nerfed to level 30 and 40 zones.  Looks like a tip to Silithus is mandatory now.  That sucketh.

If I remember correctly, Blasted Lands is another option.  I'm not sure how much has changed at that level mind you, so maybe Silithus isn't as bad as it was??


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 25, 2010, 09:01:45 AM
Low level no heirloom healing is D: right now. Especially with the changes to SFK and Deadmines.

Dear lord, what. It's pretty much 4 casts and OOM for any healer right now, combined with MUCH harder trash and bosses.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 25, 2010, 09:11:04 AM
Wow.. Eastern and Western Plagues have been nerfed to level 30 and 40 zones.  Looks like a tip to Silithus is mandatory now.  That sucketh.

If I remember correctly, Blasted Lands is another option.  I'm not sure how much has changed at that level mind you, so maybe Silithus isn't as bad as it was??


50-60 (or 58) is going to be Swamp of Sorrows, Un'goro, Winterspring and Blasted Lands. No point in not going to Hellfire at 58 these days.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 25, 2010, 10:12:58 AM
Low level no heirloom healing is D: right now. Especially with the changes to SFK and Deadmines.

Dear lord, what. It's pretty much 4 casts and OOM for any healer right now, combined with MUCH harder trash and bosses.
If you've got a priest, Disc has no mana issues in low level dungeons assuming sensible pulls and an actual tank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 25, 2010, 11:28:36 AM
Low level no heirloom healing is D: right now. Especially with the changes to SFK and Deadmines.

Dear lord, what. It's pretty much 4 casts and OOM for any healer right now, combined with MUCH harder trash and bosses.
If you've got a priest, Disc has no mana issues in low level dungeons assuming sensible pulls and an actual tank.

My priest is 80 already. What I lack is a druid, but that's painful to heal with while leveling right now.

I'm tempted to use a shaman, since earth shield will help a lot with healing mana, since it's a low cost and 9 charges out of the box now.

Druids are just.. We have a HoT and swiftmend, and everything else costs a fifth of your mana bar.

edit: that said though, Rake is hilariously overpowered at low levels. The DoT tics crit for half an even con mob's health.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 25, 2010, 11:37:40 AM
It's because you don't get your 'efficient' heal till like 80 as a druid. Once you get that, you can 3 stack lifebloom and spam nourish (which refreshes the stack) more or less forever and a day.


The other three healers should be fine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 25, 2010, 12:20:56 PM
It's because you don't get your 'efficient' heal till like 80 as a druid. Once you get that, you can 3 stack lifebloom and spam nourish (which refreshes the stack) more or less forever and a day.


The other three healers should be fine.

That and it looks like there's a mana regen talent that relies heavily on lifebloom at tier 3.. but you don't get lifebloom to trigger it until the 50s.

Druids just seem under tested from the leveling perspective as a healer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 25, 2010, 01:28:07 PM
They changed them like 52 times in Beta was the problem, they couldn't settle on a balance of "small/medium/large" direct heals while still keeping the Druids HoT theme.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on November 26, 2010, 04:23:37 PM
Currently working my way through Silverpine ... these new quests are so much improved, it's a lot of fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on November 26, 2010, 05:34:19 PM
Just did Horde Badlands and now in Searing Gorge.  Orc gives a quest in Badlands that literally had me 'loling'.  It was just so stupid and orcish and cool.
Very, very impressed with the revamp.  But I strongly urge you to sell you herbs and ore fast because the market is about to crash on them. Ore and herbs are EVERYWHERE.

I don't like the new druids or hunters.  And there is no reason to have any other class than pallys.  They can heal, tank or dps, no other class needed. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 26, 2010, 05:58:37 PM
Druids can also Heal, Tank or DPS. They can DPS at range AND melee too.


All Druid raids inc.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on November 26, 2010, 07:58:25 PM
Fair enough.

I didn't think they could make this game any more addictive.  I just forced myself to log off after playing almost all day.  I need a shower.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on November 26, 2010, 08:28:09 PM
Druids can also Heal, Tank or DPS. They can DPS at range AND melee too.


All Druid raids inc.  :oh_i_see:
For 25 man raids: 21 druids and 1 Shaman (for lust / totems), 1 mage (for AI), 1 Priest (for Fort / removing the one debuff druids cant dispell) and 1 paladin (for Might / Auras).  Pretty much all bases covered.  And with dual spec, your druids can easily swap between mele / range / tank / heal in pairs or something to account for various changes in raid requirements.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 26, 2010, 08:52:36 PM
In Westfall, you meet Gyran Stoutmantle and a Dranei shaman who both make several references to their time in Northrend.  The kicker is you meet them at level 10.. a full 65 levels before you'll run into Gyran again in Grizzly Hills... before the first time you met him in the timeline.  :uhrr:

Lazy pricks could have at least made the new passage to Northrend a time portal instead of a boat.

Oh, thank you to those who actually bothered to post in order to soothe my phasing/world/lore psychosis.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 27, 2010, 01:10:12 AM
I was too busy having the Banshee Queen confirm everything I ever said about the Forsaken. Lordaeron for the (undead) Lordaeranians! Death (and then undeath) for the southern invaders!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 27, 2010, 01:47:46 AM
I was too busy having the Banshee Queen confirm everything I ever said about the Forsaken. Lordaeron for the (undead) Lordaeranians! Death (and then undeath) for the southern invaders!  :awesome_for_real:

Have they kept that quest in Darkshire where the Forsaken poison an orc who's about to spill the beans? Or should I just stick the line that the Forsaken are misunderstood just to get WUA into one of his rants again?

I'm liking the way things are working out with Garrosh; he's done a bang up job with Orgrimmar (Deathwing destroys the city, the Horde mobilizes and rebuilds it bigger, better and badder in a day or two - compared to Stormwind where the humans are standing around saying "Can you smell something burning?") and he's marginalized Vol'jin, is partly responsible for Cairne's death and seems to be on the point of kicking Sylvie out of the Horde. Halcyon days!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 27, 2010, 05:46:11 AM
I didn't think they could make this game any more addictive.  I just forced myself to log off after playing almost all day.  I need a shower.

Make sure you change the kitty litter, too, lest your house begin to smell.

I was too busy having the Banshee Queen confirm everything I ever said about the Forsaken. Lordaeron for the (undead) Lordaeranians! Death (and then undeath) for the southern invaders!  :awesome_for_real:

Have they kept that quest in Darkshire where the Forsaken poison an orc who's about to spill the beans? Or should I just stick the line that the Forsaken are misunderstood just to get WUA into one of his rants again?

The orcs are coming 'round to WUA's point of view, it would seem, so I wouldn't try throwing that line out too much longer.  There was a big "Save Sylvanis" thread in the forums a few days ago.  Apparently Garrosh has said something about killing her, too, since she's a dangerous mustache-twirling villain/ psychopath.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on November 27, 2010, 05:56:59 AM

The orcs are coming 'round to WUA's point of view, it would seem, so I wouldn't try throwing that line out too much longer.  There was a big "Save Sylvanis" thread in the forums a few days ago.  Apparently Garrosh has said something about killing her, too, since she's a dangerous mustache-twirling villain/ psychopath.

I always love Sylvanas. Absolutely love her new skin - less Nelfy and more dark ranger. Just did the quest line last night in Silverpine and I really liked the way they put her in the story in the area. That said, what the hell happened to her voice. Seems robotic or the words seem cobbled together. The story arc in Silverpine however was  :drill: - even got to hear Garrosh call Sylvy a bitch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on November 27, 2010, 08:41:40 AM
I really like how some (all?) of the zones are organized now.  I went into Searing Gorge and went through an entire quest chain of 35 quests, a re-occurring NPC, nice gear upgrades, an achievement and a blue item reward for killing the zone boss.  There was also more mithril than you can shake a stick at and when I was done they sent me to the next zone.  Bam.  Done.  Rinse and repeat.  It was like the zone was one big instance. 

The amount of work they put into this 'expansion' is impressive.  This is WoW 2.0.

I'm a bit worried the xp is so fast I'll zoom past some dungeons.  But I guess I need to plan ahead for that.  And the loads of ore and herbs kind of bother me, but if they become cheap on the AH, maybe the market will be in crafted items instead of the mats. 




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on November 27, 2010, 08:44:08 AM
There was also more mithril than you can shake a stick at and when I was done they sent me to the next zone.
This is true.  A friend was there messing around and I said "hey, pick me up some mithril as I need 200 to get to thorium on smithing" and he said "ok" and within 50 minutes had 220 ore for me.  We weren't sure if they upped the rates of spawn or if it was because none of the Chinese farmers were there, but either way we like how much there is now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on November 27, 2010, 08:54:33 AM
Thorium is the same way, at least in Swamp of Sorrows where I bothered to mine some.  I threw a few stacks on the AH, figuring the price will fall through the floor once people realize there's so much laying around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 27, 2010, 09:43:43 AM
I'm wondering how much of it is just folks not farming it right now because they're waiting on Cata to level their new worgen and goblins.  We'll see in a week, I suppose.   I don't expect the ridiculous price spikes that we had during BC, though.

Another nifty thing is the gnomecoder for quests.  No more running back to the NPC to pick up the next phase, they 'call' you and give you the next part in the chain kills.  Too bad this will make the BC and WOTLK content look like crap as you're leveling new alts. (Nesingwary quests in particular)

For the Alliance folks, you'll see that Donna is finally getting her revenge on William, too.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on November 27, 2010, 10:49:09 AM
I haven't noticed herbs (aside from Felweed) being more plentiful...  But since 4.0, I've been astonished as to how much XP you get for gathering herbs.  And then it seemed to take a jump again with 4.0.3.  I swear that my Druid is almost leveling faster from that than killing mobs!  2000-ish per gather vs. 1300 per kill.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: stu on November 27, 2010, 11:12:47 AM
I gained 50k+ XP from a single round of PvP in Arathi Basin at lvl 53. That's crazy!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 27, 2010, 12:37:02 PM
I haven't noticed herbs (aside from Felweed) being more plentiful...  But since 4.0, I've been astonished as to how much XP you get for gathering herbs.  And then it seemed to take a jump again with 4.0.3.  I swear that my Druid is almost leveling faster from that than killing mobs!  2000-ish per gather vs. 1300 per kill.

Wait a tic.. how did I miss experience from herbalisim.. is it the same for mining? Hrm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on November 27, 2010, 12:56:33 PM
yeah, they added exp to mining and herbalism.  Skinning got jewed out, because appearently getting exp from killing the mob you need to skin is enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on November 27, 2010, 01:38:45 PM
yeah, they added exp to mining and herbalism.  Skinning got jewed out, because appearently getting exp from killing the mob you need to skin is enough.

Also, can't you still skin other people's looted kills?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on November 27, 2010, 02:10:45 PM
yeah, they added exp to mining and herbalism.  Skinning got jewed out, because appearently getting exp from killing the mob you need to skin is enough.

Also, can't you still skin other people's looted kills?

Oh yes... yes you can. I followed this one troll druid around the Barrens the other day. Yes, I asked first...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on November 27, 2010, 03:12:02 PM
yeah, they added exp to mining and herbalism.  Skinning got jewed out, because appearently getting exp from killing the mob you need to skin is enough.

Also, can't you still skin other people's looted kills?

Oh yes... yes you can. I followed this one troll druid around the Barrens the other day. Yes, I asked first...
As far as I can tell the option to skin someone else's mob only comes up if the person who killed it doesn't have the skinning profession trained, it works sort of like the loot icon that way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 27, 2010, 03:47:36 PM
http://www.wowhead.com/quest=28000
http://www.wowhead.com/quest=28049
http://www.wowhead.com/quest=28102

http://www.wowhead.com/quest=28044
http://www.wowhead.com/quest=28113
http://www.wowhead.com/quest=28102

 :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 27, 2010, 03:55:46 PM
The orcs are coming 'round to WUA's point of view, it would seem, so I wouldn't try throwing that line out too much longer.  There was a big "Save Sylvanis" thread in the forums a few days ago.  Apparently Garrosh has said something about killing her, too, since she's a dangerous mustache-twirling villain/ psychopath.

Even odds that you'll be farming her for purples before the expansion is over. Watch the cutscenes and story updates that come with major content patches very carefully and see if they're grooming a successor. I had Garrosh pegged as the new Warchief as early as the Ulduar cinematic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on November 27, 2010, 06:26:23 PM
http://www.wowhead.com/quest=28000
http://www.wowhead.com/quest=28049
http://www.wowhead.com/quest=28102

http://www.wowhead.com/quest=28044
http://www.wowhead.com/quest=28113
http://www.wowhead.com/quest=28102

 :drill:

HAHA excellent!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 27, 2010, 06:36:40 PM
As far as I can tell the option to skin someone else's mob only comes up if the person who killed it doesn't have the skinning profession trained, it works sort of like the loot icon that way.

It's if they loot it, unless it changed this last patch.


EDIT: Derp, I forgot the reason I even came to this thread. The "sequel" to Deep Ocean, Vast Sea (http://www.wowhead.com/quest=982) in Darkshore is fucking awesome. <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 28, 2010, 02:08:36 AM
I haven't noticed herbs (aside from Felweed) being more plentiful...  But since 4.0, I've been astonished as to how much XP you get for gathering herbs.  And then it seemed to take a jump again with 4.0.3.  I swear that my Druid is almost leveling faster from that than killing mobs!  2000-ish per gather vs. 1300 per kill.

I only got 190ish XP from a Rich Thorium Node, will have to see what Fel Iron gives.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 28, 2010, 06:49:12 AM
I haven't noticed herbs (aside from Felweed) being more plentiful...  But since 4.0, I've been astonished as to how much XP you get for gathering herbs.  And then it seemed to take a jump again with 4.0.3.  I swear that my Druid is almost leveling faster from that than killing mobs!  2000-ish per gather vs. 1300 per kill.

I only got 190ish XP from a Rich Thorium Node, will have to see what Fel Iron gives.

It seems rather arbitrary. I get 200 from a peacebloom, and 60 from kingsblood. Up until the kingsblood tier it was advancing pretty properly, and then it just went strange on me.

I will say: leveling is fast now, but on the down side I rarely get to "finish" a zone's plotline before it turns green/grey on me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 28, 2010, 08:00:25 AM
The XP per herb node is more based on your level range compared to the zones level range then the actual herbs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on November 28, 2010, 08:32:08 AM
I've been logging in to my old characters thanks to the trial.  I'm not feeling the excitement at all.  The stock UI has some improvements.  Textures are nicer.  I like that fishing dailies award a point of skill.

All my classes seemed to have gained a bunch more buttons for already overflowing bars (Dear gods, did they really need to add more to Warlocks!?!)  Other than the number of abilities, I really don't need 40 situational buttons, the Soulburn and a couple of other changes look nice.

Nothing else grabs me.  I was hoping to find at least something that made me briefly consider going back.  At least I got to dress all my characters in their useless finery, so I can reminisce when I view their Armory profiles.  (Except none of my characters seem to show on it now...)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on November 28, 2010, 09:07:04 AM
How about that almost all the lowbie quest rewards got revamped and many of them could be considered rp items now?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 28, 2010, 09:13:16 AM
The ingame cutscenes are rather nifty, and add a lot of nice flavour.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on November 28, 2010, 09:55:40 AM
I was trying out an undead hunter.  I really enjoyed the string of quests surrounding Lillian Voss.  Apeshit!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on November 28, 2010, 11:44:47 AM
I've been logging in to my old characters thanks to the trial.  I'm not feeling the excitement at all.  The stock UI has some improvements.  Textures are nicer.  I like that fishing dailies award a point of skill.

All my classes seemed to have gained a bunch more buttons for already overflowing bars (Dear gods, did they really need to add more to Warlocks!?!)  Other than the number of abilities, I really don't need 40 situational buttons, the Soulburn and a couple of other changes look nice.

Nothing else grabs me.  I was hoping to find at least something that made me briefly consider going back.  At least I got to dress all my characters in their useless finery, so I can reminisce when I view their Armory profiles.  (Except none of my characters seem to show on it now...)
Well, the thing about warlocks (at least from my limited experience on my Lock Tailor alt, is that even though they have assloads of abilities (similar to say, mages), you only really ever need the ones applicable to your spec on your bars, and maybe a few universal ones (again, same with mages).  If you are a Destro Lock, you can pretty much remove most of your shadow based dots and things off the your bars since your rotation is going to be made up entirely of fire spells, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on November 28, 2010, 11:52:11 AM
The lowbie undead quest where you pretend to be a quest giver is fucking hilarious.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on November 28, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
I resubbed recently and am surprised by all the changes and new things, all good so far as I can tell, but I have one question I can't easily find the answer for.  Does anyone know if they are going to reduce the cost of the advanced flying training when cataclysm comes out or would be a waste to spend the money on my alt now?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on November 28, 2010, 01:05:17 PM
The ingame cutscenes are rather nifty, and add a lot of nice flavour.

This. It's almost as if they looked at what worked in older games (FFXI) for lore and story and decided now is the perfect time to try. Of course, all the twitchy little shits who only give a crap about pee vee pee and arena / gear scores won't ever do it unless they are bored and even then won't appreciate it - but meh. I do think Bliz did a bang up job with providing these cut scenes/phasings to not only explain things, but move you through the zone and expedite leveling. They got in my wheelhouse with this expansion no doubt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on November 28, 2010, 01:11:54 PM
I resubbed recently and am surprised by all the changes and new things, all good so far as I can tell, but I have one question I can't easily find the answer for.  Does anyone know if they are going to reduce the cost of the advanced flying training when cataclysm comes out or would be a waste to spend the money on my alt now?

They added flying trainers to the capital cities, so you can get the 20% discount at exalted now (I think). I know I had a look and saw 310% flying was 4K rather than 5K if I bought it in SW rather than Northrend. I probably wouldn't hold my breath for dramatic drops in the high-end flying training though. Unlike the changes to low-level riding, I think Blizz still sees epic flying and 310% flying as practical gold sinks. Blizz have been unpredictable about things like this in the past, however I would say that it's unlikely to drop in the next 6 months or so, and that you'll probably easily make 2K from questing through the Cata zones (based on how I did in Northrend on my two main characters), so you might as well buy now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 28, 2010, 01:19:41 PM
Nothing else grabs me.  I was hoping to find at least something that made me briefly consider going back.  At least I got to dress all my characters in their useless finery, so I can reminisce when I view their Armory profiles.  (Except none of my characters seem to show on it now...)

Get them an achievement, that seems to kick the new armory into upgrading you from being a Shadow Person.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 28, 2010, 01:22:04 PM
If you want Master flying (310%) just do the "What a Long Strange Trip it's Been" (http://www.wowhead.com/achievement=2145) achieve.  Or, if you're really good at PVP do the Arena thing until you get Gladiator (http://www.wowhead.com/achievement=2091).  Both grant the top level of flying now.   If pooling 5k gold is that severe an issue for you, then the year it'd take to do LST will probably be easier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on November 28, 2010, 01:49:33 PM
Well, the thing about warlocks (at least from my limited experience on my Lock Tailor alt, is that even though they have assloads of abilities (similar to say, mages), you only really ever need the ones applicable to your spec on your bars, and maybe a few universal ones (again, same with mages).  If you are a Destro Lock, you can pretty much remove most of your shadow based dots and things off the your bars since your rotation is going to be made up entirely of fire spells, etc.
I'm Demonology.  Neither affliction nor destruction spells are favored, and in fact, we get +15% to damage for both!  So which is better is situational, usually a mix is best, plus I have all my demon buttons...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on November 28, 2010, 01:57:23 PM
Nothing else grabs me.  I was hoping to find at least something that made me briefly consider going back.

Aren't you a fellow Explorer-type?  They reworked a ton of zones on the old world, plus the engine upgrades - likely worth a month come Cata with a newbie.  I might have to break my "zOMG not leveling another alt" vow just to see everything after getting a glimpse of the new Org.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 28, 2010, 02:19:22 PM
This patch/expansion so far is like Christmas + Birthday + Giants Win The Pennant.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 28, 2010, 02:41:01 PM
Another nifty thing is the gnomecoder for quests.  No more running back to the NPC to pick up the next phase, they 'call' you and give you the next part in the chain kills.  Too bad this will make the BC and WOTLK content look like crap as you're leveling new alts. (Nesingwary quests in particular)

This is super nice. [grumpy]The only thing about the patch that I like so far. [/grumpy]


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on November 28, 2010, 04:59:46 PM
Aren't you a fellow Explorer-type?  They reworked a ton of zones on the old world, plus the engine upgrades - likely worth a month come Cata with a newbie.  I might have to break my "zOMG not leveling another alt" vow just to see everything after getting a glimpse of the new Org.
I'm a huge explorer.  While seeing the changes is neat, it's just not enough.  I can take a flightpath over a zone, note the changes, and I'm quickly back to 'meh'.  WoW doesn't do it for me anymore.  We've grown too far apart.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on November 28, 2010, 06:06:51 PM
The lowbie undead quest where you pretend to be a quest giver is fucking hilarious.

I just came here to post this. All the Forsaken quests so far have been great, and this little in-joke quest was like the cherry on top.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on November 28, 2010, 06:26:38 PM
Low level no heirloom healing is D: right now. Especially with the changes to SFK and Deadmines.

Dear lord, what. It's pretty much 4 casts and OOM for any healer right now, combined with MUCH harder trash and bosses.
If you've got a priest, Disc has no mana issues in low level dungeons assuming sensible pulls and an actual tank.

My priest is 80 already. What I lack is a druid, but that's painful to heal with while leveling right now.

I'm tempted to use a shaman, since earth shield will help a lot with healing mana, since it's a low cost and 9 charges out of the box now.

Druids are just.. We have a HoT and swiftmend, and everything else costs a fifth of your mana bar.

edit: that said though, Rake is hilariously overpowered at low levels. The DoT tics crit for half an even con mob's health.

I'm new to WoW tanking, haven't tanked since my SK in Everquest. I've been playing a Warrior for less than a week, and started running dungeons 3 days ago. I've run about 10-15 dungeins so far from Deadmines up to SM Cemetary, and been healed by every class that has a heal. No Heirlooms, lots of blues, lots of sta, and was actually Fury specced until I hit 30 when I dual specced and changed primary to Prot.

I've died only once so far, and that was to the machinegunning on the last boss in SFK. Occasonally a healer asks me to slow down for mana, and there have been some close calls on bosses, but yeah, so far only 1 death to me, and one to another groupmate - from the boss of Gnomergan who is immune to taunt. Point isn't that I'm awesome, or that every healer I have had is awesome, but that low level healing seems to be working pretty well in my experience so far.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 28, 2010, 06:39:28 PM
It's just druids. Everyone else I've healed with at a low level now, and they work fine. Druids just don't have the 20 mana heal everyone else has for spamming. They only have the "big" heals.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on November 28, 2010, 08:03:04 PM
If you want Master flying (310%) just do the "What a Long Strange Trip it's Been" (http://www.wowhead.com/achievement=2145) achieve.  Or, if you're really good at PVP do the Arena thing until you get Gladiator (http://www.wowhead.com/achievement=2091).  Both grant the top level of flying now.   If pooling 5k gold is that severe an issue for you, then the year it'd take to do LST will probably be easier.

One of those options takes a full year to complete and the other is only available to .5% of the population, getting exalted rep and farming 4k gold is magnitudes easier than either of those options.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on November 28, 2010, 08:26:33 PM
It's really, really, not hard to get the 4k gold for 280% flight speed if you stay the fuck away from the auction house except when you're selling shit.  I'm just hitting 80 with two characters, and each has ~2.5k gold.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 28, 2010, 08:26:49 PM
Aren't you a fellow Explorer-type?  They reworked a ton of zones on the old world, plus the engine upgrades - likely worth a month come Cata with a newbie.  I might have to break my "zOMG not leveling another alt" vow just to see everything after getting a glimpse of the new Org.
I'm a huge explorer.  While seeing the changes is neat, it's just not enough.  I can take a flightpath over a zone, note the changes, and I'm quickly back to 'meh'.  WoW doesn't do it for me anymore.  We've grown too far apart.

Flying over the zones misses about 95% of what makes the changes awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: angry.bob on November 28, 2010, 10:12:02 PM
So far I'm liking the changes, but whoever decided that taking the portals out of Dalaran needs to have an ape cock shot into their mouth with the rest of the ape still attached to it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on November 28, 2010, 10:14:34 PM
...but whoever decided that taking the portals out of Dalaran needs to have an ape cock shot into their mouth with the rest of the ape still attached to it.
I used to be annoyed, but honestly since everything is already in Dalaran now with class and profession trainers and the AH, it's pretty much no real need to have fast travel to another city.  And next week we'll all be off doing our 80-85 grind in the old world and ignoring Dal completely.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on November 28, 2010, 10:20:13 PM
In about 8 days you're going to go back to Nothrend/Dal for only the following reasons:

1.  Leveling an alt.
2.  Archaeology.
3.  Meaningless shit you didn't get over the past two years.

That's about it.  

They already port us directly into and out of the dungeons.  They already give us the relevant dungeon quests inside the zone itself.  I think it's going to be okay once we get flight going in the old world.  Maybe, just maybe, some semblance of a 'world' might form again without instant travel to anywhere.  

Also, go engineering or roll a mage if you can't deal.  I'm looking forward to being out in the world more...  along with other people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pennilenko on November 28, 2010, 10:36:02 PM
 I'm looking forward to being out in the world more...  along with other people.

Same here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on November 28, 2010, 11:11:17 PM
So far I'm liking the changes, but whoever decided that taking the portals out of Dalaran needs to have an ape cock shot into their mouth with the rest of the ape still attached to it.

Dalaran / Shattrath lag.  This is their answer, to get the entire active population of a server the fuck out of a single city.

Instead of, you know, removing almost all content from the zone the city is in so that the world server doesn't choke on bandwidth requirements.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 28, 2010, 11:16:21 PM
It's only annoying that several characters are stuck in Dal, including those with no real way to get out since they're bound there with no flightpaths out, and the only recourse is to buy a port. Of course, this is how I got them there in the first place so it doesn't bother me too much.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 29, 2010, 01:35:48 AM
I only care during World Events that want me to go to the different capitals. And even THEN, I only mind it as Alliance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kitsune on November 29, 2010, 01:40:19 AM
So far I'm liking the changes, but whoever decided that taking the portals out of Dalaran needs to have an ape cock shot into their mouth with the rest of the ape still attached to it.

Dalaran / Shattrath lag.  This is their answer, to get the entire active population of a server the fuck out of a single city.

Instead of, you know, removing almost all content from the zone the city is in so that the world server doesn't choke on bandwidth requirements.

Except now everyone will be in Ironforge and Orgrimmar.  If they had any damn sense, they'd've put something compelling in the redheaded stepchild cities like Darnassus to bait players into hanging around them like unique daily quests or convenient access to new content.  As it is, we'll be seeing the same 'OMG ironforge lag' of the old days back with a vengeance.

As for moving around in general, a fair number of people have personal ports that they can use to circumvent some of the hassle.  Druids and DKs can teleport to old world locations independent of their hearthstones, engineers have their ports, alchemists are getting a teleport potion to one of the new zones, mages were already set for life...  It's not so bad.  I agree that it's irksome, but I don't consider it a major issue, especially once they unlock flying in the old world.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on November 29, 2010, 01:55:46 AM
Dalaran and Shattrath were worse than IF/Ogrimmar for lag was because you had BOTH factions there. And Dalaran was the worst because it was almost impossible to find a spot where the entire city and all of the players were not being rendered on your machine. At least in Shatt, the city was spread out.

Even if every single person on one faction was in the capital at any given time, it will still be better than the hell that was Dalaran during prime time. I knew a guy who could not go to Dalaran except in the wee hours of the morning because the server would time out his connection while loading when there were a lot of people there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 29, 2010, 02:53:49 AM
Except now everyone will be in Ironforge and Orgrimmar.  If they had any damn sense, they'd've put something compelling in the redheaded stepchild cities like Darnassus to bait players into hanging around them like unique daily quests or convenient access to new content.  As it is, we'll be seeing the same 'OMG ironforge lag' of the old days back with a vengeance.

And it will STILL be a million times better than Orgrimmar + Ironforge populations cramming into one stupid neutral city.

Stormwind is the new hotness, by the way, it's the city with the new fishing and cooking dailies.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on November 29, 2010, 05:00:42 AM

Stormwind is the new hotness, by the way, it's the city with the new fishing and cooking dailies.  :grin:

Speaking of which, I haven't looked to see if there's new fish/cook daily quests in any of the new zones, but the Stormwind fishing dailies provide terrible rewards in the loot bags.  I'm hoping there's an oversight with the loot table on them or that we get more in new zones. 

Also, the Stormwind crabs daily sucks.  I think it took me 25 minutes to finish that quest yesterday.  Slow respawn, 10 required loots, 20+ people at a time working on it.  Terrible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on November 29, 2010, 05:56:32 AM
It's only annoying that several characters are stuck in Dal, including those with no real way to get out since they're bound there with no flightpaths out, and the only recourse is to buy a port.
Good news.  All characters that haven't been to Northrend\Dal through normal channels now get the flight paths for Vengeance Landing\Dalaran\Warsong Hold (and the alliance equivalent).  So once your character gets off the boat to Northrend you can instantly hop the flight path to Dal.  At least all of my low alts have them, I imagine they did the same for everyone.  No more waiting until 74 to get the quest anymore, just instantly have the path there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on November 29, 2010, 05:58:14 AM
Except now everyone will be in Ironforge and Orgrimmar.  If they had any damn sense, they'd've put something compelling in the redheaded stepchild cities like Darnassus to bait players into hanging around them like unique daily quests or convenient access to new content.  As it is, we'll be seeing the same 'OMG ironforge lag' of the old days back with a vengeance.

The amount of bandwidth required for a given number of players in a continuous load zone scales super-polynomially with the number of players.  Dividing players into two capitals will decrease bandwidth load by more than half, likely significantly more.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on November 29, 2010, 06:46:42 AM
Flying over the zones misses about 95% of what makes the changes awesome.
Oh, I poked around a bit, but I mean it when I say this game isn't for me, anymore.  I don't give a whit about their self-referential quests, or the silly pop-culture, or changes to zones that I didn't care about the first time and have no reason to ever visit again.  I'm the MMO equivalent of the Dunkin' Donuts guy.  <zombie> "Gotta fed-ex the quest."

Mechanics aside, I can see why some people are enjoying it, but I'm caring about this as much as everyone cares about new stuff in Aion.  No amount of "this is new" is going to make me go "woo, awesome", I'm afraid.

Also those bastards nuked my Death Ravager.  She's just a normal green one now. :cry2:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on November 29, 2010, 08:10:19 AM
Also those bastards nuked my Death Ravager.  She's just a normal green one now. :cry2:

Goddamit, that was one of my favorite pets too.  :cry:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 29, 2010, 08:39:48 AM
Good news.  All characters that haven't been to Northrend\Dal through normal channels now get the flight paths for Vengeance Landing\Dalaran\Warsong Hold (and the alliance equivalent).  So once your character gets off the boat to Northrend you can instantly hop the flight path to Dal.  At least all of my low alts have them, I imagine they did the same for everyone.  No more waiting until 74 to get the quest anymore, just instantly have the path there.
That's a really good change, both for people stranded in Dal and for new 70s leveling up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on November 29, 2010, 09:34:17 AM
Just got finished leveling through the late stages of the new content.  It's fucking glorious.  Fucking glorious.  The amount of annoying shit they took out or expedited is incredible.  It's an alt-whore's paradise.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 29, 2010, 10:09:52 AM
Just got finished leveling through the late stages of the new content.  It's fucking glorious.  Fucking glorious.  The amount of annoying shit they took out or expedited is incredible.  It's an alt-whore's paradise.

It really is, and it's making me cast my eye about for another good Alliance server for happy fun alt time, as my slots are full on Doomhammer.  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on November 29, 2010, 10:15:18 AM
Just got finished leveling through the late stages of the new content.  It's fucking glorious.  Fucking glorious.  The amount of annoying shit they took out or expedited is incredible.  It's an alt-whore's paradise.

It really is, and it's making me cast my eye about for another good Alliance server for happy fun alt time, as my slots are full on Doomhammer.  :heartbreak:

Do not taunt happy fun alt...

But agreed, ran a little bit in (Northern) Barrens with an alt and it feels pretty streamlined.  Almost...  Too streamlined...  (sound of crickets)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 29, 2010, 10:17:03 AM
The lowbie undead quest where you pretend to be a quest giver is fucking hilarious.

I just came here to post this. All the Forsaken quests so far have been great, and this little in-joke quest was like the cherry on top.
And then you get the follow-ups, two played for comedy while one starts that way....


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 29, 2010, 10:19:35 AM
But agreed, ran a little bit in (Northern) Barrens with an alt and it feels pretty streamlined.  Almost...  Too streamlined...  (sound of crickets)

No, I can kinda see what you mean. MY personal damage is the leveling is too fast, it's really easy to outlevel a zone before the "end," especially if you want to do the leveling dungeons. I'm sure I'll LIKE that fastness once the shiny newness wears off, although I'll probably have a 60 of every class by the time that happens and won't care about the little people that don't.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on November 29, 2010, 10:26:56 AM
But agreed, ran a little bit in (Northern) Barrens with an alt and it feels pretty streamlined.  Almost...  Too streamlined...  (sound of crickets)

No, I can kinda see what you mean. MY personal damage is the leveling is too fast, it's really easy to outlevel a zone before the "end," especially if you want to do the leveling dungeons. I'm sure I'll LIKE that fastness once the shiny newness wears off, although I'll probably have a 60 of every class by the time that happens and won't care about the little people that don't.  :grin:

While I agree wholeheartedly, around half way through the quests I just stop paying attention to the xp and really am focused on the quest information. Not had that happen in any game in a long time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 29, 2010, 10:29:19 AM
Yeah, I've been just finishing zones regardless if it greys out for me or not, which is highly unusual for me, and usually it doesn't really bug me because I find the new stuff rewarding enough on its own most of the time, but in the back of my head I still have that little feeling of "OMG INEFFICIENT."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 29, 2010, 10:44:11 AM
The new leveling content is really, really great. Seems like every zone has something really cool in it. I'm not using my XP heirlooms at all because they would push me through too fast, especially because the big payoff quests tend to be at the end of a zone's story (Redridge  :rock:) - they can go on when I hit Outland. Skipping dungeons for now too, they give too much xp and make me miss out on sweet, sweet questing content. They'll be there when I want to level a tank or healer by that method later once I've tired of the regular questing content. Which will take a long time - it looks like there's enough content for me to level 3 Alliance toons 1-60 without repeating a zone, and then I can switch to Horde...

EDIT: On the new cooking/fishing dailies, of course the rewards aren't good (although getting a skill point and a token is pretty good imo). They're not max level dailies.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on November 29, 2010, 10:55:04 AM
My favorite quests have been "Little Girl Lost" (horde) and Martek's version of "The Day that Deathwing Came: What Really Happened" (I think both sides can do this one)

Cuz, y'know, I dislikes the blood elves.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 29, 2010, 11:25:13 AM
The new leveling content is really, really great. Seems like every zone has something really cool in it. I'm not using my XP heirlooms at all because they would push me through too fast, especially because the big payoff quests tend to be at the end of a zone's story (Redridge  :rock:) - they can go on when I hit Outland. Skipping dungeons for now too, they give too much xp and make me miss out on sweet, sweet questing content. They'll be there when I want to level a tank or healer by that method later once I've tired of the regular questing content. Which will take a long time - it looks like there's enough content for me to level 3 Alliance toons 1-60 without repeating a zone, and then I can switch to Horde...

EDIT: On the new cooking/fishing dailies, of course the rewards aren't good (although getting a skill point and a token is pretty good imo). They're not max level dailies.

The new instances are <3 <3

Just because handing out quests inside the instance is awesome, and still doesn't stop people from going "share quests plz?"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on November 29, 2010, 11:33:58 AM
There are at least three quests on eastern kingdoms alone that confuse male blood elves for female ones. It's awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ginaz on November 29, 2010, 11:46:56 AM
Theres an awesome quest/mini game in Hillsbrad Foothills where you help a farmer defend his house from zombies with...plants.  It won't make it anymore obvious than that on how its done.  The end reward is a singing sunflower pet.  I also got a few of the new hunter pets, a fox, a dog, a monkey and a seagull.  The fox has a nice debuff attack that lowers a targets attack speed by  20% for 30 secs.  The dog's special is one where he clamps down on a target and prevents them from moving for a few seconds.  The monkey throws poo and blinds a target for 4 secs.  The seagull disarms the target for 10 secs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on November 29, 2010, 12:35:12 PM
Peacebloom vs Ghouls is indeed awesome, and I have now got 10 singing sunflowers, one on each 80.  :grin:

I tamed this (http://www.wowhead.com/npc=47389) guy yesterday and it's the first pet I've had that gets me whispers about it every time I go into a city. Ugly fucker though!

The monkey throws poo and blinds a target for 4 secs.

Aaaaand now I need one of them. They the ones from Deadmines?

Oh, and I forgot, potentially useful post on MMO-Champ forums about What Wrath players need to know to not suck at Cata! (http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/795945-What-Wrath-players-need-to-know-to-not-suck-at-Cata!) I'm sure everyone here will know all this stuff already but always useful to point your guildies at!  :wink:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 29, 2010, 12:36:39 PM
Northern Stranglethorn and Cape of Stranglethorn have them too, wouldn't be surprised if they're also in Un'Goro. Perhaps of interest is the fact that the Deadmines monkeys keep their pickaxes when you tame them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on November 29, 2010, 12:37:47 PM
Nice one, cheers Ingmar. Will go monkey-hunting later!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on November 29, 2010, 01:03:07 PM

I was going to post on how much I love WoW's questing system, but it appears that most of the quests I like are new ones.  :awesome_for_real:

I'm tearing through content like crazy on my paladin. Part of me wants to mix in some dungeon crawling and pvp, but I always think "wait til my quest queue clears, and then I'll do something else" only that never happens. I've never seen anything like it.

Through a duel, I did learn first hand how much equipment means in a duel. My level 25 paladin (with 20ish level eq) fought against a level 1 rogue. Now I could have just nuked the guy to death, but surprisingly he survived a single nuke (I could 2 shot even cons then) and he dodged most of my melee. He told me his dodge rating was 70%. I beat him, but I doubt I could have if he was level 15 or so.  Gear is important in just about every mmog I've ever played but this seems beyond the pale. I did ok in DAoC's BG but I'm a bit scared off at this point tbh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 29, 2010, 01:11:07 PM
If he was level 15 he would have had a harder time hitting that dodge % due to the way the rating:stat conversions work at different levels. Not sure how fast they decay exactly (and I believe it is not linear either, it takes a dive at levels that cross certain threshoulds like 61 and 71.) Basically (WARNING: made up numbers) if say 10 rating gave you 20% dodge at level 1 it might only give you 15% dodge at level 15, or whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 29, 2010, 01:23:00 PM
There are at least three quests on eastern kingdoms alone that confuse male blood elves for female ones. It's awesome.
So I finished the Ghostlands questline on my belf paladin (that's been sat ready for about 6 months or so) after waiting for the Shattering:
(http://i.imgur.com/KyNDb.jpg)

My male blood elf paladin, that is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on November 29, 2010, 01:28:06 PM
Apparently you're new to WoW.  There are no male blood elf paladins.  The text is correct.  Blood elf paladins get a femininity slider (A lot to not much) at creation.  You should have figured that out by the feminine physique and long hair.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 29, 2010, 01:30:10 PM
In their hairstyles, maybe. The male blood elves are still way muscle-bulkier in a lot of ways than most real people. Still slightly bitter about the change they made to make them that way, way back in TBC beta.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on November 29, 2010, 02:19:26 PM
No self-respecting straight man plays male elf characters in wow.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 29, 2010, 02:34:03 PM
 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on November 29, 2010, 02:40:27 PM
"It's not gay if it's an elf."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 29, 2010, 02:45:08 PM
No self-respecting straight man plays male elf characters in wow.

Why do straight men hate appearing hot to ladies?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on November 29, 2010, 03:18:02 PM
I'll have you know my male blood elf is quite manly.  http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/alexstrasza/kirthas/ (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/alexstrasza/kirthas/)
Um, ignore the pink text. 

The Searing Gorge quest chain was fun.  The Burning Steppes quest chain was a bit dull until the end when the plan comes together for an amusing end.
I'm outlevelling Swamp of Sorrows so not sure if I'll do the whole chain.  I like how Blasted Lands is the highest EK zone before Outland and I'm sure you get sent through the Dark Portal at that point.

Now go improve Outland Blizz.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 29, 2010, 03:18:10 PM
No self-respecting straight man plays male elf characters in wow.

They play female night elves.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 29, 2010, 03:26:12 PM
I'll have you know my male blood elf is quite manly.  http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/alexstrasza/kirthas/ (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/alexstrasza/kirthas/)
Um, ignore the pink text. 

Man, nice outfit! My male blood elf is also totally manly, and he has YELLOW text: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/moon-guard/zandrys/


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on November 29, 2010, 04:11:43 PM
The only thing that amuses me about female blood elves is the head tilt thing they do when idle. Because that is SO the look I give my party when we haven't pulled anything for 3 minutes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on November 29, 2010, 05:08:29 PM
Flying over the zones misses about 95% of what makes the changes awesome.

This. You really need to do it from ground level to appreciate it all fully. Flying 10ft off the ground might do the same thing, but I've really enjoyed checking it out as well as doing the new quests that change the zones around. I've had several "whoa, that's nice" moments while running around om my lowbie, and I've only properly seen 3 cities, 3 zones and 2 half-of-a-zones


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 29, 2010, 05:10:44 PM
If you want Master flying (310%) just do the "What a Long Strange Trip it's Been" (http://www.wowhead.com/achievement=2145) achieve.  Or, if you're really good at PVP do the Arena thing until you get Gladiator (http://www.wowhead.com/achievement=2091).  Both grant the top level of flying now.   If pooling 5k gold is that severe an issue for you, then the year it'd take to do LST will probably be easier.

One of those options takes a full year to complete and the other is only available to .5% of the population, getting exalted rep and farming 4k gold is magnitudes easier than either of those options.

Yeah that's my opinion, too.  However I still run into people who, having played for 4+ years say things like "How the hell do you have 20k gold on your Death Knight?  I never have more than 1,000 at most!"  Yes, they're still on the base flying mount.   I don't get it either.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: stu on November 29, 2010, 05:14:17 PM
Flying over the zones misses about 95% of what makes the changes awesome.

This. You really need to do it from ground level to appreciate it all fully. Flying 10ft off the ground might do the same thing, but I've really enjoyed checking it out as well as doing the new quests that change the zones around. I've had several "whoa, that's nice" moments while running around om my lowbie, and I've only properly seen 3 cities, 3 zones and 2 half-of-a-zones

Plus, it's pretty cool when you're exploring the changes in a zone and Deathwing flies through, torching everything. At first I was like, what? And then I was like, whoaaa.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 29, 2010, 05:15:13 PM
I am one of those usually-poor people, although I have gotten myself slowly over the years to 3 or so characters with epic flight. My main has the artisan flight from the holiday achievement, and the relatively small boost isn't worth it to me to buy for anyone else.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 29, 2010, 05:31:52 PM
I only have one character and that character has two gathering professions. As soon as I decided I had all the gear I wanted from WOTLK and thus quit buying gems/enchants, the gold piled up around my ears. Bought a motorcycle, will be able to buy 310 flight as soon as I get around to caring, though that'll break me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on November 29, 2010, 05:39:08 PM
Except now everyone will be in Ironforge and Orgrimmar.  If they had any damn sense, they'd've put something compelling in the redheaded stepchild cities like Darnassus to bait players into hanging around them like unique daily quests or convenient access to new content.  As it is, we'll be seeing the same 'OMG ironforge lag' of the old days back with a vengeance.

On my server at least, Stormwind always has a ton of people in it as well as Ironforge. Quite comparable really, ever since they added the AH to SW. (There's a second AH and Bank near the Deeprun Tram as well which will spread people around a little more as soon as they start to realise). Darnassus is always almost empty, and Exodar is always empty because it's a fucking mess of a design. Seriously, they need to completely rebuild that town.

But anyway, if Horde are mostly in Org and a few in UC, it's still a hell of a lot better than everyone from both sides being in a "city" that's double-layered but half the size of one of the normal capitals.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 29, 2010, 05:42:12 PM
Hm, other than IF I actually find Exodar to be the simplest/cleanest city design. Hub and spoke, while SW and Darnassus have more walls and water barriers clogging up pathways and such.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on November 29, 2010, 06:23:54 PM
The interior layout might be okay, but the everything-looks-exactly-the-same architecture is off-putting, as is the long and winding road that takes you up to the outside.

I played for an hour or so yesterday. Decided to just do quests and finish off the grey Redridge stuff and a bunch of Darkshire. All the time I was wanting to do dungeons in the back of my mind, though.


Lanty - you might just need a year or two off. Not playing for a long time, playng LotRO for a bit, then coming back to WoW when the lotro shiny wore off made it a whole new game for me. Take some time off and do a trial in a year or two to see if it holds anything for you.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on November 29, 2010, 09:59:29 PM
Perhaps.  I had a good run thanks to having people whose company I enjoyed around.  However, my tolerance for certain things is getting less in my old age and conscious design decisions and are in direct opposition to them.  Maybe they'll have ironed some of those out by WoW 5.0 or when they decide to go f2p.

Or maybe they won't.  What I do hope is that someone else can prove to be a success so that lessons on what to do right can be learned from a new game and not one approaching six years old.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Musashi on November 29, 2010, 11:02:38 PM
I can understand that with just a cursory overlook it might seem overwhelming to essentially re-learn the old world that you were already comfortable with.  But really.  Just roll a damn alt.  The shit's incredible.  I promise. 

Remember that quest you hated because it was like poking needles in your eye?  It's probably changed to be coherent.  And it's worthwhile now, because the rewards are much improved.  Remember how it sucked after you were done with that god damn quest, that you had to drive your dude back to the quest hub and he sent you right back to the place you just came from?  No more.  Now that quest auto-completes, and you get the next one right there in the middle of wherever in front of god and everybody.  Remember that quest where you had to fly back to the god damn auction house to get some retard engineer to make you a mithril casing because there weren't any on the god damn auction house?  No more.  Now you just need a thing off one of those gorillas right over there.  And you're done.

The only thing that sucks about WoW at the moment is Outlands.  It's just a hideous monstrosity in comparison to the new content.  I used to look forward to getting out of the old world with my alt du jour because at least the rewards in Outland were better.  No more.  At least they nerfed the xp so it doesn't last as long.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on November 29, 2010, 11:11:19 PM
Westfall is a murder mystery now.  When I looked down and saw the Furlbrows dead, I actually had a moment where I was pissed.  Old Blanchy deserved better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on November 29, 2010, 11:32:33 PM
Westfall is a murder mystery now.  When I looked down and saw the Furlbrows dead, I actually had a moment where I was pissed.  Old Blanchy deserved better.

Looks like they really put the cart....before the horse.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 29, 2010, 11:40:39 PM
I got to punch Deathwing in the face today.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 30, 2010, 12:47:14 AM
Is Deathwing still running around destroying shit? I've neither seen him nor heard from anyone who has.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 30, 2010, 02:42:37 AM
The lowbie undead quest where you pretend to be a quest giver is fucking hilarious.

Where is this quest? If it's in Tirisfal then I've either missed it or didn't notice it. Seem to have been told to go to Silverpine already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on November 30, 2010, 03:11:36 AM
I got to punch Deathwing in the face today.  :heart:

That quest chain is  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 30, 2010, 03:30:23 AM
The lowbie undead quest where you pretend to be a quest giver is fucking hilarious.

Where is this quest? If it's in Tirisfal then I've either missed it or didn't notice it. Seem to have been told to go to Silverpine already.
It's the very first quest in Hillsbrad, after you get sent via breadcrumb.
Make sure you finish all of Silverpine first, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on November 30, 2010, 05:24:16 AM
It's the very first quest in Hillsbrad, after you get sent via breadcrumb.
Make sure you finish all of Silverpine first, though.

Cheers. Nowhere near it then. Not really playing my hunter that much - not enjoying the class as much as I thought I would (or as much as I remember playing it a few years ago).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on November 30, 2010, 06:35:32 AM
Low level no heirloom healing is D: right now. Especially with the changes to SFK and Deadmines.

Dear lord, what. It's pretty much 4 casts and OOM for any healer right now, combined with MUCH harder trash and bosses.
If you've got a priest, Disc has no mana issues in low level dungeons assuming sensible pulls and an actual tank.

I have a shadow priest and have had few mana issues.  I have to drink a little.  But she was already 25 when the sundering took place and all the bosses grew to 4x hps.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on November 30, 2010, 06:41:08 AM
Low level no heirloom healing is D: right now. Especially with the changes to SFK and Deadmines.

Dear lord, what. It's pretty much 4 casts and OOM for any healer right now, combined with MUCH harder trash and bosses.
If you've got a priest, Disc has no mana issues in low level dungeons assuming sensible pulls and an actual tank.

My priest is 80 already. What I lack is a druid, but that's painful to heal with while leveling right now.

I'm tempted to use a shaman, since earth shield will help a lot with healing mana, since it's a low cost and 9 charges out of the box now.

Druids are just.. We have a HoT and swiftmend, and everything else costs a fifth of your mana bar.

edit: that said though, Rake is hilariously overpowered at low levels. The DoT tics crit for half an even con mob's health.

I started a troll druid to check out the starting areas.

The pain has largely been removed from early druid leveling.  Cat form at 8.  Wow.  And boy is rake OP.  Thorns too even though it's been toned down.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on November 30, 2010, 08:30:27 AM
Westfall is a murder mystery now.  When I looked down and saw the Furlbrows dead, I actually had a moment where I was pissed.  Old Blanchy deserved better.

Yeah seeing Old Blanchy like that was quite a shock. Suspicious hobos in place of Defias .. hehe. I had no idea the Defias were finished ... no more Van Cleef! I'm glad I didn't do beta and spoil any of this stuff, so many little surprises.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on November 30, 2010, 09:10:05 AM
I can understand that with just a cursory overlook it might seem overwhelming to essentially re-learn the old world that you were already comfortable with.  But really.  Just roll a damn alt.  The shit's incredible.  I promise. 
Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough.  It's not overwhelming.  It's that... I. Don't. Give. A. Fuck.

Wandering around doesn't rekindle that feeling.  The most joy I got was from pulling out my green proto-drake.  (I love that 'little' guy.)  Five seconds of nostalgia isn't going to cut it though.

I'm glad a lot of you are finding it fun.  I'm interested in following along because WoW impacts game design whether I'm enjoying it or not, so I've been putting out my initial impressions while they're still not well-formed and tainted by hindsight.  Just accept it's not for everyone, and I happen to be one of those people.  No amount of "You should love it because I do!" is going to change my opinion.  Because it's a bloody opinion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on November 30, 2010, 09:27:40 AM
Clearly you are confused, the wow bitching thread is over here. -----> http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=20037.0

This is the circle jerk thread.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on November 30, 2010, 09:29:44 AM
Is that pet raptor quest in Stranglethorn a new one? It's pretty cool.

There's a quest that's giving me fits tho: High Priestess Venoxis

(lol looks like she used to be a level 60 mob; I'm 35 now)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on November 30, 2010, 09:52:44 AM
Westfall is a murder mystery now.  When I looked down and saw the Furlbrows dead, I actually had a moment where I was pissed.  Old Blanchy deserved better.

Whoa. Seriously? Wow.

Well, hell, now I"ll have to look into that. My shaman was just out there the other day and I didn't notice them anywhere, but...hell.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 30, 2010, 11:12:26 AM
I got to punch Deathwing in the face today.  :heart:

That quest chain is  :awesome_for_real:

The caravan chain in EPL is still my favorite so far of the stuff I've done (I am totally joining the Paladin Pals), but that one was right up there. I don't often laugh out loud at stuff in my fake internet world, but the third guy having his story interupted by the other two made me lose my shit.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on November 30, 2010, 12:32:30 PM
I'm glad a lot of you are finding it fun.  I'm interested in following along because WoW impacts game design whether I'm enjoying it or not, so I've been putting out my initial impressions while they're still not well-formed and tainted by hindsight.  Just accept it's not for everyone, and I happen to be one of those people.  No amount of "You should love it because I do!" is going to change my opinion.  Because it's a bloody opinion.

That's fine. I've been there with WoW. I'm there now with LotRO. I'm not trying to sell it to you or even make sure that you try it again in a year or two years or whatever, even though that got me interested again. Because while you're a nice enough poster on f13, I've never interacted with you ingame, etc, so it's not like I'm going to suddenly "miss" hanging out with you and so forth. OTOH, the game design changes are probably a good thing for the MMO industry, since it has involved a great deal of the cockstabbing with levelling quests.

por example: There's a long quest chain in Rivendell in Trollshaws (which is a painful zone, as well) in LotRO where you literally just run from Elrond to Aragorn (across town, around a huge gorge with a river in it) to Elrond, to one of Elrond's sons halfway across the zone, to the edge of the zone, back to Elrond's son, back to Elrond, up into an adjacent zone to Gloin, back to Elond, over to Glorfindel, back to Elrond, back to Aragorn, etc etc etc etc. You're not really doing anything, just playing messenger boy. Hopefully the WoW changes will impact silly timewasting quests like this in future MMO design.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on November 30, 2010, 12:39:42 PM
The only messenger-type quest I can see having any patience for is if the game has the tech to ambush you along the way.  Even then, they better be high-reward quests.  And very few and far between.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Cadaverine on November 30, 2010, 01:01:39 PM
Remember how it sucked after you were done with that god damn quest, that you had to drive your dude back to the quest hub and he sent you right back to the place you just came from?  No more.  Now that quest auto-completes, and you get the next one right there in the middle of wherever in front of god and everybody. 

Is this something that only happens after a certain level, or something?  I started up a couple new characters to check out the new content, and I've had to turn everything in as I always have.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 30, 2010, 01:04:00 PM
Remember how it sucked after you were done with that god damn quest, that you had to drive your dude back to the quest hub and he sent you right back to the place you just came from?  No more.  Now that quest auto-completes, and you get the next one right there in the middle of wherever in front of god and everybody. 

Is this something that only happens after a certain level, or something?  I started up a couple new characters to check out the new content, and I've had to turn everything in as I always have.

Some quests do it, some don't. Usually once the travel distances start to get large they become more common. An example would be on the Nesingwary quests in STV; now when you take down your 10th young panther, instead of having to go back to turn it in you get a little popup you can click on for the next step, it says something like "Now that you've warmed up on these, you think it would be a good idea to go try some bigger ones" or whatever. Other conceits they use for the 'popup' quest completion instead of a normal turn-in are NPCs casting mind vision on you, using a communication device of some sort to talk to you, the NPC actually coming along with you on the quests, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on November 30, 2010, 01:21:08 PM
Is that pet raptor quest in Stranglethorn a new one? It's pretty cool.

There's a quest that's giving me fits tho: High Priestess Venoxis

(lol looks like she used to be a level 60 mob; I'm 35 now)

Yeah, it's new, and I totally wanna go rescue the poor li'l tyke!

I do find it annoying I can't just kill Mandokir, even though I've soloed him a ludicrous number of times trying to get the raptor mount.  I know, I know; mid-level quest zone and all, but still aggravating.  Makes me want to send the Blasted Lands storytellers down to punch him in the face  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on November 30, 2010, 02:14:33 PM
I got to punch Deathwing in the face today.  :heart:

That quest chain is  :awesome_for_real:

The caravan chain in EPL is still my favorite so far of the stuff I've done (I am totally joining the Paladin Pals), but that one was right up there. I don't often laugh out loud at stuff in my fake internet world, but the third guy having his story interupted by the other two made me lose my shit.  :heart:

I also like Lunk from the Searing Gorge quests.  He's hillarious.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on November 30, 2010, 07:18:09 PM
Apparently Linken is gone from ungoro crater and the turtle quest is gone from tanaris, that's kinda sad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Furiously on November 30, 2010, 07:39:28 PM
So how does a horde character get to the islands anymore? Like the ne one? Or just wait for a flight license?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 30, 2010, 08:20:38 PM
Water walking (potion, DK, Shaman) across the river from Darkshore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on November 30, 2010, 08:41:14 PM
Well, I somehow got a quest that involved and instance dungeon. The dungeon itself was pretty "meh", but the technology behind dungeon queues and such I wasn't prepared for. I didn't know I'd basically get summoned to the dungeon (which was nice). I also didn't know that the dungeon popup I saw later on wasn't a bug that was trying to get me to join another group, but the party leader trying to switch dungeons (our tank left the group, so switching apparently was the quickest way to get a tank).

eta: I've really enjoyed the quest system until the past couple of days. It's been nearly perfect until now. I've had 2 quests that don't appear on the map. One turned out to be an instanced dungeon that I couldn't solo. I don't mind grouping, I just wish I would have gotten a headsup that it was full of elites (there was an earlier quest in Westfall that did warn the player that an elite mob was involved). I've had another quest that AFAICT is not solvable unless I chain stun the mob (or perhaps one perfectly timed stun? I'll have to test).



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: raydeen on December 01, 2010, 02:54:39 AM
Blizzard is the devil. I was home sick yesterday and decided to try an undead hunter now that they're available and lo and behold, the whole newbie experience is way different quest, story and geography wise. Kudos to them for figuring out a way to get me to do lowbie content again for the upteen billionth time. I'll give fair warning to any new undead; I don't know if the very first quest is bugged or if my game just glitched but I spent 20 minutes or so running around in the Shadow Grave desperately looking for the twine and embalming fluid. Couldn't find it. I thought 'Wow! Maybe they've taken out the 'sparklies' and made things interesting or maybe there's a secret wall or something!'. Then I watched another player kneel down and do things by one of the tables. I went over and looked, still nothing. Then on a hunch I logged out and logged back in. Sure enough, the items were right there, just weren't displaying for me the first time around. I did get a good chuckle  out of the head on the table with the one eye that keeps looking around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 01, 2010, 05:59:13 AM
Well, I somehow got a quest that involved and instance dungeon. The dungeon itself was pretty "meh", but the technology behind dungeon queues and such I wasn't prepared for. I didn't know I'd basically get summoned to the dungeon (which was nice). I also didn't know that the dungeon popup I saw later on wasn't a bug that was trying to get me to join another group, but the party leader trying to switch dungeons (our tank left the group, so switching apparently was the quickest way to get a tank).

eta: I've really enjoyed the quest system until the past couple of days. It's been nearly perfect until now. I've had 2 quests that don't appear on the map. One turned out to be an instanced dungeon that I couldn't solo. I don't mind grouping, I just wish I would have gotten a headsup that it was full of elites (there was an earlier quest in Westfall that did warn the player that an elite mob was involved). I've had another quest that AFAICT is not solvable unless I chain stun the mob (or perhaps one perfectly timed stun? I'll have to test).



Bolded: if someone drops, the party leader will requeue you for the same instance exactly where you are. It just puts your group at the front of the queue for X missing party member (tank, healer, dps)

You can also requeue, but people tend not to do that in pick up groups.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on December 01, 2010, 09:10:40 AM
Blizzard is the devil. I was home sick yesterday and decided to try an undead hunter now that they're available and lo and behold, the whole newbie experience is way different quest, story and geography wise. Kudos to them for figuring out a way to get me to do lowbie content again for the upteen billionth time. I'll give fair warning to any new undead; I don't know if the very first quest is bugged or if my game just glitched but I spent 20 minutes or so running around in the Shadow Grave desperately looking for the twine and embalming fluid. Couldn't find it. I thought 'Wow! Maybe they've taken out the 'sparklies' and made things interesting or maybe there's a secret wall or something!'. Then I watched another player kneel down and do things by one of the tables. I went over and looked, still nothing. Then on a hunch I logged out and logged back in. Sure enough, the items were right there, just weren't displaying for me the first time around. I did get a good chuckle  out of the head on the table with the one eye that keeps looking around.

I've been playing an undead hunter and I've found I'm actually reading the quest text and paying attention.  Next thing I know mobs are gray to me and I have 5 talent points to spend, but who cares, fuck you bloodfang!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on December 01, 2010, 09:49:28 AM
Quote
Blizzard is the devil. I was home sick yesterday and decided to try an undead hunter now that they're available and lo and behold, the whole newbie experience is way different quest, story and geography wise. Kudos to them for figuring out a way to get me to do lowbie content again for the upteen billionth time

I am actually home sick today and playing an undead hunter. I did undead first and it's always been one of my favorite zones, but this is just fantastic. Everything makes sense. I tend to avoid any sort of questing if I can help it, but yes, even I am reading the quest text through here.

Next up the new deadmines.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on December 01, 2010, 09:56:44 AM
I can't help but think back to all the discussions where I suggested Blizzard should go back and update their newbie areas, because I think people would enjoy it.  I was told in all kinds of ways that I was wrong.

"Blizzard would never spend money on old content!  You fail the gaming business newb!"

Blah!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on December 01, 2010, 10:19:27 AM
I've been playing an undead hunter and I've found I'm actually reading the quest text and paying attention. 

Yes, I've found slowing down and actually reading each quest has been really rewarding. The whole Forsaken leveling path through Hillsbrad has been really fun and impressive to see how much basic questing has improved since vanilla. I appreciate the humor woven throughout the experience, both subtle and overt. It all just works like a well-oiled machine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 01, 2010, 10:35:40 AM
Next thing I know mobs are gray to me and I have 5 talent points to spend, but who cares, fuck you bloodfang!

Once I got to Darkshore (the night elf newbie newb zone is essentially the same but better, the quests flow better and there's a lot less running around like an idiot), this has pretty much been my experience too. Darkshore is pretty depressing, though. But on the other hand, I got to explode a billion murlocs. It's a good balance!  :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on December 01, 2010, 10:42:12 AM
While you're in Darkshore, don't forget to check out the whirlpool. Make sure you check really close...

Wet rocks and hooves apparently meant my shaman got a lot closer look than she was planning on, but the results were rather interesting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on December 01, 2010, 11:06:47 AM
Standing on top of what's left of the dam in Loch Modan brought back memories of saving it on my hunter years ago. Seeing chunks of it strewn down into the Wetlands made me a little sad.

Kudos to Blizzard for that. It's not often that MMO's evoke those kind of feelings.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 01, 2010, 11:07:45 AM
My dam  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on December 01, 2010, 11:50:06 AM
The whole Forsaken leveling path through Hillsbrad has been really fun and impressive to see how much basic questing has improved since vanilla. I appreciate the humor woven throughout the experience, both subtle and overt.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1143749/Elbows.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 01, 2010, 12:44:35 PM
I totally laughed and made Ingmar read that the second I saw that.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 01, 2010, 01:53:43 PM
As an undead player of 5 years I laughed, I cried.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 01, 2010, 02:59:05 PM
I didn't know who Marshal Redpath was but mirth was definitely invoked when I "woke" the next guy, Valdred Moray. I distinctly remember doing *that* quest first time around but probably because I was doing the 'lock Succubus quest at the same time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 01, 2010, 03:02:39 PM
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s146/phliptop18/peed.jpg)

This one sent me on a double take and then the lulz happened.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 01, 2010, 03:28:42 PM
I didn't know who Marshal Redpath was but mirth was definitely invoked when I "woke" the next guy, Valdred Moray. I distinctly remember doing *that* quest first time around but probably because I was doing the 'lock Succubus quest at the same time.

That Redpath was a questgiver in poor, lost Southshore. I can't remember what he sent me to murder, probably the ogres. But I mostly loved him in his forsaken form for his revolutionary ideas concerning elbows.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Bzalthek on December 01, 2010, 04:57:14 PM
This one sent me on a double take and then the lulz happened.  :awesome_for_real:

Poo, I just did that, and while the others were humorous, I never got that message.  They did a bang up job on this shit.  I'm going to have to do all the starting areas now!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 01, 2010, 05:36:48 PM
Redridge story line parallels Rambo... and then you get a tank. It is AWESOME.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 01, 2010, 05:50:44 PM
RUN TO YOUR DARK GODS, YOU FILTHY ANIMALS!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 01, 2010, 05:56:19 PM
Redridge story line parallels Rambo... and then you get a tank. It is AWESOME.


I've run into a handful of these types of quests now ("Your op'd toon is now GODLIKE. Go kill 100 rats!") but Redridge is by far the best.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on December 01, 2010, 10:12:50 PM
deleted my late answer to a question answered up the page.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pennilenko on December 01, 2010, 10:27:04 PM
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s146/phliptop18/peed.jpg)

This one sent me on a double take and then the lulz happened.  :awesome_for_real:

What UI is that, I have to have it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 01, 2010, 11:19:10 PM
Heh. It's just a button bar addon (dominos) and a unit frame addon (pitbull maybe).

Pretty close to the stock UI unless there's a lot of other stuff running under the covers.

Actually looks pretty similar to what I'm running now. I haven't bothered to get anything fancy going.  Why bother, leveling isn't hard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 02, 2010, 01:15:08 AM
Yeah, the unit frames are probably Shadowed Unit Frames (http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info13494-ShadowedUnitFrames.html) or PitBull (http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addons/details/pitbull4.aspx).  I'll guess the former just because that's what I'm running (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40252/WoWScrnShot_112410_153548.jpg).

Bar mod really could be anything, although I don't recognize the big keyring button versus the usual skinny one so it's not Bartender (http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info11190-Bartender4.html) (Dominos (http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info9085-Dominos.html) then?).  Nearly every bar mod is going to let you hide the artwork and move the mini buttons and bags around.  And that's really it from the looks of it.  Maybe use Align (http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info6153-Align.html) if you're feeling anal retentive (although you shouldn't need it with sUF at least).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 02, 2010, 02:16:58 AM
Pic

This one sent me on a double take and then the lulz happened.  :awesome_for_real:

I was doing that quest chain last night. Loved that the Orc collecting the boxes stacks them five high in an improbable, cartoony way (which is bound to piss off the "immersion-or-death" crowd which delights me even more  :grin:) and then the whole "they got their arses kicked because they were sober - better give 'em beer to fight better" quest tickled my fancy too.

So, question I have is that, having mutally established that the Undead starting zones up to and including Hillsbrad are full of win, what are the ally zones like now? I gather that Westfall has a CSI theme and that Redridge is Rambo based but have they made significant changes to Elwynn forest questing too?  Is it on a par? Better? Nowhere near as good?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on December 02, 2010, 02:21:32 AM
I think there are some orcs instead of Defias in a couple places. I didn't hang around much, but it didn't look like much changed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 02, 2010, 03:26:06 AM
There's no achieve for Elwynn and I'm full up on characters and can't roll a newb so I skipped it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 02, 2010, 03:42:13 AM
Yeah, the unit frames are probably Shadowed Unit Frames (http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info13494-ShadowedUnitFrames.html) or PitBull (http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addons/details/pitbull4.aspx).  I'll guess the former just because that's what I'm running (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40252/WoWScrnShot_112410_153548.jpg).

Bar mod really could be anything, although I don't recognize the big keyring button versus the usual skinny one so it's not Bartender (http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info11190-Bartender4.html) (Dominos (http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info9085-Dominos.html) then?).  Nearly every bar mod is going to let you hide the artwork and move the mini buttons and bags around.  And that's really it from the looks of it.  Maybe use Align (http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info6153-Align.html) if you're feeling anal retentive (although you shouldn't need it with sUF at least).

Dominos and ShadowedUnitFrames. Always liked a "clean" screen so I cobbled a few odds and ends together and moved shit around to my liking.

Finished those Silverpine quests in the series and the banter with Godfrey, Ashbury, and Walden (not to mention Godfrey and his shotgun of redemption) is priceless.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 02, 2010, 05:12:52 AM
Elwynn is pretty similar, much like Teldrassil, it's just organised better. The gnome starter experience is all new though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 02, 2010, 07:25:17 AM

Pirates > Ninjas. Just sayin'

What's the best resource for finding out which quests are no longer active? My paladin was supposed to go to the Silverpine Forest ages ago, but someone told me it's now a Horde zone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 02, 2010, 08:55:30 AM
It was always a horde zone, you probably just had a class quest there or something. I know the old Warlock quests LOVED sending you into opposition territory for your pets. For the specific quest, you could check wowhead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on December 02, 2010, 09:17:47 AM

I rolled an undead last night to get the context for this screenshot. It's an interesting quest chain.

"Forsaken with elbows"  is chuckle worthy in a random, non sequitur way, but I still feel like I'm missing the joke. Is there a story behind this or is it just random silliness?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 02, 2010, 09:24:55 AM
It was always a horde zone, you probably just had a class quest there or something. I know the old Warlock quests LOVED sending you into opposition territory for your pets. For the specific quest, you could check wowhead.

I think I mentioned earlier but wowhead still seems to be trying to get its shit together as far as database goes. It's doing it quickly but still not right in places (eg currently lots of quests seem to be marked as class/race specific when they're blatantly not).

But yes, Silverpine has always been a Horde zone but both ally and horde paladins have a level 20 weapon quest needs a drop in SFK (The old Verigan's fist quest). It doesn't need drops from BFD or Deadmines anymore (BFD and RFC for Belf Pallys)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 02, 2010, 09:46:04 AM
I did notice some sillyness with quests being flagged as class specific, but generally found that if a quest was marked "Removed From Game" or whatever, it really was.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 02, 2010, 09:52:50 AM
"Forsaken with elbows"  is chuckle worthy in a random, non sequitur way, but I still feel like I'm missing the joke. Is there a story behind this or is it just random silliness?
All Forsaken clothes have the elbows and knees ripped out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on December 02, 2010, 10:20:13 AM
All Forsaken clothes have the elbows and knees ripped out.

Oh, it's a reference to clothing. DUH.

My reaction to it was "What is he talking about? Their arms bend. They have elbows."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on December 02, 2010, 10:29:01 AM
"Forsaken with elbows"  is chuckle worthy in a random, non sequitur way, but I still feel like I'm missing the joke. Is there a story behind this or is it just random silliness?
All Forsaken clothes have the elbows and knees ripped out.

And they have no flesh (dessicated or no) on said joints.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on December 02, 2010, 11:48:06 AM
I took the rocket from EPL to Fuselight-by-the-Sea, only to find that apparently you can't access the teleporter from there to the rest of the Badlands if you've already done the Fuselight quests.  With old-world flying in the game that would be a non-issue, but it was either hearth to Dalaran or pop a waterwalking potion and run around the coast to Blasted Lands or the new Twilight zone.  I chose the run.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 02, 2010, 11:54:58 AM
Similarly, if you don't have quests, thousand needles is an exercise in futility.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 02, 2010, 11:59:43 AM
"Forsaken with elbows"  is chuckle worthy in a random, non sequitur way, but I still feel like I'm missing the joke. Is there a story behind this or is it just random silliness?
All Forsaken clothes have the elbows and knees ripped out.

(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s146/phliptop18/lolsz.jpg)

Just to reference the topic elsewhere. I may just live in Silverpine...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 02, 2010, 12:12:25 PM
New Shadowfang sucks balls though.  Really, really not good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 02, 2010, 01:23:55 PM
New Shadowfang sucks balls though.  Really, really not good.

I think it's just that the new bosses are a tad bullshit for their level range, mechanics wise.

Deadmines and Shadowfang got the level 80 instance complexity treatment, which is COOL, but not suited to their intended level range for newer players. The majority of the new boss abilities should be heroic mode only, imo.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 02, 2010, 01:30:10 PM
It is never too early to learn to not stand in fire.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on December 02, 2010, 01:31:54 PM
It is never too early to learn to not stand in fire.

It's the only functional mechanic Blizzard has.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 02, 2010, 01:35:08 PM
It is never too early to learn to not stand in fire.

There's little fire to not stand in (first deadmines boss is pretty much it)

But shit like "take all party members to 1 health and then heal them to 30%" is a bit much and makes newer healers burn mana trying to heal everyone. Bullet storm is also a bit on the "by the time you've read the debuff, you're dead" at that level.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 02, 2010, 03:02:14 PM
For those fretting about the Deathwing achieve (like me) apparently he will be making fly-bys until the patch in which he becomes a raid boss.  So never fear, you have between 6 and 12 months to get charred.   It was posted on the WoW-Europe forums but I can't find a wow-europe dev tracker to confirm what my GL said (PLus MMO-Champs is giving me a parse error).



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 02, 2010, 03:03:30 PM
And presumably after that you can still get the achievement by dying to him in a raid, given that it is a real achievement and not a feat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 02, 2010, 04:04:24 PM
Bullet storm is also a bit on the "by the time you've read the debuff, you're dead" at that level.

It teaches people a valuable "If Blizzard actually puts a giant warning in by default about something, you probably need to fucking move" lesson!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 02, 2010, 04:59:10 PM
They took out the Battle for Undercity, I've just discovered on my mage.  This makes me sad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 02, 2010, 05:57:37 PM
It presented a difficult continuity issue; how do you help Thrall retake UC when he's not warchief anymore? They also removed several quests from Outland because they required you to interact with Thrall (Hero of the Mag'har in particular).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 02, 2010, 05:59:12 PM
It presented a difficult continuity issue; how do you help Thrall retake UC when he's not warchief anymore? They also removed several quests from Outland because they required you to interact with Thrall (Hero of the Mag'har in particular).

I think there are some geographical changes in and around the Undercity, at least at the surface level, that would have meant redoing all the phasing, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 02, 2010, 06:55:36 PM
Thanks guys for the info re: Silverpine. I finally made the trek and was able to solo much of it until the last (?) boss. I was beginning to think I was unkillable :p

Btw, anyone have any swashes that need buckling? (I'm assuming the Booty Bay arc is new stuff too)
(http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/24131/1018444.jpg)



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on December 02, 2010, 09:15:37 PM
The lowbie undead quest where you pretend to be a quest giver is fucking hilarious.

Lol I was at a buddies place as he did this, and when he saw that orc douce flying in on his epic mount scream 'Can you smellllll what the Lok'Thar is cooking?!?!', he looked at me and was like 'Dude, that's YOU!!!'

 :grin:

Bastard!

Best quest ever!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on December 02, 2010, 09:21:48 PM
It presented a difficult continuity issue; how do you help Thrall retake UC when he's not warchief anymore?

I dunno, Doc Brown and Kyle Reese show up to cajole you to do it?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 02, 2010, 09:48:51 PM
Nonsense! Just get Chromie in there. Chromie fixes everything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 02, 2010, 09:48:58 PM
While I realize you're being silly, I really think they should move the whole of Outland and Northrend into the Caverns of Time until such a time when (if?) they can be given a few updates to make sense in the lorelol.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on December 02, 2010, 10:02:26 PM
Nonsense! Just get Chromie in there. Chromie fixes everything.

Lore wise, Chromie is the shit lol. What made her extra special was the 'would you do her?' arguements that kept popping up in trade chat on my server.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 02, 2010, 10:37:36 PM
Chromie is also a male dragon in female gnome form, FYI


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 02, 2010, 11:36:53 PM
While I realize you're being silly, I really think they should move the whole of Outland and Northrend into the Caverns of Time until such a time when (if?) they can be given a few updates to make sense in the lorelol.

I was only being half-silly, I would really prefer they do what you suggest myself. It's just such a huge mindfuck "oh God did I fall through a wormhole" thing. It's worse as Alliance, I think, since Outland was borderline "wtf" even when it was new for them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 02, 2010, 11:44:26 PM
They took out the Battle for Undercity, I've just discovered on my mage.  This makes me sad.

I'm not so distressed by this. It was cool and I'm glad I did it but, quite honestly, the quest itself bored me. Yes, I'm fighting alongside Thrall and Sylvanas and yes, it's a major plot point but whether I fight or not, they're going to win and also, I'm buffed to the point of invincibility which means there's also no danger and even more minimal chance of death than normal. A cut scene would have been more involving.

I am saddened by the Hero of the Mag'har removal though because I had it on my "must get around to doing it" list and didn't at all clock that they'd be taking it out of the game.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 02, 2010, 11:51:58 PM
I'm with you there DraconianOne; the first time I did the Battle for UC I thought it was epic and cool. Every other time I was just bored. No risk, no reward (since you get no xp from the ton of shit you kill besides the turn-in at the end), etc.

I would've preferred it as a series of phased quests. Ditch all the buffs and simply have kill quests for the shit in each area. Once you clear the Courtyard, you walk with the NPCs to the next area and get the next quest, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 03, 2010, 01:02:27 AM
Having played Dun Morogh as a Dwarf up until it bugs out at the airstrip (http://www.wowhead.com/quest=26102) all the hubs are very well designed.  Breadcrumb in, do a couple of quests, breadcrumb to the next hub and repeat.

It's still a lot of bear ass collection (or its variants) but its kept fresh by moving you around or fun touches like getting launched out of... something (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40252/WoWScrnShot_120210_213324.jpg) or needing to collect your belongings before leaving the starter area (http://www.wowhead.com/quest=24492).  The loot has also been nice: fresh icons and no clownsuit vibe at all.

I figure I'll save Westfall for another alt and keep on with the Dwarf stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on December 03, 2010, 04:30:26 AM
New Shadowfang sucks balls though.  Really, really not good.

I think it's just that the new bosses are a tad bullshit for their level range, mechanics wise.

Deadmines and Shadowfang got the level 80 instance complexity treatment, which is COOL, but not suited to their intended level range for newer players. The majority of the new boss abilities should be heroic mode only, imo.

As level 15 dungeons, or level 80(85??) heroics? I had no problems running either as a complete noob tank - literally my first tanking for a group in WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on December 03, 2010, 04:31:39 AM
They took out the Battle for Undercity, I've just discovered on my mage.  This makes me sad.

Very glad I finally did that. It was only a few weeks ago, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 03, 2010, 06:56:40 AM
New Shadowfang sucks balls though.  Really, really not good.

I think it's just that the new bosses are a tad bullshit for their level range, mechanics wise.

Deadmines and Shadowfang got the level 80 instance complexity treatment, which is COOL, but not suited to their intended level range for newer players. The majority of the new boss abilities should be heroic mode only, imo.

As level 15 dungeons, or level 80(85??) heroics? I had no problems running either as a complete noob tank - literally my first tanking for a group in WoW.

As level 15 dungeons, for a random "Hi, I have no heirlooms and just got this game" player, the mechanics are far more advanced than anything you'll see pre Wrath (considering nobody raids at level appropriate spots pre Wrath)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on December 03, 2010, 02:38:10 PM
Heroic SFK is going to destroy groups. And it will be glorious.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 03, 2010, 02:41:42 PM
As level 15 dungeons, for a random "Hi, I have no heirlooms and just got this game" player, the mechanics are far more advanced than anything you'll see pre Wrath (considering nobody raids at level appropriate spots pre Wrath)

I don't think I agree, considering that Darkmaster Gandling and his teleporting wackiness is a level 40 boss now. There is stuff in Dire Maul and Maraudon that is probably comparable too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 03, 2010, 03:14:39 PM
I don't think I agree, considering that Darkmaster Gandling and his teleporting wackiness is a level 40 boss now. There is stuff in Dire Maul and Maraudon that is probably comparable too.

He didn't teleport us when I did it. :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 03, 2010, 03:16:29 PM
Well boo  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on December 03, 2010, 03:53:07 PM
He still teleports.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 03, 2010, 04:14:56 PM
I wonder why he didn't do it for us, then!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 03, 2010, 04:39:22 PM
Pity port.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 04, 2010, 12:54:05 AM
What I liked about Shadowfang most of all was the way it was wrapped up in the whole mystery of Silverpine.  That's all gone now.  In addition to that, the actual instance itself hadn't really changed any, so the plonking of different mobs in there was just straight up jarring and stupid.  Shadowfang was the Source of the Silverpine trouble, the ultimate aim to meet and defeat.  Now it's just a hiding place for 3 chaps who got their arses kicked outside. 

I didn't like it.  I don't think I'm ever going to.  Ah well.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around Dire Maul and Scholo at level 36.  That's pretty strange to me.  Also, they haven't changed all the loot tables, clearly, since I got some very strange drops.  I have too much runecloth now and fuck all to do with it !


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 04, 2010, 01:38:04 AM
I quite enjoyed both Deadmines and SFK although I agree SFK is definitely a step up in terms of complexity.  That said, it's nothing much above "Don't stand in fire." and having a kill order.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 04, 2010, 01:44:57 AM
I wonder why he didn't do it for us, then!

He does it at timed intervals. I've found that a lot of the lowered level instance bosses don't live long enough to do any of their mean special abilities, even with the new HP values. When I did scholo, he managed to port one person at about 5% health.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 04, 2010, 09:42:00 AM
They seem to have taken out the gong and display when you get an achievement now...?   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 04, 2010, 09:59:28 AM
If by display you mean the window that pops up at the bottom, then no that was still working for me last night. Might be a bug on your end. Not sure about the sound as I usually have music playing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 04, 2010, 10:27:12 AM
They seem to have taken out the gong and display when you get an achievement now...?   :uhrr:

I got an achieve with the gong last night, so you might have a bug.  There seems to be something goofy going on with the cache files again, so try deleting all of them and seeing if it comes back.   I couldn't loot any Argent Tournament quest items yesterday and even disabling all addons then restarting WOW didn't help.  Once I deleted the cache, voila, I could loot the hyacinths and the flame guy again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 04, 2010, 10:34:39 AM
Hmmm, just got one on my Shaman lowbie for hitting 20, but nothing on my main earlier today when I got Exalted with Netherwing.  Will give the cache files a shot and see what happens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on December 04, 2010, 07:33:26 PM
I'm gonna have to make like 3 alts to properly experience the whole of the 1-60 leveling experience for just Alliance. It's that good.

I actually think you level a bit too fast. I'm using NO heirlooms, not killing anything I don't need to, and I only run each dungeon once to do the quests...yet I keep having quests go grey/green before I even get halfway into some zones. Most fun I've had in WoW in the last year when I wasn't drunk on Vent with guildmates or playing with my friends.

I'm about 40-45ish. My zone experience so far (spoilered for...well, spoilers):



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 04, 2010, 07:36:48 PM
Based on what I've seen in game and what I've heard from most people here, it seems that Dungeons are intended to be a separate progression from solo questing, not as a complement. This works well if you're a tank/healer; not so much if you're a DPS.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on December 04, 2010, 11:03:59 PM
I think i am going to have to go back and re quest EVERY single zone on my Druid when i can finally fly in Azeroth.

level 1-60 for damn near every zone is now just obecenely good.  You can really tell that Blizzard has learned a metric fuckload over the course of WoW development.   The new 1-60 is like an entirely new game, and is WORLDS better then the old stuff (even much of Northrend), which is going to make that 10 level transition from 60-70 where you slog through Burning Crusade even more jarring by comparison.

Here is to hopeing they re-tune BC like they did Vanilla content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 05, 2010, 12:24:10 AM
I'm gonna have to make like 3 alts to properly experience the whole of the 1-60 leveling experience for just Alliance. It's that good.

I actually think you level a bit too fast. I'm using NO heirlooms, not killing anything I don't need to, and I only run each dungeon once to do the quests...yet I keep having quests go grey/green before I even get halfway into some zones. Most fun I've had in WoW in the last year when I wasn't drunk on Vent with guildmates or playing with my friends.

Outleveling my quests is one of the bigger complaints that I have. I wish, since they are doing phasing anyway, that the mobs would adjust to your level, but I guess that's too much to hope for.

My paladin is now 44 and the only thing I've gotten from my guildies are bags (for the paladin and all my alts lol). I sis buy a few weapons once I was 30+ but I didn't really need to. I fought 5 mobs (within 1 level above or below me) at once and finished the fight with 100% hp/mana.

Also, IMO the Booty Bay arc starts off slow but ends with a bang.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on December 05, 2010, 12:33:45 AM
level 1-60 for damn near every zone is now just obecenely good.  You can really tell that Blizzard has learned a metric fuckload over the course of WoW development.   The new 1-60 is like an entirely new game, and is WORLDS better then the old stuff (even much of Northrend), which is going to make that 10 level transition from 60-70 where you slog through Burning Crusade even more jarring by comparison.
Every time I see a post like this I get in a tizzy and almost start writing a contentious reply but then I take a deep breath and repeat to myself, it's not for me. It's not for me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on December 05, 2010, 03:42:35 AM
level 1-60 for damn near every zone is now just obecenely good.  You can really tell that Blizzard has learned a metric fuckload over the course of WoW development.   The new 1-60 is like an entirely new game, and is WORLDS better then the old stuff (even much of Northrend), which is going to make that 10 level transition from 60-70 where you slog through Burning Crusade even more jarring by comparison.
Every time I see a post like this I get in a tizzy and almost start writing a contentious reply but then I take a deep breath and repeat to myself, it's not for me. It's not for me.
I am not joking however. Everything I read, everything everyone else says, and everything I have personally experienced lends to the impression that, barring maybe one or two zones in an entire continent, EVERYTHING in the new 1-60 experience is just flat out awesome quest wise.

Personally, I can only speak for the 1-24 experience of New Troll Zone - > Durotar -> Azshara so far, but even that is 100x better then anything the old game would have given you.
- Troll zone was short and sweet, with a few nice new tricks (like the VOICE ACTED npc troll who follows you around for half the place acting like a new player and stuff).
- Durotar was nothing super amazing, but the quest flow and story development is easily heads and shoulders above old Durotar.  It is even better as a Veteran Horde player, where I completely get all the references to "Pre Shattering" Durotar in all the quests.
- Azshara though.  Holy hell this place rocks.  Every 4th or 5th quest is something down right awesome or simply hilarious.  Quest flow is pretty much perfect, and they have numerous in-zone transit methods to get you from point a to point b quickly (and quite often hilariously as well).  Personal highlights would be flash freezing black dragons so they fall out of the sky and die; calling in Goblin Priest air strikes to rez dead soldiers; Rapelling up the side of a tower, killing the people on top, and then parachuiting to safety; Summoning my own personal Goblin Commando uint who (even if it is scripted) realisticly appear to seek cover and fire from behind pillars and stuff; and best of all, Helping a Dangerously Intelligent Mutant Raptor rescue her Babies and escape on a Rocket ship to colonize another world.

Azshara was simply amusing enough that I actually completed the "do 100 quests in Azshara" achievement even after the last 30 or so were green to me and many of the mobs had gone grey just so i could see what they would throw at me next. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ajax34i on December 05, 2010, 05:05:03 AM
So, like, they're trying to show SWTOR how to "do storyline content" basically?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on December 05, 2010, 05:25:54 AM
Im starting to wish I had waited on that 10 day trial until after the cataclysm thing happened. I can't use a scroll if I recently used a WOTLK trial if I'm not mistaken.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 05, 2010, 06:00:34 AM
Outleveling my quests is one of the bigger complaints that I have. I wish, since they are doing phasing anyway, that the mobs would adjust to your level, but I guess that's too much to hope for.
Then mobs would give more xp and you'd be level 70, possibly even 80, by the time you got done with all the Old World.  Hmmm.  That would mean skipping Outland... I think you're on to something...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 05, 2010, 06:15:16 AM
Easier than trying to scale the mobs would be to just put in a Sidekicking/Mentoring system that allows you to drop your level (I wouldn't even include the requirement of going down to another player, just allow it at will) so that you can do quests while they con and thus get rewarded for them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 05, 2010, 09:34:59 AM
Sidekick/ Mentoring is in the works from what they've hinted at when asked about it in the last few months.  That all abilities scale instead of being ranked now lends to this.  Heirlooms seem to be their attempt at scaling gear.   I think we'll see it in the next 18 months.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on December 05, 2010, 12:02:50 PM
I am not joking however. Everything I read, everything everyone else says, and everything I have personally experienced lends to the impression that, barring maybe one or two zones in an entire continent, EVERYTHING in the new 1-60 experience is just flat out awesome quest wise.

Personally, I can only speak for the 1-24 experience of New Troll Zone - > Durotar -> Azshara so far, but even that is 100x better then anything the old game would have given you.
- Troll zone was short and sweet, with a few nice new tricks (like the VOICE ACTED npc troll who follows you around for half the place acting like a new player and stuff).
- Durotar was nothing super amazing, but the quest flow and story development is easily heads and shoulders above old Durotar.  It is even better as a Veteran Horde player, where I completely get all the references to "Pre Shattering" Durotar in all the quests.
- Azshara though.  Holy hell this place rocks.  Every 4th or 5th quest is something down right awesome or simply hilarious.  Quest flow is pretty much perfect, and they have numerous in-zone transit methods to get you from point a to point b quickly (and quite often hilariously as well).  Personal highlights would be flash freezing black dragons so they fall out of the sky and die; calling in Goblin Priest air strikes to rez dead soldiers; Rapelling up the side of a tower, killing the people on top, and then parachuiting to safety; Summoning my own personal Goblin Commando uint who (even if it is scripted) realisticly appear to seek cover and fire from behind pillars and stuff; and best of all, Helping a Dangerously Intelligent Mutant Raptor rescue her Babies and escape on a Rocket ship to colonize another world.

Azshara was simply amusing enough that I actually completed the "do 100 quests in Azshara" achievement even after the last 30 or so were green to me and many of the mobs had gone grey just so i could see what they would throw at me next. 
I wasn't joking either (though I may have been exaggerating slightly). It's just that I'm one of the QUESTS ARE TEH DEVIL people and I keep forgetting that the "Cata quests are awesome" thing only applies to people who, like, read quest text. I've only done the first hub or two of Azshara but the bit that sticks out in my mind most was being asked to collect 15 bits of local wildlife anatomy, and then being unable to loot bits from a mob I had killed fair and square because it ran into a phased area before it died and its corpse disappeared every time I got close. :mob:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 05, 2010, 01:08:27 PM
- Troll zone was short and sweet, with a few nice new tricks (like the VOICE ACTED npc troll who follows you around for half the place acting like a new player and stuff).

I loved him.



 :cry2:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 05, 2010, 01:49:05 PM
So randomly: is there any solid information on Archeology yet? All I can find are the various previews with old blizzcon information in them. I was expecting to find at least one beta tester tells all kind of account, unless it wasn't on the beta realms.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 05, 2010, 02:55:11 PM
I am not joking however. Everything I read, everything everyone else says, and everything I have personally experienced lends to the impression that, barring maybe one or two zones in an entire continent, EVERYTHING in the new 1-60 experience is just flat out awesome quest wise.

Personally, I can only speak for the 1-24 experience of New Troll Zone - > Durotar -> Azshara so far, but even that is 100x better then anything the old game would have given you.
- Troll zone was short and sweet, with a few nice new tricks (like the VOICE ACTED npc troll who follows you around for half the place acting like a new player and stuff).
- Durotar was nothing super amazing, but the quest flow and story development is easily heads and shoulders above old Durotar.  It is even better as a Veteran Horde player, where I completely get all the references to "Pre Shattering" Durotar in all the quests.
- Azshara though.  Holy hell this place rocks.  Every 4th or 5th quest is something down right awesome or simply hilarious.  Quest flow is pretty much perfect, and they have numerous in-zone transit methods to get you from point a to point b quickly (and quite often hilariously as well).  Personal highlights would be flash freezing black dragons so they fall out of the sky and die; calling in Goblin Priest air strikes to rez dead soldiers; Rapelling up the side of a tower, killing the people on top, and then parachuiting to safety; Summoning my own personal Goblin Commando uint who (even if it is scripted) realisticly appear to seek cover and fire from behind pillars and stuff; and best of all, Helping a Dangerously Intelligent Mutant Raptor rescue her Babies and escape on a Rocket ship to colonize another world.

Azshara was simply amusing enough that I actually completed the "do 100 quests in Azshara" achievement even after the last 30 or so were green to me and many of the mobs had gone grey just so i could see what they would throw at me next. 
I wasn't joking either (though I may have been exaggerating slightly). It's just that I'm one of the QUESTS ARE TEH DEVIL people and I keep forgetting that the "Cata quests are awesome" thing only applies to people who, like, read quest text. I've only done the first hub or two of Azshara but the bit that sticks out in my mind most was being asked to collect 15 bits of local wildlife anatomy, and then being unable to loot bits from a mob I had killed fair and square because it ran into a phased area before it died and its corpse disappeared every time I got close. :mob:

This sort of thing happens when I tried to mine in Redridge after finishing the quests there. The veins pop in and out of existence.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 05, 2010, 04:31:42 PM
I would just like to say that Zen'KiKi is the WORST druid ever.

That is all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 05, 2010, 04:37:17 PM
I would just like to say that Zen'KiKi is the most awesome druid ever.

That is all.

Fixed


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 05, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
I actually found a run down on how Archeology works, and it looks <3. Just because there's no node jacking/competition with bored level capped players for nodes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dalien on December 05, 2010, 06:15:36 PM
Hey all, long time listener, first time caller.   :oh_i_see:

So randomly: is there any solid information on Archeology yet? All I can find are the various previews with old blizzcon information in them. I was expecting to find at least one beta tester tells all kind of account, unless it wasn't on the beta realms.

When you train it (Harrison Jones in SW library for Alliance, not sure where for Horde) you're given a new ability called Survey.  Little shovel icons will also being appearing on your world map to indicate where your dig sites are.  Once you travel to the dig site, use the Survey ability and it will drop a survey scope pointing in the general direction of your artifact (which is also colored green, yellow or red to show how far away you are from it).  You can either keep following the scopes around until you find the spot, or triangulate it, either way it's basically a game of Hot and Cold.

After digging in the right spot you'll receive some fragments that go directly into your Archaeology tradeskill window (they don't take bag space).  In the tradeskill window there's a progress bar for each type of artifact (Dwarf 10/30 fragments for example), and once you've collected enough fragments for that type you click Solve to complete it.  IIRC there's 3 dig spots per site and when it's cleared out it immediately spawns a new site somewhere else on the map, so you'll never run out of places to dig.

Assuming it hasn't been changed since beta, you get skillups for digging up to 100, after that the only way to get skillups is by completing artifacts (+5 per).  There was no cap on the number of unsolved fragments that you could carry around so it's really best to wait until you're at 100 skill before solving any.  Also, the digs are 'phased' for your character so you can be in the same spot with 10 other people digging, and there's no competition.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 05, 2010, 06:32:47 PM
Thanks for the info dalien. Kildorn, mind linking the info you found? I'm probably going to work on Arch shortly after hitting 85, as there are a number of cool mounts you can get from it and I'm a big mount collector.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 05, 2010, 06:39:56 PM
Thanks for the info dalien. Kildorn, mind linking the info you found? I'm probably going to work on Arch shortly after hitting 85, as there are a number of cool mounts you can get from it and I'm a big mount collector.

Champ tossed this up this weekend:

http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/604-Archaeology-Cataclysm

Which covers that Dalien said about it, and lists a few rewards (boa level 85 epics? yes please.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 05, 2010, 06:57:31 PM
Nice, thanks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 05, 2010, 11:02:03 PM
When you train it (Harrison Jones in SW library for Alliance, not sure where for Horde)

Belloc Brightblade (http://www.wowhead.com/npc=47571) in Orgrimmar.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 05, 2010, 11:58:07 PM
When you train it (Harrison Jones in SW library for Alliance, not sure where for Horde)

Belloc Brightblade (http://www.wowhead.com/npc=47571) in Orgrimmar.

YES


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 06, 2010, 01:41:56 AM
When you train it (Harrison Jones in SW library for Alliance, not sure where for Horde)

Belloc Brightblade (http://www.wowhead.com/npc=47571) in Orgrimmar.

YES

My delighted little rave about discovering that our Arch trainer was called Belloc was met with a resounding silence on guild chat, followed by a "Who?"

Immediate /gquit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 06, 2010, 03:46:00 AM
It's tough getting old. :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 06, 2010, 04:54:42 AM

OMG I didn't realize there was an actual quest to collect bear asses rofl.

So now I'm running into another problem. Quests were great in the sense I enjoyed my short time as a member of Bravo Company, and pretending I was Captain Jack Sparrow, but I really only need to do those once (and i can do w/o collecting bear asses for  bear ass soup. Get your own bear asses). The two chars I play the most are the human paladin and a night elf druid, so at this point there's no overlap, but it looks like there soon will be. I like to play multiple alts, but AFAICT I'm going to end up doing the same quests if I play as a human or night elf. Ok, so I have a dwarf priest and a dranei warrior, but if I want to play a mage type I'm going to be screwed.

I'm waiting for Cata to go live, and I'll make a worgen shaman and hope there's new stuff for them.

What I don't get is why is there no class specific quest arcs? DAoC sorta had them, every 5 levels or so.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 06, 2010, 05:02:53 AM
There are a few class quests, but not many. The closest to class arcs were the shaman totem quest which were thankfully taken out back and shot. Though I still got assigned Call of Fire on my little troll shaman, which errored out about halfway through because they deleted the rest of the chain.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on December 06, 2010, 05:51:17 AM
What I don't get is why is there no class specific quest arcs? DAoC sorta had them, every 5 levels or so.
When they did exist, most of them were "go to this specific spot that is completely out of your way and kill this elite" or "this specific dungeon and go kill mob X that is off the beaten path in said dungeon" types.  They were okay, but trying to get groups to go do most of them was very often a pain.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 06, 2010, 05:57:21 AM
What I don't get is why is there no class specific quest arcs? DAoC sorta had them, every 5 levels or so.
When they did exist, most of them were "go to this specific spot that is completely out of your way and kill this elite" or "this specific dungeon and go kill mob X that is off the beaten path in said dungeon" types.  They were okay, but trying to get groups to go do most of them was very often a pain.

Ah, the class quests that required a ST run...   :uhrr:

I did like the DAoC way of doing class-specific quests and arcs, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on December 06, 2010, 06:03:16 AM
So how do we get to the two new starting high level zones?  Can't seem to find the info.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 06, 2010, 06:21:38 AM
Portals from Org/SW I think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 06, 2010, 06:22:47 AM
Go to a Hero's Call Board (http://www.wowhead.com/search?q=Hero's_Call_Board#objects) in Stormwind or a Warchief's Command Board (http://www.wowhead.com/search?q=Warchief's_Command_Board#objects) in Orgrimmar and take the quest for either Mount Hyjal or Vashj'ir.  (It can be any of the boards really, but the quests are sending you there anyway.)

While in town, you'll want to train the Flight Master's License (http://www.wowpedia.org/Flight_Master's_License) as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on December 06, 2010, 06:30:49 AM
And Archaeology too!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 06, 2010, 08:31:40 AM
When you train it (Harrison Jones in SW library for Alliance, not sure where for Horde)

Belloc Brightblade (http://www.wowhead.com/npc=47571) in Orgrimmar.

YES

My delighted little rave about discovering that our Arch trainer was called Belloc was met with a resounding silence on guild chat, followed by a "Who?"

Immediate /gquit.
Who?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 06, 2010, 08:36:41 AM
Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana's arch-enemy, Rene Belloq.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 06, 2010, 08:37:29 AM
For the sake of argument, let's say I want to quest on only 4 chars per side, and level the others by dungeon crawling. How many dungeons are there 15-40? I get the sense there's only a handful, but I don't know for sure.


Also: Is there a min level req for archaeology?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on December 06, 2010, 08:44:12 AM
http://www.wowwiki.com/Instances_by_level is a good summary.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 06, 2010, 08:57:56 AM
For the sake of argument, let's say I want to quest on only 4 chars per side, and level the others by dungeon crawling. How many dungeons are there 15-40? I get the sense there's only a handful, but I don't know for sure.


Also: Is there a min level req for archaeology?



This works as well...

http://www.wowhead.com/zones=2.0#0+2+1


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: raydeen on December 06, 2010, 08:59:26 AM
I'm blown away by how fast the leveling is so far. 10 1/2 hours to level 20. That's roughly twice as fast as it was before. Of course I am playing a hunter which is super fast leveling anyways.

I just might get more than one 80 now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 06, 2010, 09:01:01 AM
http://www.wowwiki.com/Instances_by_level is a good summary.

Thanks guys


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 06, 2010, 09:05:15 AM
Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana's arch-enemy, Rene Belloq.
He had a name?  Huh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 06, 2010, 09:09:13 AM
They call him Bellosh...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 06, 2010, 09:09:31 AM
Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana's arch-enemy, Rene Belloq.
He had a name?  Huh.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/82533/Futurama_Fry_Looking_Squint.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 06, 2010, 09:34:21 AM
They call him Bellosh...

Spooky!

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5008/5238692562_0fa14738d4_o.jpg)



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Furiously on December 06, 2010, 09:35:46 AM
They call him Bellosh...

You could warn them...If only you spok Hovitos.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 06, 2010, 10:13:17 AM
Heh.  It's a good bit in the film.

"They have not one brain among them.  Except one.  He is very clever."

I can't really thing of a role that Gimli played that I didn't enjoy.  He'd better get some more work quick, though, before everyone starts to refer to him as Gimli.

Or Treebeard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 06, 2010, 11:11:59 AM

OMG I didn't realize there was an actual quest to collect bear asses rofl.

So now I'm running into another problem. Quests were great in the sense I enjoyed my short time as a member of Bravo Company, and pretending I was Captain Jack Sparrow, but I really only need to do those once (and i can do w/o collecting bear asses for  bear ass soup. Get your own bear asses). The two chars I play the most are the human paladin and a night elf druid, so at this point there's no overlap, but it looks like there soon will be. I like to play multiple alts, but AFAICT I'm going to end up doing the same quests if I play as a human or night elf. Ok, so I have a dwarf priest and a dranei warrior, but if I want to play a mage type I'm going to be screwed.

I'm waiting for Cata to go live, and I'll make a worgen shaman and hope there's new stuff for them.

What I don't get is why is there no class specific quest arcs? DAoC sorta had them, every 5 levels or so.

I sat down and figured out how to go through Alliance 1-58 with minimal overlap on 3 characters:

Dwarf/Gnome: Dun Morogh -> Loch Modan -> Wetlands -> Hinterlands -> WPL -> EPL -> Badlands -> Searing Gorge -> Burning Steppes -> Swamp of Sorrows -> Blasted Lands
Human: Elwynn -> Westfall -> Redridge -> Duskwood -> N. Stranglethorn -> Cape of Stranglethorn -> Dustwallow -> Thousand Needles -> Tanaris -> Un'Goro -> Silithus
Nelf/Draenei/Worgen: Teldrassil/Gilneas/Azuremyst -> Darkshore or Bloodmyst -> Ashenvale -> Stonetalon -> Desolace -> Feralas -> Thousand Needles ->  Felwood -> Winterspring

If I've got it right this gets you through 3 characters Old World leveling with only one zone repeat, although I think the Kalimdor character may finish around level 55 instead of 58-59ish. However if you aren't a quick leveler and thus accumulate some rest, have heirlooms, or do a few dungeons that will pretty much do it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 06, 2010, 11:13:48 AM
Tom's Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm-directx-11-performance,2793.html) posts some performance rundowns of the new WoW engine across multiple platforms.

The TL;DR version - Intel processors scale better, get a new graphics card if you want to run insane resolutions in Ultra mode.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 06, 2010, 11:15:11 AM
The one place so far I get a slowdown at Ultra is the newly flooded part of Durotar, I think because of the ground cover.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 06, 2010, 11:19:30 AM
I had to go a step down with the water on my 4870, but the rest is Ultra.  Can't complain about the performance anywhere I've gone thus far.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 06, 2010, 11:24:59 AM
I had to go a step down with the water on my 4870, but the rest is Ultra.  Can't complain about the performance anywhere I've gone thus far.

I'd be love to see some screenies of Ultra. I'm still running XP on my laptop so no DX10/11 and it won't let me up the settings beyond not very high.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 06, 2010, 03:01:58 PM
Trying to connect but not much is happening; going to assume that the servers are currently imploding.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on December 06, 2010, 03:03:26 PM
I'm currently playing, no troubles here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on December 06, 2010, 03:10:08 PM
On a Euro server?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 06, 2010, 03:15:21 PM
EU is going live at the moment, now I'm just getting auto disconnected at the logon screen

Going to leave it connecting and go make some toast.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on December 06, 2010, 04:05:13 PM
Login servers down. Apparently what happened was that the servers asked everyone to reconnect, at the same time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 06, 2010, 04:20:41 PM
In now, all looks very nice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 06, 2010, 04:37:38 PM
Ton of people logging out at the flight trainer in Org...  Me included.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on December 06, 2010, 05:42:20 PM
Ton of people logging out at the flight trainer in Org...  Me included.   :awesome_for_real:

God, they don't have to stand on top of him. Just being on top of the rise is fine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 06, 2010, 06:01:57 PM
Bind "Interact With Target" to something.  /tar Maztha and go.  No need to fumble around because of the "lol Kodo on top of NPC" crowd.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 06, 2010, 06:43:21 PM
Bind "Interact With Target" to something.  /tar Maztha and go.  No need to fumble around because of the "lol Kodo on top of NPC" crowd.

You know, I never have issue with this, I just go into first person and step inside the bodies.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 06, 2010, 06:45:42 PM
Man, the flight trainer has about 60 people on top of her. Guys, the patch isn't for 5 hours or so.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 06, 2010, 07:19:37 PM
Everyone on my server seems to think it's 12am local time and not PST.  They're in for a wait, heh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on December 06, 2010, 07:25:25 PM
Everyone on my server seems to think it's 12am local time and not PST.  They're in for a wait, heh.

You sure it isn't 12 Eastern? That is what it was for Wrath.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 06, 2010, 07:26:42 PM
It's Pacific this time around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 06, 2010, 08:10:43 PM
Yeah, they caught a lot of heat for doing it EST but having their Fry's event at Midnight PST, IIRC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on December 06, 2010, 08:45:40 PM
(http://binfuser.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/cata.jpg)
Free mouse for lining up  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on December 06, 2010, 09:24:53 PM
That mouse makes a good paperweight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 06, 2010, 09:25:00 PM
I had to go a step down with the water on my 4870, but the rest is Ultra.  Can't complain about the performance anywhere I've gone thus far.

I'd be love to see some screenies of Ultra. I'm still running XP on my laptop so no DX10/11 and it won't let me up the settings beyond not very high.

Spoilered for size:

There's just a shot of me with my paladin I'm messing around with.  This is just Mulgore, nothing too scenic, but I haven't explored that much. 

WoW doesn't look that great static, but it sure feels nice playing this on Ultra and getting just about 60 FPS everywhere. It just moves so well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 06, 2010, 09:31:01 PM
Free mouse for lining up  :awesome_for_real:

All I got was a poster from Best Buy.  :awesome_for_real:  No line-up tho.. I'm too old for that, order online, pickup in store. Too bad the billing server is taking a shit. I'll wake up and do this in the morn.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on December 06, 2010, 09:42:19 PM
That mouse makes a good paperweight.

Yeah I have a alienware tactx (it's a logitech g9x guts without the weights). I was surprised at the stuff they gave away, first 15 got mice, next 15 got steelseries qck mouse pads, and the rest got posters. Bestbuy had better handouts then say the cheap knockoff hats they gave out for Wrath.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 06, 2010, 09:47:45 PM
Smoothest launch of an MMO expansion I've ever seen.

Orgrimmar was BUSY, like, packed. Logged out at 22:59. Started trying to log back in at 23:01, got in after about 4 mins. The rest of the guild trickled in over the next 10 mins. We played around for a couple of hours but we're all old gits so most of us needed to go and sleep by 1am.

Starter areas in Hyjal and Vash'jir were predictable rammed but questing was still possible - very high respawn rates on quest mobs and items! Will be a *nightmare* on a pvp server I would guess.  :uhrr:
 
Flying in the old world is pure  :heart: :awesome_for_real: and only costs 200g (at exalted). Archaeology seems nicely implemented, if not exactly grippingly exciting, although it's nice atm since it's an excuse to fly around a lot. We saw realm firsts in Cooking, Skinning and Herbalism in under 2 hours.

No crashes, no server restarts, not even any notable bugs! Oh, one tiny one, apparently the guild xp cap wasn't working properly so a few guilds who had managed to reach level 5 by this morning have had that rolled back.

I have a feeling that I'm going to have to be extremely well disciplined over the next few weeks to not break my required "1-2 hours at a time" rule too much!  :awesome_for_real:

Edit: speeling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 06, 2010, 10:59:53 PM
Damn dirty Euros. I'm still camping the flightmaster on my main while dicking around a bit on alts. Got my shiny new Lil Deathwing though, which is awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ginaz on December 07, 2010, 12:08:31 AM
I can't log in.  Whenever I click on the WoW log in icon on my desktop I get a pop up message saying "Another copy of the Blizzard Downloader is already downloading that file to that location."  Anyone know whats going on? :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 07, 2010, 12:10:08 AM
I was on earlier, then I tried to log out and make a worgen. It wasn't available, so I exited the game and dl'd something. Now I can't log in.  :sad_panda:

eta: I'm logged in now; it's just taking forever. Still trying to get to my server.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 07, 2010, 12:11:51 AM
Odd.  Guild Rep is in (as I found up from turning a few dailies in for no XP) and I was able to queue up for a Blackrock Caverns and kill some stuff there, but no one in my group or guild was getting experience.  Group decided to log out and back in and now I'm stuck at [Cancel].


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on December 07, 2010, 12:14:53 AM
The Forgotten Coast was delayed in updating for a while got the yellow text saying the content was moved live and to relog. Stuck in the connecting auth server meltdown.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on December 07, 2010, 12:18:11 AM
Logged out when prompted and just now got to character select. So don't give up!

Now to hope the world loads before I time out staring at the progress bar...

edit: yeah, in retrospect logging out in the same place as 500 other people was a bad idea.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ginaz on December 07, 2010, 12:32:25 AM
Ok, nm.  I'm in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on December 07, 2010, 01:28:05 AM
I'm in and merrily flying around the Old World digging up pieces of some ancient Night Elf's nightgown for experience. Life is good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 07, 2010, 01:34:45 AM
We saw real firsts in Cooking, Skinning and Herbalism in under 2 hours.

We started seeing our firsts in about 15 minutes. I suspect foul play.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 07, 2010, 01:45:24 AM
We saw real firsts in Cooking, Skinning and Herbalism in under 2 hours.

Under 2 hours? Lightweights! First person to level cooking did it in under 4 minutes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on December 07, 2010, 01:58:06 AM
I just saw a server first in Fishing and I really don't see how that's possible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 07, 2010, 02:06:28 AM
We just had our realm first level 85. Horde druid, Tarasín (http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/search?q=Taras%C3%ADn). EU Armory is broken however so that link probably won't work.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 07, 2010, 03:50:36 AM
This just goes to show how retarded realm first achievements are.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on December 07, 2010, 04:51:45 AM
Hmmm, usually it takes like 24 hours, some people did it in under 7 this time?  *shrugs* (Or was it available at mid night in Europe, so more like 13-14-15 hours?)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 07, 2010, 05:07:50 AM
Went live at 11pm UK time, our realm first 85 was about 9.30am, so 10.5 hours or so. The guild he's leader of is the most catass guild on the server so they undoubtedly used every trick in the book to get him there first.

The XP does seem to be flowing pretty quickly though. I've done 2 or 3 quests in Vash'jir and then gone back to the old world and levelled Archaeology to 110 and am half way to 81 already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 07, 2010, 05:34:49 AM
European first 85 was at 7:35am this morning (UK) so 8.5 hours to level? Also a druid although doubt that means much.

Does Archaeology give decent XP or is it mob levels like mining/herbalism?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 07, 2010, 06:12:50 AM
Logged in and got my flying before work without an issue.

Got a quest at logon which pointed me to the new lands.  Even still, tons of people asking, "ware's the boat to teh new stuff?"   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 07, 2010, 06:25:28 AM
Got a quest at logon which pointed me to the new lands.  Even still, tons of people asking, "ware's the boat to teh new stuff?"   :uhrr:

 :facepalm:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 07, 2010, 06:44:11 AM
I popped over to what should have been murloc land, but was taken from them by the naga, did one quest before leaving for work.

Noticed that Archeology infos I had seemed to be slight wrong, my dig sites are not in level appropriate zones for my 80, they were in random lowbie zones. Oh well, once I find a flight point in new world, I'll pop back over and learn to dig for useless trinkets!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 07, 2010, 06:53:41 AM
If you hated vehicle combat before, wait until you do the flying jousting quest in Hyjal where you will get to experience the worst implemented quest Blizzard has ever made.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 07, 2010, 07:23:44 AM
Does Archaeology give decent XP or is it mob levels like mining/herbalism?

It's pretty good. Getting 5500xp for a green dig and 11000xp for a yellow/orange, although it's not 100% consistent.

my dig sites are not in level appropriate zones for my 80, they were in random lowbie zones.

Your dig sites are in zones appropriate to your archaeology skill, not your character level.

Edit:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 07, 2010, 07:52:59 AM
Oh congrats, did you just get that at random, or did it actually come up as a project?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on December 07, 2010, 07:58:29 AM
I'm in and merrily flying around the Old World digging up pieces of some ancient Night Elf's nightgown for experience. Life is good.

I totally forgot about Archaeology last night, hah, so much to do. The Worgen starter area was insanely overpopulated of course, made most of the questing there a bit absurd and surreal. Popping into flight form and just taking off in Stormwind was probably the best single moment of my few hours last night.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 07, 2010, 08:01:11 AM
I'm in and merrily flying around the Old World digging up pieces of some ancient Night Elf's nightgown for experience. Life is good.

I totally forgot about Archaeology last night, hah, so much to do. The Worgen starter area was insanely overpopulated of course, made most of the questing there a bit absurd and surreal. Popping into flight form and just taking off in Stormwind was probably the best single moment of my few hours last night.

I'm wondering if my glyph gambles will pay off due to the incoming goblin hordes <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 07, 2010, 08:03:06 AM
Oh congrats, did you just get that at random, or did it actually come up as a project?

Came up as a project, was my 3rd Fossil project. He's super cute  :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 07, 2010, 08:11:26 AM
Awesome


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ginaz on December 07, 2010, 09:27:46 AM
The first series of quests in the underwater place pissed me off so much I hearthed and made my goblin.  Swimming around for an hour or more doing quests isn't my idea of fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 07, 2010, 09:49:26 AM
I only did the first underwater quest, and it wasn't too bad. It seems like the give you an underwater mount as well, but I'm not sure when.

It was overcrowded as hell, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on December 07, 2010, 09:59:03 AM
Been playing since 6am in Vashjir.  At first I thought I picked the wrong starting zone; lots of mobs and lots of kelp mean Vietnam Underwater!  Charlie's in the kelp!  Started to get frustrated, competition for herbs, mobs, etc. was insane.  But after two or three quest hubs it thinned out and I'm a lot happier.  The sunken city looks hella cool.  Time to dive (heh) back in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 07, 2010, 10:01:04 AM
Vash'jir is an amazing looking zone. Screenshots don't really do it justice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 07, 2010, 10:28:22 AM
Yeah.  On Ultra, the underwater zones are gorgeous, like being IN 'Finding Nemo'.

I like it all so far.  I thought I'd hate it more.  Alas.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Chimpy on December 07, 2010, 10:39:03 AM
I like it all so far.  I thought I'd hate it more.  Alas.

Cracks are starting to show?

...in your hate everything persona.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on December 07, 2010, 10:39:22 AM
Just got in this morning. Man, crowds...we hatessss them, yesssss we do. Mob scene out in Hyjal. Haven't made it to Vash'jr yet, but maybe tonight or tomorrow night.

Between just way too many people and jackwagons that insist on parking their dragons on the quest givers, I said screw this and went on an archeology binge. Pretty cool; beats the hell out of fishing, that's for sure. Archeology alone is a good reason to buy the 310% mount speed. It became apparent in about 2 minutes that these old worlds zones are BIG. Lot of flying time even with the 310%.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Cadaverine on December 07, 2010, 10:40:43 AM
My god it's crowded.  It only took about 2 hours to hit 81, but it felt like forever what with having to fight with everybody the whole way.  The superfast respawn is nice, and all, but I've died I don't know how many times because the mobs just keep respawning on me.  

And I thought the Joust quest was fun, but I liked the arcade game, so make of it what you will.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 07, 2010, 10:42:13 AM
Just got in this morning. Man, crowds...we hatessss them, yesssss we do. Mob scene out in Hyjal. Haven't made it to Vash'jr yet, but maybe tonight or tomorrow night.

Between just way too many people and jackwagons that insist on parking their dragons on the quest givers, I said screw this and went on an archeology binge. Pretty cool; beats the hell out of fishing, that's for sure. Archeology alone is a good reason to buy the 310% mount speed. It became apparent in about 2 minutes that these old worlds zones are BIG. Lot of flying time even with the 310%.

I tried to get archaeology on one of my alts (15ish) but for some reason he didn't train me. It sounds like it's just as well, with all the traveling involved.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on December 07, 2010, 10:45:52 AM
If you hated vehicle combat before, wait until you do the flying jousting quest in Hyjal where you will get to experience the worst implemented quest Blizzard has ever made.


It was pretty much exactly like the original in my mind, I don't see the problem.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ginaz on December 07, 2010, 10:47:12 AM
Maybe it was just the swarm of people in the area all trying to do the same quests.  I'll give it another go tonight.  The goblin and worgen starting zones have been pretty good so far( got both to lvl 5).  Gilneas has an interesting Victorian look to it while Kazan seems to be populated with the Goblin equivlilent of the Jersey Shore cast.  It was fun driving the hot rod all around town, though.  I plan on, eventually, playing out the starting zone quests for both new races till around 20 or so.  Anything beyond that I'll just use one of my maxed out characters to take in the story.  I'm also seriously considering paying for a race change, turning my troll hunter into a goblin hunter.  It would fit better with a goblin considering the name I've given him, Foshizzlle, and the name I give to all my pets, Mynizzlle, than it does a troll.  That and it would remind me of my squig herder that I loved playing in WAR.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ginaz on December 07, 2010, 10:50:05 AM
My god it's crowded.  It only took about 2 hours to hit 81, but it felt like forever what with having to fight with everybody the whole way.  The superfast respawn is nice, and all, but I've died I don't know how many times because the mobs just keep respawning on me.  

And I thought the Joust quest was fun, but I liked the arcade game, so make of it what you will.

I died more times doing the early quests in Gilneas than I've ever died before in any starting noob zone with all my previous characters combined.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Cadaverine on December 07, 2010, 10:50:32 AM
Maybe it was just the swarm of people in the area all trying to do the same quests.  I'll give it another go tonight.  The goblin and worgen starting zones have been pretty good so far( got both to lvl 5).  Gilneas has an interesting Victorian look to it while Kazan seems to be populated with the Goblin equivlilent of the Jersey Shore cast.  It was fun driving the hot rod all around town, though.  I plan on, eventually, playing out the starting zone quests for both new races till around 20 or so.  Anything beyond that I'll just use one of my maxed out characters to take in the story.  I'm also seriously considering paying for a race change, turning my troll hunter into a goblin hunter.  It would fit better with a goblin considering the name I've given him, Foshizzlle, and the name I give to all my pets, Mynizzlle, than it does a troll.  That and it would remind me of my squig herder that I loved playing in WAR.

I rolled up a Worgen this morning, and running through the whole of the starting area took me to 13, or 14, at which point I was sent to Darnassus to enjoy the Night Elf areas.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 07, 2010, 10:51:19 AM
The new Guild stuff is really, really good.

The best bit is that my Guild has maxed todays without trying, which actually means a small guild WILL keep up with a big guild...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on December 07, 2010, 11:23:56 AM
Only the top five people count towards guild progress i believe so any guild with at least 5 people should be able to sort of keep up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 07, 2010, 11:31:26 AM
Just got in this morning. Man, crowds...we hatessss them, yesssss we do. Mob scene out in Hyjal. Haven't made it to Vash'jr yet, but maybe tonight or tomorrow night.

Between just way too many people and jackwagons that insist on parking their dragons on the quest givers, I said screw this and went on an archeology binge. Pretty cool; beats the hell out of fishing, that's for sure. Archeology alone is a good reason to buy the 310% mount speed. It became apparent in about 2 minutes that these old worlds zones are BIG. Lot of flying time even with the 310%.

I tried to get archaeology on one of my alts (15ish) but for some reason he didn't train me. It sounds like it's just as well, with all the traveling involved.

Trainer listed the min level as 20 for the first rank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 07, 2010, 11:34:16 AM
The new Guild stuff is really, really good.

The best bit is that my Guild has maxed todays without trying, which actually means a small guild WILL keep up with a big guild...

Ah, now that is good. I was wondering about that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on December 07, 2010, 12:09:29 PM
It makes sense you pretty much don't want to try to do archeology before you at very least get your first ground mount or the running around needed would be painful.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 07, 2010, 12:12:24 PM
Five level 85s and one Grandmaster Archeologist before 1pm today.

I was all like  :uhrr:


Why ?

WHY ?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 07, 2010, 12:13:27 PM
That'll only take me like... a month.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on December 07, 2010, 12:17:49 PM
Leveling seems fairly fast, the exp to level was not much higher than wrath and the exp from quests and kills was so 80-81 was about 80% of what 79-80 took.  I don't know exactly how long i played but i had to reapply poisons at least once and i'm 10% from 81.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 07, 2010, 12:20:55 PM
Quest design in Kelp'thar is super retarted. It'll be fine when the horde of players move on, but right now it's packed and doing quests is like waiting in line at the bank.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on December 07, 2010, 12:22:25 PM
After the amazing quests of the revamped old lands, the quests of Vash'jir are...workmanlike.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ginaz on December 07, 2010, 12:23:51 PM
Five level 85s and one Grandmaster Archeologist before 1pm today.

I was all like  :uhrr:


Why ?

WHY ?

I plan on taking my time.  Dividing my time between leveling my high level characters (6 lvl 80's, 4 others that are at least 72) and enjoying some of the new low level quests.  I might even join a guild again. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 07, 2010, 12:24:19 PM
After the amazing quests of the revamped old lands, the quests of Vash'jir are...workmanlike.

The Gnaws quest didn't even make sense. I was grabbed by a shark, he swam around with me in his mouth, then the game says "Press A to continue!" and then the shark dies and quest complete? Why did I even click on that shit?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on December 07, 2010, 01:01:10 PM
I sat down and figured out how to go through Alliance 1-58 with minimal overlap on 3 characters:

Dwarf/Gnome: Dun Morogh -> Loch Modan -> Wetlands -> Hinterlands -> WPL -> EPL -> Badlands -> Searing Gorge -> Burning Steppes -> Swamp of Sorrows -> Blasted Lands
Human: Elwynn -> Westfall -> Redridge -> Duskwood -> N. Stranglethorn -> Cape of Stranglethorn -> Dustwallow -> Thousand Needles -> Tanaris -> Un'Goro -> Silithus
Nelf/Draenei/Worgen: Teldrassil/Gilneas/Azuremyst -> Darkshore or Bloodmyst -> Ashenvale -> Stonetalon -> Desolace -> Feralas -> Thousand Needles ->  Felwood -> Winterspring

If I've got it right this gets you through 3 characters Old World leveling with only one zone repeat, although I think the Kalimdor character may finish around level 55 instead of 58-59ish. However if you aren't a quick leveler and thus accumulate some rest, have heirlooms, or do a few dungeons that will pretty much do it.

Nod. Doing a few dungeons will actually easily allow you to skip whole ranges of outdoor zones, so you can do them later on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on December 07, 2010, 01:30:57 PM
I made the mistake of going to Vash'jir on my first chara (went to Hyjal on #2). All I'll say is: Stormwind Helms -- camp check! :why_so_serious:

How are Hyjal quests? I've just gotten to the point in Vash'jir where I harpooned down a bunch of fleeing naga, and so far it's been "ok" with some fun spots and some annoyances.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 07, 2010, 01:33:11 PM
I hate Uldum with a burning passion.  Such a horrid zone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on December 07, 2010, 02:49:17 PM
I made the mistake of going to Vash'jir on my first chara (went to Hyjal on #2). All I'll say is: Stormwind Helms -- camp check! :why_so_serious:

The trick to questing in Vash'jir is to move away from all of the sheep-like player.  I had a lot of success doing those camp quests while others seemed to be quite happy to spawn camp.
I found:
Drowned soldiers seem to spawn regularly in the thick kelp - swim over to one and bubble and chances are you'll get there before anyone else.
The giblins, helms, axes, and breastplates were thoroughly camped but a short swim away from everyone else and behind a wreck and me and another guy shared six giblin spawns and about the same of the item spawns.
The chests for the S.E.A.L gear spawn inside the wrecked ships too.  Everyone else was spawn camping.  I swum into a wreck and got my 5 items almost immediately - three chests in the boat and one respawned on the way out.

After that it was much easier.

One other tip.  If you've got a DX11 graphics card you can enable DX11 through a command line toggle or through adding something to the config option file in the WTF directory.  Makes a big difference in performance.  Tomshardware has all the details.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Cadaverine on December 07, 2010, 04:15:06 PM
How are Hyjal quests?

I just finished Hyjal.  The quests are all really well done, except for a couple.  Somewhat early on, there's a quest to kill some named fire elemental, and loot his chest.  Spent like 20 minutes trying to be the first one to hit him.  There's other quests like that at the end of most of the hubs, but once I got further on, and the players were more spread out, it wasn't nearly as bad.  I might have had to wait one, or two minutes, tops.  There's another quest at the end that has you kill 4 flame aspirants, and there's maybe all of four places that one will spawn at, and unlike everything else, it's a good 4 or 5 minutes between spawns.  One of the last quests has you bombing mobs from the back of a dragon.  Except there were a number of others doing it at the same time, so it took forever to get the required 40 kills.

Once the rush dies down, the zone will be pretty fun, I think.  Though, most will hate the jousting quest, I imagine.

Took me about 7 hours to finish all the quests, and I went from 200 experience into 80, with no rest xp to a smidge into 82.

After I finished up there, I ended up going to Deepholm.  I can't imagine the other zones topping that one.  It's simply gorgeous.  The down side is that it's pretty small compared to Hyjal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 07, 2010, 04:33:04 PM
I ran out of quests in Hyjal; I did the one to kill the Dragon lady and then flew back to the camp in the middle then.... nothing.

So I did some instances instead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on December 07, 2010, 04:36:37 PM
Logged on to a 800 person queue on Earthen Ring.  suck.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 07, 2010, 04:37:09 PM
Just took a peek in because I forgot to get Archaeology trained this morning...  and a ton of the people I'm seeing in Org are 82 or 84?   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 07, 2010, 04:39:32 PM
Just took a peek in because I forgot to get Archaeology trained this morning...  and a ton of the people I'm seeing in Org are 82 or 84?   :ye_gods:

I was on about 45min ago and a string of class realm first 85s came through. Druid, hunter, shaman, priest. It was sorta sad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 07, 2010, 05:50:02 PM
I got lost when I missed a breadcrumb quest and ventured past Kelp'thar. Is this what phasing is all about? The zones were pretty much empty, maybe a couple of mobs here and there. I had to go back and finish 1 or 2 quests to unlock the rest of the world.

Seems pretty daft way to set things up to me.

*ed* oh, except they don't phase the lone boss dudes, so everyone waits around trying to be the one who tags him for quest complete.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on December 07, 2010, 05:58:43 PM
Mobs come so fast it's almost impossible to leave sometimes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 07, 2010, 06:02:17 PM
:heart: goblin :heart:

I dinked around in the water zone for a few quests but now I'm kicking around doing archaeology. It's OK, I think I would enjoy it more if I was doing it alongside leveling as a random diversion, like how I do fishing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Abelian75 on December 07, 2010, 07:09:14 PM
:heart: goblin :heart:

I dinked around in the water zone for a few quests but now I'm kicking around doing archaeology. It's OK, I think I would enjoy it more if I was doing it alongside leveling as a random diversion, like how I do fishing.

Yeah, agreed on the archeology.  It definitely seems better as a little thing to mix things up while leveling rather than a long grind at max level.  It is really cool though to see an actual interactive profession in the game, though.  It reminds me of one of the skills from A Tale In The Desert back when I used to play years ago, though I forget which.  That's totally the direction I've been hoping crafting eventually goes in MMOs (not that I'm advocating ridiculously complex crafting for every game), so it makes me happy, simple as the "interactive" aspect of it may be.

It confused the hell out of me at first, though, because the first area I was surveying had tunnels and such, and it seems like it points you not in the absolute direction of the dig spot, but rather uses pathfinding to "walk" you there.  Like, if you're in cave system, it'll gradually lead you out of the cave, pointing in wildly different directions as you move through the tunnels.  I thought it was just going crazy at first.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on December 07, 2010, 09:51:36 PM
My only serious complaint so far is that it takes so long to get a flight path that gets you back out of Vash'jir.  And that there are SO many people in that first section it's almost impossible to get things done without ninja'ing from everyone else.  Made 81 in a timely manner tonight, looks like the rest of the levels will be much longer.  We have people in the guild at 84 looking to make 85 tonight already.  I think that's just a bit nuts.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 07, 2010, 09:58:27 PM
The dialog between the two goblin NPCs at the Zeppelin tower in Azshara is one of the funniest things I've seen in WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 07, 2010, 10:53:56 PM
Saying "Who wants to group to kill Namey McNamerson for This Bloody Quest?" when you're surrounded by 30 people all trying to tag the same mobs seems to be working really well on my server.

We're outnumbered roughly 3:1 by Alliance here and there's been loads of pvp flagged Alliance in all of the busy starting quest areas, hoping to get Horde to accidentally flag themselves so that they can gank us. Grouping up seemed to fix that - once our little group had stomped several lone/duo gankers quite soundly they started avoiding us.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 08, 2010, 01:56:27 AM
Hit 82 on my paladin and I'm still in this dang underwater zone.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 08, 2010, 02:27:42 AM
The general path is: get the first two levels in Vashj'ir, Hyjal, or Blackrock Caverns and then a level each in Deepholm, Uldum, and Twilight Highlands.  The experience requirements for each level scale up so much between 82/83 and 84/85 that the only zone you want to "out-level" but still finish up is Deepholm.

Partially because Deepholm is pretty awesome and Uldum... isn't (although it's probably okay if you're solo and like cutscenes) but also because you'll likely need the experience as you need to come pretty close to finishing Twilight Highlands to get 85 if you came in right around 84.

My main complaint about Uldum is that while it looks gorgeous, the quest design is just horrible.  There's tons of gathering quests that suck as a group and there's a lot of mini-game stuff (one of wihich we deemed Simba Wars) that's more than a little buggy and doesn't even spawn enough mobs the first go-round.  The worst thing though, are the cutscenes.  Every other quest for Harrison Jones seems to have one, and many across Uldum (and a few in Twilight Highlands) are "practically unskippable".  Sure, you can hit Escape and cancel it, but then you don't get quest credit, which you won't know about until you've already canceled out of it.

:angryfist:

Edit: Grammar.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 08, 2010, 03:08:28 AM
Sounds like I'm going to love Uldum then!  :awesome_for_real:  (Being a largely solo player and someone who rarely skips cutscenes!)

From the sounds of the overcrowding, I'm glad I haven't got my copy yet. Then again, with Wrath, I spent a week kicking around the Outlands before heading to Northrend so I could quest in peace and without having to fight for spawns.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Brogarn on December 08, 2010, 04:07:20 AM
:heart: goblin :heart:


I started this up again to have something to do this winter. I have to hand it to Blizzard, they made Goblins awesome. Last night I was strapping fireworks to jungle chickens and disabling bomb-throwing Monkeys. I can't remember the last time I had this much silly fun in an MMO.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 08, 2010, 04:36:21 AM
Yeah, I've seen a lot of hate for cutscenes in general chat and I don't get it.   They're a nice addition and you'll only ever have to watch them once, take some time and enjoy 'em.

Oh, and the advice for the helms in Vash'jir should be macroed and spammed in that zone.  I figured it out after 3-4 mins of watching 10 people stand in the same area in front of the sunken boat, but it just kept coming up.  "WTF Blizzard where's the helms?!"    Ground spawns always seem to work that only x# will be active at one time.  If there's a 500yd x 500yd space they can spawn in and it seems like they're not spawning, it always pays to check the fringes.  Chances are there's x# spawned there and you'll be able to walk (swim) away with a complete while everyone else is camping the single spawn they think exists.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on December 08, 2010, 04:40:07 AM
I didn't really follow the beta, but can anyone tell me how they ended up implementing the underwater zone?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on December 08, 2010, 05:07:28 AM
Actually the design of the underwater zone is alright, IMO.

The first quest gives you a buff that allows you to breath water indefinitely and increases your walking speed while on the seabed by 60%; you can also swim freely (pretty much the equivalent of flight in other areas of the game), but it's slower. A few quests later you get a seahorse that massively increases your 'flying' (swim) speed, so getting around the zone isn't bad at all. Most of the quests/areas focus on the seabed level, but you always have the option to swim upwards if you want; you need to use the Z axis quite a bit when travelling between areas. There are a few questing areas that have multiple platforms on different elevations, which can be a bit unusual.

Mob aggro also seemed to be reasonable; mobs swimming around at higher elevations do aggro if you get near their level, but if you just walk around on the seabed, your foes will be pretty much limited to what you see around yourself. You can also see the shadows of mobs (players too, iirc?) that are "above" you.

About the helms: I eventually found a spot with 2 helm spawnpoints in range and got my 4 helms in 3 minutes (while killing the rapidly-respawning mobs for xp/loot). Doesn't make the design for that particular quest any less shitty, though...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 08, 2010, 07:00:40 AM
So far I'm liking it all (though D: at some of the bottleneck quests. Really? That fire dude and his chest? REALLY? Did you not stop to think how this would go on release week?), but I haven't hit Uldum yet.

Our LFD queue has a horrible lack of tanks, so I've been leveling my little DK instead of my priest, who is busy digging up random artifacts. So far Archeology is a Fishing that doesn't bore me to tears. The ilvl requirements to queue for certain instances have been screwing me, even if I did manage to get into the right range after most of Hyjal. That DK hasn't been played since Naxx, but my jawbone was AWESOME back then! <3

Also: the "must find instance entrance before queuing" thing is total bullshit. Not because the idea is bad, but because the instance entrances are in BUMBLEFUCK, and mean that the LFD queue is completely screwed up because half the possible players haven't been breadcrumbed far enough through to get there. At least Hyjal ports you to BRC quickly in the zone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on December 08, 2010, 07:23:58 AM

About the helms: I eventually found a spot with 2 helm spawnpoints in range and got my 4 helms in 3 minutes (while killing the rapidly-respawning mobs for xp/loot). Doesn't make the design for that particular quest any less shitty, though...

It has to be a bug, there is no reason why all the other parts are ground spawn/mob loot and the helms aren't.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on December 08, 2010, 07:42:31 AM
Yeah, I've seen a lot of hate for cutscenes in general chat and I don't get it.   They're a nice addition and you'll only ever have to watch them once, take some time and enjoy 'em.

Normally I would agree, but I recently started a new undead character based on comments made here about how well done it is now (which I agree!)  While leveling my undead priest, I was subjected to multiple cutscenes.

I enjoyed the ones that told a story and were acted out well.  I was really annoyed at the ones that stopped everything just to give me a little "tour" of the surrounding area.  It really just comes down to the proper use of cutscenes.  I haven't had a chance to play since Cata release so I can't comment on how well done those are.

Yes, they aren't bad the one time you go through them on your char.  It is the 10th time you do it on your 10th alt (yes, that is how I roll,) that becomes a real pain.  I didn't try to "ESC" out of them though.  I assume you can.  Then it really isn't a big deal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on December 08, 2010, 07:47:09 AM
Well i just hearthed back to vashir and did not get my water breathing buff back, lovely.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 08, 2010, 07:55:32 AM
Well i just hearthed back to vashir and did not get my water breathing buff back, lovely.

I never saw it as a buff anywhere, I just got the "breathing" timer and it never went down.

However, this is probably just a sign that we should not meddle in the affairs of naga and giant octopii.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 08, 2010, 07:59:44 AM
Yeah, I've seen a lot of hate for cutscenes in general chat and I don't get it.   They're a nice addition and you'll only ever have to watch them once, take some time and enjoy 'em.
It slows down the progress to 85.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 08, 2010, 08:08:46 AM
So does questing.  If you've got that much of a hard on for L85, do the dungeon crawl thing in a group.  Guy who hit it first on my server had 12 hours played that way.

/irritable grump


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on December 08, 2010, 08:10:53 AM
Really? I got summoned to heal last night before I'd even gotten to the new zones and it didn't seem nearly as fast as questing. (Of course I am using wow-pro's guided add-on.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 08, 2010, 08:21:50 AM
Really? I got summoned to heal last night before I'd even gotten to the new zones and it didn't seem nearly as fast as questing. (Of course I am using wow-pro's guided add-on.)

It's fast if you have a solid group and compared to the cockblock fest outside with some quests.

It's a question of "okay xp constantly" and "good xp if only people stopped flying in and tagging this quest mob"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on December 08, 2010, 08:22:15 AM
I'm not surprised the realm firsts came so quick.  I got 45% of the way to 81 just from exploring Twilight Highlands from dragonback and working archaeology up to 80-ish, without ever killing an xp-giving mob :P  Couldn't decide whether the Maw of Madness reminded me more of the Sarlacc or the Zerg Overmind...

Then I got bored and went swimming.  Other than the fact that every quest hub had about 8-12 horde and 1-3 alliance, with at least one jackass trying to force everyone to mis-click on him and get ganked, it weren't too shabby.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 08, 2010, 08:27:16 AM
The people in my guild who are grinding dungeons make me go  :uhrr: since they are all gonna need to grind those quests to unlock faction vendors anyways. Someone in my guild got to 85 after 12hours of play and I stop and think, why? I mean there's not going to be any robust max level play until a few weeks in at least.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on December 08, 2010, 08:33:55 AM
The dungeons so far I've found really fun, if still a bit too easy. I'm hoping heroics are as brutal as they sounded in beta.

Picked up a 2H with more than 400 DPS early on in Deepholm and it seems out of place. Everyone who can use axes: quest in Deepholm!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on December 08, 2010, 08:41:37 AM
I was kind of surprised at how easy the dungeon I ran was as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 08, 2010, 08:43:54 AM
Dungeon difficulty seems to correlate with group skill based on my RDF experiences. I have enjoyed Throne of the Tides more than Blackrock Caverns I have to say. I can see how some of these fights are going to be brutal on heroic in the early stages.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on December 08, 2010, 08:54:21 AM
I ran out of quests in Hyjal; I did the one to kill the Dragon lady and then flew back to the camp in the middle then.... nothing.

So I did some instances instead.

I ran out at the exact same place, I think. I actually went back up to Nordrassil (the first place you land in the zone) and then flew along near the footpath to see if there were any ! on my minimap, and I found one at the Grove of Aessina, and that led to a fun little quest, and from there it was serious business again at the Sanctuary of Malorne. I haven't finished the zone yet, but I also haven't run out of quests again.

And whoever said the Joust quests were going to be hated, yeah count me in. That sucked. The only redeeming factor was that you get rewarded with a mini-pet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 08, 2010, 09:22:42 AM
Dungeon difficulty seems to correlate with group skill based on my RDF experiences. I have enjoyed Throne of the Tides more than Blackrock Caverns I have to say. I can see how some of these fights are going to be brutal on heroic in the early stages.

Heroic on a few of these will be hilarious. But the main complaint I've seen is that we're still overpowered, and the scaling changes maul healers at 82/83ish. The base mana pools skyrocket, and take the base mana costs with them. And suddenly you outscale all your +int gear and wind up with crazy casting costs.

At 80/81, I thought underwaterland was harder than caverns due to a few what the shit healing fights (I think my tank/dps was doing something WRONG, because it took chain spamming flash heal/penance/shield on the tank to keep him from dying on a few trash packs), caverns was a joke to heal at 80/81.

But if my spells all triple in cost at 82, things will go differently.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on December 08, 2010, 09:23:25 AM
I played my DK up to almost 81 in the underwater zone. I found some stuff frustrating, but in general the zone is pretty damn cool. I then skipped over to play Alliance and my new Worgen for a bit. Got the Worgen to level 10 with a friend. I really like the look and feel of Gilneas. Its very Gothic like the Empire in Warhammer Fantasy. The quests are pretty cool, and playing on a super low population server, there was only a few other people leveling Worgen as the same time, so no problem with quest mobs and stuff. Also, a really cool cutscreen at around level 6 I think. Well done starting area.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 08, 2010, 09:30:35 AM
I ran out of quests in Hyjal; I did the one to kill the Dragon lady and then flew back to the camp in the middle then.... nothing.

So I did some instances instead.

I ran out at the exact same place, I think. I actually went back up to Nordrassil (the first place you land in the zone) and then flew along near the footpath to see if there were any ! on my minimap, and I found one at the Grove of Aessina, and that led to a fun little quest, and from there it was serious business again at the Sanctuary of Malorne. I haven't finished the zone yet, but I also haven't run out of quests again.

And whoever said the Joust quests were going to be hated, yeah count me in. That sucked. The only redeeming factor was that you get rewarded with a mini-pet.

Ok, thanks. I'll go back and check that out.

Dungeon difficulty seems to correlate with group skill based on my RDF experiences. I have enjoyed Throne of the Tides more than Blackrock Caverns I have to say. I can see how some of these fights are going to be brutal on heroic in the early stages.

Heroic on a few of these will be hilarious. But the main complaint I've seen is that we're still overpowered, and the scaling changes maul healers at 82/83ish. The base mana pools skyrocket, and take the base mana costs with them. And suddenly you outscale all your +int gear and wind up with crazy casting costs.

At 80/81, I thought underwaterland was harder than caverns due to a few what the shit healing fights (I think my tank/dps was doing something WRONG, because it took chain spamming flash heal/penance/shield on the tank to keep him from dying on a few trash packs), caverns was a joke to heal at 80/81.

The giblin packs before the mind control squid boss have some sort of stacking debuff+poison combo that ramps up damage fast, and the mobs which toss you in the air do a LOT of damage with their quake if people don't run out of range quickly. The rest seemed pretty straightforward; bar ranged DPS nuking the squid during absorb magic (which heals him I think).

For BRC I got a couple of duff groups where the DPS were terrible at minimising their damage. For an entry level dungeon there seem to be a lot more PBAoE and cleave type effects which hits the melee quite hard. That said, people are still playing with the zerg mentality of WoTLK heroics, so maybe with CC things will go better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 08, 2010, 09:37:00 AM
I did BRC as a melee dps, my problems with incoming damage were either unavoidable (those two elementals), or idiots not using interrupts (the trash packs drop fields that throw tons of random AE around, but it's a slow fucking cast and interruptible), or my bear tank not being able to hold threat from a naxx10 geared unholy DK putting out 3.5k dps :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 08, 2010, 09:38:14 AM
I think last night is the first time I've sat down and played for like 4+ hours in a single stretch.  Helps that the wife and kid are out of town.

I decided to play a goblin, since I figured the 80+ leveling content might be a bit cramped, and while the same might be true for the new race, it wouldn't be as bad.  At first, I thought Kezan was too noisey and the goblins were too Jersey.  But the variety of the quests, and the overall experience won me over.  It really starts to shine once you get off Kezan.  The Lost Isles stuff is really varied, and as mentioned, pretty silly and funny.

Starting off as a hunter with a pet that actually taunts was a great improvement over starting one back in the TBC time period.  Although with an heirloom gun, the pet didn't get a lot of action until around lvl 10-12.  Chose BM to start, since that's been the traditional leveling spec.  Not sure I like it, but it's still early.  I'm probably going to take off my exp heirlooms and just enjoy the ride to 60.  Need to prolong the good stuff until I get thrown into the complete crap that will be my 6th time doing Outlands.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on December 08, 2010, 10:14:41 AM
Woo, Blizzard fucked up guild xp and are taking a chainsaw to in in response: http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1088190414?page=1
Quote
We have decided to remove the added bonus of gaining Guild Experience from Guild Achievements earned. This change will realign Guild Achievements with our philosophy held for normal Achievements, which are intended to be predominantly their own reward (barring the rare exception of special achievements that grant an additional reward.) Previously, the experience reward had been seen as an additional side bonus and not something that should have been significantly skewing the advancement of guilds. During the beta, we greatly increased leveling speed across the board and since most characters were copied from templates, guild experience from Achievements didn’t seem imbalanced. It has become clear that an imbalance does exist and should be addressed to ensure that guilds progress at the rates expected within the daily Guild Experience limits.



For guilds that are currently above the normally possible experience limit, we will be readjusting it back to the expected limit once more. This will not affect Guild Reputation gains at this point in time.

Translation: Every non-bank-alt guild will now basically level at exactly the same rate no matter what. Also, the Realm First L25 guild achievement will now boil down to "Who can get the most poopsockers online at 3am, April 11th next year".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 08, 2010, 10:18:11 AM
I'm fine with the guild xp changes, a few of those achievements are blatantly biased towards huge guilds (the kill X number, DE x number of items type things)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 08, 2010, 10:26:09 AM
Currently the daily exp cap for levels 1,2 guilds seems easy to hit. However if that daily exp cap increases as the levels and total exp increase then it will take a bit more participation.

I'm not against smaller guilds getting to max level in time but should have to work on it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 08, 2010, 10:28:57 AM
My guild got 22% or so toward our daily cap... with 2 people playing.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 08, 2010, 10:31:24 AM
The daily (?) guild rep cap is what irritates me. I should get a founder's bonus.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 08, 2010, 10:36:49 AM
I am a little disappointed in the change myself, mostly because I'm not sure what the point of a leveling system for the guild is when you can't really do anything to influence it anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 08, 2010, 10:46:32 AM
The daily (?) guild rep cap is what irritates me. I should get a founder's bonus.

This puzzled me too, although looking at how slow guild xp will come I'll be exalted long before most of the rewards for that come along.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 08, 2010, 10:49:35 AM
The problems I have with Cataclysm cutscenes are purely interface-based.  There are plenty of times the game makes you sit through some NPCs talking and you have no control of your character.  Dangling the ogre over the airship propellers in Deepholm is a good example, as are the various "Fly around and get introduced to the zone." quests they've had since BC.  These are all mandatory cutscenes that a) tell you they're mandatory and b) leave your interface on.

Unlike those cases, Cata cutscenes go into letterbox and if you press escape it asks if you want to cancel it.  (Like the Deathwing one two (?) weeks ago.)  Sometimes when you cancel it, it skips it, canceling the cutscene and dumping you to the next area (I remember the Uldum intro working this way).  There are a lot of others that let you cancel but not skip them, leaving you at the trigger NPC to start it all over again.  If the game told me "You cannot skip watching this cinematic, you can cancel it and watch it again later." in those cases, I'd dislike them only for their content and not for their very existence.  For example, I dislike the Harrison Jones ones both because some are skippable and some aren't and because the joke got old.

As for the guild achievements change, guild leveling is now just kinship age with a daily activity requirement.  That's a much less interesting and engaging system than what it used to be :heartbreak:.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on December 08, 2010, 11:10:02 AM
Quote from: hotfix patchnotes
It is no longer possible for an ill-mannered person of the opposing faction to one-shot a flight trainer in Stormwind or Orgrimmar, which in turn made the 500 players standing on top of the flight trainer with their mammoths really sad.

Hah.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on December 08, 2010, 11:40:19 AM
re: dungeon ease - as a healer the Stonecore is a LOT more challenging than either of the two introductory dungeons. The first time I went through it I was drinking after every other pull. I think they may have been overzealous in trying to provide a hps-hpm spectrum - my efficient heal is useless and my fast heal makes me go oom spectacularly quickly, so now I just cast my big heal all the time. I do use the fast heal in clutch situations but I always have to drink after. I actually find myself (this will only make sense to resto shamans) throwing CH on people with full health just to get Tidal Waves, so that if I happen to need quick healing in the next 15 seconds I can do it with GHW instead of HS. Healing Surge is that bad.

Vortex Pinnacle is harder too, but it's more about dealing with "gimmicks" (purge buff X, cc mob Y) whereas Stonecore is all about raw damage/healing/survivability.

edit to add: what's with healer queues being 10-15 minutes now? Is nobody maining a tank? How long does DPS have to wait?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 08, 2010, 11:50:02 AM

edit to add: what's with healer queues being 10-15 minutes now? Is nobody maining a tank? How long does DPS have to wait?

Bout an hour


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 08, 2010, 11:50:33 AM
I figured the long queues were partly due to:

 - People not discovering the instance
 - People not meeting the ilvl requirements for instances they have discovered
 - People choosing to quest rather than dungeon grind
 - Tanks speccing to DPS to quest

It will probably even out in a week or so when we're all back to floating around at the cap and dungeons are what people are primarily looking to do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 08, 2010, 11:50:51 AM
re: dungeon ease - as a healer the Stonecore is a LOT more challenging than either of the two introductory dungeons. The first time I went through it I was drinking after every other pull. I think they may have been overzealous in trying to provide a hps-hpm spectrum - my efficient heal is useless and my fast heal makes me go oom spectacularly quickly, so now I just cast my big heal all the time. I do use the fast heal in clutch situations but I always have to drink after. I actually find myself (this will only make sense to resto shamans) throwing CH on people with full health just to get Tidal Waves, so that if I happen to need quick healing in the next 15 seconds I can do it with GHW instead of HS. Healing Surge is that bad.

Vortex Pinnacle is harder too, but it's more about dealing with "gimmicks" (purge buff X, cc mob Y) whereas Stonecore is all about raw damage/healing/survivability.

edit to add: what's with healer queues being 10-15 minutes now? Is nobody maining a tank? How long does DPS have to wait?

for queues, it's 25-35 for dps. There are not many tanks, which is why I brought my dk out of retirement. It's also a case of a lot of the resource pool not having discovered the instance entrances yet, and the ilvl requirements barring a lot of the Wrath era "how did I wind up with a brand new just hit 80 tank in this heroic?" thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on December 08, 2010, 11:51:15 AM
I'm still waiting for gear upgrades before I try tanking anything.  I'm only not-quite-82 and still only maybe midway through the underwater area but I haven't seen much in the way of tank plate.  It's been heavily on the healer/DPS side.  Does it come later, or are they hiding it somewhere else?

The 6k-ish health increase for leveling from 80->81 was nice, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 08, 2010, 11:55:39 AM
Yeah, I've seen a lot of hate for cutscenes in general chat and I don't get it.   They're a nice addition and you'll only ever have to watch them once, take some time and enjoy 'em.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oxbuA5BxEEE/S-u31Ce6-dI/AAAAAAAAB1c/MOTRd8o_EbQ/s1600/a-clockwork-orange-2.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 08, 2010, 12:06:50 PM
:heart: goblin :heart:


I started this up again to have something to do this winter. I have to hand it to Blizzard, they made Goblins awesome. Last night I was strapping fireworks to jungle chickens and disabling bomb-throwing Monkeys. I can't remember the last time I had this much silly fun in an MMO.

I really, really, really enjoy that no matter the problem, a bomb will get involved somehow.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 08, 2010, 12:17:31 PM
I'm still waiting for gear upgrades before I try tanking anything.  I'm only not-quite-82 and still only maybe midway through the underwater area but I haven't seen much in the way of tank plate.  It's been heavily on the healer/DPS side.  Does it come later, or are they hiding it somewhere else?

The 6k-ish health increase for leveling from 80->81 was nice, though.

Hyjal is full of tank plate, from my experience there. I also ran BRC as DPS, and picked up a ton of it since a druid was tanking <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 08, 2010, 12:20:05 PM
As for the guild achievements change, guild leveling is now just kinship age with a daily activity requirement.  That's a much less interesting and engaging system than what it used to be :heartbreak:.

That was basically my thought too. It doesn't super bother me, really, but I have to wonder why they didn't just severely cut back the XP for achievements instead of nuking it all. Ah well!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 08, 2010, 12:23:39 PM
81 tank here (warrior) and I've replaced almost all my shit, which was all at least 232.

I have no idea why you ain't found more.  The stuff is just better by miles.  The stats are tricky though - took me ages to find stuff with dodge on it.  They really put dodge down a lot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 08, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
81 tank here (warrior) and I've replaced almost all my shit, which was all at least 232.

I have no idea why you ain't found more.  The stuff is just better by miles.  The stats are tricky though - took me ages to find stuff with dodge on it.  They really put dodge down a lot.


Avoidance stats seem to have been heavily shifted into mastery on tank plate, from what I've seen. Which just makes me question my DK's tank readiness, since I've never tanked with the whole blood shield thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 08, 2010, 12:27:51 PM
I have to say, I'm not sure how well I would trust a DPS specced tank to handle these dungeons even with proper tank gear. Wasn't that a design intent?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 08, 2010, 12:29:50 PM
I have to say, I'm not sure how well I would trust a DPS specced tank to handle these dungeons even with proper tank gear. Wasn't that a design intent?

Well, that and making dual spec dirt cheap. Right now, it's tank spec or GTFO, due to crit avoidance being tied up in the tank tree talents, and most of your survival talents being deep in there as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on December 08, 2010, 12:35:37 PM
81 tank here (warrior) and I've replaced almost all my shit, which was all at least 232.

I have no idea why you ain't found more.  The stuff is just better by miles.  The stats are tricky though - took me ages to find stuff with dodge on it.  They really put dodge down a lot.


I've found a couple greens, but overall the stats compared to a gemmed/enchanted Wrath purple have been pretty much a wash.  I did swap one ring for a blue, and I'm finally getting a non-PVP DPS set put together at least.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 08, 2010, 12:39:47 PM
You misunderstand.  I have about 5 blues and the rest greens.  I'd be intersted in what's a wash with this expansion - The stuff I'm finding is in another time zone in comparison.  Hell, on Stamina alone, you need to DO IT.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on December 08, 2010, 12:51:37 PM
The new stuff is just ridiculous. I found myself upgrading with mage cloth quest rewards and throwing away my old leather caster gear.  Once I find the leather equivalents I'll be even better off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on December 08, 2010, 01:19:45 PM
The green stuff has more raw str/stam, but once I figure in the loss of 2-3 gems and enchantment bonuses, they come in about dead even on most stats, and I lose a little armor.   They do shift stats around a little, I swapped out one piece for a green because it had expertise on it (which I'm lacking)

Now, I haven't found shit in the way of blue tank plate; I'm sure I'll toss out the old purples once I find some.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on December 08, 2010, 02:32:15 PM
I did BRC as a melee dps, my problems with incoming damage were either unavoidable (those two elementals), or idiots not using interrupts (the trash packs drop fields that throw tons of random AE around, but it's a slow fucking cast and interruptible), or my bear tank not being able to hold threat from a naxx10 geared unholy DK putting out 3.5k dps :P
Dpsing in Bloodpresence?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on December 08, 2010, 02:34:16 PM
Just don't end up running around with half the HP of a DPS because you were too cool to put on greens with nothing but mere stam on them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 08, 2010, 03:29:41 PM
I did BRC as a melee dps, my problems with incoming damage were either unavoidable (those two elementals), or idiots not using interrupts (the trash packs drop fields that throw tons of random AE around, but it's a slow fucking cast and interruptible), or my bear tank not being able to hold threat from a naxx10 geared unholy DK putting out 3.5k dps :P
Dpsing in Bloodpresence?

unholy, he just didn't seem to get bear tanking.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 08, 2010, 03:58:39 PM
As a warrior tank in basically all 251s I only found one thing going 80-82 in Vashj'ir that was a clear upgrade. There were some other sidegradey things where I'd lose a little armor and a little stamina and a 3rd rate stat to get big increases in the other 2 rate stats and some extra strength. Usually the tiebreaker is the stuff I had from before is enchanted. I expect the stuff I get in Deepholme and beyond will be clear upgrades.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 08, 2010, 04:17:24 PM
Took a while to replace my gear as it was T10 25-man, plus a few heroic bits.  However, towards the end of Deepholm it was finally worth it to break my 4-piece bonus.   No DPS should have 80k health.. it's insanity.

Also, Ring of Blood, as soon as you hit 84, run to Twilight Highlands and do it. As usual the weapons are fantastic.  My 2h sword is now This (http://www.wowhead.com/item=63787).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on December 08, 2010, 04:22:17 PM
Got a blue belt, made a couple pieces of the starter blacksmith tank set & threw in cheap gems, it's starting to feel like actual upgrades now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on December 08, 2010, 04:45:15 PM
I've only dabbled in the 80+ content with my human Warrior, done like maybe 20 quests in the underwater zone. Most of my time has been spent with the new exploits of my lowbie belf Mage, who's gone from 28 to 50 in a few days. Old Azeroth is so incredibly good now, and full of events and clues to what will happen on higher levels. I even got to stick it to Cho'gall in Dire Maul Arena. Totally worth it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 08, 2010, 06:46:12 PM
All I'll say is that Vashj'ir starts slow, but just gets better and better. It sucks a bit until you get the seahorse mount, then it really starts to get good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on December 08, 2010, 10:05:11 PM
I finished the Worgen line and I'm very disappointed.  They created amazing art and assets that I used for about eight hours.  The way the zone played really felt more like watching a movie than playing a game and I never felt any real attachment to the zone.  Not to mention it ends with the Worgen being dumped off in Darnassus of all places... I really liked the art and atmosphere in Gilneas.  But there's nothing there and the way it just dumps off is extremely jarring.  

I planned to make this Worgen Warlock an alt I played frequently, but I don't see it happening.  I can't even really put my finger on what went wrong.  It's just a multitude of things.


EDIT: The other thing I can't freaking stand is that I can't even take a look around me without being gangraped by respawns.  Both my lowbie Worgen and my 80 pally have been caught in respawn hell where I can't move out of the area fast enough, but I can't even take in the sights.  Frustrating.  I think I should drop my sub for a month and come back when the rush is dropped off. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 08, 2010, 10:58:59 PM
The rapid-respawn issue is necessary because otherwise you spend 2m waiting for a mob to spawn only to have it tagged by one of the 10 other people standing in the exact same spot spamming their AOEs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on December 08, 2010, 11:17:44 PM
Okay, but there were lots of times where I didn't have people around me, yet the stuff would still spawn as I killed the one that was at that spot before.  A new player shouldn't have a situation where 4-5 even-con mobs are on him.  As a warlock, that's tough in the low levels. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pennilenko on December 08, 2010, 11:27:10 PM
Okay, but there were lots of times where I didn't have people around me, yet the stuff would still spawn as I killed the one that was at that spot before.  A new player shouldn't have a situation where 4-5 even-con mobs are on him.  As a warlock, that's tough in the low levels. 

I have been messing around with a low level worgen, your playing tactics are shitty.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 09, 2010, 12:01:25 AM
I finished the Worgen line and I'm very disappointed.  They created amazing art and assets that I used for about eight hours.  The way the zone played really felt more like watching a movie than playing a game and I never felt any real attachment to the zone.  Not to mention it ends with the Worgen being dumped off in Darnassus of all places... I really liked the art and atmosphere in Gilneas.  But there's nothing there and the way it just dumps off is extremely jarring.  

I planned to make this Worgen Warlock an alt I played frequently, but I don't see it happening.  I can't even really put my finger on what went wrong.  It's just a multitude of things.


This is worrying. This is exactly what I said when I was in Beta and I'm a little worried it hasn't changed at all.

I've been hearing that most of my complaints about the Goblin starter zone actually got addressed and it's awfully good.  That shocks me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 09, 2010, 12:52:15 AM
All I'll say is that Vashj'ir starts slow, but just gets better and better. It sucks a bit until you get the seahorse mount, then it really starts to get good.

I'm on a shark! I'm on a shark!
Everybody look at me, cause I'm riding on a shark!
I'm on a shark! I'm on a shark!
Take a good, hard look at the motherfucking shark!



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on December 09, 2010, 01:41:00 AM
I think the Worgen Area itself is great, but yea, Blizzard should have done a better job integrating the Worgens into the rest of the world. Once you leave Gilneas it's Worgen Tree in Darnasuss, Worgen Tree in Felwood and world's most depressing and unpopulated town in Blasted Lands.


Draenei 2.0  :awesome_for_real:






Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 09, 2010, 04:44:58 AM
Some of the cinematics are pretty damn cool.  I wish there were a way to watch them again. Like.. this one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on December 09, 2010, 05:44:12 AM
I'm on a shark! I'm on a shark!
Everybody look at me, cause I'm riding on a shark!
I'm on a shark! I'm on a shark!
Take a good, hard look at the motherfucking shark!

That is so funny to me.  I was singing the exact song in my head last night as I did that quest.  I almost started typing it into guild chat, but there are a lot of kids that play and without the last line, it loses its punch!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 09, 2010, 05:56:53 AM
I think the Worgen Area itself is great, but yea, Blizzard should have done a better job integrating the Worgens into the rest of the world. Once you leave Gilneas it's Worgen Tree in Darnasuss, Worgen Tree in Felwood and world's most depressing and unpopulated town in Blasted Lands.


Draenei 2.0  :awesome_for_real:


Kids these days. Back in the day all we needed was two mushrooms and it was a town!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 09, 2010, 06:00:30 AM
I finished the Worgen line and I'm very disappointed.  They created amazing art and assets that I used for about eight hours.  The way the zone played really felt more like watching a movie than playing a game and I never felt any real attachment to the zone.  Not to mention it ends with the Worgen being dumped off in Darnassus of all places... I really liked the art and atmosphere in Gilneas.  But there's nothing there and the way it just dumps off is extremely jarring.  

I planned to make this Worgen Warlock an alt I played frequently, but I don't see it happening.  I can't even really put my finger on what went wrong.  It's just a multitude of things.


EDIT: The other thing I can't freaking stand is that I can't even take a look around me without being gangraped by respawns.  Both my lowbie Worgen and my 80 pally have been caught in respawn hell where I can't move out of the area fast enough, but I can't even take in the sights.  Frustrating.  I think I should drop my sub for a month and come back when the rush is dropped off. 

I got to admit, I feel the same way. Way too much phase shifting in the Worgen area. Granted, I love dark landscapes like that and duskwood, but it was hard to feel the immersion when you are being pushed through it at light speed. We had a pretty good /1 general chat going last night which kept getting interrupted by some new phase removing you to a new location. Not to mention once you click on that quest to complete and ding, you automatically are put on a horse/transportation to the next task without the ability to grab spells or craft or anything. Then there is the get on the boat and we're dumping you off in Nelfland. Seems weird though I got the reason from the intro quests. Still, I agree...very jarring.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on December 09, 2010, 06:20:31 AM

I'm on a shark! I'm on a shark!
Everybody look at me, cause I'm riding on a shark!
I'm on a shark! I'm on a shark!
Take a good, hard look at the motherfucking shark!


I forgive Blizzard for the Joust quests :)



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on December 09, 2010, 07:05:26 AM
Some of the cinematics are pretty damn cool.  I wish there were a way to watch them again. Like.. this one.

What actually happened in that one?  When I got it last night it made no sense.  Thrall talked about saving me.  Deathwing spent most of his time side on or with his ass to me.  Then Thrall was all "No, someone's name, no".  Then he told me to handle Deathwing in a "Many whelps, handle it" sort of way.  Then it was over.

I did notice someone else was there, so I wonder if the cutscene is less movie and more cycling event and I came in late in the cycle.

I was really annoyed with the Uldum cutscene when you implement Budd's "plan".  I spent the whole scene staring at a wall.  I think you were supposed to see something.  Had I not scrolled back in the chat log, there would have been nothing.  I was really bummed about not seeing Budd's Manotaur.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on December 09, 2010, 08:46:22 AM
I'm on a shark! I'm on a shark!
Everybody look at me, cause I'm riding on a shark!
I'm on a shark! I'm on a shark!
Take a good, hard look at the motherfucking shark!

That gave me a DAoC ToA flashback.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 09, 2010, 09:19:18 AM
The TOA jokes have been thick on our guildline. On the other hand if TOA had been like Vashj'ir I think I might still be playing DAOC, I really enjoyed the zone a lot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 09, 2010, 10:48:21 AM
Some of the cinematics are pretty damn cool.  I wish there were a way to watch them again. Like.. this one.

What actually happened in that one?  When I got it last night it made no sense.  Thrall talked about saving me.  Deathwing spent most of his time side on or with his ass to me.  Then Thrall was all "No, someone's name, no".  Then he told me to handle Deathwing in a "Many whelps, handle it" sort of way.  Then it was over.

I did notice someone else was there, so I wonder if the cutscene is less movie and more cycling event and I came in late in the cycle.

I was really annoyed with the Uldum cutscene when you implement Budd's "plan".  I spent the whole scene staring at a wall.  I think you were supposed to see something.  Had I not scrolled back in the chat log, there would have been nothing.  I was really bummed about not seeing Budd's Manotaur.

sounds like you're having issues with the cinematics.  I noticed my pet can screw 'em up if he's out when one starts, because they stick the camera right where the pet is.  :awesome_for_real:

As for the screenshot:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 09, 2010, 12:58:43 PM
Darkshore quests in teh Druid Grove are pretty sweet. Itemization of rewards is not though... at least not for clothies.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 09, 2010, 01:14:58 PM
Darkshore quests in teh Druid Grove are pretty sweet. Itemization of rewards is not though... at least not for clothies.  :oh_i_see:

Int = spellpower now you know.  I've found all the lowbie quest rewards pretty decent.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 09, 2010, 02:45:25 PM
Darkshore quests in teh Druid Grove are pretty sweet. Itemization of rewards is not though... at least not for clothies.  :oh_i_see:

Int = spellpower now you know.  I've found all the lowbie quest rewards pretty decent.

Yes but as a priest, my choices of a blue shield or a blue leather piece of armor for the end quest was a bit lacking.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on December 09, 2010, 04:40:06 PM
There's plenty of cloth, it's not an issue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ghost on December 09, 2010, 05:30:26 PM
Yeh, so I guess I'm going to buy this, even though I know better. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ginaz on December 10, 2010, 03:30:51 AM
Uldum is quickly becoming my favourite zone. :heart:  I love the Egyptian themed atmosphere.  The towns and delta areas were really well done.  Its much easier to quest in, too, than Vash'jir and Deepholm.  Also, colossus smash is fucking awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on December 10, 2010, 04:30:24 AM
Some of the cinematics are pretty damn cool.  I wish there were a way to watch them again. Like.. this one.

What actually happened in that one?  When I got it last night it made no sense.  Thrall talked about saving me.  Deathwing spent most of his time side on or with his ass to me.  Then Thrall was all "No, someone's name, no".  Then he told me to handle Deathwing in a "Many whelps, handle it" sort of way.  Then it was over.

I did notice someone else was there, so I wonder if the cutscene is less movie and more cycling event and I came in late in the cycle.

I was really annoyed with the Uldum cutscene when you implement Budd's "plan".  I spent the whole scene staring at a wall.  I think you were supposed to see something.  Had I not scrolled back in the chat log, there would have been nothing.  I was really bummed about not seeing Budd's Manotaur.

sounds like you're having issues with the cinematics.  I noticed my pet can screw 'em up if he's out when one starts, because they stick the camera right where the pet is.  :awesome_for_real:

As for the screenshot:
Yeah, some of the cut scenes seem to stick you with a "permanently fixed" camera angle, and no way to adjust it while the cut scene plays.  I got one in Hyjal where i think i was supposed to get a wolf ride on the back of a wolf god.  Instead, i spent the entire ride looking UP at the wolfs belly and front feet as it ran around, with my camera actually being stuck UNDER the world geometry, which made for some rather interesting scenery.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 10, 2010, 07:14:20 AM
Uldum is quickly becoming my favourite zone. :heart:  I love the Egyptian themed atmosphere.  The towns and delta areas were really well done.  Its much easier to quest in, too, than Vash'jir and Deepholm.  Also, colossus smash is fucking awesome.

I really liked the design and art direction of Uldum and Deepholm (though deepholm >>> *)

Twilight Highlands seems phoned in to me though. The entire plotline of the zone doesn't mesh at all with the rest of the expansion. It would have made a great intro zone to Cata, but as the last zone: lolwut?


On a less zone related note: new instances are <3 and can be difficult, which is awesome. DPS is less about "what is my target dummy dps" and more about "can you avoid damage, move out of fires, and remember your interrupts, all while DPSing?", tanks have to care more about kill order, and the entire fight is backed by very VERY finite healer enrage timers (mana). It also means a lot of PVP talents and glyphs are back out in pve now. I love my free mind freeze and glyphed hungering cold for trash pack interrupting.

It makes LFD a crapshoot right now, but I find it a lot of fun. two more average ilvls to heroics, and then I need to sit down and slog my priest up to 85, because mob scaling and healing specs scare me. 18 smites to kill something? DO NOT WANT.

Oh, and the Tol Barad dailies are not your normal run around a bit dailies. They will happily kill a number of classes. My DK took a shadow priest through them due to him being unable to kill fast and efficiently enough to get to the targets. I imagine this will change as we get epic'd out to hell and back, but right now it's fun and actually makes you use all your buttons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ghost on December 10, 2010, 08:17:54 AM
Even though I have 4 characters at level 80, I think I'm just going to start a couple of new ones and work through this slowly.  Maybe by the next xPac I can have everything done. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xuri on December 10, 2010, 09:19:34 AM
I finished the Worgen line and I'm very disappointed.  They created amazing art and assets that I used for about eight hours.  The way the zone played really felt more like watching a movie than playing a game and I never felt any real attachment to the zone.  Not to mention it ends with the Worgen being dumped off in Darnassus of all places... I really liked the art and atmosphere in Gilneas.  But there's nothing there and the way it just dumps off is extremely jarring.  

I planned to make this Worgen Warlock an alt I played frequently, but I don't see it happening.  I can't even really put my finger on what went wrong.  It's just a multitude of things.
I'm disappointed at the Worgen starting area as well. In the first five or so levels they might as well just have put my character on a rail and popped up "push button now to make stuff happen" on my screen whenever appropriate. Oh, wait. That's exactly what they did!
EDIT: The other thing I can't freaking stand is that I can't even take a look around me without being gangraped by respawns.  Both my lowbie Worgen and my 80 pally have been caught in respawn hell where I can't move out of the area fast enough, but I can't even take in the sights.  Frustrating.  I think I should drop my sub for a month and come back when the rush is dropped off.
This is not restricted to the new starting zones - I've had the same experience on my druid questing in Hyjal. At most I've had to kill something like 5 or 6 mobs in a row because they would repeatedly instant-spawn on the same location the moment the previous mob spawned there died.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 10, 2010, 09:25:48 AM
EDIT: The other thing I can't freaking stand is that I can't even take a look around me without being gangraped by respawns.  Both my lowbie Worgen and my 80 pally have been caught in respawn hell where I can't move out of the area fast enough, but I can't even take in the sights.  Frustrating.  I think I should drop my sub for a month and come back when the rush is dropped off.
This is not restricted to the new starting zones - I've had the same experience on my druid questing in Hyjal. At most I've had to kill something like 5 or 6 mobs in a row because they would repeatedly instant-spawn on the same location the moment the previous mob spawned there died.

I've had this happen with Sharptalon in Ashenvale (killed 2-3 of him back-to-back before I ran), and in the new underwater zone with goblins/naga things.  The first was annoying, the second was a quick and easy way to finish some quests, at least...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 10, 2010, 09:56:10 AM
The dynamic spawn rate is a blessing and a curse. It also kicks in WAY too quickly to try and preemptively adjust to players showing up. You can murder the spawn rate system by just being a high dps class solo. My lock was great for it, murder 20 things in 2 GCDs each, and it starts chain spawning on you thinking there are a dozen people around needing quest mobs.

My priest hates it. My DK is sort of amused at how long I can keep murdering things because I refuse to leave without looting everything I killed. Then again, I have hungering cold for the "aaand, time to leave" button.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on December 10, 2010, 10:06:47 AM
The spawn rates can get to be an issue. On the Alliance gunship in Deepholm the rate was so fast my shaman literally couldn't move for about 6-7 minutes because of the continuous stream of suicidal cultiists. Mowing them down in job lots was kinda fun, but I couldn't even loot the kills it was so fast. Bit too much of a good thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 10, 2010, 10:42:58 AM
The spawn rates can get to be an issue. On the Alliance gunship in Deepholm the rate was so fast my shaman literally couldn't move for about 6-7 minutes because of the continuous stream of suicidal cultiists. Mowing them down in job lots was kinda fun, but I couldn't even loot the kills it was so fast. Bit too much of a good thing.

Use looting totem! Err, I mean stoneclaw totem. <3

But yeah, it's a bit nuts to kill something on it's spawn just to have another immediately take his place. It's like a bad kung fu movie, where the infinite enemy hordes line up one at a time to try and kick your ass.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 10, 2010, 10:59:44 AM
When it happens to me I just... move. While the current mob is still alive.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 10, 2010, 11:22:33 AM
Uldum is quickly becoming my favourite zone. :heart:  I love the Egyptian themed atmosphere.  The towns and delta areas were really well done.  Its much easier to quest in, too, than Vash'jir and Deepholm.  Also, colossus smash is fucking awesome.

I really liked the design and art direction of Uldum and Deepholm (though deepholm >>> *)

Twilight Highlands seems phoned in to me though. The entire plotline of the zone doesn't mesh at all with the rest of the expansion. It would have made a great intro zone to Cata, but as the last zone: lolwut?

Are you Horde, because the Alliance quest line spells it out pretty clearly.  Here's the story.

You start out escoring King McCinnerson's son around Stormwind and wind-up uncovering a Twilight Cult plot to blow up the Cathedral.  (This plot goes pretty high up the new chain of Stormwind command, proving once again that Bolvar was a big loss.  Fuck you, Alexstraza.)   After defeating the plot, Chinny sends you to Twilight Highlands to take care of the cult once and for all.  Enroute you're either shot down by the Horde or crash because the dwarf flying you is a crazy fucker.  You discover the Horde are assaulting the Alliance foothold base here for reasons unknown to the Alliance - basically you think they're just being Fuckers because Garrosh has a tiny penis and needs to prove something.  Thus the beachead fight.  You need it to assault the Twilight Cult and Cho'gall but the Horde is having one of it.

After you get into the zone and discover the Earthen Ring again, they explain that while you and they were repairing the World Pillar in Deepholm the Twilight Cult made their move and took over the Shamanistic Circles in the Twilight Highlands/ Grim Batol area.  So now King McChinnerson's goals and the Earthen Ring's goals align and you begin helping the ER to reclaim the area while preparing for the final push on Cho'Gall's fortress.  This is the last zone of the XP because the Bastion of Twilight is the first raid instance of the expansion, making Cho'Gall one of your first kills.

The link between Cho'gall and Deathwing is never fully explained.  Cho'gall is all corrupted and crazy from his prior exposure to C'thun, but why he's following Deathwing is unclear as DW simply wants to destroy the world.  Prior to this Cho'gall just wanted to turn it over to the Old Gods. (Which is why you see mini-Yogg in twilight.)  All I can figure is that Deathwing is using him as a buffer so you can't directly move on Grim Batol.  Deathwing doesn't care if the Old Gods come up or not, because once he destroys the world none of it will matter anyway.  He just needs the time that the Twilight Fuckheads can provide to complete his master plan.

Then again, I skipped Uldlum and Hyjal, so perhaps when I go back and do those zones the link between the two will be a little clearer.   I'm also confused as to why we haven't seen Garona or her & Medivh's son since we're battling the Twilight Cult.  Maybe Horde gets them, since Alliance are racist fucks and wouldn't care about some half-orc/dranei and her bastard son of the most powerful magi ever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 10, 2010, 11:28:16 AM
Garona is a significant horde npc for the last couple questlines in TH.

Also, deathwing himself states his newfound power comes from the old gods and it was them that originally drove him crazy I believe. Cho'gall basically sees deathwing as his gods greatest general/avatar or something like that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 10, 2010, 11:30:22 AM
No, I got that (the dwarf implies he crashed, no shooting down), but there's no reason given for why the Horde and Alliance are going apeshit at each other on their big bad's doorstep. Basically the zone is getting murdered by the twilight cult because.. well because the alliance and horde armies are too busy trying to claim a piece of dirt that isn't even on the way to the twilight, while the dragonmaw and the wildhammer go a-killin.

Essentially the "makes no sense" bit is that the alliance and the horde seem on perfectly good "let's all just not mess with each other" terms up until Twilight Highlands, at which point everyone forgets that there's some GIANT EVIL THING next to them, and just waste all their troops and artillery on the beach.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 10, 2010, 11:33:07 AM
I'm not totally clear on whether he's trying to destroy it or just take over in a really smashy sort of way, but regardless presumably blowing up the world would let the old gods out of their prisons, which is what the Twilight's Hammer wants, and I think why the OGs made Deathwing go crazy in the first place.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 10, 2010, 11:34:20 AM
No, I got that (the dwarf implies he crashed, no shooting down), but there's no reason given for why the Horde and Alliance are going apeshit at each other on their big bad's doorstep. Basically the zone is getting murdered by the twilight cult because.. well because the alliance and horde armies are too busy trying to claim a piece of dirt that isn't even on the way to the twilight, while the dragonmaw and the wildhammer go a-killin.

Essentially the "makes no sense" bit is that the alliance and the horde seem on perfectly good "let's all just not mess with each other" terms up until Twilight Highlands, at which point everyone forgets that there's some GIANT EVIL THING next to them, and just waste all their troops and artillery on the beach.

Have you set foot on Kalimdor at all yet? The Alliance and Horde are at each other's throats practically in every zone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on December 10, 2010, 11:39:46 AM
All of which points to good reasons as to why the Titans should simply re-originate Azeroth.  Destroy the planet, kill the Old Gods, then build a new one.  From what Algalon said, the Titans have absolutely zero qualms about doing just that.  I have to wonder what reason there is for them to not do so with Azeroth.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 10, 2010, 11:40:22 AM
No, I got that (the dwarf implies he crashed, no shooting down), but there's no reason given for why the Horde and Alliance are going apeshit at each other on their big bad's doorstep. Basically the zone is getting murdered by the twilight cult because.. well because the alliance and horde armies are too busy trying to claim a piece of dirt that isn't even on the way to the twilight, while the dragonmaw and the wildhammer go a-killin.

Essentially the "makes no sense" bit is that the alliance and the horde seem on perfectly good "let's all just not mess with each other" terms up until Twilight Highlands, at which point everyone forgets that there's some GIANT EVIL THING next to them, and just waste all their troops and artillery on the beach.

Have you set foot on Kalimdor at all yet? The Alliance and Horde are at each other's throats practically in every zone.

Yeah, but then Cata zones they stop that, and it becomes all "we have bigger things to deal with"

It just thematically doesn't fit with the other zones, imo. Either they should all be about how we get footholds in these new lands, or be about dealing with the larger threat with some tensions underneath.

I mean, Vash'jir semi starts that way (you get on a boat to go kill some horde. I like to pretend it's the Strand of the Ancients boat gone wrong.), but after that it's nothing but the earthen ring making everyone play nice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 10, 2010, 11:41:30 AM
All of which points to good reasons as to why the Titans should simply re-originate Azeroth.  Destroy the planet, kill the Old Gods, then build a new one.  From what Algalon said, the Titans have absolutely zero qualms about doing just that.  I have to wonder what reason there is for them to not do so with Azeroth.

 :awesome_for_real:

Supposedly the titans couldn't kill the old gods because they are tied to the lifeforce of the planet itself or somesuch. though, we've been doing a bang up job of fucking that up with killing em.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 10, 2010, 11:42:54 AM
All of which points to good reasons as to why the Titans should simply re-originate Azeroth.  Destroy the planet, kill the Old Gods, then build a new one.  From what Algalon said, the Titans have absolutely zero qualms about doing just that.  I have to wonder what reason there is for them to not do so with Azeroth.

 :awesome_for_real:

Supposedly the titans couldn't kill the old gods because they are tied to the lifeforce of the planet itself or somesuch. though, we've been doing a bang up job of fucking that up with killing em.

We wouldn't have killed them if they weren't dressed in epics like that.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 10, 2010, 11:46:14 AM
I don't think we actually liike, killed killed them. Just beat down their current manifestation or whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on December 10, 2010, 11:49:34 AM
What Ingmar said.  I would be very surprised if we puny humans managed to do something the very Lords of Creation could not do themselves.

As an aside, my daughter thinks her werewolf with a top hat is THE BEST THING EVER.  Aside from the chicken laugh.  She really hopes the chicken laugh is fixed sometime soon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on December 10, 2010, 12:32:02 PM
They have really set the sta decay rate on a pretty harsh curve here.   Out of curiosity, I checked my stats on my ICC geared boomkin when i dinged from 80 to 81.   I lost 5% hit and approximately 8% crit and 6% haste simply from one level increase  :ye_gods:.   No wonder you hear tales of level 85s doing 4k dps in dungeons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kitsune on December 10, 2010, 12:45:48 PM
The heavy respawns have proven pretty amusing while I was playing my druid with the bleed-heavy damage.  I'd drop my DoTs on a target and immediately turn to start fighting the next, with the first one keeling over dead just in time for me to put the same DoTs on the new guy.  This probably boosted the hell out of my overall DPS, as I usually didn't wait to let DoTs run their course in the past, just burning down an opponent as fast as possible before going to the next.  But now that feral druid mastery is all about boosting bleed power, killing a target with instant damage attacks is less efficient than it used to be.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 10, 2010, 12:53:28 PM
All of which points to good reasons as to why the Titans should simply re-originate Azeroth.  Destroy the planet, kill the Old Gods, then build a new one.  From what Algalon said, the Titans have absolutely zero qualms about doing just that.  I have to wonder what reason there is for them to not do so with Azeroth.

 :awesome_for_real:

'Cause they don't know yet. Algalon was supposed to tell them, but I believe canon says we managed to get him not to by beating him until he loved us. I believe he also said they'll figure it out eventually. I did do some quest, I cannot for the life of me remember where, probably Badlands, where I woke up a little Algalon and it went "zomg" and I sort of think it might've tattled on us. So I'm sure they'll roll up eventually being all, "YOU FUCKERS CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 10, 2010, 01:11:03 PM
They have really set the sta decay rate on a pretty harsh curve here.   Out of curiosity, I checked my stats on my ICC geared boomkin when i dinged from 80 to 81.   I lost 5% hit and approximately 8% crit and 6% haste simply from one level increase  :ye_gods:.   No wonder you hear tales of level 85s doing 4k dps in dungeons.

Really? I haven't seen that yet but I know I'm ahead of the curve right now.  Lowest DPS I've seen has been from casters, who are all probably well below their hit cap right now, and they're pushing 7k at the low end.  I know when we tried the TB boss last night melee was in the tops with only 4 of us hitting 9k with a few bursts into the 10k range.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on December 10, 2010, 01:13:51 PM
They have really set the sta decay rate on a pretty harsh curve here.   Out of curiosity, I checked my stats on my ICC geared boomkin when i dinged from 80 to 81.   I lost 5% hit and approximately 8% crit and 6% haste simply from one level increase  :ye_gods:.   No wonder you hear tales of level 85s doing 4k dps in dungeons.
Yeah, it seems like they just forced 10 levels' worth of progression into 5 levels, and combined with the crazy gear reset (40 ilvl upgrades over ICC epics at level 81? Was that really necessary?) makes the stats really wonky. I don't have hard numbers but I'm pretty sure my healing got quite a bit worse when I dinged 83 because all my spell costs increased drastically, and their effects didn't. Then I got some more 40 ilvl upgrades and it was okay again (they also made Healing Surge and Healing Wave more useful, contrary to my earlier post).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 10, 2010, 01:23:38 PM
No, I got that (the dwarf implies he crashed, no shooting down), but there's no reason given for why the Horde and Alliance are going apeshit at each other on their big bad's doorstep. Basically the zone is getting murdered by the twilight cult because.. well because the alliance and horde armies are too busy trying to claim a piece of dirt that isn't even on the way to the twilight, while the dragonmaw and the wildhammer go a-killin.

Essentially the "makes no sense" bit is that the alliance and the horde seem on perfectly good "let's all just not mess with each other" terms up until Twilight Highlands, at which point everyone forgets that there's some GIANT EVIL THING next to them, and just waste all their troops and artillery on the beach.

Ah, see I didn't see a lot of 'live and let live' in the zones... you simply didn't encounter the other side.  In Vash'jir you had a few missions to kill a few horde folks but other than that you didn't see 'em.  In Deepholm the Earthen Ring and the Elementals were in charge and weren't going to abide shit from either side (though the Alliance had blown the Horde airship from the sky. Fuck Yeah.)   Skipped Ud so Twilight made sense to me, given the outright hostility of the rest of the world in the lowbie zones.

I'm with you on the "why the fuck are they going after the Alliance when Cho'Gall is up there" but the Horde are painted as the aggressors there, so you can't blame the Alliance for fighting back.. they need that beach head.  I'm interested in leveling up my Horde so I can see exactly why they're going after the Alliance there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on December 10, 2010, 02:23:15 PM
Because the Alliance declared war on them?  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on December 10, 2010, 06:57:31 PM
They have really set the sta decay rate on a pretty harsh curve here.   Out of curiosity, I checked my stats on my ICC geared boomkin when i dinged from 80 to 81.   I lost 5% hit and approximately 8% crit and 6% haste simply from one level increase  :ye_gods:.   No wonder you hear tales of level 85s doing 4k dps in dungeons.

Yeah, the decay is brutal, but that's not exactly news. I just finished up Deepholm and headed to Uldum. I still see people in T10 and it's stupid. The 300+ item level blues blow that stuff away. Heck, the greens are significanly better at that point. But I still see people with ICC stuff. I still have my trinkets, but about everything else is gone and I had good gear. And my damage is simply off the scale at this point--in blues and greens.

Oh, and the il333 claws that JC can make at 83...equivalent to lvl85 blues and they just rock. No reason at all to hang onto stuff past 83, aside from the trinkets, which are traditionally a PitA to replace anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 10, 2010, 07:21:45 PM
I dinged 81 on the prot warrior 40-ish quests into Vash today.  And finally got 2-3 items that were better than what I had (replacing ilvl 220 or less stuff), and blacksmithed myself a shield.

...and noticed my HP had gone up by about 10K.   :awesome_for_real: :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on December 10, 2010, 07:48:01 PM
I dinged 81 on the prot warrior 40-ish quests into Vash today.  And finally got 2-3 items that were better than what I had (replacing ilvl 220 or less stuff), and blacksmithed myself a shield.

...and noticed my HP had gone up by about 10K.   :awesome_for_real: :ye_gods:

I remember when getting a 1,000 crit backstab was good, what the hell is this; are they going to have to starting "K" to the end of everything just to save screen room?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on December 10, 2010, 08:05:58 PM
I can see them an expansion or two from now deciding that everybody having multiple millions of HP is silly and revamping everything in a way that fixes the issue for precisely one more expansion. Like replacing stamina on gear with a new stat that reduces all incoming damage by x%, and then realizing that it won't be long before x is greater than 99 for everybody.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 10, 2010, 08:07:02 PM
Soon they'll be using Disgaea-like numbers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on December 10, 2010, 08:12:05 PM
Have you set foot on Kalimdor at all yet? The Alliance and Horde are at each other's throats practically in every zone.


Except for Feralas and Thousand needles, where the alliance either ignores or flat out helps the taurens for no reason outside of "we needed more alliance quests in this zone".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 10, 2010, 08:54:52 PM
My DK has 101k HP in DPS spec and I've still got a large amount of quest greens.   In tank spec, also in quest greens, has 129k when I runeforge for Stoneskin gargoyle.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 10, 2010, 09:56:27 PM
I sat down and figured out how to go through Alliance 1-58 with minimal overlap on 3 characters:

Dwarf/Gnome: Dun Morogh -> Loch Modan -> Wetlands -> Hinterlands -> WPL -> EPL -> Badlands -> Searing Gorge -> Burning Steppes -> Swamp of Sorrows -> Blasted Lands
Human: Elwynn -> Westfall -> Redridge -> Duskwood -> N. Stranglethorn -> Cape of Stranglethorn -> Dustwallow -> Thousand Needles -> Tanaris -> Un'Goro -> Silithus
Nelf/Draenei/Worgen: Teldrassil/Gilneas/Azuremyst -> Darkshore or Bloodmyst -> Ashenvale -> Stonetalon -> Desolace -> Feralas -> Thousand Needles ->  Felwood -> Winterspring

If I've got it right this gets you through 3 characters Old World leveling with only one zone repeat, although I think the Kalimdor character may finish around level 55 instead of 58-59ish. However if you aren't a quick leveler and thus accumulate some rest, have heirlooms, or do a few dungeons that will pretty much do it.

Nod. Doing a few dungeons will actually easily allow you to skip whole ranges of outdoor zones, so you can do them later on.

I don't think I commented on this originally but thanks Ingmar.

I had to make a slight change at the expense of overlap. By the time my ppaladin made it to Tanaris I couldn't stand the lack of challenge (mobs were about 5 levels below me) I decided to check the hero's call board in SW, and ended up in Burning Steppes. For those who care about quest storylines, there's a bit of a reunion from Redridge.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on December 10, 2010, 10:00:56 PM
I'm not entirely certain why big numbers frighten people, they're like little numbers, but bigger.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 11, 2010, 12:59:12 AM
Mostly because they become so big they're pointlessly silly. It doesn't wreck my world or anything, but once you start hitting five digits regularly, it just seems out of hand to me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on December 11, 2010, 01:51:24 AM
They have really set the sta decay rate on a pretty harsh curve here.   Out of curiosity, I checked my stats on my ICC geared boomkin when i dinged from 80 to 81.   I lost 5% hit and approximately 8% crit and 6% haste simply from one level increase  :ye_gods:.   No wonder you hear tales of level 85s doing 4k dps in dungeons.
Yeah, it seems like they just forced 10 levels' worth of progression into 5 levels, and combined with the crazy gear reset (40 ilvl upgrades over ICC epics at level 81? Was that really necessary?) makes the stats really wonky. I don't have hard numbers but I'm pretty sure my healing got quite a bit worse when I dinged 83 because all my spell costs increased drastically, and their effects didn't. Then I got some more 40 ilvl upgrades and it was okay again (they also made Healing Surge and Healing Wave more useful, contrary to my earlier post).
It should be noted that at 85 things become, oddly, much better. Fury Warriors go from needing something like 1700 hit rating to be Rage-started while leveling to needing probably half that or less, among other things.

The sudden jump of 11k health and 15k mana for my Priest from 82-83 was certainly a shock. Though not quite as much as the equally sudden loss of 8% crit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 11, 2010, 01:59:26 AM
I think Gnomebliteration in Uldum is my new favorite quest ever.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on December 11, 2010, 03:59:24 AM
After the slightly disappointing Vash'jir, I went to Throne of Tides.  Good instance, felt challenging without frustrating.  Last NPC quest guy bugged and I didn't get quest complete however.  Then I went to Deepholm and quickly quested to 83.  Enjoyable zone, especially the Alliance ship.  Found Stonecore but haven't ran it.  But after I dinged I went to Uldum.  Really like its look!  Just started questing there and met my old pal Budd!  I like how everyone says he's an idiot but they go along with his plans which always work. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ginaz on December 11, 2010, 05:05:54 AM
After the slightly disappointing Vash'jir, I went to Throne of Tides.  Good instance, felt challenging without frustrating.  Last NPC quest guy bugged and I didn't get quest complete however.  Then I went to Deepholm and quickly quested to 83.  Enjoyable zone, especially the Alliance ship.  Found Stonecore but haven't ran it.  But after I dinged I went to Uldum.  Really like its look!  Just started questing there and met my old pal Budd!  I like how everyone says he's an idiot but they go along with his plans which always work. 

The Harrison Jones quest line in Uldum is pretty fun.  Uldum is now officially my favourite zone.  I did find, however, that a lot of quests there have cut scenes.  It did make the story more interesting but I thought they were a bit overdone.  I'm stating up in the Twilight Highlands now.  Haven't done much there yet but I did notice the dwarf areas seems to look like the Shire from the LOTR movies.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 11, 2010, 05:16:18 AM
Mostly because they become so big they're pointlessly silly. It doesn't wreck my world or anything, but once you start hitting five digits regularly, it just seems out of hand to me.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40252/zimbabwean-health-bars.jpg)

Still, I like the new, higher, health baseline, not only because it makes the current healing game possible, but also because it means tanks shouldn't be hitting 3-4x non-tank health this go around.  Feel free to quote that back to me in a year and a half though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 11, 2010, 05:45:29 AM
Restrictions on dungeon groups are overly harsh I think.

We got 5 of us together last night, the plan being to do Stonecore. One 81, two 82s, and 83 and an 84. Dungeon finder wouldn't let us enter *any* dungeons. Flew around a bit, discovered entrances to everything, still couldn't do any. Went to Stonecore entrance and our 84 couldn't even walk in the door to it when grouped with the rest of us.  :oh_i_see:

We worked out in the end that it wouldn't let us into Vortex Pinnacle because the 81 enhance shammy had iLvl 269 average and it wanted 272. We crafted her a pair of blue slippers, she put them in her bag, it let us in. Moronic system.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 11, 2010, 05:47:17 AM
She had cold feet. ;D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 11, 2010, 06:23:03 AM
Restrictions on dungeon groups are overly harsh I think.

We got 5 of us together last night, the plan being to do Stonecore. One 81, two 82s, and 83 and an 84. Dungeon finder wouldn't let us enter *any* dungeons. Flew around a bit, discovered entrances to everything, still couldn't do any. Went to Stonecore entrance and our 84 couldn't even walk in the door to it when grouped with the rest of us.  :oh_i_see:

We worked out in the end that it wouldn't let us into Vortex Pinnacle because the 81 enhance shammy had iLvl 269 average and it wanted 272. We crafted her a pair of blue slippers, she put them in her bag, it let us in. Moronic system.

That's my only gripe with this expac. I can understand the motivation behind it, but the "you need to be this tall to ride" restrictions are  :uhrr:. Players, I can understand, they are douchebags... but building it directly into you game? hmmmm


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 11, 2010, 06:46:08 AM
I find it more amusing that they try to get around gaming the ilvl system by looking at gear in your pack.. but can't be assed to check your "queue as ____" to make sure you have that spec as one of your two.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 11, 2010, 06:49:33 AM
I'm not entirely certain why big numbers frighten people, they're like little numbers, but bigger.

I've always had a problem with big numbers.  I hated them when I first came across it in FF games and I hate them in WoW.  What's the difference between hitting something that has 1k hitpoints for 10 and something that has 1mil for 10k?  Nothing other than the 10k makes certain personalities' e-peens twitch.  Something about it simply bothers me at a base level and I'm not sure why.

Then again I also remember that 109HP was uber in D&D.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 11, 2010, 07:07:59 AM
That's my only gripe with this expac. I can understand the motivation behind it, but the "you need to be this tall to ride" restrictions are  :uhrr:. Players, I can understand, they are douchebags... but building it directly into you game? hmmmm

It's been in the game at least since they added the LFD system as we know it (so, a year ago).  Just now the numbers are exposed to the user without needing mods.

I agree the requirements for most instances are a bit steep, but that's both a design intent and a matter of perception.  They wanted us to run Normal instances before jumping into Heroics, which for the most part didn't happen with Wrath.  Also, the jumps in base attributes and available gear levels are much larger than the difference of a level or two would make it seem.

An 81 making their way through Vashj'ir or Hyjal is playing a different game from someone who's 82 and in Deepholm gear.  Their and their enemy's health has bloomed, they're in a tier or more better gear, but their ratings mean much less than they used to, and if they're a mana class, their spells have shot up dramatically in cost.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 11, 2010, 07:28:05 AM
I've always had a problem with big numbers.  I hated them when I first came across it in FF games and I hate them in WoW.  What's the difference between hitting something that has 1k hitpoints for 10 and something that has 1mil for 10k?  Nothing other than the 10k makes certain personalities' e-peens twitch.  Something about it simply bothers me at a base level and I'm not sure why.
For me it's because you don't need more than two significant digits if you normalize the damage scale.  Three or four makes you feel powerful for being able to take a large hit, but generally the real percentage of your health taken with any given fight would be a whole number.

Because of that, having 147,609 health feels as silly as having 147.609.  "Oh shit!  Bobxinus just hit me for 18.752 health!"  You don't care at all about that 0.752 because its order of magnitude is insignificant.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on December 11, 2010, 07:46:45 AM
I don't like it because it confuses me as a tank. What's a big hit this time around? How much damage should I take before using up shit. What number is my slush zone on this boss? Extra digits mean extra fine lines. I've lived through numerous fights in the last expansion with <200 health. Keep making it bigger you make the healer/tank management more of a fine line system instead of a large picture system.

TL;DR it's unnecessarily complicating matters.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 11, 2010, 07:52:37 AM
I imagine the Divide By a Hundred add-on will become popular for that reason, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on December 11, 2010, 08:09:05 AM
You know, you could just set your normal UI to display percentages.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 11, 2010, 11:39:41 AM
She had cold feet. ;D

 :grin:

Oh God.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 11, 2010, 12:51:10 PM
She had cold feet. ;D


:facepalm:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 11, 2010, 01:23:18 PM
You know, you could just set your normal UI to display percentages.

That's stupid in a different way. I don't talk in percentages for these sorts of things except for "we got Sindragosa down to 5% and then we wiped." Even then I'm more likely to say "she had blahdeeblah HP left waaaaaaaah" instead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Abelian75 on December 11, 2010, 04:38:34 PM
For me it's because you don't need more than two significant digits if you normalize the damage scale.  Three or four makes you feel powerful for being able to take a large hit, but generally the real percentage of your health taken with any given fight would be a whole number.

Because of that, having 147,609 health feels as silly as having 147.609.  "Oh shit!  Bobxinus just hit me for 18.752 health!"  You don't care at all about that 0.752 because its order of magnitude is insignificant.

That's a good way of putting it I think.  I think it does make some sense to make it so the lowest-of-the-low hits are around 10, rather than 1, for no reason other than that it does seem to make numbers seem cooler, to some extent, when you can get them into the 1000s sometimes.  But I do think WoW has now reached an order of magnitude too many.  Hitting things for 10000+ being an entirely unremarkable event is a little bizarre.

I guess for some reason it sort of seems ok to me if the last TWO digits are insignificant (like if 100 hp is essentially a sliver from nothingness, and indistinguishable from 10 hp for the most part).  Somehow once you add on one more insignificant digit (meaning that 1000 hp is now a sliver of nothingness) it feels ridiculous somehow.  Hopefully it does not need to be explicitly said that this is a blatantly subjective evaluation (though who knows, it's possible it has some universal truth in humans).

(and yeah, the percentage display thing doesn't work because you need to be able to compare two different creatures to each other)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ghost on December 11, 2010, 05:35:41 PM
Okay, so I've run through several of the intro levels for different races and classes.  Are there any particularly gimped classes right now?  Or classes that are really overpowered?  Sorry, but I haven't picked this up in a very long time. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: stu on December 11, 2010, 06:05:00 PM
Neptool, the Rockpool Murloc Chief, sounds just like phantom Towley.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 11, 2010, 06:54:43 PM
Okay, so I've run through several of the intro levels for different races and classes.  Are there any particularly gimped classes right now?  Or classes that are really overpowered?  Sorry, but I haven't picked this up in a very long time. 

Protection paladins are hilariously overpowered at the low levels. They are particularly bullshit in PvP.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on December 11, 2010, 07:15:49 PM
What she said. Even a Holy Pally is an engine of destruction. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ghost on December 11, 2010, 07:32:52 PM
Bullshit as in good, or bullshit as in bad?

I just rolled up at Tauren Pally.    :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 11, 2010, 07:57:34 PM
Bullshit as in good, or bullshit as in bad?

I just rolled up at Tauren Pally.    :grin:
In your case, bullshit as in good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on December 12, 2010, 12:17:34 AM
As in everyone you fight will be cursing "that is total bullshit!" while they wait for the spirit rezzer.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ginaz on December 12, 2010, 01:10:49 AM
Restrictions on dungeon groups are overly harsh I think.

We got 5 of us together last night, the plan being to do Stonecore. One 81, two 82s, and 83 and an 84. Dungeon finder wouldn't let us enter *any* dungeons. Flew around a bit, discovered entrances to everything, still couldn't do any. Went to Stonecore entrance and our 84 couldn't even walk in the door to it when grouped with the rest of us.  :oh_i_see:

We worked out in the end that it wouldn't let us into Vortex Pinnacle because the 81 enhance shammy had iLvl 269 average and it wanted 272. We crafted her a pair of blue slippers, she put them in her bag, it let us in. Moronic system.

That's my only gripe with this expac. I can understand the motivation behind it, but the "you need to be this tall to ride" restrictions are  :uhrr:. Players, I can understand, they are douchebags... but building it directly into you game? hmmmm

I think the reason behind it is that you gain a shit load of HPs with each level and the gear you acquire, and its necessary for the new dungeons.  Its a huge jump, doubling or and even tripling what you had in high end gear with Lich King.  I had a bear tank yesterday in the Deepholm dungeon that was running with about 66k health.  I think he was 81 or 82, with a lot of ICC gear.  We only managed to get about half way before calling it.  Tank died numerous times along the way and the healer wasn't the problem.  Considering that another time we had an 84 DK tank with just over 100k HP, players are eventually going to have health pools comparable to LK mini bosses or high level trash mobs, which gives you an idea of how much health raid bosses will have.  I don't know if this will hold true for the inevitable raid to kill him, but I saw Deathwing with almost a billion HP when I first flew into Hyjal.  Thats right.  One billion HP.  I makes me keep thinking of Dr. Evil when he first demands "One Biiiiilion Dollars" from the US government when he goes back in time and the reaction he got.  They laughed at him for asking for such an absurd amount of money.  I think if you went back a few years and told people they would be facing a boss with a billion HP, they would probably have the same reaction. :roffle:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on December 12, 2010, 02:44:02 AM
I did heroic Deadmines and Shadowfang Keep today, and holy crap crap crap. Thrall's balls! They're awesome.

Figuring out heroics is a hell of a lot of fun too. I think I'm the only one geared enough to run them in my guild right now, so I come across lots of guild-minus-one groups and we always end up rocking stuff. I've almost macroed "I wouldn't be doing heroics if I didn't expect to die a lot" for when people apologize for not being over-geared dicks with raid gear. This is the best part of WoW, right here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on December 12, 2010, 03:47:34 AM
I have two view points of this expansion to report;

1: So I managed to convince two of my friends who have not played the game since BC to come back and play. They love the pve experience; quick levels, good quests; they loved the dungeon crawl........only problem is they are PvP addicts, and PvP at lower levels is FUCKED. Hunters, Rogues, and Feral Druids are one-shotting them....basically all the classes who get a **Weapon Damage + X** who are using heirloom items which were not intended under the games system. What I mean by this, is those classes smoke people instantly. It's not even fun. I've tried to convince my friends that it's not like this at the higher levels, but their patience wore out, and they basically dropped the game. I hope Blizzard goes back and balances the game from lvl 1 up. It's not like it's a priority or anything, but I wonder how many people quit or half quit cause the leveling pvp is not even closed to balanced.

2: I've been playing at max level for a bit. Loved Hyjal, HATED Vash'jir, even if i seemed cool in theory. I've only done two dungeons thus far, BRC, and ToT so far. Throne of Tides seemes alright. I particularly like the giant tentacles that prevent you from going into any hallways you have not cleared yet. BRC was just gay, both times I did it, if a group wipes, it's  'cause no one knows their way back into that fucking place.

As an addendum; I ran into a smug-ass wow player at a party tonight who claimed that after 5 days at 3 hour played he has managed to reach 85.  I play like 4 hrs a night, and quest like mad, with a few random dungeons thrown in, and I just hit 82. I mean, I know I'm not great at this game, but I didn't think I was falling THAT far behind.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on December 12, 2010, 03:50:08 AM
I completed the entire Vashj'ir quest line and the gear from that was superior to the gear from Throne of Tides.  So maybe the instances ARE an alternative levelling path.

Still loving Uldum.  Deathwing burnt me to a crisp yesterday :)  I tried to follow, but yes I lost sight of an enormous dragon burning everything in its path.

Did the Gilneas zone yesterday.  Great looking zone and good quests.  A little surprised they sent me to Darkshore, figured Worgen would go up into Shadowpine, but no matter.  Not a big fan of the male worgen walk.  Bad enough I have to look at wolf-butt.

  


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ginaz on December 12, 2010, 04:09:56 AM

As an addendum; I ran into a smug-ass wow player at a party tonight who claimed that after 5 days at 3 hour played he has managed to reach 85.  I play like 4 hrs a night, and quest like mad, with a few random dungeons thrown in, and I just hit 82. I mean, I know I'm not great at this game, but I didn't think I was falling THAT far behind.

He's full of shit.  Either he isn't 85 yet or he played more than 3 hours ( a day or total, it doesn't matter).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on December 12, 2010, 04:11:05 AM

As an addendum; I ran into a smug-ass wow player at a party tonight who claimed that after 5 days at 3 hour played he has managed to reach 85.  I play like 4 hrs a night, and quest like mad, with a few random dungeons thrown in, and I just hit 82. I mean, I know I'm not great at this game, but I didn't think I was falling THAT far behind.

Yep, I hit 81 in about 4 days of playing casually through a bit of Vashjir and Archaeology.  My wife told me that this woman she works with hit 85 in about two days... she and her family all play together and until about a year ago they were casuals.  I'm getting MMOld I guess.  Figured I'd wait until the new zones clear out a bit.

At some point in the next few days I'm going to write up a detail about this xpac.  Overall, I'm sure it is a glaring success, but it has some gaping flaws that aren't typical of Blizzard.  I would have expected them to figure out a formula by now, but they're still tweaking the roots of the game.  The QC just wasn't all there this time and unfortunately Blizzard isn't known for fixing things promptly (or at all).  Tuning the game for 85 (as mentioned a few posts above) is one of the major ones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 12, 2010, 04:57:36 AM
Quick question, can you random queue for normal dungeons at 85? Or can you only queue for heroics?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 12, 2010, 06:02:14 AM
12 of us went out as a guild and did old world raids for guild achieves last night.  Cleared 6 of the BC raids in about 2 hours and the only reason it took that long was GCDs and everything in BC loved to fucking talk your ear off.  The exposition by Kael'thas in TK took longer than the whole Illlidan fight.

Mag was 50 seconds, Gruul was 36, The spear guy in BT that used to be a 9 min fight? 22 seconds.   :uhrr:

Quick question, can you random queue for normal dungeons at 85? Or can you only queue for heroics?

You can random for normals.  Until you hit gear level 239 that's all you CAN queue for.  Only thing is you won't get Justice Points for anything beyond completion of the first random of the day.

However, you'll be more productive in gearing up, since successful completions of heroics are taking 2-3 hours involving multiple wipes.  Everyone wants to try as soon as they hit 239, but it's not advisable.  Blizz wasn't kidding when they said you should have a full blue normal set before trying Heroics in /random.   In that 2-3 hours you could have completed 2-4 normal randoms and gotten gear instead of a huge repair bill.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on December 12, 2010, 06:26:44 AM
Garrosh is hilariously Emo in TBC, which makes WotLK Garrosh even more  :why_so_serious:

Yeah, he went from being this sad little shitface who should be fucking grateful Thrall every came along to pull him out of his stupor into a fucking "HEY NICE PLANET YOU GOT HERE LET'S TAKE IT OVER COMPLETELY."
Garrosh's story got shortchanged because WotLK was an 'Alliance Expansion' (like TBC was a 'Horde Expansion' i.e. all the good lore & storylines were either that side or neutral).

What it should have been was him carrying on from the Nagrand event and basically doing a Grand Tour of Horde areas on Outland then Azeroth, and his reactions growing from that (namely "Wait, why the fuck are we making nice politically with the arseholes in the Alliance when we're living in fucking deserts and post-apocalyptic wastelands when they have pristine mountains and forests...and they're invading us?"). Combine that with the whole death before dishonour thing and the fact that he's quite happily embracing his heritage now instead of repressing it, and you'd have an interesting story. Especially when you consider that by definition Garrosh had fuck all to do with anything the Horde have done pre-TBC (his skin is the wrong colour, for starters), and quite a lot of the Horde is probably in a similar boat (grew up in the Internment camps for orcs, had fuck-all to do with the original Horde for everyone else; hell, two of the Horde races are ex-Alliance!) so they're not exactly defaulting to 'repentant noble savage' like Saurfang Sr. et. al. - in fact, they probably see the Alliance as holding grudges and spoiling for a fight.

Instead we got: Emo Garrosh *timeskip* "Why in the name of Gul'dan's fel-corrupted ballsack aren't we going to kick the crap out of Arthas now? The plague was an act of cowardice" *timeskip* Hello I am the "Big I Am" in Borean Tundra *timeskip* Rar Imma gon' eat Wrynn's face *timeskip* Sup I'm Warchief now.

And a shitty comic starring King Manbeef McRoidrager and his chillaxed magical twin.

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/cataclysm/features/garrosh.html

(http://i.imgur.com/7iGJP.gif)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 12, 2010, 06:30:02 AM
As an addendum; I ran into a smug-ass wow player at a party tonight who claimed that after 5 days at 3 hour played he has managed to reach 85.  I play like 4 hrs a night, and quest like mad, with a few random dungeons thrown in, and I just hit 82. I mean, I know I'm not great at this game, but I didn't think I was falling THAT far behind.
Simply respond, "Dude, you waited two years to blow through the expansion in five days.  Well done."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on December 12, 2010, 07:02:34 AM
So, in Beta, the worgen mount/run animation just kind of raised your camera angle and you walked faster.  Got to 20 today with my new female worgen.  There's actually an animation now.  And dirty, dirty, dirty it is.   :why_so_serious:  They bend over and shove their ass in the air, which kind of make sense, but it's still oh so dirty.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 12, 2010, 07:07:09 AM
So, in Beta, the worgen mount/run animation just kind of raised your camera angle and you walked faster.  Got to 20 today with my new female worgen.  There's actually an animation now.  And dirty, dirty, dirty it is.   :why_so_serious:  They bend over and shove their ass in the air, which kind of make sense, but it's still oh so dirty.

I like it for the most part. It needs to be slowed down (the animation) a tad bit since it looks like I am just flopping around all over the place, but I definitely like it's "feral" feel.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on December 12, 2010, 09:22:58 AM
There is a great new quest in western plaguelands where you let a hopeless new troll druid tag along with you for a while.  He shapeshifts into a seal and flops around, can't get aggro in bear form, burns himself in moonkin form.  It's one of those quests I'll remember for a long time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on December 12, 2010, 09:47:46 AM
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/cataclysm/features/garrosh.html

(http://i.imgur.com/7iGJP.gif)

"We built our capital city in the desert, and are now outraged to discover that we are in fact living in the desert. The Alliance must pay for this insult. RAWR! FOR METZEN!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 12, 2010, 10:31:29 AM
Bah. It's not so bad now. I mean its beachfront property, and now has some nice flora right outside the gate... just pay no mind to the war machines out front.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on December 12, 2010, 11:36:29 AM
Isn't Metzen one of Santa's reindeer?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 12, 2010, 12:14:46 PM
Today, I discovered that Victory Rush + Spell Reflection = almost no downtime.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 12, 2010, 12:32:21 PM
Metzen was one of the reindeer, but it got patched out.

I'm confused about Spell Reflection making any difference, but with Victory rush and Prot, you shouldn't have any downtime ever and you should be taking on at least 5 at a time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 12, 2010, 12:51:16 PM
A successful spell reflect takes you to full (or nearly full) rage.  Less of an issue with packs, but nice when you're doing 1 and 2 at a time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on December 12, 2010, 03:30:17 PM
Tol Barad is seriously terrible.  Not just "this has a lot of kinks to work out" terrible, but "seriously, how did any human being think this was a good idea" terrible.  I've played about 8 of them and the offense (no matter the faction) has never come remotely close to winning.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on December 12, 2010, 03:44:58 PM
Just hit 85 on my Priest. My health went up 20k (to 98.2k unbuffed), my mana went up a paltry 6k (to 76k), and my mana costs doubled. Again. For the third level in a row.

This is fucking stupid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on December 12, 2010, 07:14:06 PM
Tol Barad is seriously terrible.  Not just "this has a lot of kinks to work out" terrible, but "seriously, how did any human being think this was a good idea" terrible.  I've played about 8 of them and the offense (no matter the faction) has never come remotely close to winning.


Yep, by the time they let us actually you know, test it, on Beta, it was way to late for them to actually change anything since all the art assets were in place and shit.


It's a 3 base EotS without a flag and the defender only has to hold 1 base for the duration.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 12, 2010, 10:21:48 PM
I think I'm about to reach my limit with WoW.  There's a lot I like about the game, but it starts to wear thin.

When I first heard about dual-talent I wasn't interested because I thought one had to spread out points between the two. When I found out you could use the max points for each I was  :grin:. I like being able to play the same char different ways. I really like the druid and paladin.

I like the quest system, in the sense that every zone has a storyline, but too many of the quests that initiate the storyline are boring, tedious things. I have a handful of alts on both horde and alliance, and even though I'm playing in different zones it's obvious that Blizzard recycles many of the ideas. Redridge was awesome, but across all characters I've probably done at least a dozen "rescue PoWs" and "kill 100 rats with this op'd vehicle" quests. I nearly died laughing at Minx's goblin disguise in (iirc) Stonetalon, but when I saw it again in Burning Steppes I was pretty disappointed.

eta: I'm also feeling the pangs of being a n00b playing a 6 year old game. When I do random dungeons there's almost no chatting within the group, which is alien to me. I feel like I'm the only one who hasn't done the exact same dungeon 100 times. At auction houses, I see level 20 - 30  gear (armor and weapons, mostly)  selling for 40+g a piece. Not that it matters much; most of my gear on all chars is either from quests or drops and I can solo easily on all chars (except the rogue and mage, but that's probably user error)



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 12, 2010, 10:57:26 PM
You can random for normals.  Until you hit gear level 239 that's all you CAN queue for.  Only thing is you won't get Justice Points for anything beyond completion of the first random of the day.

However, you'll be more productive in gearing up, since successful completions of heroics are taking 2-3 hours involving multiple wipes.  Everyone wants to try as soon as they hit 239, but it's not advisable.  Blizz wasn't kidding when they said you should have a full blue normal set before trying Heroics in /random.   In that 2-3 hours you could have completed 2-4 normal randoms and gotten gear instead of a huge repair bill.

Cheers, was hoping that'd be the case. As a guild we just want the ability to learn the dungeons and gear up together without the stupid dungeon finder telling us where we can't go today.

My 1st to 85 is going to be my shaman, and he's resto main spec, so there's no way I'm doing randoms for quite some time yet.  :wink:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on December 13, 2010, 12:25:56 AM
It's actually 329, and I just bought a few rep rewards and an item off the AH and I was able to enter heroics within a couple hours of hitting 80. If you have a good group of people you can do the heroics as soon as you're able. Some of the harder heroics we wiped about 10-15 times the first time but when we went back the wipes didn't happen nearly as often, you just have to know what all the bosses and trash do. I have not gone anywhere near doing dungeons with random people, I imagine it would be a nightmare.

As a side note, we have two healers we run with, a disc priest and a resto shaman.. the resto shaman has to drink so much less than the priest it's ridiculous, I'm not sure if our priest is just bad or if shamans are OP.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on December 13, 2010, 01:18:44 AM
Priest healing is in a very bad place atm... pallies are OP, and droods/shammies seem to be ok.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 13, 2010, 01:25:04 AM
Is it just Disc priests, or is Holy fucked too? My gf plays a disc priest and hated it so bad she went shadow; we since were rolling with a Holy Pally who didn't seem to have nearly the mana issues she was having as disc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on December 13, 2010, 02:50:02 AM
I think it's just Disc Priests right now. You can somewhat alleviate it by either going the route of Heal spam alongside popping all your cooldowns on a regular basis or by going the route of macroing Greater Heal and Prayer of Healing to Inner Focus and using just GH along with the talent that lowers IF's cooldown by 5 seconds per GH cast.

Or you can just go Holy and spam Renews and Chakra'd Heals and have plenty of mana wriggle room while being bored out of your goddamned skull. I'm going to give my Disc spec a few more days of play before I kill the group healing spec and switch to Holy for the first time since 2007.

Edit: This (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1406254801?page=1) post, while probably being a bit too blunt and too dismissive of the valid Disc Heal spam playstyle, is actually quite a good resource and building on that advice has helped my Disc out a ton. It's still not great and nowhere near being truly fun, but it's at least doable compared to the horrid mess I was earlier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 13, 2010, 03:11:30 AM
I've managed all the normals well enough as Disc, but it hasn't been entirely comfortable. The new mechanics they have tried to implement generally do not work so well. Atonement is fun when it works, but has a freakishly small range and a lot of the time only heals a hunter's pet if anything at all. Heal sucks balls but Flash and Gheal are too expensive. I might give holy a spin, I ditched my second healing spec for shadow for questing, but maybe it is time to kiss DIsc goodbye for a while.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 13, 2010, 03:18:29 AM
I've managed all the normals well enough as Disc, but it hasn't been entirely comfortable. The new mechanics they have tried to implement generally do not work so well. Atonement is fun when it works, but has a freakishly small range and a lot of the time only heals a hunter's pet if anything at all. Heal sucks balls but Flash and Gheal are too expensive. I might give holy a spin, I ditched my second healing spec for shadow for questing, but maybe it is time to kiss DIsc goodbye for a while.

Granted, my goblin is only 36 now, but Holy is pretty ordinary and pedestrian in dungeon crawls. I plop renews and maybe some heal spam on hard mobs with many adds. Flash heals for bigger fights like the houndmaster in SM library. I run out of mana maybe once or twice a run and only when the tank goes WotLK with pulls and only when its a warrior tank. My only gripe is that Surge of Light mocks me every run by procc'ing at the end of the fights, every god damn time. Such a waste.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on December 13, 2010, 03:27:12 AM
I can actually smite heal normal Cata dungeons using my solo Disc spec up to and including Stonecore and most of Vortex Pinnacle. After that, I have to switch to my raid/heroic healing spec. Smite/Atonement healing in Heroics is not an option.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on December 13, 2010, 07:16:58 AM
Quote
As a side note, we have two healers we run with, a disc priest and a resto shaman.. the resto shaman has to drink so much less than the priest it's ridiculous, I'm not sure if our priest is just bad or if shamans are OP.

I'm a resto shaman. I haven't done heroics, but I have no mana issues in normal instances. Kept everyone close to 100% and came out with full mana. I'm stacking int/haste/crit and reforging mastery to haste, which is what Elitist Jerks recommends, but is pretty opposite of what people on the forums are saying.

For me, the key is that I switched to healing wave (the equivilent of priest heal) when 4.01 came out and that's my bread and butter. Combine that with a load of haste and water shield restoring mana on crits and I make out pretty well. I've heard it's next to impossible to keep up with healing on heroics using HW, so we start getting drained out using healing surge and GHW, but we'll see.

There's almost as much whinging on the shaman forum as on any of the other healing forums for what that's worth.





Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 13, 2010, 08:08:04 AM
Quote
As a side note, we have two healers we run with, a disc priest and a resto shaman.. the resto shaman has to drink so much less than the priest it's ridiculous, I'm not sure if our priest is just bad or if shamans are OP.

I'm a resto shaman. I haven't done heroics, but I have no mana issues in normal instances. Kept everyone close to 100% and came out with full mana. I'm stacking int/haste/crit and reforging mastery to haste, which is what Elitist Jerks recommends, but is pretty opposite of what people on the forums are saying.

For me, the key is that I switched to healing wave (the equivilent of priest heal) when 4.01 came out and that's my bread and butter. Combine that with a load of haste and water shield restoring mana on crits and I make out pretty well. I've heard it's next to impossible to keep up with healing on heroics using HW, so we start getting drained out using healing surge and GHW, but we'll see.

There's almost as much whinging on the shaman forum as on any of the other healing forums for what that's worth.





I'm in the process of trying to reforge as much of my tanking gear into mastery and avoidance as I can. 150k health is nice and all, and works great with MY heals (which are percent of max health based), but high health pools beyond "I'm going to die in 5 seconds" ranges are just trading your blue bar for my red bar. The problem I'm having is finding good enough tanking plate without finishing heroics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 13, 2010, 08:21:08 AM
Cataclysm declared "fastest selling PC game of all time" (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/66810)

At this rate, it's likely to be the fastest-completed expansion of all time as well.  Leveling some alts and farming some old content to keep from hitting 85 too fast myself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 13, 2010, 08:32:49 AM
Cataclysm declared "fastest selling PC game of all time" (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/66810)

At this rate, it's likely to be the fastest-completed expansion of all time as well.  Leveling some alts and farming some old content to keep from hitting 85 too fast myself.

All of the feedback saying the leveling is too fast has kept me playing my goblin.  If it's a quick jaunt, I'm not going to be in any hurry to rush through it with everyone else.  

I am a bit saddened, however, that I'm missing out on price gouging people that'll pay ridiculous amounts of money for resources.  Not too saddened, though, as my miner (which is probably where most of the moolah is) is my DK, which I haven't done anything with since before the ICC 5 mans were put in.

The revamped old world is fun enough for me at the moment.  I figure this expansion will at least keep me busy for the forseable future.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on December 13, 2010, 08:46:38 AM
The small amount of content is kind of perplexing. In particular, having two 80-82 zones seems really odd when there's so little quest content in general.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on December 13, 2010, 09:04:19 AM
Tol Barad is seriously terrible.  Not just "this has a lot of kinks to work out" terrible, but "seriously, how did any human being think this was a good idea" terrible.  I've played about 8 of them and the offense (no matter the faction) has never come remotely close to winning.

Yup I cannot understand that once you see what you need to do to win that they decided to keep it as is. The offense needs to take all three bases defense needs to just have them not control all three bases. So basically the defense rolls in one big group and holds the hell out of one base. If that base gets threatened respawn goes to a different base.

Added to this the attacker needs to move the full bar to fully own the base. The defender just needs to push it out of the fully controlled part of the bar so they only need to spend a fraction of the time the offense does.

Right now with two teams that understand the bg at all there is no way the offense can win unless the defenders are totally incompetent. Right now there is just no reason to play it you get no tokens for a loss so if your team is on attack don't bother queuing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 13, 2010, 09:06:47 AM
Tol Barad is seriously terrible.  Not just "this has a lot of kinks to work out" terrible, but "seriously, how did any human being think this was a good idea" terrible.  I've played about 8 of them and the offense (no matter the faction) has never come remotely close to winning.

Yup I cannot understand that once you see what you need to do to win that they decided to keep it as is. The offense needs to take all three bases defense needs to just have them not control all three bases. So basically the defense rolls in one big group and holds the hell out of one base. If that base gets threatened respawn goes to a different base.

Added to this the attacker needs to move the full bar to fully own the base. The defender just needs to push it out of the fully controlled part of the bar so they only need to spend a fraction of the time the offense does.

Right now with two teams that understand the bg at all there is no way the offense can win unless the defenders are totally incompetent. Right now there is just no reason to play it you get no tokens for a loss so if your team is on attack don't bother queuing.

I had a long conversation where the alliance just didn't get that. Basically "hold this base." "what if they all come here?" "then our druids and rogues ninja whatever they abandoned to try and overrun us. We can't lose this without being terrible."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 13, 2010, 09:10:04 AM
Priests are definitely tight on mana from all reports, although Disc is probably a little better off than Holy from what I've read.  As Disc I'm enjoying the challenge a lot although it's hard to say where "dumb group" or "poor play on your part" meets "your class is screwed" so I've resigned myself to some level of frustration when pugging Heroics (see: Heroic Corborus (http://www.wowpedia.org/Corborus)).  Still fun though.

As for Atonement, that's out the window pretty quickly.  I simply couldn't afford a heal not to go towards the tank for how little Heal or Atonment hit for.  The mana restore from Archangel doesn't seem worth the extra GHeals needed to compensate for heals-not-on-the-tank and I haven't run into any significant lulls on boss fights, just "Keep healing." and "OMG we're all going to die.".  Also, you're not taking time off Weakened Soul via Strength of Soul (-4s off WS per Heal) with Smites, and Power Word: Shield is very mana efficient if kept on one target.

Tank healing generally breaks down into: Shield + (Penance if no Grace stacks on tank) + 2x Heal + IF'd (or damage-warranted) GHeal.  (Grace is really important now at +24%!)  Mostly it's about knowing what kinds of damage are one-time spikes that you can safely heal slowly up with Heal or Renew and what require immediate attention with GHeals and/or Power Infusion (which I'm keeping to myself now).  A good example of that is Heroic Ripsnarl (http://www.wowpedia.org/Admiral_Ripsnarl).  A tank is always going to be taking a lot of damage right before a phase transition so if I know he's just about to switch, I'll lay off spamming GHeal and just heal it up during the vapor phase.  Sometimes that isn't going to be the case and then your DPS is too low and you're OOM at the end of the fight :awesome_for_real:.

On a related note, not being shy about using Pain Suppression or Power Word: Barrier has helped me as between the two of them, I usually have one up when it's "needed".  Basically, your cooldowns are there to be used... except Hymn of Hope which I'm just using for the initial tick for +15% returns from Shadowfiend and/or a free 15% of my mana bar.  6% mana isn't worth the rest of the cast time when I'm the only one that needs it.

Group healing really comes down to learning how to use all parts of Prayer of Healing well, which I'll admit I haven't done yet.  Between automatic Divine Aegis (30% shield) and the glyph (20% as 6s HoT) what doesn't seem like a great spell that costs a chunk of mana (~GHeal) is actually quite good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on December 13, 2010, 09:15:14 AM
The small amount of content is kind of perplexing. In particular, having two 80-82 zones seems really odd when there's so little quest content in general.

There was a lot (read: A LOT) of development time/effort wasted on the new worgen/goblin zones.  Each were roughly four hour experiences that will never, ever, be usable again.  I know the same could be said for some of the other starting zones, but I'm not sure why they went so far out of their way to create these zones that are already dead.  

If they had pushed the goblin starter experience into Durotar and the Worgen into Elwynn through lore, that would have allowed two full zones that their teams could have added to the top-end of this xpac.  

I haven't seen enough of the top-end to call Cata an outright failure, but I think this is a couple steps in the wrong direction.  Hell, maybe it's just that they're making a game I don't want to play anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on December 13, 2010, 09:16:49 AM
The small amount of content is kind of perplexing. In particular, having two 80-82 zones seems really odd when there's so little quest content in general.

There's not "little quest content".  It just seems that way as they gave away the majority of the new content with the 1-60 revamp.  That's where they spent the past two years, redoing the old world.  And even for the new end content, there's a comparable number per level.  BC had 7 zones for 60-70.  WotLK had 10.  Cataclysm has 5.  Things are somewhat different this time in that they funnel everyone into a comparatively uninteresting single end zone instead of branching out.  Also, the new railroading quest design does not really encourage stopping.  You are always breadcrumbing into something new.  None of the quests seem to hit that "I've done enough" point. I never feel quite like I did after a Nagrand circuit, where you gather up 6-10, travel over the whole zone and then turn them all in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 13, 2010, 09:19:09 AM
Seems to me they just accepted that we only ever used 4-5 zones, so why make more?

It's not like we all hang out in grizzly hills. Right now we have ~5 zones with ~5 factions, with a little bleed over in questing, but the dailies seem split up. About the only "fail" I see is the distribution of mining/herb nodes causing a lot of overcrowding for the lower tier items in the first two zones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 13, 2010, 09:26:09 AM
I don't have a problem with the 80-85 content, and don't see how anyone could complain about it before their first 80+ alt. The only advantage of having more than 1 path to the cap is that you have multiple options for multiple toons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ghost on December 13, 2010, 09:34:26 AM
The re-hash of the starting zones has been very, very good.  I'm sure they'll find a way to work Worgen and Goblin into some sort of interesting dungeon expansion pretty easily. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on December 13, 2010, 09:53:45 AM
I don't see the worgen/goblin areas any more useless than any other newbie starting zone. Sure you may walk through some of those areas but really once you level past them there never was any reason to go back to those areas. Seriously how many times do you decide to visit northshire.

Both the worgen and goblin zones were fun and I enjoyed them. I think the horde came out the best on the deal though as the goblins and their zones seemed more finished than the worgen side.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on December 13, 2010, 10:32:45 AM
I don't see the worgen/goblin areas any more useless than any other newbie starting zone.

I believe the point about the useless zones is that you can't start a human paladin and then move it to Gilneas to do that leveling content the way you can with the draenei and and blood elf areas.  The only way into either area is to be a worgen or a goblin.  Though with the revamp of all of the starter areas and the assumed rehash on quest rewards, the desire to start elsewhere is probably less.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ghost on December 13, 2010, 10:46:35 AM
The whole point of the patch was to add in the two new races.  The other stuff was just the cherry on top.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on December 13, 2010, 11:36:04 AM
Remember this?
Woo, Blizzard fucked up guild xp and are taking a chainsaw to in in response: http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1088190414?page=1
Quote
We have decided to remove the added bonus of gaining Guild Experience from Guild Achievements earned. This change will realign Guild Achievements with our philosophy held for normal Achievements, which are intended to be predominantly their own reward (barring the rare exception of special achievements that grant an additional reward.) Previously, the experience reward had been seen as an additional side bonus and not something that should have been significantly skewing the advancement of guilds. During the beta, we greatly increased leveling speed across the board and since most characters were copied from templates, guild experience from Achievements didn’t seem imbalanced. It has become clear that an imbalance does exist and should be addressed to ensure that guilds progress at the rates expected within the daily Guild Experience limits.



For guilds that are currently above the normally possible experience limit, we will be readjusting it back to the expected limit once more. This will not affect Guild Reputation gains at this point in time.

Translation: Every non-bank-alt guild will now basically level at exactly the same rate no matter what. Also, the Realm First L25 guild achievement will now boil down to "Who can get the most poopsockers online at 3am, April 11th next year".
Well, apparently Blizzard just gutted guild xp  to the tune of "small-to-medium guilds that were hitting the daily cap in a couple of hours are now only getting to 15%-20% of the daily cap by the server reset" (i.e. it's about a quarter of what it was). So it's now the worse of both worlds - small guilds cannot complete at all, but big guilds will still be marching in lockstep with each other because achievements still don't give guild xp.

(http://i.imgur.com/dWYQD.gif)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on December 13, 2010, 11:44:42 AM
I was wondering why our guild was getting such a crazy low amount of xp (we have about ~8 people actively leveling, some of us are hitting 85 today or tomorrow). fffuuuu....

... it's ok, I didn't want 10% faster rep gain anyway.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 13, 2010, 11:50:25 AM
Um, this isn't the case for us.  We're slowing down, but it's due to the weekly cap and the fact that most have hit it already.

I'm not seeing anything else that's changed yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 13, 2010, 11:51:23 AM
Pretty sure we are still capping, but we're pretty active right now, usually 10-15 people on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 13, 2010, 12:29:07 PM
The small amount of content is kind of perplexing. In particular, having two 80-82 zones seems really odd when there's so little quest content in general.

There was a lot (read: A LOT) of development time/effort wasted on the new worgen/goblin zones.  Each were roughly four hour experiences that will never, ever, be usable again.  I know the same could be said for some of the other starting zones, but I'm not sure why they went so far out of their way to create these zones that are already dead.  

Feel free to quote source to demonstrate otherwise but I sincerely doubt that the Goblin/Worgen zones were the main drain on resources considering they were entirely overhauling the vanilla world to make it flyable and fill it with new content. Don't start saying how it would be an easy job either because we had this conversation 130 pages ago with Sheepherder helpfully demonstrating the WC3 terrain tool - and that was before we found out that they were entirely remodelling the world too.

But to follow your point, they'd already created the DK starter zone which was dead after you'd finished it and the general feedback from players that I was aware of was "Woah! That's so cool!" so them doing the same for two new races is absolutely no surprise.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 13, 2010, 12:31:41 PM
They made something like 3000 new quests for this expansion, which is I think over double what it was for any prior expansion. Only about 800ish of those are in the 81-85 zones I believe. The new 1-60 is where the rest are, and the goblin and worgen intro zones are only a tiny part of that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 13, 2010, 12:33:02 PM
I think it's only a bit over a 100 quests in the goblin zone if I'm remembering correctly.

I was a little blurry eyed at the end of it, because I did it all in one sitting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on December 13, 2010, 12:39:13 PM
Not blurry eyed from tears of joy at the whole thing?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on December 13, 2010, 12:43:09 PM
That's cool.  Inc more stuff we only use for a few hours, then.  You're right, the DK stuff was used for only a few hours.  To me, though, it was only a small part of a zone for roughly two hours, complemented with seven other zones to look forward to.  This one has at least four times the amount of content that will be shuffled aside quickly, followed by only five zones for upper leveling.  

My point being:  I'd rather have two extra 85 zones than two 1-10 zones.  Especially if they add in an Argent Tourny type daily quest hub (sans jousting).  In a couple of months when all thats left to do is LFD or roll an alt, I think a lot of people will want the same.  

This xpac content reminds me of an on rails shooter like Bioshock.  Linear story.  No reason to go into the world other than to get from quest giver to quest ender.  It's not an open world anymore.  

Oddly, archaeology has been my favorite part of the xpac because it gets me out into the world and exploring.  I'm not trying to talk badly about the old world changes, as I think they're mostly positive.  There's just something... off with this xpac and it isn't sitting well with me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 13, 2010, 12:43:38 PM
Not blurry eyed from tears of joy at the whole thing?

Well, Lost Isles was pretty nifty.  That part was easily the best race introduction I've done, even if there was a bit too much hoofing it.

But really, I'm just built for 4 hour long + sessions of gaming anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 13, 2010, 12:53:44 PM
Especially if they add in an Argent Tourny type daily quest hub (sans jousting).  

There is a daily hub (Tol Barad).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 13, 2010, 01:22:35 PM
They made something like 3000 new quests for this expansion, which is I think over double what it was for any prior expansion. Only about 800ish of those are in the 81-85 zones I believe. The new 1-60 is where the rest are, and the goblin and worgen intro zones are only a tiny part of that.

Going by the Ally quest achievements, there are 618 quests to do across the five 80-85 zones compared to 875 for the 8 Northrend questing zones and 568 for the 7 Outland zones.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 13, 2010, 01:29:56 PM
Right, plus dungeon quests, plus the horde ones that are different, etc., and you end up around 800ish.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 13, 2010, 01:33:58 PM
Plus there's usually a handful over the achievement requirement.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on December 13, 2010, 01:35:22 PM
Especially if they add in an Argent Tourny type daily quest hub (sans jousting).  

There is a daily hub (Tol Barad).

Tol barad is the main daily hub but some of the other reps have a fair amount of dailys as well. Therazane in deepholm has a lot of daily quests to work on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on December 13, 2010, 01:37:14 PM
Plus there's usually a handful over the achievement requirement.

Or in the case of twilight highlands a good deal more than a handful left after you "complete" the zone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on December 13, 2010, 01:41:35 PM
Apparently Cata sold 3.3 million copies, on the first day.  Inc 15 million subs in oh... i'd say three months.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 13, 2010, 01:43:42 PM
Especially if they add in an Argent Tourny type daily quest hub (sans jousting).  

There is a daily hub (Tol Barad).

Tol barad is the main daily hub but some of the other reps have a fair amount of dailys as well. Therazane in deepholm has a lot of daily quests to work on.

The wildhammer have a daily hub as well. I haven't found the ones for Hyjal or Vash yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 13, 2010, 01:52:45 PM
There are a number of faction dailies as well, yeah. Tol Barad is supposed to be the new Isle of Quel'Danas - there were 6ish dailies when I went there, which seems a little light but if more open up as you increase your Baradin Wardens faction then that is pretty much the same thing I guess.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 13, 2010, 01:58:07 PM
I found about 11-12 dailies on Tol Barad, six in the fortress (assuming you have control I guess) and the rest on the other half of the island by the portal.

On another note, has anyone found any useful applications for leap of faith yet? Or is this going to be a niche ability limited to high-end arena play?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 13, 2010, 02:00:38 PM
There's always 'make a macro to pull that one idiot dpser who always stands in fire out of fire'.

If it existed last expansion, I might have the Undying title.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 13, 2010, 02:02:07 PM
Saving retards from stuff they should be saving themselves from is not my job, and I haven't seen anything unavoidable yet  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 13, 2010, 02:03:30 PM
I found about 11-12 dailies on Tol Barad, six in the fortress (assuming you have control I guess) and the rest on the other half of the island by the portal.

On another note, has anyone found any useful applications for leap of faith yet? Or is this going to be a niche ability limited to high-end arena play?

A boss surprise punted me into lava and I got yanked out once <3

But beyond me not knowing he knocked back(turns out I parried it every other time I'd tanked him  :oh_i_see: ), I haven't seen much non pvp use for it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 13, 2010, 02:07:42 PM
Beauty is not a him.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 13, 2010, 02:10:58 PM
On another note, has anyone found any useful applications for leap of faith yet? Or is this going to be a niche ability limited to high-end arena play?

It's useful in the same kinds of situations as Intervene so aside from the obvious "someone standing in or in the path of fire" there's nice applications whenever you need to kite something.  First time the latter really came into play was a few bosses in the new Ring of Blood (the Dwarf and the Worgen) where the tank would Intervene me, we'd break in opposite directions, and then I would snatch him over when the mob caught up with him.

I haven't played Holy or done any serious PvP since hitting 85 so I'm unsure if there are any extra special applications with those two.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 13, 2010, 02:17:23 PM
Beauty is not a him.

nah, big ugly at the end of BRC. I didn't notice there was LAVA behind him at first. Beauty's knockback is pretty tiny. This dude flat out PUNTS you.

edit: oh, and someone life gripped me once when I did a long corner pull of some casters.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 13, 2010, 02:57:33 PM
edit: oh, and someone life gripped me once when I did a long corner pull of some casters.

I actually quite like this idea. Guess I'll have to try and be a bit creative with it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on December 13, 2010, 03:32:21 PM
Um, this isn't the case for us.  We're slowing down, but it's due to the weekly cap and the fact that most have hit it already.

I'm not seeing anything else that's changed yet.
It's pretty clear if you look at the numbers when you complete a quest or whatever - guild xp is now 25% of 'real' xp when it was 100% of it at launch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 13, 2010, 04:13:42 PM
Saving retards from stuff they should be saving themselves from is not my job, and I haven't seen anything unavoidable yet  :oh_i_see:

You could use it for the people who get knocked off the platform at the end of Lost City.   Or the guys who get knocked off the platform on the wind boss for Vortex Pinnacle.   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 13, 2010, 04:56:13 PM
The cost-benefit of running out of range of the tank to save a DPS who is taking no damage on fights without an enrage isn't worth it though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on December 13, 2010, 05:08:20 PM
On another note, has anyone found any useful applications for leap of faith yet? Or is this going to be a niche ability limited to high-end arena play?

Best use we have found so far is the first boss in halls of origination, after you pull the lever (normal or heroic) you can just pull them back up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on December 13, 2010, 05:39:01 PM
Feel free to quote source to demonstrate otherwise but I sincerely doubt that the Goblin/Worgen zones were the main drain on resources considering they were entirely overhauling the vanilla world to make it flyable and fill it with new content. Don't start saying how it would be an easy job either because we had this conversation 130 pages ago with Sheepherder helpfully demonstrating the WC3 terrain tool - and that was before we found out that they were entirely remodelling the world too.

My assertion that old world flying wouldn't take that long to implement if they weren't aiming at filling all the zone margins with playable content doesn't seem too outlandish in hindsight, since they did an almost complete rebuild of 1-60 in two years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 13, 2010, 06:37:04 PM
Anyone else getting some pathing issues in Ruins of Vash'jir?  Z-axis issues and mobs fleeing through walls, reminds me of EQ...

(edit) Oh, I get it, it's a "tiered" thing.  But if I can charge around corners in dungeons, why can't I charge at a 10 degree vertical angle in an underwater zone?   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on December 13, 2010, 06:51:22 PM
I'm also assuming that in 6months or so they will either drop in a small new zone (re: Isle of Quel'Sunwell) or drop a new quest hub into an existing zone (re: Argent Tourney) filled with dailies to give players at cap something else to grind on do.

Or a new 3-wing dungeon, or who knows?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 13, 2010, 08:50:23 PM
I'm also assuming that in 6months or so they will either drop in a small new zone (re: Isle of Quel'Sunwell) or drop a new quest hub into an existing zone (re: Argent Tourney) filled with dailies to give players at cap something else to grind on do.

Or a new 3-wing dungeon, or who knows?

Especially if they add in an Argent Tourny type daily quest hub (sans jousting). 

There is a daily hub (Tol Barad).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kageru on December 13, 2010, 10:49:34 PM

Pretty sure their new model is "episodic content" (with a nod to how well that worked for half-life) so two years worth of content is all beaten in the first month. It's pretty much what EQ did except they achieved it by making final tier raid bosses brokenly overpowered and then "fixing" them after X months.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 13, 2010, 11:12:01 PM

Pretty sure their new model is "episodic content" (with a nod to how well that worked for half-life) so two years worth of content is all beaten in the first month. It's pretty much what EQ did except they achieved it by making final tier raid bosses brokenly overpowered and then "fixing" them after X months.


They seem to be breadcrumbing in raids and new instances per usual, really. Nothing in their model has changed. Just because we're looking at an expansion a year doesn't mean we're not still looking at a major patch every 4-6 months.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 14, 2010, 01:09:13 AM
Deepholme is putting me to sleep. I'm 3/4 of the way through, and it's a chore to log in and play.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 14, 2010, 02:09:30 AM
Are you 83 yet? If so, just go to Uldum. There's more than a level to be had in each zone, you don't have to finish every quest to get to 85. If not, try some dungeons or BGs to break up the monotony.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 14, 2010, 02:15:01 AM
Has anyone seen any numbers on how much guild xp guilds get for boss kills, daily quests, rep gains and profession progression; or are the gains too small to be tracked?

For levelling quests the guild gets 25% of the quest's xp (down from 100%), which is a pretty harsh change. However on top of this I am left wondering whether it will be realistic for a new guild to level itself anywhere two or three months down the line, assuming it is made of mostly level 85 players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on December 14, 2010, 05:54:12 AM
Deepholme is putting me to sleep. I'm 3/4 of the way through, and it's a chore to log in and play.
Funny, Vashj'ir was like that to me.  I liked Deepholm honestly and played through it in one sitting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pennilenko on December 14, 2010, 06:19:39 AM
Deepholme is putting me to sleep. I'm 3/4 of the way through, and it's a chore to log in and play.
Funny, Vashj'ir was like that to me.  I liked Deepholm honestly and played through it in one sitting.

I really liked vashjir and deepholm. I dislike twilight highlands and i dont know why.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on December 14, 2010, 06:27:40 AM
I haven't finished Twilight Highlands, but the Wildhammer wedding was pretty :awesome_for_real:. And the two-headed ogres called Za'brox and Beeble'phod. What can I say, I'm easily amused...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 14, 2010, 06:33:23 AM
Deepholme is putting me to sleep. I'm 3/4 of the way through, and it's a chore to log in and play.
Funny, Vashj'ir was like that to me.  I liked Deepholm honestly and played through it in one sitting.

I really liked vashjir and deepholm. I dislike twilight highlands and i dont know why.

Compared to everything else, it's booooring. It lacks the epic provided by every other zone design. It's just hinterlands, but the silithus cult moved in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Checkers on December 14, 2010, 06:40:14 AM
Having not played in over a year, and only in short bursts for years before that, I'm really enjoying Cataclysm.  It definitely lacks the anticipation and "wow" factor that BC had, but so did WotLK imo. 

I'm actually reading quest text :ye_gods:.  I love what they did with the VanCleef storyline and Westfall in general.

It's polished to the point of sacrificing immersion, but I don't know that a newbie would feel the same way.  Most of the linearity I attribute to the baked-in quest helper.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on December 14, 2010, 06:44:04 AM
I think a lot of the linearity is because you can fly. You just do the quests. You find the NPCs without something chasing you off. Etc.

By the time I had flight in BC and Cold Weather in WotLK, I had already switched to almost exclusively instancing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on December 14, 2010, 07:18:01 AM
Not blurry eyed from tears of joy at the whole thing?

Well, Lost Isles was pretty nifty.  That part was easily the best race introduction I've done, even if there was a bit too much hoofing it.

But really, I'm just built for 4 hour long + sessions of gaming anymore.

Rolled a goblin and did the full starting zone in one sitting after launch also. As you mentioned there's a huge amount of running, and the exp is way to low. When you leave the lost isles and end up in azshara you get lost and muddled down in slow quest xp. Once I got out of azshara and went to stonetalon the leveling speed picked right back up again. A friend started a troll post shattering and then started a goblin and couldn't believe the difference in XP/time wasted in the zone(s).

The quests are pretty neat but the goblins quest flow is really bad, so much that I'll never do those zones again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on December 14, 2010, 07:27:36 AM
Which is sad, because the Lost Isles as a zone is very, very cool.  It would have been an excellent 85 zone with flight. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 14, 2010, 07:47:38 AM
I haven't finished Twilight Highlands, but the Wildhammer wedding was pretty :awesome_for_real:. And the two-headed ogres called Za'brox and Beeble'phod. What can I say, I'm easily amused...

This


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 14, 2010, 07:53:31 AM
Deepholme is putting me to sleep. I'm 3/4 of the way through, and it's a chore to log in and play.
Funny, Vashj'ir was like that to me.  I liked Deepholm honestly and played through it in one sitting.

Vash feels like a chore to me as well.  It's like Hellfire Peninsula, underwater, on rails, with less rep gains.  But the "dream sequence" in Vash Ruins last night was an interesting twist.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on December 14, 2010, 08:35:31 AM
I liked the Vash storyline better than Hyjal.

In Hyjal, I'm rescuing a bunch of demigods so they can go defeat the big bad guy--except if I'm tough enough to go save their asses, why can't I just go kill the boss myself?  Why let those bitches steal my thunder?

Vashj'ir felt more like the Alliance was actually doing something useful on their own and not relying on a bunch of useless lore mobs (although the Earthen Ring are annoying twats, and btw why the fuck do we have to wait through deepholm+ to get a useful amount of faction with them when Hyjal finishes well into Revered?)

Plus, cutscene with the squid on your head  :grin:  I had to re-play that one a couple of times for shits 'n giggles.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: MournelitheCalix on December 14, 2010, 08:36:20 AM
I decided to resub three nights ago and started leveling my 32 paladin.  Let me say, wow, and no pun intended.  Whomever Blizzard hired to do quests needs an immediate raise right now because they are the undisputed kings of MMO quest making and no other individuals come close.  It was topped off last night in Un'Goro when I was doing a set of quests with a Don Quiote type of NPC.  The final line is absolutely hilarious, I was laughing so hard the girlfriend came in to see what was up.  It all came to a close with a dramatic horse ride where Don is healing me and riding around the lake in Un'Goro with a "Devilsaur Queen" chasing us.  The objective, to throw rocks on horseback with the thing coming after you.  

All I can say is Bravo, whomever came up the quest lines from the New Barrens to Un'Goro it has been an absolute pleasure to pay the 15 bucks.  I can't recommend this enough just resubscribe to level up a newbie.  Its worth the money.


I am not to the Burning crusade content yet so I have no idea how the expansions fare or the end game.  Right now I am agonizing over asking myself if I am going to resub.  On one hand I really like the changes to the pre 60 game.  On the other hand I am hearing that the same foolishness where raids are king are still in place.  People have told me that 5 and 10 mans do not give the best equipment and that in fact the equipment they give is vastly inferior to the 20-25 man raid.  I am trying to learn more and hope to have  an answer to that  as I finish the Burning cursade conent.  That alone will decide as to if I purchase the exapnsions.

So far though the experience is the best 15 dollars I have spent on any game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 14, 2010, 08:43:03 AM
I decided to resub three nights ago and started leveling my 32 paladin.  Let me say, wow, and no pun intended.  Whomever Blizzard hired to do quests needs an immediate raise right now because they are the undisputed kings of MMO quest making and no other individuals come close.  It was topped off last night in Un'Goro when I was doing a set of quests with a Don Quiote type of NPC.  The final line is absolutely hilarious, I was laughing so hard the girlfriend came in to see what was up.  It all came to a close with a dramatic horse ride where Don is healing me and riding around the lake in Un'Goro with a "Devilsaur Queen" chasing us.  The objective, to throw rocks on horseback with the thing coming after you.  

All I can say is Bravo, whomever came up the quest lines from the New Barrens to Un'Goro it has been an absolute pleasure to pay the 15 bucks.  I can't recommend this enough just resubscribe to level up a newbie.  Its worth the money.


I am not to the Burning crusade content yet so I have no idea how the expansions fare or the end game.  Right now I am agonizing over asking myself if I am going to resub.  On one hand I really like the changes to the pre 60 game.  On the other hand I am hearing that the same foolishness where raids are king are still in place.  People have told me that 5 and 10 mans do not give the best equipment and that in fact the equipment they give is vastly inferior to the 20-25 man raid.  I am trying to learn more and hope to have  an answer to that  as I finish the Burning cursade conent.  That alone will decide as to if I purchase the exapnsions.

So far though the experience is the best 15 dollars I have spent on any game.

Bolded is gone in Cata. 5 mans don't give the best loot, but 10s and 25s now drop identical loot, 25s simply drop more of it per kill (due to more people involved)

But if you're basing a purchase on Burning Crusade, it was nice while it lasted and I'm glad you enjoyed the new 1-60 experience! ;)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 14, 2010, 08:44:08 AM
I am not to the Burning crusade content yet so I have no idea how the expansions fare or the end game.  

Let me prepare you mentally for this: BC content has not aged well, and overall the experience is pretty poor.  While they made vast improvements over Vanilla WoW with BC, it's pretty terrible in comparison to WoLK questing and Cat.  WoLK for me was pretty good all around with the notable exceptions of Zul'Drak, Grizzly Hills and the group gated content of parts of IC.

Luckily, BC is over pretty quickly.  You can get out of it in just over 3 zones completed. Some say less, but I usually have to go a bit beyond Hellfire/Zangar/Nagrand, although not by much.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 14, 2010, 09:35:11 AM
Luckily, BC is over pretty quickly.  You can get out of it in just over 3 zones completed. Some say less, but I usually have to go a bit beyond Hellfire/Zangar/Nagrand, although not by much.

This. Also, the LFD tool is a tremendous assistance to levelling, especially if you're a tank/healer and get in straight away (disclaimer - based on personal experience earlier this year).  I think my warrior hit Northrend after finishing less than 100 quests in Outland (although he had heirlooms and I spent most of level 70 doing dailies in Quel'danas which unfortunately won't work any more due to XP nerf).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on December 14, 2010, 09:54:53 AM
As a healer, I didn't get through Hellfire before I had instanced to 70. However, that was the end of the joy. 70+ may be faster than it was, but it was like hitting a brick wall compared to the earlier supersonic leveling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on December 14, 2010, 10:48:19 AM
Confirmation: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1232869
Quote
Here you will find a list of hotfixes that address various issues related to the release of patch 4.0.3a and World of Warcraft: Cataclysm. While many have already been deployed on all realms, some may not be implemented until the next time your realm is restarted. We will continue to update this thread in the days ahead as additional hotfixes are applied.

December 13

    *    General

          o       Guild experience caps were being hit faster than expected. As a result, guild experience gained through questing has been reduced.
Plus bug fixes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 14, 2010, 11:12:18 AM
Deepholme is putting me to sleep. I'm 3/4 of the way through, and it's a chore to log in and play.
Funny, Vashj'ir was like that to me.  I liked Deepholm honestly and played through it in one sitting.

I really liked vashjir and deepholm. I dislike twilight highlands and i dont know why.

Compared to everything else, it's booooring. It lacks the epic provided by every other zone design. It's just hinterlands, but the silithus cult moved in.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 14, 2010, 12:54:01 PM
(although the Earthen Ring are annoying twats, and btw why the fuck do we have to wait through deepholm+ to get a useful amount of faction with them when Hyjal finishes well into Revered?)

ER faction was buggy the first couple of days, supposedly it's a lot better now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 14, 2010, 03:12:20 PM
I haven't finished Twilight Highlands, but the Wildhammer wedding was pretty :awesome_for_real:. And the two-headed ogres called Za'brox and Beeble'phod. What can I say, I'm easily amused...

This

Small, but very overlooked (by players) detail related the wedding.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 14, 2010, 09:28:50 PM
My first major gripe: Ashenvale was complete crap.  Outside of the first 10 minutes the zone was a complete clusterfuck. There were new quests, sure, but a lot of the old quests were just crammed in there and completely out of place.  Really lazy quest design; it felt like it was thrown together over a weekend. Not to mention there was a bug that would pop up a LUA error any time you opened your map and wipe out all quest map tracking. The achievement says 80 quests; but.. you get it at 60.  Then instead of the quest counter staying full, it starts over.  Sure, that affects nothing, but it just looks stupid.    

Compared to Azshara, it just felt like amateur hour.

Now the start to Stonetalon is really promising.  I never liked that zone, but the whole army vibe they have going for it is pretty cool so far.  Consistent design works wonders.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on December 14, 2010, 10:00:44 PM
The achievement says 80 quests; but.. you get it at 60.
I think this happens because you automatically get credit for finishing the zone after doing a certain end to the "final" chain despite not having done all of the quests available.  This happened in Deepholm last night before I did the Uldum breadcrumb quests for like 12 or so.  I finished the chain where you defend the temple from the mean mage lady and it gave me credit despite lacking I think 11.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 14, 2010, 10:10:12 PM
My first major gripe: Ashenvale was complete crap.  Outside of the first 10 minutes the zone was a complete clusterfuck. There were new quests, sure, but a lot of the old quests were just crammed in there and completely out of place.  Really lazy quest design; it felt like it was thrown together over a weekend. Not to mention there was a bug that would pop up a LUA error any time you opened your map and wipe out all quest map tracking. The achievement says 80 quests; but.. you get it at 60.  Then instead of the quest counter staying full, it starts over.  Sure, that affects nothing, but it just looks stupid.    

Compared to Azshara, it just felt like amateur hour.

Now the start to Stonetalon is really promising.  I never liked that zone, but the whole army vibe they have going for it is pretty cool so far.  Consistent design works wonders.

You have no chance to survive, make your time.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on December 15, 2010, 01:09:18 AM
Confirmation: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1232869
Quote
Here you will find a list of hotfixes that address various issues related to the release of patch 4.0.3a and World of Warcraft: Cataclysm. While many have already been deployed on all realms, some may not be implemented until the next time your realm is restarted. We will continue to update this thread in the days ahead as additional hotfixes are applied.

December 13

    *    General

          o       Guild experience caps were being hit faster than expected. As a result, guild experience gained through questing has been reduced.
Plus bug fixes.
The "reduction" was 75%, by the by. Smaller guilds with only about 7-8 80+, like mine, who were hitting the cap with only modest difficulty now have almost no way to do so.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 15, 2010, 01:17:25 AM
I cancelled my subscription. I'm glad I caught it before my next billing date. I'm not having much fun with Cataclysm. I just regret having spent the money on the expansion itself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on December 15, 2010, 02:29:57 AM
I'm also assuming that in 6months or so they will either drop in a small new zone (re: Isle of Quel'Sunwell) or drop a new quest hub into an existing zone (re: Argent Tourney) filled with dailies to give players at cap something else to grind on do.

Or a new 3-wing dungeon, or who knows?

Especially if they add in an Argent Tourny type daily quest hub (sans jousting). 

There is a daily hub (Tol Barad).

Yes. I'm talking about the inevitable new one that they will drop into the game in 6 months, with new, shinier shit than the one they had before. Kinds like Sunwell Isle was to the Shatari Skyguard and BEM ones in BC. Or the Argents were to the Dunder-Mifflin and Frogs vs Otters ones in LK.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on December 15, 2010, 02:36:45 AM
The "reduction" was 75%, by the by. Smaller guilds with only about 7-8 80+, like mine, who were hitting the cap with only modest difficulty now have almost no way to do so.

That's pretty assholish of them. Hopefully they will continue to "tune" it and make it less required-grind-tastic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on December 15, 2010, 06:02:42 AM
I cancelled my subscription. I'm glad I caught it before my next billing date. I'm not having much fun with Cataclysm. I just regret having spent the money on the expansion itself.

What killed it for you? Digging?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on December 15, 2010, 06:43:13 AM
The time grindy nature of everything is starting to get to me.  For example, cooking.  Are there any new trained foods?  I think they are all only available from the vendor for three tokens.  You can only get 1 token a day.  So, three days for every recipe.  And most of the "good" recipes require the most anachronistly grindy "profession" of them all, fishing.  One that was so annoying to get past a certain level they had to put in a daily to just give you skill points. 

Also, reputation grinds are back, while not quite as annoying as BC, there are tabards now, however because there's much less instance trash and a fair amount of the instance trash does not award rep, so get to kicking on the dailies. 

And then there's the whole disconnectedness of the whole new 80-85 experience.  I don't mind the only 5 zones, but they are all their own little islands.  There is something missing.  I am not sure what it is, but something is just not right.

Granted I could probably chalk a fair amount of my discontent up to a collapsed guild and a very real apathy toward getting myself into another one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on December 15, 2010, 06:58:09 AM
I dunno, I get the connection between the zones in terms of plot. You're fixing all the junk, it just manifests differently in each zone and each zone represents a different element.

It feels more coherent to me than killing some walrus tribes local enemies for I have no idea what purpose in lich king.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on December 15, 2010, 07:16:19 AM
The time grindy nature of everything is starting to get to me.  For example, cooking.  Are there any new trained foods?  I think they are all only available from the vendor for three tokens.  You can only get 1 token a day.  So, three days for every recipe.  And most of the "good" recipes require the most anachronistly grindy "profession" of them all, fishing.  One that was so annoying to get past a certain level they had to put in a daily to just give you skill points. 

Pick up the two that require the shrimp--they're not fished, they come out of the clams that naga/murlocs drop in Vashj'ir.  Those (and the points from the cooking daily) got me almost all the way to 525


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 15, 2010, 08:06:26 AM
The time grindy nature of everything is starting to get to me.  For example, cooking.  Are there any new trained foods?  I think they are all only available from the vendor for three tokens.  You can only get 1 token a day.  So, three days for every recipe.  And most of the "good" recipes require the most anachronistly grindy "profession" of them all, fishing.  One that was so annoying to get past a certain level they had to put in a daily to just give you skill points. 

Pick up the two that require the shrimp--they're not fished, they come out of the clams that naga/murlocs drop in Vashj'ir.  Those (and the points from the cooking daily) got me almost all the way to 525

Note to self : bank instead of destroying/selling all the clams.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on December 15, 2010, 08:26:48 AM
I like archeology a lot. It really speaks to the lazy explorer in me.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 15, 2010, 09:06:54 AM
Cooking is LESS grindy than it was in wotlk. Every cooking recipe only takes three tokens(as opposed to some taking 5 in wotlk) and each daily also gives a point in cooking skill.  Add to the fact the expansion has only been out a week and people have already maxxed cooking as well as several of the in game reputations? I'm sorry but as far as grindy goes this pales in comparison to just about anything else.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on December 15, 2010, 09:30:37 AM
Cooking is LESS grindy than it was in wotlk. Every cooking recipe only takes three tokens(as opposed to some taking 5 in wotlk) and each daily also gives a point in cooking skill.

I think we are just going to have a difference of opinion on this one.  Yes, three is less than five.  However, with WotLK, you could at least get up past the previous expansion cap just by buying recipes from the trainer.  This time that is not an option.  The tokens are your only option to get recipes.  And the maxed cooking skill is because you could have been doing the daily since 4.0.3 on the 16th, 20 some odd tokens available before the cap increase. 

It's not a big deal, I just find it emblematic of the whole idea of the expansion.  Everything has always come with an associated grind, but its not even hidden now and it's right from the start. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on December 15, 2010, 09:33:22 AM
You could always wait 3-6 months to play the expansion.  By then the grind will be reduced and the rush to get to cap will be gone.  If I play this expansion at all it will be after the last coat of polish has been applied and the leet kiddies have gotten bored.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 15, 2010, 09:35:22 AM
You could always wait 3-6 months to play the expansion.  By then the grind will be reduced and the rush to get to cap will be gone.  If I play this expansion at all it will be after the last coat of polish has been applied and the leet kiddies have gotten bored.

They're just bitching about cooking.  The run to 85 seems to be very short.  My friend is already 84 and plays very casually.  Although like you, he's a pro at leveling rather quickly.

Common, resub. I need someone to gripe at in the evenings.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on December 15, 2010, 09:37:40 AM
Common, resub. I need someone to gripe at in the evenings.  :awesome_for_real:

Can you hide shoulder pad art yet?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on December 15, 2010, 09:39:52 AM
They're just bitching about cooking. 

Respect my existential cooking crisis here.  I must be able to turn digital things into other digital things and pretend that they are tasty treats at ludicrous speed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 15, 2010, 09:41:36 AM
Common, resub. I need someone to gripe at in the evenings.  :awesome_for_real:

Can you hide shoulder pad art yet?

Make a new goblin.  Don't wear shoulder pads.  Newbs survive fine without them. Problem solved!

edit: Although, I shouldn't deter you from playing DA.  You're making good strides as a well rounded gamer.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on December 15, 2010, 10:01:25 AM
I've thought about resubbing.  To be honest, I'm such a total noob at dungeon runs that it's keeping me from playing.  I'm great at leveling solo from 1-cap and even moderately competent at pvp.  I am completely ignorant of the group game and find most people lack the patience to bring me up to speed.  Between that and not being thrilled about the art, I've just stayed away. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on December 15, 2010, 10:12:21 AM
I hit 82 last night.  I've done 43/160 quests in Vash - that's it.  The rest I've done from Archaeology which is at 180ish.  XP flows....


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 15, 2010, 10:38:14 AM
You know what?

Fuck Corborus


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on December 15, 2010, 11:10:14 AM
I did one heroic random (all others with my guild) to get a wand from blackrock caverns.. we just couldn't beat the third boss, no matter how many times we explained the fight to the tank he just couldn't figure it out. Which is sad, because for everybody being random the healer was good and all the dps were doing 11k+ on the bosses, it was just we were carrying the tank until we got to that boss where we couldn't do it for him.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 15, 2010, 11:12:03 AM
3rd boss is the drag-guy-over-fire-to-bust-his-armor guy right?

Only done it on normal but I definitely made a mental "this will be a PUG killer" note. There are a lot of ways to fail there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 15, 2010, 11:42:23 AM
I cancelled my subscription. I'm glad I caught it before my next billing date. I'm not having much fun with Cataclysm. I just regret having spent the money on the expansion itself.

What killed it for you? Digging?

LFD. The thought of everyone in my guild getting their gear on while I obstinatley sit out due to hating PUGs.

Though one guild boss is talking about putting together a guild dungeon night. If that takes off, I'll probably resub.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 15, 2010, 11:45:18 AM
I obstinately refuse to PUG for the most part too, I just nag people til they go with me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 15, 2010, 12:15:07 PM
I am completely ignorant of the group game and find most people lack the patience to bring me up to speed.  Between that and not being thrilled about the art, I've just stayed away. 
We could be WoW buddies!  Y'know, if either of us played.

Also it figures Ingmar is conscripting guildies for runs now that I'm not playing. :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on December 15, 2010, 12:22:00 PM
We could be WoW buddies!  Y'know, if either of us played.

Also it figures Ingmar is conscripting guildies for runs now that I'm not playing. :-P

If I could find a few people willing to bring me up to speed, I'd resub tomorrow.  I got bored playing solo and have no patience for pugs.  Hell, I'd even level a toon just to fill a role.  I don't care about min-maxxing, I just want to see the content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on December 15, 2010, 12:33:01 PM
What we need is some way to form RDF groups cross-server. Maybe some kind of cross-server friends list and chat would be a good way to start it off.... 

:oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 15, 2010, 12:44:09 PM
We could be WoW buddies!  Y'know, if either of us played.

Also it figures Ingmar is conscripting guildies for runs now that I'm not playing. :-P

If I could find a few people willing to bring me up to speed, I'd resub tomorrow.  I got bored playing solo and have no patience for pugs.  Hell, I'd even level a toon just to fill a role.  I don't care about min-maxxing, I just want to see the content.

Just not the critical mass of people you're looking for on my server, I'd imagine.  It's just myself and my RL friend at the moment and he's off doing 80+ stuff (and on EST) while I roll my new goblin.  His brother is being stubborn about resubbing and my other friend (that I just know from WoW) disappeared after getting hacked.

Still, we're a good, helpful bunch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on December 15, 2010, 01:25:49 PM
I resubbed over the weekend to play casually and started a new toon, I think I'm level 23.

I managed to make 100g from gathering in the newbie area.   :awesome_for_real:

Woo gold.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 15, 2010, 01:30:36 PM
I'll start a new character where ever - all my old pals on Malygos left for one of the servers slammed with queues. Serves those bitches right, but since I haven't played since 2007, I have no room to talk. That said, my priest is getting bored pugging and watching the tears flow when shammies roll on agi gear.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on December 15, 2010, 02:06:56 PM
I've always wondered why F13 didn't have a Bat Country presence, with the popularity of this game.  Seems like everyone is spread out across servers a bit.  With the new guild stuff, might be ideal to form up somewhere.  Unless I missed it, that is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 15, 2010, 02:10:37 PM
There was an F13 guild for a while I think (/points at Burning Region subforum).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 15, 2010, 02:12:20 PM
Been tried and tried and tried again.  (I have Chars in all 3 guilds, all made it to ~30 before the majority stopped playing. Burning Region, Severance and ... I forget the 3rd but I had a Druid in it.)   Too many differing playstyles, time zones and existing friends/ guild relationships to make it work in WoW, or any Diku, really.  Eve works because there's a larger goal and being part of a huge group lets everyone do their own thing at their own timezone.  More importantly it's all on the same server.  Plus, killing a POS in EVE doesn't mean you can't do it again for a week, unlike killing a boss in WoW.

If GW2 picks-up there might be room there, but I suspect it'll be shallow enough, like the first, that folks will stop playing after the first few weeks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 15, 2010, 02:13:32 PM
I've always wondered why F13 didn't have a Bat Country presence, with the popularity of this game.  Seems like everyone is spread out across servers a bit.  With the new guild stuff, might be ideal to form up somewhere.  Unless I missed it, that is.
I'm tied down with RL friends and a large stable of characters (and tradeskills) on my server.  Too expensive to move.  

Any attempt to reroll on another server would crap out at some point.  And I'll never go to a PVP server or a designated RP server.  

I imagine others are in similar circumstances with differing prejudices about where they'd be willing to play.

I'm willing to help others, always.  My server would be easy to start on as it's PST and low pop.  Achievers may end up disliking the rather podunk atmosphere of it.  I may roll a worgen on Doomhammer to extort money out of SLAP (Ingmar et all), but I'd likely go back to my own server.  The shame of being alliance would get to me before too much time has passed.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 15, 2010, 02:14:57 PM
I think your previous guy on our server lasted one entire login!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 15, 2010, 02:15:12 PM
Oh yeah.. the Horde/ Alliance thing is another BIG disincentive to an F13 guild.  I completely overlooked that one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 15, 2010, 02:17:01 PM
I think your previous guy on our server lasted one entire login!

Ahem, space goat mage was a lady.  And it was at least two logins, don't sell me short.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 15, 2010, 03:40:31 PM
I am completely ignorant of the group game and find most people lack the patience to bring me up to speed.  Between that and not being thrilled about the art, I've just stayed away.  
We could be WoW buddies!  Y'know, if either of us played.

Also it figures Ingmar is conscripting guildies for runs now that I'm not playing. :-P

He does this until we start raiding and/or has BIS for everything, then he pares back a lot lest he risk burn out. You just started playing with us long after WotLK's Ingmar Jamboree.


EDIT: And Nebu, I'm a cranky ol' bitch, but Slap has a lot of patient, nice people (mostly people from the guild we merged with  :drillf:), so if the call becomes too much for you to resist, and you can take playing Alliance, you're welcome to give us a whirl.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on December 15, 2010, 03:46:42 PM
I've only tipped my toes in Vashjitsface and sold one stack of Blood Shrimp for 1200g (apparently I typoed on the price and someone bought it anyway).  The real fun has been leveling new dudes on Horde side (my 80s were Alliance), convincing a couple of friends to play with me and having the whole thing snowball from there. My Belf mage is now almost 68 and there's ten rl friends and acquaintances in our fledgling guild. Too bad about the guild exp nerf though, kinda takes the wind from our sails on the "let's get us some guild achievements!" front.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on December 15, 2010, 03:53:00 PM
Compared to Azshara, it just felt like amateur hour.

Now the start to Stonetalon is really promising.  I never liked that zone, but the whole army vibe they have going for it is pretty cool so far.  Consistent design works wonders.

I really really liked stonetalons quests and the flow around the zone. Hands down one of the best zones I have experienced leveling up so far.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on December 15, 2010, 06:00:14 PM
3rd boss is the drag-guy-over-fire-to-bust-his-armor guy right?

Only done it on normal but I definitely made a mental "this will be a PUG killer" note. There are a lot of ways to fail there.
Clearing the fire elementals before that boss is waaay harder than the boss itself.  At least in the PUGs I've been in.  Normally one death per elemental from the metal oozes and low hps and mana all round.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on December 15, 2010, 06:18:07 PM
I obstinately refuse to PUG for the most part too, I just nag people til they go with me.
Me too.  I hate PUGs and hate dealing with the idiots that flock to them.  My guildmates are leaving me behind in gear, but I won't waste my time or cash on repairs because of random dumbassery.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on December 15, 2010, 10:57:35 PM
I'm tied down with RL friends and a large stable of characters (and tradeskills) on my server.  Too expensive to move.  
Any attempt to reroll on another server would crap out at some point.  And I'll never go to a PVP server or a designated RP server.  
I imagine others are in similar circumstances with differing prejudices about where they'd be willing to play.
I'm willing to help others, always.  

Pretty much this, to a T. My RL friends have stopped playing WoW, except for a couple, but I have a ton of characters, and my wife's account snad characters as well, so there's no point starting over elsewhere, especially as Proudmoore has a heavy Oceanic/Aussie pop which means there are always people about. It's also got a hige GLBT pop, since both groups made it their "unofficial" PVE servers pre-launch.

Of course, my playtimes may not match that well with others'. Paelos is here somewhere as well. If anyone does decide to start a char on PM, I'll help out and such. Bags, some gold, a few deadmines runs, etc... if any higher level people xfer, I'd happily quest & run with you (in a few weeks, after I finish my LK content).






Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 15, 2010, 11:19:16 PM
Did about 10 PUG runs yesterday as DPS. Queues have shortened considerably at 85, usually only 10-12 minutes now.

All but 2 of them were great. In every single run at least one person said "I've never been here before, how do you do it?" and people explained and it all went smoothly. We had target marking, CC, single-target burning down and no loot dramas. 2 of the groups had dipshits in and involved either a bunch of votekicks or abandonment early.

Annoyed that I can't queue for BRC at 85, still haven't done that. Hopefully we can guild group it at the weekend. I'm iLvl 328 now so hopefully able to try a heroic soon!  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 15, 2010, 11:36:14 PM
Karsh Steelbender (the fire boss in BRC) is WAY harder in Heroic than he is on normal; harder still if you know the normal strat (as a tank) and attempt it here. Going in and out of fire for 2 stacks and letting them drop will wipe you VERY quickly as you get overwhelmed with adds and their fire pools.

I'll offer up Andorhal (US PVP), Horde side as another potential server for people looking to play. I run a semi-serious raiding guild, that anyone's welcome to join and chill in, run heroics with, etc. We mostly play late night EST, which would work for West Coasters too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 16, 2010, 04:03:32 AM
Seems like word has gotten out about non-equipped gear letting you queue, or more DPS are realizing they can queue for heroics as tanks with their DPS ilevel.   Had three tanks last night who were squishy as hell, having only 136-139khp.  The difference between them and the final, ACTUAL tank who came in with 143khp was astounding.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raguel on December 16, 2010, 04:54:56 AM
I really really liked stonetalons quests and the flow around the zone. Hands down one of the best zones I have experienced leveling up so far.

So far I'd say Redridge and Stonetalon have been tough acts to follow. The Booty Bay climax was bad ass, and Thousand Needles was cool (bar fights, ice cream, a boat,pirates, and cynical, oppressive imperialism; what's not to like?). Burning Steppe (I think that's the name) was sort of anti-climatic (but then most sequels are), but did have some fun bits.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 16, 2010, 05:05:22 AM
Seems like word has gotten out about non-equipped gear letting you queue, or more DPS are realizing they can queue for heroics as tanks with their DPS ilevel.   Had three tanks last night who were squishy as hell, having only 136-139khp.  The difference between them and the final, ACTUAL tank who came in with 143khp was astounding.

Those number are just retarded - and not in a good sense. To me, it just screams "Kids like big numbers, so we'll take what we've been doing and just add two zeros at the end and they'll LOVE it."  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on December 16, 2010, 06:40:47 AM
I just hit level 82, and I'm at the part where I've just set the demon guy free in Mt. Hyjal. The levelling seems really fast. All I've done other than that is run both low level dungeons once, and get Arch up to 100.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 16, 2010, 07:40:27 AM
Seems like word has gotten out about non-equipped gear letting you queue, or more DPS are realizing they can queue for heroics as tanks with their DPS ilevel.   Had three tanks last night who were squishy as hell, having only 136-139khp.  The difference between them and the final, ACTUAL tank who came in with 143khp was astounding.

Those number are just retarded - and not in a good sense. To me, it just screams "Kids like big numbers, so we'll take what we've been doing and just add two zeros at the end and they'll LOVE it."  :oh_i_see:

The numbers are that high for the same reason we have item level 359 gear right now: it's above where Wrath left us.  Tanks with CDs in Wrath could get up to the high five-digits so everyone's health had to be inflated above that to create a new baseline so the healing game works like it's supposed to.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on December 16, 2010, 07:56:56 AM
I find it funny that my level 85 shaman healer friend doubled my health as a level 81 warrior tank when we did our last instance.   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 16, 2010, 08:00:18 AM
Stonetalon was a joy.  It was a pretty cool, streamlined affair with a minmal amount of "why the fuck am I doing this?".  The pop-culture reference peons were working overtime.

Hellscream threatening to kill me is starting to get mildly amusing.  That's twice, big guy.  A third time and you might need to actually punch me or something.

Anyone have an opinion on what zone is better to do next?  Southern Barrens or Desolace?




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on December 16, 2010, 08:59:13 AM
I liked them both. S Barrens is now alli vs horde, so if you're into that, go there first.

Desolace is essentially Desolace v2.0. That is, the quests all center around the same parts of the zone (nagas, satyr-demons, centaurs, burning blade, mannoroth) but the quests have been given the Cata treatment like everywhere else in Azeroth. Oh and they plunked down a big druid grove in the center of the zone. If you're Horde, you can still go visit Shadowprey village, but it's a husk of its former self, quest-wise.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on December 16, 2010, 09:07:43 AM
Seems like word has gotten out about non-equipped gear letting you queue, or more DPS are realizing they can queue for heroics as tanks with their DPS ilevel.   Had three tanks last night who were squishy as hell, having only 136-139khp.  The difference between them and the final, ACTUAL tank who came in with 143khp was astounding.

Actually its because the pvp season just began and people upped their ilvl with their stockpiled honor.  Resilience now provides zero benefit in pve so that gear is extremely artificially inflated for heroics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 16, 2010, 10:04:28 AM
Seems like word has gotten out about non-equipped gear letting you queue, or more DPS are realizing they can queue for heroics as tanks with their DPS ilevel.   Had three tanks last night who were squishy as hell, having only 136-139khp.  The difference between them and the final, ACTUAL tank who came in with 143khp was astounding.

Actually its because the pvp season just began and people upped their ilvl with their stockpiled honor.  Resilience now provides zero benefit in pve so that gear is extremely artificially inflated for heroics.

It also tempts people to equip it because it's higher ilvl (333 vs 339) than non heroic blues. A PVP equipped tank will have far more hp than a non heroic tank right now.

That said, my tanking set when buffed is around 133k hp, because I stopped stam stacking and started gemming avoidance and mastery. I had 153k hp and was a total mana sponge, swapped to avoidance (including the parry runeforge instead of the stam/armor one) and wound up a far better tank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on December 16, 2010, 12:34:51 PM
Stonetalon was a joy.  It was a pretty cool, streamlined affair with a minmal amount of "why the fuck am I doing this?".  The pop-culture reference peons were working overtime.

Hellscream threatening to kill me is starting to get mildly amusing.  That's twice, big guy.  A third time and you might need to actually punch me or something.

Anyone have an opinion on what zone is better to do next?  Southern Barrens or Desolace?





Southern Barrens is far more entertaining then Desolace. Desolace is a detour that has little to do with the over all story-theme of Kalimdor now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on December 16, 2010, 01:01:04 PM
(including the parry runeforge instead of the stam/armor one)
This should have been a non-issue! The parry forge drips blood! Blooood!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on December 16, 2010, 01:30:51 PM
I just hit level 82, and I'm at the part where I've just set the demon guy free in Mt. Hyjal. The levelling seems really fast. All I've done other than that is run both low level dungeons once, and get Arch up to 100.

My experience so far:

I've spent my time only questing.  So far with only 3 long play sessions totalling maybe 9-10 hours (been busy and travelling,) I'm at about 84.25.  This last bit to 85 will take awhile, but I actually did Hyjal at 83-84 so I backtracked a bit to just get all the quests done for money and achievements.  If I pushed to all the level appropriate areas I would probably be at 85 already. (I went water area->Maelstorm area->Hyjal->now in Twilight area.) 

I have been doing a moderate amount of herbalism and alchemy, but only as I travel around doing quests.  I've done archeology only once in one area for 2 points just to see what it was about.  Oh, most of my experience from kills has been rested due to my long periods of time between play sessions, so that helps some.  Our guild also has the 5% gain.

I've had no issues with killing things or dieing (maybe died 2 times.)  It helps that I started with nearly 6k gs though.  Even after paying for flying skill and other training, I have over 3k more gold than I started with too.  Collect it all and sell it all equals major coin.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Draegan on December 16, 2010, 01:39:53 PM
On the leveling process, I have a few questions.

I'm outleveling stuff quickly.  The general question though is, while doing quests, dungeons and two gathering profs, once you start greening out quests should you just drop what you're doing and move to the next zone?

Example: Almost finished Azshara, but I'm way off the level for it, should I just head to Stonetalon and jump in?  I'm trying to level quickly, so no need to lecture me on the journey.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 16, 2010, 01:45:34 PM
If you don't give a shit about the story/achievement/whatever, skip ahead to where ever the warchief's call board suggests.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on December 16, 2010, 01:48:10 PM
On the leveling process, I have a few questions.

I'm outleveling stuff quickly.  The general question though is, while doing quests, dungeons and two gathering profs, once you start greening out quests should you just drop what you're doing and move to the next zone?

Example: Almost finished Azshara, but I'm way off the level for it, should I just head to Stonetalon and jump in?  I'm trying to level quickly, so no need to lecture me on the journey.

If you don't care about the journey, then definitely drop grey-green quests and move on.  You might run around and get all the fp's and maybe clear the maps for the achievements, but even that is pretty fluffy.

You might break up some of the longer quest chains by doing that, but there are more than enough quests to get over that quickly.  The biggest drawback might be skipping over instance content, but I imagine you are like me and don't really care that much about it.  I typically either go back when I'm bored and solo those or run the high end ones as heroics when at level cap.  The exp gain in them is mediocre compared to questing and the items will be replaced within 4 levels, which anymore is in a few hours played maybe less.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 16, 2010, 01:57:07 PM
If you're consistently picking up green quests and have a new zone to go to, you probably want to move on.  This is especially true because you're double gathering and running dungeons.

The Command/Call Boards and inter-zone breadcrumbs aren't bad guides for this as you'll either wind up skipping the ends of zones or finishing them off but skipping the next one and the former is probably better from a speed perspective.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on December 16, 2010, 03:51:27 PM
I haven't seen this mentioned and I just now found it, but there is an NPC named Behsten who, for 10gp, will stop you from gaining experience.  You can go back to him to restart it.  He is in King Wrynn's keep in the room to the king's left.   I don't know the Horde guy yet.

I am seriously considering using this so I can set the xp pace the way I want thru some zones so I don't outlevel them.

If this is common knowledge, please excuse, but I have been wondering if such a thing was possible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 16, 2010, 04:06:29 PM
I haven't seen this mentioned and I just now found it, but there is an NPC named Behsten who, for 10gp, will stop you from gaining experience.  You can go back to him to restart it.  He is in King Wrynn's keep in the room to the king's left.   I don't know the Horde guy yet.

I am seriously considering using this so I can set the xp pace the way I want thru some zones so I don't outlevel them.

If this is common knowledge, please excuse, but I have been wondering if such a thing was possible.

I guess my question is why? Just so the quest is a yellow color? So the quest mobs are a challenge? I am honestly curious. I do grey quests to keep the story going, even if it's for no/little xp.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 16, 2010, 04:18:20 PM
That guy exists for the xp on/off BG crowd, I don't think he's new.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on December 16, 2010, 04:19:10 PM
I have a bad habit of outlevelling instances I want to do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 16, 2010, 04:29:29 PM
I haven't seen this mentioned and I just now found it, but there is an NPC named Behsten who, for 10gp, will stop you from gaining experience.  You can go back to him to restart it.  He is in King Wrynn's keep in the room to the king's left.   I don't know the Horde guy yet.

I am seriously considering using this so I can set the xp pace the way I want thru some zones so I don't outlevel them.

If this is common knowledge, please excuse, but I have been wondering if such a thing was possible.

It's been possible for a while now - since patch 3.2. They cater to the twinks who want to do BGs at the top of the level groups but don't want to go any higher. Also, level 60 hardcore vanilla raiders.. The Horde guy is called Slahtz as in Behsten Slathtz. (Best in Slots?) Yeah, I know!

Just so it isn't asked but if you freeze your xp, you don't get the gold equivalent for quests as if you were at level cap - just the gold you'd get as if you were levelling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 16, 2010, 04:32:00 PM
I have a bad habit of outlevelling instances I want to do.

Oh the instances... oh ok. I get it now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: MournelitheCalix on December 17, 2010, 07:45:04 AM
I have a bad habit of outlevelling instances I want to do.

Oh the instances... oh ok. I get it now.

I am in the Burning Crusade content now at level 62 and the slow down has been tremendous almost horrendous.  Someone said earlier that the Burning Crusade had not aged well and I can agree with that completely.  Most of the quests go at a snail's pace and unlike the pre60 experience are really both empty and boring.   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 17, 2010, 08:02:15 AM
I have a bad habit of outlevelling instances I want to do.

Oh the instances... oh ok. I get it now.

I am in the Burning Crusade content now at level 62 and the slow down has been tremendous almost horrendous.  Someone said earlier that the Burning Crusade had not aged well and I can agree with that completely.  Most of the quests go at a snail's pace and unlike the pre60 experience are really both empty and boring.   

Yah, the whole place seems just completely disjointed.  It's a bunch of small little, uninteresting stories that don't blend together well at all.

Did most of Southern Barrens last night. It's OK, but somewhat of a let down after Stonetalon (I never thought I'd say that).  I'm staying through each zone, even when it gray/greens.  I'm getting in a little bit of trouble in that I'm starting to hit gaps in cloth/ore now that I'm leveling so fast. I stick with a zone for a while and tend to spend too long in one cloth/ore range and then jump ahead.  That can be bad.

Onto Dustwallow or Feralas.  Not sure which one to choose. Although my current breadcrumb would likely lead me to Dustwallow (which isn't bad, just swampy), I always liked Feralas.  I'd just rather play which one has changed more and offers a better experience.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 17, 2010, 08:18:41 AM
I did dustwallow, it was mostly the same, with some flow changes.

The choice I will make for you is Silithus vs Blasted Lands. Silithus is identical and kind of silly due to that, while blasted lands has been heavily revamped.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AutomaticZen on December 17, 2010, 08:29:42 AM
Did most of Southern Barrens last night. It's OK, but somewhat of a let down after Stonetalon (I never thought I'd say that).  I'm staying through each zone, even when it gray/greens.  I'm getting in a little bit of trouble in that I'm starting to hit gaps in cloth/ore now that I'm leveling so fast. I stick with a zone for a while and tend to spend too long in one cloth/ore range and then jump ahead.  That can be bad.

Onto Dustwallow or Feralas.  Not sure which one to choose. Although my current breadcrumb would likely lead me to Dustwallow (which isn't bad, just swampy), I always liked Feralas.  I'd just rather play which one has changed more and offers a better experience.
Just finished Feralas last night.  Smoother experience with maybe 4-10 quests per hub. 

And they fixed that damn quest where you had to hunt down the forest elemental.  Hated that thing.  There were only three or so in the whole zone and the patrolled around.  Now the fuckers are everywhere and you only need to kill 3.

Note, some quests will try to send you inside of the Dire Maul instance, while only one send you into the building itself, but not the instance.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nissl on December 17, 2010, 03:11:02 PM

Onto Dustwallow or Feralas.  Not sure which one to choose. Although my current breadcrumb would likely lead me to Dustwallow (which isn't bad, just swampy), I always liked Feralas.  I'd just rather play which one has changed more and offers a better experience.

Dustwallow is largely unchanged.  I would say Feralas, in particular the questline at the ogre fortress is pretty neat.  Take note, the first 2 flight points aren't connected to anything unless you get the third.  

The three zones I've done so far that I would strongly recommend, by the way, are Stonetalon, Thousand Needles, and Badlands.  (Note that as Horde the breadcrumb quests now allow you to fly to Badlands from EPL without running there first).  The quest hub in northern Felwood is also pretty cool.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: MrHat on December 17, 2010, 03:14:12 PM
Just got the "go to thousand needles" from the combat board.

I got really excited when I saw it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on December 17, 2010, 03:18:09 PM
Just finished Westfall quest line.  Really good.  I think I will start going into a zone and not leaving until I get the achieve. That said, I now have very little interest in going past 60.  When I ding I'll just make another toon. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on December 17, 2010, 05:27:29 PM
And they fixed that damn quest where you had to hunt down the forest elemental.  Hated that thing.  There were only three or so in the whole zone and the patrolled around.  Now the fuckers are everywhere and you only need to kill 3.
They fixed that in the patch or 2 after WotLK launched.  I was doing a happy dance that day.  And at the same time they changed "Testing the Vessel" to use bears in the same zone rather than require you trudge off to another continent in the Hinterlands for stupid owlkins.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Oban on December 17, 2010, 06:03:12 PM
I reached my "meh" point in WoW.

Made it to 85, did heroics till I got the cataclysm dungeon hero achievement, tried raiding, got my ilevel up to 349, grinded some of the new dailies, started archaeology, and tried to help guildees gear up with the new heroics.

Pretty sure I am just burned out, but being max level is, in my opinion, not nearly as fulfilling as it was in early WotLK.  Heroic pugging is rather painful as a squishy melee dps right now. Way too many people do not understand the value of CC.  A lot of the trash and boss fights are highly melee unfriendly even with proper crowd control.  Raiding is just monstrous for melee dps.

Also people who think they can just hop in to raids without even completing normal let alone heroic dungeon gearing is just ...  :awesome_for_real:

The thought of grinding Tol Barad rep to get a rather ugly spirit wolf mount, a disgusting drake mount, or an on use trinket made me gag.

Archaeology... I really wish I had OCD because flying all over the place to get nine pieces of something that makes a grey piece of vendor trash for three skillup points is just awful.

On the bright side, wow, the 1-60 experience is fracking amazing.  I made a worgen and got it to level 22, then made an undead mage and got it to level 28.  The new quest designs and flow is impressive, but it makes me ask the question... "Why couldn't Blizzard do that for the 80-85 experience?"

Ah well, I will try it again in a couple of months and see if the level 85 game has changed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 17, 2010, 06:31:53 PM
Well see, they DID do it in the 80-85 experiences. I don't find much difference in the flow at all (it's all very directed, just like the low level stuff, each zone has a story, just like the low level stuff, etc), but the zones tend to drag like hell because you're a) not leveling very fast and b) each zone is more like three sub-zones, and you feel like you spend forever in each one rather than "I FINISHED THE STORY, NEXT SONG" like you do in the low level zones. Vash'jir is the worst offender for me, the other zones I've done have finished around the time I got sick of them (I haven't actually finished Deepholm or Twilight Highlands yet, of course).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on December 17, 2010, 09:34:38 PM
"Why couldn't Blizzard do that for the 80-85 experience?"
They did.  Personally I like the new zones and questing experience.  It's pretty simple and easy to follow, the quests are not as horrid as they used to be and there's a variety of things to do.  I enjoyed Deepholm and Uldum quite thoroughly.  Uldum just made me giggle over the Harrison Jones stuff despite the numerous cutscenes that I felt should be able to be skipped after the first time through.  I hit 85 after doing just 3 zones (Vashj'ir -> Deepholm -> Uldum) and am going to finish off the other 2 zones for the phat cash bonuses and loremaster achievements...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on December 18, 2010, 02:36:11 AM
Well see, they DID do it in the 80-85 experiences. I don't find much difference in the flow at all (it's all very directed, just like the low level stuff, each zone has a story, just like the low level stuff, etc), but the zones tend to drag like hell because you're a) not leveling very fast and b) each zone is more like three sub-zones, and you feel like you spend forever in each one rather than "I FINISHED THE STORY, NEXT SONG" like you do in the low level zones. Vash'jir is the worst offender for me, the other zones I've done have finished around the time I got sick of them (I haven't actually finished Deepholm or Twilight Highlands yet, of course).
My primary complaint with the 80-85 zones is that you actually do level a bit too fast. You frequently have to decide between seeing a zone's storyline to the finish or bail early and head to places with far better xp and quest rewards. I got maybe 2/3 through Vash'jir before finally ripping myself away and going to Deepholm, since I wanted to get started on working toward Therazane rep while getting some Earthen Ring (since for the first week or so, Vash'jir gave no ER rep for quests, and naturally they aren't going to award it retroactively), and I made myself stick with Deepholm to the very end.

I ended up finishing Deepholm at level 84, and thus completely skipped Uldum. I liked Deepholm a lot and thought the whole zone's subplots tied into the meta-plot nicely, but I kind of wanted it to be done and over with because I really wanted to see Uldum when it was "level appropriate."

And now I'm stuck having to trawl through the utterly boring Mount Hyjal to get Not-Cenarion-Circle rep for the caster head enchant (which is another complaint I have: what's the point of having the level 85 head enchants for each faction Bind to Account if you still need the rep to use them? If you're so criminally lazy that you can't take the easily-accessed teleporter from Stormwind/Orgrimmar directly to the vendor?), which just thrills me to my fucking core.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Oban on December 18, 2010, 03:53:28 AM
I agree that Uldum was great, but that was one zone.  The rest of the zones seemed rushed out the door.  V'J was just horrid for multiple reasons and I can only imagine how awful it must have been on day one with the masses trying to complete quests. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 18, 2010, 04:36:17 AM
I agree that Uldum was great, but that was one zone.  The rest of the zones seemed rushed out the door.  V'J was just horrid for multiple reasons and I can only imagine how awful it must have been on day one with the masses trying to complete quests. 

Uldum was fun, deepholm was awesome, Hyjal was pretty great. Vash was neat, just suffers from a TON of walking, and some seriously cockblocky quests when crowded. The only zone that feels rushed to me is Twilight Highlands.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on December 18, 2010, 07:01:15 AM
I rushed to the cap but I still feel like I have plenty of things to do. My archeology is at 375 (to me it's a profession like fishing, where you have to be either chatting on vent, listening to music/radio, something), I still need to put together a full PvP set, and there's still a couple sidegrades I want out of heroics (not to mention getting the volcanic stone drake achievement). If I get bored of my 85 I'll probably start a worgen/goblin or go level one of my other 80s.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on December 18, 2010, 08:56:13 PM
Hyjal was fun. It's an easy romp the whole way through.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 19, 2010, 01:17:24 AM
My primary complaint with the 80-85 zones is that you actually do level a bit too fast. You frequently have to decide between seeing a zone's storyline to the finish or bail early and head to places with far better xp and quest rewards.

I finished out zones, personally (except Deepholm, that one was yaaaaawn to me and I figure I'll just catch it next time through). I actually liked that I didn't have to do ALL of them to level because it means I can do some new stuff on my next alt. I have a lot of them.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on December 19, 2010, 08:09:46 AM
I hate having to go back to finish zones for the rep.  I found out one of the new reps which happens to have the bis pre heroic neck and chest for rogues was based entirely in hyjal and i leveled entirely in vash so now i have to go back at 85 and either get friendly and use a tabbard for the rest or do all the quests.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on December 19, 2010, 12:22:46 PM
My primary complaint with the 80-85 zones is that you actually do level a bit too fast. You frequently have to decide between seeing a zone's storyline to the finish or bail early and head to places with far better xp and quest rewards.

I finished out zones, personally (except Deepholm, that one was yaaaaawn to me and I figure I'll just catch it next time through). I actually liked that I didn't have to do ALL of them to level because it means I can do some new stuff on my next alt. I have a lot of them.  :grin:

You do have to do deepholm to completion to open up the Therazane Quartermaster tho. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 19, 2010, 02:29:47 PM
My paladin is a scribe, so no I don't.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on December 19, 2010, 03:42:44 PM
Yeah... incidentally Therazane is the biggest weakness I see with the cata questline design. Unless you're a scribe, you need to do basically every quest in deepholm just to get access to shoulder enchants. Maybe they'll make them boa eventually?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 19, 2010, 05:17:59 PM
I'm sure they will a patch or two down the line.  The helm enchants are already BoA so I don't see a big change in over the Wrath set-up incoming.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on December 20, 2010, 02:32:50 AM
I'm not a huge fan of how slow repping up via tabard-wearing is. Not only do mobs not give a lot of xp per kill (only about 17 as a human, and people tent to skip as much trash in heroics as possible), but the only heroics with dense enough trash to be worth much are Grim Batol, Deadmines, and Shadowfang Keep.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 20, 2010, 07:15:17 AM
Gearing up via JP, on the other hand, seems a lot faster than last time around. It only took a few days of running 2-3 a day for me to get everything I need for my tank set. I'm now blowing the points on DPS gear I'm not likely to use, since I'm the only dedicated tank in my guild. Between the relatively low JP cap, the fact that I was already capped when Cata hit, and the lack of (new) heirlooms/chaos orbs/BOEs/epic gems to buy with JP only makes the situation feel shittier; I've already got every BoA I want, so I'm just buying the DPS gear to make my daily random not feel like a total waste besides the Valor Points.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 20, 2010, 08:56:08 AM
Gearing up via JP, on the other hand, seems a lot faster than last time around. It only took a few days of running 2-3 a day for me to get everything I need for my tank set. I'm now blowing the points on DPS gear I'm not likely to use, since I'm the only dedicated tank in my guild. Between the relatively low JP cap, the fact that I was already capped when Cata hit, and the lack of (new) heirlooms/chaos orbs/BOEs/epic gems to buy with JP only makes the situation feel shittier; I've already got every BoA I want, so I'm just buying the DPS gear to make my daily random not feel like a total waste besides the Valor Points.

Depends on the group, but the gain/cost ratio seems saner.  My guild needs to gear up to heroic levels so I can start running them with a sane group. So far I'm sitting at about 1 non horrible LFD heroic per every 10 tries. My bar for horrible is high, too. Don't know the fight? Ok! Missed a kick? Okay! Stood in giant rock formation and/or huge purple circle for more than 90% of it's duration? You're terrible. Stood next to a lightwell while spamming party chat with HEAL ME after being told what that glowy thing does 8 times? You're not only terrible, you're a entitled prick.

I actually told the group OOM once during a pull (the mage and I were summoning a table when the tank went and rushed a group well out of range), and a dps stood next to me /yelling HEAL ME DAMNIT while I calmly explained that "oom" stood for "out of mana" which means I can't "cast spells" while I took every drop of regenned mana to toss heals on the tank. *sigh* wrath made us all terrible players. Especially the end of it, where gear let us brute force heroic encounters instead of dealing with fight mechanics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on December 20, 2010, 09:32:55 AM
Gearing up via JP, on the other hand, seems a lot faster than last time around. It only took a few days of running 2-3 a day for me to get everything I need for my tank set. I'm now blowing the points on DPS gear I'm not likely to use, since I'm the only dedicated tank in my guild. Between the relatively low JP cap, the fact that I was already capped when Cata hit, and the lack of (new) heirlooms/chaos orbs/BOEs/epic gems to buy with JP only makes the situation feel shittier; I've already got every BoA I want, so I'm just buying the DPS gear to make my daily random not feel like a total waste besides the Valor Points.

With a dedicated group, this would probably be the norm. Most of us aren't at that point. Random heroics are nightmarish--just as predicted. What I didn't see coming was the 40min queues for them. So now we have a 40 minute wait (about a quarter of my available playtime each night) for a group that will fail 3 out of 4 times--and that's being optimistic. I've enjoyed myseif up unto this point and meet all the gear reqs for heroics, but I can't do them except when guild groups are around on Sundays.

Flying around Uldum scrounging ore for two hours waiting for fail PuG isn't any fun. So here we are, three weeks in and the fun is running out and options are narrowing by the night. I'm getting to the point that I have to seriously consider leaving a guild I've been in for five years, bailing on the game altogether, or going alt-crazy until another option presents itself. I really didn't want TBC v2.0, but at least it's not me this time getting kicked for lack of crowd control.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on December 20, 2010, 09:54:45 AM
I have to say, I'm really really glad I went the route of leveling a character from 1.  I figured heroics would be an utter disaster, and I have no real desire to be a part of that.  I have to say, I do hope Blizzard comes to their senses, and nerfs the hell out of the heroics before I hit that wall.  Oh, and it'd be nice if they'd change their mind on healing mechanics too.

Hell, I seriously doubt I'll see Mekgineer Thermaplugg die while I'm at the appropriate level for that to happen, and I imagine that fight isn't anything similar in difficulty to the boss fights at cap.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 20, 2010, 10:12:46 AM
The more I use them, the more I think holy priests and resto shaman are in a good place for healing. The problem with pug heroics is entirely people feeling that their mistakes should be carried by the rest of the group. My mana is fine and I have plenty of buttons (besides holy word not liking healing frames and macros at all) since the patch to priests. I only have trouble when people are lazy and expect me to keep them healed through something that is by design not supposed to be healed through. A 10k/sec ground effect isn't supposed to be healed, it's supposed to be avoided. In wrath, we had the mana and HP/S that we just healed through it. People don't get that in Cata, you need to cut that out and look at your screen. I had three dps yesterday go "sorry, was watching tv" as a response to standing there doing a dps rotation while in a fire. Because in wrath a lot of rotations on heroic bosses was just pressing four buttons in sequence and not watching the screen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: dd0029 on December 20, 2010, 10:20:50 AM
Hell, I seriously doubt I'll see Mekgineer Thermaplugg die while I'm at the appropriate level for that to happen, and I imagine that fight isn't anything similar in difficulty to the boss fights at cap.

Thermaplugg is way easier.  The bombs come much less frequently and they don't do much damage compared to health pools.  His hard thing is he does something to drop aggro on tanks with regularity so you are going to wind up with some ranged DPS pulling threat and running around hoping for the tank to do something.  And even then, it was not tough for my resto druid to keep them up through it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on December 20, 2010, 01:17:13 PM
I read up on the fight, which is amusing in and of itself:  Forced to read up on strats for a level 29 elite.

Apparently the trick is he does a knockback on the person with the highest amount of threat, which wipes threat.  Also, he is immune to taunt.  Not to mention, 27k health.

The only reason the instance is completable via RDF is that a wipe = completion+reset of the instance.  Shhh don't tell Blizzard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 20, 2010, 03:15:59 PM
I haven't done any heroics yet (my paladin is at something like 325 and you need 329 I think), but I'm not really jazzed to start because I know who in my guild CAN do heroics and any of them are people I absolutely do not want to do heroics with.  :drillf:  I enjoy going "eee, a blue!" again though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on December 20, 2010, 03:46:56 PM
I haven't done any heroics yet (my paladin is at something like 325 and you need 329 I think), but I'm not really jazzed to start because I know who in my guild CAN do heroics and any of them are people I absolutely do not want to do heroics with.  :drillf:  I enjoy going "eee, a blue!" again though.

Why do you hate your guildies?  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 20, 2010, 04:02:20 PM
I haven't done any heroics yet (my paladin is at something like 325 and you need 329 I think), but I'm not really jazzed to start because I know who in my guild CAN do heroics and any of them are people I absolutely do not want to do heroics with.  :drillf:  I enjoy going "eee, a blue!" again though.

Why do you hate your guildies?  :heartbreak:

Because I keep waving howling blast around if they make me dps instead of heal. :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 20, 2010, 05:12:24 PM
Oops, I typoed "many" as "any" but my point still stands.

It's less "I hate my guildies" and more "I hate that my guildies STILL STAND IN FIRE."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 20, 2010, 05:56:12 PM
Heroics are getting easier with gear and experience as a healer. Did HoO without wipes with a full melee group and Vortex Pinnacle with just a single wipe on the dragon boss. Now I'm into most 333 and 346 pieces with spirit gems and enchants and heartsong my regen is bottoming out a lot less. DPS are learning what not to stand in and the whole thing is generally a lot more enjoyable.

The only thing I find odd is the length of the dungeons. I thought the stated philosophy was lots of short content, and while the trash:boss ratio is better generally than before, most of the trash packs are taking as long to kill as the bosses. Even with death-free runs, the shortest heroics feel longer than most of the entry-level WoTLK ones, and even some of the TBC heroics. The playstyle is definitely less casual friendly right now I'd say, and while I appreciate the challenge, I suspect that it's going to be another couple of months before the instances are soft-nerfed through gear acquisition and experience before people are blowing them up in 30 mins.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on December 20, 2010, 06:01:02 PM
The only thing I find odd is the length of the dungeons. I thought the stated philosophy was lots of short content, and while the trash:boss ratio is better generally than before, most of the trash packs are taking as long to kill as the bosses. Even with death-free runs, the shortest heroics feel longer than most of the entry-level WoTLK ones, and even some of the TBC heroics. The playstyle is definitely less casual friendly right now I'd say, and while I appreciate the challenge, I suspect that it's going to be another couple of months before the instances are soft-nerfed through gear acquisition and experience before people are blowing them up in 30 mins.

I was about to come in here and say this, even with no wipes I think heroics take too long.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 20, 2010, 06:12:17 PM
I'm trying to figure out what the shortest heroic would be. Vortex Pinnacle only has three bosses, but has some pretty  :uhrr: trash and makes you run sodding all over the place. Deadmines is fairly easy, but the whole "RUN THROUGH THE DUNGEON AGAIN LOL" mechanic for the Vanessa Van Cleef fight probably adds an extra 10 minutes onto any run (I see this becoming one of the most tedious fights of the whole game in the future). HoO has seven bosses, SFK is fairly long, although the fights are thankfully pretty short. Grim Batol might be the shortest depending on how much time the dragon excursion adds/saves. Tol'Vir might be the other short one, I don't know. Even so, I don't see sub 30 minute runs for those any time soon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nissl on December 20, 2010, 06:42:00 PM
I read up on the fight, which is amusing in and of itself:  Forced to read up on strats for a level 29 elite.

Apparently the trick is he does a knockback on the person with the highest amount of threat, which wipes threat.  Also, he is immune to taunt.  Not to mention, 27k health.

The only reason the instance is completable via RDF is that a wipe = completion+reset of the instance.  Shhh don't tell Blizzard.

The fight isn't that bad.  I did it about a week and a half ago leveling my new warrior.  Lost a dps to the aggro wipe mechanic (which we didn't know was coming), and the healer at the end, but got it down just fine.  Didn't even need to do anything to stop the bombs, albeit we had a strong healer.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on December 20, 2010, 08:04:40 PM
Gearing up via JP, on the other hand, seems a lot faster than last time around. It only took a few days of running 2-3 a day for me to get everything I need for my tank set. I'm now blowing the points on DPS gear I'm not likely to use, since I'm the only dedicated tank in my guild. Between the relatively low JP cap, the fact that I was already capped when Cata hit, and the lack of (new) heirlooms/chaos orbs/BOEs/epic gems to buy with JP only makes the situation feel shittier; I've already got every BoA I want, so I'm just buying the DPS gear to make my daily random not feel like a total waste besides the Valor Points.

With a dedicated group, this would probably be the norm. Most of us aren't at that point. Random heroics are nightmarish--just as predicted. What I didn't see coming was the 40min queues for them. So now we have a 40 minute wait (about a quarter of my available playtime each night) for a group that will fail 3 out of 4 times--and that's being optimistic. I've enjoyed myseif up unto this point and meet all the gear reqs for heroics, but I can't do them except when guild groups are around on Sundays.

Flying around Uldum scrounging ore for two hours waiting for fail PuG isn't any fun. So here we are, three weeks in and the fun is running out and options are narrowing by the night. I'm getting to the point that I have to seriously consider leaving a guild I've been in for five years, bailing on the game altogether, or going alt-crazy until another option presents itself. I really didn't want TBC v2.0, but at least it's not me this time getting kicked for lack of crowd control.


Seems like the easiest option would be to find a guild with more people in it.  I took a look at the queue wait times and the success ratio of random pugs and said "fuck this" and joined a guild that runs regular heroics all the time, frustration is down and fun is up.  The difference between jp now and in wrath is that the jp gear is comparable to the heroic gear and minor upgrades over regular dungeon/blue quest rewards, before jp gear was several tiers ahead of anything else you could get outside of raids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 21, 2010, 11:13:05 AM
I read up on the fight, which is amusing in and of itself:  Forced to read up on strats for a level 29 elite.

Apparently the trick is he does a knockback on the person with the highest amount of threat, which wipes threat.  Also, he is immune to taunt.  Not to mention, 27k health.

The only reason the instance is completable via RDF is that a wipe = completion+reset of the instance.  Shhh don't tell Blizzard.

The fight isn't that bad.  I did it about a week and a half ago leveling my new warrior.  Lost a dps to the aggro wipe mechanic (which we didn't know was coming), and the healer at the end, but got it down just fine.  Didn't even need to do anything to stop the bombs, albeit we had a strong healer.



I've healed it a couple times on my priest with no issues at all, but maybe disc is broken at those levels, I dunno.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on December 21, 2010, 12:30:19 PM
I'm trying to figure out what the shortest heroic would be. Vortex Pinnacle only has three bosses, but has some pretty  :uhrr: trash and makes you run sodding all over the place. Deadmines is fairly easy, but the whole "RUN THROUGH THE DUNGEON AGAIN LOL" mechanic for the Vanessa Van Cleef fight probably adds an extra 10 minutes onto any run (I see this becoming one of the most tedious fights of the whole game in the future). HoO has seven bosses, SFK is fairly long, although the fights are thankfully pretty short. Grim Batol might be the shortest depending on how much time the dragon excursion adds/saves. Tol'Vir might be the other short one, I don't know. Even so, I don't see sub 30 minute runs for those any time soon.

If you're just doing your daily random (eventually will be most people) you can skip 3 of the Halls bosses, but it's still pretty long. Throne of the Tides is pretty short, Vortex Pinnacle is relatively short too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 21, 2010, 12:33:51 PM
HoO's extra three bosses aren't that bad, they're each 1-2 quickie trash pulls. If you can take the first few trash packs of evil tiger things then the entire instance is the best bang for your buck, JP wise imo.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on December 21, 2010, 12:44:03 PM
I meant when nobody needs JP (I don't anymore), no one is going to bother doing those bosses, like that Maiden of Virtue boss in Halls of Stone is like 1 or 2 trash pulls away but most groups just skipped her.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 21, 2010, 12:46:54 PM
The way the gear/points trickle down now when new tiers release means that there are probably always going to be people who want to do the extra bosses in most groups, I'm guessing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 21, 2010, 12:49:09 PM
The Maiden was skipped for stupidity, I think. Basically half the pug would need every point they could get, but the tank would be ICC geared and just wanting to get the instance over with and move on.

In a guild where you just want the 70 VP for the day's run? Sure, skip away. But anything before that? HoO rocks for them. With my tank, I purposefully left the fire boss until last just so people wouldn't take the complete and drop group :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 21, 2010, 01:08:59 PM
As said above, since there will only ever be two tiers of gear you will always want those justice points for anyone except bleeding edge raid guilds.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 21, 2010, 01:54:07 PM
Finished Vash'jir at last (including getting disco'ed on the way to the abyss), and dinged 83 a few minutes later.

Still looking for a better (warrior) tanking weapon...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 21, 2010, 02:02:00 PM
Don't get hung up looking for something with avoidance on it, that is pretty rare - most of the 'tank' weapons you'll use will be strength weapons with hit/expertise, hit/mastery, or expertise/mastery. Those stat combos cover warrior and paladin tanks, single-minded fury warriors, and frost DKs now, so you'll see a fair amount of those. You can always reforge the hit or expertise if you feel the need.

Wowhead is down for me right now but you should be able to plug in a few filters to show what quests give 1h strength weapons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on December 21, 2010, 02:05:14 PM
As said above, since there will only ever be two tiers of gear you will always want those justice points for anyone except bleeding edge raid guilds.

I don't think this is true, there are long stretches of time between tier releases which is the only time you get new stuff to buy with your JP, and your JP is capped relatively quickly at 4000. Also, as said I think we'll have the same effect from WotLK where multiple people in the run want the optional bosses but the tank is completely kitted out and will just rush to the end.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Vision on December 21, 2010, 05:06:05 PM
anyone have any opinons of Un'Goro vs Winterspring for lvling? Thinking of Winterspring because it was always an old favority.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 21, 2010, 05:07:56 PM
I haven't done either yet but I've heard Un'Goro has more changes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: stu on December 21, 2010, 05:45:18 PM
The Maximillian Quests in Un'Goro were well done. It's funny to see other players being chased around on the final leg, especially if you haven't done that part yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 21, 2010, 08:46:33 PM
Finally got burned at the stake by Deathwing. Sky turned dark and I got a little excited. Mounted up and road around a bit, saw nothing... then outta the distance I saw him coming down the road. So I stood aside on a little hill and then blammo. Was pretty cool - after I ran back to my body and rezz'd, everything was all molten splashy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nissl on December 22, 2010, 01:04:47 AM
Quote from: MMO Champion
Gnomeregan
Mekgineer Thermaplugg is no longer using outdated abilities and has a shiny new list of abilities to use. He is also no longer immune to taunts.

Interesting.  Perhaps Blizzard reads this forum...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on December 22, 2010, 07:33:23 PM
I have to say, I'm really really glad I went the route of leveling a character from 1.  I figured heroics would be an utter disaster, and I have no real desire to be a part of that.  I have to say, I do hope Blizzard comes to their senses, and nerfs the hell out of the heroics before I hit that wall.  Oh, and it'd be nice if they'd change their mind on healing mechanics too.

Hell, I seriously doubt I'll see Mekgineer Thermaplugg die while I'm at the appropriate level for that to happen, and I imagine that fight isn't anything similar in difficulty to the boss fights at cap.

I found level-appropriate groups to be just fine while levelling a Prot Warrior. Overall, anyway. Gnomeregan wasn't a problem. As I got higher, fuckwit DPS who want to pull became more and more common. I may end up soloing up to 60, or even partway through BC, rather than dungeon running.

Oh, anyone had any experience with LK-era heirlooms post-80? I'd heard (speculation?) that the shoulders and chests no longer scaled up but that the weapons continued to?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 22, 2010, 08:21:36 PM
Oh, anyone had any experience with LK-era heirlooms post-80? I'd heard (speculation?) that the shoulders and chests no longer scaled up but that the weapons continued to?

The Wrath heirlooms stop scaling at 80.  Just checked the weapons on one of my 80s (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40252/heirloom-staff-momohime.jpg) and my 85 Priest (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40252/heirloom-staff-cauthrien.jpg).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on December 22, 2010, 08:50:22 PM
We just did Heroic DeadMines.


Fuck the first half before the note, its just a boring tedious slog.


After the note though, that is what every fucking instance in WoW should be like. A+ would swing on rope again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 23, 2010, 01:41:26 AM
I think the main problem was actually because we were wimps and decided to do the cheesy smite healer + real healer thing. lolsmite isn't exactly great DPS, so the boss fights felt like they were taking too long (and in the case of Ripsnarl, really actually was taking too long).

I enjoyed it, but it definitely was a longer time commitment than I thought they were shooting for.


PS: Paladin healing is pure love. Baby, I'm so glad we got back together.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 23, 2010, 04:24:10 AM
After the note though, that is what every fucking instance in WoW should be like. A+ would swing on rope again.

Agreed! Although I've now had 2 separate groups that could not get past Cookie.  :oh_i_see:

Mostly however I am finding heroic pugs less painful than I was expecting. I think the 40 min queues are making people rein in their internet fucktardery a bit for fear of getting kicked and having to wait all over again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 23, 2010, 06:47:32 AM
I think the main problem was actually because we were wimps and decided to do the cheesy smite healer + real healer thing. lolsmite isn't exactly great DPS, so the boss fights felt like they were taking too long (and in the case of Ripsnarl, really actually was taking too long).

I enjoyed it, but it definitely was a longer time commitment than I thought they were shooting for.


PS: Paladin healing is pure love. Baby, I'm so glad we got back together.

Yeah, the difference between a 2-3k smiter and a 7-9k actual DPS is huge, and ripsnarl was the first actual dps check of the instance. Everything before just took ages.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 23, 2010, 07:48:14 AM
I'm finding some fights where healing by Atonement is actually viable in heroics (moreso since they buffed the range). Setesh in HoO is one, Lady Vasj'ar in ToT is another.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on December 23, 2010, 07:54:19 AM
Finished Vash'jir at last (including getting disco'ed on the way to the abyss), and dinged 83 a few minutes later.

Still looking for a better (warrior) tanking weapon...

One thing to check out for 1 handed tanking weapons is a good weapon with hit or expertise and mastery on it. Mastery is a pretty good defensive stat for prot warriors and that really opens up your choices in weapons a great deal. Also get a slow one 2.6 or so speed if possible. This allows for a lot nicer devastates these days with vengence it can allow for some pretty big dps/threat numbers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 23, 2010, 08:01:50 AM
I'm finding some fights where healing by Atonement is actually viable in heroics (moreso since they buffed the range). Setesh in HoO is one, Lady Vasj'ar in ToT is another.

Futzing around, I really dislike Disc now. It doesn't seem to have scaled for jack. We were laughing last night that PW:Shield is now a regen mechanic and a weakened soul provider. Because a shield for 11.2k is D: in a heroic, and was managing to eat a whole 70% of a single tic of a dot from trash. While in chakra serenity, I can happily lob ~10-12k hps infinitely.

Disc still has nice toys, I just don't like the way it's scaled with the healing changes at all. I feel like I'm playing a priest, the class with the most tools to deal with any healing situation, but I left half my toolbox in my car.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 23, 2010, 09:12:17 AM
I hear you, I find it strange that as a class ostensibly built around PW:S the bulk of my healing done is Renew, PoH, GHeal and Binding Heal. I'll probably make the jump to Holy in the next day or so.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 23, 2010, 09:27:26 AM
I think my main issue with it is that Mastery seems to be a meh stat for Disc. Holy's mastery is wonderful. It's the PoH glyph applied to every heal. Disc's mastery improves a really meh spell that you only cast because of it's side effects (rapture and weakened soul), and Divine Aegis which only works on crits (with the lowered crit ratings everywhere) and PoH.

Echo of Light and Chakra: Serenity's renew refresh is a wonderful combo. And Echo of Light + PoH Glyph + PoH makes PoH do ~140% base healing for free, which is hilarious.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on December 23, 2010, 09:28:17 AM
I was never a big fan of healing but the Chakra mechanics are fun as hell. Having a damaging disorient/instant heal+buff/area heal on a 30 sec cooldown is crazy awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 23, 2010, 09:31:15 AM
I was never a big fan of healing but the Chakra mechanics are fun as hell. Having a damaging disorient/instant heal+buff/area heal on a 30 sec cooldown is crazy awesome.

I love that AE heal, even if it's the worst healing spell ever. My main complaint with is that due to the spell name changing, the UI doesn't handle it well and you have to do stupid things to make grid/clique or vuhdo use Holy Word: Serenity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on December 23, 2010, 10:42:30 AM
We were laughing last night that PW:Shield is now a regen mechanic and a weakened soul provider. Because a shield for 11.2k is D: in a heroic, and was managing to eat a whole 70% of a single tic of a dot from trash.

I've found that shields in general are pretty useless these days unless they have some kind of secondary effect. Specced arcane, mana shield on my mage is primarily useful for the spell power boost you get from being hit and the knockback. As Frost, Ice Barrier is mostly useful for the AoE root when it breaks. I'm hoping that Blizzard will make absorbs less useless at some point, but I'm not holding my breath.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 23, 2010, 01:47:57 PM
The only good heal Disc has is PoH, there you are getting some really nice healing+mitigation in AoE damage situations. Otherwise absorbs feel pretty weak, yes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on December 23, 2010, 02:38:41 PM
After the note though, that is what every fucking instance in WoW should be like. A+ would swing on rope again.

Agreed! Although I've now had 2 separate groups that could not get past Cookie.  :oh_i_see:

Mostly however I am finding heroic pugs less painful than I was expecting. I think the 40 min queues are making people rein in their internet fucktardery a bit for fear of getting kicked and having to wait all over again.


I had a hilariously high 'good food' stack on my balance druid, at least 10+. Turned my Starfires virtually instant  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 23, 2010, 03:09:48 PM
Power Word: Shield's (and by extension, Heal and Strength of Soul) main use comes from Rapture making it mana positive.  It's still a very good spell that we just can't spam.  That doesn't mean Disc's Mastery isn't good, because it also boosts Divine Aegis which is actually a good chunk of my healing these days on fights with large amounts of AOE.  Also, it's not like Crit and Haste are burning down the house either :heartbreak:.

Single-target, Greater Heal is where it's at because of Train of Thought.  Heal has probably been dead to me since Normal Stonecore, although I've only now come to terms with it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xeyi on December 23, 2010, 04:05:11 PM
Heroics got far easier for me once I (begrudgingly) swapped from disc to holy.  As holy your sustained hps is way higer thanks to chakra and echoes of light.  You can also get away with casting heal a fair amount rather than the almost pure greater heal that disc has to. 

Disc seems to have suffered badly from shield and penance scaling which have both become more efficiency spells rather than having any significant throughput as they used to.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 23, 2010, 06:42:40 PM
After the note though, that is what every fucking instance in WoW should be like. A+ would swing on rope again.

Agreed! Although I've now had 2 separate groups that could not get past Cookie.  :oh_i_see:

Mostly however I am finding heroic pugs less painful than I was expecting. I think the 40 min queues are making people rein in their internet fucktardery a bit for fear of getting kicked and having to wait all over again.


I had a hilariously high 'good food' stack on my balance druid, at least 10+. Turned my Starfires virtually instant  :heart:

We should add here that we were tards that didn't realise we were going to HAVE to eat bad food in order to have anywhere to stand eventually, but luckily Fordel managed to live long enough after the rest of us died to finish Cookie off, so we got the "no more than one barfy debuff" achievement. :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Vision on December 23, 2010, 09:01:31 PM
I am actually looking forward to a tough (not infuriating) instance/Heroic experience at level cap. Leveling is stupidly easy, as far as old world content and instances are concerned, and that is fine with me for the moment. But at this rate I'll cruise right into 80 having wiped a total of 2 times. I secretly hope the difficulty level will set in eventually, and ultimately end up in Wrath-level Heroics difficulty.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 23, 2010, 11:58:51 PM
We should add here that we were tards that didn't realise we were going to HAVE to eat bad food in order to have anywhere to stand eventually, but luckily Fordel managed to live long enough after the rest of us died to finish Cookie off, so we got the "no more than one barfy debuff" achievement. :P

This is what we were doing wrong, we weren't nomming the nasties. It was a pug and by this time we'd been in there for 90 mins and fatigue was setting in. I look forward to the far-off day when I have more than 3 guildies geared enough to get into heroics.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 24, 2010, 01:09:32 AM
My paladin is not technically cool enough for heroics, which means we had to walk to the instance, OLD SCHOOL STYLE. I didn't feel TOO much pressure healing, though, as generally if someone is taking an asston of damage, it's because they're doing something stupid and thus deserve to die anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on December 24, 2010, 01:58:20 AM
So I'm getting Cata for Xmas. How are DPS queues?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: DraconianOne on December 24, 2010, 01:59:19 AM
So I'm getting Cata for Xmas. How are DPS queues?

3 days long


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 24, 2010, 03:03:26 AM
Is that French Hens ?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 24, 2010, 04:19:34 AM
So I'm getting Cata for Xmas. How are DPS queues?

On my server between 10-40 mins depending on time of day, phase of moon, etc. Heroic queues are currently double normal queues.

You won't like it anyway. Phasing sucks, pvp is broken, no variation in specs, crafting sucks, worgen are stupid, Ghostcrawler is an ass. There, I've saved you the effort of your next 12 posts! Consider it a Christmas present from me.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 24, 2010, 06:39:45 AM
I am really kinda surprised at the night and day queue times, even at my level (40) with my Pally. I ran holy and main healed, queue times would roll between 1-5 minutes. Turned on my Ret spec and equipped my 2h and my queues were in the ballpark of 20-45 minutes flagged dmg. Needless to say, I am sticking with holy - melee healer ftw...at least till I can't stand in the scrum anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on December 24, 2010, 08:31:45 AM
So let's see, now that I'm into heroics and almost done with the quests except in Twilight Highlands, some thoughts:

1) Some of the 80-85 quest chains were among the worst the game has ever offered in terms of writing and overall fun factor as well as taking anything even remotely feeling like an immersive decision away from the player. I just sat there for five minutes at one point trying to stab Goblin Hitler in the face rather than running quests for him, and that   The Indiana Jones thing was funny as a bit reference at the beginning of an instance or two, but as the theme of a long, boring quest sequence it might be one of the few cases where I'd actually like to see intellectual property rights enforced mercilessly.

2) I fucking hate the Tol Barad dailies and Tol Barad itself is only slightly amusing.

3) I am kind of liking the heavy use of cc and interupts in Heroics but boy has it brought out the absolute misanthropic cock-in-mouth douchbaggery of most WoW players. In a Heroic pug, you get one of two things: a) folks who still want to lol-aoe their way through it as if it were a Wrath heroic and they were in their ICC purples  or b) shitfucker elitists who act as if they've already run every single heroic forty-five times even though they have a GS lower than me and vote to kick someone the first time they miss a single interrupt or do less than 9000 dps on a fight. I generally much prefer doing stuff with my guild but it's become a near-requirement.

4) Archaeology was fun for a while but it's quickly become an even bigger chore than levelling fishing. Needs more randomness.

5) The whole game has been so relentlessly streamlined that the feeling of lifelessness is sometimes overwhelming--there's no quirks, no weird little class features, etc., no strange game mechanic that you can arbitrage in some fashion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Oban on December 24, 2010, 09:58:16 AM
Well, I liked Uldum and it's quest lines, but I agree with the rest of your comments.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on December 24, 2010, 11:12:21 AM
I liked most of the Uldum questline, but I agree that it was kind of 'eh' at times -- in particular this (http://www.wowhead.com/quest=27941) and this (http://www.wowhead.com/quest=27950) quest made me go  :oh_i_see:, and the 'use invisibility cloak to sabotage explosive barrels' quest is kind of obnoxious from a gameplay POV.

I hate all dailiy quests equally (and have since BC): repetitive easy/routine tasks you spend ~1hr a day doing are not my idea of a good time. I do the JC and cooking ones because they're required to gain access to recipes, and do the fishing one since it's faster and more interactive than leveling fishing the 'normal' way -- but that's it. Thankfully this time you don't need to do dailies for the Hodir-equivalent faction, you unlock the tabard and that's it (of course, unlocking the faction itself requires you to do almost the entire deepholm zone, which is... not good design).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 24, 2010, 12:08:37 PM
I liked Uldum but I can definitely see how it could wear on people, and I am totally able to say it was really, really lazy from a story standpoint.

The only zone that I haven't done all the way through yet still is Twilight Highlands, which I will tackle once we're back from Christmas whatnot. I think I liked Hyjal best, although it feels weird to do as Horde for me ... maybe it would've felt better as a tauren druid, but as a blood elf rogue (my human paladin went the Vashj'ir route) I felt really out of place. I would've felt even sillier if I had been Forsaken.

I like the streamlined-ness and such, but I think overall I liked the leveling from former cap to new cap in Wrath better. Wrath was much better about Horde and Alliance doing different shit in the same zone (when I went through on my Horde person, I had several "I didn't even know this shit was HERE" moments, which I know will absolutely not happen in Cataclysm), and making that shit fit the faction's goals. Cataclysm it's pretty much all the same (what I did in Vashj'ir was the tired old "you're doing the same exact shit, it's just an orc telling you to do it instead of a human" formula, and I expect Twilight Highlands to be similar), and while I understand they had to do that this time around, given the whole REVAMP THE ENTIRE WORLD part (which is the highlight of the expansion for me), it's still pretty disappointing.

I heart the new dungeons though, and I heart paladin healing, so it's still a win in the end for me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on December 24, 2010, 02:10:18 PM
So I'm getting Cata for Xmas. How are DPS queues?
If you can queue as a healer or tank, queue as a healer or tank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on December 24, 2010, 02:35:35 PM
I liked Uldum but I can definitely see how it could wear on people, and I am totally able to say it was really, really lazy from a story standpoint.

I made the mistake of starting at Hyjal - boring as all hell. I switched to Vashj and really enjoyed it. What ruins it all for is having to make the choice as to whether I level or enjoy the content. Switching zones for more XP ruins any immersion I have - Vash is the only one I completed.

There has to be a better way to do this - exponential growth of XP based on level so you can play the storylines through without chopping and changing maybe?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: craan on December 24, 2010, 04:32:47 PM
I liked all the new places except the water one.   I really liked Deepholm and was sad to leave it but discovered I had another quest left to do to get some Twilight Documents so I queued for the Stonecore.  In addition to the documents the Vitreous Stone Drake reins dropped.  Everyone needed on it and I won.  The rest of the group dropped a few seconds later with just enough time to cry OMG U NIGGER I HAVE BEEN TRYING FOR THAT FOR SO LONG.  Happy Festivus!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on December 24, 2010, 09:44:48 PM
Well, compared to my mild annoyance at how noisy the first five levels are of goblinism, it's bliss compared to the slog that is the worgen starting area. Boy, this race is a goddamned mess.   Doesn't help that I just got done casting one spell for 10 levels.

They lope, they snort, and the whole design of the newbie experience is just dreadfully dreary and incredibly boring.  BLECH.

Back to the gobbie after I'm done visiting the parents.  See you in a year, SLAP!  (OK, I'll probably stop by once in a while.  It looks like my friend is either visiting relatives or quit already.) 



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Furiously on December 24, 2010, 11:28:21 PM
My guild decided to all faction change to help with pvp timers. I'm not sure I want to spend the 30 bucks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 25, 2010, 01:19:05 PM
I liked Uldum but I can definitely see how it could wear on people, and I am totally able to say it was really, really lazy from a story standpoint.

I made the mistake of starting at Hyjal - boring as all hell. I switched to Vashj and really enjoyed it. What ruins it all for is having to make the choice as to whether I level or enjoy the content. Switching zones for more XP ruins any immersion I have - Vash is the only one I completed.

There has to be a better way to do this - exponential growth of XP based on level so you can play the storylines through without chopping and changing maybe?

The XP difference is not big enough to bother changing zones before finishing during 80-85 imo. You're not really forced into a this or that choice the way you're describing it. Finish the whole zone, then move on - if you outlevel the content it just means you get more gold if you choose to finish quests off after you're already 85 anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on December 25, 2010, 03:40:24 PM
Hyjal was better organized and very speedy to work your way through. Hell, even the NPCs were gogogogo, go kill stuff! I enjoyed it and it served its purpose in getting my shaman to 85 as quickly as possible in a (mostly) enjoyable manner.

I played EQ, so I have a instinctive distrust of anything in water. However, once my shaman was reasonably well equipped (and bored) it was back to Vash for fun and faction. Man, I do have to say Vash is probably more fun, but it's slow (like Uldum). The battlemaiden quests were some of the most fun I"ve had in WoW in some time. Hell, technically they were vehicle quests and I enjoyed the hell out of them (so much so I dropped out of a 40 min queue just to finish one part up). I've always kinda wanted to play a naga and that scratched that itch but good. A shame you don't get to quad-wield, but the helicoptor trident made up for it.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on December 25, 2010, 05:19:54 PM
My meta apparently requires more blue gems than red now. I can't imagine it's even remotely worth activating. Not that it matters since I imagine I'll be replacing my hat with a green soon enough. Really not happy with trade pug rated battlegrounds being the new thing. Then again Ret is yet again "we didn't know what to do so fuck it" in terms of PVP design so I can't imagine I'll be bothering.

I have to play this game because of the other people who are playing it. I feel like I'm in jail. WTF is even up with glyphs anymore?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 25, 2010, 05:23:34 PM
Woo Questioning Axe for a tanking weapon upgrade!  Nice reward for doing quests on the listing ship.   :awesome_for_real: :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on December 25, 2010, 05:28:08 PM
Worgen "mount" animation is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on December 25, 2010, 05:34:54 PM
Glyphs are learned permanently (and are more expensive), but take a vanishing dust to change.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 25, 2010, 05:53:12 PM
Glyphs are learned permanently (and are more expensive), but take a vanishing dust to change.
Vanishing dust pre-81, dust of disappearance 81+; the only difference being vendor cost.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 25, 2010, 06:02:12 PM
Worgen "mount" animation is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

It needs to be slowed down a tad to keep from looking "floppy" but I tend to like it. Makes the race look even more feral.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on December 25, 2010, 06:16:56 PM
I just saw some level 40 worgen newbie standing around Stormwind on all fours in his stupid looking helmet and thought "Wow, seriously?" Some guy at the dock told me to get on a mercenary ship, but I didn't see any ship so I logged out. I don't think I'll bother leveling until my friend catches up to me, and she's 59 and doesn't get to play much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on December 25, 2010, 07:17:48 PM
If you go down to the dock, when you reach the end of it you'll witness a scripted dialog while the boat is arriving. 

I had to erase what I knew of WoW - this is much more like playing a movie.  There's stories happening everywhere.... I'm still training myself to slow down and watch it all, because it's important to understanding all that is going on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on December 25, 2010, 07:47:09 PM
I guess. I feel like I'm working with Blackboard: a kluge  desperately being redesigned to work with contemporary norms, and always feeling a bit seasick because of it. WoW wasn't designed to push cinematics and story, really, and while some of the cinematics are fun and interesting and worth watching, others are just subpar machinima that make me want to watch "Blind" again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 25, 2010, 08:18:18 PM
Glyphs are learned permanently (and are more expensive), but take a vanishing dust to change.
Vanishing dust pre-81, dust of disappearance 81+; the only difference being vendor cost.

Glyphs aren't any more expensive to make actually, just that the AH prices are fucktarded for a lot of them.  If you have a friend who's still a Scribe, toss them some Cata herbs (or the appropriate ones for your glyph if you don't have those) and they should be able to hook you up.  Inscription in general is really strange as I don't get why they haven't made the Books of Glyph Mastery drop from Cata content or replaced them with a new Discovery or... something.

This is another chance to plug Guild -> Roster -> Professions which I will not miss.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 25, 2010, 08:55:46 PM
I'm not talking about the cost of glyphs, but the cost to replace them. Vanishing Powder costs ~6s per, while Dust of Disappearance costs 10g per.

Also, glyphs ARE more expensive because glyphs take 3 inks now instead of 1.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 25, 2010, 10:59:57 PM
Plus the Ink Trader now uses the Cata ink as currency for all other inks, and there's only 1 and it's in fucking Dalaran. So Inscription in general is much more of a pain in the arse than it was before.

Oh, and it's almost impossible to actually harvest any herbs in Cata zones because of the 1000s of bots picking them all day and night.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 25, 2010, 11:21:00 PM
I'm not talking about the cost of glyphs, but the cost to replace them. Vanishing Powder costs ~6s per, while Dust of Disappearance costs 10g per.

Also, glyphs ARE more expensive because glyphs take 3 inks now instead of 1.

Yeah, probably should have just quoted Minvaren instead of you quoting them.  I meant glyphs.

As for the ink change, glyph prices have always seemed more connected to the method they're learned by than the underlying material costs.  Maybe they'll come down in the coming months to a new, slightly higher floor both from the mat changes and people dumping the profession for something else.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 25, 2010, 11:30:35 PM
Pre 4.0.1 and post 4.0.3a, glyphs are priced primarily according to spec usefulness. In the interim period, they were priced according to material cost (with those glyphs which required Outland herbs being the most expensive). I've never known glyphs to be priced by method of acquisition, and I've made tens of thousands of gold on glyphs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 25, 2010, 11:41:43 PM
On both servers I have characters on, trainer/discovery glyphs have been a good deal less expensive to pick up than ones from the books, even when both were on the "You're supposed to use this glyph." lists.

That said, I'll cede to your experience as mine only deals with an alt with the profession on one of the servers and occasionally needing to buy one I can't make.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 26, 2010, 12:19:24 AM
Well, compared to my mild annoyance at how noisy the first five levels are of goblinism, it's bliss compared to the slog that is the worgen starting area. Boy, this race is a goddamned mess.   Doesn't help that I just got done casting one spell for 10 levels.

They lope, they snort, and the whole design of the newbie experience is just dreadfully dreary and incredibly boring.  BLECH.

Back to the gobbie after I'm done visiting the parents.  See you in a year, SLAP!  (OK, I'll probably stop by once in a while.  It looks like my friend is either visiting relatives or quit already.) 



Yeah, I didn't especially like the worgen starter area. I mean, it was fine, but it was a lot of "oh, we're fucked again, I see" and just felt sort of crappy. It didn't help that I really, really fucking hate the female worgens, I think they look terrible compared to the dudes and the voice actress has the worst goddamn accent this side of Dick van Dyke. I already deleted my worgen warlock and changed her into a dwarf one. :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on December 26, 2010, 09:39:05 AM
I'm not talking about the cost of glyphs, but the cost to replace them. Vanishing Powder costs ~6s per, while Dust of Disappearance costs 10g per.

Also, glyphs ARE more expensive because glyphs take 3 inks now instead of 1.

10g? Aye, you were lucky.

I haven't really looked around, but on WW AH, it was running about 40g a crack. I'd heard it was inscriptor only, but if it has a vendor...well...still costs too much to hotswap glyphs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 26, 2010, 09:48:58 AM
Inscription supplies vendor sells it for 10g per. If you're paying 40g per on the AH you're a fool.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on December 26, 2010, 10:25:05 AM
Inscription supplies vendor sells it for 10g per. If you're paying 40g per on the AH you're a fool.

Just did my JC daily and figured I'd better look into this while in town. Quick question to a guard and, yep, it's 10g. There's like 3 pages of this stuff on the AH for 40g+. P.T. Barnum lives.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on December 26, 2010, 02:45:44 PM
I finally dragged my way to 85 and pretty much feel as WUA does. I have a few friends playing the game again, but it actually feels unfun.

1: Heroics are a mess. I don't know why Blizzard messed with the system of raiding for hardcores, heroics for the masses, because I played the game back in BC and it was a lot less fun then wrath.

2: PvP is an ugly dichtomy of running rateds with all the elites, or running normals with retards who are barely aware that Warsong has a flag.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on December 26, 2010, 02:59:30 PM
Run to the end of the dock, sit sit sit sit sit sit, bunch of NPCs eventually roll up and I sit there listening to them talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk about how the Alliance sucks and we're all doomed. I can't even skip this shit like a cutscene. Fuck me just POINT ME AT THE TEN BOARS AND LET ME PLAY.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on December 26, 2010, 02:59:56 PM
I'm not a fan of the 5 man design so far. It's just way too annoying. They need to fucking relax and realize they've totally over-reacted in the wake of AOE-gate.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on December 26, 2010, 03:03:03 PM
STILL LISTENING TO DIALOGUE.

Oh neat, that whole rousing voice-acted speech about a brutal battle against the Horde to save Stormwind was just wank. Instead it's time to collect starfish. Are you fucking kidding me?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on December 26, 2010, 04:37:09 PM
Run to the end of the dock, sit sit sit sit sit sit, bunch of NPCs eventually roll up and I sit there listening to them talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk about how the Alliance sucks and we're all doomed. I can't even skip this shit like a cutscene. Fuck me just POINT ME AT THE TEN BOARS AND LET ME PLAY.
But the Alliance does suck.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 26, 2010, 06:48:07 PM
Thanks WUA.  I've never had so much fun and enjoyment not playing a game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on December 26, 2010, 07:39:31 PM
I think I missed that part. Must be the Vash crap. I just flew out there.

Heroics are a mess, though. With a good group, they can be fun. With a bad group, it's simply grim. This is still a gearing up phase and going back to TBCv2.0 isn't the answer to the issues of Wrath. 50min waits for heroics are simply egregious--very unfun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 26, 2010, 08:20:37 PM
I'd like to say I'm enjoying the new Heroics model, but how I'm spending my time in-game tells me that's probably not true.  I'll agree that when you have a competent enough group, it's just the right amount of challenge and fun is had by all. 

When your group can't interrupt, stay out fire, crowd control, use cooldowns, DPS properly, or even wait for me to fucking drink... not so much fun.  Add on to that, that screw-ups don't immediately lead to wipes like they might in the Wrath model.  Now, wipes are mostly long, drawn out, affairs where your group's incompetence is measured in your healer's dwindling mana bar.

That said, I definitely prefer this to Wrath heroics which were just busywork before you could do the "real challenge" of watching 24 other people unable to interrupt, stay out fire, use cooldowns, or DPS properly.  Now, crowd control is back!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on December 26, 2010, 08:25:36 PM
Eh, I remember WotLK heroics being rather difficult in the beginning when we just had beginner blues and quest greens.  Just with less CC.  We just had no LFD tool that we tended to remember the idiots on our own server and didn't group with them once their reputation had been found out.  Now the population of idiots we have to draw from is bigger.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 26, 2010, 11:54:24 PM
Eh, I remember WotLK heroics being rather difficult in the beginning when we just had beginner blues and quest greens.  Just with less CC.  We just had no LFD tool that we tended to remember the idiots on our own server and didn't group with them once their reputation had been found out.  Now the population of idiots we have to draw from is bigger.

LK heroics were (are) nowhere near as hard and unforgiving as Cata heroics are, regardless of gear. I've regularly run LK heroics in groups fully kitted out in blues & greens and they've been a cakewalk.

Cata heroics are pissing me off. 20-40 min queues and it only takes 1 person who won't relax and listen and do it right and it's an abandoned group. That said I am finding that conversely it only takes 1 or 2 people saying "Np, wipes happen, we're all learning these" and explaining fights and not getting all pissy when things go wrong to keep most groups going. Yeah you may replace a person or two when they ragequit the group but usually you can make it to the end.

Other problem is this all takes a long fucking time. 40 min wait and then 2 hour dungeon? Yeahhhh that ain't good for me to be sat for that long.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on December 27, 2010, 12:09:39 AM
Neither compares to TBC heroics still.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on December 27, 2010, 12:35:15 AM
Thanks WUA.  I've never had so much fun and enjoyment not playing a game.

Seriously. WOTLK kicked off for me with "Thank god it's you, hero! The Scourge is attacking the fortress! Quick, kill them!"

Cata kicked off with ten minutes of sitting on a dock listening to dialogue. Then we get on the boat and the head NPC gives this big epic Braveheart speech about fucking up the Horde, and all the soldiers cheer, and I'm like "Okay the beginning was a bit talky but I have a good feeling about this!"

Then the fucking ship sinks and I'm looking at some Earthen Ring asshole who wants me to collect starfish. I swear on my fucking balls I heard this noise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A) and logged out. I'll play another five minutes tomorrow and probably rant some more.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on December 27, 2010, 12:50:48 AM
This bread crumb quest shit is really getting annoying. My buddy just reached 80 and he wanted to do the underwater zone. So he asks me, can I just go there? Nope, forst you have to talk to some shlub in Orgrimmar, then do what WUA has described, then follow the quests they give you in exactly the order they give you them in. It's not like it's even recommended, it required. As for me, I reached 83 and flew to Uldum, thinking 'boy what a cool zone, I sure wish there was a quest for me down there'. But of course there wasn't. I had to go to the Warchiefs fucking bulletin board, then talk to Harrison Jones, just so I could level in that zone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on December 27, 2010, 12:57:16 AM
It's a JRPG with GWAR shoulderpads and multiplayer instances. No you can't get on your flying mount and cruise to Damcyan without blowing up Mist and meeting Rydia first. That would fuck up the entire sequence of events to follow.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on December 27, 2010, 12:59:13 AM
I'm enjoying it at the moment, but of course, I'm dicking around with sub-60 alts, and occasionally doing the icecrown Argent dailies on my 80 since I haven't bothered to activate cataclysm proper yet. What you guys are describing sounds awful.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on December 27, 2010, 01:31:23 AM
Well bear in mind that most people have already got their guys to 85 at this point. The people you're hearing from now who hate it so much are a minority.  They make some good points though and it's amusing to see their indignation.  :awesome_for_real:

I'm like the only guy in my guild who still hasn't got his main to max level but I've been through the Vash'jr cut-scenes described here and yeah they're kind of awful. For all the money they spend on polish Blizzard just hasn't got the story telling skills to really do this kind of thing well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on December 27, 2010, 01:33:25 AM
Well bear in mind that most people have already got their guys to 85 at this point. The people you're hearing from now who hate it so much are a minority.  They make some good points though and it's amusing to see their indignation.  :awesome_for_real:

I'm like the only guy in my guild who still hasn't got his main to max level but I've been through the Vash'jr cut-scenes described here and yeah they're kind of awful. For all the money they spend on polish Blizzard just hasn't got the story telling skills to really do this kind of thing well.

The only thing I thought was completely terrible in this expansion was Tol Barad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on December 27, 2010, 01:39:12 AM
Ny only real beef with Vash'jr was that it just went on and on and on.  150 quests to get the achievement.  I'm doing Uldum now and having a good time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 27, 2010, 01:43:23 AM
All the achievements are the same though - if you objected to one, it's because you hated the zone...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on December 27, 2010, 01:54:02 AM
How so?  I complained that Vash'jr went on too long because it needed 150 quests to finish the zone and get the achievement. From looking at the rest of the zone completion achievements they don't seem to require anywhere near that many quests to complete.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on December 27, 2010, 01:58:40 AM
I'll recheck, but I was fairly sure that the new zones all have a 'you've stuck it out, well done' achievement reward and that they're all 100+ quests.  I've got the Hyjal and Vashjir and Deepholm ones...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on December 27, 2010, 02:26:02 AM
Oh yeah they all do. But at 150 Vash'jr is the longest. The rest are like 100 to 125 which seems shorter.  Of course for all I know those quests take longer to do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on December 27, 2010, 02:36:52 AM
WoW never changes, it's just variable levels of burn out. I absolutely hated WotLK back in 08, this time I rerolled Horde and so far playing 1-78 has been a blast, WotLK zones included. Loved the little bit of Vash'sdgkhzgh my Alliance dude tested.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on December 27, 2010, 02:43:01 AM
My theory is that Vash'jr seems to go on forever because there's at least one false climax in there (you saved the  Hurrah! Now go over there and start again). If they'd split it into two (first half as a 80-82 zone and the real finale as an 84-85 with a "We need you to go back to vash'jr - the naga are on the move!" breadcrumb) it would priobably flow better.

Also it takes too long to unlock the first inn in every zone. I know that you can just hearth to Org and portal back but there's definitely a psychological tick once you get the chance to set your hearth - it's like "Okay, I've officially started this zone now". Mind you, quite a few of the revamped old-world zones are the same way but you're generally ploughing though that content faster anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 27, 2010, 03:28:09 AM
I hated Vash'jir because the achieve was broken the first week. You wound up 45 quests short of the 160 you need and there was much "WTF"ing in general chat.   Also, some of the caves you quest out of were a bitch and a half to find and keep returning to.. I think I spent more time hunting them down than doing the quest I had been doing sometimes.

The linear hand holding gets a little tiresome, but if you're trying to tell a story there's not much else you can do.  Want to bitch about Half Life and it's shooter on rails problems, too? Because I can do that, I'll just have to load it up to remember exactly why I quit playing the fucker when I broke it.  It's one of the problem points of trying to do more with a game than just letting it be a game.

I agree with Simond about unlocking the inns and tack on unlocking the portals in some zones is just fucking ridiculous.  Vash'jir and Hyjal in particular.  Hell, I got the achieve for Hyjal and still hadn't unlocked the portal, so I said fuck this and left the zone.  That's some deep bullshit right there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 27, 2010, 03:41:13 AM
I agree with Simond about unlocking the inns and tack on unlocking the portals in some zones is just fucking ridiculous.  Vash'jir and Hyjal in particular.  Hell, I got the achieve for Hyjal and still hadn't unlocked the portal, so I said fuck this and left the zone.  That's some deep bullshit right there.

Wait, the portals in Org (or Stormwind I guess) to Hyjal?  I got that after a couple of quests in the zone as I bailed when I got friendly and had it unlocked when I wanted to go back.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 27, 2010, 03:47:20 AM
No, the portal back to Org/ Stormwind from those zones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Reg on December 27, 2010, 03:50:31 AM
There's a portal back to Orgrimmar in the Cataclysm zones? Huh, I never noticed. I just left myself hearthed to Orgrimmar and used the portal back when I wanted to return.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 27, 2010, 04:10:18 AM
There's definitely one in Twilight Highlands because one of the first quests there is collecting ectoplasm or mud or something to power it up.

My theory is that Vash'jr seems to go on forever because there's at least one false climax in there (you saved the  Hurrah! Now go over there and start again). If they'd split it into two (first half as a 80-82 zone and the real finale as an 84-85 with a "We need you to go back to vash'jr - the naga are on the move!" breadcrumb) it would priobably flow better.

Also it takes too long to unlock the first inn in every zone. I know that you can just hearth to Org and portal back but there's definitely a psychological tick once you get the chance to set your hearth - it's like "Okay, I've officially started this zone now". Mind you, quite a few of the revamped old-world zones are the same way but you're generally ploughing though that content faster anyway.

I agree with this Vashj'ir should have been two zones. Also sticking the entrance to throne of the tides at the absolute end of the zone was an awful awful design decision.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 27, 2010, 06:40:07 AM
There's a portal back to Orgrimmar in the Cataclysm zones? Huh, I never noticed. I just left myself hearthed to Orgrimmar and used the portal back when I wanted to return.

Twilight Highlands, Tol Barad and Deepholm have portals back to the home cities. The others do not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 27, 2010, 07:09:21 AM
The linear hand holding gets a little tiresome, but if you're trying to tell a story there's not much else you can do.  Want to bitch about Half Life and it's shooter on rails problems, too? Because I can do that, I'll just have to load it up to remember exactly why I quit playing the fucker when I broke it.  It's one of the problem points of trying to do more with a game than just letting it be a game.

Except in Half-Life I didn't have a bunch of alts that had to go through the exact same stuff in the exact same order to level.

The heavy nerfing of dungeon XP makes this even worse. I *can't* just RFD-level a tank, he's GOT to do all the bloody quests.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on December 27, 2010, 08:18:35 AM
I hated Vashj'ir because of how annoying finding the caves was, how annoying it was that there was NO inn for almost 1/3 of the entire zone, and most (personally) because half the "interact with the sub\etc" quests were bugged and broken the first week for my character.  Lots of "lols it worked for me" from guildies who didn't understand why I was so angry I couldn't finish a zone.  Once I got out of that stupid zone I loved the rest of the Cata zones, so it's almost like Borean Tundra was for me in WotLK - a zone I am practically forced to do, but once I slog through it the rest of the fun happens and I quickly forget it (we can debate the merits of such a "feature" in a game we play for fun elsewhere).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on December 27, 2010, 09:26:10 AM
Yeah, the cave hubs were a damned nuisance. It was generally quicker (as a shaman) to port back to SW, sell stuff, grab the portal back to Vash, then jump a seahoarse for the ride back to whatever grotto the Alliance was lurking in this time around. Lot less wear and tear on the ulcers.

Vash is excessively long. I knew there was going to be an "awakening the Ancients" thing going on, but at 160 quests? Yeah, that's a bit much. The rest were in the 120 region, so we're talking 30% longer than any other zone. Bit too much of a good thing.

I ran into breadcrumb issues on the shaman the first night. I wanted to go to Hyjal (I like night elfs, so sue me). Could not for the life of me get the druid out in Moonglade to allow me to hop the dragon. I flew out earlier from Everlook, so that might have had something to do with it. I got it worked out, but don't recall exactly how; might have been drop and reaqiure the quest. Actually, now that I think about it it was the flight thing. I skipped the NE out in SW. The DK and warrior didn't have any issues when they went out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on December 27, 2010, 10:27:20 AM
I didn't do Vash. I started in Hyjal and I'm extremely happy that I did.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: AcidCat on December 27, 2010, 10:33:54 AM
relentlessly streamlined

Yeah I'm really not feeling these 80+ zones. Especially compared to some of the revamped old world zones they just feel so scripted and linear. Compared to say Desolace, I cruised the zone on my undead hunter and had over ten quests going on all over. Compared to that the 2-3 quests you get at a time in the new zones just feels stifling somehow. There's not even the illusion of choice or exploration.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on December 27, 2010, 10:36:56 AM
I guess it depends on your POV. That 10 quests across the zone thing annoyed the shit out of me. I like to explore, but I don't like to have unconnected loose strings all over the area.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 27, 2010, 03:42:12 PM
I didn't do Vash. I started in Hyjal and I'm extremely happy that I did.

I did Hyjal last week on my priest and regretted it.  Despite my bitches about the length and finding the caves Vash'jir was much more fun.   Did Vash again this weekend on the rogue and stopped after the first giant seashell when I hit 82 (go go +10% xp guild perk).. much better decision.   Only problem doing that is you don't wind-up with enough rep to buy the ER tabard because Shamen are sons of bitches.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 27, 2010, 03:55:47 PM
The ER rep from quests is really erratic. You'd get one set of quests in Vashj'ir from an Earthen Ring person to slay and defend and preserve the earthen ring and get nada, and then a few quests later you'd do something completely trivial and get a chunk of rep. It's odd because you can easily get about 50% of the way into Revered with the Guardians of Hyjal just off the Hyjal quests, but not with the Earthen Ring.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 27, 2010, 04:13:30 PM
My Guild hit level 7 today, just wondering where others are at?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on December 27, 2010, 04:45:02 PM
Think we hit level seven a days or two ago.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 27, 2010, 05:51:23 PM
They appear to have gotten us to level 7 during my absence, so no beatings will be administered.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 27, 2010, 06:03:09 PM
We're 50% to L8.  We cap every day, so we'll hit 25 April 11th with the other catasses.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on December 27, 2010, 09:58:43 PM
We're level 3. And that's with the most activity our guild has ever, EVER seen over the last 3 weeks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 27, 2010, 11:15:29 PM
I quite liked Vashj'ir, in large part because it was so damn coloful.  I don't think it's my favorite zone of the expansion, that probably goes to Lost Isles or Southern Barrens or maybe Deepholm, but it's up there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on December 28, 2010, 02:26:18 AM
I thought this was kind of entertaining; they changed Tol Barad so that if you successfully attack you get 1800 honor instead of 180 if you win on defense. I'm not sure if the change is live yet, but already people are telling everyone to not defend and just trade TB back and forth for the massive honor boost. I'm sure on most servers people will still defend but I will not be surprised when a lower pop server gets the win-trading to simply be how the game is played on that server.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on December 28, 2010, 03:02:55 AM
Looks like Christmas holidays are over at Blizzard: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1829962
Quote
We have a lot of players at 85 now doing everything from Heroic dungeons to rated Battlegrounds, and the class design team is starting to prepare our list of items to investigate for our next patch.

Before you dive down into the meat below (not really a pleasant image, that), be advised that we’re still early in the preliminary stages. The patch isn’t coming out tomorrow. I wrote this before the end of the year and other things may have cropped up in the meantime. Just because your class or pet problem isn’t mentioned below doesn’t mean we won’t address it.

PvE

We’re happy with damage overall. We have very few traditional tank and spank fights (even Argaloth likes to parry melee) so it’s hard to get consistent numbers without very large data sets. Still, we see Survival hunters and Unholy DKs on top of a lot of single target fights. Arcane, Marksman, and Beastmaster damage is too low. Retribution, Shadow, and Fire and Frost mage damage might be too low, but we’re still watching them. We aren’t seeing a lot of Subtlety rogues in PvE yet, so that sample size is still small. On fights where there is a lot of area damage, Demonology warlocks, Frost DKs and possibly Survival hunters are all too high. Shadow priest AE, mostly due to a weak Mind Sear, feels too low.

Healing in PvE is working out pretty much as intended. There are some Heroic dungeon bosses that are probably tougher than the required item level average permits. In general, you might have a tough time upon zoning into a Heroic dungeon with a bunch of strangers as soon as Dungeon Finder permits, especially if your group isn’t willing to communicate and work together. We want Heroics to be challenging -- if you want to zerg the content, stick to normal dungeons.

Tank balance overall seems good at this point in time. Threat seems to be in a good place -- good tanks don’t have much of a problem, but they can’t “phone it in” either. We’re seeing all four tanks get a lot of use, even on Heroic raid fights. That could change as more guilds are able to make serious heroic attempts.

PvP

The larger health pools, decreased impact of Mortal Strike debuffs, and slower healing are all having the desired effect in PvP. Burst damage has its place, but doesn’t determine the outcome of every encounter. There are several individual abilities that we aren’t happy with in PvP.

We’re keeping a close eye on dispels. We still like the design of making dispels more of a commitment rather than liberally sprinkling around dispel resistance or consequences for every class. Defensive dispels (removing a debuff) generally feel good, but we think offensive dispels (removing an enemy buff) feel too powerful, especially for DPS specs. In particular, Purge and Spellsteal will probably get nerfed.

We’re also looking at crowd control, interrupts, and self-healing in PvP. It’s possible we’ll reduce the durations of some crowd control effects, especially the area effect ones, and decrease the duration of interrupts.

Priests are a little weak in PvP, especially at mobile healing. We have made some changes to glyphs and talents to enhance their survivability and instant healing.

We also want to make sure the epic PvP gear isn’t too easy for just anyone to obtain, given that the PvE endgame content is more challenging than it was in Lich King. We don’t want the player base to just migrate to the most efficient epic delivery mechanism; we want you to participate in what you find most enjoyable.

Stats

We’ll make a pass to make stats that aren’t attractive (but are supposed to be) more attractive. For example, we don’t want Assassination rogues to dismiss crit or Feral tanks to dismiss haste. We are considering making some physical attacks such as Lacerate, Steady Shot, and Slam scale with haste.

Mastery is a new stat for us, and there are a few specs that don’t value it enough. In some cases (e.g. Combat rogues), the design for mastery is fine and we just need to buff the effects to make it more desirable. In others, we don’t think it’s possible to buff mastery enough in its current form. For example, the Retribution mastery, Hand of Light, is fun, but it doesn’t contribute enough damage. To make it contribute enough damage, the proc would need a very high chance, which then can cause paladins to devalue other sources of Holy Power. Instead, we are redesigning Retribution mastery to add a percentage of the damage of Templar’s Verdict, Crusader Strike, and Divine Storm as Holy damage (which also plays better with Inqusition). Because Hand of Light is fun, however, we are going to change Divine Purpose as a chance to proc Hand of Light instead of a chance for extra Holy Power (which will also remove a little of the randomness from the rotation). Unholy DKs are another spec for whom mastery just isn’t working out. Our current intent is to redesign their mastery so that their attacks cause more damage to diseased targets (in a similar manner to the Restoration druid mastery).

Potpourri

Some additional class-specific tweaks (keeping in mind this is not the full list):


    *    Even after we fixed their mastery, Feral druid bleeds still do a lot of damage and are undispellable. We plan to shift some of that damage back to main attacks. They are also a little too hard to control. Given that they are already hard to root, snare, or polymorph, we think the fear immunity from Berserk is too much.

    *    Arms warrior burst damage might still be too high in PvP, while we don’t have a great way to adjust their sustained damage for PvE. The Lambs to the Slaughter talent is a good place to address this. We also might nerf warrior stuns.

    *    We think Arms and Fury warriors are getting too much damage out of Heroic Strike. We want it to be clear that it’s a rage dump and not make it the hardest hitting ability.

    *    For Holy priests, we’re increasing Chakra’s duration and changing Surge of Light so it can now from Flash Heal and Greater Heal and can crit.

    *    We’re making some additional buffs, such as Pain Suppression and Barkskin, undispellable.

    *    We’re buffing Wild Mushroom. It’s a cool spell that isn’t getting enough play.

    *    Empowered Touch will now benefit from Regrowth as well. We’re also buffing the Glyph of Regrowth.

    *    We are looking at Holy Concentration (after our most recent buff) and Omen of Clarity to make sure they don’t account for too much mana savings.

    *    We are probably going to remove Drain Mana from warlocks. It is incredibly situational in PvE but causes problems in PvP. This might mean we need to evaluate Mana Burn as well.

    *    Inferno will no longer increase the radius of Hellfire.

    *    Shadow and Flame can now proc from Incinerate in addition to Shadow Bolt.

    *    We want to redesign Improved Soulfire.

    *    Censure will no longer break Repentance.

    *    As part of the Marks and Beastmaster buffs, we’re buffing Aimed Shot, Kill Shot, Chimera Shot, and Kill Command.

    *    To reduce mage control, we are discussing reducing the duration of Frost Nova and Ring of Frost.

    *    We want to make it clear that Combat is intended to use fast off-hand weapons. We also want to polish Revealing Strike a bit.

    *    We want to make sure Enhancement shaman avoid caster weapons.

    *    We want to make sure Unholy DKs prefer two-handed weapons.

    *    Necrotic Strike needs to be affected by resilience.

    *    For Cataclysm, we changed Death Strike almost completely into an ability for Blood DK tanks, which is a bit unfortunate. We want to make sure it is still a useful button for Frost or Unholy DKs who need healing.

    *    We also want to address DK mobility in PvP.

    *    We think we overnerfed Every Man for Himself, and are reverting it back to a 2-minute cooldown again. We might evaluate other racials after we’ve seen more PvP.


“GC, is this the final list of changes? Does this mean I can expect no changes for my class? Does this mean you don’t care about me?”

No. This is some stuff we are looking at so that you’ll have some context if you see changes on a future PTR. The final list of class patch notes for the next patch will doubtless be much longer.

Also the last week's worth of hotfixes: http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/136974/cataclysm-hotfixes-updated-dec-27


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 28, 2010, 04:00:01 AM
Interesting, I must be doing something wrong in my unholy rotation because I come out top in AOE (unless there's a frost DK.. I said back in October Howling Blast was going to get nerfed, though.) but middle of the pack on single target.    Nice to see they recognize that mastery is near worthless for Unholy, though if they'd sat down and thought about it for just two shakes they could have realized that at the initial design.  When Dots are the lowest damage contribution, scaling them by anything less than massive amounts isn't going to be useful.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on December 28, 2010, 04:07:50 AM
Anyone play a frost DK?  I have both a Fury warrior and a frost DK.  Pre-Cat, the Fury warrior had to sit alot after even relatively small fights, and the DK (unholy at the time) never, ever had to sit.

Post-Cat, the Fury war never, ever, ever needs to sit and the DK, while doing decent damage (if you get procs), seems to need to sit too frequently.

The Frost DK just seems tedious to play compared to every other alt I have.  Even the 73 combat rogue is more self-sufficient than the 81 DK.

Am I doing it wrong?  (Note: I read the comment in the post about death strike, and guessed that other folks are feeling some of the same pain with the DK)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on December 28, 2010, 04:18:36 AM
If they take the Fear Immunity off of Berzerk, they better fucking add it to a glyph or something.  That immunity was pretty much the ONLY thing that let us kill locks and priests, and it was a very useful ability in a lot of situations as a tank as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on December 28, 2010, 04:20:00 AM
Just glancing at Argaloth 25 parses, you have to go down 21 places to find a parse that's not an Unholy DK or a Survival Hunter. Chimeron (which, I haven't fought but I believe is the closest to a Patchwerk-style fight for the DPS in the actual raids) has a fair amount of Unholy DKs also.

The most broken AoE at the moment though is I believe demonology warlocks. You have to go down 28 places to find somebody who isn't a demo lock on Maloriak 25. 89 of the top 100 are all demonology warlocks.

(@Merusk)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on December 28, 2010, 04:21:35 AM
Yep.  I've shelved my Frost DK for the time being.  It's the combination of melee without self heals that is killing mine.  In dungeons it's not terrible, but soloing is tough.  Death strike heals for ~2kish at 81.  It's just not enough to keep me playing him.  

I really, really like this:  "We want Heroics to be challenging -- if you want to zerg the content, stick to normal dungeons."  I know people are going to bitch about this overall design change, but I like it.  If you're finding heroics too hard, then back off into normals until you can gear for heroics.  It will get you some practice on the fights as well.  



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Oban on December 28, 2010, 04:54:37 AM
I could be horribly wrong, but that quote will most likely come back and bite them in the ass.

Casuals make up the overwhelming majority of the WoW player base and right now this game is not nearly as casual friendly as it was before the expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 28, 2010, 05:01:51 AM
My frost DK was pretty trivial to level. It was all about interrupts and bursting things down before you lost much health. There are a few areas where the mobs hit crazy hard and I had to either switch specs or adjust my kill rate, but for the most part my DK will pretty much murder things in the opening few seconds of a fight. I roll one disease (FF from HB) in solo pve, though. Oblit hits hard enough ;)


Making Surge of Light proc Flash Heals or GHeals that can crit is stupid. So, so stupid. Simply because if given the choice between an instant zero mana FHeal or GHeal, the only reason to ever use the flash is to proc serendipity. Not for actual healing throughput.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 28, 2010, 05:14:41 AM

Making Surge of Light proc Flash Heals or GHeals that can crit is stupid. So, so stupid. Simply because if given the choice between an instant zero mana FHeal or GHeal, the only reason to ever use the flash is to proc serendipity. Not for actual healing throughput.

True, I will be using Gheal over Flash now. They prolly could have just kept it just Flash and allowed it to crit but I am not going to complain.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on December 28, 2010, 05:28:25 AM
The EU post (http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1478991) has a bit clearer wording on this (bolded the added word):

Quote
For Holy priests, we’re increasing Chakra’s duration and changing Surge of Light so it can now benefit from Flash Heal and Greater Heal and can crit.

I take both versions to mean: "You have a 3/6% chance when you Smite, Heal, Greater Heal, or Flash Heal to cause your next Flash Heal to be instant cast and cost no mana but incapable of a critical hit."

As kildorn pointed out, the other interpretation doesn't make any sense aside from leveling, since you get Flash Heal at 3 but Greater Heal at 38, and Sanctuary.  This also makes the talent a lot better for Disc as I've pretty much dumped Heal completely in favor of Greater Heal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 28, 2010, 05:40:18 AM
The EU post (http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1478991) has a bit clearer wording on this (bolded the added word):

Quote
For Holy priests, we’re increasing Chakra’s duration and changing Surge of Light so it can now benefit from Flash Heal and Greater Heal and can crit.

I take both versions to mean: "You have a 3/6% chance when you Smite, Heal, Greater Heal, or Flash Heal to cause your next Flash Heal to be instant cast and cost no mana but incapable of a critical hit."

As kildorn pointed out, the other interpretation doesn't make any sense aside from leveling, since you get Flash Heal at 3 but Greater Heal at 38, and Sanctuary.  This also makes the talent a lot better for Disc as I've pretty much dumped Heal completely in favor of Greater Heal.

Good catch. Thinking of it like that makes more sense.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 28, 2010, 06:03:02 AM
This makes Surge of Light pretty decent now tbh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 28, 2010, 06:11:07 AM
Casuals make up the overwhelming majority of the WoW player base and right now this game is not nearly as casual friendly as it was before the expansion.
It will, but then with the amount of bitching going on, it seems like it will be some time before things settle down regardless.

"Design for the audience you have, not the audience you want."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on December 28, 2010, 06:38:14 AM
Casuals make up the overwhelming majority of the WoW player base and right now this game is not nearly as casual friendly as it was before the expansion.
It will, but then with the amount of bitching going on, it seems like it will be some time before things settle down regardless.

"Design for the audience you have, not the audience you want."

They'll temper things a bit. Blizzard has still never learned not to get butthurt by players facerolling their content at maxxed out level. They hear about it for months because the cycles take so long to produce new content, so by the time they get it out it's "Choke on this, fuckers!" Expect heavy heroic changes by the end of January.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 28, 2010, 06:41:31 AM
The EU post (http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1478991) has a bit clearer wording on this (bolded the added word):

Quote
For Holy priests, we’re increasing Chakra’s duration and changing Surge of Light so it can now benefit from Flash Heal and Greater Heal and can crit.

I take both versions to mean: "You have a 3/6% chance when you Smite, Heal, Greater Heal, or Flash Heal to cause your next Flash Heal to be instant cast and cost no mana but incapable of a critical hit."

As kildorn pointed out, the other interpretation doesn't make any sense aside from leveling, since you get Flash Heal at 3 but Greater Heal at 38, and Sanctuary.  This also makes the talent a lot better for Disc as I've pretty much dumped Heal completely in favor of Greater Heal.

Good catch. Thinking of it like that makes more sense.

Okay, that version makes a lot more sense. Ghostcrawler needs more coffee.

And on more warlock notes: please, please take Imp Soulfire out back and shoot it. It's an aggravatingly stupid mechanic due to the ICD.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on December 28, 2010, 08:18:51 AM
According to guildox there are already three level 9 guilds worldwide
 :headscratch:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on December 28, 2010, 09:29:05 AM
Another purge nerf? I mean, really. It barely works as it is. Just get rid of it already. And take the friggin' totems with it. Or increase their range to 100yds and take them off the GCD. They're still a pain in the ass, especially the schizo searing totem. Fix it.

Happy to see another reference to purging (so to speak) caster mainhands from enhance. It's been a problem since the beginning of LK and with mastery this bit of nastiness has reared its head again--with a bullet. Just get it over with and make WF MH only and dump the bedamned internal cooldown. Also, fix the (lack of) scaling issue with WF. It's always sllightly overpowered at the beginning of an expansion and way underpowered by the end because of this. Fix it.

Oh, and add some more fucking enhance weapons while you're at it. Practically every axe I see is a tanking weapon. Why aren't these swords? Where are the slow AGI weapons? One axe and one claw in all those heroics isn't getting it done. I thought we'd moved past this crap in ICC, but apparently not.

I've been playing my 2h frost DK quite a bit lately (since PuGs blow goats and I'm already running out of things to do). She's a one-draenai wrecking crew. I was a bit concerned initally with frosts' lack of recovery, but that didn't last long. I've been saying HB has been needing a nerf since 4.0. Guess they finally figured that out. Will take some of the fun out of frost, but it is sick, sick stuff right now. 2h frost as a leveling spec is rocket-powered steamroller. Practically disease free with massive AoE and essentially unlimited RP for frost strike spam...yeah, it's fun, but a bit much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on December 28, 2010, 12:41:08 PM
Purge works TO well right now. If you are a class/spec that relies on defensive buffs, you are 100% boned against any shaman or priest. They removed all the RNG protection talents for Cata. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on December 28, 2010, 02:17:06 PM
As for ferals, the cat nerf is warranted. I'm not even that good at pvp and I was coming first in killing blows in the last few battlegrounds because of my bleeds.

But for the love of god I hope they buff bears, at least in pve. Most fights are run into a pack, blow all my aoes (which of course is two moves), and if a mob doesnt stick to me, it's tough shit. And god forbid I dodge the first three hits in a row, then I won't even be doing those two moves. Anyone other bears (Ingmar) have this problem? These are problems that simply do not exist on my paladin tank. Not in the slightest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on December 28, 2010, 02:49:36 PM
As for ferals, the cat nerf is warranted. I'm not even that good at pvp and I was coming first in killing blows in the last few battlegrounds because of my bleeds.

But for the love of god I hope they buff bears, at least in pve. Most fights are run into a pack, blow all my aoes (which of course is two moves), and if a mob doesnt stick to me, it's tough shit. And god forbid I dodge the first three hits in a row, then I won't even be doing those two moves. Anyone other bears (Ingmar) have this problem? These are problems that simply do not exist on my paladin tank. Not in the slightest.

I'm not playing Cata right now, but this is more or less exactly the problem with I had in some of the harder heroics when Burning Crusade was new.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on December 28, 2010, 03:02:45 PM
As for ferals, the cat nerf is warranted. I'm not even that good at pvp and I was coming first in killing blows in the last few battlegrounds because of my bleeds.

But for the love of god I hope they buff bears, at least in pve. Most fights are run into a pack, blow all my aoes (which of course is two moves), and if a mob doesnt stick to me, it's tough shit. And god forbid I dodge the first three hits in a row, then I won't even be doing those two moves. Anyone other bears (Ingmar) have this problem? These are problems that simply do not exist on my paladin tank. Not in the slightest.

I'm not playing Cata right now, but this is more or less exactly the problem with I had in some of the harder heroics when Burning Crusade was new.

I think about 2/3 of the problems with bear AoE tanking could probably easily be solved if they gave us a glyph (maybe a minor one) that let us cast Thorns without it shifting us out of bear form.  Have the effect be something like "Allows thorns to be cast in bear form, halves the damage it does, but doubles the threat caused by that damage, and makes thorns self cast only" and boom, bears would have a usefull, mid range cooldown, that lets them generate extra threat on stuff that is hitting them.  Paladins are outright easymode simply because they have a lot of reactive damage that generates threat for them on things that mele them without them really needing to actually DO anything to earn that threat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on December 28, 2010, 03:25:46 PM
As for ferals, the cat nerf is warranted. I'm not even that good at pvp and I was coming first in killing blows in the last few battlegrounds because of my bleeds.

But for the love of god I hope they buff bears, at least in pve. Most fights are run into a pack, blow all my aoes (which of course is two moves), and if a mob doesnt stick to me, it's tough shit. And god forbid I dodge the first three hits in a row, then I won't even be doing those two moves. Anyone other bears (Ingmar) have this problem? These are problems that simply do not exist on my paladin tank. Not in the slightest.

I'm not playing Cata right now, but this is more or less exactly the problem with I had in some of the harder heroics when Burning Crusade was new.

I think about 2/3 of the problems with bear AoE tanking could probably easily be solved if they gave us a glyph (maybe a minor one) that let us cast Thorns without it shifting us out of bear form.  Have the effect be something like "Allows thorns to be cast in bear form, halves the damage it does, but doubles the threat caused by that damage, and makes thorns self cast only" and boom, bears would have a usefull, mid range cooldown, that lets them generate extra threat on stuff that is hitting them.  Paladins are outright easymode simply because they have a lot of reactive damage that generates threat for them on things that mele them without them really needing to actually DO anything to earn that threat.
And make that thing available at low levels, so that bear tanking pre-36 isn't nigh-on impossible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on December 28, 2010, 03:31:29 PM
According to guildox there are already three level 9 guilds worldwide
 :headscratch:


Err.. did Blizz not reset some servers/ guilds then?  We've capped every single day since the last guild reset (Including hitting level 2 twice in that first 36 hours) and we're only at the 50% point of level 7.  Something's fishy.

Azure: Hm, in that case maybe it's my ilevel 333 weapon.  :awesome_for_real:   Can't get heroic drops for a damn.. I'm also not dual-wielding (which is apparently the shiznit right now.) because I knew the design intent of UH was 2h so it was only a matter of time before unholy dual wield got nerfed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 28, 2010, 03:52:43 PM
As for ferals, the cat nerf is warranted. I'm not even that good at pvp and I was coming first in killing blows in the last few battlegrounds because of my bleeds.

But for the love of god I hope they buff bears, at least in pve. Most fights are run into a pack, blow all my aoes (which of course is two moves), and if a mob doesnt stick to me, it's tough shit. And god forbid I dodge the first three hits in a row, then I won't even be doing those two moves. Anyone other bears (Ingmar) have this problem? These are problems that simply do not exist on my paladin tank. Not in the slightest.

iirc, Ingmar doesn't have an 85 bear yet. But healing and DPSing, I notice this with bears on the threat front. They're one of the only tanks I will reliably pull threat off of with my lock. Everyone else I may start pushing 80some percent, but bears I'll actually use soulshatter and get random adds heading my way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on December 28, 2010, 03:55:13 PM
Quote
    *    We want to make it clear that Combat is intended to use fast off-hand weapons. We also want to polish Revealing Strike a bit.

    *    We want to make sure Enhancement shaman avoid caster weapons.

    *    We want to make sure Unholy DKs prefer two-handed weapons.

This kind of thing annoys me. Why not let players have some choice in the matter rather than forcing that level of homogenization?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 28, 2010, 04:01:53 PM
It has bad effects on loot rolls and itemization when people want weapons they're not supposed to. They distribute weapons through instances with the idea that X number of specs are going to want each one, etc.

On the druid front, haven't leveled mine yet, transferred the old one and am doing a new one from scratch to see the new Alliance Kalimdor content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on December 28, 2010, 04:20:22 PM
Thanks for the input! I'm at a weird impasse right now where I find this druid less fun to play than my prot pally right now, yet he has all my achievments so I can't give him up. Yes i am sick that way  :ye_gods:

Concerning that thorns glyph idea: that would be perfect. It is one of those things where the players know exactly what the problem is, and exactlty what would fix it, but Blizzard seems weirdly recalcitrant on it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on December 28, 2010, 04:55:10 PM
It has bad effects on loot rolls and itemization when people want weapons they're not supposed to. They distribute weapons through instances with the idea that X number of specs are going to want each one, etc.
They might as well just add "Druid Only", "Warrior Only", etc. tags to items if that's their philosophy.  It's not as if they aren't heading towards a game where you're only supposed to play exactly the way they want.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 28, 2010, 04:58:11 PM
The unholy DK one is the only "stop doing that" in the list. Everything else is an oops (shaman wanting caster weapons. seriously, it's just a broken side effect of +spelldamage being left on some items. Rogues were nerfing themselves by thinking that a mastery that rewards slow offhands = we use slow offhands, when in reality they were nerfing themselves by doing so)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on December 28, 2010, 05:40:57 PM
And on more warlock notes: please, please take Imp Soulfire out back and shoot it. It's an aggravatingly stupid mechanic due to the ICD.

I thought Improved Soulfire was the 15% 15 sec cast speed buff from casting Soulfire?  No ICD, just need to throw in a soulfire every 15 seconds to refresh the buff.  One thing I noticed is that you only get the buff once the Soulfire hits the target so if you queue up a cast spell, say Immolate, then you don't benefit from the buff.

Are you thinking of the instant Soulfire proc from Imp firebolt crits?  I can see that having an ICD but it's something like a 4% proc chance that it's not super likely to get two in row anyways.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on December 28, 2010, 06:39:28 PM
It has bad effects on loot rolls and itemization when people want weapons they're not supposed to. They distribute weapons through instances with the idea that X number of specs are going to want each one, etc.
They might as well just add "Druid Only", "Warrior Only", etc. tags to items if that's their philosophy.  It's not as if they aren't heading towards a game where you're only supposed to play exactly the way they want.

Except different specs of the same class have different needs, and some specs across classes share needs, etc. A rogue CAN wear cloth, but it is a pretty dumb choice. I don't see why they'd need to necessarily spell out this other possible dumb choice with a class restriction.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 28, 2010, 06:44:11 PM
And on more warlock notes: please, please take Imp Soulfire out back and shoot it. It's an aggravatingly stupid mechanic due to the ICD.

I thought Improved Soulfire was the 15% 15 sec cast speed buff from casting Soulfire?  No ICD, just need to throw in a soulfire every 15 seconds to refresh the buff.  One thing I noticed is that you only get the buff once the Soulfire hits the target so if you queue up a cast spell, say Immolate, then you don't benefit from the buff.

Are you thinking of the instant Soulfire proc from Imp firebolt crits?  I can see that having an ICD but it's something like a 4% proc chance that it's not super likely to get two in row anyways.

Imp Soulfire is the 15s buff from casting Soulfire. It has a 15s ICD.

Where this becomes a painful mechanic is that you're expected to have it up 100% of the time as any lock spec to be competitive. If your new soulfire lands before the buff expires, you do NOT get a new 15s buff. So the entire mechanic is timing your rotation to always cast soulfire with 2-3 seconds left on the buff (to account for cast time and travel time, as the buff applies when the projectile lands)

It's freaking stupid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on December 28, 2010, 08:48:08 PM
The unholy DK one is the only "stop doing that" in the list. Everything else is an oops (shaman wanting caster weapons. seriously, it's just a broken side effect of +spelldamage being left on some items. Rogues were nerfing themselves by thinking that a mastery that rewards slow offhands = we use slow offhands, when in reality they were nerfing themselves by doing so)
The Rogue one is kind of irritating since it pretty much means "you are going to have a dagger in your offhand regardless of your spec, and if you don't like it, tough shit."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on December 28, 2010, 08:52:03 PM
Due to how poisons work though, it was like that before. Just confusing because the mastery implied there was an alternative. At least as far as I understood the complaint. Basically, the mastery said "use a slow offhand!" and the dps parses with poison said "and you'll suck!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on December 28, 2010, 11:36:37 PM
Paladins are outright easymode simply because they have a lot of reactive damage that generates threat for them on things that mele them without them really needing to actually DO anything to earn that threat.

They only have Retribution Aura anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on December 29, 2010, 12:02:23 AM
Eye for an Eye too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on December 29, 2010, 12:08:16 AM
Only works on spells, not melee.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on December 29, 2010, 09:20:28 AM
The unholy DK one is the only "stop doing that" in the list. Everything else is an oops (shaman wanting caster weapons. seriously, it's just a broken side effect of +spelldamage being left on some items. Rogues were nerfing themselves by thinking that a mastery that rewards slow offhands = we use slow offhands, when in reality they were nerfing themselves by doing so)

It's not all the spelldamage, though that's part of it. What it really comes down to is flametongue scaling (and lack of WF scaling) and our talents that pump spellpower through stats (attack power and mastery). What happens is FT mainhand begins to outscale and outdamage WF mainhand. When this happens (and it's twice now), spellcaster MHs being to out-perform slow AGI MHs, since FT benifts from spellpower and fast attack speeds. The latter was partially normalized, but with mastery the spell damage scales massively, so the problem has cropped up again.

We're seeing it on the simulator now and Blizz has been talking around the issue, but hasn't done anything yet. A WF revamp is really needed, but we'll see what happens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 29, 2010, 02:21:13 PM
The unholy DK one is the only "stop doing that" in the list. Everything else is an oops (shaman wanting caster weapons. seriously, it's just a broken side effect of +spelldamage being left on some items. Rogues were nerfing themselves by thinking that a mastery that rewards slow offhands = we use slow offhands, when in reality they were nerfing themselves by doing so)
The Rogue one is kind of irritating since it pretty much means "you are going to have a dagger in your offhand regardless of your spec, and if you don't like it, tough shit."

Luckily, I do like it! It's wielding axes I can never bring myself to do (although I'm assassination currently, so it's not really an option ANYway). I can see being sort of rabblerabble if you like your weapons to match, though. At least there aren't weapon specializations anymore?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on December 30, 2010, 08:30:35 PM
The unholy DK one is the only "stop doing that" in the list. Everything else is an oops (shaman wanting caster weapons. seriously, it's just a broken side effect of +spelldamage being left on some items. Rogues were nerfing themselves by thinking that a mastery that rewards slow offhands = we use slow offhands, when in reality they were nerfing themselves by doing so)
The Rogue one is kind of irritating since it pretty much means "you are going to have a dagger in your offhand regardless of your spec, and if you don't like it, tough shit."

Luckily, I do like it! It's wielding axes I can never bring myself to do (although I'm assassination currently, so it's not really an option ANYway). I can see being sort of rabblerabble if you like your weapons to match, though. At least there aren't weapon specializations anymore?
Well I'm Assassination as well, so it doesn't affect me either! It's just kind of grating from a conceptual standpoint. "Oh, there are all these nice agi/stam offhands that are perfectly itemized for you, but you can't use them 'cause they're tooooo sloooow. DAGGER FOR YOU~"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on December 30, 2010, 09:25:21 PM
I'm so used to that as other classes that doesn't even register. Ask Ingmar how he feels about caster DPS swords sometime.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on December 30, 2010, 10:11:14 PM
I've yet to see a Tol Barad thanks to that retarded 1:1 thing. And normal BGs are on a 15 minute plus wait on my server, I rarely do those. My friends both play dps, so their dungeon queue times are way to long to be playable, they wait for me to log on so we get to do one, the problem is that after doing one random daily heroic, we don't want to do anymore, and we all log.

Yeah, cracks are definately starting to show. Oh well.

Edit: Yeah my grammer sucks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on December 31, 2010, 04:28:05 AM
I've yet to see a Tol Barad thanks to that retarded 1:1 thing. And normal BGs are on a 15 minute plus wait on my server, so I rarely do those. My friends both play dps, so their dungeon queue times are way to long to be playable, so they wait for me to log on so we get to do one, the problem is that after doing one random daily heroic, we don't want to do anymore, and we all log.

Yeah, cracks are definately starting to show. Oh well.

Or maybe the community as a whole is just getting tired of the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Yoshimaru on December 31, 2010, 11:58:24 PM
What's the state of druid tanks at the moment? Normally I heal for instant ques on my druid but I've gotten my fill of that on my Goblin shammy. I haven't tanked on him since BC days so not sure how they are faring.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 01, 2011, 02:10:45 AM
Their HP is now in line with other tanks, and I think their threat generation is supposed to be a little sub-par. I have a feral friend who I run heroics and dailies with and he seems to do fine though.

Innervate is now pretty useless for ferals though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 01, 2011, 04:17:46 AM
I have tamed Terrorpene at 81.  He's mega cute.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on January 01, 2011, 02:06:29 PM
Aw, awesome, I love his model.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 01, 2011, 07:22:00 PM
What's the state of druid tanks at the moment? Normally I heal for instant ques on my druid but I've gotten my fill of that on my Goblin shammy. I haven't tanked on him since BC days so not sure how they are faring.

My feral is awesome at tanking bosses and with single target threat, but SUCKS at multiple mobs. Really really sucks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 02, 2011, 04:34:32 AM
In my opinion, if you're tanking more than 2 mobs, its the CC in the group that sucks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on January 02, 2011, 05:46:46 AM
In my opinion, if you're tanking more than 2 mobs, its the CC in the group that sucks.


Wrath spoiled everyone.   The best strategy for pretty much every 5 man was "pull it all together and AoE it down."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 02, 2011, 05:50:49 AM
One to which I'm STILL seeing people try to adhere to.  I just hit 85 on the priest and the jump in mana consumption from 84-85 means it's time to just start letting these fools die.  I didn't realize I'd actually be LESS effective with that one level difference.  If I had, I'd have just turned off xp while farming gear in normals.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on January 02, 2011, 07:05:43 AM
In my opinion, if you're tanking more than 2 mobs, its the CC in the group that sucks.


Wrath spoiled everyone.   The best strategy for pretty much every 5 man was "pull it all together and AoE it down."

Sadly, it's the only strat some of these kids know. Who will crack first, the community in figuring out that pulling small groups and single target focus is more efficient than the barn burning, or Bliz caving in to the beast they created by allowing the barn burning?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pennilenko on January 02, 2011, 07:10:03 AM
In my opinion, if you're tanking more than 2 mobs, its the CC in the group that sucks.


Wrath spoiled everyone.   The best strategy for pretty much every 5 man was "pull it all together and AoE it down."

Sadly, it's the only strat some of these kids know. Who will crack first, the community in figuring out that pulling small groups and single target focus is more efficient than the barn burning, or Bliz caving in to the beast they created by allowing the barn burning?

Blizz is totally gonna cave.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 02, 2011, 07:54:06 AM
The amusing thing is: it's not just AE threat that got mauled, it's AE damage. So pulling everything with no CC doesn't clear the instance any faster really. It's faster to just single target things down while the tank has everything on him as is, so CC and save some healer mana :P

My lock's version of AE is just dotting everything in the pack that isn't going to be CCed, and only bothering with imp SB and Haunt on the primary target.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on January 02, 2011, 08:01:08 AM
In my opinion, if you're tanking more than 2 mobs, its the CC in the group that sucks.
Wrath spoiled everyone.   The best strategy for pretty much every 5 man was "pull it all together and AoE it down."
Sadly, it's the only strat some of these kids know. Who will crack first, the community in figuring out that pulling small groups and single target focus is more efficient than the barn burning, or Bliz caving in to the beast they created by allowing the barn burning?

You know, I'm quite capable of both CCing, DPSing and Tanking effectively, but fucked if I just had a damn sight more fun in WOTLK just AE destroying everything. You can call it a kiddie thing, but I'm now old enough to be most of "the kids'" father, and I don't give a fuck about being challenged on trash mobs in a dungeon that I can now only run with guildmates which will take the better part of an hour to get into and a long grindy run to get through. I'm not especially after a lot of challenge at this point in my MMOing life. You know, been there, done that, etc. Now I'm just playing to enjoy myself.

The problem as I see it, is that they have added Heroics in from day 1, so naturally the playerbase wants to skip the "shitty regular" instances and go right for the "good stuff" - heroics. Which they spent the last year(?) facerolling.

 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on January 02, 2011, 08:06:43 AM
Answer:  Ultra Heroics



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 02, 2011, 08:09:29 AM
Answer:  Ultra Heroics



With achievements for how many times you get kicked in the balls and still stand! WoW! Fuck Yeah!  :rock_hard:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on January 02, 2011, 09:35:03 AM
I personally like CC'ing everything.  I mean, it just makes life so much easier.  1-2 mobs on the tank, everything else is shackled\sheeped\frost trapped and it is quite manageable.  AoE damage has been so nerfed there flat out isn't any point to using it as a mage anymore.

My biggest pet peeve so far is that with healers so concerned about mana, they ignore DPS and let them die on fights where random damage IS taken that is unavoidable.  On the 3rd boss in Grim Batol where the guy summons a dragon and rides it, he will continue to fling out shadow bolts the entire time for 10-15k each that you can't interrupt or avoid.  And I've had like 3-4 healers who just flat out let everyone but the tank die with no heals and then bitch that we weren't doing enough DPS.  Well, it's kind of hard to do 10k DPS (which the healers are requesting) when we are having to deal with adds, avoiding pools, and avoiding dragon breath.  And then when we DIE because of no healing, well...  And don't get me started on people going down and dying (like a decently geared tank) when the healer has almost full mana.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on January 02, 2011, 10:59:48 AM
For some reason I liked bad PUGs in Wrath, and I almost like it more now when it's not blatant retardation over and over. Had a tank in Grim Batol stand in fire for a trash mob. He was on one of the bridges over lava, and when I typed "tank, move" the guy immediately ran forward through the mob. I was impressed with his reaction time, but he was already on the edge of the bridge so he dropped a few hundred yards before melting into the scenery. The DPS tanked the rest and I managed to heal them while laughing my ass off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 02, 2011, 12:11:54 PM
I know that bridge.. and had a tank do the same thing in the first few weeks.  It's the pull with the guy who calls the dragon add, right?  I also laughed and laughed and laughed then suggested tanking off of the s-shaped bridge next time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on January 02, 2011, 01:59:47 PM
I did my first heroic in H-BRC yesterday with friends - we've played together since vanilla. Pally tank, 2x shaman (DPS/Heals), warlock and feral druid. We locked everything down with CC, wiped on the first 2 bosses, smashed the last boss, CC'd Beauty's puppies and collected our loot. It was back to the days of real CC and LoS pulls - and god it was fun compared to the AoE tanking crap in WotLK. Having been told Beauty was hard... nope, easiest boss in the instance.

I have to admit I loved it when I scored a 19K lava lash and WF procs still make me giggle.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on January 02, 2011, 02:01:52 PM
The AEfest was boring, and I prefer having to CC, but I would not be anything like surprised to learn I was in a small minority there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 02, 2011, 03:06:49 PM
I'm with Azazel; doing the whole cc thing and making heroics a challenge is fun, the first few times around. But we all know what purpose heroics serve in this game once you raid: they are grinds to be tolerated to pick up your justice/valor points. They aren't progression, so once they have been completed and run a few times they quickly become a pain in the ass.

A few pages back Lantyssa said something about designing the game for the audience you have, not the one you want. If most people want to burn through heroics, and treat them as essentially one giant punching bag, why change it? Because let me tell you, if  Ghostcrawler thinks that people are going to pay 15 bucks a month to run through regular Lost City, Grim Batol, and Halls then he is smoking some real sticky shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on January 02, 2011, 03:44:49 PM
I'm with Azazel; doing the whole cc thing and making heroics a challenge is fun, the first few times around. But we all know what purpose heroics serve in this game once you raid: they are grinds to be tolerated to pick up your justice/valor points. They aren't progression, so once they have been completed and run a few times they quickly become a pain in the ass.

A few pages back Lantyssa said something about designing the game for the audience you have, not the one you want. If most people want to burn through heroics, and treat them as essentially one giant punching bag, why change it? Because let me tell you, if  Ghostcrawler thinks that people are going to pay 15 bucks a month to run through regular Lost City, Grim Batol, and Halls then he is smoking some real sticky shit.

Well how much of the game is comprised of end game raiders vs the rest of the pop? I agree if there is a step above heroics that runs mostly the same way, then heroics should not be a ball smasher; however, if heroics are the end game for the casual gamer and only a step for the end-game raider, then there needs to be a level of difficulty as not to burn through them in a week, get your gear and then stand around org/sw until your sub runs out from nothing to do. Blizzard isn't a stranger to this so I have some faith.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 02, 2011, 03:45:55 PM
I'm with Azazel; doing the whole cc thing and making heroics a challenge is fun, the first few times around. But we all know what purpose heroics serve in this game once you raid: they are grinds to be tolerated to pick up your justice/valor points. They aren't progression, so once they have been completed and run a few times they quickly become a pain in the ass.

A few pages back Lantyssa said something about designing the game for the audience you have, not the one you want. If most people want to burn through heroics, and treat them as essentially one giant punching bag, why change it? Because let me tell you, if  Ghostcrawler thinks that people are going to pay 15 bucks a month to run through regular Lost City, Grim Batol, and Halls then he is smoking some real sticky shit.

Well how much of the game is comprised of end game raiders vs the rest of the pop?

More than half the population raids in some form now. Probably more given that 10 man = 25 man loot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 02, 2011, 03:54:16 PM
I'm finding I actually can AE tank a lot of things with a decent healer. Warriors seem to have been missed by the great AE nerfbat. I'm pushing 12k dps on packs of 4-5.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on January 02, 2011, 04:20:36 PM
I'm finding I actually can AE tank a lot of things with a decent healer. Warriors seem to have been missed by the great AE nerfbat. I'm pushing 12k dps on packs of 4-5.

For most things ae tanking isn't really that big an issue, it is just a lot more inefficient and the groups that do it aren't the ones that are good enough to pull it off but the ones who don't know any better.  In guild runs we are basically back to wotlk style heroics now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 02, 2011, 05:09:12 PM
Most AoE skills didn't scale very well as far as I can tell.

I'm with Azazel; doing the whole cc thing and making heroics a challenge is fun, the first few times around. But we all know what purpose heroics serve in this game once you raid: they are grinds to be tolerated to pick up your justice/valor points. They aren't progression, so once they have been completed and run a few times they quickly become a pain in the ass.

A few pages back Lantyssa said something about designing the game for the audience you have, not the one you want. If most people want to burn through heroics, and treat them as essentially one giant punching bag, why change it? Because let me tell you, if  Ghostcrawler thinks that people are going to pay 15 bucks a month to run through regular Lost City, Grim Batol, and Halls then he is smoking some real sticky shit.

Well, for now they are progression, and by the time we're onto the next tier they will be soft-nerfed to an extent through gear. I also feel that although heroics are taking a bit longer, the rate you acquire JP seems pretty generous, and there's not a ton of gear to spend it on. So unlike TBC and WoTLK you're not looking to run multiple heroics each day. I do the daily and that's enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 02, 2011, 07:08:02 PM
I also find it really weird that they have redesigned the old world to be even more idiot proof, and hold players hands even more, with dungeons not even being the difficulty of a WotLK heroic, and then at 85 they pull the rug out from under them. And of course the fall out hits those like me, who's guild is three members.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on January 02, 2011, 07:22:25 PM
I've lost a lot of interest in playing Cats.  The Steam holiday sale didn't help and now I'm happily backlogged with good games to play.  I like the new 5 man's well enough, but not enough to bother doing them much less the heroics.  A big change from WotLK.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 02, 2011, 07:47:45 PM
I did my first heroic today.  :ye_gods:

I'm wondering if there is some obvious easier one I should be doing first, because Deadmines was not it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on January 02, 2011, 08:10:17 PM
So tonight was my guild's first night of raiding and I went with my Disc Priest. Raid is Blackwing Descent, trying Magmaw first. Unavoidable damage. Lots of unavoidable damage. Single lava spits that hit two party members at a time for 30-40k, followed up by an AoE spit that hits 3-4 more for about 60k, and can easily hit the people just affected by the single spits. This leads to a situation where you have to scramble and keep the raid essentially topped off, or they have a very high chance of dying the next time he spits.

After an hour and a half of wiping on that we move over to the other boss we can access, the Omnitron Defense System. It starts going far better, and we actually get the encounter down a good ways. Then Magmatron comes out...

...and promptly does large, unavoidable, raid-wide AoE damage that, when combined with all the other incidental damage, kills people easily.

It's goddamn Wrath raid healing all over again, except all the healers are less effective at AoE.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on January 02, 2011, 09:11:46 PM
Maybe the raid designers don't talk to the class designers...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on January 02, 2011, 09:29:30 PM
They're really not the same.

A fight like Mimiron was "Spam heals hard or we all die."  The fights I've done (first two each in Bastion of Twilight and Blackwing Descent) feature raid-wide or AOE damage prominently, but the emphasis is more on spikes and recovery instead of needing to stay at full blast the whole time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on January 02, 2011, 10:23:58 PM
Right, but in my experience the spikes come hard and fast enough that it's still similar enough to be stressful and unfun. It's nothing like healing people in classic or TBC, which is what they kept talking about wanting to turn the clock back to; there's no triage, just "keep everyone at 80% health or higher, or else the boss is liable to kill them within a couple of GCDs."

And from what I've been hearing, the other raids are just as bad about it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on January 03, 2011, 01:29:37 AM
Heroic pugs have now become mostly routine for me, already. Maybe 1 in 5 groups we struggle, but mostly they're fine. Not WOTLK-who-cares-who-has-agro easy but people know what to do and even if you get a wipe or two on a boss people generally stick it out and get it in the end.

Nothing left to spend JPs on, not enough VPs to get anything useful. TB win-trading means I'm in almost full 352 honor gear and am now just waiting for BH pugs and for the next tier of gear to come out.

Seems like it's happened way too fast really. Onto alts already.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 03, 2011, 01:31:19 AM
I have no fucking idea how you've managed that.  I suspect it's more to do with you than with the content.  The Guild and I are still running scared of the absolute suck fest that is getting sodomised in heroics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 03, 2011, 01:52:23 AM
I'm finding I actually can AE tank a lot of things with a decent healer. Warriors seem to have been missed by the great AE nerfbat. I'm pushing 12k dps on packs of 4-5.

For most things ae tanking isn't really that big an issue, it is just a lot more inefficient and the groups that do it aren't the ones that are good enough to pull it off but the ones who don't know any better.  In guild runs we are basically back to wotlk style heroics now.

There's a nice feedback loop since 5 mobs worth of incoming damage pushes my vengeance pretty high, so as long as the healer can keep up it is all good, seemingly. It wouldn't work as well with a group that had a bunch of mana using dps, but with enhance-feral-hunter it was pretty much fine.

I won't exactly be surprised if warriors eat a nerf. I feel overpowered in just about everything I'm doing right now, arena included.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 03, 2011, 02:49:59 AM
I have no fucking idea how you've managed that.  I suspect it's more to do with you than with the content.  The Guild and I are still running scared of the absolute suck fest that is getting sodomised in heroics.

Heroic HoO and Throne of the Tides are the ones you should probably try, they're really not much above normal in terms of difficulty; maybe Vortex Pinnacle and Deadmines too. The ones you want to avoid are Stonecore, Tol'vir and Grim Batol.

I'm not entirely buying all the hand wringing over heroics. They are tuned a bit tighter than WoTLK, but then people are also coming in off the back of a 2 year expansion where the majority of the population outgeared the heroics by 3-4 tiers of epic gear. If the heroics were as easy now as they had been at the end of Wrath then by the end of Cata they would have been out geared to the point of absolute pointlessness.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on January 03, 2011, 05:03:21 AM
I have no fucking idea how you've managed that.  I suspect it's more to do with you than with the content.  The Guild and I are still running scared of the absolute suck fest that is getting sodomised in heroics.
As the average ilvl on gear slowly creeps upwards, heroics go from "guaranteed wipe until everyone is on the ball all the time" to "okay, as long as people pay some attention on the important bits" (and presumable, eventually to WotLK-era "Role face on keyboard to win").

I suspect heroics will be reliably puggable a short while after 4.1, when T11 hits the vendors.

Guild Progression update: Hasty Hearth is  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on January 03, 2011, 06:03:07 AM
As the average ilvl on gear slowly creeps upwards, heroics go from "guaranteed wipe until everyone is on the ball all the time" to "okay, as long as people pay some attention on the important bits" (and presumable, eventually to WotLK-era "Role face on keyboard to win").

Totally this. Most groups I'm in now we're all doing 10-13k dps, tank pulling in not far behind and healers only needing to drink after bosses. Some AOE packs people hit 25k on, survival hunters, pallies, DKs. I'm an elemental shaman atm and hitting 14k on bosses if I'm lucky.

Gear levels have gone up a LOT in the last week. The number of people with maxed professions and a few exalted reps has gone up dramatically so most people have a couple of bits of 359, and there's loads of 352 honor gear ofc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on January 03, 2011, 08:39:04 AM
I'm finding I actually can AE tank a lot of things with a decent healer. Warriors seem to have been missed by the great AE nerfbat. I'm pushing 12k dps on packs of 4-5.

One other thing when aoe tanking you are getting beat on by more mobs at once and your vengence stacks quicker which really amps the DPS. Most tanks if they aoe tank will start rolling some crazy numbers if the healer can keep them up due to vengence. The rend/blood and thunder thunderclap plus shockwave is some very decent dps now if the dps'ers can hold their fire for a second to let you set it up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on January 03, 2011, 08:39:53 AM
I did my first heroic today.  :ye_gods:

I'm wondering if there is some obvious easier one I should be doing first, because Deadmines was not it.

HAHAH dead mines is probably the hardest I have seen so far. Vortex pinacle is about the easiest. Its not much different than non heroic other than the second boss.

I hear halls of origine is similar on heroic mode where not much is changed but given its lenght if you are hunting chaos orbs vortex pinacle is the best target currently for fast and easy even in pugs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Furiously on January 03, 2011, 09:22:43 AM
It's funny I have been getting horrid normal groups, like everyone but me below 5 k dps. My heroic experiences have been mostly good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 03, 2011, 09:36:29 AM
H-HoO is entirely "can you beat the first boss or not", everything else is pretty simple.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 03, 2011, 10:02:49 AM
What are people finding hard about Deadmines? It has some pretty unforgiving retard checks (spinning beams of death, fires and such), but really the only fight which is testing from a healing point of view is probably Ripsnarl.

It's too fucking long though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on January 03, 2011, 10:15:19 AM
I've been in several groups that had zero shot at getting past ripsnarl no matter how good they executed.  Sometimes the dps is just not enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 03, 2011, 10:30:52 AM
I've been in several groups that had zero shot at getting past ripsnarl no matter how good they executed.  Sometimes the dps is just not enough.

That's the answer. It's not that Deadmines is ridiculously hard. It's all Ripsnarl. That fight is simply not tuned fairly in comparison with the rest of that instance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 03, 2011, 12:10:20 PM
Yeah, I'd say that's a fair complaint.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 03, 2011, 01:25:23 PM
I've been in several groups that had zero shot at getting past ripsnarl no matter how good they executed.  Sometimes the dps is just not enough.

That's the answer. It's not that Deadmines is ridiculously hard. It's all Ripsnarl. That fight is simply not tuned fairly in comparison with the rest of that instance.

He's a DPS check, and a burst/switching DPS check. I ditch my affliction spec just for him, since "I will slowly murder these adds" is not a valid DPS method for him.

The only other complaint I have with deadmines is that it uses the shit out of random secondary targeting mechanics (axe toss, the port/slight damage the rogue adds do) that causes healer headaches. Mostly that freaking axe toss's 17k/tic dot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on January 03, 2011, 01:30:15 PM
Well, kiss win trading in Tol Barad goodbye.   They bitchslapped the honor that the assaulting team gets for a win down from ~1800 to ~400.  Not that anyone with half a brain in their head didnt see that coming from a mile away.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 03, 2011, 01:31:33 PM
He's a DPS check, and a burst/switching DPS check.

There's no reason to have a dps check after you've slogged through buckets of trash in a fucking 5 man.

That's a kick in the balls.

Also, nobody's shocked about the TB changes, that place has a long way to go before it's remotely functional.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 03, 2011, 01:47:59 PM
He's a DPS check, and a burst/switching DPS check.

There's no reason to have a dps check after you've slogged through buckets of trash in a fucking 5 man.

That's a kick in the balls.

Also, nobody's shocked about the TB changes, that place has a long way to go before it's remotely functional.

Oh, I agree there's no reason for them to put a DPS check at the end of the instance, but it's what his fight is. We did all of Deadmines but him cheesing it with a paladin healing and my priest smite healing (so lol 3-4k dps), and could not drop him. Subbed in my frost DK and he went down. I joined another pug with my lock who were suffering on him, and just switched to destro spec and pointed out that one of them kills ripsnarl with the tank, the rest of us do nothing but explode adds all day.

I think the issue pugging him is: there are a lot of ramp up time DPS, and a lot of horribly low dps pug players. Those two will bring the entire group to a crashing halt on Ripsnarl, because the adds have about a two second first evolution period where they go from "can be two-shot" to "must burn through 100k hp"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 03, 2011, 01:54:55 PM
The smite priest thing was a stupid idea born out of all the scare posts we'd read about how hard heroics were and failures we'd heard about from other people, though, it was totally unnecessary as it turns out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 03, 2011, 01:57:21 PM
I'll just put it this way. First venture into a heroic random was not pleasing to me. I'm not a fan of that design choice for Deadmines, nor do I think it does anything but piss people off when you backload a dps check.

We'll see how I feel after trying something else heroic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 03, 2011, 02:00:41 PM
Do heroic stonecore next!

Then you can backload a tank positioning check and an interrupt or die check! ;)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 03, 2011, 02:24:50 PM
Don't listen to the crazy man  :grin:

Take a group you trust and do Halls of Origination. It's long, but there are no punishing fights in there bar a couple of trash pulls. Long has it's benefits, you get 7 bosses worth of loot, which will help. You'll probably clear it quicker than Deadmines anyway due to it's relative ease.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 03, 2011, 02:25:30 PM
Setesh can be a bit rough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on January 03, 2011, 02:33:08 PM

I think the issue pugging him is: there are a lot of ramp up time DPS, and a lot of horribly low dps pug players. Those two will bring the entire group to a crashing halt on Ripsnarl, because the adds have about a two second first evolution period where they go from "can be two-shot" to "must burn through 100k hp"

This.  My rogue puts out a ton of dps, as long as he can stay on target.  I have to get poison stacks, slice n dice and rupture going before i can start doing serious damage, those adds basically boil down to me doing a low damage mutilate every six seconds.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 03, 2011, 02:56:52 PM
Setesh can be a bit rough.

Really? I managed to heal him almost entirely using smite last time I ran hc HoO  :drill:

So long as your DPS are responsive and kill the portals quick and your tank does a good job of kiting, there's really very little damage in that fight. Just kill portals, kite the void sentinels and dodge the bubbles.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 03, 2011, 03:01:40 PM
Just a YMMV thing I guess, we found Setesh fairly difficult the first time, harder than anything in DM other than Ripsnarl certainly. Then again that DM group got Ready For Raiding and I'm On A Diet without having seen the bosses before so I may be underrating the difficulty of those fights.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 03, 2011, 03:23:21 PM
Yeah, probably. I find my guild groups can vary in quality quite a bit day to day. Maybe we just got lucky and everyone was clicking for Setesh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 03, 2011, 03:38:36 PM
Guild Progression update: Hasty Hearth is  :awesome_for_real:

Yes, yes it is.

It's funny I have been getting horrid normal groups, like everyone but me below 5 k dps. My heroic experiences have been mostly good.

Yeah I'm having the same problem on the priest.  The DPS won't listen about standing in shit and everyone seems to want to AOE packs.  The first few weeks it was just painful wipes due to bosses or not knowing to interrupt something, or simply having healers go OOM.  The groups I've had recent' aren't even fucking trying to interrupt things or CC.. and I get booted for bitching about it.  You shouldn't wipe on trash on normals at this point.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 03, 2011, 04:10:41 PM
Setesh is a DPS check (both switching to doors and burning boss), and a minor tank check (the only dangerous adds are Seekers, they make their target immune to healing)

If you have earthbind or a hunter available, kiting the adds can be trivialized, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on January 03, 2011, 04:25:56 PM
Setesh is also skippable, unlike Ripsnarl.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 03, 2011, 04:30:02 PM
Setesh is also skippable, unlike Ripsnarl.

Yeah, and Rajh is a complete joke.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 03, 2011, 04:31:05 PM
Rajh cracks me up because he does something that LOOKS completely frightening and powerful but doesn't actually do anything really bad at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 03, 2011, 04:39:55 PM
Either way, whether or not you do Setesh, HoO is probably where I'd start my adventure into Cata heroics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 03, 2011, 04:41:28 PM
The main issue I have pugging HoO is the levers on the first boss. They no longer involve a DPS dropping down and running back up, they're a 10s channel to pull and require someone to peel for the puller.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on January 03, 2011, 05:40:12 PM
The main issue I have pugging HoO is the levers on the first boss. They no longer involve a DPS dropping down and running back up, they're a 10s channel to pull and require someone to peel for the puller.

2 dps and the tank all drop down on the same side.  Tank pulls aggro on snakes, while 1 dps starts the lever.  The tank and the other dps then run to the other side, tank grabs aggro other dps pulls lever.  When all the levers are pulled all start heading up while killing snakes.  Healer stands on the bridge area so they can look down and heal.  3rd dps is waititng to interrupt the boss when both levers are pulled, and can also help to aoe down snakes.  

I actually hate HoO though.  I think the easiest ones are probably Vortex Pinnacle, Tol'vir, and I think Deadmines is actually pretty cake.  I've never had problems with Ripsnarl.  Mind you, I only run in guild groups pretty much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on January 03, 2011, 06:32:16 PM
We've always done it with the whole team dropping down.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on January 04, 2011, 06:50:01 AM
I think ripsnarl would be pretty straight forward you just need to have the dps capable of burning through the adds fast. We went in some of our guys had no heroic gear and were doing like 5-6k damage which did not seem to be enough. After a couple other heroics we are doing 8k+ now so I think we could do it fine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on January 04, 2011, 07:00:03 AM
Ripsnarl's been fine in the groups I've been in, as long as the adds go down fast and everyone blows all their cd's for the last phase.

Cookie ahs given me more trouble, and then the nightmare run.... heh.... instant death glowy ball beams? Yeah they're *awesome* for people with lots of lag!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on January 04, 2011, 09:28:57 AM
I've had to solo more than 50% of Cookie's hp pretty much every time I'm in there. However, DK tanks with 840% haste are pretty much invincible.

Same with the last boss of Throne of the Tides; all the dps/heals always die but AMS + Death Strike keeps me alive forever while I solo it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 04, 2011, 09:39:40 AM
I've had to solo more than 50% of Cookie's hp pretty much every time I'm in there. However, DK tanks with 840% haste are pretty much invincible.

Same with the last boss of Throne of the Tides; all the dps/heals always die but AMS + Death Strike keeps me alive forever while I solo it.

I solo'd him last pug I was in, and the entire group after watching me went "Oh, THAT is how it works, I get it now!"

Before that, Fordel pretty much murdered him by his starfire spamming lonesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 04, 2011, 10:34:41 AM
Throne of tides with a shadow priest is pretty much a joke in that last phase. even with the retardedly nerfed vampiric embrace it's still ridonkulously high healing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on January 04, 2011, 10:45:49 AM
Hmm, maybe our spriest was just doing something wrong. She died every time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2011, 01:29:35 AM
Went into Throne of Tides last night and pretty much wiped constantly on the first boss.  Every fucking ability that she has is an instant kill.

We got to the 3rd phase and just couldn't hold it together.  Healer goes well low on Mana almost instantly and if you don't interrupt or Reflect, you're instantly toast.

Someone here said this was the 'starter' heroic.

Really ?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Furiously on January 05, 2011, 01:50:01 AM
You really need to interrupt her when she cast the shock spell.  (every 23 seconds)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 05, 2011, 03:01:59 AM
You really need to interrupt her when she cast the shock spell.  (every 23 seconds)

If you do this the fight becomes a lot easier, she really has no other dangerous abilities.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on January 05, 2011, 04:06:42 AM
The caster adds are tough if you don't have any CC and/or low-ish dps - their chain lightning and shock spells can gank people quick. But yeah, a good interrupter is necessary for that fight. She's the hardest boss in h-throne, imo...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2011, 05:30:28 AM
Went into Throne of Tides last night and pretty much wiped constantly on the first boss.  Every fucking ability that she has is an instant kill.

We got to the 3rd phase and just couldn't hold it together.  Healer goes well low on Mana almost instantly and if you don't interrupt or Reflect, you're instantly toast.

Someone here said this was the 'starter' heroic.

Really ?



I kinda guessed early on about the 'Stop Her Fucking Casting'.  It's even mentioned in that very sentence.  It's just an insanely hard fight.  One of the deaths was due to a slight input lag on my spell reflect.  Which seems massively unfair !

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Oban on January 05, 2011, 06:37:14 AM
Twitch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 05, 2011, 07:14:32 AM
Aside from interrupting her, the add phases are what drove my healer mana down. It's a game of CC/interrupt the little casters while dodging tornados, because that chain lightning HURTS.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on January 05, 2011, 08:56:43 AM
Throne of tides with a shadow priest is pretty much a joke in that last phase. even with the retardedly nerfed vampiric embrace it's still ridonkulously high healing.

It is funny popping health stones on the last phase as well. Good times when you are healing for 47% of the warlocks current max health and you get a nice solid 100+ k heal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 05, 2011, 09:00:35 AM
I believe healthstones scale off BASE health, not max. That or something's unlisted with their usage on the casting lock. My healthstone is a 17k heal with a 107k health pool.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on January 05, 2011, 09:02:54 AM
Went into Throne of Tides last night and pretty much wiped constantly on the first boss.  Every fucking ability that she has is an instant kill.

We got to the 3rd phase and just couldn't hold it together.  Healer goes well low on Mana almost instantly and if you don't interrupt or Reflect, you're instantly toast.

Someone here said this was the 'starter' heroic.

Really ?



The first boss is odd most bosses in cata that have a I AM GOING TO KEEEL YOU attack really telegraph it but for her no telegraphing at all just interupt this or die. Thankfully as a warrior I can both interupt and reflect but yes the first boss is just rude. Its not a terrible fight once you get used to it but its an execute this fight perfectly or fail fight there is no room to accidentally stand in stuff you are not supposed to stand in or not interupt things you are supposed to interupt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on January 05, 2011, 09:05:19 AM
I believe healthstones scale off BASE health, not max. That or something's unlisted with their usage on the casting lock. My healthstone is a 17k heal with a 107k health pool.

On the end fight all your stats get massivly boosted and I know for sure when I clicked my health stone I got a 100k and change heal from it. So health stones are very nice on that fight to let you get a few more wacks in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on January 05, 2011, 09:07:07 AM
Went into Throne of Tides last night and pretty much wiped constantly on the first boss.  Every fucking ability that she has is an instant kill.

We got to the 3rd phase and just couldn't hold it together.  Healer goes well low on Mana almost instantly and if you don't interrupt or Reflect, you're instantly toast.

Someone here said this was the 'starter' heroic?
Really ?

It is an easy instance, once you're used to the fights. As for Lady N, you NEED to use CC. If you don't, then, yeah, it's going to suck and suck badly. Shock blast must be interrupted, but it's on a slow timer and even a paladin can do this. The adds are killer; the witches must be CC'd. I've seen one group tank a witch and the melee add, so one CC is possible. If you don't, CL will rip the party and the healer will go OOM. The only other 'gotcha' is the geysers. Get used to watching for them. They are easy to see and telegraph quite well. The waterspouts are annoying, and normally easily avoidable. Getting caught in one or two isn't a big deal, but if you're getting hit by every one that comes your way, then that's a problem.

The biggest fails (and there are more than a few) I've seen in heroics are parties that fail to use CC. A tank or marker that fails to communicate with the CC members is cruising for a failed run.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 05, 2011, 09:08:17 AM
I believe healthstones scale off BASE health, not max. That or something's unlisted with their usage on the casting lock. My healthstone is a 17k heal with a 107k health pool.

On the end fight all your stats get massivly boosted and I know for sure when I clicked my health stone I got a 100k and change heal from it. So health stones are very nice on that fight to let you get a few more wacks in.

The fight scales everything, which I think includes heals (heal modifiers modify healthstone heals), I was just bitching that healthstones in general aren't scalable since they're based off the base health. They'll always be a 17kish heal potion even in tier 15 gear. That said, a 17k free heal isn't a bad thing at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 05, 2011, 09:09:49 AM
Went into Throne of Tides last night and pretty much wiped constantly on the first boss.  Every fucking ability that she has is an instant kill.

We got to the 3rd phase and just couldn't hold it together.  Healer goes well low on Mana almost instantly and if you don't interrupt or Reflect, you're instantly toast.

Someone here said this was the 'starter' heroic?
Really ?

It is an easy instance, once you're used to the fights. As for Lady N, you NEED to use CC. If you don't, then, yeah, it's going to suck and suck badly. Shock blast must be interrupted, but it's on a slow timer and even a paladin can do this. The adds are killer; the witches must be CC'd. I've seen one group tank a witch and the melee add, so one CC is possible. If you don't, CL will rip the party and the healer will go OOM. The only other 'gotcha' is the geysers. Get used to watching for them. They are easy to see and telegraph quite well. The waterspouts are annoying, and normally easily avoidable. Getting caught in one or two isn't a big deal, but if you're getting hit by every one that comes your way, then that's a problem.

The biggest fails (and there are more than a few) I've seen in heroics are parties that fail to use CC. A tank or marker that fails to communicate with the CC members is cruising for a failed run.

Non boss related, but after you clear her and the next boss: don't let the giblin hallway get you down. Yes, it's bullshit of the highest order.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on January 05, 2011, 09:14:32 AM
Yeah, the trash in the last hallway in ToT really suck. Not sure who thought that sort of thing was a good idea. It's a crapshoot. Sometimes you can kill the little bastards and not lose anyone. Same tactics will wipe next time. No rhyme or reason for it.

The faceless ones are a damned nuisance, too (heal check, you fuckin' "won't heal dps" wankers...), but I actually find them kind of fun. The gobbos, though, are pure unadulterated suck.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 05, 2011, 09:31:02 AM
Faceless are a heal check (can you heal the group to full after X happens) and a group check (can you run the hell out of the AE when you land)

The giblins are "can your tank eat the alpha from all these fuckers or not"

The best way I've seen to do that hallway is idiotic: a DPS CC pulls, and promptly dies to the entirely ranged alpha strike. Tank then collects everything and we kill them as normal. Once the alpha is over, none of their high damage abilities are used in sync again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on January 05, 2011, 09:41:13 AM
I've had some success using pets (ghoul, treants, hunter pet, lock pet, etc) to take the alpha; using something like shadowfury to stun half of the group might work, too. Other than that, it's all on the 'pop 2-3 tank saving cooldowns and pray'


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on January 05, 2011, 09:56:50 AM
A tank really should be able to survive that more-comfortably-than-dead by popping cooldowns (and making sure the casters don't mulch the group with their directional wave spells).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on January 05, 2011, 10:49:59 AM
Yeah, the trash in the last hallway in ToT really suck. Not sure who thought that sort of thing was a good idea. It's a crapshoot. Sometimes you can kill the little bastards and not lose anyone. Same tactics will wipe next time. No rhyme or reason for it.

The faceless ones are a damned nuisance, too (heal check, you fuckin' "won't heal dps" wankers...), but I actually find them kind of fun. The gobbos, though, are pure unadulterated suck.

The gobs are annoying but most tanks should be able to pop a cooldown and survive as long as healer is aware they are going to need to start their healing dropping the big fast heal bombs. When I am in the group in arms mode as long as the tank can survive about 5 seconds once bladestorm goes off in their faces the giblins explode fast.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Furiously on January 05, 2011, 12:42:54 PM
Just pet pull them!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 05, 2011, 01:15:07 PM
MC pull, let one of their own eat the damage  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2011, 01:19:52 PM
Two bosses down on HoO.

This is the one to start on.  The second boss was exactly the same as on normal.    :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 05, 2011, 01:27:21 PM
HoO is like, 90% the same just longer due to higher HP.

Setesh is a bit different (you kill the portals, not ignore them unless you have crazy dps)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 05, 2011, 02:22:03 PM
Mr Omega Beams stopped us for the moment.  It's a DPS race (clearly) and the group I was in, though good, didn't cut it.

I'm still pleased.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 05, 2011, 10:26:43 PM
Seriously though, as a group that queues together (me as tank, another buddy as healer, and another one as dps/cc), HoO is a breeze, so is Vortex Pinnacle, Lost City isn't toobad, and Grim Batol can be good if we get the drake run right. The rest are, 'Oh fuck, we got Stonecore' moments, and we ditch the dungeon like our plane is going down. Stonecore, and TotT in particular are: "Nope, not doing this dungeon, I'd rather go gooble down paint chips for half an hour then run this with even too pugs".

And that is my problem. If we don't get the dungeon we want, we ditch for half an hour, saying "what do ya want to do til then....I dunno, what do you want to do?" and we can't think of anything. We are all honour capped, and cap out arena in a few fights on Tuesday (and no, we are not deluded enough to think we are making a run for a rating that matters.) So then we log, and if something like doing my laundry occurs to me (or any of us) in the meantime, we do it, and don't bother to log back in. WoW shouldn't be like this......especially during the start of an expansion phase.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on January 05, 2011, 11:49:13 PM
Stonecore is definitely guilty of having an ultra-cheap boss in Ozruk, especially if you're not running with good DPS and his ability timers start getting way out-of-sync.  If I were charitable I'd call it a pseudo berserk timer, but I think he's just broken.

The rest of the bosses are just retard checks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on January 06, 2011, 12:45:37 AM
I was actually in a h-HoO pug yesterday on my resto shaman that simply could not get past Omega Beam Guy. Even with heroism and everyone going 'all out', the dps was so low he reduced everyone's max hp by 90% and the tank just got gibbed. It didn't help that the frost DK would invariably die in void zones by the 3rd or 4th switch... at that point even healing surge spam wasn't going to keep him up.

(I thought that fight was actually easier for melee than casters since you could just circlestrafe the boss during alpha beams and completely avoid voidzones with no loss of dps?)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 06, 2011, 01:50:27 AM
From the hotfixes thread:
Quote
Deadmines
Heroic Deadmines now has significantly less trash mobs.
The mechanical nightmare section of the Vanessa VanCleef encounter has less sparks of doom, and is notably easier and faster to navigate.
Vapors in the Ripsnarl encounter now increase in power every 8 seconds, up from 6.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on January 06, 2011, 03:30:36 AM
Now they need to adjust SFK along with Deadmines, in regards to the amounts of trash. Part of the problem is the total surface area of Deadmines or SFK is probably 3+ times bigger than TotT.

I like TotT when running with a guild because it's quite small. Interrupt first boss, CC adds, dispersion/ice block/divine shield goblin alpha strike, Spellsteal water elemental AoE of doom, you can smash through that place.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on January 06, 2011, 03:41:43 AM
The number of absolutely fail mages, priests and shaman i have seen recently while tanking or DPSing heroics makes me want to smash my head into something.

Case in point: Running Heroic Grim Batol today, we had a mage as our only person capable of efficiently removing magic buffs from hostiles (we had a Shaman healer as well, but he had enough on his hands keeping everyone alive to worry about Purging stuff).  After I finally mention that he can spellsteal the 70% damage reduction buff off of the Earth Adepts (or ascendants, cant remember exactly which), he goes "Ok, you will have to tell me when though".  Appearently he was unable to see buffs on hostile targets on his UI.  derp.

Second heroic of the day, Throne of the Tides.  I literally mention every buff any mob can cast that is dispellable (Swell on the Elementals, Magic Absorb on the Mindslave thing) multiple times.  Does the priest bother dispelling?  Of course not.  he would rather we nearly wipe on bosses or trash pulls then hurt his dps debuffing a mob.

some days.....


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 06, 2011, 06:19:21 AM
I'm guilty of not dispelling often when I'm healing. That said, not spellstealing is criminal. There are some hilarious buffs out there that are entirely built around the idea that mages will spellsteal them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on January 06, 2011, 07:26:35 AM
Mr Omega Beams stopped us for the moment.  It's a DPS race (clearly) and the group I was in, though good, didn't cut it.

I'm still pleased.


Nice thing about HoO being managable on heroic is its hella good at gearing folks up due to the large number of bosses. Not a great dungeon if you are going for chaos orbs but great for gearing the crew up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 06, 2011, 08:04:04 AM
Actually I think it could be quite good if you just want VP and Orb. As far as I know the only bosses you need to do are Anhuur, Anraphet and Raj.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 06, 2011, 08:08:20 AM
VP/Orbs, I highly recommend Vortex. What I don't get is why I keep getting in process heroics for Vortex. Like, how do you suck and drop from that run?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on January 06, 2011, 08:57:39 AM
Shaman are used to purge not doing anything, so most don't bother. I keep discovering purgeable mobs and I do like it (which then goes to the proposed purge nerfs in PvP, where MW stacks still won't build on shields...and...fffffuuuu...). Ahem. Purge is just a lot easier for enhance to manage than resto or elemental.

Now the cleanse magic thing, that I'll need some getting used to. It's very awkward for enhance, but I've seen at least one situation where it makes life a lot easier. I have glyphed SR, so my gut instinct is to say 'Haahaa, fuck the rest of you, I've got mine" and go my merry way, but it really does make certain situations easier. It might require a major UI adjustment just for this.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on January 06, 2011, 09:21:58 AM
Shaman are used to purge not doing anything, so most don't bother. I keep discovering purgeable mobs and I do like it (which then goes to the proposed purge nerfs in PvP, where MW stacks still won't build on shields...and...fffffuuuu...). Ahem. Purge is just a lot easier for enhance to manage than resto or elemental.

Now the cleanse magic thing, that I'll need some getting used to. It's very awkward for enhance, but I've seen at least one situation where it makes life a lot easier. I have glyphed SR, so my gut instinct is to say 'Haahaa, fuck the rest of you, I've got mine" and go my merry way, but it really does make certain situations easier. It might require a major UI adjustment just for this.

Grid + clique makes any sort of debuff removal trivial.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 06, 2011, 09:37:38 AM
I actually roll with my heal frames up when tanking on my paladin entirely so I can see cleanse targets and easily deal with them without target switching. Plus, I can randomly use my Word of Glory on OTHER people, too!

What I need to do is recode it to ignore trash debuffs though. My healing UI goes all kinda wonky with shit like the fire elementals in HBRC's forge area, that just spam technically cleansable debuffs on everyone every second.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 06, 2011, 12:30:18 PM
VP/Orbs, I highly recommend Vortex. What I don't get is why I keep getting in process heroics for Vortex. Like, how do you suck and drop from that run?

Some groups struggle severely with the whirlwinds.  My very first run was 3 melee dps and we wiped several times on it, including one where the tank was stuck in a corner being juggled by 3 vortexes that had him penned-in while I was being juggled in a different corner doing the same thing.

Thinking on it, some idiots also insist on pulling the trash as whole packs with no CC and that gets painful.   Plus I've had a few normals on the priest where the tank didn't understand "PULL THE TRASH OUT OF THE TRIANGLE"  The pull with 2 adepts nearly made me cry from lack of interrupting/ cc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on January 06, 2011, 01:31:20 PM
I actually roll with my heal frames up when tanking on my paladin entirely so I can see cleanse targets and easily deal with them without target switching. Plus, I can randomly use my Word of Glory on OTHER people, too!

What I need to do is recode it to ignore trash debuffs though. My healing UI goes all kinda wonky with shit like the fire elementals in HBRC's forge area, that just spam technically cleansable debuffs on everyone every second.

As a tanking paladin, I use heal frames for taunting agro off others too.  See dps or heals get agro and start dropping hps?  Click them to grabe whatever is hitting them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 06, 2011, 02:32:09 PM
Unfortunately, this expansion has imo taken a step backwards in the melee department. There are already places where taking melee dps is just going to cause you headaches in five mans.

Then you get jewels like this quote from the uber-raiders who are downing all the content biz as usual:

Quote
Also, a big thank you for the melee DPS'ers who play in the guild. They had to pass up spots again for alts, simply because the encounter design is incredibly punishing for any melee. It's a pretty glaring oversight when bringing in more than one or two of them results in ridiculous increases in damage taken in the last phase due to non-stop chaining chain lightning. Dropping out melee characters in favor of ranged ones has been a recurring theme throughout this whole raiding tier, but we hope that it's over now with only the end bosses and Sinestra left.

Here's to hoping next tier of raiding won't favor ranged by design. Maybe even go wild and give some incentive to bring in melee, too

So yeah, they were rotating out melee simply because it was easier not to have them around. That's not good news in my book.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 06, 2011, 03:03:15 PM
On heroic difficulty raids, mind you. I am led to believe it isn't really terrible on normal raids. I'm not going to spend a lot of time worrying about what happens on hardmode raids personally.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 06, 2011, 03:07:57 PM
No reason to bring melee.. ranged has interrupts aplenty and does the same or better dps.. plus most ranged can DPS on the run these days.. not tip top, but then melee can't tiptop on the run either anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 06, 2011, 04:19:13 PM
4.0.6 Patch notes

Nice to see Disc getting some much needed buffs.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on January 06, 2011, 05:18:40 PM
I'm starting to get kind of fed up. Four different heroic dungeons, five different PUGs, five groups that failed to make it to/past the first boss, either through CC fuckups or tank fuckups. No guildmates on interested in heroics without a tank, who isn't interested in going.

At this point I would rather have the ability to "heal stupid" like in Wrath than get absolutely nothing out of three hours of my time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on January 06, 2011, 05:31:59 PM
No reason to bring melee.. ranged has interrupts aplenty and does the same or better dps.. plus most ranged can DPS on the run these days.. not tip top, but then melee can't tiptop on the run either anymore.

Eh, if you need interrupts, you usually need to bring melee (or Elemental Shamans).  This is much less of a big deal in large raids as you can usually platoon enough casters to get the same effect.  That's really about it though as their self-heals (and +healing modifiers) are pretty trivial in light of the extra damage they take.

The Disc Priest (and Renew) changes are nice and Glyph of Prayer of Mending looks really good for tank healing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 06, 2011, 08:01:45 PM
The spawn rate of Alliance and Horde Infantry for the quest "The Leftovers" has been increased.

^^ Buh?! I have been farming them this week for embersilk. The spawn rate is HILARIOUS as is, and I frequently have two actively engaged and one feared just from being stationary by a doorway.


That said, the 208% PW:Shield increase is awesome, though I wonder how the mana cost increase will interact with Disc, since rapture is kind of built around returning more than the spell cost. But hey, a ~30k PW:Shield is now officially worth casting occasionally.

Renew Change is meh, imo. DK changes seem solid, though I'm not sure about the 2h damage change in frost, and the str reduction to unholy.

I'm absolutely shocked there's no PoH nerf or mana tide nerf.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on January 06, 2011, 08:18:30 PM
Considering Rapture's getting another buff as well, running with Inner Will will probably make PW:S still return more mana than it costs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 06, 2011, 10:28:00 PM
4.0.6 Patch notes

Nice to see Disc getting some much needed buffs.




I get the feral cat nerfs, I really do, but why the feral bear nerfs?!?! Ah well, prot pally buff so at least I have that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on January 06, 2011, 10:45:38 PM
Bear Druids have a pretty substantial lead on DPS over the other tanks at the moment, like north of 10%.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on January 06, 2011, 10:47:30 PM
The bear dps nerfs come hand in hand with a very large armor buff; it's sort of the opposite of what they did to DK tanks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on January 06, 2011, 11:21:01 PM
The spawn rate of Alliance and Horde Infantry for the quest "The Leftovers" has been increased.

^^ Buh?! I have been farming them this week for embersilk. The spawn rate is HILARIOUS as is, and I frequently have two actively engaged and one feared just from being stationary by a doorway.

Farming them when there's nobody else around is fine, yeah. Trying to get the 12 you need for the daily quest when there's a few other people also trying to do the same thing is very frustrating and tedious.

Also nice to see they've reduced the spawn rate in the prison a bit, it was kinda nutty in there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 06, 2011, 11:22:08 PM
Arms
Juggernaut no longer increases the cooldown on Charge, but instead increases the duration of the Charge stun by 2 seconds. In addition, Charge is usable in all stances, however, the talent now causes Charge and Intercept to share a cooldown.

Why don't they get it over with and just remove Intercept already?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on January 07, 2011, 12:40:37 AM
That'll take another 4 patches at least.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 07, 2011, 12:51:02 AM
Arms
Juggernaut no longer increases the cooldown on Charge, but instead increases the duration of the Charge stun by 2 seconds. In addition, Charge is usable in all stances, however, the talent now causes Charge and Intercept to share a cooldown.

Why don't they get it over with and just remove Intercept already?

Because they don't want to proximity nerf fury or prot?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on January 07, 2011, 01:30:21 AM
No reason to bring melee.. ranged has interrupts aplenty and does the same or better dps.. plus most ranged can DPS on the run these days.. not tip top, but then melee can't tiptop on the run either anymore.

It's worth pointing out that Paragon's comments only apply to the heroic versions. In normals, it's the same paradigm that has existed for the last 2+ years - melee are flat out superior to ranged. They take *less* damage, not more, as they aren't eligible for a large number of boss effects and are far more easily healed due to their compact formations. Fights like Magmaw, Omitron Council, Twilight Drakes all have clear advantges for being melee on the normal versions. The idea that melee take more damage than ranged hasn't been true in raids for a significant length of time - and even when they do (Twin worms for example), it's actually much easier to heal 5 melee than 3 ranged for example due ot the way AE heals work.

Personally, I do sort of wonder if Blizzard find it very hard to come up with melee mechanics that stress melee without just annihilating them as was the case in the heroic fights. You can throw an *insane* amount of stuff at ranged in raids, and they can cope with it and still dps. You can't do that with melee - you can't put a void zone under them constantly, you can't make spawning parasite adds, you can't have a chain lightning hit them - all stuff which makes the ranged role trickier. We either seem to be stuck with fights that leave very little challenge for melee repsectively (all of ICC heroic, Magmaw / twilight drakes in the newer content), or we have effects that simply *destroy* melee and make it not viable to bring them to raids. There needs to be a better balance there so that melee don't come out of a fight saying "That was basically a target dummy (Magmaw), but at the same time don't die within 20 seconds unless they are deathknights.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 07, 2011, 03:40:26 AM
Arms
Juggernaut no longer increases the cooldown on Charge, but instead increases the duration of the Charge stun by 2 seconds. In addition, Charge is usable in all stances, however, the talent now causes Charge and Intercept to share a cooldown.

Why don't they get it over with and just remove Intercept already?

Because they don't want to proximity nerf fury or prot?

Because they obviously wouldn't remove the stance tags on Charge after removing Intercept?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 07, 2011, 03:49:15 AM
I like having all 3.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on January 07, 2011, 05:49:23 AM
4.0.6 Patch notes

Cleave damage has been reduced by 20%.
Heroic Strike damage has been reduced by 20%.

This is, what, the third warrior damage nerf since 4.0?  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on January 07, 2011, 11:00:41 AM
Hey, nobody's talked about the new instanced battlegrounds yet, and they're actually pretty okay. Not quite AB levels of good, but far far better than the crap that got put out in Wrath. Twin Peaks is WSG mkII, and Battle for Gilneas is the AB mechanics but with 3 nodes and 10 people. Only having one middle node seems slightly limiting, but at least it gets players in combat with each other and not with the BG mechanics.

Assuming the new stuff isn't broken in some non-obvious way, it looks like BG quality is now something like AB > BfG, EotS (I like EotS, sue me) > TP > AV > WSG > IoC > SotA. They're nothing groundbreaking, but it's good to see Blizz finally admitting to themselves that the vanilla BG design is the only one worth replicating, and more BGs to choose from means a smaller chance of getting stuck with fucking Strand when I do randoms.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 07, 2011, 11:07:23 AM
I like Twin Peaks, it's an uncomplicated BG.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 07, 2011, 11:12:07 AM
Arms
Juggernaut no longer increases the cooldown on Charge, but instead increases the duration of the Charge stun by 2 seconds. In addition, Charge is usable in all stances, however, the talent now causes Charge and Intercept to share a cooldown.

Why don't they get it over with and just remove Intercept already?

Because they don't want to proximity nerf fury or prot?

Because they obviously wouldn't remove the stance tags on Charge after removing Intercept?

I can charge, then intercept as protection right now already. If they pull out intercept I have to wait for charge to cooldown, which means I can only close half as often as I currently can. It would absolutely be a nerf.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 07, 2011, 12:07:42 PM
They've already got Charge and Intercept on shared cooldowns for Arms, Fury has never really made much use of Charge.  I seriously doubt that Protection will remain a unique snowflake for longer than a minor patch cycle if it even makes it out of this one unchanged.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 07, 2011, 12:12:35 PM
It would certainly be a "we don't want protection to be arena-viable" message. Charge triggering stun DR is bad enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 07, 2011, 12:37:49 PM
Prot is more mobile than the other two specs on the PTR.  Like I said, I don't see it lasting long.  In all honesty I think sticking charge on the stun DR is worse for Prot pvp than removing intercept would be, since it indirectly impacts the duration of all subsequent stuns, and the charge stun itself is short duration.

The other thing is that they need to start culling buttons, because warriors have a shitton of marginal ones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 07, 2011, 01:20:22 PM
4.0.6 Patch notes

Cleave damage has been reduced by 20%.
Heroic Strike damage has been reduced by 20%.

This is, what, the third warrior damage nerf since 4.0?  :uhrr:

On the one hand, that's some serious bullshit.

On the other, after the Blues admitted that HS and Incite were showing a fuckload of damage, I specced to Incite and my dps went up by 2k.

 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 07, 2011, 01:36:33 PM
That's cause we're not supposed to be doing dps. We're tanks, remember? If we start dpsing like druids, that's bad mmmkay?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on January 07, 2011, 02:03:48 PM
They've already got Charge and Intercept on shared cooldowns for Arms, Fury has never really made much use of Charge.  I seriously doubt that Protection will remain a unique snowflake for longer than a minor patch cycle if it even makes it out of this one unchanged.

The whole thing is clunky and has been forever.  It's not quite as bad as it used to be, but there's a ton of overlap in warriors because they have 3 stances but only 2 purposes (dps, tankin).  So you have arms-stance and fury-stance flavors of the same abilities.    When 2 of the talent 3 trees have "you can use charge and intercept in any stance talents" that should clue you in that there's a problem.  They're slowly merging battle and zerker stances (pummel being both stances was a big step).  They should just go ahead a and consolidate to 2 stances, and either ditch intercept + shorten charge's cooldown or keep them both in, but useable in any stance, if they want to maintain the "you can occasionally do two chargercepts back to back when the cooldowns align" vibe.  Also, merge shield bash and pummel.  It's not a huge deal for people who have been playing warriors a long time, but the class is very dependent on stancedance+ability macros.

In other news:
Quote
Archaeology fragments now have a hard cap of 200 per race. Players will not be able to collect additional fragments until they complete artifacts to take them down below 200 fragments. Players with more than 200 fragments will not lose additional fragments in 4.0.6, but in a future patch we may remove any fragments above 200.

Way to make an annoying profession even more annoying.  Guess I need to catass my way to Zin'rokh this weekend.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 07, 2011, 02:20:51 PM
That's cause we're not supposed to be doing dps. We're tanks, remember? If we start dpsing like druids, that's bad mmmkay?

These changes are going to mean I do more damage in Prot than in Fury due to Vengeance.

Fucking Silly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 07, 2011, 02:47:52 PM
Bear Druids have a pretty substantial lead on DPS over the other tanks at the moment, like north of 10%.

Thats because druids wear dps gear, and so this problem will show up again in the next content patch.

Also, if it's agreed that their single target damage has to be nerf, can they at least buff their aor damage?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 07, 2011, 02:50:09 PM
That's cause we're not supposed to be doing dps. We're tanks, remember? If we start dpsing like druids, that's bad mmmkay?

These changes are going to mean I do more damage in Prot than in Fury due to Vengeance.

Fucking Silly.


I think they were slightly warranted, but this is another cause of pvp gettting into pve that nobody ever seems to think happens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 08, 2011, 12:08:20 AM
They're slowly merging battle and zerker stances (pummel being both stances was a big step).  They should just go ahead a and consolidate to 2 stances, and either ditch intercept + shorten charge's cooldown or keep them both in, but useable in any stance, if they want to maintain the "you can occasionally do two chargercepts back to back when the cooldowns align" vibe.  Also, merge shield bash and pummel.  It's not a huge deal for people who have been playing warriors a long time, but the class is very dependent on stancedance+ability macros.

To be entirely honest, I think they should change the stance swap rage dump, change all three specs to single target DPS in Battle Stance and multi-target DPS in Berserker Stance, and divvy up the situational abilities between stances.  Getting neckbeardy here, but I'd do something like this:

The immunity break from Shattering Throw should be merged into Heroic Throw, but should have a separate CD (5 min.) and only trigger upon striking an immune target.
Pummel and Shield Bash should get merged.
Shield Block, Shield Wall, and Spell Reflect should lose the shield requirement, but be subject to debuffs if a shield isn't equipped. (and get renamed appropriately)
Overpower, Revenge and Victory Rush should be passive procs that interact with HS in the way that Survival's T.N.T. interacts with Explosive/Arcane Shot.
Slam could disappear and I'm not sure anyone would miss it.

They should probably also make stance/form/stealth/aspect requirement checks more client authoritative, or include an implicit stance change in abilities which require a specific stance, but that's more a general change than a warrior specific one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 08, 2011, 02:18:16 AM
They should make stances work like Chakra, it's a fun mechanic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 08, 2011, 05:53:18 AM
They should make stances work like Chakra, it's a fun mechanic.

Now that I've got the hang of it, I totally agree. It was confusing to learn the first few times I healed, but now I've got a sense of when and how to use each chakra and it's really damned fun.  Fun healing, whoda thunk.

Quote
Archaeology fragments now have a hard cap of 200 per race. Players will not be able to collect additional fragments until they complete artifacts to take them down below 200 fragments. Players with more than 200 fragments will not lose additional fragments in 4.0.6, but in a future patch we may remove any fragments above 200.

Way to make an annoying profession even more annoying.  Guess I need to catass my way to Zin'rokh this weekend.

Err.. why are you collecting more than 200 frags anyway?  Is there some trick that I'm missing here? That's 6.25 combines without the boosters and ~8 with them. You don't get skillups for surveying after 100 skill, so why carry that many around without combining?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 08, 2011, 06:43:22 AM
If you're farming Troll or Nelf sites for the epics you'll end up clearing a LOT of fossil sites out to open up new Troll and Nelf sites, once you have the epics, a lot of people stop bothering to solve the fossil commons since they're worth fuckall.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 08, 2011, 11:01:48 AM
They should make stances work like Chakra, it's a fun mechanic.

I just did a count, and and Arms Warrior DPSing needs about 17-26 buttons just sitting in Battle Stance beating shit down in an instance.  The low number can be macroed down to 15 and is pretty much the bare minimum to be considered just shy of retarded.  Blizzard really needs to cut that down to size.

I presume you mean to suggest that some moves change form based on the stance state, the same way HW: Chastise does?  I think they would have a hard time with that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on January 08, 2011, 11:52:25 AM
Button inflation is really bad.  It's making me not want to bother with any of my high levels in this trial.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 08, 2011, 01:12:08 PM
Hunters need an ability culling badly as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 08, 2011, 01:39:23 PM
They should make stances work like Chakra, it's a fun mechanic.

I just did a count, and and Arms Warrior DPSing needs about 17-26 buttons just sitting in Battle Stance beating shit down in an instance.  The low number can be macroed down to 15 and is pretty much the bare minimum to be considered just shy of retarded.  Blizzard really needs to cut that down to size.

I presume you mean to suggest that some moves change form based on the stance state, the same way HW: Chastise does?  I think they would have a hard time with that.

Don't they essentially do that anyways on the main bar? When you switch stances, it should, but I haven't played a warrior in forever, give you a new action bar.

That said, I'm having issues buying 26 abilities needs to arms dps. They have a lot of buttons, but there are only a total of 50 warrior abilities counting passives and talents from other trees.

Warlocks have a shitload of buttons, but I can fit all my instance dps buttons on a single bar, and only really need two other informational/situational bars: mounts, soulstone summon/use for timer, healthstone, banish, etc


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ragnoros on January 08, 2011, 01:43:38 PM
I'm glad you guys feel there are too many buttons. Most of the people I play with are of the same opinion, and it's good to know it's not just us. I just hope Bliz comes to share the opinion, hopes had been high they would do so in their big cataclysm.

Although it may simply be a problem of more buttons being the only way Bliz knows how to add variety/complexity to a Diku.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 08, 2011, 01:46:57 PM
The funny thing is most of us want fewer buttons, but when you try and yank a button out the "fun is hammering nails into my dick" crowd comes out and protests shit like fixing ISF and removing Drain Mana.

And those of us who are just silly post in RIP Sentry Totem threads.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 08, 2011, 04:09:13 PM
They should make stances work like Chakra, it's a fun mechanic.

I just did a count, and and Arms Warrior DPSing needs about 17-26 buttons just sitting in Battle Stance beating shit down in an instance.  The low number can be macroed down to 15 and is pretty much the bare minimum to be considered just shy of retarded.  Blizzard really needs to cut that down to size.

I presume you mean to suggest that some moves change form based on the stance state, the same way HW: Chastise does?  I think they would have a hard time with that.

Don't they essentially do that anyways on the main bar? When you switch stances, it should, but I haven't played a warrior in forever, give you a new action bar.

That said, I'm having issues buying 26 abilities needs to arms dps. They have a lot of buttons, but there are only a total of 50 warrior abilities counting passives and talents from other trees.

Warlocks have a shitload of buttons, but I can fit all my instance dps buttons on a single bar, and only really need two other informational/situational bars: mounts, soulstone summon/use for timer, healthstone, banish, etc

26 is not at all correct. There might be 26 buttons you would think about pushing in some sort of emergency or corner case situation but in reality the number is much smaller.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 08, 2011, 06:03:55 PM
A, S, D, F and space gives you five buttons at least.

And those of us who are just silly post in RIP Sentry Totem threads.

I miss having feedback on my human priest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 08, 2011, 06:44:54 PM
26 is not at all correct. There might be 26 buttons you would think about pushing in some sort of emergency or corner case situation but in reality the number is much smaller.


 :heart:

Oh, and that's not counting any specialized stance swap macros you might have.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 08, 2011, 07:06:47 PM
26 is not at all correct. There might be 26 buttons you would think about pushing in some sort of emergency or corner case situation but in reality the number is much smaller.


 :heart:

Oh, and that's not counting any specialized stance swap macros you might have.

Three of those are buffs you won't be using frequently

actions=flask,type=titanic_strength
actions+=/food,type=beer_basted_crocolisk
actions+=/stance,choose=battle,if=!in_combat
actions+=/snapshot_stats
actions+=/golemblood_potion,if=!in_combat|buff.bloodlust.react
actions+=/auto_attack
actions+=/blood_fury
actions+=/deadly_calm,if=rage<20
actions+=/sweeping_strikes,if=target.adds>0
actions+=/berserker_rage
actions+=/bladestorm,if=target.adds>0&!buff.deadly_calm.up&!buff.sweeping_strikes.up
actions+=/cleave,if=target.adds>0
actions+=/heroic_strike,if=target.adds=0&(rage>65|buff.deadly_calm.up|buff.incite.up|buff.battle_trance.up)
actions+=/overpower,if=buff.taste_for_blood.remains<1.5
actions+=/rend,if=!ticking
actions+=/colossus_smash,if=!buff.colossus_smash.up
actions+=/mortal_strike
actions+=/overpower,if=!buff.lambs_to_the_slaughter.up&rage>35&target.health_pct<20
actions+=/execute
actions+=/overpower
actions+=/slam,if=cooldown.mortal_strike.remains>=1.5
actions+=/battle_shout,if=rage<25


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 08, 2011, 07:24:49 PM
That's the full list, like I said, you can whittle it down to around a dozen or so if you're willing to sacrifice a lot of your situational stuff, and stick the non-GCD stuff into macros.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on January 08, 2011, 08:08:32 PM
You can use conditionals? Huh.

Though I wasn't expecting to need my programming skills to play the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on January 08, 2011, 08:22:18 PM
4.0.6 Patch notes

Cleave damage has been reduced by 20%.
Heroic Strike damage has been reduced by 20%.

This is, what, the third warrior damage nerf since 4.0?  :uhrr:

On the one hand, that's some serious bullshit.

On the other, after the Blues admitted that HS and Incite were showing a fuckload of damage, I specced to Incite and my dps went up by 2k.

 :ye_gods:

I'm not specced in it at present, but on review, that could be pretty broken.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 08, 2011, 08:53:01 PM
You can use conditionals? Huh.

Though I wasn't expecting to need my programming skills to play the game.

That's not an ingame script, it's the logical flow used by parsers to determine ideal dps in a patchwerk style stand there and beat on him fight. But it's useful for "what skills should you use/prioritize"

I mean, I could have BoA and BoD on my lock's bars, but why?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 09, 2011, 01:38:10 AM

There's 23 abilities (29 including situational ones) that I use in pretty much every heroic or raid. I'm not sure what this logic has to do with Chakra not working when you have a lot of buttons to push though  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 09, 2011, 02:31:45 AM
Do you use Clique?

Because that should be an indicator right there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 09, 2011, 02:36:47 AM
26 is not at all correct. There might be 26 buttons you would think about pushing in some sort of emergency or corner case situation but in reality the number is much smaller.


 :heart:

Oh, and that's not counting any specialized stance swap macros you might have.

An arms warrior having to apply sunder, thunder clap, or demo shout are all well into 'corner case' considering how many other sources there are of those debuffs (and how many of those come from tanks). Bladestorm, cleave and sweeping strikes are only in the AE rotation, that's bar 2. Cooldowns don't need to be on a bunch of separate keybinds, just macro them all onto something you can hammer when they come up. You listed victory rush.  :oh_i_see:

The core arms abilities are: rend, overpower, mortal strike, colossus smash, slam, HS, and add in execute for the end of the fight. It really isn't that complicated, the only thing that is sort of pointless is the slam/HS semi-redundancy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on January 09, 2011, 06:52:07 AM
[snip]Cooldowns don't need to be on a bunch of separate keybinds, just macro them all onto something you can hammer when they come up.[snip]

(note: I'm not saying that you are saying the design is good.  I am saying that it seems like you don't see the problem).

This statement alone argues that they need to rethink the design.  If the only time that you would use any particular cooldown is in "fire all my guns!!" scenario then what is the benefit of having separate cooldowns?  If there are plenty of times that you would want to use just a specific cooldown, and it's not  the first cooldown on that macro, you will need more buttons on the bar (macro + cooldowns that you need).

If they (or you) expect the player to put planning in ahead of time to figure out which buttons or macro's he would or wouldn't need on his bars then you just lost those people that don't want to have to spend hours fucking around with macros every time they patch and break the old ones.  I guess they cold provide a way to save toolbars (raid, quest, pvp, etc) that you could just bring up later, but I find myself caring even less about their game in that case.

I like guild wars system much more - limited set of buttons that I fill from a large pool of abilities.  NO macros.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on January 09, 2011, 07:50:37 AM
Any other trolls out there always having to steal Goblin rice for the Org cooking daily and not getting the meta?   :headscratch:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on January 09, 2011, 07:58:01 AM
Err.. why are you collecting more than 200 frags anyway?  Is there some trick that I'm missing here? That's 6.25 combines without the boosters and ~8 with them. You don't get skillups for surveying after 100 skill, so why carry that many around without combining?

You don't want to spend any troll fragments until you hit 450, so those fragments have a chance of giving you the item as well as a skillup.  More importantly, it means that the thousands of other-race fragments I acquire while flying around the fucking map praying to the RNG god that a goddamn troll site spawns somewhere can't be saved in the off chance they decide to add any other worthwhile toys to this disgraceful shitstain of a minigame at some point in the future.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 09, 2011, 08:47:16 AM
[snip]

The fact that you need a second bar kind of proves my point, does it not?  Yeah, I question even having Victory Rush on my bar.  No, I don't question Thunderclap, you kind of need it to proc Blood & Thunder.

Agreed on one point: for the most part you don't need to select a specific cooldown or trinket, and it's another feature of their design that draws out my RAEG.  There's no point in making them clicky trinkets if realistically the highest boost you can squeeze out of them is to bind them to Mortal Strike and otherwise ignore them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on January 10, 2011, 12:11:20 AM
disgraceful shitstain of a minigame at some point in the future.

Best description of Archaeology ever.

Once I decided that I'd rather just save up 50k gold and buy a Vial of the Sands than grind this shitty, tedious, RNG wankery of a "profession" I felt a lot better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 10, 2011, 01:29:31 AM
[snip]

The fact that you need a second bar kind of proves my point, does it not?  Yeah, I question even having Victory Rush on my bar.  No, I don't question Thunderclap, you kind of need it to proc Blood & Thunder.

Agreed on one point: for the most part you don't need to select a specific cooldown or trinket, and it's another feature of their design that draws out my RAEG.  There's no point in making them clicky trinkets if realistically the highest boost you can squeeze out of them is to bind them to Mortal Strike and otherwise ignore them.

You shouldn't be just binding them willy-nilly to attack moves, there are better times in most fights to blow cooldowns than right on your first MS so you want more control over that.

And I'm not sure why a separate AE rotation on bar 2 is a big problem, frankly, single target and AE rotations being different is a deliberate bit of design.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on January 10, 2011, 02:33:44 AM
You have 10 number buttons on a keyboard. With - and = too that's 12. With shift, ctrl and alt that's 48 easy keybinds. 1-5, shift 1-5 and ctrl 1-5 are all easily reachable and usable by even people with the smallest hands and terrible manual dexterity.

Having a bunch of core abilities plus a bigger bunch of situational, less frequently used ones helps create a "simple to learn, harder to master" system. A good indication of if a player is going to be herpderp or not is if they know how to use their situationals well. Does that paladin use Hand of Freedom/Sacrifice? Does the hunter snake trap caster mobs and misdirect and swap growl on & off at the right times? Or is the rogue a 1-button Fan of Knives spammer?

If you homogenize classes down to the core 20 abilities then you remove that ability of people to actually play better beyond "don't stand in the fire".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jimbo on January 10, 2011, 03:52:42 AM
Re-started school, so instead of spending time w/ beer and broads I'm studying and then playing video games (yea! "no-lifeing" is what my kid calls it when he and his friends do that), anyway, it is really good on the leveling now and the pick-up dungeon helps get quests done too!

OMG!  The badlands quest w/ the dwarf, gnome, and orc was awesome!

Why does that damn commercial make so much sense, "just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in."  Can I really make a flying carpet mount earlier now?  Sweeet!



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on January 10, 2011, 04:31:22 AM

If you homogenize classes down to the core 20 abilities then you remove that ability of people to actually play better beyond "don't stand in the fire".

Just wanted to point out that Guild Wars managed to be fairly successful only allowing 8 abilities on the hotbar and GW2 will allow 10.  Granted, one is allowed to pick from a list, but more bars does not necessarily mean better gameplay. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 10, 2011, 04:51:51 AM
You have 10 number buttons on a keyboard. With - and = too that's 12. With shift, ctrl and alt that's 48 easy keybinds. 1-5, shift 1-5 and ctrl 1-5 are all easily reachable and usable by even people with the smallest hands and terrible manual dexterity.

Having a bunch of core abilities plus a bigger bunch of situational, less frequently used ones helps create a "simple to learn, harder to master" system. A good indication of if a player is going to be herpderp or not is if they know how to use their situationals well. Does that paladin use Hand of Freedom/Sacrifice? Does the hunter snake trap caster mobs and misdirect and swap growl on & off at the right times? Or is the rogue a 1-button Fan of Knives spammer?

If you homogenize classes down to the core 20 abilities then you remove that ability of people to actually play better beyond "don't stand in the fire".

Anything off my 1-10-= (using ctrl,alt,shift) is gonna get mentally moved to the bottom of the list, and when it comes time to use "Situational ability X", I'm not gonna be able to remember if I put it on ctrl-5 or shift-8 or alt-2, until it's too late.

So I never use extended hotbars to hold stuff that is used in a tight spot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 10, 2011, 05:06:30 AM

If you homogenize classes down to the core 20 abilities then you remove that ability of people to actually play better beyond "don't stand in the fire".

Just wanted to point out that Guild Wars managed to be fairly successful only allowing 8 abilities on the hotbar and GW2 will allow 10.  Granted, one is allowed to pick from a list, but more bars does not necessarily mean better gameplay. 

For the most part WoW has the same basic idea (you are not going to use all X abilities at any given point), it's just not as obvious as in GW where you don't HAVE that 30 minute just in case clicky, or that particular situational spell that you didn't need this run.

You can usually fit almost everything you will need to do on 1-2 bars (one for base abilities, one for cooldowns is how I run it) these days.

Now, vanilla was another matter entirely. *stares at old screenshots of his shaman's UI*


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on January 10, 2011, 10:38:07 AM
You have 10 number buttons on a keyboard. With - and = too that's 12. With shift, ctrl and alt that's 48 easy keybinds. 1-5, shift 1-5 and ctrl 1-5 are all easily reachable and usable by even people with the smallest hands and terrible manual dexterity.

Having a bunch of core abilities plus a bigger bunch of situational, less frequently used ones helps create a "simple to learn, harder to master" system. A good indication of if a player is going to be herpderp or not is if they know how to use their situationals well. Does that paladin use Hand of Freedom/Sacrifice? Does the hunter snake trap caster mobs and misdirect and swap growl on & off at the right times? Or is the rogue a 1-button Fan of Knives spammer?

If you homogenize classes down to the core 20 abilities then you remove that ability of people to actually play better beyond "don't stand in the fire".

For a new player, the game just drops abilities onto the first bar of the toolbar.  It takes a player who has played before to move his/her abilities to other bars (like the AE bar).  Unfortunately for the new player this often doesn't happen until the player already has some muscle memory, so moving buttons to different bars will result in some missed abilities or mis-pressed abilities (or both).

There are too many situational abilities that only apply to rare situations.  The game boils down to: 1) recognize a less-common situation, 2) decide to use a situational ability, 3) remember where you put the ability button.  I think 1 and 2 are pretty straightforward.  3 involves the skills of deciding how to group less-used abilities on your skill bars and remembering where you put them in time to press the button.  I'd rather see player skill be more related to the game play rather than the interface.

For me simple to learn / hard to master involves a relatively lower number of buttons (6? 8? 10?), but each button is effected by how long you hold it, and what button you follow it up with.  Ideally multiple buttons to be pressed at the same time (chords) to modify what happens.  The game would allow you to start with just the strings (buttons), then learn the chords (multiple buttons simultaneously).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 10, 2011, 10:52:53 AM
In that sense this is why Chakra is a good system. It gives you one ability that morphs three different ways, and emphasizes a bunch of related abilities at the same time. It's a model for fun gameplay that I would love to see extended in other ways.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on January 10, 2011, 10:54:37 AM
For me simple to learn / hard to master involves a relatively lower number of buttons (6? 8? 10?), but each button is effected by how long you hold it, and what button you follow it up with.  Ideally multiple buttons to be pressed at the same time (chords) to modify what happens.  The game would allow you to start with just the strings (buttons), then learn the chords (multiple buttons simultaneously).

Maybe YOUR keyboard would work with chord-type abilities.  Mine already squawks at me during pvp when I am doing a turning spinning jump and try to use an ability (W, A or S, spacebar, number key, and maybe a shift/ctrl/alt = BEEP BEEP IM GONNA BLOW).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on January 10, 2011, 12:04:02 PM
Learn to auto run you keyboard turning nub.


Also Iceblock for the love of GOD!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on January 10, 2011, 01:25:02 PM
Can I really make a flying carpet mount earlier now?  Sweeet!

Yeah, the green one only requires 300 skill to make.  The Purple and Blue ones are (still?) at 425.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on January 10, 2011, 01:34:10 PM
Learn to auto run you keyboard turning nub.


Also Iceblock for the love of GOD!

Fancy words from the fattest target on the battlefield!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 10, 2011, 02:36:07 PM
Big blue post from Cory Stockton on TB:

Quote
Now that Cataclysm is out in the wild, more players are getting geared up and checking out Tol Barad, the new outdoor PvP zone. Today, we wanted to address some of the concerns players have expressed about the zone, including how challenging it can be to win as the attacking team, and provide some insight into our design approach. We also wanted to share some of the lessons we learned from Wintergrasp, discuss the difference between the two zones, and touch upon the recent hotfixes made to Honor Point gains and how we plan to improve Tol Barad going forward. We're confident this zone will provide meaningful and fun PvP for some time to come, but we also recognize additional tuning is required to ensure Tol Barad is everything we intend it to be.

As we mentioned earlier, the attacking faction is having a pretty tough time winning control of Tol Barad -- and we're OK with that, at least in theory. Here's why: When we set out to create Wintergrasp, one of the issues we dealt with was that we were never able to ensure the sides were even -- in fact, they rarely were. Because the smaller team would almost always be assured defeat, we attempted to address team-size imbalance by favoring the attacker. Control of Wintergrasp went back and forth, and the result was that battles lost their impact. On most realms the defenders became complacent, knowing they were likely to lose control of the zone, returning to re-take it when it was their turn to attack. The sides swapped back and forth every few hours, and Wintergrasp wasn’t so much about an epic struggle for a meaningful piece of land as it was a complicated game of leapfrog.

Since then we’ve devised mechanics that help ensure equal team sizes, and we took Wintergrasp's lessons to heart when we designed Tol Barad. Tol Barad is intentionally balanced so that it’s a challenge for the attackers, because we want to make sure that control of Tol Barad matters. For the defenders, there’s a sense of urgency that Wintergrasp didn't have -- if you lose it, you’re going to have a hell of a time taking it back. For the attackers, there are a number of rewards at stake -- such as access to the Baradin Hold raid and additional daily quests -- that we hope players feel are worth fighting for. That sort of tension is what we wanted from Wintergrasp, and what we believe Tol Barad can ultimately offer.

With that being said, we want winning Tol Barad to be a challenge for the attacking faction... but we don't want it to be impossible. Taking Tol Barad should be tough -- but right now it’s a little bit too tough, and it’s something we’re actively working to balance. Earlier, we attempted to temporarily address the issue by offering a far better reward to the winning attackers: Honor Points awarded for successfully attacking were increased tenfold, but that was such a great incentive that it ultimately undermined the spirit of competition. Since then, the reward for winning as an attacker has been brought back down to a more reasonable amount.

While we've already made minor adjustments to improve the gameplay and address select exploits, our job in Tol Barad is far from over. We ultimately want to make sure that any changes we make are all steps in the right direction, and we intend to make several updates in the next minor patch to address design and balance issues affecting attackers that we can't address with hotfixes. For example, we plan to alter the battle slightly so that a team with two bases captured can more quickly and easily capture the third, as opposed to a team with one or zero bases. This way, if the defenders turtle up, it'll be a little easier for the attackers to take their last base before the defense can take one of the attackers' other bases.

We've been reading your feedback, watching trends across our global realms, and fighting plenty of battles in Tol Barad ourselves to get a feel for what's working and what isn't, and we're committed to making Tol Barad a fun and engaging zone. We want owning the zone to be meaningful throughout the lifespan of the expansion -- and while the attackers may always face somewhat of an uphill battle, the defenders should feel much more pressure not to lose than they do currently. Just the same, the attacking faction should feel motivated to take Tol Barad back, but they shouldn't feel that the odds are insurmountable. So keep fighting the good fight, and we'll continue watching the battlefield and listening to your feedback.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Raging Turtle on January 10, 2011, 02:57:05 PM
How often have they been opening up new servers/realms? Did a quick search on google but it seems like there haven't been any new ones for a while.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on January 10, 2011, 03:26:07 PM
How often have they been opening up new servers/realms? Did a quick search on google but it seems like there haven't been any new ones for a while.



They don't open new servers anymore, they have too many underpopulated ones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 10, 2011, 04:14:30 PM
They've been opening servers in South America and Russia mainly I think.

Big blue post from Cory Stockton on TB:

Quote
-snip-

He manages to use an awful lot of words to not say very much, and the suggested change will really do fuckall to balance out the situation since the current norm is where each side has one base and the third is being slowly flipped to the attackers. The most interesting suggestion I heard to fix TB was to make it so that you couldn't recap on defense once all three towers were down.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 10, 2011, 05:39:31 PM
I see the attackers hold 2, but can't cap 3rd before one of their back bases gets ninjaed pretty frequently, if these changes tip that situation enough towards attackers that could do enough to make TB worth doing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 10, 2011, 06:50:54 PM
Hell it's still "possible" to win TB. Horde side has won it several times back on my server, mostly because alliance here are worthless. So I don't think they need to change much, especially if they want it favoring defense. Just make it hard to do and not ridiculous.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on January 10, 2011, 07:13:20 PM
Looks like they hotfixed the Troll Org cooking daily meta - got the achieve when I completed the cactus quest today.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on January 10, 2011, 07:31:02 PM
Hell it's still "possible" to win TB. Horde side has won it several times back on my server, mostly because alliance here are worthless. So I don't think they need to change much, especially if they want it favoring defense. Just make it hard to do and not ridiculous.

Yeah on our server alliance holds it most of the time, but whenever we lose it we just capture it back the next time around.  It is not THAT hard, you just have to realize that the attackers have the advantage when taking over a base because they spawn right there and the defenders tend to leave when they die rather than go back.  Just leave substantial defense at the other bases and slowly chip away at the defenders who will slowly trickle away to other bases, which if they have enough of a defense will just keep bouncing them back to the middle for long enough to cap the last base.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on January 10, 2011, 08:53:01 PM
Downed my first "real" raid boss of the expansion tonight: Halfus in Bastion of Twilight, with the worst possible drake configuration. Three hours of wipes later, we down him with mere seconds on the berserk timer.

What a joyless, frustrating experience.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on January 10, 2011, 10:14:57 PM
Hell it's still "possible" to win TB. Horde side has won it several times back on my server, mostly because alliance here are worthless. So I don't think they need to change much, especially if they want it favoring defense. Just make it hard to do and not ridiculous.

Yeah on our server alliance holds it most of the time, but whenever we lose it we just capture it back the next time around.  It is not THAT hard, you just have to realize that the attackers have the advantage when taking over a base because they spawn right there and the defenders tend to leave when they die rather than go back.  Just leave substantial defense at the other bases and slowly chip away at the defenders who will slowly trickle away to other bases, which if they have enough of a defense will just keep bouncing them back to the middle for long enough to cap the last base.


That still assumes your opponents are retarded and trickle in to all 3 like that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 11, 2011, 07:29:52 AM
Hell it's still "possible" to win TB. Horde side has won it several times back on my server, mostly because alliance here are worthless. So I don't think they need to change much, especially if they want it favoring defense. Just make it hard to do and not ridiculous.

Yeah on our server alliance holds it most of the time, but whenever we lose it we just capture it back the next time around.  It is not THAT hard, you just have to realize that the attackers have the advantage when taking over a base because they spawn right there and the defenders tend to leave when they die rather than go back.  Just leave substantial defense at the other bases and slowly chip away at the defenders who will slowly trickle away to other bases, which if they have enough of a defense will just keep bouncing them back to the middle for long enough to cap the last base.


That still assumes your opponents are retarded and trickle in to all 3 like that.

::albs::


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on January 11, 2011, 07:42:42 AM
Hell it's still "possible" to win TB. Horde side has won it several times back on my server, mostly because alliance here are worthless. So I don't think they need to change much, especially if they want it favoring defense. Just make it hard to do and not ridiculous.

Yeah on our server alliance holds it most of the time, but whenever we lose it we just capture it back the next time around.  It is not THAT hard, you just have to realize that the attackers have the advantage when taking over a base because they spawn right there and the defenders tend to leave when they die rather than go back.  Just leave substantial defense at the other bases and slowly chip away at the defenders who will slowly trickle away to other bases, which if they have enough of a defense will just keep bouncing them back to the middle for long enough to cap the last base.


That still assumes your opponents are retarded and trickle in to all 3 like that.

::albs::

Hey, it's not our fault that -- OH LOOK SHINY HAMMERS, THEY MUST BE LOOT AND TOTALLY NOT MIDGARD COMING TO STOMP US LET'S GO CHECK IT OUT GUYS!  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on January 11, 2011, 04:36:21 PM
Hell it's still "possible" to win TB. Horde side has won it several times back on my server, mostly because alliance here are worthless. So I don't think they need to change much, especially if they want it favoring defense. Just make it hard to do and not ridiculous.

Yeah on our server alliance holds it most of the time, but whenever we lose it we just capture it back the next time around.  It is not THAT hard, you just have to realize that the attackers have the advantage when taking over a base because they spawn right there and the defenders tend to leave when they die rather than go back.  Just leave substantial defense at the other bases and slowly chip away at the defenders who will slowly trickle away to other bases, which if they have enough of a defense will just keep bouncing them back to the middle for long enough to cap the last base.


That still assumes your opponents are retarded and trickle in to all 3 like that.

They trickle because they die in a trickle.  If you send an overwhelming force to take their base they die closer together and all go as a group to another node.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on January 11, 2011, 07:51:38 PM
Ghostcrawler Doesn't Get It (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2053469#blog)
Quote
We've seen and heard a lot of discussion about the challenge presented by the Cataclysm Heroic dungeons, and to a lesser extent the raids. I'm not sure this is the kind of issue where we're going to be able to change anyone’s mind on the subject, but I can try to provide more insight into our point of view as well as offer some suggestions for success.

First, let me state that we do hear you. We understand some of you aren’t having fun and preferred the Lich King paradigm, or at least something closer to the Lich King paradigm. We greatly appreciate the feedback and it always makes us sad when players aren’t having fun. We're not ignoring you. We get it. We may not always agree on every point, but we understand where you’re coming from, and we want to try to help you understand where we're coming from.

The bottom line is that we want Heroics and raids to be challenging, and that is particularly true now while the content is new and characters are still collecting gear. They’re only going to get easier from here on out. We want players to approach an encounter, especially a Heroic encounter, as a puzzle to be solved. We want groups to communicate and strategize. And by extension, we want you to celebrate when you win instead of it being a foregone conclusion.

Nothing really new here, but a confirmation of what we thought.  The WoW devs are designing the game for what they want and are, for now, being steadfast in holding to it.  While it's an admirable position to hold for a game looking to cater to a specific group, I'm not so sure it's a wise position when you're doing everything you can to be the most popular kid around.

It's probably only a stone's throw from the thinking that only raiders deserve the best stuff, too.  Not quite there yet, but there are some strong overtones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 11, 2011, 07:57:30 PM
Ya I read that whole thing. They seem to be pretty stubborn about their new system, and damn the fallout it creates....like say, heroics being so frustrating no sane tank would ever queue up for them in LFD, leading to almost unplayable queue times for dps.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 11, 2011, 07:59:33 PM
I agree with his point about challenge. I would be fine if the bosses were the challenge in heroic raids. They are not. The long hours grinding through the same trash groups over and over are the problem, as they ALWAYS have been. He doesn't seem to get that point. That's what's causing tanks to just throw their hands up and say fuck it. They can't control whether they get a dps who's competant and will CC or someone who can barely outdps the tank.

Some trash is fine. In fact I would say the pacing in a lot of dungeons is perfectly ok. Halls of Origination is a good example where you have a couple thoughtful pulls and then a boss. I'd probably get rid of the respawning crap in the beams room just to even it out.

A bad example was Deadmines, but they removed some of the trash. Another bad example is the trash in Stonecore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on January 11, 2011, 08:01:42 PM
They are nerfing some of the harder heroic bosses (and buffing the easier ones) so it's not like they're completely ignoring people. Ozruk, Corborus, Ashbury, Beauty, Setesh, Lady Naz'jatar, among others all receiving nerfs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on January 11, 2011, 08:12:30 PM
They'll relent and continue to make changes, but his whole screed is only useful for the people who don't need it.  An undergeared but competent group can manage the content fine, with a little gearing at worst.  However, the dungeon finder doesn't rate competency levels and the subset of players whom his blog would change the outlook on is miniscule even with a player base of millions.  Most aren't going to change their ways and trying to design your game as if they will is folly.  Not understanding it is part of why there is so much grousing.

But then my pointing it out is probably more pointless than Ghostcrawler writing a blog entry on how they want people to be something they're not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 11, 2011, 08:40:21 PM
The content has been out now, what, a month? We're going to be stuck with these heroics until late 2012.

People need to just fucking relax. Get pissed if they up the difficulty in the next gearing iteration. They just need to adjust the trash a little.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 11, 2011, 10:22:50 PM
I've had zero trouble with the trash, the problems have all been on bosses for us.

I don't mind them being hard, although it means that there are players I won't be taking to heroics for a while if I can help it.  :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on January 11, 2011, 10:46:24 PM
The success rate of heroic pugs has definitely improved markedly here over the last couple of weeks. Pretty much every single one I run now ends in a completed run, whereas at the start I was getting maybe a 50% completion run. Sure, a lot of groups swap a player or two out, either through ragequits or kicks, but that's about it. Normal runs are now trivial for most groups and I've started tanking them with my levelling pally (83 atm).

From my perspective the philosophy that GC outlined there seems to be working. People have had to learn to CC again, not aoe zergfest the dungeons and watch healer mana and learn the mechanics.

There's a trick to it though.... don't do random pugs just after schools finish. Kids flood into the servers here around 4pm at which point the fail rate of pugs doubles for a while. Come 10pm it's mostly OK again. Same with the holidays, soon as the Christmas hols ended and the rugrats fucked off back to child-prison things got much, much better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 12, 2011, 02:59:01 AM
Quote
- Mind Sear can now be channeled on friendly targets in addition to enemy targets. In addition, Mind Sear's damage has been increased by roughly 15%.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 12, 2011, 03:09:51 AM
Awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on January 12, 2011, 03:12:13 AM
From my perspective the philosophy that GC outlined there seems to be working. People have had to learn to CC again, not aoe zergfest the dungeons and watch healer mana and learn the mechanics.
This is it pretty much exactly.  Once people understand that the new paradigm is not "let the tank aggro the whole room and then unleash aoe" combined with "my gear does not matter for 5 man progression'" but instead has moved to "learn to play your fucking class moron" combined with "run a few more normals and gear up properly before queing for heroics you asshole", things will go a lot smoother.  And quite frankly, I am happy with the new paradigm, regardless of how many fail pugs I end up tanking for / dpsing in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 12, 2011, 03:41:43 AM
On a 1:1 basis the Cata heroics are harder than most WoTLK heroics, but the biggest difference isn't the dungeon design, it's the fact that players went from overgearing the content by 51 ilvls of epic gear to undergearing the content by 20 ilvls of blue gear overnight. This is a huge and apparently invisible change that most of the people raging about heroic difficulty don't seem to get.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on January 12, 2011, 06:24:15 AM


It's probably only a stone's throw from the thinking that only raiders deserve the best stuff, too.  Not quite there yet, but there are some strong overtones.

Hmm... when has wow ever not followed that thinking? raiders have always had the best stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on January 12, 2011, 06:39:08 AM


It's probably only a stone's throw from the thinking that only raiders deserve the best stuff, too.  Not quite there yet, but there are some strong overtones.

Hmm... when has wow ever not followed that thinking? raiders have always had the best stuff.
Arena season 1.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 12, 2011, 07:20:57 AM
Man, locks are getting smacked silly with the nerfbat. I do hope these notes aren't "finished" for class changes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 12, 2011, 07:57:06 AM
Fuck Ozruk.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 12, 2011, 08:17:56 AM
Yeah, the Stonecore is really the only heroic which has genuine rage-inducing potential.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 12, 2011, 09:39:55 AM
On a 1:1 basis the Cata heroics are harder than most WoTLK heroics, but the biggest difference isn't the dungeon design, it's the fact that players went from overgearing the content by 51 ilvls of epic gear to undergearing the content by 20 ilvls of blue gear overnight. This is a huge and apparently invisible change that most of the people raging about heroic difficulty don't seem to get.

This can't be said enough, I cannot tell you how many heroics people are trying to do in near full greens. Sorry pal that ain't gonna cut it.  I blame wotlk more than I do blizzard for these new "hard" dungeons. WOTLK made people think of heroics as the baseline of content even though that was never the intent. I mean these things are hard?

Why didnt they say something, or give an indicator? Like naming them appropriately, or putting a little skull icon there so you knew for sure it was gonna be hard.  Clearly, they are bad game designers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on January 12, 2011, 10:29:32 AM
And, right after Ghostcrawler's post of how heroics are exactly where Blizzard wants them, the full PTR patch notes went up. Full of nerfs to Heroics. (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2011384)

 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 12, 2011, 11:42:21 AM
HAhaha.  :why_so_serious:

Huge nerf on the Baron in SFK.  It wasn't THAt hard to interrupt, was it?

I'll miss MCing the witches in ToT and laying waste to the rest of the mobs.. Those bitches could really throw-down, but if you didn't have MC or competent cc ( :awesome_for_real:) I'll agree they were over the top.   However, it's odd that they nerfed them but left the fucking goblins able to one-shot a tank on a pull.

Thank god for the nerf to Altairus. The amount of times I've been tossed over the side because I was chained one, two, three "dead" are the entire reason I just drop group if I get it in a PUG.  Plus the vortexes were fucking hard to see in location since the graphic doesn't go to the floor.

Ertan got buffed tho.. which is odd.  Why not just let us continue to stand there beating the fuck out of him if we can heal through the cyclone shield damage?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 12, 2011, 11:44:56 AM
Ertan is really only a healer check. The cyclone mechanic isn't threatening enough to warrant any movement, so might as well not be there. I guess they want to make it a slight check on DPS too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on January 12, 2011, 11:54:34 AM
Judging by the way the cyclones would move in and out, I'd say the original intent was to make players move out when they collapse on the boss. That's what we thought when we first went in there, but then we realized we weren't getting the debuff if we stood right on top of him so it turned into nothing but a tank and spank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on January 12, 2011, 12:07:13 PM
Huge nerf on the Baron in SFK.  It wasn't THAt hard to interrupt, was it?

The "problem" with the baron was that it required coordination between two interrupters.  I guess expecting people to interrupt an ability is one thing, expecting two of them to alternate was a bit much.  I just ran this on my rogue, took five attempts of me yelling I CANT STOP EVERYTHING WITH MY 10s KICK for the other three people who could interrupt to help out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on January 12, 2011, 12:16:34 PM
And, right after Ghostcrawler's post of how heroics are exactly where Blizzard wants them, the full PTR patch notes went up. Full of nerfs to Heroics. (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2011384)

 :facepalm:
Hahahaha.  They caved faster than I expected.  Those had to be in the works before he even got his post up. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on January 12, 2011, 12:19:57 PM
Speaking of Ertan brings to mind another thing dps should take note of: healers (well, I on my shaman at least) really like it when you stand a) still and b) near the tank. Not within cleave range, just within 12m or so so we can AoE. The extra healing efficiency will even make up for some minor AoE damage.

Obviously still move out of ground effects. Except the neon blue/green/gold circles. Those are good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on January 12, 2011, 01:05:01 PM
And, right after Ghostcrawler's post of how heroics are exactly where Blizzard wants them, the full PTR patch notes went up. Full of nerfs to Heroics. (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2011384)

 :facepalm:
Hahahaha.  They caved faster than I expected.  Those had to be in the works before he even got his post up. :awesome_for_real:

He's the guy who leads on a lot of this stuff, I'm very sure he knew about these coming.

Regardless - these aren't huge sweeeping nerfs. If you found them difficult before, you will now. Heck, some of the easiest fights were buffed. These are quality of life adjustments more than anything so that groups without 2CC's or 2 interrupters will manage, and a lowering overall of a few bosses that were noticeably harder than the rest. If you cann't do heroics now, you won't be able too in the future. they havent' removed the need for CC or interrupts at all, for example. Trash is still going to maul groups badly, bosses abilities will still annihilate dps who are dumb, and healers still won't have the mana to heal everyone and not care. This is not a huge range of nerfs at all.

I'm not sure why people are convinced Blizzard's attitude towards content is so obviously suicidal and against the nature of their game in Cata. Blizzard *have* all the numbers on retention for their game, if they feel that the difficulty needs to be upped it's probably for a reason. In my experience, the last year of Wrath saw more people leave the game than at any other time, and I myself was contemplating it because the game was simply terrible. Face rolling heroics for emblems daily and raid content that was poorly designed and trivialised with a stupid stacking buff just wasn't entertaining. Maybe a lot of people thought that way and Blizzard decided to change things a bit?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on January 12, 2011, 01:09:06 PM
They nerfed the Baron in SFK to the ground, but left Commander "I summon infinite adds that heal me and rape you" alone?  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 12, 2011, 01:10:55 PM
And, right after Ghostcrawler's post of how heroics are exactly where Blizzard wants them, the full PTR patch notes went up. Full of nerfs to Heroics. (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2011384)

 :facepalm:

That's what happens when you don't actually read what he posted, which was much longer than the cherry-picked quote above, and included among other things that make it sound less unreasonable:

Quote
As always, we're keeping an eye on things. There are a few bosses that seem responsible for more wipes than the others: Commander Springvale, Beauty, Altairus, and Admiral Ripsnarl perhaps. By the time you read this, you might have seen us implement Restoration druid buffs intended to keep them competitive in raids. We also just tend to nerf content over time because the original players hitting that content have moved on, so we want to open it up to a wider audience.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on January 12, 2011, 01:14:45 PM
I'm not sure why people are convinced Blizzard's attitude towards content is so obviously suicidal and against the nature of their game in Cata. Blizzard *have* all the numbers on retention for their game, if they feel that the difficulty needs to be upped it's probably for a reason. In my experience, the last year of Wrath saw more people leave the game than at any other time, and I myself was contemplating it because the game was simply terrible. Face rolling heroics for emblems daily and raid content that was poorly designed and trivialised with a stupid stacking buff just wasn't entertaining. Maybe a lot of people thought that way and Blizzard decided to change things a bit?

I certainly don't think that way. People always leave in droves at the end of an expansion. I loved almost every raid instance in Wrath and I loved RDF making it so easy to gear my alts in the latest badge gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on January 12, 2011, 01:27:38 PM
I absolutely loathed ToC, but that was more because I was in a raid guild that was running it 3x a week, and often tried for 4x.  (Never could get past the first fight in 25H, almost managed Anub in 10H.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on January 12, 2011, 02:31:07 PM
Yeah, what I said earlier? Not so true tonight. Two failed groups, both due to healers who weren't really healers and had obviously gamed their iLvl to get into heroics. Waste of nearly 2 hours with nothing to show for it. Sucks monkey balls.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 12, 2011, 02:32:02 PM
I really think they need to exclude gear with resilience from the calculation.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 12, 2011, 03:09:15 PM
I really think they need to exclude gear with resilience from the calculation.

They need to exclude:

Gear with resilience (I know, we talked about the like 2 classes that can dps fine with it, who cares)
Inappropriate gear (346 plate in my warlocks bag should NOT increase my average ilvl, and we shouldn't reward people for wearing cloth as a shaman so don't count down-typed gear either)

It should just be soulbound stuff that is class appropriate. And then just lower the ilvl to queue if you have a full group using LFD so a guild can choose to carry someone.

I had an H-Stonecore tank appear in a group that was blocked on Oz, and he asks why everyone started laughing, and he obviously had the gear if he got into the queue. I point out that battle.net shows ilvl equipped, and he was rolling in at average ilvl 312 equipped. He died pretty much instantly trying to tank one of the hardest, most punishing heroic fights with really really terrible gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on January 12, 2011, 03:16:32 PM
I'm just hoping this all gets sorted when I hit 85.  Probably in a month or two.

Of course, I can't make up my mind if I want to play as resto or enhance at endgame.

Oh, who am I kidding.  I'll be resto.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 12, 2011, 03:25:26 PM
I'm just hoping this all gets sorted when I hit 85.  Probably in a month or two.

Of course, I can't make up my mind if I want to play as resto or enhance at endgame.

Oh, who am I kidding.  I'll be resto.   :oh_i_see:

See, I trick myself by leveling and gearing alts that will never see many raids because I have a healing priest ;)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 12, 2011, 03:33:17 PM
Huge nerf on the Baron in SFK.  It wasn't THAt hard to interrupt, was it?

The "problem" with the baron was that it required coordination between two interrupters.  I guess expecting people to interrupt an ability is one thing, expecting two of them to alternate was a bit much.  I just ran this on my rogue, took five attempts of me yelling I CANT STOP EVERYTHING WITH MY 10s KICK for the other three people who could interrupt to help out.

Yes, but it could have been accomplished by putting a delay timer in there rather than removing the ability entirely. I also forget not everyone macros a "Hey I interrupted" /say like I and my regular group mates do.

It should just be soulbound stuff that is class appropriate. And then just lower the ilvl to queue if you have a full group using LFD so a guild can choose to carry someone.

Just make ilevel calculate only off of equipped stuff that applies to <your class armor skill under general abilities> and it's done.  Such a simple fix to counter obvious exploits I'm loathe to say "hee hee C-level designers" again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on January 12, 2011, 05:39:25 PM
And, right after Ghostcrawler's post of how heroics are exactly where Blizzard wants them, the full PTR patch notes went up. Full of nerfs to Heroics. (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2011384)

 :facepalm:

That's what happens when you don't actually read what he posted, which was much longer than the cherry-picked quote above, and included among other things that make it sound less unreasonable:

Quote
As always, we're keeping an eye on things. There are a few bosses that seem responsible for more wipes than the others: Commander Springvale, Beauty, Altairus, and Admiral Ripsnarl perhaps. By the time you read this, you might have seen us implement Restoration druid buffs intended to keep them competitive in raids. We also just tend to nerf content over time because the original players hitting that content have moved on, so we want to open it up to a wider audience.

Yes, there's definitely some changes to most (all?) the Heroics but a lot of them are quality-of-life changes and in the case of Halls of Origination, a few buffs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on January 12, 2011, 05:39:55 PM
Man, I just do not agree that the success rate has improved in heroic pugs. It's going down rapidly for me. If you got in some the early ones, you were with hardcores, catasses, etc. who at least tend to know content and be able to work their toons pretty well. Now lots of straight up failures have tweaked their gear such that they can queue and all you need in some cases is just one of them. Coupled with people who think they know what they're doing but don't.

I was in a SFK pug two days ago where two guys kept shouting orders about interrupts on the first boss that were actively contradictory and then complaining that me, the failrogue, wasn't interrupting the right thing. I'm like, look, you get a choice of which thing you want me to interrupt. I'm cool, I'll go with the plan, but don't freaking scream to interrupt something else, change your own behavior and then complain because I'm not sure any longer what the plan is when we're 25% in to the fight. Everybody has to do the right thing, guys, you know, *teamwork*. That's the basic problem: some of the heroics require coordinated action, not just "do your own thing in isolation from everyone else".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 12, 2011, 08:27:53 PM
Yeah but at least that's a boss fight. Wiping on boss fights is part of a pve game. Wasting untold hours on trash is not, and that's why tanks aren't queuing up anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 12, 2011, 08:36:30 PM
Trash isn't as bad as we gear up. My main issue comes up with bosses where I know the mechanic of the fight means that X random player can make the fight unbeatable. Dragon/warlock dude in H-GB for example. If you have someone who sucks at the idea of kiting and he gets tagged for an elemental, you're screwed.

There are a lot of punishingly specific mechanics in the heroic fights, because without the ability to oneshot you if you fuck up, things will eventually turn back into Wrath's "just heal through it"  bullshit. But it still makes pugging a heroic a painful experience.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on January 12, 2011, 09:35:17 PM
Latest PTR Change:

Shapeshifitng no longer breaks roots.



 :oh_i_see: :uhrr: :oh_i_see: :uhrr: :oh_i_see: :ye_gods: :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on January 12, 2011, 09:52:21 PM
Thank god. Wish it didn't get snares either tbh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on January 12, 2011, 09:57:19 PM
It kills my Moonchicken entirely. Like, the Instant Root Glyph change was already going to do that too, but this buries the body 10 feet down now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on January 12, 2011, 10:01:53 PM
Well, ferals have been rigged in WSG and whatever the new one is for like, ever. So fuck them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 12, 2011, 10:47:11 PM
Wow, that's pretty much instant unviability for our arena team right there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on January 12, 2011, 11:10:28 PM
I guess my complaining that they took away heroism from our shaman/paladin team will not get many tears of sympathy from Fordel now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 12, 2011, 11:23:50 PM
I'm glad I've settled on my prot pally this xpac.

Edit: They are going to have to rework feral at this point if they put this through. Unless root=useless is where they want them to be.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on January 13, 2011, 12:54:02 AM
Man, I just do not agree that the success rate has improved in heroic pugs.

Yeah I may have to revise that statement. I think I just had a really lucky week or so. Lastnight and this morning have been terrible. All my available gaming time has been wasted on failed groups.

Only thing I got out of it was enough time in the queues to get all the dailies done I could possibly want.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 13, 2011, 03:27:32 AM
The issue seems to be that it's a nerf aimed squarely at the crazy difficulty of removing a kitty from whatever they want to be attacking, but winds up beating the crap out of the other two specs, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 13, 2011, 04:25:59 AM
I'm glad I've settled on my prot pally this xpac.

Edit: They are going to have to rework feral at this point if they put this through. Unless root=useless is where they want them to be.

You mean like.. oh.. every other melee?  :awesome_for_real:

My opinion mirrors Rendakor.  Fuck 'em.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on January 13, 2011, 06:44:23 AM
They are still immune to poly and can break out of snares easy enough. Roots tend to break pretty fast anyway and this makes them no worse off than warriors.

Now they too get to experience the joy of blowing every escape they can muster to just try to touch a frost mage like I do as a warrior.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: jakonovski on January 13, 2011, 08:24:10 AM
As a Frost Mage, Ferals are what kills me while Warriors just flail ineffectively. I have to blow every cooldown to even get the possibility of doing enough damage to kill a bearcat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 13, 2011, 08:25:30 AM
Look at all you people with your killing.

I'm just happy not to die instantly on my disc priest. Killing people is something that happens to other people

\wrists


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on January 13, 2011, 10:11:02 AM
Last night's PuG reminded me of another trend I've been seeing more of (which is to say, I"ve seen it about 5 times in two weeks so far), which is very heavily geared guild groups PuGging out a slot or two to dps. This in itself isn't remarkable (our guild does it some), but what it brings with it is worthy of comment.

Two things. One is they rarely use CC and just attempt to steamroll the heroic--usually successfully, but not always. If they do CC, it's invariably a guild hunter or mageling and they get pissy if I jump in with hex or shackle. The second is they'll amost invariably kick any other dps that's pulling less than 9k. It's definately a zerg mentality and the dps really does need to smoke.

Most interesting was a PALS FOR LIFE group (of Leroy Jenkins fame, I do believe) I joined. They ran like clockwork (no Leroy zergs, which was actually a bit disappointing), and the hunter was truly amazing. They didn't bother to ask me to hex or shackle and it was Grim Batol, where both are pretty handy. Probably the smoothest HGB I've ever been in, though. The other side of it was another group I had about a week and half ago that went through the third dps slot on about every boss. It was in SFK, and, yeah, I think we had about 8 dps total through the instance. The tank was pulling (no CC ) about 8k dps and it you weren't above that, they'd kick on every boss. Ironically, he died on the last boss at 5% and I had to tank him to finish the job.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 13, 2011, 10:19:07 AM
Last night's PuG reminded me of another trend I've been seeing more of (which is to say, I"ve seen it about 5 times in two weeks so far), which is very heavily geared guild groups PuGging out a slot or two to dps. This in itself isn't remarkable (our guild does it some), but what it brings with it is worthy of comment.

Two things. One is they rarely use CC and just attempt to steamroll the heroic--usually successfully, but not always. If they do CC, it's invariably a guild hunter or mageling and they get pissy if I jump in with hex or shackle. The second is they'll amost invariably kick any other dps that's pulling less than 9k. It's definately a zerg mentality and the dps really does need to smoke.

Most interesting was a PALS FOR LIFE group (of Leroy Jenkins fame, I do believe) I joined. They ran like clockwork (no Leroy zergs, which was actually a bit disappointing), and the hunter was truly amazing. They didn't bother to ask me to hex or shackle and it was Grim Batol, where both are pretty handy. Probably the smoothest HGB I've ever been in, though. The other side of it was another group I had about a week and half ago that went through the third dps slot on about every boss. It was in SFK, and, yeah, I think we had about 8 dps total through the instance. The tank was pulling (no CC ) about 8k dps and it you weren't above that, they'd kick on every boss. Ironically, he died on the last boss at 5% and I had to tank him to finish the job.

8k dps while it seems high is not unreasonable to ask for and on the commander boss in sfk is pretty necessary. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 13, 2011, 10:41:53 AM
I fully expect everyone in a heroic to be doing 7k minimum on the whole. As a tank you're going to be doing around 5k if you're paying attention and in 333+ gear. I've seen dps pulling 10k+ and those are pure gold. I've also seen dps in heroics all too often pulling 6k. That's where the problem really lies for me. That means those people are trying, and they either don't have the right gear or "just aren't getting it."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 13, 2011, 10:51:23 AM
It bothers me that people don't take spec or role into account.  Asking someone to CC and still maintain high DPS is annoying.  Further, Affliction locks directly scale DPS with the amount of fucking enemies that you're taking on at the time.

My own personal rule when I'm tanking is that if shit is getting killed and no-one is dying, then everything's just peachy.  Those types that are scrutinising Recount can eat shit directly out my asshole.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on January 13, 2011, 11:03:34 AM

My own personal rule when I'm tanking is that if shit is getting killed and no-one is dying, then everything's just peachy. 


This is kind of my view of things. However, if the tank (or whomever) isn't marking for CC, and just zerging mobs down, then the dps MUST really turn it on. Some of it is just assholery, but that's why I assume these groups are kicking lowish dps.

Now when you pull a heroic (hello, Lady N...) where your plate dps is pulling 4k and dying in about every geyser, then, yeah, that's a problem that needs to be dealt with. When your plate dps is turning 7.5k and the tank--in partial T11--is turning 8k from the massive vengeance stacks--no CC, remember?--then gets an attitude and kicks the plate dps, not totally warranted in my opinion (the rest of the dps was 10k+, but still...).

And if the mageling is dying, well, that doesn't count. Or a rogue, for that matter. That makes the run even better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 13, 2011, 11:29:08 AM
It bothers me that people don't take spec or role into account.  Asking someone to CC and still maintain high DPS is annoying.  Further, Affliction locks directly scale DPS with the amount of fucking enemies that you're taking on at the time.

My own personal rule when I'm tanking is that if shit is getting killed and no-one is dying, then everything's just peachy.  Those types that are scrutinising Recount can eat shit directly out my asshole.



I only stare at recount during bosses, when classes can settle into a pretty solid rotation and not gain or lose from burst damage. If you're not clearing 3k on a boss, you're doing something wrong (we had a 2.3k destro lock the other day, after the run he was crying about his damage, so I sat him down and gave him How U Destro 101)

As for how many mobs aren't CCed: is the tank dying, is the healer needing to drink every second pull. If either of those are true, CC more. Sure, it hurts my lock's dps, but enh. Everything being AE'd down in 10 seconds mauls my lock's ramp up time, too. Affliction just isn't a trash focused spec ;)

Affliction wise, I can do 10-12k on a boss depending on how many "fuck up your rotation by making you dodge shit or going immune to shit" phases there are, but probably around 6-7k on trash, where most things will die far before I can get full stacks of shadow embrace up, and BoA is still in it's tiny tic phase.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 13, 2011, 11:57:40 AM
It bothers me that people don't take spec or role into account.  Asking someone to CC and still maintain high DPS is annoying.  Further, Affliction locks directly scale DPS with the amount of fucking enemies that you're taking on at the time.

My own personal rule when I'm tanking is that if shit is getting killed and no-one is dying, then everything's just peachy.  Those types that are scrutinising Recount can eat shit directly out my asshole.

My personal rule is have you picked up your backpack at the door, or are you expecting someone else to carry it for you? I don't care if things are fine when we have 2 great dps and one suckass pulling 4k not CCing. I'm harder on dps for a reason: they are legion. They can be replaced in a nano-second, so why put up with someone who just plain sucks? Remember that they are doing the job that everyone else is more than happy to do. Either be situationally functional or be high output. Pick one of those and you'll never have a problem from me. If you're both, you rule. If you're neither, you're gone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 13, 2011, 12:02:06 PM
Indeed.  Which is why I'm one of the tanks that's fun to be with and you have the option of gobbling shit out my asshole.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 13, 2011, 12:10:20 PM
Indeed.  Which is why I'm one of the tanks that's fun to be with and you have the option of gobbling shit out my asshole.

You disagree that dps are more than just glorified NPCs?   :why_so_serious:

But seriously, I don't care if removing a person who's obviously not trying ruins their fun. If the bad dps out there who don't CC or know how to get out of fire don't like that, let them fucking unionize. The Local Morons #102


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on January 13, 2011, 12:12:22 PM
Indeed.  Which is why I'm one of the tanks that's fun to be with and you have the option of gobbling shit out my asshole.

You disagree that dps are more than just glorified NPCs?   :why_so_serious:

But seriously, I don't care if removing a person who's obviously not trying ruins their fun. If the bad dps out there who don't CC or know how to get out of fire don't like that, let them fucking unionize.

What if they are trying, but they just suck? How do you tell the difference?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 13, 2011, 12:15:27 PM
What if they are trying, but they just suck? How do you tell the difference?

People that are trying do some of the following: CC, interrupt, don't go afk, keep up, stay on the skull, stay out of fire most of the time, etc. Their dps is irrelevent because they are situationally aware.

If they can't handle that they aren't trying. If they are really trying and they can't handle that, quit the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 13, 2011, 12:16:57 PM
You can get hints from recount. You should be able to tell after 1-2 trash pulls if someone is hitcapped or not. As a healer I can usually see what people are doing and the DPS who is pulling aggro by trying to solo an elite or who stands around for 5-10s after combat has started always stand out.

Mainly it's an attitude thing. If I ask them if they could do more DPS and they are contrite or apologetic, I'll keep them and try to help them. If they get pissy they can fuck right off. Then again, I run with 3-4 guildmates most of the time so I don't really get to see the worst of PuGs all the time.

People that are trying do some of the following: CC, interrupt, don't go afk, keep up, stay on the skull, stay out of fire most of the time, etc. Their dps is irrelevent because they are situationally aware.

If they can't handle that they aren't trying. If they are really trying and they can't handle that, quit the game.

This pretty much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on January 13, 2011, 12:35:23 PM
We booted a lock from a SFK run yesterday because he was pulling around 4-5k dps and wouldn't respond at all when we tried talking to him.  Replaced him immediately with a hunter who did great.  I'm not playing for other peoples fun, I'm playing for mine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on January 13, 2011, 12:49:42 PM
My mage has just started heroics, having hit 333 iLvl average, and when I'm interrupting, moving, CCing and re-CCing he sometimes pulls 4-5k on a fight. With a clear run he hits 9-10k on a boss fight with all cooldowns up but most heroic runs aren't like that.

People kicking just on DPS numbers are wankstains. It's just not that simple.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 13, 2011, 01:35:31 PM
There is no excuse for spec anymore.  Affl lock not doing well? You should have dual spec, go destro.  If you wanna be a frost mage or subtlety rogue or whatever lower dps spec you better pull your weight and if not, switch. It's not lilke asking someone to go from tank to healer here. Every class have a good dps spec for heroic, no reason not to use it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 13, 2011, 01:37:19 PM
There is no excuse for spec anymore.  Affl lock not doing well? You should have dual spec, go destro.  If you wanna be a frost mage or subtlety rogue or whatever lower dps spec you better pull your weight and if not, switch. It's not lilke asking someone to go from tank to healer here. Every class have a good dps spec for heroic, no reason not to use it.

But what if that lock wants to PeeVeePee?!?!  :awesome_for_real:

If you're a dps you should at the worst have a pve and pvp spec. At best, you have a trash spec and a boss spec.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 13, 2011, 01:40:58 PM
 :why_so_serious:

There's a lot of Polishing of Armor going on in here.

So very Un-Christian.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 13, 2011, 01:44:03 PM
At best, you have a trash spec and a boss spec.

That's a bit over the top for heroics really. I frankly cannot be arsed to wait for a minute before and after each boss so some mage or lock can switch specs, rebuff and drink to full. It's hardly like the disparity between trash and bosses is insurmountable.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 13, 2011, 01:46:57 PM
At best, you have a trash spec and a boss spec.

That's a bit over the top for heroics really. I frankly cannot be arsed to wait for a minute before and after each boss so some mage or lock can switch specs, rebuff and drink to full. It's hardly like the disparity between trash and bosses is insurmountable.

I meant more for raiding there. You can have a raid spec and a heroic spec as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on January 13, 2011, 02:29:27 PM
Right now both my mage's specs are arcane*, both my druid's specs are feral, and both my shaman's specs are resto. Because sometimes I want to PeeVeePee.

*well, they were when I played her; I'm sure they're reset now


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 13, 2011, 03:05:34 PM
There is no excuse for spec anymore.  Affl lock not doing well? You should have dual spec, go destro.  If you wanna be a frost mage or subtlety rogue or whatever lower dps spec you better pull your weight and if not, switch. It's not lilke asking someone to go from tank to healer here. Every class have a good dps spec for heroic, no reason not to use it.

Trash spec/Boss spec would be terrible. Aside from keeping two sets of heroic/epic gear (affliction and destro have opposite opinions on the values of haste and crit), at least for casters, you're talking "okay, boss time, let me cast change spec, resummon my pet, and drink/lifetap+soulchannel!" instead of just accepting that some classes have dps ramp up time, and trash means they won't be rolling 11k the entire instance.

Personally, I'm fine with 7k on trash and just blow your cooldowns to hit 10/12k on bosses. Just don't keep doing iffy dps when we hit a boss.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 13, 2011, 03:11:29 PM
You do realize the majority of time in heroics is spent on trash right? I would be happier with more dps there as long as there isn't a gigantic drop off on the bosses, not the other way around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 13, 2011, 03:35:26 PM
Hey, I'm not saying people can't play the way they want but "I know this spec is really low dps but i have fun in it" doesnt cut it for me. You want to have fun in your retarded pvp build? fine. Just go play pvp and don't drag down a heroic or just dual spec into something useful.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 13, 2011, 04:07:11 PM
Other than lolsubtelty, are there any DPS specs which really are that fundamentally bad?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 13, 2011, 04:22:31 PM
Other than lolsubtelty, are there any DPS specs which really are that fundamentally bad?

No. It's the difference between 7k and 10k on trash, pretty much. Everyone is 9-11k on bosses.

Poor trash specs are those with ramp up times to hit peak damage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 13, 2011, 04:23:15 PM
I keep hearing that marks and BM are both terrible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 13, 2011, 04:29:33 PM
That might just be relative to Survival though.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on January 13, 2011, 04:45:44 PM
Meh. Told my guild to not expect me back after my time card runs out in a couple weeks. After my girlfriend observed that I seemed to hate pretty much everything I do in WoW now, I realized she was right: the only things I was having fun doing were archaeology and leveling my lowbie Shaman; if I'm enjoying archaeology more than most everything else, something's badly wrong. Guild Heroic runs are either butter-smooth or multi-hour wipe-fests, PUG heroics are, for me, usually nightmarish, and pretty much everything raiding has left me totally cold.

Call me a "Wrath baby" if you like, but at least I had fun then.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on January 13, 2011, 04:57:56 PM
I cringe when I hear that term, if for no other reason than it sounds stupid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on January 13, 2011, 05:06:29 PM
Meh. Told my guild to not expect me back after my time card runs out in a couple weeks. After my girlfriend observed that I seemed to hate pretty much everything I do in WoW now, I realized she was right: the only things I was having fun doing were archaeology and leveling my lowbie Shaman; if I'm enjoying archaeology more than most everything else, something's badly wrong. Guild Heroic runs are either butter-smooth or multi-hour wipe-fests, PUG heroics are, for me, usually nightmarish, and pretty much everything raiding has left me totally cold.

Call me a "Wrath baby" if you like, but at least I had fun then.

You mean you weren't inspired by Ghostcrawler's post about how heroics are supposed to be hard, and you just need to learn to play?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 13, 2011, 05:14:45 PM
I would be with koro but I am having way too damn much fun pvping as a prot pally right now. It's weird, I usually hate pvp, but there it is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on January 13, 2011, 05:32:26 PM
Meh. Told my guild to not expect me back after my time card runs out in a couple weeks. After my girlfriend observed that I seemed to hate pretty much everything I do in WoW now, I realized she was right: the only things I was having fun doing were archaeology and leveling my lowbie Shaman; if I'm enjoying archaeology more than most everything else, something's badly wrong. Guild Heroic runs are either butter-smooth or multi-hour wipe-fests, PUG heroics are, for me, usually nightmarish, and pretty much everything raiding has left me totally cold.

Call me a "Wrath baby" if you like, but at least I had fun then.

You mean you weren't inspired by Ghostcrawler's post about how heroics are supposed to be hard, and you just need to learn to play?


Or the multitude of posts everywhere else going "man heroic PUGs are fine."

Heroic PUGs are only the half of it. The raids themselves just turn me completely off. 10-man raiding is so class and spec-dependent that it's almost not even worth banging your head against an encounter for three hours a night unless you're running with a tried and tested and successful comp. I've heard 25-mans are more lenient and a lot more approachable, but there aren't any good 25-man guilds I'd want to be a part of on my server.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 13, 2011, 08:02:35 PM
I think I identified the problem I have with heroics. They are wildly uneven in places. One boss is hardly different from regular while another is just an orgy of running out of shit.

I think that Blizzard knows now that the only thing that makes a fight "challenging" anymore is adding a shitload of ground effects.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on January 13, 2011, 08:16:18 PM
It's not the only way to make heroic fights challenging, but it's the only "obvious enough for anyone wandering into it for the first time" way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on January 13, 2011, 08:16:50 PM
One night in Bilgewater makes a hard orc humble.   :oh_i_see:

(edit: Ok, the Twilight Highlands pre-quests are getting fun(ny).)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 13, 2011, 08:28:57 PM
It's not the only way to make heroic fights challenging, but it's the only "obvious enough for anyone wandering into it for the first time" way.

Oh I left out adds. So far the ones ppl seem to have trouble with center around ground effects or annoying adds. I'm trying to think of a tough heroic dungeon fight that doesn't include at least one if not both, and I'm coming up dry.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 13, 2011, 08:52:28 PM
As a playability issue Blizz should consider throwing in those gems and item enchant materials for justice points again. It might get a few reluctant tanks and healers to hit the queue again.

/shrug


Also, if they wanted to put some gems back up for honour, I know a certain honour capped Prot Pally and his friends who would be grateful.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on January 13, 2011, 08:55:51 PM

Also, if they wanted to put some gems back up for honour, I know a certain honour capped Prot Pally and his friends who would be grateful.
[/quote

They probably will, but not until after epic gems are back in the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 13, 2011, 08:57:22 PM
Looking through the JP stuff, part of the issue is that the tank gear is useless. Like, itemized really, really poorly. I can think of two pieces I may want, that's it. My priest would like practically a full set, however.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on January 13, 2011, 09:04:50 PM
My complaint isn't even that the shit is poorly itemized (it is), but that there's no reliable consumable to spend points on. I already had every heirloom in existence (and most classes at 80 anyway) in WotLK, so once I got all my tank gear there's NOTHING I can get from JP at all. No Chaos Orbs, no gems, nothing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 13, 2011, 09:40:37 PM
It's not the only way to make heroic fights challenging, but it's the only "obvious enough for anyone wandering into it for the first time" way.

And they tend to only use obvious mechanics, because losing gold and time because of obtuse mechanics frustrates people, and they can't afford to do that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on January 13, 2011, 10:42:24 PM
Yeah, that's what I was trying to hint at.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on January 14, 2011, 12:07:21 AM
My complaint isn't even that the shit is poorly itemized (it is), but that there's no reliable consumable to spend points on. I already had every heirloom in existence (and most classes at 80 anyway) in WotLK, so once I got all my tank gear there's NOTHING I can get from JP at all. No Chaos Orbs, no gems, nothing.
I imagine this will only be the case untill the next Raid content push.  Then EVERYTHING currently available for VP gets bumped down to the JP bracket, and at that point, I imagine they will probably add Chaos orbs and possibly Gems into the JP vendors as well.

At the moment, the only people who have a use for Excess JP once they have everything they want is Enchanters, because they can buy the JP gear and DE it for shards.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on January 14, 2011, 01:42:44 AM
Hey, I'm not saying people can't play the way they want but "I know this spec is really low dps but i have fun in it" doesnt cut it for me. You want to have fun in your retarded pvp build? fine. Just go play pvp and don't drag down a heroic or just dual spec into something useful.

Hang on, who was this thread direction originally aimed at? I never said anything about my mage's spec. He's arcane.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on January 14, 2011, 10:03:44 AM
I imagine this will only be the case untill the next Raid content push.  Then EVERYTHING currently available for VP gets bumped down to the JP bracket, and at that point, I imagine they will probably add Chaos orbs and possibly Gems into the JP vendors as well.

At the moment, the only people who have a use for Excess JP once they have everything they want is Enchanters, because they can buy the JP gear and DE it for shards.
Fair enough; that's not exactly coming any time soon. The only use I imagine I'll have for Chaos Orbs then will be the new recipes they inevitably add, assuming they use Chaos Orbs still and not New_Raid_Orb_X. Gems will be nice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on January 15, 2011, 12:01:37 AM
I imagine this will only be the case untill the next Raid content push.  Then EVERYTHING currently available for VP gets bumped down to the JP bracket, and at that point, I imagine they will probably add Chaos orbs and possibly Gems into the JP vendors as well.

At the moment, the only people who have a use for Excess JP once they have everything they want is Enchanters, because they can buy the JP gear and DE it for shards.
Fair enough; that's not exactly coming any time soon. The only use I imagine I'll have for Chaos Orbs then will be the new recipes they inevitably add, assuming they use Chaos Orbs still and not New_Raid_Orb_X. Gems will be nice.
Speak of the devil.  The following just showed up on the latest round of patch notes posted on MMO champ:

Items

    * The Honor Commodities and Justice Commodities Vendors now sell raw tradeskill materials. These are not intended to be a cost-effective source of these materials, but an option for players with lots of Justice or Honor Points who have already purchased all of the gear that interests them.

Unfortunately, no list as of yet about what is included in their new inventories has been posted anywyere that I could find.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on January 15, 2011, 01:53:42 AM
I'm hoping they put ore, leather, dust, cloth.  With prices upwards of 30g per single piece of embersilk on my server, I need some other way to get at this stuff. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 15, 2011, 06:33:12 AM
I'm hoping they put ore, leather, dust, cloth.  With prices upwards of 30g per single piece of embersilk on my server, I need some other way to get at this stuff. 

Good lord, still?  Are you on a small pop server?  Embersilk dropped to 6g/ piece a week or two ago on mine, shortly after they gave extra cloth drops to tailors again.

Heavenly Dust, on the other hand, is still ridiculously expensive and the essences are something like 32g each.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 15, 2011, 07:15:22 AM
I sold a pair of epic tailored cloth pants for 20k on my server. Some people are insane.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on January 15, 2011, 08:18:12 AM
High pop server, one of the first launched.  We have what amounts to a trade cartel with our AH, I think.  There are people that likely spend more time working the AH than actually playing the game.  Things look better this morning, at 10g per piece, though with it being the weekend it will be all over the place.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on January 15, 2011, 09:18:50 AM
With prices upwards of 30g per single piece of embersilk on my server, I need some other way to get at this stuff. 
Have you tried killing ogres at Glopgut's Hollow?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 15, 2011, 09:38:39 AM
With prices upwards of 30g per single piece of embersilk on my server, I need some other way to get at this stuff. 
Have you tried killing ogres at Glopgut's Hollow?

Murder large numbers of ghosts/humanoids in TB, as well. I spent 2 hours farming The Leftovers mobs when we owned TB and came out with two bags full of embersilk stacks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on January 15, 2011, 10:24:48 AM
There are people that likely spend more time working the AH than actually playing the game.

I've played with a few people who spend more time playing the AH than anything else.  I don't quite get it myself, but they don't understand why I'm rep grinding either.  But hey, WoW does seem to have a little something for everyone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 15, 2011, 12:56:05 PM
I think it's time for me to unsub and give my reason as "You killed the fun, dumbasses.  When you nerf heroics to the point they're not huge pains in the ass for all parties involved I might return."

I've resorted to griefing people by queuing as a tank and sitting there watching the timer tick down because I find that to be more fun than waiting 45 mins in a queue to find I'm in a group with 3 guildmates who don't like the look of the tank so they DC and ruin my hour of waiting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on January 15, 2011, 01:15:53 PM
There are people that likely spend more time working the AH than actually playing the game.

I've played with a few people who spend more time playing the AH than anything else.  I don't quite get it myself, but they don't understand why I'm rep grinding either.  But hey, WoW does seem to have a little something for everyone.

I started down that path in BC... and I quickly realized that if I can spend that much time buying low, selling high for 1s and 0s, then I should really, really set aside a grand and do it in real life.  That never quite panned out, though. 

Regarding the quote above
Quote
"You killed the fun, dumbasses."
, I think there's a lot of people unsubbing right now.  My "guild" consists of my dad, brother and myself; we've all unsubbed.  It's just simply not fun anymore. 

Too many core changes to the classes we play is what is really hurting us.  My dad plays a balance druid and hates the new eclipse mechanic.  I play a hunter, pally and mage, of which the first two went through major class mechanics changes and are no longer fun to play.  So I'm playing my mage, waiting 35min for a heroic.  Sure, I could gear my pally for prot and go tank, but i just don't want to.  It's a bummer, really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on January 15, 2011, 01:36:53 PM
Look, I'm usually topping the charts in guild and PUG heroics. So this is not a noob whine. But honestly, there's a happy place between mind-numbing boredom and Wrath you-can't-lose. This is not the happy place. Unless all the factors align, heroics are a long haul and not much fun. I don't expect raiding to be much different.

There has got to be another paradigm for "difficult" that is not "long and boring" or "complex ten-minute-long choreography so exacting that you could go onto being in a Broadway show after getting boss fights down".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 15, 2011, 02:27:16 PM
My judgement of difficulty in Cata is essentially "how many members of your group cannot mess up or you wipe"

Mostly due to stupid shit, like the warlock in H-GB's fire elementals. In theory, an easy mechanic! In reality, if even one person flubs for a few seconds, you can wipe.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on January 15, 2011, 02:28:33 PM
I find Cataclysm raiding quite enjoyable, provided that your raid is stacked with the proper class composition for each encounter, whereby they become challenging but doable. Otherwise? Brick wall.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on January 15, 2011, 03:21:55 PM
My guild groups are at the point where we can pretty much one-shot bosses all through heroics.  PUGs are a different story, it's either two extremes for me.... awesome or fail, fail, fail. 

I kind of like the difficulty of the new stuff.  I mean I only started playing WoW steadily just over a year ago.  Wrath was way too easy for my liking, you shouldn't be able to zerg through a heroic in 15 minutes.  Mind you, once the gear starts flowing, that's exactly what all these dungeons are gonna end up as.

It is surprising though the amount of people that still play heroics like it was Wrath.  Some people just don't get it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on January 15, 2011, 05:15:06 PM
I strongly suspect that Ghostcrawler's "It's fine, lern too plae" blog will disappear slightly before 4.1 (eventually) hits the PTR. 4.0.6 is going to go live, people are going to see that pugged heroics are still a crapshoot, and start cancelling. Then Blizzard is going to cave.

(Especially if Rift/SWTOR/etc. are not terrible).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on January 15, 2011, 06:00:34 PM
It's so strange, I like some of the new themepark zones but I have a hard time logging in.  Wrath had me obsessed, Cats has me bored.  In Wrath I did all the normal 5-mans, in Cats I've done a couple of them and have no urge to keep going.   I can't really explain why.  The game is just not compelling anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on January 15, 2011, 08:25:26 PM
Yeah, that's about my place. It's down to the pure social glue keeping me, really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 15, 2011, 09:46:40 PM
It's so strange, I like some of the new themepark zones but I have a hard time logging in.  Wrath had me obsessed, Cats has me bored.  In Wrath I did all the normal 5-mans, in Cats I've done a couple of them and have no urge to keep going.   I can't really explain why.  The game is just not compelling anymore.

We'll see how things go, but I don't think Blizzard anticipated exactly how little patience their playerbase has with getting no-where in "harder" content. They thought by removing the 25 man blocks that people would be appeased if they made heroics harder, and equalized raids. The problem is that people who enjoy the harder content of heroics and are functionally able to create their own groups and complete them are already well into the raiding game. They don't need heroics, they don't even want that as their content. It's simply in the way, they crush it and move on.

The people that like five mans aren't raiders. They liked going through things at their own pace and getting gear that was decent while doing it. They liked socializing with different people and not worrying about class-balancing. Also, why would you force crowd controlling on a population of people that are casually enjoying your content, yet you NEVER use crowd control in the raiding game? It seems ridiculous to me to make the 5 man game more complicated.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 15, 2011, 10:10:48 PM
In my opinion they have just been listening to the wrong people. Yeah, no one said they liked faceroll heroics, and actually getting to see the raids on the forums, that's not the type of people who post there. It almost seems to me like Ghostcrawler has been lurking on the forums of AoC, or Aion, or any of those other games whose members pat themselves on the back for not playing WoW, and got all butt hurt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 15, 2011, 10:52:59 PM
I would tell him not to put major challenges in the stepping stone phase of your content. Heroics are meant to be the mid-point where you garner JP to afford that "almost there" get-raid-ready stuff.

I agree with you that people didn't quit the game when heroics were easy. They will quit the game when they are long, not fun, and a 33% success rate in a random group. I've told that to people and they always say the same shit: "They are easy, you just have to have good X."

X could be composition, healer, dps, CC, awareness, etc. I've heard them all. My response was, do you really think an average group, pulled together at random can accomplish X with regularity. They always laugh and say no, but that's because they suck, and you shouldn't design difficulty around who sucks.

In a raid setting, I agree with that philosophy. Design harder raids, and nerf them over time, or add buffs over time. People can ignore the raids in the beginning and focus on other stuff to be happy (LIKE HEROICS). When you take even the heroics away as a fun way to easily spend time with an average group, you know what you are left with? Three dungeons and pvp.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 15, 2011, 11:36:06 PM
I do think if there were 85 normal versions of all the dungeons, the problem would largely be solved (although 3 versions of a dungeon is probably too many.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 15, 2011, 11:55:49 PM
The JP from the heroic daily is also an issue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on January 16, 2011, 12:16:21 AM
It's not lilke asking someone to go from tank to healer here. Every class have a good dps spec for heroic, no reason not to use it.

My Shaman main (since late vanilla) still hasn't gone dual-spec - I'm enhance4lyfe. I keep toying with dual-speccing elemental but then someone might suggest I go heal - fuck that, I leveled resto in TBC up to and including Kara and I never want to heal again (unless the healer dies in which case I pop heals on the tank and myself when maelstrom procs or the tank is hurting). I dps as hard as (or harder than) an ele shaman and can CC as well and have a better chance of wind-shearing.

Having said that my Hunter is BM for questing and never for heroics. Survival is top DPS so unless we need a core-hound Blood Lust, I only run Survival. It makes sense and while I can't match the 12K dps the shamy puts out yet (gear), I can be in the top 2 DPS while CCing (trap/wyvern sting) and usually produce 7-9K dps.

Not listening to other players and being obstinate is silly if you aren't performing.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 16, 2011, 02:09:53 AM
Last night was ok.  We romped through ToT and got the Guild Heroic achievement.  Then I decided that we should go kill Squidhead, since - for SOME REASON - all Pugs skipped him.

OMG.

That corridor is such utter bullshit it's not even real.  We wiped more on that than we did all week.  What a fucking stupid, stupid bunch of mechanics that is.

Then went on to Vortex and mashed first boss, tried Dragon 3 times and aced him on the third go.  At that point we get to Baron Von WindyBum and find the 'sticky' mechanic, which, much like Ozruks slow, is also utter bullshit.  We slog through it until Midnight trying different things and then cave in.

At that point, I read that the chain lightning does the same damage spread out or bunched up (which is different to every other fucking Chain Lightning boss mechanic out there) and the wife pipes up 'Well, if we can bunch up, mass dispel would make it trivial'.

Awesome.

No, Sir, I don't like this new 'It's going to be hard and stupid and you all need to FRAPS your attempts to figure it all out' Bullshit.

The only positive is that we all really felt good that we'd achieved the first Guild Heroic award.

Edited to Add :  The loot is just stupid too;  The Blue stuff is barely different to the Heroic stuff which is barely different to the JP stuff.  It's all so samey and pointless and never makes you feel like 'WoW, I Got Something There'.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 16, 2011, 02:28:30 AM
Then went on to Vortex and mashed first boss, tried Dragon 3 times and aced him on the third go.  At that point we get to Baron Von WindyBum and find the 'sticky' mechanic, which, much like Ozruks slow, is also utter bullshit.  We slog through it until Midnight trying different things and then cave in.

At that point, I read that the chain lightning does the same damage spread out or bunched up (which is different to every other fucking Chain Lightning boss mechanic out there) and the wife pipes up 'Well, if we can bunch up, mass dispel would make it trivial'.

The root is a dispel priority, but you have so much time inside the grounding fields during that fight that healing everyone to full is really a non-issue. You can also jump to avoid the root. If you had a priest healer and you could make it through Altarius and the trash before Asaad, then I'm astonished that you had so much difficulty on the fight itself.

The best way to handle the Giblin packs in Throne of the Tides is to use your priest to MC one of them at the start of each pull so the MC'd mob eats the alpha from the other hunters, then drop the MC and the packs are a joke. The other guys are just a run-out-of-the-aoe type fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sparky on January 16, 2011, 02:41:40 AM
I've resorted to griefing people by queuing as a tank and sitting there watching the timer tick down because I find that to be more fun than waiting 45 mins in a queue to find I'm in a group with 3 guildmates who don't like the look of the tank so they DC and ruin my hour of waiting.

It's you, you're the reason pugging sucks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on January 16, 2011, 02:50:33 AM
Then went on to Vortex and mashed first boss, tried Dragon 3 times and aced him on the third go.  At that point we get to Baron Von WindyBum and find the 'sticky' mechanic, which, much like Ozruks slow, is also utter bullshit.  We slog through it until Midnight trying different things and then cave in.

At that point, I read that the chain lightning does the same damage spread out or bunched up (which is different to every other fucking Chain Lightning boss mechanic out there) and the wife pipes up 'Well, if we can bunch up, mass dispel would make it trivial'.

The root is a dispel priority, but you have so much time inside the grounding fields during that fight that healing everyone to full is really a non-issue. You can also jump to avoid the root. If you had a priest healer and you could make it through Altarius and the trash before Asaad, then I'm astonished that you had so much difficulty on the fight itself.

The best way to handle the Giblin packs in Throne of the Tides is to use your priest to MC one of them at the start of each pull so the MC'd mob eats the alpha from the other hunters, then drop the MC and the packs are a joke. The other guys are just a run-out-of-the-aoe type fight.
yeah, the alpha damage on those Gilblin packs is disgusting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 16, 2011, 02:53:37 AM
You know, I actually stopped myself from writing, in detail, all the stuff we tried simply to avoid the situation where someone breezes in and says 'Oh, this is what you should have done to avoid this, you noob.'

Honestly, K9, there's nothing new in your post.  Nothing.

We were jumping like the Jews of Jerusalem.  We tried the MC the Goblin, We sent a pet in first, we used intervene, we shapeshifted and Lock Ported to avoid it.

It's just not-fun hard.  The jumping in particular makes me laugh - Jump to avoid the static cling from a spell with a one second cast on an online game with latency.

Ok.  Tell it to the corpses.

Even funnier is the 'You have time to heal up in the shield'.  Not if you can't fucking get there.  I suspect a great deal of our problem was MY belief that you need to space out for the lightning.  That turns out not to be the case, despite all the other fights in the game where it was.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 16, 2011, 03:03:50 AM
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to call you a noob, I'm just a bit surprised because your experiences vary so differently from my own. From my experience Asaad was pretty much the easiest heroic boss in Cataclysm; I haven't ever been in a group that has wiped on him. I'll buy that there are heroics that are overtuned (Stonecore most of all), but most of the others are pretty much down to a single mechanic that if you cope with it, makes the fight easy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on January 16, 2011, 03:11:30 AM
The current problem with heroics is that if you've got a halfway-decently geared social group (most guilds, or bunch of friends, or what have you) and once you've figured out the gimmicks after a couple of runs - heroics aren't difficult, just a tedious slog. If you're in a pug, you are going to wipe. If you're a raider in a raiding guild, they're a half-hour zerg rush for guild xp and some JP that you have no actual use for.

So it's hardly surprising that even the people who can run them constantly...aren't.

(Also add to that the fact that most DPS haven't figured out yet that blaming the tank/healer for their own screw-ups means that tanks/healers are less likely to pug, and the queues just keep getting longer  :awesome_for_real: )


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 16, 2011, 03:12:57 AM
Yeah, as I say, it was probably my mistake.  (omg, noob, lern2readwowhead).  There's a hunter video out there soloing him on heroic, so clearly we sucked !   :awesome_for_real:

To get away from me, my point, which wasn't very clear, is threefold :

1 - Somethings DO need toned down, in my opinion, though the challenge can be fun.
2 - The Gear rewards need a closer look.  I should not be sitting looking at my normal blue and my heroic blue and thinking 'Wait, this just swaps dodge for parry.'
3 - PUGS.  Thinking on all I did last night and (honestly) how rewarding it felt at the end, I'm left thinking  - What would have happened in a PUG ?  *shiver*

EDIT  :  Yeah.  What Simond said.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on January 16, 2011, 04:56:06 AM
Oh man, I just remembered you can shut off XP gains in Stormwind/Orgrimmar. Now I can actually see the low-level content without outleveling it in the blink of an eye.

I just wish it were a toggle slash command rather than a "fly to Stormwind, pay 10g" thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on January 16, 2011, 05:44:12 AM
The loot from heroics really does suck; the lack of purples from end bosses really hurts the need to run them repeatedly. Generally, I don't like grinding through tiers of blues (first regular dungeons, then Heroics/JP) before getting purples.

A few of them are getting nerfed in 4.0.6 Ironwood, including the giblin packs. Interestingly, I see they've already nerfed the trash in H DM, in every place except where I thought it was needed. They made it less tedious, but the left the 4-5 packs of Defias (Blood Wizards, Enforcers, and Cant-CC-Me-On-Pull Rogues) alone.  :uhrr:
The best way to handle the Giblin packs in Throne of the Tides is to skip that wing entirely.
Fixed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 16, 2011, 06:10:26 AM
I've resorted to griefing people by queuing as a tank and sitting there watching the timer tick down because I find that to be more fun than waiting 45 mins in a queue to find I'm in a group with 3 guildmates who don't like the look of the tank so they DC and ruin my hour of waiting.

It's you, you're the reason pugging sucks.

Know what? At this point I don't give a flying fuck. Perhaps it'll piss enough people off that they quit or write enough angry forum posts that Blizz changes something.  Meanwhile I'll be giggling as I'm surveying or mining at the ease and success of my petulant-12-year-old stunt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on January 16, 2011, 06:35:48 AM
Also agree on the gear rewards of Heroics. Tired of seeing shit drop that is the exact same as the revered gear from the factions that I bought three weeks ago. I mean, with one stat different on it, that's all, so I guess if want to collect six identical necklaces so I can swap in hit and expertise and haste as need be, I could but...or, yeah, I could reforge, right. The heroic gear should be ever so slightly better than the rep reward gear. There should be some weird asymmetries in stats on different gear--the standardization of gear makes things so very boring.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on January 16, 2011, 06:45:33 AM
Making the final bos drop an eipc item wouldn't change the stats at all. The itemisation formula changed in Cata so that epic items have exactly the same ibudget as a blue or green item. The only way to improve the loot dropped would be to make it ilevel 359, which would of course immediately invalidate the entirety of raiding for the game. Unless you bump raiding up another tier, in which case you have the same problem all over again.

In Wrath Heroics dropped an epic that was of the same ilevel as the first 10 player raid instance. They can't do that anymore because now 10 player stuff drops the same as 25.

(also seriously are people that bothered about the *colour* of their item? I thought that sort of stuff was purely for the WoW forums. I care how it looks on my character, and the stats it has, but whether the icon is blue, green or purple doesn't matter at all?).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 16, 2011, 06:55:01 AM
Um, for my part, I think people are heading down a red herring road.  I don't give a fuck if it's purple, blue, green or Hyacinth.

What I care about is that I can't tell which one to use because the 'better' part of 'better items' is utterly fucking marginal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on January 16, 2011, 07:47:36 AM
What I care about is that I can't tell which one to use because the 'better' part of 'better items' is utterly fucking marginal.
This exactly.  If I have to get on Rawr or another similar spreadsheet calculator to determine if item X is worth Y more DPS on fights A, B, and D, but not on E and F-H, that is way too much fucking work for heroics or even non-cutting edge raiding.

My strategy as a caster is "Does it have more int?  Does it have hit and am I above the cap yet?"  Anything more complicated than that is asking for trouble for the average player.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 16, 2011, 07:53:41 AM
To be totally frank, I don't think the average player even knows the purpose or value of Hit unless they've spent some time listening to people bitch in general or researched it themselves.   The game does a terrible job of explaining stats to anyone below our level of discussion of things.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on January 16, 2011, 08:00:01 AM
What I care about is that I can't tell which one to use because the 'better' part of 'better items' is utterly fucking marginal.

Did you feel the same way with Wrath?  Because the steps between normals, heroics, and raids are exactly the same as they were two years ago, just without the extra end-boss drop.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on January 16, 2011, 08:04:08 AM
What I care about is that I can't tell which one to use because the 'better' part of 'better items' is utterly fucking marginal.
This exactly.  If I have to get on Rawr or another similar spreadsheet calculator to determine if item X is worth Y more DPS on fights A, B, and D, but not on E and F-H, that is way too much fucking work for heroics or even non-cutting edge raiding.

My strategy as a caster is "Does it have more int?  Does it have hit and am I above the cap yet?"  Anything more complicated than that is asking for trouble for the average player.

That's exactly what they are going for. They have said they want your prime stat to obviously be your main focus, then after that hit --> the other 3 stats. That's why the upcoming patch has a lot of adjustments to mastery in it, because currently it's too weak for several classes. Blizzards aim is that  crit / haste / mastery all provide roughly the same benefit on items, and it's persoanl choice / availability which determines whoch ones you grab.

To be fair, unless you are raiding, the difference is completely meaningless for any sort of heroics. It's far, far harder to bugger up your characters stats than it used to be in previous expansions, and even having all your gear carrying the "weakest" stat at the moment will still leave you more than able to do any heroic fight in the game. Now if you're a deathknight wearing cloth spirit gear it's a different matter...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on January 16, 2011, 09:15:23 AM
If Blizzard wants the three stats to all "mean the same thing," why are they separate stats to begin with?   :headscratch:

I also can't help but wonder if the shortened leveling curve in Cata is part of the reason we're seeing apathy creep in so soon.  BC and LK had 10 levels and several zones before the dungeon and raid content got attacked in earnest, while people were trying heroics the day after release in Cata.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 16, 2011, 12:22:33 PM
I really don't think it's that. I think the inaccessibility of heroics means that, guess what? they're out, which means that raiding is out of the question, which means that it's pvp, or gtfo according to Blizzard.

I stayed subbed for much of Wrath because of that carrot of raiding: it let me see the content. Did I get to clear it immediately? no. Did I get to the end boss on all the raids? no. But at least I got to step into the content and take part. Now it's back to TBC days where raids were just not to be done by my friends and I. And guess what? I stayed subbed for a fraction of that expansion's life span.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on January 16, 2011, 12:24:51 PM
They've already simplified stats multiple times. Why not get it down to one class-specific stat and items whose entire budget simply buffs that stat? Because that would remove any remaining fig leaves that imply complexity or choice in building a character? Since you also don't really have many interesting choices in building talents any more, either.

The only way to make differentiations between characters that isn't about choices relative to time played is a: labor time and b: player skill in coordinating actions. The second of which isn't much point if you're not heading towards a twitch-driven model. The first of which is a demonstrable way to alienate everyone but the catasses.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on January 16, 2011, 01:31:51 PM
WoW items may as well all be class-specific and just have one stat on them called "good". My old sword was +40 good, and this new sword is +42 good, therefore the new one is 2 better. It's not like you're going to put down your life-leeching sword to take up the one that does extra damage to humanoids or something interesting like that. This shit needs to be easily spreadsheeted by the guys designing instances around expected player stats.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on January 16, 2011, 02:17:44 PM
To offer a counterpoint to the incredibly negativity in this thread.

Cataclsym is easily the best expansion WoW has done, and the game has been re-invigorated for me and my friends after Wrath almost killed it. Players I haven't seen in 18 months have returned to the game, and the numebr of apps to our guild has increased substantially (we are a casual raiding guild). Whilst content *is* harder than before, it is not as hard as TBC was or original vanilla instances. It is also a lot fairer - you wont die to ridiculous cleaves, you'll die because you fucked up to something easily avoided generally. The new heroics do push you towards grouping with friends rather than pick up grouping it, but generally in my experience if you explain each fight and tell people what to do you should be okay. You will also outgear them madly if you keep doing them - what was really hard in the first two weeks is now substantially easier due to the very clear and organised loot system. (Again, a first in an expansion - everything makes sense, and the loot tiers are clear and understandable now).

The game is better balanced in terms of classes than it ever has been. More than ever before, you can raid with friends and as long as you fill up the requisite 2 tanks + 3 healers + roughly equal dps split you will be fine. I'm not sure where the idea that you need specific classes for raiding comes from, but it's flat out wrong in every way. Raiding is tougher than LK heroic modes without the big buff, but easier than Ulduar. We have killed one boss a night most nights.

PvP is borked, and the tradeskills leave a LOT to be desired, but overall this expansion stands head and shoudlers above the others. The levelling content is superb, the group content tough but fair, and the raids superb - Ulduar level quality.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 16, 2011, 02:51:37 PM
God, I remember the good old days of Gruping with my friends.  Messy, but fun.


In other news, took another crack at Asaad tonight and downed him first attempt.

So, yeah, bunch around him and use Mass Dispel.  What a crock of shit.  Omg, Noobs, Lern2play, etc.  I still think it's fucking annoying and sneaky to play the whole game with chain lightning getting stronger the more people it bounces to, except this boss.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on January 16, 2011, 02:59:53 PM
So, should I just wait for fast flying before I bother leveling archaeology?  This has to be the slowest trade ever.

Just hit 60 with the goblin.  25 more levels, and it sounds like I'll be rage-quitting.  Thanks for the heads up, everyone.  :awesome_for_real:

Also, is there a portal to Blasted Lands anymore? I'm not seeing it in Org.  Where it used to be is the goblin slum.  Home, sweet home.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on January 16, 2011, 03:03:17 PM
Also, is there a portal to Blasted Lands anymore? I'm not seeing it in Org.  Where it used to be is the goblin slum.  Home, sweet home.
Down in the underground portion of the city near Ragefire Chasm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on January 16, 2011, 03:12:14 PM
God, I remember the good old days of Gruping with my friends.  Messy, but fun.


In other news, took another crack at Asaad tonight and downed him first attempt.

So, yeah, bunch around him and use Mass Dispel.  What a crock of shit.  Omg, Noobs, Lern2play, etc.  I still think it's fucking annoying and sneaky to play the whole game with chain lightning getting stronger the more people it bounces to, except this boss.

 :why_so_serious:

Re Assadd. You dont need to dispel all his roots. His cast sequence after the first thunderstom goes:

Chain lightning --> static field --> chain lightning --> static field --> thunderstorm

The first staic field doesnt need dispelling because no-one needs to move. Also as mentioned earlier, jump when it starts catsing and it won't affect you at all. Tricky for the tank & healer to do, but dps really have no excuse.

re. the chain lightning - it's a bugger, and I still don't fully understand it, but it definitely has a HUGE range compared to normal chain lightnings. You really need to spread and use all the room, and ranged / healers stand at max range from the tank and mob.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on January 16, 2011, 03:16:56 PM
So, should I just wait for fast flying before I bother leveling archaeology?  This has to be the slowest trade ever.

Just hit 60 with the goblin.  25 more levels, and it sounds like I'll be rage-quitting.  Thanks for the heads up, everyone.  :awesome_for_real:

Also, is there a portal to Blasted Lands anymore? I'm not seeing it in Org.  Where it used to be is the goblin slum.  Home, sweet home.

Fast flying makes arch much more tolerable.

There's also a portal to BL in the troll area of the goblin slums.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on January 16, 2011, 03:18:18 PM
What I care about is that I can't tell which one to use because the 'better' part of 'better items' is utterly fucking marginal.
My strategy as a caster is "Does it have more int?  Does it have hit and am I above the cap yet?"  Anything more complicated than that is asking for trouble for the average player.
The "good" stat already exists. It's called ilvl. It's right there on the tooltip. Can't decide between 2 items? Jjust choose the higher ilvl one. You'll be fine, I promise.

If Blizzard wants the three stats to all "mean the same thing," why are they separate stats to begin with?   :headscratch:
Because believe it or not, some people like doing the math. Some people like the customization, limited as it may be. I like crit because it procs lots of fun things for my class. But I also have a lot of cast times, so it's reasonable that someone else in my situation might prefer haste.

Nobody's forcing you to look at spreadsheets and optimize reforging and whateverthefuck. If they added more variety in the itemization you all would be back to complaining about how shit for your spec never drops, or how half of the items are more useful for class X than class Y because they don't trigger class Y's mastery or blah blah blah.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on January 16, 2011, 03:21:04 PM
re. the chain lightning - it's a bugger, and I still don't fully understand it, but it definitely has a HUGE range compared to normal chain lightnings. You really need to spread and use all the room, and ranged / healers stand at max range from the tank and mob.
Fuck no. Stack up and just AoE heal through that shit. Standing on the edge increases the chance of someone getting fucked by Supremacy of the Storm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on January 16, 2011, 03:56:50 PM
re. the chain lightning - it's a bugger, and I still don't fully understand it, but it definitely has a HUGE range compared to normal chain lightnings. You really need to spread and use all the room, and ranged / healers stand at max range from the tank and mob.
Fuck no. Stack up and just AoE heal through that shit. Standing on the edge increases the chance of someone getting fucked by Supremacy of the Storm.

Never had an issue with folks not having the time to run for supremacy, but I guess if the dispels are a problem that might work. Generally I just hate tactics which rely on healing through damage effects, as they put a lot of strain on the healer in a time when their mana and AE healing has been severely reduced.

Other thing about the root I forgot - it is a normal root effect, so any class that can escape roots can use it to escape static cling. Blink, demonic circle( ?), shapeshift etc. all work to escape. Not sure what other class have, but there's a lot of tools you can use.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on January 16, 2011, 04:40:37 PM
There's still a Blasted Lands portal in the Troll area.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 16, 2011, 04:54:10 PM
Making the final bos drop an eipc item wouldn't change the stats at all. The itemisation formula changed in Cata so that epic items have exactly the same ibudget as a blue or green item.

Got any proof for that?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on January 16, 2011, 05:35:04 PM
Making the final bos drop an eipc item wouldn't change the stats at all. The itemisation formula changed in Cata so that epic items have exactly the same ibudget as a blue or green item.

Got any proof for that?

I don't have a quote but yeah i did read a blue post that said color just meant rarity not quality now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 16, 2011, 05:43:25 PM
I'll keep that in mind, it would certainly explain why a bunch of blues I vendored today seemed to be utter shit compared to higher ilevel greens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on January 16, 2011, 09:41:24 PM
re. the chain lightning - it's a bugger, and I still don't fully understand it, but it definitely has a HUGE range compared to normal chain lightnings. You really need to spread and use all the room, and ranged / healers stand at max range from the tank and mob.
Fuck no. Stack up and just AoE heal through that shit. Standing on the edge increases the chance of someone getting fucked by Supremacy of the Storm.
Never had an issue with folks not having the time to run for supremacy, but I guess if the dispels are a problem that might work. Generally I just hate tactics which rely on healing through damage effects, as they put a lot of strain on the healer in a time when their mana and AE healing has been severely reduced.
I dunno, Healing Rain is essentially a Healing Wave ("big" heal) on every party member, for less than twice the cost of a Heailng Wave. The efficiency increase is so massive that in fights with mild-to-moderate AoE it actually is better to just heal through it. Or would be if all these dungeon fights weren't movement-fests, and if DPS would actually stack close enough for AoE to work.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on January 16, 2011, 09:43:58 PM
It doesn't help that most "good" dps are trained to run immediately out of ground effects. Healing rain is the worst, since it looks almost identical to a current-tier boss effect.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 16, 2011, 10:28:31 PM
Just confirming that it is correct that items of the same ilvl will have the same budget regardless of color.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: lesion on January 16, 2011, 11:07:22 PM
Confirming confirmation...
Confirming...

Confirmation confirmed. Welcome back, Commander.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 17, 2011, 06:20:07 AM
It doesn't help that most "good" dps are trained to run immediately out of ground effects. Healing rain is the worst, since it looks almost identical to a current-tier boss effect.

I am so guilty of running out of healing rain when the expansion started. It's just instinct at this point "hmm, fighting trash I've never done before. Shit on ground, getting the fuck out of it, check"

And re: Asaad: I'm not entirely sure you can safely outrange that chain lightning. My lock gets hit by it at about 30 yards out, so spreading out unless it's an exactly 35 yard to outrange it thing just means the healer can't use AE heals to deal with it. That said, you can usually ignore the chain lightning damage until the grounding field phase and just heal then. I think that's why he's getting buffed. :D

Also did H-Stonecore last night. Which I maintain may have more "will wipe you in 5 seconds" fights than H-GB, but H-GB has far more fights where one person messing up can screw you for good (messing up the malignant trogg, fire elemental kite fails, nobody snaring/switching fast enough on adds) while stonecore is just happy to outright kill a party member if they fail to do X (stand in shards, eat slabhide's AE, fail to gtfo of shatter, fail to see rock)

I SO ate a rock on the last lady when she was at 1%, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on January 17, 2011, 06:22:53 AM
It doesn't help that most "good" dps are trained to run immediately out of ground effects. Healing rain is the worst, since it looks almost identical to a current-tier boss effect.

I prefer that to the implementation of either of the Paladin AOEs though.  Holy Radiance is still a bit difficult for me to get a read on and Light of Dawn is the most annoying spell graphic in the world if the Paladin is moving.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on January 17, 2011, 06:31:28 AM
It doesn't help that most "good" dps are trained to run immediately out of ground effects. Healing rain is the worst, since it looks almost identical to a current-tier boss effect.

Thank you. I spent the first three weeks freaking out about it every time I saw it. It also makes a lot of other ground effects hard to see or read.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on January 17, 2011, 07:38:56 AM
Turned 85 last night on my mage, mostly from Vash/Hyjal, PvP, dungeons and Arch.  So, I decided to head into TB to see what all the daily stuff is there.  WTF happened to mana regen and mob health in the jump to 85?  I realize I'm in ilvl 305 gear and that will change as I quest in Highlands and fill out more through dungeons, but damn.  I'm casting about 12 frostbolts to drop a mob.  If I get an add, run. 

Expecting a few l2p comments, but holy crap that was a drastic change. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 17, 2011, 07:42:25 AM
TB Mobs are tougher than leveling-hub mobs.   I chew through stuff in TH 4-5 mobs at a time without a problem but the TB mobs give me a run for the money if I get just 2 in my heroic gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 17, 2011, 08:05:16 AM
TB mobs are mean, yeah. My DK does TB dailies in tank spec/gear because the chain spawning can murder me in frost spec. My priest doesn't even do TB dailies.

Amusingly, my lock just stood in the middle of The Leftovers spawn areas and farmed the mobs 3-4 at a time for cloth :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 17, 2011, 10:30:41 AM
I normally try and grab a guildmate for the dailies, there's usually no problem getting at least one other to do it. Failing that asking in general helps too. It just makes them a lot more bearable


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 17, 2011, 10:35:07 AM
I'm down to needing an orb. Life would be a lot simpler if they allowed you to sell the damn things.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 17, 2011, 11:17:29 AM
But they're fairly easy to get and in 2 months you'll be swimming in them.  I have 3 already I can't use.  Made my shield and my belt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 17, 2011, 11:20:08 AM
The orb system makes fuckall sense in its current implementation. Also five orbs for one dreamcloth?


 :mob:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on January 17, 2011, 11:21:13 AM
It doesn't help that most "good" dps are trained to run immediately out of ground effects. Healing rain is the worst, since it looks almost identical to a current-tier boss effect.

Thank you. I spent the first three weeks freaking out about it every time I saw it. It also makes a lot of other ground effects hard to see or read.

This is horrible in raids, i feel like i'm dpsin in the middle of a fireworks display.  Then get yelled at because i didn't move out of the visual effect that i had absolutely no way of seeing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 17, 2011, 11:21:16 AM
I think that orb->dreamcloth recipe is in there is for down the road when you're swimming in them. That's not the only way to make dreamcloth, after all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 17, 2011, 11:41:59 AM
Tailoring is extremely item intensive.  Also, there's actually not a great deal of good shit.

I got to 500 on the lock and just stopped.  Fuck it.

525 on the BS tho.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 17, 2011, 11:48:10 AM
seriously, you get max tailoring and you can make...2 belts and 2 pairs of pants, one spirit and one not. Whoop-de-freakin-do. Oh and each pattern costs a dreamcloth just to learn. There's also a bag with 2slots more than the last big bag but it costs a whopping 8 dreamcloth to make. There's just a sore lack of variety here and while each big patch will surely bring some new shiny raid material needing patterns, its sort of a waste of time now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 17, 2011, 11:49:19 AM
You tailor for free bags and leg enchants. That's about the only reason to do it. Even the raid patterns have been historically lackluster, IIRC.

Also, yes once you start running heroics regularly you'll have more than enough orbs if you roll on them. I'm sitting on 5 just by rolling greed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 17, 2011, 11:50:35 AM
The orb system makes fuckall sense in its current implementation. Also five orbs for one dreamcloth?


 :mob:


It's a 7 day cooldown to turn 30 volatile ___ into dreamcloth, or a 0 day cooldown to turn 5 orbs into one. It's basically saying 5 orbs is worth 7 days and about 300g.

Personally, I wouldn't burn non LFD based orbs on dreamcloth yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 17, 2011, 11:52:15 AM
You tailor for free bags and leg enchants. That's about the only reason to do it. Even the raid patterns have been historically lackluster, IIRC.

Also, yes once you start running heroics regularly you'll have more than enough orbs if you roll on them. I'm sitting on 5 just by rolling greed.

I tailor because I have an alchemist who can convert volatiles for me and I play the market for the rest.

Right now, I tailor for about 800-1600g/day selling spellcloth. But otherwise it's the cloak enchants that you tailor for.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on January 17, 2011, 11:52:47 AM
I wonder if they'll change these new orbs like they changed the old ones. Frozen orbs were BoP at the beginning of Wrath, weren't they? That might just be one of the many things Blizzard likes to nerf over time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 17, 2011, 11:58:12 AM
Yeah, Orbs were BoP, then became BoE and badge bought (at the same time, or were badger orbs later?)

Right now Orbs are basically there to limit the rate of creation on the crafted epics. One of the reasons tailoring is easier imo is that it's the tradeskill that has a hard timesink instead of a heroic farming epic requirement. It takes a week to make a belt. Not "however long it takes to get X heroic item"

Later in crafting life, however, the hard time limit becomes the shittier option between "I need 3 orbs" and "I need 7 days"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 18, 2011, 02:24:18 PM
I must admit that I'm completely enamored with digging up crap, even though I don't have a use for 90% of it. There's just something about being able to shine a giant spotlight on yourself while summoning a ghost self and making 4 dwarven chicks dance around you that looks so funny.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 19, 2011, 08:26:43 PM
Also, a ran a Heroic Deadmines and it doesn't suck anywhere near as much as it did on release now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on January 19, 2011, 10:45:42 PM
Went on a H-SFK run with a pally tank mate, me on my BM/Surv hunter. Random grouping gives us another hunter, a shadow priest and a holy(?) priest.

First boss: dps, dps, dps.... boss does strangle/heals self.


hmmm

rinse and repeat

"who's interrupting?"

Priests: "We can't interrupt"
Pally: "I can't interrupt this boss"
I look at my tool bar and see nothing other than Wyvern Sting, scattershot - hell, I even tried to trap him. Switch to BM spec after wipe. nope - Intimidation doesn't work either.

Put in chat "I'll get my Shammy to windshear" - log and group has fucked off - idiots.

Did I miss something or did we just end up with a boss that will always win against a certain group combination?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on January 19, 2011, 11:04:05 PM
Not 100% sure, but i believe the paladin should have been able to interupt.  Doesn't Avenger's Shield interupt spellcasts?  It's only a 15 second cooldown, which i believe should be plenty to get every cast after the strangle.  Not enough to cover interupting pain and suffering AND Mend rotten flesh as well, but at least it is one interupt. Also, i could have sworn priests had some kind of spell interupt as well, especially shadow.  Cooldown on it might be a bit long to get something with a short timer, but I am pretty sure they should have something.

Otherwise, yeah, if you somehow manage to get that one possible group comp that has absolutely no spell interupts, that boss would be pretty much impossible, but as far as i know, it should be insanely rare that you would end up with a group with absolutely no interupt capability.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 19, 2011, 11:12:40 PM
Avenger shield could work, but the way the UI trains pallys is to spam that thing when it's available for damage, so it coulda been on cooldown. However, that pally shoulda had a HoJ in his back pocket for use. Unless he used it on a boss by accident  :facepalm:

I think what SurfD meant is Rebuke, and that is wholly a ret pally ability until next patch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on January 19, 2011, 11:19:17 PM
Yeah, i meant rebuke, but then i went and looked it up on wowhead and corrected myself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on January 19, 2011, 11:48:27 PM
Situations like that are basically why they are giving paladins Rebuke. Avengers shield is a interrupt and silence, but its also part of the paladins threat rotation, a large part. HoJ is probably far too long a cooldown to really cover the interrupting needed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on January 20, 2011, 01:47:22 AM
I look at my tool bar and see nothing other than Wyvern Sting, scattershot - hell, I even tried to trap him. Switch to BM spec after wipe. nope - Intimidation doesn't work either.

You should pick up a Gorilla or Nether Ray one of these days (or carry a Marks spec :drill:).  Swap over to Beast Mastery, call one of those, and you have a Counterspell-in-a-box. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on January 20, 2011, 01:52:53 AM
Spriest silence works too, though it has a long cooldown (should be enough to get 'stay of execution' though).

They're also nerfing that guy in the next patch so he will no longer cast 'mend rotten flesh', so tank interrupts should be more than enough... I think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on January 20, 2011, 04:30:30 AM
Damn, I'm glad to hear someone else say that shadow priests have no interrupt. Been playing mine a bit and been feeling really stupid because the only interrupt I could find was Psychic Scream, which is kinda limited in use. I haven't specced Silence but now that I realise it's the only other interrupt I'm going to respec her at once.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on January 20, 2011, 04:46:27 AM
Spriest silence works too, though it has a long cooldown (should be enough to get 'stay of execution' though).

They're also nerfing that guy in the next patch so he will no longer cast 'mend rotten flesh', so tank interrupts should be more than enough... I think.
Also from the way he described the group, the Priest was the healer; no Silence for non-Shadow Priests.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 20, 2011, 05:06:09 AM
He had 2 priests, shadow and holy.

Ran into another Stonecore group last night.. the combo of Enh Shammy, Spriest and Warlock doesn't do enough DPS to kill the adds, apparently.   The REAL kick in the seat was - after I left the group 4 wipes in - I waited a min or two, requeued and got the exact same group again.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 20, 2011, 08:08:15 AM
He had 2 priests, shadow and holy.

Ran into another Stonecore group last night.. the combo of Enh Shammy, Spriest and Warlock doesn't do enough DPS to kill the adds, apparently.   The REAL kick in the seat was - after I left the group 4 wipes in - I waited a min or two, requeued and got the exact same group again.  :uhrr:

Getting silence for shadow priests is a big waste of talent points in a pve build since they made it mandatory to take two points of the psychic scream talent.  It's always been like this actually and its even worse now that there are so fewer talent points, it makes those two psychic scream points even more atrocious.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 20, 2011, 08:33:56 AM
I wasn't debating that, only pointing out koro missed that there were 2 priests.

Now that you've brought it up, yeah there's a few talents like that that are deemed "PVP" talents but make sense taking in these dungeons.   Sure it's a 'waste' of two points because omg not max dps.  As has been pointed out many times before, dead dps is 0.   Additionally, not being able to get past a boss because you don't have an interrupt means your uberdps means fuckall.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on January 20, 2011, 09:48:21 AM
I still don't understand why anyone would use Soul Swap.

Ever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 20, 2011, 10:07:42 AM
I still don't understand why anyone would use Soul Swap.

Ever.


Because it's AWESOME.

It essentially trades 2 GCDs for 3 GCDs (BoA, Corruption, UA applied to the second target at full duration), letting you side DPS something for a relatively low cost over time. It's also fun on trash where you can pick up your dots at 5/10% and move them to the next burn target.

It's worthless unless you glyph it, though. And it depressingly doesn't move stacks of shadow embrace.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 20, 2011, 11:08:07 AM
Getting silence for shadow priests is a big waste of talent points in a pve build since they made it mandatory to take two points of the psychic scream talent.  It's always been like this actually and its even worse now that there are so fewer talent points, it makes those two psychic scream points even more atrocious.

If it's glyphed a SPriest can squeeze some value out of Psychic Scream.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 20, 2011, 11:37:30 AM
Lady Sinestra down after only a day or two (http://www.paragon.fi/news/sinestra-slain)

The comment from paragon is quite interesting, and by the sounds of things this encounter (which I will most likely never see until we can outgear it by multiple tiers) is utter clownshoes by Blizzard. It does stagger me that even simple things like the Dark Simulacrum bug get missed.

In general though there's nothing about this raiding tier which seems fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 20, 2011, 11:51:46 AM
Any bosses they deliberately hold back from testing by the populace are going to have issues. I'm fine with that because it's only a race to these people, so who cares?

I do find it hilarious that the absolutely most hardcore of the hardcore playerbase described this raiding tier as a "brutal grind."

If I'm Blizzard, I'm going OOOOOOOOOOOH FUCK, right now. That's not the message I want to give the masses to keep them involved.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on January 20, 2011, 11:52:42 AM
Hotfixes between each attempt they made?

I am feeling like the old "EQ raiding was the greatest thing ever" faction inside Blizzard that I thought long since lost out has made a resurgence. But it's really about the trap that Blizzard has designed itself into. They make things too easy, everyone gets bored; they make things too hard, everyone gets bored: because something fundamental about the design cul-de-sac they're in is boring, and there's really no way out of it any more.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 20, 2011, 11:56:52 AM
Any bosses they deliberately hold back from testing by the populace are going to have issues. I'm fine with that because it's only a race to these people, so who cares?

They managed better than this in the past. Algalon and Lich King never had public testing yet they worked more or less as advertised.

On the other point I agree, raiding just doesn't appeal like it did in WoTLK where it felt more accessible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 20, 2011, 12:03:28 PM
WoW swings wildly in it's development from "we need to appease the bleeding edge" and "we need to appease everyone else"

Cata is sadly trying to appeal the the harder core players, and not grasping that shit like a boss that is obviously not intended to be done yet (due to being broken about as badly as the Sleeper) is content tuned to like, less than a hundred people worldwide.

It really does seem like they didn't bring their A game to this expansion (though I like it, it's not their best work beyond the old world revamp), and quite frankly Blizzard, you have to bring your A game to heroics these days. Designing like you're still in Wrath just doesn't cut it ;)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 20, 2011, 12:07:48 PM
Cata is sadly trying to appeal the the harder core players, and not grasping that shit like a boss that is obviously not intended to be done yet (due to being broken about as badly as the Sleeper) is content tuned to like, less than a hundred people worldwide.

If they are trying to do that, they are fucking it up. The hardest segment referred to their shit as a brutal GRIND. If it was tough, or fun, or interesting, or wild, or all over the place, or dramatically unfair, that would be fine for the hardcore. To describe it as a buggy, shit-filled, grind? That's bad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on January 20, 2011, 12:10:33 PM
Don't they usually describe it as worse?  I don't think I've ever seen a guild get done with a tier of raiding and say it was "an exciting romp through expertly tuned encounters".  They'll say that after they're disillusioned with the current tier, but not while they're playing it.   Screw placating them, you've already got their $15. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 20, 2011, 12:12:06 PM
Hard mode raids are something that really only a few people give a shit about. Unless the regular modes are also bad, getting the early tuning wrong on their heroic mode raids is not going to have much of an effect. Insidia spent the entire last expansion bitching about the hard modes without it really causing any problems, I don't think Paragon's complaints are really going to make a difference either.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on January 20, 2011, 12:23:08 PM
Don't they usually describe it as worse?  I don't think I've ever seen a guild get done with a tier of raiding and say it was "an exciting romp through expertly tuned encounters".  They'll say that after they're disillusioned with the current tier, but not while they're playing it.   Screw placating them, you've already got their $15. 

IIRC the comments of the bleeding edge all loved Sunwell to death.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on January 20, 2011, 12:23:51 PM
Don't they usually describe it as worse?  I don't think I've ever seen a guild get done with a tier of raiding and say it was "an exciting romp through expertly tuned encounters".  They'll say that after they're disillusioned with the current tier, but not while they're playing it.   Screw placating them, you've already got their $15.  

The ones that spring to mind are Ulduar, Sunwell, and maybe Classic Naxx.  I'd agree with the first in general and the rest were basically hardcore-only (and workingl) from the start.

Really though, this tier of raiding is pretty inconsequential as I'm just having so much fun with new alts and dungeons.  Fights like Atramedes and Conclave of Wind can stand up to most previous encounters, but not to spending a night in Southern Barrens or Mount Hyjal, especially when you factor in the preparatory work for flasks and food :uhrr:.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on January 20, 2011, 01:02:27 PM
It seems like all they've done this tier of raiding is make half asses bosses and just to make it difficult make you fight more than one at once.  So far this applies to every fight my guild has attempted, Halfus wyrmbreaker, Omnotoron defense system, Valiona and Theralion, all boil down to "this guy does this two simple things, this guy does this two simple things now fight both at once".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Oban on January 20, 2011, 04:54:31 PM
So basically what they decided is that casuals would prefer to reroll rather than raid or do heroic dungeons, so they worked on new content from 1-60.

Which is odd since the whole way to get people addicted to a game like this and not have them cancel a subscription is the thought that the investment of time and effort put in to a main will gradually increase the value of the character over time.  Otherwise people will just burn out on the 1-60 content and then unsubscribe from the service.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on January 20, 2011, 07:09:39 PM
They managed better than this in the past. Algalon and Lich King never had public testing yet they worked more or less as advertised.

On the other point I agree, raiding just doesn't appeal like it did in WoTLK where it felt more accessible.
Did you forget the guild that got banned for killing LK using the bombs to restore the platform and thus trivialize the valkyries?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on January 20, 2011, 08:50:27 PM
Vanilla Naxx - god that place was a freaking nightmare in terms of pain. WotLK Naxx got it right, opening the place up to the masses rather than a tiny percentage. It's only my opinion, but I think Blizzard has lost their way again, forgetting that hard-core raiders won't pay the bills but a large casual raider base will.

BTW, I rate Gruul's Lair and post-nerf Karazan as possibly the best, most enjoyable raids ever. Kara loses points because of fucking Aran popping every goddamn spell at the same time on release aka "move out of the storm while wreathed and having elementals shoot at you". Magtheradion would have made the list but Blizzard forgot that most people are retards and cant press a button at the same time :D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on January 20, 2011, 10:58:17 PM
Nerfed Aran was probably the best fight in TBC, just because it was always such a hilarious clusterfuck.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on January 20, 2011, 11:53:02 PM
Ingmar loved Aran because he got to be all RAAR DUAL WIELDING PROTECTION WARRIOR WATCH OUT on that fight.

Not sure what my favorite fight in Kara was, but WotLK taught me just how awesome Karazhan was. I got bored of Karazhan eventually, but I got sick of the various WotLK raids (except Ulduar, because we never did get that goddamn place on farm before the next tier came out) a lot faster.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on January 21, 2011, 06:22:46 AM
Kara has been about my favorite experience of raiding in the game. Paced well, a guild could do a little or a lot, the fights had variety, none of them were just ball-breaking gonna fuck with you mechanics (I did not care for and still don't like "block the beam" mechanics, though) but all of them had some challenge or something to learn to do.

We took a stab at Baradin Hold last night but it was one of those "whoever in the guild was in Tol Barad at the end of the battle, come on along" things so we just didn't have the dps needed to beat the timer. Mechanically not complicated, though the dispels eat through healer mana pretty intensely.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on January 21, 2011, 06:31:45 AM
The only thing I didn't care for in (pre-nerf, never ran it post) Karazhan was the Prince Malchezzar fight and its random Infernal drop mechanics that could make an attempt practically impossible if you got unlucky with placement.

It's still easily the best raid in the game though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 21, 2011, 06:47:26 AM
I disliked Karazhan's pacing in the middle, and that was the major detractor for me. The feel of the place was probably the best, though.

My favorite raid is still probably Blackwing Lair. There were so many good fights using mechanics that were completely different from anything we had faced in MC. It was the first time I was impressed with the designers ingenuity in creating things that involved the entire raid.

Controlling Razergore
The DPS rush on Vael
The suppression room to the Broodlord
Nefarian with the color adds and the class specific debuffs


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 21, 2011, 06:54:38 AM
Yeah the trash just before and just after Aran was a little tiresome even after the nerfs. Still, it was one of the best instances ever.

Supression room did and still does suck.  In PUG raids that tried to crush BWL it was still the one area causing wipes at 80.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 21, 2011, 06:59:13 AM
Yeah the trash just before and just after Aran was a little tiresome even after the nerfs. Still, it was one of the best instances ever.

Supression room did and still does suck.  In PUG raids that tried to crush BWL it was still the one area causing wipes at 80.

The suppression room was important in that it was the first raiding "gauntlet" which was been repeated in various forms since. I hate certain forms of it now, but I liked the suppression room because it injected some tense moments into an otherwise methodical pace. BWL also brought us the widespread use of the threatmeter (due to Vael) and decursive (Chromaggus). The only thing I didn't like about the place was that they gear-gated the drakes through cloaks and shadowflame.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on January 21, 2011, 08:22:30 AM
BC raids would've been more fun except my main was a warlock whose rotation consisted of one button.

Classic: BWL, BC: Karazhan, WotLK: ICC. Just my 2c.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on January 21, 2011, 08:31:23 AM
BC:  Zul'Aman.  Wrath:  Ulduar.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 21, 2011, 08:31:45 AM
Classic: BWL
BC: Tempest Keep
WotLK: Naxx redux


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on January 21, 2011, 08:48:01 AM
Kara has been about my favorite experience of raiding in the game. Paced well, a guild could do a little or a lot, the fights had variety, none of them were just ball-breaking gonna fuck with you mechanics (I did not care for and still don't like "block the beam" mechanics, though) but all of them had some challenge or something to learn to do.

I tried to PUG Kara a couple times in LK, and the "block the beam" fight made me want to stab myself in the face.  It's the same issue with AQ40 and the twins, herding cats when everyone thinks they know what to do "the right way."   :uhrr:

Kara and BWL were quite amazing, though.  Haven't seen any of the LK raid content yet, but as I just hit 85 with my tank...   :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 21, 2011, 09:32:40 AM
Ulduar is worth doing, even at level 85.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on January 21, 2011, 09:49:13 AM
Classic: it was all about AQ20. That place was a blast. Spend a lot of time in there, too.

TBC: expansion sucked, but aside from that I had a really good time in Karazhan. Honorable mention to ZA. Had a lot of fun in there, and not many really saw it.

Wrath: Naxx, of course. I loved that place. I only got to poke my nose in once in vanilla and then very briefly, but loved it here. Ulduar was the coolest by far, but I liked Naxx a lot. Place was just fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 21, 2011, 09:59:49 AM
On a cata note: JP -> trade good vendors are in 4.0.6 now.

The exchange rates are hilarious, though. 200JP -> 1 Hypnotic dust. 1200 -> 1 heavenly shard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on January 21, 2011, 10:20:50 AM
That is truly  :ye_gods:.  200 per heavenly shard seems more appropriate, given that's what you get for killing a boss in heroic.  Hell, 100 considering that each boss can give multiple blues to be sharded.

Also, why the fuck is a selection of 20 random, possibly useless to your alchemist, herbs 1k more than 20 of a known element for ore?  Sure, 20 of anything is good for inscription, but not worth it for the alchemist.   Also, cloth being more than ore is equally  :uhrr:

No volatiles either, but at those prices who gives a flying fuck. The catasses truly have taken control of the helm again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on January 21, 2011, 10:41:26 AM
Also, no orbs.

It's a pretty bizarre move, since it really does little to help people who need the mats to level tradeskills, and as a points dump it feels astonishingly inefficient.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 21, 2011, 10:54:23 AM
They are going to be stingy with orbs. I just wish they would make them tradable. For some reason they don't like the market to actually dictate what their bullshit is worth.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on January 21, 2011, 11:10:24 AM
It's better than nothing, which is what I currently have to spend JP on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on January 21, 2011, 12:11:10 PM
I disliked Karazhan's pacing in the middle, and that was the major detractor for me. The feel of the place was probably the best, though.

Yeah, the trash in that section was really obnoxious. Waaaay too much.

Part of why I loved Kara so much is it has the bestest music in the game.  :heart:

For WotLK, I dunno which raid overall was my favorite, but feel-wise I liked Ulduar best. My favorite fight was in ICC, though. I loved blood princes. Deeply. To the point where I didn't care if we wiped towards the end of it, because it meant we got to try it again.  :awesome_for_real:  I think it's because we always did it "wrong" when I was there and I got to be the orb gathering tank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 21, 2011, 06:51:38 PM
My favorite raid ever in WoW? trial of the Crusader. Yeah that's right. No trash, I liked the bosses, and to me faction champs was always a blast. I got to do things other than threat tank, which was really cool.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 21, 2011, 08:04:31 PM
My favorite raid ever in WoW? trial of the Crusader. Yeah that's right. No trash, I liked the bosses, and to me faction champs was always a blast. I got to do things other than threat tank, which was really cool.

Yeah that was a pretty fun instance, underrated in general I think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on January 21, 2011, 09:35:14 PM
I enjoyed parts of it. Faction champions was not one of those parts, but it had it's moments.

The main issue I had with ToC was that the first boss caused more wipes than the second boss, and the third boss caused more than the 4th. I would have liked an increasing difficulty in the order.

Oh and fighting all the bosses again after the stupid yeti wipes us because some dumbass went linkdead during a charge?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on January 21, 2011, 10:35:05 PM
Okay that's true. I hated the first boss, although it was the worms that I loathed. What a tanking nightmare.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on January 21, 2011, 10:38:05 PM
The worms weren't hard to tank, they were hard to get fail DPS and healers to grasp where to run when they got the different debuffs.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on January 22, 2011, 09:19:19 AM
TOC:

First boss(es) sucked.
Second boss was a joke.
Third bosses ranged from sucked to "reshuffle your group comp or you'll never down them".
Fourth bosses ranged from sucked when you first saw the place to "let's have our MT tank both" trivial after you geared.
Fifth boss was a joke.

God I hated that place.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on January 22, 2011, 09:22:42 AM
I am feeling like the old "EQ raiding was the greatest thing ever" faction inside Blizzard that I thought long since lost out has made a resurgence.  

That's how it seems to me as well.

In the ruckus surrounding Ghostcrawler's post on how dungeons are supposed to be hard, it seems to me from what reading I've done in the forums (I make brief forays over there, I don't usually stay long), the complaints are coming from people who are using the LFD tool, and those in Ghostcrawler's camp run with regular guild groups - so both groups seem to be talking past each other.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on January 22, 2011, 10:20:42 AM
Part of the issue is that since it's not just "incoming damage is high/short enrage timers" where an LFD and guild group have a small gap, it's "X Y and Z must do things at specific times", where you get wildly varied results in LFD and pretty uniformly good results in a guild group.

A good example of the gap is someone like Baron Ashbury with his interrupt mechanics. In a guild group, it's just a casual fight with a kinda crazy enrage at the end. However pugging it, I frequently assign interrupt duties.. only to have the interrupter either not do it, or to quote one last night who was assigned Mend Rotting Flesh "I just interrupt whatever he's casting when I can" which is NOT how you do that fight. I had another where the DK assigned to interrupt apparently did not feel he could do this, and instead of telling me before the pull, he silently just decided to not interrupt anything.

Since the mechanics are harder than wrath, the gap between LFD pug and preformed group is getting huge. In a preform, I can pretty much wrath up the instances again and ignore CC without impacting the healer's mana much at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on January 22, 2011, 10:27:49 AM
I am feeling like the old "EQ raiding was the greatest thing ever" faction inside Blizzard that I thought long since lost out has made a resurgence.  

Normal and Heroic dungeons are more difficult yes, and that's by design.

Raids really aren't.  I guess the argument can be made that Normal 10s are more difficult now with the lack of better gear from 25s and having fewer fight mechanics that aren't made significantly easier by the smaller raid size, but that's more closing a loophole than an increase in difficulty.  (Heroic 10s are a different matter :awesome_for_real:.)  If anything, going from a dungeon to a raid makes a lot of the healer changes and emphasis on CC less of an issue (read: Mana Tide Totem).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on January 23, 2011, 01:40:25 PM
It's going to be vastly amusing come 4.1 when the standard progression route turns into "Run normals, get faction gear" -> "PUG Twilight Sanctum" and nobody bothers with heroics at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on January 23, 2011, 06:03:38 PM
I disliked Karazhan's pacing in the middle, and that was the major detractor for me. The feel of the place was probably the best, though.

My favorite raid is still probably Blackwing Lair. There were so many good fights using mechanics that were completely different from anything we had faced in MC. It was the first time I was impressed with the designers ingenuity in creating things that involved the entire raid.

Controlling Razergore
The DPS rush on Vael
The suppression room to the Broodlord
Nefarian with the color adds and the class specific debuffs

BWL was a great raid.   We continued running it all the way until the end of vanilia even though we needed barely any gear from there anymore, just because everyone was willing to do it every week (granted, the fact that we could run the whole place in less than 2 hours helped).  I think the positioning required in there was good and really helped push players to do more than just hit a few buttons when raiding).  Back then I felt like the raids really progressed in terms of mechanics though.  MC - tank and spank, BWL - positioning, AQ40 - situational awareness Naxx - Brought it all together.

I think my best memories are from AQ40 though, killing C'thun was probably my greatest WoW moment.  It felt epic just GETTING to him, and after about 2 months of chewing glass, we finally killed him. (The whole thing is bolstered by the fact that during that time the guild split, and the people who remained and rebuilt ended up killing him before the guys who split because the original group wasn't hardcore enough, so a bit of political victory involved)

EDIT: Yes, I was a hardcore raider in those days, spare me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 04, 2011, 10:16:54 AM
15v15 Rated BGs are being removed next patch. Not sure I like this change as I don't like the 10 man base holding BG as much as I like Arathi.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 04, 2011, 10:19:12 AM
Not enough people participating?

Ed:

Yeah, not enough people.  But they're not removing them, they're changing the player caps on the 15's to 10.

Quote
We’re in the process of developing a hotfix to push before next Tuesday that will change all 15vs15 rated battleground weeks into 10vs10 weeks.

Looking at participation, the 10vs10 rated battleground weeks have been far and away more popular than the 15vs15 weeks. The difference in organizational requirements as well as battleground map popularity have been a couple big factors that have led to the 10vs10 weeks seeing a great deal more action. By making this change and supporting the popular option we hope to encourage even more players and teams to participate, as they won’t have to wait out every other week, or struggle to beef up to 15 players to match the requirement.

We also have plans to adapt additional battleground maps in the future to work in the 10 player bracket to increase the variety of maps available.

Also:  Turns out the "Luck of the Draw" PUG buff hasn't worked for most of Cata's life so that extra 5% you thought you were getting? Not so much.   That was fixed in 4.0.6 and will be buffed to 15%, because "we think heroics are hard and need this."   

So they're holding to the 'we're not going to nerf dungeons' line by.. buffing players.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 04, 2011, 10:25:44 AM
Not enough people participating?

Ed:

Yeah, not enough people.  But they're not removing them, they're changing the player caps on the 15's to 10.
Semantics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 04, 2011, 11:26:34 AM
WTB that 15% when playing with my loser guildmates.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on February 05, 2011, 01:23:44 PM
15% in many dungeons still wont help you get past those "group killer" bosses.

15% more HP is not going to save the people who keep standing outside of the grounding field on Asaad, or the tanks who simply can not get the Ozruk dance mechanic down.
15% more DPS is not going to save your group when it is full of people pushing 4k in a heroic on a single target tank n spank fight, or who simply can not manage to change targets to the adds on the Erudax fight.

Yes.  It will improve quality of life in a decent number of complete pugs, but it wont completely protect you from the vast amounts of epic fail that still lurk in the shadows of the LFD tool.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on February 05, 2011, 03:05:13 PM
I'm not sure what your point is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on February 05, 2011, 03:38:53 PM
I think he means that when a bosses mechanics are too difficult for most of these tards to grasp, it doesn't matter what number Blizzard buffs them up to, dummies are still going to wipe to them.

Until almost the end of ICC's life, I never got to see past Professor Putricide. Even when we were buffed by 20%. It was the guilds I was in; they always had one dummy who couldnt do the spores on Rotface(?), and beating that boss that kept puking puddles around the room was hell.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 05, 2011, 05:22:38 PM
15% in many dungeons still wont help you get past those "group killer" bosses.

15% more HP is not going to save the people who keep standing outside of the grounding field on Asaad, or the tanks who simply can not get the Ozruk dance mechanic down.
15% more DPS is not going to save your group when it is full of people pushing 4k in a heroic on a single target tank n spank fight, or who simply can not manage to change targets to the adds on the Erudax fight.

Yes.  It will improve quality of life in a decent number of complete pugs, but it wont completely protect you from the vast amounts of epic fail that still lurk in the shadows of the LFD tool.

Actually yeah, it will.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on February 05, 2011, 11:51:14 PM
That is like saying that being level 70 made full clearing old school 40 man Naxx a walk in the park.

KT was still a bitch and a half even with 30 people at level 70.  More HP and More DPS will not allow you to "muscle through" many types of WoW boss mechanics (wether 5 man or 40 man).  15% more HP will not prevent a boss that can one shot you from one shotting you when you dont avoid the heavily telegraphed oneshot mechanic.  15% more dps will not help you kill shit if people are too stupid to apply that dps where it is needed at the correct time.  And you WILL find those stupid people when you do enough random pugs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 05, 2011, 11:57:46 PM
The 15% isn't intended to make up for stupid. But it will help the fact that the ilvl to /lfd for heroics is lower than what you need to be successful (as they've openly admitted).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on February 06, 2011, 01:33:50 AM
Sorry, I understand what he MEANS.  I just don't get his point :  how would you like us to remove the stupid from lfg ?

Or are you just moaning about retards ?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on February 06, 2011, 03:54:23 AM
Plus the thing is, it's not the boss fights that are causing all the grief. Boss fight, you get there, go "Oh, it's this one with gimmicks x/y/s"/DBM pings, ask "Everyone know this one?" and either do it or wipe. Everyone expects boss fights to be tricksie.

It's the sodding trash that's the hassle - there's too much of it, it does too much damage, takes too long to kill, and still requires a modicum of skill to deal with ("CC that one, kill that one first, interrupt that one spell or the tank then everyone else dies, etc). For trash mobs. A 15% bonus on ploughing through all that crap that is a real quality-of-life improvement.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on February 06, 2011, 04:27:19 AM
It's the sodding trash that's the hassle - there's too much of it, it does too much damage, takes too long to kill, and still requires a modicum of skill to deal with ("CC that one, kill that one first, interrupt that one spell or the tank then everyone else dies, etc). For trash mobs. A 15% bonus on ploughing through all that crap that is a real quality-of-life improvement.
I think that if a fight isn't going to be a threat, it shouldn't be there at all.  So trash mobs that require a modicum of skill to kill are exactly what I want.  I don't want packs that I can just blitz through.  Now, too much of it may be an issue, but complaining because it requires some skill and organization seems ridiculous.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on February 06, 2011, 07:00:33 AM
Agreed, they should remove the boss fights.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on February 06, 2011, 07:35:19 AM
It's the sodding trash that's the hassle - there's too much of it, it does too much damage, takes too long to kill, and still requires a modicum of skill to deal with ("CC that one, kill that one first, interrupt that one spell or the tank then everyone else dies, etc). For trash mobs. A 15% bonus on ploughing through all that crap that is a real quality-of-life improvement.
I think that if a fight isn't going to be a threat, it shouldn't be there at all.  So trash mobs that require a modicum of skill to kill are exactly what I want.  I don't want packs that I can just blitz through.  Now, too much of it may be an issue, but complaining because it requires some skill and organization seems ridiculous.
You want hour-long queues and two hour heroics? Really?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on February 06, 2011, 08:50:40 AM
I think that if a fight isn't going to be a threat, it shouldn't be there at all.  So trash mobs that require a modicum of skill to kill are exactly what I want.  I don't want packs that I can just blitz through.  Now, too much of it may be an issue, but complaining because it requires some skill and organization seems ridiculous.

If they're that much of a threat then they're no longer trash. They're "events" or sub-bosses. Needs less of that. The time issue is one of the biggest problems I'm having with this expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pennilenko on February 06, 2011, 09:01:26 AM
Right now the problem with heroics in cataclysm is when somebody asks me to run some with them, my response is that I do not have three hours to run a dungeon with.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on February 06, 2011, 09:08:14 AM
I don't think any of the dungeon should be there for the sole purpose of making it take more time by requiring you to do something which has almost no chance of failure, but requires a minimum amount of time in order to get past.  That's what mindless trash does - if I don't have to pay any attention as I clear through it, all it's doing is making the dungeon take longer without actually providing any challenge at all.

If every pull need a little CC and a kill order to make it go smoothly, that's great.  I don't want the extreme of every pull needing perfect CC in order to be survivable, of course, but I'd like to have to pay attention or else things might get rough.

Essentially, "trash" is something I'd rather not have in my dungeons at all.  I'd rather have enemies.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 06, 2011, 09:13:43 AM
Koyasha, I disagree with what you said.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 06, 2011, 10:25:15 AM
I don't want CC in 5 mans. It plays no part in fun and only serves to frustrate the players.

Here are my simple rules: no more than 2 trash groups between bosses. No more than 4 mobs per pack. No more than 2 casters in a pack.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on February 06, 2011, 10:30:59 AM
Hey, I'm one of the guys saying that heroics need tuned and some are just utter bullshit, but that sounds boring as hell Paelos.

Unless there's 20 or so bosses.  Then it works.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 06, 2011, 10:38:14 AM
I prefer about 5 to 7


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on February 06, 2011, 10:45:41 AM
You're a fan of HoO ?

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 06, 2011, 10:51:12 AM
I thought there were only 3 bosses in HoO.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on February 06, 2011, 12:24:10 PM
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 06, 2011, 08:54:14 PM
I want my dungeons to require thinking (yes, even the trash, sorry guys). I have this luxury, though, because I have enough people I like to play with that I don't have to deal with LFD for said dungeons. So I can understand the desire to make them boring AE-fests like WotLK dungeons were, and I totally get that on the whole that's probably better for the game as a social thing. I don't think that makes a very good dungeon, though.

Something else I think is pretty silly is wanting CC to matter again in five mans and then never needing it in a raid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on February 06, 2011, 10:40:03 PM
I'm fine with trash and bosses in dungeons being 'difficult' (meaning you gotta do X/Y at the right time) with one caveat... don't depend on all 5 people to HAVE to do the right thing, or there'll be tears. Maybe need 2(3?) people to be 'on the ball' (interrupts, cc, knowing when to do damage bursts, good positioning beyond getting out of static fire on the ground) for each run, tank/healer included. That way, even duo-queuing into a bad PUG would mean that you're almost guaranteed to succeed if you know how to do that stuff.


(I mainly pug heroics on my tank DK (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/crushridge/zaphiir/simple) and haven't had many problems; then again, DK tanks are pretty lol at the moment with 9k dps + crazy self-healing + interrupts + avoiding some mechanics with AMS and whatnot. :awesome_for_real: It could be that I'm getting lucky -- even on my SFK runs I get at least one person who knows how to interrupt, CCers usually CC, etc.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 07, 2011, 12:22:52 AM
I'd be all for CC in heroics if the dungeon finder insured that you got appropriate CC for your random dungeon. Make a CC role*, allow players to choose it if they're not fucktarded (with faster queues obviously coming from doing so), and let that qualify them as CC for dungeons their class can reliably CC. Instead, you have something that's de facto required but /LFD can (and does) potentially give you a group that just can't hack it. This is the same complaint I have with the whole "the ilvl required to queue isn't high enough to complete the zone" bullshit; don't give us tools that don't efficiently allow us to complete the zones.

*note: I wouldn't make this a primary role, but a secondary role (like how leader works) that can be paired with either healer or DPS. To the best of my knowledge, there are no tank specs that can reliably CC (I know druids can root then shift into bear but that's not reliable).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on February 07, 2011, 01:08:55 AM
I want my dungeons to require thinking (yes, even the trash, sorry guys). I have this luxury, though, because I have enough people I like to play with that I don't have to deal with LFD for said dungeons. So I can understand the desire to make them boring AE-fests like WotLK dungeons were, and I totally get that on the whole that's probably better for the game as a social thing. I don't think that makes a very good dungeon, though.

Something else I think is pretty silly is wanting CC to matter again in five mans and then never needing it in a raid.

We've been through this - CC is absolutely needed in raids, and if you are clearing BoT without CC then I doff my hat to you because I would think it basically impossible. We have to use extra CC that we don't use in 5 player groups to make the trash controllable and easily managed.

(I partly think that trash was created just to show off Ring of Frost for mages. It's so absurdly powerful it seems silly.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 07, 2011, 01:17:39 AM
My experiences in heroics are apparently the opposite so far from the rest of you, the trash has been fine but we struggle on the bosses.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on February 07, 2011, 04:39:13 AM
Ingmar, you actually communicate with the group, which is usually guildies from what I've seen.  How many have you done in a PUG?

In that situation the bosses are going to be tougher because it relies on people not making any of several potentially fatal mistakes and having the gear to survive.  Trash won't be a problem because it just doesn't take that long to kill if everyone knows what they're doing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on February 07, 2011, 08:00:56 AM
Once a person knows the zone, the only communication really necessary is for the group leader to say what they want done with each mark at the beginning of the run, then take a second or two to mark before each pull.  Everyone does their job, pull goes smoothly.  This doesn't require a lot of time, effort, etc, and will work fine even with pug people.  It's how I ran dungeons in Burning Crusade, and I ran lots of pugs then.  I didn't run into that many people that couldn't follow directions then, simply by taking the first people I could get from trade or LFG channel.  Announce at the start something along the lines of 'Kill order: Skull, X, Triangle, sheep moon, trap square.'  If I could regularly clear Shattered Halls, Shadow Labyrinth, the Tempest Keep dungeons, and even Magister's Terrace with groups put together from LFG, without an inordinate number of wipes, then the much shorter and faster Cataclysm dungeons should be a cinch even for LFD people.

If people can't do that much, I'm sorry, but they shouldn't be able to get through the dungeons.  They should fail.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 07, 2011, 10:50:48 AM
My experiences in heroics are apparently the opposite so far from the rest of you, the trash has been fine but we struggle on the bosses.
I don't have a problem with most of it, but there are a few trash packs that are just absurdly difficult or annoying. The goblins in Throne of the Tides and the guys standing in the stupid grounding fields in VP come immediately to mind. HoO is guilty of the "too many casters" problem, where it's a chore getting some mobs CC'd and the rest away from the CC targets; the large spam-fireball guys always end up chilling in the back nuking the healer.

Some of the bosses are hard too, but I don't mind hard bosses. They're bosses, they drop loot, etc. Those grounding field guys in VP are harder than two of the bosses in the fucking zone, and that's retarded.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on February 07, 2011, 12:46:21 PM
The grounding field pulls in VP are probably my favorites on my Hunter.

In general, I don't mind difficult trash as it presents a different challenge to bosses and a more varied one between groups.  (I also don't see the loot/no-loot distinction as terribly important.  It's all on the same route.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on February 07, 2011, 04:13:06 PM
Why buff players when they could just nerf the mobs? From the sound of it, all they need to do is generally drop hitpoints and the the damage of a couple abilities. Seems less risky than mudflation creep on the players themselves.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on February 07, 2011, 05:41:36 PM
I can't help but, for the most part, agree with Gevlon's post (http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2011/02/most-disgusting-nerf-ever.html) on his blog about the reasons why players are being buffed rather than mobs nerfed.

Quote
Ghostcrawler wrote "in general, Heroic dungeons are of appropriate difficulty for organized groups, but just brutal on Dungeon Finder groups. ". He isn't talking about Method and Paragon guildruns. The organized groups of casual guilds were successful. I haven't seen wipes outside of autorunning into 3 packs when I ran HCs, despite some of our guildies were fresh 85s who tricked the LFD with high level useless reputation gear. I've been with tank who dinged that day and had 3 blues, rest green. Heroics are not hard for casuals, now it's accepted officially (as most guilds are by definition casual). Heroics are ony too hard for plain M&S.

...

In light of this obvious proof, I repeat what I wrote: the key to a successful MMO is "boosting", making good players carry bad ones without them noticing that they are being carried.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 07, 2011, 05:47:01 PM
Not to mention that after the big DM-Tantrum that Ghostcrawler's post was, a nerf to the mobs leaves him with egg all over his face.  Buffing players has the same effect but lets them stand 'firm' on the difficulty of the dungeons because nothing was changed there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on February 07, 2011, 10:34:25 PM
Why buff players when they could just nerf the mobs? From the sound of it, all they need to do is generally drop hitpoints and the the damage of a couple abilities. Seems less risky than mudflation creep on the players themselves.

Same reason that the ICC buff is better than the ye olde method of nerfing raid bosses: once you've trivialized a previously core mechanic of the fight, it's gone forever.  This method effectively allows a full PUG to "overgear" a place which can help make up for some poor play while still requiring them to avoid and punch the right things.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on February 07, 2011, 11:10:16 PM
I love the VP grounding pulls on my hunter. Trap in front of an adept, MD to the tank, autoshot a mob and sting (sleep) another mob. Pop my explosive proc and FD as the tank picks up anything that hasn't been CCd.

Only time it fucks up is if the group decides they want to run to the mobs after I pull, thereby screwing up a perfect LoS/MD pull.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on February 08, 2011, 11:03:42 AM
I can't help but, for the most part, agree with Gevlon's post (http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2011/02/most-disgusting-nerf-ever.html) on his blog about the reasons why players are being buffed rather than mobs nerfed.

Quote
Ghostcrawler wrote "in general, Heroic dungeons are of appropriate difficulty for organized groups, but just brutal on Dungeon Finder groups. ". He isn't talking about Method and Paragon guildruns. The organized groups of casual guilds were successful. I haven't seen wipes outside of autorunning into 3 packs when I ran HCs, despite some of our guildies were fresh 85s who tricked the LFD with high level useless reputation gear. I've been with tank who dinged that day and had 3 blues, rest green. Heroics are not hard for casuals, now it's accepted officially (as most guilds are by definition casual). Heroics are ony too hard for plain M&S.

...

In light of this obvious proof, I repeat what I wrote: the key to a successful MMO is "boosting", making good players carry bad ones without them noticing that they are being carried.
OTOH, that bloke is genuinely insane (and hilariously so).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on February 08, 2011, 11:36:34 AM
Yeah.  The first page of articles was enough to give me hives...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 08, 2011, 11:38:11 AM
Warcraft is srs bizns, you M&S!   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on February 08, 2011, 12:13:29 PM
Yeah, Gevlon is a Hungarian sociopath. Actually, that may be redundant.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on February 08, 2011, 12:55:25 PM
This is a Euro Psycho ?

Interesting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on February 13, 2011, 11:35:17 AM
Wow.  I respecced my Shammy alt I haven't played in forever from ele to enhance, and I'm enjoying the heck out of it.  Leveling feels almost scary-fast with the heirloom shoulders and the guild 5% perk.

Will probably run into the Same Old Issues(tm) once I hit Outland, but enjoyable for the moment.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on February 13, 2011, 01:19:56 PM
Get yourself an Heirloom Chest for your shaman, and you will blow through outland in 2 zones at most.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on February 13, 2011, 03:20:05 PM
I have discovered how to make tanking heroic pugs fun.

1) Get drunk. Quite a lot. Sometimes a valium on top of that to take the edge off. Don't judge me, k?

2) On entering dungeon say "Hi! I've not tanked this before and I'm really, really drunk! That ok?"

3) Half group leaves. Replacements arrive. I restate previous position.

4) Repeat 2-3 until group fully ready to go.

5) Fun, hilarity, hijinks, loot, VPs, etc.

My favourite part of this tactic is when, as tonight, someone says something like: [Hunter] Why do you keep hitting trapped mobs? Are you stupid or drunk?  [Me] Drunk! I think I mentioned that!  [Everyone else] Lol! <3

Seriously, crossing over the line into "I honestly don't give a shit about this, let's have a laugh" and being open about it has turned dick+nails experiences into genuine fun and some utterly hilarious evenings. Fuck the whiners, you're just not drunk enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on February 14, 2011, 03:35:11 AM
It's people like you, trying to have fun in this game, that ruins it for everyone!  :why_so_serious:

 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on February 14, 2011, 06:19:22 AM
"I honestly don't give a shit about this, let's have a laugh" and being open about it has turned dick+nails experiences into genuine fun and some utterly hilarious evenings. Fuck the whiners, you're just not drunk enough.

Only one problem: I don't drink.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on February 14, 2011, 07:28:44 AM
"I honestly don't give a shit about this, let's have a laugh" and being open about it has turned dick+nails experiences into genuine fun and some utterly hilarious evenings. Fuck the whiners, you're just not drunk enough.

Only one problem: I don't drink.  :ye_gods:

Yes, but your party does not know that.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on February 14, 2011, 10:16:50 AM

2) On entering dungeon say "Hi! I've not tanked this before and I'm really, really drunk! That ok?"


Back in LK, we had a HPoS where the tank spawned in and basically that was the first thing he said. We kicked his ass right there.

In this expansion, I'm beginning to think being blind drunk is expected. I suspect the devs might have been when they designed some of this stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on February 14, 2011, 11:03:14 AM
Back in LK, we had a HPoS where the tank spawned in and basically that was the first thing he said. We kicked his ass right there.

Yeah, but so what? He probably still started his dungeon before you did. Kick may as well not exist as far as tanks are concerned.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 14, 2011, 11:12:16 AM
Yeah, but so what? He probably still started his dungeon before you did. Kick may as well not exist as far as tanks are concerned.

Yep for tanks it's, "Do I want to do a dungeon? Sure." Queue, wait 2s, hit accept button, watch the screen fill in the checkmarks, load dungeon, buff, go.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on February 14, 2011, 01:21:00 PM
A tank has to have a first dungeon run once.  Gods know being drunk would probably make me a better tank.  I get too high-strung when I'm learning fights.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on February 14, 2011, 01:41:42 PM
Yeah, but so what? He probably still started his dungeon before you did. Kick may as well not exist as far as tanks are concerned.

Yep for tanks it's, "Do I want to do a dungeon? Sure." Queue, wait 2s, hit accept button, watch the screen fill in the checkmarks, load dungeon, buff, go.

One DPS always fails the queue check. This happens one to three times per queue so it's actually two minutes or so to get into an instance.





Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on February 14, 2011, 01:44:26 PM
Ahahaha, so true.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 14, 2011, 01:49:36 PM
That's the guy who was AFK doing wash or going to the bathroom after sitting there for 45 mins.  They were pissed when they got back, I can tell you from experience.  (Tho at least I could always say "fuck it" and queue as tank if I was really anxious.)



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on February 14, 2011, 01:59:35 PM
A-frickin-men. I get insta-queues on my pally tank and it's ALWAYS the DPS that doesn't accept. While it annoys me, I can't help but visualize some kid dead or asleep at his pc from the long wait.

And seriously... this gogogo bullshit has to end. I let the first one slide, but when the second time occurs, I state: "you want me to go? ok" /leave party. I am a steady puller, not an AoE puller. Since I have 0 wait time, I can be picky.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Polysorbate80 on February 14, 2011, 02:54:53 PM
I usually get the "gogogo" crap from the healer, often on a boss pull when they're sitting at, say, 25% mana.  Apparently they don't realize that I can see that their mana bar?

And Lantyssa, every first run tanking a heroic dungeon for me has been with the benefit of a nice big scotch  :grin:  I've got enough of my own stupid to worry about on those without having to give a shit about everyone ELSE's stupid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on February 14, 2011, 04:44:22 PM
Get yourself an Heirloom Chest for your shaman, and you will blow through outland in 2 zones at most.

Knew I was grinding AT for something...  Done.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on February 14, 2011, 05:41:49 PM
I've done a number of random heroics recently just so I could see what the experience was like without queuing up with preformed groups.

I don't know if I'm in some magical land of good players or people are just blowing this way out of proportion, but my experiences do not line up with 3-4 hour wipefests.  Most of the groups I've gotten are reasonably competent.  Perhaps averaging one terrible player per group, which can often be driven to leave the group simply by explaining to them just how terrible they are, and they can usually be kicked other times.  Not every group has a bad player, and some have more than one, but I think I feel safe in saying it averages about one per group.

Thus far I've completed every heroic I've tried.  I'm pretty sure all in under 2 hours, most in 1 hour, give or take 15 minutes or so.  Admittedly, some bosses have occasionally been skipped because things were starting to take a while so we wanted to get it finished.  Most of the players I've had to deal with have been willing to listen and capable of doing the jobs assigned to them.  In the event that nobody tells them what to do, there can be problems, but once they have instructions, they usually can follow them sufficiently well to get through without major hassle.

The only thing I can think of that may be different from others' random experiences is that I am perfectly willing to berate a terrible player for being terrible, give instructions and call people out on failures, and kick people if they can't do their job.  The worst run I've had so far was a heroic deadmines where a retadin DPS was doing ~2500 DPS, and a shaman (can't recall if he was enhance or elemental) was doing about 3k.  After calling them out on how bad they were, the paladin left (probably in shame, I am guessing) and the shaman fell back on the 'gear' excuse, after which I inspected him and told him, "your gear is fine, your character needs a better player."  He eventually needed to be kicked. They were replaced by a competent warrior and death knight who did 11k and 9.5k respectively, and we finished the instance easily.

So, if people are trying to just grit their teeth and deal with it instead of getting rid of these kinds of people, then I can certainly see why those runs may be 3-4 hour wipefests.  But if you're willing to throw out the useless twits, my experience seems to be that there's a reasonable amount of people who are at least minimally competent, who can manage to do things well enough to get through without problems as long as they are properly instructed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on February 14, 2011, 06:49:10 PM
What if you are the useless twit?  Gonna take a while then, huh?

Damn you sound like a giant arse.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pennilenko on February 14, 2011, 07:13:27 PM
I agree with Lantyssa.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on February 14, 2011, 07:18:14 PM
Damn you sound like a giant arse.
Zing.

I have been kicked for doing just fine interrupts, CC'ing with sheep, and DPSing the marked mobs to the tune of 7-8k.  Guess I need to l2p ;-)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on February 14, 2011, 09:58:24 PM
I've done a number of random heroics recently just so I could see what the experience was like without queuing up with preformed groups.

I don't know if I'm in some magical land of good players or people are just blowing this way out of proportion, but my experiences do not line up with 3-4 hour wipefests.  Most of the groups I've gotten are reasonably competent.  Perhaps averaging one terrible player per group, which can often be driven to leave the group simply by explaining to them just how terrible they are, and they can usually be kicked other times.  Not every group has a bad player, and some have more than one, but I think I feel safe in saying it averages about one per group.

Thus far I've completed every heroic I've tried.  I'm pretty sure all in under 2 hours, most in 1 hour, give or take 15 minutes or so.  Admittedly, some bosses have occasionally been skipped because things were starting to take a while so we wanted to get it finished.  Most of the players I've had to deal with have been willing to listen and capable of doing the jobs assigned to them.  In the event that nobody tells them what to do, there can be problems, but once they have instructions, they usually can follow them sufficiently well to get through without major hassle.

The only thing I can think of that may be different from others' random experiences is that I am perfectly willing to berate a terrible player for being terrible, give instructions and call people out on failures, and kick people if they can't do their job.  The worst run I've had so far was a heroic deadmines where a retadin DPS was doing ~2500 DPS, and a shaman (can't recall if he was enhance or elemental) was doing about 3k.  After calling them out on how bad they were, the paladin left (probably in shame, I am guessing) and the shaman fell back on the 'gear' excuse, after which I inspected him and told him, "your gear is fine, your character needs a better player."  He eventually needed to be kicked. They were replaced by a competent warrior and death knight who did 11k and 9.5k respectively, and we finished the instance easily.

So, if people are trying to just grit their teeth and deal with it instead of getting rid of these kinds of people, then I can certainly see why those runs may be 3-4 hour wipefests.  But if you're willing to throw out the useless twits, my experience seems to be that there's a reasonable amount of people who are at least minimally competent, who can manage to do things well enough to get through without problems as long as they are properly instructed.
If the shaman was enhance, he would have to be failing pretty spectacularly to be doing 3k dps.  My alt is an enhance shaman, and i think that even with an average gear level just good enough to get into heroics, with a bunch of greens, 2 shitty trinkets, and a crappy mainhand weapon, i could pull 8k without even trying.    Hell, with WF / FT on mainhand / offhand i could probably auto-attack for 3k dps.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on February 14, 2011, 10:19:46 PM
What if you are the useless twit?  Gonna take a while then, huh?

If you're that level of useless twit, you're probably only sober enough to right-click on moving shapes and won't notice you've been kicked.

There's a world of difference between "Hey man, you might want to grab some hit gear from Reputation_A, it'll help your damage out." or "Next time guys, switch over to Important_Target_A when X happens." and "How the hell are you breaking CCs and doing only 4 DPS?"

I have been kicked for doing just fine interrupts, CC'ing with sheep, and DPSing the marked mobs to the tune of 7-8k.  Guess I need to l2p ;-)

No, that just means your group wanted to bring one of their friends in.  I think a lot of people just blindly hit Yes on vote kicks for some of the not-bad players I've seen bounced.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on February 15, 2011, 12:13:21 AM
Saying that it's ok NOW after they've just nerfed the bad ones into the ground and JP are falling like rain and most randoms are geared out the arse is ... kinda missing the point.

It is better now, but even now morons are trying to aoe through the whole thing and just spoiling it for everyone...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on February 15, 2011, 01:56:30 AM
CC doesn't happen any more in heroic pugs here. People have stopped bothering except on the Adepts in VP.

Heroics were horrible and difficult and required CC etc for... two months. Now it's almost back to LK except they take a bit longer and people interrupt more often and blow their cooldowns almost every time they can. Raid pugs are starting on my server, I'm gonna read up tactics for the current raiding tier and try getting into randoms.

The mudflation design of WoW means that all of Ghostcrawler's hurf blurf about making healing harder and heroics challenging is all irrelevant after the brief 333-346 iLvl window.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 15, 2011, 08:02:21 AM
The mudflation design of WoW means that all of Ghostcrawler's hurf blurf about making healing harder and heroics challenging is all irrelevant after the brief 333-346 iLvl window.

Which imo makes the design decision that much more puzzling. If we know the game eventually is going to make that particular brand of content turn into Y, why in the world would you make it like X in the beginning? All that does is piss off the people who enjoyed Y and make them quit. The people who enjoy X are done with it in a matter of weeks and have moved on to your high end stuff.

I thought we had gotten over listening to the most dedicated raiders in how to design your everyday content and overall game, but I guess not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on February 15, 2011, 09:16:51 AM
If you're that level of useless twit, you're probably only sober enough to right-click on moving shapes and won't notice you've been kicked.

Not really, take almost any player 13 or younger (there's a lot), people like my dad who can do quests and level up but has no idea what a rotation or DPS is, people who don't take the game very seriously, or people who just aren't very good. I think a lot of people who fall under these categories have just stopped queueing. They can't be carried anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on February 15, 2011, 09:34:24 AM
Get yourself an Heirloom Chest for your shaman, and you will blow through outland in 2 zones at most.

You can do that without heirlooms.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on February 15, 2011, 09:38:44 AM
Funny that my human pally tank's last quest was a westfall quest @ 16. Dungeon crawled since then and am sitting at 57 without touching the outside world other than to level herbalism.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 15, 2011, 09:40:52 AM
The mudflation design of WoW means that all of Ghostcrawler's hurf blurf about making healing harder and heroics challenging is all irrelevant after the brief 333-346 iLvl window.

Which imo makes the design decision that much more puzzling. If we know the game eventually is going to make that particular brand of content turn into Y, why in the world would you make it like X in the beginning? All that does is piss off the people who enjoyed Y and make them quit. The people who enjoy X are done with it in a matter of weeks and have moved on to your high end stuff.

I thought we had gotten over listening to the most dedicated raiders in how to design your everyday content and overall game, but I guess not.


Blizzard just seems to be really bad at predicting their own power creep or whatever you call it. I think they intended for the window to be much longer, but they suck at itemization and shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on February 15, 2011, 09:48:02 AM
Saying that it's ok NOW after they've just nerfed the bad ones into the ground and JP are falling like rain and most randoms are geared out the arse is ... kinda missing the point.

It is better now, but even now morons are trying to aoe through the whole thing and just spoiling it for everyone...

I don't think I've queued for a random heroic in over a month.  I quit logging in except to sell shit about the same time.  Cancelled one account a couple weeks ago, the other is getting canceled in favor of playing Rift. 

Call it voting with my wallet, sending a message, whatever.  In my own small way, I'm registering my unhappiness. The damage caused by boneheaded dev decisions - when I thought they were over making those dumb decisions - will impact my feeling for the game even after they change the way they do things. 



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 15, 2011, 10:05:45 AM
Call it voting with my wallet, sending a message, whatever.  In my own small way, I'm registering my unhappiness. The damage caused by boneheaded dev decisions - when I thought they were over making those dumb decisions - will impact my feeling for the game even after they change the way they do things. 

I decided to do the same today and just play out my remaining time. It's the only way to really get any change. This is not the game I enjoyed playing for the last 2 years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on February 15, 2011, 10:32:40 AM
The mudflation design of WoW means that all of Ghostcrawler's hurf blurf about making healing harder and heroics challenging is all irrelevant after the brief 333-346 iLvl window.

You do realize part of that hurf blurf had lines like:

Quote
They’re only going to get easier from here on out.

In Cataclysm, the Heroic dungeons and raids are intended to be challenging -- and they are, at least until you overgear them.

Tanks, you can’t pull and AE every group in a Heroic (again, until you overgear the content).

We also just tend to nerf content over time because the original players hitting that content have moved on, so we want to open it up to a wider audience.

?

Edit: Well, that was a lot of whitespace.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 15, 2011, 11:03:47 AM
The mudflation design of WoW means that all of Ghostcrawler's hurf blurf about making healing harder and heroics challenging is all irrelevant after the brief 333-346 iLvl window.
You do realize part of that hurf blurf had lines like:

You do realize that people aren't willing to wait for the fun right? It's a bullshit excuse that we knew they'd toss out there to tell us to shut up and take it. We're done with that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 15, 2011, 11:15:36 AM
Yeah most of the people complaining I don't think really read the whole thing, probably just the "highlights" quoted here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on February 15, 2011, 11:47:21 AM
You do realize that people aren't willing to wait for the fun right? It's a bullshit excuse that we knew they'd toss out there to tell us to shut up and take it. We're done with that.

I wasn't saying anything about that.  Heroic design this expansion was deliberately against players who wanted them to be of trivial difficulty from the off.  Again, from GC's post:

Quote
... we don’t want to sacrifice dungeons being fun and challenging for organized groups in order to have everything be conquered by any possible group.

I quoted the lines I did because there's this assumption here that the ideas expressed in "Wow, Dungeons are Hard!" (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2053469) are immediately repudiated whenever a nerf, either by gear inflation or encounter design, happens.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on February 15, 2011, 11:50:10 AM
I'm sorry, he's still talking fucking shite.

Given the JP changes, when you HIT heroics, you're overgeared.

So that's a fucking WANK argument.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 15, 2011, 12:12:18 PM
I've read the whole thing several times and I still put together the top 20 things he actually said:

Quote from: Ghostcrawler
First, let me state that we do hear you. We understand some of you aren’t having fun and preferred the Lich King paradigm, or at least something closer to the Lich King paradigm. We greatly appreciate the feedback and it always makes us sad when players aren’t having fun. We're not ignoring you. We get it. We may not always agree on every point, but we understand where you’re coming from, and we want to try to help you understand where we're coming from....

1 - The bottom line is that we want Heroics and raids to be challenging
2 - We want players to approach an encounter, especially a Heroic encounter, as a puzzle to be solved. We want groups to communicate and strategize.
3 - We don't want you to stumble your way to victory
4 - We want you to do more than push a button to get the loot
5 - We don’t want to give undergeared or unorganized groups a near guaranteed chance of success, because then the content will feel absolutely trivial
6 - We didn't like that the Heroic dungeons in Lich King and early Naxxramas had become zerg-fests
7 - Tanks, you can’t pull and AE every group in a Heroic
8 - Healers will generally have enough mana to keep you alive in any given fight
9 - DPS specs often get blamed the most for not knowing what is going on. It should be your business to understand the mechanics of the fights
10 - If you feel like you must spam your inefficient heals to the exclusion of all else, then your group is ignoring key mechanics or is just undergeared.
11 - The item level requirement is intended only to keep out players who have no idea what is appropriate content for them. We know you can game it
12 - Once 4.1 comes out, you will have access to more powerful gear that will let you then revisit the content you couldn’t do before
13 - I love the Dungeon Finder. I worked on it a lot personally. It is quite successful at finding you a group. It doesn't guarantee a successful group
14 - We think the game is more fun overall when you play with friends, which is why we put so much effort into encouraging players to join guilds for Cataclysm
15 - I’ve PUGged the Cataclysm content a lot. So have all of the designers. We want to stay in touch with what players are experiencing.
16 - We've seen a few threads that suggest that we're too proud to admit mistakes. I find that logic strange, because we do it all the time.
17 - We don't at all view the Cataclysm dungeon and raid balance as a mistake.
18 - We do understand that some healers are frustrated and giving up.
19 - At least at this point in time, is vastly overstated on the forums. We also know that plenty of players like the changes and find healing more enjoyable now.
20 - We want to ensure that everyone is having fun and enjoying their time with the game

Translation: Why the fuck are you people complaining? Are you not fucking paying attention? Obviously you don't fucking get it yet, so let me ram it in your earhole one more fucking time until it permeates through the mass of bong resin in that thing you call a skull. This is the way it is, you either shape the fuck up or ship the fuck out. Healers? If they can't hack it they can go fuck themselves. They were too weak to live anyway in our brand new world. Only the strong survive now, motherfuckers! You best get right with your gods and learn what's what or your guts on going to decorate my virtual floor.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 15, 2011, 12:17:39 PM
I think you're reading what you want to read because you're tired of the game in general and looking for your out. None of the stuff you quoted translates like that to me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 15, 2011, 01:00:29 PM
I think you're reading what you want to read because you're tired of the game in general and looking for your out. None of the stuff you quoted translates like that to me.

I'm definitely sick of the game as it stands. Sick of it in general? I think that's a bit much. My out right now is that everytime I try to put something together, another healer I know quits or rolls something else.

What I don't like is in response to player concerns, one of the men in charge comes out and blatantly says that we've been doing it wrong for years, and things aren't going to be like that anymore. He believes that many of us are acting like children and whining about a problem that will be solved with time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 15, 2011, 01:11:19 PM
Which line says we've been doing it wrong? We've just been playing the design they gave us. If anything, he thinks Blizzard has been doing it wrong, hence the new design for Cataclysm. You can say they made the wrong choice to change the design, sure, and they'll probably realize it eventually (if you don't think they already have, which I personally do) but you're attaching all sorts of extra meaning onto these statements that I don't think is warranted.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 15, 2011, 01:34:21 PM
Which line says we've been doing it wrong? We've just been playing the design they gave us. If anything, he thinks Blizzard has been doing it wrong, hence the new design for Cataclysm. You can say they made the wrong choice to change the design, sure, and they'll probably realize it eventually (if you don't think they already have, which I personally do) but you're attaching all sorts of extra meaning onto these statements that I don't think is warranted.

He IS Blizzard though. He's the lead systems designer. When this came out, I don't think there was any way to misread the intent of, "We don't at all view the Cataclysm dungeon and raid balance as a mistake."

Hell, I could toss out all the other hemming and hawing and just quote that. He was basically saying, "We hear you, we know you are upset and that some of you are quitting, we are looking at it, but if you think we consider changing this a bad thing, you're simply wrong. We never envisioned the game turning out the way it did in WotLK and we have no intention of repeating that right out of the gate."

The rest of it was just hyperbole because it's fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 15, 2011, 01:38:49 PM
You are overlooking the Evil Kalgan.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on February 15, 2011, 03:19:15 PM
18 - We do understand that some healers are frustrated and giving up.
19 - At least at this point in time, is vastly overstated on the forums. We also know that plenty of players like the changes and find healing more enjoyable now.

Gee, I'm glad you understand healers are frustrated and giving up.  Too bad you don't plan on fixing this.  Healing more enjoyable?  Hardly.  Granted, half of the problem with this game are the other players, but posts like this give me nerdrage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 15, 2011, 04:30:36 PM
It is more enjoyable if you're a paladin, imo. I love healing on my paladin. :heart: If you had told me a year ago I'd say that, I would've laughed right in your face. I don't know about the other classes because I haven't healed with them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 15, 2011, 04:39:49 PM
You went and got more spells to cast, my Druid somehow went backwards!  :why_so_serious:


Shit, didn't we just have this exact line of conversation?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 16, 2011, 02:05:42 PM
Some changes to healers incoming:

http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/158699/incoming-healer-changes

Quote
Since the release of patch 4.0.6, we’ve been keeping an eye on healers and how they are performing and are currently in the process of making some additional adjustments.

Priests

The cost of Power Word: Shield is being increased by 33%. While we wanted Discipline priests to be able to utilize this spell more often and with better results, we also did not want it to be the main spell (and often the only spell) used while in groups. We don’t find this to be a particularly compelling playstyle and have found that it encourages players to avoid using other spells such as Penance. We believe that using a shield in a tight moment is totally appropriate, but we don’t want it to be incredibly efficient to do so with more frequency than that.

We realize that by making Power Word: Shield slightly more expensive for Discipline priests to cast that it might cause Holy priests to avoid using it. To that end, we are adding mana savings into the Body and Soul talent. The tooltip will not reflect this change until a future patch, however. Ideally, Holy priests should not notice much of a change to the Power Word: Shield costs.

Shaman

We are also applying a hotfix for Purification for the Restoration shaman passive from 10% to 25%. We think that shaman healing per second is not as competitive with other healers and while we hoped to bring down Holy priest and Holy paladins (in particular) in 4.0.6, which we did, shaman still appear to be behind. In this case, it is simply easier to buff Restoration shaman rather than nerf everyone else or rebalance the encounters.

In Addition- Restoration Druids and Restoration Shaman

We agree with the sentiment among some players that Restoration druids and Restoration shaman are lacking in the healing cooldown department. The shaman buff and Power Word: Shield adjustment above should bring all healers reasonably close in terms of throughput. The decision on who to bring then might end up being dictated by the strong cooldowns offered by paladins or priests. This isn’t the kind of thing we can address via a hotfix, but it is something we are looking at for the next major content patch.

As always, we appreciate your continued constructive feedback and will do our best to keep you informed of ongoing developments.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 16, 2011, 02:10:00 PM
When does Rift come out?


That's when we'll see 4.1 is my guess.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 16, 2011, 02:13:46 PM
I'm not sure when Rift comes out, but I would imagine 4.1 is probably 1-2 months out?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 16, 2011, 02:19:02 PM
When does Rift come out?


That's when we'll see 4.1 is my guess.  :oh_i_see:

Next week for pre-orders, week after that for general resale.  So, no.


Re: Priests.  Ah, so people are back to spamming PW:S with the last patch? That explains why old Disc priests were happy again.  I know the ones in my guild that quit healing did so because they said "I keep running OOM, this is stupid" but would only spam PW:S and renew.  Disc healing; not like Wrath anymore.

Holy was fun before the patch, but the inability to spam anything but heal to keep your renew and Chakra rolling was frustrating.  I imagine it's a lot better now that you can use Gheal for it.  It's really not that hard to wrap your mind around after the first group or two.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on February 16, 2011, 02:35:39 PM
I had a disc priest tonight that was clearly like that.  The whole group just dies because he can only keep me up and then I have to tank and dps the boss down.

Really, really silly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 16, 2011, 03:00:08 PM
I had a disc priest tonight that was clearly like that.  The whole group just dies because he can only keep me up and then I have to tank and dps the boss down.

Really, really silly.

We always had that one priest in the guild who was really sweet and showed up to everything and really wanted to do well, but she would never listen to us telling her to check EJ or improve her stuff. With change it's gone from  :facepalm: to  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on February 16, 2011, 03:24:52 PM
Advising people to look at EJ has lost a lot of value over the past year. They chaps who run the forum are so caught up with their hardon for a single megathread for each spec that finding up-to-date information is a slog. I'd actually say the Tankspot forums are more helpful, and definitely more friendly. The EJ folk are so far up their own arses it's unreal,

On an unrelated note, is anyone else having difficulty accessing mmo-champion.com?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on February 16, 2011, 03:49:11 PM
I don't see why the length of the thread matters.  The first post will have 95% of the information you might need and the rest should be on the last page or two in the event of a recent hotfix/patch.  The rest is likely to be either irrelevant, harebrained, or both.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 16, 2011, 03:50:34 PM
I don't see why the length of the thread matters.  The first post will have 95% of the information you might need and the rest should be on the last page or two in the event of a recent hotfix/patch.  The rest is either irrelevant, harebrained, or both.

Very often (at least back when I was bothering to read EJ) for the classes I play the front post is not reliably up to date, if there's even a usable first post for the spec. There never was for prot warriors, for example.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on February 16, 2011, 03:53:36 PM
Indeed; the priest forum actually has reasonably good guides, but even those get updated infrequently. The content is also not aimed at the majority of the raiding population, and frankly doesn't always offer the best primer on how to fill a role outside of gearing up. It's very hit and miss, and the level of discourse is a lot less friendly than other sites.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 16, 2011, 04:11:53 PM
The Official Class forums, almost all of them have stickies for each spec, these are actually up to date and useful.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on February 16, 2011, 10:53:34 PM
Yeah, due to how the threads are managed on EJ, the WoW forums are now better places for theorycrafting.

It's depressing, because usually the first post will be awesome levels of detail and information.. from three patches ago. And somewhere on page Not The Last One, will be some updated statistics, and then three pages of people giving anecdotes of what they've seen done while mods warn them about it.

Heck, for the last three times I went looking for a pre raid gear quicklist, that section of the EJ post was just a link to someone else's forums.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on February 17, 2011, 12:45:27 AM
The mudflation design of WoW means that all of Ghostcrawler's hurf blurf about making healing harder and heroics challenging is all irrelevant after the brief 333-346 iLvl window.

You do realize part of that hurf blurf had lines like:

Quote
They’re only going to get easier from here on out.

In Cataclysm, the Heroic dungeons and raids are intended to be challenging -- and they are, at least until you overgear them.

Tanks, you can’t pull and AE every group in a Heroic (again, until you overgear the content).

We also just tend to nerf content over time because the original players hitting that content have moved on, so we want to open it up to a wider audience.

Yeah, that was kinda my point.

Why go to all the effort to make heroics so unforgiving, endure the rage from the playerbase because of it, even retaliate defending the design decision.... when they knew all along that it was only going to be like that for a couple of months?

What's happened is that they've made the mistake, YET AGAIN, of listening to the vocal 2% at the top of the hardcore chain and making major design changes based on that feedback. This has, AGAIN, pissed off huge numbers of their playerbase and they're frantically trying to claw their way back now. It's the kind of retarded design process that CCP do!

Personal anecdotes add very little to this kind of discussion, but in the absence of hard subs/login figures from WoW it's all we have. Personally I'm already waiting for the next content patch and logging in less. Linear and mandatory questing zones (hello Therazane rep) have burned me out on any further alt levelling. Being in a small guild denies me access to any raiding other than Argaloth (whoopee). 70 VPs/day is such painfully slow progression rate towards gear that is only marginally better than I've got already that it feels pointless.

Heroics haven't stayed hard for long, when they were hard it didn't actually make them any more fun, crafting is mostly pointless, raid content is unavailable. Some days I log in and have some fun if I'm drunk enough, other days I can't be arsed. That's a dangerous place for Blizz to be in with WoW imo.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 17, 2011, 09:52:17 AM
There are a couple hotfixes to /lfd and votekick coming, including one to finally nerf people getting a tank to insta queue them then having the tank drop group. This will now remove the whole group from the zone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 17, 2011, 10:15:10 AM
There are a couple hotfixes to /lfd and votekick coming, including one to finally nerf people getting a tank to insta queue them then having the tank drop group. This will now remove the whole group from the zone.


That's clever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 17, 2011, 10:20:38 AM
The only reason people did that was to do something to avoid 45min dps queue's and while i admit you shouldn't game the system, this isnt solving the problem its dealing with the symptoms.  if anything its taking away an avenue people had to make trying to play more tolerable and im no sure blizzard gets that.  sure blizzard cant magically make more tanks and healers appear but they could try and make them more fun to play.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on February 17, 2011, 10:24:45 AM
The only reason people did that was to do something to avoid 45min dps queue's and while i admit you shouldn't game the system, this isnt solving the problem its dealing with the symptoms.  if anything its taking away an avenue people had to make trying to play more tolerable and im no sure blizzard gets that.  sure blizzard cant magically make more tanks and healers appear but they could try and make them more fun to play.

They made tanking and healing "fun"/"easier" in wrath, got the queues down. The universal response they heard seemed to be "zomg it's too easy to tank/heal" and changed it back in Cata. The response has been queue times went up.

I can see why they wanted the changes (end of cata healing was BORING), but they need to sit down and grasp that until the next content patch when we start using points to outgear heroics there will be a lack of healers and tanks because the people who were willing to do it when it was relatively easy have stopped doing it.

I know I went from "tanking's not that bad, I'll actually brave the LFD system as a tank or healer" to just not logging in much anymore, because even if I do roll a guild heroic group, it's still just a 30-40 minute slog through stuff that isn't interesting, it just hits hard as hell.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 17, 2011, 10:26:07 AM
The only reason people did that was to do something to avoid 45min dps queue's and while i admit you shouldn't game the system, this isnt solving the problem its dealing with the symptoms.  if anything its taking away an avenue people had to make trying to play more tolerable and im no sure blizzard gets that.  sure blizzard cant magically make more tanks and healers appear but they could try and make them more fun to play.

I'll fully admit I would tank more randoms if it was more engaging, and less strategic handling and relying on people I don't know to perform CC timely. Right now the time commitments simply don't let people make that decision, as indicated. I like the dungeons a lot, just not the time involved to get home, so to speak.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on February 17, 2011, 11:06:27 AM
Why go to all the effort to make heroics so unforgiving, endure the rage from the playerbase because of it, even retaliate defending the design decision.... when they knew all along that it was only going to be like that for a couple of months?

What's happened is that they've made the mistake, YET AGAIN, of listening to the vocal 2% at the top of the hardcore chain and making major design changes based on that feedback. This has, AGAIN, pissed off huge numbers of their playerbase and they're frantically trying to claw their way back now. It's the kind of retarded design process that CCP do!

It's not an accident (or a mistake in my opinion), it's what Blizzard always does.  Leveling gets easier, achievements get easier, bosses get easier.

There wasn't a scramble to add the ICC buff or nerf Ulduar achievements, just as there wasn't to nerf Halfus, it's a deliberate plan to release something, and then make it easier at some point later in time.  Wrath Heroics were just so easy that the only nerf of significance they had was scaling drakes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on February 17, 2011, 05:18:06 PM
I would probably tank more randoms if there were a couple more dungeons to do. As is, I geared to 346 pretty fast between dungeons, rep, and crafted stuff. After that your only incentive to run a dungeon is daily VP, unless you're helping a guild member or friend get their daily done. I guess there is also reputation factions with tabards, but really for most classes there is one faction or two max that have good rewards for you at exalted, and the rest don't benefit you after revered. A smarter move probably would have been putting fluff items at exalted with each faction, similar to the camel mounts. A cool pet or tabard probably would have made getting reputation to exalted with more factions compelling.

I've tanked more randoms since 4.0.6, and i've been able to complete dungeons with some pretty terrible groups. The 15% buff to dmg/hp/healing was
huge.

I think if you actually solo-queue for some Heroics now, you'll find your success rate with 4 random players much higher.

Why go to all the effort to make heroics so unforgiving, endure the rage from the playerbase because of it, even retaliate defending the design decision.... when they knew all along that it was only going to be like that for a couple of months?

I don't think they planned to nerf the heroics this quickly. The accelerated nerfs were probably legitimately a response to criticisms they were hearing. The fix they did do (15% buff for 3+ randoms) was pretty smart, in that pre-formed groups still can play the slightly harder version of the heroics if they want to. It was a good compromise for both players who dungeon with friends, and players who solo-queue. I sort of wish they had just implemented that change instead of making that change *and* some of the nerfs to bosses like Baron Ashbury, Ozruk, and High Priestess Azil.

For what it's worth, I had a blast during the first month or so of Cata doing heroics with guild members and friends while the content was still new and challenging, and none of us over-geared the content. I don't think the content tuning was a mistake, in that sense: it was really fun with a coordinated group.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on February 17, 2011, 05:50:31 PM
Give tanks three chances at the valor points from the daily dungeon, healers two.  That will bring down queue timers, you have to reward people for doing the unpopular thing.  Or hell make it so queueing as a tank = always getting valor points.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: 01101010 on February 17, 2011, 06:11:40 PM
I honestly enjoy tanking. DPS want to pull off me or target the wrong mob, it's their problem - I am no longer about having all mobs on me if dunces are going to not /assist. I go at my own pace and if some idiot runs ahead to gather mobs, I either leave or just stand there. But as a tank, I can get away with that since my queue times are all of 2 min if that.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 17, 2011, 08:08:29 PM
Give tanks three chances at the valor points from the daily dungeon, healers two.  That will bring down queue timers, you have to reward people for doing the unpopular thing.  Or hell make it so queueing as a tank = always getting valor points.

All this will do is let tanks gear-up and quit using the LFD tool three times as fast.   They have no interest in helping you and do it only to get the points for the gear.  Once there's nothing to buy with the points there's no reason to queue.   Once we'd killed the LK I didn't bother queuing as a tank or DPS because all those points/ badges were worthless to me.  I was fully geared on both tank and dps sets and had all the heirlooms.   Considering I wasn't obsessive about queuing daily to begin with I can't have been the only one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 17, 2011, 08:34:25 PM
There isn't anything you can do to equalize the populations except making tanks more accessible. They did that by letting druids, DKs, and pallys do the job besides just warriors. Beyond just letting every class have a tank spec, you're stuck with having to make it less of a job.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 17, 2011, 10:07:31 PM
They could stand to add more tank specs.


Warlocks could be converted to tanking pretty easily via Demonology. You could also probably turn one of the hunter trees into a tank spec, more effort though. If they wanted to really play with fire, make a Rogue spec an avoidance tank  :awesome_for_real:


I'm totally serious about Warlocks having a tank spec though, it wouldn't be that difficult, the way Demo/Meta is designed, it's half way there already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on February 17, 2011, 10:57:56 PM
Demonology warlock, combat rogue, and beast mastery hunter would be the obvious candidates.

You wouldn't even have to get that controversial with rogues - combat is a swashbuckling archetype with a mastery called main gauche and several talents increasing dodge, armour values, and health regen.  You could even spin it out like feral so there's effectively two subspecs of combat.

The problem remains that tanking is a chore for most people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on February 18, 2011, 02:16:56 AM
I agree with Lantyssa.

He's pretty much always been like this when I've noticed him posting in WoW-related threads.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 18, 2011, 04:49:34 AM
Demonology warlock, combat rogue, and beast mastery hunter would be the obvious candidates.

You wouldn't even have to get that controversial with rogues - combat is a swashbuckling archetype with a mastery called main gauche and several talents increasing dodge, armour values, and health regen.  You could even spin it out like feral so there's effectively two subspecs of combat.

The problem remains that tanking is a chore for most people.

Should Rifts prove popular enough after the first few months, I expect something like this will be rolled out in one of the content patches since it's similar to their system. (Everything except Mages can tank in that game)  They've seen enough games come on strong for a month then fizzle out to not be worried yet, though.

You're correct in that it won't fix anything long-term because tanking is a pain in the ass.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on February 18, 2011, 08:02:13 AM
Demonology warlock, combat rogue, and beast mastery hunter would be the obvious candidates.
The problem remains that tanking is a chore for most people.

You're correct in that it won't fix anything long-term because tanking is a pain in the ass.

So I pulled out my main earlier this week (85 prot warrior) and decided to actually check out one of the new Cata regulars.  Queued for BRC, after the obligatory 2 rounds of AFK DPS, we're in.  After wiping once due to me keeping boss #3 in the fire too long (whoopsie!  new here!), we cleared the rest no problem.

But it was about the time we about to spank Beauty that I realized what a bloody chore it was to tank.  The tank has to know the dungeon layout, the boss abilities and fights, mark the mobs, cover for the other party members, put up with all of the explosions going off in your face, tab-sunderdevastate...  It's like everyone says above, it's a chore - and it just wasn't fun anymore.  So I'm back on the Enh Shaman alt until the subscription lapses next week.

With how heavily Blizzard has bought into the Holy Trinity of Classes and Specs(tm), I don't see how they can easily fix this.  But I swear when I ran D&D campaigns years ago that we didn't always have to have a tank there to protect the clothies from accidentally taking a hit.  And that when grouping in DAoC, I could roll aggro onto and off of my Friar as needed with no obvious "tank" handy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 18, 2011, 08:19:29 AM
More tank specs would have gotten me to queue for more dungeons back in WotLK. I had every tanking class at 80 and well geared then; as it stand I've only gotten 3 of my 8 80s to 85, and only really geared out 1.5 of them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on February 18, 2011, 08:21:29 AM
PUGs are full of DPS warriors, DKs,, druids, and paladins.  They all choose to eat the 40m wait rather than insta queue as a tank. Why would you think adding more tank classes would suddenly make more people want to tank?

People don't tank and heal because every mistake is instantly and glaringly obvious.  DPS mistakes are mostly unnoticeable without meters and/or parsing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: March on February 18, 2011, 08:25:05 AM
It's not the mechanics of tanking people hate, it is the social aspect of tanking that people hate.

I agree with Minaveren that a design closer to DAoC made for better times, but that's just not WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 18, 2011, 08:36:16 AM
People also get upset at parsers because they make DPS mistakes as obvious as tank/healer ones (see: the Rift thread).



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 18, 2011, 01:10:46 PM
DaoC had a terrible system for PvE tanking, it was one of the contributing factors in DaoC PvE being so god damn shitty. It was a total avoidance system, you got hit, or you didn't. Shield Tank, with Second Shield tank with guard buff up and PBT running, the 'tank' never took a single hit.

If you didn't just use the broken Enchanter pet with 98% Damage Reduction.  :why_so_serious:






Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 18, 2011, 01:11:24 PM
And you kept aggro by spamming your one high threat style over and over and over and over and over and over and ugh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 18, 2011, 01:13:59 PM
Whatever, your stupid Hammer taunt was OP compared to my Blades taunt attack.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on February 18, 2011, 01:27:08 PM
You pansies!  Nothing could beat the body pulling, carpal tunnel Paladins! (Twisting: it's not a bug, it's a feature!  :oh_i_see:)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 18, 2011, 01:28:46 PM
Pfft, Paladins didn't even have instruments.


Triple twisting speed, endu and regen on my bard.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on February 18, 2011, 03:52:25 PM
But it was about the time we about to spank Beauty that I realized what a bloody chore it was to tank.  The tank has to know the dungeon layout, the boss abilities and fights, mark the mobs, cover for the other party members, put up with all of the explosions going off in your face, tab-sunderdevastate...  It's like everyone says above, it's a chore - and it just wasn't fun anymore.  So I'm back on the Enh Shaman alt until the subscription lapses next week.

Just more reasons to run dungeons with guildies or friends. When I tank dungeons, usually a guildie marks targets for everyone else. When I play my rogue, I mark targets and explain the fights to any guild members that haven't seen it before.

Tanking is also much more of a pain with the default UI. Trying to determine what targets are on you, or see past the things hitting you: obnoxious. I found tanking to be much more fun with an addon like Tidy Plates (http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addons/details/tidy-plates.aspx). It basically changes the name-plates for enemies (or players) in game to be a bit easier to read, and to also change colors if the enemy is attacking someone besides you. With default settings I know that if a name plate is yellow, that enemy has threat on someone else in the group and I can just click the very-clear name plate to taunt the target rather than trying tab-target to the enemy or manually click their model.

It makes tanking substantially less of a pain in the ass.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on February 18, 2011, 05:18:05 PM
It's not the mechanics of tanking people hate, it is the social aspect of tanking that people hate.
Yup.  People are dicks, especially to the person who is supposed to be in charge.  Any time a tank screws up, people can be downright evil and it makes me not want to tank for random idiots anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 18, 2011, 06:40:04 PM
It's not the mechanics of tanking people hate, it is the social aspect of tanking that people hate.
Yup.  People are dicks, especially to the person who is supposed to be in charge.  Any time a tank screws up, people can be downright evil and it makes me not want to tank for random idiots anymore.

Meh, you usually don't get blamed if you don't do something really dumb. If they want to really complain about nothing (speed usually), I tell them they are free to drop and see how that goes. It really comes down to the fact that as a tank you simply have more to do than everyone else in an average run.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 18, 2011, 07:06:10 PM
You pansies!  Nothing could beat the body pulling, carpal tunnel Paladins! (Twisting: it's not a bug, it's a feature!  :oh_i_see:)

Oh God, twisting. I thanked God every day I was a skald, and didn't have to do that. Or fiddle with idiotic instruments.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on February 18, 2011, 09:44:28 PM
Shamans were fine 5-man tanks for a long time.  Giving every class a tank spec (at least one capable of doing heroics) would go at least a little ways toward alleviating the problem.

I agree that the bigger issue is the "the tank is expected to know everything" problem.  Not sure what to do about that.  Someone needs to know what's going on.  And moving that duty to some other role will just make people gunshy of playing that. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 18, 2011, 10:03:41 PM
Yeah, I think the main tank problem is "oh God people expect me to be in charge, fuck that." It's why I prefer healing in a PUG (or at least used to, I was great at willing people through a dungeon with my l337 h34lz but that doesn't really work so well  now). I don't have to be in charge! It's relaxing. YES. HEALING IS RELAXING.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 18, 2011, 10:16:56 PM
That just goes back to the feeling of simply not being able to recover and carry. Being "The Leadur" wouldn't be so nerve racking if mistakes weren't so damning again.


For the end of TBC and almost all of WotLK, half our tanks pulls were with their faces.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 18, 2011, 10:35:47 PM
Nah, even in WotLK, people didn't especially want to be In Charge. Even in dungeons where I knew I could almost solo the goddamn thing, I didn't want to be In Charge. In Charge is for raiding, I want to turn my brain off completely. Even in the WotLK dungeons, you were still in charge of pacing and where to go. Even that little bit of In Charge is too much for most people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on February 19, 2011, 02:16:05 AM
Most people just don't want to tank. This has been true all the way through.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on February 19, 2011, 02:36:08 AM
I found tanking to be much more fun with an addon like Tidy Plates (http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addons/details/tidy-plates.aspx). It basically changes the name-plates for enemies (or players) in game to be a bit easier to read, and to also change colors if the enemy is attacking someone besides you. With default settings I know that if a name plate is yellow, that enemy has threat on someone else in the group and I can just click the very-clear name plate to taunt the target rather than trying tab-target to the enemy or manually click their model.

Colour coding for aggro is in the stock UI since Blizzard added their own threat meter in late Wrath.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 19, 2011, 06:11:51 AM
Not to mention name plates and targeting via hitting them have been in for ages as well. Hell, I think it goes back to release.

Type "V".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on February 19, 2011, 01:02:59 PM
Colour coding for aggro is in the stock UI since Blizzard added their own threat meter in late Wrath.

Both nameplates and color coding for aggro are in the default UI, but the best you'll get for aggro *on * nameplates is a slightly more red health bar for enemies that are targeting you. If you are targeting an enemy, you get a nice aggro % in the default UI, but the point of using something like Tidyplates is that it makes it easy to see if you have aggro on an enemy (or an entire group of enemies) without targeting them. Is their name plate blue? You have aggro. Is their name plate yellow? Then you don't have aggro. It's a cleaner version of nameplates with more functionality. I found it to make tanking a hell of a lot easier.

I'd recommend you actually try using it before dismissing it, but this is F13 after all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on February 19, 2011, 01:06:37 PM
Whoa, you need a hand with that last nail ?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 21, 2011, 03:28:57 PM
I'm not using it at the moment but Tidyplates really is much better for that if you're colorblind. (Like me.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Vision on February 21, 2011, 04:03:43 PM
I finally unsubbed. My time runs out at the end of the month. After leveling a goblin mage to 85, and running BOT for gear I have to say the game feels just as uninspired as it did in BC to me. I personally think the raid content is good and I was happy with what I did, but the chore of competing for raid spots, especially as dps, is more hassle than I care to put into the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lightstalker on February 21, 2011, 05:13:50 PM
The weekly lockout and the hard limits on who/what you can bring are really painful.  I moved from DPS-SwingHealer to MT this expansion because I was tired of our tanks burning out as soon as we trained them to do their damn job.  I now log in to help other people do their thing all the time, so that's probably poetic justice.  That's probably the biggest pain point, as a limited resource you aren't free to be doing what you feel like doing when you've got 15 people who all want to run an instance with you at the same time.  Then drama builds when people can't get in your group whenever they happen to log on, etc. etc.  This game is designed so that you end up telling your friends you can't / don't want to play with them day after day.  This isn't new with Cata, but cata makes it harder for people to fake it at being a tank (and healer).  Throw in the raiding game where the cross-queueing tank doesn't get to tank in raid and you've polished up that negative feedback loop nicely.

I geared out a while ago and still log in every day to run guildmates through their daily instance.  20 minute runs aren't expensive, unless you recognize that there is no good reason to be seeing this content again and no matter how many I run there will be some subset who didn't get the easy ride and will complain about missing out.   Valor points may or may not have any future value to me, but earning all the dungeon achievements again certainly does not.  I'm in until my friends de-sub, but I wouldn't mind a little less RNG and insta-kill in the boss encounter design to open the roles up again to a wider audience.  It is like they planned the initial instances in Cata for fully geared end of cycle groups and that has stomped flat any interest in trying new things.  People who cross-queue into a role they can't handle get abused harshly in game - why put up with that?  Just take your 45 minute queue and don't be the guy getting yelled at for another day. 

And whomever worked on stonecore and archaeology really needs to find a new line of work. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 21, 2011, 08:06:02 PM
Welcome to one of the many reasons tanks burn out.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on February 21, 2011, 11:38:37 PM
My first char to 85 was my pally tank. She is exactly one point short of tanking heroics... on purpose.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Vision on February 22, 2011, 01:32:54 AM
If PVP isn't your thing after you gear up from Heroics there really isn't anything to do save run rep quests for enchants or play the AH. As dps, this is an extreme amount of downtime where you want to play but have absolutely nothing to do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 24, 2011, 01:34:09 AM
When does Rift come out?


That's when we'll see 4.1 is my guess.  :oh_i_see:


http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/2189-Patch-4.1-on-PTR-Zul-aman-and-Zul-gurub-are-back!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 24, 2011, 05:27:16 AM
Two new heroics that require full Heroic gear (or near full and a handfull or epics) and nerfs for anyone not a Druid, Hunter or Arms warrior.  Elemental shaman look like it'll be a wash on their AOE damage but I haven't played the class since early LK in the 40s so I don't know how valuable earthquake is. 

Sure there's shiny new mounts, but you have to slog through the original heroics to get to them.  I don't think this is going to bring back anyone who quit because they found that whole experience unfun.   They seem to understand that folks want purples but are fixated on the whole, "you must gear up completely in Heroics first," thing.

I'll admit I was wrong about them being unable to push it out against Rift.  I just wish it wasn't so transparent an attempt with the very thin outline and promise of more "updates in the coming weeks!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on February 24, 2011, 05:49:50 AM
Sucks to be me.  I farm ZA for money.

Throw in the raiding game where the cross-queueing tank doesn't get to tank in raid and you've polished up that negative feedback loop nicely.

This wouldn't be an issue if plate DPS and tanks shared loot (aside from the occasional mastery/hit or mastery/expertise piece).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 24, 2011, 06:03:48 AM
I like the idea of them adding heroics with actual epics in them, but it's only a small step on the right direction.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 24, 2011, 08:46:38 AM
Are you really surprised that they upped the ilvl requirement for the new heroics? They're obviously going to be harder (since that's always been the trend), so if you let people go into them with the same ilvl (which they've already admitted is too low to complete the content) it'd just be fuel for the Bad Groups thread. That said, I hope they're mathematically harder but less annoying and shorter. ZG was a big place, and took a long time even to smash with a few 80s; I'm dreading a new heroic that's even longer than H DM.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 24, 2011, 08:49:02 AM
The only thing that surprises me is that there's no regular version, really. Well, that and said new heroics are ex-raids. I demand a heroic Karazhan.

DO IT BLIZZARD, AND I WILL LEAP THROUGH ANY GEAR HOOP YOU PUT IN MY WAY.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lightstalker on February 24, 2011, 09:45:27 AM
The only thing that surprises me is that there's no regular version, really. Well, that and said new heroics are ex-raids. I demand a heroic Karazhan.

DO IT BLIZZARD, AND I WILL LEAP THROUGH ANY GEAR HOOP YOU PUT IN MY WAY.

Karazhan presently has a disused flight point and upper enterance near the top of the tower.  Enabling a Karazhan heroic is only a matter of time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on February 24, 2011, 10:02:34 AM
Read: When SWTOR hits open beta.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on February 24, 2011, 10:07:42 AM
They'd have to break Heroic Karazhan into at least two dungeons. I mean, there are 11 bosses in there. Even if you skipped the optional ones, there's still so many fights in there that you'd have trouble finishing it in one go.

Especially in a pug. You'd face not Malchezzar alone, but the legions of bads at his command.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 24, 2011, 11:10:50 AM
Yeah I am in the 'more Karazhan would make me stick around for at least another year by itself' club, I love the shit out of that place.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on February 24, 2011, 11:21:09 AM
Elemental shaman look like it'll be a wash on their AOE damage but I haven't played the class since early LK in the 40s so I don't know how valuable earthquake is.

Hardly ever use earthquake on mine. Couple of places where it's fun (eg. the 70 or so mobs infront of the last boss in Stonecore) but AoE is only really viable now when you get packs of 6+, and even then it's a huge mana drain. Can't say about the raiding situation, are there any large AoE fests?

Brings me on to my next question....

Anyone here on an EU server in a smallish, friendly guild who'd consider letting me transfer a character over and joining them? I've got lots of characters so I'm willing to fill any gap available. As it were.

I'm itching to do some raiding, and there's just no chance in my guild. We can't recruit new people cos we have a couple of members who are pathologically antisocial, so will just disappear if I recruit some strangers. I also don't like the idea of moving a character to a total strangers guild, which is why I ask here - even if you lot are insane you're an insane I'm familiar with  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 24, 2011, 11:29:02 AM
Maloriak has some AOE during the green phase, as does Anshal in the Wind Council encounter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on February 24, 2011, 01:25:59 PM
Magmaw, Maloriak, Conclave of Wind, Halfus (some times), and Cho'gall are all "OMG, AOE NOW NOW NOW!" fights.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 24, 2011, 01:42:52 PM
Magmaw, Maloriak, Conclave of Wind, Halfus (some times), and Cho'gall are all "OMG, AOE NOW NOW NOW!" fights.

Didn't they nerf AoE damage?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on February 24, 2011, 02:01:18 PM
Haha, Blizzard's return shot across Rift's bow are a couple of revamped years-old troll instances. Forums reacted with a yawn from what I saw. If Rift flops it's all on their own heads.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on February 24, 2011, 04:36:23 PM
Or Blizzard is just not worried enough to go through the :effort: to break another competitor even before their sheer incompetence has caught up with them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 24, 2011, 05:03:20 PM
Firelands raid (and presumably anything else in that same raid tier) will be in there too, mind you.

On the other hand, Ragnaros looks completely stupid with legs:

(http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2011/february/ragnaros2.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on February 24, 2011, 05:04:06 PM
Firelands raid (and presumably anything else in that same raid tier) will be in there too, mind you.

On the other hand, Ragnaros looks completely stupid with legs:



It looks like a Tauren trying to cosplay Ragnaros.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 24, 2011, 05:09:04 PM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3644/3858543012_79d4f74b73.jpg)

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on February 24, 2011, 05:12:37 PM
He looks pretty silly in general.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on February 24, 2011, 06:10:39 PM
So which class will get stuck with his shoulders for their Tier X armor?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 24, 2011, 06:29:52 PM
They look like shaman shoulders to me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 24, 2011, 07:38:55 PM
Color it some hideous shade of green or purple (ideally both!) and you have the warrior set imo.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on February 24, 2011, 07:47:24 PM
Add murlocs and it's a hunter set!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on February 24, 2011, 07:53:03 PM
Not sure... looks like an entire warlock set to me!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on February 25, 2011, 12:33:34 AM
Or Blizzard is just not worried enough to go through the :effort: to break another competitor even before their sheer incompetence has caught up with them.
I'm guessing you didn't play the RIFT beta?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on February 25, 2011, 12:50:15 AM
Or Blizzard is just not worried enough to go through the :effort: to break another competitor even before their sheer incompetence has caught up with them.

Yeah, they could have put dungeons in this patch somebody would give a shit about, but they just didn't want to.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 25, 2011, 12:52:22 AM
Or Blizzard is just not worried enough to go through the :effort: to break another competitor even before their sheer incompetence has caught up with them.

Yeah, they could have put dungeons in this patch somebody would give a shit about, but they just didn't want to.

Buzz is good about those dungeons from what I've seen in game, nostalgia generally plays well in WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 25, 2011, 07:40:07 AM
Not sure about most people but im getting fucking tired of this nostalgia bullshit. I fought onyxia/ragnaros/nefarian/zul aman/zul gurub and hell im probably missing some other shit too but I want "new" content. This "merely a setback" shit pisses me right off.  Gonna play rift for a while and enjoy it, nothing about wow right now is pulling me in.


Also, ragnaros has tiny ballerina feet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on February 25, 2011, 07:58:41 AM
They'd have to break Heroic Karazhan into at least two dungeons. I mean, there are 11 bosses in there. Even if you skipped the optional ones, there's still so many fights in there that you'd have trouble finishing it in one go.

Especially in a pug. You'd face not Malchezzar alone, but the legions of bads at his command.



If you look at halls of origination that has a LOT of bosses/sub bosses as well so it does not appear they are afraid of longer 5 mans at the moment.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on February 25, 2011, 08:12:32 AM
If you look at halls of origination that has a LOT of bosses/sub bosses as well so it does not appear they are afraid of longer 5 mans at the moment.

And 90% of pugs I've been in skip 4 bosses in HoO. Plenty of people already drop Heroic Deadmines straight away 'cos it's too long. Remember when zoning into Halls of Stone meant you had a 50% chance your tank would drop instantly because a 4 minute event was too tedious for them?

Recycling old content and making the resulting heroics take over 40 mins to run is really not going to go over well with most people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on February 25, 2011, 08:37:29 AM
They'd have to break Heroic Karazhan into at least two dungeons. I mean, there are 11 bosses in there. Even if you skipped the optional ones, there's still so many fights in there that you'd have trouble finishing it in one go.

Especially in a pug. You'd face not Malchezzar alone, but the legions of bads at his command.



If you look at halls of origination that has a LOT of bosses/sub bosses as well so it does not appear they are afraid of longer 5 mans at the moment.

What apocrypha said. Also, four of the bosses in HoO are across an empty room from each other, whereas the bosses in Kara are separated by long passages full of trash.

Now, if they give Kara the same Heroic treatment that Deadmines and SFK got, i.e. new bosses and encounters and maybe not quite so much trash, this all becomes academic. On the other hand, the Kara that people are feeling nostalgic for is the Kara that I am describing, i.e. lots of bosses and lots of trash, spread out inside a beautiful castle-style dungeon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on February 25, 2011, 01:16:42 PM
I'm pretty happy to see ZG and ZA coming back. I was a fan of both dungeons. In general, I'm enjoying the nostalgia-fest in Cata (like BWD's zone in area being the ledge that you fought Nefarian on in BWL). This patch is introducing 1 (or more?) brand new 5-man as well, so it's not just recycled content.

Remember that back door in Kara after the Opera? That would be a good location to split Karazhan at. The opera even is fun enough to be the climax of a dungeon, and that would leave 4 bosses for one heroic (Attumen, Moroes, Maiden of Virtue, Opera) with the optional basement, and 6 bosses for the other (Curator, Chess, Illhoof, Aran, Netherspite, Malchezaar). Considering that 3 of those are optional, it's not too bad for a split. You could throw Nightbane into either half of the dungeons, but it might make more sense as the last boss of the first half (right after Opera). That way you have Nightbane as the end-boss for one heroic, and Malchezaar as the end-boss for the other.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on February 25, 2011, 02:04:50 PM
Heroic model Aran should be the original "OMG move out of storm while wreathed and being nuked by elementals while he vortexes you and novas". THEN people can complain about how hard dungeons are :D

I wouldn't mind seeing Gruul's Lair make a comeback too - and a retard-friendly Magtheradian fight :D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 25, 2011, 02:41:16 PM
The only way to make Mag any more retard friendly these days is to reduce or remove the channelers holding him.  The cube clicking is down to one guy on one cube will stop the enrage, with no debuff for clicking and, I think, no damage taken for clicking either.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on February 25, 2011, 06:38:00 PM
I'm guessing you didn't play the RIFT beta?

No.  That being said, the Warhammer and Age of Conan betas were pretty well liked, and we saw how well that panned out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on February 26, 2011, 05:54:25 AM
I'm guessing you didn't play the RIFT beta?

No.  That being said, the Warhammer and Age of Conan betas were pretty well liked, and we saw how well that panned out.

Fanboy goggles, the local equivalent of beer goggles.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on February 26, 2011, 06:16:50 AM
Both also hid certain aspects from their players.  AoC was limited to Tortage and wasn't thought well of until the miracle patch.  WAR had been split into discrete sections, and had a massive xp nerf at release, plus I believe there was still a vocal doom crowd.  RIFT had a mostly complete open beta, a hidden beta, and to my knowledge hasn't made massive release nerfs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 26, 2011, 06:44:55 AM
The WAR xp nerf really was the nail in the coffin for that game. People really didn't like running out of shit to do while still being in the same area.

Also that stupid volcano bullshit with the knockbacks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on February 26, 2011, 07:37:28 AM
For the lava bunnies it sucked. ;D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 26, 2011, 08:02:38 AM
The WAR xp nerf really was the nail in the coffin for that game. People really didn't like running out of shit to do while still being in the same area.

Also that stupid volcano bullshit with the knockbacks.
This. If the XP curve hadn't hit a deadend in the same tier as TA, I would've at least made it to the level cap with a few characters.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on February 26, 2011, 08:11:16 AM
Fanboy goggles, the local equivalent of beer goggles.

Schild thought both were pretty great up until Tortage and T3, and he's been around the block a few times.

RIFT had a mostly complete open beta, a hidden beta, and to my knowledge hasn't made massive release nerfs.

Have people been able to roll character from lowbie to max level in the Rift beta?  I was operating under the impression that they had done the same thing as War and allowed only specific level ranges for testing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on February 26, 2011, 08:13:33 AM
There was an "alpha" that was all levels running in parallel.

And Schild will end up disliking any mmo.  Rift may end up being a dud, but at this moment it is fun and pretty technically sound.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 26, 2011, 08:29:19 AM
I won't doom Rift. It's a very solid game that will dent WoW's numbers slightly.

More likely than not, if you released this version of WoW and this version of Rift with no history involved, I would think Rift was the superior game. WoW has decided to increase difficulty and decrease options. Rift is borrowing/stealing from every possibly MMO source to distill the ideas that were fun. It's not the bad formula.

The problem right now is WoW has the inertia, and Rift isn't really all that different. It won't draw a a lot of players invested in WoW away except out of boredom and spite.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on February 26, 2011, 09:18:03 AM
RIFT's main advantage is that WoW seems to be driving a lot of people away from it.  They don't want to quit WoW, but the devs need to get their heads out of their arses to stop it.  It may not translate into a huge number of long-term subs, but it's perfect timing to get a nice numbers boost at launch.  The rest is up to Hartsman and company.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 26, 2011, 09:55:23 AM
Their timing is certainly good. They are hitting WoW at a low point where they can't possibly release anything that will hurt them. It's a time zone right now that I believed SWTOR should have been gunning for, but I believe Rift is going to screw them.

WoW will get it's head out of it's ass just in time for people to get 3 months into Rift, probably in June. They'll end up releasing some ridiculous cascade of nerfs and cool 5 mannable epics, and whatever other casual draw they can pile on while also releasing the Deathwing instance. Then what? SWTOR releases? It'll get lost there. Nobody is going to jump off the wagon that didn't already, and nobody is going to jump again after jumping and going back.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on February 26, 2011, 12:55:08 PM
No sign of heroic nerfs on 4.1 PTR as of yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 26, 2011, 12:55:34 PM
No sign of heroic nerfs on 4.1 PTR as of yet.

There won't be until 4.2


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 26, 2011, 04:34:22 PM
No sign of heroic nerfs on 4.1 PTR as of yet.

The gear tier shift will nerf them indirectly, remember, as the valor point stuff will move down to be justice point purchases, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on February 26, 2011, 04:50:34 PM
If you had asked me how well Rift had timed their launch two months ago I would have said poorly.  But I wasn't expecting Blizzard to fuck up with heroics quite this badly, and the length of the 80-85 experience is short enough that the alt collectors have probably done it enough that they're bored with it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 26, 2011, 07:12:48 PM
You're probably right.  I had 4 85s when I let my sub lapse and one of those I had to bring up from 75.  I didn't realize just how much focusing on one character and raiding had occupied my ability to do things like that.  If you're not doing it and you're not interested in the PVP because Alliance sucks and now there's proof (http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/2187-Battleground-Horde-Alliance-Win-Ratio-Setup-of-the-Month) but find the Horde queues intolerable, you quickly run out of other shit to do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 26, 2011, 07:26:17 PM
When you think about how many pvp battles are run in a year, those percentages are horrifying.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on February 26, 2011, 08:41:05 PM
Kind of validates my anecdotal Eye of the Storm experiences.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 26, 2011, 09:59:17 PM
Those charts are terribly made.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 26, 2011, 10:23:52 PM
Those charts are terribly made.

Yeah they tend to exaggerate the size of the difference.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on February 27, 2011, 01:22:40 AM
Also completely meaningless without more information. "scanning a lot of characters on the Armory" isn't particularly helpful. What is "a lot"? Is it 100? 1000? 100,000? What's the success/failure rate of the data mining tool used?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 27, 2011, 07:39:38 AM
So I was all ready to sit in long queues on my rogue. I was! I was looking forward to it, even, as it meant I could level my archaeology while I waited. Good times, right?

It friggin' popped within five minutes every time. It was just for regulars, was that the difference? Because it was freaky.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on February 27, 2011, 09:10:37 AM
Even when I hit 85, regular queues were easily half to one-third what heroics queues were.

These last two weeks have heroics going better than in the past, though that really isn't saying anything much. Still, actually did heroic Stonecore last night and finished it without wanting to shoot puppies. That's high praise! Game community is both stupid and toxic as hell. I think when my sub runs out on the 8th that I"m done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on February 27, 2011, 09:33:42 AM
Rifts releases March 1 and I get a "Come back to WoW for 7 days free" in my mailbox.  Is Cataclysm faltering?  Any of you notice any decreases in population?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 27, 2011, 09:47:19 AM
Rifts releases March 1 and I get a "Come back to WoW for 7 days free" in my mailbox.  Is Cataclysm faltering?  Any of you notice any decreases in population?

Yes. My guild numbers have gone down by 40% in online play. We have over 5 people who leveled 85s that have cancelled in favor of Rift in a stable of about 25 max level toons. I cancelled my sub, but it doesn't run out for another 2 months due to my plan.

The expansion seems to have created a have's and have not's amongst the guilds in the raiding alliance. Several have been absorbed by larger guilds because their members quit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on February 27, 2011, 09:47:33 AM
I don't see as many Chinese exploitation farmers stealing nodes from me like I did in WotLK, but there are still plenty of people out and about questing and sitting in trade doing what trade does best.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 27, 2011, 09:58:54 AM
I wouldn't know, haven't logged in much since the rift head start. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on February 27, 2011, 11:41:34 AM
Playing the Rift head start because sitting in Orgrimmer in a queue for some boring shit that I've done before is not fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 27, 2011, 12:34:40 PM
I log into WoW for 30 minutes every other day to see if BGs have gotten any less terrible.


Then I find I'm a team that is 40% afk bots and go back to punching trees in minecraft.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on February 27, 2011, 03:05:52 PM
Rifts releases March 1 and I get a "Come back to WoW for 7 days free" in my mailbox.  Is Cataclysm faltering?  Any of you notice any decreases in population?

Current prime-time numbers are about what they were all last year. (http://www.warcraftrealms.com/weeklyfactionactivity.php?serverid=-1)  How that interacts with the subscription base, we can't know.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on February 27, 2011, 03:16:28 PM
Last year was the tail end of an expansion, people were barely playing.  If its back to that now that is bad news indeed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 27, 2011, 06:12:09 PM
I log into WoW for 30 minutes every other day to see if BGs have gotten any less terrible.


Then I find I'm a team that is 40% afk bots and go back to punching trees in minecraft.

You should level Noradoril! Zandrys is so lonely.  :oh_i_see:

Can't say the servers I play on seem any less populated, although Northrend is creepy vacant. I haven't been playing on my Alliance server much, though, for mainly stupid reasons like "guild rep pisses me off" and "I don't feel like leveling any of my characters there."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 27, 2011, 06:42:16 PM
Rifts releases March 1 and I get a "Come back to WoW for 7 days free" in my mailbox.  Is Cataclysm faltering?  Any of you notice any decreases in population?

Current prime-time numbers are about what they were all last year. (http://www.warcraftrealms.com/weeklyfactionactivity.php?serverid=-1)  How that interacts with the subscription base, we can't know.

Looking at that graph at the simplest way. There was a massive dip before the expansion that's now corrected itself to normalcy. I wouldn't have expected itself to correct that fast.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 27, 2011, 07:58:43 PM
And if we accept the proposition that the horde population has more PVPers in general, that would explain why their line is worse than the alliance, who are at pretty high levels. Evidence fixing PVP should be near the top of their list maybe?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on February 27, 2011, 08:42:17 PM
Or just evidence that the smaller of the factions is more susceptible to large shocks by virtue of being smaller.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 27, 2011, 08:57:56 PM
And if we accept the proposition that the horde population has more PVPers in general, that would explain why their line is worse than the alliance, who are at pretty high levels. Evidence fixing PVP should be near the top of their list maybe?

Possibly. Their regard for pvp was certainly slacking in this expansion given their rather ham-fisted attempts to balance Baradin Hold. Still, I think the most important thing to take from the graph is that the "shine is off" so to speak. People have finished pounding the content already and settled back into their normal play times, if we assume that last year was normal.

In my mind that means that Rift may have fallen ass-backwards into some great timing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 27, 2011, 09:27:42 PM
Could be. Everything I hear about Rift PVP makes me think that it isn't going to be able to really capitalize on those people (class that can take people from 75% to 0% in one hit and this is being discussed like a good thing?) long-term but who knows, I haven't actually tried it myself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on February 27, 2011, 10:01:23 PM
One thing to note about that graph that I should have mentioned when I linked it: that huge downward spike in December is a result of their submissions being either off or limited to 1-80 for most of the month.  I would guess there would have been a slightly higher peak there that's come down through January and February.

That said, the only accident of Rift's release date (and I wouldn't be surprised if it was intentional as well) was having their game ready to go for the first couple of months of an odd numbered year.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 27, 2011, 10:31:28 PM
In my mind that means that Rift may have fallen ass-backwards into some great timing.


Better lucky then good?  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on February 28, 2011, 12:16:48 AM
That said, the only accident of Rift's release date (and I wouldn't be surprised if it was intentional as well) was having their game ready to go for the first couple of months of an odd numbered year.

If this was a Machiavellian plan to steal Blizzard's thunder then the timing is so catastrophically off as to bode ill for any further management decisions that Trion might make.  Betting against Blizzard making nice gradual steps into the raid game would not have been considered prudent four months ago.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on February 28, 2011, 12:59:57 AM
given their rather ham-fisted attempts to balance Baradin Hold.

Slight diversion, but whilst their initial fixes were, indeed, steaming turds, they do seem to have got it pretty well sorted now. On my server the battles are always close, hard-fought and a surprising amount of fun now.

As for sub drops, it's odd. Activity in my guild is low, but we're the world's smallest guild anyway. Most people I know in other guilds are saying their activity is down too. I see more of my ReadID list playing SC2 than I did pre-Cata, that's for sure. However the server itself - trade chat, cap cities, world zones, etc - feel busier than ever.

Orgrimmar is so busy these days that people have taken to spreading out in the city, using the Tauren, Troll and Goblin areas as their bases more because Valley of Strength is just too crowded. It seem busier than even Dalaran did at peak, and this is on a 2:1 Alliance:Horde server.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on February 28, 2011, 04:59:44 AM
given their rather ham-fisted attempts to balance Baradin Hold.

Slight diversion, but whilst their initial fixes were, indeed, steaming turds, they do seem to have got it pretty well sorted now. On my server the battles are always close, hard-fought and a surprising amount of fun now.

As for sub drops, it's odd. Activity in my guild is low, but we're the world's smallest guild anyway. Most people I know in other guilds are saying their activity is down too. I see more of my ReadID list playing SC2 than I did pre-Cata, that's for sure. However the server itself - trade chat, cap cities, world zones, etc - feel busier than ever.

Orgrimmar is so busy these days that people have taken to spreading out in the city, using the Tauren, Troll and Goblin areas as their bases more because Valley of Strength is just too crowded. It seem busier than even Dalaran did at peak, and this is on a 2:1 Alliance:Horde server.

My guild is definitely more active than ever.  Part of this is a policy change that allows for an official "community" type member (for retired raiders like myself, but also for family of current raiding members, etc).  So, we have our core raiding group that is still the main focus of the guild, but we have a bigger purely casual population in the guild as well now.  This is the first time I've been really disciplined about playing WoW casually, out of pure necessity this time around, and its actually pretty decent that way for now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 28, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
I moved out of the Valley of Strength not because it was crowded, but because things are much closer together in the Tauren area. The AH and Bank are like, 10 steps away and it's all outside so you can stay mounted.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 28, 2011, 10:14:37 AM
I see people doing ridiculously well and loving the hell out of the expansion, and I see guilds who have completely fallen apart and been absorbed by others. Then there are guilds like mine which tried to get a 10 man going, but fell apart because the healers didn't like the new mechanics and quit, and we now just casual along slowly raising our guild level through dailies.

I don't get a lot of middle ground feel from the expansion thus far in terms of endgame. If you're in a raiding group, you seem to love the changes. If you're not and tried to get in one, the expansion seems to draw nothing but ire from that group. If you're a pvper you're pretty pissed at the way they've gone. If you're a leveler, you are most likely a happy camper with the changes, although I've heard undercurrents of people getting bored because it's too easy to level now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 28, 2011, 11:14:01 AM
This is the first time I've been really disciplined about playing WoW casually

While I know what you mean, this made me laugh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 28, 2011, 03:52:19 PM
Heard a funny post today on the forums. It was in another thread about difficulty or recycled or whatever whiny thing, and people trying to define what Cataclysm was/should be. The funniest response to me:

"Cataclysm is Wow's mid-life crisis."

The more I thought about it beyond chuckling, the more I wondered if that was true if you think about it? Things had gone down a road they weren't happy with, so they changed things up to recapture some of that lost youth.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on February 28, 2011, 05:24:49 PM
It is true.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 28, 2011, 05:59:18 PM
My biggest problem as a leveler is I get to 60 and I have to go to Outland. I fucking hate Outland. Northrend isn't so bad once I get there, though. Dalaran is hilariously empty.

Leveling is almost too fast before Outland (and starts to feel a little slow once you hit Northrend), but I wouldn't call it boring. I can see how if you insist on not skipping zones, though, it would start to get dull because everything is green to you (and eventually grey) and thus no challenge at all. I totally skip zones, personally, I just make a mental note to hit it on my next pass through. This may be why I've been ignoring the shit out of my Alliance server, I only have two characters below 40, so when I miss stuff I know it'll likely stay missed because fuck going back at level 85 to do level 20 quests.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on March 01, 2011, 04:59:04 AM
My biggest problem as a leveler is I get to 60 and I have to go to Outland. I fucking hate Outland. Northrend isn't so bad once I get there, though. Dalaran is hilariously empty.

Leveling is almost too fast before Outland (and starts to feel a little slow once you hit Northrend), but I wouldn't call it boring. I can see how if you insist on not skipping zones, though, it would start to get dull because everything is green to you (and eventually grey) and thus no challenge at all. I totally skip zones, personally, I just make a mental note to hit it on my next pass through. This may be why I've been ignoring the shit out of my Alliance server, I only have two characters below 40, so when I miss stuff I know it'll likely stay missed because fuck going back at level 85 to do level 20 quests.

Outland scares me, I literally haven't been there in a long time, I started Cataclysm with 30 70s and 2 80s, and a few lower level alts but i haven't gone anywhere near there yet.   I think with proper rested abuse I shouldn't have to stay there very long though.  Hellfire and Zangarmarsh are pretty easy, and Nagrand is an exp fountain.  with luck I won't have to go to any other zones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on March 01, 2011, 05:20:13 AM
I think this time you should try to avoid Zangar and Nagrand - Nagrand especially.  The "kill 20 X" quests are soul-crushing.  Your character will have flying this time through, and the mountains and tempest especially are a great deal easier with flying.  The only reason to do Nagrand would be to get the ethereal faction... but the only reason to get that is for crafting and items that are obsolete with Wrath, so, yeah, not so much.

I guess I'm recommending that you do the zones that you have done the least in leveling up.  Probably you've run Zangar and Nagrand multiple times already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 01, 2011, 05:58:48 AM
I didn't mind outlands when I went through on my Worgen druid. Sure, it sucked to go from new stuff back to 4+ year old content, but with heirloom gear and guild exp buffs it went by pretty fast. I finished HFP, Zangarmarsh, a few dungeons, the blood arena in Nagrand (which was like 1/3 of level 77 for 6 mins of work with an 80 guildy in tow, highly recommended), then ~15 quests in Terrokar and I was off to Northrend. Overall it only took ~2.2 zones to get from 58 to 68. Getting flight at 58 helps a ton, HFP was much more pleasant with flying from the start. Northrend, in comparison, took much longer (almost 4 entire zones) which is made worse because you can't head to Cataclysm zones any earlier than 80. The quest flows in Northrend are a little better than Outland, but I've always found the zones in Outlands to be a little more interesting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 01, 2011, 06:02:13 AM
I'd agree, particularly if you have heirlooms.  My mage's run through Outland was; most of the quests at the starting fort in hellfire, 1/3 of the stuff at Cenarion, the Throne of the Elements & Telhmat in Nagrand, then off to the starting area of Blade's Edge before finishing off in Netherstorm because I'd done SMV too many times. I did 4 total dungeons on her.. the first two in Hellfire and then the Crypts and then Mana Tombs in Anurachdown.

The next run through of a character I was going to hit Terrokar instead of Zang and maybe finish the zone so I could skip Nagrand entirely.   The only reason I jumped through so many zones was because I wanted to keep quests in the yellow range.  You fly through the place these days.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kaid on March 01, 2011, 07:51:34 AM
I see people doing ridiculously well and loving the hell out of the expansion, and I see guilds who have completely fallen apart and been absorbed by others. Then there are guilds like mine which tried to get a 10 man going, but fell apart because the healers didn't like the new mechanics and quit, and we now just casual along slowly raising our guild level through dailies.

I don't get a lot of middle ground feel from the expansion thus far in terms of endgame. If you're in a raiding group, you seem to love the changes. If you're not and tried to get in one, the expansion seems to draw nothing but ire from that group. If you're a pvper you're pretty pissed at the way they've gone. If you're a leveler, you are most likely a happy camper with the changes, although I've heard undercurrents of people getting bored because it's too easy to level now.

That pretty much is what happened to our guild. Our healers hated the healing change and quit and the guild kinda floundered after that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on March 01, 2011, 02:41:34 PM
I think this time you should try to avoid Zangar and Nagrand - Nagrand especially.  The "kill 20 X" quests are soul-crushing. 

They're not that bad, now, IMO, and I hated them originally.  The kill count has been lowered to something like 12, and he's standing in the middle of a field full of them, and the zone is so empty you won't have to compete with many other players to reach the tally.  Plus, with various buffs and stuff, a lot of classes can pretty easily solo the final "reccomended group [2]" quests in the three chains for some nice gear.

Also, dungeons give nice XP if you're rested.  Like, half a level for a single run.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on March 01, 2011, 03:34:35 PM
I keep seeing threads talking about how in 4.1 the items currently on the valor vendor will move to justice and valor will get better items but I can't find a single official thing from blizzard saying so.  I've never really stuck around long enough for a content patch after an expansion so is this just something that normally happens or are all the people assuming it will happen wrong?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 01, 2011, 03:35:49 PM
I keep seeing threads talking about how in 4.1 the items currently on the valor vendor will move to justice and valor will get better items but I can't find a single official thing from blizzard saying so.  I've never really stuck around long enough for a content patch after an expansion so is this just something that normally happens or are all the people assuming it will happen wrong?

The whole point of going to the valor/justice point system instead of different badges for each tier was to do that, so if they don't do it, it would be a big departure from their stated plans.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 01, 2011, 04:51:18 PM
The point was to move the items when a new tier of raiding released. I don't believe a new tier is coming with 4.1 though so I doubt it's going to move valor items yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 01, 2011, 04:54:10 PM
The point was to move the items when a new tier of raiding released. I don't believe a new tier is coming with 4.1 though so I doubt it's going to move valor items yet.

Firelands is releasing, you think it will be same tier as the existing stuff even though the new heroics are moving up in gear level?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 01, 2011, 04:57:33 PM
The point was to move the items when a new tier of raiding released. I don't believe a new tier is coming with 4.1 though so I doubt it's going to move valor items yet.

Firelands is releasing, you think it will be same tier as the existing stuff even though the new heroics are moving up in gear level?

The patch notes doesn't include Firelands as being released in 4.1, unless I misread them. The dungeons being added are ZA and ZG revamped.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 01, 2011, 05:00:26 PM
It is certainly possible it has slipped, but I'm assuming it just isn't on the PTR yet for now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 01, 2011, 05:23:36 PM
It is certainly possible it has slipped, but I'm assuming it just isn't on the PTR yet for now.

Agreed that they left it open with the "More to come" line. Blizzcon reported that it was coming in 4.1 but they may not be releasing it until the end of testing for mystery.

Until it goes in there, I am concerned why they didn't frontload with it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 01, 2011, 05:28:10 PM
I think this time you should try to avoid Zangar and Nagrand - Nagrand especially.  The "kill 20 X" quests are soul-crushing.  Your character will have flying this time through, and the mountains and tempest especially are a great deal easier with flying.  The only reason to do Nagrand would be to get the ethereal faction... but the only reason to get that is for crafting and items that are obsolete with Wrath, so, yeah, not so much.

I guess I'm recommending that you do the zones that you have done the least in leveling up.  Probably you've run Zangar and Nagrand multiple times already.

They reduced the kill 30 Nagrand quests to some random number, like ... kill 12 or something. Hellfire -> Zangarmarsh -> Nagrand is generally how I do it as Horde, because the quest flow in Zangarmarsh is much nicer than as Alliance, in my opinion. I also like Nagrand as Horde, because it has like ... story and shit. As Alliance I'm a lot more random, because the whole thing is a giant wtf detour for them, so it doesn't matter as long as I get the fuck out as fast as I can.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 01, 2011, 05:31:01 PM
It's not on PTR yet, but there's all sorts of Firelands-related gear/models in the PTR files that MMO-Champ has dug up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on March 01, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Did you miss the big dumb picture of Ragnaros that's going around? Firelands is most certainly coming in 4.1.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 01, 2011, 07:48:26 PM
Did you miss the big dumb picture of Ragnaros that's going around? Firelands is most certainly coming in 4.1.

It's not on PTR yet, but there's all sorts of Firelands-related gear/models in the PTR files that MMO-Champ has dug up.

Sort of my point there, guys. If they are patching in the files, and the gear, and the models, with them plastered all over MMO Champion (a site that's obviously well-watched by a huge part of the WoW population) what's the hold-up with an announcement?

I mean even a "ZA and ZG released for testing now, Firelands coming later on in the month!" would be something. It's like they just don't even bother addressing it. I'm not saying it's not there for absolutely certain, I'm just wondering how much of it they plan on actually testing in 4.1.0. I don't like their track record with holding back content and hoping for the best when it hits live, or if it's coming in 4.1.1


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 01, 2011, 07:57:15 PM
It's the same strategy of slowly giving out more information about upcoming content or an upcoming game that every game company uses. If you throw all of your information out there at once, you have nothing else to tell players a month later when your content still isn't out. Slowly giving out information in a controlled way allows you to build hype and maintain interest for a much longer period of time.

I expect we'll see 4.1 in late April, maybe even July. They could have waited until early April to spill all the 4.1 beans, but how many players would get bored between now and April without any tangible proof that new content to look forward to was coming out? How many players would say "Well, I've seen what Cataclysm has to offer me, and who knows when new stuff will arrive or whether it will even be stuff I'm going to care about. Maybe I'll check out Rift."

As for whether Firelands will be out with 4.1, I believe it was announced way back at Blizzcon that it would be included in 4.1

Edit: We will probably see Firelands hit the test servers in 3-4 weeks. Then they will have more information to dole out and keep people interested in the game. They will definitely be testing Firelands on the PTR.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 01, 2011, 08:03:11 PM
Yeah I can understand that. The big picture of Raggy sort of kills that strategy, I think. If you are planning on delaying a bit, people get pissed because they have seen those data mines. If you finally release the information 3-4 weeks from now, people just go "about damn time, we knew that already."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on March 01, 2011, 08:39:23 PM
Did you miss the big dumb picture of Ragnaros that's going around? Firelands is most certainly coming in 4.1.

Blizzard has been caught before including data several patches in advance.

Incidentally, I wonder how that will look after shaders.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 01, 2011, 10:13:05 PM
Did you miss the big dumb picture of Ragnaros that's going around? Firelands is most certainly coming in 4.1.

Blizzard has been caught before including data several patches in advance.

Incidentally, I wonder how that will look after shaders.

(http://mitarn.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/ragnarosmeme.png?w=500&h=346)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 01, 2011, 10:58:11 PM
Good god....not enough  :awesome_for_real: smilies in the world for that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 02, 2011, 12:05:31 AM
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on March 02, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
...DKs getting a battle rez in the current 4.1 PTR?   :headscratch:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 02, 2011, 08:24:35 PM
Ending 2 years of people going "WAIT WHAT IS THIS?" and instantly exploding their ghoul rezzed selves.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 02, 2011, 08:31:45 PM
Ending 2 years of people going "WAIT WHAT IS THIS?" and instantly exploding their ghoul rezzed selves.

Totally did that the first time I was rezzed.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on March 02, 2011, 08:43:26 PM
I've never been ghoul rezzed :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 02, 2011, 09:15:54 PM
The problem I had with ghoul rez was that the people I was most likely to be able to use it on were also the people most likely to be baffled by it happening to them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 02, 2011, 10:59:29 PM
I've done dungeons all through Wrath with a DK friend, so I actually got used to ghoul rez, it was awesome once you did work it out  :awesome_for_real:

It's a bit like Leap of Faith... first time it happens it's totally disorientating. Was in HoO and a priest LoF'd me back up to the platform after doing the lever on Anhur first time it happened to me. I had nfi what had just happened and promptly ran right off the platform again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 02, 2011, 11:46:34 PM
Yes :  I got leaped for the first time by the wife the other day, on this very boss.  Cue shouts of 'Well, you shoulda given me some fucking warning !!!'



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on March 03, 2011, 12:01:27 AM
The only time I've seen Leap of Faith is in WSG, when I had zoned into a game already in progress and our teams FC and defenders were on our roof. Was pulled up for shits and giggles.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 03, 2011, 12:58:30 AM
It's pretty decent in heroics as the "shit you're not supposed to stand in" isn't immediately fatal in a lot of cases.  I've probably used it about once an instance if not more.  It's useful on every Grim Batol boss for example.

Raid applications are relatively limited though.  It's huge on Atramedes during Air Phase, especially if you're Holy, and can get other players out of some serious jams on four other fights off the top of my head (Magmaw, Omnitron, Conclave of Wind, Al'Akir).  It's also nice when someone DCs during a boss you've reset so they don't pull it when it comes back :awesome_for_real:.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 03, 2011, 04:16:22 AM
The problem I had with ghoul rez was that the people I was most likely to be able to use it on were also the people most likely to be baffled by it happening to them.

So true. Or you used it on people who had no idea whatsoever how to actually DPS as the Ghoul.   I rezzed many a mage, priest and druid when we still needed that DPS push raiding and they just stood there.  I even made a point of calling out "Casting Ghoul on <X>" in vent. 

Eventually I just stopped rezzing anyone not a DK or Rogue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 03, 2011, 07:46:28 AM
To be fair, the one time it was cast on ME, I was a little startled. But I figured it out.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on March 03, 2011, 10:08:23 AM
How boring.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 03, 2011, 05:37:19 PM
Looks like Firelands did indeed slip from 4.1:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-04-firelands-raid-will-not-be-in-wow-patch-4-1


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 03, 2011, 05:50:07 PM
If they're indeed moving away from 3-4 content patches per expansion and not just trying to cover a production issue, that's welcome news.

Also, Holy Fire being put into Atonement/Glyph of Divine Accuracy has me more exciting than is really appropriate for anything related to Holy Fire :awesome_for_real:.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 03, 2011, 05:54:04 PM
That's sort of a bummer... I get that lots of guilds are still progressing through content (mine included), but the current cluster of raid content feels visually uninspired. It was sort of a cool throw-back to BWL or Twilight Cult areas from Vanilla, but it grew stale pretty quickly. I figured my guild would be done normal-mode bosses in a month or two and then we'd have something new to move onto that was a little more exciting. I appreciate the concept of faster, smaller patches, but I don't yet believe that Blizzard can actually pull them off. This is the company that wanted to have an expansion out every year. The company has never had a great track record of "getting things done fast".

If 4.1 comes out soonish with revamps of ZA and ZG that are actually fun, and some more quests/activities/goals for anyone at 85, that won't be a terrible patch. If Firelands then arrives a month or two later, I'd be satisfied with the patch roll-out schedule.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 03, 2011, 06:02:40 PM
Looks like Firelands did indeed slip from 4.1:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-04-firelands-raid-will-not-be-in-wow-patch-4-1

Well, that settles that. Rendakor owes me a Coke.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on March 03, 2011, 09:35:32 PM
Indeed I do. Can't say I'm not disappointed by this; I've now got nothing to look forward to in 4.1 except getting a brez on my DK.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 04, 2011, 06:06:42 AM
I'm not happy about it either. This smacks of a kid making excuses as to why his project isn't done on time.

They can put a nice shine on a missed deadline by talking about smaller updates, faster pushes, and giving people more time to access the current content. I still don't believe for a second that the entire raid is completed, tuned, and ready for testing whenever they arbitrarily decide to push it to the test servers. I don't think it's done. I think they're dreaming if they believe they can do anything faster. Also, from a PR standpoint, this makes no sense to hold it back. You are in direct competition with a game that just released, and you intentionally fail to deliver on a deadline? I don't think so.

Blizzard does a lot of things well, but when they try to sell you on their speed, you absolutely should call bullshit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 04, 2011, 07:24:38 AM
I disagree with what you said.

I would say only a select few have still beaten cho'gall and nefarian, or even gotten to see them.  Releasing firelands in a couple months  is premature.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on March 04, 2011, 07:49:23 AM
I haven't killed either (7/12 currently) but a few months away would be ideal, not 4-6 months. I was always a fan of their big content patches, which all included something for everyone (raids, heroics, dailies, mounts/pets, achievements, etc.), and like Paelos I don't imagine doing it this way will get content out any faster.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 04, 2011, 09:18:21 AM
Fuck Firelands if the "Fandral Staghelm is a boss in there" rumor is true. I'll never raise a hand against him! Never!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 04, 2011, 09:56:43 AM
Fuck Firelands if the "Fandral Staghelm is a boss in there" rumor is true. I'll never raise a hand against him! Never!

ill use his skull as a morrowgrain planter


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on March 04, 2011, 10:37:57 AM
I might resub for a month just for the chance to smack Staghelm's arrogant ass to the ground.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on March 04, 2011, 10:55:30 AM
Fuck Firelands if the "Fandral Staghelm is a boss in there" rumor is true. I'll never raise a hand against him! Never!

What if he holds the key to Karazhan and won't give it up without a fight?  What then!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 04, 2011, 11:11:25 AM
I disagree with what you said.

I would say only a select few have still beaten cho'gall and nefarian, or even gotten to see them.  Releasing firelands in a couple months  is premature.

The logical solution shouldn't be to hold thing back from a regular proposed timetable if the players aren't progressing fast enough through your content. That should be a big flashing "WARNING, YOUR CONTENT IS OVERTUNED! YOUR PLAYERBASE WAS NOT PREPARED!" sign.

The facts are literally smacking them in the face at this point. They need to make the right call, nerf down the content, and plan on releasing at a quicker pace. Otherwise, just giving people more time won't do diddly shit. A lot of people just gave up already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on March 04, 2011, 11:38:41 AM
I might resub for a month just for the chance to smack Staghelm's arrogant ass to the ground.
We can grab Mattemeo and force Sjofn to heal the instance.  Then she doesn't have to raise a hand against him!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on March 04, 2011, 02:59:59 PM
Blizzard has a history of stealing thunder from their competitors with auspiciously-timed announcements/patches/expansions. So far their big return shot at Rift consists of... uh... a couple refurbished troll instances and no raid. I don't care how progressed anyone is or is not, that just really looks bad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 04, 2011, 03:07:27 PM
Maybe it really was just lucky timing all along!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 04, 2011, 04:26:00 PM
Blizzard has a history of stealing thunder from their competitors with auspiciously-timed announcements/patches/expansions. So far their big return shot at Rift consists of... uh... a couple refurbished troll instances and no raid. I don't care how progressed anyone is or is not, that just really looks bad.

Maybe they're gunning for SWTOR.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on March 04, 2011, 10:59:32 PM
So what does this mean for Valor point items being kicked down the chain to being sold for Justice points. Call me when I can get some sweet ass purples for running heroics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on March 04, 2011, 11:03:35 PM
The valor items aren't going to the JP vendor til 4.2; the only heroics which will drop purpz are ZG and ZA.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 05, 2011, 01:11:16 AM
I might resub for a month just for the chance to smack Staghelm's arrogant ass to the ground.
We can grab Mattemeo and force Sjofn to heal the instance.  Then she doesn't have to raise a hand against him!

Never.

Staghelm will always be a hilarious bitch who had a perfectly good reason to be a hilarious bitch to me (I never once told him a goddamn thing that was important, after all). No amount of Blizzard inexplicably ruining their actually vaguely interesting NPCs will change that! <single, noble tear>


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on March 05, 2011, 02:36:56 AM
Lol Sjofn, you crazy squirrel. When your not praising some dickhead standing around Darnassus for being a dickhead, your saying how hot your Belf avatar's ass is, or falling in love with the DM narrator's voice from DDO.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 05, 2011, 11:01:29 AM
I really do love that DM guy.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 05, 2011, 01:54:11 PM
The confirmed today the the Justice Valor point conversions won't happen until 4.2


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lightstalker on March 05, 2011, 02:11:28 PM
I disagree with what you said.

I would say only a select few have still beaten cho'gall and nefarian, or even gotten to see them.  Releasing firelands in a couple months  is premature.

The logical solution shouldn't be to hold thing back from a regular proposed timetable if the players aren't progressing fast enough through your content. That should be a big flashing "WARNING, YOUR CONTENT IS OVERTUNED! YOUR PLAYERBASE WAS NOT PREPARED!" sign.

The facts are literally smacking them in the face at this point. They need to make the right call, nerf down the content, and plan on releasing at a quicker pace. Otherwise, just giving people more time won't do diddly shit. A lot of people just gave up already.

I almost made a "they are releasing (firelands) too early" post last week, then I really looked at http://www.wowtrack.org/encounters.lua and did the math and realized 30% of the raiding playerbase has killed Cho'Gal.  So I thought to myself, maybe this isn't actually too early.  If Hard Modes are optional and not required end-game participation, something to keep the hard core busy with while new content for the rest of the world is under development, then this is about the right time to get a new tier onto the PTR for a late spring release.  The last hard mode has fallen for 25-man raids and the heroic modes are notably more difficult in 10-man.  By the time Firelands releases (if it were in 4.1) it would be pretty well timed.

Then I looked at the 10-man vs. 25-man difficulty levels by mode and noticed that almost all normal modes are fairly well tuned for 10-man vs. 25-man raids.  We can see things go off the rails for hard modes, but I think they are taking a stupid tact on hard modes anyway so this deviation isn't a surprise (10-man Sarth +3 was much harder than 25-man at appropriate gear levels, remember).  So, can't really bitch here either, given that the heroic modes are just there to distract hard core raiders long enough to get another tier ready for the masses.


So I didn't post, since I really un-convinced myself when I took a look at things objectively.  Frankly, I think they are just tossing the 'not progressed enough' rationalization out there to cover the more likely "Not Done Yet" or "Not Fun Yet" root causes.  Maybe even the "Looks bad relative to Rift" angle as well, since Rift is pretty and WoW is cartoony and overdone (having itself to blame).  Rift is also easier on the hardware than WoW, in their zeal to compete on the pretty they may have pushed their system reqs out of the acceptable range (I'd say they are already out of acceptable given how much better Rift does with fewer system resources).  This last paragraph is just to 'contribute' to the conversation, it is highly unlikely that Firelands will show any influence from a game that released this week.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 05, 2011, 02:26:07 PM
the raiding playerbase

This is a not a lot of people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on March 06, 2011, 02:14:29 PM
I almost made a "they are releasing (firelands) too early" post last week, then I really looked at http://www.wowtrack.org/encounters.lua and did the math and realized 30% of the raiding playerbase has killed Cho'Gal.  So I thought to myself, maybe this isn't actually too early.  If Hard Modes are optional and not required end-game participation, something to keep the hard core busy with while new content for the rest of the world is under development, then this is about the right time to get a new tier onto the PTR for a late spring release.  The last hard mode has fallen for 25-man raids and the heroic modes are notably more difficult in 10-man.  By the time Firelands releases (if it were in 4.1) it would be pretty well timed.

Right, except that we dont know exactly what blizzard's standpoint is on the relationship between Hardmode content and endgame activity level.  Using that link of yours, you can see that hardmode kills compared to normal mode kills just plummet in the percentages.  All the End Bosses of current raid content Heroic have a less then 1% kill rate.  I would imagine blizz considers that really REALLY low.

Also, while 35% of guilds overall have killed Normal Cho, only 18% have killed Normal Neff.

Personally, I would say sticking ZG /ZA with slightly lower Ilevel Purples inbetween Firelands is probably a good move, since it will allow some of the struggling guilds to get the gear they need to pick up their pace in the current raids and maybe get a few shots in on heroics before the next tier launches.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on March 11, 2011, 02:19:37 PM
Rift is also easier on the hardware than WoW, in their zeal to compete on the pretty they may have pushed their system reqs out of the acceptable range (I'd say they are already out of acceptable given how much better Rift does with fewer system resources).

I have trouble believeing this.  Rift looks like utter ass on low settings; WoW just looks like a slightly blockier cartoon. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on March 14, 2011, 09:16:39 AM
So when 4.2 comes out and the valor items go to justice will the new valor boots be BoE and thus sellable as well?  I'm trying to figure out how much I'd be willing to pay for the current boots...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on March 14, 2011, 11:06:08 AM
I wouldn't count on it; the first tier of LK had a BoE (bracers) but none of the following tiers did. There isn't even a guarantee that there will be new valor boots since they tend to shuffle around which slots are available on the vendor with each tier of content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Yegolev on March 20, 2011, 08:55:43 AM
Seems forty pages of this thread have appeared since I last visited.  Is there some thread where the casual jerkoffs discuss basic shit that normal people deal with?

Anyway, I went back to WoW after some time away due to thinking it looked and played like ass.  I had more fun this time, going from lv2 to lv6 with the goblin and getting from the town where the dragon came up to the Lost Isles.  I like the isles better than the city, for sure.  So far I'm enjoying it, particularly the UI since it's a sight better than the LotRO UI.  Simple things, like a real-world clock, amuse me so maybe I'm special.  But who doesn't like options?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 20, 2011, 09:51:02 AM
Casual Jerkoffs and normal people stopped playing 2-3 months ago.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on March 20, 2011, 09:57:45 AM
Yeah, judging by the latest dev blog (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2452061#blog) they still don't "get it".  They keep saying that they are basically happy with where things are, that seems like a very subjective metric that a lot of other people have a very different opinion on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on March 20, 2011, 10:03:44 AM
Yeah, judging by the latest dev blog (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2452061#blog) they still don't "get it".  They keep saying that they are basically happy with where things are, that seems like a very subjective metric that a lot of other people have a very different opinion on.

What should they be doing? 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on March 20, 2011, 10:29:22 AM
Yeah, judging by the latest dev blog (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2452061#blog) they still don't "get it".  They keep saying that they are basically happy with where things are, that seems like a very subjective metric that a lot of other people have a very different opinion on.

What should they be doing?  

Who cares if half of the multi-million player base leaves because lead developer got to resurrect his hardcore EQ nostalgia? After all, who counts small-nation-GDP worth in revenues when Ghostcrawlers e-peen is on the line.

What should they be doing? Make a public example by firing lead developer, revert most Cata changes and promise it won't happen again, then publicly repent and give everyone free month.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on March 20, 2011, 10:30:35 AM
Getting the people who originally made WoW back from project Facebook-Twitter-cash-in-MMO would be a start. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on March 20, 2011, 10:46:16 AM
So far I'm enjoying it

Don't concern yourself with the endgame.  In fact, don't even acknowledge it's existence.  The game your enjoying ends at 85, possibly as early as 60, and is replaced with a new game which just so happens to be a leaping cock dropkick performed by the wraith of Bruce Lee.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on March 20, 2011, 10:50:50 AM
Yeah, judging by the latest dev blog (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2452061#blog) they still don't "get it".  They keep saying that they are basically happy with where things are, that seems like a very subjective metric that a lot of other people have a very different opinion on.

What should they be doing?  

Who cares if half of the multi-million player base leaves because lead developer got to resurrect his hardcore EQ nostalgia? After all, who counts small-nation-GDP worth in revenues when Ghostcrawlers e-peen is on the line.

What should they be doing? Make a public example by firing lead developer, revert most Cata changes and promise it won't happen again, then publicly repent and give everyone free month.

I wasn't aware 1/2 the playerbase left.  I guess if thats so, they should change things.  Cataclysm has been more fun to me as a casual player than Wrath was, don't know what to tell you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 20, 2011, 11:31:41 AM
I wasn't aware 1/2 the playerbase left.  I guess if thats so, they should change things.  Cataclysm has been more fun to me as a casual player than Wrath was, don't know what to tell you.

I logged in yesterday at primetime. My guild had nobody on. We had no guild points to speak of. Most of our regulars hadn't logged on in a few days. The guild is all but dead or dying and people have moved on to Rift or something else.

That's just a consequence of it happening slowly over the last month. I think the player that has done some raiding in the past but never made it a job from my alliance are mostly lost. Some are powering through it and joining up with larger guilds. Some just threw their hands up and quit.

I think this expansion has been incredibly polarizing. Maybe that was inevitable and Blizzard feels this is the right way to go. They may feel they were bound to lose a lot of players no matter what decision they made, so they wanted to make what they believed was the best possible gaming experience. It unfortunately doesn't match what my guild wanted. It makes me a bit sad, but at the same time I understand it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on March 20, 2011, 11:36:59 AM
I logged in yesterday at primetime. My guild had nobody on. We had no guild points to speak of. Most of our regulars hadn't logged on in a few days. The guild is all but dead or dying and people have moved on to Rift or something else.
My old guilds were the same way, but they were also moving that way before Cata came out (maybe half the population ever showed up during the last 3-4 months before Cata).  Those who wanted to raid left the guild and went to active guilds and those who didn't care just stopped playing.  And yet I've never seen Stormwind\Orgrimmar so busy in years.  I'm not sure if that's because Dalaran\Shattrath aren't the "high end" cities to hang out in anymore though.  There sure are a ton of 85s running around and a good mix of lowbies running around too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on March 20, 2011, 01:35:27 PM
One of my friends in a 25 man guild on Lightbringer said basically the entire guild is trying Rift.

Anecdotal, with bonus "does Rift have enough stickiness to keep them", plus what are the odds at least half will end up back in WoW, but still.

From my perspective, Cataclysm is a huge stumble.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on March 20, 2011, 02:30:53 PM
Yeah, judging by the latest dev blog (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2452061#blog) they still don't "get it".  They keep saying that they are basically happy with where things are, that seems like a very subjective metric that a lot of other people have a very different opinion on.

What should they be doing? 
They should make heroics and at least this first tier of raiding more fun by nerfing the black/white no room for error mechanics.

They may feel they were bound to lose a lot of players no matter what decision they made, so they wanted to make what they believed was the best possible gaming experience.
I think this is what they are doing.  They assumed they would lose players since the big fight against arthas couldn't really be topped so instead of blaming their current design they are just shrugging their shoulders and assuming people are leaving for other reasons beyond their control.  I really think a lot more people would still be playing if you didn't have to get drunk to tolerate queueing up for a heroic pug...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 20, 2011, 03:01:34 PM
My 25-man guild has been incapable of recruiting enough players to maintain a 25-man raid and has downsized to doing 10s with the core of remaining players.  They get 15-16 signups on raid days now where we used to get 27-32.  If they continue having to sit 5-6 players, I expect those players to wander off as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 20, 2011, 03:11:59 PM
My 25-man guild has been incapable of recruiting enough players to maintain a 25-man raid and has downsized to doing 10s with the core of remaining players.  They get 15-16 signups on raid days now where we used to get 27-32.  If they continue having to sit 5-6 players, I expect those players to wander off as well.

When cat came out we had close to 100 members on daily. We started doing 25mans and things started slowing down, first we had 60 on a night, then 40, then we couldnt field 25mans at all. We dropped to 10mans and now we're lucky to field that on the farm content. I logged in sat, no one online but me


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on March 20, 2011, 03:18:18 PM
It's standard MMO Dev inability to admit that they were wrong.

If they weren't wrong there was no mistake. If there was no mistake there is no possibility of learning from a mistake.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 20, 2011, 03:20:54 PM
It's standard MMO Dev inability to admit that they were wrong.

If they weren't wrong there was no mistake. If there was no mistake there is no possibility of learning from a mistake.

There's a lot of things they've admitted to being mistakes and have changed in this expansion, you just have a different list of mistakes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 20, 2011, 04:13:01 PM
There's a lot of things they've admitted to being mistakes...

Agreed. They do recognize some faults of their expansion.

and have changed in this expansion...

Not so much. Ghostcrawler has reiterated yet again that they are happy with the raid balance. In another thread, they admitted that having optional bosses in 5 mans was not a great idea, and they will use it for future content (current content remaining unchanged). They said they have no desires to update Outland quests, even though they are odd in the content. They don't make any comments about the healer population when it's referenced several times that it's becoming a barrier to content. They recognize that people aren't advancing as quickly as they like, so their answer is to delay content instead of easing up on the current batch.

Hell, one of the questions they chose to address in their Q&A was what Blizzard employees do in their off-time.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 20, 2011, 07:12:18 PM
This expansion has pretty much killed WoW for me and the only thing keeping me subscribed is that last bit of OCD/attachment to my character. My guild merged with a larger one, then all of the people I originally played with for the last 5 years left for another server/started playing other games. One of my best not-on-the-internet friends who was in the same guild with me left with a few other people at the end of WotLK for a guild that could get content done. The 30% buff was huge but they still managed to get every heroic ICC boss but LK down consistently.

Now? No Nefarian kills, no Cho'gal kills yet for them. They have just enough tanks and healers to raid, and a mess of DPS clamoring for a spot. My current guild has a lot of people in it and only 3-4 are on at a time now compared to 40-50 at a time for like nearly over 2 months after cata dropped. No raids are going anywhere; my guild isn't raiding and the huge group of people I used to pug raids with have stopped because they can barely get enough together to do their own runs. NO ONE wants to heal. No one. Nobody seems to like tanking either despite it (at least to me) being even easier than it was in WotLK.

They're pretty much running the majority of their playerbase off, but I don't think it's an attempt to appease the hardcore players (because they left in the "badge" system they despise so much and even if they're a half-tier lower in quality 5-mans will once again give epics) so much as it is to cockblock people from really mowing through content. Blizzard seriously is unable or 100% unwilling to pump out content on a faster scale. They claim they're moving away from monolithic patches but instead they're just dribbling out the same amount of content over a wider period of time and calling that faster content production.

Unless some awesome guild swoops in and I can start raiding successfully, I just have better/more fun shit to do anymore. I got a new job and real life is being fucking ridiculous with all of the weekend-destroying horseshit so I haven't had time to do anything time-consuming when I'm off work. I've actually become one of those people who can only play games that you can pick up and drop quickly like Torchlight. WotLK let me jump in and do a heroic in 30-45 minutes practically a month into it; Cata will be a slog through hell with retards even 2 tiers from now if you get Stonecore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 20, 2011, 07:51:06 PM
Just as a side note Fab, do you feel that while tanking has gotten easier, it's also much less important? I don't get the feeling at all that player skill from your tanks in raids really matters much at all, nor do I get the feeling that gear upgrades to your tanks will help the raid as much as they used to.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 20, 2011, 08:45:46 PM
and have changed in this expansion...

Not so much. Ghostcrawler has reiterated yet again that they are happy with the raid balance. In another thread, they admitted that having optional bosses in 5 mans was not a great idea, and they will use it for future content (current content remaining unchanged). They said they have no desires to update Outland quests, even though they are odd in the content. They don't make any comments about the healer population when it's referenced several times that it's becoming a barrier to content. They recognize that people aren't advancing as quickly as they like, so their answer is to delay content instead of easing up on the current batch.

Hell, one of the questions they chose to address in their Q&A was what Blizzard employees do in their off-time.   :oh_i_see:

I meant that as previous mistakes corrected with this expansion.  As for mistakes created by and corrected inside this expansion, there's the upcoming raid cooldown homogenization in 4.1.  It's an important change in their approach to healer balance but it's not really germane to most people's complaints.  (I guess you could count nuking the 15v15 rated bracket which they're doubling down on by adding AB to the 10v10 playlist in 4.1.)

From my perspective a tank's ability in positioning and reacting to boss abilities (including interrupts) are still vitally important.  That said, a tank's gear is relatively less important than it was before in large part because everyone else's survival is nearly as important to the raid's success.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on March 20, 2011, 08:53:10 PM
What raid cooldown homogenization?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 20, 2011, 09:52:56 PM
What raid cooldown homogenization?

  • DK's Raise Ally is now a proper battle rez.
  • Resto Druids get a talent to bring Tranquility's CD down to three minutes. It also now has innate full pushback resistance.
  • Divine Guardian is now on a three minute cooldown.
  • PW: Barrier gets its CD bumped up to three minutes and drops from a 30% reduction to 25%.
  • Holy Priests still get to respec to Discipline to use PW: Barrier :awesome_for_real: (and both Hymns have innate full pushback resistance).
  • Resto Shamans get:
    Quote
    Spirit Link Totem (new talent) reduces damage taken by all party and raid members within 10 yards by 10%. This lasts 6 seconds, and every second it is active the health of all affected players is redistributed among them, such that each player ends up with the same percentage of their maximum health. This counts as an Air totem and has a 3-minute cooldown.
  • Warriors get:
    Quote
    Rallying Cry (new ability) is available from trainers at level 83. It temporarily grants the warrior and all party or raid members within 30 yards 20% of maximum health for 10 seconds. After the effect expires, the health is lost. It has no cost, no stance requirements, and is not on the global cooldown. It has a 3-minute cooldown, but also shares a cooldown with Last Stand.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 21, 2011, 04:01:32 AM
Just as a side note Fab, do you feel that while tanking has gotten easier, it's also much less important? I don't get the feeling at all that player skill from your tanks in raids really matters much at all, nor do I get the feeling that gear upgrades to your tanks will help the raid as much as they used to.
I think that it takes more gear for it to really make a difference in Cata than it did in WotLK or even BC. If you're gemming/reforging right, you'll notice a pretty decent difference between being in full heroic blues and full normal-mode epics, but unlike WotLK/BC how much HP you have seems to mean precisely fuck all. Bosses on normal at least weren't nearly instagibbing me every other hit like they were in WoTLK but the buffer all the extra HP epics provide doesn't really mean shit to healers because they're bottlenecked by their regen/throughput way before my HP comes into the equation.

Hell, until you get to a certain point (or a shitload of mastery as a warrior at least...btw block mastery is broken) of avoidance you barely notice that as well in terms of incoming damage.

While epics certainly require effort to get right now, unless you're DPS they don't FEEL epic. You just feel like less of a detriment as a tank and as a healer you can now actually make it to the end of a fight with some mana left. Whooptie doo.

As for skill; I dunno why but people are treating it like cata is hard to tank when it absolutely is easier than WoTLK. Everyone has good utility for picking up and holding multiple mobs now, vengeance is so ridiculously overpowered that anything that can actually hurt you renders you capable of beating the DPS on the charts (and thus threat isn't an issue at all ever), and there really aren't many fights that demand a lot of tanks outside of maybe Nefarian? We have a hell of a lot less responsibility than the DPS or healers for almost every fight outside of popping CDs at the right time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 21, 2011, 06:10:45 AM
The most complicated fights I've seen so far in Cata for tanks were: stay live, and make sure to taunt at the right time.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on March 21, 2011, 08:18:56 AM
I would have to say that the only raid fights in cata that ever stress me out as a Bear Tank are Halfus (when you have the MS drake and the Haste drake), because it is pretty much the only fight where a bad taunt or poor cooldown management means the difference between a wipe and a kill, and Maloriak when I am on adds solo in 25 man because for some reason if they spawn on both sides of the room at once it seems to be a bitch to pick up all of them (once i actaully get all of them on me, keeping them on me is easy, its just getting them initially that seems to be a problem.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on March 21, 2011, 09:50:11 AM
My 25-man guild has been incapable of recruiting enough players to maintain a 25-man raid and has downsized to doing 10s with the core of remaining players.  They get 15-16 signups on raid days now where we used to get 27-32.  If they continue having to sit 5-6 players, I expect those players to wander off as well.

This has been my personal experience. Our guild was down to one 10 man, managed to scrape up enough for another, but only during the week--which I couldn't attend. So I quit. Far as I know, they're back down to one 10 man team.

So. I app to a night-time guild on WW. I'm aware this guild is eyeing Rift, but I figure they're the premier night-time guild (not saying much) so what can go wrong? Well, shaman class lead is assigned to me, finally catch up with her, then she just disappears. Never saw her again. That was four weeks ago. Far as I know (or care, at this point) most of their core guild is in Rift. Every other night guild I've looked at is either on the skids or looking for HM turnkey players, which I ain't, since I can't get in any goddamned raid to begin with. 

So I'm down to logging in once a day for about 90 minutes to get my 70vp and that's it. I'm sorta wondering why I bother, but I am attached to my character--who still can pull 19k in a 5 man, but can't get a fucking raid spot. Yeah, this expansion is working out real well...not. I guess I'm willing to cling by my stubby little claws until 4.2 and hope for the best, but frankly I think it's just a matter of time before I cancel.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on March 21, 2011, 10:29:47 AM
Sounds like a blast.  Why pay them money for this?  You can resub if they actually add something you find fun back.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on March 21, 2011, 10:44:52 AM
Sounds like a blast.  Why pay them money for this?  You can resub if they actually add something you find fun back.

This pretty much sums up my attitude towards WoW.  It wasn't fun while leveling, it looked less fun at the end game, and even though I had connections to get into two raid guilds, the one never ran a raid at all, and the other sputtered out running a 10 man raid while seating 6 because not enough showed up for 25.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 21, 2011, 10:45:39 AM
Ghostcrawler told me it's fine. You're all just whiners.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 21, 2011, 10:52:28 AM
They're used to dips and ebbs in sub numbers when "A new big thing" comes out.  If sub numbers are still low when Rift has been out 3-6 months, you'll probably see a change in tune (if not leadership.).    If sub numbers go back up, it'll be just another fly-by-night dip in the metrics like they've experienced over the last 6 years when other MMOs have come out with lots of hoopla.   At this point it's a waiting game, and I'll wait with my $30 a month in my pocket instead of theirs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Yegolev on March 28, 2011, 01:30:42 PM
Today I was trying to figure out how to get to Razor Hill from Org, and eventually I figured out where the elevator to the flight platform was.  Later on, I wandered across the river and back up to the bridge and I was like "what the shit, everything is so close together in this game, I'm not fucking paying to ride that lion again, I'll just run."

Thanks, Turbine. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on March 28, 2011, 01:59:12 PM
They're used to dips and ebbs in sub numbers when "A new big thing" comes out.  If sub numbers are still low when Rift has been out 3-6 months, you'll probably see a change in tune (if not leadership.).    If sub numbers go back up, it'll be just another fly-by-night dip in the metrics like they've experienced over the last 6 years when other MMOs have come out with lots of hoopla.   At this point it's a waiting game, and I'll wait with my $30 a month in my pocket instead of theirs.
On the other hand, current best-guess of subs numbers at the moment (based on player concurrency) is below this time last year. Which should worry the devs, bearing in mind that this time last year was "Four months into ICC, no new content in sight".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 28, 2011, 02:28:58 PM
If the devs don't realize or haven't been informed that they are bleeding accounts at this point, then there's no hope for them.

I believe that they projected a large loss of accounts post-Arthas. That was their popular content tie-in to WC3 and they put it off as long as they could. I think that they also projected a loss due to instituting harder requirements in heroics and raids. What I hope they didn't project was people returning after 6 months when they bring in the newer content, because that's not going to happen this time.

All that matters now is if the losses are worse than their expectations. If not, they won't bother changing their development tactics at all, and I don't think I will return to the game even if they try to fix it now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on March 28, 2011, 03:26:07 PM
How long do you think you've would've kept playing if basically the game was still Wraith + more easy heroics with badge farming and new raids?  I guess my point is - at what point are they just going to lose people because we can only farm floozles for so long no matter what the context?  I guess I don't see a huge gulf between Wrath and Cata in my day to day experience of the game (keeping in mind that I don't really care about purples anymore and didn't in Wrath either). 

I do the dungeons I can reasonably do given my time restraints (and therefore gear restraints), and slowly gear up my main while leveling alts if I'm in the mood (the leveling alts part being FAR superior to Wrath actually, if I'm being honest).  In this case my maxing out on dungeons is a bit earlier in terms of which content I can do, but the amount of upgrades isn't really less, its just the color of the gear, or the heroic label in some cases. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 28, 2011, 04:09:47 PM
On the other hand, current best-guess of subs numbers at the moment (based on player concurrency) is below this time last year. Which should worry the devs, bearing in mind that this time last year was "Four months into ICC, no new content in sight".

Well, two months in as the instance wasn't full open until early February.  And Ruby Sanctum was announced a few weeks after that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 28, 2011, 05:32:41 PM
How long do you think you've would've kept playing if basically the game was still Wraith + more easy heroics with badge farming and new raids?  I guess my point is - at what point are they just going to lose people because we can only farm floozles for so long no matter what the context?  I guess I don't see a huge gulf between Wrath and Cata in my day to day experience of the game (keeping in mind that I don't really care about purples anymore and didn't in Wrath either). 

I do the dungeons I can reasonably do given my time restraints (and therefore gear restraints), and slowly gear up my main while leveling alts if I'm in the mood (the leveling alts part being FAR superior to Wrath actually, if I'm being honest).  In this case my maxing out on dungeons is a bit earlier in terms of which content I can do, but the amount of upgrades isn't really less, its just the color of the gear, or the heroic label in some cases. 

Short answer, I don't care how hard things got, but it drove off all my old friends. No friends playing = who gives a shit about the game from me. I'm not about to rebuild an entire social circle again just so I can do another raid that's redone from the raids before. I killed Nefarian and Ragnaros with my original raiding group. Unless they could bring them back to the game or transport me back to 2006, I don't think anything they do is going to affect my decision to play anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on March 28, 2011, 05:35:33 PM
Short answer, I don't care how hard things got, but it drove off all my old friends. No friends playing = who gives a shit about the game from me.
Personally, every single expansion of this game has done this to me.  I had a circle of friends in vanilla, another in TBC, 2-3 during WotLK and now a mixture of the 2-3 leftovers of the last expansion are still around.  I guess I am just a bit more willing to put up with the ebb and flow of accounts and players as long as I am having fun.  I've had gamer circles online since the mid 90's and losing members from time to time is something I'm just used to.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 28, 2011, 05:39:25 PM
Honestly Selby, I would probably keep playing more if they made the game more forgiving so I didn't hate my fellow man in randoms as a tank. The fact they made the game harder means I have to keep my eye on folks now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 28, 2011, 10:45:55 PM
I've taken up the healing reins (no pun, I'm a priest not a shammy) again for the first time since Cata launch and I have to say that tanking random heroics is a lot easier than healing them. We're onto 3 bosses down in BWD and that's been much more relaxing than healing random heroics.

I was scratching my head at the "heroics are hard" stuff, but I see it now as healer. I'd rather take the 20 minute queue and DPS them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on March 29, 2011, 03:39:15 AM
Yeah that's it.  I enjoy playing healing classes, but I'll not go back unless they make some sort of change.  Healing now is UNFUN and I'm paying $15 a month not to have fun?  Nein danke.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 29, 2011, 03:55:59 AM
This is it all round though :

1 - The DPS have huge queues and get frustrated at the wait and the 'new' style of play.
2 - The Tanks have to have more control of an instance and slow things down more than they're used to.
3 - The healers have to work a lot harder to keep just the tanks up, so the DPS have to slow and be wary due to this.


It's a recipe for fucking disaster every time.  Sure, in randoms you'll occasionally get a group who understands all this, but they're rare as hens teeth.  So, you want to get your own group on.  The own group you used to have are probably bored mindless of this, however, due to the overriding rule number 4 :

4 - The loot, badges and itemisation is utter shit and NOT WORTH THE EFFORT.


I can't believe an expansion finally made me quit and, to be brutal, I'm not missing it in the slightest.

  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on March 29, 2011, 08:41:01 AM
This is it all round though :

1 - The DPS have huge queues and get frustrated at the wait and the 'new' style of play.
2 - The Tanks have to have more control of an instance and slow things down more than they're used to.
3 - The healers have to work a lot harder to keep just the tanks up, so the DPS have to slow and be wary due to this.


It's a recipe for fucking disaster every time.  Sure, in randoms you'll occasionally get a group who understands all this, but they're rare as hens teeth.  So, you want to get your own group on.  The own group you used to have are probably bored mindless of this, however, due to the overriding rule number 4 :

4 - The loot, badges and itemisation is utter shit and NOT WORTH THE EFFORT.


I can't believe an expansion finally made me quit and, to be brutal, I'm not missing it in the slightest.

  :ye_gods:
Really, this is more of a knee jerk reaction then anything.   While what you are saying IS true in some cases, only the first point really applies in any meaningful form.  DPS queues are terrible, everyone agrees with this.

2 and 3 only really apply to people at the very bottom of the gearing curve (Ie, you barely have an average item level high enough to get into a heroic).   Sure, if the dungeon finder happens to throw you together into a group wiith 3 or 4 people who barely manage to qualify to be there, your run will likely be rough.  And this was a serious issue a month and a half ago.  Now a days though, most of the runs I end up in on my boomkin (or any alt) are almost back to Wrath level facerolls.    CC is almost never used (you might cc one mob in a pull, if it is really irritating, instead of 3), tanks just barrel into the group, rotate short timer cooldowns, and plow through the instance.   I havent been in a failed Dungeon Finder Pug in almost a month, and most of the time, if someone DOES leave, it is usually one of those "I personally dont like this dungeon, bye" kind of things.

As for 4.  I am not sure what your arguement is here.   Loot is loot.  For the most part, I have not seen any terriblely itemized gear.  Hell, with very few exceptions, it is possible to find perfectly itemized gear for nearly every slot for almost any given class.  Really, the only gear complaint I have at the moment is that, as far as raids go, they could have used a bit more variety, and tweaked where some stuff dropped.  Stuff like that there is only ONE pair of leather caster wrists in the entire raid tier (of course, that is probably more of a symptom of the fact that there only really needs to BE one pair of leather caster wrists), or the fact that if you are an enhance shaman, your only choice for weapons is either BoE's (that drop off trash in the raid instance with the least trash in the history of raid instances), or drops off the hardest boss in the tier.

As to loot being utter shit and not worth the effort?  That is purely subjective.  If you want to go that route, might as well say that there is no point in ever playing the game at max level, since the hole point of the "end game" is to endlessly cycle through marginally useful tiny gear upgrades over and over again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 29, 2011, 08:52:44 AM
I think the main problem I've had with gear is that I can't tell a huge difference in my character if I have full 346 blues or 5 epics. The epics don't seem to have as much of a meaningful effect on the overall success of the run because they've marginalized its impact on the encounters. If you are a purist, that's a great thing because it demands that a player be decent at their job no matter how much gear they carry.

If you're like me, you realize that if all players were decent that would be perfect, but you are friends with a lot of shitty players who are nice people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on March 29, 2011, 10:20:38 AM
What I noticed--from the enhance shaman side of things--is that the majority of the 346 loot was actually pretty well itemized for enhance. The majority of 359 epics is not. There are a few exceptions, but mostly it has piss poor stats. However, the extra 13 item levels largely seem to make up for it with reforging. But only just. Also, as usual, the epic weapons for enhance are a complete fucking joke, but I suppose we should be used to this. Back to last-boss-in-a-raid-drops-your-shit mentality.

Personally, I'm so sick of the whole miserable mess that I would quit, but there's nowhere to go for regular long term video game jollies. I've taken to playing my warrior and DK again, but they'll just run into the steaming pile of shit the post-85 game is when they cap. Until then, they're fun. There's some irony for you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on March 29, 2011, 01:34:54 PM
1 - The DPS have huge queues and get frustrated at the wait and the 'new' style of play.
2 - The Tanks have to have more control of an instance and slow things down more than they're used to.
3 - The healers have to work a lot harder to keep just the tanks up, so the DPS have to slow and be wary due to this.

1 - The wait is killer.  The new style of play isn't so bad for DPS, except for CC.  CC should be fire-and-forget and nigh unbreakable, because just randomly CC'ing shit and it coming out okay would solve part of problem #2.  More shit should work like Sap (doesn't drop you in combat).
2 - Tanks have multiple targets to babysit, an AoE rotation, a single target rotation, a cooldown rotation, and (usually) lead.  Blizzard should pick two, maybe three.
3 - Relying on chained slow efficient casts is terrible, maximizing APM is for the Zerg, proactive healing sucks.  It's like paladin healing in Wrath without the big numbers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 29, 2011, 03:20:10 PM
2 and 3 only really apply to people at the very bottom of the gearing curve (Ie, you barely have an average item level high enough to get into a heroic).  

Thing is, the bottom of the curve is usually what's doing PUGs.  Those who have raid-geared or raid-ready mains tend to run in guild groups and those with working heroic-maxed alts aren't running them but once a day for points, if that.   So you're typically left with the bottom of the barrel the later in the day you run.  This was the case with Wrath groups, too, but they were much easier to faceroll or pickup the slack for a failing healer/ tank if you were an ubergeared DPS.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on March 29, 2011, 03:59:51 PM
On a fundamental level - good player's ability to carry bad players and bad player's ability to out-gear encounters were both greatly diminished this expansion. As a result bottom (and quite a bit of middle) fell off.

What surprises me is that massive firings at Blizzards and hat-in-hand 'promise, we can change!' is so slow to come.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 29, 2011, 04:11:55 PM
On a fundamental level - good player's ability to carry bad players and bad player's ability to out-gear encounters were both greatly diminished this expansion. As a result bottom (and quite a bit of middle) fell off.

What surprises me is that massive firings at Blizzards and hat-in-hand 'promise, we can change!' is so slow to come.

Too early for that. They absolutely will not publically admit that their direction for this game was wrong. They will admit a miscalculation or a prediction that proved unpopular, but they will not admit fault. Also, as I've said before, they predicted a large fall-off. I imagine they are getting pretty much exactly what they expected with this shift in their model. I think they have completely shifted their business focus from adoption to retention.

This shift in a way is sort of confusing. On the one hand they redo an entire set of older content, which leads you to believe they are proactively seeking out newer players or retuning players to give the game a fresh glow. Then, with the other hand, they increase the raiding level, decrease the effectiveness of gear, and put most of their heroic pugs out to pasture. However, they also took 25 mans out back and shot them by having gear cross over to 10 mans as well, but as stated before gear matters less.

All in all, I believe they are torn in-house about this direction. I think there are people that recognize they are killing their bad players, and that they are shooting the golden goose. I also think there are people who think the game isn't a game anymore if it's a bad player slot machine that's facerolled into oblivion. Somewhere in the middle there's a bunch of average players who are getting fucked over by this tug of war.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on March 29, 2011, 04:20:48 PM
Also, as I've said before, they predicted a large fall-off.

Maybe the people over there who know who Arthas was predicted a drop-off in subscribers, but I imagine their bosses will be far less understanding. It'll be interesting to see how things stand six months from now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 29, 2011, 04:23:05 PM
Believe me, if there was ever a time for a set of suits to fuck the epeen nerds in the ass, now is the time. There's profit to be had!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 29, 2011, 04:24:57 PM
I suspect that the pre-Cataclysm profits were so titanically huge that it will be a long time before they need to think about any kind of "massive firings" for financial reasons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 29, 2011, 04:26:49 PM
I suspect that the pre-Cataclysm profits were so titanically huge that it will be a long time before they need to think about any kind of "massive firings" for financial reasons.

Shit, that money's already been taxed and distributed. They rely on cash flow, yo!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 29, 2011, 04:28:03 PM
Well, it's more that I mean they're probably still making a lot of money, they're probably just downsizing from 'massive tower of money hats' to 'moderate tower of moneyhats' so far.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 29, 2011, 04:29:50 PM
Totally agree. I don't think they are hurting. I still don't think anybody likes going from making $10M a month to $5M though. You have any idea what the payments are on those money hats???


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on March 29, 2011, 04:51:34 PM
Well, it's more that I mean they're probably still making a lot of money, they're probably just downsizing from 'massive tower of money hats' to 'moderate tower of moneyhats' so far.


What would you know, Hat-less peasant!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on March 29, 2011, 05:17:01 PM
Shit, I'd settle for a money headband.  So is there actual data on WoW's subs dropping or is this just wishful thinking for us disgruntled types?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 29, 2011, 05:29:53 PM
Shit, I'd settle for a money headband.  So is there actual data on WoW's subs dropping or is this just wishful thinking for us disgruntled types?

Until the next quarterly stock report it's all speculation and wishful thinking.  Even the "concurrent players" metrics someone mentioned are just speculation as they don't count people still paying but not logging in. (Which also covers a few folks in this forum.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 29, 2011, 06:04:13 PM
Shit, I'd settle for a money headband.  So is there actual data on WoW's subs dropping or is this just wishful thinking for us disgruntled types?

Honestly we won't know until May when they release the quarterly reports. My guess is that subscription revenue will be down again. Here's their MMORPG Quarterly breakdown for the first quarter:

2011 - Not released yet
2010 - $306M
2009 - $314M
2008 - $275M

My guess, I would be shocked if the reports weren't below $300M, but not much below. There wasn't enough time in that period to really see much of an effect. By June, if we see a drop down to $250M for the quarter, that's about the huge loss I'd expect. Anything lower than that is awful.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on March 29, 2011, 06:58:59 PM
Personally, I'm so sick of the whole miserable mess that I would quit, but there's nowhere to go for regular long term video game jollies. I've taken to playing my warrior and DK again, but they'll just run into the steaming pile of shit the post-85 game is when they cap. Until then, they're fun. There's some irony for you.

Leveling alts is pretty much what I ended up doing with this expansion before my sub lapsed.  So, two irregularities: I give no shits about the endgame whatsoever, and I'm unsubbed, probably for a while, and the last time that happened for any length was when TBC kicked off with a nerfbat that even they thought was heavy-handed to the only class I had to 60 at the time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on March 29, 2011, 07:36:57 PM
If you a new addict, it is never easy to quit. If you are old hand like me, you know that all the dealers are the same and you can switch one crack for another pretty much at will.

Go try some other mmorpg, they are ultimately all the same, unless you are into grandma-corpse-fucking like WUA and decide to play UO or original EQ. In that can you will at least get history lesson.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 29, 2011, 08:14:51 PM
We alternate between coke, meth and heroin. WUA still does whippets.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on March 29, 2011, 09:26:15 PM
2004 doesn't count as "new" anymore, I don't think.  Regardless, I'd rather retreat into single player games rather than a new MMO.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 29, 2011, 10:50:16 PM
How long are your DPS queues in the US? You're all talking like they're 40 mins plus.

They're 15-20 mins here. Early in the morning usually shorter, 8-10 mins or so. Instant as tank, obviously, and healer queues are half as long as DPS ones typically. If this is markedly different from the US then I wonder why? Is it something to do with the way servers are clustered here or what?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on March 30, 2011, 12:07:30 AM
Blackrock was running 30 min queues on the weekend - one was at 37 min.

After that I logged and played Rift


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 30, 2011, 01:24:15 AM
This is it all round though :

1 - The DPS have huge queues and get frustrated at the wait and the 'new' style of play.
2 - The Tanks have to have more control of an instance and slow things down more than they're used to.
3 - The healers have to work a lot harder to keep just the tanks up, so the DPS have to slow and be wary due to this.


It's a recipe for fucking disaster every time.  Sure, in randoms you'll occasionally get a group who understands all this, but they're rare as hens teeth.  So, you want to get your own group on.  The own group you used to have are probably bored mindless of this, however, due to the overriding rule number 4 :

4 - The loot, badges and itemisation is utter shit and NOT WORTH THE EFFORT.


I can't believe an expansion finally made me quit and, to be brutal, I'm not missing it in the slightest.

  :ye_gods:
Really, this is more of a knee jerk reaction then anything.   While what you are saying IS true in some cases, only the first point really applies in any meaningful form.  DPS queues are terrible, everyone agrees with this.

2 and 3 only really apply to people at the very bottom of the gearing curve (Ie, you barely have an average item level high enough to get into a heroic).   Sure, if the dungeon finder happens to throw you together into a group wiith 3 or 4 people who barely manage to qualify to be there, your run will likely be rough.  And this was a serious issue a month and a half ago.  Now a days though, most of the runs I end up in on my boomkin (or any alt) are almost back to Wrath level facerolls.    CC is almost never used (you might cc one mob in a pull, if it is really irritating, instead of 3), tanks just barrel into the group, rotate short timer cooldowns, and plow through the instance.   I havent been in a failed Dungeon Finder Pug in almost a month, and most of the time, if someone DOES leave, it is usually one of those "I personally dont like this dungeon, bye" kind of things.

As for 4.  I am not sure what your arguement is here.   Loot is loot.  For the most part, I have not seen any terriblely itemized gear.  Hell, with very few exceptions, it is possible to find perfectly itemized gear for nearly every slot for almost any given class.  Really, the only gear complaint I have at the moment is that, as far as raids go, they could have used a bit more variety, and tweaked where some stuff dropped.  Stuff like that there is only ONE pair of leather caster wrists in the entire raid tier (of course, that is probably more of a symptom of the fact that there only really needs to BE one pair of leather caster wrists), or the fact that if you are an enhance shaman, your only choice for weapons is either BoE's (that drop off trash in the raid instance with the least trash in the history of raid instances), or drops off the hardest boss in the tier.

As to loot being utter shit and not worth the effort?  That is purely subjective.  If you want to go that route, might as well say that there is no point in ever playing the game at max level, since the hole point of the "end game" is to endlessly cycle through marginally useful tiny gear upgrades over and over again.

Thanks for shooting down my subjective argument with your subjective argument.  It was a worthwhile endeavour.

 :oh_i_see:

Also, lol @ 'hole'.   :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 30, 2011, 01:37:44 AM
How long are your DPS queues in the US? You're all talking like they're 40 mins plus.

They're 15-20 mins here. Early in the morning usually shorter, 8-10 mins or so. Instant as tank, obviously, and healer queues are half as long as DPS ones typically. If this is markedly different from the US then I wonder why? Is it something to do with the way servers are clustered here or what?

It's about 20 minutes here for solo DPS in US Group D Horde-side.  Time doesn't change that much between mid-morning and prime time, maybe a few minutes above or below the 20 minute mark.  Healer queues hover around half that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on March 30, 2011, 05:15:35 AM
Incindentally, I'm finding the current Fires of Heaven front page mildly amusing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 30, 2011, 05:24:15 AM
And now I am too.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 30, 2011, 05:26:30 AM
It wasn't until I saw Calling: on the item links after I'd gone down the page a few times that I realized what was going on.  (It's late.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 30, 2011, 06:38:40 AM
That's funny! Ah WoW...  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on March 30, 2011, 11:05:18 AM
I think I'm missing a vital piece of context.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 30, 2011, 11:06:23 AM
Man, I hadn't actually paid much attention to Rift, I guess people weren't kidding about it being a clone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 30, 2011, 11:55:10 AM
I guess since we're all talking jaded MMO-nerdspeak I'll sum up my problem with cata:

It is too fucking hard. I can't play the game with people I want to play the game with, because they are not good enough to do the content. Therefore, I cannot do content since I refuse to just play with random fuckheads I don't like because they can push buttons good.

I don't care if EQ/Vanguard/whatever is the BME pain olypmics in MMO form compared to WoW, because I don't play those, I would LIKE to play WoW. Unfortunately Cata has literally ran all my friends off except like 2. Their guild which was previously 12/12 H-ICC (even with the 30% buff that's impressive), still has not killed Nef on normal. It's too hard. Fucking nerf it. All of it. Epics from the sky.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 30, 2011, 12:31:26 PM
I agree with everything you said. Also, you're on my server so you know the pain.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on March 30, 2011, 12:38:38 PM
How much of it could be fixed by making healing less painful?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 30, 2011, 12:44:19 PM
How much of it could be fixed by making healing less painful?
At this point everything needs to be less painful.

I find tanking to be pretty much just as easy as it ever was but I guess a lot of people who haven't maintanked for years think tanks have too much on their plate so maybe figure out something on their end (or make gear more effective I guess). Weak DPS specs like elemental shammies/etc need major buffs. Healing needs major buffs; WotLK was boring from a healing perspective since it was just hellacious spamming, so maybe just improving throughput and mana regen to where an average healer will still have mana left at the end of a raid encounter would be nice and prevent Blizz from having to go back to the "tank is nearly dead every hit" mechanic.

Whatever they do, everything needs to get easier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 30, 2011, 01:18:35 PM
Elemental is in a bad way when it needs to move, but even then it's numbers aren't bad for normal modes (http://stateofdps.com/index.php?data=patch_dps&raid=10N&samples=200&spec=dps).

To the healer thing, you can't just give healers "more mana" and not take it away via some other mechanism as healers can only be tested in-combat by their reaction times and/or their spell selection (read: efficiency).  If you take away the possibility of using the wrong spell, then healing is just as brainless as it was last expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 30, 2011, 01:31:22 PM
Wow wasnt broke, they shouldn't have tried to fix it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 30, 2011, 01:45:53 PM
If you take away the possibility of using the wrong spell, then healing is just as brainless as it was last expansion.

Here's the bottom line question, though: would it cause more people to play healers again if it was more "brainless" and would dps queue times drop?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on March 30, 2011, 02:10:03 PM
If you take away the possibility of using the wrong spell, then healing is just as brainless as it was last expansion.

Here's the bottom line question, though: would it cause more people to play healers again if it was more "brainless" and would dps queue times drop?
Nope.  When tanks are insta-queue I'd suggest that that's the bottleneck.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 30, 2011, 02:14:32 PM
Wow wasnt broke, they shouldn't have tried to fix it.

Sure it was.  Healing (and Paladins in general) was spammy and brainless, the talent and gear systems were collapsing under six years of kludges, the first 70 levels were awful, and the gear reset system was clunky just to name the issues that popped immediately to mind.

If you take away the possibility of using the wrong spell, then healing is just as brainless as it was last expansion.

Here's the bottom line question, though: would it cause more people to play healers again if it was more "brainless" and would dps queue times drop?

Giving healing a much higher skill floor than damage dealing or tanking would get more people to play them, yes.  In general though, I don't think it's appropriate to create a designated "easy raid spot", especially when it takes away from (the admittedly few) players who would enjoy that role otherwise.  I think everyone in a group should be expected to contribute a broadly similar amount towards the group's success or failure, with the difference coming in how one chooses to contribute instead of how much.

To queues: healer queues haven't been near-instant for months now, so I don't think having more healers is going to have an appreciable impact on DPS queues unless you also made tanking more popular (by making it easier as a result of whatever healing changes were made or something else).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 30, 2011, 02:23:19 PM
All-time high subscriptions = not broke


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 30, 2011, 02:26:50 PM
popular_game = money_hats
popular_game != good_game


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 30, 2011, 02:28:14 PM
good_game != money_hats


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 30, 2011, 02:31:13 PM
Giving healing a much higher skill floor than damage dealing or tanking would get more people to play them, yes.  In general though, I don't think it's appropriate to create a designated "easy raid spot", especially when it takes away from (the admittedly few) players who would enjoy that role otherwise.  I think everyone in a group should be expected to contribute a broadly similar amount towards the group's success or failure, with the difference coming in how one chooses to contribute instead of how much.

Well that would be nice, but mathematically it just never makes sense. What game have you ever played where the demographics actually matched the required need for classes? I mean ideally Wow would be populated with 20% playing tanks, 20% playing healers, and 60% playing DPS. I've venture a guess that it's probably more like 10% playing tanks, 15% playing healers, and 75% playing dps. No proof on that but tanks are usually woefully underrepresented now, with healers disappearing as well to play dps classes.

What I'd like for them to do is make tanking a heroic like tanking a raid. Think about the things you do in a raid and apply them to a heroic dungeon. If you don't use them in a raid, don't put them in a dungeon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on March 30, 2011, 03:36:44 PM
I think I'm missing a vital piece of context.
http://www.fohguild.org/archive.php?page=38
Bottom of the page, titled "The Plane of Time".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on March 30, 2011, 03:43:46 PM
Sure it was.  Healing (and Paladins in general) was spammy and brainless

Did more than like 1% of the population really give a fuck about shit like this? If they gave me my old paladin back and let me plow through 20 minute Heroics again like I was doing in WOTLK, I'd be paying them money right now. As it is, I have a time card I got for Christmas still sitting here gathering dust.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 30, 2011, 05:14:10 PM
For some reason caladein keeps insisting that healers needed to be "tested" and that otherwise it was "brainless."

For some reason he also keeps referring to a population of healers that would be upset by making healing less intense through mana management. I'm pretty sure those people also have nipple clamps on when they play the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on March 30, 2011, 05:53:57 PM
Eh, I am still enjoying raid healing.  It's considerably less spammy overall than it used to be and mana management is a big issue, but that's making it semi-interesting (at least as a priest).  I hate healing heroics though, the retard factor is just too high for me to deal with and when you combine that with "FUCKING HEAL ME U FAG" from DPS who firestand... well fuck that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 30, 2011, 05:55:21 PM
Also to give you an idea of my ennui; if you didn't gather I'm a tank. I can log on, hit a button, and be in a dungeon inside of 10 seconds. I can instaqueue until my eyes bleed and I do not feel like logging in.

Generally people who play DPS or whatever look at their queue timer and healers imagine healing 4 complete idiots and decide, "nah, not worth it" and log out. I can instantly "enjoy" content and I don't want to.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 30, 2011, 06:10:30 PM
For some reason caladein keeps insisting that healers needed to be "tested" and that otherwise it was "brainless."

For some reason he also keeps referring to a population of healers that would be upset by making healing less intense through mana management. I'm pretty sure those people also have nipple clamps on when they play the game.

Well yes, healers need to be tested against just like any other role does, be it: crowd control, interrupting, damage dealing, the various aspects of tanking, or the generic "Are you able to stand out of fire?"  Otherwise, the only contribution they can make to the raid is being a warm body.  Expecting damage dealers not to be awful at dealing damage before they win doesn't make people think that you spend your non-raid nights down at the BDSM club.  I don't see why expecting the same out of healers does.

Making that testing be about managing mana through spell selection is preferable to making it about pure reaction time and latency, at least for me.  If mana is a trivial concern than healing is just a matter of gear, latency, and pressing the biggest sustainable heal button as quickly as possible.  Which is what Wrath was.  As a Disc Priest, I spent nearly the entire expansion (well, the year I was subscribed for at least) going around the raid casting Power Word: Shield and using one, maybe two, abilities that were on ten second cooldowns practically at random.  Healing as a Resto Druid or a Holy Paladin wasn't much more exciting.  Probably the hardest thing I had to do between the three was remember to refresh Beacon of Light.

The answer to "enough people will only heal or tank if it's an easy raid spot" isn't to make healing or tanking easy low-risk, low-ceiling roles, it's to reduce the amount of healers and tanks content is designed for.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 30, 2011, 06:29:27 PM
Just posting to say I agree with most of caladein's views on healing, I just don't have much to add beyond that. I never, ever want to go back to falling asleep on my holy light key.


EDIT: Oh wait, I have something else to say! I think if they made it easier for good players to piggyback shitty ones, that would go a long way to helping. Making it so, say, balance druids can be all "oh fuck, the healer died, TO THE RESCUE" for a trash pull or whatever rather than the current "welp." You know?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 30, 2011, 06:42:57 PM
The answer to "enough people will only heal or tank if it's an easy raid spot" isn't to make healing or tanking easy low-risk, low-ceiling roles, it's to reduce the amount of healers and tanks content is designed for.

Look I liked tanking, but even I had my limits with this expansion. That "warm body" thing you talked about for healers is actually what they did to tanks. Most of the fights don't involve any tanking skill beyond hitting the taunt button and having enough gear not to get rolled so fast the healers go OOM.

As for the reduction thing, how could they do that? If they design all the content around 1 healer and 1 tank, everything just becomes a dps race.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 30, 2011, 06:57:32 PM
The fights where you had to do anything other than swap at the right time and not stand in bad stuff were few and far between before too. I haven't seen this raiding tier so I don't know what has changed, but mostly tanking has always been about being able to do your own job in your sleep so you have time to yell at everyone else to do theirs.  :grin:

That and wearing good gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 30, 2011, 07:47:26 PM
Heroic Nerfs on the latest PTR patch:

Quote
Bound Flames in the Karsh Steelbender encounter no longer create Lava Pools when they are killed.

Ragezone cast by Defias Blood Wizards now only increases damage dealt, no longer increasing damage taken.

Grim Batol
Bleeding Wound damge from General Umbriss has been lowered by 20%.
Malignant Trogg now moves more slowly.
Encumbered damage bonus from Forgemaster Throngus has been reduced by 50%.
Invoked Flaming Spirits should prefer non-tank targets to fixate on.
The Twilight Flame Patch from the Twilight Drake has been removed.

Ground Slam now has a pre-cast visual on the ground in front of Ozruk. In addition, Ground Slam's damage and radius have been reduced.

Throne of Tides
Gilgoblin Hunters' Poisoned Spear direct and periodic damage has been reduced.
Gilgoblin Aquamages' Tsunami damage has been reduced.
Blight Beasts summoned during the Ozumat encounter now deal less damage with Aura of Dread.

Vortex Pinnacle
The Air Nova ability triggered when a Gust Soldier is killed has had its knockback effect reduced.
Altairus now spawns closer to the center of his platform, away from the edge.
Temple Adepts and Ministers of Air now wait 2 seconds before starting a spell cast when they are first engaged.

Also,

Quote
Account Bound Items
Many "Account Bound" heirlooms are now labeled as "Battle.net Account Bound", meaning that they can also be traded or mailed to characters that are on different World of Warcraft accounts under the same Battle.net account.
Mail sent to characters on the same Battle.net account now arrives instantaneously, as it does for the same World of Warcraft account.
Mailing account-bound items to characters of the opposite faction on the same Battle.net account will now correctly translate faction-specific items to their appropriate equivalent.

Quote
Flask of Steelskin now grants 450 Stamina, up from 300. The Mixology bonus for alchemists remains at 120 stamina.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on March 30, 2011, 08:49:03 PM
Just posting to say I agree with most of caladein's views on healing, I just don't have much to add beyond that. I never, ever want to go back to falling asleep on my holy light key.


EDIT: Oh wait, I have something else to say! I think if they made it easier for good players to piggyback shitty ones, that would go a long way to helping. Making it so, say, balance druids can be all "oh fuck, the healer died, TO THE RESCUE" for a trash pull or whatever rather than the current "welp." You know?


Here's the problem, those things are pretty much exclusive of each other. If you want to be able to carry people, then when you don't have to carry anyone, shit will be 'easy' and 'boring' again. If you make it so everyone has to be on the ball, then there is no more room for "I better step it up since we only have 1.5 DPS'ers now" or whatever, since normal play already has you at your maximum output.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on March 31, 2011, 03:30:07 AM
Someone at Blizz is slowly waking up in their pile of cash and screaming WHAR MHONEY HAT WHAR?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 31, 2011, 04:04:40 AM
Hey it only took them 4 months to nerf aquagoblins.  :why_so_serious:

I wonder how you mail things to characters on different servers, since that ability is implied by the way they worded the announcement.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on March 31, 2011, 06:09:23 AM
It's probably still limited to the same server, just linked accounts there.  Though it's a step closer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on March 31, 2011, 06:22:36 AM
It's probably still limited to the same server, just linked accounts there.
Yeah, you can mail heirlooms to a different faction member on the same server provided that they are on the same account.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on March 31, 2011, 06:48:30 AM
So, after playing Rift, and then Dragon Age 2 gave me the itch again, I resubbed to WoW. I know, I'm weak.

And it seems I owe Ingmar, Sjofn, and others an apology, because they are right, heroics are back to a face roll now. Everybody spam their AOEs, stand in green shit, ignore boss mechanics, and the hell with CC. And I'm not saying this like guys like Maledict did, where they ran them as a guild group on vent and shit, I've pugged everyone of these as a slightly ungeared tank.

As long as you have a geared healer. Nothing else matters in the slightest.

So now only two real problems remain. A) The instances are a bit too far on the long side. B) Like others have said, all my friends are gone now. The game is emptier then I can ever recall. Remember the old wall of toons and blue names in front of the auction house vendors and how annoying that was? Well I play on prime time on my server, and that is just not a problem any more. All that seems to be left are dickheads zipping around on their Frostbrood vanquishers or Iron Proto drakes or other super heroics mounts.

Here's hoping these changes aren't a day late and a buck short.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 31, 2011, 07:18:08 AM
As long as you have a geared healer. Nothing else matters in the slightest.

Yep, that was sorta my whole point earlier as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on March 31, 2011, 09:14:20 AM
lol, Ghostcrawler just got the "800lb Gorilla Killa" achievement!

Yeah, yeah, it's premature, Blizz does what it take, blah, blah, blah.  I just imagined him with an achievement window popping up a la Scott Pilgrim versus the World with an (at first) excited look on his face, which then turned to dismay, and it made me chuckle.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on March 31, 2011, 02:14:29 PM
Just posting to say I agree with most of caladein's views on healing, I just don't have much to add beyond that. I never, ever want to go back to falling asleep on my holy light key.


EDIT: Oh wait, I have something else to say! I think if they made it easier for good players to piggyback shitty ones, that would go a long way to helping. Making it so, say, balance druids can be all "oh fuck, the healer died, TO THE RESCUE" for a trash pull or whatever rather than the current "welp." You know?
Actually, as someone with a Balance Druid main, I have done exactly that on a few occasions.   Sure, you wont last very long (you will oom pretty quickly if things turn into a complete furball), but if everything stays on the tank long enough for you to get a complete set of hots rolling on him you can usually keep him alive through an unlucky healer death on a trash pull.

Hell, a week or so ago I healed the last 30% of the Prophet fight in Lost City.   Didnt realise that the healer had DC'd untill one of the DPS died, so I Battle Rezzed the dead DPS, broke out the moonkin heals and managed to heal for almost 2 minutes with rolling hots and an Innervate and a lucky chance that i could push an eclipse once for the mana back.  One of the dps died again (standing in the fire beam thing for a bit too long + plague of ages) so then it was just the tank, one dps left alive and me healing instead of DPsing, so it took much longer then it should have, but we did down it in the end (if i remember, the tank eventualy died but the remaining DPS was a DK, who popped army for the last 2 %).   Was a truely fun seat of the pants kill.   Hell, It probably would have been much smoother, even with the healer DCing, if i could dispell diseases.  His plague of ages sucked up a lot of mana with unavoidable damage i had to heal on the dps.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 31, 2011, 02:37:10 PM
I haven't done a heroic in aaaaaages (well, I did one like two weeks ago), so I was reaching BACK IN TIME for that little addition to my post. If the hybrids can TO THE RESCUE now, s'all good as far as I'm concerned for PUG-age.

Fordel, I get what you're saying, but I think there's room for "have to give a shit as a healer" and "the not-specced to do it hybrid can power through one pull when the healer eats it halfway through" in the game. I'm not the one who has to find the middle ground for it, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on March 31, 2011, 03:51:39 PM
I went to the official forums looking to soak up hardcore tears but only found wannabe hardcores complaining.  The real hardcores were all "good, I don't care, once 4.2 hits I just want to get my valor and gtfo".

The cynical side of me was dissapointed but the very small sliver of myself that still has hope for mankind got a nice boost.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 31, 2011, 05:21:19 PM
I trolled the mmo champion boards for a while poking the wannabe hardcores as well. Good times.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on April 01, 2011, 10:15:24 AM
I'm also one that has been avoiding heroics, even within my guild.  What can I say?  I'm too casual for how hardcore they were/are (not sure if they have changed yet, that's how much I've backed away from WoW.)  The amount of concentration on gear levels and the strict movement, "jump now," etc. just created wipe after wipe and people getting pissed.  It felt too much like work for my gaming.  That's just me, but I don't think I'm alone.

I'm back to pvp again and I haven't even been into several instances, let alone finished them.  Yes, I've been playing.  I've leveled 10 character from 80 to 85 ang got them to iLevels that qualify them for heroics without stepping foot into an instance.  I don't do the instance on normal because the rewards are terrible, the length/time to finish are too long, and just aren't all that fun to me.

I feel Blizzard did well with everything outside of instances and raids in Cata, but that will only last so long.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 01, 2011, 11:15:55 PM
So I decided to get my all-in-greens prot warrior a DPS spec and gear at the start of the week. Few days of heroics later and he's iLvl 346 and I understand now why people think they're overpowered. Just obscene damage output, and ideally suited to groups of 4-6 mobs, ie. pretty much every dungeon pack there is. Comfortably puts out 14-16k average and spikes up to 24k sometimes. Fun to play too. Galling compared to my shadow priest, who I struggle to get above 10k with better gear, but maybe I just suck at playing a shadow priest.

Also, been pointed at a nice alternative to Rawr. Mr Robot (http://www.askmrrobot.com/wow) seems to work pretty well and is a lot faster and simpler than the chuggy, unreliable bloatfest Rawr has become.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 02, 2011, 01:57:19 AM
So I decided to get my all-in-greens prot warrior a DPS spec and gear at the start of the week. Few days of heroics later and he's iLvl 346 and I understand now why people think they're overpowered. Just obscene damage output, and ideally suited to groups of 4-6 mobs, ie. pretty much every dungeon pack there is. Comfortably puts out 14-16k average and spikes up to 24k sometimes. Fun to play too. Galling compared to my shadow priest, who I struggle to get above 10k with better gear, but maybe I just suck at playing a shadow priest.

Also, been pointed at a nice alternative to Rawr. Mr Robot (http://www.askmrrobot.com/wow) seems to work pretty well and is a lot faster and simpler than the chuggy, unreliable bloatfest Rawr has become.

It's sort of a best case/worst case situation that you're experiencing.  Arms is top-tier AOE damage when standing next to the mobs and threat aren't issues, like say, in a heroic dungeon.  Shadow on the other hand still has super-terrible on-demand AOE damage.

As for Rawr, I haven't had any speed issues with the WPF version although I haven't done anything serious with it as both of my character's modules (HealPriest and Hunter) are on the broken list.  Ask Mr. Robot is good though, just need to double check its settings and the like before you go nuts reforging everything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 02, 2011, 03:44:24 AM
Yeah that makes sense about the warr vs priest, good to hear it's not just me being a priestard :)

I've found with Mr Robot that reforging 1 or 2 items at a time then logging and re-loading is the best way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on April 02, 2011, 07:03:00 AM
As an enhancement shaman, I'm at a hard equipment block right now. There is pretty much no equipment progression I can achieve without being in a group able to kill cho'gall or nefarian.

There are no readily available drops for me anymore and the gear I can buy for points all has terrible itemization. I will be weilding PvP purples for PvE forever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 02, 2011, 08:24:23 AM
I gave up with enhance some time ago, my shaman is now ele/resto. Easy to gear up since spirit gives +hit for elemental now so you can use mostly the same gear for both specs in a pinch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on April 02, 2011, 09:24:39 AM
As an enhancement shaman, I'm at a hard equipment block right now. There is pretty much no equipment progression I can achieve without being in a group able to kill cho'gall or nefarian.

There are no readily available drops for me anymore and the gear I can buy for points all has terrible itemization. I will be weilding PvP purples for PvE forever.


TBCv2.0. And, yeah, it sucks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on April 02, 2011, 09:48:05 AM
Enhancement is in a good spot overall in terms of how good they are at dps and raid utility, thankfully, it's just .. there's ONE bop epic weapon from raids for us. One. Crul'korak, the Lightning's Arc. And it's a 10% or less drop from Nefarian. If you're looking to upgrade to ilevel 372 for PvE, you can look at how often it drops for Heroic 25.

http://www.wowhead.com/npc=41376#drops

It's a bit mindboggling. I don't mind that much, as the PvP axe looks the best anyway. But if, unlike me, you're a sane and rational individual who doesn't pvp and/or can't get conquest points anyway since you don't arena or rated BG? You're fucked. You buy the claws off of the AH for 30,000 gold plus (one of which is strength, not agility), then sit on it and spin as your friends slowly progress to heroic raid gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 03, 2011, 02:28:22 AM
Yeah, out of all the loot decisions they made, that one strikes me as one of the most peculiar.   I mean, on one hand, you have Best-in-slot weapons for Feral Druids / Hunters dropping like candy off the first boss in BoT,  and Caster daggers / Strength swords / Rogue daggers / 2h Maces dropping off the first 2 bosses in BWD, and then on the other, you have enhance shamans, who get the shaft with a choice between hopeing their guild downs neff every week, or praying / paying for a BoE Claw / Axe trash drop out of the raid instance with a total of 16 trash mobs.  16!!  Thats like, the same amount of trash in the first 2 / 3 pulls in BoT.

Its like someone really hates enhance shammies.  Really, they just need to make a fast offhand weapon viable for them.  That might solve at least a chunk of their problems.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on April 03, 2011, 03:48:51 AM
No, Blizzard just needs to fucking itemize like they did in ICC, but noooooooooooooooo...we get a TBC style loot paradigm--again--same as the shit in Naxx, Uldaur, and ToC. Then there was the horseshit move to give rogues axes since it'd make it easier to itemize for enhance, but--again--except for that brief shining moment in ICC, it's been the same bullshit for enhance that it's always been.

Hell, after seeing this shit--again--I'm all for putting on the tinfoil and demanding they make enhance DW/2h neutral. At least then we could get some decent fucking weapons on a regular basis...maybe. Oh, yeah, and fuck a bunch of claws. Sick of seeing that shit, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 03, 2011, 04:57:45 AM
ICC-25 had all of an off-hand and a one-hand.  Heroic 10 added two more one-hands and two main-hands, but I don't think running a whole other lockout on Heroic is a better solution than getting BoEs.

Enhancement itemization is only going to get "better" if they kill off slow off-hands, that's just the hole the spec is in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 03, 2011, 01:18:26 PM
Yeah.  The entire problem with Enhance is that it is the ONLY mele spec in the game that requires A: Agility Weapons, and B: A slow Mainhand AND Slow Offhand combination for optimal dps.   Combining both A and B makes for really really shitty drop availability.    Which is complicated even further by Blizards insistance on makeing a lot of weapons MH only or OH only.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 03, 2011, 03:05:59 PM
Or, they could base all instant melee attacks off of a multiple of weapon DPS rather than weapon damage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on April 03, 2011, 06:22:58 PM
Or they could make it so that there's more than just the axe that drops one out of ten nefarion kills for heroic mainhand upgrades

i mean there are so many potential answers here


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on April 04, 2011, 02:54:41 AM
All reasons why I stopped playing my enhance shammy main (no dual-spec, enhance4lyfe) and went back to my original vanilla WoW hunter.

Also the reason why I'm logging less and less frequently


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on April 04, 2011, 06:24:25 AM
I have to say though, that Enchantment is still wicked fun; the gear situation isn't doing much to hamper that.

And, when 4.1 drops with a big fuck you to COLASSUS SMUSH, Enhancement shall be the Kite or Die monster it was supposed to be.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on April 04, 2011, 09:19:56 AM
Hmmmm...eh, fuck PvP...but...hmmm...purple axes...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 04, 2011, 10:39:31 AM
This itemization reminds me of when they used put the best shield drop in the game for tanks on the last boss. Like the shield on Illidan in TBC. I was like WTF??? What the hell good does it do to have your main tank get their best and probably most important tanking upgrade after you've managed to effectively beat the game?

Of course every tank worked around that by doing arenas to get the tanking version of the pvp shield which beat every pvp drop, and thus began the "arena rating" requirements in subsequent seasons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on April 04, 2011, 04:54:24 PM
I'm to the point where I want to literally murder anyone dumb enough to suggest that hard heroics make people better. I completed a heroic Stonecore run (hardest heroic still IMO) with 2 DPS pulling like 2k because the healer was completely decked out in heroic raid gear. Surprisingly the healer never bitched or tried to kick anyone despite everybody being from different servers (and thus likely not friends), and just gamely kept me alive as me and him duoed all but one of the bosses (one DPS was pulling 10k but had pretty poor "not stand in the bad shit" awareness). I've had a lot of these types of runs; either everyone is in raid gear/clearly getting raid gear and it goes fast, or it's people in heroic blues who can't find their asses with both hands and a stick equipped with assfinding radar. There's no "struggling guy who just wants to get better", they're either good already or they're terrible and won't improve.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 04, 2011, 05:00:29 PM
The raiders want to keep the bads down because if they don't, and they complete the same shit they just did in raids, then they suddenly realize that defining themselves by a game is probably shallow.

People who don't care about this just say, "I'm glad I beat it pre-nerfs because I'm awesome," and they move on with their lives without caring what everyone else is doing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 04, 2011, 05:37:14 PM
Shit, I preferred everyone decked out in Epics just because when I wtfpwnd them in randoms there was no way they could claim it was all gear and they'd TOTALLY own me if only they had the same stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on April 04, 2011, 06:01:14 PM
I'm to the point where I want to literally murder anyone dumb enough to suggest that hard heroics make people better.
I had a similar story the other night.  I have half raid gear and half blues still.  I can heal raids just fine without issue, but most PUG heroics make me see red.  People stand in shit, do 3-4k DPS, tanks don't know how to position the bosses or mobs, etc.  So I can be a semi-superstar and keep people alive for a while... but my mana regen is not unlimited and I WILL run out if all 4 people are taking massive damage all at the same time.  I point this out to people and I tend to get bitched at for somehow implying that they suck.  Oh I'm not implying you suck per se, but that there is a finite time window we have to get the boss down before I go OOM and everyone starts to die.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on April 05, 2011, 10:18:42 AM
I'm to the point where I want to literally murder anyone dumb enough to suggest that hard heroics make people better.

I don't get why Blizzard thought harder heroics were a good idea in the first place. The latter part of my WotLK "career" was spent healing my tank friend through heroics. A lot of groups were great, but we also carried quite a few and had fun doing it. Wipes rarely occurred, and having an unskilled member or 3 just meant we finished in 30 minutes instead of 15. When Blizzard first announced that they wanted to change things up - make CC to matter again and such - my thoughts immediately turned to the scores of players who, as you put it, "can't find their asses with both hands and a stick equipped with assfinding radar." Making CC important meant that not only would my friend and I not be able to carry the bad groups anymore, but that we would have to rely on people to figure out how to play competently. I then spent the months leading up to Cataclysm telling myself I was wrong and that Blizzard wouldn't be that shortsighted, only to find out that they were.

What were they thinking? These guys have been running the most popular MMO for years now. This feels like a newbie mistake that should have been identified and eliminated in the early planning stages.

Edit: forgot a word


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 05, 2011, 12:05:27 PM
C-team and trying to design for the customer they wanted instead of the customers they had.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 05, 2011, 12:11:00 PM
C-team and trying to design for the customer they wanted instead of the customers they had.

C-team yes but I disagree with the 'why' of it. I believe they saw a general drop in subs, probably not dramatic and most likely people just getting tired of a six year old game.  However they misdiagnosed the issues, thinking that to retain these bored people they would need to make things harder again, more challenging because they assumed it was the things like oldschool aq40 and naxx40 that kept people coming back week after week to do the same content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 05, 2011, 12:15:42 PM
I still see no evidence for this C-team stuff. The same people all appear in the same jobs in charge of the overall product, and those are the people who are going to have made the call "OK team, we should make the heroics harder this expansion." Nobody new got up in front of the crowd at Blizzcon and said "Hi, I'm the new guy in charge of X".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 05, 2011, 12:21:39 PM
Just because they were lucky before doesn't mean they weren't always the C-team. :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on April 05, 2011, 03:36:35 PM
I don't get why Blizzard thought harder heroics were a good idea in the first place.

Personally, I don't mind the idea of hard Heroics.  It gives the game more of a feeling that 5-mans are something you can do as endgame content, rather than just being a step on the way to raiding.  The problem is that the public perception is (justifiably) that Heroics are something you have to do to gear up, rather than an optional "extra difficult" mode.

If they changed Normals to be the Cataclysm equivalent of WotLK Heroics (good gear, quick faceroll AoE fest), they could pull Heroics off the LFG system, which they really, really should do because "the most challenging five man content in the game" is not something you should have a reasonable chance of success at with five literally random guys who have never met before.  Let normal modes be for the masses/casuals looking to gear up or kill a few minutes, and let heroics be an extra challenge for the people who want the achievements, or organized groups looking to gear up quickly.  The problem isn't just that they're too hard per se, it's the triple threat of "everyone needs to run Heroics to gear up", "random pugs are full of retards" and "Heroics are the most challenging 5-man content in the game".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 05, 2011, 03:47:48 PM
Yeah to me the issue arises when the prerequisite for raiding is heroics, but heroics are actually harder to get done than raids. If normals were the prerequisite for both, and there was a fork where you could go to either the raiding or the 5 man heroics it would be more sensible. Something like normals drop 333s, heroic 5s and regular raids drop 346s, and then heroic raids get the 359s (or 353s if you would rather go a half tier on heroic raids) would seem like a more sensible model in a heroics-are-meant-to-be-really-hard world.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on April 05, 2011, 04:07:56 PM
I liked the harder heroics, however now that most of us are getting geared up, they are becoming pretty trivial.  Most of my guild are in the 350-359 ilevel range and we aren't even using CC anymore for any of them.  We just pull and burn, not much different than we were doing in ICC.  The only thing is that most of the dungeons in cata are a bit longer than they were in wotlk.  I will admit at the start though they were a pain in the ass, but after learning the dungeons and adjusting our styles away from the ICC days its become just as easy.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 05, 2011, 06:32:07 PM
C-team and trying to design for the customer they wanted instead of the customers they had.

Except being lucky for six years and counting is stretching credibility.

Really, for the most part the game is better than it's ever been until you start hitting the Cataclysm dungeons, at which point you discover that Blackrock Caverns and Lost City are the only dungeons that aren't overly long, full of bullshit trash pulls, or contain ridiculously punitive boss mechanics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 05, 2011, 07:03:04 PM
C-team and trying to design for the customer they wanted instead of the customers they had.

Except being lucky for six years and counting is stretching credibility.

Except said C-team weren't in charge that whole 6 years. They took over midway through WOTLK's dev, when things for WOTLK were already plotted out, planned and in development.   Ghostcrawler (http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,12386/), for example, wasn't hired until 2008 and took over when LK was already in beta. 

We can't say anything about who else worked on it, because guess what.  Cata is the first game Blizzard hasn't released game credits for.   You can't find it listed at Moby, there's no credits in the box and I can't find 'em on the web.  That's just plain weird but it sure doesn't scream A-list.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 05, 2011, 08:58:23 PM
Try the "Credits" button on the login screen.  Alternatively, you can save yourself the time and take my word that only a few people have appeared / disappeared between Wrath and Cataclysm, it looks like none of the dungeon/level/encounter design people have changed.

But hey, I bet it was Pardo and Kaplan who were driving the newbie-friendliness of Warcraft, amirite?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 05, 2011, 09:04:43 PM
It's not a mystery guys, and it's not "C team" or whatever crazy thing somebody thinks when the game doesn't go their way.

The reality is they fixed a lot of the things that needed fixing. Questing up was dull as shit and didn't make sense. They fixed it. Healing was horrifically spammy and repetitive. They fixed that. Heroic dungeons had lost all meaning. They fixed that. People were guild hopping like crazy. They fixed that.

The only problem with fixing the problems is that the fixes because the new problems. Somewhere in process of improving the game they never stopped to ask themselves if they should try to improve those areas.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 05, 2011, 11:35:55 PM
I don't get why Blizzard thought harder heroics were a good idea in the first place.

Because the forums were full of people screaming that heroics were faceroll. This forum is no exception, I distinctly remember people wistfully hoping for more challenging experiences and bemoaning brainless zerg-fest AOE heroic pugs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 06, 2011, 07:05:38 AM
And we were right. Players on this board could handle it quite simply. The problem with harder heroics was the drag it put on everybody else, and that was noted by people on this board as well. In fact, well before it came to pass, almost everyone here agreed that making heroics harder was a terrible idea, even if they were faceroll boring right now, because of the pug dumbass factor.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 06, 2011, 07:47:04 AM
I don't bother to analyze the comings and goings on at a low level.  I don't pay that much attention to the companies which produce games I love.  Why would I do so with a massive studio for a game I don't play?

I've commented where I think they've had missteps.  C-team is just a way to generalize in a derogatory fashion that they've lost their way.  Don't read too much into it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 06, 2011, 07:57:14 AM
I don't bother to analyze the comings and goings on at a low level.  I don't pay that much attention to the companies which produce games I love.  Why would I do so with a massive studio for a game I don't play?

I've commented where I think they've had missteps.  C-team is just a way to generalize in a derogatory fashion that they've lost their way.  Don't read too much into it.

I guess my counterpoint to that is I don't believe they've lost their way. I think they've managed to correctly identify issues and address them in a manner that created new holes in the hull. I believe their logic was sound, and they have every chance to move things in the right direction.

That being said, I also believe that any idiot could have told them that the logical fix wasn't going to be the correct one when you have illogical players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 06, 2011, 08:19:01 AM
That being said, I also believe that any idiot could have told them that the logical fix wasn't going to be the correct one when you have illogical players.
Not accounting for that is why I don't think they made the perfectly logical choices and why I keep bringing up taking your customers into account.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 06, 2011, 08:23:30 AM
That being said, I also believe that any idiot could have told them that the logical fix wasn't going to be the correct one when you have illogical players.
Not accounting for that is why I don't think they made the perfectly logical choices and why I keep bringing up taking your customers into account.

True. While it's an admirable goal to design a better mousetrap, it won't work if your mice don't like the bait or are too stupid to fall into it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on April 06, 2011, 08:55:08 AM
People were guild hopping like crazy. They fixed that.

I don't really get this one. I don't remember seeing people hopping guilds like crazy, and even if they were, who cares?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on April 06, 2011, 10:14:21 AM

The reality is they fixed a lot of the things that needed fixing. Questing up was dull as shit and didn't make sense. They fixed it. Healing was horrifically spammy and repetitive. They fixed that. Heroic dungeons had lost all meaning. They fixed that. People were guild hopping like crazy. They fixed that.


Not sure if fixed is the right word for all of those. Yeah, the low level questing was redone and done damned well. Cool as hell. Better like alts, though. I could care fuck less about healing, so we'll leave that alone.

Fixed heroics? Yeah, whatever. They were broken as hell in TBC. How many actually did them? None of my friends did. Only a few in my guild did (those with CC). If you didn't have CC, you fucking well didn't do heroic dungeons in TBC. In Wrath, you did the hell out of them. Too easy? Eh, when you had T9+ gear, yeah. I remember what they were like in blues, though, and they weren't that easy.

Fixed guild hopping? Maybe among the most rabid of progression raiders, but they did a lot of damage to guilds below that level. All that guild rep and such means jackshit when you can't play the game how you want. Ask me how i know. I'd been in the same guild since vanilla--5 years. I had to dump that guild--which I was exalted in--to try and find someone I could play with. Since January, I've been in four guilds trying to find a new guild. I might have found a new home last night. Been three months of pure frustration until now, though. They fixed my wagon but good in Cata.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 06, 2011, 10:33:44 AM
Quote
Q: Is it possible to let the players create/edit their own looks? - Zed Loft (Taiwan), Vysha (NA/ANZ), Ráchel (EU|German)

A: As we said in an earlier Q&A, we definitely hear loud and clear from players that they want more customization for their character. This is something we want to provide, but we want to do it in the right way. Consider the Barber Shop feature. It lets you change your character's hair, but there’s not a lot of gameplay to it. We're not sure that feature really added a lot to the game in retrospect. Is WoW more fun for you now that you have a Barber Shop? Are you more likely to keep playing because of it? Maybe, but it wasn’t a cheap feature to add in terms of development time. Dumping a bunch of dyes on the game might have a similar effect, where some players might have fun playing around with the system for a bit, but a lot of players might change their colors once or twice and then forget about the feature after that. Now, not every aspect of the game needs a ton of depth and a lot of interesting decisions, but we tend to attract more players to a feature the more robust the feature is.

We also think it's fair to argue that the game just needs more armor and weapon art. As we said above, we deliver a lot of art these days, but we also produce an enormous number of new items every expansion or patch and it’s understandably disappointing whenever items use the same art. It would be really cool if not every mage or priest converged on the same look after a given expansion or patch.


This answer from the Q/A is very telling for me because it really brings out the Mcdonalds attitude that was seems to have adopted where they try to please the most possible people with the least effort.  No longer is the blizzard motto "but is it fun?" it has shifted to "Can we profit the most from this?"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 06, 2011, 10:39:36 AM
That's not a new attitude from Blizzard; I remember time and again seeing Caydiem (sp?) on the vanilla forums saying that Feature_X wasn't likely to be implemented because it only provides content for a fraction of players and is thus an inefficient use of dev time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 06, 2011, 10:59:41 AM
That's not a new attitude from Blizzard; I remember time and again seeing Caydiem (sp?) on the vanilla forums saying that Feature_X wasn't likely to be implemented because it only provides content for a fraction of players and is thus an inefficient use of dev time.

Every time I hear that, I roll my eyes that they tried to implement their own voice chat. Or that they continue to push arenas. Or that they created Archeology.

Fixed heroics? Yeah, whatever. They were broken as hell in TBC. How many actually did them? None of my friends did. Only a few in my guild did (those with CC). If you didn't have CC, you fucking well didn't do heroic dungeons in TBC. In Wrath, you did the hell out of them. Too easy? Eh, when you had T9+ gear, yeah. I remember what they were like in blues, though, and they weren't that easy.

Short answer? In TBC it was, LFM tank and CC. If you ran heroics you brought a tank, healer, warlock, mage, and a filler dps. In Wrath you brought whatever you want because it didn't matter. What we have now is something in between, but not as bad as TBC by any stretch. Nor did you have the enforced attunements that ran right through the bad heroics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 06, 2011, 06:47:05 PM
New blog is out about the "Dungeon Finder: Call to Arms" (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2568337) feature in 4.1 that will bribe more tanks and healers into the queue with mounts, pets, and gold. It's nice to have more incentive to tank a PuG Heroic after you have already geared up your tank, but it doesn't really change the fact that these dungeons have gotten pretty stale since Cata's Launch. My guild is eagerly awaiting 4.1's new heroics, as it will be something new to do on the 5 nights that we do not raid.

Edit: and of course people are already complaining about how this will unfairly only benefit tanks, completely ignoring that it is intended to lower DPS queues and that these mounts and pets are available elsewhere through normal gameplay. This game's community is awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 06, 2011, 07:01:29 PM
Ideally population balance should just arise naturally from the game's design, but bribery is an effective kludge.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 06, 2011, 07:17:17 PM
Quote
We also think it's fair to argue that the game just needs more armor and weapon art. As we said above, we deliver a lot of art these days, but we also produce an enormous number of new items every expansion or patch and it’s understandably disappointing whenever items use the same art. It would be really cool if not every mage or priest converged on the same look after a given expansion or patch.

FFFFFFFF

If you assholes keep sticking with the tier gear system - which is FINE from a carrot standpoint - WE ARE ALWAYS ALL GOING TO LOOK THE SAME. PERIOD. It doesn't matter how much goddamn art they poop out, people are going to be wearing THE TOP TWO TIERS OF SHIT and ALL LOOK THE SAME.

It isn't rocket surgery, RARGH.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 06, 2011, 07:17:39 PM
Bribery runs into the same problem as Valor points.  Once I have all the pets and mounts (which I'm damn near to on my DK, never mind the tanks who are 6-year vets)  what's keeping me in the queue?

Also, since it's only Dungeon Pets and mounts it's not even that deep a pool of incentives.   I'd rather do the 33 strath runs it took me to get the Deathcharger than PUG Tank 33 heroics for it.  It took less time, was a net gain of money and I didn't have to deal with idiots.

Ed: Note that I discount gems, gold and flasks because, fuck'em.  Gold is more common than water, gems are of limited use once you're equipped which only leads to more gold and flasks are trivial for anyone who actually needs them, aka those in a raid guild.  (Hello Cauldrons & Guild Perks.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on April 06, 2011, 07:19:19 PM
oh god...please, please tank and heal, we don't know what to do, what can we give you fuckers so that you'll play a role that's either boring-yet-demanding or stupidly difficult?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 06, 2011, 07:21:44 PM
Edit: and of course people are already complaining about how this will unfairly only benefit tanks, completely ignoring that it is intended to lower DPS queues and that these mounts and pets are available elsewhere through normal gameplay. This game's community is awesome.

The dps absolutely shitting a brick over this is hilarious. Also:

Quote
We don't feel the tanking and healing roles have any inherent issues that are causing the representation disparity, except that fulfilling them carries more responsibility. Understandably, players prefer to take on that responsibility in more organized situations than what the Dungeon Finder offers, but perhaps we can bribe them a little.

While I agree with them on tanks that the social problems are what causes them to stop, I don't believe simply throwing your hands up and bribing them is a really good solution. Also, I totally disagree with them that the reason there are less healers is due to the responsibility, and not the fact that they made healing much harder to perform correctly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 06, 2011, 07:26:45 PM
Bribery runs into the same problem as Valor points.  Once I have all the pets and mounts (which I'm damn near to on my DK, never mind the tanks who are 6-year vets)  what's keeping me in the queue?

It's not a given that you will get the pet or mount that you want, unlike VP, so the carrot in this case probably has much longer legs than the VP grind. If you do get all the pets and mounts (which will probably mean you have done a *ton* of PuG Heroics, and already have helped to lower DPS queues), then all you have left is the gold/gems/flasks. You might as well just say gold/gold/gold, really. If tanking a daily heroic granted me 500g worth of gold instead of 75g (or whatever the number is now), I'd still be more inclined to do it. Maybe I use that money to buy mats for my guild cauldron, fund some items for an alt, power level a profession via the AH, or just throw it at other mounts/pets I'm missing that aren't available in LFD.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 06, 2011, 07:28:41 PM
While I agree with them on tanks that the social problems are what causes them to stop, I don't believe simply throwing your hands up and bribing them is a really good solution. Also, I totally disagree with them that the reason there are less healers is due to the responsibility, and not the fact that they made healing much harder to perform correctly.

It's both.  Nobody likes getting yelled at, which happens to the healer role most often because stupid people heap responsibility for their survival (unfairly) on the healer instead of their own shoulders.  I sure don't want to be responsible for most of the jackasses I was tossed into the RDF with.

On top of that the likelihood of getting yelled at was increased with the changes to difficulty of healing, mana and heroics.  It was easier for people to die, which is of course the healer's fault because "zomg I'm the best player ever. It's clearly you who suck!"


Ed:  Roq, yes it's got longer legs but how much longer, really?  If it's too small a chance those who really want them will just say "fuck it" and go farm them instead of queuing.  If it's too great they'll burn through the list quick enough it won't matter.   Either way the end result is tanks not queuing again.

As for gold, I keep forgetting how many people still have gold problems.  I quit the game with over 15k gold even after raising 3 characters tradeskills to cap.    I was also one of the 'poor' ones  in my raiding guild.

Also, considering the game has very little to spend gold on anymore, to minimize RMT impact, is gold really that big an incentive?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 06, 2011, 08:21:04 PM
Cue DPS queuing as tanks and healers in 3... 2... 1...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 06, 2011, 11:29:15 PM
Cue DPS queuing as tanks and healers in 3... 2... 1...

People only do this a few times though. Because heroic groups just don't work with DPS tanks & healers, so queuing inappropriately now is 90% likely to just give you a repair bill and a dungeon cooldown.

I think tank & healer bribery could work to reduce DPS queue times, but not with such pathetic bribes. Give special currency as rewards, remove the randomness and make the currency redeemable for decent rewards, but maybe from previous tiers. 100 heroics tanked gets you a Protodrake. 500 gets you an Ironbound one. 2000 gets you a phoenix.

Razzashi Hatchlings and Raven Lords? Yeah get bent. DPS queue here I come.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on April 07, 2011, 12:07:44 AM
This also means that hunters/warlocks/rogues/mages are screwed... at least until WOW steals riftstalker / chloromancer design from rift.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 07, 2011, 02:07:10 AM
They aren't getting screwed, they still get shorter queues with this change. If they want to tank or heal, they can always roll a tank or a healer. That would also effectively reduce DPS queues, and was the community-suggested "natural fix" prior to this change. The 1-60 stuff is much improved now, it's a great time to try out a new class (if you somehow haven't already in the last 6 years+). Between heirlooms and faster, more-efficient questing, 1-80 really flies by.

If hybrids queue as a tank and go with the intention of dpsing or just don't have any tanking gear, they aren't going to be rewarded for it. The group with either fail, or the 'tank' will be kicked if they really aren't willing or ready to tank. In either case, they aren't getting any reward out of it, the reward is only given upon the dungeon's completion.

I'm sure this will entice some people to queue as a tank when they don't have a lot of experience tanking, but that is a good thing for the game. It is another chance for people that might have been afraid to tank, or didn't know how to approach tanking, to learn how to tank. Considering that solo-queuing is a requirement to get the bonus, there is a good chance your group will have the +15% hp/damage/healing buff, which will go a long way towards making the dungeon smooth with a fledgling tank.

The most recent raid in LOTRO has pre-marked targets, just like the 'lucky charms' markings used in WoW. I wouldn't mind seeing this implemented in WoW heroic 5-mans, with the option to turn it off if it breaks your immersion or whatever. I think a "mark this shit for me" button is another thing WoW needs to make the tank's role in dungeons a little less demanding on the tank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 07, 2011, 02:39:03 AM
Razzashi Hatchlings and Raven Lords? Yeah get bent. DPS queue here I come.

Going by the things they listed, there's probably four (or six, if they include the new drakes) mounts (http://www.wowhead.com/items=15.5?filter=cr=105:106;crs=-2323:-2323;crv=0:0;ma=1) and every rare drop/reputation pet in the cards.  About the only thing I'd add is making them BoA but still one-time-use so I could swap over to an alt for CoA but move the rewards over to another character.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 07, 2011, 03:05:42 AM
OK, if the stone drakes and proto-drake are included that might be enough to tempt me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 07, 2011, 06:48:12 AM
A good point was brought up in the wow forums that tanks will with this system be less inclined to group up with people on their own server in order to get the rewards so that if a tank has a couple friends he plays with he would actually get less for playing with them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 07, 2011, 06:55:38 AM
A good point was brought up in the wow forums that tanks will with this system be less inclined to group up with people on their own server in order to get the rewards so that if a tank has a couple friends he plays with he would actually get less for playing with them.

It's one of those unintentional consequences that Blizzard doesn't seem able to grasp so far with this expansion. Sort of like the guild rep thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 07, 2011, 07:14:48 AM
It'll cut down on tanks selling runs in trade chat, but that's about it.  The incentive for doing it with friends and guildies is that you might have some fun with them and you know what you're getting, that ideally being good players.

That's like saying that the scaling Luck of the Draw buff disincentivizes guild/pre-formed groups, which relatively, it does.  There is now a non-trivial downside to completely pre-forming your group whereas before there wasn't.  In context though, the benefits of queuing with people you know outweigh the new benefits for not doing so, just like they will under this system.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 07, 2011, 07:40:21 AM
I like to play with my friends.  LFD is to fill out the remaining slots.  I also like fluff rewards, so at best it would encourage a style of play I don't enjoy.  That would actually hamper my enjoyment, quite possibly making me resent it.

In the end I don't think it will have much of any impact on the queues beyond the first month.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on April 07, 2011, 08:53:43 AM
Yes, the solo queue requirement kills it. I'm not putting up with four idiots for that reward.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 07, 2011, 10:06:58 AM
Yes, the solo queue requirement kills it. I'm not putting up with four idiots for that reward.

The whole point is to get people to put up with four idiots.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 07, 2011, 10:18:36 AM
Maybe they should just make dungeons easier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 07, 2011, 10:33:34 AM
Or make tanks and healers fun to play? :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on April 07, 2011, 10:41:56 AM
... or allow us to replace idiots with NPC's?  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 07, 2011, 11:07:33 AM
We're all dancing around the real issue, which is that random DPSers are all incompetent assholes.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 07, 2011, 11:24:45 AM
Or make tanks and healers fun to play? :oh_i_see:

I've never really understood the DPS is more fun argument.  Certainly all the roles have their strengths and drawbacks, but DPS doesn't seem somehow inherently better designed or something.  Then again, the reality is obviously that most people like that the most.  Is it just big numbers?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 07, 2011, 11:38:52 AM
Or make tanks and healers fun to play? :oh_i_see:

I've never really understood the DPS is more fun argument.  Certainly all the roles have their strengths and drawbacks, but DPS doesn't seem somehow inherently better designed or something.  Then again, the reality is obviously that most people like that the most.  Is it just big numbers?

It's mostly because you have less to pay attention to overall, I think. You don't have to worry so much about what other people are up to, you just do your thing and shit dies.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on April 07, 2011, 11:45:24 AM
I've never really understood the DPS is more fun argument.  Certainly all the roles have their strengths and drawbacks, but DPS doesn't seem somehow inherently better designed or something.  Then again, the reality is obviously that most people like that the most.  Is it just big numbers?

I don't know about mechanically more fun, but it's certainly more interesting from an, I dunno, story point of view?  If that makes sense?  Your DPS is beating the shit out of enemies, which is pretty much every action hero ever.  Your tank is getting the shit beaten out of him, which is kind of badass role, but not really the kind of thing "heroes" usually do.  And your healers are basically sitting in the back waggling their fingers and making a bar go up, which is kind of meaningless.

I can get what a warrior does when he hits a guy with an axe or what a fireball does when it hits a bad guy,  I can roughly understand what a tank is doing even if it doesn't seem to be terribly realistic, but I have no idea what happens when I cast Holy Light, other than a bar goes up and people don't die.  You can make wizards look badass, or tanks look awesome, or rogues look deadly, but I don't know how you're supposed to portray a healer and go "WOW I want to do THAT!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 07, 2011, 11:59:59 AM
I've never really understood the DPS is more fun argument.  Certainly all the roles have their strengths and drawbacks, but DPS doesn't seem somehow inherently better designed or something.  Then again, the reality is obviously that most people like that the most.  Is it just big numbers?

I don't know about mechanically more fun, but it's certainly more interesting from an, I dunno, story point of view?  If that makes sense?  Your DPS is beating the shit out of enemies, which is pretty much every action hero ever.  Your tank is getting the shit beaten out of him, which is kind of badass role, but not really the kind of thing "heroes" usually do.  And your healers are basically sitting in the back waggling their fingers and making a bar go up, which is kind of meaningless.

I can get what a warrior does when he hits a guy with an axe or what a fireball does when it hits a bad guy,  I can roughly understand what a tank is doing even if it doesn't seem to be terribly realistic, but I have no idea what happens when I cast Holy Light, other than a bar goes up and people don't die.  You can make wizards look badass, or tanks look awesome, or rogues look deadly, but I don't know how you're supposed to portray a healer and go "WOW I want to do THAT!"

But the biggest shortage is of tanks, not healers, so even if what you say is true, it can't be the main thing that is driving the problem.   Also, I've always liked playing healers in games most of all, so I don't particularly relate.  I like the idea of supporting allies more than nuking enemies, by and large when it comes to RPGs.   

Would healers, by your understaning at least, be more fun if there was somehow damage modeling?  A healer is invoking magic (or a gods power, or whatever the lore) to heal grievous wounds instantly.  Kind of like that last scene in XMen 3 where Wolverine's skin is getting ripped away and healing up immediately due to his power.  If you could somehow visualize your impact on the encounter in a way that wasn't bar-related would that make the experience more fun to you?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on April 07, 2011, 12:18:28 PM
Would healers, by your understaning at least, be more fun if there was somehow damage modeling?  A healer is invoking magic (or a gods power, or whatever the lore) to heal grievous wounds instantly.  Kind of like that last scene in XMen 3 where Wolverine's skin is getting ripped away and healing up immediately due to his power.  If you could somehow visualize your impact on the encounter in a way that wasn't bar-related would that make the experience more fun to you?

It would be more interesting if there was some indication of what exactly I was doing, like some kind of Trauma Center style minigame or something that showed HOW this green beam was making everyone feel better, but I don't think that would really be feasable in combat.  I don't know that adding decals to the characters would change much; it's more a problem of visualizing what the magic does than how it looks.  I can understand the concept of fire magic or ice magic because I know what happens in real life when someone gets hit with fire or ice.  I have no such frame of reference for healing magic.  It's "in lore" effects are vague and inconsistent (I guess people in Azeroth can die, but sometimes they can be resurrected, but sometimes they can't, and when they can sometimes it takes a complex ritual with a lot of reagents, and sometimes it just takes about eight seconds of concentration...) and it has no real-world analogue, so it's hard for me to wrap my head around.

I agree that this probably isn't applicable for tanking, but then, I enjoy tanking so *shrug*


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on April 07, 2011, 12:22:55 PM
I farmed the motherloving shit out of that raven lord, even levelled a druid to 80 to spawn the quest boss for me.  I've never been one of those  "I hate it when other people get nice things more easily than I did so that my nice thing is now more common and less special" people, but I'm starting to feel something like that stirring in my gut. 

Could be the oysters I had for lunch though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on April 07, 2011, 12:43:36 PM
[...] Also, I've always liked playing healers in games most of all, so I don't particularly relate.  I like the idea of supporting allies more than nuking enemies, by and large when it comes to RPGs.   

Would healers, by your understaning at least, be more fun if there was somehow damage modeling?  A healer is invoking magic (or a gods power, or whatever the lore) to heal grievous wounds instantly.  Kind of like that last scene in XMen 3 where Wolverine's skin is getting ripped away and healing up immediately due to his power.  If you could somehow visualize your impact on the encounter in a way that wasn't bar-related would that make the experience more fun to you?

Sounds to me like you just aren't going to get it.  Beating the shit out of enemy, ideally doing it in a visually and audibly bad-ass way, is it's own reward.  The numbers are something that comes later.  DAOC Thane, CoX force blaster.

Healing is tedious regardless of animation because you aren't beating on things that clearly need to be beat on.  Even if I could forget that I'm not beating on things, I wouldn't be looking at the animation, I'd be looking at the health bars.

If I can play a class that combines mostly-effortless healing with DPS, I find that can be fun as well (WAR Disciple of Khaine, RIFT Bard).  Don't make me look at health bars, and don't make me give a shit about whether my mates live or die because I'm going to lose interest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on April 07, 2011, 03:12:39 PM
If they added a 0.5% chance of getting a vanilla collector's edition pet or tyrael's hilt, I'd tank random heroics all day, every day.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 07, 2011, 03:21:50 PM
I've always thought it would be fun to have the holy trinity raiding game, but have the interface be a series of puzzle fights rather than "don't stand in the fire" skills. Sort of like an MMO version of Puzzle Quest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 07, 2011, 03:37:03 PM
Puzzle Pirates was fun.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 07, 2011, 03:43:19 PM
Quote
    * Honor is now purchasable from the Justice Commodities Vendor at 250 Honor per 375 Justice.
    * Justice is now purchasable from the Honor Commodities Vendor at 250 Justice per 375 Honor.
    * Conquest is now purchasable from the Valor vendor at 250 Conquest per 250 Valor.

A welcome "fuck you" to arenas.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on April 07, 2011, 03:47:40 PM
Everybody has to know the basics of how fights work. Where to stand, what happens next.

DPS needs to know what order to hit people in, but after that it's just pick a target and work a system. It's a very straightforward role to play, and so long as you don't do anything obviously stupid you'll rarely get blamed for anything nasty. The better the tank and healer are, the lazier you can be.

Heals needs to watch for the major hurt and know when it's about to happen, but other than that it's just whack-a-mole the party health bars and work a system. Unless somebody else did something obviously stupid, you'll get blamed every time somebody dies. The better the tank and DPS are, the lazier you can be.

Tanks needs to know what every single other person is supposed to be doing at every moment, needs to pay attention to what those idiots actually are doing, and then has to play whack-a-mole without an interface. Tanks are also expected to mark targets, watch mana bars and control the pace as the de facto leader of every group they join. Unless you do something obviously stupid, you'll only get blamed if the whole group dies on a regular basis. Because that means it's probably your fault for not knowing every single little thing the group expects you to. The better the DPS are, the faster and more efficient everything will be. Heals just need to stay awake.

DPS is a track and field sport. Healing is a job like working on an assembly line. Tanking is a job like being manager at Taco Bell.

All of these options can be yours for only $15 a month.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on April 07, 2011, 04:00:03 PM
Quote
    * Honor is now purchasable from the Justice Commodities Vendor at 250 Honor per 375 Justice.
    * Justice is now purchasable from the Honor Commodities Vendor at 250 Justice per 375 Honor.
    * Conquest is now purchasable from the Valor vendor at 250 Conquest per 250 Valor.

A welcome "fuck you" to arenas.
Where is that coming from?  Is it real?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 07, 2011, 04:00:34 PM
Was just posted on mmo-champ in the 4.1 patch notes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on April 07, 2011, 04:06:14 PM
Conquest for random-queue Battlegrounds or GTFO. I don't care if some assholes AFK their way to leetness, figure out a way to ban them or don't, but quit designing the game around them. Let rated BG and Arena people fight over tabards and titles, or just scrap both systems for all the shit that I give. It's long been their opinion that serious PVE'ers deserve serious PVP gear more than casual PVP'ers. That is to say, it's the "serious" part they care about, not what players actually do. It's not a game about PVE or PVP, it's a game about "logistics" and "YOU WILL GROUP UP WITH 25 ASSHOLES BECAUSE MAYBE YOU'LL MAKE FRIENDS AND THAT WILL AID RETENTION" bullshit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 07, 2011, 04:58:38 PM
So it appears that Blizzard, in their grief that players haven't embraced their changes to the game, has moved past denial and anger and is now officially bargaining with the playerbase.

Next, Depression!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 07, 2011, 06:11:11 PM
We really did see denial (everything's fine. It's just great, we're happy the way things are.) and anger (the blog posts and a few blue comments), didn't we.  Crazy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 07, 2011, 06:21:13 PM
Healing is tedious regardless of animation because you aren't beating on things that clearly need to be beat on.  Even if I could forget that I'm not beating on things, I wouldn't be looking at the animation, I'd be looking at the health bars.

Or, something different could be tried.  Like every main heal being turned into an AoE with highly visible effect, and the ability to track the most critical target in the targeting field when it was initially cast.

It's long always been their opinion that serious PVE'ers deserve serious PVP gear more than casual PVP'ers.

Fixed


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 07, 2011, 06:37:37 PM
Quote
    * Honor is now purchasable from the Justice Commodities Vendor at 250 Honor per 375 Justice.
    * Justice is now purchasable from the Honor Commodities Vendor at 250 Justice per 375 Honor.
    * Conquest is now purchasable from the Valor vendor at 250 Conquest per 250 Valor.

A welcome "fuck you" to arenas.

That has everything except the one purchase method I would actually use.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on April 07, 2011, 06:53:45 PM
Which is valor, the raid points?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 07, 2011, 06:58:04 PM
Yeah, justice is dungeon points, valor is raid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on April 07, 2011, 07:21:06 PM
Meh, balls to that.

That's just replacing the old pve tier-tokens for pvp gear with pve points for pvp gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 08, 2011, 06:38:28 AM
Quote
Originally Posted by Blizzard (Source)
We’ve been following discussions and reading feedback on the Dungeon Finder Call to Arms feature, and appreciate everyone’s opinions on the topic. We wanted to share a few items though that supplement the recent announcement:

The additional reward for completing the Dungeon Finder Call to Arms (called the Satchel of Exotic Mysteries) will be Bind on Account; able to be freely sent to other characters on your account once you receive it.

An error existed in the announcement regarding flasks and potions being picked based on your spec. This is not the case. If someone earns a Satchel of Exotic Mysteries, and if it rolls the random chance to provide a potion or flask, it will be a randomly selected. This helps ensure a broad array of available flasks and potions for all characters.

We also wanted to clarify, mounts that have a possibility to be found in a Satchel of Exotic Mysteries are found with the same rarity as if you had slain the dungeon boss that normally drops them.


Backpeddle, away!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 08, 2011, 07:03:50 AM
It's a good change. You can move the mounts to a character you want. The flask changes doesn't really change my opinion on it, because it's all going to be gold anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 08, 2011, 10:14:23 AM
That made it sound like the Satchel will be BoA, not the contents, so if you want a fancy mount on an alt you have to send the unopened satchel? I only ask because only Blizzard could implement such a retarded way of doing this.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 08, 2011, 10:20:47 AM
That made it sound like the Satchel will be BoA, not the contents, so if you want a fancy mount on an alt you have to send the unopened satchel? I only ask because only Blizzard could implement such a retarded way of doing this.

The should make all mounts BoA so you can pass them around, but have yet to retroactively do that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 08, 2011, 11:01:23 AM
If it is like other container type things you can look inside them without binding the contents if you don't have autoloot turned on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 08, 2011, 11:41:47 AM
Or hold down shift if you do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 08, 2011, 10:57:23 PM
You're still better off sending them to an alt for the look-in as well if the mounts work like the Find Fish book (http://www.elsanglin.com/forums/topic/fishing-for-trunks-in-lake-mirkfallon-and-a-loophole-closed).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 09, 2011, 12:53:52 AM
So, like I thought, goodies with added Blizzard Retardosauce.

I like the way their clarification actually fails to clarify the things I actually want clarifying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 09, 2011, 06:34:39 AM
So, like I thought, goodies with added Blizzard Retardosauce.

I like the way their clarification actually fails to clarify the things I actually want clarifying.

Like what?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 09, 2011, 07:40:09 AM
What is this, I don't even...

Quote
Making WoW Easier
I understand and respect gaming masochism. But, I think that changing mechanics to be more reasonable and less punishing is an improvement, not a detriment, to games in general. Many of us Original Gamers pine for the days of D&D-based yore when games were seemingly intended to break us down into sobbing masses created by an uncaring necromancer of pain and suffering, or at least didn't try to avoid it. Overcoming all of the obstacles (I CHOOSE NOT TO SHOOT HER WITH THE SILVER ARROW... NOOOOO) was a big part of what gaming (I HAVE 1 LIFE!?), and especially PC gaming (HOW DO I LOAD MOUSE DRIVERS?), were about. But, I feel we're lucky to now be in an age where those ideals (intended or not) are giving way to actual fun, actual challenge, and not fabricating it through high-reach requirements (I NEED A FAIRY MONK WITH A MAGIC LOCKPICK?).

What we've always been trying to do, what WoW has always been about (and to which much of its success is due) is to make an accessible MMO. Anyone that looks back at the game at launch and wishes it was as challenging now as it was then is not aware of the painstaking effort put into making this game accessible as compared to its predecessors. Since release we've refined that intent, eventually evolving the very few masochistic designs WoW actually ever started with, but ideally still offering those same prestige goals that give that feeling of achieving something great if you're able to pull it off. We've made a lot of progress toward striking that balance and continuing to evolve the game, but it's not something we're ever likely to perfect, and we'll be constantly working to hit that elusive goal. Hopefully it's to the benefit of everyone playing and enjoying the game, and they'll continue to enjoy the journey that a living, breathing, persistent universe will take us on. (Source)

They are responding as though there is some great mob of people complaining that wow is too easy and all I can wonder is what game they've been playing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 09, 2011, 07:49:42 AM
Like what?

Like exactly which mounts are included, what the droprates will be and are the mounts/pets themselves BoA or just the satchel.

Regarding droprates, I know they said "mounts that have a possibility to be found in a Satchel of Exotic Mysteries are found with the same rarity as if you had slain the dungeon boss that normally drops them" but does that mean that there's a (for instance) 0.1% chance for a mount and it then rolls to see which mount, or is it 0.1% chance for each mount seperately (i.e. you could potentially get multiple mounts in a satchel)?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 09, 2011, 07:53:25 AM
They are responding as though there is some great mob of people complaining that wow is too easy and all I can wonder is what game they've been playing.

I haven't looked at the US forums, but the EU forums have a lot of exactly that. The catasses dominate EU forums and are highly vocal. There's a lot of posts, and have been for a long time, going "Waaa waaa waaa WoW is too easy, I don't want other people to have the things I can get by raiding 6 nights a week, I need to be leeter than all the scrubs".

Of course, I'd guess that <1% of the actual playerbase posts on the forums, but I think it's become fairly clear that Blizzard lost that perspective when they decided on the difficulty level of Cata heroics & raids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 09, 2011, 07:58:05 AM
They are responding as though there is some great mob of people complaining that wow is too easy and all I can wonder is what game they've been playing.

Well, the post that's in reply to (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2369917233) was basically someone "complaining that wow is too easy".

Edit: I agree with Bashiok in that I much prefer a game's challenging bits to be playing the game itself and not the crapshoot at character creation or needing to do a ton of logistical work.  Which pretty firmly puts us both in the hardcore camp by what Nebu said about a month ago (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=20037.msg907685#msg907685).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 09, 2011, 10:06:07 AM
I have no doubts you are a hardcore player, caladein, but not for that reason.

Blizzard encounters boil down to 2 things that make them difficult: Can you deal with the adds? Can you not stand in that?

If your group can do those things, you will never lose at this game. If you have people that can't handle it, you will forever be frustrated. The only thing that seperates the hard content from the easy content is how many people who can't do those two things that you're allowed to take with you before you fail.

In Cata, the answer is zero.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 09, 2011, 01:56:56 PM

They are responding as though there is some great mob of people complaining that wow is too easy and all I can wonder is what game they've been playing.

Uh... the thread they were replying to was exactly that?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 09, 2011, 02:09:27 PM
great mob

For the reading impaired, one thread on the forums does not 12 million people make. The overwhelming cry of people with cataclysm was how hard it was not how easy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 09, 2011, 02:30:38 PM
Sure, but pulling that out of the context they're actually replying to at that moment, and then saying they're out of touch because "everyone" thinks it is too hard is a little bit retarded itself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 09, 2011, 02:48:32 PM
I never said everyone. 1% of the human population likes having their dick slammed in a window, incidentally this 1% is also the most vocal on web forums, go figure. My point is them addressing it as though it were an issue is part of the problem and what happened with cataclysm. They started listening to that vocal minority and fucked their game over trying to cater to it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 09, 2011, 03:10:32 PM
That's a lot to read in to one random reply to a thread.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 09, 2011, 03:36:24 PM
That's a lot to read in to one random reply to a thread.

You need to make this your sig. It would save time.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on April 09, 2011, 08:10:30 PM
So it appears that Blizzard, in their grief that players haven't embraced their changes to the game, has moved past denial and anger and is now officially bargaining with the playerbase.

Next, Depression!

   1. Denial
   2. Anger
   3. Bargaining
   4. Depression
   5. Acceptance

Big question is - is Acceptance means they going to fix difficulty and is it too late for this expansion? Last but not least, why the fuck nobody (that I heard of) is fired over this?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 09, 2011, 08:17:48 PM
To me, I think Blizzard will eventually accept that their overall playerbase is actually terrible at their game, and that to be continually successful they have to design for the player they have, and not the one they want. And no, it's by no means too late. If they turned things around this fall and launched a badass new set of dungeons and raids with relaxed rules and whatever. The fact is, it's the summer, and raiding/mmoging always suffers when the weather's nice. Grab em when they are bored and ready to come back inside from the cold.

Also, they need to understand better the difference between what people say they want, and what will actually keep them engaged with their product. Here's a hint: a system that makes it harder to play with people you like doesn't work.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on April 09, 2011, 09:16:08 PM
The best thing that could happen to WoW as a game right now would be a "hardcore" MMO that isn't complete dogshit coming out and skimming the poopsockers off the top of the userbase. However literally no one else has produced a a playable MMO in the last 8 years or so this is unlikely to happen.

That being said, if you're still playing just try out the new 5-mans when they drop and if they don't grab you just let your subscription lapse. If Firelands continues Tier 11's design philosophy in terms of difficulty never resub.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on April 09, 2011, 10:13:31 PM
To me, I think Blizzard will eventually accept that their overall playerbase is actually terrible at their game

I played games for decades, no matter what game it is I usually end up in top 25% of it (ladders, ranking). I had no problems succeeding in WoW. My ability to compensate for other people's mistakes nearly disappeared in Cata. My friends couldn't cut it, so I gladly quit the game I wouldn't enjoy if not for the company. I am now gleefully assraping people in a niche title.

With this said, WoW is absolutely horrid at testing people in any meaningful way, and Blizzard probably should reconsider approach to encounter and ability design. For some reason doing well does not correlate with intelligence, regardless of how you define it. I knew PhDs who were fire-standers, and 200-word-vocab, including "fuck", high school dropouts who were raiding aces. You can compensate, to some degree, by putting time in, but people generally do not improve as players. You can train them for any given encounter, but overall there is very little progress and they will not be any better at the next encounter, regardless of how similar it is.

If I were to guess what WoW Raiding tests - it would be a) ability to multitask b) procedural memory c) reaction time d) be good at visualizing virtual environments (know where your avatar is at any given time with relation to everybody else without seeing them) e) rapid prioritization . All of this is virtually unteachable.

As a result of Cata, Blizzard tuned content permanently out of reach for some people. People are not getting better because WoW tests things that are very difficult to get better at.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on April 10, 2011, 03:03:45 AM
However literally no one else has produced a a playable MMO in the last 8 years...
what


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ajax34i on April 10, 2011, 03:56:02 AM
If they turned things around this fall and launched a badass new set of dungeons and raids with relaxed rules and whatever.

How long do you think it takes them to code said dungeons and raids?  My guess is it's too late, esp. if they wait until they get past "acceptance" to decide to start.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on April 10, 2011, 04:03:24 AM
So is there a deliberate strategy here?  Put out content which only the 1% hardcore can conquer, then nerf it down so the casuals can do it?  ICC was the same way wasn't it?  If so, that's fine, sorta.  At least I get to eventually see the content the hardcore are already tired of.  

Also, as a mage I'm glad CC matters again.  I actually like keeping a mob out of the fight.  I don't blame Blizzard for wanting to make their game more than an AoE fest but I do blame them for the implementation.  There has to be a sweet spot between facerolling AoE and punch the monitor hardcore.  They just haven't found it yet and quite frankly I wonder if they will.

But the true hell is the other players.  My guild disbanded due to the hardcore raid bs, so now I pug.  And let me tell you half the time I'll group with some ass who has a meter which says I am not doing enough dps.  Sorry dude, I was CCing (got a meter for that asshole?) or I was not standing in stuff.  Most of the catasses have several
max toons and they have no trouble telling you how to play your class.  
  OK, I'm dps, I'm a dime a dozen, but tanks and healers get the same grief.  Healing is a shit job in WoW, but I do it because I like to sit back, manage health, get groups fast and watch the overall action.  Hell, healing with my pally was actually fun because I could throw in a dps here and there and if I drew aggro I had plate armor to protect me.
  
  This rambling has gone on way too long.  Blizzard can't do anything about their players, but they can do something about their game.  


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on April 10, 2011, 04:47:23 AM
So is there a deliberate strategy here?  Put out content which only the 1% hardcore can conquer, then nerf it down so the casuals can do it?  ICC was the same way wasn't it?  If so, that's fine, sorta.  At least I get to eventually see the content the hardcore are already tired of.  
There's one massive, glaringly obvious, risk with this plan which means any sane dev team should avoid it like the plague. That strategy relies on the majority of the playerbase toughing it out while the content is balanced for the poopsockers, and then feeling grateful when Blizzard deigns to tune it downwards so PUGs can run it reliably.

What if they cancel until the nerfs and fixes hit (which, bearing in mind Blizzard patch schedule, is going to be months)? Even worse (for Blizzard) what if they cancel and don't come back even after the nerfs hit?

Congratulations Ghostcrawler & co, you just rediscovered why Gates of Discord killed Everquest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 10, 2011, 06:12:08 AM
So is there a deliberate strategy here?  Put out content which only the 1% hardcore can conquer, then nerf it down so the casuals can do it?  ICC was the same way wasn't it?  If so, that's fine, sorta.  At least I get to eventually see the content the hardcore are already tired of.  

That's been their content strategy for a long while now. They've even public cop'd to it so it's not just player base guesswork.  However, what top % the game is accessible to is what has changed.  In BC is was the top 1/2 to 3%, depending on where it was in the cycle past Karazahn.  Kara was NOT simple if you did it early on, and it eventually got nerfed down via game adjustments and the usual mudflation.  By 6 months past BC's release you were seeing average groups and PUGs running it regularly and the popularity of Kara is one reason they implemented 10-mans.  The Magtheridon starter 25-man raid they did later acknowledge was too difficult at the beginning, with all the crazy coordination, one person fucks up/ lags/ gets killed and all 25 of you are dead nonsense.  They did this by looking at the % of players who'd killed him or just skipped him and came back later in the cycle.

WOTLK really lowered that bar because they weren't happy with how few people got to see the content.  I think at one point (prior to the weekly raid quest) they said around 50% of characters had at least been inside of Naxx and killed a boss, which was comparable to the numbers in Kara.  The PUGs and smaller guilds were in there within a month of release, which considering the difference in heroics and excitement behind 10mans was probably destined to happen.

However, there was also a different mindset and philosophy from the dev team.   Hardcore players complained it was all "too easy" and Tigole responded with a It'll get harder, quiet, you. (http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/43587)  Quite different from today's responses, particularly when 25-LK groups were repeatedly wiping early on.  The big question is what percentage of players are they wanting to complete content now and what percentage are they at.  Only they know the first and the second we can get only via guesswork with the issue of mains vs alts.

Now Naxx probably was a twitch too easy, as even "casual hardcore" (http://casualhardcore.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/dear-blizzard-is-naxx-too-easy/) folks seem to have gotten bored with it by the end of it's cycle. Still, I don't think that's a bad thing, so long as they remembered "oh right, we can still try Hardmodes."  After all that's what they were intended for initially. (http://wow.joystiq.com/2009/02/18/hard-mode-raiding-is-here-to-stay/)  However, this Dev team seems to either have forgotten that or feels differently, falling into the DM trap of not wanting players to be TOO successful at the stuff they've put all their hard work into creating to crush/ challenge players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 10, 2011, 09:00:27 AM
I agree with Sinij that WoW is now "testing" players in a binary way. People don't learn how to be situationally aware or multitask because of the challenges presented. They either succeed or fail. They've taken your friends and turned them into potential liabilities. It's not a shock that so many guilds simply gave up given the haves and have-nots.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on April 10, 2011, 09:04:10 AM
However literally no one else has produced a a playable MMO in the last 8 years...
what
All MMOs are garbage and WoW was just my particular brand of garbage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 10, 2011, 09:21:59 AM
However literally no one else has produced a a playable MMO in the last 8 years...
what

Its pretty true realistically speaking, what besides WoW or EVE matters at all, at least as far as the west goes?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on April 10, 2011, 09:37:59 AM

Congratulations Ghostcrawler & co, you just rediscovered why Gates of Discord killed Everquest.

This.

I remember exactly how that went. EQ had been under steady improvements to gameplay and accessability with PoP and LDoN, but then the dev team dropped the turd of GoD into the EQ punchbowl. I think I lasted about two months after release before I quit for good. I still remember getting into a fight with a guild ranger, getting chewed out by the guild leadership for being argumentative, telling them to pound sand, and parking my SK outside of PoI and cancelling. I recall it was all over some dumbass decision (there were so many...) over post-xp advancement of SKs and the continuing stupidity of defensive. Never been back since.

I was feeling a pretty similar vibe in WoW up until last week. I guess we'll see what writing crops up on the wall with Firelands and the assorted adjustments of 4.1 and 4.2.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 10, 2011, 09:54:53 AM
I totally disagree with the "people can't get better at raiding" sentiments.

I've seen 3 people learn how to do raids over the course of 18 months. They were all new to raiding and even dungeons, one of them was completely new to MMOs in general - he'd only ever played 1st person shooters. When they started playing WoW with me mid-WOTLK they stood in fire, they targetted wrong mobs (if they targetted anything at all), they were completely overwhelmed by the pace of 5-mans let alone anything bigger.

Now, after 18 months of LK pugs up-to and including ICC25, some months of Cata 5-mans and heroics and now into the early parts of Cata raiding they're pretty competent. Ade, who'd never played an MMO before and who spent 3 weeks hitting mobs with his stick (as a balance druid) is now main tanking BWD on his DK. Charlotte is enhance shaman DPSing quite comfortably and off-spec healing when required and Mike regularly manages not to ninja-pull with his hunter and rarely falls off walls these days.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on April 10, 2011, 10:11:37 AM
In my guild I'd say the vast majority of our raiders tried to constantly improve by getting better gear, researching rotations/specs, and by improving their general quality of play but there definitely seemed to be a wall. Some people just don't have the ability to keep their plates spinning while dodging fire/dealing with specific boss gimmicks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 10, 2011, 10:38:48 AM
I wouldn't say that Naxx 3.0 was too easy; it simply had a lot of easy fights and most of the mechanically-challenging ones were end wing bosses. Even if you went in there with a lot of PUGs you could easily clear one wing and 2 half wings. I know on my server when Ulduar hit, the average PUG didn't clear Naxx. If it wasn't lead by an experienced leader or guild, don't count on killing Thaddeus; 4H and Heigan were the other two raid-breakers, as well as KT, but Thaddeus was the worst because it wasn't easy to teach (4h, KT) nor could you power through it with half the raid (Heigan) due to his short enrage timer.

As for people learning to raid, we have a guildie who just started playing WoW in Cata, and now he's one of our better raiders; on the contrary we have people who have raided since BC or Vanilla and are still mediocre at best. I think there's an initial learning phase, where you can obviously get better at learning HOW wow raiding works (see, all the things sinij said); past that you're limited by things that aren't easy to improve like reaction time, awareness, reflexes, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 10, 2011, 10:42:20 AM
past that you're limited by things that aren't easy to improve like reaction time, awareness, reflexes, etc.

Get people to play the multitask flash game for practice. http://www.kongregate.com/games/IcyLime/multitask


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 10, 2011, 12:03:14 PM
Funny, I dropped the, "feels like GoD," thing a dozen or so pages back and was pilloried for it.  I still stand by it, though.

Some people just don't have the ability to keep their plates spinning while dodging fire/dealing with specific boss gimmicks.

IMO it's always been less about ability and more about the drive.  It's not hard to learn, but you have to want to.  There's definitely a mental block with some people in regards to caring about 'doing it right.'    I know I'm certainly past the point of caring enough to be researching rotations and doing spreadsheets for it all my self, so I can relate to them now.   I figure if I'm going to put this much work into a hobby in my late 30's it better be producing something tangible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on April 10, 2011, 12:48:40 PM
I totally disagree with the "people can't get better at raiding" sentiments.

Now, after 18 months of LK pugs up-to and including ICC25, some months of Cata 5-mans and heroics and now into the early parts of Cata raiding they're pretty competent.


I am not talking about "never played WoW before" situation. You can and should learn WoW before attempting end-game content. New players not being able to raid is clearly not underlying problem of Cata. Real problem is that many veteran players are unable to compete.

When I say "people can't get better at raiding" I am talking from first-hand experience as a raid leader. You can fix someone's gear, spec, teach them correct rotation and make them drill it until they are comfortable doing it. You can force them to download mods that nag at them to move out of fire and help with multitasking. You can nag "move now" in vent... BUT YOU CANNOT MAKE THEM PLAY BETTER and moment you stop doing all of that they will revert to their baseline performance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lightstalker on April 10, 2011, 01:36:21 PM
Some people cannot improve, some people don't care to improve, some people haven't yet improved, and then the rest are bored already.

That's pretty much the split out.  WoW isn't that hard, we've been avoiding ground fire for 6 years now.  If you aren't "good" at raiding by now you are either in the cannot improve or don't care to improve camp and those are functionally equivalent.  Folks who describe "... and then I just freak out" as an event in a typical progression kill won't ever be excellent raiders but may over time be adequate.  The freak outs and the real new players will be in your haven't yet improved group and they just need time to become either adequate (via repetition and familiarity) or if you are lucky with a new player a decent contributor.

The encounters in WoW are meant to be defeated, the player should never be at a loss of what to do next.  Those who "cannot improve" are always wondering what button to press next and seriously puzzled by it.  Those who don't care to imrpove are content to be carried and wipe regularly.  Those who haven't yet improved know they need to do something, but can't find that thing in time.  Sure, one might be able to squeeze a few hundred dps out of a bad player, but that same effort will yield thousands of dps from a good player who happens to be new.  Where do you want to spend your coaching budget, especially considering the new-good will coach himself in the next tier while the old-limited will never know how to crack the next level.

It is delightful to believe that people can be improved, but they need both the capacity and the desire for that improvement.  No amount of wishing on the part of the coach can overcome these if they do not exist.  It doesn't matter how technically sound and well geared their character is, overcoming a freak out mentality is the real challenge.  If they tend to freak out you are looking at someone who might not wipe the raid in time instead of someone who can lead by example.  It has nothing to do with WoW and everything to do with people management, and unfortunately as a guild or raid leader that's what you have to concern yourself with in these games.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 10, 2011, 04:01:55 PM
I totally disagree with the "people can't get better at raiding" sentiments.

Your examples sucked. Good players can learn just fine, but they were always good players. They just didn't have experience in the zones, even though the game has been out for 6 years.

What we're discussing is the player who's played for 4 years, is a friend of yours, that you knew before this whole expansion dropped was going to have a problem, and un-shockingly couldn't hack it and quit-rerolled-left-drama-bombed. It's the old dogs principle at work. Will there be exceptions to the rule? Sure. Maybe one day one of your dps discovers sobriety and stops sucking. Maybe your healer finally gets that divorce and can game to her hearts content.

It's just damned unlikely, but whatever. They will get it eventually when people's extended subs run out the population craters.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 10, 2011, 11:09:14 PM
So what you're saying is bad players will always be bad players unless they're not really bad players? OK, whatever...  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on April 11, 2011, 01:16:24 AM
So what you're saying is bad players will always be bad players unless they're not really bad players? OK, whatever...  :why_so_serious:

Just because a player is new doesn't mean they're a bad player. So it would more be "bad players will always be bad players unless they are new players."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 11, 2011, 05:22:38 AM
So what you're saying is bad players will always be bad players unless they're not really bad players? OK, whatever...  :why_so_serious:

No, hes just defining bad player differently than you are.  You are defining it as ANYONE who isn't good at the game right now.  He is defining it as someone who lacks the inherent skills (dexterity, multitasking, whatever) necessary to perform at a high level, not people who simply haven't played before.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 11, 2011, 06:34:26 AM
So what you're saying is bad players will always be bad players unless they're not really bad players? OK, whatever...  :why_so_serious:

Don't be obtuse. You know exactly what I mean.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 11, 2011, 09:11:56 AM
People can track only track a finite number of things simultaneously before they start seeing huge, rapidly increasing lapses in ability to switch focus in a timely manner, react to stimuli, and avoid (compounding) error(s).  This should come as a surprise to no one, but apparently it does.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on April 11, 2011, 09:33:56 AM
I've seen plenty of people improve at the game. Mostly, it's just getting good enough at their base rotations/whatnot that they can actually focus on the macro aspects of the encounter. A good example in Wrath was Ignis. Chaotic, impossible fight until it clicks, and you zoom way the fuck out and mentally tune out everything that doesn't matter to you personally.

I've seen plenty of things in Cata where the time to react or wipe is tuned too tightly/randomly for certain players to cope. People who get "run from X", but can't mentally switch from "okay, I saw X" to "now run" in less than the second provided.

One of the bigger heroic pains I ever had were the various bosses in GB. Exploding Elementals spawning from random locations and rushing random people = high chance for a short "fuse" on a player with a long task switching time. That makes for frustrating gameplay, and a terrible design for heroic gameplay.

If you want "raid game is hard, we will tune it down later", the rest of the playerbase needs something to do in the mean time that seems constructive/fun. Your raids can be dick-in-window fests, as long as your heroics are forgiving. The problem I ran into with Cata was that if I didn't want to deal with tightly tuned practically raid encounters in heroics where any random person can immediately wipe us if they so much as lag for 10 seconds at the wrong moment, I had to do what.. 3 normals that wouldn't give me anything?

I feel bad for essentially wandering away from the game, but there's nothing there that I want to do right now. I like a challenge, and I like feeling like I need to play better. I don't like the idea that anyone in the group not bringing their A game = six hours of slogging.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 11, 2011, 10:15:00 AM
The problem I ran into with Cata was that if I didn't want to deal with tightly tuned practically raid encounters

The funny thing is that for years people were saying "gee, I wish they would give us cool encounters like they have in raids for people that can't raid."  I did Heroic Deadmines for the first time the other day and had that one fight where the guy has the spinning fire line of death or something like that.  Anyway, I was running it with a guildie that I go way back with, and 3 randoms.  She told me "Ok, this guy has a C'thun Dark Glare like this but with fire, just stay out of it."  I lol'd when I beat the encounter and took no damage from it and got the achievement "Ready for Raiding" :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 11, 2011, 10:31:41 AM
The elementals on Drahga Shadowburner telegraph their location a few seconds before they spawn, don't move for another second or so once they do spawn, and can be snared and stunned.  If someone gets beaned by that, it's because they weren't paying attention in the preceding five to ten seconds and got the short straw to boot.  Which is what a lot of dungeon and normal raid boss abilities are like.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on April 11, 2011, 10:45:23 AM
The elementals on Drahga Shadowburner telegraph their location a few seconds before they spawn, don't move for another second or so once they do spawn, and can be snared and stunned.  If someone gets beaned by that, it's because they weren't paying attention in the preceding five to ten seconds and got the short straw to boot.  Which is what a lot of dungeon and normal raid boss abilities are like.

And yet: they kill more people than anything, and explode in a large enough radius that someone getting beaned by one = likely wipe.

What happened to us frequently was Cone AE from dragon + portal opening in the huge takes over the screen spell effect + picking the lowest reaction time player. Hello garunteed death.

Or my favorite: picking the healer or the tank six times in a row.

Anything that is "deal with this or oneshot dead" = you've removed the ability for people to compensate for poor players. THAT is why people stopped playing Cata. Because I'm unwilling to play a game where I need to take a friend aside and say "sorry, but we want to have fun tonight. So can you go do something else?"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 11, 2011, 11:07:04 AM
The exploding elementals in GB also gave me a seizure once.  No green text there either, their death flashing animation put me into a grand mal seizure.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 11, 2011, 11:14:49 AM
Yeah, the death animations for Cata elementals have this pulsing light effect for some stupid reason.  I vaguely remember them saying they were going to patch that out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 11, 2011, 12:27:47 PM
I would like to see what would happen if they brought back Teron Gorefiend mechanics into this player pool.

Because you know it's going to pick that one person how has no fucking idea what they are doing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 11, 2011, 06:07:41 PM
Quote from: Bashiok
I understand and respect gaming masochism. But, I think that changing mechanics to be more reasonable and less punishing is an improvement, not a detriment, to games in general. Many of us Original Gamers pine for the days of D&D-based yore when games were seemingly intended to break us down into sobbing masses created by an uncaring necromancer of pain and suffering, or at least didn't try to avoid it. Overcoming all of the obstacles (I CHOOSE NOT TO SHOOT HER WITH THE SILVER ARROW... NOOOOO) was a big part of what gaming (I HAVE 1 LIFE!?), and especially PC gaming (HOW DO I LOAD MOUSE DRIVERS?), were about. But, I feel we're lucky to now be in an age where those ideals (intended or not) are giving way to actual fun, actual challenge, and not fabricating it through high-reach requirements (I NEED A FAIRY MONK WITH A MAGIC LOCKPICK?).

What we've always been trying to do, what WoW has always been about (and to which much of its success is due) is to make an accessible MMO. Anyone that looks back at the game at launch and wishes it was as challenging now as it was then is not aware of the painstaking effort put into making this game accessible as compared to its predecessors. Since release we've refined that intent, eventually evolving the very few masochistic designs WoW actually ever started with, but ideally still offering those same prestige goals that give that feeling of achieving something great if you're able to pull it off. We've made a lot of progress toward striking that balance and continuing to evolve the game, but it's not something we're ever likely to perfect, and we'll be constantly working to hit that elusive goal. Hopefully it's to the benefit of everyone playing and enjoying the game, and they'll continue to enjoy the journey that a living, breathing, persistent universe will take us on.

This was a response to someone asking why WoW was so easy and dumbed down now (apparently the person hadn't played at all since vanilla WoW.  Gives a little perspective I guess, I think Cataclysm is SO much more casual friendly than those days, and its probably more casual friendly than the game has ever been except for during Wrath of the Lich King.

I do think Bashiok was being a little disingenuous though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on April 12, 2011, 02:37:59 AM
I would like to see what would happen if they brought back Teron Gorefiend mechanics into this player pool.

Because you know it's going to pick that one person how has no fucking idea what they are doing.

Gorefiend was a wuss compared to the original Aran mechanics  :awesome_for_real: The original was a case of knowing what to do PLUS beating the RNG that threw every ability at you at once for those that didn't experience the tears.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on April 12, 2011, 02:47:37 AM
edit: stoopid double post


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on April 12, 2011, 03:45:36 AM
I bet Aran would fuck people up even in 2011.

"wtf? I need to STAY IN the fire and MOVE OUT of the blizzard?"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 12, 2011, 05:19:27 AM
I bet Aran would fuck people up even in 2011.

"wtf? I need to STAY IN the fire and MOVE OUT of the blizzard?"


Shade of Aran was difficult, but the encounter was pretty awesome in my opinion. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 12, 2011, 05:43:45 AM
It wasn't that difficult once Blizzard figured out which moved needed to not occur simultaneously.  Just about the only thing I've ever seen consistently wipe people was water elementals and either mass sheep or flame wrath.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on April 12, 2011, 05:46:18 AM
I still think they need to replace Balinda in AV with a level appropriate Shade of Aran. Just for the lulz and all that.   :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 12, 2011, 06:11:01 AM
"I am no mere honor kill!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 12, 2011, 07:49:31 AM
I still think they need to replace Balinda in AV with a level appropriate Shade of Aran. Just for the lulz and all that.   :grin:

That would be glorious.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on April 12, 2011, 07:35:41 PM
Shade of Aran, Safety Dance and a lot of similar mechanically difficult fights could be finished with only couple people left standing. I know, because I have done it multiple times. Beating encounter wasn't about everyone executing it 100%, it was more of "do some of you know mechanics and can do it" check. In Cata *everyone* has to be able to do it, and that where they went wrong. Most people can't or won't improve.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 12, 2011, 09:22:27 PM
That's not really true. I wiped tons of times on Aran because one person in the group screwed up. The difference between Heigan and Aran is that screwing up on Heigan meant you died. Screwing up on Aran meant there was a good chance almost everyone in the room would die. Aran also had an enrage timer, so if half of your raid died early into the fight because one idiot walked through flame wreath there really was no recovery. It's exactly the same as the "pass/fail" Cata fights, if not a little bit less forgiving. If one person blows up on Drahga, it's not guaranteed that it will hit everyone in the room, or even that it will kill the person it does hit. Comparing Aran to any Cata raid fight actually would suggest that Cata raids are more forgiving, since there is nothing that will blatantly wipe your raid if one person screws up. You could argue that something like Atramedes gongs are pass/fail, but more than one person can try clicking a single gong, and there is a small window where someone else could dash to a gong and hit it before your raid wipes if the person assigned to the gong is asleep.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on April 12, 2011, 10:04:21 PM
Yeah, Heigan had the redeeming feature that if 8 out of 10 of you were dead, but one of the two of you that was left could cure disease, and you were JUST THAT ANGRY AT EVERYONE, you could win.  Eventually.  And those people that killed themselves off had to lie there and suffer, as they should.






Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 12, 2011, 10:08:44 PM
I loved doing that to people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 13, 2011, 05:29:24 AM
Shade of Aran, Safety Dance and a lot of similar mechanically difficult fights could be finished with only couple people left standing. I know, because I have done it multiple times. Beating encounter wasn't about everyone executing it 100%, it was more of "do some of you know mechanics and can do it" check. In Cata *everyone* has to be able to do it, and that where they went wrong. Most people can't or won't improve.

I disagree, there were plenty of fights with a razor thin margin for error long before Cata. C'thun is a good example (one person could end up causing a beam chain that could kill multiple people, and ESPECAILLY when you hadn't yet massively outgeared thefight, you really needed all the DPS you could still alive for phase 2.  Usually if we had more the 2 people die in phase 1, our raid leader would simply call for a wipe.  Gruul comes to mind (pre-nerf), as one or two people could cause the death of a bunch, and then you wouldn't have enough DPS to take him down before the enrage.  Like wise with a number of other DPS races which had mechanics that could easily gank people if they weren't paying attention.   One person pulled aggro on Twin Emps and then got into healing range, you were fucked.   

The point is, lots of fights had a one mistake and you lose aspect, going back to Vanilla or TBC.  I'm guessing that WOTLK had some (but I guess a lot less?) of these fights but I didn't raid in WOTLK, or Cata for that matter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 13, 2011, 05:34:30 AM
Yeah, Heigan had the redeeming feature that if 8 out of 10 of you were dead, but one of the two of you that was left could cure disease, and you were JUST THAT ANGRY AT EVERYONE, you could win.  Eventually.  And those people that killed themselves off had to lie there and suffer, as they should.

I loved doing that to people.

Ditto.  We had one fight where everyone except a druid, priest, my SK and a tank were dead on a 25-man.   It was the 5th or 6th attempt of the night, so we said fuck it and finished it ourselves.  It took for-fucking-ever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 13, 2011, 06:19:37 AM
I disagree, there were plenty of fights with a razor thin margin for error long before Cata...C'thun, Gruul, Twin Emps...

Gruul I will grant you. That was in the first tier of TBC raiding and it was horribly tough pre-nerf. The last 2 bosses of AQ40 though? Yeah I'm ok with that being tough. I mean why not compare Sunwell stuff while we're at it?

The point right now is that there are so many razor's edge fights in the very first tier of raiding content. That's stupid. They allowed no transition between Wrath style to their new style. They just hit everyone in the face with it and hoped that God would sort out the dead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 13, 2011, 06:23:00 AM
Doing Heigan with two or three people is one of life's simple pleasures. I was always Just That Angry to make them sit there and wait, I don't care if it takes ALL NIGHT because the only people left are the protection warrior and the holy paladin.

Kildorn used to make it his life's ambition to get this one dude through that boss. I don't think he ever managed it.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 13, 2011, 06:28:09 AM
I disagree, there were plenty of fights with a razor thin margin for error long before Cata...C'thun, Gruul, Twin Emps...

Gruul I will grant you. That was in the first tier of TBC raiding and it was horribly tough pre-nerf. The last 2 bosses of AQ40 though? Yeah I'm ok with that being tough. I mean why not compare Sunwell stuff while we're at it?

The point right now is that there are so many razor's edge fights in the very first tier of raiding content. That's stupid. They allowed no transition between Wrath style to their new style. They just hit everyone in the face with it and hoped that God would sort out the dead.

Ah, I guess I didn't realize you were making the distinction between first tier raiding content and later content in an expansion.  I'll back off what I said some then.  In any case, I don't have particularly much more to say on the topic, I haven't raided in WoW "seriously" since SSC and TK were the current tier of content, and maybe thats my problem.  I never experienced WOTLK raiding, as I mentioned, so for me I just have always associated raiding with "you need to not suck, deal with it or GTFO."   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 13, 2011, 06:47:56 AM
I have no problem with the philosophy of "you need to not suck or GTFO" when it comes to raids. The stratification of raiding into 10s and 25s with normal and hardcore components have opened doors for the designers to embrace that philosophy and apply it where it would do the most good. Right now, my main concern is that they have applied it to everything, essentially making the need for regular and hardcore modes useless.

The regulars were too tough for regulars, and the hardcores are melting people's faces even at the topmost tier. It's like a developer making a regular edition and a collectors edition as we have now where regular is $50 and collectors is $75. Then, one day they decide that's not enough, so they make the regular edition $100 and the collector's $200. The millions of people lapping it up suddenly go, wait WTF? That's ridiculous! Several still buy it because they will pay anything to play and will put up with whatever, but they effectively priced themselves out of a large portion of their market due to their choices.

In that example, they could still justify making the switch because of the higher revenue per user and the cut variable costs associated with having fewer players. In the case of Blizzard "pricing" themselves out of the raiding market with these choices, they are just going to hemorrhage cash.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 13, 2011, 07:16:48 AM
Just want to chime in that I was on one of those 3-man heigan fights me as shadow dps, pally healer and druid tank. This is from something crazy like 80% o his life. I think it is simultaneously one of the best and worst memories I have in wow.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 13, 2011, 07:42:49 AM
I just remembered we had a prot warrior as the last man standing on an Aran kill the 2nd or 3rd tiem we downed him.  The rest of us all exploded just after the elementals and he said "Fuck it, I'm trying."  No idea how the hell he lived through that last, what, 20% all on his own but he did and it was fantastic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on April 13, 2011, 08:03:43 AM
Just want to chime in that I was on one of those 3-man heigan fights me as shadow dps, pally healer and druid tank. This is from something crazy like 80% o his life. I think it is simultaneously one of the best and worst memories I have in wow.

There was one I did that was at least over half an hour.  This is with a 25 man group where over half died during the first dance.  One of our main tanks suicided at the start because he didn't like the fight. 

For at least over 50% it was just a shaman, my death knight, and our death knight main tank for almost the entire thing.  I lost weapon upgrade to a guy that had died at the beginning.  I'd like to limit loot distribution on that fight to people that can actually complete it, but I know some people die due to lag or a healer not getting rid of the disease, not necessarily because they suck.

The second time I had to do a marathon Heigan, because people sucked, I just quit the guild.   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 13, 2011, 11:06:28 AM
I just remembered we had a prot warrior as the last man standing on an Aran kill the 2nd or 3rd tiem we downed him.  The rest of us all exploded just after the elementals and he said "Fuck it, I'm trying."  No idea how the hell he lived through that last, what, 20% all on his own but he did and it was fantastic.

Aran was a fun fight as a prot warrior, you just sat on him doing your awesome protection dual wield dps and pummeling spells. It was a nice break from all the normal tanking on everything else.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on April 13, 2011, 02:23:46 PM
Doing Heigan with two or three people is one of life's simple pleasures. I was always Just That Angry to make them sit there and wait, I don't care if it takes ALL NIGHT because the only people left are the protection warrior and the holy paladin.

Kildorn used to make it his life's ambition to get this one dude through that boss. I don't think he ever managed it.  :heart:


I still think my favorite though, is the anti-fail from Bojuum, where everyone, including himself, just assumed he would fail horribly and it would probably be best if he just sat in a corner this fight... but he goes on to do it perfectly without any problem.

"I'm just as surprised as anyone!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 13, 2011, 03:13:51 PM

Gruul I will grant you. That was in the first tier of TBC raiding and it was horribly tough pre-nerf. The last 2 bosses of AQ40 though? Yeah I'm ok with that being tough. I mean why not compare Sunwell stuff while we're at it?

The point right now is that there are so many razor's edge fights in the very first tier of raiding content. That's stupid. They allowed no transition between Wrath style to their new style. They just hit everyone in the face with it and hoped that God would sort out the dead.

There are plenty of examples of first tier fights with similar pass/fail mechanics where one person screwing up would wipe your raid.

Sorry, this is going to be long. Lots of examples coming:

Vanilla T1:
Onyxia - One person standing in the wrong place and getting feared into the whelp pit could wipe your raid.
Baron Geddon - One person with living bomb could wipe their group if they didn't run out of the clump. The easiet way to do this fight was to have everyone in one clump (besides melee/the tank) so that dispelling was easier. Nobody actually did this because, in most guilds, you couldn't rely on 39 other people to watch themselves for the debuff.

Vanilla T2: I'm only including Vanilla T2 since MC was such a simple raid zone, BWL was the first example of what all WoW raids after would be like
Vaelastrasz - One person with Burning Adrenaline not moving out of the raid would wipe you.
Chromaggus - Getting all 5 dragonflight afflictions on one person (maybe out of LoS of dispellers? maybe the dispeller was asleep) would most likely wipe you.
Nefarian - A priest who doesn't notice the priest call could easily kill a ton of the raid (including and especially the tanks) with corrupted healing, most likely resulting in a wipe.

TBC T1:
Gruul - As mentioned, pre-nerf it was pretty easy for one person to wipe the raid. After the nerf this was much less likely.
Magtheridon - If one person who was designated to use Manticron Cubes  didn't click at the right time, or was asleep, you would wipe. This was made even worse since you needed to rotate cube clickers because of the exhaustion debuff you got from using the cube.
Maiden of Virtue - Possible (but unlikely) to wipe the raid by chaining Holy Wrath
Illhoof - Breaking the chains was pass/fail. It wasn't on one person's shoulders, but more likely 4 people's shoulders. You couldn't carry your group, since you may very well have been the chain victim.
Aran - Already discussed. One person screwing up with Flame Wreath was usually a wipe. A single person could also trigger this multiple times, ensuring a wipe if they did it more than once.
Netherspite - One person crossing a beam that another player was already on would apply the exhaustion buff to both of you, after which there was a decent chance you'd wipe. Less common, but again one bad apple could cause the fight to fail regardless of how perfectly the rest of the raid was playing.
Nightbane - Standing in smoldering bones spawned more skels. If you didn't get out of the bones quick enough, you'd overwhelm the raid with skells and cause a wipe.
Malchezzar - If your tank did not move the boss correctly you could become trapped by infernals and wipe.

There are plenty examples in T2 and T3 for TBC which I haven't included since you specified T1 (not that I believe it really matters, current content is current content). The best example is probably Archimonde, who gave you a *ton* of opportunities to wipe your raid by making a mistake. Any player who died would cause the entire raid to take a very large amount of damage or get a harsh debuff. One death usually resulted in a second death due to the damage, and then you were surely screwed. You could die from not clicking your slowfall item, or from clicking it too early/late. You could stand in fire. You could path the fire into other players. You could get the huge DoT debuff and be too far from your dispeller, or your dispeller could be asleep/in the wrong place. This fight was the most obnoxious pass/fail fight they have ever done, and it easily eclipses every Cata fight.

Wrath T1: I didn't raid in Wrath, I only played for about a month after it came out. That said, from what I remember about Naxx 40, the following fights had similar pass/fail mechanics:
Anub - Easy fight, but dying to something stupid meant the rest of the raid had to deal with your corpse scarabs which could be a problem when combined with regular corpse scarabs from adds.
Maexxna - You could get webbed and die if your ranged web-breaker for that area of the room wasn't paying attention. I expect this wasn't much of a problem in Wrath, but you were again relying on one person to not screw up for the rest of the raid.
Loatheb - As I understand it this fight was changed a ton of Wrath. In Vanilla, one person screwing up the heal rotation would kill your tank.
Thaddius - Negative/positive charges, you could wipe the raid if you did not move to the correct side. I expect this effect was less dangerous in Wrath.
4 Horseman - Also changed a lot? This fight used to have strict tank requirements, and if a healer or tank did not follow the rotation correctly, you would most likely wipe. Moving out of voids was something plenty of people failed to do (including tanks), and missing people on meteor could make the damage overwhelming. Being out of group and targeted by meteor meant you were dead as well.
Sapph - Being out of position and getting hit by ice block meant that your half of the room might die to frost bomb.
Kel'Thuzad - Detonate Mana and Frost Block could doom the raid if one player wasn't spread out correctly, or stood too close to other players that were in correct positions.

This is nothing new. All previous T1 raid content had at least a few mechanics where one bad player could wipe the raid. If anything, Cata has less fights like this than T1 raids. There are a few abilities that will make things harder for the rest of the raid if you screw up, but nothing that will explicitly wipe the raid if a single person screws up. The exception to this appears to be some heroic fights, but that seems fair given that heroic fights are designed to be much harder than normal mode fights.

Cata content seems to be about multiple people doing their jobs well. 9 people doing average and one person doing awful doesn't mean that your raid will fail, but 5 people doing average and 4 people doing awful does. For example, with Magmaw it's not up to one person to handle adds, and if some adds get loose your raid doesn't instantly blow up, you just have some extra damage to deal with. If the two people doing rodeo don't time their chains well, Magmaw will start doing lots of raid damage, but the two people stay mounted on Magmaw and they can keep trying to get the chains timed right. Normal mode Cata raids have plenty of relatively forgiving raid mechanics, but everyone has to be playing well on average to succeed.

I could see your argument if Magmaw worms wiped the raid when they touched someone, or if Omnitron laser beam would instantly kill anyone besides the main target, etc., but there are no mechanics like that in any of the Cata normal mode fights.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on April 13, 2011, 03:26:25 PM
Cata raid content has been about perfect for me. It's challenging enough, you have to learn your shit, but it's not going to stab you to death over one bad.

Cho'gall might, but in that situation it's obvious to everyone who the weak link is, since he's running around vomiting on allies and turning into a faceless one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 13, 2011, 03:51:09 PM
To clarify, I quoted Paelos but he was actually talking about "razor thin" fights, not fights where one bad player prevented you from winning. My post was more of a reaction to:

Anything that is "deal with this or oneshot dead" = you've removed the ability for people to compensate for poor players. THAT is why people stopped playing Cata. Because I'm unwilling to play a game where I need to take a friend aside and say "sorry, but we want to have fun tonight. So can you go do something else?"

&

Shade of Aran, Safety Dance and a lot of similar mechanically difficult fights could be finished with only couple people left standing. I know, because I have done it multiple times. Beating encounter wasn't about everyone executing it 100%, it was more of "do some of you know mechanics and can do it" check. In Cata *everyone* has to be able to do it, and that where they went wrong. Most people can't or won't improve.

Saying that Cata is too hard because it has all these pass/fail mechanics is remembering the old raid content incorrectly, or after everyone had overgeared the content and you could survive some of the stupid stuff people did. I tried to show above that Cata actually has less of those pass/fail mechanics where one person could wipe you, and that old content had plenty of example of those types of mechanics.

As for the "razor thin" balance of Cata raiding, I think this is also remembering the old content incorrectly. Even Ragnaros back in MC was really hard until you overgeared it. Comparing normal mode Cata T1 to TBC T1, I would say TBC T1 was harder before the nerfs. Gruul was ridiculous, Magtheridon was tough, most of Kara was hard until people overgeared it and knew the fights like the back of the hand. Are you really going to tell me that Gruul, Prince Malchezzar, and Nightbane were easier pre-nerf than any of the normal Cata fights?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 13, 2011, 03:59:36 PM
Most of your Naxx examples weren't accurate in the LK version. Thaddeus and KT were the two big ones. On Thadd one person standing in the wrong place with the charge would do a ton of AOE damage before instantly killing himself; lose 2-3 people this way and you were likely to hit the enrage. On KT bad things could happen if the melee (or anyone, really) got in range of the MT and frost-blocked him, or if the ranged failed to spread out correctly.

T1 Cata fights where one person can easily fuck the raid:
Magmaw: If the wrong person (aka a clueless idiot) jumps on his head by accident and doesn't know how to use the chain, your MT will be auto-killed and the raid will likely wipe to the AOE.
Omnitron: Failing to run from slimes, failing to run out of Acquiring Target, and DPSing a golem with it's shield up can all result in wipes.
Maloriak: Improper kicking of Release Aberrations will result in a wipe, either because too many or too few casts were kicked.
Valiona/Theralion: Casting without running out with Engulfing Magic can result in a wipe.
Ascendant Council: Failing to get away from the raid with Lightning Rod can easily kill people, usually causing you to fail the enrage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 13, 2011, 04:01:05 PM
Rokal, I understand your point, but I think you are reaching on a few. The "run away or die" elements in Vanilla all had long timers before anything bad happened. You had to be completely oblivious not to notice. It wasn't that complicated. Even the morons in my group of 40 bads could handle them routinely. On Chromaggus and Nefarian you're REALLY reaching because that place instituted the need for mods that pointed out what was going on (Decursive, DBM, KTMThreat) and that got rid of the issues.

I forgot about the cube thing on Magtheridon, and that is a good example. I believe they nerfed the shit out of cubes and the debuff due to that being too complicated for people to manage.

Maiden, come on.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 13, 2011, 04:22:23 PM
Yeah some of them were unlikely to wipe raids, but my point was that one person could wipe your raid if they screwed up. It would have to be the perfect storm of shitty positioning to wipe your raid on Maiden, but the mechanics made it possible to do so. Some of the examples were more realistic than others, but my point was that it was a common theme to older fighters.

T1 Cata fights where one person can easily fuck the raid:
Magmaw: If the wrong person (aka a clueless idiot) jumps on his head by accident and doesn't know how to use the chain, your MT will be auto-killed and the raid will likely wipe to the AOE.
Omnitron: Failing to run from slimes, failing to run out of Acquiring Target, and DPSing a golem with it's shield up can all result in wipes.
Maloriak: Improper kicking of Release Aberrations will result in a wipe, either because too many or too few casts were kicked.
Valiona/Theralion: Casting without running out with Engulfing Magic can result in a wipe.
Ascendant Council: Failing to get away from the raid with Lightning Rod can easily kill people, usually causing you to fail the enrage.

Magmaw: This is true, but similarly there were plenty of fights where a dps warrior taunting the boss at the wrong time would wipe your raid. It's just something that shouldn't happen. It's not someone 'not doing their task well', or being forced to do something perfect because everyone in the raid needs to do that or you fail. When my guild was learning this fight we had 4 people clicking on Magmaw just to make sure that there were always 2 people there to use the spikes.

Omnitron: Radius on poison bombs is pretty small, so usually if you are slow to react to a bomb targeting you, you'll only kill yourself. Maybe this is different on 25man where there is less room to run around though?

Maloriak: Partially true, but there is a lot of room to correct errors here. If you let Aberrations through that weren't supposed to spawn yet, your tank can handle them early or you can have a dps pull one of them out and kill the add pack individually (my guild has had to do this a few times). If you interrupt to many abberation casts, you can correct it after the green vial phase in a similar fashion. I expect a tank could probably kite a couple of these adds for the 'berserk' section at the end of the fight, if really needed. Point is: screwing up does not doom your raid, there is a lot of room to recover.

Valiona/Theralion: The damage from Englufing Magic isn't going to instantly kill your raid, but you are correct that one person can completely screw this fight for you. If they just stood there and didn't notice what they were doing, they would probably wipe you. This is probably the best example of a pass/fail from Cata, but it's generally considered a pretty easy fight.

Ascendant Council: This is a pretty good example. That said, there is a decent delay before lightning rod starts hitting people, and the room really encourages you to spread out. The people around you also see a large yellow arrow on your head, so even if you are braindead and stand next to everyone, those people can move and correct for you before it causes a problem. If blizzard was really designing this fight so that one bad player would wipe you, they'd have made it so that not having the correct debuff for earth/air ults did damage to the rest of the raid instead of just you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 13, 2011, 04:36:27 PM


I forgot about the cube thing on Magtheridon, and that is a good example. I believe they nerfed the shit out of cubes and the debuff due to that being too complicated for people to manage.


Yeah, they did nerf that mechanic hard.  I think originally you needed all 25 people in the raid to be able to do it because the cooldown was such that you had to do 5 groups of five and then the first group started over.  It might have been 20 people though, honestly I don't remmeber. They they nerfed it down to only needing 2 cycles.  That was tough because if you died someone had to take your place, someone without the debuff, small margin for error.

Shit, even the trash for that place was fucking hard before they nerfed it.  AoE shadow bolting, fearing, healing each other.  Fuck that place.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 13, 2011, 04:37:01 PM
I want to say now you can just have one person do the cube thing for the entire fight. Maybe 3?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 13, 2011, 04:58:05 PM
I think they removed debuffs completely after a while, so yeah.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on April 13, 2011, 05:24:39 PM
Saying that Cata is too hard because it has all these pass/fail mechanics is remembering the old raid content incorrectly, or after everyone had overgeared the content and you could survive some of the stupid stuff people did. I tried to show above that Cata actually has less of those pass/fail mechanics where one person could wipe you, and that old content had plenty of example of those types of mechanics.

Well, then you tell me why casuals packed up and left. If content is mechanically just as hard as before, why all casuals, including many people that dabbed in hard modes in Wrath, picked up and left because it was "too hard"? Not all of them were bad players, but a lot of them made a call "I'd rather fail & quit with friends than succeed with strangers".

Re: Cubes - these were assigned to players that are not likely to fuck it up. Any "assigned" role that can be reasonably planned will exclude "idiot fail".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 13, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Well, then you tell me why casuals packed up and left. If content is mechanically just as hard as before, why all casuals, including many people that dabbed in hard modes in Wrath, picked up and left because it was "too hard"? Not all of them were bad players, but a lot of them made a call "I'd rather fail & quit with friends than succeed with strangers".

Because WOTLK established that it was a viable play style, and Cata said it wasn't.  We can harp on BC and vanilla all we want (and I have to some extent), but I bet a huge population never even played those when they were relevant content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 13, 2011, 05:55:24 PM
Honestly? I think a lot of people are just burnt out on the game, regardless of the content that was delivered. I couldn't stand playing the game anymore after Wrath came out, but I think a lot of that was because I had been playing the game heavily for over 4 years and the game had just gotten boring. At the time I told myself it was because the new content wasn't very good, but in retrospect that was only half of the story. I still wouldn't have liked Wrath even if all of the content was amazing, because I had simply been playing the same game for too damn long. I stopped playing for a good two years, and when I finally came back for Cata I started having fun again. Expansions usually bring huge changes to the game, so if you are unhappy with the game (in a broad sense), you hope that the expansion will change things you don't like or refresh the game for you. Of course, the expansion never manages to be the magical panacea you were hoping for, and WoW is still WoW. I think the people raging about the difficulty of the expansion are mostly just people who are burnt out and are looking for someone or something to blame for why they aren't enjoying WoW anymore. I think for most people, even if the content that was delivered was exactly what they wanted, they would still be looking at WoW and wondering "Why isn't this fun anymore?"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 13, 2011, 06:02:31 PM
Because WOTLK established that it was a viable play style, and Cata said it wasn't.  We can harp on BC and vanilla all we want (and I have to some extent), but I bet a huge population never even played those when they were relevant content.
This describes me pretty well. I tried a raid or two in vanilla and didn't like it, so all I did was PVP. I quit shortly after hitting 70 in BC because I didn't care for the difficulty and don't like arenas. WotLK was the high point of the game for me; first from successfully joining PUG raids, then leading PUGs, then putting together my own raiding guild. By the end of ICC we had two steady raid teams: one was 8/12 H ICC 10, the other was just starting to work on HMs. We're now down to one raid team, and we frequently have to pug 1-2 members just to fill our 10m. Half of the people we DO have raiding are new recruits; a grand total of FIVE of us from the LK days are still playing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on April 13, 2011, 06:10:49 PM
Because WOTLK established that it was a viable play style, and Cata said it wasn't.  We can harp on BC and vanilla all we want (and I have to some extent), but I bet a huge population never even played those when they were relevant content.

That sounds pretty accurate to me.  I know I never did any raiding or many 5-mans before Wrath, when I joined a very casual guild that was raiding Naxx because it was so easy.  The guild dramaploded halfway through the expansion, but then the LFG system came out and made it even easier for me to get gear even without a guild.  Maybe BC was worse, maybe vanilla was worse, but this is the first expansion where things like the gear reset or the difficulty of heroics was a set back at all for me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 13, 2011, 06:22:56 PM

Re: Cubes - these were assigned to players that are not likely to fuck it up. Any "assigned" role that can be reasonably planned will exclude "idiot fail".

Iirc, these were assigned to ~20 out of 25 people in the raid because of the exhaustion debuff. Sure, it was assigned, but it was assigned to almost the entire raid. Plenty of room for idiots. Keep in mind that if even one person didn't click their cube at the right time, it was a wipe. Everyone else in that 'group' of clickers would get the exhaustion debuff and be unable to click the cube again for a quick recovery, and Magtheridon would nuke your raid for a ton of damage. It was a much bigger pass/fail 'idiot' check than anything currently in Cata, and it was much less forgiving of mistakes. Most guilds didn't farm Magtheridon much because the fight was easy to fail until they nerfed it, which took quite a while.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 13, 2011, 06:44:33 PM
It's not like anyone really wanted to do the fight, the loot off of maggy was shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 13, 2011, 06:52:25 PM
It's not like anyone really wanted to do the fight, the loot off of maggy was shit.

Eh? He dropped the T4 chest token and had a couple other nice drops too. People definitely had loot incentive to kill him, it just wasn't enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 13, 2011, 07:12:47 PM
It's not like anyone really wanted to do the fight, the loot off of maggy was shit.

I think you needed it for TK attunement.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 13, 2011, 07:42:55 PM
It's not like anyone really wanted to do the fight, the loot off of maggy was shit.

I think you needed it for TK attunement.

Yes, that was at the heart of that retarded shrubbery maze.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on April 13, 2011, 07:43:35 PM
If you're making comparisons to TBC, you're fighting a losing battle.  TBC raiding was largely inaccessible for casuals outside of Kara (which was painful with bads) and if you had critical mass Gruul/Mags. The 25man stuff was HELL in a casual guild.  I have the scars.

Vanilla.  HAHAHA.  Yah, casuals didn't raid. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 13, 2011, 08:04:24 PM
If you're making comparisons to TBC, you're fighting a losing battle.  TBC raiding was largely inaccessible for casuals outside of Kara (which was painful with bads) and if you had critical mass Gruul/Mags. The 25man stuff was HELL in a casual guild.  I have the scars.

Vanilla.  HAHAHA.  Yah, casuals didn't raid. 


I'm not really fighting a battle at all, I'm mostly just saying that this isn't some kind of unprecedented thing for WoW.  I'm in fact saying that is quite typical of WoW and that WOTLK was the exception, not the norm, but people are treating it as the norm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 13, 2011, 08:19:01 PM
I don't think anyone is questioning that it's happened before. I think what we are questioning is the brick-wall method to which they've applied this change, and the fact that returning to an era where the game was less popular didn't exactly seem like a grand strategy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 13, 2011, 08:31:46 PM
I just don't understand why you go from record breaking subs to "let's roll the clock back three years!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on April 13, 2011, 09:13:45 PM
Doing Heigan with two or three people is one of life's simple pleasures. I was always Just That Angry to make them sit there and wait, I don't care if it takes ALL NIGHT because the only people left are the protection warrior and the holy paladin.

Kildorn used to make it his life's ambition to get this one dude through that boss. I don't think he ever managed it.  :heart:

I got him to the last dance phase once. Just to PROVE that there was enough time between bursts that you could STOP AND HEAL. ><

edit: also, that fire bird troll dude was another "fuck it, we're going to beat this, and YOU ARE ALL GOING TO WATCH" things.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Margalis on April 13, 2011, 09:38:25 PM
I just don't understand why you go from record breaking subs to "let's roll the clock back three years!"

I think their idea was to make the game a "better" game. Someone here listed how these changed were objective improvements - took more skill, less "spammy", etc.

Kind of like saying that the Ville games suck since there isn't any real skill component to them or mastery to be had. Kind of true, but that's also kind of the appeal.

WOW has always been known as an "easy" game in every sense of the word, both in actual difficulty and fake pain-in-the-ass roadblocks. That's the appeal. It seems to me that the current devs looked at their Checkers and tried to turn it into Chess.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on April 13, 2011, 10:11:24 PM
Doing Heigan with two or three people is one of life's simple pleasures. I was always Just That Angry to make them sit there and wait, I don't care if it takes ALL NIGHT because the only people left are the protection warrior and the holy paladin.

Kildorn used to make it his life's ambition to get this one dude through that boss. I don't think he ever managed it.  :heart:

I got him to the last dance phase once. Just to PROVE that there was enough time between bursts that you could STOP AND HEAL. ><

edit: also, that fire bird troll dude was another "fuck it, we're going to beat this, and YOU ARE ALL GOING TO WATCH" things.

Or you just heal as a Druid.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: amiable on April 14, 2011, 03:06:30 AM
I know from my group of friends there is a lot of anger and frustration.  I leveled up earlier then everyone else and have only hung around to help my RL friends get through heroics.  So far it has been a total nightmare.  To be honest some of them aren't that great (key-board turners and such), but the general consesus is that heroics are a stab in the dick.  The weird thing is that most everyone can run heroics individually and do fine, but when we come together as a group it all falls apart.  I never realized how much of  a difference that random group buff makes.  It doesn't help that our tank is a bit undergeared, which makes running heroics an exercise in frustration.

Also, if you are going to make it a requirement for your playerbase to download third part mods (DBM, GTFO, decursive) to be successful in your five man content, you are a poor designer, there is nothing else to say.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 14, 2011, 03:49:08 AM
I'm not really fighting a battle at all, I'm mostly just saying that this isn't some kind of unprecedented thing for WoW.  I'm in fact saying that is quite typical of WoW and that WOTLK was the exception, not the norm, but people are treating it as the norm.

No, people are treating it as "wtf you had this nice, accessible game that was making you tons of money and you decided... nahhhh.  We'll piss of the majority and instead cater to the top 1-3%."

Now their initial logic is sound, in that the top 1-3% has a lot of pull and they were getting bored.  BUT that pull is ONLY with your typical MMO-Gamers.  You know, the guys who jump from game to game and actually do only make-up about 1mil total players.

WoW, on the other hand, grew so large it's become a cultural phenom and drew-in other platform gamers and those only casually interested in gaming.  They were the ones who spread it by word of mouth so you had all those people for whom it was their first MMO.

I think Blizzard is finding out that they made up a lot more of the player base than they anticipated, and that they don't give a fuck that Elitist Jerks, Premo or whomever are having fun in normal raiding and had fun in heroics.  These players are frustrated, angry, confused and generally not having a good time. Social ties and nostalgia are probably keeping them in because it's their first game, but they're drifting away steadily.   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 14, 2011, 04:46:11 AM
Also, if you are going to make it a requirement for your playerbase to download third part mods (DBM, GTFO, decursive) to be successful in your five man content, you are a poor designer, there is nothing else to say.
I can't, off the top of my head, think of a single Heroic dungeon where Decursive or DBM would even come close to being "required" to complete said Heroic.  Unless the player in question is REALLY REALLY bad at standing in stuff, or hasnt figured out how to properly configure a basic party frame addon / make a mouseover dispell macro, there really shouldn't be a need for that kind of thing (with the possible exception of healers, since sometimes knowing when a boss is targeting you for a nasty attck is nice when you have to spend most of your time with the Tank / DPS targeted).

Raids, where you are dealing with 10 / 25 people at a time, with bosses with lots of complex abilities you need timers / split second decurses for, sure, but 5 man Heroics? That's stretching it a bit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on April 14, 2011, 05:55:19 AM
When I was tanking heroics in LK, I used DBM just to remind me which boss was which between all of the different dungeons - especially as I wasn't running each and every one daily.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: amiable on April 14, 2011, 06:01:33 AM
Also, if you are going to make it a requirement for your playerbase to download third part mods (DBM, GTFO, decursive) to be successful in your five man content, you are a poor designer, there is nothing else to say.
I can't, off the top of my head, think of a single Heroic dungeon where Decursive or DBM would even come close to being "required" to complete said Heroic.  Unless the player in question is REALLY REALLY bad at standing in stuff, or hasnt figured out how to properly configure a basic party frame addon / make a mouseover dispell macro, there really shouldn't be a need for that kind of thing (with the possible exception of healers, since sometimes knowing when a boss is targeting you for a nasty attck is nice when you have to spend most of your time with the Tank / DPS targeted).

Raids, where you are dealing with 10 / 25 people at a time, with bosses with lots of complex abilities you need timers / split second decurses for, sure, but 5 man Heroics? That's stretching it a bit.

I'm sorry, but bullshit.   Sure, if you are walking into heroics dripping in full raid gear you can power through without difficulty, or if your Jesus McAwesome multitasker who can read the chat log while running around doing full dps/healing and avoiding standing in fire it is possible.  But if you coming in in a premade with average folks who just are hitting the gear level you need mods for quite a few fights.  A few examples:

The first fight dragon boss in grim batol, knowing who is going to get charged will save your dps and or healers life.  
Knowing when a big ability you need to interrupt is up is necessary for countless fights.
Sometimes the graphic display of where an AOE boss ability lands doesn't exactly synch up with the radius.  Unless you are paying atention to your health bar at all times you may not know to reposition yourself without something like GTFO.
A big warning about the shadow gate is necessary for the last boss in Grim batal, because the f-ing shadow gate looks so graphically similar to the same bosses AOE damage ability.
Cleansing static cling on the last boss of pinnacle vortex is a nightmare without decursive, because the debuff doesn't show up very well on the default ui.

I am a healer, and let me tell you, I literally could not do my job without these mods.  The ability of our group to do heroics went from impossible to "difficult" once we got everyone to install these mods, they make a huge difference.  And that shows how shitty the design of this game is, we never needed that for heroic dungeons in LOTRO (and my group ran them all in that game, with minimal difficulty).  The folks we game with have been playing MMO's for years, including some WoW vanilla raiders.  5 man content should not be this difficult.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 07:20:54 AM

I am a healer, and let me tell you, I literally could not do my job without these mods.  

Sounds like a you problem. 

I will grant you that the default UI isn't ideal for healers, but literally not able to do your job is a lot different from makes your job easier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 14, 2011, 07:25:13 AM

I am a healer, and let me tell you, I literally could not do my job without these mods.  

Sounds like a you problem. 

I will grant you that the default UI isn't ideal for healers, but literally not able to do your job is a lot different from makes your job easier.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on April 14, 2011, 08:08:41 AM
The default UI is worlds better. DBM is basically built in now (most boss abilities give huge warnings across the screen)

I personally use vuhdo, but that's because I prefer click-heal, and don't like my group and raid healing frames to be different. Healing with the default frame in 5s is entirely doable. I just really don't like to shift mental gears to "okay, now my heal frames are over HERE because we added another person and suddenly my entire usage of the UI changes!"

But the few times I've had my UI mods not updated by the time I get home from work, the default UI has been entirely functional. We're a long way away from Vanilla, where the default UI was just.. painful. I will say that the functionality built into the default UI and my usage of vuhdo has made be absolutely loathe every other MMO's UI.

edit: is libheal still a requirement, or is that handled by the default UI as well now? I know the one reason to have that installed for raiding was that even if you raid heal with the default UI, libheal at least lets everyone ELSE see your incoming heals.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 14, 2011, 09:06:59 AM
You actually don't need any mods to heal anymore, the default UI is that good.  I'd argue you probably want one to move the player/target frames, but that won't be necessary next patch.  Now, I use a ton of mods and love them (in fact, the screenshot of my UI in the spoiler was taken automatically by one :awesome_for_real:) but the combat ones are all about giving me extra customization or easier access to information than the default UI, not really giving me entirely new functionality anymore.

You've been able click-cast via @mouseover macros for ages; the stock nameplates, scrolling combat text, and raid frames are all quite good having test-driven them (and in the case of nameplates, still use them); and boss mods are rather unnecessary these days.  Does having the precise timers via BigWigs let me squeeze in an extra shot or trap on a fight like Atramedes or Maloriak?  Sure, but boss abilities have clear signals either through animations, cast/health bars, or just the fight's cadence, that I go on to the exclusion of worrying about shouts or my boss mod.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 14, 2011, 09:14:54 AM
or hasnt figured out how to properly configure a basic party frame addon / make a mouseover dispell macro,

This right here?  You've just eliminated about 1/2 your playerbase, minimum.  There's tons of players who don't use macros at all, much less understand how to configure a mousover macro.  And why would they, when are they they ever taught it or is it required of them prior to heroics/ raiding?  Fuck, the nightmare it's been at times with the raid leader or someone else trying to teach people how to create a macro in the middle of a raid after "everyone has <xyz> macro, right?" was asked in vent.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: amiable on April 14, 2011, 10:39:14 AM

I am a healer, and let me tell you, I literally could not do my job without these mods.  

Sounds like a you problem. 

I will grant you that the default UI isn't ideal for healers, but literally not able to do your job is a lot different from makes your job easier.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 10:49:28 AM
You know what, if you can't be fucked to learn how to play the game, I have no sympathy for you.  That isn't aimed a particular "you" in this thread, its just a general show of frustration at the general "Well thats too hard for some people" posts.  Too fucking bad, the game is totally playable in its current state if you are willing to put in just a bare minimum of effort, and is still far more casual friendly than most MMORPGs out there.  If you just want to log in and get upgrades because you pay 15 bucks a month, you're the kind of people that has made this genre suck over the last 8-10 years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on April 14, 2011, 10:50:47 AM
u mad bro?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 14, 2011, 10:54:27 AM
You know what, if you can't be fucked to learn how to play the game, I have no sympathy for you.  That isn't aimed a particular "you" in this thread, its just a general show of frustration at the general "Well thats too hard for some people" posts.  Too fucking bad, the game is totally playable in its current state if you are willing to put in just a bare minimum of effort, and is still far more casual friendly than most MMORPGs out there.  If you just want to log in and get upgrades because you pay 15 bucks a month, you're the kind of people that has made this genre suck over the last 8-10 years.

Mouseover healing macros and setups that require multiple external addons go well beyond 'bare minimum effort'.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 14, 2011, 10:55:02 AM
I think the macro writing UI could get a million times better, but even if it does I don't think it's reasonable to expect all players to write their macros from scratch.  Programming logic on the level of 99% of WoW macros is very easy to teach or create a GUI for, but that doesn't mean that players will want to play around with it on their spare time.

That said, @mouseover macros aren't required at all, they just combine two very common actions together into one.  If players don't want to roll their own, they can use a mod like Clique.  If a player doesn't want to use either their performance isn't automatically inferior to someone who does because of things like the GCD and focus target.

At the point where macros can become incredibly powerful (e.g. any raid boss requiring interrupts, Cho'gall) it's not unreasonable to expect there to be someone available to help everyone through the process.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on April 14, 2011, 11:05:24 AM
You guys are killing me.

Carry on.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: amiable on April 14, 2011, 11:11:47 AM
You know what, if you can't be fucked to learn how to play the game, I have no sympathy for you.  That isn't aimed a particular "you" in this thread, its just a general show of frustration at the general "Well thats too hard for some people" posts.  Too fucking bad, the game is totally playable in its current state if you are willing to put in just a bare minimum of effort, and is still far more casual friendly than most MMORPGs out there.  If you just want to log in and get upgrades because you pay 15 bucks a month, you're the kind of people that has made this genre suck over the last 8-10 years.

I would prefer my welfare epics just sent to me via in game mail thank you.

In other news, I have read this screed a thousand times by the raiding set.  This philosophy has been proven its worth time again by the remarkable success of such titles as "Vanguard" and "Every Korean MMORPG ever made."  Listen dude, if you want to spend hours stabbing yourself in the dick, more power to you, but fun gameplay this does not make.  But then again I am the asshole arguing with someone whose definition of "bare minimum of effort" reads like a job description, honestly we just exist in different universes so I will leave it at that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 11:20:34 AM
honestly we just exist in different universes so I will leave it at that.

This is true, I'm totally unable to relate to someone who cares enough to want to be able to beat heroics, but doesn't care enough to want to actually get better at the game.  I'm really sorry that learning/improving at something is similar to "stabbing yourself in the dick" to you.  Remember, this argument isn't about grinding gear, this is about getting better at the game.  I don't play Korean MMOs and I hate grinding in general.

I'd like to slam dunk, but I don't want to practice jumping.
I'd like to run a 6 minute mile, but I don't like cardio.
I'd like to get "A"s in school, but I don't like studying.
I'd like to win at Chess, but I don't care to learn how the pieces work.

It makes no sense.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 14, 2011, 11:26:27 AM
No, the problem is you see heroics as a 6 minute mile, where most people think they should be a friendly jog in the park with some friends.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on April 14, 2011, 11:31:05 AM
No, the problem is you see heroics as a 6 minute mile, where most people think they should be a friendly jog in the park with some friends.

I thought regular dungeons were intended for the casual folks and the heroics were for the hardcore crowd.  While I realize that WotLK altered this, they were brought back to this standard in the new expansion.  Am I mistaken?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: amiable on April 14, 2011, 11:32:47 AM
honestly we just exist in different universes so I will leave it at that.

This is true, I'm totally unable to relate to someone who cares enough to want to be able to beat heroics, but doesn't care enough to want to actually get better at the game.  I'm really sorry that learning/improving at something is similar to "stabbing yourself in the dick" to you.  Remember, this argument isn't about grinding gear, this is about getting better at the game.  I don't play Korean MMOs and I hate grinding in general.

I'd like to slam dunk, but I don't want to practice jumping.
I'd like to run a 6 minute mile, but I don't like cardio.
I'd like to get "A"s in school, but I don't like studying.
I'd like to win at Chess, but I don't care to learn how the pieces work.

It makes no sense.

I did not realize heroics were the pinnacle of WoW.  I always thought that Blizzard included raids as an enticement for the dick-stabbing set, and that 5 mans were intended to provide content for more casual player.   I was in a top raid guild in vanilla, I am a perfectly adequate player who does everything necessary to succeed in heroics (I have successfully run every heroic in random groups).  If you would spend a few minutes actually examining my argument instead of engaging in a dick measuring contest where you proclaim anyone not at your level of play as irredeemably terrible you would see that there is a large portion of the player base that the new level of difficulty is simply locking out of most of the game content.  This large group of people includes my wife and most of my friends which I find sad, because they are not terrible players but just not at raid-quality level.

But I will let you return to your regularly scheduled superiority complex.  You must be terribly proud of all your amazing video game accomplishments.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 14, 2011, 11:38:48 AM
No, the problem is you see heroics as a 6 minute mile, where most people think they should be a friendly jog in the park with some friends.

I thought regular dungeons were intended for the casual folks and the heroics were for the hardcore crowd.  While I realize that WotLK altered this, they were brought back to this standard in the new expansion.  Am I mistaken?

That's sort of the point of this whole thing. People liked wotlk, they got record subs in wotlk so why the fuck would they ever think making heroics a cockstab would be a good idea? I don't think anyone is saying heroics should be a faceroll by why not have a sliding scale on things normal dungeons > H dungeons > Raids > H raids.

right now its more like Dungeons >>>>>>> H dungeons/raids >>>>>>> H raids


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 14, 2011, 11:41:02 AM
I'm sorry, but bullshit.   Sure, if you are walking into heroics dripping in full raid gear you can power through without difficulty, or if your Jesus McAwesome multitasker who can read the chat log while running around doing full dps/healing and avoiding standing in fire it is possible.  But if you coming in in a premade with average folks who just are hitting the gear level you need mods for quite a few fights.  A few examples:

The first fight dragon boss in grim batol, knowing who is going to get charged will save your dps and or healers life.  
Knowing when a big ability you need to interrupt is up is necessary for countless fights.
Sometimes the graphic display of where an AOE boss ability lands doesn't exactly synch up with the radius.  Unless you are paying atention to your health bar at all times you may not know to reposition yourself without something like GTFO.
A big warning about the shadow gate is necessary for the last boss in Grim batal, because the f-ing shadow gate looks so graphically similar to the same bosses AOE damage ability.
Cleansing static cling on the last boss of pinnacle vortex is a nightmare without decursive, because the debuff doesn't show up very well on the default ui.

What are you talking about?

Another way to tell who the first boss of Grim Batol is charging is to either look at who he is targeting by manually clicking on him, or just get out of the way if you see him turn to face you. Even if you are standing next to another dude and it turns out he was the person targeted, you'd still need to move, so watching the position of the dragon is the only thing you need to do. Absolutely does not require a mod even a little bit.

If someone is interrupting a boss (lets say Lady Naz'jar and Erunak), they should have the boss targeted and they will see a cast bar whenever the spell is being cast. In all of the 5-man content with bosses like that, the boss you need to interrupt is the only enemy you have to deal with. Add that to the fact that most dps (who will be usually be doing the interrupting) have to watch the boss's healthbar with the default UI anyway to do their dps rotation correctly, and it's pretty easy for them to watch for a cast bar and click their interrupt spell that isn't even on the GCD anymore.

If you are taking damage from an aoe with a slightly larger radius than the graphic, usually there is also a spell animation for your character taking damage. You might not notice your health going down, but if your character is bursting into flames every second, you should probably notice that. :oh_i_see:

The shadow gale graphic is much larger than the small shadow bind root he throws at people. I think they could have done a better job making the graphic for each look even more different, but I never had any problems telling the two apart, and you are given a large amount of time to run to the gale.

As for static cling, I think the default UI is fine and you can also customize it a bit for debuffs too. That said, static cling doesn't need to be removed instantly, and most times it doesn't need to be removed at all (it usually falls off before the triangle finishes casting). You can also completely avoid the static cling be jumping when the boss casts it, but I realize most players don't do that.

I did all of the heroics without any mods when Cata launched, and I don't think myself or my guild are that exceptional. Mods are definitely not required to play the game, especially not 5-mans. I only installed DBM when I started raiding again, because trying to do something like Omnitron without timers for abilities really was just a huge disadvantage. I mostly use the default blizzard UI, including the raid UI, because they really have made a lot of improvements.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 11:44:09 AM
This large group of people includes my wife and most of my friends which I find sad, because they are not terrible players but just not at raid-quality level.


Normal mode exists.  If you'll recall, Heroics were added originally in part for players who wanted a tougher kind of content to do but did not have a schedule that would permit regular raiding.  They added 10man dungeons for a similar reason.  The big issue back in vanilla, as you must remember, is not that people said raiding was too hard to do, but rather that people simply couldn't manage to meet the logistical challenges.  Fine, said blizzard, here is some tougher content for small groups so that you don't need to plan your evenings around doing it.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 14, 2011, 11:46:32 AM
No, the problem is you see heroics as a 6 minute mile, where most people think they should be a friendly jog in the park with some friends.

I thought regular dungeons were intended for the casual folks and the heroics were for the hardcore crowd.  While I realize that WotLK altered this, they were brought back to this standard in the new expansion.  Am I mistaken?

The problem is heroic gear is more or less a prerequisite to raiding. Thus for "casual" raiding to work, those players need to be able to complete heroics. If you could reasonably expect to jump into 10 man normal raiding in 333 gear from normals and be successful (as players who struggled in heroic 5s, mind you), then heroics could be as hardcore as they wanted, but that isn't the case.

They have clearly gotten easier, I haven't been playing much but I did run a couple with some guildmates and they weren't as bad as they once were. I'm not even sure where I land on the argument myself to be honest - I like the harder fights in the right group but I very much dislike the social consequences - but it is pretty clear a large majority of players want the heroics to generally be easier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: amiable on April 14, 2011, 11:53:12 AM


Normal mode exists.

True, but the issue as described above is the group I am in is face-rolling normals and then running into a brick wall at heroics.  I think a more gradual increase in difficulty would be appropriate.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 14, 2011, 11:54:41 AM
It also wouldn't be such a big deal if there were more than three (I think three?) level 85 normal dungeons. But there aren't. So people want to do heroics for that reason alone. It was pretty much the only reason I wanted to get heroic geared on my rogue, so I'd have more damn variety.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 14, 2011, 12:07:57 PM
True, but the issue as described above is the group I am in is face-rolling normals and then running into a brick wall at heroics.

I don't see how.  The instances are broadly similar and you obviously have the gear for them.  Are you just running in there and expecting to AOE everything down?  How is your group composed?  As a premade group you don't have the buffer from Luck of the Draw or a possible ringer so that becomes a consideration.  In general, healing has a bit of a spike in difficulty around that level of gear, but a group that knows the fights shouldn't be causing your mana bar many issues.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: amiable on April 14, 2011, 12:22:20 PM
True, but the issue as described above is the group I am in is face-rolling normals and then running into a brick wall at heroics.

I don't see how.  The instances are broadly similar and you obviously have the gear for them.  Are you just running in there and expecting to AOE everything down?  How is your group composed?  As a premade group you don't have the buffer from Luck of the Draw or a possible ringer so that becomes a consideration.  In general, healing has a bit of a spike in difficulty around that level of gear, but a group that knows the fights shouldn't be causing your mana bar many issues.

The problem is as you describe, the tank is not super geared warrior (although everything is a 333 blus or higher).  My pally is well geared (everything 346 and above) and the DPS are a mix (most are averaging between 6-8k for non movement intensive fights).    The issue we are running into is that keeping the tank up requires a pretty constant spam of greater heals and the dps is not able to dps the boss down before my mana pool runs out (yes I judge on cooldown, beacon the tank, use HS/WOG when available and am properly geared/specced, at least according to elitist jerks).   In general we don't have problems with trash pulls, we use target marking/cc and they are pretty easy save for dumb mistakes like being feared or thrown into a second group.

I would argue that the mechanics in some cases are NOT broadly similar, for example, the second boss in Grim Batol.  In normals when he dons his shield it is a slow time where I can top everyone off, in heroics it is a rush to get into position so you are not hit by the flaming rockets of death.  In heroics the ground slam by the third boss in Stonecore is pretty much an instant kill.  

The decision we have made is to spend as much effort as possible to gear up our tank.  He still has 3-5 dps pieces in slots and that is a problem, and his trinkets are poor.    Still, a slightly undergeared tank shouldn't make running these things impossible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 14, 2011, 12:46:28 PM
No, the problem is you see heroics as a 6 minute mile, where most people think they should be a friendly jog in the park with some friends.

I thought regular dungeons were intended for the casual folks and the heroics were for the hardcore crowd.  While I realize that WotLK altered this, they were brought back to this standard in the new expansion.  Am I mistaken?
The issue is that WotLK was, for many, seen as a step in the right direction while Cata has taken a step back. The standard you mention was only established in BC anyway; one expansion of cock stabbing and one expansion of friendly park jogging. It's not like WotLK bucked a particularly long trend.

If there were a larger number of 85 normal dungeons that gave 346 gear, with Heroics giving 359 gear (equivalent to first tier raid) and seen as a separate challenging 5-man progression it might not be so bad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 14, 2011, 12:54:11 PM
The decision we have made is to spend as much effort as possible to gear up our tank.  He still has 3-5 dps pieces in slots and that is a problem, and his trinkets are poor.    Still, a slightly undergeared tank shouldn't make running these things impossible.
Actually, this is probably ENTIRELY the problem right here.  

You are running into a problem because your tank is not geared for heroics.  3-5 dps pieces and bad trinkets?!?!  Thats like 1/4 of his gear.  That is not a "slightly undergered tank".   You may be able to get away with that in normals, but Cata is designed so that that just wont cut it in heroics.  A properly geared tank is probably the most important factor in survivability in a heroic, immediately followed by a good healer, which you say you have covered.

Find out what upgrades he needs to get out ot his dps gear, and focus on getting rid of those first. What kind of Class is your tank?  Is he specced right? Gemmed / chanted / reforged correctly?  Is he grinding rep for his tanking epics? I mean, if a raid ready healer (if you are above Ilevel 346 average, you essentially have no further upgrade path in heroics), is having issues keeping the tank up untill the dps kills the boss, it should be blindingly obvious where the problem is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 14, 2011, 12:55:54 PM
Here's the problem:  Does Blizzard like money and popularity, or being able to claim their players enjoy difficult challenges which require skill?  They get to pick one.

If there isn't a sliding difficulty then someone always has to be the one that fulfills the "this game isn't for you" condition.  As a company, guess which one they're going to side with.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2011, 01:02:12 PM
This is true, I'm totally unable to relate to someone who cares enough to want to be able to beat heroics, but doesn't care enough to want to actually get better at the game.

Sounds like a you problem.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 14, 2011, 01:02:59 PM
Anyone else remember before Cata launched, all that talk about how an Arms Warrior would be able to just put on a shield and tank heroics?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 01:04:11 PM
This is true, I'm totally unable to relate to someone who cares enough to want to be able to beat heroics, but doesn't care enough to want to actually get better at the game.

Sounds like a you problem.

Not really, since I actually think Cataclysm is better than Wrath.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 14, 2011, 01:07:02 PM
Anyone else remember before Cata launched, all that talk about how an Arms Warrior would be able to just put on a shield and tank heroics?  :why_so_serious:
Actually, I am pretty sure that the talk was about how most "tank capable dps classes" could throw on a bit of tank gear and tank Normals in their dps spec, but that they WOULD have to gear and spec properly for Heroics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 14, 2011, 01:24:08 PM
Anyone else remember before Cata launched, all that talk about how an Arms Warrior would be able to just put on a shield and tank heroics?  :why_so_serious:
Actually, I am pretty sure that the talk was about how most "tank capable dps classes" could throw on a bit of tank gear and tank Normals in their dps spec, but that they WOULD have to gear and spec properly for Heroics.

Yeah that is right.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2011, 01:36:34 PM
This is true, I'm totally unable to relate to someone who cares enough to want to be able to beat heroics, but doesn't care enough to want to actually get better at the game.

Sounds like a you problem.

Not really, since I actually think Cataclysm is better than Wrath.

I know you do. It's adorable. Keep fighting the good fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 01:50:23 PM
This is true, I'm totally unable to relate to someone who cares enough to want to be able to beat heroics, but doesn't care enough to want to actually get better at the game.

Sounds like a you problem.

Not really, since I actually think Cataclysm is better than Wrath.

I know you do. It's adorable. Keep fighting the good fight.

*shrugs* People make arguments all the time on these forums that what makes a game "better" isn't always what makes it more popular. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2011, 01:56:08 PM
*shrugs* People make arguments all the time on these forums that what makes a game "better" isn't always what makes it more popular. 

Very true. Without bringing any subjective terms into it, all they did was make the product less accessible to their clients. It's hard for me to as a business minded person to come up with many examples of that being a good idea when you aren't changing your price structure to compensate.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 14, 2011, 01:57:57 PM
I would argue that the mechanics in some cases are NOT broadly similar, for example, the second boss in Grim Batol.  In normals when he dons his shield it is a slow time where I can top everyone off, in heroics it is a rush to get into position so you are not hit by the flaming rockets of death.  In heroics the ground slam by the third boss in Stonecore is pretty much an instant kill.  

The decision we have made is to spend as much effort as possible to gear up our tank.  He still has 3-5 dps pieces in slots and that is a problem, and his trinkets are poor.    Still, a slightly undergeared tank shouldn't make running these things impossible.

There is no way to avoid the flaming arrows in heroic btw, but you do have the time between when he stopped using his last weapon, and when he starts using his shield to top people off. There is no "rush to position" so much as "don't stand in the fire being sprayed out of the shield" (just like normal mode).

If your tank lacks gear, instead of queueing for a random heroic, why not queue for one of the easier heroics that also has tank upgrades like Vortex Pinnacle?

Are your DPS friends doing enough damage? If not, they should be able to take 3 minutes to read the EJ thread for their spec and they're have fixed their DPS until major changes are made to their class.

Are they doing stupid stuff like standing in fire and wasting your mana?

If you can complete these dungeons with random players, you should be able to complete them with your friends without the 'luck of the draw' buff. The advantage of playing with people you know is that it is easier to communicate when something goes wrong. If you keep running oom on the second boss in GB, ask yourself "Am I having to heal the other players besides the tank in the group too much? Are they standing in Cave Ins? Are they standing in Lava? Are they standing in the fire from the shield?" Take a look at the battlefield next time something is going wrong, and politely suggest a correction when you notice a problem. If you are friends with these players it shouldn't be hard to say "Man, that Cave In damage is huge. Can you guys try to get out of that faster? Make sure to watch out for it especially when he is using his shield attack because that's what's killing us" You could also use something like recount to see what is doing damage to people, but without addons it's still possible to pinpoint and correct play mistakes.

Of course, if you are like everyone else complaining about heroic difficulty,  your attitude when you wipe is probably "this shit is too hard" instead of "how we can adjust what we are doing to win?"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 14, 2011, 02:03:22 PM
MMO Raider-Speak translated to other games: If you can't be bothered to learn how to use tactics and program the AI in Dragon Age/ DA2, you don't deserve to finish the game at all.

 :awesome_for_real:  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on April 14, 2011, 02:07:21 PM
Dragon Age has a "casual" difficulty setting.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 14, 2011, 02:17:08 PM
Right, telling your friend not to stand in the giant glowing ring of fire is just as hard as customizing AI for an entire party in Dragon Age  :oh_i_see:

For the record, I played DA2 on hard and I didn't customize the AI at all. I just switched between the pre-defined roles that the game already had AI for (like switching Anders to "healer"). Game still sucked though :(

You don't need to play perfect to succeed in Cata heroics, you just need to pay a basic amount of attention and be willing to communicate and adapt if what you are doing isn't working.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 02:49:43 PM
MMO Raider-Speak translated to other games: If you can't be bothered to learn how to use tactics and program the AI in Dragon Age/ DA2, you don't deserve to finish the game at all.

 :awesome_for_real:  :why_so_serious:

Is that a problem?  If simply buying a game entitles you to everything in it, I think what you are looking for is a movie.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2011, 02:52:03 PM
Is that a problem?  If simply buying a game entitles you to everything in it, I think what you are looking for is a movie.

What is it you do for a living again? In all seriousness. I'd like to draw a comparable anology here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on April 14, 2011, 02:55:04 PM
lol normals

Normals are leveling content. The fact that a bare few of them are level 85 is basically irrelevant.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 03:04:17 PM
Is that a problem?  If simply buying a game entitles you to everything in it, I think what you are looking for is a movie.

What is it you do for a living again? In all seriousness. I'd like to draw a comparable anology here.

Right now I am back in graduate school.  Before making that decision I was working a relatively crappy job for a company that deals with standardized testing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 14, 2011, 03:05:52 PM
lol normals

Normals are leveling content. The fact that a bare few of them are level 85 is basically irrelevant.

Why does this matter at all? They still include gear upgrades when most people hit lvl 85, and it's still something to do with your friends. Hell, they still give you a method to get 346 gear too. I can understand the complaint that there aren't enough at level 85, but if you don't really care about the challenge I don't see why it matters. Running normal Throne of Tides at 85 would be stupid easy, but isn't that exactly what you want out of group content?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on April 14, 2011, 03:16:06 PM
Running normal Throne of Tides at 85 would be stupid easy, but isn't that exactly what you want out of group content?

I was under the impression that lower level dungeons like Throne of Tides don't give you anything for running them at 85.  The gear is all level 83ish stuff, and you don't get any Justice points unless you queue for it from the LFD tool which excludes you from the non-85 dungeons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on April 14, 2011, 03:20:31 PM
Is that a problem?  If simply buying a game entitles you to everything in it, I think what you are looking for is a movie.

Uhm, I am a bit younger than you I am pretty sure, but nowadays game for all intents and purposes equals movie. It was said in another thread by somebody (don't remember) that games aren't about achievement anymore, they are about entertainment.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 14, 2011, 03:21:09 PM
That's correct. For most people (including myself) when they hit 85, some of those level 81/83 items are upgrades from quest gear you randomly picked up. So, there is the possibility you will get an upgrade out of it. My point is more: if you just want to faceroll content at 85 with your friends, why are normal mode dungeons not an option for you? There are only a couple at level 85, but there is nothing stopping you from running BRC or ToT if you want to. If your goal is just "do easy content with friends", these still fill that purpose.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2011, 03:25:00 PM
Right now I am back in graduate school.  Before making that decision I was working a relatively crappy job for a company that deals with standardized testing.

Ok that makes more sense. You may be approaching this from the educational standpoint. You pay for an education or you pay for testing to evaluate where you stand in that particular field. There are no guarantees in that world. You are not supposed to be given anything just because you cut somebody a check. In a job you're not guaranteed to get promoted because you've simply been there a long time. You are supposed to learn what you are doing and advance as a career person. In life you need to strive towards goals and improve yourself in order to be successful.

However, in most other consumer entertainment experiences, I'm paying you to experience something be it tangible or otherwise. If I walk out to a golf course, I don't expect to win at golf. What I expect is to play 18 holes. If I got to play the front nine, but I could only play the back because I shot over par, that golf course would go out of business. Their choice to deny me access to those holes would be a bad decision just because I'm a bad player. If I go to a movie, they don't switch off the film mid-way through and make everyone take a quick quiz to see if they are keeping up. Only those that pass get to watch the ending. How many people would put up with that? I'm sure the smart ones would be more than willing to go, but you'd lose the dumb money, and the movie doesn't change by who's watching it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Margalis on April 14, 2011, 03:43:06 PM
Quote
You know what, if you can't be fucked to learn how to play the game, I have no sympathy for you.  That isn't aimed a particular "you" in this thread, its just a general show of frustration at the general "Well thats too hard for some people" posts.  Too fucking bad, the game is totally playable in its current state if you are willing to put in just a bare minimum of effort, and is still far more casual friendly than most MMORPGs out there.  If you just want to log in and get upgrades because you pay 15 bucks a month, you're the kind of people that has made this genre suck over the last 8-10 years.

Lol?

Being able to accomplish a lot with minimal effort pretty much IS what WoW is all about.

If you think that the genre sucks because whiners have made MMOs too easy you should not be playing WoW, period. That's like someone playing Cow Clicker and complaining about how modern games don't have a large mastery component to them. If you read the boards of basically any other MMO everyone agrees that WoW is an "easy" game and that a primary reason to play game X over WoW is that WoW is "too easy."

If people have been playing WoW for 6 years and don't know how to play up to your standards they aren't going to learn now. And why should they? Half the point of WoW is that you can be awesome at it while eating a sandwich and watching TV.

Quote
Is that a problem?  If simply buying a game entitles you to everything in it, I think what you are looking for is a movie.

Derp. THIS IS WOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT! There are some games that emphasize mastery and the fun is in getting good. Then there are games like Prince of Persia 2008 where you press towards and mash buttons and the game beats itself for you. WoW is very much in the PoP vein of things.

If you want a game that emphasizes mastery why in the hell would you be playing WoW? WoW is the Duplo blocks of MMOs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 03:43:38 PM

However, in most other consumer entertainment experiences, I'm paying you to experience something be it tangible or otherwise. If I walk out to a golf course, I don't expect to win at golf. What I expect is to play 18 holes. If I got to play the front nine, but I could only play the back because I shot over par, that golf course would go out of business. Their choice to deny me access to those holes would be a bad decision just because I'm a bad player. If I go to a movie, they don't switch off the film mid-way through and make everyone take a quick quiz to see if they are keeping up. Only those that pass get to watch the ending. How many people would put up with that? I'm sure the smart ones would be more than willing to go, but you'd lose the dumb money, and the movie doesn't change by who's watching it.

I see your point.  I guess my approach has always been the gym membership approach - paying a monthly fee gets you access to the facilities, but you still need to put the effort in to actually get your money's worth.   I think your golf analogy is probably better for most people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on April 14, 2011, 03:53:42 PM
Is that a problem?  If simply buying a game entitles you to everything in it, I think what you are looking for is a movie.

What is it you do for a living again? In all seriousness. I'd like to draw a comparable anology here.

Right now I am back in graduate school.  Before making that decision I was working a relatively crappy job for a company that deals with standardized testing.
Out of interest, how much time do you have to play WoW?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 03:55:57 PM

Out of interest, how much time do you have to play WoW?

At the moment I play around 2 hours saturday morning and 2 hours sunday morning weekly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 14, 2011, 04:29:30 PM
If you want a game that emphasizes mastery why in the hell would you be playing WoW? WoW is the Duplo blocks of MMOs.

I think going by opinions of other MMO's players isn't the greatest idea.  Pretty much any other game's chat channels can drop into a self-reassuring "WoW sucks." spam at the drop of a hat.  Also, it's gotten a lot better since the first Classic raids and Burning Crusade's one-button-wonder days (namely with this expansion).

Just focusing on the moment-to-moment experience group PvE play, I'd say GW and EVE have the edge in complexity, but that's about it.  The character building is a bit difficult to compare to other games because WoW isn't at all a black box and has a huge community to develop simulators, spreadsheets, and other tools that make the everyday player's experience less demanding from a math standpoint.  In a lot of other games, especially those with major PvP components, I was stuck doing a lot of my own work as no one with anything valuable to say wanted to share on a wiki or the forums.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Margalis on April 14, 2011, 04:55:34 PM
Leveling in WOW last I checked was they tell you exactly what to do and you go do it - "it" being something that is basically impossible to fail at unless you suffer a stroke mid-encounter.

My tone is dismissive but that's a legit game-style. Just not a skill-intensive one.

WOW end-game has always been about getting better gear so you can do harder encounters - not getting better at the game so you can do harder encounters. The sort of unwritten contract of WoW is that if you grind up enough gear you can take on the next challenge. It's similar to an offline RPG, if you are having trouble with a certain boss you can get better - or you can just raise levels.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 04:58:39 PM


WOW end-game has always been about getting better gear so you can do harder encounters - not getting better at the game so you can do harder encounters. The sort of unwritten contract of WoW is that if you grind up enough gear you can take on the next challenge. It's similar to an offline RPG, if you are having trouble with a certain boss you can get better - or you can just raise levels.

I just don't think this is true.  Yes, you can out gear some kinds of fights, but there have always been a mix of gear and skill checks in most raids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2011, 05:03:06 PM
WOW end-game has always been about getting better gear so you can do harder encounters - not getting better at the game so you can do harder encounters. The sort of unwritten contract of WoW is that if you grind up enough gear you can take on the next challenge. It's similar to an offline RPG, if you are having trouble with a certain boss you can get better - or you can just raise levels.

I just don't think this is true.  Yes, you can out gear some kinds of fights, but there have always been a mix of gear and skill checks in most raids.

I don't think gear has very much relevance at all beyond establishing a floor. Gear is one of the most minimal factors in the game right now, whereas in the past it was exponentially more important to covering skill deficiency. They need for that to be the case in this game to bridge the gap in their players. Right now, it's absent.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 05:08:36 PM
WOW end-game has always been about getting better gear so you can do harder encounters - not getting better at the game so you can do harder encounters. The sort of unwritten contract of WoW is that if you grind up enough gear you can take on the next challenge. It's similar to an offline RPG, if you are having trouble with a certain boss you can get better - or you can just raise levels.

I just don't think this is true.  Yes, you can out gear some kinds of fights, but there have always been a mix of gear and skill checks in most raids.

I don't think gear has very much relevance at all beyond establishing a floor. Gear is one of the most minimal factors in the game right now, whereas in the past it was exponentially more important to covering skill deficiency. They need for that to be the case in this game to bridge the gap in their players. Right now, it's absent.

Well, I have noticed my survivability going up quite a bit with just a handful of heroic ilevel gear, but I think you're still probably right.  The question is, how can we get people to have better gear without making the content not worth doing in the first place?  I guess in the past the answer was rep grinds, but that seems a little past its prime these days.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on April 14, 2011, 05:18:03 PM
You know what, if you can't be fucked to learn how to play the game, I have no sympathy for you. 

I can understand difficulty and challenge in PvP game, after all competition is entire point of it and you generally get to pick your teammates and occasionally even opponents. Now, acting all hardcore in PvE title like WoW just puzzles me. Can someone explain it to me?

Whole reason its PvE is to offload losing to AI, that doesn't mind, so you can feel better about yourself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 05:27:05 PM

Whole reason its PvE is to offload losing to AI, that doesn't mind, so you can feel better about yourself.

We just fundamentally disagree on this point, which isn't going to surprise anyone based on how this thread has gone.  But I'm one of those people that plays ARPGs on Hardcore mode after I beat it the first time.  I've said this in various places in various threads so I won't belabor the point again, but for me, its less about who (or what) I am playing against and more about self improvement as the source of enjoyment.   

That being said, that kind of PvE DOES exist in the game, in normal mode.  The normal mode discussion has already been played out today so not much more to add there.  I think at this point the issue is being able to keep your progression in terms of gear at the same time as being able to beat all the content. 

If you could get heroic gear in normals (but say it took twice as long?) - maybe if you get 2 pieces of the piece from the normal dungeon you can turn them in for the heroic version, would that be a viable approach?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2011, 05:34:21 PM
Well, I have noticed my survivability going up quite a bit with just a handful of heroic ilevel gear, but I think you're still probably right.  The question is, how can we get people to have better gear without making the content not worth doing in the first place?  I guess in the past the answer was rep grinds, but that seems a little past its prime these days.

Honestly, better content stratification. If they want heroics to be meaningful, they need to make regular raids easier. Make content go from regular dungeons > regular raids > heroic dungeons > heroic raids. Make it so the best players can start in heroic dungeons without the gear upgrade, but so the regular dudes have no shot.

If everyone sees your raiding content, they will feel less cheated than having to suffer through heroic dungeons for the shot at doing a regular raid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 05:48:51 PM
Well, I have noticed my survivability going up quite a bit with just a handful of heroic ilevel gear, but I think you're still probably right.  The question is, how can we get people to have better gear without making the content not worth doing in the first place?  I guess in the past the answer was rep grinds, but that seems a little past its prime these days.

Honestly, better content stratification. If they want heroics to be meaningful, they need to make regular raids easier. Make content go from regular dungeons > regular raids > heroic dungeons > heroic raids. Make it so the best players can start in heroic dungeons without the gear upgrade, but so the regular dudes have no shot.

If everyone sees your raiding content, they will feel less cheated than having to suffer through heroic dungeons for the shot at doing a regular raid.

Off the cuff, I'd be on board with this.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 14, 2011, 05:53:53 PM
Why would you push people from a raid-size, back into smaller groups, and then back into a raid-size within one progression path? It doesn't make sense, and it's even less logical when most 10-man raids have 3 healers. 25 man guilds would be even more screwed when they now needed to field 5 tanks that were well-geared enough to do 'whats next' after normal raids (heroic 5-mans).  Kara and TBC showed that making your guild's group size fluctuate a bunch was detrimental. You still haven't answered why normal mode dungeons are insufficient if you just want to kick back and have fun with friends. If you want to gear up for raids, but heroics are too hard, you'll be disappointed to learn that normal mode raids are harder than heroics right now. One of the only purposes heroics serve is to help you refine your individual gameplay.

Perhaps they will take your advice in the next expansion, and introduce "normal", "heroic", and "legendary" version of raids and 5-mans. In the normal mode fights, the group will get a buff that reduces damage taken by 99% and increases damage dealt by 50000%. The normal version also drops no loot. Since challenge has no place in WoW and you only care about doing the content with friends, you won't mind if your ultimate showdown with the Kij'jaeden or whatever now consists of 5 people running into a room, attacking the boss for 10 seconds, and then watching his corpse fall to the ground. You will also run out of exciting new content within the first week of the expansion. Excellent gameplay for sure, where do I sign up?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2011, 06:05:03 PM
You can challenge different sets of players by having different modes. Almost every RPG in the world has embraced that concept, or at least considered it. Yet, you have a problem with that in MMO's, Rokal? Why not let the player decide how hard their game should be, and reward them accordingly?

I believe it would be immensely popular.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 14, 2011, 06:10:17 PM
They already do this. I don't think anyone would argue normal mode 5-mans are too hard, and they reward you accordingly. You could say raids are too hard for most players, which I think is false (I don't honestly believe most players are as hopeless or dumb as everyone in this thread would like to believe), but part of making a convincing game world where opponents feel dangerous is making the big bad bosses that you build up actually feel dangerous. If you introduced the "normal mode" that I detailed, where it was impossible to die and bosses died in seconds, nobody would be happy with that mode either and players would get bored of it after doing it once. The truth is, some amount of challenge is necessary to make a game worth playing. You and I probably disagree on where that challenge is, but I don't think most players in this thread complaining about heroic 5-man difficulty are being honest about why they aren't enjoying the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2011, 06:14:41 PM
They already do this. I don't think anyone would argue normal mode 5-mans are too hard, and they reward you accordingly. You could say raids are too hard for most players, which I think is false (I don't honestly believe most players are as hopeless or dumb as everyone in this thread would like to believe), but part of making a convincing game world where opponents feel dangerous is making the big bad bosses that you build up actually feel dangerous. If you introduced the "normal mode" that I detailed, where it was impossible to die and bosses died in seconds, nobody would be happy with that mode either and players would get bored of it after doing it once. The truth is, some amount of challenge is necessary to make a game worth playing. You and I probably disagree on where that challenge is, but I don't think most players in this thread complaining about heroic 5-man difficulty are being honest about why they aren't enjoying the game.

I believe you are drawing the wrong conclusions from what I'm suggesting and then taking it to the Nth degree.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 14, 2011, 06:15:04 PM
MMO Raider-Speak translated to other games: If you can't be bothered to learn how to use tactics and program the AI in Dragon Age/ DA2, you don't deserve to finish the game at all.

 :awesome_for_real:  :why_so_serious:

Is that a problem?  If simply buying a game entitles you to everything in it, I think what you are looking for is a movie.

As Margalis points out, there's other games far more adept at testing skill if that's what you're really about.  Add on that you can make money at them if you're actually good and then the time playing WoW is doubly useless.  Which is why it always comes back to the following.

Some day you'll fill that hole in your life where you think that other's meaningless accomplishments in a video game somehow diminish your own meaningless accomplishments in a video game, so you have to keep those others from reaching that same, meaningless height.   Otherwise, they'll have that video game "glory" AND lack the void of failure you're trying to fill.

A trite rebuttal for an argument that's even more cliche than my response.   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 14, 2011, 06:26:58 PM
You know what, if you can't be fucked to learn how to play the game, I have no sympathy for you. 

I can understand difficulty and challenge in PvP game, after all competition is entire point of it and you generally get to pick your teammates and occasionally even opponents. Now, acting all hardcore in PvE title like WoW just puzzles me. Can someone explain it to me?

Whole reason its PvE is to offload losing to AI, that doesn't mind, so you can feel better about yourself.

One is the 100m sprint and the other is fencing.

You might be competing against the rest of the world, or just that other guild that's in roughly the same spot as you to finish that next leg of the race.  That's mirrored in the individual aspects: getting the top spot on the damage meters, having the cleanest run, and generally just getting that bit better week after week.

I want that top spot... I want that top spot while not messing anything up... I want that top spot, a clean kill, and all while flying around doing stupid Hunter tricks (and wearing a murloc head) :drill:.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 14, 2011, 06:37:47 PM
You keep comparing wow to actual activities and real world achievements. You know it's a video game right?  Protip: if you can explain your accomplishments without feeling like a loser, it's a real world achievement, if you can't its not something you should be proud of.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: angry.bob on April 14, 2011, 06:42:22 PM
Seriously. There is literally nothing at all in any MMO that involves any skill other than sitting on your ass pushing a few buttons. The only sort of videogame that comes close to involving any sort of skill is first person shooters. MMO's and WoW in particular are the antiskill. If you think you need any any sort of skill or advanced knowledge you're fooling yourself to feel better about sitting around wasting your life.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on April 14, 2011, 06:42:46 PM

Some day you'll fill that hole in your life where you think that other's meaningless accomplishments in a video game somehow diminish your own meaningless accomplishments in a video game, so you have to keep those others from reaching that same, meaningless height.   Otherwise, they'll have that video game "glory" AND lack the void of failure you're trying to fill.



8


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2011, 07:08:00 PM

As Margalis points out, there's other games far more adept at testing skill if that's what you're really about.

I play WoW right now because I have pretty limited game time, I have an old friend that plays, and the current set of heroics is just about perfect for our level of time to invest and skill level.  I've played lots of competitive games in the past in leagues, but thats just not in the cards anymore.  Thats actually the great part about Cata as it stands in my opinion, it allows for my mentality to co-exist with a small time investment.  Most of the other games simply demand more time than I can put in right now. (Starcraft 2 and whathaveyou).  I'm not a professional player, nor was I ever, but I absolutely love to push myself to be as good as I can be at whatever game I'm playing, whether its an FPS league, or sunday morning WoW with my friends.

Its the same thing that drives me to make food as well as I can, even though I'm not going to school to be a chef.  Its the same thing that makes me want to perfect my form when I go to the gym even though I'm never going to be a professional weight lifter.  (and for that matter the same reason I am going back to school to get my PhD, though that of course is professional, and the thing I spend huge amounts of time on)

Thats the real disconnect here, as has been identified several times TODAY, let alone other places and times.  I don't feel any need to defend that approach, and you can dismiss it as some kind of desire to keep "casuals" down so I can have all my glory, but frankly, I don't know satisfaction you think I derive from having like 5 pieces of heroic gear and a bunch of mediocre blues.

Let me say one last time here that I'm not REALLY condemning anyone for wanting to play casually and who doesn't care.  I did have that one particularly snarky outburst earlier today that I pretty much just apologize for and have to own for saying it, so thats that.  I often let out other latent frustrations out on poor unsuspecting internet goers, I need to work on that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 14, 2011, 07:13:32 PM
You keep comparing wow to actual activities and real world achievements. You know it's a video game right?  Protip: if you can explain your accomplishments without feeling like a loser, it's a real world achievement, if you can't its not something you should be proud of.

I have a crippling sense of shame about a few things, but playing a video game with my friends isn't one of them.  Neither is spending time with a pad and pencil (or spreadsheet) doing math so I can have a bit more fun with a video game.

Am I going to go on about it to my family and everyone I know from work or class?  No, just like I might not go on about the second Crystal Castles album (not as good as a first) or my undying crush on Bettany Hughes (for serious) or how I'm looking forward to the Angels this year even though we might not be very good (Peter Bourjos bunt triples ftw).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: angry.bob on April 14, 2011, 07:20:07 PM
That's the stupidest sh@t that I've read here in a long time. So after taking the layer of paint you put on that turd, you're mentally ill and see everything as a constant competition even if the only person competing is you. And based on the other stuff you wrote in this thread you get annoyed when other people don't treat it as serious business. Listen to yourself, you've really got some issues and really are trying to compensate for soemthing. You need to smoke some weed and relax or something before you eat the barrel of a gun because couldn't fold your laundry TOTALLY AWESOME TO THE MAX AS AWESOME AS LAUNDRY CAN BE FOLDED.

Once again, normal people don't give a sh@t, playing the "most perfect" WoW is stupid and meaningless, and right now you're either lying to yourself or to us.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on April 14, 2011, 07:39:07 PM
You're allowed to swear here, bob.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Margalis on April 14, 2011, 07:39:43 PM
As Margalis points out, there's other games far more adept at testing skill if that's what you're really about.

Not just other games - other MMOs.

I don't buy that if you want to play a challenging game you should only play competitive games, there is something to be said for hard single-player or PvE games. It can be fun to play a game that requires some mastery and also has cool places to visit or whatever. But WoW has always been an easy game. That's just WoW.

It's funny to say that some encounters have "skill tests." Does that mean that every other part of the encounter has no skill requirement? The idea that "skill tests" are periodic discrete things in WoW, like "at this part the 'test' is to move out of the pool of fire!" really says a lot. I don't think you'd say that Megaman 9 has "skill tests" - more that the entire game is skill-based.

WoW is a game where instead of learning how much threat you generate with various skills and developing an innate sense of threat levels you just install a mod that says "hey dispshit that enemy is about to attack you." Instead of developing a mental model of buff rotations and timings you just install something that says "PRESS 2 NOW!" And again, there's nothing wrong with that (though it's not my cup of tea) but that's the bed that's been made.
---

Now one thing I do sympathize with Malakili about is the lack of MMOs that are genuinely challenging but also let you accomplish a lot in short play sessions. AFAIK there aren't many games like that. But it doesn't make sense to turn WoW into that game. That ship has sailed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on April 14, 2011, 08:47:28 PM
stupid angry shit

Dude, did you go back and read this? Seriously? You may want to take your own advice and grab something and chill out. I recomend a good IPA or three, but, geezus palomino, take a break.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on April 14, 2011, 08:58:04 PM
did you read his name?  The first part of it is "angry".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 14, 2011, 09:37:38 PM
That's the stupidest sh@t that I've read here in a long time. So after taking the layer of paint you put on that turd, you're mentally ill and see everything as a constant competition even if the only person competing is you. And based on the other stuff you wrote in this thread you get annoyed when other people don't treat it as serious business. Listen to yourself, you've really got some issues and really are trying to compensate for soemthing. You need to smoke some weed and relax or something before you eat the barrel of a gun because couldn't fold your laundry TOTALLY AWESOME TO THE MAX AS AWESOME AS LAUNDRY CAN BE FOLDED.

Once again, normal people don't give a sh@t, playing the "most perfect" WoW is stupid and meaningless, and right now you're either lying to yourself or to us.

I know full well that that's not what most people pay $15 for each month nor a meaningful way to spend my leisure time.  That out of the way, I assume you read too much into the "how PvE can be competitive" replies to sinij and Lakov and so I'll take this opportunity to be needlessly introspective.

A few games, mostly MMOs, are fun for me because I can spend time figuring out their systems.  The application of that knowledge is secondary.  In a small game like Fallen Earth or The Matrix Online I get to figure out a lot of stuff on my own so that desire to understand (which I do have, I'm constantly looking stuff up) is directed at dissecting the game.  This is also true to an extent in the comparatively black-box-y LotRO.  In a game with a public analytic(s?) community like WoW, the game's kind of figured out for me so it becomes more about seeing how I can apply this or that new piece of information to my game or to what my group's working on.  Part of that becomes stupid Hunter tricks, another a raid postmortem.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on April 14, 2011, 10:48:34 PM
Why does this matter at all? They still include gear upgrades when most people hit lvl 85, and it's still something to do with your friends. Hell, they still give you a method to get 346 gear too. I can understand the complaint that there aren't enough at level 85, but if you don't really care about the challenge I don't see why it matters. Running normal Throne of Tides at 85 would be stupid easy, but isn't that exactly what you want out of group content?

Yeah I'm gonna sit around grabbing people out of guild or chat and manually group for level 83 normals. That's a totally cool endgame. I should pay money for that.

Retard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 14, 2011, 11:50:33 PM
Your ideal content was:

They should make a series of devastating nerfs until all five man content is utter faceroll.

That doesn't sound especially cool to me either. My point was that if you just wanted to slam through content with friends, you can do that right now and still be rewarded for it.

You don't need to find people in trade either, you can manually queue for any normal mode dungeon from Cata at level 85. If you and your friends just want to blaze through a dungeon and aoe everything down without paying any attention, you can queue for level 81 Throne of the Tides or any other normal dungeon right now and do just that. You aren't doing this of course, because content that is that easy isn't satisfying for anyone, and playing with friends apparently isn't enough if you're only being rewarded with good gear instead of awesome gear.

In your version of WoW we would be able to kill Deathwing a week after the expansion came out by PuGing 4 other players, queuing for a 10-minute long dungeon, and having your entire group randomly press buttons for 15 seconds until Deathwing died. Nobody would pay money for that 'cool endgame' either. Also, 'retard'? Really? You should check out the official WoW forums, you'd fit right in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 15, 2011, 01:03:14 AM
Honestly, if they put in a version like you describe where, for example, you go in to fight Deathwing with the help of uber NPCs who trivialize your role in the fight but still allow you to SEE the content, I think a lot of people would like that. Maybe a level below normal, but above "wait til next expansion and solo it on your DK alt". Hell, it doesn't even have to drop loot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on April 15, 2011, 03:33:04 AM
That's a pretty radical idea, but it's fun to toss about.  It could be like a tutorial where you go in solo with 'iconic' characters who warn you what's going to happen and how to avoid/mitigate it.  No loot of course.

The point being is that it could teach you the raid so you can join a real raid and not make them wipe.  Plus you get to see the content and a tutorial might make you want to make the effort to do the real raid.

This let's them keep the raids tough and makes the endgame a solo player experience like 95% of the game is anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 15, 2011, 05:03:07 AM
You need to smoke some weed and relax or something before you eat the barrel of a gun because couldn't fold your laundry TOTALLY AWESOME TO THE MAX AS AWESOME AS LAUNDRY CAN BE FOLDED.


Yea, you've really got me figured out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2011, 06:05:26 AM
That doesn't sound especially cool to me either. My point was that if you just wanted to slam through content with friends, you can do that right now and still be rewarded for it.

No, you can't. The reason people were quitting was because they couldn't get to the raid content with their friends. And yes, raid content is supposed to be for everyone. Being successful through all of it isn't a guarantee, but gating it by setting the bar too high for your playerbase to handle it on "regular" mode is a waste of resources.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 15, 2011, 12:20:22 PM
No, you can't. The reason people were quitting was because they couldn't get to the raid content with their friends. And yes, raid content is supposed to be for everyone. Being successful through all of it isn't a guarantee, but gating it by setting the bar too high for your playerbase to handle it on "regular" mode is a waste of resources.

WindupAtheist never indicated that he wanted to raid. As far as I can tell from his/her previous posts, he/she was doing 5-mans without any intention of raiding. Not every player ultimately wants to raid, and heroics don't serve solely as a stepping stone to raids. Back in Wrath I didn't have any desire to raid, but I was disappointed with the 'end-game' content that was available for me. I think it's a good thing that there are rewarding challenges out there for people that don't want to raid, I just wish there were more dungeons.

You may have stopped playing because heroics were a barrier to raids, but again: heroic 5-man content has been thoroughly nerfed and people that ran heroics a few weeks after Cata launched but haven't since don't really have an accurate picture of what running a heroic is like today. If this was really why you and your friends stopped playing, you would be playing again now since your complaint had been resolved. The reality is that you and your friends were probably burnt out and needed a break from the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2011, 12:25:16 PM
I love that the defense of a bad mechanic, or that things should be opened up more to the customers, is, "you must be burned out."

It can't possibly be that Blizzard made a clusterfuck of the game. It's our fault as players that nothing was going to satisfy us? I disagree completely. It was very easy to satisfy my friends. The status quo was extremely satisfying and kept us entertained and subscribed for years even with the ebb and flow of changes.

Cataclysm lives up to it's namesake. It's a radical shift of gaming philosophy and it's alienating a chunk of the playerbase. I don't really think you can argue it's not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 15, 2011, 12:28:50 PM
Quote
I think it's a good thing that there are rewarding challenges out there for people that don't want to raid

This statement has mulled in my head a bit and makes me think. Are there challenges in cataclysm? Definitely. Rewarding? Well, not so much. I think the risk vs reward system got thrown out of whack a bit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 15, 2011, 12:42:42 PM
It can't possibly be that Blizzard made a clusterfuck of the game. It's our fault as players that nothing was going to satisfy us? I disagree completely. It was very easy to satisfy my friends. The status quo was extremely satisfying and kept us entertained and subscribed for years even with the ebb and flow of changes.

Raid content seems about as difficult as it was for the majority of Wrath. Sure, Wrath T1 was easy, but for 1.5 years the raid content out there for players was about as tough on average as Cata raiding imo. Heroic 5-man dungeon content is more difficult than it was in Wrath, but after the nerfs it's not more difficult by much. WoW is still pretty much WoW, it's understandable if Cata wasn't a magical panacea that completely refreshed a game you had been playing for over 6 years.

This statement has mulled in my head a bit and makes me think. Are there challenges in cataclysm? Definitely. Rewarding? Well, not so much. I think the risk vs reward system got thrown out of whack a bit.

I think the risk vs reward system is in a good position. The 346 gear you get from heroics is a pretty nice upgrade over 333 items. In that sense, there is a significant reward for completing heroic content. I think it would have been better for the health of the game to have a) had more level 85 normal dungeons and b) make the gap between heroic and normal gear smaller. Have normal mode dungeons drop 340/342 gear and heroics drop 346 gear. That way, you are rewarded for doing heroics, but it would be more reasonable to do raids in normal mode gear if you really didn't have any interest in heroics. Of course, people would complain that heroics didn't reward players enough and that risk/reward was out of balance for heroic content, but I think it would have been for the best.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 15, 2011, 12:53:07 PM
It's a radical shift of gaming philosophy and it's alienating a chunk of the playerbase. I don't really think you can argue it's not.

Well, its definitely a radical shift from WOTLK, but over the life of WoW as a whole it isn't particularly unprecedented.  It definitely is alienating a chunk of the playerbase though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2011, 01:02:37 PM
Raid content seems about as difficult as it was for the majority of Wrath.

I'm questioning the point in making any further arguments with you if you have your head this far into the sand. That statement is false.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 15, 2011, 01:17:17 PM
The biggest raids in Wrath were Icecrown, Ulduar, and Naxx. Naxx was easy, Ulduar and Icecrown had plenty of normal-mode fights that are as hard as Cata raid content. I really don't think the difficulty for raids has changed much overall, it's simply that Cata T1 is much harder than Naxx was. But if you happily played the raid content in Wrath while it was current, you were probably did plenty of Ulduar and Icecrown, in which case the difficulty should be pretty much what you were used to when you were first learning those Wrath fights. If you waited until after the content was nerfed by Blizzard or gear inflation, you're still in the same boat in Cata as you were in Wrath.

Edit: Keyword was "the majority" of Wrath, to be clear. Naxx was only the first ~6 months of Wrath, the fights from the major raids for the 1.5 years after that were fights roughly on par with Cata raid difficulty.

Edit 2: I think Cata raid content might seem more difficult because we are doing 3 small raids instead of one big raid. If the first third or forth of the fights in Icecrown or Ulduar were pretty easy, it should seem like the first couple fights from BoT, To4W, and BWD should be easier than they are too. Because the raids are split up, you only have one easy fight per location instead of three.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Typhon on April 15, 2011, 01:21:43 PM
It's a radical shift of gaming philosophy and it's alienating a chunk of the playerbase. I don't really think you can argue it's not.

Well, its definitely a radical shift from WOTLK, but over the life of WoW as a whole it isn't particularly unprecedented.  It definitely is alienating a chunk of the playerbase though.

Over the life of WoW the move has been to make things more accessible.  The strongest message the devs have ever sent (in my opinion and my paraphrasing) was, "holy shit, only 1% of our player base are actually seeing inside of our raids... that's fucked up".  Cataclysm essentially throws that thinking out the window.  It's not at all clear to me what caused that sea change in thinking.  I definitely feel like it was a step backward.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
Edit: Keyword was "the majority" of Wrath, to be clear. Naxx was only the first ~6 months of Wrath, the fights from the major raids for the 1.5 years after that were fights roughly on par with Cata raid difficulty.

No my friend. 50%+ of guilds at some point in time were completeing bosses in all 4 major raids of Wrath. Naxx was certainly the easiest, but they added numerous buffs to ICC to help people move along in the content. Ulduar probably had the least success rate.

Out of 160,000 tracked guilds, only 27% have killed any boss in any raid. 5% of them have killed Nefarian on regular.

The heroic numbers are laughable. 4% of guilds have killed Halfus on heroic, after that, the numbers start dropping below 2%. 174 guilds in the world have finished Sinestra. That's .11% of your playerbase that beat all your content. Yeah, that's healthy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 15, 2011, 01:48:56 PM
Wrath is the only expansion where anyone in my guild killed the final boss (unless you are counting Ruby Sanctum, I don't know if anyone ever even tried that one.)

EDIT: That said I don't think Sinestra should really be part of the conversation any more than Algalon should.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on April 15, 2011, 01:57:19 PM
What, You face the legions under my command guy totally counted!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 15, 2011, 01:59:14 PM
They were completing those bosses after nerfs and gear inflation, yes. That's still a process that is going to happen for Cata. It's not fair to compare ICC with the 30% buff to Cata content that players have only had access to for ~4 months. Blizzard didn't even introduce the ICC buff until players had been in ICC for a few months, and the buff started small.

And yeah, my guild still hasn't killed Nefarian on normal mode. That doesn't mean the content is overtuned. I think if you are expecting most raid guilds to complete all the hard mode content, you are mistaken. For our guild, raid content will be 'done' for the most part after we are 12/12 on normal mode, which will probably be in a month or so.

Edit: All of ICC was open 3 months after the first wing became available. For comparison's sake, how many guilds had killed Lich King on normal mode in April of 2010 (4 months after ICC launched)? I'm guessing it's much closer to the current Nefarian normal mode numbers 4 months after Cata launched.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 15, 2011, 02:07:34 PM
I did say FINAL boss, meaning Kel'Thuzad, Illidan/Kil'jaeden (take your pick), Arthas. If Cataclysm is starting out this way, I don't think the odds are high that we'll be killing Deathwing, especially given what has happened to people's motivation, we've had several cancellations already and even I am close to doing so myself. And I started out this thread defending everything the way you are.  :oh_i_see:

EDIT: Nobody is saying anything about hard modes, those can be as nut punchingly horrifying as anyone wants and nobody will care. I'm talking about normal Arthas.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2011, 02:17:15 PM
They were completing those bosses after nerfs and gear inflation, yes. That's still a process that is going to happen for Cata. It's not fair to compare ICC with the 30% buff to Cata content that players have only had access to for ~4 months. Blizzard didn't even introduce the ICC buff until players had been in ICC for a few months, and the buff started small.

And yeah, my guild still hasn't killed Nefarian on normal mode. That doesn't mean the content is overtuned. I think if you are expecting most raid guilds to complete all the hard mode content, you are mistaken. For our guild, raid content will be 'done' for the most part after we are 12/12 on normal mode, which will probably be in a month or so.

Edit: All of ICC was open 3 months after the first wing became available. For comparison's sake, how many guilds had killed Lich King on normal mode in April of 2010 (4 months after ICC launched)? I'm guessing it's much closer to the current Nefarian normal mode numbers 4 months after Cata launched.

Newsflash, most people that wanted to raid had killed Kel'Thuzad well before Ulduar was released (5 months after the expansion came out). Hell it was being pugged methodically. Compare apples to apples. This first tier versus that. Five percent of guilds getting down the final boss of regular isn't what I would call "well-tuned" after it's been out for over 4 months. It should be closer to 25%, and the number of people who've killed a boss in a raid should be closer to 50% instead of 25%.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 15, 2011, 02:22:01 PM
Newsflash, most people that wanted to raid had killed Kel'Thuzad well before Ulduar was released (5 months after the expansion came out). Hell it was being pugged methodically. Compare apples to apples. This first tier versus that. Five percent of guilds getting down the final boss of regular isn't what I would call "well-tuned" after it's been out for over 4 months. It should be closer to 25%, and the number of people who've killed a boss in a raid should be closer to 50% instead of 25%.

I realize Wrath T1 was easy. For the majority of the expansion you weren't doing T1, so it doesn't matter. If your guild worked on Ulduar and ICC, defeated bosses, and had fun doing so, the experience should be similar in Cata. The difficulty isn't that different, and it will get easier over time just like it always has.

If Cataclysm is starting out this way, I don't think the odds are high that we'll be killing Deathwing, especially given what has happened to people's motivation, we've had several cancellations already and even I am close to doing so myself.

We're still really early into the expansion, but my prediction is that any raid guild that wants to see and kill normal mode Deathwing will eventually be able to do so within this expansion. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ICC buff resurface for Deathwing's raid cluster, after the content had been out for a while. Has Blizzard ever stated that they thought the ICC buff was a failure? It seems like it worked out pretty well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 15, 2011, 02:22:42 PM
I saw tons of Naxx PUGs before Ulduar was out, yeah.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2011, 02:27:15 PM
I realize Wrath T1 was easy. For the majority of the expansion you weren't doing T1, so it doesn't matter. If your guild worked on Ulduar and ICC, defeated bosses, and had fun doing so, the experience should be similar in Cata. The difficulty isn't that different, and it will get easier over time just like it always has.

Dude, pay attention. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. My guild did all that content, they hated the difficulty in this one, and they left. I don't care what it SHOULD be. It's very different because they slammed your dick in a door right off the bat. The first tier content is much harder in Cata and people bailed. It was a stupid thing to do on Blizzard's part.

Honestly, I'm not really understanding how you aren't getting this.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 15, 2011, 02:33:00 PM
I did say FINAL boss, meaning Kel'Thuzad, Illidan/Kil'jaeden (take your pick), Arthas. If Cataclysm is starting out this way, I don't think the odds are high that we'll be killing Deathwing, especially given what has happened to people's motivation, we've had several cancellations already and even I am close to doing so myself. And I started out this thread defending everything the way you are.  :oh_i_see:
I really hope you dont mean 40 Man Kel'Thuzad in there.  Considering that 40 man Naxx was widely considered the pinnacle of nut punchingly hard raid content when it was "current".  Hell, I play on Tichondrious, and when Naxx 40 was current content (ie, the level cap was still 60) I think there was only ONE guild on my server (Horde AND Alliance combined) who actually managed to get to him.  The first Horde side kill for KT didnt actually happen till after the level cap went up, and people could go in at level 62-63 with the little extra HP / Mana buffer to pull them through.   Illidan / Kil'jaden was much the same way.  As current content, I think we had 2, maybe 3 guilds tops on both sides who could successfully clear Sunwell before the next Expantion hit.   Wrath is definately the odd man out, considering that by the end of the expantion, there were probably at least 20 guilds on each faction who could kill LK on normal, and even Pugs who were capable of clearing ICC normal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 15, 2011, 02:36:13 PM
No, that is my point. Our guild never killed that guy. We did kill Arthas. We like the Wrath model better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 15, 2011, 02:45:32 PM
Dude, pay attention. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. My guild did all that content, they hated the difficulty in this one, and they left. I don't care what it SHOULD be. It's very different because they slammed your dick in a door right off the bat. The first tier content is much harder in Cata and people bailed. It was a stupid thing to do on Blizzard's part.

Honestly, I'm not really understanding how you aren't getting this.

Halfus and Conclave of Wind are 'dick-slamming' hard? Yeah, okay.

Magmaw probably could have been a little easier to get the ball rolling for most guilds, but there are some damn easy fights for your guild to start on.

If your guild did Uldaur and ICC pre-nerfs and had fun, they shouldn't have gripes with the difficult of Cata raid content which is roughly the same. If they did most of that content months later when it had been nerfed, that part hasn't happened yet for Cata but it will eventually. If they had fun with that level of difficult for pre-nerf ICC, but are not enjoying the same exact difficulty for pre-nerf Cata T1, then something has changed in them, not the game. Burn-out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on April 15, 2011, 02:54:13 PM

They should make a series of devastating nerfs until all five man content is utter faceroll.

That doesn't sound especially cool to me either.

They should not only do that with heroic, but also with normal raiding. It all should be complete and utter faceroll. Why? Because most WoW subscribers are not into repeatedly sticking thier dicks into a meatgrinder. Small subset of players that enjoy such experience can suffer in hard-modes. It boggles my mind that I have to repeatedly re-state obvious facts like - DESIGN YOUR FUCKING CONTENT WITH AVERAGE BEAR IN MIND!

Designing PvE encounters to be LOST by MAJORITY of players is beyond stupid regardless how you look at it. You don't get to pick your player base past initial design phase, and you certantly don't try to change couple years after release (seee NGE for more details). If your subscriber base happens to be PEDOPHILES than as a developer you will have to design content that appeals to PEDOPHILES, regardless of how much you personally object to your player base demands. Otherwise you will have no player base left.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on April 15, 2011, 03:00:06 PM
Honestly, I'm not really understanding how you aren't getting this.

Blizzard seem to be in the same boat - unable to differentiate between their "should" and average player's "would".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2011, 03:03:43 PM
If your guild did Uldaur and ICC pre-nerfs and had fun, they shouldn't have gripes with the difficult of Cata raid content which is roughly the same. If they did most of that content months later when it had been nerfed, that part hasn't happened yet for Cata but it will eventually. If they had fun with that level of difficult for pre-nerf ICC, but are not enjoying the same exact difficulty for pre-nerf Cata T1, then something has changed in them, not the game. Burn-out.

I give up. You have doused yourself in the Kool-Aid, bud. No amount of numbers or logic or timetables, or lack of pugs, or direct comparisons will sway you from the fact that things are exactly the same as in Wrath and the game is just fine.

Go work for the Blizzard PR department. You have a future trying to bury the truth with "shoulds".



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on April 15, 2011, 03:12:25 PM

Go work for the Blizzard PR department.


He already does.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 15, 2011, 04:27:02 PM
Back to the Sinestra thing. Is it bad if only .11% of your playerbase does this encounter? Yes, yes it very well fucking is bad. Oh right it's the PINNACLE of wow, it should be rare! Rare, sure.....but .11% rare? come the fuck on that is what, 20 guilds out of 11million(probably less now) people?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2011, 04:32:58 PM
Back to the Sinestra thing. Is it bad if only .11% of your playerbase does this encounter? Yes, yes it very well fucking is bad. Oh right it's the PINNACLE of wow, it should be rare! Rare, sure.....but .11% rare? come the fuck on that is what, 20 guilds out of 11million(probably less now) people?

174 guilds. Probably less than 5000 people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on April 15, 2011, 04:37:07 PM
I don't like the Algalon/Sinestra model. One of the draws of ICC (for me) was that even if I just cleared the place on normal, I have essentially seen the whole thing and if I cleared it on heroic I'd get much better loot, but all the bosses are still the same at least in name. With these "heroic only" bosses you get the feeling that there's a part of content you are never going to see and it might be really cool but too bad.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 15, 2011, 04:45:45 PM
154 guilds with 25m kills, 24 with 10m kills. (http://www.wowtrack.org/encounters.lua)  That does work out to about 5000 people right now, which probably isn't too far off what would have been Yogg+0-25 pace (ToC would have come out a month ago :uhrr:).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 15, 2011, 04:54:49 PM
Back to the Sinestra thing. Is it bad if only .11% of your playerbase does this encounter? Yes, yes it very well fucking is bad. Oh right it's the PINNACLE of wow, it should be rare! Rare, sure.....but .11% rare? come the fuck on that is what, 20 guilds out of 11million(probably less now) people?

Bleh, it's one encounter, thrown out as a bone to their old core hardcore raider people, I don't have any problem with it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2011, 05:06:13 PM
I don't like the Algalon/Sinestra model. One of the draws of ICC (for me) was that even if I just cleared the place on normal, I have essentially seen the whole thing and if I cleared it on heroic I'd get much better loot, but all the bosses are still the same at least in name. With these "heroic only" bosses you get the feeling that there's a part of content you are never going to see and it might be really cool but too bad.

I actually don't mind it as much because it provides those who want it that extra bit of spice to the game for being the most successful. It's not tied to any major lore characters, it's not really going to provide legendary weapons or game-breaking gear. It's a nice title and a good achievement thing as long as it's just one more boss at the top.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 15, 2011, 05:12:03 PM
I think my guild will be capable of checking out Sinestra once we overgear T1 by quite a bit. Probably once we are deep into Firelands or maybe the raid cluster after that. They are trying something different with Ragnaros in Firelands heroic though, by giving heroic mode an additional phase that normal mode doesn't have instead of an additional boss (from what I read). I don't really have a problem with the heroic-only optional bosses. There have been plenty of normal mode bosses for my guild to work through, and the last boss of each dungeon on normal mode feels appropriately like the last boss. It's not like we are killing some lackey of Cho'gal as the last boss of normal mode, but Cho'gal is reserved for heroics.

With the Sinestra and Algalon raids, you at least feel like you defeated the enemy you came there to conquer (Cho'gal, Yogg), even if you never did either of those optional fights.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 15, 2011, 07:31:46 PM
Halfus and Conclave of Wind are 'dick-slamming' hard? Yeah, okay.

Magmaw probably could have been a little easier to get the ball rolling for most guilds, but there are some damn easy fights for your guild to start on.
Maybe we're weird, but my guild had much more trouble with Halfus than Magmaw (or Conclave/Omnitron for that matter).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 15, 2011, 07:43:33 PM
If your guild did Uldaur and ICC pre-nerfs and had fun, they shouldn't have gripes with the difficult of Cata raid content which is roughly the same. If they did most of that content months later when it had been nerfed, that part hasn't happened yet for Cata but it will eventually. If they had fun with that level of difficult for pre-nerf ICC, but are not enjoying the same exact difficulty for pre-nerf Cata T1, then something has changed in them, not the game. Burn-out.
Yes.  Entire servers worth of guilds all got burn-out.  At the exact same time.  And it just happened to be soon after a major expansion despite having lots of fun right up until that point.  That's not burn-out.

You've got WUA and Sinij agreeing, and Ingmar coming around to my point of view.  It's like cats and dogs living together.  These things are not supposed to happen.  It's a sign of a big misstep.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 15, 2011, 07:45:10 PM
You keep comparing wow to actual activities and real world achievements. You know it's a video game right?  Protip: if you can explain your accomplishments without feeling like a loser, it's a real world achievement, if you can't its not something you should be proud of.

What if I simply feel like a dork, rather than a loser?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2011, 08:10:41 PM
What if I simply feel like a dork, rather than a loser?

That's normal. We're posting on a message board for games. Feeling like a dork is a given!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 15, 2011, 08:19:52 PM
Yes.  Entire servers worth of guilds all got burn-out.  At the exact same time.  And it just happened to be soon after a major expansion despite having lots of fun right up until that point.  That's not burn-out.

Your anecdotal evidence about entire servers quitting the game is an over-exaggeration unsupported by any actual data, and I'm not sure where you're witnessing this considering you apparently don't even play the game (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=17642.msg916565#msg916565). Internet forums for any MMO would have you believe that the servers were going to close in a month because a mass exodus is always impeding.

Every expansion has turn-over. Rather than re-typing this...

Expansions usually bring huge changes to the game, so if you are unhappy with the game (in a broad sense), you hope that the expansion will change things you don't like or refresh the game for you. Of course, the expansion never manages to be the magical panacea you were hoping for, and WoW is still WoW. I think the people raging about the difficulty of the expansion are mostly just people who are burnt out and are looking for someone or something to blame for why they aren't enjoying WoW anymore. I think for most people, even if the content that was delivered was exactly what they wanted, they would still be looking at WoW and wondering "Why isn't this fun anymore?"

It's not like everyone was having the time of their life playing WoW on August 7th 2010, and then Cataclysm rolled around four months later and ruined the game for them. People were bored of Wrath/WoW long before Cataclysm came out. I think a lot of those people were hoping Cataclysm would completely refresh a game that had gotten stale for them, but ultimately it was still just more WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 15, 2011, 08:22:59 PM
(http://kara.allthingsd.com/files/2009/09/kool-aid-man.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 15, 2011, 08:45:27 PM
The best part about this thread is that I spend more time in it than actually playing WoW.  An exaggeration, but probably not by as much as I'd like. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on April 15, 2011, 08:51:28 PM
Yes.  Entire servers worth of guilds all got burn-out.  At the exact same time.  And it just happened to be soon after a major expansion despite having lots of fun right up until that point.  That's not burn-out.

Your anecdotal evidence about entire servers quitting the game is an over-exaggeration unsupported by any actual data, and I'm not sure where you're witnessing this considering you apparently don't even play the game (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=17642.msg916565#msg916565). Internet forums for any MMO would have you believe that the servers were going to close in a month because a mass exodus is always impeding.

Every expansion has turn-over. Rather than re-typing this...

Expansions usually bring huge changes to the game, so if you are unhappy with the game (in a broad sense), you hope that the expansion will change things you don't like or refresh the game for you. Of course, the expansion never manages to be the magical panacea you were hoping for, and WoW is still WoW. I think the people raging about the difficulty of the expansion are mostly just people who are burnt out and are looking for someone or something to blame for why they aren't enjoying WoW anymore. I think for most people, even if the content that was delivered was exactly what they wanted, they would still be looking at WoW and wondering "Why isn't this fun anymore?"

It's not like everyone was having the time of their life playing WoW on August 7th 2010, and then Cataclysm rolled around four months later and ruined the game for them. People were bored of Wrath/WoW long before Cataclysm came out. I think a lot of those people were hoping Cataclysm would completely refresh a game that had gotten stale for them, but ultimately it was still just more WoW.
I'm not sure how many "anecdotes" you need but my release-day guild was broken by cata because no one wanted to deal with the raids or even the 5-man heroics, it's about to break the formerly 12/12 HM25 ICC guild (30% buff for heroic, pre-30% on normal) some of my friends went to, it pretty much killed the release-day guild alliance me and Paelos were in that had like 20 fucking guilds in it.

All but one of my real-life friends quit WoW, nearly all of my online friends quit WoW. People doing in-game census with mod tools found that active characters and guilds have been declining for the last 2-3 months steadily.

Blizzard itself is nerfing the shit out of heroic 5-mans, begging people to tank/heal them, nerfing raids, giving out epics again in 5-mans after saying that 5-mans wouldn't ever do that again back during the early press of Cata. This is after they took a hardline stance at the beginning of the expansion, literally posting a big blog entry from some doucherocket marine biologist turned game designer that amounted to, "Learn to play, you faggots."

But nah, every single one is burn out. Blizzard didn't really fuck up to the point where people were quitting in droves for mediocre shitpiles like RIFT.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 15, 2011, 08:52:47 PM
Your anecdotal evidence about entire servers quitting the game is an over-exaggeration unsupported by any actual data, and I'm not sure where you're witnessing this considering you apparently don't even play the game (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=17642.msg916565#msg916565). Internet forums for any MMO would have you believe that the servers were going to close in a month because a mass exodus is always impeding.
I had a couple of trials, game cards, and talk with my guildies in IRC every day (half a dozen of which are posters here), Inspector Clouseau.  I also like to follow games which have a significant impact on the market.  Just because I don't know the real names of the devs doesn't mean I'm not paying attention.

When I say servers worth I mean in total.  Those are spread out.  WoW has a ton of servers.  I don't think the game is going to collapse overnight, and there is still time to correct their mistakes.  That doesn't change the fact that entire guilds are going dormant though.  Guilds that have had constant participation, regardless of the ebb and flow of specific members.  MMOs depend upon those social ties to keep people in game, so it's a definite warning sign.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Margalis on April 15, 2011, 09:06:21 PM
Rokal definitely suffers from SWG dev syndrome.

"Everything is working as intended and if you see something wrong the problem is with you!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 15, 2011, 09:06:30 PM
I know plenty of guilds that imploded or had huge exoduses when TBC and Wrath came out too. It's all anecdotal. You say you know a ton of people that have quit the game, including lots of real life friends. I have personally seen less in-game friends or guildies quit this expansion than I saw friends and guildies quit when TBC and Wrath launched. In fact, most of the people in my guild that quit recently actually quit months before Cata came out because they were bored of the game. They either didn't come back or they came back, got to 85, and then quit a few weeks later saying "nope, still boring". I also know more friends and co-workers that are playing WoW right now than ever before. Anecdotal evidence is almost completely worthless. TBC and Wrath saw similar drops in playtime on those community-based (and likely inaccurate) population tools after the 'newness' of an expansion had faded, the question is whether drops in playtime correspond to equivalent drops in subscription numbers, and whether that number is greater than it was 4 months into TBC or Wrath.

Blizzard always had problems getting people to tank, not just in Cata. It's always been the role people were least willing to do in WoW, or any MMO for that matter, because it usually means you are responsible for the group. You can look at all the recent nerfs and changes to the LFD tool as Blizzard saying "oh shit oh shit oh shit", or you can look at those changes as them hearing the complaints of some of the community and trying to address those complaints just as they've always tried to do with their MMO that caters to everyone. It doesn't mean that WoW is sinking, or that the development team or even the moneyhats at Blizzard think the difficulty of the expansion was a mistake. They've always slowly nerfed end-game content, they've always had problems with getting people to tank. It really seems like business as usual from my perspective.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 15, 2011, 09:47:13 PM
What if I simply feel like a dork, rather than a loser?

That's normal. We're posting on a message board for games. Feeling like a dork is a given!  :why_so_serious:

Then I will totally brag right here in this thread that I totally beat Ingmar at D&D minis multiple times. I think my lifetime record in tournament situations was 4-1 or something. \o/


As for the OMG DID THEY MESS UP, for me I think I was going to go dormant on the raiding front either way. Tanking for the merry band of semi-competent people in WotLK made my tiny black heart shrivel even further, although the fact that it's harder than WotLK was is not exactly a selling point for me. I'm sort of like Ingmar. I like the challenge if I get to handpick exactly who is in my group or raid. But that has social consequences I don't like. I don't want to be a bigger bitch to the people I don't think are very good than I already am, you know?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on April 15, 2011, 10:27:06 PM
(http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on April 15, 2011, 10:27:59 PM
I was just about to post that.  Damn, you!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 15, 2011, 10:32:37 PM
Hahaha. :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on April 15, 2011, 10:32:57 PM
What ever happened to that guy?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 15, 2011, 10:33:38 PM
(http://mystuffspace.com/graphic/hatorade.gif)

Just sayin'  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on April 16, 2011, 05:06:42 AM
Shouldn't you be telling the coders to hurry up with the patch containing all those heroic nerfs that weren't needed, Greg?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 16, 2011, 05:20:15 AM
What ever happened to that guy?

Apparently he surrendered to the US, did an interview for 200k t hen moved to the UAE to live quietly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 16, 2011, 05:20:47 AM
It's not like everyone was having the time of their life playing WoW on August 7th 2010, and then Cataclysm rolled around four months later and ruined the game for them.

Blizzard announced 12 million subs shortly before the Cataclysm launch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 16, 2011, 05:46:21 AM
The fun part is it's a public company, so anecdotal evidence doesn't have to be used. You can just wait until the Q1 2011 report gets released and see if it's better or worse than Q4 2010. (http://investor.activision.com/results.cfm)

We're just past Q1, and Cataclysm set the record for Day1 PC sales (http://www.1up.com/news/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm-sets-pc-sales-record), beating WOTLK which was the previous record holder.  That means player pops should have only gone up, as there was much excitement.  Each previous expansion sold more than the one before it as well.  This trend can be seen in Blizzard's quarterly statements.

However, if you want slightly subjective data. There's always the Warcraft Realms census.  It shows player activity dipping beneath average WOTLK lows, and nearing the "end of expansion Doldrum" levels.  You know, the weeks where everyone said, "Fuck it, Cata's coming and I'll just level up and beat this asshole then. Time to do other things for a bit."
http://www.warcraftrealms.com/weeklyactivity.php?serverid=-1&factionid=3



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 16, 2011, 06:25:56 AM
It's all anecdotal.

Warcraftrealms census numbers of active player tracking is not anecdotal. Players being tracked where only 25% have killed anything and 5% have completed regular raids are not anecdotal. These are hard numbers that for some reason you keep ignoring. Over the next two financial releases, when they put out the MMO financial numbers for the quarter, your argument is going to fall apart. That's the last piece of the puzzle.

But yeah, anecdotal haterade. I was only joking before when I was saying you should work for Blizzard PR. Now I'm starting to suspect you're a mole/troll.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on April 16, 2011, 06:58:27 AM
As much as everyone is hating on Rokal, I agree with him based on what I've seen for in-game guilds and friends on my servers.  People were quitting because they were bored back in the August\September\October timeframe before the expansion.  Then maybe half came back for Cata, got to 85, and then quit playing again for various reasons.  I've never seen Stormrage or Hellscream so active in trade or guilds recruiting.  I have no doubt people quit because of Cata, but most of the people I know personally who quit were mostly just bored with the game before Cata or RL got in the way (alot of these friends were in college and graduated to the real world).

As far as raiding goes, I don't consider this to be any more of a chore than any other expansion.  My guild is 11/12 and not in the slightest bit hardcore.  Heroics still make me roll my eyes because of how fail so many people are or how quick they are to quit after 1 wipe or call you a fagot and kick you over the slightest perceived failure.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 16, 2011, 07:17:14 AM
(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/3744/graphjg.png)

Explain that graph to me then. It's not like people logged in for a month, said fuck this, and left. That would be explained. This is a sharp decline over 4 months to numbers lower than the previous year.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on April 16, 2011, 07:21:31 AM
Shouldn't you be telling the coders to hurry up with the patch containing all those heroic nerfs that weren't needed, Greg?  :oh_i_see:

I think he should try posting L2P blogs couple more times, maybe that will help?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 16, 2011, 09:23:14 AM
I've never seen Stormrage or Hellscream so active in trade or guilds recruiting.  

As someone who's been in raiding guilds since '04, let me say that recruiting is not a sign of activity, but INactivity.  You recruit when you don't have enough players to field a raid, or if you have just enough, "but only if everyone signs up" (which never happens.)

When things are going good and there's a lot of activity, you don't have to recruit unless you're just forming.  Guilds with reputations for getting things done naturally attract players or your own players have friends that really want in.  You only go hunting when those wells dry up or if you need a specific role.  When the #4 guild on my server started up in trade chat, I knew shit was going bad and that was nearly 3 months ago now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on April 16, 2011, 09:26:02 AM
Holy cats, those shaman numbers are low!

You hear stuff like that, but seeing those numbers...heh. I had a helluva time finding a guild that wanted an enhance shaman. You'd think with so few we'd be more in demand. Course, there's a lot of stupid shit posted on the shaman O-fficial forums, so that might have something to do with percieved necessity of having one. Still...not many of us. I blame dwarves. Yep, it's the dwarves.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on April 16, 2011, 09:32:56 AM
 When the #4 guild on my server started up in trade chat, I knew shit was going bad and that was nearly 3 months ago now.

Yeah, I noticed about two months ago (just before I left WW) that our #1 alliance guild was starting to recruit in /trade. Kind of surprised me, and the GL couched it in terms for farming guild xp for the mount--which made me think of the lvl25 guilds kicking members in mass once they hit 25. Still, it makes more sense when your pool of potential recruits begins to dry up in the second and third tier guilds as those quit raiding.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 16, 2011, 10:47:39 AM
I agree. The noise goes down when things are good. You don't hear people recruiting when they can fill their ranks. I know this from my own RL experience over 3-some-odd years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 16, 2011, 12:05:42 PM
 When the #4 guild on my server started up in trade chat, I knew shit was going bad and that was nearly 3 months ago now.

Yeah, I noticed about two months ago (just before I left WW) that our #1 alliance guild was starting to recruit in /trade. Kind of surprised me, and the GL couched it in terms for farming guild xp for the mount--which made me think of the lvl25 guilds kicking members in mass once they hit 25. Still, it makes more sense when your pool of potential recruits begins to dry up in the second and third tier guilds as those quit raiding.

The guild that got Realm First Guild Level 25 on our server recruited in an extra raid team's worth of players that last week (and redid their raid schedule, which is what did it more than anything).  Haven't bothered to check if those people are still there.

There's also the new dynamics between raid sizes.  There's probably a few guild leaders still flirting with the idea of bumping back into 25s from their 1.5-2 10s teams.  Also, 10s teams that are just hitting Heroics are either going to have a perfectly constructed roster vis-a-vis alts or are going to need to cannibalize their bench from another team in-guild or are going to have to recruit a few players.

On Enhancement Shaman: their main problem is Elemental Shaman. They're both firmly middle-of-the-pack on damage and while Enhancement is comically survivable, Elemental brings rarer raid buffs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 16, 2011, 12:10:37 PM
Not just a river in Egypt  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 16, 2011, 12:17:34 PM
I'm the one that linked the WarcraftRealms graphs in this thread like two months ago!  It's pretty clear there's less people playing.  I'm just pointing out that there are other factors involved in guild recruitment that are particular to this expansion than just player activity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 16, 2011, 12:26:22 PM
Top 25 man guild on my server has about 200 characters in the 300 they keep that haven't logged on since the first month of expansion. My guess is that they are recruiting due to that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 16, 2011, 12:41:38 PM
Yeah, if I disagree with all the negativity and am actually having fun with the game, the only possible explanation is that I must work for Blizzard  :oh_i_see:

Blizzard hit record sub numbers right before Cata launched because people were excited for Cata. Lots of people that quit over the years decided to come back, and putting out all of those class changes a month of two before Cata launched (and having a pretty lame world event) with an early launch of new 1-60 content probably was enough for many people to say "I'll resub, check out the world event, check out the class changes, say goodbye to the old world, and check out the new 1-60 experience before Cata comes out". Then Cata came out and it was still just more WoW.

I'm not sure I'm reading the graph you linked right, is it showing those hours for lvl 18-22 players? Only players that are playing 18-22 hours a week? It's still not great data since it relies on people voluntarily running a census mod, and is only showing data for specific gametime hours and players that play specific amounts of time (or level ranges, I guess). The chart you linked would suggest that players bought Cata and didn't bother logging in the next day. If people were playing less because of difficulty (especially casual players that don't play a ton), we would see a huge population spike in December followed by a sharp decline in late Dec/early January when players gradually got to level 85 and started running heroics. Your graph shows the opposite of this (sharp decline in early Dec, huge spike in Jan) and doesn't really make sense either way you look at it.

In some ways, namely time sinks, Cataclysm is more casual than WoW has ever been. Professions were easy to level up, you reached the level cap quick and didn't really have any group quests barring your progress, rep grinds were pretty fast, and 'farming' for materials to do raids has been pretty much removed from the game. I'm logging in way less than I did in Dec/Jan, but that's because, aside from 8 hours of raiding a week, I don't have any reason to log in. I'm not dissatisfied with the game, but I also don't need to log in to finish 10 more faction reputations or to farm for hours just to be able to raid (as was the case in Vanilla and TBC).

Long story short: It's still just anecdotal (and extremely questionable) data. Playtime always drops off after the rush of an expansion dies down, and lower playtime does not necessarily correlate to canceled subscriptions. We won't know if Cata caused more people to quit than TBC or Wrath did until Blizzard releases numbers that say one way or another.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on April 16, 2011, 12:52:18 PM
(http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 16, 2011, 01:05:07 PM
The app only tracks Prime Time hours for player activity, because that's the most valuable in that regard.  18-22 is 18:00 Hours to 22:00 Hours Per server.  (6pm to 11pm, server time, not GMT So a PST server is 9pm to 2am EST, which is assuming that, hey, not a lot of EST players play a PST server anyway.)  

The Chart doesn't indicate anything whereby you could even assume "the next day they stopped playing."  Each x-axis hash mark is 1week of play time, so at best you could say "the next week."   Data points will also be one week behind as they are not projected, but actual which get marked at the end of a recorded period. (The last week of December is the first week of January's point.  So if 1 person is on this week, but 11 were on the week before, 11 would be recorded at the start of the week and one at the next week.) Since Cata was released Dec7, the 2nd hash is where you would see the uptick happen, which is where it's at.

It's not worth ripping you apart any more than Mal anymore as you're just grasping at straws at this point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 16, 2011, 01:31:05 PM
The app only tracks Prime Time hours for player activity, because that's the most valuable in that regard.  18-22 is 18:00 Hours to 22:00 Hours Per server.  (6pm to 11pm, server time, not GMT So a PST server is 9pm to 2am EST, which is assuming that, hey, not a lot of EST players play a PST server anyway.)  

Gotcha

The Chart doesn't indicate anything whereby you could even assume "the next day they stopped playing."  Each x-axis hash mark is 1week of play time, so at best you could say "the next week."   Data points will also be one week behind as they are not projected, but actual which get marked at the end of a recorded period. (The last week of December is the first week of January's point.  So if 1 person is on this week, but 11 were on the week before, 11 would be recorded at the start of the week and one at the next week.) Since Cata was released Dec7, the 2nd hash is where you would see the uptick happen, which is where it's at.

(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/3744/graphjg.png)

The graph shows a huge decline in playtime for the 3-4 weeks before Cata launched. After Cata launched, there is a very minor uptick in playtime. This would have been when people took time of work to marathon levels, or just played a whole hell of a lot if they didn't go that far. I remember my guild roster was flooded with players at all hours of the day right after Cata launched (while they leveled through the new stuff), and that isn't really reflected in this chart. You don't really see a steep decline in playtime till late in January, well after most people had already hit the level cap and tried running Heroics. For that matter, the decline isn't very steep, it's a pretty gradual decline that doesn't suggest people hit a brick wall.

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. I'm sure some people quit because of the difficulty of the expansion. I also don't believe that there is a mass exodus from the game like forums would have you (perpetually) believe. I also think that a lot of the people that *did* quit and that probably ticked the "this shit is too hard" box on the exit survery probably still would have quit even if the status quo from Wrath had been maintained and heroics were faceroll.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 16, 2011, 01:32:16 PM
Caveats with using WarcraftRealms Weekly Activity graphs (http://www.warcraftrealms.com/weeklyfactionactivity.php?serverid=-1):

- Ignore or invert the month of December.  Submissions were off or limited to 1-80 for about a month after Cata came out so from anecdotal experience I'd plug in a much higher peak at that point.  (Yes, this does mean that things should look worse than they do because January isn't the true peak.)

- WR is susceptible to servers simply not getting enough submissions.  That's not really a huge problem unless something specific made players who run Census+ (like me) less likely to play than the population as a whole.  For example, Alliance on my server isn't in any worse shape in getting submissions than it was before.  Again, anecdotes, but I don't think this is a factor we have to worry about.

- We don't have enough of a historical backlog to really gauge what the correlation between primetime player activity and the subscriber base are.  It's almost certainly significant but things like how one lags behind the other on the whole are problematic.

- The above becomes a much larger problem when attempting to subscribe a certain cause to the effect on primetime player activity.  How much of it is baked into any expansion's launch, how much is due to Rift, and how much of it is due to X game change?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 16, 2011, 06:42:43 PM
While that's all well and good, but Rokal's defense against the expansion causing a slide with numbers/stats/progression is anecdotal evidence of himself, while dismissing our viewpoint as anecdotal and burnout.

By the way Rokal, which character are you even playing in the expansion? It's obvious you shelved that Dwarf healing priest in this xpac. Wonder why?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 16, 2011, 07:30:04 PM
I agree that my 'evidence' was also anecdotal (and therefore not worth much), I said as much a few posts back. None the less, my experiences in-game and through players I know in real life do not match the story of a 'mass exodus' that some are claiming, and I am enjoying Cata. I'm not saying that the difficulty changes did not cause Blizzard to lose 50% of their subscribers, we really don't know how many quit and ultimately why, but some players quitting after an expansion comes out is pretty normal and it's good to remember that instead of buying into all the doom-saying on internet forums.

I mentioned a couple times a while back that I was playing a rogue for Cataclysm. Frankly, I skipped most of Wrath, so the last time I really played my priest was at the end of TBC. Just like I eventually got tired of WoW and needed a break, I eventually got tired of playing priest. I always enjoyed playing rogues, but the dps rotation used to be pretty mind numbing and they were a dime a dozen. With Cata my guild didn't have many rogues playing, and they finally made some big changes to the specs that make them feel a lot more active to play. In my guild the most common class roles are tanks and healers, and I believe that isn't the situation for most guilds.

I was really pumped about playing a worgen druid too (not a Night Elf fan), but when I got that character to 85 I found that the minimized toolset for each role (cat/bear in particular) compared to less hybrid-y classes was pretty disappointing.

Switching it up and playing a different class for Cata was something that really refreshed the game for me, and I'll probably do it again for the next expansion if I'm still playing by then.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on April 17, 2011, 01:03:35 AM
Honestly, if they put in a version like you describe where, for example, you go in to fight Deathwing with the help of uber NPCs who trivialize your role in the fight but still allow you to SEE the content, I think a lot of people would like that. Maybe a level below normal, but above "wait til next expansion and solo it on your DK alt". Hell, it doesn't even have to drop loot.

I would come back to play that. I hate other people and most of my guild, but I'd like to see/experience the older content that I never got to see, even just once or a couple of times, Wrathgate raid-on-undercity style. Bonus points if I can do it with my wife/small group. Fuck loot.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on April 17, 2011, 01:08:18 AM
Back to the Sinestra thing. Is it bad if only .11% of your playerbase does this encounter? Yes, yes it very well fucking is bad. Oh right it's the PINNACLE of wow, it should be rare! Rare, sure.....but .11% rare? come the fuck on that is what, 20 guilds out of 11million(probably less now) people?

See, I don't think it should be rare. Why? Should the majority of the playerbase buy the expansion never expecting to kill the guy on the box? I know I don't buy SP games with that in mind.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 17, 2011, 01:47:14 AM
It'd certainly be better than the "click on this statue in Dalaran and watch Arthas die" cinematic they did for Wrath. I think it'd great if, instead of a cinematic like that, you got a short interactive version of the fight where NPCs do all of the work but you still get to participate. You could have the NPCs be your expected WoW heroes like Tyrande and Malfurion (whoever normally appears in the fight), and they are assisted by "heroes of the alliance/horde" npcs that look like player characters. Just release that after the content has been out for a while and guilds have really been given enough time to defeat the boss normally if they wanted to. I agree that it probably shouldn't give any loot, since it's purpose is just to let people experience the conclusion of the main story.

That said, a few weeks ago a couple people from my guild (including myself) went back and did some of the Wrath fights we had not gotten to experience (or were missing achievements for), and they were still pretty fun at 85. 2-3 people should be able to finish any Vanilla/TBC fight I can think of off the top of my head, and 4-5 people should be able to finish any of the Wrath raid stuff. If you didn't get to do that stuff before, you can definitely grab a few friends and try it out now if you want.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on April 17, 2011, 02:34:22 AM
On Enhancement Shaman: their main problem is Elemental Shaman. They're both firmly middle-of-the-pack on damage and while Enhancement is comically survivable, Elemental brings rarer raid buffs.

:(

Well, I actually think our issue is being made sort of passable in favor of things like More Boomkin. Still, by being really really good at what I do, I'm keeping my place in the raid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 17, 2011, 02:48:25 AM
It'd certainly be better than the "click on this statue in Dalaran and watch Arthas die" cinematic they did for Wrath.

That always got a chuckle out of me.
- Tyrion: Thank you for your great sacrifice Bolvar, you have saved us from an out of controll horde of now leaderless rampaging undead.
- Bolvar: Indeed old friend.  Yet sadly, no one must know what we have done here this day.
- Tyrion: I know, right.  Say, I have a BRILLIANT idea, lets take the shattered fragments of Frostmourne, and create an INTERACTIVE MAGICAL MEMORIAL in the HEART OF DALARAN, that any passing person can examine to see what really happened.
- Bolvar: <facepalm>


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 17, 2011, 04:08:04 AM
Well, I actually think our issue is being made sort of passable in favor of things like More Boomkin. Still, by being really really good at what I do, I'm keeping my place in the raid.

One of our guild shammys has got Bloodlust bound with a macro that spams the raid channel with "BLOODLUST! RAAR! Bob is justifying his raid spot!!11".

Also, on the old content stuff, there's quite a lot of interest these days in doing exactly that. A few friends of mine did an ICC25 hc pug lastnight, got a whole bunch of achievs and had a right laugh. We've got BWD tonight but I might see if anyone fancies a couple of hours messing around in Ulduar first for a giggle.

This where all you Cataclysm haters can feel free to interject with some snarky comment about how if the current tier was tuned right people wouldn't be forced into doing old content just to see the story and have fun  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 17, 2011, 05:51:17 AM
See, I don't think it should be rare. Why? Should the majority of the playerbase buy the expansion never expecting to kill the guy on the box? I know I don't buy SP games with that in mind.

Deathwing's on the box.  Also, since he's expected to be the last boss, he should be subject to more deliberate nerfs than normal bosses this tier (which can be overgeared by the next raid's stuff).

To go by (normal) Nefarian's Wowtrack numbers (http://www.wowtrack.org/encounters.lua) right now there's 3 365 guilds with 25m kills, 10 033 with 10m kills (85% and 22% of guilds with any kill of that size, respectively).  Or, a conservative rough estimate of 200 000 players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on April 17, 2011, 07:13:27 AM
Well, I actually think our issue is being made sort of passable in favor of things like More Boomkin. Still, by being really really good at what I do, I'm keeping my place in the raid.

One of our guild shammys has got Bloodlust bound with a macro that spams the raid channel with "BLOODLUST! RAAR! Bob is justifying his raid spot!!11".

Also, on the old content stuff, there's quite a lot of interest these days in doing exactly that. A few friends of mine did an ICC25 hc pug lastnight, got a whole bunch of achievs and had a right laugh. We've got BWD tonight but I might see if anyone fancies a couple of hours messing around in Ulduar first for a giggle.

This where all you Cataclysm haters can feel free to interject with some snarky comment about how if the current tier was tuned right people wouldn't be forced into doing old content just to see the story and have fun  :why_so_serious:

May I ask the interest in old raids then?  You sound like an American tourist in France who eats at McDonalds, you know, for the irony.  :oh_i_see:
There's your snarky comment. Book it.  Done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 17, 2011, 08:23:51 AM
The interest lies in a number of areas.

A lot of people actually haven't done the old raids, or have only done parts of them. I've never done more than the first 4 or 5 bosses in Ulduar and never downed the LK. Now that the content is obsolete reward-wise (apart from achievement mounts for instance) then pugs and impromptu attempts at it aren't likely to collapse into loot arguments and drama.

Secondly the shared 10/25 lockouts are leaving people who may have raided 4 times a week previously with a couple of nights free maybe. Some people are partaking in current tier pugs but sometimes people want something much more laid back.

It also provides some variety and down-time. Progression content is, and always has been at this stage in an expansion cycle, relatively demanding. You can argue (ad infinitum if this thread is anything to go by) about whether it's more demanding now than in the past, but whatever, the point still stands. Previous-tier content isn't as demanding and is much more forgiving of hurpdurpery and much more open to random pugging.

Enjoying doing old stuff doesn't automatically mean there's something wrong, or unenjoyable about current stuff. It's not binary. They're different. Personally I don't think I'd like to raid current tier content 4 nights a week. That's the route to burnout in my book. But 1 or 2 nights a week doing something silly, relaxing, more casual? Yeah that adds nicely to the mix.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on April 17, 2011, 09:43:15 AM
, you got a short interactive version of the fight where NPCs do all of the work but you still get to participate. You could have the NPCs be your expected WoW heroes like Tyrande and Malfurion (whoever normally appears in the fight), and they are assisted by "heroes of the alliance/horde" npcs that look like player characters. Just release that after the content has been out for a while and guilds have really been given enough time to defeat the boss normally if they wanted to.

Actually, release it right away with new content. Currently raiders (except maybe 10 world-first guilds) are expected to learn fights by watching recorded videos. I find this extremely stupid design. Why not allow players to "preview" fights, they have done similar "ride" with Battle for the Undercity in Wrath, why not do it for every raid?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 17, 2011, 10:14:25 AM
, you got a short interactive version of the fight where NPCs do all of the work but you still get to participate. You could have the NPCs be your expected WoW heroes like Tyrande and Malfurion (whoever normally appears in the fight), and they are assisted by "heroes of the alliance/horde" npcs that look like player characters. Just release that after the content has been out for a while and guilds have really been given enough time to defeat the boss normally if they wanted to.

Actually, release it right away with new content. Currently raiders (except maybe 10 world-first guilds) are expected to learn fights by watching recorded videos. I find this extremely stupid design. Why not allow players to "preview" fights, they have done similar "ride" with Battle for the Undercity in Wrath, why not do it for every raid?

Its actually really funny you should say this because I was just thinking if people were so concerned with seeing content and didn't care about challenge at all they could just go watch videos of the fights :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 17, 2011, 10:44:25 AM
When it comes to WoW I'm a hands-on learner, and can rarely get a good handle on a fight just by watching a video. An interactive tutorial is exactly what I had been thinking of; using the Lich King as an example, you'd just be helping Garrosh and all the tier-armor vendors (who are supposedly pinnacles of their class) kill Arthas. As long as you don't get flung off the edge by an ice orb/valkyrie they win the fight even without you, and you get the last minute res from King Daddy and then get to watch the movie.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 17, 2011, 05:56:38 PM
Its actually really funny you should say this because I was just thinking if people were so concerned with seeing content and didn't care about challenge at all they could just go watch videos of the fights :why_so_serious:

Conversely, I don't see why you need to raid when you could just punch your dick.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 17, 2011, 07:48:39 PM
Its actually really funny you should say this because I was just thinking if people were so concerned with seeing content and didn't care about challenge at all they could just go watch videos of the fights :why_so_serious:

Totally, I mean why eat dinner when there's the Food Network? Amirite?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 17, 2011, 10:54:33 PM
When it comes to WoW I'm a hands-on learner, and can rarely get a good handle on a fight just by watching a video. An interactive tutorial is exactly what I had been thinking of

We have interactive tutorials already. They're called wipe attempts.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 18, 2011, 12:07:18 AM
I sort of wish there was a way to practice a specific phase without having to do the entire encounter. Of course, there were ways to practice one of the phases I am thinking of (fuckin' Malygos) and no one did, so it would probably be a gigantic waste of effort on Blizzard's part. Still! Sometimes I wish I could just skip to the Problem Phase.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 18, 2011, 12:41:56 AM
They made it a little bit flexible for Nef, which was nice. You control when to push him to phase 2 (though prolonging P1 by leaving Ony alive for as long as possible really makes P3 much easier). When my guild realized P2 and P3 was where we were sucking, we rushed P1 a few times so we could just practice P2/3. It worked out really well. I hope they have more flexible fights like that in the future, rather than Arthas or Kael'thas with their 1-3 minute scripted scenes leading into an easy-yet-long phase 1 when you really just wanted to work on something much later in the fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 18, 2011, 12:56:01 AM
They made it a little bit flexible for Nef, which was nice. You control when to push him to phase 2 (though prolonging P1 by leaving Ony alive for as long as possible really makes P3 much easier). When my guild realized P2 and P3 was where we were sucking, we rushed P1 a few times so we could just practice P2/3. It worked out really well. I hope they have more flexible fights like that in the future, rather than Arthas or Kael'thas with their 1-3 minute scripted scenes leading into an easy-yet-long phase 1 when you really just wanted to work on something much later in the fight.
Eh, I wouldnt really say that Neff has a lot of leeway.  Sure, you can push phase 2 as fast as you want, but there is really no advantage of doing so, since phase one is probably the easiest phase in the encounter.  Not to mention that there is a hard limit on how long you can leave ony alive while burning Neff (I think you are pretty much forced to kill Ony after the second Electrocute in P1, because a 3rd one would trigger the "ony explodes and wipes the raid" Onyxia soft enrage mechanic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 18, 2011, 01:30:36 AM
The only advantage in pushing P2 early is time. We were having a lot of problems getting people onto the pillars, and then a lot of problems managing the adds in P3. By rushing P1, we got extra time in our raid night to work on the stuff we really needed to work on. If we had to do Phase 1 normally every single time, it would have cut into the amount of time we got to spend practicing P2 and 3.

Once we could consistently get Nef to 40% in Phase 3, we just did phase 1 normally and got our first kill.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on April 18, 2011, 10:24:42 AM
Rokal definitely suffers from SWG dev syndrome.

"Everything is working as intended and if you see something wrong the problem is with you!"

I think Ghostcrawler does too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 19, 2011, 07:49:33 PM
Ghostcrawler just put up another Dev Watercooler thingy. He talked about crits for 10 paragraphs.

I don't know what to say to that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 19, 2011, 08:16:24 PM
Ghostcrawler just put up another Dev Watercooler thingy. He talked about crits for 10 paragraphs.

I don't know what to say to that.
I think his next Watercooler Blog should be a rambling and whimsical 30 paragraph discussion about the fact that he simply isnt going to bother trying any more, because regardles of what he talks about in his blog, appearently no one will ever be happy with it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on April 19, 2011, 08:29:44 PM
I think the issue with the watercooler is that the topics have been so  :uhrr:.  I can't really believe that out of everything on GC's plate criticals would even make the first page of stuff that's important or interesting.  It's like catching up with friends after buying your first car and talking about the weather.  Even pimping all the "awesome" content in patch 4.1 would be more interesting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 19, 2011, 08:39:01 PM
Just a few off the top of my head.

"Hey here's some thoughts on the pros and cons of an appearance tab."
"What about that movement in pvp stuff, huh?"
"So, here's our future raid design encounter thoughts"
"Here's what we feel about gear choices right now"
"This guild leveling thing could use some more stuff like this."
"What about some outdoor world bosses again!"
"Check out these neat Archeology ideas"
"Here's some lore thoughts on the future."
"Where we'd like to head with future five mans is..."

or even "I spilled my water cooler on the floor"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on April 19, 2011, 08:55:39 PM
Ghostcrawler just put up another Dev Watercooler thingy. He talked about crits for 10 paragraphs.

I don't know what to say to that.

I do. I don't fucking care.

What I do care about is the terminally screwed up enhance shaman itemization in general and the weapon situation in particular. It's a mess. Bigtime. Fix it (actually, they might in 4.1, but that remains to be seen). Also, guild rep portability. That's another mess that needs some attention. Now. I can think of more, but that's a start. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 19, 2011, 09:18:42 PM
The blogs are fine for what they are, though it makes me smile thinking that he just wants a public soapbox and if he isnt going to do it through the forums by god someone is going to listen to him.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 19, 2011, 09:43:37 PM
Just a few off the top of my head.

"Hey here's some thoughts on the pros and cons of an appearance tab."
"What about that movement in pvp stuff, huh?"
"So, here's our future raid design encounter thoughts"
"Here's what we feel about gear choices right now"
"This guild leveling thing could use some more stuff like this."
"What about some outdoor world bosses again!"
"Check out these neat Archeology ideas"
"Here's some lore thoughts on the future."
"Where we'd like to head with future five mans is..."

or even "I spilled my water cooler on the floor"

Every single one of these is something they've talked about before, or at least something where you could easily guess exactly what the article would say. Do you really want dev blogs that outlines the obvious pros and cons of outdoor raid bosses?

It's not supposed to be a Q&A based on what topics the community wants covered, that would be the purpose of the "Ask a developer" thing they have been doing (with predictable unsatisfying answers, just like you'd get with any of the topics above).

I didn't find the topic of "criticals" especially exciting, but it was exactly what the feature was advertised as: insight into design decisions that were being discussed at Blizzard. It wasn't something I had really thought about (ramifications of crit % normalization vs. burden of knowledge), and it was interesting to see that what seemed like a pretty trivial number tweak actually would have a pretty complicated impact. I'd rather be surprised with topics like this that I would otherwise never have thought about, rather than re-reading another scripted dev answer about the dance studio or whatever other topic comes up every week on the WoW forums.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 19, 2011, 10:35:19 PM
it was interesting to see that what seemed like a pretty trivial number tweak actually would have a pretty complicated impact.

Erm, no.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 19, 2011, 11:07:11 PM
Also, guild rep portability. That's another mess that needs some attention.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but wouldn't guild rep being portable defeat the entire premise of guild reputation?  Making guilds more sticky (at least for three months).  The major rewards unlocked with guild reputation already stay with you when you change guilds (or are Account Bound like the scorpion mount).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 20, 2011, 12:31:43 AM
it was interesting to see that what seemed like a pretty trivial number tweak actually would have a pretty complicated impact.

Erm, no.

Specifically:

Quote
We’re strongly considering just letting all heals crit for double, just like most attacks. We don’t think this would have huge PvE consequences. Healers will heal for a little more, but even if they choose to start stacking crit, they’re going to do that at the expense of Haste, Mastery or Spirit. It could have bigger PvP consequences. Most PvP healers don’t have crit chances beyond say 10% or so, so they aren’t going to crit often.

We’ve been considering whether healing is too strong in PvP anyway. You may have noticed that we made the tooltips for Mortal Strike and equivalent debuffs intentionally vague for 4.1. As I write this, those debuffs are still at 10% healing, but we’re concerned that healing is too hard to counter and we might change that number. Changing it back to 50% would probably lead to the Mortal Strike debuff being mandatory for Arena comps again, but we never got much of a chance to see its effects at say 20%. A 20% Mortal Strike debuff could easily counter any excessive healing caused by 200% crits.

With PvE crit, if you were to increase poison crit damage to 200%, you would just adjust the numbers on abilities and co-efficients so that rogues did roughly the same amount of damage that they do now. It's a relatively simple change that would be easy to number crunch and implement. Same deal with PvE healing, though as the dev diary points out, no further tweaks may even be necessary given that healers would need to trade other desirable stats to get any worthwhile crit.

I didn't think of how healer crit would impact pvp, arguably to a much larger extent than crit for any pve class/role. This was a significant impact of crit % normalization that I did not think of, to the point where they were considering large buffs to MS-style debuffs again.

I'm sorry you didn't find it interesting, I did.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Arrrgh on April 20, 2011, 05:15:26 AM
Next dev watercooler, The Importance of Proper Deck Chair Placement.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 20, 2011, 05:24:23 AM
pvp ruined the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 20, 2011, 06:15:10 AM
Yep.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 20, 2011, 06:27:23 AM
I'm sorry you didn't find it interesting, I did.

Your white-knighting for the game is getting tiresome. I loved the Dev Water Cooler concept. It kept GC off the forums and made him think in advance before posting stuff. This isn't what I envisioned. Even the trolls at MMO Champion thought it was a just a stupid rambling where GC pointed out issues with a half-assed defense of why they won't change anything in this expansion. But in THE FUTURE™ they will be making changes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on April 20, 2011, 06:32:00 AM
Next dev watercooler, The Importance of Proper Deck Chair Placement.



 :Love_Letters:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 20, 2011, 07:27:02 AM
I'm sorry you didn't find it interesting, I did.
Your white-knighting for the game is getting tiresome.
And the constant doom-mongering from the burned-outs here isn't getting tiresome?  :uhrr:

Some of us here are enjoying wow. Whether that's because we're in guilds that have been luckier than others in terms of recruitment/retention/progress or whether it's because we enjoy the game slightly differently from you or even just because we're not burned out, I don't know, probably a mix of all of those.

If you can't accept that we may be genuinely having fun playing this game and instead need to label us as fanbois and koolaid drinkers then I'd suggest the problem is with you, not us.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on April 20, 2011, 07:31:12 AM
Exhibit A as to why Ghostcrawler should stick to development and Blizzard should have a real Community Manager.

Ghostcrawler is not a community manager, and lacks the skills of a community manager.  That he has been allowed to post has hurt Blizzard more than helped Blizzard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 20, 2011, 08:56:33 AM
I didn't think of how healer crit would impact pvp, arguably to a much larger extent than crit for any pve class/role.

Except it won't.

1. The changes he's discussing for Mortal Strike are going in regardless of what they do with healing.
2. It's not mathematically possible for a character with less crit chance to gain more effect from the coefficient change.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 20, 2011, 08:59:59 AM
If you can't accept that we may be genuinely having fun playing this game and instead need to label us as fanbois and koolaid drinkers then I'd suggest the problem is with you, not us.

I don't argue with you that you are having fun. I don't argue that a lot of people are still playing the game and enjoying it. I don't think the game is doomed, nor is it unfixable. I will argue with you if you tell me that Cataclysm didn't cost them people by the decisions they made, and not just due to "burnout." I will argue with you if you tell me that a dev blog about criticals is somehow relevent to the discussion, especially when they use it to justify the current decisions instead of what their FUTURE™ plans are. But not for this expansion. Because it's mid-expansion and that's too soon.

There's a lot of people out there, like myself, who are sitting across the river waiting for them to go, "Ok, we're sorry. Here's the new plan."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on April 20, 2011, 10:21:07 AM

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but wouldn't guild rep being portable defeat the entire premise of guild reputation?  Making guilds more sticky (at least for three months).  The major rewards unlocked with guild reputation already stay with you when you change guilds (or are Account Bound like the scorpion mount).

Not sticky enough to keep me around even when exalted. Other circumstances forced my hand, then I was back to zero. When I joined a new guild, yeah, sure, I still had the perks, but I couldn't use them until leveling up the rep again. This time, though, I was kinda out of entire zones of quests to level that puppy up. I"m not saying the whole thing should just follow you around, but there should be some mechanism to make leveling it up again easier if you do have to change guilds.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 20, 2011, 11:11:21 AM
That literally defeats the purpose of guild rep.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 20, 2011, 11:38:32 AM
That literally defeats the purpose of guild rep.

You ever notice that a lot of the decisions they made in this expansion were centered about the premise of "We wanted to make X matter?"

I think guild rep falls into that category. It's subtle punative action on your playerbase.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 20, 2011, 11:40:22 AM
Exhibit A as to why Ghostcrawler should stick to development and Blizzard should have a real Community Manager.

Ghostcrawler is not a community manager, and lacks the skills of a community manager.  That he has been allowed to post has hurt Blizzard more than helped Blizzard.

What the hell does a blog post have to do with acting as a CM? He's not posting on the forums anymore, which is where the "OMG HE IS NOT A CM" complaints came from. We get it, you hate GC. Move on.   :oh_i_see:

===============

On guild rep, Shrike is right, it is far, FAR too slow to rise and far too tied to quest xp. As I always do this expansion I NOM NOM NOMed my way through all the quest content pretty quickly, going to all the new zones to achivement up, etc. The weekly cap on guild rep KILLED me, I probably got only 5 or 10% of the rep I 'deserved' for the content I did.

And that's nothing to do with guild hopping, it sucks *even for the people who will never change guilds*. They need to just do away with the cap, it serves no useful purpose, since all of the content that can give you guild rep is capped in some way already - you can only do regular quests once, daily quests are daily, heroics and raids have lockouts, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 20, 2011, 12:12:18 PM
It's not tied just to quest activities, but anything that nets a guild achieve, meaning boss kills, PVP and dungeons all in guild groups.  I thought they had tweaked the Gxp so that these mattered more than questing in one of the few bugfix patches, anyway.   That was the original intent at least, to get you in guild groups and doing things as a part of a guild. 

Letting people max it doing only quests, which are solo content and require no guild to complete, would be foolish and against the idea of making guilds matter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 20, 2011, 12:13:02 PM
I am not talking about guild xp, I am talking about guild rep. Practically the only way to raise it IS to do group activity at this point, that's fine, what's not fine is the weekly cap.

And I still think it should have some giant multiplier based on your time in the guild. Irrational or not it honestly annoys me so much that it is a major contributor to my lack of desire to log in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on April 20, 2011, 12:17:57 PM
Exhibit A as to why Ghostcrawler should stick to development and Blizzard should have a real Community Manager.

Ghostcrawler is not a community manager, and lacks the skills of a community manager.  That he has been allowed to post has hurt Blizzard more than helped Blizzard.

Now see, I don't think Ghostcrawler should be allowed to be a developer, either.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 20, 2011, 12:19:25 PM
Except it won't.

1. The changes he's discussing for Mortal Strike are going in regardless of what they do with healing.
2. It's not mathematically possible for a character with less crit chance to gain more effect from the coefficient change.

1. I haven't seen it mentioned that the MS change was definitely being made, the dev blog makes it sound they they still aren't sure if healing is OP in PvP right now. That said, I haven't really been paying attention to PvP, so it's possible they mentioned this elsewhere.

Quote
As I write this, those debuffs are still at 10% healing, but we’re concerned that healing is too hard to counter and we might change that number

2. This isn't true, as many classes are already at 200% crit from all of their attacks (warriors with MS for example), so no changes would be made to them. For classes with crit multipliers that are different than 200% (rogue melee 200%, rogue poison 150%), they would likely make some nerfs so that overall dps was the same. For healers they might not make those nerfs. Crit has traditionally been fairly desirable as a pvp stat, so changes to crit multipliers probably would have a much larger effect on pvp than pve.

Not sticky enough to keep me around even when exalted. Other circumstances forced my hand, then I was back to zero. When I joined a new guild, yeah, sure, I still had the perks, but I couldn't use them until leveling up the rep again. This time, though, I was kinda out of entire zones of quests to level that puppy up. I"m not saying the whole thing should just follow you around, but there should be some mechanism to make leveling it up again easier if you do have to change guilds.

The fastest way to get rep seems to be running dungeons/raids with your guild. Without any quests, it'll probably feel like a longer grind, but if you hit 85 and finish all the quests you still have the most efficient method to rep up available. Additionally, most of the guild perks that would be the most game-breaking don't require any rep (guild exp boost, extra flasks/duration, group summon, etc.). I agree that the weekly cap for guild rep & exp should be removed, and should have never been implemented.

Your white-knighting for the game is getting tiresome. I loved the Dev Water Cooler concept. It kept GC off the forums and made him think in advance before posting stuff. This isn't what I envisioned. Even the trolls at MMO Champion thought it was a just a stupid rambling where GC pointed out issues with a half-assed defense of why they won't change anything in this expansion. But in THE FUTURE™ they will be making changes.

This is exactly what the dev water cooler blog was sold as from day 1. Here is a quote from the very first 'watercooler' whose purpose was to outline what the feature was and wasn't going to be:

Quote
You won’t always learn a lot about exciting new features coming to the game, but you will (ideally) learn something about the design process itself. (When we have big, exciting news to share, or ‘State of the Game’ style blogs, we’ll still do those as well.)

The rest of the blog (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2511333#blog") was dedicated to how to make tanking stats more exciting  :oh_i_see:. What exactly were you setting your expectations based on?

I'd echo apocrypha's post that your constant negativity is getting just as tiresome. I'm enjoying the game and I'm not going to filter every new development about the game through the most negative light possible. The game isn't perfect and there are a few things I wouldn't mind seeing changed as well, but it's not the shit-fest you would have us believe it is, and not every post from a CM/dev is pissing on the playerbase.

There's a lot of people out there, like myself, who are sitting across the river waiting for them to go, "Ok, we're sorry. Here's the new plan."

This already happened. Heroics were heavily nerfed and PuGing a heroic with other players now has almost guaranteed success because of the Luck of the Draw buff. I healed a PuG heroic a few days ago on my holy priest where the Shadow Priest in the group was doing literally 2k dps. I'm not even exaggerating, she even had the full +15% luck of the draw buff. The other 2 dps in the group were doing 5k dps each. We still finished the heroic after 2 wipes, it just took a while. You are still basing your nerd-rage on an end-game that hasn't been accurate for about 2 months. According to this thread, those changes were Blizzard back peddling as fast as they could and screaming "We're sorry, please don't leave!". Of course, you're not actually waiting for Blizzard to make more changes to end-game, at which point your I'm sure opinion of the game would be sunshine and roses. You're burnt out nothing but time is going to refresh the game for you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 20, 2011, 12:22:28 PM
I am not talking about guild xp, I am talking about guild rep. Practically the only way to raise it IS to do group activity at this point, that's fine, what's not fine is the weekly cap.

And I still think it should have some giant multiplier based on your time in the guild. Irrational or not it honestly annoys me so much that it is a major contributor to my lack of desire to log in.

Sorry I said XP and meant rep. Yes, the weekly cap is kind of crappy, but only because it's too low.  I'm ok with the idea of a weekly cap, otherwise folks would blow through it in a few days.  The multiplier thing would also be kind of nice, too.  At the very least the guild master should be exalted from Day 1, then drop back if he passes off master (to avoid passing it along from person to person.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 20, 2011, 12:30:35 PM
Yeah, I'm thinking of alts I have had in the guild for 6 years, it seems ridiculous for them to face the same grind etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 20, 2011, 01:04:57 PM
Of course, you're not actually waiting for Blizzard to make more changes to end-game, at which point your I'm sure opinion of the game would be sunshine and roses. You're burnt out nothing but time is going to refresh the game for you.

You think I'm watching things this closely because I'm burned out? I mean if I was burned out, I'd just walk away, not give a fuck and wait 6 months. It's happened before. No, what I'm waiting for is 4.2 to drop when they start adding content back to see just how far they are willing to back off the rah-rah challenging normal raiding BS.

Hell, I can list the ridiculous things I want that will never happen so here they are for shits and giggles.

I want Ghostcrawler fired, and never hear from him again. I want them to just put out 4.1 already and make a firm commitment to put 4.2 on the PTR by the end of May. I want them to make a vast difference in difficulty between the Firelands regular and the heroic version. I want them to dump the shared lockout bullshit. I want them to get rid of the stupid guild reward system, or at the very least make it so you don't HAVE to do everything with your guild to get credit. I want them to keep CC out of heroics going forward in their designs. I'd like them to stop designing shit around pvp. Also, I'd like them to ease the fuck up on the mana conservation and stop touting healer challenge as the best thing ever for the game.

Every day I check the feeds just to see if today is the day they finally got it yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on April 20, 2011, 03:03:27 PM
Bring back pre-Cata beeyotch!

I am still so incredibly butthurt over my ret paladin. They finally went ahead and listened to all those toolboxes on the forums going "Ret is so faceroll, all you do is push buttons as they light up! My class is skillfull, I had to install a couple of mods before I could just push whatever was lit up!" Like DPS is serious fucking business.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 20, 2011, 03:24:44 PM
Bring back pre-Cata beeyotch!

I am still so incredibly butthurt over my ret paladin. They finally went ahead and listened to all those toolboxes on the forums going "Ret is so faceroll, all you do is push buttons as they light up! My class is skillfull, I had to install a couple of mods before I could just push whatever was lit up!" Like DPS is serious fucking business.

I'm not sure you got the memo, all of wow is supposedly serious business now, apparently.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 20, 2011, 03:40:28 PM
I'm not sure you got the memo, all of wow is supposedly serious business now, apparently.

And if you don't like it, you're just burned out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 20, 2011, 03:48:06 PM
I want them to make a vast difference in difficulty between the Firelands regular and the heroic version.

The lack of that is one of the best things about this tier of content!  My guild first killed Nef about a month ago and the next week we were able to start working on the easier heroic mode bosses.  We almost certainly won't full clear the place on Heroic while it's current but we'll have new stuff to work on until Firelands is out instead of being stuck farming normal modes and reminding ourselves why we're not doing heroics every few weeks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 20, 2011, 04:12:59 PM
2. This isn't true, as many classes are already at 200% crit from all of their attacks (warriors with MS for example), so no changes would be made to them. For classes with crit multipliers that are different than 200% (rogue melee 200%, rogue poison 150%), they would likely make some nerfs so that overall dps was the same. For healers they might not make those nerfs. Crit has traditionally been fairly desirable as a pvp stat, so changes to crit multipliers probably would have a much larger effect on pvp than pve.

Fairly desirable is not the expression you want.  There's a reason pvp healers rock a whopping ~10% crit.

Also: Mortal Strike, Slam, and Overpower are 2.2x damage on a crit due to (effectively) mandatory talents, not 2x.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 20, 2011, 04:35:43 PM
2. This isn't true, as many classes are already at 200% crit from all of their attacks (warriors with MS for example), so no changes would be made to them. For classes with crit multipliers that are different than 200% (rogue melee 200%, rogue poison 150%), they would likely make some nerfs so that overall dps was the same. For healers they might not make those nerfs. Crit has traditionally been fairly desirable as a pvp stat, so changes to crit multipliers probably would have a much larger effect on pvp than pve.

Fairly desirable is not the expression you want.  There's a reason pvp healers rock a whopping ~10% crit.

Also: Mortal Strike, Slam, and Overpower are 2.2x damage on a crit due to (effectively) mandatory talents, not 2x.

Traditionally fairly desirable as a pvp stat. That statement didn't imply I was talking only about healers. Burst healing/damage naturally matters more in pvp. You could expect that pvp healers might stack more crit if healing crits became more powerful.

My point stands that crit % normalization would have more complicated impact on pvp than pve. It wasn't really something I thought about/considered prior to the dev diary.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 20, 2011, 04:44:58 PM
err.. no.  Traditionally crit was a non-factor in PVP because of resil. You had to give up too much resil to make crit matter at all, and then all that crit you'd amassed was worthless as you pounded on a guy whose resil was taking 5 or better % off if your chance so it was best to not even worry about it.

Now the change in the cata patch that made Resil a flat damage reduction instead of a reducer changed a lot of this, but I stopped following PVP mid-wotlk when I realized it didn't matter anymore if I sucked or not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 20, 2011, 04:48:08 PM
Resilience was added to the game because crit was so powerful in pvp. So, yeah, traditionally it's been powerful in pvp. Burst comps were still fairly popular throughout TBC/Wrath. Resilience made crit less desirable, but it was still very desirable even after resilience was implemented.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 20, 2011, 05:05:23 PM
Crit was shit after resilience was implemented four years ago and hasn't been good again since.  In the interim melee stacked ArP and casters stacked Haste for their secondary or tertiary damage stats.  Blizzard has even tacitly acknowledged that critical was shitty in Wrath and would be even worse off in Cataclysm by broadening the effect of resilience to all damage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 20, 2011, 05:16:09 PM
I only did any real pvp in Wrath during season 1, but I saw plenty of burst teams in 3s/5s. ArP wasn't big season 1, and resilience was inflated in later seasons (making crit less effective with each season that passed). All of the Arena dps sets were also stacked with crit, so to some degree people rolled with a lot of crit and didn't really have a choice in the matter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on April 20, 2011, 05:49:53 PM
Burst teams centered around specs that could guarantee crits (lava burst etc). No one was banking on their 15% crit chance post resilience for burst.


Resilience was actually put into the game to "help" differentiate PVP gear from PVE gear. IE: It was supposed to make PVP gear shitty for PVE and vice versa. It failed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 20, 2011, 06:10:30 PM
I believe it was dual-purpose in that it made PvP and PvE gear more distinct, and it was also a response to burst-focused pvp that made healers less viable in something like arenas (which launched with resilience).

The mutilate-rogue, BM hunter, and arms warrior team I played in wrath did not rely on guaranteed crits, and crits were still crucial to our success.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 20, 2011, 09:23:35 PM
The mutilate-rogue, BM hunter, and arms warrior team I played in wrath did not rely on guaranteed crits, and crits were still crucial to our success.

Obviously, it was just reliant on a person having a free ~25% (AFAIK) critical strike chance on certain abilities that proc a free offhand attack via talents.  With a short cooldown button granting an instant crit to boot, even if you don't  "need" it.  That's totally different.

And a free overpower crit every 6 seconds, but that doesn't count.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on April 21, 2011, 10:24:50 AM
I'm not sure you got the memo, all of wow is supposedly serious business now, apparently.

Except gear aesthetics. Because Blizzard want you to raid seriously in clown shoes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 21, 2011, 11:04:42 AM
I'm not sure you got the memo, all of wow is supposedly serious business now, apparently.

Except gear aesthetics. Because Blizzard want you to raid seriously in clown shoes.

On a positive note, though, the new FIRE CAT! (http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2011/april/fandralfirecat_model.jpg) model looks damn cool.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on April 21, 2011, 12:03:53 PM
My daughter is sad about Staghelm.

She was all "OOO FIRE KITTY", then "What?! Staghelm is evil now?!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 21, 2011, 12:56:06 PM
Er, he's always been evil.  Though the Snidely Whiplash bit is new.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 21, 2011, 01:37:59 PM
My daughter is sad about Staghelm.

She was all "OOO FIRE KITTY", then "What?! Staghelm is evil now?!"
I would absolutely KILL to have blizzard put an ultra rare Lesser Glyph Drop on staghelm to let druids use that model for cat form.    Never going to happen, but man, one can dream, right?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 21, 2011, 01:47:00 PM
The mutilate-rogue, BM hunter, and arms warrior team I played in wrath did not rely on guaranteed crits, and crits were still crucial to our success.

Obviously, it was just reliant on a person having a free ~25% (AFAIK) critical strike chance on certain abilities that proc a free offhand attack via talents.  With a short cooldown button granting an instant crit to boot, even if you don't  "need" it.  That's totally different.

And a free overpower crit every 6 seconds, but that doesn't count.

Assassination (mutilate) rogues could never proc offhand attacks via talents, that was Combat rogues which haven't been popular for PvP since TBC. The best crit % you could get mutilate to with talents alone was ~23% (28% if you did a weird assassination/combat build and completely ignored sub, which most pvp rogues didn't do). You could get evis to <10% crit with talents, and those were really the only two attacks you used for damage (shiv/deadly throw were also used, but not primarily for damage obviously). You still wanted a lot of crit. Considering that assassination rogues had talents that made crits a) hit harder b) generate more combo points and c) restore energy, yeah, crits were pretty important. I'm not sure why the cooldown on Cold Blood matters, considering that we're talking about a burst team in arena where all your cooldowns reset at the start of the match, but it would be used once (on mutilate for guaranteed combo points into your first kidney shot) and the fight would be decided before the cooldown was up again two minutes later. If you ignored crit (which was impossible before reforging based on how the gear was itemized), you would be less successful, at least during the first arena season of Wrath.

Warrior overpower wasn't (and isn't) a guaranteed crit (unless you use a recklessness charge on it) and it wasn't the hardest hitting ability that an arms warrior could use. After recklessness (once a fight for your first 3 specials) there was no way to force MS, slam, or execute to crit. Warriors still wanted crit, and Arms still had a ton of talents based around crits.

I don't remember hunters especially well in Wrath (where as I played a rogue and a warrior at 80), but I don't think BM had anything to guarantee crits either. They still wanted crit for a burst comp, and I think some of their pet buffs were based on crits.

Crits have always been more important for pvp fights (sprints) than pve fights (marathons), and at this point you are just trolling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on April 21, 2011, 02:35:05 PM
Er, he's always been evil.  Though the Snidely Whiplash bit is new.
I don't know about evil.  Certainly he was not nice to anyone but night elves.  Bit of a supremacist, even


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 21, 2011, 02:46:46 PM
He was a prick to Night Elves too, at least to my Druid back in ye olden times.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 21, 2011, 02:49:39 PM
He had stuff to do and you were bothering him with trivial crap!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on April 21, 2011, 03:27:41 PM
As it turns out, he was just pissy because you were working so hard to purify the world tree he was trying to corrupt.  What was especially dickish was how all that morrowgrain he wanted you to get is what was keeping Malfuion "Capt. Sillypants" Stormrage trapped in the Emerald Dream, and he was *still* an asshole to you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 21, 2011, 03:46:06 PM
As it turns out, he was just pissy because you were working so hard to purify the world tree he was trying to corrupt.  What was especially dickish was how all that morrowgrain he wanted you to get is what was keeping Malfuion "Capt. Sillypants" Stormrage trapped in the Emerald Dream, and he was *still* an asshole to you.

I would bet $50 that they didn't plan for that to be the case at the time that they actually wrote all that old content, though. Up through the AQ gates opening stuff, Staghelm was maybe the closest thing they had to an actual complex character (note: he was still pretty far). After that it was, 'writing is hard, back to the Old Gods/Demons did it excuse!'


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 21, 2011, 03:48:25 PM
He's an elf. Of course he's evil. Elves are the source of all the world's problems.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 21, 2011, 05:55:03 PM
The marrowgrain has been in about as long as I've been playing the game and it was strongly hinted at in a couple of places he was using it to poison Malfurion.  Probably a lot of his stuff wasn't planned out in advance, but that bit at least was.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 21, 2011, 07:06:54 PM
The fate of every character in World of Warcraft is to become a raid boss. The only question is when and what lame excuse is Blizz going to use to justify it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on April 21, 2011, 10:28:52 PM
Assassination (mutilate) rogues could never proc offhand attacks via talents, that was Combat rogues which haven't been popular for PvP since TBC.

Yes, they do.  It's a one-pointer called "Mutilate."  I should probably have worded it better.

Quote
The best crit % you could get mutilate to with talents alone was ~23% (28% if you did a weird assassination/combat build and completely ignored sub, which most pvp rogues didn't do).

That 2% difference from what I stated is huge, isn't it?

Quote
You still wanted a lot of crit. Considering that assassination rogues had talents that made crits a) hit harder b) generate more combo points and c) restore energy, yeah, crits were pretty important.

The same argument had been applied to Ass rogue PvE theorycrafting of the time, and it was hilarifuckingwrong.

Quote
I'm not sure why the cooldown on Cold Blood matters

It's not like Fordel told you why half a page up.

Quote
Warrior overpower wasn't (and isn't) a guaranteed crit (unless you use a recklessness charge on it) and it wasn't the hardest hitting ability that an arms warrior could use. After recklessness (once a fight for your first 3 specials) there was no way to force MS, slam, or execute to crit. Warriors still wanted crit, and Arms still had a ton of talents based around crits.

Free 50% chance to crit from two talent points, and another 10% if you factor base and cruelty.  Given that you would invariably be stuck with some crit chance, and that fortuitous choice of race and weapon could give you another 10%, that's a guaranteed crit in any world but yours.

Quote
at this point you are just trolling.

Obviously.

I would apologize for the SirBruce, and make this shit somewhat not hateful in the sight of god and man.  But I'm not going to, let this stand as a measure of contempt for this argument: that's I'm willing to SirBruce it.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be off fucking a badger to take my mind off of this.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 21, 2011, 10:33:37 PM
The fate of every character in World of Warcraft is to become a raid boss. The only question is when and what lame excuse is Blizz going to use to justify it.

I eagerly await the Crazy Cat Lady instance.

Gamon was a bit of a let down as a boss though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 21, 2011, 10:46:59 PM
http://www.wowwiki.com/Auriaya


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 21, 2011, 10:50:50 PM
The fate of every character in World of Warcraft is to become a raid boss. The only question is when and what lame excuse is Blizz going to use to justify it.

I eagerly await the Crazy Cat Lady instance.

Gamon was a bit of a let down as a boss though.
It was fun watching Gamon rofflestomp foolish level 80's in that glorious short window when he was updated but official cata hadnt launched yet.  Then cata came out, everyone leveled to 85, and now he is back to being a joke.  Well, at least level everyone from level 10-80 doesent whoop on him for kicks every time they walk by now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on April 22, 2011, 11:11:01 AM
The fate of every character in World of Warcraft is to become a raid boss. The only question is when and what lame excuse is Blizz going to use to justify it.

Nah, Staghelm has had it coming for a long, long time.

My shaman even gave the shit the big eyes when he snapped at her, but to no avail. He'll get his.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 22, 2011, 11:15:23 AM
I'll just leave this here for those of you rolling over the content:

Quote from: The Blues
You have Heroic Nefarian on farm, Cho'gall is a two-headed joke, Al'Akir is a bag of hot wind, and you have detailed documents on how all of these encounters could have been improved. If you're looking for the next great challenge, have you ever though about working for Blizzard?

We have Quality Assurance (QA) positions open and we're specifically looking for those with high-end raiding experience to join our teams, test future content, and provide feedback on Heroic raids, class balance, and general game experiences.

http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company...tml?id=100008C

Only full-time positions at our headquarters in Irvine, California are available, so if you're serious about applying be aware that no telecommuting is possible for employment. But with the Blizzard campus offering an on-site cafeteria, library, volleyball and basketball courts, gym, multiple arcades, and movie theater, (not to mention we're 30 minutes from the beach) why would you want to?

Good luck!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Slyfeind on April 22, 2011, 11:15:55 AM
I eagerly await the Crazy Cat Lady instance.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Auriaya

 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 22, 2011, 01:12:34 PM
The marrowgrain has been in about as long as I've been playing the game and it was strongly hinted at in a couple of places he was using it to poison Malfurion.  Probably a lot of his stuff wasn't planned out in advance, but that bit at least was.

I don't really remember it being hinted at having anything to do with Malfurion, just that whatever Staghelm was doing with it was probably shady. Regardless, if Staghelm was poisoning Malfurion to keep him under because he would start siding with Tyrande (who has No Idea How to Lead Our People), that would've been acceptable to me, because at least it would be a political, semi-well intentioned dick move. But no, that would be slightly interesting. It's the idiotic ZOMG DEMONS AND OLD GODS ALL ALONG shit. Again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on April 22, 2011, 01:20:09 PM
I don't get the hate for Tyrande, mostly because as far as I can tell she hasn't done a single thing since WoW was released.  I think she's the most invisible leader of any of the factions.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 22, 2011, 01:22:02 PM
The 'no idea' thing is one of the things Staghelm would say when you clicked on him.

She's pretty useless though (and kind of a fuckup in Warcraft 3, frankly, that's mostly what I think of.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on April 22, 2011, 02:02:22 PM
I've always liked her, but she's impulsive and has made some less than good decisions both in the games and lore. She was great fun to play in WC3.

I'd like to see something more significant concerning her in this expansion. Lots of possibliities and she has been pretty much left out of the game since release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 22, 2011, 02:54:35 PM
I don't get the hate for Tyrande, mostly because as far as I can tell she hasn't done a single thing since WoW was released.  I think she's the most invisible leader of any of the factions.
That is sort of a big part why everyone hates her.  Cause 99% of the other even remotely important lore figures have had TONS more screen time then she has.  Hell, there are little known side characters who have had more screen time then she has.

I think the ONLY thing of any importance she has done since release up to current day was showing up and helping with the Eranikus event as part of the AQ gates quest.  For the rest of the game, it's like she doesent even exist.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 22, 2011, 03:10:13 PM
I don't get the hate for Tyrande, mostly because as far as I can tell she hasn't done a single thing since WoW was released.  I think she's the most invisible leader of any of the factions.
That is sort of a big part why everyone hates her.  Cause 99% of the other even remotely important lore figures have had TONS more screen time then she has.  Hell, there are little known side characters who have had more screen time then she has.

I think the ONLY thing of any importance she has done since release up to current day was showing up and helping with the Eranikus event as part of the AQ gates quest.  For the rest of the game, it's like she doesent even exist.

She greets level 8 night elves on the quest to turn in some trivial quest item to her in the starting zone.  I thought that was pretty bad ass on my first day ever of WoW.   Then I never saw her again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 22, 2011, 08:52:51 PM
I don't get the hate for Tyrande, mostly because as far as I can tell she hasn't done a single thing since WoW was released.  I think she's the most invisible leader of any of the factions.

While I hate Tyrande, I was merely quoting Staghelm in my post. But since we're on the subject, a lot of my dislike of Tyrande is tied up with the fact she does absolutely nothing ever. I mean, she makes many stupid decisions in WC3, but at least she's DOING shit. In WoW, she could bug out and disappear, and no one would notice for weeks. She doesn't even have a unique model, she's just Generic Female Night Elf #8 in a mooncloth robe.

Now, perhaps I should be glad she does nothing, as the other options seem to be Psychotic Bitch (Sylvannas, Moira and Magatha to a lesser degree) or Weepy Bitch (Jaina) for the lady leaders, but it's still pretty damn irritating.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on April 22, 2011, 09:37:39 PM

I'll just leave this here for those of you rolling over the content:

Quote from: The Blues
You have Heroic Nefarian on farm, Cho'gall is a two-headed joke, Al'Akir is a bag of hot wind, and you have detailed documents on how all of these encounters could have been improved. If you're looking for the next great challenge, have you ever though about working for Blizzard?

We have Quality Assurance (QA) positions open and we're specifically looking for those with high-end raiding experience to join our teams, test future content, and provide feedback on Heroic raids, class balance, and general game experiences.

http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company...tml?id=100008C

Only full-time positions at our headquarters in Irvine, California are available, so if you're serious about applying be aware that no telecommuting is possible for employment. But with the Blizzard campus offering an on-site cafeteria, library, volleyball and basketball courts, gym, multiple arcades, and movie theater, (not to mention we're 30 minutes from the beach) why would you want to?

Good luck!
Not sure if this is a good sign or a bad one. More polished, less buggy, impossibly hard encounters?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on April 23, 2011, 05:32:46 AM
The fate of every character in World of Warcraft is to become a raid boss. The only question is when and what lame excuse is Blizz going to use to justify it.
See also: What they're doing to the Zandalar tribe in 4.1


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 23, 2011, 08:26:11 AM
Not sure if this is a good sign or a bad one. More polished, less buggy, impossibly hard encounters?

Any kind of Q&A they do on their raids is a good thing imo. I believe the hardcore helping with implementation would be better than these current clowns trying to figure it out in house. They wouldn't be designing it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ajax34i on April 23, 2011, 03:59:00 PM
So these players get hired, and then what?  Will their bosses listen to them?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 23, 2011, 04:19:58 PM
They're just standard QA jobs, that's all.

I'd assume they're asking for experienced high-end raiders, who are good technical writers, this go around because per some convention panel, they sort of don't have a lot of those in their QA bullpen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on April 23, 2011, 09:56:23 PM
Will their bosses listen to them?

No. Their bosses will monologue loudly, enrage in phase 3 and drop the wrong epics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on April 24, 2011, 12:11:55 PM
Maybe I'm off-base here, or maybe the people I hang around with aren't representative of the high end raiders, but don't most high end raiders already have jobs that far outpay QA jobs at blizzard?  I know that when people think high end raider they think a jobless shut-in catass who lives in his mom's basement, but I can't think of anyone like that who does high end raiding.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 24, 2011, 04:20:03 PM
Maybe I'm off-base here, or maybe the people I hang around with aren't representative of the high end raiders, but don't most high end raiders already have jobs that far outpay QA jobs at blizzard?  I know that when people think high end raider they think a jobless shut-in catass who lives in his mom's basement, but I can't think of anyone like that who does high end raiding.

Depends. Usually high-end raiders have very flexible job schedules, but there are a lot of factors to that. Some are independently wealthy, some are retired, some are in college, some are unemployed, and some are on someone else's dime.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 25, 2011, 05:09:57 PM
4.1 is coming out tomorrow. I'm interesting in seeing the reception of the ZG overhaul amongst the casual community.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 25, 2011, 05:52:22 PM
Having only heroic versions of that still makes me go "wat."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on April 25, 2011, 08:45:45 PM
I'm hoping to use a bad pug of the "new" troll dungeons as an excuse to ragequit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 25, 2011, 08:50:24 PM
I'm hoping to use a bad pug of the "new" troll dungeons as an excuse to ragequit.

If you do, please recount it in detail here. That would be hilarious.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on April 26, 2011, 03:30:36 AM
1.1GB patch for 2 dungeons?   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on April 26, 2011, 05:40:48 AM
It must be all the new zone geometry and mob model dat....no, hang on.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on April 26, 2011, 05:41:07 AM
That's probably preloading a bunch of art for the eventual new raid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on April 26, 2011, 08:16:29 AM
I BE DA PREDATOR, YOU DA PREY
 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 26, 2011, 08:24:03 AM
I BE DA PREDATOR, YOU DA PREY
 :why_so_serious:

Man, I can so hear that guy in my head, and it's been forever since I died to killed him last.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on April 26, 2011, 08:32:31 AM
That's probably preloading a bunch of art for the eventual new raid.

Plus another 350MB today.  Something's gotta be preloading here....


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on April 26, 2011, 09:48:41 AM
I BE DA PREDATOR, YOU DA PREY
 :why_so_serious:

Man, I can so hear that guy in my head, and it's been forever since I died to killed him last.

It's why I picked that guy.  Probably the most irritating boss on the bear run.  First the gauntlet (mind control the add as long as possible!  run up the ramp!  pull more up the ramp!  oh god the add broke MC and the healers are getting beaten!) then the eagle boss himself.

One time, we were setting up to pull, and our mage hit blink.  Blinked right into the boss, who of course yelled the above, and we promptly wiped.  Pretty sure he did the same on bear another day.

We had a lot of failed bear runs.   :oh_i_see:

WHO YOU BE MORE AFRAID OF?  DEM?  OR ME?

I can't really remember fire guy or jaguar guy, but I'm sure they had equally pithy things to yell at us in their delightfully faux Jamaican accents.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 26, 2011, 10:04:35 AM
I'm pretty sure we didn't actually kill him until the giant nerf (we were a 10-man-only-two-guilds-working-together-to-even-get-that-organized monstrosity at the time), they might've gotten him down on my week off or something though. We definitely didn't clear it until the nerfs came, that's for certain. We found that place incredibly frustrating, so it was basically a combination of us sucking and us not wanting to even work on it.

I have absolutely no recollection of any of those fights mechanically, except for the bear dude. I was an offtank or a (paladin) healer, so most of the time I didn't actually have to do anything special beyond taunting when appropriate. Paladin it was just FoL ftw still, I believe? Maybe it was holy light by then. The single button I would push runs together.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on April 26, 2011, 10:28:12 AM
I don't remember too much about ZG, other than it had lots of poison and pretty much sucked as a warrior. I think I hit the place twice before the guild moved it to weekdays and I never saw it again. Always did want those 1h swords...ah well.

ZA I did get to mostly do. Guild wouldn't touch it, but I was in a quasi-PuG collective "guild" that ran it pretty regularly for a couple of months. Too much trash in there, but I had fun. Since we rarely had anything like a balanced group, any fight could (and did) get pretty exciting. Since I was a shaman now, fuck all their poison (miss my totem). What stands out most clearly in memory was the bear god fights. I wanted those shoulders in the worst possible way. When they finally dropped, I won them on a roll (against another enhance shaman and some damned hunter). Minutes after I got them, the power lines went down and I didn't have electricity for a week. Was interesting when I finally got back on line and could talk to everyone again.  :grin:

Ah, a final thoguht. Kinda looking forward to the new 5mans, but I'll probably have to PuG this stuff and I'm sure it'll be epically (so to speak) painful. Warm up the Bad Groups thread. There's going to be incoming.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on April 26, 2011, 10:31:23 AM
I don't remember too much about ZG, other than it had lots of poison and pretty much sucked as a warrior. I think I hit the place twice before the guild moved it to weekdays and I never saw it again. Always did want those 1h swords...ah well.


I actually think ZG was pretty great for its time.  Very non linear compared to the other raids that were out at the time, some really solid gear for filling in slots that yu were unlucky with in 40mans, and some vanity stuff (like mounts), that kept them worth doing even when you were way out of the normal gear level.  The fights were generally speaking pretty fun as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 26, 2011, 11:16:20 AM
I'm pretty sure we didn't actually kill him until the giant nerf (we were a 10-man-only-two-guilds-working-together-to-even-get-that-organized monstrosity at the time), they might've gotten him down on my week off or something though. We definitely didn't clear it until the nerfs came, that's for certain. We found that place incredibly frustrating, so it was basically a combination of us sucking and us not wanting to even work on it.

I have absolutely no recollection of any of those fights mechanically, except for the bear dude. I was an offtank or a (paladin) healer, so most of the time I didn't actually have to do anything special beyond taunting when appropriate. Paladin it was just FoL ftw still, I believe? Maybe it was holy light by then. The single button I would push runs together.

We got eagle down a couple times before the nerf, then stalled mightily on lynx guy until the nerf came. Eagle dude was never a *consistent* kill though til after the nerf for sure.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 26, 2011, 11:21:50 AM
I must've been in my traditional pre-expansion funk by then, I totally don't remember downing him pre-nerf. I could just be forgetting, of course, I don't specifically remember the first time we killed some of the Karazhan bosses, but of course we did, because we ran it a MILLION BILLION TIMES.

I remember wipes better, like Kildorn running into the red beam on Netherspite and then being mad I couldn't hold aggro through it somehow.  :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on April 26, 2011, 11:48:42 AM
Which giant nerf?  As I understand it, there were two.  One that happened a bit before I saw the place (before that nerf it was REALLY hard) and then the one that happened when they removed the mount.

Firehawk was step on eggs to spawn firehawks then round up and blow up while not standing on top of explody things the boss threw at the raid.

Jaguar was omg cleanse heal heal crap he split please pick up the other one yay bear mount!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 26, 2011, 11:50:49 AM
The 'giant nerf' we are referring to is the 3.0 one when all the bosses in all the raids got nerfed by 20% or whatever number it was. Before that we (as a guild that ONLY raided 10s, so our gear was Kara-level plus whatever people managed to farm badges for) had only managed to down bear (and occasionally eagle), we didn't kill Zul'jin until after the huge pre-Wrath nerf.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on April 26, 2011, 12:15:22 PM
I think I came close to ragequitting on Zul'Jin a couple of times.  So many hours working on phases.   :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on April 26, 2011, 12:30:30 PM
4.1's droppin as we speak, let's see how fun ye olde rehashed content is, weh?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on April 26, 2011, 12:36:51 PM
You mean the new 5-man raids?   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 26, 2011, 12:42:16 PM
Servers up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 26, 2011, 02:33:33 PM
Servers up.

Status reports! I'm still at work!

I'm probably going to log in with my remaining time (I think it runs out in early May).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 26, 2011, 03:00:24 PM
They're not really up. LFD tool isn't working at the moment for "new" dungeons, and lots of people reporting being unable to zone into them manually either.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 26, 2011, 03:14:30 PM
Huh.. what about the normal instances. Are they able to get into those, or is everyone only trying the new ones.  I'd expect them to run into the "no instance servers are available" problem again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: amiable on April 26, 2011, 03:59:08 PM
All I know is that I am trapped at load screen for the new dungeons and I have to hard quit he program to get out.  Clownshoes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 26, 2011, 04:00:15 PM
Huh.. what about the normal instances. Are they able to get into those, or is everyone only trying the new ones.  I'd expect them to run into the "no instance servers are available" problem again.

I got into a normal instance around 1pm, I think, then after I got out the server was resetting for whatever reason. The thing *I* noticed wasn't working was fishing, of all things.


EDIT: 1pm PDT that is, so about three hours ago.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 26, 2011, 05:51:35 PM
Well, aside from a hilarious bug with DKs that got fixed with rolling restarts an hour or so after the server's came up, it's been okay for me.

Had to try twice to port into ZG but guildmates have reported getting kicked as soon as they go into an instance and general lag.  Also, any addon that used the combat log is in need of an update, which most of mine didn't have available yet.

Edit: Also, purchased Conquest Points count against your cap which sort of ruined my plan of grabbing my bow this week.  Aaaaaaaaaaand server crash, at least we're still saved to our instance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 26, 2011, 07:17:19 PM
What bug with DKs? Did the "equip 2h > get atk increase > unequip and it doesn't go away" bug happen again? I always loved that one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on April 26, 2011, 07:45:17 PM
No, this one was DK runes instantly recharging.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 26, 2011, 08:35:29 PM
Got on at 10pm EST; aside from the standard addon bullshit I've had no problems. Went and did ZA with guildies; it's a decent place (never raided it in BC) but it's on the long side.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 26, 2011, 08:40:01 PM
I went on the dungeon forums to briefly troll the people in 362 gear declaring that people shouldn't complain about difficulty and that a group in 346 would be fine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 26, 2011, 09:29:33 PM
ZG seems much harder than ZA, but overall it's the better remake. ZA feels exactly like it did before, which sort of sucks considering its the most recent one in everyone's mind. Overall I'm not sure the remake of ZG is better than the original ZG. Half of the fights have been removed, including some of the most interesting ones. Mandokir and Zanzil are probably the best fights, which are both better than their original ZG versions, but the rest of the bosses are a little underwhelming. It's not going to be pug friendly for a long time either, which is fine for my situation (since I prefer to play with my guild), but I wouldn't touch ZG with LFD for a while.

I'll say ZG is pretty fun and I'm looking forward to running it on alts, but I'm sort of bummed that some of the better fights were cut in the name of keeping it shorter or maybe just because they fit less naturally with a smaller group size. If you can't do justice to the old raid, don't remake it for a smaller group size. Make something new instead.

ZA feels a bit "too soon", even though I didn't run it a billion times like some did. I probably ran ZA maybe 3 times in TBC, but I ran ZG 20+ times, and I still felt more burnt out from ZA after finishing the heroic than I did ZG. They just didn't change the fights enough to make it feel new, and there was definitely a feeling of deja vu. My guild group wiped a few times in ZG because we were doing the fights wrong, but in ZA we killed everything on the first pull because the fights were almost identical to the old versions.

Overall my impression of 4.1 is that they probably should have made new stuff instead of re-doing ZA and ZG, as both of these as 5-man 'raids' have mixed results.

On the other hand I like the idea of Blizzard continuing to release 5-man content that scales in difficulty with whatever gear can currently be obtained from the regular heroics/JP. I hope they continue to release new heroic 5-mans, but next time I hope they don't rehash an old raid to do so.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 26, 2011, 09:31:04 PM
Duplicate post, whoops.

On topic: 100 yard range on Tricks of the Trade is nice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 27, 2011, 12:38:24 AM
Just pugged ZG; got in for last boss only. Wiped with the dipshit PUGs a few times and had to replace one with a guildie before they got the hang of the mechanics; even when we downed it the healer had died twice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Drubear on April 27, 2011, 06:01:17 AM
I wonder if the re-do's of the dungeons/raids were internal PoC (proof of concept) or just experiments to see what the timeframe/resource requirements were for re-done content vs. full development. Either for justification of cost or simply planning purposes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on April 27, 2011, 08:04:33 AM
Or if someone at Activision is trying to drive costs as low as possible in order to generate higher profit margins.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 27, 2011, 08:31:02 AM
Here's how threads are going on ZG on the official forums:

Guy in 360 gear: Props to Blizzard for doing a great job on these Heroics. Do us a favor and don't tone it down like you have done other Heroics just to make certain people happy.
Guy in 350 gear: After spending about 5 hours on the last boss in ZG, I HIGHLY dissagree with you.
Other guy in 360 gear: 5 hours? not the bosses fault its your groups
Guy in 347 gear: Uh, we wiped over and over as well.
Guy in 353 gear: I did it in a pug and it was fine. Don't nerf it.
Guy in 367 gear: Remember casuals, this is your end game. Don't cry. Savor it.
Several people with gear in the 340s: Uh, you fuckers realize you're outgearing the shit out of this right? Why don't you step down and talk?

Basically the people in full epics are begging Blizzard not to nerf it already. God I hate the raiding population sometimes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 27, 2011, 08:32:30 AM
Are these two instances going to hold people over until 4.2?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 27, 2011, 08:38:10 AM
Are these two instances going to hold people over until 4.2?

If 4.2 is in June, yes. Otherwise, no.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on April 27, 2011, 09:20:02 AM
And by "certain people" he means 95%+ of the playerbase.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 27, 2011, 10:48:28 AM
It's funny that people are complaining about the last boss of ZG, because that's exactly what happened with the last boss of old ZG (hakkar). I remember spending like 2 hours on Hakkar when ZG launched, because it wasn't obvious that you had to get everyone in the group poisoned by adds right before he did his blood drain. You could still damage him normally, it just slowly became obvious that it was too hard to do the fight that way.

In that sense, the new Jin'do fight that you end ZG on is a great remake of the original. The fight still has a big gimmick with the adds, and you will completely fail until you learn that gimmick. This time around, my guild spent probably an hour working on him until we figured out the best strategy to use (which is much more obvious this time), and then we downed him. I ran another ZG later last night, and we finished the dungeon in about an hour, without any problems on Jin'do.

People are complaining about the difficulty of the fight, but it's really going to come down to how well your group executes the strategy, not what ilvl gear you are wearing. It would have been the same as complaining about the old hakkar when you were using the wrong strategy, really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 27, 2011, 10:55:33 AM
And yet, the majority of people saying that they hope it doesn't get nerfed and people need to shut up are wearing full 353+ gear. It's not a coincidence.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 27, 2011, 10:57:27 AM
"Needing to use the right strategy" just creates a 2nd way for groups to fail. I am utterly certain you can also fail by being undergeared.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 27, 2011, 10:58:10 AM
It's like when ZA originally came out, the people rolling around in their tier-whatever 25-man shit were telling the people rocking the Karazhan epics to lern2play.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 27, 2011, 11:02:33 AM
The problem Blizzard is running into here is "Who do we balance for?" Currently the new zones are ok in a raid-geared guild group, but provide that group minimal upgrades; they're (just like the 4.0 heroics at launch) pretty challenging for pure PUGs, who are the ones who need them most. If they had put in a normal version that gave 346 blues, it wouldn't be so bad since there would be an easy-mode for everyone to learn encounters on. As it stands the nerfs are almost inevitable.

Fake edit:
It's like when ZA originally came out, the people rolling around in their tier-whatever 25-man shit were telling the people rocking the Karazhan epics to lern2play.  :heart:
Pretty much this.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 27, 2011, 11:12:51 AM
Yeah I think no normal version is just baffling, especially considering they already know (and have admitted) that there aren't enough normal mode 85s.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 27, 2011, 11:28:55 AM
The question of who do you balance for should be for a 346 geared group across that board should have no problem completing the instance in what you consider to be a timely manner. Epic geared groups should not be considered.

If the drops are going to be 353, your audience should be the tier below, not the tier above.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 27, 2011, 11:57:40 AM
And yet, the majority of people saying that they hope it doesn't get nerfed and people need to shut up are wearing full 353+ gear. It's not a coincidence.
We were failing in 350+ gear until we did the strategy right, just like I failed in the old ZG. There are some fights that your gear level is really going to impact in ZG/ZA, but Jin'do isn't one of them. If your group is wiping on him, they are doing something wrong, and it isn't "having gear that is too crappy". It's not as simple as "drag the trolls to the chains to remove their invulnerability shield", there is quite a bit more to the strategy than just being able to read the buff on each of the chains. If you get picked for body slam, but you are not near the chain, you are probably going to wipe your group. If you get picked for body slam and you are standing where a shadow crash is about to land, you will die unless you move. The adds do a ton of damage but they have almost no health. Whether your dps can deal with them or not isn't going to depend on how well geared they are, it's going to depend on whether they are actually attacking what they need to attack.

I find it disingenuous (but predictable) that you are again complaining about the difficulty of fights you haven't even seen yourself.

"Needing to use the right strategy" just creates a 2nd way for groups to fail. I am utterly certain you can also fail by being undergeared.

At some point this is true, but in theory everyone running these is at least 346+. If you try to do Jin'do in Wrath dungeon gear, you'll probably fail. If you are doing the fight in the intended gear range, and actually do the strategy right, you won't fail. It's 99% execution just like the old Hakkar fight.

For the record, in the second ZG run I did I was the only 'main' from my guild (still looking for dagger upgrades). Everyone else was in 346 average gear or so, basically heroic dungeon + rep gear. I'm going to be running ZG/ZA on my priest/druid who are both in the same situation for gear, and I know I'm not going to wipe on Jin'do because of my gear. That's just not how that fight is designed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 27, 2011, 11:59:41 AM
Rendakor: I'm confident that if that same group of people did the fight again, you'd get Jin'do down no problem. As mentioned, there is also a lot of avoidable damage, so you can make the fight even easier the more you are familiar with it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 27, 2011, 12:07:21 PM
I find it disingenuous (but predictable) that you are again complaining about the difficulty of fights you haven't even seen yourself.

I find it predictable that you confused posting other people's forum thoughts with a difficulty commentary. I have no opinion on the difficulty of the place. I am making a commentary on the people who are voicing opinions on the dungeon while completely outgearing it and then subsequently demanding that it not be nerfed. That's just ridiculous. Whether or not it is well-balanced shouldn't be dictated or influenced by people who are in heroic raiding gear and sharding the drops.

But if you can point to a place where I complained about the difficulty of ZG, feel free.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 27, 2011, 01:26:50 PM
But if you can point to a place where I complained about the difficulty of ZG, feel free.

Fair enough. You didn't directly imply that you felt the zone was over-balanced for 346 gear players.

Anyone complaining that Jin'do is too hard at 346 gear, of all the fights in ZG, really needs to question whether they are doing the strategy correctly.

Unrelated note: I wonder if Blizzard intended to update both Troll raids, or if ZA was added to the plan later. My enthusiasm to use the LFD tool to get the VP bonuses is minimized when I have a 50% chance of doing a dungeon that feels like it really hasn't been updated and is sort of boring. Launching the new 'tier' for LFD with only one dungeon would have been silly, but it's still pretty silly with only 2 dungeons as options.

I probably would have preferred seeing ZG redone as a lvl 85 10-man, so you could keep all of the fights in-tact but just update them so they felt fresh again. This could have been a new intro tier to ease people into Cata raiding, or it could have launched along side Firelands as an easier alternative or just more stuff to do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 27, 2011, 01:40:18 PM
ZA and ZG were both slapped on half-assed when they realized that players were eating up their content way too fast. I can't believe they weren't supposed to originally be part of the big raid patch along with firelands.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 27, 2011, 01:52:12 PM
I don't think the ZG remake feels half-assed. Some of the fights received major over-hauls (Zanzil is totally different now, with a fun cauldron buff mechanic), the trash has been re-done and large portions have been removed, and there are a bunch of changes to the layout of the zone and the environmental art. ZA is pretty much exactly the same as it was before, by contrast. As far as I can tell, the environmental art hasn't been changed at all. The fights all feel almost exactly like they did before, only now you are doing it with 5 people instead of 10. This is probably a good thing to some people: the zone was converted to a smaller group size, but feels pretty much exactly the same as it did as a 10-man. For me, it just feels disappointing because ZA was something I was already bored of and Blizzard just gave me a copy/paste of the dungeon. If they had made more significant changes to the bosses, or added a new one or two, it would have gone a long way towards making the zone feel fresh. As it is, when I finished ZA (after finishing ZG) my thoughts were "so....when is 4.2?" I'll probably run ZG a bunch more on alts, but I don't see many ZA runs in my future.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 27, 2011, 02:24:10 PM
Model spawn points and boss mechanics aren't the hard, laborioius part of instance design.  The background stuff everyone ignores, aka the dungeon environment itself IS.  ZA and ZG went through the "hey if I step here do I fall through the world.  Hey, does mob aggro act funky here.  Hey, is there a valid pathing route from behind this log to the players.  How's line of site and does something need to be tweaked to avoid exploits" vetting process years ago. 

You could take an existing place, toss in a few mobs and alter boss mechanics in a matter of weeks. In fact, we've watched that entire process happen when raids are placed on test. 

Also, you don't get to say "It doesn't feel half-assed" and then in the very next breath say "it feels disappinting."  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 27, 2011, 02:28:20 PM
I think part of the problem with ZA is that, compared to ZG, there is SOOOO much less new "bonus" stuff to do.  In ZA, its just a strait run down 6 bosses to the end of the dungeon.   In ZG, there are, what, 6 or so optional "miniboss" mobs you can kill that drop goodies (Bags of cooking ingredients, Bags of Ore, Maelstrom Crystals), plus the boss fights are a lot more dynamic and interesting then ZA, which are pretty much carbon copies of their old selves (just tuned for 5 people instead of 10).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 27, 2011, 02:34:46 PM
Model spawn points and boss mechanics aren't the hard, laborioius part of instance design.  The background stuff everyone ignores, aka the dungeon environment itself IS.  ZA and ZG went through the "hey if I step here do I fall through the world.  Hey, does mob aggro act funky here.  Hey, is there a valid pathing route from behind this log to the players.  How's line of site and does something need to be tweaked to avoid exploits" vetting process years ago. 

You could take an existing place, toss in a few mobs and alter boss mechanics in a matter of weeks. In fact, we've watched that entire process happen when raids are placed on test. 

Also, you don't get to say "It doesn't feel half-assed" and then in the very next breath say "it feels disappinting."  :why_so_serious:

ZG doesn't feel half-assed, ZA does and is disappointing because of it. That's all I said. ZG actually has new environmental art, the 'dungeon itself' has seen a very large number of changes. There would have been plenty of new LoS-exploits to check for, and there are a bunch of weird new mechanics too (cauldrons all around that give various buffs you need to deal with trash, a weird mario-style rock-fall you need to run up, walking through a path where you have to avoid fire spraying out of masks along the way, etc.)

I'm still recommending people actually run the dungeons before commenting on the dungeons  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 27, 2011, 02:41:50 PM
I'd run it, but I'm not cool enough to (although I'll be able to on my rogue if I bother to PUG some more on him).  :oh_i_see:

No normal version annoys me the more I think about it. Three. There are THREE normal dungeons for level 85 people. They need more, dammit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 27, 2011, 03:04:12 PM
None of this invalidates my point that the troll dungeons were rushed out the door in a panic.  That ZG is MORE finished doesn't mean it was still planned to be released so soon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 27, 2011, 03:14:17 PM
ZG feels finished imo. They cut out some bosses, but I really believe that this was done to keep the instance on the shorter side. If ZG had another 5 bosses, it would be substantially longer.

Even ZA feels finished: it works really well as a 5-man. I just don't like that so little changed with ZA.

Going back to "is this too hard?", if people are having problems on Jin'Do in 346 gear, they probably did a great job on the balance of the content for 346 characters. Dying to Jin'do means you probably succeeded on all of the other fights in the dungeon, which are the ones that would actually be impacted by how well-geared you are. If everyone was complaining about how hard the panther or bloodlord bosses were, we might have to wonder if the content was balanced for 346 gear. Since they are wiping on the last fight in the dungeon, one that doesn't really benefit from having great gear, then that probably means Blizzard did a good job on the balance overall.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on April 27, 2011, 03:58:08 PM
Are these two instances going to hold people over until 4.2?

If 4.2 is in June...
(http://i.imgur.com/pNmbp.gif)

Part the First) If they put the 4.2 PTR up tomorrow with a solid, comprehensive build, maybe they could get it out by the end of June. Maybe. My guess is late July/early August (if they ship it as is) or September (if they do what they did in 4.1 and just keep adding random stuff into the patch as they go along).

Part the Second) 4.2 is a raid instance plus a daily quest hub. No 5-mans announced (yet) - the "Zul'*" are the five-mans originally planned to ship with what is now 4.2. And, judging from 4.1, Firelands is going to be "you must have ilvl 370+ gear to play or wipe for hours" anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 27, 2011, 04:01:15 PM
You're almost certainly way off base on the 370+. They're not going to require hard mode gear for the next tier of regular raids. I guess it depends what you mean by 'wipe for hours'. Some people wiped for hours on Beasts of Northrend after all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on April 27, 2011, 04:03:25 PM
Sooooooo, is this Rokal guy actually Maledict on another account? Haven't we had these arguments before?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 27, 2011, 04:06:37 PM
Nah, he's just trolling, which is ok with me because the fourm would be dead otherwise.

Mal at least takes part other places of the site.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 27, 2011, 04:25:00 PM
I've love to hear what people in the intended gear range feel about the place, but people in raiding gear keep shitting in the dungeon threads about it.

From what I've been able to glean, people running the thing in the right range seem to be 50/50 on it, which indicates that it's tuned correctly for a group of people who are working in a guild group. Everyone seems to believe that PuGs don't stand a chance in these things unless they win the "random raid healer" lottery.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 27, 2011, 04:33:06 PM
Everyone seems to believe that PuGs don't stand a chance in these things unless they win the "random raid healer" lottery.

Wasn't this exactly the case for the lvl 85 heroics at launch though? Once people know the fights, it'll be pug-friendly. I think overall there is just a lot 'more' to learn than the other heroics, so it will take more time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 27, 2011, 04:43:53 PM
Everyone seems to believe that PuGs don't stand a chance in these things unless they win the "random raid healer" lottery.

Wasn't this exactly the case for the lvl 85 heroics at launch though? Once people know the fights, it'll be pug-friendly. I think overall there is just a lot 'more' to learn than the other heroics, so it will take more time.

Actually, the main complaint from the people failing in pugs was that they explained it to people a bunch of times, and they still managed to suck.

Quote from: Example
I think I went through 2 tanks and like 4 dps on that fight.  The only ones from the original group were me and the healer.
It's incredibly frustrating, especially since you can explain it and they still don't do it right.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on April 27, 2011, 06:05:02 PM
Actually, the main complaint from the people failing in pugs was that they explained it to people a bunch of times, and they still managed to suck.
You can't gear for raid\dungeon awareness... ;-)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on April 27, 2011, 08:01:04 PM
Wow those troll dungeons are rough, as some people have said they really are more like five man raids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 27, 2011, 08:34:37 PM
The have released a schedule (http://"http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2416209385?page=1#1") of the release dates for their 4.2 reveals. Weird.

Maybe this means we will see 4.2 in June. That would be a pleasant surprise.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 27, 2011, 10:52:10 PM
Wow those troll dungeons are rough, as some people have said they really are more like five man raids.
Might depend alot on prior experience with them.  (At least for ZA.  ZG has changed signifigantly enough that most of the bosses are only vaguely similar)

As someone who raided ZA and ZG both as current content (I even have the ZA bear on my druid), having a basic "working knowledge" of the original ZA boss encounters made those fights in the new 5 man really easy to adapt to.  I can imagine people who have never done ZA may take a while to figure things out, but once everyone has killed all the bosses a few times, it will be back to the status quo.  The only major difference is that learning these new 5 man "raids" in dungon finder pugs could take some time, since you will have lots and lots of "wipe once or twice and someone ragequits" to hold you back from actually learning the mechanics of the fight.

The rest of it is largely easy.  Pretty much all of the mechanics from the fights are rather heavily telegraphed (complete with the ingame raid warnings / yells / etc), so after one runthrough of most bosses, it should be fairly obvious what to do / not to do on the next run through.

I did a run through of both ZA and ZG on my enhance shaman (ilevel 349 after getting 2 elemental pieces in ZA for my offset), and things didnt really seem that bad.    The ZA pug cleared the whole place, with a wipe on the Fire Hawk boss being our only death.  The ZG group cleared everything up to Zanzil and then had someone leave the group (which took 2 other players with him cause they all queued together), and other then a wipe on Snake boss, things went pretty smoothly.  Gear wise, I couldnt really find any dps checks or hard enrages or things that would wipe a properly balanced group who can queue for it.  (this is, of course, assuming that you are not getting the short end of the dungeonfinder stick and getting grouped with the DPS warrior in one third tank gear / one third PVP gear / one third pve gear just to pad his Ilevel so he can queue).

In the end, I really like ZG, sort of like ZA (I imagine ZA without CC would be an absolute nightmare), and will probably be bored of both in less then a week, since i can now burn myself out on them as quickly as i want to with the new mechanics for VP queing.

I think probably the biggest thing for most of ZA and ZG is that a lot of the fights make heavy use of "dont stand in bad stuff" mechanics, a lot of which either hurt ALOT, or a few which outright oneshot people.  From what i have seen, i can easily imagine that the healer will be the weakest link in most of the new Zandalari dungeons, as there is often a lot of group damage going on, and a healer who is not in top form will prob be struggling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 28, 2011, 12:40:14 AM
Regarding ZA, the only times we have used CC are the packs with two of the Fire casters; everything else we just pulled and AOE'd down. The first run was a full guild run, but our second was just me (geared tank) and one mediocre dps plus 3 pugs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lightstalker on April 28, 2011, 01:04:07 AM
Went through ZG really fast and recklessly until the instance broke.  Had several wipes due to not having any idea what was going to happen next (and the always fun ghosts in melee from back in the day).  Ended up locked in combat on Jin'do, and then we couldn't get back into the instance because an encounter was in progress; waited 30 minutes on the soft reset; and ran into the same issue.   :awesome_for_real:  There is a lot of obnoxiousness in that instance.

I saw plenty of ZG when it dropped overleveled blues, I don't think I need to go back - especially when the instance can't keep itself together.  I'd rather not think about how Firelands would have turned out had it come with the same patch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 28, 2011, 02:11:00 AM
Night-of new instances have always been pretty unstable because the instance servers sort of don't work when everyone rushes into the same place.  Since yesterday afternoon I haven't had any technical issues with the instances though, so there's that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 28, 2011, 03:51:28 AM
Regarding ZA, the only times we have used CC are the packs with two of the Fire casters; everything else we just pulled and AOE'd down. The first run was a full guild run, but our second was just me (geared tank) and one mediocre dps plus 3 pugs.
Really? You did the 4 packs of Medicine man + bear riders + random add without ccing stuff?  I would think that would be pretty stressfull on an average 346-350ish group.  Then again, i guess as long as you focus down the right target while cleaving everything else, you could do 99% of the trash pulls in there with no cc with fairly little difficulty.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on April 28, 2011, 05:15:05 AM
The have released a schedule (http://"http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2416209385?page=1#1") of the release dates for their 4.2 reveals. Weird.

Maybe this means we will see 4.2 in June. That would be a pleasant surprise.

Again, without wanting to point fingers, I think the reason we're now seeing a schedule for release is because RIFT is being very up front about when their patches will hit and why their patches are coming at that time. Their openness makes Blizzards overbearing secrecy look very outdated.

(At the same time - if Firelands is the only raid instance in 4.2, with a mere 5 bosses, Blizzard are really going to take a beating over the summer. They promised 2 smaller raid instances per tier in Cata rather than the huge 12 boss dungeons previously, and if they can't even deliver on that...)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on April 28, 2011, 05:23:48 AM
The have released a schedule (http://"http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2416209385?page=1#1") of the release dates for their 4.2 reveals. Weird.

Maybe this means we will see 4.2 in June. That would be a pleasant surprise.
From the very end of the post:
Quote
We have these and other previews planned, as well as the full PTR announcement and notes, in the coming weeks and months ahead. Stay tuned!
(Emphasis mine)
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 28, 2011, 05:50:58 AM
Yes, they released a schedule of their previews, not very informative.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 28, 2011, 06:30:37 AM
Again, without wanting to point fingers, It hink the reason we're now seeing a shcedule for release is because RIFT is being very up front about when their patches will hit and why their patches are coming att hat time. Their openness makes Blizzards overbearing secrecy look very outdated.

(At the same time - if Firelands is the only raid instance in 4.2, with a mere 5 bosses, Blizzard are really going to take a beating over the summer. They promised 2 smaller raid instances per tier in Cata rather than the huge 12 boss dungeons previously, and if they can't even deliver on that...)

Maybe it's due to RIFT, but whatever the reason it's something that needed to be done. The "Oh ho ho, when it's done  :nda:" stuff stops working when the natives get restless. I also agree with your point that if Firelands got delayed and is only one 5 boss raid, they are going to see a massive backlash. If that fails, we might get that public apology and contrition I've been looking for. The developer arrogance with this expansion has been unacceptable.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 28, 2011, 07:13:59 AM
Regarding ZA, the only times we have used CC are the packs with two of the Fire casters; everything else we just pulled and AOE'd down. The first run was a full guild run, but our second was just me (geared tank) and one mediocre dps plus 3 pugs.
Really? You did the 4 packs of Medicine man + bear riders + random add without ccing stuff?  I would think that would be pretty stressfull on an average 346-350ish group.  Then again, i guess as long as you focus down the right target while cleaving everything else, you could do 99% of the trash pulls in there with no cc with fairly little difficulty.
Yea. I'm 359 ilvl geared tank though, and I know how to use my CDs (while also hating CC) so that helps. Those double fire casters were only necessary because none of the DPS would sit on the second one and kick, so the fireball volley kept killing them all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 28, 2011, 07:33:44 AM
Again, without wanting to point fingers, It hink the reason we're now seeing a shcedule for release is because RIFT is being very up front about when their patches will hit and why their patches are coming att hat time. Their openness makes Blizzards overbearing secrecy look very outdated.

(At the same time - if Firelands is the only raid instance in 4.2, with a mere 5 bosses, Blizzard are really going to take a beating over the summer. They promised 2 smaller raid instances per tier in Cata rather than the huge 12 boss dungeons previously, and if they can't even deliver on that...)
Where are you getting this 5 bosses thing? The latest bit on mmo-champion says there are 8.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 28, 2011, 07:49:45 AM
Quote
# Ragnaros will be the final boss. It will NOT be an heroic-only encounter like Sinestra but the heroic version will be completely different from the normal one and developers wanted to make sure it feels really unique and pretty hardcore.

I realize now what's been bugging me for a while now with these hardmode only bosses. It's like in a single player game where you beat the game on normal which 'should' be fine but you get to the ending and it goes "thank you for playing on normal difficulty(pussy) if you want to see the REAL ending, play on hard"

I don't mind there being a hardmode in wow so much as I enjoy seeing content and only raided to see all the game had to offer. It was bad enough I had to suffer through 40 mans with idiots, or 25 or 15 or 10 but now if I want to see what REALLY happens storyline wise. I need to raid with 'teh hardcore' and it's just above and beyond the reasonable.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 28, 2011, 11:08:22 AM
I don't get the impression the story around Rags will be different, just the mechanics of the fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 28, 2011, 12:36:24 PM
I don't get the impression the story around Rags will be different, just the mechanics of the fight.

(http://blog.wowgoldpig.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ragnaros-and-his-legs.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 28, 2011, 12:39:23 PM
Between normal and heroic, smartass.  :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 28, 2011, 01:59:09 PM
Yes, they released a schedule of their previews, not very informative.

This is from the company that didn't even announce when 4.1 was coming out until people had already downloaded it. Being forth-coming and committing to specific dates is not something they are good at. I'm guessing it's just them trying to show they were serious about 4.2 coming out soon after 4.1, but after 4.1 lingered for so long and then magically appeared in our launchers without any announcement, it just strikes me as odd. Maybe they knew there were going to be stability problems for 4.1 and they wanted to wait a day or two before announcing that it was out so that players trickled into the new dungeons instead of rushing it? Just a guess.


Maybe it's due to RIFT, but whatever the reason it's something that needed to be done. The "Oh ho ho, when it's done  :nda:" stuff stops working when the natives get restless.

This is the WoW community. The natives are always restless.

If there are 8 bosses in Firelands, I'd wager there probably won't be another raid in 4.2. There were only, what, 9 bosses in the second tier of TBC raiding? 6 in the forth? It seems like a pretty average raid length for them. Then again tier 3 of TBC had a raid with 9 bosses in it (Black Temple) and launched alongside a smaller raid with 5 bosses in it (Hyjal). If 4.2 only includes Firelands, it will be a little disappointing after watching the 4.2 preview video, as fighting fire bosses that use fire attacks in a firey dungeon will probably start to wear on your eyes after two weeks, let alone 3-5 months. The spider boss was the only boss in that video where I could actually tell that it was in a different environment from the others.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 28, 2011, 02:31:26 PM
Preview is at 7 bosses in the Firelands, with 6 that they have pictures for. They are a Spider, Magma Giant, Firehawk, FireNaga, Staghelm, and Raggy. They are also referencing that there is a huge elemental dude guarding a bridge, but they have no pics.

My guess is that the bridge dude may or may not actually come to fruition, thus no pics. I'd say conservatively you're looking at 6 bosses, with a schedule for 7. If you are comparing it to Ulduar (the first major tier patch of WoTLK) that one had 14 bosses. If you are comparing to 2.1 (Black Temple in TBC) that would be 9 bosses. Patch 1.5 brought BWL which had 8 bosses.

So at BEST, you're looking repeating a content release that is on par with vanilla. They managed to get BWL out by July back then. Also, they put out the honor system, battlegrounds, Mauradon, and Dire Maul.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 28, 2011, 04:40:47 PM
Quote
Yes, Firelands is the raid in 4.2, and 7 is the total number of bosses.
Source (http://"http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2416120529?page=2#31")

Disappointing.

That's only slightly larger than BWD, and is almost half the number of fights in the current raid cluster. This really doesn't strike me as enough raid content to keep my guild happy for another 5-6 months after 4.2 hits. I believe that Firelands is probably going to be a fun zone, if Cata tier 1 is any indication, but that's a small raid zone to compose an entire tier of content.

It's mostly going to depend on how long we're waiting for new stuff after Firelands (3-4 months? probably ok. 6+ months? not ok), and whether Firelands actually delivers on the fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on April 28, 2011, 05:01:57 PM
Did they strip manpower off WoW to work on something else? WTF is going on?

Nah, he's just trolling, which is ok with me because the fourm would be dead otherwise.

Word. The entire previously-active f13 WoW community, by sheerest coincidence, all became "burnt out" simultaneously a few weeks after Cataclysm came out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on April 28, 2011, 05:02:35 PM
Tier 2 of TC had 10 bosses, not 9. And, due to the sclaed difficulty curve & Kara, many guilds stayed in the tier below for al ong time before moving up.

The only tiers that have had this few bosses have been Sunwell Plateau, and Trial of the Crusader. SWP was deliberately designed to be ultra hard, and didn't need to be bigger - it kept the guilds occupied like it was suppossed to, and had a surprisingly effective difficulty curve throughout. ToC was an abortion of an instance that reminded me of EQ2, and Blizzard should be ashamed of it.

Either way, 7 bosses is remarkably small given the length of time that's passed and what was promised at the start of the expansion. They said 2 raid zones per tier, seems like that hasn't come off at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 28, 2011, 05:08:12 PM
like i said, the troll dungeons were part of the patch originally, bank on it. shit maybe even a ZA raid? who knows.

WoW is like the first born child of blizzard. They are awfully proud of it, it still gets the biggest serving at dinner but they just don't dote on it like they used to, they spend more time doting on their other children and the big mmo bun in the oven.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 28, 2011, 05:33:49 PM
Not to mention 7 bosses for a tier probably means that the difficulty is going to be steep. If you are planning for 7 bosses to keep your subscribers active for months, it's likely that those bosses are going to be difficult so that players aren't out of new content to do after 3 weeks. This is almost the same number of fights as Sunwell, and I think that Sunwell would have been a much better instance if the difficulty increase was more gradual (with more bosses). Ramping up the difficultly slowly helps people feel like they are making progress as a guild, rather than a steep increase that makes people feel like they hit a brick wall that they're not capable of passing. With SWP, your guild probably got down 3 bosses before they started hitting what felt like a brick wall (unless you used a borderline exploit to position the twins, which it felt like every guild probably did), and you got to M'uru after your guild had spent upwards of two months to get a mere 4 bosses down.

I like difficult/challenging content, but having such a steep difficulty curve is the wrong way to do difficult content. I felt like the first raid cluster in Cata hit the sweet spot, and i'm not confident they'll be able to hit it again if they are trying to stretch 7 bosses into 5+ months of content. The difficulty will either be tuned well, so that guilds can gradually progress and feel like they are moving at a good speed, but with the side effect of players running out of content after 2-3 months unless they care about hard modes. Or, the difficulty will be fairly high, so that most guilds are killing Rag on normal mode maybe a month before the next raid cluster, which will keep guilds from running out of content quickly, but with the side effect of probably causing a lot of people to burn out on raiding.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 28, 2011, 05:42:05 PM
Tier 2 of TC had 10 bosses, not 9.

There are 9 bosses in Black Temple, which one are you counting extra?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 28, 2011, 05:59:47 PM
Tier 2 of TBC was not literally SSC and TK (since those were 'available' when TBC launched), but that's what I consider T2 since that's where a new Tier of armor dropped (and it took most people a long time to get through Kara, Gruul, Magtheridon, and the heroics).

Serpentshrine had 6 bosses, Tempest Keep had 4.

Tier 3 of TBC (BT and Hyjal) had 14 bosses

Tier 4 (Sunwell) had 6.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 28, 2011, 06:46:10 PM
I'm talking about patches. Really, that's the only thing comparable.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on April 29, 2011, 05:29:57 AM
Um, not really. Counting the patches doesn't really work for TBC due to the way the content was released. For example - SSC & TK were both *in* the game at the start, but were basically unplayable for all but a very, very few guilds. (Heck, Gruul was unbeatable for the vast majority, including us!). Whilst Hyjal was in the game before Black Temple, it didn't actually work untill the patch for BT was put in. Kills happened at the same time for both (May 25th & 26th) because the content simply did not work - so the BT patch actually added 14 bosses into the game, not 9.

Tiers are counted by ilevel and gear, not the patch release. so TBc looks like:

Tier 1 - Karazhan + Gruul + Magtheridon (?? bosses, due to raid size split)
Tier 2 - SSC + TK  (10 bosses)
Tier 3 - MH + BT (14 bosses)
Tier 4 - SWP (6 bosses)

You also have to remember that in TBC, content was also differentiated by attunements and difficulty. There was a noticeable rise in difficulty between Kara and Tier 2, and then another spike at SWP. Combined with attunements, and the way Blizzard got rid of the attunements over time, meant that content which wasn't new *was* new for a lot of guilds. I.e. when the attunement for Hyjal & Bt was removed, a ton of guilds that had never seen that content but were working through SSC / TK jumped up to BT / Hyjal.

Ultimately, 7 bosses isn't big enough. Firelands isn't going to be another SWP - we know that, they have been very clear on it. Even if you put the heroic difficulty at SWP level, what I have learnt over the last year of WoW is that repeating the same content on harder modes actually just sucks. In my long, long time playing computer games I can list the number of games I have successfully completed more than once on one hand - Dungeon Master, TIE fighter, Resident Evil 4 & Mass Effect 2. Blizzard now expect everyone to effectively do the same every week - there is no wonder that people are simply stopping playing. Heroics are a great idea on paper, and a sucky one in practice.

Quote
This is almost the same number of fights as Sunwell, and I think that Sunwell would have been a much better instance if the difficulty increase was more gradual (with more bosses). Ramping up the difficultly slowly helps people feel like they are making progress as a guild, rather than a steep increase that makes people feel like they hit a brick wall that they're not capable of passing. With SWP, your guild probably got down 3 bosses before they started hitting what felt like a brick wall (unless you used a borderline exploit to position the twins, which it felt like every guild probably did), and you got to M'uru after your guild had spent upwards of two months to get a mere 4 bosses down.

Re. the Twins - I dont think anyone ever actually figured out the intended method for that fight. *Every* kill used the scenery in some form or other to mitigate some of the effects because otherwise the fight simply didnt work - the combo of abilities would just kill you when they combined and nothing you can do about it. Even without the ledge strat, people were using the curved ramps down to position their ranged, and everytime you got an effect you jumped off. It was a fight that was a neat idea in theory, but one that never actually worked right. (Same with Twin Valkyrs in ToC - another fight that never really worked as intended with a similar theme to it).

Regarding the SWP cuirve - it was very well done for the first 3 bosses. Kalecgos was maybe slightly harder than Illidan, but was an execution check rather than a numbers check - could your raiders follow a strat and maintain it under pressure? Brutallus was a pure numbers check, where the strat was easy but making everyone play right tough, and then Felmyst combined the both into a very tricky mess. Had the Twins been working properly you would have seen a pretty perfect difficulty curve throughout the zone (peaking too high on M'uru, but they acknowledge that mistake).

Problem is, when you only have 6 or 7 bosses, you can't *afford* to have 3 of them be easy "Let's learn raiding again" bosses. It means even very casual guilds will be at the end of the content after 2 months tops. That's one of the big issues with the way Blizzard now does its raid content - every tier starts afresh on difficulty, so every tier wastes several boss fights on very easy "welcome to raiding, here's how to avoid fire" bosses. It's much harder to have a decent difficulty curve when you have to start at 0 everytime as they have been doing.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 29, 2011, 06:13:35 AM
The number of encounters in a tier is only relevant in two cases.  First, when you have the instance on farm.  Second, in the case of multiple or winged instances, in offering multiple progression options to match your group.  That's it.  At all other times what matters is the next boss.

The vast majority of raiders aren't going to have heroic clears firmly in hand while it's still the latest content.  (And there's no indication that Firelands is heavily winged.)  With this first tier they've shown a willingness to nerf heroic fights if enough guilds are getting stuck so that, plus how heroic mode works, means that the upper half of the progression path will be actively managed.   If the fights are good and the normal-mode, and therefore fixed, progression path is relatively smooth, seven encounters with two modes each is plenty.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 29, 2011, 06:32:10 AM
Um, not really. Counting the patches doesn't really work for TBC due to the way the content was released.

See that's not true. Content in the game means content that was previously worked on and dubbed at least partially if not fully ready for the population. Did it work due to the attunements? No, but as far as development time goes, it was basically done. They didn't have to patch it in. It shipped with the game. It wasn't being "worked on" like Firelands or Black Temple.

That's all I care about when comparing apples to apples. "Tiers" are only important to raiders and how much content they use. I could care less about that metric. What I'm looking at is if Blizzard is slipping on their development cycles and when they are releasing content (which I believe they are) and how that plays into their future plans to release content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on April 29, 2011, 06:52:29 AM
Um, not really. Counting the patches doesn't really work for TBC due to the way the content was released.

See that's not true. Content in the game means content that was previously worked on and dubbed at least partially if not fully ready for the population. Did it work due to the attunements? No, but as far as development time goes, it was basically done. They didn't have to patch it in. It shipped with the game. It wasn't being "worked on" like Firelands or Black Temple.

That's all I care about when comparing apples to apples. "Tiers" are only important to raiders and how much content they use. I could care less about that metric. What I'm looking at is if Blizzard is slipping on their development cycles and when they are releasing content (which I believe they are) and how that plays into their future plans to release content.

I don't think you understand. Hyjal was not actually *in* the game - whilst the patch had BT in it, it also unlocked a working Hyjal. so that tier defiinitely had 14 bosses in it not 9. Hyjal was basically half a zone, and that's it - they ahd to alter the geometry and everything went it went live, it wasn't just a switch they were flipping to put it on. Also, SSC and TK required substantial work on them to get them functional - it wasn;t a case of changing attunements, the boss fights went massive changes following launch to make them work. (e.g. Morogrim used to have different waves of adds including water elementals, Kael'Thas bosses used to have random abilities very different to what they now have etc.)

Tiers weren't invented by raiders. It's something Blizzard have been using since the original game - they were the ones who spoke of AQ40 as being "half a tier above BWL". Arguing that we should be using a different term for tiers based on some arcane knowledge of what Blizzard does and doesn't have prepared doesn't make much sense - ultimately, as a consumer and customer, 7 bosses in one tier, in the first major patch more than 6 months since launch, is pretty crappy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on April 29, 2011, 07:02:18 AM
Dude, I've played since release. I know what was and wasn't playable. That's not what we are measuring here. I'm measuring time and releases, and what was in those releases.

You can make the argument that Hyjal was part of it, you can also make the argument against it. I don't really want to engage in the debate over that, so we'll just say it's 14. It helps my point anyway. The bottom line is that we're seeing a content release fuckup from a company as they've gotten more successful, when you'd expect them to be overloading the players with options due to their available funds. We can both agree that 7 bosses in one tier is insulting compared to their past history.

It's another nail in the coffin for detractors and it's getting harder for the defenders to tow the company line. Hell, even Rokal is voicing dissatisfaction at this point. They are losing the playerbase, and they simply don't seem to get it or care.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on April 29, 2011, 08:23:56 AM
Heh, why are we arguing then if we're coming from the same line? :)

And yes, there's huge and widespread dissatisfaction. I stoped raiding (and playing) last month, and when I left the majority of my guild quit the game as well. I don't agree with the reasons people in this thread often ascribe to WoW's decline (ghostcrawler, difficulty etc), but one way or the other WoW is clearly on a downhill slope now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on April 29, 2011, 09:23:22 AM
If Sinijed and WUA, Maledict and Paelos are all agreeing that this game is falling apart, then it's in the hurt locker.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on April 29, 2011, 11:40:30 AM
Every time we've had a "small" content tier raid-wise - SWP, ToC, Firelands - it has been accompanied by a new quest hub. This one looks like it is much more extensive than ToC's for sure, and probably bigger/more complicated than Isle of Quel'danas as well, so there's that at least.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 29, 2011, 11:59:48 AM
Dude, I've played since release. I know what was and wasn't playable. That's not what we are measuring here. I'm measuring time and releases, and what was in those releases.

The data files were in for SSC/TK/Hyjal, but the raids were by no means complete. It would be like Blizzard declaring that Firelands was live now because you could technically access the area in the game and there were things there to fight, but it required killing Sinestra and they weren't going to bother to patch the fight until they finished tuning Firelands fight. Most of the data files are done, it would be an easy change to make the zone accessible. 'Launching' the content when it's not ready and then gating it behind something broken is dishonest, and I'm glad they moved away from it even if it means that content gets 'released' slower, in this case. I want them to release Firelands soon, but I'm glad they didn't patch it into the game 2 months ago in a broken state gated behind a broken boss and say "look Rifters, Firelands is in the game!"

It sounds like the invested a bunch of effort into this elaborate Hyjal daily system, so maybe that minimized the dev resources they were going to throw at Firelands (though, frankly there could have been a ton of overlap on assets from teams where it mattered (like art), so that would be a pretty shitty excuse). Or, yeah, maybe they really do just have less people working on WoW now than they did back in the Vanilla/TBC days.They are wondering why the Hyjal dailies aren't generating buzz, it's because people aren't ever going to get excited about a blatant rep-grind where you complete the same series of 5 quests every day for 2 months and then get a mount.

Every time we've had a "small" content tier raid-wise - SWP, ToC, Firelands - it has been accompanied by a new quest hub. This one looks like it is much more extensive than ToC's for sure, and probably bigger/more complicated than Isle of Quel'danas as well, so there's that at least.

ToC daily hub (the first version anyway) was included with the Ulduar patch iirc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 29, 2011, 04:55:06 PM
The CMs are claiming that the quality of these fights are much higher than previous large raid tiers. If they somehow manage to make 7 fights are all as fun and fresh feeling as Atramedes, instead of giving us slight variations on boss mechanics we've already seen before, maybe the reaction to Firelands when it goes live will not be disappointment and a deflating raid scene. I really have my doubts about them managing to make 7 fights that are that good though. They've never done it before and there are plenty of fights in the current raid cluster (Maloriak, Nefarian, Elementium, V&T, etc.) that are fairly average, and would be disappointing if they were one of only seven fights in the raid cluster.

As for the new daily quest hub: part of the appeal of dailies back during TBC was that people finally had a way to get gold that wasn't a) leveling a new character, b) farming mobs with good loot tables mindlessly, or c) buying gold. Flying mounts were also very expensive, and getting epic flight speed on all of your characters gave you a pretty deep money pit that still felt rewarding. Aside from re-forging, Blizzard doesn't really have any good gold sinks in the game at this point in its lifespan. That's a large part of the old appeal of daily quest hubs removed, which leaves only loot rewards to entice people to run them. It's just not going to be enough for me to do these quest hubs every day for such a long amount of time. I don't want another cosmetic mount that bad, especially when Blizzard still hasn't managed to make achievements account-wide. Some of the meta-game stuff that I otherwise would probably really be into (collecting all the mounts, tabards, pets, doing all the holiday events) lose all of their appeal because I already did a lot of that shit on an older character that I am not really playing this expansion. Any appeal in working on those achievements on the character that I am playing for this expansion also vanishes when I realize all that progress will be lost if I decide that next expansion I want to play a different class instead, etc.

At this point there is no turning back, and we're only getting one raid in 4.2. I think they could probably fix this, if they really wanted to (which it sounds like they don't even think they need to do), by handling itemization well and releasing a smaller companion raid with maybe 4 bosses not too long after Firelands.

Firelands normal mode should drop gear that is slightly worse than BWD/BoT/To4W Heroic mode, and should be tuned around everyone wearing 359 (BWD/BoT/To4W normal mode or Hyjal daily questing) gear.

Something like:
BWD/BoT/To4W Normal - 359
Firelands Normal - 368
BWD/BoT/To4W Heroic - 372
Firelands Heroic - 381

This way if your guild was not capable of getting very far in BWD/BoT/To4W Heroics, you'll have more content to do after you've finished Normal Firelands, and those heroics will be a little easier this time around since you're wearing 368 gear instead of 359 gear. This doesn't really help the guilds that are 13/13 right now, but it'll give the rest of us some more content worth doing and maybe will make up for the fact that we didn't have the right class composition or weren't good enough to do it in 359 gear.

Additionally, they could keep Firelands loot table slim, so that you got your 5 piece set bonus and weapons, but didn't get upgrades for jewelry/boots/trinkets there. This has the added benefit of keeping the loot tables of Firelands smaller so that there would be less RNG angst (especially in 10-man guilds) compared to if you tried to fit an entire cluster worth of gear onto 7 bosses. Then, if they release a smaller companion raid a few months after Firelands that had jewelry/boots/trinkets, people would have more bosses to run and reasons to kill those bosses without that companion raid needing to be large enough to also include an entire tier worth of gear.

Imagine if ToC had managed to not suck, but was also a companion to Ulduar rather than a total replacement.

To summarize: if Blizzard doesn't fuck up itemization like they usually do, the smaller size of Firelands could work if they kept the raid that followed it small and didn't try to treat it like a total replacement for Firelands. Knowing how they usually do itemization, they will probably have 16+ different items that drop from each boss in Firelands and when you finally do beat the RNG game and win your shiny weapon after you have been farming Rag for 5 months, it'll be replaced the next week by one of the first drops your guild will see in the next raid zone. Oh, and 40% of your guild also quit because Firelands and its 7 bosses was the only raid content worth doing for 7 months.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on April 29, 2011, 06:28:36 PM
I can guarantee the loot will be the usual full tier ahead - normal Firelands loot will handily eclipse heroic BWD etc loot.

To be honest, I'm not sure what raiding game is *left*. My server now only has one steady 25 player raiding guild - *one*. We used to have 10+, plus all the smaller guilds doing 25 player stuff slowly. The raiding scene has disintegrated at an incredibly fast rate, for a variety of reasons I guess.

It will be interesting to see what they do over the next 6 months. I hate to rely on anecdotes, but everything I am seeing now over the last 2 months has shown the game crash massively in terms of player numbers and commitment. Heck, even I've quit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on April 29, 2011, 07:01:38 PM
Well, I think Blizzards needs to...wait, I'm not in the 1% hardcore raiding population, Blizzard doesn't give a flying fuck what I think.

If they did, they should include an achievement that you gain the first time you log into the Cataclysm expansion.  Let's call it "Jumped the Shark"



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on April 29, 2011, 07:04:10 PM
Normal Firelands gear is within a level of Sinestra gear so one-half tier above current heroic gear.

As for the raid population, my server's (http://www.wowtrack.org/guilds.lua?g=US-WildHammer) always been a bit of a backwater but we definitely have a lot fewer 25m raiding guilds.  That said, a lot of guilds that were previously doing 25m, including mine, have been doing multiple 10m teams.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 29, 2011, 07:14:00 PM
Some of the Firelands loot was already datamined, so this is definitely the case. Even if you are in a 13/13 guild, you will be replacing your current gear with Firelands normal mode gear. Blizzard has an opportunity to keep older content viable for longer, without having the negative effect of making people run older content to catch up, but they're probably going to push ahead and itemize loot the same way they always itemize loot. Chances are we'll see another raid 6 months+ after Firelands, not 3 or 4 months, and it will replace all your Firelands gear regardless of its size. This isn't going to kill the game or my guild (hell, if the game can survive over a year of ICC, it can survive anything), but it's definitely the first thing about Cata that feels like a blatant mistake to me (except Archaeology, which proved you can still make a shittier profession than fishing in 2010 with hundreds of millions of dollars in dev funding).



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on April 29, 2011, 10:49:32 PM
You know... nothing has really changed on my server (http://www.wowtrack.org/guilds.lua?g=US-Runetotem).  There are a few less guilds in the higher rankings, but there is still plenty of 25m action.  The big names that have always been there are still there and still progressing.  We just started doing 25m last week and are actually 1-shot'ing most of the content (if the weather would cooperate more...).  And my guild is one of the few, the proud, the 12/12 =P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on April 29, 2011, 11:50:08 PM
Behold! It's the T12s!

I'll call this one...  the Fire Gimp!


And Hunters are.. er?  Pirate Fire Trees?  With built-in eye patch!  And helmets with their own earrings?  :headscratch:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 30, 2011, 01:03:29 AM
The hunter is just wearing someone's head for a hat again, something they apparently love to do. Is there a giant basically-an-imp boss? That's probably his head.

I actually kinda like the paladin one. It's not nearly as LOLGIMP as that one rogue set. I always turn hats off anyway.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on April 30, 2011, 01:29:37 AM
Pretty sure the hunter one is patterned off the Fire naga people (those snakey boss guys in Molten core).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on April 30, 2011, 03:00:36 AM
The word everyone is desperately reaching for is 'salamander', by the way.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on April 30, 2011, 06:19:14 AM
The boots are trying to invoke the imagery of hooves, so I'd say a demon of some sort.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on April 30, 2011, 08:44:06 AM
Why is the tier12 paladin wearing cloth?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nightblade on April 30, 2011, 09:03:02 AM
Why does everything have to be on fire? For fuck's sake...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on April 30, 2011, 10:36:21 AM
The Paladin suit isn't spectacular, but it isn't horrible either.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 30, 2011, 10:37:31 AM
Why does everything have to be on fire? For fuck's sake...

If it's not, how will you ever know it came from the plane of fire?  :grin: :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on April 30, 2011, 10:37:40 AM
It's a decent set for a Mage or a Lock, but a hood and a dress don't fit most definitions of Plate armor.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on April 30, 2011, 11:15:49 AM
It's a decent set for a Mage or a Lock, but a hood and a dress don't fit most definitions of Plate armor.

(http://i.imgur.com/yAD0L.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on April 30, 2011, 01:23:05 PM
Yeah that was my thought when I first started seeing people tease about it.  T2 is widely regarded as the best and most iconic Pally armor, ever.  It appears they're trying to evoke that feeling out of the T12 set.

The priest set is almost lolbad. I don't know why they keep on with this neckbrace theme.

the DK set is the first disappointing one I've seen for that class. The body armor is pretty cool, as is the blue fire, but the wings on the helmet make me wonder if they get the power of flight now.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 30, 2011, 02:39:58 PM
The boots are trying to invoke the imagery of hooves, so I'd say a demon of some sort.

That's why I was going with "imp," they have big gaudy earrings in their ears like that helmet, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on April 30, 2011, 03:40:06 PM
It looks like the hunter set is modeled after this boss:

http://us.media3.battle.net/cms/gallery/H6E6E0DIZSB51304012895433.jpg

Who is apparently a hunter. Not sure about the random earrings though. I like how the rogue and mage sets turned out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on April 30, 2011, 04:59:04 PM
Yeah, I like the rogue one, one day I will totally buy it for my pretty blood elf boy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 01, 2011, 05:32:08 AM
T12...

Because Blizzard want you to raid seriously in clown shoes.

...on fire.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 01, 2011, 11:20:17 AM
In case anyone cares and/or didn't know, there are new pets available for the Orgrimmar/Stormwind and TBC Children's Week quests. TBC added Legs the teeny fen strider (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=98079) and the other ones added Scooter the Snail (http://www.wowhead.com/item=66073#reward-from-q).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on May 02, 2011, 12:42:25 AM
Got them both on my Shammy last night. Did Dalaran end up having a children's week? I think I got one of the pets there during WotLK


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 02, 2011, 01:04:32 AM
Yeah, there's a quest there, too. Got a little oracle orphan for my BE paladin.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 02, 2011, 04:57:13 AM
Got them both on my Shammy last night. Did Dalaran end up having a children's week? I think I got one of the pets there during WotLK

It had it last year, too, it just was in the entirely wrong week.  They patched it in sometime in June, I believe.  It was when everyone was running around with the little oracles and wolvars.

I'm weak and resubbed for Noblegarden and Children's week.  I've already cancelled again, but goddamnit I was only 3 holidays away (noble, Children's and Fire Festival) on 3 different characters.  I'd have been more pissed if I went back later and didn't have the mount and free epic flying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 02, 2011, 05:02:15 AM
I'd like to get the Purple 310% speed Drake, but I really do not know how Blizzard expects my L80 Shadow Priest to complete School of Hard Knocks. It was completely unreasonable back when the level cap was 80, now it's just nutty foo foo retarded, the gear levels are so far and beyond anything I own I simply don't stand a chance unless I luck out and find people willing to cooperate. Hahaha.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 02, 2011, 05:12:01 AM
You have to be persistant and sneaky.  I did all of them on my L85 Alliance priest yesterday and her gear level is only 341ish. 

AV was one of the easiest.  I  just ran up pointing to my orphan and the Horde let me cap the tower, then I left and they recapped it again.   I then went and returned the favor at one of our towers by doing the same thing. (running up, pointing at their orpahn. They got the picture pretty quick.)

AB is also pretty easy.  Run straight for stables out of the gate and click like mad.  If you miss that, then just run from node to node and hit the flag instead of the players. This is even easier if you're Ally because they regularly fail to not only fight on the flag but remember the flag is the reason you're there, so you're often the only one clicking.

WSG is the hardest, because it's so short.  Sometimes you'll get a reasonable team who'll see you there with the orphan, pick up and drop the flag in the room and let you return it.  Other times they're just assholes and kill you because they know you're free honor.  I just play the BG normally after the first flag grab by always going after the carrier, then clicking like mad when his health is low.

EOTS was a bitch because it was EOTS weekend and all the hardcore PVPers were in there doing nothing but bitching as everyone camped the middle.  :awesome_for_real: If you get a decent teaor try earlier in the day, it's pretty easy going.  Evenings and prime time are pure suck, though. =\


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on May 02, 2011, 05:16:04 AM
I haven't played since month one of Cataclysm but what is so hard about that achievement? All four of those things happen with great regularity, you just have to be the one to do it. I usually PvP a fair bit and have good gear though, I suppose.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 02, 2011, 05:29:45 AM
The difficult part is the orphan wandering behind you is a giant "I AM NOT GEARED FOR THIS, GANK ME" flag.  That and the folks trying to achieve them don't actually want to be there and don't give a damn about doing what it takes to win (typically.)  So instead they will camp the center in EOTS or run from tower to tower in AV or only sit in the flag room for WSG, etc. 

This isn't so bad if it's just a person or two in a 15 man BG.  However, it becomes problematic when it's 2/3 of the team and nobody's really trying to do anything beyond the achieve, so it clogs things up becuase those events that happen regularly in a normal BG no longer happen with regularity.  This ends up frustrating not only the regular pvpers but the pve folks who resent being forced to "do this shit" just to get their mount.

I tend to agree that the PVP requirements for a PvE item continue to be one of the most ill-concieved parts of the whole system.  It only pisses everyone off and doesn't really enhance anything or entice anyone who was curious about PvP to give it a go after the holidy is over. (Which is supposedly why they did it in the first place.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 02, 2011, 05:54:52 AM
Forced PvP is simply anti-fun. I'm not a carebear by any stretch but my best PvP days are long behind me and WoW PvP is and always has been utterly dreadful. But when you have to PvP in order to achieve PvE goals, you're so unlikely to find the experience fun enough to return to after the fact that the whole idea of making the achievement as a foot in the door to the PvP game is completely moot. You're frustrated and stressed, the PvPers don't want you there (though I'm sure they're not going to weep bitter tears about the free honor), everyone gets messed around for a week. It's a disaster that Blizzard have turned a blind eye to for three years now.

It's six of one, half dozen of the other for me, right now. I'm uber-happy that they made a snail pet (the snail critter was one of the first things I noticed when I resubbed) but still can't quite believe the Children's Week meta is blighted by that bloody achievement.

Either way, thanks for the advice and tips - I plan on an early morning BG excursion sometime this week to see if anything's possible. I'm SoL on gear and levels, not having Cataclysm yet, and it'd be impossible to gear and level up in time even if I did, heh. We'll see how it goes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 02, 2011, 06:05:17 AM
The EotS part of that achievement annoys the shit out of me because the flag in EotS is the devil and no one should ever want to cap the damn thing.

I am annoyed, I CHECKED to make sure my orphan was out at the beginning of EotS, then went on my merry way. Well, she apparently despawned when I leapt off the starter part, because when I really cleverly capped the flag (we flipped the node their carrier was running to, I grabbed his flag when he died), she wasn't OUT. >< So now I have to fuckin' do it again. On the upside, my paladin is actually PvP geared, so once I GET the flag, I'll probably be good to go. I'm actually enjoying all the miserable PvE-ers coming into the BG (since I don't give a shit if they trade flag caps or whatever), because they barely hurt my holy paladin ass. It's horseshit, but it's nice to feel nigh invulnerable sometimes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on May 02, 2011, 08:00:04 AM
Anyone else play Elemental Shaman and finding that AoE pulls 3/4 of the instance through walls? I thought it was Earthquake but couldn't replicate it - then pulled half of stonecore with a chain lightening overload - from 2 rooms away, then pulled a shit ton of packs in SFK by nova-ing gargoyles. Likewise in deadmines.

It's nuts - I'm not tab-targeting but after CL/nova all of a suden I get threat - from a long way away. CL shouldn't pull more (I only use it on packs of 3
+ but overload seeems to send bolts of lightening everywhere on occasion and nova just works as intended.

Hell, even thunderstorm seems to pull mobs from a few rooms away.

I'm wondring if the changes to nva in4.1 forgot to keep spells within a room.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on May 02, 2011, 11:08:55 AM
You have to be persistant and sneaky.  I did all of them on my L85 Alliance priest yesterday and her gear level is only 341ish. 

AV was one of the easiest.  I  just ran up pointing to my orphan and the Horde let me cap the tower, then I left and they recapped it again.   I then went and returned the favor at one of our towers by doing the same thing. (running up, pointing at their orpahn. They got the picture pretty quick.)

AB is also pretty easy.  Run straight for stables out of the gate and click like mad.  If you miss that, then just run from node to node and hit the flag instead of the players. This is even easier if you're Ally because they regularly fail to not only fight on the flag but remember the flag is the reason you're there, so you're often the only one clicking.

WSG is the hardest, because it's so short.  Sometimes you'll get a reasonable team who'll see you there with the orphan, pick up and drop the flag in the room and let you return it.  Other times they're just assholes and kill you because they know you're free honor.  I just play the BG normally after the first flag grab by always going after the carrier, then clicking like mad when his health is low.

EOTS was a bitch because it was EOTS weekend and all the hardcore PVPers were in there doing nothing but bitching as everyone camped the middle.  :awesome_for_real: If you get a decent teaor try earlier in the day, it's pretty easy going.  Evenings and prime time are pure suck, though. =\

I can honestly say that never in a million years would it even cross my mind to let anyone do that and i am amazed anyone does.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 02, 2011, 11:14:47 AM
The last couple years you have been able to find WSG games where people just pick up and drop the flags repeatedly for people to get their achievements done, too. I haven't been in one this year but I wouldn't be surprised to see it still happening.

I don't see what gear levels really have to do with it in general, its actually easier relative to any other expansion to get into PVP gear IMO. The crafted set is a fine starting place, and in terms of gear inflation over a full expansion cycle this children's week is in before it can really get out of hand - it is still the first arena season, etc.

EDIT: Whoa whole extra page.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 02, 2011, 11:35:47 AM
The problem for Matt specifically is that the 78 crafted cloth PvP set isn't going to accomplish much as a level 80 in the 80-84 bracket.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 02, 2011, 11:40:45 AM
Oh, well clearly just play 24/7 and grind up to 85 before the end of the week and your problems are solved.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 02, 2011, 12:47:33 PM
He doesn't have Cataclysm, so he's stuck at 80.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 02, 2011, 12:58:55 PM
I can honestly say that never in a million years would it even cross my mind to let anyone do that and i am amazed anyone does.

The first half of Children's Week (especially the first one in Wrath) makes for some awful battlegrounds.  Since most people as soon as they do their objective leave to go to another one, my thought was always, "Fuck it, let them trade caps, it'll get them out of my game faster."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Threash on May 02, 2011, 01:57:21 PM
I can honestly say that never in a million years would it even cross my mind to let anyone do that and i am amazed anyone does.

The first half of Children's Week (especially the first one in Wrath) makes for some awful battlegrounds.  Since most people as soon as they do their objective leave to go to another one, my thought was always, "Fuck it, let them trade caps, it'll get them out of my game faster."

You are just as likely to get more achievement hunters though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 02, 2011, 02:01:15 PM
I can honestly say that never in a million years would it even cross my mind to let anyone do that and i am amazed anyone does.

The first half of Children's Week (especially the first one in Wrath) makes for some awful battlegrounds.  Since most people as soon as they do their objective leave to go to another one, my thought was always, "Fuck it, let them trade caps, it'll get them out of my game faster."

You are just as likely to get more achievement hunters though.

Yeah but if your desire is a game without achievement hunters, you're still better off letting the players churn through their achievements faster, because each new player that comes in has a chance to NOT be one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 02, 2011, 03:28:12 PM
They were doing the tower exchange in the AV I was in, so I cheerfully took them up on it. WSG I expected a flag exchange to happen, but it didn't. Even so, I was with a bunch of people who apparently had no idea how WSG even works, so I got a flag return pretty easily (it's really sad when the holy paladin is the one who kills the carrier, guys). Had I been feeling mean, I would've run the flag and screwed the other side out of any flag returns, because no one in that BG could hurt me enough for it to be a concern. I haven't had an AB pop yet but that's the easiest one to get imo. I'm really good at getting out of the gate fast.  :grin:

I do think that achievement is bullshit. Well, bullshit in that it counts for the meta. No one likes it. Not the PvE people who just want a damn title/purple drake, and definitely not the PvP people who just want to do their BG thing without having people get mad at them for, like, trying to win the BG.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 02, 2011, 03:37:42 PM
Children's Week was the one that made me stop finally. I just refused to pvp for that achievement. It was dumb.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 02, 2011, 03:48:34 PM
EoTS is the only one that is really stupid, the others are all theoretically things you should be doing anyways.


It still would have been better to just have had the achievement been, "Go Do these BGs with your pet out!" instead of specific parts of said BGs, but I doubt that would've stopped people bitching about having to sully their hands by entering a PvP environment.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 02, 2011, 03:51:37 PM
People would still bitch, because that is the human being's natural state, but it would be much less warranted.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on May 02, 2011, 03:52:50 PM
Very often they're not really things you should be doing.  They're things someone on your team should be doing.  Important difference there.  A dps character with next to no survivability shouldn't be tasked with carrying the flag, for instance, they should leave themselves free to kill enemies attacking their flag carrier, healers, etc.

And the fact that even if a person never does pvp they have to go pvp - and be successful - is a problem as well, because they probably have no appropriate gear for that task whatsoever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 02, 2011, 03:53:42 PM
The big holiday meta involves every aspect of the game but crafting, I think. Them's the breaks. I'm sure the PVP-only-rawr people don't like being 'forced' into instances for those steps that require that either. I think it makes perfect sense to have PVP involved, personally. The specific requirements, sure, that sort of thing there's a case for changing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 02, 2011, 03:58:24 PM
Very often they're not really things you should be doing.  They're things someone on your team should be doing.  Important difference there.  A dps character with next to no survivability shouldn't be tasked with carrying the flag, for instance, they should leave themselves free to kill enemies attacking their flag carrier, healers, etc.

And the fact that even if a person never does pvp they have to go pvp - and be successful - is a problem as well, because they probably have no appropriate gear for that task whatsoever.


Yes, I said EoTS one was stupid (It's also stupid for the reason Sjofn already mentioned, the flag in EotS is a TRAP).

Capping Towers and Returning flags, everyone should be doing those if it's available.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 02, 2011, 04:26:06 PM
The big holiday meta involves every aspect of the game but crafting, I think. Them's the breaks. I'm sure the PVP-only-rawr people don't like being 'forced' into instances for those steps that require that either. I think it makes perfect sense to have PVP involved, personally. The specific requirements, sure, that sort of thing there's a case for changing.

Well, the difference is that right now *everyone* in the group gets credit for killing Ymiron for example.  It's not 'Get the killing blow on Ymiron', which would fuck over the other 4 people in the group.  If *everyone* got credit when someone assaulted a tower in AV, that would be a hell of a lot easier than having to do it personally.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on May 03, 2011, 02:32:29 AM
EoTS is the only one that is really stupid, the others are all theoretically things you should be doing anyways.

I accomplished it first try this year. The last two years, however, were a nightmare — Alliance on our battlegroup would win maybe one out of 20 EotS, which was why it was so great that these battlegroup structures were dissolved.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 03, 2011, 03:29:55 PM
Since last week we were discussing how hard ZG/ZA would be in 346 gear or with a PuG:

I've been playing on my feral druid alt, and they're definitely possible in 346 gear and in pugs. My success rate with ZA is fairly high, while ZG pugs are probably 50/50. I found that my success rate went up a ton when I queued as a tank (ideally with healer alt from my guild) rather than queuing as dps. The first boss in ZG (Venonis) is where a lot of groups fall apart, and it's mostly because the tanks I was getting weren't avoiding the huge damage on the breath attack from Venoxis. Or they were standing in poison pools. A healer can technically heal through a lot of the avoidable damage in that fight, but it's practically impossible in 346 gear, so the fight really requires your tank to avoid the avoidable damage.

The zones are a bit more fun at their intended gear levels, so I'm enjoying 4.1 more now than I was a week ago.

I also tried tanking a random heroic to see what I'd get from the Call to Arms reward bag. After being blessed with Deadmines (still the longest heroic by a pretty significant amount), my goodie bag had 90g and an ugly plainstrider pet  :oh_i_see: DPS queues are way down on my realm (went from ~20 minutes to <5), so Call to Arms appears to be working, but I don't think I'll be tanking random heroics exclusively for pets/mounts any time soon.

In other news, 4.2 will be changing CC so that trapping/sheeping/rooting(etc.) will not pull a pack of enemies.

Quote
Crowd Control

    * Many crowd control abilities no longer cause creatures to attack players when they are cast. The creature will not attack the player when the crowd control wears off, and nearby creatures will not become hostile to the player either. However, if a visible player gets too close to the target creature, the creature will remember and attack the player when the crowd control effect wears off. The intent is to make it easier for dungeon groups to manage crowd control assignments and pulling packs of hostile NPCs. The abilities affected by this change are: Hibernate, Entangling Roots, Wyvern Sting (will still cause hostility when it begins to deal damage), Freezing Trap, Polymorph, Repentance, Shackle Undead, Blind, Hex, Bind Elemental, Banish, Seduction.

It should be a pretty nice change overall (bringing other CC into line with how Sap works), but it's going to make the game less immersive when enemies stare blanky as their friends are turned into sheep or frozen solid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 03, 2011, 05:38:00 PM
In other news, 4.2 will be changing CC so that trapping/sheeping/rooting(etc.) will not pull a pack of enemies.

Quote
Crowd Control

    * Many crowd control abilities no longer cause creatures to attack players when they are cast. The creature will not attack the player when the crowd control wears off, and nearby creatures will not become hostile to the player either. However, if a visible player gets too close to the target creature, the creature will remember and attack the player when the crowd control effect wears off. The intent is to make it easier for dungeon groups to manage crowd control assignments and pulling packs of hostile NPCs. The abilities affected by this change are: Hibernate, Entangling Roots, Wyvern Sting (will still cause hostility when it begins to deal damage), Freezing Trap, Polymorph, Repentance, Shackle Undead, Blind, Hex, Bind Elemental, Banish, Seduction.

It should be a pretty nice change overall (bringing other CC into line with how Sap works), but it's going to make the game less immersive when enemies stare blanky as their friends are turned into sheep or frozen solid
Eh, If you wanted immersion, they could fix it fairly easily.  Just give you a 4 or 5 second grace period before the enemies "notice" their friends have been CC'd.  Maybe even throw in another pop culture reference and have the Non CC'd ones pop up a big red ? over their heads after 2 seconds, then a big red ! after another 2, then come barreling at you like normal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 03, 2011, 05:52:08 PM
Or, you could justify it by saying all enemies in WoW have extremely poor vision :p. It would also explain why they always hit the big guy/girl in front of them instead of the healer standing way in the back.

A grace period before the enemies notice their friend has been CC'd and attack would be a less silly change, but it still wouldn't fix the problem. I think they're trying to eliminate how CC kills the pacing of a dungeon run if you're one of the classes that puts targets in combat when they CC. Half the time when I tank a heroic with a mage or a hunter as the groups only CC, I mark the targets then patiently wait for the mage or hunter to CC the target I marked for them, only to have them say "ready?" 30 seconds later. Drives me nuts. Hint: if I marked the target, I was ready. If a hunter could trap their target without screwing their group if they weren't ready, you probably wouldn't have those huge long pauses.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 03, 2011, 06:17:25 PM
Well, if you've PVPd at all as Alliance, you know just how realistic ignoring the healer vs the guy beating on you really is.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 03, 2011, 08:02:56 PM
Or, you could justify it by saying all enemies in WoW have extremely poor vision :p. It would also explain why they always hit the big guy/girl in front of them instead of the healer standing way in the back.

A grace period before the enemies notice their friend has been CC'd and attack would be a less silly change, but it still wouldn't fix the problem. I think they're trying to eliminate how CC kills the pacing of a dungeon run if you're one of the classes that puts targets in combat when they CC. Half the time when I tank a heroic with a mage or a hunter as the groups only CC, I mark the targets then patiently wait for the mage or hunter to CC the target I marked for them, only to have them say "ready?" 30 seconds later. Drives me nuts. Hint: if I marked the target, I was ready. If a hunter could trap their target without screwing their group if they weren't ready, you probably wouldn't have those huge long pauses.

Thats a good point.  I think this will help pacing more than anything.  As someone who plays a tank I try to work hard at the beginning of an instance to build trust that I can pick things up when a sheep pull happens and just try to go with it throughout.  When you get in a nice rhythm with the pulling the pacing feels right.  But when you have the kind of thing you are talking about it makes me lose my mind a little bit.  I think this will help solve that problem.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on May 03, 2011, 10:24:51 PM
Since last week we were discussing how hard ZG/ZA would be in 346 gear or with a PuG:

I've been playing on my feral druid alt, and they're definitely possible in 346 gear and in pugs. My success rate with ZA is fairly high, while ZG pugs are probably 50/50. I found that my success rate went up a ton when I queued as a tank (ideally with healer alt from my guild) rather than queuing as dps. The first boss in ZG (Venonis) is where a lot of groups fall apart, and it's mostly because the tanks I was getting weren't avoiding the huge damage on the breath attack from Venoxis. Or they were standing in poison pools. A healer can technically heal through a lot of the avoidable damage in that fight, but it's practically impossible in 346 gear, so the fight really requires your tank to avoid the avoidable damage.

The zones are a bit more fun at their intended gear levels, so I'm enjoying 4.1 more now than I was a week ago.
I've checked out the new instances on my main, since my account is still on for a week: tank DK in full 346 gear plus 359 cape/belt from rep and the archeology sword... I also have two 333 pieces. I don't raid. I did the instances in full PUGs a few times and they were definitely harsh -- 2-3hour slugfests were not uncommon. ZG is especially demanding for all party members, very coordination-heavy... in a PUG that's just recipe for trouble.

I had to use my new battlerez on almost every boss (the bear boss and hex dude in ZA / zanzil in ZG were the only exceptions I can think of), and use every other tanking cooldown as well, including army of the dead quite a few times to finish off a boss when everyone else [!] was dead... which was a very common situation. :p

Elitism is also out there in the new instances in full force. A rogue once remarked "lol y u tank if u dont have tanking gear" and ragequit the group halfway through zanzil after he died to poison... then we 4-manned the boss without issues.  :oh_i_see: I also witnessed people getting kicked all the time for being terribad dps (I have no way to verify this since the mods I used were borked by the patch)... though to be honest you literally CANNOT do some of the bosses if your average dps is below 6k or so, in my experience.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 03, 2011, 11:35:18 PM
It should be a pretty nice change overall (bringing other CC into line with how Sap works), but it's going to make the game less immersive when enemies stare blanky as their friends are turned into sheep or frozen solid.

(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8znzE3DZZABQxTXNdCdKLI9O7WFJrbx3EUeXbDM2GX-sWzu_98g)

The last six years of forty dudes standing around in plain sight picking their noses while you slowly murder them in groups of five has been SO immersive. "Hey look those guys are killing Frank and Steve!" "Yeah but they're like 15 feet away, leave them alone unless they come within 14 feet."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 04, 2011, 02:15:27 AM
 :oh_i_see: I also witnessed people getting kicked all the time for being terribad dps (I have no way to verify this since the mods I used were borked by the patch)... though to be honest you literally CANNOT do some of the bosses if your average dps is below 6k or so, in my experience.
Umm. if you are in full Ilevel 346 gear (basicly the minimum requirement to actually queue for them), and you are pulling sub 7k dps on boss fights that dont have some huge gimmic, you probably shouldnt be in ZA / ZG in the first place.  Thats like, only 2 or 2.5k over what the average tank can pull on a boss fight, and would probably be considered sub par dps in normal heroics, let alone the new mini-raids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 04, 2011, 06:08:17 AM
Yeah!  Back to the same handful of instances for you until you're decked out in better gear.  In fact, you should just do those three normal instances over and over until you've got better gear.  No new content for you!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 04, 2011, 06:23:24 AM
Yeah!  Back to the same handful of instances for you until you're decked out in better gear.  In fact, you should just do those three normal instances over and over until you've got better gear.  No new content for you!

Well, to be fair, if you have gear that good and still can't pull 6k DPS, thats on you.  More to your point though, there should have been normal modes for these new dungeons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 04, 2011, 06:42:06 AM
I think Blizzard is stalking me to mine good suggestions.  Alternatively, that CC shouldn't trigger combat is obvious good game design.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2011, 06:45:46 AM
I think Blizzard is stalking me to mine good suggestions.  Alternatively, that CC shouldn't trigger combat is obvious good game design.

I think they should go a step further and just remove CC requirements from trash. Will it make trash trivial? Yeah. It was already. It's trash.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on May 04, 2011, 08:00:33 AM
The approved term is "pacing mechanisms".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 04, 2011, 08:11:41 AM
See also: Timesink.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2011, 08:24:40 AM
The approved term is "pacing mechanisms".

You can have a couple of hard trash pulls between bosses that require some thought and execution. You can have lots of trash packs that require AoE and blast through them. What you can't have is a lot of complicated trash packs in a row.

That was why people hated GB and Deadmines so much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 04, 2011, 08:40:56 AM
You can have a couple of hard trash pulls between bosses that require some thought and execution. You can have lots of trash packs that require AoE and blast through them. What you can't have is a lot of complicated trash packs in a row.

That was why people hated GB and Deadmines so much.

People hated GB trash mostly because they were still learning the dragon mount mechanic at the start of the dungeon. If your group all hits the right targets (basically the ones you'll actually need to kill, as opposed to the ones you skip), it's pretty much an aoe faceroll. I haven't had to use any CC in there for a while because threatening enemies are no longer threatening when they start the fight with 10% hp and can be nuked down in 3 seconds. That said, if you completely screwed up on dragons, there was probably too much trash.

People hated Dead mines trash because there was too much of it, period. There is only one 'hall' of trash in that dungeon that has complicated pulls where you would want to use CC. The instance still has annoying trash solely because there is so damn much of it. Even after they nerfed the amount of trash in the dungeon, it still feels like it takes 50% longer than any other 85 heroic.

I like trash. I think it works well as a pacing mechanism. I think having trash makes the bosses feel more epic, and is preferable to boss conveyor-belts like ToC. I think having some dangerous trash packs that keep the group on their toes is a good thing. For example, the faceless-ones trash that throws your group around in ToT is good trash. I like the humanoid trash packs in VP with the magic-immune shield. Good trash can also teach fight mechanics, which they used a ton of in ZG. You learn about body slam, cauldrons, and toxic link before you face a boss that uses those mechanics.

I think trash fails when it gets repetitive and you are killing the same enemies for the entire dungeon (HoO and to some extent SFK), or when there is just too much of it (DM).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2011, 08:51:26 AM
I like trash.

Too easy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 04, 2011, 10:54:47 AM
Yeah!  Back to the same handful of instances for you until you're decked out in better gear.  In fact, you should just do those three normal instances over and over until you've got better gear.  No new content for you!

If you can queue for the new heroics, your gear is pretty good. If your dps is still assy at that point, you probably just aren't very good at it, unfortunately, and you make it a lot less likely that the run will be successful. No normal version of the new instances is terrible, don't get me wrong, but it really isn't that crazy to think "OK, people should be able to break 7k" once you're into heroics. My rogue is just barely into doing-the-old-heroics territory, and he can do around 11k with the PUG buff and stuff, and I am seriously not that good a rogue. Although I DO at least interrupt spellcasters, so I have that going for me.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 04, 2011, 12:17:15 PM

This of course being why MMO devs try to call trash just about anything else but 'trash' when discussing dungeons. :p


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on May 04, 2011, 12:49:55 PM
There are heroics with vehicle combat?  That is just so goddamn  :awesome_for_real:.

I thought Wrath had underscored with red pen that the playerbase absolutely hated their vehicle implementation.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2011, 12:55:39 PM
GB just has a bombing run. It's actually the only redeeming part of the place unless you suck at it. Then, it's  :angryfist: at your inept/afk teammates before you ragequit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 04, 2011, 01:06:40 PM
It's vehicle combat, but you only have one ability to use (fireball) and the dragons fly a pre-determined course every time. All you have to do is aim the fireball and use the ability.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on May 04, 2011, 01:15:32 PM
To be fair, everyone screws up that bombing run the first time due to a combination of not knowing:
- you're about to go on a bombing run when you r-click a drake (a typical pug won't remind you of it)
- you can spam the bombs as soon as you hop on the drake, even when it hasn't taken flight yet (this gives you a good ~4 bombs each at the first group, enough to wipe them out)
- which pulls are skipped during a clear (yeah, "groups at the edge of dead-ends" doesn't help much when you're already flying over them and have 0.5sec to decide where to aim)
- you need to not focus on the two groups around Drahga until they're the only things you can hit (end of the bombing path + looping back)

Since the bombs recharge quickly, you also need to basically spam 1 and aim with the mouse, which is not a good thing if you click everything (I'm a compulsive keybinder myself and only click stuff like hearthstones, but there are quite a few clicker players)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2011, 01:35:07 PM
Quote from: Blue explaining the CC change
Related, even with Call to Arms, tanks are often in highest demand for Dungeon Finder, and we think this is largely because tanks are expected to lead and set the pace of a dungeon run. It’s a ton of responsibility. A tank I work with said recently, “I don’t even mind doing all that, but it’s just such a pain to have to manually mark targets every single pull while the other players just wait around for me to tell them what to do.” With this change, there is less need to sit down and try to communicate about which is the sheep target and which is the trap target. And if someone CC’s the wrong thing, there is more chance for recovery. It’s the way Sap has worked for years, and you don’t generally see players calling for groups with 3 rogues just to make the trash that much easier.

Personally, I'm glad they finally get this and are acknowledging it publically. That being said, this has been going on for years. It was a major problem in running heroics in TBC. You addressed it in Wrath by giving more classes better tanking abilities and letting more people do AoE damage. Now, you're making the same mistake. Once again, I'll point out that CC is almost never used at the higest levels of your raiding content, yet you seem to enforce it on the "lesser" players for some reason.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 04, 2011, 02:03:57 PM
If you can queue for the new heroics, your gear is pretty good. If your dps is still assy at that point, you probably just aren't very good at it, unfortunately, and you make it a lot less likely that the run will be successful. No normal version of the new instances is terrible, don't get me wrong, but it really isn't that crazy to think "OK, people should be able to break 7k" once you're into heroics. My rogue is just barely into doing-the-old-heroics territory, and he can do around 11k with the PUG buff and stuff, and I am seriously not that good a rogue. Although I DO at least interrupt spellcasters, so I have that going for me.  :drill:
You don't give yourself near enough credit.  You're a better player than the majority of the player base, and well, people really are that assy even at this point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 04, 2011, 02:08:30 PM
Hell I was flailing away in my pvp suit and some random other dps stuff I had lying around and doing 6-7k the first time I had ever played a fury spec in like 4 years, with no research ahead of time and missing half the glyphs I was supposed to use (in heroic stonecore, not one of the new ones.) It is mind boggling to me that people can get the ilvl to go to the new ones and not beat that easily...

...unless they're doing what I was doing, and wearing PVP gear. I think fixing the pvp gear qualifying you for the dungeon gates loophole would probably help PUG success rates immensely. (Was a guild group, I wouldn't inflect first-time furythorgrim on strangers.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 04, 2011, 02:12:04 PM
Yeah!  Back to the same handful of instances for you until you're decked out in better gear.  In fact, you should just do those three normal instances over and over until you've got better gear.  No new content for you!
Well, except for the fact that if you can actually legitimately queue for Zandalari instances (ie,you are not stacking PvP gear or carrying around junk gear you cant use to boost your iIlevel), you should theoretically not have any upgrades in the "normal" heroic tiers.   I mean, average iLevel of 346 essentially means you are ready for raids, and 7k dps would prob get you booted from most pug raids before you could blink.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 04, 2011, 02:20:30 PM
...unless they're doing what I was doing, and wearing PVP gear. I think fixing the pvp gear qualifying you for the dungeon gates loophole would probably help PUG success rates immensely. (Was a guild group, I wouldn't inflect first-time furythorgrim on strangers.)

I said that a while back in this or the PUG thread and everyone was all, "rawr, no, pvp gear is fine for dungeons, hushup."  I still disagree with that thought and agree wtih you on the idea.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 04, 2011, 02:21:09 PM
If you can queue for the new heroics, your gear is pretty good. If your dps is still assy at that point, you probably just aren't very good at it, unfortunately, and you make it a lot less likely that the run will be successful. No normal version of the new instances is terrible, don't get me wrong, but it really isn't that crazy to think "OK, people should be able to break 7k" once you're into heroics. My rogue is just barely into doing-the-old-heroics territory, and he can do around 11k with the PUG buff and stuff, and I am seriously not that good a rogue. Although I DO at least interrupt spellcasters, so I have that going for me.  :drill:
You don't give yourself near enough credit.  You're a better player than the majority of the player base, and well, people really are that assy even at this point.

Aw, that's nice of you to say. DPS is not my strong suit, though. Healing and eating bon bons, though, I can do that like champ.

As for the PvP "loophole," that drives me crazy. Not because people "cheat" to get in, but because I can't TELL when my REAL GEAR is non-assy enough to get into a heroic if I have most of the honor gear (I go through really random PvP cycles. I won't PvP for two years, then I will hyperfocus on it for three weeks, then not do it again for six months, etc ... and I just so happened to have a PvP moment recently). It's really, really irritating.  :x


I could proooobably heal in my PvP gear. Maybe. But I wouldn't like it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 04, 2011, 02:28:37 PM
You can armory your toon to check that.  For some wierd reason, the Ingame iLevel number always only shows your "complete inventory average", where as the armory will show both your Complete Inventory average and just your Equipped Item average.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 04, 2011, 03:19:30 PM
That's annoying in a different way, as it means I have to remember to log out in my PvE gear that I want to check, etc. If it showed in game it wouldn't an issue.

Amusing aside: I totally almost wound up tanking a heroic by accident because it will pick that first by default if your total gear total is high enough.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on May 04, 2011, 03:23:23 PM

Rokal = Blizzard PR bot.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 04, 2011, 03:57:13 PM
I still think you suck at your rogue Sjofn.  :why_so_serious:



The only difference between shitty DPS and Base-line but still bottom of the barrel DPS is the pressing of buttons. Seriously, press your god damn buttons people. Casting three of the incorrect spell is still more DPS then 1 of the perfect spell every 6 seconds.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 04, 2011, 04:01:06 PM

Meanwhile every modern MMO from WoW, to Rift, to LOTRO has trash in dungeons. Hell even other genres have trash of a sort. You didn't just fight 6 bosses in Megaman or a brawler like Golden Axe, finishing the level and the enemies contained within it was part of the fun/challenge. Just killing bosses one after another is boring, and it ends up making the bosses feel less exciting. See: ToC.

But pointing this out means the only possible explanation is that I'm Blizzard PR! I swear, some of the people on this forum  :oh_i_see:

If anyone actually wants to have a discussion about whether trash is good/bad for MMOs, rather than just saying "u must work 4 blizz if u liek trash" or "lol, you like trash? that's like saying you like poop!" feel free to chime in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 04, 2011, 04:03:57 PM
The ToC 5 man actually did have trash. (And I don't care what people say, I actually quite liked the raid. IN. FER. NO.)

That said no trash would be pretty lame if every dungeon was like that. Where they struggle seems to be in realizing when they've gone over the line in amount of trash.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 04, 2011, 04:09:37 PM
I can't for the life of me remember any trash in ToC 5-man. I ran that quite a few times as recently as November too. Are you counting the faction champions as trash?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 04, 2011, 04:11:06 PM
I can't for the life of me remember any trash in ToC 5-man. I ran that quite a few times as recently as November too. Are you counting the faction champions as trash?

There were the waves of jousters before the first faction champions, then some groups of paladins/monks/priests before the 2nd boss as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 04, 2011, 04:18:10 PM
Well, except for the fact that if you can actually legitimately queue for Zandalari instances (ie,you are not stacking PvP gear or carrying around junk gear you cant use to boost your iIlevel), you should theoretically not have any upgrades in the "normal" heroic tiers.   I mean, average iLevel of 346 essentially means you are ready for raids, and 7k dps would prob get you booted from most pug raids before you could blink.
Do I need to use the green?  I can use the green, even though Schild hates it.  He's hardly around to notice.

Aw, that's nice of you to say. DPS is not my strong suit, though. Healing and eating bon bons, though, I can do that like champ.
...

I laughed pretty hard.  Not your intent, but I couldn't help myself.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 04, 2011, 04:29:42 PM
I suppose those count as trash. At the same time, they are linked to the encounter and I believe if you fail the encounter they reset? In that sense, it would be like calling adds in any boss fight trash. Are the faceless ones that come during the Erudax fight trash? What about the adds you had to kill during the Shade of Akama fight in BT, or the Faerlina fight in Naxx?

I agree that they are functionally trash though.

I think the only dungeons with too much trash in Cata are the ones that they took from vanilla and revamped. In trying to keep those dungeons close to how they originally were, they didn't realize (or didn't think it would be a big deal) that the amount of trash in DM or SFK easily eclipses the trash in the other heroics. But something like Tol'vir or Throne of Tides has a fine amount of trash for me personally. HoO doesn't have much trash, but it's the same packs throughout the entire dungeon. It gets boring quickly, and at that point if your group beat the first 2 packs of the trash, the trash isn't really doing much except wasting your time by the time you are killing the 6th or 7th trash pack.

GB I'm more divided on. On the one hand, the amount of trash in the instance is fine if your group does an average job on the dragons (let's say every trash pack you need to kill is probably at 50% or less in most groups). If you do screw up the dragons, there is probably way too much trash though. GB rewards your group with a faster run without requiring you to over-gear the dungeon, but it also guarantees that the first few runs you do are probably going to be longer than, for example, your first few runs of Tol'vir. I'm not sure this is preferable, but it at least gives the dungeon a fun gimmick rather than making you feel that all the Cata dungeons are so straight-forward.

I didn't like ToC or, for a more straight-forward example, Azjol-Nerub because the pacing of both dungeons felt way off. The small size of Azjol-Nerub and the small number of trash packs didn't make it convincing as a 'real' place in the game. I'm supposed to believe this is some vast & dangerous underground cavern when I reach the end of it after walking through 3 rooms that take 10-15 minutes to clear? Even though Dead Mines still feels like over-kill, I much prefer it to dungeons in the style of Azjol-Nerub.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 04, 2011, 04:48:46 PM
I'm not entirely sure you even play wow.


Neither the jousting packs nor the monk packs were linked to the respective bosses and if you wiped on the bosses you didnt have to clear them again so they were indeed trash.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 04, 2011, 07:11:58 PM
I think he missed the good expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 04, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Aw, that's nice of you to say. DPS is not my strong suit, though. Healing and eating bon bons, though, I can do that like champ.
...

I laughed pretty hard.  Not your intent, but I couldn't help myself.

Or was it.  :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 04, 2011, 07:58:17 PM
What's going on in here?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 04, 2011, 08:08:49 PM
Noooooothiiiiiiiiiiing.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2011, 08:12:29 PM
The bunny is poking ppl with a stick again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 04, 2011, 08:52:14 PM
:oops:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 05, 2011, 01:05:55 AM
The bunny is totally making DIRTY INNUENDO rather than poking with sticks! I save all my stick pokes for you, Paelos.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on May 05, 2011, 02:56:08 AM


Personally, I'm glad they finally get this and are acknowledging it publically. That being said, this has been going on for years. It was a major problem in running heroics in TBC. You addressed it in Wrath by giving more classes better tanking abilities and letting more people do AoE damage. Now, you're making the same mistake. Once again, I'll point out that CC is almost never used at the higest levels of your raiding content, yet you seem to enforce it on the "lesser" players for some reason.

Um, I missed something here. CC has been used in raiding since the very first dungeon (MC - even had a boss fight with it built in). The only instances I *can't* remember CCing things in are AQ40, Naxx 25, ToC and Icecrown Citedal. Every raid in TBC used CC, and BoT isn't called Bastion of Trash for nothing. If you weren't using CC on those packs when the dungeons first came out I'd be impressed, as packs of 12+ NPCS with healers have a tendancy to splat raids hard. Hell, Tempest Keep was  *reknowned* for it's brutal trash that was often harder than the bosses themselves - everyone was CCing those desperately.

CC is a fundamental part of raiding and dealing with trrash - always has been. From MC through to SWP and to BoT. Yes, you can eclipse it with gear as it gets nerfed, but thats just what happens in 5 player instances.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 05, 2011, 03:26:45 AM
Yeah, I Imagine that if it wasnt for the fact that there are only like 18 trash mobs in the entirety of BWD, you would probably have had to CC stuff in there too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 05, 2011, 03:55:19 AM
Yeah, I Imagine that if it wasnt for the fact that there are only like 18 trash mobs in the entirety of BWD, you would probably have had to CC stuff in there too.

At least with my guild, we only recently stopped using at least one CC or kiter on the dog packs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on May 05, 2011, 04:01:36 AM
I didn't know you could CC the dog packs!

They tried something new in BWD with trash, so there was a much smaller amount of it and it was bigger and more "boss like". (Partly because it was basically all the bosses of BWL). I quite liked that approach to be honest - it was more fun, and more fluid, than the BoT trash where I had to spend several minutes before each pull marking everything.

Until of course we discovered Ring of Frost works on almost every mob in the pack, and a single mage allows you to CC everything so easily it felt like cheating... :)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 05, 2011, 04:35:59 AM
I don't think they can be pinned down with proper CCs or otherwise our months-long use of disarms on the big guy and mages kiting the dogs around would make no sense at all.

Of course, now we just have one tank on the big guy and one tank with both dogs and there's no issues.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 05, 2011, 08:32:39 AM
Um, I missed something here. CC has been used in raiding since the very first dungeon (MC - even had a boss fight with it built in). The only instances I *can't* remember CCing things in are AQ40, Naxx 25, ToC and Icecrown Citedal. Every raid in TBC used CC, and BoT isn't called Bastion of Trash for nothing. If you weren't using CC on those packs when the dungeons first came out I'd be impressed, as packs of 12+ NPCS with healers have a tendancy to splat raids hard. Hell, Tempest Keep was  *reknowned* for it's brutal trash that was often harder than the bosses themselves - everyone was CCing those desperately.

CC is a fundamental part of raiding and dealing with trrash - always has been. From MC through to SWP and to BoT. Yes, you can eclipse it with gear as it gets nerfed, but thats just what happens in 5 player instances.
Emphasis mine, which for some players represents the majority of their raiding experience. I never raided in vanilla or BC; among WotLK raids, Ulduar was a love-it-or-hate-it outlier (hated it) and none of the other raids except maybe RS required any CC. For people like me, the sudden reliance on CC in both 5ms and raids was a strong shift in playstyle (although in raids, we only ever CCd one of the two healers in the two roaming packs at the BoT door).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 05, 2011, 09:20:59 AM
You used CC in ICC at least during the first two bosses' sets of trash, Blood Wing trash, and maybe on LK if you were a Priest or Paladin.  I know because I can still remember all the time I spent spamming Shackle because some DK or Paladin couldn't watch their AoEs or DoTs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 05, 2011, 09:48:51 AM
I've heard of Shackling in Blood Wing, but we never did it; just burned the tactician then AOE'd the rest down. We never CC'd any of Marrowgar's trash either, and LDW's shit we just LOS pulled back to the door.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 05, 2011, 11:20:37 AM
I've heard of Shackling in Blood Wing, but we never did it; just burned the tactician then AOE'd the rest down. We never CC'd any of Marrowgar's trash either, and LDW's shit we just LOS pulled back to the door.

Early on we did a little CC on Marrowgar stuff, I don't remember CCing anything else though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 05, 2011, 11:28:15 AM
I didn't CC anything in ICC. I didn't CC anything in Ulduar (although we only did up to the Cat Lady. ToC, unless you count the Champs, which I don't. Naxx? I think we may have shackled some stuff occasionally like those flying screamers early on. That didn't last long.

You certainly didn't CC stuff in MC except for the two lizardthing fights like Domo. I don't remember doing much CC in BWL, but then again all my memories are of smashing my face into Vael for 2 months. Didn't do any AQ. Almost nobody did Naxx 1.0, so I don't count it.

TBC was where you saw the CC make it's hay in raiding. Frankly, that's a period I'm loathe to compare to anything, and certainly didn't mind seeing go away. But no! We're bringing back the hits!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on May 05, 2011, 11:58:37 AM
I didn't CC anything in ICC. I didn't CC anything in Ulduar (although we only did up to the Cat Lady. ToC, unless you count the Champs, which I don't. Naxx? I think we may have shackled some stuff occasionally like those flying screamers early on. That didn't last long.

You certainly didn't CC stuff in MC except for the two lizardthing fights like Domo. I don't remember doing much CC in BWL, but then again all my memories are of smashing my face into Vael for 2 months. Didn't do any AQ. Almost nobody did Naxx 1.0, so I don't count it.

TBC was where you saw the CC make it's hay in raiding. Frankly, that's a period I'm loathe to compare to anything, and certainly didn't mind seeing go away. But no! We're bringing back the hits!

Were you doing the instances when they first came out, or later after the gear flation had made them a bit easier?

The reason I ask this is because if you weren't using Cc on some of the packs before XT, and before Kologarn, then you're guild was damn good at the game. Every guild I knew (and my own) was using CC there because the combo of healers and one shotting spellcasters generally meant raid death if you didn't.

In MC, outside of the Major-domo fight, you used CC on Garr (Banish the elementals), and you also used CC on the fire packs leading from Garr's room up to Golemagg / MD as the fire elemetnals would simply one shot non-tanks when the instances were first being done. BWL you used CC on the two wyrmkin packs after Vael and the goblin trash packs after Broodlord.

(Note by Cc, some of what I mean involves a mage or hunter kiting stuff around as it was too deadly to leave alone, but couldn't be CC'ed using poly etc. I think we can all be grateful 5 player instances don't ask that of groups... :) ).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 05, 2011, 12:03:15 PM
We were terrible, did Ulduar at release in our Naxx gear, and never CCed any of that stuff (in 10.)  :awesome_for_real:

Perhaps the confusion just comes down to people talking about 10 vs 25.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 05, 2011, 12:13:31 PM
I didn't do it in 25. I did Ulduar in 10, never CC'd anything.

No we never did anything cutting edge. We always waited until they had let the people who wanted "challenge" to get their crack at it.

Our nickname was "Mop Up Force." Dungeons were MUF Dives.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 05, 2011, 12:15:19 PM
We were terrible, did Ulduar at release in our Naxx gear, and never CCed any of that stuff (in 10.)  :awesome_for_real:

Perhaps the confusion just comes down to people talking about 10 vs 25.

I know I shackled stuff when we were tentatively poking around in ICC. Did we ever beat it in the end? My laptop fried itself before I was even into the honoured rep. QQ.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 05, 2011, 12:39:35 PM
We were terrible, did Ulduar at release in our Naxx gear, and never CCed any of that stuff (in 10.)  :awesome_for_real:

Perhaps the confusion just comes down to people talking about 10 vs 25.

I know I shackled stuff when we were tentatively poking around in ICC. Did we ever beat it in the end? My laptop fried itself before I was even into the honoured rep. QQ.

"We" beat it in the sense that a group consisting MOSTLY of Slap people did, but I don't think we ever killed Arthas as a guild-only group, not sure. The raids we were running off the guild calendar stalled at Sindragosa.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on May 05, 2011, 12:42:40 PM
Ah, that's why. I'm talking 25 player raiding - in 10 player stuff you often can go without CC as the packs are vastly reduced in size in my experience. (Not done a huge amount of 10 player raiding however). In 25 it was absolutely necessery to be using CC in the circumstances I outlined, as those packs would simply gib the raid and / or the tanks on the pull without it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 05, 2011, 02:11:12 PM
I did 25s for the entirety of Wrath, and was on the cutting although not bleeding edge.  We didn't CC stuff in Ulduar, Nax or ICC after the first week or two inside when we were taking it slow so we could learn what  the trash did.  Even that first week I think the most that was ever done was shackling.  Lots of LOS pulls, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 05, 2011, 02:55:59 PM
We CC'd in Karazhan a fair amount, but that's the only one I can remember us doing it regularly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 05, 2011, 03:21:20 PM
We CC'd in Karazhan a fair amount, but that's the only one I can remember us doing it regularly.


Those God Damn Ushers  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 05, 2011, 03:25:19 PM
Um, I missed something here. CC has been used in raiding since the very first dungeon (MC - even had a boss fight with it built in). The only instances I *can't* remember CCing things in are AQ40, Naxx 25, ToC and Icecrown Citidal.

AQ40 used CC iirc. You CC'd the packs before Twin Emps, and I think you CC'd some trash before the bug trio boss. You also CC'd in old Naxx. So, really, the only raids without CC were the Wrath ones.

Personally, I'm glad they finally get this and are acknowledging it publically. That being said, this has been going on for years. It was a major problem in running heroics in TBC. You addressed it in Wrath by giving more classes better tanking abilities and letting more people do AoE damage. Now, you're making the same mistake. Once again, I'll point out that CC is almost never used at the higest levels of your raiding content, yet you seem to enforce it on the "lesser" players for some reason.

They've acknowledged it multiple times. "Tanking has more responsibility than the rest of the group, and that makes it a less attractive role". This is the same problem every modern MMO has, not just WoW. Rift attempts to solve it by letting 3/4 classes in the game tank and making 'talent specs' really easy to change on the fly. That doesn't make tanking more attractive, it just spreads out the role so that almost anyone *can* tank a dungeon if they'd rather do that then wait for a tank to join the group. LOTRO is going to attempt to solve this by having trash in dungeons pre-marked.

The problem in TBC heroics was that CC was much more exclusive. It wasn't really that CC was needed in general, it was that only ~2 classes had reliable CC. Even sap sucked in TBC, you had to invest talent points into it just to make it a 90% chance not to throw you in combat (which still meant that you'd get smashed for 1/10 trash packs). If you tried running Shattered Halls heroic with a feral druid, a rogue, and a ret paladin, you'd get wrecked since you didn't have any reliable CC. Not only was it too much damage for most tanks/healers, but it was too hard to keep aoe threat back then unless you played a prot paladin. As a warrior tank you'd have to tab-target everything and sunder it to keep threat, and keep track of all the enemies in case you did lose aggro. Groups obviously tried to form without 3 mages, and tanking was that much harder/less appealing because of it. I think this accelerated the demand of aoe tanking for bears/warriors, especially late into TBC when it was fairly easy to over-gear the heroics and aoe tanking them became that much more viable.

They alleviated the CC exclusivity in Wrath by opening CC up to more classes (shaman, paladins) and making other CCs more easy to use (root usable in dungeons, relaxed target 'type' restrictions, sap no longer throws you in combat, freezing arrow and then later trap launcher, etc.), but at that point they had already re-worked all the tanks into aoe tanks and balanced the content for aoe tanking. They over-corrected the flaws of TBC 5-mans by fixing CC *and* emphasizing aoe tanking, and Cata finally has let people try the old style of content without having only two viable classes for CC.

Side note: I think most TBC heroics would probably suck if we tried them as end-game content today. Shattered Halls, Ramparts, Blood Furnace, the TK dungeons: these all had a ton of trash in them with very little variety between the first trash pack you kill and the last. They truly felt like padding, not 'mini-challenges'.

Part of the reason I like dungeons requiring CC in Cata is that it (maybe ironically) adds more variety to the dungeons. You may say there is little variety in sapping star, trapping square, and killing skull followed by X every dungeon, but think about the Wrath dungeons. You didn't have any trash enemies that really felt as unique as the packs in GB, the Shadowlancers in HoO, or the Tamers in ZA. Every enemy had to be fairly simple and (since your tank was always tanking 3-4 other things) couldn't really be that dangerous. Making dungeons use CC allows you to have more variety in enemies and lets them feel more dangerous, but lets your group control that danger instead of just relying on your healer to be a bad-ass.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 05, 2011, 03:30:06 PM
Actually, warrior AE tanking actually required some skill. There's not a single thing I did in Cata dungeons or raiding that felt remotely interactive besides marking targets and taunting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 05, 2011, 03:48:14 PM
Good tanks in Cata help interrupt/stun targets, they move targets out of all the dangerous ground effects, they use their cooldowns more liberally since the content demands it and the cooldowns are lower. I'm having much more fun tanking on my bear in Cata than I did tanking on my warrior in Wrath, even with 1/3 the toolkit of a warrior.

I don't know, maybe you found running into every group in a dungeon and using shield slam, thunderclap, and shockwave on rotation more compelling? That was certainly all that was ever required of you to succeed in a Wrath 5-man.

I thought it was kind of hilarious that you used armory to look up my priest, but I'm beginning to wonder just how much Cata content you actually did before you judged the dungeons too hard and too tedious.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 05, 2011, 04:16:37 PM
Good tanks in Cata help interrupt/stun targets, they move targets out of all the dangerous ground effects, they use their cooldowns more liberally since the content demands it and the cooldowns are lower. I'm having much more fun tanking on my bear in Cata than I did tanking on my warrior in Wrath, even with 1/3 the toolkit of a warrior.

I don't know, maybe you found running into every group in a dungeon and using shield slam, thunderclap, and shockwave on rotation more compelling? That was certainly all that was ever required of you to succeed in a Wrath 5-man.

I thought it was kind of hilarious that you used armory to look up my priest, but I'm beginning to wonder just how much Cata content you actually did before you judged the dungeons too hard and too tedious.

Enough to get geared up to start running the raids. I think my gear was around 349-350 when I bailed out. You can armory it if you like, I have the same name. In randoms we pretty much only got GB, Tol'vir, and HoO with any regularity, but I went to deadmines a couple of time, Stonecore once. I ran em all over and over regular guildees. Killed that raid boss in the pvp place, ran about 4 raids in a row in BWD. That was it. Then, shit hit the fan. Healers started quitting in droves. The raid simply couldn't handle their shit. Last I checked they went to another guild, tried again, and I think have 2 bosses in BWD down, with 1 in that other place.

I don't think dungeons are too hard for me. That's never been the concern here by pretty much anybody. The point was that they were hard for people we were friends with, or pugs in general. People don't do dungeons in a vacuum. The tedium is just a symptom of me being tired of Blizzard's shit, which you regularly call "burnout." I want them to put the challenge where it belongs, and stop treating five man content like it's suppose to be a raid. It's supposed to be something we all do to pass the time and have fun with anyone we happen to want to play with. However, it seems to be a problem that's getting expressed in more than just simple dissatisfaction amongst the playerbase.

EDIT: Also, interrupts? Really? If that's challenging to you as a tank, you're a fucking knob. Also, the reduced cooldowns thing was introduced a while back. It has nothing to do with changes in Cata.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 05, 2011, 04:40:43 PM
EDIT: Also, interrupts? Really? If that's challenging to you as a tank, you're a fucking knob. Also, the reduced cooldowns thing was introduced a while back. It has nothing to do with changes in Cata.

Having to help with interrupts isn't necessarily challenging, but it's more engaging (which is the word you used). Having to do my rotation correctly as a rogue isn't exactly challenging either, but it's much much engaging than it was previously (build combo points with mutilate or sinister strike depending on your spec, keep Slice and Dice up, use evis).

When you have to watch out for the healing mob in a trash pack (or maybe something like the Shadowlancers in HoO) and help interrupt it (either because your dps sucks or because they used their interrupt on a damaging spell that mob or another cast), that's one more thing for you do do besides using shield-slam and your two aoe threat abilities. There is much more room for you to play well and make a big difference in your group for every class/role in Cata.

They also made tanks interrupt for some boss fights, like Baron Ashbury in SFK. Originally there were 3 abilities to interrupt. I'd say most groups usually have one melee dps, so that covered 1/2 interrupts, and it was usually left to the tank to interrupt the less-frequent stuff like Stay of Execution (when the group had enough health) or Mend Flesh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 05, 2011, 04:43:29 PM
I totally interupted Stay of Execution when none of us had health to speak of by accident on my rogue, I like to think it made my healer's life much more exciting for a few minutes.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 05, 2011, 04:48:33 PM
Right Rokal, except they realized people were too stupid to handle that many interrupts in a 5 man, so they took out mend flesh. BTW, a melee that does interrupts?  :rofl: All they care about is their deeps, yo. Except Sjofn, but she posts here so is automatically smarter than 98% of the WoW population. Also she has like a billion tanks so it's just habit.

Also, I looked you up because I figured (rightly) that you probably did what everyone else did and switched away from your healer when Cata dropped. Happy coincidence that? But you were probably just bored and it has nothing to do with the shitty design of healing now. Everyone else felt the exact same way at the exact same time. How odd!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on May 05, 2011, 04:52:31 PM
We actually had more healers in Cata than we did previously. My MT and a DPS both switched over to healing in Cata because they enjoyed it more, so we ended up asking the resto druids to switch to Boomkin spec all the time... :)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 05, 2011, 04:52:46 PM
I'm a little confused, I've been interrupting as a tank since 2004.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 05, 2011, 04:56:53 PM
I'm a little confused, I've been interrupting as a tank since 2004.

I honestly have no idea where he's going with this either, but it's amusing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 05, 2011, 05:20:33 PM
I've been playing my priest more lately and he's done enough heroics at this point to be able to queue for ZG/ZA. Frankly, healing is pretty much like I remember it always being, since I didn't play much in Wrath. I spent ~4 years playing a healing priest when healing emphasized mana conservation and then played about 2 month of Wrath where it had changed. Healing in Cata feels like it always has to me, but I realize if you played much of Wrath as a healer then Cata healing was probably much more disruptive. I totally believe that some players in your guild that liked healing in Wrath found that they didn't like healing in Cata.

More anecdotal experiences: in my guild healers are the least 'needed' class for raids or 5-mans. The healers that do raid enjoy healing, and would rather not DPS. It's one of the reasons we do Cho'gal, Nef, and Chimaeron with 3/4 healers when most guilds use 2/3. Our tanks are usually happy to switch things up and dps if they get the opportunity, but typically in guild chat you see "1-2 more dps for a heroic, anyone want to go?"

I realize that this is the opposite of the state of the game as the LFD shows (Tanks>Healers>>>>DPS) but there are definitely people out there that like the new tanking/healing models in Cata. I think they're probably just more inclined to run dungeons/raids with friends or guildies, rather than random strangers that could be complete asshats. Even if I don't need a random heroic on my priest/druid at this point, I'll probably join guildies who are running one and need another person, but I'm not going to subject myself to the RNG/LFD queue if I don't have to.

I've actually met quite a few nice people in LFD, but I know I'll never see them again. The bad experiences stick out much more too.

I'm a little confused, I've been interrupting as a tank since 2004.

Did you really feel that you needed to interrupt in Wrath, and especially in 5-mans? Did you feel that it greatly benefited your group to do so? My experiences are the opposite. There wasn't much to interrupt, and the things you could interrupt in 5-mans didn't really matter. Sure, you *could* interrupt the caster in a group of 5 that was casting lightning bolt #5 at you, but if the lightning bolt was cast it wasn't really going to impact your group in any major way. Each enemy did less damage individually because it was expected that you would be aoe tanking them.

I remember when I first started Wrath, I was actually trying to use CC in the dungeons, and was interrupting casters. Tanks seemed annoyed that I was trying to use CC and would just damage the mob I CC'd anyway, and whether I interrupt a caster or not didn't seem to matter. Why bother?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 05, 2011, 05:34:43 PM
I'd bet $10 Ingmar would have to be physically restrained to not interrupt something, whether it mattered or not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 05, 2011, 05:38:19 PM
I interrupted as a 5-man tank in wrath because it made MY life easier, Fuck the group. I was a happy mind-freezing, strangulating, death-gripping DK.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 05, 2011, 05:49:54 PM
I'd bet $10 Ingmar would have to be physically restrained to not interrupt something, whether it mattered or not.


No, he just interrupts it 1 second AFTER the cast because he sucks.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on May 05, 2011, 07:07:44 PM
Did you really feel that you needed to interrupt in Wrath, and especially in 5-mans? Did you feel that it greatly benefited your group to do so?

I remember there was great benefit to interrupting the fire guys just past Ick and Crick in PoS.   Namely, you didn't wipe in a PuG.  (/anecdote)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 05, 2011, 07:39:13 PM
I'd bet $10 Ingmar would have to be physically restrained to not interrupt something, whether it mattered or not.
That's probably fun on Maloriak.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on May 05, 2011, 08:47:31 PM
I remember interrupting those bastards in one of the spider instances, and a warrior tank yelled at me because he wanted to use spell reflect.  It was reflexive for me, because it was one of those bastards with the 10s cast and it hit for 25k.

I was, of course, the healer.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 05, 2011, 09:23:57 PM
I remember interrupting those bastards in one of the spider instances, and a warrior tank yelled at me because he wanted to use spell reflect. 

Oh my God, you have no idea how many times I heard that particular WHINE come from Ingmar.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 06, 2011, 08:03:09 AM
It really pumps the rage and, frankly, it's funny.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 06, 2011, 12:01:55 PM
Since I didn't play much in Wrath. I spent ~4 years playing a healing priest when healing emphasized mana conservation and then played about 2 month of Wrath where it had changed. I've actually met quite a few nice people in LFD, but I know I'll never see them again. The bad experiences stick out much more too.

I remember when I first started Wrath, I was actually trying to use CC in the dungeons, and was interrupting casters. Tanks seemed annoyed that I was trying to use CC and would just damage the mob I CC'd anyway, and whether I interrupt a caster or not didn't seem to matter. Why bother?

Yes, exactly. Why bother? The world seemed to turn just fine when it was like that. Numbers were up, devs were happy, people were happy. Life was good. Then, apparently you didn't like it and left. Perhaps WoW isn't for you?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 06, 2011, 12:25:45 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure you'd like WoW if you tried it, Rokal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 06, 2011, 02:55:47 PM
I just wanted to push butan and see numbar and get lewtz. I was never going to set foot in a raid, they could have done whatever they wanted with those. I just want my old ret paladin back and another Heroic Azjol Nerub to faceroll in 15 minutes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 06, 2011, 03:43:28 PM
Yes, exactly. Why bother? The world seemed to turn just fine when it was like that. Numbers were up, devs were happy, people were happy. Life was good. Then, apparently you didn't like it and left. Perhaps WoW isn't for you?

"Numbers were up, devs were happy, people were happy. Life was good." I could say the same thing about TBC, and the end-game content in each of those expansions couldn't have been more different.

People always say Wrath content was more popular, as in more people ran it. If people ran the Wrath heroics constantly, does that mean most subscribers would have preferred it to be that exact difficulty? More difficult? Less difficult? If it was more popular, it would suggest that people liked it more, but I wonder if the popularity was not at least partially due to path-of-least-resistance, as opposed to "this is fun is exactly how engaging/demanding I want content in the game to be". For example, I did the Skyguard dailies almost every day for gold. It wasn't because I liked doing those dailies more than say, crafting stuff to make money, or playing the AH, or running dungeons and raids for gold: it was because it was the easiest way to get gold. I'm sure a ton of people ran the Skyguard dailies, but I'm not sure that means people actually liked that content or didn't wish for it to be better. Were Wrath dungeons popular because they were an easy and guaranteed way to get big rewards throughout the entire expansion, or were they popular because they were exactly what people wanted their dungeons to be? It's not just "I want to run easy dungeons with my friends", because if it was, people like you would have bothered to run all of the 85 normal dungeons.

I really can't say. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle (lots of people liked how easy the Wrath dungeons were, lots of people ran the dungeons a lot (for rewards) even if they would have preferred slightly less brain-dead content).

I still can't fathom why people want content that is less exciting and less engaging. Like I said before, would you want to play an FPS with godmode turned on? If not, why would you want more boring faceroll dungeons? Why would you want content that asked less of you, where healers spammed one spell for the entire dungeon and tanks rotated the same 2-3 abilities without any thought for what they were fighting? Would you have preferred tanking in Wrath if you only needed to use one ability? Would you have thought the content was better if each class had one button (let's say thunderclap, flash heal, and shadow bolt) and they just pressed it every 5 seconds and won? That sounds awful to me. My interest in WoW as a player is ultimately "playing a good game that I think is fun". I don't think one-button gaming is fun. I don't really understand why people want boring mindless content for the same reason I don't understand why you'd play an FPS with godmode on for more than a couple minutes. I do at least know that it's not what I want out of the game.

You might say "Well, I don't want mindless content, but my guild-mates/friends are bad players and I want to run dungeons with them". But I think that's what everyone would say, even the people that you personally felt were bad players. You clearly blame Cata for your guild imploding, but why did it implode after it had only tried 1/3 'intro raid bosses' a few times, and you hadn't even run half the heroic 5-man dungeons? People are too quick to get bruised egos, and rather than admit "yeah, maybe my dps isn't high enough to take down the Magmaw worms yet as half our or raid's ranged dps, maybe we should try a different strategy" they either blame someone else or quit. I don't want to play a game designed around keeping the group of players subscribed to the game who wiped a few times to Mag'maw and threw in the towel rather than try a different strategy or trying the other 2/3 of the 'intro' bosses. I want to play the game where i'm encouraged to use a lot of my character's abilities, and where content is challenging but anyone can make progress on the content and defeat it as long as they don't give up the first few times they fail.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on May 06, 2011, 04:07:52 PM
I still can't fathom why people want content that is less exciting and less engaging. Like I said before, would you want to play an FPS with godmode turned on? If not, why would you want more boring faceroll dungeons?

These two things aren't the same, faceroll is a few steps down from godmode. I did do the WotLK heroics a LOT, gearing out 5 different characters in the emblem of frost stuff; 2 tanks, a healer, and 2 DPS. The dungeon itself wasn't exciting, but I loved getting new shinies for my characters. I still had to put in a lot of time, but it was almost never frustrating like it was in Cataclysm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 06, 2011, 04:09:30 PM
Here's a hint as to why they gave up. They ran into a wall for 2 solid months on Vael. Nobody wants to go back to that. They've done that. It's not worth it to relearn everything you know just so you can do the same thing you've always done except it's "moar harder!"

Here's what you don't get, and probably never will get. In any business, if you don't realize who you're trying to sell to, you will fail. You need a solid base product that appeals to the large majority of your subscriber base, and then you need innovative secondary products that shift with the demand to certain niche groups. The key is that you never ever EVER fuck with your baseline customer.

Blizzard forgot what they were about. They wanted to make things matter. They wanted to make you feel like you accomplished something. They designed an expansion with overhauls and changes and guild rep and hurdles and challenges. They made what they believed to be vast improvements in the game.

Now here's the point I want to drill into you. If you never get anything else anybody says about this game, know this one part about why WoW is shooting itself in the foot:

THEY FORGOT THAT THEIR BASE IS DUMBASSES PLAYING WITH THEIR DUMBASS FRIENDS IN A RELAXED SETTING THAT DIDN'T TAKE ITSELF SERIOUSLY.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 06, 2011, 04:21:48 PM
I still can't fathom why people want content that is less exciting and less engaging. Like I said before, would you want to play an FPS with godmode turned on? If not, why would you want more boring faceroll dungeons?

These two things aren't the same, faceroll is a few steps down from godmode. I did do the WotLK heroics a LOT, gearing out 5 different characters in the emblem of frost stuff; 2 tanks, a healer, and 2 DPS. The dungeon itself wasn't exciting, but I loved getting new shinies for my characters. I still had to put in a lot of time, but it was almost never frustrating like it was in Cataclysm.

In other words, you don't run through an FPS 3-5 times from start to finish the way a MMO player does with alts.  However, when faced with yet another long ass grind to "gear up" so after the first character you can do the next level of Dungeon Content when it's released, you're more likely to decide it's not fucking worth it and just unsub until the next x-pac.   Particularly if you're not into the raiding game on your primary character.  That should concern Blizzard because it's a long fucking time between x-pacs.

When it's easier, you don't mind the long ass grind.  You can do your daily dungeon on your 3-4 alts in a few hours and merrily be on your way.  When it takes those few hours to do one dungeon and there's very little gain from it?  Fuck it, I can spend that $15 on more entertaining softwares.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 06, 2011, 04:32:09 PM
Here's a hint as to why they gave up. They ran into a wall for 2 solid months on Vael. Nobody wants to go back to that. They've done that. It's not worth it to relearn everything you know just so you can do the same thing you've always done except it's "moar harder!"

Here's what you don't get, and probably never will get. In any business, if you don't realize who you're trying to sell to, you will fail. You need a solid base product that appeals to the large majority of your subscriber base, and then you need innovative secondary products that shift with the demand to certain niche groups. The key is that you never ever EVER fuck with your baseline customer.

Blizzard forgot what they were about. They wanted to make things matter. They wanted to make you feel like you accomplished something. They designed an expansion with overhauls and changes and guild rep and hurdles and challenges. They made what they believed to be vast improvements in the game.

Now here's the point I want to drill into you. If you never get anything else anybody says about this game, know this one part about why WoW is shooting itself in the foot:

THEY FORGOT THAT THEIR BASE IS DUMBASSES PLAYING WITH THEIR DUMBASS FRIENDS IN A RELAXED SETTING THAT DIDN'T TAKE ITSELF SERIOUSLY.

(http://th261.photobucket.com/albums/ii61/Angellee32/angeldust/i%20loveee/th_Clapping-MontyPythonApplause.gif)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 06, 2011, 04:39:43 PM
Here's a hint as to why they gave up. They ran into a wall for 2 solid months on Vael. Nobody wants to go back to that. They've done that. It's not worth it to relearn everything you know just so you can do the same thing you've always done except it's "moar harder!"

Here's what you don't get, and probably never will get. In any business, if you don't realize who you're trying to sell to, you will fail. You need a solid base product that appeals to the large majority of your subscriber base, and then you need innovative secondary products that shift with the demand to certain niche groups. The key is that you never ever EVER fuck with your baseline customer.

Blizzard forgot what they were about. They wanted to make things matter. They wanted to make you feel like you accomplished something. They designed an expansion with overhauls and changes and guild rep and hurdles and challenges. They made what they believed to be vast improvements in the game.

Vael was literally a wall to the rest of content. Your guild gave up on Cata raiding after trying one of three available intro bosses a few times, widely considered to be much harder than the other two options you had. That's not even close to what Vael represented in BWL, and it's much easier content than what your guild dealt with in ICC.

As a player, I ultimately don't care whether Blizzard "really successful" or "incredibly successful". Even if the Cata difficulty did scare off a bunch of players like yourself, they're still going to be successful and the game will still continue. As a player, my primary concern is whether the game is fun for me, not whether the game is the most financially successful it can be. For me, and plenty of other people, Cata is fun and a vast improvement over Wrath.

That should be the primary topic among gamers and within this forum. "Is this expansion fun?" not "Will Blizzard make more money with this expansion than the last one?"

In other words, you don't run through an FPS 3-5 times from start to finish the way a MMO player does with alts.  However, when faced with yet another long ass grind to "gear up" so after the first character you can do the next level of Dungeon Content when it's released, you're more likely to decide it's not fucking worth it and just unsub until the next x-pac.   Particularly if you're not into the raiding game on your primary character.  That should concern Blizzard because it's a long fucking time between x-pacs.

When it's easier, you don't mind the long ass grind.  You can do your daily dungeon on your 3-4 alts in a few hours and merrily be on your way.  When it takes those few hours to do one dungeon and there's very little gain from it?  Fuck it, I can spend that $15 on more entertaining softwares.

This is not people calling for nerfs to content the 3rd or 4th time they've done it. This is people asking for nerfs to content the first time they've done it.

I don't even know what game you're playing. Weeks to gear up an alt? Multiple hours to do one dungeon? After you have learned the dungeons they all take less than one hour. It literally took my priest maybe 6-8 dungeon runs total to gear up completely from heroics, and those certainly weren't agonizing multi-hour runs. Most of them were even 100% pugs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 06, 2011, 04:41:24 PM
"Is this expansion fun?" and Blizzard's ability to make money with it are directly correlated.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 06, 2011, 04:52:23 PM
"Is this expansion fun?" and Blizzard's ability to make money with it are directly correlated.

Let me clarify then. "Is this expansion fun TO ME?" You shouldn't really care more about how you heard so and so's guild fell apart than whether the 5-man heroic content was too challenging for you as an individual. Half of the conversion in this thread has been people complaining that Blizzard betrayed their core customer ("dumbasses who are bad at this game", as it was described), all the while not considering themselves part of that group.

If one-button gaming sounds fun to you, you are part of that group and you probably don't like Cata for what it is. Some of the people posting have honestly said that they just want to faceroll content, that is what they want out of the game. Maybe they'd even like the game more if tanking was just pressing thunderclap every 5 seconds. That's fine, it's not a game I want to play but it's at least an honest opinion.

The rest of the posts have been people saying "this content isn't too hard for me, but it's too hard for the rest of WoW's population". It shouldn't be your primary concern as a player, and you shouldn't assume that 90% of the game's population is incapable of doing the content.

Is Cata going to reduce Blizzard's bottom line a little? Maybe (we don't even know if it will!), but as a player I care more that the content is actually fun and engaging again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 06, 2011, 04:58:58 PM
But, what other people think about the game is completely relevant. It doesn't help me much if the guild is fun for me if my friends all moved on to something else because it wasn't fun for them. Their core customer of dumbasses are my friends! What you're missing is apparently that all of us arguing that it is too hard for the majority of people are arguing this becase we saw it happen with our own eyes.

The 'one button' gaming thing is hyperbole and not helping your point, IMO. The question is not binary, there is a wide continuum of possible difficulties they could employ.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 06, 2011, 05:14:30 PM
But, what other people think about the game is completely relevant. It doesn't help me much if the guild is fun for me if my friends all moved on to something else because it wasn't fun for them. Their core customer of dumbasses are my friends! What you're missing is apparently that all of us arguing that it is too hard for the majority of people are arguing this becase we saw it happen with our own eyes.

The 'one button' gaming thing is hyperbole and not helping your point, IMO. The question is not binary, there is a wide continuum of possible difficulties they could employ.

I don't believe your friends are really that bad at the game. I believe if you asked your 'bad' friends why they weren't having fun with Cata, they'd probably also say "well the content isn't too hard for me, but it's too hard for the people i'm playing with". I have plenty of average players in my guild that aren't great players, but we can complete the content. Why? Because we try to help them and be constructive instead of being assholes or calling them bad. Again, succeeding in Cata is not about being an awesome player, it is about being adaptive and not giving up quickly or being an asshole when you fail.

I keep emphasizing 'one button gaming' because I know most people in this thread wouldn't think that only needing to use Thunderclap would make tanking more fun or engaging. Just spamming shadowbolt or starfire wouldn't make warlocks or balance druids more fun. Having multiple abilities to use, and having a noticeable result when you use those abilities is fun. It goes back to the aoe tanking vs. CC conversation that got us to this point. Having content use CC and de-emphasize aoe tanking makes the content more fun and engaging. You get to use more abilities. You get good incentives to use those abilities ("if I interrupt this spell, the boss won't leap across the room and make us chase him like an asshole! yay!". You feel like you are playing your class well and improving. We shouldn't say that it makes the content too hard or too tedious, because the alternative (aoe tanking with one button) is a much less fun and engaging game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 06, 2011, 05:30:21 PM
Rokal, if half of that shit that you spew out was true about WoW doing what it's doing, it would never have come into existence. We'd all still be playing EQ and lapping it up. They went down this road as well, although not on as big a scale.

At the end of it lies irrelevance. But EQ's still going, right? It must not have fucked up, right?

Those people that quit just gave up, they couldn't fucking adapt. Do you hear yourself when you speak? You want to tell the millions of people who play the game that they need to just fucking deal? See how well that works out. If you want references, look at every single MMO before WoW that decided that was a fucking rad idea.

I pity whatever you do for a living for whomever you do it for. God help you if you ever do anything in customer service beyond shine your own knob while the phone rings off the hook.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 06, 2011, 05:31:15 PM
Rokal, you're making a lot of incorrect assumptions about how we dealt or tried to deal with the situation, that's all I'll say on that part of your response about constructive help vs. calling people 'bad'.

And yes, it probably is much closer to fine now but the challenge becomes talking the people who all left into coming back. (Including me!) Our guild went from regularly having 20+ people on to typically more like 5, and that didn't happen until after people hit 85 and started hitting the dungeon content. People seemed pretty happy with the other Cataclysm content (barring my utter loathing of the guild rep system.)

Personally I don't find having to CC trash packs either especially difficult or particularly engaging, mostly it is just dull. Almost all of the actual problems I've seen come with executing mechanics on boss fights (in terms of failure) and just the sheer amount of time it takes (in terms of feeling rewarded).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on May 06, 2011, 05:37:35 PM
Luckily at least with the new rewards the queue system seems to be less painful.  I get DPS queues in 5-10m these days.  Granted I still get mouth breathers from time to time but at least if I get a group of 333-346 geared people who remotely know what they are doing the dungeons get finished with relative ease.  My all purpz'd out main tends to carry a bunch of people, but hey, that's more gear for me and them, so we both win provided they don't go full on retard on every pull.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 06, 2011, 05:41:09 PM
They could pay me cash for every run and I still wouldn't tank for the random heroic finder, I just hate it too much.

Mind you that's not a new thing, I hated it in Wrath too.  :heart:

I can enjoy it as a solo experience in leveling content, because that's pretty quick and fun and easy, but I won't go into a random heroic without at least 2 other people I know, and one of them better be my healer.  :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 06, 2011, 05:46:41 PM

I don't believe your friends are really that bad at the game.

:roflcopter:


Again, succeeding in Cata is not about being an awesome player, it is about being adaptive and not giving up quickly or being an asshole when you fail.

Being adaptive or not is precisely what made the "bad" players in our guild bad, for the most part. And no amount of repeatedly banging one's head against the wall (and fuck, I did a LOT of that in WotLK, even) or being a supportive person who tries to not let the desperate anguish about wiping on this simple thing for the thousandth time get into their voice (I don't think I was good at that, sadly) will be able to teach it to people. People are either quick enough to realize they need to get out of the fire after the first five tries, or they're not.



EDIT: Also, Ingmar is a gigantic pussy about doing random heroics. Man up, bitch!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 06, 2011, 06:45:20 PM
Rokal, you're making a lot of incorrect assumptions about how we dealt or tried to deal with the situation, that's all I'll say on that part of your response about constructive help vs. calling people 'bad'.

And yes, it probably is much closer to fine now but the challenge becomes talking the people who all left into coming back. (Including me!) Our guild went from regularly having 20+ people on to typically more like 5, and that didn't happen until after people hit 85 and started hitting the dungeon content. People seemed pretty happy with the other Cataclysm content (barring my utter loathing of the guild rep system.)

Personally I don't find having to CC trash packs either especially difficult or particularly engaging, mostly it is just dull. Almost all of the actual problems I've seen come with executing mechanics on boss fights (in terms of failure) and just the sheer amount of time it takes (in terms of feeling rewarded).

That was more directed at other people in this thread (who seem to think their guild mates are functionally retarded and could never learn to move out of fire) and Paelos whose guild fell apart after a few nights of trying Mag'maw, rather than trying one of the many alternate options that existed like "finish more than 5 heroics so people have better gear" or "try a different strategy" or "try a different fight". Meanwhile, burnout or shitty attitudes couldn't possibly have been a factor. The content was just too hard for his guild which was perfectly capable of doing the harder ICC content, and they didn't try any other fights/options because... well... "Blizzard betrayed their core playerbase, this is an outrage!" Or maybe they were actually just tired of WoW/the raiding grind, and even if they did succeed one one of the other fights, WoW was still WoW and raiding was still raiding.

WoW is not hard. It wasn't hard in Wrath, it isn't hard now. There is very little actual skill in any fight or class. I do believe that 95%+ of the WoW community is capable of learning not to stand in the fire for a fight, they just might take a few more attempts to learn that. They certainly won't learn how to play the game if everyone treats them like they are retarded, as the cesspool of a WoW community seems to prefer doing rather than using constructive criticism or having patience.

Being adaptive or not is precisely what made the "bad" players in our guild bad, for the most part. And no amount of repeatedly banging one's head against the wall (and fuck, I did a LOT of that in WotLK, even) or being a supportive person who tries to not let the desperate anguish about wiping on this simple thing for the thousandth time get into their voice (I don't think I was good at that, sadly) will be able to teach it to people. People are either quick enough to realize they need to get out of the fire after the first five tries, or they're not.

Being adaptive does not mean being adaptive on the fly. Being adaptive on the fly is one of the only real 'skills' in WoW, and I don't think it's something you can teach. I'm talking about your guild or dungeon group as a whole. Being adaptive as a guild means that if you are failing on a fight like Mag'maw, instead of banging your head against a wall because your guild can't execute the same strategy as another guild, you think about another way to do the fight. Ranged dps can't kill adds quick enough? Have one of the tanks tank them instead. Healing too hard on the fight? Check to see if there is any avoidable damage you're missing, or maybe have one of your players bring another healer instead. There are so many bizarre hybrid classes at this point, and alts, that even 10man guilds with a small raid roster should be able to make tweaks like that. I'm not talking about booting the warlock from your group and bringing a holy paladin necessarily, I'm talking about having your dps DK try tanking, or your prot paladin switch to holy for the fight and let someone else tank.

I understand that maybe there is one person in your guild who will never learn to get out of the fire. Having them along would not prevent you from succeeding in any of the 5-man heroics of normal raids. There is nothing in Cata as binary or restrictive as Thaddius where one player not getting out of the fire (or noticing polarity) is probably going to wipe your raid. There are certainly fights where it doesn't help (Dragha in GB, Cho'gal), but (so far) in Cata, having one or two players with bad reaction times isn't going to be a deal-breaker like it would have been in a lot of the older raid and dungeon content. This could easily change in later content or heroic-raids though.

Rokal, if half of that shit that you spew out was true about WoW doing what it's doing, it would never have come into existence. We'd all still be playing EQ and lapping it up. They went down this road as well, although not on as big a scale.

At the end of it lies irrelevance. But EQ's still going, right? It must not have fucked up, right?

Let me summarize your reply to any post I ever made in this thread.

"You don't get it, Blizzard betrayed their core playerbase and it's just a bunch of asshole devs in their ivory tower trying to resurrect EQ1"

You have contributed the same tired answer to any conversation topic I tried to bring up.

I don't want vanilla back. I don't want TBC back. I want the game to be progressive and continue to innovate on problems in the MMO genre. I like that I don't have to farm for hours in order to prepare for a raid. I like that there is more variety in dungeons, and that CC isn't restricted to two classes. I like that people have dual-talent specs and groups are so flexible. I don't want content to be restrictive, I want it to be fun and engaging, and I want it to be balanced in a way that anyone feels like they can succeed. I feel like Cata, right now, hits that mark.

I am certainly not encouraging Blizzard to make this game more like EQ1, because EQ1 sucked in some of the same ways that Vanilla sucked. What I am saying is that Blizzard does not (and should not) design all of the content in this game around the absolute lowest common denominator. Blizzard should strive to make the game better and more fun, and (again) having more engaging content is a good thing. Blizzard shouldn't ignore criticism about the game, but they should ignore criticism that would lead to making a much shittier game like "tanking is too hard. tanks should only have to use thuderclap and have no risk of dying".

I'm trying to tell you why CC is a good thing for dungeons, and why aoe tanking is a bad thing. Or why trash is more than just a time-sink in a dungeon. The reason is not, and never has been "Hard content is fun, fuck y'all". In that example it was "CC lets you have more engaging and unique enemies to fight, aoe tanking doesn't!". Your response to this, again, was "You don't get it, Blizzard betrayed their core playerbase and it's just a bunch of asshole devs in their ivory tower trying to resurrect EQ1"

You are not interested in actually having a conversation about WoW, you are just stifling the conversations I'm trying to have with your same tired complaint. I get it, you think Blizzard is going to lose money because they betrayed their core customer. What the fuck does that have to do with whether CC is a good or bad thing for dungeons?

The game isn't heading to irrelevance as a result of Cata, and it's not even all that difficult or inaccessible. Understand that there is a middle ground between pandering to every whine on the WoW forums, and making this game inaccessible to the majority of subscribers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pennilenko on May 06, 2011, 06:46:50 PM
 :popcorn:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 06, 2011, 07:16:40 PM

Being adaptive or not is precisely what made the "bad" players in our guild bad, for the most part. And no amount of repeatedly banging one's head against the wall (and fuck, I did a LOT of that in WotLK, even) or being a supportive person who tries to not let the desperate anguish about wiping on this simple thing for the thousandth time get into their voice (I don't think I was good at that, sadly) will be able to teach it to people. People are either quick enough to realize they need to get out of the fire after the first five tries, or they're not.

Being adaptive does not mean being adaptive on the fly. Being adaptive on the fly is one of the only real 'skills' in WoW, and I don't think it's something you can teach. I'm talking about your guild or dungeon group as a whole. Being adaptive as a guild means that if you are failing on a fight like Mag'maw, instead of banging your head against a wall because your guild can't execute the same strategy as another guild, you think about another way to do the fight. Ranged dps can't kill adds quick enough? Have one of the tanks tank them instead. Healing too hard on the fight? Check to see if there is any avoidable damage you're missing, or maybe have one of your players bring another healer instead. There are so many bizarre hybrid classes at this point, and alts, that even 10man guilds with a small raid roster should be able to make tweaks like that. I'm not talking about booting the warlock from your group and bringing a holy paladin necessarily, I'm talking about having your dps DK try tanking, or your prot paladin switch to holy for the fight and let someone else tank.

My guild was the undisputed champion of doing shit the wrong way. Although frankly, it gets pretty exhausting having to come up with a special snowflake way of doing things after a while. Sometimes you just want to do the fucking thing right instead of taking into account the fact your guild never, ever has a priest in the raid or that your two best-attendance DPSers are also the worst at it. But you could muscle through it in WotLK. After wanting to commit ritual suicide just in heroics, seems a lot of people in my guild were not feeling optimistic about muscling through any raids like that in Cataclysm.

Seriously, dude. My guild was like the fucking posterchild for "Casual, Endearingly Inept Raiders." My guild was pretty big in WotLK. It is not very big right now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on May 06, 2011, 07:35:04 PM
That's because WoW is a game for attractive, successful hardcore raiders not CANDYASSES like your casual guild.  Frankly, it makes me sick that casuals dare to raid.  Raiding is for the top 1% of the playerbase, heroic players of practically Olympian proportions.  Not you disgusting, feces-flinging casuals who want to play with your friends and family. 

You don't know what the hardcore have sacrificed to be at the pinnacle of WoW, nay humanity itself.  They study guides, they tweak their builds, they memorize the strats, they go without showers.  Look at them while you squat beside the AH in Ironforge, smeared in your own filth.  Admire their epic gear, look but don't touch!  Know that Blizzard makes this game for them, not you with your "life" in the "RL" whatever that is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on May 06, 2011, 07:53:37 PM
ITT: Arguments proving that either every raid boss in WoW must be beatable by a retarded penguin randomly nudging buttons, or must be so difficult that only genetically perfect supergamers can attempt it after years of meditation away from the distractions of the material world and showers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 06, 2011, 08:02:28 PM
I don't believe your friends are really that bad at the game. I believe if you asked your 'bad' friends why they weren't having fun with Cata, they'd probably also say "well the content isn't too hard for me, but it's too hard for the people i'm playing with". I have plenty of average players in my guild that aren't great players, but we can complete the content. Why? Because we try to help them and be constructive instead of being assholes or calling them bad. Again, succeeding in Cata is not about being an awesome player, it is about being adaptive and not giving up quickly or being an asshole when you fail.
Hi, I'm one of Ingmar's friends.  Nice to meet you.

The content was too fucking hard.  Oh, I could do it, but it wasn't fun. Not fun at all..

THEY FORGOT THAT THEIR BASE IS DUMBASSES PLAYING WITH THEIR DUMBASS FRIENDS IN A RELAXED SETTING THAT DIDN'T TAKE ITSELF SERIOUSLY.
For emphasis.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 06, 2011, 08:54:47 PM
EDIT: Forget it, that tirade shouldn't be matched with another tirade.

Rokal, know that Jesus loves you, but I think you're a douchebag.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on May 06, 2011, 09:19:10 PM
THEY FORGOT THAT THEIR BASE IS DUMBASSES PLAYING WITH THEIR DUMBASS FRIENDS IN A RELAXED SETTING THAT DIDN'T TAKE ITSELF SERIOUSLY.

This.  So much this.

I was a decent raider in Wrath, but my friends and I just wanted to be casual raiders in Cata.  You know.  Like it was possible to be in Wrath.

Except that it wasn't possible in Cata.

So.  We all quit.

The End.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 06, 2011, 09:34:12 PM
EDIT: Forget it, that tirade shouldn't be matched with another tirade.

Rokal, know that Jesus loves you, but I think you're a douchebag.

The feeling is mutual :p I feel bad that your guild imploded when I think you otherwise might have enjoyed the content, but you keep dragging every conversation about the game here to the same place and it's starting to get annoying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 06, 2011, 09:39:59 PM
But you keep dragging every conversation about the game here to the same place and it's starting to get annoying.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 06, 2011, 09:46:04 PM
I know! I feel like I've made these same points 20 times in this stupid thread, so I'm sure you're tired of hearing from me too.

That said, there was no reason a discussion about CC or trash mobs had to turn into another "Is Cata too hard? Is Cata balanced for the majority of their playerbase?" discussion

I mean if someone actually wants to talk about why they find aoe trash more fun than smaller-scale but CC-able trash even though it means they are using less abilities, or if they really want to imagine a dungeon without trash and tell us why they think it would be a good thing, those are the types of topics I wanted to talk about. Not the same tired Cata shit that has been on the forums for months.

These aren't even topics that are specific to WoW, this is the entire MMO genre. What other solutions are there to make tanking more attractive in MMOs? etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 06, 2011, 09:55:36 PM
Then, my thoughts are pretty simple.

CC is fine if it's done as a varied part of an instance. I don't mind marking targets occasionally. I do mind marking them every pull for 20 pulls in one dungeon.

Trash is fine if it's done in a manner that is not overly long and similar. Some AE would be nice, but it's not like AE was all that easy.

The key is balance and not over reliance on one aspect. Also, if you vary your length of 5 mans by too much, a subset of them become very unpopular since the end result is that you're going to be running them for points not loot at some point in the near future after their release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 06, 2011, 10:12:16 PM
5 - I want the game to be progressive...more variety in dungeons...CC isn't restricted to two classes...dual-talent specs...groups are so flexible...I don't want content to be restrictive, I want it to be fun and engaging, and I want it to be balanced in a way that anyone feels like they can succeed -

Here's the really hilarious thing about what you just told us. Everything you listed there was implemented in Wrath or before, which you didn't play or like for some reason.

Each expansion has added or overhauled important systems that resulted in the game being better (or less subjectively: less demanding on logistics, grinding/farming, or dumb luck).  The difference with Wrath was that, completely unrelated to those systems, the underlying game got really dull for me.

I'd like to think it's because there was no progression among tiers (which is untenable in a modern game for a variety of reasons) and Wrath content was designed for only two audiences: the top decile of raiders and "dumbasses and their dumbass friends".  Those two never really met with the exception of doing old heroics and achievements, but the only incentive there was a mount.  By contrast, the current tier has a relatively smooth progression between introductory content and the super high-end stuff so, my guild at least, can find a sweet spot where we're not facing a giant wall or spending nights on trivial stuff.

We're unlikely to get half-way through a heroic clear of this tier while it's current, but if all we had were increasingly trivial Nef and Al'Akir kills to look forward to, I'd have probably quit by now.

Now do the Goldilocks-types like me even approach those that have been dropped off the bottom?  No, not even close.  But like I said before, I'm having a blast with this expansion when I was subscribed during the last one for less than half of its lifespan.  My guild is active with three 10-man raid teams when we used to have to scramble just for warm bodies to fill out a 25-man.  And, most importantly, more of my pre/non-WoW friends are playing than at any point I can remember, both weekend casuals who I run the odd dungeons with and the ones in my raid team.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on May 06, 2011, 10:18:55 PM
I wish they kept that stacking buff thing they did for ICC with every raid they release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on May 06, 2011, 10:32:01 PM
I mean if someone actually wants to talk about why they find aoe trash more fun than smaller-scale but CC-able trash even though it means they are using less abilities

I don't  know that they are using less abilities.  You start throwing in CC and you can't throw AoE around as much as you used to (especially AoE with kind of vague borders, like Holy Wrath), so to me it looks like more of a tradeoff between using CC abilities and using AoE abilities.

Mostly, though, I think it comes down to the feel of the combat.  AoE fests feel like "kick in the door and spray the room with machinegun fire" fights.  CC battles feel like they lose that in favor of a more tactical kind of fight, except that it's not really tactical because you do it over and over again until it becomes rote.  Not that AoE is more intellectually engaging, but at least there you've got the testosterone rush "I just killed ten guys at once" feeling going.

If we were trading adrenaline for something like tactics or strategy that would be one thing, but CC isn't really that interesting strategically.  Target healer or caster and click your CC skill, done.  It's easy to use, but also easy to fuck up, if that makes sense, which makes it seem like a net loss to me, since you're losing (via frustration of fucked up pulls) more than you gain (via the rush of a really well executed CC, if such a thing exists).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 06, 2011, 10:35:30 PM
It's already been established that a lot of the reason people find tanking tedious is because they are responsible for stuff like marking targets. I think Blizzard tried to fix this by letting people queue as the 'group leader', but in practice people just use this for a slightly faster queue, and the tank still does all of the work like marking targets and explaining fights. Blizzard could do a few things to fix this.

They could lock 'group leader' so that only the group leader was capable of marking targets. This means that someone really needs to mean it when they check "group leader" when queuing or else it is likely their group will fail (and that player won't get any loot/VP/whatever), but has fairly large draw-backs. If you get a group leader that sucks, you're pretty much screwed unless you want to remove them from the dungeon. At least as it is now, anyone in the group can mark targets if the group leader isn't doing a good job.  I think *maybe* this was how group leader worked before? If so, they obviously didn't like the results.

They could also do the above and implement some sort of really simple 'review' system for group leaders. If you think your group leader was actually helpful, you check the "good job" box or whatever when your group finishes the dungeon or if your group leader actually prevented you from finishing the dungeon, you could right-click their name to vote "not helpful" or whatever. Theoretically this would encourage people to be helpful if they picked 'group leader', and eventually it would gravitate towards making people with high ratings the group leader rather than people that just wanted a faster queue. On the down side, this is open the exploitation (Joethedruid won the loot I wanted, down-voted! or Lets get all of our friends together and zone in to dungeons briefly to up-vote each other so we get faster queues!). Online fighting games with similar voting system have also essentially shown that people tend to use these systems as a way to grief other players. It's the sort of social engineering that might actually encourage people to be decent human beings in LFD pugs though.

I don't think pre-marking targets is the right solution, especially for WoW. Having the game tell you what to kill first by marking it with skull just feels so automated and paint-by-numbers. I think maybe the best solution they could use would be to let players save how they mark targets. You could even have this saved locally on your machine so that they weren't tracking a bunch of additional crap in their databases. This file would record that you marked the second trash pull in Tol'Vir as "epicroguenpc83=x, giantangrycat5=star, obnoxioushealer7=diamond). This way, trash pulls were not automatically marked, but you only had to mark them one time and then after that you just press the "saved marks" button before each pull and it grabs whatever you put up the last time you did the dungeon. I wonder if something like this would be possible with the way addons currently work in WoW, but I honestly have no idea.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 06, 2011, 10:47:21 PM
I don't believe your friends are really that bad at the game. I believe if you asked your 'bad' friends why they weren't having fun with Cata, they'd probably also say "well the content isn't too hard for me, but it's too hard for the people i'm playing with".

As one of Ingmar's bad friends, let me assure you that:  Yes, I'm really that bad and the parts of Cata I'm not having fun with are the end-game dungeons and it's because they're too hard.  So much so that on this current stint I'm just leveling various alts and seeing all the stuff that changed in the old world.  Guess what will likely happen when I run out of that content if Blizzard doesn't change course with their end game?

And Sjofn, I'd do random heroics with you but you disappeared off onto some other mystery server.  :cry: :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on May 06, 2011, 11:05:06 PM
The issue really is "so even if they fix things, how the fuck do they get people to come BACK"

I got my email about a 7 day reactivation. And I looked at mmo-champ for 15 minutes, longed to play with the people I like again.. and remembered that it wasn't just "my friends that I want to play with may suck at heroics", it was "and pugs may suck at them" and "half my characters can't get anything from rep due to shit itemization on the rep vendors, so grinding heroics for rep is useless" and a lot of this stacking concept that the game was just built around tedium now, and the only thing that kept it from sucking are my friends.

And you know what? I can chat with them in IRC, or play other games with them.


And tanking is tedious in heroics to me because I'm pressing the same two buttons over and over again, with very little engaging gameplay unless someone screws up. Marking targets takes like, two seconds. The problem isn't marking. The problem is trash heavy instances where you are going to sleep through 80% of the run until you get to something interesting. Cata didn't make trash engaging, it made bosses engaging. And sadly, it did that (at least on release, haven't played in months now) by making a large number of "Do this or DIE" mechanics so we couldn't just Wrath it up and power heal through the interesting mechanics.

I think I'm just ranting now. I'm mostly annoyed that there's a guild of people I love to play with.. but I really don't love the game they're playing anymore. I usually play a lot/burn out and leave/come back for major patches.. but this patch just doesn't interest me. They made the old heroics suck a little less, put carrots in front of my tank and healer to pug it up, and brought back the trolls for no real reason.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 06, 2011, 11:41:39 PM

And Sjofn, I'd do random heroics with you but you disappeared off onto some other mystery server.  :cry: :heartbreak:

Hey, I told people I'd run off to the Horde in Cataclysm!  :why_so_serious:  Didn't really expect it to be on a BE paladin though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 07, 2011, 12:10:56 AM
Sjofn is shallow and wanted to play a HUNK.





Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 07, 2011, 02:41:16 AM
Awwww yeeeeeah.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 07, 2011, 02:58:39 AM
Rokal, you're making a lot of incorrect assumptions about how we dealt or tried to deal with the situation, that's all I'll say on that part of your response about constructive help vs. calling people 'bad'.

And yes, it probably is much closer to fine now but the challenge becomes talking the people who all left into coming back. (Including me!) Our guild went from regularly having 20+ people on to typically more like 5, and that didn't happen until after people hit 85 and started hitting the dungeon content. People seemed pretty happy with the other Cataclysm content (barring my utter loathing of the guild rep system.)

Personally I don't find having to CC trash packs either especially difficult or particularly engaging, mostly it is just dull. Almost all of the actual problems I've seen come with executing mechanics on boss fights (in terms of failure) and just the sheer amount of time it takes (in terms of feeling rewarded).

That was more directed at other people in this thread (who seem to think their guild mates are functionally retarded and could never learn to move out of fire) and Paelos whose guild fell apart after a few nights of trying Mag'maw, rather than trying one of the many alternate options that existed like "finish more than 5 heroics so people have better gear" or "try a different strategy" or "try a different fight". Meanwhile, burnout or shitty attitudes couldn't possibly have been a factor. The content was just too hard for his guild which was perfectly capable of doing the harder ICC content, and they didn't try any other fights/options because... well... "Blizzard betrayed their core playerbase, this is an outrage!" Or maybe they were actually just tired of WoW/the raiding grind, and even if they did succeed one one of the other fights, WoW was still WoW and raiding was still raiding.

WoW is not hard. It wasn't hard in Wrath, it isn't hard now. There is very little actual skill in any fight or class. I do believe that 95%+ of the WoW community is capable of learning not to stand in the fire for a fight, they just might take a few more attempts to learn that. They certainly won't learn how to play the game if everyone treats them like they are retarded, as the cesspool of a WoW community seems to prefer doing rather than using constructive criticism or having patience.

Being adaptive or not is precisely what made the "bad" players in our guild bad, for the most part. And no amount of repeatedly banging one's head against the wall (and fuck, I did a LOT of that in WotLK, even) or being a supportive person who tries to not let the desperate anguish about wiping on this simple thing for the thousandth time get into their voice (I don't think I was good at that, sadly) will be able to teach it to people. People are either quick enough to realize they need to get out of the fire after the first five tries, or they're not.

Being adaptive does not mean being adaptive on the fly. Being adaptive on the fly is one of the only real 'skills' in WoW, and I don't think it's something you can teach. I'm talking about your guild or dungeon group as a whole. Being adaptive as a guild means that if you are failing on a fight like Mag'maw, instead of banging your head against a wall because your guild can't execute the same strategy as another guild, you think about another way to do the fight. Ranged dps can't kill adds quick enough? Have one of the tanks tank them instead. Healing too hard on the fight? Check to see if there is any avoidable damage you're missing, or maybe have one of your players bring another healer instead. There are so many bizarre hybrid classes at this point, and alts, that even 10man guilds with a small raid roster should be able to make tweaks like that. I'm not talking about booting the warlock from your group and bringing a holy paladin necessarily, I'm talking about having your dps DK try tanking, or your prot paladin switch to holy for the fight and let someone else tank.

I understand that maybe there is one person in your guild who will never learn to get out of the fire. Having them along would not prevent you from succeeding in any of the 5-man heroics of normal raids. There is nothing in Cata as binary or restrictive as Thaddius where one player not getting out of the fire (or noticing polarity) is probably going to wipe your raid. There are certainly fights where it doesn't help (Dragha in GB, Cho'gal), but (so far) in Cata, having one or two players with bad reaction times isn't going to be a deal-breaker like it would have been in a lot of the older raid and dungeon content. This could easily change in later content or heroic-raids though.

Rokal, if half of that shit that you spew out was true about WoW doing what it's doing, it would never have come into existence. We'd all still be playing EQ and lapping it up. They went down this road as well, although not on as big a scale.

At the end of it lies irrelevance. But EQ's still going, right? It must not have fucked up, right?

Let me summarize your reply to any post I ever made in this thread.

"You don't get it, Blizzard betrayed their core playerbase and it's just a bunch of asshole devs in their ivory tower trying to resurrect EQ1"

You have contributed the same tired answer to any conversation topic I tried to bring up.

I don't want vanilla back. I don't want TBC back. I want the game to be progressive and continue to innovate on problems in the MMO genre. I like that I don't have to farm for hours in order to prepare for a raid. I like that there is more variety in dungeons, and that CC isn't restricted to two classes. I like that people have dual-talent specs and groups are so flexible. I don't want content to be restrictive, I want it to be fun and engaging, and I want it to be balanced in a way that anyone feels like they can succeed. I feel like Cata, right now, hits that mark.

I am certainly not encouraging Blizzard to make this game more like EQ1, because EQ1 sucked in some of the same ways that Vanilla sucked. What I am saying is that Blizzard does not (and should not) design all of the content in this game around the absolute lowest common denominator. Blizzard should strive to make the game better and more fun, and (again) having more engaging content is a good thing. Blizzard shouldn't ignore criticism about the game, but they should ignore criticism that would lead to making a much shittier game like "tanking is too hard. tanks should only have to use thuderclap and have no risk of dying".

I'm trying to tell you why CC is a good thing for dungeons, and why aoe tanking is a bad thing. Or why trash is more than just a time-sink in a dungeon. The reason is not, and never has been "Hard content is fun, fuck y'all". In that example it was "CC lets you have more engaging and unique enemies to fight, aoe tanking doesn't!". Your response to this, again, was "You don't get it, Blizzard betrayed their core playerbase and it's just a bunch of asshole devs in their ivory tower trying to resurrect EQ1"

You are not interested in actually having a conversation about WoW, you are just stifling the conversations I'm trying to have with your same tired complaint. I get it, you think Blizzard is going to lose money because they betrayed their core customer. What the fuck does that have to do with whether CC is a good or bad thing for dungeons?

The game isn't heading to irrelevance as a result of Cata, and it's not even all that difficult or inaccessible. Understand that there is a middle ground between pandering to every whine on the WoW forums, and making this game inaccessible to the majority of subscribers.
Psycho.


Also: Explain why 4.1 was full of heroic nerfs then, and why 4.2 is going to trivialise CC (and will probably have even more heroic and some serious 4.0/4,1-tier raid nerfs)? Hint: Someone at Blizzard is trying very hard to quietly fix all the L85 Cata release content without making Ghostcrawler publicly renounce his "Heroics R fine lern 2 plae" blog. In other words, you are wrong and part of a tiny, irrelevant minority and even Blizzard is (slowly) realising that listening to you and yours was a bloody retarded idea espoused by poopsocking cretins about on a par with SOE's release of Gates of Discord.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on May 07, 2011, 04:46:33 AM
Can you guys all stop fucking bitching and moaning over and over and over again about how terribly hard Cataclysm is?

WE KNOW YOU THINK THAT. Your friends and guildmates are crap, we get it. You've told us that ONE BILLION TIMES in the last 6 months. We're really sorry for you and how butthurt you all are about Cata, it's tragic, lots of sympathy, ahh there there, etc.

If you've stopped playing, your friends have stopped playing, your guildmates have stopped playing, your entire server have stopped playing, well, that's awful. We feel really bad for you. Now go shit up some other game thread for a change. Jesus. Move on already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 07, 2011, 05:48:48 AM
WE KNOW YOU THINK THAT. Your friends and guildmates are crap, we get it. You've told us that ONE BILLION TIMES in the last 6 months. We're really sorry for you and how butthurt you all are about Cata, it's tragic, lots of sympathy, ahh there there, etc.
You get it.  A certain someone else doesn't.  People won't shut up until he understands.

Also I think a whole bunch of people would like to play, because they don't really have anything else they can get all their friends to agree upon.  As Kildorn said, we had a great group and we miss them.  There are seven people in this thread I used to talk with on a daily basis in game.  Coming in here and reminiscing about WoW, shite or not, brings back the nostalgia.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on May 07, 2011, 08:09:53 AM
Fair enough, I get that, but let's be realistic - if the extent to which Cata has already been nerfed (both by direct nerfs in dungeons and by gear inflation) isn't enough to bring back the people you miss then maybe it's time to move on?

Whether that means new guild, new recruits or what I don't know, but just reminiscing about the good old days doesn't do anything to improve your enjoyment of the game at the moment, if you're still playing.

I say this because me and the few remaining active members of my guild went and joined another old guild that was struggling to put a raiding team together every week. They were similar to us - an old, friends & family guild that was just short of numbers - and we were all a bit unsure about it at first. But now we're having a great time, on both sides, raiding again, doing the new troll dungeons, hanging out, getting to know each other and just having a laugh. I can highly recommend it :)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 07, 2011, 08:25:46 AM
While future nerfs might not bring back those who quit in the first two weeks, they might stop the more people from quitting. We've been stuck 9/12 because every week we have to teach 2-3 people the entire zone (either PUGs or new recruits) and can never get to Cho'gall or Nef within a reasonable amount of time. People are literally quitting faster than I can recruit them; we're down to 7 or so core raiders, while in LK we had 2 steady 10m groups (8/12 and 5/12 H ICC) and a third that included some PUGs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 07, 2011, 09:50:48 AM
If you've stopped playing, your friends have stopped playing, your guildmates have stopped playing, your entire server have stopped playing, well, that's awful. We feel really bad for you. Now go shit up some other game thread for a change. Jesus. Move on already.

There was a period after Cata came out where this forum sat without a single new post for... I don't remember how long. More than a week. As a community I think f13 is pretty much post-WoW. It's no longer the game "everyone" plays, and is now the game everyone "used to play" and likes hearing themselves bitch about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 07, 2011, 09:56:36 AM
If you've stopped playing, your friends have stopped playing, your guildmates have stopped playing, your entire server have stopped playing, well, that's awful. We feel really bad for you. Now go shit up some other game thread for a change. Jesus. Move on already.

There was a period after Cata came out where this forum sat without a single new post for... I don't remember how long. More than a week. As a community I think f13 is pretty much post-WoW. It's no longer the game "everyone" plays, and is now the game everyone "used to play" and likes hearing themselves bitch about.

I was kind of under the impression f13 was like this about every game these days.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on May 07, 2011, 10:01:39 AM
I think at this point Rokal more than earned a grief title. Dude is dedicated to his stupidity, like he is getting paid for doing it or something...  :pedobear:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 07, 2011, 10:03:55 AM
I was kind of under the impression f13 was like this about every game these days.

I dunno, I think WoW was sort of the exception to that rule for a long time. I bitched about some of their technical fuckups last year, and there are always people willing to go "Argh diku!" over anything, but generally it was everything else that got slagged for not being as good as WoW.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on May 07, 2011, 10:10:18 AM
If you've stopped playing, your friends have stopped playing, your guildmates have stopped playing, your entire server have stopped playing, well, that's awful. We feel really bad for you. Now go shit up some other game thread for a change. Jesus. Move on already.

There was a period after Cata came out where this forum sat without a single new post for... I don't remember how long. More than a week. As a community I think f13 is pretty much post-WoW. It's no longer the game "everyone" plays, and is now the game everyone "used to play" and likes hearing themselves bitch about.

Just like with Trammel, expect Cata flame wars (with graphs!) to endure for at least a decade. I fully expect we will celebrate 2021 in this thread. Unless Bliz get their act together, and I doubt that since that would be admitting they were wrong.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on May 07, 2011, 10:22:34 AM
I bitched about some of their technical fuckups last year, and there are always people willing to go "Argh diku!" over anything, but generally it was everything else that got slagged for not being as good as WoW.
I think Blizzard won World of Warcraft. Arthas was the end boss, and WotLK was perfectly streamlined money-making DIKU for the mass market. Over the year or so that it was optimized, almost everybody was happy, and everybody played it until they were sick of it. There is no further to go along that path, and if the bar had gotten any lower they'd have had to start excavating. That Blizzard realized this is why they tried to change WoW entirely for Cataclysm. New class dynamics, new gameplay, new leveling content, new everything. A new MMORPG with the same branding and the same player base: WoW2!

It didn't fail, but it didn't really work either. The game has massive momentum, but the wheels have come off and it's just grinding into the ground. This isn't really bad news for Blizzard -- though shareholders may be frustrated with the failure to expand further, WoW will continue to be a cash cow for at least a decade -- but it is bad news for everybody else. There will be no lasting WoW-killer. DIKU isn't dead, but there is no further innovation available there. Anything produced on that model will be no more engaging than WotLK, and will have less than a tenth the history and social cohesion. It'll pick a few people up for a few months and then they'll get bored and leave.

That game is already played, and Blizzard won. May God have mercy on their souls.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 07, 2011, 10:31:46 AM
I think at this point Rokal more than earned a grief title. Dude is dedicated to his stupidity, like he is getting paid for doing it or something...  :pedobear:

I like how you said this about someone else, and then posted about Trammel like 9 minutes later.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on May 07, 2011, 10:59:05 AM
I think you are underestimating momentum and human stupidity. DIKU cloning days are far from over.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 07, 2011, 11:01:12 AM
It didn't fail, but it didn't really work either. The game has massive momentum, but the wheels have come off and it's just grinding into the ground.

OK, you know, I do think they made a mistake by making the heroics too hard and stuff, but saying the wheels came off is just ... goofy. That implies to me the game is horrible and ROONED FOREVAR, and that's simply not true. It's not as accessable as it used to be, and they should be (and are) rolling back a bit on that front. This is the closest they've had to a ToA, but it is definitely not an actual ToA.

EDIT: Also, diku4life, bitches!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on May 07, 2011, 11:38:11 AM
I'm not saying WoW2 was a mistake, nor that DIKU clones are done forever... I'm just saying they cannot be (financially) better than or even as (financially) good as WotLK. The number of people playing DIKU clones during WotLK will be the peak from which everything DIKU recedes and ultimately levels out when the number of new people finding balances the number of disappointed people leaving. WoW2 (and maybe even WoW3) will continue to be the #1 DIKU in that regard for perpetuity. Rather than anybody else taking that place, the market will expand and a number of newer, lower budget DIKUs will rise and fall in popularity beside it.

That the wheels have come off just means it's no longer effortlessly coasting. And that there will be no WoW killer because WoW died with Arthas.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 07, 2011, 02:24:16 PM
You get it.  A certain someone else doesn't.  People won't shut up until he understands.

I get it. You think the game is too hard for most players and that it's going to be a huge misstep for Blizzard. I disagree. See: the last 30 pages or so of this thread.

I was ready to move on and talk about something else related to the game, as you might expect people to do on a gaming forum, but a bunch of people that haven't played the game in three months+ (or don't play at all, such as yourself) keep wanting to drag every conversation about the game into the same stupid shit.

Also: Explain why 4.1 was full of heroic nerfs then, and why 4.2 is going to trivialise CC (and will probably have even more heroic and some serious 4.0/4,1-tier raid nerfs)? Hint: Someone at Blizzard is trying very hard to quietly fix all the L85 Cata release content without making Ghostcrawler publicly renounce his "Heroics R fine lern 2 plae" blog.

The few heroic nerfs in 4.1? Content always gets slowly nerfed as the life cycle of an expansion goes on. Welcome to WoW. It's not abnormal at all that they made a few tweaks to make the 'hardest' heroics a little easier in the same patch that new heroics were being introduced. It won't be surprising if BoT/BWD/To4W gets nerfed in 4.2 when Firelands comes out either.

The biggest nerf to heroics in the recent patches was the Luck of the Draw buffs, which as far as I can tell was 100% a reaction to complaints about heroics being too hard in LFD pugs. Not too hard in general, just too hard when you are thrown into a group with 4 random idiots that you will never see again, and would sooner quit a dungeon than explain a fight to someone who was new. Heroics were almost the same for pre-made groups, though a few fights did receive small nerfs (and a few other received buffs). As for trivializing CC, I don't think the 4.2 changes will do that. It'll bring every CC in line to the functionality of Sap, which isn't breaking the game or making people form groups with 3 rogues right now. It's only trivializing CC if you thought the pull was hard, and frankly, I don't give a fuck if CC is trivial: I like CC because of what it allows developers to do with the enemies in trash packs, not because the act of CCing is omgsofun. What is fun about CC: allowing players to feel like the battle is under control but that they are facing enemies who are legitimately dangerous and diverse. Two shadow lancers feels dangerous, 2 swift stalkers feel dangerous, with CC I can fight a group of 4 like that where enemies are dangerous individually but the battle feels loosely controlled.

Blizzard also fixed tuning on Sinestra and some of the other heroic raids in 4.1 and the patches before it, does this mean they were shitting a brick and worrying that the hardcore community was quitting in droves, or that the game was dying? No, it means they listen to feedback. Buffing luck of the draw so pug heroics were easier does not instantly mean Blizzard was worried that too many people were quitting, or that heroic content was too hard. I means people said "heroic content is too hard for LFD pugs" and they said "yeah, I think you're right, let's fix that". It's possible that it was a reaction to fast sinking sub numbers, but I doubt it (and since it's something neither of us can prove at the moment, and it's already been discussed 80 times in this thread, let's leave it at that). If they were really worried that heroics were too hard for their average player in general, they'd have extended Luck of the Draw to pre-made groups, or just nerfed the content severely enough to have the same effect in that same patch.

That said, I have as little interest in rehashing this same tired shit with you as I have in rehashing it with anyone else in this thread. There is another thread on this forum devoted to obsessing about how the sky is falling, if you really can't contribute anything else to the conversation.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on May 07, 2011, 03:36:36 PM
Just like the 3 major content patches in wotlk, 4.2 will make heroics easier by allowing current raid tier gear to be purchased with JP. Just like wotlk the unwashed masses, myself included, will be face rolling dungeons soon enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on May 08, 2011, 05:44:07 AM
It didn't fail, but it didn't really work either. The game has massive momentum, but the wheels have come off and it's just grinding into the ground.

OK, you know, I do think they made a mistake by making the heroics too hard and stuff, but saying the wheels came off is just ... goofy. That implies to me the game is horrible and ROONED FOREVAR, and that's simply not true. It's not as accessable as it used to be, and they should be (and are) rolling back a bit on that front. This is the closest they've had to a ToA, but it is definitely not an actual ToA.

EDIT: Also, diku4life, bitches!

When I went back about a month ago I was facerolling heroics easy enough in my half pvp gear build, as a tank. And that's having not seen much of the dungeons before hand. Doesn't matter though, all my friends had already quit. Friends that signed up a month before the xpac, ran and to heroics and said 'fuck this, I'm outta here'. You know, because of burn out of course.

Cataclysm had it's chance, and it dropped the ball. Like pxib put it so well, WoW will contract now, instead of expanding.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on May 08, 2011, 05:46:23 AM
I know, I'm just going to ignore the discussion that bores me. It's a forum! I can totally do that :)

So, anyway. Enjoying ZA/ZG so far. They're a bit too long really, I don't like the trend towards 1 hour+ heroics, but groups where everybody knows the mechanics certainly go a LOT faster then ones where people don't know them. Also very pleasantly surprised at the amount of politeness going on - people all rolling greed on BoE epics, asking if they can roll for off-spec loot, patiently explaining tactics and not getting bitchy when wipes happen. The queues are long though (25 mins or more for DPS) which I think helps.

Talking of queues, looks like the Call to Arms has reduced non-troll heroic queues considerably. Mostly under 10 mins as DPS now, sometimes 3 or 4 mins. Maybe the gear inflation has contributed to that with people feeling more confident about tanking/healing. The CTA certainly hasn't made the troll queues short, that's for sure.

And bugger me, the troll loot is ugly.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on May 08, 2011, 10:23:31 AM
Queues are definately down for the 4.0 heroics. I'm generally seeing about 8-10 minutes in the off hours and about 12-14 in primetime. Too bad this wasn't the case when I really NEEDED those VP, but whatever.

ZA/ZG is fun in a guild group. They're also too long. Too much trash, even as thinned down as they are from the 10/20 mans. I've never run them in a PuG and am very hesitant to do so. PuGs are still pretty shaky in the old heroics; my imagination gets the better of me in these new ones. I'm still seeing amazing assholery in the old ones, even if it's not nearly as commonplace as it was.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 08, 2011, 10:27:03 AM
The troll loot is ugly. Unless you are an actual troll. THEN it looks pretty sweet. However, I am playing a blood elf, so he will look extra stupid in theory.

I'm so sick of the regular dungeons I'm just straight up doing BGs and converting the honor to JP now for my PvE suits. We've been winning a lot more than we've been losing, so it's more fun and feels a lot faster.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 08, 2011, 10:44:22 AM
I like the look of it generally, but it's really out-of-place with the current looks.  (And those shoulders that every random Holy Paladin seems to be wearing are truly hideous.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 08, 2011, 11:45:56 AM
I like the look of the troll stuff, but half of that is probably nostalgia. Some armor looks better than others (mail>cloth), and all of the armor looks stupid depending on what race you are playing. I like the weapon models without any real exceptions though.

I think the troll dungeons are only too long if you're doing optional stuff or wiping a ton. Like thinking about ZA, there is a lot of trash in it, but a huge part of it is skip-able. There is optional trash on the way to every boss (1 pack on the way to eagle, 2 on the way to bear, 4+ on the way to dragonhawk, 10+ on the way to lynx, that entire trash pack in the 'island' in the middle that you can just skip, etc.). Depending on whether your group was familiar with ZA, you may have killed 6 trash packs on the way to lynx, or you may have killed 16+.

ZG also has a lot of trash you can just ride around. We usually skip the berserker outside of panther, all of the trash on top of the panther pyramid, the 'fire' pack to the left of Zanzil's ramp, etc. You can also speed up the dungeon considerably once you're familiar with it by using things like the frost cauldron on every enemy in any pack near one, etc. I've seen groups who grab the frost cauldron after killing Zanzil, and ride to Gub (the mini-boss) while the buff is still active. It instantly removes like 70% of his health, and almost outright kills just about anything else.

They're shorter than something like Deadmines or SFK if your group does well, but they are still longer than something like ToT. A guildie asked me to tank a PuG heroic last night and we finished ToT in ~21 minutes (skipping Erunak). Hard to compare ZG/ZA to that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 08, 2011, 01:23:57 PM
ZG also has a lot of trash you can just ride around. We usually skip the berserker outside of panther, all of the trash on top of the panther pyramid, the 'fire' pack to the left of Zanzil's ramp, etc. You can also speed up the dungeon considerably once you're familiar with it by using things like the frost cauldron on every enemy in any pack near one, etc. I've seen groups who grab the frost cauldron after killing Zanzil, and ride to Gub (the mini-boss) while the buff is still active. It instantly removes like 70% of his health, and almost outright kills just about anything else.
Yeah, the trick to ZG trash is using the cauldrons effeciently.

I mean, unless you are doing a full clear (all mini bosses dead) run, there really is not that much trash.

- Venoxis has 5 "trash" pulls. 3 of which are 1 Mob, and one is a bunch of AoE able wasps that die in like 10 seconds.  Heck, most of his trash appears to be there just to teach you about abilities that he is going to use during his boss fight.
- Mandokir has 4 trash pulls, 1 being the berzerker who throws rocks, the other 3 you can obliterate with some efficient focus fire and the frost cauldrons in about 20 seconds each.
- One trash pull in the middle of the Zone (the mob of snake priests)
- Kilnara has 3 trash pulls, With one being the only pull in the whole place that might actually require CC.
- Zanzil has 3 trash pulls (4 if you decided to kill the berzerker so you can get the flame cauldron infront of kilnara to aoe the snakes instead of skipping him and just normal aoeing them), and 2 of those can be Frost Cauldroned to death.
- Jindo has 4 trash pulls (5 if you kill all 4 guys on his temple, most groups i have been with only kill 3), and if you grab the frost cauldrons, the first 2 guys can be 2 shot if you are quick about it.

Honestly, ZG SEEMS like a lot of trash, but if you are doing a speed run skipping all optional minibosses, and using the cauldrons, you can pretty much rape the trash mobs so fast it isnt funny.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 08, 2011, 02:39:04 PM
We've been winning a lot more than we've been losing, so it's more fun and feels a lot faster.  :why_so_serious:

You're playing Horde, isn't winning more than losing pretty much a given?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 08, 2011, 05:37:07 PM
Eh, I've certainly had my share of "lol we just got owned" games as Horde. But yeah.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 08, 2011, 07:12:30 PM
Man I log in to do my daily win after posting that and it took me four tries to get a goddamn win. :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: craan on May 09, 2011, 07:38:25 AM
On Dentarg we (Horde) were 8-1 for Arathi in the hours I played last night.  The wins were all facerolls with one of them close to a Frostwolf Perfection achievement.  The loss we had was a slow reinforcement grind.  I didn't see any Children's Week orphans running about and the small group fights seemed to be against pretty well geared folks.  Occasionally it seems Horde can't win a battleground and then we'll streak for a few days.

I'm kicking myself for not taking a moment and jotting down the names/servers of some of the players last night.  Myself and another player came to the rescue of a poor priest being ganged up on by 4 alliance and we beat them all down with some really great improvised teamwork.  But since I didn't write their names down (let me just pause for a minute in the middle of a battleground while I jot shit down) I doubt I'll ever run into them again which is frustrating.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 09, 2011, 03:43:10 PM
They seem to have rejiggered LFD (and possibly the BGs) to make you more likely wind up with people from your server more often or something (there was a blue post about LFD somewhere or other, the BG finder is just a personal suspicion). I've been getting a lot of people from the old battlegroup in my BGs, which I am glad, because that battlegroup was terrible (had like 3 RP servers and I think one PvP server), which made the BGs more hilarious. And in LFD groups, I actually meet people from my server, occassionally, which is nice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 09, 2011, 04:19:10 PM
I hate to bring this up again when it seems like we just got off the topic, but we now have some sub numbers:

12 million to 11.4 million  (http://"http://wow.joystiq.com/2011/05/09/world-of-warcraft-dips-to-a-mere-11-4-million-subscribers/")

I still chalk the dip up to normal post-expansion cancellations, a smaller focus on end-game in the expansion (new 1-60 at the cost of only 5 new levels and less content), and general fatigue with such an old game, as opposed to the expansion being too hard, but there you go.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 09, 2011, 04:21:08 PM
Way to avoid Moihane's statement that the subs were falling faster than after previous X-pacs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 09, 2011, 04:23:28 PM
Ah, missed that detail since the article I linked is laced with PR-fluff.

"Players are consuming Cataclysm's content faster than any expansion before it, so subscriber levels started to drop off more quickly than they have previously."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 09, 2011, 04:30:44 PM
Like I've said before, people had recurring subs. The full impact of sub loss won't be noticed until Q2 when those subs (like mine) which were active as of March 31, expired in Q2.

I would expect the sub loss at that point would be 15-20%, or around 1.5-2M subs lost.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 09, 2011, 04:35:23 PM
Yeah, that 600k could account for monthly subs or even a fraction of monthly subs. What we don't have is data on people who have canclled their 3-6 months subscriptions yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 09, 2011, 05:43:55 PM
Players are consuming content faster then ever, yet they held off on putting in the new raid last patch because not enough people were along progression wise.  :headscratch:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 09, 2011, 05:53:55 PM
People probably consumed the non-raid content faster than ever. 80-85 was pretty fast, there were less 5-mans than in TBC or even Wrath, and the rep grinds were pretty light. Hell, if I wasn't raiding, I'd have probably stopped playing by the end of January because I would have run out of content. Clearly a large portion of the dev resources went to redoing 1-60, but that wasn't technically part of the expansion. Plus people had access to that before Cata even launched. They redid some of the class mechanics in refreshing ways (hunters namely), but there was no new class. 1-60 was pretty fun, but if I already have a shaman at 80, i'm not going to remake him just to do 1-60. You might have done the new 1-60 once or even twice, but your only options were the same classes we've been playing for 6+ years, and you had to redo Northrend and Outlands if you wanted to get your new characters any further.

The old 1-60 was pretty awful, but it's obvious that half (or more) of Blizzard's resources with Cata went into redoing 1-60, and i'm not sure it really paid off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on May 09, 2011, 06:51:50 PM
People probably consumed the non-raid content faster than ever. 80-85 was pretty fast, there were less 5-mans than in TBC or even Wrath, and the rep grinds were pretty light. Hell, if I wasn't raiding, I'd have probably stopped playing by the end of January because I would have run out of content.
My problem precisely.  5 new zones, of which you really only had to do 3 of them to get to 85 (without even really doing serious dungeon runs).  Then at 85 if you aren't geared for heroics, you get to run 3... count 'em... 3 dungeons for gear to try and qualify.  Because I have a strong raiding community they brought me back and kept me engaged.  If I was dealing with what I was dealing with back in January I likely would have quit out of boredom.

The old 1-60 was pretty awful, but it's obvious that half (or more) of Blizzard's resources with Cata went into redoing 1-60, and i'm not sure it really paid off.
I think this is a big issue.  I think the new 1-60 content that I've done is pretty cool and enjoyable, but it's really fast.  And then you get sent to Outlands where the quest structure completely changes and is back to how it used to be with brick walls you try and crash through as fast as possible.  Same with Northrend to a lesser extent.  And considering how many 80's I had when Cata came out, going back to re-level a bunch of characters I already had maxed out just wasn't an interesting time or prospect for me unless I feel like switching servers and leaving all of my friends.  People like me got 5 new zones and 5 dungeons to run until we met the requirements for end game heroics\raids, which definitely shortens the amount of time and effort to spend.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 09, 2011, 06:53:04 PM
I've been hearing that Cata isn't out in China yet and most of these losses are from the West, which means it's going to look even worse to the average Joe just looking around his server. How many subscribers did they have in the West, at last count?

Shedding 100k+ subscribers per month, working as intended!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 09, 2011, 07:04:01 PM
I do think another mistake beyond the "eez hard" factor is that there are less choices in leveling from 80-85 than you had going from 70-80. The actual best part about WotLK for me was how different the experience could be, especially between factions. You do Cataclysm once, and you've basically only missed one zone, which is a good idea to go back and do anyway for all the faction. And they're the same for both sides until the Arathi Highlands. That is way, way, WAY less replayability.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 09, 2011, 08:55:45 PM
The old 1-60 was pretty awful, but it's obvious that half (or more) of Blizzard's resources with Cata went into redoing 1-60, and i'm not sure it really paid off.
I think this is a big issue.  I think the new 1-60 content that I've done is pretty cool and enjoyable, but it's really fast.  And then you get sent to Outlands where the quest structure completely changes and is back to how it used to be with brick walls you try and crash through as fast as possible.  Same with Northrend to a lesser extent.  And considering how many 80's I had when Cata came out, going back to re-level a bunch of characters I already had maxed out just wasn't an interesting time or prospect for me unless I feel like switching servers and leaving all of my friends.  People like me got 5 new zones and 5 dungeons to run until we met the requirements for end game heroics\raids, which definitely shortens the amount of time and effort to spend.

I agree with that point, and it was an original problem I had with the idea when it was floated as a possible expansion at the beginning of this behemoth thread. I honestly couldn't believe they would be so crazy, and I was admittedly wrong. They were that crazy. You simply can't get enough bang for your buck as a developer pumping most of your resources into redoing part of the game that people simply blast through.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 09, 2011, 09:37:13 PM
And they *really* blast through it. Between all the heirloom items, a smaller exp curve, and guild buffs, you blaze through 1-60 in a very short amount of playtime. With heirlooms and the guild buff you outlevel zones before you complete all the quests in them, and usually I found myself gaining about 10 levels per zone if I completed it to the quest achievement quota even if that zone was only supposed to support 5 levels.

Looking at this (http://katetarygos.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/levelflow.jpg) leveling chart, as an alliance player there are:

5 1-10 zones
5 10-20 zones
4 20-25 zones
3 25-30 zones
4 30-35 zones
3 35-40 zones
2 40-45 zones
5 45-50 zones
4 50-55 zones
1 55-60 zone (Silithus and Winterspring are still in the game, but they weren't redone)

This may seem like a decent spread, if not a little bulky, until you realize that with heirlooms and the guild buff one of those 20-25 zones will last you until level 30. It's actually more like 7 20-30 zones in function, and the same is true for 30-40, 40-50, and 50-60. By the time you reach level 60 with heirloom items, you'll have completed maybe 6/36 zones if you finish the quests in each, or about 17% of the redone content. There was no reason to remake that many zones, most players probably would have been happy with 2 different zones for each level range, not 3-5 (or 6-10 with this particular leveling speed). But instead of remaking half the number of zones they did and leaving the other half untouched, or putting fewer quests in each zone and expecting players to move to new zones faster, they remade everything (save Winterspring and Silithus)

And they did this for two factions  :uhrr: If you consider that they did this for horde and alliance, it's more like 9% of the content

It might have been a good move for a new game where people hadn't already had a chance to try all the classes for the past 6-7 years and you could expect players to make the trip to the level cap a bunch more times, but most players are going to take advantage of 9-18% of the redone content if they repeat no zones (1 or 2 new characters), and they'll probably never really touch the rest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on May 10, 2011, 12:56:02 AM
The last character I leveled in Cataclysm before quitting was on a brand new server.  I had only the benefit of being in a guild that had the xp buff.  By the time I had finished Westfall, I was already encountering numerous green quests, and Redridge went grey almost immediately on my arrival.  I gave up questing and leveled the rest of the way through the LFD system, and even with basically no quests, it was still the fastest I've ever leveled a character, including the time I did the recruit-a-friend thing with a friend and we leveled up a pair of characters together.  That was still slower than me solo-leveling via LFD.

I am certain that part of the reason I quit Cataclysm so soon after trying it out was because I blasted through the levels and didn't even see most of the stuff they supposedly changed.  The trip to 80 was far too short.  I probably still would have quit even if it had taken longer - I'm basically tired of WoW - but it would have taken me several times longer before I decided to quit, and maybe in that time something would have been introduced to keep my interest longer.  Probably not, but it's possible.

So yeah, I agree that this time around, people are blowing through the content much faster than ever before, and this probably contributes to people quitting shortly after the expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 10, 2011, 01:32:05 AM
Basically, WoW accomplished something I didn't think possible: They actually did, in fact, make leveling a little too fast.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 10, 2011, 01:49:56 AM
To paraphrase an old joke: it wasn't the levelling speed it was the sudden stop at the end.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on May 10, 2011, 02:38:35 AM
Basically, WoW accomplished something I didn't think possible: They actually did, in fact, make leveling a little too fast.  :why_so_serious:

I don't know about that, 1-60 is definitely the most fun I've had levelling in WoW.  But alts are kind of pointless for me because no matter how fun it is, you know Outland is coming up.  I would have liked to see them do a few new world zones so that you could level from 1-80 in them.  I don't mind Outland so much (dungeon exp is still pretty crazy there), but once you get to Northrend levelling crawls.  And I've already seen it a half dozen times back when it was relevant.  You don't need seven 20-30 zones, not when any one of them will take you basically through the entire ten levels, and you can also level via the dungeon finder or PvP nowadays. Take some of the redundant level 20-50 zones and retool them into level 60-80 zones and I might want to make some more alts through the game, but I'm just dog tired of trudging through Dragonblight over and over.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on May 10, 2011, 03:30:59 AM
I really liked pretty much all of the 1-60 content I played sadly. If I didn't get burnt out and know that I'd never really be able to raid again after my release-day guild broke up I'd probably have rolled my first horde character to 60.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on May 10, 2011, 05:20:04 AM
You know, if they had redone the original zones as 1-70 not 1-60 it would have made a lot more sense. Engage your audience with your revamp and let them get immersed in the lead up to Northrend, set itemisation away from TBC (itemisation in TBC is now "meh") in the "new old-world" and give the audience an opportunity to skip past the orphaned expansion. There was even scope to re-do original dungeons as L65 etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on May 10, 2011, 07:01:01 AM
Somewhat irrelevant to Cataclysm but didn't warrant starting a new thread; I started playing my old Human Male Rogue the other night and I just found it so difficult to adjust to after playing females of various species and gnomes. Human males just seem so horribly disproportionate.

And then I found the guy that Blizzard clearly believe makes a fine example for 'average' and based the model on:
(http://www.eatliver.com/img/2011/7229.jpg)

That, right there, that's a Human Male hand in WoW. Wtf.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on May 10, 2011, 09:27:12 AM
When trying to explain sexual dimorphism in world of warcraft:

Draenei: The ever-honorable draenei, while crashing their ship, held to Velen's established policy of 'women and linebackers first'
Night Elves: moonwell gut
Everyone else: the roids


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 10, 2011, 11:11:42 AM
Eh, it's not just the human males that have hilariously big hands. Check out a female blood elf sometime. They're huuuuuuge. <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 10, 2011, 11:33:11 AM
I'd have welcomed seeing an alternate 60-80 path through the old world. It's clear that there are more than enough excessive zones in the old world, which could have been re-balanced for 60+. Alternatively, they could have tuned a couple of those zones as 80+ content, so you had more options from 80-85 (or so that they had enough content to push the cap to 90). Obviously as a player, redoing Azshara or EPL is a little less exciting than doing a completely new zone, but if the remake was substantial enough I'd probably have liked it.

STV is a good example of a zone that would have probably worked for this. One of the larger old world zones, almost everyone ran it beforehand so it hits a nostalgic note, and they did a lot of tera-forming so that the zone feels new again. They could have had a build-up to the Zandalari dungeons too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 10, 2011, 12:01:28 PM
So like, how do you make your hands that big? Just a genetic freak of nature or is there some kind of Bizarre training to do that?

It's a fucking catchers mitt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 10, 2011, 12:05:25 PM
Eh, it's not just the human males that have hilariously big hands. Check out a female blood elf sometime. They're huuuuuuge. <3

That seems more of a case of the hands are normal, but the rest of them are made out of pipe cleaners.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 10, 2011, 12:16:33 PM
Fair enough! Lady night elves have some major hands as well. Maybe it's an elf thing. No asses, giant hands.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on May 10, 2011, 12:56:22 PM
Okay, it's really starting to gnaw at me; what the hell is on that paper their hands are covering? Is it some sort of zany Russian crossword? a racing form? What the hell is that thing?!?!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 10, 2011, 01:00:17 PM
Okay, it's really starting to gnaw at me; what the hell is on that paper their hands are covering? Is it some sort of zany Russian crossword? a racing form? What the hell is that thing?!?!

Crossword


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 10, 2011, 01:27:44 PM
Fair enough! Lady night elves have some major hands as well. Maybe it's an elf thing. No asses, giant hands.
(They're all secretly men in drag) (http://i.imgur.com/vpEPq.gif)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 10, 2011, 01:52:45 PM
That seems more of a case of the hands are normal, but the rest of them are made out of pipe cleaners.  :why_so_serious:
Feet, too.  Draenei have that one quest where they impersonate a barefoot Blood Elf and the size of their feet compared to their toothpick legs is jarring.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on May 10, 2011, 03:44:38 PM
Quote
Activision Blizzard's earning call was today and we learned, among other things, that the WoW playerbase is down to 11.4M players. That's 5% less than before the expansion. That's down by about 5% from the announced 12 million mark late last year. Interestingly enough, that was right before Cataclysm released. In fact, it's actually lower than the milestone reached in 2008 with the release of Wrath of the Lich King.
 

This after window dressing it as much as possible for earnings call. Actual number might be lower and is still dropping.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on May 10, 2011, 03:45:42 PM
Eh, it's not just the human males that have hilariously big hands. Check out a female blood elf sometime. They're huuuuuuge. <3

"She got man-hands Jerry!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 10, 2011, 04:33:25 PM
Fair enough! Lady night elves have some major hands as well. Maybe it's an elf thing. No asses, giant hands.

Based on RP server data, elves need big hands to wrap them around the gigantic orc/ dwarf cocks they're always grabbing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 10, 2011, 07:23:27 PM
My elves only grab other elf cocks, thankyouverymuch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on May 10, 2011, 07:43:24 PM
While you're looking, that is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on May 11, 2011, 07:47:15 AM
Logged on for the second time in 4 days during my "7 days please come back" trial. Spent about an hour fucking around with my Warlock, just flew from Shatt over to Nagrand and did a half-dozen quests since I had no desire to log on my higher level characters or even my mid-70's alts, since as mentioned a few posts up, as nice as Northrend is, levelling is fucking slow. What stood out to me the most is what stood out to me during that almost-hour when I got 1/3 of my level, was the contrast that WoW had when I started playing, compared to EQ.

In EQ, you often had to sit LFG for 20-40mins before you could get a group to go do something. In WoW, you could just log on and achieve something (in MMO-terms) worthwhile in 20-40mins.
 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 12, 2011, 01:46:52 AM
So that Sam Raimi Warcraft movie is supposed to come out in 2013. What do you think the odds are it actually gets made?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 12, 2011, 03:19:50 AM
Shit, another 2 years? About zero.    Wasn't that announced back in 2007?  6 years for a movie when most take 2 from announcement to release. Fuck, even LOTR only took 3 years from the date Jackson won the rights to film. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on May 13, 2011, 03:09:29 PM
With release of Cata, actors keep wiping at the first scene.

In 2 years WoW would be as relevant as the number of steps it takes to load and fire a cannon in UO.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on May 15, 2011, 03:28:22 AM
So that Sam Raimi Warcraft movie is supposed to come out in 2013. What do you think the odds are it actually gets made?

I don't think the drop in sub numbers we're seeing/will see are going to knock something like a feature film off. WoW is still the big dog, by far - and even a lot of ex-players/non-current subscribers would go see it...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 15, 2011, 05:16:55 AM
The 4.2PTR has added a few new haircuts for some races/genders. There's a male orc one which is  :why_so_serious:

(http://i.imgur.com/3m2ea.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 15, 2011, 05:24:57 AM
I rather like the Anime Schoolgirl Ponytails the Night Elf is sporting.   The orc one.. oh lord.

Also, I always knew gnomes were emo.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on May 15, 2011, 09:51:19 AM
Someone should shop a beiber hairdo on a male gnome.  Go all in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 15, 2011, 10:37:18 AM
New Haircuts, re-subbing!


Only half joking.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 15, 2011, 11:20:18 AM
Why does that male troll have a palm tree growing out of his head?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 15, 2011, 01:32:13 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/c0kMi.png)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 15, 2011, 02:59:11 PM
I like the third troll lady one a lot. Also the fourth troll dude one makes me laugh. In a good way. <3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 15, 2011, 03:39:13 PM
Someone hand the gnome a buster sword. 

I would so put the troll mushroom cloud do on my shaman.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 15, 2011, 03:43:51 PM
I like the dwarf crab style


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 15, 2011, 05:05:39 PM
Someone hand the gnome a buster sword. 

I would so put the troll mushroom cloud do on my shaman.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1347322/download.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 15, 2011, 11:20:45 PM
I like the third troll lady one a lot. Also the fourth troll dude one makes me laugh. In a good way. <3
Yeah, I was always annoyed that the Troll ladies have no equivilent to the awesome Troll male full Dreadlocks cut.

Also, the first Orc Female one is hilarious. Who needs eyepatches? We have BANGS!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 16, 2011, 12:03:09 AM
I don't think the drop in sub numbers we're seeing/will see are going to knock something like a feature film off. WoW is still the big dog, by far - and even a lot of ex-players/non-current subscribers would go see it...

Yeah but WoW doesn't need to hit zero subscribers for the already very dodgy idea of a big-budget movie to become an outright bad idea. The ideal time would have been like 2009 or so. By 2013 they'll be releasing the "World of Warcraft: F13 Quit Playing Two Years Ago" expansion and the height of their pop-cultural impact will be well behind them.

Edit: Speling


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 16, 2011, 03:45:00 AM
I don't think the drop in sub numbers we're seeing/will see are going to knock something like a feature film off. WoW is still the big dog, by far - and even a lot of ex-players/non-current subscribers would go see it...

Yeah but WoW doesn't need to hit zero subscribers for the already very dodgy idea of a big-budget movie to become an outright bad idea. The ideal time would have been like 2009 or so. By 2013 they'll be releasing the "World of Wacraft: F13 Quit Playing Two Years Ago" expansion and the height of their pop-cultural impact will be well behind them.
Considering some of the absolutely abominable Video Game Movies we have gotten based on Game IP's that believably had 1/50th the brand exposure that WoW has, I really REALLY doubt that a 5% dip in the user base after an expantion release even registers on the radar for "things that might affect the lauch of a WoW movie".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on May 16, 2011, 08:26:00 AM
Anecdote: I am playing Darkfall right now, and there is large flood of WoW PvP exiles. Apparently I was in one of the earlier waves.

Talking to my guild (we have been around since UO and play multiple games)both D&DOL and Rift have massive influx of WoW expats. Reading numbers on sub drop I  am surprised it wasn't larger, my bet there was some industrial-strength Enron-style window dressing going on to make it look good. Analyzing both peak server population, wow census and any other third-party source we get drop numbers order of magnitude larger. I can't imagine players are paying and not playing.

As to going after Arena-only players - it is PINNACLE of idiocy. These are your ideal 10h/week players that a) don't require new content, just don't fuck with balance too much b) don't spend inordinate time online chewing up your bandwidth and server resources.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 16, 2011, 10:02:39 AM
A lot of people let their sub run for a bit, even if they aren't playing, before finally cancelling.  Especially if it's their first MMO.  They think "maybe I'll want to log in" and keep the sub going instead of letting it lapse and thinking "I'll re-up if the urge becomes too strong".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: kildorn on May 16, 2011, 10:05:55 AM
You have long subs (3/6 month or whatever the offerings are), and rare logins/don't want to cancel just yets.

My sub usually runs out about 3 months after I effectively stopped logging in for more than 5 minutes. My sub was active the entire time I was playing Rift, for example.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 16, 2011, 10:12:21 AM
It's typically a month to two months before I cancel an inactive WoW account.  Additionally, I have the bad habit of killing a sub less than a week after it's been renewed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 16, 2011, 11:59:19 AM
It's why I've gotten into the habit of paying a month at a time.  I'm becoming rather fond of time cards.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on May 16, 2011, 01:25:36 PM
A lot of people let their sub run for a bit, even if they aren't playing, before finally cancelling.  Especially if it's their first MMO.  They think "maybe I'll want to log in" and keep the sub going instead of letting it lapse and thinking "I'll re-up if the urge becomes too strong".

This is me.  I haven't played at all for about a month and just started up RIFT.  I'll probably cancel WoW this week, but I have to see how that affects my sons' account.  They tend to play FPS games on the PS3 now anyway, so maybe they won't mind me killing both accounts.

I'm a bit different than described above.  If I have any feeling I might want to play again after a break, I won't cancel my account.  Once I cancel, I'm done for good, but I may pay the company for months of me doing nothing with the game.  Not sure why....I'm just like that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 16, 2011, 03:14:17 PM
Considering some of the absolutely abominable Video Game Movies we have gotten based on Game IP's that believably had 1/50th the brand exposure that WoW has, I really REALLY doubt that a 5% dip in the user base after an expantion release even registers on the radar for "things that might affect the lauch of a WoW movie".

Okay yeah, they'll go ahead and produce it if they're fucking stupid and want to make a terrible movie that loses money, sure. But the window where blowing a hundred million on a WoW movie might have been a good idea has passed, and will be ancient history 2 years from now. It's not even so much a matter of subscriber math as it is just the fact that the zeitgeist has moved on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 16, 2011, 05:04:12 PM
Considering some of the absolutely abominable Video Game Movies we have gotten based on Game IP's that believably had 1/50th the brand exposure that WoW has, I really REALLY doubt that a 5% dip in the user base after an expantion release even registers on the radar for "things that might affect the lauch of a WoW movie".

Okay yeah, they'll go ahead and produce it if they're fucking stupid and want to make a terrible movie that loses money, sure. But the window where blowing a hundred million on a WoW movie might have been a good idea has passed, and will be ancient history 2 years from now. It's not even so much a matter of subscriber math as it is just the fact that the zeitgeist has moved on.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Garfield_ver6.jpg)

Budget $50 million
Gross revenue $200,804,534

Dumb shit makes money in hollywood. Just make WoW a CGI flick with a bunch of name actors doing the voices and moneyhats. Well, maybe not moneyhats. But it won't lose money.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on May 16, 2011, 05:06:59 PM
For some reason my friends got his notion in our heads that Vin Diesel has been cast. I keep picturing him just painted green as Thrall, or Drek or what have you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on May 16, 2011, 05:25:10 PM
Gamon (post-Cata).   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 16, 2011, 06:39:33 PM
Dumb shit makes money in hollywood. Just make WoW a CGI flick with a bunch of name actors doing the voices and moneyhats. Well, maybe not moneyhats. But it won't lose money.

Wow, after this insightful reminder that "dumb shit makes money in Hollywood" I guess nothing can ever flop.

Reality check: Garfield is an extremely well-known character that has been around for decades. Being able to make money on a dumb kid's movie like that isn't really all that surprising. Meanwhile more people watch NCIS in the United States alone when it's a rerun that doesn't crack the top ten ratings than play WoW in the entire world.

Outside of the small "games about farming orcs for experience points" pond it's just not that big a fish.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 16, 2011, 07:11:30 PM
Dumb shit makes money in hollywood. Just make WoW a CGI flick with a bunch of name actors doing the voices and moneyhats. Well, maybe not moneyhats. But it won't lose money.

Wow, after this insightful reminder that "dumb shit makes money in Hollywood" I guess nothing can ever flop.

Reality check: Garfield is an extremely well-known character that has been around for decades. Being able to make money on a dumb kid's movie like that isn't really all that surprising. Meanwhile more people watch NCIS in the United States alone when it's a rerun that doesn't crack the top ten ratings than play WoW in the entire world.

Outside of the small "games about farming orcs for experience points" pond it's just not that big a fish.

#1. NCIS is a fun show, and rilly popular.

#2. It's been done with smaller IPs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_the_Guardians:_The_Owls_of_Ga%27Hoole)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Velorath on May 16, 2011, 07:15:22 PM
Dumb shit makes money in hollywood. Just make WoW a CGI flick with a bunch of name actors doing the voices and moneyhats. Well, maybe not moneyhats. But it won't lose money.

Wow, after this insightful reminder that "dumb shit makes money in Hollywood" I guess nothing can ever flop.

Reality check: Garfield is an extremely well-known character that has been around for decades. Being able to make money on a dumb kid's movie like that isn't really all that surprising. Meanwhile more people watch NCIS in the United States alone when it's a rerun that doesn't crack the top ten ratings than play WoW in the entire world.

Outside of the small "games about farming orcs for experience points" pond it's just not that big a fish.

#1. NCIS is a fun show, and rilly popular.

#2. It's been done with smaller IPs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_the_Guardians:_The_Owls_of_Ga%27Hoole)


When you're looking at the Box Office numbers for Garfield and Legend of the Guardians, I think you're reading them differently than I am.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 16, 2011, 07:17:05 PM
Stop using kid's movies. There aren't enough movies for us parents to pick & choose from.  Why did Alvin get so damn much money? The same reason that godawful G-Force movie did.. we had no other options to watch at the holidays.

You want to use something more relevant, pick Prince of Persia or another young-adult-targeted movie made from a video game.

In Fact, let's use Prince as it's the most-successful video game adaptation to date.  Guess what, it made less money than that shitty Airbender film AND the shitter Sex in the City 2.

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2010&p=.htm

Internationally it did pretty well, but I recall from the news at the time it was getting a lot of upplay in the Mideast because of the Persia angle.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 16, 2011, 10:59:02 PM
Really I just don't see Warcraft being worth a shit as an IP outside of videogames. It's Lord of the Rings only dumb, jokey, generic, and hamfisted. I mean game adaptations can make money. Tomb Raider made more money than Prince of Persia. But "Indiana Jones, plus tits!" is a lot more palatable and marketable pitch than "Lolore The Movie, set in the head-trauma version of Middle Earth!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 17, 2011, 12:17:10 AM
Counterpoint: Hercules the legendary journeys and Xena, warrior princess were the lollore versions of Greek myth (executive producer - Sam Raimi) and at one point Xena was one of the most popular TV series in the world. WoW in the style of Xena/Herc? I'd watch it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 17, 2011, 01:05:20 AM
Maybe, but they'll never do it for fear of painting WoW as "Dumb Goofy Hercules/Xena Type Shit Online".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Velorath on May 17, 2011, 01:18:50 AM
Counterpoint: Hercules the legendary journeys and Xena, warrior princess were the lollore versions of Greek myth (executive producer - Sam Raimi) and at one point Xena was one of the most popular TV series in the world. WoW in the style of Xena/Herc? I'd watch it.

And the bar continues to lower...

At it's peak (2nd season out of 5 apparently), Xena had just under 8 million viewer in the U.S. (Worldwide ratings are harder to come by, so if you can provide them by all means go for it).  That's almost 12 million less than the aforementioned NCIS's last two seasons had.  For even more perspective, American Idol at it's peak had four times as many viewers as Xena at it's peak.  8 million peak viewers for something people could watch for free, and wasn't exactly a high budget production doesn't exactly make good case for the 100+ million budget WoW movie.  If it did, I'm sure we would have seen a Xena movie released in theaters.

Edit: Besides, a better example of lollorre Greek myth, which inexplicably made almost $500mil worldwide at the box office, would be last year's Clash of the Titans remake.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 17, 2011, 02:07:10 AM
This is because none of you play the game anymore and don't have game shit to argue about, right ?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Velorath on May 17, 2011, 02:21:25 AM
This is because none of you play the game anymore and don't have game shit to argue about, right ?


I've got all of 90 posts here in the WoW forum.  I've very little interest in discussing the game itself.  I just happen to have an interest in discussing movies and box office grosses and such (much like WUA does).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 17, 2011, 03:38:07 AM
It's a more interesting argument than bitching about heroics for the 10,000 time.  Also, if you can't get past normal heroics you sure aren't doing ZA, ergo there's no new content to discuss about the game.  :awesome_for_real:

But since you want game comment: I am still playing since my Noblegarden reup hasn't run out yet.  Got my Pally tank to 85 and getting to 329 was a lot easier with honor->JP conversion. I haven't tanked a Heroic yet because I'm afeared I'm still too squishy at 331.  I will say that pally tank mechanics are STILL a hell of a lot easier than DKs and hold aggro shittons better AND have the benefit of block which is still worlds better than parry, even after the changes.  It's somewhat ridiculous.

Really I just don't see Warcraft being worth a shit as an IP outside of videogames. It's Lord of the Rings only dumb, jokey, generic, and hamfisted. I mean game adaptations can make money. Tomb Raider made more money than Prince of Persia. But "Indiana Jones, plus tits!" is a lot more palatable and marketable pitch than "Lolore The Movie, set in the head-trauma version of Middle Earth!"

Are we talking adjusted for inflation dollars or base ticket #'s?  Tomb Raider only made 274mil worldwide, Prince made $335.  That makes Tomb Raider the #3 video game movie, because Resident Evil: Afterlife beat it with $293. You're correct if going just for ticket #'s, apparently.  All according to their Wikipedia pages.

Vel - I doubt he'll find a link for the info these days about Xena, since we're talking c.a. 1996-1997.  I'll back him up because I remember it being all the news at the time because it had surpassed Baywatch as the most-watched program internationally.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 17, 2011, 04:00:52 AM
Actually I was just going by it's rank on it's Box Office Mojo page, which apparently only goes by domestic gross, but whatever. Either way, I can't see the non-beardy public really getting much out of a Warcraft movie.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 17, 2011, 06:24:22 AM
Xena and Hercules were also campy but with likable actors.  Take out all the pop-culture references and what does WoW have?  How do you actually make a watchable movie out of it?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 17, 2011, 06:26:56 AM
Xena and Hercules were also campy but with likable actors.  Take out all the pop-culture references and what does WoW have?  How do you actually make a watchable movie out of it?

Have the fans grind an alt just so they can buy tickets? Also, attached a cool in-game mount to people that purchase a ticket to the movie!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on May 17, 2011, 07:05:00 AM
When this movie comes out it is going to be pure gold, I predict. Either it takes it's self so seriously that it gets laughed out of the theaters, or it's so self referential and loaded with cheezy raider bits that its one giant facepalm. Either way, I win.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on May 17, 2011, 08:10:32 AM
When this movie comes out it is going to be pure gold, I predict. Either it takes it's self so seriously that it gets laughed out of the theaters, or it's so self referential and loaded with cheezy raider bits that its one giant facepalm. Either way, I win.  :awesome_for_real:

The only way to win is by not seeing it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on May 17, 2011, 08:14:13 AM
And miss the schadenfreude? Hell no!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 17, 2011, 09:55:04 AM
It's a more interesting argument than bitching about heroics for the 10,000 time.  Also, if you can't get past normal heroics you sure aren't doing ZA, ergo there's no new content to discuss about the game.  :awesome_for_real:

But since you want game comment: I am still playing since my Noblegarden reup hasn't run out yet.  Got my Pally tank to 85 and getting to 329 was a lot easier with honor->JP conversion. I haven't tanked a Heroic yet because I'm afeared I'm still too squishy at 331.  I will say that pally tank mechanics are STILL a hell of a lot easier than DKs and hold aggro shittons better AND have the benefit of block which is still worlds better than parry, even after the changes.  It's somewhat ridiculous.
Really? DK Tanking is trivially easy now thanks to Outbreak; the only thing bad about DK tanks anymore is the 30s CD on D&D slows down pulls in heroics once you overgear them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 17, 2011, 10:02:53 AM
I never enjoyed the mechanics.  Apply Diseases =-> Plague => Outbreak.  Paladin is - throw shield, hit different mob w/ HOR, judge & begin tanking. Conc if there's more than 3. 

Plus, as I said, block REALLY makes a difference.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 17, 2011, 10:08:15 AM
When this movie comes out it is going to be pure gold, I predict. Either it takes it's self so seriously that it gets laughed out of the theaters, or it's so self referential and loaded with cheezy raider bits that its one giant facepalm. Either way, I win.  :awesome_for_real:
Reminder: Raimi is directing. And hell, may as well get the gang(s) back together - Lawless as Sylvanas, Sorbo in greenface as Thrall, Bruce Campbell's Chin as King Loghead....  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on May 17, 2011, 10:36:49 AM
My main's a DK tank, and while it's pretty powerful to play (or was until my sub ran out anyway  :awesome_for_real:), it has a lot of quality-of-life issues in heroics. D&D cooldown is a big one, blood boil doing barely any damage/threat without diseases is another. Outbreak could also use a cd reduc in blood spec...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 17, 2011, 10:45:57 AM
This is because none of you play the game anymore and don't have game shit to argue about, right ?

Pretty much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 17, 2011, 01:21:30 PM
Raimi should just redo the whole fall of the Lich King so that it's Bruce Campbell, not Tirion Fordring, that takes him down. Ash Versus The Scourge. You know you'd go see that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 17, 2011, 01:26:24 PM
Raimi should just redo the whole fall of the Lich King so that it's Bruce Campbell, not Tirion Fordring, that takes him down. Ash Versus The Scourge. You know you'd go see that.

I WOULD!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 17, 2011, 01:56:19 PM
They are finally letting us do cross-realm dungeons with Real ID friends, but it's going to be another extra sub service like Remote AH. At least one person, the person sending invites, needs to pay for this extra sub service in order to be able to invite cross-realm Real ID friends.

http://wow.joystiq.com/2011/05/17/cross-realm-dungeon-finder-premium-service-coming-soon/

It's a feature I really wanted, and one I was hoping they were moving towards, but I didn't expect that it would be a paid service...

I guess the cost and what other features come with it will determine whether I'm interested in paying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 17, 2011, 02:17:08 PM
And.........there went the last bit of interest I had in the game. 

Wanna play with your friends? FUCK YOU, pay us.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 17, 2011, 02:22:54 PM
Ohh, fuck that shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 17, 2011, 02:24:11 PM
It's only for 5 mans anyway so I'm not that interested, but I don't see the rage behind this. Don't like it? Don't use it, and the game goes on. They charge for faction changes, why wouldn't they charge for this?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 17, 2011, 02:25:14 PM
Well they have to make up the revenue from those lost subs somehow, rite?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 17, 2011, 02:30:18 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_scWtR-DglHQ/TNnEKH96wlI/AAAAAAAAAMM/Ei6YvfGvSwk/s1600/sinking-ships%255B1%255D.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on May 17, 2011, 03:03:40 PM
It's only for 5 mans anyway so I'm not that interested, but I don't see the rage behind this. Don't like it? Don't use it, and the game goes on. They charge for faction changes, why wouldn't they charge for this?

Do you remember that every WoW player shells out monthly sub? Why would you keep paying for inferior product.

Ether ditch monthly sub or give full product. Transfers/Pets/Name Changes stretch it, but withholding a feature? R.I.P. WoW


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 17, 2011, 03:08:53 PM
Now really would have been a great time to implement it for free too. How many people that stop playing because their friends quit (now, or at any other point in the game's lifespan) might have stuck around if they could still group with friends that were playing on other servers? If anything, this could be a way to sell more Character Transfers, as you'd probably feel more secure transferring servers if you could get invested in another guild before taking the plunge. 1/2 your guild quits to play SWTOR, you start playing with a co-workers guild on another server instead of quitting, and maybe you find that you really like that guild and pay for a transfer, etc.

Payment aside, this service really needs to include raids and probably BGs to be worth anything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 17, 2011, 03:09:50 PM
My friends on other servers are all wrong faction sadly anyway. If this was cross faction, I would perhaps consider it, depending on price.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 17, 2011, 03:12:49 PM
It would have been nice to at least create faction pools of f13 users to group with.  I'm not going to pay for the right to do so, however.  Charge me for cosmetics and mobile access crap all you want, but I'm going to draw the line at direct gameplay enhancements when I ALREADY PAY A SUB (if I were subbed that is).

Plus, if I wanted to group with SLAP people (provided they wanted to be my friend  :awesome_for_real:), all I'd have to do is faction change a toon instead of faction change + server transfer.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 17, 2011, 03:27:12 PM
Hey, I have TWO level 85 Horde people now, you know! Both of them are even heroic-y!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 17, 2011, 03:31:42 PM
I have none!  

Outland on my gobbie and the pessimism here broke the hell out of me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 17, 2011, 03:34:31 PM
I have none!  

Outland on my gobbie and the pessimism here broke the hell out of me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rUMa8bFbqo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rUMa8bFbqo)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on May 17, 2011, 04:53:49 PM
Did I miss where Blizzard recently hired a bunch of ex-Verant SoE people to run things?  :headscratch:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 17, 2011, 06:09:42 PM
Merged with Activision or whatever, remember?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on May 17, 2011, 07:17:03 PM
Wow, what a Kotick-like money grab.

But then again, if you could do this for free you could probably trivialize non-raiding guilds even further. Hell, it wouldn't be too hard to extrapolate this into cross-server guilds if Blizzard was dumb enough to do that. You think LFD killed the "community" feeling of a server? Wait until it literally becomes a lobby like PSO.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 17, 2011, 08:05:23 PM
Wow, what a Kotick-like money grab.

But then again, if you could do this for free you could probably trivialize non-raiding guilds even further. Hell, it wouldn't be too hard to extrapolate this into cross-server guilds if Blizzard was dumb enough to do that. You think LFD killed the "community" feeling of a server? Wait until it literally becomes a lobby like PSO.

The problem is is already IS becoming empty. This is a band aid fix to the problem of not being able to find enough guild members online and still avoiding pugs. They probably COULD start merging servers at this point but it would be a very bad PR move.

By charging for it, calling it a 'premium' service they might even make a few dollars but this isnt a money grab move, it's a desperation move.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 17, 2011, 08:06:25 PM
It's possible they're more worried about trivializing Character Transfers. At $25 a pop, that is a big revenue source for them. The main reason you'd transfer servers would be to play with friends, and this would let you do that for free. Whether it would end up encouraging or discouraging transfers is debatable.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on May 17, 2011, 08:08:21 PM
One upon a time server transfers had a 6 month cooldown and the cost was supposed to be a deterrent from server hopping.


Now it's what, a week?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 18, 2011, 05:23:59 AM
Merged with Activision or whatever, remember?
"Merged", yeah right.

Proposal: We just call the developer of WoW/Starcraft/Diablo Activision from here on in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 18, 2011, 06:11:07 AM
Stock prices on ATVI have been rather shifty during this process. Meanwhile, Take Two has been kicking their asses.

If you bought a share of Take Two on the day Cataclysm released, you'd have made 42.5% on your money in 6 months.
If you bought a share of Activision Blizzard on the day Cataclysm released, the stock would be unchanged after 6 months.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on May 18, 2011, 06:18:36 AM
This, like the facebook real ID thing, is surprising in that it's so tone deaf to the community. That's usually Bliz's strength.

Real ID friends grouping would have been useful to me, I transferred to another server because my friends raided 9pm-1am. I can't do that, so I found a 7-10pm guild. But it was really a "we're online to raid and not much else" thing. In the end, the behavior in the cross server LFD drove me out of the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on May 18, 2011, 08:01:54 AM
This, like the facebook real ID thing, is surprising in that it's so tone deaf to the community. That's usually used to be Bliz's strength.

FIFY

Haven't these tone deaf changes all been since the Activision-Blizzard deal?  Certainly seems to fit in with the "fuck the players, we just want their money" attitude of Bobby Kotick.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 18, 2011, 08:32:36 AM
This, like the facebook real ID thing, is surprising in that it's so tone deaf to the community. That's usually used to be Bliz's strength.

FIFY

Haven't these tone deaf changes all been since the Activision-Blizzard deal?  Certainly seems to fit in with the "fuck the players, we just want their money" attitude of Bobby Kotick.

No, the deal was struck in July 2008, shortly before Wrath released. Ghostcrawler was hired in February 2008. All that was before Wrath launched in November. The "fuck the players attitude" didn't show up until 2010.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 18, 2011, 10:06:36 AM
Changing a corporate culture takes time.  I've mentioned the interview with Kotick I read in Game Informer a year or more ago that illustrated how he was changing Blizzard.  These changes do indeed fall along the lines of his greater vision.  I'll see if I can hunt down the magazine but chances are I've tossed it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 18, 2011, 10:59:11 AM
You mean this? (http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/ejronin_blog1/archive/2010/03/31/kotick-wow-servers-to-close-incrementally-new-series-title-on-natal.aspx)


EDIT: It's fake, but funny. Thought I'd point that out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 18, 2011, 05:18:41 PM
No, that's not the one, it was in the paper mag not online.  In it he specifically mentioned training game designers to think via cost:benefit analysis spreadsheets vs. "is this fun and would the players like it?"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 18, 2011, 07:17:29 PM
No, that's not the one, it was in the paper mag not online.  In it he specifically mentioned training game designers to think via cost:benefit analysis spreadsheets vs. "is this fun and would the players like it?"

Hey, man, remember, It's a business. Fuck the players, just get their money.  :wink:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 18, 2011, 08:00:45 PM
No, that's not the one, it was in the paper mag not online.  In it he specifically mentioned training game designers to think via cost:benefit analysis spreadsheets vs. "is this fun and would the players like it?"

I don't disagree with that philosophy. There's a lot of shit you could put in the game that players might like but wouldn't actually keep them playing and subbed. The appearance tab is probably one of those items, as is housing. The problem is when you forget that smaller projects with a lesser individual value can create a larger benefit in aggregate. Or in the case of Cataclysm, trying to extend subs by making content more tedious and difficult, and adding on fees to features in an arbitrary manner that confuses your players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 18, 2011, 08:18:43 PM
It also forgets that the latter is the reason the company was bought for 18 billion and not the 7million Kotick scoffed at in 1995.   :awesome_for_real:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/01/18/news-kotick_3a00_-activision-could-have-bought-blizzard-for-_2400_7-million.aspx


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 18, 2011, 10:02:57 PM
Housing is actually pretty 'sticky' content, I know a lot of people who stayed subbed to DAOC just because they were afraid of losing their housing plot and deciding they wanted to come back later.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 18, 2011, 10:47:20 PM
For most MMOs, housing isn't. It's only the ones where housing is in public areas, and if you lose your house you won't be able to get the same thing when you come back. You'll probably end up with something in a much different (less desirable) location. Housing in EQ2 or LOTRO isn't very sticky for this reason.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 18, 2011, 11:59:47 PM
LOTRO housing is basically the same as DAOC's - stuck off in instanced districts.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on May 19, 2011, 05:07:37 AM
If you unsub to LOTRO, your house is locked and you have to pay an in game price to get it back, but it's yours forever. The end result of this has been that most districts have only one or two active players in them and the rest are zombie houses--often decorated for a seasonal holiday long past.

I always thought AC had the best idea for housing, public in the world housing for the elite or lucky and instanced apartments for everyone else.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 19, 2011, 05:15:41 AM
I know that in UO the in-the-world housing resulted in tracts of urban sprawl thanks to the map having been drawn back when it was some OSI skunkworks thing that was expected to run for a year or two with a couple hundred players per shard. How did it work out in SWG?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on May 19, 2011, 06:05:33 AM
I know that in UO the in-the-world housing resulted in tracts of urban sprawl thanks to the map having been drawn back when it was some OSI skunkworks thing that was expected to run for a year or two with a couple hundred players per shard. How did it work out in SWG?

The last time I played SWG, it was huge sprawls of abandoned housing. They let you name your house and frequently they would be used by disgruntled players to send a message. I remember outside of the big city on Wanderhome, one of the first houses you saw was named "This game sucks, off to play FFXI"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 19, 2011, 06:45:19 AM
Housing only works if every jackass can't have a house, and they are promentently displayed in towns and serve a purpose. Guilds should be the ones affording actual houses. Examples would be renting out the apartments and houses in Stormwind, with the rest of the players living in a instanced shanty town in the sewers.

An example of use would be private guild portals to the other towns, a collection of crafting use items like forges, the guild vendor, a guild bank, and kill trophies you can hang on the walls.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 19, 2011, 06:49:29 AM
Sprawl around the major hubs, as people set up cities as close to the big cities as possible.  It also had the effect of nuking any spawns within a kilometer or so of city hall.  Since you couldn't drop a shuttle port until you were large enough, minimum a month I think even if you had the players, only the most dedicated groups put their city far out of the way.

It was interesting in seeing what developed, and each server was unique, but city centers probably should have been fixed locations.  Maybe pre-defined plots for building.  I did like that you could choose your houses, and the freedom to place within the city was nice since you could use terrain to change your scenic vista, but the impact on the game world was significant.

Really I think the best solution is an instanced neighborhood for guilds, and the instanced shanty town as Paelos suggests for the unguilded.  Maybe a few rare houses in the world.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 19, 2011, 06:51:06 AM
To be fair though, SWGs "worlds" were mostly barren wastelands populated by my mining robots.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on May 19, 2011, 07:01:53 AM
I'd still be playing if there was housing in WoW.  It kept me in UO for much longer than it should.  That's just the way it works.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 19, 2011, 07:14:51 AM
To be fair though, SWGs "worlds" were mostly barren wastelands populated by my mining robots.

Which kind of makes sense for star wars. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 19, 2011, 07:36:27 AM
To be fair though, SWGs "worlds" were mostly barren wastelands populated by my mining robots.

Which kind of makes sense for star wars. 

It also makes for a shitty game. I can draw a map in detail of several zones in WoW from memory. I can do the same for DAOC. I can't think of a single defining characteristic of a SWTOR planet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on May 19, 2011, 08:21:46 AM
I can't remember much about anywhere in SWG other than the zone line between my house and Theed because I was a tailor and people would buy things, get to there, and then complain I had ripped them off because their new clothes disappeared.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on May 19, 2011, 08:36:35 AM
Changing a corporate culture takes time.  I've mentioned the interview with Kotick I read in Game Informer a year or more ago that illustrated how he was changing Blizzard.  These changes do indeed fall along the lines of his greater vision.  I'll see if I can hunt down the magazine but chances are I've tossed it.

Reported here. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6226758.html?part=rss&tag=gs_news&subj=6226758)

At the Deutsche Bank Securities Technology Conference in San Francisco Sept. 14, 2009:

Quote
Jeetil Patel, Deutsche Bank Securities - Analyst
"What do you think the retailers' willingness these days is to hold inventory on the video game side? Are they building positions today or are they still very reluctant and very careful of how they are buying?"

Bobby Kotick, Activision Blizzard, Inc. - President and CEO
"I don't think it is specific to video games. I think that if you look at how much volatility there is in the economy and, dependent upon your view about macroeconomic picture and I think we have a real culture of thrift. And I think the goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks that we brought in to Activision 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."

"I think we definitely have been able to instill the culture, the skepticism and pessimism and fear that you should have in an economy like we are in today. And so, while generally people talk about the recession, we are pretty good at keeping people focused on the deep depression."

Cataclysm reflects this change in culture.  How great is it when the people working for you are constantly looking over their shoulders, worried about keeping their jobs!

A short history of Activision Blizzard... (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 19, 2011, 09:24:08 AM
An example of use would be private guild portals to the other towns, a collection of crafting use items like forges, the guild vendor, a guild bank, and kill trophies you can hang on the walls.
This is what killed EQ2 for me; guild halls were so feature-rich that the week after they were implemented every city zone was totally empty. It turned the game from an MMO into a set of instances with a shared chatroom, and I'd hate to see it happen to WoW.

If they put (guild) housing in WoW it should mostly be for flavor/fun, and not a city replacement.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 19, 2011, 10:30:37 AM
I always thought AC had the best idea for housing, public in the world housing for the elite or lucky and instanced apartments for everyone else.

That sounds kinda cool. I'd still have my place to decorate like a dork, but it wouldn't all be sealed away.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on May 19, 2011, 11:04:03 AM
I always thought AC had the best idea for housing, public in the world housing for the elite or lucky and instanced apartments for everyone else.

That sounds kinda cool. I'd still have my place to decorate like a dork, but it wouldn't all be sealed away.

The initial implementation of AC's housing was to have a finite number of houses, villas, and mansions scattered across Dereth. They didn't cook up the instanced shantytowns apartment complexes until a sufficient number of people had complained, because they wanted secure storage too. And they hadn't logged on, day one, next to the house they'd staked out.

if you had a house, you got more hooks to hang decorations on. That was the primary benefit of getting your own house, vs an apartment.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 19, 2011, 11:39:38 AM
If you unsub to LOTRO, your house is locked and you have to pay an in game price to get it back, but it's yours forever. The end result of this has been that most districts have only one or two active players in them and the rest are zombie houses--often decorated for a seasonal holiday long past.

I always thought AC had the best idea for housing, public in the world housing for the elite or lucky and instanced apartments for everyone else.

I thought this was changed at some point, maybe for F2P, so that you could actually lose your house to another player if you stopped paying. Even so, you could still go to an identical neighborhood and buy the same house.

AC is an example of sticky housing. You don't unsub from that game if you have one of the public houses.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Numtini on May 19, 2011, 12:05:15 PM
Well I think instanced housing can be a bit more robust than ACs, but I like the general notion of having a limited number of plots set aside in the world with instanced habitrails available for the masses.

AC also had a steep upkeep cost for large houses, not in game currency, but in some sort of token that had to be quested for (can't remember the name of it). That made it hard (or impossible?) for someone to squat solo on a guild hall size building. And it limited in world housing to active players--no just paying your subscription fee and not logging in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on May 19, 2011, 12:06:29 PM
DAoC and LotRO did instanced housing well.  LotRO just suffered from a lack of hook points and some of their location choices, but the flavor of housing was good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lightstalker on May 19, 2011, 12:39:32 PM
I criticized LOTRO's housing at the time because there was no reason whatsoever to be outside in the housing zone if you didn't have a house there.  What they ought to have done was put the crafting resources (forges, workbenches, etc.) and city utilities (inns, banks, auctionhouse, etc.) in different housing instances to encourage foot traffic and community.  Then it matters that you have a house 'near the forge' and you increase the perceived value of instanced content for different users.  Their housing zones were ghost towns all the time, it felt like a real missed opportunity since there were really quite lovely and diverse.  At the time it was harder to get off your horse than to buy a house in LOTRO, and very rarely would you see another person in a housing instance.  I actually patched up last night and played for a couple hours and I saw 3 other players the entire time.

What I'm saying is that instanced housing lets everyone have the same resource quality but when everyone has the same resource quality there is no reason to interact with each other.  For a game community that can't be a good thing.  Put popular and necessary resources in the housing instances to drive foot traffic, or they'll always end up ghost towns.  e.g. In WoW this housing instance has the Trade District Bank, that housing instance has the Trade District Auctionhouse.  You can be in the 'city' and go to that instance directly, but also move from instance to instance to move through the city at the ground level (the SoCal highway vs. surface street approach to city travel). 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 19, 2011, 12:45:17 PM
I criticized LOTRO's housing at the time because there was no reason whatsoever to be outside in the housing zone if you didn't have a house there.  What they ought to have done was put the crafting resources (forges, workbenches, etc.) and city utilities (inns, banks, auctionhouse, etc.) in different housing instances to encourage foot traffic and community.  Then it matters that you have a house 'near the forge' and you increase the perceived value of instanced content for different users.  Their housing zones were ghost towns all the time, it felt like a real missed opportunity since there were really quite lovely and diverse.  At the time it was harder to get off your horse than to buy a house in LOTRO, and very rarely would you see another person in a housing instance.  I actually patched up last night and played for a couple hours and I saw 3 other players the entire time.

What I'm saying is that instanced housing lets everyone have the same resource quality but when everyone has the same resource quality there is no reason to interact with each other.  For a game community that can't be a good thing.  Put popular and necessary resources in the housing instances to drive foot traffic, or they'll always end up ghost towns.  e.g. In WoW this housing instance has the Trade District Bank, that housing instance has the Trade District Auctionhouse.  You can be in the 'city' and go to that instance directly, but also move from instance to instance to move through the city at the ground level (the SoCal highway vs. surface street approach to city travel). 

The flip side of that is it kept the actual cities as hubs, which is almost certainly what they preferred to have happen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 19, 2011, 12:50:34 PM
I criticized LOTRO's housing at the time because there was no reason whatsoever to be outside in the housing zone if you didn't have a house there.  What they ought to have done was put the crafting resources (forges, workbenches, etc.) and city utilities (inns, banks, auctionhouse, etc.) in different housing instances to encourage foot traffic and community.  Then it matters that you have a house 'near the forge' and you increase the perceived value of instanced content for different users.  Their housing zones were ghost towns all the time, it felt like a real missed opportunity since there were really quite lovely and diverse.  At the time it was harder to get off your horse than to buy a house in LOTRO, and very rarely would you see another person in a housing instance.  I actually patched up last night and played for a couple hours and I saw 3 other players the entire time.

What I'm saying is that instanced housing lets everyone have the same resource quality but when everyone has the same resource quality there is no reason to interact with each other.  For a game community that can't be a good thing.  Put popular and necessary resources in the housing instances to drive foot traffic, or they'll always end up ghost towns.  e.g. In WoW this housing instance has the Trade District Bank, that housing instance has the Trade District Auctionhouse.  You can be in the 'city' and go to that instance directly, but also move from instance to instance to move through the city at the ground level (the SoCal highway vs. surface street approach to city travel). 

The flip side of that is it kept the actual cities as hubs, which is almost certainly what they preferred to have happen.

I'm pretty sure this was explicitly the reason why, I seem to remember some dev diary about it or something like that.  I think LOTROs housing was very good.  It gave me storage, a social area for my guild (we had a guild house, and a bunch of us had houses in that same instance), and was just fun to customize.   Well executed in my opinion, perfect, I guess not, but as far as theme park DIKUs go, its probably as good as its gonna get imo.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 19, 2011, 02:41:34 PM
If they put (guild) housing in WoW it should mostly be for flavor/fun, and not a city replacement.
If they ever put (guild) housing in WoW, Activision would launch it as a 'Premium' product.
With the housing items as purchased DLC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 19, 2011, 06:38:29 PM
I don't think I've seen a decision garner 11 capped threads in sequence to debate on why it sucks. And yet, the RealID cross server premium grouping thing has done it and kept rolling strong.

Anybody want to start a pool on how many capped threads it will go?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 19, 2011, 07:55:28 PM
"We're implementing a system to let you play with friends."
"We're going to charge you extra to play with friends."

Not really surprising.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on May 19, 2011, 08:00:30 PM
It's only for 5 mans anyway so I'm not that interested, but I don't see the rage behind this. Don't like it? Don't use it, and the game goes on. They charge for faction changes, why wouldn't they charge for this?

If it were free I might have re-upped just for the chance to play with you bastards. I mean, you folks. Being an extra, paid service, I won't bother.


On to more important matters - The WoW LoreLOL movie - I could see them doing it as a kind of X-Men meets LotRO thing with the Horde/Alliance war and the war vs the Lich King in the background. That could actually work, as well. I mean, a similar thing is being discussed in the Thor thread about how Joe Pubic had never heard of Iron Man aside from the Sabbath song 5 years ago, let alone Nick Fury, Hawkeye, Ant-Man etc. How many people had heard of Storm or Cyclops outside of comic and gaming geeks? They can just have the faction leaders as the important part of the ensemble as the "unlikely allies".

Put it together with a series of "B-listers, character actors and a few relative unknowns - ie - Campbell as whatsisface - the human King who returned, a war against the zombies, Jessica Alba as a Blood Elf Mage, maybe The Rock as Thrall or Hellscream, and you're set. Peter Mayhew can play Cairne and die a noble death to Gary Oldman's Arthas at the end of Act 2. It'll be LOLore, but also worth watching.

Besides, most of us ex-or-inactive players would still go and watch it, zeitgeist past, or not. Wouldn't we?




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 19, 2011, 08:13:09 PM
I don't think I've seen a decision garner 11 capped threads in sequence to debate on why it sucks. And yet, the RealID cross server premium grouping thing has done it and kept rolling strong.

Things Not Being Free Induces Whinging, News at 10.  Flavor said whinging to taste with latent hatred of RealID (and DLC/microtransactions even though this is neither, but people's vocabulary is depressing) and you're good to go.

Really, that's the "reasons it sucks":

- It's not free.
- It's linked to usage of RealID.
- There's no pricing so everyone immediately assumes it's "too much".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 19, 2011, 08:31:51 PM

- It's not free.

Thats all that matters.  This, the iPhone app (android too maybe?), soon you'll be paying 20 bucks a month for WoW if you want everything.  I recall thinking there would be new MMOs which would cost 20 bucks a month, I didn't think this is the route we would take to get there though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Margalis on May 19, 2011, 09:39:47 PM
It's only for 5 mans anyway so I'm not that interested, but I don't see the rage behind this. Don't like it? Don't use it, and the game goes on.

There are plenty of reasons to not like it. It's like the worst of Facebook games, where features that make the game better (or even just tolerable) cost extra.

They are asking people to pay more to get a better game experience. Not a neat extra or a one-time change or a cool costume.

Personally I believe that when devs create features that should be free, unlockable, included in the base game or whatever then charge for them it's in everyone's best interest to rage. Otherwise you end up with bullshit like half of the characters on the Marvel Ultimate Alliance select screen being grayed out or a game with basically zero unlockable content charging $2 for a single extra animation that works in a single mode.

It's the same principle has whacking a dog on the butt with a rolled up newspaper if he poops in the house.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 19, 2011, 09:58:42 PM
It's not that it's a paid service that is getting everyone upset, it's that this paid service is no longer 'fluff'


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on May 19, 2011, 10:51:55 PM
Things Not Being Free Induces Whinging, News at 10.  Flavor said whinging to taste with latent hatred of RealID (and DLC/microtransactions even though this is neither, but people's vocabulary is depressing) and you're good to go.

Really, that's the "reasons it sucks":

- It's not free.
- It's linked to usage of RealID.
- There's no pricing so everyone immediately assumes it's "too much".

How about this? I stopped playing WoW. My RL friends all stopped playing. My wife and I both have full sets of characters on Proudmoore, and we have a couple of casual friends ingame. (if they're still there next time we go back). My guild sucks, but it's at least slightly better than others I've been in in WoW, and I don't play hardocre enough to really become part of a community anyway, so good enough.

I'd like to play with (some) F13 people. I'm not paying to move any or all of my wife and my toons anywhere, though. Too many and I like them all being on the same server. I'm also not ever going to be deeply into the game enough to start from 1-80 again, let alone 85. And fuck another DK. I started a character on one of WUA's servers once, but you know, starting out as a fresh n00b while everyone else is level 50 or 70 or whatever.. the fun wears thin pretty quickly.

But, Like I said, I'd really like to muck around with some of the f13 crowd.

Right now I'm not a subscriber, and have no intent to go back anytime soon.
If this feature was rolled into the sub fee, I'd probably come back for a tryout when it went live. That's a 2-month sub min since I use timecards. x2 since my wife would resub too.

I also hate microtransactions sooo much that I have a nearly-full 360 HDD, and in WoW I have a sparkle pony, a baby griffon and a baby windrider. When I say, "I", I really mean both my wife and myself have these things in WoW. On our separate accounts.

RealID can also go suck a dick.


So anyway, my opinion only, anecdotal, etc etc, sure. But I don't hate microtransactions and DLC, it's a feature that would make me come back if it were included with a sub, and especially so without RealID. I'm not willing to pay extra. I'll keep not playing and spending my gaming dollar elsewhere. No crying, just some facts.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on May 19, 2011, 11:30:14 PM
- There's no pricing so everyone immediately assumes it's "too much".

If it's $1 it's too much just based on the principle of what they're doing here.   Maybe next they'll introduce solo dungeons!  "Only $5 for something that we should include in the service you already pay for.  But we won't, because Kotick's got his eye on a new Ferrari."




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 20, 2011, 12:17:00 AM
Yeah, "it's not free" means "it's too much" for me. And I am someone who is indeed willing to pay money for stupid shit like sparkle ponies and vanity pets. I am not cool with paying for something I think should be included in the sub fee, and "playing with your friends" is one of those things I think should be included.

That said, it's not going to affect me much. The characters I've been playing most are on the wrong faction from what my friends are playing ... and for the majority of them, I DO have a level 85 character on Doomhammer, where a lot of them tend to play (when they are actually playing).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 20, 2011, 01:44:31 AM
It's not that it's a paid service that is getting everyone upset, it's that this paid service is no longer 'fluff'
Faction transfers aren't free. Neither are server transfers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on May 20, 2011, 02:14:44 AM
I think it makes a difference in terms of perception that transfers/mounts/etc are a one-shot fee and this new cross-realm feature is sub-based.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on May 20, 2011, 07:07:50 AM
Yeah, "it's not free" means "it's too much" for me. And I am someone who is indeed willing to pay money for stupid shit like sparkle ponies and vanity pets. I am not cool with paying for something I think should be included in the sub fee, and "playing with your friends" is one of those things I think should be included.

That said, it's not going to affect me much. The characters I've been playing most are on the wrong faction from what my friends are playing ... and for the majority of them, I DO have a level 85 character on Doomhammer, where a lot of them tend to play (when they are actually playing).

Agreed.  I also have a pony and vanity pets.  I don't mind paying microtransactions for fluff.  I don't like paying for character transfers but I understand why it costs money.

This?  It's insulting to offer for a fee. 

That said, it's not going to affect me at all, because I'm not playing.  None of the changes announced since I quit make me want to resub.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 20, 2011, 07:13:00 AM
I could give the faction transfer/slippery slope argument but it oil down to this.

They are saying "We can allow for you to play with your friends across servers, we have the tech now. we want you to pay for the privledge to play with your friends."

People know how easy it is to have groups from across servers in dungeons, they are doing it NOW except they have to do it in pugs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 20, 2011, 09:39:12 AM
Small note, what we have now is still confined to datacenters.  Now, does making it so some Dungeon Finder groups could span the country a massive new expense commensurate with whatever they're going to charge?  No, I don't think so.  But saying "we have the tech now", at least to the scale needed, is probably also untrue.

(Also, according to the Wowpedia article on datacenters (http://www.wowpedia.org/US_realm_list_by_datacenter), they moved three of the four US ones sometime last year.  Just found that interesting.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 20, 2011, 02:21:34 PM
But saying "we have the tech now", at least to the scale needed, is probably also untrue.

Except there isn't a free alternative to do this within a battlegroup or data center.

Plus, the armory already manages to serve up the data on every active character to anyone who wants to look.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 20, 2011, 03:00:34 PM
But saying "we have the tech now", at least to the scale needed, is probably also untrue.

Except there isn't a free alternative to do this within a battlegroup or data center.

I was referring to Lakov's statement that they already have the tech in place for region-wide pre-made groups because we have one-datacenter PUGs through the Dungeon Finder now.

I'm loathe to armchair this, but I imagine it's not difficult to allow for inviting RealID friends to your group if your servers are both in the same datacenter.  A problem there is that "same datacenter" and even "same battlegroup" aren't terribly transparent constructs, much less so for those that have never been even vaguely serious Arena-era PvPers.

Going forward to region-wide Dungeon Finder groups (with or without RealID friends stuff) is where they're likely still need work.  At the time they moved to region-wide BGs and datacenter-wide dungeons, they said that that last step was much more difficult and something for later on if ever.

That could just have been them blowing smoke up our asses before announcing this, but I tend to assume incompetence before malice when it comes to MMO database design :uhrr:.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on May 22, 2011, 09:09:01 AM
I have no problem with this costing money.  I'm much, much more offended by in-game stuff, even vanity pets, costing real money.

This is a meta-game thing, like server transfers, race/gender changes, or security fobs.  And the last thing I want is anything to do with that face-fucking RealID shitstain being free for anyone, anytime ever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 22, 2011, 10:35:25 AM
So...in-game cash purchases with no impact on gameplay = BAD but in-game cash purchases with an actual impact on gameplay = GOOD?

 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 22, 2011, 04:05:56 PM
Got the Horde Pally to 85 and tried BGs.. learned i'm on the only Battlegroup where Horde players are as retartedly bad as Alliance on every other BG I've ever played on.  My record for the last week is 5 Gilneas 2 wins, 4 AB's 2 wins, 13 SOTA 8 wins, 1 twin peaks 0 wins, 20 WSG 8 wins, 12 Isle 7 wins.  AV is the only one we've won consistently.  I've done 6 and won 6.   It's like mirrorland.

And whomever said the heroics have gotten better was wrong.  Players are still pants on the head retarted and in fact are worse, because now they complain when the new tank who only has 123k hps wants you to CC and interrupt things so they don't get splattered.  That's ignoring all the assholse in purples who bitch you can't hold aggro with your 339 gearscore but damned if they're going to cut dps back.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 22, 2011, 04:08:29 PM
Um... if you add those all up you have played 61 matches and won 33. That's not 'retardedly bad' that is normal? Even if you throw out the 6 for 6 AV you won 27 times out of 55, which is almost exactly 50%.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 22, 2011, 04:20:47 PM
Hm, I suppose it only feels worse then because the Alliance victories have been by very large margins, where the Horde victories have been by narrow margins.  The last 3 WSG I did were 3/0 and the Gilneas was 1600/1000 while the AB we won was 1600/1490.  It's also the weekend where it's taken me 4 BGs with no daily win so far.  I'm frustrated.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 22, 2011, 05:05:39 PM
I've found people perfectly fine in heroics, but I'm always the healer, and I always side with the tank, so the DPSers probably don't feel at liberty to bitch too loudly about our pace. Our tanks even ask for a vote for doing all of HoO or a rush job.

They've messed with how they organize PUGs through LFD so that you're more likely to get people from your server/battlegroup apparently, so maybe I just have the NICEST BATTLEGROUP EVER.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on May 23, 2011, 02:23:25 AM
And whomever said the heroics have gotten better was wrong.  Players are still pants on the head retarted and in fact are worse, because now they complain when the new tank who only has 123k hps wants you to CC and interrupt things so they don't get splattered.  That's ignoring all the assholse in purples who bitch you can't hold aggro with your 339 gearscore but damned if they're going to cut dps back.

Not much different as a healer.  No way a fresh heroic geared can heal a tank without cc. Believe me I've tried and been chewed out by "knowledgeable" dps..


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on May 23, 2011, 10:02:37 AM

They've messed with how they organize PUGs through LFD so that you're more likely to get people from your server/battlegroup apparently, so maybe I just have the NICEST BATTLEGROUP EVER.

Haven't been doing many daily randoms anymore (capped VP), but still do a few for money and the chance at enchanting materials (and from boredom). I've noticed that I"m getting a lot of AP folks in groups. I guess that means it's working as advertised. Three people from AP in one guild, one person from AP in another (me), and one random from a server I've never heard of before. Went smoothly enough (tank was a little light on threat) and queued up for two more with them. Beats the hell out of what I'd been seeing in the Zandalari dungeons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mnemon on May 23, 2011, 10:04:58 AM
battlegroups are only still used for arenas. for battlegrounds and dungeons your battlegroup is all of North America (this was a change they rolled out over a few weeks with the launch of Cata) ...

http://www.wowpedia.org/Battlegroups


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 23, 2011, 10:15:43 AM
battlegroups are only still used for arenas. for battlegrounds and dungeons your battlegroup is all of North America (this was a change they rolled out over a few weeks with the launch of Cata) ...

http://www.wowpedia.org/Battlegroups

Yeah, except you still see more people from certain servers than other so either physical location or ping between server farms is making some sort of determination.  On Alleria I still see a lot of Illidian and Malygos people in BGs and dungeons and rarely do I see anyone from a server like Arthas.  However on Zul'Jin I see Arthas people all the time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 23, 2011, 12:02:47 PM
battlegroups are only still used for arenas. for battlegrounds and dungeons your battlegroup is all of North America (this was a change they rolled out over a few weeks with the launch of Cata) ...

The change you're probably referring to doesn't say that. (http://www.wowblues.com/us/region-wide-battlegroup-matching-update-27497535489.html)  That made only Battlegrounds Region-wide, but for Dungeons it clumped them into four groups (which are just the datacenters (http://www.wowpedia.org/US_realm_list_by_datacenter)).  I haven't been able to find any change to this set-up since, apart from some likely sloppy language from Curse (http://www.curse.com/articles/world-of-warcraft-news/951093.aspx).

In 4.1 they made it so Arena matchmaking was also not bound by Battlegroup although I'm having trouble finding if they're Region-wide or just by datacenter.  Part of that problem is that the patch notes entry (http://[url=http://www.wowpedia.org/Patch_4.1.0#PvP) is ambiguous to that and that a Blizzard Region (US/EU/KR) is different from what most people would call a region (Western/Eastern US) so normal posters aren't of much use.  Also, I don't do Arenas anymore so I can't just look myself :awesome_for_real:.  4.1 also made it so the Dungeon Finder prefers people from your server (http://www.wowpedia.org/Patch_4.1.0#Dungeons_.26_Raids), which seems to work well enough.

Battlegroups are still used for Arena ladders at this point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 23, 2011, 02:08:21 PM
In case you aren't following the Rift threads, they're going to let everyone transfer a character a week for free. (http://forums.riftgame.com/showthread.php?195616-Free-Character-Transfer-FAQ) At the moment, it's just "select" (underpopulated?) servers, but still... on the heels of the cross-server dungeon pay service announcement, that's gotta sting.

Blizzard also lets people transfer from over-populated servers to underpopulated servers for free, so it really depends on how many servers Trion makes available for transfers. My guess is that they'll let people transfer to all but maybe the 2-3 most populated servers, judging from how they worded the announcement/FAQ.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on May 23, 2011, 03:16:22 PM
Hm, I suppose it only feels worse then because the Alliance victories have been by very large margins, where the Horde victories have been by narrow margins.  The last 3 WSG I did were 3/0 and the Gilneas was 1600/1000 while the AB we won was 1600/1490.  It's also the weekend where it's taken me 4 BGs with no daily win so far.  I'm frustrated.

Battleground PvP and some light 2v2 arenas were my endgame in WotLK, and the last time I checked my Battleground win/loss ratio as horde fluctuated around a 60% win rate.  The numbers for my alliance characters on that same server confirmed that rate - I'd win maybe 40% of the time and it was... infuriating. As horde I could count on winning Wintergrasp and getting at least one win for the BG daily. As alliance I'd content myself with a quick loss while using 20 stacks of tenacity to one-shot clothies in the fortress in WG. Then I would pray to the god of chance that I might be able to get a win in for the BG daily. Often I would have to log for the evening without being able to complete it. I finally gave up pvping as alliance completely after one evening with a 10 game losing streak.

Winning on the underdog side matches what you describe as well - Alliance victories were usually fought for with blood, sweat and tears while Horde victories felt effortless most of the time. If the Alliance put up a good fight then we (Horde) were surprised. If the Alliance won then both sides were shocked.  I was in the Nightfall Battlegroup, IIRC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on May 23, 2011, 06:25:09 PM
So...in-game cash purchases with no impact on gameplay = BAD but in-game cash purchases with an actual impact on gameplay = GOOD?

 :uhrr:

There's nothing more in-game than me seeing somebody with a cool-looking pet, I ask them where they got it, and they tell me they paid Blizzard $x or some card-game dealer $10x.  Collecting vanity crap is a huge part of the game for a lot of people, and that has a substantial impact on my gameplay inside the actual game world.

Blizzard creating some Facebook abortion and charging people a couple bucks to play with other retards who sign up to play via said Facebook abortion is not anything I need to see in the game.  I sure as fuck don't want to subsidize everyone else who uses it by having it come out of my monthly fees.  My hatred of RealID aside, it's something completely outside the game world, it seems like something that might be non-trivial to set up, and it's nothing that anyone reasonably expected to ever see in the game.  It's like a server transfer, or charging to let you play in some other country's servers, or the out-of-game auction house thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on May 23, 2011, 06:48:47 PM
it's nothing that anyone reasonably expected to ever see in the game.

I don't think this is true. We could already do dungeons cross-server, the only functionality that is being added is being able to invite specific people to your cross-realm dungeon group. Granted I don't have the faintest idea whether it was easy/moderate/difficult to implement but it's not like no one ever wished they'd be able to play with their friends on different servers without rerolling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 23, 2011, 08:36:30 PM
So...in-game cash purchases with no impact on gameplay = BAD but in-game cash purchases with an actual impact on gameplay = GOOD?

 :uhrr:

People are split on what's bad and what's good about this. Easy solution is to not charge for it at all.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on May 24, 2011, 09:54:46 AM
MMO Champ lists a ton of raid nerfs incoming for patch 4.2. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 24, 2011, 10:04:57 AM
That 20% nerf might make Nef doable for my guild.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 24, 2011, 12:33:05 PM
MMO Champ lists a ton of raid nerfs incoming for patch 4.2. 

One step of many in the right direction. Let's see how they are willing to plan for content in the future now.

Oh, and they need to get rid of that rated bg shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 24, 2011, 12:34:29 PM
Holy shit that is a HUGE nerfbat they are swinging.  20% HP and Damage Output Reduction pretty much across the board on everything?  That seems a bit extreme.  10% i could maybe understand, but 20%?  Wow.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 24, 2011, 12:41:00 PM
Holy shit that is a HUGE nerfbat they are swinging.  20% HP and Damage Output Reduction pretty much across the board on everything?  That seems a bit extreme.  10% i could maybe understand, but 20%?  Wow.

Eh, it's effectively the same as ICC's nerf via the buff.  The new raid has a tier-and-a-half better gear and most things got knocked down 20% instead of it being a 30% buff to players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on May 24, 2011, 02:39:27 PM
MMO Champ lists a ton of raid nerfs incoming for patch 4.2.  

Do you think people will come back to WoW until next expansion? I highly doubt it. Damage was already done.

Also if these are nerfs to only old stuff... I don't see casuals being happy with doing second-hand content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 24, 2011, 02:43:00 PM
Actually this is exactly the sort of change that might cause a spike of interest for us, we'll see.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 24, 2011, 02:59:05 PM
MMO Champ lists a ton of raid nerfs incoming for patch 4.2.  

Do you think people will come back to WoW until next expansion? I highly doubt it. Damage was already done.

Also if these are nerfs to only old stuff... I don't see casuals being happy with doing second-hand content.

There are people watching closely still. Like I said before, it's a step in the right direction. I'm sure lots of people weren't that pissed off and simply wanted this from the get-go, and now they are happy. I'm also sure lots of people want to know what the plan for the future is before they dip their toes back in the water, simply because we're moving up a tier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 24, 2011, 03:10:12 PM
Also if these are nerfs to only old stuff... I don't see casuals being happy with doing second-hand content.

Everyone outside the US Top 100 (or equivalent) does nearly all content post-nerf (or "second-hand") already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on May 24, 2011, 03:19:42 PM
Yeah, I don't think that really bothers anyone who would identify as casual.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 24, 2011, 03:30:02 PM
It also depends on how tough non-heroic Firelands is. If Activision have any sense, it comes pre-nerfed with Heroic mode kept at 'smash gonads with meat-tenderiser' difficulty.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 24, 2011, 04:01:45 PM
I expected nerfs in 4.2 for T11, but I thought they would be smaller than this since 4.2 will also bring easy access to 359+ gear. I think the combination of easy 359+ gear and 20%+ across-the-board nerfs to T11 will be over-kill, but it doesn't matter a whole lot considering the patch will also bring a new raid cluster. We'll see how compelling Firelands ends up being.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on May 24, 2011, 04:42:15 PM
It also depends on how tough non-heroic Firelands is. If Activision have any sense, it comes pre-nerfed with Heroic mode kept at 'smash gonads with meat-tenderiser' difficulty.
With only seven bosses to pass the time with I have to assume they are going to be made absurdly difficult so that they will last.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on May 24, 2011, 05:18:48 PM
It also depends on how tough non-heroic Firelands is. If Activision have any sense, it comes pre-nerfed with Heroic mode kept at 'smash gonads with meat-tenderiser' difficulty.
With only seven bosses to pass the time with I have to assume they are going to be made absurdly difficult so that they will last.

Trial of the Crusader was arguably the easiest raid tier (sans nax 2.0) and only had 5 bosses.  They can make the regular modes easy, maybe a little harder on the 5th boss.  Just make the first couple hard mode bosses hard but not ball-bustingly so, and the non-terrible casual raid guilds can spend time wiping to that after they clear the regulars.  Maybe.   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 24, 2011, 05:23:41 PM
Trial came out when many weren't even done with ulduar and also had 20 bosses effectively, when you consider 10 and 25 regular and hard. I also seem to remember getting sick of that place very, very fast compared to other raids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 24, 2011, 07:00:15 PM
This isn't really relevant but I didn't know where else to post it:

(http://i.imgur.com/QVbYg.png)

Note, I'm not making commentary on the nerf to the raids, I actually didn't even read those posts until after I posted this original, just came across this image and thought it was funny.  Unintentionally slightly topical.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 24, 2011, 07:16:05 PM
Ack.. they're removing the keyring. I'll have to find spots for all my blacksmith keys once more. Damnit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 24, 2011, 07:19:51 PM
Ack.. they're removing the keyring. I'll have to find spots for all my blacksmith keys once more. Damnit.

wtf, why would they do that?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 24, 2011, 07:24:06 PM
Because adding new storage space is hard.  They have to carve out all those bits and bytes by hand, you know.

Quote
In today’s Azeroth, keys don’t really serve much of a purpose except to take up physical storage space from the game (which could be used for other awesome stuff), and visual interface space on yours. Because of this, we’ve decided to get rid of the Keyring in order to free up some user interface space for exciting new features. This change could also potentially allow us to play around with the amount of default storage space you’re allotted down the road. So, what does this mean for you and the keys you might not have looked at in the last couple expansions or so?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on May 24, 2011, 07:58:46 PM
Great.  A bag in the bank dedicated to the 10 keys my main has accumulated over the years once again.  And the whole "shit I forgot the key, brb" moment...  Unless they are going to not make them take up any physical space at all yet still have them...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 24, 2011, 07:59:59 PM
I think there are going to be like 5 keys left total that they're not just deleting, but yeah, still kind of annoying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on May 25, 2011, 01:25:00 AM
Did I read the patch notes correctly? Elemental shaman get a slow from thunderstorm for PvP AND a glyph to allow the casting of lightning bolt on the move???

Since when did shaman get positives? I though Blizzard policy was to nerf shammies each patch as they had the potential to be broken, obscene dps.

^^^ is irony btw - I think that the last real time I thought my shammy was broken was in vanilla and I was smashing clothies with Hand of Ragnaros :D

God I miss those days.


In other news, Fire Nova is still shit and Earthquake is still a top of the tree bad joke.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on May 25, 2011, 01:38:31 AM
Fire nova blows syphilitic goats. With plywood dentures. On fire.

Just tonight I was dragooned into using that abomination on heroic Halfus on the whelps. God, I hate that spell. It was a huge relief when the RL decided that wasn't such a good idea and maybe interrupts on the big guy might be a better option. Life suddenly got a lot better. God, I hate that spell.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on May 25, 2011, 03:32:24 AM
Good for Blizzard in regards to the nerfs, but I wonder if they realize that the "Casuals" who are playing catchup will get geared for T12 pretty quickly (they HAVE been killing stuff, just usually...well, half or less of the content) and then be stymied by their shitty "normal=hard, heroic=superhard" design philosophy again. Hello: you need to keep your players engaged for as long as possible, you have learned painfully that brickwalls/cockblocks do not accomplish that goal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 25, 2011, 04:05:36 AM
I think there are going to be like 5 keys left total that they're not just deleting, but yeah, still kind of annoying.

Yeah, and they're not big deal keys.  I can't get at the list here at work, but it was the Jump-o-tron key, all the BRD keys and a few others.  The dungeon keys were going away or being set as a flag or something.  I'm honestly more annoyed I'll have to have bank/ bag space for the Blacksmithing keys.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 25, 2011, 05:31:43 AM
 Interweb-famous e-blogtivisterati  TotalBiscuit is throwing his toys out of the pram and sulking (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=205da4db555e46e416a54e81339d5ade&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fohguild.org%2Fforums%2Fmmorpg-general-discussion%2F39425-wow-4-0-horde-bdf-join-foh-1136.html%23post2035772&v=1&libid=1306325814937&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DndcysuEIqus%26t%3D1m11s&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fohguild.org%2Fforums%2Fmmorpg-general-discussion%2F&title=%5BWoW%5D%204.0%20-%20Horde%20BDF%20-%20%2Fjoin%20foh%20-%20Page%201136%20-%20Fires%20of%20Heaven%20Guild%20Message%20Board&txt=1%3A12) because of the normal mode T11 raiding nerfs.

And nothing of value was lost.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 25, 2011, 06:14:04 AM
Interweb-famous e-blogtivisterati  TotalBiscuit is throwing his toys out of the pram and sulking (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=205da4db555e46e416a54e81339d5ade&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fohguild.org%2Fforums%2Fmmorpg-general-discussion%2F39425-wow-4-0-horde-bdf-join-foh-1136.html%23post2035772&v=1&libid=1306325814937&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DndcysuEIqus%26t%3D1m11s&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fohguild.org%2Fforums%2Fmmorpg-general-discussion%2F&title=%5BWoW%5D%204.0%20-%20Horde%20BDF%20-%20%2Fjoin%20foh%20-%20Page%201136%20-%20Fires%20of%20Heaven%20Guild%20Message%20Board&txt=1%3A12) because of the normal mode T11 raiding nerfs.

And nothing of value was lost.

I quite like TB myself, though I didn't regularly watch the Azeroth Daily. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on May 25, 2011, 07:23:13 AM
Interweb-famous e-blogtivisterati  TotalBiscuit is throwing his toys out of the pram and sulking (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=205da4db555e46e416a54e81339d5ade&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fohguild.org%2Fforums%2Fmmorpg-general-discussion%2F39425-wow-4-0-horde-bdf-join-foh-1136.html%23post2035772&v=1&libid=1306325814937&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DndcysuEIqus%26t%3D1m11s&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fohguild.org%2Fforums%2Fmmorpg-general-discussion%2F&title=%5BWoW%5D%204.0%20-%20Horde%20BDF%20-%20%2Fjoin%20foh%20-%20Page%201136%20-%20Fires%20of%20Heaven%20Guild%20Message%20Board&txt=1%3A12) because of the normal mode T11 raiding nerfs.

And nothing of value was lost.

I think that is a bit of an overstatement, his case sounds like a lot of other people's in that there is a combination of burnout from six years of playing the same game, and frustration with the set-bar-too-high then nerf-bar-too-low approach of gamemaking Blizzard has at the moment. While raids have been nerfed as course in the past, generally they were also soft-nerfed by the addition of more powerful gear. Now the gear is gated and the content difficulty is all over the place.

But then I'm with him, I had my most fun through TBC, and up to Ulduar, after that things generally went downhill.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on May 25, 2011, 07:52:00 AM
I'm not going back unless I see a change in attitude by Blizzard.  None of the changes I see indicate this has happened.

Is developer hubris an inevitable result of a successful mmo?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on May 25, 2011, 07:56:02 AM
Ack.. they're removing the keyring. I'll have to find spots for all my blacksmith keys once more. Damnit.

Wonder what they'll remove next in their efforts to "streamline" the game?    :uhrr:

And yeah, my main had about 12 stacks of these in the keyring...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 25, 2011, 08:09:57 AM
Forgive me if I don't have 25 minutes to listen to geek rambling, but is he just bitching because they are making content easier, or is he bitching because they don't know wtf they are doing with difficulty?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on May 25, 2011, 08:28:21 AM
He's bitching because Blizzard's attitude seems to be that if a player can't do the content as is, stick around, they'll nerf it into the ground so that any monkey can.  It's not the nerf per se but the enormity of it, ensuring that players will never learn how to become better players.

But I only half-listened to half of it.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 25, 2011, 08:28:53 AM
Forgive me if I don't have 25 minutes to listen to geek rambling, but is he just bitching because they are making content easier, or is he bitching because they don't know wtf they are doing with difficulty?

More the second than the first.  He is fine with easy content, but he really hates when they make easy content at the expense of difficult content.  He mentions the optional hard modes (like Yogg Saron and Freya) as a good way of doing it, as well as having more options 10/25 man easy/heroic, etc as all being better.  He also complains about the content being nerfed for the lowest common denominator.

Also what Xanithippe said.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 25, 2011, 08:40:56 AM
Xanthippe, it's rare that players actually get better at the game once they've been playing for a while. Sure, they might learn the fights better or get used to a new rotation, but we all have those guildies who just don't watch out for the fire, don't interrupt, etc. I've been raiding with a few of them since WotLK; if they were going to get better, it would have happened by now. Nerfs like this and the ICC buff help us finish content, without me having to kick/bench RL friends because they are poor raiders.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on May 25, 2011, 08:48:18 AM
Xanthippe, it's rare that players actually get better at the game once they've been playing for a while. Sure, they might learn the fights better or get used to a new rotation, but we all have those guildies who just don't watch out for the fire, don't interrupt, etc. I've been raiding with a few of them since WotLK; if they were going to get better, it would have happened by now. Nerfs like this and the ICC buff help us finish content, without me having to kick/bench RL friends because they are poor raiders.

Oh, I agree.  The issues that TotalBiscuit has with Blizzard are not my issues.  I don't really care about what he is upset about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 25, 2011, 09:04:28 AM
I agree with him in principle that there should be more options on how to set difficulty for your group. The idea that one set of content having one level of difficulty that is impossible to scale up or down is stupid.

I disagree completely on the idea that having content that's more difficult somehow makes people learn. It's been six fucking years. You can cram that "but I want people to get better!!!" mentality up your ass at this point. You really don't. That's a veiled way of saying that you don't want content to get nerfed because you like being king of the dorks. It sounds all nice and good, but the quasi-hardcore are the ones espousing that nonsense, and they do it because they know they can't be the best, but they want to make damn sure they aren't lumped in with the scrubs.

Example: I picked the top threads crying about the nerfs just now and did a look at who was complaining. What did I find? 20 people vehemently disagreed with the idea that the nerfs were a bad idea. Those ran the specrum from people that didn't raid to people that were 12/12 with a few heroic kills.

10 people agreed that the nerfs sucked and were making things ridiculous. Seven of those ten were 11/12 and missing NEF, or 12/12 with a Halfus heroic kill.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 25, 2011, 09:16:43 AM
It sounds all nice and good, but the quasi-hardcore are the ones espousing that nonsense, and they do it because they know they can't be the best, but they want to make damn sure they aren't lumped in with the scrubs.


I get the idea that this is right.  I think there are a lot of people who fancy themselves as above the masses of WoW players, but aren't actually cutting edge.  This seems to be the only group that has anything riding on this.  The "actual" hardcore people are just going to do their best to smash whatever content is cutting edge at the time and aren't really going to care about nerf batting content they killed months ago.  They have no ego riding on this (the nerfed) content being difficult at all.

My gut reaction is that I like raid content to be difficult rather than easy IF they choice is one or the other (more difficulty options is better yet).  But I haven't raided in years, all that is left in me is the remnants of someone who raided in TBC and liked learning stuff like pre-nerf Gruul.  I think my experience would've been cheapened learning the encounter post-nerf.  However, I'm not stupid enough to think that because my experience would've been cheapened that others would feel the same, which is why I support multiple difficultly levels.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 25, 2011, 09:18:19 AM
I agree with him in principle that there should be more options on how to set difficulty for your group. The idea that one set of content having one level of difficulty that is impossible to scale up or down is stupid.
There are 3 difficulties for each raid fight now: Normal, Normal with Achievement (example (http://www.wowhead.com/achievement=5306/parasite-evening)), and Heroic; you could even do Heroic w/Achievement if you were so inclined. How many more options do we need? Did anyone actually turn off the ICC 30% buff?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 25, 2011, 10:25:25 AM
Totalbiscuit the hardcore raider: http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/character/ahnqiraj/totalbiscuit/simple
 :awesome_for_real:

A little more context: He was going on and on and on about how awesome the Cataclysm raiding scene was during the beta on the SA WoW forum, and laughed off how having a brick wall for a difficulty curve would make people quit. And now that it's been shown that is, in fact, what happened and that he was wrong he's gone off in a huff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 25, 2011, 11:02:07 AM
He's one of those quasi-hardcore people. Honestly, check the people starting the bitch threads about the nerfs. I will almost guarantee you that they have cleared the normal stuff and have like 1 or 2 bosses in heroic mode down, with one being Halfus. It's hilarious how often when you do the background on them, they are tweener-raiders.

In the actual sticky thread about the nerfs in the general, I saw 2 people with 372 gear fully cleared say basically that it's not surprising and they don't care. That's the mentality of the real hardcore. "Who gives a fuck? Just issue the next orders."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 25, 2011, 11:29:14 AM
It's not the nerf per se but the enormity of it, ensuring that players will never learn how to become better players.

They won't anyway. It's a nice dream, but most players at this point? They're as good as they're ever going to get.


EDIT: And I know Xanthippe is just summarizing, not arguing this would be the case, but it's her post, so I'm quoting it to fuss about anyway!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 25, 2011, 12:17:15 PM
He's one of those quasi-hardcore people.

I don't think he'd even classify himself as that.  He has said fully on his channel that he only raids once a week now because that is all he has time for.  Personally, I suspect he is just burnt out on the game and this ends up being a convenient reason to quit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 25, 2011, 12:49:49 PM
He was also disappointed that Firelands only has 7 bosses, which is something worth being disappointed about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 25, 2011, 01:21:07 PM
Speaking of which, that means I get to play my favorite game that Ingmar hates: "Paelos reads too much into what the devs said in their Q&A!!!" I'm going to condense their answer from PR speak into something the average jaded WoW fan like myself would think they said.

Here's the recent one about Firelands: Real answers HERE (http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2151656030)

Quote
Q: What happened with the Abyssal Maw dungeon that was supposed to come with Firelands? – Maryjanee (EU-EN), Espiritu (NA)

A: We wanted to do 2 different dungeons, but we couldn't deliver even one on time, so we added more bosses to the current one we were working on. Also, Kotick kept bothering us with cost/benefit spreadsheets, so we agreed that one dungeon with seven bosses was the way to go.

Q: A majority of the fights in T11 favored having little or no Melee DPS. Are there plans to fix this? – Merissa (NA), Espiritu (NA)

A: We view this more of a class problem than an encounter problem. You see, melee classes weren't designed to move, and ranged classes are supposed to move but they suck at it. Whenever there are situations in an encounter that encourage grouping, the ranged often move into melee, but melee never move to ranged. We understand this is problem, but we have no idea how to solve it without fucking up pvp which combined with rated battlegrounds is the most important content we design.

In the meantime, we don’t want to over-constrain encounter design, or worse, make it feel very formulaic by getting to the point where players expect the “melee fight” to be followed by the “adds fight,” followed by the “Patchwerk fight,” then the “ranged fight.” However, you're going to do that anyway, so we gave up trying to fix that problem and just designed around the expectation that you can switch classes and roles at will.

Q: When Tier 11 content was first launched, the majority of fights in 25-person were explicitly easier than the 10-person version, such as Nefarian and almost every Heroic encounter. Do you have plans to make content for 25 players more appealing in patch 4.2? – Wynter (EU-DE), Nisana (EU-FR), Espiritu (NA)

A: We're confused that you equate easy with unappealing. Perhaps we shouldn't have picked your question. You are obviously deranged and haven't done any research on who has completed what yet. We'd like 10s and 25s to be the same in difficulty, even though this is a logistical impossibility that a 4 year old would be able to grasp. Until then, we will continue to refine our balance approach by viewing things as nails in a board that need to be either beat down or pried up until they are more even with everything else.

Q: Will we see anything of a sympathetic view of why Fandral Staghelm changed allegiances before he meets his demise? – Lorinall (NA)

A: I'm sorry, that's a lore question. We switch characters based on design, not lore. Go forth and kick his ass. We've added quests to explain why somewhere. I think it's in that daily hub thing.

Q: It can be anticipated that mana regeneration and maximum mana will increase from gearing up with the new Firelands equipment. Isn’t there a possibility that healers can spam big heals again (and more quick heals) just like in WotLK? If so, is there any plan to handle this without class nerfs? – Whitewnd (KR)

A: That’s fine and was all part of the design. This is still a much better place to be than we were with Lich King content, where mana stopped mattering in the first raid tier. There's really no way to deal with the crazy mudflation in our game now other than nerfing stuff later. But we promise not to nerf you right now.

Q: Do we have any plans to include events similar to the Wrath Gate? – Mushik (LA), 잔메르 (KR)

A: Kotick came into the office one day and told us we could either make videos or keep our jobs. We chose our jobs. We've managed to cobble together some stock footage from WC3 and update it into the game for a couple of short videos involving druids and trees. We have no plans to make any huge videos like the Wrath Gate until you fuckers get with the program and stop unsubbing.

Q: Will there be weekly missions in the Firelands similar to Icecrown Citadel in where the players were required to alter the dynamics of each encounter in order to complete them and receive rewards such as promordial saronite and gold? – Orisai (LA)

A: No, but maybe later. Probably not, though. You know what, let's just go with never again. If we bring it back, it'll be as a premium feature.

Q: In Cataclysm, it has been hard to find unique raid mounts such as Siege Engines in Ulduar or Drakes in The Eye of Eternity. Can we expect to see battles using unique mounts or other objects among the Firelands raids? – 빛그리고사제 (KR)

A: Ah, you're from Korea. The rest of the populace frowned upon the vehicle concept. You must not have heard. There are several fight mechanics in Firelands that depart from usual “don’t stand in the fire” or ”interrupt important spells” routine. For example, there's flying, climbing, and kiting in Firelands. Let that soak in!

Q: Is Ragnaros gonna have a speech about setbacks? – Gerox (NA)

A: HE'S GOT LEGS, AND HE KNOWS HOW TO USE THEM!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on May 25, 2011, 01:48:52 PM
edit : nevermind, missed Paelos' "I'm paraphrasing" note.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 25, 2011, 01:52:10 PM
See it was believeable wasn't it?  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on May 25, 2011, 02:13:54 PM
Mainly the first answer.  I can't count the number of times they nerfed something nice on my warrior because it "unbalanced PvP."   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 25, 2011, 02:17:28 PM
The staghelm bit still pisses me off and I didn't even play alliance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 25, 2011, 02:37:06 PM
The Staghelm thing pisses me off less because "waaah one of our faction leaders is a raid boss" and more "waaaah they had one (1) slightly nuanced character and they completely fucking ruined it with their stupid DEMONZ DID IT bullshit." Don't get me wrong, I would prefer Staghelm not go mustache twirly raid boss at all, but the way it was done was an extra ... slap in the face.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 25, 2011, 03:24:21 PM
Uh, everything in WoW can be traced back to shitty elves, not demons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on May 25, 2011, 03:26:10 PM
Damn you, Azshara!

 :awesome_for_real:

Also, everything in WoW can be traced back to the Old Gods.  Even the elves.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on May 25, 2011, 03:29:38 PM
Those are just fronts. The murlocs have been behind everything the whole time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on May 25, 2011, 03:39:58 PM
On the subject of Total Biscuit: The only good thing he has contributed to the internet is his still unfinished Shining Force 3 LP.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 25, 2011, 03:45:42 PM
Uh, everything in WoW can be traced back to shitty elves, not demons.

Demons tricking elves, yes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on May 25, 2011, 03:50:56 PM
...and elves are just corrupted trolls. So really...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 25, 2011, 03:51:37 PM
...and elves are just corrupted trolls. So really...

ERRONEOUS!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 25, 2011, 04:05:58 PM
I was never much of a raider, but I don't remember the boss Erroneous.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 25, 2011, 04:09:19 PM
The Q&A also reveals that Abyssal Maw is apparently canceled, and Throne of Tides is the end of the Naga/Neptulon story for Cata. This probably means that we'll see one more raid cluster in Cata after Firelands, which will be the Deathwing cluster.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on May 25, 2011, 04:40:24 PM
I was never much of a raider, but I don't remember the boss Erroneous.

Last boss in Sunken Temple. Green dragon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on May 25, 2011, 05:55:48 PM
The Q&A also reveals that Abyssal Maw is apparently canceled, and Throne of Tides is the end of the Naga/Neptulon story for Cata. This probably means that we'll see one more raid cluster in Cata after Firelands, which will be the Deathwing cluster.
lol, "So yeah...nothing at all happened to Neptulon after he was swallowed up by that gigantic squid thing in Throne of Tides...because making content is HARD.*"

*please buy diablo 3 and then Starcraft II twice more thanks


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 25, 2011, 06:00:06 PM
The Q&A also reveals that Abyssal Maw is apparently canceled, and Throne of Tides is the end of the Naga/Neptulon story for Cata. This probably means that we'll see one more raid cluster in Cata after Firelands, which will be the Deathwing cluster.
lol, "So yeah...nothing at all happened to Neptulon after he was swallowed up by that gigantic squid thing in Throne of Tides...because making content is HARD.*"

*please buy diablo 3 and then Starcraft II twice more thanks

Um, don't we save Neptulon by killing Ozumat in Throne of the Tides? It seems pretty ending-y really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on May 25, 2011, 06:05:35 PM
The Q&A also reveals that Abyssal Maw is apparently canceled, and Throne of Tides is the end of the Naga/Neptulon story for Cata. This probably means that we'll see one more raid cluster in Cata after Firelands, which will be the Deathwing cluster.
lol, "So yeah...nothing at all happened to Neptulon after he was swallowed up by that gigantic squid thing in Throne of Tides...because making content is HARD.*"

*please buy diablo 3 and then Starcraft II twice more thanks

Um, don't we save Neptulon by killing Ozumat in Throne of the Tides? It seems pretty ending-y really.
I think you missed the part where it sucks up Neptulon and swims away, quite alive.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 25, 2011, 06:07:20 PM
Ah well, nobody will miss him and his dumb name anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 25, 2011, 07:21:46 PM
It really is getting to the point of embarrassing that they are flubbing getting any content out, let alone finished content, let alone stuff they had previously promised. It's going to be June in a week. I'm almost wondering WTF they were doing for the last 6 months.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 25, 2011, 10:22:48 PM
On the subject of Total Biscuit: The only good thing he has contributed to the internet is his still unfinished Shining Force 3 LP.

Are you Bryce?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 25, 2011, 10:26:12 PM
Him playing Magicka with the Yogscast boys was pretty funny, but aside from that I don't really get it either.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on May 26, 2011, 01:35:25 AM
Fuck Staghelm, I'm still pissed that they killed Cairne off and Thrall fucked off somewhere leaving Garrosh in control - yet didn't even have the decency to build the former into a Wrathgate-style questline/cinematographic and Thrall became a non-entity.

The more I think about the game the more rushed and unpolished the actual thought into it gets.

BTW - bring back Cairne


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on May 26, 2011, 05:48:45 AM
Fuck Staghelm, I'm still pissed that they killed Cairne off and Thrall fucked off somewhere leaving Garrosh in control - yet didn't even have the decency to build the former into a Wrathgate-style questline/cinematographic and Thrall became a non-entity.

The more I think about the game the more rushed and unpolished the actual thought into it gets.

BTW - bring back Cairne
They are bringing in a big quest line that revolves around Thrall getting killed and his spirit scattered, hopefully the aim is to resurrect him.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on May 26, 2011, 08:05:57 AM
Why don't they just find the nearest spirit healer?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 26, 2011, 08:10:13 AM
Why don't they just find the nearest spirit healer?

The repair costs on their armor are epic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 26, 2011, 10:22:30 AM
Prediction:

The whole "Spirit scattered" thing means they won't find all the pieces, so we won't get huggy-feely, damnit-we-can-work-things-out Thrall, but some mix that turns him into a Garrosh-like "Rawr, kill the fucking Alliance" character.  It's obvious that's what they want to do, but Garrosh is such a tool nobody likes him and Horde's pissed they lost Thrall and Cairne.. two of the best characters in the Lore. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 26, 2011, 11:13:27 AM
thrall becomes the new aspect of earth


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on May 26, 2011, 11:21:11 AM
So who is going to be the next good guy turns raid boss because old gods/demons/murlocs/elves/trolls? How about the next premium feature/service to be added? Next dungeon to be redone?

I'm going to go with Alexstrasza / Random Rated Battlegrounds / BRD.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 26, 2011, 11:35:39 AM
They won't make anything that requires a critical mass of players (like a BG queue) a premium feature, I think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 26, 2011, 11:45:39 AM
So who is going to be the next good guy turns raid boss because old gods/demons/murlocs/elves/trolls? How about the next premium feature/service to be added? Next dungeon to be redone?

I'm going to go with Alexstrasza / Random Rated Battlegrounds / BRD.

King Chin, Premium Appearance Tab, Sunken Temple.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 26, 2011, 11:54:31 AM
Sylvanas(she's too grey, black and white only!) - Cohorts - AQ


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 26, 2011, 12:05:56 PM
Oh dear god, please not AQ  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 26, 2011, 12:14:32 PM
Fuck Staghelm, I'm still pissed that they killed Cairne off and Thrall fucked off somewhere leaving Garrosh in control - yet didn't even have the decency to build the former into a Wrathgate-style questline/cinematographic and Thrall became a non-entity.

The more I think about the game the more rushed and unpolished the actual thought into it gets.

BTW - bring back Cairne


They did add a nice little scene in the Children's Week quests, at least. Your morbid little orc orphan wants to see Cairne's grave, and you get a scene with Cairne's son and ghosts and shit. Felt a little "sorry he died off screen, guys" to me, but it was still nice.


As for the next good guy gone bad, I am sure Alexstraza's days are numbered, but I think we'd be killing Sylvanas or Nozdormu before her. If they really wanted to go for fan service, though, we'd kill Rhonin.  :why_so_serious:

Pay feature, I almost hope appearance tabs. Yes, I would pay for it.  :why_so_serious:

Next dungeon, I seriously have no idea. I wouldn't mind them redoing the CoT Mount Hyjal raid, though, I never got to do that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on May 26, 2011, 12:23:59 PM
Nah, we'll be fighting Chromie before the Xpac is done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 26, 2011, 12:30:07 PM
Bronze dragonflight leader/ premium emotes and dances /AQ

Didn't Cho'gal try to resurrect C'thun in the comics or something? AQ20/40 are probably going to be redone as 5-mans at some point. I can think of a couple fights I really liked from both, so I'd like to see them remade someday. I'd prefer some actually-new 5-mans first though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 26, 2011, 12:51:28 PM
You're not getting new 5-mans.  At this rate you'll be lucky to get the old-dungeon revamps they promised for the "2nd patch at the latest" back in 2010's Blizzcon.  Y'all forgot about that one, much like the Dance emotes that never made it in from WOTLK.  Damn Cost-Benefit spreadsheets.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on May 26, 2011, 01:02:05 PM
Wasn't dungeon revamps covered by SK and Stockades?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 26, 2011, 01:31:13 PM
DM too, and now ZG/ZA.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 26, 2011, 02:01:28 PM
The revamps they previewed included Sunken Temple, and Wailing Caverns.  While those two changes made it in (Chopping the bottom off of ST and straigtening WC out) I recall them saying they were going to give a similar treatment to ALL of the old dungeons.. like the mess that is Maraudon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on May 26, 2011, 02:18:56 PM
The revamps they previewed included Sunken Temple, and Wailing Caverns.  While those two changes made it in (Chopping the bottom off of ST and straigtening WC out) I recall them saying they were going to give a similar treatment to ALL of the old dungeons.. like the mess that is Maraudon.

Its still a mess, but at least it gives you dungeon completion credit for finishing a 3rd of it now (orange/purple/princess)  You can still do the rest of it if your group wants to, it seems they are each treated as unique in the queue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 26, 2011, 02:35:59 PM
I'm going to consider it a miracle if they get 4.2 with just the one raid in it out before July 4th weekend.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 26, 2011, 03:10:54 PM
They've been testing bosses for a few weeks now.  If they get a few more things going on Friday than they did last week, I think we'll be fine for that date.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 26, 2011, 06:58:37 PM
So who is going to be the next good guy turns raid boss because old gods/demons/murlocs/elves/trolls?

I know Horde fanboys really want it to be Wrynn for not just going "Aw shucks Thrall you're so cool, please test plague on more of our people and cut down more of our forests!" but it's definitely Sylvanas if it's anyone. She's taken a real heavy-handed turn toward outright cackling villainy lately.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 26, 2011, 07:07:31 PM
Yeah, she is THIS CLOSE to spontaneously sprouting a mustache just so she can twirl it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 26, 2011, 07:09:04 PM
The thing is, she really hasn't.  Sure ressurecting dead people against their will is pretty fucking heinous but it's not quite cut and paste evil either. The problem is whoever writes blizzard lore cannot stand anything but black and white storytelling. They seem to think their playerbase is all 15 even after 6 years of being out.

Just look at Thrall, he was anything but the stereotypical orc so they get rid of him and who do we get? Exactly the same damn thing. Hell even the alliance had something interesting with a boy king on the throne, whose advisor was a black dragon. You know what they could have done instead of king McChin? they could have had the boy try and lead as a teenager, it probably would have yielded the same results and been more interesting except they had to follow the inane lore from the comics about the king.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 26, 2011, 07:17:42 PM
I'm pretty comfortable labeling raising people as undead, whether they like it or not, is evil. You can blah blah all you like about how "zomg only way to procreate" but given they don't exactly die like regular people either, neeeeeeeding to raise moooooore because they can't have necrobabies is not at all compelling to me.

I mean, I am with you on the "they only see black and white at Blizzard," and wish to God they would take writing seriously even though they never, ever will. But! I am not with you on trying to make Sylvanas a Grey Zone in any way, shape or form. Even besides the raising the dead thing, there's the attempt to get her genocide on with the worgen, what happened in Hillsbrad (seriously, some of those quests were :ye_gods: although I will be willing to indulge people who say she didn't know about THAT), and what she does in the Plaguelands. It pretty much all piles up into one big neon sign reading:

ATTENTION
WE KNOW SHE'S HOT AND YOU GUYS FORGIVE A LOT FOR THAT
BUT SHE IS PRETTY MUCH THE NEW LICH QUEEN
SORRY


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 26, 2011, 07:24:56 PM
The thing is, she really hasn't.  Sure ressurecting dead people against their will is pretty fucking heinous but it's not quite cut and paste evil either.

You can start by explaining what you think the difference between "heinous" and "evil" is. Don't try using the dictionary, it won't help you. Sylvanas could pretty much rape babies and someone would post on here about how it's nuanced morally-gray baby rape.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 26, 2011, 07:27:54 PM
Asking who's evil and who's good is literally a waste of time. They're all going to become raid bosses, and the reason doesn't matter for shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 26, 2011, 07:33:35 PM
Just watch until we find out that the Old Gods were actually being controlled by OLDER gods.

And those older gods are ewoks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 26, 2011, 07:38:54 PM
And those older gods are ewoks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlYHOMOnG4Q


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 26, 2011, 08:11:39 PM
I really liked the witcher2 in that there were no 'good' factions, just varying levels of dick-ishness that a lot of could be considered evil. Basically everyone was really out for themselves, kind of like real countries. I am reminded of that when I think of Sylvanas.

Also the only reason I don't consider raising the dead out and out evil is that once you're rezzed you can decide NOT to join the forsaken. Most don't I'd assume and yes it really will make you a pariah and destroy everything you knew.  It's just not the mindless slavery the lich king gave and at its core, it's just them ignoring every single do no ressuscitate order. So it's really fucking close to moustache twirling but not quite there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on May 26, 2011, 11:41:03 PM
I really liked the witcher2 in that there were no 'good' factions, just varying levels of dick-ishness that a lot of could be considered evil. Basically everyone was really out for themselves, kind of like real countries. I am reminded of that when I think of Sylvanas.

Also the only reason I don't consider raising the dead out and out evil is that once you're rezzed you can decide NOT to join the forsaken. Most don't I'd assume and yes it really will make you a pariah and destroy everything you knew.  It's just not the mindless slavery the lich king gave and at its core, it's just them ignoring every single do no ressuscitate order. So it's really fucking close to moustache twirling but not quite there.

Sure. Being brought back as an unnatural monster just takes a little getting used to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0V-yaOGrYw


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 27, 2011, 12:21:56 AM
So...raising the dead as Forsaken = horrifically, unforgivably evil but deliberately infecting people with a disease that actually does turn them into ravening monsters = "welcome to the Alliance! Here's your new treehouse"?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 27, 2011, 12:54:25 AM
So...raising the dead as Forsaken = horrifically, unforgivably evil but deliberately infecting people with a disease that actually does turn them into ravening monsters = "welcome to the Alliance! Here's your new treehouse"?
But it makes you immune to the Forsaken Plague, so its OK!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 27, 2011, 12:58:02 AM
They volunteered for it specifically so they couldn't be turned into undead.  Big difference.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 27, 2011, 01:25:04 AM
Seriously, even Garrosh is running around going "Bitch how are you any different from Arthas?" and is plainly waiting for her to do something outright treasonous so he can have her whacked.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on May 27, 2011, 03:47:52 AM
On the subject of Total Biscuit: The only good thing he has contributed to the internet is his still unfinished Shining Force 3 LP.

Are you Bryce?
Hell yeah. I kinda got drunk and trolled the official forums for a few hours. Was great. I'm probably permabanned from the forums on my next ban anyway since I got banned for a week earlier because I told the infamous "mount guy" to kill himself.

And I'm not joking about the Let's Play; it's actually pretty good since he actually knows the game up and down whereas WoW he's...well, terrible at it really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 27, 2011, 05:23:58 AM
Seriously, even Garrosh is running around going "Bitch how are you any different from Arthas?" and is plainly waiting for her to do something outright treasonous so he can have her whacked.
Garrosh does that to everyone though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on May 27, 2011, 08:40:35 AM
As a long time horde player, the only faction in WoW I consider to be actually evil would be the Forsaken.  The rest of the factions are mainly acting out of self interest, which generally brings them into conflict with everyone else.

Except the tauren.  Goddamn hippy cows.  Who can hate on them?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 27, 2011, 11:30:38 AM
As a long time horde player, the only faction in WoW I consider to be actually evil would be the Forsaken.  The rest of the factions are mainly acting out of self interest, which generally brings them into conflict with everyone else.

Except the tauren.  Goddamn hippy cows.  Who can hate on them?

Their whole 'wah wah wah don't dig up those ruins' act gets pretty old!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 27, 2011, 12:47:16 PM
Especially since they're dwarf or titan ruins most of the time. Titans MADE the dwarves (sort of)!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on May 27, 2011, 05:55:52 PM
That's just what hippies do, man.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 29, 2011, 07:04:04 PM
Especially since they're dwarf or titan ruins most of the time. Titans MADE the dwarves (sort of)!
Nah, the Old Gods made the dwarves.  Stubby little mutants.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on May 29, 2011, 08:38:38 PM
The curse of flesh made dwarves out of the earthen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 30, 2011, 01:41:26 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/wRGkL.png)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 30, 2011, 06:03:11 AM
The top hat is dead sexy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 30, 2011, 06:50:49 AM
There was supposed to be a tailoring top hat pattern in the game that I'm still not sure was added yet. Why? Blizzard hates rp, that's why.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on May 30, 2011, 11:54:51 AM
They are shaking hands wrong, typical Alliance ineptitude.  Good comic though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 30, 2011, 12:20:14 PM
Isn't it a double clasp ?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 30, 2011, 01:40:23 PM
Looks like it to me!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 30, 2011, 04:04:30 PM
They just want to be assured of a square deal.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on May 30, 2011, 07:28:49 PM
I don't know what his ambivalence was for, those lupine fellows look top drawer to me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 31, 2011, 01:16:54 AM
Finally got back into heroics and... they're actually pretty fun now. I even randomed a few (as dps not tank of course) and didn't want to stab myself in the eye. I did want to stab the other 2 dpsers on a Deadmines run just now, but that will happen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 31, 2011, 01:20:21 AM
You see? You see how bad some DPSers can be? It's amazing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on May 31, 2011, 03:54:49 AM
Thanks to STO tanking (for me), and LA Noir not being all it was cracked up to be, I caved in and accepted my free week back. Ya normal heroics are actually fun now, even though I am the only soul that interrupts at all in them, as a tank, or as a dps.

As for the new troll dungeons, FUCK THEM. Insta-gib mechanics? Check. Unavoidable raid wide damage to "challenge" the healer? Check. Frustrating enrage timers on bosses 3/4s of the way in, making you realize that, nope, this group just can't do this dungeon? Check. Long and sprawling with Noah's arcs full of trash? Check.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on May 31, 2011, 04:56:07 AM
Just pally tanked ZA/ZG or the first time. Clean runs both times - it helps that my dps chars have been there before.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 31, 2011, 05:53:13 AM
Dragonhawk guy has a natural 20% soft enrage is that's what you're talking about.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 31, 2011, 09:39:55 AM
As for the new troll dungeons, FUCK THEM. Insta-gib mechanics? Check. Unavoidable raid wide damage to "challenge" the healer? Check. Frustrating enrage timers on bosses 3/4s of the way in, making you realize that, nope, this group just can't do this dungeon? Check. Long and sprawling with Noah's arcs full of trash? Check.
I dont think any of the bosses have an enrage "timer" per say.  A few of them use the classic "enrage at low health for the final stretch" mechanic.  Similarily, a few have the "kill X adds before p2, cause if you trigger p2 early, all remaining adds come at once mechanic".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on May 31, 2011, 11:13:18 AM
Ya normal heroics are actually fun now, even though I am the only soul that interrupts at all in them, as a tank, or as a dps.

You and I should totally do a heroic together and we can glory in being the two people in all of WoW who remember where their interupt button is!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 31, 2011, 12:59:42 PM
Hey, I had a whole 16 interrupts on a single fight in the last dungeon I ran, and I was the tank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on May 31, 2011, 12:59:59 PM
I interrupt all the time on my DK.  I even took the talent that makes my interrupt cost no runic power.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on May 31, 2011, 01:34:14 PM
Dragonhawk guy has a natural 20% soft enrage is that's what you're talking about.

In Zulgurrub there is the guy who "kills" you and levels up, that is an enrage cause if he does it too much you're dead. Also, in Zul Aman there is the chap who steals your souls and stacks power on himself, and if you don't have the deeps to kill him in time, you guessed it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on May 31, 2011, 01:46:37 PM
So I've dusted off my prot pally and played it for the last 5 days or so. Cleared ZA/ZG with it but then got told off by a druid for stacking +stam gems. We still cleared but when I checked my avoidance it was only 67%. I reforged highest stats to mastery and got it to 71% but am still struggling for the other 30%. Maybe I've just been very lucky with my healers.

Should I re-gem the solid blues to mastery/stam or even straight mastery for the 4 non-colour specific slots?

Char is here: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/blackrock/jetamio/simple

Cheers



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 31, 2011, 02:27:16 PM
Conventional Protadin wisdom says yes, put Greens in your blue slots and straight Mastrey in your Yellows/Prismatics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on May 31, 2011, 02:37:29 PM
Also the Heart of Thunder BLOOOOOOOOWS as a trinket. Dump that shit. I used Impetuous Query, ftw or the Baradin Hold one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 31, 2011, 02:39:54 PM
http://www.askmrrobot.com/wow is pretty good for "I've just dinged 85/resubbed/playing an old alt and don't know WTF" gearing et. al. tips.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 31, 2011, 03:32:34 PM
Yeah, what Simond said.  It's a fantastic site that takes so much of the Bullshit away from your decisions regarding "Should I reforge this to .. " and "what's going to get me the best socket bonuses possible."

Considering their goal was to streamline stats and mechanics, they sure went a long way to fucking it all up and making it more complicated with reforging.  My little ilevel 339 pally has been stellar in Heroics since I started using the place, and I was struggling for both aggro and survival before.  (Most of my JP has gone to PVP honor & gear, so I know it wasn't an increase in iLevel that made this big of a difference. I've only gone up 6 points.)

Here ya go:
http://www.askmrrobot.com/wow/gear/usa/blackrock/jetamio#v1-z1-o01317q230


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on May 31, 2011, 03:46:32 PM
But... I love reforging. Once upon a time everyone might pass on a piece of gear because it was crit/haste instead of hit/haste or whatever. Now gear hardly ever rots, because reforging makes everything so much more flexible.

They also did succeed in making gearing simpler because of how powerful your 'primary' stat is compared to everything else (agi/str/int are the primary stats). While leveling through Outlands/Northrend on my Hunter these last few weeks, it was easy to see that often 'upgrades' weren't really upgrades at all. Often they had a higher ilvl, but the stat budget went into stats I didn't care about. An ilvl upgrade is almost always an upgrade in Cata because, even if the item has crit/haste instead of hit/haste, it still has more agi (str/int) so it's still the better item. I never have to break out a stat comparison sheet, I just pick the one that has more of my primary stat and reforge the secondary stats when I have time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 31, 2011, 04:00:44 PM
http://www.askmrrobot.com/wow is pretty good for "I've just dinged 85/resubbed/playing an old alt and don't know WTF" gearing et. al. tips.

Yeah, Ask Mr. Robot's great.  You'll eventually want to feed it weights from something more sophisticated though.

I think the thing with reforging is that it's just about the only system that lets you make your character "worse" instead of just "not as good".  I like it because that means that less gear is expressly useless, something that I grew to despise on my Disc Priest last expansion, but I don't know if this kind of a system is actually good for the game in general.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on May 31, 2011, 04:03:17 PM
http://www.askmrrobot.com/wow is pretty good for "I've just dinged 85/resubbed/playing an old alt and don't know WTF" gearing et. al. tips.

Yeah, Ask Mr. Robot's great.  You'll eventually want to feed it weights from something more sophisticated though.

I think the thing with reforging is that it's just about the only system that lets you make your character "worse" instead of just "not as good".  I like it because that means that less gear is expressly useless, something that I grew to despise on my Disc Priest last expansion, but I don't know if this kind of a system is actually good for the game in general.

When you're ready for the step-up from MrRobot, Rawr (http://rawr.codeplex.com/) will be waiting for you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 31, 2011, 04:14:47 PM
I've used it before, but sadly, all but one of the models I would use are still non-functional (http://rawr.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Models).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on May 31, 2011, 04:17:02 PM
Sparklepony 2: Leonine Boogaloo (http://us.blizzard.com/store/details.xml?id=1100001495)
Quote
World of Warcraft® Mount: Winged Guardian

When you take to the skies astride a blazing, eagle-winged lion, your comrades will know you mean business.  Serious business.  So saddle up, because this flying mount will travel as fast as your riding skill will take you, and it can even travel at 310% speed if you have at least one other 310% speed mount.

Once activated, this World of Warcraft in-game pet key applies to all present and future characters on a single North American World of Warcraft license.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on May 31, 2011, 07:10:01 PM
Purple?  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on May 31, 2011, 07:19:50 PM
That's a crappy pic; it looked dark blue in-game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on May 31, 2011, 09:11:31 PM
Ran ZG and didn't think it was too bad, doing ZA now. REVIEW TO COME I know you are waiting impatiently.

EDIT: Yeah so ZA seems simpler, compared to how it used to be, but the tricky bits (in both dungeons) are probably too tricky for PUGs at least for now, unless someone patiently explains everything every time. (In other words good luck.) The mechanics in the Z* heroics are much more raid-y than anything I've seen in a 5 man anywhere else.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on June 01, 2011, 12:20:48 AM
Thanks for the site guys - looked at it and saw how badly I'd gemmed and cringed. I must have had bloody good healers who compensated for the lack of avoidance. I'm going to re-gem tonight.

I wondered about how bad heart of thunder was but it was better than the junk I had before it dropped - heroic runs to improve it I guess.

Cheers


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on June 01, 2011, 02:36:34 AM
But... I love reforging.

Reforging is the shit. Without it, ferals wouldn't even be playable this expansion. Good-bye haste! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Edit: Holy crap askmrrobot is awesome! Rawr is, kinda meh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 01, 2011, 10:56:01 AM
I also heart reforging. BEGONE, CRIT AND MASTERY, GIVE ME MOAR HASTE.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 01, 2011, 11:16:26 AM
After dropping like 5 grand crafting and enchanting and gemming over the last 2 days, it made me sad to plug my new hammer in at the reforger and see a 40g price tag. Not that I really have a point, other than QQ I'm poor now. Having 2 specs and 3 sets of gear is annoyingly expensive.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on June 01, 2011, 12:47:15 PM
You could have up to 5 sets of gear on just 2 specs if you had a Druid.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 01, 2011, 03:38:29 PM
That's a crappy pic; it looked dark blue in-game.

Was helping a guildie with the Crucible of Carnage, noticed he had one, and was reminded of this post.  Open in new tab for full-size.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/40252/WoWScrnShot_060111_152820.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on June 03, 2011, 08:41:47 AM
Anyone have a decently friendly casual alliance guild, on a populated server? I have been itching to try Alliance for once, and with all the new leveling content it seems like a good time, but I was hoping to find some people to play with.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on June 03, 2011, 08:52:17 AM
There's always the Slap people on Doomhammer.  Not a pvp realm, however.

Plus, they're easy to ditch when you realize leveling a priest is completely shitty.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Morfiend on June 03, 2011, 09:08:33 AM
There's always the Slap people on Doomhammer.  Not a pvp realm, however.

Plus, they're easy to ditch when you realize leveling a priest is completely shitty.  :awesome_for_real:

Ahh, you know me so well Ras, I forgot to add PVP realm.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 03, 2011, 11:10:27 AM
I think at this point the only f13 Slap people playing are me, Nevermore, and Mattemeo.

EDIT: By the way, ran 6 or 7 more PUG heroics last night (non Zul), all were fine. I declare the game fixed, you can all come back now.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on June 03, 2011, 03:36:15 PM
I might get bored and use this card I have laying around at some point, but basically my plan is to wait for the next xpac and the next inevitable pally redesign, and see if I like what they come up with then.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on June 03, 2011, 03:38:59 PM
I declare the game fixed, you can all come back now.  :grin:

Still mad.   :awesome_for_real: 

I see no point until I reach my breaking/bored-now point with Rift (will probably happen 10 minutes after my first lvl 50 character  :awesome_for_real:).  Until then, I can effectively remain mad. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 03, 2011, 05:34:44 PM
It's still going to take a more public apology from Blizzard than they've been willing to admit to get me back. "See? It's easier now with gear! We promise! We were right all along! Go forth and enjoy the nerfs! PLEASE ENJOY!"

Not buying it. They are still pushing the same bullshit design in raids until proven otherwise. If 4.2 goes better, I'll return at the end of the year for 4.3 and after the Q3 conference call mea-culpa.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 03, 2011, 06:08:03 PM
You want an apology?  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 03, 2011, 06:13:30 PM
Pretty much what most who quit in anger want.   I'm only in again because of Holiday Achieves and I'm still not having a good time of it. Once I get the free epic flying on the last 2 chars I'll be out again until after I'm bored with SWTOR or the next X-pac, whichever comes first.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 03, 2011, 06:20:34 PM
I want the Evil kalgans head on a pike!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 03, 2011, 06:32:07 PM
You want an apology?  :uhrr:

Yeah. I do. From Ghostcrawler. I want his smug ass to get on his little watercooler blog and tell all the suckasses out there that the developers made a mistake. They had the best intentions, but their vision didn't really mesh with the playerbase. I want them to admit that there were unintended consequences to their design that they didn't foresee, but in the future, they want to make content that's MORE inclusive and approachable, not the opposite.

Will I get it? Nah. I'd settle for them hemming and hawing about more approachable designs, stop copying old content, and maybe fire his ass when the financials go in the shitter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on June 03, 2011, 06:40:35 PM
Your anger is misplaced entirely. It's The Evil Kalgan that is the source of your woes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on June 03, 2011, 06:52:20 PM
Ghostcrawler is still horrible at class balance, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 03, 2011, 07:58:57 PM
Ghostcrawler is still horrible at class balance, though.

From a PvE perspective, class balance could be better but it's still in a pretty good place right now if your heart isn't set on playing Unholy DK, Frost Mage, or Subtlety Rogue.

For comparisons between players using any of the 19 other damage dealing specs though, they're close enough that the better player (however you want to define that) should win out.  The same can be said in a lot of cases about tanks and healers since the last patch's raid cooldown homogenization.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 03, 2011, 08:05:56 PM
I'm trying to think of an MMO I've played that has/had better class/spec balance than current WoW and I'm not coming up with anything. Maybe LotRO is good, I haven't done any grouping there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on June 03, 2011, 09:39:18 PM
The last time I played lotro in ~2009, classes were pretty clear-cut to only focus on one role each (with few exceptions), it was very roughly like this:

Champion - good melee dps, can spec for off-tanking (equiv to a vanilla WOW warrior specced 31/5/15 and using a shield in defensive stance).
Burglar - okay melee dps, debuffs, cc, fellowship maneuvers
Hunter - good range dps, traps, debuffs
Loremaster - okay range dps, debuffs, cc, mana battery
Runekeeper - good range dps OR healer
Minstrel - okay range dps OR healer (more tools than RK)
Captain - bad melee dps, support, off-healing, off-tanking, buffs (somewhat like a vanilla WOW ret pally, with better healing/buffs)
Guardian - tank OR decent melee dps
Warden - tank OR okay ranged dps with energy issues

Basically your class defined your role for the most part -- specs didn't matter that much for most classes. The loremaster "dps spec" actually gimped your control abilities, but improved your damage. I hear that after the captain patch you can choose to spec a captain as a tank, a melee dps or a healer now, though. I do remember that if you played a warden, you *had* to tank since you'd run out of energy all the time when DPSing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 03, 2011, 09:50:34 PM
LotRO is a lot like BC-era WoW: the single-metric balance is rather poor and it has specialists that you need to bring with you in a lot of cases.

It sort of works because the game's six man groups leave more room for off-tanks/healers and debuffers and, probably more importantly, the game tries really hard to make comparative analysis consensual and basically impossible outside of coordinated groups.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on June 03, 2011, 10:24:42 PM
I'm trying to think of an MMO I've played that has/had better class/spec balance than current WoW and I'm not coming up with anything. Maybe LotRO is good, I haven't done any grouping there.

I agree with this, save the part about LotRO, of which I know little. The only bee under my bonnet, class balance wise, right now is in PvP. Healers are way Way WAY too strong right now, because with strong gear they need never worry about mana gain, and can hill themselves or others to full in literally one spell. There was a mechanic to deal with that (cough Mortal Strike cough), which wasn't perfect, but it being missing is even worse then when it was there. The only other option is down cc alley, and I think that cure may be worse then the disease.

Edit: But that's WoW PvP, so yeah, the sky is blue.

As for the apology thing, I am considering the giant raid nerf in 4.2 to be it. The guild I'm testing out right now probably won't be able to down a single boss without it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on June 04, 2011, 09:37:34 AM
You want an apology?  :uhrr:

Yeah. I do. From Ghostcrawler. I want his smug ass to get on his little watercooler blog and tell all the suckasses out there that the developers made a mistake. They had the best intentions, but their vision didn't really mesh with the playerbase. I want them to admit that there were unintended consequences to their design that they didn't foresee, but in the future, they want to make content that's MORE inclusive and approachable, not the opposite.

Will I get it? Nah. I'd settle for them hemming and hawing about more approachable designs, stop copying old content, and maybe fire his ass when the financials go in the shitter.

The devs' money hats have leaked arrogance and hubris into their brains for too long for this to happen, but it's exactly why I'm not going back until they lose their shitty attitudes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on June 04, 2011, 11:48:21 AM
You want an apology?  :uhrr:

Tarring and feathering GC would be nice, but most would settle for apology.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on June 04, 2011, 03:32:45 PM
Cataclysm killed my release-day guild and caused most of my friends to quit because they simply couldn't get people together who could complete the raid content and the heroic content wasn't fun.

Yeah, I want an apology too. WotLK was the first expansion I got to see all of the content while it was current. BC I got halfway into, Vanilla I saw nothing outside of ZG/AQ20.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: amiable on June 04, 2011, 07:36:40 PM
The only bee under my bonnet, class balance wise, right now is in PvP. Healers are way Way WAY too strong right now, because with strong gear they need never worry about mana gain, and can hill themselves or others to full in literally one spell. There was a mechanic to deal with that (cough Mortal Strike cough), which wasn't perfect, but it being missing is even worse then when it was there. The only other option is down cc alley, and I think that cure may be worse then the disease.

Edit: But that's WoW PvP, so yeah, the sky is blue.

As for the apology thing, I am considering the giant raid nerf in 4.2 to be it. The guild I'm testing out right now probably won't be able to down a single boss without it.

What healing class are you playing that can heal to full in one spell?  If I crit on a greater heal (a 2.5 second cast) a may pull out 45-50k, but thats in full pvp epics (this is as a priest).  My pally can do a full instant heal once every 10 minutes, but that has always been in the game and does not operate in arenas.  Realistically you are either casting instants, which heal for crap, or flash heals if you can avoid getting interrupted (which is pretty much impossible unless you are the jesus of juking).  Its not like healers are an offensive threat, i can keep myself up for a while against a single dps but my dps is so anemic that all the dps classes can easily self heal through it.

I can tell you now being an arena/bg healer is pure suck, as you spend all of your time stunned, silenced or slowed while a bunch of dps wails on you.   If there is anything in this game worth bitching about it is the retarded cc, I can literally spend the time of an entire arena match (30-45seconds) completely locked down.  (fingers of frost----> trinket out ------> blinded------> circle of frost ------> fear --------> counterspell  -------> stunned).  I have teams at the 1500 bracket pulling these kind of combos off, its retarded.

The only time healing is op is in some of the bgs, where you can stack3-4 healers on a tank and hold a flag forever.  Then it becomes just retarded.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on June 04, 2011, 09:05:08 PM
Holy pally. 3 Holy Power Word of Glory, maybe another free one from Eternal Glory, which of course uses no mana and is instant.

Maybe it's just one of those things where being on the other side of the fence gives you a different perspective, but as a 'dps' in BGs, seeing someone you have spent the last twenty or seconds, plus using all your cooldowns, go right back to full. In wouldn't even be that that bad, but for the way the shitty pvp systems are designed. I can't say how many Warsong Gulchs I've been in where the flag carriers are healers, and they are simply unkillable.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 04, 2011, 09:29:36 PM
The unkillable flag carrier definitely has more than one healer.  I've been taken-down by teams in the same manner Amiable just outlined 5 times just today. 

Also, don't underestimate the power of Resilience.  I was able to keep a mage up vs 3 DPS earlier today, not because of my uber heals, but because he had resil out the ass.  They couldn't touch him for shit, and it wasn't until they CC' chained  me or got half the team on him that he finally went down.

What I'm continually surprised about is the Alliance PUGs i keep encountering being able to chain rotate CC's like they're on vent and having 3 or more healers per BG.   Meanwhile I'm usually the only healer on Horde and CC?  Pft I haven't seen a sheep with a red tag or a DK specced for that ice tomb in weeks.   Everyone tosses out those damned ice rings, though.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/zuljin/senjadra/simple - Me
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/baelgun/waltdisney/simple - The Mage


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 04, 2011, 10:23:51 PM
My paladin healer can carry the flag pretty well in his honor-only suit, but it isn't unless he has a second healer strapped to his ass that he really shines, because only half the team is trying to kill me, the other half is trying to kill my healer.

I'm better not carrying the flag anyway, either I get to merrily heal the flag carrier, or I get to kite a bunch of the opposing team away from the flag carrier because they have their OMG KILL THE PALADIN blinders on.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on June 04, 2011, 11:04:40 PM
I never doubt the power of resiliance. One of the problems with resiliance is that healers (and healees) benefit double from it so to speak. When pvp gear gets better, your damage increases, but so does others ability to negate it. There is no scaling negation to healing, it just increases. I was fine with this at the start of the Xpac, when I could at least see the healers mana go down as they healed the shit out of everyone. But that's not the case anymore. Resto Druids and Holy Pallies are the worst offenders in this case. I want mortal strike put back the way it was, and I don't even have a class that uses it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 04, 2011, 11:20:19 PM
Holy paladins are gettin' nerfed next patch mana-wise, although I doubt it'll make a huge difference in PvP. But who knows?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: amiable on June 05, 2011, 03:24:49 AM
As someone who plays a holy pally and a dsic priest in pvp i can tell you a holy pally is quite literally the worst healer.  You are substantially overstating their burst healing capabilities, a 3 powered wog might heal for 20-30k if you are lucky (much more if you are ret and specced into, but they can only do that to other players and only once every 20 seconds).  WOG also relies on holy power generation which can be slow.

The real weakness of pallies is their vulnerability to interrupts and cc and their lack of hots and instant heals outside wog.  Once they blow their bubble and aura mastery they are sitting ducks to a dps who knows the first thing about interrupts.  BG/Arena healing is much easier on a disc priest who can frontload healing through hots, healing chain and shields.

If you are having trouble with pally healers you or your partners need to learn to time interrupts/cc better.

Now in rated BG's pallies are much better because when you team them with 2-3 other healers they can't be taken down and are annoyingly survivable.  In arenas they are a joke.

Edit:  what class are you playing btw?  Sounds like a non-marks hunter, they do the worst against healers due to the lack of interrupts.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on June 05, 2011, 03:32:13 AM
This must be the disconnect. I should have specified lol, I don't do arenas. Everything I'm talking about is in reference to BGs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: amiable on June 05, 2011, 03:40:07 AM
This must be the disconnect. I should have specified lol, I don't do arenas. Everything I'm talking about is in reference to BGs.

Do you play with a team in rated or are you running solo, because if you are running solo, yes healers are annoying, because most of the dumbfucks who play this game STILL haven't learned to kill the healer first.  

Edit:  one other observation:  the games where healers are competent and there are a lot of them are really annoying, but I bet you do not even notice them in games where competent dps that are cc/interrupting them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on June 05, 2011, 09:42:25 AM
Killing a holy paladin that doesn't want to die has almost always been a fool's errand.  In Wrath, I'd go tooling around doing dailies in an honor suit, and have three allies try to kill me, to no avail.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 05, 2011, 12:57:49 PM
I honestly get used to never being truly interupted (I'll sometimes get CC'd in the middle of a heal) and then once in a while there will be a rogue or DK or warrior who knows wtf they're doing and I'm totally fucked. I love that *I* have an interupt on my paladin. Once in a while I'll run up to a disc priest or whatever and interupt them. It feels good. Plus I'm a BE, so I can follow that with my bullshit silence when they try again.  :grin:

You'll never get me in an arena again, though. I loathed it back in TBC, and I am certain I would loathe it today.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 05, 2011, 03:53:26 PM
Heh I'm totally the same was Sojfn.  Then after the silence, throw your stun hammer on 'em just to truly piss em off.

I also love judging Justice from 40+ yards in WSG.  FLag carriers have no idea wtf just happened to them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on June 05, 2011, 04:22:07 PM
Sorry to interrupt the PVP talk...

My latest guild officially quit the raiding scene yet again with even more people leaving due to RL issues.  Kind of sucky.  I enjoy playing this game when others are on to talk to, but now everyone has left and it's a ghost town.  I don't have an alliance guild so playing those characters isn't as fun as the horde ones I've had for 5+ years.  Starting over on another server... again...?  I'm not sure if it's the expansion or people just changing stages of life, but it feels like I have little reason to log in anymore and my fun is now gone.  It's a shame too because I used to enjoy playing, even during vanilla and TBC ages of stupid class\raid mechanics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on June 05, 2011, 10:36:18 PM
Both adoption and abandonment in mmorpgs are processes with a lot of momentum due to social aspect of the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 06, 2011, 01:46:17 PM
I think at this point the only f13 Slap people playing are me, Nevermore, and Mattemeo.

EDIT: By the way, ran 6 or 7 more PUG heroics last night (non Zul), all were fine. I declare the game fixed, you can all come back now.  :grin:

I even ran a full PUG Zul'Gurub last night and it wasn't horrifying, as well as some mostly-pug Zul'whatevers over the weekend. Also people have been generally nicer than I remember from the past, except for one guy in a ZA run. Maybe I won't miss many of the people who quit (in a general sense that is)?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on June 06, 2011, 05:47:22 PM
I used my free week when they gave it to me and tried a few troll instances on my mage. The first one (ZA) went alright with a few wipes but every run (2 ZA, 2 ZG) after that was a revolving door of tanks and healers and hours spent just trying to get halfway through, with the usual accompanying jackassery that goes with a dysfunctional run.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on June 06, 2011, 06:32:46 PM
I'm actually totally cool with ZA and ZG, cause I don't HAVE to do them. I can run normal face rolling heroics all day, and never set foot inside there. Will I miss out on VP? Sure, but it's worth it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on June 06, 2011, 09:48:17 PM
I ran zg/za a lot along with a whole lot of 'normal' heroics about a month ago as a tank (to get some worth out of my sub before it lapsed), pugging all the way. There were a few wipes in the troll instances (and I had to use my new DK battlerez liberally  :awesome_for_real:), but it was surprisingly smooth otherwise, and I never had to abandon a run. I think the pug booted a clueless dps once after he kept hitting the wrong targets (his dps was pretty bad too, 3k or so) and couldn't stand in the right spot on jindo, but that was the extent of all the 'meanness' / votekicking that I've experienced. Actually I think the only boss that really needs everyone to be on the ball is jindo in ZG. Of course playing a tank helped, since I was able to control one of the group factors that has the possibility to go terribly wrong.  :why_so_serious:

Normal heroics were almost faceroll except for the instant-kill mechanics (stonecore and brc are the main culprits here). No CC or anything, most of the time I didn't even need to bother with marking. So yeah, I think people are getting to the gear level where things can be bruteforced, but it's still not near what WOTLK used to be.

(for ref, my character is a blood DK in blue 346 gear to start, along with 3 pieces of 333 stuff and the epic archeology sword... I picked up a lot of troll epics and VP epics by the time my sub ran out)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on June 06, 2011, 09:58:58 PM
Stonecore is an insta dodge for me, as a tank or DPS. So is Deadmines, but that is because I hate that dungeon.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 06, 2011, 10:06:01 PM
Actually I think the only boss that really needs everyone to be on the ball is jindo in ZG.

The other one that comes to mind is the chick with the ascendant guys and the beams to stand in, that one still is too much for some people to grok.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on June 06, 2011, 11:13:55 PM
Yeah, there's a reason I mentioned brc in the instakill list. Thankfully she is doable if 3 people know how to do beams. As a tank I usually end up taking one of the beams, and the healer usually knows how to do it as well, and one dps usually pipes up to volunteer for the last one. If not, they usually get it after the first or second wipe  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on June 07, 2011, 05:06:21 AM
I'd probably come back, but I just don't have the time to make a sub worthwhile. If I could drop a couple hundred on a lifetime sub and then never worry about it again I'd probably do that and login a couple of times a week, but I just don't have the time right now. Having study on top of fulltime work is painful. Besides, I have a giant pile of xbox and steam games to plow through in the limited time I have.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pantastic on June 07, 2011, 11:58:22 AM
Yeah, there's a reason I mentioned brc in the instakill list. Thankfully she is doable if 3 people know how to do beams. As a tank I usually end up taking one of the beams, and the healer usually knows how to do it as well, and one dps usually pipes up to volunteer for the last one. If not, they usually get it after the first or second wipe  :why_so_serious:

Ahh, the things you learn in PUGs - you can get away with just 2 people on the beams. all you have to do is let one Zealot mutate, then kill him, then switch back to the boss. One zealot at a time is easy to manage even with low gear, it's having multiples and not controlling them that wipes you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 07, 2011, 07:09:38 PM
Players getting themselves mutated is another cause of wipes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 07, 2011, 07:13:41 PM
I'm going to consider it a miracle if they get 4.2 with just the one raid in it out before July 4th weekend.

Looks like they'll just make it as the current PvP season ends 21 June, maybe a week later (source (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2880562)).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 07, 2011, 08:22:39 PM
Players getting themselves mutated is another cause of wipes.

That's what usually kills my PUGs, yeah.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 07, 2011, 10:24:07 PM
1 player fucking up once and then 3 others ragequitting the group instead of explaining what went wrong and trying again are what usually does it for me.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on June 07, 2011, 10:40:45 PM
Uuuuuusually someone will fuck up, it will get explained, someone will fuck up again, THEN the ragequits happen in my experience.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 07, 2011, 10:44:36 PM
4.2 probably set for June 21st. Link (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2592648951?page=1#1).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on June 07, 2011, 10:49:34 PM
My personal favorite was a tank joining a ZA run and immediately leaving after seeing the timer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on June 08, 2011, 03:19:04 AM
I have almost everything I want as a prot paladin doing ZA/ZG - am I bad person for considering a ninja of the 2H for my ret gear even if there is a DK/Warr in the group?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 08, 2011, 04:08:55 AM
I'd take issue with that unless a) the person wanting "off-spec" gear said they were going after that at the beginning of the run or b) the person who's role that gear goes with is okay with it.

I'm generally cool with someone rolling on, and taking, gear outside their role that I also want as long as I'm asked first and they're not going after something "bad" for them (Hunter wanting something with Expertise, Mage/Warlock wanting Spirit).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 08, 2011, 10:55:06 AM
I have almost everything I want as a prot paladin doing ZA/ZG - am I bad person for considering a ninja of the 2H for my ret gear even if there is a DK/Warr in the group?

I would probably cry a little if someone stole my hammer, yeah.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on June 08, 2011, 01:50:18 PM
Yeah - that was my original thought - but there have been cases of plate wearers rolling on tanking plate that I needed and winning it when I was the tank. I know two wrongs etc but this is becoming the norm, not the exception - last night was the kicker when a fury warrior rolled on the prot legs at the end of ZA AFTER he'd just got 3 other DPS pieces.

I have not hit the "fuck them all" point :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 08, 2011, 01:59:20 PM
My general rule is I'll roll need on the stuff for my other spec (whichever one I'm not using at the time) only if the person who is there using it doesn't (that sentence could be clearer probably), but yeah there are always those people who just roll if they can.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 11, 2011, 08:02:46 AM
Nerf to the VP cap just got posted per week.  :oh_i_see:

Yeah, they totally get it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 11, 2011, 08:29:48 AM
For a raider, it's pretty much the same thing as the current tier: full* clear + 3-4 Heroics gets you cap.  (Yes, you could cap Valor if you killed all 14 bosses in a 25m, but a) Sinestra and b) who the hell bothered with Throne?)
For a purely non-raider, you can max Valor income just from running ZA/ZG.

I think it's a good set-up.  Non-raiders can cap Valor income now and it keeps at least some raiders in the Dungeon Finder pool for a while.  Maybe it's just the patch being soon, but Chicago's Horde-side queues are pretty constantly on tank or tank/healer Call to Arms at this point.

For reference (http://www.wowheadnews.com/blog=190695/patch-4-2-public-test-realm-notes-updated-6-10):

Quote
The maximum number of Valor Points which can be earned in a week from any and all applicable dungeons and raids is now 980, down from 1250.
The maximum number of Valor Points awarded for completing Rise of the Zandalari dungeons remains at 980.
The maximum number of Valor Points awarded for completing Heroic dungeons remains at 490.
The number of Valor Points awarded for killing a boss in the Firelands is 70 in 10-player mode, and 90 in 25-player mode.
The number of Valor Points awarded for killing Occu'thar in Baradin Hold is 35 in 10-player mode, and 45 in 25-player mode.
The number of Valor Points awarded for killing a boss on Heroic difficulty in The Bastion of Twilight, Blackwing Descent, and Throne of the Four Winds is 35 in 10-player mode, and 45 in 25-player mode.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 11, 2011, 08:57:44 AM
Surely this reduces the difference between raiders and non-raiders in terms of gearing up speed?

How is that a bad thing?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on June 11, 2011, 09:03:27 AM
It looked like an across the board nerf to me. It's only neutral if you don't play enough to cap out under the current system. Unless I'm remembering wrong, I thought it was already possible to cap out doing nothing but 5 mans.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 11, 2011, 09:06:55 AM
No, they lowered the old cap to the current 5-man-only cap.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 11, 2011, 10:11:49 AM
Surely this reduces the difference between raiders and non-raiders in terms of gearing up speed?

How is that a bad thing?

Because Blizzard is trying to gate their content even more since they are lagging on the development. The move from "Faster patch = better" became "We're also going to put in a heroic cap" to "Oh by the way, we've going to slow down your rate gains." If you don't like the ZA/ZG dungeons? No problem, you'll just earn your gear a few months later now.

The whole thing just screams that they can't keep up, so they're going to slow everyone else down with invisible walls.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 11, 2011, 10:21:51 AM
It certainly screams "omg we can't keep up," to me as well.  If that weren't the case they could have upped the cap for non-raiders to match the raider cap if they wanted to create equality in terms of earned points per week.  Nerfing it downward means "shit, we need to slow down how fast people gear up and therefore get bored."

It's both a good and a bad thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 11, 2011, 10:29:16 AM
The whole thing just screams that they can't keep up, so they're going to slow everyone else down with invisible walls.

Valor income can be maxed from the start of the cycle in 4.2.  To get the same number of Valor Points before 4.1, you'd have to kill seven 10m raid bosses a week and do your random heroic every day.

If prices stay constant this is a reduction in both total income and weekly income at the backend of the content cycle, yes.  But Valor now is a lot less valuable than it was when you were under 6/12.  It's a reach to call this "more content gating" for everyone outside of high-end 25m raiders.  For a lot of players (myself included), it's a net gain in more ways than one.

Edit: Clarity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 11, 2011, 10:39:56 AM
This is not a current nerf caladein, this is a change coming in 4.2. How is valor going to be less valuable? New gear is coming to the valor vendor that is on par with the Firelands loot. It's not like they're nerfing the valor income to stop people from buying 359s, because those are all moving down to the justice vendor.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 11, 2011, 10:47:19 AM
I fail to see how it's a gain unless they are lowering prices of gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 11, 2011, 10:56:39 AM
It's more valuable to have 980 points/week from the very beginning when you have few sources of current gear (T12) than it is to have a slightly higher 1250 points/week cap that you can't approach until you're doing normal clears (T11).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 11, 2011, 11:05:30 AM
You're assuming many people weren't getting to cap over the standard week. If you were, this sucks. If you weren't, indifferent. Caps only effect the top end. The "value" of each point is irrelevant because they aren't tradable.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on June 11, 2011, 11:59:35 AM
I don't think this change is a big deal.  As a raider, I'm going to get more gear from boss drops then I am the vp vendor anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on June 11, 2011, 12:12:58 PM
There are only seven bosses so getting your gear from them is going to be slower too.  And now you'll have to wait three weeks to buy one 2200 piece from valor.  They are most definitely trying to slow progression down to cover the fact that there is so little to do.  We'll probably be stuck with this through the rest of the year.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on June 11, 2011, 12:16:45 PM
Yeah but you also had the loot spread out among 12 bosses.  Half the bosses didn't even drop anything worthwhile in this tier for me. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: WindupAtheist on June 11, 2011, 05:45:36 PM
Quote from: Patch Notes
New PvP ground mounts, the Vicious War Wolf (Horde) and Vicious War Steed (Alliance), will be awarded to players for completing achievements to win 75, 150, and 300 Rated Battlegrounds respectively, rather than for being in the top .5% of the ladder at the end of each season as with Arenas. This award system is to better compliment the spirit of Battlegrounds.

"What will it take to make you motherfuckers DO THESE?!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 11, 2011, 07:37:10 PM
Let me queue randomly for them and I'll do them. The draw of PVP over PVE for me is the lower logistical requirement. Hell, even allowing teams of 5 would be a step in the right direction. Also, allow us to fight cross faction (give one team illusions if you want to pretend the lorelol still matters) so queues aren't 30+ minutes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 11, 2011, 08:15:32 PM
Same faction RBGs should already be in (source (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2732038)).

I also wanted RBGs to be random matchmaking based from the off, but figuring out fair metrics would have been a hassle, especially if Blizzard hasn't kept detailed statistics so to make some kind of win shares system not a total shot in the dark.  Would have been nice though :heartbreak:.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 11, 2011, 08:20:52 PM
Quote from: Patch Notes
New PvP ground mounts, the Vicious War Wolf (Horde) and Vicious War Steed (Alliance), will be awarded to players for completing achievements to win 75, 150, and 300 Rated Battlegrounds respectively, rather than for being in the top .5% of the ladder at the end of each season as with Arenas. This award system is to better compliment the spirit of Battlegrounds.

"What will it take to make you motherfuckers DO THESE?!"

"Don't you get it? These are FUN! GO HAVE FUN! Here's a pony."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on June 12, 2011, 01:39:17 AM
How much valor do you typically get from one heroic clear?

How much does a piece of decent armour cost?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on June 12, 2011, 02:09:30 AM
How much valor do you typically get from one heroic clear?

How much does a piece of decent armour cost?
Not sure exactly on the math, but if you were capable of full clearing the current tier of raid content on normal as a 25 man group (ie, all BWD / BoT / To4W / BH) that usually capped you on valor for the week (you might have needed to run maybe 1 normal heroic, but I dont think so).   Full clearing it as a 10 man group might require one ZA heroic or 2 Regular Heroics to Full Cap.

A typical piece of gear could cost between 1200 (capes, rings, trinkets) up to around 2200 for Chest / Pants Tier pieces.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on June 12, 2011, 03:05:48 AM
When/if I come back I won't be running any raids. Last time around (at the end of LK, before the Sundering) I'd run 2-4 Heroics per night for fun and profit. I'm wondering how many typical heroics it'd take to hit their weekly cap. I have to say, taking 3 weeks to get a piece of armour due to points capping doesn't exactly fill me with a burning desire to come back.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 12, 2011, 03:53:32 AM
For non-raiders the weekly VP cap isn't changing. It's still 980 a week. You get 140 VP for a ZA/ZG clear and 70 VP for any other heroic dungeon clear. You only get VP rewards for 7 of each dungeon type per week, so if you only do non-troll heroics then you'll only get 490 VP/week.

The only people this current change will affect is people who were clearing raids each week.

Also, the current VP gear (359 iLvl) is moving to JP vendors with 4.2 and you can get JPs a lot faster. You can only have 4000 JPs maximum at one time but I don't think there's a weekly cap on acquisition, someone please correct me if that's wrong.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 12, 2011, 05:21:45 AM
Yes, Justice/Honor have an overall cap but no weekly cap.  Valor/Conquest do not have an overall cap but do have a weekly cap.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 12, 2011, 05:57:58 AM
When/if I come back I won't be running any raids. Last time around (at the end of LK, before the Sundering) I'd run 2-4 Heroics per night for fun and profit. I'm wondering how many typical heroics it'd take to hit their weekly cap. I have to say, taking 3 weeks to get a piece of armour due to points capping doesn't exactly fill me with a burning desire to come back.

Remember that VP are for current-tier pieces of armor.   If all you ran were Heroics you always had a VP cap, even in WOTLK. You'd only get Vp/Badges for the first random heroic you'd run that day and that meant you were 'capped' at 25 badges a week at a time that armor cost 63 badges, so it still took non-raiders ~3 weeks to get a piece of current-tier gear.

Where a cap would suck is on Justice points for 2nd tier gear.  There isn't a cap there.

Also, there *is* a nice change from WOTLK in that the top-tier was changed so you have to run 7 dungeons a week, not one every day.  So if you only have time to play 3 days a week, you can run all 7 dungeons in those 3 days and still get as many points as someone running one every day.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on June 12, 2011, 09:32:58 AM
How much valor do you typically get from one heroic clear?

How much does a piece of decent armour cost?

Enough that after less than two months of raiding, I"m looking at ways to get rid of VP--like hawking BoE boots on the AH every week. Or every other. Of course, I ran a LOT of heroics, but after I had the T11 I wanted and some select off pieces, I was basically turning VP into gold.

I'm not really seeing a problem with the new caps and I'm strictly 10man at this point. I rarely hit the VP cap anyway, and frankly couldn't care less. I got enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 12, 2011, 06:25:44 PM
When/if I come back I won't be running any raids. Last time around (at the end of LK, before the Sundering) I'd run 2-4 Heroics per night for fun and profit. I'm wondering how many typical heroics it'd take to hit their weekly cap. I have to say, taking 3 weeks to get a piece of armour due to points capping doesn't exactly fill me with a burning desire to come back.



You actually get more out of doing multiple heroics in one night now than you did in the LK model, don't worry. The valor point reward is calcluated off a weekly cap rather than a once-per-day-only thing, so say if you only logged in once that week you're getting 2-4 times the reward in the 'better' points than you would otherwise. You'll also still pile up justice points at the same rate regardless, and those can be turned into honor, crafting mats, heirlooms, etc., once you already have all the gear you need from those.

Basically the system is overall better than it used to be for everyone but full-clear raiders.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on June 12, 2011, 08:49:37 PM

KK thanks for explaining, guys


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 18, 2011, 07:59:55 AM
Those authenticator changes look to have had some other changes on the back end, too.  I now get this message when zoning from Org to TH:

"You have been disconnected from Battle.net"  "you are now connected to battle.net"   I'd never seen that before today.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 18, 2011, 08:04:31 AM
I've been getting that for a couple of months, don't think it's related to the authenticator changes. Also when RealID friends get a d/c I always see them disappear from battle.net 10-20 seconds before they disappear in-game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 18, 2011, 10:10:48 AM
Yeah, that's just something that comes up every once in a while.  Been happening since they added in RealID.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 18, 2011, 11:19:16 PM
I seem to have got myself into a strange situation with guilds and raids...

The guild that most of my characters is in is an ancient friends & family guild with 4 active members and 4 rarely-active ones. We don't raid as a guild. So the 3 of us that wanted to raid all joined another guild with 1 character each and are now raiding twice a week with them.

That guild is currently stuck on Nef and the guild leader is insistent that we persevere, extending the lockout each week, until we down him. This is obviously taking a toll on people and we're all getting bored of it. So, some of us have started not attending the Nef wipefests and helping out with some other guilds raids when they're missing a person or two, with alts of ours (so our cranky obsessive guild leader doesn't bitch at us for not being overjoyed at the idea of another 15 wipes on Nef).

Some of these other alt-runs have been really fun, made good progress and have had a lot of nice people in them that I've gotten on with.

So I now have raid invites in my calendars, on various alts, from 4 different guilds.  :uhrr:

I can't leave the original guild with any more characters, we really want to keep it alive and for it to be a safe haven for the semi-active members who are friends/family/partners. I can't pull my priest out of the raiding guild we joined since the other 2 friends who joined it with me aren't classes that are needed by any of the other guilds that are trying to recruit me. I *can't* raid more then 2-3 nights a week, it's just too much. But I don't think I can face another 2 weeks of Nef wipes and bitching from people on vent.

I think what I'm going to have to do is try and initiate a discussion about how a) banging our heads on a brick wall with Nef is a bad idea and how we might actually progress further if we gear the raid up a bit more by farming earlier bosses and b) how being stressy and blaming people on vent for Nef failures is driving us away.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 18, 2011, 11:34:45 PM
Point a) seems incredibly obvious and I would hope the raid leader will listen to you on that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on June 18, 2011, 11:35:09 PM
The guild I was with used to extend the lockout every so often if we felt we were close but eventually we realized that nobody liked doing that so we just stopped extending it ever under any circumstances. Not only is it more fun than hoping for a perfect storm attempt you also get some more upgrades with which you can use against the boss that was cockblocking you. Hopefully your GL will see sense. If it's one of those wannabe-hardcore GLs, then god help you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 19, 2011, 12:07:50 AM
She's definitely not hardcore wannabe - one of the reasons we were attracted to this particular guild was their proclamation of being family-friendly and having a policy of real life always coming before wow.

I think one of the problems is that she's the main tank and specifically wants a trinket from Nef... and actually said once, before one of the pulls "trinket for MT ofc"... which was met with a kind of stunned silence (and then a wipe, lol), and hasn't been repeated since!

But yeah, if we don't down him tonight I'll start the discussion and do everything I can to keep it a friendly discussion. Cos I'm good at that, Mr Diplomacy me. </green text>


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 19, 2011, 06:31:00 AM
Well in 2 weeks Nef (and the rest of the current raid content) is getting a 20% nerf and you guys should be able to down him, so the situation can't go on for much longer.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 19, 2011, 08:05:25 AM
Thanks fuck for that.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on June 19, 2011, 08:09:49 AM
Yeah I just would stick with the guild on nef, after 4.2 it will be much easier.  The extensions could be more of a pride thing than the trinket, she probably wants to get it done before the nerfs hit.  The 20% nerf could almost be considered a 40% nerf since the health pools are being reduced by 20% and the damage output is reduced by 20%.

I think it will be interesting to see if most guilds switch to two healing t11 instead of using three.  I imagine t12 will still need three healers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2011, 12:50:30 PM
There's released another post about how you can get new shiney awesome mounts if you do those rated battlegrounds. We already knew about the desperation to get people to do rated BGs, but I think the language of the post was extremely funny.

Quote
In order to best accommodate players under the unique play style of Rated Battlegrounds, we’ll be offering all-new PvP ground mounts -- the Vicious War Wolf (Horde) or Vicious War Steed (Alliance) -- in a unique way. If you want to sit your knickers on these sweet new rides come patch 4.2, Rage of the Firelands, you must earn achievements for winning either 75, 150, or 300 Rated Battlegrounds.

"Unique" is Blizzard's new buzz word for "shitty." Also, since when is grinding wins a unique way of rewarding people?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 20, 2011, 01:03:30 PM
What they mean by the latter 'unique' is 'only from rated BGs.'


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 20, 2011, 01:04:40 PM
Raid leader listened to reason, I think she was getting tired of it too. We did a fresh run of BoT and downed 3 bosses and had a really fun night in the end. I suck, really REALLY hard at avoiding the big pink deep breath on V&T however  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2011, 01:19:15 PM
What they mean by the latter 'unique' is 'only from rated BGs.'

That's still not unique, even if that is the case.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 20, 2011, 01:21:30 PM
Welcome to marketing-speak!

It sure is better hearing this stuff than what GC actually thinks, am I rite?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2011, 01:33:10 PM
Anything that keeps GC from speaking to the public can only be good for society at large.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on June 20, 2011, 01:38:22 PM
I think one of the problems is that she's the main tank and specifically wants a trinket from Nef... and actually said once, before one of the pulls "trinket for MT ofc"... which was met with a kind of stunned silence (and then a wipe, lol), and hasn't been repeated since!
Wait, what?

Is she a druid? Cause I cant possibly think of any reason why a tank (of any sort) would want the Prestors, and even for a Druid it is pretty damn sub optimal.  Essence of the Cyclone off of Halfus would be a better trinket for a druid tank (and easier to get too), since the Haste Proc off of Prestor's is almost completely useless to a Druid tank (haste is currently the worst stat for feral tanks, even ranking under Hit / Expertise).  Hell, Heroic Tia's Grace (from 5 man Lost City) is a superior trinket to either, since it gives more total Agility, and has Mastery which can be reforged to dodge.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 20, 2011, 01:42:23 PM
Yeah that is a little baffling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 20, 2011, 02:19:38 PM
She's a warrior. Maybe it was shield she said (or meant). I honestly can't remember since it was said *just* as she pulled and we were all kinda preoccupied with the ensuing wipe attempt. Either way, when we do get the kill if there's any preferential allocation of loot it'll cause a shitstorm and there Will Be Drama, so I hope that doesn't happen.

I'll let you know when we finally get the kill. Probably around September  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 20, 2011, 02:22:16 PM
Nobody is likely to kick up a fuss over the shield, it is itemized slightly better than the other options for a protection warrior but 359 shields are quite easy to come by. (It does look a lot cooler.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on June 20, 2011, 03:44:29 PM
75 wins for the mount? That's not too bad... still, I don't know more than 1-2 guildies that would have any interest in rated BGs. 20 wins might have been a low-enough hanging fruit for me to bother since the mount is nice, but I'll continue to just play League of Legends for now :p


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 20, 2011, 03:51:34 PM
It's nearly 4 months if you follow the Arena model of 5 a week..  And it has to be wins, not just matches played. So yeah, fuck that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on June 20, 2011, 04:01:26 PM
I think that 5 a week (or whatever it is) is just the maximum you can do each week for conquest points. I expect you could keep running Rated BGs for as long as you wanted, as long as you weren't expecting conquest points. If I were going to try for the mount, I'd probably try to get 10-20 wins a week.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2011, 04:04:15 PM
She's a warrior. Maybe it was shield she said (or meant). I honestly can't remember since it was said *just* as she pulled and we were all kinda preoccupied with the ensuing wipe attempt. Either way, when we do get the kill if there's any preferential allocation of loot it'll cause a shitstorm and there Will Be Drama, so I hope that doesn't happen.

I'll let you know when we finally get the kill. Probably around September  :why_so_serious:

It's definitely the shield. Speaking as a former warrior tank / RL the shields are ALWAYS the hardest thing to get your hands on and they seem to love to put them on the last fucking guy.

Still, I question why she'd be waiting on that shield you could buy an almost identical BoE and not deal with all the bullshit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 20, 2011, 04:08:37 PM
Blockade's is stupidly expensive, the crafted has hit instead of parry, and the other choice requires grinding archaeology - but yeah. Really minor difference, and the crafted is really easy to come by.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on June 20, 2011, 04:10:49 PM
Blockades is only like 10 grand or something. Come on!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on June 20, 2011, 04:25:20 PM
I probably spent about... 35k on BoEs  for my rogue in Cata. I mean, I was getting the mats for Belt of Nefarious Whispers without even trying and then turning them around for 5-6k each, so I had plenty of gold coming in. And really, what else are you going to blow gold on? There hasn't been any luxury worth saving for since TBC when epic flying took a long time to save for.

I'd spend 10k on a shield upgrade without a second thought, but I'd probably hold off at this point considering how close 4.2 and new/easy loot is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 20, 2011, 04:35:59 PM
Raid level enchants on my server cost over 1k each, there is plenty to spend on. I'm certainly not going to drop over 10k on a shield that's a very slight upgrade from the crafted option.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on June 20, 2011, 04:42:07 PM
What raid level enchants are you seeing for over 1k? Landslide? If so, those enchants are actually pretty easy to make with ZG/ZA. I usually walk away from each run with 1-2 crystals, and the enchant only takes 6 iirc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 20, 2011, 04:44:07 PM
What raid level enchants are you seeing for over 1k? Landslide? If so, those enchants are actually pretty easy to make with ZG/ZA. I usually walk away from each run with 1-2 crystals, and the enchant only takes 6 iirc.

Every single enchant that uses maelstrom crystals is over 1k on Doomhammer/Alliance. The big strength enchant to bracers, the 65 crit to cloak, etc. etc. etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on June 20, 2011, 04:48:16 PM
Like I said, those enchants are pretty easy to get the mats for yourself, and then it's just a matter of finding someone with the recipe (hopefully a guild member). Even then, 1k would be very easy to make back if you did just end up buying them.

I maintain that there is still nothing worth saving up gold for in Cata

Except for BoEs  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 20, 2011, 04:53:28 PM
Not enough enchanters of high enough level running ZG/ZA probably.   It'll get better as folks get access to T11 gear via JP and can run those dungeons faster/ more reliably I'd think.

Of course MC are cheaper right now if by "Cheaper" you accept 500/ crystal instead of 900 'cheap.'


There is, indeed, no purpose to gold other than having it or saving it up for the next xp so you can buy up mats and level profs so you can... save it and buy up mats to level profs.

My Alliance chars had 25k just sitting there with nothing to do with it, and my Horde Pally's got 1500 sitting around by just doing daily bgs or dungeons for the last week now that I'm done profession leveling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 20, 2011, 04:53:50 PM
Depends on how much you value your time. 25 dailies is ~625 gold and probably takes a couple hours for an average character. We'll call it 2. So that 10k shield (I seem to recall seeing it for more like 15 but we'll go with 10 for the sake of simplicity) is 16 hours of dailies. I'm not going to spend 16 hours worth of money on a difference of like 60 parry vs. just reforging the crafted. That's not sensible unless you're a student or something. Even then it probably isn't sensible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on June 20, 2011, 04:57:46 PM
Dailies are a terribly inefficient way to earn gold. Good professions and the AH, as always, are the easiest way to get gold.

I'd expect 10k to take me about 3-4 hours of gameplay to earn. Most of that would be combining mats between characters, AH stuff, and maybe some light farming. For example, one of the easier ways to earn gold on my server is to prospect ore, cut/sell the rares you get, and then have an alchemist turn the green gems into good rares. Bad gems just get vendored. It's pretty easy to make a few hundred gold for about 10 minutes of work with this method, and it's not one that requires access to heroics or raids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on June 20, 2011, 05:00:35 PM
Indeed, I made 10k in unspent opportunity cost by crafting myself a nearly-comparable shield.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 20, 2011, 07:03:20 PM
Of course MC are cheaper right now if by "Cheaper" you accept 500/ crystal instead of 900 'cheap.'
Ouch. On Andorhal, Maelstrom Crystals are in the 100-200g range.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on June 20, 2011, 07:44:54 PM
75 wins for the mount? That's not too bad... still, I don't know more than 1-2 guildies that would have any interest in rated BGs. 20 wins might have been a low-enough hanging fruit for me to bother since the mount is nice, but I'll continue to just play League of Legends for now :p
One of the neat things which they mentioned, is that you get your FIRST mount at 75 (i think), then every milestone achieve after that (150, 225 wins i think) you get ANOTHER mount, which are Bind on Account, so if you are a hardcore Rated BGer you can deck your alts out with the things also.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on June 20, 2011, 07:55:44 PM
Further PVP bitching... I'm now at 73 wins for 191 battlegrounds on my horde char.  This is not fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on June 20, 2011, 11:04:37 PM
Looking at the loot table for Nef then whatever it was she said she wanted makes no sense really. If it was the trinket she's insane, if it was the shield then there was no need to say it cos nobody else would want it anyway. The only things that she could possible want to "reserve" would be shoulders or token. She does speak incredibly quietly (despite everyone having her on +800% boost in Vent) with a strong Scandinavian accent so who knows, she might have actually said what a lovely day it was in Sweden.

Completely agree about the uselessness of gold now. I've somehow managed to end up with over 150k spread between my alts. I now have a max-skilled crafter of every profession which saves a lot of money. Any crafting mats that get picked up on any character are useful so it makes gemming, enchanting and BiS crafted items effectively free most of the time. If you do need to grind some gold then I find gathering the easiest way. Just farming whiptail in Uldum will get you ~2k/hour depending on prices on your server and how close you are to the Darkmoon Faire week :)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on June 23, 2011, 08:28:42 AM
Mmo-champion has been down for a day or so, and I'm not venturing into the official forums. Are there any other dev trackers/news sites out there that don't suck?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 23, 2011, 10:20:39 AM
http://www.wowhead.com/bluetracker (http://www.wowhead.com/bluetracker)?

I just use it for US RSS feed though, but it seems broadly similar to MMO-C's layout.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jimbo on July 04, 2011, 05:57:18 AM
I just finally got a character to level 85 after playing from launch (yeah call me a slacker), how they hell do you all have so much gold?  I still haven't gotten enough for the fast mount.  I was frustrated with Cata at the beginning because I couldn't do any of the random dungeons when I hit level 81 (gear got me), so I just did the content and leveled to 85 and finally got enough gear to go back to LFD.  I am pretty happy with my mage, Ice is awesome for PvP and solo questing, and Arcane is great for dungeons.  I am behind the curve on pvp gear, damn gonna be 2 grinds, one to get pve gear and one for pvp.

I am still having fun, part because I do it so casually, from pick up groups for dungeons, battlegrounds, questing, or looking for materials for enchanting and tailoring.  I have thought about farming some of the lower dungeons for cloths and auctioning them along with the disenchants items, might be worth it.  Archeology is pretty fun, but long distances to travel around to level up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 04, 2011, 07:04:56 AM
Making money is easy as a chanter; buy mats (ideally from people spamming, as they're generally cheaper) and sell scrolls on the AH. If you want to do this seriously you probably need a couple addons; I suggest Auctionator and Tradeskill Master. Now is a great time to be an enchanter since everyone is getting upgrades.

As for tailoring you've got spellthreads and bags which both sell decently well. One thing to remember is never forget previous tier stuff (this goes for chanting too); I've made a fortune buying netherweave cloth at 5g/stack then selling the bags for 30g or more.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on July 04, 2011, 11:57:15 PM
Quest all the Cata content you haven't done and then do every daily per day. Sell raw mats on the AH etc. I have 6 chars at 85 all with the 310% flying, plus 2 phoenix , 2 scorpions and 2 mechanohogs and  I STILL have 4K gold in the bank.

Then again, I started off toughing it out with one char but the combined professions mean I keep making cash.

If anything, enchanting and blacksmithing are my biggest cash-cows followed by Leatherworking and tailoring (latter is meh) and engineering a poor last (useless other than personal benefits for that char).

I have 3 miners and 2 skinners amongst that combo though and floggin off the raw mats is an "ok" income. My 3 herbers are only mid 70s so are useless.

When I only had one 85 the dailies saw me with sizable income though and that's what I'd recommend to you.

The best moneymaker I have was definitely enchanting - I made 3K profit leveling it 490-525.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jimbo on July 15, 2011, 09:35:47 AM
Money is coming in now& I'm getting gear from BG's& doing better in them (ya for not being a speedbump).  As a mage using acane would I be that much worrse than my quest gear (which has less stats&item numbers) for dungeons?  I was doing great in looking for dungeons but are people picky on what they are geared with?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 15, 2011, 10:59:12 AM
Money is coming in now& I'm getting gear from BG's& doing better in them (ya for not being a speedbump).  As a mage using acane would I be that much worrse than my quest gear (which has less stats&item numbers) for dungeons?  I was doing great in looking for dungeons but are people picky on what they are geared with?

You'll have a lot of mana problems in PVP gear if your mage is anything like mine. You should keep 2 sets, but the PVP gear is so high ilvl now that it should be enough to at least get you started in the normal heroics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pantastic on July 15, 2011, 01:43:32 PM
Look at the total stats on your gear, whatever gives you more useful stats is what you should use. If you're comparing 346 PVE gear and 353 PVP gear, the PVE gear is almost always better, but if you're looking down at 333 and lower PVE gear and not just using the cheap 339 PVP gear, then your PVP gear is probably better. People on the forums will complain about nonsense all the time, in groups no one's even going to look at your gear unless you're screwing up. Yesterday I found a mage wearing about 4 or 5 pieces of agility gear.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on July 15, 2011, 03:02:14 PM
DPS can get away with being PVP geared, especially in normals.  If you're wearing the newest honor point gear it is probably just fine for non troll heroics too.  Only healers and especially tanks should get yelled at for wearing PVP gear in dungeons really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on July 15, 2011, 04:11:47 PM
Yesterday I found a mage wearing about 4 or 5 pieces of agility gear.


How is that even possible?  There's no such thing as agility cloth.  Two rings, a neck and what?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 15, 2011, 04:27:00 PM
Probably cloak, trinkets, neck and rings.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 15, 2011, 04:27:31 PM
Enchants!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 15, 2011, 05:09:21 PM
DPS can get away with being PVP geared, especially in normals.  If you're wearing the newest honor point gear it is probably just fine for non troll heroics too.  Only healers and especially tanks should get yelled at for wearing PVP gear in dungeons really.

Healers in (the most recent) PvP gear could heal the normal heroics just fine, I am willing to bet. I'm positive my paladin could.

Tanks though, yeah, they need PvE gear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pantastic on July 15, 2011, 06:19:22 PM
How is that even possible?  There's no such thing as agility cloth.  Two rings, a neck and what?

Cloak, trinket, ring, and neck. I think he had two rings or two trinkets, but I don't remember exactly, hence the 4-5. It's amazing how people will come up with ways to gear badly that are so clever you have to think to figure out how they did it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on July 15, 2011, 07:37:49 PM
DPS can get away with being PVP geared, especially in normals.  If you're wearing the newest honor point gear it is probably just fine for non troll heroics too.  Only healers and especially tanks should get yelled at for wearing PVP gear in dungeons really.

Healers in (the most recent) PvP gear could heal the normal heroics just fine, I am willing to bet. I'm positive my paladin could.

Tanks though, yeah, they need PvE gear.

Except druid tanks. My Druid is using the latest honor shoulders - I probably lose a little bit of threat due to the resilience being a worthless stat for PvE but I haven't had an issue yet (tanked ZG/ZA last night with 2 23-25K DPS mages). I hate it when DPS/heals rocks up in resil gear though - usually we boot them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on July 15, 2011, 11:34:09 PM
In some cases PvP gear is BiS for Druid tanks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on July 16, 2011, 03:00:03 AM
In some cases PvP gear is BiS for Druid tanks.
Pretty sure those cases would be very few and far between, unless said Druid was foolishly stam stacking.  You cant reforge resilience, and a large chunk of Druid avoidance comes from reforging pretty much EVERY "least valueable" stat on every piece of gear to dodge.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on July 16, 2011, 05:16:08 AM
Head and shoulder pieces will be interesting moving forward since, other than raiding the toughest bosses, I don't think there are any PvE upgrades from 359 (and you would only be at 359 if you were raiding the toughest bosses from t11).  So a conquest or even honor upgrade from 353 would probably be legit since they are that much better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on July 16, 2011, 10:10:30 AM
There are alternate pieces scattered through the FL bosses to cover head and shoulders. Some of them are even fairly well itemized (for someone).

Ferinstance, the mail cover that drops from Shannox. Essentially a hunter piece, it also works well enough for enhance. Not sure I'd swap the T11 hat out for it, but it's definately an upgrade from the 353 piece from ZA and far and away better than that stupid fish head that drops from the Council.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 16, 2011, 03:39:21 PM
DPS can get away with being PVP geared, especially in normals.  If you're wearing the newest honor point gear it is probably just fine for non troll heroics too.  Only healers and especially tanks should get yelled at for wearing PVP gear in dungeons really.

Healers in (the most recent) PvP gear could heal the normal heroics just fine, I am willing to bet. I'm positive my paladin could.

Tanks though, yeah, they need PvE gear.

Except druid tanks. My Druid is using the latest honor shoulders - I probably lose a little bit of threat due to the resilience being a worthless stat for PvE but I haven't had an issue yet (tanked ZG/ZA last night with 2 23-25K DPS mages). I hate it when DPS/heals rocks up in resil gear though - usually we boot them.

Ahh, I wasn't thinking of druid tanks. I never actually look to see what people are wearing unless I'm having trouble keeping them alive (and again, I am positive I could heal regular heroics in my PvP suit and not think twice about it ... I just don't because I know people would fuss), and druids are always already a bear when I zone in. :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on July 16, 2011, 11:02:22 PM
In some cases PvP gear is BiS for Druid tanks.
Pretty sure those cases would be very few and far between, unless said Druid was foolishly stam stacking.  You cant reforge resilience, and a large chunk of Druid avoidance comes from reforging pretty much EVERY "least valueable" stat on every piece of gear to dodge.

If your not raiding, honor gear outweighs anything in a dungeon because of the extra agility you get. If you are raiding, but only tier 11, the arena gear is superior, so not that few and far between. Don't forget, most of the time all you are getting on an item is haste (shit for bears), expertise (not great for bears), of hit (meh for bears). If you have a choice between more agility, and more of any of the other stats, more agility is better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on July 17, 2011, 11:41:19 PM
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2842565136?page=1#13

Quote
Why is Ghostcrawler no longer on the forums?
Where did he go? I am not aware of what exactly happened. Did he get a lot of trolls attacking him than decide to lay low after that?
No, it didn't really have anything to do with that. We (community managers) had several discussions with Ghostcrawler and the other lead developers about how we'd be approaching communication on the new community site when it launched. Ultimately, we all agreed it'd be better for the company and the community to have the community managers be the primary source of forum communication. He still reads the forums every day for feedback. Likewise, we stay in touch with him every day, often relaying information he provides us to you all. So his thoughts on any given subject are still very often shared on the forums. The only difference is we, as community managers, take the time to relay his thoughts to you so he can focus more on considering the feedback we collect and provide from the forums, affording him more time to focus on development.

That said, he's always looking for new subjects to tackle for our blogs, so you still get a direct link to his (and the rest of the development team's) thought process. As we've stated before, we also plan on completely revamping the concept of Ask the Devs. The goal is to make sure the new Ask the Devs format allows for more interaction between devs and players, and has a quicker turnaround time on answers provided.

He may not be in the trenches interacting with players on the forums daily anymore, but he's still watching. Reading. Contemplating. Waiting to strike. And when he does, we'll be there to share his words of wisdom.

I'm sure you can all provide your own translations of that nice paragraph of mod-speak.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 18, 2011, 01:04:18 AM
That's old news, as in, he said that would happen once they went over to the new site/forums, how ever many months ago it was.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 18, 2011, 05:48:02 AM
Why do you take the fun out of Ghostcrawler hate?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 18, 2011, 06:21:56 AM
The whole healing Q/A they did last week was much more worthy of bile. The thing read like the developers had their fingers in their ears going "la la la la la" the whole time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on July 18, 2011, 07:54:15 AM
Requiring one of the most hated jobs in raiding to be relegated to people who like healing, have excellent situational awareness, good reflexes, and an avidness for resource management hasn't made the game much better?

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 18, 2011, 08:17:57 AM
The philosophy is supposed to be "is it fun?" but I think they are confusing fun as being the opposite of boring. They seem to be tuning everything to 'not be boring' but not boring doesn't auto-magically make something fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 18, 2011, 08:41:26 AM
Paladin healing is fun. God, it still feels so good to say that.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 18, 2011, 08:49:26 AM
"Not boring" pretty much by definition means it will be fun for *someone*. The rest is just tweaking. They'll probably never get it so all 5 specs are happy at the same time, just due to the 'those other guys are happy, they must be more powerful than me' syndrome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 18, 2011, 09:08:08 AM
Hammering nails into your dick is fun for *someone*


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on July 18, 2011, 10:08:40 AM
The philosophy is supposed to be "is it fun?" but I think they are confusing fun as being the opposite of boring. They seem to be tuning everything to 'not be boring' but not boring doesn't auto-magically make something fun.

I think rated BGs suffer from this design doctrine heavily. Sometimes I wonder if any Blizzard employees have actually done them at all. I mean, logged on alone, then spammed trade for an hour til a group was found (all the while being able to do nothing else except farm), then sat through the long ass queue just to play one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 18, 2011, 10:20:59 AM
The philosophy is supposed to be "is it fun?" but I think they are confusing fun as being the opposite of boring. They seem to be tuning everything to 'not be boring' but not boring doesn't auto-magically make something fun.

Its kind of an odd philosophy seeing as fun is basically meaningless.  I love blowing the fuck out of hordes of monsters in Diablo 2 - thats fun.  I also like being part of a group in EVE that needs to spend 2-3 hours carefully positioning ships and resources to refuel POSs in contested space - thats fun.   In one instance I'm going "Fuck yea!" in the other I'm probably doing almost *nothing* if everything goes to plan. 

I also find it fun when I have the time to analyze Starcraft 2 builds really closely.  But I find it boring to play a 20 minute no rush everyone techs up to whatever unit they want and then mass battle to see who wins.  I'd say thats switched for a huge majority of people.

I think the only option is to do precisely what you've said - rule out the stuff that is patently unfun/crappy to most of your player base and hope for the best. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 18, 2011, 10:54:49 AM
Yes, tacking down what is fun is hard but you know what? With some hard work you can usually get it mostly right. 

Quote
I think the only option is to do precisely what you've said - rule out the stuff that is patently unfun/crappy to most of your player base and hope for the best.


This quote and the laziness it implies is very much what's going wrong with the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 18, 2011, 10:56:35 AM
Fun in WoW for me was blasting through hordes of monsters with my friends, doing wings of raids, or fishing for rare stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on July 18, 2011, 11:09:36 AM
Its kind of an odd philosophy seeing as fun is basically meaningless. 

No it really isn't. That is sort of an ivory tower sentiment. If you play test the game, and something is declared not fun by most of your audience, then yeah, there it is. Then again, I'm becoming more and more convinced that less game developers playtest a game with fun in mind any more.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 18, 2011, 11:10:41 AM
I'm convinced more developers are too involved in the business of games when they have no business acumen.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 18, 2011, 11:16:13 AM
fishing for rare stuff.

The fact that you find fishing in WoW fun should be proof enough that we're dealing with an art here, not a science.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 18, 2011, 11:47:06 AM
fishing for rare stuff.

The fact that you find fishing in WoW fun should be proof enough that we're dealing with an art here, not a science.

I think more, not less is usually a good combination of the answers to the fun question. We have to ask the questions: Am I capable of doing it? Am I incentivized by the game to do it? Do I get a sense of accomplishment from doing it? Does it make me want to log in more?

If the activity doesn't meet those requirements, it most likely won't be fun to that player.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 18, 2011, 01:15:56 PM
Why do you take the fun out of Ghostcrawler hate?


Because most of it is misdirected and misinformed?



Hate The Evil Kalgan, he is your true enemy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on July 18, 2011, 01:25:54 PM
fishing for rare stuff.

The fact that you find fishing in WoW fun should be proof enough that we're dealing with an art here, not a science.

I think more, not less is usually a good combination of the answers to the fun question. We have to ask the questions: Am I capable of doing it? Am I incentivized by the game to do it? Do I get a sense of accomplishment from doing it? Does it make me want to log in more?

If the activity doesn't meet those requirements, it most likely won't be fun to that player.

Fishing does not meet 3 out of those 4 criteria :p


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on July 18, 2011, 02:06:11 PM
Hate The Evil Kalgan, he is your true enemy.

Is it alright if I hate Ghostcrawler because constant button mashing is a retarded game mechanic?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 18, 2011, 02:09:45 PM
Hate The Evil Kalgan, he is your true enemy.

Is it alright if I hate Ghostcrawler because constant button mashing is a retarded game mechanic?

Which class are you talking about here?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 18, 2011, 02:47:21 PM
Its kind of an odd philosophy seeing as fun is basically meaningless. 

No it really isn't. That is sort of an ivory tower sentiment. If you play test the game, and something is declared not fun by most of your audience, then yeah, there it is. Then again, I'm becoming more and more convinced that less game developers playtest a game with fun in mind any more.

But thats exactly what I said - rule out things that aren't fun.   In fact I don't disagree with anything you've said - but I would also say that when you are a behemoth like WoW, its damned hard to hit on anything thats going to appeal to all 10 million people or whatever.  The best you can do is hope the audience you are aiming at likes it, and it doesn't get too negative a reaction from the others.

You can certainly argue that the general population thought Wrath was more fun than Cata, but you make it sound like with Wrath they said "Ok, lets make a fun game" and with Cata they were just like "eh, fuck it, whatever"   I mean, come on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 18, 2011, 02:58:14 PM
No, they went into Cata saying "we need to make stuff more meaningful", if they just went "fuck it" we would still have Wrath's systems.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 18, 2011, 04:08:53 PM
"Meaningful" is almost never a good thing to hear from a game designer. It implies that players don't care. It also implies that your players are playing incorrectly.

It could be that your players don't want meaning in the way the developers want it. It's like "taste." You can argue that something needs more taste, but what if that taste is shitty? What if you're eating shit? I don't want more taste in that case.

The contridiction of making things more "meaningful" could not be more apparent than in a game where your actions have no effect on a static world. An MMO world does not evolve in any real sense. Players do not affect their environment at all. Rather, they ride through it like a rollercoaster on the way to their next fix. It's entertaining, but they do nothing to change it. And, yet the developers want their choices to have meaning??? I submit that the developers are trying to shoehorn meaning into a meaningless world. At it's very core, it's a ridiculous endeavor.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 18, 2011, 04:43:01 PM
If you accept that the world is meaningless, then you accept that your endeavors are equally so and everything is actually just a gigantic waste of time that could be put to better use.   I've always attributed the need to inject meaning is the subliminal fear of the claimant that the illusion is about to be shattered.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 18, 2011, 04:51:35 PM
If you accept that the world is meaningless, then you accept that your endeavors are equally so and everything is actually just a gigantic waste of time that could be put to better use.   I've always attributed the need to inject meaning is the subliminal fear of the claimant that the illusion is about to be shattered.

You mean that the developers are terrified that the customers are about to figure out they have been running in a purple-lined Skinner box? I've grouped with plenty of them. They won't.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 18, 2011, 05:00:30 PM
I agree they won't, but time and again you see Devs posit the same thing. Raph predicted what, 7 years ago now that People would tire of DIKU and move on to 'real' games like his?  I recall Bartle did something similar.

There seems to be a point at which the devs themselves get bored of the idea and think the players are, too. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 18, 2011, 05:50:59 PM
Individual players do move on.  At least try to as best the market allows.  But new people come along and mess everything up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 18, 2011, 06:06:45 PM
Some individual players do.  Most don't seem to give it a second thought.   I continue to maintain he was projecting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on July 18, 2011, 10:29:06 PM
No, they went into Cata saying "we need to make stuff more meaningful", if they just went "fuck it" we would still have Wrath's systems.  :why_so_serious:

Fucking exactly. The devs listened to the wrong people and it shaved off part of their playerbase.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on July 18, 2011, 11:02:22 PM
See, I knew if I gave you guys a day or so that you'd end up having some fun with that quote.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 19, 2011, 12:01:55 AM
They just hotfixed Valor Points back onto the T11 bosses sans Argoloth. I'm never running a fucking heroic again!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on July 19, 2011, 12:44:41 AM
Surprised they reversed that. Definitely in favor though. I was getting close to the VP cap between BH and Firelands, but seriously, you're going to give VP for heroics and BH, but not T11? Even after the T11 nerfs, there is no way Cho'gal, Al'akir, or Nef are easier than Throne of Tides or the faceroll BH boss :p


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on July 19, 2011, 02:21:36 AM
They just hotfixed Valor Points back onto the T11 bosses sans Argoloth. I'm never running a fucking heroic again!
Except that it is something like 35 / 45 VP per boss in 10 / 25 man, meaning that even if you full clear all 12 bosses in the T11 tier, you are only getting 420 VP for a 10 man guild, which is under half the weekly cap.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on July 19, 2011, 04:57:40 AM
That's not too bad though. It beats nothing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 19, 2011, 07:57:14 AM
They just hotfixed Valor Points back onto the T11 bosses sans Argoloth. I'm never running a fucking heroic again!
Except that it is something like 35 / 45 VP per boss in 10 / 25 man, meaning that even if you full clear all 12 bosses in the T11 tier, you are only getting 420 VP for a 10 man guild, which is under half the weekly cap.
But that 420 VP added to what we get from BH and the first couple bosses in FL means I'll be damn close.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on July 19, 2011, 08:38:18 AM
Hell yeah. I was hoping they'd do this. It'll make hitting the cap a lot easier, since we're just getting our feet (hooves) wet in FL right now. Only three bosses down, so need all the VP I can get.

After the absolute shitfest heroics have been lately (summer, VP scroungers), I'd like to never see one again outside a guild run. Especially the troll ones. They've been so bad I"ve been tempted to necro the bad groups thread. Main reason I haven't is that it isn't anything we haven't seen before. Still, it's bloody annoying and the less I see of the inside of heroics the better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on July 19, 2011, 09:50:59 AM
Is it alright if I hate Ghostcrawler because constant button mashing is a retarded game mechanic?

Which class are you talking about here?

Do you need a list?

"You must hit a button every 1 - 1.5 seconds until you're out of resource or you are losing damage/threat" is a stupid game mechanic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on July 19, 2011, 10:00:23 AM
I"ve been tempted to necro the bad groups thread.

Yeah, I hear ya brother.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 19, 2011, 10:06:15 AM
Is it alright if I hate Ghostcrawler because constant button mashing is a retarded game mechanic?

Which class are you talking about here?

Do you need a list?

"You must hit a button every 1 - 1.5 seconds until you're out of resource or you are losing damage/threat" is a stupid game mechanic.

This isn't exactly new?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 19, 2011, 10:11:03 AM
They've been so bad I"ve been tempted to necro the bad groups thread.

Please don't.  For some reason that thread has the strange effect of making me want to play.  I can't explain it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on July 19, 2011, 10:19:50 AM
They've been so bad I"ve been tempted to necro the bad groups thread.

Please don't.  For some reason that thread has the strange effect of making me want to play.  I can't explain it.

That's messed up.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on July 19, 2011, 11:01:57 AM
Please don't.  For some reason that thread has the strange effect of making me want to play.  I can't explain it.

For me it triggers an "I can fix this!" reaction. Like when I hear about someone sucking at healing it makes me want to log my healer so I can heal properly and counterbalance their horribleness, "THIS is how you heal you stupid motherfucker"

Yes, it's completely irrational.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 19, 2011, 12:30:43 PM
Is it alright if I hate Ghostcrawler because constant button mashing is a retarded game mechanic?

Which class are you talking about here?

Do you need a list?

"You must hit a button every 1 - 1.5 seconds until you're out of resource or you are losing damage/threat" is a stupid game mechanic.

Yes, give me a list.

And here's your hint: give me a list of classes that have been turned into rote button mashing classes *after* GC took over as the class lead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 19, 2011, 01:10:13 PM
Button mashing is different from having to continuously and furiously press buttons to stay competitive.  The first implies you are randomly hitting whatever key, the latter which he is referring to means that unless you are hitting a specific key every 1.5 seconds your dps will be terrible.

It's about rotations which leave no room for error and leave you tapping on your keys like a frantic gerbil.  What the terms that starcraft came up with, actions per second? or something like that?  It's fine for some games, I'm not sure people want that in wow, otherwise rated bg's and arena's would be much more popular than they are.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 19, 2011, 01:17:16 PM
Actions per minute (APM), which has nothing to do with what they are talking about in WoW. You'll never need more then like 40 APM in WoW, it's actually impossible to have more then like 60, thanks to the GCD.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 19, 2011, 01:17:45 PM
It's about rotations which leave no room for error and leave you tapping on your keys like a frantic gerbil. 

Again, this is not new.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 19, 2011, 01:25:31 PM
Button mashing is different from having to continuously and furiously press buttons to stay competitive.  The first implies you are randomly hitting whatever key, the latter which he is referring to means that unless you are hitting a specific key every 1.5 seconds your dps will be terrible.

It's about rotations which leave no room for error and leave you tapping on your keys like a frantic gerbil.  What the terms that starcraft came up with, actions per second? or something like that?  It's fine for some games, I'm not sure people want that in wow, otherwise rated bg's and arena's would be much more popular than they are.

Even if you were to talk about APM in WoW, the needed APM is incredibly low.  There is a really low skill ceiling in terms of button pressing.  (You could argue there is a higher skill ceiling for things like situational awareness, which most people seem to lack in a major way.)   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on July 19, 2011, 02:45:32 PM
Button mashing is different from having to continuously and furiously press buttons to stay competitive.  The first implies you are randomly hitting whatever key, the latter which he is referring to means that unless you are hitting a specific key every 1.5 seconds your dps will be terrible.

It's about rotations which leave no room for error and leave you tapping on your keys like a frantic gerbil.  What the terms that starcraft came up with, actions per second? or something like that?  It's fine for some games, I'm not sure people want that in wow, otherwise rated bg's and arena's would be much more popular than they are.

APM for my rogue is about 15-20 if I'm doing my rotation right. The old design for rogues encouraged you to burn energy as fast as you could, and only use one combo builder and 1 finishing move. The current model is the opposite of button mashing, where rotations are slower and more deliberate.

Class design is still one of the areas where Cata really nailed it, for me at least.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on July 19, 2011, 04:14:22 PM
And here's your hint: give me a list of classes that have been turned into rote button mashing classes *after* GC took over as the class lead.

Quick question: when did the term "GCD locked" enter common (World of Warcraft neckbeard) parlance?

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 19, 2011, 04:22:07 PM
That's not a list.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Amaron on July 19, 2011, 04:31:47 PM
There is a really low skill ceiling in terms of button pressing.

How is this now I wonder actually?   In all reality when I played better players actually did get in far more special attacks.   I'm curious how the addition of a queue has affected that though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 19, 2011, 04:37:02 PM
WoW problem with "button mashing" has never been APM related. Some classes tended to veer pretty far into John Madden territory where you had a priority list that required a some extensive white-boarding.  Queuing doesn't help that at all.

Getting in more attacks is usually just being able to time the GCD v. your own latency.  Knowing when to fire off your next spell is pretty a pretty basic skill anyone that doesn't pull tard-level dps managed to get down in WoLK.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Amaron on July 19, 2011, 04:46:01 PM
Getting in more attacks is usually just being able to time the GCD v. your own latency.  Knowing when to fire off your next spell is pretty a pretty basic skill anyone that doesn't pull tard-level dps managed to get down in WoLK.

From examinations of logs I often saw in WOLK that really great players got in more attacks than simply really good players.    That's from looking at players who don't even have cast timers.   Classes like rogues and paladins which were retardedly easy to spam skills on.  Perhaps it was always just a matter of handling other mechanics in a timely fashion though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 19, 2011, 04:51:07 PM
Casted DPS is even less APM dependent. You only need one input every 2 seconds as a caster for the most part.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Amaron on July 19, 2011, 05:07:24 PM
Casted DPS is even less APM dependent. You only need one input every 2 seconds as a caster for the most part.

Ahh I wasn't talking about APM.   I was referring to Malakili saying the skill cap for using abilities was low.   It seems that way to me too but oddly the numbers I would read in WOTLK never reflected that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 19, 2011, 06:58:07 PM
There is a really low skill ceiling in terms of button pressing.

How is this now I wonder actually?   In all reality when I played better players actually did get in far more special attacks.   I'm curious how the addition of a queue has affected that though.

That was generally not knowing what to press, not physical inability to press quickly enough.  Those are two VERY different things.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on July 19, 2011, 06:59:54 PM
Knowing what to press is an even lower bar than APM.  Knowing where to stand, however...  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on July 19, 2011, 07:08:49 PM
Knowing what to press is an even lower bar than APM.  Knowing where to stand, however...  :awesome_for_real:

More to the point, I think its just being able to look at the screen and process ALL the information quickly.  People can get out of stuff, but they can't get out of stuff AND pay attention to their rotation, and listen to voiced on vent, and whatever else.   The best raiders can do these all seamlessly.  Its not about inputs into the computer, its about inputs into your head.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on July 19, 2011, 07:23:26 PM
That's not a list.

True.

Hunter, (Combat) Rogue, and (Arms) Warrior for starters.  The "you must be spamming this button every goddamn GCD you're able when you're not doing anything else" specs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 19, 2011, 10:56:31 PM
I can't think of a time when rogues weren't like that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 19, 2011, 11:06:55 PM
I think it is worth noting that for warriors and rogues, there are other specs you can choose that are not as spammy, so they're offering a playstyle choice for the people who want it. If you'll recall, there were a number of people upset (including here) when they changed DKs to no longer be GCD locked, because they wanted that play style. Fury for example has plenty of time when you're waiting around for full rage so you can do your colossus smash rage dump, or between bloodthirsts when you don't have a raging blow proc and colossus smash is down. (They also made fury actually fun to play this expansion, which if we're going to be blaming GC for other changes, we should give him credit for that one.)

I don't have enough experience with new hunters to say much about them, but the only time you weren't mashing a button constantly on the old hunters was when you were OOM so I don't think we can lay that one at GC's feet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 19, 2011, 11:45:10 PM
Well, if we're talking about hitting a button every GCD on the dot, for the most part both Marksmanship and Survival (the only two I have raid experience with) will only not cast something if they've got a half-second or less left on one of their cooldown shots (i.e. Chimera Shot or Explosive Shot and Black Arrow) and already have the focus to cast it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 20, 2011, 04:54:53 AM
I still miss the LOL STEADY SHOT hunter days.  I had fun with my hunter then and in the "Don't clip Autoshot" days of Vanilla. Now?  She's sat fallow since the end of BC because I just don't get the new mechanics.  I've tried playing her but it's just not fun anymore.. I'll play a mage for that kind of mechanics juggling and be happy that it results in big, painful damage, or a rogue for actual button spamminess so I've got more escape-and-not-die butons.

I was more irritated about having more buttons to juggle as a DK than I was about losing the GCD lock. I hate priority queues in general as DPS.  Again it feels like an issue of role/ gameplay confusion for me. If I want to prioritize things I'll play a healer or tank, not a DPS.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 20, 2011, 04:53:57 PM
WotLK wasn't very different hunter-wise, or is that what you meant rather than TBC? WotLK was probably my favorite version of the hunter, although that was the expansion I was permitted to play her the least. Haven't touched her in Cataclysm, because I am too busy making out with how awesome paladin healing is.


EDIT: Of course, I prefer a priority queue to an ALWAYS THIS IN THIS ORDER FOREVER rotation.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 20, 2011, 06:05:48 PM
I wish I could recall the specifics of why I stopped, but 3.0 killed hunters for me.  I know I'm not the only one there, so there were some fundamental changes somewhere.   I started playing my Tankadin after 3.0 then switched to the DK after I got my hands on it in beta, the class mechanics were pure love to me then.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on July 20, 2011, 10:14:08 PM
I wish I could recall the specifics of why I stopped, but 3.0 killed hunters for me.  I know I'm not the only one there, so there were some fundamental changes somewhere.   I started playing my Tankadin after 3.0 then switched to the DK after I got my hands on it in beta, the class mechanics were imbalance was pure love to me then.

Fixed that for you.

I used to love running all DK dungeons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 21, 2011, 04:47:04 AM
Nah, I knew they were overpowered and was waiting on the large nerfs when they finally happened.  I still loved the class after that. The 4.0 changes were OK but don't hold the same draw for me that the class did all of WOTLK.   They're still pretty damn strong, though, despite what the whiners might have you believe.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on July 21, 2011, 06:32:46 AM
I didn't like the changes, but yes, my DK was pretty much unkillable in PvE.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on July 21, 2011, 06:35:34 AM
I wish I could recall the specifics of why I stopped, but 3.0 killed hunters for me.  I know I'm not the only one there, so there were some fundamental changes somewhere.   I started playing my Tankadin after 3.0 then switched to the DK after I got my hands on it in beta, the class mechanics were pure love to me then.

I was a hardcore, catass 40hr/wk hunter in 1.0.  2.0 began the downslide into Blizzard making changes without a clear goal of what they wanted from the class so I split my time between my hunter and mage, playing maybe 20 hr/wk.  3.0 I just rolled a pally and played it with my mage, never touching my hunter and getting even more casual.  

I have no idea what is going on with the 4.0 stuff.  I tried to play my hunter when I came back recently and it just felt... not right.  Between the holy power addition to my ret pally and the hunter changes, they've systematically changed everything I liked about the only classes I cared playing.  


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on July 21, 2011, 01:34:11 PM
I played hunter from day one of vanilla WoW but moved to ele/enhance shaman at the end and then druid tanking and warlock in TBC. The class felt wrong. Since then I stuck with the shammy and druid, dusted off the pally I'd once healed with alliance side and tanked with it during WotLK. Hunter still didn't feel right. When I got to the currrent iteration of hunter, it felt just right, especially as survival.

/goldilocks


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 21, 2011, 01:46:45 PM
Come back to me when you get an eclipse bar.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 22, 2011, 12:44:35 PM
One thing that hasn't come up that I absolutely love about Hunters right now are the pets.  Because the DPS difference (ignoring buffs/debuffs) between Ferocity and Cunning is quite small there's just loads of things that a Hunter can bring to the table without a massive loss.  On a usual Firelands clear I'll run four different pets.

Now back in ye olden days, that would have been a massive pain in the ass.  But just last night after our first few (normal) Rag attempts we found out that we needed more stuns for the transitions but I didn't already have a Bat (or Wasp) tamed.  Not a problem.  Got myself a port to UC, stabled something on the way out and tamed a Bat just outside.  All I had to do then was put its talent points in and edit one of my macros to include the Bat family.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 22, 2011, 01:30:35 PM
I'll agree, that's one of the parts they finally got right.  I'm just disappointed it took them 5 goddamn years to finally listen to the Hunter playerbase and implement things that way.

I'll never give up Sampson, my first Cat from Darnassus, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 22, 2011, 02:37:10 PM
The hunter pet thing, the thing is, there were a LOT of hunters who really did enjoy the whole 'tame/train/tamenewskill' mini game.


They were crazy people, but they existed and in great numbers.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on July 22, 2011, 04:36:57 PM
I didn't like having to level the pets (although it gave me motivation to go out and farm leather, at least), but I sort of liked having to track down the pet skills. Not saying it wasn't good they changed it, but it's definitely one of the things I would've had no problem with them not fixing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on July 22, 2011, 05:17:52 PM
Yeah, I was one of the mad bastards in 1.0 that camped pets.  I got everything I ever wanted, except for a black bear from Feralas.  I spent maybe 40 hours camping him and never saw him once.  Old Grizzlegut or something like that...

Then again, I camped Raster.  Unsuccessfully, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 22, 2011, 06:36:29 PM
The hunter pet thing, the thing is, there were a LOT of hunters who really did enjoy the whole 'tame/train/tamenewskill' mini game.


They were crazy people, but they existed and in great numbers.  :why_so_serious:

Well, I do miss hunting the skills but that's not the part I was talking about.  It's having actual pet roles with super-useful skills and each animal family having unique abilities.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on July 23, 2011, 05:19:51 PM
Come back to me when you get an eclipse bar.  :why_so_serious:

WTF is with that shit? I finally decided to respec Feral/Feral to Feral/Balance (kitty dps makes my fingers bleed and mind explode) and despite the fact that I'm in VP/Troll gear I can't break 10K DPS.

The Moonfire and insects up all the time, move the eclipse one way with spells then the other way with other spells on eclipse, proc starsurge - what am I missing?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 23, 2011, 05:31:28 PM
Are you remembering Starsurge, Starfall and Force of Nature every single cooldown?  If you can time starfall to coincide with a Lunar Eclipse within a single cast, great.  If not, just punch that puppy.

Balance druids seem to be all about spell queuing, low latency and knowing the next cast is going to cause a transition so you can queue a wrath/starfire instead of what you'd been casting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on July 24, 2011, 12:13:00 AM
oops.... startsurging but forgot starfall  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on July 24, 2011, 01:03:52 AM
Basically do what your doing now, but do it "better".   :why_so_serious:


No really, that's pretty much it, Balance is all about abusing your eclipse windows, timing your eclipse windows properly and knowing each boss fight inside and out to be in the proper phase for the proper application. There's also a lot of multidot shenanigans, or was, I don't know if that is still the case.

Just read the sticky on the Official Druid Forums ( http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2721372177 )  or http://wow.joystiq.com/tag/balance-druid-shifting-perspectives or http://graymatterwow.blogspot.com/ . Murmurs and Greylo are both good at the mathy math stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 24, 2011, 05:04:10 AM
Or just reroll mage and mash two buttons.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 24, 2011, 06:15:12 AM
Or just reroll mage and mash two buttons.  :awesome_for_real:


Hey now..  My mage mashes 3 buttons. 6 if you count cooldowns.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on July 24, 2011, 08:20:57 AM
Your cooldowns aren't in a macro?  Or your buttons aren't built as macros with the cooldowns built into them?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 24, 2011, 08:38:04 AM
Nope.  I don't play seriously enough to give a rats ass about max effectiveness anymore.  That means I don't macro anything and just run around killing shit in the 2-3 hours I play per week.

Hell, I'm not even grinding the world tree stuff.  Fuck TOC pt2.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jimbo on August 02, 2011, 07:08:24 AM
Update:

Wow, I was setting on a gold mine of enchanting materials.  I had leveled up enchanting and tailoring along the way, and I'm able to make some cash selling the materials!  Thanks all!

Ice mage is great for PvP and regular dungeons, I like Arcane when I'm grouped up in harder dungeons, but will I have to worry about gaining too much of the mob's attention?  Plus it was sweet when I got all of my pvp gear and got the achievement, heck I've got all the bg tier 10 gear and can post some pretty cool critical hits, my kid said I need to play like the this mage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34mS5GK--cQ)  :rock_hard:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on August 06, 2011, 04:34:06 PM
I finally went raiding - BoT on Friday night and then downed Nef last night. It was fun, but the only real challenge to the nights was positioning Ony properly/picking up adds etc as OT. I know it's been nerfed, but although it was fun, I really enjoyed tanking Ulduar and ICC more, something just felt missing. The MT had only been 85 for a week (just returned to the game) and I hadn't stepped into a raid since ICC so we were "carried" by well geared alts admittedly.

Picked up the Symbiotic Worm which was nice.

Raiding is fun so it's time to go run dailies to gear up the pally some more - and stop playing the other tanks because I keep looking for abilities that aren't there =D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on August 06, 2011, 06:44:57 PM
The nerfed BoT and BwD are not really a good representation of what they were originally. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 06, 2011, 07:40:00 PM
The nerfed BoT and BwD are not really a good representation of what they were originally. 
Yep.  Everything nerfed by 20% across the board, and in some cases, entire mechanics (like Acid Rain stacks on Al'Akir) were nerfed into oblivion.  Im actually really happy that I managed to get my Defender title a few weeks before the patch hit.

The only amusing bit is that (for most pugs) Maloriak is actually harder now then before patch, since getting dps to outright stop before they accidently push the boss to phase 2 way too early is really hard or something :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on August 06, 2011, 09:13:48 PM
The nerfed BoT and BwD are not really a good representation of what they were originally. 
Yep.  Everything nerfed by 20% across the board, and in some cases, entire mechanics (like Acid Rain stacks on Al'Akir) were nerfed into oblivion.  Im actually really happy that I managed to get my Defender title a few weeks before the patch hit.

The only amusing bit is that (for most pugs) Maloriak is actually harder now then before patch, since getting dps to outright stop before they accidently push the boss to phase 2 way too early is really hard or something :P

But but but.. if they stop dpsing they will have a fail recount!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 11, 2011, 12:44:20 PM
(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/263210_10150277767614034_138011799033_7414850_1651436_n.jpg)

Blizzard posted this image online with the subtitle "glimpses". Some sort of teaser about 4.3?

I'm guessing Void Storage is some sort of currency exchange, one that is probably used for whatever service the Transmogrifier provides.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 11, 2011, 12:46:25 PM
Void Storage might be the long-awaited way to move your heirlooms around server to server - an account wide item bank or something. At least I hope that's what it is.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on August 11, 2011, 01:40:45 PM
Void Storage might be the long-awaited way to move your heirlooms around server to server - an account wide item bank or something. At least I hope that's what it is.  :grin:

That or they're sending us back to Shattrah to recycle TBC content 

I'm going with that one now the trolls have become tired content


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 11, 2011, 01:46:45 PM
The Transmogrifier will turn you into an Eel, Baboon, Bug or Dinosaur.  Frog and Elephant will be patched in later.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 11, 2011, 01:53:15 PM
The Transmogrifier will turn you into an Eel, Baboon, Bug or Dinosaur.  Frog and Elephant will be patched in later.

(http://www.mandytonks.net/classicdoctorwhodvds/images/calvin.jpg)

 :awesome_for_real: Love it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 11, 2011, 03:55:34 PM
I hope it means there's a new dungeon with an ethereal boss. They have sexy voices.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 11, 2011, 03:59:53 PM
Thanks, Paelos.  Now Nevermore doesn't have to know I wouldn't have gotten her very awesome reference.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 12, 2011, 06:43:01 AM
(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/263210_10150277767614034_138011799033_7414850_1651436_n.jpg)

Blizzard posted this image online with the subtitle "glimpses". Some sort of teaser about 4.3?

I'm guessing Void Storage is some sort of currency exchange, one that is probably used for whatever service the Transmogrifier provides.

Appearance slots. with the ability to trade tier items down the chain.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 12, 2011, 07:07:21 AM
You shut your lying mouth.  There's no way it's something that awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 12, 2011, 07:11:56 AM
Prolly not, I've been out of wow for about 8 months but the first thing I thought of when I asked myself what haven't they done that would be easy and something people have been asking about for a while. Bonus speculation is not only could you trade down for any tier but you could recolor it however you wanted with one of those vendors.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on August 12, 2011, 07:35:26 AM
If it's appearance slots, I'll cry myself to sleep every night thinking about the Nax40 warrior set that I don't have and can never get.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 12, 2011, 07:43:07 AM
I'm going to go with the "Barbershop for your face/ skin attributes" line of thought.   They've clung too tightly to the appearance of items for me to believe they're backing down now, worry over SWG or no.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 12, 2011, 02:44:43 PM
I'm going to go with the "Barbershop for your face/ skin attributes" line of thought.   They've clung too tightly to the appearance of items for me to believe they're backing down now, worry over SWG or no.
Someone on the MMO champ forums suggested that maybe the Transmogrifier might be used to "turn on" updated character models for the old races.  That way, people who like old models could keep them, and people who want new models with goblin / worgen level improvements could use him to activate the model changes on whatever races they want.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 12, 2011, 03:36:11 PM
I'm going to go with the "Barbershop for your face/ skin attributes" line of thought.   They've clung too tightly to the appearance of items for me to believe they're backing down now, worry over SWG or no.
Someone on the MMO champ forums suggested that maybe the Transmogrifier might be used to "turn on" updated character models for the old races.  That way, people who like old models could keep them, and people who want new models with goblin / worgen level improvements could use him to activate the model changes on whatever races they want.

would resub for that in a heartbeat if they made my she-troll look not like such a.....troll  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 12, 2011, 04:09:33 PM
I just want my she-troll to gain the ability to fuckin' blink.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: pxib on August 12, 2011, 08:30:30 PM
I can let you know right now that it involves the transfer of object between servers and the manipulating the stats on equipment, and not the altering of any particular thing's appearance. Blizzard hates you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 12, 2011, 08:32:49 PM
They already have reforging, I'm not sure why they would mess with stats-on-equipment at an entirely different NPC?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lightstalker on August 12, 2011, 11:50:09 PM
Oh but they are really just laying the groundwork to import your Diablo III rmt auctionhouse loot into WoW, and that would require a new NPC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on August 13, 2011, 01:59:10 AM
Well they have to be a little mysterious about it, I mean this is what is going to keep people from leaving WoW to try SWTOR!   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 13, 2011, 05:01:33 AM
They already have reforging, I'm not sure why they would mess with stats-on-equipment at an entirely different NPC?

Yeah, this. What stats would you be manipulating that the reforger doesn't do or couldn't just be tweaked to do as well?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 13, 2011, 06:03:22 AM
A thought I had was the transmorgifier dude will exchange your heirlooms for one of the same type or something. So turn your mail shoulders into cloth or whatever. Don't know if they'd actually do that, though, as they want people to keep farming JP for as long as possible, I imagine.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 13, 2011, 07:30:45 AM
Incidentally, "Warpweaver Hashom" is an anagram for "a wow rehash revamp"  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 13, 2011, 07:47:46 AM
Incidentally, "Warpweaver Hashom" is an anagram for "a wow rehash revamp"  :awesome_for_real:

And the Thaumaturge sounds like something that would reforge spells or spell effects, possibly procs on gear?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on August 14, 2011, 06:51:10 AM
Void storage sounds a lot like a cross-realm bank to me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on August 14, 2011, 11:00:43 AM
I'd pay a pretty penny to change classes, so I'm going to hope one of them will let me do that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 14, 2011, 01:20:38 PM
I'd pay a pretty penny to change classes, so I'm going to hope one of them will let me do that.

It would certainly make FOTM classes more interesting.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 14, 2011, 07:51:36 PM
I wouldn't expect that from an in-game UI, since they haven't added any other features in-game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on August 14, 2011, 08:39:42 PM
Does any game let you change your class?  For money or otherwise?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 14, 2011, 08:49:01 PM
GuildWars lets you create level capped classes for PvP that have access to all your previous skill unlocks across your account.


GW might not be the best example though, as it's a different barrel of monkeys.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 14, 2011, 09:21:00 PM
Does any game let you change your class?  For money or otherwise?
Eden Eternal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on August 14, 2011, 09:27:04 PM
Does any game let you change your class?  For money or otherwise?
Eden Eternal.

Any AAA games?  :D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on August 14, 2011, 10:33:37 PM
Ultima Online.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 14, 2011, 10:42:25 PM
Many (most?) LP muds!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 14, 2011, 11:42:32 PM
You had to lose a WHOLE LEVEL to switch on our MUD, didn't you? Or just a level's worth of experience or ... something. Now that I think about it, the few times I did it, I was level capped, switched, then just recapped from all the extra XP I had lying around. Good times!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 15, 2011, 03:43:20 AM
Does any game let you change your class?  For money or otherwise?
Eden Eternal.

Any AAA games?  :D

Rift?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 15, 2011, 04:33:58 AM
Many (most?) LP muds!

I've always wondered what Remorting of the type where you start over as L1 with better stats would do in an AAA MMO.   I'd probably be soloing Ragnaros on my hunter or pally by now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on August 15, 2011, 08:27:18 AM
Does any game let you change your class?  For money or otherwise?

FFXI let you swap classes, by visiting a moogle npc. It also had a subclass system, so you could combine any two of the classes you had. Some combos had more synergy than others, of course. Subclassing black mage (BLM) to warrior (WAR) wouldn't actually improve your performance as a warrior. But you could do it.

IIRC all races could be all classes, although some were more effective in certain roles due to innate stats.

Of course, you had to level up whatever classes you wanted to use. And only your main class would get xp, again iirc. So if you wanted to really get a lot of use out of multi-classing, it was grindy.

All of this was true within the first 6 months of the NA launch of the game. They could have changed things since then.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on August 15, 2011, 08:53:25 AM
The Transmogrifier will turn you into an Eel, Baboon, Bug or Dinosaur.  Frog and Elephant will be patched in later.

(http://www.mandytonks.net/classicdoctorwhodvds/images/calvin.jpg)

 :awesome_for_real: Love it.

Daily Blink (http://www.thedailyblink.com/2011/08/at-least-the-cardboard-box-went-boink/)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Der Helm on August 15, 2011, 09:58:43 AM
So, I am bored a bit so I might fire up the free comeback trial and level a new character on a fresh server to see the new content.

Is there still a server with an active F13 population?

(I think I as this question every 6 months or so :) )


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 15, 2011, 08:03:41 PM
So, I am bored a bit so I might fire up the free comeback trial and level a new character on a fresh server to see the new content.

Is there still a server with an active F13 population?

(I think I as this question every 6 months or so :) )

There never really was.  There's always the SLAP (Ingmar, Sjofn, Fordel, etc)  people.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 15, 2011, 08:16:06 PM
He said active.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 15, 2011, 11:33:33 PM
Ingmar and Sjofn haven't hit rock bottom yet, AFAIK.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 15, 2011, 11:53:21 PM
I have been pretty inactive for the last couple weeks, I needed a break after finishing the Firelands grind. I probably have one good surge of obsessive playing left in me before SWTOR hits, but all bets are off at that point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 16, 2011, 12:16:28 AM
It depends on what comes first:

  • SWTOR Beta
  • 4.3 Patch
  • 1.8 Minecraft patch

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 16, 2011, 03:33:14 AM
Sjofn's been playing on Moon Guard instead of Doomhammer when she plays, mostly, so as far as Nevermore can tell, I'm pretty inactive. :P

Really, I'm pretty inactive anyway, the Firelands grind + still can't buy my fucking PvE Tier Last shoulders and hat + not raiding = Sjofn playing Tropico 2 (yes, Two) instead of finishing her Alliance paladin's PvP suit because ... meh. The next patch better be reeeeeally interesting (hahahahaha) or else I might just play other shit until SWTOR comes out. It's sort of funny how pissy I am about Tier Last's shoulders, at the very least, still needing me to raid to get them. I will jump through all sorts of hoops just to fucking match, and if you won't let me match, your hoops can cram themselves right up your ass.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on August 16, 2011, 05:12:42 AM
It's sort of funny how pissy I am about Tier Last's shoulders, at the very least, still needing me to raid to get them. I will jump through all sorts of hoops just to fucking match, and if you won't let me match, your hoops can cram themselves right up your ass.

This x 1000.

7 toons all with frigging Troll shoulders because even the two I raid with never see the token let along fight it out with 1-2 others who are waiting for the same token. All I want is the matching set :(

As for Firelands dailies - screw that for a cynical "keep them busy" mentality.

Sadly, I just hit 79 on toon #8 - WTF am I thinking?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 16, 2011, 08:19:07 AM
I hate Firelands so much I've pretty much given up trying to grind out those dailies. Even my daily frustration with the mechanics of the jousting at the Tourney 2 years ago still had me compelled to participate. Firelands is a horrible, horrible mess of bad quests, unpleasant mobs and an eye-burning orange-red horror-show of a zone. For the last couple of weeks, I've logged on to Doomhammer in the hopes of chatting to people. I've done the SW fishing and cooking dailies each night, and that's pretty much it. I play a little on Moonguard but when no one's around on either server I'm finding it hard to drum up any sort of enthusiasm. If Cataclysm has killed the game for most people, 4.2 has kicked the corpse into a fire.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on August 16, 2011, 10:01:35 AM
The new dailies are worse than jousting?  There needs to be a bigger  :ye_gods:.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 16, 2011, 10:17:31 AM
Not worse mechanically, just worse in the fuck me this takes forever arghghghghgh sense. It feels like it takes forever to unlock everything, the quests feel like they take ages to do, it's just shitty all around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on August 16, 2011, 10:30:44 AM
They're not that bad. It took me about 30 minutes to tear through the complete set of them. Yeah, it takes time to unlock them and that was a good deal less entertaining than the Sunwell ones, but...eh, not that bad.

Of course, having said all that, I think I've only been back twice since I got my hippogriff--and I still do the TB dailys. Well, usually.

Trust me, jousting was far worse than the FL dailys. FAR worse. I still do ICC dailys for the seals for twink gear, but I won't touch that jousting shit for anything. Not ever again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 16, 2011, 10:32:19 AM
I generally prefer Molten Front to previous daily hubs but there's really nothing to get from it.  My Hunter (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/wildhammer/Attenborough/advanced) could get a grand total of a piece of gear and an enchant (which I just got made by a guildie) out of the whole deal.  The achievement mount is alright, but I prefer the Cenarion Expedition one if I'm going to use a hippogryph.

Which is nice, in a way, in that I didn't have to bother with it in a serious way after the first couple of days.  Which is more than I can say about Tol Barad and that damn trinket.  But I'm terrible about doing dailies anyway, so your mileage may vary.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 16, 2011, 10:50:32 AM
I hate Firelands so much I've pretty much given up trying to grind out those dailies. Even my daily frustration with the mechanics of the jousting at the Tourney 2 years ago still had me compelled to participate. Firelands is a horrible, horrible mess of bad quests, unpleasant mobs and an eye-burning orange-red horror-show of a zone. For the last couple of weeks, I've logged on to Doomhammer in the hopes of chatting to people. I've done the SW fishing and cooking dailies each night, and that's pretty much it. I play a little on Moonguard but when no one's around on either server I'm finding it hard to drum up any sort of enthusiasm. If Cataclysm has killed the game for most people, 4.2 has kicked the corpse into a fire.

Now this I don't get at all, I found it way, way more palatable than the damn jousting. And I actually felt like I was making way faster progress unlocking stuff too - the entire thing can be done in a month (but maybe shouldn't...) I think the fact that we're not raiding and most of the people I logged in to play with aren't playing any more is what is keeping me away more than anything about the content itself, personally.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on August 16, 2011, 11:00:02 AM
Haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but GC (yep, one and only!) has a new watercooler post up on the death of threat in WoW.

Threat be a-changin'!

After the shitfest of lousy tanks in heroics this last weekend, I'm thinking this is a good thing and none too soon. I might even dust off my prot-pally and get back into things. Best of all, Omen can die in a thermonuclear fire. One less piece of shit cluttering up my UI.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 16, 2011, 11:12:46 AM
I hate Firelands so much I've pretty much given up trying to grind out those dailies. Even my daily frustration with the mechanics of the jousting at the Tourney 2 years ago still had me compelled to participate.

Firelands (the raid) is pretty awesome. Molten Front (the dailies) are pretty lame, but pretty much what I expected from a daily quest hub.

Btw, Blizzard announced the RealID cross-server grouping would remain free. A good decision.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 16, 2011, 11:18:30 AM
Haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but GC (yep, one and only!) has a new watercooler post up on the death of threat in WoW.

Threat be a-changin'!

After the shitfest of lousy tanks in heroics this last weekend, I'm thinking this is a good thing and none too soon. I might even dust off my prot-pally and get back into things. Best of all, Omen can die in a thermonuclear fire. One less piece of shit cluttering up my UI.

Here's what Shrike's referring to: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3300854 (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3300854).

Anyway, I got rid of Omen once they added in threat to tooltips.  It just hasn't been necessary for a long time if you have a threat dump.  That said, a decent part of the fun I get from playing a Hunter is from helping MD stuff to tanks (which will still be there in part) and having to fit Feigns in at the best time.

Part of me will miss hearing (and saying!) "Oh God, too much evil!  Too much evil!" on Vent, but I'm certainly not going to miss the massive pain in the ass that is the first 45s or so of Majordomo.

And yes, the Firelands raid is pretty awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 16, 2011, 11:18:55 AM
I hate Firelands so much I've pretty much given up trying to grind out those dailies. Even my daily frustration with the mechanics of the jousting at the Tourney 2 years ago still had me compelled to participate.

Firelands (the raid) is pretty awesome. Molten Front (the dailies) are pretty lame, but pretty much what I expected from a daily quest hub.

Btw, Blizzard announced the RealID cross-server grouping would remain free. A good decision.

Considering they are staring down the barrel of hemorrhaging subs within the next 6 months I can't see them making any rock the boat type of decisions now or in the future.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 16, 2011, 11:22:43 AM
EDIT: I can reed


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 16, 2011, 11:24:47 AM
Considering they are staring down the barrel of hemorrhaging subs within the next 6 months I can't see them making any rock the boat type of decisions now or in the future.

Might want to read the recent dev post about threat. They're making some pretty massive changes via hotfix instead of testing them somewhere and getting feedback first. Sounds completely idiotic tbh. They want to believe that their fights are fun enough that tanks will have other things to do now that threat won't really be a consideration, but it's simply not the case for most fights, at least in raiding. I think the change will make tanking less fun/interesting, and the game more shallow.

Edit: For example, Baleroc is the most "patchwerk-y" fight in Firelands, since you mostly just stand still and do your stuff correctly for ~5-6 minutes. This is not boring for healers because they are following a rotation to maximize +healing stacks and the tank is taking some huge spike damage. This is not boring for dps because they have to rotate a DoT by being the closest person to a crystal that lands on the ground, getting away from it and letting someone else step in when dmg gets too high. The only thing tanks had going for them in the fight was a) trying to use cooldowns for massive spike damage and b) maintaining threat, since all the dps are going pretty hard and can focus well on their dps. Now the only thing tanks will be worrying about is cooldowns every 30-60 seconds when the spike damage comes. The rest of that time? I guess they could watch TV or play Angry Birds on their phone, nbd.

The model they are doing could work by making more mechanics in fights that tanks will also have to deal with, but right now a lot of fights specifically avoid throwing those mechanics at tanks. It's a bad change to implement without any testing or other changes to the fights in the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 16, 2011, 11:27:16 AM
Considering they are staring down the barrel of hemorrhaging subs within the next 6 months I can't see them making any rock the boat type of decisions now or in the future.

Might want to read the recent dev post about threat. They're making some pretty massive changes via hotfix instead of testing them somewhere and getting feedback first. Sounds completely idiotic tbh. They want to believe that their fights are fun enough that tanks will have other things to do now that threat won't really be a consideration, but it's simply not the case for most fights, at least in raiding. I think the change will make tanking less fun/interesting, and the game more shallow.

If you think there are more than 100 people in the playerbase that want threat in this game, you are smoking some heavily laced weed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 16, 2011, 11:32:36 AM
Have you tanked much Rokal? Speaking as a tank I think this is a fantastic change. It fixes the 'new tank in random dungeon' situation and doesn't really change much at all for geared tanks, who never lost aggro for the most part anyway except on a couple specific fights that were designed that way (or after tank swaps with... undergeared tanks). Oh well, Prince Malchezzar will be easier now, sky is falling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 16, 2011, 11:39:51 AM
MF Dailes are aptly shorthanded because that's what I yell quite often.

Then again I'm doing them on a prot pally who has 3 bits of purple and whose offspec is pvp healing.   They're a tedious chore that eats through my defensive CDs because magic damage loves paladins.

Maybe if I did them on the rogue or DK I'd feel differently.  Right now they suck and I can only tolerate doing them every few days.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 16, 2011, 11:40:13 AM
Have you tanked much Rokal? Speaking as a tank I think this is a fantastic change. It fixes the 'new tank in random dungeon' situation and doesn't really change much at all for geared tanks, who never lost aggro for the most part anyway except on a couple specific fights that were designed that way (or after tank swaps with... undergeared tanks). Oh well, Prince Malchezzar will be easier now, sky is falling.

I still tank pretty often on my bear druid. Every ZG/ZA I feel like I need to fight pretty hard for threat, at least at the start of a pull. I don't think it's a bad thing, it's really the only consistent/exciting thing that happens for a tank. I'd be annoyed if someone pulled a pack for me so I started with a handi-cap, but I think the rush to get threat (and hold it) is one of the only things tanking has going for it that makes it fun.

Zanzil is an example of a fight that wouldn't really be affected by this change. There is plenty for a tank to do that will make that fight interesting even if threat isn't an issue. Bloodlord, Archaeology boss, and Panther are fights that I think don't really have enough going for them as a tank. The loss of threat will just make those fights boring.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 16, 2011, 11:43:04 AM
Just to keep 3 different conversations going at once...

It's sort of funny how pissy I am about Tier Last's shoulders, at the very least, still needing me to raid to get them. I will jump through all sorts of hoops just to fucking match, and if you won't let me match, your hoops can cram themselves right up your ass.

There are off-set head/shoulder pieces that use the same art as the tier pieces, so it's actually much easier to get 'matching' art if you want. They're usually on much earlier bosses too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 16, 2011, 11:47:57 AM
Just to keep 3 different conversations going at once...

It's sort of funny how pissy I am about Tier Last's shoulders, at the very least, still needing me to raid to get them. I will jump through all sorts of hoops just to fucking match, and if you won't let me match, your hoops can cram themselves right up your ass.

There are off-set head/shoulder pieces that use the same art as the tier pieces, so it's actually much easier to get 'matching' art if you want. They're usually on much earlier bosses too.

They're on bosses at all. You can't have a matching suit without raiding, is the complaint.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 16, 2011, 11:52:13 AM
They're on bosses at all. You can't have a matching suit without raiding, is the complaint.

7 toons all with frigging Troll shoulders because even the two I raid with never see the token let along fight it out with 1-2 others who are waiting for the same token. All I want is the matching set :(

I realize most are angry they have to raid at all, but some like Setanta may just be thinking "I'll have to roll against 6+ other people even if my token drops".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 16, 2011, 11:58:25 AM
I hate Firelands so much I've pretty much given up trying to grind out those dailies. Even my daily frustration with the mechanics of the jousting at the Tourney 2 years ago still had me compelled to participate.

Firelands (the raid) is pretty awesome. Molten Front (the dailies) are pretty lame, but pretty much what I expected from a daily quest hub.

I tend to stick both Raid (which I doubt I'll ever experience) and the dailies under one moniker as principally neither can exist without the other, ala ICC. That and 'Molten Front' suggests a liltte part of a zone, and 'Firelands' suggests the whole thing so it kind of sounds the wrong way round anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 16, 2011, 12:24:52 PM
Considering they are staring down the barrel of hemorrhaging subs within the next 6 months I can't see them making any rock the boat type of decisions now or in the future.

Might want to read the recent dev post about threat. They're making some pretty massive changes via hotfix instead of testing them somewhere and getting feedback first. Sounds completely idiotic tbh. They want to believe that their fights are fun enough that tanks will have other things to do now that threat won't really be a consideration, but it's simply not the case for most fights, at least in raiding. I think the change will make tanking less fun/interesting, and the game more shallow.

Edit: For example, Baleroc is the most "patchwerk-y" fight in Firelands, since you mostly just stand still and do your stuff correctly for ~5-6 minutes. This is not boring for healers because they are following a rotation to maximize +healing stacks and the tank is taking some huge spike damage. This is not boring for dps because they have to rotate a DoT by being the closest person to a crystal that lands on the ground, getting away from it and letting someone else step in when dmg gets too high. The only thing tanks had going for them in the fight was a) trying to use cooldowns for massive spike damage and b) maintaining threat, since all the dps are going pretty hard and can focus well on their dps. Now the only thing tanks will be worrying about is cooldowns every 30-60 seconds when the spike damage comes. The rest of that time? I guess they could watch TV or play Angry Birds on their phone, nbd.

The model they are doing could work by making more mechanics in fights that tanks will also have to deal with, but right now a lot of fights specifically avoid throwing those mechanics at tanks. It's a bad change to implement without any testing or other changes to the fights in the game.

Couldn't read it at work, but I was more implying things like "Hey this great thing we devolved will be a premium access only feature". I seem to recall that they flip flopped on this before when the nerfed misdirection and other agro related things because then wanted tanks to work more for threat. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 16, 2011, 01:41:07 PM
Making holding aggro easier is entirely about making tank fail less likely in a random dungeon. Which in theory would help get more tanks in the queue, which will help the queue times for DPS and etc...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 16, 2011, 02:17:10 PM
Edit: For example, Baleroc is the most "patchwerk-y" fight in Firelands, since you mostly just stand still and do your stuff correctly for ~5-6 minutes. This is not boring for healers because they are following a rotation to maximize +healing stacks and the tank is taking some huge spike damage. This is not boring for dps because they have to rotate a DoT by being the closest person to a crystal that lands on the ground, getting away from it and letting someone else step in when dmg gets too high. The only thing tanks had going for them in the fight was a) trying to use cooldowns for massive spike damage and b) maintaining threat, since all the dps are going pretty hard and can focus well on their dps. Now the only thing tanks will be worrying about is cooldowns every 30-60 seconds when the spike damage comes. The rest of that time? I guess they could watch TV or play Angry Birds on their phone, nbd.
Have you actually tanked Baleroc, or just heroics? As a blood DK, Baleroc is my favorite fight out of the first 6 (attempting Rag for the first time this week) because I can take a really active role in my survival. Every DS I use is timed for optimal healing, AMS/DRW used appropriately based on what weapon he pulls out, etc. Although, even before this hotfix I never had threat problems; vengeance scales based on your HP and by the end of the fight I'm sitting at ~1.5m health, so I'm doing crazy damage.

Maybe DKs are the exception, but the only fight I've had threat problems on in FL is the trash during Beth'tilac. The only other fights where aggro matters are the tank swap fights (both BH bosses come to mind) but the issue is trying not to pull aggro back off the other tank because you have vengeance and he doesn't yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on August 16, 2011, 02:36:37 PM
I tanked on my warrior in Vanilla, my Bear in TBC and my Pally in WotLK along with a little DK tanking. Vanilla tanking was boring, LK was fun, TBC was challenging. I like threat, it keeps me thinking and reacting, especially on multi-pulls (Bear tanking without thrash was tear-inducing in Cata).

Now I can't compare a vanilla warrior to a Cata one, but I think I'd prefer threat kept in the game, DPS meters broken by Blizzard and DPS L2P/watch threat. If I'm here to tank, I want the challenge, not boredom.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 16, 2011, 02:40:05 PM
Making holding aggro easier is entirely about making tank fail less likely in a random dungeon. Which in theory would help get more tanks in the queue, which will help the queue times for DPS and etc...

Making interesting new 5-mans would help more :p I don't tank very often on my druid anymore because I'm bored of all the heroics and I don't need anything from them any more.

Have you actually tanked Baleroc, or just heroics? As a blood DK, Baleroc is my favorite fight out of the first 6 (attempting Rag for the first time this week) because I can take a really active role in my survival. Every DS I use is timed for optimal healing, AMS/DRW used appropriately based on what weapon he pulls out, etc. Although, even before this hotfix I never had threat problems; vengeance scales based on your HP and by the end of the fight I'm sitting at ~1.5m health, so I'm doing crazy damage.

Maybe DKs are the exception, but the only fight I've had threat problems on in FL is the trash during Beth'tilac. The only other fights where aggro matters are the tank swap fights (both BH bosses come to mind) but the issue is trying not to pull aggro back off the other tank because you have vengeance and he doesn't yet.

I main a rogue, so I haven't tanked baleroc. That said, we've done the fight with a paladin, DK, and warrior tank. Out of those, DKs had the most control over their survivability by a wide margin.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lightstalker on August 16, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
Maybe the add tank can make it up to #2 before Shannox gibbs the MT for slow normal mode kills now?  That would actually be a notable difference and reduction in difficulty for that fight.

Baleroc is a really dumb example for the threat change having consequence.  Dude is tauntable and vengeance goes nuts on that fight. 

Making every tank behave more like a DK is not going to end well.  DKs are the least played of the tanks and their reactive mastery places them at a severe disadvantage to Paladins and Warriors for bosses with Frenzy effects.  Baleroc's normal melee attacks are more trouble for me than his Decimation Blade and his Inferno Blade is the easiest portion of the fight - it allows everyone to catch up; while I had to take myself off Beth'alac as a tank because I just can't equip a shield (from a dead tank at 15 stacks to a boring kill at 33 stacks).  This threat change will have minimal impact on raiding tanks, it'll only put off the problems with noob tanks in 5-mans (a 3 vs. 5 multiple also doesn't scale), and the interest in making all tanks play more like DKs will probably drive more players away than any of the current problems with tanking in the game. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 16, 2011, 02:48:33 PM
Making holding aggro easier is entirely about making tank fail less likely in a random dungeon. Which in theory would help get more tanks in the queue, which will help the queue times for DPS and etc...

Making interesting new 5-mans would help more :p I don't tank very often on my druid anymore because I'm bored of all the heroics and I don't need anything from them any more.


Not at all. The supply of tanks who don't go because of bad experiences is much higher than the supply of tanks who don't go because they don't need/want any gear from the instance, I would bet money on that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 16, 2011, 04:14:29 PM
Making holding aggro easier is entirely about making tank fail less likely in a random dungeon. Which in theory would help get more tanks in the queue, which will help the queue times for DPS and etc...

Making interesting new 5-mans would help more :p I don't tank very often on my druid anymore because I'm bored of all the heroics and I don't need anything from them any more.


Not at all. The supply of tanks who don't go because of bad experiences is much higher than the supply of tanks who don't go because they don't need/want any gear from the instance, I would bet money on that.

That and if you are remotely social as a tank you can handcraft a group of people you know aren't morons whenever you play. People will adjust to your schedule usually.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 16, 2011, 04:25:25 PM
I love tanking for guild groups. Nothing better.  I won't touch PUGs as a tank anymore.  You're never going fast enough or you're being too cautious if you're not doing pulls of 4+ mobs.  That's great but uh I'm still in blue gear that's not happening.

I've only done ZA once because of this. My Horde guild simply doesn't have the skills to raid and if they did they're not on often enough.  It took us 3 nights to do ZA and it involved many, many wipes - none due to aggro loss on my part.

Fuck the 5-mans with a rusty spoon if you think I'm going near that in a PUG.  The shit's not fun and I was bored of ZG/ ZA 3 1/2 years ago.

So good luck to Blizz getting more tanks with this change. Threat wasn't the problem.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 16, 2011, 04:28:44 PM
Well it wasn't the *only* problem, anyway. I've definitely had plenty of tanks I've ripped threat off of when playing as a fury warrior so this will help that at least.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 16, 2011, 04:30:34 PM
Blizzard can't solve the real problem of making tanks babysit people, especially stupid/impatient/mouthy people. When you strip social systems down to their barest essentials, you get shitty results.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 16, 2011, 04:57:07 PM
They're on bosses at all. You can't have a matching suit without raiding, is the complaint.

7 toons all with frigging Troll shoulders because even the two I raid with never see the token let along fight it out with 1-2 others who are waiting for the same token. All I want is the matching set :(

I realize most are angry they have to raid at all, but some like Setanta may just be thinking "I'll have to roll against 6+ other people even if my token drops".


So respond to him, not me.  :heart:


I am completely indifferent to the threat change, personally. It'll be nice for when I'm tanking PUGs, I guess. I do think it will get more people to at least try tanking, but I think most of them will turn around and go "bleh." I haven't had many people complain about my pace when I tank, though, I usually announce "I haven't done this in a while" right at the beginning and we go on our merry way. There aren't really enough tanks for people to bitch about me.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 16, 2011, 05:32:57 PM
So respond to him, not me.  :heart:

I am completely indifferent to the threat change, personally. It'll be nice for when I'm tanking PUGs, I guess. I do think it will get more people to at least try tanking, but I think most of them will turn around and go "bleh." I haven't had many people complain about my pace when I tank, though, I usually announce "I haven't done this in a while" right at the beginning and we go on our merry way. There aren't really enough tanks for people to bitch about me.  :oh_i_see:

I actually thought you were the one you made the token comment until I checked again. Trying to keep 3 conversations live might have been a bad idea.

I'd rather see a solution for threat that had the Luck of the Draw buff also give +300% threat to tanks or something, so that managing threat stuck around for raids and pre-made 5-mans, but I think it'd just lead to balance problems in the end. *shrug*


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 16, 2011, 06:04:52 PM
Very few tanks I know that have tanked for a long time put threat generation at the top of their list when describing why they liked the job, myself included.

I enjoyed the aspects of leading, maneuvering mobs, staying upright with timely cooldowns, managing handoffs with a teammate, and being the saving oh shit jump in if the MT went down as the OT and blowing all your CDs at once.

Threat was like, maybe 8th? Idk, Sjofn has the right of it, other than when you were getting your ass handed to you by all the AE tanks in Wrath as a warrior, it doesn't come up much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 17, 2011, 01:48:18 AM
Threat at the pull is the only major issue I've ever had while I was still playing, occasionally you get someone who can peel a boss off of you.  But then I gave up before getting into the raid game with Cataclysm because the instances were so shitty.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 17, 2011, 05:44:18 AM
Can you smell the collective nervous farts of blizzard team leads after an unpleasant meeting with the bosses?

I can!

Quote
    * New Raid - The Deathwing raid, making it very likely to be the last patch before the next expansion.
    * 3 new 5-man instances - Including one in the Caverns of Time. (War of the Ancients was mentioned as a cataclysm instance a few years ago, but a lot of things have changed since then, who knows!)
    * The Transmogrifier NPC, which will let you change the appearance of any armor piece on you, while retaining the stats of your current gear. (= T12 stats, but with the Tier 2 look!)
    * Players won't be able to change the appearance of their armor into another armor type or class armor set, and you might have to own the armor before you can use it to swap the appearance of your existing armor.
    * The Void Storage is a new type of bank where players will be able to store their old armors in order to free up space in their regular bank.
    * The Abyssal Maw dungeon is gone for the moment, the storyline wasn't convincing enough/fitting.
lol, what part of "make the fucking raids easier" don't you understand Blizzard?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 17, 2011, 06:00:52 AM
Called it.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on August 17, 2011, 06:04:25 AM
lol, what part of "make the fucking raids easier" don't you understand Blizzard?

They do get made easier...right after the top guilds that keep their game in the spotlight have had their masochistic 'fun'.  Pretty sure all of the Cata-launch raids got nerfed to oblivion after they were made obsolete by Firelands.  It's always been that way, and I don't see that paradigm changing anytime soon.

I'm all for new 5-man stuff, esp. if they can micro-tize some of the Firelands boss mechanics so casuals can take a crack at it to keep stuff fresh.

Sounds like the last patch of Wrath to me.  Something to keep us occupied until the Pandas invade.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 17, 2011, 06:36:54 AM
lol, what part of "make the fucking raids easier" don't you understand Blizzard?

They do get made easier...right after the top guilds that keep their game in the spotlight have had their masochistic 'fun'.  Pretty sure all of the Cata-launch raids got nerfed to oblivion after they were made obsolete by Firelands.  It's always been that way, and I don't see that paradigm changing anytime soon.

No it hasn't always been that way. Wrath wasn't that way at all. The first level raid was very approachable from the jump, and Ulduar had an entire section of fights that were very doable right when they were released. TOC was doable by the masses. ICC had the expanding buff.

They've tried catering to the casuals and made a bunch of fun facerolly bring your friends content and printed money. They tried catering to the hardcores and lost a million subs and counting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 17, 2011, 06:39:20 AM
Ulduar was the best raid in the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 17, 2011, 06:42:35 AM
I eagerly await seeing all the other things they said would never be in the game(until subs get bad enough) how long until housing?

Changing armor is, honestly very nice but im not sure it's enough to bring me back. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 17, 2011, 06:46:50 AM
I eagerly await seeing all the other things they said would never be in the game(until subs get bad enough) how long until housing?

Changing armor is, honestly very nice but im not sure it's enough to bring me back. 

server mergers in a year. or something similar under the guise of server mergers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 17, 2011, 06:48:14 AM
No it hasn't always been that way. Wrath wasn't that way at all. The first level raid was very approachable from the jump, and Ulduar had an entire section of fights that were very doable right when they were released. TOC was doable by the masses. ICC had the expanding buff.

They've tried catering to the casuals and made a bunch of fun facerolly bring your friends content and printed money. They tried catering to the hardcores and lost a million subs and counting.

Aside from Naxx (which was laughably easy anyway) that's really only true for 10s.  They were never tuned properly, even if you were in a strict group.  They closed a loophole and now groups like mine can have a lot of fun instead of being stuck raiding the bigger size just because it's the only one that isn't a pushover.

As for server mergers, they haven't opened new servers in the West for years and have moved a lot of local matchmaking into smaller groups and everything else is cross-server in one way or another.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Der Helm on August 17, 2011, 07:05:42 AM
    * The Void Storage is a new type of bank where players will be able to store their old armors in order to free up space in their regular bank.

There goes my hope of being able to trade BoA items... and any chance of me resubbing.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 17, 2011, 07:10:34 AM
Did I hear "appearance tab"?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 17, 2011, 07:12:24 AM
Did I hear "appearance tab"?

Yep, subs fell enough to have them go to that gimmick. Next, HOUSING!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 17, 2011, 07:15:42 AM
Bunny ears and lovely pink dresses, for all!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 17, 2011, 07:30:47 AM
Still locked into armor class and class restrictions if the translation's right.  So... farming for Giantstalker it is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 17, 2011, 07:44:02 AM
Also, in terms of end-game content, Cata is flatout the most anemic expansion of the three!

BC: 8 Raids, 1 original 5-man.
WotLK: 7 Raids, 3 original 5-mans (counting Wintergrasp raid)
Cata: 6 Raids, 2 Re-hash 5-mans. (counting deathwing raid and the Tol Barad raid which is barely a raid)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 17, 2011, 07:52:23 AM
There's more 5s in the thing you quoted and there's only one Throne of the Four Winds (with maybe another one a year from now) compared to: Gruul's Lair, Magtheridon, Onyxia, Malygos, Sartharion, and Halion.  And Naxx was a rehash too.  And Heroic Modes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 17, 2011, 08:14:56 AM
Still locked into armor class and class restrictions if the translation's right.  So... farming for Giantstalker it is.

I still have my full Giantstalker set.. I break it out when the hunter's in town.  (And now that she's Human it looks even better than on a NE.)  I might go farm-up an old set of the Hero's mail, though.  That was pretty snazzy looking and this really cool shade of purpleish red.

Too bad it has to stay same to same instead of being able to go down as I was hoping for a dress-wearing paladin.  Or maybe the Watcher's Harness + Black Mageweave legs look.  Looks like it's going to be Glorious BP and Legs instead.   :drillf:

DK will go back to his Noob armor for a while. That set didn't see nearly enough use for as cool as it looks.  Maybe T8 for the big, pointy horns.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 17, 2011, 08:18:12 AM
Also, in terms of end-game content, Cata is flatout the most anemic expansion of the three!

BC: 8 Raids, 1 original 5-man.
WotLK: 7 Raids, 3 original 5-mans (counting Wintergrasp raid)
Cata: 6 Raids, 2 Re-hash 5-mans. (counting deathwing raid and the Tol Barad raid which is barely a raid)
Did you just pull these numbers out of your ass?
WotLK had 9 raids: Naxx, Ulduar, ToC, ICC, VoA, OS, Maly, Ony, and RS. It also had 14 5-mans: AN, OK, UP, UK, Nexus, Occu, DTK, GD, HoL, HoS, ToC, PoS, FoS, HoR. BC had more than 1 original 5 man dungeon too (obviously) but I'm not googling how many and I didn't play BC enough to remember. Cata's got more than 2 fucking 5-mans too; hell, it's got more than 2 re-hash 5-mans without even getting into the original ones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 17, 2011, 08:23:38 AM
Did you just pull these numbers out of your ass?
WotLK had 9 raids: Naxx, Ulduar, ToC, ICC, VoA, OS, Maly, Ony, and RS. It also had 14 5-mans: AN, OK, UP, UK, Nexus, Occu, DTK, GD, HoL, HoS, ToC, PoS, FoS, HoR. BC had more than 1 original 5 man dungeon too (obviously) but I'm not googling how many and I didn't play BC enough to remember. Cata's got more than 2 fucking 5-mans too; hell, it's got more than 2 re-hash 5-mans without even getting into the original ones.
I wasn't counting 5-mans that shipped with the game. I totally spaced on Ony and RS however.

So
WotLK: 9 raids if you count VoA and 4 original 5-mans (forgot ToC5)
BC: 9 raids, 1 original 5-man.
Cata: Will have 6 Raids, 2 rehash 5-mans and 3 originals presumably?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 17, 2011, 08:30:44 AM
Oh, you're counting expansion-launch raids but not expansion-launch 5 mans, gotcha.  :uhrr: Even if 4.3 is the Deathwing patch, there's nothing to stop them from throwing in another small raid (like they did with Ony/RS) either before or after as a minor patch. Really though, all this news confirms is that all their promises about faster content and more content coming out were bullshit. We were probably supposed to get FL first, then Abyssal Maw, then Deathwing's Whatever and have 4 total tiers (like LK) instead of only 3.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on August 17, 2011, 08:34:30 AM
I'm with Ren.  To ignore the shipping dungeons of Cata, Wrath and esp. BC would be silly.  The Heroic BC dungeons were the stuff that casual tears were made from back in the day, and it was the heroic-modes that made the content still relevant.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 17, 2011, 09:00:24 AM
Oh, you're counting expansion-launch raids but not expansion-launch 5 mans, gotcha.  :uhrr: Even if 4.3 is the Deathwing patch, there's nothing to stop them from throwing in another small raid (like they did with Ony/RS) either before or after as a minor patch. Really though, all this news confirms is that all their promises about faster content and more content coming out were bullshit. We were probably supposed to get FL first, then Abyssal Maw, then Deathwing's Whatever and have 4 total tiers (like LK) instead of only 3.

They can roll out the "Tournament of Elements" (Raid and 5 man) with such fun things like like daily 3d jousting (ala the quest in hyjal) all because thrall feels the need to test the champions that will face deathwing...     :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 17, 2011, 09:18:11 AM
Hmm.. Deathwing.   I guess that means I need to go set my character AFK in Ulduar for about 12 hours so I can finally get the achieve for him.

Seriously, that guy goes to Ulduar about 2x a day on both my Horde and Alliance server.  He must love pyramids.  However, since I couldn't take another "ohh fucking sand and desolation" area I've avoided it on all of my 85's.  :cry:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on August 17, 2011, 09:31:08 AM
Hmm.. Deathwing.   I guess that means I need to go set my character AFK in Ulduar for about 12 hours so I can finally get the achieve for him.

Seriously, that guy goes to Ulduar about 2x a day on both my Horde and Alliance server.  He must love pyramids.  However, since I couldn't take another "ohh fucking sand and desolation" area I've avoided it on all of my 85's.  :cry:

Uldum?

(Incidentally, that's the one and only place I've seen Deathwing on any of my toons.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 17, 2011, 09:33:21 AM
Quote
    * New Raid - The Deathwing raid, making it very likely to be the last patch before the next expansion.
    * The Transmogrifier NPC, which will let you change the appearance of any armor piece on you, while retaining the stats of your current gear. (= T12 stats, but with the Tier 2 look!)

:rock_hard:  :drillf:  :heart:

Quote
    * Players won't be able to change the appearance of their armor into another armor type or class armor set, and you might have to own the armor before you can use it to swap the appearance of your existing armor.

Oh, I so hope this is true.  It'll totally justify my squirreling away armor pieces I thought looked good for years and years since vanilla.  That, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who didn't.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 17, 2011, 09:35:10 AM
Hmm.. Deathwing.   I guess that means I need to go set my character AFK in Ulduar for about 12 hours so I can finally get the achieve for him.

Seriously, that guy goes to Ulduar about 2x a day on both my Horde and Alliance server.  He must love pyramids.  However, since I couldn't take another "ohh fucking sand and desolation" area I've avoided it on all of my 85's.  :cry:

Uldum?

(Incidentally, that's the one and only place I've seen Deathwing on any of my toons.)


Really? I got my achieve in Blasted Lands and Tanaris on different characters.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 17, 2011, 09:38:05 AM
Err yes, Udlum.


See, I hate the zone so much I can't even remember its name properly.  :awesome_for_real:

I've seen DW's aftermath in TH once.  Nearly everyone whose gotten the achieve when I was online was in Udlum at the time.  The exceptions were the few newbs or lowbies who got flamed in older areas.  Not one person in Icecrown, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 17, 2011, 09:59:51 AM
Here's the official announcement with some interface screenshots: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3309048 (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3309048)

As for things we didn't know: that this does include weapons and shields although they're also restricted by type.  So... my Ranseur of Hatred can look like a Blackhand Doomsaw (http://www.wowhead.com/item=12583), which I'm about to go make with the farming of.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on August 17, 2011, 10:10:42 AM
I have railed against this in the past, but I suppose I'm okay with the change as long as it stays class specific.  Rarely does gear appearance dictate how I would react in PvP. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 17, 2011, 10:19:44 AM
That's how I hoped they would do it, my fears of people tanking in their Lovely Black Dress won't come to pass.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 17, 2011, 10:28:22 AM
What if they just decided to push Deathwing out the door quickly and move on the next expansion that comes out in March?



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 17, 2011, 10:40:33 AM
Here's the official announcement with some interface screenshots: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3309048 (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3309048)

As for things we didn't know: that this does include weapons and shields although they're also restricted by type.  So... my Ranseur of Hatred can look like a Blackhand Doomsaw (http://www.wowhead.com/item=12583), which I'm about to go make with the farming of.

Oh awesome.  All my DK's weapons will look like Armageddon or Bryntroll.

C'mon 4.3


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 17, 2011, 10:56:23 AM
I can let you know right now that it involves the transfer of object between servers and the manipulating the stats on equipment, and not the altering of any particular thing's appearance. Blizzard hates you.
Hi there!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 17, 2011, 11:03:26 AM
No it hasn't always been that way. Wrath wasn't that way at all. The first level raid was very approachable from the jump, and Ulduar had an entire section of fights that were very doable right when they were released.

Ulduar had the first 2-3 fights that were pretty easy. I'm not sure how you are defining 'easy', but I see PuGs for Firelands that usually down Beth and Shannox, sometimes Rhyolith. The tuning on the first bosses isn't especially demanding.

Really surprised they are finally doing cosmetic armor slots. Not even remotely surprised that 4.3 is the last raid of the expansion, but it's still disappointing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 17, 2011, 11:27:40 AM
Really surprised they are finally doing cosmetic armor slots.

I'm not.  The Transmogrifier is what they're hoping will stop too many people from jumping over to SWTOR.  Expect 4.3 in November, to coincidentally be released right before SWTOR goes live.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on August 17, 2011, 11:28:52 AM
That, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who didn't.  :grin:

Yeah. I'm one of those who peered into my crystal ball, and decided that the chances of Blizzard giving us cosmetic outfits were far outweighed by my inventory needs.

The thing is, I don't so much want to look like any particular set of gear from the past, as much as I want to NOT look like a murloc. Which will hopefully be fixed by the time 4.3 comes out anyway.

That said, I like that they're going to let us do this with weapons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 17, 2011, 11:52:57 AM
Handy link: http://www.wowpedia.org/Set_look_alikes


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 17, 2011, 12:09:16 PM
Glad I saved my DK starter set on every DK I've ever made.  Or any other item which I thought cool which I came across.  I wonder if we can transmogrify BoA items.

It won't get me to resub, but at least it'll be there when I do feel like playing again.  The only downside I see is that there are some non-magical sets I'd like to use, too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 17, 2011, 12:14:58 PM
OOh.. I jusst remembered I've got the quest shield that looks like a Captain's Wheel on my pally still.   :drillf:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 17, 2011, 12:37:11 PM
If I was still tanking, I would slap on my BWL buick-door shield and go to town! RAAAAAWR!

(http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t275/Phire126/Bulwark.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 17, 2011, 01:06:24 PM
This honestly is a lot of 'end game' content, at least for me. This gives people a real reason to run old raids or 5-mans, and there is also the possibility of achievements for collecting sets now that storage will be less of (or not at all) an issue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on August 17, 2011, 01:16:42 PM
Sweet. Am I ever glad I saved my Twin's Pact. I always thought it was the most 'feral' looking feral druid weapon.

http://www.wowhead.com/item=47302#screenshots:id=159465


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 17, 2011, 01:25:02 PM
The only suit I ever saved was my full set of upgraded Heroism. Which I think you can't get anymore, just the unupgraded Valor suit, so I guess I could be a slightly special snowflake.

EDIT: Apparently you can't even get the Valor suit anymore. DOUBLE snowflake.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on August 17, 2011, 01:55:10 PM
I saved my full "Molten" enhance PvP set on my shaman - can't remember the name but chains and molten sections. I'm glad I did

Sadly, I still have my hunter's T1 and T2 sets from vanilla :S


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on August 17, 2011, 01:59:36 PM
Yeah, I have a full tier0.5 set on three of my characters... bling! Too bad the pally set sucks (proto-tier5, yay?) and the warlock set's helm is as ridiculous as ever.

edit: This also reminds me of a guildie who carried a full green iron set (level 20-30ish mail, blacksmith crafted) so he could randomly put it on and 'look awesome' during dungeon runs.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 17, 2011, 02:01:02 PM
There are a few suits I wish I still had and I don't think I can get anymore. My Druid's Arena 1 and 2 suits and their accessories. Not sure if I can still get the Glyphed green 'suit' either anymore.

Decorative armor storage came like 5 years too late for me, oh well  :cry:

DiscoPonyStaff will live on though!   :drill: :drillf: :drill:


I also like how you can turn a bow into a gun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 17, 2011, 02:07:04 PM
My priest still has full T3 to be the most-special snowflake, but sadly they never fixed the shoulders so that the wing effect didn't look like shit from your own perspective.


I missed this earlier, but found it in a Kotaku inverview:

Quote from:
Finally, Chilton explained a new feature coming with the patch called "Raid Finder". The Raid Finder essentially operates like a dungeon finder, automating the search for fellow players on the hunt for a good raiding party. It will be built into the game's updated user interface when the patch hits, they said.

I guess now raids will need to be balanced around 10 people that do not wish to communicate at all :p


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 17, 2011, 02:10:35 PM
I also like how you can turn a bow into a gun.

Can you? I thought it was Bow>Bow, gun>gun.  Otherwise you'd be able to do Dagger>sword.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 17, 2011, 02:16:06 PM
I also like how you can turn a bow into a gun.

Can you? I thought it was Bow>Bow, gun>gun.  Otherwise you'd be able to do Dagger>sword.

They said they specifically made an exception for bows, guns and crossbows.  Too bad they didn't include thrown weapons too, so my Rogue could shoot poison arrows.  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 17, 2011, 02:21:25 PM
Yea, they said the only exception to no Sword into Hammer is the Bow,Gun,Crossbow thing. Dwarf, Draenei and Elf hunters all rejoice \o/


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 17, 2011, 03:11:26 PM
What if they just decided to push Deathwing out the door quickly and move on the next expansion that comes out in March?

Wouldn't surprise me if they wanted to move away from the 'Cata Era' as quickly as possible at this point.

"Here's the Brand new expansion, where we undo everything that was wrong with the previous one, please come back!"


There's a bunch of shit that they are either unwilling or unable to fix outside of the expansion overhauls.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 17, 2011, 03:28:54 PM
DOUBLE snowflake.


What does it meeeeean?


So I am pleased at them finally caving on the appearance thing! I already know what I would dress my boy paladin up in, my lady dwarf will take some CONSIDERATION. But I am EXTRA pleased more five mans are coming.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on August 17, 2011, 03:45:34 PM
So it looks like 4.3 is the last content patch of Cataclysm.  That seems kind of weak.  But I guess with the next expansion supposedly coming in Q2 of 2012 its only logical.  I still think they are gonna bleed subs til then, and maybe only get back 50% of their loss with Mists of Pandaria.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on August 17, 2011, 03:59:05 PM
Wouldn't surprise me if they wanted to move away from the 'Cata Era' as quickly as possible at this point.

That would be 6 months ago and dozen firings later. Starting with G "my way or highway" C.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 17, 2011, 04:07:25 PM
So it looks like 4.3 is the last content patch of Cataclysm.  That seems kind of weak.  But I guess with the next expansion supposedly coming in Q2 of 2012 its only logical.  I still think they are gonna bleed subs til then, and maybe only get back 50% of their loss with Mists of Pandaria.
Wonder what the odds are of someone standing up at Blizzcon and asking "So why was Cataclysm such a fuck-up, anyway?"

And damn it, the lightsaber quest in EPL got removed.  :crying_panda:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Amaron on August 17, 2011, 04:50:29 PM
This interests me greatly but they've ignored the server problem for too long.  I'm not coming back and paying them 100 dollars to move my expanding character list again.   No amount of "Oh shit that looks fun" can really fix that for me.  With a very large portion of the lost subscribers hitting western servers I had hoped they would address the issue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 17, 2011, 05:24:12 PM
Glad I saved my DK starter set on every DK I've ever made.

This.

This.

THIIIIIS

They never made a better looking set of plate armour in my opinion. DKs look amazing right out of the bag. My very first experience rolling one made me wonder why on earth they were so determined to prise me out of it so fast. Even a Gnome DK looks like a badass in it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 17, 2011, 05:31:00 PM
They never made a better looking set of plate armour in my opinion.

Other than Warrior T8 you mean.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 17, 2011, 05:31:53 PM
OOoh.. I'm going to be one of the few human hunters wielding a Rhok'Delar!!!

Woot.

Fuck.. by this point I might be one of the only hunters with it.  I swore I'd never delete the damn thing and by god I still have it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on August 17, 2011, 05:48:54 PM

If it's appearance slots, I'll cry myself to sleep every night thinking about the Nax40 warrior set that I don't have and can never get.

 :crying_panda:


Wasn't expecting the armor-type restriction.  I have an extensive collection of cool-looking headgear I've been saving over the years in anticipation of appearance slots, but most of my favorites aren't plate so I can't use them.

 :sad_panda:  :crying_panda:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 17, 2011, 06:18:17 PM
Glad I saved my DK starter set on every DK I've ever made.

This.

This.

THIIIIIS

They never made a better looking set of plate armour in my opinion. DKs look amazing right out of the bag. My very first experience rolling one made me wonder why on earth they were so determined to prise me out of it so fast. Even a Gnome DK looks like a badass in it.

I like the current honor paladin plate set a lot better, personally. I've never been into plate skirts on my female characters, they never look as good to my eye. I think it's because the skirt tapers in on the ladies, which makes it look more like a dress than the kind of armor they're trying to make you think of.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 17, 2011, 06:27:25 PM
The vast majority of stuff I'd convert will be random greens/blues/purples I've gathered over the years and put together to form a good look. I don't think there's ever been a 'set' my SPriest liked in the slightest, and this of course does nothing to redress my continuing issue with MASSIVE SHOULDERPADS. I'm still going to have to trawl the databanks for the most inoffensive 'pads I can combine with my other Heinz 57 gear.

I just want to look like a Witch. Is that so hard?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 17, 2011, 06:30:55 PM
There are smallish black ones (http://www.wowhead.com/item=6395) that might work.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on August 17, 2011, 06:48:21 PM
OOoh.. I'm going to be one of the few human hunters wielding a Rhok'Delar!!!

Woot.

Fuck.. by this point I might be one of the only hunters with it.  I swore I'd never delete the damn thing and by god I still have it.

Still got Rhok on my Tauren hunter. Along with the Crossbow of smiting from BWL and Hunruhan's stinger from AQ40 :)

I fought hard for Rhok before they nerfed the epic quest line - hell, I took 5 days off work for those damn spawn timers (and the inevitable griefer).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 17, 2011, 07:08:22 PM
The vast majority of stuff I'd convert will be random greens/blues/purples I've gathered over the years and put together to form a good look. I don't think there's ever been a 'set' my SPriest liked in the slightest, and this of course does nothing to redress my continuing issue with MASSIVE SHOULDERPADS. I'm still going to have to trawl the databanks for the most inoffensive 'pads I can combine with my other Heinz 57 gear.

I just want to look like a Witch. Is that so hard?

Nope, it's not.

Hat Wicked Witch's Hat (http://www.wowhead.com/item=28586/wicked-witchs-hat#same-model-as)
Robe Black Mageweave Robe (http://www.wowhead.com/item=10001)
Shoulders Darkcloth Shoulders <of the random> (http://www.wowhead.com/item=39894)

Ta da, you're a witch.

Skanky Witch: 

Hat Circlet of Prophecy (http://www.wowhead.com/item=16813)
Chest  Polychromatic Vision Wrap (http://www.wowhead.com/item=12609)
Legs Black Mageweave leggings (http://www.wowhead.com/item=9999)
Same Shoulders
Boots Aurora Slippers (http://www.wowhead.com/item=42096)





Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Amaron on August 17, 2011, 08:50:44 PM
I'm curious how many are now arguing that Shadowmourne and etc should have nerfed drop rate on shards or whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on August 17, 2011, 09:07:50 PM
I'm curious how many are now arguing that Shadowmourne and etc should have nerfed drop rate on shards or whatever.

According to the thread on SA, you can't use legendary items in the appearance thingie.  Which sucks for my thunderfury.   :crying_panda:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 17, 2011, 09:24:26 PM
Confirmed, you can't use legendaries for the source or target of transmogrifying.

Sauce: http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/191174/transmogrification-is-coming


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 17, 2011, 10:11:42 PM
There are smallish black ones (http://www.wowhead.com/item=6395) that might work.
My Warlock will be using that entire set for her appearance.  Silver-thread is one of my favorites.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 17, 2011, 10:21:24 PM
I seem to recall the gloves not really going but I might be thinking of a different set. But yeah, the Silver-thread set goes for a pretty penny on Moon Guard, that's how you know it's pretty!  :why_so_serious:

God, Moon Guard is going to get even more hilarious economy-wise, I can taste it!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 17, 2011, 10:23:57 PM
Time to start cranking out the mageweave thongs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 17, 2011, 10:24:45 PM
Silver-Thread all matches if you use the chest piece that isn't a robe.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 17, 2011, 10:31:18 PM
The pants are absolutely fucking ridiculous, though. The gloves do match the robe alright, really. I'd want a black shirt under the robe, though, just to give the illusion of sleeves.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 17, 2011, 10:32:32 PM
http://www.wowhead.com/item=4037

I've seen worse.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 17, 2011, 10:33:25 PM
Ridiculous.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 18, 2011, 04:48:19 AM
I see Robes of Insight being ultra expensive once more.  I should stock up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on August 18, 2011, 04:51:52 AM
I totally need one for my male gnome mage.   :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Special J on August 18, 2011, 08:14:25 AM
Changing all those ugly guns on my Orc Hunter to the Ancient Bone Bow (http://www.wowhead.com/item=18680#screenshots:id=89414) model makes me happy.  And anything that can hide some of the ludicrous looking shoulders on any character is a good thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 18, 2011, 08:51:10 AM
Can you use heirlooms?  Will the appearance be kept when traded?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on August 18, 2011, 08:55:11 AM
Changing all those ugly guns on my Orc Hunter to the Ancient Bone Bow (http://www.wowhead.com/item=18680#screenshots:id=89414) model makes me happy.  And anything that can hide some of the ludicrous looking shoulders on any character is a good thing.

Somehow I doubt they're going to allow you to put a bow skin on a gun, but I've been wrong before  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 18, 2011, 08:57:28 AM
They have specifically said that you can change bow > gun > xbow, but not other weapons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on August 18, 2011, 09:10:57 AM
They have specifically said that you can change bow > gun > xbow, but not other weapons.

Bullocks.  If that's how it's going to be, then why even have class weapon restrictions? 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 18, 2011, 09:30:01 AM
wat?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 18, 2011, 09:32:24 AM
I agree, it's stupid that hunters can change what type of weapon they appear to be using but the rest of us can't. Why can they change a gun into a crossbow, but a warrior can't switch an axe into a sword?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Special J on August 18, 2011, 09:46:05 AM
They have specifically said that you can change bow > gun > xbow, but not other weapons.

Bullocks.  If that's how it's going to be, then why even have class weapon restrictions? 

Well I don't know ranged weapons outside of hunters, but are there any classes that can use one of guns/bows/x-bows and not the others?  I figured that's why they got away with it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 18, 2011, 09:51:31 AM
No. Warriors and rogues can all use bows, xbows, guns, and throwing. No one else (besides hunters) can use any of them at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 18, 2011, 09:52:24 AM
Rogues (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=76297) and Warriors (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=76290) can use Thrown/Gun/Bow/XBow.  Hunters (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=76249) can only use Gun/Bow/XBow.

The restriction on changing gear outside of its type is only for Gun/Bow/XBow so there's no change in what a class's gear could look like.

As for why Hunters get to swap their main weapon's model around?  For a start, guns and crossbows that used to be guns (http://www.wowhead.com/item=71366) are super fucking annoying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 18, 2011, 10:22:36 AM
Void Storage: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3342240
80-slot, searchable bank space with the drawback that it costs money to deposit/withdraw items, and it strips all enchantments/gems/etc. from anything put in it. So it's an archive box rather than a safe deposit box.

Also: Buying cheap vanity items to resell post-4.3 is vastly amusing. Why thank you, whoever it was who put a Mug O'Hurt up on the AH for 20 gold. I'm fairly sure it'll sell for more than that in a couple of months.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 18, 2011, 10:28:56 AM
1k gold to unlock the VS and 100g to deposit one item?  Yeah, ok.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 18, 2011, 10:33:53 AM
Hahaha.  Yah, my chances of resubbing for this went from slim to none. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 18, 2011, 10:45:43 AM
I would have re-subbed if I could have changed my 1h/oh combo on my spriest to look like anathama but unfortunately I almost never use staves anymore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 18, 2011, 10:52:28 AM
Now I'm even more upset I could never get that damnable scythe from the holiday stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 18, 2011, 10:56:24 AM
For quite some time now, players have been asking for a location in which to store important keepsakes including treasured armor sets, unique quest rewards, and gifts from friends, as well as other valuable items they've collected on their journeys throughout Azeroth. Well, we figured they already had something like that, and it was called a bank. But now we're immensely pleased with ourselves to announce the addition of Void Storage!

"So what's Void Storage?"

Void Storage will open up 80 slots of long-term storage space!

"So... like a bank then?"

Not at all! A variety of items can be placed into Void Storage -- including soulbound items and Battle.net Account Bound items -- making it the perfect location to store trophies from past conquests, as well as armor you may want to hold onto for Transmogrification.  So, if you've been looking for a good home for those old tier sets or your vanity holiday items, Void Storage is it! And it's as easy to use as dragging and dropping.

"That sounds exactly like the bank we already have."

Aha, but you're not getting the whole picture here!

"What am I missing, then? It's 80 slots more that I can dump my overflowing shit-pile into and it works on the same principle as the bank I already have..."

Weeeelll... in return for this unique service, the Ethereals will require a small fee for each item deposited into or withdrawn from their Void Storage apparatus. Also, since this particular storage option isn't really intended for belongings that you'd use on a regular basis (like your current set of raiding gear, for example), any item placed in Void Storage will be stripped of all its enhancements, including enchants, gems, sockets, and reforged stats

"So I have to pay to put stuff in... and take stuff out... and it won't be in the same condition I put it in?"

Yes! Oh shit, wait, you also have to pay a great big lump sum to even use Void Storage! It's fancy like that!

"Yes, I think I see now. You are a bunch of fucking crooks. You know that? Tiny-limbed-corpulent-dinosaur enthusiast crooks. You could have just upped the current bank system by another 80 slots and everyone would have been happy with that."

Uhhh... misdirection time! We're also adding in a mod-feature we've blithely ignored for years that lets you search through your... wait... wait! Where are you going?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 18, 2011, 10:57:49 AM
The transaction cost makes sense though since the actual Transmog process wasn't shown to cost more than say, reforging.  So if you have a suit you're going to want to wear 95% of the time, just keep that in your normal bank and stick vanity trinkets and stuff you might want to use as a source once-in-a-blue-moon in the void storage.

That said, none of my banks are brimming or would be if I ate a bag slot on cosmetic stuff so I don't see myself using it a whole lot anyway :awesome_for_real:.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on August 18, 2011, 11:00:35 AM
The feature I would consider staying subbed for is the raid finder. I'm stuck in a guild right now that can't even clear nerfed BWD, that is if we scrape up enough people to do it; and fireland pugs don't happen at all on my server, save for trash runs. I just want to see the new raid content they put in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 18, 2011, 11:05:10 AM
1000 gold is a lot of money? Really? What, did we travel back in time to early TBC or something?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 18, 2011, 11:06:46 AM
The feature I would consider staying subbed for is the raid finder. I'm stuck in a guild right now that can't even clear nerfed BWD, that is if we scrape up enough people to do it; and fireland pugs don't happen at all on my server, save for trash runs. I just want to see the new raid content they put in.

What makes you think you and 9 randomly selected players who have never met won't have the same problem or do even worse?

Cata lacked a good gold sink. I have no problems with the transmog cost. We're talking about an economy where the top single-weapon enchant for melee dps currently sells for 1.5k, and Firelands BoEs go for 15-30k. If I get a new set of armor and have to re-apply my old one, the 500g to remove those pieces of armor and 500 to deposit them again isn't going to kill my wallet. Or better yet, whichever set you really like, keep in your regular bank. The ones you like less and just want to keep around just in case? Void storage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 18, 2011, 11:06:49 AM
I agree, it's stupid that hunters can change what type of weapon they appear to be using but the rest of us can't. Why can they change a gun into a crossbow, but a warrior can't switch an axe into a sword?

Because the animations are so different, maybe.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 18, 2011, 11:10:55 AM
You could have just upped the current bank system by another 80 slots and everyone would have been happy with that.

Except this is on a different scale than the bank.  An item in Void Storage is just an item ID (and maybe condition, although I think the fee is in part a way to mask that they're not storing this).  An item in your bank is: item ID, condition, crafter, reforge, gem(s), and enchant(s).

That's several times more information.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 18, 2011, 11:15:26 AM
1000 gold is a lot of money? Really? What, did we travel back in time to early TBC or something?

Depends on how casual you are/ how willing to exploit the AH you are.  It's not a lot of money for me and I consider myself poor with only 18k.  I know lots of folks - raiders and non raiders - for whom they rarely have even enough money to buy gems for their gear.   

No, I have no fucking clue what they do with their cash from dailies.  You can make 100g in fifteen minutes without really trying.

Anywho, VS appears to be meant for the packrats like myself whose bank is already stuffed to the gills with shit they pull out once a year. Holidays, guild events, whatever.   I've got lots of stuff I'd love to keep even though I rarely use it but getting new armor means I have to rid myself of old. I'm happy with it, but not as happy as I'd have been before I destroyed 3 armor sets I now have to reacquire because I liked the look.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 18, 2011, 11:33:39 AM
My Alliance paladin is poor because I am sick to fucking death of dailies. I burned out on them on my Horde paladin, and fuck doing them again on my Alliance one. Or any alts for that matter, if I can manage to force my way through the 80-85 content a fourth time (my Horde rogue hit 85 and promptly started to gather dust), which seems pretty unlikely.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 18, 2011, 11:36:59 AM
Obviously they felt they needed another gold sink, which doesn't surprise me based on what people besides me apparently seem to have saved up. I can never keep money myself but other people have little trouble amassing thousands, apparently.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 18, 2011, 11:53:46 AM
You could have just upped the current bank system by another 80 slots and everyone would have been happy with that.
Except this is on a different scale than the bank.  An item in Void Storage is just an item ID (and maybe condition, although I think the fee is in part a way to mask that they're not storing this).  An item in your bank is: item ID, condition, crafter, reforge, gem(s), and enchant(s).

The casual user base will neither understand that nor care about it. The fact of the matter is, Void Storage is effectively an in-game premium bank; item or 'item ID' regardless. A lot of people are going to be wondering why they have to toss gold at it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Amaron on August 18, 2011, 12:03:09 PM
The fact of the matter is, Void Storage is effectively an in-game premium bank; item or 'item ID' regardless. A lot of people are going to be wondering why they have to toss gold at it.

Doesn't it destroy the item you put in it?  That doesn't give me a very premium bank vibe.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 18, 2011, 12:15:16 PM
It doesn't destroy it, it strips it down to what it was when it dropped. So it's for your level 60 shit you'll never wear for real again but like the look of or whatever. Who cares if the enchant gets stripped off?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on August 18, 2011, 12:26:23 PM
Literally half my bank is full of shit i kept in anticipation of this day. Including the game's only mail eyepatch.

The one thing I didn't anticipate was the weapons.

HMM.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on August 18, 2011, 01:24:53 PM
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/item/50303

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/item/50759

And if they drop this whole retarded "You can change your ranged weapon type but not your general melee weapon type!" so I can finally use 1h swords,

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/item/34164


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 18, 2011, 02:02:59 PM
If you're a shaman, they're not going to let you change your shit to swords, I am sure.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 18, 2011, 02:13:49 PM
Yeah pipe dream. Even if they do relax those slot restrictions I'd be incredibly surprised if they let you go outside your class's usable things.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 18, 2011, 04:22:59 PM
If they were wise they would make archaeology supply a bunch of models without consuming bank space, then it wouldn't be such a dismal failure.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 18, 2011, 05:02:50 PM
The void bank thing seems needlessly complex for something reasonably simple.

Why is Blizzard so stingy about the bag space? Who cares if I want to create 20 bank slots?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Koyasha on August 18, 2011, 05:24:20 PM
When I was still playing, the 'transmogrification' appearance changes would have gotten me pretty excited cause I would have been able to wield my Thunderfury, basically.

Man, I bet the few people who actually got Ashbringer from original Naxxramas are really, really happy about that, cause now they can wield it again in real combat and it will look awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 18, 2011, 06:54:53 PM
The legendaries (or whatever they're called, I am too tired to remember) can't get transmogified, so you'd be annoyed instead. Was the Other Ashbringer orange too? I assume yes.

That's something I disagree with, personally I think people with legendaries should be able to just wield those bitches forever if they want.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on August 18, 2011, 07:05:53 PM
The void bank thing seems needlessly complex for something reasonably simple.

Why is Blizzard so stingy about the bag space? Who cares if I want to create 20 bank slots?

I've always had the idea that they hit the upper limit on database storage for characters.  There has to be a legitimate reason for it being so weird to them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 18, 2011, 07:29:05 PM
Corrupted Ashbringer was purple, so we should see some of those floating around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 18, 2011, 07:33:04 PM
I get that they need a gold sink, and I don't mind the fact that it strips enchants and everything, but...why the fuck is it so small? 80 slots isn't even 4 bag slots. If you're going to charge me for it, just make it so I can pay fucking 20k gold for a 500 slot VS bank. I have 52 (yes I just counted) pieces of gear saved up already on my DK, and that's just old gear I had kept on the hope that they might one day implement appearance gear. Now that I'm actually going to start farming for cool shit I'm going to need a ton of space to store it in.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 18, 2011, 07:36:50 PM
Worth remembering you can almost never see your bracers when you're deciding what to keep. Given you're going to pay every time you change your appearance transmogrifying as well I wouldn't think you're going to need a huge pile of stuff.

I figure on one set of alt gear per spec, essentially. Probably my heroism suit for tanking, and warrior T5 for DPS, at least until I can farm up T8 again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ezrast on August 18, 2011, 09:29:58 PM
Quote
(Cost shown to unlock Void Storage is not final)
I'm guessing they're serious about this, considering that rolling a bank alt and running it to Org is free, and only slightly more inconvenient. Wouldn't bet my life on it though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 19, 2011, 01:00:17 AM
Quote
(Cost shown to unlock Void Storage is not final)
I'm guessing they're serious about this, considering that rolling a bank alt and running it to Org is free, and only slightly more inconvenient. Wouldn't bet my life on it though.
Except bank alts cant store Soulbound stuff for you, and as a druid, I literally have like 100+ pieces of assorted crap i have held on to filling up my normal bank that I cant pass to other characters for easy storage.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on August 19, 2011, 07:47:55 AM
Yeah pipe dream. Even if they do relax those slot restrictions I'd be incredibly surprised if they let you go outside your class's usable things.

EVERYTHING we are experiencing here is a relative pipe dream outcome. An appearance tab, in world of warcraft. That extends to weapons. And hunters can swap weapon types to compensate for blizzard being unable, apparently, to update gun noises to a less annoying sort of staccato, even given about a decade. Even at my most gormless idealism (which is why I have saved my collection since BC) I never expected this much.  By and large swords tend to be the least obnoxious weapon models, tend to have the best overall models, and 1h axes and maces are a cesspool of one blunt, ugly, stumpy weird weapon after another. I think I can stand to continue my tradition of irrational optimism here.

especially considering — and yes, Blizzard, this is a message for you — much like how the appearance tab is a valuable tool for figuring out how readily rejected certain parts of your design are (the WWE championship belts vanish, etc) which allows you to productively change those tendencies on your behalf — weapon type swaps may be a bitter pill in the short run, 'design wise,' but players like me will love you for it and any resulting homogenization will allow you to pinpoint what parts of your design you need to up the ante on.

Por exemple, the blunt ugly stumpy weird cesspool of 1h axes and maces. I literally went through them all yesterday. Every single in-game model. I would literally take a basic rapier model over any of them, no jokes.

/ edit

"This design decision," says the (probably strawmanned) blizzard design lead in my head, "relates to affording some distinction between classes. Letting shaman have sword models, as an example, goes too far in making them indistinct from other class 'silhouettes,' and we don't want to go that far in rendering different classes completely visually muddled with each other with the implementation of this appearance tab."

Bypassing the evident failure of the class silhouette argument that was fronted for years, what you have done has effectively rendered that argument more obsolete than you would care to admit. The muddling is there in a way which can actually distinctly be aided by letting weapon types get swapped. It would actually create more variety in those pools that are the most muddled, which include the plate wearers (who will mostly be wandering around as indistinct sword-bearing plate wearers) and cloth wearers (who can now mostly look like whatever they want between the previous fairly differentiated design palates for mages, priests, warlocks).

I would even go so far as to say that even if you deny me my swards, an option you might want to consider is letting casters have more leeway in switching to a staff model if they want one but are stuck like most of them using onehanders.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 19, 2011, 08:38:11 AM
I think letting a 2H Mace look like a 2H Axe isn't a bad thing if you could use both, especially as we're post-weapon specializations (except Rogues).  That said, 2H Axes/Swords/Maces can't look like Staves or Polearms until they add in 1H animations for them for Titan's Grip.

They do seem to be of the opinion of this being relatively limited outside of what one would normally use, so the freedom is choosing the "when" of a character's look moreso than anything else.  We're several steps removed from what you're suggesting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 19, 2011, 08:41:56 AM
Use the axe from the troll in Sunken Temple.  Their design is pretty nice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kirth on August 19, 2011, 10:03:15 AM
Corrupted Ashbringer was purple, so we should see some of those floating around.

That and there was the whole side quest that was never finished that made people hold on to them hoping it would eventually be.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 19, 2011, 10:50:11 AM
Weapons should be interchangeable, as long as a) you can equip them and b) it's the same wield-type (1h, 2h, shield, etc).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 19, 2011, 11:07:59 AM
Yeah pipe dream. Even if they do relax those slot restrictions I'd be incredibly surprised if they let you go outside your class's usable things.

Por exemple, the blunt ugly stumpy weird cesspool of 1h axes and maces. I literally went through them all yesterday. Every single in-game model. I would literally take a basic rapier model over any of them, no jokes.


Man, I think there are a bunch of pretty sweet 1h maces, personally.


Cool 1h axes are perhaps a little less common, but...


I didn't even get into the blues and greens where there are plenty of more subdued options too. In other words, you are crazy!  :grin:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 19, 2011, 11:10:25 AM
I loved that dragon mace. I still break it out on the Pally when in town once in a while.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on August 19, 2011, 12:49:46 PM

I didn't even get into the blues and greens where there are plenty of more subdued options too. In other words, you are crazy!  :grin:



this one is good.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/item/50191

still would take rapiers


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 19, 2011, 01:54:04 PM
Perdition's Blade (http://www.wowhead.com/item=18816#screenshots) is pretty big.  These also seemed kinda big:

http://www.wowhead.com/item=34604#screenshots (http://www.wowhead.com/item=34604#screenshots)
http://www.wowhead.com/item=40408#screenshots (http://www.wowhead.com/item=40408#screenshots)
http://www.wowhead.com/item=45214#screenshots (http://www.wowhead.com/item=45214#screenshots)

There's also a few daggers that share models with swords:

http://www.wowhead.com/item=44173#same-model-as (http://www.wowhead.com/item=44173#same-model-as)
http://www.wowhead.com/item=69621#same-model-as (http://www.wowhead.com/item=69621#same-model-as)
http://www.wowhead.com/item=31745#same-model-as (http://www.wowhead.com/item=31745#same-model-as)
http://www.wowhead.com/item=66880#same-model-as (http://www.wowhead.com/item=66880#same-model-as)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 19, 2011, 02:01:19 PM
Of course using daggers presupposes they'll even let us change models within class at some point (other than ranged) as daggers are not viable as enhance weapons right now AFAIK.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 19, 2011, 02:08:13 PM
Man, I think there are a bunch of pretty sweet 1h maces, personally.
Those were hideous.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 19, 2011, 02:10:06 PM
Of course using daggers presupposes they'll even let us change models within class at some point (other than ranged) as daggers are not viable as enhance weapons right now AFAIK.

Ah, Enhancement.  And yes, that's my understanding as well as to their viability.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 19, 2011, 02:18:28 PM
Man, I think there are a bunch of pretty sweet 1h maces, personally.
Those were hideous.

Seriously? Even the first one? You have to be just trolling me.  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on August 19, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
So I'm a little fuzzy on the class restrictions for armor. Will a plate-wearer be able to use the appearance of any plate? Some sets are class specific, so for instance will a DK be able to run around with the appearance of the Tier 4 Warrior set even though the original states 'Classes: Warrior' as a restriction?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 19, 2011, 02:26:19 PM
I don't think they've clarified that yet.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 19, 2011, 03:02:42 PM
Seriously? Even the first one? You have to be just trolling me.  :heartbreak:
Yes the first one.  The dragon ones were tolerable.  I'm not trolling you, I just think you have lousy taste.  It's not like we haven't constantly clashed about what looks cool.

This (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/item/10805) is the axe I like.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 19, 2011, 03:09:23 PM
Hideous at least has to be hyperbole. I mean, it's essentially a hammer that looks like... a hammer. Hideous?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 19, 2011, 03:10:42 PM
So I'm a little fuzzy on the class restrictions for armor. Will a plate-wearer be able to use the appearance of any plate? Some sets are class specific, so for instance will a DK be able to run around with the appearance of the Tier 4 Warrior set even though the original states 'Classes: Warrior' as a restriction?


You have to be able to wear the armor in question.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on August 19, 2011, 03:13:25 PM
ha! it would be nice to be able to nick from the pile of hunter shit i could get my hands on. Not that it's been exceptionally un-horrible recently :/


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on August 19, 2011, 03:17:36 PM
You have to be able to wear the armor in question.

Thanks, that's good to know. It would have been a little frustrating to have collected things I can't wear.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 19, 2011, 03:19:12 PM
You can find look-alike gear for a lot of the tier stuff in any case.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 19, 2011, 03:33:08 PM
Yeah it'll just be off-color.

Ooh. I think I still have the scourge-invasion armor that looks like Judgement on one of my non-plate chars.   :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 19, 2011, 03:33:42 PM
I think I finally deleted mine, will have to check.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 19, 2011, 05:15:51 PM
I prefer my elf's maces to look like maces instead of hammers (dwarf paladin is going to definitely prefer hammers that look like hammers, though, like the first one Ingmar posted), so the model I plan to use is this one:


There are ones that look like maces that are smaller, and should I see one for cheap-ish on the AH I'll probably switch to that, but I like that one well enough and already have one sitting in my vault.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 19, 2011, 05:19:31 PM
Great Staff, or Greatest Staff? http://www.wowhead.com/item=28959


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 19, 2011, 05:32:28 PM
I look forward to the Disco Pony Staff's triumphant return.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Der Helm on August 19, 2011, 05:36:13 PM
Is this the place where I bitch about the Goblin starter zone when you run your second character through it ?  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 19, 2011, 05:48:22 PM
No, that's the "Cracks Starting to Show?" thread. :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 19, 2011, 06:13:28 PM
Great Staff, or Greatest Staff? http://www.wowhead.com/item=28959

I have a decent collection of staves most notably a candleabra, a bat on a stick and a felhunter on a stick


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jimbo on August 19, 2011, 06:17:13 PM
Anyone have a good site to read up on tanking and healing? 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 19, 2011, 06:27:50 PM
I would even go so far as to say that even if you deny me my swards, an option you might want to consider is letting casters have more leeway in switching to a staff model if they want one but are stuck like most of them using onehanders.

Get looking for an off-hand that uses a staff model.  There's a few from 1-60, not sure about after that, and not sure if this is all of them.

http://www.wowhead.com/item=12471#screenshots
http://www.wowhead.com/item=15930#screenshots
http://www.wowhead.com/item=7611#screenshots
http://www.wowhead.com/item=7559#screenshots
http://www.wowhead.com/item=15962#screenshots
http://www.wowhead.com/item=15928#screenshots
http://www.wowhead.com/item=15963#screenshots


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on August 19, 2011, 08:54:39 PM
Great Staff, or Greatest Staff? http://www.wowhead.com/item=28959

I have a decent collection of staves most notably a candleabra, a bat on a stick and a felhunter on a stick

I'm looking forward to my Druid tanking with her squid on a stick again


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on August 20, 2011, 06:30:36 AM
1000 gold is a lot of money? Really? What, did we travel back in time to early TBC or something?

It's not a lot of money, but it's more than I'd like to spend on fluff like this (matches real life that way, I guess). I expected this was going to be a goldsink, but was kinda hoping to be proved wrong.

My primary raiding character has about 87k at last glance. I don't go too far out of my way to earn money, though. I'm still hesitant to drop about 1k. Couple of hundred, no problemo, but four figures still makes me sit up and say...hmm...money. I have a pretty fair amount, but if you go blowing it willynilly on stupid shit it'll still disappear surprisingly quickly--just like the real stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 20, 2011, 06:44:40 AM
Yes, but it's a one-time thing and three times less than fast flight, six times less if you decided to go max-speed without doing the holiday achieve.   After buying that for 5 characters, it's a pittance of a pittance.

Plus, as has been said many times before.. gold is fairly worthless after the initial push of an expansion.  You're just hoarding until the next expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on August 20, 2011, 07:02:44 AM
One day the server will shut down forever.

All your virtual gold will mean nothing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on August 20, 2011, 07:19:53 AM
Anyone have a good site to read up on tanking and healing? 
Surprisingly, most of the official class forums have pretty good stickies.  The general tanking forum also has good stickies.  Then you head over to elitist jerks class forums for your particular spec.

On transmogify, I really hope there aren't too many limits to the "most items need stats to qualify" rule, I really, really want to wear my tophat on all my worgens.  Gotta get me a monacle and some sort of cane too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on August 20, 2011, 07:51:20 AM
Tankspot.com and EJ


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 20, 2011, 09:23:59 AM
EJ hasn't been good since early Wrath. The standard response to someone asking a question - if the mods are in a good mood - is to just point at the relevant 200+ page class thread and says "It's in there somewhere. Go look. Don't ask again" The more typical answer nowadays is just a ban.

Man, I think there are a bunch of pretty sweet 1h maces, personally.
Those were hideous.
The only mace design you'll ever need: http://www.wowhead.com/item=25126  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 20, 2011, 09:55:27 AM
Agreed.  They don't even seem to update the first 5-page post according to patch changes, either.  Or weren't when I was actively giving a damn about it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 20, 2011, 10:02:53 AM
Agreed.  They don't even seem to update the first 5-page post according to patch changes, either.  Or weren't when I was actively giving a damn about it.

Cataclysm makes them stop caring.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 20, 2011, 10:52:21 AM
EJ hasn't been good since early Wrath. The standard response to someone asking a question - if the mods are in a good mood - is to just point at the relevant 200+ page class thread and says "It's in there somewhere. Go look. Don't ask again" The more typical answer nowadays is just a ban.

Well, almost all of the time it is and either in the first post or linked from it.

The thing with EJ is that the tools and techniques have matured to the point that there really is nothing to talk about for experienced players (DPS especially, although tanks and healers to a great extent).  This is also true of fight mechanics both because of time on the PTR, but also that kill videos are released after only one or two more kills are out there.  These are good things in my eyes.  (This also means that the official forums aren't useless as others have mentioned.)

Now, you can absolutely learn a class almost entirely on the backs of EJ and time spent leveling it up.  That's what I did just earlier this year and I turned out only slightly terrible.  Learning a role is different though, that's more about information management and involves a good deal of feel (and looking at a lot of UIs).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 20, 2011, 01:25:02 PM
It varies by class at EJ, each thread is only as good as the person who is maintaining it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 20, 2011, 02:07:18 PM
Quote from: The Devs
Well, I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but...

We have an obligation to players and to our hard working artists to keep the game from looking too silly.

They really don't make  :why_so_serious:'s big enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 20, 2011, 02:21:16 PM
It varies by class at EJ, each thread is only as good as the person who is not maintaining it.

They really need to move to a wiki format.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 20, 2011, 02:32:37 PM
Quote from: The Devs
Well, I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but...

We have an obligation to players and to our hard working artists to keep the game from looking too silly.

They really don't make  :why_so_serious:'s big enough.
Dare I ask what that's in reference to?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 20, 2011, 02:42:03 PM
Fish weapons.

Also, EJ did try the multiple author/wiki thing during Wrath.  I think it only got much traction with the Shaman writers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 20, 2011, 02:53:12 PM
So fish head:  :thumbs_up:

Fish weapon: THAT'S JUST SILLY!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on August 20, 2011, 02:55:08 PM
Quote from: The Devs
Well, I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but...

We have an obligation to players and to our hard working artists to keep the game from looking too silly.

They really don't make  :why_so_serious:'s big enough.
Dare I ask what that's in reference to?

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2973396949

Thread was about what people were going to make their characters look like post-Transmog, one guy says dual dark herrings and a Dev jumps in to say ha ha no we have a REPUTATION to uphold.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Der Helm on August 20, 2011, 03:32:47 PM
He could should have been joking...  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 20, 2011, 04:32:31 PM
I think I finally deleted mine, will have to check.

Turns out I did too. The only char I have it on is the Pally.. and it's Leather on her.  :heartbreak:.  Would have loved to be a purple pally hunter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 20, 2011, 04:34:45 PM
Dev jumps in to say ha ha no we have a REPUTATION to uphold.

If it's their reputation as willfully contrary dickheads, they're doing a fine job.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 20, 2011, 05:06:28 PM
You know what's most exciting to me? My cloth caster people will be able to wear VESTS. All the time! My dwarf warlock that will never see 85 but still will be so pleased. Robes make her look fat.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 20, 2011, 07:30:51 PM
Junk in the trunk baby!  :grin:


As far as class guides, go to the official class forums and read the sticky threads. Those are kept up to date and have everything you want and need. Spec, Gear, How2Play it's all covered, accurate and relevant.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on August 20, 2011, 09:45:38 PM
the two big things to get down are

1. ability usage / cooldown priorities, and

2. gear itemization priorities

and that's the largest steps towards competency. Not all, but the major hunk.

In the case of gear itemization it's usually just knowing what caps you have to hit and what to prioritize after that. For me it's Get Hit Cap then Get Expertise Cap then Reforge Any Surplus Anything To Mastery. And that my primary stat is more important than anything else by a long shot. The help on the class forums usually covers the bulk of it!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 20, 2011, 10:14:00 PM
As far as class guides, go to the official class forums and read the sticky threads. Those are kept up to date and have everything you want and need. Spec, Gear, How2Play it's all covered, accurate and relevant.

A guide is at the mercy of its maintainer no matter where it's hosted.

The Discipline Healing Guide and Discussion (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1568013564) on the (official) Priest board for example is 6+ months out of date in both its discussion of mechanics and in its recommendations for glyphs and spell selection.  The writer hasn't had any activity on the posting character since February.  Both the Marksmanship (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2369739087) and Survival (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2416153075) threads are written by the same person and haven't been updated for this patch.  No activity on that posting character for almost two months.

On the other hand, the Elemental thread (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1869559022) is up-to-date and generally a bit more approachable (although less useful in my opinion) than its EJ equivalent (http://elitistjerks.com/f79/t110309-elemental_cataclysm_discussion_patch_4_2_a/).  Also, I think the introductory Resto Shaman thread (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2721565181) is excellent in many respects.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 21, 2011, 03:48:44 AM
Blatantly stealing the link from the SA "let's play dress-up" thread, I bring you: http://roleplaygear.wordpress.com/

And from a gold-making POV, assuming that Blizzard doesn't restrict things too much, I think there's going to be some interest in all of the blue and purple tradeskill-made gear, especially the stuff that used to be at the skill-cap that levelling people tend to skip over now (i.e. the original-WoW 300-skill items, the TBC 375 items etc).

e: I'd forgotten how soon tailoring gets decent looking gear. Wonder how much mooncloth robes will go for? Funny how almost everything past original-WoW looks terrible for tailoring, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 21, 2011, 05:33:21 AM
Coincidentally, I found that link last night Googling "warcraft fashion."  While it's ok if you want to go with the looks presented there, it's not a full listing, uses full sets instead of mix & match and shows only the sets that blog host feels are "good looking" or perhaps they just don't know about one that drops in only a narrow range that isn't found on the AH much these days due to fast leveling or being a good source of enchant mats. (They're missing the Hero's Mail set for example.)

In the end I found downloading the WoW model viewer and building my own outfits, then using WoWHead to find where the gear drops to be a more satisfying choice.  Plus it lets you hunt for shoulders that aren't ridiculous.
Hunter:
Rogue:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jimbo on August 21, 2011, 08:31:37 AM
Wow Merusk, where does that model of gun drop?  The Hunter reminds me of a Snake Plissken from Escape from New York.

Thanks for the information everyone!  The last game I played a tank in was CoX, so it was a great read for me on what to do.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 21, 2011, 08:38:17 AM
That's what I was going for, thanks  :drill:

The gun is my favorite gun model ever, the Wolf-Slayer Sniper from Big Bad Wolf in Karazan.

I'm going to have to lose the eyepatch, though.  Turns out I did sell my Malefactor's Eyepatch (http://www.wowhead.com/item=31547/malefactors-eyepatch#reward-from-q) back in the day.   I'm sad. Wish I could apply leather to my mail, because there's plenty of leather patches around.  Best you can do for random drop mail is the Fiery Beholder Eye (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/item/31218) which just isn't the same.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on August 21, 2011, 08:38:52 AM
That was a Kharazan model, from memory.  Maybe the Big Bad Wolf's gun??  Back when I was playing my hunter in Vanilla, I pulled for us in Khara before quitting the raid scene.  I think that gun was my first major upgrade after having Rhok.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2011, 09:11:45 AM
My clothies will forever be wearing monocles.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 21, 2011, 12:38:42 PM
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1143749/WoWScrnShot_082111_144109.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on August 21, 2011, 01:07:44 PM
I'm really surprised at how much you all are excited for this.  It's not gonna make the game any less boring at this stage.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2011, 01:11:21 PM
While I certainly won't resub just for this, I can see outfit collecting being a good metagame


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 21, 2011, 01:20:54 PM
I'm really surprised at how much you all are excited for this.  It's not gonna make the game any less boring at this stage.   :oh_i_see:

If you're still playing it's a nice thing to have.  Finally able to craft your character to the vision you have for it rather than what a Blizz artist feels your char. should be running around committing genocides in.   Now shuddup and leave me to play with my dolls action figures!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on August 21, 2011, 01:26:09 PM
Hah.  I'm still playing actually, but I seem to just mainly log in for raid time now.  Even that is getting shitty cuz we keep losing people that are too bored to stick it out til SWTOR.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 21, 2011, 03:32:05 PM
I'm really surprised at how much you all are excited for this.  It's not gonna make the game any less boring at this stage.   :oh_i_see:

I'll come back for the threat changes, I'll stay for the pretty dolls.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2011, 04:07:50 PM
Oh me too, me too!



And the reality in game:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 21, 2011, 04:34:09 PM
Yeah, I imagine druids are all "Big whoop" about this.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 21, 2011, 04:41:48 PM
The healer druids get to be pretty!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
My Paladin can always join the Crusade:




-edit- So can a rogue:




-fake edit- Good old days  :why_so_serious: (I had too much time on my hands between BGs)



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 21, 2011, 04:55:39 PM
The paladin on the right is meeeee! Until I changed her into a dwarf.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2011, 05:03:31 PM
I think the only character in that picture that is still around is my Paladin, everyone else got into gnomish teleporter accidents.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on August 21, 2011, 05:09:28 PM
Is the bald guy me?  I don't remember having that sword.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2011, 05:12:12 PM
That's Reys the warrior yea. It's all just model viewer shenanigans.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: proudft on August 21, 2011, 05:21:53 PM
He didn't have a transmogrifying accident - he was just shown the error of his ways by the Lich King!

I'll admit that Fordel totally turned me into a costume-collecting slut.  I have most of the Dungeon 1 sets on my various dudes (though, annoyingly, still missing one piece on my alleged main guy).  So I will almost certainly be a big sucker for this clothes storing system.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 21, 2011, 07:23:31 PM
Oh God, your paladin is going to be in That Outfit, isn't he.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 21, 2011, 08:33:58 PM
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1143749/WoWScrnShot_082111_144109.jpg)

What is this weak unupgraded suit.  :awesome_for_real:

Me as soon as I farm the sword up (not hard, from General Angerforge):

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6204/6067861707_75714a8c99_b.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 21, 2011, 09:15:50 PM
I have fought off playing dress up with the model viewer for YEARS, are you guys seriously going to make me break down and do it for both my paladins?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 21, 2011, 10:25:57 PM
I really want to say there is a better shield for that Ingmar.


Sjofn, you know you want too.  :why_so_serious:



-edit- http://www.thedailyblink.com/2011/08/youre-a-death-knight-charlie-brown/  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on August 21, 2011, 10:46:31 PM
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1143749/WoWScrnShot_082111_144109.jpg)
What's the weapon?

My Tauren Warrior has the same but used to use the Blackhand Doomsaw as a 2H and the 2 Dal Rends - which I still have stashed away. I always wanted to do the recoloured Questline but never found the group to speed run Strat UD.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 21, 2011, 10:59:22 PM
I really want to say there is a better shield for that Ingmar.

Not for what he's going for, which is the "casual level 60 warrior out of shit to do" look.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on August 22, 2011, 12:06:53 AM
Yeah, I imagine druids are all "Big whoop" about this.  :grin:

You are incorrect sir. When is the time when you want to look your absolute best? Why strutting around town. When do I not care about how I look? When there is an angry boss in my face spewing fire I have to dodge, with my eyes flying back and forth between my CDs and my health bar.

I think this change is downright ballin' even though I am in another form for most of the game. But, if Blizzard wants to throw bears a bone, and up their dodge percent by 20% because they get stuck looking at a furry ass while the rest gets this shiny ne change all the time, you won't hear a complaint out of me!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 22, 2011, 01:34:24 AM
Here you go Merusk: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3053956119

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 22, 2011, 03:24:55 AM
I'm very sad she didn't mention anything I didn't know.

I've been doin' the plate/ mail bikini thing since Vanilla. Yes, I'm just that sad.  :why_so_serious:

It's incredibly hard to get the Glorious/ Lofty stuff these days. Not nearly enough players running the 40-54 bracket where they dropped. Best bet for the "omg naked" look is to just run Dire Maul yourself until the Energized Chestplate drops. Tho summoning Hakkar for the Warrior's Embrace (the most hilariously mis-named piece of female armor, ever, IMO.) might be quicker than the long-ass run through DM to the end. I hate all the bs around that event though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 22, 2011, 08:24:39 AM
Here you go Merusk: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3053956119
Bikini sets wouldn't be my first choice (Except the Outrunner's, I like it for some reason), but I think I'm in love with that Lull person.  She takes fashion to a new level. :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 22, 2011, 12:52:32 PM
What's the weapon?

My Tauren Warrior has the same but used to use the Blackhand Doomsaw as a 2H and the 2 Dal Rends - which I still have stashed away. I always wanted to do the recoloured Questline but never found the group to speed run Strat UD.

Blackblade of Shahram (http://www.wowhead.com/item=12592)

I was hoping for a Sacred Charge / Tribal Guardian, or a Doomsaw.  But it dropped on the same run as I finished recollecting my Valour, so that works too.  I forget what I have to pair with my Draconian Deflector.

I never did like the colour of Heroism.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 22, 2011, 12:53:48 PM
I have a Tribal Guardian but not a Sacred Charge, at the moment. I'm not really inclined to go SMF just to use them though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on August 22, 2011, 08:51:18 PM
My rogue has the Sacred Charge / Tribal Guardian combo and 8/8 darkmantle (no felstriker though). It'll be glorious... until I remember why I stopped playing a rogue with my 700 ping.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 23, 2011, 01:25:58 AM
man, now i am going to have to start farming Hyjal / Black Temple / Sunwell for Shaman tier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Modern Angel on August 23, 2011, 08:13:34 AM
Haha, you guys are such suckers...  :why_so_serious:

From quitting to thinking up ways to farm obsolete gear for four months to make your dudes look JUST SO in what looks like the clunkiest implementation of cosmetic gear ever to grace an MMO. Blizzard are geniuses.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ivanneth on August 23, 2011, 08:21:15 AM
Haha, you guys are such suckers...  Blizzard are geniuses.

It's true. I hadn't set foot in a raid instance since Gruul's lair - until last night when a friend and I started duoing Ulduar, neither of us having never been inside before. I had a blast. We never would have seriously considered doing that without transmogrification coming. Now I'm all excited about gearing up my DK for tanking in old raids - the pvp crafted set and my shitty axe from Deepholm (I just hit 85) is good enough to get Flame Leviathan down, but not good enough to get any other bosses down before the enrage timer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on August 23, 2011, 08:23:22 AM
From quitting to thinking up ways to farm obsolete gear for four months to make your dudes look JUST SO in what looks like the clunkiest implementation of cosmetic gear ever to grace an MMO.

I was excited to see the addition of wardrobe... sadly, it looks like WoW hasn't aged well.  After playing Rift, I don't think I could look at WoW graphics again without cringing.  Odd since I'm not much of a graphics whore. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: March on August 23, 2011, 09:31:07 AM
Haha, you guys are such suckers...  :why_so_serious:

From quitting to thinking up ways to farm obsolete gear for four months to make your dudes look JUST SO in what looks like the clunkiest implementation of cosmetic gear ever to grace an MMO. Blizzard are geniuses.

I was thinking the same thing, but couldn't put my finger on it.  Well done.

100% chance I will not re-visit a 7-year-old-game with dated graphics and bad art (IMO) to try to (re-)collect random drops that I had long deleted from irrelevant and level inappropriate content.

On the plus side, the ability to customize your weapon is something I have always wanted in a wardrobe, but assumed there was some sort of technical limitation... fix this now Rift or I'll, I'll, I'll... hmmn, kinda gave away my leverage above. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 23, 2011, 09:35:06 AM
From quitting to thinking up ways to farm obsolete gear for four months to make your dudes look JUST SO in what looks like the clunkiest implementation of cosmetic gear ever to grace an MMO.

I was excited to see the addition of wardrobe... sadly, it looks like WoW hasn't aged well.  After playing Rift, I don't think I could look at WoW graphics again without cringing.  Odd since I'm not much of a graphics whore. 

Are you referring to the pictures people have been posting in this thread recently or have your recently been in-game or looked at screenshots?

The model viewer stuff has always looked like crap.

As for the effect of this on my play... uh, I'm solo'ing MC once a week but that's about it.  I'm still quite happily a: log-in, raid Heroic Firelands, log-out kind of guy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 23, 2011, 09:53:40 AM
also lol at rift having good graphics


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on August 23, 2011, 09:58:16 AM
also lol at rift having good graphics

I don't think I said Rift had good graphics... I just prefer the style.  You should check out Rift with the settings maxxed.  It's pretty nice. 

To be fair, I've never liked the cartoony style of WoW.  Never.  I'm pre-biased.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 23, 2011, 10:54:43 AM
From quitting to thinking up ways to farm obsolete gear for four months to make your dudes look JUST SO in what looks like the clunkiest implementation of cosmetic gear ever to grace an MMO.

I was excited to see the addition of wardrobe... sadly, it looks like WoW hasn't aged well.  After playing Rift, I don't think I could look at WoW graphics again without cringing.  Odd since I'm not much of a graphics whore. 

Yes, I would agree that is odd. Rift is probably the ugliest MMO I've played since EQ2.

MA, are you trying to fill the void in everyone's hearts left by WUA? Because you need to work on your trolling a little more if so.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on August 23, 2011, 10:58:09 AM
Yes, I would agree that is odd. Rift is probably the ugliest MMO I've played since EQ2.

Appears we're just polar opposites in terms of taste.  It also appears that I should stay out of this thread since I'm obviously the odd man out.   


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 23, 2011, 11:04:25 AM
Yes, I would agree that is odd. Rift is probably the ugliest MMO I've played since EQ2.

Appears we're just polar opposites in terms of taste.  It also appears that I should stay out of this thread since I'm obviously the odd man out.   

Nah, there are plenty of people who hate how WoW looks in this thread, just ask Nevermore or Lanty.  :awesome_for_real:

Plus you expressed your opinion without trolling anyone or calling us WoWtards, so you know, you're ahead of the game really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on August 23, 2011, 11:06:10 AM
Plus you expressed your opinion without trolling anyone or calling us WoWtards, so you know, you're ahead of the game really.

I enjoy WoW and appreciate all of the things that the title has brought to the genre.  I'm also very glad that they made this wardrobe change available. 

Can you selectively hide gear?  If I could hide my hideous shoulder slot items, it may be enough to get me to play for a month. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 23, 2011, 11:09:45 AM
There was a blue post about that just yesterday, actually:

Quote
The gear also still has to have stats aside from armor on it. That means that there are a lot of white or grey items that might not be available initially when Transmogrification goes live.

As an aside, a lot of people have been asking about hiding shoulders, belts, etc. For now, it's looking pretty unlikely that we'll offer the option to hide anything aside from helm and cloak.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nebu on August 23, 2011, 11:11:48 AM
Thanks for that.  I appreciate the help!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 23, 2011, 11:16:16 AM
No diamond tipped pimp cane then.   :crying_panda:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 23, 2011, 11:19:33 AM
Awww.. no Diamond Ring (http://www.wowhead.com/item=69262)?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 23, 2011, 11:20:06 AM
The annoying thing about no whites, is that some early sets have white pieces, so you can't get a matching look.
Nah, there are plenty of people who hate how WoW looks in this thread, just ask Nevermore or Lanty.  :awesome_for_real:
I've got your back, Nebu!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 23, 2011, 11:28:37 AM
And for going to Rift and now seeing WoW in an ugly light?  Yep, I've experienced the same phenomenon.   I don't know how to explain it, but WoW just looks like butt to me now.  I've always been a fan of WoW graphics as well.  Perhaps it's just a matter of not seeing them in action.

Rfit's character graphics aren't that good (animations are pretty nice, however).  But a lot of their monster, gear and environment do look great.   Runs rather well on my system too.   I wonder if I can still do that  7 day "try WoW again" or if that was just from time x to time y for to refresh my memory.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 23, 2011, 11:32:18 AM
WoW definitely needs to bring their old character models up to goblin/worgen level, there's no doubt about that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Modern Angel on August 23, 2011, 11:47:44 AM
MA, are you trying to fill the void in everyone's hearts left by WUA? Because you need to work on your trolling a little more if so.

No, I genuinely find it bemusing. It's just watching all you dudes go from frothing, stab Blizzard in the throat anger into meticulous planning of how you're going to farm six year old content... I dunno. It's not my fun but if it is for you, knock yourselves out!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 23, 2011, 12:01:49 PM
MA, are you trying to fill the void in everyone's hearts left by WUA? Because you need to work on your trolling a little more if so.

No, I genuinely find it bemusing. It's just watching all you dudes go from frothing, stab Blizzard in the throat anger into meticulous planning of how you're going to farm six year old content... I dunno. It's not my fun but if it is for you, knock yourselves out!

You might want to double check that the people who have been ranting are actually the same ones actually planning things out now, too. There's not really that much overlap, I don't think this is salvaging a ton of subscriptions at least in this subforum.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Modern Angel on August 23, 2011, 12:52:55 PM
I'd hope not. Like I said, this seems like an awfully clunky implementation compared to what else is out there. We'll have to see when it goes live but what we do know sounds off.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 23, 2011, 01:25:27 PM
I still have that email sitting in my inbox begging me to try for 7 days free.

Farming shit to look like I did 4 years ago doesn't really amuse me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 23, 2011, 02:49:52 PM
I still hate the current endgame, think the dungeons are ass in general and find Cata to be a giant step backwards.

I still enjoy it more than Rift or any of the now-free MMOs, however.  I'm just biding my time until SWG Beta, really and PVPing while doing so.  I don't think I'll actually get to use this feature.  Doesn't mean I can't be jazzed about it or happy to see them cave on this one, finally.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 23, 2011, 03:44:08 PM
Rfit's character graphics aren't that good (animations are pretty nice, however).  But a lot of their monster, gear and environment do look great.   Runs rather well on my system too.   I wonder if I can still do that  7 day "try WoW again" or if that was just from time x to time y for to refresh my memory.
I just got an email saying it's going on until the 25th.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on August 24, 2011, 12:39:06 AM
also lol at rift having good graphics

I don't think I said Rift had good graphics... I just prefer the style.  You should check out Rift with the settings maxxed.  It's pretty nice. 

To be fair, I've never liked the cartoony style of WoW.  Never.  I'm pre-biased.

I never felt immersed in Rift or Aion or WAR for that matter. Clunky UIs, generic characters and gear and a totally dead feel to hitting things that all the special effects and unrealistic sounds couldn't cover up. GW was better than them but only in WoW do I ever have the feeling that I'm actually hitting something.

WoW is clownshoes with gear for certain - some of the sets look like shit as do the random items, but now and then they get it right. I suspend belief and enjoy the cartoon approach to graphics, it gives the game a distinct feel. Without the feeling of being "there", I'd rate it with the rest of the pack.

If GW2 brings that feeling of hitting things to me the WoW does then it will be my personal WoW-killer.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on August 24, 2011, 12:42:12 AM
I still hate the current endgame, think the dungeons are ass in general and find Cata to be a giant step backwards.

I still enjoy it more than Rift...

This. From the Ulduar and ICC feeling of actually doing something to Cata - miles apart.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on August 24, 2011, 06:50:34 AM
I still think WoW looks good. For a game that can run on as many systems as WoW can, it's a graphical masterpiece of textural ingenuity and polygonal compromise.

That said; I want to throttle the gear and item art team. There is a disturbing level of colour-blindness to the vast majority of raid-set re-colours, which makes the vast majority of the ugly-as-shit recent gear textures even more nausiating. The game world looks beautiful. Blizz just seem determined to make the players running around in it exponentially dorkier looking idiots for the last 2 or 3 years.

Quote
As an aside, a lot of people have been asking about hiding shoulders, belts, etc. For now, it's looking pretty unlikely that we'll offer the option to hide anything aside from helm and cloak.
See, part of me understands the stance. If we can already hide cloaks and helms, and can then hide shoulders and belts, what's stopping the playerbase requesting the ability to hide their pants?
The other part of me understands that 250lb Shoulderpads that resemble something from the cover of a Yes album ON FIRE and pregnancy-girdle/weightlifter belts look like utter shit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 24, 2011, 11:17:28 AM
I always think of Tarkus (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41YYPKM5VYL._SL500_AA300_.jpg) myself.

But of course, I have a prog-themed Blood Bowl team so I may not be the least biased judge.  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on August 25, 2011, 04:46:31 AM
Daily Bink nicely summarizes the last few pages of this thread.

(http://i.imgur.com/UEloE.jpg)

Can we move on to talking about the LFR feature going in?  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 25, 2011, 05:16:10 AM
No, because PUG raids are bad enough now.  I can't imagine how much more awful they can get when meshed with the anonymity & kick ability of PUG dungeons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 25, 2011, 06:40:00 AM
Nope.  Raids have been in since day one.  Customizing your look is something we've been fighting for six years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 25, 2011, 10:20:10 AM
Blog is up about new Darkmoon Faire.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3390849

Sad to see they are keeping the 'once week a month' thing in place for the faire, but otherwise an Island of fluff rewards/activities sounds pretty awesome.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 25, 2011, 11:02:09 AM
So much of this just feels like, "Oh please, casual players, stop running away. We're sorry!"  Wonder how much of it will work.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 25, 2011, 11:03:06 AM
So much of this just feels like, "Oh please, casual players, stop running away. We're sorry!"  Wonder how much of it will work.

That's exactly what it is. The numbers didn't lie in the Q2 reports. NA players are leaving and they need to stop the bleeding before SWTOR comes and ruins their stranglehold.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 25, 2011, 11:19:59 AM
True, but if the goal is to try and eat KOTRO's lunch, they should really try pushing it out before their launch.  Keeping players is easier than winning them back, after all.   That being the case, this should be out for testing already unless they're not planning on doing their usual +2months of bugfixes & tweaks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 25, 2011, 11:25:41 AM
Portals are back with it, too.  Shame it's only for one week of the month.  Wonder how long before that changes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 25, 2011, 11:56:22 AM
Portals are back with it, too.  Shame it's only for one week of the month.  Wonder how long before that changes.

Q3 reports.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 25, 2011, 12:56:28 PM
So much of this just feels like, "Oh please, casual players, stop running away. We're sorry!"  Wonder how much of it will work.
Prediction: MoP (oh God that acronym) is going to be so ridiculously under-tuned and easy it's going to make late-WotLK look like C'thun.

Also: Dalaran and Shattrash already got portals to Org/SW back.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 25, 2011, 01:08:58 PM
What's MoP stand for? I assume it's Deathwing's zone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 25, 2011, 01:13:18 PM
Mists of Pandaria, the (almost definite) next expansion. You know, like in the identically-titled thread a couple of rows down? (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=21122.0)  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 25, 2011, 01:15:27 PM
Oh, derp. Sorry, I was thinking 4.3 and just assumed you were talking about the new raid zone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 25, 2011, 01:50:41 PM
So much of this just feels like, "Oh please, casual players, stop running away. We're sorry!"  Wonder how much of it will work.
Prediction: MoP (oh God that acronym) is going to be so ridiculously under-tuned and easy it's going to make late-WotLK look like C'thun.

Also: Dalaran and Shattrash already got portals to Org/SW back.


It's not even just the tuning of content, but all those 'meaningful' mechanics they put in. My Moonkin used to be able to heal itself without going OOM before Cata for example.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 25, 2011, 01:51:04 PM
meaningful = shitty.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 25, 2011, 01:59:28 PM
I liked the meaningful mana for healing thing ... it's just that there was only one brief time it actually worked the way they wanted it to, then the higher geared healers went right back to not having to give a fuck about efficiency, and the newbie healers still had to struggle to keep their PUGs alive because people are idiots. Basically, we can't have nice things.  :oh_i_see:

I can't feel too sorry for non-healers not being able to heal themselves without it pounding their mana, though. QQ more, Fordel! Your real issue is their love affair with eclipse anyway, you can't fool me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 25, 2011, 02:09:16 PM
The "meaningful" healing for non healer specs of healing capable classes pounding my mana wouldnt bother me quite as much if they hadnt decided to give pure dps classes like rogues / warriors healing mechanics that are practically more efficient then mine with even less of an impact on their dps / survivability.

A properly specced rogue / warrior can do more self healing then my boomkin / enhance shaman while still rapeing my face at the same time, which is just broken imo.  Not to mention that if i actually tried to shift out of moonkin and full hot myself with something beating on me, im probably going to be dead before the hots manage to do anything anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 25, 2011, 02:33:45 PM
I do fucking hate eclipse yes, it's sorta gotten better mechanically since Wrath (no more rng time based windows), but it's over all effect on my spells and their usage is terrible.

Spending 3 seconds to cast a single Starfire to see it take maybe a 5th of life off a shitty equal con quest mob feels like total ass and is a large contributing factor to me going 'whelp, fuck this I'll just play Minecraft instead'.


I went from being self sufficient, being able to machine gun things down or being able to drop giant bombs on things and in general being able to AE my fat Owlbear weight in mobs in one go; to being a big mana sponge that uses mediocre nuke A or mediocre nuke B in a temperamental rotation system where maximizing DPS means gaming said system and doing it 'wrong'.



Sjofn is just all Roses because they finally gave her paladin an AE heal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 25, 2011, 02:51:18 PM
Warriors are fine! Better than before even.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 25, 2011, 02:51:25 PM
Moonkin are still very self sufficient. I don't think I ever stopped to eat/drink while leveling from 80-85 or while doing lvl 85 questing. You shouldn't ever be having mana problems from your DPS spells as a moonkin, and it still only takes a couple heals to get you back up and running. On other words, you've got mana to spare for healing yourself. Moonkin are totally not viable as group healers at 85 for a dungeon/raid, but then again you don't see rogues/warriors healing anyone else in their group.

It sounds like your complaint was actually about PVP but I'm still confused why people actually participate in (or post about) WoW PVP.

So much of this just feels like, "Oh please, casual players, stop running away. We're sorry!"  Wonder how much of it will work.

Every raid & non-raid content update is "trying to keep casuals from fleeing" despite the fact that content like Darkmoon Faire and Molten Front is usually planned out and partially developed 6+ months in advance.
:tinfoil:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 25, 2011, 03:10:11 PM
Blizzard knows their own sub numbers, they don't have to wait for quarterly reports to react to them.

Like, if you think the new appearance tab stuff is anything but "oh gawd please stop leaving" I dunno what to tell you.




At Cata Release, my Moonkin could kill about 4 mobs before needing to innervate or drink/pot, depending on spawn rate and mob type.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 25, 2011, 03:18:45 PM
Blizzard knows their own sub numbers, they don't have to wait for quarterly reports to react to them.

Like, if you think the new appearance tab stuff is anything but "oh gawd please stop leaving" I dunno what to tell you.


The sudden turn around for on their stance for an appearance tab and the extent of the T11 nerfs in 4.2 were both probably reactions to unhappy players. Notable quality of both of those changes? Not as much effort to implement when you compare it to a major piece of content like Darkmoon Faire. Not every positive change or new piece of content is a reaction to those complaints. We'd probably have gotten Darkmoon Faire and Molten Front almost exactly as they are even if everybody loved the new healing model, or whatever your particular complaint is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 25, 2011, 03:45:30 PM
Sjofn is just all Roses because they finally gave her paladin an AE heal.

The AE heal is nice (I don't use it a lot in PvE though), but really the big thing was they made paladin healing fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on August 25, 2011, 03:51:58 PM
Moonkin are still very self sufficient. I don't think I ever stopped to eat/drink while leveling from 80-85 or while doing lvl 85 questing. You shouldn't ever be having mana problems from your DPS spells as a moonkin, and it still only takes a couple heals to get you back up and running.

That's not the issue. The issue is Moonkin can no longer heal themselves in BGs, while warriors and rogues can. The same is true for Prot pallies now, ferals, and enhance. I hate their pvp balance more now then I ever have (okay not ever have, but it's in the top five).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 25, 2011, 03:54:22 PM
Reread Fordel's post. It seems that IS his issue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on August 25, 2011, 03:55:19 PM
The rogue heal is ass. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 25, 2011, 04:11:32 PM
PVP Healing is a problem too, but yea I'm talking about how in TBC and Wrath, I used to be able to fight half a dozen mobs and not really be concerned as long as I had a window to pop some heals off.

Now I takes a full stack of my HoTs to maybe get half life back, health that was dropped so low just by 1 or 2 mobs? Yea super fun!  :why_so_serious:








Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 25, 2011, 04:24:50 PM
The rogue heal is ass. 

It is indeed ass, but I didn't feel like fighting about it.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 25, 2011, 04:42:09 PM
Blog is up about new Darkmoon Faire.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3390849

Sad to see they are keeping the 'once week a month' thing in place for the faire, but otherwise an Island of fluff rewards/activities sounds pretty awesome.
Wait a second, wait one sodding second...
Quote
That’s not all! We have adorable companion pets includin’ a fez-wearing monkey, a plethora of profession recipes, toys, balloons, souvenirs, delectable carnival snacks and beverages, heirlooms for the little ones, and even replicas of long-lost suits of armor that we’re offering for your Transmogrification needs. You can also make your mark with new achievements and titles. All it takes to earn these fabulous rewards is a few Darkmoon Faire Prize Tickets and a good reputation with the carnies. How do ya get your grubby mitts on some tickets? I’m glad you asked!
Quote
a fez-wearing monkey

Oh yeah, and the "old set replicas for transmogrification" thing too.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 25, 2011, 04:48:38 PM
The rogue heal is ass. 

Yet it's still better than feral healing.

Well, except for when you pop Frenzied Regeneration and Savage Defense while being beat on by 5 melee characters in pvp.  Then you just feel overpowered.  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on August 25, 2011, 04:52:19 PM
The rogue heal is ass. 

Yet it's still better than feral healing.

Well, except for when you pop Frenzied Regeneration and Savage Defense while being beat on by 5 melee characters in pvp.  Then you just feel overpowered.  :grin:

Then it's better than rogue healing, because popping our heal will not save you from anything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 25, 2011, 05:04:17 PM
The rogue heal is ass. 

Yet it's still better than feral healing.

Well, except for when you pop Frenzied Regeneration and Savage Defense while being beat on by 5 melee characters in pvp.  Then you just feel overpowered.  :grin:

Then it's better than rogue healing, because popping our heal will not save you from anything.

Frenzied Regeneration just an in-combat survivability button.  I have both a Druid and Rogue I pvp with at 85, and I actually get better out of combat healing on the Rogue most of the time.  Just stealth, target an enemy and suck up free combo points with Honor Among Thieves to power Recuperate.You'll actually heal faster than a Feral, since the Druid will run out of mana long before the health bar is full.  Worst case, you can use Preparation.  That won't heal you as much, but it's a heal of a lot safer since you'll still be stealthed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 25, 2011, 05:05:30 PM
The in-combat healing is what people (besides Fordel) are complaining about though, certainly nobody is whining about warrior out of combat healing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 25, 2011, 05:09:49 PM
WARRIORS CAN USE FIRST AID WTF BLIZZ


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 25, 2011, 05:11:23 PM
The rogue heal is ass. 

Yet it's still better than feral healing.

Well, except for when you pop Frenzied Regeneration and Savage Defense while being beat on by 5 melee characters in pvp.  Then you just feel overpowered.  :grin:

Then it's better than rogue healing, because popping our heal will not save you from anything.

As someone who's tried to kill a druid in bear with 3 other players and kept wound poison up the whole time.. yeah, it's a fuckload better than the rogue heal.

Tho I take issue with the "rogue heal is ass" part because it *has* saved me as i ran away from the holy priest I couldn't fucking kill because they have a fear that lasts longer than my stuns AND uber healing now.   Nice to know I got a rogue to max right as their years of being prime pvp players was nerfed to hell.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on August 25, 2011, 05:23:37 PM
Quote
As someone who's tried to kill a druid in bear with 3 other players and kept wound poison up the whole time.. yeah, it's a fuckload better than the rogue heal.

That may be so, but if a druid is in bear form in PvP, with no Bereserk, he is pretty much CCd. Rogues can spit out insane damage while their heal is up.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 25, 2011, 05:33:45 PM
They can also be CC'd while their heal is up, crazy, eh?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on August 25, 2011, 06:37:57 PM
I'm sorry if this sounds mean, but I just really hate that canard. They can be CCd? So can every fucking class, of which a rogue does it the best. Besides which, their heal ticks away during a CC anyways.

Oh, and thanks for reminding me, while all the lasts I listed earlier have heals that can be interrupted (and subsequently locked out of that school), not so for a rogue.






I know deep down in my heart that rogues aren't the be all and end all of classes, I'm just really tired of seeing rogues and warriors top BGs in damage done, while placing second in heals to the healers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 25, 2011, 07:01:32 PM
You JUST SAID, in order to dismiss the frenzied regen thing, that a bear can be CC'd. My point was so can the rogue. So don't whine the CC thing is a hated canard when you used it first.


Really, this is all just stupid wankery. Everyone wails their class can die in a PvP zone (except me, because my holy paladin is overpowered  :heart:).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 25, 2011, 08:37:37 PM
Why are people comparing Frenzied Regen and the Rogue Heal?


Compare Leader of the Pack to the Rogue Heal if you want to have a slap fight about that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 25, 2011, 10:16:01 PM
Apparently Darkmoon Faire is also where you'll go to get sets that are no longer available, lilkely stuff like the DK starter set.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on August 25, 2011, 10:55:49 PM
So, to get the old armor sets for Transmogrification you'll need to grind what looks like vehicle quests for DMF tokens of some sort?

Meh. The faint interest that had been rekindled in me because of Mogging has evaporated quickly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 25, 2011, 11:54:52 PM
I'm not sure why that hurt your interest, as prior to that knowledge the way to get old dungeon 1 sets was "you can't."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 26, 2011, 01:08:33 AM
Yes, I suppose my beef with Recuperate is mainly a PvP one, but not so much a PvP one, as a "ganging in daily hubs issue".

Recuperate, with a properly specced Sub rogue (which it seems is what nearly all PvP rogues i run into are), is just broken.  Especially in areas like the molten front.  You give something like Recup to a Sub rogue, who has obscene ability to control nearly every aspect of a fight, gets crazy movement speed bonuses, has the ability (as mentioned before) when rolling in a group with anyone else to simply generate free combo points out of thin air, and they can keep recuperate rolling almost indefinately without any effort after popping off the first one as long as they can make quick kills (hey, guess what rogues are good at!).  Then you add that to a place like Molten front, where there are always plenty of people half way dead fighting quest mobs, and it is a ganker's paradise for someone like a Sub rogue.

I think, honestly, the biggest beef i have with recuperate is that it is a passive over time heal on a class with the best ability to lock down an opponent for an extended period of time while still damaging them.  If it worked like LoTP, i wouldnt mind as much, but when a rogue can throw up a 5 point recuperate before even leaving stealth, then jump you, cc the crap out of you while damaging you, while his passive heal is running, it gets a little frustrating.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 26, 2011, 02:51:14 AM
So, to get the old armor sets for Transmogrification you'll need to grind what looks like vehicle quests for DMF tokens of some sort?

Meh. The faint interest that had been rekindled in me because of Mogging has evaporated quickly.

You can either A) collect a different armor set B) Complete the Darkmoon minigames for tickets C) PVP/Dungeon/Raid with your "Darkmoon Envoy (pet?)" for tickets or D) Come to these forums and complain instead.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 26, 2011, 03:03:43 AM
You can do both!  :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 26, 2011, 04:16:43 AM
I think, honestly, the biggest beef i have with recuperate is that it is a passive over time heal on a class with the best ability to lock down an opponent for an extended period of time while still damaging them.  

But Warlocks don't get recuperate.

Oh.. you think Kidney Shot is better than their fears, horrors & stuns 1v1.  That's funny.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 26, 2011, 04:44:33 AM
Interrupts, Disorients and Immunities are pretty rad though.  :oh_i_see:

There's also that fucking Curse of Tongues poison.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 26, 2011, 05:09:48 AM
I'll give you mind poison, but there's only one interrupt - kick- and using it means a lot less damage because it's not cheap. The Disorients - Bllind & Gouge - both break on damage, so no stabby-stabby afterward and you'd better have blind glyphed to strip dots or some random "I'm helping!" DK who's spamming pisass diseases everywhere will ruin it.  CoS is a run-away and doesn't help to "lock down the target while doing damage"

Rogues are great at lockdown, I'm not denying that.  It's my favorite part of them and I use it to piss of healers to no end.  I take issue with the quoted statement of lockdown AND damage.  The only ability they get to do that is Kidney Shot, which is on a 20s CD, requires 5 combos for the full 10s duration (meaning build-up time or reduced damage) unlike fears.

Rogues are gankers through and trough, though.  Straight-up fights against a non-weakened opponent they get eaten quite often by equally-geared opponents.  (If you're dying to one often, I'll bet they've got better gear.)   I don't fear them on the DK, Pally, Rogue or Mage unless they find me weak or vastly outgear me.   It's the locks you get pissed at for their abillty to survive stupid shit AND kill your ass from 40 yards away before demon-portaling to the next victim.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on August 26, 2011, 05:27:19 AM
I'm not sure why that hurt your interest, as prior to that knowledge the way to get old dungeon 1 sets was "you can't."
I don't know either, but how I feel is how I feel.

You can either A) collect a different armor set B) Complete the Darkmoon minigames for tickets C) PVP/Dungeon/Raid with your "Darkmoon Envoy (pet?)" for tickets or D) Come to these forums and complain instead.
I'll have a D please Bob.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 26, 2011, 08:54:09 AM
I take issue with the quoted statement of lockdown AND damage.  The only ability they get to do that is Kidney Shot, which is on a 20s CD, requires 5 combos for the full 10s duration (meaning build-up time or reduced damage) unlike fears.

Oh, if only Sub Rogues had a way to use Cheap Shot and Garrote while not stealthed.  :awesome_for_real:

Are you sure you play a Rogue?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 26, 2011, 09:42:39 AM
I'm not sure why that hurt your interest, as prior to that knowledge the way to get old dungeon 1 sets was "you can't."
I don't know either, but how I feel is how I feel.

You can either A) collect a different armor set B) Complete the Darkmoon minigames for tickets C) PVP/Dungeon/Raid with your "Darkmoon Envoy (pet?)" for tickets or D) Come to these forums and complain instead.
I'll have a D please Bob.
Or option E: Microtransactions. Which, to be honest, I am surprised that Activision didn't insist on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on August 26, 2011, 01:16:44 PM
I take issue with the quoted statement of lockdown AND damage.  The only ability they get to do that is Kidney Shot, which is on a 20s CD, requires 5 combos for the full 10s duration (meaning build-up time or reduced damage) unlike fears.

Oh, if only Sub Rogues had a way to use Cheap Shot and Garrote while not stealthed.  :awesome_for_real:

Are you sure you play a Rogue?
Also, dont forget I was talking mainly about one sided one v one ganking of half dead PvE equipped characters in quest hub areas also, where for Sub Rogues, rupture / glyphed hemo / garrote does not break gouge due to sanguinary veins.

They may not be able to stunlock you from 100% to zero any more, but nothing is preventing them from Stunlocking you to 60%, tosing out a Gouge watching you bleed out, blinding you at 40%, vanishing and repeating it all over agin till you die.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on August 26, 2011, 01:19:10 PM
Kick is like what, 10, 15 energy and off the GCD. What do you qualify as 'cheap' then?

Gouge can be used as another interrupt and/or as a way to build up more energy/time. I also forgot Garrote even existed, that's another silence.

Cloak of Shadows is totally for kicking the fuck out of a caster, since they can no longer fight back when its up.  :why_so_serious:



Fear also has a damage cap, someone who feared you isn't pumping damage into you. Stuns do not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 26, 2011, 03:30:33 PM
Cloak of Shadows is weirdly underrated. I PvP as an assassination rogue (lol) (haven't for months, though) and it is easily my most awesome thing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 27, 2011, 09:24:29 AM
http://www.thedailyblink.com/2011/08/youre-a-death-knight-charlie-brown/

 :crying_panda:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 27, 2011, 10:02:47 AM
The DK starter gear looks better than almost all of those old sets.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on August 27, 2011, 04:45:09 PM
The DK starter gear looks better than almost all of those old sets.

Starter gear and the DK questing gear (pre-60). I lost the Saronite boots though - thought I had the full set :(


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mrbloodworth on August 30, 2011, 09:20:39 AM
Wow, they added cosmetics. Its about time. I never thought they would do it.

But it looks like they have made it as complicated as they can as a coin sink.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 30, 2011, 11:19:00 AM
I've lost the will to even check in on how dumb they are being now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 30, 2011, 11:31:24 AM
Is that your final entry for the "I quit" series?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 30, 2011, 11:50:08 AM
I've lost the will to even check in on how dumb they are being now.
Yeah, fancy adding a monkey in a hat! Whoever thought that would be a good idea?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 30, 2011, 12:20:25 PM
Is that your final entry for the "I quit" series?

Yeah pretty much. I've stopped caring. Life has moved on. It's not worth even bothering with them wanting to change or needing to change or losing money. Nobody in their right mind believes Cataclysm was a good thing at this point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 30, 2011, 01:11:14 PM
Yeah, it's widely known that the hierarchy of crazy goes:

How Hunter Pence looks
Most despots
Me
Axe murderers


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 30, 2011, 03:27:08 PM
Is that your final entry for the "I quit" series?

Yeah pretty much. I've stopped caring. Life has moved on. It's not worth even bothering with them wanting to change or needing to change or losing money. Nobody in their right mind believes Cataclysm was a good thing at this point.

Some of it was. Some of it was awesome!

<holds her paladin(s) close>


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 30, 2011, 03:38:52 PM
Agreed, some of it was. Just not enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 30, 2011, 04:11:20 PM
Cataclysm was great up until about L60 or so.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 30, 2011, 04:18:36 PM
Yeah the low level content is great (and in my opinion needed to happen.) I think if all that effort had been put into the endgame and level 80-85 in addition to what was already there, we'd be having a different, happier conversation about the state of the endgame in Cataclysm probably, but endgames are temporary and leveling content is forever, in a sense. The next expansion will be able to focus a lot more on making people happy with the endgame I suspect, unless they decide they need to rewrite  Outland (or maybe they will add new 60-70 zones in the new content? That would be sort of odd but possible.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ajax34i on August 30, 2011, 06:13:35 PM
I thought they were going to rewrite Azeroth as floating-islands.  Cataclysm and all that.  No?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 31, 2011, 01:21:31 PM
New dev-blog (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3401304#blog) up about the direction they want to take tanking. Aside from getting too detailed about blood DKs in the second half, it's a pretty good example of how the format can work well. Much more interesting/informative than a Q&A series with canned answers about when the dance studio is coming or player housing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 31, 2011, 04:10:03 PM
But when is player housing coming?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 31, 2011, 04:12:28 PM
But when is player housing coming?  :awesome_for_real:

If the next expansion has 5 levels of content and focuses on revamping 60-80, maybe we'll see player housing announced when they lose another 1-2 million subs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 31, 2011, 04:16:49 PM
New dev-blog (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3401304#blog) up about the direction they want to take tanking. Aside from getting too detailed about blood DKs in the second half, it's a pretty good example of how the format can work well. Much more interesting/informative than a Q&A series with canned answers about when the dance studio is coming or player housing.

I've been trumpeting that tank dps matters thing for years, and nobody ever listens. I am nearly certain, though, that my tanking with dps weapons made the difference in a non-zero number of wipes over the years though. Much more often than the other way around.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 31, 2011, 04:35:25 PM
I've been trumpeting that tank dps matters thing for years, and nobody ever listens. I am nearly certain, though, that my tanking with dps weapons made the difference in a non-zero number of wipes over the years though. Much more often than the other way around.

Yeah it's funny how everyone disregards it (including myself). There have been plenty of 1-3% wipes where everyone looks at damage meters and says "man, I sucked on that fight, I usually do 19k and I was only doing 18k. Another 1k dps would have been enough to kill this boss". Meanwhile the tank was doing 10k. Maybe they could have done 13k with the proper rotation. Nobody brings it up because nobody expects tanks to cover dps gaps.

Other games like DDO have experimented with the idea of tanking where it ends up being another flavor of DPS. Look at MOBA games like League of Legends, where 'tanks' are still heavily focused on damage/offense. In those games it works extremely well, and playing a tank doesn't exclude you from the excitement of dps. I'm not sure how well it'd work in WoW. The old model worked pretty well, and it would probably be the biggest mechanical shift the game has seen. DKs were an attempt to move towards that model, obviously, with each tree originally being 'tank-able' in concept, and using a 2H weapon instead of a shield.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on September 01, 2011, 10:51:04 AM
And now Blizzard is trolling us hard

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3401307#blog

Quote
In patch 4.3, we’ll be introducing worgen racial mounts to the stables of Azeroth. These sleek horses have been constant companions for the denizens of Gilneas since time immemorial, and your worgen characters will now be able to claim their ancestral mounts.




Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on September 01, 2011, 11:48:00 AM
I feel inexplicably driven to defend this, because in the early phases they were toying with boars or stags or some shit which didn't work at all with the whole early-industrialized gothic victorian idea the worgen became.

That, and wow could use some more horses anyway, and I like clydesdales far more than any other bullshit they would have come up with, so


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on September 01, 2011, 11:53:27 AM
So just take the saddles off the horses already in the game and call it a day?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on September 01, 2011, 12:06:52 PM
Dunno, they're probably doing ... something. And dolling up the elite mounts better.

End result will probably have more staying power than those obnoxious goblin trikes, at any rate.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on September 01, 2011, 12:19:50 PM
It really does seem like a troll based on the thread and a blizzard response.  I am assuming the horse also has a two-form ability and that the zeroEffort horse turns into something else just like worgen can switch between human forms.  That horse is the "human" form.  I have decided to believe this because I can't believe the shoddy alternative of blizzard just taking the saddle off of other horses and calling it a new racial mount...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 01, 2011, 12:25:49 PM
It's got to be a troll.. that's literally just a normal-sized human mount.  It's not even upscaled toor using a texture to pretend it's a Clydesdale.  The standard mounts have the same fetlocks.

Ed: http://www.wowhead.com/item=12354

In fact, when you consider it a troll the "ancestral mounts" line becomes almost funny... because Worgen's heritage would be human, duh.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on September 01, 2011, 12:47:58 PM
Could we have the reverse and finally give Tauren plainsrunning please?

Seriously, after years of being told it wasn't viable, they gave it to Worgen?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 01, 2011, 12:58:39 PM
It's purely down to Alliance bitching about goblins getting two (shittily animated) mounts and the worgen only getting frog-mode. That's it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 01, 2011, 12:59:57 PM
Could we have the reverse and finally give Tauren plainsrunning please?

Seriously, after years of being told it wasn't viable, they gave it to Worgen?

It's not that it wasn't viable, it's that beta players bitched until they got mounts.  

Though Tauren running had one significant difference in beta; you started running at normal speed and got up to mount speed after a hundred yards or so of travel.  I recall the exact solution being used by worgen (just hut a button to apply the full buff) being suggested to appease those who complained a mob hit or daze would send you back to normal speed, unlike a truly mounted player.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 01, 2011, 02:06:31 PM
Probably this is just to even out the sides as far as ability to get the mount count achievements done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on September 01, 2011, 02:16:24 PM
Probably this is just to even out the sides as far as ability to get the mount count achievements done.

A Blue has already said as much, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a real half-assed implementation.  Blizzard's 'A team' wouldn't have released those.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 01, 2011, 02:18:36 PM
One screenshot and some tongue-in-cheek commentary do not an implementation make.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on September 01, 2011, 02:29:16 PM
On one hand I think it smacks of severe laziness; surely there must have been something more interesting to implement than Horses? Ok, boars and stags probably wouldn't have worked but c'mon. We can ride anything from a giant bug to a camel in WoW, why we need Horse Iteration number 6 is beyond me. A new bear, maybe? There's only 2 models of those, so far.

On the other hand, at least I can now obtain a horse without that hideous fucking SW saddle.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 01, 2011, 02:39:24 PM
From a lore standpoint, horses are what make sense. Should we really be complaining when they finally get a lore thing right?  :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 01, 2011, 03:24:16 PM
Except Gilneans fled.  It doesn't make much sense they brought horses.  A Worgen riding a horse doesn't make much sense.  Why not something new that they've acquired since moving to Darnassus?

And with all the lore violations, why make sense the one time it gives you the most boring outcome imaginable?  Give them bushes or trees or something interesting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 01, 2011, 03:28:30 PM
Worgen ride... other worgen!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on September 01, 2011, 03:29:00 PM
What if they rode werehorses?  I think that might create some sort of yiff singularity.

edit: Great minds think alike.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 01, 2011, 03:30:53 PM
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3116591708?page=2#28

Quote
UPDATE:

There was some miscommunication regarding the initial reason why these mounts were added. After talking with the devs again these mounts are actually being added because they already happened to be available and we thought it’d be nice to make them able to be purchased and ridden. Which is unfortunately quite a bit different than how we understood and framed the blog.

Their existence also allows us to give players that faction change to Worgen something in exchange for their old racial mount. Right now if you faction change to Worgen you lose your previous home-faction mounts, and so we’re also trying to correct that with this change.
                               



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on September 01, 2011, 03:44:13 PM
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3116591708?page=2#28

Quote
UPDATE:

There was some miscommunication regarding the initial reason why these mounts were added. After talking with the devs again these mounts are actually being added because they already happened to be available and we thought it’d be nice to make them able to be purchased and ridden. Which is unfortunately quite a bit different than how we understood and framed the blog.

Their existence also allows us to give players that faction change to Worgen something in exchange for their old racial mount. Right now if you faction change to Worgen you lose your previous home-faction mounts, and so we’re also trying to correct that with this change.
                               



Still rather dickish the way they announced it.  They could have just hotfixed the horses in if those were the only reasons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 01, 2011, 03:56:40 PM
Getting insulted by something like that is way, way into 'get over yourself' territory.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 01, 2011, 04:02:37 PM
I want to know when my dwarf paladin gets her SPECIAL RAM that she DESERVES. That she still has to ride a stupid horse chaps my hide.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on September 01, 2011, 06:07:32 PM
I keep tabs anymore just to see Blizzard's desperate attempts to try keeping people from unsubbing in the face of their now literally insulting unwillingness to make content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on September 02, 2011, 01:55:37 AM
It's got to be a troll.. that's literally just a normal-sized human mount.  It's not even upscaled toor using a texture to pretend it's a Clydesdale.  The standard mounts have the same fetlocks.

I'm fairly certain that when they do get released there will be some significant artistic differences from the Stormwind mounts. I mean, I'm all for jumping on them if they release a shitty mount just to compensate for a mount availability imbalance, but ...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on September 02, 2011, 07:55:52 AM
I want to know when my dwarf paladin gets her SPECIAL RAM that she DESERVES.

Oh, she's been a naughty little paladin, hasn't she?  :evil:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 02, 2011, 09:27:02 AM
I'm fairly certain that when they do get released there will be some significant artistic differences from the Stormwind mounts. I mean, I'm all for jumping on them if they release a shitty mount just to compensate for a mount availability imbalance, but ...
But if they're planning on changing it, why would they bother showing screenshots of it now? It's not like these were datamined changes, this was an official announcement.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Samprimary on September 02, 2011, 01:41:41 PM
But if they're planning on changing it, why would they bother showing screenshots of it now?

Same reason their transmog announcement would show a character utilizing Sulfuras. Their publicity department is obviously not synced up with intent and implementation on the part of other departments.

On its own, imagine just hearing of the decision that it's not fair for worgen not to have racial mounts, so they're going to have gilneas faction mounts added in 4.3 — good news, right? Or we could get what we got and watch the bitching continue unabated, because they're hastily thrown together pics of worgen on the unaltered gilnean horse models from the quest. Ill-advised methods of publicity, though, don't mean the end product is going to suck, so here's hoping. I'd like a large clydesdale with gilnean barding, please.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 02, 2011, 02:39:50 PM
I wouldn't hold my breath on new art, if only because Blizzard seems to only have one artist chained to his desk these days.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on September 02, 2011, 02:57:22 PM
And he's probably pouting about the transmorgripher.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on September 02, 2011, 05:11:44 PM
I keep tabs anymore just to see Blizzard's desperate attempts to try keeping people from unsubbing in the face of their now literally insulting unwillingness to make content.

Pretty much sums it up for me too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 03, 2011, 02:31:24 AM
And he's probably pouting about the transmorgripher.
I have actually flipped 100% on the clown-suit issue, given that Blizzard's 'fix' for it was "here's two brown+something suits which will be used for all levelling gear, and maybe two weapon models for each type". Given the choice between that and looking like a harlequin puked over you, then I'll fucking taste the rainbow thanks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on September 03, 2011, 12:15:17 PM
Daily Blink (http://www.thedailyblink.com/2011/09/in-this-strip-baine-switches-to-decaf/)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on September 04, 2011, 06:59:23 AM
I would be perfectly happy for Tauren to get Plainsrunning back. Exactly as it was in the Beta. And then all the crying can start over again! Also, what the Daily Blink fails to point out is that a lot of the QQ is from ex-Horde players who Faction-swapped to play Worgen and lost out on mounts. But then since when has the Daily Blink been either funny or factual?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on September 05, 2011, 01:10:04 PM
Wow. I just posted that because it was topical. I wasn't looking to strike any nerves with it. Sorry bro.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on September 05, 2011, 01:14:56 PM
Wow. I just posted that because it was topical. I wasn't looking to strike any nerves with it. Sorry bro.


I lol'd


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 05, 2011, 01:43:25 PM
I've slowly been moving my hunter alt to 85. Today I waited in LFG queue for ~16 minutes and then got into Stonecore. Immediately the tank drops. We spend another 17 minutes in queue before we get a tank. After clearing two trash packs, the ret pally in our group went afk without saying anything. Before the first boss we tried kicking him since he wasn't responding.

"This player cannot be kicked for another 9 minutes"

We decide to 4-man the first boss and keep clearing trash. After 9 minutes we try kicking him again

"You cannot kick players during loot rolls"

The afk player has already de-facto passed on the drops from the first boss, so this message is occurring because he hasn't yet rolled on a BoE green that dropped off trash.

While waiting for the loot roll to finish, our healer goes link dead. So we sit around killing the never-ending spawn of shale spiders. Once the pally has finally timed out on rolling on the BoE green, our tank votes to kick the afk healer. After the healer has been kicked I try to initiate a kick on the pally that has been afk for about 12 minutes.

"You cannot initiate any more vote kicks"

We 4-manned the rest of the dungeon. All those sweet restrictions they put on vote to kick are working out well.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 05, 2011, 02:11:18 PM
I'm fairly certain your warrior screwed you.  I'm fairly certain I've had to kick multiple LDs before, but you only get one live kick, which counts if you kick an LD.  So if you had kicked the pally first you then could have kicked the priest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Mattemeo on September 05, 2011, 04:41:35 PM
Wow. I just posted that because it was topical. I wasn't looking to strike any nerves with it. Sorry bro.


I wasn't aiming that at you...   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 05, 2011, 04:48:58 PM
I'm fairly certain your warrior screwed you.  I'm fairly certain I've had to kick multiple LDs before, but you only get one live kick, which counts if you kick an LD.  So if you had kicked the pally first you then could have kicked the priest.

Which is still completely stupid. If the priest just went afk like our pally, we'd have been stuck with at least one of them and forced to 4-man the dungeon anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 11, 2011, 03:25:03 AM
For everyone else playing dress-up with their e-dolly looking for items for transmogrification: http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addons/details/mogit.aspx


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 11, 2011, 04:49:55 AM
That is the most awesome add-on.  Ever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 12, 2011, 06:54:09 PM
Quote
With the final showdown against Deathwing approaching, we’ve been keeping a close eye on players' progress through the current Firelands raid content. Before patch 4.3 is released, we want groups who are working on Heroic-difficulty content to be able to get as close to Ragnaros as possible, and we want players who are tackling normal progression to be able to experience as many of the encounters as they can. To achieve these goals, we’ll be toning down the difficulty of both normal and Heroic raids through hotfixes in the coming weeks. In general, we plan to reduce health and damage of all raid bosses in both normal and Heroic Firelands by around the same percentage we brought difficulty down for the original Cataclysm raids when Rage of the Firelands (patch 4.2) was released.

We're looking forward to seeing more groups of players face off against the Fire Lord in the weeks ahead. However, before we make these changes, we want to give everyone a final shot at the bosses at their current difficulty level -- so this is a heads up that we’re planning to apply the difficulty hotfixes beginning the week of September 19.

Stay tuned to the Patch 4.2 Hotfixes blog for these and other live updates to the game as they happen: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3019413
Sauce (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3123319589)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 12, 2011, 07:05:55 PM
Interesting to tell the world they are going out of their way to nerf content instead of just implementing buffs ala WotLK


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on September 12, 2011, 07:35:30 PM
I guess that catering to the hardcore raiders idea worked out really well for them, eh?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on September 12, 2011, 08:11:55 PM
Interesting to tell the world they are going out of their way to nerf content instead of just implementing buffs ala WotLK

There was some whinging regarding the hotfixed nerfs that went in this week to Rag and Beth'tilac as well as the change to legendary rates in Heroic 25s.  Having a heads-up post heading into the raid week is probably in response to that, although I think they would toss it out even without that considering its apparent scale.

As for the buffs you're talking about, that was just for ICC and I'm still not sure how I feel about them.  I liked that they preserved the feel of fights versus just taking an axe to difficult (and probably interesting) mechanics but it certainly didn't do my guild a lot of good.  It felt like we got worse by the month more than the buff's amount :uhrr:.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 12, 2011, 08:53:58 PM
I guess that catering to the hardcore raiders idea worked out really well for them, eh?

When there is nothing else to do for people at 85, no.

So in less than a week T12 will see a ~20% nerf? Terrific, there is no way my guild will run out of interesting content to do before 4.3, which is probably going to arrive in Nov/Dec.

It took my guild a long time, but we finally downed regular Ragnaros this past weekend. I was looking forward to smoothing out our execution and gradually moving into heroics, but if the T11 nerfs are any indication, none of these fights are going to be fun/interesting in less than a week.

I think I'm done. I don't care about the Deathwing fight that much, and this change is a pretty clear indicator that they want to go back to a Wrath-style difficulty.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on September 12, 2011, 09:12:17 PM
I'm looking forward to the changes. We've gotten Rag to the second phase transition (~40%) exactly once in...4 weeks of attempts? Granted we haven't been extending, and we've had a LOT of DCs/no-shows/late starts, but still. I'm tired of wiping on this fight because one person didn't pay attention and stood in a lava wave, failed to kill their add, stood in the middle when the seeds were spawning, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 02:54:44 AM
I'm looking forward to the changes. We've gotten Rag to the second phase transition (~40%) exactly once in...4 weeks of attempts? Granted we haven't been extending, and we've had a LOT of DCs/no-shows/late starts, but still. I'm tired of wiping on this fight because one person didn't pay attention and stood in a lava wave, failed to kill their add, stood in the middle when the seeds were spawning, etc.

We pretty much had the same problem. Every week we'd have a new person, and we'd spend a few hours wiping while they learned the fight (or other people died to stupid stuff like engulfing flames or lava wave). We probably did the second phase transition about ~8 times total, all of our other wipes (many, many wipes) were before transition 2. Our winning attempt was actually only the second time we'd seen phase 3, and the first time we'd spent more than 30 seconds in phase 3.

Eventually we actually got a raid group that had all seen the fight on previous nights, and it clicked.

Basically: After phase 2 transition is nailed, if you're all up and your ranged is paying attention to meteors, you win.

Or I guess you could just wait a week for a 20% nerf, after which none of the mechanics will pose much of a risk, and you can collect your free loot and then be bored for another 3-4 months.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on September 13, 2011, 05:29:52 AM
If your group has just finished up normal mode, even a 20% across the board nerf isn't going to make heroics trivially difficult.  And unless you've been two-healing everything (in 10s) they're pretty much new fights anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 13, 2011, 05:32:22 AM
My crazy guild leader was whining about this last night.  I didn't quite understand why, but he kept returning to the idea that it was ridiculous that it was happening so soon and that 4.3 wasn't even on test yet.   I don't see how it's too soon as they're already killing Heroic Ragnaros and we're not nearly bleeding edge. *

He stopped when they got on the topic of a possible new expansion next summer, meaning there wouldn't be a year-long raid of the same content, like happened with Icecrown.

* The only reason they're killing H-Rag is because we're still a 25-man guild for all intents.  They aim for 25's then split into 1 or 2 10s if there aren't enough people to do 25 that day.  The H-Rag kill came on a day they could only do 1 10-man so they had all the best players who'd already seen the fight there.

I'll note it's been harder and harder for them to get 25 sign-ups.  Even though they do focus on rotating people and making sure there's not an "A raid" and a "B Raid" you still wind-up leaving people out and folks quit (plus the increased Cata attrition).  As predicted 10s and 25s with shared lockouts has all-but-killed 25-man raiding.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on September 13, 2011, 05:58:19 AM
I imagine that it's quite deliberate that they're not waiting until Firelands has been superseded to nerf it.  Maybe the whole "We made T11 a lot easier." thing didn't really drive much extra traffic to it because it was "old".  Not to project, but it's been pretty much impossible to get certain people in our 10-man to go want to go back for Heroic T11 stuff like Al'akir and Sinestra on our spare hours even though it would be brand new for us and drop useful gear (and pretty titles!).

It does seem like they've been trying new ideas about how to mix content difficulties out of the same tier at around the same time for three straight years now and maybe they'll be able to learn something from trying it this way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 13, 2011, 05:59:11 AM
They just need more fucking content basically.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 13, 2011, 06:22:45 AM
I think I'm done. I don't care about the Deathwing fight that much, and this change is a pretty clear indicator that they want to go back to a Wrath-style difficulty.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on September 13, 2011, 06:25:45 AM
They recently said that they start the nerfs when their internal metrics flatten out, indicating that fewer people are beating the content. Presumably that's what they are doing now, but the very scientific straw poll I've just taken of the respondents to this thread seem to indicate that people are still progressing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 13, 2011, 06:48:45 AM
They recently said that they start the nerfs when their internal metrics flatten out, indicating that fewer people are beating the content. Presumably that's what they are doing now, but the very scientific straw poll I've just taken of the respondents to this thread seem to indicate that people are still progressing.

Oh people are progressing, there's just a LOT less of them bothering to try.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 13, 2011, 07:16:29 AM
They recently said that they start the nerfs when their internal metrics flatten out, indicating that fewer people are beating the content. Presumably that's what they are doing now, but the very scientific straw poll I've just taken of the respondents to this thread seem to indicate that people are still progressing.
Anyone in this thread at this point in time is either still playing, watching the train wreck, or crazy.  Your straw poll is horribly biased in favor of people still playing the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Shrike on September 13, 2011, 09:47:14 AM
They recently said that they start the nerfs when their internal metrics flatten out, indicating that fewer people are beating the content. Presumably that's what they are doing now, but the very scientific straw poll I've just taken of the respondents to this thread seem to indicate that people are still progressing.

Most of the raiding guilds in FL on my server (Aerie Peak) seems to be hung up at 6/7. That includes mine (though, we just go to Rags last week).

I brought the nerfs up to our GL last night. She seemed a bit surprised by how soon (well, presumably), but it is what it is. I'd like to beat his ass as he is now, but frankly, I want my trinket and don't much care how I get it...  :evil:

Although, we only got one night of real attempts on him (relatively--a significant part of the raid was dead nuts drunk), we were having issues with the adds. Last night was to be a real throwdown with him, but one of our tanks went AWOL. The RL seems to think we'll have him down in a week of solid attempts. I think he's still drunk (I recall the month and a half we spent on Al'Akir). Whatever. I'm in for the long haul to the next expansion regardless of nerfs at this point.

Or at least until ToR goes live...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on September 13, 2011, 11:29:47 AM
Your straw poll is horribly biased in favor of people still playing the game.

I'd guess that Blizzard's raid progression metrics are biased the same way  :)

That said, I'm curious what everyone else's impression is, because I'm not sure how closely they stick by the "nerf when people stop progressing" rule. They nerfed 4.1 when 4.2 came out, which is suspicious timing.  Unless they had a previous round of nerfs I'm forgetting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on September 13, 2011, 11:40:36 AM
My anecdotal impression is that firelands is unpopular.  My casual guild was raiding and having fun in t11, we were 9/12 normal before the nerfs and then killed the final bosses after them.  We managed to kill shannox our first week in firelands but got destroyed by the dps requirements on beth'tilac and rhyolith.  We could basically only kill shannox and people were too burned out on the troll dungeons to farm valor to improve dps.  Eventually people got fed up of clearing all that trash just to down one boss and we stopped going, went and did some old raids for guild achievs and mounts instead.

More anecdotal: it really seems that the number of people milling about outside firelands while their raid gets together is only equal to the crowd in front of either BoT or BWD whereas it should be equal to both combined.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 13, 2011, 12:11:47 PM
They just need more fucking content basically.

They need to stop deprecating old content every time they launch a new raid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 13, 2011, 12:21:56 PM
They just need more fucking content basically.

They need to stop deprecating old content every time they launch a new raid.

You're wrong. They need to make content accessible on the front end and then dump it when then next iteration comes out.

You'll never get people to love doing something that's not new in a game where they are paying for the priviledge, and you'll never get people excited about dragging people through old content just to get them geared for the stuff they really want to be doing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on September 13, 2011, 12:57:30 PM
I just think they need to do something more than "Look they are getting bored, let's release a new raid and a new tier of loot!  That'll keep them playing!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 01:15:38 PM
You'll never get people to love doing something that's not new in a game where they are paying for the priviledge, and you'll never get people excited about dragging people through old content just to get them geared for the stuff they really want to be doing.

Speak for yourself. I loved the linear gear progression of TBC because it gave me more stuff to do on all of my characters. I was excited about gearing new players up and doing pugs, because that meant my alts got to run older content that still had meaningful rewards.

5-mans in TBC never gave you a near-full set of gear that was better than what you could get from raiding, so there was always something worthwhile to do in the game. You did 5-mans>Heroics>Kara>Gruul/Mag/ZA>SSC/TK>Hyjal>BT>Sunwell. I geared up two alts up through SSC/TK, and that was a lot of fun repeatable content. In Cata both the difficulty and the rewards are so temporary. I don't have any interest in doing T11 on my alts when they nerfed it into another boring faceroll with gear rewards that will be replaced by running ZA/ZG 80 times in 4.3. The disposable content model emphasizes how little content is in Cata instead of giving players more.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 13, 2011, 01:25:35 PM
You are literally insane as nobody did that in BC.

By the time Sunwell was out you got better gear from heroics (or better heroic gear by running Kael's heroic) by farming badges than running old content.  Just like today!  Barring that your guild dragged your ass through the current raid until you were geared.  Least that's what we did with the few quasi-geared folks we brought along.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 01:42:11 PM
Emphasis on 'by the time Sunwell came out'. Badge gear started off very limited, so you could only approach a full set by the time Sunwell hit. Before that, Badge gear only augmented gear you got and gave you a 'boost' to catch up, it wasn't a total replacement for raid gear like current badge loot.

As for the Sunwell 5-man? I believe the gear was on-par with Karazhan loot. This meant you still had a reason to run T5/6/7.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on September 13, 2011, 01:45:54 PM
I think I'm done.

Again?  How many times does this make now?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on September 13, 2011, 01:48:26 PM
I think I'm done.

Again?  How many times does this make now?
I'm guessing every content announcement since, sunwell.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 13, 2011, 02:23:36 PM
You'll never get people to love doing something that's not new in a game where they are paying for the priviledge, and you'll never get people excited about dragging people through old content just to get them geared for the stuff they really want to be doing.

Speak for yourself. I loved the linear gear progression of TBC because it gave me more stuff to do on all of my characters. I was excited about gearing new players up and doing pugs, because that meant my alts got to run older content that still had meaningful rewards.

I'm sure you did. And if people liked what you like across the board, the game would still be gaining subs or at the very least retaining them.

Except it's not. And it isn't. And it won't as it continues into the near future because they tried to make people like you happy.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 02:53:11 PM
I think I'm done.

Again?  How many times does this make now?

Suppose it'll be the third time since release. Quit after M'uru during Sunwell. Picked up Wrath after it had been out for a few months, only played about a month before quitting again. This makes three. Unfortunately I'm paid through to late October.

I'm sure you did. And if people liked what you like across the board, the game would still be gaining subs or at the very least retaining them.

Except it's not. And it isn't. And it won't as it continues into the near future because they tried to make people like you happy.

You are still assuming that everyone quit the game because the expansion was too hard or inaccessible. There were like a hundred different reasons to quit during this expansion.

I'm sorry not standing in fire was so hard. Hopefully the next expansion lets you and your guild stand wherever you please.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 13, 2011, 03:06:57 PM
And you're still assuming that the majority of people quit for reasons other than content and difficulty. People say shit all the time, and they act for different reasons altogether. Nobody is making posts when they quit saying, "The game is too hard, I'm constantly in the fire, and I'm done." No, they blame all kinds of other stuff when the reality is they just sucked or were tired of others sucking. If people played as good as they think they do, Cataclysm wouldn't have caused as much sub loss. And, if the world drove as well as they say they do, we'd have no car accidents.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on September 13, 2011, 03:20:08 PM
I think I'm done.

Again?  How many times does this make now?

Suppose it'll be the third time since release. Quit after M'uru during Sunwell. Picked up Wrath after it had been out for a few months, only played about a month before quitting again. This makes three. Unfortunately I'm paid through to late October.

I was referring to the number of times you've said it just in this thread.  And yet haven't actually quit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Outlawedprod on September 13, 2011, 03:21:37 PM
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112981-WoW-Producer-Discusses-Killing-Deathwing-Raid-Finder-and-Everything-Patch-4-3

Rogue legendary dagger incoming


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 03:23:25 PM
And you're still assuming that the majority of people quit for reasons other than content and difficulty. People say shit all the time, and they act for different reasons altogether. Nobody is making posts when they quit saying, "The game is too hard, I'm constantly in the fire, and I'm done." No, they blame all kinds of other stuff when the reality is they just sucked or were tired of others sucking. If people played as good as they think they do, Cataclysm wouldn't have caused as much sub loss. And, if the world drove as well as they say they do, we'd have no car accidents.

Actually, I'm not assuming that. I admit I don't know why everybody quit. I'm not even sure Blizzard has an accurate metric (like you said, people might fill out X on an exit survey even if the reason was Y), but they're probably as close as anyone to knowing why this expansion didn't retain subscribers. The difference between me and you is that I don't try to claim I know why everybody quit. I've only provided anecdotal evidence from the perspectives of people I know and suggested different possibilities.

There are plenty of different reasons to quit during Cata. Here is a short list:

1. burnt out
2. too hard (group content)
3. too easy (leveling content is a joke)
4. not enough raid content at 85
5. not enough non-raid content at 85
6. not enough dungeon content at 85
7. not enough non-dungeon content at 85
8. not enough 80+ solo content
9. no new classes
10. new profession sucks
11. recycled content
12. Blizzard slept with my mom


I was referring to the number of times you've said it just in this thread.  And yet haven't actually quit.

This would be the first time I've said it in this thread.

Rogue legendary dagger incoming
FML



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 03:30:45 PM
Bigger details from that interview:

Raid finder will be 25-man only. Difficulty for raid-finger will be lower than normal mode. It'll also give lower level loot and will have a separate set of achievements. I guess this is how they are implementing 'easy mode'.

Still seems like a really shitty way to experience the content.

If they're implementing easy-mode, why nerf T12 :p


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on September 13, 2011, 03:36:22 PM
Who knew catering to the hardcore would be a bad business model?  Seriously, fuck the hardcore.  They will keep playing no matter what you do.  And if they cancel, fuck 'em.  I'd rather lose that 2% than the 98% casual.

Everyone chases the hardcore.  Why? They are a small segment of the MMO population.  Bioware has the right idea; 8 solo progression storyline.  Oh and if you want to dip your toe in raiding, they got that.  PvP?  They got that.  But re-roll is the endgame for most.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 13, 2011, 03:37:53 PM
Many reasons they chase it, the primary is always Because devs themselves are hardcore.  They speak that language and understand the mindset far more than "i just want to get in and fuck around for a few hours on my own."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 13, 2011, 03:45:41 PM
I don't think what Blizzard actually set out to do was placate the hardcore. I think what they mistakenly thought they could do was take the tons of new people who got into raiding in WotLK, and turn them hardcore.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on September 13, 2011, 03:46:11 PM
If TOR doesn't pan out, I would come back for the random raid tool.  No joke.  I don't care about the achieves...but to see the content and get loots?  Yeeeeessssssss.....   :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 13, 2011, 03:48:28 PM
I don't think what Blizzard actually set out to do was placate the hardcore. I think what they mistakenly thought they could do was take the tons of new people who got into raiding in WotLK, and turn them hardcore.

Yep, that's a big part of it. They believed that because everyone started raiding in Wrath, they could just turn up the volume and they would follow right along.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 13, 2011, 03:51:30 PM
There are plenty of different reasons to quit during Cata. Here is a short list:

Pretty much everything on that list would have been ignored (and was ignored in previous expacs) if people had access to the content at the time it was released and could do it with their friends.

With the exception of "too easy" and "your mom"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 03:57:31 PM
If TOR doesn't pan out, I would come back for the random raid tool.  No joke.  I don't care about the achieves...but to see the content and get loots?  Yeeeeessssssss.....   :drill:

How is this even a little appealing?

You're going to do an easy version of the raid where you ignore most of the mechanics (boring).

You're going to do this with 24 other people that you have never met, who will drop group at the drop of a hat, and will generally try to be as awful as possible. Proud members of the WoW community, in a nutshell. (frustrating)

This is an improvement over doing challenging content with friends and guild-mates?

I could see how this tool would actually be useful if you just wanted to raid 'for the story'. But most raids have no story. T11 had about 1-2 lines of text that were plot development. T12 doesn't really have any. This isn't really a change from past raids either. Wrath did the best job having 'story' integrated into raids, but even that was pretty slim

Pretty much everything on that list would have been ignored (and was ignored in previous expacs) if people had access to the content at the time it was released and could do it with their friends.

With the exception of "too easy" and "your mom"

I don't think the lack of 5-man, raid content, or leveling content was something people would overlook even if 5-man/raid content was easy. They would overlook it *slightly longer*, but they'd still run out of things to do pretty fast unless they wanted to level alts from scratch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 13, 2011, 04:07:23 PM
If TOR doesn't pan out, I would come back for the random raid tool.  No joke.  I don't care about the achieves...but to see the content and get loots?  Yeeeeessssssss.....   :drill:
How is this even a little appealing?
You're going to do an easy version of the raid where you ignore most of the mechanics (boring).
You're going to do this with 24 other people that you have never met, who will drop group at the drop of a hat, and will generally try to be as awful as possible. Proud members of the WoW community, in a nutshell. (frustrating)
This is an improvement over doing challenging content with friends and guild-mates?

Here's the hilarious part. The devs assumed the exact same thing. They assumed that it wouldn't be appealing for their players to do easier stuff with randoms. They assumed that the players wanted to be challenged and put together large groups of friends to conquer content.

How horrifying it must have been when they found out that their players don't really want a challenge. They wanted to surf around the game with their friends pulling the loot lever and chatting away with new people in pugs.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 13, 2011, 04:09:49 PM
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112981-WoW-Producer-Discusses-Killing-Deathwing-Raid-Finder-and-Everything-Patch-4-3

Rogue legendary dagger incoming
That got pulled quite quickly. I'm guessing that it wasn't supposed to be released yet.
Anyway: http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/2450-Rogue-Legendary-Dagger-and-Patch-4.3-Interviews-Comics


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 13, 2011, 04:14:36 PM
That's something I would agree with, Blizzard DRASTICALLY underestimated just how many raiders were actually 'making their living' off of PuG raids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 04:28:11 PM
Here's the hilarious part. The devs assumed the exact same thing. They assumed that it wouldn't be appealing for their players to do easier stuff with randoms. They assumed that the players wanted to be challenged and put together large groups of friends to conquer content.

How horrifying it must have been when they found out that their players don't really want a challenge. They wanted to surf around the game with their friends pulling the loot lever and chatting away with new people in pugs.

Glorified chat room > video game?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 13, 2011, 04:30:25 PM
With the exception of "too easy" and "your mom"
I totally did your mom with some friends!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 13, 2011, 04:30:55 PM
More like fun > serious business gaming for most people. Why this comes as a surprise to you is beyond me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 04:35:17 PM
I don't see what is fun about doing boring content with people you don't know from an awful community.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 13, 2011, 04:36:23 PM
No, you wouldn't.

I'm sure people would love to be able to do the nerfed level of content with non-randoms even more, but baby steps.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on September 13, 2011, 04:40:36 PM
I like how Blizzard thinks nerfing the shit out of old content will make mediocre or worse guilds want to run it to gear up so they can do the new hotness.

No. They won't. A Million+ people didn't WANT to do that. They want to do the current shit. Make the current shit easier. Sorry.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 04:47:49 PM
There is nothing stopping you from using LFR with non-randoms (I assume), just like LFD, but you'd need to have 25 people before you queued so... unlikely.

It surprises me that they aren't allowing 10-man "LFR" difficulty. On the one hand, it makes sense. 25-mans have a bit more room for error. 2-3 people being afk or awful isn't going to destroy your raid. Most of the 25-man guilds at this point seem to be 'legacy guilds' that are interesting in hard-mode content, so they probably won't feel conflicted to run "easy mode" first. 10-man guilds also won't feel like they need to do easy mode first in order to move to normal mode. This also gives Blizzard more 'bang for their buck' with 25-man developement.

On the other hand, this makes 'easy mode' less of an option for 10-man guilds that just want to play together but think normal mode is too hard. It also means "LFR" difficulty won't be a great 'learning tool' for most of the population, because most people will be in 10-man guilds and the 25-man LFR difficulty will be even more different.

I like how Blizzard thinks nerfing the shit out of old content will make mediocre or worse guilds want to run it to gear up so they can do the new hotness.

No. They won't. A Million+ people didn't WANT to do that. They want to do the current shit. Make the current shit easier. Sorry.

Your reading comprehension needs work.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 13, 2011, 04:47:55 PM
They just need more fucking content basically.

YES


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on September 13, 2011, 04:48:39 PM
That said, I'm curious what everyone else's impression is, because I'm not sure how closely they stick by the "nerf when people stop progressing" rule. They nerfed 4.1 when 4.2 came out, which is suspicious timing.  Unless they had a previous round of nerfs I'm forgetting.

You are forgetting.  There were plenty of nerfs to T11 before 4.2 came out, especially to Heroics.

I like how Blizzard thinks nerfing the shit out of old content will make mediocre or worse guilds want to run it to gear up so they can do the new hotness.

No. They won't. A Million+ people didn't WANT to do that. They want to do the current shit. Make the current shit easier. Sorry.

That's why they're nerfing Firelands now, while it's still current.  Whether this strategy continues in a post-Raid Finder world as well, they'll just have to see how it goes I guess.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 13, 2011, 05:00:46 PM
Also, people who long for the days of TBC make my head hurt.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 13, 2011, 05:42:59 PM
TBC was amazing... RELATIVE to Vanilla.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 05:45:53 PM
I think it was their most content-heavy expansion. When you got to 70 you still had 2-3 huge zones left to clear. It had more 5-mans in it than any other expansion in the game. It had a huge amount of raid content, and most of it was pretty good. Above all, I liked the art direction, which really made the game feel fresh again. Plenty to love about TBC.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 13, 2011, 05:48:40 PM
TBC's content wasn't actually 'content' for the majority of the playerbase till 2-3 patches in and a bunch of nerfs later.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 13, 2011, 05:49:27 PM
TBC was my shortest stint in WoW, where I lasted only a month.  Cataclysm made it a week longer, since I got the seven day trial out of it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 13, 2011, 05:52:52 PM
Whoa whoa whoa there, Rokal. It had tons of raid content if you did 25's. Guilds like mine that could scrape together 10 were stuck in the Karazhan ghetto. And I did love Kharazhan, but still. Even when they added Zul'Aman, it wasn't balanced for the losers like us. It was balanced for the "real" raiders. So naturally my guild was kinda shitty at it, which resulted in that raid - especially since we only raided twice a week, period - not being a fun time. And the heroics were fucking ridiculous, some of them you just didn't do because the reward for clawing through them was not worth it in the least.

Were WotLK heroics a little too face-roll? Maybe. But they were worth the effort. And there was a fuckton more raid content for my guild - and the many, many guilds like mine - to do. Then Cataclysm went "hahaha, you weren't REALLY having fun, let us stomp on your nuts for a while" and they all left.


Fake edit: I am a lot more verbose than Fordel or Lantyssa. :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on September 13, 2011, 06:01:22 PM
TBC's content wasn't actually 'content' for the majority of the playerbase till 2-3 patches in and a bunch of nerfs later.

I'm beginning to see why he loved it so much..


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 06:15:57 PM
Whoa whoa whoa there, Rokal. It had tons of raid content if you did 25's. Guilds like mine that could scrape together 10 were stuck in the Karazhan ghetto. And I did love Kharazhan, but still. Even when they added Zul'Aman, it wasn't balanced for the losers like us. It was balanced for the "real" raiders. So naturally my guild was kinda shitty at it, which resulted in that raid - especially since we only raided twice a week, period - not being a fun time. And the heroics were fucking ridiculous, some of them you just didn't do because the reward for clawing through them was not worth it in the least.

Were WotLK heroics a little too face-roll? Maybe. But they were worth the effort. And there was a fuckton more raid content for my guild - and the many, many guilds like mine - to do. Then Cataclysm went "hahaha, you weren't REALLY having fun, let us stomp on your nuts for a while" and they all left.

I didn't say it was without problems, or was a wacky "all content for everyone" festival. I said it was content heavy. My point was that regardless of what you did in the game, there was a lot of content (compared to other expansions). Even if you hated raiding or grouping in general, it still had a lot of stuff to do. Leveling in Wrath didn't last as long, there weren't as many 5-mans (and they were much shorter), and there were less raids overall. TBC also had some pretty decent daily quest hubs before they got totally stale (Netherwing, Ogrila (sp)).

Even if you liked the raid content (like me) in Cata, when you look back on this expansion in a few years you'd think "man, there wasn't anything to do". TBC feels like an expansion that Blizzard spent a lot more time/money on and it shows.

TBC's content wasn't actually 'content' for the majority of the playerbase till 2-3 patches in and a bunch of nerfs later.

I'm beginning to see why he loved it so much..

I'm sure you'll find my 'you scrubs don't deserve content' rants right alongside all the hundreds of times I said I was quitting in this thread.

:oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 13, 2011, 06:22:57 PM
They really did try and sell people on the idea that 5 levels of content could equal 10.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on September 13, 2011, 06:25:27 PM
They really did try and sell people on the idea that 5 levels of content could equal 10.

Meh, all another 5 levels would have given us is another 1-2 days of grinding.  Then we'd be in the same situation we are now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 06:42:39 PM
They really did try and sell people on the idea that 5 levels of content could equal 10.

Meh, all another 5 levels would have given us is another 1-2 days of grinding.  Then we'd be in the same situation we are now.

I think it took me a week or two to get to the cap in TBC. Wrath was about 1 week. In Cata it was like 3-4 days. Sure, we're only talking about another week and a half of content, but there was also more quest content to finish at the level cap in Wrath/TBC. Additionally, that was another 1-1.5 weeks of content per character that you got to the level cap. Redoing 60-70 on alts (or 70-80) was less tedious than redoing 80-85 on alts, imo, because the alternative leveling paths really kept the content from getting boring so quickly. In Cata you have a choice between starter zones (80-81), but after that every character takes the same path. I got tired of leveling alts much faster in Cata than in any other expansion. I actually resorted to herbalism, archaelogy, and watching TV to finish leveling my priest because I didn't want to do Deepholm or Uldum again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 13, 2011, 06:52:16 PM
WotLK had way more to do for me. Like not even close. And even so, WotLK's quality of shit to do was, in my opinion, higher. Long-ass dungeons do not equal better dungeons. Miles of trash between bosses do not equal better dungeons. The fact I could earn rep for a chosen faction in any fucking dungeon I wanted instead of one or two that I'd already done to death but Oh God I'm still only fucking REVERED made a huge difference, too. There may have been more dungeons in TBC, but a lot of them might as well have not existed, because no one I knew did them. Heroic Mana Tombs, for example. Or heroic Auch Crypts. Fuck, NORMAL Auch Crypts barely existed because of that one "ha ha fuck you healers that aren't a druid" boss.

WotLK also paced its shit better for the non-catasses. Nearly every content patch in TBC was "welp, still nothing for me to do, good thing I enjoy Karazhan." WotLK, because of the 10 man raiding shit, which you are underestimating so badly in "adding shit to do," had something every patch for my guild, plus they added more five mans than TBC did.



fake edit: Also I have never understood people who do extra zones after hitting cap. I know people do it but. Nngh. Unless there's some sort of really awesome quest arc to see that no one can shut up about, I don't bother. I can't be alone in this.

That said, the lack of alternate paths to level up those five levels in Cataclysm is a huge goddamn mistake, and easily my biggest problem with Cataclysm. The giant stomp on the nuts of my less-skilled guildies and friends, causing a lot of them to flee the scene, is second place.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 13, 2011, 07:02:57 PM
WotLK also paced its shit better for the non-catasses. Nearly every content patch in TBC was "welp, still nothing for me to do, good thing I enjoy Karazhan." WotLK, because of the 10 man raiding shit, which you are underestimating so badly in "adding shit to do," had something every patch for my guild, plus they added more five mans than TBC did.



fake edit: Also I have never understood people who do extra zones after hitting cap. I know people do it but. Nngh. Unless there's some sort of really awesome quest arc to see that no one can shut up about, I don't bother. I can't be alone in this.

That said, the lack of alternate paths to level up those five levels in Cataclysm is a huge goddamn mistake, and easily my biggest problem with Cataclysm. The giant stomp on the nuts of my less-skilled guildies and friends, causing a lot of them to flee the scene, is second place.

TBC's content was very front-loaded. True, they only added one 5-man over the life of the expansion, but they launched with 15 5-mans. There was an awful lot of raid content available day 1, and only a few patches for new raid content. Going back to what I was saying, TBC felt fresh. There was no re-used content. Wrath re-used Naxx and the art style wasn't quite as interesting/new, Cata re-used.. well... everything. I'm not even talking about SFK/DM/ZA/ZG, but the art direction, the main bosses, so many elements of the expansion.

I did all of the quests in the TBC zones on at least 3 characters. There were some okay upgrades to be had, and gold via questing at level cap was a big deal at the time too. It was also a useful way to get rep. Meanwhile I never touched Icecrown on any of my characters, but that's mostly because I didn't spend much time playing Wrath.

I'd be very curious to know what the completion rate was for Icecrown (the quest hub) though. Blizzard might have also come to the conclusion that level-cap quest zones were a waste of resources.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 13, 2011, 07:15:29 PM
There was an awful lot of raid content available day 1

Not for us. And Naxx was not re-used content for more than about 5% of the user base.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 13, 2011, 07:22:32 PM
And again, 15 dungeons means jack shit when everyone you play with (PUGs were irritating to get together back then, although I did mine AND Ingmar's fairshare on my bear druid) only wants to do three or four of them because they give the best rep return for effort spent, or their last upgrade is in Botanica, or whatever.

I did a fuckton of Botanica, Shadow Lab, Steam Vaults and Shattered Halls. The end.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 13, 2011, 07:49:00 PM
No it wasn't an Upgrade, it was "you need this last piece to complete un-hitable or your paladin tank will fuck the entire raid!"  :why_so_serious:


Lets go run Botanica again!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Minvaren on September 13, 2011, 08:09:20 PM
WotLK had way more to do for me. Like not even close. And even so, WotLK's quality of shit to do was, in my opinion, higher. Long-ass dungeons do not equal better dungeons. Miles of trash between bosses do not equal better dungeons. The fact I could earn rep for a chosen faction in any fucking dungeon I wanted instead of one or two that I'd already done to death but Oh God I'm still only fucking REVERED made a huge difference, too.

Gotta say, this is why I even got into tanking PuGs in WotLK.

Besides that, I'm a Story Whore(tm).  I ran CoS over and over in LK, just for The Story(tm).  Should probably resub for a month to see the LK fight.  Ah well.   :|


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kageru on September 13, 2011, 08:57:05 PM

I still don't get the psychology. Launch with raids balanced for the "average" raider, heroic modes for the achiever and insane challenges for the super hard-core. Everyone gets to see the content, there's a progression within the content and you don't have to invest massive resources in balancing the ball-breaking stuff because it is understood that is the point of it. Having content that acts as a brick wall to a large section of your player-base, with the understanding that you'll eventually the nerf the content when it is old and no one cares anymore is just dumb. Nerfing content should be seen as a failure to design a graduated challenge.

Still, now that my guild has exploded I'm safely immunized from any future temptation.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: sinij on September 13, 2011, 10:28:21 PM

I still don't get the psychology.


My guess is they thought that average person will strive for unobtainable and keep subscribed for longer time (and come back next expansion) if they make it firmly out of reach and cockblock the hell out of it. This would have worked just fine in the early days of mmorpgs. What they failed to take into account is aging demographic that now has less time, is more assertive and has better goal setting checks and balances that comes with maturity. What started as 12-25 back in 99 is now 24 - 37 and not attracting significant number of younger generation.

TL;DR Average mmorpg gamer is now older, has more money and less time and expects "luxury" experience. Instead they are still trying to sell you more of beat-up old Civic that you drove in college.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on September 14, 2011, 12:54:24 AM
My guess is they thought that average person will strive for unobtainable and keep subscribed for longer time (and come back next expansion) if they make it firmly out of reach and cockblock the hell out of it. This would have worked just fine in the early days of mmorpgs. What they failed to take into account is aging demographic that now has less time, is more assertive and has better goal setting checks and balances that comes with maturity. What started as 12-25 back in 99 is now 24 - 37 and not attracting significant number of younger generation.

TL;DR Average mmorpg gamer is now older, has more money and less time and expects "luxury" experience. Instead they are still trying to sell you more of beat-up old Civic that you drove in college.

Bollocks, that's not what they thought at all. All that happened was they made the MMO Dev Mistake #1 and thought that their forums represented their playerbase.

At the end of wrath the forumtards were screaming about faceroll non-stop and Blizzard listened to that noise, and lo! Cata was born.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on September 14, 2011, 01:54:25 AM
Yup. Not only did they listen to the wrong people, but I think that what the forums were saying played into the dev's fears/aspirations:

"Do we want to develop an easy game, where obviously no one could be having fun, or do we want to develop a meaningful game?"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 14, 2011, 04:28:32 AM
fake edit: Also I have never understood people who do extra zones after hitting cap. I know people do it but. Nngh. Unless there's some sort of really awesome quest arc to see that no one can shut up about, I don't bother. I can't be alone in this.

It's a shitload of extra cash.  Way, way more than dailies because each quest turn-in gives the same cash as a single daily and you get the rewards to sell-off.  Additionally when you're quest grinding you get more world drops for DE and crafting mats than daily areas which are always picked clean because so many people are focused there.

Doing Hyjal on the DK I picked up 4-500g without even trying one evening.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 14, 2011, 04:32:51 AM
And again, 15 dungeons means jack shit when everyone you play with (PUGs were irritating to get together back then, although I did mine AND Ingmar's fairshare on my bear druid) only wants to do three or four of them because they give the best rep return for effort spent, or their last upgrade is in Botanica, or whatever.

I did a fuckton of Botanica, Shadow Lab, Steam Vaults and Shattered Halls. The end.

Not only did they mean jack-shit for the pain in the ass of getting a group together, they may as well not have existed at all for some classes.  I was lucky to do any of them on my Hunter, who was my main at the time, because "hunters can't CC and we want a  mage/ rogue. "     Even in guild it was hard to get groups and you were dragged along rather than taken happily because they'd rather have had another mage or rogue in my spot.   It's why I started to take the paladin I'd had sitting around since launch more seriously.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on September 14, 2011, 05:19:20 AM
They need to stop deprecating old content every time they launch a new raid.
You're wrong. They need to make content accessible on the front end and then dump it when then next iteration comes out.

You'll never get people to love doing something that's not new in a game where they are paying for the priviledge, and you'll never get people excited about dragging people through old content just to get them geared for the stuff they really want to be doing.

Yes, Diablo II nightmare/hell was terribly unpopular.

People will grind the shit out of the place if you give them the least excuse.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 14, 2011, 06:18:11 AM
Diablo 2 was a single player game, with a multiplayer component, and you didn't pay for it on a monthly basis.

Why not compare a car to a plane next time? I mean they both have engines.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pantastic on September 14, 2011, 08:08:05 AM
Yes, Diablo II nightmare/hell was terribly unpopular.

I suspect that it was terribly unpopular, I know a lot of people who played normal mode but didn't see the point in playing it again in nightmare, and other people who played nightmare but had zero interest in grinding the kind of gear setup you needed for hell mode. Has Blizzard ever released numbers of how many people actually completed the harder modes versus how many bought the game? Sure, nightmare and hell (and hardcore mode) got a lot of forum talk, but that's like a few hundred or maybe few thousand people - most players don't hit forums at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 14, 2011, 08:57:00 AM
And again, 15 dungeons means jack shit when everyone you play with (PUGs were irritating to get together back then, although I did mine AND Ingmar's fairshare on my bear druid) only wants to do three or four of them because they give the best rep return for effort spent, or their last upgrade is in Botanica, or whatever.

I did a fuckton of Botanica, Shadow Lab, Steam Vaults and Shattered Halls. The end.

Not only did they mean jack-shit for the pain in the ass of getting a group together, they may as well not have existed at all for some classes.  I was lucky to do any of them on my Hunter, who was my main at the time, because "hunters can't CC and we want a mage/ rogue. "     Even in guild it was hard to get groups and you were dragged along rather than taken happily because they'd rather have had another mage or rogue in my spot.   It's why I started to take the paladin I'd had sitting around since launch more seriously.

No offense, but your guildies were idiots. My hunter CC'd like crazy in TBC. You just needed the rest of the group to not be fucking tards and break your trap early (having a tank that grasped how to pull to your trap was a bonus). I was survival, though, we were most bestest at it.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 14, 2011, 10:05:16 AM
I'll agree they were particularly since even if my CC sucked my DPS was head and shoulders above the rest of the guild. (Marks FTW)  Even without the CC i was a far superior choice to some of the rogues/ mages they took in my spot.

However, it wasn't just my guild but the entire server that was the issue.  If you only played guild groups at the time, you never got the experience of "LF2m for Botanica.  NO HUNTERS" or sending a tell and having them reply; "No, we don't need a hunter."  I know Xanthippe and I had groused about this in the past.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on September 14, 2011, 11:03:14 AM
Re:  Diablo II.

Nightmare is fairly fun if you research how to spec your character ahead of time, and it's not terribly gear dependent.  In nightmare, you can max out whatever near 18/24/30 skill you were going to max anyway, and with that, nightmare becomes almost comically easy.  Particularly compared with some of the painful bosses in Normal.  Duriel, Diablo, I'm looking at you.  Hell, the only thing that makes Normal Meph tolerable is you can cheese him over that one foot wide channel he mysteriously can't float across.

I certainly understand why people think the idea of "find a build to play content I paid for" is kind of bullshit though.

Hell, as mentioned, comes down to not only researching a build, but then building the gear required to survive and produce sufficient damage to kill mobs.  It doesn't help that to build that set of gear, you should be able to farm hell.  There's a reason why forb/fire skill sorcs are popular MF chars.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 14, 2011, 11:37:51 AM
I think Nightmare/Hell almost certainly was unpopular - relative to the total amount of people who played D2 overall.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 14, 2011, 11:56:55 AM
I'll agree they were particularly since even if my CC sucked my DPS was head and shoulders above the rest of the guild. (Marks FTW)  Even without the CC i was a far superior choice to some of the rogues/ mages they took in my spot.

However, it wasn't just my guild but the entire server that was the issue.  If you only played guild groups at the time, you never got the experience of "LF2m for Botanica.  NO HUNTERS" or sending a tell and having them reply; "No, we don't need a hunter."  I know Xanthippe and I had groused about this in the past.

Doomhammer didn't give a shit if you were a hunter. They were fine with it. <shrug>


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 14, 2011, 01:52:26 PM
Alleria was home to the #1 US raid guild in BC, so there were all kinds of stupid things that happened based on their opinions.  (not to mention a hyper-inflated economy)   

Failure (the GL) thought hunters were a waste of space, ergo so did the server.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 14, 2011, 02:25:10 PM
Hunter CC was fiddly but it worked and it worked on shit you couldn't sheep or whatever. My Moonkins only CC in TBC was Hibernate  :why_so_serious:


Then my Paladin got geared and we never CC'd again.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 14, 2011, 02:57:23 PM
Not only did they mean jack-shit for the pain in the ass of getting a group together, they may as well not have existed at all for some classes.  I was lucky to do any of them on my Hunter, who was my main at the time, because "hunters can't CC and we want a  mage/ rogue. "

The in-demand CC classes in TBC were mage/warlock. Rogue CC was bad in TBC. With the talent, you still had a 10% chance to not re-enter stealth after using sap, botching the pull for your group. I remember doing Shattered Halls heroic on my rogue and crossing my fingers every time I did a pull. 1 in 10 pulls is a wipe, yaaay....

TBC was still awesome though.  8-)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 14, 2011, 06:25:45 PM
I notice all the t12 armors seem to be moving away from the laser light show sets from the last 3-4 tiers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on September 14, 2011, 10:09:48 PM
Not only did they mean jack-shit for the pain in the ass of getting a group together, they may as well not have existed at all for some classes.  I was lucky to do any of them on my Hunter, who was my main at the time, because "hunters can't CC and we want a  mage/ rogue. "

The in-demand CC classes in TBC were mage/warlock. Rogue CC was bad in TBC. With the talent, you still had a 10% chance to not re-enter stealth after using sap, botching the pull for your group. I remember doing Shattered Halls heroic on my rogue and crossing my fingers every time I did a pull. 1 in 10 pulls is a wipe, yaaay....

TBC was still awesome though.  8-)

Yeah, TBC heroic dungeons were really good.  The class design of the game around them was complete pants.  (Which is why I liked the first couple of months of Cata heroic dungeons as much as I did.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 15, 2011, 04:44:52 AM
Yeah but that 10% only killed the rogue.  The rogues I knew at the time were always smart enough to sap and stand there in case they had to be rezzed.   If it wiped the group you were doing something wrong or the healer was too quick on the trigger.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 15, 2011, 05:12:34 AM
Meh, just vanish, I'm just going to throw my Holy Frisbee and it will fuck up your CC!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pantastic on September 15, 2011, 09:14:30 AM
Yeah but that 10% only killed the rogue.

Yeah, if the rogue was clever enough to vanish or stand in place then it was fine. A lot of players just didn't understand the basics of CC even though it was so important in BC. Good hunters could be amazing, they could trap a mob, kite another one, and have their pet distract a third for a while (cutting down the initial damage spike in SH helped a lot), and misdirect was pretty sick. Mind control from priests was practically broken anywhere it worked, you just MC pull and let the mobs take down one guy for you, then MC another and abuse him for the rest of the fight. With the right opponent mix (like Mechanar) warlocks could CC 3 mobs at a time (Charm a humanoid or enslave a demon, banish a demon, chain fear something fearable).

I never really understood the mage love putting together groups in BC. I get that their CC was easier to use, but people seemed to rave on them even when assembling a group with known good players. I always wanted a good warlock or hunter, mage was just 'oh that's handy'.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 15, 2011, 10:02:08 AM
I always attributed mage love to people's general stupidity and four other things.

1) Their CC is instantly recastable in or out of combat, unlike sap or (then) traps.
2) It has no cooldown, unlike fear and traps.
3) It has a clear visual component for those too dumb to realize things like the hunched-over guy with the birds is "sapped" and hearts are chamed. Don't hit those, fuckers.
4) It has no chance of aggroing other mobs, unlike fears or (then) pets that wander into aggro range when offtanking. (Sheep wanders that would take them near other mobs were ultra-rare occurrences.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pantastic on September 15, 2011, 10:26:16 AM
4) It has no chance of aggroing other mobs, unlike fears or (then) pets that wander into aggro range when offtanking. (Sheep wanders that would take them near other mobs were ultra-rare occurrences.)

That's why you needed a good warlock - you could fear, then put on curse of recklessness to make the mob unfear for a bit, then toss weakness or tongues on it to make it run again before it got to you. An affliction lock could keep this going pretty easily without losing much damage, since DOTs would keep ticking on the kill target.

But yeah, the reasons turn into mostly 'mage CC was the easiest to not screw up' and I think people extended that even to hand-picked groups where people wouldn't be screwing up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on September 15, 2011, 11:12:44 AM
Yeah, TBC heroic dungeons were really good.
No, this is pretty much the opposite of true. There were, what, fifteen at launch? How many did people actually want to run? Two? Three?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 15, 2011, 11:25:56 AM
Let's see, the TBC dungeons... Oh hell, I'll rank them!

The ones people ran: Mechanar, Magister's Terrace, Underbog, Ramparts, and Black Morass.
The ones people tolerated: Sethekk Halls, Steamvault, Slave Pens, Blood Furnace, and Botanica
The ones people would have to be drug to: Hillsbrad, Shattered Halls, Arcatraz, Shadow Lab.
The ones people would tell you go fuck yourself: Auchenai Crypts, Mana-Tombs


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on September 15, 2011, 01:31:07 PM
Ran all of the across 5 alts regularly. As tank, heals and DPS. Usually in a group of guildies and friends. We had fun.
I don't agree with your ranking at all. Hell, 2 of my alts hit exalted with Keepers of Time :D

Hunter - not an issue to CC. Distracting shot was there for a reason.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on September 15, 2011, 01:52:02 PM
Let's see, the TBC dungeons... Oh hell, I'll rank them!

The ones people ran: Mechanar, Magister's Terrace, Underbog, Ramparts, and Black Morass.
The ones people tolerated: Sethekk Halls, Steamvault, Slave Pens, Blood Furnace, and Botanica
The ones people would have to be drug to: Hillsbrad, Shattered Halls, Arcatraz, Shadow Lab.
The ones people would tell you go fuck yourself: Auchenai Crypts, Mana-Tombs
Some of those would depend highly on if it was before or after they nerfed a lot of them from "crush your nuts with a sledgehamer unless your group comp is PERFECT".

For example, before the nerf, getting ANYONE to do Arcatraz, Shattered Halls, Hillsbrad, Blood Furnace or ShadowLab unless they absolutely had to (ie, they required it for the Attunement Quests) was nearly impossible.  Especially Bloodfurnace and Hillsbrad, since they had some of the trash pulls from hell in them (like the Hillsbrad sentries who patrolled around and summoned assist-teams of group wiping when attacked).

I think the main reason EVERYONE hated Crypts was because it was only 2 bosses, with some of the most irritating trash in the game at the time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 15, 2011, 02:03:47 PM
I stand behind my rankings from my personal tanking experiences. YMMV of course.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 15, 2011, 02:08:36 PM
My version of the TBC dungeon list:

The ones I ran because they were awesome: Magister's Terrace, Ramparts, Blood Furance, Botanica, Shadow Lab, Slave Pens, Mechanar
The ones I ran because they were pretty fun: Sethekk, Arcatraz, Steamvault, Underbog
The ones I only ran to help guildies or for daily quests: Hillsbrad, Mana-tombs, Shattered Halls, Black Morass
No thx: Auchenai Crypts


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on September 15, 2011, 02:10:32 PM
I ran underbog a ton because it had a fun atmosphere and lots 'o badges


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pantastic on September 15, 2011, 02:12:13 PM
(like the Hillsbrad sentries who patrolled around and summoned assist-teams of group wiping when attacked).

Don't forget that those sentries (and the ones in SH) had a disorient attack on the tank (which makes mobs temporarily deaggro), and most heroic mobs would kill a non-tank in 2-3 hits. They made some REALLY stupid trash back in those days.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 15, 2011, 02:15:25 PM
1) Their CC is instantly recastable in or out of combat, unlike sap or (then) traps.

Traps in combat started in TBC ... at some point. I don't remember when exactly (because I thiiiiink it was patched in after it was released?), but I could keep a mob trapped forever by the time I was doing Karazhan. The problem was if you weren't talented for it, the trap was going to wear off before the cooldown was over.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on September 15, 2011, 02:37:46 PM
You couldn't place traps in combat until WotLK if I remember right. However, prior to that people got around that restriction by just feign/trapping.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on September 15, 2011, 02:45:12 PM
A lot of the dungeons became a lot easier/harder depending on which tank/healer combo you had.


Shattered Halls was no big thing for my Paladin in TBC, but gave Ingmar's warrior carpel tunnel.

He could do Black Morass in his sleep though, while my Paladin was mana starved and struggling the entire time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 15, 2011, 02:47:02 PM
Yes it was Feign->trap but it didn't work if your pet was in combat, so it was actually pet>passive>check to be sure it's out>feign>trap. It was also nerfed about halfway through BC as well, because casters bitched up a storm that it was unfair hunters could feign->drink on raids to regain mana.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 15, 2011, 03:40:16 PM
They patched in-combat traps in patch 2.0.1. All that fiddly shit was just in vanilla.  :heart:


EDIT: Also Black Morass (regular) was my faaaaaaavorite on my bear druid. Such a faceroll for him.  :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 20, 2011, 09:38:13 PM
Rogue T13:

(http://us.media5.battle.net/cms/gallery/B4KKLEH37CKO1316467365966.jpg)

Because nothing says 'subtlety' like glowing bright green bat puke. My initial impression of rogue T13 was that it looked awful, but I'm curious to see what it will look like on other races. I'd have liked to have seen a less-obnoxious shoulder effect too. Glowing green eyes would have been enough.

Probably another "at least we can transmog" set though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 20, 2011, 10:16:36 PM
Thing is, it'd actually be a cool set if they didn't insist on making the shoulder pads follow the armor philosophy of MUST BE HUGE AND GLOWING


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 20, 2011, 10:20:29 PM
Even minus the shoulders, I'm not wild about that particular rogue set, but I still like it better than T11!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 20, 2011, 10:54:57 PM
T11 was alright, I'm actually pretty fond of T12 though. T5 is probably as good as rogue sets ever got, I dislike the majority of them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 20, 2011, 11:10:39 PM
Forgetting bloodfang? they still haven't topped it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on September 20, 2011, 11:27:07 PM
I like the T9s the best for rogues, personally. (As usual of course for T9, they look best on orc/human).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on September 20, 2011, 11:30:03 PM
Nah not a huge fan of bloodfang. The hood looks kind of crappy from most angles, and the shoulders are pretty silly. I think everyone is a fan of the color scheme more than the actual armor.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on September 21, 2011, 04:33:08 AM
I like the T9s the best for rogues, personally. (As usual of course for T9, they look best on orc/human).

T9 on female elves (both types) looks great as well, just turn off the helmet.

Bloodfang is my favorite, followed by T5 then T9.   This particular set I don't care for the helmet or the shoulders. The helm looks too much like those horns off the firelands Salamanders or the Warlock T1.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on September 21, 2011, 04:33:38 AM
Even minus the shoulders, I'm not wild about that particular rogue set, but I still like it better than T11!
But... but... you can run around shouting, "I'm Batman!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ashamanchill on September 21, 2011, 08:45:04 AM
I thought Ingmar did that anyways.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 21, 2011, 01:54:05 PM
Even minus the shoulders, I'm not wild about that particular rogue set, but I still like it better than T11!
But... but... you can run around shouting, "I'm Batman!"

T12 is the Batman set. :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: K9 on September 22, 2011, 04:08:22 AM
Paladin T13 is probably the best so far, but then looking back at Paladin tiers the last decent one was a looong time ago.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on September 22, 2011, 04:31:10 AM
I dunno, I liked T9 and T10 alright. Alliance T9 anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Outlawedprod on September 23, 2011, 05:07:32 PM
Rogue T13:
Because nothing says 'subtlety' like glowing bright green bat puke. My initial impression of rogue T13 was that it looked awful, but I'm curious to see what it will look like on other races. I'd have liked to have seen a less-obnoxious shoulder effect too. Glowing green eyes would have been enough.
Probably another "at least we can transmog" set though.

I'm Batman
http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/2470-Patch-4.3-Legendary-Daggers-give-you-Wings


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Cadaverine on September 23, 2011, 06:26:13 PM
Rogue T13:
Because nothing says 'subtlety' like glowing bright green bat puke. My initial impression of rogue T13 was that it looked awful, but I'm curious to see what it will look like on other races. I'd have liked to have seen a less-obnoxious shoulder effect too. Glowing green eyes would have been enough.
Probably another "at least we can transmog" set though.

I'm Batman
http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/2470-Patch-4.3-Legendary-Daggers-give-you-Wings

(http://i629.photobucket.com/albums/uu12/MoarNudesPlz/hank-batman.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on October 18, 2011, 03:55:45 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUcaH8eR3dY

http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/2504-Hallow-s-End-2011-Updates-and-Changes

KITTY!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on October 18, 2011, 03:58:13 AM
I like the updates, even though dousing the opposing capital's wickerman daily is one I suspect people won't be doing daily. :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 14, 2011, 04:58:51 AM
I resubbed. The game is still reheated leftovers but I missed my guild.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on November 17, 2011, 07:07:13 AM
I resubbed. The game is still reheated leftovers but I missed my guild.

I did the same, even reheated it's the best polished DIKU I have played. SWTOR got me back into DIKU but it's :nda:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on November 17, 2011, 09:08:23 AM
I resubbed. The game is still reheated leftovers but I missed my guild.

I did the same, even reheated it's the best polished DIKU I have played. SWTOR got me back into DIKU but it's :nda:

I cancelled my WoW sub after my first SWTOR beta weekend.  My guild isn't even logging in anymore, we are just in waiting mode for release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on November 19, 2011, 03:03:28 AM
Class popularity at 85 broken down by some intelligent numbers. (http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/2559-PTR-Release-Build-Class-Balance-and-Dragonwrath-Fan-Art-The-Daily-Blink) We are the 4.9%.

Surprised druids are so high. They've certainly come a long way since Vanilla and TBC, but I think they used to be the least popular class via the metrics that were available at the time. Warriors used to be the most popular class overall with ~20% (iirc), which has now split in half (maybe due to DKs). Rogues used to be very popular on pvp servers (second only to warriors), but are now the least popular overall by a substantial amount. I don't see the rogue numbers going up with the addition of monks that fill the same 'melee agility-based martial arts class' but also can tank and heal.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on November 19, 2011, 06:00:48 AM
The 5k VP achievement is a relatively low threshold if you really want to filter out alts, but the next one up (25k) is probably going to filter out everyone who isn't a raider (or really into doing ZA/ZG).  Still, the numbers are similar to what WarcraftRealms has for the overall level-cap population (http://www.warcraftrealms.com/census.php?serverid=-1&factionid=-1&minlevel=85&maxlevel=85&servertypeid=-1) given the filter they used.

Probably more useful than either metric though is character activity in prime time (http://www.warcraftrealms.com/weeklyactivity.php?serverid=-1&factionid=2).  I think the overall numbers without an aggressive alt screen boost hybrid numbers just because there's more reasons that someone might roll that character as compared to a Hunter for example.  That sort of shows up on these graphs where there are still a lot of Paladins, but their lead over Druid/Hunter/Mage is smaller and there only about twice as many Paladins and Rogues instead of over three times which is what MMO-C has.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 19, 2011, 09:38:23 AM
It's not really a mystery as to why Paladins and Druids are more popular now compared to vanilla. They actually have viable talent specs now, instead of being say, innervate bots.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on November 19, 2011, 10:42:35 AM
It's not really a mystery as to why Paladins and Druids are more popular now compared to vanilla. They actually have viable talent specs now, instead of being say, innervate bots.  :awesome_for_real:

Hey now, I took my job as an innervate bot very seriously, we never would've gotten that server second rags kill without our druids bigger effective mana pools on our priests. :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 19, 2011, 12:36:01 PM
Lots of people really have no idea how absolutely god damn awful some talent specs were in Vanilla. I don't mean bad "oh noes my precious raid slot and/or meter peen", I mean bad as in "I theoretically have Direct Damage spells, yet its still somehow better to just auto attack with my staff".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on November 19, 2011, 12:38:57 PM
Yeah, Hunters didn't even work at first.  It was like someone had said 'Yeah, this chap should have a pet and be able to shoot' and the rest of the dev team turned around at launch day and said 'Wait, What ?'


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on November 19, 2011, 12:49:14 PM
Marks was ok, but the other two were wretched. Especially survival, who basically got warrior rend as their 31 point talent.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 19, 2011, 12:52:20 PM
Of course if you were a fucking warrior everything was great.


Fucking warriors.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on November 19, 2011, 12:54:36 PM
Marks was ok, but the other two were wretched. Especially survival, who basically got warrior rend as their 31 point talent.  :awesome_for_real:

SURVIVAL FOR LIFE

I remember speccing that just to see if it was really that bad. It was still a hell of a lot more functional than a druid, if you ask me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on November 19, 2011, 01:01:12 PM
Lots of people really have no idea how absolutely god damn awful some talent specs were in Vanilla. I don't mean bad "oh noes my precious raid slot and/or meter peen", I mean bad as in "I theoretically have Direct Damage spells, yet its still somehow better to just auto attack with my staff".

Hurricane as the 31 point talent in Balance, that basically sums it up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 19, 2011, 01:03:46 PM
No, PBAE Hurricane with leather armor (with no armor buff so it was actually lower armor then mages/priests) with no pushback and no spell damage gear as your 31 point talent. On a 1 minute cooldown.


Actually having a the current ranged AE spell would have been such a LUXURY  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on November 19, 2011, 01:24:40 PM
No, PBAE Hurricane with leather armor (with no armor buff so it was actually lower armor then mages/priests) with no pushback and no spell damage gear as your 31 point talent. On a 1 minute cooldown.


Actually having a the current ranged AE spell would have been such a LUXURY  :oh_i_see:

Yeah, true.  I recall the only balance druid I knew on the server was doing it for RP reasons  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 19, 2011, 04:38:56 PM
Marks was ok, but the other two were wretched. Especially survival, who basically got warrior rend as their 31 point talent.  :awesome_for_real:

I still miss shot weaving. 

I also remember survival hunters saying "this is our melee spec!" and one guy trying so very, very hard to make it work.  :awesome_for_real:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on November 19, 2011, 04:40:32 PM
Melee Hunters worked better then Casting Druids  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ajax34i on November 19, 2011, 07:51:26 PM
Actually it's talent specs and gear.  Healy druids used to have to wear cloth, I think.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 19, 2011, 08:19:41 PM
They did, yep.  Wife was a resto and the clothies got irritated when she'd roll on "their gear"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on November 20, 2011, 03:38:20 AM
Of course if you were a fucking warrior everything was great.

No, no it was not.  No instant attacks actually worth using until level 40 was not great.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on November 20, 2011, 04:11:47 AM
7-year Anniversary and Not-Thanksgiving are both live now, btw.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on November 20, 2011, 09:45:18 AM
Anniversery gift is a buff giving 7% more xp and rep.  Not too exciting.

Also, why does every world event have to have a damn find x of enemy faction and do something to them?  I have to find rogues?  No one plays them and they can stealth, they're like fucking unicorns man.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: fuser on November 20, 2011, 10:02:33 AM
I cancelled my WoW sub after my first SWTOR beta weekend.  My guild isn't even logging in anymore, we are just in waiting mode for release.

Yeah that's a major difference I have a group of friends still playing so its a social experience with them and LFD. SWTOR had nothing like that for me. Again might be just the beta constraints, level (didn't get past 13), but I'll give it a fair shake on release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on November 20, 2011, 01:09:45 PM
Anniversery gift is a buff giving 7% more xp and rep.  Not too exciting.

Wow, that is one ugly ass tabard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on November 21, 2011, 08:20:06 AM
Also, why does every world event have to have a damn find x of enemy faction and do something to them?  I have to find rogues?  No one plays them and they can stealth, they're like fucking unicorns man.

I did that achievment two years ago in Dalaran. Good luck doing it now :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Outlawedprod on November 21, 2011, 08:25:29 AM
Blizzard hopes Chuck Norris will make you want to try Wow / re-sub
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arKpdxjHamI


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hawkbit on November 21, 2011, 08:45:32 AM
That was wasted money.  Terrible ad, and Norris is a douche.  Back when I was into martial arts, he wanted 35k to come to one of our AAU tournaments and talk for five minutes.  /nochuck


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Evildrider on November 21, 2011, 08:52:43 AM
That was wasted money.  Terrible ad, and Norris is a douche.  Back when I was into martial arts, he wanted 35k to come to one of our AAU tournaments and talk for five minutes.  /nochuck

That's a deal nowadays, considering you need to pay that much just for Snookie to show up to an event.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on November 21, 2011, 08:55:52 AM
Also, why does every world event have to have a damn find x of enemy faction and do something to them?  I have to find rogues?  No one plays them and they can stealth, they're like fucking unicorns man.

I did that achievment two years ago in Dalaran. Good luck doing it now :ye_gods:

Since then the best way of doing it is joining any BG except IOC and AV and checking the scoreboard for the guys you need.  The constant death cycle in the BG keeps the debuff off of them so you don't experience the frustration of FINALLY finding that orc rogue, only to discover he's already a turkey.

Barring that, have a friend roll an alt and go plug him.  This one doesn't  have the level requirement like the goddamn Easter one.

Or just skip it altogether unless you're an achievement whore. Pilgrim's bounty doesn't count towards anything for the long, crazy trip mount.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Kail on November 21, 2011, 09:52:30 AM
Blizzard hopes Chuck Norris will make you want to try Wow / re-sub
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arKpdxjHamI

About half a decade late there, Blizz.  When they didn't run an ad like this with their Mr. T et al ads, I assumed they couldn't get him.  These memes have a finite shelf life, why run it now, that the whole thing has blown over?  Even Barrens Chat has been basically gone since Burning Crusade.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on November 21, 2011, 09:54:31 AM
They should have made him a monk anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: ajax34i on November 21, 2011, 10:06:49 AM
Others are releasing Jedi and Dragons and etc. and Blizzard is releasing kung-fu Pandas...  Yeah.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on February 14, 2012, 02:19:54 PM
New sparkle pony in the Blizzard store.

(http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2012/february/heartoftheaspects.jpg)

Two in one expansion? Guess they're looking to make up for some of the money they lost from sub drops.

I'm not opposed to microtransactions, and I actually really like the look of this one. ...May actually bite on it  :facepalm:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 14, 2012, 02:28:33 PM
Expect the microtrans gimmicks to speed up, not slow down. There's been one every 6 months if I recokn right. That will accelerate.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on February 14, 2012, 02:45:45 PM
I hear for $100, they'll come to your house dressed as a Night Elf and give you a handy.

Seriously though, I thought the earnings report stated that they held their ground last quarter or did I mis-remember that?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on February 14, 2012, 03:03:55 PM
They had datamined that model some time ago but no one knew how it would be obtained, some were thinking heroic dragon soul achievement.  I'm glad I can just buy it instead, that's amazing, might be too big for my liking though so I'll have to see them in game.

If I were to put on a tinfoil hat I would have to note it is asian looking, was probably meant for MoP and was pushed ahead to make some cash now though.

Tinfoil2:  Either the guy I'm looking at right now is bugged and can't land it or the thing doesn't land and has no running animation, if true I would feel it was rushed out for cash.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on February 14, 2012, 03:58:51 PM
(http://i41.tinypic.com/34o2fpi.png)

Only about twenty seven thousand or so people in line at this particular moment.  Most people haven't even heard about it yet.  Jesus money.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 14, 2012, 04:48:24 PM
Seriously though, I thought the earnings report stated that they held their ground last quarter or did I mis-remember that?

They did report that. Without any numbers. I didn't bother reading the report this time around because the point that Cataclysm was a failure and was costing them large amounts of money has been well-accepted by now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 14, 2012, 04:51:59 PM
I thought they didn't mention sub numbers but said reveneues were the same.. which included a lot of RMT and/ or yearly sub stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 14, 2012, 05:03:34 PM
I thought they didn't mention sub numbers but said reveneues were the same.. which included a lot of RMT and/ or yearly sub stuff.

Yeah at this point I'd imagine they have a lot of up front cash they need to amortize over the next year.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on February 14, 2012, 06:15:05 PM
I thought they didn't mention sub numbers but said reveneues were the same.. which included a lot of RMT and/ or yearly sub stuff.
They stated the number of subs is currently 10.2 million, they lost 100,000 in the last quarter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 14, 2012, 08:18:04 PM
Is this one BoE? i want one but not enough to spend real money on it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on February 15, 2012, 05:08:43 AM
No it's BoP but account wide on all your characters.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on February 15, 2012, 05:32:13 AM
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3966606644

that's very cool. I'll probably try when my tor sub runs out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 15, 2012, 06:00:16 AM
Man, no cooking or fishing allowed? I just like to do those to do them.  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 15, 2012, 06:10:34 AM
No it's BoP but account wide on all your characters.

That's a welcome switch.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on February 15, 2012, 08:48:40 AM
How is that a switch? That's exactly how the original Blizz pony (and maybe the lion too) worked. I was hoping that they'd make this one BoE like the last pet they sold.

Also that Ironman thing sounds horrible.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 15, 2012, 10:30:56 AM
For some reason I thought the sparkle pony was single character.  I didn't buy one but only ever saw mains on them, never alts.  /shrug.

If it's always been that way it strikes me as odd pointing it out in the first place.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on February 15, 2012, 10:46:08 AM
The last microtransaction item they introduced (companion pet version of the lion mount) was BoE and only unlocked the pet for the character that used it. It was a gold-selling experiment by Blizzard. Given that I never see these lions in the AH anymore, I'm guessing it wasn't a very successful one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on February 15, 2012, 05:32:26 PM
For some reason I thought the sparkle pony was single character.  I didn't buy one but only ever saw mains on them, never alts.
Nope!  All my alts love theirs ;-)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 15, 2012, 06:46:02 PM
My alts all use their sparkleponies too, unless I get a mount that I like for them better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 16, 2012, 06:33:19 AM
I got a sparkle pony thinking that on my undead shadowpriest that shadowform would transform it into an ethereal harbinger of doom.....alas, I still sparkled.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on February 21, 2012, 03:53:49 AM
They had datamined that model some time ago but no one knew how it would be obtained, some were thinking heroic dragon soul achievement.  I'm glad I can just buy it instead, that's amazing, might be too big for my liking though so I'll have to see them in game.

If I were to put on a tinfoil hat I would have to note it is asian looking, was probably meant for MoP and was pushed ahead to make some cash now though.

It's the Year of the Dragon - as of only a few weeks ago. I'm sure that had something to do with it. Note they released it right after all the other bullshit died down as they had 3 events running at once (Lunar Fest/Valentines/Darkmoon) - but just as the final one of those events started to wind down, but with players still heavily concentrated in the capitals for the dailies - this made the new mount introduction the centre of attention.

edit - all of the ingame crap in their store is BOA - and you get one for each character on the account. Make a new Goblin (or Panda) and bang - in the letterbox you'll instantly have a Sparkle Pony, a Lava Lion, a baby Griffin hatchling, a moonkin, etc etc..

The only exception to date is the 1-per BOE shitty baby Lava Lion pet - which just guarantees I won't buy it, and I'm not averse to buying pointless digital goods at all... So far my wife and I both have sparkle ponies, lava lions, baby griffs and windriders - We've also bought a friend the lava lion mount and boomkin pet - this year I'll probably get him the sparkle pony for his birthday. 



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 28, 2012, 05:34:38 AM
Just as a FYI: If you get a survey in your email asking you to answer some questions it seems legit.   I ran it here at work just in case, though.  :awesome_for_real:

They're really aching for some feedback on why their numbers have plummeted.  Lots and lots of pages of "What's your Most & Least Important feature from this list." questions.

Then a, "Have you heard of MoP," section.  Highlighted questions: How does your anticipation rate vs. previous expansions?  How highly are you anticipating <X> feature.  (Pandarans, Monks, New Zones, New Dungeons, Pet Battles, Scenarios, Challenges)

Then a, "Have you heard of <this game>," section.   Followed by a "will you buy <this game>" section and then a, "Will playing <this game> reduce/ increase/ replace Warcraft" section for thsoe games you said you were going to buy.   Games included; Diablo III, Torchlight 2, ToR, ME3 and 3-4 others that aren't on my radar so I don't remember them.

Asks a few questions about account security (Have you been compromised, how do you feel about AS).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on February 28, 2012, 06:15:13 AM
I wish they'd do that with active subscribers also, but I doubt they will.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 28, 2012, 06:48:44 AM
Active subscribers:

1) Are showing they support direction or are generally satisfied by continuing to subscribe.

2) Have the /feedback or forums options to air their dissatisfaction.

They do surveys of active subs from time to time - I'd gotten one years ago, too - but if you've lost really long-term subscribers they're the ones you ask questions of.  I'd had a WoW sub since release day that only lapsed twice and never for more than 2 months prior to Cata's release.  Since then I've let it lapse a total of 7 months. That's unusual.

I'm probably also marked as some sort of Blizzard core customer, having just about every Blizz game on my account.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Soulflame on February 28, 2012, 08:00:33 AM
The survey doesn't list GW2?  That's about the only MMO-like game on the horizon that piques my interest at this point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on February 28, 2012, 08:03:05 AM
I have things to say about the game and I'm not going to the forums to fight the kids. If they ditch the stacking buff again or undertune heroic content so more people can do it faster I'm going to rage :)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 28, 2012, 08:14:49 AM
The survey doesn't list GW2?  That's about the only MMO-like game on the horizon that piques my interest at this point.

Know what, now that you mention it; it did.  I'm also totally disinterested in GW2 because GW1 put me to sleep with my apathy for it.  Still haven't taken a character past level 10.

I have things to say about the game and I'm not going to the forums to fight the kids. If they ditch the stacking buff again or undertune heroic content so more people can do it faster I'm going to rage :)

Start raging now then. Difficult heroics are what Challenge modes are for.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on February 28, 2012, 08:23:57 AM
I'm talking about raids, I don't care about dungeons, in fact I prefer them easy. I've said as much before.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 28, 2012, 09:32:45 AM
They're probably going to go with "easier is more gooder" this time around for raids. The people shrieking for harder raids just aren't that many people compared to "I want to do these things with my 9 derp friends."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 28, 2012, 10:24:50 AM
They're probably going to go with "easier is more gooder" this time around for raids. The people shrieking for harder raids just aren't that many people compared to "I want to do these things with my 9 derp friends."

They just need to understand that it's the recipe for success. They tried the hardcore stuff. It didn't work. Time to go back to what amuses the masses.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on February 28, 2012, 10:27:52 AM
the current model allows for both. The 9 derp friends will work great in the current normals. They can probably even try and do a couple of the easier heroics with normal gear and 10-15% of the buff. We're considering doing 1 fight on heroic on our casual run this reset, and that has at least 3 hardcore casuals on it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on February 28, 2012, 10:30:06 AM
The 9 derp friends don't want to be stuck in normals.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 28, 2012, 10:44:23 AM
the current model allows for both. The 9 derp friends will work great in the current normals. They can probably even try and do a couple of the easier heroics with normal gear and 10-15% of the buff. We're considering doing 1 fight on heroic on our casual run this reset, and that has at least 3 hardcore casuals on it.

No offense, Wolf, because I know you play the game at a high level. You don't get it. Making the game less accessible will not work anymore.

I mean I just gave up on SWTOR. I'm literally RIPE for the picking by WoW if they don't fuck up in the next 6 months on their way to expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on February 28, 2012, 10:51:15 AM
well I'm sorry but can there be a little game for me too? Or should we just bounce around the extremes every expansion?

Guys, you really misunderstand how the game and the difficulty levels work at the high end of the raiding spectrum. Lich king, the expansion you're looking to, had some of the most brutal bosses blizzard have ever made. And they were still playing around with the heroic raids concept. They got it right with the stacking buff in ICC, but for whatever reason they dropped it for the entirety of Cata, with the exception of Dragon Soul. This is the right model, and this one has stuff for everyone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on February 28, 2012, 11:19:36 AM
well I'm sorry but can there be a little game for me too? Or should we just bounce around the extremes every expansion?

Guys, you really misunderstand how the game and the difficulty levels work at the high end of the raiding spectrum. Lich king, the expansion you're looking to, had some of the most brutal bosses blizzard have ever made. And they were still playing around with the heroic raids concept. They got it right with the stacking buff in ICC, but for whatever reason they dropped it for the entirety of Cata, with the exception of Dragon Soul. This is the right model, and this one has stuff for everyone.
They dropped it for t11 because they were still in their "ra ra let's make things hard" phase.  IIRC t11 heroics weren't nerfed at all when t12 came out, only normals.  They were clinging to "moar difficult!" when firelands was designed and launched but by the end realized they had made a huge mistake and made a knee jerk reaction to hit t12 with a massive nerf before t13 came out.

The stacking debuffs might only work for the last tier of an expansion, since it has so much time to be dripped out.

Edit: As a sucky normal mode raider I don't know if I like the stacking debuff since it only applies to bosses.  It's not going to help where we're stuck, on Blackhorn phase one adds.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 28, 2012, 11:24:27 AM
The 9 derp friends don't want to be stuck in normals.

Actually I was perfectly fine with never seeing a hard mode raid, I don't mind that being there for the hardcore people at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on February 28, 2012, 11:34:51 AM
well I'm sorry but can there be a little game for me too? Or should we just bounce around the extremes every expansion?

Guys, you really misunderstand how the game and the difficulty levels work at the high end of the raiding spectrum. Lich king, the expansion you're looking to, had some of the most brutal bosses blizzard have ever made. And they were still playing around with the heroic raids concept. They got it right with the stacking buff in ICC, but for whatever reason they dropped it for the entirety of Cata, with the exception of Dragon Soul. This is the right model, and this one has stuff for everyone.
They dropped it for t11 because they were still in their "ra ra let's make things hard" phase.  IIRC t11 heroics weren't nerfed at all when t12 came out, only normals.  They were clinging to "moar difficult!" when firelands was designed and launched but by the end realized they had made a huge mistake and made a knee jerk reaction to hit t12 with a massive nerf before t13 came out.

The stacking debuffs might only work for the last tier of an expansion, since it has so much time to be dripped out.

Edit: As a sucky normal mode raider I don't know if I like the stacking debuff since it only applies to bosses.  It's not going to help where we're stuck, on Blackhorn phase one adds.

It's all mobs, trash included. You can see it it's called power of the aspects or whatever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on February 28, 2012, 11:57:48 AM
Oh good.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on February 28, 2012, 11:59:07 AM
well I'm sorry but can there be a little game for me too? Or should we just bounce around the extremes every expansion?

Guys, you really misunderstand how the game and the difficulty levels work at the high end of the raiding spectrum. Lich king, the expansion you're looking to, had some of the most brutal bosses blizzard have ever made. And they were still playing around with the heroic raids concept. They got it right with the stacking buff in ICC, but for whatever reason they dropped it for the entirety of Cata, with the exception of Dragon Soul. This is the right model, and this one has stuff for everyone.

I think if that was really true, then more people would be playing.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on February 28, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
Still holding out hope that, once they have released an expansion with more to do at end-game for non-raiders (MoP), LFR will be the new 'easy mode' and normal/hard modes will remain unchanged for longer.

It feels like unless you're in a guild that's playing for more than 12 hours a week (more realistically 20 when content is new), you don't get enough time to work on fights before the nerf bat comes. Our guild that raids 7 hours a week barely had enough time to kill Rag/Deathwing normal before nerfs came. After killing H-Morchok, we've only managed to put a very small amount of time into Ultrax/Yorsahj Heroic, and now another nerf has hit before we got the chance to make serious progress.

That said, I can't say people are especially eager to progress in Dragon Soul. It's the last raid of the expansion, people have already burned themselves out on running it thanks to LFR+guild runs, and it's just kind of a shitty uninspired raid zone.

I do like that they let you turn the buff off, and I hope they keep this for MoP raids. I'd also like to see a Feat of Strength or something for beating the bosses without the buff, to give guilds some incentive to try it that way. Our guild isn't turning off the buff (I seriously doubt any guilds are, given the internal drama it would create), but it would be nice to have some reason to go back and do the 'un-nerfed' version of the fight, even if we cut our teeth on the nerfed version.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 28, 2012, 12:13:57 PM
well I'm sorry but can there be a little game for me too? Or should we just bounce around the extremes every expansion?

No, we shouldn't. Honestly, it's been a problem with WoW since TBC. You really, really have to beat the developers over the head to get them to ease up on the players, because they are by nature hardcore raiding fiends. They don't get why people wouldn't want a challenge. They don't get why harder modes would isolate a playerbase. They interact with the top tier to tune things, and then adjust down from there.

The problem is that they design a game for themselves unless the directors step in and say, "Hey dipshits, people are leaving because they hate this!" The reason you get the bouncing isn't because the developers want it that way. They are being forced to ease up by the powers that be, and the moment they hear some backlash, or get some sliver of hope that there are internal grumblings about EZ MODE, they take that to their bosses and ask if they can take the handcuffs off. That's how we got Cataclysm.

At this point, the highest ups need to ride these guys and never let up if they want balance. You have to beat them into submission or they will give into their darkest urges, create ballbuster content, and sit around jerking off while Rome burns.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on February 28, 2012, 12:20:23 PM
I'm happy with the speed the debuff is applying and we also raid a 7hr week, but that just goes to show how much depth there is within the people that raid. My whole point is that the people in this thread that are complaining against my comment over heroic raids are the same people that wouldn't touch a heroic raid with a ten foot pole. I honestly don't care what happens to the rest of the game, I'd just like to have a game to play too. Which is why I said I'd like to fill out a survey too. There is a game that has casual enough dungeons, that lead into LFR, that lead into normal raids, that still has sufficiently hard heroics.

edit: look Paelos, I'm not a hardcore raiding fiend. I'm happy beating the content Paragon managed in last tier's gear and perfect comp, two months later and with 5-10% nerf. I won't stay subbed for totc though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 28, 2012, 12:22:16 PM
I think it is possible that a few people saw you say "heroics" and thought you meant heroic dungeons? Otherwise I really don't get why anyone gives a shit if heroic raids are ballbusters.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on February 28, 2012, 12:23:37 PM
I'm happy with the speed the debuff is applying and we also raid a 7hr week, but that just goes to show how much depth there is within the people that raid.

You raid 7 hours a week now. Did you raid that little when 4.3 launched?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on February 28, 2012, 12:29:29 PM
We raid a 7hr week since december 2010. We've had a total of maybe 20 hours of raid extensions and additions since then. This is our best tier yet, and we're sitting at 7/8 since Thursday. I am the 1% :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 28, 2012, 12:35:37 PM
I think it is possible that a few people saw you say "heroics" and thought you meant heroic dungeons? Otherwise I really don't get why anyone gives a shit if heroic raids are ballbusters.

As long as the spillover doesn't go into normal raids, I don't care. The fact is that in the past, it has. I agree that heroics SHOULD be harder and not available to the regular noobs, but there is usually a trickle down effect when the gear separation between the two isn't that deep.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 28, 2012, 01:17:23 PM
The thing with Blizzard and raid difficulty...


Blizzard, despite appearances to the contrary, never made a casual friendly game. They were trying to make a game that would "teach" casuals to be hardcore. That's why we get these cycles.

"Easy, Easy, Easy... OKAY, surely they've learned enough and we can start cranking the game up!" Working under the assumption that people/guilds/skills carry over through each expansion, or even content patch.


Which we all know, doesn't fucking happen for 90% of the player base.






Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on February 28, 2012, 01:28:33 PM
It wasn't even that the population didn't carry over between expansions, which is true. The model may have worked if there had been more then 3 normal mode dungeons at 85. As it was, you had a couple easier leveling dungeons, and then you dumped people into hard heroics. There wasn't a sufficient difficulty ramp up in the 5-man or the raid content when Cata launched. The normal mode dungeons should have been what taught players about dangerous attacks and what mobs to CC, not a fucking blog post a month after the expansion launched. There should have been as many level 85 normal mode dungeons as heroic dungeons, if not more.

Surprise surprise (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/4488899/Cataclysm_Post_Mortem_--_Quest_Design_with_Dave_Fargo_Kosak-2_28_2012#blog), remaking the entire old world in an expansion fucks over your ability to provide enough content at level cap. It's a shame that their experiment with challenging content also came in an expansion where they had such an anemic amount of level cap content. I get why they would think it was a good pairing, "the content will have longer legs which will make up for there being so much less of it!" Since people weren't given an appropriate ramp-up to hard content, it never really had a chance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 28, 2012, 01:59:09 PM
That's actually a pretty well-put, realistic analysis of the problem.

Where I will diverge a bit from the conclusion that Blizzard may draw, it's that (as Fordel mentioned) most of their playerbase has no interest in being taught/ramped-up/transitioned for harder content. They still have to get over that mental hurdle of desiging what THEY want, instead of what the customer wants. And granted, that's tough, considering that designing content for the masses is probably fuck-all boring to the design boys.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on February 28, 2012, 02:07:08 PM
That's actually a pretty well-put, realistic analysis of the problem.

Where I will diverge a bit from the conclusion that Blizzard may draw, it's that (as Fordel mentioned) most of their playerbase has no interest in being taught/ramped-up/transitioned for harder content. They still have to get over that mental hurdle of desiging what THEY want, instead of what the customer wants. And granted, that's tough, considering that designing content for the masses is probably fuck-all boring to the design boys.
Of course, designing what the customer wants becomes rather difficult when you customer base covers a range from "Cant figure out talent builds even with a guide and google" through to "So hard core they faction changed AND server transfered in the same week so they could get 3 shots at heroic loot" type players.  No matter what you end up designing, you will never be able to please them all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 28, 2012, 02:11:58 PM
I'll let you go ahead and put what you think the overall percentages of those two groups are. My guess is this:

1% - Players that worry about World Firsts
4% - Players that complete all heroic raid content
5% - Players that try heroic raid content.
10% - Players that complete all normal mode raid content
30% - Players that do normal mode raids with moderate success
50% - Players that just like 5 mans, alting, and goofing off with achievements and pvp.

In short, my guess is that 90% of your players don't give a shit about heroic raids, and half could care less what you do with raiding as long as you stay out of their 5 mans.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on February 28, 2012, 02:17:42 PM
LFR is the most popular form of raiding in the history of WoW, ever.


By leaps and bounds.


That should tell Blizzard all they need to know.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on February 28, 2012, 02:18:29 PM
That's actually a pretty well-put, realistic analysis of the problem.

Where I will diverge a bit from the conclusion that Blizzard may draw, it's that (as Fordel mentioned) most of their playerbase has no interest in being taught/ramped-up/transitioned for harder content. They still have to get over that mental hurdle of desiging what THEY want, instead of what the customer wants. And granted, that's tough, considering that designing content for the masses is probably fuck-all boring to the design boys.
If all Blizzard learnt from Cata was that "you design for the playerbase you have, not the playerbase you'd like" then I'd be happy. Given that they've also said this:
Quote
The downside to creating these stories is that the zones on the whole ended up being way too linear. For example, because we wanted to show your character re-growing the burning devastation of Mount Hyjal, there was really only one way to play that zone: you started at point A, and you worked your way through to point Z. Pretty glorious the first time, but frustrating on your second or third character because there's only one way to do it, and no way to skip around. That's a lesson we’re going to carry forward for sure. We want big sweeping stories, but we want to give players the freedom to explore those stories on their own terms.

Then I'm thinking MoP's going to be a lot more enjoyable (also someone had better point out the storyline thing to EA before they waste $200million on designing an MMO around linear unbranching storylines...oh, wait).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on February 28, 2012, 02:23:07 PM
I think it is possible that a few people saw you say "heroics" and thought you meant heroic dungeons? Otherwise I really don't get why anyone gives a shit if heroic raids are ballbusters.

Certainly how I took it. The vernacular is that the word "heroics" implies dungeons while heroic raids are referred to as hardmodes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on February 28, 2012, 02:36:34 PM
Where I will diverge a bit from the conclusion that Blizzard may draw, it's that (as Fordel mentioned) most of their playerbase has no interest in being taught/ramped-up/transitioned for harder content. They still have to get over that mental hurdle of desiging what THEY want, instead of what the customer wants. And granted, that's tough, considering that designing content for the masses is probably fuck-all boring to the design boys.

It's a second reason that there should have been as much, if not more, normal mode content compared to heroic. If players were eased into heroic 5-mans and still said "no thanks, this isn't for me," there should have been plenty of non-heroic content for them to keep doing. Instead of 3 normal mode dungeons at 85 and 9 heroics, there should have been something like 9 normal modes and 4 heroics. This would have meant having less leveling dungeons from 80-84, but it's a small price to pay for a healthier end-game.

The question under that model becomes 'what gear incentive do people have for running heroics?'. The answer is pretty simple at this point: you give them LFR gear. People that aren't interested in hard 5-man dungeons can just run LFR for gear upgrades. People that aren't interested in an easy raid to gear up for normal can just run heroic 5-mans.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 28, 2012, 03:02:32 PM
With only a 5 level spread to cap I think they could pretty safely skip leveling dungeons entirely.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 28, 2012, 03:31:40 PM
I think it is possible that a few people saw you say "heroics" and thought you meant heroic dungeons? Otherwise I really don't get why anyone gives a shit if heroic raids are ballbusters.

For me it was less "gives a shit" and more "simply thinks that will happen." I was fine with never doing heroic versions of raids either, really.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on February 28, 2012, 05:20:37 PM
With only a 5 level spread to cap I think they could pretty safely skip leveling dungeons entirely.
Except the sheer amount of the population that ONLY levels in dungeons would be angry ;-)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on February 28, 2012, 05:33:31 PM
Level 80 dungeons are still green at 85!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratman_tf on February 28, 2012, 06:35:25 PM
The thing with Blizzard and raid difficulty...

Blizzard, despite appearances to the contrary, never made a casual friendly game. They were trying to make a game that would "teach" casuals to be hardcore. That's why we get these cycles.

My favorite example is how shocked that Blizz seemed when people went nuts over haircuts.  :grin:



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on February 28, 2012, 06:41:19 PM
They were also apparently completely blindsided by how popular transmog is.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on February 28, 2012, 07:59:03 PM
And this in a game full of otherwise-useless holiday-themed "dress-up" gear... :facepalm:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on February 28, 2012, 08:29:07 PM
They were also apparently completely blindsided by how popular transmog is.

You mean that feature people had been begging for since the release of the game, making thread after thread after thread on the forums about it constantly for years?  Yeah, who could see that coming?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on February 28, 2012, 08:37:02 PM
Remember, these guys don't understand why people would want something that doesn't have stats on it. I mean, cause it's useless right? Just bolt some skulls on it, add 10 ilvls and let's rock!





Where's everyone going?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on February 29, 2012, 06:49:25 AM
I think it is possible that a few people saw you say "heroics" and thought you meant heroic dungeons? Otherwise I really don't get why anyone gives a shit if heroic raids are ballbusters.
Yes.  I don't give a shit about raids, normal or hard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 01, 2012, 12:27:19 PM
the current model allows for both. The 9 derp friends will work great in the current normals. They can probably even try and do a couple of the easier heroics with normal gear and 10-15% of the buff. We're considering doing 1 fight on heroic on our casual run this reset, and that has at least 3 hardcore casuals on it.

No offense, Wolf, because I know you play the game at a high level. You don't get it. Making the game less accessible will not work anymore.

I mean I just gave up on SWTOR. I'm literally RIPE for the picking by WoW if they don't fuck up in the next 6 months on their way to expansion.
One of my friends that split from my now dead release-day guild convinced me to get him a free month with a scroll of resurrection and they really have started turning the difficulty dial back down.

The noise in trade was horrific though. The community was bad when I quit and it's insufferable now. I refuse to hit randoms with my tank without 2-3+ friends since people just drop in and out randomly at this point.

HOWEVER, if you have like a group of people to run with, it's not bad. The Hour of Twilight heroics literally shit loot all over you and take like 20 minutes with no wipes. I went on my tank blind, in shitty gear (remember I quit at the start of Firelands with nearly no raiding done in T11 much less T12), with one of my friends telling me what to do as I was pulling and we facerolled straight through everything outside of 2 wipes on Benedictus at the end because we had a pubbie healer who hadn't ran it before (and he was glad we stuck around). I was literally tired, drunk, out of practice, in bad gear, and had 2 random pubbies and I still rolled them over. There's maybe 2-3 spots that might trip people up and it's all based on trash.

Even funnier is that about half of the loot is better itemized than the equivalent Firelands drops. I bet that really stuck in the craw of the raiders.

I have to say they didn't do much with the visuals though. They made a lot of neato vistas and so on but you're very neatly filed into these narrow corridors and bucket-like areas that prevent you from seeing anything interesting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 01, 2012, 12:41:37 PM
Honestly, facerolling through 5 man dungeons is pretty much my idea of good fun with friends while you shoot the shit on vent.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on March 01, 2012, 01:08:18 PM
Have you spotted the monkey-inna-hat pet yet, Paelos?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 01, 2012, 01:22:19 PM
Have you spotted the monkey-inna-hat pet yet, Paelos?

They have one?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on March 01, 2012, 01:38:52 PM
Yes, but you have to do the Darkmoon grind to get it (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=101733)  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 01, 2012, 01:48:16 PM
Yes, but you have to do the Darkmoon grind to get it (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=101733)  :awesome_for_real:

OMG! How hard is it to get one?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 01, 2012, 01:56:37 PM
the current model allows for both. The 9 derp friends will work great in the current normals. They can probably even try and do a couple of the easier heroics with normal gear and 10-15% of the buff. We're considering doing 1 fight on heroic on our casual run this reset, and that has at least 3 hardcore casuals on it.

No offense, Wolf, because I know you play the game at a high level. You don't get it. Making the game less accessible will not work anymore.

I mean I just gave up on SWTOR. I'm literally RIPE for the picking by WoW if they don't fuck up in the next 6 months on their way to expansion.
Even funnier is that about half of the loot is better itemized than the equivalent Firelands drops. I bet that really stuck in the craw of the raiders.

I have to say they didn't do much with the visuals though. They made a lot of neato vistas and so on but you're very neatly filed into these narrow corridors and bucket-like areas that prevent you from seeing anything interesting.

Firelands got hit by the nerfbat so hardcore everyone was in 391s top to bottom. And last tier is always perfectly itemized they've talked about this before. If all tiers were perfectly itemized you'd just be exchanging loot for +15 stat every tier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on March 01, 2012, 02:04:23 PM
Yes, but you have to do the Darkmoon grind to get it (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=101733)  :awesome_for_real:

OMG! How hard is it to get one?

It costs 90 Darkmoon Faire tickets.

The next Faire starts this Sunday (3/4) and runs for a week.

Here's Wowhead's guide (http://www.wowhead.com/event=374)

There's a bunch of daily quests, and a bunch of once-per-Faire quests, and the rewards include tickets.

You use the tickets to buy pets and mounts and various assorted and sundry.

I have been getting roughly 75 tickets per Faire thus far. I know you can get more, but I haven't been so dedicated.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 01, 2012, 02:35:28 PM
A monkey in a fez. Damn that's a really stupid reason to resub.

And yet... maybe after tax season...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on March 01, 2012, 02:43:24 PM
A monkey in a fez. Damn that's a really stupid reason to resub.

And yet... maybe after tax season...

(http://www.vamortgagecenter.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/sidious.jpg)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 01, 2012, 03:02:42 PM
Chances are monkey in a fez hat will still be available when MoP launches.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 01, 2012, 03:21:30 PM
Yes but you'll be distracted by all the cool new content and unable to do the repetitive DF grind!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 02, 2012, 12:18:31 AM
While I'm generally in the hated "I like ballbusting 5 mans" crowd and I actually am masochistic enough to have enjoyed healing ZA/ZG in 346 gear, I gotta say End Time is a great example of how to make a dungeon fun without making it ballbustingly hard.

On the other hand the Escort Green Jesus heroic is like the opposite.

Also it does feel nice to have some limited ability to heal through stupid late into the expansion's life cycle. I didn't mind the complete inability to do that at launch, but it's a nice change of pace.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on March 02, 2012, 12:26:28 AM
I also like challenging 5mans (doing the 45min strat run Back In The Day was pretty exhilirating), but I have no problem with pug-facerollable heroics. Thankfully MOP will have challenge modes for me, so yay!

I actually like the mechanics in the new dungeons and agree that the first one is the most interesting. The second and third one are so... boring gameplay-wise. It doesn't help that they have some of the most (intentionally?) hammy terribad voice acting I've heard in any game ever. Including GW1. :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 02, 2012, 12:26:45 AM
End Time is clearly the winner out of the 3 new ones in 4.3. Slight randomization for bosses keeps it at least a little interesting on repeat runs, a couple interesting mechanics in boss fights, and a cool story hook without a shitload of scripted scenes.

If they never make an instance like Well of Eternity again, I will be thankful. It's easy to feel let down by the small size and low quality of the raid in 4.3, but then I remember that Well of Eternity was supposed to be a raid and I wonder if we really dodged a bullet. Nobody wants to run another Battle for Mount Hyjal weekly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 02, 2012, 01:42:26 AM
I also like challenging 5mans (doing the 45min strat run Back In The Day was pretty exhilirating), but I have no problem with pug-facerollable heroics. Thankfully MOP will have challenge modes for me, so yay!

I actually like the mechanics in the new dungeons and agree that the first one is the most interesting. The second and third one are so... boring gameplay-wise. It doesn't help that they have some of the most (intentionally?) hammy terribad voice acting I've heard in any game ever. Including GW1. :why_so_serious:

Illidan sounds like he's camping it up on purpose, and I love him for it. Azshara seems to be doing it on purpose too. EVERYONE ELSE is amazing in how horrible they are.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 02, 2012, 05:55:34 AM
Well of Eternity was pretty much my least favorite of the 3. It was annoying to run at PUG break-neck speeds since I wasn't up on the place. Easy bosses in general but the last bit is basically fighting a gigantic zoo of easy to kill trash with fire and shit all over the screen. What a mess visually. I didn't even notice the gigantic cool looking well of eternity until the end.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 02, 2012, 02:40:07 PM
I haven't wiped yet on Murazond (it's basically impossible to) and yet still a very fun fight.

Only disappointed they don't have an achievement for doing it with 0-1 hourglasses. Seems like a natural idea for an achievement.

Well of Eternity has a lot of blathering but it was still somewhat fun for me because of the carnival of mobs and sparkly lights and RP it turns into at the end. I am kinda tired of it though.

Hour of Twilight is just boring as fuck and Thrall is boring as fuck.

Quote
It doesn't help that they have some of the most (intentionally?) hammy terribad voice acting I've heard in any game ever.

Illidan. What are you doing. What is in that vial. Where is my horrible Russian accent coming from.

I will be the Savior of our people. I will FULFILL MY DESTINAYYYY

etched into my brain.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 02, 2012, 02:52:00 PM
As I said before, I LOVE Illidan's terrible acting, because I could listen to that man shovel vast heaps of scenery into his gaping maw all day. I like to think he's doing it that way on purpose. No one else is as fun in their Acting! and if you're not going to have good voice acting (and WoW has made it clear that by and large, they will not be having good voice acting), at least have it be ENTERTAINING in its badness, dammit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 02, 2012, 03:03:49 PM
I haven't wiped yet on Murazond (it's basically impossible to) and yet still a very fun fight.

You haven't pugged enough as a solo healer  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 02, 2012, 03:11:41 PM
I haven't wiped yet on Murazond (it's basically impossible to) and yet still a very fun fight.

You haven't pugged enough as a solo healer  :grin:
I play as a solo healer 99% of the time   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 02, 2012, 04:14:29 PM
If your tank is really bad at positioning the boss away from the group and your damage is bad enough that you really can't afford to waste hourglasses, it's not hard to wipe on that fight.  But I haven't touched the place in a long time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 02, 2012, 04:23:09 PM
With only a 5 level spread to cap I think they could pretty safely skip leveling dungeons entirely.
Except the sheer amount of the population that ONLY levels in dungeons would be angry ;-)

I have to say that having just cracked open my Cataclysm about a week ago, I've been enjoying running my L80 toons through the levelling dungeons. I don't see an issue with having a few dungeons that work for levelling and then you can have them as max level heroics. What's the prob?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on March 02, 2012, 05:16:42 PM
Because this whole part of the debate started with:
A: "Why did they need to nerf heroics? People should have just run normals"
B: "What, all two of them?"
C: "So why not just get rid of levelling dungeons then?"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 02, 2012, 10:30:52 PM
Well, looks like they went the opposite way.

> leveling dungeons only
> heroics at cap
> challenge mode


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on March 03, 2012, 04:00:04 AM
Bearing in mind that they seem to be redefining "Heroic" just as "Max level version of instance" rather than "Genitals + Cheesegrater = Party All Night", that's not really an issue.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 03, 2012, 08:58:24 PM
Yeah. The problem with Heroics in Cata was that what "heroics" actually meant to the playerbase had changed greatly from their introduction to the end of WOTLK. At that point Heroics pretty much were normals now, and the great unwashed masses would not tolerate going from heroics to not-heroics.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 06, 2012, 04:21:30 AM
Cataclysm Post-Mortem blog (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/4488898/).

One highlight that I suspect a certain hatted-monkey f13er might like:

Quote
Q. What didn’t work out as planned or expected?
Initially, we started off the Heroic dungeons at too high of a difficulty. The difficulty level rather abruptly changed when compared to the Heroics players experienced at the end of Wrath of the Lich King. This major change caught many players off guard, and frustrated some of them. The difficulty also increased the effective amount of time required to complete a dungeon to a longer experience than we wanted. With the release of patch 4.3 we’re now in a much better place. We’ve always talked about being able to complete a dungeon over lunch, and the Hour of Twilight dungeons get us back to that goal. End Time, Well of Eternity, and Hour of Twilight all provide epic play experiences to our players, but at the real sweet spot of difficulty, complexity, and time commitment.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 06, 2012, 05:04:40 AM
very tame interview in-house Q&A blog post. I don't know why I was expecting something different. Too bad they'll never let a person this high up do an AMA, it'd be great to pick his brain on details about encounter design in raids.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 06, 2012, 05:25:55 AM
It's not really an interview, it's an in-house Q&A blog post.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 06, 2012, 05:33:09 AM
there fixed it. My point about him doing an ama-type thing, or a proper interview with a raiding guild stands. They'll never let him, which is the sad part.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 06, 2012, 06:47:20 AM
Cataclysm Post-Mortem blog (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/4488898/).
Quote
Q. What didn’t work out as planned or expected?
Initially, we started off the Heroic dungeons at too high of a difficulty. The difficulty level rather abruptly changed when compared to the Heroics players experienced at the end of Wrath of the Lich King. This major change caught many players off guard, and frustrated some of them. The difficulty also increased the effective amount of time required to complete a dungeon to a longer experience than we wanted. With the release of patch 4.3 we’re now in a much better place. We’ve always talked about being able to complete a dungeon over lunch, and the Hour of Twilight dungeons get us back to that goal. End Time, Well of Eternity, and Hour of Twilight all provide epic play experiences to our players, but at the real sweet spot of difficulty, complexity, and time commitment.

That's the admission I was looking for. Thanks Blizzard! I've signed up for the free 7 day thing to see how the game has changed as of yesterday. I'll probably end up resubbing if it's back to facerolling and fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 06, 2012, 06:55:18 AM
Well, put it like this, I fired up the 7 free days thing yesterday, after not having played for ~6 months. Logged in my mage in 346/359 gear, hit the LFD and within 90 mins had completed all 3 new dungeons without a single wipe nor complaint about my low DPS.

The only time I had to do anything more complicated than follow everyone else was one fight where I kept getting interrupted and someone said "stand behind someone else and the knife won't hit you".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 06, 2012, 07:34:51 AM
The new dungeons can basically be outgeared for most gimmicks but they have some semi-interesting mechanics (Murozond's snapshot thing is pretty fucking cool) and definite floors for performance without reliving the Cata/Vanilla/BC shit with ridiculous trash pulls and bosses loaded with instant-death mechanics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 06, 2012, 08:12:31 AM
At this point, they may as well just put tokens in those 3 dungeons.  It's a huge pain in the arse to constantly re-run them to gear up for LFR and massively frustrating to do another batch of 3 for fuck all to actually drop.  Even worse when shit drops that your alt could use and it gets dissed because no cunt wants it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on March 06, 2012, 08:57:23 AM
Cataclysm Post-Mortem blog (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/4488898/).
Quote
Q. What didn’t work out as planned or expected?
Initially, we started off the Heroic dungeons at too high of a difficulty. The difficulty level rather abruptly changed when compared to the Heroics players experienced at the end of Wrath of the Lich King. This major change caught many players off guard, and frustrated some of them. The difficulty also increased the effective amount of time required to complete a dungeon to a longer experience than we wanted. With the release of patch 4.3 we’re now in a much better place. We’ve always talked about being able to complete a dungeon over lunch, and the Hour of Twilight dungeons get us back to that goal. End Time, Well of Eternity, and Hour of Twilight all provide epic play experiences to our players, but at the real sweet spot of difficulty, complexity, and time commitment.

That's the admission I was looking for. Thanks Blizzard! I've signed up for the free 7 day thing to see how the game has changed as of yesterday. I'll probably end up resubbing if it's back to facerolling and fun.

Let me know, will you?

Isn't this admission basically exactly what you were complaining about way back when you quit? Take that, naysayers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 06, 2012, 09:59:26 AM
That's the admission I was looking for. Thanks Blizzard! I've signed up for the free 7 day thing to see how the game has changed as of yesterday. I'll probably end up resubbing if it's back to facerolling and fun.

That wasn't an apology or Ghostcrawler being fired! I'm disappointed in you.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 06, 2012, 10:23:06 AM
That's the admission I was looking for. Thanks Blizzard! I've signed up for the free 7 day thing to see how the game has changed as of yesterday. I'll probably end up resubbing if it's back to facerolling and fun.

That wasn't an apology or Ghostcrawler being fired! I'm disappointed in you.

It's as close to an apology as you get from a corporation. Saying we made a large mistake in difficulty is what I wanted, publically. Firing Ghostcrawler would only be a cherry on top. Still, you being wrong about the game also makes me happy. You were an ardent defender of these Cataclysm changes, which as have been proven both in subs lost and overall designer quotes, that were terrible for the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 06, 2012, 10:34:38 AM
Terrible for subscription numbers, great for the game(play)  :awesome_for_real:

I still think it could have worked with a more robust end-game for Cata, but that ship has sailed.

Even if it's depressing to hear that 4.3 dungeons hit the 'sweet spot' for difficulty, I'm still way too excited about pandas and Monks in MoP. Maybe challenge mode will turn out well and the game will still have some satisfying 5-man content for folks like me. Time will tell.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 06, 2012, 10:39:00 AM
As long as developers understand that your kind of fun should be relegated to the back burner, and never inflicted upon their larger playerbase, I'm on board. Challenge modes are fine for this. It's the developers just handing people the hammer for their nuts, but not actually taking much extra time to program it in.

Xanthippe, I'll post my thoughts on the game daily this week as I mess with it. I'll do some comparisons from what I left to what I'm seeing now.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 06, 2012, 10:42:26 AM
I never got an email for the free 7 days, is it just automatic?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 06, 2012, 10:47:03 AM
Lakov, yes I think so. Mine had been filtered into my junk folder though... there's so many Blizzardalike phishing scam emails out there that when a real one arrives from Blizzard it's hard to tell.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 06, 2012, 11:39:43 AM
As long as developers understand that your kind of fun should be relegated to the back burner, and never inflicted upon their larger playerbase, I'm on board. Challenge modes are fine for this. It's the developers just handing people the hammer for their nuts, but not actually taking much extra time to program it in.

Xanthippe, I'll post my thoughts on the game daily this week as I mess with it. I'll do some comparisons from what I left to what I'm seeing now.
I'm back on Proudmoore still, so hit me up if you feel like trying them out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on March 06, 2012, 11:40:10 AM
New scroll of resurrection seems to give a free server transfer, faction change, give you the Cataclysm expansion for free and do a "Character boost to 80".  I don't know if that means you just ding 80 or if it is a sidekick type temporary level up.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/2669-Scroll-of-Resurrection-Revamp-Free-lvl-80-Character-and-more!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 06, 2012, 12:18:07 PM
Ah fuck. I could've gotten an alt bumped and a free transfer?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 06, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
Interesting, does this mean someone that stopped playing in TBC could be upgraded with both Wrath and Cata for free? Pretty crazy promotion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on March 06, 2012, 01:28:25 PM
Rumor is the new spectral mounts (http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2012/march/ghostgryphon.jpg) might be rewards for giving a scroll.  The boost to 80 seems to be just an instant ding 80 you're done, there is a new ilvl of armor on the PTR that would just happen to be perfect to throw at a newly minted 80 so that they had level appropriate gear.

If all this comes true we might need to organize a thread of scroll give away/takers...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 06, 2012, 02:04:28 PM
Pretty hilarious that they are now asking people to entirely skip the main feature of the expansion (new 1-60).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 06, 2012, 02:07:37 PM
In practice it is just a way to skip TBC, this isn't for new players, and for existing players Outland is where alts go to die.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 06, 2012, 02:07:49 PM
Pretty hilarious that they are now asking people to entirely skip the main feature of the expansion (new 1-60).

By the time MoP releases, they are going to do their best amnesia routine with Cataclysm. Each step from this point forward seems to be them internalizing their mistakes and realizing how to better engage their players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 06, 2012, 10:03:31 PM
Honestly, an overhaul of TBC would be a good thing - but it's a lot of resources to fix something like that - even if it were just quests and itemisation. With many of my wife and my own most recent alts, the TBC portion of levelling is largely getting power-levelled on a dozen runs through Ramparts, the instance next to it, and then some questing in Nagrand through to 68. Then Northrend.

With my hunter, I've taken a slightly different route. PL to 65, then doing some LFD to 67 (so far) and daily cooking and fishing. Next level - Northrend!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 06, 2012, 10:23:00 PM
I don't think they're doing another cata-style overhaul any time soon. They've said before it's the main reason for the generally low content levels of 80-85 and the endgame at release.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 07, 2012, 04:49:47 AM
The quest flow in Outland is just fine IMO, and it doesn't take long to get out of there. I'd settle for them having an intern or one of the freshly unemployed GMs go through the quest rewards there and unfucking their stats and models. Unless people literally have nostalgia for the BC clownsuit era.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 07, 2012, 06:36:36 AM
First impressions after 1.5 hours back into the world.

1 - Most of my friends are gone, and the raiding alliance we used to have is dead. The guild is also basically dead. However, I still got a message welcoming me back from an old friend within 5 seconds.
2 - I completely forgot WTF I was doing. It took me a solid hour of rearranging my keys and fighting mobs just to get remotely comfortable again with the setup.
3 - I have no idea what changes have been made to crafting. I'll investigate this more as I go since all my skills are maxxed.
4 - My gear is hilariously out of date, but still very functional. I have no problem completely quests.
5 - I enjoyed the daily zone of phasing in Hyjal. I liked the fights although at times they felt more like me watching NPCs fight for me rather than me doing anything. Still, it's a nice area.
6 - I will wait until once I get my feet wet again with doing LFD stuff. Right now I don't feel like I can tank out of a wet paper bag with my learning curve. However, I still feel like a more powerful tank than I ever did in SWTOR as a JK.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 07, 2012, 06:51:51 AM
1 - Yes, the winnowing from SWOTOR was fucking brutal.  Surprisingly, even though they're jacking that game in due to endgame content, most aren't coming back to WoW.
2 - This will be both due to you not being in for a while and, alas, also subtle changes to talents and keys and whatnot.  It took me ages to realise that my Lock was now specced into three utterly useless points and was using entirely the wrong rotation and Soul Swap was now worth it glyphed.
3 - Not a lot.  Crafting is fuck all use now due to the 359 gear being utterly owned by other upgrades.  Cut gems.  It's the only game in town.
4 - You may think it's functional until you hit the current 'endgame' where Kirk is laughing at your superior intellect.  It takes a while to gear up to get in there, but once you do, you're away.
5 - They still haven't done phasing right and Firelands is an utter dickwong in the cuntflap.  It just doesn't work even once, never mind with multiple alts.
6 - If you mean LFR, don't tank it at all until you're either so geared you won't care, or if, like me, you don't care about 24 other cuntbags calling you an asshole because the healers let you die.  If you mean LFG, it's the same retardery, but different day.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 07, 2012, 07:23:24 AM
Basically the only thing you need to tank the HoT stuff is the gear level and some forewarning on bosses and like maybe 3-4 trash packs that can be trouble.

Endtime:
Baine (you get this if you get a firey area): Trash can literally be completely skipped. Ask someone if you can follow them to learn the timing. Literally just tank and spank on the boss, run to another island if he sinks or covers it in fire or whatever. I never had him last long enough to do so.

Jaina: Let the DPS/Rogues collect the shards you need to summon her. Clear the two packs that patrol through the area on your immediate right when you zap to this area. She has basically one thing you need to care about as a tank: she'll blink away and cast these 3 really slow moving ice blades that come out in a fan. Don't get hit by these. She'll also summon a flarecore which someone has to run into and eat as fast as possible but it's not really your job as a tank.

Sylvanas: Kill the two or so trash packs that patrol directly on the path to her; which is on your left when you zap to her area. Sylvanas has nothing important for you to do outside of her one real gimmick. She'll summon a ring of zombies around her, which collapse inward. They form a ring which makes a nasty ground effect behind them as they constrict in. Mark an area with the raid marker (or ask someone to), and everyone dogpiles that zombie every time to open a path for you to run away from her. Tank and spank.

Murozond: The trash has to be cleared and can kill you. The casters need to go ASAP or be CC'd. Have somebody CC one, then pounce on the other and keep it stunned or silenced. The boss will come down at the edge of the room. You literally have nothing to do here besides rotate your CDs as needed. Just charge him and rotate him away from the group (standard dragon rules apply). His gimmick is pretty cool; he has a fuckload of HP, does pretty solid damage, and spawns void zones all over the place that will inevitably cover the room. At the beginning of the fight a "temporal snapshot" gets taken; when it looks like the DPS/healers are going to be overwhelmed by the damage/void zones, the ranged hit the hourglass and you literally reset back to when the snapshot was taken. Yes, this means your CDs all reset and your HP/Mana are back. It's basically a DPS race to finish him before you run out of resets (5 in total). Easy however.

---

Well of Eternity:

Trash: Just stay near Illidan as much as possible and follow everyone, he gives an aura that gives you like a 100% crit rating so most groups (especially melee heavy) will fucking obliterate the trash when he's around.

Goat Dude: Tank, spank, don't stand in void zones I think. He'll emote at some point and Illidan will cloak you all. Get away from him, and everyone has to hide from these eyeballs he summons. Someone will inevitably get found (LFG remember), so get ready to spam your taunts/intervene because he'll focus on someone and try to rip their head off.

Trash: Meh. Standard trash containment fun. No CC needed but the eyeballs/casters might be an issue if you don't silence/stun when appropriate.

"Lady Azshara": I put it in quotes since you never actually hurt her. She just stands around. There's like 6 trash mobs which release in pairs, a melee and caster. The caster needs to go, ASAP. Azshara will occasionally start a TEN SECOND long cast that you need to interrupt to avoid a wipe. Yes, people fail on this, but tell the DPS you're busy and that it's their job. Free loot.

Trash: More meh. Stand in the light buff that drops to obliterate it.

Mannoroth (sp?): There's a bloodelf captain guy with this encounter. I don't even know what the fuck really goes on here honestly; it's a clusterfuck of a fight. Just tank and spank, and flying demons will fly over and drop lines of fire off and on which will make you kite the boss around a bit. Then there's basically fire and a gigantic fucking zoo of trash mobs that appear; just handle what you can and keep on the Mannoroth. You eventually get a buff that'll let you teabag him to 0%.

---

Hour of Twilight:

Trash: All of this consists of following thrall as he relives his escape from Durnholde and blunders into multiple generic trash packs. First set has elementals that spawn behind you, so mind that. Last sets towards the end of the instance have faceless ones who have a hell of a backhand.

Ice Thing: Who the fuck knows. Just interrupt everything you can.

Rogue Boss: Move out of gas cloud. That's it. If you're feeling really nice try to body-block for the healers by standing between them and the boss because she throws a nasty silencing dagger at ANYONE who casts.

Benedictus: Two phases at are the same, light and dark. Thrall gives you help on the first one, not on the second. He'll summon three orbs that'll hover in the air before shooting off and random people and leave a void zone, don't stand in them. Other is he'll summon a wave of light/dark that will p much instagib you if you get hit by it, don't get hit by it. Thrall will helpfully pop 2/3 of the light bubbles and drop a shield that you can stand in to totally avoid the light wave, on dark mode you're on your own. That's it really.

There you go.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 07, 2012, 07:28:00 AM
1 - depends really, we still have 10+ people online daily on off-nights. On raid nights we go up to 20 quite often.

3 - 397 bracers are mostly BIS. If you can get your hands on the patterns, you can get good money crafting them. I charge 750 to bother pressing "craft" after they give me the mats.

I don't really agree with 4, what was the new dungeons requirment? 353? it's fine with any sort of functional 346/378 mix, even for a tank. What you lack, the healer and dps will compensate if they're not superbad. If cata did something, it was to teach people to half-pay-attention in dungeons. Just get some pvp blues, keep them in your bags to get your ilvl up and start running the dungeons, you'll catch up in no time. Pay attention on the justice vendor and make sure you're buying the 378 stuff, it's the first couple of pages.

And 6 - don't worry, since they changed threat mid-t12 it's fine. You had a warrior right? Make sure you have mastery on all your slots, reforge out of hit and exp, gem mastery (sta/mast blue, flat mast yellow, sta/mast red) and that'll compensate for quite a bit of missing gear. Don't be scared tanking LFR, here's wolf's all-you-need-to-know tanking LFR guide:

1) Morchok - there should be a tank switch at every 3-4 debuffs, can easily be solo tanked. When he starts channeling his thing go hide behind conveniently-placed-just-appeared pillars.
2) Zonozz - turn him away from the raid. end.
3) Yorsaj - there should be a tank switch at every 4-5 debuffs, can easily be solo tanked; Adds don't have threat, don't worry about them
4) Hagara - she has a channel (focused assault), if you move 3 feet it will be interrupted and you'll take 0 damage. Lightning phase - dont stay in the middle, run with everyone; Ice Phase - go to the outer circle, hug a crystal, wait for DANGEROUS WAVES OF ICE to start coming to you, run in a circle until they disappear
5) Ultraxion - if using bartender makes sure "Extra Action button" bar is enabled, once you pull the boss you should have a button to press. Just sit and tank and press your CDs whenever they're up, doesn't matter. You'll get a debuff "fading light" wait for it to get to 2s and press above button. After that Taunt. Always Taunt when you're not sure if you did or not.
6) Warmaster - p1 tank stuff, p2 tank boss, switch at 3 debuffs with other tank. Boss does a "shockwave type ability" you should run away from, but whatever. Can't really kill you.
7) Spine - dunno lol. If you end up tanking the amalgamation just tank it, collect the bloods on the ground when it's at low health (10-15%, they stack up to 9 and that's how much you need), leave it next to the front, run away. Or don't, you can't die. LFR spine  :uhrr:
8) Madness, there's a thing that spawns at the back called mutated corruption. It will do 2 "impales", you take one with shield wall, the other tank takes the other. It will die shortly after the second imaple. At some point some small adds will come, tank them. Repeat 4 times running after people. At p2 run after people - tankable adds are called "something terror", pick one up.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on March 07, 2012, 07:30:26 AM
Not much new in crafting, there are new recipes above 359 but they are expensive drops from raids and require very expensive components.  There are crafted ilvl 377 items if you pvp.  If you have alts without maxed tradeskills you can get a free +5 skill from the darkmoon faire.  The alchemy specialist quests are now in the capital cities, not outland.  They just want gold and potions to switch your specialization, it is very expensive now.

The molton front hyjal quests were okay for a few days but then you realize just how much the whole idea sucks.  Doing the Thrall line there gets an easy and good cloak.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 07, 2012, 07:36:50 AM
snip

Missed Sylvanas in End Time, she's the hardest boss in all dungeons :)

Goat Dude - When the eyes come just wait a couple of seconds, pop your shieldwall and go hug him. That way he find you, and it goes faster plus a dps doesn't get gibbed if the healer is asleep.

Mannoroth - the elf captain drops the sword that you click and throw at mannoroth which makes him killable. Every attack can make said sword to "proc", so the more attacks you generate on him the higher dmg you do, regardless of how much dmg your attacks do. I do like 60k on my paladin healer  :grin:

Ice thing - tank and spank for you. Stay out of "fire". Or don't, doesn't matter much. Pop shiedwall at the end when he starts channeling.

Rogue boss - move out of cloud, but still stay in totem. Goes faster. Just don't move unless you're moving out of the cloud, the dps and healers will adjust to you so you take the knifes.

If it looks more complicated then LFR, it is because it is  :grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on March 07, 2012, 07:45:33 AM
I recently came back as well about a week ago and started a new DK.  Some notes from me:

- I agree that BC right now is fine. I say this because all I did was run LFD while doing Hellfire Penn. in between runs.  I completed the HP "I did all the quests!" achievement, ran a bunch of dungeons, and bam; I'm 68 in like no time and off to Northrend.
- I continue to LOL at people that run BC heroics and A) have no fucking clue what they're doing and B) get killed within a couple hits
- Why is Ironforge so fucking empty?
- Why have they not given DKs a free pass on skilling up tradeskills to level 55?  So not looking forward to having to fly around the old world to skill up.
- Unholy DK DPS is so  :drill: once you get Unholy Presence.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 07, 2012, 07:46:50 AM
- Why is Ironforge so fucking empty?

Portals to the cata zones are in Stormwind, everyone is there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on March 07, 2012, 07:54:04 AM
- Why is Ironforge so fucking empty?

Portals to the cata zones are in Stormwind, everyone is there.

Yeah, but still, Ironforge still kept a number of people around for AH/mail/bank botting and other social stuffs.  There fucking nobody here now  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 07, 2012, 07:57:10 AM
I didn't miss Sylvanas, her strat is right there. :P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 07, 2012, 08:04:57 AM
the other elf lady with the russian accent then. Tyrande was the name. The one that has a thing for moons and stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 07, 2012, 08:21:39 AM
5) Ultraxion - if using bartender makes sure "Extra Action button" bar is enabled, once you pull the boss you should have a button to press. Just sit and tank and press your CDs whenever they're up, doesn't matter. You'll get a debuff "fading light" wait for it to get to 2s and press above button. After that Taunt. Always Taunt when you're not sure if you did or not.

Fading light is a bit easier to handle on LFR, since groups will always have two tanks. When you get fading light, the other tank should taunt immediately and you can use the button to fade out at 4 seconds or less. When the other tank gets fading light, taunt. The end.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 07, 2012, 08:33:54 AM
always taunt. Preferably on CD. If you're not sure you taunted, taunt again. If you're absolutely positive you taunted just now - TAUNT AGAIN.

Sometimes I'm bored on my main and I go and do a quick ultraxion, because NUMBERS. At least half the times I play second tank and it's annoying because at some point the "good tank" that isnt dying from fading light forgets to taunt, and I can't survive if dispersion is on cd.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 07, 2012, 01:08:21 PM
- Why is Ironforge so fucking empty?

Portals to the cata zones are in Stormwind, everyone is there.

Yeah, but still, Ironforge still kept a number of people around for AH/mail/bank botting and other social stuffs.  There fucking nobody here now  :ye_gods:
It's been a gradual process of deserting IF. I know for a long time I still had my hearth in IF for alts between 1 and 60, and even my main hung out there once in a while.

Now IF might as well be Darnassus++. It gets a bit more traffic due to being a stopping point for Menethil Harbor (going to Theramore/Howling Fjord).

SW is way better now anyway. 2 AHs and 2 banks, portals right next to the dwarven AH/bank, and much cooler from a flying mount POV.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 07, 2012, 01:21:43 PM
Also this strat posting makes the new heroics look harder than they are. You do have to pay some attention to the mechanics but it's really very easy, somewhere between the Wrath heroics and the ICC 5 mans. Definitely, definitely easier than Cata heroics.

In fact, even now the cata heroics are harder because the only people who run them are undergeared alts and undergeared newbies. I can heal through the stupid on my geared main, but when I ran a bunch of them on my rogue alt (who actually needed the gear from there) there was a much higher failure rate than the new HoT heroics.

As a matter of fact I can think of some wipes but not a single HoT heroic where the group fell apart and failed to complete.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 07, 2012, 01:40:33 PM
Ghostcrawler's Cata post-mortem, the final post-mortem


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on March 07, 2012, 01:48:06 PM
Ghostcrawler's Cata post-mortem, the final post-mortem

I get the feeling that he just does not give a single fuck about casuals.  Seriously, this post-mortem reads like the opposite of the last one.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 07, 2012, 01:53:52 PM
In what way?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on March 07, 2012, 01:54:12 PM
snip

Goat Dude - When the eyes come just wait a couple of seconds, pop your shieldwall and go hug him. That way he find you, and it goes faster plus a dps doesn't get gibbed if the healer is asleep.

Nah, when eyes come, run away from eyes by following the healer.  If a dps gets spotted, pretend to try to save them but let them die because they and should be following the healer like you (if the healer gets spotted, save them of course).  The longer you avoid eyes, the more stacks of the insane Crit / damage buff you get, which means that avoiding the eyes for 20 seconds usually ends up with a net gain of the boss dying MUCH faster then if you had just facepulled him immediately when eyes spawn.

I mean, heck, I saw a video someone posted on MMO champ of a fire mage soloing the guy, and that Buff is probably the single most awesome thing about that entire trash / boss encounter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 07, 2012, 01:56:15 PM
Ghostcrawler a massive titbag.  News at 11.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on March 07, 2012, 02:04:03 PM
I wonder if this will counteract some of the goodwill Paleos was gaining back. ;D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 07, 2012, 02:09:16 PM
He pretty much admits they fucked up with the difficulty, don't see how this is the opposite of the last one.

LFR is here to stay, heroics will be easy mode with challenge mode for the ballbusting crowd (aka me), continent to explore instead of scattered zones, less linear questing. Not seeing the failure here.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on March 07, 2012, 02:14:10 PM
Ghostcrawler just doesn't get it at all.  :facepalm:

edit:

He pretty much admits they fucked up with the difficulty, don't see how this is the opposite of the last one.

No, he thinks the dungeon difficulty was fine and it was something that players were clearly asking for.  He flat-out said that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 07, 2012, 02:14:56 PM
I really don't see whatever was so horrible about that post.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 07, 2012, 02:26:07 PM
I wonder if this will counteract some of the goodwill Paleos was gaining back. ;D
We can only hope.  :heart:

Still wondering what specifically people are getting offended about. The reason we get sanitized non-answers (like the last Cata post-mortem) is because people jump to conclusions or willingly misinterpret what's being said in these community interactions to validate the opinions they already have. I already see people complaining about the 'legendary accessibility' comments from the blog, when it's pretty clear he's talking about how common they were. Specifically, that multiple people in each guild had them due to the over-lapping quest progression (especially for heroic guilds). Most casual guilds got 1 legendary per tier. He's not talking about us.

Quote
The difficulty at which we pegged our heroic dungeons and raids was controversial. They were designed to be about as tough as the dungeons were back in Burning Crusade, but the game has changed since then. Coming out of Lich King, we'd gotten the message loud and clear from players that they wanted tougher challenges. They liked the convenience of Dungeon Finder, but they missed using their crowd control and survival abilities and having to strategize about how to beat a given encounter. We designed the Cataclysm heroics with that in mind, and the players who wanted challenging content were thrilled.

The problem was that we had this whole group of players who felt like they couldn't make any progress on their characters. Even if they wanted to end up raiding with their friends, they couldn't earn the gear they needed to get into those raids (especially in the absence of Raid Finder). I don't believe that the instances were too hard; it's obvious there are players who enjoy that content. I believe the problem was that there were no alternatives. With such a diverse community, the goal is to have experiences that players from all over the spectrum can enjoy. We don't want to shut anyone out. So, we're addressing that with Challenge Modes in Mists. You'll have normal and heroic mode dungeons, and then Challenge Modes, for players who are looking to prove their mettle. Likewise, you'll have normal and heroic raids, and Raid Finder for players who don't enjoy wiping on a boss week after week until they can master it.

The dungeon difficulty wasn't too hard for the people that had requested that sort of content, but there wasn't alternative content for the people that weren't interested or ready for that difficulty of content.

What's your problem with this statement again? This is the same conclusion I came to: without a lot of non-heroic 85 content, the heroics became the only content to do and were a turn-off to a lot of players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on March 07, 2012, 02:31:44 PM
Ghostcrawler just doesn't get it at all.  :facepalm:

edit:

He pretty much admits they fucked up with the difficulty, don't see how this is the opposite of the last one.

No, he thinks the dungeon difficulty was fine and it was something that players were clearly asking for.  He flat-out said that.


Since you clearly do get it, what is the problem? I, too, clearly remember people wailing that WOTLK dungeons were too easy, an AOE-fest, and that they had removed crowd control from their bars completely.

The problem was that some people liked that, but the people who don't have what they want are always the vocal ones.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on March 07, 2012, 02:43:17 PM
I'm sorry but the "outrage" about this interview with Ghostcrawler is utterly beyond me, and looks like mindless hatred on a figurehead right now.

Seriously, there were a large number of people complaining about Wrath dungeons being mindlessly easy - including myself and most of the people I played with, and I was hardly hardocre. Let's not pretend that all was fine and dandy in Wrath and then suddenly Blizzard went off the deep end making everything harder because they hated us. At the end of Wrath there was a very vocal section of the community that wanted harder content. I have to say, I *much* preferred Cata heroics to Wrath's.

What Ghostcrawler says, and he is completely correct, is that you need content for everyone. Wrath pissed people off because the 5 player content was dross and so easy it became a painful grind, cata pissed other people off because they want to have fun and not tortuously have to play with bad PuGs on content they just want to enjoy not slog through. WoW is too large to focus on just one segment of the playerbase, and it needs to cater to all its players. No one section should be able to impose it's standards of play on the rest of the population.

I honestly cannot see the problem with that, or why it's a huge about turn from earlier stuff, or why it's a slap in the face of more casual players. Isn't that the ideal - that there is enjoyable content at everyone's level, and not just what we want? Or are we still raising pitch forks and shouting "rabble rabble"?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 07, 2012, 02:54:30 PM
People voted with their wallets and Ghostcrawler is pretty much proven emphatically wrong.

Quote
Seriously, there were a large number of people complaining about Wrath dungeons being mindlessly easy
Grognards on the official forums aren't "a lot of people". Thanks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on March 07, 2012, 03:03:47 PM
Ghostcrawler just doesn't get it at all.  :facepalm:

edit:

He pretty much admits they fucked up with the difficulty, don't see how this is the opposite of the last one.

No, he thinks the dungeon difficulty was fine and it was something that players were clearly asking for.  He flat-out said that.
Quote
The difficulty at which we pegged our heroic dungeons and raids was controversial. They were designed to be about as tough as the dungeons were back in Burning Crusade, but the game has changed since then. Coming out of Lich King, we'd gotten the message loud and clear from players that they wanted tougher challenges. They liked the convenience of Dungeon Finder, but they missed using their crowd control and survival abilities and having to strategize about how to beat a given encounter. We designed the Cataclysm heroics with that in mind, and the players who wanted challenging content were thrilled.

The problem was that we had this whole group of players who felt like they couldn't make any progress on their characters. Even if they wanted to end up raiding with their friends, they couldn't earn the gear they needed to get into those raids (especially in the absence of Raid Finder). I don't believe that the instances were too hard; it's obvious there are players who enjoy that content. I believe the problem was that there were no alternatives. With such a diverse community, the goal is to have experiences that players from all over the spectrum can enjoy. We don't want to shut anyone out. So, we're addressing that with Challenge Modes in Mists. You'll have normal and heroic mode dungeons, and then Challenge Modes, for players who are looking to prove their mettle. Likewise, you'll have normal and heroic raids, and Raid Finder for players who don't enjoy wiping on a boss week after week until they can master it.
Yeah, I'm not seeing how "We listened to people who wanted harder heroics and they were happy but it fucked over everyone else so we're not doing that any more" can be read as "Cataclysm heroics were fine".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 07, 2012, 03:13:34 PM
People voted with their wallets and Ghostcrawler is pretty much proven emphatically wrong.

You're still misreading the blog, and from the looks of it you're misreading the posts in this thread as well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 07, 2012, 03:17:43 PM
I think what they learned is that the usual means of "content for everyone", starting hard and then making it easier over time doesn't cut it anymore.  (The reasons why that's the case is a whole other can of worms.)

They tried to shorten the timing, like with staggered T11 heroic nerfs or the big nerf to Firelands coming before Dragon Soul was out, but they finally accepted that the expectations are that everyone should be doing the "same" content with a difficulty slider.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on March 07, 2012, 03:52:28 PM
The dungeon difficulty wasn't too hard for the people that had requested that sort of content

This was the big problem he doesn't see.  They listened to a small number of forum whiners and took that to mean the majority of their subscribers felt that way.  For all the 'too easy' content in WotLK, Blizzard never had more subscribers than during that expansion.  Cataclysm comes along with its ballbreaking heroics and WoW starts to hemorrhage subs, yet Ghostcrawler still clings to the idea that the dungeons were fine despite the bottom-line evidence to the contrary.  That's the part I think he doesn't get.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 07, 2012, 03:55:28 PM
We're guessing when we say 'small number' and 'majority of subscribers'. They haven't lost over half their subscribers, by all accounts.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 07, 2012, 04:01:02 PM
The dungeon difficulty wasn't too hard for the people that had requested that sort of content

This was the big problem he doesn't see.

I'm pretty sure he gets it. He acknowledged it in the very next sentence. Seriously, I even bolded it in my post that you're quoting.

I'm pretty sure Blizzard gets that a very large portion of end-game 5-man content needs to be accessible to people that want easy/quick runs. I can be sure of this because of their actions (4.3), the things they've said previously regarding Cata/MoP difficulty, and this very blog post.

Simond's post sums it up pretty well
Yeah, I'm not seeing how "We listened to people who wanted harder heroics and they were happy but it fucked over everyone else so we're not doing that any more" can be read as "Cataclysm heroics were fine".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on March 07, 2012, 04:05:53 PM
Fine, maybe GC does 'get it'.  Hindsight is 20-20, after all.  Or at least most of the time.  I think the angst comes from reading so much of his blue posts in the past, getting a sense of his style and personality through those posts, and then when you see him put out answers like above, well, the two just don't reconcile.  This post-mortem gives him the excuse to sound all apologetic and mea culpa-ish. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on March 07, 2012, 04:56:20 PM
I thought I explained this like 10 times before. Your hate against GC is misplaced, you want to hate the Evil Kalgan.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on March 07, 2012, 04:57:27 PM
I'm pretty sure he gets it. He acknowledged it in the very next sentence. Seriously, I even bolded it in my post that you're quoting.

I'm pretty sure Blizzard gets that a very large portion of end-game 5-man content needs to be accessible to people that want easy/quick runs. I can be sure of this because of their actions (4.3), the things they've said previously regarding Cata/MoP difficulty, and this very blog post.

Oh, I'm sure Blizzard gets it but Ghostcrawler comes across like someone who doesn't see what the problem is personally but will acquiesce to going back to a more Wrath-like model while still hemming and hawing about how his design was fine in Cata.  "I don't believe that the instances were too hard" isn't something you say when you've lost more subscribers at one time than at any other time in the life of the game because they, in fact, thought the instances were too hard.  

It's his particular brand of douchyness where he'll go ahead and change things but not because he was wrong.  He'll just leave it as an excerise for the reader to figure out who must be wrong since it wasn't him.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 07, 2012, 05:13:44 PM
You realize he's the class designer, right?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 07, 2012, 05:41:33 PM
I thought I explained this like 10 times before. Your hate against GC is misplaced, you want to hate the Evil Kalgan.

This.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 07, 2012, 07:29:22 PM
Ghostcrawler gets it. He fully understands why things went wrong. He just doesn't LIKE why it went wrong, thinks the players are total retards for not accepting the grand vision, and he thinks the game sucks more now for having to cater to them.

But he WILL cater to them because he's been forced to. Because he does understand that you can't abuse your player core with impunity, no matter how many money-hats you have. Face it, they got arrogant and they paid a large price for it. When you take it down to its core, Ghostcrawler isn't sorry about Cataclysm. He loved it. He thinks the game was better for it. He believes that everything they did was for the greater good of WoW and the customers got in the way.

Nothing he says now will turn me off about the game. In fact, his post is like drinking in delicious sweet tears. He KNOWS that the ideas he, Kalgan, and the rest of the hardcore-obsessed-devs dreamed of implementing were proven to be total shit, designed for a loser community that cannot support the product. And now, like any douchebag who gets caught, he will never really admit he was wrong. He will make hedging rationalization posts over his failure to understand that this is a business. And I will eat up every little word for one simple fact.

We owned his little dreamworld with our big wallets. Right in the fucking face.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on March 07, 2012, 07:34:38 PM
Ghostcrawler gets it. He fully understands why things went wrong. He just doesn't LIKE why it went wrong, thinks the players are total retards for not accepting the grand vision, and he thinks the game sucks more now for having to cater to them.

But he WILL cater to them because he's been forced to. Because he does understand that you can't abuse your player core with impunity, no matter how many money-hats you have. Face it, they got arrogant and they paid a large price for it. When you take it down to its core, Ghostcrawler isn't sorry about Cataclysm. He loved it. He thinks the game was better for it. He believes that everything they did was for the greater good of WoW and the customers got in the way.

Nothing he says now will turn me off about the game. In fact, his post is like drinking in delicious sweet tears. He KNOWS that the ideas he, Kalgan, and the rest of the hardcore-obsessed-devs dreamed of implementing were proven to be total shit, designed for a loser community that cannot support the product. And now, like any douchebag who gets caught, he will never really admit he was wrong. He will make hedging rationalization posts over his failure to understand that this is a business. And I will eat up every little word for one simple fact.

We owned his little dreamworld with our big wallets. Right in the fucking face.

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m03y853dl61qm8t30.gif)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 07, 2012, 07:42:06 PM
I don't know what's more disconcerting recently, that post or Kageru's "trust betrayal cycle" post (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=21390.msg1048682#msg1048682).  Like, really guys...

(Who am I joking, it's every other post about Diablo III over on Elitist Jerks by a landslide.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ragnoros on March 07, 2012, 10:26:30 PM
So, Paelos, now the voice of reason in the WoW sub-forum.  This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on March 07, 2012, 11:03:41 PM
This thread has gone completely off the deep end. Between people completely not reading posts, people apparently now having mind reading powers and the overall weirdness of obsessing over individuals it's actually quite creepy.

I built my gold from scratch and raid led every week for 7 years. I quit WoW because I didn't like the way the game had gone and it wasnt fun anymore (I hate heroics and the concept of them). I don't need to spend time obsessing over which Blizzard designer was responsible and leading some sort of crusade to get them fired or to eternally stalk them. Come on guys - cant we not just move on when we leave the game?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 08, 2012, 01:03:56 AM
I feel the need to start replacing the word casuals with bads, just to compensate a bit for the way the thread has gone the past couple of days  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 08, 2012, 01:17:45 AM
I also find the GC hate is getting a bit weird.

Currently the game seems to offer things to all levels of play - I've got friends in hardcore raiding guilds who still find there's challenges for them (although mostly they're reaching the end of content now and waiting for MoP) and me an a mate resubbed this week and within 30 mins of logging in for the 1st time in 4-6 months were running brand new dungeons which were dropping loot 20 iLvls higher than we had on and having no problems and a lot of fun.

I no longer care what I imagine which dev thinks what, nor what they've done with the game in the past. Right now it feels incredibly casual friendly whilst still offering things to make the more hardcore players feel that there's rewards for them too.

Plus, monkey pet. With a fez.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 08, 2012, 01:47:10 AM
This thread has gone completely off the deep end. Between people completely not reading posts, people apparently now having mind reading powers and the overall weirdness of obsessing over individuals it's actually quite creepy.

I built my gold from scratch and raid led every week for 7 years. I quit WoW because I didn't like the way the game had gone and it wasnt fun anymore (I hate heroics and the concept of them). I don't need to spend time obsessing over which Blizzard designer was responsible and leading some sort of crusade to get them fired or to eternally stalk them. Come on guys - cant we not just move on when we leave the game?

The fact that you're posting here, in this forum thread, suggests not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 08, 2012, 04:28:49 AM
I don't know what's more disconcerting recently, that post or Kageru's "trust betrayal cycle" post (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=21390.msg1048682#msg1048682).  Like, really guys...

(Who am I joking, it's every other post about Diablo III over on Elitist Jerks by a landslide.)
Not quite getting your point. We're not exactly pulling the belief that Ghostcrawler is Kalgan's ghost out of our asses. He literally made a big blog post that said basically, "Stop being so bad at my game!!" and then something happened and a wave of nerfs came through.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 08, 2012, 06:09:54 AM
I also find the GC hate is getting a bit weird.

Ok, I want you to imagine something. Imagine you've been involved in a sports team for 5 years. It's a casual league for people down at the YMCA, and it's mostly just a bunch of late-20s-early-30s people who like to get together and kick the ball around against each other. Then, the head of you league sends out an email saying that he's gotten several complaints that the league isn't competitive enough, and he just happens to be on the team that always takes the league way too seriously. They win most of the championships because they recruit for it, while the rest just play with friends.

So, this leader opens the door for semi-pro teams to join your friends and family league, and he requires a skills test in order to form a team. After 5 years, the people on your team, of which you are a leader, are openly appauled. Some are fat, some are slow, and some simply don't know how to play very well. However, you've always had fun with them win or lose, and you enjoy shooting the shit with them before or after games. After all, they are a social part of your day as well. Now, this uppity shit that's leading the league is driving them out, and your friends would rather leave.

You can just leave the league and be pissed that this guy shot something successful in the foot. Or, you can fight him and use whatever movements you have to prove that he is ruining what was one of the best community leagues in the city. I will always choose to fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 08, 2012, 06:15:40 AM
Are we talking about Ghostcrawler or Wolf?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 08, 2012, 06:18:34 AM
My point is that when somebody at the top decides to go against the grain and ruin your friend's game, I tend to get openly pissed about it, even if I could compete under the new rules.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on March 08, 2012, 06:23:50 AM
We're guessing when we say 'small number' and 'majority of subscribers'. They haven't lost over half their subscribers, by all accounts.
They lost enough they're doing things differently.  Certainly more than any other period in the game's history.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: amiable on March 08, 2012, 08:18:28 AM
http://us.battle.net/support/en/article/scroll-of-resurrection-faq

Auto-80?  Wow (for WoW).  They must actually be hurting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 08, 2012, 08:26:32 AM
Paelos, I've been playing WoW since the start, since beta. I've had a lot of friends come & go throughout that time, I've unsubbed myself for 2 long periods - one of over a year, last one of ~4 months. I get the hate, I've been there, it's just that it's gone on too long and it's starting to make you sound a bit... obsessed.

This isn't meant personally and please don't get insulted by it, but it makes me think of christians and gays. It's like... really? They're still going on about that? Enough already, move on.

People are reading into that post from GC things that just aren't there. He specifically says that they realise now that they should have had more granularity between difficulties in Cata dungeons & raids and that moving on that's exactly what they're going to do. The current set of dungeons are really, really easy. They've nerfed the crap out of the old dungeons. They've introduced a new super-easy raid difficulty level called LFR and it's the most popular raiding they've ever had. They can't turn back time but they've come as close as humanly possible to do and openly said so.

Just let it go now, move on.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Jayce on March 08, 2012, 08:33:24 AM
I also find the GC hate is getting a bit weird.

Ok, I want you to imagine something. Imagine you've been involved in a sports team for 5 years.

This is a great metaphor and point, but it does leave one thing out, I think. It seems to me that at launch, the average difficulty of instances and quests (especially quests designed for a group) was medium-high. At BC, I think it's fair to say that the heroics were grindingly difficult at any but the highest level of gear. Then in WOTLK they took a left turn at Albuquerque and made the heroics mind-numblingly easy, especially at high levels of gear.

So I feel like your sports league may have only formed in the fairly recent past, and many of the complainers were those who liked vanilla and BC better than the WOTLK endgame. Of course it's best if both styles of play are possible, but encouraging anyone to play at less than MAX REWARD is a trick to pull off, though it seems like they are getting there with the raid finder.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 08, 2012, 09:13:52 AM
I also find the GC hate is getting a bit weird.

Ok, I want you to imagine something. Imagine you've been involved in a sports team for 5 years. It's a casual league for people down at the YMCA, and it's mostly just a bunch of late-20s-early-30s people who like to get together and kick the ball around against each other. Then, the head of you league sends out an email saying that he's gotten several complaints that the league isn't competitive enough, and he just happens to be on the team that always takes the league way too seriously. They win most of the championships because they recruit for it, while the rest just play with friends.

So, this leader opens the door for semi-pro teams to join your friends and family league, and he requires a skills test in order to form a team. After 5 years, the people on your team, of which you are a leader, are openly appauled. Some are fat, some are slow, and some simply don't know how to play very well. However, you've always had fun with them win or lose, and you enjoy shooting the shit with them before or after games. After all, they are a social part of your day as well. Now, this uppity shit that's leading the league is driving them out, and your friends would rather leave.

You can just leave the league and be pissed that this guy shot something successful in the foot. Or, you can fight him and use whatever movements you have to prove that he is ruining what was one of the best community leagues in the city. I will always choose to fight.

That doesn't work on so many levels. First of all, you need to imagine you and your friends are playing in the same league as Barcelona and the same rules apply up and down. We want a 20m field, 15 minute halfs, 6 people per team, not a lot of contact, don't kick the ball really hard because, fuck man, Fred has to go to his bank job tomorrow and he can't have a blue eye from a stray. Barcelona wants 100m field, 45 minute halfs, 11 people per team and no restrictions on how hard they're allowed to kick the ball. You know what? We are not in the same league - we're in different leagues and the game allows for both groups to play and enjoy. Some people enjoy watching barcelona play in that scenario, most don't care and just get together on a sunday to kick the ball around. As long as the game allows for both, why would you care if barcelona exists? We're at a point where, if Blizzard doesn't fuck up hardcore with Pandas, that can be achieved. That wasn't the case in BC, WotLK or Cataclysm.

I just don't get how this is a conversation? Do you think Blizzard wants to lose the OTHER half of their subs if they go hardcore on the EZ scale?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 08, 2012, 09:36:58 AM
Ok, I want you to imagine something.

The big difference in this situation is GC was not responsible for the Cata difficulty change, despite being the public face of the developers. He was the class designer when Cata launched iirc (though according to this blog post he is the lead systems designer now). Every time I see these weird GC hate posts ("Fire GC!"), it makes me embarrassed to be an gamer.

Your giant conspiracy post "they wanted to make a game without bads, but they just couldn't have it!" ignores all the casual-friendly changes that were made in Cata. They didn't attempt to simplify/consolidate talents, ease glyph collection, simplify primary/secondary stats, and make smooth out class progression (pets at level 1) because "fuck the bads!". They made those changes, just as they made the difficulty changes, as a response to feedback and/or because they thought it would make a the game better. And btw, those class/system changes are probably the ones GC is actually responsible for given his role.

Not quite getting your point. We're not exactly pulling the belief that Ghostcrawler is Kalgan's ghost out of our asses. He literally made a big blog post that said basically, "Stop being so bad at my game!!" and then something happened and a wave of nerfs came through.

Blizzard saw that a lot of PuGs were failing on the new heroics, many wiping because they weren't following pre-Wrath basics like using Strategy. The "Dungeons are Hard" blog post reminded people about these basics, for those that started playing in Wrath. It also announced that some nerfs were coming, and admitted back in January that there was not enough 85 content for people that weren't ready for or didn't want to do heroic 5-mans. I'd recommend reading the blog again here (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2053469), it's not as sinister as you've built it up to be in your head. People had a negative reaction to the post simply because it didn't say what people wanted it to say "We're going back to Wrath difficulty next week!", regardless of what the post actually did say.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 08, 2012, 09:46:06 AM

I just don't get how this is a conversation? Do you think Blizzard wants to lose the OTHER half of their subs if they go hardcore on the EZ scale?
The current thinking is "You stayed through WOTLK.  You bitched on the forums, but you stayed.  Meanwhile in Cata you stopped bitching, but everyone else fled.  We'll take the WOTLK mode instead and just deal with the whining."

See, Hardcore always stays with the best raid game. For the long forseeable future that's going to be WoW. TOR was the last great hope and instead of embracing the game, that demographic has spent a lot of resouces and time tearing-down it and RIFT.  Guess where that leaves them now?

Meanwhile the casual gamer will go where they find the most fun.  For a long, long time that was WOW.  Then WOW shit on them and they've hopped off to TOR and RIFT.  WoW misses that money and is trying to get it back.  We'll see if they succeed.   If they don't, they may well tack to the hardcore again.  

I wouldn't hold my breath, though.  Blizz is expending a lot of capital trying to tug those folks back and it looks like it's working at least in part.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 08, 2012, 10:21:52 AM
the way they're selling Pandas, especially the challenge modes and with the current raid setup, they are catering to me. I even hated the cata heroics, it was an issue for me. If they mess up the raid difficulty, however, and heroic raids are clock in, get epekz I just won't bother. And I'm the only crazy person in guild willing to invest the extra time to keep shit moving, so my guild goes with me. I'd wager there's a big portion of 10m guilds in the same situation and the 25m scene is more or less dead at this point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on March 08, 2012, 11:03:49 AM
This thread has gone completely off the deep end. Between people completely not reading posts, people apparently now having mind reading powers and the overall weirdness of obsessing over individuals it's actually quite creepy.

I built my gold from scratch and raid led every week for 7 years. I quit WoW because I didn't like the way the game had gone and it wasnt fun anymore (I hate heroics and the concept of them). I don't need to spend time obsessing over which Blizzard designer was responsible and leading some sort of crusade to get them fired or to eternally stalk them. Come on guys - cant we not just move on when we leave the game?

Wow, talk about going off the deep end.  There are a lot of people here who seem personally offended that issue was taken with what Ghostcrawler said in that blog post.  So much so that they've projected an awful lot of things into those negative posts that just weren't said.

I can't speak for anyone else, but here's what I said:

Based on his blog post, Ghostcrawler doesn't get it.
When confronted about that opinion, here's why I think Ghostcrawler doesn't get it.

Here are things I didn't say:

Ghostcrawler was responsible for the whole dungeon fiasco.
Ghostcrawler needs to be fired.
A particular person needs to be blamed and held responsible for the direction Cataclysm took.
I stalk and am obsessed with Ghostcrawler.

You want to know why Ghostcrawler was a target?  Because he made a blog post that contained a stupid statement.  I for one at least didn't post some random non sequitur Ghostcrawler hate post out of nowhere.  I was responding to a specific thing I thought was stupid.  The fact that he inevitably engenders that kind of response when he posts might be an indication that he should stop posting, because he's terrible at it.  If he wants to make himself the 'face' of Blizzard devs, then he needs to either learn how to communicate better (ie: stop hedging on things that were obviously a huge mistake) or grin and bear the rotten tomatoes thrown his way.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 08, 2012, 11:08:28 AM
Yarp.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 08, 2012, 12:26:04 PM
Blizzard saw that a lot of PuGs were failing on the new heroics, many wiping because they weren't following pre-Wrath basics like using Strategy. The "Dungeons are Hard" blog post reminded people about these basics, for those that started playing in Wrath. It also announced that some nerfs were coming, and admitted back in January that there was not enough 85 content for people that weren't ready for or didn't want to do heroic 5-mans. I'd recommend reading the blog again here (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/2053469), it's not as sinister as you've built it up to be in your head. People had a negative reaction to the post simply because it didn't say what people wanted it to say "We're going back to Wrath difficulty next week!", regardless of what the post actually did say.
I did reread it, and I remembered it correctly. It's literally, "stop being so bad" and "don't give up!! I know it sucks when you get queued into a shitty group that's wiped a dozen times on some terrible boss, and that you'll lose like 1-2 people every attempt until everyone just disbands but suck it up buttercup!" Sorry.

And this:
"We don't at all view the Cataclysm dungeon and raid balance as a mistake."
"We don't at all view the Cataclysm dungeon and raid balance as a mistake."
"We don't at all view the Cataclysm dungeon and raid balance as a mistake."
"We don't at all view the Cataclysm dungeon and raid balance as a mistake."
"We don't at all view the Cataclysm dungeon and raid balance as a mistake."

Funny, a year later, the raid/dungeon guy:

Quote
Q. What didn’t work out as planned or expected?
Initially, we started off the Heroic dungeons at too high of a difficulty. The difficulty level rather abruptly changed when compared to the Heroics players experienced at the end of Wrath of the Lich King. This major change caught many players off guard, and frustrated some of them. The difficulty also increased the effective amount of time required to complete a dungeon to a longer experience than we wanted.

Welp.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 08, 2012, 12:27:35 PM
the way they're selling Pandas, especially the challenge modes and with the current raid setup, they are catering to me. I even hated the cata heroics, it was an issue for me. If they mess up the raid difficulty, however, and heroic raids are clock in, get epekz I just won't bother. And I'm the only crazy person in guild willing to invest the extra time to keep shit moving, so my guild goes with me. I'd wager there's a big portion of 10m guilds in the same situation and the 25m scene is more or less dead at this point.

Newsflash, nobody gives a fuck about heroic raids except your ilk. That's never been the problem. Stop clutching your pearls. They can literally make those so fucking hard you weep blood, and we will never care.

The problem was they did that with REGULAR RAIDS AND FIVE MANS. I mean after all this time, you need to realize that every single person who considers themselves casual is very very very much in favor of the stratification of content along regular and heroic lines when it comes to raids. What they aren't ever in favor of is people fucking with their 5 mans.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on March 08, 2012, 12:31:04 PM
Paelos, I've been playing WoW since the start, since beta. I've had a lot of friends come & go throughout that time, I've unsubbed myself for 2 long periods - one of over a year, last one of ~4 months. I get the hate, I've been there, it's just that it's gone on too long and it's starting to make you sound a bit... obsessed.

This isn't meant personally and please don't get insulted by it, but it makes me think of christians and gays. It's like... really? They're still going on about that? Enough already, move on.

People are reading into that post from GC things that just aren't there. He specifically says that they realise now that they should have had more granularity between difficulties in Cata dungeons & raids and that moving on that's exactly what they're going to do. The current set of dungeons are really, really easy. They've nerfed the crap out of the old dungeons. They've introduced a new super-easy raid difficulty level called LFR and it's the most popular raiding they've ever had. They can't turn back time but they've come as close as humanly possible to do and openly said so.

Just let it go now, move on.

No, see, here's the thing, for you and other people who say "I don't get the GC hate" and "why can't you just move on and forget about all this?"

Paelos expressed, very well, the problem those of us who h8 GC the GC h8 - mind you, after several people said "I just don't get it." (That's kind of like asking for clarification, no?)

Surely by now you understand how he feels, although maybe you don't agree with him. Fine, it's an opinion, we all have them. But jagging on Paelos (and others) for continuing to post is silly. Paelos posts for the same reason other people do. You don't have to read his posts nor respond to them (as with every other post on F13 and the world in general).

FWIW, I think Paelos is spot on. GC has been a twat, he's always been a twat, and continues to be a twat. After reading years of GC's posts (and disagreeing with his analyses on what people want), it's delicious to see the changes that have been made, and the post-mortems acknowledging same. But GC is still a tw... anyway. He should not be the public face of Blizzard because he's really, really bad at it.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 08, 2012, 12:32:41 PM
Well, I do want to say I'm kinda confused as to why they're having that stacking debuff apply to Heroic Mode Dragon Soul. I mean, I know we're at the end of the expansion and who gives a shit, but the heroic raid is for people who want to hit their balls with a hammer. Let them, and nerf it if it's basically impossible or really fucks over people who like to play a specific class or set and they keep getting benched regardless of how well they can play.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on March 08, 2012, 12:44:21 PM
I understand and agree with gc hate up to the point people point out he was wrong, made terrible decisions and stubbornly refused to admit to cata's failures but some people seem to think he's sitting behind a desk made out of human bone wringing his hands with delight at the tears of his userbase.  I think he sincerely thought that people would like the changes and after changing their habits to adjust would get more enjoyment out of the game.  It was an absurd, foolish plan that the vast majority of people could have (and did) point out wouldn't work and was doomed to failure but he didn't do it out of spite or hatred.

He made a bad decision, he's not evil incarnate.

I would love to know if the final changes back to casual were his idea or rammed down his throat by his bosses though, I have to assume the latter.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on March 08, 2012, 12:54:04 PM
I understand and agree with gc hate up to the point people point out he was wrong, made terrible decisions and stubbornly refused to admit to cata's failures but some people seem to think he's sitting behind a desk made out of human bone wringing his hands with delight at the tears of his userbase.  I think he sincerely thought that people would like the changes and after changing their habits to adjust would get more enjoyment out of the game.  It was an absurd, foolish plan that the vast majority of people could have (and did) point out wouldn't work and was doomed to failure but he didn't do it out of spite or hatred.

He made a bad decision, he's not evil incarnate.

I would love to know if the final changes back to casual were his idea or rammed down his throat by his bosses though, I have to assume the latter.

Could you please point out where someone said they thought he was evil incarnate?  It seems that the people who are engaging in hyperbole are the 'I don't get it' people.

Of course he sincerely thought people would like the changes.  It's that and his hubris in still thinking, even in hindsight, the dungeon difficulties were fine is why I think he just doesn't get it.  It's not 'evil' or maliciousness, it's cluelessness and an inability to look beyond himself.  He thinks it's fun, therefore everyone else should as well!  Just keep trying harder, you'll find the fun!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on March 08, 2012, 12:58:15 PM
Quote
"The problem was that we had this whole group of players who felt like they couldn't make any progress on their characters. Even if they wanted to end up raiding with their friends, they couldn't earn the gear they needed to get into those raids (especially in the absence of Raid Finder). I don't believe that the instances were too hard; it's obvious there are players who enjoy that content. I believe the problem was that there were no alternatives."

This is why I still don't like GC, why I think he doesn't get it, and why I think the changes were forced on him.

It's like he was telling people that it's their own fault if they weren't having fun, just keep at it, eventually it'll be fun, really it will be - despite all evidence to the contrary. And he has to eat those words now, but still they aren't going down easily.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on March 08, 2012, 01:00:47 PM
Could you please point out where someone said they thought he was evil incarnate?
First you point out where I claimed anyone actually said that.

This is the second crazy ass reactionary post you have made with the assumption that every post must somehow be in response to something you said.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on March 08, 2012, 01:16:00 PM
Could you please point out where someone said they thought he was evil incarnate?
First you point out where I claimed anyone actually said that.

This is the second crazy ass reactionary post you have made with the assumption that every post must somehow be in response to something you said.

Sure, since you couldn't be bothered to quote my whole post...

He made a bad decision, he's not evil incarnate.

...Certainly implies it.

But I'll take your lack of an answer as you just puling that out of your ass to be overly dramatic.  And I'm certainly allowed to make my own 'crazy ass' response to your post without assuming it was somehow directed at me.  Good job with the personal attack, though.  Shows real maturity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 08, 2012, 01:16:20 PM
Play nice, yall.  :awesome_for_real:

In any case, I've said before I think Ghostcrawler believes he's doing what's best. I don't think he's trying to fuck over anybody intentionally, he just can't stand the idea of people laughing at how easy his game might be.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 08, 2012, 02:26:08 PM
I'll clutch my pearls as hard as you do yours, thank you very much.

The stacking debuff is good for us, the casual-er of the people that do heroic raids. It helps you do fights without hard-forcing you into comps you cant field, it helps you keep the warrior that refuses to use any addons and the paladin that's maybe not really cut out to do heroics, but wants to help and is always there. And it helps you complete shit while still having a 7-8hr week, since it gives a bit of margin of error, without clocking in the wipes needed for perfect execution. MY GOD THE HARDCORE ARE NOT ALL PARAGON RAIDING 50 HOUR WEEKS. STOP THE PRESSES.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 08, 2012, 02:39:02 PM
I don't think you are all Paragon people. The truth is that people who are chasing world firsts or can clear high level heroic content in early rounds don't post on forums. They don't complain at all. Hell, 9 out of every 10 people that I saw posting on the forums complaining that people needed to L2P were those who had cleared regular dungeons and declared themselves done.

The fact that you go into a heroic raid at all with the prospect of success pretty much puts you into the catagory that won't understand what I'm talking about. Nor will I understand what you're talking about.

Just know there's a ton more people that fall into my camp, and let's be done with it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on March 08, 2012, 03:04:17 PM
Good job with the personal attack, though.  Shows real maturity.
Yeah I got a little smarmy there, I apologize.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on March 08, 2012, 04:30:02 PM
Accepted.  Let's move on from that idiot Ghostcrawler now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on March 08, 2012, 09:47:35 PM
The fact that you go into a heroic raid at all with the prospect of success pretty much puts you into the catagory that won't understand what I'm talking about. Nor will I understand what you're talking about.
This here isn't even entirely true. I like heroic raiding; fighting challenging shit with my friends is enjoyable. However, I hated the Cata 5 mans because most of the time I was doing dungeons either solo or duo queued and difficult content with PUGs is not fun. And that's without getting into class-based CC limitations (this zone is all elementals but our only CCers are rogue/mage, etc.) which made things even worse.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 08, 2012, 09:50:19 PM
Quote from: Ghostcrawler
(and so you don't feel like daily quests are synonymous with 'boring' or 'grind'). We want to make the Pandaria factions interesting. We want Exalted to be something you earn for bragging rights, not something every player has. We are adding a lot of mounts that will be hard to get

I read the post-mortem the other day, when everyone else did. I didn't think much of this bit at the time, but it popped out at me last night when I was checking my darkmoon rep level (as it'd just gone up).

They may be backing off on dungeon difficulty, after being slapped on the wrist, but clearly those stupid fuckers still just don't get it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on March 08, 2012, 10:09:57 PM
Who is clamoring for more difficult rep grinds so I can shoot them?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on March 09, 2012, 12:44:11 AM
I don't remember if I said this in this thread, or a different one... but:


Blizzard has ALWAYS thought this. Blizzard never intended to make a casual MMO, ever. They intended to make a hardcore MMO that trained casual players to BE hardcore. It's been the exact same cycle since vanilla to present day. They fully expected the people who didn't want to raid/grind to hit level 60, then quit/go do something else.

This is why they are constantly, CONSTANTLY surprised that the majority of their player base wants more easy and fun shit to DO. It's why it took them six god damn YEARS to finally put in an appearance tab system and only after they lost a few million subs!


Never mind the expansions, just look at how the content came in Vanilla. Look at how it was directed/released/funneled.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on March 09, 2012, 12:55:10 AM
Yea, Tigole and Furor - two of the higher-up WOW designers back in vanilla - were from FOH and Legacy of Steel [sp?]. I never played EQ, but I understand those were like the uberguildiest among all the uberguilds. And then there was Kalgan who worked on some UO expansion that made everyone stabby and/or quit.

(A bit offtopic, but wasn't Furor the dude who designed most of the Duskwood quests in vanilla?)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on March 09, 2012, 01:02:18 AM

Ok, I want you to imagine something. Imagine you've been involved in a sports team for 5 years. It's a casual league for people down at the YMCA, and it's mostly just a bunch of late-20s-early-30s people who like to get together and kick the ball around against each other. Then, the head of you league sends out an email saying that he's gotten several complaints that the league isn't competitive enough, and he just happens to be on the team that always takes the league way too seriously. They win most of the championships because they recruit for it, while the rest just play with friends.

So, this leader opens the door for semi-pro teams to join your friends and family league, and he requires a skills test in order to form a team. After 5 years, the people on your team, of which you are a leader, are openly appauled. Some are fat, some are slow, and some simply don't know how to play very well. However, you've always had fun with them win or lose, and you enjoy shooting the shit with them before or after games. After all, they are a social part of your day as well. Now, this uppity shit that's leading the league is driving them out, and your friends would rather leave.


I don't normally buy into analogies bu Blizzard should put this post in massive letters on their wall and make every staff member read it before they are allowed to make decisions. It sums up exactly the way in which a company listened to a vocal minority whose subscriptions couldn't keep the company in coke and hookers like they were accustomed to yet decided to piss off infinitely more players but not heeding the signs. Monumental cockup of :CCP: proportions.

WoW isn't even close to dead but there are plenty of other MMO and non-MMO options and Blizzard needs to realise that people will walk to the next game if they aren't having fun.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on March 09, 2012, 01:05:28 AM
http://us.battle.net/support/en/article/scroll-of-resurrection-faq

Auto-80?  Wow (for WoW).  They must actually be hurting.

This makes me sad. Auto 80 means you miss out on the best expansion (WotLK). Now if they had some way of skipping TBC (dated) and Cata (rails) but level 80 to 85 in LK content (or Vanilla new quests), now that might be more interesting.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 09, 2012, 01:37:25 AM
A lot of you are drastically overstating the impact that hard heroics had on the game. Correlation is not causation. WoW is 7 and a half years old at this point and it's a miracle they've maintained their sub base at all at this point. 7 and a half years into any other MMOs life and the game is in free fall, especially if it hasn't gone free to play.

Consider this. Cata end-game was easier to get into than both Vanilla and BC, yet Vanilla and BC saw absolutely meteoric growth. Wrath didn't put WoW on the map. Vanilla and BC did. With their hardcore 40 man raids full of consumable grinding, and the nightmarish heroics where you wiped for hours on trash (I can barely remember any BC heroic bosses, but oh GOD I remember the trash). And you didn't have dungeon finder to find you an automatic replacement even if your queue is long as a DPS.

You couldn't even step foot in the premiere end game content of these expansions if you were casual at all. I never saw Illidan, and I didn't even know C'thun or Naxx existed despite being subbed at those times. Yet subs kept shooting up over a span of 4 years, far longer than it takes even the most casual of casuals to level to max. I'm not saying the one is the cause of the other. In fact that's exactly my point.

There is a lot more to this than difficult 5 man heroics somehow being a decision so terrible it busted the game wide open. Frankly difficult 5 man heroics were a great decision from my perspective, because even if they lead to somewhat lower subs I don't give that much of a fuck about Blizzard's sub numbers, I give more of a fuck about having content that I like to do. Me, I would rather do 1 good dungeon where I have to pull out all the stops and strategize and all that in 3 hours than run 10 faceroll dungeons where I literally spam my H key to grind out points. The idea that there's something inferior about this boggles my mind.

Sure, they may not be for everyone, I don't give a fuck. If I wanted to play something because everyone was doing it there are games even bigger than WoW. I could go click on baby cows in Farmville.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 09, 2012, 01:56:32 AM
I get the hate

No, see, here's the thing, for you and other people who say "I don't get the GC hate"

:headscratch:

There's no point repeating my point, it clearly wasn't read the first time.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on March 09, 2012, 01:58:07 AM
I can only speak for myself and my guild of casuals/bads/non-raiders (choose your favorite adjective), but we basically played WOW like this:
- vanilla: from start until we hit 60 (several months), at which point many of us quit. Returned briefly for ZG, and returned in force for the tier0.5 questline (which we completed on multiple characters each). Most of us who played didn't really enjoy the "endgame", a handful of us PVP'd - it wasn't very good.
- BC: from start until we hit the cap, and then we PVP'd a fair bit (imo the first three seasons of BC was the PVP high-point of WOW, not that pvp in a diku is 'good' to begin with). We did Kara with another guild, but it got boring after a few months so we pretty much all quit. Some people occasionally trickled back to check out the daily quest stuff and magister's terrace.
- WOTLK: we actually stayed sub almost the whole way, only taking a break between hitting 80 the first time on our chars and before LFD was implemented. Still no raiding, a few of us pvp'd and went on pug raids.
- Cata: a lot of us started new characters for 1-60 (which IS good content imo, btw), but most of us got a main to 85 (1 month or so), ran a few dungeons and quit. We had maybe 2-3 people occasionally reactivating to do stuff like heroics-trollroics-LFR (I was one of them). Currently nobody feels like returning until MOP, though the scroll of resurrection thing wil change that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 09, 2012, 03:32:46 AM
Vanilla and BC only put the game on the map for MMO Gamers.  Once it hit that mass then casuals and farmville types began to check it out because it was on TV, many of their friends were talking about it and it was becoming culturally relevant to a larger demographic than a subset of gamers.   

Some of those folks stuck around because it was accessible and didn't punish them for being bad - and let's face it many of them were because they see games as a distraction not a hobby to focus on.   Why's Farmville so huge? Because it's a distraction that takes little thought to do.  Unfortunately for money hats those games don't have stickiness of a hobby, so there's a balance they need to find to chase the filthy lucre while also keeping the more dedicated subbed.

If you shut the bads completely out of any segment, they'll resent it and quit.  These are not the gamers of yesteryear, used to and proud of being the outcast so they'll accept being told "This isn't for you, you're not hardcore enough.  Go play with this other part and leave this to the 'real gamers'."  Blizzard doesn't get to make that statement if they want their money.  This is a business choice, not a gaming philosophy choice.  You either want the casuals/ bads and their money or you don't.   If you do, and they're the bulk of your playerbase, then the bulk of your funds need to be focused on providing for them and THEN the hobbist who'll be there anyway because there's no other choice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 09, 2012, 04:26:00 AM
Sure, they may not be for everyone, I don't give a fuck. If I wanted to play something because everyone was doing it there are games even bigger than WoW. I could go click on baby cows in Farmville.
Vanguard is thattaway. Knock yourself out.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 09, 2012, 07:02:57 AM
1 - Consider this. Cata end-game was easier to get into than both Vanilla and BC, yet Vanilla and BC saw absolutely meteoric growth. Wrath didn't put WoW on the map.

2 - There is a lot more to this than difficult 5 man heroics somehow being a decision so terrible it busted the game wide open. Frankly difficult 5 man heroics were a great decision from my perspective, because even if they lead to somewhat lower subs I don't give that much of a fuck about Blizzard's sub numbers, I give more of a fuck about having content that I like to do.

I'll address your post in two parts. The first condition. Yes, TBC put it on the map. The growth of the game from when TBC was released to the year end was over 60%. The idea of Outland and walking through the portal was iconic. However, there was backlash to TBC and numbers fluctuated too much for Blizzard's tastes. That's why they made so many changes to TBC mid-stream. It wasn't until Wrath that Blizzard had a solid hold on it's numbers and had increased their MMORPG revenues to their all-time highs, over 22% higher than anything seen with TBC. While Wrath didn't put WoW on the map, it was the very definition of the best of the best that WoW has EVER achieved in terms of numbers, revenue, and overall customer satisfaction of the product.

As to the second part, you mention meteoric growth as a reason for Vanilla and BC were good things, yet in the next point you say your don't give much of a fuck about sub numbers. See, here's my problem with people that make these statements. You are just one hypocritical guy who wants to use numbers when they suit you. The "I like what I like and fuck you" mentality gets you standing alone on your own server fiddling while Rome burns. Also, just because you like a decision doesn't make it great. In fact, from the only standpoint that Blizzard cares about ($$$), it was a huge clusterfuck. So, you're just going to have to come to terms with that fact that you're wrong, or leave the game to chase something else. Because I like what I like as well, and there are about 9M players like me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pantastic on March 09, 2012, 11:16:21 AM
If you're talking about the 'explosive growth' of Vanilla and BC, how much of that growth was actually people in hard content? I mean, only something like 1% of players even saw the last raid boss in Vanilla, and it was a bit higher in BC but still not common, even after the plethora of nerfs that came pre-WOLK. Vanilla had a lot of people who simply didn't raid, or only poked into MC after it was old hat. BC had a ton of people that ran Karazhan and heroics over and over for badges but never stepped foot into the actual raids, and only did those after several rounds of nerfs (360 cleaves with no warning are good design) and gear upgrades. And I never saw much in the way of blog posts, reviews, and testimonials going on about how great raiding or BC heroics were - things like 'Running Van Cleef was so awseome' were all over the place, 'I love Onyxia' not so much.

I really think wow's explosive growth happened in spite of the difficult content, not because of it.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 09, 2012, 11:27:13 AM
Speaking from a strictly casual point of view, Karazhan was where they got it right.  Hasn't been that 'right' until LFRetards came along recently.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 09, 2012, 11:28:55 AM
I really think wow's explosive growth happened in spite of the difficult content, not because of it.

You would be correct. Wow's growth patterns seem to follow the curve of content becoming more accessible, and declined immediately when that access stopped. Let's not forget that one of the reasons TBC was so popular was it decreased raids from 40 players to 25, and it included the 10 man raid for Karazhan. They were moving away from the "numbers = win" mentality of vanilla already in what is seen as one of the more hardcore expansions.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 09, 2012, 12:52:38 PM
Speaking from a strictly casual point of view, Karazhan was where they got it right.  Hasn't been that 'right' until LFRetards came along recently.

Pre or Post trash nerf?  Post nerf you're totally right.  Pre? My god, what a slog that was.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 09, 2012, 12:53:40 PM
Speaking from a strictly casual point of view, Karazhan was where they got it right.  Hasn't been that 'right' until LFRetards came along recently.

From a 'casual point of view' Kara was long, had tons of trash, had quite a few tough bosses where 1-2 people could fuck your group over, and wasn't something you could clear in 2-hours with a game-formed PuG on the first day of the patch that added it. It would be rejected wholly by the most of this forum if released today.

Difficulty had little to do with the popularity of the game in TBC and Wrath. The game was still riding a wave of momentum, still acquiring new customers. Things like "Make Love not Warcraft" had a much bigger impact on attracting new customers to the game than trends of end-game balance. The game has had more previous subscribers than it currently has active subscribers.

Cata, for whatever reason, completely failed to attract a significant amount of new subscribers despite the new 1-60. The game probably isn't especially appealing to new players at this point, with high-quality F2P games out there that don't require a monthly fee, dated graphics, and a high box-cost to start playing the most recent expansion and everything it requires.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 09, 2012, 12:54:17 PM
Speaking from a strictly casual point of view, Karazhan was where they got it right.  Hasn't been that 'right' until LFRetards came along recently.

Pre or Post trash nerf?  Post nerf you're totally right.  Pre? My god, what a slog that was.

For the people Ironwood is talking about (or well, for us at least), they weren't ready to even go to Kara until well after the nerf.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on March 09, 2012, 01:00:53 PM
Ohh how I loved playing with idiots that could barely do Opera.  Almost every fight other than horseman/chess was a chore with casuals.  

edit: Man, you should have seen this group do Heigan in Naxx.  TORTURE (25 man was something beyond torture, I don't even think the Cthulhu would have a name for something so horrifying).  Some would flat out refuse to do it.  Although overall, 10 man Naxx was tuned a little better for us. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 09, 2012, 01:04:45 PM
Difficulty had little to do with the popularity of the game in TBC and Wrath.

Prove it. The problem I have with most of your views, Rokal, is that so little of them are backed up by actual facts. The majority of what you purport as truth about the game comes from this bizarrely warped POV that has been proven time and again to be counterproductive to both business and growth.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 09, 2012, 01:06:41 PM
Speaking from a strictly casual point of view, Karazhan was where they got it right.  Hasn't been that 'right' until LFRetards came along recently.

Pre or Post trash nerf?  Post nerf you're totally right.  Pre? My god, what a slog that was.

For the people Ironwood is talking about (or well, for us at least), they weren't ready to even go to Kara until well after the nerf.

Good point.  Did you see it pre-nerf?

For those who didn't.  Imagine the mob density of the Library through the entire instance, and the library with about 25% more mobs.

At least your faction went up a lot quicker.  :drill:

Speaking from a strictly casual point of view, Karazhan was where they got it right.  Hasn't been that 'right' until LFRetards came along recently.

From a 'casual point of view' Kara was long, had tons of trash, had quite a few tough bosses where 1-2 people could fuck your group over, and wasn't something you could clear in 2-hours with a game-formed PuG on the first day of the patch that added it. It would be rejected wholly by the most of this forum if released today.

Nope, raids are ok if they save and can be split-up and take a little while longer.  Nobody bitches about the raids, just the failures we take in to them.  It's the dungeons we're bitching about the most.  Way to continue to be obtuse about it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 09, 2012, 01:17:36 PM
Speaking from a strictly casual point of view, Karazhan was where they got it right.  Hasn't been that 'right' until LFRetards came along recently.

Pre or Post trash nerf?  Post nerf you're totally right.  Pre? My god, what a slog that was.

Both, we didn't actually mind the trash that much because it was annoying but not tits-rip hard.

But it was better nerfed.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 09, 2012, 01:22:52 PM
Speaking from a strictly casual point of view, Karazhan was where they got it right.  Hasn't been that 'right' until LFRetards came along recently.

From a 'casual point of view' Kara was long, had tons of trash, had quite a few tough bosses where 1-2 people could fuck your group over, and wasn't something you could clear in 2-hours with a game-formed PuG on the first day of the patch that added it. It would be rejected wholly by the most of this forum if released today.

Difficulty had little to do with the popularity of the game in TBC and Wrath. The game was still riding a wave of momentum, still acquiring new customers. Things like "Make Love not Warcraft" had a much bigger impact on attracting new customers to the game than trends of end-game balance. The game has had more previous subscribers than it currently has active subscribers.

Cata, for whatever reason, completely failed to attract a significant amount of new subscribers despite the new 1-60. The game probably isn't especially appealing to new players at this point, with high-quality F2P games out there that don't require a monthly fee, dated graphics, and a high box-cost to start playing the most recent expansion and everything it requires.

Horseshit.  This is another wondrous post about YOUR opinion.  Which is fine, since I'm also just giving mine, but at least I ain't saying it's graven in tablets of fucking stone.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 09, 2012, 01:30:56 PM
Difficulty had little to do with the popularity of the game in TBC and Wrath.

Prove it. The problem I have with most of your views, Rokal, is that so little of them are backed up by actual facts. The majority of what you purport as truth about the game comes from this bizarrely warped POV that has been proven time and again to be counterproductive to both business and growth.

Or you could prove that TBC/Wrath subscription highs were due to higher retention of subscriptions due to lower difficulty since you're the one who originally made the argument, instead of a more accessible low-level game and a constant stream of new subscribers. If you think the balance of Naxx had a bigger impact on subscriptions than something like Make Love not Warcraft which was seen by millions and millions of potential new customers, you're a fool. The amount of resources they poured into a new 1-60 shows just how important new subscriptions have been to Blizzard. They also announced they now had more past-subscribers than current, meaning that the game subscription numbers have been propped up by 24 million + subscribers cycling through those doors over the past 7 years.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying "Harder = more subs!". I'm saying that the success of TBC or Wrath had little to do with end-game difficulty, just as the success of Vanilla had almost nothing to do with the balance of Scholomance.

You say my arguments aren't backed by fact when I respond to your non-factual post. Meanwhile your crazy Ghost-crawler conspiracy rants aren't backed by anything besides raw nerd rage.  :oh_i_see:
Nope, raids are ok if they save and can be split-up and take a little while longer.  Nobody bitches about the raids, just the failures we take in to them.  It's the dungeons we're bitching about the most.  Way to continue to be obtuse about it.

T11 was three separate smaller raids that guilds could tackle in any order, and come back later to resume. Casual players rejected it. Time is a premium, and that means time spent clearing excessive trash or walking back after the 20th Aran wipe.

Kara would not be a successful raid today unless the difficulty was toned way down, most of the trash was removed, and the raid was cut up into much smaller chunks. The Kara & Nightbane attunement also wouldn't have flown in 2012.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 09, 2012, 01:42:20 PM
Trash is trash and yes, there has always been too goddamn much of it.   Trash isn't the point of shit.  3-6 pulls max before a boss is optimal.  Anything more than that is just a time killer meant to slow pacing.  Fuck that noise.

No, attunements wouldn't fly today.  I don't recall saying they would, you just brought it up in that last statement as if they're an integral part of the dungeon.  They aren't.  They are also time killers meant to slow pacing and utter bullshit.    Want optional bosses? Do it the way Uldum did with bosses unlocked by killing others and "hardmode" kill methods for achieves vs. EZmode.

The fights themselves?  No, they were fine, as seen by the fact that many raids since have used similar mechanics.. including the beam-swap.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on March 09, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
Speaking from a strictly casual point of view, Karazhan was where they got it right.  Hasn't been that 'right' until LFRetards came along recently.
From a 'casual point of view' Kara was long, had tons of trash, had quite a few tough bosses where 1-2 people could fuck your group over, and wasn't something you could clear in 2-hours with a game-formed PuG on the first day of the patch that added it. It would be rejected wholly by the most of this forum if released today.
Just as a note, Karazhan was awesome for us (small guild of non-raiders) because we actually had enough people to run it. Even though it was a trash-filled slog (we ran it before the nerfs) that needed two nights per week to clear for our rag-tag group, we had a decent amount of fun.... the first 5-6 times we did it. After that people started to get fed up with it and enthusiasm petered off. Our group was also weird in that we had zero problems with positioning/execution fights (like netherspite), but dps races (moroes...) screwed us really really badly. People weren't that good with spamming them buttons, is all.

Still, it was the only raid content we ever did as a guild, so I guess that's something!

edit: that said, fuck attunements... and I don't mean the most popular misspelling of the huntsman's name.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 09, 2012, 01:56:42 PM
As a casual player, yeah, Karazhan isn't an example of 'where they got it right'. It was "where they started going in the right direction" but the dungeon would be rejected in 2012 without substantial edits. The fact that there was hours and hours worth of attunements before you could even step instead was a large part of that raid for casual players reaching level 70 and wanting to check it out. It's probably the most trash-heavy raid in the game and lots of the trash posed a real threat to your group. The ice-skeletons, the actors before Opera, the ghosts, wyrms, on and on and on.

I don't think the fights would be fine at this point either. People would have complained Prince had too much RNG and was too punishing on slow dispels. Aran would be a nightmare. Chess would have just been another vehicle fight for people to dump on. Your nostalgia for Karazhan is giving you an inaccurate picture of how good the raid actually was, and how it would hold up in 2012 especially to the LFR community.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on March 09, 2012, 02:29:25 PM

 :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 09, 2012, 02:32:26 PM
That makes it seem way more complicated than it actually was. Having to do a 5 man dungeon once that you were already going to do is not really "OH NOES ATTUNEMENT". The extra stuff about doing raids in order, yeah that was dumb.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 09, 2012, 02:59:04 PM
I think attunement is fine if it's part of normal progression. in that doing all the quests you'd normally have to do to level up would unlock certain dungeons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 09, 2012, 03:12:13 PM
It's still a large barrier to entry. For Kara, that was 7 dungeons you had to run before you could join your guild for a raid. You needed a flying mount to get to the TK dungeons, which was pretty expensive at that point, unless you had a warlock summon you. Some of those dungeons were also fairly unpopular. I still remember having problems finding people to run Durnhold and Dark Portal every time I needed to attune an alt. This would be minimized thanks to LFD and queuing for specific dungeons, but there is no way people would be happy if Kara launched in 2012 with that attunement requirement. The Nightbane attunement was even worse.

Even cutting attunements entirely out of the equation, the raid wasn't casual friendly by today's standards.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on March 09, 2012, 04:02:22 PM
That makes it seem way more complicated than it actually was. Having to do a 5 man dungeon once that you were already going to do is not really "OH NOES ATTUNEMENT". The extra stuff about doing raids in order, yeah that was dumb.

Keep in mind that it wasn't just running a dungeon you were already running.  There was a very vast difference between normal and heroics back in the BC day; almost as if they were 5-man raids in it of themselves.  And unlike Wrath and Cata, they never got easier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 09, 2012, 04:04:21 PM
That makes it seem way more complicated than it actually was. Having to do a 5 man dungeon once that you were already going to do is not really "OH NOES ATTUNEMENT". The extra stuff about doing raids in order, yeah that was dumb.

Keep in mind that it wasn't just running a dungeon you were already running.  There was a very vast difference between normal and heroics back in the BC day; almost as if they were 5-man raids in it of themselves.  And unlike Wrath and Cata, they never got easier.

No heroics were required for Kara, the Kara key and Nightbane stuff was all in normals. It was only the big boy raids that cared about doing extra specific stuff in heroics.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on March 09, 2012, 05:43:19 PM

Good point.  Did you see it pre-nerf?

For those who didn't.  Imagine the mob density of the Library through the entire instance, and the library with about 25% more mobs.

At least your faction went up a lot quicker.  :drill:


You forgot the bit about how Aran had no timer limits on RNG - you could be wreathed while he force-pulled or dropped a storm

If the numbers didn't like you, your group was toast.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 09, 2012, 06:22:00 PM
Or you could prove that TBC/Wrath subscription highs were due to higher retention of subscriptions due to lower difficulty since you're the one who originally made the argument, instead of a more accessible low-level game and a constant stream of new subscribers.

I don't have to prove that point. There's already a strong correlation between the numbers increasing year by year on their financials in terms of subscription revenue until the point they released Cataclysm. By your argument, nothing they can do at this point would make a difference and the natural life cycle of the product will continue to decline. If the numbers go back up again in FY2012, then you'll have lost the last leg to stand on. My argument is they made poor choices and their numbers suffered.

You seem to ignore the point that from Vanilla to Wrath, and through TBC, they added in smaller raids, more nerfs, and more accessible end-game content. Unless you subscribe to the theory that people jacked around at low level and quit, which we can again prove is crap by the documented amounts of people completing progression content during Wrath, then you just have your head in the sand.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 09, 2012, 06:52:55 PM
End-game balance becomes more and more important as the game gets older and a larger portion of active/past subscribers have capped characters. It had the largest impact in Cata, and it'll have an even larger impact in MoP. I'm not going to argue that the balance of end-game content in TBC or Wrath had nothing to do with subscription numbers: I'm saying that, like vanilla, it wasn't the main reason for the game's success. In Cata it was, and in MoP it will be. They've plateaued on their ability to attract new subscribers fast enough to replace people who have gotten bored with the game.

I would be surprised if they pass 12 million again, even during the first month of MoP.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 09, 2012, 08:02:33 PM
Fair enough, as long as we both agree that difficulty and end-game balance is the imperative in current and future development, the previous editions are irrelevant.

I wouldn't be shocked to see them pass 12M again if the MMO market and gaming market in general continues to develop poorly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 09, 2012, 08:22:09 PM
It's still a large barrier to entry. For Kara, that was 7 dungeons you had to run before you could join your guild for a raid. You needed a flying mount to get to the TK dungeons, which was pretty expensive at that point, unless you had a warlock summon you. Some of those dungeons were also fairly unpopular. I still remember having problems finding people to run Durnhold and Dark Portal every time I needed to attune an alt. This would be minimized thanks to LFD and queuing for specific dungeons, but there is no way people would be happy if Kara launched in 2012 with that attunement requirement. The Nightbane attunement was even worse.

Even cutting attunements entirely out of the equation, the raid wasn't casual friendly by today's standards.
At launch I agree it wasn't very casual friendly. Aran was buggy so if you fucking sneezed the Flame Wreath went off, Illhoof was kinda overtuned, Prince would blender blue-equipped tanks on double-thrashes, and Nightbane was AWFUL (magic immune skellies, ridiculous tank damage, cleaves, fear that required a warrior tank who could stance dance or two dwarf priests).

After 2-3 waves of nerfs it was pretty good. Had way way too much trash however when you hit the library. Pugs would fail hilariously on Aran now but other than that I think it's pretty casual accessible for a raid. Split it into two like DS for raid finder and it'd be fine outside of the 20 acres of trash.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on March 10, 2012, 02:22:36 AM
This thread has gone completely off the deep end. Between people completely not reading posts, people apparently now having mind reading powers and the overall weirdness of obsessing over individuals it's actually quite creepy.

I built my gold from scratch and raid led every week for 7 years. I quit WoW because I didn't like the way the game had gone and it wasnt fun anymore (I hate heroics and the concept of them). I don't need to spend time obsessing over which Blizzard designer was responsible and leading some sort of crusade to get them fired or to eternally stalk them. Come on guys - cant we not just move on when we leave the game?

Wow, talk about going off the deep end.  There are a lot of people here who seem personally offended that issue was taken with what Ghostcrawler said in that blog post.  So much so that they've projected an awful lot of things into those negative posts that just weren't said.

I can't speak for anyone else, but here's what I said:

Based on his blog post, Ghostcrawler doesn't get it.
When confronted about that opinion, here's why I think Ghostcrawler doesn't get it.

Here are things I didn't say:

Ghostcrawler was responsible for the whole dungeon fiasco.
Ghostcrawler needs to be fired.
A particular person needs to be blamed and held responsible for the direction Cataclysm took.
I stalk and am obsessed with Ghostcrawler.

You want to know why Ghostcrawler was a target?  Because he made a blog post that contained a stupid statement.  I for one at least didn't post some random non sequitur Ghostcrawler hate post out of nowhere.  I was responding to a specific thing I thought was stupid.  The fact that he inevitably engenders that kind of response when he posts might be an indication that he should stop posting, because he's terrible at it.  If he wants to make himself the 'face' of Blizzard devs, then he needs to either learn how to communicate better (ie: stop hedging on things that were obviously a huge mistake) or grin and bear the rotten tomatoes thrown his way.
The 'critiques' are the same tired complaints being repeated over and over again for months now.  We know you don't like the game.  Go troll somewhere else now.[/size]
:grin:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on March 10, 2012, 10:07:11 AM
Simond trolling.

So I was curious and checked.  The last time I said anything disparaging about Ghostcrawler was...    early June 2011.  So yeah, 8 months between even mentioning GC.  You got me!  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on March 11, 2012, 01:26:15 AM
Pretty sure this sums up Cataclysm:
http://www.sideshowtoy.com/?page_id=4489&sku=300069&ref=HZ1_030912_300069

The fact that these are being made now from a dead expansion says to me that Deathwing was never going to be as iconic as the Lich King.

It helps that WotLK just seemed to gel as a story so much more than the super-shaman vs a dragon that occasionally made an appearance in the backstory


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on March 11, 2012, 03:38:43 AM
TBC: "Illidan was a nobody who we never saw! Final boss was bait & switch! The plot sucked!"
*Blizzard makes sure Arthas is heavily and actively worked into the plotline of the next expansion*
WotLK: "Arthas was a Saturday-morning kids cartoon villain of a boss! We always beat him! The plot sucked!"
*Blizzard shrugs, makes Deathwing more like Illidan - out of sight most of the time, players spend most of their time dealing with his minions*
Cata: "Deathwing was a nobody who we never saw! Defeat of the final boss was bait & switch! The plot sucked!"

tl;dr - people don't know what they want.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ratama on March 11, 2012, 04:14:45 AM
Quote
Arthas was a Saturday-morning kids cartoon villain of a boss!

People want WotLK/Arthas... they just want Arthas to be better written/designed so as not to come off as a particularly nonthreateningly emo blonde Gwar/Lordi refugee.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on March 11, 2012, 05:19:52 AM
Arthas went "bored now" and wiped entire raids with a snap of his fingers and was only defeated by hax ex machina by Fordring/the Ashbringer. Not sure how you can get more threatening than that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 11, 2012, 05:37:28 AM
It's hard to have the final boss show up continually and spare your life, in a way that isn't goofy.

Not that Arthas couldn't have been done better.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azuredream on March 11, 2012, 06:11:20 AM
TBC: "Illidan was a nobody who we never saw! Final boss was bait & switch! The plot sucked!"
*Blizzard makes sure Arthas is heavily and actively worked into the plotline of the next expansion*
WotLK: "Arthas was a Saturday-morning kids cartoon villain of a boss! We always beat him! The plot sucked!"
*Blizzard shrugs, makes Deathwing more like Illidan - out of sight most of the time, players spend most of their time dealing with his minions*
Cata: "Deathwing was a nobody who we never saw! Defeat of the final boss was bait & switch! The plot sucked!"

tl;dr - people don't know what they want.

Was this kind of thing really a priority for many people? Who was looking for engaging storytelling in WoW?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 11, 2012, 06:19:31 AM
Hey the forums were all ablaze about it!

Which tells you who cared and how much.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 11, 2012, 09:13:27 AM
I think Arthas was done pretty well in WotLK. Running into him in the spirit world in one of the starting areas where he grabs you and kills you was pretty fucking creepy actually, because he talks about popping you like a grape and then does.

I think people didn't get the point that he was sparing you to see if you could beat all of his best minions. If you could (and you did), he'd turn you at the end along with Fordring when you inevitably kicked his door down.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 11, 2012, 02:38:01 PM
I think Arthas was done pretty well in WotLK. Running into him in the spirit world in one of the starting areas where he grabs you and kills you was pretty fucking creepy actually, because he talks about popping you like a grape and then does.

I think people didn't get the point that he was sparing you to see if you could beat all of his best minions. If you could (and you did), he'd turn you at the end along with Fordring when you inevitably kicked his door down.

Yeah, that's exactly it and it wasnt really telegraphed well enough.  The entire wotlk storyline could be seen as arthas grooming you to be his new, elite minions but they just sort of failed that last detail to make it mesh well enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 11, 2012, 03:44:08 PM
Raid finder is awesome.

"Do you want to raid?"
"Right now?"

Done.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on March 11, 2012, 03:57:22 PM
I think Arthas was done pretty well in WotLK. Running into him in the spirit world in one of the starting areas where he grabs you and kills you was pretty fucking creepy actually, because he talks about popping you like a grape and then does.

I think people didn't get the point that he was sparing you to see if you could beat all of his best minions. If you could (and you did), he'd turn you at the end along with Fordring when you inevitably kicked his door down.

Yeah, that's exactly it and it wasnt really telegraphed well enough.  The entire wotlk storyline could be seen as arthas grooming you to be his new, elite minions but they just sort of failed that last detail to make it mesh well enough.
Yeah, most of that was really poorly communicated.  I mean, you run into him at least 5 or 6 times, in one form or another and they are almost always "Here minion, deal with these heroes;  What? you defeated my minion?  Next time Gadget, NEXT TIME!  Exit stage left" type encounters.  Then you finally get to him in ICC to at last get the "master plan" exposition, and it's all of like 10 seconds of dialogue after he WTF PWNS you with Frostmourn and only to get Deus Exd by Tyrion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on March 11, 2012, 04:27:23 PM
I call that the "Elminster Syndrome" a condition in entertainment where the NPC's are the real stars.

So how hard is it now to get in a raid to Black Temple?  Never finished it and would like to fight Illidan if he's still in there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 11, 2012, 06:01:29 PM
Yeah he's still there, and it shouldn't be too hard as people want the gear for Transmog.  I see PUGs on my server for it and ICC pretty regularly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 11, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Yeah, wife sent me a rezz scroll and there were 2 sunwells and a black temple spamming for people in the last day alone.   If you've got 85s you only need about 6 people to run either place and just crush it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 11, 2012, 07:54:00 PM
The problem with Deathwing was less how much he showed up and just the fact he was a boring, stupid character in the hands of a boring, stupid writer. There's not a whole lot of nuance to I WANT TO BURN EVERYTHING BLURF BLARGH. It didn't help that we were just Thrall's plucky sidekicks in an expansion that was basically one long, wanky fanfic for the character, either.

Arthas probably could've showed up less in WotLK and gotten away with it, because a lot of the quests were pretty good about telling you who he was and why we should give a fuck. TBC was terrible at telling you why you should give a fuck about Illidan. For most of the expansion, it was clearly Kael'thas that was up to shit that would actually affect anything the Alliance might give a fuck about, Illidan was a complete non-entity who seemed pretty content to just fuck off and ignore Azaroth for now. I don't remember how it came across to the Horde, but at least they had like. A reason to give a fuck about the remaining orcs in Outland and shit. No one in the Alliance gave a fuck about the broken or draenei or whatever. Not really even the draenei gave a fuck.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on March 11, 2012, 10:02:59 PM
Yeah he's still there, and it shouldn't be too hard as people want the gear for Transmog.  I see PUGs on my server for it and ICC pretty regularly.
And amusingly enough, PUGs still wipe to him at 85 :awesome_for_real: (the heroic 25man version anyway... Defile Is Hard)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on March 11, 2012, 10:21:23 PM
Arthas probably could've showed up less in WotLK and gotten away with it, because a lot of the quests were pretty good about telling you who he was and why we should give a fuck. TBC was terrible at telling you why you should give a fuck about Illidan. For most of the expansion, it was clearly Kael'thas that was up to shit that would actually affect anything the Alliance might give a fuck about, Illidan was a complete non-entity who seemed pretty content to just fuck off and ignore Azaroth for now. I don't remember how it came across to the Horde, but at least they had like. A reason to give a fuck about the remaining orcs in Outland and shit. No one in the Alliance gave a fuck about the broken or draenei or whatever. Not really even the draenei gave a fuck.
Illidan was very poorly telegraphed as the "supposed" end boss of BC for horde as well.  Actually, a LOT of the bosses were very poorly linked to the story (Unless you played WC3 from start to finish, a lot of players probably didnt even have a clue who the fuck Lady Vashj even was I imagine).

I mean, hell, I think I knew more story wise about Paltheon the Calculator then I did about Vashj and what she was doing in Zangarmarsh (or even WHY she was doing it) by time it came time to Kill her in raid progression.  I think 80 or 90% of the Illidan lore we got for why we should care about assaulting black temple came exclusively from one or two qestlines in Shadowmoon Valley, an half the time I was sitting there thinking "The burning legion already wants his ass, and has been constantly assaulting BT to kill him, so lets just leave him to brood and let the Legion and Illidan duke it out killing eachother off in peace".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 11, 2012, 10:21:41 PM
Because defile isn't just "don't stand in the fire, or die" it's "don't stand in the fire, or wipe the raid"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on March 11, 2012, 10:24:00 PM
Because defile isn't just "don't stand in the fire, or die" it's "don't stand in the fire, or wipe the raid"
And on heroic, it only takes ONE idiot standing in defile for like 2 seconds to effectively initiate that raid Wipe.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 12, 2012, 03:38:40 AM
Also, while Illidan is angsty and Arthas is a comic book villain at least their motivations are more complex than "I'm CRAZY because an OLD GOD made me CRAZY! WHAARBLE!".


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 12, 2012, 06:17:12 AM
Also, while Illidan is angsty and Arthas is a comic book villain at least their motivations are more complex than "I'm CRAZY because an OLD GOD made me CRAZY! WHAARBLE!".

Personally I wish cataclysm went more into the 'why' of everything, instead of being intentionally vague.  This is even coming from someone who loves the whole 'old gods, lovecraft ripoff' stuff but there's way to much hand-waving in the storyline for my tastes. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 12, 2012, 07:40:34 AM
They tried to give the "Why" in the 2nd dungeon but there's not enough back story to explain it all.  You really needed a series of quests with Nozdormu & Chromie leading you through all that crap.  Particularly for those of us who came back on a Scroll of Rez so we don't get to take the time to read all the quests and watch the cutscenes that are old-hat for the people who kept playing.

Hell, the only reason I knew a modicum of what was going on in the 2nd dungon is I'd read the Malfurion "War of the Ancients" book that was given as a Preorder bonus when WOTLK came out.  Even then you only get a minor cutscene that doesn't explain wtf this Dragon Soul is or why Deathwing is all hot over it.

Everyone knew what Arthas' deal was because of the quests in Northrend that walked you through his story.  The discovery of Frostmorne, the slaughter of his crew and the burning of their boats, the fight with Ilidan.  Everything except actually seeing him kill his father was covered in that XP (and BC given the Blood elves had "the Scar" to deal with. And Vanilla since we've had Undead since then.)  Arthas worked well because he was a big baddie that had touched the world in meaningful ways since the game first came out.

Deathwing?  Who?  No build-up could have been enough to give the background Arthas had in-place prior to WOTLK, but they could have at least tried a little harder with the quests.  They totally failed at telling the greater story arc with this XP, outside of a few quests in Twilight Highlands where you run in to Deathwing once and he kicks Alexstraza's ass.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 12, 2012, 10:22:35 AM
The majority of your motivation for wanting to kill Deathwing was supposed to come from 1-60, where you see all the changes and conflicts he caused with the cataclysm. I don't think those quests do a great job of setting up Deathwing as a villain either, but I imagine that was the intention. They needed to destroy a few places old players cared about (think Theramoore in MoP) in order to get people angry at Deathwing. Instead it was like "Oh, Deathwing turned Desolace into a place that could support plantlife... what a dick". Or "Deathwing partially destroyed Stormwind, now we just have a way better version of Stormwind".

I understand the desire to want to keep zones diverse, and not just turn everything to rubble, but a little bit more thoughtful destruction would have been effective. If they're willing to raze Theramoore for MoP, I don't know why they were unwilling to do something similar for Cata.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on March 12, 2012, 12:12:53 PM
The best quest involving Deathwing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2xxH7xnQr0


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on March 12, 2012, 05:34:11 PM
The problem I had with Deathwing is that he did all of his destroying in the opening cut scene, then fucked off (aside from the random "WOOT I GOT AN ACHIEVEMENT" zone kills) for 90% of the xpac until Dragon Soul. Some of the zones should have been phased into their original (pre-Cata but still with new quests) form for the first few quests, then have Deathwing destroy the zones as part of their story. This wouldn't have been difficult to pull off given how linear all of Cata was, and it would have involved players on a more immediate level.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 12, 2008, 05:43:22 PM
The story structure is incoherent regardless of what they did with Deathwing at this point.

1-60, you are doing "new" stuff, except for Silithus which was apparently trapped in a time warp where you never fought C'thun and Staghelm has not yet been Metzened?
60-80 you go back in time and do a bunch of build-up to bosses you never get closure on because the content they're in is deprecated. Outland is particularly WTF for the Alliance.
81-85 you are back to the "new" stuff, but when MoP hits you will have the same issue of deprecated boss content and no story closure.

When MoP hits, some of the 1-60 areas will change to some extent, but still be shoehorned in to a "Deathwing still alive" 1-60, despite happening after whatever changes to the Horde etc. ensue (Theramore getting razed, etc.)

It is a mess, in a way that seems worse than any other MMO I've seen that purports to have a story. Even CoX with all the time travel and superhero bullshit retcon nonsense that goes on constantly is more coherent.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on March 12, 2008, 05:59:54 PM
The way they should have done it with Cata would have been to make a fresh, complete 1-85 progression in the new-old world. Cut off current methods of getting to BC and WotLK (no more zeppelins or Dark Portal) and instead put portals in the Caverns of Time to access those expansions for people who want to fuck around there. All they would have had to do is have less instances of level-overlap in content to stretch some of the zones out to fill 60-80 as well.

If they actually start to care about players feeling a sense of story closure, make part of the early MoP questing show you the cinematic at the end of Dragon Soul so you get to see Deathwing getting wrecked.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on March 12, 2012, 09:45:59 PM
Also, while Illidan is angsty and Arthas is a comic book villain at least their motivations are more complex than "I'm CRAZY because an OLD GOD made me CRAZY! WHAARBLE!".

Personally I wish cataclysm went more into the 'why' of everything, instead of being intentionally vague.  This is even coming from someone who loves the whole 'old gods, lovecraft ripoff' stuff but there's way to much hand-waving in the storyline for my tastes. 


There would have to BE a 'why' first basically. Nothing Blizzard does is ever that deep, or coherent, or consistent (even with itself).


-fake edit-

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Forums be acting weird tonight!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 12, 2012, 11:01:01 PM
Meh, warcraft's stories have never been epic and anyone looking to them for anything but pulp is really missing the point.  I know I mentioned wanting to know why we're killing deathwing but that has nothing to do with the quality of the writing, more due to the quality of the storytelling. Can blizzard make me effectively care about these one dimensional charicatures and yes, sometimes they actually can if the tell the story right.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on March 13, 2012, 01:16:31 AM
Darrowshire was awesome for this - Pamela Redpath was one of those moments when the game just got me.

That was decent storyline/purpose.

What really pisses me off with Blizzard is that there was no Cairne story other than some obscure story out of the game that tells of his death. Of all the WC3 chars other than Arthas, Cairne was the one I felt the most affinity for and yet it was all ragggggghhhhh... Garrosh kill shit.

Now if Pandaria showed the death and dismemberment of Garrosh, I'd be a happy person.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 13, 2012, 03:15:40 AM
Now if Pandaria showed the death and dismemberment of Garrosh, I'd be a happy person.

They've said the Cata and Thrall book sold so well you can plan to see more of the out-of-game stuff happen there, not less.  So expect to see new NPCs popping up for no discernible reason.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 13, 2012, 06:23:53 AM
I stopped caring seriously about warcraft lore in Vanilla when it was obvious the Forsaken were being shoehorned into the Horde for gameplay balance reasons.

This became abundantly more clear in BC with the BE paladins and Draenei shaman stuff.

Finally, add in the fact that Metzen is overworked and of obviously limited talent, and you have a recipe for mediocrity.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 13, 2012, 01:25:30 PM
The majority of your motivation for wanting to kill Deathwing was supposed to come from 1-60, where you see all the changes and conflicts he caused with the cataclysm. I don't think those quests do a great job of setting up Deathwing as a villain either, but I imagine that was the intention. They needed to destroy a few places old players cared about (think Theramoore in MoP) in order to get people angry at Deathwing. Instead it was like "Oh, Deathwing turned Desolace into a place that could support plantlife... what a dick". Or "Deathwing partially destroyed Stormwind, now we just have a way better version of Stormwind".

I understand the desire to want to keep zones diverse, and not just turn everything to rubble, but a little bit more thoughtful destruction would have been effective. If they're willing to raze Theramoore for MoP, I don't know why they were unwilling to do something similar for Cata.

They're destroying Theramore? For fuck's sake - I need somewhere I can port to on that continent besides fucking Darnassus.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on March 13, 2012, 01:30:07 PM
Remember when Cataclysm was released and some Alliance players where complaining about how much Horde bias there was?  And how those people were told 'No, there's no bias!  Next time it'll be the Alliance that has their day!"  Still waiting for that day.

Personally, I blame Ghostcrawler. ;)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 13, 2012, 01:38:16 PM
It's not bias, it's Manifest Destiny!  Horde is America!

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 13, 2012, 04:51:21 PM
Remember when Cataclysm was released and some Alliance players where complaining about how much Horde bias there was?  And how those people were told 'No, there's no bias!  Next time it'll be the Alliance that has their day!"  Still waiting for that day.

Personally, I blame Ghostcrawler. ;)

Is that the stuff about Green Jesus, or the bigger, better, fully repaired Org vs Trashed Stormwind, or...?

Actually, been levelling my hunter, and did some TBC instances. I really enjoyed the CoT instance where you help the leader of the Horde escape from prison by slaughtering Alliance guards and so forth. I'm hoping that in Pandaria my hunter can go around killing Alliance guards and so forth in Stormwind. For the Horde!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on March 13, 2012, 05:12:30 PM
Remember when Cataclysm was released and some Alliance players where complaining about how much Horde bias there was?  And how those people were told 'No, there's no bias!  Next time it'll be the Alliance that has their day!"  Still waiting for that day.

Personally, I blame Ghostcrawler. ;)

Vanilla. Wrath of the Lich King.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 13, 2012, 05:20:52 PM
The problem is thrall ISN'T horde anymore and they made it explicitly clear to us horde players that we're stuck with bubba redneck orc warchief who is a murdering, whiny douchebag.  At least wrynn comes off as a badass, even if he's a bit...manic.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 13, 2012, 06:02:34 PM
Vanilla. Wrath of the Lich King.

I wish Cataclysm was as "one-sided" as the Horde apparently thinks WotLK was. At least then the Alliance would've maybe had a victory or two, and had anything to do with anything.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on March 13, 2012, 06:37:49 PM
Vanilla. Wrath of the Lich King.

I wish Cataclysm was as "one-sided" as the Horde apparently thinks WotLK was. At least then the Alliance would've maybe had a victory or two, and had anything to do with anything.


Yes, you could've had Bronzebeard's son immediately fall to the darkside and become a generic raid underboss while his Horde counterpart heroically allows himself to be crucified to redeem the world's sins. Then have your army slaughter some Horde troops from behind right when they were about to defeat Deathwing just to be dicks.  Grats, you now have something to do with something - you get to be fucking slimeball hyenas. Not even the cool bad guy.  The Lich King, who was a fucking orc is completely subjugated by Arthas.  If WotLK was LotR, fucking Frodo (burning jesus), Aragorn (fordring) and Sauron (arthas) are all Alliance or Alliance-alligned.  The best the Horde gets is Nameless Nazgul #7 (saurfang's kid).

For a substantial portion of Vanilla, every raid boss in the game was vastly easier for Alliance -- and in at least one case, literally impossible for Horde for a time -- because they were balanced around paladin threat debuffs.  Even after that was fixed, paladins crushed shamans all throughout vanilla   And Horde content was not only less polished, but significantly lower in volume - to the point that many Horde players that didn't do a lot of instances or accrue a lot of rested XP were forced to grind mobs because they didn't have quests.

On the other hand, off-screen before Cataclysm, they evened out the Alliance's real-estate advantage.  And Thrall plays the Jesus role this time. Oh, the humanity.  


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 13, 2012, 06:54:17 PM
Still crying about raid difficulty 7 years later?

 :why_so_serious:

Paladins crushed shaman?

As healers maybe.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpoGKw6L4cM

and let's not forget http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhJeP1BT2JA





Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 13, 2012, 06:55:40 PM
Nothing to do with meters. It was all about threat redux and fear ward.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 13, 2012, 06:56:56 PM
Fear ward was Dwarf priests, nothing to do with pallies.

And total bullshit.

Not to mention .. tremor totem > fear ward.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 13, 2012, 07:00:39 PM
 The best the Horde gets is Nameless Nazgul #7 (saurfang's kid).

Right, Sylvannas has nothing to do with anything at all.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on March 13, 2012, 07:17:45 PM
 The best the Horde gets is Nameless Nazgul #7 (saurfang's kid).

Right, Sylvannas has nothing to do with anything at all.

About the same as Jania, who I didn't count for Alliance.  But yes, Sylvannas fills the "incompetent leader who needs Thrall AND the Alliance to bail her out" (Wrathgate) and the "impotent failure who gets her ass obliterated by Arthas and flees just barely fast enough to save her skin" (ICC).  Maybe the second part gets her Merry or Pippin.  Maybe.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on March 13, 2012, 07:24:23 PM
Still crying about raid difficulty 7 years later?

 :why_so_serious:

This move from the "Alliance lost some fights in pre-Cata lore and now only rule half the world HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED!" guy?

I love you man, but complaining about anti-Alliance bias in WoW just blows my mind.  I'm here to help.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 13, 2012, 07:32:03 PM
So you'll count Fordring "for the Alliance," even though he was never actually part of the Alliance (seriously, he's been exiled for years for being nice to an orc) but not Jaina? I see.

Did you even play Alliance? Ever? I've leveled up multiple times on both sides since TBC. No matter what in ANY of the expansions, INCLUDING vanilla, the Horde has plenty of victories. Things they can point to and say "we totally won there." Cataclysm offers no such thing to the Alliance. The best they get are stalemates and inexplicable "we won't push our advantage here, a tie is fine" moments. Any "victory" they have? They don't actually see, because they are Horde-only quests. And everything Thrall does in Cataclysm blows everything the Alliance has EVER done out of the water. Bolvar took the Lich King crown after being doomed to being alive, while on fire, for pretty much forever. Big fucking deal, all it means is he'll be a raid boss some day. Thrall showed the dragon aspects how to get shit done, and lost absolutely nothing whatsoever doing it. Hell, they can't suck his dick enough in the end cinematic.

So you'll excuse me if I find your mewling about how WotLK was totally just as bad as Cataclysm pretty unconvincing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on March 13, 2012, 08:06:48 PM
Tirion is a human, human are alliance. And as a Horde player, it WotLK really felt like we were playing helper to a bunch of Alliance the whole zone. Bronzebeard was the driving force in Ulduar, Tirion in ToC, and Tirion again in ICC. The same rage everyone expresses at the Deathwing ending is what I felt killing Arthas. We all died, and only killed him because some Human pally saved us all, yay.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on March 13, 2012, 08:23:09 PM
So the worst the Horde can point to is 'Waaa! We were neglected!'  Meanwhile, from Cata on the Alliance has suffered nothing but defeat after defeat after defeat without a single victory to hang their hats on.  Tell me, how many Horde settlements were washed away, bombed to oblivion or otherwise eradicated in WotLK?

One of my favorite examples of Horde bias is how at one end of Ashenvale, Zoram'gar outpost develops into this big walled port while at the other end, that same lonely Draenei worker is still hammering away at that same incomplete hut at Forest Song, unchanged for years and years.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 13, 2012, 09:14:23 PM
So you'll count Fordring "for the Alliance," even though he was never actually part of the Alliance (seriously, he's been exiled for years for being nice to an orc) but not Jaina? I see.

Well, he counted Arthasas "for the Alliance", so...

I thought WotLK was prety good overall. Even little touches like the Taunka gave the Horde some extra backstory and relationship to the expansion (like Humans being mutant-midget Vyrkul, and Dwarfs and Gnomes as well, come to think of it..) We already know where elves and forsaken come from, so there's that, and Orcs backstory got covered in TBC.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on March 14, 2012, 04:49:05 AM
So you'll count Fordring "for the Alliance," even though he was never actually part of the Alliance (seriously, he's been exiled for years for being nice to an orc) but not Jaina? I see.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.  Jaina is Alliance, just like Sylvannas is Horde.  I meant "didn't count" in the sense of "didn't list."  The guards on the Stormwind bridge also count as Alliance, but I didn't count them among the key Alliance characters in WotLK.  

Let me try to explain it this way.  Assume your character is a good guy.  How many times in Cataclysm were you actually ashamed, in a moral sense, to be Alliance?  Turajo I assume, but nothing else leaps to mind.  I don't think of losing a battle or fighting to a draw as shameful in that sense.  Slaughtering Alliance troops from behind while they are attacking the undead horde counts, as does Garrosh's incessant masturbation over the event.  Wrathgate/Battle for Undercity, plenty of shame there.  Saurfang Jr, particularly in comparison to Burning Jesus, uh-huh.  Even a lot of Cata (including the pre-expansion battles Allies complain about) makes the Horde seem like a bunch of thugs.  They took away our two most noble leaders and replaced them with Garrosh, and transformed the Horde into just the kind of savage animals Varian Wrynn said we were.  That's not a faction I'm proud to be a part of and it sure as hell isn't the one I signed up for.   At least in a video game, I'd rather feel like a good guy even if it means losing some land (as long as I still have enough quests and equal access to the fat looties).  Would you really rather be some kind of Yankees fan than a decent humanoid?

I 100% sympathize with Alliance feeling ignored by the Thrall-centerdness of Cata.  The Horde wasn't entirely ignored in WotLK.  Instead, they were consistently portrayed as cowardly, third-rate villains in an Alliance Guys vs Former Alliance Guy conflict.  That seems worse to me, and I don't remember 10% of the bitching.

Quote from: Nevermore
One of my favorite examples of Horde bias is how at one end of Ashenvale, Zoram'gar outpost develops into this big walled port while at the other end, that same lonely Draenei worker is still hammering away at that same incomplete hut at Forest Song, unchanged for years and years.

There's been a castle full of Alliance soldiers in the orc/troll newbie zone a stone's throw from the capital since day 1 of the game.  Yes, when you remake a 60/40 world into a 50/50 world, the 60-percenters will experience a net loss.  Class warfare, Blizz hates America, etc.  I suppose they should've just retconned the maps.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 14, 2012, 05:12:11 AM
Fear ward was Dwarf priests, nothing to do with pallies.

And total bullshit.

Not to mention .. tremor totem > fear ward.

First of all, it can't be stressed enough how much that fucking paladin threat reduction helped in vanilla wow, that shit meant the difference in weeks worth of wiping to a boss.  Secondly I threw fear ward in there because while it may not seem that big a deal, it really was a big fucking deal.  Tremor totems pulsed whenever they damn well felt like it and would not stop you from actually getting feared in the first place. Often times this meant you were just running around like a chicken without a head for a couple seconds.  Worst case scenario, if a tank got feared then it was the boss immediately turning and breathing fire all over the goddamned raid.   Let's not forget that you could actually run OUT of totem range pretty easily when feared, also totems were group specific.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 14, 2012, 06:30:00 AM
Didn't Deathwing basically burn almost all of Ogrimmar to the ground? He kinda fucked up the facade at the front of stormwind and his cult members bombed furry-RP park, but that's getting rebuilt I thought.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 14, 2012, 08:02:58 AM
Let's get real, how many Dwarf Priests did Alliance have vs how many UD characters on Horde (oh, uh, 40% of the horde population in Vanilla...)

Horde racials stomped all over alliance and spit on them all the way until EMFHS came out. Even now, that's like the one good racial we have. Look at Goblins vs Worgen, it's a joke (free jeeves, discount, haste, new mount model vs crit &  recolor horse & LOL RP)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 14, 2012, 08:03:37 AM
UD horde did not have fear ward plus wotf was a poor mans fear ward at best.  Originally is was a very short fear resist(5sec?) even then you needed to know in advance when the fear was coming. If you didn't you still had to break the fear AFTER the fact and the resistance to fear was patched out shortly after.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 14, 2012, 08:04:49 AM
UD horde did not have fear ward.
WOTFS


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 14, 2012, 08:05:33 AM
UD horde did not have fear ward.
WOTFS

lol gimme 2secs to modify, jesus.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 14, 2012, 08:06:33 AM
UD horde did not have fear ward plus wotf was a poor mans fear ward at best.  Originally is was a very short fear resist(5sec?) even then you needed to know in advance when the fear was coming. If you didn't you still had to break the fear AFTER the fact and the resistance to fear was patched out shortly after.
Shortly after? I seem to remember a 20 second immunity at launch, and even the nerfed immunity duration stayed in game for a HELLA long time. Well into BC I think.

Edit: Actually I don't remember how long the nerfed immunity lasted. I just remember unsubbing in April '05 when they let horde rogue PvP trinkets break fear  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 14, 2012, 08:32:30 AM
I remember having to make a stance-dance macro for nightbane. Literally one of 3 fights I ever made macros for.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on March 14, 2012, 08:37:21 AM
The original racial setup favored alliance in pve and horde in pvp. Then they made this worse with BC with the belf and draenei racials (to be fair, the shaman/paladin thing helped balance things a bit).

WOTF was a pvp racial, though it was semi-useful in pve as well. As far as pvp racials go, we had that slapfight a few times here already, but horde pretty much had the upper hand in pvp all the way until ToC in WOTLK when the then-new human racial "Every Man For Himself" started scaling like crazy with the uberpowerful pve trinkets available. I ranted a lot about WOTF from its original incarnation (permanent 'undead' status, so immunity to most cc and vulnerability to shackle/turn) to the 20-second immunity to almost every CC that lasted throughout half of vanilla, the 5-second immunity until WOTLK (it only gave immunity to sleep/fear/mindcontrol/seduce at that point), the 'second trinket' until WOTLK 3.3, and even the normal fear/seduce/sleep break that put the normal trinket on a 45->30sec cooldown in the rest of wotlk/cata. I mean, if you nerf a racial (severely) 4 times and it's still one of the better pvp options available... yeah.

edit: accuracy and whatnot


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on March 14, 2012, 10:59:52 AM
Alterac Valley!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 14, 2012, 11:09:46 AM
COME ON. BLOODLUST. Seriously.

And berserking and blood fury are still in the game. Both bis for different dps specs. Horde have retarded racials.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 14, 2012, 11:27:05 AM
Man, I can't remember but I'm pretty sure bloodlust was group only and on something like a crazy 30min cd in vanilla but it's entirely pointless because "huge dps boost" means jack shit when you need to constantly throttle your dps.

Though I admit, horde did have a distinct pvp advantage(well, except AV cause seriously, bottlenecks don't EVER turn the tides of battle :oh_i_see:) but pve they were way, way behind in terms of how easy encounters were.

Think of it this way. Encounters needed to be balanced around the horde not having threat dumps, thereby needing to throttle DPS.  Which means that alliance, simply by having threat redux could out damage the 'intended' dps of an encounter. Also, vanilla was NOTORIOUS for threat sensitive fights.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on March 14, 2012, 11:29:05 AM
I don't think Bloodlust even existed until TBC (when allies could be shamans).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on March 14, 2012, 11:30:19 AM
I don't think Bloodlust even existed until TBC (when allies could be shamans).

It existed.  Alliance just got shafted.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Malakili on March 14, 2012, 11:34:30 AM
I don't think Bloodlust even existed until TBC (when allies could be shamans).

It existed.  Alliance just got shafted.

Didn't you not get that skill until the 60s? It was called Heroism on alliance right?  Or are we talking about different things?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 14, 2012, 11:36:17 AM
same thing, horde only, made a bunch of vanilla fights much much easier.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 14, 2012, 11:47:23 AM
same thing, horde only, made a bunch of vanilla fights much much easier.

The fuck it did


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on March 14, 2012, 11:51:11 AM
I stand corrected, after a bit of research.  It was the Shaman's level 70 spell for BC.  Heroism was the Alliance Shaman's version.  Same effect, different spell effects.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 14, 2012, 11:55:29 AM
horde did have lust in vanilla.

But I stand corrected paladin blessings were superior for all fights but one AQ40, that was made easier by cleansing totem. Skipped most of vanilla & tbc, so I had to ask :)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on March 14, 2012, 11:59:06 AM
horde did have lust in vanilla.

But I stand corrected paladin blessings were superior for all fights but one AQ40, that was made easier by cleansing totem. Skipped most of vanilla & tbc, so I had to ask :)

Oh yeah yeah yeah, you are correct, sir.  I forgot about them Pally blessings :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on March 14, 2012, 12:27:04 PM
Instead of setting my clocks back one hour last weekend I must have mistakenly set them all back seven years and one hour since I'm reliving slapfights from 2005.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 14, 2012, 12:29:47 PM
The most retarded part of this discussion is the idea that an acceptable solution to treating one group of players badly in the past is to even it out by treating a different group of players badly now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 14, 2012, 12:31:54 PM
All I know is Shaman fucking owned Pallies in PvP.

The Unbreakable vids still make me laugh today.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Setanta on March 14, 2012, 12:40:36 PM
I miss the days of shaman wielding 2H maces and proccing Windfury off Windfury procs. It was the olnly light to the class as DPS in Vanilla. If only Blizzard had a clue as to making shaman interesting/fun as hybrids - after 7 years I still don't think they have a clue


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 14, 2012, 12:41:46 PM
I like where Shaman are just now.

I heal and hit people with axes.  It works for me.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on March 14, 2012, 02:42:50 PM
Blizzard's employing the 'Ike Turner' strategy again.  "Please baby playerbase, I swear I've changed!  Come back to me, I promise not to slap you with nut-crunching instances EVER AGAIN!  It's just that you never learn to play and you know that makes me so mad."



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 14, 2012, 02:55:19 PM
I like where Shaman are just now.

I heal and hit people with axes.  It works for me.

I rolled a shaman for my Free-80 from the Rezz scroll and picked Elemental/ Resto.

I think I have a new favorite class.   Still love the DK, but Shaman gets almost as many tools with less whining for nerfs from the masses.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on March 14, 2012, 04:09:00 PM
Blizzard's employing the 'Ike Turner' strategy again.  "Please baby playerbase, I swear I've changed!  Come back to me, I promise not to slap you with nut-crunching instances EVER AGAIN!  It's just that you never learn to play and you know that makes me so mad."
Hey, at least they're not Bioware.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on March 14, 2012, 04:26:13 PM
Blizzard's employing the 'Ike Turner' strategy again.  "Please baby playerbase, I swear I've changed!  Come back to me, I promise not to slap you with nut-crunching instances EVER AGAIN!  It's just that you never learn to play and you know that makes me so mad."
Hey, at least they're not Bioware.

Bioware may be a lot of things, but they don't pull the old bait and switch like Blizzard keeps doing with their difficulties.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 14, 2012, 04:36:09 PM
Blizzard's employing the 'Ike Turner' strategy again.  "Please baby playerbase, I swear I've changed!  Come back to me, I promise not to slap you with nut-crunching instances EVER AGAIN!  It's just that you never learn to play and you know that makes me so mad."

Ahem: lol


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: El Gallo on March 14, 2012, 06:39:34 PM
Blizzard's employing the 'Ike Turner' strategy again.  "Please baby playerbase, I swear I've changed!  Come back to me, I promise not to slap you with nut-crunching instances EVER AGAIN!  It's just that you never learn to play and you know that makes me so mad."
Hey, at least they're not Bioware.

Bioware may be a lot of things, but they don't pull the old bait and switch like Blizzard keeps doing with their difficulties.

Bioware does the Ike Turner, just a lot more literally than Blizzard does. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 14, 2012, 07:15:43 PM
Wrathgate/Battle for Undercity, plenty of shame there.  Saurfang Jr, particularly in comparison to Burning Jesus, uh-huh.  

...........

Quote from: Nevermore
One of my favorite examples of Horde bias is how at one end of Ashenvale, Zoram'gar outpost develops into this big walled port while at the other end, that same lonely Draenei worker is still hammering away at that same incomplete hut at Forest Song, unchanged for years and years.

There's been a castle full of Alliance soldiers in the orc/troll newbie zone a stone's throw from the capital since day 1 of the game.  Yes, when you remake a 60/40 world into a 50/50 world, the 60-percenters will experience a net loss.  Class warfare, Blizz hates America, etc.  I suppose they should've just retconned the maps.

The thing with Wrathgate is that the Forsaken have always been "bad guys" - nestled uncomfortably in within the Horde. Even within the Wrathgate event, it's essentially a rogue faction stabbing their main force in the back. Storyline-wise, it's not that far from the Alliance being douchebags to the High Blood Elves for no particularly good reason and telling them to fuck off. 

The castle full of Alliance soldiers outside of Orgrimmar is just there as quest/mob fodder for the Horde. NPC quest settlement from the opposing faction are just mobs. Like the dwarf miners near Thunder Bluff in vanilla (are they still there?) It really only becomes a (potential) issue for me when the numbers of "proper" settlements changes, or one side loses them while the other gains them.  I'm talking about Flight points and Inns and Merchants, essentially.

Really though, I don't much care about the story anymore because it's such a hack job, but when it's so badly done that it grates or really breaks immersion to a ridiculous level, it becomes a bit annoying. Like Alliance players killing Alliance guards to break Thrall out of prison so he can rejuvinate the Horde which will in turn kill lots of "our people", or the whole ridiculous "green Jesus" thing in Cata with the fucking dragons laying down for him.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 14, 2012, 08:06:19 PM
God willing we're done with Metzen's Mary Sue for a while.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 14, 2012, 08:33:37 PM
Blizzard's employing the 'Ike Turner' strategy again.  "Please baby playerbase, I swear I've changed!  Come back to me, I promise not to slap you with nut-crunching instances EVER AGAIN!  It's just that you never learn to play and you know that makes me so mad."
Hey, at least they're not Bioware.

Bioware may be a lot of things, but they don't pull the old bait and switch like Blizzard keeps doing with their difficulties.
Yeah, they're 3 months in  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on March 15, 2012, 09:38:54 AM
horde did have lust in vanilla.

But I stand corrected paladin blessings were superior for all fights but one AQ40, that was made easier by cleansing totem. Skipped most of vanilla & tbc, so I had to ask :)

Sorry for going back to this but not they didn't. Lots of people complained about it because it was the signiture ability of shaman in the RTS games, but it was only introduced into the game in TBC for both factions at the same time.

Horde did have wind fury, which had a large dps increase for horde warriors due to the way it worked at the time and yellow versus white hits, but due to threat caps you couldn't actually *use* the extra dps because vanilla raids were so threat obsessed. (coming off the back of EQ where threat in raid boss fights is a lot more important than WoW).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on March 15, 2012, 10:23:30 AM
Blizzard's employing the 'Ike Turner' strategy again.  "Please baby playerbase, I swear I've changed!  Come back to me, I promise not to slap you with nut-crunching instances EVER AGAIN!  It's just that you never learn to play and you know that makes me so mad."




 :Love_Letters:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 15, 2012, 04:58:26 PM
Didn't Deathwing basically burn almost all of Ogrimmar to the ground? He kinda fucked up the facade at the front of stormwind and his cult members bombed furry-RP park, but that's getting rebuilt I thought.

In the storyline, perhaps. In practical terms, Stormwind is a bit messed up while Org has been rebuilt in the form of more awesomer than ever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 15, 2012, 05:00:55 PM
I like where Shaman are just now.

I heal and hit people with axes.  It works for me.

I rolled a shaman for my Free-80 from the Rezz scroll and picked Elemental/ Resto.

I think I have a new favorite class.   Still love the DK, but Shaman gets almost as many tools with less whining for nerfs from the masses.

I did the same thing. I have NFI what I'm doing. Clearly the best thing to do is jump into level 80 Cata instances and screw with other players!
I reckon I'll start playing my Level 1 Goblin Shaman, to figure out some of the basics before I play the 80....


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 15, 2012, 05:19:33 PM
Nah, there's vids on youtube explaining things.   Forums like EJ are too oldschool for today's kids, it seems.  Spec, rotation, suggested addons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 15, 2012, 11:35:08 PM
MaxDPS (http://www.maxdps.com/) is kinda handy if you want a really, really basic "what buttons do I press?" for a class. Take it with a grain of salt, but the rotation is a good starting point. For example, here's the Ele Shaman one:

Quote
1) Searing Totem
2) Flame Shock dot is kept up
3) Lava Burst
4) Earth Shock with 6 or greater charges of Lightning Shield
5) Lightning Bolt
Cooldown Priority
1) Elemental Mastery used as often as possible
2) Unleash Elements

Flametongue Weapon imbued
Lightning Shield is kept up

Also, LFR is awesome. Really, really awesome! 10 days after I resub, after a 4-6 month hiatus, and I'm geared enough to hit LFR on a druid healer. Bit nervous, but I have 1-line tactics open on 2nd monitor and think "fuck it" and hit the button. 30 second wait, in raid, both LFR raids completed in about 1 hour, no wipes, no bitching apart from some minor ninja whines, great fun. I didn't get any loot but whatever, it was great fun.

Has there been any indication that they might add old raids to LFR at some point does anyone know? If they added all the old raids... well... I'd be very happy :)   :heart:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 15, 2012, 11:51:27 PM
LFR groups can vary from "no problems, awesome!" to "holy shit, get me the fuck outta here". The worst part about the groups that fail badly (which tends to be on Madness) is that if you leave, you gotta run the previous parts again with no chance at loot. And if you stay, you get to deal with a bunch of whiny LFR assholes who complain about carrying everyone else.

at least they tend to be tolerable more often than not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Xanthippe on March 16, 2012, 07:41:13 AM
Still waiting for a report from Paelos as to whether he resubbed or not.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 16, 2012, 07:55:16 AM
Still waiting for a report from Paelos as to whether he resubbed or not.

I did not yet. I will, because I do believe the game is improved. However, tax season must conclude before I can pour any real time into the game.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 16, 2012, 11:52:12 PM
LFR groups can vary from "no problems, awesome!" to "holy shit, get me the fuck outta here".

So true. Second attempt lastnight, with my Fury warrior, and it was a clusterfuck. It was my second ever time there and I was better at it than half the raid... and I was the only one getting achievements, so they'd all been there before. We did complete, but it took a while and there was a lot of bitching.  :oh_i_see:

But then the same is still true, to a lesser extent I'd guess, of heroic 5-man pugs. 95% of them are fine, easy, no problems, but then you get the cursed group from Hell - and they're always bad because of the tank.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 18, 2014, 01:27:29 AM
What bothers me most about the LFR is that the poor tanks really need to know what they're doing.  Healers heal, dps shoot, but God Forbid the tank misses a taunt or a jump into twilight.  I've played as all roles in there and it's just fucking annoying having 24 other retards, most of whom can't single target tentacles, screaming at the nub.  Hell, the Hagara fight itself is massively amusing since mobs swarm out and the fucking idiots just stand there, usually in the cold that's killing them, while the tank is supposed to run around taunting 24 mobs on a single ability with a 8 second cooldown.

But anyway.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 18, 2014, 11:42:21 AM
That's why thank god you only need 2 tanks in LFR.

Actually healer queues are longer than tanks for LFR. Not because the healers do anything special, but because it's boring as shit. Give me 10 man or 5 man any day, 25 man combined with the snorefest mechanics of LFR make healing a chore. DPS is still fun because you get to fight for the meters.

Also you always get 1-3 healers out of the 6 who are barely putting in any effort, so you usually can't slack off and have to carry their asses.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 18, 2014, 12:10:47 PM
Also you always get 1-3 healers out of the 6 who are barely putting in any effort, so you usually can't slack off and have to carry their asses.

I noticed this. I went in with the bare minimum gear req to queue, having never done the raids before, and came top of the healing meter. There were a couple of healers who did less than 1/3rd of the healing I did.

Clearly I was just trying too hard!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on March 18, 2014, 02:02:05 PM
To be fair, damage in LFR is usually really low so whoever pushes their multi-target smart heal button fastest wins on the healing meters. Of course it can get more interesting... two things that come to mind are yorsahj trash when 2 groups of slimes are pulled at the same time (esp when the healers were at half mana from the previous pull / some people were dead already for unfathomable reasons) and healing the last platform + final phase of Madness if all the dps'rs graduated from Tunnelvision U.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 18, 2014, 03:39:19 PM
I have more mana problems on some LFR madness fights than on normal madness.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 18, 2014, 06:40:34 PM
What bothers me most about the LFR is that the poor tanks really need to know what they're doing.  Healers heal, dps shoot, but God Forbid the tank misses a taunt or a jump into twilight.  I've played as all roles in there and it's just fucking annoying having 24 other retards, most of whom can't single target tentacles, screaming at the nub.  Hell, the Hagara fight itself is massively amusing since mobs swarm out and the fucking idiots just stand there, usually in the cold that's killing them, while the tank is supposed to run around taunting 24 mobs on a single ability with a 8 second cooldown.

But anyway.

As my Warrior LFDs it's way through the Cata levels (up to 73 now), shitty healers and cocknob DPS who pull before I've pulled then bitch about aggro are really taking their toll on my interest. Despite instant queues, I'm quite hesitant to bother playing in dungeons anymore because I've started feeling like telling half the group to go fucking DIAF since I clicked over to the second-tier dungeons. I've bailed on one group where the healer took aggro from the huntard and ran off down the hallway behind us, only to die. (and rarely healing me anyway).



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 18, 2014, 07:20:32 PM
I haven't jumped into LFR yet. I have good enough gear to, but I'm still rocking one blue and I am bound and determined to get rid of it before running LFR.

Also, the difference between running normal heroics and HoT heroics is hilarious. Even post nerf ZA/ZG are way the fuck harder than any of the HoT instances.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 19, 2014, 12:06:06 AM
What bothers me most about the LFR is that the poor tanks really need to know what they're doing.  Healers heal, dps shoot, but God Forbid the tank misses a taunt or a jump into twilight.  I've played as all roles in there and it's just fucking annoying having 24 other retards, most of whom can't single target tentacles, screaming at the nub.  Hell, the Hagara fight itself is massively amusing since mobs swarm out and the fucking idiots just stand there, usually in the cold that's killing them, while the tank is supposed to run around taunting 24 mobs on a single ability with a 8 second cooldown.

But anyway.

As my Warrior LFDs it's way through the Cata levels (up to 73 now), shitty healers and cocknob DPS who pull before I've pulled then bitch about aggro are really taking their toll on my interest. Despite instant queues, I'm quite hesitant to bother playing in dungeons anymore because I've started feeling like telling half the group to go fucking DIAF since I clicked over to the second-tier dungeons. I've bailed on one group where the healer took aggro from the huntard and ran off down the hallway behind us, only to die. (and rarely healing me anyway).
I'm dungeoning through the Wrath stuff right now (level 73) and I've had the opposite experience. I don't think I've wiped yet and died maybe twice. All the groups spam aoe through the dungeon moving at breakneck speed. I'm guilty of what you're saying (pulling before tank does, usually because I hate wasting a proc) so maybe I AM that asshole  :awesome_for_real:. But it hasn't mattered at all, we just keep on facerolling through like a wrecking ball.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 19, 2014, 01:19:02 AM
I never had an issue through the pre-60 stuff, didn't dungeon much through the TBC section (Wife's mage powerlevelled me through TBC instances a bunch of times) then since I came back to the game I ran a bunch of wotlk instances at 79ish, through to tier-1 Cata instances. Never had a problem with people being dicks until I hit the L83 instances.

Maybe I just had a run of shitty groups. But fuck, if you wanna pull the mobs before I do, don't bitch if I let you tank it.  :awesome_for_real:

DPS is much more pleasant though - fuckall pressure compared to tanking.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 19, 2014, 05:13:21 AM
I feel the opposite really...no one expects me to do anything but corral mobs and possibly interrupt, and like 80% of boss abilities don't matter to me. I mean, look at HoT.

End Time:
Sylvanas - Move out of purple stuff, provide token DPS on ghoul.
Tyrande - Interrupt stardust if my pummel is up.
Baine - Nothing. Hit CD's maybe if he gets to blow up an island and swims in the lava.
Jaina - Don't get hit by ice blades.
Murozond - literally nothing besides rotate CDs.

Well of Eternity:
Goat Guy - Don't stand in void zones, taunt if someone else gets caught.
Azshara - Tank adds.
Mannoroth - Tank adds...hell, maybe not even that.

Hour of Twilight:
Acurion - Tank the boss.
Dawnslayer - Move out of smoke cloud, don't move if I'm not doing that.
Benedictus - Don't get hit by wave.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 19, 2014, 05:26:51 AM

Baine - Nothing. Hit CD's maybe if he gets to blow up an island and swims in the lava.


So what you're saying is YOU'RE the stupid fucker that doesn't throw the totem back ?
 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 19, 2014, 05:27:53 AM
I'm the tank. That's not my job.  ;D


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 19, 2014, 05:31:03 AM
Totems are everyone's job.

Also, loose lips sink ships.  Although this is WoW, so you KNOW someone's going to write 'lose' in general chat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on March 19, 2014, 05:34:52 AM
I find that playing as a tank is the least stressful for me (I also have a hunter and a resto shaman at 85... I don't raid, so my gear's limited to LFR and HoT dungeon drops + jp stuff), healing is far worse -- simply because I am much more in control over the unknown pug factors as a tank. I've never had to leave a pug on my tank, but I had to bail a few times on my pure DPS and healer characters because "it's not happening, guys, sorry". It's kind of like this:
- tank: I control the pace of the entire instance run, I can make up for MANY mistakes done by the dps'rs and a healer by positioning and using my oh-crap buttons liberally. As a blood DK, I have soloed heroic bosses when everyone died to fire early on (and can definitely compensate for a not-very-good healer as well). I also do ridiculous amounts of dps (23k single target, up to 30-some k for aoe) thanks to the LFG buff. This DOES need some decent gear and pre-knowledge of the instances, though.
- dps: I can save the group from some bad situations via kiting, aggro control tricks, CC and burst damage... but if the tank and healer screw up badly at one point, it's a wipe. OTOH it's a lot more relaxed than playing tank or healer (I agree with Az that playing dps is relatively pressure-free).
- healer: I can optimize my buffs to increase the group's damage as much as possible, but that's about it - my own damage is really abysmal, and I often have to spam heals if some of the party members are standing in fire / tank is undergeared / etc. Spamming my big heal WILL run me oom, and it's entirely possible to wipe to an enrage if the party's damage is too low - without me being able to do anything about it.

Random anecdote: there's a boss in Halls of Orig who puts a "max hp reduced by 10%" debuff on the entire group every ~30 seconds or so. It was typical to get 4-5 stacks of the debuff before dropping him, which was fine. However, I once healed for a pug that had such low DPS that we got 10 stacks of the debuff, so all 5 of us were reduced to 1 max HP and promptly wiped when he one-shot the tank and everyone else. We tried 2 more times, I even used my fire elemental and heroism... same result.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 19, 2014, 05:37:31 AM
I've never had him throw the totem at me either. But still, not my job damn it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 19, 2014, 05:43:18 AM
You're too serious.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on March 19, 2014, 05:50:48 AM
I'm very serious about defending my non-work tanking. *folds arms*


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 19, 2014, 07:13:30 AM
Healing sucks because you take the blame when that dipshit DPS warrior who's only pulling 4k in Grim Batol stands in Throngus' shield-fire.   Fucking idiot, I should have let him die.

Also, wtf is it with Resto Shaman always having to reapply water shield.  I've been Elemental most of the time and never had to reapply.. Resto it seems like I'm doing it 2-3 times a trash pull just to keep mana, never mind a boss fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on March 19, 2014, 08:08:38 AM
Yes, Lightning shield gets a rather nice 'THIS WILL NEVER GO BELOW 3 ORBS' and Water shield gets the fucking shaft.

I can always tell when I run out of water shield;  I can't heal anyone because I have no mana.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 19, 2014, 12:10:11 PM
Weird, i find (non-raid) healing to be almost easier than DPS these days.

DPS I feel like I have to be in tryhard mode all the time just to get up on the meters. Pretty much no one bothers talking shit about meters these days - it's not that- just personal feeling.

Healing, throw out spell every so often. Also as healer you can carry bad groups way, way more than as DPS. If you have a shitty healer you're so fucked as a melee dps.

Now this wasn't the case when Cata came out, healing was stressful as fuck on the launch heroics and the troll-roics. I'm masochistic enough to have really enjoyed those too, though.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 19, 2014, 12:16:52 PM
Are you running normal heroics, or EOT heroics?  My DK on the EOT cycle mows through shit.   Meanwhile the Shaman came back on a Scroll of Rezz so she only just hit 85 Saturday and was running her first heroics Sat. evening. 

Early heroics still have shitty shit shit groups, including idiots who continue to queue as Tanks after getting 2-3 PVP pieces to up their score and the rest 287 greens and blues.  My Shaman in DPS mode had almost as many HPs as one DK tank who came in and I was impressed the Paladin was able to keep him alive for the 3 pulls to get to the commander in SFK. (And seriously, fuck that place it's too goddamn long.. an hour and I was only to the 3rd boss when the tank dropped due to time.) 

I do notice most of the terribad players have Brazil or some sort of Portuguese in their guild names.  I'm not sure if it's a latency thing or they're just too new to the game to play well.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 19, 2014, 05:16:07 PM
I can definitely see heals being just as stressful as tanking. But a shitty healer is just as bad as a shitty tank. Did two runs last night with my War again, with 2 guildies in dps the first time and 3 the second. First healer we had went in as a feral, didn't heal at all, and then told us "sorry guyz I thought I was dps". When he changed to heal spec the second time he was just fuckawful and we died a second time, before booting him. Pretty sure he was a cat druid who just queued as a healer to cheat the system though.

My tank gear isn't nearly up to soloing bosses yet, though. I can recover from a wipe on trash packs, and you know, the odd time where the group slowly dies on a boss, but I (and you, or anyone) can do that on any boss down to luck and chance and knowing the encounter etc..


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on March 19, 2014, 07:05:28 PM
I haven't jumped into LFR yet. I have good enough gear to, but I'm still rocking one blue and I am bound and determined to get rid of it before running LFR.

Also, the difference between running normal heroics and HoT heroics is hilarious. Even post nerf ZA/ZG are way the fuck harder than any of the HoT instances.
Unless you're a tank just get into LFR.  If you don't stand in stuff and stay on target you'll be top 10 dps.  If you're a healer use cooldowns wisely and you'll do your share.  There are parts of most fights where you don't have to cast at all (or dps cast if you want).  I'd exercise caution as a tank, not because you couldn't tank the fights but because you don't want 24 people whining about your gear.

Oh, and my disc priest is ilvl 382 and still wearing blue shoulders! 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 19, 2014, 11:42:23 PM
I had at least one blue on my druid when I went into LFR, it wasn't a problem. And yeah, Wild Growth just pwned my healing meter!

Not had time to go back in for a 2nd go with a different character yet, hopefully tonight before weekly reset. I'm interested to see how it is as DPS in comparison.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 20, 2014, 12:21:53 AM
I used to envy DPS when I played my healer main, thinking they got to see all the fight while I saw bars a lot of the time.

Then I tried playing a melee DPS. It's utter chaos.

Healing gets better overview of the fight by far. Though ranged DPS is probably the best.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fordel on March 20, 2014, 01:14:14 AM
Ranged DPS is indeed the best.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 20, 2014, 03:03:04 AM
And always has been. Hell, even the fights where they threw some mechanics in to make you move or pay attention it wasn't ever the chaos and stress that melee, tankng or healing ever were.  Most of the times it's really just been "push butanz, get lewtz"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on March 20, 2014, 03:51:35 AM
Yep. I loved my rogue till I started playing my mage. I wasn't even Arcane until the very end of WotLK. Now that's low-stress gaming!


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on March 20, 2014, 04:07:40 AM
The thing i hate most about playing mele dps characters is that you pretty much have to stuff your self up the mobs ass and stay there the whole time to do productive dps.  And god help you if you have to chase moving targets.  The constant Out of Range, Target not infront of you (because you ran too far through the mob) or other stupid shit gets annoying after a while.

Personally i have no idea how people manage to PvP as mele, since half the time i try it on my druid I cant land a hit because enemies are always moving.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on March 20, 2014, 11:03:06 AM
Yep. I loved my rogue till I started playing my mage. I wasn't even Arcane until the very end of WotLK. Now that's low-stress gaming!

Fel Sac lock in TBC.  I just panned my camera around and looked at the pretty environments while I hit my button.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 20, 2014, 11:32:15 AM
The thing i hate most about playing mele dps characters is that you pretty much have to stuff your self up the mobs ass and stay there the whole time to do productive dps.  And god help you if you have to chase moving targets.  The constant Out of Range, Target not infront of you (because you ran too far through the mob) or other stupid shit gets annoying after a while.

Personally i have no idea how people manage to PvP as mele, since half the time i try it on my druid I cant land a hit because enemies are always moving.

Have you considered that many people playing melee dps probably enjoy that you need to stay 'on the move'? Playing ranged dps just feels boring by comparison.

One of the reasons I'm really excited about the Monk is because the melee healing model (optional but encouraged by perks/abilities) ought to be a bit more exciting then standing back and staring at health bars.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on March 20, 2014, 02:07:34 PM
Have you considered that many people playing melee dps probably enjoy that you need to stay 'on the move'? Playing ranged dps just feels boring by comparison.
Have you considered that most people playing melee dps probably enjoyed it through the first 85 levels where movement wasn't a big deal, then suddenly have a miserable time in end-game content?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on March 20, 2014, 02:20:41 PM
My personal dps-enjoyment-o-meter™ purely depends on how much 'neat stuff' my character can do other than sticking to the optimal damage priority/rotation. In that respect ranged 'pure' DPS specs are the winners, followed by hybrids like druid/shaman/priest (boooooring, but at least I can heal in a pinch) and finally the melee DPS. The ability to tank in a pinch is nice and all, but kinda useless in most content -- CC and/or heals are better imo.

OTOH, there's a certain actiony/visceral feeling to playing a melee dps'r in pvp that ranged damage dealers just don't have. Killing doods from range feels less personal, or something. :-P


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 20, 2014, 02:46:17 PM
Have you considered that most people playing melee dps probably enjoyed it through the first 85 levels where movement wasn't a big deal, then suddenly have a miserable time in end-game content?

If anything, movement is much more common in the leveling content. You run into groups of enemies where some are ranged & some are melee, ranged mobs will root you and use slows. You aren't standing in one position fighting for long periods of time, as leveling enemies die quickly and then it's onto the next mob. Leveling pvp also has the same movement concerns right from the beginning. The difference is that you can move at your own pace in leveling content without any real chance of failure, whereas performance is more meaningful/measurable at cap.

It's really a non-issue though. If you want to play a static ranged dps class, there are 6 classes that meet that need. My point was that the 'downsides' to playing melee aren't downsides to most of the people that choose to play melee classes. The same is true for ranged combat: one man's boring gameplay is another man's relaxing gameplay.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 20, 2014, 03:15:58 PM
If anything, movement is much more common in the leveling content.

There's a big gap between running around attacking shit, and HOLY FUCK STOP STANDING IN THE FIRE.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on March 20, 2014, 05:06:08 PM
Also you always get 1-3 healers out of the 6 who are barely putting in any effort, so you usually can't slack off and have to carry their asses.

I noticed this. I went in with the bare minimum gear req to queue, having never done the raids before, and came top of the healing meter. There were a couple of healers who did less than 1/3rd of the healing I did.

Clearly I was just trying too hard!  :awesome_for_real:

I was in the unfortunate position of being #6 in healing in a LFR raid last night.  I even got a tell asking why my healing was so bad.  I investigated and it turned out to be two reasons :
- I was at leasty have a tier of gear behind the other healers
- i'm disc and i've never seen a priest with higher healing that pallies, druids, or shammies.
So the summary is, don't put too much stock in the meters for healing performance.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 20, 2014, 05:14:40 PM
Healing meters are even more useless than damage meters. With no context or understanding of the situation, you might as well rank the players in terms of who farts the most.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Selby on March 20, 2014, 05:25:02 PM
Healing meters are even more useless than damage meters. With no context or understanding of the situation, you might as well rank the players in terms of who farts the most.
My last raid guild benched me because I wasn't putting out the same numbers as the pally healer and the shammy healer (in full 359 gear, I still had a few blues).  I personally told them to go fuck themselves as no one died and we did fine and priest healing isn't always about the highest HPS or YOU FAIL attitude.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 20, 2014, 05:34:56 PM
If anything, movement is much more common in the leveling content.

There's a big gap between running around attacking shit, and HOLY FUCK STOP STANDING IN THE FIRE.

Yes, but ranged/healers have to deal with the same 'get out of the fire' effects. As a matter of fact, they probably had to deal with more of these than melee did in Cata. Melee-range-only aoe/cleave effects are a relic of the past. Melee still has to deal with chasing the boss/adds at this point, but that's the sort of movement you do while leveling too.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 20, 2014, 05:35:04 PM
My last raid guild benched me because I wasn't putting out the same numbers as the pally healer and the shammy healer (in full 359 gear, I still had a few blues).  I personally told them to go fuck themselves as no one died and we did fine and priest healing isn't always about the highest HPS or YOU FAIL attitude.

Exactly. HPS is almost entirely useless because there shouldn't be infinite scenarios where you are constantly spamming heals. You have to take into account overhealing, mana regen, utility, shields, job, fight, etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 20, 2014, 05:55:18 PM
Not standing in the fire just isn't that damn hard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on March 20, 2014, 06:14:42 PM
Not standing in the fire just isn't that damn hard.

And yet, they seem to go to that well more than the Old Gods.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on March 20, 2014, 06:16:29 PM
Er...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on March 20, 2014, 06:29:03 PM
Not standing in the fire just isn't that damn hard.

It was the one time Blizzard put out a patch that borked all the ground spell effects so I couldn't see the fire to not stand in.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on March 20, 2014, 06:33:43 PM
But apparently killing the damn add on the Akkroa in Grim Batol while also TURNING THE GODDAMN DRAGON AWAY is something PUGs still find impossible.

The more things change...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on March 20, 2014, 10:48:04 PM
But apparently killing the damn add on the Akkroa in Grim Batol while also TURNING THE GODDAMN DRAGON AWAY is something PUGs still find impossible.

The more things change...
Pretty sure Dagda is an Orc, and it really isnt the Tank's job to point the dragon anywhere, since the dragon will turn and breathe in a random direction.  If anything, it is on everyone else to make sure they are not infront of the dragon when it does breath fire.  The only thing the tank really has to do is move the dragon every so often to make sure they arent standing in a puddle of shadow vomit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on March 20, 2014, 11:18:00 PM
So the summary is, don't put too much stock in the meters for healing performance.

Oh I don't, it's irrelevant. All that matters is people don't die unless it's their own fault. Mana & cooldown management are what I pay attention to. The meters are just worth a glance to make sure nothing's going horribly wrong and to reassure myself I'm vaguely doing it right.

6 months ago when I was raiding Firelands etc then I was using meters to watch my overhealing, since back then I cared about mana. At this stage in the cycle mana is pretty much infinite for my druid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 20, 2014, 11:37:55 PM
I always skip Dagda now. It was never worth it even in the past, I did it once to get my quest done and that's it.

Grim Batol makes you suffer enough already.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 20, 2014, 11:39:42 PM
Also you always get 1-3 healers out of the 6 who are barely putting in any effort, so you usually can't slack off and have to carry their asses.

I noticed this. I went in with the bare minimum gear req to queue, having never done the raids before, and came top of the healing meter. There were a couple of healers who did less than 1/3rd of the healing I did.

Clearly I was just trying too hard!  :awesome_for_real:

I was in the unfortunate position of being #6 in healing in a LFR raid last night.  I even got a tell asking why my healing was so bad.  I investigated and it turned out to be two reasons :
- I was at leasty have a tier of gear behind the other healers
- i'm disc and i've never seen a priest with higher healing that pallies, druids, or shammies.
So the summary is, don't put too much stock in the meters for healing performance.

Disc is very powerful atm, just plays different then other healers - requires much better knowledge of fights and where high damage is coming so you could pre-heal. Or enough constant damage for full pohs and aegis to go through, which isnt the case in lfr. On the flip side - endless mana :)

Also winning Healing meters is like winning DPS meters. If you can't win it when it doesn't matter, you won't be able to put up the numbers when it does.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on March 20, 2014, 11:44:46 PM
Yeah, healing meters have always been pretty dumb.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Maledict on March 21, 2014, 02:17:41 AM
If anything, movement is much more common in the leveling content.

There's a big gap between running around attacking shit, and HOLY FUCK STOP STANDING IN THE FIRE.

Yes, but ranged/healers have to deal with the same 'get out of the fire' effects. As a matter of fact, they probably had to deal with more of these than melee did in Cata. Melee-range-only aoe/cleave effects are a relic of the past. Melee still has to deal with chasing the boss/adds at this point, but that's the sort of movement you do while leveling too.

It's been that way for some time. The meme from TBC about melee having to deal with more effects hasn't been based in truth for a long time but these things take forever to change. Yes, there are some fights where melee has it worse but  the majority place burdens on ranged. It's been that way since ToC.

It's also the case that melee are a lot easier to heal than ranged. Melee all clump up so you get huge efficiency and throughput on your AoE heals, whereas ranged have to spread out so AoE heals just don't work. It was far easier healing 8 melee on the wurms fight in ToC than it was 3 ranged getting hit for that reason.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 21, 2014, 05:23:21 AM
Also you always get 1-3 healers out of the 6 who are barely putting in any effort, so you usually can't slack off and have to carry their asses.

I noticed this. I went in with the bare minimum gear req to queue, having never done the raids before, and came top of the healing meter. There were a couple of healers who did less than 1/3rd of the healing I did.

Clearly I was just trying too hard!  :awesome_for_real:

I was in the unfortunate position of being #6 in healing in a LFR raid last night.  I even got a tell asking why my healing was so bad.  I investigated and it turned out to be two reasons :
- I was at leasty have a tier of gear behind the other healers
- i'm disc and i've never seen a priest with higher healing that pallies, druids, or shammies.
So the summary is, don't put too much stock in the meters for healing performance.

Disc is very powerful atm, just plays different then other healers - requires much better knowledge of fights and where high damage is coming so you could pre-heal. Or enough constant damage for full pohs and aegis to go through, which isnt the case in lfr. On the flip side - endless mana :)

Also winning Healing meters is like winning DPS meters. If you can't win it when it doesn't matter, you won't be able to put up the numbers when it does.
Disc gets owned on the meters on Spine, though (no matter how well you know it). Makes me sad =) Disc does best on fights like Ultraxion and Madness, where PoH spam rules the day and you can very reliably and easily get rapture procs.

I think for healing meters, they are 1) somewhat useful at telling you if there's a huge shortfall in healing and 2) not nearly as relevant as DPS meters.

If a healer is doing about as much healing as a Shadowpriest in LFR, yeah, that's a slacker.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on March 21, 2014, 06:18:32 AM
About the only place healing meters could be considered an accurate stand-alone reflection of healing ability is what we seem to be talking about, lfr.  There are very few gimmicks, you don't have dedicated tank/raid healers, you aren't limiting yourself to only healing assigned targets, it is 25 man with everyone taking good amount of damage and five other healers to compare yourself against for breadth.  If you are only doing 6-7k healing you should read your class threads to find out what you are doing wrong.

Healers are the fastest to queue for lfr so I'm guessing, perhaps cynically, that a lot of people switch to that spec just to get in faster and then have to be carried by the other healers.

What drives me nuts as a non druid healer is when a tank dies and the druid has to be told to use their brez.  Even worse was last weekend when we somehow didn't have any druids and the dks had to be implored and cat herded for one of them to stop their mad dps to get the fucking main tank up because the off tank doesn't know he has to taunt at x number of stacks.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Wolf on March 21, 2014, 06:19:46 AM
LFR Spine has healing?  :grin:

Disc does awesome wherenver there's a stack phase - yorsaj, ultra, zonozz normal, hagara heroic, madness; is very powerful in fights with heavy tank healing - warmaster & madness p2, destroys morchok and is very powerful on spine in certain comps. Basically the only fight our priest plays holy is zonozz heroic, cause everyone is all over the place all the time.

TBH all the healers are in a good place right now. the holies and resto shaman are harder to play because of the spirit regen mechanics, but all are good for all the fights :)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: craan on March 24, 2014, 08:08:40 PM
For Disc priests and their amazing shields I always remind people complaining to click over the the Absorbs page in Recount.  That's where you see the Disc priests shining.  Or at least should be shining.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on March 25, 2012, 09:15:48 AM
For Disc priests and their amazing shields I always remind people complaining to click over the the Absorbs page in Recount.  That's where you see the Disc priests shining.  Or at least should be shining.
By default, absorbs are included in the healing meters on Recount. At least that's what the tooltip tells me.

They might be buggy though, I don't know how they count the absorbs. Does the full shield have to break before it's counted?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on March 25, 2012, 04:02:47 PM
Absorbs are fully supported by the combat log now so mods don't have to do any sort of guessing.  And yes, Recount does fold absorbs into the "healing done/taken" numbers.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ginaz on March 31, 2012, 09:36:31 AM
I just back into the game yesterday.  Which is the current flavour of the month for a dps warrior?  I'm arms right now but only because I lack a decent second 2h weapon.  Would I be better to spec fury if I get another weapon or is arms good?  Also, I'm not sure where I should placing my stat priorities.  Mastery?  Expertise?  Str?  Hit?  For tanking, is sta still king or is it something else now?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on March 31, 2012, 09:47:17 AM
Short answer:

Arms is popular right now. Hit(to cap)>Expertise(to cap)>Crit>Mastery>haste

Prot just stacks as much mastery as they can.

Long answer:
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3082251798
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/981898783


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on May 06, 2012, 03:54:19 PM
RE: People complaining about the Dragon Soul raid-buff/'nerf'.

Spoilered for size.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on May 06, 2012, 08:12:32 PM
What about priests? I've got a baby (L30) priest that I barely play. Main spec so far is shadow since I duo with my wife (affliction lock). Should I go holy or disc for healing as I level?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on May 06, 2012, 08:20:25 PM
What about priests? I've got a baby (L30) priest that I barely play. Main spec so far is shadow since I duo with my wife (affliction lock). Should I go holy or disc for healing as I level?

If you're leveling via LFD, yeah, Disc or Holy for faster queue times.  If you're just leveling in the world through questing, stick with what you got.  After lvl 20, if you're dying solo as DPS, you're doing something wrong son.  With two of you, you should just be grinding away.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: SurfD on May 07, 2012, 12:19:16 PM
I dual specced my priest shadow / Disc once i hit 30.  Disc is great at early levels.  Nothing like being second or third (or sometimes first if your group sucks) on DPS with pennance enhanced smite / holy fire spam letting you simultaneously heal everything with ease.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on May 07, 2012, 07:41:56 PM
Sorry, I probably wasn't that clear - I mean which healing spec should I choose from the two, given my level? I'd like to do some learning to heal through some dubeons and even BGs as I level up through quests etc.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 08, 2012, 01:27:00 AM
Disc is more fun and less stress.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on May 08, 2012, 03:38:55 AM
At level 30 a respec is less than a few gold.  So I'm going to go with "all of the above."


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on May 08, 2012, 09:24:31 AM
Disc is more fun and less stress.


In all aspects, I've found this to be true.  Very fun for BG's, but be prepared to be hated hard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on May 08, 2012, 09:36:04 AM
I hate Disc Priests that exclusively heal with Penance.  Always freaks me out when I'm about to die and then they start pumping me up. 

I'm like "You do have other heal spells, right?"

Response: "sorry pen was on cooldown"

"So use a shield or heal spell?"

"lol I dont wanna waste mana"

 :uhrr: :argh:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 08, 2012, 09:50:41 PM
You're not going to last very long as a disc priest if you pull that shit.

Disc priests are very fun though. Way more fun than Holy as far as I'm concerned. I've hated holy ever since Chakra was added in, like Priests really needed even more complicated healing mechanics  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: apocrypha on May 08, 2012, 11:31:57 PM
I really liked Chakra, but it took some getting used to. The ability to switch between single-target or aoe-healing modes was nice.

Lightwell is still a waste of fucking time outside of a guild though, and even in a guild getting people to actually use the damn thing was like nailing jelly to the ceiling.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Miasma on May 09, 2012, 05:31:10 AM
In mists chakra is sort of like a stance you just switch between, no more press this - cast that - to enter such and such.  The granted abilities can be cast regardless iirc but feel weaker and are on longer cooldowns  now...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 09, 2012, 07:40:26 AM
Penance is for when things go wrong and, frankly, shouldn't see much use.

That disc priest sounds retarded.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on May 09, 2012, 07:53:02 AM
I actually kinda like chakra on my 76 priest, but I don't know how well it works at 85. In leveling dungeons I can keep a group up pretty much just by rolling renews on the tank and whoever gets hurt, and throwing prayer of mending on the tank every time it goes off CD.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 09, 2012, 08:19:30 AM
Lightwell is still a waste of fucking time outside of a guild though, and even in a guild getting people to actually use the damn thing was like nailing jelly to the ceiling.

Things that should be red-flashing-beacons about your spell sucking:  You can't code your mobs to use it properly, either, so you radically alter it for them.  "Well NPC's won't know how to click it..."   Gee... and you can control THEIR intelligence.

They should give PCs the NPC lightwell and chuck the existing design in a pit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on May 09, 2012, 08:21:16 AM
With disc, Shield and Prayer of Healing will throw enough absorbtion to stop almost anything on 5mans.  All you need beyond that is the occasional renew, which will stack with your PoH and Shield healings (which you glyphed, right ?)

It's really EZmode and you only use penance when the tank takes on too much or you're doing speed runs or summat.

That's my experience anyways.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 09, 2012, 08:41:47 AM
They should give PCs the NPC lightwell and chuck the existing design in a pit.

That would just make it like every other targeted AOE heal.  The nice thing about Lightwell is that you can take an unimportant GCD, even one before the fight, to cause healing at a later time.

And anyway, Jade Serpent Statue will be using the same mechanic (http://mop.wowhead.com/spell=115313).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on May 09, 2012, 09:43:43 AM
Ever since BC (may even have been vanilla) I've used my lightwell whenever I could. It's pretty awesome as a GCD/mana-free self-heal if nothing else -- 10 desperate prayers in HOT form in a can, what's not to like? Sometimes other party members use it too, bonus.

There was a time in early wotlk where it made you unkillable in world pvp as well (you could use it while stunned/etc, it didn't interrupt your casts, and it wasn't killable back then). Flashback to random_arcane_mage_01 trying to gank me and dying to sw:p and manaburn damage 6 minutes later  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Dren on May 09, 2012, 01:50:05 PM
With disc, Shield and Prayer of Healing will throw enough absorbtion to stop almost anything on 5mans.  All you need beyond that is the occasional renew, which will stack with your PoH and Shield healings (which you glyphed, right ?)

It's really EZmode and you only use penance when the tank takes on too much or you're doing speed runs or summat.

That's my experience anyways.

Me too.  Penance is crap  for damage and healing.  I eventually took it well off my bar.  I vaguely remember it being pretty OP when they launched it and then quickly nerfed it to worthlessness.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lt.Dan on May 09, 2012, 02:04:43 PM
Penance does also provide 10% damage reduction, so can be useful in some cases


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 09, 2012, 02:36:32 PM
WoW subs still 10.2 million. (http://investor.activision.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=672062)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 09, 2012, 03:19:22 PM
Penance does also provide 10% damage reduction, so can be useful in some cases

And it's still the easiest way to get Grace stacks up.  It's not a mainline spell at cap at current regen levels by any means, but it's still useful.

And it's getting a glyph that lets you move while casting it in MoP, which will be pretty nice at times.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 13, 2012, 04:33:32 PM
They should give PCs the NPC lightwell and chuck the existing design in a pit.

That would just make it like every other targeted AOE heal.  The nice thing about Lightwell is that you can take an unimportant GCD, even one before the fight, to cause healing at a later time.

And anyway, Jade Serpent Statue will be using the same mechanic (http://mop.wowhead.com/spell=115313).

Double-posting and quoting myself, YEAH!

Everyone wins as there's a new glyph in the new beta build for Lightwell, Glyph of Lightspring (http://mop.wowhead.com/spell=126133):

Quote
Transforms your Lightwell into a Lightspring.

Lightspring
Creates a Holy Lightspring.  Every 5 sec the Lightspring will attempt to heal party and raid members lower than 50% health for 5735 over 6 sec.  Attacks done to the target equal to 30% of your total health will cancel the effect. Lightspring lasts for 3 min or until 15 heals are expended.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on May 13, 2012, 06:59:49 PM
Jesus, I thought they were trying to get away from 'required' glyphs  :why_so_serious:.  Just bake that shit into the ability already.  People hate clicking doodads in the middle of combat.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 13, 2012, 08:41:49 PM
I always feel bad for those priests I run into in LFR who set up elaborate macros instructing people to click on the lightwell for heals and even chiding them for clicking on it when they're at full health.

And then I'm still the only one using it properly.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 13, 2012, 08:54:02 PM
:drill:

There's a reason my sig on EJ for over a year has been "Lightwell owns even more because there's more charges for you if other people don't use it as much!"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on May 29, 2012, 08:19:22 PM
After a bit of a hiatus, and a few casual weeks of gearing up in the HoT dungeons, my DK went DPSing into a full LFR run of DS (both parts).

Walked away with class gloves and legs for my tank set, and DPS generic shoulders + DPS trinket + 1-hand STR sword from DW for the DPS set.

I am a happy camper right now  :drill:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on May 30, 2012, 05:05:33 AM
I'm convinced they cheat on the rolls early on for the less-geared. 

Then again I'm also convinced that Hagra doesn't drop hunter shoulders.   7 Weeks now and not once.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on May 30, 2012, 05:14:53 AM
Well at least in MoP the chances of success may improve.  You know, with the whole "In Soviet WoW, game loots you!" mentality they're taking.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on May 30, 2012, 09:41:31 AM
10-man loot is pretty rough this raid.  I went 26 combined Normal Madness/Heroic Zon'ozz kills before a 400+ item level ranged weapon dropped.  Still have plenty of MIA trinkets too.

That said, for all the joking my raid made about getting double daggers from our first Heroic Madness kill, we actually got one useful drop from it which was nice.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on June 23, 2012, 02:02:46 PM
Method guild makes the Dragon Soul raid look epic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0LbsX7_zyI


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on June 23, 2012, 05:21:04 PM
Just poking around at random points on that video, I liked the dead Priest on Zon'ozz.  I hope they never get rid of that ability.

Also, I so do not miss 25-mans...


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 05, 2012, 08:03:52 AM
Did they ever confirm if/when we're getting more character slots? I kinda want to go back and futz around on a new alt but I don't have any free character slots and it feels silly rolling on a different server.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on July 05, 2012, 11:11:29 AM
An extra one (per server) in MoP but no increase in the total character cap.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on July 05, 2012, 10:24:59 PM
Only one per server? Sigh.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on July 31, 2012, 06:08:40 AM
So I put my assassination rogue aside after doing Cata at its launch. I geared up to Heroics, saw that Heroics were going to be impossible to PUG and that they were going to tilt my guild even more to the hardcore/catasses in it, and I'd either have to join them or be one of the folks who assed around with them occasionally but was otherwise just doing dailies and shit and watching them go through the content. So I said enough of that--I hardcored my way through vanilla and TBC and I'm so bored by WoW and MMOGs in general that I'm not doing it again. Ever.

So now my daughter is playing quite a bit and wants me to show her all the level 60s-70s instances, just because she likes seeing content. Fine. Plus her toons need money and it's easy to get on an 85. I'm trying to decide if it's worth actually queueing for anything or if I'll just be a useless terribad who stands in the fire all the time. I did all the Cata instances at launch, including some on Heroic, I think I remember most of them. Is there any instanced content since then that's worth doing that isn't ball-busting in its gear requirements and shit you have to do just right? I'm doing the Firelands dailies and the ZG questline up to the 5-man that takes you into ZG, and redid some of the zone quests since I switched faction.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on July 31, 2012, 07:32:08 AM
If you can get geared-up to the level of doing them the Dragonsoul 5-mans aren't ball-busters, are short and are quite fun.  Getting geared enough to queue for them is fairly simple if you do the Thrall quests.  It only took me a few of the awful heroics to have enough JP to buy  the Tier 12 gear that put me over the item level to be able to queue on my Ressurection-scorll shaman.  They've also been significantly nerfed and enough folks are overgeared and running them out of boredom witht he DS heroics that, while still long, they aren't wipefests anymore.

The problem is there's only 3 of the DS instances so you're running them forever.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 31, 2012, 12:25:01 PM
But then you're into LFRetard and that's quite good for items and gold with pretty much no downside except grouping with, well, retards that will roll on stuff that's rightfully YOURS, Goddammit.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on July 31, 2012, 12:46:15 PM
But then you're into LFRetard and that's quite good for items and gold with pretty much no downside except grouping with, well, retards that will roll on stuff that's rightfully YOURS, Goddammit.

Getting fixed in MoP, and couldn't get here soon enough.

And I also agree with the HoT heroics: Lie, cheat, steal...do whatever you have to do to inflate your ilvl up to being able to get into them.  Once you do, the quest chain that routes through the three of them alone will make you a solid whatever-class-you-are.  Or at least have a huge impact on your gear and performance.  Most of those rewards were pre-raid BiS items for my Holy Priest.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on July 31, 2012, 12:52:19 PM
And I also agree with the HoT heroics: Lie, cheat, steal...do whatever you have to do to inflate your ilvl up to being able to get into them.  Once you do, the quest chain that routes through the three of them alone will make you a solid whatever-class-you-are.  Or at least have a huge impact on your gear and performance.  Most of those rewards were pre-raid BiS items for my Holy Priest.

If you happen to max a faction rep or two while leveling (Hyjal rep is pretty much a given), buy any item they offer that is a higher ilvl than what you current have in that slot. Playing a rogue? Buy the 359 int ring anyway. It's an easy/cheap way to boost your ilvl and, as long as you have the items in your inventory (or bank?) they'll still count towards your total ilvl even if you aren't using them.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on July 31, 2012, 01:24:37 PM
Trinkets are the bitch and, frankly, you should spend those fucking points on the 259 versions if you have to.

Fucking 316 trinket dragging you down all your fucking life.

What is it they're fixing in MoP about the raids ?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on July 31, 2012, 01:45:55 PM
Trinkets are the bitch and, frankly, you should spend those fucking points on the 259 versions if you have to.

Fucking 316 trinket dragging you down all your fucking life.

What is it they're fixing in MoP about the raids ?

Soviet WoW.  Raid boss will loot you when it dies, meaning it does a /roll for each raid member.  If it hits the right number, you get a piece of loot for your class and active spec.

Here, found the detailed info: http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3954511/Coffee_with_the_Devs_%E2%80%94_Mists_of_Pandaria_Looting_Explained_-27_03_2012


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 31, 2012, 10:18:30 PM
I don't see how that's actually better aside from the psychological aspect of no longer "losing" an item to another player.  (Which if that matters to you, you're unequivocally "part of the problem".) It's not going to appreciably reduce the number of useless drops as it's a 25-man and every item in the drop table should have someone who could potentially get it.

On its face, it actually makes gearing less efficient as it removes Passes from the system.  All of those "I already have that", "I have something better", "That item sucks I wouldn't use it in a million years" add up to a non-trivial amount of items that go to people that (maybe) need it now and will just be sold/disenchanted in MoP.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on July 31, 2012, 10:22:20 PM
It is a huge improvement for one main reason: stat distribution by spec/player. Right now they have to have just as much int plate on the loot tables as str plate, despite the vast amount of difference in number of players who use it. Same for caster leather and caster mail. Doing it this way means that everyone gears up at about the same rate and you don't have those 'goddammit healing plate again' when your one paladin is already completely geared up because 10% of the drops go to 3% of the population (or whatever).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on July 31, 2012, 11:03:10 PM
It is a huge improvement for one main reason: stat distribution by spec/player. Right now they have to have just as much int plate on the loot tables as str plate, despite the vast amount of difference in number of players who use it. Same for caster leather and caster mail. Doing it this way means that everyone gears up at about the same rate and you don't have those 'goddammit healing plate again' when your one paladin is already completely geared up because 10% of the drops go to 3% of the population (or whatever).

I agree, but we're also losing the bias that exists in the drop tables right now to get it.  Not sure how statistically significant the differences recorded on LFR Spine for example (http://www.wowhead.com/object=209894#contains:mode=raidfinder) are.  Also, the gain is only in gear distribution per spec/player in the raid, not versus the general population so tanks and healers are still going to get more gear than damage dealers.

I sort of dismissed the effect you brought up quickly when I was writing the first post, but I think it deserves some more thought.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on August 01, 2012, 02:37:19 AM
Oh yeah.  I've read that one before Luckton and I'd forgotten.  I still approve on a rereading.  It's a much better system except for the fact that you're going to be cursing your OWN luck 90% of the time.

Also, for those who read well, you'll notice I said 259 item, rather than 359 item.  This was an error that I'd like to correct now, in case you follow my advice and gimp yourself enormously.  So, to recap, buy the 359 trinkets and not the 259 as that would just be really stupid.  The guy responsible for the error has been fired and is currently packing his 259 purple gear into a carboard box, because he's Outta Here.

Cave Johnston.  We're done here.



Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on August 01, 2012, 03:19:43 AM
Also, the gain is only in gear distribution per spec/player in the raid, not versus the general population so tanks and healers are still going to get more gear than damage dealers.

If healers/tanks win their particular boss' roll, sure, I suppose.  The way it will work is that the boss will do a /roll for each player individually in the raid.  I don't have the specific numbers, but let's ballpark it at, say, a roll of 1-20 wins that player a piece a loot for their class/spec.  And that's only if a piece of loot for that player's class/spec is accessible on that particular boss' loot table (though they could address that in one of two ways: either have items that are on a shared table between all bosses in the raid like they've done with Dragon Soul, or just give the player a satchel of door prizes like gold, valor points, consumables, etc.).  If the roll is 21-100, sorry, better luck next time.

The bonus roll that one can achieve through rep grinding is a nice incentive too.  Essentially it's a Blood Bow-style reroll you can burn to force the game to give you another chance, just in case there actually was something on that particular boss that you really, really wanted.  Should the bonus roll not work either, then you're guaranteed to get that satchel of aforementioned door prizes.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need to have the game taking control of the loot away like this, but it does address the social problems of certain players being idiots when it comes to these aspects.  Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need LFR anyways because the players would be able to coordinate properly among strangers and get by with just 10 and 25 man raids  :why_so_serious:

Also, for those who read well, you'll notice I said 259 item, rather than 359 item.  This was an error that I'd like to correct now, in case you follow my advice and gimp yourself enormously.  So, to recap, buy the 359 trinkets and not the 259 as that would just be really stupid.  The guy responsible for the error has been fired and is currently packing his 259 purple gear into a carboard box, because he's Outta Here.

Huh, and I thought you were just doing the Lord Zod thing of "You peasants WILL use 259 items, for I have decreed it.  Fuck you for thinking otherwise."   :grin:

IMO, Justice/Valor points are better spent on some other things first before trinkets, since the HoT dungeons have some really nice ones to offer that can suit multiple purposes.  The Foul Gift of the Demon Lord, for example, is used for both the DPS and Healing specs of my Priest.  Priority one should be the Relic/Ranged slot, as that can only be BiS'ed through Justice/Valor.  And it's a cheap slot to fill too, although at this point it's somewhat moot since that slot is being axed in MoP (seriously, after copying my DK over to beta, both of my Tank and DPS relics were sitting in my bag inventory, devalued down to grey-name trash.  So sad :cry: )

Edits: Because apparently I type too fast for my remote LogMeIn connection to keep up  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 01, 2012, 04:43:33 AM
Yeah, I still have a bit of a sore point over the removal of loot slots in MoP.  I spent a lot of time hunting-down nice-looking 2h weapons for my hunter.   Now she runs around with no weapon displayed at all in beta because, despite saying it would be otherwise, ranged weaps aren't displaying when sheathed.  (Unless that's changed recently.. I've been pokemoning it up on a mage for travel purposes.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 01, 2012, 06:59:16 AM
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need to have the game taking control of the loot away like this, but it does address the social problems of certain players being idiots when it comes to these aspects.  Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need LFR anyways because the players would be able to coordinate properly among strangers and get by with just 10 and 25 man raids  :why_so_serious:
Maybe your perfect world.  In mine everyone gets their own loot.  Maybe tradeable afterwards, but initially their own stuff.  I'm not into competition.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ironwood on August 01, 2012, 07:03:40 AM
I actually agree with the 'No Trade'.

Not only does it stop UTTER COMPLETE CUNTS from whispering you even after you've clearly needed something to 'Give it to them', but it also stops guild teams and (I admit it) husband and wife teams from needing when they don't need to so they can trade to the guy who does.

It's a good system.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 01, 2012, 07:30:15 AM
Yep, I don't want Trade. That cocks up the whole system.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 01, 2012, 10:56:58 AM
Edits: Because apparently I type too fast for my remote LogMeIn connection to keep up  :awesome_for_real:

Your office blocks f13 but allows LogMeIn?  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on August 01, 2012, 11:50:12 AM
Edits: Because apparently I type too fast for my remote LogMeIn connection to keep up  :awesome_for_real:

Your office blocks f13 but allows LogMeIn?  :ye_gods:

WebSense is a fickle thing. I'm not complaining  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on August 02, 2012, 02:22:44 PM

WoW loses approximately 1 million subs over a 3 month period. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/activision-blizzard-announces-better-than-expected-second-quarter-2012-financial-results-2012-08-02)

The press release cites "better-than-expected second quarter results" for Activision-Blizzard.

Also,
Quote
As of June 30, 2012, Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft remains the #1 subscription-based MMORPG and had approximately 9.1 million subscribers

I know they're counting me as a current sub, since I partook of the Annual Pass.

Overall this is unsurprising news, since the double whammy of summertime + pre-expansion doldrums is upon us. We'll see how many subs they have six months from now.


(this topic spotted simultaneously in several places, including Gamasutra, WoW.com, Massively)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 02, 2012, 02:35:51 PM
Once they started doing the Panda beta, they were going to have people unsub. Still, Cataclysm was undeniably a terrible expansion at this point.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on August 02, 2012, 04:01:44 PM
Much as they've tried to time the xpac to kill perceived competition as usual, I don't think they get it. They don't have to kill the competition any more, the whole damn genre is dying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 03, 2012, 04:04:16 AM
I'm trying to decide if it's worth actually queueing for anything or if I'll just be a useless terribad who stands in the fire all the time. I did all the Cata instances at launch, including some on Heroic, I think I remember most of them. Is there any instanced content since then that's worth doing that isn't ball-busting in its gear requirements and shit you have to do just right? I'm doing the Firelands dailies and the ZG questline up to the 5-man that takes you into ZG, and redid some of the zone quests since I switched faction.

Losing three million subs convinced Blizzard they were doing Cataclysms wrong.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on August 03, 2012, 01:53:07 PM
Let's face it. They only managed to staunch the bleeding with the annual pass with D3 as the sweetener. Look how well that played out.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: koro on August 03, 2012, 01:57:25 PM
Don't those annual passes run out in October/November or thereabouts? I imagine depending on how MoP does, we could be seeing another 500k-1m down by their first 2013 report.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 03, 2012, 02:28:10 PM
Depends on when you bought it since they were selling them up through April.   The initial rush will be October though, yes.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on August 03, 2012, 04:19:23 PM
I'm sure they'll have some hot product or incentive for next year to commit for another 365 days.  Maybe not a full game, but something else...or...something...I dunno.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 03, 2012, 04:21:33 PM
Titan beta access.*


*TBD 2015-2020 **
 
** Purely made up time frame.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on August 04, 2012, 01:41:46 AM
Mine runs out on something like the 30th of December, but yeah, they start expiring in October. MoP launches a few weeks before, so they're probably counting on the pass to help drive a pile of extra box sales "since I'm subbed already" and then the new expack to keep people around until the end of the year.

Is the next Starcraft box due out anytime soon? If it's around October 2013 that might be the sweetener this time (plus sparkle pony, etc).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 04, 2012, 01:46:46 AM
The word was that beta would start "soon" after 1.5, which hit 3 days ago. Figure 2-3 months for a good long beta; odds are pretty good that HotS releases this year.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on August 04, 2012, 01:58:44 AM
The word was that beta would start "soon" after 1.5, which hit 3 days ago. Figure 2-3 months for a good long beta; odds are pretty good that HotS releases this year.

I don't see why it wouldn't be this year.  It's no like they're reinventing the wheel or anything, it's just an expansion. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on August 04, 2012, 07:21:49 AM
2 releases in the same quarter? That seems a bit unusual for Blizzard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 04, 2012, 09:38:46 AM
2 releases in the same quarter? That seems a bit unusual for Blizzard.

Vivendi trying to unload their 60% of shares scared the fuck out of them. I think they realize the time for "when it's done, peons" needs to be updated to "when it's done, and we're working on it, and here's our schedule, valued customers"


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: patience on August 04, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
If Pachter is to be believed Vivendi trying to do a fire sale isn't going to bother Blizzard. Vivendi's motivations seem to be just using bad math when they made they deal with Activision on how they'll earn money for the share they hold.

As a result this sale is a bigger concern for Activision because if Vivendi gets their way it will be at their greater expense.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Feverdream on August 05, 2012, 11:37:32 AM
Interesting article in Forbes by a Hedge fund manager re: WoW/Activision/Vivendi/GW2.

Even though I'll be playing GW2 more and WoW less (perhaps not at all), I can't say I agree with their projection that WoW could lose up to 25% of its subscriber base to GW2.  We'll see, though, and either way the article makes some good points:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/08/02/world-of-warcraft-guild-wars-2-and-vivendi-activisions-achilles-heel/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/08/02/world-of-warcraft-guild-wars-2-and-vivendi-activisions-achilles-heel/)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on August 05, 2012, 07:19:44 PM
Interesting article in Forbes by a Hedge fund manager re: WoW/Activision/Vivendi/GW2.

Even though I'll be playing GW2 more and WoW less (perhaps not at all), I can't say I agree with their projection that WoW could lose up to 25% of its subscriber base to GW2.  We'll see, though, and either way the article makes some good points:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/08/02/world-of-warcraft-guild-wars-2-and-vivendi-activisions-achilles-heel/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/08/02/world-of-warcraft-guild-wars-2-and-vivendi-activisions-achilles-heel/)

Wow. What a fanboy. That article and its comment thread reads like someone took a "GW2 is the WoW Killer we've all been waiting for!" forum posting, and ran it through the Erudite-O-Tron (patent pending).

I laughed and laughed when he said "What if strong competition were to come into the MMORPG space and take market share away from World of Warcraft?"

Of course WoW is going to lose subs to GW2. WoW has lost subs to every game that's come along in the past 8 years. Those people always come back.

In this particular case:
1) MoP is scheduled to go live in September
2) GW2 has no subscription fee, so it's not like they're forcing a financial decision on their players

I don't mean to knock on GW2 (or the Secret World or Rift, for that matter), but Blizzard doesn't lose WoW subscribers for good because of the actions of other game companies. They are still their own worst enemy.


Edit to add: I don't mean to imply that Feverdream is a fanboy. I was referring to the author of the linked article.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on August 05, 2012, 10:24:17 PM
I know for a fact that me and my guildies will be playing both gw2 and mop. The only game which might feel threatened sub-wise is tsw, but it's best played as a SP game over the free month (maybe +1) and possibly a reactivation for another month a year down the line to see all the new content. Ditto with swtor (only 1 person in our group bought more than 1mo of sub, and most of us are huge sw nerds)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 06, 2012, 01:33:26 PM
Many times more important than being "fanboys" is the last line of the piece: "Note: In the past, Honne [the firm the authors work at] has been short ATVI and may be short in the future"

Which isn't to say they're wrong, but banking on MMO messiahs hasn't worked brilliantly.  But I just don't see it in the short-term considering that GW2 is only launching in the West.  (Yes, you can probably play from *insert other region here* but then you're stuck paying US rates, which isn't going to fly.)

E: Checking the FAQ, it's also being sold in Africa and the Middle East.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on August 06, 2012, 11:50:13 PM
I'd prefer paying US rates for gw2, since they are doing the 1$=1€ thing. Yeah yeah VAT whatever.

And like everyone is saying, gw2 won't "kill" anything any more than skyrim, starcraft2, diablo3, or heck... gw1 (it sold like 7mil units total iirc, but I don't think that equates to 7mil less mmo players)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on August 08, 2012, 06:34:35 AM
GameSpy: Massivity: Looking Back on Cataclysm's Impact Crater (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/world-of-warcraft-expansion-3/1225657p1.html)

tl;dr
- Too much nostalgia-driven content
- Not enough Deathwing cameos in leveling content, both 1-60 and 80-85 like Arthas did in 70-80, to serve as a reminder as to why we're grinding through this contant in the first place (lorelol-wise, anyways)
- Dungeon difficult made too hard from Wrath-style


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sjofn on August 08, 2012, 12:30:35 PM
- Not enough Deathwing cameos in leveling content, both 1-60 and 80-85 like Arthas did in 70-80, to serve as a reminder as to why we're grinding through this contant in the first place (lorelol-wise, anyways)

Ugh, ugh, ugh. No. Arthas showed up way too often in WotLK. Deathwing's problem was less he didn't show up enough (I thought he showed up just enough, personally), but that his story is fucking stupid.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 08, 2012, 12:35:24 PM
The only one of those 3 points that is right is #3. People eat the nostalgia shit up. I mean shit, the dude is saying that the old world content nostalgia is bad while SIMULTANEOUSLY waxing nostalgic about TBC and WotLK. (Also who the fuck "cherished" the "otherworldly vistas of Outland"? Other than Nagrand, TBC features pretty much universally the most hated zone art in WoW history.)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on August 08, 2012, 12:48:26 PM
How often did Deathwing show up?

- once at the beginning of the Hyjal chain, to set the tone
- once in the middle of Twi Hi, to fight the Red queen
- Dragon Soul, to get shot in the back by green Jesus wielding the Dragon Lazer
- randomly choosing a zone to burninate, but some still maintain this was a myth ;)

What am I missing? This can't be it. Was he so unmemorable?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 08, 2012, 12:52:35 PM
Quote
The carefree steamrolls that characterized the supposedly difficult heroic dungeons had been my single greatest dislike of the latter days of Wrath of the Lich King, so I cheered to learn that Cataclysm would have me fight bosses such as Corla in the new Blackrock Caverns dungeon. Fights like Corla weren't impossible by any means, but in learning the perfect coordination demanded by the fight, I rediscovered some of the cooperative magic that made me a dungeon junkie in the first place. Unfortunately, though, I was also disappointed to learn that such "thinking fights" had no place in WoW's new world of random group finders that encouraged dropping whenever something went wrong or players didn't understand a mechanic because it was their first playthrough.

Yeah this guy doesn't get it. At all. He's drawn all the wrong conclusions on pretty much every point.

He's one of those people who want to blame the users for being bad, and that's why he can't have nice things. No dumbass. The reason the dungeon thing failed is because for most people 5 mans were a pre-requisite to raiding. However, not everybody wanted to do dungeons, and not everybody wanted to run through them just to raid. Also, not everyone wants to gear up their friends just so they can field a team, and slog through difficult prerequisites to do it. Putting higher difficulty in stepping stone content was a huge mistake. Either make it non-stepping stone (ie - people can jump immediately into raiding without it), or don't make it difficult.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 08, 2012, 12:54:24 PM
They even made a human form for him which they almost never used.  Funny thing is, some of the cataclysm quests were really well made but they all kinda left out the main reason you were doing shit.  

MY guess is they didn't want to have a shitload of deathwing focused thing because once the expac was old content, none of it would have made sense.  I think they should have had all the dungeons be very deathwing heavy but all of them seemed to be wholly unrelated, that and they never really explained the whole twilight cultists = deathwing part well enough.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 08, 2012, 12:56:18 PM
How often did Deathwing show up?

- once at the beginning of the Hyjal chain, to set the tone
- once in the middle of Twi Hi, to fight the Red queen
- Dragon Soul, to get shot in the back by green Jesus wielding the Dragon Lazer
- randomly choosing a zone to burninate, but some still maintain this was a myth ;)

What am I missing? This can't be it. Was he so unmemorable?

He shows up in 1-60 content as well; an example would be the quest in Badlands where the 3 characters tell you their memories of what happened on the day he woke up. The getting burninated thing was much more common if you were leveling through the whole level range, too. He didn't seem to hit the zones that 80+ people were in much at all, but I got burninated several times leveling up my hunter.

they never really explained the whole twilight cultists = deathwing part well enough.

The explanation for that was all in the pre-patch event, which was fine if you were around for it, but if you missed that you'd be missing rather too much information.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Fabricated on August 08, 2012, 01:28:15 PM
I thought Arthas was handled pretty well in WotLK. The problem was that Blizzard didn't quite beat the players over the head enough with the "He's grooming you as a new henchman, stupid" bat and instead on casual observation he kinda appears like Dr. Claw, screaming "I'll get you next time, Gadget!" after you fuck up his latest plan.

As for Cata and its failure, my shitty opinion is that it can pretty much be laid at the feet of the following:

-People didn't dig the new (rather good IMO) 1-60 experience as much as Blizzard expected and did not spend nearly as much time on it as Blizzard expected.

-After the new, well-itemized, well organized, generally interesting (and voiceacted in some areas) 1-60 experience you're kerplunked right back into "We're still new at this MMO thing" BC questing and "this would be cooler if anyone gave a shit about it anymore" Northrend experience before getting BACK into the interesting stuff.

-Heroics were made grindy, difficult, long, and gave generally shitty rewards while still being required to raid. The raids themselves were tuned far too hard. "Bad" players hit a complete brick wall at heroics, and IMO average quality players while frustrated by the heroics got done with them only to hit a similar brick wall in NORMAL raiding. This was the expansion for grognards and it fucking failed in most ways it could've failed.

The success of LFR/Scenarios/wrath-difficulty heroics/farmville/pokemon will pretty much depend on how long they can continue to distract people from the fact that Blizzard seems completely unwilling if not utterly incapable of cranking out quality content on anything but a glacial timescale. With just the sliding time nerf mechanic Blizzard could've swung Cata's shitty design decisions if they could just produce lots of content.

I dunno if I buy the whole, "Well the game is old!" thing either. The game being old doesn't cost you 25% of your subs in one expansion.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 08, 2012, 01:43:23 PM
Fab, I agree with your points and would rank them in this order:

1 - The heroic issues
2 - Blizzard not understanding that huge assets in non-end-game content don't reap returns
3 - Content production slog
4 - General attrition


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 08, 2012, 01:44:24 PM
The revamped leveling content was a necessary evil. Their churn is still such that new people are trying the game, and the old crappy starter zones had to be a huge detriment to retaining new players.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lantyssa on August 08, 2012, 02:12:59 PM
Now that GW2 has shown us how, just allow (by user choice) an automatic de-leveling to match your quest/zone level.  Give rewards that are of benefit to your current level.  Now old content has a purpose.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Tannhauser on August 08, 2012, 02:16:12 PM
Meh, they tuned Cata for the hardcore and then were shocked, SHOCKED when people got frustrated and fled in droves.

So they drunkenly swung their nerf bat and now if you kill an orc you gain five levels, a purple and a blowjob from Jaina while Thrall cups your balls.

No offense at the hardcore, their playstyle is as valid as mine (cheetos-stained fingers and bitter tears of loneliness).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 08, 2012, 02:34:03 PM
I'm perfectly happy is they cater to the hardcore at their level (which is heroic raids).

Stay the fuck out of 5 man dungeons. That's facerolling time while I watch sports.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Hutch on August 08, 2012, 02:56:02 PM
He shows up in 1-60 content as well; an example would be the quest in Badlands where the 3 characters tell you their memories of what happened on the day he woke up. The getting burninated thing was much more common if you were leveling through the whole level range, too. He didn't seem to hit the zones that 80+ people were in much at all, but I got burninated several times leveling up my hunter.

I'll take your word for it. I did get a goblin to the level cap, but more importantly, I ran through all of the zones on my main, to get the neo-Loremaster achievement. So I must have seen the sub-60 stuff, and I just don't remember seeing DW.

I only got burninated a couple of times, but both times I was in Uldum :)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 08, 2012, 03:19:07 PM
Either make it non-stepping stone (ie - people can jump immediately into raiding without it), or don't make it difficult.

There's nothing in what you quoted that blamed players.  The only possibility is the implication that the author might like things that other people don't, which of course you're constitutionally incapable of doing.

But I want to focus on that last line.  There's nothing wrong with making play at a "higher" level (and raiding is, unfortunately, given the gear rewards) require that the the player show competence at "lower" levels of play.  WoW players need to level to cap, level reputations, get some gear in group play, get money for expenses, and farm for consumables.  That's always been a part of the game.  The advance, in my opinion, has been the increase in those non-raiding requirements to be in machine-matchmaking group play and not out soloing.

Also, no difficulty setting is intrinsically wrong.  (Even easy!  Which I play almost all SP games on.)  But, there was an objective failure in the managing of expectations going into Cataclysm.  Part of that was overestimating how much players would pick up on the more complicated leveling game, including the number of quests/mobs that featured "raid mechanic training".  Another part was that even vaguely hardcore players like myself saw that Wrath of the Lich King's difficulty was a bug, not a feature.  And I still feel justified in that opinion because so many of the systems that contributed to that lack of difficulty were, on their face, not well thought out: infinite healer mana, defense tables, armor penetration, Paladin rotations, Death Knights in general.

Lastly, that a number of classes had gameplay that was slightly less engaging than working in a Chinese CAPTCHA-solving sweatshop.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 08, 2012, 03:39:50 PM
The revamped leveling content was a necessary evil. Their churn is still such that new people are trying the game, and the old crappy starter zones had to be a huge detriment to retaining new players.

I thought they did a good job with the revamped 1 - 60 in terms of leveling experience, but where it utterly failed for me was the feeling that my chosen faction was there for the sole purpose of getting constantly kicked in the nuts as part of a never ending "Look how awesome the Horde is!  The Horde is so AWESOME!  Oh, and by the way the Alliance are incompetent twits" mantra. 

That's when they even bothered doing anything at all for the Alliance.  That same lonely Draenei dude still hammering away at his forever unfinished hut at Forest Song even after the entire zone was revamped and goblins were able to terraform an entire zone is the poster child for the "Horde YEAH! Fuck the Alliance!" attitude it felt like the game had when leveling up in Cata.  The entire Gilneas experience being nothing more than a giant retreat to a single tree in Darnassus and the giant FUCK YOU that was Andorhal were the sprinkles and cherry on that shit sundae.

Yeah, I'm a story whore.  It's why I still like TOR, liked TSW much more than I thought I would and found whatever 'story' was in GW2 sleep inducing.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 08, 2012, 03:59:27 PM
I'm sure they cut the corner on the draenei and friends because that was already 'new' leveling content with rewards at a better standard, etc. Same reason Dustwallow didn't really change.

They *really* should have taken the opportunity to split Ashenvale into 2 zones, there's far far too many quests there now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Nevermore on August 08, 2012, 04:01:53 PM
Forest Song is in Ashenvale.

To clarify, when they added those 2 or 3 Draenei futilely trying to build a settlement I'm pretty sure they didn't add any actual new quests at the spot.  They just changed the quest giver from the 1 or 2 Night Elves that used to be there to the Draenei.  Hell, they couldn't even be bothered to add a vendor to sell shit there.

Edit #2: and they did change Dustwallow in some pretty significant ways despite having already been revamped, like that huge new bridge/road and the trail that lead up to Thousand Needles.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 08, 2012, 04:02:47 PM
Yes I know. The commonality is that Forest Song and Dustwallow were both revamped much more recently than the other old world leveling content.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rasix on August 08, 2012, 04:05:01 PM
Ashenvale was really sloppy form a Horde perspective.  I'm glad that zone was more of an aberration than the rule.  I enjoyed the new 1-60.  Outland still needs to go. I'm not sure I'll come back until it's able to be completely bypassed (I don't care how short it is). 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 08, 2012, 04:23:34 PM
How often did Deathwing show up?

- once at the beginning of the Hyjal chain, to set the tone
- once in the middle of Twi Hi, to fight the Red queen
- Dragon Soul, to get shot in the back by green Jesus wielding the Dragon Lazer
- randomly choosing a zone to burninate, but some still maintain this was a myth ;)

What am I missing? This can't be it. Was he so unmemorable?
The best quest. (http://www.wowhead.com/quest=27713/the-day-that-deathwing-came)


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 08, 2012, 04:25:24 PM
There's nothing in what you quoted that blamed players.  The only possibility is the implication that the author might like things that other people don't, which of course you're constitutionally incapable of doing.

Oh, I guess he obviously wasn't calling players idiots when he said stuff like:

"I was also disappointed to learn that such "thinking fights" had no place in WoW's new world of random group finders that encouraged dropping whenever something went wrong or players didn't understand a mechanic because it was their first playthrough."

See, the problem I have with the mid-tier-wannabe raiding community is the inherent belief that the rest of the population is completely stupid. I don't really care if you like what you like when it comes to raiding. What I do care about is the exclusionary bullshit that usually follows from the community, because if people have what I have it's "welfare epics" or some nonsense. Nevermind the fact that the reason you even have a functional game is because of those masses, who absolutely must be supported or else you get EQ sub numbers.

Again, I don't give a shit about what the hardcore do, because they usually confine themselves to their heroic raids. It's when they start fucking around in the regular people's sandbox, whining about easy dungeons which they honestly don't even have to run except for their min-max badges, that I roll my eyes. You already have your fun elsewhere, stop worrying about the entry level stuff. Fuck off with that.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Simond on August 08, 2012, 04:35:16 PM
I cannot wait for TotalBiscuit to start bitching about casual players in whichever MMO he's in next.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 08, 2012, 05:09:08 PM
Oh, I guess he obviously wasn't calling players idiots when he said stuff like:

"I was also disappointed to learn that such "thinking fights" had no place in WoW's new world of random group finders that encouraged dropping whenever something went wrong or players didn't understand a mechanic because it was their first playthrough."

See, the problem I have with the mid-tier-wannabe raiding community is the inherent belief that the rest of the population is completely stupid. I don't really care if you like what you like when it comes to raiding. What I do care about is the exclusionary bullshit that usually follows from the community, because if people have what I have it's "welfare epics" or some nonsense. Nevermind the fact that the reason you even have a functional game is because of those masses, who absolutely must be supported or else you get EQ sub numbers.

Again, I don't give a shit about what the hardcore do, because they usually confine themselves to their heroic raids. It's when they start fucking around in the regular people's sandbox, whining about easy dungeons which they honestly don't even have to run except for their min-max badges, that I roll my eyes. You already have your fun elsewhere, stop worrying about the entry level stuff. Fuck off with that.

The most important word in that sentence in one you didn't bold: encouraged.  The matchmaking system, which is a huge positive otherwise, does encourage players to bail on a run that isn't perfect.  If one was stuck in the ass end of Scholomance or Botanica, they put up with a lot more because replacing someone or getting a new run for themselves was a chore.  Now, players can just bail, wait out any penalty, and get back into the dungeon with no repercussions.

Secondly, there are legitimate problems caused by gear resets that have nothing to do with snobbery.  Gear resets disincentivize going back to do older content.  As a result of that, everyone gets shoved into the latest raid instance, so they need to be all things to all players.  The entirety of a progression cycle has to get squeezed into one raid instance's worth of assets over a few months instead of over several instances over the course of two years.  That requires some level of compromise which can in turn make the high-end game worse.  Even the snobbery has a tiny amount of merit as exclusive rewards encourage some players to do things they wouldn't intrinsically enjoy for the extra status or whatever, which helps support the high-end game with fresh meat.  I think that the benefits of gear resets outweigh these issues though.

I "whine" about easy dungeons because that's what I care about.  What I want from an MMO is difficult, contemplative, small group (3-6) content with things like crowd controls, puzzles that you can't just look up the answer to, and bosses that require me to use every tool my class has at its disposal.  And it helps if it doesn't take an age to do and is repeatable.  Heroic 10-man raiding isn't not fun, but even with the classes that integrate most tightly with the group, I don't find it as fun as a Moria-era 3-man or a launch-period BC or Cata heroic in a vacuum.  They're fundamentally different games.

And WoW still offers the best possible wrapper/quality-of-life around those experiences so I'd quite like it if I could get my hard dungeons in a game that like... works and stuff.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 08, 2012, 05:33:20 PM
"I was also disappointed to learn that such "thinking fights" had no place in WoW's new world of random group finders that encouraged dropping whenever something went wrong or players didn't understand a mechanic because it was their first playthrough."

See, the problem I have with the mid-tier-wannabe raiding community is the inherent belief that the rest of the population is completely stupid.

(http://i.imgur.com/y1HFt.jpg)

You're reading too much into the article. He's acknowledging that complex or pass/fail fight mechanics don't have a place in anonymous, randomly-formed, no-consequence, no-patience grouping. He's right. It's the same reason complex mechanics are a bad idea for LFR. Nobody wants to spend 10 minutes explaining the fight to someone that they don't know and will never play with again.

This is why challenge mode dungeons or even normal raids aren't hooked up to the group finder. It's not because people that use the group finder are bad, it's because group content of any size with complex or challenging mechanics only works in a group that is willing to communicate and is at least somewhat invested in playing together.

You already have your fun elsewhere, stop worrying about [our stuff]. Fuck off with that.

What's funny is that this is the exact same rhetoric the elitist exclusionary raiders you always rant about use to argue against easy raid content. Just as "You already have 5-mans, stop worrying about raids" would be a stupid argument, "you already have raids, stop worrying about 5-mans" is as well. Some people like challenging content, some people just want something to do while they watch TV, but both camps are justified in requesting content that appeals to them in any group size.

Challenge mode 5-mans and LFR give WoW the opportunity to serve both types of players, which makes the obnoxious "us vs them" attitude that has often characterized your posts on this sub-forum over the past 2 years all the more pointless.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 08, 2012, 06:44:16 PM
Quote
Eventually we outgeared those instances, and Blizzard shuffled them out of sight by rerouting properly geared players to the recycled troll instances to avoid complaints that they were "too hard" for players used to Wrath's dungeons. Quietly, Blizzard's returned to the short, accessible model of Wrath of the Lich King's dungeons in what I presume was an effort to retain subscribers, reaching its pinnacle in the three quick, unchallenging Hour of Twilight dungeons released last November.

Guys I'm not reading into what he's saying. He specifically says he hated the simple dungeons of Wrath, unequivocally WoW's most popular era. He's saying Blizzard caved to the masses. He wanted harder shit, but he admittedly outgeared the stuff quickly. I'm not reading into a guy putting quotes around "too hard" and using phrases like "thinking fights" when waxing nostalgic about classic WoW. It's the same collection of subtle digs I've heard for years.

The developers desperately wanted to crank up the dial on the game, and they will look for a reason to do it. Hell, if it was economically feasible they wouldn't have changed anything about Cataclysm's dungeons. They latched onto the few complaints they heard about easy dungeons at the end of Wrath, and they turned the game up to 11. If they aren't constantly reminded of the fact that their bread and butter is absolutely the huge base of casual players that want no part of this shit, they will ruin their game of their own design. Cataclysm's abject failure at the subscription table was a harsh reminder of that fact.

And Rokal, we've said over and over we don't give a shit about heroic raids. If people complain that raids are too easy and never even do heroics, fuck off. There's an entire tier waiting for you to show us how big and bad you are. Go to it. What they are really saying when they do that is they don't want other people to have what they have. If you think heroics are too hard and the gap is too big, say that. Don't put it on a "here's a protip raids are simple noobs" mentality. A huge group of people in the game really don't even give a shit about raids much. What they like is to play with their friends and not put their dick into a blender for 1.5 hours because they wanted to run a 5 man. Just as they should stay out of conversations for heroic raids, the raiders should stay out of their dungeons.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 08, 2012, 06:57:51 PM
I wouldn't agree they should stay out.. but they certainly shouldn't be bitching about blowing-through a dungeon they overgear by 100+ item levels.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 08, 2012, 07:05:15 PM
I wouldn't agree they should stay out.. but they certainly shouldn't be bitching about blowing-through a dungeon they overgear by 100+ item levels.

I mean stay out of the difficulty tuning discussions, not the actual dungeons.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rokal on August 08, 2012, 07:18:18 PM
Guys I'm not reading into what he's saying. He specifically says he hated the simple dungeons of Wrath, unequivocally WoW's most popular era. He's saying Blizzard caved to the masses. He wanted harder shit, but he admittedly outgeared the stuff quickly. I'm not reading into a guy putting quotes around "too hard" and using phrases like "thinking fights" when waxing nostalgic about classic WoW. It's the same collection of subtle digs I've heard for years.

You are reading into it too much because "I liked harder content" and "Blizzard catered to players forming dungeons via LFD" does not = "Blizzard catered to bad players". You're seeing insults where there aren't any.

And Rokal, we've said over and over we don't give a shit about heroic raids. If people complain that raids are too easy and never even do heroics, fuck off. There's an entire tier waiting for you to show us how big and bad you are. Go to it. What they are really saying when they do that is they don't want other people to have what they have. If you think heroics are too hard and the gap is too big, say that. Don't put it on a "here's a protip raids are simple noobs" mentality. A huge group of people in the game really don't even give a shit about raids much. What they like is to play with their friends and not put their dick into a blender for 1.5 hours because they wanted to run a 5 man. Just as they should stay out of conversations for heroic raids, the raiders should stay out of their dungeons.

I don't understand how this is what you got out of my post. I didn't even mention heroic raids: I said all raids. The example would have included LFR and normal.

Asking for all content of a specific size to be catered only to your desires because "X group already has plenty of content (of a different size) without shitting up my content" is crazy. Casual players already have plenty of 5-man content in MoP? Not a solid argument for why there shouldn't be raid content balanced for them as well. There is no legitimate problem with LFR existing in the game to cater to casual players that want to experience raid content balanced for them, just as there is no legitimate problem with challenge modes existing in the game for more serious players that want to experience 5-man content balanced for them.

I happen to like 5-mans more than I like raiding. One isn't an acceptable replacement for the other.

It's an issue of balancing development time and nothing more. Challenging raids or 5-mans (or easy raids and 5-mans) are fine as long they aren't to the exclusion of all other content.

In Wrath the pendulum swung too far towards easy 5-mans, to the exclusion of all challenging 5-man content.

In Cata the pendulum swing too far towards challenging 5-mans, to the exclusion of (almost) all LFD-friendly 5-man content.

Hopefully in MoP we'll finally have a reasonable balance between the two.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Paelos on August 08, 2012, 07:33:08 PM
I reject your premise that Wrath swung things too far. I think the Blizzard staff would love to unring the Cataclysm bell and go back to that pendulum if they could.

However, I'm not against the difficulty stratification of content and I never have been. One of the reasons Wrath was so popular is because it initiated that stratification process with 10 and 25 man options, as well as the heroic raid introduction. One of the reasons that Cataclysm didn't succeed was because they didn't further extend that strategy. I'm always going to be in favor of more modes and options for the players if they aren't seen as necessary steps to the next level (ie - a good player can't skip the easier modes to get to their desired level due to gear restrictions).


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on August 08, 2012, 09:42:21 PM
I think Fabricated put it about right for me. I've played since launch, I used to be in a guild that spent four nights a week trying to get through AQ40 and Naxx back in vanilla. I stuck with that until a bunch of my friends and colleagues starting playing in BC and I had much more fun doing that, we were much more casual. There was still stuff to do, and eventually we had a partnership with another semi-casual guild and did Gruul's and Mag and Tempest with them. Karazhan was the most fun my guild had, and I still think it was the best balance between design and challenge they've had, for the most part. Then we did Wrath and enjoyed it well enough, and it was certainly easy enough to hop on a 5-man heroic when you couldn't find guildies and have a bit of challenge and maybe gear up a bit too. But I started to get pretty bored when the guild made a serious run at progression through ICC-25 to the Lich King, and a lot of the other grown-ups my age were feeling the same. Too slow a development cycle, too many of the same tricks.

Cata was what happens in diku-muds or even PnP where there's been a Monty Hall DM who gets dethroned--you can't get out of the design hole you've made with some genuinely new ideas, so you just throw the difficulty dial over to the other extreme. I think when five of us in the guild hopped into a heroic 5-man after hitting 85 and gearing through running each of the normals and spent hours and hours trying to get through it (we did, but it was frustrating) all of us were saying, "fuck, who needs this?" The questing experience was ok, nothing great--but just generally there really felt like there was no possibility of a new idea. I also think the world itself in the game has become increasingly more sterile and roller-coasterish...there just feels like there is nothing spontaneous, surprising or unplanned going on any more. It feels sometimes like a hugely super-elaborated version of Dragon's Lair: joystick left, joystick up, right right right down LEFT. The long-time flaws of the game were magnified by Cata and there were no compensatory innovations or virtues introduced. It made it easy to stop playing and when people stop playing, it loses the social connection that might keep you there.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Sheepherder on August 09, 2012, 03:36:12 AM
1. There were exactly three dungeons that gave you ilevel 333 loot.
2. Dungeons fit into two categories:
   a) random wipes (hahaha, you have to pet tank the javelins, you fucking noob!)
   b) hour long ordeals.
3. People like winning loots, even if they aren't incredibly upgraded loots.
4. The death penalty needs to go if you want people to slam their heads against walls rather than quit and re-queue.
5. Following from #4, the corpse run serves no useful purpose that a simple timer could not also achieve.  It is, however, much more annoying.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Merusk on August 09, 2012, 03:46:28 AM
On #5, it serves a small purpose if you've ever died someplace in the middle of a respawn or underground.   Yes, there's ways around that but I don't think that sort of out-of-the-box thinking is going to occur to this group.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 09, 2012, 06:42:50 AM
The corpse run in an instance is fundamentally different than the corpse run out in the world. While in an instance there really is no reason it doesn't just spawn you INSIDE the dungeon (or the location of the last boss death, or something) instead of outside, an arbitrary distance away. BRC is the most annoying of these, particularly because the dungeon is kind of hard to find.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Zetor on August 09, 2012, 08:53:49 AM
The revamped leveling content was a necessary evil. Their churn is still such that new people are trying the game, and the old crappy starter zones had to be a huge detriment to retaining new players.

I thought they did a good job with the revamped 1 - 60 in terms of leveling experience, but where it utterly failed for me was the feeling that my chosen faction was there for the sole purpose of getting constantly kicked in the nuts as part of a never ending "Look how awesome the Horde is!  The Horde is so AWESOME!  Oh, and by the way the Alliance are incompetent twits" mantra.  

That's when they even bothered doing anything at all for the Alliance.  That same lonely Draenei dude still hammering away at his forever unfinished hut at Forest Song even after the entire zone was revamped and goblins were able to terraform an entire zone is the poster child for the "Horde YEAH! Fuck the Alliance!" attitude it felt like the game had when leveling up in Cata.  The entire Gilneas experience being nothing more than a giant retreat to a single tree in Darnassus and the giant FUCK YOU that was Andorhal were the sprinkles and cherry on that shit sundae.

Yeah, I'm a story whore.  It's why I still like TOR, liked TSW much more than I thought I would and found whatever 'story' was in GW2 sleep inducing.
I pretty much agree with all of this (except I like the gw2 story :p) - the 1-60 stuff is varied and fun, but someone(s) has a massive hard-on for the horde (horde-on? I slay me). Even next to the usual lol metzen Thrall stuff.

Edit: this was also pretty apparent in the 80-85 zones when levelling my orc lock vs. my alliance toons. Somehow the horde is always attacking and the alliance is (desperately) defending. 'Course it doesn't matter when everyone levels in instances anyway  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: luckton on August 09, 2012, 09:09:40 AM
You don't level in instances from 80-85...takes too long grinding that out because of the curve.

AFAIC, Cata was worth coming back when HoT/DS was released.  That was a good enough 'mea culpa' for me, and I still had time to catch up on the previous content and stuff.  If MoP can capitalize on what 4.3 did, it's a step in the right direction. 


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Ingmar on August 09, 2012, 11:18:35 AM
Forest Song is in Ashenvale.

To clarify, when they added those 2 or 3 Draenei futilely trying to build a settlement I'm pretty sure they didn't add any actual new quests at the spot.  They just changed the quest giver from the 1 or 2 Night Elves that used to be there to the Draenei.  Hell, they couldn't even be bothered to add a vendor to sell shit there.

Edit #2: and they did change Dustwallow in some pretty significant ways despite having already been revamped, like that huge new bridge/road and the trail that lead up to Thousand Needles.

Nah, there were a bunch of new quests added to Forest Song when they started that Draenei settlement. All the stuff with the demons, for example, was new.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on August 09, 2012, 07:58:03 PM
The corpse run in an instance is fundamentally different than the corpse run out in the world. While in an instance there really is no reason it doesn't just spawn you INSIDE the dungeon (or the location of the last boss death, or something) instead of outside, an arbitrary distance away. BRC is the most annoying of these, particularly because the dungeon is kind of hard to find.

I agree in general terms, but I find the HOT dungeons worse in that the caverns of time are a big mess at the best of times and when afflicted by the death glow.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 09, 2012, 08:09:29 PM
Ahh I forgot about the Caverns of Time; I haven't played much in 4.3 and I think I only did the new 5 mans once each.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: cmlancas on August 10, 2012, 08:49:05 AM
The corpse run in an instance is fundamentally different than the corpse run out in the world. While in an instance there really is no reason it doesn't just spawn you INSIDE the dungeon (or the location of the last boss death, or something) instead of outside, an arbitrary distance away. BRC is the most annoying of these, particularly because the dungeon is kind of hard to find.

I agree in general terms, but I find the HOT dungeons worse in that the caverns of time are a big mess at the best of times and when afflicted by the death glow.


If I had a nickel for every time someone got lost in there...

I'd like to see less dismounting from ghosts because there are a few places where it's impossible to find a good place to land to get your corpse.  Setheria's Roost in Hyjal comes to mind as an intensely frustrating place to CR.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Pantastic on August 10, 2012, 12:23:02 PM
-People didn't dig the new (rather good IMO) 1-60 experience as much as Blizzard expected and did not spend nearly as much time on it as Blizzard expected.

I'm not sure why Blizzard would expect people to spend more time on it when they made it zip by blazingly fast - on alts with little heirloom gear it was common to level halfway into or past the 'next' zone just by going through. There's a lot of amusing stuff to play through, and hitting all the zones on both factions does take a while, but the zones are really made to burn through once and never go back, and are almost completely linear. They're good for a new person to level up quickly, but they're not really great for altoholics to replay endlessly and really lack a 'wandering through the world' feel. I think it's going to hurt them on future new players trying to get through cataclysm too.

Quote
-Heroics were made grindy, difficult, long, and gave generally shitty rewards while still being required to raid.

I think think "long" was by far the biggest problem with Cataclysm heroics. If you're only investing 5 minutes to get to a hard boss, or 15 minutes to get to the end boss (like WOLK dungeons, maybe double that for a really slow group), you can just see if your group can handle it and if they can't, just bail and try again. When it takes you an hour of grinding out trash (and laboriously setting up CC) just to find out if your group can handle the bosses, it's extremely frustrating to get a 'no', especially since for a non-hardcore player you probably just blew the entire evening. I think they could have gotten away with  hard bosses that you can quickly say 'these guys have no chance on', but making someone waste their whole night on a failed dungeon just pisses them off.

Quote
Blizzard seems completely unwilling if not utterly incapable of cranking out quality content on anything but a glacial timescale.

I really don't understand why it takes them so long to come up with new raids and dungeons, especially the stuff that's lightly tuned and that uses 'slightly bigger than the one you hit while leveling' art assets.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: cmlancas on August 13, 2012, 05:35:34 AM
We got heroic Blackhorn finally last night, since I know so many of you care.   :drill:

Oh, and for all of the forum posters on WoW official that say heroics in Cata are too easy, they're just wrong.  The mechanics (even with the nerfs) are hard.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Khaldun on August 15, 2012, 09:19:46 AM
They're completely wrong. I did one last night for the first time in a while and it was a pain in the ass. "Hard" isn't quite the right word. Unfun is more like it.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: cmlancas on August 15, 2012, 09:46:20 AM
They're completely wrong. I did one last night for the first time in a while and it was a pain in the ass. "Hard" isn't quite the right word. Unfun is more like it.

Many of the encounters are cockstabs.  Yor'sahj is one that's just a stupid design.  Here's a really stupid boss, now here's random shit that happens.

I love, love, love Zon'ozz on heroic though.  It really feels like a truly heroic fight.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Feverdream on August 15, 2012, 11:46:14 AM
I'm in an 8/8 Heroic guild but you know, I'd never touch this stuff if my guildmates weren't fun to play with.  I'd never do heroics with people who get too totally serious about it all.  There's a fine line between having fun while tackling challenging content together versus turning raiding into some sort of bizarre second job.  I won't run with people who can't see or respect that line.

If MoP can offer raid content that feels about like the DS raids, then I'm all in.

Cmlancas -  Congrats on Blackhorn!  And my sympathies on doing Heroic Spine next.  bwahahahaha.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: cmlancas on August 15, 2012, 11:49:16 AM
We did a couple pulls and it's a clear step up in difficulty.  It'll be a few weeks for sure, but I think we have savior in reach now.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 19, 2012, 05:11:45 PM
Do you have a Warrior tank and non-awful damage dealers (for your progression level)?  If so, congratulations.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: cmlancas on August 20, 2012, 05:17:23 AM
Do you have a Warrior tank and non-awful damage dealers (for your progression level)?  If so, congratulations.

Our healers, MT, and two DPS have been carrying everyone for most of the expansion now.

It's readily apparent on spine -- even with the 30% debuff, we couldn't get the first tendon down in two lifts.

Also, people got their feelings hurt when we talked about this last night...I have a feeling our progression group is going to get incredibly butthurt in MoP.  Specifically, one of our hunters has argued with me that marksman is just fine, but he got out-bursted by a warlock last night.  In fact, our DPS is so bad I'm considering having our DK tank the amalgs in DPS gear just to beat the requirement.

We'll see how it goes next week.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on August 21, 2012, 05:55:34 PM
They're completely wrong. I did one last night for the first time in a while and it was a pain in the ass. "Hard" isn't quite the right word. Unfun is more like it.

Many of the encounters are cockstabs.  Yor'sahj is one that's just a stupid design.  Here's a really stupid boss, now here's random shit that happens.

I love, love, love Zon'ozz on heroic though.  It really feels like a truly heroic fight.

He was talking about Heroics (dungeons), I believe. Not DS.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Azazel on August 21, 2012, 06:40:14 PM
The most important word in that sentence in one you didn't bold: encouraged.  The matchmaking system, which is a huge positive otherwise, does encourage players to bail on a run that isn't perfect.  If one was stuck in the ass end of Scholomance or Botanica, they put up with a lot more because replacing someone or getting a new run for themselves was a chore.  Now, players can just bail, wait out any penalty, and get back into the dungeon with no repercussions.


Why should there be repercussions? We're playing a game to have fun. If people bail on a "non perfect" run, they get instantly repped by someone else the the rest of the players still get to finish the run. If you're having a shit time, or the others are asshats, why should you feel obliged to "suck it up" and stay in an unfun situation?

Across my characters, I've both bailed on groups and been part of groups that have been bailed on many times. I've kicked and been kicked. Who gives a rat's arse?


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lastwolf on August 22, 2012, 01:45:52 AM
They're completely wrong. I did one last night for the first time in a while and it was a pain in the ass. "Hard" isn't quite the right word. Unfun is more like it.

Many of the encounters are cockstabs.  Yor'sahj is one that's just a stupid design.  Here's a really stupid boss, now here's random shit that happens.

I love, love, love Zon'ozz on heroic though.  It really feels like a truly heroic fight.

I'm the opposite, Yor'sahj is an easier fight than Zon'ozz, for sure (the enrage timer is a lot softer as the setup has nearly always been 1tank-2healers) , but I enjoyed the encounter (Sahj) more, that ball is a pain in the ass to control as a tank, can't see it half the time, it never bounces back in a straight line, often does so in different directions, the distance between range group and boss has to be exact or the tank will take damage from the bounce back, which can often lead to tank death if timers mesh wrong, One fuck or buggy behavior, wipe, recovery from mistake is almost impossible.

Shaj is always different though and pre-buffs the combinations mattered, if you got two Red-yellow-black phases in a row, without the right or enough cooldowns, you're toast.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Lastwolf on August 22, 2012, 01:47:47 AM
They're completely wrong. I did one last night for the first time in a while and it was a pain in the ass. "Hard" isn't quite the right word. Unfun is more like it.

Many of the encounters are cockstabs.  Yor'sahj is one that's just a stupid design.  Here's a really stupid boss, now here's random shit that happens.

I love, love, love Zon'ozz on heroic though.  It really feels like a truly heroic fight.

I'm the opposite, Yor'sahj is an easier fight than Zon'ozz, for sure (the enrage timer is a lot softer as the setup has nearly always been 1tank-2healers) , but I enjoyed the encounter (Sahj) more, that ball is a pain in the ass to control as a tank, can't see it half the time, it never bounces back in a straight line, often does so in different directions, the distance between range group and boss has to be exact or the tank will take damage from the bounce back, which can often lead to tank death if timers mesh wrong, One fuckup with a dispell or buggy behavior, wipe. recovery from mistake is almost impossible.

Shaj is always different though and pre-buffs the combinations mattered, if you got two Red-yellow-black phases in a row, without the right or enough cooldowns, you're toast.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: caladein on August 22, 2012, 03:15:39 PM
The most important word in that sentence in one you didn't bold: encouraged.  The matchmaking system, which is a huge positive otherwise, does encourage players to bail on a run that isn't perfect.  If one was stuck in the ass end of Scholomance or Botanica, they put up with a lot more because replacing someone or getting a new run for themselves was a chore.  Now, players can just bail, wait out any penalty, and get back into the dungeon with no repercussions.

Why should there be repercussions? We're playing a game to have fun. If people bail on a "non perfect" run, they get instantly repped by someone else the the rest of the players still get to finish the run. If you're having a shit time, or the others are asshats, why should you feel obliged to "suck it up" and stay in an unfun situation?

Across my characters, I've both bailed on groups and been part of groups that have been bailed on many times. I've kicked and been kicked. Who gives a rat's arse?

I never said there should be any repercussions. The system as it is now works fine for what it's doing, which you describe well. It doesn't do a good job at providing the incentive/disincentive structure to get people to learn and teach encounters and work better as a team.

Which is something I derived a lot of fun out of in the bad old days. That doesn't seem to exist anymore as the pick-up world is dominated by either stuff that's easy in-and-of-itself or groups that aren't really pick-up groups at all but just various raiders' alts.


Title: Re: Cataclysm
Post by: Rendakor on August 22, 2012, 07:54:22 PM
The problem is that most people don't want to teach/learn encounters with random strangers. You'll have challenge modes to do with your guild in MoP, and they can keep the regular 5 mans easy. The same situation applies to raids as well.