How would you use dual spec?
cryptoguy
I've heard that it includes reconfiguring action bars, macros, etc.
How would you use it?
My main, who is a lvl 80 Holy Pally healer, I intend to
dual spec as a Prot Pally tank. This will require a second
set of gear, but will make him pretty desirable for groups.
pt
John Gordon
> There are strong rumors that we'll get dual speccing with 3.1.
> I've heard that it includes reconfiguring action bars, macros, etc.
> How would you use it?
On my Rogue, I'd use it to switch back and forth between a raid-friendly
pure DPS spec and an instance-friendly spec with some points in improved
stealth, improved sap, etc.
On my Priest, I'd use it to swap back and forth between Holy and Disc.
On my Mage, I'd use it to switch between a raiding spec such as Frostfire
and a solo-friendly deep frost AOE spec.
On my Warlock, I doubt I'd use it at all.
On my Warrior, I'd use it to swap between tanking and dps specs, so I can
still get in runs that are looking for a dps.
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gor...@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In <82de5fb6-292c-4d26...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > There are strong rumors that we'll get dual speccing with 3.1.
> > I've heard that it includes reconfiguring action bars, macros, etc.
>
> > How would you use it?
>
> On my Rogue, I'd use it to switch back and forth between a raid-friendly
> pure DPS spec and an instance-friendly spec with some points in improved
> stealth, improved sap, etc.
>
> On my Priest, I'd use it to swap back and forth between Holy and Disc.
>
> On my Mage, I'd use it to switch between a raiding spec such as Frostfire
> and a solo-friendly deep frost AOE spec.
>
> On my Warlock, I doubt I'd use it at all.
>
> On my Warrior, I'd use it to swap between tanking and dps specs, so I can
> still get in runs that are looking for a dps.
I'm going to wonder what the hell is the point of Blizzard making each
tree a viable path? This dual spec idea seems pretty dumb to me. It's
like Starcraft, only you can switch between any of the three races at
will and all your buildings and units instantly convert. Leaves me
wondering WTF was the point in balancing talent trees in the first
place?
I mean give me a break - just build another character speced and
outfitted differently if that's what you need. Or is Blizzard going to
remove all need to think about how to play and survive with different
specs? No, no - no need to THINK in this game. You can just hit a button
and be perfect for each task.
Now I agree that meaningless barriers in games can be frustrating, but
sensible barriers that fit the story and common sense are there for a
reason - to present a challenge for the player. Otherwise why not just
have a big "NUKE EVERYTHING" button?
Example of a meaningless barrier that serves no role in the story,
shatters immersion in the game, and is only there to frustrate players,
i.e. how to make a game harder in a bad way:
EVE Online inserts a long break in-between each auto-piloted jump, yet
you can jump again instantly if you take manual control. I'm sorry -
EVE's brainless developers are saying humans can plot a jump faster than
computers?
Example of a barrier that makes sense in terms of the story and plain
common sense, and is there to create a challenge for players, because -
after all - games are about overcoming challenges and the rush that
gives, i.e. how to make a game harder in a good way:
Forcing a character to work with a pre-defined and limited set of skills
that cannot be changed at the drop of a hat. Otherwise why can't my
Hunter have blizzard or sheeping? Whinge! Whinge! Oh wait... games are
not supposed to be so easy we don't have to think. Otherwise we're back
to having a "NUKE EVERYTHING" button which no doubt some people would
have fantastic fun hitting over and over. Sadly many would be bored
shitless, but oh well - it's all about appealing to the lowest common
denominator nowadays, isn't it?
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Gumby619
"Jamie Kahn Genet" <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote in message
news:1iups8b.1g6p5kmks0wuwN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz...
Simple, 1 spec for pvp and 1 spec for pve/raiding. I have the gear already
for both (or at least most of each set) and Instead of having to go and
respec every time I want to do arena or whatever pvp thing I desire at that
moment I can just click a button (or 2?), swap equipment and I'm ready. It
just saves time.
As to hunters having sheep, blizzard etc. In the olden days of GOPHER and
such when we played MUDs, a dual class was normal. Warrior/Healer,
Hunter/Mage, Thief/Ranger, these were all viable and almost expected. I
don't remember many people that played a single class and some of the MUDs
actually encouraged it and made it mandatory to advance in the game. But I
guess I have given away enough info about my age for one day
Gumby619
morag
> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <jami...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote in messagenews:1iups8b.1g6p5kmks0wuwN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz...
>
>
>
>
>
> > John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> In <82de5fb6-292c-4d26-95e9-003821c2f...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah the good old days!
I had to laugh when Jamie said, " Otherwise why not just
have a big "NUKE EVERYTHING" button?"
The first thought that ran through my mind was: "Yes. Identify 9.
Create a super-Bishop. Then Tiltowait everything you see!"
That's from the *really* old days. How I miss Tiltowait...
Brent Stroh
>The first thought that ran through my mind was: "Yes. Identify 9.
>Create a super-Bishop. Then Tiltowait everything you see!"
>That's from the *really* old days. How I miss Tiltowait...
As I recall, you could also do something to lose levels then Identify 9
again... Making it even worse...
Tiltowait... What flashback...
-Brent
--
Mertuka - Rogue (80) : Mallan - Priest (43) : Medanu - Druid (36)
Ralinth - Warlock (72) : Magorg - Hunter (37) : Ralethian - Paladin (36)
Rakhalga - DK (63) : Meedak - Mage (37) : Rahuraluna - Shaman (13)
Relikag - Warrior (6)
Jamie Kahn Genet
Heh :-)
BTW - I played dual class characters in older RPGs, it just seems like
Blizzard is doing this not as part of the story or to make the game fun
or more varied, but to make it easier to not learn how to play your spec
in more than one way - and I think you lose something when you do that.
Most dual classes in older RPGs I played were weaker than a single class
spec, but of course had a greater variety of talents and ways to handle
situations. But Blizzard's just going to let players swap from one _full
power_ spec to another at the drop of a hat, from what I understand -
correct me if I'm wrong. And that sucks IMHO.
steve.kaye
Dual class characters don't really compare to dual spec characters.
They compare more closely to a character equally speccing into two
trees rather deep into one (and not that close to that either :P)
> Most dual classes in older RPGs I played were weaker than a single class
> spec, but of course had a greater variety of talents and ways to handle
> situations. But Blizzard's just going to let players swap from one _full
> power_ spec to another at the drop of a hat, from what I understand -
> correct me if I'm wrong. And that sucks IMHO.
They say that it's not going to be at the drop of a hat. Something
about it being very easy in town / cities / something or other but
more difficult out in the big bad world.
steve.kaye
steve.kaye
> John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote:
> > cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > There are strong rumors that we'll get dual speccing with 3.1.
> > > I've heard that it includes reconfiguring action bars, macros, etc.
>
> > > How would you use it?
>
> > On my Rogue, I'd use it to switch back and forth between a raid-friendly
> > pure DPS spec and an instance-friendly spec with some points in improved
> > stealth, improved sap, etc.
>
> > On my Priest, I'd use it to swap back and forth between Holy and Disc.
>
> > On my Mage, I'd use it to switch between a raiding spec such as Frostfire
> > and a solo-friendly deep frost AOE spec.
>
> > On my Warlock, I doubt I'd use it at all.
>
> > On my Warrior, I'd use it to swap between tanking and dps specs, so I can
> > still get in runs that are looking for a dps.
>
> I'm going to wonder what the hell is the point of Blizzard making each
> tree a viable path? This dual spec idea seems pretty dumb to me.
I'm actually looking forward to it.
Having said that, I do agree with you. I see talents as abilities
gained by the character over years of concentrating on one particular
aspect of their class and so they get better at it. A survivalist
hunter spent years learning about survival and didn't bother so much
with pets, a marksman hunter just likes shooting things and got better
at that and a beast master hunter spent his life learning about the
care and handling of animals. It actually didn't make sense to me
that you could respec at all (which *would* suck btw). Why would the
BM hunter suddenly lose the exotic pet that he's spent his life
learning how to handle?
Then I realised that the RP part of MMORPG was actually a dead duck
and that WoW's actually an MMOG.
steve.kaye
steve.kaye
My DK will have a pretty stable tank spec and the other spec will be
used as I use him now - I respec when I want a change.
My Druid will be Balance and Resto - probably both PvP oriented.
My Priest will probably have a pure healing spec and a soloing spec.
I don't know about my Paladin - he's unlikely to have prot and holy -
more likely prot and ret or holy and ret.
My other characters are unlikely to actively use the dual spec thing
but when I decide to respec I'll probably keep their current spec and
add the new spec rather than replace the current spec with the new.
This will probably leave me with a rogue with a heavy subt spec and a
heavy assassination spec and a warlock with affliction and demonology
specs.
steve.kaye
Babe Bridou
> On 5 Feb, 22:27, cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are strong rumors that we'll get dual speccing with 3.1.
> > I've heard that it includes reconfiguring action bars, macros, etc.
>
> > How would you use it?
>
On all my characters I'll use a reliable PVP build and a fun random
build for testing things in various areas of the game.
Blizzard finally accepted to activate my brother's Wrath expansion
after 4 months so we'll start to three-man stuff quite soon - I'll
probably try to optimize my other specs for ironmanning instances.
Alphawolf
I keep saying I won't use it all, because I like having one spec and
making the most of it. But likely I'll do the following:
Shadow Priest can dual spec to Disc/Holy for healing - that'll get me
into a LOT more groups.
Fury warrior dual spec to Prot - that'll get me into a LOT more groups
(hmm I'm detecting a theme here)
Resto shammy can go to whatever spec gets you the ghost wolves -
soloing would be a lot faster.
Warlock - no change. Demo/Destro forever!
Prot paladin *might* dual spec healing, but pally healing sounds
really dull.
DK - no change. You can't pry Unholy spec from my cold, dead hands.
Hunters - This is weird. I've got 2 hunters, the first one has always
been MM or Surv. The second I rolled specifically to play as a BM.
So no need to change either really.
But I could go on without them introducing dual specs just fine.
It'll mainly be a boost for my Shadow priest and Fury Warrior.
Alphawoolf
Shammy
>
> only for my shammy: one spec for healing (as now), one spec for tanking
>
Tanking shammy?
Urbin
> > On Feb 5, 3:55 pm, "Gumby619" <Gumby...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > "Jamie Kahn Genet" <jami...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote in
> > >
> > > >> > There are strong rumors that we'll get dual speccing with 3.1.
> > > >> > I've heard that it includes reconfiguring action bars, macros, etc.
> > >
> > > >> > How would you use it?
> > >
> > > > tree a viable path? This dual spec idea seems pretty dumb to me.
[snip parts of Jamie's explanation why he thinks so]
> > > As to hunters having sheep, blizzard etc. In the olden days of GOPHER and
> > > such when we played MUDs, a dual class was normal.
> BTW - I played dual class characters in older RPGs, it just seems like
> Blizzard is doing this not as part of the story or to make the game fun
> or more varied, but to make it easier to not learn how to play your spec
> in more than one way - and I think you lose something when you do that.
I think their aim is to give players the chance to not be locked into one
role.
> Most dual classes in older RPGs I played were weaker than a single class
> spec, but of course had a greater variety of talents and ways to handle
> situations. But Blizzard's just going to let players swap from one _full
> power_ spec to another
My priest is an alt. I don't often run instances with her. She is deep
shadow. She hasn't got much healing gear. I have hardly any healing
experience.
From time to time some guild mates ask me if I can come and heal for them.
Usually I decline. I don't know the holy/disc trees enough to "quickly
respec" and healing with my gear, experience and a shadow spec was dicey
even with me at 80 in the ramparts.
Now, if there is the chance to switch between my deep shadow solo tree and a
holy/disc healing tree, I would put in some research and that might make it
enough of an incentive to actually occasionally go and collect some healing
experience (the combination +dmg/+heal into +spellpower being another).
Same with druids, often we lack either a tank or a healer and the available
druids are the other or even Oomkin so we need to keep looking (even though
the player would be competent at the needed role). With a dual spec, they
could come help us out without the cost of respeccing frequently.
I think this is a good thing.
> at the drop of a hat, from what I understand - correct me if I'm wrong.
> And that sucks IMHO.
I don't know under what circumstances the spec switch will be available, but
considering it takes a lexicon of power to swap glyphs, I would expect that
you'd need to be at your class trainer in order to switch spec.
I agree, being able to swap spec any time (maybe not in combat) would be
overpowered. But with the limit of not doing it in an instance, I think it
is a great change.
Cheers
Urbin
--
Dun Morogh-EU (PvE)
Urbin (80), Dwarven Hunter | Surana (64), Draenei Mage
Mymule (70), Gnomish Warlock | Kordosch (62), Human Death Knight
Sunh (70), Nightelven Priest | Juran (33), Nightelven Druid
Urbin
My BM hunter might try out a Survival spec just because it would be fairly
different to play but I'd think I'd more likely end up with a BM/MM
combination.
My deep shadow priest would add a holy/disc healing spec.
My blood DK might try out the unholy tree.
My affliction warlock and frost mage would probably stay as they are for the
time being.
For me it is not so much a vital feature (except possibly for the priest)
but more a chance to easily try out a new experimental spec while having the
option to quickly swap back to my "main" spec if chances for an instance run
open up.
steve.kaye
> > only for my shammy: one spec for healing (as now), one spec for tanking
>
> Tanking shammy?
They must exists - I had some level 75+ mail +defense armour drop the
other day. :)
His Shammy is level 53 and I think that they can tank instances in a
push. I've certainly been in a ZF group where a Shammy tanked. (a
long time ago though)
steve.kaye
Babe Bridou
I've completed (as 60 healer) a Stratholme Tier 0.5 speed run with a
60 shammy tank who never went to a single raid instance but still
managed to collect all the available mail/leather tanking gear
available in the game before Burning Crusade. He was good.
Shammy
"Babe Bridou" <babeb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc81584b-4ab9-4860...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On 6 fév, 13:35, "steve.kaye" <nos...@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote:
> On 6 Feb, 11:12, "Shammy" <n...@nothing.com> wrote:
>
> > > only for my shammy: one spec for healing (as now), one spec for
> > > tanking
>
> > Tanking shammy?
>
> They must exists - I had some level 75+ mail +defense armour drop the
> other day. :)
I call this wierd greens "DE Greens" as they have no other purpose.
>
> His Shammy is level 53 and I think that they can tank instances in a
> push. I've certainly been in a ZF group where a Shammy tanked. (a
> long time ago though)
imo a shaman can max OT some mob in a normal instance, shamans lack every
possible tank skill to do it well, no taunt, only 1 ability with increased
aggro (I think) no itemisation etc... can you immagine that stats of a
shaman that got enough +def greens to be crit immune?
> I've completed (as 60 healer) a Stratholme Tier 0.5 speed run with a
> 60 shammy tank who never went to a single raid instance but still
> managed to collect all the available mail/leather tanking gear
> available in the game before Burning Crusade. He was good.
At those times blizzard still thought of a shaman or some kind of OT but
shamans didnt evolve in that direction as pallys did.
JohnR
suggest - dual spec is a bad idea and also why only have dual switching when
all toons have 3 trees. Another point i can't quite fathom, if it isn't
going to be a simple and quick proceedure then wtf!! - why the heck even
have it in the first place. Simply get rid of the respec costs and that's
the problem solved right there. It seems quite ridiculous to me and I can't
see why there is such a big fuss over it.
The truth is it's just another step along the dumbed down mega bucks road. I
see many of the proposed ability changes incoming in the next few patches
are also aimed at simplifying the gameplay even more.
sorry I replied to your email instead of posting.
Shammy
"JohnR" <repr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:498c4458$0$24827$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Do you perhaps play a char that does pvp and instances? And in instances you
need to tank 1 day and dps the other or something like that?
If you did that you couldnt wait for this change as many of us do.
I'm playing with a small group of friends but they dont always come online
all so 1 day we have 2 healers and the other day we dont have any, so the
first day 1 healer need to go dps spec then respec the next day as we miss a
healer, then both healers arent on but the dps priest has to respec... it's
just annoying.
neithskye
> How would you use it?
To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely clear on the concept of "dual
speccing". What does that mean exactly?
My Prot Paladin was Holy in TBC and had a nice healing set when he
specced Prot going into Wrath. Along the way I have kept his healing
set updated.
As it stands now, I can already throw this gear on and heal things
like the Conquest Pit or A of Anguish without respeccing out of Prot.
"Dual speccing" would enhance this how?
Anyway, when it comes out, I suppose he'll be a tank/healer spec. Some
people find Holy Paladin healing boring; I always enjoyed it.
Ret doesn't interest me in the slightest, but perhaps that's because I
haven't tried it since Summer 2007. I keep thinking I should give it a
try, but just can't seem to take that leap; every class has some sort
of DPS spec, but few have the option to be a tank/healer, and that is
what I enjoy doing on my Paladin.
--
Jill
Shammy
>
> so, the mail wearing, the frost shock, the heal casting, plus a
> particular speccing in the talent tree could make the shammy a good
> tank... i think :D
>
Hmm so your plan is to run in the middle of mobs and to heal yourself till
you get aggro ?:p
If you take aggro as shaman when healing in an instance there is only 1
reason... your tank sucks but really sucks :p
Do you know the amount of threat real tanks can do? I can do 5000 dps on 4+
mobs when aoeing with my DK and the pally tank can tank them all and I dont
wait for threat I just run in and go full dps.
steve.kaye
wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:27 pm, cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How would you use it?
>
> To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely clear on the concept of "dual
> speccing". What does that mean exactly?
>
> My Prot Paladin was Holy in TBC and had a nice healing set when he
> specced Prot going into Wrath. Along the way I have kept his healing
> set updated.
>
> As it stands now, I can already throw this gear on and heal things
> like the Conquest Pit or A of Anguish without respeccing out of Prot.
> "Dual speccing" would enhance this how?
Well, you'd be able to heal in Holy spec so you'd be able to do it
more easily. More importantly, you'd be able to tank a heroic and
heal another heroic right afterwards without the expense of a respec.
steve.kaye
C Huntoon
to perform multiple functions already exists. This is just a way to
make it a bit easier to go between two specs for people who don't like
to use addons that manage talent builds. Removing the respec cost
accomplishes much the same goal.
I already maintain multiple gear sets and will respec depending on
what my friends require, the cost is negligible once you hit endgame
and start making money with no real need to spend it on anything.
Jure_Bloodscalp
Holy.
Catriona R
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:18:01 +0100, "Shammy" <no...@nothing.com> wrote:
>imo a shaman can max OT some mob in a normal instance, shamans lack every
>possible tank skill to do it well, no taunt, only 1 ability with increased
>aggro (I think) no itemisation etc... can you immagine that stats of a
>shaman that got enough +def greens to be crit immune?
On Gothik in 10-man Naxx the other week our tank dc'd fairly early on
the easy side and the shaman took over - tanked several mobs until the
tank got back, was a bit of a close thing but he did it and nobody died
:-P
--
EU-Draenor:
Sagart (80 Undead Priest)
Tairbh (80 Tauren Druid)
Eilnich (70 Blood Elf Warlock)
Buinne (70 Troll Shaman)
Balgair (70 Human Rogue)
Naomh (70 Draenei Priest)
Rosad (70 Human Warlock)
Sealgair (70 Dwarf Hunter)
chucks...@tds.net
I just wonder why it's taken so long? The only difference now isn't
some time RP type thingabout relearning...it's just visiting the
trainer and bank to get your other set of gear. It's a huge pain in
the butt now, respeccing, reglyphing, equipping gear, and adjusting
gear. Holy and shadow for me, I can fill in when we are short heals
or go dps for fun. Respecing is inconvenient and very expensive when
done weekly. And leveling another of the exact same character is not
a good option at all. I play for endgame - after 3-4 years of playing
leveling is not an experience to me, it's the means to an end. I
actually think that every level 80 on your account should accelerate
your other characters XP rate of gain.
JohnR
recovered from yet.
ScratchMonkey
news:1iups8b.1g6p5kmks0wuwN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz:
> I mean give me a break - just build another character speced and
> outfitted differently if that's what you need.
I'd be happy with that, except that all my character slots are in use so
that I can have one of every class and still have a mule in each faction,
and I'm still slots short to do it all. Give us 20 or more character slots
per realm and you've got a viable suggestion.
As it is, my Horde toons have to be on a different realm, because there's
no way to have all races and classes of both factions on one realm.
Ashen Shugar
like...
>> Most dual classes in older RPGs I played were weaker than a single class
>> spec, but of course had a greater variety of talents and ways to handle
>> situations. But Blizzard's just going to let players swap from one _full
>> power_ spec to another
>
>My priest is an alt. I don't often run instances with her. She is deep
>shadow. She hasn't got much healing gear. I have hardly any healing
>experience.
>
>From time to time some guild mates ask me if I can come and heal for them.
>Usually I decline. I don't know the holy/disc trees enough to "quickly
>respec" and healing with my gear, experience and a shadow spec was dicey
>even with me at 80 in the ramparts.
>
>Now, if there is the chance to switch between my deep shadow solo tree and a
>holy/disc healing tree, I would put in some research and that might make it
>enough of an incentive to actually occasionally go and collect some healing
>experience (the combination +dmg/+heal into +spellpower being another).
I found that after I had specced into a holy/disc healing build for a
week of healing, I was a much better shadow spec healer afterwards.
And for doing a regular instance I'd say a shadow specced healer is
actually one of the best you can get. As long as the tank's not so
badly geared/under leveled that you need to spam heals on them, being
able to dps while healing will help you get through quicker. Get a
well geared tank and you can pretty much just dps and let Vampiric
Embrace handle the healing. Throw around the occasional PoM if VE
needs a bit of help. (I'd often cast it on myself then use SW:D to
pass it to the tank. Make sure your not too far from the tank though)
I tried healing on my Pally the other day. He's level 70 and leveled
as Prot. Did a quick respec to holy and threw on some spell power
gear (the cloth Pre-WotLK Scourge invasion set and other). Was
healing some 65 DK's in Old Hillsbrad. While it was probably partly
their gear, I can't say I really like it. I would have been much more
comfortable and would have done a much better job (even though none of
them died) if I'd been on my shadow priest, even as he was geared back
when he was 70. The priests wide range of heals is great for 5 mans
and as a shadow spec you get an extra HoT with VE and DoT's.
: )
Ashen Shugar
--
The lions sing and the hills take flight.
The moon by day, and the sun by night.
Blind woman, deaf man, jackdaw fool.
Let the Lord of Chaos rule!
Brent Stroh
>Raised level caps are something the game never needed and hasn't properly
>recovered from yet.
John, I'm really starting to think Blizzard could send you strippers and
beer and you'd attribute it to attempting to compensate for releasing such
a horrible game. That 12 million other people don't seem to mind...
-Brent
--
Mertuka - Rogue (80) : Mallan - Priest (43) : Medanu - Druid (36)
Ralinth - Warlock (72) : Magorg - Hunter (37) : Ralethian - Paladin (36)
Rakhalga - DK (63) : Meedak - Mage (37) : Rahuraluna - Shaman (13)
Relikag - Warrior (6)
Jamie Kahn Genet
BTW - it's not that I can't see the advantages, I just think it's going
to utterly kill offensive Holy Priests, for example. Heh, as if you see
any at the moment :-(
I think being forced to be able to cope in solo combat as well as be a
good team player (if desired) creates a more interesting challenge. That
or you have the challenge of finding a long-term group and the dynamics
of being in one, if you spec too much into a group only build. Or you
change the game to encourage more random grouping...
I am constantly amazed and annoyed by other players refusing to group in
WoW because their "experience suffers". To have that happen in an
MMORPG... *sighs* It's not that I don't want soloing to be viable. I
just think it sucks that grouping is not encouraged more, outside of
instances.
Anyway - I truly hope switching specs becomes an enabler of group and
thoughtful play, not just another way for players to avoid being social,
and/or avoid having to be creative in their problem solving - in solo or
party play. If it can be a positive thing - that's... mmmm *grumble*
*grumble* not so bad I guess :-)
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> On 6 Feb, 03:06, jami...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
[snip]
> > Heh :-)
> >
> > BTW - I played dual class characters in older RPGs, it just seems like
> > Blizzard is doing this not as part of the story or to make the game fun
> > or more varied, but to make it easier to not learn how to play your spec
> > in more than one way - and I think you lose something when you do that.
>
> Dual class characters don't really compare to dual spec characters.
> They compare more closely to a character equally speccing into two
> trees rather deep into one (and not that close to that either :P)
Depends on the game, but I suppose you're right.
> > Most dual classes in older RPGs I played were weaker than a single class
> > spec, but of course had a greater variety of talents and ways to handle
> > situations. But Blizzard's just going to let players swap from one _full
> > power_ spec to another at the drop of a hat, from what I understand -
> > correct me if I'm wrong. And that sucks IMHO.
>
> They say that it's not going to be at the drop of a hat. Something
> about it being very easy in town / cities / something or other but
> more difficult out in the big bad world.
>
> steve.kaye
Well that doesn't sound toooooo bad... *somewhat less grumbling ;-) *
Jamie Kahn Genet
> On 5 Feb, 22:57, jami...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> > John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > In <82de5fb6-292c-4d26-95e9-003821c2f...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
> > > cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > > There are strong rumors that we'll get dual speccing with 3.1.
> > > > I've heard that it includes reconfiguring action bars, macros, etc.
> >
> > > > How would you use it?
> >
> > > On my Rogue, I'd use it to switch back and forth between a raid-friendly
> > > pure DPS spec and an instance-friendly spec with some points in improved
> > > stealth, improved sap, etc.
> >
> > > On my Priest, I'd use it to swap back and forth between Holy and Disc.
> >
> > > On my Mage, I'd use it to switch between a raiding spec such as Frostfire
> > > and a solo-friendly deep frost AOE spec.
> >
> > > On my Warlock, I doubt I'd use it at all.
> >
> > > On my Warrior, I'd use it to swap between tanking and dps specs, so I can
> > > still get in runs that are looking for a dps.
> >
> > I'm going to wonder what the hell is the point of Blizzard making each
> > tree a viable path? This dual spec idea seems pretty dumb to me.
>
> I'm actually looking forward to it.
>
> Having said that, I do agree with you. I see talents as abilities
> gained by the character over years of concentrating on one particular
> aspect of their class and so they get better at it. A survivalist
> hunter spent years learning about survival and didn't bother so much
> with pets, a marksman hunter just likes shooting things and got better
> at that and a beast master hunter spent his life learning about the
> care and handling of animals. It actually didn't make sense to me
> that you could respec at all (which *would* suck btw). Why would the
> BM hunter suddenly lose the exotic pet that he's spent his life
> learning how to handle?
Exactly! That's why it jars me out of the fantasy I'm in when I'm
playing. Fantasy doesn't have to be real world realistic - duh - to make
sense... if _that_ makes sense :-D
> Then I realised that the RP part of MMORPG was actually a dead duck
> and that WoW's actually an MMOG.
>
> steve.kaye
You may be right, but meh I say! I'm finding the odd bit of RP on my
server and it's great fun :-) I admit it is rare, though.
JohnR
> "JohnR" <repr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Raised level caps are something the game never needed and hasn't
>> properly recovered from yet.
>
> John, I'm really starting to think Blizzard could send you strippers
> and beer and you'd attribute it to attempting to compensate for
> releasing such a horrible game. That 12 million other people don't
> seem to mind...
>
of people are bored with it right now.
Brent Stroh
>I am constantly amazed and annoyed by other players refusing to group in
>WoW because their "experience suffers". To have that happen in an
>MMORPG... *sighs* It's not that I don't want soloing to be viable. I
>just think it sucks that grouping is not encouraged more, outside of
>instances.
In theory, I'd agree with that. But, as the game progresses, it leaves you
in the situation where I found myself - in Outland, I never did find groups
for about half the Netherstorm and Shadowmoon Valley quests, just because I
was a year or so behind the wave of people actually questing through.
Northrend, being fairly new, is a different story - I knocked out a bunch
of group quests the night after I got there. Still have the magnataurs,
but I don't think I have those quests, yet.
>Anyway - I truly hope switching specs becomes an enabler of group and
>thoughtful play, not just another way for players to avoid being social,
>and/or avoid having to be creative in their problem solving - in solo or
>party play. If it can be a positive thing - that's... mmmm *grumble*
>*grumble* not so bad I guess :-)
The changes to tank DPS have probably helped here a lot, too, but I think
one of the drivers for dual spec was how painful tanks/healers tended to
find the daily quests because they weren't built for killing. I'd agree
that those specs probably *could* do the dailies, but spending either 4-5x
the amount of time on them, or spending most of the quest reward from them,
doesn't exactly encourage people to tank/heal.
Rob Wynne
> Then I realised that the RP part of MMORPG was actually a dead duck
> and that WoW's actually an MMOG.
>
If you can't manage to work that into your story, somehow, you're not much
of a roleplayer.
Not disagreeing with your overall point, but honestly, you have to work
with the system.
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2009: Jan 9-11, 2009 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 - http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
Rob Wynne
Most people, when bored with something, move on to something else.
Thomas
>> Anyway - I truly hope switching specs becomes an enabler of group and
>> thoughtful play, not just another way for players to avoid being social,
>> and/or avoid having to be creative in their problem solving - in solo or
>> party play. If it can be a positive thing - that's... mmmm *grumble*
>> *grumble* not so bad I guess :-)
>
> The changes to tank DPS have probably helped here a lot, too, but I think
> one of the drivers for dual spec was how painful tanks/healers tended to
> find the daily quests because they weren't built for killing. I'd agree
> that those specs probably *could* do the dailies, but spending either 4-5x
> the amount of time on them, or spending most of the quest reward from them,
> doesn't exactly encourage people to tank/heal.
I think a powerful driver has been the Arena junkies that liked to raid
in the weekend. Spending 100G per tank job was tough in TBC...
--
Greets, Thomas.
Latigo, on Argent Dawn EU
steve.kaye
> steve.kaye <nos...@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote:
> > Then I realised that the RP part of MMORPG was actually a dead duck
> > and that WoW's actually an MMOG.
>
> If you can't manage to work that into your story, somehow, you're not much
> of a roleplayer.
I'm not much of a roleplayer because I've not done much of it. I've
tried starting a few characters as pure RP characters, once on a
different realm to see if the RP is better there, but it really sucks
to be the only one in character for level after level after level
before you meet someone else in character and know that that's the
only RP guy you'll see for another 10 levels. I tried joining an RP
guild but they were a bit too far the other way.... they organised
frequent RP events which is not how I want to RP. I want to RP whilst
playing (i.e. questing), I don't want to take time out of playing to
do the RP bit.
> Not disagreeing with your overall point, but honestly, you have to work
> with the system.
Maybe that's why WoW is an MMOG, not an MMORPG. Surely, they should
provide the RP hooks in the game. Why would I need to find an RP
reason for the existance of talents only to have that reason
completely knocked on the head by something Blizzard did meaning that
I'd need to find another reason?
steve.kaye
PhilHibbs
I never use Healing Wave in raids, so there's no point in taking
either of the talents that reduce casting time and add a stacking
bonus.
Hoofu, 80 tauren shaman, Argent Dawn (EU)
neithskye
> Most people, when bored with something, move on to something else.
On any given day in the General Forums you will find dozens of threads
about how dumbed-down WoW is now, how bored people are, etc. Thread
after thread after thread . . .
Some of these threads are more like essays - very long posts going
into exquisite detail about what raids used to be like, what they are
like now, etc. It blows me away that these people, instead of moving
on, take pen to paper and write about the "good old days", yet not
saying anything different than the 500,000 posters before them.
Who are these people whose lives are so intertwined with the game that
they can't simply walk away when dissatisfied and move on to something
else?
--
Jill
JohnR
fantastic game and in many ways it still is but in many other ways it just
isn't any more - this is the point that's missed by the nubcake "12 million
subscribers can't be wrong" crowd. Quantity has absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with quality.
The people playing are invested in the social (albiet pseudo) networks and
history they have created over quite some years in a lot of cases. That's
what is difficult to walk away from entirely. The game itself is just
pixels.
There are other factors, the journey, remembering happier times in the game,
holding out for or chasing after those times again, waiting to see what
"they" do next.
So complaints and comments relating to the dumbed down nature of the
gameplay and trend towards homogenous, instant gratification are perfectly
valid because that is exactly what is happening to the game. Whether you
like or object that fact or description is moot. The bottom line is people
complain about the game because they care about their place in it for many
different reasons and don't want to see something they thoroughly enjoyed
get destroyed for the sake of greed.
Brent Stroh
>The game is the glue that binds real people behind the toons, it was a
>fantastic game and in many ways it still is but in many other ways it just
>isn't any more - this is the point that's missed by the nubcake "12 million
>subscribers can't be wrong" crowd. Quantity has absolutely nothing
>whatsoever to do with quality.
And the point YOU oldcake crowd seem to miss is that in a GAME, quality is
not objective. It's entirely possible that people have different, equally
valid, opinions.
Babe Bridou
Actually it was hard for everyone. As long as you want to play in more
than one of the metagame you'd have to cripple either your gold income
or your performance in both places. As a healer it's always been
rough, really rough, to justify an inferior spec with superior
performance. I've been a raid leader and a priest class leader in a
raid, and I didn't expect people to always shine in raids. Sometimes
(most of the time?) you're just there because you want to enjoy the
company of others, not so much because you want to be a die hard
supernatural team player with outstanding performance.
That's exactly what you renounce to by picking a hybrid spec: you just
can't be mediocre or you'll cause wipes. Or you'll spend the night
dying over and over in PVP.
The ability to dual spec completely removes that problem: if you want
to just relax, to just play as "random PVP healer #357 in warson
gulch, 40% win ratio" or "Beastmaster John and his cat Doe, one macro,
one keybind, ranked 6th in the dps meter in a 10-men naxx run" ,
you'll be able do that - for free.
Is that dumbing down the game? The ability to respec did that in the
first place anyway (I'm more in favour of a no-respec policy, a la
diablo2, but that's another debate). Now that change is welcome,
simply because the requirements of respecs gradually became
meaningless, obsolete, *not fun*, and... hard to balance a game
with :)
Now the cool thing is that they'll be able to nerf healer damage into
the ground without a second look (just an example, I'm not saying it's
required, just that they can do it). They'll be able to specialize
gameplay and give additional PVP-only or PVE-only tools and talents
for which there will be no debate, and no practical overlap.
They can do much more trial and error changes, start low and buff
instead of start high and nerf (which isn't exactly the best way to
keep customers around).
Miikka
> Actually it was hard for everyone. As long as you want to play in more
> than one of the metagame you'd have to cripple either your gold income
> or your performance in both places.
Meh, it might be all good for pure dps classes or for those players who
only like the one role in pvp and pve. I've had the (unfortunate?) joy
of mainly playing with a druid and I enjoy all the different roles quite
a lot. So even with dual speccing, I'll most likely use quite a bit of
gold to switch at least one of the specs regularily.
The specs I currently play more or less: PvE healer, PvE DPS x 2 (Well,
mostly boomkin, as healing is my main role in my guild and the caster
gear is a lot better than my kitty gear.), PvE tank, PvP healer, PvP
dps (What, I can't have more than one role in different arena brackets
for example? :)
So, WTB hexaspecs. :)
--
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on
society." -Mark Twain
JohnR
> "JohnR" <repr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The game is the glue that binds real people behind the toons, it was
>> a fantastic game and in many ways it still is but in many other ways
>> it just isn't any more - this is the point that's missed by the
>> nubcake "12 million subscribers can't be wrong" crowd. Quantity has
>> absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with quality.
>
> And the point YOU oldcake crowd seem to miss is that in a GAME,
> quality is not objective. It's entirely possible that people have
> different, equally valid, opinions.
>
Jamie Kahn Genet
> "JohnR" <repr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The game is the glue that binds real people behind the toons, it was a
> >fantastic game and in many ways it still is but in many other ways it just
> >isn't any more - this is the point that's missed by the nubcake "12 million
> >subscribers can't be wrong" crowd. Quantity has absolutely nothing
> >whatsoever to do with quality.
>
> And the point YOU oldcake crowd seem to miss is that in a GAME, quality is
> not objective. It's entirely possible that people have different, equally
> valid, opinions.
>
> -Brent
Look what catering to the lowest common denominator did to Spore. You
may have heard more about it's craptacular DRM, but the real letdown was
it's massively dumbed down and highly simplistic gameplay. Even Sim City
2000 was much complex and involved - and therefore so much more
satisfying.
I hope all those who want a braindead WoW can live with the eventual
result...
Brent Stroh
>Look what catering to the lowest common denominator did to Spore. You
>may have heard more about it's craptacular DRM, but the real letdown was
>it's massively dumbed down and highly simplistic gameplay. Even Sim City
>2000 was much complex and involved - and therefore so much more
>satisfying.
>
>I hope all those who want a braindead WoW can live with the eventual
>result...
But you came back...
Brent Stroh
>So complaints and comments relating to the dumbed down nature of the
>gameplay and trend towards homogenous, instant gratification are perfectly
>valid because that is exactly what is happening to the game.
In your opinion.
Others would see the game, including more end-game content, becoming more
accessible to the player base, especially those without 20 hours a week to
raid/farm.
There are dozens of online games to pick from - not sure why you spend your
time playing one that's so horrible.
JohnR
> "JohnR" <repr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So complaints and comments relating to the dumbed down nature of the
>> gameplay and trend towards homogenous, instant gratification are
>> perfectly valid because that is exactly what is happening to the
>> game.
>
> In your opinion.
>
>
> Others would see the game, including more end-game content, becoming
> more accessible to the player base, especially those without 20 hours
> a week to raid/farm.
>
PV
>And the point YOU oldcake crowd seem to miss is that in a GAME, quality is
>not objective. It's entirely possible that people have different, equally
>valid, opinions.
It's also quite possible that dickheads like JohnR hate wow precisely
BECAUSE it's so popular. Indie music freaks are often like this too - you
want to never stop smacking them in the head every time they open their
mouths. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
JohnR
> bms...@gmail.com writes:
>> And the point YOU oldcake crowd seem to miss is that in a GAME,
>> quality is not objective. It's entirely possible that people have
>> different, equally valid, opinions.
>
> It's also quite possible that dickheads like JohnR hate wow precisely
> BECAUSE it's so popular. Indie music freaks are often like this too -
> you want to never stop smacking them in the head every time they open
> their mouths. *
>
Jamie Kahn Genet
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> >Look what catering to the lowest common denominator did to Spore. You
> >may have heard more about it's craptacular DRM, but the real letdown was
> >it's massively dumbed down and highly simplistic gameplay. Even Sim City
> >2000 was much complex and involved - and therefore so much more
> >satisfying.
> >
> >I hope all those who want a braindead WoW can live with the eventual
> >result...
>
> But you came back...
>
> -Brent
There are so many ways I could tear down this argument, but I'll stick
with the simplest - do you not think loyalty matters? Because when an
MMORPG arrives on the scene that doesn't suck as much as WoW, how long
do you think I'll be sticking around for? About half a second, I reckon.
The fact is in WoW's current incarnation it simply sucks less than the
alternatives. That's hardly a glowing recommendation!!! But in the
overriding theme of appealing to the lowest common denominator, I
suppose making a game that 'sucks less' instead of 'is really great' is
what Blizzard aims for.
Blizzard already lost substantial customer loyalty with me after the
Diablo II fiasco (e.g. rampant cheating on the realms, battle.net
incorrectly preventing you from connecting after a disconnect that was
not your fault, classes like the druid that were never balanced, and
skills that were never fixed in D2's ENTIRE lifespan!!! - see Amazon
Fend skill). That is one reason why it took four years for me to pay for
a fulltime WoW subscription.
Are you actually saying that Blizzard shouldn't want to make great games
instead of just games that are slightly better than the average crap?
Because they could have got four earlier year's worth of subs from me if
they'd not effed up D2. They could also have got a lot more
recommendations from me to friends if they hadn't done that and didn't
slowly suck all that is cool from WoW.
I suggest you visit the Diablo usenet groups - ask around. See if my
feelings are so different. You might get a better response from SC
players whose game was maintained better (and was also just plain better
from the beginning in terms of software engineering - man was D2 a MESS
of code from what I hear), but D2 and D1 players to a lesser extent
generally feel effed over if they have any long term experience with the
game.
I personally know at least six other D2 players who have vowed never to
pay for another Blizzard game after D2. Now they LOVE D2, don't get me
wrong. Most still play it. But are they ever bitter over Blizzard's
handling of the game...
Dan
>Example of a meaningless barrier that serves no role in the story,
>shatters immersion in the game, and is only there to frustrate players,
>i.e. how to make a game harder in a bad way:
>
>EVE Online inserts a long break in-between each auto-piloted jump, yet
>you can jump again instantly if you take manual control. I'm sorry -
>EVE's brainless developers are saying humans can plot a jump faster than
>computers?
This is nothing to do with brainlessness, this is the result of
Eve's developers adapting the game to match how the players played
it anyway.
Originally the closest you could warp to anything was 15km. This was
intended to give anything you warped to a chance to do something
about it - for example, for sentry guns or pirates at jump gates to
destroy you if you were hated by that faction before you jump; for
players to ambush you at stations before you dock, etc.
However, enterprising players found the way around this - by making
a location bookmark 15km beyond the jump gate, you could then warp
to 15km from the bookmark and land right on top of the gate. This
allowed you to jump immediately.
PvPers complained that this was allowing players to easily pass
blockades, but the Eve devlopers decided this was fair enough in
their opinion because:
- The player had to spend a lot of time and effort creating the
bookmarks in the first place, including spending a fair amount
of time in the risky systems they wanted to pass.
- You needed a bookmark not only for each gate/station, but also
for each direction you might approach that gate from. A full-time
trader like I used to be, ended up with thousands of bookmarks
to organise and keep track of, and pick the right one at each
step of each route.
- You couldn't use them with the autopilot, because the autopilot
used the gates themselves as intermediary warp targets, so you
had to manually (tediously) make each jump
- Devices called warp inhibitors could be deployed by players
in lower security areas anyway, to force ships out of warp
further from the gate.
Eventually, a couple of years into the game, the majority of players
had bookmarks for all the routes they used; 'Complete' bookmark sets
covering the entire galaxy were regularly being traded to new
players and the millions and millions of location bookmarks were
wasting a lot of space in the game database. As part of a big
optimsation push, Eve's developers decided they might as well get
rid of the need for all these bookmarks and abolish the 15km warp-to
limit. A subsequent patch changed the game to allow a warp-to-0km
option.
PvPers complained bitterly that with this change, not only could
players trivially pass their blockades, they could now do it AFK
with the ship on auto-pilot! Traverse the galaxy with a billion isk
worth of cargo with practically zero risk, while watching TV.
Developers agreed this was a bit much and in a later patch, the
auto-pilot was limited to the 15km minimum range. This pretty much
restored the way it had been played for years, but without the need
for the bookmarks. You could travel relatively safely by manually
making each warp and jump, or you could auto-pilot and risk attack
during the 15km traverse after each warp.
So that's the explanation anyway. It seems strange to new players,
but it's not an arbitrary 'brainless' decision.
Dan
Dan
>There are strong rumors that we'll get dual speccing with 3.1.
>I've heard that it includes reconfiguring action bars, macros, etc.
>
>How would you use it?
I expect I'll have two very similar builds for my rogue, both based
on assassination/mutilate, but one variation with PvP talents and
one for pure dps output. I'll probably end up with two sets of gear
as well, though for the moment I'm concentrating on PvP stuff.
Personally I think it's a bad idea to allow two talent specs, it
seems to be against the intent of the whole talent system in the
first place. I mean, isn't the point of the talents to specialise?
To choose what you want to do best, choose your compromise between
one thing and another?
It would suck if you couldn't respec at all, but IMO the barrier for
respeccing should be higher than it currently is. What's the point
of 'specialising' if you can switch what you've 'specialised' in at
will?
You might as well scrap talents altogether and just make them all
base class abilities. If certain combinations of them prove too
powerful, make them share cooldowns or disable each other (e.g.
can't mutilate while shadowstep damage buff is up) etc.
Dan
bms...@gmail.com
wrote:
> There are so many ways I could tear down this argument, but I'll stick
> with the simplest - do you not think loyalty matters? Because when an
> MMORPG arrives on the scene that doesn't suck as much as WoW, how long
> do you think I'll be sticking around for? About half a second, I reckon.
So you're also saying that WoW is the best available MMO? K.
> The fact is in WoW's current incarnation it simply sucks less than the
> alternatives. That's hardly a glowing recommendation!!! But in the
> overriding theme of appealing to the lowest common denominator, I
> suppose making a game that 'sucks less' instead of 'is really great' is
> what Blizzard aims for.
I believe you forgot to include "...in my opinion..." somewhere in
that paragraph.
> Are you actually saying that Blizzard shouldn't want to make great games
> instead of just games that are slightly better than the average crap?
And again, in your opinion. Are you actually saying that your opinion
of the game is the only one that matters, and that YOU are the entire
target audience for the game?
-Brent
PhilHibbs
> And again, in your opinion. Are you actually saying that your opinion
> of the game is the only one that matters, and that YOU are the entire
> target audience for the game?
Of course this is all just opinion, but we each have a right to tell
it how we see it. I might want to say "WoW sucks", I really couldn't
be bothered to say "In my opinion" every time I say anything. I love
WoW, but I also agree that it is being simplified a little too much
for my liking.
PV
>I believe you forgot to include "...in my opinion..." somewhere in
>that paragraph.
Indeed. Who the hell cares about loyalty anyway? If something better comes
along, great, leave. I don't own stock in blizzard, I just play their games
and enjoy them. They've continued to get my cash for all these years
because of that last bit. If I stop enjoying it, I'll STOP PLAYING. I
really don't understand the people who obviously hate the game yet still
pay the fee. A few will say "but I'm addicted", but that just means you're
an idiot who doesn't have the balls to be addicted to something with actual
addictive properties.
>And again, in your opinion. Are you actually saying that your opinion
>of the game is the only one that matters, and that YOU are the entire
>target audience for the game?
Yes, they are the one player in 12 million that is GOLD. <=== SARCASM. *
Jamie Kahn Genet
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> >Example of a meaningless barrier that serves no role in the story,
> >shatters immersion in the game, and is only there to frustrate players,
> >i.e. how to make a game harder in a bad way:
> >
> >EVE Online inserts a long break in-between each auto-piloted jump, yet
> >you can jump again instantly if you take manual control. I'm sorry -
> >EVE's brainless developers are saying humans can plot a jump faster than
> >computers?
>
> This is nothing to do with brainlessness, this is the result of
> Eve's developers adapting the game to match how the players played
> it anyway.
[snip explanation]
> Dan
The trouble is it makes no damn sense in terms of tech. Now if they said
something like "jumps require super complex calculation that takes
time", and inserted a delay before _every_ single jump so it was
consistent - _that_ would work. _That_ would make sense.
But inserting a rule that is out of step with other behaviour is just
plain dumb and very lazy. Once again - am I supposed to believe I can
manually plot a jump faster than a computer?
EVE is just another MMORPG where the RPG is not only ignored - it's
actually shat upon by the developers. Hell, at least Blizzard make a
token effort to have gameplay fit the lore. With EVE it's like they
don't care about anything except the MMO aspect. Of course I realised
that when I ran through the tutorial quests (after a couple hours trying
to get them to make sense and work). The NPC dialogue was laughable.
Spelling errors were the least of it. Hell - I could have wrote better
dialogue before I got to high school, even. And don't even start me on
how boring and uninvolving the missions were...
So yeah, I'm sorry - but it _is_ brainlessness on the part of EVE's
devs, even if it does serve a gameplay purpose.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> bms...@gmail.com writes:
> >I believe you forgot to include "...in my opinion..." somewhere in
> >that paragraph.
>
> Indeed. Who the hell cares about loyalty anyway?
Stockholders when it starts to affect their bottom line? Because you
don't really think Blizzard will reign supreme with MMORPGS forever, do
you? I seem to recall when EverQuest was the be all and end all of the
genre... that changed.
Plus I can't really believe Blizzard wouldn't have wanted to get my subs
for the four years I resisted WoW due to past bad behaviour by Blizzard.
Okay - that's just me. A drop in the barrel. But I personally know half
a dozen D2 players who have resisted the lure of WoW just fine, after
being burned by D2. Now if I know six I bet we could compile a good long
list if we could speak to every D2 player. Again, probably just a tiny
drop in the barrel overall, but you keep screwing over customers and the
number of discontented will grow.
> If something better comes along, great, leave.
Good for you. That's certainly my plan.
> I don't own stock in blizzard, I just play their games and enjoy them.
> They've continued to get my cash for all these years because of that last
> bit. If I stop enjoying it, I'll STOP PLAYING. I really don't understand
> the people who obviously hate the game yet still pay the fee. A few will
> say "but I'm addicted", but that just means you're an idiot who doesn't
> have the balls to be addicted to something with actual addictive
> properties.
Just because you enjoy something and the community that surrounds it,
doesn't mean you can't feel pain at it's screwups, especially when with
WoW and D2 before it, they were just so damn close to being great, but
Blizzard effed it up *sigh*
> >And again, in your opinion. Are you actually saying that your opinion
> >of the game is the only one that matters, and that YOU are the entire
> >target audience for the game?
>
> Yes, they are the one player in 12 million that is GOLD. <=== SARCASM. *
*rolls eyes* I hope people like you get exactly the game you deserve. In
fact I can think of no better reward for your support for the lowest
common denominator in gaming :-)
Funny thing though - when people like myself point out the flaws in
Blizzard's games, you're very quick to rubbish our posts. Why.... that's
almost the behaviour of a die hard fan, isn't it? But of course you'd
"STOP PLAYING" in a heartbeat if something better came along, wouldn't
you?
Jamie Kahn Genet
> On Feb 10, 8:45 am, jami...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet)
> wrote:
> > The fact is in WoW's current incarnation it simply sucks less than the
> > alternatives. That's hardly a glowing recommendation!!! But in the
> > overriding theme of appealing to the lowest common denominator, I
> > suppose making a game that 'sucks less' instead of 'is really great' is
> > what Blizzard aims for.
>
> I believe you forgot to include "...in my opinion..." somewhere in
> that paragraph.
[snip]
I actually need to make that clear for you? Okaaayyy...
steve.kaye
> jami...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> >Look what catering to the lowest common denominator did to Spore. You
> >may have heard more about it's craptacular DRM, but the real letdown was
> >it's massively dumbed down and highly simplistic gameplay. Even Sim City
> >2000 was much complex and involved - and therefore so much more
> >satisfying.
>
> >I hope all those who want a braindead WoW can live with the eventual
> >result...
>
> But you came back...
Maybe he came back because WoW is the best game of its type on the
market at the moment. That doesn't mean that WoW is the best that it
ever was.... it just means that it is still better than the
competition. A bit like the joke about the 2 guys running from a
lion..... you don't need to outrun the lion, you just need to outrun
the other guy. WoW doesn't need to be the best that it's ever
been.... it just needs to be better than the others are now.
steve.kaye
steve.kaye
Yeah but Jamie actually used the words "the fact is".
steve.kaye
Urbin
> PV <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > bms...@gmail.com writes:
> > >I believe you forgot to include "...in my opinion..." somewhere in
> > >that paragraph.
> >
> > Indeed. Who the hell cares about loyalty anyway?
>
> Stockholders when it starts to affect their bottom line?
Well, I'm pretty sure the Blizzard stockholders (well, Vivendi stockholders,
really :-) are pretty happy because 12 million subscribers is certainly well
beyond the most optimistic business plan Blizzard had thought of...
> Because you don't really think Blizzard will reign supreme with MMORPGS
> forever, do you?
No, nobody reigns supreme eternally. But knowing Blizzard and how good they
are at making great games, I'm optimistic, that they will come up with
another good or even great game once WoW has run its course.
> Plus I can't really believe Blizzard wouldn't have wanted to get my subs
> for the four years I resisted WoW due to past bad behaviour by Blizzard.
> Okay - that's just me. A drop in the barrel. But I personally know half
> a dozen D2 players who have resisted the lure of WoW just fine, after
> being burned by D2.
I haven't played Diabolo, so I can't comment on how badly Blizzard did or
did not suck. All I can say is, that WoW has actually become better for me,
not worse. I get to see more content. They add cool new features, zones,
instances, quests, new mechanisms (phasing is great). They *do* take action
agains gold sellers, bots and cheaters, even if occasionally a troll claims
they are actually in league with them.
I think they are doing a pretty good job.
> Just because you enjoy something and the community that surrounds it,
> doesn't mean you can't feel pain at it's screwups
Well, unlike you, I fail to see the screwups, so obviously I find it very
hard to feel any pain. This is of course *my* personal experience and I
accept that to others the recent changes may well feel like a screwup.
Still, as Brent says, that is an individual opinion and just because you
feel they screwed up doesn't necessarily mean they really did.
> > >And again, in your opinion. Are you actually saying that your opinion
> > >of the game is the only one that matters, and that YOU are the entire
> > >target audience for the game?
> >
> > Yes, they are the one player in 12 million that is GOLD. <=== SARCASM. *
>
> *rolls eyes* I hope people like you get exactly the game you deserve. In
> fact I can think of no better reward for your support for the lowest
> common denominator in gaming :-)
So basically you are stating that anyone disagreeing with you is a player
who wants the lcd in gaming. Come off it, Jamie. This is the second time
that you start off with a valid point but become so fixed on it that you
fail to see that there might be other opinions than your own that are valid.
I find this disappointing, because when you do not fall into that pattern,
your posts are actually helpful, constructive and valuable contributions to
this group.
> Funny thing though - when people like myself point out the flaws in
> Blizzard's games, you're very quick to rubbish our posts.
Uhm, a lot of people in this group are happy to discuss how certain changes
to WoW have advantages and disadvantages, how they may be an improvment or
detrimental. What usually makes people dig their heels in is absolute claims
of personal opinions being stated as fact.
> Why....
Back here we have a saying borrowed from the French: C'est le ton qui fait
la musique. Roughly meaning "it's the tone that makes the music". Often the
reaction to a post is not so much its content but they way it is presented.
If you start offending people just because they disagree with you, is it so
surprising that they stop taking you seriously?
> almost the behaviour of a die hard fan, isn't it?
Well, considering that over the past almost four years, I still am hugely
enhoying playing WoW and in fact think it has gotten *better*, I freely
admit to being a die hard fan. I have occasionally disagreed with something
Blizzard decided on, but overall, they get it right a lot more often than
not. At least in my opinion. That is why I still play. Still pay. Still
enjoy it. Still am a fan.
> But of course you'd "STOP PLAYING" in a heartbeat if something better
> came along, wouldn't you?
No. But if the changes they made were so detrimental to my play that I
stopped enjoying it, I would stop playing. Whether I would switch over to
another game or whether I would just shift more of my spare time over to RL
activities that I cut back on due to WoW I don't know.
<sarcasm>
Of course I accept the possibility that I am one of the suckers who is too
dumb to play the game properly and am finding it *better* because Blizzard
has lowered the standards to my lowly level of quality and ability. In the
end, I don't care, because I enjoy playing the game at the lowest common
denominator. Together with the other 12 million suckers who don't know
better than to enjoy a bad game.
</sarcasm>
Cheers
Urbin
--
Dun Morogh-EU (PvE)
Urbin (80), Dwarven Hunter | Surana (64), Draenei Mage
Mymule (70), Gnomish Warlock | Kordosch (62), Human Death Knight
Sunh (70), Nightelven Priest | Juran (33), Nightelven Druid
Dan
>[snip explanation]
>
>The trouble is it makes no damn sense in terms of tech.
Of course it doesn't. It's a sci-fi game, it has to not make sense
in terms of tech in order to remain a playable game. Ships having
'maximum speeds' doesn't make sense in terms of tech. Ships slowing
down when you turn the engines off doesn't make sense. Not being
able to warp to specific coordinates unless you've been there before
to make a bookmark doesn't make sense. Bigger ships taking longer to
lock targets than smaller ships doesn't make sense. Big guns doing
less damage to small ships than small guns doesn't make sense.
All these things are done for playability, not to make scientific
sense.
>Now if they said
>something like "jumps require super complex calculation that takes
>time", and inserted a delay before _every_ single jump so it was
>consistent - _that_ would work. _That_ would make sense.
>But inserting a rule that is out of step with other behaviour is just
>plain dumb and very lazy. Once again - am I supposed to believe I can
>manually plot a jump faster than a computer?
You aren't plotting the jump, the jumpgate handles that. If you need
a RP explanation, consider it a 'health and safety' requirement that
ships are not allowed to warp closer than 15km to an object under
auto-pilot because an auto-pilot cannot respond to emergency
situations in the same way as an active human pilot.
(Arguably it could respond better, but you know what lawmakers are
like...)
>EVE is just another MMORPG where the RPG is not only ignored - it's
>actually shat upon by the developers.
EVE is a lot more RP friendly than most MMOs, given the restriction
that you are stuck in your ship. (Though that is supposed to change
in the new expansion.) They even have staff and volunteers flying
around the universe creating spontaneous RP events. One of these
spontaneous events lead to the first really huge space battle in
Eve, the result of which actually changed the storyline behind the
'tech II' expansion. The actions of players actually changed the
direction of the game backstory. How many MMOs does that happen in?
Wow's 'wrath gate' sequence is great fun, but it's on rails, nothing
you can do can change any part of it.
However, the 'all players in one universe' philosophy means that
RPers are a minority presence and you have to seek out a RP corp if
you really want to get into it.
>Hell, at least Blizzard make a
>token effort to have gameplay fit the lore.
I doubt you've read much of EVE's lore? There is quite a lot and
some of it was specifically written to try and explain gameplay
limitations (with varying degrees of success.)
>With EVE it's like they
>don't care about anything except the MMO aspect. Of course I realised
>that when I ran through the tutorial quests (after a couple hours trying
>to get them to make sense and work).
When I started to play Eve, there was no tutorial beyond 'This is
you mine, this is how to shoot something, here's how to warp. Off
you go.' and even that tended to break or get stuck. The UI is badly
designed and unfriendly, the game possibilities seem a bit
overwhelming given it's open-ended nature (no levelling railroad to
follow) - yet the game sucked me in anyway and I spent a couple of
years having fun in Eve. It's one of those games that you either
'click' with it and love it, you just don't get it and hate it.
>The NPC dialogue was laughable.
>Spelling errors were the least of it. Hell - I could have wrote better
>dialogue before I got to high school, even.
In a second language? Eve's developers are Icelandic, remember. The
translations are a lot better than some MMOs I've played.
>And don't even start me on
>how boring and uninvolving the missions were...
I'm guessing you didn't play long enough to get into the storyline
missions, some of them are great. Or were great anyway, it's been a
few years since I played. Certainly the very low level missions tend
to be simple deliveries, fetches or the occasional kill. But your
ship is naff at that point so you can't really be expected to go
rescue the general's daughter from the pirates.
Dan
Jamie Kahn Genet
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> >[snip explanation]
> >
> >The trouble is it makes no damn sense in terms of tech.
>
> Of course it doesn't. It's a sci-fi game, it has to not make sense
> in terms of tech in order to remain a playable game. Ships having
> 'maximum speeds' doesn't make sense in terms of tech. Ships slowing
> down when you turn the engines off doesn't make sense. Not being
> able to warp to specific coordinates unless you've been there before
> to make a bookmark doesn't make sense. Bigger ships taking longer to
> lock targets than smaller ships doesn't make sense. Big guns doing
> less damage to small ships than small guns doesn't make sense.
>
> All these things are done for playability, not to make scientific
> sense.
Call me crazy, but I appreciate my gameplay to make some kind of sense
within the fantasy world on screen. So if it's a Sci-Fi games - yes, I
want things to very roughly fit what I'd call a 'technical common
sense'.
> >Now if they said
> >something like "jumps require super complex calculation that takes
> >time", and inserted a delay before _every_ single jump so it was
> >consistent - _that_ would work. _That_ would make sense.
> >But inserting a rule that is out of step with other behaviour is just
> >plain dumb and very lazy. Once again - am I supposed to believe I can
> >manually plot a jump faster than a computer?
>
> You aren't plotting the jump, the jumpgate handles that. If you need
> a RP explanation, consider it a 'health and safety' requirement that
> ships are not allowed to warp closer than 15km to an object under
> auto-pilot because an auto-pilot cannot respond to emergency
> situations in the same way as an active human pilot.
>
> (Arguably it could respond better, but you know what lawmakers are
> like...)
Okay, that's kind of goofy :-) Besides, you'd then obviously have to
have a situation where pirates and those ignoring the law can break that
rule - and that's why a technical explanation would IMO work best.
> >EVE is just another MMORPG where the RPG is not only ignored - it's
> >actually shat upon by the developers.
>
> EVE is a lot more RP friendly than most MMOs, given the restriction
> that you are stuck in your ship. (Though that is supposed to change
> in the new expansion.) They even have staff and volunteers flying
> around the universe creating spontaneous RP events. One of these
> spontaneous events lead to the first really huge space battle in
> Eve, the result of which actually changed the storyline behind the
> 'tech II' expansion. The actions of players actually changed the
> direction of the game backstory. How many MMOs does that happen in?
> Wow's 'wrath gate' sequence is great fun, but it's on rails, nothing
> you can do can change any part of it.
>
> However, the 'all players in one universe' philosophy means that
> RPers are a minority presence and you have to seek out a RP corp if
> you really want to get into it.
Well I'm not necessarily talking about RP in terms of acting out the
role of a space pilot (though that sounds fun), but more the basic
immersion into the world that you'd expect of any game not breaking the
fourth wall.
> >Hell, at least Blizzard make a
> >token effort to have gameplay fit the lore.
>
> I doubt you've read much of EVE's lore? There is quite a lot and
> some of it was specifically written to try and explain gameplay
> limitations (with varying degrees of success.)
I read a bit as I was choosing which faction to play. It seemed fairly
decent.
> >With EVE it's like they
> >don't care about anything except the MMO aspect. Of course I realised
> >that when I ran through the tutorial quests (after a couple hours trying
> >to get them to make sense and work).
>
> When I started to play Eve, there was no tutorial beyond 'This is
> you mine, this is how to shoot something, here's how to warp. Off
> you go.' and even that tended to break or get stuck. The UI is badly
> designed and unfriendly, the game possibilities seem a bit
> overwhelming given it's open-ended nature (no levelling railroad to
> follow) - yet the game sucked me in anyway and I spent a couple of
> years having fun in Eve. It's one of those games that you either
> 'click' with it and love it, you just don't get it and hate it.
I 'got' the game and thought the concept was cool, but it's like they
never played Ambrosia's Escape Velocity (and it's two sequels) and other
similar games that get the space trading and combat genre so very right.
If a shareware game from the 90's could have decent dialogue and fun
missions, not to mention far, far, far, far more interesting combat, why
couldn't EVE - a commercial game with so many more resources?
> >The NPC dialogue was laughable.
> >Spelling errors were the least of it. Hell - I could have wrote better
> >dialogue before I got to high school, even.
>
> In a second language? Eve's developers are Icelandic, remember. The
> translations are a lot better than some MMOs I've played.
They couldn't hire writers and proofreaders from English speaking
countries? Seems like they had enough of a budget for other game
elements. No, it just seemed awfully sloppy to me. Maybe if I'd been
able to get past that and the other issues with the tutorial (which
really should be the most playtested and rock solid part of any game)
I'd have been able to start having fun.
> >And don't even start me on
> >how boring and uninvolving the missions were...
>
> I'm guessing you didn't play long enough to get into the storyline
> missions, some of them are great. Or were great anyway, it's been a
> few years since I played. Certainly the very low level missions tend
> to be simple deliveries, fetches or the occasional kill. But your
> ship is naff at that point so you can't really be expected to go
> rescue the general's daughter from the pirates.
>
> Dan
Well perhaps they ought to have slightly more interesting and
considerably better written missions at the beginning (which don't need
to be non-stop actionfests, just engaging - that's all), because I was
so bored and put off by the tedious, dull, and error-filled missions I
got, that I had absolutely no urge to waste any more of my time. So
that's a shame if as you say things improve after a while. I honestly
could not believe it was a supposedly mature game. It all seemed very
Alpha to me just a year ago - like they'd build a world, but had only
had time to put the most basic of placeholder missions and writing in
place.
Jamie Kahn Genet
*grins* Well it's pretty darn factual for me and a whole host of people
I see on the Blizzard forums, but okay - perhaps not the best wording on
my part :-)
Jamie Kahn Genet
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:54:35 +1300, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > PV <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > bms...@gmail.com writes:
> > > >I believe you forgot to include "...in my opinion..." somewhere in
> > > >that paragraph.
> > >
> > > Indeed. Who the hell cares about loyalty anyway?
> >
> > Stockholders when it starts to affect their bottom line?
>
> Well, I'm pretty sure the Blizzard stockholders (well, Vivendi stockholders,
> really :-) are pretty happy because 12 million subscribers is certainly well
> beyond the most optimistic business plan Blizzard had thought of...
Oh I agree that WoW has been a phenomenal success, I just wonder at what
cost to making a truly great game.
> > Because you don't really think Blizzard will reign supreme with MMORPGS
> > forever, do you?
>
> No, nobody reigns supreme eternally. But knowing Blizzard and how good they
> are at making great games, I'm optimistic, that they will come up with
> another good or even great game once WoW has run its course.
I know a lot of people are keen on a SC MMO. One wonders constantly what
their secret MMO project is... :-)
> > Plus I can't really believe Blizzard wouldn't have wanted to get my subs
> > for the four years I resisted WoW due to past bad behaviour by Blizzard.
> > Okay - that's just me. A drop in the barrel. But I personally know half
> > a dozen D2 players who have resisted the lure of WoW just fine, after
> > being burned by D2.
>
> I haven't played Diabolo, so I can't comment on how badly Blizzard did or
> did not suck. All I can say is, that WoW has actually become better for me,
> not worse. I get to see more content. They add cool new features, zones,
> instances, quests, new mechanisms (phasing is great). They *do* take action
> against gold sellers, bots and cheaters, even if occasionally a troll claims
> they are actually in league with them.
>
> I think they are doing a pretty good job.
Oh they're doing a MUCH better job - lightyears ahead of their lame
anti-bot and cheating work with Diablo II. The difference is like that
of night and day in this instance.
> > Just because you enjoy something and the community that surrounds it,
> > doesn't mean you can't feel pain at it's screwups
>
> Well, unlike you, I fail to see the screwups, so obviously I find it very
> hard to feel any pain. This is of course *my* personal experience and I
> accept that to others the recent changes may well feel like a screwup.
> Still, as Brent says, that is an individual opinion and just because you
> feel they screwed up doesn't necessarily mean they really did.
*agreed*
> > > >And again, in your opinion. Are you actually saying that your opinion
> > > >of the game is the only one that matters, and that YOU are the entire
> > > >target audience for the game?
> > >
> > > Yes, they are the one player in 12 million that is GOLD. <=== SARCASM. *
> >
> > *rolls eyes* I hope people like you get exactly the game you deserve. In
> > fact I can think of no better reward for your support for the lowest
> > common denominator in gaming :-)
>
> So basically you are stating that anyone disagreeing with you is a player
> who wants the lcd in gaming. Come off it, Jamie. This is the second time
> that you start off with a valid point but become so fixed on it that you
> fail to see that there might be other opinions than your own that are valid.
> I find this disappointing, because when you do not fall into that pattern,
> your posts are actually helpful, constructive and valuable contributions to
> this group.
Hmmm... I guess I _do_ blame the players who support these changes that
I see as dumbing down of the game. I don't think they're malicious or
anything silly like that. But I do wish they'd stop and think some more
about where it's leading WoW, because I cannot believe people serious
want the very cornerstone of gameplay - challenge (and the rewards from
overcoming it) - to be removed.
That or I wish Blizzard would just show some spine...
> > Funny thing though - when people like myself point out the flaws in
> > Blizzard's games, you're very quick to rubbish our posts.
>
> Uhm, a lot of people in this group are happy to discuss how certain changes
> to WoW have advantages and disadvantages, how they may be an improvement or
> detrimental. What usually makes people dig their heels in is absolute claims
> of personal opinions being stated as fact.
Well that was poorly worded of me, but I stand behind the intent.
> > Why....
>
> Back here we have a saying borrowed from the French: C'est le ton qui fait
> la musique. Roughly meaning "it's the tone that makes the music". Often the
> reaction to a post is not so much its content but they way it is presented.
> If you start offending people just because they disagree with you, is it so
> surprising that they stop taking you seriously?
You're right that I get too worked up over Blizzard's decisions and that
shows in my writing, and no doubt rubs some the wrong way. I make no
apologies for my strong feelings, though my hotheaded style could always
use some work :-D
> > almost the behaviour of a die hard fan, isn't it?
That could have used a smily face.
> Well, considering that over the past almost four years, I still am hugely
> enjoying playing WoW and in fact think it has gotten *better*, I freely
> admit to being a die hard fan. I have occasionally disagreed with something
> Blizzard decided on, but overall, they get it right a lot more often than
> not. At least in my opinion. That is why I still play. Still pay. Still
> enjoy it. Still am a fan.
>
> > But of course you'd "STOP PLAYING" in a heartbeat if something better
> > came along, wouldn't you?
Likewise this line.
> No. But if the changes they made were so detrimental to my play that I
> stopped enjoying it, I would stop playing. Whether I would switch over to
> another game or whether I would just shift more of my spare time over to RL
> activities that I cut back on due to WoW I don't know.
>
> <sarcasm>
> Of course I accept the possibility that I am one of the suckers who is too
> dumb to play the game properly and am finding it *better* because Blizzard
> has lowered the standards to my lowly level of quality and ability. In the
> end, I don't care, because I enjoy playing the game at the lowest common
> denominator. Together with the other 12 million suckers who don't know
> better than to enjoy a bad game.
> </sarcasm>
>
> Cheers
> Urbin
Nah, you're no sucker - you just enjoy WoW for what it is. Whereas I
long for what it almost could be. So you're the far happier and content
of us :-) So I kind of envy you...
Jamie Kahn Genet
I came back because WoW is still the best option to have fun online with
others 24 hours a day, seven days a week :-) You visit other MMOs and
they're DEAD for large portions of the day, which sucks for me as I can
be playing at any hour of the day or night due to my odd lifestyle.
PhilHibbs
> Yeah but Jamie actually used the words "the fact is".
Oh come off it, that's a common vernacular phrase. It would be frowned
upon in formal debating circles but we're a long way from that, and a
good thing too.
Urbin
> Urbin <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:54:35 +1300, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > > PV <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > bms...@gmail.com writes:
> > > > >I believe you forgot to include "...in my opinion..." somewhere in
> > > > >that paragraph.
> > > >
[snip most of Jamie's reasonable reply]
> > > *rolls eyes* I hope people like you get exactly the game you deserve. In
> > > fact I can think of no better reward for your support for the lowest
> > > common denominator in gaming :-)
> >
> > So basically you are stating that anyone disagreeing with you is a player
> > who wants the lcd in gaming. Come off it, Jamie. This is the second time
> > that you start off with a valid point but become so fixed on it that you
> > fail to see that there might be other opinions than your own that are valid.
> > I find this disappointing, because when you do not fall into that pattern,
> > your posts are actually helpful, constructive and valuable contributions to
> > this group.
>
> Hmmm... I guess I _do_ blame the players who support these changes that
> I see as dumbing down of the game. I don't think they're malicious or
> anything silly like that. But I do wish they'd stop and think some more
> about where it's leading WoW
It depends on the value of "support". I have never posted on any official
forum except for the UI forum when I needed input on some aspect of LUA
coding. So I have certainly not been the driving factor behind any change
Blizzard has ever made. I guess there are two types of people: those who cry
"nerf this and that" on the forums; and those who don't. When changes are
made (because of those cryign for nerfs or not does not matter) there are
again two types of people: those who like the changes and those who don't.
Feel free to blame those crying on the forums but don't put those of us who
didn't cry but also don't mind the changes in the same pot ;-)
> because I cannot believe people serious want the very cornerstone of
> gameplay - challenge (and the rewards from overcoming it) - to be
> removed.
Again, I think this is a matter of perception. We had the same discussion a
couple of weeks ago with regard to "challenging end game content". I *do*
like that I - a casual (at least concerning time in one stretch that I can
commit to) get to see more of the game. However, I do see, that for some it
would be great to again have harder end game content to be challenged by. If
they cry "make our end game content inaccesible to the others again" it
sounds completely different to "let them have what they have now but also
remember to add some really hard 25 man content with the next patch".
> > > Funny thing though - when people like myself point out the flaws in
> > > Blizzard's games, you're very quick to rubbish our posts.
> >
> > Uhm, a lot of people in this group are happy to discuss how certain changes
> > to WoW have advantages and disadvantages, how they may be an improvement or
> > detrimental. What usually makes people dig their heels in is absolute claims
> > of personal opinions being stated as fact.
>
> Well that was poorly worded of me, but I stand behind the intent.
Oh, I have no problem with the intent, even if I might not agree with it.
It's the way it is communicated that put my bristles up...
> > > Why....
> >
> > Back here we have a saying borrowed from the French: C'est le ton qui fait
> > la musique. Roughly meaning "it's the tone that makes the music". Often the
> > reaction to a post is not so much its content but they way it is presented.
> > If you start offending people just because they disagree with you, is it so
> > surprising that they stop taking you seriously?
>
> You're right that I get too worked up over Blizzard's decisions and that
> shows in my writing, and no doubt rubs some the wrong way. I make no
> apologies for my strong feelings, though my hotheaded style could always
> use some work :-D
And that is the reason why you - unlike JohnR - have not ended up in my
killfile. I think of you as a basically agreeable person with a temper. That
deserves the occasional post trying to take you down a notch but not the
killfile :-)
> > > almost the behaviour of a die hard fan, isn't it?
>
> That could have used a smily face.
I realised that, but could not resist responding seriously :-)
> > Well, considering that over the past almost four years, I still am hugely
> > enjoying playing WoW and in fact think it has gotten *better*, I freely
> > admit to being a die hard fan. I have occasionally disagreed with something
> > Blizzard decided on, but overall, they get it right a lot more often than
> > not. At least in my opinion. That is why I still play. Still pay. Still
> > enjoy it. Still am a fan.
> >
> > > But of course you'd "STOP PLAYING" in a heartbeat if something better
> > > came along, wouldn't you?
>
> Likewise this line.
>
> > No. But if the changes they made were so detrimental to my play that I
> > stopped enjoying it, I would stop playing. Whether I would switch over to
> > another game or whether I would just shift more of my spare time over to RL
> > activities that I cut back on due to WoW I don't know.
And again, likewise :-)
> > <sarcasm>
> > Of course I accept the possibility that I am one of the suckers who is too
> > dumb to play the game properly and am finding it *better* because Blizzard
> > has lowered the standards to my lowly level of quality and ability. In the
> > end, I don't care, because I enjoy playing the game at the lowest common
> > denominator. Together with the other 12 million suckers who don't know
> > better than to enjoy a bad game.
> > </sarcasm>
>
> Nah, you're no sucker - you just enjoy WoW for what it is. Whereas I
> long for what it almost could be. So you're the far happier and content
> of us :-) So I kind of envy you...
You're welcome ;-)
steve.kaye
> steve.kaye wrote:
> > Yeah but Jamie actually used the words "the fact is".
>
> Oh come off it, that's a common vernacular phrase. It would be frowned
> upon in formal debating circles but we're a long way from that, and a
> good thing too.
Maybe it's commonly used where you come from, but maybe not where
Brent comes from. The only place where I see it in regular use to
state an opinion, instead of fact, is in this newsgroup.
steve.kaye
Rob Wynne
> I came back because WoW is still the best option to have fun online with
> others 24 hours a day, seven days a week :-) You visit other MMOs and
> they're DEAD for large portions of the day, which sucks for me as I can
> be playing at any hour of the day or night due to my odd lifestyle.
To be honest, while I don't think WoW will be the #1 game forever, I expect
i to be around for some time.
In 1992, I joined the dev team of a popular DikuMUD, which I had been
playing since shortly before it launched. Seventeen years later, that MUD
is still up and running. It has many fewer players than it did, and isn't
nearly as vibrant a community as it was in, say, 1995. But it's still
going.
As enough people move on to other things, WoW will shrink. Servers will be
consolidated, updates will be fewer, and the population will dwindle to a
handful of devotees. But as long as it costs less to keep running than it
makes, it will continue to chug along for quite some time.
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2009: Jan 9-11, 2009 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 - http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
neithskye
wrote:
> Blizzard already lost substantial customer loyalty with me after the
> Diablo II fiasco (e.g. rampant cheating on the realms, battle.net
> incorrectly preventing you from connecting after a disconnect that was
> not your fault, classes like the druid that were never balanced, and
> skills that were never fixed in D2's ENTIRE lifespan!!! - see Amazon
> Fend skill).
I'd hardly call D2 a "fiasco".
I will admit the constant game interruptions and FTJG messages got a
little old. I lost numerous items when muling games with items on the
ground tanked and I couldn't get back into the game - in some cases,
items that took me 93 levels to find. However, that's life - stuff
goes wrong. I wasn't paying a monthly fee for D2 online. I do pay a
monthly fee for my cable and Internet service, and I still get the
occasional disruption.
How did cheating on the realms affect you? I played D2 for four years
before finally joining WoW in October 2006. I never once cheated. In
fact, one of my projects just before leaving the game was to take a
Barbarian solo through the entire game using only items he found, with
zero deaths. He made it. It was great fun. Other people cheat; doesn't
mean I - or you - have to.
Besides - dare I say this? - I think Blizzard encouraged cheating. Why
would they do anything about it? Have a look at the runewords what
were introduced with patch 1.10. I played the game for four years. In
all that time, the highest rune I ever had drop was a Gul from the
Hell Hellforge. In four years. Now - within one season - I'm somehow
supposed to come up with a Cham and a Lo and an Ohm to make a Doom? Or
a Jah and a Ber to make an Enigma? Riiiight.
--
Jill
chucks...@tds.net
everyone. If they make content too difficult the majority of players
feel blocked out of endgame. If they make it too easy the hardcore
players will complain that everyone gets to do what they do. Bliz has
done whats in their best interest and chosen to appease the masses
that pay their bills. I don't mind as I'm one of the masses - a
casual player that is happy to devote only a couple evenings to what
is currently top endgame raiding. I see both points but also
recognize that as a business it's their job to maximize profits, and
that is done by catering to the bulk of player base. I'm sure
something else will come along someday but as we have seen in 2008 the
last 2 up to bat have struck out horribly. It's going to take a good
one to unseat the reining king.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> On Feb 10, 9:45 am, jami...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet)
> wrote:
>
> > Blizzard already lost substantial customer loyalty with me after the
> > Diablo II fiasco (e.g. rampant cheating on the realms, battle.net
> > incorrectly preventing you from connecting after a disconnect that was
> > not your fault, classes like the druid that were never balanced, and
> > skills that were never fixed in D2's ENTIRE lifespan!!! - see Amazon
> > Fend skill).
>
> I'd hardly call D2 a "fiasco".
Well you're a sweetheart, Jill :-) But I'm a lot crankier so fiasco is
_exactly_ the word I'd use.
> I will admit the constant game interruptions and FTJG messages got a
> little old.
I used to drive me bananas when I was playing with friends and couldn't
get back on. I do not enjoy letting people down and that Battle.net
seemed designed to ensure I reguarly would, really ticked me off. It so
soloing was the only way to play :-(
> I lost numerous items when muling games with items on the
> ground tanked and I couldn't get back into the game - in some cases,
> items that took me 93 levels to find. However, that's life - stuff
> goes wrong.
Though I'd be lying if I said that didn't drive me crazy on occasion, I
could accept it as trading between characters on the same acount was not
supported. Not so the constant FTJG.
> I wasn't paying a monthly fee for D2 online. I do pay a monthly fee for my
> cable and Internet service, and I still get the occasional disruption.
>
> How did cheating on the realms affect you? I played D2 for four years
> before finally joining WoW in October 2006. I never once cheated. In
> fact, one of my projects just before leaving the game was to take a
> Barbarian solo through the entire game using only items he found, with
> zero deaths. He made it. It was great fun. Other people cheat; doesn't
> mean I - or you - have to.
Cheating affected me because most of the time when I'd play with others
they'd be using items gained by cheating, which really took all the fun
out of it. They didn't care about actually playing the game - they had
no fear anywhere in their super powerful dupes. They didn't care about
drops. They even got tired of me actually checking them :-( It sucked
BIG TIME.
> Besides - dare I say this? - I think Blizzard encouraged cheating. Why
> would they do anything about it? Have a look at the runewords what
> were introduced with patch 1.10. I played the game for four years. In
> all that time, the highest rune I ever had drop was a Gul from the
> Hell Hellforge. In four years. Now - within one season - I'm somehow
> supposed to come up with a Cham and a Lo and an Ohm to make a Doom? Or
> a Jah and a Ber to make an Enigma? Riiiight.
>
> --
> Jill
You could be right given the level of gear you'd need to take to make a
Druid half decent :-D However I could play a necro through hell and back
in only dropped gear.
PV
>*grins* Well it's pretty darn factual for me and a whole host of people
Facts are never "facts for me". *
PV
>don't really think Blizzard will reign supreme with MMORPGS forever, do
>you? I seem to recall when EverQuest was the be all and end all of the
>genre... that changed.
Um, did you actually read what I wrote? *
PV
>cost to making a truly great game.
What does that sentence even MEAN? *
JohnR
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) writes:
>> Oh I agree that WoW has been a phenomenal success, I just wonder at
>> what cost to making a truly great game.
>
> What does that sentence even MEAN? *
>
not for quality gameplay reasons.
Rob Wynne
> There are strong rumors that we'll get dual speccing with 3.1.
> I've heard that it includes reconfiguring action bars, macros, etc.
>
> How would you use it?
>
> My main, who is a lvl 80 Holy Pally healer, I intend to
> dual spec as a Prot Pally tank. This will require a second
> set of gear, but will make him pretty desirable for groups.
>
I hate to actually bring this thread kicking and screaming back on topic,
but:
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/underdev/dualspec.html
Interesting glimpse of how this is going to actually work.
Eldon Down
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are strong rumors that we'll get dual speccing with 3.1.
>> I've heard that it includes reconfiguring action bars, macros, etc.
>>
>> How would you use it?
>>
>> My main, who is a lvl 80 Holy Pally healer, I intend to
>> dual spec as a Prot Pally tank. This will require a second
>> set of gear, but will make him pretty desirable for groups.
>>
>
> I hate to actually bring this thread kicking and screaming back on topic,
> but:
>
> http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/underdev/dualspec.html
>
> Interesting glimpse of how this is going to actually work.
>
Some interesting notes in there. Requiring players to be 80 before they
can dual-spec seems reasonable, though I was really hoping my holy
priest could have a shadow 2nd spec to finish getting to 80 :-P
Summonable Lexicons could be interesting ... undoubtedly will have a
high mat cost and/or long cooldown, though.
And I will definitely appreciate the ability to configure an entire
talent spec and THEN save it, as opposed to points being spent
immediately, as they are now.
Ashen Shugar
something like...
It'll be interesting to see what price range they end up putting on
it. Possibly after the initial rollout it'll end up like guild bank
tabs. Cheap enough to get the first extra talent spec, but
exponentially more expensive for each one you want after that.
Ashen Shugar
--
The lions sing and the hills take flight.
The moon by day, and the sun by night.
Blind woman, deaf man, jackdaw fool.
Let the Lord of Chaos rule!
steve.kaye
> Rob Wynne wrote:
You can do this now with addons like Talented.
I doubt that I'll stop using that addon once the change has come in
because it allows you to create many specs and save them for later
retrieval and application. It also allows you to play around and save
specs for any class - I don't usually use the web based talent
calculators anymore.
steve.kaye
Jamie Kahn Genet
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) writes:
> >Stockholders when it starts to affect their bottom line? Because you
> >don't really think Blizzard will reign supreme with MMORPGS forever, do
> >you? I seem to recall when EverQuest was the be all and end all of the
> >genre... that changed.
>
> Um, did you actually read what I wrote? *
Yes, and your point is? Or do you think I misread the bit about you not
being a stockholder? So what? I'm not talking about you.