Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

5.0.4 PTRFollow

#27 Jul 24 2012 at 2:32 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,996 posts
From a blue post announcing the change:

Quote:
We decided that putting head enchants on the various faction vendors wasn't working well with our design intent for the factions. There is a lot of max-level quest content in MoP, much of it focused around the reputation with the new factions. I think it's really cool stuff -- worlds away from the old Argent Dawn scourge stone days.

In previous expansions, the head enchants on the faction vendors served to force players into that content. You couldn't even choose which reputation to pursue -- you had to pursue the one with your specific head enchant. Our design intent for MoP is to give players options in how to play, and the head enchant design wasn't compatible with that.

Once we decided to no longer offer new head enchants, we made the older ones non-functional or else players would feel like they had to go back to older content or be missing out on power. This way, helmets are just no longer enchantable and you'll have one less required step to get a piece of loot ready to wear.


I have to agree with them, I never did like the "you have to grind rep with X because you need Y enchant" system. A common complaint about Cata was that it seemed to cut down on players' choices and the developers seem to be trying to change that. I haven't been following the various faction changes closely, but it seems like it could be interesting.

Now, about this whole wand as a main hand slot ... when can we get dual wield? Smiley: eek

#28 Jul 24 2012 at 3:13 AM Rating: Good
***
1,996 posts
Quote:
I never claimed to have the superior opinion. I just said that I would have liked Blizzard to take another approach on this issue. That's called having a discussion.


The problem with writing is that one only has the written word as evidence of the writers intent. You may have believed you were having a discussion, but you dismissed any point that didn't agree with your view out of hand. That isn't a discussion.

In a discussion, you might have actually responded to the points Lyr raised. You didn't, nor did you just say that you would have liked Blizzard to take another approach. What you actually said was that they were lazy and that it was lame game design; by extension asserting that anyone who doesn't agree with you is equally lazy or lame. That wasn't intended to come across as if you feel you have a superior opinion, particularly when you explicitly state that you don't intend to address anything that conflicts with your view? As a further example, Criminy asked:

Quote:
Any suggestions to how they can improve on a range weapon only one class can use, melee weapons that will never be used in melee, and relics that serve absolutely no purpose?


You blew it off with:

Quote:
I'm sure the developers could come up with something if they really wanted to. But it seems that is too much to ask for.


Yet you wonder why it seems to me that your whole argument is that you should be accommodated?

Discussions are fine, but how about making an attempt at reasoned discourse, possibly even supported by facts or at least suggestions? Did universities stop teaching debate and writing? Smiley: oyvey
#29 Jul 24 2012 at 4:01 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,148 posts
Rhodekylle wrote:
The problem with writing is that one only has the written word as evidence of the writers intent. You may have believed you were having a discussion, but you dismissed any point that didn't agree with your view out of hand. That isn't a discussion.


I didn't dismiss anything. I actually said that I think the issues that were raised are valid. I just don't like the solution Blizzard presents to us.

Rhodekylle wrote:
In a discussion, you might have actually responded to the points Lyr raised. You didn't, nor did you just say that you would have liked Blizzard to take another approach. What you actually said was that they were lazy and that it was lame game design; by extension asserting that anyone who doesn't agree with you is equally lazy or lame. That wasn't intended to come across as if you feel you have a superior opinion, particularly when you explicitly state that you don't intend to address anything that conflicts with your view? As a further example, Criminy asked:

Quote:
Any suggestions to how they can improve on a range weapon only one class can use, melee weapons that will never be used in melee, and relics that serve absolutely no purpose?


You blew it off with:

Quote:
I'm sure the developers could come up with something if they really wanted to. But it seems that is too much to ask for.


Yet you wonder why it seems to me that your whole argument is that you should be accommodated?


Is it my job to solve this problem now? I don't know exactly how to solve this and never stated otherwise. Rename the items for this slot so they make more sense for each class. Something with an on-use ability maybe (like some Trinkets)? I read in several articles on WoWInsider that people want more of these. As stated I have no perfect formula for this.
Blizzard developers have proven time and again that they can be pretty crafty when it comes to elegant game design. Why shouldn't I expect better than this removal? Also, when they announced headenchants would be removed MANY people suggested valid alternative solutions but Blizzard didn't listen to any of them. And yes, that's lazy design in my opinion.
In case of the Relicslot I think they could do better but chose not to. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they spent alot of time trying other things and none worked. But I don't really think so.

And no, I didn't insinuate that anyone who disagrees with me is lazy and lame. That's you putting words in my mouth (again).

And please stop with this whole entitlement-argument. Everyone who wants anything changed or not changed in this game wants this because it would improve his/her playing experience. When the Relic/Wand/etc slot goes, yes, I will be sad to see it gone but I can live with it. I won't throw a tantrum. But saying that I would have liked another solution is entitlement? By trying to devaluate my opinion with this stuff you are not setting the bar for discussion high.

Rhodekylle wrote:
Discussions are fine, but how about making an attempt at reasoned discourse, possibly even supported by facts or at least suggestions? Did universities stop teaching debate and writing? Smiley: oyvey


I agreed with many things Lyr and Criminy said. I disagreed with other things that were said. I didn't misinterpret anything, at least not intentionally. Plus I don't think that in any of my posts I have been near as condescending as you managed to be in each post you adressed to me in this topic.

I have no intention of answering to anything on this subject in the future. If you insist on misinterpreting my posts this way, fine, that's your prerogative. After a bit it gets tiresome to repeat that I don't value myself/my opinion higher than others in this matter.
#30 Jul 24 2012 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Lyrailis wrote:
Vorkosigan wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see ONE trinket slot. Or, even NO trinkets. They're a pita if you don't have the BOAs.


I hate trying to find trinkets sometimes.


This. A million times this.

Wrath of the Lich King was horrible when it came to trinkets. One trinket in the ICC 5-mans from a pain-in-the-*** dungeon boss. One trinket from the ICC raid. And everyone would roll on them, despite role and need. I've raged so hard because some ******* ninja'd the trinket from Saurfang. Brings back fuzzy, alcoholic memories of me strangling kittens and twisting necks on puppies.

They need to put more trinkets in the game, or copy loot tables to more bosses. Having to run one dungeon over and over again because you need a trinket from the last boss is painful. Even worse when the trinket drops from the first boss as you know the tank/healer will leave after the fight. Anyone remember the ICC 5-man farm? How many of you have been in a Pit of Saron run where the tank or the healer left after whatshisface because the loot he or she wanted didn't drop?

I have. Many times. Many, many times. So many times.

The pain.

The anger.

/twitch
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#31 Jul 24 2012 at 9:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Mazra wrote:
Wrath of the Lich King was horrible when it came to trinkets.


For completeness sake lets add in using the mongoose enchant and farming lvl 70 marks for the relic.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#32 Jul 24 2012 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,441 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Mazra wrote:
Wrath of the Lich King was horrible when it came to trinkets.


For completeness sake lets add in using the mongoose enchant and farming lvl 70 marks for the relic.


Or having to go to H-MgT for the Tank Trinket because entry-level trinkets for Wrath endgame had pretty much nothing for a tank that I could find, 'cept for that one Hadranox drops (and I could count on one hand how many people were willing to do H-AK), and... I think there was another tank trinket in there somewhere, but I never saw the stupid thing.

And then there was a tank trinket that dropped from the black knight in the 5man ToC, but lol.

I ran that thing like 30+ times and never saw the stupid thing.

But then Blizzard seems to do the same damn thing with tank shields.

Yet again, using the crafted shield for the entire expansion because they only put 1-and-only-1 non-raid Tank Shield in the entire game that I saw (the one from the troll dungeons is 353, worse than the crafted shield) and it is a rare rare rare drop, killed that stupid blood elf assassin I don't know how many times and only saw it drop once... while NOT playing my tank.

They put a 378 BoE.........caster...... shield in Firelands raid. Caster? Seriously? They can use the plethora of easy to get "Held in Off-Hand" items instead of a shield if they so wanted. That SHOULD have been a Tank Shield.

Edited, Jul 24th 2012 11:25am by Lyrailis
#33 Jul 24 2012 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
They could have kept the caster shield there, but added a shield for tanks as well. I hate using off-hand items on my Paladin and Shaman. It's just an aesthetic thing since a shield won't matter much in PvE, but I just don't like looking at my Shaman without a shield on.

The problem with loot tables and RNG is that the latter is a cruel mistress. If the chance of looting an item isn't 100% then there's always the risk that it won't drop for you. It can have a 99.9% drop chance and some poor sod still won't see it drop. And when it does finally drop, it'll be on another character.

That poor sod is me.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#34 Jul 26 2012 at 8:43 AM Rating: Decent
*
161 posts
"no minimum range for ranged weapons anymore"


So much for hunter being challenging/interesting in PvP..
#35 Jul 26 2012 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
***
3,441 posts
Labiarinth wrote:
"no minimum range for ranged weapons anymore"


So much for hunter being challenging/interesting in PvP..


Hunters are still the only class that has no self-heals (save a very small one that Marksmen get, and Beast Mastery's weak HoT.. what is that, 2% every 5 seconds?), little to no mitigation whatsoever (play dead doesn't work very well from what I've seen) and their pets have no way of keeping you off of them. [Edit: Note, this is based upon Pre-MoP knowledge of the class; I've not studied their MoP talent trees yet.]

Meanwhile, the minimum range was a pretty crippling handicap, that made hunters fairly weak in PvP unless they had plenty of friends to keep people distracted. Anytime I got up in a hunter's face, he was blowing everything he had to deal with me and his DPS went into the dirt, boom, just like that.

This is something hunters have been needing now, for a long time.

Also, there are solo PvE quests that plain got annoying because you're on a small ledge, in a small cave/tunnel/whatever and there's no room for you to get your pet to tank the thing AND get far enough away from it to shoot. There were some quests I remember having to melee mobs because I didn't have enough room to properly fight them with ranged.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 1:52pm by Lyrailis
#36 Jul 26 2012 at 12:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
In my mind at least hunters were one of those classes that sucked in Arenas with no self-heals, but did nicely in battlegrounds. They were quite easy to top the damage charts with, and get a good number of HKs. They were a nice anti-magic user class, and could deal impressive damage from a distance. BM hunters were a shiznit 1v1 with their CDs.

I'll be nostalgic about it I'm sure, but losing the minimum range thing isn't a big deal to me. After all shotgun blast to the face at close range should do more damage right? right? Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#37 Jul 26 2012 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
***
3,441 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
In my mind at least hunters were one of those classes that sucked in Arenas with no self-heals, but did nicely in battlegrounds. They were quite easy to top the damage charts with, and get a good number of HKs. They were a nice anti-magic user class, and could deal impressive damage from a distance. BM hunters were a shiznit 1v1 with their CDs.


Hunters do best when they've got friends to keep everyone else distracted. Afterall when you've got paladins and death knights and healers running around nearby, you're not likely to notice that one guy standing 30+ feet away turning you into swiss cheese, are you?

In Arena, though, there's a lot less people and hunters are a lot more noticeable.

Now, with Cooldowns they can do OK, but what happens when those cooldowns are done? They go down fast.

Quote:
I'll be nostalgic about it I'm sure, but losing the minimum range thing isn't a big deal to me. After all shotgun blast to the face at close range should do more damage right? right? Smiley: rolleyes


Indeed, one of the reasons I'm not all too broken up over it.

And besides, it is necessary -- if we remove Raptor Strike and melee weapons from hunters, then they can't melee unless they punch with their bare hands.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 310 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (310)