Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-08-2010 @ 11:52PM
Numb said...
I'm with the "what's wrong with a PvP spec?" people. Why SHOULDN'T one talent set be more geared towards a specific role than others? Frankly, I find frost mages complaining about not being pve viable to make as much sense as a holy paladin complaining that they aren't a viable pve *dps* option. If you just work off the assumption that YOUR SPEC IS MEANT FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, then everything suddenly makes sense.
Reply
5-09-2010 @ 12:30AM
Bronwyn said...
The point being that with a class that has three dps specs, you want to play the spec that is the most fun for you and for a lot of people that is frost. Not everyone PvPs. In my opinion if you are playing a pure dps class then all of the specs should at least be somewhat close in performance so that people can make choices about what they think is the most fun, rather than just pigeonholing people in certain specs.
5-09-2010 @ 4:01AM
Gothia said...
Well all I can say is look at the Discipline Priest and you will see a spec that was PvP only until Cataclysm. It is possible for a traditional PvP spec to have a special twist in the PvE world. I think Disc added to the raiding experience for everyone and hopefully will open minds to a non-traditional role have a PvE impact.
5-09-2010 @ 4:26PM
Shade said...
No.
Frost mages not pve viable = Holy pallies not pve viable
Holy pallies not pve *dps* viable = Frost mages not pve *tank* viable
Heal/Tank/DPS. PvE/PvP. These are two completely separate categories. You didn't compare an apple to an orange. You compared it to blue.