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)
11-24-2010 @ 3:56PM
Texicles said...
I think Social has the right idea, and maybe (hopefully even) this hints at a future direction that they'll go.
Meta reqs are good, but only so far as the cost/benefit is desirable. As people have pointed out, giving up most of your gem slots to something other than your most desirable stat for a 3% crit chance increase makes the decision easy for many specs: don't do it. That is poor design, imo.
Blizz has been revamping the talent trees to avoid this exact situation. When one choice is such a significant benefit that only the ignorant (as well as the obstinant or outright dumb) would choose the alternative, then there really isn't a choice.
If they were to increase the value of a meta to the point that there were a theoretical disparity within the margin of error between having/gemming for the powerful meta and having a weaker meta/gemming your best stat, THEN players would have real choice. That would be good design, imo.