The Daily Quest: Raising questions
by Anne Stickney 
Mar 2nd 2011 at 4:00PM
WoW Insider's on a Daily Quest to bring you interesting, informative and entertaining WoW-related links from around the blogosphere.
Contrary to popular belief, the easiest way to raise a question does not lie in planting quest givers in the ground. Generally speaking, it does nothing but make them cranky -- and a cranky, vengeful former brewmaster witch doctor spirit is really not the sort of person you want to annoy. Today, we've got a handful of posts from around the blogosphere that raise various questions about the World of Warcraft. Don't worry -- the answers don't involve getting ogres drunk.
- Blacksen's End makes a case for having unlimited specs in WoW.
- Gray Matter answers a few questions regarding haste breakpoints in regards to moonkin.
- World of Matticus has some tips on how to tell if your officers are carrying their weight.
- FeralTree has a ton of useful information, tips and tricks for the first tier of Cataclysm raiding.
Is there a story out there we ought to link or a blog we should be following? Just leave us a comment, and you may see it here tomorrow! Be sure to check out our WoW Resources Guide for more WoW-related sites.
Filed under: The Daily Quest
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Henry Mar 2nd 2011 4:22PM
I recently endeavored to remove addon messages when I log in to WoW or switch characters and detailed the process here.
How to shut up addon welcome messages.
http://taufmonster.blogspot.com/2011/03/shutting-up-addons.html
Corath Mar 2nd 2011 4:51PM
A good question for my main, a Tauren Druid: why can't he close his mouth all the way? His mouth must really be tired from that perma-scowl.
Latest post on Corath's Blog (http://corath.wordpress.com)...
It's Blizzard's 20 year anniversary! They've broken ground in some areas, and perfected what has been in place for others. My new post is called "Blizzard Entertainment: Twenty Years of Awesome".
http://corath.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/twenty-years-of-awesome/
Enjoy!
Othgan Mar 2nd 2011 4:54PM
By posting his concerns in THREE separate but related media outlets, I think Blacksen is either trolling us all and trying to cause trouble, or he is legitimately concerned about a minor annoyance. Either way there was no need for three separate posts on the matter.
Artificial Mar 2nd 2011 5:30PM
I wouldn't call it a minor annoyance. For players of the "explorer" archtype, it's one the major reasons WoW sucks. The game actively discourages you from trying new stuff out. The kind of experimentation that thrills the same kind people who enjoy sandbox games and the like is far, far too expensive to engage in in WoW. Blizzard seems to go out of its way to drive us to other games.
You, on the other hand, are a bit of a troll. Blacksen has a point of view, but if he expresses it in more than one place, he must be trolling? You can't be serious...
(cutaia) Mar 2nd 2011 5:07PM
From Blacksen's End:
"To go over a typical Bastion of Twilight night for our rogues: Combat for heroic Halfus, Subtlety on heroic Twins, Mutilate on normal Ascendants / Cho'gall, and then PvP spec for arena's after the raid. That's 4 specs needed for a single raid night. And shockingly, they never make a single "meaningful decision" regarding their spec. They've gotten the same spec so many times that it's essentially automatic."
This is an extreme example and it isn't the norm. It's also misinterpreting the intent behind the phrase "meaningful decision."
The developers are talking about your average person who limits themselves to 2 specs. The game tries to discourage this type of constant respeccing, so even though some folks like the rogues in question are still doing it, it's not the main focus here.
The real scenario showing "meaningful decisions" at work, is that your average rogue will choose two specs to keep and will live with it. I know personally, I would love to have a prot spec, a ret PvE dedicated spec, and a ret PvP dedicated spec. My meaningful decision, then, was choosing to make one spec that's not necessarily optimal for PvP or PvE, but that will get the job done regardless.
Now, obviously I'm not actually against multi-spec. I'd certainly use it. I'm just saying that the argument given here is one of pure semantics. They're suggesting that meaningful decisions don't actually exist in the game simply because their rogues have several specs memorized. That's not a logical argument in any sense.
Dee Eff See Mar 2nd 2011 5:35PM
I agree Cutaia. However, my main concern is still the same as his. These "minor annoyances" still do prevent a large portion of players from doing what they want to do. I too have a Retribution PvE and PvP spec. Because of this a can no longer Heal in PvP or PvE and cannot Tank a dungeon if called upon, without spending that time to change the spec, glyphs, and most importantly, the time to change all of the abilities on the action bar.
loop_not_defined Mar 2nd 2011 5:43PM
It's worth pointing out that Blacksen's primary points are almost entirely peripheral: the time it takes to configure your UI.
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2140509123?page=35#699
Blizzard feels that they can address the primary peripheral problems without ever adding a third spec, which Blacksen doesn't even stop to consider.
Honestly, having to respec (unlimited specs) between every single boss fight to get one or two talents that help out more seems far more detrimental to the enjoyment of this game than limiting it to two specs. Nobody is a Fury Warrior, or an Arms Warrior, or a Prot Warrior. All Fury Warriors have the same talents, although they are dependent on the encounter instead of personal choice. By the end of the day, you're just a Warrior - exactly like every other Warrior - that changes weapons when it's convenient.
The question then becomes "Why have specs?"
(cutaia) Mar 2nd 2011 5:51PM
"Nobody is a Fury Warrior, or an Arms Warrior, or a Prot Warrior. All Fury Warriors have the same talents, although they are dependent on the encounter instead of personal choice. By the end of the day, you're just a Warrior - exactly like every other Warrior - that changes weapons when it's convenient.
The question then becomes 'Why have specs?'"
And this is a great point. You're right...if we had unlimited specs, then every rogue would suddenly have no excuse to not switch specs for every fight just like the hardcore folks from that story are already doing. It would definitely add an annoying element to raiding. Fight explanations would suddenly include, "Alright, survival hunter is best for this fight, as is assassination rogue, etc. Death Knights, please pull out your Ragnaros spec which has one talent different cause it helps in phase 2."
You know what...you've converted me. I think I'll support the 2 spec limit to avoid a future where that's a possibility.
loop_not_defined Mar 2nd 2011 5:53PM
Also, Blacksen's comparisons to other games is seriously bothering me. He picked only *two* MMOs and then proclaims that World of Warcraft is the ONLY game that makes these kinds of decisions! Talk about cherry picking data.
Blacksen Mar 2nd 2011 6:29PM
Yes, because there are so many other successful MMO's right now. I chose the games to demonstrate that it's a design concept that transcends MMORPG's - limiting playstyles limits fun. It's been proven in other MMO's, FPS games, RTS games, and RPG games.
Your spec represents the choice of what abilities you're bringing to the encounter. No matter what you do, you can't have it all. Priests can't have both Power Word: Barrier and Guardian Spirit, and so they alternate their specs based on the usefulness of the fight. Similarly, Rogues can't have Enveloping Shadows and Mutilate, so they chose based on the fight. Similarly, you can't have a spec that has all the PvE and PvP talents.
The ability to respec at the press of a button is already there - just hit "Yes" when asked "Are you sure you want to unlearn your talents for 66g?" All I'm asking for is the removal of the annoyance.
(cutaia) Mar 2nd 2011 6:41PM
I'll just refer you to the conclusion I came to above during this thread: I think the removal of the annoyance for the arguably vast minority of players who currently respec before each fight would actually cause more annoyance and less freedom for a lot of other players. Unfortunately for you, that's a trade off I don't see Blizzard making.
(cutaia) Mar 2nd 2011 6:48PM
Oh, and...
"I chose the games to demonstrate that it's a design concept that transcends MMORPG's - limiting playstyles limits fun. It's been proven in other MMO's, FPS games, RTS games, and RPG games."
Something struck me as interesting here. You mentioned Halo, for example, which was actually unique amongst FPSs when it came out because it DIDN'T let you carry every damned gun you came across. In fact, it made you choose only 2 guns at a time to keep on you.
Here's a part of a review from 2001 from 1up:
"Your character can, for example, carry only two weapons at a time--a distinct change from the 'kitchen-sink' philosophy most of its first-person brethren adhere to. Your decision to carry that oh-so-cumbersome rocket-launcher into the fray might help in taking out that tank, but you'd better bring along a more practical weapon to defend against the hordes of alien grunts at close quarters."
So, while you're here saying that Halo is an example of how freedom makes a better game, when it came out, people were praising it for forcing us to make, dare I say, "meaningful decisions?"
I think all you've done is prove that fun is subjective.
Blacksen Mar 2nd 2011 6:52PM
I can understand how unlimited specs might present that implication - the "Affliction Spec" vs the "Magmaw Spec" - but I don't see how a third spec would bring that about.
As the GM of a top 100 US guild, I require all my raiders to have 2 PvE specs for raiding in the rare circumstance that we need the added flexibility. Other than our rogues, a 3rd spec wouldn't add any more flexibility for our raiding. If anything, it's a gearing issue - we can't give out gear for 3 roles per person, and by the time we could, the flexibility wouldn't be necessary.
Blizzard even stepped down this road further by consolidating gear sets. In ToC and Icecrown, a Shadow Priest and Holy Priest had vastly different gear sets. Now, it's actually very similar. Seems to me like they further wanted to reinforce the flexibility of hybrids.
I raid with Affliction and Demonology. If Blizzard added a 3rd spec, I would be using it for PvP. Judging from the responses in the public thread on the issue, I think a lot of others would as well.
Just ask yourself this: If Blizzard added a third spec, what would you use it for?
Would you ACTUALLY use it for moving 2-3 talent points around for a different fight? Or you would use it for some part of the game that you're currently not enjoying?
(cutaia) Mar 2nd 2011 6:52PM
Oh yeah. Source: http://www.1up.com/reviews/halo-combat-evolved_2
Blacksen Mar 2nd 2011 6:56PM
Halo lets you swap guns at any time. You're limited to 2 at a time.
Not surprisingly, this is identical to what I'm saying in WoW:
- In WoW, you have to chose between various abilities. I've asserted that you should be allowed to change those abilities between fights.
- In Halo, you have to chose between which guns you're going to carry. You're allowed to change that decision any time in the match. In fact, the game forces you to change your decision with the concept of "ammo."
But nice try.
(cutaia) Mar 2nd 2011 6:56PM
"Just ask yourself this: If Blizzard added a third spec, what would you use it for?
Would you ACTUALLY use it for moving 2-3 talent points around for a different fight? Or you would use it for some part of the game that you're currently not enjoying?"
No, I wouldn't use a 3rd spec to make fight-based specs. I'd just make a PvP spec.
I'm not sure how that's relevant, though. I thought I was responding to the "Case for Unlimited WoW Specs." Because if I had "unlimited" WoW specs, I most certainly WOULD do that. It would be a level of min-maxing that I'd rather not feel forced/encouraged to do.
(cutaia) Mar 2nd 2011 7:06PM
And I just noticed your snarky little "Nice try" reply.
We can either have a discussion where ideas are exchanged like adults, or you can try and lord what you think is a better argument over me. If you're gonna continue to do the latter, I'm done talking to you.
Blacksen Mar 2nd 2011 7:39PM
I'm sorry for offending you, but I found your claims a tad offensive as well - stating something as "fact" when it's blatantly false, all for the purpose of advancing your argument, is both arrogant and somewhat offensive.
Saying that "Halo limits you to 2 weapons" is simply wrong. You can change weapons at any time by holding pressing and holding X on the X-box (Square I think on the PS3).
You took your quote out of context too. If you had continued reading down that same paragraph...
"or (c) pilfer the corpse of one of your fallen comrades. "
The implication is that you can swap guns off your teammates corpses.
If you want to have an "adult conversation," you shouldn't be trying to intentionally mislead people by taking things out of context and talking about games that you've never played.
(cutaia) Mar 2nd 2011 8:45PM
You know what? I was actually being really reasonable and nice here. Apparently you think I'm being offensive. Well, I would hate to disappoint you, so if this is the way we're gonna play this, let's do it.
"If you want to have an "adult conversation," you shouldn't be trying to intentionally mislead people by taking things out of context and talking about games that you've never played."
Well, allow me to retort:
http://www.cutaia.net/wow/toblacksen.png
Now that we've gotten your ACTUALLY false statement cleared up, we can move on.
"I'm sorry for offending you, but I found your claims a tad offensive as well - stating something as "fact" when it's blatantly false, all for the purpose of advancing your argument, is both arrogant and somewhat offensive."
Let's face it...this is such a transparent load of crap, it's ridiculous. You weren't being a dick to me in retaliation to some hurt feelings I caused, because I didn't say anything even remotely offensive. You are simply trying to cover up the fact that you were out of line by inventing some offense you supposedly took from my simple example. Now, let's move on to that example:
"You took your quote out of context too. If you had continued reading down that same paragraph...
"or (c) pilfer the corpse of one of your fallen comrades. "
The implication is that you can swap guns off your teammates corpses."
I didn't take the quote out of context at all, and what I said wasn't false. It's absolutely true that you can only have 2 guns "on you" at any given time in Halo. My main point was to distinguish Halo from other FPSes at the time which let you keep every gun you ever picked up and switch between them whenever you want. The section of the article I quoted was perfectly in that context.
And I stand by my example, despite you refusing to understand it.
See, the biggest thing that's showing you to be a real close-minded idiot here, is that you seem incapable of understanding the concept of a metaphor. If you really want to make an analogy from Halo's guns to WoW's specs, it's honestly quite the same. For example:
In Halo [WoW], you can only carry two guns [specs] on you at a time. But you can always switch one by visiting a fallen comrade [class trainer].
Now, I can hear the gears turning in your empty little head already. In fact, you've already made an argument against what I said later in these comments, haven't you? Oh, joy! You've got this all figured out, don't you???
"In Halo, it takes at most 5 seconds to completely change playstyles. You can go from tank-driver to sniper to explosives to machine guns, all of which have completely different gameplay styles, and all of which are basically interchangable at any point in the game.
In WoW, it takes 5 minutes to actually reconfigure your talents, action bars, and glyphs, plus the 100g on top of it. That's not "interchangable.""
Here's what you've done here. You've compared one part of these two games, but failed to compare any others.
Let's be realistic instead and also look at boss fights in Halo. Do you spend several hours a night, for several nights trying to kill each boss in Halo for the first time?
No, you say? Well, that's because they're different types of games. Yes...switching a gun in Halo is faster than switching a spec in WoW. So is everything else. This is why this is an analogy and not a direct comparison. But it's also why your argument falls flat, because regardless of the differences in time each respective action takes, the point is YOU STILL HAVE TO MAKE AN ACTION TO SWITCH ONE OF YOUR TWO CURRENT GUNS/SPECS.
You cherry pick your examples and get hostile with anyone who disagrees with you. The most hilarious part for those of us watching at home, however, is that you stupidly, unwittingly prove yourself wrong time and time again.
Have fun with your crusade, buddy. I'll personally be laughing at your plight now, whereas before I simply would have been bemusedly indifferent to it. Congratulations on making me a believer.
Nice try.
loop_not_defined Mar 2nd 2011 9:24PM
Blacksen: "I can understand how unlimited specs might present that implication - the "Affliction Spec" vs the "Magmaw Spec" - but I don't see how a third spec would bring that about."
That's fine, but the topic is not concerning three specs. Do we really need to remind you what the topic is about? You wrote the article, after all.