Skip to Content
11-13-2011 @ 12:00AM
1spell every 5 levels instead of waiting 15 levels would be better. but, hey, i am just a player!
11-13-2011 @ 12:12PM
I think you're missing something.There are;Class SpellsSpec SpellsTalent SpellsTalent spells are the only ones that come along once every 15 levels. The other two types of spells are likely to be more often than that (but I suspect less often that what we have now).
11-13-2011 @ 12:35PM
Oh, and one more thing, even with our current talent system, we tend to wait for more than 10 levels to get a new spell from it.
11-13-2011 @ 6:45PM
@ PAUL- 5 would be better. AND IT IS MY OPINION. So state your own opinion on your own comment.
11-14-2011 @ 2:22AM
I wasn't intending to touch a nerve. You stated "one spell every 5 levels", which read to me that you didn't know that we will continually get Class and Spec spells inbetween the talent abilities.However, I touched a nerve, and I'm sorry, but this is how discussions go. People see a comment, read into it as best they can, and if they see that someone is stating something that seems misinformed, others will try to correct that person.For example (now that I think I fully understand your post), your idea would result in 51 abilities available from the talent system. That would pretty much leave us with no Class or Spec abilites. In that scenario, specification distinction becomes watered down.To add further, 17 abilities + core abilities results in not a lot of space on the action bars.I'll apologise in advance if this has upset you again, but frankly, this is how discussion boards work. I'm not picking on you here. You're not the only person to get your opinion "assessed", nor am I immune to it. In fact, over the years, it's from this process that I have learnt to understand the difference between "what would be cool" and "what is practical". If you're left alone with your opinion, with no one ever explaining why it's not a good idea, then you will forever stew in a brood of "why doesn't anyone use my idea?"Take comments like these as a means of learning and growing. For example, I once thought it was a good idea to allow skinners to turn Rugged Leather into Heavy Leather, with a small chance to create scrap material while doing it. It was quickly pointed out to me that from one piece of Rugged leather, one skinner would make a couple hundred Light Leather and would reuin the AH economy. From that, I learnt to pay more attention to what would be a good idea rather than "but I want it".
11-14-2011 @ 11:31AM
@ PaulWhat annoys me is know it all people assuming the way they read your comment is the only way it can or should be meant, and then going on to spout off in ways designed to make the original comment seem daft.For example -Ez - one every 5 levelsPaul - that makes 51 abilitiesNow I only have degree level maths (from a university no less). But I cannot make 85/5 = 51.One every 5 levels @85 would make 17 spells. He did not state "+All core abilities" neither did he seperate it out into 'core','talent' and 'spec' spells - YOU DID. Why did you feel the need to add to his numbers in such a degree I dont know. And frankly I wouldnt bother reading your post after that, once you have shown me you are going to take things wrong so you can then prove your knowledge, I stop reading as I know there is going to be little of real interest after that type of statement - esp with your passive agressive 'oh I touched a nerve'. Nope I dont think you did - you DISTORTED what he was trying to put - something most people do not like.Please take this as advice - as I dont think you read his comment very well. (BTW telling someone to grow up and learn something is insulting and rarely going to be effective)Now my point is that the way I read his statement is that one CHOICE every 15 levels is not much. Which tbh I agree with. I would prefer more 'customisation' even if we were only given some cosmetic choices.
11-14-2011 @ 2:33PM
@SintharSpecs are chosen at level 10, this is based on the game's history of not allowing players to make choices like this during the learning period of the game.With EZ's design, if Blizzard were to go with it, would be very unlikely to break that system. The frist talent from his design, based on Blizzard's philosophy, would be issued at level 10, not level 5.Now, from there, we are talking about the proposed talent system where you are given 3 choices per talent tier unlock.So, mathmatically speaking, the "every 5 levels" system would unlock a toal of 17 tiers. With 3 choices/abilities per tier, you end up with 51 abilities in total which are available.In order to make that many choices available, Blizzard would have no choice but to cut abilities from other sources, these cuts would be from Class and Spec ability allocation.I have stated my own opinion in my own post a couple of times, and I was hoping to avoid stating it when discussing a design issue that would be brought about by someone else's opinion (for reasons I already explained, but hey, if you think players like not know why their idea's aren't used, then you've discovered a gaming community I have yet to encounter). However, my opinion is this;Even though the Vanilla-Cata talent systems had a lot of false choices (who would honestly think 1 point in ignite is a good idea?), it still gives the player the sense of building their character up. This new system deminishes that sensation.No matter how you want to cut it, EZ's post was brief. It simply stated "5 instead of 15". I stated why applying that to the proposed MoP system would not work, or rather, why it doesn't fit into BLIZZARD'S design philosophy. It is NOT my opnion. As indicated, I like being able to fiddle with my characters.
11-14-2011 @ 3:24PM
@SintharI was hoping I could let this slide, but since the core point of your post was to state that I shouldn't distort what other people say, I just need to bring this up;"(BTW telling someone to grow up and learn something is insulting and rarely going to be effective)"You took what I said out of context, I'm aware it was unintentional, because you misunderstood what I said, instead of being rude, I will try to explain it so I'm clearer, as the example I gave didn't seem to work.This is what I actually said;"Take comments like these as a means of learning and growing."Growing, not grow up. It has nothing to do with maturity, age or the emotional handling of confrontation discussions (which I honestly honestly did not intend with my original message, my follow up didn't help, but hey, no edit button). It's to do with taking what is said and using it to get better at what you do. Learning is not something that stops with age or experience. I doubt very many of us have a true grasp of game design. I'm certainly no expert, otherwise I would have a job in it, but I have learnt from past experiences when people have pointed out why an idea I had would not work...hell, people still do that. I simply accept what they are saying, and more importantly, I try my best to understand their view even if I don't agree with it.Now, as you can see, you mistook what I said and distorted it to make me seem (even more) of an arsehole, but what is important in situations like this is that the debatants understand the intent. You were not trying to make me come across as an arrogant prick, but rather you read it in my post and responded in kind. However, one more time, that was NOT my intent. My intent was very innocent, and that was to explain why the MoP talent system would not work well if the choice was given every 5 levels, I then proceeded to explain how it would affect the way Class and Specification abilities would be distributed. Finally, I explained why how the new talent system's pacing of new abilities is no different to that of the current talent system. That one was poorly worded, and that was a bad decision which I made because I clicked reply too early (as you can see from my posts, I don't proof-read, and I really should've learnt to do that on here by now).
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.