Patch 5.2 interview with Dave Kosak
Inside an old alt's vault
The latest patch 5.2 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria newsThe Queue: It's now cold outside. In Fargo. In the winter.
by Adam Holisky 
Jan 12th 2012 at 11:00AM
So far, this winter has been beyond mild. It got up to the mid-50s the other day -- warm enough that the missus and I were able to go take a walk outside. Of course, now it's zero out with blowing snow and lots of wind, so winter's back.
But really, it was a nice little slice of heaven in Fargo for a bit.
Zack asked:
Do you think that the Pandaren faction choice is a dry run for making that the norm for the playable races in the game? Between that and the politics played by Vol'Jin to stop the Zandalari, the fluid nature of the Dwarves at the moment, the current doubt of the Tauren in Garrosh, and a host of other story developments it seems as though Blizz is aiming to make faction choice a different kind of conscientious game mechanic. It certainly would open up some fun RP opportunities!
It's always possible that Blizzard would take some kind of dramatic overhaul to a core pillar of the game, but I don't think we should read into it very much. With pandarens, it makes sense that they could belong to either the Horde or Alliance and that each faction would accept them.
Would orcs really be accepted and given important quests by all Alliance, the people of Azeroth? Doubtful. Doesn't make much sense given the status quo. I think it makes even less sense in the future, given that we know MoP will be about the ramping up Alliance / Horde hostilities. People are not going to be very trusting then, especially of turncoats.
I could see individual races opening up, however. As you mentioned, it wouldn't be a huge wild card to see the tauren or an evil faction of the dwarves cross over. But as a blanket policy? Nay.
Puntable asked:
Why does all the Valor gear for cloth DPS have Hit (except for one piece)? I'm already over the hit cap for dungeons. Even with reforging, I'm better off wearing 378 gear. Why would they put hit on everything?
I suspect the reason is that 384 gear from the Raid Finder doesn't have much hit on it for casters. At least, that's been the case that I've experienced on my warlock. I ended up upgrading a lot of my Firelands gear to Raid Finder gear early on, and I suddenly found myself having to reforge and gem for hit almost exclusively.
Now that I've got mostly 397 gear, hit's not very much of a problem -- but for a while there, it was. Valor gear helped make it less of a problem.
Keep in mind that while some secondary stats might not make the most sense for you, there is probably a good reason for their being there (and they're helping someone else out a ton).
Puntable also asked:
Do you think people will ever get tired of doing HoT randoms and start doing the "old" heroics for their Valor Points, or are we stuck doing the same 3 dungeons for the next 10 months?
People are doing the old heroics, but as was pointed out in the comments, the reason you're not getting the old heroics much is that the newer heroics are getting ran a bunch and have a higher rate of attrition (because they're new), and you're getting put into them. Of course, it's really not a problem if the gear you've got on is less than the minimum requirement for the new heroics; you'll never end up getting them then.
Blizzard also wants to be sure that everything has the possibility of getting run without having to wait in a queue for an hour. It also doesn't want to design things around short-term trends in a game, which is why we're not seeing an option to exclude the newer heroics. Eventually, in this patch, their appeal will decrease.
Have questions about the World of Warcraft? The WoW Insider crew is here with The Queue, our daily Q&A column. Leave your questions in the comments, and we'll do our best to answer 'em!
Filed under: The Queue
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 7)
Nathanyel Jan 12th 2012 2:23PM
Raposa: Of course instanced PvP would remain faction-locked, as BGs are like re-enactments anyway (and arena was always a faction-neutral deathmatch) but I'd definitely like to see Horde and Alliance become rather arbitrary groupings of races, than an endless exchange of hostilities that ignore everything that had happened in WC3.
zackwbrandon Jan 12th 2012 5:24PM
I'd play some of the Horde races if I could defect Alliance. I do not like the Horde honor worship that depends on bloodlust and strongman leadership. I prefer the notion of valor and the presence of Orcs in the Argent groups shows that valor is not foreign to some of them. I would love to play a troll shaman or a goblin mage but just do not like the Horde enough to do it.
Truth be told, ask yourself why the humans, night elves, and blood elves are the most popular races and the end is the same: they are the most valorous and deeply spiritual races on Azeroth. Orcish shamanism is being rediscovered, troll priesthood and shamanism is being rehabilitated from voodoo, goblins are greedy little gits, and the forsaken are... well... Then the dwarves are drunks, the gnomes are a sad joke even among themselves, and the worgen are formerly turncoats of a sort, and the Draenei are aliens that like to keep to themselves.
All of the races could use a little bit more nobility to rehab their images, whereas the humans, and elves already have it. Players seem to connect with it very well. The only thing that I cannot explain under that assumption is the low player rate for the tauren. So my calculus is flawed, but I think still relevant.
Necromann Jan 12th 2012 11:26AM
I've had this question for a while now: why does Stables/Galv seem to be closer to the Allies than Farm/Bal do to Horde? Not that the difference matters at all in almost any game, but I was just curious.
Erebos Jan 12th 2012 11:44AM
I've noticed that every time I've done AB since I switched to Horde... Seems like an oversight to something that would be easy to do right. But, like you said, it doesn't really make any difference anyway.
razion Jan 12th 2012 11:46AM
I did read long ago that there were measurements taken on both sides, and that The Alliance actually does have something of the equivalent of a twenty-yard (or 1-2 second) advantage out of the gate in Alterac Valley. While most don't find it much of an issue for most games, sometimes those 1-2 seconds can mean the difference between defeat and victory. Realizing that your loss could have been avoided had the map been constructed just an inch more equally isn't a very comforting thought. I also believe the issue has been commented on in the past, with developers stating they're more likely to create a new Battleground than going back and recreating or fixing an old one for such a tiny issue.
But, as for Arathi Basin, I have not read anything of the sort.
Khirsah Jan 12th 2012 11:50AM
I've wondered this too. It seems the Allainc is always a few seconds ahead of the Horde in claiming those first sites, or getting the first boss kills. Same thing for LH/Mine.
Like you said, the difference does not seem to make a difference in the outcome, as it is only a second or 2, but Alliance is always just ahead of the Horde when it announces that "Allymage has claimed the Stables" and "Hordelock has claimed the Farm."
Edymnion Jan 12th 2012 11:53AM
Its Horde bias! Oh wait...
clundgren Jan 12th 2012 12:01PM
The Alliance has a series of advantages in AV, and unfortunately those advantages tend to become exaggerated later in each expansion cycle as players becomes capable of easily taking down Drek/Vann with multiple guards up and the zerge becomes even more popular.
Here are some specific Alliance advantages:
1. Alliance can mount as soon as the bg starts and they step out the gate. Horde have to run out of their tunnel before they can mount. It's only a few seconds, but these days AV is a race.
2. Galv's hut faces directly into the Alliance path; Balinda's hut faces *away* from the Horde and is a little off their path, so that Horde have to circle her building before they can engage. On top of that, she generally iceblocks when she gets low on health, buying extra time. These things really add up: when was the last time you saw the Horde down Balinda before Galv went down (assuming a zerge)? This magnifies the Alliance time advantage, and also gives them a 20% health buff for the next few minutes.
3. On every Alliance tower but one, you have to kill the guards before you can cap. In every horde tower but one, you can ignore the guards and cap (and on that one, IBT, you only have to kill one guard, who is right next to the flag). This is another significant time advantage.
There are other advantages, not to mention the fact that the defensive layout of both bases also favours Alliance (how come they get an elite right at the entrance to one of their towers and the horde doesn't? etc.). The net effect is that, all else being equal, AV heavily favours the Alliance. This is painfully obvious on AV weekend, when Horde queueing for random bgs get AV after AV as the system tries to find matches for all the Alliance players specifically queuing for AV.
Mir Jan 12th 2012 12:26PM
I'd trade every one of the listed advantages to get Belinda (can be killed by two competent players easily...well....two competent players of the right class/spec), traded for Galv who early in the expansion cycle can wipe multiple full parties.
Back when I played Horde, a group of 5 could wait with Galv, CC the tanks/heals, have 20-30 Alliance wipe on him and make it an easy win.
clundgren Jan 12th 2012 1:16PM
@ Mir
That would be a bad trade. Either of them can be "killed with two people" if you have enough time, but that is irrelevant to their function in the match. Their function is effectively as a speed bump, and Galv is a much less effective speed bump than Balinda.
As far as waiting with Galv to wipe the Alliance, I can assure you that it takes far more than five people. Also, that strategy works perfectly well with Balinda, too; the Alliance just seldom uses it since it is to their advantage to make the matches as fast as possible. Once you create a turtle, the Horde have a much more even shot. Why would the Allies want to give up their built-in zerge advantages?
I do play both sides. When playing Alliance, there is no question of what to do: rush. The only question is whether you can get a group going to recap and generally harass the Horde.
When playing Horde side, the cave is full of perpetual debate between those who want to try to force a turtle so they have a better shot at winning, and those who want to zerge so they can just "lose quickly." The general consensus is that the Horde will likely lose either way.
The imbalance of AV is proven by the behaviour of the players: on AV weekend the Alliance overwhelmingly queue for AV and the Horde overwhelmingly try to avoid it.
Pyromelter Jan 12th 2012 2:14PM
In my experience, if Horde goes all-out with a 100% turtle strategy, they usually win. Alliance favors a PvE rush.
clundgren Jan 12th 2012 2:51PM
@ Pyromelter
I agree, but not because the Horde has an inherent advantage in a turtle. It's just that the Alliance strategy is so cookie-cutter - rush Galv while a team runs ahead to start the bunkers and relief hut, then rush Drek - that anything that upsets the standard scenario throws a lot of their players for a loop, and they don't know what to do. When the Horde does win AV it's generally through a turtle or scramble, so Horde players are better prepared for it.
Like I said, every AV you generally have a few Horde players (like me) agitating to make it into a turtle. Thankfully, now that you can only get Conquest for a win, the "lose fast and collect honour" folks are beginning to lose favour.
Narayana Jan 12th 2012 11:29AM
Putting hit on the Valor gear also ensures a clear demarcation between healer gear and DPS gear. If they leave hit off of point gear, then priests have twice as many options for their healing specs than mages and warlocks do.
DracoSuave Jan 12th 2012 1:34PM
Besides, it's not like you can't reforge out of hit anyways. Most optimal reforges do a combination of reforging one thing into hit and another thing out in order to get to a sweet spot. It'd take a LOT of hit before someone was actually sad to see it on gear.
Kurly Jan 12th 2012 11:29AM
I don't mind running the old heroics much (except Stonecore) but if I never ever see a troll heroic again I'll die a happy man.
I prefer the new ones because they can be done much more quickly.
Edymnion Jan 12th 2012 11:57AM
I just recently dinged a new 85 shaman a week or two ago. The very idea of running the old heroics and zuls for gear was so horrible I bought/crafted every BoE and PvP gear piece I could find, so that I could go straight into the twilights.
Not something you should do as tank or heals, but DPS can get away with it.
Xantenise Jan 12th 2012 11:41AM
I live in Sydney, Australia, and most of December was cold.
In summer.
Al Jan 12th 2012 2:11PM
Last week made up for it, though.
Evelinda Jan 12th 2012 8:51PM
And in canberra this week the lows broke records that had stood since 1956... Coldest summer in 65 years!
mikey Jan 12th 2012 11:42AM
I Like the idea that the inital heroics are longer and as the current arm of the story progresses they add in difficult or shorter ones, kinda to make it easy/interesting for people progressing in raids.