Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 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 5 of 7)
Saikoujin Jan 12th 2012 12:13PM
Valor gear is almost always less-than-ideally itemized than raid gear. Common exceptions can be boots, belts, bracers, cloaks, and rings (basically anything off-tier). If you want good stat itemization, you have to acquire raid gear. I'll use holy pally gear as an example. The valor gear is loaded with gobs of crit, which for holy pallies, is their worst secondary stat (the notable exception is the boots, which are better than the boots off Mor'chok). The raid gear (and tier gear) all offer up heaps of haste, with some mastery sprinkled in, and are much better stats.
Gwen Jan 12th 2012 12:26PM
I hate to be "that guy," but:
What is considered "good dps," these days? This is the first patch I've raided since Wrath (where 15k single target was crazy-high deeps), and I'm a little confused. My personal meters vary widely depending on the fight, but I notice an average of 15-25k on single target fights and trash "packs" of fewer than 3.
The reason I ask is that I have noticed people in LFR complaining about "low DPS" when anyone is doing below 30k. (Which is fairly often half of the raid.) Are these just leet jerks trying to draw attention to their consistent 65k dps, or do they have a legitimate complaint?
Narayana Jan 12th 2012 12:30PM
It's hard to really define because there are so many shenanigans in the DS raid that bump DPS to insane levels. My Paladin was 5th in DPS on RF Spine last night with a very low 15K DPS, but I was near the bottom at 30K on Ultraxion.
It seems that a DPS of around 25K is "normal" for someone running RF. There's alot of real estate north of that, though.
slim1256 Jan 12th 2012 12:49PM
Gwen -
I'll second what Nara is saying. The fights are pretty widely different, and there's some buff shenanigans going on in a lot of them.
The other thing to consider is - I'm quite frequently seeing fully 397 tier raid geared toons in there wrecking shop. This is especially bad with casters, since the ones blowing the meters away almost unilaterally are totin' the orange. That legendary has a dramatic effect on DPS. (Next time you're in there and there's a mage that's 20% higher than everyone else - they'll be armed with Dragonwrath, I assure you).
I recommend looking at where you're at in the pack after the fight's over - if you're well geared (say, equipped ilevel 380-385-ISH) and you're in the bottom half of the pack, you might need to look at rotation. If you're in the top half - you're probably fine (though that doesn't mean you can't continue to improve). If the only DPS beating you are obviously experienced raiders that are just having fun kicking in the teeth of LFR Bosses... you have nothing to worry about.
Anecdote- Ran LFR on Tuesday, and an Arms warrior with ilevel 398 topped the Madness meters... with almost 60k dps. That was almost double the 3-4th place DPS. When I hopped on the armory to inspect him, he was in full 397 raid gear, INCLUDING the Regular DS version of Gurthalak. No wonder he blew everything away - he should have been! (and, of course, he then berated everyone for not doing enough dps... even though the ENTIRE wing of the raid, we only had 2-3 chars die, and one shotted everything).
Moral of the story? "LEET" jerks are not uncommon in LFR, and they'll say crap like that to make you pay attention to their amazing DPS in the hopes you'll stroke their e-peen. My recommendation - ignore 'em.
Tanddori Jan 12th 2012 2:02PM
Just beat the tanks. That's all I ever ask of DPS in LFR. Just beat the tanks and no one should complain.
Granted, there are exceptions where tanks will blow DPS out of the water, but for the most part I feel that this is a valid goal marker for "enough" DPS.
clundgren Jan 12th 2012 2:44PM
I run LFR because it's fun and I still have a few slots to fill. I typically top the meters, and I think that Arms you dealt with was an aberration. I find that the people who squawk the most are typically around the middle of the pack; serious raiders generally aren't that concerned about LFR numbers; they just wanna have fun and get it done.
Grovinofdarkhour Jan 12th 2012 12:38PM
The missus, eh? I must've missed the transition from engagement to marriage. Grats, man!
Eternauta Jan 12th 2012 12:40PM
..."or an evil faction of the dwarves cross over"...
Because if they're Horde, they MUST be evil, right?
Stupid Alliance bias.
kewl97 Jan 12th 2012 12:43PM
And in the Stonetalon Mountains, there was a tribe of Grimtotem (evil Tauren) who struck a deal with the Alliance.
Al Jan 12th 2012 2:20PM
The Horde's current goals/hobbies.
Orcs - Massive deforestation, genocide, warmongering.
Trolls - ?
Belves - ... Profit?
Goblins - That's our PROFIT!!
Forsaken - Omnicide, biological warfare
Tauren - Cud-chewing, silently condoning the above.
zackwbrandon Jan 12th 2012 5:28PM
"Belves - ... Profit?
Goblins - That's our PROFIT!!
Forsaken - Omnicide, biological warfare
Tauren - Cud-chewing, silently condoning the above."
I lol'd. I feel sorry for the Tauren. With each passing expansion they seem less Horde and more... well, not Horde.
walkerspace Jan 12th 2012 12:47PM
"As you mentioned, it wouldn't be a huge wild card to see the tauren or an evil faction of the dwarves cross over."
So are you saying that dwarves would have to be "evil" to belong to the Horde? And by extension, is the Horde evil?
clundgren Jan 12th 2012 3:53PM
Yeah, no kidding. And for that matter, I think the only Tauren who would currently ally with the Alliance (and, in fact, *are* currently allied with the Alliance to some extent) are the "evil" Grimtotem. I don't think most other Tauren, as much as they dislike Garrosh, will be rushing to join an Alliance that is currently beseiging their homeland. That giant wall got built for a reason. To keep the Alliance OUT.
D4 Jan 12th 2012 1:42PM
Letting players switch between Alliance and Horde at whim (without switching race) seems extremely unlikely (though I wouldn't say it'll *never* happen--things change). Letting it happen only for new characters seems just as unlikely; max-level only has a path to feasibility, as noted above, but still feels unlikely.
What about using this as the opening for the oft-discussed third faction? No, the Horde won't accept any gnomes, and no, the Alliance won't let any orcs join up...but the gnome and orc can both go sign up with the Coalition. Max-level of its expansion and later only--it's composed of those who've fought hard for the Alliance and Horde, but who have become disillusioned.
I envision them as trying really hard to get the Alliance and Horde to work together, but with some conflicts still occurring, especially given the numbers of the original factions who would view them as traitors. You wouldn't be able to do most (if any) of the old BGs as Coalition, but possibly it would allow you to "sneak back" to help your former allies, with precautions put in place to keep this from being an easy way to smuggle things across faction lines. Some new 3-way BGs would be designed.
The biggest obstacle I see? The factional language barrier would largely have to go away to feel like it made any sense at all. I don't see Blizzard being ready for that yet, but perhaps they have Top Men working on it.
Gossamer Jan 12th 2012 1:57PM
"Would orcs really be accepted and given important quests by all Alliance, the people of Azeroth? Doubtful."
I disagree. As I recall my Deathknight was rather hated too, but quest givers don't seem to mind. It would take something really big to make Orcs make the switch, but Garrosh could be that reason. I could see Orcs that likes Thrall's style turning away, especially if some of the terrible things that have happened under Garrosh's watch keep happening. Meanwhile the Orcs who think Garrosh's style is just the thing would stay and hold up the Orc's more traditional style.
The events of Wrathgate and ICC have strung some small threads between the horde and the Alliance and very specifically between the Orcs and the Alliance. If Blizzard keeps weaving the story with those threads it could become very plausible that some Orcs could switch sides.
That said, with the emphasis on putting the WAR back in Warcraft in this next expansion I actually expect to see those threads snipped and us returning back to our attempts to murder each other horribly. You know, for the honor of it.
icyone Jan 12th 2012 2:25PM
The question about races shifting to multi-faction like the Pandas is just pointing out the subtle differences between Horde and Alliance politics at this stage in the game. Individual Horde races are relatively united under their individual leaders (some off-shoot factions of course), but as a combined entity, the Horde is in turmoil. On the other hand, the Alliance itself is very strong right now, but its individual races are in political upheaval. The Dwarves are in a tenuous governing situation. The Night Elves are struggling with the re-integration of the Shen'dralar. The humans are adjusting to the return of their king. The Gilneans were essentially in a state of civil war and didn't even know it. And if the Draenei continued to develop after Burning Crusade, surely someone would have heard something from Velen.
This is sort of a swap from the pre-Wrathgate status-quo, where the Horde was a very united entity regardless of individual needs, and the Alliance was semi-fractured. The cataclysm convinced the races of the Alliance to work together, while the Horde could not agree on a way to move forward. I know a lot of people don't like some of the individual elements of the larger picture but I find it is chock full of interesting storylines in future expansions.
Wist Jan 12th 2012 2:31PM
"With pandarens, it makes sense that they could belong to either the Horde or Alliance and that each faction would accept them."
Makes sense? I'm sorry, I'm not following you there. Consider BC: the draenei knew the orcs from Draenor, and Thrall would undoubtedly would have wanted to extend a hand of support and apology for all they'd been through. What's more, the blood elves (back when they were the high elves) had already cooperated with humans through the previous wars, and could have easily been convinced to work with them again. Old bad blood can be worked through - if the forsaken don't teach us that, then we know nothing.
Toss in that draenei became shamans (which the horde already had) and blood elves became paladins (which the alliance already had), and we could easily have seen the factions being reversed, just because previous associations "made sense".
Besides, Goblins have been playing a neutral faction since Vanilla WoW. If anything, it would have made more sense for THEM to be played by either Alliance or Horde (and don't say that it's because of their disdain for gnomes - EVERYONE has disdain for gnomes).
Puntable Jan 12th 2012 2:33PM
A question for the Queue!
What have you been doing with your hand in the well?
Helston Jan 12th 2012 7:13PM
They've fixed the poison slime pipes!
Arrohon Jan 12th 2012 3:43PM
We kill dragons just for the hell of it, but apparently we can't do anything without following a group. Why does an entire clan need to decide to switch? Is my character not an individual? If a few friends and I want to move to Canada, does the entire neighborhood need to move too? No, we make out own choices, and we find our own way to fit in. Will the Alliance trust a random orc that wants to switch sides? No. Will they trust a random orc that burnt down a Horde barracks and brought the contents of a Horde armory as a gift? No, but they're more likely to tolerate him. Then, the orc needs to contribute to the Alliance just as much as a normal citizen... at minimum. Now, this orc is serving the Alliance (albeit, he's being closely watched), and he did it of his own accord. There was no group (other than the Alliance of course) that he had to join.