Dec 18th 2008 6:26PM A survival hunter can indeed chain trap with it (I've done it many times), However, in the current dungeon mechanics, CC of any form, much less non targetable cc, is rarely used. Further, it suffers from the arming delay not starting until the trap hits the ground wherever you are shooting it. So more than once, I've shot it to cc a mob only to have the tank pull the others and watch my 'targeted' mob run right over the trap on the ground and not set it off. Frustrating, very frustrating.
Also, any reference to this ability, whether in pve or pvp as a 'game changer' makes me shake my head. Anything you can accomplish with it was able to be accomplished before and often with better and more accurate results (silence shot caster to trap, los pull caster to trap, kite pull caster to trap, et cetera).
Frankly, the one thing I have found it truly useful for is cheap lock and load procs. Fire this into an aoe group, tank will break it almost immediately, but I get two free explosive shots. Too bad that it doesn't work on bosses.
Jan 18th 2008 4:43PM I'm ok with that.
(sorry bout the uneducated bit, I'm sure you can relate to people spouting off about things they don't know about, was uncalled for since you do know what you're talking about)
Jan 18th 2008 4:17PM Alright better arguments there.
I'll simply say that I value the fun aspect of this game more than I do the functionality, because it is supposed to be a game. Since the wolf didn't hurt the game, there was not a reason for the change. I'm also one of those people who complained when Lucas changed the original star wars (greedo shoots first). So yes, I maybe just have a problem with changing things that aren't broken.
The comparison with ESRB and Drinking age stems from the history of these two arrangements. ESRB was formed in response to pressure from congress that the industry would be severely regulated by congress if no action was taken. See the legislative history of Sen Joe Lieberman.
For how this corresponds to the drinking age, read S.D. v Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
Jan 18th 2008 3:28PM Oh yes, excuse me it is 'voluntary' in the same way the drinking age was moved to 21 in all the states was voluntary. you should remember that one from Con law, 1st year. I do.
'being called out' right, you still haven't addressed the points we've made. you still haven't shown how this was a necessary change. all you can seem to do is bleat that blizz is always right. way to be
Jan 18th 2008 3:24PM @Jr
Rawr! I r Jr! I R insulted MRWWARW@@!
get over yourself. Lots of people find this issue important, we outlined our reasons for that. We also pointed out that this change wasn't necessary, hurt the fun of the game, and that blizz's stated reasons were bunk.
you came in here all macho internet warrior spouting phrases you don't understand, and finished up with QQ it doesn't affect me so you must be crying.
But sure, lets look at your points hmm? we should just get over it right? Blizz can do whatever they want. It doesn't matter that we like the game, it doesn't matter that we simply want blizz to explain themselves better and not take away fun little things like this, no that doesn't matter at all. We should all be like you, just towing the blizz party line, never complaining about anything they do. Its their game right? they can do whatever? ok, well if you're life creed it to blindly accept all authority decisions, have fun with that. The rest of us will continue to try to make this game better and point out when blizzard makes mistakes so they can fix them and not make more in the future.
Seriously, you need gain some understanding before you comment. ok? thats all I've asked of you so far.
Jan 18th 2008 3:05PM funny, I see this article filed under analysis/opinion... which is where you're complaining it should be. So read up, learn what you are commenting about, or be a troll.
Jan 18th 2008 3:00PM @ jr
I am a nerf herder as a matter of fact. And you look like a chump for not refuting the point. I'm sorry I proved you wrong and you are upset about it. But that fact remains your post doesn't relate to the topic at hand.
Again, if you don't know what you are talking about, maybe you should study up before commenting. hmm?
Jan 18th 2008 2:56PM Wait, you're calling his post not worthwhile, yet in your own you state that 'because of the problems it caused, it was not worthwhile'.. Thats the heart of the issue! What problems was it causing? If it was a code error than why do people get to keep the pet if they already tamed it? if it doesn't fit with the blizzards theme of hunters, why let people keep it? if it is because it is 'undead' then mark it as such in the game files and take it away from those that have it. This smacks of inconsistency in the process and comes off simply as 'we didn't intend for you to have fun that we didn't lay out in front of you'
Jan 18th 2008 1:48PM Jr... you do understand that the comment 'experience may change during online play' refers to the government mandated ESRB rating right? meaning that a game company has to put that on an online multiplayer game to protect them from liability when somebody swears in front of your child. You wouldn't possibly be so uneducated as to think that refers to actual in game content provided by that game company do you? cause if you do, please stop posting right now, get an education, and them come back and talk with the adults.
Jan 18th 2008 1:33PM wow, what a surprise. Blizzard does something that people don't like, people complain about it.. then the chorus of 'four legs good, two legs bad' shows up to bleat them down.
Whats so hard to understand that this change wasn't necessary and the reasoning they gave was wholly inadequate after their initial statement?
Sure, this doesn't matter to you min/maxers out there, but it does matter to quite a few people who play this game for fun. And no, we won't quit, but we sure as hell are entitled to complain when the game we love is changed for no good reason.