Aug 26th 2009 2:29PM Torak- "The "only" marketable strength MMOs have over any other genre is persistent multiplayer worlds, that's it. In just about every other respect (combat / stories and even graphics...ext) MMO's for the most part are inferior to other game genres."
That's an interesting point. Why is this? The first thing that comes to mind is that persistent worlds are more or less unchanging. Since everyone is in the same world, it limits the impact a single player can have in world changing events. In single player games it seems like you can experience very dramatic events and story flows well. I think that type of experience has been limited to date in MMOs, but I think phasing is a promising development.
The second thing I think that's limited MMOs is the depth of combat and other gameplay systems. There are so many different classes and class interactions that the items and upgrades are fairly boring. A new item is not going to let me perform new abilities. The devs are forced to balance gameplay around spells and abilities so much that it's harder to constantly introduce new and cool things. Gear in a single player environment can often be game-changing. In MMOs, it's typically just a stat adjustment.
Aug 26th 2009 11:08AM Brooke, I think you partially answered the question. It's all about expectation. Gamers are willing to spend more for less if they know what they're getting. In addition, an MMO carries with it an expectation of significantly more time and investment. If that MMO sucks, we're much less likely to keep playing, with nothing to look forward to but months of "more of the same". Conversely, if that console game has a few fun moments, we might be more inclined to spend that 30 hours to beat the game and never return.
All this adds up to a lot of pressure on MMO developers to make a player's initial experience absolutely fantastically amazing. If you don't catch someone's attention right away, you're in danger of losing them and all of the people they *don't* tell about how amazing your game is.
Nov 19th 2008 6:11PM I'd have to agree with the Blue assessment on this one. These are some of the top PVE players in the world, they undoubtedly cleared Naxx at 60 and again in the Wrath Beta, and possibly have gear advantages with lots of SWP loot. The stated intention for Naxx at 80 is "entry level" and I think Blizzard has accomplished that goal. Give raiders with little or no experience a taste of success and what it takes to win encounters, and then ramp up the difficulty from there.
To borrow from comments I saw elsewhere, a quick clear of Naxx by top caliber players was to be expected. A quick clear of Naxx by even middle caliber raid groups is probably to be expected as well, but the difference is Nih/SK got a group of 80's together and finished first.
I think the real discussion here is what kind of barriers are appropriate to entry level raids like Naxx? Should players be sporting a majority of heroic level loot to pass the "gear checks"? Or should they be able to win in quest blues?
Nov 6th 2008 12:45PM I haven't played the Dalaran arena yet, but in the Org map it's much much harder for a druid (or any class) to "pillar hump." The pillar retracts into the floor periodically leaving you no LOS defense.
Nov 6th 2008 12:41PM You can't be serious .... Mages are one of the most powerful classes right now.
Nov 6th 2008 12:38PM another confirmation that they're live already...
The Org arena is horrible for stealthers, since they can mount out of the gate and be right on top of you in seconds to bring you out of stealth. Might as well give the other team the win before the match is even played.
Oct 8th 2008 2:41PM I have to agree with Valhalla. HfB really doesn't offer any "mobility" benefits to Mutilate. Removing bleeds might be helpful for vanish/open combos but increasing mobility? It doesn't remove hamstring or any other snares, basically making it a cheap damage buff when fighting rogues or warriors, and a pretty expensive one when you're not bleeding. Find Weakness is the same amount of damage buff at max rank, and all you have to do is perform a finisher to gain the effect.
Overkill is almost not worth mentioning, how much time do you spend stealthed in an arena? A very small percentage compared to open combat.
Prep is far more useful, absolutely one of the best talents for PVP and especially so for Mutilate spec since it lags behind ShS for mobility.
Aug 27th 2008 2:46PM I gotta say, I'm pretty disappointed with your column overall. Somebody who plays a rogue as an alt that's maybe been in Kara or halfway through SSC could write your analysis. If I'm reading a Rogue specific column I'm wanting to see some things put together that every Joe WoW player couldn't put together for himself.
Since it seems like you're writing from a raid DPS perspective, why on earth would you opt for Garrote instead of the improvement to SnD? The SnD glyph is a free T4 2 piece bonus, which many rogues kept in place well into T6 content. Garrote is used once a fight? Maybe twice on bosses?
And using Feint every time it's up? Not even close to necessary, I think most experienced rogues are going to use Feint once or twice in the beginning of the fight, rely on their tanks and then use Vanish to manage threat.
Overall the Rogue glyphs that have been released lack imagination and are pretty pathetic upgrades in every case.
Apr 7th 2008 12:24PM Yeah, this isn't real life. It's a game, and Blizzard should be doing what they can to make things as fair as possible. It's called "balancing" and they do it constantly to every class in the game, every new dungeon, every new item. The problem with this situation is that the Aldor pendants are far superior for every single application: tanking, spell damage, healing, and melee damage.