Aug 24th 2008 11:20AM I can say I enjoyed this cinematic a lot. It's a nice throw-back to the story-driven trailers from Warcraft III and other blizzard games, like many before me have mentioned. And I think this makes sense. This upcoming expansion deserves more than a hodgepodge of action scenes like the other cinematics. We already know that the players are a big role in the story, but Wrath is about something much bigger and much more epic. This is where the story finally comes home for all us WCIII players. This is the bad guy, THE guy, Arthas. This is the guy we watched go from holy warrior to patricidal maniac to undead ruler. This isn't just another villian, this is THE villian. He's the Darth Vader of WoW for lack of better analogy, and this cinematic really helps, I think, try and get that point across about how big a deal this guy really is.
Aug 18th 2008 11:10AM I sport the Thrallmar tabard on my pally in PvP gear. I always thought it was a really cool tabard back when I first entered Outland. Not to mention the whole black, orange, and red color scheme of the tabard matches perfectly with the Pally Merciless Glad armor and shield that I sport with it.
However, when I'm in my healing gear my tabard switches to the purple illidari tabard as the purple blends nicely with the rest of my armor.
Aug 4th 2008 9:57AM This just seems to be another text-book case of "you can't please everybody." There seem to be a lot of people who enjoy AV the way it is and just as many on the other side think it needs changes.
The way I see it I guess is current AV provides a much different BG experience than the other BGs. My personal AV experiences always provide plenty of PvP, as I'm sure this differs between battle groups. The reason we have 4 BGs is to spice up the experience and so we don't get bored with just one type of game. AV just happens to be the most different. If I had a choice in the matter I'd say leave AV the way it is, cause again, you can't expect to please everyone.
Jul 23rd 2008 10:22AM I'm really likin' the pally changes but I've got a few questions for discussion. I've been hearing a lot of talk on the proper way to holy spec. I.e. to spec for Beacon of Light or for Sheath of Light.
From what I can see speccing for BoL will give you a very nice radial heal and not to mention help keep the tanks threat up, helping keep stuff off of you of course. As well as being to fill out the holy tree with whatever goodies you want.
I've heard interesting arguments though that holy pallys should forgo BoL and spec for SoL in the Ret tree. The argument being this gives pally's a really nice HoT. With the incredible increases to Holy Shock and how pallys can now buff it with a 19% crit chance from talents alone (Sanctified Light + Holy Power + Conviction) the SoL spec seems like it could be nice.
The example situation I think of is say you are healing and you crit a Holy Shock on someone. Assuming you specced for Infusion of Light you could then pop Divine Favor and guarantee a nice critical and instant Holy Light, which then if you had SoL would continue to heal that target for a nice HoT. So assuming lvl 70 healing numbers just to throw some out that I tend to see with my heals, you could potentially get lets say 2500 Holy Shock crit + 7000 Holy Light crit + 4200 more from SoL.
So I guess the debate is which is more worth it, having even more power single target healing and a HoT with SoL speccing, or the more radial healing and tank threat increase from BoL.
As a healadin I've put a lot of thought into both but I can't decide which way to go. What do you all think?
Also what do you all think of the viability of the Shockadin spec come Wrath?
Jul 16th 2008 1:47PM Since I'm feeling wonderfully cynical today...
Are people really still relying on spelling errors for a source of insult, as if that were actually a good criticism? Really? If you're going to put forth the effort at least make it something that is actually witty or actually clever, rather than commenting on how easy it is for someone/all of us to miss a key stroke, and how that is inevitably a segue into someone having poor credibility or character cause they "can't spell." I could be alone in this, but it just annoys me, obviously.
Also as a preemptive measure, any nonsensical or for lack of better terms, "dumb" responses to this they will readily be ignored. But of course, if anyone needs to get their 2 cents in to hopefully get a laugh or two, be my guest =D.
Jul 8th 2008 1:27PM "would protagonists of any personal integrity try to justify killing people that would rather spend their days trying to make ends meat?"
That seems to describe to me exactly what the Alliance does to the Horde.
But what it boils down to is perspective. Horde is baddy to the Alliiance, and Alliance is baddy to the Horde. Tis just the way its gonna be. Neither is inherenlty evil but actions of both will be portrayed as such by both factions because both factions contain radicals who can see nothing but monsters that need to be eradicated.
In the skeem of Warcraft Horde started out as baddies. But both the orcs and blood elves have come through with a redemption story. The Forsaken is merely trying to remain in existence while the alliance lumps them in with the scourge rather than trying to help find a cure. And the Tauren aren't evil at all. They are an inherently good race which is only allied to the Horde out of honor because Thrall and the rest of the Horde helped save the Tauren in their homeland from the centaurs.
So the bad guy depends on your perspective obviously, and thus poses the question, "Can't we all just get along?"
Of course not, though. Cause the rivalry adds a lot of fun to the game.
Jul 8th 2008 12:01PM Also the alliance isn't without their foibles. It was due to the Alliances radical racism and prejudice against the fallen blood elves in Warcraft 3 that drove Kael'thas to betray them in the first place. This doesn't justify the betrayal, but this points out how the alliance has the tendency to say...be a little "judgmental" when it comes to who they associate with, to say the least.
Jul 8th 2008 11:57AM Well, if you narrow the frame than I can see it. In the confines of the Alliance, Horde are "bad guys," but in the big picture overall, the Horde clearly fight for what is good in the world. I admit to the "bad guy" characteristics, but that after all, again, is what the Horde is about. Hell, the blood elves started out as somewhat evil when BC hit, still following Kael'thas. It was till recently their redemption story comes full circle and are now even accepted/blessed by Adal. Now if a being a pure Light accepts Horde as good, I don't think there's much more argument to that.
Jul 8th 2008 10:46AM I think this game has long passed the standards of having a "good guy" and a "bad guy." Yeah, as a Horde member I totally agree we're a tad more brutal and unforgiving then the alliance in our quests, but than again, we wouldn't be the Horde if we were. Though Horde may follow traits that aren't necessarily characteristic of you standard protagonist like the alliance, that doesn't make us an antagonist.
Since Warcraft 3 it has been well established Alliance and Horde together have now been made the "good guys" leaving the Scourge and the Legion as the "bad guys"