Oct 4th 2010 12:39PM Strangely enough, it will be the spec of choice for people who like the playstyle of BM over MM and Survival.
Oct 4th 2010 12:34PM You are complaining about something without actually understanding what is going on. If you look at this and just go AMG I'M BEING NERFED, you aren't actually paying attention.
-Frostheim is talking about EXTREME soloing, which is a very particular hobby, consisting of taking your pet and soloing old raid/heroic content. Doing your daily quests is soloing. Doing Molten Core by yourself is extreme soloing.
-BM, if anything, has been buffed, because instead of all of those pet survivability talents that were choking up the tree, you've got items to boost your DPS instead. Previously, BM had the difficulty where the pet was so tough that it was hard to justify giving the spec equivalent DPS to MM and Survival -- if you could do equivalent DPS to those specs AND have a tougher pet (and, in general, an easier rotation), why would you ever spec anything else? By getting rid of those talents and making pets closer to each other, now BM can be a competitive raid spec again.
-The only "nerf" here is that the redesign of BM means that the spec does not interact as well with one weirdo set of gear that is nearly four years old. 2T5 does more healing as YOU do more damage, not as your pet does, so in BM -- where, as you'd expect, your pet carries more of the damage load than in the other specs -- 2T5 is not going to do as much healing.
In short: in 95% of the daily routine of a typical hunter, BM is in a better position now than it has been at any time since early Wrath: it's a good DPS spec, with solid damage and many interesting choices (and access to some wicked exclusive pet abilities through exotic pets.) In this one corner case scenario of beating up older raid and heroic content, BM falls behind, not because Blizzard has done anything to make it bad, but because it just interacts strangely with an old set of gear. That's all.
Sep 24th 2010 1:09AM Does the Alliance win any major conflict with the Horde in Cataclysm?
Especially in the Eastern Kingdoms, it seems like any zone with Alliance and Horde conflict ends up with the Horde taking the zone. (SPOILERS: Gilneans are driven away to Darnassus and Stormwind; Forsaken destroy Southshore with the plague; Forsaken win the Battle for Andorhal...) I know the Alliance make some gains, but at best they seem to be making it an unresolved contest, not a total victory.
Jun 9th 2010 3:19PM You answered your own question. They don't have jewelcrafting trainers in other cities because JC is a Burning Crusade only tradeskill. The only way to maintain that is to ensure that a vanilla-only account cannot talk to the trainers -- i.e., make sure they're only in Exodar, Silvermoon, Outland, and Northrend.
May 2nd 2010 4:42AM Man, I really hope this -is- just the tinfoil hat edition, because I really would not like this to actually be the lore. If it turns out that everything basically just boils down to the Light (and especially the Naaru-oriented version of the Light) I'm going to be really disappointed -- I like the fact that the different religions of WoW don't always match up exactly, especially the Draenei and human/dwarf versions of the Holy Light. (I do a regular Holy Light RP event on Sisters of Elune, and I've gotten a lot mileage out of that.) Frankly, I just don't like the Naaru that much -- they make the Light too tidy and obvious for my tastes.
Basically I think if it all comes down to some "master plan" like this that explains how all these faiths are really just Naaru-cults in the end, I think that's a horrible slight against the coolness of Warcraft's religions. I want have things to argue with the night elves about, dammit!
Apr 30th 2010 12:08AM They're called hard-modes. Your "top of the mountain" thing still applies. The fact that you could herd 25 cats instead of 10 doesn't mean you deserve better loot when the content is of equal difficulty.
Apr 30th 2010 12:06AM That was supposed to be in response to Anne's reply to my comment. I finally got shafted by the comments system! I'M PART OF THE TEAM!
Apr 30th 2010 12:05AM I can empathize with that. It hasn't been a real problem to me, but then, I've spent a total of one month in any 25 man raiding guild*, so my perception has pretty much always been skewed toward 10s. The scale issue has never seemed like a big problem to me, I guess.
Architecture in WoW has always been screwed up, though. :-) I mean, lookit the size of... Well, pretty much any building!
*Technically a lie - the guild I was in during BC was supposed to be a 25 man guild, but spent way, way more time in Karazhan and Zul'Aman than it ever did in SSC, much less TK.
Apr 29th 2010 2:17AM I admit, part of it stems from the use of the word "epic." Studying actual epics is a big part of what I do, so it's a bit of a pet peeve.
Obviously, WoW is a massively multiplayer game -- it should be about doing stuff with other people, so the "one hero against the darkness" thing simply doesn't work. (Other games handle it better.) Still, actually some of my favorite experiences have been soloing older content, exactly because I really like the dynamic of a hero storming UBRS or something. 1 Paladin vs. Rend Blackhand was incredibly epic to me, the first time I did it, and the soloing other content -- I'm especially thinking of the first time I managed to solo Onyxia, a while before she got buffed to level 80, and I was in Naxx-10-ish tank gear -- was some of the most fun I've ever had.
Now, granted, part of that may simply be that I knew the content was originally designed for 40 people or whatever, and it was fun to do that by myself. But I also think a big part of it was there something very, very cool - dare I say, "epic" - about walking in, seeing a big freaking dragon, and saying, "let's dance." I -was- probably more excited about that than most encounters I have done in a raid group, simply because I liked the fact that success and failure was all on me.
That's also why I like 10 mans better than 25 mans -- more of the success or failure of the raid depends on whether I'm up to snuff. And there's the whole nakama feeling that somebody mentioned earlier, too, which is so integral to fantasy.
Apr 29th 2010 12:16AM Witch-King of Angmar (Lord of the Rings)? Killed by two people. One of whom was a hobbit without much combat experience.
Grendel (Beowulf)? Killed by one hero. Who was naked at the time, incidentally.
Fafnir the Dragon (Volsungs Saga)? Killed by one dude with a magic sword.
Medivh, the Last Guardian, at the time inhabited by Sargeras, lord of the Burning Legion and enemy of all life? Killed by Khadgar, Garona, and Lothar. Khadgar was explicitly mentioned as not being all that powerful yet, as he was still just Medivh's apprentice.
This idea that "epic" has anything to do with "an arbitrary number of people versus one guy" has no basis in fantasy literature, whether legendary, modern, or even lore of Warcraft.