Mar 21st 2012 12:45PM I never really got the sense that the Horde was dissatisfied with Thrall's leadership. I got the sense that Thrall was grooming Garrosh for the role, that Vol'jin and Saurfang didn't quite trust Garrosh, and that Garrosh felt he was entirely within his rights to challenge Thrall for leadership, but I never once get the sense that the Horde rank-and-file wanted a different leader.
Thrall GAVE them a new leader when he went off to run the Earthen Ring.
Is that incorrect?
Mar 21st 2012 11:47AM It's interesting to me to address how Thrall might blame himself for creating the Garrosh monster.
When it's all said and done, might Thrall consider the ruin he's wrought upon the Horde by putting all his faith in Garrosh? A civil war so massive and destructive that the Alliance has to come in to defend the civilians?
Would Thrall ask himself "Do I have any right to lead these people after what I made them suffer through?"
The more I wonder about this, the more I expect the question never gets asked, because Metzen loves his Thrall and that kind of self-doubt doesn't befit the hero that just roflstomped the Aspect of Death into the ground.
But if I were writing this story, and if I had taken my hero away from the Horde so he could save the world and come back to see that the son of his greatest friend, whom he thought could be trusted, went mad with power and invoked a great evil that slaughtered thousands... I'd certainly have my hero get a little upset with himself for his lapse in judgment.
Mar 19th 2012 12:50PM Gotta say, this is the first time I've listened to the WoW Insider Show, and it's great to have nerdy, nerdy voices to go with the names of the dudes on the team. ^_^
Mar 15th 2012 11:46AM The problem with implanting the book lore is that it's going to entertain those players who read the books, and going to bore the players that didn't read the books. If you consider that you have to design with the majority of players in mind, that means that most players don't read the books, so we don't get content that really is dependent on them.
People who read the books are arguably going to get a better narrative experience from the whole kit, but requiring people to read the books in order to comprehend what's happening in the game is not a logical step on Blizzard's part.
Of course, it would be nice if stuff that was seeded in the books (like Chromatus in Twilight of the Aspects) made it into the game in places where they would make sense (like where Ultraxion came in instead) but I think there's a reasonable issue with creating a model that can only logically be used once.
Mar 15th 2012 11:34AM I KNOW, right?
It's the worst part of the meal you can eat, but IT'S SO GOOD.
Mar 7th 2012 1:17PM This was what I was hoping for from all the post-mortems; a frank look at what they intended, what worked, what didn't work, and where they plan to take it from here. Mercer's Dungeons & Raids PM really didn't do any of the reflection, but Street completely covered for that.
The admission about Abyssal Maw definitely answers a huge frustration I had with the previous entry, so I have to admit that I'm really overjoyed that it was addressed.
Mar 7th 2012 11:55AM They also tested that iLvl throttling in the 4.3 PTR, so yes, the tech is viable.
But (cutaia) is right. There's a lot of questions about how to make iLvl-throttled characters compatible with older content. Do 85s throttled down to 70 still have all their endgame abilities? How do those abilities affect how a throttled character can manage challenges in level 70 content? If those abilities are removed, is there the potentiality that due to how much spell acquisition has changed since level 70, throttled characters might not have tools that were available to normal 70s in BC, thus overchallenging them for the content?
And like he said, the fact that C'Thun's stomach room is still bugged six years after release means it would be a headache to have the encounter team revisit it for characters who want to clear it "like we did back in the day."
Mar 6th 2012 3:48PM It's a clever move to recapture folks who left for Old Republic but were disappointed with it, and potentially a strong way to boost profits going from Q1 into Q2.
And saying "hey, all you need to do is just level through the Cata zones and you're back in the totally accessible endgame" IS a pretty compelling argument to people who've been gone for awhile and are worried about all the time it takes to level.
This is a positive move on all sides, really.
Mar 2nd 2012 1:13PM Thread over. Someone trotted out the "this is Activision's fault, Bobby Kotick is the antichrist" pony.
McCurley's arguments are sound, and unless we are all shareholders in the firm, we've got exactly zero right to any oversight on how Blizzard manages their infrastructure. We can either trust that laying off 600 people was a last resort taken by administrators who must act with fiscal responsibility in a time of financial crisis, or we can say "corporations are evil and firing people is wrong" and choose to be ignorant of how businesses must operate in order to stay alive.
I for one will trust that Morhaime and the gang didn't do this lightly.
Mar 2nd 2012 11:19AM I think Blizzard's art team is going to be more interested in coming up with sets that match the theme of the tier rather than using transmog data to see what players are re-creating. There's also the part where, if you base it solely on transmog data, stuff like Tier 3 is never revisited again (because no one has it) while certain PVP kits are very popular (because they cost very little honor to acquire).
There's a lot of questions to ask about that kind of data. Did people xmog into this outfit because they had it on hand? Or because it was easy to acquire?