Mar 27th 2012 1:36PM Warlock's been my main since I started, and I'm still plenty stoked about MoP. Have you seen MMO-C today, and the datamined abilities? It's all subject to change, of course, but the intent is clear; across the board our spells will hit harder and cost less. Then, even with the glyph being more for situational tanking, it's still pretty awesome. Personally, I love soloing old content on my 'lock, and that just gives us more tools. It also makes our off-tanking abilities "official," meaning maybe we get to do something more interesting in raids, for a change.
The glyphs we are getting are awesome, our specs are really being differentiated, new pets, cool talents; what's not to love?
If someone says they're giving me a dozen cookies, and then says oops, they meant 10 cookies, I'm not going to whine. Free cookies are still awesome.
Mar 27th 2012 1:29PM Interesting; your complaint is that they want to wait and do it in the manner of one of those epic quest chains you have such fond memories of?
I rolled my lock in BC; I did the demon quests, I did the dread steed quest, and I absolutely loved all of it. However, I also understand why they got rid of them; for the demons, they were putting barriers up for essential abilities on par with stuff other classes could simply train. The dread steed one is a little more hard to take; I can understand their reasoning, but I do wish it was still around.
It's because of those things that I'm GLAD they're not just making a green fire glyph. It's something that's totally cosmetic, but inherent to the class and looks awesome; it's the perfect candidate for bringing back the old-style class quest; it's totally skippable for people who don't want to do it, but those who do would have something to show for it.
For that, I'm willing to wait.
Mar 27th 2012 1:23PM We're getting some bad-ass glyphs of our own, you know. Given the choice between green fire and a horse that runs on water, I think I know which one I'd rather get first.
Mar 27th 2012 1:22PM And you'd prefer an environment where they never comment outside of official announcements? Maybe from now on, they shouldn't talk about anything they're working on until it's in patch note.
"This kind of thing" is always the fault of the hyperbolic players who take any statement from anyone at any level in the company as a guarantee that a feature will be implemented exactly as they see it in their minds, next week.
The original statement about green fire made it very clear that it was something that they'd like to do, but weren't working on yet. If they're not working on it yet, you can probably expect that it won't show up until after we get the stuff they are working on.
Anyone who built up an expectation otherwise has no one but themselves to blame for their disappointment.
Mar 27th 2012 1:18PM We're still getting the coolest damned cosmetic glyph in history: the Glyph of Nightmares.
Demon horse, running on water, leaving a trail of fire in it's wake? Yeah, I'll settle for that.
Mar 27th 2012 8:40AM Yeah; definitely this.
In particular, I want to know what my new Engineering goggles look like.
Mar 24th 2012 3:28PM @Jatt:
I don't think it's a matter of one distracting us players from the other, but a matter of where they want to put development efforts. Personally, I'm kinda glad not to see the same thing with a new coat of paint on it being re-used.
Mar 23rd 2012 3:46PM I'm fairly certain that invading a sovereign nations' territory and seizing it for yourself because they have resources you need and refuse to trade with you, is, in fact, fairly high up on the list of "things that can be considered war crimes."
I mean, not to get all serious here, but that was essentially Hitler's public rationale for invading other countries: Germany needs more land to prosper, and France sure does have a lot of it.
Ethically speaking, I think most people would say that war is only justified when there's no other option; to free oneself from oppression, to defend one's people or territory, etc. If the Horde's choices were 1.) Live in mud and stick houses or 2.) Murder a bunch of night elves and take their wood, I think a fair minded person is going to have to conclude that the just and honorable thing to do is the former.
Mar 23rd 2012 3:32PM You SHOULD second guess anything any business tells you; that's called being a smart consumer. You should always assume that they will do the minimum required to fulfill their end of the bargain; that's the way business works.
Is the beta live? Yes. Will it be live next month? Probably. If AP subscribers get in then, would Blizzard be able to say "AP subscribers got in when it was live?" Absolutely.
Bottom line is, if you're agreeing to something, make sure the terms spell out exactly what you believe you're getting. If they don't, then it's open to interpretation.
Mar 23rd 2012 3:27PM That case simply said that the terms of an online agreement can't be changed without the customer specifically agreeing to them. That's the reason, for instance, any time the ToS changes in any way, you have to click accept to play the game; you have a choice, agree, or close your account.
The boilerplate warning doesn't give Blizzard the right to change the terms of an agreement that's already been made. It gives them the right to change the terms of the agreement for future customers or simply stop offering it without advance notice to the public. So, for instance, Blizzard has announced we have until May 1st to buy the annual pass. They could legally come out tomorrow and say, "Nevermind; we're not doing it anymore." No one who hasn't already signed up could force them to make the agreement, but for those of us who have already signed up, the terms are what they were when we signed up.
None of which means you're entitled to day one access; the agreement didn't say day one access; just "when it's live." As long as you get in to the beta before it's not live any more, they've technically fulfilled their end of the bargain.