Mar 21st 2012 8:16PM Heres the issue.
Many of the neutral factions in WoW simply should NOT be neutral. Chris Metzen may feel the AC neutrality rings true.....but what he is saying is that a bunch of undead hating humans, coming from a people who hated the Orcs and Trolls who ravaged their nation would accept as leader someone who loved Orcs so much their national hero kicked him out of their Order after he attacked his countrymen. This bunch of humans would then ally with the remnants of their old Order, a group formed to protect humanity form the Orcs and as such, had developed real hatred for them - and then proceed to change their name, abandon their heritage and history and welcome their hated foes into their ranks.
When Metzen says the AC being neutral "feels right"...what he is really saying is having ***Tirion*** be neutral "feels right" and the rest of the Order have no minds of their own or beliefs of their own.
The Earthen Ring, The Cenarion Circle/Expedition, The Kirin Tor and several others fall into the same trap. Neutral not because of any inherent belief or lack of involvement or lore issues, but because its just easier to create one faction and ensure the stories revolve around that...no matter how ridiculous the reasons given for their neutrality appear to be. And the issues involving Malfurion showcase how bad those reasons are...the man who was willing to see the world die to save his love suddenly CBA to fight and help her.
Mar 3rd 2012 6:27AM Actually - I'd like to see Glyphs undergo a major overhaul.
As things stand, the share the same mechanics and purpose as the new talent system. More, they actually copy the Path of the Titans system almost exactly....1 strand instead of 7, 6 ranks instead of 10 but otherwise identical save they use class specific "glyphs".
Path was scrapped because of its similarity to Glyphs and the new talent system is in the exact same position.
I think having two systems so similar in design, purpose and mechanics will simply mean both end up weak.
Mar 3rd 2012 5:58AM @fhatfreddy
I'm not sure how such a system would create loot issues.
What you'd end up with is tanks going after DPS gear and then gemming/enchanting/reforging it with an eye towards passive survivability rather than DPS. That would provide a built in differential between DPS and tanks, and even create room in the loottables for other gear. Moreso, it would avoid some of the issue with tank gear - the need to keep drop rates low simply because there aren't that many tanks.
Sure...you would have an extra player going for the loot, but tanks often go after DPS gear for an OS anyway and drop rates could be changed to compensate for the extra demand.
The big issue with such a model would be that the gear difference between tanking and DPS would be minimal, even with the changes. It would be there, it would remove the need for Vengeance but the difference would still be minimal. You'd possibly have to rely upon a modifier of some sort to boost DPS - something like a stance system, or restricting DPS moves to 2H weapons and so on. That, and you'd need a system to replace the lost survivability stats.
Mar 2nd 2012 4:29PM Vengeance has a number of issues with it.
The core principle behind its existence is sound. The problem is Vengeance doesn't work that well.
Theres been balance issue in PvP. Tank DPS is artifically low - the "Vengeance'll solve it" paradigm in play. And so on.
Blizzard recently moved away from tanks worrying about threat as well in favour of playign the survival game. JHate to admit it, but thats probablya good decision.
I do have a problem with that ...and that is the way they are doing it. I'm still far from convinced that the active mitigation model, or at least what we have seen so far of it, is going to really work well. For paladins, the new ShoR design can't be be kept up 100% of the time, but there isn't much else to use with the HP. Hit ShoR or hit WOG. Not a lot of choice, even with the variation of EF/SS every 30s or so. The new HP design also strikes me as somewhat poor, as is the reduction of the toolkit and flavor/situational abilities.
However, if Blizzard were to get rid of Vengeance, then the class would need more DPS stats on its gear. Thats doable. Imagine a tank that did use DPS gear, but simply gemmed/enchanted diffferently. It would still scale with DPS, it may even be fairly close and while it could never be as good as gear tailored for DPS, you also wouldn't need Vengeance.
You'd do 80% normal DPS and you'd have your threat modifier to scale it upwards and it would auto scale with gear.
In addition, you'd lose of lot of passive dodge/parry stats which would open up the possibility of enacting active moves which generated that survivability. Think Ghost Strike...you gain a flat X% dodge for 30s.
Would this model be better? Tank with DPS gear and use active skills to generate the survivability that is currently passive?
Mar 1st 2012 1:42AM Its got the coloring, the lion insignia and the fact its a horse.
Its also got a large number of spikes and skull trophies which many see as a Horde theme.
As I said....check it out before you go for it.
Mar 1st 2012 12:22AM The Alliance came out of Northrend with 50,000 dead. The background story in Westfall, while poorly explained, also makes it clear Stormwind at least has economic problems.
Whats often overlooked is the Hordes own resource issues. Garrosh launched a war because the Orcs/Horde were resource starved. This aspect is only occasionally referred to and never shown.
Mar 1st 2012 12:17AM The Vicious War Steed, a PvP mount.
Check it out BEFORE going for it as you only see a section of it and a lot of people do not like the full model with its skulls, spikes and/or Hordesque flavour.
Feb 24th 2012 5:03PM "And if you're going through the struggle of getting 25 people to work together, what you get out of that experience should be a greater reward than getting 10 people together, because it is far more difficult to pull together and work with 25 unique personalities than 10. There should be a reason for people to want to try and get that many people together and work with those varied personalities, something that makes it viable and makes it worth it."
There is a big problem with that.
If you do give 25 man raids better rewards, then people will play them, whether they really want to or not. You say there should be a reason for 25 people to want to try and work together and there is....they enjoy the format. Some players do get more fun from 25s, prefer running with the crowd and feel a more "epic" atmosphere in 25s...but that doesn't appear to be enough.
But most players are happy and content to run the 10 man version. And why not? They get most of the fun (at least, some enjoy it more), more intimate connections with their teammates and fewer headaches with organisation and scheduling.
Whats more...."incentivising"/bribing players to run a format they currently have little interest in raises another issue - what can you give as a reward that doesn't drag players into the format "simply to keep their guilds happy" or because they are willing to put up with a format they don't like for a reward that they do.
The current system of lockouts, heroics, etc all arose for very good reasons. The downside is that with no reason to run 25 mans - players don't run it. Blizzard tried the "more loot" but it doesn't appear to have been successful and anything else will simply drag players into a format they mostly have no interest in.
Unless you go back to a previous raiding model or change the current set up, there isn't much that can be done. And any change that encourages 25s will likely cannibalise 10s.
"If they want the challenge of 25-man raiding, they choose 25-mans."
This sentence implies 25 mans should be more challenging. That they deserve extraloot and rewards. They do not. You indicated earlier this isn't about encounter difficulty and that is correct. The real challenge in 25s is forming the group....but that isn't something that is a part of the actual raid.
The best I can see? Examine if the risk of key players being pressured into multiple runs per week is low enough to allow unlimited runs but only onelooting per week. Then examine the system to see if cross realm communication can be improved.
Feb 16th 2012 4:47PM @cludgren
I didn't claim that "Inquisition only being there to buff recount numbers".
What I said was Inq buffs the Recount numbers enough that its important to keep up...but not enough that it actually makes a strong impact on the player.
The end result is an ability that has a fairly high cost to maintain but utilises a mechanic Blizzard itself recognises as not being fun and more of a chore and which many players wouldn't notice was missing. That last part is reason enough to scrap Inquisition all by itself. The idea of having the class gain a mechanic such as Cut to the Chase is also flawed in some ways - that just means its a ramp up mechanic on top of a ramp up mechanic (HP generation) thats often paired with another ramp up mechanic (the Seal).
Feb 15th 2012 5:34PM Inquisition is one of those abilities that you either loathe or don't mind.
Nobody loves it.....sure, it gives the class another button to press that isn't Templaras verdict but lets not kid ourselves and pretend this is a useful trait.
Inq is a buff that provides a significant boost to Recount figures, making it necessary it keep up, but also provides a boost insignificant enough that its presence isn't really felt by the Paladin or player.
Its a short term buff that requires constant refreshing and maintenance. Exactly the type of buff Blizzard acknoweldged wasn't fun.
Its something you can fall and will fall into the habit of using but its also something about which little thought or planning is really required. It adds a ramp uptime to full maximum DPS....but so does Holy Power and a couple of other effects.
And yes...Holy power generation does appear to be increasing in MoP. To the point the mechanic is almost worthless. If it doesn't matter what attack you need to use to generate the ability, you may as well simply replace it with a CD effect because thats all it really is.
Good points about it? It gives the class a button to press when everything else is on CD. The idea that Inquisition is necessary to cover up the bad mechanics and poor design of the Paladin class does kinda explain its many shortcomings.
Inquisition is an ability that doesn't slot well into the Paladin system. It isn't fun. It isn't even necessary. And the lack of ooopmh in your "defence" of the ability simply underscores this point. It simply appears to have been added because "Rogues/Druids have one so since Blizzard are copying rogues they should get a similar ability".