Jun 11th 2011 7:04AM I too hope they reconsider the spell steal nerf a bit. And the Arcanotron example in the post above is exactly why ... once again, a PvP adjustment will have an adverse affect on the PvE environment (for Pete's sake, Blizzard, just either completely merge or completely separate those two aspects of the game by now already).
One possible solution ... keep spell steal exactly how it is now (no cooldown, same mana cost) and add a diminishing return. PvE mages aren't spell steal-spamming mobs, so between their casts the returns should be reset. In PvP, it means that a spell-steal spam might get 2-3 buffs, but beyond that (on that target) the mage will have to wait a bit before getting any more ... just a thought though.
Jun 9th 2011 1:57AM I really hope that Fargo and the other Devs are truly interested in making the world a lot more interactive for players. I know that Blizzard is quite adept at making unique hooks for their game ... that's why I've been around for the better part of six years now ... but even their more innovative hooks are starting to feel like rehash and the game seems more like an amusement park ride than ever before.
I also like that they're concerned with solo / casual players. I know a lot of the hard-core folks out there think that Blizzard's concessions to the casual players have hurt the game, allowing for "welfare" gear and all that ... but honestly, casual players pay the same amount as the hard-core folks to play the game. Blizzard doesn't make any more money for the time investment of its customers, so why on earth are they showing favoritism to one group over others ... why should someone be forced to join an arena team in order to get a PvP weapon, for instance? Or to raid in order to complete their valor point armor set (head & shoulders) ...
... in any case, and like I said earlier, I'm glad that Fargo and the other devs are looking at ways to make new content more interactive and inclusive. Hope they keep it up.
Jun 9th 2011 1:45AM @ Glaras
Wow, does it ever sound like you really hated that event, and I'm sorry that's the case. Personally, I also loved the Scourge invasion. I also liked the AQ event back in the day, which didn't have the negatives that the Scourge did, but still felt big ... comparatively, the Cataclysm "events" seemed rather small, other than the entire world changing of course.
But I think the point is that a game like WoW should be more than just a theme park. It should be much more interactive. The Scourge event allowed for some of that interactivity (which is why a lot of folks loved it) but it did so in perhaps a not-well-thought-out manner that allowed for griefing on an epic scale (which, to me, sounds like your reasoning for not liking the event).
I don't think that just because they got one event wrong (in some ways) that they should be content to make the "new" and "exciting" stuff of the game simply a rehash of stuff they've done before ... the Firelands is the new Quel'Danas? /sigh. While fun, and I'm sure Firelands will have a bit of fun, it's the next turn in the themepark ride that is WoW.
I'm glad that Fargo and the other devs are excited about 4.2 and Firelands, but I'd much rather see them working to open up the entire world of warcraft to the entire player base than talking about how cool their latest rehash is going to be ... more stuff like the Scourge event, then, would be a good thing. They just need to do those things in such a way that it doesn't allow for mass griefing.
Jun 7th 2011 1:39PM The PvE / PvP split has long been argued, and rightly so. However, there must be some fundamental dynamic to WoW's programming that prevents this. I can't see them NOT making an easy fix like this otherwise.
Personally, I've always thought that the easiest way to deal with this difference is to make PvE more PvP-like. Make it so that bosses can be snared or CC'd. Make it so that one set of gear is all you ever need (instead of one for fighting computer-controlled mobs and another for fighting players). Make more room for utility in the PvE game and perhaps you will get rid of players that are arguing that their DPS has been nerfed due to something in which they do not participate (PvP).
The PvE game should be more about fun and less about DPS and ePeen comparisons. If bosses and other mobs weren't all immune to CC, would that lead to exploitation? Probably, but then you (Blizzard) are the developers, figure out a way to throw a curveball that allows for the utility you've given the players and still provides a challenge.
Of course, arguing about all of this is pointless. Blizzard is perfectly happy to sit on their enormous profit margins made from WoW and not invest any more of that than absolutely necessary into making the game better. We get the same rehash, over and over and over again. And even their story-lines (once the reason I played WoW) have gotten incredibly weak ... so I don't expect the DK (or any class, for that matter) situation getting any better any time soon.
Apr 12th 2011 5:47PM Allison,
I think you've actually hit on a larger issue than just the RDF and tanking issues. I think you've hit on the (lack of) community issues that are currently plaguing WoW.
I've been playing for a while now and have enjoyed almost every class and role and playing to end game content and PvP (just can't get into Priest / Warlock for some reason, but I've got plenty of experience with the rest), and I've seen a lot of changes as many of the wow.joystiq.com readers have. I remember when the RDF came out that it was a great convenience, but I also noted these anonymity issues you have brought up almost immediately. But the convenience and the rewards were nice enough I didn't mind the anonymity problem so much.
By the time Cataclysm came out, I have to say that I've severely curtailed my tanking. If I take my DK, Pally, Warrior, or Bear into a random heroic, I almost always queue as DPS and go herb or dig or mine while waiting for the queue. If I land a good tank, awesome, I DPS (or heal). If I land a terrible tank, I try to offer advice, help them do their job, and in a last resort, I change specs and tank instead. Even with that I've almost stopped doing heroics altogether simply because I've run into so many bad experiences (most of which are rude players).
My point here is that while RDF and the same for battlegrounds have been great convenience tools, perhaps the problem is not with the tool, but with the fact that it reaches across server boundaries? Anonymity (as most who have used the internet know) breeds rude / bad behavior. Perhaps limiting the RDF to your server (or offering that as an option when you queue) would be a nice solution. I'd gladly wait another 5-10 minutes (or more) to get someone from my server. I think it would help bring that sense of community that was so intrinsic in the early days of WoW that has been slowly dying off since 3.3.
There may be other / better solutions (player rating perhaps?) that may allow for cross-server use and still work out well, but I don't think that just offering tanks more loot / gear is going to bring them back to the queues. It certainly won't for me.
Mar 31st 2011 4:04PM "Don't get frustrated if your faction seems to lose a lot, because everyone feels that way."
I don't know if this is necessarily true. If you play Horde on Azol-Nerub, you hold Tol Barad 95% of the time (give or take). Personally, I think the mechanics of Tol Barad are still in need of tweaking. The sliding scale for holding 2/3 points for the attackers is nice (makes it at least POSSIBLE to win while attacking), but the defenders still have a massive advantage, and downing the towers doesn't seem to help the attackers all that much, meaning the defense has absolutely no incentive to defend the towers.
Further, the Michael Gray points out that the defense should allocate "...your team equally across all three flags." This is a TERRIBLE idea for defense. Equal distribution will allow the attackers a chance to mass up on the 3rd node. Much better for the defenders to have one or two spotters for each point, letting everyone know where the attackers are weak and then having the rest zerg from the point the defense just took to the oldest point controlled by the attackers ... i.e. if the attackers have WV and Slags (and just took Slags), then the defenders can and should easily overwhelm the opposing force at WV before the attackers have a chance to take ICG. If they do take ICG after the defense had pushed them off of WV, that doesn't matter for the defense, because they can now swarm Slags while the attackers rush to get to WV.
It's a big merri-go-round system right now that still heavily favors the defense. If the defenders are better geared or know what they're doing, they should only ever lose TB because they somehow messed up (like by trying to defend the towers).
Tol Barad can be fun, but it still offers absolutely nothing to the losing side while offering great rewards (in honor, quests, etc.) to the winners.
I'm still desperately hoping that Blizzard decides to tweak TB a little more to make it a bit more competitive (or even favoring the attackers and thus allowing more participation between the factions) and therefore more fun.
Mar 17th 2011 1:16AM Lemons,
I love this idea! Keeping the RNG while getting to 525 is fine, but it is extremely annoying to have 3/4 of the fields that pop up be fossil fields (after already getting the mount / pet). Being able to focus in one of the races at that point is a great idea!
It would allow you access to that race's items / equipment, encourage Archaeology to be leveled on more than one toon, and provide players with a better or more-controllable way of pursuing the items they desire.
I've been hoping for the Troll sword / Dwarf staff for a while now. No luck in either case (with close to 100 completions in each) ... yet my fossil completion count continues to rise much faster. I'd gladly give up the chance as either the troll sword or dwarf staff in order to specialize in, and therefore have a better chance at getting the other (and at least lessen the amount of fossil digs I have to do).
Nothing more frustrating than seeing someone running around with one of those weapons, asking them how many completions it took them, and having them come back with "20" or "250" ... the RNG element of Archaeology is terrible and frustrating. Making the whole profession more interactive would make it a lot more fun. As it is, it's just a bunch of flying, digging, running, and flying some more. No mystery, little to no story element data, and just a lot of mind-numbing unproductive activity whose rewards are based entirely on RNG ...
But Lemon, you have presented a great idea! I really hope that Blizzard looks into doing something like what you propose!
Mar 1st 2011 3:09PM APEC was supposed to be "a spec" ... the autocorrect curse afflicted me.
Mar 1st 2011 3:01PM Pyrometer brings up a really good point ... the frost nerfs seem to be aimed at frost PvP and in true Blizzard fashion, they are more willing to kill a APEC as PvE viable in order to balance it's PvP counterpart. I've seen lots of complaints from frost PvE players on the forums, yet these are of course ignored.
Personally, I've been playing my Mage since the days of vanilla WoW. I've rolled in all three trees and primarily played PvE with casual PvP. Of all the specs, I like the current iteration of frost the best, I just like the play style. Arcane is too bland with AB spam to be fun for me, and Fire is ... to use someone else's description ... too twitchy and reliant on RNG. I don't mind that my DPS is potentially a little lower, as long as I'm within 1k of the fire mage in the raid, I feel I'm contributing well. But if Frost continues to be nerfed, I will be forced to roll with a spec I don't like as much, or to not use my Mage.
I just really wish that Blizzard would listen to good ideas coming from the Mage community for solutions. It really seems that they don't listen at all. How about taking something from the Warlock mastery book - I know, I know, wrong place to point to on Arcane Brilliance - and instead of making frost mastery a large buff against frozen targets, just make it a flat buff to frost damage period? Keep it simple, get away from the weird mixture of CC+Damage mechanics and all the complicated math associated therin, and perhaps balancing a spec that many players LIKE to play won't be such a problem?
I'm sorry for mentioning warlocks as a potential solution source, Christian, I really am. I will log on this afternoon and deep freeze ten warlocks as a penance.
Jan 18th 2011 11:46AM Great article. I especially like the constructive criticism. Not entirely sure I agree with everything mentioned, but I'll get to that. By and large, however, I have to agree with McCurley's analysis.
Tol Barad does indeed need balance. Many other posters have already noted that folks get frustrated spending 30 minutes trying to get something done, only to have the defenders get another win due to the mechanics. What's worse, in my opinion, is that Blizzard has stated that they made the mechanics the way they did to induce participation. I can only palm my face at that type of logic making it through to the actual game.
I've been on both sides, more on the attacker side than the defender, but I can certainly see how the mechanics need to be changed. I agree with giving the defender one commendation for participation. You get in the queue and stick it out to the end, you should get something for that, win or lose.
I agree that the capture mechanic needs to change, and the defense needs to feel compelled to do something other than just zerg and hold one point. And I agree that this should tie in with the towers. Here is what I propose:
* As McCurley mentioned, put a player cap on the capture mechanic. 20 sounds reasonable to me. That way the attacker (of the point) is compelled to push the defender off of it in order to "cap" it.
* Have the towers / captured points provide a buff / benefit to each side. Defenders will get the benefit to start (say a 5% damage buff for example per tower), but as a tower falls, the benefit transfers from the defenders to the attackers. This induces the defenders to defend the towers and gives the attackers strategic options. Towers falling extending the play time is fine by me as well. If the defenders allow a tower to fall, not only do they lose the 5% buff, but their enemy now has it and will be able to use it against them for a few more minutes.
* Modify the victory conditions from all three points being required to achieve victory. Instead, go to a system used by Arathi Basin. Each faction gets some form of resource for how many control points they hold, and the rate these points accumulates goes up if all three points are captured. You could even include the towers in this equation. Rather than providing a buff (or in addition to that) they could also give the attackers a one-time resource point benefit when they are destroyed.
In any case, Tol Barad certainly needs some tweaking, and I think that Blizzard realizes this. I just hope they get around to seriously doing that tweaking soon.