Mar 3rd 2011 3:07AM My point is that you /can/ already do this via respeccing, so introducing tri-spec would not introduce any new balance issues. It might make an existing balance problem more prevalent, but it wouldn't create any new ones of it's own.
What's more, any arguments to this effect already apply to the existing dual-spec setup - more so for some classes (pure DPS) than others, but nonetheless. Evidently Blizzard decided the benefits of allowing dual spec outweighed the concerns; is extending this to a 3rd spec really such a severe problem? There must be some point at which the line is drawn - unlimited specs would make the respec system pointless, for example. Given the way most of the game is designed however - 3 talent trees per class, 3 main roles in a group - 3 specs seemed like the obvious choice for a cut-off right from the start, to me.
Mar 2nd 2011 9:46PM "Obviously having an array of possible specs to choose from would be convenient for any number of reasons, but it would also encourage situations where people are using it to shift their builds around for each individual encounter or task. And as they become a requirement our necessity to design and balance around it changes it from a nice convenience option to a core piece of the game design puzzle."
That is a silly argument. Any groups or individuals "hardcore" enough to want to tweak their builds on a per-encounter basis /can already do this/ via the existing respec system. Summons and teleports are cheap and plentiful, visiting a trainer to respec and getting back to your raid group quickly has never been easier.
Secondly, are there really talents which are "typically" skipped over but which, when incorporated into a build, have the potential to unbalance a given encounter so much that this becomes a problem? If there are, then perhaps there is already a problem with either the talent or the encounter design
If this was going to present a balance problem simply by becoming more convenient, it would already /be/ a balance problem in certain sections of the population.
Feb 2nd 2011 10:17AM "There is ZERO empirical evidence or research to suggest that more than two factions makes a game any better, any balanced or any more fun than one with three or more."
This is pure hyperbole. I could equally well say there is zero empirical evidence to suggest the opposite position. What does "better" mean in this context in any case? Surely that is a subjective measure? I give you DAoC and Planetside, both examples of games that have used a 3 faction system and which are "better" for it, at least anecdotally.
"I'm a game developer. Have been so for going on 28 years now. Developed a total of 15 games."
You're a game developer with a reputation for developing unfinished, unworkable games, exacerbated by unbridled arrogance, bigotry and a total lack of self-awareness. Just look at the reactions of the commenters here - you earned your reputation and it is well-established amongst gamers.
You may be unwilling to consider the possibility that some of the people offering criticism are not only not the ignorant fools you seem to believe, but some are just as experienced in the industry as you. Time will tell though (again.)
Jan 15th 2011 1:01PM Stat budget and itemisation aren't the same things; I think the question that was answered in the column explains that there's no difference between the stat budget of different rarity levels.
What Mudertime was suggesting was that perhaps there's a difference in the "quality" of the itemisation as you go up the rarity levels. That is, an epic ilvl 333 and a blue ilvl 333 might well have the same budget, but the way in which the budget is spent might be more ideal for it's intended classes - more specifically tailored - on the epic than on the rare.
I have a question related to this though! How do set bonuses figure into the stat budget equation? Are they an extra thing found on some items on top of the usual stat budget, or would you expect to see a set item have less primary/secondary stats than a similar non-set item of the same ilvl ?
Jan 11th 2011 8:25AM Sounds like a great idea. The only problem really I can forsee is in the interaction between achievements - which tend to be quite static, they don't often change and this is important because people don't want the goalposts to move while they are working on a lengthy achievement - and abilities/spells which are constantly being changed and rebalanced. A paladin 99% of the way to getting their final tier of DI achievement, that sort of thing.
That aside I think this idea has some really great potential.
Dec 22nd 2010 12:37PM Yup. Joystiq feed does it for sure, though I'm pretty certain I'd had it before back on the wowinsider feed too. Also, and it may be of use to you to know, the Massively feed does exactly the same thing.
Dec 16th 2010 6:00AM Well you learn something new every day then, huh? :D
Dec 15th 2010 7:03PM Just wanted to mention - early in the article you mention how crappy spirit is and say that we should avoid it, but then you go on to say that if no-one else wants it you can always "pick it up and reforge spirit to something else". You can't reforge spirit, it's a primary stat. Only secondary stats (hit, crit, haste, mastery etc) can be reforged.
Dec 10th 2010 4:58PM What utter rot.
Addons are not a vulnerability. Auto-updaters /might/ be - but no more or less than any website you visit on an average day.
This article is pure scaremongering FUD. Curse, as an explicitly named party in this article who could potentially suffer financial damage (people put off subscribing to the Curse client) ought to be sueing for libel.
I'm astonished that WoW Insider would even publish such scaremongering poppycock.
Dec 8th 2010 12:07AM Awesome.