Feb 18th 2012 7:54PM "And Cold Snap is also being given a healing component; when activated, it restores 20% of your max health in addition to finishing the cooldown on Ice Block, Frost Nova, and Cone of Cold. ... Because frost mages were just too easy to kill, I think we can all agree."
The swipe about the added 20% healing from Cold Snap somehow making Frost mages more OP is misplaced. If that change was being made to the current Cold Snap in the current talent system, I'd agree. However, given that most of the Frost mage survivability abilities are going into the talent system and becoming available to everyone, the Cold Snap change is an across-the-board survivability boost for everyone. All mages will have Ice Block, Frost Nova, and Cone of Cold. As such, anyone, not just a Frost mage, who takes Cold Snap from that tier will get a 20% heal and an extra Ice Block (since I doubt anyone would pop it for an extra frost nova or CoC) for added survivability in either PvE or PvP. Further, since Cold Snap no longer affects Deep Freeze or Frost Orb, there's no particular reason for a Frost mage to take it (other than for the extra Ice Block) over, say Cauterize, since it's now purely a survivability talent and adds no discernible DPS to Frost.
Dec 18th 2011 5:42PM /CrossesFingers
Nov 8th 2011 11:17AM Based on information from Blizzcon, the current plan is to exclude certain pets from the battle system - mainly those that don't make sense in a battle setting. For instance, your Alliance or Horde balloon is probably not going to make the cut for battling. It's most likely to be the creature-type pets that will be used, though animate objects like the Enchanted Broom or Magic Lamp / Lantern are not completely out of the realm of possibility (magic and all that...). Whether the child-like companions will be excluded is not clear, but on the "only using pets that make sense" model of the battle system, there's no reason they couldn't be left out given the world PvP tradition you mentioned. Though they could probably be just as easily be left in since they'll inevitably sent to Nurse Joy for immediate recuperation after any pet battle anyway.
Sep 7th 2011 7:14PM WoW ice cream party at Davis' J.P. Licks?
Sep 7th 2011 7:03PM I just moved off of the Green Line and I couldn't be happier. It doesn't hurt that I moved to the Orange Line which takes less than 10 minutes to get to school as opposed to an hour...
Sep 7th 2011 4:22PM Boo Boston shadow priest. Hooray Boston boomkins!
Sep 7th 2011 3:57PM I envy not only your dashingly handsome looks Mr. Allen, but that you live on the Red Line. However, I have a brewery practically in front of my door, so take that!
Aug 31st 2011 12:50PM Also, the notion that homosexuality does not exist in Star Wars is simply untrue (note that this actually came from a BioWare forum moderator, not an official LucasArts stance). However when that explanation was given for the lack of gay characters BioWare was allowing in Star Wars games, others were quick to point out the Star Wars book "Sacrifice" which is part of the Legacy of the Force series. In that book we are introduced to Goran Beviin, a Mandalorian bounty hunter working for Boba Fett who decided to settle down on Mandalore with his partner, Medrit Vasur, and their daughter. Even the most naive reading of the book would show that these two are a couple, and given that the Star Wars books are licensed by Lucas Arts and thus part of the Star Wars canon, homosexuality does exist in the Star Wars universe. It may not be named by the term "homosexuality" but there is a documented instance of two persons of the same gender being engaged in a long-term relationship. And while they are certainly gay, the situation is treated as normally as any other relationship ever written in the Star Wars universe and doesn't have to be "OMG THOSE TWO DUDES ARE SLEEPING TOGETHER!"
Some links for reference:
Aug 31st 2011 12:35PM For those who are trying to make the case that sexuality in general doesn't have a place in the game, there are a smattering of obviously heterosexual quest givers who say "Oh my husband/wife died in such and such conflict," or for whom you gather items to help their family, etc. Further, the majority of major characters in WoW are obviously heterosexual and engaged in heterosexual relationships: Tyrande and Malfurion/Illidan, Jaina and Arthas, Jaina and Varian, Thrall and Aggra (they just got married for goodness' sake!).
If you don't want their to be sexuality in the game at all, that's fine. But simply because you're blind to the normed sexuality that already exists in the game is not a justification for saying that homosexual relationships would break the supposed lack of sexuality. And as some have already pointed out, there's no need to have NPCs making out or having sex to inform us that they're homosexual. All it takes is changing the gender of a partner in quest text, or placing two NPCs of the same gender in the same home. This is neither difficult nor sexual.
Jul 31st 2011 5:23PM @David
The assertion is that it would be sexist if females were automatically passed over if there was a younger male heir, not that it's sexist simply because a female isn't the head of state. In the same way, it's not sexist against males if a female happens to be the head of state unless there's a matriarchal line where men are automatically excluded. If the rule is simply, "The first-born heir ascends to the throne first" it doesn't matter if it happens to be a male or female, and the other sex is not discriminated against. Someone just gets shafted for not being born before their siblings - in which case you could make an argument that the state is exhibiting age-ism ;)