Apr 3rd 2012 7:05PM Outside of some stupid teenagers who make rude comments (I play a mixture of both genders), I've never had a problem. If I think the armor is skimpy I wear a tabard.
I might be the exception to the rule of course, but I've never felt harassed for rolling a female character (while Amaxe is a female character, I am male)
Apr 3rd 2012 6:16PM Except the Scourge came because of the orcs... Ner'zhul I believe was the First Lich King.
You say the Scourge summoned Archimonde, but...
No Orcs in Azeroth = no Scourge in Azeroth because Ner'zhul wouldn't have been able to get to Azeroth. No Scourge in Azeroth = No Archimonde in Azeroth, because there would have been no Scourge to summon him.
Like I said, the Alliance really had no reason to participate in the Black Morass.
And getting back to the main problem I had... the writing for the Alliance was wretched when it came to this instance. Now if they had acknowledged that these horrors only happened because of the Horde coming through but said that changing the timeline would have resulted in a greater horror coming in the future, then we would have some pretty good story telling there. Perhaps like either choosing between the destruction of thousands of lives if history remains as it is, or else preventing it and having Medivh causing to Azeroth what did happen to Draenor (portals destroying the planet).
But they didn't. They designed an instance that would appeal to the Horde but only gave token recognition to the Alliance.
Apr 2nd 2012 9:14PM Except, if the Horde didn't go through, there was nothing for the Legion to gain access through. The Alliance wouldn't have needed the Horde to help fight and the Alliance forces would have been stronger without the orcs destroying them.
I always thought that was the major plot hole.
Apr 2nd 2012 4:14PM I remember assuming that Horde and Alliance had pretty much the same quests. Then, when bored with WOLK, I faction transferred a level 80 druid to the Horde and had that toon do the famous Horde quests (Thrall's Grandmother) and the WOLK Horde story.
I was totally blown away with how superior the Horde story was in Northrend in comparison to the Alliance story. Since then, I found the Alliance side to be pretty lackluster in comparison.
Then there was the fact that the original CoT instances, especially Black Morass, seemed to be written for the Horde. I noticed that really, there was no reason whatsoever for the Alliance to permit the portal to be opened as everything bad that happened after that happened in response to the Horde. The Burning Legion in Kalimdor, the Scourge... all possible because of the Horde going through the portal.
For the Horde, the reasoning is, if this is changed, we won't be here but would be worse off trapped on Draenor. It's a valid response.
The reasoning for the Alliance was "Vague Worse stuff happens if you don't... trust us!" but that felt like an afterthought.
Then in Cata, there were the problems of storylines stopping rather than concluding.
Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a laundry list of complaints. It was a realization however that Blizz seemed to put the majority of their energy into writing the Horde story, and the Alliance writing seemed to be an afterthought... a supporting character rather than a co-star (as some commenter said earlier this weeek)
So, I guess the question for Mists is whether they've learned from their mistakes or whether their writing is the same-old same-old.
Also, how will the play experience feel after doing 3-4 alts?
Mar 31st 2012 9:41PM So, demand is going to rise when Mists drop and things are going to cost more.
In future news, water is wet.
/Sigh. I don't know if there are any reasonable solutions. If Blizz takes away currency, those millionaires who ground it will have a right to complain. But if they make mats easier to get and supplies, mounts and training from vendors to be cheaper (& reduce quest awards to proportion), the millionaires will be able to control markets.
Maybe they'll just have to take the abuse from the rich and reform the currency.
No good answers though. I think Blizz went crazy with the gold in Cata and its going to be a mess fixing it.
Mar 29th 2012 1:03PM I had maxed Archy on my main, and in fact got the full professor title. In retrospect, I should have maxed it on my paladin who is my alchemist since he could have at least used the recipe.
If I do Mists (and that's a question mark for me), I'd probably do Archy on my main to get to the new level cap, but as far as I care, the rest of my characters can stay at level 1.
I did get a few BOA epics that served their purpose: The bearded axe served my combat rogue throughout Northrend, and the Azshara's Dressing Gown last my mage to about 73-74 (this was before I had the heirloom chest). I never got any level 85 ones though and I suspect they won't be worth going after now.
Mar 29th 2012 12:50PM Probably take a bit. I think of it as the SWTOR pre-order early entry. Access was sent out in waves (I think I got mine on the 2nd or third day of the early entry) based on time of reserved copy to prevent swamping servers.
I would guess when you get in will depend on:
1) When you signed up
2) How long the beta is planned to run
3) How many people have taken part of this vs the capacity of the beta servers.
Hope it goes well for you.
Mar 29th 2012 12:43PM I would think Blizz would have to lose a hell of a lot of subscriptions before subscriptions became less lucrative than F2P. Right now they are still the most popular game out there (don't know if they fell below the 10.1 million subscriber number I last heard), but even if they fell to say (picking number at random here) 6 million, that would still be more than any other MMO.
Mar 29th 2012 12:38PM "Personally, I'm jonesin' to roll a Gnome monk (seriously - how hilarious is that gonna be?)."
Probably as "hilarious" as a Gnome DK
Mar 28th 2012 1:30PM While I don't intend to take sides in the dispute opened by the first commentor on the site, I do have to say that the WoW community seems to be less open to views different than their own than it used to be.
Personally, I think the idea of "I dislike [X] and think it should notmake it to live" is a valid idea. People can express such a view bluntly or diplomatically, and the latter is preferred to be sure. It is also better to express such an opinion with a reasoned argument than with a "Dude, WTF!" comment.
But, If it weren't for people expressing ideas that Blizz is on the wrong track, we'd have been stuck with some of Blizzard's more stupid ideas, such as their Real ID fiasco.
It is a shame that WoW Insider seems to be moving away from a reasoned discussion and towards. It's also a shame that WoW itself seems to be moving away from a reasoned discussion and towards a "We're doing this, so suck it up!" approach.
Perhaps a willingless to listen to views that think a concept is flawed altogether might have resulted in the fumdamental changing or outright dumping of some ideas that did make it to live (Holy Bar, Archaeology, Vehicle Quests come to mind).
There's no accounting for taste of course, and what one person hates another may like. But it does seem like a growing number of people are simply saying that to disagree is to be wrong.