Sep 5th 2007 9:21PM If they want it to be the peak of skill, they'd give everyone the weapons for free to even the field.
Aug 29th 2007 11:46PM As usual, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Shaman aren't perfect, but they aren't horribly broken either.
Some of the complaints are, in my opinion, a bit silly. I mean yes, shaman have mana problems. But that's the way it should be: if you don't have to worry about mana, why have the mechanic in the game? Shaman have threat problems, but again, either you should be able to nominate the tank and the mobs always attack him, or the threat mechanic should be a very real thing people have to deal with. Small tweaks could be done in these areas to ensure things are in line with other classes, but the basic "problems" are issues that should exist for good reason.
I also don't agree with the "non-resto is broken" reasoning. If the other specs are so broken, why do the armory survey sites suggest that there's a 25/25/50 breakdown? Surely if resto is the only good spec, it'd be much higher than 50%. After all, paladins show as being about 90% holy at level 70, now there's a broken talent balance for a class.
I think you could "fix" shaman with a couple of tweaks:
* Put more generally useful talents lower in the talent trees. I'd say almost invert the trees. Pretty much all the really unique and good shaman abilities are deep in their respective trees. Hybrid builds suck because you end up giving up so much you become good at nothing. Take resto for example. Mana tide is 31 point, and earth shield is 41 point. Those talents are useful to pretty much any spec shaman, yet only a deep resto build can get them! I'd have them much lower, and make the high talent choices those that only someone wanting to be a pure healer would need (eg the cheaper heals talent, ancestral healing talent).
* Change the way itemisation works to discount the item point cost of hybrid gear. Hybrid gear sucks at the moment because it lets you do nothing well. Realistically a hybrid piece of gear is about 60% as good as specialised gear in each role. I'd make that more like 90% as good. Then it'd at least be a decision as to whether you wanted to specialise or not, rather than that being the only real choice.
Aug 29th 2007 7:44PM "I would also submit that changing specs and playstyle is a very different thing from grabbing a new class. I can switch to protection from retribution on my paladin and figure out tanking far quicker than I can pick up a druid and learn to play it properly."
I think I could take a class I'd never seen before, and just by doing a bit of reading instantly be a better player than the majority of nubsauces out there.
Learning a new character really isn't that hard. I think there are really three classes, which we tend to call roles: tank, DPS and healing. The "real" classes only change the trimmings of those roles. Since the Death Knight is a tank and DPS class, anyone who has done those roles before and isn't a complete idiot should pick it up in about 5 mintues, not 70 levels.
Aug 21st 2007 7:43PM IMO they should do cross realm PvE instances as well as battlegrounds. Would help fix the problem of spending hours in LFG.
Aug 3rd 2007 12:08AM Hmm, actually there's a third problem, that is the time going from 1-80. Can probably easily be solved by triple current experience from 1-60, double from 60-70.
Aug 3rd 2007 12:05AM You can't make heroics or just add more dungeons at 70, at least not without significantly upgrading server capacity and merging servers. It already can take ages to get a group together for an instance, what do you think will happen if double or triple the options and you spread the population out further?
I really don't see the problem of obsoleting gear. It's really not that different than on the way to 60. You can sit around trying to find a group for an instance, or you can level past it in the same amount of time. Instances when you're not at the level cap have always been somewhat a waste of time. If you don't obsolete the gear from the old level cap, then anyone who has been running heroics and raids will complain that the new instances from 70-80 are completely pointless.
The only real problem I see with raising the level cap is twofold:
a) Talents. With 51 talent points at level 60, most players felt at least somewhat versatile, with 31/20 builds being typical. With 61 it already starts to get very specialised. If 51 point talents are to trump the 41 point ones, it's going to start getting out of hand. Hopefully they'll just do some talent tweaking and not put more than 41 points in each tree, making 41/30 and option. Ideally, hero classes from 70-80 with 10 points in a whole new talent system, but that might be a bit much to ask.
b) Hybrid classes being meaningless. Gear is really the killer here. You're wearing iLevel 115+ items at level 70. So while you always gear yourself towards a certain role, already your gear is getting 45 levels higher than you in potency, such that your non-spec abilities are really weak (compare a resto shaman or druid's heals with 1000 or more to healing vs one geared for melee damage). If the trend continues, you'll basically make anything a character isn't specced or geared for completely worthless, rather than just mostly worthless like it is now.
Jul 23rd 2007 8:24PM Don't like it, don't flag. If you're still on a PvP server this long after the game came out you have no right to be complaining about PvP. You've had plenty of time to know what it's like and move servers accordingly.
Jul 19th 2007 8:38PM Big shoulder armor is ugly and ridiculous looking anyway. I think the new, smaller, shoulders are better. If anything, they could stand to be even smaller.
Jul 18th 2007 8:40AM @15: Seeems fair enough that paladins are better healers than priests. Priests are hybrids, they can get into groups as either healers or DPS. Paladins are a pure class, they're only invited to be healers.
Hence I'd expect Paladins to be better healers than priests. Whether or not this was the original design of WoW is besides the point, it's how it's worked out.
Jul 17th 2007 10:21PM I just think using text speak is rude. It says "In order to save me a couple of milliseconds typing, I'm going to make everyone who reads this (possibly hundreds of people if I'm on city trade) spend those extra milliseconds working out what it is I'm saying".
As far as I'm concerned, such an indicator of gross selfishness is a good reason not to group with someone.
Mis-spellings don't bother me so much, since they're usually not intentional.