May 26th 2010 10:48AM @Anathemys
I don't disagree - but I think the reasoning behind most dungeon quest givers is that they 'Need a Hero' and aren't too fussy where they come from. Now - realistically, so close to home territory, those 'Hero's' are going to be native - but I think a group of outsiders showing up as Mercenaries for Hire would theoretically be granted access if there was a need for it.
That is.. so long as someone doesn't recognise them from a Battleground!
Regardless - I'm glad to have the extra instances despite the lore issue, it's novelty content and breaks things up.
May 26th 2010 8:13AM It's a limited dungeon which visually has little going for it. It has some interestnig lore but nothing to write home about.
My feeling is - it's in the game and both sides can access it. I'd rather it be in and accesable than not in at all. Yeah they could upgrade it, but I'd rather new content.
Basically what I am saying is 'meh'. The lack of standard instance structure is a novelty and it's a good xp trap for players that need a break from levelling.
Certainly instances in the future need to be tweaked with the LFG tool in mind, but I think sleeping dogs can lie with regards to the Stockades - I don't think it would be worth the effort.
Apr 14th 2010 10:31AM Given the delay I thought the changes to the Paladin would be more fundamental and far reaching.
This seems like more of a tweak and clarification than a whole new thought process. Maybe I'm simplifying some of the finer elements - It will be interesting to see how the Paladin looks in a few months time.
Feb 24th 2010 9:47AM You are right - I should have read this.
In hindsight - The fight takes place in the Forge of Souls and the Black Knight, so taken with Bronjahms background music chooses to jive instead of fight - thus forfeiting the match.
Feb 24th 2010 9:11AM All I'll say here is that I can finish Bronj with 100% mana on my healer. Even with good groups this can not be achieved on Death Knight so my feeling is Death knight is the clear victor.
Feb 18th 2010 8:24AM Heh,
In my old office there was a guy installing new window blinds. He was polish and started talking about how he was super pissed that despite load's of IT qualifications he had a maintenance job that he hated.
Very sound dude that he was we got talking about technology, got onto gaming, and turned out he played wow. Ofcourse - given that he was Polish, he was also on my server (EU: Burning Legion!)
Pretty much the only time I've met someone who plays wow though...
Feb 5th 2010 12:31PM @Bronwyn
I agree with you, and I do have faith in Blizzard - (Activision perhaps not so much) but I agree that my 'slippery slope' theory was excessive (though sufficient to illustrate the point).
What I do fear however is that as iphones / ipads and similar mobile technology becomes more powerful and prolific (and I'm not talking about the distant future here), associated charges will be archaic and stifling (not dissimilar to when the Internet first became an every day consumer good).
It's already very expensive in Ireland to go online from mobile platforms, and if you are paying on top of this for access to various services you will wind up with a hefty bill, and the fact that this app is directly pointed at mobile technology sets a worry trend for all the world to observe and potentially copy.
The other thing is that other similar apps (say - access to mini games that affect your character, or even eventually a mobile wow) will look at how this plays out and charge depending on how willing people seem to pay (or perhaps not at all if they appear unwilling!)
Anyway - sorry for the paranoia, shouldn't be reading 1984 so often.
... bloody good read though!
Feb 5th 2010 8:54AM You know... my biggest problem paying for this is that it *could* be free. The more of these micro transactions that people sign up for, the more investors are going to push for the broadening of this service to the point where each new patch brings a new "only $5 extra can get you an extra 2% crit rating".
Maybe it wont go that far, but we endorse the addition of costs to features by agreeing to pay them in the first place. This is an external app and perhaps there are going to be interface costs, but I still worry that Blizzard might use this as a template for future cost based additions.
I think games should be subscription based or micro transaction based. I think an mixture of the two is putting too much pressure on a game which already has a massive player base (many of whom would feel obliged to pay if doing so kept them competitive). And don't forget - the Auction house is a big part of why some people who love trading play, and this app *will* be essential for them to stay competitive.
Feb 2nd 2010 6:27AM As the story of Wrath of the Lich King draws to a close I suspect that Blizzard are trying to get as many people as possible into raid content so that everyone gets a chance of seeing Arthas on his back.
Helping people gear faster and get runs faster, and also reducing the number of ppl dropping instances due to frustration can only improve the situation and get more numbers raiding.
Don't forget, all the people gearing alts atm are also creating more available raid avatars and generally helping to get more people enjoying end tier content.
I have no issue at all with content being tapered towards the end of an expansion. We've all been there and done that - no harm now that new players are being helped to engage in new content by gaining faster access to tier 9 and ilevel 245 gear.
Jan 28th 2010 11:23AM Well it's hardly much of a detterent now given that you can hop onto the train right smack bang into the middle of Ironforge.
I can just imagine them defending the King:
"Alright everyone, the trench has been widend - just stand on this side and throw rocks at anyone who approaches... Huzzah they shall NEVER reach the throne room"
No. 6 train from Stormwind arrives...
"King Magni Bronzebeard Defended 0/1 : Quest Failed"
.... but ... the ... trench....