For the upcoming patch, Blizzard was planning on making the Forbearance debuff (gained when you use Divine Shield, Avenging Wrath, or Blessing of Protection) give a -15% penalty to damage. They withdrew the nerf in the face of the large outcry.
I'm not too thrilled with the nerf, as it does hit paladins hard, but I do see the problem. Using BoP on a mage, who gets 12s to freely nuke a melee class, is insanely powerful, especially in Arenas where it is to the first death. So that could stand to be nerfed. But by hitting Forbearance, you hurt paladins--who already have the lowest DPS--even more. Especially when you consider that the debuff lasts 3 to 5 times longer than the ability you used. It's really over-kill, and I think that a more targetted nerf would be more appropriate.
Here's what I would suggest:
1. Blessing of Protection grants the Forbearance debuff, which gives -20% to all damage and healing spells.
2. Avenging Wrath and Divine Shield do NOT grant Forbearance.
3. Avenging Wrath and Diving Shield share the same cooldown. You can't use both of them back to back, or at the same time.
I think this restores some balance to the situation. It returns Blessing of Protection to an emergency cast, and does not allow multiple paladins to chain BoP. A paladin can now chain BoP and Divine Shield, but her healing and damage will be significantly reduced for a full minute. A heavy price, in my opinion.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Paladin Burst Damage Philosophy
One of the Blizzard CMs recently posted something about how Blizzard was looking at toning down paladin burst damage. And of course, the paladin boards erupted in outrage.
Now, I don't know if paladin burst damage needs to be toned down. It may be excessive, or it may be fine. But I think there is a deeper problem at the heart of this issue. One that will not be solved by the devs nerfing a specific skill.
For some reason, whenever paladins get abilities, they almost always get powerful abilities with long cooldowns. It's like that is Blizzard's first instinct when it comes to paladins. The problem with this design, is that you can line up all your cooldown skills and use them in a row to a huge effect. The paladin sees the 90% of the time they are without these skills, and considers them underpowered. The person who was on the receiving end the other 10% of the time is unhappy, and considers paladins overpowered.
Take the Crusader Strike nerf. CS used to have a 6s cooldown. That was deemed overpowered. Rather than reduce the damage, Blizzard chose to increase the cooldown to 10s. Thus the problem with burst damage remains.
Almost all of the paladin abilities are like that. Very powerful, but with long cooldowns. If anything, the paladin needs less powerful abilities, but usable more often. It would tone down our burst damage potential, and would also make playing a paladin a bit more interactive.
Now, I don't know if paladin burst damage needs to be toned down. It may be excessive, or it may be fine. But I think there is a deeper problem at the heart of this issue. One that will not be solved by the devs nerfing a specific skill.
For some reason, whenever paladins get abilities, they almost always get powerful abilities with long cooldowns. It's like that is Blizzard's first instinct when it comes to paladins. The problem with this design, is that you can line up all your cooldown skills and use them in a row to a huge effect. The paladin sees the 90% of the time they are without these skills, and considers them underpowered. The person who was on the receiving end the other 10% of the time is unhappy, and considers paladins overpowered.
Take the Crusader Strike nerf. CS used to have a 6s cooldown. That was deemed overpowered. Rather than reduce the damage, Blizzard chose to increase the cooldown to 10s. Thus the problem with burst damage remains.
Almost all of the paladin abilities are like that. Very powerful, but with long cooldowns. If anything, the paladin needs less powerful abilities, but usable more often. It would tone down our burst damage potential, and would also make playing a paladin a bit more interactive.
Pickup Group Weirdness
I was trying to do Mana Tombs yesterday. I finally got a halfway decent group consisting of a hunter, a priest, a druid, and a paladin (me). The group leader goes to look for a fifth. This is what I see in General chat:
[Group Leader]: LF1M Healer
Apparently, I was Protection, the priest was Shadow, and the druid Feral. And 3 of us wasn't good enough for the leader. Honestly, that's just crazy.
[Group Leader]: LF1M Healer
Apparently, I was Protection, the priest was Shadow, and the druid Feral. And 3 of us wasn't good enough for the leader. Honestly, that's just crazy.
70!
Finally hit 70 today in Blade's Edge Mountains. I ended up doing the entire run using rested XP. I haven't seen most of Blade's Edge, Netherstorm, or Shadowmoon yet.
I did run down to Shadowmoon and picked up my white gryphon. Pretty cool, even if I have almost no gold yet.
Now, I just have to get keyed for Kazarahan.
I did run down to Shadowmoon and picked up my white gryphon. Pretty cool, even if I have almost no gold yet.
Now, I just have to get keyed for Kazarahan.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Burning Crusade Instances
I've done a few of the Burning Crusade instances (Hellfire Citadel, Coilfang Reservoir, one wing of Achindoun, and one wing of Caverns of Time) now, and I have to say that I really like the new style of instances. They are short and sweet, with only 3 or 4 bosses, and very doable in 2 hours or less.
I especially like that most of them have shortcuts back to the beginning after the final boss. That was a very nice touch.
About the only complaint I have is that there doesn't seem like a lot of loot. Usually you get one blue per boss, and given that it's only 5-man, you can usually count on at least one blue going to waste. A couple more blues would not go amiss, I think. I know that I personally only have one dungeon blue so far (though it is a nice one - [Amani Venom-Axe]).
But then again, the instances are short enough that you could easily do several in a week, or even a couple back to back.
The boss fights themselves are fairly creative, especially given the limitations of 5-man content. I especially like the hunter boss who tamed a druid in Coilfang Reservoir. Hilarious! I usually get the job of kiting the bear, which is pretty amusing. Paladin kiting for the win!
I also tried the Caverns of Time instance of Old Hillsbrad. This was very neat, and quite different from most other instances. Thrall needs to learn to slow down, however. He's crazy, Leeroy Jenkins crazy. Also, being so heavily scripted, the instance does seem a bit vulnerable to glitches. During the final fight, Thrall died during the wave of dragonkin, but we survived the wave. He didn't respawn and we couldn't pull the boss, so we were just stuck.
Ah well, so far I really like the instances, and am looking forward to doing a more of them. I can't wait to see what the raid instances are like.
I especially like that most of them have shortcuts back to the beginning after the final boss. That was a very nice touch.
About the only complaint I have is that there doesn't seem like a lot of loot. Usually you get one blue per boss, and given that it's only 5-man, you can usually count on at least one blue going to waste. A couple more blues would not go amiss, I think. I know that I personally only have one dungeon blue so far (though it is a nice one - [Amani Venom-Axe]).
But then again, the instances are short enough that you could easily do several in a week, or even a couple back to back.
The boss fights themselves are fairly creative, especially given the limitations of 5-man content. I especially like the hunter boss who tamed a druid in Coilfang Reservoir. Hilarious! I usually get the job of kiting the bear, which is pretty amusing. Paladin kiting for the win!
I also tried the Caverns of Time instance of Old Hillsbrad. This was very neat, and quite different from most other instances. Thrall needs to learn to slow down, however. He's crazy, Leeroy Jenkins crazy. Also, being so heavily scripted, the instance does seem a bit vulnerable to glitches. During the final fight, Thrall died during the wave of dragonkin, but we survived the wave. He didn't respawn and we couldn't pull the boss, so we were just stuck.
Ah well, so far I really like the instances, and am looking forward to doing a more of them. I can't wait to see what the raid instances are like.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Guild Governance
Tobold recently wrote a post on Guild Governance. In it, he talks about democracies vs dictatorships vs communists and how different forms of guild leadership fits into these things. It's an interesting post, and worth reading.
But one thing struck me, and I've noticed it in previous discussions about this topic. Why do we keep comparing guilds to nation-states?
If you think about it, other than being an organization of people, nations and guilds really have nothing in common. Nations are orders of magnitude larger than guilds. Moving between guilds is far easier than moving between nations, and there's no real defensive purpose to guilds. (Well, in most games. I'm sure Eve Online might be different.)
Perhaps it's because civics and politics generate so much noise and attention, and thought and study, that we automatically start to view all groups of people in terms of politics and political ideas.
However, political systems are not the only systems for organizing human groups, and I think there are other real world systems that would be a better match. For example, take small businesses.
In a small business, you have a few founders, and the employees. Everyone works together and earns profit together, but few would argue that the founders are somehow dictatorial for giving orders. It's generally understood that they are the ones who put in the capital and lots of time and effort. They lead because they started the business, and the employee chooses to be employed by them.
In many ways, guilds are very much closer to the small business model than natrion-states. You have a group of founders, the officers. They don't put monetary capital into the guild, but they put in the MMO equivalent, which is time. Your group does activities together and earns profit (epixxx!), which is distributed in rough proportion to the amount of effort put in by all parties.
Like small business employees, regular raiders can and do quit and join other companies. New raiders apply and can be "hired". It's not so naked as I am discribing, but there are a lot of similarities. In my opinion, far more similarities than to democracies or communist societies.
Looking at it this way implies that if you want to make a better guild, rather than trying to apply different political theories, you should look at ideas dedicated to improving small businesses. And I am sure that there are tons of such books and discussions out there. It's just not as sexy as politics and doesn't get as much ink.
There are other models that may apply as well. A guild could be modelled after a small military company, and the dynamic could be examined in that light. However, the guild as nation-state idea is really misleading, and is not really that helpful when trying to improve a guild.
But one thing struck me, and I've noticed it in previous discussions about this topic. Why do we keep comparing guilds to nation-states?
If you think about it, other than being an organization of people, nations and guilds really have nothing in common. Nations are orders of magnitude larger than guilds. Moving between guilds is far easier than moving between nations, and there's no real defensive purpose to guilds. (Well, in most games. I'm sure Eve Online might be different.)
Perhaps it's because civics and politics generate so much noise and attention, and thought and study, that we automatically start to view all groups of people in terms of politics and political ideas.
However, political systems are not the only systems for organizing human groups, and I think there are other real world systems that would be a better match. For example, take small businesses.
In a small business, you have a few founders, and the employees. Everyone works together and earns profit together, but few would argue that the founders are somehow dictatorial for giving orders. It's generally understood that they are the ones who put in the capital and lots of time and effort. They lead because they started the business, and the employee chooses to be employed by them.
In many ways, guilds are very much closer to the small business model than natrion-states. You have a group of founders, the officers. They don't put monetary capital into the guild, but they put in the MMO equivalent, which is time. Your group does activities together and earns profit (epixxx!), which is distributed in rough proportion to the amount of effort put in by all parties.
Like small business employees, regular raiders can and do quit and join other companies. New raiders apply and can be "hired". It's not so naked as I am discribing, but there are a lot of similarities. In my opinion, far more similarities than to democracies or communist societies.
Looking at it this way implies that if you want to make a better guild, rather than trying to apply different political theories, you should look at ideas dedicated to improving small businesses. And I am sure that there are tons of such books and discussions out there. It's just not as sexy as politics and doesn't get as much ink.
There are other models that may apply as well. A guild could be modelled after a small military company, and the dynamic could be examined in that light. However, the guild as nation-state idea is really misleading, and is not really that helpful when trying to improve a guild.
Monday, February 19, 2007
I Blame the Burning Legion
I'm level 66. I have exactly 6666 health.
I need a stamina enchant. Or an exorcism.
I need a stamina enchant. Or an exorcism.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Left Behind
I haven't had a lot of time to play over the last month. I'm in a relatively hardcore guild. As a result, I'm way behind everyone else. Pretty much everyone else in the guild has gotten to 70. In fact, I think that I have the lowest level main character in the guild.
This experience has made me really understand the desire to power-level characters. I really want to play with my guild, to see new content with them. I like levelling, and I don't really want to skip content, but I do want to play with my friends.
Levels and progression are both boon and bane to this genre. The idea of slowly improving your character is a major attraction, and just the process of levelling up is fun. But when levels are out of sync, they are annoying because they are preventing you from playing with your friends.
I have a couple of real life friends on the server as well. One just started a month ago, so all of our levels are out of whack. To be honest, there's probably no real way we are all going to be able to play together until we all hit 70. When levels no longer matter.
In many ways, this is the central paradox of the MMO genre. Levels are the carrot, the reason for playing. They represent effort and achievement. But levels also prevent you from playing with your friends. This Penny Arcade comic sums up the dilemma perfectly.
I know different games handle it differently. WoW has the level caps and the slow-down in level speed, as well as rested experience. EvE Online has skills based on real-time, rather than in-game time. I believe that City of Heroes has a 'side-kick' system to temporarily boost a lower level character up. But I don't think any of these solutions truely solve the problem.
I have no idea what the perfect solution is. It may well be that there isn't one, that this is just a total paradox, and the best you can do is make a reasonable trade-off.
This experience has made me really understand the desire to power-level characters. I really want to play with my guild, to see new content with them. I like levelling, and I don't really want to skip content, but I do want to play with my friends.
Levels and progression are both boon and bane to this genre. The idea of slowly improving your character is a major attraction, and just the process of levelling up is fun. But when levels are out of sync, they are annoying because they are preventing you from playing with your friends.
I have a couple of real life friends on the server as well. One just started a month ago, so all of our levels are out of whack. To be honest, there's probably no real way we are all going to be able to play together until we all hit 70. When levels no longer matter.
In many ways, this is the central paradox of the MMO genre. Levels are the carrot, the reason for playing. They represent effort and achievement. But levels also prevent you from playing with your friends. This Penny Arcade comic sums up the dilemma perfectly.
I know different games handle it differently. WoW has the level caps and the slow-down in level speed, as well as rested experience. EvE Online has skills based on real-time, rather than in-game time. I believe that City of Heroes has a 'side-kick' system to temporarily boost a lower level character up. But I don't think any of these solutions truely solve the problem.
I have no idea what the perfect solution is. It may well be that there isn't one, that this is just a total paradox, and the best you can do is make a reasonable trade-off.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Main Tank Today
I hit 65 and main-tanked an instance for the first time. It was just Slave Pens in Coilfang Reservoir, nothing special, but it was a pretty interesting experience. I got to put a lot of theorycrafting to the test.
The group was me (65 paladin), 2 warlocks (a 67 and a 62), a 64 mage and a 64 priest. Decent group, everyone knew their stuff and played well.
Keep in mind that I am fully Protection spec, and that's how I'm looking at this run.
First off, holding aggro was not a problem at all. Between Avenger's Shield, Holy Shield, Consecration and Seal of Vengeance, I easily held the attention of all the mobs in a groups. The only time I had issues is cases where a mob bypassed me entirely and ran after someone. Even then taunting with Righteous Defence took care of most problems. As well, Avenger's Shield is very good. Pulling with AS and having the mage sheep a dazed mob is so much easier and cleaner than the mage pulling by casting sheep. And when the sheep is broken, the mob comes straight for me.
Where the problem lies is damage mitigation. I think I was much squishier than a warrior would have been, and my health level seemed to be much more unstable than normal for the main tank, especially in the last two boss fights. Of course, we didn't have a secondary healer, and every group I've been in other than this one has had at least one secondary healer--me--to smooth out the healing.
In fact, during the last two boss fights, I was casting heals on myself half the time. It seemed to be necessary to keep myself up.
We completed the entire instance, with only one wipe at the final boss. I didn't get any loot, but I haven't gotten loot in a TBC instance yet.
My conclusion for paladin tanking so far is that I need to concentrate less on threat generation and more on damage mitigation. One thing that I have noticed is that quests which have warrior tanking gear as rewards rarely have paladin gear as well. It would probably be worthwhile to save up some of those warrior pieces for the next time I have to tank.
The group was me (65 paladin), 2 warlocks (a 67 and a 62), a 64 mage and a 64 priest. Decent group, everyone knew their stuff and played well.
Keep in mind that I am fully Protection spec, and that's how I'm looking at this run.
First off, holding aggro was not a problem at all. Between Avenger's Shield, Holy Shield, Consecration and Seal of Vengeance, I easily held the attention of all the mobs in a groups. The only time I had issues is cases where a mob bypassed me entirely and ran after someone. Even then taunting with Righteous Defence took care of most problems. As well, Avenger's Shield is very good. Pulling with AS and having the mage sheep a dazed mob is so much easier and cleaner than the mage pulling by casting sheep. And when the sheep is broken, the mob comes straight for me.
Where the problem lies is damage mitigation. I think I was much squishier than a warrior would have been, and my health level seemed to be much more unstable than normal for the main tank, especially in the last two boss fights. Of course, we didn't have a secondary healer, and every group I've been in other than this one has had at least one secondary healer--me--to smooth out the healing.
In fact, during the last two boss fights, I was casting heals on myself half the time. It seemed to be necessary to keep myself up.
We completed the entire instance, with only one wipe at the final boss. I didn't get any loot, but I haven't gotten loot in a TBC instance yet.
My conclusion for paladin tanking so far is that I need to concentrate less on threat generation and more on damage mitigation. One thing that I have noticed is that quests which have warrior tanking gear as rewards rarely have paladin gear as well. It would probably be worthwhile to save up some of those warrior pieces for the next time I have to tank.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Small touch, Seal of Vengeance
Another small touch I noticed is that the Captain at Allerian Stronghold will refer to you using your PvP title. It's a neat touch, bringing the PvP game into the PvE game a little bit. It's sort of like the NPCs recognize your title, and that is a bit amusing. In some ways it makes PvP a bit more "real", part of the main game, rather than just a sub-game within the game.
I also hit 64 today. I was feeling unhappy with my spec (mostly because Vindication is completely useless--elite world quest mobs are now immune to it as well), so I respecced to Retribution. I also picked up Seal of Vengeance as well. When I got back to questing, I realized that SoV was amazingly suited to my previous 1H/Shield build, as it does not depend on weapon damage at all. So I went back to Stormwind, and respecced again, this time to 10/45/0.
It's a pretty nice build so far. JotC -> SoV -> Holy Shield -> JoV when fully stacked (usually around 10-12 seconds) -> Holy Shield and/or SoR if the mob is still alive.
I quite like SoV at the moment. Apparently it doesn't scale as well as Seal of Righteousness, but for the moment it does the job quite well.
I also hit 64 today. I was feeling unhappy with my spec (mostly because Vindication is completely useless--elite world quest mobs are now immune to it as well), so I respecced to Retribution. I also picked up Seal of Vengeance as well. When I got back to questing, I realized that SoV was amazingly suited to my previous 1H/Shield build, as it does not depend on weapon damage at all. So I went back to Stormwind, and respecced again, this time to 10/45/0.
It's a pretty nice build so far. JotC -> SoV -> Holy Shield -> JoV when fully stacked (usually around 10-12 seconds) -> Holy Shield and/or SoR if the mob is still alive.
I quite like SoV at the moment. Apparently it doesn't scale as well as Seal of Righteousness, but for the moment it does the job quite well.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Killing Slaves
In the Outlands so far, there's been a persistent slavery sub-theme. The demons and the naga often have Broken slaves and they will force the slaves to attack you when you fight them.
Maybe it's just because I play a paladin, but I've always felt a little uncomfortable killing the slaves in places like Blackrock Mountain. I tend to go out of my way to avoid aggro'ing them.
So when I got to Outlands, and saw the linked overmasters and slaves, I had a sinking feeling that I was going to have to kill some of them to complete my quests. But I was pleasantly surprised to see that the slaves run away after you kill the overmaster, allowing you to complete the quests without killing the slaves. It even adds a bit more challenge to the affair, as you can't use reactive damage (Holy Shield, Ret Aura, etc.) safely.
It's a small touch, but it made me happy. In many ways, Blizzard excels at these small effects, and its a major reason I love their games.
Maybe it's just because I play a paladin, but I've always felt a little uncomfortable killing the slaves in places like Blackrock Mountain. I tend to go out of my way to avoid aggro'ing them.
So when I got to Outlands, and saw the linked overmasters and slaves, I had a sinking feeling that I was going to have to kill some of them to complete my quests. But I was pleasantly surprised to see that the slaves run away after you kill the overmaster, allowing you to complete the quests without killing the slaves. It even adds a bit more challenge to the affair, as you can't use reactive damage (Holy Shield, Ret Aura, etc.) safely.
It's a small touch, but it made me happy. In many ways, Blizzard excels at these small effects, and its a major reason I love their games.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Aldor versus Scryer
I haven't had a lot of time to play (still only level 63), but I've made it to Shattrath City and seen the whole Aldor/Scryer faction debate.
It's a pretty neat idea, acutually, having two opposing factions, and having your choice be meaningful. However, the execution of making that choice could have been improved.
As far as I could see, you go to Shattrath City, take the tour, and then are presented with the choice of which faction to join almost immediately. I found that I simply didn't have enough information to make a choice that I was happy with. All I knew was that Aldor = draenei and Scryer = blood elves. So I went with Aldor. I didn't really see any other place you could find out more.
I'm sure that you could have looked up the rewards online, and picked a faction that way, but that seems very clinical to me.
What Blizzard should have done is have a couple quests where the two factions are actively trying to woo you to their side. I'd go with two quests for each side (four total). One quest shows the good side of the faction, and the other quest shows the dark side of the faction. Rep changes would be fairly minimal to allow people to "taste" each faction.
Then, after doing these initial quests, you could make a meaningful, and more permanent, choice.
It's a pretty neat idea, acutually, having two opposing factions, and having your choice be meaningful. However, the execution of making that choice could have been improved.
As far as I could see, you go to Shattrath City, take the tour, and then are presented with the choice of which faction to join almost immediately. I found that I simply didn't have enough information to make a choice that I was happy with. All I knew was that Aldor = draenei and Scryer = blood elves. So I went with Aldor. I didn't really see any other place you could find out more.
I'm sure that you could have looked up the rewards online, and picked a faction that way, but that seems very clinical to me.
What Blizzard should have done is have a couple quests where the two factions are actively trying to woo you to their side. I'd go with two quests for each side (four total). One quest shows the good side of the faction, and the other quest shows the dark side of the faction. Rep changes would be fairly minimal to allow people to "taste" each faction.
Then, after doing these initial quests, you could make a meaningful, and more permanent, choice.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Quick Musings
1. I love Crusader Aura! Greatest paladin ability ever! (Heh, I seem to be saying that a lot lately.)
2. I saw a pure white gryphon, and thought it was the epic flying mount. I asked in guild chat, and was informed that the real epic flying mount was brown and had armor. I don't know, seems kind of wasteful. Just putting armor on something does not an epic make. I think that--in general--we associate the starker colors as rarer. A pure white horse is rarer than a piebald. If I recall correctly, Blizzard made the same mistake with night elf cats.
I think it is one of the few mistakes Blizzard makes with art. Almost all the time, they denote power with complexity. Sometimes the opposite is true, and high end armor becomes overly ornate when it should tend to stark and simple.
The other mistake is that high end plate shows far too much skin. Seriously, the sexiest (and all-around best) piece of armour that Blizzard has ever made was Judgement, and it covered everything. Plate is supposed to protect the wearer, and skin-revealing plate armor is just an oxymoron.
Heh, not really sure why it bothers me. It just seems that my character seems less than compentent by choosing armor that doesn't do its basic job, and incompetence is unattractive.
2. I saw a pure white gryphon, and thought it was the epic flying mount. I asked in guild chat, and was informed that the real epic flying mount was brown and had armor. I don't know, seems kind of wasteful. Just putting armor on something does not an epic make. I think that--in general--we associate the starker colors as rarer. A pure white horse is rarer than a piebald. If I recall correctly, Blizzard made the same mistake with night elf cats.
I think it is one of the few mistakes Blizzard makes with art. Almost all the time, they denote power with complexity. Sometimes the opposite is true, and high end armor becomes overly ornate when it should tend to stark and simple.
The other mistake is that high end plate shows far too much skin. Seriously, the sexiest (and all-around best) piece of armour that Blizzard has ever made was Judgement, and it covered everything. Plate is supposed to protect the wearer, and skin-revealing plate armor is just an oxymoron.
Heh, not really sure why it bothers me. It just seems that my character seems less than compentent by choosing armor that doesn't do its basic job, and incompetence is unattractive.
Vindication
I decided to spec Coriel as Protection/Retribution, to see if Improved Retribution Aura did anything. On my way to Imp Ret Aura, I picked up Vindication. I knew it wouldn't work on raid bosses, but I figured it might be a handy talent for 5-man instance tanking, and that I could always respec at 70.
This was a mistake.
Vindication does not work on raid bosses, 5-man bosses, or random instance trash mobs. Heck, at this point, I'm surprised if it does work on a mob.
Honestly, why even have this talent if it's not going to work on anything? If it's overpowered, scale it down, or remove it and replace it with something useful. Right now it's just a complete waste of talent points.
The worst part is that you can't even guess what Vindication will affect. It seems almost random.
This was a mistake.
Vindication does not work on raid bosses, 5-man bosses, or random instance trash mobs. Heck, at this point, I'm surprised if it does work on a mob.
Honestly, why even have this talent if it's not going to work on anything? If it's overpowered, scale it down, or remove it and replace it with something useful. Right now it's just a complete waste of talent points.
The worst part is that you can't even guess what Vindication will affect. It seems almost random.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
TBC First Impressions
I haven't really had a great deal of playtime with the Burning Crusade. I've mostly been wandering in the Hellfire Peninsula with my warlock doing the initial quests with a friend.
I've respecced Coriel to Protection. It's a really nice spec, and I've always been a fan of Holy Shield and going sword-and-board. One interesting side-effect is that you can get a great deal of mana regen with the new Reckoning. Fast weapon + Seal of Wisdom + Judgement of Wisdom and wait for Reckoning to proc. So much mana! Reminds me of the good old Seal of Fury days.
The loot in TBC is pretty good. I really like how the first few quests are "replace all your gear" quests, so that everyone gets bumped up to a nice starting level gear-wise. I've even replaced half of Coriel's gear. It's quite amusing to replace epics with greens.
The TBC gear is much better suited for paladins than anything short of Judgement. Point-wise, it's possibly a small downgrade, but the allocation of stats is so much better. Strength, Intellect, Stamina, Spell Damage, and Mana Regen is a glorious combination.
Other than that the expansion looks pretty neat. It's nice to get back into the questing mood. I'm looking forward to trying out one of the new instances sometime.
As well, major props to Blizzard on pretty much a flawless launch. I had zero problems, even though I installed on Tuesday.
On a final note, I feel sorry for all the new human paladin NPCs. They have to wear Redemption, and they just look terrible. Seriously, how can you respect someone wearing Redemption? Meanwhile Arator the Redeemed gets to walk around in Judgement looking awesome.
I've respecced Coriel to Protection. It's a really nice spec, and I've always been a fan of Holy Shield and going sword-and-board. One interesting side-effect is that you can get a great deal of mana regen with the new Reckoning. Fast weapon + Seal of Wisdom + Judgement of Wisdom and wait for Reckoning to proc. So much mana! Reminds me of the good old Seal of Fury days.
The loot in TBC is pretty good. I really like how the first few quests are "replace all your gear" quests, so that everyone gets bumped up to a nice starting level gear-wise. I've even replaced half of Coriel's gear. It's quite amusing to replace epics with greens.
The TBC gear is much better suited for paladins than anything short of Judgement. Point-wise, it's possibly a small downgrade, but the allocation of stats is so much better. Strength, Intellect, Stamina, Spell Damage, and Mana Regen is a glorious combination.
Other than that the expansion looks pretty neat. It's nice to get back into the questing mood. I'm looking forward to trying out one of the new instances sometime.
As well, major props to Blizzard on pretty much a flawless launch. I had zero problems, even though I installed on Tuesday.
On a final note, I feel sorry for all the new human paladin NPCs. They have to wear Redemption, and they just look terrible. Seriously, how can you respect someone wearing Redemption? Meanwhile Arator the Redeemed gets to walk around in Judgement looking awesome.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Casuals vs. Raiders, Part VI
If you take a look back at previous posts, I think one trend you will find is that whenever casuals and raiders clash, I tend to take the side of the casual player. And this might seem a little odd. After all, I am a raider myself. Why then do I side with the casual player?
Firstly, I do so because I like this game, and I have fun, and I would like everyone to have as much fun as I have. I love raiding, and I would love to see more people discover what a thrill killing a raid boss for the first time is.
But secondly, and more importantly, in a lot of ways casuals are more important to this game than raiders are. There is an attitude among many raiders that they are the "chosen of Blizzard." Because they play so much, and have so much invested in this game, they feel that raiders are more deserving of Blizzard's time and attention. Any casually complaints are worthless, "QQ more" as the forum post goes.
I think this attitude is arrogant and completely wrong. The deep truth of WoW is that:
Blizzard makes more money from casuals than raiders.
Casuals outnumber raiders by a significant margin. Yet both a casual player and a raider pay the same amount of money per month. Casuals play far less than raiders, eating up much less processing power and server resources. They file far fewer customer service tickets. And most importantly, they go through content at a far slower rate.
Raiders devour content, and content creation is expensive. The extremely large casual population of WoW ensures that Blizzard has the resources to satisfy the hunger of raiders. Leaving aside all other considerations of fairness and decency, it is in the raider's best interest to keep casuals in the game because casuals subsidize raid content.
Of course, given the above, the obvious question is why should Blizzard cater to the raiders at all? If all the money comes from the casuals, why not let the raiders go and just reap the profit?
I think this option is just as misguided as the other side. Raiders, although they are fewer in number, also have their uses. They serve as aspirational models, something that lower level players can strive towards. If you've ever seen what General chat is like when someone walks by with a Legendary weapon, you understand the effect it has.
As well, raiders are sort of like very unpredictable NPCs. They do the crazy stuff, like training dragons to Orgrimmar, organizing epic 40 paladin vs 40 shaman battles, and other similar silliness. They also tend to be the most enthusiastic about the game, answering questions on the forums and making websites, blogs, and videos about the game. They create buzz and word-of-mouth to get new people interested. They're the ones constantly running the dungeons and forming groups which casuals can join.
In a lot of ways, raiders and the hardcore tend to be at the center of the web of relationships that bind an MMO together. I think without raiders, WoW would feel a lot more empty, and a lot more like a single player game than an MMO. And without that feel to it, I think that the game would soon wither as the casuals drop away.
Without casuals, Blizzard makes a lot less money, and the game will begin to suffer from lack of content. Casuals in many ways also provide the "audience" for the raiders, just as raiders provide the spectacle for the casuals. Raiders and the hardcore provide the enthusiasm and bind the players together. Both are necessary for a truely successful game.
However, in the WoW 1.0 endgame, Blizzard catered too much toward the raiders. In particular, casuals found their progression blocked by the introduction of 40-man dungeons, and that caused a lot of animosity. The truth is that if you are in Molten Core and Blackwing Lair, you don't care if Blizzard makes Naxxramas. You are on the path to Naxx, and eventually you will get there. On the other hand, if--like the majority of the WoW population--you can't even get into Molten Core, seeing Blizzard spend enormous amounts of time and money on a raid dungeon like Naxxramas is a slap in the face.
Hopefully, the Burning Crusade will rebalance things a little better and both casuals and raiders can enjoy the endgame.
Firstly, I do so because I like this game, and I have fun, and I would like everyone to have as much fun as I have. I love raiding, and I would love to see more people discover what a thrill killing a raid boss for the first time is.
But secondly, and more importantly, in a lot of ways casuals are more important to this game than raiders are. There is an attitude among many raiders that they are the "chosen of Blizzard." Because they play so much, and have so much invested in this game, they feel that raiders are more deserving of Blizzard's time and attention. Any casually complaints are worthless, "QQ more" as the forum post goes.
I think this attitude is arrogant and completely wrong. The deep truth of WoW is that:
Blizzard makes more money from casuals than raiders.
Casuals outnumber raiders by a significant margin. Yet both a casual player and a raider pay the same amount of money per month. Casuals play far less than raiders, eating up much less processing power and server resources. They file far fewer customer service tickets. And most importantly, they go through content at a far slower rate.
Raiders devour content, and content creation is expensive. The extremely large casual population of WoW ensures that Blizzard has the resources to satisfy the hunger of raiders. Leaving aside all other considerations of fairness and decency, it is in the raider's best interest to keep casuals in the game because casuals subsidize raid content.
Of course, given the above, the obvious question is why should Blizzard cater to the raiders at all? If all the money comes from the casuals, why not let the raiders go and just reap the profit?
I think this option is just as misguided as the other side. Raiders, although they are fewer in number, also have their uses. They serve as aspirational models, something that lower level players can strive towards. If you've ever seen what General chat is like when someone walks by with a Legendary weapon, you understand the effect it has.
As well, raiders are sort of like very unpredictable NPCs. They do the crazy stuff, like training dragons to Orgrimmar, organizing epic 40 paladin vs 40 shaman battles, and other similar silliness. They also tend to be the most enthusiastic about the game, answering questions on the forums and making websites, blogs, and videos about the game. They create buzz and word-of-mouth to get new people interested. They're the ones constantly running the dungeons and forming groups which casuals can join.
In a lot of ways, raiders and the hardcore tend to be at the center of the web of relationships that bind an MMO together. I think without raiders, WoW would feel a lot more empty, and a lot more like a single player game than an MMO. And without that feel to it, I think that the game would soon wither as the casuals drop away.
Without casuals, Blizzard makes a lot less money, and the game will begin to suffer from lack of content. Casuals in many ways also provide the "audience" for the raiders, just as raiders provide the spectacle for the casuals. Raiders and the hardcore provide the enthusiasm and bind the players together. Both are necessary for a truely successful game.
However, in the WoW 1.0 endgame, Blizzard catered too much toward the raiders. In particular, casuals found their progression blocked by the introduction of 40-man dungeons, and that caused a lot of animosity. The truth is that if you are in Molten Core and Blackwing Lair, you don't care if Blizzard makes Naxxramas. You are on the path to Naxx, and eventually you will get there. On the other hand, if--like the majority of the WoW population--you can't even get into Molten Core, seeing Blizzard spend enormous amounts of time and money on a raid dungeon like Naxxramas is a slap in the face.
Hopefully, the Burning Crusade will rebalance things a little better and both casuals and raiders can enjoy the endgame.
Identity
s4dfish and Wiffle both tagged me with the "Five Things You Don't Know About Me" meme that has been wandering the blogs.
It occurs to me that most of you don't really know anything about me. Do you know my name? Gender? Race? Occupation? Where I live? Democrat or Republican? Liberal or Conservative? Labour or Tory?
I'm sure that most of you can make guesses for most of these, and some of those guesses might be close (heh, given my views on loot distribution, it's pretty unlikely I'm a hardcore communist). But realistically, all you should know for sure is that I play a paladin in World of Warcraft. And to a large extent, this is deliberate.
When I started this blog, I decided to make it as focused as I could. Concentrating solely on WoW, and not discussing anything else in the world. As well, this is the Internet, and--as legions of forum posts about men playing women playing elves will attest to--identity is a very complex topic.
Does knowing more about me change the meaning of what I write? Does realizing that I'm a time traveller from the future working on restoring Canterbury Cathedral change anything? (If it does, I'm probably in a world of trouble.) Or is identity an essential piece of context necessary for truely understanding my position?
I'm not really sure what the answer is either, and in some ways this blog is an experiment in many things, one of which is writing semi-anonymously.
I guess this is just a long way of saying that I will not be participating in this particular meme. However, many thanks to those who tagged me.
It occurs to me that most of you don't really know anything about me. Do you know my name? Gender? Race? Occupation? Where I live? Democrat or Republican? Liberal or Conservative? Labour or Tory?
I'm sure that most of you can make guesses for most of these, and some of those guesses might be close (heh, given my views on loot distribution, it's pretty unlikely I'm a hardcore communist). But realistically, all you should know for sure is that I play a paladin in World of Warcraft. And to a large extent, this is deliberate.
When I started this blog, I decided to make it as focused as I could. Concentrating solely on WoW, and not discussing anything else in the world. As well, this is the Internet, and--as legions of forum posts about men playing women playing elves will attest to--identity is a very complex topic.
Does knowing more about me change the meaning of what I write? Does realizing that I'm a time traveller from the future working on restoring Canterbury Cathedral change anything? (If it does, I'm probably in a world of trouble.) Or is identity an essential piece of context necessary for truely understanding my position?
I'm not really sure what the answer is either, and in some ways this blog is an experiment in many things, one of which is writing semi-anonymously.
I guess this is just a long way of saying that I will not be participating in this particular meme. However, many thanks to those who tagged me.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Server Splits vs Freezing Character Creation
One item of controversy recently is the news that Blizzard is testing server splits to reduce the number of people on several of the more popular servers. After seeing queues of 400+ people on Skywall last week--and knowing that other servers have even worse queues--I think it's a good idea.
If voluntary free transfers didn't solve the problem, it's clear that Blizzard needs to take more drastic steps. As well, Blizzard's proposed implementation seems pretty decent to me. They seem to be trying to keep guilds together as best they can, and having guild members default to the guild leader's new server is a very good idea.
However, there are a lot of other people who don't like this idea, who think that splitting servers would destroy a server's unique culture. And this may well happen. But the other solution most often proposed, freezing the creation of new characters, is worse than server splits.
To see what I mean, consider how you chose your first realm. I rolled on Burning Blade because a real life friend had rolled there. And I suspect that most people had similar reasons. They chose their first server in order to play with friends or family.
Freezing character creation on specific realms directly prevents new people from playing with their friends. That stops them from playing the game before they even start. New people are the lifeblood of this game, and Blizzard has to make sure their experience is as pleasant as possible.
Preventing people from rolling characters to play with their friends is one of the surest ways to turn people off this game, which is why Blizzard will chose to go with server splits instead.
Of course server splits have the potential to prevent you from playing with some of your friends. But you can still play with the majority of them. As well, having a little more experience with the game means that we can adapt to the situation better.
A game without new players dies eventually. Word of mouth is still the best way to get new people into the game. But for word of mouth to work, new people need to be able to play with their friends, to roll characters on even the most crowded servers. (After all, if the servers are crowded, that's a lot of people who could be introducing new people to WoW.) And this is more important than the need for the elites of the game to maintain their server culture.
Of the three choices--500+ queues, server splits, or frozen account creation--I believe that server splits offer the best trade-off, and is the least damaging to the long term health of the game.
If voluntary free transfers didn't solve the problem, it's clear that Blizzard needs to take more drastic steps. As well, Blizzard's proposed implementation seems pretty decent to me. They seem to be trying to keep guilds together as best they can, and having guild members default to the guild leader's new server is a very good idea.
However, there are a lot of other people who don't like this idea, who think that splitting servers would destroy a server's unique culture. And this may well happen. But the other solution most often proposed, freezing the creation of new characters, is worse than server splits.
To see what I mean, consider how you chose your first realm. I rolled on Burning Blade because a real life friend had rolled there. And I suspect that most people had similar reasons. They chose their first server in order to play with friends or family.
Freezing character creation on specific realms directly prevents new people from playing with their friends. That stops them from playing the game before they even start. New people are the lifeblood of this game, and Blizzard has to make sure their experience is as pleasant as possible.
Preventing people from rolling characters to play with their friends is one of the surest ways to turn people off this game, which is why Blizzard will chose to go with server splits instead.
Of course server splits have the potential to prevent you from playing with some of your friends. But you can still play with the majority of them. As well, having a little more experience with the game means that we can adapt to the situation better.
A game without new players dies eventually. Word of mouth is still the best way to get new people into the game. But for word of mouth to work, new people need to be able to play with their friends, to roll characters on even the most crowded servers. (After all, if the servers are crowded, that's a lot of people who could be introducing new people to WoW.) And this is more important than the need for the elites of the game to maintain their server culture.
Of the three choices--500+ queues, server splits, or frozen account creation--I believe that server splits offer the best trade-off, and is the least damaging to the long term health of the game.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Is Loot Changing Me?
Loot corrupts. Epic loot corrupts to an epic degree.
My guild held an "open" Molten Core run last week. You could bring your alts and your friends to the run, and all loot would be randomly rolled on. You could win one item from any of the first nine bosses, and one item from Ragnaros. I brought Coriel, because I don't have any alts anywhere near that level.
One of the non-guild friends who came on this run was a paladin. This paladin, who I will call JC (not his real name), had *really* bad gear. He was wearing a [Triune Necklace] from Scarlet Monastery, and the rest of his gear was a mixture of 40-50s blues and greens.
I think you see where this story is going.
We get to Golemagg, and [Azuresong Mageblade] drops. JC wins the roll, and gets his shiny sword.
Then we get to Ragnaros. [Judgement Legplates], the single item in Molten Core that I want, drops. I roll, and Lady Chance laughs at me. JC wins the roll and gets his Tier 2 leggings.
My reaction to this surprised me. I was actually physically upset that I had lost out on the T2 legs, and worse, someone who I thought did not deserve it had won it. And this kind of shocked me. After all, I say I raid for raidings sake, and not for loot. I am an Explorer, not an Achiever, and I am happy with that. Or so I thought.
And further more, it's just pixels on a screen, data in a server, ephemeral and transistory. I know all this, and still I felt upset.
Finally, JC was actually a decent paladin. He judged, healed and cleansed, and generally did a good job, considering his gear level. He did his best, and played by the rules. Maybe allowing the second roll on Ragnaros loot was a bad idea, but that was our call. If Lady Chance smiled on JC that day, I really can't hold it against him.
I've thought about it a lot since then, and I've resolved to try and be less concerned with loot. Somewhere on Skywall, there is a paladin running around with a [Triune Necklace], [Azuresong Mageblade], and [Judgement Legplates]. It's actually kind of funny, and I can kind of laugh about it now.
Still, this episode has perfectly illustrated to me why rolling on scarce loot is a bad idea, and why God created DKP.
My guild held an "open" Molten Core run last week. You could bring your alts and your friends to the run, and all loot would be randomly rolled on. You could win one item from any of the first nine bosses, and one item from Ragnaros. I brought Coriel, because I don't have any alts anywhere near that level.
One of the non-guild friends who came on this run was a paladin. This paladin, who I will call JC (not his real name), had *really* bad gear. He was wearing a [Triune Necklace] from Scarlet Monastery, and the rest of his gear was a mixture of 40-50s blues and greens.
I think you see where this story is going.
We get to Golemagg, and [Azuresong Mageblade] drops. JC wins the roll, and gets his shiny sword.
Then we get to Ragnaros. [Judgement Legplates], the single item in Molten Core that I want, drops. I roll, and Lady Chance laughs at me. JC wins the roll and gets his Tier 2 leggings.
My reaction to this surprised me. I was actually physically upset that I had lost out on the T2 legs, and worse, someone who I thought did not deserve it had won it. And this kind of shocked me. After all, I say I raid for raidings sake, and not for loot. I am an Explorer, not an Achiever, and I am happy with that. Or so I thought.
And further more, it's just pixels on a screen, data in a server, ephemeral and transistory. I know all this, and still I felt upset.
Finally, JC was actually a decent paladin. He judged, healed and cleansed, and generally did a good job, considering his gear level. He did his best, and played by the rules. Maybe allowing the second roll on Ragnaros loot was a bad idea, but that was our call. If Lady Chance smiled on JC that day, I really can't hold it against him.
I've thought about it a lot since then, and I've resolved to try and be less concerned with loot. Somewhere on Skywall, there is a paladin running around with a [Triune Necklace], [Azuresong Mageblade], and [Judgement Legplates]. It's actually kind of funny, and I can kind of laugh about it now.
Still, this episode has perfectly illustrated to me why rolling on scarce loot is a bad idea, and why God created DKP.
Monday, January 01, 2007
New Looking For Group System
I've been playing a couple of alts over the holidays. One is a 38 Priest on Skywall, and the other is a 36 Druid on Bronzebeard. Both are Alliance, and are specced for healing. But they've had a vastly different experience when using the new LFG system.
Since both characters are roughly the same level, faction, and role, it's interesting that there is such a disparity. I tend to be looking for Scarlet Monastery runs.
On Skywall, I flag myself as looking for SM - Library, and I get a full group within a minute or so. Though none of my groups have had the "optimum" make-up[1], they all function pretty well, and we clear the instance. My priest has an [Illusionary Rod] and a [Whitemane's Chapeau] (even though I can't wear the hat yet).
On Bronzebeard, I flag myself as looking for SM - Library, and I can't get a group at all. Maybe after 15 minutes, another person will join the party, but I have yet to actually get a run going. And this is for Scarlet Monastery, which is one of the most popular instances!
So for some reason, the LFG system is doing fine on Skywall, but has failed to achieve the critical mass needed on Bronzebeard.
To be honest, I've never really had the terrible experiences with pick-up groups that so many other people seem to have had. I really like this new system, as it saves me time and effort. However, it needs more people to use it.
If this tool had been in the game from the very beginning, I think it would have been a resounding success. But now, a lot of people are nervous about changing their habits. Perhaps with the introduction of the Burning Crusade, a lot more people will start using the tool, and it will be effective for everyone.
Heh, maybe Blizzard should give a small bonus in gold or xp if you are in a group formed by the tool. A Pick-Up Group bonus, if you will.
[1]Yay for druid and paladin tanking. Of course, it's helped by the fact that I'm playing a primary healer, which converts almost any group into a reasonable one. :)
Since both characters are roughly the same level, faction, and role, it's interesting that there is such a disparity. I tend to be looking for Scarlet Monastery runs.
On Skywall, I flag myself as looking for SM - Library, and I get a full group within a minute or so. Though none of my groups have had the "optimum" make-up[1], they all function pretty well, and we clear the instance. My priest has an [Illusionary Rod] and a [Whitemane's Chapeau] (even though I can't wear the hat yet).
On Bronzebeard, I flag myself as looking for SM - Library, and I can't get a group at all. Maybe after 15 minutes, another person will join the party, but I have yet to actually get a run going. And this is for Scarlet Monastery, which is one of the most popular instances!
So for some reason, the LFG system is doing fine on Skywall, but has failed to achieve the critical mass needed on Bronzebeard.
To be honest, I've never really had the terrible experiences with pick-up groups that so many other people seem to have had. I really like this new system, as it saves me time and effort. However, it needs more people to use it.
If this tool had been in the game from the very beginning, I think it would have been a resounding success. But now, a lot of people are nervous about changing their habits. Perhaps with the introduction of the Burning Crusade, a lot more people will start using the tool, and it will be effective for everyone.
Heh, maybe Blizzard should give a small bonus in gold or xp if you are in a group formed by the tool. A Pick-Up Group bonus, if you will.
[1]Yay for druid and paladin tanking. Of course, it's helped by the fact that I'm playing a primary healer, which converts almost any group into a reasonable one. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)