Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Over 9000! Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    9,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Uennie View Post
    Why? It was an amusing response to the exaggerated person he was quoting. Stating that it is or isn't common to have certain legendaries seems very over-confident. For example, on my realm, everyone and their dog has Sulfuras. And Thunderfury. And Glaives. And Thori'dal. And nearing on Shadowmourne, and Tarecgosa. The rarest Legendary that is still capable of being obtained is Val'anyr. However, that doesn't mean it's the same on other realms. I think the key here is that there are no absolutions when it comes to distinguishing between server populations and that should be taken into consideration.
    We aren't really talking about server populations. Anecdotal evidence wouldn't be something to take into account, but I think it's a fairly accurate presumption that there are more people without Sulfuras, Thunderfury, etc, than there are people with them (any of them,) and there are probably even more people that have yet to even see them, or any base component, drop at all. Now, we could debate whether there would be a significant number of people "suddenly interested" in obtaining legendaries if they became transmogable, or whether the large majority of people that would want to use them for transmog purposes would have already started working on them, but again, that would all be anecdotal. Of course, even if the first part proved true, you'd see a massive rise in the price for legendary-required items (sulfuron ingots, elementium ingots, blood of the mountain,) and the reagent spots for 25 man runs for ICC and Ulduar (and eventually runs for firelands and DS) would be placed at a premium.
    "Do not look down, my friend. Even in the darkest of times, there is always hope... Hope for a better day, hope for a new dawn... Or just hope for a good breakfast. You start small, then see what you can get." ~ Covetous Shen
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Buu View Post
    Can I call BS in
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Would take massive changes to convert a DPS spec to a tank AND be fair to current tanks. Not every BM or Demo wants to be a tank.
    please?

    WTF? We have dual spec, if a Lock or a Hunter want to burst in damage they can develop a second spec.
    BTW, Main is a Hunter, and I'm enjoying a Demo Lock.

    I have been dreaming about BM allowing us to FUSE with our beasts, even giving us unique abilities based on the beast fusing.

    And Demo Lock only didn't make as a tank, because Blizzard got cold feet. Come on, we all know it was working. They even made up a vengeance substitution on early beta.
    Indeed They could have easily implement the it the same way they did with druids (they have a feral dps spec and a feral guardian aka tank spec)
    they could have easily done the same with the hunter BM or warlock demo spec.
    Most classes nowadays have a dual or triple roles its time for bliz to step away from the restrictions. Its time to give the remaining classes a dual role either it be tanking or Healing.

    Hell if I could spec my hunter in a viable off tank I would do so in a heartbeat.

  3. #23
    Over 9000! Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    9,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Malackai View Post
    Indeed They could have easily implement the it the same way they did with druids (they have a feral dps spec and a feral guardian aka tank spec)
    they could have easily done the same with the hunter BM or warlock demo spec.
    Most classes nowadays have a dual or triple roles its time for bliz to step away from the restrictions. Its time to give the remaining classes a dual role either it be tanking or Healing.

    Hell if I could spec my hunter in a viable off tank I would do so in a heartbeat.
    So... should paladins have another tanking spec? Or another healing spec? How about warriors? Do we get to see a warrior healing spec?

    fourthspec Bear druids are infinitely easier than making an entire new spec for every other class and then balancing them in PvP and PvE, as the entire groundwork for bear druid spec was already there. Blizzard has gone to great lengths to disseminate alternate specs (the three DK tank specs of yore, for example) because they become a pain in the ass to balance, both from a numbers and a development time standpoint.
    "Do not look down, my friend. Even in the darkest of times, there is always hope... Hope for a better day, hope for a new dawn... Or just hope for a good breakfast. You start small, then see what you can get." ~ Covetous Shen
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Buu View Post
    Can I call BS in
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Would take massive changes to convert a DPS spec to a tank AND be fair to current tanks. Not every BM or Demo wants to be a tank.
    please?

    WTF? We have dual spec, if a Lock or a Hunter want to burst in damage they can develop a second spec.
    BTW, Main is a Hunter, and I'm enjoying a Demo Lock.

    I have been dreaming about BM allowing us to FUSE with our beasts, even giving us unique abilities based on the beast fusing.

    And Demo Lock only didn't make as a tank, because Blizzard got cold feet. Come on, we all know it was working. They even made up a vengeance substitution on early beta.
    There are people who like the playstyle of demo locks and BM hunters. Turning them into a tank spec would destroy those specs for those who like them as dds. That´s what GC means.

    Quote Originally Posted by themeii View Post
    Friend of mine has run Molten Core only once to get the achievement and he got the eye so it is extremely common.
    Funny thing, the same thing happened to me with my paladin. I never bothered to build that thing though, it just sits in my bank.
    Still that doesn´t make it common.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Zephre View Post
    I'd like to note the ignorance of the guy asking the question and the response from the blue.

    I recall all TBC raids were hit with a nerf shortly before the release of WOTLK this resulted in many Illidan and Kil'Jaeden kills soon afterwards, so yes they did nerf BT and Sunwell. In fact after the nerfs pugs on my server were killing Illidan, not KJ however.
    Except that the nerfs at that time were health pools (-30% or something like that) and a few boss mechanics removed thanks to the big changes, mainly for tanking, for WotLK that would make those fights almost impossible to do. Just like the dispel changes for Sinestra or Spine of DW right now because of the new CD on dispel.

    And only few weeks before WotLK for the entire TBC content, not during each tier.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Yriel View Post
    There are people who like the playstyle of demo locks and BM hunters. Turning them into a tank spec would destroy those specs for those who like them as dds. That´s what GC means.
    Speaking as a Prot pally with a demo lock alt, I actually though that the Dark Apotheosis glyph was a BEAUTIFUL solution to implementing warlock tanking. Swap in a glyph and your tank tools are there. Take it out and you're back to being a caster DPS. In beta, it worked great before they gutted it. As it stands now it's completely half-baked, a neat alternative for soloing/farming and nothing more.

    That will be the great mystery of MoP for me; why they did a last-minute change on the DA form when they had the perfect framework for lock tanking right there. It really wouldn't have done anything to the game save reduce queue times for LFG/LFR. Locks could have been designed to use cloth DPS gear for tanking the same way Monk/Druid use leather DPS gear. It really does seem like they got cold feet. Probably because they didn't want to roll it into a Fourthspec solution like druids.

  7. #27
    Their stance on Legendaries and Transmogs seems a bit off to me. So rather than "everyone" running around with one (which we know wouldn't be the case as there just isn't THAT many people into Transmogs), they'd prefer for them to just sit in a bank doing nothing? That just doesn't seem right.

  8. #28
    How can you be proud of the way the armor looks in MoP? the armor looks like crap, hire a new art team already
    Are you suggesting art is subjective?!
    No, I'm sorry Blizzard, what you made is just plain ugly and not a matter of "art is subjective" at all. Just wait to see how many people transmog out of the MoP designs and hire a new art team already.

  9. #29
    Will we ever be able to transmog Legendaries? The amount of time investment to get some of them, deserves it.
    Maybe. We don't want to see everyone running around with Sulf. Common legendaries aren't legendary.

    You already can run around with Sulf....... Its called firelands.. God blizzard is seriously dumb.. Also I just spent the last 3 years clearing BT for my glaives... I want to transmog them... Blizz is all about satisfying everyone.. So satisfy us....

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by kilj View Post
    Will we ever be able to transmog Legendaries? The amount of time investment to get some of them, deserves it.
    Maybe. We don't want to see everyone running around with Sulf. Common legendaries aren't legendary.

    You already can run around with Sulf....... Its called firelands.. God blizzard is seriously dumb.. Also I just spent the last 3 years clearing BT for my glaives... I want to transmog them... Blizz is all about satisfying everyone.. So satisfy us....
    Yeah they should have used Thunderfury as an example since technically everyone can run around with Sulfuras 2.0 which looks exactly the same as the legendary. I think they can go half way on this and make legendary-legendary transmog available. Then you at least have to have a current legendary to transmog it which will keep it somewhat rare.

  11. #31
    "Also liked the nelfs when they were fierce."

    You know you could do something about that, right GC?

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeste View Post
    No, I'm sorry Blizzard, what you made is just plain ugly and not a matter of "art is subjective" at all. Just wait to see how many people transmog out of the MoP designs and hire a new art team already.
    I happen to like the Warlock armor designs. One thing that has always stood out about warlocks is how their armor sets can get very unique from the rest. It's a breath of fresh air to step outside of the usual tropes of armor (metal, leather, cloth) and see some almost organic (The Sha based T14), and demonic (The fel/demon based challenge mode gear). The only one that looks sort of generic is the S12 armor set, and even that doesn't look half bad.

    None of the other sets stand out to me as being particularly bad either.

    GC is absolutely right, art is subjective.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vajarra View Post
    "Also liked the nelfs when they were fierce."

    You know you could do something about that, right GC?
    I'm not entirely sure the lead Systems Designer can do a whole lot about lore. If you want Night Elves to be fierce again, you want to talk to the story team (Metzen and friends), not GC.
    Last edited by Dart Matsuraki; 2012-09-18 at 12:29 PM.

  13. #33
    The Insane peggleftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Kingston upon thames
    Posts
    15,921
    why do people bother bumping old threads? do they get some sort of rush from it?
    Too cool for a signature

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •