Crying about PVP realms ''Blue'' response

[coldbear]

But it's not fair! I want my cake and eat it, too!

I want to pvp when I want to (when I win) and not pvp when I don't want to (when I lose or I'm busy or the gf is on the phone). Everything should be the way I want to, when I want it, and how I want it. Don't you dare suggest that I have to work at something or have to pay attention or have to change my playstyle to accomodate these vicious low-life gankers who are probably all mouth-breathing twelve-year-olds.

Lol I just ganked someone. Nvm, I'm in favour of world pvp.

Awww man he got me back this game is stupid. His class is OP this is dumb it's not fair, I don't even have any gear, that's stupid, I'm good, I'm skilled and gosh darnit, people just need to realize how awesome I am.

[Deleted]

[...]

Just quit complaining at something that's been this way since day one. It isn't going to change.

I am speechless. I have always been speechless. I am the deaf-mute druid you are looking for. Yoda is nothing compared to my stength. For I have existed for thousands of years. I am fallacy.

So again, don't play on a PVP server if you're that concerned with it.

Nah, I am not going to shut up because you tell me to, because your argument is plain inaccurate.

If we go back to vanilla there was no such thing as PvP gear. There was no such thing as flying mounts. Even flight paths were slower as they are. Yes, there was ganking, but it was less convenient to gank compared to nowadays because travelling was more cumbersome. There was also far more realm community.

If we go back to TBC there was PvP gear but obtained via PvE. There were flying mounts, but slow, and only in Outland. Flight paths were slower than they are now. Yes, there was ganking, but it was still less convenient to gank compared to nowadays because travelling was more cumbersome. There was also far more realm community.

Yes, you had level unequality. Yes, you had gear unequality. Yes, you had class unequality. And yet. And yet the context is different. WoW has evolved and changed in many, many ways. The impact of features like the ones I mentioned above is not be underestimated.

The argument also completely ignores the imbalance between the factions.

Do I have to explain a ladder system creates immersion because of the 50/50 win/loss? Do I have to explain that winning always or losing always eventually becomes boring? You know how you can solve this? By making the playground equal.

Addendum:

[...]

You're going against someone bigger and more powerful than you, so of course they are going to win.

[...]

Not necessarily. There are exceptions. Some of those exceptions stand out. They're rare though.

Yet you are assuming we would attack him 1:1 on only based on strength. That'd be a sure defeat according to how you described, and usually that is what happens. But there are many ways you can beat your opponent (coldbear named a few). You could leverage your advantages, and exploit the enemies weaknesses. You could deceive your enemy. Flank your enemy. Every way you see an underdog win in a movie is one straight from the book. You know, the book.

Indeed those wins are incredibly memorable. They're rare. They are defeats. But they require your opponent to lose. Lose. Hard. If you make the most tactical moves, it means your opponent doesn't. And even if you lose as a person such a sacrifice is sometimes worth it. Examples: Kamikaze pilots in WWII, using your Trike to scout in Dune 2 or launching a diversion attack in a game, Sucker Punch is a recent movie which portrays the sacrifice as well. In any case all these examples are rare (which is why they're so interesting) and you won't hear about the faillures in execution of such tactics as the saying goes the winner writes history. The other most memorable battles are the ones which were close calls. My leveraging the playing field to make it more equal, you make skill more important. Tactics always remain important no matter what.

[Endus]

I am speechless. I have always been speechless. I am the deaf-mute druid you are looking for. Yoda is nothing compared to my stength. For I have existed for thousands of years. I am fallacy.

While you make a point, the rest of your post makes it somewhat ironic;

Yes, you had level unequality. Yes, you had gear unequality. Yes, you had class unequality. And yet. And yet the context is different. WoW has evolved and changed in many, many ways. The impact of features like the ones I mentioned above is not be underestimated.

So here, you establish that there has always been imbalance in world PvP, since inception. So where do you go from this?

You know how you can solve this? By making the playground equal.

You can't complain that it was somewhat unequal before, and is now unequal in somewhat greater and more varied ways, and that therefore the solution is to remove inequality. Especially since, if what you want is equalized, structured PvP, that exists. On PvE servers. That's how it's always been, and if you wanted an "equal playground", that is ALWAYS where you should have been.

PvP was designed to explicitly be, by design, and unfair and unequal playground. There's no need to make it equal now, because those equal playgrounds already exist, and the ONLY thing preventing you playing on them is you.

Your conclusion in no way derives from your premises, and if anything, your premises suggest that your conclusion is not true.

[Slummish]

I don't know why Blizzard doesn't simply put a cap on what is target-able. If you're a level 90, you have no business killing players that aren't at least able to hit you back. One-shotting isn't what I'm talking about; hit rating is. PvP should only be allowed within + or - 10 levels of the attacker's/victim level. Or, if you kill the same player X amount of times within X amount of minutes, he should become untarget-able for X minutes. This would thwart camping and griefing and then everyone would shut up.

What people are really complaining about on the WoW forums isn't world pvp. What they hate is being to target of some max-level prick with nothing better to do than kill lowbies to help him forget about how small his dick is IRL if only for a few minutes...

[Army Dreamer]

Funny thread making all the gankers united...

[Seegtease]

I don't know why Blizzard doesn't simply put a cap on what is target-able. If you're a level 90, you have no business killing players that aren't at least able to hit you back. One-shotting isn't what I'm talking about; hit rating is. PvP should only be allowed within + or - 10 levels of the attacker's/victim level. Or, if you kill the same player X amount of times within X amount of minutes, he should become untarget-able for X minutes. This would thwart camping and griefing and then everyone would shut up.

But then people couldn't grief and get their satisfaction from knowing somebody is frustrated across the world. See, Blizzard caters to the bottom of the barrel - the people who find no satisfaction in a near victory, or in a challenging fight, but only are satisfied by the grief of others. Blizzard makes a lot of money off of these people. Even though your idea actually promotes competitive gameplay and discourages playing for the sole reason of making others unhappy (which normal people would regard as a good thing), it would anger many players who can't find pleasure from anything but bringing down others.

So again, don't play on a PVP server if you're that concerned with it.

To the people complaining about this; let me ask you something. Would you go up to the biggest kid at your school or jail for example, punch him in the face and expect to not get punched back? Would you say it isn't fair that he's bigger than you and shouldn't hit back? It's the same concept. You're going against someone bigger and more powerful than you, so of course they are going to win. If you want to be safe and not worry about it, then don't mess with them (IE don't roll on PVP) and play it safe. Just quit complaining at something that's been this way since day one. It isn't going to change.

What? I can't state my objections to something I think has seriously been broken since at least Cata simply because "it's been this way from day one"? A lot of things have "been that way from day one" and have been changed. It happens.

World PvP will never be like it was in Vanilla as long as stats have the gap they have today. Back then, lower levels actually had a place in a world PvP battle. Now they are effectively useless.

I don't know why people cannot see that world PvP is (and this isn't just because of population) fundamentally different now than it was in vanilla, and the reason for this is that the power gap is insanely large. The game has changed, drastically, and it's time for the nature of world PvP to adapt, because it just doesn't fit to have people with 300k health and 3k health trying to fight each other.

[KCguy]

I'm still rather confused as to why this is such a big deal. PvP servers means you have PvP enabled. That's the risk and you know that risk when you create a character. It's been this way since day 1. Now 8 years. No one cared back then, so why suddenly do so many people care now? It just doesn't make any sense. This has been said so many times, but it's very true. If you don't like getting ganked, don't roll on a PvP server. Good Lord it's so simple. But instead people are whining and for what reason? PvP servers have and will always be in pretty much every single MMO. People don't care in those games, so why WoW? Again, it makes no sense.

[Talen]

It's not possible to deliver "competitive world PvP". That defeats the entire purpose of world PvP. You're talking about battlegrounds, where you have specific goals and the teams are balanced according to level and number. World PvP is about unrestricted PvP against any player you meet in the world setting. That's what people mean by "world PvP".

And yet it is misleading to suggest that world PvP can't be competitive. It can. Blizzard already has the necessary technologies in place within the game to create a situation where you can attack any player and be attacked in return, and have to rely not upon gear but skill, class knowledge and experience.

Would such a system get rid of all imbalances? No. But it would reduce them.

EJL

[Celista]

A lot of the qq seems to be from dedicated pve'rs who rolled on a pvp server due to server pve progress ranking (since most--but not all--of the top ranked servers on wowprogress are pvp servers). Pvp on some of those servers was almost nonexistent due to how imbalanced horde vs. alli ratios were (1/0.01 horde/alliance on mal'ganis, for example), so you could feasibly go from level 1 to level cap without ever running into a member of the opposite faction.

Ganking lowbies is dumb. It's not fair, or challenging, and I don't consider it pvp. I would prefer that the game still had some sort of dishonor system that would discourage such behavior. But most people who roll on pvp servers don't seem to disagree with me, nor does Blizz (for the moment, anyways).

That being said, players should have been aware of the consequences of playing on a pvp server before they decided to roll on one. You don't need to be an experienced wow player to know what rolling on a pvp server means; it's pretty well outlined on the official forums what pvp server play involves and the differences between a pvp and pve server.

If you don't enjoy pvp server gameplay, reroll or transfer...pretty simple really.

[Deadite]

No one cared back then, so why suddenly do so many people care now?

CRZ is why people care now. Instead of having a few ass holes who think one shotting someone 80 levels less than them makes them some sort of pvp god you now have every ass hole from 5 or 6 realms doing it in the same zone.

[Endus]

And yet it is misleading to suggest that world PvP can't be competitive. It can. Blizzard already has the necessary technologies in place within the game to create a situation where you can attack any player and be attacked in return, and have to rely not upon gear but skill, class knowledge and experience.

Would such a system get rid of all imbalances? No. But it would reduce them.

Except that WoW isn't a game that the designers intend to revolve solely, or even primarily, around player skill. They WANT gear and level to be major factors, factors than can outweigh player skill.

GC's tweeted as much, with tweets like this; "WoW is an RPG and rewards that improve your character are an RPG staple. Gear is normalized for tournaments where it makes sense."

World PvP isn't intended to be competitive. It's intended to be unfair and brutal and chaotic. The imbalances you're complaining about aren't accidents, they're deliberate.

I'm not saying you have to LIKE it, but it's not a mistake or error. And there's PvE servers for those who don't like it, and battlegrounds/arenas for those who want such a structured, "fair" PvP dynamic.

[Deleted]

You can't complain that it was somewhat unequal before, and is now unequal in somewhat greater and more varied ways, and that therefore the solution is to remove inequality.

Talen's short reply sums it up well.

No, that is not my solution. First of all it is impossible to completely remove inequality, second my suggestions would neither aim nor achieve such. There's always some inequality, and that by itself is fine. My suggestion is to remove some factors which make the inequality so huuuuuge that the game isn't challenging unless the sun, the moon, and the stars are aligned. My suggestion is to make, when skill is equal, more "most thrilling battles".

I also never said the day and age of Vanilla and TBC was the day and age of perfect equality. I was merely playing the devil's advocate to those big masses who claim "WoW was so good during vanilla and TBC". I say: games have evolved ever since, and we have a prime example where gear and level normalization was done right (see above, although apparently the FF series also had such which I wasn't aware about). I'm curious to see said implementation with world PvP instead of WvWvW. Although WvWvW by itself is also interesting (I thoroughly enjoy in GW2) it does have scaling issues. It has the advantage of being a realm you can enter and leave when you please.

Especially since, if what you want is equalized, structured PvP, that exists. On PvE servers. That's how it's always been, and if you wanted an "equal playground", that is ALWAYS where you should have been.

In WoW I've advocated a middle ground by the use of PvP/PvE servers (I'd say the best of both worlds), and yes I do believe the majority of the players would prefer such a playground. If you believe what you said to be true you are not aware of all the changes I advocate because all those changes together wouldn't make all realms remotely similar to PvE realms. PvE realms aren't the holy grail because they have additional disadvantages. To name one such example: resource sharing between low- and high level characters. You know what would solve this? Level normalization (and resource node sharing would make players cooperate instead of compete on resources). Also, level normalization would allow a low level to have somewhat a chance against a high level. Last night I saw Inglourious Basterds. A low level is like the people who are sitting under ground in the house in the first act of this movie. The girl escaped, but it wasn't an equal fight. That's not fun, or entertainment. Nobody wants to play the rat. Simple.

Then we have grinds which I didn't address in said post but have addressed various times elsewhere. As for gear normalization (which is a seperate solution addressing different problems; namely the end-game PvP). My reference indeed says "without PvP gear it'd be better". Of course, there also wouldn't be a grind which wouldn't work with the subscription model...

PvP was designed to explicitly be, by design, and unfair and unequal playground. There's no need to make it equal now, because those equal playgrounds already exist, and the ONLY thing preventing you playing on them is you.

First of all you should've named it PvP realm, second those PvE realms are not remotely similar to what I described above. You're saying "go play PvE realm". I've already played there, and the above observations are based on said experience as well. If anything, you could say "go play GW2". Although I play much less games nowadays I am indeed doing this. But I also invested heavily in WoW (the effort factor), it doesn't have WoW's lore (the lore factor), and it doesn't have the same players as the people I know from WoW (the social factor). Also, just because I find GW2 so good and see it as a step in MMORPG evolution, doesn't mean I'm not allowed to criticise WoW for what it is, or see its weaknesses.

Your conclusion in no way derives from your premises, and if anything, your premises suggest that your conclusion is not true.

I posted about the above (gear and level normalization, resource sharing, removal of grinds) in multiple occasions, in multiple topics. I could've referred to these to make the above more clear.

[Endus]

Also, just because I find GW2 so good and see it as a step in MMORPG evolution, doesn't mean I'm not allowed to criticise WoW for what it is, or see its weaknesses.

That right there is the root of the issue.

You're projecting your own personal preferences, and WoW's failure to cater to them in every detail, on the entire population as a whole and assuming that because WoW doesn't meet YOUR preferences, it doesn't meet anyone's, and therefore what you've identified isn't just a personal preference, it's an objective "weakness".

And all of that's just projection. There are plenty of people (like myself) who have entirely different preferences, and disagree with you. What you don't like, we do. That means it's NOT an objective weakness, it's just a question of whether it's to your taste or not.

There's probably no game on the market that's 100% perfect for you in every way, or me, or anyone. Because we're all a mess of weird little quirks and differences. You find a game whose benefits shine so brightly, for you, that you'll overlook the negatives, or accept them. It's why it's also a false comparison to claim that GW2 is an "evolution" of MMORPG. It's a variant. Whether it's successful or not depends on the market. It's odd, because I'm reasonably sure you're falsely using "evolution" to mean a progression towards a better or more perfect iteration. Which isn't how evolution works. There's no "goal" to evolution beyond survival, and it requires that many mistakes be made for every success. In practice, the MMO environment IS evolving, but in a way closer to the actual biological definition; developers try new things, "mutations", and some of those mutations are successful, leading to the product surviving and producing offspring (expansions and sequels), others aren't, and the game gets cancelled. There is no "ubergame" these mutations work towards, because the market is so wildly diverse that it's impossible to create a game that appeals perfectly to everyone. About the only way you could is if it directly stimulated the pleasure centers of the brain when you hit a button. Anything more complex, and you'll get people complaining about the design decisions being made.

Evolution is simply adapting to a new environment. For instance, DLC. Everyone hates DLC. But DLC sells really, really well. So a game adding DLC is adaptive; it's a mutation that improves a game's ability to survive. That's why it's so widespread despite people saying they hate it so much. It may not REMAIN a beneficial adaptation as the market shifts, but that's how the business works. They aren't trying to find the "right" mechanics to base a game on so that it's perfect. Each game is trying to find an audience. Game A may have a different audience than Game B, and that's fine. It's like how deer eat some plants, and rabbits eat others.

If you really hate the plant you're eating, maybe try another plant. There's a lot of people enjoying it as it is.

Nor am I suggesting anything I don't apply to myself. I don't really PvP in WoW. I've tried it, and every time I do, I hate it, despite really enjoying PvP in most other games I've played (oddly, leveling via CRZ is the one exception to that; I enjoy the threat of ganking and such). This doesn't mean the PvP is "bad" in WoW, or that it should be tweaked so that I like it; plenty of people love it as it is, and changing to suit me would disenfranchise all of them. So I just get my PvP fix elsewhere. That's the issue; you're forgetting that a lot of people do enjoy the stuff you're claiming is a "weakness". It's not a "weakness". You just don't like it.

Which is fine. But it doesn't mean it should be changed to suit you better, since doing so ruins it for those others who like it as it currently is.

[Deleted]

Except that WoW isn't a game that the designers intend to revolve solely, or even primarily, around player skill. They WANT gear and level to be major factors, factors than can outweigh player skill.

Yeah, and as various people said this has run out of hand from its original goal (and others even disagree the design works well).

GC's tweeted as much, with tweets like this;

Yeah I know GC is tweeting all the time with a legion of parrots quoting him like he's some kind of authority. As if all he did to WoW was Right and Good. Did he play PnP RPGs back in the days? Rogue-like RPGs? Real-life RPG?

Lets dissect the Tweet:

WoW is an RPG [...]

Yes, WoW is considered an RPG (so is D3), and WoW is also an MMORPG. Role Playing Game (look it up on Wikipedia and after you read the summary tell me if you thought "yep, that's WoW"). In WoW we have various realm types. Most are PvP realms. Then we have some PvE realms. We also have PvP-RP and PvE-RP realms. That's 4 types. Most realms aren't even RP realms though. So is it really an RPG in that sense? Is there some kind of roleplaying involved before killing Tsulong. Yeah, there is. By the server there's some dialogue and that's it. Is it required from players? Only on RP realms. Is it interactive with the game? Nope. Nothing remotely close to a PnP style game.

and rewards that improve your character are an RPG staple.

Which is originally an aspect of character progression, yes. Gear, which GW2 also has.

Gear is normalized for tournaments where it makes sense.

They've only recently started with PvE normalization (challenge modes). That's after 8 years of WoW! I do applaud this initiative though.

Now, no arguments are provided why "it makes sense in tournaments" and not "in-game". GC is completely evading the question. I'll tell you why though: because of the subscription model, the grinds, and because they want people to work towards getting a competitive advantage. But that's not what RPGs were traditionally about. RPGs were about gaining level and gear in order to advance, but not to "pwn content" or "pwn some noobs". RPGs didn't have PvP back in the days. Are those somehow not RPG games?

Basically, following GCs argument he insinuates Guild Wars 2 isn't an RPG because it has gear normalization. What the f...?

World PvP isn't intended to be competitive. It's intended to be unfair and brutal and chaotic. The imbalances you're complaining about aren't accidents, they're deliberate.

Which is a design mistake. It could've been implemented more equal (by the various changes I suggested earlier) after which it'd be more competitive, therefore more fun.

It isn't fun to play chess all the time against baddies. It isn't fun to always pwn some newbies with your 3000 EUR worth type I MtG deck. There's no competition. I'm wondering if its actually more of an outlet of aggression and frustration instead of a game. Like "damn I just lost arena, lemme pwn some rats at the dark portal".

I'm not saying you have to LIKE it, but it's not a mistake or error.

Who decides what is mistake and what isn't. Ghostcrawler has made mistakes before. I believe the biggest mistake is made by the playerbase.

And there's PvE servers for those who don't like it, and battlegrounds/arenas for those who want such a structured, "fair" PvP dynamic.

I don't see PvE as a competitive environment. The only interesting aspect in PvE, for me right now, is lore. Before I loved tackling difficult bosses on heroic difficulty but the amount of time and effort spend on this is totally not worth it. I could read so many books instead. Or play some competitive PvP.

Battleground and arena suffer from their own issues. They're not the holy grail of PvP. See my previous posts.

[Endus]

YYeah I know GC is tweeting all the time with a legion of parrots quoting him like he's some kind of authority.

He's the head designer for WoW. He's THE authority. You're free to not LIKE his decisions, but that doesn't make them objectively "wrong".

[barrsftw]

World PvP isn't supposed to be fair. I agree with the Blue 100%; if you don't like it, play on a PvE realm.

[Talen]

Except that WoW isn't a game that the designers intend to revolve solely, or even primarily, around player skill. They WANT gear and level to be major factors, factors than can outweigh player skill.

Yes. And, IMO, while that choice works for PvE because it allows for progression and the development of stronger and tougher bosses, it doesn't work for PvP because it embraces a huge source of imbalance which inhibits the integration of PvP into the game system as a whole.

Were Blizzard to actually create a structure for PvP, I think it would end up being more widly embraced than it is now, with world PvP seen as a vital and attractive aspect of the game for many players. Maybe I'm wrong, but Blizzard keep emphasising fun, fairness, immersion, the need to ensure everybody can take part, etc in just about every other aspect of the game and it is completely at odds with the way they handle PvP.

PvP can be hugely fun and it is one of the few sources of dynamic content in this game. There is a lot it can offer, but only if it is integrated in a structured manner with the same emphasis on fun, accessibility and - yes - fair play that other parts enjoy. I agree with their decision to allow anyone to attack anyone regardless of level....I just think that their decision to embrace gear as a substitute for skill, that their lack of effort in creating some structure in PvP is wrong and inhibits PvP in many ways. I believe that properly developed, world PvP could still retain its dynamic nature and be a lot more enjoyable and accessible for everyone.

Blizzard already has the building blocks in place for this. I think its a pity its not making use of them. Granted, for me the "brutal" nature of WoW PvP isn't that interesting. I much prefer fights where the gear is fairly equal and thus inconsequential, with the emphasis passing more to skill. That likely colors my preferences

EJL

[Banzhe]

I don't think a normal person rolls PvP and complains every time they DIE. I wouldn't mind dying so long as the dying was a result of my lack of skill rather than there being no competition.

I like the competitive nature of PvP, but there is no competitive nature in most of what people call "world PvP".

Is that a surprise to you?- or anyone for that matter?

If you want level appropriate PvP, go to one of the instanced versions of it that replaced world PvP to start with (Which sucked ass tbh), world PvP was brought back on PvP realms.
If you (Not the person quoted, but in general) lack the ability to understand what a PvP-tagged realm entitles, go read up on it before complaining about it.., or better yet, learn to read before doing anything!

People who say they wanna quit because of world PvP being re-introduced, get to it then.., cancel your account and cya, quit wasting time, the sooner you dribble on out of here the better!

If it's all empty words, then wipe the snotbubbles off your faces and move on!

[Deleted]

He's the head designer for WoW. He's THE authority. You're free to not LIKE his decisions, but that doesn't make them objectively "wrong".

OK everyone, the discussion is over. The moderator calls the lead designer of WoW the authority.

Authority of what? He has responsibility and authority over those who work under him in the corporation he works for. There's a small nuance between responsibility and authority (the Valve Handbook might be interesting in this reference). He's not the one who ultimately judges the game is good or bad. Us players, we do that, and yes we are biased. And even then anyone who thinks GC is the one who's deciding on everything in WoW is giving a lot of other people not the amount of credit they deserve which you can understand if you look at it from a responsibility point of view.

GC doesn't have the luxuary to decide on how well WoW development was done. History will have the honor doing that, and even history, even encyclopedias while attempting to be unbiased and informative contain bias. Since it is rather recent, relevant work the cards aren't all played yet. Which is why it is interesting, and why the discussion isn't irrelevant. On top of that, the discussion is largely hypothetic since we don't have direct influence on WoW's development. If you're not interested in the discussion you are free to be silent or put those who have the discussion on your ignore list.

PS: And also since Blizzard is making a new MMORPG the discussion is relevant. We can only wish they're listening to our suggestions.

[Celista]

OK everyone, the discussion is over. The moderator calls the lead designer of WoW the authority.

Authority of what? He has responsibility and authority over those who work under him in the corporation he works for. There's a small nuance between responsibility and authority (the Valve Handbook might be interesting in this reference). He's not the one who ultimately judges the game is good or bad. Us players, we do that, and yes we are biased. And even then anyone who thinks GC is the one who's deciding on everything in WoW is giving a lot of other people not the amount of credit they deserve which you can understand if you look at it from a responsibility point of view.

GC doesn't have the luxuary to decide on how well WoW development was done. History will have the honor doing that, and even history, even encyclopedias while attempting to be unbiased and informative contain bias. Since it is rather recent, relevant work the cards aren't all played yet. Which is why it is interesting, and why the discussion isn't irrelevant. On top of that, the discussion is largely hypothetic since we don't have direct influence on WoW's development. If you're not interested in the discussion you are free to be silent or put those who have the discussion on your ignore list.

PS: And also since Blizzard is making a new MMORPG the discussion is relevant. We can only wish they're listening to our suggestions.

+1. GC/whoever @ Blizz has made some odd decisions in the last year. I remember reading one of his blog articles last year and thinking, "wtf? why would they bother to do that?", only to have the announced change rescinded a few weeks/months later, and his defense of certain spell changes during beta, when it was obvious that x change would produce y result...only for him to argue otherwise. One good example is the petty way he went about adjusting--and commenting about--priest mana return by nerfing pw:solace so that it was practically unusable for an entire raid tier when priests were complaining about mana management (although rapture did end up finally getting a buff). It was an interesting beta thread on the forums, and I remember finding it odd that a Blizzard poster would be so at odds with people who lived and breathed a particular class in regards to theorycrafting.... It's been like that since...I don't know when, certainly through the beginning of Cata. Make a long story short, GC and his team really haven't proven much to their playerbase, although in all fairness they have a hard job to do and have made more than a few quality changes to the game.

PS: And also since Blizzard is making a new MMORPG the discussion is relevant. We can only wish they're listening to our suggestions.

I still think it's WoW2 despite claims otherwise...people were denying that Mists of Pandaria was the next wow expansion, and look where we are now...

time will tell, though.