Dragonflight Alpha/Beta General Discussion

[Ersula]

That'll be interesting seeing as they said we aren't getting legendaries this expansion.

Do you think there will be more than one Tier set this expansion? With the creation catalyst there wouldn't really need to be. Otherwise having to choose between three different sets in my inventory based on the situation makes by bag hole quiver in fear.

[wowrefugee]

Dracthyr able to run torghast, interesting.

[Greyfang]

On Evoker gear/weapons:

"They're definitely an intellect class and both specializations are that in terms of weapons, this this can all subject to change, but I think initial thoughts are probably what shamans can use, minus Shields plus swords if that makes sense. So like Dagger, fist weapon, Mace, staves, axes and that's the current thinking"

[boyzma]

no tank spec

[Greyfang]

No class hall/artifact for Evokers, we already kinda guessed.

[ChairmanKaga]

No class hall/artifact for Evokers, we already kinda guessed.

Yeah it would be completely bizarre otherwise.

[Veluren]

Confuses me they'd even mention that since Evoker start at level 58, I guess for Legacy Content but calling out Chromie time is odd

[Cheezits]

Battle for Azeroth remains the default experience for new players, but that may be updated down the line.


HMMMMMMMMMM

[wowrefugee]

Battle for Azeroth remains the default experience for new players, but that may be updated down the line.


HMMMMMMMMMM

I could see Dragonflight being the new default experience in 11.0. Seems to be more grounded and easier to comprehend, which is in line with Ion's logic for BfA being the follow up to exiles' reach.

[ChairmanKaga]

no tank spec

Cool. I doubt this will quiet people down but it's obvious that ship has sailed as far as the devs are concerned for DF.

[Lady Atia]

Said anything exciting so far?

Dragonriding customizations will be accountwide, alongside mostly everything else besides gear upgrades =)

[Berkilak]

Not really. Detailed weapon types for Drac'thyr. They've been hibernating since creation. The rest is just rehashing.

[Sondrelk]

Confuses me they'd even mention that since Evoker start at level 58, I guess for Legacy Content but calling out Chromie time is odd

That is a good point actually.
Still, you need some replacement for those mechanics if you want to go back to old raids in Legion for whatever reason, whether that means farming transmogs or otherwise.

As I said before though. A weapon with relic slots and a hero's call board in Dalaran would give you the same abilities.

[wowrefugee]

lmfao no dark ranger customizations ever confirmed

if it's not in 9.2.5 then it's never coming, based off danuser's answer

[Sondrelk]

My god, I was so sure we would be getting the removal of armor type transmog restrictions for a second there.

[Cheezits]

lmfao no dark ranger customizations ever confirmed

No, I'm pretty sure they don't want to say that it is literally happening in 9.2.5. They went right from Calia to that question...

[Le Conceptuel]

Well the fact that he sought the sigils because he perceived a threat was not known until the Zovaal kill cinematic. Up until then it was because he wanted to remake the cosmos as he saw fit. And truth be told given the forbidden nature of Zereth Mortis, it's a question of how you even could know what was in there and if it even would give him the means to do as he wanted. HOW did he know? The lore is inconsistent about it. No one has been in ZM yet everyone seems to know about the Sepulcher existing. It never adds up.

As for why he rebelled the idea is he thought it was "unfair". And honestly, I just don't agree. I don't agree it is unfair to be asked to give up your previous experience in order to be an objective and unbiased psychopomp. You can always choose not to ascend and just spend eternity in paradise.
And this thing about people being divided from their loved ones; we see so much mobility between the realms. The only reason it doesn't exist early on is the anima drought having shut down most infrastructure. People seem to travel around all the time. And we don't even know where most of the people are; there obviously are other realms.

Honestly the fair thing is for existence to end when it actually ends. You die, that's it. No one promised you immortality. The entire premise is just entitlement. What entitles Sylvanas to eternal bliss with her loved ones? What entitles anyone to that? This is just thoughtless individualists writing moral philosophical dictates about a normative afterlife.

To be fair, I figure that the fair thing is whatever the universe is structured as. The issue when bringing in the objective existence of a higher power is that the higher power would probably have to be right by default assuming they are omniscient and benevolent because it reframes reality entirely. If there exists a higher power, morality is no longer relative—namely, morality would logically have to orbit around the perspective of that higher power because it is an objective arbiter with all information in the universe in its hands. Morality instead becomes a matter of approaching its preferred morality rather than applying your own normative judgments to organize behavior by a dichotomy of "right and wrong" invented in a societal or personal context.

I think that the primary issue was making the afterlife so objectively flawed to begin with—it essentially devalues any potential it has to represent a realistic approach to the relationship between morality as being either a consequential or normative thing. In any other context, somebody of relatively adequate reason declaring that the afterlife they were justly decided to have by an impartial and objective moral arbiter would be rightly framed as nonsensical and arrogant, but the writers instead frame it as tragic. Assuming the existence of an afterlife, it naturally does – as you said – fall to the arbiter or overseer of that afterlife where people go, and their judgment is certainly not unjust or unreasonable if they are actually objective moral arbiters. If a dispassionate, absolute calculation is made of the utility of any given afterlife for any given person by an objective arbiter, it is also likely the case that if said afterlife isn't a punishment (there only seems to exist one afterlife along those lines) they would logically be able to perfectly select the experience as per what would be most enjoyable and suitable for the person in that afterlife.

In fact, we do actually get to see some elements of this—it seems that practically everybody but the Forsworn Kyrian (how were they sent there if the Arbiter would logically be able to predict off of their personality that they would have a likelihood of going rogue?) and Sylvie (who was outwardly lied to) is entirely happy with their afterlife provided they aren't sent to the Maw or Revendreth, in which case both are presumably totally deserved.

I think that there could've been a very interesting and even profound moral lesson about accepting the judgment of fate and musing on the existence of a higher power if this approach were taken—it would've potentially necessitated making Sylvanas an actual villain, of course, so our current team wouldn't have done it, but it nevertheless would've been a much better plot. To me, somebody so narcissistic as to decide that the objective declaration of a higher power is inferior to their own and a nebulous concept of free will (only loosely correlated to that judgment) would've not only made for a despicable and engaging villain, but it also would somewhat fit in with Sylvanas' character. In the same way she made a fuss about free will around the Forsaken but actually sought to take revenge, and in the same way in which she made a fuss about building a Forsaken society in Cataclysm whilst actually only trying to avoid her own death, this would be another example of her presenting a false ethical framework to excuse her actions and make herself appear more noble for her pursuit of wholly selfish goals. It would've actually made some sense for her to take this kind of approach within her character, even if it would've involved flanderizing some elements of her personality.

Unfortunately, the Sylvanas we got was not only aggressively gullible (falling pretty transparently for everything the Jailer and his Val'kyr said, no matter how irrational or contradictory to information that should be obvious) and capable of sub-freshman philosophical thinking which led her to determine that an objective and impartial moral arbiter cannot be objective and impartial, or that an afterlife selected entirely on the utility it would have for any given individual is somehow unjust, unfair or uncaring.

The worst part is that Sylvanas' judgments are also supported by Bastion, which, as aforementioned, selects the Forsworn when they aren't really fit for Bastion to begin with. If you are told, explicitly, that you have an opportunity to either succeed at your duty, wiping away your memories in the process, or leave Bastion if you feel like you aren't fit for it. If, logically, the Arbiter really were objective and impartial, with absolute and unfettered access to every element of every person's personality, wouldn't it only send people to Bastion who were suitable for it to begin with? The issue is that by validating Sylvanas' delusions, the story makes itself seem philosophically- and logically-inconsistent. It squanders a great opportunity to talk about coming to terms with the objective nature of the universe and putting aside ones own judgments in exchange for more objective and logical ones in favor of practically validating the equivalent of a drunk man rambling in a bar about how it's God's fault he squandered all his money gambling when all God did was set a reality based on probability which he proceeded to interact with in the wrong way. Making the Arbiter no longer seem impartial and absolute not only contradicts existing information, it also reduces the afterlife, a point of what should be absolute moral objectivity, to frivolous, subjective interpretations of morals.

[ZyntosAran]

lmfao no dark ranger customizations ever confirmed

if it's not in 9.2.5 then it's never coming, based off danuser's answer

I got it as "if there is a reason for it, we will do it. 9.2.5 will be the reason, so lets wait for that confirmation, I dont wanna spoil it now."

[Cheezits]

I got it as "if there is a reason for it, we will do it. 9.2.5 will be the reason, so lets wait for that confirmation, I dont wanna spoil it now."

Right. In the Calia answer they mentioned "others touched by death" which is 100% the rangers of both races.

[Ilir]

yeah dark ranger for 9.2.5 are pretty much confirmed lol