Slashdot Mirror
World of Warcraft Battlegrounds in Testing
The much anticipated Battlegrounds content is live on the test servers for World of Warcraft. The patch notes for the upcoming game update include class changes and world modifications. From the notes: "The Warsong Gulch and Alterac Valley battlegrounds are now available. The Warsong Gulch entrances may be found in the northern Barrens near the Mor'Shan Rampart (Horde) and south of Silverwing Outpost in Ashenvale (Alliance). The Alterac Valley entrances may be found east of Sofera's Naze in Alterac (Horde), and in the Headlands of Alterac (Alliance)."
Next you're going to tell me that all online deathmatch-type games (RTS also works here) are pointless because the same person wins every time.
Or, to pre-empt the Guild Wars crowd, the same applies there... once you've beaten the other team once, there's no point in ever doing it again, is there?
Or should I make the sarcasm heavier for you?
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
I thought this was already implemented some time ago.
I quit playing months ago, because as fun as the game was, there was no reason to do anything. You didn't gain or lose a damn thing for killing someone or being killed. And there was no really massive battle engagement, unless you count the occasional raid on a town.
After about six months, they FINALLY implemented some sort of "honor" system. But I'm not sure if it's the same honor system that was advertised (which is why many of us bought the game in the first place, but it was removed before the game went live). Hopefully, it has some sort of value in combat now to make killing a low level character less enticing and killing a higher level character more enticing. The game really loses a lot of momentum when you're a 10th level guy being mobbed by two dozen 60+ guys who are taking over an area.
I was looking forward to battlegrounds, but I'm not sure it's enough to pull me back into the game. I got pretty bored by the time I dropped my subscription about four months ago.
Yeah, I've really never understood the nature of any competitve sport. Why bother playing anything when the same person/team who wins the first match, wins ever consecutive match. I know that this goes without saying, but I simply have to: The parent's use of logic is one of the strangest I have *ever* seen.
** A Sketch a Week **
http://www.sketchplease.com
What you're not taking into account is luck, and the experience the losing team will build by losing. Here's a quick example. I was jumped on a PvP server in the wilds by two players, both of whom were slightly higher in level than me. I used my poly spell to take one guy out of the picture for a small time, used a variety of skills to kill the other person, and then focused on and killed the second guy. It was relatively easy for me, despite being surprised, outnumbered, and overmatched in level. Things would been very different if the other people had done just a few things differently. Both players had abilities to interrupt my spells, but did not use them. One of the players had the ability to get out of the spell I used to pin him down, but didn't use it. Etc. Just a little bit of learning, and they would have beaten me soundly. Sure, there's a learning curve to using your skills in this game, but it plateaus. If it takes a month to learn how to use your skills effectively, there's not a lot gained by having played the game 6 months, in terms of skill. Granted, the 6 month player will know some more nuances, but it's like 99% best skill use vs 95%, rather than 99% vs 30%.
On one hand, I agree that paladins are a little more passive in their combat abilities. But this isn't a bad thing, I think it's a great design. Certain classes are by their very nature less active in combat. Whereas you have rogues who are a more twitch based class, paladins and warriors are less twitch based. It's there so if you don't like a certain playstyle, you have others to choose from. I do think Blizzard should have been explicit in explaining these differences exist, and what the "twitch rating" is for each class so people can make a more informed decision, but still, you get most of your spells by level 20, so it should be obvious fairly early.
I agree with llevity, the paladin is more passive based class. Most paladins complain because before the first real patch (1.1), there was a bug in one of the Paladins skills (it made them increase in attack rate & damage, instead of increasing attack rate and decreasing damage). This change took away the biggest part of the Paladins aggressive abilities. So the people who liked paladins at first liked them because they were so aggressive (due to this bug), when the patch fixed it, the class then went back to its correct, passive design.
I'd also like to note that this bug made the paladin an extremely affective dueler. Lots of people rushed to build up a paladin, thinking that class was going to be a PvP machine due to the classes high success rate in dueling. Now Paladins are finding out this is not the best class for PvP, especially after the bug fix. It's typical to see lots of players start a character in a bugged class so they get the most advantages possible. Finally, people are starting to realise what the class is suppose to be about, and not a class better than all others.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say, so...you're stuck with this.
Ever heard "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" Now, I know that doesn't apply much to WoW -- I'll be the first to admit WoW has its share of problems. But the other ones are just plain stupid. World of WarCraft FPS? I see no plausible reason ANYBODY at Blizzard would think that would do well. StarCraft FPS? Yes, that's SC: Ghost, and yes, it's been in the works for awhile, but it's far from a careless money grab -- by my count that's three games (counting Brood War, which is technically an expansion) in the universe, not 15+ that don't really deviate much from a set path save for a few games (Tactics, FFX-2). And before anybody gets in my face, yes, I do like the Final Fantasy series. StarCraft MMO -- Worlds of StarCraft? That'd be fucking awesome to play provided they learn from their mistakes with WoW. StarCraft 3? What the hell are you talking about? They haven't even made SC2 yet (No, SC:G is NOT SC2). And still, even with 1 expansion pack for SC2, SC3, should it ever happen, would be only the 6th iteration of the series. And I might add that most of the WarCraft games have taken leaps forward over their predecessor. OK, maybe not gameplay-wise between WC1 and 2, but graphics and story-wise. And one last thing -- what is "If WoW falls down in the forest and no one is there... does it make a sound?" supposed to mean? Last I checked, WoW had one of the biggest subscription bases in the world. And I highly doubt, even with the trolls in the forums bitching about stealth nerfs that sometimes don't exist, or trolls that just seem to want to crap all over the game just because it's popular (see first comment on this story), that WoW is going anywhere anytime soon. So please, think clearly before you spew your end-of-Blizzard prophecies, and definitely think twice before you try and make a witty comment that is so out of context it's not even funny.
gamedrain: A weekly gaming/internet cultu