Personally, I would hope they didn't go for a level increase up to 80, if they kept it at 70 or went for a smaller increase up to 75 then it wouldn't kill off the existing content since bt/hyjal gear would still be worth getting.
Just because they are raising the cap, does not mean they have to do another complete gear reset. They could even make it so you basically need hyjal/bt gear or a significant amount of the next kara and heroic loots before you could do the raid content that would offer sidegrades to bt/hyjal gear.
I am suprised that there has not been much discussion on the following idea:
Players have to "die" to become a Death Knight.
Pretty much every single post in the "Class Differentiation" thread, and a large proportion of the posts in this thread, concern the possibility of making choices that permanently alter your character. So yes, there *has* been a lot of discussion on the idea you propound, much of it devoted to pointing out just what a bad idea it would be.
Last edited by songster : 08/01/07 at 1:52 PM.
Reason: Apologies for rudeness
Just because they are raising the cap, does not mean they have to do another complete gear reset. They could even make it so you basically need hyjal/bt gear or a significant amount of the next kara and heroic loots before you could do the raid content that would offer sidegrades to bt/hyjal gear.
Another gear reset this soon would be . . . frustrating. One year is entirely too short, for me. If the paradigm is actually going to be new expansion -> six months of progression -> six months of farming (for what?) -> gear reset -> repeat, well, that just sucks, because it means top-end guilds might as well disband as soon as the first batch of progression is done. Farming existing content has always been a fairly important part of the raid game, and if that gets removed, that leaves raiders with a lot more time on their hands.
Maybe the "certain requirement" will be that someone on your server kill Arthas ^^ A bit like AQ40 opening.
The scourge (and thereby Death Knights) regain their free will and isnt necessarily evil anymore (more than the Forsaken at least).
It would make millions cry out in dismay when they didnt had a guild on their server killing Arthas though
The only somewhat reasonable explanation I could see for alliance to accept Death Knights, but obviously not plausible, considering Death Knights wouldnt be accessible for a very long time after release. Something Blizzard most likely wouldnt do (advertising something thats not really available).
Also, come on, dont talk about "gear reset too soon", makes this sound like the official forum (which is hilarious right now btw).
You arent going to see this expansion for at 6-12 months, being very optimistic.
Pretty much every single post in the "Class Differentiation" thread, and a large proportion of the posts in this thread, concern the possibility of making choices that permanently alter your character. Usually this is coupled with suggestions that you should transform yourself into something much more powerful and generally unbalanced
Where did I say "much more powerful?" I never said anything like that in my post. You would be changed into something completely different, yes.
I meant there was not much discussion specifically related to the Death Knight class on that idea. I have read the thread you quoted, and while I agree with much of it, I do not think it sees all the viewpoints.
When I wanted to play a paladin for TBC, I had to reroll. I could not respec my mage to be a paladin. There are some choices you make that cannot be undone. Deleting a character is one of them. This would not be too far off. The idea I proposed is NOT like "perma-specs for AA's." You would be trading one class for another completely.
Last edited by Questioner : 08/01/07 at 1:55 PM.
Reason: Accepting songster's apology
Edited my post to be less combative, apologies for rudeness. However, there really *has* been a lot of discussion about potential permanent changes to characters. It's not a new idea, and there's lots of reasons why it's a bad idea.
I don't see how killing Arthas with 25 legendary heroes is any better or worse than killing him with 1-3 legendary heroes and a bunch of no name footmen.
Arthas isn't even THAT powerful, I mean he is way more powerful than say Illidan, but there's things hundreds of times more powerful in the Warcraft universe, problem is that your usual player that maybe played WC3 and jumped onto WoW doesn't know about them.
Its not so much killing him I think. People would just like some lore/story progression to go with his death. Instead of, "oh, in other news Arthas, the enemy of all that lives died last week, hooray".
Perhaps the incredulity with which some people are responding to the idea of having Arthas be the focus of not just an upcoming expansion but the next expansion is because of what the mentality (at Blizzard) behind this decision signifies. The story of his transformation and its aftermath was the driving force behind Warcraft 3 and TFT, surely the continuation of that storyline would represent a major development/change in the Warcraft universe as we collectively find out "what happens next."
It's only natural that Blizzard would want to advance the storyline of the world they created, and I wouldn't blame them if they didn't want WoW to be that vehicle forever. Maybe they want to work on a different Warcraft game to tell the next chapter? Maybe plot revelations will take place in a different form altogether?
My current feeling however is that Arthas is the lynchpin for plot development, and that if Blizzard decides that it is time for us to deal with him directly and with finality in WoW, then I have the hunch that this signifies that much of the creative focus at Blizzard will be moving on to another project to further tell the story. This could mean that WoW continues with a smaller staff, or that the content we're given afterward does not have any impact on the universe at large (no more bosses to fight that have a place in history). A "legacy game," if I may be allowed to co-opt the terminology.
Economists and those saavy in business out there may feel free to tell me that this is lunacy, since it very well may be.
I don't see how killing Arthas with 25 legendary heroes is any better or worse than killing him with 1-3 legendary heroes and a bunch of no name footmen.
His name was Robert Paulson.
I'm honestly not too bothered about having to lay some smack down on Arthas. I've kinda been wanting to do so ever since the first Human scenario in RoC, despite him supposedly being the good guy at that point.
At least now, for mine, i can accept that Arthas is gonna have a can opened on him soon, meaning afterwards we're gonna have some bigger and badder foes and further plot development. Azshara perhaps? I got into reading those Well of Eternity novels, and lemme tell you, i really wanna deliver some whoopass on that harlot's rear end but i hope there's a good reason for doing so. Apart from purples. Add to that the potential for a rather ocean-esque expansion to go along with any Azshara type content and that will quench a thirst i've had since i found out there'd be smeg all boat type stuff in WCIII.
As for Death Knights, from what we know *cough* so far i'm somewhat disappointed. It would seem that we're gonna have an extremely gimmicky dime-a-dozen class, which will likely feel even cheaper and tackier than the Netherdrake mounts which every John with 5k in his kilt-pockets had after a couple of weeks of them being available. If this is what the once iconic sounding 'hero classes' are going to be, then i hope they do something concrete to make them special. I believe that specialness and possibility for something different to other players was a real factor in a lot of people's imagination of hero classes.
Unless of course there is some of that 'monster' thing a number of you have mentioned. I know nothing of LOTRO but the concept sounds intriguing, and would lessen the 'cheapness' i would otherwise perceive should everyone be able to get a DK if it were easy as cake like the Netherdrakes. Running around ganking Alliance and Horde on a Skeletal Horse of Doom? Being able to not discriminate between Blood AND Night Elves? I want in on that.
Its not so much killing him I think. People would just like some lore/story progression to go with his death. Instead of, "oh, in other news Arthas, the enemy of all that lives died last week, hooray".
I'm sure a Northrend expansion will offer a lot of interesting lore and buildup to Arthas himself... he won't just be standing there waiting for you as you get off the boat.
I think this is one of those things that sounds trivial, but from an implementation standpoint, is actually a nightmare. Take my server, Kargath. There are over 20,000 accounts on it. Lets use 20k for simplicity. If you gave each account 2 more character slots, that's 40K more potential characters. That's the equivalent of adding 5K more accounts to the server in terms of database/hardware needs. That's a 25% potential increase. Extrapolate that across 9 million accounts and it begins to look like a larger undertaking suddenly. That has been the reason that we have been capped since day 1 and requests for just that have been denied.
All accounts have a 50 character maximum. That maximum could remain in place while allowing 11 characters per server. No increase in the overall amount of possible characters per account. Also, how do you know the number of accounts on your server? And wouldn't increasing the cap from 10 to 12 be a 20% increase?
This is all moot in my mind anyways - people griped about this when BC came out, and no additional slots were given. The whiners made do. The same will happen again - delete the characters you never play, consolidate your bank alts, transfer a character off the server, or roll on a new server.
When I wanted to play a paladin for TBC, I had to reroll. I could not respec my mage to be a paladin. There are some choices you make that cannot be undone. Deleting a character is one of them.
Rolling a paladin didn't require you to delete your mage per se. You may have chosen to do that, but you didn't have to.
My comrades are my weapons, and I am their shield.
All accounts have a 50 character maximum. That maximum could remain in place while allowing 11 characters per server. No increase in the overall amount of possible characters per account. Also, how do you know the number of accounts on your server? And wouldn't increasing the cap from 10 to 12 be a 20% increase?
This is all moot in my mind anyways - people griped about this when BC came out, and no additional slots were given. The whiners made do. The same will happen again - delete the characters you never play, consolidate your bank alts, transfer a character off the server, or roll on a new server.
*edited to clarify
I'm <pretty> sure you only get 9 characters per server - which when bumped to 11, would be a 22.2% increase (still not 25%, but not 20% either).
Everyone is assuming we will kill the lich king dead but blizzard could easily turn the whole thing into a "Redemption of Arthas Menethil". We've seen and enjoyed the epic downfall of Arthas and now maybe, with us playing a part, we can redeem him and who better to aid us against the lich king then Arthas himself?
Everyone is assuming we will kill the lich king dead but blizzard could easily turn the whole thing into a "Redemption of Arthas Menethil". We've seen and enjoyed the epic downfall of Arthas and now maybe, with us playing a part, we can redeem him and who ebtter to aid us against the lich king then Arthas himself?
I thought the end of TFT was meant to show us that Arthas and the Lich king became one and the same? While a redemption of sorts isn't out of the question it would seem to contradict TFT if a "redeemed" Arthas helps us fight the Lich King.
Originally Posted by Fellwraith
[Y]ou will tank 3 mobs, and only 3 mobs. 5 shalt thou not tank, nor shalt thou tank 4. Thou shalt not tank 2 mobs unless it is on the way to tanking 3 mobs.
08/01/07, 1:26 PM
Similar Threads
