Why have any loot determined by RNG? Why not just have "Illidan List A token" and "Illidan List B token" drop each kill instead of a random item from those lists? It would allow every one to get their DST/Skull/whatever that much faster, and have the drop be determined by player desire, not RNG. It actually would make far more sense to have each boss drop things that NPCs convert for you into a variety of different armor pieces or whatever desgiend specifically for each individual player than have a piece of armor drop that can be worn equally well by a Troll, Tauren, Human, or Gnome. It would lend more credance to the item actually being much more powerful than the random stuff you find in the world that you have to fiddle with to get to fit for your character.
In my mind, the real excitement is killing the boss; Blizzard wants part of it to be the anticipation of finding out what drops. To me, it only leads to depression when what I wanted didn't drop or worse something dropped no one could use. Maybe its just my personality though.
It would also mean that guilds' progression is only a function of how well their loot system gears them for progressing, not a function of RNG.
We had this discussion already on several occasions. There are people like you that prefer to minimize the random element to loot and there are people like me that love to be surprised "what's in it". I guess we just have to agree to disagee on this one, and Blizzard constantly adopting and tweaking their loot system is an indication that they're trying to find a compromise between our two "loot personalities".
Why have any loot determined by RNG? Why not just have "Illidan List A token" and "Illidan List B token" drop each kill instead of a random item from those lists? It would allow every one to get their DST/Skull/whatever that much faster, and have the drop be determined by player desire, not RNG. It actually would make far more sense to have each boss drop things that NPCs convert for you into a variety of different armor pieces or whatever desgiend specifically for each individual player than have a piece of armor drop that can be worn equally well by a Troll, Tauren, Human, or Gnome. It would lend more credance to the item actually being much more powerful than the random stuff you find in the world that you have to fiddle with to get to fit for your character.
In my mind, the real excitement is killing the boss; Blizzard wants part of it to be the anticipation of finding out what drops. To me, it only leads to depression when what I wanted didn't drop or worse something dropped no one could use. Maybe its just my personality though.
It would also mean that guilds' progression is only a function of how well their loot system gears them for progressing, not a function of RNG.
Blizzard's response to this: It's a design choice.
I agree this could work but Blizzard has designed the game to feed into addiction; the "I have to get my DST. I have to get my DST! I have to get my DST!!!!" mentality (or whatever item). However, to me, this becomes so utterly irritating when you don't see the drops. But it does make is so much more exciting when it finally does drop. And then again so much more incredibly frustrating when you lose the roll/don't have enough DKP for the piece. This effect can still be introduced by a Legendary Token or changing drop rates on the different tokens.
Doing loot as you describe is would provide an easier, and faster, way to gear up. Being allowed to pick the pieces that you want that will increase your DPS/Tankability/Healing the most would be great. However, I don't know if Blizzard would ever do something like this. Why? I don't know. It sure would make a lot of gear not get wasted from the "Oh, X Druid is going to be pissed he didn't come tonight because his Staff finally dropped."
So we end up with Tier/cloth/leather/mail/plate/weapon or offhand tokens. Sure is it requires people to know what each of those tokens turns into, but they did it with Sunwell loot to an extent, and tier gear is no different, so they can't use that as an excuse. Maybe I'm missing something but a change like this would go a long way to ease the loot frustration that I have, would focus excitement around the kill, and reduce (not eliminate) RNG.
Any time something seems more tedious or obnoxious than necessary, you can bet it's to help make sure you don't 'finish the game' before the next content patch comes out.
You can place a "Class: rogue, paladin, warlock" mention on a token, and it's easily understood. I'm a rogue, I can roll/bid/whatever on this token. But "role: healer"? Watch the masses collectively scratching their head trying to decide "hmmm, does role tank mean there's a chance my class has a valid set with this token?" (it has not, but you'd be amazed at who can rationalize the fact that their mage is "tanking" in Maulgar's encounter as meaning they might have a "tank" set with lots of sta - that's what the raid lead ask them: "do you have your tank set?").
This is easily solved by adding class restrictions so only those who have tank-oriented sets can use the token. It'd show up as red for other classes.
Why have any loot determined by RNG? Why not just have "Illidan List A token" and "Illidan List B token" drop each kill instead of a random item from those lists?
As others said, it's a design choice, a choice between "predictability" and "surprise".
I don't dispute Blizzard's choice on this one, as I somehow share it (badges are a good idea, but I really felt it underwhelming that they could buy the BEST gear for most people, rather than second-rate gear for those who were unlucky on the RNG thingy).
But tier tokens aren't "surprising". You KNOW you'll have tokens when killing a boss. That's the "expected reward" which exist to alleviate the "surprise" part where you can feel "oh yes at last !" if the right item drop, or frustration is, again, it doesn't.
As such, I don't see the point of limiting tokens to a particular set of classes - it's ONLY frustrating. You KNOW you'll get tokens, so you only get the frustration to see that you're getting the ones for your class. Or, even worse, if you're part of the four-classes token, you feel cheated because you've more competition than others, just "because you're part of the 'wrong' set of classes".
Making tokens "fair" with a twice 5-classes tokens, or a one-10-classes token, seems much more logical - and you can remove the counter-productive idea of allowing set parts to be buyable, which runs completely contrary to the very idea of sets.
I don't understand the reasonning of Blizzard on this one. They seems to contradict themselves and their own philosophy here.
If violence doesn't solve your problem...
... you simply haven't been violent enough !
Has anyone tried to put an Aldor/Scryer enchant on a pair of account bound shoulders? I would assume they would stay account bound, but since these shoulders are what most people will use their entire time leveling it makes the "causes item to become soulbound" caveat of the enchant pointless, since enchanting lowbie items was the only action it prevented.
But tier tokens aren't "surprising". You KNOW you'll have tokens when killing a boss. That's the "expected reward" which exist to alleviate the "surprise" part where you can feel "oh yes at last !" if the right item drop, or frustration is, again, it doesn't.
As such, I don't see the point of limiting tokens to a particular set of classes - it's ONLY frustrating. You KNOW you'll get tokens, so you only get the frustration to see that you're getting the ones for your class. Or, even worse, if you're part of the four-classes token, you feel cheated because you've more competition than others, just "because you're part of the 'wrong' set of classes".
Making tokens "fair" with a twice 5-classes tokens, or a one-10-classes token, seems much more logical - and you can remove the counter-productive idea of allowing set parts to be buyable, which runs completely contrary to the very idea of sets.
Well, tier set drops in general aren't surprising. When you were killing Nefarian you know that there would be one T2 chest in his loot, you just didn't know which. The interesting part about the T2 chest drop wasn't if it drops, but whether if it drops for your class. Tokens do basically the same they just reduce the variety (3 tokens as compared to soon 10 different classes), and make it much easier to complete class sets. So a three variety token is a compromise between a mere 10% chance that your class piece may drop and a guaranteed drop for you via a one variety loot token.
I guess I could even live a one for all loot token for tier sets, as long as it would be assured that the really juicy things, like weapons, trinkets and to a lesser extent rings would remain direct drops.
Or, even worse, if you're part of the four-classes token, you feel cheated because you've more competition than others, just "because you're part of the 'wrong' set of classes".
Making tokens "fair" with a twice 5-classes tokens, or a one-10-classes token, seems much more logical - and you can remove the counter-productive idea of allowing set parts to be buyable, which runs completely contrary to the very idea of sets.
I don't understand the reasonning of Blizzard on this one. They seems to contradict themselves and their own philosophy here.
Actually, being part of the 4 class token might be an advantage, assuming they have the drop rates adjusted to assume you have 2-3 of every class, and thus need 33% more of the 4 class token, making it so that you have 33% more of your type of token, but 33% more competition, which is a trade-off between rarity and competition. Now, whether Blizzard has set up the drop rates this way, or if the general class numbers end up close to holding for each token Blizzard picks, are still very good questions, with the first unknown until a relatively large data set is reached to make the difference statistically significant, and the second unknown till we see how raid teams develop. As for sets pieces on vendors, I assume that was partially so they didn't have to worry about putting set bonuses on items that certain classes or specs would decide are more or less mandatory for that level of gear and causing problems for those who don't get the drops, though being able to buy them cheaply with the tokens from the next teir up might make more sense than the current system, maybe even to the point of allowing the purchase of 4/5 or 5/5 of the pieces that way, to avoid worries about having to farm old content once past it without affecting loot from the current tier.
Originally Posted by Paprikka
Has anyone tried to put an Aldor/Scryer enchant on a pair of account bound shoulders? I would assume they would stay account bound, but since these shoulders are what most people will use their entire time leveling it makes the "causes item to become soulbound" caveat of the enchant pointless, since enchanting lowbie items was the only action it prevented.
I would hope that Blizzard would make it impossible to place those enchants on BoA items, or that they leave items BoA - that would be a rather extreme power boost for low level characters, but then the ZG shoulder enchants would be non-trivial as well. Personally I'd expand this question to ZG, Aldor/Scryer, and WotLK shoulder enchants. Perhaps the ideal solution would be to make the enchants not active unless the player met the required level and leave the item BoA, but that would require implementing a mechanic that doesn't currently exist for enchants to my knowledge, so is unlikely.
Perhaps the ideal solution would be to make the enchants not active unless the player met the required level and leave the item BoA, but that would require implementing a mechanic that doesn't currently exist for enchants to my knowledge, so is unlikely.
Nearly the exact same mechanic as checking whether the player has the correct profession. Very probable in my mind. Otherwise I'm sure the BoA pieces will merely be unable to be enchanted or only by enchants capable of being put on level 1 gear.
Has anyone tried to put an Aldor/Scryer enchant on a pair of account bound shoulders? I would assume they would stay account bound, but since these shoulders are what most people will use their entire time leveling it makes the "causes item to become soulbound" caveat of the enchant pointless, since enchanting lowbie items was the only action it prevented.
Account bound items are considered to be level 1, even while being worn by higher level characters. So you couldn't put any enchants that state "Requires L60 item". The BoA stuff could be enchanted with pre BC enchants and other stuff that doesn't have a required level, but that's pretty much it.
It's not a real big issue since most people don't bother to enchant their gear while leveling. BoA items (that are scaled to be roughly equivalent to blues of the same level) should more than suffice for just casual leveling. Although, a lot of pre BC enchants are fairly decent even up to 70. I recall reading some post that figured out that Crusader is superior to +20 strength, even taking into account Crusader's reduced proc chance at 70.
I imagine that it just changes them immediately to Soulbound instead of Account-Bound, but I unfortunately don't have the badges on my beta character to buy a piece and find out. It seems like a much simpler solution than trying to work out some way to keep levels 1s from getting the requisite rep/whatever, finding out they missed X loophole, etc.
I imagine that it just changes them immediately to Soulbound instead of Account-Bound, but I unfortunately don't have the badges on my beta character to buy a piece and find out. It seems like a much simpler solution than trying to work out some way to keep levels 1s from getting the requisite rep/whatever, finding out they missed X loophole, etc.
That would defeat the purpose of having these items in my eyes. The point is to allow you to level more than one character with the same set of gear.
Otherwise they would just put in BoE rares and epics that scale with level.
I am not in beta and can't test it but I am sure the current mechanic of making an item soulbound when adding these enchants applies to Heirloom items. I doubt that it is the intended mechanic and bet if it is not already the case that it will be changed so that you cannot put these enchants on an heirloom item.
It does not make sense that they would allow you to pass the benefits of these enchants to alt characters...
Nearly the exact same mechanic as checking whether the player has the correct profession. Very probable in my mind. Otherwise I'm sure the BoA pieces will merely be unable to be enchanted or only by enchants capable of being put on level 1 gear.
Actually, I think they may already have done this.
On Live I was inspecting another player and looked at their ring. They have one of the Enchanter specific ring enchants, but it was in red with the added text "Requires Enchanting (350)". I'm guessing that you're able to enchant Account-Bound items but the enchants won't take effect until the appropriate level.
What I lack in intelligence I make up for in verbosity.
Looks like Sharpening Stones and Weapon Oils are going away. Posters also say the old versions don't work on level 80 weapons.
Sharpening Stones and also Wizard Oils have been discontinued. While they were something nice to use once in a while for most people for many raid guilds they were simply another burden to the cost of raiding. They also caused some issues in that they only helped certain classes and took away some of the uniqueness of other classes who were able to imbue their weapons with temporary enchants such as rogues and warlocks.
Account bound items are considered to be level 1, even while being worn by higher level characters. So you couldn't put any enchants that state "Requires L60 item". The BoA stuff could be enchanted with pre BC enchants and other stuff that doesn't have a required level, but that's pretty much it.
It's not a real big issue since most people don't bother to enchant their gear while leveling. BoA items (that are scaled to be roughly equivalent to blues of the same level) should more than suffice for just casual leveling. Although, a lot of pre BC enchants are fairly decent even up to 70. I recall reading some post that figured out that Crusader is superior to +20 strength, even taking into account Crusader's reduced proc chance at 70.
Most don't enchant leveling gear because it gets replaced quickly though. Most will be using these items for the majority of the time until 80, especially the shoulders with the extra 10% xp. And many people have a pair of white cloth pants with an epic spell thread on it ready for alts.
If it does turn an account bound item soulbound though, it'll make any old naxx shoulder enchants people have saved even more valuable.
[Darkmoon Card: Greatness]
You have a choice of 4 different cards which have 90 stength/agility/intellect/spirit respectively and all the same proc.
The proc has a 35% proc chance and 45 seconds cooldown.
I have to say Blizzard's design philosophy is really perplexing to me sometimes. Were shamans and rogues really complaining about sharpening stones taking away their "uniqueness?" Why not buff poisons and imbues instead?
As for the cost per raid, were oils and stones really that expensive? Why not remove consumables altogether if it's such an issue? I don't get it.
Originally Posted by Bula
"They were bad, stop trying to figure out why bad players do bad things."
As for the cost per raid, were oils and stones really that expensive? Why not remove consumables altogether if it's such an issue? I don't get it.
They have basically done it with the implementation of Potion Sicknes. The reasoning is that consumables require constant grind outside the raid just to keep you in raid, and this can get quickly very tiring.
I guess they want to keep some minimal consumables, because otherwise Alchemy would become completely useless and they also want to maintain some kind of need for raid preparation, though on a very modest level. Raid preparation enhances the experience you get out of raids, because it actually creates anticipation for what is coming ahead, instead just rushing unprepared into the zone.
I have to say Blizzard's design philosophy is really perplexing to me sometimes. Were shamans and rogues really complaining about sharpening stones taking away their "uniqueness?" Why not buff poisons and imbues instead?
As for the cost per raid, were oils and stones really that expensive? Why not remove consumables altogether if it's such an issue? I don't get it.
Somehow you mixed up uniqueness with some notion of balance. Windfury and poisons are class-defining features, and their uniqueness is taken away by the availability of imbues to anyone. This uniqueness has nothing to do with balance. Having imbues is an entirely different category of uniqueness than having better imbues. And not every design decision has to be a reaction to player outcry, blizzard was just looking over their class imbues with regards to initial design goal and decided removing generic imbues did more good than harm.
Most consumables add no depth to gameplay. There is no choice about when or how to use them, simply whether to use them, and they have no downside aside from cost. This is the reason for the potion change: now there is a tactical element of selecting both which potion, and when. Elixirs continue to exist primarily because otherwise alchemy wouldn't have anything to do whatsoever, but it's justifiable that the choice of which elixir/flask is nontrivial. Ditto food. Imbues for non-shamans/rogues had the same problem as potions before: there are only smaller ones and bigger ones. They are therefore an uninteresting choice and while the burden they add is small, it is also needless. Consumables that are too expensive are getting cheaper; consumables that add no depth to gameplay are getting redesigned or removed.
I think part of this is to bridge the gap between, for lack of a better word, the weaker raiders and the stronger raiders. And I by no means at all mean to imply casual vs. hardcore, because I absolutely don't think it has anything to do with it.
I mean there are people in guilds that are not top 10 or so, but say top 20 or top 30 in a server who have members that don't go the extra miles. Then you have those in the top 4-5 that were willing to do the Manly method to improve their characters (that is, go leatherworking, go enchanting, enchant rings, drop enchanting, etc).
This somewhat makes balancing a bit easier too. I do not think imbues were time consuming or expensive, but there are many people that didn't use them. This narrows the gap between the good and the not-so-good.
Originally Posted by arison
Everyone should start from the same place and rise based on their abilities, desires, and schedule. No one plays MMOs to *be* powerful, they play MMOs to *become* powerful. It's the journey, stupid. The rarer loot is, the more cherished it is when you get it, but only so long as there is a reasonable expectation to get it. The rarer loot is, the better it feels when you kill a boss or when $AWESOME_TRINKET drops.
Somehow you mixed up uniqueness with some notion of balance. Windfury and poisons are class-defining features, and their uniqueness is taken away by the availability of imbues to anyone. This uniqueness has nothing to do with balance. Having imbues is an entirely different category of uniqueness than having better imbues. And not every design decision has to be a reaction to player outcry, blizzard was just looking over their class imbues with regards to initial design goal and decided removing generic imbues did more good than harm.
Speaking personally here, I kind of liked weapon imbues. Being prepared and stacking my character with every food/elixir/flask/food/scroll I possibly could gave me an odd sense of accomplishment, and most of these things (weapon oil especially) were cheap enough to be trivial. In fact I largely preferred weapon imbues to food and such simply because I did not have to replace them every attempt :p. Then again, I also enjoyed min/maxing my raid comp/grouping to get as many people buffs as possible, and I was in a guild that was no where near top tier.
Most consumables add no depth to gameplay. There is no choice about when or how to use them, simply whether to use them, and they have no downside aside from cost. This is the reason for the potion change: now there is a tactical element of selecting both which potion, and when. Elixirs continue to exist primarily because otherwise alchemy wouldn't have anything to do whatsoever, but it's justifiable that the choice of which elixir/flask is nontrivial. Ditto food. Imbues for non-shamans/rogues had the same problem as potions before: there are only smaller ones and bigger ones. They are therefore an uninteresting choice and while the burden they add is small, it is also needless. Consumables that are too expensive are getting cheaper; consumables that add no depth to gameplay are getting redesigned or removed.
I agree that the amount of depth added by imbues and similar buffs was not especially significant, but at the same time I don't especially like charging into a boss with little to no preparation whatsoever (and asking the mage to give me AI for the third time doesn't really count). Flasks are already set-and-forget, and food buffs were more tedious than weapon imbues before the patch. I also don't really understand how weapon imbues were stepping on the 'unique-ness' of shamans and rogues; a few mp5 isn't on nearly the same level as windfury (and isn't something an enhance shaman would bother with anyways).
My only concern with imbues and other consumable stuff going away is resist fights. A non-trivial amount of stats came from imbue/consumables on the initial Mother Sharaz fight due to no stats on resist gear besides Stamina.
Maybe we'll see resist gear return to the Naxx/frost style set where it includes actual stats? I wouldn't mind that.
10/29/08, 12:25 PM
Similar Threads
