Tuesday, August 11, 2015

It's Not Easy Being Blue

I think I am getting soft in my old age.  Normally I like to jump on the blues when they make statements that are flat out false but I am starting to realize that perhaps it really is not that they are bad at their job or natural born dimwits but that blizzard keeps making weird changes that make no sense and it becomes hard for every blue to know everything that is going on.

It is more a case of the blue in question should have just said nothing than to try and address a concern.  This is actually bad for the game in my opinion.  When the people that keep us informed would be better not doing so, there are some deeper issue than someone just not keeping up on their job.

I am sure that many blues often are left having to defend the actions of blizzard when they personally disagree with it.  Look at someone like Bashiok who just left the company to go work for NC soft.  I used to always think of him as one of the better blues but the for the last year or so I started to blast him every chance I got. 

The guy went off the deep end, he left the reservation.  He was being rude to the players either straight out or with a snide remark.  He was blatantly disrespectful to the player base and did not even try to hide it.  He went from being one of the people that usually had some useful information and was a boon to the community to someone that you knew anything you read from him would feel as if he was speaking down to us.

After he left the company it occurred to me that perhaps he did not suddenly turn into the obnoxious idiot he had become but it was a slow transition where he was put in the unenviable position of having to defend blizzards decisions when he did not agree with them.  Now I do not know if this is the case, maybe the guy just became king the the jerks naturally, but it is entirely possible it was his working conditions that made him such.

So maybe if I was forced into the position of having to defend the no flying decision over and over when I disagreed with it I could see myself getting rude to people over it too.  I would not want to defend blizzard against people I agreed with.  I would not want to keep telling people they are wrong and this is better for the game when I do not believe that.  I would have to defend a move I did not believe in, defend a move I knew was bad for the game and that would make anyone angry and bitter, really fast too.

So maybe, just maybe I was too hard on Bashiok.  Maybe it wasn't the fact he had become a world class jerk, maybe he was just miserable working there having to defend bad decisions made by blizzard and we, the players, ended up getting abused by him in his responses because of it.

Yesterday I saw two blue remarks that were, in a word, wrong.  Normally I would jump on them for being idiots, today I am feeling a little bad for them instead because of the position that blizzard has put them into.  They throw so much junk at them and then ask them to defend the changes without them actually fully understanding the changes that were made.

I feel bad for the blues, but that does not change the fact that sometimes it might just be a better idea to say nothing than to say the wrong thing.  Lets take a peek at the examples from yesterday where two blues would have been better off not answering the questions at all instead of suffering from a major case of foot in mouth disease.

Our first unsuspecting blue was on a forum post.  Not only did he get one part of his reply wrong but he made two erroneous statements in one reply.  And I feel really bad for the guy.  After a post like the one he made, with two clear errors in it, I am sure he was sitting at his desk thinking "I should have just stayed home today".

Post Title was: Bliz Confirmed:best PvP gear from PvE in xpac

There was really nothing in the post except a link to the video of the interview.  The following was a response from Lore.

Misleading title is misleading.

What Tom said was that someone wearing the absolute best PvE gear in the game might have a 7% advantage over someone who had just hit level 100 -- and thus, had not collected any gear at all. There was nothing about his statement at all that could be taken as "the best gear for PvP comes from PvE." I have no idea how you could have gotten that from what he said, unless you're purposefully trying to stir up trouble.

Our intent -- as it has been for several expansions now, and as it is currently in Warlords -- is for PvP gear to be the best available in PvP. That has not changed in Legion.

Wrong point #1:

Even in his reply Lore said that someone in mythic gear would be better than someone in quest gear by 7% because mythic gear is the best gear you can get.  It stands to be believed that means someone in mythic gear would be some percentage better than someone in LFR gear, or normal gear or even heroic gear.  Even if the mythic geared player is only a slim 1% more powerful than a heroic geared player in PvP than what the guy posted as the title of his post, "Bliz Confirmed:best PvP gear from PvE in xpac" is absolutely 100% factually correct.  So how exactly is that misleading?  Stating facts is misleading?  That is news to me.

I know Lore was trying to settle down the PvP crowd from thinking they needed to PvE to get gear.  But this is one case he really should have just never answered this post.  Because, lets face it, the title of the post was correct, and in him trying to settle it down, he ended up proving what the person said in the title when he said that the best geared PvE character would have a 7% advantage over a fresh character.  Instead of proving the guy was wrong, he proved the guy was right.  I am sure that did not work as intended.

Wrong point #2:

Saying that PvP gear is intended to be best for PvP is correct, saying "that has not changed in legion" is wrong.  Sorry Lore, they are removing PvP gear from the game or so they told the world the other day.  I would think, as you work there, you might have heard of that.  So it would be impossible for that to be the same in legion.  How exactly can PvP gear be the best for PvP when there is no such thing as PvP gear in legion? 

Really should have not answered that post buddy.  You double whammied yourself.

The second case of "you would have been better not answering" came from the Yogcast with Tom Chilton.  The question and answer were as follows.

Q: "Demon Hunters only have two talent trees. Would you ever think of removing trees from other classes?"
A: "I think people would be pretty upset by that. I don't see us doing that. If I could warp back in time, maybe we would have not added some, but now it is too late, we will instead try and make them more distinct.
We are going class-by-class and trying to identify problem areas that have no distinct identity and trying to fix that."

"I don't see us doing that" is what he said.  This is someone really really high up in the food chain, at the top of the food chain and he says "I don't see us doing that"??? (yes three question marks on purpose because... really, did he just say that)

You are aware they are removing the ranged survival spec from the game right?  Sure it is being replaced by another spec with the name of survival but that spec plays a completely different role.  So you are removing a ranged spec from the game.  So how exactly can you say "I don't see us doing that" with a straight face when you are doing exactly that this expansion?  You are removing a spec from the game.

Another shining example of you were better off not saying anything, sorry Tom, but I can clearly see some egg on your face there.

BTW, if you also say "I think people would be pretty upset by that" why are you removing survival?  You acknowledge that people will be really upset by it, you say that you don't see yourself doing it, and yet you are still doing it.  Why?  I think that is a fair question.

Maybe he forgot about the ranged survival spec being removed from the game, maybe Lore forgot about PvP gear being removed from the game.

Maybe being a blue is a lot harder than anyone thinks when you have to keep track of all these changes blizzard makes.

Bottom line is, for all you blues out there, it is better to keep quiet and let the community think you are a moron than open your mouth and prove you are.  It's not easy being blue.


  1. Clearly on planet Blizz, a fundamental change is not the same as a removal. And in a way what was said about SV is factually correct: they haven't removed it. Changed it beyond recognition, yes, but not removed it.

    Perhaps they've announced the SV change to test the waters of opinion? I've already (albeit tongue-in-cheek) sugested they may do something to Fire Mages. Others have said a Warlock spec may change.

    The main thing I don't get about SV becoming melee is that they do it at the same time as they introduce the new Demon Hunter melee class. The more I think about it the less it makes sense. Doing one or the other, fine. Doing both? Just - why? Where are they going with this?

    Personally I hope the Blues don't keep quiet. I hope Blizz encourages them to engage. If they make a public howler fine, that can be corrected and they will learn from it. As will we.

    Right now I'm learning that either the whole xpac design is in chaos, or the design team aren't involving the Blues enough. Probably both.

    1. If they "changed" something it would be a "change". Like changing the abilities of survival to do something else. But they are not "changing" survival.

      So yes, they are removing survival, as a ranged spec, and replacing it with a new spec of the same name, survival, as a melee spec.

      Big difference. However, it is exactly the same as what he said "I think people would be pretty upset by that" in reference to removing a spec.

      Just the same as prot warriors would be upset if they removed tanking and prot became a melee DPS spec.

      I do not think they actually think before they speak sometimes, but that often comes from trying to rapidly answer questions to keep the flow going. They step on their tongue often. Being a good company representative takes a lot of skill, don't let anyone ever say otherwise. These people are not exactly great at their job, but it is not entirely their fault. Blizzard does not make it easy on them.

      Melee is the least wanted role for a raid, they are adding a hero class melee and they are adding a melee hunter spec. So least wanted role, more added specs, why? It makes no sense.

      I think maybe they are not involving the blues. As it seems they do not have a clue what is going on. Lore is usually on top of things, how he did not know PvP gear is being removed is beyond me.

    2. Haha! The discussion of whether or not a spec has been removed from hunters (and it clearly has been removed IMO) reminds me of the story of George Washington's axe.

      An antique dealer is trying to sell some guy an axe he claims is the one George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree. The guy is dubious, says "I dunno, it looks in pretty good shape to be that old."

      Antique dealer replies, "Well, over the course of the years the head and handle have been replaced a few times, but I guarantee you it's the genuine axe."

      Blizz is changing out everything that makes up SV hunters, "But we guarantee you it's the genuine spec."

    3. It really depends on how you want to slice it though. It's technically correct to say that Survival isn't being removed - it's still a hunter DPS spec and it's still called Survival. Contrast that to your example on Prot warriors, which involves changing a spec from tanking to DPS (an actual removal of a role).

      I imagine what they meant by 'removing' specs was taking away a spec a giving nothing back (i.e. being left with 2 remaining specs). And in that context at least, he's not wrong. Personally, I'd consider the Survival change a drastic rework rather than a flat-out removal of a spec, but YMMV of course.

    4. I think part of the problem with Blizzard is that their employees all switch to defensive stance the moment they communicate with the outside world.
      The result is that they sometimes end up defending something which cannot be defended.

      Lore is a clear example of this.

      Chilton wasn't incorrect in his answer but should have taken more time explaining why changing SV into a melee spec is in their view not the same as removing it.

      I think with SV's melee history their reasoning is that SV is going back to it's roots but until they give an explanation we won't know.

    5. @ Fiannor

      That is awesome. The perfect example of what they are doing there. They replaced the whole thing and then try to call it the same spec. No, it is a different ax and a different spec. Nice comparison.


      Melee DPS and ranged DPS are two different roles. Moving a ranged to melee is exactly the same as making a tank a DPS spec. You are changing their roles.

      Yes, I agree what was meant was the taking away and giving nothing in return. Which is not the case with hunters, they are losing ranged and getting melee. But they still had a ranged spec removed, no matter how you slice it.


      I agree, what lore said was him just doing his job. He got caught in a bad place. I think he is usually a good guy on the forums, he just had a bad day thanks to trying to defend blizzard against a factually accurate post.

      Hunters are having a ranged spec removed and getting a new melee spec. So bottom line, they had something removed. But I do agree, I think the reason they are using survival for this is because it always felt like a melee spec to begin with back in the day. So it made sense.

    6. double speak. double + good!


  2. I you had actually payed attention to the presentation on thursday, you would have noticed taht there is still PvP gear in the game.

    At the very least what I gathered from the screenshot of the new honor system is that you unlock the gear as you climb the honor system, probably something like the heirloom we have now.

    it nothing official, but with 50 level of honor, that would made perfect sense.

    But you're right in a way, you're getting old, old and even grumpier, to the point that no matter what the blue says, you'll turn it in a bad way. You just didn't realised it, but you have almost turned in one of the haters taht bash blizzard for nothing.

    1. I did pay attention and no, they said it is there intention to have no PvP gear in legion, as it stands now. All gear will be the same. Of course all of that is subject to change. Everything now is subject to change.

      They did say there will be PvP ways to get gear, but did not elaborate on it. I am guessing boxes for doing content, but that is just as a guess. However I believe it to be a pretty solid guess as that seems to be their standard reward system lately and it would fit for PvP content.

      If that is the case where the only way to get gear as a PvPer is through random boxes or raiding then the best way to gear for PvP will be through PvE.

      Now maybe if you actually paid attention you might have known that. I have been known to be wrong before so no biggie that you thought I was this time. It happens. But this time I am 100% correct, based on their own words, there is no PvP gear in legion.

      I am grumpy, I am not a hater. Trust me, if I hated the game I would not be playing and I sure as hell would not be writing about it. People complain about things they like, they do not complain about things they don't. If I bash it is because it deserves bashing.

    2. I don't think that is a fair assessment. I think GE is pretty consistent. He brings up a point, gives some background information and context, lays out his reasons for concluding the original point based on the analysis of that background and context.

      There may be things he doesn't consider and should, or vice versa considers that he ought not to; however, that is a far cry from a hater.

      Those individuals don't espouse any kind of structure in their argument, or even any kind of argument. They are often punctuated by all encompassing statements based on emotional reaction. (Not to be confused with someone laying down an argument and citing emotional reactions personal or otherwise as part of the case, not the entirety of it.)

      I think the general tone and criticisms of GE's posts for the last few months HAVE gotten sharper in their criticisms. Do you not think it reasonable that one's patience and generosity for accepting contradictatory or misleading information wanes as does one's belief in the overall management of multiple levels of the game? I think it is reasonable to criticize in sharper and sharper means because, the direction, the author believes to be wrong, continues. Sharper criticism in media work much like louder speech. If the person you are trying to reach doesn't seem to hear you, its only natural to "raise the volume."

    3. @Thuggs

      Thanks, I know I of course lean to the side of my own opinions as only makes sense that I would but I attempt to at least lay out a reason for my opinions and don't just say an opinion without reason.

      Over the last couple of years I might be getting a little more jaded with blizzard and how they run the game but I believe it is justified.

      Just look at the flying thing with stringing us along with "we will bring it later" for such a long time and then dropping a bomb on us that they are removing it after well over a year of saying it was coming later. The, just a couple of short weeks later, assuredly after major sub loses, they reverse their decision once again.

      Things like that do add up and make me really question the integrity and intelligence of the management of the company. And rightfully so I believe.

      Oddly enough I think I have lowered my volume over the years. I used to be a much harsher critic. But I think that is tied to I don't care as much as I used to. I still like the game, there is no doubt about that, but I do not yell and scream with the same passion I did, say, 5 years ago. The game is losing me.

    4. I had the exact same "are you freaking serious" reaction to the spec removal comment! Maybe the survival spec was using camouflage and he didn't see it???

    5. That is the only reasonable conclusion, survival was hidden and he did not notice it was removed.

    6. Well, I totally agree with you on the post made by Lore. I just chalk that up to being busy and not seeing/hearing everything that was said - which goes back to what you said Grumpy, best not to say anything in that situation.

      However, I am going to disagree with you on the comment from Tom. Here's why. The part of the question that needs special attention is: "Would you ever think of removing trees from other classes?" - so, really the question and answer he gives would relate to the actual removal of a specialization tree. When you see it in that context, Tom is 100% correct (or at least as of the time of this post since they could change their minds and remove a spec tree from a class). The Survival spec is not being removed (not removed per the definition of the word "remove"); rather it is being converted into a melee spec, thus, not removed (per definition). Now, before you (or anyone reading this) says it... yes... we are arguing over semantics. I know... it's a petty thing. But if we are going by shear face value and definition of the word "remove" then Tom answered correctly. Had the question been something like: "Would you ever think of completely changing the specialization trees from other classes?" - then Tom could not have answered the way he did, knowing what he (and we) now know.

      I do want to see a Hunter melee spec but I don't want SV (as ranged) to be completely altered into that melee spec. It should be a 4th spec or else just ditch the melee spec idea if it means SV turns into melee.

    7. Yeah, I think it was just a bad day for Lore. He answered the question to try and defuse what could be a really harsh topic and ended up looking bad in the process. Feel bad for him. He might have just missed the announcements.

      I see it as they are removed a tree from the hunter. The hunter had 3 ranged specs, it now has 2. Looks like they removed one to me.

      Do not get hung up on the fact they are adding a new spec with the same name. Forget the name, get it out of your head, never think of it again. Think of it simply as the 3rd hunter spec with no name.

      Now ask yourself the question again. Did they remove a spec from the hunter? Remember, before answering, to think how many ranged specs hunters had before and after. Now answer the question.

      There is no way to misread that. Hunters lost a spec. He said they would not do that. It is a misstatement on his part. He can't say they would not do that when that is exactly what they did.

      As I said before, if they wanted hunters to have a melee spec they should have added a 4th spec, not deleted the 3rd and replaced it.

      I am not against hunters having a melee spec. I am against hunters losing a ranged spec to make room for it. They should never remove specs from the game completely like that.

    8. Come to think of it, Hunters already have a melee spec... 3 as a matter of fact. They call them Rogues. ;-)

      I don't know, it just seems weird to have SV turned into a melee spec. I get that of the three it would make the most sense to convert, but I really don't understand the need to convert it to melee. The same thing could be accomplished by just adding a 4th spec and then everyone (well, maybe not everyone, but the majority) would be fine with it.

    9. Oh hell no, rogue are not melee hunters. Hunters can't count to 5 for the combo points, that is why we have pets. To count for us. :P

      I don't understand the need to convert it either. The last thing this game needs is another melee spec, it needs it like a hole in the head, and they are adding 2, one with hunters and one with a demon hunter. It makes no sense at all.

      If they added a forth spec there would still be some problems for sure, but 90% of the complaints people have would go away. For some people that loved survival and even still played it even if it is crap, they are pissed off, and rightfully so.

    10. well, doh, I had something to say, but it was a fleeting thought I guess. But yeah, fido is smarter than me. oh, yeah! When are we going to get that damned flying? How much longer? Any guess?

    11. Soon I hope, the darn expansion is already over, we should have had it months ago.

    12. Yeah, one of the Hunters in our raid has taken leave and mostly because he loved SV and he was/is damn good at it. He struggled with MM and it pissed him off. Then the news that SV was turning into melee next xpac and that was really the tipping point for him. He said he hopes to be back before Legion is released but likely not to raid. My guess is, so he can get whatever you can only get during that time before the ending of WoD and the beginning of Legion (you know, like that Mana Bomb us Horde players got at the end of Wrath) and to play SV as ranged for one last time.

      Sad really.

    13. Edit: End of Cata for that Mini Mana Bomb (not Wrath).

    14. Tell him to come back before the prepatch then, because as soon as the prepatch lands SV will be melee.

      I feel really bad for people like him. They liked what they liked and blizzard is removing the spec completely. It is not like last expansion when they took kill shot from them, that is changing a spec, this is removing a spec. I can certainly see, and support, those people leaving the game.

  3. Blizz become more of a joke everyday.

    Blizzard are an even worse joke that this one I read that was a joke "surprise" touted for Legion:

    "Sargeras is already among us as a rent boy cruising the Stormwind docks. He wanted to pimp his fiery ass down Booty Bay, with it sounding appropriate, but his flaming butt would burn it down to the waterline and ruin the customer base."

    1. Can't say I found that joke funny, sounds as if it was missing something, or I missed something.

      But they do have a lot of contradicting themselves lately, which is a joke for sure.

    2. LMAO, but you need to add,

      "after he did a few weeks in Goldshire with the dancing boys on the tables."

      that's funny.

  4. Yeah, they aren't making much sense from a business standpoint. I've worked in IT as a Software Developer, albeit primarily in the Financial and Business Services areas, and what they are doing would have seen my arse so fired it's unbelievable.

    Blizz don't do PR, they seem to have adopted a kind of arrogance, the kind of contempt for the 'proles' that you see from politicians.

    They've just become too big, the dev are too caught up in their own little world with their circle of "feedback fanboys" and lost touch with the harsh realities of the free market economy.

    1. Yeah, where I work if I lost 44% of my clients over the course of 2 quarters I would be on the unemployment line too. I am really surprised we have not see a fair deal of shake ups on the blizzard team because of this. Maybe what changed was in the background, but even if that was the case I am sure someone would have noticed it and make a post about it somewhere.

    2. No, I think they have put WoW into the background as an "Old, brings in cash, bleed it til it rots" game while the main focus is elsewhere now. Hearthstone etc have knocked WoW off it's perch and leaving it to slowly wither away.

      It's sad because it was a great game. Vanilla was good for me because it was new. BC was good because I could PvP in AV all day and get epics from having some really great fights.

      Wrath was the pinnacle, the best wow. I did raids, heroics, Wintergrasp... great times. Really enjoyable and the storyline was superb.

      But since then the stories have stank. Cheese. I've been an avid reader of fantasy literature all my life and the last three expansions have stank. Crappa, Pandaland and Paymore have all been awful for me as a player and as a fantasy reader.

      Legion has the story potential but Blizzards current path makes it just more "raid or die" crap and just cannot trust them to produce a satisfactory product.

      I intend to wait until six months after the release, watching Lets Play vids and scouring the forums before I decide to sub again and buy Legion.

      Garrison and Shipyard just bored me to death and the LRF/LFD atmosphere is too toxic and elitist. Just Leet kiddies wanting an ego wank.

      Still... plenty more games out there. Steam rocks as a good source of games. Many there worth looking at.

    3. I sometimes get the same feeling, that they do not care about it as much as they used too and are just trying to keep it going to milk it as long as they can with the minimal amount of work.

  5. I've been thinking lately, trying to consider the PR missteps of the last couple years and what framework I can understand them without 1) presupposing Blizzard is incompetent or don't understand public relations and 2) presupposing that Blizzard employees do not care.

    I think you've hit the nail on the head in some respects to the dynamic that is going on at Blizzard and their fractured communication. Disorganization, incomplete communication between departments, and poor public relation skills by the individuals in presenting information to the public accomplish my earlier goal: explain why PR is so poor.

    But something is missing from this explination. Clearly Blizzard is a multi-national multi-billion dollar business who have put on media blitzes from the old Mr. T and Ozzy Osbourne tv commercials, to the Heroes of the Dorm exposure on ESPN two, not to mention the many Blizzcon conventions and digital distribution of those events. Clearly, they understand the value of advertising and exposure and work to build momentum for their products. However, they continue to put game dev's in front of large audiences with poor to absolutely wretched presentation skills or public speaking skills. In Blizzcon 2013, I remember one interview where (I believe it was Chilton) it was explained that they want the developers with deep understanding and passion for the game sharing all the wonderful things they were working on. Evidence to date, particularly Gamescon, shows this methodology to be flawed. The presenters were not passionate, engaged, and did not know how to handle a lukewarm crowd. This not being the first presentation like this, clearly the evidence shows that the original purpose of using Devs is not translating into the upbeat engaging presentations that Blizzard thought they would get from their developers.

    Why then do they continue this pattern, knowing that there is significant blowback and harm done to their own efforts? The only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that a true Public Relations Department with PR trained staff and fluent in gamespeak, would be costly to fund and difficult and time consuming to establish. If you are trying to develop and establish multiple new games in new markets for the company, the money for that has to come from somewhere. Perhaps the overwhelming success and popularity of WoW in its first 5 years earned Blizzard so much goodwill, lapses in presentation and clear consistent communication were forgiven. They've always said they pride themselves on the quality of the game and they like to let the games they make speak for themselves. So, why spend a ton of money on something that wasn't needed (at that time).

    What has changed? The goodwill and patience has waned with mistakes and game age, and then the overreliance by Blizz on goodwill forgiveness and enthusiasm for their games has taken its toll. Also, Activision's goals and demands for profits I'm sure have changed (for the worse) the ability to invest in such a huge department intro. The needs of the other games and titles again limits Blizzards willingness to invest in a department they didn't need before.

    My conclusion: That Blizzard has misjudged their Public Relation needs, particularly future needs, and never properly set up that function within the company, and now it blatantly, repeatedly, incessantly shows.

    1. I've always chalked it up to a management issue first and foremost. The issues with things like the "we'll see" approach to flying and stringing it out as long as they did can only be chalked up to someone not being able to make the decision and then passing the buck to the people that talk to the community to smooth it over. Bad management.

      I noticed the lack of enthusiasm as well at gamescon from the people announcing. The girl had a great deal of energy introducing them but the second they started talking it sucked all the air out of the room, or at least that is how it appeared to me. It was like listening to a lecture in college with the monotone professor.

      I think they have been coasting on the goodwill you mention for a long time. That and knowing that we as players keep paying as long as our friends are there. So they think they can coast and do not have to work to hard. As you said however, the have abused that goodwill a lot lately, and as someone else said here a long time ago, it is not so much what they say any more, it is the fact that they do not truth them any more.

      They need to hire people specifically to speak to their player base. It needs to be done, but to do it, you need better management that notices that is what they need, which goes back to where I started, I blame this on management.

  6. I had a very similar thought recently. Lore tweeted that everyone should tune in for a Q&A with more details on legion, and then they just made him look like an idiot for not having a q&a, or any details (re: the sunday morning gamescom recap). That has to suck, especially for someone who used to be a very respected player, worked hard to gain people's trust, and now is made into a liar fairly often.

    So, perhaps I'm being overly generous to Lore, but judging from his second response in that thread, I imagine he was told that there would be a way to gear for PvP outside of PvE, so then he had to backpedal when he realized that the devs had said there won't be any gear from pvp...

    1. I feel bad for Lore, seems like he was completely left out of the loop recently and made some mistakes posting things because of it. Like saying the Q & A would be an actually Q & A when it wasn't, it was more a "wrap up show".

      Sad part is, a few miscues like that and people forget all the awesome replies he has given us. I won't forget personally. Still like the guy and trust him more than most.

  7. With regard to pvp gear I was under the impression during the panel that since honor/conq as a currency is gone, there is no more honor gear. I do recall them saying you would be able to acquire gear through pvp somehow but they offered no specifics. I don't think they will create a situation where mythic gear is best for pvp. If i had to guess, pvp gear will probably somehow be unlocked by honor progression and that will be the item level which everyone will be scaled to when entering pvp combat.

    1. Yeah, the old earning gear through work (as in honor and conquest) is being removed. Most likely they are going to be going full on RNG just like in PVE with boxes for doing arena or BGs or RBGs. That would be my guess. And the gear is going to be the same exact gear that PvE players get. No more are there two types of gear. At least that is what I've been lead to believe.

      Someone did mention that the item level in PvP would mean minimal. So yes, mythic gear would be the best, but it might only be 1% better than heroic or something like that. It seems to be they are designing PvP to be more about skill and less about gear, which actually make it more attractive to people like me, even if I am not skilled at PvP.

      I am sure in instanced content it will be scaled like it is now however, so even a 1% difference will not be there.

  8. Now, as we saw with WoD, this is only the game announcement. Things may change DRAMATICALLY between here and bits dropping for the game.

    The one confusing part of their announcement is that the level 1 PVP talent is the token icon (like).

    1. I expect a lot to change actually, it usually does. I think that is why they kept the details limited, so we did not get too excited about something that ends up being taken out like happened last expansion with many things, like our capital cities.

      That could possibly be one of the ways PvPers get gear. They did mention there would be a few ways PvPers could get gear without having to PvE.

    2. ok how is FF 14? Is it a good game? Pay to win? PVP all the time? I have no idea what the FF stands for, but have seen you write about it from time to time (little blurbs).

    3. It is like wow, even price. But the box, pay 15 a month for access.

      Final Fantasy is what it stands for. If you ever played any of the console games you will find a lot that you remember from it.

    4. I have never own a console game machine. Ok, maybe I need to look for it. thanks GE!

    5. I loved the FF games. Growing up they were my absolute favorite. Even when I stopped gaming completely I always played FF games. Before wow I think FF was the only game I played with in regularity since I was young.

      So needless to say I have a lot of history with the FF franchise which makes me like the game a bit more as I see things I remember from the old games and it brings a little nostalgia around to make me smile.

  9. On the bright side, hunters can now rock both in ranged friendly fights and melee friendly fights. I'm curious to see how it will play out.

    1. In a perfect world that would be nice. Don't see it happening of course, but any world where a hunter could be top DPS in all situation I would be happy with. :P

  10. it's always fun until someone gets shot in de butt.

    just remember be careful out there.


    1. Or to stop shooting yourself in the butt.

    2. goes without saying, but there is always one of those "watch what I can do with my pinky-toe".

    3. Come to think of it, someone shooting themselves in the butt must take some real level of skill.