World of Warcraft Battlegrounds in Testing 68
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)."
Wait a day (Score:4, Informative)
Well, this is what I've been waiting for (Score:2)
Re:Well, this is what I've been waiting for (Score:3, Informative)
You can play it next week, though, when it opens up to all other players, or three weeks, when it should go public.
Re:Well, this is what I've been waiting for (Score:1)
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:1)
So imagine if you could only play Quake III with your roommate, and your roommate totally owns you at it. There's nothing you can really do, though, since you have a 9-5 job and your roommate spends all his time practicing Quake III. You'd love to play with your friends across the hall, but you can't because they aren't on the same server.
Guild Wars doesn't have that fatal flaw because all characters play on the same "server" so to speak. Not so with World of Warc
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:3, Interesting)
Guild Wars doesn't have that fatal flaw because all characters play on the same "server" so to speak. Not so with World of Warcraft.
True, you can only play with people on the same server. You call it a fatal flaw - I happen to think that it's much nicer to compete against a smaller set of people. I actually have a chance of being in the top 10 on my server, whereas if it was all servers combin
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:1)
The other fun thing is that Battlegrounds is self-reinforcing. The side that does well will get better equipment, skewing the game towards their favor.
I'd rather have more people to play with than play against the same group of level 60s repeatedly. Especially since losing makes the other side stronger.
Battlegrounds is a lame attempt to compete with Guild Wars, and it's causing Blizzard to miss some pretty severe bugs and class-balancing issues with the game.
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:2)
It's sometimes more *fun*, yes.
The other fun thing is that Battlegrounds is self-reinforcing. The side that does well will get better equipment, skewing the game towards their favor.
Good equipment can often be overcome with better tactics. If you manage to pull a guy with the best equipment in the game by himself and hit him with 5 guys, better equipment or not, he's probably going down. (I'm not advocating zerging; since Battlegrounds will be matched 1:1, y
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:2)
If one group gets on top through tactics, and therefore gets the good equipment, and stays there forever, then yes, that's no fun. This can happen on either situation (partitioned vs. one large server).
We were originally discussing partitioned servers vs. one large server, remember? I gather that you're arguing that one large server is going to be better for preventing one group from getti
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:2)
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:1)
Besides, we all know to target the highest ranking person first, in effect cutting off the head of the beast.
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:1)
In a WoW PvP sense, this means targeting the one with the highest rank next to their name. In other words, the one with the most kills/contribution.
All in all, I'm very interested to see how it pans out.
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:1)
That's the issue. You're always playing against the same people. In most sports, you play against various other teams, not the same three or four teams repeatedly.
The other problem is that there are rewards for winning that make the team that one even stronger. So the teams will slowly become more and more skewed until there's no poin
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:1)
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:2)
Actually, the baseball analogy is quite nice... sure, there are only 32 teams in MLB, but that doesn't mean one of them always wins over another. And, like this, the winning teams get more money from attendance and mercha
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:battlegrounds, no thanks (Score:1)
horde guild a is geared up and has played since retail and they crush the feeble alliance pickup group.
Under these conditions, there's no solution to your problem, whether you coerce all the servers or not. The horde team doesn't need superior gear, given that, under your conditions, they'll always be competing against a "pickup" alliance group. You're also assuming that this hypothetical horde team has more cohesion than is believable. I will readil
I thought they already had this? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 t
Re:I thought they already had this? (Score:2)
Nope. The onyl thing you lose for a dishonorable kill is the time it took to do it. You get rewards for honorable kills, but no punishment for dishonorable kills.
Re:I thought they already had this? (Score:1)
With the next patch, there will be a punishment for dishonorable kills. Which will still only count against NPCs.
So, instead of making the NPCs unkillable, they created a penalty for killing them. Brilliant. No note on whether these NPCs will stop attacking players as well. Because having the shopkeeper run off into the midst of battle makes so much sense.
Re:I thought they already had this? (Score:2)
You do not technically get rewards for honorable kills. What gets you rewards and moves you up in rank are contribution points. These are only awarded to you if the player is within a certain number of levels from you; the kill will also only be honorable if they fall within this range (though I do not believe it is dishonorable if they are not)
Re:I thought they already had this? (Score:2)
Quests = experience, money, equipment, progress.
Fighting monsters = experience, money, equipment, progress FIghting players = waste of time
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.
Which were pointless and annoying.
After about six months, they FINALLY implemented some sort of
Patch mirror (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Now if the devs can just get off their asses... (Score:1)
Re:Now if the devs can just get off their asses... (Score:3, Insightful)
A View On The Paladin Class (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A View On The Paladin Class (Score:1)
Re:A View On The Paladin Class (Score:1)
Neither a paladin nor druid is going to kill the other in a fair 1v1 fight between relatively skilled players. The damage output from either party cannot overcome the healing output from the other party.
Re:A View On The Paladin Class (Score:2)
Re:Now if the devs can just get off their asses... (Score:1, Informative)
- Warrior is less twitch? You haven't played a warrior haven't you?
Some NPC is my next target, I am in DPS mode, start of fight, number of key presses in (x):
- Switch to Battle Stance. (1)
- Charge. (1)
- Switch to Berserker Stance. (1)
- Bloodrage. (1)
- Demoralizing Shout. (1)
- Battle Shout. (1)
- Berserker Rage. (1)
- Thunderclap. (1)
Start real fight, for every enemy move/attack:
- Dodge: Switch to Battle
Re:Now if the devs can just get off their asses... (Score:2)
Leeroy! (Score:5, Funny)
http://flame.tiefighter.org/WoW/1115793473.wmv [tiefighter.org]
Re:Leeroy! (Score:1)
Re:Leeroy! (Score:1)
Re:Leeroy! (Score:2)
That's a hilarious video I've watched it a few times now so a couple of things stuck out at me:
Re:Leeroy! (Score:2)
hehehe I was half thinking that while I wrote that post but my desire to be a know it all got the better of me.
Thanks for that other link :)
Re:Leeroy! (Score:1)
On another note, one of the people starts almost-laughing half way through the video, when he should be upset or distraught.
It's hilarious as hell, though, espically when Leeroy does his war-cry and charges into the room like a mad man!
Re:If WoW falls down in the forest (Score:1, Insightful)
My review (Score:1)
It was quite fun, very easy to get into, and familiar if you've played capture the flag before. The initial games I had were fairly quick, ended within what seemed like 15 minutes or so of starting. Finding a team of 'good' people, or co-ordinating a team was a little bit trickier, but eventually things worked out.
There were some bad things, but I'll post about them near the end.
The first thing that I no
Important information your review missed (Score:1)
There is another which is 40v40 combat, which is everything they've said about battlegrounds. There are captureable objectives: graveyards which help respawn player reinforcements farther up, towers which spawn NPC reinforcements farther up, and a number of objectives to achieve against non-player character spawns which help your side (acquire gold mines, summon elementals, air strikes...).
Too little, too late (Score:3, Interesting)