+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Legendary - 5.0 Be Live Yo

  1. #1

    Legendary - 5.0 Be Live Yo

    Follow me on Twitter | Facebook | Google+

  2. #2
    yep i didnt play to much in the beta so the new patch was a huge change and the pvp especially as a healer is just ridiculous :P

  3. #3
    i actually disagree hat world pvp has become non existint.... in wrath and early cata i started a few world pvp raids that escalted because i thunderstormed someone from an herb and took it

  4. #4
    funny that the elementals were mentioned because i actually got into a turtle AV and we ended up summoning icelord for horde and we ended up winning by reinforcements, However adding what Lore says like a warground would be so much better then just taking 15 mins and its over

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    26
    Thanks for a good show!
    Mike is much more professional then Garry.
    Please keep mike in charge of the show in the future.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    14
    I feel that Blizzard is making a very big mistake with the Theramore scenario, I have a bad feeling that it will only serve to drive more Alliance players away from PvP. Seems that Blizz has forgotten about a certain thing that the military calls "Morale," and morale within the Alliance is at an all time low. Blizz has already been labeled, by Alliance players, for showing favortism to Horde players and this incident is only going to further cement that belief. If I recall correctly, I remember Blizz stating; on this subject; that you "can't make an omlet without first cracking a few eggs," well then with Cata the Alliance should be enjoying a huge banquet and they're not. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they shouldn't have done the things they did in Cata or that they should change it back, I'm just saying that they're not gonna win any brownie points with Ally players with the Thera scenario. It's gonna have the opposite effect of what they're after and I feel it's only gonna drive Ally players to either quit the game or switch to the side that they feel is winning, the Horde. This is only gonna imbalance the game and make alot of ppl feel let down, imo. I do have an idea on how they could save it though.

    What I feel is needed is a big event that will last the entire expansion, something really memorable and will swing some of the momentium in the direction of the Alliance and will make them feel like they have a chance. First they need to let the Gnomes finally claim Gnomeragon, and no the Gnomes do NOT have Gnomeragon they only have the "Surface," that's about like doing the whole Troll event to claim the Echo Isles to only be blasted back to the island where you had gotten the first foothold. This should be an immediate event, to help give a little boost to morale amongst Ally players. Second, over the course of the xp, allow the Gilneans, with the help of their allies, reclaim Gilneas and make it a huge event. It could have dailies, on both sides for the horde players shouldn't be left out, and some of those dailies could be PvP related; to help encourage players to get more involved with PvP. With each patch the landscape of Gilneas could change as the Gilneans gain more and more territory back and Blizz needs to make it to where the players, on both sides, feel that their actions are actually having an effect on the battle. This, I feel, would spur on alot of Ally and Horde player interaction and would provide a huge boost to Ally morale, thus possibly getting them more involved with PvP. I'm not saying that they shouldn't go through with the Theramore event, but rather that they need to make it up somewhere else to help remove the stain of "Horde favortism" that Blizz seems to be labeled with.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    99
    Really? I mean, really? Come on, you gonna storm Org, not a forgotten city there where nobody cares and then you gonna beat the Warchief, everybody and his grandma is gonna beat him in LFR.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    14
    Theramore is not just some forgotten city, it's leader is considered an icon by many Ally players and it isn't really about losing Thera. It's about the idea of the Alliance losing more ground. That's why I think that my idea could work, Blizz could go on ahead with the destruction of Thera, however, they would be making it up in Gilneas for the Ally players. Not only that, they could use my Gilneas idea to get more Ally players interested in PvP, something that many are not at all interested. This is mainly because of the view by many Ally players that Blizz favors the Horde and they feel that there is no point in even trying when the victor has already been decided. Blizz needs to throw Ally players a bone here instead of rubbing salt in the wounds, so to speak, this way Ally players feel like they are actually accomplishing something instead of feeling like they're bashing their heads up against a brick wall.
    What will be interesting to me, though, is how long those Ally bases in the Barrens are gonna last now that Thera's gone. Garrosh is nothing if not a masterful tactician, the destruction of Theramore could really spell the end of any Ally advancements on that part of Kalimdor.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Teenager On The Internet Thinks...
    Blizzard is blowing up Theramore. Therefore, they are being mean to alliance players and they hate alliance and they are always doing stuff for the horde.
    Quote Originally Posted by College Freshman On the Internet Thinks...
    Blizzard is blowing up Theramore. Therefore, they love the Alliance because they are causing something to happen which will have dramatic consequences that will unfold over the course of an entire expansion, which will necessarily focus on storytelling from the Alliance's perspective.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grown-Up on the Internet Thinks...
    It's been eight years. If I care so much about the story, which I maybe shouldn't because it's steeped in mediocrity and flat characters who exist solely to move plot, I've had ample opportunity to level a toon in both factions. The suggestion that individual plot developments that affect one side more than the other are evidence of character bias from the author is basically only one rung up from the great Team Edward / Team Jacob debate on the Hierarchy Of Incredibly Stupid Things Kids Rage About.
    Last edited by lauragnome; 09-01-2012 at 07:11 PM. Reason: Grammar.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4
    When Mike S speaks, i can hear him in someones else's mic. Dont know if Lore or Mike has their headphones cranked or Mike S is just really loud lol.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5
    I think players should be the ones deciding the fate of specific zones/cities. Instead of having these scenarios that ultimately don't mean anything, since the fate (in this case, Theramore) has already been decided. Something like Tol Barad or Wintergrasp, but more interesting.

    Why not make some cities managed by players? Maybe the most successful group in running the "scenario" would be able to "own" an entire city for a specified amount of time. They could win a cut in vendors sales (in gold or some other appropriate currency), some cool achievements and more. And the players of the faction holding the city would be able to buy some special items/mats/gear they would only find in that city. The amount of sales would determine some kind of points to be spent on customizing the city. So if you want to hold a city, you best make sure it's a lively place and not a ghost town. Managers could chose which stores would open, defenses for the next wave of invaders, and tip the balance of more defense/more vendors/some other aspects. If they repel invaders, more perks to the city, and maybe even some kind of tier gear for the assigned NPC "sponsor" of the city, determined by the stores chosen, and how many waves of invasions repeled. The team that most successfully defended the city and better than the best invading team, even with the aid of the city defenses built buy previous "owners" would have their turn in managing the city. If a faction has the majority of these player controlled cities, and if the scattering of buyers to all the cities wouldn't make a sufficient imbalance of income of points, maybe implement some mechanism that makes harder to develop each individual city, like a general pool of points (maybe not as drastic as points/#cities, but somewhat like that). The reasoning being: limited faction resources to spread all over while a war is going on. The level of detail this can go into is quite big.

    Warcraft lore will always be a bit strange, and can never go into much depth I think. For instance, they established who won the previous 3 wars... How can that be determined, really? Maybe I played these games with a different winning faction... I'ts like meeting Garrosh as the Horde Leader in the new Silverpine with a level 10 Forsaken, learning that some Forsaken betrayed Sylvannas and joined the Lich King, and then going to Outland and Northrend. You don't understand the lore by playing the game. Even if you played since the start of the game, and have some sort of logic lore progression, if you want to experience the new Cataclysm revamped areas you have to make new characters, unless you just want to read and 1-hit everything...
    Last edited by Percier; 09-02-2012 at 04:26 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    126
    @lauragnome

    Funny and true at the same time!


    On an entirely different subject, I used to agree with MikeB's opinion that in its old age the game will be more about the PVP. However nowadays I see it becoming more of a super casual FB type game and being adapted to work on the type of mobile devices that exist 5 to 10 years from now. As per the discussions last week...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    5,329
    Did Mike S get LASIK?
    [Today 09:38 AM] Reev: The older I get, the more I think those Greek philosophers were just annoying hipsters.
    Twitter @Aggathon || @Tankspot || Twitch.Tv/Aggathon

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    3
    The thumbs up option might work, but now with so many BGs (more than AV/AB/WSG) they should invent a devote system just like in Starcraft where you can downvote maps that you dont wanna play.

    So if you downvote AV and IoC and sign for Random BG you won't get a AV pop and that would count as an downvote in a way aswell?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyoor View Post
    Thanks for a good show!
    Mike is much more professional then Garry.
    Please keep mike in charge of the show in the future.
    Completely agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by xray View Post
    The thumbs up option might work, but now with so many BGs (more than AV/AB/WSG) they should invent a devote system just like in Starcraft where you can downvote maps that you dont wanna play.

    So if you downvote AV and IoC and sign for Random BG you won't get a AV pop and that would count as an downvote in a way aswell?
    I see where you are coming from, and in all honesty, I would love this system, because I dislike AV, IoC and Strand (basically, I feel that NPCs and vehicles are not true pvp, and strand would be fine for me if there were no demolishers and the bombs did more damage instead). However, I don't ever see this working. I think it is known that most people hate IoC. However, there are some people that like IoC, and need it for achievements, and if everyone is downvoting it, those players will have to wait ages for IoC if they queue specific, or never get it if they queue random. Same with AV. In my opinion, AV should be more focused on the player combat, and I find that it is too much pve for a battleground. In my opinion, the boss' health and damage should be affected by the amount of reinforcements a team has left. This means people will go for towers, and mines a bit more, because these reduce enemy reinforcements fast, and there may be some combat in field of strife, aside from the players that always seem to fail at ganking in the middle.
    Arms DPS main spec // Prot warrior tank off-spec

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,371
    You mean I can't gank Alliance players in Theramore anymore? Lame


    The measure of a life is the measure of love and respect. So hard to earn, so easily burned - Neil Peart

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    534
    34 addons installed 31 updates wtf Oo

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigbad View Post
    34 addons installed 31 updates wtf Oo
    of which 23 only updated the version/build number!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ion
    Damn old people, screwin' with my grind.
    Protection Warrior Spreadsheet

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyoor View Post
    Thanks for a good show!
    Mike is much more professional then Garry.
    Please keep mike in charge of the show in the future.
    Gary is awesome when it comes to other shows as he actually plays those games. Mike still plays wow and for his generation MoP is going to be the perfect expansion, if I am not mistaken Mike is 14 years old. So yeah I agree with keeping Mike for legendary and Gary for the rest, but gamebreakertv has nothing to do with Lore so no point telling him as he is a guest on the show.

  20. #20
    I hate Warsong Gulch. (Yeah, I'm that guy.)

    On the subject of Mike S, yeah it's obvious that he's interested in the subject matter. Gary is just interested in trolling.

    I enjoy Mike S's shows much better, because he cares.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts