WoW: Patch 3.3 Catch All
Monday, August 10th, 2009 - 8:09pm
3.3 is still at least four to six months off but it is not too soon to create a catch all to start catching the news stories.
Starting the rumor mill with a tidbit by Ghostcrawler:
"I ultimately am agreeing with what you're saying, but once we say "tanking niches" players have visions of the DK who parks outside of Icecrown until boss 4, 17 and 31 (yes, IC is that big)."
I'm not really a girl. I just play one in video games.
My Gaming Blog
Elysium wrote:
Trust Mord, he is more right than he knows.
Gamertag: Mordiceius





31 bosses.
My guess: there's "32" bosses in Icecrown. 8 bosses on 10 man, 10 man hard, 25 man, and 25 man hard. Surprise! 32 bosses.
Sig
*shrug* They've never put different bosses in the 10 and 25 man. I doubt they'd start now. People would be pissed.
I'm not really a girl. I just play one in video games.
My Gaming Blog
Elysium wrote:
Gamertag: Mordiceius
As for Icecrown having 32 bosses? If it actually does, I would be very surprised if they didn't add some sort of wing or checkpoint system. Very, very few people would be able to kill 32 bosses per week, even on normal mode. It would just take too long to organize people.
Well they did give the option to extend raid lockouts.
I'm not really a girl. I just play one in video games.
My Gaming Blog
Elysium wrote:
Gamertag: Mordiceius
I suspect this is more along the lines of Naxxramas' 4 Horsemen counting as 4 bosses. There's likely one encounter in there where you have 5 bosses, similar to Black Temple's "Superbowl of not standing in fire".
Let's say they design this similar to Naxxramas even, suggesting 4 wings. Each wing having a multi-boss fight. Assuming Arthas has another guardian like Sapphiron to Kel'Thuzad, You'd have 30 bosses otherwise, or 7.5 per wing. If you have wings that average 3 bosses in one encounter (maybe one is a double boss, another is a 5 or 6), that accounts for 12 bosses in 4 encounters, and if the rest are all single, that's actually only 24 bosses.
Perhaps there's also an event like the Northrend Beasts. That technically counts as 4 bosses, but all in one fight. I wouldn't doubt them putting a multiple-boss in succession fight into IC either.
What I'm getting at is there's alot of different ways to slice it. You could say there's 32 boss fights, or even as little as 8. One could even be somewhat random like the Faction Heroes in ToC-5man. There's 5 bosses there, but you only fight 3...
Super K
"How about a little tank n spank?" ~Felicia Day, The Guild (Do You Wanna Date My Avatar)
I think Seth was being snarky, and counting the 4 versions of the same boss as 4 bosses.
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Steam
winner.
Although apparently Ghostcrawler is now just saying it was a joke. Or implying. (Implied, Lisa? or implode.)
So...it'll be like the first 20 pages of every patch catch all?
Sig
I wish I had Ghostcrawler's power. In an age of passionate internet cynicism, people lap up the drips from GC's mouth like gems out of a sparkling font of Absolute truth.
Sig
Anyone see this in the Dungeon and Raid Blizzcon panel today?
Cross Server LFG
* This will let you PUG 5-man instances and search for groups through multiple servers.
* It will come with its own reward systems. If you're the leader of a PUG and complete the dungeon succesfully you will be rewarded.
* It should be out for patch 3.3.0.
Interesting!
XBL: GWJ Stryker
PSN: GWJ_Stryker
What?
"/p NO DUED LET ME B LEDAR"
"Arrthés has left the group"
"Errahgorn has left the group"
XBox Live Gamertag: Warlockbert
Indeed. Striked me as a bit odd too.
Oh well, not like I really want to ever join a pug, rewards or not
But if it gives any substantial rewards (I would assume bonus XP or similar), non-pugs would likely use it as well, and just make their premade through the LFG system.
I can understand what Blizz want to accomplish here, it just seems... wrong.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone quite capture the ethos of WoW so accurately, even down to the toon names. Bravo.
TempestBlayze wrote:
XBL|Steam|PSN: NSMike
So now they are letting instance groups form across servers? How about they first get instances working for the single server groups.
Anything to make finding a group easier helps me out a lot...
But I wonder if this will increase the likelihood of asshattery, since you won't be able to easily communicate with someone's guildmates how big of a jerk they were in the last instance run, etc.
This is exactly how I expect it to play out.
"This game looks sweet. I want to save hawt chix with my sword extended towards their heaving bosoms. Oh yeah...I want to rescue them all over their chest." - TheArtOfScience
I think I read somewhere that the same piece of tech is doing both.
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Steam
The situation is getting ridiculous for non-northrend instances. There was about an hour wait for instances to become available in the old world and last night I tired to run ramparts and would get DCed every time I ran through the entrance.
Its unacceptable the a prime piece of content is nearly inaccessible.
You did. They also said the instance problem is already fixed for some battlegroups. Not ours, obviously. We'll see.
Quote:
- Legion, keeping it frighteningly in the family.
---
The littlest fremen.
We actually suspect this change will alleviate the AICBL issue (Additonal instances cannot be launched.). In particular, when attmepting to zone in from multiple zones, it'll count under the less 'stressed' server. So if you have a pug from a random low population server, you should have no problem getting in, and it won't bog down the high population server to boot. Overall, equalized the instances launched per server.
As for the rewards, it'll really depend on what they get. If it's an xp boost and you have a few people at level 80, they won't care about getting that +5% xp, so making the level 79 leader. Same if it's a rep reward too, since a majority of players have already capped their reps to exalted.
If it's something like an additonal emblem of conquest though, that will likely cause alot of drama for those trying to collect them quicker.
Super K
"How about a little tank n spank?" ~Felicia Day, The Guild (Do You Wanna Date My Avatar)
Regardless of whomever starts the group and finds members for it, once it's filled out, don't 95% of groups pass lead to the tank anyways to mark pulls?
Moo.
Typically, since that's the only real benefit unless someone needs a specific loot rule (ie - master looter).
I've known PuGs that will state at the beginning of a run that they are running it for a specific item, but it's been a long time since that's been an issue.
Super K
"How about a little tank n spank?" ~Felicia Day, The Guild (Do You Wanna Date My Avatar)
Total assumption, but my guess would be the reward goes to whomever does the inviting, regardless of who is the actual party "leader." Once you invite, even if you pass off the role of leader to someone else, you get credit.
So in this case, instead of people begging to be leader and dropping group, you'll have declined invites and counter-invites.
TempestBlayze wrote:
XBL|Steam|PSN: NSMike
It really doesn't matter how they implement a system for providing the group "leader" a bonus incentive. The WoW playerbase will try to game the system, and we'll end up with the same sum total of problems that we already have with PuG's right now. They'll just be different problems.
There either needs to be a reward system for the group, or no reward system at all. Honestly, the best incentive would be a group reward system that scales up with group size. Full five-person runs will get the full and appropriate reward, while smaller groups will get a smaller reward. This would incentivize getting full runs together.
"This game looks sweet. I want to save hawt chix with my sword extended towards their heaving bosoms. Oh yeah...I want to rescue them all over their chest." - TheArtOfScience
Yes, this will "fix" the "Additonal instances cannot be launched" issue by making instances like BG's... queued.
Playing WoW as: Vilius (70 NE Druid)
"Nation, I've always said that rainbows are just God's way of frowning at gay people." Stephen Colbert
Not that I like queues, but at least then we would be able to see the time and be able to go AFK instead of doing the instance dance for 20 minutes.
Yeah the "rewards to the leader" thing is quite possibly the worst idea coming out of Blizzcon, and that's saying a lot.
Maybe I'm overreacting, but it seems like a stupid, stupid decision that will create more problems than the ones the cross-server LFG will solve.
Why not just say "hey you used our cross-server LFG system and you survived. You get a prize. Every. Body. Gets. A. Prize."
Like Oprah.
XBox Live Gamertag: Warlockbert
I agree. If the goal is push folks into using the LFG system then reward the whole group for completion.
RichyRambo BC2 Cyrana Mage Artesia Druid
Cyranna Shaman
I'm not sure it'll be as huge of a deal as you're worried about, Warlock. I agree that
incentingincentivizing synergistically the party leader is a potential for drama, but the party leader already has abilities (such as master looter, the ability to cherry pick group members) that the rest of the team doesn't have, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen a tank, healer, and 3 (usually more like 30) dps sitting in /lfg, apparently unaware of each other's existence.My prediction -- this will only slightly improve the motivation of people to actually start pugs, and will cause negligible drama regarding who gets to be party leader.
Sig
You get a mount! And you get a mount! And you get a mount!
Quintin_Stone wrote:
i liked it better with pet, although if mount = car, this is more accurate.
Sig