My apologies for the recent lack of posts. But I'm not gone! I've actually written two Moonkin guides, which can now be found stickied at the Molten-WoW Druid forums.
Here are the links:
Enjoy :) I might be back soon with a guide to Mage twinking at level 49.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Player types in World of Warcraft
Tobold has made some good points, and I wanted to address them. A lot of the disagreements on the Morons & Slackers discussion are emerging from miscommunication. So - I wanted to write a brief overview on some of the major player types in WoW.
Casual: This is the most common type of player. A casual player is one who plays for the sake of it. He expects nothing out of the game, except to have a simple good time. He plays for leisure. He may have short-term goals, like "get to this next level" or "do a dungeon tonight with friends," but nothing too in-depth. Casuals can be both good and bad players.
Slacker: The slacker is almost only different from the casual because of his motivations. A casual seeks nothing more than his own in-game efforts can provide. A slacker, on the other hands, expects more out of the game than he is willing to work for. Most slackers are not good players (though they could be).
Elitist: An elitist is one who sets high standards for himself (he also tends to expect everybody else to have the same standards, and may judge by them). Elitists are often the best players, and are the opposites of slackers. Note, however, that an elitist is actually not that different from a slacker - what separates them is that the elitist will actually work for the goals he has set.
Moron: Based on the definition provided by Tobold (mentally disabled, IQ below 70), then yes, there are most likely no morons playing WoW. In fact, "moron" does not fit with any of the other categories.
Take a look at the first 3 player types. They are based on behavior and expectations, and say nothing about one's intelligence. Calling somebody a "moron," however, is passing judgment on one's intelligence. But is it? Look at the context. When somebody repeatedly stands in fire and blames the healer for dying (or does not even realize it is the fire that is killing him), do we really think the person behind the computer has an IQ below 70? Do we really believe he is a drooling mental retard? I doubt it.
We are calling the behavior of the in-game character moronic. Standing in fire is stupid. There may be many different real-life factors to explain why that player stands in fire. Most likely, that player is a real-life slacker. But in the game (from an RP point-of-view, if you will), his character is a moron. And it doesn't take an IQ below 70 to be bad at a game.
So my main point is that Tobold is right (at least partially so): there are most likely no morons playing WoW. However, there are morons in WoW.
EDIT: There is also the issue of age. A 12-year old with an IQ of 140 will still have less maturity, knowledge, and common sense than a 30-year old player of average IQ.
Casual: This is the most common type of player. A casual player is one who plays for the sake of it. He expects nothing out of the game, except to have a simple good time. He plays for leisure. He may have short-term goals, like "get to this next level" or "do a dungeon tonight with friends," but nothing too in-depth. Casuals can be both good and bad players.
Slacker: The slacker is almost only different from the casual because of his motivations. A casual seeks nothing more than his own in-game efforts can provide. A slacker, on the other hands, expects more out of the game than he is willing to work for. Most slackers are not good players (though they could be).
Elitist: An elitist is one who sets high standards for himself (he also tends to expect everybody else to have the same standards, and may judge by them). Elitists are often the best players, and are the opposites of slackers. Note, however, that an elitist is actually not that different from a slacker - what separates them is that the elitist will actually work for the goals he has set.
Moron: Based on the definition provided by Tobold (mentally disabled, IQ below 70), then yes, there are most likely no morons playing WoW. In fact, "moron" does not fit with any of the other categories.
Take a look at the first 3 player types. They are based on behavior and expectations, and say nothing about one's intelligence. Calling somebody a "moron," however, is passing judgment on one's intelligence. But is it? Look at the context. When somebody repeatedly stands in fire and blames the healer for dying (or does not even realize it is the fire that is killing him), do we really think the person behind the computer has an IQ below 70? Do we really believe he is a drooling mental retard? I doubt it.
We are calling the behavior of the in-game character moronic. Standing in fire is stupid. There may be many different real-life factors to explain why that player stands in fire. Most likely, that player is a real-life slacker. But in the game (from an RP point-of-view, if you will), his character is a moron. And it doesn't take an IQ below 70 to be bad at a game.
So my main point is that Tobold is right (at least partially so): there are most likely no morons playing WoW. However, there are morons in WoW.
EDIT: There is also the issue of age. A 12-year old with an IQ of 140 will still have less maturity, knowledge, and common sense than a 30-year old player of average IQ.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
My real thoughts on Moonkin
It occurred to me that I QQ a lot about Moonkin viability. And although some measure of QQ might sometimes be warranted, I feel that maybe I've done too much. So I decided to make a simple, short post, that sums what what I truly think about the viability of Balance Druids.
Player vs. environment
In PvE, we are fine. I've been paying close attention to my guild's meters (DPS and various others) in our latest runs, and I find myself always in the top 5 DPS of the group. I do at least 9k DPS on every fight, and that's with currently-bugged Starfall and Languish damage.
Though it is true that Moonkins suffer from movement more than most, our DPS is fine, and we bring great raid buffs. In Cataclysm, we are just fine as well, if not better.
In Heroics, we are downright amazing, as our offheals and CCs come greatly into play.
Player vs. player
In PvP, we are OK. I still think that if you wanted to do 2v2 arena, you'd be better off with a Shadow Priest, Elemental Shaman, Mage, or Warlock. However, we are still capable of doing well. Although all of these classes have better survivability, control, and burst, they will never have our excellent mobility and potent heal-over-time spells (though not very mana-friendly). There are also a few things that I do not find very fair (as explained in this post), but again, we are still decent.
In Cataclysm, we are not doing so well. To sum it up in a few words, Cata's Eclipse is worse in PvP than WotLK's, our healing is gimped, and our control still pales in comparison to other classes. Also, our DoTs, which are a much bigger part of our damage than ever before, have no dispel protection, further reducing our damage (every team has a dispeler now), and cutting us off from important Shooting Stars procs. Wrath, Starfire, and Starsurge cast times are sluggish and nearly impossible to land in movement/interrupt-heavy environments, though we depend on them to reach Total Eclipse.
So let us hope for some Cata PvP buffs!
Conclusion
So overall, we are fine (in 3.3.5). We may be slightly underpowered, but it's not the end of the world. I am generally happy with my Moonkin these days. And if you ever question what I think about our feathery selves, come to this post. Ignore the QQ that may have come before.
Cheers!
Player vs. environment
In PvE, we are fine. I've been paying close attention to my guild's meters (DPS and various others) in our latest runs, and I find myself always in the top 5 DPS of the group. I do at least 9k DPS on every fight, and that's with currently-bugged Starfall and Languish damage.
Though it is true that Moonkins suffer from movement more than most, our DPS is fine, and we bring great raid buffs. In Cataclysm, we are just fine as well, if not better.
In Heroics, we are downright amazing, as our offheals and CCs come greatly into play.
Player vs. player
In PvP, we are OK. I still think that if you wanted to do 2v2 arena, you'd be better off with a Shadow Priest, Elemental Shaman, Mage, or Warlock. However, we are still capable of doing well. Although all of these classes have better survivability, control, and burst, they will never have our excellent mobility and potent heal-over-time spells (though not very mana-friendly). There are also a few things that I do not find very fair (as explained in this post), but again, we are still decent.
In Cataclysm, we are not doing so well. To sum it up in a few words, Cata's Eclipse is worse in PvP than WotLK's, our healing is gimped, and our control still pales in comparison to other classes. Also, our DoTs, which are a much bigger part of our damage than ever before, have no dispel protection, further reducing our damage (every team has a dispeler now), and cutting us off from important Shooting Stars procs. Wrath, Starfire, and Starsurge cast times are sluggish and nearly impossible to land in movement/interrupt-heavy environments, though we depend on them to reach Total Eclipse.
So let us hope for some Cata PvP buffs!
Conclusion
So overall, we are fine (in 3.3.5). We may be slightly underpowered, but it's not the end of the world. I am generally happy with my Moonkin these days. And if you ever question what I think about our feathery selves, come to this post. Ignore the QQ that may have come before.
Cheers!
Friday, February 11, 2011
"Morons & slackers"
If you've ever read any Greedy Goblin blog post, you've probably heard of the notorious M&S - morons & slackers. This is a term Gevlon enjoys using, and that - from what I've been able to tell - is sometimes imported by other WoWers in the blogosphere.
Somewhere in the comment pages, Tobold apparently stated he did not believe there was such a thing as M&S, and so in his last post, Gevlon disagreed and explained what it meant to be an M&S.
As such, I wanted to post my say on the matter. Kinda funny, considering that neither of these people have a clue who I am.
To be, or not to be
First of all, it seems important to establish that M&S even exist. I would not have thought this explanation to be needed, but seeing as Tobold appears not to believe in them, there may be others out there who share his opinion.
Being an M&S is the demonstration of either a choice or unintelligence. To say there are no M&S is to say that there are no stupid people, and no lazy people, which is simply preposterous. In our modern society of today, we tend to sugarcoat everything. We don't criticize anymore. Everyone is "equal."
In reality, nobody is equal. Some people are utter failures. Some people are utter geniuses. Some people will show up the morning of an exam, not having spent even one second studying, and ace it. Others will have studied during the entire preceding week, and get something like a C or worse.
It's difficult to talk of this subject without sounding insulting to sensitive ears. For example: I remember, back in high school, how my Algebra class operated. The teacher would explain a new concept each day, and assign homework for the next. The homework consisted of doing multiple problems related around that concept we had just learned about. The homework was repetitive - its purpose was to help anchor the concept in the student's mind.
To me, it was dreadfully boring. I assimilated the concepts the moment the teacher presented them in class. Some other students, however, would listen to the teacher, take notes, do all the homework, read the book, and still seek aid from the teacher the next day, because they did not understand.
What is the logical conclusion, here? I am smart, and the other student is stupid. But saying this to almost anybody is bound to invoke some negative sentiments. The common reaction is to think "you're no better than him" or "you're arrogant." But I am not trying to bring down the other student, or to make myself seem important. I am stating a fact.
Funnily enough, most people react to "I am more intelligent" by interpreting it to mean "I am better." Just because I may be smarter than somebody does not mean I feel I am better than that person. For all I know, the other student could be an exceptional painter. People react like this because in our society, intelligence is often used to "rank" people, and because in reality, intelligence does tend to make you better off as a person.
We have become too caught up in not hurting each others' feelings that we avoid reality. Yes, that 300lb person is fat. Yes, that teenager who got drunk and drove at a really high speed into a wall with his 4-wheeler is an idiot. Yes, that student who cannot understand simple mathematical concepts, despite constant studying, is stupid. It is not bad to say these things. It is the truth.
But - back to the game.
M&S in WoW
In WoW, there are plenty of idiots, just like in real life. Statistically speaking, 50% of people are below average, and 50% are above. Based on standard deviation, 68% of all people have an IQ between 85 and 115. 16% have an IQ under 85, and 16% have an IQ over 115. I realize that some people think "IQ means nothing," but nonetheless, it is highly regarded as an accurate measure of general intelligence. IQ is like an average of your intelligence - there are different type of intelligences. The higher your IQ, the faster you will understand, retain, and adapt to information.
I think WoW is comprised more of slackers than of morons. A lot of players do not feel as though a video game deserves to be the recipient of too much thought. Many people just play to relax, and could not care less whether their gear was enchanted or gemmed. These people are not competitive. Video games are relatively young in this society, and we still live in a world in which "competition" is something we expect to happen in physical sports or other "meaningful" things - not video games, unless you are doing a LAN racing game party, or something.
A lot of players cannot associate the concept of fun with performance. For example, some players do not understand why they should use a DPS rotation. They feel that Wrath has the cooler graphic, hence they do not understand why they should sacrifice their fun of using it, over using an actual rotation that will benefit the group. Performance is not a goal to them. Because of their non-competitive nature, performance is not fun. To me, performance is extremely fun. Being the best that I can be - at anything - is exhilarating.
This, however, does not necessarily make one a moron or slacker. This is mostly casual. What makes one an M&S is refusing to become better while still expecting some sort of group reward from the game. If you are doing a random Heroic and you are only pulling 1k DPS, you cannot expect to be rewarded for it. You're a 71/0/0 Mage and all you want to do is spam Ice Lance? Fine - but don't count on getting any loot. You don't want to listen to my polite advice on a better build and rotation? You're a slacker.
A moron is someone who does not understand something even after repeated explanations. When my guild was still recruiting, we tried out an Elemental Shaman. On her first raid with us, we called out for Heroism, and she did nothing. After the fight, we pulled her to the side, and she told us that she did not have Heroism. I calmly explained to her what Heroism was, and where it could be found in her spellbook. Eventually, it seemed as though she had found it.
On the 2nd attempt, we called for it again. Still no Heroism. It was announced in /raid, /rw, and /guild, to no avail. Her excuse that time: she was too busy focusing on stepping out of Coldflame. What? Heroism is instant-cast, and it should require no focus at all to press the button. You can cast Lava Burst and Lightning Bolt, can't you? Nothing stops you from casting Heroism! We gave her one last shot on Lady Deathwhisper, and once again, she never cast Heroism. I'm not sure she paid any shred of attention to anything going on while DPSing. That person is a moron, and we kicked her from the guild.
Conclusion
There are plenty of morons and slackers in life and in WoW. The people who ride around on their mounts in the middle of all the PvP in WSG are morons. The level 80s running a dungeon who pull - on purpose (or out of repeated inattention) - packs of mobs while the group is already busy with another, is a moron. You've had plenty of time to understand that it is a stupid move. If you don't understand it, you are stupid. The players who refuse to go through the effort of improving their rotation, or to gem/enchant their gear, despite knowing that it will make them better players, are slackers. Especially if they still expect the same treatment as those who are actually making the effort to be good. The guildmates who constantly ask what raid to expect that day, and at what time, even though all of that information can be found in the Guild Information (and has been repeated several times), are both morons and slackers and should be kicked.
These people exist. Both the moron and the stupid are terrible players, and it is because they are M&S in real life. To say there is no such thing as M&S is to be delusional.
Somewhere in the comment pages, Tobold apparently stated he did not believe there was such a thing as M&S, and so in his last post, Gevlon disagreed and explained what it meant to be an M&S.
As such, I wanted to post my say on the matter. Kinda funny, considering that neither of these people have a clue who I am.
To be, or not to be
First of all, it seems important to establish that M&S even exist. I would not have thought this explanation to be needed, but seeing as Tobold appears not to believe in them, there may be others out there who share his opinion.
Being an M&S is the demonstration of either a choice or unintelligence. To say there are no M&S is to say that there are no stupid people, and no lazy people, which is simply preposterous. In our modern society of today, we tend to sugarcoat everything. We don't criticize anymore. Everyone is "equal."
In reality, nobody is equal. Some people are utter failures. Some people are utter geniuses. Some people will show up the morning of an exam, not having spent even one second studying, and ace it. Others will have studied during the entire preceding week, and get something like a C or worse.
It's difficult to talk of this subject without sounding insulting to sensitive ears. For example: I remember, back in high school, how my Algebra class operated. The teacher would explain a new concept each day, and assign homework for the next. The homework consisted of doing multiple problems related around that concept we had just learned about. The homework was repetitive - its purpose was to help anchor the concept in the student's mind.
To me, it was dreadfully boring. I assimilated the concepts the moment the teacher presented them in class. Some other students, however, would listen to the teacher, take notes, do all the homework, read the book, and still seek aid from the teacher the next day, because they did not understand.
What is the logical conclusion, here? I am smart, and the other student is stupid. But saying this to almost anybody is bound to invoke some negative sentiments. The common reaction is to think "you're no better than him" or "you're arrogant." But I am not trying to bring down the other student, or to make myself seem important. I am stating a fact.
Funnily enough, most people react to "I am more intelligent" by interpreting it to mean "I am better." Just because I may be smarter than somebody does not mean I feel I am better than that person. For all I know, the other student could be an exceptional painter. People react like this because in our society, intelligence is often used to "rank" people, and because in reality, intelligence does tend to make you better off as a person.
We have become too caught up in not hurting each others' feelings that we avoid reality. Yes, that 300lb person is fat. Yes, that teenager who got drunk and drove at a really high speed into a wall with his 4-wheeler is an idiot. Yes, that student who cannot understand simple mathematical concepts, despite constant studying, is stupid. It is not bad to say these things. It is the truth.
But - back to the game.
M&S in WoW
In WoW, there are plenty of idiots, just like in real life. Statistically speaking, 50% of people are below average, and 50% are above. Based on standard deviation, 68% of all people have an IQ between 85 and 115. 16% have an IQ under 85, and 16% have an IQ over 115. I realize that some people think "IQ means nothing," but nonetheless, it is highly regarded as an accurate measure of general intelligence. IQ is like an average of your intelligence - there are different type of intelligences. The higher your IQ, the faster you will understand, retain, and adapt to information.
I think WoW is comprised more of slackers than of morons. A lot of players do not feel as though a video game deserves to be the recipient of too much thought. Many people just play to relax, and could not care less whether their gear was enchanted or gemmed. These people are not competitive. Video games are relatively young in this society, and we still live in a world in which "competition" is something we expect to happen in physical sports or other "meaningful" things - not video games, unless you are doing a LAN racing game party, or something.
A lot of players cannot associate the concept of fun with performance. For example, some players do not understand why they should use a DPS rotation. They feel that Wrath has the cooler graphic, hence they do not understand why they should sacrifice their fun of using it, over using an actual rotation that will benefit the group. Performance is not a goal to them. Because of their non-competitive nature, performance is not fun. To me, performance is extremely fun. Being the best that I can be - at anything - is exhilarating.
This, however, does not necessarily make one a moron or slacker. This is mostly casual. What makes one an M&S is refusing to become better while still expecting some sort of group reward from the game. If you are doing a random Heroic and you are only pulling 1k DPS, you cannot expect to be rewarded for it. You're a 71/0/0 Mage and all you want to do is spam Ice Lance? Fine - but don't count on getting any loot. You don't want to listen to my polite advice on a better build and rotation? You're a slacker.
A moron is someone who does not understand something even after repeated explanations. When my guild was still recruiting, we tried out an Elemental Shaman. On her first raid with us, we called out for Heroism, and she did nothing. After the fight, we pulled her to the side, and she told us that she did not have Heroism. I calmly explained to her what Heroism was, and where it could be found in her spellbook. Eventually, it seemed as though she had found it.
On the 2nd attempt, we called for it again. Still no Heroism. It was announced in /raid, /rw, and /guild, to no avail. Her excuse that time: she was too busy focusing on stepping out of Coldflame. What? Heroism is instant-cast, and it should require no focus at all to press the button. You can cast Lava Burst and Lightning Bolt, can't you? Nothing stops you from casting Heroism! We gave her one last shot on Lady Deathwhisper, and once again, she never cast Heroism. I'm not sure she paid any shred of attention to anything going on while DPSing. That person is a moron, and we kicked her from the guild.
Conclusion
There are plenty of morons and slackers in life and in WoW. The people who ride around on their mounts in the middle of all the PvP in WSG are morons. The level 80s running a dungeon who pull - on purpose (or out of repeated inattention) - packs of mobs while the group is already busy with another, is a moron. You've had plenty of time to understand that it is a stupid move. If you don't understand it, you are stupid. The players who refuse to go through the effort of improving their rotation, or to gem/enchant their gear, despite knowing that it will make them better players, are slackers. Especially if they still expect the same treatment as those who are actually making the effort to be good. The guildmates who constantly ask what raid to expect that day, and at what time, even though all of that information can be found in the Guild Information (and has been repeated several times), are both morons and slackers and should be kicked.
"Moron describes the guy who doesn't move from the fire because he doesn't understand that it is causing his drop in health. Stupid describes the guy who doesn't move from the fire because "it's the healer's job to keep me alive." He knows that he can improve his (and his group/raid's) performance by moving, but he refuses." -TonusQuoted from a commenter on Gevlon's comment page. I'm quoting it, because I feel he hit the nail right on the head.
These people exist. Both the moron and the stupid are terrible players, and it is because they are M&S in real life. To say there is no such thing as M&S is to be delusional.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
The Alliance in battlegrounds, pt. 3
A few weeks ago, I posted my Random Battleground statistics, and offered common speculations as to why the Alliance performed so poorly. Later, in a second post, I explained my own theories on the issue.
Now, here is a third post, with more numbers, and confirmed theories.
New statistics
Here are my win ratios since the 1st post. I am only including matches in which I played after my original post.
Alterac Valley:
18 out of 58 (31%) games won.
Arathi Basin:
32 out of 46 (70%) games won.
Eye of the Storm:
38 out of 58 (66%) games won.
Strand of the Ancients:
21 out of 42 (50%) games won.
Warsong Gulch:
66 out of 87 (76%) games won.
Total:
124 out of 291 (60%) games won.
The numbers look a lot better than in my original post. In fact, now I am winning more battlegrounds than I am losing.
External changes
The theory in my 2nd post proposed that the issue behind the Alliance's poor performance was population. The general lower population of Alliance players on the realm meant that most battlegrounds started with an imbalance of players (particularly Alterac Valley). Furthermore, the bigger the battleground, the more difficult it is for one player to make a true difference.
What has changed?
Recently, the developers at Molten-WoW have written new scripts for the battleground system, providing much improved balance. Now, all random battlegrounds begin with a near-equal amount of players. This has greatly helped the Alliance, which suddenly doesn't find itself feeling like the 300 Spartans trying to fight off an army of Persians.
The developers also rewrote some of the script in order to lessen the frequency of Alterac Valley popups. Many players complained that they were invited to Alterac Valley matches twice more often than to any other battleground. This isn't the case anymore.
Personal changes
Additionally, my gear has much improved since then. I am now equipped with full Wrathful offset gear, a Wrathful weapon and offhand, Wrathful leggings, and 4 Relentless set items. I've almost 31k HP unbuffed, and have slightly over 1.3k resilience.
Now, I can defend Arathi Basin and Eye of the Storm bases much more effectively. I have personally carried the WSG flag 115 times, at the time of writing this. These things make a difference, particularly in the small battlegrounds. Furthermore, I avoid Alterac Valley and Strand of the Ancients, my two least favorite battlegrounds. Alterac Valley used to be, by far, my most-played battleground, and also the one with the worst win/lose ratio. Playing it less and winning it more has also helped the statistics.
Conclusion
The Alliance isn't that bad. In fact, it looks as though we may be even with the Horde. Great!
Now, here is a third post, with more numbers, and confirmed theories.
New statistics
Here are my win ratios since the 1st post. I am only including matches in which I played after my original post.
Alterac Valley:
18 out of 58 (31%) games won.
Arathi Basin:
32 out of 46 (70%) games won.
Eye of the Storm:
38 out of 58 (66%) games won.
Strand of the Ancients:
21 out of 42 (50%) games won.
Warsong Gulch:
66 out of 87 (76%) games won.
Total:
124 out of 291 (60%) games won.
The numbers look a lot better than in my original post. In fact, now I am winning more battlegrounds than I am losing.
External changes
The theory in my 2nd post proposed that the issue behind the Alliance's poor performance was population. The general lower population of Alliance players on the realm meant that most battlegrounds started with an imbalance of players (particularly Alterac Valley). Furthermore, the bigger the battleground, the more difficult it is for one player to make a true difference.
What has changed?
Recently, the developers at Molten-WoW have written new scripts for the battleground system, providing much improved balance. Now, all random battlegrounds begin with a near-equal amount of players. This has greatly helped the Alliance, which suddenly doesn't find itself feeling like the 300 Spartans trying to fight off an army of Persians.
The developers also rewrote some of the script in order to lessen the frequency of Alterac Valley popups. Many players complained that they were invited to Alterac Valley matches twice more often than to any other battleground. This isn't the case anymore.
Personal changes
Additionally, my gear has much improved since then. I am now equipped with full Wrathful offset gear, a Wrathful weapon and offhand, Wrathful leggings, and 4 Relentless set items. I've almost 31k HP unbuffed, and have slightly over 1.3k resilience.
Now, I can defend Arathi Basin and Eye of the Storm bases much more effectively. I have personally carried the WSG flag 115 times, at the time of writing this. These things make a difference, particularly in the small battlegrounds. Furthermore, I avoid Alterac Valley and Strand of the Ancients, my two least favorite battlegrounds. Alterac Valley used to be, by far, my most-played battleground, and also the one with the worst win/lose ratio. Playing it less and winning it more has also helped the statistics.
Conclusion
The Alliance isn't that bad. In fact, it looks as though we may be even with the Horde. Great!
Monday, January 31, 2011
More on spec viability
First, let's define the word "viable." In the context I will be using the term, viable means having a reasonable chance of succeeding. In WoW, viability refers to a class or spec's potential to properly carry out some task. This task could be simple damage-dealing to a boss, or defeating a PvP opponent. To be PvP-viable, a spec needs to be able to successfully survive as well as control and damage opponents.
It isn't enough to simply be able to do something - it needs to be done successfully. For example, it isn't enough that Entangling Roots is on my action bar - if I cannot successfully use it (because of game mechanics), then it is a PvP-nonviable spell.
Revisiting what I said
Yesterday, I proposed that any spec should be viable if it is its class's only spec that fulfills its particular playing style. So, if a Shaman's Enhancement tree is the only tree that allows melee damage, it should be viable for the sake of those who want to be melee Shamans. Asking them to respec would not be fair, because Elemental and Restoration offer completely different playstyles.
But is that enough? What if a Mage really loves Fire, and does not want to spec Frost or Arcane for PvP? After all, even if the role of the spec is the same (dealing spell damage), the playing style isn't.
I think it is safe to say a lot of players play for their spec and not necessarily just for their class. Should Blizzard make every spec in the game both PvP and PvE viable? That would be very difficult to achieve. Today, the game is already faced with many balance issues, despite that Blizzard isn't even trying to make every spec viable. They are more concerned with class viability than with individual spec viability.
The state of things
To address the issues of balance and viability, Blizzard has, for the most part, ensured that specs are viable for at least one type of gameplay (PvP or PvE).
And this is where I begin talking about us Moonkins.
There are several specs out there who give up viability of one type in exchange for viability of another. Subtlety Rogues, for example, are almost never found in a raid setting, but are extremely PvP-viable. Elemental Shamans are very desired in 3v3 arena, but would not be wanted in raids if not for their totems and Heroism/Bloodlust. Fire Mages have some of the best PvE DPS in the game, but perform poorly in PvP.
I can only think of two specs that aren't viable for either PvP or PvE: Frost Death Knights and Balance Druids. Blood is the DK tanking spec, and Unholy easily surpasses Frost in both PvP and PvE. Balance Druids have terrible weaknesses in PvP, and suffer from a broken Eclipse mechanic in PvE.
Moonkin: effort =/= reward
I would think that in exchange for poor PvP-viability, Blizzard would have made my spec great for PvE (like Fire Mage). So is it normal that my DPS only becomes comparable in a purely standstill fight, even though I exert myself much more than the average raider to maximize my performance?
Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that it is not fair for Moonkins to have to go through so much trouble to do the same as anyone else. Mages, Warlocks, Shadow Priests, and perhaps even Elemental Shamans, are all more PvP viable, and are all capable of more raid DPS with a lot less effort (save for Demonology Warlocks, except that they are more adequately rewarded for their efforts).
Reward should be directly proportionate to effort, skill, and knowledge. On my Shadow Priest, I can be twice as successful as my Moonkin in PvP, with half the effort, skill, and knowledge. It's really saddening.
I spec Moonkin for the sake of it. I guess I find it fun to go around as a giant chicken causing eclipses and typhoons. I also get a twisted pleasure out of going against the grain. In fact, I don't like seeing other Moonkins, as they make me feel less unique. But if I were to play for the sake of viability - I would just go Restoration. There is really no reason to spec Moonkin, unless your guild needs one for the raid buffs.
Cataclysm..
In Cataclysm, Balance Druids find themselves a little better off in PvE. This is great - but Blizzard: why did it take 6 years?
It isn't enough to simply be able to do something - it needs to be done successfully. For example, it isn't enough that Entangling Roots is on my action bar - if I cannot successfully use it (because of game mechanics), then it is a PvP-nonviable spell.
Revisiting what I said
Yesterday, I proposed that any spec should be viable if it is its class's only spec that fulfills its particular playing style. So, if a Shaman's Enhancement tree is the only tree that allows melee damage, it should be viable for the sake of those who want to be melee Shamans. Asking them to respec would not be fair, because Elemental and Restoration offer completely different playstyles.
But is that enough? What if a Mage really loves Fire, and does not want to spec Frost or Arcane for PvP? After all, even if the role of the spec is the same (dealing spell damage), the playing style isn't.
I think it is safe to say a lot of players play for their spec and not necessarily just for their class. Should Blizzard make every spec in the game both PvP and PvE viable? That would be very difficult to achieve. Today, the game is already faced with many balance issues, despite that Blizzard isn't even trying to make every spec viable. They are more concerned with class viability than with individual spec viability.
The state of things
To address the issues of balance and viability, Blizzard has, for the most part, ensured that specs are viable for at least one type of gameplay (PvP or PvE).
And this is where I begin talking about us Moonkins.
There are several specs out there who give up viability of one type in exchange for viability of another. Subtlety Rogues, for example, are almost never found in a raid setting, but are extremely PvP-viable. Elemental Shamans are very desired in 3v3 arena, but would not be wanted in raids if not for their totems and Heroism/Bloodlust. Fire Mages have some of the best PvE DPS in the game, but perform poorly in PvP.
I can only think of two specs that aren't viable for either PvP or PvE: Frost Death Knights and Balance Druids. Blood is the DK tanking spec, and Unholy easily surpasses Frost in both PvP and PvE. Balance Druids have terrible weaknesses in PvP, and suffer from a broken Eclipse mechanic in PvE.
Moonkin: effort =/= reward
I would think that in exchange for poor PvP-viability, Blizzard would have made my spec great for PvE (like Fire Mage). So is it normal that my DPS only becomes comparable in a purely standstill fight, even though I exert myself much more than the average raider to maximize my performance?
Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that it is not fair for Moonkins to have to go through so much trouble to do the same as anyone else. Mages, Warlocks, Shadow Priests, and perhaps even Elemental Shamans, are all more PvP viable, and are all capable of more raid DPS with a lot less effort (save for Demonology Warlocks, except that they are more adequately rewarded for their efforts).
Reward should be directly proportionate to effort, skill, and knowledge. On my Shadow Priest, I can be twice as successful as my Moonkin in PvP, with half the effort, skill, and knowledge. It's really saddening.
I spec Moonkin for the sake of it. I guess I find it fun to go around as a giant chicken causing eclipses and typhoons. I also get a twisted pleasure out of going against the grain. In fact, I don't like seeing other Moonkins, as they make me feel less unique. But if I were to play for the sake of viability - I would just go Restoration. There is really no reason to spec Moonkin, unless your guild needs one for the raid buffs.
Cataclysm..
In Cataclysm, Balance Druids find themselves a little better off in PvE. This is great - but Blizzard: why did it take 6 years?
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Why Moonkin PvP should be viable
In patch 3.3.5, Moonkin PvP is at its most viable. Sadly, it's still not very viable anyways. Druids who want to seriously PvP as Balance have always been met with frustration at the spec's shortcomings. Some Druids have addressed our issues and made long threads about them, some QQed, and others blogged. Either way, the problems of Moonkin PvP are well-known.
However, it never seems as though Blizzard has any intention to bring us up to par. Cataclysm is well out now, and we received some new toys - like everyone else. Now we have a funky silence, funky mushrooms, and an awesome new nuke. But our survivability is still as bad as ever, and our burst damage relies on Shooting Stars procs. Our HoTs are weak and expensive, and the new Eclipse mechanic - though much improved for PvE - is even worse than the old mechanic for PvP.
Sometimes it feels as though Blizzard holds a grudge against Balance Druids. But ultimately, that is a silly notion. Blizzard is a multi-million dollar business, and it isn't in their interest to put down us lowly Moonkins. If they don't satisfy their customers, they might lose money - simple as that. So what is the reason Moonkin PvP has always been unviable?
Why we aren't better
The answer is actually simple. Ghostcrawler has repeated it several times - they do not feel that Moonkin PvP needs to be brought up to par, because Druids already have a strong PvP spec (Restoration). If a Druid wants to PvP, he can just respec or make good use of Dual Talent Specialization. Blizzard cares about class representation in arena - not spec-representation.
This logic has strengths and weaknesses, but it utterly fails with hybrid classes. If a Mage wants to PvP, he can just go Arcane or Frost. Like Balance, Fire is not PvP viable. The difference, however, is that no matter what tree a Mage chooses to specialize in, he will still be doing the same thing - casting damaging spells. A Rogue will always melee DPS, a Hunter will always do ranged damage, etc. Additionally, though Holy is not viable, Priests have another healing tree they can spec - and Discipline is perfectly fine for PvP. Every non-hybrid class in the game can do well in PvP no matter the role they choose within the possibilities of their class (with the exception of tanking specs, which are usually slightly weak).
It's not fair, Blizzard
If a Druid wants to cast damaging spells in PvP, his only choice is Balance. For that reason, I believe it should be viable. Asking us to respec Restoration is not fair - if we wanted to heal people, then that's what we'd do. Shamans have the same problem - though Elemental and Restoration are both arena-viable, Enhancement is not. Our other hybrid friend, however, is doing a little better. Retribution and Holy Paladins are great in PvP - Retribution has a few important flaws (very susceptible to snares), but it remains much more viable than Balance or Enhancement.
If the PvP role you want to play (healing, melee damage, ranged damage) is only offered by one spec within your class, that spec should be made viable.
However, it never seems as though Blizzard has any intention to bring us up to par. Cataclysm is well out now, and we received some new toys - like everyone else. Now we have a funky silence, funky mushrooms, and an awesome new nuke. But our survivability is still as bad as ever, and our burst damage relies on Shooting Stars procs. Our HoTs are weak and expensive, and the new Eclipse mechanic - though much improved for PvE - is even worse than the old mechanic for PvP.
Sometimes it feels as though Blizzard holds a grudge against Balance Druids. But ultimately, that is a silly notion. Blizzard is a multi-million dollar business, and it isn't in their interest to put down us lowly Moonkins. If they don't satisfy their customers, they might lose money - simple as that. So what is the reason Moonkin PvP has always been unviable?
Why we aren't better
The answer is actually simple. Ghostcrawler has repeated it several times - they do not feel that Moonkin PvP needs to be brought up to par, because Druids already have a strong PvP spec (Restoration). If a Druid wants to PvP, he can just respec or make good use of Dual Talent Specialization. Blizzard cares about class representation in arena - not spec-representation.
This logic has strengths and weaknesses, but it utterly fails with hybrid classes. If a Mage wants to PvP, he can just go Arcane or Frost. Like Balance, Fire is not PvP viable. The difference, however, is that no matter what tree a Mage chooses to specialize in, he will still be doing the same thing - casting damaging spells. A Rogue will always melee DPS, a Hunter will always do ranged damage, etc. Additionally, though Holy is not viable, Priests have another healing tree they can spec - and Discipline is perfectly fine for PvP. Every non-hybrid class in the game can do well in PvP no matter the role they choose within the possibilities of their class (with the exception of tanking specs, which are usually slightly weak).
It's not fair, Blizzard
If a Druid wants to cast damaging spells in PvP, his only choice is Balance. For that reason, I believe it should be viable. Asking us to respec Restoration is not fair - if we wanted to heal people, then that's what we'd do. Shamans have the same problem - though Elemental and Restoration are both arena-viable, Enhancement is not. Our other hybrid friend, however, is doing a little better. Retribution and Holy Paladins are great in PvP - Retribution has a few important flaws (very susceptible to snares), but it remains much more viable than Balance or Enhancement.
If the PvP role you want to play (healing, melee damage, ranged damage) is only offered by one spec within your class, that spec should be made viable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)