The latest expansion deck for Upper Deck's World of Warcraft: The Trading Card Game - called Fires of Outland - has three all-new loot cards available to give players a chance to obtain special in-game items.
You can find a Goblin Gumbo stand, which works similar to a Soul Well - allowing party members to get a taste of Landro Longshot's special recipe of gumbo. There's also a Fishing Chair, allowing you to sit and fish in the cool shade of the included umbrella! Of course what's an expansion deck without a rare loot card? You'll have a chance to get your hands on your very own spectral tiger mount; a land mount that moves at epic-mount speeds.
In other news, Tom "Kalgan" Chilton responded to a thread about Warlocks today and some claims that he feels Warlocks being overpowered in PvP is "OK".
Forum Poster wrote:
Tom Chilton basically said, it's OK warlocks are OP in 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3, as long as they aren't over represented in 5v5, we have no plans of fixing them.
Kalgan's Response wrote:
You're welcome to your own interpretation, but I believe what I'm getting at is more like...
- Warlocks are very strong in 1v1, but not only do we not try to claim wow will be balanced for 1v1 pvp (even though in a perfect world I'd love to have 1v1 balance be as close as we can reasonably get it), it's also the case that almost any 1v1 scenario that isn't just a duel is heavily influenced by the conditions under which the 1v1 happens (ie: one character low on health or mana, already used important cooldowns, etc).
- 2v2, 3v3, 5v5, and up (including battlegrounds, instances, raids, etc) are all important, but it's tricky to affect one where balance is off without screwing up another where the balance is acceptable. One example being where warlocks are very strong in 1v1 or 2v2, yet aren't over-represented in 3v3 or 5v5.
Forum Poster wrote:
Tom Chilton said Warlocks are "supposed to be the most powerful class in duels and 1v1 pvp
Kalgan's Response wrote:
Are you sure I personally said "supposed to", or are words being put into my mouth? I may be wrong, seeing as though I haven't watched the videos myself, but I really don't think I used the words "supposed to".
Forum Poster wrote:
Last but not least, Tom Chilton said "I tried the "HUTER THING", and just couldn't do it." This is solid evidence that the lead designers don't play the hunter class at all and has no idea how the core mechanism of the class is flawed and has no plans to look into it. Frankly this is a huge insult to the hunter class, even Blizzard lead designers think the class is a joke.
Kalgan's Response wrote:
Again, I'm pretty sure you're claiming I said something I didn't even say. If I recall correctly, one of our item designers may have said something to that effect, but again, unless my memory is way off on this I never made the statement you're claiming I made.
Also, with regard to "my daughter" playing a warlock, I think one of the players in this thread is confusing me with someone else. I certainly don't have a daughter that plays a warlock. So again, more fun with people attributing things to me that aren't even accurate (along with quite a few other random tidbits of misinformation in this thread). Gogo internet!
Later in the thread he responded to more comments.
Forum Poster wrote:
The better question is, Kalgan.
Is it acceptable to you, the game developers, where Warlocks are?
Kalgan's Response wrote:
Nope. Although I could probably say that to varying degree about any class depending on what particular part of the game you're talking about.
Patch 2.2 has the resilience change for starters, and patch 2.3 has more changes, including improvements to a lot of the things that were discussed at blizzcon.
Mace Spec stun proc rate is going to be reduced, per Kalgan in the exact same thread.
Forum Poster wrote:
And does that include toning down Stormherald swinging, Mortal Strike Warriors, who are dominating GROUP PvP? That's where balance is supposed to be met, right?
I see you hit Paladins with a couple duration reductions on Blessing of Freedom (2.2). That's one way to do it, but that's an indirect approach to the Real problem.
Kalgan's Response wrote:
Yes, one of the changes is a reduction to the mace spec stun proc rate.
Comments
What should really be the argument is: Out of the general population of warlocks, how many of them know how to play their class? If the population is high, then make the class harder. Make them work for that easy PVP win. Warlocks are turning into OG rogues and only time will tell if someone stands up and says, "sup, that's totally not cool anymore." An all-out nerf isn't needed, but some pondering and tweaking would be nice.
It isn't an unknown that Warlocks aren't considered to be complex to play but I would argue that the majority of locks don't know how to play the class as effectively as it could be played. If they did, all hell would break loose. I know a few locks who know precisely how to manipulate the class and I hate dueling them a lot... a hell of a lot :-(
The point however, is that Blizzard aren't will and have never alluded to balancing 1v1. In fact, with the introduction of the arena system they went as far as saying, "we aren't going to bother with 2v2 or 3v3 anymore. Only 5v5 matters." While I don't agree with this deduction (as I enjoy 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3 more than 5v5) it is what they are doing and as such it is what we have to put up with. I don't think we should be calling for a ponder or a tinker with Warlocks or even that overly dramatic nerf everyone else is crying out for. What I think we should be doing is saying, "Look. We want 1v1 to be as balanced as possible and we want it sooner rather than never," but we don't want to convince ourselves that it can ever be 100% balanced as that is just going to result in disappointment. We also have to remember that there are other players out there who want different things and we all have to make sacrifices in order to make this game playable. This isn't a game that only you or me are effected by.
A lot of people have complained that Blizzard don't do what the player base want and Blizzard devs are morons but they are obviously doing something very, very right otherwise there would be nobody to complain. 9,000,000 people of which me, you and everyone else who cares about this topic are included in would say that they are doing a fine job and when their closest competitor in the P2P market holds a tiny amount of players compared to WoW, they are obviously doing things better than anyone else.
Fishing chair is pretty boss.
It's pretty sad that they're willing to admit that warlocks are OP, then continue on to admit that they don't give a damn. Being "overrepresented" in PVP isn't a myth, as I've seen warlock-only Arena teams numerous times before (Dippin DoTs being the best name ever) and maybe it's just the population on the servers I've been on, but there always tends to be a high concentration of level 70 warlocks, stuffing up raid guilds and what not.
What should really be the argument is: Out of the general population of warlocks, how many of them know how to play their class? If the population is high, then make the class harder. Make them work for that easy PVP win. Warlocks are turning into OG rogues and only time will tell if someone stands up and says, "sup, that's totally not cool anymore." An all-out nerf isn't needed, but some pondering and tweaking would be nice.
I'm really glad the "hunter thing" still had no attention whatsoever... saves me gamecard money...
"Kalgan's Response wrote:
Yes, one of the changes is a reduction to the mace spec stun proc rate."
About f*cking time.. played the arena last night after raiding, and I was macestunned by a warrior CONSTANTLY for about 8 seconds until death, hence the jumping around, waking every person in my building and screaming..
gief fishing chair!! :P
Litvan
SSDD