How about critiquing what's actually fun / valuable about the game? Is every character having to learn archaeology and fishing and cooking and first aid interesting? If not, isn't that solely because the rewards aren't very interesting or of unique experiences? Isn't homogenized rewards based on there being limited rewards? Isn't there being limited rewards based on there being linear gear (a reward that actually affects gameplay, unlike mounts and achievs)? If characters could farm for super OP gems and enchants that broke on durability loss, they'd have something to not only adventure about, they could make lots of dank dosh and group up in zones.
>>337588454
>what's actually fun / valuable about the game
Sitting in garrison isn't fun. Dungeon queues aren't fun. Game isn't fun.
>Is every character having to learn archaeology and fishing and cooking and first aid interesting?
But they don't first aid might as well have been removed for all people have used it in hte last decade, the only people grind fishing do it because they like fishing or they like collecting pets/mounts and archi was blunder of the century tier failure.
All of these 'bring back muh world' 'alternate progression structure' ideas miss the issue (the real issue not the internet nostalgia shitposting issue). There will never be wonderment in any game again because the internet has changed how we interact with game; every patch will be datamined, everything is googleable, someone else has already done the math/guide/thinking we just read plugin and play.
Some super hard to grind enchant wont change that it will fall into the pit every other idea like this; if its a mathematical gain it will be mandatory and if its not people will not bother and cry they have nothing to do.
Blizzard has to cater to 3 different player bases with 3 different wants; The actual hardcore, the people who think they're hardcore and the casual.
>>337590974
So, a suggestion on how to fix gameplay (especially improving the gear and stat metagames) is now invalid because the game has quest helper addons?
>if its a mathematical gain it will be mandatory and if its not people will not bother
There are more affix options than damage and health, specifically range, damage types, resists, gold and item find, interesting procs, speed, etc.
>>337592178
I might have been overly blunt but that's the nature of text.
>There are more affix options than damage and health, specifically range, damage types, resists, gold and item find, interesting procs, speed, etc.
>speed
They did this in WoD with tertiary stats people give zero fucks if an item drops with 30 leech on it or if it's indestructible.
Like I said if it's an up its mandatory if its nothing it's ignored.
Blizzard fucked up a lot in WoW but we cant pretend the player base didn't have a huge hand in min-max culture and the removal of 'fun' stats and procs. It's an interesting evolution really; People wanted to be the best they could be so they optimised, they made their optimisations available on blogs, ej, proto icy veins, eventually it becomes the expectation that you must read this to play, in turn blizzard refines gearing an optimisation to fit play want and then it all feeds in on itself.
>>337593253
But tertiary stats have almost no effect, and there are tertiary stats that are still damage based (versatility), so those are still mandatory.
Giving an example of something that doesn't work, to a reply stating that thing already doesn't function, isn't discussion progression.
The player base has nothing to do with how the game is designed. The company claims to realize that every criticism is a vocal minority, and they also implement designs that have never been asked for (profession redesign and garrisons missions, etc.).
Again, optimization has nothing to do with the conversation because there are other options. It's still no critique on ideas like OP because of that. Gems and enchants can be legitimately anything, and if the metagame is about getting and losing them, it's not about min-maxing at all except actually having the gear piece(s).
>>337595259
At least Camelot is right around the corner
>2018
>>337594140
>there are tertiary stats that are still damage based (versatility)
But there isn't versatility is a secondary stat (the primary tank secondary infact), tertiary stats are decidedly not combat related which is why I brought it up in the first place.
This is the last I'll mention it because apparently moving even vaguely away from the OP is an issue for you but if you look at the change in gearing and stats especially from vanilla to wrath there is no way you can say the community (especially the raiding community) had no influence over its evolution.
As for limited enchants I really fail to see what it does to help anything yes sitting on your ass in your garrison is terrible but forcing people to grind enchants in the world wont change his perceived issue.
When Legion drops there will be a million people in Suramar for weeks/months that wont bring wonderment back to the game because that is not how we digest multiplayer games anymore. If you take any multiplayer focused game every patch gets the shit data mined out of it weeks in advance, at our present level of technology there will never be vanilla wanderlust again because we want cold ruthless optimisation and we've got the tools to achieve it.
>>337595453
They base neither PvP design nor PvE bosses with tertiary stats though.. You don't have to have any of the tertiary stats to do anything, and getting them comes with minimal effect. This idea is about fun gameplay, which comes through supply and demand providing a reason to be in the zones, farming something more than fucking rep. If you can't get how that's a nicely huge contrast in playability, maybe you should stop posting and get a cup of cold water.
>it wouldn't be cool to have legendary enchants with procs
>>>/trash/
