Get the Desktop App for Battle.net Now
- All your games in 1 place
- Log in once
- Automatic game updates
I think with the latest patch they have severely handicapped some classes,
My hunter seems ok, my Pally became unplayable , kept running out mana killing a mob 4 levels below me. Tried a shaman, was ok but hampered by no Duel Wield and missing the core talents really hamper it
My shammy just died @34 but not to upset as whilst i was making slow progress the higher i went the longer it took to kill stuff.
Anyhoo I won't be re rolling again straight away with mists launching in 20 hours , will be a bit busy with my main(s), I will try and log in to say hello.
31 Night Elf Druid
Side-effect of Casa's change to the http://wowironman.com site is that you can see how many characters are currently active and have gained a level since the Mists change was made.
Nice to see that characters are listed as having gained a level since the Mist change for every level up to 34. Not sure what it is about 35, but things continue at 36 and cover most levels until 50. Things are a bit more spread out after that, but there are a dozen or so 50+ characters that have gained a level since the Mists change a month ago.
The Path of Iron is still alive!
1 Night Elf Priest
I have returned from my sojourn in exotic lands to dust off the Chronicle and bring it up to date for current and future travelers down the Path of Iron.
And welcome to our furry new friends!
My hope continues to be that the collected wisdom proves beneficial to others.
Chronicles of Iron
Edited by Chronologer on 9/25/2012 7:14 AM PDT
15 Pandaren Monk
Without a specialization there is nothing until level 64 I think and it is not a self heal. Some classes are seriously handicapped because of the new talents versus other classes compared to before the talents change. Without allowing specs I suspect the challenge will just die off besides a handful of hardcore permadeathers...hint hint.
My personal opinion is that at this point it would be more interesting to open the challenge to more people by opening the talents and keeping all the other restrictions in. The talents part of the challenge was there at a time where it made sense. If the challenge was put in place now the talents would probably not be part of it.
That way you can STILL do it the hard way and chose no talents but open it to more people. Of course you can say "hey its a personal challenge you can do whatever you want". That s true but you have an official scoreboard so its not personal anymore when people are checked and ranked against each other.
Anyway...Monks look to be really boring with 3 buttons only at the moment at level 15 without talents.
Edited by Pandalol on 9/25/2012 10:29 PM PDT
55 Night Elf Death Knight
While I know how much venom some people spew at Death Knights when they contribute to Iron Challenge conversations, I know there are a few interested parties.
I am interested in what affect the new talent/specification changes will have on getting a Death Knight out of the starting zone, so I'm making another go of it.
Ironman Challenge DK Opt -in
I'm being lazy and not doing my homework. I haven't looked yet and am just 'ruminating' on an thought.
In the original IMC, talents/skills/abilities that came as part of the base (non-spec'd) toon were allowed, if for no other reason that because one couldn't get rid of them. The reason specs and the talents that came with them were barred was beause they provided "undue advantage" over those baseline abilities; they provided toon capabilities that made the player's job of good decision making easier, so to speak.
As things are now, it seems that a large number of what used to be spec required skills/talents are now part of the base toon and don't require a specialization to get. In fact, just about everything except those that come every 15 levels are acquired automatically and don't even require a trainer to get... you can't opt out of them, rather much like Hunter pets.
After thinking a little, it seems that a question that needs to be asked about allowing specs and talents is, "How much additional advantage would/do these spec talents provide over and above what's already present? And does that additional adavantage rise to the level of 'undue'?" (undue defined as 'excessive' or 'violating propriety') In other words, would any toon using specs/talents have an 'excessive' advantage over an other which is duplicate in every way except for the non-use of specs/talents?
If the answer is, "yes," then specs/talents should remain barred. If it is, "no," then specs/talents can, perhaps, be included without rancor because -- as the IMC intent is a self challenge, if there is no effective difference in the real leveling defficulty between use and non-use of spec/talents then what difference does it make whether one uses them or not?
As I said, I haven't done my homework, so take the above with several grains of salt... but I think this might be a good place to start the decision making process. We might not get an answer for a while... from someone who has attempted the Challenge both ways and has achieved a reasonable perspective on the issue.
On research I suggest you look at Neverdied's posts on August 22 regarding changes to the 'base' specs of Priests and Mages.
These classes were not exactly a walk in the park before and are definitely further handicapped under the new changes.
Warriors and rogues may not be impossible, but no one has figured out a way to get them to 85 yet. Pallies now are reported to be 'unplayable' (see post above). What does that leave?
Of course you can set your own goals in the challenge. As a priestess considering the class limitations and my own modest skill level I would have been delighted to make 60. Still it doesn't seem right that you can only hope to complete the challenge if you pick one of a few possible classes. (I am prejudiced...I don't like playing hunters or warlocks..lol)
Having made several tries as a priestess I must say that I was thrilled and awed to see someone finally make it in that class and another as a mage. So perhaps it is true that nothing is impossible but if the bar is too high then indeed, as Pandalol points out, we may find only a handful of truly expert gamers will find it attractive....one in a thousand could make it before..if the odds are one in ten thousand people might get discouraged.
Edited by Jirel on 9/27/2012 9:50 AM PDT
...you're getting an advantage if you choose a spec, and a dis-advantage if you don't.Is the advantage "undue"... will the character perform so much better with a spec than without that it is considered an "excessive" advantage or does a "baseline" toon get so much in the way of "core" abilities now that just 6 more abilities spread out over 90 levels is "nothing to worry about"? I think that's where the crux of the matter lies.
Example, use a linear scale (a simple 1-100 in this case).
If we say that without a spec the toon performs at a 32, but with one it performs at an 85, that would seem "undue" or "excessive" and speccing can remain barred.
If, however, we find that a toon without spec performs at a 47 and with a spec at a 61, that might not be "excessive" enough a shift to keep from allowing speccing.
And we must consider whether keeping specs barred is enough to either drive a significant portion of current participants away, or prevent enticing new participants because of the onerous nature of this rule.
There may be no "good" answer, but as in the early days of 'debating' the original rules we may have to draw a line at "good enough".
I think you have put your finger on the key point. How do we assess the relative impact of the spec - non-spec choices. I think there is a third factor, and that is to compare to the old level as well.
To take a Priest as an example at the low end you might say that the old base was 32.
Without a spec the new base drops to a possibly unplayable 23 but with a spec (but not Talents) it rises to 38, better than the previous base but certainly not overwhelming.
Of course these numbers are just an example, totally unsupported but I do think they reflect some of the reality of the situation.
At the high end you might get a result somewhat along these lines:
For a Hunter - Old base 48, new base 42 (weaker but still perfectly playable), new spec 56 (stronger but still not easy)
How you can actually determine such numbers is a mystery to me. But I do think that they reflect the reality..choosing a spec at level 10 will only make the strong classes slightly easier to play than pre-MoP. Not choosing a spec will make the weaker classes even more unattactive to play. and making warriors, rogues, mages, priests, pallies and shamans a bit stronger will actually balance the challenge somewhat.
Talents are now really marginal but I think we should be clear that Talents will not be permitted..only the choosing a Class Spec with the modest extra buffs and class attacks that gives you.
We might consider limiting specs if it is felt that some specs are too strong. For example Mages cannot choose Frost as Mages should not have minions and shamans may not choose enhancement as the attack spells and buffs gained are too strong.
There is lots of room for fine tuning.
Edited by Jirel on 9/27/2012 6:10 PM PDT
*bursts through the wall* Hello!
Other games have been dragging me away from IMC but I'm still chomping at the bit to reach my end goal. Good to see some friendly faces still about!
I had a brief look at Ferrous at launch and I don't think Rogues will play too much differently. Please keep in mind this IMCer is my highest Rogue ever and it's been a month or three since I played her so I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but all the main skills looked like they were still there to me (perhaps at slightly different levels, I'm positive I had Vanish prior to the 30s).
I don't think limiting specs is the way to go. I can see the merit behind it, but it opens a massive can of worms in regards to which spec is ok, which isn't, "spec X is harder than spec Y", etc..
At any rate, I plan to restart Ferrous at some point as the Warlock I made doesn't really grab me. Many moons ago I used to play an SM/DS Warlock, but the class has gone so far from where it originally was that I can't play it anymore. :(
My 2 cents as someone who has completed the challenge before Mists and has taken a Shaman from 1 to 62 after 5.0.4. With one exception (warriors - which are now barely playable) I don't think there is a significant increase in difficulty. Shaman is very doable without any spec and, at least from Outland forward, it seems easier than before.
Warriors are screwed because most of their rage generating abilities have been moved behind a spec. Leveling a warrior now is excruciatingly painful yet doable. So, to test how a spec would change this I took my deceased level 64 iron warrior and I spec'd her protection - no other changes. The results? My warrior could take on 2-3 level 63 mobs and destroy them in seconds. Hellfire Colossi, which I could never do until I reached level 67+ on all my iron toons? My protection warrior could take on 2 at the same time and finish them with more than half health remaining. There was no challenge involved and I was never in any real danger to die.
I think for me, personally, adding a spec would change the challenge. Would it make it more interesting for more people? Maybe. Would it still be an interesting and dangereous journey? Not for a protection warrior, that's for sure.
Edited by Nassyl on 9/28/2012 8:05 AM PDT
Generally, I agree that we shouldn't open the "this spec but not that one" can of worms. The IMC always stuck to a "all or nothing" methodology; all the base abilities that come with the toon, but none of the spec talent abilities -- period. At a minimum it was clear, simple and consistent. Attempting to designate which particular specs might be eaiser or harder for every class would not only be a monumental task, it runs into the wall of putting a few in the position to dictating to the many... and what of those that whose natural skills/inclinations are for a suddenly "prohibited" spec... and even for those that can still succeed even without the "harder" spec, or those that still can't even with the "easier" one. No, I think that's a bad road to start walking.
Thank you, Nassyl, for your input. It's good to see someone who's completed the challenge still around and still willing to participate in the community/discussion arena. Unless/until we get input from one or more other Challange completists, I would say that your statement puts one solid vote into the "keep specs off the table across the board" column. Am I correct?
Unless/until we get input from one or more other Challange completists, I would say that your statement puts one solid vote into the "keep specs off the table across the board" column. Am I correct?
Yes. I think we should keep the current set of rules. Even if we end up allowing specs, I will still not use them as they remove the "challenging" part of the challenge, in my opinion.
What about allowing the spec but not taking any of the talents? Given past comments about how mob toughness ramps up so harshly from basic to BC, then again from BC to Wrath, then again from Wrath to Cata, it would seem that another such ramp up to MoP might make the task all but impossible without what little just taking the talentless spec might add.
In your opinion (professional? lol) do you think that adding just a spec but keeping the attendant talents out of the picture be going to far, or is it still too soon to tell?
Edit: case in point, Rogues <----
Assassin, at lvl 10 allowing spec gives Mutilate (active), Improved Poisons and Assassin's Resolve (2 passive).
Combat, at lvl 10 allowing spec gives Blade Flurry, Vitality and Ambidexterity (all passive).
Subtlety, at lvl 10 allowing spec gives Hemorrage (active), Master of Subtlety and Sinister Calling (both passive).
As Combat seems to be preferred for PvP, we'll ignore it. With the other two, 2 passive abilities and one active one hardly seem enough to tilt the basic class abilities into the "undue advantage" range unless one looks only at low level progression. Since we have to consider the upper levels as well, would keeping these abilities away from a Rogue prevent them from completing the challenge because of that "ramp up" -- will they need these to finish?
Edited by Aberzombie on 9/28/2012 12:35 PM PDT
I haven't been that high but I think that it could prove troublesome. After all the highest Rogue on the tracking site was 73, and a lot seem to hit a wall in the 30s judging by the deaths. I know personally that things got a lot harder when I hit STV!
33 Night Elf Warrior
Hey guys! Long time no see. Also wanting to still jump back into the fray and continue on my Warrior attempt but been distracted with other games and work.
Honestly (and this is said as a relative newcomer to the whole IMC since I joined when Cata was new), I'd prefer the all-or-nothing approach so this way things don't get out of hand and Casa or someone else has to nit-pick every classes' acceptable VS denied skills, talents, etc.
I'm proactively refusing to jump on my current character and testing what a Warrior re-roll is like before I just go wander off and fight something that before may not have presented a problem but now it would! Once I'm comfortable I'll probably move ahead again. Work and other commitments are going to keep me extremely busy for the next month though so don't know how far I'll get.
Question (if a bit obvious). If a class who has yet to make it can at least get to 85, is that now not good enough? Must one get all the way to 90? I've had other expenses this month so have delayed my purchase of MoP (though will probably get it eventually).
Also, what is the thought on the daily removal for the dailies cap? I guess one could always do the same dailies as before but just not any fishing or cooking or ones that'd give huge EXP without any risk; though I presume Holiday Events are still valid?
The idea of the IMC was to level cap with the listed restrictions so I would presume that 90 is the new benchmark.
Welcome back, btw.
"Houston, we may have a problem."
I refer you to this post: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/6794353290
There is a discussion here which may just put the nail in the coffin for the IMC.
If what is being talked about here is veritas, then accomplishing the No Death level cap goal (with or without restrictions) may be patently impossible now.
For the tl;dr crowd, it discusses a creature in MoP called the "Monstrous Plainshawk" which seems to have a bad habbit of randomly attacking a character (sometimes in groups). While doing so it is effectively immune to damage, character combat and damage mitigation abilities are disabled and the creatures continue attacking until toon death ensues.
I would strongly suggest a closer look at this phenom... as it could mean that zero death leveling might be extinct.
Any constructive input would be appreciated.
Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.
Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.
Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.