USA
EU
Korea
BluetrackerImpressive, Indeed
Ghmou wants you guys to go and read this thread by Targos. Good stuff. Seems like we're going to be able to tank pretty darn good in BC.
Awesomesauce! Impressive. Most impressive.
Awesomesauce! Impressive. Most impressive.
posted by Mastgrr at 8:10:00 AM
26 Comments:
The "Impressive. Most impressive" link is taking me to a Darth Vader clip. Is this intended?
For fun!
Nice to see we will be able to lay claim to our proper pve role. It was kinda silly to have to stand in the back with plate armor.
The society for the proliferation of the word "Awesomesauce" expresses a most genuine gratitude, Sir Mastgrr.
I still use zulian headdress and loomguard armbraces when I have to heal, but I have the full set of peacekeeper now mostly backed up with Judgement, so I'm pretty happy now.
could someone tell me what I need to look up on youtube? All I get is a confirm button over and over again.
u need to sign up and log in
Just removed the link. Caused too much confusion, which wasn't the intention. Thought people would get it that I was quoting Darth Vader.
You learn something every day... Hehe.
Hmm, the ret set only has like 139 spell damage, and the melee crit looks low too.
I hope those sockets provide a lot of stats. :)
Reports are coming in that Seal of Command is dealing less damage on the beta realms than being reported on the WoW TBC talent sheet.
Retribution keeps getting gutted. I'm convinced that by the time of the expansion release, it will be utter trash. Comparatively, it will become what Protection is now on live - a joke. We will be poking fun at our brethren wasting talent points to pick up Improved Sanctity Aura and Sanctified Crusader, patting them on the back for "taking one for the team" while we all, ironically, spec Prot/Holy or variations thereof.
My advice? If you're sick of heal/cleansebotting, plan to spec Protection and tank up a storm in PvE. Then shelve your Paladins for PvP and go level up a Rogue or Warlock.
On another note, the Democrats seem to have pulled off a rise to power in the USA. Prepare to start seeing less and less money in your paychecks, if Pelosi's Politbureau has anything to say about it. I'm personally looking forward to going to the grocery store and seeing aisles and aisles of empty shelves and/or gray/brown packaging, with long lines for meat and sugar.
reports are coming in that Seal of Command is dealing less damage on the beta realms than being reported on the WoW TBC talent sheet.
Really? Or are they just seeing the nerf on the TBC talent sheet?
http://worldofwarcraft.com/info/classes/bc-paladin/talents.html
Judgement of command rank 5 does 105-116 damage on there, our rank 5 on live now does like 173-186 IIRC. I'm guessing that nerf is to offset the mana effcency of sanctified judgement. We wouldn't want those paladins doing 186 damage for 185 mana.
To be fair, JoC was starting to look actually effcent if it maintained it's old numbers. With my current stats (+300 spell damage with crusader judged) + 10% for sanctity I would get around 365 damage for 185 mana.
Which would have been, you know nice. Not overpowered or anything, just reasonablly mana efficient for a class that has to balance 5 different stats.
Now I'll get 291 damage for 185 mana (36 dps if judged every 8 seconds). Thanks for the nerf blizz! We wouldn't want fanaticism to actually be useful.
Retribution keeps getting gutted. I'm convinced that by the time of the expansion release, it will be utter trash.
I think it will be the weakest of the three trees. It doesn't really fix one of our main pvp problems (lack of combat options), and the DPS boost is a good compared to what we have now, but every class is getting dps and functionality buffs to their offense. We've just gotten some minor dps buffs, along with one functionality buff (a DoT).
Comparatively, it will become what Protection is now on live - a joke.
Prot has some decent pvp talents on live now, it just doesn't fill it's intended purpose well enough(survivability and tanking). There are some juicy talents in there for pvp(reckoning, iHoJ, conentration aura). I think you are right though, ret will be viewed the same way prot is:
"Boy Sanctified judgement looks cool, and so does fanatcism and crusader strike, but they just don't stack up to the meat of the other trees."
It's also funny how badly Divine Purpose sucks. I mean, it's fucking awful. Why not throw in a talent where if we get crit all damage against us is minimized by x amount for 10 seconds? Or maybe one where if we are crit our n ext melee attack is holy damage +150 (not stackable).
We will be poking fun at our brethren wasting talent points to pick up Improved Sanctity Aura and Sanctified Crusader, patting them on the back for "taking one for the team" while we all, ironically, spec Prot/Holy or variations thereof.
I think some holy paladins are going to skip the top of holy for imp sanctity aura.
My advice? If you're sick of heal/cleansebotting, plan to spec Protection and tank up a storm in PvE. Then shelve your Paladins for PvP and go level up a Rogue or Warlock.
I get to play my friends accounts all the time, and it's amazing how much more fun the other classes are. I don't know why I remain tethered to the paladin class, other than I liked the overall concept of a holy warrior, or a crusader. Meh.
On another note, the Democrats seem to have pulled off a rise to power in the USA.
Honestly, I expected them to do better. Didn't both Reagan and Clinton's parties lose their second term midterm elections?
Also, it seems the Republicans have pissed off some of their base over the past few years (Illegal immigration, Dubai ports, Fiscal Policy, Harriet Myers etc) and aren't midterm elections all about getting the base out to vote? Maybe the Republicans will start acting more like conservatives. Also, I'm sure having Pelosi in power will remind Republicans and independants just how shrill democrats can be.
Prepare to start seeing less and less money in your paychecks, if Pelosi's Politbureau has anything to say about it.
I'm sure if Pelosi had her way, we would be getting rid of the white and the blue in our flag, and become the United Socialist States of America. It won't happen though. Bush will dust off his veto stamp, and that will be that. Unless of course they try to impeach him, in which case all hell will break loose.
I'm personally looking forward to going to the grocery store and seeing aisles and aisles of empty shelves and/or gray/brown packaging, with long lines for meat and sugar.
Don't fret Vaelin, they won't have that much power. Even the bad guys have to win elections sometimes. ;)
Lord Vir: I'm sure if Pelosi had her way, we would be getting rid of the white and the blue in our flag, and become the United Socialist States of America. It won't happen though.
I grew up in an extremely socalistic country with the highest tax rate in the world (51-53% of GDP). Socialistic tradition influenced our culture - solidarity, raising taxes and cradle-to-grave welfare is something to be very proud about. The Social Democratic party ran Sweden for (almost) 50+ consecutive years.
I know what socialism is, and Nancy Pelosi is not a socialist.
Vaelin: I'm personally looking forward to going to the grocery store and seeing aisles and aisles of empty shelves and/or gray/brown packaging, with long lines for meat and sugar.
Considering Sweden's obsenely high taxes I can't say that my family has it any better here in the US. Basically day-to-day items such as food and computer games to my account cost about the same. This is also when not factoring in the economics of scaling and mass production, which is less prevelant in Europe due to the cultural boundres (but is progressing more towards that).
Regarding raising taxes though, I'm all for it. I'd like to see a reversal of Paris Hilton's tax cuts so we can get a balanced budget and pay off our debt. This is because I want responsible government.
Lord Vir: Don't fret Vaelin, they won't have that much power. Even the bad guys have to win elections sometimes. ;)
As a full disclosure I did campaign work for Democrats this election, so today I've been in a pretty good mood. I'm saving my gloat until after the concession of Macaca Allen.
I grew up in an extremely socalistic country with the highest tax rate in the world (51-53% of GDP). Socialistic tradition influenced our culture - solidarity, raising taxes and cradle-to-grave welfare is something to be very proud about. The Social Democratic party ran Sweden for (almost) 50+ consecutive years.
This isn't too Politically Correct, but I think Socialism works better in small countries with non-diverse populations.
While the unity and patriotic element of socialism is nice, I think ultimately big governments fail, and small governments offer more freedom. As governments regulate more things over a persons life, they have more control over them. Anyway, I'm not going to go off on a rant here.
I know what socialism is, and Nancy Pelosi is not a socialist.
She was part of the Progressive Caucus who's website was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. While she might not be a socialist by European political standards, she is one by American standards.
Regarding raising taxes though, I'm all for it. I'd like to see a reversal of Paris Hilton's tax cuts
I couldn't care less about Paris Hilton's tax cuts, but I do not want mine taken away. I get little from the government at all, yet the parasites get to loot a portion of my paycheck. It is organized thievery.
so we can get a balanced budget and pay off our debt. This is because I want responsible government.
I think this is part of the reason the Republicans lost. You can't very well preach fiscal repsonsibility and then not practice it when you are in office.
As a full disclosure I did campaign work for Democrats this election, so today I've been in a pretty good mood. I'm saving my gloat until after the concession of Macaca Allen.
The Democrats did a good job this cycle. The Republicans can't win every year, and perhaps they will realize they can't piss off their base and win elections.
Still, I would have liked to have had a real debate on foreign policy and interventionism. The democrats really didn't offer up any plan for Iraq, they simply just kept saying it was bad. While this is a good strategy, since the average voter has the attention span of a gnat...I would have liked to have seen some real debate on when America should and shouldn't fight wars.
I'm just thankful that we still have the veto stamp for at least 2 more years. If the Democrats cut funding for the war, then bring the troops home. The chaos that will ensue will be entirely their fault, and hopefully make their duration in power short-lived.
In the 2000 election, I actually preferred Alan Keyes over the other Republican candidates. I even found Pat Buchanan's America First mantra somewhat appealing. For all the crap we get from Europe about our activities overseas, I'd like to see how things turn out if we pulled up our drawbridge and closed up. No more handouts to the 3rd world. No more disaster relief. No more "peacekeeping" that fails to do so. Make the UN rely on the rest of the security council members for cannon fodder (good luck with France on that one).
What dazes me the most about this election cycle, though I can understand frustration from scandal and a rough time in Iraq, is the complete lack of a plan from the opposition. Americans seem to be voting like they shop nowadays - on impulse. They seem to forget that the economy is finally on the upturn thanks to tax cuts, low interest rates, etc. They fail to realize the long-term results of simply pulling out of such a brutal conflict. Part of the blame lies with modern media - nobody likes to sit down to their morning coffee and read daily reports of casualties. They forget that wars of our past were much bloodier, with as much or more at stake. Previous generations stood up and endured (with the exception of the Vietnam "let's all just have illegitimate children and get high" generation).
It was underreported for obvious reasons, but among the lesser known cheerleaders for the Democrats this election cycle were the Communist Party USA and a sizable list of terror leaders from all across the Arab world. They know something, and have though further ahead than most of the Americans who went out to vote on Tuesday. Such is the drawback of leadership elected by an ill-informed populous on a whim. To this I say:
Checks and Balances FTW
I was always wondering why was it needed to start a war in Iraq... for the Oil? for Freedom for all? Or something else?
I just dont get it...
I dont believe in "democracy-export". If a nation has a dictator and is happy with it, then they are just not ready yet to get something better. You cant change people's mind, they can only change it for themselves.
Forcing it with weapons is even worst (i dont care of troop casualties on any side, they are there to die if needed, but the civilians are not).
Imho.
As a Brit I can see things from both sides. The Democrats have been lack-lustre, but the Republicans seem to be trying to create a religious state - why does America think it has the definite democracy when it is a one-religion country?
A few facts to cut through the rhetoric:
Iraq was invaded to take out a corrupt and defiant dictatorship suspected to possess WMD. The global intelligence community at the time believed said weapons were in his possession. Saddam rattled his sabre a little too much, and we called his bluff. The world is still better off without Saddam, as it deprives terrorists of one more rogue state training ground from which to stage their attacks. Ask any average American how much they've had to readjust their gas (petrol for you limeys) budget and you can squash the rumor about the war being all about oil.
This "Republicans want to create a one-religion state" nonsense is just that. Here in the US, we have a constitutional clause that ensures religious liberty won't be trampled on. It's when people hide behind a religion to carry out acts of terrorism that we find threatening. Much of the socially conservative legislation put forth by the ideological right would be embraced by a multitude of faiths - including Islam. The only ones who feel truly threatened are those who have rejected any notion of moral absolutes. I personally believe one of the duties of a state is to provide a check to evil. This is why murderers are put to death, thieves are imprisoned, etc. Before you go accusing the US of religious conformity, you may want to look in your own backyard of soon-to-be-renamed Londonistan.
Come on now - the US has always been a religiously led country. Just count how many times you president mentions God and you'll get an idea.
And London is one of the most diverse cities in the world. The fact that we can tolerate a muslim person walking down the street is no reason to call it Londonistan - someone that strikes me as a typical american thing to say to bo honest.
Vaelin said:
A few facts to cut through the rhetoric:
Iraq was invaded to take out a corrupt and defiant dictatorship suspected to possess WMD. The global intelligence community at the time believed said weapons were in his possession. Saddam rattled his sabre a little too much, and we called his bluff. The world is still better off without Saddam, as it deprives terrorists of one more rogue state training ground from which to stage their attacks. Ask any average American how much they've had to readjust their gas (petrol for you limeys) budget and you can squash the rumor about the war being all about oil.
This "Republicans want to create a one-religion state" nonsense is just that. Here in the US, we have a constitutional clause that ensures religious liberty won't be trampled on. It's when people hide behind a religion to carry out acts of terrorism that we find threatening. Much of the socially conservative legislation put forth by the ideological right would be embraced by a multitude of faiths - including Islam. The only ones who feel truly threatened are those who have rejected any notion of moral absolutes. I personally believe one of the duties of a state is to provide a check to evil. This is why murderers are put to death, thieves are imprisoned, etc. Before you go accusing the US of religious conformity, you may want to look in your own backyard of soon-to-be-renamed Londonistan.
*snorts*
The rational for invading Iraq has always been a moveable feast, from WMD proliferation (which the guys on the ground before the war never found) to regime change to an anti-terrorism policy (just after the President admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11). Now the Pres. is suggesting we should stay there to safeguard oil supplies, and that about-face is so abrupt that he may have got whiplash. Revisionism in history is always amusing, rarely 'fact'.
It is doublely amusing that you wish to cut through the rhetoric and then invoke the 'Londonistan' right-wing blog talking point whilst glossing over attempts in the US to effectively revoke any real or imaginary 'separation of church and state'. The Christian churches of all stripes remain a powerful political force in the US, more so than in nations without a separation clause in their constitution (e.g. UK). Given the number of 'faith based initiatives' put forward by this Administration, and the influence that the evangelical movement has with government policy, I wouldn't be crowing about freedom of, and freedom from, religion as things stand.
As for why the Republicans were voted out, well the budget deficit and uncontrolled spending may have something to so with it. There is only one thing worse than 'Tax and Spend' and that is 'Cut Taxes and Spend', and it seems that the electorate isn't fooled any more. An antagonistic government may now mean that spending is reined in, and may cause the fiscially conservative Repubs and Dems (yes, they do exist) to grow some balls and start cutting the pork.
Anyway, a Paladin WoW blog is no place to be debating politics, no matter how fun it may be. Back to your usual messages. :)
Just thought I'd mention that Blizzard has officially announced the release date of BC, something they hadn't done to this point.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=46505599&postId=464316681&sid=1#0
revisionism? iirc the wmd threat was the strongest original motivation, just like vaelin said. there have been finds, from mobile bioagent laboratories, Iraqi documents detailing weapons programs, mass graves filled with the victims of missile-delivered neurotoxins, scientists and former diplomats who acknowledge that, yes, Iraq had an intention to obtain fissile material. though large stockpiles have yet to be found, what is most chilling is a lack of evidence of the destruction of the weapons iraq was known to possess.
She was part of the Progressive Caucus who's website was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. While she might not be a socialist by European political standards, she is one by American standards.
This might have to do with that Bernie Sanders is the founder of the Progressive Caucus who's a self-declared socialist (the only one in Congress). On the other hand the only evidence I find of your claim on the connection is on Wikipedia which is without any source to that statement.
There are no European or American standards to "socialism". It's an ideology that's consistent throughout the world wherever you are. Rather I think it is that right-wingers use the word to denigrate the debate by trying to concatenate Democrats with the the loaded impact it got through the red scare. I'm really tired of it and hope that the ideological shift that's occurring in this country will make it gradually more and more useless as an argument.
Speaking about Europe...I really think the "worries" about the muslim immigrants is grossly exaggerated. I grew up with a lot of muslim friends and most of them were secular or agnostic just like most young Europeans. It's kinda ironic that Europe which is more homogenized than America is less feared of having the social order being changed.
Anyways, the political fervor is over now. If I see any political comments outside this of this post's thread I'll delete them regardless of their ideological stance.
This might have to do with that Bernie Sanders is the founder of the Progressive Caucus who's a self-declared socialist (the only one in Congress). On the other hand the only evidence I find of your claim on the connection is on Wikipedia which is without any source to that statement.
Google it, it was reported in a few different places. Also the statement you made above about neoconservatism only being a foreign policy is ripped from wikipedia, and I've never heard anyone make this claim who actually knows the difference between a paleoconservative and a neoconservative. Hell, Kristol himself said he'd rather see John Kerry as president than Pat Buchanan because he dislikes Buchanan's social policies.
There are no European or American standards to "socialism". It's an ideology that's consistent throughout the world wherever you are.
Uhh no. What passes for conservative or socialist in different locations varies. Rudy Guliani for example passes for conservative in New York, but he surely wouldn't in the south. European politicians that would be considered centrist here are considered 'far right wing' in europe.
Rather I think it is that right-wingers use the word to denigrate the debate by trying to concatenate Democrats with the the loaded impact it got through the red scare.
No, it's simply calling a spade a spade. Socialism is basically the kissing cousin of communism and most Americans don't like either.
I'm really tired of it and hope that the ideological shift that's occurring in this country will make it gradually more and more useless as an argument.
I don't see much of an ideological shift going on. Many of the democrats who won were conservative. I suppose there is evidence that America is slowly sliding twards socialism, but that isn't much of a shift since it's been going on since the 30's and anyone who talks like a socialist usually loses national elections.
Speaking about Europe...I really think the "worries" about the muslim immigrants is grossly exaggerated. I grew up with a lot of muslim friends
Being that I live in north New Jersey, I did as well. Some were secular, some were not.
and most of them were secular or agnostic just like most young Europeans. It's kinda ironic that Europe which is more homogenized than America is less feared of having the social order being changed.
That is because europe is dying, and the people there don't care. It's not so much that europe is more accepting of social order changing, it's that they don't care to fight it. They've become weak willed, and will quietly accept their fate. Enjoy Eurabia and Sharia law.
Anyways, the political fervor is over now. If I see any political comments outside this of this post's thread I'll delete them regardless of their ideological stance.
Good to hear, and congratulations on the previous elections. I may not agree with your points of view, but I can appreciate a well run campaign. :)
t is doublely amusing that you wish to cut through the rhetoric and then invoke the 'Londonistan' right-wing blog talking point whilst glossing over attempts in the US to effectively revoke any real or imaginary 'separation of church and state'.
Yes! America's government is clearly becoming Christian! That is why:
1. Abortion is legal
2. Birth control is legal
3. Preemptive war is our foreign policy (which does not fit Christian doctrine for 'just war').
4. Saying god in the pledge of Allegigence is somehow a big deal
5. As is local governments paying for christmas displays
6. As is kids singing christmas songs at public schools.
Your statement is so far from the reality of what is going on, it's shocking.
The Christian churches of all stripes remain a powerful political force in the US, more so than in nations without a separation clause in their constitution (e.g. UK).
Sure, because Christianity is dying in europe. But don't worry, europe will get a religious government in 20-40 years. It will be based on Sharia instead of Christian influenced law however.
Given the number of 'faith based initiatives' put forward by this Administration,
Do you even know what those are?
and the influence that the evangelical movement has with government policy,
Obviously, since they've been so successful in overturning roe v wade.
I wouldn't be crowing about freedom of, and freedom from, religion as things stand.
Really? Are you forced to practice one religion or be discriminated against in America? I don't think you understand the difference between people being influenced by religion as opposed to people being forced to practice religion.
Google it, it was reported in a few different places. Also the statement you made above about neoconservatism only being a foreign policy is ripped from wikipedia, and I've never heard anyone make this claim who actually knows the difference between a paleoconservative and a neoconservative. Hell, Kristol himself said he'd rather see John Kerry as president than Pat Buchanan because he dislikes Buchanan's social policies.
Seems to me the only thing I could find about the matter was that the dsusa.org *linking* to the Progressive Caucus's website. That's quite a difference from hosting it because anyone can link to anything on the internet without asking anyone.
Kristol said that? Probably so do many neoliberal Republicans as well. Paleoconservatives are really the true conservatives because they base their ideology around the family, identity and the importance of property.
Uhh no. What passes for conservative or socialist in different locations varies. Rudy Guliani for example passes for conservative in New York, but he surely wouldn't in the south. European politicians that would be considered centrist here are considered 'far right wing' in europe.
Socialism has nothing to do with being left or being right. It's an ideology that focuses on specific ideals (and most/all different types of socialism usually have specific philosophical reasonings in common). Just because for example you're a moderate living in a conservative area doesn't make you "more" socialist.
No, it's simply calling a spade a spade. Socialism is basically the kissing cousin of communism and most Americans don't like either.
It's just a cheap trick used to shift the focus of the debate. This country has a history of using socialism as a derogatory word due to the red scare (even prior to that with Eugene V. Debs). I've come to realize that most Americans don't even know what it means, and the only reason it's used because it's a loaded word.
I don't see much of an ideological shift going on. Many of the democrats who won were conservative. I suppose there is evidence that America is slowly sliding twards socialism, but that isn't much of a shift since it's been going on since the 30's and anyone who talks like a socialist usually loses national elections.
The meme of that those who won were conservative democrats is baseless, because I've yet to actually find one. It's just an attempt by conservative pundits to try to pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better that their ideology didn't fail.
Anyone who talks about anything loses a national election. Bush in the debates didn't even answer the question straight on why he's against abortion, for example. America is a very diverse country so when running for national office you have to be as broad and inclusive as possible.
That is because europe is dying, and the people there don't care. It's not so much that europe is more accepting of social order changing, it's that they don't care to fight it. They've become weak willed, and will quietly accept their fate. Enjoy Eurabia and Sharia law.
Trust me, Europeans don't worry about it because there's nothing to worry about. If this was such a problem the European Union would be working on this day and night. Your last comment is complete hyperbole.
Europeans don't worry about it because there's nothing to worry about.
It's so true!
The EU is still hesitating about accepting Turkey to the Union because of its arabic origin, so i dont see any evidence of the Eurabia and Sharia law you talking about...
Post a Comment
<< Home