-
Posts
1718 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
88
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Scorp
-
Done by Deadmouse.
-
Scripted by Morelleth.
-
The system itself is developed with possibility to be used in the future on another realm, but not for x5, we will remain on current one (5.4)
-
No I don't find it funny when we talk about PvE questline for PvE cloak on a PvE realm where it is not a secret to anyone that BG queue has low activity. Also this is my opinion, this is a discussion thread isn't it? Everyone is free to say what he thinks about it. Doesn't really mean anything will change
-
My suggestion to administration was to replace quest criteria with 2 random battleground wins instead of these 2 specific ones on x5, but it was declined unfortunately
-
Hi, message me on PandaWoW Discord in 1 hour if you will be available in-game, will try to help
-
About this hotfix: •March 5, 2013 -> Patch 5.2 Release; •Hotfix (2013-04-23): We're deploying a hotfix late tonight that will reduce the number of Lesser Charms of Good Fortune required to purchase 3 Mogu Runes of Fate from 90 down to 50. •May 21, 2013 -> Patch 5.3 Release; We can see it was changed closer to end of patch 5.2, not in the beginning. Currently I think at start we will have 90x and I'll reduce it to 50x 1 week after heroic opens. But that's not decided yet so don't take it as my final word
-
https://forum.pandawow.ru/showthread.php?t=263152 :PeepoCool:
- 1 reply
-
- 1
-
-
Well.... currently it's set to 90, but I'll think about this
-
I was able to "develop" only 3/4 of key differences this boss had in first version. Unfortunately or happily, the path from beach will be available since Blizzard changed the map (Isle of Giants) in 5.3 and removed 5.2 version just like they did with Vale of Eternal Blossoms in 5.4. Which means it won't be completely like it was in real 5.2
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but world boss HP scaling was introduced and used only for Celestials ?
-
Only issue is that the system we have now is "Blizzlike" to patch 5.4 - https://www.engadget.com/2014-04-02-world-bosses-no-longer-tap-to-faction.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACslW8F9VtZ6JgaxGj-Y_6lYDlz9SnZuZzBDS6ZbzD1RGgr0AAu20Fo3CtI943yR4LSKXGGyBz_x48nLXxFWsZKcrW33hiNt0UEhuczk0IAKXzRnwdsuhMvaCM38ixycS2J1axviQGv5aCpZi7w_j3o2VCWOQdYbMeIV5wRN7_N4 The system Saccna described is "Blizzlike" for mop patches under 5.4
-
Honestly, I don't think it's wise to change our current system where every player who encountered boss is a valid target to receive loot no matter which faction is he. Tapping boss to 1 faction will only bring chaos which (in my opinion) nobody needs
-
Just for information, I have developed both versions of this world boss - Pre-Nerf & Post-Nerf. For those who do not know, mainly these are the four key differences: Which version will be released on x5 is yet to be decided
-
The patch 5.2 nerf system to 5.0.5 raids itself is developed for all 3 raids already (just disabled of course). Previously when I spoke with Buka about this we got to an agreement to enable this shortly before Throne of Thunder launch. But I won't go in details, will leave this for Buka to answer if she decides to
-
After all these suggestions on forums for a long time about cross-faction raids (not talking about LFR / LFG now of course), still having a very hard time to "see" how do you expect to it to look like in-game. In world you can kill each other (Alliance Horde), but in addition to that Alliance player is able to invite Horde player to his group and they both are friendly to each other now or something? :PepeHmmm:
-
Sorry for late answer, if issue is still not solved - PM me please when you are in-game and I'll help with this problem
-
[Осада Оргриммара] - Идеалы клакси - spell Удар щитом
Scorp replied to Saccna's topic in Paragons of the Klaxxi
How this spell works now is my understanding to how it should work. And without any valid proof that this attack should be avoidable or "it works like that on other private servers" is not enough for me to change it. If this attack truly is avoidable, then I think we would see tanks do it on every kill video provided on youtube / twitch. -
Not an expert of course, but what kind of "tactics" are we talking about when it comes to content which was released in 2012-2013?
-
This was suggested already in the past and was declined. The reason behind it was that dungeon / raid maps (there are exceptions of course, like Throne of Four Winds) were never meant to be explored by players via flying. What I mean here is these instance maps have no collision in walls / roof which allows player to fly through them, which is not exactly a game experience a player should have
-
Feel free to report "retail bugs" when we talk about raids, I review every case individually and then decide what to do with it. Starting with spells damaging outside of visual effect (yes, there were cases like that in T14) and ending with things like in this report. About report - will check, but a bit later, currently focusing on T15
-
No answer from author, thread closed (again). Lockout system is correct (I think I explained enough already), Blizzard used it in Pandaria (Shared lockout between 10N25N10H25H (Boss-Based Lockout); Separate Cooldown for LFR and Flex (Loot-Based Lockout)). If I'm not wrong, system was already introduced in Cataclysm and then it was changed in Warlords of Draenor to something that author described in this thread. I personally don't support our current system, but administration decided to use Blizzard MoP lockout system on this project. Lockout system was not developed by me that's why I do not speak for it in suggestion threads (created by players) with aim to change it somehow.
-
https://db.pandawow.me?npc=61003/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0 is immune to jump effect caused by https://db.pandawow.me?spell=102793/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%85%D1%80%D1%8C-%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0 and slow effect caused by this spell does not seem to trigger the issue you described above (during my tests). Leaving report opened, in case there is some extra info someone / author would like to add