10-03-2005, 09:40 PM
Tuftears,Oct 3 2005, 03:03 PM Wrote:Crazy idea but what about allowing warlock shards to stack to 50 per slot? Make warlock shard bags act as quivers, except they increase warlock chance-to-hit instead of ranged attack speed.The problem with shards is not inventory space, at least in my opinion. Other classes and professions have things that take up plenty of inventory space (hunters losing a whole bag, for example). Sure, shards will probably take up more than one bag, and stackable shards WOULD be fantastic, but it's the lesser issue.
The point here is to commoditize the soul shard. Since it's used so often, it shouldn't be considered a 'valuable' resource, which is the effect that limiting it to one per space has.
[right][snapback]90868[/snapback][/right]
The major issue, mainly on pvp servers, is the time required to farm for shards in order to defend yourself or participate in battlegrounds. I don't play on a pvp server, where the problem is even more exaggerated, but I do have to spend time farming shards for MC. An hour to gather 30 shards, simply so I can use abilities I should be able to use anyway? Healthstone, soulstone, summoning. Those are the only abilities I use in MC that require shards, and it can still easily drain me down to zero. It's easier the more warlocks there are, but it's still an absurd system.
Don't even mention that you can get shards in pvp... what is the point of using a channeled, low damage dot that has to be active when the target dies and is basically a huge neon arrow pointing directly at you? Another example of the "maybe this will shut them up" dev technique. :P
A final note. I am getting sick and tired of the devs saying "We're happy with the way soul shards are working." but not EVER saying why they are so bloody happy. They do not address any of the concerns we're discussing here, and keep offering vague promises of a shard bag which, unless it generates its own shards, will just be a drop in the bucket regarding the Shard Problem.
The error occurred on line -1.