+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Lurker Games (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: World of Warcraft (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-16.html)
+--- Thread: The REAL expansion - gaming article (/thread-5410.html)
Pages:
1
2
The REAL expansion - gaming article - Watto44 - 10-29-2005
Hehe, from what Tal's said here and in other posts, I get the impression that we're complete opposites when it comes to choosing our races. I love the bad posture, grunginess and truck-stop waitress voices of the horde. At the end of the day I prefer generic rage to complete discomfort. That being said, a new horde race and starting area might get me leveling that mage at last. (I've been meaning to level a mage for about seven months now.) :blush:
As for the PvP thing, there are enough discrepancies between article alrin posted and the ige one fractaled linked. In the first it sounded like Hellfire Peninsula was going to be a regular contested zone with regular quests, except it would flag you on the PvE server. In the ige article, it was refered to as a battleground. If it's a battleground ala alterac valley then there's no problem, if it's a "regular" zone the blizzard will have to be quite careful. The appeal of the pve server for a lot of people is the ability to choose when and if you engage in pvp. If they take that away, I can see quite a few people being a little cross. :D
(One idea I had for bringing the feeling of conflict to regular zones on a pve server was to introduce contested quest resorces that would flag you when you went to collect them. I think that would introcuce the feeling of alliance/horde tensions without taking away a player's ability to choose whether or not to flag for pvp.)
The REAL expansion - gaming article - fractaled - 10-29-2005
Mirajj,Oct 29 2005, 05:05 AM Wrote:And how is this different than the current state? Have you seen a 15 man crew decked in BWL epics tear apart UBRS? Or even 5man Scholo? It's not pretty. The arguement is that people of a higher level will blow through this stuff....they already do. The folks who need this to progress to the higher levels will continue to go through them as they reach higher.
[right][snapback]93509[/snapback][/right]
Yes, leveling through itemization a manifestation of the same problem. What is Blizzard doing by providing this new content? They're just ratcheting up the numbers on the bad guys, and ratcheting up the numbers on the new items. People will always be forced to play in the newest content to "progress", and they'll continue to demand new content (read items) to advance further. That is the treadmill. It's not fundamentally different from the Wailing Caverns, except the numbers are bigger. Is this necessary?
Fundamentally, what are they adding by adding 10 levels? At level 60, decked in blues and purples, haven't you already shown that you understand the game? That your character doesn't have anything left to learn? Instead of being able to choose which new instances/quests/areas you want to tackle, you have to go through 10 levels of grinding. If you want to play a new race in these areas you have to go through the entire grind again. (Don't get me wrong, parts of the grind are pretty fun -- I still think the first 20-30 levels are worth it, but 30-60 is mostly redundant, more so for alts). But if you enjoy the grind, you can do just that, roll a new character and play it again.
By adding 10 levels they are diluting *everything*. The content that the non-leveler crowds are playing for is pushed 10 levels farther along. The "casual gamer" that just got to 60 that was having a blast in PvP will be behind as the level 70s have a new target to grief. The gatherers and crafters will have to advance another 10 levels to be able to play the economy. The battlegrounds will be stretched further.
If anything, compressing the levels and the range of power output of player-characters would be better. In an MMO you want to increase the interactions between players. They're doing the opposite; they've chosen the wrong mechanisms for character growth.
The REAL expansion - gaming article - Artega - 10-29-2005
savaughn,Oct 28 2005, 11:23 AM Wrote:Well, that answers that, then. It's definitely Blood Elves for Horde and Draenai for Alliance.
And if you don't have the expansion pack... no burned out husk of a planet for you!
[right][snapback]93416[/snapback][/right]
I seriously, greatly, incredibly doubt that the Alliance race will be Draenei. I honestly think Pandaren would be more likely than Draenei.
The REAL expansion - gaming article - nobbie - 10-29-2005
Will the 1.5 levels rested bonus my two level 60 chars now have be available when the level cap ist expanded to level 70? :D
The REAL expansion - gaming article - Urza-DSF - 10-29-2005
So what isnt "Fundamentally different than the Wailing Caverns" in any portion of the game? Raids are essentially large-scale instance runs, right? PvP is extremely similar, just with non-AI opponents. Hell, why should I be forced to advance above level 20? The game should just stop right there and I can do WC runs every day. This is pretty much what you and others are saying about the level cap increase.
It seems that the only ones who are complaining about the expansion are the ones who feel that they are "established" because they have level 60s and raid once, twice or whatnot a week. The *only* problem, as I have stated in an earlier post, is the loss of XP for getting up to 70 because of completed quests while capped. And who knows, there *is* a regestry of what quests have been done by whom, so your total XP should be known and refunded to you once the cap has gone up. This is just speculation, but it would make sense to me.
So yeah, if you dont believe increasing the cap and adding new equipment and areas are a good idea, what do you suggest? I cant personally think of anything that would be much different, but hey, thats me.
The REAL expansion - gaming article - Carnifex - 10-29-2005
Tal,Oct 28 2005, 10:51 AM Wrote:I dunno there are quite a few people on PvE servers who dislike PvP with a passion. I can't see them looking at purchasing the expansion knowing they would have to put up with PvP in the outlands. I look for that to be the first thing revamped in Beta.
I could be wrong, but I think that the author of that article is misinterpreting Blizzard's statement about PvP in the Outlands. I think they are implying there will be Alliance-vs-Alliance and Horde-vs-Horde PvP allowed (and possibly encouraged).
My guess is that on PVE servers, players won't be flagged. This would turn away revenue if thats the case, not something Blizzard, or any successful company, has been known to do in the past.
The REAL expansion - gaming article - nobbie - 10-29-2005
Carnifex,Oct 29 2005, 11:08 AM Wrote:I could be wrong, but I think that the author of that article is misinterpreting Blizzard's statement about PvP in the Outlands. I think they are implying there will be Alliance-vs-Alliance and Horde-vs-Horde PvP allowed (and possibly encouraged).Flagging players when they enter a "contested" area on a PvE or RP-PvE server without their consent would be a slap into the face of the players who have chosen exactly these server types because they do NOT want PvP, and if, then only when THEY want in i.e. the PvP battlegrounds. In fact, such a measure would be against the game contents for which the players pay a monthly fee.
My guess is that on PVE servers, players won't be flagged. This would turn away revenue if thats the case, not something Blizzard, or any successful company, has been known to do in the past.
[right][snapback]93527[/snapback][/right]
The REAL expansion - gaming article - Artega - 10-29-2005
nobbie,Oct 29 2005, 07:39 AM Wrote:Flagging players when they enter a "contested" area on a PvE or RP-PvE server without their consent would be a slap into the face of the players who have chosen exactly these server types because they do NOT want PvP, and if, then only when THEY want in i.e. the PvP battlegrounds. In fact, such a measure would be against the game contents for which the players pay a monthly fee.
[right][snapback]93528[/snapback][/right]
Technically, since it's an expansion, they can do whatever the hell they want. It's their game.
I'm banking on that the article writer (who also made a boatload of typos and grammatical errors) misinterpreted what Blizzard told them.
The REAL expansion - gaming article - Artega - 10-29-2005
Urza-DSF,Oct 29 2005, 07:03 AM Wrote:So yeah, if you dont believe increasing the cap and adding new equipment and areas are a good idea, what do you suggest?
[right][snapback]93526[/snapback][/right]
I'd say that it's an expansion - if you don't like the contents, don't buy it.
The REAL expansion - gaming article - nobbie - 10-29-2005
Artega,Oct 29 2005, 01:31 PM Wrote:Technically, since it's an expansion, they can do whatever the hell they want. It's their game.Sure they can, but they shouldn't wonder when a lot PvE players quit then ;)
The REAL expansion - gaming article - fractaled - 10-29-2005
Urza-DSF,Oct 29 2005, 11:03 AM Wrote:So what isnt "Fundamentally different than the Wailing Caverns" in any portion of the game? Raids are essentially large-scale instance runs, right? PvP is extremely similar, just with non-AI opponents. Hell, why should I be forced to advance above level 20? The game should just stop right there and I can do WC runs every day. This is pretty much what you and others are saying about the level cap increase.
That's the point. I'm not arguing that new instances is bad (I think that's good -- I said so in my original post), I'm arguing that putting them 10 levels farther out is bad. Capping at level 30 would be fine with me (as long as there was still access to the top tier spells). I'd like to play the "end-game" content (instances/pvp/etc) with another class or two, but don't want to grind through everything again. 30 levels is a long enough time to get a decent feel for how the class is played without becoming too monotonous.
Quote:So yeah, if you dont believe increasing the cap and adding new equipment and areas are a good idea, what do you suggest? I cant personally think of anything that would be much different, but hey, thats me.
[right][snapback]93526[/snapback][/right]
New areas are fine. They could allow specialization of characters, like say with hero classes? More talents (which it sounds like they might be doing -- hard to tell how much though). New talent trees. New classes even? Housing? Enhanced character appearance customization. As for items, stop making the number bigger and just change the look or specialization of some of them. It sounds stupid to me to make 3 different versions of the same sword with different colors, but based on the demand for certain types of "glow" enchantments, even of particular colors, there are a lot of people that enjoy the dress-up part of the game.
An MMO is a world; there are a billion things they could do that don't involve obsoleting existing content.
The REAL expansion - gaming article - Raelynn - 10-29-2005
fractaled,Oct 29 2005, 12:10 PM Wrote:That's the point. I'm not arguing that new instances is bad (I think that's good -- I said so in my original post), I'm arguing that putting them 10 levels farther out is bad. Capping at level 30 would be fine with me (as long as there was still access to the top tier spells). I'd like to play the "end-game" content (instances/pvp/etc) with another class or two, but don't want to grind through everything again. 30 levels is a long enough time to get a decent feel for how the class is played without becoming too monotonous.
New areas are fine. They could allow specialization of characters, like say with hero classes? More talents (which it sounds like they might be doing -- hard to tell how much though). New talent trees. New classes even? Housing? Enhanced character appearance customization. As for items, stop making the number bigger and just change the look or specialization of some of them. It sounds stupid to me to make 3 different versions of the same sword with different colors, but based on the demand for certain types of "glow" enchantments, even of particular colors, there are a lot of people that enjoy the dress-up part of the game.
An MMO is a world; there are a billion things they could do that don't involve obsoleting existing content.
[right][snapback]93543[/snapback][/right]
Blizzard is trying to do a bunch of the things that you suggested. I have to agree with them though on the classes. For one added class, it must not only be balanced across the content already in the game, it must be balanced across all 10 existing classes (even more when you start adding even more). It becomes too much to add in classes compared to adding in actual content for people. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see new classes, but for the foreseeable future, it won't happen.
As for the level increase, I actually agree with someone that posted on the forums (surprising!). He basically said that there are two general routes that Blizzard could've gone to progress characters at this point: more levels or better items. Each of these was done in the past by certain online games, I believe his examples were EQ and DoAC respectively. With the progression by items, the "casual" gamers get completely left behind, as they are already complaining about the problems dealing with end game items and progressions in the current game. With the added levels, people complain that the stuff that they got that are now "worthless" but the same thing happened with the blue sets after MC and BWL in all truth. The guilds that got this stuff is already a step ahead because they have the items that will allow them to access the content sooner, and the "casual" gamers now will have a better chance to get to the endgame stuff they couldn't do before since it will become easier after they get to a higher level.
The thing I do agree is that there could've been alternate advancement through something such as hero classes, but that opens up a huge can of worms (much like epic levels in D&D).
The REAL expansion - gaming article - Walkiry - 10-31-2005
Drasca,Oct 28 2005, 10:37 PM Wrote:This is what I am looking at. The Expansion, being explicitly PvP, should drive more people toward balance (although, I am not sure why PvP servers seem more balanced. The one I am on has either a 3:2 to 3:1 A:H ratio)
[right][snapback]93460[/snapback][/right]
It really depends on how you look at it. It could very well be that there's a sizeable portion of the WoW population that likes playing the "good guys" (note the quotes, but that's how the Alliance is perceived by a good chunk of the players) in a fantasy setting, not really to beat other players and be competitive. The system drives them to PvE servers. If you put mandatory open PvP everywhere (past 60 that is)... where will you drive them?
Maybe the servers will be more balanced that way, but it could very well be at the cost of those people. If you tell them they're having to learn to bake because of the battlegrounds goodies (that's what you were referring to with AV, right?), won't be surprised if lots of them would tell you to take those and, well, get rid of them instead of forcing PvP to enjoy the new expansion content.
Statistics rarely tell the whole story. Ideally, the marketing department would be the one investigating what their customers want, and not us in the forum making idle speculation, but we know how real marketing works ;)
The REAL expansion - gaming article - TheWesson - 10-31-2005
I think it's likely that the article means that ALL of the OUTLANDS are a "contested area" which means that only on a PVP server, you'd always be flagged anywhere in the Outlands.
Not that there are a lot of "uncontested" areas in the game now.
The REAL expansion - gaming article - MissileToad - 10-31-2005
If Blizzard intended this game to be strictly combatative between factions, PvE servers wouldn't exist. I don't think there is any reason to worry :). This MMO tries harder than all others to cater to every type of RPG player out there, they wouldn't add an entirely new continent like this and have it only be for a part of the population.
I wonder what that comment does mean though? Lots of (PvP) quests? More/better incentives? If they take it to the extreme Wild West view would I be able to kill vermin in my own faction? Hehe...
The REAL expansion - gaming article - Brother Laz - 11-03-2005
" "One of the things we weren't happy about with the shipping version of WOW was having enough endgame content," says producer Rob Pardo"
Yes, and now they designate the Illidan instance as the end of the game. Then the expansion is out for 6 months, people want another epic instance, now what? Portals to random worlds only go so far - nobody wants to kill Generic Super-Elemental #2265934 to save the universe once again. MMORPGs shouldn't have an 'end game'.
......
I don't get the whole debate on 'useless' items, 'wasted' exp and so on. When LoD came out, all of the best rares in CD2 suddenly became vendor trash. The best imported rare belt was worse than the unique exceptional sash. Half of the exceptional unique bows beat the best possible rare bow from CD2. Then, of course, you got to collect new sparklies.
The fact that they went overboard with the whole nerf rares thing is something else.
You can bet you'll need a perfect MC set of equipment to progress past level 60 in Outland, so that 'wasted' time isn't wasted. As for the missing experience, chances are by the time you're done with the quests in Outland and completed some instances, you're near level 70 already. Imagine if you could collect all that saved exp, use it when the expansion comes out, hit level 68 and skip 90% of the content right to the final two or three dungeons. â¬50 well spent.
......
A disturbing trend is the 'instant gratification' design that seems to be creeping into the game and replacing the 'arty' design of regular WoW. Many of the zones in WoW are set in fairly mundane locations, but the design and colour scheme makes them stand out. What they seem to be doing for Outland, according to the article, is going wild and implementing the strangest environments to appeal to jaded gamers. In the end, we'll have instances in lollipop colours with upside-down trees and space orcs with laser guns.
They plan on implementing even more alien worlds through the portal system. God help us.
The REAL expansion - gaming article - ZugzwangZeitgeist - 11-03-2005
Brother Laz,Nov 3 2005, 04:42 PM Wrote:" "One of the things we weren't happy about with the shipping version of WOW was having enough endgame content," says producer Rob Pardo"
Yes, and now they designate the Illidan instance as the end of the game. Then the expansion is out for 6 months, people want another epic instance, now what? Portals to random worlds only go so far - nobody wants to kill Generic Super-Elemental #2265934 to save the universe once again. MMORPGs shouldn't have an 'end game'.
...
You can bet you'll need a perfect MC set of equipment to progress past level 60 in Outland, so that 'wasted' time isn't wasted. As for the missing experience, chances are by the time you're done with the quests in Outland and completed some instances, you're near level 70 already. Imagine if you could collect all that saved exp, use it when the expansion comes out, hit level 68 and skip 90% of the content right to the final two or three dungeons. â¬50 well spent.
......
A disturbing trend is the 'instant gratification' design that seems to be creeping into the game and replacing the 'arty' design of regular WoW. Many of the zones in WoW are set in fairly mundane locations, but the design and colour scheme makes them stand out. What they seem to be doing for Outland, according to the article, is going wild and implementing the strangest environments to appeal to jaded gamers. In the end, we'll have instances in lollipop colours with upside-down trees and space orcs with laser guns.
They plan on implementing even more alien worlds through the portal system. God help us.
[right][snapback]93986[/snapback][/right]
What?