Jump to content

Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

Removed source and statement - restored

"The game was designed to be an open environment where players are allowed to do what they please." was removed along with its source. While it is informal and quite broad, it does seem both accurate and a decent summation of that the article says. Perhaps the interested editor would be interested in proposing new wording, rather than deletion. I have looked at the sentence several times and would love to see a more formal statement of the "open world" rather than "pathed world" popular in many games. But I can't come up with a sourced, clear, short, way to say it that I like any better. Unfriend13 (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The linked article doesn't say that at all. The linked article, written in 2001, based only on an early, pre-release Blizz demo, is also - by necessity - full of conjecture and inaccuracies (eg "Blizzard did not disclose how the game would deal with multiple player characters attempting to take the same quests, but did make it clear that World of Warcraft would not involve players having to compete for quests or wait in line for them, or wait around for monsters like Ironbranch to respawn..." Er, that feature clearly did not make it into the final product, and has only just begun to be introduced - in a limited fashion - on the Timeless Isle in the MoP expac!)
The phrase that follows in the Wikipedia article ("Quests are optional and were designed to help guide players, allow character development, and to spread characters across different zones to try to avoid what developers called player collision") is also very misleading and does not represent its cited source. The source actually says the opposite: ""All of our systems are designed to avoid what we call 'player collision' -- when players fight over limited content or generate their own grief-oriented fun for lack of anything better to do. World of Warcraft is rules-oriented and goal-oriented." He quickly moved to clarify, "We don't put players on rails or anything -- players are entirely free to play World of Warcraft any way they want. What we've done, though, is created systems, guides, and rules that make it more fun and easier to play around our attractions rather than trying to figure out ways to grief other players." That's why the majority of player actions in the game will revolve around quests" (my emphasis.) The current way that these sources are being represented implies that this is a truly open world, a nonlinear sandbox game, that allows emergent gameplay (think Eve Online.) This might appear at first glance to be a question of semantics, but I think it is quite important that the game isn't described in a way that implies it is something which it quite clearly is not, supported by a reference which has been subjected to a dose of WP:SYNTH.
The original phrase used ("The game was designed to be a open environment where players were allowed to do what they please alongside optional quests that players can complete to advance further in the game") was added on 4 November 2007 (diff). It was - appropriately - tagged as {{citation needed}} on March 2008 (diff). The citation was then added by a subsequent editor diff who clearly skimmed or failed to comprehend that which was written: it absolutely does not say that quests are optional, it does not state that this is an open world nor does it say that there are nonlinear options available. It does, however, describe in great detail a very linear quest chain that pathed a player from a starting NPC to a miniboss/elite kill (and clearly states the linearity: "a general sense of clarity and purpose--no nonsense, no fumbling around.") BlackberrySorbet 09:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Decent article ("The Merits of "Sand Box" versus "Theme Park" MMO's") describing exactly how WoW is a theme park world rather than an open world here: "The “Theme park” MMO’s focus on creating an exciting thrill ride for players that will take them to see all the exciting sights of the game world and ensure that they are constantly provided with assignments to complete, so they are never bored or confused as to what they should be doing next. It really is very much like a real life theme park, where the planners have thought about the path through the park that visitors are going to take and ensured that they are constantly presented with cool rides for them to try out. The premier theme park MMO is of course the almighty World of Warcraft... Further refinements and developments have been added in the following expansions, and it's hard to argue that WoW is not the most polished MMO out there in terms of providing a playing experience that is constantly guiding the player and keeping a great flow in the game... The strengths of the theme park MMO's are fairly evident. They provide gamers with things to do in the game and a sense of purpose for doing them. In a good theme park MMO you are taken from one interesting experience to the next and you are always seeing new surroundings and trying new things. It's a great ride. Until the end. And that is the major problem with theme park MMO's. By design they are fairly linear in nature. You provide a string of fun and enjoyable experiences to the player, but eventually the player is going to come to the end of that string and then what?... It's a problem that no theme park MMO has managed to crack so far. WoW provides a fair amount of different activities to do once you hit the maximum level, with daily quests, PvP battlegrounds, raiding and instancing, but there is no escaping that this is still just forcing the player into repeating the same activity over and over again while they wait for the next expansion pack." BlackberrySorbet 09:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
wp:TLDR. I see "players are entirely free to play World of Warcraft any way they want"... which... seems to be exactly what the text says.Unfriend13 (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
And yet...it isn't. Well done for repeating the same fail as the original editor who added the ref: WP:CHERRY. BlackberrySorbet 14:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll let some other editor pursue this. Removal of sourced statement, merits a warning, IMO.Unfriend13 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear: There are 2 ways to build MMOGs... free and pathed. WoW, like most modern games follows the "free to do whatever you want"... if you want to follow a quest path, you can... or you can just zoom around killing things that present themselves, mining, skinning, herbing, crafting, standing in town buying/selling/crafting/yacking. Within the world, generally one can simply run/fly wherever one wants... one need not follow a specific path through the world from town "a" to town "b". There are notable exceptions. In no-fly areas, one must follow defined paths... in dungeons, generally, also. Before flight, one must follow defined paths between zones... and generally be restricted to roads. Between expansions and continents, there are specific paths that must be followed. Thus: I have not been ready to attack the "do whatever you want" statement that was removed by the editor above. The short form is correct. The long form is ... llloooong and pointless.Unfriend13 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(reset indent) The "source" you keep mentioning says absolutely nothing of the sort, as explained in the discussion you insisted upon above but then couldn't be arsed to read. A source for a subsequent statement (that quests are "optional") - the bit you cherrypicked above - is being misrepresented. It is actually Blizz designer Jeff Kaplan explaining that the "majority of player actions revolve around quests", and that this was done in order to guide players rather than allowing them to generate their own content which might result in griefing. I'm open to a rewording of the section, but the short version describes a sandbox game, which this isn't. BlackberrySorbet 15:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See straw man fallacy. The editor has constructed a straw man "it claims this is a sandbox game!", attacked the strawman that exists only in the editor's mind, then removed sourced content. The content should be restored. Adding an the opinion the editor holds might be appropriate, with sourcing.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Warcrafts decline

Shouldn't there be at least a part of this article that illustrates the massive losses WoW has taken in the last year or two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.223.103 (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No, because the game still maintains the highest market share of users in the MMORPG genre. Whilst it doesn't have the same number of subscriptions that it did in 2009, its position as the largest is still accurate. Calling the loss of subscribers over the last few years 'massive' is not a Wikipedia:NPOV which is what the wiki operates on. If one wanted to present a decline in subscriptions, that is fine, but describing it as 'massive losses' is simply incorrect and biased. Justin.Parallax (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that perhaps simply 'decline' considering it still holds the most subscribers of any subscription based MMO, is a more neutral way of putting it than 'massive decline'. I wouldn't say that the term 'massive' is incorrect or biased as falling from 12million to eight million in two years is a subscriber loss of one third. I would call that substantial at the very least.
Perhaps an section outlining the loss of subscribers in recent years and the potential consequences of being a subscription based MMO considering the recent trend toward free mmos/buy to play mmos would be more neutral and arguably relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.223.103 (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That's the thing - YOU don't get to call it substantial or not, and neither do I. That's Wikipedia:Original_research and wikipedians don't make the call on that. That's why we use sources with Wikipedia:Verifiability and have a whole Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch so we can avoid weasel words like 'massive'. A neutral statement like those mentioned earlier are the way to go. Justin.Parallax (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The topic has been written about extensively and recently in RS:
  • Peckham, Matt (9 May 2013). "The Inexorable Decline of World of Warcraft". Time.
  • Chalk, Andy (26 July 2013). "World Of Warcraft Numbers Down Again". the escapist.
  • Sinclair, Brendan (26 July 2013). "World of Warcraft drops to 7.7 million subscribers". GamesIndustry International.
  • Karmali, Luke (26 July 2013). "World of Warcraft Down to 7.7 Million Subscribers". Imagine Games Network.
  • Takahashi, Dean (26 July 2013). "As subscribers sink, Blizzard searches for ways to make World of Warcraft grow". VentureBeat.
  • Brown, Fraser (22 August 2013). "Blizzard on selling more cosmetic items and World of Warcraft's decline". PCGamesN.
  • Chalk, Andy (11 September 2013). "World Of Warcraft Revenues Down 54 Percent". the escapist.
Clearly, WoW isn't dead and it isn't dying - but it is changing - dramatically, some would argue - as a result of declining subscriptions. BlackberrySorbet 10:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
WoW, and everything else that "lives", is "dying". Moving on from this philosophical truism which certainly needs no mention, it makes sense to include, I should think, something like... a peak of "x million in q x of year y subscriptions now stand at..." in the lead. The massive size and rising-and-falling nature of subscriptions is very telling for the industry. As mentioned, this is widely mentioned in the trade press and perhaps somewhat in the mainstream press. At some point it seems likely that traditional subscription games will fade away or transform into the newer forms. This probably deserves covering in the body... which is required if it is to be added to the lead... wp:LEADUnfriend13 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The link on citation 107 has rotted. The HREF needs to be changed from http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/2007/04/hhosr_roundup_march_1007.html to http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/hhosr-roundup-march-2007

Citation 107: Ron Bowes (April 18, 2007). "HHOSR Roundup: March, 2007". Symantec. Presteel Pour (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor Sing 08:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor™ Beta Test Begins!

The page says this is still in alpha. When it's been in Beta for over a week. I suspect no one cares, but I thought I'd mention it just in case. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:254E:7469:D169:5459:4B8F:4CB1 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Source discussion

My addition to the "Development" section was reverted because the source I used was not a "reliable source." I disagree and ask other editors to weigh in. The Game Informer website is specifically listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources (under the "Reliable source" section). I understand there may be a concern that the author is not an "editor" at Game Informer, but Game Informer, as a reliable source, will provide oversight of material on its website. Also, WP:RS states that, besides the publisher of the work (which is reliable in this case), the author and work itself should be considered. The work itself appears to be of fairly high quality. The author does not appear to be a professional in the video game industry, but has written over 1000 posts on Game Informer. I'll defer to a consensus of the editors here on whether the source can be used to support the inclusion of the passage in the article, but a sweeping "it's not reliable" is too abrupt and a closer look is merited, in my opinion. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2014

this article needs to add Leroy Jenkins, for he has become part of the game by pure chance and should be recognized as such. 209.7.119.165 (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Mists of Pandaria part of the base game now

Could someone please update the "Expansions" section? It doesn't mention the fact that MoP is now free just like the other older expansions. Official article for reference: http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/blog/16368211 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scr00chy (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As of October 14, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawoodley (talk • contribs) 06:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Warlords of Draenor has been launched

The expansion pack launched on November 13th.

The fifth expansion set, Warlords of Draenor, was announced at BlizzCon 2013[1] and released on November 13, 2014.[2]

Done -- ferret (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://ie.ign.com/articles/2013/11/08/world-of-warcraft-warlords-of-draenor-announced. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/572810/20141114/world-warcraft-warlords-draenor-official-launch-nov.htm. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Plot

Aaaargh. I'm a huge lore freak and I happened to glance at this article. It barely covers anything of importance. I'm going to write a massive block of text on the lore of the game, anyone interested in helping please drop me a message on my talk page and you can see what I've done thus far. KieranTribe (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that the plot and lore of WoW is massive and inappropriate to include all the details here. Please make sure you read WP:PLOT before you begin efforts to rewrite, as simply expanding the content with a lot of detail will likely be reverted. -- ferret (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I know that, but I think that the plot section there doesn't cover relevant things - I'm thinking of doing a summary-esque section for each expansion with a summary of pre-wow lore. Thanks, anyway. KieranTribe (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the articles for each expansion already have plot sections that cover this information. They are viewed as separate articles/topics, and this article is generally considered to detail "Classic" from the point of view of game content/plot. -- ferret (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, fair enough. I'll do a little work on it, but if that's the case it's not half-bad. KieranTribe (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
What's in the article now is inappropriate as the text is not in the encyclopedic voice. --Izno (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It's all described from an in-game view -- not encyclopedic. Maybe worse, it's not a "plot" at all; players don't follow this story when playing. At best, they encounter a few bits of quest elements that might be related to side-effects of this, but it doesn't affect the gameplay if they know this or not. It would be best to title this section as "Background", but that just emphasizes that it may not be relevant to this article. Perhaps the fact that WoW has such a detailed background can be relevant; most MMOs don't have this much, and that can affect the feeling of depth of the player experience. But, really, stating that effect needs a source.
For now, I'm for reducing this by 50% to 75% and refactoring to encyclopedic voice, while we work on better relevance and sourcing. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I would honestly support a new article for the lore, say Warcraft lore or something of the sort? If User:KieranTribe/sandbox/Warcraft_lore isn't redlinked I'll have a draft up. KieranTribe (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There is Warcraft universe, which is currently a redirect to the "Settings" section of the main Warcraft series article. From there, it has links to multiple sub-articles detailing races, creatures, etc. However, there is no page with a full overarching plot for the Warcraft universe, and I'm not sure one would be appropriate. It might be worthwhile to make a timeline to show the chronological order of the various media though. -- ferret (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. At least expanding the current sections in various articles, which are all rather lackluster. KieranTribe (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2015

Under the Expansions heading, please consider changing the following sentence structure:

Five optional expansions are currently available: The Burning Crusade, released in January 2007, Wrath of the Lich King, released in November 2008, Cataclysm, released in December 2010, Mists of Pandaria, released in September 2012, and Warlords of Draenor, released in November 2014. Players are not required to purchase the expansions to continue play. However, the expansion packs allow further leveling of characters beyond level 60 and access to newer content and areas. Characters cannot enter the additional regions without their respective expansion packs.Beta testing for Mists of Pandaria was opened on March 21, 2012,[75] and the expansion was released on September 25, 2012.

The second, third, and fifth sentences feel disjointed. Perhaps the second and third sentences could be combined with a comma (if grammatically correct), and the fifth (re: release timing of Mists) could be split into a separate paragraph? --bwoodruff (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Done I've reworded it some, and added a blurb to the next paragraph pointing out that Blizzard routinely applies the older expansions to all accounts as new expansions are released. -- ferret (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Citations need cleanup

There are a ton of citations that refer to dead links. The first three I tried in the "Development" section went nowhere useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.178.125 (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on World of Warcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fully sourced WoW subscriber numbers over time

World of Warcraft has the largest subscription base of any MMORPG of all time. Subscriptions peaked at 12 million in September 2010, shortly before the release of the Cataclysm expansion, with numbers declining steadily since then. Player numbers rebounded for the Warlords of Draenor expansion in December 2014 but returned to their former levels since. In November 2015, Activision Blizzard announced they would no longer release current subscription numbers in favor of "other metrics" based on "engagement".

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zNab0-D6Vzg4fwAyN2jkwWkBeClx4tnEijrfNZ05VgM/edit?usp=sharing

With the announcement that Activision will no longer release quarterly subscription numbers, I made this spreadsheet with all the numbers currently available for the foreseeable future. Others have attempted this in the past, but I believe this document is more complete and more accurate than past attempts, as well as more meticulously sourced. Values are accurate to the month, not to the day. The first tab is freely editable; the second tab is a protected version from today, in case someone decides to try to delete everything. Feel free to make a copy for yourself to play with the data. I'm not particularly happy with the graph and I can't seem to find the right options in Google Sheets to make what I'm envisioning in my head. I'm hoping to get tags labeling major milestones onto the graph itself, so sub #s can be presented graphically in the main article instead of the current WP:PROSELINE paragraph of fluctuating sub #s. If anyone has better familiarity with Excel, Google Sheets, or another data processing program, please help out! Axem Titanium (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's a preliminary version, uploaded to Commons. Feel free to overwrite it with your prettier works. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
This can probably be done in SVG and I'll add the respective tag on Commons. That will probably help with being able to add the milestones--I expect you mean to add the dates of expansion releases? --Izno (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, just little flags or some other representation marking when each expansion was released graphically, just like a timeline. It's a key feature for the context of this graph and I couldn't figure out a way to do it in Google Sheets. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
You might want to add that to the file talk page or in the description of the page itself--whoever converts it to SVG will likely be able to take care of that if they know the dates of the expansion releases and the intent to add that information. --Izno (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, is there a way to request help on Commons? I'm not terribly familiar with how things work over there. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on World of Warcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_of_Warcraft/Archive_21&oldid=1137332380"