WoW Imitates 4e?

[Therise]

It certainly reads like you're not someone in love with questing, which Cataclysm's flight elevator-enabled style of questing really made a lot less meaningful. Many players, though, really missed the first time they rode on horseback (or wolfback, or whatever) into Dragonblight or Nagrand, etc., which is a lot less impressive when you can just fly on through.

No offense, but I think you're over-interpreting what I'm trying to say. I'm simply surprised that they want to take away flight until lvl 90, and surprised that people at the convention were overwhelmingly in support of it (based on what you saw there). I think if they do there will be a lot of people who will be irked about it, partly because flying is fun and a lot of people have paid gold for it, farmed certain mounts, etc.

I understand the reasons why Blizzard wants to do so, but it wouldn't put me off the game at all. Questing is the thing I enjoy most about WoW, followed by exploration second. It's true that I'm not terribly fond of getting randomly attacked by mobs when I'm simply trying to move through one area to get to another, and flight is good for that. But so is a super-fast ground mount.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

No offense, but I think you're over-interpreting what I'm trying to say.

You've said several things about questing that made it sound like it's not your bag. There's lots of different ways to play WoW -- and they'll be adding more in MoP -- so it's not like loving questing is required for playing the game.

I'm simply surprised that they want to take away flight until lvl 90, and surprised that people at the convention were overwhelmingly in support of it (based on what you saw there). I think if they do there will be a lot of people who will be irked about it, partly because flying is fun and a lot of people have paid gold for it, farmed certain mounts, etc.

There were thousands of people at Blizzcon. I would say a majority of the crowd went nuts when it was announced.

Will there be people annoyed? Of course -- there are people annoyed about EVERYTHING in WoW.

But Cataclysm was the first time that people could circumvent 99 percent of the world content while questing via a flying mount. Blizzard going back to the way the game has played the majority of the time isn't going to be terribly controversial, I suspect.

And by today's standards, it doesn't take a lot of money to get the ability to fly anywhere in the current game. Back in the day, saving up for mounts and training was a real headache -- and it was meant to be a prestige thing -- but now, in the course of questing and leveling, I tend to always have more than enough when the time comes.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I was reading all the info as it came out last weekend, I just hadn't seen the trailer yet. Even after watching the trailer, my reaction is still that this is the first time there is a WoW expansion and my take on things ranges from "meh" to "that's awful". Very disappointed and I've been playing WoW since Stress Test in September '04.

My guess is that the next two expansions will go back to having big bads, with Azshara and Kul Tiras and various oceanic content in the next one, and then Sargeras and the Titans in the level 100 expansion.

After that, Warcraft IV and another reboot of the setting, and maybe jumping the timeline in WoW forward a decade or so.

 

[Therise]

You've said several things about questing that made it sound like it's not your bag. There's lots of different ways to play WoW -- and they'll be adding more in MoP -- so it's not like loving questing is required for playing the game.

Then I'm right, you're misinterpreting me. No big whoop, it happens.

But Cataclysm was the first time that people could circumvent 99 percent of the world content while questing via a flying mount. Blizzard going back to the way the game has played the majority of the time isn't going to be terribly controversial, I suspect.

Not that long ago, but pre-Cata, people could fairly quickly get flying mounts for their alts during Wrath, and I don't think it impacted anyone's fun in any negative ways. At least, it didn't radically change the way I played. And I certainly don't recall circumventing "99% of content" while leveling up a brand new toon during Cata. When I did skip some zones' content as a lowbie, it was because the xp was flowing in too quickly, because they made leveling itself super-fast. That had nothing to do with flying. *shrug*

 

[SSquirrel]

But Cataclysm was the first time that people could circumvent 99 percent of the world content while questing via a flying mount. Blizzard going back to the way the game has played the majority of the time isn't going to be terribly controversial, I suspect.

And by today's standards, it doesn't take a lot of money to get the ability to fly anywhere in the current game. Back in the day, saving up for mounts and training was a real headache -- and it was meant to be a prestige thing -- but now, in the course of questing and leveling, I tend to always have more than enough when the time comes.

But people have paid money on multiple characters to be able to fly wherever they want. One of the prime selling points of the last xpac was that you could buy the ability to fly all thru Azeroth. If they want to limit the new Pandaria area to not have flight allowed until max, that is one thing. Forcing L85 characters to ride around in Azeroth's low level areas when we have paid for that capability already is really annoying. Heck, you could level to 85 doing nothing but PvP battlegrounds. There are some people who never touch a quest in WoW. I do, but I know some real PvP addicts.

I already had several 80s in WotLK before they introduced the boa book you could mail to alts to let them fly at L68 in Northrend. I hated questing in Howling Fjord before being able to fly thru it b/c all the ravines splitting up the zone were annoying. My shaman was my first character to do all the quests in the zone b/c I could move around more easily. You aren't skipping the content, you are just getting thru it faster. Many people had already done all the content before anyway.

In Cataclysm the only zones you were able to really avoid lots of fights easily were Hyjal and Uldum. You were given a special mount in the water zone, You needed a flying mount in Deepholm to even do a lot of the quests. So this is quite an about face for them. I've been playing the game since prior to release, so count me as one 7 year vet of the game who thinks this is a terrible idea

 

[Summer-Knight925]

Who cares about uncreative? Play what you like.

I tend to play either Lawful Stupid Paladins or Chaotic Stupid Barbarians, because I enjoy hitting things with heavy, pointy metal and charging blindly into bad situations. Who cares if they're cliche?

And I like playing interesting character concepts...like a human fighter who favors the bow and was orphaned, raised by dragons and hates giants.


But in 4e, well I can't go there, don't want to start a war

 

[Asmor]

And I like playing interesting character concepts...like a human fighter who favors the bow and was orphaned, raised by dragons and hates giants.


But in 4e, well I can't go there, don't want to start a war

Well, the only problem there is that you're conflating a game term and a flavor term.

"Fighter" is a class that specializes in wearing heavy armor and using melee weapons to protect his friends.

A "fighter" is someone who fights, regardless of class or how. Rogues can be fighters. Rangers can be fighters. Fighters can be fighters. Psions can be fighters.

So you play a dude with a bow who orphaned, raised by dragons, and hates giants. Why should you care that the Class line on your character sheet says "Ranger" instead of "Fighter?"

Actually, the whole thing seems kind of absurd to me in the first place. Your problem is that 4e restricts your ability to create your own character... but who the hell would call themselves a "fighter?" In my time playing D&D I've met guards, gladiators, mercenaries, vagabonds, adventurers, "just a guy"s... but I've never met a "fighter."

 

[Summer-Knight925]

Well, the only problem there is that you're conflating a game term and a flavor term.

"Fighter" is a class that specializes in wearing heavy armor and using melee weapons to protect his friends.

A "fighter" is someone who fights, regardless of class or how. Rogues can be fighters. Rangers can be fighters. Fighters can be fighters. Psions can be fighters.

So you play a dude with a bow who orphaned, raised by dragons, and hates giants. Why should you care that the Class line on your character sheet says "Ranger" instead of "Fighter?"

Actually, the whole thing seems kind of absurd to me in the first place. Your problem is that 4e restricts your ability to create your own character... but who the hell would call themselves a "fighter?" In my time playing D&D I've met guards, gladiators, mercenaries, vagabonds, adventurers, "just a guy"s... but I've never met a "fighter."

You are right, he was technically a longbowman, but he did not have any ranger skills nor did he care any for nature, he spent his time simply shooting, not with spells, not with animals, not with nature, just a bow, and an arrow.

That is one thing I didn't like about 4e, because the fighter should be more then 'the guy who hits things with sword and gets hit in armor'. The Gladiators wore light armor, the musketeer's wore none, can you deny that they are fighters? If we are going to get into a debate about what a fighter is and is not then let me know, because I am not happy to do so.I have much better things to do then explain that the best part about the fighter in pre4e was customization. If I wanted a guy in armor and melee, I'd be a paladin or a barbarian, the fighter though...that was the power to choose.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Forcing L85 characters to ride around in Azeroth's low level areas when we have paid for that capability already is really annoying.

The change only applies to Pandaria.

 

[avin]

That is one thing I didn't like about 4e, because the fighter should be more then 'the guy who hits things with sword and gets hit in armor'. The Gladiators wore light armor, the musketeer's wore none, can you deny that they are fighters?

(Disclaimer: I like 3E and 4E, so no war on my words)

A musketeer, in my book, was always closer to a Rogue than a Fighter.

Never played a Ranged Fighter on 1E or 2E but in 3E it was tricky and quickly obfuscated by casters in mid to higher levels.

I mean, in 3E i saw no much point in creating a ranged Fighter... unless we are just talking about "options" here. Tried once and it really, really sucked

While I agree that 4E hinders some kinds of Fighter, of all D&D versions I have played, it's where a Fighter shines above lower levels.

To be honest, for that kind of freedom of archetypes I think D&D was never that good. Maybe it's because I started playing GURPS...