Five Problems with World of Warcraft
by Loral on April 19, 2008
A recent article by the Hollywood Reporter states that recently over a million players from China were logged into World of Warcraft at a single time. The game now hosts over ten million players and hasn't shown any sign of slowing down despite long periods between expansions and a very sharp leveling curve that drives most players to the highest levels very quickly.
In a previous article I described five strengths of World of Warcraft as a massive online game. Today we will take a look at five weaknesses in this MMO powerhouse. Let us begin.
Weakness 1, A Focus on Solo Gameplay
Early on in the days of Everquest, the game designers stated that one of the strengths of their game was a requirement for group play. Characters would be very good at a particular slice of gameplay but not at others. Warriors could tank well but did only moderate damage and had very little ability to heal. Clerics could heal but were not able to tank or dish out a lot of damage. Rogues could pour out the damage but couldn't take much and couldn't heal at all. These dependencies forced players to work together which led to the true strength of an MMO - getting people together.
World of Warcraft built itself around soloing. Players can log in, play for ten minutes, finish a quest, get some experience, get a new item, and log out without worrying about leaving others behind. Characters can level from level 1 to level 70 without ever grouping with another player.
There exists a distinct lack of social interaction in World of Warcraft. Friendships aren't as easily forged. Relationships aren't as easily built. You're not very likely to meet someone in World of Warcraft the way you were in the old days of Everquest.
We have seen what sort of success a group-based game would have these days. Take a look at the popularity of Vanguard or the lack thereof. MMO philosopher Richard Bartle states that World of Warcraft has broken the ability for a new MMO to build the sort of world that conducts the formation of rich relationships. No one can make another game that forces groups and expect to succeed.
The ability to solo in World of Warcraft is a great strength, but for it we pay a heavy price.
Weakness 2, A Focus on Player Vs. Player
Unfortunately, one of the few ways players do meet in World of Warcraft is to kill each other. Many players enjoy the battlegrounds full of fast and furious battles but what sort of social interaction exists when the goal is to kill the other players? Player vs. Environment (PvE) is one of the great strengths of an MMO. That becomes broken when one of the primary reasons players play WoW is to fight each other. It has taken one of the deepest games and turned it into Halo.
Players also behave at their worst in the battlegrounds. Unless one forms a select team of people they already know, likely from either a guild or people they know in real life, they are likely to face completely silent allies who are there strictly to farm some honor. There is no longevity to the relationship and no interest in discussion. One simply kills the enemy and moves on to the next battleground.
Battlegrounds is the rotten core of World of Warcraft.
Weakness 3, Redundant Quests
World of Warcraft prides itself on the incredibly vast array of quests. When people saw how many quests World of Warcraft offers, they had to question Everquest's choice of name. There are more than enough quests to move through all of the levels in WoW. The quest system is very robust and easy to use. It is the single path that moves players through the game, often tying them to the lore and giving them reason to do what they do.
These quests are also often sterile and boring. Many of the quests revolve around killing some number of creatures and retrieving some number of items. Many of these quests have drop rates far too low to make them worth while or stories that seem scripted out of a fortune cookie. Sure, a player can quest through the entire game but how many of those quests are unique and interesting? Many are, but many are not.
Weakness 4, Long Duration Dungeons
The dungeons in World of Warcraft could be the one area that truly brings players together and helps them build the lasting relationships that a MMO should allow. However, after getting players used to completing quests in about 20 minutes, having dungeons that require a two-hour commitment is too demanding.
World of Warcraft should cut all of its single-group instances down to an hour. It should also include a few half-hour instances that can bring players together but ensure there is enough freedom to leave when needed. Longer instances should be limited to ten-man raids such as Karazhan. We have become spoiled by the instant gratification of World of Warcraft's quest system. The gap between the ease of solo questing and the heavy time requirements of WoW's instances is too great.
Weakness 5, No Console Support
This is the weakness that will likely raise the most eyebrows. With the ease of play of World of Warcraft, the beauty of its design, and the simplicity of the gameplay; it already feels like a console game. However, the complicating factor of the PC will always get in the way. Right now Blizzard spends a fortune tuning World of Warcraft to run on a nearly infinite array of possible machine configurations.
Were it a console game, WoW would only have to focus on a hand-full of possible configurations. While WoW would have to be substantially different on a console, the console world is clearly ready for a good WoW-like MMO and if Blizzard isn't careful, such a hit on a console system could steal their crown.
Ten million players is a lot, but there are currently 20 million Wiis and 18 million Xbox 360s in people's homes all networked and waiting for the next big MMO. If Blizzard is smart, they will begin using their talent for MMO game design on the next generation platform. If they don't someone else will.
Loral Ciriclight
19 April 2008
loral@loralciriclight.com
Comment Posted by: Redhenna on April 20, 2008 02:30 AM
"it already feels like a console game."--The unintended humor of that line had me laughing till I hurt.
Great article Loral, and a couple of your points hit on exactly why I dislike WoW(minus the playerbase, I met nothing but annoying people in WoW, with one exception).
Comment Posted by: Delurm on April 20, 2008 02:21 PM
>>Weakness 1, A Focus on Solo Gameplay
Well I disagree with you on this point - I think that is the biggest strength of the game. This is what allows new people to enter the game and still find the endgame accessable even if no one is around.
Have you tried to solo a Warrior to max level in Everquest - as a newbie - lately? I think if you look at the endgame - while a lot of it is available for solo play - you will find that it does indead crowd you into groups - and those groupings do produce relationships - the difference with WoW vs. EQ - is the time when the focus to grouping happens - with WoW the journey is more like a training video for the real game.
>>Weakness 2, A Focus on Player Vs. Player
I agree with you on this - however I tend to think that the Arena is even moreso the problem - battlegrounds can be done with friends - and often are - and these are alot of fun with people you know - arenas feel more like 5 minute halo matches than anything.
>>Weakness 3, Redundant Quests
I agree with you - but only to a point. I've played alot of MMO's (EQ, UO, DAoC, EQ2, WoW) and I've yet to see any quest system as good as WoW's - yes there are alot of redundant ones - but there are so many good ones that I forgive them for the boring ones. I've yet to see any other game offer quests that are as fun as WoWs - EQ's Giant/Dwarf war comes close - but took way too much effort for the same kind of events you see all over in WoW - those types of quests make you feel like part of the world instead of just a picture on the wall.
>>Weakness 4, Long Duration Dungeons
Ok... but +50dkp for dungeons that actually have a reason to work through to the end? Even in EQ2 there were still 'camps' - in WoW you never 'camp' a dungeon - you go in and move through the thing to the end - Although nastolgic for the calls of 'Necro camped' in OS - I wouldn't go back to those days if someone was paying me to play.
>>Weakness 5, No Console Support
Have you seen the Blizzard job section? LoL every other job is for a 'next gen' MMO dev. I tend to think that's a big risk - as I don't know a single console player that would fork over 15 bucks a month for a game like WoW - I know I wouldn't on a console - also something to think about - there are like 20 million (est.) 360's out there but only around 2 million that even show up on the online tracking charts - that should tell you that most console players are not 'online' - regardless of the hype.
The recent survey I saw still had the PC owning like 90% of the online market - but that's my opinon - mabey it would be huge on a console - I certanly don't have market research to back up my thoughts.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on April 21, 2008 01:39 AM
This list seems contradictory to me, as if you've got two ideal versions of WoW in mind. One is the game you'd want to play, the other is the one some supposed audience of super-casual gamers would want to play. That's fine, but it's hardly fair to criticize WoW for not being both. I also have to disagree with most of your specific complaints.
Weakness 1, A Focus on Solo Gameplay: You do have a level 70 character, don't you? Have you noticed that a couple of Karazhan runs will likely get you more gear than a month's worth of solo rep grinding? Yes, you can level to 70 solo, but that's a fairly small proportion of the game. After that there are various factions you can work on, and you'll probably get one or two things you can use from each one. It's nice to have something to do when you don't have a group, but it's hardly the focus of the game. Yes, there's some solo progression, but not much. You want real progression, you have to get together with other people.
You mention a lack of social interaction, but that's due to a lack of downtime. There's no time to chat unless the group decides to stop fighting for a while and chat. But I seem to recall that EQ has drastically reduced downtime as well. Do you really want more downtime, in WoW or EQ?
Weakness 2, A Focus on Player Vs. Player: I also don't enjoy PvP, but I recognize that's just my personal preference. I'm not seeing much here but "PvP is bad, so it's bad that WoW focuses on PvP."
As for "silent allies" see my comment about lack of downtime above. It's no different in a PvE group.
Also, you are aware that the focus of PvP has long since shifted to arenas, and now this E-Sport nonsense?
Weakness 3, Redundant Quests: Yeah, there are a lot of boring, redundant quests. Feel free to abandon them. There are also a lot of interesting quests. If anyone can tell me of a game with a greater number of interesting quests than WoW I'd love to hear about it.
It's a matter of resource management. I presume a "kill x mobs" quest can be created in an hour or less, while an interesting quest with NPC scripting and such takes many, many times that. I'll bet you could remove all the filler quests from a zone and only free up enough dev time for one interesting quest, if that. Is that a trade you'd want them to make?
Weakness 4, Long Duration Dungeons: Here's where we seem to switch to the super-casual game Loral would presumably hate but thinks WoW should be anyway. Just how much relationship-building do you think there will be in a group that lasts 30-60 minutes?
Now, if you were going to complain about BRD (a full clear can take 7-8 hours for a level appropriate group) I'd be right with you. But two hours is too long? Ugh.
Seems to me that if you go below about an hour and a half you start getting far too high a ratio of time spent forming a group to time spent in the dungeon. Yes, WoW's LFG system leaves much to be desired, but nothing's going to be good enough to make 30 minute dungeons tolerable. (Short of automatic groups, which can only work if you don't need specialized roles like healers and tanks--the exact opposite of what you said you liked earlier.)
I do think some of even the latest dungeons could stand to have some trash removed to shorten them up a bit, but the goal should be 1.5-2 hours for a typical group, not 30-60 minutes.
Weakness 5, No Console Support: Yeah, that raised my eyebrows. I suppose some classes might work on a console. (You're still playing a hunter, right?) But when tanking on my warrior I push more buttons in a typical fight than exist on a console controller.
But the real obstacle is that text remains the primary form of communication in WoW, and most console owners don't have a keyboard. Someday there will be an MMORPG designed around consoles and voice chat. But you can't retrofit that on to an existing MMORPG. Just imagine a voice-chat trade channel...
Speaking of Bartle, I know you're a socializer, Loral. And it's true that WoW doesn't force everyone to socialize to the extent that EQ does. But do I really have to tell an MMORPG veteran to join a guild if you want "rich relationships"? There are plenty of RP guilds out there who will be happy to stop fighting and socialize when you're in the mood. I'll bet you'd have little trouble finding one where some members have heard the name "Loral" and would jump at the chance to have you as a member.
More broadly, you seem to be assuming that the primary goal of an MMORPG is to form relationships. I'd say that's one goal, but only socializers like yourself would call it the primary goal. Still, there's nothing to stop socializers from socializing. You just have to make the choice to do so rather than taking the path of least resistance and expecting it to happen on its own.
That's not to say that all is well in WoW. I'll try to put together my own list of weaknesses later, but it won't have much in common with this one.
Comment Posted by: Loral on April 21, 2008 07:29 AM
I realize a lot of my criticisms are contradictory to the strengths of the game. Being able to solo your way to the top is one of the great strengths of the game, but it also goes against the one thing that separates WoW from games like Grand Theft Auto or Elder Scrolls - lots of people.
Bartle shows that there are a few trends in games like WoW that make it very popular but make it equally difficult to build rich social relationships in commercially viable games. It's a double edged sword and at this point it is too late to fix it.
Yes, guilds can be a big boost. I belong to two of the biggest guilds in the game; Alea Iaecta Est with my level 60 warlock and Lemming Juice with my 70 hunter. Because I spend most of my time doing solo quests with both characters I don't get to meet a lot of people in the guilds. The few Karazhan runs I've done were wonderful and I met a lot of nice folks in them, but they're hard to get into when there's a regular 10 person group that does it every week.
There needs to be a bridge between the constant solo play and the two-hour instances. Right now that spot is held by Battlegrounds but there's room for a PVE event of some sort - something that can be done in under an hour.
Comment Posted by: Delurm on April 21, 2008 12:03 PM
Loral...
Personally if you were to ask me what the failure is I would point to the raiding game...
Currently you have a game you can solo to 70 in with relative ease.
You can start the 5 man dungeons without any specific gear requirement...
This is where the brick wall hits in game play (for non PvP action).
10 mana Kara runs can be done with 2 tanks and 2 healers - but the encounter learning curve picks up quite a bit here - nothing outrageous but enough to make it take more than an hour to really learn how to raid.
How does a guild progress from 10 man Kara runs?
25 man content is not '2 kara raids + 5' - a typical 25 man raid requires 8 healers - you can do it with 7 but those 7 healers have a very hard time unless overgeared for the event. Do the math - 10 man kara = 2 tanks 2 healers -
2 * (10 man Kara) = 4 tanks 4 healers.
So for a guild to move to 25 man content you need 4 of the extra 5 people to be healers - that is just very difficult to do for a casual (ie not 50 people online during raid times) guild - I don't understand why WoW forces such a change to the group makeup going to a 25 man raid.
It would make much more sense from a design standpoint (and a progression standpoint from a guild trying to move to the end game content) to make encounters setup for 2 10 mans + 1 group - this would lead to 25 man raids needing 5 tanks and 5 healers - not anywhere from 2-5 tanks and 7-8 healers.
I believe this 'cliff' of group makeup (and the issues gearing so many healers when it seems the majority of WoW plays DPS classes) is what prevents people from enjoying the endgame.
To me it's obvious that the devs want people to see the endgame - they lowered flagging and time needed to get into the zones - they have nerfed encounters to make them more forgiving - they have all but put out a red carpet for people (this is all in addition to the lowering of the 40 man cap to 25 man cap) - but still a majority of people are not experiencing these instances.
It is not a time requirement as most raid instances are very forgiving of time needed - especially when you can go do 1-2 bosses in a 2-3 hour time period and come back anytime during the week to finsih the zone.
I believe it's that the design changes in such a way that guilds can not find enough of the needed classes to move on.
- my 2 cents as to the real issue at the endgame...
Comment Posted by: Teremar on April 21, 2008 12:41 PM
"Being able to solo your way to the top is one of the great strengths of the game..."
Depends on what you mean by "the top." I definitely wouldn't call level 70 with no purple gear the top, and I just don't see the solo rep grinds after that as real progression paths (like I said, they're more "something to do when you can't group"). I do think being able to solo to max level such that you can get to where the bulk of the players are is a strength of the game, but after that you're going to need to group if you want to make real progress.
I suspect the outdoor group quests were supposed to be the transition you describe, but unfortunately it's very difficult to find groups for them these days. They're not repeatable and most people are done with them, and WoW's weak LFG tool makes it hard to find those who aren't. I'd be very much in favor of more daily quests that require a group.
I'd also be okay with some sort of mini instance, as long as that's in addition to regular instances rather than replacing them. But that leads to the LFG problem. If an instance is only going to last 30 minutes it had better take less than 10 minutes to find a group for it.
Battlegrounds do it by forming groups automatically, but I don't think you can generalize that. First off, it should be noted that one reason it works is because they bring in people from multiple servers. This is another major reason people don't socialize in battlegrounds--you'll probably never see that person from another server again. Second, there's no use whatsoever for tanks in PvP and healers are nice but not necessary. So the queue just takes whoever is available and makes them a team with no regard for class balance. I can imagine PvE instances that don't require tanks and healers, but they'd basically be DPS-fests. That would definitely not be a good transition to traditional grouping--DPS classes who think they can just blaze away like they do when soloing is the #1 problem in WoW groups.
Delurm is right that the transition from 10 man to 25 man raiding is a hard one that a lot of guilds fail to make--including mine, but I wasn't all that interested in 25 mans so I couldn't comment on the reasons why. I hope Blizzard realizes that and makes a better 5 and 10 man progression path from the start in WotLK (e.g. don't wait a year to put out ZA).
BTW, if you're having trouble getting slotted for Kara within your guild Loral, you might ask around and see what non-guild raiding groups exist on your server. Mine has several, including one whose self-proclaimed mission is to make sure anyone who wants to gets a chance to raid. Kara pickup groups are no longer the joke they once were either, as a lot of Kara veterans whose guilds have moved well past Kara are wanting to go back and get their weekly supply of badges. Of course it's a lot easier to get into such groups as a tank or healer than DPS, but it's worth a shot.
Comment Posted by: Loral on April 21, 2008 06:42 PM
I had soloed my way to a bunch of purple gear through daily quests. By "the top" I meant the top level.
Comment Posted by: Joost on April 22, 2008 03:54 AM
Wow, if these are the weaknesses, no wonder its the number one game. I didn't want to level any other char than my first, but truth is I now have 2 lvl 70s and a lvl 60. After some time, you can get into the mood to lvl another char up.
I loved EQ. Best gaming experience of my life. Too bad I can't solo it like WoW or I would have lvld another char in EQ. Now my wizard is stuck at lvl 62. I did install EQ once again a few months back, found my wizard in PoK and I couldnt do anything relevant that would have gotten me back into the game.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on April 23, 2008 05:01 PM
Loral: I presume that means you're exalted with most or all of the factions can be soloed. If so congrats--that's a lot of dailies and/or turn-ins. I can certainly see why you'd feel like WoW is focused on soloing.
I don't want to minimize what you've accomplished at all, but I'm pretty sure if you had been doing Karazhan every week over the same period you'd have more and better purple items at this point. So you can make progress while soloing, but there's still a strong incentive to group. Isn't that what we want?
Comment Posted by: Loral on April 23, 2008 09:14 PM
I've done Karazhan about three times now. Mostly I find it hard to get into a good enough group to clear it. I'm in a pretty big guild that has about three or four regular groups but all of them are filled up. Pickup groups are usually nasty in attitude and quick to break up.
So instead, when I want to play for under two hours, I work on dailies. I just got my epic flying mount and am working on the absolutely awful Netherdrake quests.
So yeah, I'm max faction with Ogri'la (epic crossbow) and max faction with skyguard (epic trinket).
Comment Posted by: Kaelon on April 28, 2008 10:19 AM
I have to agree with the general sentiment that this review seems inconherent, while at the same time contradicting your statements in previous articles.
1. Focus on Solo Play
Richard Bartle is essentially only correct in one aspect: World of Warcraft has established a paradigm that no one will defy, and as failed games like Vanguard show, consumers exclusively prefer. However, the notion that "rich relationships" were somehow an intended benefit of explicit game design, rather than a consequence of a hierarchical timesink and slow-paced game, is inherently flawed. People form relationships based upon a simple sociological factor: shared opportunitistic interest. The more people there are in an environment, whether it's a game or a business, the less likely it is for someone to form a meaningful relationship.
I submit that because you are in a guild that has a shitty "attitude" (something you remark in your comments), and do not regularly group with like-minded people, World of Warcraft has become a solitary experience for you. Do not lambast its greatest strength -- the ability for people to solo when they choose, and to accomplish things effectively -- as a liability simply because you have not been able to get into the group game. I humbly submit that you should quit your guild, go tagless, and find a small guild or casual raiding group of people who share your views. You will be pleasantly surprised.
2. Player versus Player
This is really a non-issue, because the Alliance and the Horde never communicate to begin with. There is no incentive for building a PvE experience that somehow encompasses both the Alliance and the Horde, with the exception of limited server-wide contests (e.g., "Gates of Ahn'Qiraj", the "Sunwell Plateau Invasions", etc.). Therefore, your assertion that the player versus player game "breaks" the player versus environment game is illogical, since there is no player versus environment option for Horde and Alliance to begin with, nor should there be.
Instead, player versus player is an optional avenue of progression, for those who choose it. The Player versus Environment game is neither better nor worse for it, but to the contrary, it stands in comparison as an alternative, in the same way that Solo Play ("Dailies", "Questing"), Group Play ("Instances, Heroics"), and Raiding ("Dungeons") provide sub-alternatives that are becoming more and more equally viable for progression. While it is certainly true that most player versus player matches do not create "community" among the participants on the same side, as your last paragraph in this section suggests, this is a necessary function in order to create diversity in the confrontations through the randomization of opponents. Some of the tightest friendships of my server exist between the regulars who PvP, and the finest teams that I know of are the Arena PvP group combat teams. If anything, evidence of this comradery directly contradicts this view of yours.
3. Redundant Quests
This is just a whine. Frankly, you don't offer suggestions on how to improve the questing experience, and instead, you drum on like a tired complaint. The fact is simple: World of Warcraft's quests are the best of any MMO out there. EverQuest II's quests are often touted as "cookie cutter", whereas Lord of the Rings Online has notorious "similar quests", and new games, like Pirates, have only three or so quests that are repeated thousands of times. I offer that you haven't actually paid much attention to the quests you have done: their strength is in their story, placing you -- the player character -- as the starring hero (or, especially in Blood Elf and Undead quests, villain) in tales of life after the war. Consider as well the variation of the quests that exist: from bombing runs, to escorts, treasure hunts, to slaughter-fests, mystery solving, to political intrigue, the diversity of the quests in World of Warcraft have absolutely no equal. It's hard how one can define this as a weakness, when the sheer creativity that goes into quests is what attracts so many players to World of Warcraft in the first place.
4. Long Duration Dungeons
I think, once again, you are imposing your mediocrity as a player upon an entire game system, rather than examining why it takes you two hours to finish a dungeon. While I do not disagree that a first time dungeon crawl through an entirely unfamiliar environment would take a few hours, first-time crawls are guided by very specific quests, each of which can most certainly be completed in under an hour. Dungeons like these are intended to be attempted multiple times.
Once you become a veteran of a specific dungeon, there is no reason why you cannot complete it in under an hour. Scholomance, for example, used to take 3-6 hours when it was first released, but following its tuning, pre-BC, I was able to do a complete Scholomance run in around 90 minutes, including the optional (and "time-consuming") bosses. Today, I run multiple heroics a day -- Magister's Terrace takes me 40 minutes to complete using a random pick-up group of players on Argent Dawn; most other heroics take me around an hour to complete. If you are spending a "heavy time requirement" completing a single-group dungeon, then the problem rests with your group's leadership, and not with the dungeon itself. That said, leadership is a rare commodity - both in real life, as it is in World of Warcraft. Either step up to the plate, and become a decisive leader to set an aggressive and rewarding tempo, or find a leader to follow. It's just that simple.
(On a related note, Karazhan today can be easily completed -- with all of its optional bosses -- in around 2-3 hours. Newer 10-mans, such as Zul'Aman, may take a couple of tries for an experienced Karazhan raid group, but comparing these to the "cookie-cutter" dungeons of the Lost Dungeons of Norrath, or the "72 hour raids" of EverQuest, it's clear that a major strength of World of Warcraft is its very accessible dungeons, all of which are completable in a single sitting or evening. I strongly suggest you find a different group of players if you're hitting your head against a wall and getting frustrated; with WoW's diversity, you shouldn't have to settle for the same tired group of antagonists the way that EverQuest players had to in days of old.)
5. No Console Support.
This suggestion did raise eyebrows, but for a good reason: it's not a weakness, so much, as it is a wish-list. It's also a failed suggestion, and has been tried time and time again -- from EverQuest Online Adventures, to the "successful" Final Fantasy Online. The end-result: people don't want to shell out a monthly subscription to play an online game on a console that, no matter how advanced, is still reliant upon inferior display technology. Even the PS3 is reliant upon the display you are using, and television displays today max out at 1080p resolutions. Compare this to PC gamers, who can build a rig as ambitious as they would like -- such as mine, which has a 30" Apple Cinematic HD Monitor with a 2560p resolution -- and further, customize their games, and you'd see why one of the greatest strengths of WoW -- the ability to modify the user interface and make the game truly yours -- is just not compatible with the console business model and capabilities.
Conclusion
I agree with Teremar's post (April 21, at 1:39 am): you seem to be having frustrations playing World of Warcraft, and rather than look inward at ways to play the game better -- or even to experiment and find better people with whom to play -- you immediately indict the game. This is a tried and true method that many EverQuest players have done, and for good reason: Sony built a very failed business paradigm for the development of their game in EverQuest, and so blaming the developer was almost always spot-on. Blizzard, however, is not Sony, and the fact that World of Warcraft is designed with numerous parallel paths of progression to appeal to distinct and different gameplay styles means that you can experience the game on your terms, and improve your results by learning your character class, pushing it to levels, and setting objectives for you to meet in very reasonable, casual periods of time.
As for weaknesses, I would say that World of Warcraft's true weaknesses rest in its lack of depth -- which you didn't really pick up on, and actually hilariously called "one of the deepest games". WoW is not at all "deep" from a conventional perspective of what a "deep" game is; you can experience much in the game world, but beneath the surface are basic mechanics whereby you continue to feel that you are playing a great game. Conversely, games like EverQuest II added depth to cities by building housing, depth to guilds by creating guild leveling and guild rewards, and even depth to trade skills. I believe that a deep game, like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, when taken to an MMO level, has a very high promise of success. Unfortunately, the business model is highly risk-averse today, and so developers will look at copying the "width" of a game like World of Warcraft without taking a chance on "depth".
Finally, I have to re-iterate that your review sounds like you really need to get our of your inferior guild situation. If your guild has "several Karazhan groups", and you're repeatedly being relegated to the reject pile, you need to ask yourself why. Karazhan is extremely accessible today, and even pick-ups have a great chance of defeating most of Lower Karazhan without breaking a sweat.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on April 28, 2008 04:26 PM
I think I have to agree with Kaelon's diagnosis that your guild just isn't working for you, but let me suggest an alternative treatment: leave your 70 hunter in the guild, but level up a new character from a more group-friendly class. If what you want to do is play with other people, you'll have a much easier time doing so as a tank or healer. Then be sure to fight the temptation to follow the path of least resistance and spend your time soloing rather than running instances in a group.
Comment Posted by: Nehasane on April 29, 2008 09:13 PM
Come join my guild on Icecrown, you would be more than welcome!
Comment Posted by: Shadow of Former Self on May 1, 2008 10:54 AM
Is it me or has this site finally keeled over? I have been reading this site for 4 years after I gave up my eq accounts.
But this is the truest indicator as far as I'm concerned.
Thank you Moorgard and Loral for your hard work over the years. You have been like a nicotine patch...weening my eq addiction.
R.I.P. Everquest and Mobhunter, safe travels to both of you.....
Comment Posted by: AenorVZ on May 3, 2008 01:59 AM
Since comments are locked on the previous topic, I'll respond here.
"In fact, since SoE does not see that type server as being a long term success, and the changes so far mentioned are directly aimed at helping retain new players for the long term, I think it specifically argues against the likelyhood of a new classic/progression server as part of this process." - Redhenna
"Given that they had to merge the two progression servers, I highly doubt the momentary blip in subscriptions has anything at all to do with the changes we are seeing." - xsi
You both completely miss the point. The devs declared the progression servers a "huge success" IN SPITE OF the fact that the servers failed to maintain a long term population. But for three months, SOE profited from THOUSANDS of resubscriptions from players who wanted to experience the pre-Luclin game.
When they posted the producer letter proclaiming their intent to look into future alternate ruleset servers and invited input, the posters overwhelmingly agreed on one aspect for a future server: They want another progression server where the expansions are unlocked more slowly than they were on Combine and Sleeper.
I was in the guild that unlocked Velious on Sleeper, and I helped take down the first Tormax and Lord Yelinak on that server. We blew through Classic, Kunark and Velious in about 3 months. Once Luclin was unlocked the server populations dropped dramatically and they had to be merged.
Based on player feedback, and the obvious data of how much money they made those first three months and how quickly both servers died out post Luclin, launching a slow progression server is simply the most obvious thing SOE could possibly do.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 6, 2008 11:43 AM
Ok, as promised...my list of WoW weaknesses.
It's a Small World After All
This may sound ungrateful given that we just got a bunch of new content--free even--but the fact remains that there's too little variety, too much recycling of old content, and not enough of what Kaelon aptly calls "depth."
WoW now has something on the order of 20 times the subscribers EQ had at its peak. In theory that means they've got 20 times the revenue and can hire 20 times the developers to make 20 times the content and still make 20 times the profit. In reality it's not that simple, of course, but it still feels like they're making just enough to get by. You'd think that the prospect of 10 million people paying $30 each for an expansion would justify hiring enough staff to put them out on a regular schedule.
WTB Tank and Healer
Groups regularly struggle to find tanks and healers. It's terribly frustrating in and of itself, plus it steers people into soloing. The reasons are many and complicated, but some of them related to other weaknesses and I'll touch on those as I go. I mostly play tanks, so I can speak more to their concerns than to healers, but I think they're similar.
Dailies: It's not an Adventure, it's a Job.
WoW is chock full of money sinks, especially if you're trying to play on a high level. (Gems, enchants, you name it.) But you'll be lucky if the loot from a dungeon run covers your repair bill, while raiding will absolutely cost you gold and lots of it.
There are now plenty of "daily quests" that can be done to get money, but by design they're short and you're unlikely to get a group for them. Thus soloing becomes mandatory. Some people love it and amass huge fortunes, but for others it turns into second job and they start reckoning all their expenses in terms of how many dailies they're going to have to do to pay for it.
While all classes *can* solo, there are big differences in terms of how many mobs they can kill in a given time period or the probability of surviving when things go wrong. So who takes the longest to do their mandatory daily quests? Tanks and healers.
And incidentally, while most of the people in a group only take significant durability damage to their gear if something goes wrong, the tank's gear takes damage whenever things go right. Thus they're constantly building up a repair bill.
Also, as your gear improves your repair bills go up much faster than the speed at which you can get the gold to pay them. That makes the most successful players extremely risk averse. After one or two deaths they're thinking about quitting a group, not because the group won't successfully finish the dungeon, but because they're already dreading the dailies they'll have to do to pay their likely repair bill. Or they just don't do pickup groups at all.
MMORPG != E-Sport
I can see why Blizzard's marketing department is salivating at the prospect of turning WoW into a significant E-Sport, but there are irreconcilable differences between an E-Sport and an MMORPG. (Persistent world vs. short matches, progression vs. a level playing field, you name it.) I can't put my finger on anything yet and say "This was clearly done for the E-Sport and is bad for the rest of the game" but there have been some nerfs tried out on the test server that would have qualified had they gone live. It's also disheartening to know that as they're putting together new items and abilities for the expansion, things that would cause problems in arenas won't make the cut no matter how cool they might be for PvE.
I'm not much of a PvP'er, but there was a recent forum post on the state of WoW PvP and the limits of arenas that has been generating a lot of discussion, so if you're interested I'll refer you to http://www.keenandgraev.com/?p=1012 .
Community lol
Finally, WoW's community makes me despair for the rising generation. Tons of teenagers, and no, they don't behave well. They don't work well with groups, they do a *lot* of griefing, and it's amazing how much casual racism and homophobia gets tossed around. Yeah, I'm sounding like an old codger, but in WoW years anyone over about 22 is an old codger. Fortunately playing on the RP servers helps a lot (that and refusing to get involved in battleground chat beyond tactical instructions).
Less related to age but definitely falling under the heading of poor players is the substantial fraction of DPS classes whose idea of skillful group play is topping the damage meter at all costs, and then they loudly blame the tank for not keeping the mobs off them and the healer for not keeping them alive. This is the most popular explanation for the tank shortage on the forums. I think it gets exaggerated, but the bad experiences are often so bad they stick out in peoples' minds.
Having said all this I enjoy WoW tremendously. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.
Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on May 7, 2008 09:09 PM
Weakness 1, A Focus on Solo Gameplay
I’d have to say that while at the surface your comments have merit, if you look deeper into the waters, they lack insight.
Let’s look at game mechanics that entice a user to do more than solo. Guilds, Guild banks, Quests designed with groups in mind, Dungeons.
The missing element from older MMO’s is dependency. No one in World of Warcraft is dependant on the good graces of anyone else by core design.
Past that, people’s social skills kick in. Are you a social person? Do you like guilds? Have you found a guild that you like? World of Warcraft is an open social network, the people playing the game and the guilds on the servers make up the social network unique to each server. No one will be “forced” to be your friend, so you will have to try to make social connections.
Weakness 2, A Focus on Player Vs. Player
This one frankly confuses me. It’s something I hear over and over. It’s as if people use the gear that can be obtained in Arena Season 3 and use it as a bench mark where in if they don’t have that exact gear, then somehow the game is a failure and they are failures.
World of Warcraft has trade skill, quest, faction, and drop loots from world drops and boss drops, all that are options for players to progress with. None of which require ever taking up arms against a fellow player.
The fact that this “player vs. player” theme you present rather drastically conflicts with your first assertion that World of Warcraft is essentially solo game further adds to the confusion.
Again, simply put, World of Warcraft opens the doors for a wide range of play styles. If you don’t like to PvP, don’t PvP, you aren’t penalized as a result.
Weakness 3, Redundant Quests
I have to admit, this one made me laugh. You yourself say “…how many of those quests are unique and interesting? Many are,…”. Yet you fail to give one concrete example of an MMO in production where “quests” are a fundamental game mechanic where there is no repeat of process.
Let me rephrase that. As a potential developer of an MMO, looking at process flow, (get quest, do task X, Y, Z, get reward) how many unique, thrilling, interesting concepts can you conceive of? Would you honestly say you would not reuse the same patterns? Even thinking back to the hay days of pencil and paper role-play gaming, how many unique “quests” where there?
Weakness 4, Long Duration Dungeons
Again, this is one where you appear to be contradicting yourself. You rail against a system that you say does not have a social context, where “grouping” is un-needed, and where there is no “time” for forming bonds of friendship. Then you say that the time duration of dungeons is too long. Simply put, your argument appears to one of an internal dissent, not an issue with the game itself. For surely, if in order to resolve your first weakness, one needs a sense of fellowship, a shared goal, and time to form a bond, then a lengthy dungeon crawl would fit the bill nicely.
Weakness 5, No Console Support
Here you appear to be forgetting Blizzards own capital investments over the years. Ghost was a very large capital expenditure for Blizzard over the course of several years. While we on the outside of Blizzards management team can only speculate on the exact cause/effects, one can ponder that they probably had a reason to stop development on a console title after having already invested so heavily.
In summary Loral; most of the heart of your issues appear to be ones not directed at issues with the game mechanics per se, but rather issues with the social dynamics you find yourself in within the game world itself. These social dynamics could be many fold. You could be playing a class/talent build that ultimately is at odds with your realistic play style. You could be looking at the game through the dynamics of previous impressions of “how things should be”, based on previous MMO experiences, rather than assessing issues as they really are. Or it could be simple issue that you fell into a guild that you feel you can’t leave and they are in fact ass-hats.
World of Warcraft does have some essential weaknesses, but they are not the ones you have listed above.
1) In the isolated area of true PvP, either in the form of PvP realms, Arena Teams, or Battlegrounds, there is a current disparity where-in much like the older MMO’s and the “raiders” vs. “casuals” there is a rift between the high end gear and the progression path to gain the high end gear.
Simply put there can be no fair footing for people on an open PvP realm. But then if you play on one, you understand this as a core of your choices to play there.
Gear has a huge impact on success vs. failure in Arena teams. This gear factor is slowly being adjusted for in the way Arena Teams are matched against each other, however the speed of review and change needs to be increased.
Lastly the impact of high end gear inside battle grounds needs to be calculated and some level of balancing the play field needs to be achieved. This is currently a unaddressed issue.
2) In the area of stagnation and level 70 entropy. While gaining ever more very slightly better level 70 gear is one method of providing “content” for the level 70 player base, it creates a certain sense of entropy. In essence to borrow a phrase; there is no “Ding!”. While a player might replace a 88.3 DPS Purple mace with a 88.7 DPS Purple mace after a week of working through Heroic instances, the change is minimal. Further it’s impacted by the knowledge that when Wrath of the Lich King is released, the hard won 88.7 DPS Purple mace will be replaced with a trash drop 92.7 green mace in the first hours of play. The net effect is post level 70, for a percentage of the player base there is no sense of forward momentum or achievement.
Comment Posted by: Nolrog on May 8, 2008 11:44 PM
You guys are all idiots for playing WoW.
"Abuse is a service I happily provide"
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Email Mike at mike@mikeshea.net for more questions or comments.