No flying in 7.0 confirmed

[CheeseSandwich]

These things are literally (over-exaggerated) map design, and are used to provide atmosphere and tell the story of different zones. There are no detours. The majority of paths are straight from point to point.
Would azshara be the same without any form of elevation? what about stormheim, highmountain? You remove terrain and "massive annoying detours" and you may as well not design levels at all. Flat, open Ungoro craters for every zone. No thanks.

Or, you know, Storm Peaks, Icecrown, Deepholm, (BC)Nagrand and Netherstorm.

[wing5wong]

Or, you know, Storm Peaks, Icecrown, Deepholm, (BC)Nagrand and Netherstorm.

Its funny you mention those because the only screenshot of a "massive, annoying detours." is from BC (BEM).
Im still eager to see one from Legion

[CheeseSandwich]

Its funny you mention those because the only screenshot of a "massive, annoying detours." is from BC (BEM).
Im still eager to see one from Legion

That zone with the zone with effective AA turrets and flying dailies? The zone like Spires of Arak without the areas of content made with flying in mind?

Yes it is funny that the expac that introduced flying had a zone thats ease of navigation and sense of conquering the zone was heightened after leveling through it and by earning the ability to fly over the useless bits in order to get to the important content the player wanted to do, (which involved flying). Hilarious, in fact.

[rebecca191]

Of course, because it's new content, even content with a limited duration and thus limited game experience and rewards. And since you have to land to do content, the whole bullshit about why flying is bad for the game is nothing more but a scapegoat for other, real problems - like content droughts and boring content.

Which pretty much proves the point that if there is content out there worth doing, that has rewards people want, players will see lots of other players in the world doing quests and killing mobs despite those players having flying mounts. I used to see people all the time in Icecrown flying around doing Argent Tournament dailies. There were so many pet, mount, and toy rewards that I saw people there for months.

[wing5wong]

That zone with the zone with effective AA turrets and flying dailies? The zone like Spires of Arak without the areas of content made with flying in mind?

Yes it is funny that the expac that introduced flying had a zone thats ease of navigation and sense of conquering the zone was heightened after leveling through it and by earning the ability to fly over the useless bits in order to get to the important content the player wanted to do, (which involved flying). Hilarious, in fact.

You miss the point. Those areas required flying because they were difficult to navigate. I'm yet to see a difficult path in legion.

[wing5wong]

Which pretty much proves the point that if there is content out there worth doing, that has rewards people want, players will see lots of other players in the world doing quests and killing mobs despite those players having flying mounts. I used to see people all the time in Icecrown flying around doing Argent Tournament dailies. There were so many pet, mount, and toy rewards that I saw people there for months.

They do it because its content. Regardless of flying mount or not.

You could just increase ground mount speed and achieve r same result

[rebecca191]

Several people (I don't think you were one of them) made the argument that flying mounts are bad because they never see other players in areas where flying is allowed. But if they aren't seeing other players, flying isn't the problem, bad content or no content at all is the problem. It's not like people can complete a quest while hovering in the air.

[CheeseSandwich]

You miss the point. Those areas required flying because they were difficult to navigate. I'm yet to see a difficult path in legion.

No, you could navigate to the places you needed to go while leveling just fine. Sure, they were winding, annoying out of the way rat mazes, but that was a price to pay for the first couple of times travelling them while leveling up.

Past that though, there wasn't a reason to keep the max level player grounded, hence flight was used to expand on the idea of the zone, and enhance the feel of the whole area.

Not just a 2d plane we are served up with now, with vertical travel as an afterbirth after thought.

They do it because its content. Regardless of flying mount or not.

You could just increase ground mount speed and achieve r same result

(To bold) So flying doesn't skip content then....cool, glad we agree.

Then what is the problem with flying? If the goal is to travel as fast as possible then why the fuck is flying the sacrificial lamb? Why is zooming around at light speed on a ground mount better than what was in the game for 8 years?

[Eats Compost]

(To bold) So flying doesn't skip content then....cool, glad we agree.

Then what is the problem with flying? If the goal is to travel as fast as possible then why the fuck is flying the sacrificial lamb? Why is zooming around at light speed on a ground mount better than what was in the game for 8 years?

Flying won't let you skip something defined by a quest objective, obviously. But it does let you skip anything that wouldn't be strictly required, which is be issue.

To boil it down to the basics, if your quest is "kill this dragon", flying has a huge impact on what that means for everything between you and the dragon. Unless quotas for side-objective creatures/items/whatever get tacked on, it's really hard to get players to move through content in that way. Even then, it's not perfect - players would typically fly to the named objective, complete it first, then fill the trash objective quota. The flow of an area is an important consideration there.

It's also worth noting that in the case of quests that only require you to kill one named mob, there's an implicit efficiency minigame. There's a lot of variation in how quickly the player may make it through that area, or even how safe they will be doing it. Flying tends to mess with that a by heavily standardising time between nodes of importance. It's a subtle difference, but you'd be surprised how much of a difference it makes to the feel of a game when someone feels like they're doing well rather than simply going through the motions.

I personally feel like super-fast ground mounts would have similar problems, but the one big benefit is that they mostly keep players on the same "path", both in terms of physical limitations and encounters.

[CheeseSandwich]

Flying won't let you skip something defined by a quest objective, obviously. But it does let you skip anything that wouldn't be strictly required, which is be issue.

To boil it down to the basics, if your quest is "kill this dragon", flying has a huge impact on what that means for everything between you and the dragon. Unless quotas for side-objective creatures/items/whatever get tacked on, it's really hard to get players to move through content in that way. Even then, it's not perfect - players would typically fly to the named objective, complete it first, then fill the trash objective quota. The flow of an area is an important consideration there.

It's also worth noting that in the case of quests that only require you to kill one named mob, there's an implicit efficiency minigame. There's a lot of variation in how quickly the player may make it through that area, or even how safe they will be doing it. Flying tends to mess with that a by heavily standardising time between nodes of importance. It's a subtle difference, but you'd be surprised how much of a difference it makes to the feel of a game when someone feels like they're doing well rather than simply going through the motions.

How does flying alone let you skip things that aren't strictly required, where mounting a ground mount and plowing headlong through to destination and leashing not do the same thing?
If skipping those things that arent required was a real issue to gameplay, why not add gameplay elements that restricted skipping things that could be an issue? Why is removing flying the better option over adding things to enhance the flying meta game?

If this quest at max level is to kill a dragon, what content are you getting players to 'move through'? Is it relevant to killing said dragon? Is running on the ground more valid as content than flying to the dragon because it is slower?

Look at Threat from above, for example. A group quest to kill a dragon at max level in an expansion that allowed flying. The player had to fly to an area the dragon patrolled by, they couldn't just swoop in on it. The area it flew past was patrolled by ground troops un related to the quest, but had to be cleared to make the quest easier. This quest included flying in its design, accounted for it and is a shining example how flight IN NO WAY interferes with max level quest design.

If a player decides to ride to the named on a ground mount first and engage the boss, then clear the trash, how is that any different? Are Blizz's dev's ego that fragile they can't handle killing some world mobs in a slightly different order than they intended?

If you have a node of importance in a max level flying zone and you are worried about your max level players with flying accessing it to quickly to fully appreciate your ability to spread ground mobs throughout that area, then one idea would be to heavily fortify that area with Anti Air defences (which would make sense in a game with heaps of dragons and wyverns and hippogriffs and zeppelins and flying warships and floating cities and such) so any invading forces HAVE to go through your nicely laid out resistance.

Or you could just turn off flying til whenever. Shit yeah that sounds way easier.

[wing5wong]

How does flying alone let you skip things that aren't strictly required, where mounting a ground mount and plowing headlong through to destination and leashing not do the same thing?
If skipping those things that arent required was a real issue to gameplay, why not add gameplay elements that restricted skipping things that could be an issue? Why is removing flying the better option over adding things to enhance the flying meta game?

If this quest at max level is to kill a dragon, what content are you getting players to 'move through'? Is it relevant to killing said dragon? Is running on the ground more valid as content than flying to the dragon because it is slower?

Look at Threat from above, for example. A group quest to kill a dragon at max level in an expansion that allowed flying. The player had to fly to an area the dragon patrolled by, they couldn't just swoop in on it. The area it flew past was patrolled by ground troops un related to the quest, but had to be cleared to make the quest easier. This quest included flying in its design, accounted for it and is a shining example how flight IN NO WAY interferes with max level quest design.

If a player decides to ride to the named on a ground mount first and engage the boss, then clear the trash, how is that any different? Are Blizz's dev's ego that fragile they can't handle killing some world mobs in a slightly different order than they intended?

If you have a node of importance in a max level flying zone and you are worried about your max level players with flying accessing it to quickly to fully appreciate your ability to spread ground mobs throughout that area, then one idea would be to heavily fortify that area with Anti Air defences (which would make sense in a game with heaps of dragons and wyverns and hippogriffs and zeppelins and flying warships and floating cities and such) so any invading forces HAVE to go through your nicely laid out resistance.

Or you could just turn off flying til whenever. Shit yeah that sounds way easier.

If killing the dragon is the primary objective everything in between can be a secondary objective. Does it really need to be stated in the quest? The layout of an area can control the flow of the quest when you are grounded.

There are literally no mobs around TFA if you fly in there. Fly to point A. Tag dragon. Fly to quest hand in. Really exviting stuff

Tacking guns into everything is not an interesting concept either. How high do you let the guns shoot? Will they kill you? Or do you want a parachute because tedium?

Adding interesting and involving content is the answer. It doesn't need to be flyin content though. The point is not to do everything as fast as possible.

[Eats Compost]

How does flying alone let you skip things that aren't strictly required, where mounting a ground mount and plowing headlong through to destination and leashing not do the same thing?
If skipping those things that arent required was a real issue to gameplay, why not add gameplay elements that restricted skipping things that could be an issue? Why is removing flying the better option over adding things to enhance the flying meta game?

If this quest at max level is to kill a dragon, what content are you getting players to 'move through'? Is it relevant to killing said dragon? Is running on the ground more valid as content than flying to the dragon because it is slower?

Look at Threat from above, for example. A group quest to kill a dragon at max level in an expansion that allowed flying. The player had to fly to an area the dragon patrolled by, they couldn't just swoop in on it. The area it flew past was patrolled by ground troops un related to the quest, but had to be cleared to make the quest easier. This quest included flying in its design, accounted for it and is a shining example how flight IN NO WAY interferes with max level quest design.

If a player decides to ride to the named on a ground mount first and engage the boss, then clear the trash, how is that any different? Are Blizz's dev's ego that fragile they can't handle killing some world mobs in a slightly different order than they intended?

If you have a node of importance in a max level flying zone and you are worried about your max level players with flying accessing it to quickly to fully appreciate your ability to spread ground mobs throughout that area, then one idea would be to heavily fortify that area with Anti Air defences (which would make sense in a game with heaps of dragons and wyverns and hippogriffs and zeppelins and flying warships and floating cities and such) so any invading forces HAVE to go through your nicely laid out resistance.

Or you could just turn off flying til whenever. Shit yeah that sounds way easier.

You talk about adding "things" to enhance the flying meta-game, as if it's trivial. It certainly isn't, and even if it were, Blizzard needs to think that the thing they would make you do in he air was going to be more fun than the thing they were going to make you do on the ground. If we expand upon flying in a meaningful and elaborate way, it'll probably manifest as an obstacle of some kind, and that's far from a "adding this makes everything objectively better" solution.

I don't know why you're pointing out Threat from Above as some kind of shining example of quest design. I remember it well, and it was a boring, rote quest. You'd hop on your flying mount, go to a particular spot on the ledge where it spawns and patrols, wait for it to get to you, and then kill it. The dragon could have been sitting on its ass immediately somewhere in the tournament grounds themselves, and the substance of the quest wouldn't change at all. It's a picture-perfect example of flying *not* adding anything meaningful, and the only reason that flying is relevant to that quest is because the terrain would be otherwise inaccessible (or a pain in the ass to get to). Needing to fly to get somewhere is not, by itself, a meaningful or even entertaining way to involve flying. Even in BC, the novelty of it was gone quickly.

I can't stress enough that any air obstacles common and stringent enough to involve meaningful player interaction would still annoy the players who want the convenience of flying, without actually resolving what it's done to ground design or what sort of development time it'd require. BC's light touch certainly didn't work.

As for what is actually between the player and the hypothetical dragon; that depends. They're going for particular gameplay, particular story and particular feel in any given situation. They might make you trudge up a ramp with falling boulders that you have to dodge, they might make you fight through a camp of dragonspawn, they might want to make you walk through a tunnel that opens up into a pretty clearing. A lot of these things (particularly for the "feel" component) would be designed with a particular player perspective in mind, which would have to change radically between flying and no-flying iterations.

[SirCowdog]

If killing the dragon is the primary objective everything in between can be a secondary objective. Does it really need to be stated in the quest? The layout of an area can control the flow of the quest when you are grounded.

We've been over this. There are other ways to present and control the flow of a quest besides just grounding everything.

Furthermore, if the trash around the quest objectives is meant to be relevant, they why does it more often than not have nothing to do with the quest objectives? In other words, If Blizzard wants us to engage with stuff on the ground, then that stuff needs to be relevant, and not just useless trash.

And guess what? If the stuff on the ground is interesting and relevant, players will engage with it regardless of their mode of travel.

Tacking guns into everything is not an interesting concept either. How high do you let the guns shoot? Will they kill you? Or do you want a parachute because tedium?

We've been over this as well. Obviously attempting to apply a single, simple solution like anti air guns to EVERYTHING isn't go to work. The same way that applying no-flying to everything causes trouble and unrest. What's needed is a diverse and multi-faceted solution that keeps things interesting and dynamic. This is what people mean when they say Blizzard is being lazy with No-flying. They aren't putting much effort into using a good solution, and took the easy way out by applying the same solution to everything.

I

Adding interesting and involving content is the answer. It doesn't need to be flyin content though. The point is not to do everything as fast as possible.

It sounds like you mostly understand, but just don't want to admit that flying has a place in current content. I also don't think flying needs to be everything and everywhere. But the same thing applies to ground stuff as well.

Again, a mixed approach is best.

[rebecca191]

MoP had flying for the launch max level content, no flying on the islands they added later. Cata mostly had flying but had the Firelands inside daily zone no flying. At least they tried to do both.... now it's just, design everything around no flying at all and add flying a few months later. ugh.

I personally found the no flying quest hubs less obnoxious back then because the entire game wasn't no flying. I never loved the concept but it was a lot more tolerable (and I was still willing to play) because other areas in the current expac did have flying.

[wing5wong]

We've been over this. There are other ways to present and control the flow of a quest besides just grounding everything.

Furthermore, if the trash around the quest objectives is meant to be relevant, they why does it more often than not have nothing to do with the quest objectives? In other words, If Blizzard wants us to engage with stuff on the ground, then that stuff needs to be relevant, and not just useless trash.

And guess what? If the stuff on the ground is interesting and relevant, players will engage with it regardless of their mode of travel.






We've been over this as well. Obviously attempting to apply a single, simple solution like anti air guns to EVERYTHING isn't go to work. The same way that applying no-flying to everything causes trouble and unrest. What's needed is a diverse and multi-faceted solution that keeps things interesting and dynamic. This is what people mean when they say Blizzard is being lazy with No-flying. They aren't putting much effort into using a good solution, and took the easy way out by applying the same solution to everything.



It sounds like you mostly understand, but just don't want to admit that flying has a place in current content. I also don't think flying needs to be everything and everywhere. But the same thing applies to ground stuff as well.

Again, a mixed approach is best.

Many 'useless' npcs are there as ambience. Just as they are in towns. You can't simply remove everything that doesn't directly relate to the quest. The 'feel' of a zone is important.

I like flying. Zones like deepholm were awesome. My issue is where flying just contributes nothing, apart from speed. Slowing down flyers or making mounts comparatively attractive is needed to have a stronger case for flight in current content.

There's no floating platforms in legion, and that's the reason I don't find it a necessity. It doesn't contribute to the feeling of the legion zones.
I want to do things efficiently, but not at the cost of great map design. If that means falling of a cliff in high mountain, so be it. Add ghost flight for sure, so you can get your body.

[SirCowdog]

Many 'useless' npcs are there as ambience. Just as they are in towns. You can't simply remove everything that doesn't directly relate to the quest. The 'feel' of a zone is important.

I like flying. Zones like deepholm were awesome. My issue is where flying just contributes nothing, apart from speed. Slowing down flyers or making mounts comparatively attractive is needed to have a stronger case for flight in current content.

There's no floating platforms in legion, and that's the reason I don't find it a necessity. It doesn't contribute to the feeling of the legion zones.
I want to do things efficiently, but not at the cost of great map design. If that means falling of a cliff in high mountain, so be it. Add ghost flight for sure, so you can get your body.

You mean the same ambience that involves alien spaceships, teleportation, winged demons, airships, and dragons?

I can understand that some areas and story presentation require full player movement to be restricted, such as scenarios, dungeons, raids, or pvp battlegrounds. But attempting to apply the no flying logic to every area, zone, space, and nuance is a mistake, plain and simple. If anything it breaks the ambience because it doesn't even remain consistent with the logic of the world Blizzard has created.

[Deleted]

These things are literally (over-exaggerated) map design, and are used to provide atmosphere and tell the story of different zones. There are no detours. The majority of paths are straight from point to point.
Would azshara be the same without any form of elevation? what about stormheim, highmountain? You remove terrain and "massive annoying detours" and you may as well not design levels at all. Flat, open Ungoro craters for every zone. No thanks.

You miss the point and derail. I am not speaking about atmosphere and mood, I am speaking about bottlenecks. You can achieve zone boarders by other means, like having broad rivers (as in case of separating the Barrens from Durotar). Or you just handle this organically and build a slow change of terrain into your zones, so a forest slowly becomes less dense and becomes grassy plains. Besides the fact, that the tree line is also a great zone barrier which can be traversed without flying.

You always keep changing the topic, I guess, because I am right and you cannot find an argument, so you rather find another thing.

- - - Updated - - -

MoP had flying for the launch max level content, no flying on the islands they added later. Cata mostly had flying but had the Firelands inside daily zone no flying. At least they tried to do both.... now it's just, design everything around no flying at all and add flying a few months later. ugh.

I personally found the no flying quest hubs less obnoxious back then because the entire game wasn't no flying. I never loved the concept but it was a lot more tolerable (and I was still willing to play) because other areas in the current expac did have flying.

Exactly. This was the best solution, a perfect combination of both things, and a win-win-situation. Then, someone extremely stupid came along.

[Deleted]

Honestly? you take detours and fly away from your intended objective every time you fly?
"just heading to this legion invasion, OMG a lvl 10 quest!, gonna do that instead"

It takes a special kind of stupidity to think about detours only in a straight gameplay way. Besides, in actual content there are hardly any level 10 quests.
Maybe you are just playing dumb by writing something that stupid, but maybe it is just to much for you to get a grasp that there might be something that catches peoples attention that is NOT related to quests, or any reward/progression system. Ever heard of discovering places you haven't seen before? Small things that catch your attention because they suck you in the world (the key here immersion, ever heard off)?

Sometimes i am glad that enjoying a game to me isn't so much relying on "must have loot, must progress, must be da best WoW-gamer in da world", and that i can actually enjoy the game's world for what it is..... IF they let me do this the way i like. I won't take detours if i am forced to stay on the ground. On the ground it is more like "ugh.... let's get this over quick."

[wing5wong]

You miss the point and derail. I am not speaking about atmosphere and mood, I am speaking about bottlenecks.

Which bottlenecks? I dont think zone transitions have ever been an issue?

Im not changing the topic? Im talking about the impact the addition of flying has on the game. Its not an isolated thing where it is just added, and everything else remains the same, as much as you might want it to be.

It takes a special kind of stupidity to think about detours only in a straight gameplay way. Besides, in actual content there are hardly any level 10 quests.
Maybe you are just playing dumb by writing something that stupid, but maybe it is just to much for you to get a grasp that there might be something that catches peoples attention that is NOT related to quests, or any reward/progression system. Ever heard of discovering places you haven't seen before? Small things that catch your attention because they suck you in the world (the key here immersion, ever heard off)?

I love the aggressive tones here. Really makes your opinion more valid than any other.
So what is catching your attention?
I explore every zone on launch, so no, i guess i cant discover places i havent seen before.
Im not 'immersed' flying above the content when suddenly i see a.... mouse? WoW is very static in this regard. there are no surprise events to stop for.

Sometimes i am glad that enjoying a game to me isn't so much relying on "must have loot, must progress, must be da best WoW-gamer in da world", and that i can actually enjoy the game's world for what it is

Thats great, wow needs people that just do this

..... IF they let me do this the way i like. I won't take detours if i am forced to stay on the ground. On the ground it is more like "ugh.... let's get this over quick."

Why? because its slower? Thats a problem that can be solved without allowing you to fly over everything

[Eapoe]

You miss the point and derail. I am not speaking about atmosphere and mood, I am speaking about bottlenecks. You can achieve zone boarders by other means, like having broad rivers (as in case of separating the Barrens from Durotar). Or you just handle this organically and build a slow change of terrain into your zones, so a forest slowly becomes less dense and becomes grassy plains. Besides the fact, that the tree line is also a great zone barrier which can be traversed without flying.

You always keep changing the topic, I guess, because I am right and you cannot find an argument, so you rather find another thing.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly. This was the best solution, a perfect combination of both things, and a win-win-situation. Then, someone extremely stupid came along.

About your 2 points, (1) things like the mountains seperate get zones were made for a multitude of reasons. They allow for a zone transition without being too demanding on graphics engines and make for a smoother move from zone to zone without being demanding on a players computer. They are also easier to do from a designer standpoint for the same reasons. The mountain regions are also there for a players benefit in the sense that it keeps a player from doing a quest at the border and accidentally stepping into another zone that might be for level 30 players when they are level 10 and instantly dieing from aggro' mobs. Are there ways to design around this? Sure, but it would require more tech stress (maybe not much but it's there) as well as keeping quests away from borders and depopulating border areas to avoid random low level players from being jumped by high level mobs, which would create an atmosphere of an empty world in the border areas. As a follow up, with the way they (Blizzard) are designing Legion to have zones scale to the player, this is less of an issue and there are actually some places on the map that appear to not be connected by mountains, but are in fact separated by a river with easy access between zones. This has also happened in other areas, such as the transition of Jade Forest into Valley across a river, Valley to Krasa with a drop off that any engi/multitude of classes could get safely down, as well as Townlong into Dread with a wider entrance to the east of the bridge to the west. WoD brought back the mountains, sure, but it was a previously designed map template from BC that they had to stick with.
2). Short of your enthusiasm to the approach, it was not a perfect situation or a win win as many people in this thread have stated they never touched those zones due to the lack of flight, as well as a hatred of the fact they contained platforming and jump puzzles.