Why do we have 5 zones again?

[Pua]

Yes, it's a poor show. The amount of content being offered, despite the ludicrously long wait and starvation of it throughout Warlords, is much too small.

No, you won't get general agreement on this forum. The debate has already devolved into "OMG QUALITY OVER QUANTITY", when anyone who's played more than a few years can clearly remember when there used to be lots more content and the quality is no better now than it was then.

Nowadays it's about providing less, and making it stretch further.

Which is a shame, but unlikely to change.

[Okacz]

It's not about the quantity, it's about he quality.

Why does a number matter to you? Can't you just be happy that these zones are extremely well made?

Would you be happy with 10 zones that were all shit?

So the bar is this low now. Went from huge quality and huge quantity (10 wotlk zones, all with great quests) to "Well, maybe they are few, but at least decent!".

I'm not really against having fewer zones, it can be done really well by making each zone larger in scale, or have them very dynamic and reactive. But claiming that players what, don't deserve to have lots of stuff if what were getting is well made, that's dangerous. Pretty much what happened in WoD - every system they made was fine and well balanced - so what when players ran out of things to do in a week.

[ceall]

The quality is going to naturally improve over time. They've been making zones for 12 years now. But why is the quantity going backwards? When these zones have been in production for 2 years with a 50% larger dev team, when they made 3 fewer major content patches with WoD and are still making us wait just as long for the next expansion?

because they needed to do only 5 zones, so you could rant about it. and they need ppl like you to rant about their game and giving destructive, unvalueable feedback, which they don't even really read here, just so that others are being amused during their pooping.

[unbound]

It's not about the quantity, it's about he quality.

Why does a number matter to you? Can't you just be happy that these zones are extremely well made?

Would you be happy with 10 zones that were all shit?

lol

The game that is more than a decade old. How can you excuse Blizz getting less efficient?

Seriously. Are you really saying that the 5 zones created are substantially better than any previous zone created for any previous expansion?

Of course not. Stop excusing Blizz's laziness.

[Deleted]

First of all: The outdoor world zones are but a small part of all the things that have to be made for a new expansion. Secondly, these zones are all incredibly well built. I'd much rather have 5 really well crafted zones instead of 8 zones with over half of them being horrible as we have seen in past expansions.

Also, the world quest system basically makes all the zones lvl 110 zones with a bunch of things to do once you hit max level. So, unlike previous expansions, these are not zone's you level through and never have a reason to visit afterwards again.

[huth]

You dont get the logic, once again.

And you aren't making any attempts to explain it, as usual. Any dumb fool can complain about others "not getting it" when they don't agree with him.

I get the logic behind it. It's just that it's based on the faulty assumption that more zones = more content, when there isn't any causal link between the two.

[Maudib]

Would you be happier if they cut every zone in half? Then you'd have 10 zones, but still the exact same amount of content.

Number of zones on its own is completely meaningless.

This is absurd.

Northrend had 9 zones AND a new PvP zone. Of those zones.. only Crystalsong was basically unused... the rest were CHOCK FULL of content, grinding/farming areas, quests, dungeons, dailies, etc. It was as quality as it comes.

So yeah 5 quality zones, versus 8 quality zones AND a new PvP zone. It took a site more than 8 hours to level to max level too.

There is no doubt that Blizzard intends on selling less quantity more often. Is that bad? Not if they can actually DO IT... but based on WoD and it's last patch lasting 14 months? They have NO chance of meeting the annual expansion goal. So we're just getting less content for the same buy in and monthly sub cost.

[styil]

And you aren't making any attempts to explain it, as usual. Any dumb fool can complain about others "not getting it" when they don't agree with him.

I get the logic behind it. It's just that it's based on the faulty assumption that more zones = more content, when there isn't any causal link between the two.

Actually the problem is that people still think that zones like Deadwind Pass are still being made and are being included in the zone count. In recent times, zone density has not been an issue. The leveling zones in general have had plenty of content and the quality has improved. The number of zones has also remained steady.

Why are we suddenly dropping back down to 5 zones? If the team can do 6 full zones in WoD of all expansions, then they should be able to do just as much in Legion. The higher quality is a given; they've been working on zone development for 12 years now so of course the quality will improve with that experience.

Especially given that we've come off an expansion with only 1 major content patch and are waiting just as long to get the next one, despite the team being 50% larger for how many years now? Given this particular scenario, I find it strange that the team hasn't been able to release 7-8 zones (of the same quality) with Legion launch. Especially given their following statement (from the same interview):

The team is committed to quality, but it can't come at the expense of quantity and getting things in player's hands. If the team is spending a long time to make something perfect and players are starving for content, that isn't doing the right thing.

[huth]

This is absurd.

No, it's not. And WotLK zones aren't remotely as full of content as you try to make it seem. Large parts are basically just decoration with a few mobs that have no real purpose.

What is absurd is thinking that number of zones has anything to do with the amount of content the expansion offers. You can essentially arbitrarily resize them and make there be as many or as few as you want, all without changing anything that would actually make a difference.

[Ringthane]

The quality should always be better with more experience making the leveling zones. That still doesn't explain the lack of quantity.

So you basically want it all, right? Quality and quantity. Yes, it would be wonderful if they gave us 50 high-quality zones. But they have to stop somewhere. And from my experience playing through each zone, there's enough content in all of them to keep you going. Nothing feels too short, or rushed, or "oh, well, that's good enough".

I always felt like the zones in MoP were over too quickly. Not in Legion. There's plenty of stuff to do, and you don't just go from quest hub to quest hub. I've stumbled on more things this expansion than I have in any expansion since WotLK.

[Deleted]

Are we even talking about the same expansion here? OK, silly question, but...

No, the old zones in WotLK or MoP were not 'CHOCK FULL of content'. You mostly leveled through them, that was it. In both WotLK and MoP large areas of several zones are basically flat, open areas with textures applied. You had the odd rare or world boss, that was it, apart from crafting material nodes. In some cases you had daily quest hubs available at launch, but at least a few of them were added in later patches.

From everything I have seen so far from the Legion beta, the zones really are packed full of stuff to do at launch, in addition to feeling - or even being - larger than what the 2-D map would suggest. One thing I noticed was when some people in the Beta started complaining about actually getting lost in the multiple underground(!) levels in Suramar.

[Maudib]

No, it's not. And WotLK zones aren't remotely as full of content as you try to make it seem. Large parts are basically just decoration with a few mobs that have no real purpose.

What is absurd is thinking that number of zones has anything to do with the amount of content the expansion offers. You can essentially arbitrarily resize them and make there be as many or as few as you want, all without changing anything that would actually make a difference.

I can't even take your response seriously... the amount of content available in Wrath at launch DWARFS that of Legion. Having played both I can compare first hand.

[MyndZero]

It's not about the quantity, it's about he quality.

Why does a number matter to you? Can't you just be happy that these zones are extremely well made?

Would you be happy with 10 zones that were all shit?

You have to keep in mind, it's not like it's a MASSIVE gap in quality, they are probably on par more or less.

[styil]

So you basically want it all, right? Quality and quantity. Yes, it would be wonderful if they gave us 50 high-quality zones. But they have to stop somewhere. And from my experience playing through each zone, there's enough content in all of them to keep you going. Nothing feels too short, or rushed, or "oh, well, that's good enough".

I always felt like the zones in MoP were over too quickly. Not in Legion. There's plenty of stuff to do, and you don't just go from quest hub to quest hub. I've stumbled on more things this expansion than I have in any expansion since WotLK.

No I'm just struggling to understand how a team can make 6 zones in one expansion, then not be able to make 6 in the next. Just by virtue of experience the Legion quality was always going to be better than WoD's.

Then when you consider that:
1. WoD had fewer major content patches
2. They made us wait just as long as other expansions for Legion
3. They had a 50% larger development team for years
4. Two of the five zones were already in production 2 years ago

It doesn't make sense that Legion has fewer zones than WoD.

[Kezotar]

It's not about the quantity, it's about he quality.

Why does a number matter to you? Can't you just be happy that these zones are extremely well made?

Would you be happy with 10 zones that were all shit?

Because I want quality and quantity.
Of course quality becomes better with the years. That's normal. However, with Blizzard it seems you're getting less quantity if the quality increases. Back in Vanilla, all the zones were pretty good quality for the time.

[Deleted]

Quite honestly, leveling zones are worthless. 2 would already be too many for me. I would rather have max level content. You blast through leveling zones in a couple of hours. Its a waste of resources.

[styil]

Quite honestly, leveling zones are worthless. 2 would already be too many for me. I would rather have max level content. You blast through leveling zones in a couple of hours. Its a waste of resources.

It could have been any zone. We could've had 2 max level Legion zones at launch for instance for a total of 6 (same as WoD). But for some reason or another, we have less than WoD.

[Kezotar]

I can't even take your response seriously... the amount of content available in Wrath at launch DWARFS that of Legion. Having played both I can compare first hand.

Exactly. You could actually pick, and let's not be confused by that alone, it took time, a lot of quests, a lot of stuff to do. Compared to today.
90-100 in 3 zones.
Back then it was 70-75 in 3 zones. Zones were bigger, rewarded less experience so you could enjoy the whole world.

inb4 leveling is only a short stop. then remove leveling and stop wasting time on content labeled as zones.

- - - Updated - - -

for me its a waste of resources.

fixd that for you

[Krawu]

You don't outlevel those 5 zones though, making them all end-game relevant (I hope)
That might've been the reason why it took them so long just to make those, put in the world quests etc.
What concerns me are the reports that there aren't actually enough XP available through quests in all five zones to get to level 110. Or have they fixed that yet?

[Paulosio]

You dont get the logic, once again.

There is no logic to be understood. The "number of zones" is an extremely arbitrary way of comparing the ammount of world content.

If memory serves me correctly, during early MOP beta, Krasarang and Valley of the Four Winds were technically 1 zone... They literally chopped them in half to make an extra zone without actually creating more content. Now by your "logic" there's an extra zone which makes you happier... By my logic there's still the same ammount of content as before.

A zone is just an area on the map with a name. If they removed the individual names from each "zone" in Legion and just called the entire thing "The Broken Isles" on the map would you be even more disappointed because you now only had 1 zone rather than 5 (even though the ammount of content was exactly the same)? Each zone has named sub zones (same goes for zones in every expansion). Why don't you compare content in each xpac via the total number of sub zones in the xpac ? It's no less arbitrary than what you are doing in comparing content by number of zones.

Same goes for the argument people making about the number of raids dropping in each xpac. They ignore the fact many raids in former xpacs contained 1 boss.... And that even some actual tier raids only had 6 or 7 bosses Yet they make those raids equal to a 10+ boss raid in their arithmetic when comparing the quantities of content in each xpac.