The Lore and Secrets of the Shrouded Moors, New Diablo 3 Zone Coming in Patch 2.6

Top HearthPwn Standard and Wild Decks of the Week for July 2

Fan Art - Naxxramas Trailer
Hurricane is back with another trailer, this time for Naxxramas.



Dev Interview
Jesse Cox and Crendor had the opportunity to talk to Ion Hazzikostas recently.


  • There are no plans to increase the item level of items that drop from existing world bosses. World bosses are extensions of raid tiers.
  • Dungeons are one of the big success stories of Legion. In older expansions, there was a huge spike in dungeon participation early in the expansion and then it rapidly dropped off. In Legion, through a mix of adding new dungeons, updating the difficulty baseline and rewards, as well as the Mythic Keystone system, we are seeing people to continue to dungeons as a parallel or complement to raiding.
  • It seems very likely we will have more dragon story in the future. Certainly when you are Level 112, as you learn in the Chromie scenario, dragons are going to be very important.
  • There are terrible void creatures out there and an unexplored set of worlds. That is something the team is looking forward to tapping into in the future.
  • Argus would have made a monotonous setting for an expansion. It's an awesome place, but is a husk of a world that has been destroyed by the Legion. It isn't a place where we can have a bright and happy zone or civilizations that are flourishing and interesting to interact with.
  • Draenor was a brutal and savage world, but had the Arroka and the rolling plains of Nagrand. Argus doesn't have that and wouldn't support that.
  • Players often say they miss being a humble adventurer, rather than being a hero and champion. The story has advanced beyond that. When you are Level 90 or 100, you aren't just a faceless person anymore. You have defeated Onyxia, defeated the Lich King, defeated other great threats to the world, so you are becoming a peer to other heroes like Thrall, Jaina, and Varian. As we get stronger, the threats we face get stronger. At the same time, the team tries to keep in mind relative power scales. When we took on Deathwing, we had the assistance of the dragon aspects to make it a fair fight.
  • On Argus, we find a Legion portal network that allows the Legion to assault other worlds. You go through these portals to Rift worlds using riftstones from Kil'jaeden's ship, allowing you to get a glimpse of all new planets around the cosmos. You clear out the Legion invasion force, fight a boss, do an event, and complete an objective there. This provides some variation to Argus and allows us to see some different settings.
  • What's happening on Argus is the culmination of Azeroth's defense against the threat that the Legion poses. Could Argus be used for something else in the future? Who knows. It's an important location, the homeworld of the Draenei, a very important place, but the purpose it serves in the Legion story is defeating the Legion.


Darkmoon Faire - Blight Boar
The Darkmoon Faire is back in town with the addition of the Blight Boar band. Collect a toy, cage helmet, and guitar 2H mace from this event, as well as several achievements.



Tomb of Sargeras Progression
Several guilds are now at 7/9 in Mythic Tomb of Sargeras. Method is doing detailed coverage of the race!



Blue Tweets
Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
Just obliterated 3 pieces of pvp gear and only got 3 Echoes of Battle in total. Is this a bug?
You can now obliterate Legion Season 4 Battleground-quality gear for a few Echoes. Gladiator gear is worth more. (WarcraftDevs)

Ghostcrawler Tweets
Ghostcrawler still occasionally talks about WoW. Remember that he no longer works for or speaks for Blizzard.
Originally Posted by MMO-Champion
On the matter of player experience: do you think that the average player wants a game design that is created in a manner that they immerse themselves in and don`t realize they`re dealing with gameplay mechanics, decisions and overall game design elements, or do you think that the average player prefers to face to-do mission lists, itemization tables, gameplay-oriented character decisions and interfaces that make the whole game experience feel and look like a mission control panel?
This is a good question to talk about the difference between how players sometimes think about development, and how developers think about development… or at the very least, how I advocate that developers should be thinking about development.

I wouldn’t approach your question in terms of what the average player wants, but instead what kind of game you as a game developer want to make. You should have a vision for your game, and goals you are trying to meet, and an experience you want players to have.

The risk you run whenever you start worrying about what the average player would like (even if you are limiting that to the average player of your game) is that you can quickly to get to a least-common-denominator / designed-by-committee design. You can end up with a design that doesn’t offend anyone but doesn’t inspire anyone either. I love Dark Souls. I understand that it isn’t for everyone, and trying to make it more broadly appealing would probably greatly erode things that I love about the game (like the difficulty, hidden information, experimentation, and so on).

It’s a subtle distinction perhaps, but I think the development process should not be:

1) Ask players want they want
2) Build what they want.

Instead, it should be:

1) Come up with the kind of game you are trying to make
2) Ask players if your design is meeting this goal
3) Iterate until it does (or until you change your goal)

It’s kind of like the scientific method, where ideally you formulate a hypothesis first and then go get data.

So you may just be describing two different games in your original question. If I wanted a game that rewarded exploration and experimentation (something like Breath of the Wild), then I would go for the first one (the “immersive” one.). If I wanted a game where players were supposed to log in almost every day to check out what is going on, or maybe a really competitive game where comparing achievements and avoiding wasting time were both paramount, then I’d go for your second one (”mission control panel”). Those two games might have overlap in who enjoys them, but they might attract different “average players” as well. (Source)



Diablols - Rise of the Necromancer
This Diablols focuses on the Necromancer!

This article was originally published in forum thread: Fan Art - Naxxramas, Dev Interview, Blight Boar, ToS Progression, Tweets, Diablols started by chaud View original post
Comments 44 Comments
  1. Onikaroshi's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by oldgeezer View Post
    RTS seems to be pretty much over as a genre, South Korean Starcrafters aside.
    Don't you dare say this! I'll keep waiting for the next big RTS while playing my WC2/3 and my C&C over here (not 4 though, 4's a piece of garbage).
  1. Alopex Major's Avatar
    Dungeons having more relevance was a great idea in theory but horribly executed, like a lot of things WoW does. It's my hope that they actually rebuild the system from the ground up but I'm way too cynical to believe that'll actually happen. They'll just announce it a great success and jam it in there, like they did with garrisons.

    And I'm one of those who is so over the "chosen one" thing. WoW's storyline and structure does not allow for each character to be the big important hero, nor does their writing make it work -- it's just corny. I really wish they'd stop trying to force it already. Their justification makes no sense, either, if I boost a new 100 character, he hasn't done all those things. By their reasoning he should be permitted to just be an average adventurer, but he's not.
  1. Bormec's Avatar
    Holy crap, that Naxx trailer. Blizzard, hire this person! I want to see Hurricane even attempt to make the Argent Tournament look epic...
  1. mmoc63e7652113's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Vajarra View Post
    Dungeons having more relevance was a great idea in theory but horribly executed, like a lot of things WoW does. It's my hope that they actually rebuild the system from the ground up but I'm way too cynical to believe that'll actually happen. They'll just announce it a great success and jam it in there, like they did with garrisons.

    And I'm one of those who is so over the "chosen one" thing. WoW's storyline and structure does not allow for each character to be the big important hero, nor does their writing make it work -- it's just corny. I really wish they'd stop trying to force it already. Their justification makes no sense, either, if I boost a new 100 character, he hasn't done all those things. By their reasoning he should be permitted to just be an average adventurer, but he's not.
    Are you saying every paladin player being the boss of every other paladin player and every paladin having ashbringer is a bad idea for an mmo? They dont seem to get it for some reason that its immersion breaking and bad design. Since garrisons the game is like a single player world which you happen to share with everyone who are other versions of you in the same story. Its like running around in the Normandy in Mass Effect and bumping into another Shepard. You are wrong about the dungeons though, if there was one thing that made the game better out of all the things they imported from Diablo 3: RoS was they Rift system aka keystones. Dungeons are worth replaying, kept fun because of changing affixes, give relevant rewards and always challenging regardless of skill level.
  1. Asaliah's Avatar
    The trailer is impressive !
  1. dalrint's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by amplitudelol View Post
    Are you saying every paladin player being the boss of every other paladin player and every paladin having ashbringer is a bad idea for an mmo? They dont seem to get it for some reason that its immersion breaking and bad design. Since garrisons the game is like a single player world which you happen to share with everyone who are other versions of you in the same story. Its like running around in the Normandy in Mass Effect and bumping into another Shepard. You are wrong about the dungeons though, if there was one thing that made the game better out of all the things they imported from Diablo 3: RoS was they Rift system aka keystones. Dungeons are worth replaying, kept fun because of changing affixes, give relevant rewards and always challenging regardless of skill level.
    The thing is, successful MMOs function this way now. Final Fantasy XIV (the only real competition to WoW, really) has the main character as the hero of the story. Because it works. It lets people feel more connected, rather than being a faceless grunt in a giant world. Elder Scrolls does it too, albeit to a lesser extent. So does/did The Old Republic.

    It's just the way the genre moved.
  1. reauxmont's Avatar
    So, no one is picking up on Riftstones and how WoW is slowly becoming a Diablo MMO? I'm surprised!
  1. Tome's Avatar
    So Blizzard is not aware of their lore but still insist to cater to the single player game crowd and say how amazing and heroic their character is so they can feel a little bit more special, but the catch is a completely fucked up story and overall lore.

    It's so damn sad.
  1. Insofin's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by oldgeezer View Post
    Also, RTS seems to be pretty much over as a genre, South Korean Starcrafters aside.
    Starcraft Remastered, Age of Empires: Definitive Edition, Civilization, Total War (Warcraft 3 remastered when they launch it) and the likes say otherwise.

    It might not be as popular as other genres. But RTS is always there. We people who love RTS are just waiting for a proper RTS to launch. And SC2 wasn't a proper RTS. It had many problems (mainly map and species balance, but also didn't offer much variety of strategies).
  1. mmoc43f5270cf6's Avatar
    Thing is, if we were not treated as heroes, but as mercenaries or adventurers, people would bitch about how it's not realistic because we killed such and such. Moral of the story: you cannot please every one. And I agree that some things are handled poorly, and are immersion breaking ( Artifact weapons and Class Halls being the major offenders ), but they are also pretty good game mechanics ( artifact makes you invested in a character, class halls had pretty good stories and they add a ton of content that makes you feel connected to you character, etc. ).

    Also, keep in mind that the RPG and especially fantasy RPG genre is very VERY heavily inspired by the Fantasy novel style ( Tolkien, Martin, Gemmel, etc. ) which do place the protagonist in a setting where he can become the hero ( from zero to hero basically ). And this in itself is a writing technique as old as stories, you want your audience to connect to the story, so you make a character start out as an ordinary joe, like most of the audience, and then go from there. Complaining about this when our group of heroes fought an Old God, Dragons and the most powerful necromancer of all times 12 years ago, in vanilla, then were sent to Outland as a powerful reckon force and stomped the place ( etc, etc... ) is nonsensical at best, and just a lack of self-awareness at worst. We've been heroes for more than a decade. Welcome to WoW.
  1. Insofin's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Azzeh View Post
    Thing is, if we were not treated as heroes, but as mercenaries or adventurers, people would bitch about how it's not realistic because we killed such and such. Moral of the story: you cannot please every one. And I agree that some things are handled poorly, and are immersion breaking ( Artifact weapons and Class Halls being the major offenders ), but they are also pretty good game mechanics ( artifact makes you invested in a character, class halls had pretty good stories and they add a ton of content that makes you feel connected to you character, etc. ).

    Also, keep in mind that the RPG and especially fantasy RPG genre is very VERY heavily inspired by the Fantasy novel style ( Tolkien, Martin, Gemmel, etc. ) which do place the protagonist in a setting where he can become the hero ( from zero to hero basically ). And this in itself is a writing technique as old as stories, you want your audience to connect to the story, so you make a character start out as an ordinary joe, like most of the audience, and then go from there. Complaining about this when our group of heroes fought an Old God, Dragons and the most powerful necromancer of all times 12 years ago, in vanilla, then were sent to Outland as a powerful reckon force and stomped the place ( etc, etc... ) is nonsensical at best, and just a lack of self-awareness at worst. We've been heroes for more than a decade. Welcome to WoW.
    That's why I've always defended that WoW should have "ended" with WotLK (which was the closing chapter of the W3 ending), and that they should have started a new project to "renew" the gameplay/story.

    With a new project (be it RTS or another MMORPG called WoW2), thay could have handled this problem pretty easily... Or in a more easier, satisfying way than they've done with WoW. They could have set up the path for a new generation of adventurers who took the lead from the previous champions (that would be us), who for unknown reasons, failed to defeat the new enemies. Or long story short, it would allow Blizzard for enemies to defeat "us" without actually defeating us (aka making a boss impossible to kill), renewing the status completely.
  1. mmoc43f5270cf6's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Insofin View Post
    That's why I've always defended that WoW should have "ended" with WotLK (which was the closing chapter of the W3 ending), and that they should have started a new project to "renew" the gameplay/story.

    With a new project (be it RTS or another MMORPG called WoW2), thay could have handled this problem pretty easily... Or in a more easier, satisfying way than they've done with WoW. They could have set up the path for a new generation of adventurers who took the lead from the previous champions (that would be us), who for unknown reasons, failed to defeat the new enemies. Or long story short, it would allow Blizzard for enemies to defeat "us" without actually defeating us (aka making a boss impossible to kill), renewing the status completely.
    I agree with that, but I understand why they didn't. In WotLK, WoW was at its highest point ever (12M subs) and every company on the market was working on a "WoW Killer", pouring millions into new games ( remember Conan Online? ) which indicated that the genre was doing good as a whole, and the market was interested. From a pure business perspective, it would have been a stupid move to stop, and let the competition win not to mention that WoW was making Blizz/Activision a shitton of money. If you think about it that's why Blizz made Cata, which was a VERY bold move: whole world changed, plot moved in a very different direction, graphic update, etc... They would not have done it without the massive success WoW had previously.

    Even now, with WoW subs being relatively low, WoW makes more money each quarter than the last ( see their quarterly report to investors ). So just stopping now, and hoping the next installment of the franchise will do well, is bold. Too bold for Activision to handle.

    Also, let's not forget that the whole market shifted, MMORPG is a dying genre, it requires a big time investment, as well as a particular social skillset ( being able to talk, cooperate and bond with a group of strangers over microphone, and spend 4h+ per week with them wiping on bosses, on top of the overwhelming social pressure we have now with social media, etc. is not easy for everyone ) especially for the younger generation who for better or worse are used to a more fast-paced culture and communication style ( Simon Sinek has a great talk about it, go watch it ). So yeah, it's not just a game, it's a product, and we have to keep that in mind.
  1. Jasper Kazai's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Vajarra View Post
    And I'm one of those who is so over the "chosen one" thing. WoW's storyline and structure does not allow for each character to be the big important hero, nor does their writing make it work -- it's just corny. I really wish they'd stop trying to force it already. Their justification makes no sense, either, if I boost a new 100 character, he hasn't done all those things. By their reasoning he should be permitted to just be an average adventurer, but he's not.
    Yeah. I recently powerleveled an alt with some friends, and all we did was spam dungeons once we hit level 15. When I got to Dalaran and established the class hall, they're all like we're putting you on the council because of your heroic deeds. And I'm like what are you talking about, I sat in Stormwind for 90 levels.

    It's dumb. There is a difference between being a hero and the hero. They need to lean into the former more. We should be special, but not the chosen one.
  1. enzi's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Sicc View Post
    Pls Blizzard get inspired by that Fan Naxx trailer. It looks like wow had better graphics even though it is using old models (not that the current one doesn't look like a huge upgrade, but it seems like we are missing something other than just high poly models). Lightning and particle effects makes wonders. It feels so dynamic.
    Yeah, I said this in the last thread about Argus that Blizzard should get going with implementing volumetric fog/light with Mie/Rayleigh scattering. Nowadays it's a cheap effect and can be integrated in any deferred rendering pipeline with ease.
    It's mmo-champ so I got flamed, lol.
  1. Dianora's Avatar
    As always the hunter pulled.
  1. Arvandor's Avatar
    best wow trailer ive seen so far!

    hope is not forgotten..
  1. Insofin's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Azzeh View Post
    I agree with that, but I understand why they didn't. In WotLK, WoW was at its highest point ever (12M subs) and every company on the market was working on a "WoW Killer", pouring millions into new games ( remember Conan Online? ) which indicated that the genre was doing good as a whole, and the market was interested. From a pure business perspective, it would have been a stupid move to stop, and let the competition win not to mention that WoW was making Blizz/Activision a shitton of money. If you think about it that's why Blizz made Cata, which was a VERY bold move: whole world changed, plot moved in a very different direction, graphic update, etc... They would not have done it without the massive success WoW had previously.
    I wasn't referring to completely stopping WoW development. I was referring that instead of launch new expansions (with all the amount of work that it implies), they should have focused on a new game, and launch some "Minor" patches from time to time (like a Trolls patch, for example).

    Quote Originally Posted by Azzeh View Post
    Even now, with WoW subs being relatively low, WoW makes more money each quarter than the last ( see their quarterly report to investors ). So just stopping now, and hoping the next installment of the franchise will do well, is bold. Too bold for Activision to handle.
    By implementing methods that have nothing to do with the game quality: microtransactions (ingame shop).

    Imagine the sh*tton of money they'd make if they made a good game with microtransactions...

    Quote Originally Posted by Azzeh View Post
    Also, let's not forget that the whole market shifted, MMORPG is a dying genre
    It's a dying genre, but WoW (and other MMOs) are not only being on green numbers, but they're providing more benefit than ever (WoW is an example)... Something's not right? (ironic question)
    A genre becoming "minor" doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. ARPGs were also a big hit not so long ago, and now they've "fallen to oblivion", yet still provide benefits.

    And well, let's not forget. Kids and young players play what it's trendy. Back when cibercafes were a thing, the trend was playing "lan games", like CS, Quake or Age of Empires. Later on, the trend moved to Half-life 2, Diablo 2 and others. Then it moved to WoW and the likes, and it's now set mainly in MOBAs, with LoL and DotA as most played MOBA games (with over 100M players).
    The only genre that has been always "alive" (in the sense you're using), is the FPS games. There's always been at least one FPS with enough players to keep the genre as "Popular". Be it Counter Strike, Quake, Wolfenstein, Battlefield, Call of Duty or the recent Overwatch.
  1. Telwar's Avatar
    That was a damn good trailer.
  1. Tupolew519's Avatar
    this looks much more better than earlier.
  1. mmoc43f5270cf6's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Insofin View Post
    Too much to quote, but i'll adress your points
    I did not misunderstand, but making a game and an expansion are very VERY different things. An expansion does NOT require a brand new graphic engine, re-thought gameplay, new models, re-thought UX and UI, redesigned server structure, way more marketing than an expansion, etc. And you need to get ALL those things right, because you're Blizzard/Activision and it's expected of you ( and you want to make money, so you need a good game ). And you're suggesting a separate team working on minor patches too... Not saying your idea is bad, I actually agree with you, a new game after WotLK would have been awesome, but I worked for big 'modern' companies, and the amount of work we think is needed for anything is almost always twice as much if not more than that.
    Let's not forget than humans work there, with hierarchy, corporate pressure, differences of opinion and god knows what else ( and tbf, some of my friends worked for Blizz, and it seems like an awesome place to work at, but still... ).

    Yes, they are making money with micro-transactions that do not disturb the gameplay in any way, so, fair game I say. And they did make a good game with micro-transactions, it's called Hearthstone and they are printing money ^^. No, seriously, as I said, making a new game, especially one that is supposed to be replayable as shit and on a scale like WoW vanilla was at least, is a HUGE investment in terms of time and money and also a HUGE gamble.

    Making money does not mean it's not dying. It just means it's good at making money. And that makes total sense actually, they have less server costs as population lowers, but the players that's left are the most dedicated ones, or the ones just starting out ( buying all the expansions, etc. ), so they spend more money than the average joe. Less costs, more money going in : benefit going up. We're just forgetting that they're also optimizing a lot of stuff behind the scenes ( optimizing server load and bandwidth cost, optimizing payement flows, adding revenue sources ( WoW Token ) etc... ) that makes them a lot of money. Also, you never evaluate any sector by just the amount of money it produces. An example would be oil. Still makes a SHITTON of money, but they're going to die out and soon. Many other sectors and industries are facing or will face similar problems as automation comes along too.

    And yes, kids play what's popular, I very much agree, but as I said, MMOs require a very specific time commitment and social mindset. Do you think it's a coincidence that MOBAs, Card games and mobile games are the most popular genres right now? It's really not, we socially move towards a 'swipe right/left' world, with comfort and availability being the prime concerns ( and i'm not talking about Tinder only, but just the convenience business in general, like Uber, Deliveroo, Amazon Echo, Spotify, etc ). It's the same for games: click on a button, get paired up with people, play for a set amount of time, then leave. It's entertainment on demand which does not mix well in a Role Playing Game where most of the fun, by definition AND design is making your fun be it on tabletop RPGs or online in MMOs. So, yeah, as we evolve as a society ( and we are evolving quickly: just ten years ago, facebook was not a thing, neither were smartphones ) and our entertainment ( games, movies, shows, etc ) are evolving with us

Site Navigation