Dragonflight Alpha/Beta General Discussion

[Foreign Exchange Ztudent]

More zones doesn't mean quality though which is what you stated is the core issue in earlier posts. So why are you now saying that seeing a 6 instead of a 4 automatically means more quality and more content? It is quite easy to deliver less content even though zone number is higher if they reuse assets, right? You just have a whole bunch of issues you are trying to cram into one box labeled "Zone count" rather then letting those issues exist on their own.

Either way, I don't like the Zone Count of Dragonflight. It is worrying as WoW is a precedent based game and low Zone counts could lead to same Zone counts going forward. Megazones are cool if they are putting the budget and art team at full effort. But, again it could be cost saving measure and a precedent of low/reduction of zone count going forward.

Whether my worries are correct or not remains to be seen, what I do think is that it is silly to ascertain that 4 Zones is normal even if they are Megazones. Yes, we may get two more Major Patch Content Islands too. But, that's up in the air.

I like Megazones, I just hope that it won't mean that we are reducing zone count solely due to Megazones being a concept that now exists in the franchise going forward.

[rhorle]

Either way, I don't like the Zone Count of Dragonflight. It is worrying as WoW is a precedent based game and low Zone counts could lead to same Zone counts going forward. Megazones are cool if they are putting the budget and art team at full effort. But, again it could be cost saving measure and a precedent of low/reduction of zone count going forward.

Yet you would automatically be fine if the same Megazone was split into smaller zones. You don't see the absurdity of that? A megazone means they are not going to put the full budge and effort into the zone but it being 4 smaller zones means they will. Zone count is just a number. It is meaningless to any content of the zones or quality of the zones.

[wowrefugee]

For most ppl here it’s maybe a good advice to read the Galakrond/Apsects novell

https://www.amazon.com/World-Warcraf...009036&sr=8-16

Thanks for this. Currently listening to Sylvanas audiobook, I'll try this one next.

edit: lmao @ this discussion going on.

Yes, small numbers bad, big numbers good.

[Foreign Exchange Ztudent]

Yet you would automatically be fine if the same Megazone was split into smaller zones. You don't see the absurdity of that? A megazone means they are not going to put the full budge and effort into the zone but it being 4 smaller zones means they will. Zone count is just a number. It is meaningless to any content of the zones or quality of the zones.

I don't get why we're getting into the topic of basic math. If you chopped the zones up into more zones that would mean more zones, yes. Chopping up a Megazone that has themed biomes into more zones would mean more zones.

The point here is the precedent it sets. WoW is already suffering from extreme reduction in content to the player and as such Zone count going to an alarming number of 4 for a continent is extremely alarming as this will set precedent for the next expansions going forward.

The issue here is the principle idea that them telling us that a selling point of the expansion is 4 Megazones is alarming as it means they might intend to keep this trend of zone design in which they say "Hang on, you wanted Megazones. Well, our compromise is that we only create continents with 4 Megazones going forward and nothing more.".

[wowrefugee]

I don't get why we're getting into the topic of basic math. If you chopped the zones up into more zones that would mean more zones, yes. Chopping up a Megazone that has themed biomes into more zones would mean more zones.

The point here is the precedent it sets. WoW is already suffering from extreme reduction in content to the player and as such Zone count going to an alarming number of 4 for a continent is extremely alarming as this will set precedent for the next expansions going forward.

The issue here is the principle idea that them telling us that a selling point of the expansion is 4 Megazones is alarming as it means they might intend to keep this trend of zone design in which they say "Hang on, you wanted Megazones. Well, our compromise is that we only create continents with 4 Megazones going forward and nothing more.".

What if megazones are better and have more content than tiny clustered zones we have now

The reason basic math is brought up is because thats what your argument hinges on: "5 is better than 4" irregardless of any other factors

[rhorle]

I don't get why we're getting into the topic of basic math. If you chopped the zones up into more zones that would mean more zones, yes. Chopping up a Megazone that has themed biomes into more zones would mean more zones.

Because you were using math as a reason to complain? Legion only have 5 zones at launch. Shadowlands had only 5 at launch. There is no precedent being set here. You can be alarmed about quality of work but don't try to use math and the number of zone as the reason. Because it is irrelevant.

[Foreign Exchange Ztudent]

What if megazones are better and have more content than tiny clustered zones we have now

The reason basic math is brought up is because thats what your argument hinges on: "5 is better than 4" irregardless of any other factors

I mean my argument basis is that WoW is a precedent based game. Design that lingers for a decade exists based on stupid shit like this argument. 4 Zones being showcased as enough for the base product could lead to 4 zones being the new normal for the base product going forward which is troubling.

Normalizing 4 Zones as the maximum in the base product is the problem at play here.

The problem is we're seeing the argument for this worry basically being destroyed by the argument that the zones are bigger in which I think its' rather silly cause we have no idea on the content of the zones or what is in the zone. Whether they will be anything more than just WQ node blitzing at max level and whether the utilization of the zones during levelling will be good or not.

[Alanar]

Oh, it's fascinating how they are absolutely fuming over DF, mainly because of Drakebois.

Not directly about the poster or what ever, but I see some repetitive things that made more sense around legion and before, but this time around after their second try, (Sl) the forums were heated with skepticism. Now that we are here in time.. we suddenly forgot the past and we should just have full faith in them? According to some, the skepticism doesn't seem justified It feels like.. we are back to square one and a repeat of: oo it's only alpha...oo it's only beta, wait for your judgement etc etc.
At this point, there is no wait and see anymore. Ofc things can still be not ready, but they even told us they are far along. So not showing much and the weird reveal they did this year makes it feel off. That being said..I do understand the criticism in general.

edit: 5 zones, isn't that with the new strating zone for Dracthyr included? so for any non evokers it's 4?

[wowrefugee]

The problem is we're seeing the argument for this worry basically being destroyed by the argument that the zones are bigger in which I think its' rather silly cause we have no idea on the content of the zones or what is in the zone. Whether they will be anything more than just WQ node blitzing at max level.

why is the opposing argument silly, but you dont consider your argument silly?

you have no idea about the zones either! lmao

[rhorle]

Normalizing 4 Zones as the maximum in the base product is the problem at play here.

Even if those 4 zones are equal to the 10 zones of Northrend? It also ignores how 5 zones more often the the normal with Northrend being an outlier. So your fear of a decade long precedent is over 1 less zone then the normal. Again you are using math instead of simply talking about quality.

Quality zones will always be better then more zones of less quality. Just as quality zones will always be better then less zones of lesser quality. The number of zones is irrelevant to your concerns yet you keep making it all about the number of zones.

[Foreign Exchange Ztudent]

why is the opposing argument silly, but you dont consider your argument silly?

you have no idea about the zones either! lmao

I mean there's 4 zones, that's the point. I can actually argue from my standpoint because it is a numerical fact that Dragonflight consists of 4 zones. The argument against those 4 zones is that they are Megazones at a maximized scale of Northrend and "might" be utilized well due to its scale. Again the zones themselves is unknown since we have no idea on the zones and what they will contain etc.

Even if those 4 zones are equal to the 10 zones of Northrend? It also ignores how 5 zones more often the the normal with Northrend being an outlier. So your fear of a decade long precedent is over 1 less zone then the normal. Again you are using math instead of simply talking about quality.

Quality zones will always be better then more zones of less quality. Just as quality zones will always be better then less zones of lesser quality. The number of zones is irrelevant to your concerns yet you keep making it all about the number of zones.

In a game in which we are fighting for scraps in most cases and can barely get 3 Major content patches. I would be very alarmed at this idea of trust in Quality being a signifier.

I would rather believe in the hard math of which we know there are 4 zones and the precedent that hard math can set for the future of how many zones each expansion will consist of going forward.

Less is not always more and in this circumstance more is preferential than to the precedent it sets in which the audience receives less zones to zoom through the skies and also less zones for future expansions potentially.

[boyzma]

I mean my argument basis is that WoW is a precedent based game. Design that lingers for a decade exists based on stupid shit like this argument. 4 Zones being showcased as enough for the base product could lead to 4 zones being the new normal for the base product going forward which is troubling.

Normalizing 4 Zones as the maximum in the base product is the problem at play here.

The problem is we're seeing the argument for this worry basically being destroyed by the argument that the zones are bigger in which I think its' rather silly cause we have no idea on the content of the zones or what is in the zone. Whether they will be anything more than just WQ node blitzing at max level and whether the utilization of the zones during levelling will be good or not.

Your argument makes no sense what so ever. Pull your fingers out of your ears and listen. Doesn't matter how many zones the chop it into...4,5, 20....30....so what. Still going to have the same terrain, same creatures, same everything no matter how many pieces the put it out as. Just stop.

[Nightshade711]

I don't understand people getting mad at the 4 zones... especially when together they're supposed to be bigger than Northrend...

There's no difference in having 4 megazones and having 8+ zones that are just the previous 4 zones but split by biome using an imaginary line.


I am anticipating that the Dracthyr zone will make a return in future content/patches though.

[Alexjimithing]

I mean there's 4 zones, that's the point. I can actually argue from my standpoint because it is a numerical fact that Dragonflight consists of 4 zones. The argument against those 4 zones is that they are Megazones at a maximized scale of Northrend and "might" be utilized well due to its scale.

You can't argue from your standpoint anymore than anyone else making assumptions.

There being 4 zones instead of 5 lends no additional validity to the complete assumption that the zones will be lacking in content.

[therumblings]

The time to get mad at there only being 4 leveling zones was 7 years ago.

[Foreign Exchange Ztudent]

The time to get mad at there only being 4 leveling zones was 7 years ago.

Yeah and it was all about precedent back then too.

[Hyrja]

BFA had 3 leveling zones per faction and SL had 4 too. Whats the matter?

[rhorle]

I would rather believe in the hard math of which we know there are 4 zones and the precedent that hard math can set for the future of how many zones each expansion will consist of going forward.

More is not always better quality. Why did you question my focus on math when you are using math as the sole argument? That 4 is automatically less quality and 5 is automatically more quality because it is greater then 4.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I don't mind Northrend size continents as a standard so /shrug same with 5 zones but I digress.

[Foreign Exchange Ztudent]

I don't know people are being too obtuse when arguing about numericals when those numbers still are higher than the 4 Zones in Dragonflight.

Again, fundamentally I think the Zone Number is way too low for a base product and even if the zones are massive and completely amazing. That doesn't mean it is not worrying that the precedent it sets is 4 Megazones each expansion + 2 Megazones for Content Islands.

Blizzard always has and will always be a company with ulterior motives. Again I just found the 4 Zones strikingly weird and a big red flag because it stands in contrast to their focus on content building with the new Content Team. It just doesn't add up.

Again, its fine to disagree. I have no problems with that. I just think this odd circumstance of quality winning over quantity is frankly absurd in the context of a video game in which we can quantify the work put into it by what is available to the consumer.