Dragonflight Alpha/Beta General Discussion

[Nyel]

You're right. But it is quite mental gymnastics to say that a new class is not content.

Because it's a feature and not content. Content is stuff to do. A class is not something "you do". You do stuff with your class. You don't do your class. That's the main difference between content and a feature.

- - - Updated - - -

By this logic any expansion prior to BfA is light on content, with Legion just barely scraping by with grinding artifacts, and not having anything like Islands, Warfronts, or Torghast.

Just on the barest surface level DF will have as much content as Legion, and likely even better quality given the lack of developers distractions like needing to justify Torghast or making more Islands for islands expeditions.

Not really though?

Legion still introduced Mythic+ and world quests. Content that is still in Dragonflight but has been pretty diminished and worn off over the years. Both are not as exciting as they were back in 2016. They are still there, but they are base game content that is seen as mandatory nowadays. Similar to daily quests which were brand new in 2007 but are base game content now already (and nobody would question that, right?).

- - - Updated - - -

The sheer fact that Dragonriding improves as you progress endgame puts it at the bare minimum at the level of content provided by covenant teleportation mechanics, and given its actual movement mechanics it's at least an improvement on running mindlessly in circles around the main hub like WoW players are wont to do.

Beyond that though, we do have the developers talking about the possibility of using Dragonriding in the context of challenges like races now that's it's an actual mechanic, and there is a feature of Dragonriding relating to customizing your dragon, meaning likely challenges related to rarer appearances, so there is tangible content to Dragonriding beyond just being something fun.

I never thought about calling Covenant teleportation mechanics - or anything fluff-related to Covenants - content. At least I never said that is content. When I refer to Covenants I usually do so because of a) their questline and b) their skills, soulbinds etc. which altered your gameplay quite a lot.

"The possibility" doesn't equal that we will have that. Not saying it won't come, but they have given us nothing in the last weeks to support their announcement. I just find Dragonriding - based on what we know as of now - incredibly dull. But that's due to how they presented it. I'm not denying that it could be fun and a good addition to the game in the end. But we're barely there yet to draw that conclusion.

- - - Updated - - -

You realize this isn't annoucement?

Yeah, it's Blizzcon. And yeah, I know Legion was announced at Gamescom.

[Dracullus]

Yeah, it's Blizzcon. And yeah, I know Legion was announced at Gamescom.

Then how is it "putting a rest to the argument they didn't show everything major during the announcement"?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Because it's a feature and not content. Content is stuff to do. A class is not something "you do". You do stuff with your class. You don't do your class. That's the main difference between content and a feature.

Technically all of the the added classes (baring monk) also come with something “you do” as they all have there own starting experience of various lengths.

You could also argue that they are content if you are doing arena‘s as the maps you play aren’t the content there it’s how your class plays against other classes.

[Nyel]

Technically all of the the added classes (baring monk) also come with something “you do” as they all have there own starting experience of various lengths.

You could also argue that they are content if you are doing arena‘s as the map law puts aren’t the content there it’s how our class plays against other classes.

With that logic everything becomes content and features don't exist anymore. Allied races would be content because of their 10 minute questline. Normal races would be content because of their racials.

Some really need to check the definition between content and a feature. Order Halls were content. Artifacts a feature. An artifact weapon, as much as a class (a feature), is the tool you need to do the Order Hall (content).

[Makabreska]

With that logic everything becomes content and features don't exist anymore. Allied races would be content because of their 10 minute questline. Normal races would be content because of their racials.

Some really need to check the definition between content and a feature.

And here is the thing. We do not have a definition. There is no WoW dictionary that clearly shows what is and is not content.

[rhorle]

Thank you, someone finally putting a rest to the argument they didn't show everything major during the announcement.

Legion was announced at Gamescon and not Blizzcon so the post you are thanking isn't the annoucement. However they did cover a lot of systems during the Gamescon presentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LufIi32F64

- - - Updated - - -

With that logic everything becomes content and features don't exist anymore.

And what is wrong with that? All you are doing is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand on what is a feature and what is content. They are one and the same. A feature is content and content is a feature.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

With that logic everything becomes content and features don't exist anymore. Allied races would be content because of their 10 minute questline. Normal races would be content because of their racials.

Some really need to check the definition between content and a feature. Order Halls were content. Artifacts a feature.

While allied races wouldn’t be content them selfs unlocking them 100% would be as unlike the hero classes you don’t get any extra allied race only quest.

And if order halls are content thenThe post tbc races would also be content as well as pandarian worgen and goblins all have quest lines that only they can do and that’s all order halls offered questlines Locked to each class.

[Ersula]

And here is the thing. We do not have a definition. There is no WoW dictionary that clearly shows what is and is not content.

Yes, but you can understand the dicotomy he is using.

We have a list of Dragonflight's features. We know there is no equivalent to Torghast or Island Expeditions or Warfronts in Dragonflight. And the features we are getting are a bit dubious. This could be a good thing, if they focus on the pillars of Dungeons, Raids, PVP & Crafting, like it was in WotLK. Not to mention this will let the game come out sooner.

But when people say "Dragon Flight seems light on features" you know what they're talking about.

[Revamp Man]

But isn't crafting just reduced to getting (aka crafting) better gear? And that's exactly the problem. Crafting doesn't change your gameplay, it doesn't progress how your character feels or plays. It's just better gear in the end.
_________

Btw, funny how the idea of gaining additional talent points at max level is somehow trending now after I mentioned this kind of progression a week ago.

The new crafting system seems to be like current crafting
Make enough helms and you get an Uber helm
You also get mats from the raid that can add extra effects

[Makabreska]

But when people say "Dragon Flight seems light on features" you know what they're talking about.

Problem is, when "Dracthyrs are not content" comes from people who are known for downplaying expansions and it's features. AKA, there is sensed a lack of an honest opinion.

[Nyel]

Then how is it "putting a rest to the argument they didn't show everything major during the announcement"?

You're right, I am wrong.

[Revamp Man]

Major feature yes but still in no way comparable to how important Artifacts were in terms of changing gameplay.

Aren't the talent trees essentially everything we already have just taken away and locked behind talents?

That isn't new. Artifacts gave us new abilities, some new engaging passives and ways to change gameplay.

From what videos I've seen dissecting the Dragonflight talent trees, it's just locking what we already have behind talents, as well as some damage modifiers. There isn't much in the way of new talents. That's just an illusion of giving us something new and once again, in no way comparable to the Artifacts.

You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing dragon flying to artifacts

And the talent trees do hold some new things in them and even though some in this thread deny it you can make interesting builds by mixing abilities and the general trees especially in the case of the DK leads to new playstyle

[Nyel]

You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing dragon flying to artifacts

And the talent trees do hold some new things in them and even though some in this thread deny it you can make interesting builds by mixing abilities and the general trees especially in the case of the DK leads to new playstyle

I don't think that anyone here is denying that the talent trees have some new stuff. But when out of 35 talents 33 are the exact same we have now with 2 being new stuff, the "new" becomes pretty negligible and worthless in comparison to the stuff that was just blatantly copy and pasted, doesn't it?

[Santandame]

You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing dragon flying to artifacts

And the talent trees do hold some new things in them and even though some in this thread deny it you can make interesting builds by mixing abilities and the general trees especially in the case of the DK leads to new playstyle

I haven't compared Dragon Riding to artifacts. I'm comparing the Dragonflight talent trees to artifacts.

I've been comparing Dragon Riding to Garrisons. Because feature wise, it's what Dragon Riding is most similar to out of expansion features. Mostly cosmetic, with changes to how players approach world content.

[Makabreska]

I haven't compared Dragon Riding to artifacts. I'm comparing the Dragonflight talent trees to artifacts.

I've been comparing Dragon Riding to Garrisons. Because feature wise, it's what Dragon Riding is most similar to out of expansion features. Mostly cosmetic, with changes to how players approach world content.

Not EVEN close. DR is a mean of transport with mount customization. Garrisons were a place of hanging out, having synergies with profs, were for gold making, pushing story, getting loot and vanity items, having PvE content in form of invasions and more.

[MightyWarrior]

Servers are down

[Ferlion]

Not EVEN close. DR is a mean of transport with mount customization. Garrisons were a place of hanging out, having synergies with profs, were for gold making, pushing story, getting loot and vanity items, having PvE content in form of invasions and more.

This is pretty iffy to say considering what we know about DR at this point.

Yeah, it's a means of transport.. But it's a means of transport that is going to allow racing, and world quests, and have some sort of hunting and rewards tied into it.

It's going to be part of the gameplay in a way that just "Traveling from A to B" isn't.

[Santandame]

Not EVEN close. DR is a mean of transport with mount customization. Garrisons were a place of hanging out, having synergies with profs, were for gold making, pushing story, getting loot and vanity items, having PvE content in form of invasions and more.

I mean yeah, pretty close.

Both are draped in cosmetic accessories, have no ties to player power in terms of instanced combat, both influence and change how world content is approached and played.

New recipes/schematics/followers(Garrisons) and appearances and presumably maneuvers(Dragon Riding) are obtained from playing all kinds of content, and I presume Dragon Riding will have story quests attached to it? Dragon Riding will almost definitely provide PvE content and vanity items will absolutely be locked behind Dragon Riding.

So yes, in essence and down to brass tacks - pretty close.

[rhorle]

This is pretty iffy to say considering what we know about DR at this point.

Not really. We know that there will be some activities to do with the Dragon Riding system but nothing has been stated that it is on the same level as Garrisons and stuff. Their words lend more to Netherwing or Cloudserpent style things.

[micwini]

Because it's a feature and not content. Content is stuff to do. A class is not something "you do". You do stuff with your class. You don't do your class. That's the main difference between content and a feature.

- - - Updated - - -



Not really though?

Legion still introduced Mythic+ and world quests. Content that is still in Dragonflight but has been pretty diminished and worn off over the years. Both are not as exciting as they were back in 2016. They are still there, but they are base game content that is seen as mandatory nowadays. Similar to daily quests which were brand new in 2007 but are base game content now already (and nobody would question that, right?).

- - - Updated - - -



I never thought about calling Covenant teleportation mechanics - or anything fluff-related to Covenants - content. At least I never said that is content. When I refer to Covenants I usually do so because of a) their questline and b) their skills, soulbinds etc. which altered your gameplay quite a lot.

"The possibility" doesn't equal that we will have that. Not saying it won't come, but they have given us nothing in the last weeks to support their announcement. I just find Dragonriding - based on what we know as of now - incredibly dull. But that's due to how they presented it. I'm not denying that it could be fun and a good addition to the game in the end. But we're barely there yet to draw that conclusion.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, it's Blizzcon. And yeah, I know Legion was announced at Gamescom.

Torghast is a feature. Island expeditions were a feature. Warfronts were a feature. These were all not content? If you think a class is not content, that means you also think these 3 are not content, since they carry the same word.