Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by liyroot View Post
    For a guy that spends 6 hours a day on mmoc defending a game about killing the same boss over and over, you have a huge ego. You should write a self-improvement book. How to No-Life World Of Warcraft and feel like a 200 IQ playboy millionaire. I really want to know your secret.
    Tell you what. I'll write that book after you draft your magnum opus, My Life as an IMAX Theater: A Master's Thesis on Projection.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Lolites View Post
    idk, seems to be based on extremely flawed logic, given highest player peaks always were (when we had numbers) and arguably still are on release of NEW EXPANSION

    i think this whole idea would mostly adress only people who are already adressed by classic and SOD...

    as for new side zones, if you go only up to wotlk, where would you put the new zones? or just rework the old zones constantly? bcs that would get boring very fast...
    It's nothing like Classic. The entire game engine could change more rapidly because the Devs could focus more on improving technologies.

    The side quests and side zones are easy to be added; e.g. new "islands" in outlands; e.g. new wings in ICC or alternative boss versions.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nederbelg View Post
    This idea sounds pretty boring.

    Lets make a series that only has three epsiodes. Instead of making more we repurpose the first three and use CGI and other technologies to enhance them a lil and we will change a side plot here and there. And we make the ends the same, but they will shoot at eachother in different ways.

    Win win win
    You make some sense, but only in terms of core Lore[and limited to[certain] old players]. For gameplay I'm not sure you're right; currently new players are completely overwhelmed with the total spam of "multiple core stories"; old players who care about pure-gameplay don't really care about the "lore" of a raid (or zone): they just want it to be new.

    [and even some people who care deeply about Lore: wouldn't have an issue fleshing out certain smaller stories without changing the core grande stories much]

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by epigramx View Post

    You make some sense, but only in terms of core Lore[and limited to[certain] old players]. For gameplay I'm not sure you're right; currently new players are completely overwhelmed with the total spam of "multiple core stories"; old players who care about pure-gameplay don't really care about the "lore" of a raid (or zone): they just want it to be new.

    [and even some people who care deeply about Lore: wouldn't have an issue fleshing out certain smaller stories without changing the core grande stories much]
    New players are thrown into the BfA story. Not the best expac ever but somewhat neutral lorewise. Only when you max a toon, you get the chromietime option for your next toons.

    It is always good to flesh out side stories and it is possible to do that as extra content besides the core expac content. (like the undercity or the gilneas questline). I think Blizzard should do that more for character devolpment.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by epigramx View Post
    The side quests and side zones are easy to be added; e.g. new "islands" in outlands; e.g. new wings in ICC or alternative boss versions.
    yeah, i dont think issue with wow is it doesnt have constantly changing engine...
    plus how would they get more time to develop technologies, they would still need to provide the same amount of content just split into smaller parts, otherwise it would just be "trade" of content for "tech updates" (which would be EXTREMELY HATED - think back how much people bitched and whined when we got major patch later than usualy)

    so basicaly, the same as retail just split expansions into multiple patches rather than have whole continent at once...
    im not sure how popular it would be if we got smaller patches, given with DF HUGE patches there was shitload of people whining theres nothing to do... not to even mention reworked zones (remember visions of nzoth and people whining about "empty patch"?)

    and again, how does this address the playerbase, when NEW EXPANSION RELEASE have the biggest playercount?
    like you would remove the "best" selling point of the game, dont you realise that?

    and sorry, but how many "islands" can you add to outland untill it became the same old? id wager not many unless you will make them nothing like outland, which would make no sense...
    with new continent you can go completely wild, with new islands to the same continent not so much...


    i think the concept could work if wow ever got f2p, like you would get one small island or questline or activity every 1-2 months, finish it in 1-2 days and then log off untill another minipatch, but i dont think its something many would consider worth staying subbed for, or as many do now resubing when new content hits, thats worth with new expansion or massive patch, but not with tiny additions
    Last edited by Lolites; 2024-03-02 at 05:02 PM.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Lolites View Post
    yeah, i dont think issue with wow is it doesnt have constantly changing engine...
    plus how would they get more time to develop technologies, they would still need to provide the same amount of content just split into smaller parts, otherwise it would just be "trade" of content for "tech updates" (which would be EXTREMELY HATED - think back how much people bitched and whined when we got major patch later than usualy)

    so basicaly, the same as retail just split expansions into multiple patches rather than have whole continent at once...
    im not sure how popular it would be if we got smaller patches, given with DF HUGE patches there was shitload of people whining theres nothing to do... not to even mention reworked zones (remember visions of nzoth and people whining about "empty patch"?)

    and again, how does this address the playerbase, when NEW EXPANSION RELEASE have the biggest playercount?
    like you would remove the "best" selling point of the game, dont you realise that?

    and sorry, but how many "islands" can you add to outland untill it became the same old? id wager not many unless you will make them nothing like outland, which would make no sense...
    with new continent you can go completely wild, with new islands to the same continent not so much...


    i think the concept could work if wow ever got f2p, like you would get one small island or questline or activity every 1-2 months, finish it in 1-2 days and then log off untill another minipatch, but i dont think its something many would consider worth staying subbed for, or as many do now resubing when new content hits, thats worth with new expansion or massive patch, but not with tiny additions
    I don't envision a total spam of engine changes or clumsy throwing a few outlands islands together (and it's not "cheap" only for f2p). It's a general concept about it being more robust [and carefully developed].

    A) The Devs would have focused both on improving the current content together with the new (now it often feels abandoned with the exception of Cataclysm (which is very questionable on why Cataclysm should had changed the story of the zones)

    B) You don't have to change Outlands at all[or don't have to add islands at least]; it was just a random example; the old world has approximately unlimited zones there almost entirely undeveloped

    C) I know for a fact people who care deeply about Lore often care deeply about the details of the core story and not just about the gist of it [and it could even go back to Warcraft I-III).
    Last edited by epigramx; 2024-03-03 at 03:01 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •