As of Thursday, it is now possible to opt in to the Cataclysm beta test, and though I jumped at the opportunity to do so, I have to wonder whether I really should. You see, I was involved in the Wrath of the Lich King beta, and though it was an enjoyable experience and I was glad to provide feedback before the expansion was released, after some time, I stopped playing on the beta servers. After some time in the Borean Tundra, I realized that I was really spoiling the leveling experience for myself, in more than one sense of the word: I was both showing myself content I wold rather have waited to see, and I was ruining my future enjoyment of the content by making it so that I would need to run it again once the expansion came out. As such, I quit leveling through Northrend, rolled a Death Knight to try them out (and decided against making one my main character when the expansion came out), and then ended my beta career.
Once Wrath of the Lich King came out, my predictions turned out to be true. I enjoyed the earlier quests in Borean Tundra significantly less than I enjoyed the later quests, and once I reached the point where I had stopped during the beta, my enjoyment of the expansion greatly increased. As such, I think you can see why I am hesitant to participate in the Cataclysm beta. As much as I would like to assist the developers of this amazing game and help make the expansion better, the allure of seeing the content before everyone else just doesn't do anything for me, and actually makes me less enthusiastic to participate.
Now, why would I write about these experiences, you may ask? I write about these experiences because I realized today that there is a middle-ground, a way that I can help the Cataclysm beta without spoiling content I will eventually see and ruining the experience for myself. You see, I play Alliance, and my plans for the expansion are two-fold: explore the new end-game zones and content with my Druid, and role a Worgen... something (I still haven't decided what class he'll be; I am leaning towards a priest or a warrior. I know I have a priest already, but hey, why not do it again?) to experience the newly revamped old-world with. This seems to negate all options I have for ways to participate in the Cataclysm beta, but there is another option: Goblins. After all, I have no plans to level a Horde alt any time in the future, so an easy way for me to help the Cataclysm beta without spoiling too much for myself is to roll a Goblin and level him. Sure, I may spoil any changes to the faction-neutral quests, but that's better than spoiling everything.
So let me leave you with this: If you want to take part in the Cataclysm beta but don't want to spoil the new content for yourself, consider rolling an alt of the opposite faction you usually play. And if you play both? Well, sorry, but I guess you're out of luck; maybe roll an alt of the faction you play less?
Monday, May 17, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Spontaneous grouping and what it may mean for the real world
As you know if you spend any significant amount of time reading WoW news (as yours truly does), researchers love to look at WoW for their various projects to gain insight into how humans act in group and how they can apply the things we do in-game to the real world. One of the things that captures their interest frequently (such as in the latest project detailed by WoW.com) is the ability of WoW players to spontaneously form groups to cooperate on a certain task (be it a quest, a heroic, or killing an enemy player who walked too far into your starting zone) then disband the group and continue on their way, perhaps forming another group later. Many of the researchers who look at fluid group formation WoW are interested in how they can get that dynamic to apply to the real world. After all, if we could get people to cooperate more frequently, we could probably solve certain world problems more easily. But is it that easy? Can the elements of WoW that facilitate spontaneous cooperation really be replicated in the real world? Now, keep in mind, I'm only talking about fluid, spontaneous group formation here; I'm only talking about groups you cooperate with but don't get attached to. As such, I will not be going over the various motivating factors for joining raiding guilds and the like.
To answer that question, we must first look at what elements of the game facilitate those spontaneous groups. Some of those elements show themselves while we are out questing in the open world; they include a perceived common purpose and the knowledge that if you cooperate, it means less individual effort for each participant. If you need to kill tigers in Stranglethron Vale and you see another person killing those same tigers, it's reasonable to assume that they are doing so because they are on the same quest as you. This coupled with the knowledge that if you are in a group, you will both get quest credit for the kill, makes it a very reasonable idea for you to simply send the person a group invite without even needing to ask if they are on the same quest, and for the two of you to cooperate to kill the tigers. It means less effort for both of you, and you won't be competing for kills.
Another element that makes grouping up in WoW so easy and lucrative is the fact that, in some cases, it is automated. You want to group up with some allies and fight the opposing faction in a battleground? Automated. You want to run a heroic but don't want to go through the effort of finding a tank, a healer, and/or three DPS? Automated. Simply click a few buttons and you are now automatically grouped up with people with the same goal as you (there's that common purpose, again). For heroics, you are automatically put in a group that, from a composition stand-point, is capable of beating the heroic (assuming no one lied about their role), and for battlegrounds, you are automatically put with people with similar gear and pitted against people of similar gear. The heroic finder contains similar functionality, in that it won't let you queue for a heroic that you don't reach the minimum standard of gear for. So not only is some grouping in WoW completely automated, but those automated grouping systems won't pit you against a challenge you are completely incapable of overcoming.
Another important motivating factor for these groups is that the better rewards in the game are only available to those who are willing to cooperate with other people, and that the more one is willing to cooperate and work with others, the better the rewards get. While heroic raids give the best rewards, they also require commitment and extensive teamwork, something many people aren't willing and/or able to put into the game. However, spontaneous groups allow a middle-ground between the inferior rewards of being a lone wolf and the superior rewards of extended group play. By joining a spontaneous group, one is able to do group quests and run heroics for gear that may not be the best, but is certainly vastly superior to what one could get on his own. It also helps that, thanks to the clear indication of numerical stats, those rewards are objectively better than the rewards one can obtain exclusively through solo play.
So, in review, there are five aspects of WoW that make forming spontaneous groups so lucrative and easy: an implicit common goal between those considering cooperating, clear benefits to that cooperation, automation of the process, said automation limiting you to reasonable challenges, and objectively better rewards for cooperating. While I'm no sociologist or programmer, it seems reasonable to me that these motivating elements could be transitioned into the real world. I imagine that wish some decent programming skill and a good knowledge of how to motivate people, these motivating aspects for spontaneous group formation could be replicated in the real world. Perhaps there could be a web program that has you answering a few questions about things that interest you, for it could then match you with a cause you can feel really motivated about without matching you with one that you aren't capable of doing anything for. It could then match you with other people to work for that same cause. If the satisfaction that comes from doing good isn't enough to motivate people to use such a program, perhaps tax breaks or similar incentives could be given to people who do so, or perhaps the networking involved would be its own reward.
But should these motivating elements really be transitioned into the real world? I know it seems like the obvious answer should be yes, but I am a bit hesitant. Imagine a world where these elements were successfully implemented to get people to more easily cooperate on solving various issues, from intra-office issues to global problems. It seems like a recipe utopia, and it probably would be, but therein lies the problem. As I said in my post on the wisdom of Death Knights (and for the record, what follows in the rest of this post will be much less shocking to you if you have read the wisdom of Death Knights; if you haven't read it, then please, do so for my sake), our lives are defined by how we overcome the difficulties we face, so making those difficulties easier to face and automating the process almost seems... cheap. In other words, copying these elements of fluid group formation into the larger world could vastly reduce the amount of hardship in our lives, which might not be a good thing.
I know this may come as a shock to you to hear me say that there being less suffering in the world could be a bad thing, and I know you may accuse me of having it too easy, as I sit here in my cozy dorm room typing this on my own laptop, to be able to say that a dearth of suffering is a bad thing, but let me explain. As I went over in post on the wisdom of Death Knights, Schopenhauer says that if we don't suffer, our lives become boring and we either "die of boredom or hang ourselves." These may seem like the inane ramblings of a man who is disconnected from the real world, but studies have shown the suicide rates increase as you go up in income brackets, and general satisfaction with life tends to decrease. Having more doesn't make you happier, and it actually makes it more difficult for you to be happy with what you have. I can tell you from personal experience that I am more satisfied with my life when I face some sort of challenge than when I have it easy. Take away that challenge, take away the adversities we face in our lives, and our lives become rather pointless. If you think about it, our lives are defined by the challenges we have overcome and the rewards we have reaped from overcoming them (much like WoW), so it really isn't such a great thing for hardship to be done away with.
However, all is not so bleak as it seems. Now, copying these elements of fluid group formation into the real world probably wouldn't successfully get rid of all of the problems in the world, but it would certain go a long way towards it. After all, if all you have to do to help the world is open up a program that automatically matches you to a cause you can support and groups you with other people who support that cause and can help you further it, people would probably do good more frequently, and if people did good more frequently, perhaps the world's problems could be reduced or even done away with. That's fine and good for the people who are actually doing that good work, for they get the satisfaction of helping other people, and that can replace the satisfaction they would otherwise get from overcoming their own hardship, but what about those that benefit? Well, studies once found that the ideal income in terms of making you happy is somewhere around $40,000 a year, so I'd imagine that as long as those benefiting were being taken out of bad living situations into better ones without having all of their problems disappear, the net effect would be that they would be happier. And if they were the recipient of so much charity that their suffering was relieved to the extent that that they started feeling less satisfied with their lives, they could then open that program and help those in need, and thus it would be a virtuous cycle (opposite of a vicious cycle) that would make lives better for everyone.
That is, of course, assuming people could actually design such a program and market it correctly, and that people would actually use it, but I am in no way qualified to muse on any of those points.
To answer that question, we must first look at what elements of the game facilitate those spontaneous groups. Some of those elements show themselves while we are out questing in the open world; they include a perceived common purpose and the knowledge that if you cooperate, it means less individual effort for each participant. If you need to kill tigers in Stranglethron Vale and you see another person killing those same tigers, it's reasonable to assume that they are doing so because they are on the same quest as you. This coupled with the knowledge that if you are in a group, you will both get quest credit for the kill, makes it a very reasonable idea for you to simply send the person a group invite without even needing to ask if they are on the same quest, and for the two of you to cooperate to kill the tigers. It means less effort for both of you, and you won't be competing for kills.
Another element that makes grouping up in WoW so easy and lucrative is the fact that, in some cases, it is automated. You want to group up with some allies and fight the opposing faction in a battleground? Automated. You want to run a heroic but don't want to go through the effort of finding a tank, a healer, and/or three DPS? Automated. Simply click a few buttons and you are now automatically grouped up with people with the same goal as you (there's that common purpose, again). For heroics, you are automatically put in a group that, from a composition stand-point, is capable of beating the heroic (assuming no one lied about their role), and for battlegrounds, you are automatically put with people with similar gear and pitted against people of similar gear. The heroic finder contains similar functionality, in that it won't let you queue for a heroic that you don't reach the minimum standard of gear for. So not only is some grouping in WoW completely automated, but those automated grouping systems won't pit you against a challenge you are completely incapable of overcoming.
Another important motivating factor for these groups is that the better rewards in the game are only available to those who are willing to cooperate with other people, and that the more one is willing to cooperate and work with others, the better the rewards get. While heroic raids give the best rewards, they also require commitment and extensive teamwork, something many people aren't willing and/or able to put into the game. However, spontaneous groups allow a middle-ground between the inferior rewards of being a lone wolf and the superior rewards of extended group play. By joining a spontaneous group, one is able to do group quests and run heroics for gear that may not be the best, but is certainly vastly superior to what one could get on his own. It also helps that, thanks to the clear indication of numerical stats, those rewards are objectively better than the rewards one can obtain exclusively through solo play.
So, in review, there are five aspects of WoW that make forming spontaneous groups so lucrative and easy: an implicit common goal between those considering cooperating, clear benefits to that cooperation, automation of the process, said automation limiting you to reasonable challenges, and objectively better rewards for cooperating. While I'm no sociologist or programmer, it seems reasonable to me that these motivating elements could be transitioned into the real world. I imagine that wish some decent programming skill and a good knowledge of how to motivate people, these motivating aspects for spontaneous group formation could be replicated in the real world. Perhaps there could be a web program that has you answering a few questions about things that interest you, for it could then match you with a cause you can feel really motivated about without matching you with one that you aren't capable of doing anything for. It could then match you with other people to work for that same cause. If the satisfaction that comes from doing good isn't enough to motivate people to use such a program, perhaps tax breaks or similar incentives could be given to people who do so, or perhaps the networking involved would be its own reward.
But should these motivating elements really be transitioned into the real world? I know it seems like the obvious answer should be yes, but I am a bit hesitant. Imagine a world where these elements were successfully implemented to get people to more easily cooperate on solving various issues, from intra-office issues to global problems. It seems like a recipe utopia, and it probably would be, but therein lies the problem. As I said in my post on the wisdom of Death Knights (and for the record, what follows in the rest of this post will be much less shocking to you if you have read the wisdom of Death Knights; if you haven't read it, then please, do so for my sake), our lives are defined by how we overcome the difficulties we face, so making those difficulties easier to face and automating the process almost seems... cheap. In other words, copying these elements of fluid group formation into the larger world could vastly reduce the amount of hardship in our lives, which might not be a good thing.
I know this may come as a shock to you to hear me say that there being less suffering in the world could be a bad thing, and I know you may accuse me of having it too easy, as I sit here in my cozy dorm room typing this on my own laptop, to be able to say that a dearth of suffering is a bad thing, but let me explain. As I went over in post on the wisdom of Death Knights, Schopenhauer says that if we don't suffer, our lives become boring and we either "die of boredom or hang ourselves." These may seem like the inane ramblings of a man who is disconnected from the real world, but studies have shown the suicide rates increase as you go up in income brackets, and general satisfaction with life tends to decrease. Having more doesn't make you happier, and it actually makes it more difficult for you to be happy with what you have. I can tell you from personal experience that I am more satisfied with my life when I face some sort of challenge than when I have it easy. Take away that challenge, take away the adversities we face in our lives, and our lives become rather pointless. If you think about it, our lives are defined by the challenges we have overcome and the rewards we have reaped from overcoming them (much like WoW), so it really isn't such a great thing for hardship to be done away with.
However, all is not so bleak as it seems. Now, copying these elements of fluid group formation into the real world probably wouldn't successfully get rid of all of the problems in the world, but it would certain go a long way towards it. After all, if all you have to do to help the world is open up a program that automatically matches you to a cause you can support and groups you with other people who support that cause and can help you further it, people would probably do good more frequently, and if people did good more frequently, perhaps the world's problems could be reduced or even done away with. That's fine and good for the people who are actually doing that good work, for they get the satisfaction of helping other people, and that can replace the satisfaction they would otherwise get from overcoming their own hardship, but what about those that benefit? Well, studies once found that the ideal income in terms of making you happy is somewhere around $40,000 a year, so I'd imagine that as long as those benefiting were being taken out of bad living situations into better ones without having all of their problems disappear, the net effect would be that they would be happier. And if they were the recipient of so much charity that their suffering was relieved to the extent that that they started feeling less satisfied with their lives, they could then open that program and help those in need, and thus it would be a virtuous cycle (opposite of a vicious cycle) that would make lives better for everyone.
That is, of course, assuming people could actually design such a program and market it correctly, and that people would actually use it, but I am in no way qualified to muse on any of those points.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Do we deserve extensive previews of upcoming content?
As we all know, there was a huge leak of information off of the alpha test that got the whole community in a frenzy. There's something not quite right about the situation, though. The alpha is under a non-disclosure agreement, as I discussed earlier, so this should be the kind of thing that Blizzard would want to prevent. As a company with the resources they have (12 million subscribers times $15 a month equals 6 million dollar A DAY to spend on this game), if Blizzard really wanted to prevent these kinds of leaks from happening, they could. For that reason, some people (such as those who commented on WoW.com's post The Failure of Secrecy: The alpha, leaks, and the WoW community, the post that inspired me to write this one) suspect that Blizzard either approved of the leak, or at least were happy it happened. As commenter CrimsonEyedDeath said, "...it's good for them, in a way. Not that there was a massive leak, but that millions of people are so bloody excited for the next bit of WoW that they're F5ing sites like WoW.com/MMO-champion/etc over and over and over again. I'm pretty sure there's at least some people who have went out and pre-ordered Cata off these screens/info alone."
But whether or not Blizzard sanctioned the leak is not what I'm here to ponder; I think we'll know in time whether they did or not. No, what I am here to ponder is the very phenomenon that created this leak in the first place: the players' desire for information on upcoming content. For the past two expansions, I remember reading up on previews of the upcoming content eagerly, but something changed over the course of Wrath of the Lich King. When the data-mined audio files from The Frozen Halls came out, I listed to them, and they were awesome. But there was an unintended consequence of doing so; when I finally worked my way into the Halls of Reflection, the story that unfolded before me was not so amazing as it should have been. Because I knew what was coming, I was much less blown away by it, and I'll even go so far as to say that it was less fun because of what I knew going in.
That experience made me look at spoilers in a new way, a way that affects how I look Cataclysm spoilers today. Now, to be honest, I don't have much self control when it comes to heading the "spoilers ahead" warnings I see anywhere, but with a leak this massive, for once, I held myself back. Though I did pour over the new talent trees, new profession recipes, and other things, I abstained from looking at the screenshots of the zones. That's one of the things I look forward to the most about new content: just seeing it, and I refused to spoil that for myself.
But I digress. There's a difference between giving someone a taste to leave them wanting more and giving them the appetizer long before the meal, and I think this leak crossed that line. And the players? They ate that appetizer greedily. The real question is, do we deserve it?
The time between the final patch before an expansion and the next expansion definitely represents a lull in the game. With no new content coming out, players are restless, especially when they know that amazing things are just around the corner. Of course, Blizzard is doing a much better job this time around trying to keep us interested. We have the Ruby Sanctum coming in patch 3.3.5, as well as Operation Gnomeragon and the retake of Echo Isles in what will probably be patch 3.9. That's better than what little we got to tide us over between Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King (which, if I remember correctly, was only the zombie infestation, something that ruined the game for me). Considering the amount of time between now and when Cataclysm will come out, that may not be enough to completely hold our interests, but it's certainly better than nothing.
Of course, the lull is an unfortunate necessity; Blizzard does need to focus on developing the expansion, after all, and they can't give us content at their usual rate if they need to focus on developing content for the next expansion. As such, we reach the point where the current expansion has taught us to expect content to be released at a certain rate, but Blizzard is unable to deliver it to us at that rate while they develop the next expansion. Sure, they have certain elements to keep us playing the game long after the content has become stale, but when we know new content is coming, those elements just don't work as well, and players lose interest. That's a problem for Blizzard, for if people stop paying their monthly subscription fee, they lose money to spend on developing new content, and if they can't develop new content, then players lose interest and stop paying their subscription fee. It's a cycle that Blizzard can't allow to happen.
But how can they keep our interest if they can't develop new content? One might say that keeping us up-to-date on how Cataclysm's development is coming along is one way, but that won't keep our interest in the game itself alive. Their current plans for a post-Icecrown Citadel raid and two pre-Cataclysm world events seem to be on the right track, but it's clearly not enough to satiate player's desires for information on Cataclysm.
But is the problem that Blizzard isn't doing enough to keep players interested, or are we, the players, the problem? As I said in my post Por que, NDA?, and as we have seen with the frenzy of discussion that the latest Cataclysm leaks have generated, players tend to overreact to information that comes out about upcoming content, especially when we don't have the full story, and that creates a headache for Blizzard in trying to placate the community while still focusing on developing content. Frankly, I don't envy Blizzard for the job they have trying to convince players that they know what they are doing and that there is plenty of time to change things that do go awry.
However, this frenzy happened because the community grew restless with the lack of Cataclysm information coming out. We went through a pretty long drought of information after Blizzcon, and it was probably that long period of little information that lead to the players so eagerly looking for alpha spoilers. I'm sure Blizzard had their reasons for keeping further Cataclysm information under wraps, but it was keeping that info under wraps that lead to the leak being so eagerly received.
Perhaps the best thing Blizzard can do for now (and in the future as they develop future expansion packs) is to release a constant trickle of little tidbits of information about Cataclysm. The Cataclysm screenshot of the day (which they currently have going on their websites) is a good example of a way to give players a taste of things to come without spoiling the whole feast with appetizers (metaphorically speaking). It also has the added benefit of not giving players as much to complain about on the forums as releasing information on talents and spells does. Once the expansion is further along in development and more of the balancing issues have been worked out, they can release information on spells, talents, professions, and other such things to keep the player-base placated. (I know they've already released information on some of the changes coming to talents and spells, but we still got more information that they didn't mention, from the leaks, so we didn't get the whole picture. As such, there is always more to the story than they tell with the initial preview.) That combined with the new content we are getting between now and Cataclysm should keep the player-base satisfied, or at least more satisfied than the drought of information did.
But whether or not Blizzard sanctioned the leak is not what I'm here to ponder; I think we'll know in time whether they did or not. No, what I am here to ponder is the very phenomenon that created this leak in the first place: the players' desire for information on upcoming content. For the past two expansions, I remember reading up on previews of the upcoming content eagerly, but something changed over the course of Wrath of the Lich King. When the data-mined audio files from The Frozen Halls came out, I listed to them, and they were awesome. But there was an unintended consequence of doing so; when I finally worked my way into the Halls of Reflection, the story that unfolded before me was not so amazing as it should have been. Because I knew what was coming, I was much less blown away by it, and I'll even go so far as to say that it was less fun because of what I knew going in.
That experience made me look at spoilers in a new way, a way that affects how I look Cataclysm spoilers today. Now, to be honest, I don't have much self control when it comes to heading the "spoilers ahead" warnings I see anywhere, but with a leak this massive, for once, I held myself back. Though I did pour over the new talent trees, new profession recipes, and other things, I abstained from looking at the screenshots of the zones. That's one of the things I look forward to the most about new content: just seeing it, and I refused to spoil that for myself.
But I digress. There's a difference between giving someone a taste to leave them wanting more and giving them the appetizer long before the meal, and I think this leak crossed that line. And the players? They ate that appetizer greedily. The real question is, do we deserve it?
The time between the final patch before an expansion and the next expansion definitely represents a lull in the game. With no new content coming out, players are restless, especially when they know that amazing things are just around the corner. Of course, Blizzard is doing a much better job this time around trying to keep us interested. We have the Ruby Sanctum coming in patch 3.3.5, as well as Operation Gnomeragon and the retake of Echo Isles in what will probably be patch 3.9. That's better than what little we got to tide us over between Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King (which, if I remember correctly, was only the zombie infestation, something that ruined the game for me). Considering the amount of time between now and when Cataclysm will come out, that may not be enough to completely hold our interests, but it's certainly better than nothing.
Of course, the lull is an unfortunate necessity; Blizzard does need to focus on developing the expansion, after all, and they can't give us content at their usual rate if they need to focus on developing content for the next expansion. As such, we reach the point where the current expansion has taught us to expect content to be released at a certain rate, but Blizzard is unable to deliver it to us at that rate while they develop the next expansion. Sure, they have certain elements to keep us playing the game long after the content has become stale, but when we know new content is coming, those elements just don't work as well, and players lose interest. That's a problem for Blizzard, for if people stop paying their monthly subscription fee, they lose money to spend on developing new content, and if they can't develop new content, then players lose interest and stop paying their subscription fee. It's a cycle that Blizzard can't allow to happen.
But how can they keep our interest if they can't develop new content? One might say that keeping us up-to-date on how Cataclysm's development is coming along is one way, but that won't keep our interest in the game itself alive. Their current plans for a post-Icecrown Citadel raid and two pre-Cataclysm world events seem to be on the right track, but it's clearly not enough to satiate player's desires for information on Cataclysm.
But is the problem that Blizzard isn't doing enough to keep players interested, or are we, the players, the problem? As I said in my post Por que, NDA?, and as we have seen with the frenzy of discussion that the latest Cataclysm leaks have generated, players tend to overreact to information that comes out about upcoming content, especially when we don't have the full story, and that creates a headache for Blizzard in trying to placate the community while still focusing on developing content. Frankly, I don't envy Blizzard for the job they have trying to convince players that they know what they are doing and that there is plenty of time to change things that do go awry.
However, this frenzy happened because the community grew restless with the lack of Cataclysm information coming out. We went through a pretty long drought of information after Blizzcon, and it was probably that long period of little information that lead to the players so eagerly looking for alpha spoilers. I'm sure Blizzard had their reasons for keeping further Cataclysm information under wraps, but it was keeping that info under wraps that lead to the leak being so eagerly received.
Perhaps the best thing Blizzard can do for now (and in the future as they develop future expansion packs) is to release a constant trickle of little tidbits of information about Cataclysm. The Cataclysm screenshot of the day (which they currently have going on their websites) is a good example of a way to give players a taste of things to come without spoiling the whole feast with appetizers (metaphorically speaking). It also has the added benefit of not giving players as much to complain about on the forums as releasing information on talents and spells does. Once the expansion is further along in development and more of the balancing issues have been worked out, they can release information on spells, talents, professions, and other such things to keep the player-base placated. (I know they've already released information on some of the changes coming to talents and spells, but we still got more information that they didn't mention, from the leaks, so we didn't get the whole picture. As such, there is always more to the story than they tell with the initial preview.) That combined with the new content we are getting between now and Cataclysm should keep the player-base satisfied, or at least more satisfied than the drought of information did.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Achievements I would like to see added in Cataclysm
With the slew of Cataclysm announcements that have come out in the past week, my mind has been racing with ideas that have manifested themselves in an interesting way: achievements. With so many changes being made to WoW, there are certain achievements I would like to see implemented to correlate with those changes. Note that many of these will be feats of strength; you'll see why once you start reading.
Back in My Day... (feat of strength)
Reached level 58 before the Cataclysm
Cataclysm is going to change the leveling game to make old-world leveling more interesting, so it only makes sense, I think, to honor those of us who leveled through that old content before it was revitalized. Since you can head to Outland when you reach level 58 (and most people do), I think it makes sense to make this achievement only require reaching level 58.
Barefoot, in the Snow, Uphill Both Ways (feat of strength)
Learn the master [or whatever they call the next level of mount skill] riding skill by obtaining a 310% speed mount.
One of the announced changes coming to Cataclysm is that people will be able to buy a new level of riding skill which will upgrade all of their epic flying mounts to 310% flying speed. Those who already have a 310% speed flying mount will receive the skill automatically. Now, sure, getting one of those mounts is an achievement in and off itself (and they all have their own achievements to go along with them), but I think it would be nice of Blizzard to honor those who earned their 310% flying speed upgrade the hard way by working for one of the mounts, and what better way to honor them than with a feat of strength? Considering that these mounts are supposed to be synonymous with the most difficult achievements in the game, I think an overblown title like "Barefoot, in the Snow, Uphill Both Ways" is in order.
Hoofing It (feat of strength)
Earned Explore Eastern Kingdoms and Explore Kalimdor before the Cataclysm
With flying mounts allowed in Azeroth, getting World Explorer is going to be much easier to obtain, so like reaching level 58, I think its only fair to honor those who did it before Catalcysm made it much easier. Considering that ground mounts are slower than flying mounts, I think "Hoofing It" is an appropriate title.
You Can Have It (50 points)
Pass on a mount that drops in a maximum-level dungeon or raid
Title Reward: The Selfless
Granted, this achievement doesn't have anything to do with Cataclysm, but it's still one I wouldn't mind seeing added to the achievements. Were this implemented now, it would go to the people who pass on the Onyxian Drake or the Sartharion drake. Sometimes we get too caught up in our own personal exploits and forget just how important the people around us are, and an achievement like this would serve to encourage people to be a bit more selfless from time to time.
Back in My Day... (feat of strength)
Reached level 58 before the Cataclysm
Cataclysm is going to change the leveling game to make old-world leveling more interesting, so it only makes sense, I think, to honor those of us who leveled through that old content before it was revitalized. Since you can head to Outland when you reach level 58 (and most people do), I think it makes sense to make this achievement only require reaching level 58.
Barefoot, in the Snow, Uphill Both Ways (feat of strength)
Learn the master [or whatever they call the next level of mount skill] riding skill by obtaining a 310% speed mount.
One of the announced changes coming to Cataclysm is that people will be able to buy a new level of riding skill which will upgrade all of their epic flying mounts to 310% flying speed. Those who already have a 310% speed flying mount will receive the skill automatically. Now, sure, getting one of those mounts is an achievement in and off itself (and they all have their own achievements to go along with them), but I think it would be nice of Blizzard to honor those who earned their 310% flying speed upgrade the hard way by working for one of the mounts, and what better way to honor them than with a feat of strength? Considering that these mounts are supposed to be synonymous with the most difficult achievements in the game, I think an overblown title like "Barefoot, in the Snow, Uphill Both Ways" is in order.
Hoofing It (feat of strength)
Earned Explore Eastern Kingdoms and Explore Kalimdor before the Cataclysm
With flying mounts allowed in Azeroth, getting World Explorer is going to be much easier to obtain, so like reaching level 58, I think its only fair to honor those who did it before Catalcysm made it much easier. Considering that ground mounts are slower than flying mounts, I think "Hoofing It" is an appropriate title.
You Can Have It (50 points)
Pass on a mount that drops in a maximum-level dungeon or raid
Title Reward: The Selfless
Granted, this achievement doesn't have anything to do with Cataclysm, but it's still one I wouldn't mind seeing added to the achievements. Were this implemented now, it would go to the people who pass on the Onyxian Drake or the Sartharion drake. Sometimes we get too caught up in our own personal exploits and forget just how important the people around us are, and an achievement like this would serve to encourage people to be a bit more selfless from time to time.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Should game design trump lore?
Reading Anne Stickney's series of articles on Horde politics on WoW.com has made me consider the role of lore in game design before, and when I considered it, I came to the conclusion that remaining faithful to the lore should come before kowtowing to the player-base's desires. However, I forgot about another important influence on game design and how it affects the lore: the design process itself. What Stickney's articles all point to is that the Horde has less reason to stay together than it ever has before. Of course, were the horde to split, we'd have five micro-factions rather than the unified Horde we have now, and for gameplay reasons, that's not a good idea. However, if the lore of WoW should be put on as high a pedestal as I believe it should, then should the concerns of WoW's design really trump the lore considerations?
Essentially, the reason I stated for WoW's story progression to be based on the lore and not the will of the players is that, as an art form, it is WoW's responsibility to "challenge our perceptions, our beliefs, and make us ask questions about ourselves." The continued progression of the lore in a natural way is necessary for WoW to do just that. However, WoW can't accomplish those purposes if it ceases to exist as a game. That is why many people who discuss lore-based changes will say, "But the game design comes first," and that's why we will likely not have micro-factions when Cataclysm hits: for WoW to continue to exist, game design concerns must trump lore concerns.
Still, I don't think it's that inconceivable from a lore-based perspective that the Horde can stay together when Cataclysm hits, in spite of their differences. After all, with a crisis as huge as the cataclysm on their hands, the various races will need support in the fight for resources and space. To have the five races fighting one another would simply result in them squandering the few resources the Horde will have left, and though Garrosh may not be the smartest leader, the leaders of the other races will know well enough that they can't survive on their own. Survival will be reason enough for the Horde to stay together.
Of course, the cataclysm will arguably only happen because Blizzard needs an excuse for another expansion, as well as an excuse to remake the old world. It's quite convenient that it will give the Horde a reason to stay together in spite of the differences between their goals and the less-than-stellar leadership of Garrosh. Too convenient, in fact, and this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Horde needs a pretty race and the world needs a new continent? Burning Crusade gives us Blood Elves and Outland. WoW needs a hero class and another new continent? Wrath of the Lich King gives us Death Knights and Northrend. Horde needs a silly race, Alliance needs a tough race, the old world needs a makeover, and the Horde needs a reason to stay together? Cataclysm will do all of that. As one of the commenters on WoW.com once said, the plot of each expansions tends to hinge on what the game needs.
When you think about it, that's a rather unsettling prospect, that the larger evolution of the game tends to be guided by what Blizzard thinks the game "needs." After all, if we players were perfectly satisfied with the game as it was, Blizzard wouldn't have needed to add a pretty race and a silly race for the Horde, a tough race for the Alliance, and a remake of the old world. When you think about it that, it almost seems as if the larger evolution of the game's lore is guided by player desires.
But I don't think that's a bad thing. After all, how else should Blizzard decide how the lore is to progress? Sure, there are always the existing conflicts to drive the plot of WoW, but considering that we players have a habit of killing any foes Blizzard throws our way, if new foes weren't added, the only plot points left would be the Alliance vs. Horde conflict. Without new foes to fight, all we'd have to drive the game would be that conflict, and that conflict would probably grow pretty stale after a while. That's why Blizzard needs to constantly provide us with new foes that the Horde and the Alliance can oppose, and what better way to pick new foes than to pick foes with a back-story that allows improvements (such as more diverse races, a new class, and a revamp of the old world) to be implemented into the game?
All in all, I think it's acceptable for the larger evolution of the game's story to be driven by the needs of the game, as long as that evolution makes sense. As long as the smaller details (like who will be the Warchief of the Horde*) remain faithful to the lore, I say let the larger plot points be driven by the game design.
*I know that who is chosen as Warchief of the Horde may not seem like a small detail, but when the entire world is torn asunder by an ancient power, then what are petty political squabbles in the grant scheme of things?
Essentially, the reason I stated for WoW's story progression to be based on the lore and not the will of the players is that, as an art form, it is WoW's responsibility to "challenge our perceptions, our beliefs, and make us ask questions about ourselves." The continued progression of the lore in a natural way is necessary for WoW to do just that. However, WoW can't accomplish those purposes if it ceases to exist as a game. That is why many people who discuss lore-based changes will say, "But the game design comes first," and that's why we will likely not have micro-factions when Cataclysm hits: for WoW to continue to exist, game design concerns must trump lore concerns.
Still, I don't think it's that inconceivable from a lore-based perspective that the Horde can stay together when Cataclysm hits, in spite of their differences. After all, with a crisis as huge as the cataclysm on their hands, the various races will need support in the fight for resources and space. To have the five races fighting one another would simply result in them squandering the few resources the Horde will have left, and though Garrosh may not be the smartest leader, the leaders of the other races will know well enough that they can't survive on their own. Survival will be reason enough for the Horde to stay together.
Of course, the cataclysm will arguably only happen because Blizzard needs an excuse for another expansion, as well as an excuse to remake the old world. It's quite convenient that it will give the Horde a reason to stay together in spite of the differences between their goals and the less-than-stellar leadership of Garrosh. Too convenient, in fact, and this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Horde needs a pretty race and the world needs a new continent? Burning Crusade gives us Blood Elves and Outland. WoW needs a hero class and another new continent? Wrath of the Lich King gives us Death Knights and Northrend. Horde needs a silly race, Alliance needs a tough race, the old world needs a makeover, and the Horde needs a reason to stay together? Cataclysm will do all of that. As one of the commenters on WoW.com once said, the plot of each expansions tends to hinge on what the game needs.
When you think about it, that's a rather unsettling prospect, that the larger evolution of the game tends to be guided by what Blizzard thinks the game "needs." After all, if we players were perfectly satisfied with the game as it was, Blizzard wouldn't have needed to add a pretty race and a silly race for the Horde, a tough race for the Alliance, and a remake of the old world. When you think about it that, it almost seems as if the larger evolution of the game's lore is guided by player desires.
But I don't think that's a bad thing. After all, how else should Blizzard decide how the lore is to progress? Sure, there are always the existing conflicts to drive the plot of WoW, but considering that we players have a habit of killing any foes Blizzard throws our way, if new foes weren't added, the only plot points left would be the Alliance vs. Horde conflict. Without new foes to fight, all we'd have to drive the game would be that conflict, and that conflict would probably grow pretty stale after a while. That's why Blizzard needs to constantly provide us with new foes that the Horde and the Alliance can oppose, and what better way to pick new foes than to pick foes with a back-story that allows improvements (such as more diverse races, a new class, and a revamp of the old world) to be implemented into the game?
All in all, I think it's acceptable for the larger evolution of the game's story to be driven by the needs of the game, as long as that evolution makes sense. As long as the smaller details (like who will be the Warchief of the Horde*) remain faithful to the lore, I say let the larger plot points be driven by the game design.
*I know that who is chosen as Warchief of the Horde may not seem like a small detail, but when the entire world is torn asunder by an ancient power, then what are petty political squabbles in the grant scheme of things?
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Por que*, NDA?
*For those who don't know, "¿por que?" is Spanish for "why?" and is pronounced "poor kay?" Get it? "Por que" and "NDA" rhyme... and now for your usual blog entry.
With the news that the Friends and Family alpha test will soon begin, it's hard not to be excited, but my excitement is tempered by a little thing called the non-disclosure agreement (abbreviated as NDA). For those who don't know, the NDA states that those involved in the F&F alpha may not release information about the content they play to the public, so if we are to glean anything from the F&F alpha, it will have to be through shady wikis or websites that people covertly send screenshots to (it happened for Wrath, and I'm sure it will happen again). However, the beta test usually follows on the heels of the alpha test, and those who participate in the beta are not bound by the NDA. So why bind those on the F&F alpha by an NDA when that information will be coming out once the beta is released?
There could be a very practical reason that Blizzard doesn't enforce an NDA on the beta. On the F&F alpha, considering that everyone there is a friend or relative of a Blizzard employee, they have some personal stake in following the NDA. If they don't follow it, they risk being shunned by whichever employee brought them in to test the expansion. Beta testers, however, usually have no such personal stake. Since most beta testers are just random WoW players, their stake in the game goes only as deep as the game itself, so they would likely feel no qualms about ignoring an NDA. Blizzard could go so far as to kick people who break a hypothetical NDA off of the beta or even suspect their accounts for a while, but that's where the practical considerations come in. Considering how many people are involved in the beta, to try to police all of them and make sure they never release information to the public would be a nightmare.
However, I remember that when I was on the Wrath of the Lich King beta, I was still able to take screenshots with the F13 key. If Blizzard preferred that beta information not leek out, they could have taken the basic precaution of disabling screenshoting, yet they didn't. This says to me that they don't at all mind information on the beta leaking out, but they do mind information from the alpha leaking out. One must ask, what's the difference?
Perhaps Blizzard sees the alpha as a safe place to perform their preliminary balancing without the players flipping out over extreme changes. Suppose Blizzard adds a new spell to the game. The testers on the alpha try out the spell and show that it is extremely overpowered. Blizzard nerfs the spell to bring it more into balance with the other spells. If anyone had grown attached to the spell and expresses disappointment with it being nerfed, a Blizzard employee can personally reassure them that it was for the greater good, and because there are so few testers, sentiments such as attachment to a particular spell won't be too widespread to be handled by Blizzard.
Now, imagine if Blizzard had no NDA on the alpha. Testers would have released info on that new overpowered spell, and the community would be in a frenzy. Those who play the class receiving the spell would celebrate, while those who don't would freak out over what they perceived as that class getting an unfair advantage. Those who play the class would say "tough" and claim it was their time to shine. Then Blizzard nerfs the spell. While the rest of the playerbase is relieved, the players who were going to receive the spell now freak out because they had grown so excited over the spell, and now they won't be getting it. Now they start complaining about it, while everyone else tells them to deal with it. By handling their major balancing away from the public eye, Blizzard can avoid these kinds of scenarios. Sure, they still see more minor versions of those scenarios on the beta, but at least they can reduce the frequency and severity with which they happen by doing their preliminary balancing on the alpha, away from the public eye. But if Blizzard really does have an NDA with their alpha testers for that reason, I hate to think about what that says about us as a community...
With the news that the Friends and Family alpha test will soon begin, it's hard not to be excited, but my excitement is tempered by a little thing called the non-disclosure agreement (abbreviated as NDA). For those who don't know, the NDA states that those involved in the F&F alpha may not release information about the content they play to the public, so if we are to glean anything from the F&F alpha, it will have to be through shady wikis or websites that people covertly send screenshots to (it happened for Wrath, and I'm sure it will happen again). However, the beta test usually follows on the heels of the alpha test, and those who participate in the beta are not bound by the NDA. So why bind those on the F&F alpha by an NDA when that information will be coming out once the beta is released?
There could be a very practical reason that Blizzard doesn't enforce an NDA on the beta. On the F&F alpha, considering that everyone there is a friend or relative of a Blizzard employee, they have some personal stake in following the NDA. If they don't follow it, they risk being shunned by whichever employee brought them in to test the expansion. Beta testers, however, usually have no such personal stake. Since most beta testers are just random WoW players, their stake in the game goes only as deep as the game itself, so they would likely feel no qualms about ignoring an NDA. Blizzard could go so far as to kick people who break a hypothetical NDA off of the beta or even suspect their accounts for a while, but that's where the practical considerations come in. Considering how many people are involved in the beta, to try to police all of them and make sure they never release information to the public would be a nightmare.
However, I remember that when I was on the Wrath of the Lich King beta, I was still able to take screenshots with the F13 key. If Blizzard preferred that beta information not leek out, they could have taken the basic precaution of disabling screenshoting, yet they didn't. This says to me that they don't at all mind information on the beta leaking out, but they do mind information from the alpha leaking out. One must ask, what's the difference?
Perhaps Blizzard sees the alpha as a safe place to perform their preliminary balancing without the players flipping out over extreme changes. Suppose Blizzard adds a new spell to the game. The testers on the alpha try out the spell and show that it is extremely overpowered. Blizzard nerfs the spell to bring it more into balance with the other spells. If anyone had grown attached to the spell and expresses disappointment with it being nerfed, a Blizzard employee can personally reassure them that it was for the greater good, and because there are so few testers, sentiments such as attachment to a particular spell won't be too widespread to be handled by Blizzard.
Now, imagine if Blizzard had no NDA on the alpha. Testers would have released info on that new overpowered spell, and the community would be in a frenzy. Those who play the class receiving the spell would celebrate, while those who don't would freak out over what they perceived as that class getting an unfair advantage. Those who play the class would say "tough" and claim it was their time to shine. Then Blizzard nerfs the spell. While the rest of the playerbase is relieved, the players who were going to receive the spell now freak out because they had grown so excited over the spell, and now they won't be getting it. Now they start complaining about it, while everyone else tells them to deal with it. By handling their major balancing away from the public eye, Blizzard can avoid these kinds of scenarios. Sure, they still see more minor versions of those scenarios on the beta, but at least they can reduce the frequency and severity with which they happen by doing their preliminary balancing on the alpha, away from the public eye. But if Blizzard really does have an NDA with their alpha testers for that reason, I hate to think about what that says about us as a community...
Monday, May 3, 2010
Calm down about the changes to raid loot
What I am about to write will not be as logically rigorous as most of what I write, because this is a piece from my heart, not from my mind. After seeing the furor of indignant responses to the changes coming to raid loot in Cataclysm (namely, that 10-mans and 25-mans will share loot tables), I feel like I need to write a piece in defense of the company that had made the game that has held my interest longer than any other game I have every played. Yes, this post is going to defend Blizzard as a company (not the changes, though), and you may disagree with me. Yes, I am a bit of a Blizzard fanboy, and so you may not enjoy reading this post if you feel more doom and gloom about these changes than I do. With that said, if you are angry by the end of this post because of the optimism contained within, you have only yourself to blame; you have been warned.
Blizzard is a smart company. They have to be to be one of the most successful game companies out there and to design the most successful MMO ever. They've certainly made their fair share of mistakes, but as a smart company, they have likely learned from those mistakes. As such, I trust them. I trust them to make these changes to raid loot without ruining the 25-man raiding scene. They know what a loss it would be to their revenues if 25-man raiders quit the game due to loss of motivation to raid, and they will do their best to make that not happen. They know better than to let 25-man raiding die.
More importantly, the Cataclysm beta hasn't even started yet. Blizzard has many months to observe the effects this change will have on the raiding scene when people start raiding on the beta, and if 25-mans are abandoned by the players, they will do something to make them viable again. Maybe they'll even revoke this change and we'll be able to look back on it as the change that almost killed 25-man raiding. Point is, there is still plenty of time for Blizzard to see exactly effects this change has on the raiding scene and to respond to those changes.
We can speculate all we like, but with the vague kind of information that Blizzard has given us so far about this change, it's hard to say for certain what it will mean for raiding. Maybe the change will drive people to the 10-mans and no one will run 25-man raids; if that does happen, Blizzard will do something to change that. Considering the outcry this change has created, I don't think they can afford not to.
Blizzard is a smart company. They have to be to be one of the most successful game companies out there and to design the most successful MMO ever. They've certainly made their fair share of mistakes, but as a smart company, they have likely learned from those mistakes. As such, I trust them. I trust them to make these changes to raid loot without ruining the 25-man raiding scene. They know what a loss it would be to their revenues if 25-man raiders quit the game due to loss of motivation to raid, and they will do their best to make that not happen. They know better than to let 25-man raiding die.
More importantly, the Cataclysm beta hasn't even started yet. Blizzard has many months to observe the effects this change will have on the raiding scene when people start raiding on the beta, and if 25-mans are abandoned by the players, they will do something to make them viable again. Maybe they'll even revoke this change and we'll be able to look back on it as the change that almost killed 25-man raiding. Point is, there is still plenty of time for Blizzard to see exactly effects this change has on the raiding scene and to respond to those changes.
We can speculate all we like, but with the vague kind of information that Blizzard has given us so far about this change, it's hard to say for certain what it will mean for raiding. Maybe the change will drive people to the 10-mans and no one will run 25-man raids; if that does happen, Blizzard will do something to change that. Considering the outcry this change has created, I don't think they can afford not to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
