Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Put in Information on The expansion packs and classes

Guitarherosunite (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should put in information about the expansion packs, I mean we put in the corrupted blood incident, but we did not put anything on the expansion packs? I mean Burning Crusade added 2 new races to the game, new Dungeons, new gear, the Outlands, new honor system, jewel crafting, eventually mounts being lvl 30 to buy them, and elekk and Plainstrider mounts, and Flying mounts, and also you could go from lvl 60 to lvl 70! Also when WotLk comes out we should have information on that too! So far the most important news is that you can play as DeathKnights that start out at lvl 55. And you can go up to lvl 80.

Also we should put in information on the classes and what they do. Because the first time I came to the page it was to get information on the actual game not how it was made who made it and everything.

Consider World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade and World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King.

As for the classes, see gameplay of World of Warcraft. The rest of your request is incompatible with Wikipedia policy and guideline, in that would become too much like a game guide. --Izno (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination listing

This article is currently listed at WP:GAN#Video games, but there is no banner at the top of this page confirming that the article is supposed to be a nominee, and I can see no evidence that a banner was put in the page at the time that it was listed. This may suggest that the user who put the article on the list does not fully understand how to nominate an article, or that it was done by an editor who has not been a significant contributor. Could I request editors here confirm whether or not they want this article be listed as a good article nominee by either adding the relevant banner to the top of this page ({{subst:GAN|subtopic=Video games}}), or removing WoW's entry from WP:GAN#Video games. -- Sabre (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of your inquiries are probably correct; I know the latter to be true. Gazimoff was the main one who brought the article to its current state, and he has said elsewhere that he wanted to hold off on GAN until after he's done with his work here (which he isn't). Feel free to remove it from WP:GAN as you see fit. --Izno (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

zombie plague section?

Should we include a section, or a link to a section for zombie plague? apparently it draw attention of media http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5032908.ece FoxNews also has a link direct to this article. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444505,00.html it was compared to the Corrupted Blood incident.

Good article, I would agree to a separate section, possibly joined with the corrupted blood plague incident. Maybe a new section on virtual viruses or something like that. Dark verdant (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a section on the wrath of the lich king page regarding the plague, it could probably be removed from that page as it isn't really a feature of lich king but more a prelude to it in the actual WoW main game.Dark verdant (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely something to add, though to which page also gives me pause. I would probably add it to Wrath, where it is now, as that should provide the best context for it. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Meeting stones sentence should be removed or updated

The sentence "Players having difficulty finding groups to venture into a dungeon with can use meeting stones, which attempt to match characters with groups requiring particular skills or abilities." is totally wrong, easily years out of date. Meeting stones are no longer used for matchmaking, which is now simply part of the UI (the LFG, or Looking for Group system). I suggest just removing the sentence, or changing it to reflect the current LFG system. - Zenex13 (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. I also worked a bit on the raid descriptive text. sinneed (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unique rested XP

There is a sentence that says that 'rested xp' is unique, it's not. LOTRO has an enhanced XP system. New here just thought this should be pointed out 86.156.161.163 (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It was unique at the time, and has since been implemented in other MMOs. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 20:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit, removed "unique", etc. sinneed (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks 86.156.161.163 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you confirm it wasn't a new mechanic before you removed it? 24.119.30.211 (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it matter if it was new? New to what? What matters is that it isn't unique.

Yes it would matter if a product or person introduced a new concept. 67.60.8.28 (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So the fact that WoW introduced it means that it's still unique? No it doesn't. It doesn't change the fact that it's not the only MMORPG to have that feature. We could say that the game introduced the concept, but it's awkward to shoehorn that into the current text and it would also be good to have a reliable source backing it up; I can see that kind of statement being challenged. Honestly I'm not even sure it's true, I think it is, but I can't be sure some other (possibly obscure) game had it earlier. -- Atama^chat 15:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Page Merge

This page seems to be protected, I need to add the following to the top to replace the disambig page at Wow which now redirects here:

" For other meanings of the therm "Wow" see Other Meanings of Wow."

Thanks! Wikify567 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it's protected to stop new and inexperienced users changing pages unneccesarily. Secondly, the disambiguation page link you suggest doesn't exist, nor frankly is it likely to. Thirdly, new comments should go at the bottom of a talk page. Thanks --Ged UK (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there already a disambig page link at the top of the article anyway?Dark verdant (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikify567 has been on a merging purge today, even merging snooker, pool, billards and any cue sports all into one article. This was just another in a rather odd line of merges. The disam at the top is perfectly fine. Other Meanings of Wow is just not a proper disambiguation page. --Ged UK (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's a good thing this article is protected... -- Atama^chat 17:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A very good thing indeed. I have been doing some serious vandalism-checking over the past 3 days, and the sheer magnitude of the foul, the silly, the positional, and quite frankly the deranged postings is amazing. sinneed (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As a result, I've added this article to my watchlist and will be looking out for future vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

11 Million Subscribers worldwide

Officially announced by Blizzard Entertainment on October 28, 2008.

Seen in the 3rd Quarter Results of 2008, page 2. http://vivendi.com/vivendi/IMG/pdf/081105_ATVI_ResultsQ3-2.pdf

GEAUX (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This press release, dated 28 Oct 2008, is here http://eu.blizzard.com/en/press/081028.html and is in the article. sinneed (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hard to miss it, it's right in the lead... -- Atama^chat 20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Game Addiction WotLK

Another gamer hit by game addiction on the new add-on if anyone wants to use the info in the article: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20081118/twl-gamer-collapses-after-24hr-stint-3fd0ae9.html Dark verdant (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the article says nothing about "game addiction". The article is talking about marathon playing, where someone plays a single long session of the game. If someone runs for 12 hours in a marathon race, you wouldn't call him "addicted to running". As portrayed in the article these players are just playing for as long as they can and one kid collapsed from exhaustion, no surprise. By the way, I'll tell you from personal experience that playing a game for 24 hours is nothing, I've done "marathons" for longer. Really it's a guy sitting on a chair for 24 hours looking at a screen. The fact that he entered an "epileptic fit" means he probably had a pre-existing condition already. By the way, the article does mention "addiction" but as a non sequiter, it never says that either of the marathon gaming cases involve kids who were addicted, but it does strongly imply it. -- Atama^chat 19:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Big edit. oops.

I made a singe large edit (sorry). If anyone objects, please first accept my apology, then reverse it out or fix it. If you don't want to fix it in detail, just let me know what you didn't like. I'll put it back in in more manageable pieces. If you just have suggestions, those are welcome too. sinneed (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I made several smaller edits. Some will conflict, so it may not be easy to rev out. Sloppy editing. I'll do better.  :,( sinneed (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I propose to kill both the section "Post-lauch development" and the system requirements section on the infobox.

This, to me, seems very much too much detail for a general-purpose encyclopedia article.

Maybe post-launch should include the various expansions and expansion-sets?

Do we really need the hardware requirements here? Why? We aren't trying to sell someone a computer or convince them to buy or not to buy the game. The buyer needs to read the box/manufacturer pages anyway. sinneed (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't. Look at the Morrowind article. That is a former Featured Article. If that article can have even more detail that this one, and make FA, then it's clear that what this article needs isn't less detail, it's more. -- Atama^chat 22:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. :) sinneed (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I made use of the system requirements info, thank you. So leave it. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition: By the way, the idea of "The sum of all human knowledge," meant for Wikipedia, includes the knowledge about the system requirements for World of Warcraft. By excluding things, you are censoring information. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"The sum of all human knowledge" is somewhat bogus (or at least open to misinterpretation) even if Jimbo himself uses it. If Wikipedia really were meant to be that, it'd just be a dumping ground for anything and everything from photos of gum wrappers to the way each person organizes their sock drawer. Wikipedia could be considered a collection of all knowledge that might be of real use to mankind, so we do have to filter out the garbage. Also, Wikipedia requires everything to be verifiable so that you can be reasonably sure what you are reading is accurate. Read WP:CENSOR to see what is considered censorship to Wikipedia and why we don't do it. -- Atama^chat 22:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Endgame

"End-game experience" is part of the ongoing experience, once the level cap is reached there are many oppurtunities for a player, for example, 10 man up to 40 man raids, heroic dungeons and player versus player (PvP) in battlegrounds.

PvP

What does the PvP dimension of this game consist of? Is it possible to jump right into it or must you reach the high level cap? Eighth Octavarium (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this isn't a chat forum to talk about the game itself, we're supposed to talk about the article specifically. Details such as what level you are eligible for PvP are information for a game guide, not an encyclopedia. Feel free to check out WoWWiki for that kind of info, it's a great site. -- Atama^chat 19:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Best Game Ever - unimportant vandalism - sockpuppetry

who put 'BEST GAME EVER' at the top?Ippy97 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Revision history of World of Warcraft, it was User:Dudeman14143535. The change has been reverted.

It's still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiataMike (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You may need to clear your cache, or possibly click the "Reload" button on your browser. Is it gone now? Don't forget to sign (I say, having almost forgotten to sign this post).:) sinneed (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Some (one) re-added "BEST GAME EVER" - have people no respect for information sources?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.45.198.188 (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been no further edits, and the text does not appear in the article. You may need to clear your cache, or possibly click the "Reload" button on your browser. Is it gone now? Don't forget to sign. sinneed (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Some has put a BEST GAME EVER at the top of the page... and by the looks of it, it's not the first time. I'm new to wiki so I'm not too sure on how to remove it. Someone fix? Firzen777 (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This sort of opinion as the first line for the game seems unbased, unfactual, and entirely out of place. Do we have a reference for it being the best game ever? Is it an advertising slogan that has been used for WoW before? If not, I suggest removing this, the first sentence, in this article.

Vermillian (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Alexander James
"20:44, 11 December 2008 Vermillian (Talk | contribs) New user account" Stop it.. Thanks. sinneed (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

On 10th Dec at 3:44 Unpopular Opinion reverted the edit that said "Best Game Ever". Looking at the History it has not returned since then. Do as people have said above and clear your cache. Dark verdant (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the game they were playing relevant to how screwed up one couple was?

The article currently reads "In June 2005, it was reported that a four-month-old South Korean child had suffocated due to neglect by her parents, who were reportedly at a nearby café, playing World of Warcraft.[94]"

And how many children die simply because their parents are off drinking, or gambling? Some leave their kids in cars and they die from the heat, while they simply go off visiting or shopping, no addictions towards anything at all. Reading the article about these people, just shows what idiots they were, they having one of their mother's upstairs who could've watched the child even. I don't think its fair criticism of the game, or a demonstration of the addictive nature to mention something like that.

Mentioning the obsessive compulsive disorder bit that these types of games have, where to do things you want to you must first do the level treadmill, repeating the same tiresome tasks continuously just to raise a number on your stats and be able to move on to the next bit, would make sense though. I'm going to do some editing now. Just thought I'd explain the reasoning before hand. Dream Focus (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a reference from a notable third party publication about the obsessive compulsive disorder some have with this sort of game. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22world+of+warcraft%22+%22obsessive+compulsive+disorder%22+%22repetitive+tasks%22&btnG=Search Anyone know of any articles about that? Some people are addicted to doing the same exact tasks, just to watch a number on a screen go up. This is for many games of this genre, such as when Ultima Online came out, I would run around looking for trees to hit with an axe to get logs, or spots on the mountain not tapped out yet to use a pick or shovel to mine with. This sort of activity isn't fun after awhile, you just get obsessed with it, and don't continue it once you max out your stats in that area. In World of Warcraft, you fight the same monster, killing it, waiting for it to respond on the spot it died, and then killing it again, just to get your stats up, so that you can move up to the next level of monster, and do the same thing again. Dream Focus (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"In World of Warcraft, you fight the same monster, killing it, waiting for it to respond on the spot it died, and then killing it again, just to get your stats up, so that you can move up to the next level of monster, and do the same thing again." Really? Wow, that's just crazy. In Everquest that used to be common, because you had no other choice, but in WoW and most other MMORPGs I've played you can advance faster through questing, which also provides at least a bit of variety to keep you from getting bored. I find it hard to believe that someone would choose to go back to that type of play in a game like WoW. -- Atama^chat 21:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't played it since the open beta years ago. So, you can just do the quests and not have to camp one spot killing the same monster continuously for hours? Are the quests still mostly the kill so many of a certain type of creature than return, and gather an item found here and then return, with some go kill this opponent and then return ones tossed in at times? I remember the podcast from Penny Arcade talking about how parts of it were OCD, you having to go through a lot of that, before you could get to the parts you wanted. But I can't really comment on it, since its been years since I played it, and things have surely changed a lot sense then. Dream Focus (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Most quests are along the lines of "kill this one specific named monster", or "kill 20 bears", or "find 10 purple flowers in the forest". But not all, they actually vary quite a bit, some are simply "get halfway through a dungeon" or "take this mug of ale to a dwarf in 10 minutes", or "escort this elf and make sure he walks from point A to point B without getting killed". There are even quests that make you play a memorization game identical to Simon. There's a lot of variety, and while it can sometimes get repetitive, the developers do seem to put an effort into making the gameplay different now and again. I think that if someone plays this game like they have OCD, that says something about the player but not the game. -- Atama^chat 00:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Idea to consider before adding addiction info here: Please see instead the main article about such things. It is an Internet phenomenon, rather than a particular-piece-of-the-Internet phenomenon. Back when computer games were rare, people spent INSANE numbers of hours on them... Adventure, for example. I see the same thing with chat rooms, discussion groups, Wikipedia (yes). sinneed (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

New Ad

I was watching TV last night and saw a new WoW ad (for the wrath expansion) with Ozzy Osbourne in it. Should this be added to the article after Shatner et al or maybe put in the Lich King Page? Didn't want to add myself as I don't want to mess things up. Dark verdant (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already in there. It has been there for some time (you may have just seen it last night but it isn't new). -- Atama^chat 18:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, stupid me, sorry I didnt spot it when I went in search of the shatner bit. Thanks! Dark verdant (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WoW in The Day the Earth Stood Still

In the new film the Day the Earth Stood Still, the kid Jacob Benson is seen playing WoW in an early part of the movie. He is seen killing Nagas in Stranglethorn Vale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudja69 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but that is the kind of trivia we try to avoid in Wikipedia articles. -- Atama^chat 20:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Addiction to WoW article.

It is a pity these WoW article debates are not mentioned in the target-merge article talk pages. This is NOT the place for the article, IMO.

Addiction to WoW is *POSSIBLY* Video game addiction, but there is not yet consensus in the scientific community that such a disorder actually exists, or if "video game addiction" symptoms are merely symptoms of some broader problem, or if there is no problem, per se. There would certainly be no consensus that there is such a disorder as addiction to WoW.

All that said, there is very very little encyclopedic content at the article, as I read it... and I am actively seeking content for Video game addiction as it is a... hmmm... "weak" perhaps... article at the moment. I will look at the sources and the words and see if there is anything I can steal for VGA.  :) I will, of course, leave the redirect alone.

The WoW addiction article reads more like a transcript for a talk, which leads me to think it is notes from or for a talk.sinneed (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We have to be careful about what is merged into this article. First, it gives undue weight if there's a lot, and secondly I'm guessing that much of the original article was OR. I'm personally skeptical about WoW causing any more "addiction" than any other video game, and I doubt that there's much credible information available supporting its existence (it sounds like that's the case from your comments). As it stands what is already in this article is probably sufficient enough, maybe with another sentence or two added from the other article if it's sourced and seems to add something to the discussion. -- Atama^chat 17:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found anything worth keeping. I reread. It really does read like a talk from a presentation/slide show. It is a nice chat, but it is not an encyclopedia article. With apologies to the author I think it is a GOOD talk... but it isn't encyclopedic.

• On the any-more-addiction thing. Well, I think it probably does... by absolute numbers, simply because it is an order of magnitude larger than its next competitor. It is 2 orders of magnitude greater than most games. So we would expect there to be 100x as many WoW addicts (if game addiction even exists) as EQ addicts.
  
• Consider though, throughout the world there are bored people hanging around doing nothing much. Much of the world became wealthy enough that these people, instead of sitting around smoking a random dried shrub in a hand-carved pipe...could sit around doing that and listening to a radio...then they could sit around doing the same and listening to and watching a TV. No they can sit around in a gaming center or their house and play WoW. It is easy, fun for very many... allows people to socialize whenever they want, be alone whenever they want, be "alone" with their chosen group when they want... compete, even violently, at will. All without risk. For very many, the cost is still far too large, but the number of people who can afford it is growing.
  

sinneed (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition of a different take on the China gaming restrictions.

In response to several highly-publicized World of Warcraft-related deaths (and to combat game-addiction in general), China has imposed strict restrictions on how long, and how often, a person may play. All of the country's major game operators have expressed agreement with the restrictions, which severely curb the players' characters' abilities after more than five hours of sustained play. Additionally, players must also take a mandatory five-hour break between sessions..

The above was added today, but conflicts substantially with existing wording. I place it here for review and possible inclusion, or inclusion in the gaming addiction article. sinneed (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the WoW article. As the news article itself states, this restriction is to all online games, not just WoW (ten other games are listed by name in the article). Also, this article is 3 years old, are these restrictions in place still? If this belongs anywhere it would be in gaming addiction as you stated, but putting it here would be like putting a report about the danger of eating fatty foods into the entry on ice cream. Another problem is that the text above states this was "in response to several highly-publicized World of Warcraft-related deaths"... The article does not support this. It mentions one person murdered another over the theft of an online item, but mentioned no other deaths of any kind and did not even imply that player death had anything to do with the restrictions, rather that the government thought people played the game too long. Wikipedia is not the place for sensationalism. -- Atama^chat 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WoW Dances

Im curious as to if someone would at all the dances for evrey race, the song that goes with the dance and the artist of the song, just a suggestion of course. I would happily do it but i am unable to edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupun (talk • contribs) 05:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant "add". That would be a Bad Thing. There are great WoW-specific Wikis with wonderful detail about the game, how to play, how to dance, emote, etc. But this isn't one.sinneed (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, that is considered trivia which is difficult enough to avoid in articles about popular subjects as it is. -- Atama^chat 17:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)