15 Minutes of Fame: Members only
by Lisa Poisso 
Aug 25th 2009 at 1:00PM
15 Minutes of Fame is WoW.com's look at World of Warcraft players of all shapes and sizes -- from the renowned to the relatively anonymous, the remarkable to the player next door. Tip us off to players you'd like to hear more about.As Blizzard re-imagines old Azeroth, sweeps tired systems out the door and injects new ways for players to connect and work together, we can't imagine why anyone would not want to take advantage of what this top-notch MMO and company have to offer. There are players, however, who choose a different path. These players game on private servers, where conditions range from near-original mirrors to god-mode gameplay with super-GM abilities.
We don't condone private server play, which is clearly against Blizzard's Terms of Service and EULA. Still, there are plenty of players who believe differently, and we were curious why they've chosen the private server route. We visited with a player who plays on a relatively tame private server featuring near-"normal" game play. What can he do that we can't? And what do we have that he doesn't?
Main character Laughoutloud, level 80 Mage (Arcane, Frost)
Realm N/A
15 Minutes of Fame: What is playing on a private server all about? What makes it interesting for you?
Laughoutloud: It's the same reason as people playing on retail: the fun of the game. The fact that the (XP) rates are a little bit higher makes it easier to get to level 80, but at the same time, it isn't so high such that you miss the roleplaying factor of the game. I play on a server that is Blizz-like, meaning no custom mobs or custom quests; everything is supposed to be like retail, except with a 3x boost in experience points.
Well, since I play on a Blizz-like server, there isn't much of a difference except for the experience rates being different. Also, there is a custom teleporter to take you to different home cities instead of taking the zeppelin or the ship, which is a lot easier. There are also custom events that the GMs of the server would host from time to time. It can be PvP- or PvE-related, with in-game rewards. The rewards usually are one or two emblems or some arena points.
Do you have to pay to play on your private server?
No.
How long have you been on a private server?
About 8 months.
Do you also play WoW on a regular server?
No, not any more. I used to, for a little bit.
How does the play experience compare – more or fewer players, bugs, customer support, and so on?
I don't know how the people get the code from and etc. to run WoW servers, but it's obviously not from Blizzard, so the quality of a couple of programmers can't beat that of the team of Blizzard. Thus, there are more bugs, less players per realm. However, customer support is probably more than Blizzard, since you can actually talk to the GMs real-time by IRC.
Blizzard looks at playing on and even connecting to a private server as violations of their Terms of Service and EULA. How does that affect your feelings about where you play?
It doesn't really affect me much, because if they really strongly enforced their Terms of Services and EULA, there wouldn't be so many private servers out there. I believe a lot of the private servers' server hosts are in U.S., so it shouldn't be that hard to track and close if they really wanted to. It's not like BitTorrent, where most of the website servers are located outside of U.S. It really could be part of their business strategy to intentionally allow small private servers to run. It's just like books, movies, or in some other companies where "leakage of information" happens -- but it's really done intentionally.
If eventually they really crack down on private servers and close them down, I'm fine with that too, as it's their right to do so. Will I go back on retail? Probably not, because of time and money issues.
When you say your server offers a 3x XP boost, is that over current XP levels or the original leveling speed when WoW first launched?
I'm not too sure, but I think it's the current XP level and not the beta or original XP level when the game first launched.
What about all the features Blizzard has added to accelerate leveling speed and ease for players? Do those make you more likely to go back to a Blizzard server?
You mean if Blizzard increases the exp gained and make everything 3x rate as well? If so, I won't go back. My reason is not because leveling on retail is too slow, it's because of the time and money that needs to be put into the game. When I pay for something, I feel the pressure to need to play to get my money well spent. I also don't really work either, so paying the monthly fee just seems like something I can save. I am a full-time student, so playing on private server allows me to stop playing when I need to focus on school without "losing" my money paid.
Around 200ish.
Is it hard to find enough people your level to get a group?
Yeah, it is -- when I started to play, anyway. There are more people than before when I started, so I'm not too sure. At 80, it's not too hard to find a raid group.
Do you play mostly on your own, with a small group of friends, with a guild, or in pickup groups?
I play with a small group of friends; also, pickup groups.
Do you belong to a guild? Are there many guilds on your server?
Yes, I belong to a guild created by me and my friends. There aren't many guilds on the server -- probably about four to five noticeable ones in each faction, with a bunch of random ones that aren't very populated.
What type of content are you playing now?
I am playing the Lich King right now, but patch 3.1.3. We do raids.
When WoW gets a patch, do you get it at the same time, or do you have to wait?
Nope, we usually have to wait for whoever is doing the main code for private server WoW to release something. I am not sure what group does that, though -- but I know it's not the people running the private server I'm on.
"I never thought of playing WoW like that!" - neither did we, until we talked with these players. From an award-winning fantasy author and an Oscar-winning 3-D effects director to a bunch of guys who get together for dinner and group raiding in person every week, catch it on 15 Minutes of Fame.Filed under: Features, Interviews, 15 Minutes of Fame
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 8)
atree496 Aug 25th 2009 1:07PM
That sounds terrible. Not only do you not get the patches quick, but only a small amount of people.
Mailia Aug 25th 2009 2:39PM
Some people actually like having smaller groups of people and the patch delay is a bit.. Eh. You get the patch a month later, but you play it for a month longer before the new one is released, thus, it's not really that major.
IHATEWARLOCKS Aug 25th 2009 9:28PM
Cat Fight!!!! LOL. But seriously, in my point of view, I find all this screaming hilarious, especially since about 90% of the comments are blacked out. And just to imagine all it took was a post on private servers LOL.
shiplore Aug 25th 2009 1:08PM
I would think this would fall outside WOW.com's editorial purview, claiming "while we don't endorse it doesn't make it true if you then run a feature endorsing it. claiming a lack of something doesn't automatically make it true. With hundreds of news features and announcements out of Blizzcon, you come to this story two days later?
booooooooooooooooooo.
Boombaclot Aug 25th 2009 1:16PM
@ shiplore
Troll much kid?
I glad someone wrote an article about private servers. I have never looked into what they are and how they work. I am curious to how even people find and join one.
Keep up the good work and despite what the above nub has to QQ about I think this article was very informative
shiplore Aug 25th 2009 1:29PM
Hmmm where to start...
Kid? I'm almost 40, so, by most definitions I'm out of "kid" stage.
Troll? So trolling is now defined as disagreeing with an editorial decision? I would be to differ that interpretation. I was also fairly composed despite a very strong negative reaction to this story. I posted my thoughts on the decision. I *actually* believe what I posted so I'm thinking "troll" is on very thin ice.
WOW.com is a *legitimate* wow site, this is not a legitimate wow story.
If Blizzard cracks down and sues 100 private servers, that would meet the editoral standards of a legitimate site, getting point of view from an private server is not up to this criteria.
So are we going to get stories on "How to Hack WOW?" "Steal goldz with this scam?" what's the difference, if the above passes muster.
Boombaclot Aug 25th 2009 1:39PM
*cough 40 yr old virgin cough*
This is a site that has all stuff that is related to World of Warcraft. You sit there and ridicule people who take their time out to bring you something to read about your favorite game. If you dont like what your reading then dont read it. Dont just complain to the writers about something that is obviously WoW related and something that is happening right now.
Let your QQ tears be the lube of your failures
xoonaka Aug 25th 2009 1:39PM
@shiplore
Isn't it just like when 20/20 examines the life of a drug addict...? They get his point of view, follow him around a bit, just show people what that life is... sort of, anyway.
20/20 is still considered legit, right?
shiplore Aug 25th 2009 1:53PM
@ boom ad hominem attacks are funny, but also means you surrender.
Where did I ridicule? I've kept my point of view respectful and ordered. You're the one name calling and insult hurling. I think it was the wrong feature, and the wrong way to feature private servers plain and simple. How they featured it was a tacit approval of them as members of the wow community.
@Xoon
It's not the same thing, the way it was couched. it was a glowing first person account of something illegal with no counterpoints. if 20-20 ran an interview with a illicit-drug proponent they would also interview people with an opposing view point. Not just a bio-piece on how great it is.
lazymangaka Aug 25th 2009 1:55PM
Stating your age doesn't say much for your maturity level.
Boombaclot Aug 25th 2009 2:01PM
You didnt ridicule? I am pretty sure I see boooo across the bottom the page. Last time I checked booing is a sign of displeasure and is insulting to whoever your booing at. So boo on you my friend, boo on you
Bill Aug 25th 2009 2:01PM
Yeah, I don't think there was anything trollish or ridiculing about shiplore's post. He was just expressing his opinion. It's kind of an asinine opinion that seems to me to combine an 18th-century understanding of journalism with a nine year old's, but no need to legitimize his nonsense with unrelated personal attacks...
MasterAsh Aug 25th 2009 2:06PM
Funny. . .at 40-years old, I'd think you'd know the difference between a "legitimate news site" and a blog.
And as someone else mentioned, your posts indicate a maturity level far below your age.
shiplore Aug 25th 2009 2:11PM
@ Boom
Yeah I boo'd. It was probably a little over the line, but as I said. I disagree with their position it was from the heart.
@ Bill
Thank you for almost having a discussion, I'm not sure how my journalistic ideas are both those things (or either), but I do appreciate the mostly lack of personal attacks.
when you say 18th century do you mean in that I am trying to avoid talking about unpleasant things? or ..sorry I'm just not understanding that part.
I get the 9-year-old (which is also kinda a ad-hominem attack...just couched more elegantly..) but also I disagree.
You can disagree that piece should run, - I'd have no problem with it if done differntly myself, but I find it hard to consider my position both childish and old fashioned...
shiplore Aug 25th 2009 2:19PM
@ Masterash.
There has to be an editorial line, I think Mike, Dan and Elizabeth would all argue this, editorial decisions that have to be made in this "blog" this isn't anything goes, or we'd have stories about "How to hack" "how to scam etc", I just feel this piece crossed the line. I love this site, I come to it often and I don't have a personal issue with anyone and think they do a great job in general, but i disagree with this decision.
It's ludicrous to argue my point of view is childish. I'm not espousing burying your head in the sand pretending like private servers don't exist, the context was wrong with this story in my opinion.
Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they're an idiot. I understand the argument for running it, (though it's not been argued by the editors) and I respect it, I just disagree.
Bill Aug 25th 2009 2:19PM
18th Century, I had in mind something like the Alien & Sedition Acts. Kind of out there, I guess...it applies more directly to Bossy's below than to yours. The idea that things we disagree with SHOULD NOT BE COVERED.
The immaturity of it is this idea that allowing someone to say his piece without comment is necessarily an endorsement of that person's viewpoint. The 20/20 reference above is a good one. You'll see murderers, rapists and frauds interviewed on the news all the time (here in the US...I should stop assuming everyone I talk to is in this country), but you don't see them berated and insulted unless you're watching one of those sensationalistic cable news shows. On a real news program, they ask the questions and let the monster say what the monster wants to say. It's more interesting and illuminating that way. But it's obviously not an endorsement of murder, rape or fraud.
shiplore Aug 25th 2009 2:33PM
@Bill
Fair enough, I probably haven't explained my main issue was how it was presented. I don't need them them berate but that was a - I hope you would agree -- bit fluffy in terms of interview.
I think it should be covered, a lot of the "look out for x scam" articles on here have ereally protected me as a player.
I'm not arguing we shouldn't talk about things we don't like or disagree with, (and I can see how it may have come across that way, for that inelegance, I apologize) but I disliked the way in which it was presented, Lisa P. posted later that it's a misconception that this feature was designed to show just positive things, but it's name, and branding make that jump pretty easy.
As for the tacit endorsement/immaturity, I was actually thinking of for example - hotel parking lots where they always post "Not responsible for broken into vehicles" there are actually a lot of cases where they are responsible, just claiming a right doesn't establish it, which is also a little off -point here, but in relation to that being the ONLY critical part of the piece or opposing view point it didn't seem like enough.
EZ Aug 25th 2009 2:36PM
[Name-calling will be moderated. -- Lisa Poisso]
alamos Aug 25th 2009 2:52PM
Shiplore
This is a BLOG. Not a NEWS SITE. Sure, the may POST news, but it's still a blog.
shiplore Aug 25th 2009 3:01PM
@ ala
I addressed this previously, but it's a blog with an editorial position. They don't have to Follow Steven Brill to the letter of journalistic ethics, but they do obviously have an editorial position that is evident by the content they've produced.