The Queue: Spider Pig
by Adam Holisky 
Nov 4th 2009 at 11:00AM
Today's listening music for the Queue is Spider Pig. Don't ask why. It just is.
We answer a few good question today, so read on for the discussion. Also, don't forget to leave your questions in the comments or tweet them to @wowinsider. If we don't answer your question keep asking, we'll eventually get to it. Good times! On with the show...
Psiwave asks...
"Do you think Cataclysm is really just a sneaky way to release WoW2 without us noticing? A full talent rework for classes, a rebuild of the world for all levels of play and a reworking of stat allocation to name but a few changes. I get the feeling that Cataclysm will play more like a sequel than an expansion."
That's a very good question, and one that will likely be argued about a while after Cataclysm is released. My personal opinion is that I don't think Cataclysm will represent such a dramatic shift in the game mechanics to warrant it being referred to as a "new game," so to speak. The basic interactions of the major statistics are still going to be there -- it's really only the auxiliary stats that are changing significantly, and we've seen those undergo revisions every expansion so far.
I also don't think that the talents can be considered to be undergoing an entire refit -- granted several are getting moved around and will be present via different game mechanics, but overall things like Titan's Grip are still going to be around for us to use.
To me the principle change within Cataclysm will be the environment. Azeroth will be torn asunder, never returning to the way it was five years ago. In this aspect I do agree with you that it will be like WoW 2, but I think that's really the only way it can be viewed like that. I should note here that personally, for myself, it will be a big enough change. I have toons of every class between level 60 and 80, and I never really intended to go back and level through the old world again; but then I heard about Cataclysm and I can't wait to go and roll a goblin priest, if only to see new zones and quests.
I also like Ringo's answer: "What you call sneaky, I call brilliant. If Sony could go back and do it over, I'm sure they'd prefer to have retained their EQ1 numbers with EQ2, instead of fracturing the player base in two just as WoW was released."
EQ2 is a great game in my opinion, I've actually been playing it as long as WoW (although not anywhere nearly as seriously). In my dealings in the MMO industry I've heard lots of people say that EQ1 is actually doing slightly better than EQ2 now, and I'm sure Sony would do just about anything to go back in time and de-fracture their playerbase. The split they had will likely go down as one of the largest blunders in MMO history. And yes, I know what I'm saying will likely cause a lot of people to QQ, but such is life.
OreoNation asks...
"Do we know the stats for Quel'Delar?"
No, not yet. Check out more spoiler-rific information on the Quel'Delar if you don't know about it yet.
rtj125 asks...
"Do we know if the new LFG system will allow you to group with friends in your same battlegroup, but a different server?"
It does not appear that selected groups will be possible at this time. The new LFG system functions just like the battleground system works -- you get placed into groups at random with no option to select individual group members (beyond having one primary tank, one primary healer, and three primary DPS).
With that said, this would be a very popular feature if implemented, and I'm sure Blizzard has thought of it. Why it didn't make it into the final product would only be speculation.
For additional information on the new LFG system, check out our gallery of the new interface.
Jonathan asks...
"How can I write for WoW.com? I have an English major and am out of work."
I wish we had openings for all the great writers that are expressing interest in joining our team right now. Unfortunately we're not hiring at the moment. When we are hiring for a general call out we'll make a big deal of it on the site -- you'll notice posts go up about it and a few tweets.
Now with that said, we do have someone new coming on staff in the next week or so... I can't say more right now, but stay tuned. It'll be a very cool feature that I'm sure everyone will love.
Orkchop asks...
"Who would win in an arm wrestling match? Matt Rossi or Mike Sacco?"
Have you seen Rossi's picture? No offense to Sacco, but Rossi would destroy him.
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm will destroy Azeroth as we know it. Nothing will be the same. In WoW.com's Guide to Cataclysm you can find out everything you need to know about WoW's third expansion. From Goblins and Worgens to Mastery and Guild changes, it's all there for your cataclysmic enjoyment.Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, The Queue
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Void Nov 4th 2009 11:10AM
you listened to cbc radio fine sir?
samd.tyler Nov 4th 2009 11:13AM
new feature? im curious now....
Mordockk Nov 4th 2009 11:19AM
Is Queldelar going to be a legendary weapon? If so does that mean there is going to be 2 legendary weapons next patch for ICC?
And how many people actually made the mace from ulduar? We started giving the shards to one healer who took an extended break and then started giving them to another and now we have 3 healers with 10+ shards......QQ.
Nawaf Nov 4th 2009 11:26AM
Quel'delar probably won't be a legendary weapon for two reasons:
1. If they made it a legendary weapon, they would have to make the other weapons the player gets from exchanging it (if the sword is not for your class) with the sunreavers or the silver convenant legendary.
2. Quel'Serar wasn't legendary. Why will Quel'delar be better?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Arkeband Nov 4th 2009 11:50AM
If you've been paying attention to Mmo-champion, there were spells uncovered which were chance-on-hit that are meant for weapons - it stands to reason that the Quel'Delar weapon will be the one that inherits this property. For example, if you trade it for the dagger, you'd get the proc associated with the dagger spell that was datamined on your (assumedly epic) dagger.
Now the real question... will we be able to equip two of said daggers? =) It isn't fair that some classes that only have to use one weapon will be all set, while we only get one super-epic weapon and have to use a normal epic as our offhand... :(
thebitterfig Nov 4th 2009 1:17PM
I don't really see the legendariness of exchange weapons being a practical problem. Reforging a legendary sword into, say, a pole-arm would make that a pretty legendary pole-arm. Of course, that mandates that the quest be a "Let us remake this into an item of greater power!" instead of "Well, that's shiny but otherwise trash, so let's see if we've got anything in the back we could trade you for it."
tatsumasa Nov 4th 2009 1:59PM
@arkeband
so because you chose a dual wielding class, you think you deserve two legendary-quality items for the price of one? so when you open that legendary chest after defeating everything the game can throw at you, the chest magically pops out two items instead of one because it's you opening it? um how about no? the game doesn't revolve around you. instead of crying that you can only have one legendary how about you be glad you got one at all?
Mordockk Nov 4th 2009 2:16PM
@Arkeband
Sorry bro, I haven't been paying attention to MMO-Champion. Hence why I asked the question. Wow.com gives me enough stuff to read during work.
Brune Nov 4th 2009 3:10PM
Quel'Delar is NOT a legendary weapon, nor is any of the Quel'delar tradeins.
It's been said that they come from 5 mans. A legendary from 5 mans? Tallying off the availability of previous legendaries makes me think, perhaps not.
vinniedcleaner Nov 4th 2009 3:18PM
Seems like Arkeband was asking if it will be a unique weapon in that you can only equip one of them or if he could go back in and try for another one to drop and dual wield them both...
Nawaf Nov 4th 2009 11:19AM
"How can I write for WoW.com? I have an English major and am out of work."
What if someone wrote a really good article and wants to post it for free on WoW.com, is there a way that enables him to do that? an email maybe?
Adam Holisky Nov 4th 2009 11:25AM
We don't accept free work, unfortunately. All of our writers are paid and under some form of a contract.
Clydtsdk-Rivendare Nov 4th 2009 3:45PM
Find a relevant column on the site and copy-pasta.
Clydtsdk-Rivendare Nov 4th 2009 3:46PM
I mean copy-paste your article into a comment. Not plagiarize wow.com. Hehehehehe.... /flee
Dean Nov 4th 2009 4:30PM
But you could always throw it up on your own blog or somewhere else then send WoW.com a link, if they like it they might mention it, if they *really* like it then it might get a post all to itself..
Ratskinmahoney Nov 4th 2009 11:33AM
to the first point. i reckon that there probably never will be a WoW2 for precisely the reasons why Sony should never have released EQ2. People who have spent 3 years populating their account with characters representing thousands of hours of work are gonna be at best ambivalent about starting from scratch to get to new content, whereas the same people feel pretty much obliged to keep buying the latest expansions precisely because they have put so much effort into their accounts that it would seem a shame to fall behind.
Blizz would be better off releasing an entirely different MMO if they are going to produce a new game in toto (which i think is exactly what they're doing). Since within WoW I honestly don't think there is any demand for an insependent sequel. The online game format also allows for constant and dramatic revision of the existent game and allows for collection of subscription to be the major source of income versus unit sales, again eliminating the need to produce sequels either to amend issues in need of address within the product or to maintain income from the product.
I also reckon Blizz will probably keep away from allowing too much freedom in cross-realm interaction because of the money they make from realm transfers, and to try and preserve independence of realms. I might be wrong though, I can't think of any concrete reasons for it, other than preventing complications in in game economics or society, but then I'm not a game designer so what do I know.
Holgar Nov 4th 2009 11:55AM
I agree with what your saying completely. Another good example to look at is Runescape 1 Runescape 2.
Runescape 2 was basically Runescape 1 with 3d graphics and a few minor tweaks. People were free to use the same account that they had leveled on Runescape 1 on Runescape 2.
Of course a few holdouts stayed with runescape 1 but the majority of the playerbase happily moved over to Runescape 2. Jagex did NOT split their playerbase by radically changing the game and making Runescape 2 a whole different game.
Since then they have launched Runescape HD which is exactly the same as Runescape 2 just with much improved graphics.
I totally agree with the asessment that fracturing the EQ playerbase was a REALLY bad idea on Sony's part. Your going to lose players when you do massive revamps, but thats part of life, some people HATE the idea of Cataclysm with a passion, but for the most of us it is likely to be a breath of fresh air that brings back many old players and brings in many new ones.
Wulfkin Nov 4th 2009 9:05PM
I agree completely. We will likely never need WoW2, we just need periodically updated WoW. Partly, as mentioned, because we have characters that we have invested years in, so we don't want to start over completely, but also because you grow to love the world you play in. Sure Cataclysm will change things, but it changes existing things into new forms. yes, the Barrens will have a big schism running through it, but its still the Barrens. The world is the same one you know and love, just with interesting changes made to it. Its like going back to the town you grew up in. Some key things have changed for better or worse, but its still very familiar.
I was an avid EQ1 player who swtiched to EQ2 only to abandon it after a couple of months. It wasn't at all the same game, it wasn't even the same world. Whilst places had the same geographical names and the same races were playable, it just wasn't anything like the Norrath I had grown up in (figuratively). If instead we'd seen EQ1 undergo some dramatic storyline events and a big graphics overhaul, I'd probably still be playing today.
Ratskinmahoney Nov 5th 2009 5:22AM
One thing that did occur to me after writing this was that, while this is all fine for experienced players, maybe it doesn't take into account the experiences of new players.
I remember levelling my first toon straight to 80 was quite an effort. When I reached 60, and then 70, I think I would have quite liked a break. Maybe Blizz may start to find that as the level cap grows and grows people are less and less prepared to put the time in to get up to end game.
Then again, maybe I'm just too lazy.
Lucas Nov 5th 2009 7:32PM
and to be honest im pretty worried this will happen to Guild Wars *stares blankly at the amazing looking Guild Wars 2 trailer* I bloody hope not :( although I will miss my lvl 20 warrior/monk...
woops! rambling on about Guild Wars on a WoW blog :P
I dont think blizzard will ever make us start from scratch, it doesnt seem their style