Skip to Content
6-05-2011 @ 3:15AM
I don't see potential content as a problem. I consider that to be real-estate for future development.My concerned extend to too much initial content upon the release of a new expansion, followed by extended periods of no content in some way there after.They need to start planning to have a readily available backlog of content. We don't need it all from day one. They can cheat a little bit, hold something that is ready (or almost ready) back and add it in a future content patch. With luck (*coughproperprojectmanagementcough*) we could have regularly released content patches that don't suck due to lack of content.EVERY WoW expansion has suffered this. In BC, we had patch 2.2, yeah...worst content patch post-vanilla. Yes, it was worse that 4.1, trust me, look at the patch notes. NO CONTENT. In Wrath, the worse we had was 2.2, but it had a damn good range of content, just had a quality issue for the raid. Although the 5+ month wait on content patches was frustrating. And of course in Cata, we had 4.1. One rehashed and one reworked dungeon. I'm not against that sort of content, but if it's the ONLY content in a patch, AND it results in the removal of the previous content, then we're not actually gaining anything.
6-05-2011 @ 3:26AM
I agree but ZA and ZG are also serving to set up future content. Zul is going to be confronted at some point at so are the Zandalar and their king, Rastakhan.I totally agree with your point, but this (4.1) seemed to be more of a UI features patch instead of a content patch.
6-05-2011 @ 3:29AM
"In Wrath, the worse we had was 2.2,"^ 3.2---------------------To give an example on how holding content back for PLANNED future content. Let's look at Wrath. It was, afterall, the most organised content schedule to date.Imagine if, upon release, we DIDN'T have the Icecrown or Stormpeak zones. The landmass could be there, but you couldn't enter. They could have a zone-woide spell effect that prevents you from entering (IC=gargoyles chase you out/kill you with 5 seconds of entering. SP= heavy storm preventing access beyond the K3 area/questline).Now, had this been planned from the start, the developers could've redistributed resources to giving us Azjol-Nerub as a zone as originally intended, but since the lack of two zones (and two dungeons) would've freed up more time than that zone would take up, they could've worked on Stormpeaks anyway.Now, from there, imagine that 3.1 then had Stormpeaks and the Halls as additional content. Suddenly that patch is for more than just the raiders. It also gives us more to do whilst we wait for 3.2 which, due to IC being closed off and the addition of AN as a zone, could've been more interesting. A new area of the underground empire could open up, a Raid zone down there where you choose to either fight the Faceless ones or the Scourge. Then finally, 3.3, which would include the zone in addition to the raid and dungeons. Suddenly the year spent on 3.3 becomes much less painful.
6-05-2011 @ 3:35AM
I agree with you in regards to ZA and ZG being a set up. We haven't directly tackled the Zandalari yet, and when/where that happens will be intertesting.However, if 4.1 didn't have the intention of being a content patch, then they could've called in 4.0.8 (or which ever build they reached at that point) or waited to add it to the firelands patch so we have more than just a raid in it.People keep complaining about slow content patches and how Cata is slower than ever. Sadly, compared to Wrath's cycle, there is some truth, but other than that, compare it to BC and Vanilla, we have very similar periods of nothing for certain aspects of the game. i.e. nothing for dungeon only players in BC to do until 2.4. Poor bastards had to wait over a year.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.