Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Versions

this is going to be a long list if it will be updated every patch, is that what should happen on wikipedia? how do other mmorpgs handle the list of their patches? should we regulate what gets posted, just a few lines / whole stories / a different page for it / links to worldofwarcraft site patch notes? --boneyard 13:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that the version section should be removed entirely and relevant features incorporated into the main body of the article. --Kevin 15:46, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think the section should cover major patches, ie the content patches. Because some of the changes have drastically changed the game, for example the PvP honor system, has made many PvP server unplayable for people needing to grind. PPGMD 16:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think any version section is a bad idea. Over time such a section would inevitably take over the page since Blizzard have a patch a month policy. --Kevin 15:17, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

we could just give the current version number and list per patch the major stuff, that shouldn't get too large. i do believe nowhere blizzard has stated they have a patch per month policy and certainly not a content patch a month policy. Boneyard

Blizzard promised a content patch a month which is why there was such uproar when they didn't deliver this. I'm in favour of replacing the Version section with "As of {date} World of Warcraft is operating version {version}" and adding a See Also: World of Warcraft version history. What do you think? --Kevin 04:59, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

that would work with me also, all that info would simply be too much for the main page. still i believe they didn't promise anything patchwise and stated that clearly when people complained about not seeing monthly patches. Boneyard 10:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

As nobody has any objections to make about this I've gone ahead and move the version history to World of Warcraft version history. --Kevin 23:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Works for me, as long as we keep a short thing on the notable additions in the latest content patches. Beyond that I think that it can be moved to another article. PPGMD 15:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

always seemed like the smart thing todo in my opinion Boneyard 18:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Er.... doesnt Blizzard patch Weekly? On Tuesday at 10:00 AM? Those are minor patches usually but Battlegrounds came out on Tuesday morning... That would make it even harder to make a patch list.

No, Blizzard does not patch weekly. The servers are taken down weekly for maintenance and a hot-fix is sometimes but not usually applied. --Kevin 19:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I would like a listing of major changes, so when a player returns from trying other games, they know how to adjust, and what new features & places to seek out.

---

Total Sales

Does anyone know how many copies/accounts of the game have been sold sa of March 1st? thaksn

The current figure stands somewhere at six million registered accounts. As for units sold, I'm not sure, but I suppose it's reasonable to estimate at least four million.

Ebay Sales

""Recently, Blizzard altered the End User License Agreement EULA to specifically forbid the real-world sale of in-game material (e.g., via eBay). They are the first MMORPG publisher to take this step. This move is designed to make play more accessible to the casual player.""

uh, that is simply not true, about every mmorpg doesn't allow ebay sales. enforcement differs, but it isn't allowed except a few special games. also blizzard isn't a publisher but a developer, where vivendi is the publisher i think. --boneyard 11:41, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're right and I fixed it. Don't forget to be bold and change it yourself next time you see an error. --Mrwojo 02:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that companies like ige.com and the japanese game sweatshop money/item sellers are more of a problem than the sellers on ebay. In final fantasy xi the game economy was completely ruined until square-enix tooks steps (2 years after its release, better late than never) and booted hundreds of these type accounts after a notice of significant drop in player population (ironic). These sites have many resources and are on 24/7 which only the hardest of hard core players can do. Blizzard was one of the few developers to VERY publicly display there policy, and enforce it as well, which is rare for mmo devs. WoW also doesnt suffer from the usual item farming since most of them are instanced and bind on pick-up. I do appreciate the steps blizzard takes because i too am a casual player and enjoy the very reasonable prices in the game world. --Tik

Ambiguous wording

"" World of Warcraft picks up the Warcraft storyline four years after the conclusion reached in Blizzard's previous release, Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne. "" -- But the Frozen Throne expansion was released in 2003 if the page was correct. -- sydneyfong 12 Jan 2005 04:17 (GMT)

Well, the four years is four years of game time, not four years of "real" time since TFT was release - I have reworded it as: "World of Warcraft is set four years after the events at the conclusion of Blizzard's previous release, Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne", do you prefer that? --Stormie 06:11, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

CopyVio

This is directly from the World of Warcraft FAQ on Blizzard's site; pretty sure that's copyrighted. --ObscureAuthor 23:00, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We should have an article on this, though. Ideally before it is actually released, to cash in on the interest around release date (so, some time before 2030 then). Martin 01:17, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

New article written, not a copyvio (and old version excised from history). --Delirium 23:06, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

Added WoW to WarI

I moved some content added about WoW in the Warcraft I article (an image). Seems like there's some confusion about that one, with people thinking it's one for the Warcraft Universe. The initial paragraph in it clearly shows it's the article for Warcraft: Orcs & Humans. If one is needed for the universe, I think we need a new article. Not sure it's necessary though. So now there's two images here which might be a little much, although I personally think it's OK as long as we don't add *yet* another. :-) -- Jugalator 22:29, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rest state removal

I deleted a small section mentioning the rest state. I removed this for two reasons. First, the information was incorrect as Blizzard has recently changed the rest-state implementation. Second, it is only one of many changes that Blizzard is implementing to try and improve upon other MMORPGS. Maybe a section for major differences is appropriate? --Turias 21:15, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Page Appearance

I just edited this page using a Mac, and it appears that sections starting from General infomation got pushed down below the pictures....i didn't touch any of that during my edit... o.O

and this is not the only page where the appearance is different from the actual coding(as seen on a Mac)... maybe it's the syntax of either IE for Mac or it's just wiki's language has some faults with how it's displayed on a Mac — LegolasGreenleaf 22:16, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

IE on a mac is reported to be the worst browser available. Even safari is better. I'd suggest Mozilla Camino [1] or Mozilla Firefox or even Mozilla as an alternative. --TIB (talk) 04:12, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

• thanks...i'm actually stuck with a desktop running winxp... the mac i used was at school so... i tried safari a few times and on some websites it wouldn't even load... =/ i should give Mozilla Firefox a try — LegolasGreenleaf 09:30, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Example of image overlap

Example of image overlap

This is what the images currently look like to me, using Firefox 1.0 on Windows XP. Should they be overlapping the horizontal bars like that?

--Kevin 14:15, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Hey i have not noticed that actually... it overlapped the bar on IE6 as well. I am using win 2000 at a school computer, i will check it out later at home. argh this computer has a messed up keyboard, whenever i want to type the apostrophe ( ' ), it turns out to be � ... screw that — LegolasGreenleaf 01:34, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Overload

Recently I've noticed on the official forums that this http://www.wowwiki.com seems to be the best. The best, why, one may ask... Simple. The creator of the most popular UI Mod, "Cosmos", has officially endorsed it. Yet we don't list it. I said "No more wikis", as there are many already, but this wowwiki.com is just too good to not add. If someone could do some checking on the quality of these other wikis and if they have enough unique information (asin, not on wowwiki.com or another comprehensive wiki) keep them, else dump them (preferably post them here so they don't get lost in the history). Thanks. --TIB (talk) 06:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I atleast think we should add non-english wiki sites to the list. To me, having Cosmos endorse it means nothing. Plus, Wiki is all about information. And excluding sites because there are so called "better" out there is wrong. And if this is the case we should remove WoWwiki.com aswell. Havok 20:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why should we add non-English links to the English article? Add some to the appropriate language article if you like. Wikipedia is about providing the best, most accurate information and none of these two-bit wikis would actualy contribute anything to the article. --Kevin 01:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Forsaken are not the Undead

There is a reason why Blizzard removed the racial trait of that the Forsaken can't stay in underwater for an unlimited time and the fact that the Paladin's skill of Finding Undead doesn't work on them anymore. Blizzard changed status of Forsaken from 'Undead' to 'Humanoid'. This is because (and quoting a Blizzard official) "the Forsaken are not the Undead. They are the Forsaken."

I suggest we make changes regarding to comply with that as soon as possible. Mastgrr 13:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whilst The Forsaken are not (in terms of game mechanics) "undead", the race available to players is referred to exclusively as Undead, not Forsaken (see [2]). The choices of Horde races is always listed as Orcs, Tauren, Undead and Trolls (see [3]), and thus I think it is not really correct for our article to say "The Horde consists of Orcs, Tauren, Forsaken, and Trolls." —Stormie 23:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

While within the Story line they are the Forsaken, that is simply not the phrase that Blizzard is using for them, they are the undead. Their change of status from Undead to Humuniod was to even up PvP combat, otherwise the Undead would be in a distinct disadvantage to some of the various undead aimed spells, by making them humoniod it solved that. This change also made it more even the humuniod trackers, as the undead would only show up in track undead otherwise, while the Alliance has no such race that doesn't show up. PPGMD

I have changed "Forsaken" to "Undead" in our article under General Information as the official WoW site refers to the player race as "Undead" ... also put "(A.K.A. Forsaken)" and keeping the existing link there, hopefully this makes everyone happy. JubalHarshaw 16:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Works for me! —Stormie 19:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Undead a general term, and the Forsaken are the Undead that escaped the Lich King's control? And the rest of the undead are the Scourge? 84.94.140.214 16:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After the Beta Blizzard change the name from Undead to Forsaken as to not confuse people who play as Paladin. Seeing as they have Undead only spells, which do not work on the Forsaken. I might be wrong on this, but there was a huge debate about it on the forums while beta was active. Havok 16:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They have been called Undead since release. It was during one of the early patches that they had their status changed from Undead to Humaniod. PPGMD 18:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Links

wowwiki.com is a good site, but from what i've seen of it, it is very developer focused. It has a lot of great info about the API and doing mods for the UI, however, it is poor at best when it comes to game info. Mostly I think it's one of the UGLIEST sites i've ever read. here is a fine example: http://www.wowwiki.com/Guilds

The absolute best site to list is http://www.thottbot.com honestly no other site even comes close when it comes to game info.

There are some other wiki sites around, however since they are less known, they have less users, so less users mean less people to edit. It's a chicken before the egg kind of thing.

Then of course there are users like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stormie

who "just happens" to also be: http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=User:Stormie Go figure...

So I maintain that no wiki sites should be listed unless all are listed. Link to official sites only to remain unbiased.

Are you suggesting I am affiliated with wowwiki.com? I found out it existed from this article here, surfed over there, and made a couple of updates. You may notice that I've made a small handful of edits there compared to 5000 or so here.

One good point - thottbot should definitely be linked from this article. As far as I know it is a unique concept in that it gathers its info direct from the game via Cosmos, and you are certainly correct that no other site comes close when it comes to game info. Anyone object?

My personal opposition to adding your Wiki to the links is that according to it's recent changes you're only getting a few edits per day. It hardly seems like a major site.

Although, imho, all of the WoW wikis are extremely disappointing. The original idea was that linking to them would reduce the inclination of people to add excessive game detail to this article, but frankly I'm not sure that any of them are blossoming into useful enough sites to be worth a link. wowwiki is, as you say, very developer focused, and also appears to be pretty much broken at this point in time. wikiwow is full of red-links for the most basic topics, and only getting a couple of dozen updates a day.

What does anyone else think? —Stormie 09:06, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

You're both right about how Thottbot should be linked. It's essentially the Google of WoW – people will answer questions just by saying "www.thottbot.com". I went ahead and added it. modargo 09:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering, should Allakhazam be added as well? It also covers a variety of aspects about the game and has helpful guides for use. Perhaps Thottbot is enough, I thought I'd just through that out there since many players also are familliar with Allakhazam because of their work on other games -Derktar 18:55, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC).

I think that Thottbot and the WoW forums are enough for guides, what u cant find on the bot you can surely ask about in one of the many forum topics and get an answer (and at least one calling you a newb) to help u out. -Tik

Though I am not the person that added Worldofwar.net, I think that it should be added in. In particular a link to it's map section, because they have the most complete map section I have seen so far. Another site that I think should be added should be a like to the mods section of curse-gaming.com. PPGMD 14:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good call on curse-gaming.com - as someone who checks their "latest updates" page more often than my Wikipedia watchlist these day, I certainly think they're the most significant UI mod site, and I do think that that is a significant distinguishing feature of WoW. But we could really do with a paragraph about UI modding in the article. It'd be grand if someone wanted to take a stab at it, if not I'll see if I can whip something up in the next few days. I'm not so sure about worldofwar.net though - remember that any links here are supposed to illustrate and expand on an encyclopedia article about the game, not a guide to the game for players. Maybe if we broke out another subsection of External Links, called "Game info" or something, and moved Thottbot, Allakhazam and Goblin Workshop there along with maybe worldofwar.net? What's anyone else think? —Stormie 23:29, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Googled for "World of Warcraft" cedega (trying to get it to run on Linux - I know it can, just needed instructions) and I found this: http://www.answers.com/topic/world-of-warcraft I don't know the legality of it, but it would appear that answers.com is using stuff straight from wikipedia. I don't think this is a legal issue (I forget the licensing) just figured I'd mention it. -Kcnbac