NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Talk:World of Warcraft/Draft

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has a Citable Version.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Catalogs [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition An online video game, released by Blizzard Entertainment in 2004. [d] [e]

Classes

The section describing classes should be re-written to be a little more functional and to better outline what the different main roles are of each class. I feel a table will suit this purpose well. Will be working on this soon. --Eric Clevinger 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! is all I can say.... Hayford Peirce 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
lol Hayford. Okay, I have added the classes table and re-designed that section. This should be fairly accurate. Let me know if there are any issues. --Eric Clevinger 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

How about a criticism or public reception section? While the article is well written, I can't stand the game itself, and know that alot of other people feel that way. It would be good to include that info somewhere in the article. Drew R. Smith 21:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I'm not even a huge fan of the game anymore, just make edits now and then because I know about it. But a reception/criticism section would be great. --Eric Clevinger 23:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Races

I removed a couple of sentences that seemed out of place here. --Eric Clevinger 00:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Gameplay Section Removal

I would like to suggest removing the 'Gameplay' section, thereby making 'Settings', 'Professions', 'Characters', etc. top level sections. This is because there are going to be a lot of sections to this article, and many of those will require sub-sections and sub-sub-sections. As most of the article will refer to different aspects of 'gameplay' I believe the 'Gameplay' heading itself is redundant. What do you think? Chris Key 18:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you plan to discuss gameplay in much detail. This may make the main page article too long and too detailed for the "casual" reader. Therefore I would suggest to consider moving details to (a) subpage(s) or (a) separate article(s) or and restrict the main page to an overview that is informative and interesting for readers not (yet?) afficinados of the game. --Peter Schmitt 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that there is a lot of details that will belong on subpages rather than the main page. I do still believe that the overview on the main page will require sub-sections to maintain good standards of readability. For example I think that the setting overview that I wrote earlier is appropriate for the main page, but would be awkward to read if it wasn't split into several sections. Similarly the current Player Vs. Player section could do with splitting into sections for Arena, Battlegrounds and World PvP. As such, I would still like to remove the 'Gameplay' heading. --Chris Key 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
As the structure is now, the title "Gameplay" is indeed not needed (there only is References on the same level), so it can indeed be removed. It may be necessary to restructure later. E.g., 1.6. and 1.7. (maybe also 1.5) seem not to fit in "Gameplay". As to material for subpages: the tables could be candidates ... but there is no hurry, this can evolve ... --Peter Schmitt 22:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this highlights another problem with an overarching 'gameplay' section. There are too many variations on the definition. For example, 1.6 (PvP) is something that I would definately put under Gameplay. 1.7 (Servers) I agree appears to not mainly be about gameplay, however the choice of server does have a significant impact on the gameplay. It alters many of the rules of the game. Anyway, for now I shall remove the Gameplay title. --Chris Key 22:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Setting

The sections about the setting are very well written, but I think may just be a bit too detailed, beyond the scope of a main article (even if they are split into sections). Perhaps a more brief and to the point summary of the setting, and the 3 main continents, and then have a secondary article, World of Warcraft Universe or something like that, that goes into all the greater detail regarding Azeroth, as you have written here in the main article. --Eric Clevinger 01:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree - Azeroth --Chris Key 02:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Too focused on gameplay?

This article should be interesting to non-players of WoW. There's nothing wrong with a broad overview of the game's aspects and, indeed, WoW's breadth is incredible. Generally, though, I think most gameplay minutiae is best described when it relates to topics broader than the game itself. For example, I recall seeing a Craigslist ad (it's all over the Web now) titled "An EPIC mount! (warcraft players look inside) - w4m" and offered sex in return for an Epic Flying Mount, something that some people spend years to attain. Some people pay real money for virtual goods; others "outsource" their own playing of the game--something I'd presume they would enjoy doing--at their own financial expense. And then, of course, there is the issue of game addiction, which is a charge leveled at WoW more than any other game that I've seen. There are the obligatory follow-up questions to these observations, particularly: Why? Why do people pay real money for virtual goods? Why would a woman prostitute herself for a couple of bits stored on a server? And so on and so forth. As the most popular MMORPG, World of Warcraft can shed much light on MMORPG metaculture.

I think this article in The New Yorker about Ultima Online is highly readable and enlightening for anyone, fans of the game or not. Nick Bagnall 13:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I just (mistakenly) aasumed that there is no page on MMORPG (I took the abbreviation MMPORPG and spelling multi-player from the New Yorker article). I'll have to correct this. And since I trust the New Yoryker I probably will move the article to the title with the hyphen. Sorry for being hasty!
This parent page probably is the right place to discuss the social impact of these games. --Peter Schmitt 14:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
A first search seems to favour "multiplayer". I shall have to ask our language experts ... Peter Schmitt 14:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Definately "multiplayer" without the hyphen. Publishers, leading developer resource sites, leading game review sites, universities and just about everyone else in the indusry do not use a hyphen. --Chris Key 15:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Peter. The issues of microtransactions, addictions and social impact apply to all MMORPGs, not just WoW. WoW just tends to receive more attention as it is the biggest. Therefore most of these should be in the MMORPG page. I do however believe that there should be non-gameplay sections on things like reception and criticisms, and perhaps the WoW specific incidents such as Corrupted Blood. --Chris Key 15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, for game specifics. --Peter Schmitt 23:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Catalogs

I have created a few Catalogs to move the tables to. This aids readability. I have just directly moved the tables so far and have not edited them for accuracy. I have seen some mistakes however, so I will do this later. --Chris Key 11:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on the classes table, and catalog. I knew that there were some changes to the classes announced in Cataclysm, but I just never got around to updating it. I also like the decision to leave the main class roles explained in the main article. Good work. --Eric Clevinger 00:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

  • 1st paragraph: "currently holds the Guinness World Record" -- 'currently' should be specified
  • "Tanking - Which means being able" -- it would be better to use a phrase similar to that for the other items

--Peter Schmitt 23:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Both fixed. --Chris Key 08:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A question of style

Personally, I dislike phrases like "Finally the player must choose their characters appearance." I can "overlook" isolated occurrences, but if they appear frequently (as here) I find them irritating. Of course, I am not a native speaker ... --Peter Schmitt 23:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why these are irritating to you, but I have changed a few of the occurrences in case you are not alone. --Chris Key 08:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It does not fit into the language as I have learned it. It is a "forced" change by PC politics (if I am correct). There are similar attempts in German, too. I dislike them very much. But, as I said, it is up to the natural speakers to decide about their language. --Peter Schmitt 15:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

PvE

The acronym PvE is used once, with explanation what it denotes, but not from what long form it is derived. --Peter Schmitt 11:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed --Chris Key 12:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What I miss

This is a nice and readable description of the game and some of its gameplay.

  • However, what is the goal a player tries to reach? A high level? Many points? Simply survive? Is there some ultimate goal defined?
  • How much time has to be spent (minimum) on the game to have fun?
  • How is the outcome of an encounter, battle, etc. determined. Is it pure luck? Does the player have some information (a set of rules, etc.) from that he can infer a strategy for his actions? Or is the player kept completely in the dark about his chances and choices?
  • Are manual skills important, or careful chosen actions?

--Peter Schmitt 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion most of these questions are not relevant to the article as they are standard for the type of game and/or completely depend on the player:
* As in most MMOs there is no goal - each player chooses how they wish to play the game. Some choose to reach maximum level (80, as mentioned in the article), some choose to not level at all and remain level 1. Some players choose to concentrate on completing quests, some on taking part in instances, some concentrate on player-vs-player. Some simply use professions in order to make as much gold as possible. Some enjoy mixing all of the above. There are many other paths a player can follow, and some players simply create their own.
* Some players have fun from the moment they start the game. Some don't like levels 1-79, and only have fun once they reach top level play. For some, the fun ends when top level is reached. There is no correct answer to this question.
* The details of how battles are determined would take a discussion the length of the article again, but generally it is the same as in any MMORPG. There are some elements of luck and some elements of skill, but skill is favoured. Each role (DPS, Healer, Tank) plays completely differently, and each class plays completely differently. On top of that, each class has three skill paths it can follow, and again each plays completely differently. Also, PvP encounters are entirely different to non-PvP (PvE) encounters. In addition, PvE encounters (especially bosses in instances) are often very different also. In my opinion this is all the same as in almost any MMORPG, and would not be of interest to anyone who wasn't playing the game yet wouldn't be in sufficient details for anyone who was.
* Again, depends entirely on the situation, the area of the game you are talking about and the players class/skills.
--Chris Key 16:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, Chris. If *I* as a complete neophyte wanted to find out about this game, those are all questions I would want answered. I remember years ago I was in a bookstore once and saw a book called "Teach Yourself Bridge" or some such. I was *vaguely* interested, at least to the point of picking up the book and looking at the first page. The opening words were something like: "In order to complete a double meld, the lead player takes the first 13 whammers and doogers them onto the table without telling his partner that the frammis is missing but has been doubled in spades." Not a single friggin' word about what the *point* of the game was, what the goal was, or anything elementary like that. As you may guess, I never taught myself bridge. But I've always been conscious of this sort of gap in CZ articles and have criticized a bunch of people over the years for writing articles in which the lede paragraph did NOT tell the average, intelligent layman WHAT the damn article was about, or what the whoosis is used for. You don't have to give *details* about any of these things, but enough so that layman who knows *nothing* about the subject now has at least a vague idea of where it fits into the general order of things. Hayford Peirce 17:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, although I don't entirely agree with it. The last two questions I can come up with something for. The second question is entirely subjective, and I don't think there is an answer out there that would be accurate or useful.
My biggest problem is the first question. Unlike a traditional video game, there isn't a goal to the game and there isn't a point to it. It would be like trying to define the goal or point of horseriding. There are many things to do, many things to achieve, but no goal. Whatever you do, there is more. This is common in almost all MMOs.
The article does describe the main points of the game though. Here are the key related paragraphs:
By accepting and completing missions (or quests, as they are called in the game), as well as killing enemies, characters will earn experience points, allowing them to go up in level and power, as well as earning them money, equipment, and increased reputation with their respective faction. Originally, characters could advance from level 1 to level 60. Now characters can progress to a maximum level of 70 if they have purchased the Burning Crusade expansion, and to a maximum level of 80 if they have purchased the Wrath of the Lich King expansion as well. Players who also install the upcoming expansion Cataclysm will be able to progress to a maximum level of 85.
[Instances/Raids] are harder than corresponding outside areas, featuring much stronger monsters and accompanying bosses. Of course, the rewards are also better. Such is the difficulty of instances that a character venturing into one of the appropriate levels will only succeed if grouped into a 'party' with some other players ... Some of the best rewards in the game are found by completing raids.
The gameplay for Arathi Basin is to capture the 5 nodes, and while holding these nodes, points are accumulated, and when either faction reaches 2000 points, the battleground is over. Other battlegrounds have different objectives and mechanics, such as capturing of a flag or the use of vehicles.
If the controlling faction manages to defend the keep for thirty minutes then they have successfully defended it and control is retained by them. However, if the opposing faction manages to breach the keep, they take control of the fortress for the next period. Controlling Wintergrasp brings various benefits, including access to a raid and to easier farming for crafting materials.
By winning arena matches teams advance in rank, and are matched against teams of increasing skill. Every year, Blizzard also runs an Arena Tournament allowing teams to compete for a variety of prizes, including cash prizes totalling more than $200,000
I personally believe that these sections give the reader an overview of what the game is all about, and what things can be done in it. If you still disagree, I shall add the following paragraph in the introduction:
As is common in MMOs, there is no particular goal or aim for the game. Players are provided with a large variety of areas that they can participate in. Some players choose to focus on reaching the maximum level in the game as quickly as possible, gaining the best possible equipment and completing the hardest AI controlled creatures and encounters, which are usually found in areas known as #instances. As content is added to the game several times a year, there is no end to this route. Other players choose to freeze the level of their character at a certain level so they can enjoy defeating encounters designed for those levels. Popular choices for this are to freeze at level 60 in order to enjoy the original end-game instances that were released with the launch of World of Warcraft, or to freeze at level 70 for the end-game instances released in The Burning Crusades.
Other players do not enjoy participating in instances, and instead prefer the experience of levelling characters by completing quests. These players often have many characters as there are ten different playable classes which each provide a unique playing experience, and each of these ten classes has three different skill paths which also alter their playstyle. Also the Alliance and Horde factions have many quests that are unique to their faction, so players often have characters from both factions.
For some players the fun part of the game is not in the AI controlled encounters, but in facing other players in combat. These players participate in the #Player Vs. Player portions of the game. Even within this area there are a variety of options. A number of battlegrounds are provided for those who enjoy large-scale combat, and each of these has it's own rules and winning conditions. Other players prefer smaller fights, and some say these require more skill. For these players the arena is provided, allowing teams of two, three or five players to face each other. There is also world PvP which can take the form of small random fights throughout the game world, annihilating small towns, or even invading the opposing faction's cities and defeating their leaders. Many players advance to maximum level in order to compete in PvP, however some choose to freeze their level at a lower point.
Options remain even for players who do not find enjoyment in any of those areas. Some players use #Professions and the auction house in order to make as much gold as possible. Other players set themselves goals such as reaching top level without dying[1] or without killing anything[2]. An achievement system also exists, giving players a number of tasks to complete for little or no reward. These achievements vary greatly and include defeating all instances in the game, exploring the entire world, participating in holiday events, and hugging all of the critters (rabbits, snakes, deer and other harmless creatures) in the game.
I don't personally think this adds much to the article, as it mainly repeats things stated elsewhere. However, if you like it, I'll add it. --Chris Key 20:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work! I'll let Peter make that weighty decision! Hayford Peirce 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I'll have to think about this. In the meantime I have two more questions (on the reception) which may help in connection with the others: What does this game distinguish from others? What is the reason for its tremendous success? This game is said to be very addictive for many, more than others -- what makes it so? --Peter Schmitt 23:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph you suggest, Chris, does not really solve the problem. It still assumes some acquaintance with such games, and mentions too much details, I think. You are still writing from the point of someone knowing the game very well for persons who know (at least) these types of games quite well. (It is similar to the article on baseball, Hayford -- that is also (still) too crytic.) In the meantime I have some more questions, on details, but quite important: How easily do characters get killed? Have players to start from the beginning? (Costs?) What if a player owns several characters? What happens to characters when one is not online? Detailed answers on this can go into a general article (on gameplay, mechanics, strategy, etc. of multiiplayer online games), of course. But a brief characterization -- emphasizing particularities -- belong here, too. --Peter Schmitt 12:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter: I've added to the lede para. of Baseball -- what do you think? I see that some of my text is now redundant with the end of the second para. but the hell with it.... Hayford Peirce 18:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Peter, when you write an article such as countable set you do expect the reader to have some familiarity with mathematics, or at least expect them to read the linked articles. Similarly, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the reader of an article about a video game to have some familiarity with video games, or at least to read the relevant linked articles. If not, then I am going to end up having to write almost exactly the same paragraphs of every single video game, and then another set of paragraphs on every single game from a particular genre.
Having said that, I've read the bit I wrote above again and I cannot see which bits you are referring to. All of it reads very straightforwardly to me, or is explained in more detail elsewhere in the article. Which bits do you have problems with?
I'll look into getting answers to some of those questions into the article. I'm also, for now at least, am going to put the paragraphs I wrote above into the article. --Chris Key 19:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hayford, you react very quickly ... but I'll not check it out as quickly. There are other things to come first.
Chris, it can well be that "countable set" (or other mathematical topics) could and should be improved. But I do not think that the situation is comparable. I agree with you that (as I said above) common issues should be treated in separate articles. But this does not exclude to try to put the individual articles into perspective. I'll try to show what I mean with an example that could be put into the lead section. But this example is ficticious insofar as I do not know if the facts stated fit WoW.:
WoW was the first game that combines all types of video games -- from one-person shooting over puzzle-like adventures and strategic battle planning to cooperative roleplaying -- in a single unified setting from which every player can choose according his preferences. The game is highly flexible and can be played successfully whether one spends two hours a month or several hours a day online. This, together with superior graphics and sophisticated rules, have made the game the most successful video game yet. A minor drawback is the fact that a player who loses his character has to register again and start from the beginning. It is often criticized since because of its attractivity the game also generates more addictive behaviour than any other video game.
--Peter Schmitt 22:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this kind of introductory paragraph, and as I said I will attempt to include answers to most of your questions once I have a bit of time - including mechanics and reasons for success. However, the above paragraphs that you said did not solve the problem were an attempt to answer the question "what is the goal a player tries to reach?". I still don't understand how they fail to answer that question in a satisfactory way. --Chris Key 22:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I meant: They do not solve the problem of briefly characterizing the game in the lead. They were an expansion of the article. You yourself put them in as a new section of the main article (and called them (partially) repetitive?). --Peter Schmitt 22:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that's because they were designed to answer the question about the game's goal, not as an addition to the lead. I'll add something to the lead some time this week when I have some time. --Chris Key 09:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I've made a number of edits that I think answer all of your questions, as well as enhance the introduction. What do you think? --Chris Key 13:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
As time progresses it may be difficult to tell which edits I was referring to. It was these edits. --Chris Key 15:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Thank you, Chris. it seems that all important issues are treated, except one: WoW is (because of its great success) also criticised/accused to create and attract more game addictive behaviour than other games. --Peter Schmitt 11:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The video game addiction phenomena is not exclusive to WoW. Many people are addicted to a wide variety of games. I agree that it has been shown that MMOGs are particularly addictive compared to other, however WoW has not been shown to be more addictive than other MMOGs. There are more players of WoW than other games, and therefore more stories of WoW addiction around on the internet. Also as WoW is a name familiar to many non-gamers, the media often refer to it when talking about game addiction in general. I haven't seen a non-sensationalist article claiming that WoW is more addictive than other MMOGs.
My thoughts therefore are that video game addiction should be covered in it's own article, with perhaps subsections in Video Game and/or Massively Multiplayer Online Game. What do you think? --Chris Key 12:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that game addiction is a general phenomenon. And indeed, the critiicism I know is from media news (e.g., on a WoW convention) that probably can be explained as you say. Therefore, I do not insist on including this here. However, if you think it suitable a statement like "Frequent criticism in connection with game addiction is based on the game's popularity rather than on a particular feature of WoW." could be added. --Peter Schmitt 13:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense. I've added something along those lines. --Chris Key 17:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Some minor questions

What is "mana"? What is "AI"? Is it one subscription per character?

Ref 2 and 4 point are for the same news item -- ref 2 is "Press release not found" but offers to switch to its German version. Moreover, this shows also some duplication of content in the introduction.

Ref 11 is "Press release not found"

--Peter Schmitt 16:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Mana is a resource used to power spells. It is a technical issue and not worth expanding on, so I have removed the reference to it.
AI = Artificial Intelligence. I've made this clear on it's first usage.
As explained under Cost of Play, "Licences allow the player to create up to 50 characters, although this is limited to 10 per server." It is one subscription per licence.
I fixed ref 2 and 11 - they definately DID work before. Is there a way to point ref 4 to ref 2?
--Chris Key 17:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean <ref name=... /> (see e.g. Domain Name System)? Well, I know AI, but I did not think of it here ... --Peter Schmitt 19:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thats what I meant. Fixed it. --Chris Key 20:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


PvP consistency

I acknowledge that PvP is a technical term, but in most cases "player-vs-player" is used. For consistency, PvP should only be used when the technical term is meant. And if so: is it "P vs P" or "P vs. P"? --Peter Schmitt 00:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have almost never seen player-vs-player used with the dashes, and a quick google search on the term agrees with me, so I think that the dashes should be removed from all usages. I do agree there should be some consistency, and whilst I have seen "Player vs Player", "Player vs. Player" and "Player versus Player" all used almost equally, a little research suggests that "Player vs. Player" is most common. --Chris Key 06:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
My feeling is that in most cases player-vs-player is used as a plain English phrase and not as a technical term. We should probably consult one of our language experts about this. --Peter Schmitt 11:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
My feeling is that it is always used to refer to the World of Warcraft part of the game known as "Player vs. Player", and that this is the phrase used in practically every video game article, magazine, review and documentation. We shall see what Ro thinks. --Chris Key 12:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much either way, as long as one is consistent. I've glanced through the examples in the article, and it looks right to me. The hyphens are used as I outlined in Hyphen#More than one hyphen: 'player-vs-player' as a compound adjective before a noun. But when it's not an adjective, as in the header, the hyphens are too fussy:

<<Player vs. Player

For the most part the Horde and the Alliance factions are at war, and therefore World of Warcraft provides several opportunities for players to fight members of the opposing faction. These are known as player-vs-player (PvP) fights.>>

That looks fine to me. I happen to prefer it to the capital version, but Hayford, who likes caps rather more than I do, may feel otherwise... Ro Thorpe 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking further on it, looking around and asking around, and I strongly disagree with this. Take for example the quote Ro used above... they are NOT known as player-vs-player fights. Never ever. They are known as Player vs. Player fights, including the capitals. It is an area of the game that the game developers call Player vs. Player, the players call Player vs. Player, reviews call Player vs. Player, guides/documentation/fansites call Player vs. Player... and on other games as well, they almost never use player-vs-player. From what I have seen it is a term that is almost never used in the entire video games industry, and this is an article about a video game. --Chris Key 07:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Then, how do you explain that (except in the heading) only "player vs player" and "player-vs-player" was used before I first noticed the inconsistency? (see version of 8th June). --Peter Schmitt 11:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Dyspraxia and dyslexia mean that I often don't see mistakes in blocks of text regarding grammer and spelling until they are pointed out to me. Those, combined with speech-to-text software and spell-checkers, mean that I often make such mistakes myself. That a mistake was there before you noticed it, or that a mistake was introduced by me, does not mean it is not a mistake. --Chris Key 18:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think it matters much either way. If it is normal to use the capitals, then that's the way it should be throughout. Ro Thorpe 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My objection is more to the hyphens than the capitilisation, although it is normal to use capitals and I think that is what we should do. --Chris Key 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course, use of one variant does not proof that it is correct. However, that it is used several times (it is not a simple typo) by an insider shows that is not as uncommon as claimed. But the same holds for your argument: usage by the publisher does not prove that it is correct language. In German, I would never dream to argue with the rule's booklet of a game to solve a language problem. If I read Ro correctly, he is prepared to accept caps, but wants hyphens. --Peter Schmitt 21:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
That's right. Ro Thorpe 22:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you arguing for a "compound modifier", Ro? As in, "Science-fiction writers write science fiction"? So that we have, "In player-vs-player games, two contestants directly combat each other, so that the game becomes player vs player."
That's right, too. Ro Thorpe 23:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
WP says this: "Player versus player, or PvP, is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between two or more live participants.[1] This is in contrast to games where players compete against computer controlled opponents, which is correspondingly referred to as player versus environment (PvE). The terms are most often used in games where both activities exist." It looks to me as if, in general terms, this ought to be "player vs player", no caps, no hyphens. I've done a little googling and in the *real* world it's a toss-up as to whether one writes "Ali vs Frazier", "Ali vs. Frazier", or "Ali versus Frazier". But whichever you pick for this particular article, you want to be consistent with it. And remember, just because a commercial entity calls something one particular thing, that doesn't mean it's correct. We've argued this elsewhere in regards to the Kingston Trio -- they first called themselves "the Kingston Trio" on album write-ups and so forth. And the press referred to them that way. At some point ten years or so ago they trademarked themselves as "The Kingston Trio" and the toadies at WP *tried* to call them that but were finally rebuffed, I believe. As the various members die off, the New York Times writes obits referring to "the Kingston Trio". The same should obtain here -- unless there is a *really* good reason for calling them Players, they should be players. Hayford Peirce 21:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The points I am arguing about is not a stand-alone "Player vs. Player", but usage in combinations like "player-vs-player combat" (or, "Player-vs.-Player combat" -- if this is preferred). "Player vs. Player combat" does not look right to me. But, in the end, this is something the native speakers have to agree upon. --Peter Schmitt 21:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't look right to me, either. Hayford Peirce 22:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not arguing solely with the rules booklet. I am arguing with: common usage; the rules booklet for this and other games; every usage on their entire website; every single review for this and every other game; and every article, book and piece of text regarding World of Warcraft and video games in general[1][2].
I can understand and accept the non-capitalized version of "player vs. player". However I cannot accept "player-vs.-player" which is inconsistant with the entire video games industry. It would be incorrect, and set a bad precedant for all video game articles. Therefore I cannot support approval of this article whilst the hyphens remain. --Chris Key 04:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent)I've made the term "player vs. player" consistant throughout the article by making it lower case in every occasion (which is wrong, but barely tolerable), and by removing the hyphens (which were wrong, and totally unacceptable). If Peter updates his approval to this version then I shall join him in the nomination. If he doesn't, or puts the hyphens back in first, then I cannot. --Chris Key 16:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my preferences are as follows: first, hyphens, no caps; second, caps, no hyphens; last, neither caps nor hyphens. So for me the current version is the worst. Ro Thorpe 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
In military writings about such things as air combat maneuvering, the usual nomenclature would be 2v4 for an engagement between two Blue and four Red fighters. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
My preferences are as follows: first, caps, no hyphens; second, neither caps nor hyphens; so far in last place that I am totally against it, hyphens, no caps. So for me, the current version is the worst that I can accept - but is better than the hyphens which are totally wrong. --Chris Key 20:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I myself don't care one way or another, but I have to say, Chris, that if there are cases of "compound modifiers", as it seems to me there are here in *some* cases, then you are absolutely wrong about the hyphens. So-called compound modifiers (look them up at WP, I'm too lazy to write an article about them here myself) NEED hyphens. I keep giving the example that no one pays any attention to, but it sums it up in a nutshell: "Science-fiction writers write science fiction." Do you see the distinction? In this case, if we have a phrase such as "There are three famous player-vs-player games on my computer", then "player-vs-player" is a compound modifier for the word "games". It should therefore have hyphens. This is clear, standard usage. It may well BE that in the game-playing world (another compound modifier) NO ONE uses the damn things. So you're not used to seeing the hyphens. But this is an encyl. article, not a game-box cover, and, in my opinion, IF it is a compound modifier, then the hyphens really ought to be used. We don't call Time magazine TIME Magazine because that's the way the editors at Time *want* us to -- we have our own manual of style (or we should), and that's what we use. I think Ro will endorse me on this.... Hayford Peirce 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, & thanks for reminding me of the technical term, which I've put in the hyphen article. (It occurs to me, AmE has 'sulfur', but not 'hyfen', so it goes.) Ro Thorpe 21:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Following your logic, we would have to talk about a "World-War-II aeroplane" rather than a "World War II aeroplane", or a "Jane-Austin novel" rather than a "Jane Austin novel". Do you think that is correct also? --Chris Key 04:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
No. The capitals do the job there. The hyphens should only be used when they are helpful. No need either after -ly: 'frequently asked questions'. Ro Thorpe 12:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
One thing that some of you don't seem to understand. I don't just approach these articles from a game player perspective. There is a whole academic side to video games and I look from that approach mainly. Academic texts and textbooks use "Player vs. Player" or "player vs. player". None of them use "player-vs-player" or "Player-vs-Player". See these links:
* Massively multiplayer games for dummies
* The Video Game Theory Reader 2
* Who plays, how much, and why? Debunking the stereotypical gamer profile
* Game, Player, Ethics: A Virtue Ethics Approach to Computer Games
* Self and selfishness in online social play
* Responses to interactive game characters controlled by a computer versus other players
None of these academic texts use hyphens. Not one. The term is player vs. player. It is an actual term in video game theory. If we use player-vs-player we will be wrong. --Chris Key 11:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not have the time to check all your references you cite, but those I checked are not really convincing because they mostly use PvP not as compound modifier, but standalone or between quotes. Moreover, there are contradicting references, too, (both even in cases where one might argue that they are used as technical terms):
Review: Age of Conan's Player-Versus-Player Combat a Blessing ...
Player-versus-Player Combat feature - EverQuest II Sentinel's Fate ...
(And even appearance in "academic papers" only proves common usage, not good and correct usage of language.)
--Peter Schmitt 11:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) May I suggest that this is something that, in the long term, will have to be settled by the Editorial Council? By no means is this the first discussion over usage in the publications of a field, and either "common usage" or rules of grammar. Indeed, there can be arguments all based on specific style guides -- what is definitive when a psychologist writes on brain chemistry, in a manner that conflicts with the Chicago Manual of Style? American Psychological Association, Chemical Abstracts, MEDLINE? I'd rather see consistency kept with the primary author's usage, the primary author being most likely to have written consistently.

At such time when there is a CZ Style Guide, global changes can be made. At the present time, we might very well be inconsistent due to the particular Editors involved. --Howard C. Berkowitz 13:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The links you provide are the exception rather than the rule. There are very very few that choose to use it. The first of the links is also a blog entry, and the site overall uses all of the methods. Either way, they are both using the exception rather than the rule. The way I see it we have three choices:
1) Use what the people who develop the game use - Player vs. Player (Ro's second choice, my top choice)
2) Use what the vast majority of the video games industry, experts and academics use - player vs. player (Ro's worst choice, my second choice)
3) Use what almost nobody that has anything to do with video games uses, but you say is correct English - player-vs-player (Ro's top choice, my worst choice to the point that it is unacceptable)
--Chris Key 15:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that Howard is right on this: at some point, IF we ever have a functioning EC, then some rules are going to have to be made that will be applied throughout CZ articles on a universal basis concerning style. I spent a little time last night with the magisterial, if somewhat eccentric and highly personal, Fowler's Modern English Usage, Second Edition, Revised by Sir Ernest Gowers, 1965. On pages 255-258 he has several thousand words on the subject of "hyphens" and, aside form a few hard and fast rules, he essentially throws up his hands and says that it is such an individual and often subjective decision it is impossible to cover every example with dogmatic rules. I *think* he would agree with Ro and me on how to handle this particular issue, but I admit that it's quite possible he would side with Chris on it. Having said that, I now withdraw from this discussion. I myself would go with Ro, but since Chris finds that unacceptable, why don't Ro, Peter, and Chris delegate Howard, say, to make a decision and implement it. There are, I think, only four or five items that need to be seen to and I'm sure that Howard could take care of them in no more than two minutes. Hayford Peirce 16:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't have Fowler, but is there any reason to differ from the straightforward stuff in Wikipedia's style guide? Ro Thorpe 20:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
As I've said, a policy will involve the Editorial Council. As a matter of principle, I won't consult a Wikipedia style guide. Other than advancing the article, I'm really not eager to get involved in yet another argument about style, be it naming, hyphens, etc. I'd rather spend the time exchanging flow and copy edits on articles. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ro -- why not go with WP, this is the sort of thing for which I don't think they can be beaten. But if you don't have the 1965 Fowler, Ro, you're really missing something. It's a *strange* book, but can be dipped into at almost any point at all and read like a novel in very small does. A remarkably eccentric creation. I think I read a couple of years ago that a *third* edition had finally come out and had been extensively reedited, to make it read more like a typical corporate board effort.... Hayford Peirce 21:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I read it, must have been in the 70s, absolutely fascinating. Ro Thorpe 21:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent)It is important to get technical jargon right if we expect to earn the respect of expert visitors that are going to review our articles. In that sense, I agree that this is an important issue. In the Homeopathy article, the use of memory of water is technical jargon that has meaning for homeopaths and could be thought of as a metaphor for whatever it is that water might have the makes their remedies work. Chemists rightfully object to the use of the words because it means something totally different to them. However, in an article about homeopathy, leaving them out would not be complete in the eyes of those that know the subject. The difference between WP and CZ is that CZ attempts to set up the situation so that experts in the field make the call rather than the consensus of others outside the field. This is really a Games Workgroup issue. If that is the case, then I would think, if I were on the EC, that a game expert's opinion should carry significant weight. I would ask the others to prove the games expert inaccurate. D. Matt Innis 00:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What does 'memory of water' mean to chemists? Ro Thorpe 01:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Ro, I didn't see this last night. I think it is safe to say that most chemists consider it nonsense to attribute any therapeutic effects to any chemical property of water that no longer has a single molecule of the original compound remaining. D. Matt Innis 22:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's right - rather more than 'something totally different'. Ro Thorpe 02:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
With regards to just using WP's standards, for a start WP don't actually follow that policy with the term "player versus player". They don't use hyphens on the majority of their article, including the ones on "Player versus player" and "World of Warcraft". Second, it is not right in all cases. I've been doing some reading for myself...
A Dictionary of Modern English Usage: The Classic First Edition By H. W. Fowler, David Crystal: The guiding principles will be: No hyphening of words that will do as well separate...
From [3]: Permanent compounds are so frequently used that they have been accepted into the general vocabulary. Compound words such as prime minister, headache, high school, city-state, and others are examples of permanent compounds. Many are so common that most writers will know whether to hyphenate them, separate them, or write them as one word.
From Merriam-Webster's manual for writers and editors: As a general rule, writing meant for readers in specialized fields usually does not hyphenate compounds, especially technical terminology.
--Chris Key 18:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for approval

I just nominated this article for approval. It now is essentially complete now (though, for my taste some parts contain too many details for a top level article -- but this does not really matter). Should there be some more copyediting (e.g., typographically) I will update the version. --Peter Schmitt 23:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A typographical question

The text contains many references to terms from the game (proper names, properties, etc.) Should these terms be consistently emphasized (e.g., using italics, or quotes)? --Peter Schmitt 23:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly would prefer not! Ro Thorpe 00:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
No, not consistently. Jones 01:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Toward Approval

We appear to have a proper single editor endorsement for this article. Peter has nominated this version and will wait until July 5, 2010 for additional input and improvement at which time he can update the template as he sees fit. Though he has edited the article, the edits appear to be copy-edits only and do not change meaning in any significant way. If anyone disagrees, feel free to let me know. Other editors may join the approval as well. Meanwhile, do continue to improve the article. D. Matt Innis 01:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

With four days remaining, [this version remains the version that will be approved. There are two additional versions that include copyedits, however, as there appears to be some discussion concerning hyphenation, I will consider hyphenation a style issue that falls under the purview of editors and will not include them in the approval unless the approving editor includes them (assuming that the template has not been removed). D. Matt Innis 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have reevaluated my position above and decided that, technically, once the issue of hyphenation is considered a content and style issue, Peter can no longer approve this article as a single editor approval because he made the change within the article. We will need three editors on this template or Peter would have to change those edits back for it to be locked on July 5, 2010. D. Matt Innis 01:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not unwilling to endorse, but I am hesitant to approve the changes in hyphenation that Chris, who is a Games Editor, believes are inappropriate. As a Military author (and Editor), I've had quite a few arguments about style with people who believe "common usage" or a conception of English language style overrides the terminology used in the professional military/intelligence literature. As a result, I'm nervous about endorsing a change made by an Editor who is basing it on general usage, when the Games Editor/Author is stating there are conventions in gaming.
Has this ever come up before? Courteous, I hope, conflict on approval standards? Howard C. Berkowitz 02:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Every article has conflicts on standards. But, ultimately what determines the standards is the editors that decide that an article has reached a level that they are willing to endorse by putting their name on it. So, the only real conflict is within each editor and their own determination as to whether they want to endorse it. It is up to you guys whether this article is up to your standards... the standards for the field. D. Matt Innis 04:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I am quite willing to support a version that does not use hypens in the term "Player vs. Player". If the hyphens remain then I cannot support, and would seriously consider cancelling the current nomination pending an EC review of the situation. The outcome of this discussion affects more than just this article - it will set a precident for every video game article. --Chris Key 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I feel strongly about holding up an approval over non-EC (and I mean a new one, speaking as Secretary of the current EC) style determinations to which the subject matter objects do not follow the style of the discipline. Nevertheless, if I endorse, as does Chris as a Games Editor, but Peter does not, we'd still need a third Editor, presumably from Computers. Chris, it isn't only a precedent for video games, but for every specialty and every workgroup. While I don't agree with some of Russell Jones' proposals, he has, at least, started a History Workgroup Style Guide. I wouldn't be opposed to style guides, for now, at the Workgroup level, to which articles would have to be consistent. Yes, there will be problems when articles are covered by multiple workgroups with different styles. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
When I asked, quite innocently, for the opinion of native speakers I did not expect to spill a can of worms ...
Matt, I was very careful to restrict my edits to copyedits. You should not complicate matters by classifying this hyphen question as a question of content. Noone doubts that "Player vs. Player" is video game terminology. Whether it has to be written as such everywhere where it occurs is a different question and still a matter of language, not of content. It should be left to experts of language.
I am not really surprised that younger people do not much care about rules of language and rather use statistics. Internet is full of wrong spellings, and in language a phrase can be wrong even if used by many. In many cases wrong usage can change the meaning (or affect readability). This often is not a problem because the meaning can be guessed. It becomes a problem in science (or in other situations) where the meaning is not clear.
As for my initial question: It has been answered by several native speakers -- unfortunately not with a definite answer. I'll consider these statements, look at the text again, and try to come to a conclusion.
(Approval of this article is not a priority for me. I wanted to "help" Chris.) --Peter Schmitt 22:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Postscriptum: That the publisher has a "Player vs. Player" mode (technical term) does not exclude that a player meets a player in "player-versus-player combat" (common language usage). --Peter Schmitt 22:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with everything you say, Peter. Ro Thorpe 02:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, so do I. (Me too, in the vernacular....) Hayford Peirce 03:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It's unlikely that I would be considered a "younger person." For that matter, in 1959, I was the third-place city spelling champion for the sixth grade of Houston, Texas.
I'm afraid I do regard this as a content matter, and a difficult one in terms of precedence. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
With "younger" I did not mean you, Howard. (And you did not argue with numbers, either.) ...said Peter Schmitt (talk)

(undent) Just to be clear, as a constable, I don't have the luxury of making decisions based on real world expertise. I am bound by CZs rules which let editors make content and style decisions. For me, experts on an article are defined as those editors whose workgroups are in the template. Editors, on the other hand, can make their decision using whatever information they want, including authors with obvious intellect and stature (you know who you are!). Bottom line is, in this case, a copyedit, regardless of how careful it was made, became a content and style issue when an editor wanted it changed. That means that three editors are now needed to approve this articles. Anyone disagree? D. Matt Innis 00:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The game does not have a "Player vs Player mode". The game has Player vs Player features. Player vs Player is a technical term used to describe any situation in which player characters enter conflict with each other. "Player vs Player combat" is a combat situation that has Player vs Player features.
Your suggestion that I do not care about the rules of language because of my age is almost offensive. You are correct in that wrong usage can change the meaning and affect readability - that is why I cannot allow the hyphens to remain. The hyphens are wrong. The technical term is "Player vs Player" and it is the technical term that is used every single time. Just because video game theory is not a traditional academic subject does not mean that the rules and conventions that apply to it can be ignored. --Chris Key 13:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cancelled old nomination and started a new one

I've been thinking long and hard about this all week. I simply cannot allow the hyphenated version of "player-vs-player" to be approved. It would be wrong. Therefore, as a Games Editor, I have cancelled the nomination.

I have updated the main article to make every usage read "Player vs. Player". I have nominated this version for approval. As I am a major author of the article I cannot do this alone. I hope that Howard and Peter will be able to join me, or perhaps some other Editors in the Computing workgroup. If two other Editors cannot agree with or at least accept my view, then we will have to cancel the nomination. Whilst this would be a shame, I cannot in good conscience do things any other way unless I am overruled by the EC. --Chris Key 13:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I will join the nomination, hoping we can find common grounds. My underlying policy point is that until an Editorial Council can consider the competing issues of discipline-specific terminology and general English style, it is unfair for individual Editors, who are not also expert in the discipline, to impose nuanced style based on general lower-case-e editorial guidelines. The EC will have to come up with a model that, for example, reconciles the differences between discipline-specific rules, just as we tolerate AE vs. BE.
While I'm not a video games expert, I am reasonably knowledgeable about military training simulations which, for example, would be most apt to use 1v2 for an engagement between one versus two combat vehicles. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not want to endorse "your" new version, mainly because it now has become a matter of precedence. But I have tried to find a compromise by avoiding the problem. If you can agree with this suggestion then I will join.
On this talk page, in a reply in 16:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC) you wrote "player-vs-player". While, of course, probably we all make mistakes, and sometimes are to lazy to copyedit all talk page comments this shows that you used the hyphens quite naturally. If they were completely "unthinkable" for you, you would not have typed this (even by mistake), I think. --Peter Schmitt 14:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I have already explained that I use speech-to-text software at times due to my learning disabilities. This software seems to write player-vs-player. I'm dyslexic and dyspraxic, and this kind of mistake does not immediately appear obvious to me. That is why at times I have used the term - it was not on purpose.
I have taken a look at your edits, and I can agree to this compromise. Thank you for all of your work on this article. --Chris Key 17:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Using the PvP abbreviation wherever possible is indeed an excellent compromise. Ro Thorpe 18:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Toward approval 2

This version of the article is nominated using the three editor approval mechanism scheduled for tonight. It has one other editor on board. We'll need a third. I see that there has been an additional content edit to the article since that version in the template. If that version is the one that everyone agrees to, please update the template with the new version and have from all three editors confirm their endorsement by letting me know under this subsection. D. Matt Innis 22:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added my name and updated the version. Chris has already agreed in the previous section. --Peter Schmitt 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Good compromise. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: Howard did not edit the article at all. So he could have been a single editor ... --Peter Schmitt 23:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Whilst Howard could indeed have approved it alone, I am glad that we have reached a compromise that enables you to join in also Peter. --Chris Key 06:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Approved Version 1.0

Congratulations everyone and expecially the Games Workgroup for their first (no second) Approved article! D. Matt Innis 11:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Privacy issues

are discussed here but I can't judge whether that's worth mentioning in the article. --Daniel Mietchen 22:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is definately worth mentioning, along with several other things. However this article is not the place to discuss it in detail. The changes discussed on that page relate to the Battle.net system and affect every one of Blizzard's online games (Warcraft 3, World of Warcraft, Diablo and Starcraft II). The media tend to jump on WoW as it is the most popular of these. I'll be discussing this and several other issues in the article Battle.net. Once I've got that up and done I'll put a link and brief mention in here.
It should be noted also that the plans mentioned in that article (to require real names to be used in forums) have since been cancelled due to massive amounts of complaints. --Chris Key 23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I should also mention that I'll be doing a big update to this article later this year when the next expansion comes out. It is bringing some major changes. --Chris Key 23:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro

After reading the intro I am left uninformed as to what the game is about, e.g., its "world," story line, setting, objectives. Stephen Ewen 04:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. thought I'd try to write a quick intro, but my kids tell me this game is very complicated. I've never played this game either. My suggestion though is to write what the main goal of the game is supposed to be as part of the introduction. Detail if this is a team building game, a one person game or a combination thereof. Explain the primary goal or winning outcome, for the game, as I am sure there is one. Mary Ash 05:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Basic FRP: Go into the dungeon, kill all the monsters, take all the gold, and leave. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
As you may see on this talk page there was quite a lot of discussion related to this comment before approval. The questions you ask are, I think, answered (as far as possible) in the main body, in particular in the "Playing styles" section. The introduction can't do more than say "multi-player role playing", I fear, without becoming too detailed. --Peter Schmitt 08:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It is certainly a very complex game. There is no quick answer to any of these points. Howard's summary is inaccurate as it only sums up one small part of the game. The 'world' is very varied, made up of three continents that are all very different, plus an 'outer-space'-type area that is completely different. There is no single storyline. There are hundreds of small storylines and perhaps a dozen big storylines, depending on where you are in the world and that level your character is. There are thousands of small objectives, and many many different play-styles. It really wouldn't be possible to condense any of this into any sort of intro. --Chris Key 16:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I did say "basic", and FRP generally, not WoW. I'm more an in-person gamer, and I've always liked the definition there of taking part in a collaborative novel. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) A good intro should grab and keep the reader's attention. What could you write that would do just that while telling a bit about what the game's main goal is? I admit I play Sims and in that game there are two to three goals. They are: Have fun creating characters and developing storylines; building cities and giving your Sims something to do; or creating nice living environments. Or a combination thereof. What does WoW do?Mary Ash 18:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the intro does grab and keep the reader's attention. It explains a bit about the game and the success it has had, and it delves a little into some of the reasons for it's success. It is a much more complicated game that The Sims and similar games, and so it isn't as easy to sum up the goals of the game. Here are some of the game's goals:
  • Create and customize one or more characters.
  • Raise the character up to the maximum level (80)... or don't. Many players choose to stop at an earlier level, and some do not progress from level 1.
  • Try to get the best gear available to ensure your character has the best chance in a fight... or don't. Some players choose not to fight, or do not care about getting the best gear.
  • Try to get gear and equipment to give your character a certain style or appearance... or don't. Some players are more interested in the capability of the equipment rather than what it looks like.
  • Learn and develop up to two professions... or don't. Some players ignore them completely.
  • Try to get as much gold as possible - either through fighting, professions, the auction house, trading or other means.... or don't. Some players don't really care how much money they have.
  • Try to get as many achievements as possible... or don't. Some players ignore achievements.
  • Defeat the hardest instances/dungeons... or don't. Some players choose not to participate in the harder dungeons.
  • Defeat classic/older dungeons... or don't. Some players are not interested in older content.
  • Complete quests... or don't. Some players never complete a quest, or complete very few.
  • Role-play with other players... or don't. Some players never role-play.
  • Participate in battlegrounds... or don't. Some players ignore them.
  • Join an arena team and try to get a good rating... or don't. Some players ignore the arena.
  • Participate in world PvP... or don't. Some players are on non-PvP realms and ignore this feature.
  • Try to collect all of the non-combat pets... or don't. Some players don't care about them.
  • Try to collect all of the mounts... or don't. Some players just have a few and aren't interested in getting more.
  • Participate in holiday events... or don't. Some players ignore them.
  • 'Farm' certain enemies trying to get rare drops (to use or to sell)... or don't. Some players don't want to.
This is just a few of the 'goals'. As you can see, they are all optional. Players often make up their own personal 'goals', sometimes unique ones that nobody else has thought of. There is no way we could sum all of this up into a couple of paragraphs. --Chris Key 10:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

About recent edits

The edits I have made today are to bring the article up-to-date when the next expansion is released on 7th December. As such, the changes I made are not true until 7th December 2010. --Chris Key 15:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

re-approval

I have nominated this article for re-approval on 7th December 2010. I have picked this date as this is the date that the new expansion is released, and therefore the currently approved copy will become out of date on that day. As I am an author for this article the re-approval will need support from two other Editors. --Chris Key 16:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Howard and Peter endorsed the last time, as I'm sure you all know ;-) D. Matt Innis 00:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It probably will not matter: But are, indeed, all three of us necessary? Only Chris was involved in the update, and I have made minor copyedits (perhaps there will be more?).
Chris: On my talk page I asked if reapproval shouldn't be delayed until true experience with the new expansion could be made?
In "Setting" you left
Some areas that were barren deserts will change into lush jungle, while earthquakes will rip some other areas apart.
Shouldn't this be changed, too, for consistency?
--Peter Schmitt 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't matter if they weren't approving their own work. D. Matt Innis 01:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I missed that one tense change and will change it now. I don't think we need to wait, as the expansion has been in beta testing for several months and all the information from that beta-test is very accessible. You're right, you can approve it as an individual Editor --Chris Key 05:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Howard can approve it as a single editor, and since Peter withdrew the hyphenated edits in the initial approval, he, too can issue a single editor approval. D. Matt Innis 15:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If there are enough changes to the December release to need a new article, should there not be some history notes discussing the main features of the change? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The groundwork was already there, so in most changes only a change of tense was needed. The main changes are a new battleground, change to the classic areas, two new races and levelling to 85. These are all covered in the updated article. --Chris Key 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) The day has come and we have two editors in the template. Chris Key has authored the article so I will remove his name from the first spot and put Peter Schmitt in the primary spot with Chris Key as a supporting editor. Any other editor can add their name at any time. Congratulations gentlemen. D. Matt Innis 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

APPROVED Version 2.0

Since we have a different set of editors, this becomes version 2.0. D. Matt Innis 02:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

References