Hooray for Limited Attempts

Next in a series on things that I actually LIKE about WoW, is the way they're introducing Icecrown. Not the story or themes, I haven't looked much at those, I mean the implementation. There's two things that stand out: limited attempts on certain bosses, and a gradual phase-in of the kind done in ToC.

These are good things, people, even if it's not obvious. And it isn't, cause I know what you're thinking, cause I thought it at first too. "WTF, my guild is so uber leet that we can faceroll Arthas day 1 yo. Well, no, that's a lie, but we should at least get the chance!" And indeed, for that illustrious top 5% of guilds, they probably could blow through ICC in the first week, and get crackin' on hard modes. But think of the rest of the guilds, the ones who will wipe and have the terrible birthing pangs of learning a new raid. If Arthas were there from week 1, taunting guilds ever so temptingly with his sexy exposed loot tables, guilds would push headlong into ICC, grinding fights out, maybe extending raid locks. And once Arthas was down, they'd have to grind for several more lockouts.

Face it, most people require some serious practice before many boss mechanics become natural to them. ICC would consume our raid schedules, we'd spend every raid minute pushing through it without stopping to learn the earlier fights more or gear up more as the earlier stuff becomes more farmable. Now that raid lockouts can be extended, this brutal dystopian future was very close to reality, but Blizz wisely intervened. Now ICC will be small, it will not dominate our lives, and as we learn and master earlier fights, the later ones open up for more progression. Limited boss attempts saves us the frustration of wiping 10 times on a single boss, but feeling as though we must continue for progression's sake.

I always thought of limited boss attempts as a way to reward elite raids who don't die with extra Amani War Bears, and phase-in raids a way to slow down these same guilds. I never thought of using them to socially engineer a less stressful and demanding raid culture in the majority of guilds. Kudos.

p.s. it was super gay in ToC because there were only 5 goddamned bosses to phase in, and they were all super easy. It's only a good idea now.

Casual vs Hardcore Guilds

There are no terms used to describe guilds more vague than 'casual' and 'hardcore'. Really, these are not two opposing categories, and guilds are not simply one or the other. It's a continuum, based on how aggressively a guild aims to progress. To the extent a guild's policies reflect a desire to down bosses quickly, get gear faster, and complete hard modes and their achievements, they're that much hardcore.

But there's more to it than that. It's not even a single standard; a guild might be very casual in one aspect, while be hardcore in another (I'm beginning to hate these terms, but I told myself I'd work with them, so soldier on). Think about all the different things a guild regulates: guild ranks, bank privileges, recruitment, raid comp, loot system, raid schedule, and on and on.

Let's imagine two guilds called, say, Hocturne and Honviction. Hocturne uses suicide kings for a loot system, raids 3 times a week, 3 hours at a time, and recruits mainly friends of members. Honviction recruits by application, raids 3 times a week 4 hours at a time, and use DKP. Is Honviction more hardcore? Maybe, but what if Hocturne frequently attempted hard modes, and raid comp was based on performance. While Honviction only does normal modes and raid comps based on gearing up people? That muddles the issue a great deal, doesn't it?

The point is, casual versus hardcore as labels only work when a guild is very, VERY casual or hardcore. Most guilds are not one or the other, and find some mix between the two that works for the memebers' skill and ambition. One might even say that the concessions necessary for raiding makes ANY raiding guild non-casual to an extent. At any rate, we need to be careful not to use these terms like there's some clear line between the two, or that there is something inherently wrong about 'hardcore' guild policies. It's just a question of what works for whom.

Of course, you can also talk about casual or hardcore players, but I'll leave that for another day.

Arthas is Stupid

Patch 3.3 will probably be around next week, so before we all march on Arthas' domain and nerd-rage over limited boss attempts, it behooves us all to look back on the lead up to ICC. In which, we learn that Arthas is stupid.

I admit, I was very excited when WotLK was announced; Deathwing and Sargaras aside, I could not imagine a more climactic or deadly final boss than the Lich King. I was further excited by announcements that Arthas won't hide behind the couch like Illidan. Well, to be fair, Illidan hid behind his massive fortress and army of demons, but whatever. So Arthas will be involved in leveling and dungeons, he'll get in my grill; OK, I can dig it.

Well, turns out, Arthas DOES hide behind his couch, aside for the occasional celebrity guest appearance, usually right before or after I faceroll some minion of his that was completely ineffectual. Oh, that works a few times; Sorrowgrave in UP was done right. I dug killing the Vry'kul much more; knowing that they were Arthas' minions was good enough to forge a connection. Tyrion punching him right in the childhood was priceless, if a little curious. Just saying, if Arthas doesn't open with that kill-everyone move in any dungeon he's in, he'll just look dumb.

The problem is not what Arthas does, but what he fails to do: succeed. Rarely is Arthas ever proactive; most of the time he's just hanging around as you unearth and systematically dismantle his allies and support network. Drakuru is a rare example of the LK actually doing something aggressive or expansionist, and it was cool until the end where he shows up to laser Failkuru and high-five you "4 teh lulz". What kind of ineffectual Saturday-morning trainwreck lets the architect of his failure in Zul'Drak live, cause it was hella funny? That's embarassing characterization, and there's no excuse.

Arthas needs to be threatening. In 3.3, they need to (but won't) have the LK gain ground in Icecrown, instead of just hiding behind his couch waiting patiently for raiders to rock his face. Perhaps he re-takes the Shadow Vault, and the Ebon Blade has to fall back. That'd shake up the status-quo (a rare, and consequently powerful move in an MMO), and make Arthas seem half-way competent. And Blizz needs to learn we don't need to see Arthas to feel his presence; he is a villain defined by his minions. Less is sometimes more, but in this case, Blizz will have to take some strong steps to re-establish Arthas as a threat now, when in the ENTIRE EXPANSION he's done nothing but fail. The first time I repelled the Lich King's machenations single-handedly, it was cool and exciting. The tenth time it was routine.

There's a disconnect here, between what Blizz tells us Arthas is, and what they show us he is. They say he's a terrifying badass with a nigh-unstoppable army. They show us an incompetent who never wins a battle and is constantly losing ground. For the climactic battle to work, we need to see the Arthas we've heard about, rather than the one we know.