Flood of info as WOW patch 3.1 hits test

By Oli Welsh Published 25 February, 2009

Argent Tournament, dungeon maps, more.

World of Warcarft's first major patch since Wrath of the Lich King has been released on Blizzard's public test servers - and with it arrives a deluge of new information via the official patch notes and inquisitive players.

The headlines are as expected: the huge Ulduar raid has arrived along with dual talent specs, class changes, and the ability of all mounts to swim.

There are a number of sizeable surprises, however. The biggest must be the Argent Tournament, a new event with two components - mounted combat and a Coliseum-style battle. The event is associated with the Argent Crusade faction and will reward players with Achievements, titles, tabards, pets, banners, and what appear to be new versions of the classic racial mounts.

Dungeon maps - for the Lich King dungeons at least - have now been added to the game, something that most players have been crying out for for over four years now. There are some significant changes to Glyphs, as well as a few tasty new recipes for most professions.

Accessing dual talent specs will be costly - no less than 1000g. But they're not only available at maximum level, as Blizzard said they would be (and as the patch notes still suggest). Players are reporting that they can access the feature at level 40 at the moment; it seems that Blizzard is considering relaxing the requirements.

You can find tons more information over at WOW Insider and MMO-Champion. Expect the patch to go live in the next month or so.

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (56) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • iokthemonkey #1 3 years ago

    MOAR FACTION GRINDING!

  • anomagnus #2 3 years ago

    no faction grinding for this, actually, if you read the notes....

  • iokthemonkey #3 3 years ago

    Competing in tournaments to unlock prizes is obviously not faction grinding, in the same way as competing in PvP Battlegrounds for tokens isn't faction grinding...
    Edited by 1 at 25/02/09 @ 10:40

  • Krelle #4 3 years ago

    I love me some Faction Grinding. If done right, its a very satisfying way to "grind".

    I may be blind, but I dont see many other ways for players to earn stuff w/o killing dragons, picking flowers or bein given it for free. Open my eyes, pl0x ;c

  • Benno #5 3 years ago

    eh, what the hell are you talking about?

    EDIT: @iokthemonkey
    Edited by 1 at 25/02/09 @ 10:46

  • iokthemonkey #6 3 years ago

    Benno - I'm talking about WoW's usual trick of adding more "content" that - most of the time - sounds good on paper but equates to "keep playing, keep paying and if you're really good, we'll give you something nice, eventually."

    But hey, more power to anybody wanting to play WoW. It's a good game, mostly, but there's been too much of a shift toward "carrot on a stick" content for my liking, which is why I stopped playing.

  • FortysixterUK #7 3 years ago

    I love WOW

  • iokthemonkey #8 3 years ago

    Krelle - I'm talking about better rewards instead of the treadmill that is WoW now. It's like I said, carrots on sticks, dangled to keep you playing a little while longer and doing something you wouldnt' normally do but it's the only way you can get the item you want.

  • Benno #9 3 years ago

    All MMOs are like that though, they have to be otherwise people would stop playing at the level cap.

  • iokthemonkey #10 3 years ago

    Guild Wars.

  • Benno #11 3 years ago

    isn't an MMO

    although its a good game

  • iokthemonkey #12 3 years ago

    For the purposes of the argument - level cap, progression, etc - it quacks.

  • Benno #13 3 years ago

    Call of Duty 4 isn't an MMO.

  • iokthemonkey #14 3 years ago

    I still don't get why Guild Wars isn't considered an MMO by many people.

    Let's look at what you do in GW that you do in other MMOs:

    It has the standard exp - levelling procedure.
    The universe is persistent.
    There are quests that give XP and item rewards.
    NPCs drop loot.
    You can trade items with other players.
    You can form guilds.
    You can group with other players to complete missions.

    How is that not an MMO? The only difference seems to be GW uses more instancing than other MMOs, but considering LOTRO, WOW, EQ, CH and countless other games use instancing too, it's not that unusual.

  • Benno #15 3 years ago

    People just think that a multiplayer game with a fantasy setting where you hit things with maces makes it an MMO because most MMOs in todays market do exactly that.

    EVE online is an MMO, Guild wars isn't. Imagine if you could play Oblivion multiplayer with a few friends - that ticks all your boxes above but wouldn't make it an MMO.

    I think you summed it up nicely yourself in a post you made:

    "
    GW is closer at times to an RTS or a Hack and Slasher like Diablo/Dungeon Seige. That said, there's still a lot of variation in the quests. The main quest line is superb (although it gets too tough - see above) and there's a genuine sense of "just one more hour" that's good.

    The game uses instances everywhere, so once you leave a town - unless you group with a friend beforehand - you'll be alone with your henchmen - they're NPCs you can use to help complete quests.

    Travel is simple: you have to walk everywhere but once you've discovered an outpost/city, it appears on your map and you can double-click it to go there. Before that though you need to find the place by running and that involves random mobs (such as giant "scorpions" appearing from underground) and so on. Unlike other games, the world is also quite linear in that you can't fall-off cliffsides or climb steep embankments, so you tend to follow pre-determined roads/routes. It's a little off-putting at first but you get used to it.

    One other minor quibble is the save system - you can walk for an hour out of a town, quit and - because you didn't reach another town - you'll be respawned at the original one meaning you'll have to start over.

    Another thing is that some of the Missions (story quests) can be very involved and again, if you don't complete the ENTIRE mission in one go, you'll have to start over. This is the biggest gripe for me: you'll do the first half of a mission without problem, but then you die and so have to start the entire thing again... Mid-mission checkpoints would be such a massive help.

    It's much "narrower" than WOW (and that's saying something ;) ) but it's also a lot of fun. Don't expect a "virtual world" kind of game. Instead think of it as a Japanese-influenced RPG-RTS hybrid with multiplayer."


    If you define MMO as a fantasy game where you kill monsters with other people then I guess you can count Guild Wars as one

    If you define MMO as massively mutiplayer online game, then you cant.

  • iokthemonkey #16 3 years ago

    But nowhere in my earlier comments did I say it wasn't an MMO.

    The point I was making is that it's a trim-down/streamlined MMO when compared to others. I could say WoW is a streamlined MMO when compared to SWG or EVE but that wouldn't change the fact that it's still an MMO.

    Guild Wars is an MMO in my book. Maybe it's a cut-down or "My First MMO" in some of its aspects, but it ticks the boxes for me and - in relation to the discussion we were having about WoW and level caps - it illustrates perfectly how endgame doesn't equate to "game over."

  • Benno #17 3 years ago

    Fair enough. You are of course wrong though.

  • iokthemonkey #18 3 years ago

    I'm cool with that, because I think the moment I actually agreed with you on something would be the day the universe imploded.

    We're very different people, you and I...

  • Benno #19 3 years ago

    We agree that Age of Conan was rubbish, you just put it forward so tiresomely.

  • anomagnus #20 3 years ago

    @ iokthemonkey

    you're taking through your ass

    if competing in tournaments is a faction grind, then leveling is a faction grind, logging on is a faction grind.

    shit, why stop there, by your standards, switching on halo and completing a level is a faction grind.

    Every goal in every game is reached by repeating an action, whether it be something as simple as pulling a trigger, or something as complex as 25 people on the back of a dragon.

    As i said, there is no faction grind. This is a competitive event for people to enter, if they wish to attain something.

    as i say, talking through your arse

  • iokthemonkey #21 3 years ago

    Always fun to poke the WoW fanboys.

  • kapowaz #22 3 years ago

    <em>Whine about how MMOs are crap</em>
    <em>Whine about how WoW players are nerds</em>
    <em>Whine from EVE Online player who can't understand why people play WoW instead of EVE</em>

    etc.

    But srsly...

    Patch 3.1 is shaping up to be very nice indeed. New bosses in Ulduar will give the hardcore guilds something else to brag about (they didn't like how easy Naxxramas was). The tournament seems like a really interesting idea, and gives most players yet something else to get involved with. Maps for dungeons is yet another nice touch which will end up in the great big bin of features marked <em>stuff you can't imagine not being there, yet somehow the game managed without</em>.

  • Venkman90 #23 3 years ago

    Maps for dungeons is yet another nice touch which will end up in the great big bin of features marked stuff you can't imagine not being there, yet somehow the game managed without.

    Aye, like the tracking menu and SCT, these things came from addons and blizz just picked them up and ran with them, wonder when they will impliment a fubar style UI addon themselves...

  • Benno #24 3 years ago

    Yeah, surely its only a matter of time

    Supporting addons has done wonders for blizzard, the invisible hand has shown them EXACTLY what the community want in terms of UI functionality

  • ZuluHero #25 3 years ago

    I’m kind of with iokthemonkey here. An MMORPG stands for Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game right?

    Well Guild Wars has the characteristics of an RPG (in the computer game sense of the word). Its Multiplayer. It has a lot of players (so that covers the massively bit). And it’s online.

    Let’s use WoW as an example, it has a standard party size of 5 people. Guild Wars has up to 8 (dependant on area). The only difference is that in Guild Wars you have to go to a hub to pick up a group - but I remember in WoW Pre-TBC you always had to go to IF or SW to get a group, so that is kind of a player enforced hub to some extent. Maybe not so much now due to global LFG channels, but that's the way it was back in my day. TBH I would argue(perhaps wrongly) that GWs is more of an MMO than WoW in this regard as it promotes players to interact with each other and party more and with larger group sizes to boot.

    The only thing WoW has over GWs is the raiding, but AFAIK that doesn't define an MMO...


    Edited by 2 at 25/02/09 @ 14:35

  • Benno #26 3 years ago

    Well if you dont get it back, I have an account with a lvl 67 hunter I am selling

  • Benno #27 3 years ago

    ZuluHero, you're wrong as well. People dont seem to understand what the word "massively" means. Just because a game has a lot of players, doesn't make it an MMO. I can keep going back to the Call of Duty argument. Call of Duty 4 isn't an MMO. It has levels, progression and thousands of players can meet up and play together, but not in one uninstanced area. A proper MMO has a large open persistant world where hundreds of players can meet up together at the same time and attack a city for example. Its a true virtual world. Guild wars is just a series of instances for 5 or so people or whatever. Even Call of Duty has up to 32 or whatever.

  • iokthemonkey #28 3 years ago

    So raids aren't MMO content?

  • Krelle #29 3 years ago

    "I'm talking about better rewards instead of the treadmill that is WoW now."

    What kind of rewards, for example?

    I dont play wow any longer(spare time = zero), but if I did, just to experience the new Uldar instance would be reward enough to keep playing.
    I dont buy your carrot on a stick argument as long as the content they add is top notch.

  • ZuluHero #30 3 years ago

    But Benno:

    <a href="http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/MMO
    ">http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/MMO
    </a>

    “A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMOG or simply MMO) is a video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and feature at least one persistent world.”

    And “persistent world”:

    [link url=http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_world
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_...[/link]

    “A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent."

    ---------

    Guild Wars has one world housing millions of players - broken up into multiple instances and hubs granted, but one world nonetheless. When I exit GWs it continues to exist after I am gone. If I don't play for months it quite happily sustains itself without me. So by that definition surely it falls under the MMO banner? To use your example of COD as an example, COD isn’t classed as an MMO because it doesn’t have one world. Looking at the definition for what makes a “persistent world” It doesn’t even allow users to change that game world. Every Match is the same, after the match it is reset and you start again from its initial state. Individual maps don’t persist after a round is over. Players can’t choose to sustain that world. It finishes, it’s over and it’s finite.

    Now I can assume that your counter argument to this will be that in Guild Wars doesn’t allow users to change the game world either (even if my case for it having a persistent world carries) – but in fact it does. As players work their way through the main storyline their actions do change the game world forever (at least on that character).

    Now to get back to the point about defining an MMO, I guess it all depends on the level you want to inject the term "persistent world" - either In a "real world sense" (carries on regardless of any single player leaving, or ending as soon as players leave) or in game world sense (broken into small pieces with instancing or loading, or a continuing streaming world). In the case of the latter, which I think is the case that you are using, you in fact may be the one who is wrong :)


    Edited by 4 at 25/02/09 @ 15:57

  • iokthemonkey #31 3 years ago

    The last time I played WoW it was all about "here's a Shiny Thing you can have but to get it you have to do this repetitive stuff over and over and over and once you've done it for long enough, we'll let you have the Shiny Thing. And then there'll be another Shiny Thing you can have later, but only once you've done this same thing over and over again."

    The acquisition of the Shiny Things became the goal, with the path there becoming a repetitive chore. WoW is, for me, too goal-orientated and encourages a play style based on the end-result, not the journey.

    Faction grinding and PvP rep grinding were hideous because they simply weren't fun but you had to put up with it and endure if you wanted the Shiny Things. In a well balanced game, faction should grow as you play, not become a specific play mechanic. PvP rep took ages to accumulate and was a slow, dull process. Maybe the team stuff changed that but I didn't stick around to find out, as at that point I'd realised WoW wasn't the game I wanted to play.

  • sneetch #32 3 years ago

    @Benno
    ZuluHero, you're wrong as well. People dont seem to understand what the word "massively" means. Just because a game has a lot of players, doesn't make it an MMO. I can keep going back to the Call of Duty argument. Call of Duty 4 isn't an MMO. It has levels, progression and thousands of players can meet up and play together, but not in one uninstanced area. A proper MMO has a large open persistant world where hundreds of players can meet up together at the same time and attack a city for example. Its a true virtual world. Guild wars is just a series of instances for 5 or so people or whatever. Even Call of Duty has up to 32 or whatever.

    I'd have to agree with Benno's definition of a "proper" MMO too: if you can't bump into the entire worlds population on your way down the auction house because of instancing limits or whatever then it's not really an MMORPG it's an MORPG, as in Multi-player Online RPG, there may be thousands of people online at any time but you won't be bumping into them.

    I never played Guild Wars but Hellgate: London and DDO: Stormreach are prime examples of this IMO, sure there are instances where you can bump into some people (the stations and Stormreach itself, respectively, which are literally "instances": repeated copies of areas that are created when those original areas get "full", which even further destroys the sense of you being in a real world with thousands of players) but the entire game is played out in isolation with your small group/solo. Contrast that with a game like WoW or WAR where most of the game is not instanced and you can stand by the mailbox in Ironforge or Altdorf, watch the world go by and spy on everyone as they check their mail.

    Just don't say "gibe gold plix!" ;)

  • iokthemonkey #33 3 years ago

    if you can't bump into the entire worlds population on your way down the auction house because of instancing limits or whatever then it's not really an MMORPG

    ----

    Aside from language zones - which are essentially like shards/servers, except you can flick between them - you can do this in GW. The towns are all player-hubs and not instanced.

    And your limit would exclude Age of Conan, too, as it uses heavy instancing throughout, even in social hubs.

  • butler` #34 3 years ago

    Neither GW or AoC are strictly MMORPGs for those reasons.

  • iokthemonkey #35 3 years ago

    SWG used instances too, so I guess that wasn't a MMORPG either... I mean, that whole thing of being able to modify the world by building your own houses or even cities, having to set-up mining facilities to find resources and then selling them to other players who'd make them into items they could sell, well that's all negated by the fact that they used instancing in the cities, right? /eyes

  • ElectricDemon #36 3 years ago

    1000g? I have about 8g to my name =(

    /is a WoW hobo

  • butler` #37 3 years ago

    Didn't SWG use instances in the same way that WoW uses them?

  • iokthemonkey #38 3 years ago

    SWG used instances to avoid population overflow.

    So what it meant was it was possible to arrange to meet up with somebody, find yourself standing at the appointed place but because you were in a different instance, you couldn't see each other or interact beyond tells. And there was no way to change instance short of heading out of town and coming back in or meeting in another, quieter location and hoping it would re-shuffle you into the same instance.

  • Benno #39 3 years ago

    @ZuluHero

    You're argument was going so well until:

    "(at least on that character)"

    There is no persistance in Guild Wars. Its a single player game which also lets you play with other people. This makes it a normal multiplayer game, not a massively one.

    You log out in the middle of the world, and you will be ported back to the nearest Hub when you log back in.

    Guild Wars just isn't an MMO, its a series of instances. There is no persistant game world. Its the same as Call of Duty in this respect. PSN Home is more of an MMO than Guild Wars.

    The use of Hubs is very clever and lets the developers create an illusion letting them brand it as a "free" to play "MMO". Its not, its a free to play multiplayer RPG.

  • Benno #40 3 years ago

    "The acquisition of the Shiny Things became the goal, with the path there becoming a repetitive chore. WoW is, for me, too goal-orientated and encourages a play style based on the end-result, not the journey."

    I completely agree, but then its the same for any MMO you play at end game. And no, that doesn't mean Guild Wars.

  • iokthemonkey #41 3 years ago

    Then Benno, by your definition LOTRO's instanced quests and WoW's phasing also render them "single player games."

    There's as much persistence in GW as there is WoW.

  • iokthemonkey #42 3 years ago

    I completely agree, but then its the same for any MMO you play at end game.

    ---

    I disagree. WoW - like other MMOs - has some interesting end game. But it's outweighed by way too much repetitive end-game "content" that's designed purely to keep you going on the treadmill of rinse-repeat experiences.

  • ZuluHero #43 3 years ago

    @benno

    Dammit. Can i just omit that bit and we can both pretend i never said it? :)
    Edited by 1 at 25/02/09 @ 17:28

  • butler` #44 3 years ago

    I think benno got it right; it's about a single persistent world. Just because certain peripheral areas are instanced to maintain the integrity of the story, characters or world, doesn't mean it doesn't have a single persistent world.

    I'd define GW and AoC as "an online RPG with MMO elements."

  • iokthemonkey #45 3 years ago

    How are you defining "world?"

    Because WOW's world, for example, doesn't change, aside from a few seige zones/keeps switching back and forth between two factions. You go into Stormwind and it'll be exactly the same as it was four years ago, bar the addition of an Auction House and Docks, or any other DEVELOPER added changes.

    The only persistence in WoW (and most MMOs - EVE and SWG being the big examples) is that the characters change/grow/evolve, guilds from/change/grow, etc. And that happens in AoC and GW, too.

    So please, could you define what you mean by a "single persistent world?"

  • butler` #46 3 years ago

    Umm I think you are a bit lost in your own argument.

    You just stated exactly why there's a persistent world in wow and, yes, whilst GW does share the character development (RPG) side of things, it doesn't necessarily share all the open, persistent world stuff.

    Cue Oli bursting in with the "stop arguing about semantics and a the nuances of a genre that, let's face it, is beyond any normal definition."

  • Benno #47 3 years ago

    Guild Wars isn't an MMO in the same way Call of Duty isn't

    see, I can recycle arguments as well

    its fun being retarded!

  • hula hoops #48 3 years ago

    There are 5 things that I managed to do after I decided to quit WoW (not quite a long time ago):

    1. Find my mp3 music collection and listen to them.
    2. Dust off a few DVDs and watch them with the missus and kids
    3. Spot that there is a mistake (or possibly fraud) in my credit card statement
    4. Write a research paper for publication
    5. Play an (old) game that I used to play a long time ago and feel good about it

    In short, I am glad to be able to break the habit. That game has taken over my life for a long time. Honestly, 4 hours per night every night might not seem hardcore but it chips away your time. It is a bloody good game, too good in fact, that some people such as myself found it really hard to put it away.

  • iokthemonkey #49 3 years ago

    Again can I ask for a definition of "persistent world," please.

    Because this seems to be the crux of the matter and why there's a split in what constitutes an MMO.

  • ZuluHero #50 3 years ago

    like i said earlier Iok;

    [link url=http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_world
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_...[/link]

    “A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent."

    I would agree with you that GWs falls under that definition. And using the same arguement i put forward yesturday.

    Oh and Benno, When you said, "its fun to be retarded", i could help but think of that Family Guy episode "Petarded". Esp. the song :)

  • iokthemonkey #51 3 years ago

    But this is the thing - what is this "world" that changes?

    I'm not disagreeing with you about GW and the definition you linked to is pretty much on the ball. But it's the nature of the "world" and what these "changes" are. Because aside from a handful of MMOs - EVE, SWG etc - the environment isn't effected by player influence - you don't, for example, go into Rivendell and set up a shop or smash holes in the walls of Stormwind.

  • ZuluHero #52 3 years ago

    well i guess the mission and story structure in GWs, Lotro and now the newly added 'phasing' in WoW would loosely come under "user-made" changes?

    I would argue that GWs and Lotro both make bigger sweeping global changes to the overall world than the more discreet and local changes that happen in WoW though. But i think that's just spliting hairs then.

  • iokthemonkey #53 3 years ago

    But here's the crux: they change the user experience on a personal level (as in, you remember the story and move forward with that in mind) but to other players who haven't experienced them, they don't. So you're in a shared world with different perceptions of the history and events (or even the moment) of that place, like you have perception filters in place...

    That's a bit bloody deep for 10:40 on a Thursday morning...

  • ZuluHero #54 3 years ago

    You should think of it as playing catch up. As you said, all players of a similar level will experience the world in the same state for that moment in time including being able to interact with one another. Players that are lower level or behind in the story will see the world in a different way, even down to not being able to interact with other higher level players (or even see them for that). And likewise it will be the same for players that are of a higher level/further through the story.

    Now we’re going all deep and philosophical, what changes what? Do the players themselves change the game world, their actions changing the world around them, or does the game simply feature chronological progression and players are just moving through points in time? The obvious answer would lie in the latter, but I propose that If only a few players were to ever play the game then chances are nobody would be able to reach the end of the story/game (unlike RPGs of a basic multiplayer or single player persuasion). Due to the fact that these games rely on masses and masses of players all working together to progress (because of their scope and scale), and sustaining the world when people log out, I would then say that it is the players themselves that change the game world around them as they go – because if they weren’t around to advance it then the world would simply exist in its initial state.

    Ergo, I would categorize GWs as “a Persistent World” because it then ‘kind-of’ meets that criterion.

    I may have bent the rules a little to support my argument, but I think the whole subjectivity about “want defines an MMO” allows me to do so. Just a smidgen. ;)
    Edited by 3 at 26/02/09 @ 11:50

  • iokthemonkey #55 3 years ago

    lolwhut?

    :p

  • WJF #56 3 years ago

    Hmm, I'm going to join in...late.

    The thing that separates GW from the other MMORPGs is that it almost encourages solo play through the ease in which you can use CPU controlled companions to help you achieve goals. Almost. The key difference being that, unlike COD4 to use Benno's tiresome argument, it also encourages you to also use other human players by forcing you all together in hub zones.

    There's no 'I might turn on co--op' because it's an integral part of the game. Yes, I don't think GW is as MMORPG (stay with me here) than WOW or EVE, but that's because it never forces you to play alongside others without first giving your consent. It's still massive...but it's not always multiplayer.

    Is that a bad thing? Should that exclude it from the genre? It's still an RPG....and it's undoubtedly massive and online...and multiplayer. In fact, trying the hard missions (on HM of course) almost requires other human players to help. Almost (unless you're amazingly lucky with the, quite frankly, random AI of the henchies).

    Almost, but not quite, not a MMORPG. It's reliance on actual skill, preperation and foresight with ability selections mark it out as a different and excellent alternative to the 'Just 'x' more creatures until I level' or 'Just need to wait another 'x' number of hours until I know how to pilot a ship slightly better' kind of games.

    I curse iok though, because his comments on another thread got me back into the game. Damn you!