Talk:Zones by level

Isle of Kezan

Not sure whether Isle of Kezan is Contested. I think it is Horde favored. Hans Kamp (talk) 05:20, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

The Isle of Kezan belongs to the goblins, all goblins, its neutral. The goblins that join the horde don't do so till they hit the Lost Isles (level 6). Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:33, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Hans Kamp (talk) 08:14, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

How about Badlands? Horde may have an outpost there in the form of Kargath, but Alliance have substantially more quests in that area; wouldn't it be neutral rather than Horde-favored? DacianWarlord (talk) 23:29, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

While they Alliance may have more quests in the area, they do not have an outpost, or anything of the like. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:37, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Got it.DacianWarlord (talk) 23:39, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, where did you even get your info... Alliance has 18 Alliance-only quests, whereas Horde has 41 Horde-only quests. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:37, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind I was counting all quests coming from the zone, not necessarily only ones done in the zone. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:41, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

I find this slightly misleading. I believe we're mixing different concepts here, namely game mechanics and "lore". With respect to Isle of Kezan, I would definitely flag it as Horde-favored. Albeit being a neutral zone from a lore PoV, this page clearly pertains to game mechanics, and Alliance players obviously won't have any business there. Personally, I'd expect a zone to be favored by a side if it has nearly no 'value' to players of the other side, which could be considered a suggestion for such players to avoid a zone entirely. The presence of a base should be one factor to measure this value, but not the deciding one; the number of quests is much more appropriate. As such, I believe Badlands and Blasted Lands are clearly misclassified and should be neutral, and perhaps even Swamp of Sorrow and Thousand Needles. IMHO, Badlands even has a stronger tendency towards Alliance than Horde in the game. --Bfx (talk) 15:19, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Death Knights

They have an own leveling zone, Acherus: The Ebon Hold which is not mentioned in the list. Hans Kamp (talk) 05:20, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

It's Scarlet Enclave, and I don't think it's listed cause it can't be visited by normal means, only one class may see it, and only lasts 3 levels. It is listed on Zone however, whether that makes a difference or not. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 05:38, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Hans Kamp (talk) 08:14, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Out of Boundaries

It looks like so many new zones is leaving the whole "scrolling to the right" thing a little off. It's starting to go off of the page. Northrend was pushing it, but now the new Cataclysm zones are way off. Should we do something about this? It's kind of unsettling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KookyKoopa12 (talk · contr).

I guess it depends on your monitor's size. I have a widescreen and appears fine to me. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 17:53, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Its hard for me to follow on either my 1920x1080 or 1280x1024. I think it should be broken down to 1-60, 60-70, 70-80, 80-85. Maybe even a 2nd page that is a table by level past 10 containing just level, recommended zone and optional zones. -Scotepi (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Contested but faction-affiliated

Redridge, Duskwood and Hillsbrad are faction affiliated - they're completely one-sided, with flightpaths, quests, NPCs and bases of only one of the factions. --Varghedin (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, yeah, I'm with Varghedin at this one. They are contested territories, but they are under control of just one of the factions.

These zones are Redridge Mountains, Ruins of Gilneas, Duskwood and Hillsbrad Foothills.

I know we are contradicting the "norms" of the page, but I think we can make an exception here without any problem at all.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Scaling changes

since 7.3.5 has dropped and these level ranges are no longer accurate, should we create another page showing the pre-7.3.5 ones? or add them to the pre-cata page & turn it into a more general "legacy" type article? --Eithris (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if there was still a page on the wiki listing the old zones levels. Xporc (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

okey doke. then do you think it'd be better to...

• update this page and move the old info to an added section of Zones by level (original)
• update this page and move the old info to its own new page (something like "Zones by level (pre-7.3.5")
• leave this page as-is, rename it to "Zones by level (pre-7.3.5)", and make the List of zones redirect go to Zone scaling instead

--Eithris (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'd prefer if we didn't scatter pages too much, so I'd avoid have 3 different pages about zones per level. So maybe add pre-Legion section to Zones by level (original)? I'm not sure, I admit. Xporc (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we could put it all in one page and change the order of things since it is a little chaotic. We could add sections like:

Classic-Burning Crusade-Wrath of the Lich King

Level: 1 - 20

• Elwynn Forest (original): 1 - 10
• Eversong Woods: 1 - 10
• Westfall (orignal): 10 - 15

Level: 20 - 30

• etc.

Then the rest:

Cataclsym-Mists of Pandaria-Warlords of Draenor

Level: 1 - 20

• Elwynn Forest: 1 - 10
• Wandering Isle: 1 - 10
• Westfall: 10 - 15

And last we add a redirect for the new level system Zone scaling. I think we should start preparing for when Classic comes out, since all the (original) zones will be for that. Maybe changing the (original) to (Classic)? --Ryon21 (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

At this point, many (original) articles are about removed content, but not necessarily vanilla content. We'll have to see. Xporc (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)