Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Bapestar]

They weren't, but someone was. Most likely the server providers.

Who cares? The Nost team wasn't making money.

[xhisors]

I found the most painful to level were Warriors :x. The amount of suck... Also Druids from 10-20. ;-;

Yeah I heard warriors were a nightmare. I never leveled one (still haven't today haha).

[Gadzooks]

So DPS had to wait a whopping 30 more minutes? LFG was invented and the sense of community went out the door so fast. I'd much rather kept waiting 30 more minutes then to be playing a single player silent game.

30 minutes, when you only have two hours to play at the end of the day after work, is 1/4 of your time. Had I been a teenager or college kid during vanilla and TBC, i'd probably would have been more willing to burn hours and hours nightly trying to get groups.

I don't disagree about the effects of LFG, but it can't be denied WHY it was implemented, with the devs stating point blank that's why they built it. And Ghostcrawler's comments indicate at he thinks it was also a mistake, but what would have been a better solution? Maybe limiting LFG runs to one per 12 hour session. Who knows? But that wasn't my point, I'm just talking about why it was invented - to address a specific, real problem players were facing.

[Deleted]

Mkay so everyone is ripping off J.R.R Tolkien hot daymn!

obviously a lot of people are

- - - Updated - - -

"Was intended to be Warhammer" doesn't mean it WAS Warhammer, or that what was released infringed Warhammer IP.

Please try to think more coherently on this subject.

It was supposed to be a warhammer game and then they just changed names.

[Armourboy]

Except I'm not talking private.

I've heard Nos made it easier to level in general and 56-60 significantly.

I know some private servers have had XP days basically, but I don't think they ever did. I couldn't tell you about 56-60 though, I only got to 48 but that part of it was roughly the same. I think the biggest difference and the reason most people think it is easier is because they know wtf they are doing this time around. Knowledge will speed things up a ton when you go back.

[Molis]

Waiting for Blizz to say fuckitall. Repackage and resell Vanilla WoW for $50 a box with a $10 sub fee.

Call it Classic WoW!

[Marakesh]

I think we need people who can contextualize numbers better in this thread, because you're affirming that, in a year, only 6% of characters created in that server made it to level 30 and that's normal. I fail to be convinced by that argument, particularly since you being a slow leveler is anecdotal evidence at best. No amount of twinks and casual players should give you 94% of all characters created in the server below level 30. And by the way, the chart I was using gave us only the stats for the PvP server. The PvE server being new and its population not having time to level up has nothing to do with those numbers.

Also, if your reply to "three classes take up almost 50% of the realm population" is "two classes take up a quarter on Retail!", then you really need a better argument. Warriors, Rogues and Hunters on Nost give you 1 tanking spec and 8 DPS specs taking up 48 to 49% of the population. On Retail, the 4 most popular classes from level 30 onwards are Death Knights (13%), Hunters (11.5%), Paladins (10.2%) and Druids (10%), with about 4 to 5% to spare compared to Warriors, Rogues and Hunters. That's 3 tanking specs, 2 healing specs and 9 DPS specs. While the ideal distribution for a game with 11 classes is 9% for each, Retail's distribution is more balanced than Nost's was. It would be even more so if Death Knights didn't start the game at level 55 (which skews their numbers somewhat since they're such popular alts for people who don't feel like leveling).

Looks like a third were warriors and rogues. You keep saying half. You reply sums up lot of this thread. A poor attempt at data analysis, you have little context to it, no valid comparison to other games, and your numbers appear to be wrong.

What is in abundance is the over the top claims of supreme wisdom. Why isn't this clear-cut, logical, super right point of view not making it into all the press about this issue? Why read Vice, or Forbes, or any of the gaming websites when I could just seek out the knowledge of people who live on mmo-champion?

[Osmeric]

It was supposed to be a warhammer game and then they just changed names.

Yes, they changed the parts that would be infringing, and as a result it no longer had Warhammer IP. I'm glad you're coming to understand the truth of the situation.

[Perkunas]

obviously a lot of people are

- - - Updated - - -



It was supposed to be a warhammer game and then they just changed names.

I think they tweaked just enough to avoid the lawsuit. Regardless, it's very Warhammer-esque.

[Osmeric]

Regardless, it's very Warhammer-esque.

Which is fine. IP law protects your IP; it doesn't protect things that don't infringe but are stylistically similar.

[Deleted]

7 alts capped in vanilla... is that even possible?

yes i knew a few back then

I don't know anyone that had more than 2 or 3 capped. It took such an immense amount of time to level

the first time mayhaps when you figured the game out. not anymore after that. and vanilla lasted 2 years, so yeah people started leveling alts...

[Armourboy]

Yeah I heard warriors were a nightmare. I never leveled one (still haven't today haha).

Warriors sucked if they were your first character. My first alt was a warrior back then, I spent an enormous amount of gold keeping my warrior in blues, epics and the best greens I could find. I had little to no problem with anything.

[Nigeldruid]

Like I said there would be more than enough players to make it worth the time, but there would be a drop off. It's pretty simple logic really. You are going to have tons of people from live and various other areas that are going to come try it and either like it less than live, have the nostalgia burn off and leave, or discover it wasn't as great as we all hype it up to be.

I would figure at best you are looking at a long term stable size of no more than 500k and probably no where near that. Considering there have been over 100 million WoW accounts made over the years, that spells surge with a decline and then stabilizing. I am a legacy supporter but I am not crazy enough to believe that it has infinite growth potential.

Oh I completely agree that there is a limit to the growth potential, and obviously the interest in such a legacy system would fall off over time.

But to me, if 500k is a stable number, I can't see it not being worth it. Even if it's less than that. Depending on what old software Blizzard has available, the development time should be very low.

Also, I'm a firm believer that resets in such games is what keeps them alive. That's why we love expansions. Not just the new content. That's why Diablo 3 is still alive, and why even Diablo 2 still has an active player base.

[Gadzooks]

I think they tweaked just enough to avoid the lawsuit. Regardless, it's very Warhammer-esque.

And Warhammer was based on the table-top war games that came before it. I'm not familiar with the genre, but a quick look on wiki says that it started in the 1800's.

So who's really original here? If you hold Blizzard to that standard, then hold War Hammer to that, too. And they ripped off Tolkien with their orcs.

[Perkunas]

Which is fine. IP law protects your IP; it doesn't protect things that don't infringe but are stylistically similar.

Yeah, Gameswork is like the Blizzard of tabletops and would bust a lawsuit out like ninja quick if they had enough of a reason to.

[Holtzmann]

Looks like a third were warriors and rogues. You keep saying half. You reply sums up lot of this thread. A poor attempt at data analysis, you have little context to it, no valid comparison to other games, and your numbers appear to be wrong.

What is in abundance is the over the top claims of supreme wisdom. Why isn't this clear-cut, logical, super right point of view not making it into all the press about this issue? Why read Vice, or Forbes, or any of the gaming websites when I could just seek out the knowledge of people who live on mmo-champion?

In my defense, I wrote that at half past one in the morning. So while I made sure to double-check my numbers, I didn't do so well with my words. You didn't even notice that I listed Hunters instead of Mages when talking about Nost. :P

Anyway, you attacked my linguistic slip-ups, but yet you made no effort to counter my claims (or the numbers!). That's something that's also in abundance in this thread, it seems.

[stomination]

Who cares? The Nost team wasn't making money.

The owners of the host servers were...and nos was using donations to pay for it....then they tried to get ppl to pay the host servers directly

[Roadblock]

Wat. Hunters could do it in about 4 days /played. Most other classes between 5 and 6.

No.

This guy did it at just under 5hrs and it was such a big deal he's almost as known as Leeroy Jenkins (or well he was "famous" closer to Vanilla times)
If you've ever heard of Joanna's speed leveling guides you know him at least indirectly.

The typical non-try-hard player was taking 20 to 30 days /played to lvl 60 and many players (even on Nost nowadays) were in their 30ies 3-4 calendar months in their game.

[Gadzooks]

No.

This guy did it at just under 5hrs and it was such a big deal he's almost as known as Leeroy Jenkins (or well he was "famous" closer to Vanilla times)
If you've ever heard of Joanna's speed leveling guides you know him at least indirectly.

The typical non-try-hard player was taking 20 to 30 days /played to lvl 60 and many players (even on Nost nowadays) were in their 30ies 3-4 calendar months in their game.

I remember 27 days being the optimal with rested time when using leveling guides and add ons. Wasn't Athena one of the players getting it down shorter and shorter back then?

I recall in guild chat, the day dreaming like "Wouldn't it be cool to just get a level 60 xxxx class?" Leveling was a commitment, which is why leveling services were all over and spamming chat.

[Vash The Stampede]

Accoring to Blizzards graphic yes more then for the vanilla server:
http://media.wow-europe.com/infograp...ic-2014_EN.jpg

Back at the end of mop 3.6mill pet battles per day.....

Makes sense right? Less than 4 million subs, and less than 4 million pet battles per day. Should just call the game, "World of Pet Battles". Time to casual this crap up another notch, AMIRIGHT?