Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Jokerfiend]

[QUOTE=shimerra;39975002]

What does he have to gain? You're yet to prove that either. Actually your own later comments speak as to what he could lose which goes to the absolute sloppyness of your argument "which mean he is contractually obligated not to speak of the matter" but you falsely and incorrectly go on to assume that it's because it's something bad. Because you know Blizzard probably doesn't want him speaking out about project X after he left without their permission. He's not going to stick his foot in his mouth and make a big stink because unlike Mark Kern he's still a valuable commodity in the gaming industry.

Why speak at all then? If he has to lose/lose on the subject. He should have kept quiet, agreed? Right, but he didn't. Denial of speaking in omission, don't act like it doesn't exist.

I feel bad for the guy who in a moment of passion murdered someone his wife was cheating on him with. Doesn't mean I think it was right, condone it, or otherwise I agree with what he did. You can have sympathy for someone while at the same time not agreeing with or condoning what they did. Just like he can feel bad for Nost players wanting to play old Vanilla again but at the same time think what they were doing by using blizzard's work wrongly.

Would you feel bad for the guy that murder someone you love, because that would be the argument. If you want to use that analogy. Try again.

Wait wait wait here you are talking about what he said now you gobble up your bull shit "i'm going to read things into statements that clearly aren't there," but when he says something you don't like he's lieing? Nothing he's said has taken a position one way or the other. Stop pretending you have something when you don't.

Whatever you want to say is correct, gotcha.

Yet again, you're conspiratorially reading into things that aren't there that funny enough conform 100% perfectly into your world view. Him disagreeing with Blizzard's communication means his disagrees with how blizzard communicates, he could still very easily be extremely opposed to legacy servers and what Nost did or indifferent to them just as much as he could support them.

Yadda yadda yadda, nothing to say and will just say random shit in an aggressive manner to try and act like I am right.

Already talked about this one. This is wild speculation and nothing more.

Yet, if you read what he says, he wants to be speak more on the matter but cannot. If didn't want to advocate anything he would be silent or condemn the issue. But he doesn't. That speaks more clearly to me. Again, it's not what you say sometimes, but what you don't say. Denial is an ugly thing.

They do not say the same thing and honestly the mental gymnastics you have to take to contort that thought into anything coherent are impressive if they were just so depressingly wrong.

It's absolutely the same thing. The mental gymnastics you do to deny it is incredible.

"Aka he didn't actually say it so I read inbetween the lines and hey oh look an entire novel where he says exactly what I wanted him to say,". Funny how that worked out.

You are one of those people without self awareness aren't you?

[Marakesh]

I dont want to wait for vanilla server to expand. I want a TBC and MoP legacy server. Why do I have to wait two years so you can play your vanilla server?

As usual arguing in binary mode. Either something generates no complaints or has some. No difference between the facebook / real names outcry or the every expansion / mmo class balance complaints? You could say to those odd ducks dying to play cata, MoP, or WoD that they don't have to wait as long since those xpacks went offline as vanilla fans did.

[Pann]

I dont want to wait for vanilla server to expand. I want a TBC and MoP legacy server. Why do I have to wait two years so you can play your vanilla server?

And why couldn't they run them in tandem?

[Jokerfiend]

Yes I'm going to call nostalgia on the people playing 20+ year old games ... Was that your gotcha moment? Because it fell flat.

Legacy servers are never going to happen ... deal with it.

I wouldn't say never, but highly unlikely. Never is an absolute. If it does happen will you apologize for being rash?

[deadman1]

And why couldn't they run them in tandem?

So you are saying they should make a legacy server for every xpac? LOL

[Pann]

So you are saying they should make a legacy server for every xpac? LOL

If there is sufficient demand why not?

[deadman1]

I wouldn't say never, but highly unlikely. Never is an absolute. If it does happen will you apologize for being rash?

99.9999% is essentially 100%

I'm 99.9999% sure it wont happen.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Why is it a better starting point then TBC or Wrath? two expansions with better numbers?

For a lot of reason:

- Vanilla is included in both TBC and Wrath, so it will be easier to iterate on later expansions once this one is integrated. Basically lower development cost, and since it's something that will go on a trial, it's the smart choice. You could argue that the code is older, but Wow ran with the same code until very recently with MoP. Ultimately, there's less content to encode in Vanilla than in the other two.

- It's the oldest content patch from Warcraft, which make sense if you're going to release a legacy server.

- It's also the only logical option that allow progression through several layers of expansions organically. Vanilla, then TBC with character copies, then eventually Wotlk with character copies from the TBC server.

- Vanilla might have lower numbers than these two, but they had still more subscribers than the current retail version. If they want to have a strong, solid system, starting by Vanilla is once again the smart choice.

[deadman1]

If there is sufficient demand why not?

How can you calculate that demand?

[Pann]

How can you calculate that demand?

Oh, I'm sorry I thought this was an adult conversation I now see that I was wrong. Good day.

[Marakesh]

Oh so your vanilla server is somehow more important? Interesting.

Its the first release. What's your method of choosing? Run it through your dark triad?

[deadman1]

Oh, I'm sorry I thought this was an adult conversation I now see that I was wrong. Good day.

I asked a basic question, the fact that you can't answer it isn't a mark against me, it's a mark against you.

You stamping your feet when I ask a 6 word question doesn't make you look like an adult.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

How can you calculate that demand?

By making a trial. Which is why Vanilla is so important. If the demand is higher, you give more manpower to the legacy team, which in turn gives more servers and ultimately, more expansions. You can start small and then adapt - in fact it's very common in the MMORPG market, both in legacy and new MMOs.

We know there is a market. We also know that it is bigger than what was initially thought at Blizzard - which was acknowledged by customer services. It's all about finding the right balance at this point.

[Jokerfiend]

99.9999% is essentially 100%

I'm 99.9999% sure it wont happen.

So, not an absolute. 99.9 isn't essentially a 100. Sorry. Don't want to apologize for being wrong. LMAO.

[Darkeon]

Yes I'm going to call nostalgia on the people playing 20+ year old games ... Was that your gotcha moment? Because it fell flat.

Legacy servers are never going to happen ... deal with it.

Yes, Blizzard word is stone
I'll just assume you are getting the kicks off trolling, because your entire post was nothing but jest and taking subjective views as objective. I bid you a good day!

[deadman1]

So, not an absolute. 99.9 isn't essentially a 100. Sorry. Don't want to apologize for being wrong. LMAO.

Sure if I'm wrong I have one of my court scribes issue you a scroll with a kindly worded apology.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

1- Don't care, I want my favorite expansions.
2- Again, I want TBC or MoP.
3- I don't want progression, I want TBC and MoP.
4- Your opinion. So we go back to you presenting your opinion as fact, like I said.

1. Technicalities cannot be argued against. Yours will come, if you can't wait, then you're not mature enough to play mature games in the first place. Which makes you part of a very toxic minority.
2. Same as 1.
3. Same as 1 and 2.
4. Not an opinion. Vanilla require less work to implement, so it's only logical that they start with the easiest - and first.

[deadman1]

Yes, Blizzard word is stone
I'll just assume you are getting the kicks off trolling, because your entire post was nothing but jest and taking subjective views as objective. I bid you a good day!

Of course you'd call me a troll, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a troll I assume.

- - - Updated - - -

By making a trial. Which is why Vanilla is so important. If the demand is higher, you give more manpower to the legacy team, which in turn gives more servers and ultimately, more expansions. You can start small and then adapt - in fact it's very common in the MMORPG market, both in legacy and new MMOs.

We know there is a market. We also know that it is bigger than what was initially thought at Blizzard - which was acknowledged by customer services. It's all about finding the right balance at this point.

A trial would still involve setting up servers aka money.

[Coconut]

I've already answered this. Let me rephrase my answers.

- If people want several expansions if Blizzard accepts the idea of legacy servers, as you say, then it all depend on the initial success of Vanilla. If Vanilla is successful, then it's only logical to expand it. But we're speaking of 2+ years.
- It's not true. Based on a separate model of monthly payment, maybe. That's assuming people don't want to progress on progressive realms when they are released and that each server have a different monthly fee. If you remove these two problems, by offering server copy instead of forced migration and use a widespread monthly fee to access legacy servers, then it's a non-issue, because older servers will be funded by newer expansions. Then you take in consideration that you can drastically reduce the price of older legacy servers by merging them when they're not longer populated enough to warrant a full array of servers and you even save money on these older servers.
- Yes, but here's the thing; it's a non-issue, because both can coexist together. You offer different servers for different expansions. Eventually, all of these servers will come to their "slow death", which is where a core, self-sufficient community will be built. For everybody else who want progression, character copy to the newer servers will fix that problem.

No, you cannot mix single-answer data with multi-answer data. You force a split. Most people would be fine one way or another, so no, you cannot correlate data from it.

My poll works very much like a multiple option poll, because, for the most part, one answer includes the previous ones, and this is something I took into account when analyzing it. 1.12.1 Vanilla voter will no doubt be happy with each of the other options, except the last, since that means vanilla will eventually vanish. Progressive Vanilla will be happy everything besides 1.12.1 from the start, etc. The only difference (and why it wasn't multi-option) is time-bubble vs multi-expansion.

Free upward transfers or "having both servers" are "solutions" that further increase the complexity of a system which Blizzard has already called "a logistical nightmare" in their Wall of No. It does nothing to deal with the issue of a segregated player base that would come from having multiple versions of the game available at the same time, and it would wildly affect server populations among the legacy groups, which is why we don't have free transfers on regular servers. This is just a hot air solution you make up on the spot without considering the implications.

Also, what if legacy Vanilla works, and people demand BC, Wrath, MoP, etc, heavily, and then the community split breaks the camel's back and turns all of this into a very bad decision? It should be analyzed from the start if the game would be able to support multiple legacy realms if we're gonna bring one up.

[clevin]

Oh, so that's what you think this is about? I see why you think this way then. That's because you assume that everyone is like this.

Because there is no possible way that Vanilla is a good starting point, is it? Oh. Right. Because you like to think that everyone want something now. So you see people throwing a tantrum because their expansion isn't there.

I won't claim these people don't exist. They probably do. But, see, they're such a small percentage - and they exist on retail wow about a variety of issues too. Yet, you generalize this to a whole community. That's one hell of a logical leap right there.

Ad you know this... HOW? I'd rather play TBC than vanilla. Why should I wait on a progressive server? Why should someone who loved LK wait 4 years? Why not launch them all at once? WHYYYYYY?????

You've all been heard. The answer's been No for years. You're not interested in being heard anymore, you're like little children stamping their feet because Dad said No and they really want it to be Yes.