Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Surfd]

Because people can't play two games at once, right?

During severe content droughts on current-live, yea you're right. The community would take a hit and legacy would grow. But that complaint isn't with legacy servers, it's with the dev team and lack of content.

Otherwise, you're wrong.

No, acctually, they dont. Unless you know many people who SIMULTANEOUSLY play WoW on one computer while playing Call of Duty on another one, they dont. And no, playing Candy Crush on your phone while waiting for a queue to pop doesnt count.

When you are playing game Y, you are not playing game X. When you are playing game X, you are not playing game Y. Sure, you might play both game X and Game Y at various times during the week, but you are not playing BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. Currently, if you want to play legit WoW, you have 1 option, which means that 100% of the people playing legit WoW are playing the same game. If they introduce legacy or pristine servers, that no longer becomes the case. You now have some fraction of people playing one, or the other. That is called a split in the playerbase. Even if you have the option of playing either one at will, the instant someone choses X over Y for a given block of playtime, you have split the playerbase. This is not a hard concept here.

- - - Updated - - -

Frankly I think the only thing Pristine servers will do is offer a short term burst in income from server transfers, although tbh it would probably depend in just exactly what they would do.

Um, what? Pristine server is just that. Pristine. Untouched. Fresh Start from ground zero. Allowing server trasfers to a pristine ream would completely deffeat the purpose of the realm in the first place.

[Dormie]

People are still trying to argue against this?

- - - Updated - - -

If you feel that way.

I don't feel that way until I log in to WoW and go, 'oh yea, there's nothing to do'

[Eliseus]

I don't know, why would you? I didn't say every WoD/Legion player would go play Legacy if/when content droughts happen...

Creating a mutually exclusive argument again where you HAVE to choose one or the other. Blizzard will not force anyone to play either version, or their game in general.

- - - Updated - - -

No, acctually, they dont. Unless you know many people who SIMULTANEOUSLY play WoW on one computer while playing Call of Duty on another one, they dont. And no, playing Candy Crush on your phone while waiting for a queue to pop doesnt count.

When you are playing game Y, you are not playing game X. When you are playing game X, you are not playing game Y. Sure, you might play both game X and Game Y at various times during the week, but you are not playing BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. Currently, if you want to play legit WoW, you have 1 option, which means that 100% of the people playing legit WoW are playing the same game. If they introduce legacy or pristine servers, that no longer becomes the case. You now have some fraction of people playing one, or the other. That is called a split in the playerbase. Even if you have the option of playing either one at will, the instant someone choses X over Y for a given block of playtime, you have split the playerbase. This is not a hard concept here.

- - - Updated - - -

Um, what? Pristine server is just that. Pristine. Untouched. Fresh Start from ground zero. Allowing server trasfers to a pristine ream would completely deffeat the purpose of the realm in the first place.

So you are saying you can't play multiple things at a literal exact same time? Dang, this is breaking news right here.

Sarcasm aside, you can play both at the same time.

[Armourboy]

No, acctually, they dont. Unless you know many people who SIMULTANEOUSLY play WoW on one computer while playing Call of Duty on another one, they dont. And no, playing Candy Crush on your phone while waiting for a queue to pop doesnt count.

When you are playing game Y, you are not playing game X. When you are playing game X, you are not playing game Y. Sure, you might play both game X and Game Y at various times during the week, but you are not playing BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. Currently, if you want to play legit WoW, you have 1 option, which means that 100% of the people playing legit WoW are playing the same game. If they introduce legacy or pristine servers, that no longer becomes the case. You now have some fraction of people playing one, or the other. That is called a split in the playerbase. Even if you have the option of playing either one at will, the instant someone choses X over Y for a given block of playtime, you have split the playerbase. This is not a hard concept here.

- - - Updated - - -

Um, what? Pristine server is just that. Pristine. Untouched. Fresh Start from ground zero. Allowing server trasfers to a pristine ream would completely deffeat the purpose of the realm in the first place.

Nothing I have seen from Blizzard has ever stated it would be a completely new server that they wouldn't allow people to transfer too. They like money, server transfers = money.

[Struggle]

When you are playing game Y, you are not playing game X. When you are playing game X, you are not playing game Y.

So there wasn't a single Nostalrius player, for example, that was subscribed to WoD?

It's exactly the same. If you're referring to people queuing, farming, etc...well, they wouldn't be playing WoD anyways so that's an irrelevant point.

[Eapoe]

Most likely Blizzard won't segregate the subscription costs if they release legacy, so you'd most likely get to play retail as well as legacy. This would make it so you also have two options to play as a retail player -- and a legacy player. Let's not forget that MMORPGs will always have content gaps and playing either retail or legacy would help fill in that gap. I'd assume legacy would be subscription only, or ride off the back of retail purchases.

Not to mention that Blizzard wouldn't be dumb enough to force people to choose one or the other.

Sorry, was busy tonight and just now getting back to replying, but I have to say this is also a very misconceived idea. It might help content issues, but only for the die hard player that can't live without WoW. Now, very simply put, I play retail, if Legacy hits I probably wouldn't touch it outside of maybe playing a few levels when it first drops. Reasoning is very simple: I would not devote time to playing an older version of the game at the same time as playing the current version. Looking at it from this angle, I don't want to devote time to learning how to play my class 4-6 different ways, I don't want to spend time earning achievements/titles/mounts I already own, and it would just feel like a colossal waste of time as a player to play 2 versions of the same thing. Now, I very obviously don't speak for everyone, but I also doubt I'm the only one that shares this/these views.
Obviously the reverse is true, but for people that are playing 2 versions of the same thing, why should said player(s) be forced to support a version they have nothing to do with? The very least, in my opinion, is that any subs should be paid seperately as well as a very minor startup cost (thinking $5-15 for the purchase of a Legacy WoW).

- - - Updated - - -

You are not factoring everything in correctly however. Nost had a total of 1 million accounts created and at the end had 150k active players (Active was considered logging in at least once every 10 days. Live WoW, and other MMOs, base this over 30 days). What you are comparing are ONLY active people playing wow. So active players went from 12 million to 3 Million, this isn't total inactive accounts. Blizzard has already made openly available metrics that say over 100 million accounts have been made. If you factor this in, the retention rate is better for Nostalrius. Mind you, Nostalrius was not officially sanctioned and had no advertising. Many people would have played if they had known about it, or if it was an official blizzard product.

When Blizzard released the 12 million number (which if I remember right the height was actually around 11 million), that was active subs. The 100 million thing also includes told farmers and botters. Active being the people you quoted as logging in every 30 days. Unless Nost was filled with gold farmers and bots as well, then the 1 million they quoted were active players, that then left and dropped the 150k. So, negating any kind of gold farmer/bot accounts that Blizzard worked toward getting rid of and looking at active accounts from both, my point still stands. Active vs active Nost has a worse track record over a shorter time than retail. If I am wrong under these points please correct me and I will admit I was wrong, but I am simply looking at active vs active.

[Eliseus]

150k active users over 10 days when Blizzard does theirs over 30. Any account that logs in in those 30 days is considered active. 150k is substantial considering the circumstances and only over 10days.

[Eapoe]

150k active users over 10 days when Blizzard does theirs over 30. Any account that logs in in those 30 days is considered active. 150k is substantial considering the circumstances and only over 10days.

That doesn't make the end any different. Unless there is proof of a fluctuation of those 150k players over the course of the month then the arguement still stands based on the info given to us. Now, if Nost released active players based on a 30 day cycle and showed a difference in activity then this has potential to change the outcome; but, considering a company when trying to promote their ideas and product would most likely choose a high activity time, do we know for a fact that this was the last poll and maybe not one from previous weeks?
To drive the point home, I am going by the numbers made public to us from both company's statements as well as a mix of forum posters posts about "ripped" numbers. This could all very well not add up correctly to what I am saying, but if these are also things Blizzard looks at in decisions, the fact of the trend of more percentage of players gone in a shorter time period, which also leads one to conclude a shorter life expectancy, could very well be something that is against the appeal of a Legacy server.

[Uurdz]

That doesn't make the end any different. Unless there is proof of a fluctuation of those 150k players over the course of the month then the arguement still stands based on the info given to us. Now, if Nost released active players based on a 30 day cycle and showed a difference in activity then this has potential to change the outcome; but, considering a company when trying to promote their ideas and product would most likely choose a high activity time, do we know for a fact that this was the last poll and maybe not one from previous weeks?
To drive the point home, I am going by the numbers made public to us from both company's statements as well as a mix of forum posters posts about "ripped" numbers. This could all very well not add up correctly to what I am saying, but if these are also things Blizzard looks at in decisions, the fact of the trend of more percentage of players gone in a shorter time period, which also leads one to conclude a shorter life expectancy, could very well be something that is against the appeal of a Legacy server.

Why people still argue the numbers is beyond me.
(A) you have no clue what numbers are enough
(B) you have no clue what numbers are involved
(C) blizzard felt enough numbers cared to make a post about it on the official forums

Just give it up already - there is enough interest for them to review it again which they will be doing.

[Surfd]

Nothing I have seen from Blizzard has ever stated it would be a completely new server that they wouldn't allow people to transfer too. They like money, server transfers = money.

Then why even bother calling it a "pristine" server? Why not just open a random new server and call it a day? Because the ENTIRE PURPOSE of a pristine server is that EVERYONE starts from square one, with fresh, level 1 characters, and has to do everything again, from the ground up, without artificial aids like Heirloom bonuses and the like. If you could just transfer in a fresh toon with all the stuff you could bring along, what would even be the point?

[Deleted]

I've been hearing a lot of people discussing that the legacy server should be changed to add or remove features that were never apart of vanilla world of warcraft, as well as this whole thing about how a TBC server would follow vanilla after. These ideas seem very scary and felt like ranting about them so I made a video if anyone is interested. I know this is a very sensitive subject so would love to hear your thoughts. I personally would play on a legacy server as well as Legion, but it's nice that Blizzard are actually now considering Legacy servers IMO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulihURHLPvU

[Rafoel]

If they introduce legacy or pristine servers, that no longer becomes the case. You now have some fraction of people playing one, or the other. That is called a split in the playerbase. Even if you have the option of playing either one at will, the instant someone choses X over Y for a given block of playtime, you have split the playerbase. This is not a hard concept here.

.

I don't know what that would be a problem, while division between na realms, eu english realms, german realms, spanish realms, french realms and russian realms that splits the playerbase in the exact way you described isn't a problem.

The theoretical "version" of game doesn;t matter. These players don't and will never have occasion to play with each other.

[Surfd]

So there wasn't a single Nostalrius player, for example, that was subscribed to WoD?

It's exactly the same. If you're referring to people queuing, farming, etc...well, they wouldn't be playing WoD anyways so that's an irrelevant point.

No, it is not "exactly the same" at all. I mean, seriously, this is about as basic is shit gets..... I mean, did you literally just attempt to say that Nost did not "split" the playerbase in any form? If someone was subscribed to WoD, but playing on nost, then they, by very definition, were not playing on WoW during any of their nost play sessions. This is about as basic an example of a "split playerbase" as you can possibly get......

If you are playing on nost, I cant invite you to a group from my WoD acccount. I cant whisper you. I cant trade you. I cant accidentally encounter you while out in the world. I cant gank you. I cant interact with you in any way. How is that not splitting the playerbase?

And no, before you attempt to go there, dont even try to equate having seperate servers for the main game as "splitting" the playerbase. Not the same at all.

[Armourboy]

Then why even bother calling it a "pristine" server? Why not just open a random new server and call it a day? Because the ENTIRE PURPOSE of a pristine server is that EVERYONE starts from square one, with fresh, level 1 characters, and has to do everything again, from the ground up, without artificial aids like Heirloom bonuses and the like. If you could just transfer in a fresh toon with all the stuff you could bring along, what would even be the point?

No the point is to have all of that removed plus things like Lfd and lfr. You really think they are gonna create something that doesn't make them money? I'll even bet you can still buy level 90+ characters as well.

If they made everyone start from scratch at level 1 it would never even get off the ground. Most people aren't going to give up long term characters who are set to start all over again.

[HuxNeva]

If someone was subscribed to WoD, but playing on nost, then they, by very definition, were not playing on WoW during any of their nost play sessions. This is about as basic an example of a "split playerbase" as you can possibly get......
If you are playing on nost, I cant invite you to a group from my WoD acccount. I cant whisper you. I cant trade you. I cant accidentally encounter you while out in the world. I cant gank you. I cant interact with you in any way. How is that not splitting the playerbase?

Neither can you when I'm play LoL, so what is your point?

- - - Updated - - -

My suspicion on what is holding them back:
The subscriber business model is dwindling in the face of free-to-play with cash shop
WoW has been slowly inching towards this (basically they are there with the token already)
The 'legacy' movement doesn't want and is unlikely to accept any cash shop
Needing to buy a subscription just for legacy servers when the 'normal' game is free-to-play would be awkward and confusing at best

In the past you would just make old clients available, require an active subscription, and Battle.net integration of which a reference implementation could be donated by Blizzard to e.g. MangOS. You would have interested server projects sign a 'code-of-conduct' with restrictions set as you like, and leave them to it. However, without the subscription model, what would be the 'easy' revenue model for Blizzard?

[Surfd]

Neither can you when I'm play LoL, so what is your point?

That immense wooshing sound you just heard was the point going so far over your head it was probably in orbit when it passed..........

[HuxNeva]

That immense wooshing sound you just heard was the point going so far over your head it was probably in orbit when it passed..........

Then maybe you should adjust your aim :-).
Look, almost none of the players I meet on legacy servers play WoD. Most at least state it is not a matter of costs (face it, WoD is free-to-play via the tokens if you want anyway), but they just don't like the direction the game took.The people you are so afraid of would be 'split' out of your world are the ones that don't want to be there in the first place. The introduction of all the community destroying mechanics into the modern game in fact makes sure that any player carign about social play outside of a guild has long since fled, or will split-out of your world at the first opportunity.

[Arenis]

Tbh they should just do it as Runescape did. Heavily promote your main version of the game, and add a little button on your home screen with "old school" to it. Those who care about it enough will know where to find it. Then everyone can have their fun and this crapfest can be over.

[Duronos]

I just don't get it, why is it wrong for people to want to play an older version of the game? We have people who play current WoW and ones who want to play older WoW. There is nothing wrong with having both, I still play older games all the time over their remastered versions because I prefer them, Conkers Bad Fur Day is a prime example of this.

[Raelbo]

Why people still argue the numbers is beyond me.
(A) you have no clue what numbers are enough
(B) you have no clue what numbers are involved
(C) blizzard felt enough numbers cared to make a post about it on the official forums

Just give it up already - there is enough interest for them to review it again which they will be doing.

There is enough noise about it for them to review it again. If it turns out from the review that there appears to be enough interest, they might even do something about it.

My personal feeling about this is that the Nost crowd are shouting as loudly as they can in the hopes of making people think there is more genuine interest in this than there actually is.

- - - Updated - - -

I just don't get it, why is it wrong for people to want to play an older version of the game? We have people who play current WoW and ones who want to play older WoW. There is nothing wrong with having both, I still play older games all the time over their remastered versions because I prefer them, Conkers Bad Fur Day is a prime example of this.

It's not that it's wrong so much as that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It's not uncommon for people to say they want something. It's not even that uncommon for those people to believe they want the thing the say they want. That doesn't mean that actually getting the thing they say they want will end up meeting their expectations or remain the thing they actually want once they have it.