Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Bapestar]

What class-spec do you main now?

Doesn't matter. Every class is playable, at least in the leveling content.

[Uurdz]

Trust me, I work at a job that has union representation. When precedent is set, as long as not breaking contract rules, it is very hard to go against the set precedent. This comes up numerous times and works business to business and employee to employee and even employee to supervisor/hiring agency.

No. You're talking about precedent in employee relations which, depending on where you live, is legally founded on the basis of equal treatment. Business to business does not have the same rules. My business contract with Apple has no implications on my business contract with Microsoft.

[Eleccybubb]

Off topic a bit but I tried playing on a server this weekend won't name it of course to avoid snips/infractions but anyway people who are saying the communities on these servers are better are just talking out of their arse. It's exactly the same as retail which is good people plus toxic arseholes just less of them. Still pro legacy by the way just though I would mention this.

[Uurdz]

Any sort of reward for a group that illegally infringed on Blizzard's copyrights would certainly be viewed as setting a precedent.

No, this is short sighted and also ignoring the fact many would deem a meeting with Blizzard as a reward. People are over valuing the issue regarding the use of IP. Blizzard issued a cease and desist - this was complied with. They are not pursing damages as far as we know and instead have commented on the passion nost leaders had for the game and opened a dialogue with them.

Look at it this way. You own a bike store and someone comes in takes a bike and use it. If they used it and did awesome tricks on it that people loved and drew attention to your cool bike you'd be a be pissed but could also see how the exposure has been positive for you. You could then sign a contract with the theif because they did it without malicious intentions and the end result was good for the company. The other example is someone who steals your bike and puts on a show and charges people to watch. You're pissed because they are making money out of your stolen product.

Blizzard are free to deal with every IP breach however they want and have done so. How they handle the people involved after the fact is at their discretion and doesn't set a precedent.

[Pann]

Well, now you are splitting hairs again. You started trying to turn precedent into agreement, which was debunked, to now turning precedent into obligation. The precedent will be set that is you violate copyright laws and steal another company's work with any modicum of success, that you will be rewarded for doing so. Precedent can be set for anything in this world, as it is an example of guide of how to do things, whether in business, personal, or world affairs. My analogy was kept rather simple (not simple enough since you can't grasp the idea of what is being discussed), and put out there as a means of something people would encounter more than something like what is happening now.

- - - Updated - - -

Got another analogy for you, this one has 2 seperate entities:
Where I live, police officers are under no obligation to provide rides for anyone. 1 PO gets out with a civilian walking from 1 end of town to the next. Out of just being nice, the officer offers them a ride as the person has no money for cab fair, as opposed to just checking the person out and driving off. The precedent has now been set. Anyone that hears about this act of genorisity now expects an officer to give them a ride as needed, and even though having no obligation to do so, the next officer out also gives the next person a ride to avoid any issues that could arise (citizen complaints, public image, etc), to the point now that everyone expects a ride and even goes so far as to call 9-1-1 when they can't afford cab fair. One officer, being a nice guy, just set a precedent (example of guide of future situations) that people now, not only expect to happen, actually believe that it's the way it is. Officers have no obligation to give rides, but they are now expected to by a vast majority because of one incident.
I've got more analogies for you if it's still not sinking in.

I did no such thing. They are three different words with three completely different meanings.

How is a precedent set that people who infringe a company's IP are rewarded?

Your analogy was simple it was also incredibly poor and nothing to do with the situation being discussed.

Oh dear, another piss poor analogy. To use you analogy a police officer offering a lift to person might set a certain level of expectation amongst members of the public to offer further lifts however there is no legal obligation for the officer to chauffeur anyone around and he would be completely within his rights to refuse a lift to anyone. This is exactly the same as Blizzard making certain agreements with Nost; any agreement they come to is between them and Blizzard are in no way obligated to offer the same or similar agreement to any other private servers.

Judging by your last two analogies I think it would be better for all concerned that you keep them to yourself. But thanks for the offer.

- - - Updated - - -

Any sort of reward for a group that illegally infringed on Blizzard's copyrights would certainly be viewed as setting a precedent.

By who? And what do you think the legal ramifications of setting such a precedent would be?

[Dormie]

It's funny watching people continue to try to paint Nost players as criminals.

[Eleccybubb]

It's funny watching people continue to try to paint Nost players as criminals.

Nobody is painting them as it.

[Deleted]

Sooooo... any news on Blizzard meeting with Nostalrius?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Sooooo... any news on Blizzard meeting with Nostalrius?

Yes, actually two!

Kern is meeting with Blizzard next week - Thursday - and they accepted the paper delivery of the petition.

Nost team is meeting at the beginning of june. They couldn't reveal the exact date for security reason, but they said we'd hear of the meeting before the end of the first half of June.

[Dormie]

Nobody is painting them as it.

You haven't been paying attention.

[Sabever]

Two blue posts on the front page regarding legion reveal that developers and game designers are just doing the same thing to ruin legion. They are having an issue with phasing. Phasing makes the world feel empty. People have complained about it for a long time and blizz just keeps chugging along with it.

Second is no respec costs. Why even have class specs. I mean come on. The classes have lost all identity, been homogonized and now no costs. It is not like gold is even an issue. These two blue posts are a classic example of why people are willing to play a game that is 12 years old.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, actually two!

Kern is meeting with Blizzard next week - Thursday - and they accepted the paper delivery of the petition.

Nost team is meeting at the beginning of june. They couldn't reveal the exact date for security reason, but they said we'd hear of the meeting before the end of the first half of June.

Blizzard is not releasing the date because they are turning this into a PR release. They are trying to celebrate their change in stance as a momentous event to bring people back.

[Deleted]

Blizzard is not releasing the date because they are turning this into a PR release. They are trying to celebrate their change in stance as a momentous event to bring people back.

As long as they do it, why would it matter why? Of course they want to bring people back.

[Relapses]

and they accepted the paper delivery of the petition.

Good Guy Blizzard, some lucky chap is gonna get paid minimum wage to shred that printed petition. And they say job creation in the game industry is down!

[stomination]

A worthwhile read which covers a number of the issues discussed here so far.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/build...r-avoided-kemp

"Something which should not really surprise anyone is that there was a rivalry between the communities of the Old School RuneScape and RuneScape. Over time this rivalry increased with the Old School community taking the stance of being purist, and the RuneScape community positioning themselves as progressive.

Although the Old School community saw themselves as purists they still wanted change, so to ensure the rate of change was acceptable to those players we allowed them to vote on every update that happens to the game. If 75% of those voting did not agree, the update didn’t happen. This gave a very strong sense of ownership of the game to the community; they were in control."


So just that part of the article you posted made me thing about how its like right wing vs left wing in politics sounds about the same.

And then the vote on the updates is prbly done by the minority of players just like voting in politics is. Meanwhile you have to think if the other 25% sticked around.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Blizzard is not releasing the date because they are turning this into a PR release. They are trying to celebrate their change in stance as a momentous event to bring people back.

It wouldn't make sense to release Kern meeting but not Nostalrius if this was the reason.

[Eapoe]

No. You're talking about precedent in employee relations which, depending on where you live, is legally founded on the basis of equal treatment. Business to business does not have the same rules. My business contract with Apple has no implications on my business contract with Microsoft.

No, you are splitting hairs at this point. Your business contract with Apple does not have anything to do with Microsoft. However, if you and everyone else are in contract with Apple, and you personally get some kind of special treatment from Apple, then everyone who has dealings with Apple in the future expects the exact same treatment you received. So, just as a for instance, let's say you have an Apple product, and part of their contract states this product breaks, they will replace it with the same version of equivalent in future form as supplies last. So, your product is the basic model, when it breaks they replace with another basic model, but in your dealings with this replacement, you somehow received an upgraded, top of the line model. Precedent has just been set that anyone who breaks their item should now receive the same top of the line rather than getting the basic model, equal replacement. We aren't talking if Blizzard hires Nost then that sets precedent Valve should hire people who steal from them, we are talking about precedent set for future companies that steal from Blizzard and precedent set for how Blizzard would act every time thereafter.
Even though you say equal treatment for employees, a 1 time exception has occurred at many different jobs. As stated in the previous analogy of funeral leave. This is a special exception made between management and another employee that goes against the rules of what the assigned leave is for. People who hear about this sad story might be inclined to agree it is okay, as their are many people attached to their pets. However, a precedent is still set that any future employee who says their gerbil died they just bought should now also be able to have that same time off because it happened in the past.

- - - Updated - - -

I did no such thing. They are three different words with three completely different meanings.

How is a precedent set that people who infringe a company's IP are rewarded?

Your analogy was simple it was also incredibly poor and nothing to do with the situation being discussed.

Oh dear, another piss poor analogy. To use you analogy a police officer offering a lift to person might set a certain level of expectation amongst members of the public to offer further lifts however there is no legal obligation for the officer to chauffeur anyone around and he would be completely within his rights to refuse a lift to anyone. This is exactly the same as Blizzard making certain agreements with Nost; any agreement they come to is between them and Blizzard are in no way obligated to offer the same or similar agreement to any other private servers.

Judging by your last two analogies I think it would be better for all concerned that you keep them to yourself. But thanks for the offer.

- - - Updated - - -



By who? And what do you think the legal ramifications of setting such a precedent would be?

Again, you are trying to turn precedent into obligation. You are arguing apples and oranges. Precedent is the expectation of how when one thing happens, it becomes expected that is how it will happen next time. Is the PO obligated to give a ride? No. Is he now expected to? Yes. Precedent is the expectation. So just like if Blizzard hired Nost, it would be expected for them to hire the next company who steals from them and has anyone rally behind them. Is Blizzard obligated to hire the next group? No. Would it be expected of them from public outcriers? Yes. Only now, if they choose not to hire the 2nd company, based on the precedent of hiring Nost, they now have new PR to manage, new forums to watch, and new issues to address.
Precedent is not obligation, but for some reason you are trying to argue it is and saying to the people showing you the difference that they don't know what they are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Here Pann, last analogy for you (of course there are more):
You have set the precedent from previous posts with me that you will respond in kind that the analogy is weak and has no merit. You are not obligated to respond to me at all, but you have set the precedent you will and it will be something silly and undermining, as well as talking about obligations and precedent.

[Shinv]

@ Jewco

I think it will happen eventually its just not a good time to try and release it with legion on the way. I just don't get why anyone's really against it though. Its not like you'll have to play it its basically asking for separate game in many ways.

Do you think before you post? Why would someone be against it? Hmmm let's see...
We just had the worst expansion with next to no content right? Do I want them working on vanilla servers and the next expansion.at the same time? Think that might hurt new content a bit? Or are you one of those that think a vanilla server will take no work to get up and running? Also how will it be paid for? Will it be a fee on top of the current sub fee and people have a choice to pay for it or will it be added in to the current fee and one has to pay for it whether they want to or not? It isn't like vanilla server will be a flip of a switch and possibly some of us would rather they work a new content then old never changing content. At least let legion come out first for the love of God.

Yes I do think because if you read even my first sentence you would realize I recognize at the moment blizzard needs to focus on legion first. Holy shit and the rest of your post goes on to rant about don't pull attention way from legion like you never read the first sentence even though the first thing I say is it shouldn't happen now. Clearly you don't know how read or think and now I know what kind of people who are completely against it pure retards.

[Molis]

It's funny watching people continue to try to paint Nost players as criminals.

In the extremely technical sense they are.

They used an IP that was not theirs to use.


My neighbor has a classic car in his garage that he has not driven in 10 years. I am sure he will not mind if I take it for a drive without his permission.

[Pann]

Again, you are trying to turn precedent into obligation. You are arguing apples and oranges. Precedent is the expectation of how when one thing happens, it becomes expected that is how it will happen next time. Is the PO obligated to give a ride? No. Is he now expected to? Yes. Precedent is the expectation. So just like if Blizzard hired Nost, it would be expected for them to hire the next company who steals from them and has anyone rally behind them. Is Blizzard obligated to hire the next group? No. Would it be expected of them from public outcriers? Yes. Only now, if they choose not to hire the 2nd company, based on the precedent of hiring Nost, they now have new PR to manage, new forums to watch, and new issues to address.
Precedent is not obligation, but for some reason you are trying to argue it is and saying to the people showing you the difference that they don't know what they are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Here Pann, last analogy for you (of course there are more):
You have set the precedent from previous posts with me that you will respond in kind that the analogy is weak and has no merit. You are not obligated to respond to me at all, but you have set the precedent you will and it will be something silly and undermining, as well as talking about obligations and precedent.

I am not. A precedent is not an expectation a precedent is seen as an authoritative rule in future similar legal cases. I don't suppose there is much point continuing with this if you fail to understand even the basic meanings of words.

On an unrelated note that analogy is far better than your previous attempts and almost borders on being amusing. Well done.

[Eapoe]

I am not. A precedent is not an expectation a precedent is seen as an authoritative rule in future similar legal cases. I don't suppose there is much point continuing with this if you fail to understand even the basic meanings of words.

On an unrelated note that analogy is far better than your previous attempts and almost borders on being amusing. Well done.

See, precedent was set and you followed it. Game, set, match, I win. You're also going by definition 2, whereas definition 1 shows precedent as: an example or guide of expectations for similar future affairs.