Should Blizzard release Vanilla servers?

[Daffan]

Nope, how would decide which patch was 'vanilla enough'? The patch before they introduced battlegrounds? The Burning Crusade pre-launch patch?

For Vanilla, most people prefer the patch just before BC talents and changes.

[Lilija]

People aren't interested in Highmaul or BRF, or dungeons, world content, quest content and other stuff because you can get 10x better gear just by afking in a battleground.

BRF is still interesting for mount hunters.

Also I can assure you that BT wasn't interesting for guilds that were progressing SWP only because they lost a tank and had to gear up a new one.

I'm sorry but HM/BRF is new content to people who have never done it before, and it's stupid to make it obsolete/outdated with catchup.

People who join up later into the expantion will always lose up on something. Back in the day they lost on the newest, most relevant content. Nowadays they lose on the old content. I think the later is much better solution. You can't have a cake and eat it too.

[Daffan]

BRF is still interesting for mount hunters.

Also I can assure you that BT wasn't interesting for guilds that were progressing SWP only because they lost a tank and had to gear up a new one.


People who join up later into the expantion will always lose up on something. Back in the day they lost on the newest, most relevant content. Nowadays they lose on the old content. I think the later is much better solution. You can't have a cake and eat it too.

That comes with my other complaint, people who go back are so overgeared it's not even entertaining anymore. Progression is way more entertaining.

Nobody said they couldn't introduce crafting recipes for high end guilds or other catch-up for <alts>, let's not forget flexible and many other things exist that did not in TBC. Catchup is semi-ok As long as it isn't removing content for the average player.

People who join up later into the expantion will always lose up on something. Back in the day they lost on the newest, most relevant content. Nowadays they lose on the old content. I think the later is much better solution. You can't have a cake and eat it too.

It's a game of numbers really. HFC or 90% of the expansion.

[Lilija]

That comes with my other complaint, people who go back are so overgeared it's not even entertaining anymore. Progression is way more entertaining.

Nobody said they couldn't introduce crafting recipes for high end guilds or other catch-up for <alts>, let's not forget flexible and many other things exist that did not in TBC. Catchup is semi-ok As long as it isn't removing content for the average player.

Ok, I'll put it this way. Blizzard tried to make old content relevant by putting there quests for legendaries (for 2 expantions already) that people who joined later into expantion had to do in order to do later content. People hated that.

People who join later agree they lose on some content. Most of those people tho prefer to do the relevant current content rather than things from which everyone has already moved on.

If people were interested in doing that old stuff there would be whole guilds of people progressing everything from the start.

[Daffan]

Ok, I'll put it this way. Blizzard tried to make old content relevant by putting there quests for legendaries (for 2 expantions already) that people who joined later into expantion had to do in order to do later content. People hated that.

People who join later agree they lose on some content. Most of those people tho prefer to do the relevant current content rather than things from which everyone has already moved on.

If people were interested in doing that old stuff there would be whole guilds of people progressing everything from the start.

People hate it because its boring.

Going back to LFR to do your legendary quest is like putting pins in your eyes. There is literally no effort required.

[Egregious]

I definitely think they should.

[Vineri]

People hate it because its boring.

Going back to LFR to do your legendary quest is like putting pins in your eyes. There is literally no effort required.

People loved the genre because it was engrossing.

Uhh Legendary quest.. the rogue daggers or others?

There is literally no effort required
Impressive statement. No effort, eh. Yeah.

[Ewalleus]

Well you're wrong because Nostalrius had 10k+ players for over a year.

[mhdoe]

I would in no way ever play on a private server or pay extra to be on one but if Blizzard released a legacy server included in the monthly sub maybe I would make a toon there to fart around on but nothing serious.

[ComputerNerd]

You team with folks you don't know, people you will never see again.

Vanilla / TBC was about forming bonds and alliances, where you would not ever need a group finder. Group finders are anti-social and counter productive to communities to the extent that people have abandoned the game. Why further this?

The way Blizzard will implement this is to make the encounter an instance. Oh yeah, real Vanilla experience there.

As to talking to an NPC to go to a Vanilla server, Blizzard should just have retro servers in the queue. No need for an NPC to "take" you there. Unless .. you want to return suddenly when called -- during a raid that would mean you get blacklisted in Vanilla. Unless you are counting on inter-connecting realms, which would hide your identify, but turn Blizzard's rendition of Vanilla to utter shit, info curtosey of current WoW.

Rubbish.
People still spew out how about the group finders are anti-social, when it is the players that are that.
Forced interaction is not social, nor has it ever been.
How you choose to approach the interaction is what makes it social.
Group finders offer the opportunity to experience content with players behind barriers which would have previously prevented that interaction.
You then choose to make it social by whether you consider them disposable or not.

Players make the game anti-social, but as usual can't admit responsibility for their own mistakes.

Well you're wrong because Nostalrius had 10k+ players for over a year.

Free of charge, attracting a jaded playerbase who often want to play on a private server to make a point.
Numbers are not comparable when comparing apples to oranges.

[Eliseus]

Numbers of Nost are absolutely critical. Sure, whether they pay or not could be up for interpretation, but what Nost absolutely showed is a player base who wants to play Legacy. They exist. They want it. Ignoring that you have nothing to support your argument and that by your own argument people shouldn't play Nost since there is better free games than Legacy, you are also are ignoring players who didn't even know about Nost till it shutdown and players who won't play on a private server no matter what it is.

[Kithelle]

Well you're wrong because Nostalrius had 10k+ players for over a year.

So? Wow had over 10 million...a 100 times that of a private server...the numbers don't mean a whole lot when it's a tiny fraction.

- - - Updated - - -

Numbers of Nost are absolutely critical. Sure, whether they pay or not could be up for interpretation, but what Nost absolutely showed is a player base who wants to play Legacy. They exist. They want it. Ignoring that you have nothing to support your argument and that by your own argument people shouldn't play Nost since there is better free games than Legacy, you are also are ignoring players who didn't even know about Nost till it shutdown and players who won't play on a private server no matter what it is.

Numbers don't mean a lot when even if wow got a legacy server it would be sub only...I'm sure there are plenty of deadbeats who played just because it was free. Obviously the little tiny fraction doesn't justify them putting all of that cost and effort into legacy servers.

[Eliseus]

So? Wow had over 10 million...a 100 times that of a private server...the numbers don't mean a whole lot when it's a tiny fraction.

- - - Updated - - -



Numbers don't mean a lot when even if wow got a legacy server it would be sub only...I'm sure there are plenty of deadbeats who played just because it was free. Obviously the little tiny fraction doesn't justify them putting all of that cost and effort into legacy servers.

A tiny fraction of what? Is playing on a Legacy server mutually exclusive? Do you have numbers so support this fraction? I guess Blizzard should of never done WoW to begin with since there wasn't any indication people would pay. There was a demand for MMOs, but no proof people would play WoW.

[Vineri]

Rubbish.
People still spew out how about the group finders are anti-social, when it is the players that are that.
Forced interaction is not social, nor has it ever been.
How you choose to approach the interaction is what makes it social.
Group finders offer the opportunity to experience content with players behind barriers which would have previously prevented that interaction.
You then choose to make it social by whether you consider them disposable or not.

Players make the game anti-social, but as usual can't admit responsibility for their own mistakes.

lolololuzzz

The bold statement may have blown your cover

The mistake is players who feel they are social when they are far from it, and have no clue. They have no idea what a social game even means or how it will impact them. Thinking retail WoW is social is a grave mistake.

[araine]

never, it would be a really bad decision if they do. it would be like a car maker oh guys we will re release our 2005 yr model

[ComputerNerd]

lolololuzzz

The bold statement may have blown your cover

The mistake is players who feel they are social when they are far from it, and have no clue. They have no idea what a social game even means or how it will impact them. Thinking retail WoW is social is a grave mistake.

Players thinking wow is anti-social because of group finders is a mistake.
Players make an experience social or anti-social
The group finders offer access to a wider portion of the playerbase, an opportunity to form bonds beyond a closed familiar circle.
And what is what guilds are, and what the community is doing.
Isolating and segregating itself very deliberately and then blaming someone else for it.
Demanding that blizzard do the work in forcing some "solution" which is no way fixing the problem.

[Vineri]

Players thinking wow is anti-social because of group finders is a mistake.
Players make an experience social or anti-social
The group finders offer access to a wider portion of the playerbase, an opportunity to form bonds beyond a closed familiar circle.
And what is what guilds are, and what the community is doing.
Isolating and segregating itself very deliberately and then blaming someone else for it.
Demanding that blizzard do the work in forcing some "solution" which is no way fixing the problem.

If you say so.
Remove LFG / LFR then: Is the game social any longer? Would your definition of friends be with those you will never meet / see / hear from again? This is social?

To myself and others, this is not even close to social. NOT.. EVEN.. CLOSE..

[Fynzie]

If I give you the choice between working your ass tons of hours to get a full overpowered mythic set or to buy it from <Grunt kro kroz> at Ashran for 1 copper each piece, what will you do ? you'll go buy the set before I could blink because that's what humans do, picking the most efficient way no matter what. Same for socialization.

[Avaddon]

They should do a server of each Expansion however once you are finished on Vanilla you can copy your character over to the next expansion realm and continue from there while your old character also remains on the previous expansion. That would be great in my opinion.

[Deleted]

I dont mind Vanilla Servers too much, but I want my old dungeons back like vanilla deathmines. I still cant understand why the got rid of them and abandoned the nostalgia