Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Wewlad]

Pann, if it isn't obvious that Blizzard of all companies would be better at handling WoW legacy servers than a motley team of volunteers, then you need to check your perception of things because it's off-tilt.

And if a motley team of volunteers could make it work, then Blizzard can and do better.

[Relapses]

Pann, if it isn't obvious that Blizzard of all companies would be better at handling WoW legacy servers than a motley team of volunteers, then you need to check your perception of things because it's off-tilt.

And if a motley team of volunteers could make it work, then Blizzard can and do better.

Nost's crew was using emulation software. Blizzard would need to use their original source. The "motley crew" analogy is inherently flawed since they were working with apples (MaNGOS) and Blizzard would be using oranges (original source). They mentioned the source exists but they did not back up any of the server-side information, such as mob HP pools (and I'd assume scripting pre-Cata rework). We do not know the exact level of work this would entail but from the tone of the dev interviews on this subject, it doesn't seem to be a small undertaking by any means.

That said, the question shouldn't be if Legacy realms become reality but when. Given what we've heard thus far, it seems like Blizzard's approach is forward-facing as long as they're still working on new expansions. When WoW reaches a point where they're no longer making new expansions (eg, they begin working on a next gen MMO) or their current cyclical expansion model becomes unprofitable, I'm sure we'll see them on the table as a possibility.

[Mahourai]

It involves some, considerable, work but not developing WoW again.

It quite literally is developing WoW again. Not as much work as they did the first time, but that is exactly what it is.

The answer was not there at the time of my post but I assume you mean this; I guess it's not absolutely CERTAIN that they wouldn't just hire outside or move Starcraft's resources to WoW. It's just less likely than restructuring the WoW team to develop multiple versions of the game.?

In which case, why? Why do you think Blizzard would be unable to properly allocate their staff to fit in with their workload?

Again, why? You keep making statements about how Blizzard operate or what their staff are capable of but you provide no proof.

The answer is not what you quoted, but is the self-evident proposition that the WoW team is better at making legacy WoW than people who don't work on WoW.

You are literally asking me why the developers of WoW are more likely to be tasked with developing WoW than people who don't develop WoW. The answer is so obvious that I feel like I'm insulting you by repeating it.

[Tackhisis]

It involves some, considerable, work but not developing WoW again.

You have to recompile client to use the modern runtime and C++.

You have to backport all the optimizations and security fixes back to the client.

You have to integrate Battle.net and authenticator support....

They have to backport Russian, Portuguese and Italian localizations to match old Vanilla quests, and recompile corresponding langpacks.

Those are months of completely pointless work taking the resources off the real game.

[Pann]

It quite literally is developing WoW again. Not as much work as they did the first time, but that is exactly what it is.



The answer is not what you quoted, but is the self-evident proposition that the WoW team is better at making legacy WoW than people who don't work on WoW.

You are literally asking me why the developers of WoW are more likely to be tasked with developing WoW than people who don't develop WoW. The answer is so obvious that I feel like I'm insulting you by repeating it.

Why? You keep making statements that have no proof whatsoever to back them up.

Again why? This is another statement that is not backed by anything other than your opinion. Blizzard staff have worked on multiple projects from WoW to D3 to Titan/Overwatch, etc.

I am asking you that, why do you think that Blizzard would forego proper project management and take people from an ongoing project like WoW? If you your answer is because they work on WoW then please don't waste your time or mine.

- - - Updated - - -

You have to recompile client to use the modern runtime and C++.

You have to backport all the optimizations and security fixes back to the client.

You have to integrate Battle.net and authenticator support....

They have to backport Russian, Portuguese and Italian localizations to match old Vanilla quests, and recompile corresponding langpacks.

Those are months of completely pointless work taking the resources off the real game.

Why would they need to do that?

Why not modify the existing client that includes all these optimisations and fixes?

Again that is already done with the existing client.

Why? This wasn't deemed necessary when classic WoW was released, why would it be needed for a Legacy service that is as unlikely to be as popular as classic WoW when it was released? Also, I assume that the current 1-60 quests have already been localised for these languages and as the vast majority of the quests are the same post Cata the work involved is nowhere near as much as you make out.

Assuming that the work you've listed is necessary why does it need to take resources from the real game?

[Kyanion]

You'd think this would be enough for Pann but naaaaahhhhh I doubt it.

Here is an interview after the Nost meeting from Brack

The main highlight is "We explored options for developing classic servers and none could be executed without great difficulty. If we could push a button and all of this would be created, we would. However, there are tremendous operational challenges to integrating classic servers, not to mention the ongoing support of multiple live versions for every aspect of WoW."

And then the Kotaku interview of Chilton: "Schreier: Don’t the Nostalrius people have that data?

Chilton: No, they don’t actually. So what they did is went back and reverse-engineered it. They spent countless hours researching on YouTube, looking at, ‘OK how many hit points do you think that monster has, I think I saw a video that showed it with, you know, 2,152 hit points, so that’s the number of hit points we’re gonna give it.’ And they’re just kinda guessing and approximating on a lot of stuff. Which is cool, and they did an amazing job of making it feel like a very authentic experience. But ultimately the way they implement their data is in no way similar to the way we do it. So it’s not like we can even take that data and put it in the game, because they actually aren’t even really compatible - they have a completely different approach to creating content."

Another quote:"In the past, there was no archiving of older data. So while we have the capability of doing that now, and in more recent years when we make changes we can ‘version’ the data, we didn’t have that back in 2004. And so as data changed, we effectively lost that stuff to history. And so we would have to go back and try to reverse-engineer it ourselves."

[Pann]

You'd think this would be enough for Pann but naaaaahhhhh I doubt it.

Here is an interview after the Nost meeting from Brack

The main highlight is "We explored options for developing classic servers and none could be executed without great difficulty. If we could push a button and all of this would be created, we would. However, there are tremendous operational challenges to integrating classic servers, not to mention the ongoing support of multiple live versions for every aspect of WoW."

And then the Kotaku interview of Chilton: "Schreier: Don’t the Nostalrius people have that data?

Chilton: No, they don’t actually. So what they did is went back and reverse-engineered it. They spent countless hours researching on YouTube, looking at, ‘OK how many hit points do you think that monster has, I think I saw a video that showed it with, you know, 2,152 hit points, so that’s the number of hit points we’re gonna give it.’ And they’re just kinda guessing and approximating on a lot of stuff. Which is cool, and they did an amazing job of making it feel like a very authentic experience. But ultimately the way they implement their data is in no way similar to the way we do it. So it’s not like we can even take that data and put it in the game, because they actually aren’t even really compatible - they have a completely different approach to creating content."

Another quote:"In the past, there was no archiving of older data. So while we have the capability of doing that now, and in more recent years when we make changes we can ‘version’ the data, we didn’t have that back in 2004. And so as data changed, we effectively lost that stuff to history. And so we would have to go back and try to reverse-engineer it ourselves."

What's your point? I never said that it would not be a lot of work nor have I said that Nost implemented data, servers, clients or anything for that matter in the same way as Blizzard. I have simply questioned your, and others, baseless assumptions.

[Tackhisis]

Why not modify the existing client that includes all these optimisations and fixes?

Because the existing client is not compatible with classic servers and classic data files.

[Pann]

Because the existing client is not compatible with classic servers and classic data files.

Is it not? I don't know about your client but mine works fine with classic zones such as MC, BWL, AQ, etc. Unless you're suggesting that they rewrote the code for all these places.

Seriously, my question was somewhat rhetorical as no-one, outside of Blizzard, can give an actual answer. Although, in this thread, the lack of knowledge on a subject doesn't seem to stop people talking about complex systems.

[Eapoe]

Is it not? I don't know about your client but mine works fine with classic zones such as MC, BWL, AQ, etc. Unless you're suggesting that they rewrote the code for all these places.

Seriously, my question was somewhat rhetorical as no-one, outside of Blizzard, can give an actual answer. Although, in this thread, the lack of knowledge on a subject doesn't seem to stop people talking about complex systems.

So your point is your current client works with your current client? That's awesome! You have a working game.
You are blatantly ignoring the facts that things have changed over the years, namely: mob health, stat weights, stat impact, stats themselves, resistances, resistance mitigation, server hardware updates, server software updates/changes, racial bonuses, how racials interacted, racial impact numbers, talent trees to the new talent level system, number impact from talent choices, removed gear, removed gear stat weights, removed gear stat weight interactions, profession changes, profession impact numbers. This is a minor list of IN GAME changes over the years. Maybe Blizzard has some/most of these numbers saved, but as they said, they don't have all and will have to spend many man hours figuring these things out.
How about outside of the game? Okay, you have B.Net integration as a main point. You argue "why include that?" Well, why wouldn't they include that? It's a main interaction of their systems that ties everything to their service.
You are willfully ignoring information given to you by numerous sources, most of which are Blizzard's own, to try and make a point along the lines of "they could so they should!"

[deniter]

So your point is your current client works with your current client? That's awesome! You have a working game.
You are blatantly ignoring the facts that things have changed over the years, namely: mob health, stat weights, stat impact, stats themselves, resistances, resistance mitigation, server hardware updates, server software updates/changes, racial bonuses, how racials interacted, racial impact numbers, talent trees to the new talent level system, number impact from talent choices, removed gear, removed gear stat weights, removed gear stat weight interactions, profession changes, profession impact numbers. This is a minor list of IN GAME changes over the years. Maybe Blizzard has some/most of these numbers saved, but as they said, they don't have all and will have to spend many man hours figuring these things out.
How about outside of the game? Okay, you have B.Net integration as a main point. You argue "why include that?" Well, why wouldn't they include that? It's a main interaction of their systems that ties everything to their service.
You are willfully ignoring information given to you by numerous sources, most of which are Blizzard's own, to try and make a point along the lines of "they could so they should!"

They keep changing these in every expansion for the sake of changing things. Surely it can't be that difficult even for Blizzard to figure out what the values were before, especially with the help of mangos database.

[Pann]

So your point is your current client works with your current client? That's awesome! You have a working game.
You are blatantly ignoring the facts that things have changed over the years, namely: mob health, stat weights, stat impact, stats themselves, resistances, resistance mitigation, server hardware updates, server software updates/changes, racial bonuses, how racials interacted, racial impact numbers, talent trees to the new talent level system, number impact from talent choices, removed gear, removed gear stat weights, removed gear stat weight interactions, profession changes, profession impact numbers. This is a minor list of IN GAME changes over the years. Maybe Blizzard has some/most of these numbers saved, but as they said, they don't have all and will have to spend many man hours figuring these things out.
How about outside of the game? Okay, you have B.Net integration as a main point. You argue "why include that?" Well, why wouldn't they include that? It's a main interaction of their systems that ties everything to their service.
You are willfully ignoring information given to you by numerous sources, most of which are Blizzard's own, to try and make a point along the lines of "they could so they should!"

Uhm, no. But well done. It was good-ish effort.

I am not ignoring anything of the sort. Like you, I don't know what Blizzard might or might not need to do but I am not pretending to have any sort of deeper understanding or knowledge of the subject. Nor have I said that what they need to do does not require a lot of work.

I haven't once argued about Battlenet integration.

I don't believe that I have ever made the argument of "they could so they should!"

I take it back about your post being a good-ish effort. You've managed to argue against 4 points I never made.

[slaise1]

Inc speech of Vanilla servers Blizzcon 2016

[Gadzooks]

Nost's crew was using emulation software. Blizzard would need to use their original source. The "motley crew" analogy is inherently flawed since they were working with apples (MaNGOS) and Blizzard would be using oranges (original source). They mentioned the source exists but they did not back up any of the server-side information, such as mob HP pools (and I'd assume scripting pre-Cata rework). We do not know the exact level of work this would entail but from the tone of the dev interviews on this subject, it doesn't seem to be a small undertaking by any means.

That said, the question shouldn't be if Legacy realms become reality but when. Given what we've heard thus far, it seems like Blizzard's approach is forward-facing as long as they're still working on new expansions. When WoW reaches a point where they're no longer making new expansions (eg, they begin working on a next gen MMO) or their current cyclical expansion model becomes unprofitable, I'm sure we'll see them on the table as a possibility.

I don't think that's what he was saying, he was just saying that if Legacy happens - it's gotta be Blizzard doing it. I don't think he was re=opening that "If a bunch of dudes in a garage can do it, so can Blizzard!" arguement.

- - - Updated - - -

Inc speech of Vanilla servers Blizzcon 2016

Good luck with that.

- - - Updated - - -

What's your point? I never said that it would not be a lot of work nor have I said that Nost implemented data, servers, clients or anything for that matter in the same way as Blizzard. I have simply questioned your, and others, baseless assumptions.

Nah. What you're doing is nitpicking. Probably because this thread is played out and beyond over, but you can't walk away. I left this thread for weeks, and i come back, and here you are, still nitpicking endlessly over points that don't matter to anyone.

Let it GO, dude. Legacy servers aren't coming. Move on. This obsession isn't healthy.

[Pann]

Nah. What you're doing is nitpicking. Probably because this thread is played out and beyond over, but you can't walk away. I left this thread for weeks, and i come back, and here you are, still nitpicking endlessly over points that don't matter to anyone.

Let it GO, dude. Legacy servers aren't coming. Move on. This obsession isn't healthy.

How am I nitpicking by pointing out that I never mentioned what the person claimed?

I have never once said that legacy will or will not be coming. As for an obsession, remind me, again, how posts do you have in this thread and how many do I?

[Gadzooks]

How am I nitpicking by pointing out that I never mentioned what the person claimed?

I have never once said that legacy will or will not be coming. As for an obsession, remind me, again, how posts do you have in this thread and how many do I?

Get.

Fucking.

OVER.

It.

You're being aggressivly combatitive over a topic that is long over with.

Seek help.

[Pann]

Get.

Fucking.

OVER.

It.

You're being aggressivly combatitive over a topic that is long over with.

Seek help.

Err? Well... That seems like a calm and rational response. Oh, and get over what? I am not sure what is aggressive or combative about my post, I mean I'm not one swearing or calling others obsessed or misrepresenting their posts.

If this topic is long over with, why did you decide to post in it?

[zorkuus]

Inc speech of Vanilla servers Blizzcon 2016

Says the same stuff about it being hard to do and a long process IF they would do it etc... speech over.

[Eapoe]

Uhm, no. But well done. It was good-ish effort.

I am not ignoring anything of the sort. Like you, I don't know what Blizzard might or might not need to do but I am not pretending to have any sort of deeper understanding or knowledge of the subject. Nor have I said that what they need to do does not require a lot of work.

I haven't once argued about Battlenet integration.

I don't believe that I have ever made the argument of "they could so they should!"

I take it back about your post being a good-ish effort. You've managed to argue against 4 points I never made.

Lol...I'm going to have to downgrade you to troll. At this point, that's all you are doing. You ask for proof of the matter, to which it is linked straight from Blizzard and Nost. I then link the exact things that need to be considered, and add that Blizzard might have all that data, that they might now.
The fact is, you are being purposefully vague in your topics going "show me proof!" and not only deny the proof that is given you (yes, Blizzard and Nost press releases are proof), find any technicality in a post to try and debunk it. As far as your arguement of B.Net integration, I said you but did not out in the could, such as "you could argue..." and that is my mistake. The fact you pick up on it and talk about nothing else in the post to try and make that the main topic shows you aren't even interested in looking at the facts given to you, but would rather play ignorant and post follow-ups to the main point that have nothing to do with what has been presented to you.

[Pann]

Lol...I'm going to have to downgrade you to troll. At this point, that's all you are doing. You ask for proof of the matter, to which it is linked straight from Blizzard and Nost. I then link the exact things that need to be considered, and add that Blizzard might have all that data, that they might now.
The fact is, you are being purposefully vague in your topics going "show me proof!" and not only deny the proof that is given you (yes, Blizzard and Nost press releases are proof), find any technicality in a post to try and debunk it. As far as your arguement of B.Net integration, I said you but did not out in the could, such as "you could argue..." and that is my mistake. The fact you pick up on it and talk about nothing else in the post to try and make that the main topic shows you aren't even interested in looking at the facts given to you, but would rather play ignorant and post follow-ups to the main point that have nothing to do with what has been presented to you.

What proof did you provide that I asked for?

I have never said that those things do not need to be considered so I don't why brought them up.

How I am being vague?

My argument about Battlenet? I've not made any argument about Battlenet. What do you mean that I talked about nothing else? I wrote seven words about it that said I'd never argued against it.

Ok, so you post stuff calling into question stuff that I have never said and I am at fault?