Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Relapses]

Haha, keep trolling and you might convince a couple people that have never played vanilla.

How is that trolling?

[Pann]

You cannot sell the game which has ONE quest per THREE levels (40-42) in 2016. People are not going to waste their time grinding ugly low-pol mobs with lo-res texture and bad lightning.

Based on WoW's sub numbers over the years it does not look like hi-pol mobs with hi-res textures and good lighting have done much to make it more attractive to new customers.

It is quite clear from the fact that there are hundreds of retro titles available, many of which have aged worse than Classic WoW, that there is a market for games with lo-res textures, etc in 2016. I would, also, argue that the target audience for a Legacy service are not the same people who are looking to pick the latest title with the shiniest graphics of the shelf of their local Gamestop and that they are well aware of Classic WoW's limitations.

[Dormie]

Vanilla wow was a bad game..... it was fun in it;s own time, but "TIME'S CHANGE" as Garrosh said....

wow has evolved into a better game in every way imo over the long haul with some bumps here and there, only thing vanilla related i would want back is OLD AV just for the days/week long battleground.

legion looks to be very good.... why would you want to play vanilla again......

Funny how out of touch you people are.

[Gadzooks]

You cannot sell the game which has ONE quest per THREE levels (40-42) in 2016. People are not going to waste their time grinding ugly low-pol mobs with lo-res texture and bad lightning.

Well, i fyou read the Blizzard comments from the Nost meeting, the feeling was they'd like to recreate a Legacy version of the game, as a historical artifact - WoW was such a huge success and outlier in the genre that preserving it would be a good thing. I don't disagree, at all, with this kind of thinking - that Blizzard isn't rubbing their hands together evilly and planning on taking another $20 from your wallet every month - they just want to preserve their history.

Having said that, i think Chilton's comment of "That's something we'd love to do someday" is the only answer you need - they'd like to do it, but the chances are slim, at best, at ever getting the green light to put this together as an official project and product, as it wouldn't be done as a revenue generating project. Perhaps as a side project on their own time, like the rumored remake of Wow 3.

[Tackhisis]

Perhaps as a side project on their own time

It is too much hassle for a side project.

[Gadzooks]

It is too much hassle for a side project.

Which is why I said "perhaps". That's up to them to decide, I'm just saying, that's probably the only way it will happen - not that it's guaranteed or anything.

[Deleted]

The only thing WoW does notably well is raiding and dungeons, and the current game does this far better than Vanilla or TBC. Not sure how you mean the current game "isn't suited" for that.

Lol no, I already discussed the matter extensively on the matter in this topic, please read my posts on the issue.

[Puupi]

Could someone give me a TL;DR of why this thread is 1460 pages long and has 1,7 million views?

[Thimagryn]

I'm one of the few who would actually prefer an 'HD remake' of Vanilla. WoW 2.0 isn't a thing that's gonna happen, and Legacy with dated graphics mostly appeals to a very niche crowd. I think an HD upres using latest assets as an option is a good compromise. Those who want to opt out of it can, while having Legion quality assets would at least make the jump back to Vanilla a little more painless for the rest of us 'Vanilla Casuals' who don't care so much about a 1:1 classic experience.

I've played since open beta in 2004, and WoW graphics aren't as nostalgic to me considering the tech was well behind the higher res First Person Shooters available at the time. I'm sure some people want to stick to the past, and I'm fine with letting them have it, but Legacy isn't going to sell me with its dated graphics if all I want out of it is the classic gameplay (old talent systems, tougher mobs, etc).

[Gadzooks]

I'm one of the few who would actually prefer an 'HD remake' of Vanilla. WoW 2.0 isn't a thing that's gonna happen, and Legacy with dated graphics mostly appeals to a very niche crowd. I think an HD upres using latest assets as an option is a good compromise. Those who want to opt out of it can, while having Legion quality assets would at least make the jump back to Vanilla a little more painless for the rest of us 'Vanilla Casuals' who don't care so much about a 1:1 classic experience.

I've played since open beta in 2004, and WoW graphics aren't as nostalgic to me considering the tech was well behind the higher res First Person Shooters available at the time. I'm sure some people want to stick to the past, and I'm fine with letting them have it, but Legacy isn't going to sell me with its dated graphics if all I want out of it is the classic gameplay (old talent systems, tougher mobs, etc).

There's nothing wrong with your choice - and I hope that Blizzard is looking at it from this point of view - "What do we need to do, so our current game is as appealing to players, as the 11 year old version is?"

There's a problem when the desire for the old game gets too big, it means they need to look at what they're not giving their customers. We can hope. The solution isn't to undo 11 years of development, it's to look at the current offering, and figure out why so many people choose to not play it.

[Thimagryn]

There's a problem when the desire for the old game gets too big, it means they need to look at what they're not giving their customers. We can hope. The solution isn't to undo 11 years of development, it's to look at the current offering, and figure out why so many people choose to not play it.

I think appealing to the Legacy crowd and tackling why so many people have left are two different things. I wouldn't even begin to lump the two together as though it were a cause and effect. My choice to not play is being addressed in Legion (Dungeons as meaningful progression) but it's come little too late since my Guild has all but disbanded at this point.

Personally, the number one reason for leaving WOW is real life and simply outgrowing the game and having higher priorities in life that take up time rather than grinding for epix. This includes the people around me, as most of my guild has gone on to spend their time on other things rather than devoting to raiding or whatever other menial tasks in WoW. This, to me, is why I don't value the 'Vanilla was better' argument simply because I recognize that we had far different values back then as I do now. I wouldn't be able to devote 2 days of the week to raiding any more, not that I would want that back. LFR is actually one of the reasons to stay in WoW for people like me, otherwise I'd have literally no way of seeing the raids and seeing a majority of end-game content.

[Mahourai]

Lol no, I already discussed the matter extensively on the matter in this topic, please read my posts on the issue.

You can repost any relevant comments here, I don't care to dig through your post history.

[Vineri]

The interest was already there before the Nost crew visited Blizzard and if anything it has tailed off since.

Why would the interest in Legacy servers spark to life with Legion? It makes no sense.

Morhaime cashed in some share options, nothing more. And what does this have to do with Legacy servers?

Your last paragraph simply does not make sense. You seem to imply that Blizzard employees are acting in self interest rather than doing what is best for the company.

Whilst I am generally in favour of a Legacy service I have to say the level of hyperbole you bring to the table does nothing to forward the pro-legacy argument.

The whole discussion across social media, to include YouTube, included Legacy servers, which got some unsubbed folks hungry for a WoW fix. I'm sorry you didn't realize the social media sensation that happened, and how everything makes no sense to you. There are many clueless folks about, no worries.

Un-knowledgeable Candidacy suits goals for passive aggressiveness.

The last paragraph makes no sense, how hobbyists made WoW servers, yet Blizzard says making them theirselves is too difficult. I agree, Blizzard's statements make no sense, and thus alterior motives come into play. Such as career ambitions, which makes no sense to someone like yourself, but to others it does - CRZ was a huge resume accomplishment. Before that, so was LFD. It's not necessarily the ambitions of employees but dev leads, or the company as a whole, who can say, yeah we did it.

Who knows, maybe it was all a test case for Diablo 3. The end result was a technologically superior game ... but just not something that RPG'ers would find fun any longer.

[Pann]

The whole discussion across social media, to include YouTube, included Legacy servers, which got some unsubbed folks hungry for a WoW fix. I'm sorry you didn't realize the social media sensation that happened, and how everything makes no sense to you. There are many clueless folks about, no worries.

I doubt your candidacy now being for Legacy servers would sway many eyes. It suits your goals to be un-knowledgeable and yet passive aggressive.

The last paragraph makes no sense, how hobbyists made WoW servers, yet Blizzard says making them theirselves is too difficult. I agree, Blizzard's statements make no sense, and thus alterior motives come into play. Such as career ambitions, which makes no sense to someone like yourself, but to others it does - CRZ was a huge resume accomplishment. Before that, so was LFD. It's not necessarily the ambitions of employees but dev leads, or the company as a whole, who can say, yeah we did it.

Who knows, maybe it was all a test case for Diablo 3. The end result was a technologically superior game ... but just not something that RPG'ers would find fun any longer.

You're not making sense.

Blizzard didn't want to make Legacy servers, it has nothing to do with ability, there is nothing more to it than that. Nost seems to have given them reason to re-evaluate their stance but that does not mean that they believe their original position of not wanting to release them has changed.

To suggest that CRZ or LFD was developed as a result of a dev, or team of devs, wanting to enhance their CVs rather than a decision made by Blizzard is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Seriously, you are not going to convince anyone with such ridiculous claims and your posts only serve as fodder for the anti-legacy posters in this thread.

[Vineri]

You're not making sense.

Blizzard didn't want to make Legacy servers, it has nothing to do with ability, there is nothing more to it than that. Nost seems to have given them reason to re-evaluate their stance but that does not mean that they believe their original position of not wanting to release them has changed.

To suggest that CRZ or LFD was developed as a result of a dev, or team of devs, wanting to enhance their CVs rather than a decision made by Blizzard is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Seriously, you are not going to convince anyone with such ridiculous claims and your posts only serve as fodder for the anti-legacy posters in this thread.

Citation needed for a claim. Specifically:

(1) Blizzard didn't want to make Legacy servers.
Yet they flew out team Nostalrius to their campus for a long discussion / vacation.

Inconsistencies:

(1) .. rather than a decision made by Blizzard.
Explained as a potential company decision to facilitate D3 tech. A guinea pig.

ps.
I'm terribly sorry all this is not making sense, and flying over your head.

[Mahourai]

(1) .. rather than a decision made by Blizzard.
Explained as a potential company decision to facilitate D3 tech. A guinea pig.

Your "explanation" is an unsubstantiated assertion, and quite a bizarre one.

[Relapses]

Could someone give me a TL;DR of why this thread is 1460 pages long and has 1,7 million views?

Nost got shut down spawning two eternally entrenched factions of players. Those who want Legacy realms (pro-Legacy) and those who are against them at this time (anti-Legacy). Neither faction can say with any amount of certainty what Blizzard will ultimately choose to do but every so often somebody brings up a topic which has already been debated ad-infinitum at other points in this thread's existence and people respond in kind.

tl,dr of the tl,dr - Haves vs. Have-nots.

[Mahourai]

There are thousands more posts about this stretching back to 2006 when Blizzard announced that leveling gear in TBC would obsolete the need to gear up in Vanilla content. As soon as the original version of the endgame was no longer necessary people began clamoring to get it back. This is just the modern incarnation of that thread.

[Vineri]

Your "explanation" is an unsubstantiated assertion, and quite a bizarre one.

A plausible one, never-the-less.

Nost got shut down spawning two eternally entrenched factions of players. Those who want
Legacy realms (pro-Legacy) and those who are against them at this time (anti-Legacy). Neither faction can say with any amount of certainty what Blizzard will ultimately choose to do but every so often somebody brings up a topic which has already been debated ad-infinitum at other points in this thread's existence and people respond in kind.

tl,dr of the tl,dr - Haves vs. Have-nots.

Old topic sometimes never go old, such as Blizzard's incompetence to actually re-create what hobbyists have currently running. Or Blizzard's unwillingness because the Legacy popularity will detract from their current monetized expansion models / cash-shop.

The cash-shop is very important to Blizzard since it not only helps to generate revenue via fluff items, but also helps to monetize character transfers, instead of performing AN OVERDUE server merge... you know put multiple dead servers together to make a thriving one?

It's not about fun. It's about money. Blizzard resists not because they are fans of their product, but rather they want MONEY. $$$

[Mahourai]

A plausible one, never-the-less.

It's actually not plausible in the least. You asserted that two technologies which were never implemented in Diablo were developed as technology for Diablo. That doesn't even rise to the plausibility level of a conspiracy theory, like your assertion that Blizzard devs implemented them just to have a bullet point on their resume, which is at least compelling if you make some unwarranted assumptions about the character of the dev team. It's just sheer nonsense.

The cash-shop is very important to Blizzard since it not only helps to generate revenue via fluff items, but also helps to monetize character transfers, instead of performing AN OVERDUE server merge... you know put multiple dead servers together to make a thriving one?

Realms that could no longer support a raiding scene were merged a long time ago.