Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Mahourai]

Lets say you're right. Why would it be a bad thing?

It's not necessarily bad, I was correcting you factually. I do think it's bad, but that's outside the scope of what I was posting about, which is that Classic Naxx is not tuned tightly at all compared to modern hardmode raids. As for Naxx's values in Classic compared to WoTLK, no one is arguing that Wrath Naxx is tuned tightly.

[Deleted]

Lets see what happens after blizzcon if they dont want to disscuss at blizzcon >_<

[Deleted]

Yeah that's a thing, but the excuse of "after Blizzcon" that is...when? 2 years after Blizzcon, 3 weeks, 1 month, 3 days? After Blizzcon is a long excuse to be honest.

BUT, also i can understand that, they can say NO or YES after the Blizzcon. My problem is not if they say NO, to be honest at that point i don't care, my problem is about they are not communicating a YES or NO, they just say "well, maybe, u know" and the problem just go bigger and bigger.

At this point, they now that the demand for Legacy Servers is real, they have a market for legacy servers, they just need to think if they can or can't do it at this point.

That's the only true, Blizzard is the one that make the choice, if they wan't to do it or not. There is a market (big or small, WE DON'T KNOW), they have the tecnology to do it, they have staff and people to do it...is Blizzard choice if they do it or not.

Still i'm hoping that they are gonna do it, even in 2 or 3 years of development but...aventually, they are gonna release some kind of legacy servers.

[Vash The Stampede]

It's not necessarily bad, I was correcting you factually. I do think it's bad, but that's outside the scope of what I was posting about, which is that Classic Naxx is not tuned tightly at all compared to modern hardmode raids. As for Naxx's values in Classic compared to WoTLK, no one is arguing that Wrath Naxx is tuned tightly.

It makes sense, cause modern WoW has at max 25m raids. Back in Vanilla, a tightly tuned raid with 40 people would be a nightmare. That doesn't make modern WOW any harder though.

[Molvonos]

It makes sense, cause modern WoW has at max 25m raids. Back in Vanilla, a tightly tuned raid with 40 people would be a nightmare. That doesn't make modern WOW any harder though.

And with most 40-man raids, you had 25 good raiders and 15 paperweights. Naxx40 happened to punish the bad really hard.

Thaddeus for example

[Vash The Stampede]

He mentioned being a physics teacher because it was relevant to the analogy he presented. The rest of your post is so ironically devoid of intelligence that I'm frankly surprised you're able to read above a fourth grade level without your mother sitting you on her lap and spelling out the words for you.

The whole analogy was terrible, but as you point out I'm "devoid of intelligence". So what do I know, right?

This whole "Legacy is an untapped gold mine and Blizzard is stupid not to take advantage of it," is the oldest and most tired arguments made in this thread. I don't know why you guys keep latching onto it because there's absolutely no substance behind it if you exercise even the tiniest amount of critical thinking about the subject. I can only surmise this forum echo chamber has given you this impression that there are millions of people just waiting to shower Blizzard in cash the second Legacy is announced. In reality, most people could give a fuck. They don't give a fuck enough to spend hours debating it on a fan run website and they certainly won't give a fuck if Legacy were to become a reality.

Most people are quitting the game. And considering how big this thread is, I'd say there's genuine interest in bringing back legacy servers. Unless you think we're so stupid that we don't know what we want. I have a feeling that you do.

Also, criticizing people for spending hours debating on a fan website, while you're spending hours debating with them about debating. Top notch intelligence right there.

I mentioned i am a physics teacher to set up the analogy. My superior reasoning skills reveal my greater intelligence just fine.

Your students must really love you.

It was the iceberg. Most of the difficulty (which has not been defined well) in beating an encounter lied prior to the start of the encounter itself. Do you have 40 members? Do you have the right talents? Do you have the right gear? Do you have all the consumables needed? Are you at the proper level of X resistance? There were so much that had to be done prior to starting the encounter. Once you passed those checks, the fights were, on average not that hard.

Cause you were there right? Like it was said in the video, only 23 guilds have actually cleared Naxx. Why so little? You really think that few people ran around the game with gear? I remember in TBC that people would put groups together for Naxx, and still had a hard time. Believe me, I tried to get Corrupted Ashbringer in TBC and even with superior gear and being level 70 it was hard. Hard as in we rarely killed four horsemen.

Ok. Stop speaking for everyone. Blizzard may be upsetting you. Blizzard is upsetting me. But they are most certainly not upsetting everyone.

The point is you can't make everyone happy. This is just how things are. You can't make the game easy... sorry I mean "accessible" while maintaining difficulty for the hardcore players. Modern WoW tries this, but is pissing off the hardcore player since Cata. The casual gamer wants more "content" but is instead given more copy and pasted quests, but WoW was originally built around the idea of using difficulty as a way to gate players speed through content. But since the game is devoid of difficulty except for Mythics, they instead use poor drop rates and timers which is just pissing off the casuals. Blizzard would have to pay more developers to put as much content as modern players are consuming.

Vanilla WoW required new players to go through all the old raids before they can raid current content, plus dungeons. There was no catch up gear. Today a player can skip all the old raids and go straight to do the current raid. You can finish it in one day through LFR as well. It's been proven that players could level up and do LFR within a week or less amount of time. This is obviously a problem if you want people to stay subscribed.

And why is this a problem? Because WoW wasn't built around these new mechanics. It was never meant to have catch up gear, or skipping older raids, or LFR. So casual players complain about the lack of content, while hardcore players complain about the lack of hard content.

[dd614]

And with most 40-man raids, you had 25 good raiders and 15 paperweights. Naxx40 happened to punish the bad really hard.

Thaddeus for example

Thaddeus could and did easily wipe many full 25 man lvl 70 groups who couldn't handle the mechanics and didn't put out enough DPS.

[Chrno]

Thaddeus could and did easily wipe many full 25 man lvl 70 groups who couldn't handle the mechanics and didn't put out enough DPS.

nr. 1 issue was getting 25m the make the jump on the platform correctly ...... ;x
As soon as everyone made that jump he fell quiet fast lol

[Deleted]

Thaddeus wasn't hard really, he have 1 mechanic to do ok and do a jump properly. It's true that he hit like a truck (big madafacka boss bitches) and have much more life than others, but wasn't hard cause mechanics.

Heigan was harden than Thaddeus for example, Noth was harder too, 4 horsemen (cause 8 tanks + 8/10 healers), Saphiron (cause frost gear)...

Naxx wasn't hard for mechanics except for 3 or 4 bosses, was hard cause bosses hit more, the debuffs hit MUCH MORE, the resistance needed was larger, etc...

It's true do that it was the harder raid in Vanilla, but also true that for example C'Thun was much more fun and difficult than all Naxx (until they nerfed...) but he was on AQ40, really bad designed raid (especially Ouro).

In essence, Naxx 40 was probably, in time...the 2º or 3º difficult raid off all time, at least for me. For me only Sunwell was harder (fucking Muru...) and maybe...Tempest Keep, at least until they nerfed Alaar, Solarian and Kaelthas.

[Molvonos]

Thaddeus wasn't hard really, he have 1 mechanic to do ok and do a jump properly. It's true that he hit like a truck (big madafacka boss bitches) and have much more life than others, but wasn't hard cause mechanics.

Heigan was harden than Thaddeus for example, Noth was harder too, 4 horsemen (cause 8 tanks + 8/10 healers), Saphiron (cause frost gear)...

Naxx wasn't hard for mechanics except for 3 or 4 bosses, was hard cause bosses hit more, the debuffs hit MUCH MORE, the resistance needed was larger, etc...

It's true do that it was the harder raid in Vanilla, but also true that for example C'Thun was much more fun and difficult than all Naxx (until they nerfed...) but he was on AQ40, really bad designed raid (especially Ouro).

In essence, Naxx 40 was probably, in time...the 2º or 3º difficult raid off all time, at least for me. For me only Sunwell was harder (fucking Muru...) and maybe...Tempest Keep, at least until they nerfed Alaar, Solarian and Kaelthas.

In concept, Thaddeus wasnt hard.

His one mechanic though punished the entire raid if someone was bad.

In 40-man, you had anywhere between 5 and 25 'filler bodies' who generally did fuck-all.

One person not pay attention to which debuff they had and you suddenly didn't have enough DPS to burn him down before enrage.

Heigan was a waltz (1, 2, 3...) that instantly killed anyone with latency issues or wasn't paying full attention (fuck the teleport tunnel bullshit).

Noth is what killed my guild at the time, so no comment beyond that, Sapp and Kel. we cleared everything but Noth, 4h, and the last two.

[corebit]

Most people are quitting the game. And considering how big this thread is, I'd say there's genuine interest in bringing back legacy servers. Unless you think we're so stupid that we don't know what we want. I have a feeling that you do.

Considering it's the same 10 people arguing the same old tired points ad nauseam, the last thing I would do is correlate popularity of private servers with this thread.

[Shridevi]

How many times must it be said that private realms utilizing MaNGOS emulation aren't even in the same ballpark as what Blizzard would be required to do in order to get Legacy up and running?

I'm starting to think that this isn't a valid argument. It is only a consideration for this discussion when speculating about Blizzard's decision making process and how pride would factor in. There is nothing inherently wrong with emulation whatsoever. The Java Virtual Machine uses emulation, the .NET environment uses emulation, all Android phones run on an environment that uses emulation. Runescape ran on Java client-side for 15 years. I imagine that people only mention emulation because of its stigma, to discourage legacy support.

I played vanilla since beta and bought it at launch. Nost's servers were way more stable. There was less lag, despite the servers being in France. Far more players could be online at once, and far more players could congregate in the same area at once. Nost had rollbacks and crashes often, so I wouldn't compare it to Blizzard's current servers.

This is important because if Blizzard just took Nost's code and added to it, honed it, we would have legacy servers at a completely marginal cost, and all of this theorycrafting about the potentially bankrupting expenses would be thrown out the window. Then the only people complaining are the purists. No one cares if legacy servers have 5ms more latency than Legion, they care that legacy servers exist. Actual vanilla had at least 100-200ms more latency back then anyway. So much perfectionism over a 12 year old game.

[Relapses]

The whole analogy was terrible, but as you point out I'm "devoid of intelligence". So what do I know, right?

I'm not defending the analogy itself (I've seen worse) but it's pretty fucking stupid to dismiss the entire thing on the basis of him trying to provide reasoning behind what was said simply because he mentioned being a teacher.

Most people are quitting the game.

*citation needed.

And considering how big this thread is, I'd say there's genuine interest in bringing back legacy servers. Unless you think we're so stupid that we don't know what we want. I have a feeling that you do.

This thread is 1,600 pages of the same circular arguments repeating themselves every five to ten pages. In your case, you've brought absolutely nothing new or original to the table but I will hand it to you that your general and intentional ignorance of basic constructive reasoning is particularly impressive. You parrot the same stupid "the game was better then than it is now," bullshit without any effective or intelligent grounds to support your reasoning other than your own personal opinion. I can't fault you entirely for this since that's just how opinions work but when you cross the line and begin to project the views of your vocal minority onto players who are no longer playing the game, that's where I have problem. Neither you nor I have any way of knowing what the impact of the return of Legacy realms would have on Blizzard's subscriber base but it's flat out wrong to make the presumption that simply because you want something, everybody must want it. As I said, I'd wager most people don't give a fuck one way or another and will continue not giving a fuck even if Legacy were to be announced.

Additionally, your claim about the popularity of this thread is completely meaningless. This is the only thread where Legacy is being discussed. Due to the inherent nature of discussion on a forum, of course a single thread will be objectively more popular if you force the consolidation of its subject matter.

Also, criticizing people for spending hours debating on a fan website, while you're spending hours debating with them about debating. Top notch intelligence right there.

At what point did I criticize anybody for spending hours debating this subject? Yet again, you've completely missed the purpose of what I was saying and drawn an incorrect conclusion to fit your own agenda.

Re-emphasizing what I said earlier, a handful of ardent Legacy defenders on a fan run website represent a small fraction of an even smaller fraction of players who even bother to visit forums in general. I say this not to directly insult the relevancy of the pro-Legacy movement but more to provide a more accurate scope of the discussion's audience. The biggest and most common mistake I see from either side of the argument is making the presumption that their perspective is shared by the massive portion of the WoW playing audience which simply doesn't bother seeking to either represent or be represented by those who post on this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm starting to think that this isn't a valid argument. It is only a consideration for this discussion when speculating about Blizzard's decision making process and how pride would factor in. There is nothing inherently wrong with emulation whatsoever. The Java Virtual Machine uses emulation, the .NET environment uses emulation, all Android phones run on an environment that uses emulation. Runescape ran on Java client-side for 15 years. I imagine that people only mention emulation because of its stigma, to discourage legacy support.

I played vanilla since beta and bought it at launch. Nost's servers were way more stable. There was less lag, despite the servers being in France. Far more players could be online at once, and far more players could congregate in the same area at once. Nost had rollbacks and crashes often, so I wouldn't compare it to Blizzard's current servers.

This is important because if Blizzard just took Nost's code and added to it, honed it, we would have legacy servers at a completely marginal cost, and all of this theorycrafting about the potentially bankrupting expenses would be thrown out the window. Then the only people complaining are the purists. No one cares if legacy servers have 5ms more latency than Legion, they care that legacy servers exist. Actual vanilla had at least 100-200ms more latency back then anyway. So much perfectionism over a 12 year old game.

First off, there's absolutely no way MaNGOS emulation could ever be implemented into B.net. (Or if they could, it'd be a fucking nightmare in and of itself.) Second of all, I really hope you understand how absurd it is to implicate a company should utilize an emulated version of their own game when they've already admitted they have the original's source.

[Shridevi]

same guy that thinks vanilla wow was harder because you had to look for tanks.

Vanilla WoW was more difficult. It just didn't play as an esport like current WoW, it played as an rpg.

If someone pushes for rank 1 or a world first kill in Legion, both are associated with more skill-based difficulty than vanilla, but the difficulty is a result of complex factors such as cross-realm competition and rewards/achievements more so than game design. The current game design is responsible for better balancing and more strategic choices in terms of abilities. But the overall, normal experience in current WoW is far easier than in vanilla. Not to mention that for most of us, we're tired of playing an esport, it creates an environment that results in ddosing, wintrading, exploiting, cheating, and rampant negativity, as exemplified by some people here.

- - - Updated - - -

First off, there's absolutely no way MaNGOS emulation could ever be implemented into B.net. (Or if they could, it'd be a fucking nightmare in and of itself.) Second of all, I really hope you understand how absurd it is to implicate a company should utilize an emulated version of their own game when they've already admitted they have the original's source.

MaNGOS emulation is server-side, not client-side, genius. Battle.net is completely separate.

It's not absurd, because as I explicitly stated, it would significantly cut costs associated with relaunching vanilla, assuming that those costs are high in the first place. We don't know anything about Blizzard's vanilla server code, how stable it is, how much work would need to be done to run it on a different architecture, how many bugs they would need to retroactively fix. All I said is that there is nothing wrong with emulation.

[Relapses]

MaNGOS emulation is server-side, not client-side, genius. Battle.net is completely separate.

I... I, uh...



Do you actually think it's as simple as putting a link to the MaNGOS-emulated version of WoW into the B.net infrastructure?

- - - Updated - - -

Since you edited in more nonsnese:

It's not absurd, because as I explicitly stated, it would significantly cut costs associated with relaunching vanilla, assuming that those costs are high in the first place. We don't know anything about Blizzard's vanilla server code, how stable it is, how much work would need to be done to run it on a different architecture, how many bugs they would need to retroactively fix. All I said is that there is nothing wrong with emulation.

Why... why on earth would you make the presumption that Nost's code is somehow superior to the original source? Oh right. Because YOU liked Nost. And I guess since it was good enough for you, it must be good enough for every paying customer of WoW. Unfortunately, in this weird place most of us call "reality," the many issues with Nost's code would not meet the standard of quality Blizzard has of itself and the games it produces. You might feel there's "nothing wrong with emulation," but it's honestly absurd to think that a company would actively seek to utilize an emulated version of a game when they have its original source on hand.

[Shridevi]

Do you actually think it's as simple as putting a link to the MaNGOS-emulated version of WoW into the B.net infrastructure?

I would imagine that battle.net operates by running on its own app such as the launcher, or background processes if not running the launcher, and communicates to Blizzard games which are currently running, which manifest realid events such as whispers or friends logging on/off as client-side messages. If that is what we're talking about. It is probably a very simple API which could be worked into the old WoW client, if this step is even necessary in the first place, since many want the original vanilla experience.

I would imagine that indie developers who make games on steam are given a similarly easy API to work with regarding steam achievements, notifications, and messages.

- - - Updated - - -

Why... why on earth would you make the presumption that Nost's code is somehow superior to the original source? Oh right. Because YOU liked Nost. And I guess since it was good enough for you, it must be good enough for every paying customer of WoW. Unfortunately, in this weird place most of us call "reality," the many issues with Nost's code would not meet the standard of quality Blizzard has of itself and the games it produces. You might feel there's "nothing wrong with emulation," but it's honestly absurd to think that a company would actively seek to utilize an emulated version of a game when they have its original source on hand.

No, what I am saying is that Nost's servers are technically superior to vanilla servers back when vanilla launched. If Blizzard wanted to they could potentially make far superior legacy servers compared to Nost, but what people here are arguing is that the astronomical costs will (or should, if it impacts Legion) prevent legacy servers from happening.

What I am saying is that 90% of the legacy work would already be done if Blizzard decided to use Nost's work and polish it. What other people here are saying is that this shouldn't happen, because emulation is bad, or because Blizzard can't do things half-effort, or because Nost isn't authentic enough. Emulation isn't bad, and if there are enough obstacles in implementing legacy that it would cause Blizzard to reconsider or cancel the project, then it is far preferable to just use Nost's method.

[Gadzooks]

I would imagine that battle.net operates by running on its own app such as the launcher, or background processes if not running the launcher, and communicates to Blizzard games which are currently running, which manifest realid events such as whispers or friends logging on/off as client-side messages. If that is what we're talking about. It is probably a very simple API which could be worked into the old WoW client, if this step is even necessary in the first place, since many want the original vanilla experience.

I would imagine that indie developers who make games on steam are given a similarly easy API to work with regarding steam achievements, notifications, and messages.

- - - Updated - - -



No, what I am saying is that Nost's servers are technically superior to vanilla servers back when vanilla launched. If Blizzard wanted to they could potentially make far superior legacy servers compared to Nost, but what people here are arguing is that the astronomical costs will (or should, if it impacts Legion) prevent legacy servers from happening.

What I am saying is that 90% of the legacy work would already be done if Blizzard decided to use Nost's work and polish it. What other people here are saying is that this shouldn't happen, because emulation is bad, or because Blizzard can't do things half-effort, or because Nost isn't authentic enough. Emulation isn't bad, and if there are enough obstacles in implementing legacy that it would cause Blizzard to reconsider or cancel the project, then it is far preferable to just use Nost's method.

I took a vacation from this thread, for my own sanity - and I see the stupidity is still strong here.

The number one reason why Blizzard is not going to use Nost's server emulator is it's OPEN SOURCE. Since you've not shown any intelligence in your replies, I'll make it easy for you to understand = that means any script kiddy or bot maker has full access to the code running the server.

It means Blizzard losing specific legal rights to their own product, by making it open source. This will not happen. Let me say that again: THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Blizzard's server code are their "crown jewels", they're trade secrets. Replacing them with code that anyone can download and pick apart? That would be, in your language, "dumb as fuck".

Secondly, the way Blizzard designed the game is incompatible from what Nost guessed at. They addressed that in their post about the Nost meeting - the methods Blizzard used, for instance how powerful a fireball cast is, is not the same as how Nost calculated it. So, they'd either have to retrain a crew for how Nost did it, or rewrite Nost's code to be the same as the original...which is giving their crown jewels away. That's simply not happening, because it's MORE work than they face now, and that's the hurdle they can't get over - they have a lot of the actual code that calculates fireball, but they don't have the vanilla numbers those calculations created. And, anyone would be able to see what they added/changed. Not happening.

Then, you face issues like "Is the MySQL setup Nost used stable and strong enough to be used in a commercial product, that needs to be up as much as possible"? Will it run on their current server hardware, or do they need to build out custom racks? This has been addressed multiple times in this thread, and yet again, your "I want!" is clouding whatever common sense you have and you just wave it away as a minor annoyance.

This 90% number you pulled out of your ass is hilarious - it's so easy, when you just make shit up, right?

Keep it civil

[Shridevi]

I took a vacation from this thread, for my own sanity - and I see the stupidity is still strong here.

The number one reason why Blizzard is not going to use Nost's server emulator is it's OPEN SOURCE. Since you've not shown any intelligence in your replies, I'll make it easy for you to understand = that means any script kiddy or bot maker has full access to the code running the server.

It means Blizzard losing specific legal rights to their own product, by making it open source. This will not happen. Let me say that again: THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Blizzard's server code are their "crown jewels", they're trade secrets. Replacing them with code that anyone can download and pick apart? That would be, in your language, "dumb as fuck".

Linux is open sourced. Mac OS X is based on Linux. Apple owns Mac OS X.
Nost is based on MaNGOS. Suppose legacy is based on Nost. Blizzard owns legacy.

Why are you bringing up the stability of SQL?

That would be, in your language, "dumb as fuck".

I never said this at all.

I brought up a topic which was not really addressed and I articulated my points in a balanced and noninflammatory way, since it would be something which benefits pro and anti legacy people. Like a few other people here, you get triggered at the first sign that a post is pro-legacy and commence flaming. It's getting really old. Maybe you should take another break from the thread.

[Gadzooks]

Linux is open sourced. Mac OS X is based on Linux. Apple owns Mac OS X.
Nost is based on MaNGOS. Suppose legacy is based on Nost. Blizzard owns legacy.

Why are you bringing up the stability of SQL?



I never said this at all.

I brought up a topic which was not really addressed and I articulated my points in a balanced and noninflammatory way, since it would be something which benefits pro and anti legacy people. Like a few other people here, you get triggered at the first sign that a post is pro-legacy and commence flaming. It's getting really old. Maybe you should take another break from the thread.

If you don't understand the difference between what Apple releases, and Blizzard, you have no business speaking to this issue. You are CLEARLY out of your depth here.

But keep making those "90%" comments. They're hilarious.

No I'm going to go watch Blizzcon - infinitely more entertaining than laughing at your fairy stories.

[Dayon]

They were working on a TBC release so people could transfer 60 characters over to progress the next expansion.

So the cycle continues until the people on Nostalrius goes into Wrath and then Cata and then people leave it to go back to vanilla. Or the community splits over those who want to stay in vanilla, stay in BC, or progress faster into Wrath.