Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Deleted]

Again, not talking about Legacy, talking about PRIVATE SERVER PUBLICITY.

They accept Legacy server debate cause is on the top right now, and is a clean debate.

[Vineri]

Again, not talking about Legacy, talking about PRIVATE SERVER PUBLICITY.

They accept Legacy server debate cause is on the top right now, and is a clean debate.

The 1st post is outdated, again. Blizzard is steering fans from actual conversation, since the original post is negative. MMO-C never did this, Blizzard does, however.

[wunksta]

Post #1 (blue) is outdated, but whatever.

If your point is that Blizzard has been silent about it, sure I guess that's fair. Your original post made it sound like they were deleting all threads about it and preventing discussion, which is clearly not happening.

[Vineri]

You claim I'm "putting words in your mouth"

Please calm down. You need not show how you dislike Legacy fans. No need to go on. Your stance is clear already.

[Dergiab]

That sounds awful, tbh. Are you saying that each person would have to reroll to play on a new expansion server? That all their previous items etc aren't carried over with them? This seems like it would be a huge detriment to playing and could result in less people wanting to transfer over. The current aim, of bringing the existing playerbase through to the new expansion seems better. In order to satisfy the legacy crowd, they could then release individual servers with each of the previous expansions so people can reroll if they want would probably be better. You could even make it like the PTR and copy characters over.

However, this still has the most common problems as what version of the expansion should be implemented. Should it be progressive? Should it maintain quality of life fixes and bugs removed?

Ultimately, I think the biggest problem legacy supporters have is that everyone has a separate idea of what a legacy server should look like. I feel that if Blizz did release something, it wouldn't satisfy people and there would still be a lot of complaints. People would want things fixed or changed. If Blizz completely ignored any requests for updates and and provided an untouched, unchanged version of Vanilla WoW, before any patches or bug fixes, is this what legacy people would want to play?

There's been a lot of talk about people not playing because there would be free alternatives. What about providing a free server, that people could play. Since it would theoretically be an untouched, never updated server that would provide no services or support, people could play as much as they want. This would be a loss of money most likely but who knows, it could bring some people back and get them interested in playing the current WoW and make them subscribers.

However they do it, the important thing is to never "upgrade" an existing server with the next expansion.

[Vineri]

If your point is that Blizzard has been silent about it, sure I guess that's fair. Your original post made it sound like they were deleting all threads about it and preventing discussion, which is clearly not happening.

Well, they are. Case in point someone started a thread and linked an innocuous news post referring to an up-and-coming Legacy server. It got 3 hours of air time, with 4 pages of replies. Ultimately it was canned. Half for, half against, as usual.

I believe Blizzard is trying to control the sheeple, so to speak. They do have 1 thread devoted to Legacy, but they are controlling the topic, via outdated 1st post.

They made statements since, and the 1st post needs to change.

[wunksta]

Well, they are. Case in point someone started a thread and linked an innocuous news post referring to an up-and-coming Legacy server. It got 3 hours of air time, with 4 pages of replies. Ultimately it was canned. Half for, half against, as usual.

I believe Blizzard is trying to control the sheeple, so to speak. They do have 1 thread devoted to Legacy, but they are controlling the topic, via outdated 1st post.

They made statements since, and the 1st post needs to change.

They haven't deleted all threads, because as previously pointed out, there is a current thread.

They aren't preventing discussion within that thread and if that poster put the comments within that thread, it wouldn't have been deleted.

[Vineri]

They haven't deleted all threads, because as previously pointed out, there is a current thread.

They aren't preventing discussion

Bull-honky ... That thread was gone, it mentioned a thread title "Looks like **** is back again". It linked a news article. It was deleted.

But hey ..

They haven't deleted all threads

Share some that were not deleted !! Unless you are referring to the same outdated thread from a few posts ago ..

[wunksta]

Bull-honky ... That thread was gone, it mentioned a thread title "Looks like Nost is back again". It linked a news article. It was deleted.

But hey ..

They haven't deleted all threads

Share some that were not deleted !! Unless you are referring to the same outdated thread from a few posts ago ..

Do you understand what the word "ALL" means? If there are hundred threads and they delete 99, they haven't deleted ALL the threads. How is this confusing? Continuing to say that they delete all threads and prevent discussion about legacy threads is incredibly misleading.

The point here is that creating threads regarding the same topic that are being discussed in an existing thread is not allowed. This applies to every topic, not just legacy servers. This isn't a conspiracy.

[Vineri]

They haven't deleted all threads, because as previously pointed out, there is a current thread.

They aren't preventing discussion within that thread and if that poster put the comments within that thread, it wouldn't have been deleted.

Shouldn't the master thread be something about on-going discussion, rather than an outdated pre-Blizzcon stance quote? (Post #1)

[wunksta]

Shouldn't the master thread be something about on-going discussion, rather than an outdated pre-Blizzcon stance quote? (Post #1)

The discussion is for classic servers. What is this 'new' discussion that you are talking about?

[Vineri]

The discussion is for classic servers. What is this 'new' discussion that you are talking about?

Anything relative to Blizzard's current stance, as of November 6th, 2016. Link above. The part above; seriously considering Legacy.

Here again,

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/11/06/blizzard-on-world-of-warcraft-legacy-servers-its-something-were-taking-seriously

There is a clear change of position recently. The existing BattleNet thread should reflect new information provided by Blizzard, in the 1st post, not old pre-Blizzcon stances.

[wunksta]

Anything relative to Blizzard's current stance, as of November 6th, 2016. Link above. The part above; seriously considering Legacy.

The current stance is that they are taking it seriously and it's still under discussion and they don't have any updates. The original post in the current thread is "we’re still discussing the possibility, we won’t have any updates to share". What am I missing? And why can't this be discussed in the thread about classic servers?

[Adunai]

Bull-honky ... That thread was gone, it mentioned a thread title "Looks like <snip> is back again". It linked a news article. It was deleted.

But hey ..

They haven't deleted all threads

Share some that were not deleted !! Unless you are referring to the same outdated thread from a few posts ago ..

Reported for naming a private server. Please, follow the rules of this magnificent forum.

[Vineri]

The current stance is that they are taking it seriously and it's still under discussion and they don't have any updates. The original post in the current thread is "we’re still discussing the possibility, we won’t have any updates to share". What am I missing? And why can't this be discussed in the thread about classic servers?

No. They said they were discussing it, all the while snubbing Mark Kern. I do think Kern is an opportunist, but he is responsible for this conversation evening happening. Only after recent events is Blizzard taking it seriously.

If you think Blizzard was seriously considering this prior to Blizzcon, I'll call shenanigans.

They need to update their Blue #1 post, in any event. it's old, and antiquated, and they are sending the wrong message to fans, vs. their current position.

- - - Updated - - -

Reported for naming a private server. Please, follow the rules of this magnificent forum.

Why don't you go to the official BattleNet forum and report people there. I know, I know, doesn't work, since Blizzard doesn't mind (hence the 1st page is flooded with PS names).

[wunksta]

They need to update their Blue #1 post, in any event. it's old, and antiquated, and they are sending the wrong message to fans, vs. their current position.

What's the wrong message they are sending? I'm looking over the first post and I'm having trouble figuring it out. I mean, I'm all for them constantly updating the original post with any information but it sounds like your main gripe is that before they were 'considering it' and now they are 'seriously considering it'. I'm not sure how 'considering it' is sending the wrong message though.

[Vineri]

What's the wrong message they are sending? I'm looking over the first post and I'm having trouble figuring it out. I mean, I'm all for them constantly updating the original post with any information but it sounds like your main gripe is that before they were 'considering it' and now they are 'seriously considering it'. I'm not sure how 'considering it' is sending the wrong message though.

Considering it with one sentence is very different, from an entire interview to: Seriously Consider it. The main thread post should not try to steer conversation, but rather simply say what the thread is intended for. If Blue posts are given to lead conversation, they need to be updated, not with an outdated pre-Blizzcon position, along with ads.

[wunksta]

Considering it with one sentence is very different, from an entire interview to: Seriously Consider it. The main thread title should not try to steer conversation, but rather simply say what the thread is intended for. If Blue posts are given to lead conversation, they need to be updated, not with an outdated pre-Blizzcon position, along with ads.

Sure, it would be nice if they updated it with the interview. However, it really sounds like you are just nitpicking. At the end of the day it's still 'we are considering it and we don't have any updates'. Tacking on 'seriously' doesn't really change it much in my opinion.

In any case, the main title of the thread is about the classic server update, which as it is stated in the OP, they are considering.

[Vineri]

Sure, it would be nice if they updated it with the interview. However, it really sounds like you are just nitpicking. At the end of the day it's still 'we are considering it and we don't have any updates'. Tacking on 'seriously' doesn't really change it much in my opinion.

In any case, the main title of the thread is about the classic server update, which as it is stated in the OP, they are considering.

They are Seriously Considering.

[Deficineiron]

However they do it, the important thing is to never "upgrade" an existing server with the next expansion.

pages back I suggested after 2-3 years introducing tbc, and allowing 'duping' of characters on the classic server to tbc for some fee, so you could still play in classic but also take your 60 or whatever to outland. clearly a lot of moving parts, including decreasing number of players on classic servers, but it would also bring in players for tbc. once they build the metadata for classic, tbc is nearly done. once they started backing up metadata, tbc was still mostly unchanged (some nerfs in place) and could be rebuilt pretty directly. classic world didn't change much into tbc, just a few elite mobs downgraded, etc, prior to 2.3.