Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[rda]

a fast example - would they REALLY allow old scholomanc, with confusing layout, optional bosses everywhere, viewing room key/rattlegore tandem, etc., to be in, or would they opt for the new carnival-haunted-house/talking skull instance, which can provide the (alleged) spirit of old scholomance while offering more accessibility?

Looking at all design decisions from this company overall in the last several years, what do you think they would tend to want to do?

I don't know. I get what you are saying, but in this particular case they might actually go with the old, confusing layout, if they decide that this is what those who are asking for classic servers want (and I think that yes, this is what they want - the old thing, with the old quirks and gotchas and secrets).

But more importantly, I think they will do nothing at all for classic servers until Legion is stable. And it does not look to be stable just yet, things are looking pretty dangerous. So, I guess already said it, but I will quickly repeat it: I think we will have no news on classic servers or TBC servers or whatever else other than live for at least a year. The only news this thread will get in the next year - in my opinion - is if Blizzard decide to close the server that should not be named 2.0 or some other server like it.

PS: Obviously, the "frankenstein" scenario you describe is a no go. It serves nobody.

[Pann]

The new server / client can't work with the old database, because database structure changes. Rewriting / converting the database is possible, yes. But using the new server / client won't get you 90% of the things people seem to want from vanilla - old mechanics are a good example. It's not the database doing them, it's the server / client.

I'm no expert but even I know that databases are cheaper to rewrite or create than rewriting or creating programs.

Why won't you get the old mechanics? If you go into Molten Core today Ragnaros will still using the same mechanics he used 10 years ago. As far as I can tell mechanics are entries in the database.

[Deficineiron]

I don't know. I get what you are saying, but in this particular case they might actually go with the old, confusing layout, if they decide that this is what those who are asking for classic servers want (and I think that yes, this is what they want - the old thing, with the old quirks and gotchas and secrets).

But more importantly, I think they will do nothing at all for classic servers until Legion is stable. And it does not look to be stable just yet, things are looking pretty dangerous. So, I guess already said it, but I will quickly repeat it: I think we will have no news on classic servers or TBC servers or whatever else other than live for at least a year. The only news this thread will get in the next year - in my opinion - is if Blizzard decide to close the server that should not be named 2.0 or some other server like it.

PS: Obviously, the "frankenstein" scenario you describe is a no go. It serves nobody.

my major concern is some version of frankenstein nonetheless becomes the release product. Somewhere a spreadsheet surely can support such a project vs. plain old and by modern standards hideously inaccessible classic.

[Pann]

I think an often-unspoken concern here is that blizzard would find it preferable to actually just use new engine and new systems...

Purely from a business perspective this makes more sense than rewriting old WoW and then running and maintaining two separate client and server systems. Whether this would necessitate the use of the new quests and zone remains to be seen.

[rda]

I'm no expert but even I know that databases are cheaper to rewrite or create than rewriting or creating programs.

Why won't you get the old mechanics? If you go into Molten Core today Ragnaros will still using the same mechanics he used 10 years ago. As far as I can tell mechanics are entries in the database.

It's parameters for the mechanics that are entries in the database. The mechanics themselves are in the code. Ie, whether Ragnaros hits for 10 or 10,000 is in the database, but the actual code for performing the hit is in the code. The difference is hard to see with simple spells like "let's hit for X fire damage", because spells like this were in the code since forever (although there were some changes), so Ragnaros spells perhaps need little adaptation or maybe none at all, they might indeed be brought to what they were in vanilla by just changing the database. But if we start talking about things like hunter's Feign Death, that's a ton of code that now works very differently than before. There's nothing to adjust in the database to get the old behavior. All the database contains is "here is a spell, hunters get it at level X for Y coin, it is called Feign Death, please do action 287 when it is invoked", and the action is in the code. And if we start talking about things like hunter's pets getting happier after eating a food of its preferred type, the current code does not have the concept of happiness, does not have the concept of food of preferred type, can not feed anything to the pet, etc - all of that has to be reimplemented / restored. In many cases, this is hard.

- - - Updated - - -

Whether this would necessitate the use of the new quests and zone remains to be seen.

This could use old quests and zones - with some adaptation. Quests / NPCs / rewards are in the database. There would be hidden rocks, like, a quest might ask the code to do some custom action - ie, some interaction which a script couldn't do back in vanilla and so it was put into code - but I don't think this would be often.

[Deficineiron]

Purely from a business perspective this makes more sense than rewriting old WoW and then running and maintaining two separate client and server systems. Whether this would necessitate the use of the new quests and zone remains to be seen.

the map could be changed, quests could. within this context the concern (from my viewpoint) is that they might find it PREFERABLE to have linear quests, personal loot, faster leveling, more gy/fp's, mobs that tickle instead of hit, LFD, etc. it isn't inconceivable that they would feel (and with justification) that having separate clients would in itself discourage participation with some people.....now the old classic client isn't that big and could be rolled into the new one without much notice since cinematics are already there, but....would such a simple solution be the blizzard way?

Heck, what if the project is judged internally with the same participation/completion metrics retail seems to? pug instance groups failed in classic sometimes. would they tune to try to improve success rates?

[Pann]

It's parameters for the mechanics that are entries in the database. The mechanics themselves are in the code. Ie, whether Ragnaros hits for 10 or 10,000 is in the database, but the actual code for performing the hit is in the code. The difference it hard to see with simple spells like "let's hit for X fire damage", because spells like this were in the code since forever (although there were some changes), so Ragnaros spells perhaps need little adaptation or maybe none at all, they might indeed be brought to what they were in vanilla by just changing the database. But if we start talking about things like hunter's Feign Death, that's a ton of code that now works very differently than before. There's nothing to adjust in the database to get the old behavior. All the database contains is "here is a spell, hunters get it at level X for Y coin, it is called Feign Death, please do action 287 when it is invoked", and the action is in the code. And if we start talking about things like hunter's pets getting happier after eating a food of its preferred type, the current code does not have the concept of happiness, does not have the concept of food of preferred type, can not feed anything to the pet, etc - all of that has to be reimplemented / restored. In many cases, this is hard.

That sounds far more complex than it needs to be. Also, if this was all in the program code wouldn't it require a rewrite of the code to alter a spell for example?

This seems like a very inefficient way to go about writing a game that will need constant balance tweaks.

Why would the action be in the code? Surely it is a case of the player uses Feign Death, the client tells the server that action 287 has been performed, the server then looks up the corresponding entry for action 287 in its database and then, in this case, it tells the mobs that player is dead so perform action 400 (attack then next agro'ed target) or action 489 (reset)?

How do you know that the current code doesn't have concept of pet happiness? Surely it is easier to disable a feature than to rewrite the whole system to not include it? Besides it wasn't exactly a complex system, feed the pet and its damage increases and a little smiley face appears, if you don't feed its damage decreases and a sad face appears.

[Zequill]

Sorry but i really don't like to be LABELLED as "the lfr player base you seem to be part" from somebody who never played vanilla

You will prob quit legacy vanilla server on the 3 week...

No I'm not.

A-B are not really of any interest in this discussion.

A-B was about you saying I never played vanilla and I would quit legacy server on the 3 week. Both couldn't be more wrong. Sorry if you have an issue to follow a discussion

[rda]

That sounds far more complex than it needs to be. Also, if this was all in the program code wouldn't it require a rewrite of the code to alter a spell for example?

This seems like a very inefficient way to go about writing a game that will need constant balance tweaks.

Why would the action be in the code? Surely it is a case of the player uses Feign Death, the client tells the server that action 287 has been performed, the server then looks up the corresponding entry for action 287 in its database and then, in this case, it tells the mobs that player is dead so perform action 400 (attack then next agro'ed target) or action 489 (reset)?

How do you know that the current code doesn't have concept of pet happiness? Surely it is easier to disable a feature than to rewrite the whole system to not include it? Besides it wasn't exactly a complex system, feed the pet and its damage increases and a little smiley face appears, if you don't feed its damage decreases and a sad face appears.

Actions are in the code because there is no way to make the database expressive enough in advance, databases hold data, that data gets interpreted by code. New spells frequently need new mechanics. You can't foresee what exact values with what meanings to put into the database in advance so that you don't have to write new code.

Yes, it's complex, such is life.

When Feign Death happens, the client tells the server that action 287 has been performed, yes. The server then performs code associated with that action. Because there's no way to express what Feign Death has to do in the database. There are no entries with the meaning of "please drop aggro to X for Y time on mobs of type Z, but not W, and if there's circumstance V, please also do Q, R, S and then T". It's too complex to put into the database. So the database contains just "please do Feign Death" = "please do action 287" and the meaning of that is in the hands of the server - which then executes a complex action.

I don't know that the current code doesn't have the code left for pet happiness, that's an educated guess. But it's a pretty informed guess because when you stop using things, if you don't actually remove them and clean up related parts, and just let everything rot there unused, pretty soon you will lose the ability to change code, it is going to be too hard to reason about due to all the unused cruft. So, maybe pet happiness in particular is there, this is not important, but 99% of things like pet happiness most surely aren't. And when we are talking about it not being a complex system, it's complex enough to be worth talking about. Vanilla changes that have to be re-brought are perhaps comparable to a big (really big) patch. That's significant, you can't ignore costs of that level.

[Vash The Stampede]

So maybe I'm just not getting it but what's appealing about staying on a vanilla server, where nothing changes and you keep running the same content over and over again?

I thought about this myself and started to compile a mental list of things I like about Vanilla WoW vs Legion.

LEGION WOW

#1 The leveling is quicker. If you're all about end game content then leveling is just a waste of time and you want in on that end game content. Especially when quests aren't compelling enough to waste your time.

#2 Legendaries. I've played a Ret Paladin since Vanilla and I always wanted the Ashbringer and now it's just given to you. You even get Legendary armor and etc.

#3 Group finder is much better than Trade or General chat from Vanilla. Spamming chat isn't fun to look for people.

#4 Raiding is easier for those that don't have time. You don't have to get into Mythic raiding to experience the raid.

VANILLA WOW

#1 Leveling is more rewarding. There's lots to see in Vanilla quests, and it does feel like a living breathing world for you to explore. It's difficult enough that a player is forced to learn how to play their class.

#2 Epic gear is hard to get, which is good cause epic gear should be rewarded to players who do epic things.

#3 Dungeons force players to work together and stop being introverts. Communication and coordination is key to making it through a dungeon, and not a tank who spams AOE damage.

#4 Raiding through Vanilla is a progression itself. You just can't jump into Naxx, you have to clear other raids, multiple times with no gear just handed to you. You have to farm ZG, MC, BWL, AQ, and then you can hope for raiding Naxx.

[MoanaLisa]

The good thing about using a modern engine is they could easily integrate flying, achievements, LFD/LFR, pet battles, arenas, and the modern, less-confusing talent system that has real choices like the players demand.

It wouldn't be a true legacy server then. They are not going to run two separate MMO's named World of Warcraft. If they do a Legacy server at all it will very likely be what most people understand to be: something 1.12 and likely not to be overly changed. If it's wildly successful then they might do more but the first iteration would be what most people want: to create much the same experience as 1.12 or whatever patch you prefer.

[voidillusion]

It wouldn't be a true legacy server then.

No, indeed it wouldn't.

[Deficineiron]

It wouldn't be a true legacy server then. They are not going to run two separate MMO's named World of Warcraft. If they do a Legacy server at all it will very likely be what most people understand to be: something 1.12 and likely not to be overly changed. If it's wildly successful then they might do more but the first iteration would be what most people want: to create much the same experience as 1.12 or whatever patch you prefer.

I think you are optimistic today's posts by me include my reasons for thinking this (and their omission here should not be taken as an indication of any change thereof), but it comes down to money, with a dash of 'more accessible for a larger group of people' thrown in.

[Ielenia]

VANILLA WOW

#1 Leveling is more rewarding. There's lots to see in Vanilla quests, and it does feel like a living breathing world for you to explore. It's difficult enough that a player is forced to learn how to play their class.

I see this argument thrown around a lot, but it's never really explained. What exactly about the vanilla leveling makes it "more rewarding"? The quests of today give you a "living and breathing world to explore" just as much as before, in my opinion. As for "being forced to learn how to play their class".... no. Sure, mobs may have had more health and did more damage before, but that didn't teach anyone how to 'play their class' more than the simplest basic concepts.

#2 Epic gear is hard to get, which is good cause epic gear should be rewarded to players who do epic things.

I'd say killing raid bosses and world bosses can be 'epic' enough, don't you think?

#4 Raiding through Vanilla is a progression itself. You just can't jump into Naxx, you have to clear other raids, multiple times with no gear just handed to you. You have to farm ZG, MC, BWL, AQ, and then you can hope for raiding Naxx.

This is a good point, however, it greatly sacrifices accessibility, especially to players who join later in the expansion or who don't have as much time as others to raid. The expansion ends, and they end missing the end of the expansion's storyline, because they couldn't access the later raids and thus couldn't finish the quest lines. For today's times, I think greater accessibility trumps harsh attunements.

[MasterHamster]

I see this argument thrown around a lot, but it's never really explained. What exactly about the vanilla leveling makes it "more rewarding"? The quests of today give you a "living and breathing world to explore" just as much as before, in my opinion. As for "being forced to learn how to play their class".... no. Sure, mobs may have had more health and did more damage before, but that didn't teach anyone how to 'play their class' more than the simplest basic concepts.

Whenever someone says classic leveling was better I just laugh. Sort of the same as claiming Classic dps rotations were more complex.
It did, however, have a much better pacing than today when people are demigods at level 10.

[voidillusion]

I see this argument thrown around a lot, but it's never really explained. What exactly about the vanilla leveling makes it "more rewarding"? The quests of today give you a "living and breathing world to explore" just as much as before, in my opinion. As for "being forced to learn how to play their class".... no. Sure, mobs may have had more health and did more damage before, but that didn't teach anyone how to 'play their class' more than the simplest basic concepts.

I think it all boils down to personal taste. But i prefer the vanilla scheme of questing. Today you reach a certain quest hub, all the quests are in a given place, droprate is something you don't even think about and you basicly steamroll them. The vanilla quests are less linear, lots of times send you throughout the world just for a single chain quest, i can give you the example of the warlock robes i've done recently, being a orc i even had the pleasure of walking to the Tower of Athalax in DarkShore to farm the Robes of Arcana pattern. I understand that is isnt for everyone, not all, if many enjoy this and prefer a faster gratification and quicker pace of questing and levelling, some prefer it the other way.

Regarding the "learning to play your class", you may not learn to play your class per se if you think about endgame raiding, but you can be sure that you learn faster the tricks and intricacies of each class when you're fighting 2 mobs that will rape your ass if you don't handle them properly instead of just 1 shotting as it currently is.

As said many times in this thread, same game, different philosophies, some prefer it one way, some prefer it the other.

[Cainium]

I don't know that the current code doesn't have the code left for pet happiness, that's an educated guess. But it's a pretty informed guess because when you stop using things, if you don't actually remove them and clean up related parts, and just let everything rot there unused, pretty soon you will lose the ability to change code, it is going to be too hard to reason about due to all the unused cruft. So, maybe pet happiness in particular is there, this is not important, but 99% of things like pet happiness most surely aren't. And when we are talking about it not being a complex system, it's complex enough to be worth talking about. Vanilla changes that have to be re-brought are perhaps comparable to a big (really big) patch. That's significant, you can't ignore costs of that level.

They should have a version control system for that. And to be honest, if people can do it by reverse enginering than Blizzard should be totally capable of doing it code-wise. Sure, it's some work, but if they have been smart in the past, it's not "rebuilding vanilla from scratch". If they are even smarter, than there is no reason to remove the code for pet happiness (to stay at your example). If they have written messy code and dont use version control like 80% of developers do than yes, its most likely gone forever.

[Kolvarg]

I think you are optimistic today's posts by me include my reasons for thinking this (and their omission here should not be taken as an indication of any change thereof), but it comes down to money, with a dash of 'more accessible for a larger group of people' thrown in.

I suppose, but a "true legacy server" targets a fairly different audience than modern WoW. The more acessibility and utility they add, the more confusing and thin the difference between the two will be, and the less potential audience increase it will have, no?

I mean, vanilla servers have the potential to bring back old players who don't like the game anymore, new players who want a more oldschool experience, and even have current subscribers pay for both. If they essentially make it "timewalking realm", ie same features and gameplay, just on the old content, they don't really necessarily increase or change their audience, they only offer more/different content to do. Which is not bad in itself, in my opinion, but it certainly results in something with much less potential economically-wise, even if also with a much smaller risk.

[Ielenia]

Regarding the "learning to play your class", you may not learn to play your class per se if you think about endgame raiding, but you can be sure that you learn faster the tricks and intricacies of each class when you're fighting 2 mobs that will rape your ass if you don't handle them properly instead of just 1 shotting as it currently is.

This boils down to mostly to player preference. If he is lazy or likes to take things slowly, he'll do just that, no matter if he's playing vanilla or Legion. Now, if a player likes to test the limits of what he can currently do, he'll do his best to fight as many mobs as possible and see if he can survive. Again, no matter if he's playing vanilla or Legion.

[Deficineiron]

I suppose, but a "true legacy server" targets a fairly different audience than modern WoW. The more acessibility and utility they add, the more confusing and thin the difference between the two will be, and the less potential audience increase it will have, no?

I mean, vanilla servers have the potential to bring back old players who don't like the game anymore, new players who want a more oldschool experience, and even have current subscribers pay for both. If they essentially make it "timewalking realm", ie same features and gameplay, just on the old content, they don't really necessarily increase or change their audience, they only offer more/different content to do. Which is not bad in itself, in my opinion, but it certainly results in something with much less potential economically-wise, even if also with a much smaller risk.

I am not disagreeing with you or moanalisa at all. The last thing I want is a frankenstein server.

I am just saying that it isn't unreasonable for a fortune500 game company which goes out of its way to make its games as accessible as possible might look at classic wow and say 'wouldn't it be great if we took the classic wow story and general plotlines and made a modern version? spreadsheet says we would get $$$++ more than just plain ol' inaccessible version.' sure, spreadsheet might have some erroneous assumptions, but....the goal would be hook those folks who actually want classic servers in, but also bring in new folks that might not really want an actual classic server. this to me seems how one should expect a mass-market product company to think.

I have speculated that one small piece of the official legacy server puzzle might be concern within blizzard among senior folks who actually would like classic servers that they may be pressured to do just this, and a general reluctance to open that can of worms as a result.