Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[rda]

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.

They have version control and they can do everything, but it takes effort. Real effort. It's not "here, pick this version and use that". It's "let's use this version as a base and bring out this, this, this, this, <a couple of thousand items>, and that other thing from other versions" plus resolving conflicts, tying things up, and sometimes reworking them because they don't tie up. It's a smaller effort than redoing it from scratch, but it is big enough to be afraid of wasting the time on it - it's on the level of a very big patch (using the entire team worth of dev resources).

[jackofwind]

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.

I think the biggest problem this causes though is that it nullifies a lot of content by making it obsolete as soon as the next raid opens. In Vanilla you still had raid groups working through MC, BWL, and AQ20/40 simultaneously while other guilds were working through Naxx. It gave the game community a much more diverse range of experience and power, and it also captured very well the idea of long-term goals to work towards.

I'm not saying it was perfect, but I believe that it did a lot to create the sense of a huge world that Vanilla had. It's the kind of thing that games like Tibia also capture - for all its faults, having new quests open up to you when you reach really high levels does give you things to work towards and look forward to.

[voidillusion]

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.

Even if that was true, you'll find yourself in stress situations while levelling way more often than you do now.

[Vash The Stampede]

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.

Let me explain then.

Firstly, it's more rewarding cause it's harder. Something just given to you isn't going to fee all that rewarding. Yes leveling in Vanilla isn't super challenging, but you can't just run around blindly hitting everything. Also Vanilla WoW wasn't this rail like system that guided you how to explore and do quests. You know you have to click on a quest item if it sparkles, wasn't a thing in Vanilla. You actually had to look around.

You're forced to learn to play your class because yes it's harder. You wouldn't get very far if you didn't in Vanilla. Where in LFR some players look like they're just auto attacking. If you accidentally pulled too many mobs to you, you would have to learn to use crowd control or die. Not something modern players deal with.

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

IF it's just world bosses and raids, then yes that's fine. That's how Vanilla worked. That's not how modern WoW works. Epics have so little value that players now go by ilevel. Because epics are everywhere. There's also LFR, which isn't so much raiding as participating.

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.

On the other hand you get to experience all the content without nerfs or you being completely over powered. And it's not like TBC is months away from being released. You literally have all the time needed to finish this content. You can't do this with modern WoW without leaving behind players and making them feel like peasants. But Blizzard can learn something from private servers in that they don't just switch the server to TBC or WOTLK, but instead they transfer players to different servers, thus leaving the old one alone for players to enjoy the content. Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Something Blizzard could learn from?

[Kolvarg]

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.

Yea, what I'm saying is that I personally don't see a frankenserver being more lucrative. On it's own, as in WoW "died", and they are choosing between setting up pure legacy servers or "rebooting", then yea. The more acessible and casual-friendly game would win hands-down, even in old content.

But we are considering a scenario where a modern WoW exists alongside, one that already catters to people who want an accessible game, and imo it makes it fairly different.

I'm not saying it's black and white, I'm fairly certain some acessibility will be added for sure. If anything battle.net support, and even starting with the last patch with already better balance and itemization can be considered as "More acessible" than the original experience. What I'm saying is there is defenitely some unknown cross-over point, where too much acessibility would start to cannibalize on the current already subscribed target audience instead of targeting a different/new one, and I'm sure that will very much show up in their spreadsheats.

I might be wrong of course, but I believe having WoW: Legion and Classic WoW for sale as seperate items would ammount to bigger revenue than having WoW: Legion and WoW: Remastered Edition.

This is perhaps the extreme point (Vanilla content "recreated" in todays mechanics and features), but I doubt they (even the investors) don't see that it's probably not a great idea to compete with their own product more than pure classic servers already do.

[Deficineiron]

Yea, what I'm saying is that I personally don't see a frankenserver being more lucrative. On it's own, as in WoW "died", and they are choosing between setting up pure legacy servers or "rebooting", then yea. The more acessible and casual-friendly game would win hands-down, even in old content.

But we are considering a scenario where a modern WoW exists alongside, one that already catters to people who want an accessible game, and imo it makes it fairly different.

I'm not saying it's black and white, I'm fairly certain some acessibility will be added for sure. If anything battle.net support, and even starting with the last patch with already better balance and itemization can be considered as "More acessible" than the original experience. What I'm saying is there is defenitely some unknown cross-over point, where too much acessibility would start to cannibalize on the current already subscribed target audience instead of targeting a different/new one, and I'm sure that will very much show up in their spreadsheats.

I might be wrong of course, but I believe having WoW: Legion and Classic WoW for sale as seperate items would ammount to bigger revenue than having WoW: Legion and WoW: Remastered Edition.

This is perhaps the extreme point (Vanilla content "recreated" in todays mechanics and features), but I doubt they (even the investors) don't see that it's probably not a great idea to compete with their own product more than pure classic servers already do.

i think we agree broadly overall. I do think I am simply more pessimistic on the part I bolded. I think a mass market company can find a way to take the taste out of rotten shark (hakarl) if the spreadsheet folks get a hold of it.

[Pann]

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.

You've lost me there.

Looking at feign death on Wowhead it contains the following information for the old level 1 version;

Spell Details

Duration 5 seconds
School Physical
Mechanic n/a
Dispel type n/a
GCD category n/a
Cost None
Range 0 yards (Self)
Cast time Instant
Cooldown n/a
GCD 0 seconds
Effect Apply Aura: Dummy
Server-side script
Flags
Aura is hidden
Cast time is hidden
Generates no threat

That seems, to my untrained eye, to be a database entry that tells the server how deal with the spell (what code to execute) when it is cast.

The pet happiness system was little more than a slightly expanded buff system. For example you cast the feed spell it gave the pet a buff which, like other buffs, eventually wore off. Whilst it might not be currently in use in this form there are items, spells, toys, etc that do buff pets so it would seem logical, to me at least, that the feeding system could be re-introduced without too much effort.

[Ielenia]

Firstly, it's more rewarding cause it's harder.

That is not necessarily true. Something 'harder' isn't necessarily 'more rewarding'. You gotta ask yourself: at the end of a task, do you feel satisfied for having finished it, or relieved for finally being done with it? If your reaction more like "yes! I did it!" or more like "ugh, finally done with that"? And here's the kicker: not everyone will choose the same answer.

Something just given to you isn't going to fee all that rewarding.

It's not given to you for free. It's just less effort for the same reward (reaching max level).

Also Vanilla WoW wasn't this rail like system that guided you how to explore and do quests.

Funny. I remember getting a quest that takes me to Westfall while almost done with Elwynn Forest, and a quest to go to Redridge Mountains when I was done with Westfall. There were 'rails' back in vanilla, too.

You know you have to click on a quest item if it sparkles, wasn't a thing in Vanilla. You actually had to look around.

That is not necessarily a good thing. It was much more an annoyance than something to be praised.

You're forced to learn to play your class because yes it's harder. You wouldn't get very far if you didn't in Vanilla.

That's not true. It vastly depended on the player. If he pulled too many, but wasn't exactly willing to learn his class while leveling, what he'll do? pull smaller groups. But if he does want to learn what his class is all about, then of course he'll pull as many as he thinks he can take and then some, to push his own limits. That is true both today, and back then.

IF it's just world bosses and raids, then yes that's fine. That's how Vanilla worked. That's not how modern WoW works. Epics have so little value that players now go by ilevel. Because epics are everywhere. There's also LFR, which isn't so much raiding as participating.

Just a hint, but if you're going to use colors for your text, at least pick a color that stands out, like bright red, or yellow or green. Not dark purple. I only noticed you colored your text when I saw the color coding. Anyways, it doesn't matter if it's 'epics' or 'item level', people will always use a metric to judge your worth in the game. The results are the same, the only difference being the metrics being used to reach said results.

On the other hand you get to experience all the content without nerfs or you being completely over powered.

Assuming (and that's a big assumption) that you start during the beginning of the expansion, take no breaks, and steadily progress through all raids and attunements. If you start later in the expansion, well... you're unfortunately SOUL, and won't be able to see the content without completely overpowering it (i.e. return an expansion later to complete the raids you couldn't in the previous expansion).

But Blizzard can learn something from private servers in that they don't just switch the server to TBC or WOTLK, but instead they transfer players to different servers, thus leaving the old one alone for players to enjoy the content. Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Something Blizzard could learn from?

IMO, that isn't a good 'lesson to learn', because of the sheer amount of servers Blizzard currently has. Why basically double or triple the number of servers, fragmenting the playerbase in each, on top of having to make more and more servers the more expansions are launched? And Blizzard already mentioned that their plan is to always move forward.

[MoanaLisa]

I think you are optimistic

No, not really; more just trying to see both sides.

Personally, I don't think that legacy servers are going to happen and even if they did very few additional people would sign up to pay for them. I'd be delighted if Blizzard changed their minds about it but I wouldn't pay extra for them. And I have even graver doubts that people that returned and started paying $15/month to be subscribed to the game would stay long. It's interesting to talk about but all Blizzard has done so far is pay lip service to the idea and I highly doubt that their thoughts have progressed much past their pristine server idea. Again, I'd enjoy being wrong about that but there's no evidence yet to suggest I am beyond words. Words are cheap.

[Deficineiron]

No, not really; more just trying to see both sides.

Personally, I don't think that legacy servers are going to happen and even if they did very few additional people would sign up to pay for them. I'd be delighted if Blizzard changed their minds about it but I wouldn't pay extra for them. And I have even graver doubts that people that returned and started paying $15/month to be subscribed to the game would stay long. It's interesting to talk about but all Blizzard has done so far is pay lip service to the idea and I highly doubt that their thoughts have progressed much past their pristine server idea. Again, I'd enjoy being wrong about that but there's no evidence yet to suggest I am beyond words. Words are cheap.

are there any other legacy mmo projects beyond osrs?

[Roadblock]

are there any other legacy mmo projects beyond osrs?

Project 1999 - Classic Everquest

[rda]

You've lost me there.

Looking at feign death on Wowhead it contains the following information for the old level 1 version;

Spell Details

Duration 5 seconds
School Physical
Mechanic n/a
Dispel type n/a
GCD category n/a
Cost None
Range 0 yards (Self)
Cast time Instant
Cooldown n/a
GCD 0 seconds
Effect Apply Aura: Dummy
Server-side script
Flags
Aura is hidden
Cast time is hidden
Generates no threat

That seems, to my untrained eye, to be a database entry that tells the server how deal with the spell (what code to execute) when it is cast.

The pet happiness system was little more than a slightly expanded buff system. For example you cast the feed spell it gave the pet a buff which, like other buffs, eventually wore off. Whilst it might not be currently in use in this form there are items, spells, toys, etc that do buff pets so it would seem logical, to me at least, that the feeding system could be re-introduced without too much effort.

It's right in the text you quote.

Server-side script.

This means: a *custom* action performed by the server. Everything that is "server-side script" is like that.

This pile of data you cited is essentially: "this is action 287, here are some additional attributes for it". The knowledge of what Feign Death actually has to do is in the code.

[Mahourai]

are there any other legacy mmo projects beyond osrs?

Everquest's Project 1999, which was originally a private server that was then approved by the rights holders of EQ.

Generally, though, MMOs do not generate a large enough fanbase to live, much less support official legacy realms. Most non-WoW subscription MMOs from the genre's heyday are dead. If they do live, the developers aren't rich enough to run parallel versions of the game, or they don't have the manpower to develop them.

Notably, EQ 1999 and the original version of Runescape are both free. I don't believe there is any precedent for a successful legacy subscription based MMO. You can't play earlier versions of any of the surviving big boys in the genre like the MMO Final Fantasies, Eve Online, the Star Wars MMO, etc. Legacy support is the exception, not the rule.

[Pann]

It's right in the text you quote.

Server-side script.

This means: a *custom* action performed by the server. Everything that is "server-side script" is like that.

This pile of data you cited is essentially: "this is action 287, here are some additional attributes for it". The knowledge of what Feign Death actually has to do is in the code.

Right, yes I know I even mentioned that in my post. You said that using the current client/server would mean that certain mechanics would be missing. I am simply trying to understand why this would be the case.

It appears that the spells for players and NPCs are database entries that tell the server, client or both what to do (what code to execute) when that spell is cast so why would this mean that old mechanics need to removed? Why instead of removing the old mechanics would you not create new ones and tell the server to execute the new code? Given that many NPCs appear to still make use the same spells and mechanics that they did when the game was released wouldn't be potentially game breaking to overwrite or remove the old ones? And wouldn't writing new spells, etc that appear to act in the same way as the old be both very expensive and time consuming?

If they have been removed why can't they be recreated using existing mechanics? For example Fireball Rank 1, although it has been removed, it is essentially the same as the current Fireball spell but with different modifiers and it could be recreated by creating a new spell Fireball Rank 1 which would tell the server to run the fireball script but with new(old) modifiers. Rank 2 would also use the existing fireball script but with different modifiers again and so on and so on for additional ranks.

This seems far simpler and much less expensive than rewriting the old client and server programs. And has the added advantage of not needing to maintain two different sets of code that perform essentially the same task.

[tikcol]

I believe we should all move forward. Forget about the archaic game vanilla WoW was and work together to build upon our beloved World of Warcraft

[wunksta]

Firstly, it's more rewarding cause it's harder. Something just given to you isn't going to fee all that rewarding. Yes leveling in Vanilla isn't super challenging, but you can't just run around blindly hitting everything. Also Vanilla WoW wasn't this rail like system that guided you how to explore and do quests. You know you have to click on a quest item if it sparkles, wasn't a thing in Vanilla. You actually had to look around.

Honestly, the quest experience from WoD to Legion is the best it's ever been. You go through a story where you can actually see things develop and change. Quests actually provide meaningful rewards as well.

While having some hidden quests and stuff is cool and all, in the past, the quest chains were very disjointed and had no bearing on anything. Like you would go to a quest hub, do a few quests about pigs and then what? Run around and maybe you will stumble upon the next quest hub?

Like you said, I guess it is a matter of perspective. Some people like the idea of a leveling experience where you just run around aimlessing until you find the next quest. Other people like to follow a quest chain and see a story unfold around them.

You're forced to learn to play your class because yes it's harder. You wouldn't get very far if you didn't in Vanilla.

If I remember correctly, very few people actually knew how to play their class until they eventually got to the point where they were looking to raid, and then people started demanding certain specs and rotations etc. Hell, even in raiding most of the time, the way you play your class is by pressing one spell.

There was also very little in the way of community gathered knowledge to help people understand their class. Did some people figure out the best way to play? Sure. However, I'm willing to bet the vast majority of players, the casual ones who never reached the 1% of raiding all of current content, the ones who just played WoW with friends, run around and quest, weren't experts on their class.

Again, maybe there's just a different perspective and game play appeal. Maybe some people just like to be dropped into a game with no information on where to go and how to play their class, and they just figure it out themselves. However, in my opinion, super hardcore games like that are very niche. Even early on, WoW tried to appeal to large groups of people. This happened up through Wrath, which was considered to be one of the best expansions and had the highest subscriber base iirc.

- - - Updated - - -

Everquest's Project 1999, which was originally a private server that was then approved by the rights holders of EQ.

Generally, though, MMOs do not generate a large enough fanbase to live, much less support official legacy realms. Most non-WoW subscription MMOs from the genre's heyday are dead. If they do live, the developers aren't rich enough to run parallel versions of the game, or they don't have the manpower to develop them.

Notably, EQ 1999 and the original version of Runescape are both free. I don't believe there is any precedent for a successful legacy subscription based MMO. You can't play earlier versions of any of the surviving big boys in the genre like the MMO Final Fantasies, Eve Online, the Star Wars MMO, etc. Legacy support is the exception, not the rule.

SWG does have a bunch of private servers as well, trying to recreate the original experience that was in-game before the devs screwed it up.

[Mahourai]

SWG does have...l

I meant Old Republic, not Galaxies. Also mentioning private realms is not really what we're talking about in the thread anymore. The only reason I mentioned Project 1999 is because it's sanctioned, not an illegitimate operation.

[RickJamesLich]

Honestly, the quest experience from WoD to Legion is the best it's ever been. You go through a story where you can actually see things develop and change. Quests actually provide meaningful rewards as well.

While having some hidden quests and stuff is cool and all, in the past, the quest chains were very disjointed and had no bearing on anything. Like you would go to a quest hub, do a few quests about pigs and then what? Run around and maybe you will stumble upon the next quest hub?

Like you said, I guess it is a matter of perspective. Some people like the idea of a leveling experience where you just run around aimlessing until you find the next quest. Other people like to follow a quest chain and see a story unfold around them.

I think "fun questing" is different for different people, I have no clue how Legion is but WoD questing IMO was bad. Really bad. It was pretty much going from quest hub to quest hub, where you kill 10 mobs, pick up 5 items, and maybe one additional thing. Don't get me wrong, vanilla had a lot of that too, but in WoD you do it over and over rapidly, whereas in vanilla you had to typically take your time and the fact that it was a lot easier to die meant there was a level of strategy involved that we haven't gotten from retail in awhile.

Something as simple as a mob fleeing at low health for example could lead to you dying. Vanilla on the flip side had a much more open ended feel where you'd have to go to multiple zones, and because of that, the idea of prioritizing quests to maximize efficiency, while not going in over your head, I felt, was a very interesting dynamic - having to be selective about the quests you take and do is fun. On the flip side, with retail, you just go to the next hub, kill everything, and then go to the next hub.

Not saying that the Legion fans have poor taste or anything like that either, and I can definitely understand why some would view vanilla's quests as boring at the same time. One thing I'm not really a big fan of is that it seems the game is trying to make your toon out to be a major lore hero or something. Tough to describe, but I'm not really a fan of that lol. It's almost like a pet peeve at this point.

[wunksta]

I think "fun questing" is different for different people, I have no clue how Legion is but WoD questing IMO was bad. Really bad. It was pretty much going from quest hub to quest hub, where you kill 10 mobs, pick up 5 items, and maybe one additional thing. Don't get me wrong, vanilla had a lot of that too, but in WoD you do it over and over rapidly, whereas in vanilla you had to typically take your time and the fact that it was a lot easier to die meant there was a level of strategy involved that we haven't gotten from retail in awhile.

So WoW quests do tend to be repetitive, MMOs in general suffer from this problem. What I'm talking about though was the overall questing experience and story telling, not the individual 'busy work' quest requirements. The quests in WoD/Legion transition much better from one to the next, and also serve to lead you through the zone while telling a story. Wrath and Cata tried this, but I think they have done a really good job at developing that story telling experience.

For example, meeting Khadgar and running through the zone, rescuing people and showing how the story develops and reacts to your previous actions was pretty well done. The story in Legion, with each class going through their own quests and stories, as well as the individual zones have had a lot of work put into it. They even went back and updated some of the stuff, like the Forsaken intro quests. It actually feels like you are part of the world. As opposed to the Orc intro quests, which are just bland and don't make you feel like you are really involved with the world.

It could use some work and it may not be for everyone, but in terms of the idea of questing as a story telling mechanic, I thought they have done a good job so far.

[Darktbs]

I think "fun questing" is different for different people, I have no clue how Legion is but WoD questing IMO was bad. Really bad. It was pretty much going from quest hub to quest hub, where you kill 10 mobs, pick up 5 items, and maybe one additional thing. Don't get me wrong, vanilla had a lot of that too, but in WoD you do it over and over rapidly, whereas in vanilla you had to typically take your time and the fact that it was a lot easier to die meant there was a level of strategy involved that we haven't gotten from retail in awhile.

In a nutshell...the WoW or any RPG questing system never changes.

It is and always will be Kill X/Collect X/Rescue X and so on.

The difference is that right now quests tell a much bigger story.Not only in quest Text.

You can have a quest being.

Slain x Demons
Rescue x Soldier

Shure, one can ignore it, but while they are doing the quest multiple events may happen that are part of a big story.

Legacy quests were the same, Kill this and collect that, but story wasnt given much attention.

The "easier to die" is honestly subjective.It may be harder before, but you have to count:Player Skill + Class as well