What made classic wow better than current?

[Effenz]

Can't tell if you're serious or joking, if serious you should go back to the drawing board.

Why? Because it goes against your ideas?
The dates add up.

A lot of QoL features were introduced in TBC as well, catchup mechanics, etc.
You can't look at those because it doesn't fit your rhetoric?

[Mojo03]

Community

Literally everything else is better now.

[voidillusion]

But thats the thing. Growth didnt end when arthas died. By that point (last patch of the expansion) growth had been gone for a long time. Just look at every forum alaysts favorite graph (the one with subs vs moths/years), when Warth came out the curved went from from this / (increasing over time) to rouighly - (flat with a tendency to decline) and once wrath of ended it started its dicline.

This is where most elyte masters of forum analysis concluded that Cataclysm unequivocably killed wow forever and ever in the hole history of the hole wide world.

With a end raid like Dragon Soul with a end boss like Deathwing.... i wish it was a hole... but sadly it was true.

[Relapses]

Not forever obviously, but when you look at the sub count evolution of the game rapidly increasing until LK, stabilizing there, bumping a bit more when the expansion opened in china, and a few months later entering a everlasting decline only relieved by the natural hype during new expansion releases, i can only draw 1 conclusion, sometthing with the game itself changed and impacted subs, there's no other way about it, and that something to me is the dumbing down of non raid content, wich they tryed to change at the start of Cata and we all know how well that went, and the introduction of "QoL" features that reduce dramatically the durability of content and social interaction.

Here's the thing: If Blizzard saw trends which showed that most people were quitting BECAUSE of the QoL improvements, why wouldn't they have reversed them? Why would they still be around today? Again, I've said this many times and I'll say it once more: The QoL improvements which are the chagrin of many people in this thread are likely the exact reason WoW's still around today.

[Effenz]

But thats the thing. Growth didnt end when arthas died. By that point (last patch of the expansion) growth had been gone for a long time. Just look at every forum alaysts favorite graph (the one with subs vs moths/years), when Warth came out the curved went from from this / (increasing over time) to rouighly - (flat with a tendency to decline) and once wrath of ended it started its dicline.

This is where most elyte masters of forum analysis concluded that Cataclysm unequivocably killed wow forever and ever in the whole history of the whole wide world of the universe.

Okay, I'm not disputing that cata "killed" wow.
You can say that cata killed wow, but what in cata killed wow? The leveling experience? hard dungeons? Storyline? Who knows?

[Relapses]

Okay, I'm not disputing that cata "killed" wow.
You can say that cata killed wow, but what in cata killed wow? The leveling experience? hard dungeons? Storyline? Who knows?

Just so you're aware, the claim that "Cata killed WoW" is very much facetious.

[Effenz]

Just so you're aware, the claim that "Cata killed WoW" is very much facetious.

Oh, I know (hence the quotation marks)
It's hard to call any game with millions of subs dead. But you know how the forum mob goes.

[Laqweeta]

Cataclysm marked WoW's downfall and we experienced significant drops within Cata as well as every other expansion released thereafter. Things like being immensely OP from level 1, having absolutely no challenge at all while leveling, you were basically a god from character creation. Loss of abilities that people really quite liked (Warlock Spellstone/Firestone) etc, stuff like that. Also, horrendous raid tiers.

Cata is when they started catering to the 6 year old crowd, having your hand held throughout the ENTIRE game.

Adding more here* There's a reason why Vanilla, TBC (Even though it's quite buggy) and WotLK Private Servers are the most popular out of all of the expansions. You played to GET better, you weren't immediately better because the way the game was designed (Cata onwards)

[Ielenia]

This. Blizzard cut their own wrists by changing the formula and catering almost fully to casuals. Instead of alienating their original, long term player base, they should have made minor changes for casuals and worked on keeping the real fans happy.

Ugh, the levels of arrogance in those lines alone is enough to make me gag. "Real fans"? Give me a break. Get off your high horse. Just because you've played the game longer than someone else, doesn't mean you're more of a "real" fan that said someone.

They never realized that most casuals usually have a short attention span when it comes to keeping with any particular game.

Enough with the demeaning descriptions. Being 'casual' doesn't mean that you have a 'short attention span'. Seriously, what's with this nigh-pathological need to insult casuals?

The original formula (vanilla/TBC - or even wotlk) would have produced much better retention over a longer period.

No, it wouldn't. Times change, people grow up, and new people tend to have different interests than their predecessors.

I for one would be still be paying and playing if Blizzard had stuck to the original formula.

From all the arrogance you display in your post, I'm glad you're no longer playing. One less toxic player.

[Effenz]

Cataclysm marked WoW's downfall and we experienced significant drops within Cata as well as every other expansion released thereafter. Things like being immensely OP from level 1, having absolutely no challenge at all while leveling, you were basically a god from character creation. Loss of abilities that people really quite liked (Warlock Spellstone/Firestone) etc, stuff like that. Also, horrendous raid tiers.

Cata is when they started catering to the 6 year old crowd, having your hand held throughout the ENTIRE game.

While simultaneously having harder content than every expansion prior

[Laqweeta]

While simultaneously having harder content than every expansion prior

Using CC was hard? Blame Blizzard for allowing people to blaze to level 85 without a care in the world and THEN having to actually be useful. That's what happens when you provide piss easy content into having to actually USE your class.

[Ielenia]

I just can't understand how such a subjective thing like "ppl moving on with their lives" is more paupable to you than "a chance in the design philosophy of the game by introducing x, y, z features, now called QoL features, displeased a signficant chunk of the player base that was happily playing the game until they were implemented". You tell me.

We're not the ones saying one reason is more "palpable" than the others. Pro-legacy supporters are, by completely ignoring said possibility when claiming sub count decay was caused by QoL or whatever reason. We're only saying that both are at least equally likely, since we lack crucial data to tell either way.

[Effenz]

Using CC was hard? Blame Blizzard for allowing people to blaze to level 85 without a care in the world and THEN having to actually be useful. That's what happens when you provide piss easy content into having to actually USE your class.

Was talking about stuff like sinestra but sure. You know, the boss that barely anyone saw while it was current content.
Also; you're crazy if you're thinking blizzard taught you to play while leveling 1-60, 60-70, or 70-80. There were just as many clueless people at max level in Vanilla/TBC/WoTLK as there were in Cata. Only difference was you did normals in the previous expansions instead of doing heroics; most people didn't do heroics in TBC until well after launch, and heroics in WoTLK got nerfed to obsolescence once you got ilvl 200~ gear (naxx 10). Cata heroics were still mildly challenging in BWD normal gear until the nerf.

[voidillusion]

We're not the ones saying one reason is more "palpable" than the others. Pro-legacy supporters are, by completely ignoring said possibility when claiming sub count decay was caused by QoL or whatever reason. We're only saying that both are at least equally likely, since we lack crucial data to tell either way.

But they aren at least equally likelly. Not even close. One of them is most subjective bshit i ever heard and the other isn't.

If you told me that:

"The most important part of the story for some players was over so they left"
"The gendre as a hole entered decline"
"Some decent competitors starting drawing ppl away to otther tittles"

I'm not gonna say that i agree with them, but they are at least equally likely because we are correct, we lack crucial data to know for sure.

Saying it happened because "ppl moved on with their lifes" is meaningless, subjective, not measurable and unfounded. It's like me saying that ppl left because it was high tide. Or it was a leap year or whatever.

[Vash The Stampede]

They just 'like' those classes. Yeah sorry, 10-12 years ago the number of warrior/rogue players were not 2/3rds of the fucking playerbase. But whatever.

I like how we're assuming that the 2/3rds thing is correct, and overlooking a statistic literally pulled from someones ass. But when I mention WoW Census I get attacked from how inaccurate it is. Made up statistics are better than ones that are pulled numbers from a source, AMIRGHT?

PvP happened on PvP servers in Vanilla but it was not as widespread and such a clusterfuck like it is on a PS. But on that it isn't like there is a lot of data from 10-12 years ago that can be put forward to show it. Believe it or don't I can't do much but say my piece there.

Clusterfuck PvP is good PvP. Nobody cares about fair balanced and organized PvP. If I wanted that, I'd jump into BGs or Arena, and even that is still a clusterfuck. If you don't like it, there's PvE servers. Also, this isn't much different than Dark Souls series in terms of PvP. Other than being within a Souls level range, you can often find yourself in a clusterfuck in that game too. That's what makes for a fun game.

[Dormie]

We don't need you to validate jack shit to be honest. I understand just fine why some people like Vanilla, I mean some of their arguments have been beaten to death. However I personally draw the line at people like you calling PS an authentic Vanilla experience. There are many elements that are LIKE Vanilla was 10-12 years ago but it is not 10-12 years ago. People know way too much about the game now and that is why you see 2/3rds (or more) of the population as warriors and rogues. These servers start on the last patch available and they wonder why MC/BWL fall the fuck over when they go in.

All most of these popular PS seem to be is gigantic cluster fucks of random world PvP that didn't quite happen 10-12 years ago on some of the PvP realms. Most of the "pvp" that happened in Vanilla was limited to raid/dungeon zone ins and things like Tarren Mill/Southshore. Once battlegrounds opened up a nice chunk of PvP happened in there outside of the random horde vs alliance skirmish in some leveling zone. And WHY do those random cluster fucks happen on PS? Because they are trying to cram 10k+ people into one server.

PS may be a close to Vanilla experience but it is Vanilla-Lite in my and many others books. Numbers had to be guessed at, server populations are way out of whack compared to what was allowed on realms 10-12 years ago and it is on a 1.12 patch yet has MC/BWL being fresh raids for people to do.

- - - Updated - - -



Just like Vanilla 10-12 years ago amirite!? Oh what is that you say? More than 2/3rds of your population is warriors and rogues? Totally like I remember it!

And your opinion on why other people like things is also irrelevant. GL "validating" what you think other people like. I never said it was authentic, but it gets the gist. I've played BC servers too, same thing.

[Ielenia]

But they aren at least equally likelly. Not even close. One of them is most subjective bshit i ever heard and the other isn't.

If you told me that:

"The most important part of the story for some players was over so they left"
"The gendre as a hole entered decline"
"Some decent competitors starting drawing ppl away to otther tittles"

I'm not gonna say that i agree with them, but they are at least equally likely because we are correct, we lack crucial data to know for sure.

Saying it happened because "ppl moved on with their lifes" is meaningless, subjective, not measurable and unfounded. It's like me saying that ppl left because it was high tide. Or it was a leap year or whatever.

... How are "the most important part of the story for some players was over so they left" and "The genre as a whole entered decline" and "some decent competitors starting drawing players away to other tittles" not basically the same thing with "people moved on with their lives"?

"It was over for them, so they moved on."
"The genre as a whole entered decline. Why? People are moving on."
"Players are migrating to other games. Why? They're moving on."

Everything you wrote there, are basically the same thing as 'people moved on with their lives'.

[Vash The Stampede]

And your opinion on why other people like things is also irrelevant. GL "validating" what you think other people like. I never said it was authentic, but it gets the gist. I've played BC servers too, same thing.

Don't you know that everyone agrees with music and politics? Everyone loves the Trollol song and Donald Trump is da best President eva. It's true cause I read it.

[Kazgrel]

Just so you're aware, the claim that "Cata killed WoW" is very much facetious.

If any xpac can lay claim to have "killed" WoW, I would nominate WoD. But that's a slippery slope not worth traversing.

[Relapses]

If any xpac can lay claim to have "killed" WoW, I would nominate WoD. But that's a slippery slope not worth traversing.

Nothing has killed WoW. Legion is still the number one subscription MMO by a tremendous magnitude. This was true even during WoD.