What made classic wow better than current?

[rda]

OK, since we are here anyway, here are my arguments about why it makes sense to NOT put effort into vanilla for quite some time. I don't expect everyone to agree but if you disagree at least we can talk about a specific item or items.

1. Doing vanilla right is a lot of work. We've been over this before, in sum - what Nost guys did is not at all what Blizzard should do, Blizzard's task is much more difficult. If Blizzard just do what Nost guys did, it won't be vanilla - as in, it won't be vanilla enough for the nostalgy.

2. Nost's numbers were impressive (and other private server numbers are impressive, too) - but a lot of that is probably because there was no pay. The numbers for a F2P title are always a magnitude greater than for a paid-for title. Yes, if Blizzard do vanilla themselves, that will attract more people than Nost / other private servers in that many people will just never play on anything other than official servers (several important reasons) and with Blizzard they might come and try. But there will be a big factor going in the other direction - having to pay. Even bundling that with the existing sub as an additional free service means pay - and that's going to reduce the uptake significantly.

3. Bringing vanilla servers not just requires a lot of work on the part of Blizzard (see point 1), it is pretty sophisticated work. We aren't talking about artists, we are talking about devs - and we need skilled devs. These skilled devs could absolutely work on Legion instead and since the amount of work for vanilla is big, the opportunity cost is big as well - the choice is to either have vanilla servers or have an extra big patch for Legion or a big advance (like 4-5 months) on the next expansion.

4. Finally, Blizzard aren't in good standing with Legion at all. They are losing players bigtime, this shows on all proxies. Legion so far failed to recover from the disaster of WoD, there was some uptick of goodwill / players at launch but that quickly ended and players are quitting again - and fast, seemingly as fast as in WoD. I wouldn't be surprised if Legion loses another 2-3 million players if things continue go that way (and there is a pretty good chance that they will, they need a miracle in 7.2 / 7.3 to stop that, and miracles are rare). It is just not the right time to divert resources.

Hope this is at least clear.

[Deleted]

OK, since we are here anyway, here are my arguments about why it makes sense to NOT put effort into vanilla for quite some time. I don't expect everyone to agree but if you disagree at least we can talk about a specific item or items.

1. Doing vanilla right is a lot of work. We've been over this before, in sum - what Nost guys did is not at all what Blizzard should do, Blizzard's task is much more difficult. If Blizzard just do what Nost guys did, it won't be vanilla - as in, it won't be vanilla enough for the nostalgy.

I agree to some degree. We are talking about the implementation of battle.net 2.0 and fixing several minor bugs - that´s what Blizzard has to do. Nostalrius attempt with using the 1.12 core and talents but still offer the classic content progression was, in my opinion, the right approach. Doing more than that (ie implementation of a dungeon finder or cross-realm zones) would be exactly what the vanilla community, afaik, doesn´t want.

2. Nost's numbers were impressive (and other private server numbers are impressive, too) - but a lot of that is probably because there was no pay. The numbers for a F2P title are always a magnitude greater than for a paid-for title. Yes, if Blizzard do vanilla themselves, that will attract more people than Nost / other private servers in that many people will just never play on anything other than official servers (several important reasons) and with Blizzard they might come and try. But there will be a big factor going in the other direction - having to pay. Even bundling that with the existing sub as an additional free service means pay - and that's going to reduce the uptake significantly.

If people play on the private server because of the payment argument, why would they (mostly) play on the vanilla servers? There are MOP servers, WoD Servers, Cataclysm servers - they are all free. Sure, it is a point and there are probably many that would not pay, but there are also many people that would play on an official vanilla server but didn´t on Nostalrius because they either didn´t know that the server existed (there are many of those as you can see in the reddit ama i liked a few pages back) or they did not want to play on an illegal server.

3. Bringing vanilla servers not just requires a lot of work on the part of Blizzard (see point 1), it is pretty sophisticated work. We aren't talking about artists, we are talking about devs - and we need skilled devs. These skilled devs could absolutely work on Legion instead and since the amount of work for vanilla is big, the opportunity cost is big as well - the choice is to either have vanilla servers or have an extra big patch for Legion or a big advance (like 4-5 months) on the next expansion.

I agree with the opportunity costs, but they actually refused the offer from the nostalrius team to give them all their work for free. I do not think that the implementation of the new battle.net, a new subscription option and fixing bugs would be that big of an effort for blizzard, although one must also consider costs for the support and maintenance. We can only guess if it´s worth it, i´d say yes as server costs are at an all time low.

4. Finally, Blizzard aren't in good standing with Legion at all. They are losing players bigtime, this shows on all proxies. Legion so far failed to recover from the disaster of WoD, there was some uptick of goodwill / players at launch but that quickly ended and players are quitting again - and fast, seemingly as fast as in WoD. I wouldn't be surprised if Legion loses another 2-3 million players if things continue go that way (and there is a pretty good chance that they will, they need a miracle in 7.2 / 7.3 to stop that, and miracles are rare). It is just not the right time to divert resources.
Hope this is at least clear.

True, although i wouldn´t describe the current situation of retail wow that grim. At least, i personally have way more fun than i had during WoD. But i am also just a filthy casual

[AeneasBK]

then by all means, get 40 ppl together, cap your xp at level 60 and enjoy vanilla. 'its not the same' its as close as its probably ever going to get.
likewise if you know any investors, see if they are willing to fund a classic revival, might only cost a few millions.

if there was anyone out there willing to throw money at blizzard for a classic server it would have happened by now.

Not being funny but even during Wrath of the Lich King the lvl 60's raids were nerfed beyond reason, from the 30% HP nerf at the end of TBC to the 51pt talents available; to the availability of stronger gear or enchants. I was in a 60 twink guild back then which was strictly "no TBC+ gear or enchants" we were still able to kill a few bosses in Zul Gurub with only 9 players in the group. The authentic experience was already gone.

So after on top of that half (3 out of 6?) of the Vanilla raids are simply removed from the game now; your suggestion is slightly worse than just "playing it on a private 'blizzlike' server".

- - - Updated - - -

Feel free to do so, I shall restrain myself from furthering this Sisyphean task

One can only hope.

- - - Updated - - -

I keep seeing people bring up the whole RPG elements thing. Can I genuinely ask what do you consider these RPG elements to be? Because I still feel like the core RPG stuff is in WoW.

Sorry its a few pages late; but I think the more this question is asked the more I feel "immersion" is the core RP element of any role playing game. People feel modern wow is less RPG because it is far less immersive because it has had its systems reworked to satisfy massively shorter gaming periods. It's easily considered a negative of Vanilla that you can't do much with 30 minutes of game time; but it certainly lends itself to you actually feeling like your are playing the role of a hero of Azeroth

When people bring up quantifiable aspects like character growth or spreadsheet and make claims like "increasing Artefact power is the same as levelling up in terms of objective in-game effects"; I think they totally remove the immersion aspect of roleplaying.

[Vash The Stampede]

1. Doing vanilla right is a lot of work. We've been over this before, in sum - what Nost guys did is not at all what Blizzard should do, Blizzard's task is much more difficult. If Blizzard just do what Nost guys did, it won't be vanilla - as in, it won't be vanilla enough for the nostalgy.

What Blizzard wants to do is avoid using an outdated version of WoW, where Nost was. The problem with going the Nost way is that you're basically throwing away years of bug fixes and added features, plus most likely the net code is different now. I don't think people would have a problem using the modern game engine as long as Blizzard respects their wishes to play the game without game changing features like LFR and in game store.

2. Nost's numbers were impressive (and other private server numbers are impressive, too) - but a lot of that is probably because there was no pay. The numbers for a F2P title are always a magnitude greater than for a paid-for title. Yes, if Blizzard do vanilla themselves, that will attract more people than Nost / other private servers in that many people will just never play on anything other than official servers (several important reasons) and with Blizzard they might come and try. But there will be a big factor going in the other direction - having to pay. Even bundling that with the existing sub as an additional free service means pay - and that's going to reduce the uptake significantly.

So don't charge money for it. Most online games don't, and most MMO's don't. If private servers can do it for free then why can't Blizzard?

3. Bringing vanilla servers not just requires a lot of work on the part of Blizzard (see point 1), it is pretty sophisticated work. We aren't talking about artists, we are talking about devs - and we need skilled devs. These skilled devs could absolutely work on Legion instead and since the amount of work for vanilla is big, the opportunity cost is big as well - the choice is to either have vanilla servers or have an extra big patch for Legion or a big advance (like 4-5 months) on the next expansion.

Or Blizzard could hire more devs to work on Vanilla? It's not like they don't have the money for this sorta thing.

4. Finally, Blizzard aren't in good standing with Legion at all. They are losing players bigtime, this shows on all proxies. Legion so far failed to recover from the disaster of WoD, there was some uptick of goodwill / players at launch but that quickly ended and players are quitting again - and fast, seemingly as fast as in WoD. I wouldn't be surprised if Legion loses another 2-3 million players if things continue go that way (and there is a pretty good chance that they will, they need a miracle in 7.2 / 7.3 to stop that, and miracles are rare). It is just not the right time to divert resources.

Blizzard could take the opportunity to learn from Vanilla to apply it to their next expansion. I had predicted Legion's failure cause hardly anything changed from WoD. I said around March Legion will hit WoD numbers and so far I'm wrong. It hit WoD #'s in February. Nothing at this point will save Legion. I play with people who left Legion and they all think it's cancer. That is literally how they describe Legion.

There are only 2 things that'll save Legion. Firstly, they could remove monthly fees. I'm sure people wouldn't mind playing a failed game if they didn't have to constantly pay a monthly fee. And multiplayer games are dependent on players for content. The more players you have the better the game will be for them. The second thing they need to do is start moving away from their casual design. It is literally a cancer to the game. Obviously it'll take an expansion to turn things around to more of a Vanilla type gameplay, but if that's what it takes.

The way I see it is like this, if Blizzard doesn't do these things then people won't even buy the expansions let alone pay the monthly fees. You can bitch and moan about Vanilla, but the truth is there was something there that attracts people and it isn't Nostalgia. It would be in Blizzards interest to mimic that success.

[Demithio]

OK, since we are here anyway, here are my arguments about why it makes sense to NOT put effort into vanilla for quite some time. I don't expect everyone to agree but if you disagree at least we can talk about a specific item or items.

1. Doing vanilla right is a lot of work. We've been over this before, in sum - what Nost guys did is not at all what Blizzard should do, Blizzard's task is much more difficult. If Blizzard just do what Nost guys did, it won't be vanilla - as in, it won't be vanilla enough for the nostalgy.

2. Nost's numbers were impressive (and other private server numbers are impressive, too) - but a lot of that is probably because there was no pay. The numbers for a F2P title are always a magnitude greater than for a paid-for title. Yes, if Blizzard do vanilla themselves, that will attract more people than Nost / other private servers in that many people will just never play on anything other than official servers (several important reasons) and with Blizzard they might come and try. But there will be a big factor going in the other direction - having to pay. Even bundling that with the existing sub as an additional free service means pay - and that's going to reduce the uptake significantly.

3. Bringing vanilla servers not just requires a lot of work on the part of Blizzard (see point 1), it is pretty sophisticated work. We aren't talking about artists, we are talking about devs - and we need skilled devs. These skilled devs could absolutely work on Legion instead and since the amount of work for vanilla is big, the opportunity cost is big as well - the choice is to either have vanilla servers or have an extra big patch for Legion or a big advance (like 4-5 months) on the next expansion.

4. Finally, Blizzard aren't in good standing with Legion at all. They are losing players bigtime, this shows on all proxies. Legion so far failed to recover from the disaster of WoD, there was some uptick of goodwill / players at launch but that quickly ended and players are quitting again - and fast, seemingly as fast as in WoD. I wouldn't be surprised if Legion loses another 2-3 million players if things continue go that way (and there is a pretty good chance that they will, they need a miracle in 7.2 / 7.3 to stop that, and miracles are rare). It is just not the right time to divert resources.

Hope this is at least clear.

WoW is basically on life support at this time I would say. Sadly, I can't see Blizzard doing anything more than what they do now. WoD was a flop, and now Legion is basically a flop. Big surprise there right? After all the BS Legion hype, the previous track record, and even though I'm all for it, I wouldn't expect any sort of legacy servers to be implemented either.

[AeneasBK]

I agree to some degree. We are talking about the implementation of battle.net 2.0 and fixing several minor bugs - that´s what Blizzard has to do.

Why?

Don't get me wrong I think everyone agrees with you. But no one has given an explicit reason why.

[Ielenia]

I play with people who left Legion and they all think it's cancer. That is literally how they describe Legion.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

Firstly, they could remove monthly fees.

Tokens.

I'm sure people wouldn't mind playing a failed game if they didn't have to constantly pay a monthly fee.

Hm. I suppose I could use this to draw a parallel about pirate servers and no monthly fees, eh?

The second thing they need to do is start moving away from their casual design. It is literally a cancer to the game.

You do know that "casual design" was the core principle behind WoW original design, right? You do know that having a casual-oriented design was paramount to its success, back when it launched, yes? (Remember: back then, no matter how hardcore in WoW you were, just playing WoW it meant you were a "f**king casual" in the eyes of people playing the other fantasy MMO)

[Pann]

Why?

Don't get me wrong I think everyone agrees with you. But no one has given an explicit reason why.

Battlenet ties into their account and billing systems and I doubt they would want to operate two different systems.

[Eleccybubb]

What Blizzard wants to do is avoid using an outdated version of WoW, where Nost was. The problem with going the Nost way is that you're basically throwing away years of bug fixes and added features, plus most likely the net code is different now. I don't think people would have a problem using the modern game engine as long as Blizzard respects their wishes to play the game without game changing features like LFR and in game store.

So don't charge money for it. Most online games don't, and most MMO's don't. If private servers can do it for free then why can't Blizzard?


Or Blizzard could hire more devs to work on Vanilla? It's not like they don't have the money for this sorta thing.

Blizzard could take the opportunity to learn from Vanilla to apply it to their next expansion. I had predicted Legion's failure cause hardly anything changed from WoD. I said around March Legion will hit WoD numbers and so far I'm wrong. It hit WoD #'s in February. Nothing at this point will save Legion. I play with people who left Legion and they all think it's cancer. That is literally how they describe Legion.

There are only 2 things that'll save Legion. Firstly, they could remove monthly fees. I'm sure people wouldn't mind playing a failed game if they didn't have to constantly pay a monthly fee. And multiplayer games are dependent on players for content. The more players you have the better the game will be for them. The second thing they need to do is start moving away from their casual design. It is literally a cancer to the game. Obviously it'll take an expansion to turn things around to more of a Vanilla type gameplay, but if that's what it takes.

The way I see it is like this, if Blizzard doesn't do these things then people won't even buy the expansions let alone pay the monthly fees. You can bitch and moan about Vanilla, but the truth is there was something there that attracts people and it isn't Nostalgia. It would be in Blizzards interest to mimic that success.

And how are those F2P MMOs doing? Half of them are dead or absolute P2W shite. Also you realize Angry Joe is partly satire yes? Wildstar, Rift, Skyforge, Neverwinter, Bunch of Random Korean MMOs, Everquest, Everquest 2. Just a list of some F2Ps that aren't even on par with WoW. You want WoW to go F2P? Sure then don't come bitching when they bring in the inevitable P2W element that nearly every modern F2P MMO has. Hell fucking Rift thought it was clever to switch back to a B2P model and suffered from it with an expansion that makes Warlords of Draenor look like a 10/10 GOTY game.

- - - Updated - - -

Why?

Don't get me wrong I think everyone agrees with you. But no one has given an explicit reason why.

Because it's basic quality control standards. Even Microsoft do it with still supported versions of XP and keep them upto the same quality other OS's are believe it or not. Point is Blizzard would not release it without integrating it into the modern Battle.net so it's easier to manage and fixing every bug possible because of basic quality control standards. Even Runescape and Everquest did it with their Legacy games.

While using XP was a bad example since the only real one that is supported is Embedded. It's still kept upto date by Microsoft and given the same treatment 7 or 10 is for example. If a major issue arises then it would be fixed.

[Sastank]

I actually got the opposite impression. Many people that cry about how shit vanilla was have never played vanilla. When there was the huge discussion on the wow reddit several users which constantly wrote "no i dont want vanilla, it was shit" later admitted that they haven´t tried it and just could not believe that several days /played questing for max level can be fun.

I agree that the quality regarding balancing classes was nothing to be proud of (i played a paladin as my first class back then and refused to heal), but thats it with the negative aspects. I am not saying i want it back that much, because i do no longer have the time for 4-5 hours of casual dungeon runs, but it is still one of the best games i have ever played.

To each their own. I just know a lot of this outcry for legacy pls started when streamers pushed for it.(Ya you Soda) And now they're not into it anymore.

Regardless the amount of people who actually want and would continually play Vanilla is small compared to live players.

I for one don't want to do the vanilla leveling, dungeons, rep, weapon skill leveling etc grind again.

[Kyanion]

Blizzard could take the opportunity to learn from Vanilla to apply it to their next expansion. I had predicted Legion's failure cause hardly anything changed from WoD. I said around March Legion will hit WoD numbers and so far I'm wrong. It hit WoD #'s in February. Nothing at this point will save Legion. I play with people who left Legion and they all think it's cancer. That is literally how they describe Legion.

So you have no proof of the amount of players on WoW and yet you have no problem referring to anecdotal evidence and then calling the game "cancer" instead of just saying it is not a good game. Dial down the drama there.

- - - Updated - - -

You do know that "casual design" was the core principle behind WoW original design, right? You do know that having a casual-oriented design was paramount to its success, back when it launched, yes? (Remember: back then, no matter how hardcore in WoW you were, just playing WoW it meant you were a "f**king casual" in the eyes of people playing the other fantasy MMO)

He does not know or willfully ignores that every time you've said it to him. Hell many diehard Vanilla defenders make this mistake countless times when defending Vanilla as some hardcore paradise when it was the easiest MMO out at the time.

[Vash The Stampede]

You do know that "casual design" was the core principle behind WoW original design, right? You do know that having a casual-oriented design was paramount to its success, back when it launched, yes? (Remember: back then, no matter how hardcore in WoW you were, just playing WoW it meant you were a "f**king casual" in the eyes of people playing the other fantasy MMO)

You do know that a little doesn't mean a lot, right? Everything in moderation. Like adding pepper to a soup or having desert, you don't want too much of it. I liked daily's in TBC, but I hated dailies in MoP cause it was everywhere. I liked hard mode in Uldaur, but hate how Blizzard put a Heroic switch in every raid.

I've heard this argument before, and it was just as stupid as the hundredth time.

And how are those F2P MMOs doing? Half of them are dead or absolute P2W shite. Also you realize Angry Joe is partly satire yes? Wildstar, Rift, Skyforge, Neverwinter, Bunch of Random Korean MMOs, Everquest, Everquest 2. Just a list of some F2Ps that aren't even on par with WoW.

It's funny cause at this point we assume Legion is a raging success. Just the other day Blizzard announced how many people are playing their game. Oh wait, no they didn't cause now they stopped reporting their numbers. That speaks volumes there.

You want WoW to go F2P?

I hope not cause I actually bought the game. F2P means you don't even have to buy the game, where in WoW's cause I have bought it multiple times.

Sure then don't come bitching when they bring in the inevitable P2W element that nearly every modern F2P MMO has. Hell fucking Rift thought it was clever to switch back to a B2P model and suffered from it with an expansion that makes Warlords of Draenor look like a 10/10 GOTY game.

You seem to think I'm somehow effected if a bad game gets worse? Am I playing Legion right now? No I am not. If WoW were to go pay to win, then I would just continue to ignore it, usually this face when someone mentions modern WoW. And unlike some people here, I do play other games. So it's inconsequential to me if Blizzard decides to take WoW to full retard.

I also like how we treat WoW like it's in its own bubble. OverWatch itself isn't a pay to win game and they aren't charging a monthly fee. As far as I can tell it's a peer to server type game, so Blizzard has to host matches. Blizzard continues to update the game with newer models and features, without an extra dime from me.

- - - Updated - - -

So you have no proof of the amount of players on WoW and yet you have no problem referring to anecdotal evidence and then calling the game "cancer" instead of just saying it is not a good game. Dial down the drama there.

Oh sorry, I'll use WoW Census to prove my point. No wait, that's not accurate information so I'm still wrong. Meanwhile Legion is on fire.

[Kyanion]

Oh sorry, I'll use WoW Census to prove my point. No wait, that's not accurate information so I'm still wrong. Meanwhile Legion is on fire.

You're just mad that Blizz isn't catering to your desires and giving you Vanilla. Get over it. I like how you want retail WoW to fail and die so they might bring back your precious Vanilla as a last gasp to inject life into the franchise or some shit. Don't you have a circlejerk to attend on your PS or is there too much drama over there right now?

[Ielenia]

You do know that a little doesn't mean a lot, right? Everything in moderation. Like adding pepper to a soup or having desert, you don't want too much of it. I liked daily's in TBC, but I hated dailies in MoP cause it was everywhere. I liked hard mode in Uldaur, but hate how Blizzard put a Heroic switch in every raid.

Doesn't change the fact that "design for casuals" has always been Blizzard's focus, and that isn't likely to change, if ever. The tendency is that WoW becomes more accessible to more people, the longer the game lasts, the more expansions are released. You like it? Cool. You don't care? Alright. You don't like it? Tough.

(Also, I couldn't help but notice that's all you replied from my post.)

It's funny cause at this point we assume Legion is a raging success.

Nobody is assuming that. We're simply not being dishonest and concluding the game is 'failing' just because Blizzard no longer releases subscription numbers to the public.

I also like how we treat WoW like it's in its own bubble. OverWatch itself isn't a pay to win game and they aren't charging a monthly fee.

Overwatch isn't a MMORPG game. And we don't treat WoW like it's "in its own bubble". We keep comparing it to other games, both here and back when it was released.

[Madscientist]

You're just mad that Blizz isn't catering to your desires and giving you Vanilla. Get over it. I like how you want retail WoW to fail and die so they might bring back your precious Vanilla as a last gasp to inject life into the franchise or some shit. Don't you have a circlejerk to attend on your PS or is there too much drama over there right now?

Oh trust me there are so much drama (in private server forums at least) that it pales in comparison to legion drama :P

[Vineri]

Doesn't change the fact that "design for casuals" has always been Blizzard's focus, and that isn't likely to change, if ever. The tendency is that WoW becomes more accessible to more people, the longer the game lasts, the more expansions are released. You like it? Cool. You don't care? Alright. You don't like it? Tough.

Nobody is assuming that. We're simply not being dishonest and concluding the game is 'failing' just because Blizzard no longer releases subscription numbers to the public.

It may be interesting to see how the definition of "design for casuals" has changed over the years.

If (2017) retail WoW launched in 2004, would it would have been an instant hit? Not really, would have been a flop.

A design for casuals a decade ago was very different than todays iteration of retail WoW. Early WoW's target audience was EQ fans, or people who wanted to jump in without the difficulty of EQ.

So you mentioned WoW was a "design for casuals". Casual 13 years ago =/= casual today. Casual today is Flappy Bird with levels. This was not always the case. Casual in 2004 was an RPG that took only an hour or 2 per level at high levels, instead of 5 or 10 (in EQ).

A side note would be to point out that casual even several years ago is not Current casual. Players see the degradation of difficulty with retail. Some like to defend it, even justify it. In the end, retail is substandard to previous versions - don't blame me, blame Blizzard. I didn't vote for homogenization .. I didn't vote for welfare epics .. I didn't vote for easy leveling .. I did not vote for every 2 bit character to have awesome gear. It's "supposed" to be an RPG, where people work for .. ah nevermind. Retail, pfft.

[Ielenia]

It may be interesting to see how the definition of design for casuals has changed over the years.

It hasn't.

If (2017) retail WoW launched in 2004, would it would have been an instant hit? Not really, would have been a flop.

Now let's see the evidence-- and you didn't present any. I see. You have not a single piece of evidence to back up that claim. In fact, chances are, it would be just as much a success. Think about it: the reason pro-legacy people complain about is how much the game changed from its origins, but if today's WoW launched in 2004, then there would be no changes to complain about, and the game would be much more polished, much better graphics, much more accessible, much better mechanics, etc.

Also, just for fun, thirteen years later (today), we'd have people complaining about WoW's changes and wanting to go back to "vanilla" (i.e., today's Legion WoW).

A design for casuals a decade ago was very different than todays iteration of retail WoW. Early WoW's target audience was EQ fans, or people who wanted to jump in without the difficulty of EQ.

Today's WoW still fits that bill.

So you mentioned WoW was a design for casuals. Casual 13 years ago =/= casual today.

So now we're changing definition of words? "Casual" still means the same thing today as it did thirteen years ago.

Casual today is Flappy Bird with levels.

And 'casual' back then was The Sims 2. Two can play this game.

[Vineri]

It hasn't.

That's really all you had to say. It sums up your position nicely. Esentially people loved good gear. Subscriptions rose.

Gear started being easy to get, subscriptions sank. Equipment given away willy nilly, experience given for picking a rose, participation tanked.

It shows how blind-sided you are. People who agree will agree, those who don't, won't - with what you say. Nothing much changes, but it shows your inadequacy to evaluate this situation, given a rebuttal argument.

Casual in 2004 =/= Casual in 2017.

ps - not going to go through each sentence you nitpick. I'll pick the highlight, or 1st comment, whichever comes first. Talk to me in 1 post, not a series of mini posts.

[Doombringer]

"Classic was a RPG!"

Classic was never an RPG, we're not playing an RPG. An RPG means your character can have traits like knot-tying or basket-weaving or things that add flavor, and may eventually come in handy during a quest or scenario. A RPG is where your high Strength stat means you could intimidate, say, a shop-keep or quest-giver into giving you a discount or better rewards ... or a stat like "Charisma" means you can talk your way out of a confrontation. A RPG means that your being a Tauren means that some NPCs will react to you differently (opening up whole new quests or shutting down quest chains, better or worse rewards, etc) as opposed to a Goblin. Etc.

We're playing an action game with "some" RPG elements, as in, picking a Tauren means we get War Stomp and have slightly more Stamina than another race, and a Warrior has different abilities than a Rogue.

What made Classic great was that it was fresh. You only ever get that once in a product's lifecycle, we had it, it's done. Legion is a pretty good re-freshening of the game, however.

[Vineri]

"Classic was a RPG!"

Classic was never an RPG, we're not playing an RPG. An RPG means your character can have traits like knot-tying or basket-weaving or things that add flavor, and may eventually come in handy during a quest or scenario. A RPG is where your high Strength stat means you could intimidate, say, a shop-keep or quest-giver into giving you a discount or better rewards ... or a stat like "Charisma" means you can talk your way out of a confrontation. A RPG means that your being a Tauren means that some NPCs will react to you differently (opening up whole new quests or shutting down quest chains, better or worse rewards, etc) as opposed to a Goblin. Etc.

We're playing an action game with "some" RPG elements, as in, picking a Tauren means we get War Stomp and have slightly more Stamina than another race, and a Warrior has different abilities than a Rogue.

What made Classic great was that it was fresh. You only ever get that once in a product's lifecycle, we had it, it's done. Legion is a pretty good re-freshening of the game, however.

It's interesting that the very things you mentioned should be included in an RPG, were included, in WoW. But you say WoW was never an RPG. /rolleyes

A shame stats were "simplified", eh?

Solid RPG's I like have resistance values (fire, electricity, magic, cold, wind, psychic, etc) .. Might and Magic has a dozen ... Early WoW had several ... Current Wow has zero.

ZERO.