Vanilla demand nonsense

[khalltusk]

I figure I'll dick around in AV mostly anyway and the world. Hardcore raiders will be too busy to find me for the 1 on 1 spanking I'd get.

AV was a lot of fun on my hunter alt. A friend and I leveled two hunters and we were Marksmen. We only did AV built as much crit chance as we could get and just selected same target from the swarms of alliance that would face off against the horde swarm. Click aimed shot and pray RNGesus blessed us with a gibbed cloth wearer!

[Drpizka]

Were where? You mean signing petitions and ravaging like a mad dog in a topic on MMO? I've actually used other media for that.

What are you gonna do if the Auction houses are linked and the Flightpoints are aswell but everything else remains like 1.12.1.

Will you quit playing on the classic realm? I mean, technically it's not your vision of a classic realm, where do YOU draw the line?

- - - Updated - - -


Except it's not. You severely misunderstand what made Vanilla "Vanilla"

Is it that hard to have an alt in UC or TB, and the main in Orgri to check AH?

If you are too bored to run, then vanilla might not be the game for you.

[DSRilk]

No, the second you screw with the gameplay you've drastically altered the experience. It's no longer a legacy realm or even a snapshot of what it was like. It's just Legion with a level 60 level cap and the pre-cata world.

I don't know that I'd say "drastically altered," but I also don't know that certain tweaks would be a bad thing. If they tweaked talent trees so ret or prot pallies could be somewhat playable, I'd still consider that pretty vanilla. The biggest draw of a "vanilla" server to me would be a return to the day when I really felt like a hybrid - especially when playing my druid. If they tweak the numbers on trees and abilities to make unviable specs possible, I'd still consider that a vanilla experience. To me, vanilla isn't defined as a lack of bear tanks and ret pallies. It's more about the feel of the talent trees, not the specific numbers on them.

[khalltusk]

OK, to clarify it a bit.

The trend is that the vast majority want pure vanilla. Of course, in polls not only veterans that want it 100% vanilla take place.

BUT!

It was us, the vets that want it pure vanilla, that started the petition and the 'revolution' -if you want- for the classic servers.

Where were all these guys that shout for improvements then?

They were there but perhaps you never noticed them or they were not as vocal? I've seen it on subreddits for certain wow private servers. Usual stuff of people moaning about the grind and exploits/bugs and wanting these PS to fix them while playing for free.

WoW classic will be the same whine wise. People will whine about bugs and demand fixes or want more QOL. It's how it was back in the day too.

[Perkunas]

I don't know that I'd say "drastically altered," but I also don't know that certain tweaks would be a bad thing. If they tweaked talent trees so ret or prot pallies could be somewhat playable, I'd still consider that pretty vanilla. The biggest draw of a "vanilla" server to me would be a return to the day when I really felt like a hybrid - especially when playing my druid. If they tweak the numbers on trees and abilities to make unviable specs possible, I'd still consider that a vanilla experience. To me, vanilla isn't defined as a lack of bear tanks and ret pallies. It's more about the feel of the talent trees, not the specific numbers on them.

The second any balance changes happen it snowballs. Now raids have to be adjusted for the shift, debuff limit has to be removed, itemization has to be reworked in many cases. By the time you're done it's no longer anything that resembles the old game.

[DSRilk]

The people / events that pushed for and eventually led to the moment that we're getting Classic servers were pushing a purist Vanilla agenda. If you want Vanilla+ then it's not meant for you in the first place

Let's say there are 5100 people. Let's say 100 of them push for X, but X only appeals to them plus 5% of the remaining players. The company creates X, and ends up with 350 people willing to pay for X. Let's say they create X+Y, where Y represents some minor changes that greatly expand the appeal of X to 20% of the remaining players, but still encompass what 95% of what X was looking for. It now appeals to 1095 people willing to pay for it, and it still covers 95% of the original requests. That last 5% likely would be upset anyway arguing over nuances in their definition of what X actually is. Which is the more reasonable thing to shoot for?

[Arthas242]

OK, to clarify it a bit.

The trend is that the vast majority want pure vanilla. Of course, in polls not only veterans that want it 100% vanilla take place.

BUT!

It was us, the vets that want it pure vanilla, that started the petition and the 'revolution' -if you want- for the classic servers.

Where were all these guys that shout for improvements then?

what i got from your posting is you think your self like god like everyone else who wants pure vanilla *because it's the only right way*


got news for you, YOUR NOT GETTING 100% pure vanilla, battle.net features are obviously going to be implemented and thats a QOL change,

every other fucking thread i see
I WANT UPDATED VANILLA!

I WANT PURE VANILLA!

all i see is a bunch of screaming manchilds and i am a 04er with a wolf rider statue..... vanilla wow was great for the time, BUT IT SUCKED in todays standards.

the only proper way top remake vanilla is to update it, however i still think this is bad because NO MATTER WHAT BLIZZARD DOES THEY LOSE!

the playerbase is so split on it one half is going to tear blizzard to shreads for not *giving what they want*

ironically like real life politics *MY SIDE IS THE ONLY RIGHT SIDE YOUR SIDE IS EVIL!*

imo blizzard was better off not opening up a classic server at all, It's moving backwords, but since they opened pandora's box, they should update it for a better experience.....

no reason to not say have transmog/barber in a vanilla wow server or even new models, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE CORE GAMEPLAY

also fix the other 20 spec's to actually be useable....

[DSRilk]

"It's not" is not a valid argument. All of these things are what made Vanilla. Shitty specs, visual recognition, bad itemization, etc. It's campy and annoying in some cases but this is what was asked for. The people on Nostalrius, the team there, the petitions it was all for a legacy realm not a Remaster.

To you. Shitty specs are part of what made it vanilla for YOU. Not for me. What made vanilla for me was the style of trees, not the numbers on them, as one example.

[Perkunas]

To you. Shitty specs are part of what made it vanilla for YOU. Not for me. What made vanilla for me was the style of trees, not the numbers on them, as one example.

The classes were deliberately designed like that by old EQ players, mate. It was a major part of the game. I like 20 man raids let's give the raid size options so I can do 20 man Naxx! You can't market something as authentic and try to court a community with something that's not.

[DSRilk]

OK, to clarify it a bit.

The trend is that the vast majority want pure vanilla. Of course, in polls not only veterans that want it 100% vanilla take place.

BUT!

It was us, the vets that want it pure vanilla, that started the petition and the 'revolution' -if you want- for the classic servers.

Where were all these guys that shout for improvements then?

"It was us, the vets..." - you still don't get what I'm trying to say apparently.

Where were all these guys then? I can only speak for myself. I personally was listening to people wanting something, but not thinking it was likely to happen. Now that it seems likely to happen, I have am willing to invest a little bit of my time talking about it. My level of input can be read as follows: interest * possibility. As the possibility greatly increased recently, so has my participation in the conversation.

- - - Updated - - -

The second any balance changes happen it snowballs. Now raids have to be adjusted for the shift, debuff limit has to be removed, itemization has to be reworked in many cases. By the time you're done it's no longer anything that resembles the old game.

That's certainly a viable argument against trying to make the changes. My point was that if they were able to make them without it snowballing into something unrecognizable (which I think is possible - or certainly worth looking at or improving), that would not be a bad or un-vanilla thing for me.

[Mikah]

There is a lot of discussions on this issue. So far, I have seen three main stream of thoughts:

1- Purists, who want Vanilla WoW as it was, completely untouched.

2- QOLists, who want some improvements that do not impact much on gameplay, such as the improved graphics and few little things.

3- And finally those who want Vanilla 2.0, WoW with several of the 'improvements' we see today.


While most polls tend towards option 1 because its cool to say you are a purist, everyone posting in those threads suggest at least a few minor QOL changes.

I don't know what Blizzard has in mind with Classic WoW, but if they were strictly going with Vanilla without changes, they probably could get it going next week with a couple of guys on it. The fact they will take a lot of time on it suggest there will be major discussions and some changes with it.

[Deleted]

I was actually really excited with the news and I've never been against vanilla servers or for them. I just never had an interest in them really.
But this community so far on these forums have been putting me off so hard that even though I got hyped for a brief period of time I don't see my self playing it.

Holy shit, the toxicity and name calling. eugh.

[DSRilk]

The classes were deliberately designed like that by old EQ players, mate. It was a major part of the game. I like 20 man raids let's give the raid size options so I can do 20 man Naxx! You can't market something as authentic and try to court a community with something that's not.

As someone who was in the industry (UO) back in the day, and who knows many still in the industry, I take issue with your statement that the original spec "balance" was "deliberately designed." Some of the balance was certainly intentional due to things like the existence of group buffs, but a lot of it was simply bad math or ideas (not blaming - some things you can't effectively see until it's really out in the field). You can tell because they tried to tweak the game even back in the early days.

You shouldn't market something as "authentic" if it isn't. The issue is, as has been stated numerous times here, the definition of authentic differs by person. Originally, doing a level 60 quest at level 60 gave you nothing. In patch 1.10 (I believe) you started getting gold. So which is a true vanilla experience? Gold or no gold? Both are pre-BC. Both were done by the original game devs. Druids had a major talent update in 1.8. Which is vanilla? Hurricane requiring a talent or all druids getting it? Both pre-BC, both designs by the same team. THAT is my point. Vanilla is not just one monolithic thing. PvP honor system? Not until 1.4. In or out for an authentic experience? Hopefully you understand where I'm going with this.

[Arthas242]

I was actually really excited with the news and I've never been against vanilla servers or for them. I just never had an interest in them really.
But this community so far on these forums have been putting me off so hard that even though I got hyped for a brief period of time I don't see my self playing it.

Holy shit, the toxicity and name calling. eugh.

as i said like real life politics.........
*my side is the only right side, all other sides are stupid/evil/fill in what ever you want!*

[khalltusk]

snip snip balance snip snip.

On the point of class balance, part of the reasons Paladins and Shaman were fucking horrible to raid with outside of resto/holy was due to them being balanced against one another.

So shaman and paladin had some utterly odd spells/abilities as a result.

[Molvonos]

As someone who was in the industry (UO) back in the day, and who knows many still in the industry, I take issue with your statement that the original spec "balance" was "deliberately designed." Some of the balance was certainly intentional due to things like the existence of group buffs, but a lot of it was simply bad math or ideas (not blaming - some things you can't effectively see until it's really out in the field). You can tell because they tried to tweak the game even back in the early days.

You shouldn't market something as "authentic" if it isn't. The issue is, as has been stated numerous times here, the definition of authentic differs by person. Originally, doing a level 60 quest at level 60 gave you nothing. In patch 1.10 (I believe) you started getting gold. So which is a true vanilla experience? Gold or no gold? Both are pre-BC. Both were done by the original game devs. Druids had a major talent update in 1.8. Which is vanilla? Hurricane requiring a talent or all druids getting it? Both pre-BC, both designs by the same team. THAT is my point. Vanilla is not just one monolithic thing. PvP honor system? Not until 1.4. In or out for an authentic experience? Hopefully you understand where I'm going with this.

This.

The issue was, that before, all the people who wanted Classic were under an umbrella. Classic was a pipe dream at the time and pirated servers were the only way to get your fix, so you were relatively happy with it.

Now that the rain has stopped (classic being announced) everyone that was under the umbrella are starting to expand outwards and form their own little groups. No one can agree -what- the authentic vanilla experience is.

And you have people who claim they speak for everyone. Which simply isn't true.

That is what the comment 'You think you do, but you dont.' (IMO) meant.

Vanilla experience without bugs.

1.0? 1.08? 1.12?

Honor? Battlegrounds?

MC? ZG? Naxx?

Class imbalance? Faction imbalance?

[Deleted]

There is a problem in using mmo-champion as the source of vanilla demands. A big group of the people that wants to play on classic realms has no reason to use mmo-champion as a site because it was focused on the current expansion of World of Warcraft. They used mostly theyre respective private server forums or have theyre discussion in-game.

[Eveningforest]

I can't imagine Blizzard would want to get into trying to do class balancing or introducing QoL features because it would be extremely controversial. Most people would unite behind the argument of not changing anything, whether they thought that in principle in the beginning or whether they weren't happy with the specific change.

So if I had to bet money on what would happen, I would expect Classic Wow with no changes, or Classic [Remastered] whereby graphics and models are updated but core game mechanics and game systems are unchanged.

Finally what I would say to people is that specs being 'not viable' is a gross exaggeration that is repeated again and again until people believe it to be true. Classic WoW has no mythic or heroic modes, it is not hardcore game. If you can level up to 60 (and I did as a Disc priest once), and you can do dungeons then what are you not viable for? I was the guild leader of a raiding guild during Classic, and we raided most of AQ 40 and we were quite casual. We never forced people to play a certain spec. We did have a retribution Paladin. Most of the classes that could heal did purely because they wanted to, but certainly not all of them. There are only a few things people complain about that have some truth in them, for example you did generally have to rely on Warriors to tank, but if you were a little creative you could work around that in some instances as well.

My experience from Vanilla raids is very similar to this, guild included.

We progressed on new content with our "appropriate" specs, then goofed around with offspecs on farm runs. Iirc, hubby tanked most of BWL as a bear and I went Moonkin many times, just to mix things up.

As someone who leveled resto, I hope they don't touch classes too much. Realistically, I can see them tweaking some things( broken talents). But this whole "class viability" discussion does not even have a place here, really.

[DSRilk]

As someone who leveled resto, I hope they don't touch classes too much. Realistically, I can see them tweaking some things( broken talents). But this whole "class viability" discussion does not even have a place here, really.

Of course it has a place here. It's part of the discussion of what constitutes vanilla for each person. Fixing broken talents, that's okay by you? If so, then you are apparently okay with class viability, as broken talents certainly play a part in it. The question is rarely all or nothing, but where's the line - just like in this case. Fixing class balance and the game by them tweaking "broken" talents (by who's definition, btw?) seems to be on the correct side of the line for you, but changing a talent from +1/2/3% to +1/3/5% is not okay? That's why "class viability" has a place here in the discussion, because even by your own rules, it's okay for parts of it to be there, and if part of the conversation is here, then it only makes logical sense (to me) for the whole conversation to be here. That's not saying that everything that comes from the discussion will work for everyone (or even anyone), but the conversation itself is valid.

[Raincrow]

Of course it has a place here. It's part of the discussion of what constitutes vanilla for each person. Fixing broken talents, that's okay by you? If so, then you are apparently okay with class viability, as broken talents certainly play a part in it. The question is rarely all or nothing, but where's the line - just like in this case. Fixing class balance and the game by them tweaking "broken" talents (by who's definition, btw?) seems to be on the correct side of the line for you, but changing a talent from +1/2/3% to +1/3/5% is not okay? That's why "class viability" has a place here in the discussion, because even by your own rules, it's okay for parts of it to be there, and if part of the conversation is here, then it only makes logical sense (to me) for the whole conversation to be here. That's not saying that everything that comes from the discussion will work for everyone (or even anyone), but the conversation itself is valid.

I think that I'd probably look at 'broken' in a literal sense, and not in the 'overpowered' sense. If a talent is supposed to provide a specific benefit or numeric enhancement, and that benefit is not being provided OR the numbers that are actually being provided in game are different than the talent states, I see nothing wrong with either fixing the tooltip or fixing the system to ensure that these are accurate. This would go for abilities that strictly state a benefit they provide, but that did not provide that benefit consistently because of system errors, like Blink.