the possibility of Frankenstein Classic servers, and a possible solution.

[Deficineiron]

Since last year with the post-Nost. blow-up, I speculated that if blizzard ever did go the 'classic server' route, they would tune it down in most game aspects to more broadly appeal to current and former players. For outdoor leveling and instances, classic was the most dificult by far (exception - level 70 heroic instances, BC), and the classic part of game content was gradually nerfed, both explicitly (2.3) and via player power increases while leveling.

I am concerned that blizzard, for any number of internal reasons but mainly due to their post-merger track record of making things as 'accessible' as possible (I call this the Gift of Activision, or Bobby's Gift) as well as the fact their primary target market for this is former players some of whom would have played in classic, but more of them in BC and Wotlk, will feel it is better from a business viewpoint to tune the bulk of the game around those expansions in terms of general content, e.g. leveling mobs shouldn't be as powerful as in classic/relative to player power, and leveling instances might be tuned down as well, leveling should be faster, and the whole list of things that people looking at this potential problem are worried about.

I think they are right to worry - making the game more accessible could well hook in more of their largest target market group as well as current retail subs. There are hundreds of millions of dollars in potential revenue riding on these decisions, so I think one has to assume Blizzard has no choice but to take the path of least resistance towards greatest revenue, in accordance with this particular corporation's game design philosophy (I mean A/B here). They are publicly traded, I am not sure there is any real question about this.

I think, given the company's track record on making sure there is an easy mode for anything that otherwise is hard, one has to assume there is going to be some pressure to do the same here.

i am concerned with the use of highly subjective terminology in blue comments on this already - 'classic game experience,' 'feels classic,' etc. It is an unnatural way to speak unlike you are following guidelines on how to discuss the topic. What I am not seeing is 'tuned like classic,' 'paced like classic, etc. those are more concrete statements, or would be, if they said them.

Last year blizzard proposed 'pristine' retail servers. I would suggest, simply assuming they are going to tune their version of classic down, that this community request some 'pristine' classic servers. For this proposal I am assuming classic is rebuilt on their current engine.
For the most part this would involve just going down the mob health/dmg spreadsheet and raising it up x%. xp/level would be = classic xp/lvl. raid bosses would require some more thought, but it may just be a matter of going back to where the numbers were before they were 'fixed' for the classic re-do. Any new objects added e.g. graveyards, flight masters, could just be disabled or removed. Any of the QoL features which I would expect blizzard might be tempted to add could just be disabled as well if that was viewed as appropriate. If there are raid difficulties in main version, they could just have 1 difficulty (the hardest one, or even harder) in PristineClassic.

My rationale in detail is that the game has 3 particular target markets -

1)players currently playing retail, i.e. already subbed. classic might help decrease un-subbing during the life of an expansion, but this group of players is the most accostumed to the pacing and gratification mechanics of retail.

2) players already in the classic ps community - I think they are assuming most of these will sub no matter what.

3) former players not in category 2 - this category is huge, tens of millions of former western player, of which some small % would try a classic-type game. But most of them would be more accustomed to later expansion, thus my premise that a 3.0-type classic is more likely than a 1.12, in terms of pacing, general challenge, etc.

In the end making 'pristine' classic servers might be a good move for blizzard directly. They could call them something else a bit more attractive - Hardcore or whatever, but it would give them the 'freedom' to more aggressively QoL and Nerf the main classic version.

I realize that posting this here, most of the responses will be 'no, because,....' however I feel my premise on tuning is sound, and that pre-emptively asking for 'hardcore' servers which would mainly be a matter of a different metadata file on mob stats and xp rates, given that blizzard has previously indicated a willingness to do just this in retail, is a solution which could head off us getting something built from classic, but with a more accessibly-tuned game.

[Eurhetemec]

You seem to be making a huge number of rather strange assumptions here, and it looks like we can boil down your rather large post to:

"I am assuming that Blizzard fill the Classic servers with tons of post-Vanilla nerfs, changes and QoL features. like multiple raid difficulties thus I think they should make a version that doesn't have those things".

Which is honestly really strange.

[Deficineiron]

You seem to be making a huge number of rather strange assumptions here, and it looks like we can boil down your rather large post to:

"I am assuming that Blizzard fill the Classic servers with tons of post-Vanilla nerfs, changes and QoL features. like multiple raid difficulties thus I think they should make a version that doesn't have those things".

Which is honestly really strange.

right. i am assuming blizzard will keep with the game design/modification philosophy of the last 9 years. this is strange?

it is strange, in my opinion, to expect blizzard to do an about-face after 9 years of preaching accessibility (though they may have been forced converts) and everyone see all the content at once.

so to recap your post in terms of use of the word strange-

blizzard keeps doing what it has been doing since the merger = Strange

blizzard does 180 degree about-face and releases classic as-was more or less - Normal

[Rupenbritz]

right. i am assuming blizzard will keep with the game design/modification philosophy of the last 9 years. this is strange?

it is strange, in my opinion, to expect blizzard to do an about-face after 9 years of preaching accessibility (though they may have been forced converts) and everyone see all the content at once.

so to recap your post in terms of use of the word strange-

blizzard keeps doing what it has been doing since the merger = Strange

blizzard does 180 degree about-face and releases classic as-was more or less - Normal

It seems you havent been following the vanilla movement or reading dev interviews etc. So please dont even start topics when you arent informed on it.

[Eurhetemec]

right. i am assuming blizzard will keep with the game design/modification philosophy of the last 9 years. this is strange?

Yes, it's bizarre.

There wouldn't be much point to releasing Classic servers which are, you put it, basically "3.0" or the like.

Keeping doing what they've been doing would be NOT RELEASING Classic servers.

That they're making Classic servers, and specifically said that they want to keep the "community and inconvenience" (c.f. MMO Champion front page, Ion's interview), suggests that they understand the value of this alternate product. So the idea that they'll just go "Oh, Classic, right, that means Vanilla content but 3.0 or later QoL and mechanics?" is utterly bizarre. I'm upgrading this idea from strange to bizarre.

[Deficineiron]

It seems you havent been following the vanilla movement or reading dev interviews etc. So please dont even start topics when you arent informed on it.

they can interview all they want. you saw the 'feels classic' line, or 'classic gaming experience?' is that how YOU normally talk?

at this point anyone with a sense of how fortune 500 co's work know that the dev interview are perception mgmt. they want the classic community on their side in the coming years. saying 'yeah we are gonna nerf some stuff and speed up others' would be a bad idea if it were true.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it's bizarre.

There wouldn't be much point to releasing Classic servers which are, you put it, basically "3.0" or the like.

Keeping doing what they've been doing would be NOT RELEASING Classic servers.

That they're making Classic servers, and specifically said that they want to keep the "community and inconvenience" (c.f. MMO Champion front page, Ion's interview), suggests that they understand the value of this alternate product. So the idea that they'll just go "Oh, Classic, right, that means Vanilla content but 3.0 or later QoL and mechanics?" is utterly bizarre. I'm upgrading this idea from strange to bizarre.

I give up. this thread mostly is people who look at blizzard and listen to blizzard and see something other than a publicly traded company with a blockbuster franchise pre-selling the idea to their fan base. If the premise is everything blizzard says now is exactly what will happen in reality, what is there to discuss?

if it isn't obvious, the reason to release classic servers is to MAKE MONEY!!!! it is the only reason large companies release products. if they think they will make more money tuning 3.0ish vs. 1.xish, they will do it. how can anything expect this company to act in a sentimental fashion? this is the real world, they will do what makes them the most money. I am saying a 3.0 tuning overall may be viewed as their best bet.

time will tell if i am right or wrong, but ya'll have a lot to learn about how large corporations think based on the reasoning I am reading here.

here is another way to ask a question based on my premise -

assume you level a char. 1-60 on one of the 1x fairly authentic servers. it will take x/days played, however many that is.

assume you do the exact same thing on blizz' eventual classic server. do you think it will take the same played time? if not, why not?

[shaidyn]

right. i am assuming blizzard will keep with the game design/modification philosophy of the last 9 years. this is strange?

Yeah, actually, it is. The whole point of Classic servers is to ignore the last 9 years of game design, because of the millions upon millions of players who have left the game because of it.

[Eurhetemec]

time will tell if i am right or wrong, but ya'll have a lot to learn about how large corporations think based on the reasoning I am reading here.

This has nothing to do with "large corporations". This is about a specific product from a specific corporation with a specific goal. Generalizing wildly about "large corporations" is encroaching on tinfoil-hat territory.

here is another way to ask a question based on my premise -

assume you level a char. 1-60 on one of the 1x fairly authentic servers. it will take x/days played, however many that is.

assume you do the exact same thing on blizz' eventual classic server. do you think it will take the same played time? if not, why not?

So by a "fairly authentic" server you would mean, what, 90% of "Vanilla" private servers? Which start with 1.12 mechanics and have a staged release of content? If not you'll need to clarify very specifically.

I think on a "fairly authentic" Vanilla 1.12 server which starts with say, DM activated but all raids but MC/Ony locked, it'd probably take 5-15 days /played for most experienced players to reach 60 (where it often took 20-30 back in the day, because we were clueless and leveling content in earlier patches was a bit spotty).

I think on an official Blizzard "Classic" server it will take 5-15 days /played for most experienced players to reach 60, because I strongly imagine they'll end up doing something quite similar to private Vanilla servers - basically 1.12 class mechanics, but with a staged release of content.

The are other scenarios. For example, some people are demanding Blizzard replicate every patch from 1.1 to 1.12, one after another. If they did that, leveling times would vary wildly, depending on what content, and what exploits were available at what time.

[Deficineiron]

Yeah, actually, it is. The whole point of Classic servers is to ignore the last 9 years of game design, because of the millions upon millions of players who have left the game because of it.

if this was some guys in a garage, or a closely held company, I would not have a problem agreeing with this premise.

but we are talking about a company whose watchword is 'accessibility,' (or, if you will, the Gift of Bobby). I look at Blizzard since the merger, and I look at Activision-Blizzard, and I don't believe it is going to come out the way most posters on this thread seem to expect based on their comments. A/B is sitting at a totally different table looking at this from a very different view. I cannot believe they are not going to try to broad its accessibility from true classic to capture more returning players, or better resemble the subsequent expansions.

[Soon-TM]

They may think that they will make more money releasing a refurbished 3.0. But I think that such half-assed endeavour will attract neither the "true Vanilla" fans, nor the retail crowd, who's happily sitting on mountains of (useless) epics and AP. It might be a failure even greater than WoD.

[MoanaLisa]

right. i am assuming blizzard will keep with the game design/modification philosophy of the last 9 years. this is strange?

It is with respect to their stated intentions for vanilla. Brack is on the record saying they are going to do this as close as possible to vanilla and they don't care if it's a huge hit or if it ends up with 10 players. Hazzikostas has confirmed that.

I don't think this has anything to do with the merger either. It's a marginal project for Blizzard. It might become something else over time but they're doing this for fan service and because they simply have decided they want to.

They're still preaching accessibility for the main game and it's still a blockbuster. They seem to be pretty solid that the vanilla thing is for something else. I don't know if I would call it a loss leader but it's something close. And honestly, it will provide them with a ton of interesting player feedback about how the design meta for the main game should proceed into the future. If vanilla becomes hugely popular as some speculate that will be something to know about how to lean into the design for future expansions.

In short I think you're wrong.

[Deficineiron]

It is with respect to their stated intentions for vanilla. Brack is on the record saying they are going to do this as close as possible to vanilla and they don't care if it's a huge hit or if it ends up with 10 players. Hazzikostas has confirmed that.

I don't think this has anything to do with the merger either. It's a marginal project for Blizzard. It might become something else over time but they're doing this for fan service and because they simply have decided they want to.

They're still preaching accessibility for the main game and it's still a blockbuster. They seem to be pretty solid that the vanilla thing is for something else. I don't know if I would call it a loss leader but it's something close. And honestly, it will provide them with a ton of interesting player feedback about how the design meta for the main game should proceed into the future. If vanilla becomes hugely popular as some speculate that will be something to know about how to lean into the design for future expansions.

In short I think you're wrong.

I could be wrong. I hope I am. Every time I think it through, the part where the Very Large Publicly Traded corporation decides to do a job with a lower profit expectation than it could be if it were nudged a little bit towards something more genial to less dedicated gamers, i get a divide by zero error and the script halts. When I look for the error in the script, it is in the line where ATVI releases something an inaccessible(relatively) as classic wow without taking steps to make sure it is accessible to other parts of the potential market as well.

You know I have been speculating that what I suggest above is a possible outcome of blizzard's eventual involvement in classic server for a while. Nothing so far has really changed the scenario that I see.

[Pann]

I think that Blizzard will want a clear distinction between Classic and live in order not to harm expansion box sales as a result I am not sure that they will push for accessibility with Classic.

[Kuntantee]

right. i am assuming blizzard will keep with the game design/modification philosophy of the last 9 years. this is strange?

it is strange, in my opinion, to expect blizzard to do an about-face after 9 years of preaching accessibility (though they may have been forced converts) and everyone see all the content at once.

so to recap your post in terms of use of the word strange-

blizzard keeps doing what it has been doing since the merger = Strange

blizzard does 180 degree about-face and releases classic as-was more or less - Normal

Are you living under a rock? The whole point of classic is providing a game which is not designed with Blizzard's modern design philosophy.

[Deficineiron]

Are you living under a rock? The whole point of classic is providing a game which is not designed with Blizzard's modern design philosophy.

I think a lot of the responses to me on this topic on this thread, including yours, can be 'judge blizzard by what they say, not by what they have a long history of doing'

in other news, i need to cross the river, but the only way across is this huge crocodile. he promises he wont eat me, but will take me to the other side because he needs to go too. It sounds safe, so I am going to try it.

[judgementofantonidas]

I love how every Vanilla pundit feels the need to make a post explaining exactly what they feel made Vanilla less appealing and in every one of these threads they state Blizzard MUST change these things or Vanilla Redux will be a failure.

Face it. Any retro game offering that is capped with no chance at progressing past it will be a failure.
Competant players tend to want to continue to progress their character not lie stagnant as others move forward.

[ComputerNerd]

You have made it clear that you don't want a discussion, because you dismiss any view that disagrees.
You claim you want to be wrong, but are very quick to dismiss any opposing view citing quite weak examples of past behaviour.

There are many statements in the past, often vague and therefore interpreted as player see fit.
I see these as rather less so, and something that unlike most would quite rightly come back to bite them in the posterior should they do a u-turn.

[Kuntantee]

I think a lot of the responses to me on this topic on this thread, including yours, can be 'judge blizzard by what they say, not by what they have a long history of doing'

in other news, i need to cross the river, but the only way across is this huge crocodile. he promises he wont eat me, but will take me to the other side because he needs to go too. It sounds safe, so I am going to try it.

I am quite cynical when it comes to Blizzard, but there is a difference between being paranoid and being cynical. So far, I have no reason to believe Blizzard will make classic servers pristine. Even if they do it, I won't mind. I wanted pristine servers too.

[Koward]

They are doing it for the money indeed. They recognize that there is a group of people not subscribed that would subscribe with Classic servers.
And Blizzard will probably try to please this group, not the group already paying 15$/month. They chose Vanilla, they consider Vanilla as the best game, or base for a game, to please these persons. They won't try to denature the spirit on purpose.
I think we can trust Blizzard on this one because our interests go with their profit, and this started when they recognized us as a potential target audience.
Let's surf for a moment on the waves of capitalism while we can. I hope I'm not wrong or the fall will be hard.

And building on the current engine does not really matter for us, end users. They can do whatever they want with it, recreating Vanilla is certainly not difficult from a technical point of view. It's all about what they want to see, not what they can do.

[Deficineiron]

You have made it clear that you don't want a discussion, because you dismiss any view that disagrees.
You claim you want to be wrong, but are very quick to dismiss any opposing view citing quite weak examples of past behaviour.

There are many statements in the past, often vague and therefore interpreted as player see fit.
I see these as rather less so, and something that unlike most would quite rightly come back to bite them in the posterior should they do a u-turn.

i guess from my viewpoint my concerns leading to the entire frankenstein scenario are being debated with 1 of 2 assumptions/claims

1) blizzard said so (this is the weak one)
2) blizzard learned and wants to do authentic classic because to do otherwise would be a major error

1 is irrelevant, they say lots of things and it is all perception management.

2 is something I don't think is actually true, I think they think (or more likely AB thinks) they can make more money making it more accessible. that is my concern.

and as clearly noted in my OP, my concern is not so much blizzard blues (they knew how to make classic and BC, after all) but their corporate masters. Blizz has been on a one-way street to total accessibility since 3.0.2 with one attempted pushback in 4.0.

- - - Updated - - -

I am quite cynical when it comes to Blizzard, but there is a difference between being paranoid and being cynical. So far, I have no reason to believe Blizzard will make classic servers pristine. Even if they do it, I won't mind. I wanted pristine servers too.

it is in my OP, my concern is not so much blizzard as a/b. all this instant gratification madness started pretty promptly post-merger.

- - - Updated - - -

They are doing it for the money indeed. They recognize that there is a group of people not subscribed that would subscribe with Classic servers.
And Blizzard will probably try to please this group, not the group already paying 15$/month. They chose Vanilla, they consider Vanilla as the best game, or base for a game, to please these persons. They won't try to denature the spirit on purpose.
I think we can trust Blizzard on this one because our interests go with their profit, and this started when they recognized us as a potential target audience.
Let's surf for a moment on the waves of capitalism while we can. I hope I'm not wrong.

an exercise.

there are some pro-classic players. maybe 200-300k active PS population, so assume some large multiple of potential official server players.

lthere are lots and lots and lots more former players with no PS history, more played bc and wotlk than played classic (some played 2 or 3 of those)

you want them all to come back.

how do you tune it? a gamer might say 'tune it very hard, harder than it actually was. nosebleed hard.' I know i would like that.

now imagine you are activision-blizzard, and you are buffed with the Gift of Kotick (gives all products accessibility debuff). how do you tune it? please note that this debuff has NEVER been dispelled successfully.

in simple terms, that is where I think the problem I foresee is.

- - - Updated - - -

I am quite cynical when it comes to Blizzard, but there is a difference between being paranoid and being cynical. So far, I have no reason to believe Blizzard will make classic servers pristine. Even if they do it, I won't mind. I wanted pristine servers too.

I outlined a working thought train in a post above this one but after yours, it outlines where my thinking is in a way I think may get part of my point across.

It will be interesting to see hwo it develops over the coming years. phrases like 'feels classic' and 'classic game experience' from multiple blues sets off a warning bell in my head. no one talks like that unless they got a memo on how to discuss the topic - certainly no one on this forum uses them rather than more concrete or specific criteria in discussing this, even the folks that hate it. the only reason to do that right out of the gate and years away from release is if you know it isn't going to 'be' classic in some key objective areas and you are framing the discussion away from 'exact same numbers as classic for health dmg etc etc etc' and 'experience feels like classic.'

why else would they talk like that???

I am off-thread until tomorrow but appreciate the thoughtful replies today.