Balance the classes. Keep the content the same. Just stop.

[Mindark]

I would figure it would get something close to whatever was implemented in TBC.

Honestly I don't do balancing or design, I simply have faith knowing it's possible since it effectively worked in TBC.

This is my biggest argument against it. Because it was TBC. Not Vanilla.

Off the top of my head, problems to your suggestions: itemization was not equal. Spec modifiers would have to change depending on what gear you had. Granted, warriors had a similar problem about being rage starved from having better gear. For example, their Lawbringer (T1) vs Redemption (T3) sets. T1 has spirit at the cost of other itemization points, and T3 has only stam and int. They'd have to re-itemize, at a minimum, all the sets (sorry, holy paladins), or redesign how the classes interact with their stats (goodbye, vanilla feel).

Gaining mana from blocking seems viable, which is what they did with Blessing of Sanctuary in WotLK. I wouldn't mind tanking from WotLK again, but it certainly isn't Vanilla.

Folding mana regen to be deep in ret/prot trees doesn't help. If it gives a limitless supply of mana, they'll just dump a few extra points into the respective tree to pick it up. This will also break pvp, as mana burning pools was a big part of it. A healer that has unlimited mana in pvp? OPOP.

Adding more abilities is now changing the gameplay and the feel of it. Also, in vanilla, there is no such thing as "spec unique." Those changes came later, killing the vanilla feel.

Design aside, spirit = hit also would need to rework the fundamental ways that stats affect players.

- - - Updated - - -

Kaplan and Chilton were the only two people designing WoW. And regardless, I mentioned lack of experience and oversight.


And ask any game developer worth their salt and I guarantee you they'll all say that is a bad design choice. That giving player classes specializations that are intentionally below the competitive curve considerably is a bad design choice.


If you can make that claim, I hope you have the evidence. Where's the WoW dev quote or interview where they said "we intentionally made many of vanilla WoW specs nonviable in comparison to other classes"?

Seriously, which developer with experience under her belt would think that designing classes with specializations so below the competitive curve they become nigh-unplayable is a good idea? What's the point of giving paladins a tank spec if you don't expect people to play it?

I don't know why I'm coming back to you. You are arguing these points with the knowledge of today. I'm going to reiterate, if you think all of these design choices that make warriors the only viable choice was because of oversight and not intentional, you are very naive. Crappy itemization was an oversight. Pigeon-holing EVERY healing spec to heal was intentional.

Sure, find me a game developer stuck in 2004 and I'll ask them. But I'll humor that statement. They made a lot of bad design choices, I agree. They gave talent trees for flavor. They pigeon-holed the classes to pretty much a single spec. Specs were intentionally below the competitive curve (I won't acknowledge that they were designed to be competitive, however) is what they called the hybrid tax. After two expansions, they've accepted it was a bad design choice and dumped it.

I hope I have evidence for my claims, too. But I've already explained why that is a chore. What's the point of giving paladins a tank spec if they don't expect people to play it? Do you know how many people raided in vanilla? 3%? The game wasn't designed around raiding. That's where the viability of specs comes into play. Here's some quotes on the hybrid tax. They're made in WotLK, but refer back to BC. It was worse in vanilla. http://www.warcrafthuntersunion.com/...rawler-quotes/

Can I ask when you started to play WoW?

[Thimagryn]

This is my biggest argument against it. Because it was TBC. Not Vanilla.

And thusly, why I present all this as my interpretation of Classic+, and anyone who wants pure Vanilla Classic can keep it. To me, Classic+ is an extension of servers starting with 1.12 patch with extrapolated features from TBC. If implemented from the start, the Vanilla experience would already be 'altered' without a rolling progression from 1.0. If we're gonna have 1.12 balance, we may as well extend it to '1.13' and refine what was already there.

Gaining mana from blocking seems viable, which is what they did with Blessing of Sanctuary in WotLK. I wouldn't mind tanking from WotLK again, but it certainly isn't Vanilla.

Prot tanking in Vanilla wouldn't be Vanilla at all, but is that necessarily a bad thing? As long as the challenge of the content is there and you aren't taking an easy way out and itemization still matters, would it be a problem? What alternative would exist to make balancing 'feel like another Vanilla patch'? Is it because the meta is already defined?

Folding mana regen to be deep in ret/prot trees doesn't help. If it gives a limitless supply of mana, they'll just dump a few extra points into the respective tree to pick it up. This will also break pvp, as mana burning pools was a big part of it. A healer that has unlimited mana in pvp? OPOP.

Let Prot be starved then. Keep their generation low, but have Tanking abilities have a low mana cost and have some abilities refunded through procs. Honestly, there's no reason why holy spells can't have a high mana requirement while tanking ones have very low ones.

Design aside, spirit = hit also would need to rework the fundamental ways that stats affect players.

Or fold it into the talents. I believe Feral talents had built in Def in a certain amount to make up for lack of itemization. Alternative is fold the stat into one of the required tanking items; Smoking Heart of the Mountain comes to mind. All Feral Tanks needed this armor trinket, it might as well have +Def on it (or a convertable stat for Druids, like Spirit or 'Mastery')

[pateuvasiliu]

I could not care less about PvP. But assuming it matters, I can point to how Blizzard has assigned different damage to abilities in PvP. They can do that.

The whole purpose of hybrid classes is that they cannot match a pure DPS class. If Hybrids could DPS as good as pure classes there'd be no point in playing the pure breds.

The Vanilla manual clearly states Druids can turn into other classes but are weaker at the cost of versatility.

[Mindark]

And thusly, why I present all this as my interpretation of Classic+, and anyone who wants pure Vanilla Classic can keep it. To me, Classic+ is an extension of servers starting with 1.12 patch with extrapolated features from TBC. If implemented from the start, the Vanilla experience would already be 'altered' without a rolling progression from 1.0. If we're gonna have 1.12 balance, we may as well extend it to '1.13' and refine what was already there.



Prot tanking in Vanilla wouldn't be Vanilla at all, but is that necessarily a bad thing? As long as the challenge of the content is there and you aren't taking an easy way out and itemization still matters, would it be a problem? What alternative would exist to make balancing 'feel like another Vanilla patch'? Is it because the meta is already defined?



Let Prot be starved then. Keep their generation low, but have Tanking abilities have a low mana cost and have some abilities refunded through procs. Honestly, there's no reason why holy spells can't have a high mana requirement while tanking ones have very low ones.



Or fold it into the talents. I believe Feral talents had built in Def in a certain amount to make up for lack of itemization. Alternative is fold the stat into one of the required tanking items; Smoking Heart of the Mountain comes to mind. All Feral Tanks needed this armor trinket, it might as well have +Def on it (or a convertable stat for Druids, like Spirit or 'Mastery')

Oh crap, I forgot your reply was in context of Classic+. That changes things. We are in agreement here. Thank you for your elaboration!

[Soon-TM]

Wait, why does a boomkin have to be 100% equal to a mage dps?

Because that's what the "balance" crowd is asking. I was giving just a couple of examples of what would happen if devs ever started tinkering with class balance.

[Ielenia]

if you think all of these design choices that make warriors the only viable choice was because of oversight and not intentional, you are very naive.

After reading that link you posted, it becomes obvious that they did what they did for one of the reasons I stated earlier: inexperience and/or oversight.

Can I ask when you started to play WoW?

Why? Are you going to claim my opinion is invalid if I say I started in BC, Wrath, Cata, MoP or five days ago?

[Mindark]

After reading that link you posted, it becomes obvious that they did what they did for one of the reasons I stated earlier: inexperience and/or oversight.

Just because you disagree with their decision, does not mean that it came from inexperience or as an oversight.

Why? Are you going to claim my opinion is invalid if I say I started in BC, Wrath, Cata, MoP or five days ago?

Of course not. I could say your opinion is wrong (not invalid, you're always entitled to one) on its own merits. I'm mostly concerned with your experiences of Vanilla. I was deeply involved in the community throughout Vanilla. I read a lot of what Blizzard has said on their forums and other venues. I didn't bother to archive it all in anticipation of us having this conversation. I want to know if your opinions are coming from experience or from interpretation of something you've read.

edit: mostly trying to find the root of your beliefs here

[Kilee25]

That's why every single thread that has popped up on here in the last 2 years that I've seen pined for *Thee definitive Vanilla experience* and every time I'd bring up class balance did they say? "Oh no that will be changed" "Or I can live with it like that!" No...they basically flat out ignored it or said the imbalance isn't that bad...said that you'd want a bear tank for his extremely high armor or you want multiple cats for their crit buff...so and so can do rather good damage with the right gear ect ect

Not once did I see talk of any kind of balance passing...but two seconds after vanilla is announced the threads popped up of people who basically want classic to be live, except without this feature or that feature, which they hate in live.

Well if it makes you feel any better, I've wanted Vanilla back for years, and I've also wanted some minor changes to it as well. I've never posted on a forum about it because I just didn't see the point. I'm starting not to see a point in joining in this discussion either, but in any case.... I can't be the only one.

[DesMephisto]

you are an example of the problem. the discussion for what is and what is not wanted can not even be had.

you have a either with me or against me attitude. ashame because in the end vanilla servers will suffer. well done.

Don't care. I want the original vanilla, with all of its flaws. That is the whole point of this. Now bugger off.

[Thimagryn]

Don't care. I want the original vanilla, with all of its flaws. That is the whole point of this. Now bugger off.

1.0 or 1.12?

[Occam-OC]

Don't care. I want the original vanilla, with all of its flaws. That is the whole point of this. Now bugger off.

Yep, Dankdruid was right. You're exactly the problem. Having an opinion of how you want the game is one thing. Telling people to "bugger off" because you don't like their opinion is another.

[Ielenia]

Just because you disagree with their decision, does not mean that it came from inexperience or as an oversight.

I do hope you know that it doesn't mean it didn't come from inexperience or oversight.

Of course not. I could say your opinion is wrong (not invalid, you're always entitled to one) on its own merits. I'm mostly concerned with your experiences of Vanilla. I was deeply involved in the community throughout Vanilla. I read a lot of what Blizzard has said on their forums and other venues. I didn't bother to archive it all in anticipation of us having this conversation. I want to know if your opinions are coming from experience or from interpretation of something you've read.

edit: mostly trying to find the root of your beliefs here

Blizzard rarely, if ever, admits their mistakes. They're not adverse to fixing things if they indeed are mistakes, but they won't admit it was a mistake. They'll claim it was what the players wanted, or that they're trying new things, but say "we were wrong in doing X?" I don't think Blizzard has even said anything to that effect even about the no-flying fiasco that happened during WoD.

Because making a nigh 30% "tax" on dps for hybrid classes? The tax itself alone is a bad idea, but 30% is just way overkill. The excuse that "people wouldn't use pure-DPS classes" does not work for such a gigantic tax. Because you're not giving incentive for players to use the pure-DPS classes to DPS. You're basically forcing them to. Again, as I said before: it throws all the development time and resources used on those dps and tank specs completely meaningless because you killed any chance of those specs seeing any real use beyond this "hey, what's this?"

[DesMephisto]

Yep, Dankdruid was right. You're exactly the problem. Having an opinion of how you want the game is one thing. Telling people to "bugger off" because you don't like their opinion is another.

Your opinion doesn't matter though. It's vanilla wow, not vanilla wow 2.0.

- - - Updated - - -

1.0 or 1.12?

Start with ZG patch then on to 1.12 for progressions sake at specific intervals.

[Ielenia]

Start with ZG patch then on to 1.12 for progressions sake at specific intervals.

Uh-huh. Zul'Gurub patch. So you want QoL changes, eh? Don't you want a 'pure vanilla experience'?

[Occam-OC]

Your opinion doesn't matter though. It's vanilla wow, not vanilla wow 2.0.

- - - Updated - - -



Start with ZG patch then on to 1.12 for progressions sake at specific intervals.

So "your" version of Vanilla starts with ZG. Someone else's starts at 1.0. You're no more "correct" in your opinion than they are. That's the point. It's about open discussion not "I'm right because reasons".

[Kithelle]

Yep, Dankdruid was right. You're exactly the problem. Having an opinion of how you want the game is one thing. Telling people to "bugger off" because you don't like their opinion is another.

You mean just how Dankdruid called someone else the problem just because he had a different opinion than him?

[Gaidax]

I do hope you know that it doesn't mean it didn't come from inexperience or oversight.

I don't get it, are you one of those people who can't stand being wrong or something?

You have quotes from Lead Designer back from then where they tell you that hybrids were engineered in particular to be lower DPS than pures in earler WoW and you still come and argue?

Hybrid tax was a very real, intentional thing, because utility was meant to close the gap, but realistically it fell short in all but very specific cases like replenishment in TBC.

[corebit]

Class balance is in itself a HUGE group of changes, including raid and dungeon design, boss mechanics, itemization, and PVP. To think of class balance as a minor thing is being incredibly ignorant of game design.

[Ielenia]

I don't get it, are you one of those people who can't stand being wrong or something?

You have quotes from Lead Designer back from then where they tell you that hybrids were engineered in particular to be lower DPS than pures in earler WoW and you still come and argue?

And nothing in that link proves that said design decision wasn't result of inexperience or oversight.

Hybrid tax was a very real, intentional thing, because utility was meant to close the gap, but realistically it fell short in all but very specific cases like replenishment in TBC.

I hope you realize you just made my case about inexperience/oversight.

- - - Updated - - -

Class balance is in itself a HUGE group of changes, including raid and dungeon design, boss mechanics, itemization, and PVP. To think of class balance as a minor thing is being incredibly ignorant of game design.

Um, no. 'Class balance' also means reducing/increasing even just one single ability in the game. Say, for example, that Frost DKs were fine in all their abilities, but their Artifact ability, Sindragosa's Fury, was doing way too much damage (or way too little). Nerfing (or buffing) only said ability is still 'class balance'.

[Ulthane]

Well they actually can "balance" the classes and still keep it Classic.

By Balance I mean which patch do we want to have? Would it be jarring to keep going through patches over and over?

Or would it be safe to take the best iteration of any given spec from a patch and implement it?

Example: Holy Strike and Crusader Strike on Paladins still (Which wasn't removed until a later patch in vanilla)

Biased bs opinion: Classic for me was when I was able to use those abilities in tandem with other spells. That is my version of classic. huehuehue

But no seriously: Take best moments for classes in a patch and put it in. gg