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

[Mindark]

1. You're saying I'm making things up but then you say shadow is not a real spec and disc is, and holy is mostly using disc spells. What's next?

When you consider shadow a viable spec, you are misremembering things or making things up.
edit: speaking from a raiding perspective. Shadow was more viable in PVP

2. How is shadow not a real spec? I didn't say HEALING SPECS ONLY OR I CALL THE COPS.

Only one shadow priest was desirable for raiding, and that's so warlocks would do 15% more damage. Even that was questionable before the debuff slots went from 8 to 16. Priests, in vanilla, were designed to heal.

3. Many specs were shit indeed, but as you know, holy changes less than disc and the changes were always smaller, it didn't go through a entire core rework twice. That means that even for the devs it was a terrible tree to start with the the spec itself had no identity so they gave it one later on.

I guess if you want to cherry pick data, you're correct? Holy had changes in Vanilla - including their talent tree. I don't recall disc being reworked twice in Vanilla.

4. Absolutely not what I'm saying, it's very clear what I'm saying. You are again trying to find shit where there is nothing. I'm not even gonna explain cuz I'm sure you got it you're just being cancerous.

You stated that all but one disc spell was used. You've been shitting on disc this whole thread, I know you intend to shit on them some more with that comment. But by saying that only one of their spells were useless, you'd have to acknowledge that the rest of their toolkit wasn't, right? I'm extrapolating what you're saying. Not quoting you.

5. Here's what you do as a priest with the most popular build: You do fort, then spirit buff. For the next 30 minutes until you do the buffs again all you cast are different ranks of heal, prayer of healing, renew and maybe a bubble here and there. at least 90% of your actions as a "disc priest" are a copy/paste of what a holy priest does. That means Disc has no identity it's just borrowing it from holy by default because it's lacking things of its own.

What separates a Holy paladin's identity from a holy priest's? Paladins have blessings and priests have Disc spells.

6. On paper lightwell is good. We don't play on paper, we play a game where top mythic raiders sometimes even miss something obvious in their screen. Lightwell didn't get changed and removed because it was good and efficient. It got fucked cuz it was garbage in the way people play the game.

And bosses get nerfed because players are bad, too. Not because they're poorly designed (in general).

7. That's the problem with people like you. You think that because someone types something in a forum it's automatically an opinion and you find it easy to discard it.

I'm sorry, is what you're typing not your opinion? I'm not automatically discarding your opinion. I'm not discarding it at all, hence the reason I'm debating it. But your opinions aren't even internally or logically consistent.

Realizing that disc is not really a spec in vanilla is just as simple as figuring out why an apple is a fruit and not a vegetable.

Except...it is. Your statement is objectively false. It isn't an opinion. It's just wrong. And I could concede that to being us having two different definitions of what a "spec" is. I share the widely accepted definition (going deep in that talent tree), and you have 3 (school of magic they cast spells from, playstyle, fantasy/identity) - depending which better suits your argument at the time.

[Swalload]

When you consider shadow a viable spec, you are misremembering things or making things up.

The word "viable" is nowhere in my post. A spec doesn't need to be viable to have it's identity and fantasy. I'm done with your stupidity I didn't even read the rest of your post since the first line is made of what you are: shit.

[Swalload]

I see the facts are too much for you to handle.

All I do is state facts. Why would you say that when it's the obvious opposite? You have other reverse statements to make?

[Thimagryn]

I know what you mean. You have it. It's called Retail.

You don't get 'Classic, but with all the modern conveniences.' Because that's Retail.

But even 1.12 Classic is a meer step away from TBC in terms of having Ferals and Prot that can tank raids. Why not just take the extra step and make it actually feasible?

Again, it's proven that it's not impossible, only that it's going to be hindered by RnG. Balance simply smooths those edges and has nothing to do with adding QoL features in. What isn't Vanilla about it? 1.12 is already TBC-lite. You will see threads here discussing how many people DON'T want to start with 1.12 because it will make early raiding (MC, BWL) way too easy, yet it's also inescapable that 1.12 IS CLASSIC.

So be clear here. What is Classic and what specific Modern conveniences are you talking about in this very specific thread entitled 'Balance the classes, keep the content the same'? It sounds like you're talking about Auto Looting and LFR when you use that terminology.

[The Emperor]

suck it up, "we want balance" crowd, your voice is that of minority and that's how Blizzard's CM view the issue aswell. https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/...ge=36#post-707

I have read the majority of the discussion in this thread, and I think it's easy to see that a majority of posters here are against changes to class balance in any form in Classic. I'll make sure that feedback is passed on when the time comes for it. I think this thread has served its purpose and the feedback has been clear.

You should really stop wishing for something the majority doesn't approve of and stop creating threads about changes to vanilla.

[Thimagryn]

suck it up, "we want balance" crowd, your voice is that of minority and that's how Blizzard's CM view the issue aswell.

You think you do, but you don't. Classic itself was voiced by the minority. When Blizzard stated a big fat no at the 2013 Blizzcon, did you stay quiet and suck it up?

[Kilee25]

Then you're just plain wrong, because this didn't even change into TBC.

Arms warriors were the PvP spec for Warriors. They were designed to be that way, with Fury being the PvE spec.

Sub Rogues had no use in PvE. Their entire spec improved their ability to use Stealth - An entirely worthless mechanic in a PvE setting aside from sapping, but INCREDIBLE in PvP.

Frost mages became the PvP spec when resist damage started fading away - The spec was all about control and survival, two entirely worthless mechanics for a DPS in PvE.

These were literally exactly how they built the classes - So that some had a specific spec for PvP.

I actually like this design philosophy, and would've liked to see it carried out to some kind of logical conclusion. If one out of every three specs just had a bunch of survivability traits and was "OBVIOUSLY" a PVP spec, then that would kind of solve one tree for every class.

[Thimagryn]

It's either possible or it's not, which is it?

Is it possible to run with a broken leg? It is. But it would be painful and excruciating, so why not fix it before you go run?

Simple: If it was in Classic, keep it. If it was not in Classic, don't add it to Classic.

Including Reckbomb and all sorts of exploits?

[The Emperor]

You think you do, but you don't. Classic itself was voiced by the minority. When Blizzard stated a big fat no at the 2013 Blizzcon, did you stay quiet and suck it up?

How is that related to the fact that community's response to balancing the classes in classic is no? You may keep struggling, but you still will be outnumbered and we won't let you destroy the spirit of classic WoW.

You want balanced classes - you have retail for that. Don't attempt to ruin our vanilla with your wants. It is that simple.

[epLe]

Blizzard will not introduce QoL Hand-helding, Classic will contain the original inconveniences and unbalances of Vanilla.
Ion confirmed this, no need to discuss it forever.

And people still beating at that pirate server 1.12 horse...

Why should they introduce all the class changes that came at the very end of expansion?

Why shouldn't they introduce the state(patches) that was current with the raid tiers ?

[Thimagryn]

How is that related to the fact that community's response to balancing the classes in classic is no? You may keep struggling, but you still will be outnumbered and we won't let you destroy the spirit of classic WoW.

You want balanced classes - you have retail for that. Don't attempt to ruin our vanilla with your wants. It is that simple.

It isn't 'No'. It's 'We will keep Classic the way it was in Vanilla'. There is still possibility for Classic+, a separate server for balance changes and/or QoL features.

And no, there is no 'outnumbered' because the Purists aren't coming in droves either, they're just noisy and think they're the only ones who matter in any conversation about Classic. Just look around and ask anyone who wants CLassic to be the same which patch they want rolled out, and you'll find that no one has the same answer either. Many Classic players want 1.12 at the outset, or 1.7, or some other patch. Mark Kern's own poll had tons of people voting to have TBC be brought back. How can you honestly believe everyone has the same opinion?

If you have the answers, then tell me which patch is ideally rolled out for Classic. 1.0? 1.7? or 1.12?

[Mindark]

The word "viable" is nowhere in my post. A spec doesn't need to be viable to have it's identity and fantasy. I'm done with your stupidity I didn't even read the rest of your post since the first line is made of what you are: shit.

Your problem is you constantly change the meaning of the words you're using, and it's hard to keep up. I inferred, when you said that shadow was a real spec, that it was a spec accepted by the community. Not some fantasy/identity thing. You're using very niche definitions of the words you're using that are not commonly accepted by the community.

I'm not really sure why I'm replying. I'm positive you're just a troll looking to rile people up with controversial ideas and using more personal attacks than defending your positions.

[Thimagryn]

Because this isn't a broken leg, this is a game which is in no way shape or form PAINFUL,

You've honestly never played a Hybrid in 1.0->1.7 then.

Feral Druid can tank. Period. You don't need to change it so it can tank. If you don't LIKE how it tanks in 1.12

Enlighten me then, what can they tank in 1.0, 1.7 and 1.12? Was it all the same range of content throughout each patch?

[Linkedblade]

Here is the thing.

If Blizzard alters CLASSIC to attract the retail people, make it more casual:
- Purist will not play it, people who quit WoW won't come back for nostalgia either.
- Retailers will play Classic a bit more, while also playing BfA

If Blizzard keeps CLASSIC authentic:
- Purist and Nostalgic people will dive into it, many will even resub for it.
- Retailers won't play much CLASSIC or not at all, but still play BfA

So I believe sub wise, Blizzard will get more subs if they release CLASSIC as authentic as possible.
Blizzard is a company that wants to earn money. There is more money in a CLASSIC authentic version.

That's the issue. They're not just going to put up their version of a blizzlike private server. They are going to refine it. Probably integrate it into the modern client, so that there is only one. They have to update it to be compatible with the current engine. And who knows what will break if they try to do this.

There is just no way that they will be able to make the purists happy. And whatever they do it will not be authentic enough.

[Mindark]

If you have the answers, then tell me which patch is ideally rolled out for Classic. 1.0? 1.7? or 1.12?

Which one introduced the most new icons for mages?

[The Emperor]

It isn't 'No'. It's 'We will keep Classic the way it was in Vanilla'. There is still possibility for Classic+, a separate server for balance changes and/or QoL features.

And no, there is no 'outnumbered' because the Purists aren't coming in droves either, they're just noisy and think they're the only ones who matter in any conversation about Classic. Just look around and ask anyone who wants CLassic to be the same which patch they want rolled out, and you'll find that no one has the same answer either. Many Classic players want 1.12 at the outset, or 1.7, or some other patch. Mark Kern's own poll had tons of people voting to have TBC be brought back. How can you honestly believe everyone has the same opinion?

If you have the answers, then tell me which patch is ideally rolled out for Classic. 1.0? 1.7? or 1.12?

If you really think the separate "classic +" server can happen you must be joking, as that would require separate team and resources. But go on, have your rose tinted glasses on for as long as you like
For me personally patch is not the issue, so long as it is a carbon copy of 2004 game. I would prefer slow content rollout starting with patch 1.0 and all the way to 1.12.

[Linkedblade]

Which one introduced the most new icons for mages?

Mage armor always got a new icon.

[Swalload]

You're not worth engaging in a serious conversation because literally everything you say is wrong.

An apple is a vegetable. Thanks to Fleugen we now know that facts can be wrong. Thank you O great bringer of delusional opinions and wrongful thinking.

Suck a dick, maybe it's a woman's dick, who knows, facts can be wrong.

[Flarelaine]

There is no such thing as a 'leveling spec.' Yes, there was a 'best spec for leveling,' but specs were not made to level.

So? I used it for leveling. I never said others should do the same. I'm not in the business of telling others what spec to play.

[Thimagryn]

If you really think the separate "classic +" server can happen you must be joking, as that would require separate team and resources. But go on, have your rose tinted glasses on for as long as you like
For me personally patch is not the issue, so long as it is a carbon copy of 2004 game. I would prefer slow content rollout starting with patch 1.0 and all the way to 1.12.

Then again, that still wouldn't be Vanilla. The game would feel like it for you, until you realize there's barely any healers around and there's 3-4 times the amount of Warriors, Rogues and Mages in the game than you remembered it to be. 1.12 is when classes started had some parity, even then many of the hybrid classes on Nost were below half the population of the Pures.

But perhaps all that doesn't matter to you. Good for you. Maybe you'll never run a dungeon and ever face the challenge of finding a healer. Maybe you'll never raid and have to wait around trying to fill the necessary buff/support/heal slots or compete for a spot as a DPS. That's fine and dandy, but I doubt that's the Vanilla experience that Blizzard wants to market. 1.0 rolling to 1.12 is a good system, but way too predictable and easily exploited. Few will want to play an obviously undertuned class, and that will change the dynamics of how things were back in 2004.