Just because you don't seem to understand what the word means.

[Swalload]

clas·sic
ˈklasik/Submit
adjective
1.
judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.
"a classic novel"
synonyms: definitive, authoritative; More
2.
remarkably and instructively typical.
"Hamlet is the classic example of a tragedy"
synonyms: typical, archetypal, quintessential, vintage; More
noun
1.
a work of art of recognized and established value.
"his books have become classics"
synonyms: definitive example, model, epitome, paradigm, exemplar;

Nothing suggests changes. It actually points to the opposite of changes.

Discuss it, or don't. In the end it only means that if you want QoL changes even if it's "for the best" it implies that you don't understand.

[Soisoisoi]

I mean technically they named it Vanilla first with the announcement at Blizzcon, via the icecream comment.

Just another pointless thread. Some people want changes, some don't. It's never going to be decided here, so why bother.

[Swalload]

I mean technically they named it Vanilla first with the announcement at Blizzcon, via the icecream comment.

Just another pointless thread. Some people want changes, some don't. It's never going to be decided here, so why bother.

It's not about deciding anything. It's about pointing out what is right, what is wrong, and stoning the people who are wrong. Welcome to 1017 (not a typo).

[Soisoisoi]

It's not about deciding anything. It's about pointing out what is right, what is wrong, and stoning the people who are wrong. Welcome to 1017 (not a typo).

So, zero discussion to be had, only opinions and opinion bashing? Pretty much defining threads that aren't allowed.

[Askyl]

Nothing suggests changes. It actually points to the opposite of changes.

Discuss it, or don't. In the end it only means that if you want QoL changes even if it's "for the best" it implies that you don't understand.

And Vanilla was all about evolving, changing, balancing etc. Cant have a real Classic WoW without monthly patches chaning stuff.

[Swalload]

So, zero discussion to be had, only opinions and opinion bashing? Pretty much defining threads that aren't allowed.

There's no opinion bashing if the people who are wrong change their mind. Because that's what opinions are, someone is right, someone is wrong, the person who is wrong needs to learn. We live in a society where we just accept people to be wrong instead of teaching them to be right.

- - - Updated - - -

And Vanilla was all about evolving, changing, balancing etc. Cant have a real Classic WoW without monthly patches chaning stuff.

Yeah, the patches that existed back then.

[A dot Ham]

Nothing suggests changes. It actually points to the opposite of changes.

Discuss it, or don't. In the end it only means that if you want QoL changes even if it's "for the best" it implies that you don't understand.

Who are you talking to?

Blizzard?

Us?

[Bellows]

Keep in mind that "Classic" is a label that Blizzard is calling a product. That doesn't necessarily make it classic as in the sense of the definition you provided -

"judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.

I mean, look at Coke Classic...

[Thatfire]

I think you dont understand the definitions you just posted. None of them say anything about changes being unacceptable. They just talk about the work being some of the best of its kind and being used as an archetype or model for future projects. You do know that means to follow a certain set of rules but add as many improvements as you want as long as you stay within the boundaries of the archetype or model. Then basically QoL changes should be perfectly fine as long as they dont affect gameplay, traveling, exploring, or social structure of classic WoW. Just look at the synonyms you provided and there is your answer.

[jellmoo]

From Dictionary.com

adjective, Also, classical(for defs 1–5, 8, 10).1.of the first or highest quality, class, or rank:a classic piece of work.


2.serving as a standard, model, or guide:the classic method of teaching arithmetic.


3.of or relating to Greek and Roman antiquity, especially with reference to literature and art.

Bolded the important bit. Something serving as a model or guide does not need to be an exact duplicate. It can easily mean guided by something and made better.

(full disclosure: I actually don't care if Classic ends up being a direct copy of Vanilla. I just want to point out that cherry picking an unreferenced definition of a word doesn't magically win an argument)

[hulkgor]

And Vanilla was all about evolving, changing, balancing etc. Cant have a real Classic WoW without monthly patches chaning stuff.

Those already happened, throughout vanilla.

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Patches/1.x

[FelPlague]

We live in a society where we just accept people to be wrong instead of teaching them to be right.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, the patches that existed back then.

There's no opinion bashing if the people who are wrong change their mind. Because that's what opinions are, someone is right, someone is wrong, the person who is wrong needs to learn.

that is not an opinion idiot.

alright here we go
you have a train going down a traintrack, it will kill five people if you do nothing.
but you can switch it to a track with one person on it and kill them.
what do you do?
now everyone has their own opinion on what is right and what is wrong choice. you cant go "NO YOU ARE WRONG I AM RIGHT AND THAT MY OPINION IS FACT


you sound like this


justr because you dont like chocolate does not mean ypour opinion is wrong

[Swalload]

There's no opinion bashing if the people who are wrong change their mind. Because that's what opinions are, someone is right, someone is wrong, the person who is wrong needs to learn.

that is not an opinion idiot.

alright here we go
you have a train going down a traintrack, it will kill five people if you do nothing.
but you can switch it to a track with one person on it and kill them.
what do you do?
now everyone has their own opinion on what is right and what is wrong choice. you cant go "NO YOU ARE WRONG I AM RIGHT AND THAT MY OPINION IS FACT


you sound like this


justr because you dont like chocolate does not mean ypour opinion is wrong

That's nowhere near the subject. You don't understand that some people understand facts better than other people. So in a discussion, they have the knowledge of facts and speak it up when talking to someone voicing an opinion.
Your exemple is too stupid and simple everyone knows that doing nothing is the same as being the one switching the rail so the "doing nothing" option is the wrong one as it kills more people. You in fact dont "do nothing", what you do is decide to kill 5 people instead of 1. Logical thinking like this can bring you to understand what is right and wrong. Now, I understand what you mean that everyone has their opinion and someone will say "if I push the button it means I am personally taking action to kill this person" but if they continue and finish this sentence you have to add "so i would rather not do anything and still be responsible for the death of 5 instead of one but detach myself from the action as if it means anything"*. Doing nothing and killing 5 people is the wrong opinion there, no matter how people spin it.

Now let's try this with a different exemple to better understand what is really going on.
You have 2 people playing the same game, PLAYER1 one is a big time gamer, he loves it and plays a lot. He's playing this game and he says "this area looks cool, the buildings are so well made." Next to him is another guy, he plays games too but not as much, lets call him PLAYER2. So he's playing in the same area as PLAYER1 and he looks at him and says "nah this is all wrong, with the size of a normal floor there wouldn't be enough space to walk standing straight up in there."
Are both of their opinions right? No, absolutely not, like every other arguments, it's possible to find the truth. But in internet discussions like on this forum, people read and only assume the person on the other end is a braindead fucking retard spewing shit just to offend people like you were when you read my post. Now let's go back to PLAYER1 and PLAYER2, what if I tell you that one of them is actually an architect and he really knows his shit. It's easy to assume that it would be PLAYER2 as he provided more information in his comment. But maybe what he's saying is just bullshit, maybe PLAYER1 is the architect and simply made a comment about the buildings cuz he saw they were well made for real. Whichever situation is going on, one of them is right, the other one is wrong. But they can't both be wrong because one of them is an architect who knows how it's made. Maybe if none of them were architect they could both be wrong, or maybe one of their opinion is actually right without them even knowing it.

Now, is it still called an opinion if it's a fact? Can people just replace their opinions with facts? Can an opinion and a fact be the same thing for someone? Isn't that just what learning is? When you argue with someone, is it JUST opinions or could it be possible that someone is simply stating facts that you just don't know?

- - - Updated - - -

Who are you talking to?

Blizzard?

Us?

Why would I talk to Blizzard here? lolwut

[A dot Ham]

Why would I talk to Blizzard here? lolwut

You'd be surprised how many morons are convinced they comb through these forums looking for "gems".

I guess I don't understand the need for the post. Those that have been asking for classic/legacy/vanilla servers... know exactly what that means.

The band wagoners that have shown up since the "announcement" of classic servers, wanting (what I like to call) Vanilla+, don't matter.

[Swalload]

From Dictionary.com



Bolded the important bit. Something serving as a model or guide does not need to be an exact duplicate. It can easily mean guided by something and made better.

(full disclosure: I actually don't care if Classic ends up being a direct copy of Vanilla. I just want to point out that cherry picking an unreferenced definition of a word doesn't magically win an argument)
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Interesting point. Only problem in the specific case of WoW is that the game was already used as a guide and made better. But a group of people don't like the better version so they want to go back to the original, unaltered model, the classic model. Like old classic cars, they look cool but they're not as efficient or as safe as the most recent models at all, they still prefer that over the "made better" versions.

Actually that comparison makes a lot of sense.
If you want an old car, chances are you'll get a very old one, like it needs to be repaired to even work. That's like making Vanilla work on current hardware and shit, maybe fixing some bugs.
But you don't want your old car to have a new frame. Like new graphics in vanilla.
You don't want to change the way it drives either, you want that old feel. Like you don't want specs that were not viable in vanilla to become viable, changing how the game was overall.
That's just what it is, old cars are not for everyone. Just like Classic is not for everyone, it's for people who asked for vanilla in the first place.

"But I wanna play it too but not how it was!"
Then choke on a dick.

- - - Updated - - -

You'd be surprised how many morons are convinced they comb through these forums looking for "gems".

I guess I don't understand the need for the post. Those that have been asking for classic/legacy/vanilla servers... know exactly what that means.

The band wagoners that have shown up since the "announcement" of classic servers, wanting (what I like to call) Vanilla+, don't matter.

Yeah I know they factually don't matter. But they matter to me as they provide entertainment when I'm waiting for something at work.

[A Chozo]

THIS is your argument? At least elaborate beyond the basic definition of a dictionary.

I mean, I'm against changes to Classic WoW myself, but you give the "Anti-Changes Group" a bad name with your lack of development.

[Swalload]

THIS is your argument? At least elaborate beyond the basic definition of a dictionary.

I mean, I'm against changes to Classic WoW myself, but you give the "Anti-Changes Group" a bad name with your lack of development.

It doesn't need to be developed. The right way is to make it how vanilla was, the wrong way is to change it so the people who fought for it don't have what they asked for. It's not an argument, it's a fact statement and people need to learn instead of sticking to their wrong opinions.

[RemasteredClassic]

This is a toxic thread.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

People that expect that WoW Classic to be completely identical to Vanilla are just as deluded as those looking for a bunch of QoL improvements.

[A Chozo]

Of course it does. You can't begin a discussion just because the game World of Warcraft, in it's first format, is nowadays recognized by the Classic word (oficially by Blizzard).

It could also be called World of Warcraft: Young Fish. What would you do? Go after the meaning of the word Young? Classic WoW without changes is correct (IMO), but next time making a point, elaborate about why you are bringing forth a dictionary definition. Otherwise you are just filling some sausages with meat.

The opposition could easily use the same definition of the word Classic against your poor argumentation. Hamlet is a Classic, but what if we could write Hamlet+, fixing a tiny portion of textual inconsistency to make it into the perfect product? The WoW devs could see Classic that way. By fixing some minimal (in their perception) stuff, Classic WoW would still be Classic, but better.