Will I Ever Get Another WoW/TBC?

[Redblade]

So, say they implemented the following; Raider A beats Firelands Heroic, unnerfed. They get the Firelord title, in Gold. Raider B beats Firelands Heroic at 5-15% nerf, they get the Firelord title, in Silver. Raider C beats Firelands Heroic at 20-30% nerf, they get the Firelord title, in Bronze. Raider D beats Normal Firelands and gets a different title, in the standard colour. Raider E beats Firelands LFR and gets a title for doing it, but in Grey. Would that be preferable?

How is that any different from what we have now, you still want to give the majority the same title just change the color a bit, to give you something to think about, I wiped 500+ times just on LK hc before we got him down for realm first, do you think it's fair to me and others that people can go get that title today?

It used to be "We want to see the content", then it was "We want title Z and mount Y bring them back/don't remove the ability to get them", after that it was "We want to see all content because we pay the same" (referring to heroics this time even if it's the same) and people like my self are accused of being elitist dicks with entitlement issues, like really?

Rare and unique rewards gives people something to strive for and that's a good thing, there should obviously be rare and unique stuff outside of raiding as well, sadly that is voted down at every corner because god forbid having anything that even resembles a grind to get such rewards.

[Rinnegan]

Tell me, tell me now: what was so good about tbc? I don't get it.

[Crowe]

The multi-tier raiding vs difficulty modes comes up way too much here, so I won't argue for a TBC system, although I much prefer it, and I believe that it really benefits everyone if executed correctly. But my question is, will we ever see a game like vanilla or TBC? I know people say that Rift is, but the game itself is so much less smooth than WoW that it's really hard for me to play. I would give anything to play something like that again... every week, going into Kara, feeling so accomplished when I finally saw the later bosses, even though I was near last on my server. At the time, I never even considered entering BT, and I looked at the people in T6 with awe. And that was a lot better for me than killing the last boss easily, and slowly progressing through the same thing again. Even for a casual raider, it seems so much less meaningful. To me, BT was not wasted even though only 5% ever saw it, because it sure as hell kept me loving the game, just because it existed.

Probably not for a while for the following reasons:

1. The MMO community as a whole has changed significantly over the past decade. Standards we accepted back then wouldn't fly today. Blizzard's efforts especially have led to the rise of the "entitled casual" who wants the content without having to invest anything. Also, MMO players today are much better informed and connected than they were in 2005. Theorycrafters start working before the game goes live, youtube.com reveals all the secrets, everyone is much more capable.

2. Blizzard has become the least efficient video-game developer in the world over the past years. Sure, they make good and popular games...mostly...but they need an incredible amount of time and resources to get there. Based on employee feedback they've also created a very unconstructive office environment where you either tag along or stfu. Compliance is valued more than creativity.

3. In many ways modern MMO developers are still following the trends set by Blizzard. Very few studios have actually set out to do "their own thing". Instead most find flaws or gaps in WoW's concepts and try to build around that. Until all developers stop trying to be the "better WoW" and start doing their own thing, things won't get better. Thankfully there has been positive development in this area over the last few years so there's hope.

[Crashdummy]

How is that any different from what we have now, you still want to give the majority the same title just change the color a bit, to give you something to think about, I wiped 500+ times just on LK hc before we got him down for realm first, do you think it's fair to me and others that people can go get that title today?

It used to be "We want to see the content", then it was "We want title Z and mount Y bring them back/don't remove the ability to get them", after that it was "We want to see all content because we pay the same" (referring to heroics this time even if it's the same) and people like my self are accused of being elitist dicks with entitlement issues, like really?

Rare and unique rewards gives people something to strive for and that's a good thing, there should obviously be rare and unique stuff outside of raiding as well, sadly that is voted down at every corner because god forbid having anything that even resembles a grind to get such rewards.

I wouldnt mind if titles are removed once the content is not current either.

Mounts dropping from 100% to 1% is fine IMO.

So, if they dont nerf heroic raidiing besides some tweaks, and they remove titles when they are not current, would that be enough for you?

[Redblade]

Again, i'm saying they shouldnt nerf heroics. That doesnt mean that the model is wrong. This game model is ways better than TBC one, which is the point.

Something I simply disagree with.

It only matter because entitled people think they deserve to have better things than others, even when both worked and put effort in that, which leads me to the first part you replied, different people need different effort for different things..

I get that people need different effort for different things, herding players through challenges with nerfs isn't effort though, nor is a game compelling when everyone gets the same reward no matter skill nor effort, people desire recognition for skill and effort no matter if you like it or not, same as people get motivated from desire to attain what others have.

Fun =/= reward. Fun =/= challenge. I'm not exactly saying that everyone is entitled to the same reward, everyone IS NOT GETTING the same reward under this model. What i'm saying, is that entitled people qqing about not getting better rewards than someone else is a problem of a new generation of gamers and that the result is bad for the industry.

Rewards are fun, that's why the gear treadmill works, challenges are fun to overcome because of the rewarding feeling you get from it, being helped removes that feeling. Players wanting to see and gain rewards from content that they don't have skill to go through nor aimed at them to begin with is just as much an entitlement issue, you just choose to close your eyes to that, LFR gives everyone the opportunity to see the content which was the original argument for it, that just wasn't enough though.

It used to be about having fun or not in a game, not about asking for exclusive rewards, single player or not. When i played coop games no one asked that people setting a lower difficulty setting should get worse rewards, for example.

MMOs have a very different social aspect and as such isn't comparable, you might not like it but that's how it is.

Yes, originally they did, and now they progressed into a better model, that needs refining, sure, but its better overall. Blizzard NEVER justified by "they pay the same". Blizzard justified because they are players that were not getting content that sattisfied them, and they deserve that content. The problem is that other people seem to have joy in a stranger NOT having content for him.

You think it's better, I disagree. I can't be arsed to look up the quote but I do believe it was Bashiok that said it. And really my joy in people not having content is why I repeatedly have stated that I think Blizzard should make content for players that don't raid...

Yes, they are, even if they are after nerfed. Even now you can go and play DS in its original difficulty. The thing is, many people that say they want challenging content seem to be raiding with other people that dont enjoy challenge, and therefore they dont get the chance to deactivate the buff. Its a valid concern, since its not a good answer to ask them to leave their guild to one where everyone enjoys challenge, which is why i would be ok in heroic raiding nto being nerfed (even when the nerf IS OPTIONAL) even if that means that some of your fellow raiders may not be playing with the difficulty they want, because in the end is not possible to give different challenge to people in the same raid.

Really they are not, the buff is as optional during progression as it is to use buffs or your spells, the impact your rankings and status as a guild have on recruitment simply doesn't allow for not taking the advantages you can get, not to mention the clear lack of rewards to do so, and no I'm not asking for extra rewards but question why some rewards are not removed for using the buff.

Heroic raids are harder than in TBC, the problem is that a lot of players dont have the skill to complete them before the nerfs come, and play in the same raid with people that dont enjoy challenge as much as them, which is why i would also agree in heroic raids not being nerfed.

Debatable if they are harder to be fair, it's not so much about skill to beat the nerfs but time, the time available to beat the nerfs become shorter and shorter forcing players to raid more and more if they want to beat them, all in favor of more casual and less skilled players, the mind boggles about that one as it demands the same from one group that another claims they want to avoid.

---------- Post added 2012-10-05 at 05:36 PM ----------

I wouldnt mind if titles are removed once the content is not current either.

Mounts dropping from 100% to 1% is fine IMO.

So, if they dont nerf heroic raidiing besides some tweaks, and they remove titles when they are not current, would that be enough for you?

It would make me be ok with raiding in WoW again yes, I still would prefer the linear model as I think it's better for the game as a whole though.

[Crashdummy]

...


It would make me be ok with raiding in WoW again yes, I still would prefer the linear model as I think it's better for the game as a whole though.

We disagree in too many things and i doubt we could achieve a consensus (the Heroic raid are harder than TBC is easily proven with the fact that Muru the guildbreaker wa down 3 days after available, which is less than many heroic bosses in both Wrath and Cata, even considering raiders have more tools and experience now), yet we get to a point where we would both be ok with, so we are not that far away.

I think most "casuals" (i use the word in lack of a better one as the people which are happy with this model) would be ok with it, and at least a group of the unhappy hardcores would be at least enough less unhappy to be ok with it.
I think Blizzard is going there, they put the Cutting Edge achievements in that direction, if they feel that's not enough, i think the next step would be trying to not nerf heroic raids.
About the titles, its probably gonna need a suggestion in the official forums and enough support there.

[Boomcats]

Hihgest sub number were during Wrath, which KEPT those subs. And Wrath was not aimed to the hardcore minority like TBC have been.

The reality if that WoW in general HAS ALWAYS BEEN AIMED TO CASUALS, and every expansion launched was more casual friendly than the previous one, witht he exception of the start of Cataclysm being less casual friendly than Wrath, leading to the MASSIVE FAILURE and HUGE SUB DROPPED caused by it.

So no, you are wrong in so many ways that is funny you dont notice it.[COLOR="red"]

I don't understand, how can you look at this graph and possibly think you are right?

http://i.imgur.com/t7xg3.jpg

The largest single jump in subcribers in WoW's history (mind you these are quarter over quarter numbers from Blizzards 10Q, or blue posts from GC or another source - not some claim by forum goers) was during the middle of tBC, 1 million people. Followed very closely by the release of Wrath. Since the release of wrath, every quarter has been a decline, with the exception of Ulduar, which drew many people back because it felt so much like Kara and the tBC raids. I mean you can say I'm wrong until you are blue in the face, but it's people like you spending all day on the forum defending the new model, bashing the old, that gave us the current state of the game.

[Crashdummy]

I don't understand, how can you look at this graph and possibly think you are right?

http://i.imgur.com/t7xg3.jpg

The largest single jump in subcribers in WoW's history (mind you these are quarter over quarter numbers from Blizzards 10Q, or blue posts from GC or another source - not some claim by forum goers) was during the middle of tBC, 1 million people. Followed very closely by the release of Wrath. Since the release of wrath, every quarter has been a decline, with the exception of Ulduar, which drew many people back because it felt so much like Kara and the tBC raids. I mean you can say I'm wrong until you are blue in the face, but it's people like you spending all day on the forum defending the new model, bashing the old, that gave us the current state of the game.

Watching the graphic you posted, TBC ended with 11 millon, Wrath took it to 12 millon, 2009 crisis came, some people unsubbed (your graphic says that in the ulduar quarter WoW lost subs, which makes me think that the graph is wrong) even with the loss the floor of subs in Wrath never touched the roof of subs in TBC (meaning the lowest peak in Wrath was higher than the highest peak in TBC) and the Wrath recovered those subs.

I cant understand how you think i WASN'T right even with your graph. Wrath had the highest sub number and kept them which is what i said. Watch your own graph.

[Redblade]

Watching the graphic you posted, TBC ended with 11 millon, Wrath took it to 12 millon, 2009 crisis came, some people unsubbed (your graphic says that in the ulduar quarter WoW lost subs, which makes me think that the graph is wrong) even with the loss the floor of subs in Wrath never touched the roof of subs in TBC (meaning the lowest peak in Wrath was higher than the highest peak in TBC) and the Wrath recovered those subs.

I cant understand how you think i WASN'T right even with your graph. Wrath had the highest sub number and kept them which is what i said. Watch your own graph.

The graph is made from quarterly reports hence will not be 100% correct month to month, TBC ended just below the all time peek of the game (11m in September) with Wrath release pushing the peek to 11,5 million (December), something that isn't strange in any way as you can see with the bump again at Cataclysm launch (all time peek at 12 million). Vanilla and TBC are the only versions of the game with increasing subscriber base, Wrath and Cataclysm both dropped after the initial surge around launch to settle below the TBC peek.

[Crashdummy]

The graph is made from quarterly reports hence will not be 100% correct month to month, TBC ended just below the all time peek of the game (11m in September) with Wrath release pushing the peek to 11,5 million (December), something that isn't strange in any way as you can see with the bump again at Cataclysm launch (all time peek at 12 million). Vanilla and TBC are the only versions of the game with increasing subscriber base, Wrath and Cataclysm both dropped after the initial surge around launch to settle below the TBC peek.

Wrath didnt dropped, Wrath kept the subs. And again, 2009, the year of the biggest crisis since the 30's in the western world.
Cataclysm launch had a little more yes, but Cataclysm didnt keep those subs.

Vanilla and TBC earned more yes, but they have more to earn. The pool of MMO players is not unlimited.

[Redblade]

Wrath didnt dropped, Wrath kept the subs. And again, 2009, the year of the biggest crisis since the 30's in the western world.
Cataclysm launch had a little more yes, but Cataclysm didnt keep those subs.

Vanilla and TBC earned more yes, but they have more to earn. The pool of MMO players is not unlimited.

Wrath dropped after the initial surge at launch down to around the same level that TBC peeked at just before launch, it didn't gain subs at all. While you are correct that the player pool isn't unlimited, you can't discount the fact that the ever increasing subscriber base stopped with the launch of Wrath and with todays more saturated market we can see that the potential player base was larger that those 11.5 ish million.

How much of an impact the change in mantra and progression model is something we will never know and could argue forever, saying that it didn't matter would be a bit to far fetched in my opinion though.

[Saisha]

Even as a huge fan of vanilla WoW, I sometimes wondered if that opinion had become colored by nostalgia over the years. Then I finally got to try it out again on a private server back in April, and I can honestly say without exaggeration that within minutes I was hooked with same fervor as when vanilla first went to open beta. I'm talking ~3 solid months of hardcore play from that point on, and despite the buggy private server scripting and a small population, the gameplay remains so compelling that I had to force myself to stop playing. Compare this to wrath, cata, and mop which have only managed to hold my attention for all of one week apiece; lots of polish, no substance. Admittedly, this is the take of a hardcore player, but as far as I'm concerned, the mmo holy grail would be classic vanilla w/ free-for-all pvp flagging (think gurubashi arena) outside of cities/settlements. It's probably better such a server doesn't exist.

For those of you who dismiss vanilla/tbc with the facile claim of nostalgia . . . try broadening your perspective!

[PizzaSHARK]

Not really, WotLK is what brought the most people in, it's also a reason why so many people came back to WoW few weeks before WotLK, because everyone wanted to see it.

Resolution of the Arthas storyline, a new player class, comically overpowered Ret Paladins to satisfy whining about them during TBC. In fact, a lot of specs that players were griping about being weak got pretty colossal buffs that were slowly drained away over the course of WotLK.

[venom36]

heard about something called feenix /shrug

[Kaleredar]

I hope not. Burning Crusade story was almost non existent, the zones were drab and never really got off the ground in the "alien" factor, and the quests were dull and largely reduced to pedanticness through their rote repetition.

If you're talking about raiding, you'll find plenty of people who played in Burning crusade that consider the attunement process, whether in previous raid tiers, resist gear, or similar artificial time delay crap to be idiotic, myself included.

If you wanted mass daily grinds back, which, do not fool yourself, comprised a large part of Burning Crusade, you have that in Mists of Pandaria. Just with quests that actually change from day to day. It's almost exactly the same in fact, except you can't cheese them by grinding dungeons.

If you wanted old heroics back, be aware that I've seen more than a few raiders complaining that heroics took too long to complete. Something about "I shouldn't be wasting time in heroics gearing up alts when I could be raiding instead." It seems that people that fall into this category yet continue to complain that heroics aren't "heroicy enough" just want them to be more difficult for other people. If it is indeed an issue of difficulty for difficulties sake, run challenge modes.

If you wanted "a sense of accomplishment," answer me this one question... what, exactly, does flashing around an achievement in trade chat that is now unobtainable accomplish? I've never seen a satisfactory answer provided.

[Redblade]

If you wanted "a sense of accomplishment," answer me this one question... what, exactly, does flashing around an achievement in trade chat that is now unobtainable accomplish? I've never seen a satisfactory answer provided.

Nothing as achievements as a reward for excelling isn't rewarding, yet it's argued that the hardcore raider should be satisfied with getting them ahead of others...I could theorize why that is and what ulterior motives are behind such arguments but it would only get me labeled as an elitist prick and detract from the actual discussion.

[Kaleredar]

Nothing as achievements as a reward for excelling isn't rewarding, yet it's argued that the hardcore raider should be satisfied with getting them ahead of others...I could theorize why that is and what ulterior motives are behind such arguments but it would only get me labeled as an elitist prick and detract from the actual discussion.

If they accomplish nothing, then how exactly do they detract from anything?

[Redblade]

If they accomplish nothing, then how exactly do they detract from anything?

How do you mean?

An achievement on it's own does nothing as people generally don't go inspect them, they do serve a purpose on progression tracking sites and such hence why I think they should be restricted to only be achievable while current in it's un-nerfed state, this is far from a e-peen only perspective as an achievement that is given to you without effort isn't an achievement.

I see achievements as a road-map of what your character has achieved, not a checklist of where he's been with statistical milestone markers.

You get a sense of accomplishment from achieving your goals and getting something to show for it, as achievements isn't something visual it functions very poorly as a reward for excelling at the game, rare mounts, items or titles fill that function much better. To give an analogy, if the 100m track runner, football teams, [insert competitive activity] would have no audience or media coverage do you think they would make the effort training and competing in the first place, and if no one would look up to the world elite in these activities how many do you think would pursue them in the long run?

If you are talking about ulterior motives for people to argue that the hardcore players should be satisfied with achievement dates as their rewards for excelling at the game I think you are bright enough to figure it out, I'll give you a hint, access to rewards...

[Kaleredar]

How do you mean?

An achievement on it's own does nothing as people generally don't go inspect them, they do serve a purpose on progression tracking sites and such hence why I think they should be restricted to only be achievable while current in it's un-nerfed state, this is far from a e-peen only perspective as an achievement that is given to you without effort isn't an achievement.

They're only relevant to progression so long as they're current anyway. If I were looking to recruit a healer, I wouldn't check to see if they cleared Molten Core back in Vanilla. If you're talking about after buffs and nerfs have been dealt down, I guess you could look at time stamps, for all that would prove.

I see achievements as a road-map of what your character has achieved, not a checklist of where he's been with statistical milestone markers.

Time stamps.

You get a sense of accomplishment from achieving your goals and getting something to show for it, as achievements isn't something visual it functions very poorly as a reward for excelling at the game, rare mounts, items or titles fill that function much better. To give an analogy, if the 100m track runner, football teams, [insert competitive activity] would have no audience or media coverage do you think they would make the effort training and competing in the first place, and if no one would look up to the world elite in these activities how many do you think would pursue them in the long run?

People play World of Warcraft for their own PERSONAL enjoyment. I think you grossly overestimate how many people ever EVER looked up to another WoW player, and to the degree at which they did so.

If you are talking about ulterior motives for people to argue that the hardcore players should be satisfied with achievement dates as their rewards for excelling at the game I think you are bright enough to figure it out, I'll give you a hint, access to rewards...

Achievements are a list of criteria to be met. The achievement states "kill the lich king." Did you kill the lich king? Yes? You get the achievement. The only thing that matters-- that has ever mattered-- is when you did it. Which is what the timestamp, and now these "cutting edge" achievements, are for.

[Redblade]

They're only relevant to progression so long as they're current anyway. If I were looking to recruit a healer, I wouldn't check to see if they cleared Molten Core back in Vanilla. If you're talking about after buffs and nerfs have been dealt down, I guess you could look at time stamps, for all that would prove.

Point being no one really looks at timestamps hence why it's a shit argument, especially if everyone gets all achievements in the end.

People play World of Warcraft for their own PERSONAL enjoyment. I think you grossly overestimate how many people ever EVER looked up to another WoW player, and to the degree at which they did so.

I disagree and arguing that anyone is right over another due to their personal enjoyment is pointless...I personally enjoy a game with achievements meaning something and visual rewards for excelling at the game (even if I'm not excelling enough to get them my self) therefor the game must be made that way according to your logic.

To put it in another perspective, if raiding had no rewards at all how many do you think would raid and how many casual players do you think would be crying for nerfs so they could "see the content"?

Achievements are a list of criteria to be met. The achievement states "kill the lich king." Did you kill the lich king? You get an achievement. The only thing that matters-- that has ever mattered-- is when you did it. Which is what the timestamp, and now these "cutting edge" achievements, are for.

If you don't see the difference in killing LK pre or post nerf then I don't know what to say, cutting edge achievements is a step in the right direction but it's still a watered down system where more than half of the achievements is nothing more than a statistical mile marker, like looting 100k gold really isn't an achievement, same as clearing previous expansions raids isn't one.