Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Vineri]

What? When it came to PvP balance 2004-2007 was defiantly the wonkiest it's ever been. You had definite top tiers and bottom tiers and then random ass bullshit like enh shamans blowing you up out of nowhere. There were definitely more rock/paper/scissors set up but the bottom tier, which did exist, was much further away from the top. I had fun but as a feral druid I was never ever weaker and felt more helpless then I did in vanilla even though I made it work. I remember in TBC, not what you're talking about I know, the time I PvP'd the most I forget the build it was SL/Something for warlocks. I literally could not hope to kill them unless I had full CDs and they screwed up badly. Stalemates just as often went too who got bored first/fucked up because of their boredom.


Every player wont be at the same disadvantage because there will still be modding, and our modders today are much better then they were back in vanilla. There are some things that mods took care of in vanilla that are now baseline. Honestly if legacy ever happens it'll be interesting to see who wins the don't touch anything at all camp or the fix some things camp. I defiantly think it's going to be the latter.

If you go PVE spec, then you can't really expect much in PVP, can you?

I said class, not build.

[Typhoria]

If you go PVE spec, then you can't really expect much in PVP, can you?

I said class, not build.

Warrior was pretty much king in vanilla...Charge, MS, Heroic Strike + Sword spec proc gg.

[Thimagryn]

The issue is though there is undeniable proof that disagrees with him being biased.

There is no such thing as undeniable proof when it comes to opinion. I don't like strawberries because they taste funny. You going to tell me there's undeniable proof that disagrees with me thinking they taste funny?

There's a deeper subtext to this that has nothing to do with Mark Kern and everyone's opinion of him. It's that you are refusing to listen and are interjecting your opinion as if there is something wrong with people having an opinion. You are implying that there is a right and a wrong as to whether or not people people should trust him. Do you truly believe that when someone tells you they don't trust someone that there is undeniable proof that disagrees with them?

The better way to go about it is to simply agree to disagree. This isn't about claims being valid or invalid (again, we are talking about opinions), it's about viewpoints on the very same subject.



I'm telling you square, you're telling me circle. We can both be right but that doesn't change my views any more than I would change yours. And to add to this, having a square perspective isn't an attack on seeing things as a circle, so don't be so quick to counter. All of your 'undeniable proof' comes from your perspective, just because you see Kern as a circle doesn't mean he doesn't have any hard edges to him.

[Eliseus]

There is no such thing as undeniable proof when it comes to opinion. I don't like strawberries because they taste funny. You going to tell me there's undeniable proof that disagrees with me thinking they taste funny?

There's a deeper subtext to this that has nothing to do with Mark Kern and everyone's opinion of him. It's that you are refusing to listen and are interjecting your opinion as if there is something wrong with people having an opinion. You are implying that there is a right and a wrong as to whether or not people people should trust him. Do you truly believe that when someone tells you they don't trust someone that there is undeniable proof that disagrees with them?

It actually is undeniable proof that you think strawberries taste funny, because it came from your mouth. Not my mouth, not someone else mouth, your mouth.

Who said I'm not listening? Responding to your opinions with my own thoughts is me not listening? There is a right or wrong when you try to attack someones credibility with your opinion. It's even somewhat evil that you feel you should be able to interject your opinion on how horrible an individual is and expect someone to not say anything. Rather that we should agree with your opinion and not have not only our own thoughts, but evidence that contradicts your opinion.

You are basically stating that me disagreeing is me not listening. When you claim someone is biased, and they do things that has shown they aren't biased, what do you call that? That is proof.

bi·ased
ˈbīəst/
adjective
adjective: biased

unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something.
"we will not tolerate this biased media coverage"

bi·as
ˈbīəs/
verb
past tense: biased; past participle: biased

1.
cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something.
"readers said the paper was biased toward the conservatives"
synonyms: prejudice, influence, color, sway, weight, predispose; More
distort, skew, slant
"this may have biased the result"
prejudiced, partial, partisan, one-sided, blinkered;
bigoted, intolerant, discriminatory;
distorted, warped, twisted, skewed
"a biased view of the situation"
antonyms: impartial
2.
give a bias to.
"bias the ball"

proof
pro͞of/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs

1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation
"proof of ownership"
Law
the spoken or written evidence in a trial.
the action or process of establishing the truth of a statement.
"it shifts the onus of proof in convictions from the police to the public"
archaic
a test or trial.
a series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem.
2.
a trial print of something, in particular.
Printing
a trial impression of a page, taken from type or film and used for making corrections before final printing.
synonyms: page proof, galley proof, galley
"the proofs of a book"
a trial photographic print made for initial selection.
each of a number of impressions from an engraved plate, especially (in commercial printing) of a limited number before the ordinary issue is printed and before an inscription or signature is added.
any of various preliminary impressions of coins struck as specimens.
3.
the strength of distilled alcoholic liquor, relative to proof spirit taken as a standard of 100.
"powerful 132-proof rum"

adjective
adjective: proof

1.
able to withstand something damaging; resistant.
"the marine battle armor was proof against most weapons"
synonyms: resistant to, immune from, unaffected by, invulnerable to, impenetrable by, impervious to, repellent to
"no system is proof against theft"
2.
denoting a trial impression of a page or printed work.
"a proof copy is sent up for checking"

verb
verb: proof; 3rd person present: proofs; past tense: proofed; past participle: proofed; gerund or present participle: proofing

1.
make (fabric) waterproof.
"the tent is made from proofed nylon"
2.
make a proof of (a printed work, engraving, etc.).
"proofing could be done on a low-cost printer"
proofread (a text).
"a book about dinosaurs was being proofed by the publisher"
3.
North American
activate (yeast) by the addition of liquid.
knead (dough) until light and smooth.
(of dough) prove.
"shape into a baguette and let proof for a few minutes"

Just in case these definitions got lost somewhere in translation. Communicating with the public and asking feedback and using polls is not indication of bias at all. Is he Biased against the views of people against Legacy servers? That is true, but that isn't the argument at hand.

[Vineri]

Warrior was pretty much king in vanilla...Charge, MS, Heroic Strike + Sword spec proc gg.

Warriors were taken down fast with IIR Rogues? Had to be fast, mind you, to stop the attack ASAP. Warlocks were good too for revenge, nail em before they had a "fair" chance, when you saw em first. Surprise a warrior from 50 feet away with a Warlock and .. well don't hang around, just leave after their death, go somewhere else

[Thimagryn]

I think balance was very good back in 2004-2007. Each class was generally a stalemate to others, but each had a huge strength against another, yet also a huge weakness against a different class. When I was playing it reminded me of the original MegaMan, in regards to strengths and weaknesses.

Stalemates went down to skill and playstyles.

With the UI, every player will be at the same disadvantage, so it's fair. No player will be required to do more than anyone else.

Rock Paper Scissors is not a good way to balance the game, whether it's PVE or PVP. I actually hated that aspect of dueling, having been a Feral Druid I could beat any Mage, stalemate any Paladin and die horribly to any Hunter or Rogue. In PVE it was far worse, considering as a Druid the only viable raiding spec is Resto Druid. In Vanilla, the game was simply was balanced to favour Warriors main tanking over any other class. I don't want to relive that aspect of Vanilla. Some do, I don't, and I doubt many of my friends would like to remember WoW in that way if I ever convince them to play.

- - - Updated - - -

You are basically stating that me disagreeing is me not listening. When you claim someone is biased, and they do things that has shown they aren't biased, what do you call that? That is proof.

I'll first say that proof is irrelevant because it literally doesn't prove anything. You can use undeniable proof to tell me OJ Simpson isn't a serial killer and list all the times they've never killed someone. That's not proof against someone believing him to be a killer. The proof is irrelevant.

Secondly, I'll humor you and play your game, despite what I said above. I will quote him here exactly.

"Personally, I would tend to fall into the “leave it alone” camp."
"A thought about convenience features: these really are the devil."
"Once your primary interaction with the game is it’s UI instead of moving around that world and talking to other players and NPCs, you might as well be playing a single player game…and in my opinion not even a very good single player game."
"That’s just my opinion. As I said before, I’ll be presenting all options to Mike that we’ve discussed. Blizzard has far more resources than I do to make accurate surveys if they like. My own informal twitter surveys are just there to draw out all the possible topics to discuss."

So all of this is his opinion right? No reason to get mad at someone having an opinion, right?

Until it starts skewing some of the data like a 42-58 split for new models being turned down because:
"Comments indicated that many thought that new models would detract from the vanilla purity and point of having legacy servers"
"Many voted for new models, but it became clear that it was coming from a “nice to have” perspective with only one or two saying they would not play vanilla WoW if the models were not updated."
"Many were concerned that asking Blizzard for any additional work was just going to make it that much harder to get them to agree to hosting a legacy server."

Which, to me, is making a bunch of excuses for what is clearly a split decision. Comments from people who don't want to see new models are OF COURSE going to say they think new models would detract from vanilla purity; but what does that matter if these are optional? What is wrong with 'A nice to have' perspective that somehow makes it less valid than the 2 'would not play vanilla' ones? Is he suggesting that people should have claimed to not play vanilla WoW to validate the option to toggle new models?

If you read into this from my perspective, you can see that this poll was set up to fail. To me, there is no way it could be unbiased when the poll is a near 50/50 split and the reasoning picked out (as well as the wording in the poll to begin with) is arguing against the option to toggle new models. Can you legitimately tell me there is a problem with having model options?

http://crixa.io/?p=79

If you want to read the entire blog, it's there. You can read into it as you like, but keep in mind that your perspective is not mine and what you think is right is not going to be what I see as right. I'm not interested in finding out the 'truth' about Kern. Keep in mind that I had to dig through his personal twitter to find this; and his personal twitter is full of anime girls, SJW bashing and other social media pandering that does not appeal to me. His personal Twitter account is literally the only place to find the latest Nostalrius development news. This only reinforces my views of his unprofessionalism.

[Eliseus]

Rock Paper Scissors is not a good way to balance the game, whether it's PVE or PVP. I actually hated that aspect of dueling, having been a Feral Druid I could beat any Mage, stalemate any Paladin and die horribly to any Hunter or Rogue. In PVE it was far worse, considering as a Druid the only viable raiding spec is Resto Druid. In Vanilla, the game was simply was balanced to favour Warriors main tanking over any other class. I don't want to relive that aspect of Vanilla. Some do, I don't, and I doubt many of my friends would like to remember WoW in that way if I ever convince them to play.

- - - Updated - - -



I can say Trump is biased against other ethnicities. You could say that he isn't because he was eating a taco bowl on Cinco de Mayo while saying 'I love hispanics'. You have proof but that doesn't make you right. And you aren't disagreeing, you're implying that an opinion is invalid because you have undeniable proof that says otherwise.

What? "I love Hispanics" doesn't prove any biased towards anything, maybe when it comes to eating a taco bowl, you know, something specific to the matter, like the hypothetical possibility of Mark running a legacy server (btw, you have really turned this away from this being about his tabletop game as "valid criticism"). Disagreeing is the same thing that you stated. I disagree with your opinion and here is why it is invalid. That is still disagreeing.

[Vineri]

I can say Trump is biased against other ethnicities. You could say that he isn't because he was eating a taco bowl on Cinco de Mayo while saying 'I love hispanics'. You have proof but that doesn't make you right. And you aren't disagreeing, you're implying that an opinion is invalid because you have undeniable proof that says otherwise.

I can say Hillary is for the rich, while allowing illegal's the ability to vote, so she gets more votes, without actually caring for those who vote for her, while saying "I avoided prison!". You have proof but that doesn't make you right. And you aren't disagreeing, rather you are implying that an opinion is invalid because you have undeniable proof that says otherwise.

You see, sometimes people disagreeing are listening to you, they just might not say what you want to hear.

[Typhoria]

Warriors were taken down fast with IIR Rogues? Had to be fast, mind you, to stop the attack ASAP. Warlocks were good too for revenge, nail em before they had a "fair" chance, when you saw em first. Surprise a warrior from 50 feet away with a Warlock and .. well don't hang around, just leave after their death, go somewhere else

What gear level are we talking about? Like leveling or well geared? A warrior in AQ gear would crit any non-plate for 1.5k-2.5k. With charge and intercept having different diminishing returns, 4 seconds of stun + hamstring there is no escape. Also, piercing howl and demo should unstealth rogues, while berserker rage granted immunity to both fear/incapacitate. Rend/Open Wounds prevented another stealth opener and Overpower for evasion. The tools warriors had, especially arms, was ridiculous compared to other classes in vanilla.

The only class that was on par with warrior(reliably, RNG shaman/pally wern't reliable) were mages, specifically frost, due to their ability to kite and tools to get them out of stun.

[Vineri]

What gear level are we talking about? Like leveling or well geared? A warrior in AQ gear would crit any non-plate for 1.5k-2.5k. With charge and intercept having different diminishing returns, 4 seconds of stun + hamstring there is no escape. Also, piercing howl and demo should unstealth rogues, while berserker rage granted immunity to both fear/incapacitate. Rend/Open Wounds prevented another stealth opener and Overpower for evasion. The tools warriors had, especially arms, was ridiculous compared to other classes in vanilla.

The only class that was on par with warrior(reliably, RNG shaman/pally wern't reliable) were mages, specifically frost, due to their ability to kite and tools to get them out of stun.

Just open world combat. Not BiS.

[Eliseus]

Snip

You do realize you keep trying to say someone is biased while also quoting things like polls and the sorts that they have done with the community right?

You basically keep contradicting your own opinion in your own posts. Again, if he was biased he wouldn't even care to hear our feedback (which he has asked for several time) or try to see where people stand on the matter. Inb4 another terrible analogy that tries to show someone listening to feedback but still biased.

If you want to read the entire blog, it's there. You can read into it as you like, but keep in mind that your perspective is not mine and what you think is right is not going to be what I see as right. I'm not interested in finding out the 'truth' about Kern. Keep in mind that I had to dig through his personal twitter to find this; and his personal twitter is full of anime girls, SJW bashing and other social media pandering that does not appeal to me. His personal Twitter account is literally the only place to find the latest Nostalrius development news. This only reinforces my views of his unprofessionalism.

I now understand your problem. You don't like Mark as a person, therefore you are right.

- - - Updated - - -

Just open world combat. Not BiS.

Do you happen to remember when the actual patch was that removed WF from being able to proc on WF?

[Ryzek]

I think balance was very good back in 2004-2007. Each class was generally a stalemate to others, but each had a huge strength against another, yet also a huge weakness against a different class. When I was playing it reminded me of the original MegaMan, in regards to strengths and weaknesses.

Stalemates went down to skill and playstyles.

With the UI, every player will be at the same disadvantage, so it's fair. No player will be required to do more than anyone else.

Is this for pvp? I wanted to play Vanilla and was getting ready to download Nost before it got shut down. I went to the Nost forums first and asked if it was possible to to tank on my fav class Paladin and with exception of one guy (bless his heart) whom most people labeled crazy. I was told to go holy. That Paladins could not tank all the 40 mans. I also asked if I could got Ret and dps and again most people said I would only get a spot if I went holy. That's pretty much why never downloaded Nost. I don't view that good balance. I have no problem with legacy servers, but I think a little bit of knob turning would be good imo.

[Thimagryn]

You do realize you keep trying to say someone is biased while also quoting things like polls and the sorts that they have done with the community right?

I literally pointed out a poll that was set up to fail and you ignored it completely to say what you just said here. I truly doubt you are reading all that I am writing here and are skimming only to read what you want to read. I think my message was clear in how a 42/58 poll for optional models being shut down due to the 'comments' shows he is using the feedback to support 'keep it the same'. The reasoning of the comments are irrelevant to the option to toggle new models. Only his last statement has any real relevance to not having them implemented; and you didn't need a poll to figure that out regardless.

[Typhoria]

Do you happen to remember when the actual patch was that removed WF from being able to proc on WF?

Pretty sure that didn't get fixed til BC, when they slapped an internal GCD on it.

[Eliseus]

I literally pointed out a poll that was set up to fail and you ignored it completely to say what you just said here. I truly doubt you are reading all that I am writing here and are skimming only to read what you want to read. I think my message was clear in how a 42/58 poll for optional models being shut down due to the 'comments' shows he isn't actually hearing feedback, but rather using the feedback to support 'keep it the same'. It's not as if it was an overwhelming majority who are against the option for new models either.

Again, this comes down to your problem of you not reading what YOU want to hear, therefore it is wrong. I guarantee you right now if he said "NEW MODELS IT IS" you would be saying nothing. The problem here isn't him, it's you. You are biased against him.

[Thimagryn]

again, this comes down to your problem of you not reading what you want to hear, therefore it is wrong. I guarantee you right now if he said "new models it is" you would be saying nothing. The problem here isn't him, it's you. You are biased against him.

i voted against new models.

Like I said, if you actually read my argument instead of jumping to the conclusion that I have a beef with Kern's decisions, this would be a much different argument.

[Eliseus]

Pretty sure that didn't get fixed til BC, when they slapped an internal GCD on it.

I knew it was in BC, just couldn't remember when. Was curious. Never got into PvP till half wayish through BC. Mained a Shaman and always wish I got to experience that haha. Thank you.

- - - Updated - - -

i voted against new models.

And? That changes nothing to what you would be doing if it was on the other side. Funny enough I didn't even mention what you voted. Regardless, it is not biased to go with a majority. Have a problem with it? Make your own poll to give to him, or to Blizzard, or to your mother. This does not again, equate to biased. It's ridiculous that you are even trying to conclude making a comment about the majority of a vote as biased. I would link to you the definition of biased again, but I'm sure you wouldn't read it. While you will continue to attack my reading comprehension.

[TCGamer]

Is this for pvp? I wanted to play Vanilla and was getting ready to download Nost before it got shut down. I went to the Nost forums first and asked if it was possible to to tank on my fav class Paladin and with exception of one guy (bless his heart) whom most people labeled crazy. I was told to go holy. That Paladins could not tank all the 40 mans. I also asked if I could got Ret and dps and again most people said I would only get a spot if I went holy. That's pretty much why never downloaded Nost. I don't view that good balance. I have no problem with legacy servers, but I think a little bit of knob turning would be good imo.

They were pretty much on-target.

For PvE raiding in most cases, Warriors were tanks, Paladins (alliance only) were holy and were buff-bots (PallyPower was a near requirement after it was invented.), druids were resto and in raids to innervate the holy priests (many of whom were Dwarves for the fear ward), Shadow priests (when around) were mostly mana-bots... Most "hybrid" classes were pushed into a single role.

There was no real "class balance" when it came to vanilla. Also, make sure you have max first aid... I discovered that early on in Vanilla 10 years ago.

[Typhoria]

I knew it was in BC, just couldn't remember when. Was curious. Never got into PvP till half wayish through BC. Mained a Shaman and always wish I got to experience that haha. Thank you.

Specifically I think it was the Black Temple patch. Their way of fixing the offhand lesser rank WF trick was to put it on an ICD.

Patch 2.1.0 (22-May-2007): Mixing two different ranks of "Windfury Weapon" while dual-wielding will no longer increase the number of "Windfury Weapon" procs.

[Thimagryn]

I guarantee you right now if he said "new models it is" you would be saying nothing.

And? That changes nothing to what you would be doing if it was on the other side. Funny enough I didn't even mention what you voted.

Nice backtracking. I chose a devils advocate example for the very reason to illustrate a bias which I see is clear. But you're projecting my argument as a clear bias against him without actually addressing anything I've said; you deemed everything I mentioned was due to 'not hearing what I wanted to hear'. You are laying blame on me without addressing ANY of my points.

And this is exactly how you have addressed my concerns over Legacy in the past. When I bring up any skepticism or criticism, you simply waved it off as my 'bias against Legacy servers'. I want Legacy to happen, but the chances they will with Kern at the helm is distressing. But we'll wait and see. Like you said, if Kern doesn't give results, that's it.