Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Gadzooks]

Based off of Ion's response in the June Q&A, it seems as if the idea of Pristine has been effectively shelved. Though to be completely honest, Ion's response kind of gave me the impression they have no fucking idea what they want to do about the Legacy "issue" and would prefer instead to simply focus on the retail game. Anything's still possible but based off this response, I think Blizzard has internally decided Pristine wasn't exactly the best direction to approach the core Legacy concerns.

Could be, I'd forgotten about that interview - but I remember thinking Ion's thinking was "let's fix the game so legacy servers aren't needed", which could still be the case, at least for some of them. Which is wasted effort, because the kiddies already threw a fit over the idea.

[Relapses]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the difference between Legion content and WoD content more cosmetic than anything? I mean they created many different garrisons this time, artifact weapons and made the dailies into world quests using already existing assets from leveling. Also the raid release schedule of Legion is better paced, but apart from that what else is different? We can grind and gear from dungeons now, not exactly more content.

We actually got our classes gutted and our toolkit partly returned with Honor Talents - not new content. WoD had Ashran, Legion has no new pvp content and probably is the least developed aspect of the game.

Compared to WoD, Legion is much, much, much more time consuming and grind-oriented. You grind AP, you grind reputation, you grind World Quests, you grind Mythic+ dungeons, you grind for Legendaries, you grind reagents for flasks, food, potions. Everything in Legion is a grind. Since once of the main complaints about WoD was that there wasn't much to do at level 100, Legion presents the pendulum swinging almost completely in the opposite direction. Whether that's a good thing stands to be seen but the overall fan reception has been generally positive so far.

[VidocQ]

us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20749678358#post-1 <<< RIP
As soon as the Legion's popularity begins to fall, and you will do a classic server? I hope that Nostalrius will not wait for your SOON.

[slaise1]

us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20749678358#post-1 <<< RIP

For anybody wondering it's a blue post and also, when is after Blizzcon? Lol

[Deleted]

Compared to WoD, Legion is much, much, much more time consuming and grind-oriented. You grind AP, you grind reputation, you grind World Quests, you grind Mythic+ dungeons, you grind for Legendaries, you grind reagents for flasks, food, potions. Everything in Legion is a grind. Since once of the main complaints about WoD was that there wasn't much to do at level 100, Legion presents the pendulum swinging almost completely in the opposite direction. Whether that's a good thing stands to be seen but the overall fan reception has been generally positive so far.

That's my point though, it doesn't have more content, it has the same content as WoD, it's just turned into a korean grind.

[Redroniksre]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the difference between Legion content and WoD content more cosmetic than anything? I mean they created many different garrisons this time, artifact weapons and made the dailies into world quests using already existing assets from leveling. Also the raid release schedule of Legion is better paced, but apart from that what else is different? We can grind and gear from dungeons now, not exactly more content.

We actually got our classes gutted and our toolkit partly returned with Honor Talents - not new content. WoD had Ashran, Legion has no new pvp content and probably is the least developed aspect of the game.

That logic can really be used anywhere, in no way is any of the features even remotely garrison related unless you talk of the mission table. Otherwise herb gathering from vanilla? Garrison. Group quests? Garrison. World PvP? Garrison.

[Kolvarg]

In the original context, legion and vanilla are the same game, WoW. WoW is a different game than Diablo, Starcraft, etc... However, each expansion, still being WoW, is very different from each other. Vanilla of 2004 is different in the latter context from vanilla 2006.

So, in essence, they're actually just all different from each other, and as different as they are, despite having more similarities, they still play very differently.

Just because it's technically the "same game" (which in reality is almost only the same franchise) doesn't mean its development will have any more impact on live WoW development than Diablo or Starcraft have.

First off, you don't speak for most people. I have a long list of logical errors a lot of members within the Nost-community commits, and this is near the top.

No, I don't. That's why I excplicity said "what most people seem to want", which means "the perception I have of what most people want, from what I've seen".

This isn't surprising at all. Your community is based around that type of server after all.

So, you go on about how I'm assuming what other people think, only to basicly say what I said is obviously right? And then assume it's "my" community, just because I am pro-legacy servers? But I digress...

Secondly, it is stagnant. It isn't going to receive updates, at least in a Nost-clone. If i wanted to raid hardcore (despite these type of servers usually failing at replicating the raids) as enhancement shaman, i could kiss that dream away. It isn't going to happen. Same goes to half of the other specs. New content won't be released. Naxxramas is not new content (unless of course, you do what they did with Karazhan). At least your community seems to be fine with the custom changes of bug fixes (and yes, it is custom if it wasn't fixed on actual vanilla WoW).

Third, i admit is not a business plan, but the central idea behind one. And almost all business plans with that as a central idea are awful.

Imagine I spend a few years building a game, patches and expansions, to have everything ready before launch. I then launch and never put any more development effort into the game. Yet each month I release a new patch, and each year a new expansion, from those that I had already developed. Would that be a stagnant game?

Just because it's old content, doesn't mean everyone who would play already has played it.

It also doesn't mean it's stagnant, because that's not what the player perception would be.
A river flows in a predictable way, but you don't call it stagnant water because it's predictable, or because you have already seen how it flows in the past. Same here: If the patches and the content is being released gradually, it is flowing, not stagnant, despite it being known how it will flow.

It would be a stagnant only if they released a server on the last patch with all content available "as is", and never did anything to it anymore. "Simulating" the content patches to emulate the original experience of playing back then, however, is a very different and longer-lasting experience.

Obviously, eventually it comes to an end. Even using ways to prolong it (for instance, release TBC servers some time after Vanilla servers reach their final "state"), eventually it stops. The thing is: that's the same with all content. As it is, they spend months developing a patch that many people will be done with in a few weeks. They spend years developing expansions that many will explore the majority of in one or two months.

The only difference here is it's old content. And that what very likely is a lot less work than a new expansion could give a lot of players a lot more gameplay time than one expansion (Vanilla -> WotLK progression could easily entertain a lot of people for 4 to 6 years).

The real shame here is that out of over 15 years of development, only the most recent 2 or less are playable in a truly satisfying and as intended way. Many parts are not even playable or experienceable in any way anymore.

I ask you to think progressively, not regressively. If you liked a mechanic, an encounter, etc... from long ago, think about in the context of progression, not regression.

What do you mean by that?

[Relapses]

That's my point though, it doesn't have more content, it has the same content as WoD, it's just turned into a korean grind.

Having played both WoD and Legion extensively, Legion feels far more like TBC grinding than any expansion prior. And even if its "meaningless" content, it's a lot to take on at once and doesn't ever feel completely unnecessary. This is of course my personal opinion; but I really don't feel like Legion is a WoD clone notched up to 11, as you seem to implicate.

[voidillusion]

Yes Legion is very fun indeed! Unsubbed, my little heart couldn't handle all that fun!

Thankfully there are alternatives to play a good version of WoW even with this Blizz/Nost announcement nonsense.

[Deleted]

What is legion missing that "good" versions have?

Rose-tinted nostalgia (and lack of monthly fees)

[voidillusion]

What is legion missing that "good" versions have?

It's hard to explain, probably even harder to understand, but some ppl like me are somewhat masochist you know, they like the inconviniences and hassles of the original game. Stupid i know, but that's how it is.

[voidillusion]

It's hard to explain because even you don't know what you want.

Oh thank you, i was feeling rather lost indeed. Please guide me then.

[slaise1]

I think its quite safe to assume they wont say anything productive about Legacy realms the upcoming 2 years. If they wanted to assure the community that some progressive news are on the way they would have given an ETA such as the next 4 months, hell even the "Soon" statement would have been better. I'm not sure what Blizzards definition of "After Blizzcon" is.

It feels once again as a PR move to not create disturbance within the community leading up to Blizzcon. By providing this kind of statement they hope not be getting any Legacy questions which would give it publicity.

My definition of "after Blizzcon" is at least before Christmas but it doesn't matter what I think.

[voidillusion]

http://spillwords.com/a-users-guide-...onal-thinking/

I guess that is a good place to start!

Good it has pictures!

[Relapses]

Oh thank you, i was feeling rather lost indeed. Please guide me then.

The "you" in this case isn't specifically yours. You may know what you want from Legacy but you can ask 10 different players what they want out of Legacy and you're likely to get 10 different answers. "Well, we just want Legacy," is the catch-all response but there's a lot of back and forth over whether it should be progressive, whether Blizzard should have different versions of all retro content available, how Blizzard would handle bugfixes, exploits and the inevitable and unavoidable content droughts, etc. There's so many open-ended questions that it begins to boggle the mind when you try to sit down and comprehend the whole thing. The fact that the people campaigning for the return of retro WoW cannot even seem to universally agree on what they want (further than "we just want it!") is just one of the many hurdles Blizzard has to tackle when approaching the subject.

It's no surprise, then, that Blizzard has been extremely wary of saying anything about Legacy since any positive statement on the matter will be latched onto as either a wholesale promise of something they may never reasonably achieve; or, conversely, any negative statement interpreted as the company intentionally ignoring a vocal minority of its fanbase. (The latter leads to ineffective, PR-stunt bullshit like Nost calling for a boycott of Blizzard games.)

[Deleted]

Despite the childish threats of the Nostalrius team, Blizzard sticks to their guns. Good.

[Vorkreist]

And we should believe people who have zero respect for others' propriety just for their words?

Or instead of talking stupid shit out of your ass do some research.
Even the limited donations up to 500$ for server hosting ran just in the first 1-2 months, after that they closed all donations.

P.S. If you spend time and effort to debate against something that doesn't really concern you like legacy servers then you are a shithead.

[Azgraal]

Or instead of talking stupid shit out of your ass do some research.
Even the limited donations up to 500$ for server hosting ran just in the first 1-2 months, after that they closed all donations.

P.S. If you spend time and effort to debate against something that doesn't really concern you like legacy servers then you are a shithead.

Enjoy your retail WoW. That's the only legitimate WoW you'll ever get.

[Uurdz]

Despite the threats of the Nostalrius team, Blizzard sticks to their guns. Good.

Fixed this for you.

[Kolvarg]

Ok, i'll bite. Who is most people to you? Most people in the world? Who play WoW, now? Who have ever played WoW? Who play on any WoW private server? Who play on vanilla private servers?

Most people that want legacy servers and expressed their opinion about it in posts/comments I've been reading in this and other places for quite some time. - Again, it is my perception, just that, never did I claim it matches reality. If you have a different perception, feel free to share it.

Well, let us refer to the good old dictionary. Stagnant - characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement. To answer your question, clearly no.

Actually, to use your analogy, a 1.12.1 server with everything already on it and no chance of an update is also not stagnant. It does run, doesn't it?

But, i don't think that's what we are getting at. Indeed, a server that starts at 1.1 and gradually ends at 1.12 is not stagnant in both senses of the word. But, now we have two very different arguments. Nost was not this type of server.

No, because the analogy is between water "running" matching content being progressively unlocked - a server "running" would be equivalent to the water simply existing, no matter if running or stagnant.

Lack of advancement or progressive movement. Again, while a Nostalrius-clone would have no active development, from the player pesrpective it would have advancement and progressive movement. Even starting fixed at patch 1.12, if the actual patch content is released over time (as to mimic actual patch releases as they were back then, even if not on a 1-1 time scale), to the players there will be new content to play through after a while.

Not actual "new" content, but old content that wasn't unlocked on that realm previously - for instance, Black Wing Lair unlocks only 2 months after someone clears Molten Core & Onyxia Lair on that realm. So while Black Wing Lair is not "new" content, the players (which were "stuck" with Molten Core for a few months) now have something else to progress and play on.

There's no development, but there's a sense of progression and advancement for the player, even while technically always in the same patch.

Of course. I don't know where you are going with this, though.

Well, for such people it's basicly new content, and it's defenitely not "regressive thinking" to want to play it.

The discussion is for vanilla content. If you are discussing a server that progresses from vanilla to wotlk, then you have a whole new argument to defend. (Why not cataclysm?)

It's an arbitrary example. Cataclysm could defenitely come into play, and it only helps the argument (add more 1~2 years worth of "old" content). The thing is 1) Vanilla -> WotLK share the same "old world" content - which is still somewhat relevant in WotLK, at the very least leveling-wise - so after Vanilla is done, TBC and WotLK are fairly easier to do. 2) Most of cata content is still playable even if not anywhere near the original experience. Much of Vanilla content especially isn't, so Cata onwards isn't as relevant of a request when it comes to culture preservation. 3) The closer we get to the current game, the closer the target audience is to live wow, and therefore becomes more conflicting and risky for Blizzard to host both, so I'd rather stick with "safe" examples.

The point is not that Vanilla->WotLK is what is being discussed or the only way for things to work. The point is even Vanilla legacy servers would give a lot of gameplay time worth for a lot of people, as much or more than a new expansion, for a fraction of the development cost/effort. And that can even be amplified and the effort optimized by the possibility of later extending that gameplay time by unlocking further expansions.

No flying was implemented in a large part of WoD. That is a feature of vanilla you might enjoy. That is progressive thinking on Blizzard's part. You might have hated WoD for a lot of other features, however. So, what other features or mechanics do you want to see implemented? Wishing it was 2005 again is regressive thinking.

The thing is, while there's a lot of people who want legacy servers, there's a lot who don't, and would rather play live WoW. Legacy vs current are fairly different games, with pretty distinct gameplay styles and focus, and especially distinct audiences. You can clearly see how conflicting things are in the example you gave: They implementend a vanilla-like feature in the current game, and a lot of people liked or was indifferent to it, but another lot of people really extremely disliked it.

The people who like current WoW shouldn't be forced to play a more legacy-like version of it because there is demand for legacy WoW. The difference is big enough that it can feed both different versions of the game, different versions which do different things well, and are both good games in different ways, that please different types of players. Trying to push and mesh both into one only results in both "sides" or types of player having an average experience, or a good experience only ocasionally (considering Blizzard is very prone to pendulum swing from one extreme to the other), and both ending dissatisfied and (still) wanting "their" version of the game.

Many of these changes were not just a flip of a button. It wasn't something that changed entirely from one expansion to the next. It's a gameplay and design direction change that has been slowly changing the game. Small changes each expansion and patch, that now ammount to a huge difference between legacy and current. These changes alienated the "legacy crowd", and stopped cattering to them, but it started cattering to a new audience. It's not as easy as just "going back" on those issues, because doing that will alienate this new audience. It solves one problem only to create another as big or worse.

Legacy servers (or, potentially, Pristine Realms, depending on how they go about it) are not a perfect solution, they won't make everything good and dandy and everyone happy. But they're a far better solution at properly providing what that crowd wants without affecting significantly the current game development and therefore the current main target audience. Call it regressive thinking if you want, but it is what it is, and imho it's a much better solution than trying to bring back such things to the current game.