"MUH Vanilla"

[munkeyinorbit]

Make the game easier for the try-hards but fuck casuals right? Because it is still 2004.

[GRAMMARAXIS]

This is a great idea and it would be hilarious because the purist would never be satisfied that the other players are enjoying the game too much from this QoL changes and it upsets them that they are allowed to do so.

- - - Updated - - -



Your argument is that wow classic is a collecters edition? You do know other people played besides just you and some of us had things we hated back then too, i don't see how those claims are illegitimate just because blizzard decided not to put them in till later.

To be clear, I hated a lot about Vanilla. In fact, I hate most all of it. Only really enjoyed raiding with friends (but not really raiding in itself due to constant glitches and gear checks and poaching and such -- had to continue since I was a Warrior that got tiers first and a buffadin at one point) and the PvP system whereby you grinded for months on months, 12 hours a day, just to get a medium entry level officer title and maintain it (depending on competition). I don't have time for that anymore. I would like them to add a LFG system to avoid having to search for specific classes and ask if they want to heal or tank and them hear them saying "I'd rather DPS" but saying "We only need heals" or see that when I'm a hybrid class. To avoid using dungeon stones to summon people because the flight master is so annoying that you have to pick point after point AFTER POINT. The attunement quests that we had to do weekly for new members, only to get some poached. The auto-attacks and buffadins having nothing to do but buff (actually, I kind of miss that). Having to create raids and needing to actually be social in AV since you don't start in a group / raid and could just stealth and go fishing or fight harpies without anyone knowing -- effectively afking since you aren't helping your team and nobody knows since you're not forced into groups. Rogues one-shotting all cloth wearers -- fun for the rogue, but not anyone else -- in battlegrounds and out in the world. White damage phases, sunder stacks, no AoE Aggro tools, etc. Of cookie cutter talent builds, spreading talents across the specs. just to unlock the next tier and get that Blessing of Kings for your group or that Holy Shield or whatever.

-I- personally don't want to do most of that. But that's what Vanilla was. And it had little addon support. No 2018 knowledge that would essentially create an entirely new game if recreated using that knowledge. It wouldn't be vanilla. And Vanilla is what people wanted. What I supported them to have beyond saying it might not be possible for the same reasons they haven't done Warcraft IV (which I also want). Vanilla was the combination of all of that, and people working together and being social to complete it all. If we start adding one QoL option, then we might as well another. And another. And another. Keep on adding those toppings and change the ice cream as a whole. May as well add Death Knights and give Horde Paladins and Alliance Shaman. Blood Elves and Draenei? Sure. Just so long as we don't go past level 60.

I'd be for the above if the goal was to bring 2018 gameplay in a 2004 version of the game. And it was called something other than "classic" and not introduced as an idea in the first place because of the hard work and constant nagging of people that wanted a Vanilla version of the game somewhat like Nost, but of Blizzard Quality and as authentic as Blizzard could make it.

It's as you said, it isn't just what I want.

[Deleted]

That's available right now. We can lock our characters at level 60 in game with all current QoL features.

It's natural the 2018 Vanilla tastes better than something that's been in the freeze for 15 years. There's a reason why things get stale or are no longer taste good. 2004 was a different time and it had a very different game.

The same could be said with Wine for those that look at Vanilla with nostalgia. Would you prefer a 2004 vintage or one that was just bottled in front of you? That you're used to?

Locking our characters at 60 isn't "Vanilla 2018". That's legion level 60. There's a huge different. A lot of QoL isn't in the spirit of Vanilla, which means that it would be chocolate or some other taste.

A game doesn't necessarily age as wine. Graphics, animations and bugs would be a few examples. Sure it's nice and all at a museum, or a fun thing to enjoy once and a while, but Blizzards intention isn't to make a museum server. It's to give us the vanilla experience with Blizzard quality.

And as mentioned before, the graphics can be spoiled by lowering them. No worries there.

[munkeyinorbit]

Ok, Im going to say something now that Might blow your mind, so be careful.

are you ready for it? ok, here it come:

You can have both(!)

(I know right!?)

You CAN balance the classes, fix the inventory, fix bugs, update the graphics, and still have it feel like vanilla! :O

You will still spam in /2 for 2 hours before finding a group so that you can finally spend 5 hours doing half of Brd.
You can still raid with 40 people. just that when an 18 slot bag drops, it wont automatically go to the warlock.

No you can't balance the classes. If you were a dps class, you were a pure. If you were a tank you were a prot warrior. All other specs were healers. Thats the way it is and the way it should stay. Anything else is just a recoloured/remodeled retail version of WoW. People like you are not going to ruin what will be an awesome vanilla experience.

[Paulosio]

"QoL changes won't make Vanilla not Vanilla"

"Vanilla was about the difficulty, grind and pain"

Fucking pick one.

He doesn't need to because the 2 phrases don't contradict each other. Making a quality of life change like for example making connected flight paths does not take anything away from point 2.

[Deleted]

No you can't balance the classes. If you were a dps class, you were a pure. If you were a tank you were a prot warrior. All other specs were healers. Thats the way it is and the way it should stay. Anything else is just a recoloured/remodeled retail version of WoW. People like you are not going to ruin what will be an awesome vanilla experience.

That's so false. You can absolutely have Vanilla without making some classes and specs obsolete. Sure, not every spec should be able to raid, but they should thrive at SOMETHING.

You can't have a permanent state where some classes and specs will always be worthless at everything. That just makes a bad game.

Vanilla wasn't a static game, it constantly evolved. You could say "these imbalances will be dealt with in an upcoming patch", which you can't say now.

And people should also note that balancing doesn't necessary mean make bookin as good as mage. It could just mean that make boomkin viable at something. That's keeping true to the spirit of Vanilla while improving the game.

[GRAMMARAXIS]

Locking our characters at 60 isn't "Vanilla 2018". That's legion level 60. There's a huge different. A lot of QoL isn't in the spirit of Vanilla, which means that it would be chocolate or some other taste.

A game doesn't necessarily age as wine. Graphics, animations and bugs would be a few examples. Sure it's nice and all at a museum, or a fun thing to enjoy once and a while, but Blizzards intention isn't to make a museum server. It's to give us the vanilla experience with Blizzard quality.

And as mentioned before, the graphics can be spoiled by lowering them. No worries there.

I'd be all over the game if they made a "Chocolate" or "Mint Chocolate" version of it. Not even going to touch a Vanilla server without QoL enhancements. Though the goal as I understand it -- and what people have been working for for years -- was that they wanted Vanilla. I'm not going to usurp that and say, "Nah... let's just have chocolate with whipped cream and sprinkles." Without doing the work or the nagging or the hope for all these years. I always thought Vanilla servers were a horrible idea since I remember all of the things that were a pain to do -- that I don't have time to do anymore. I have other games including retail WoW that I can play over feeling nostalgic and wasting six months of a PvP grind or Raids and gearing others and getting attunements for them and such. But people wanted it, and friends wanted it, so I support it quietly.

If the goal is to release a 2018 version of 2004 -- and that turns out to be something people strived for ever since the Nost debacle -- then more power to it. I'd probably play that. It'd be a good business decision rather than chasing people who never played Vanilla and don't know what they're getting into away.

What I want and what I think is practical and right are two different things. I'm often at odds with my own self interests in these things when I look at it from what I view as the most pragmatic and fair way to do so.

[melodramocracy]

Whats absurd is making this its own thread rather than a reply to one of the many similar threads.

[RobertoCarlos]

I'd be all over the game if they made a "Chocolate" or "Mint Chocolate" version of it. Not even going to touch a Vanilla server without QoL enhancements. Though the goal as I understand it -- and what people have been working for for years -- was that they wanted Vanilla. I'm not going to usurp that and say, "Nah... let's just have chocolate with whipped cream and sprinkles." Without doing the work or the nagging or the hope for all these years. I always thought Vanilla servers were a horrible idea since I remember all of the things that were a pain to do -- that I don't have time to do anymore. I have other games including retail WoW that I can play over feeling nostalgic and wasting six months of a PvP grind or Raids and gearing others and getting attunements for them and such.

If the goal is to release a 2018 version of 2004 -- and that's something people strived for ever since the Nost debacle -- then more power to it. I'd probably play that. It'd be a good business decision rather than chasing people who never played Vanilla and don't know what they're getting into away.

What I want and what I think is practical and right are two different things. I'm often at odds with my own self interests in these things when I look at it from what I view as the most pragmatic and fair way to do so.

Why not just play live if you enjoy the quality of life improvements?

[Charge me Doctor]

Honestly I can't remember. There was definitely a lookingforgroup channel at a point that you had to go to cities to join or type /join 4, but it wasn't very intuitive.

There should be a button that lets you join/leave the channel. I'd rather have an in-game feature than have everyone download an addon TBH.

Also after having read another post, faster respawns could also be a good QoL. Maybe not for mobs that are farmed for mats, but at least quest mobs where 20 people are waiting in line to get a kill for a quest item... Could even use the tag system from live for named quest monsters only.... I remember waiting so long to get the tag on that quillboar in the barrens ugh.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but you can create a custom channel and spam "join /whateverthefuck to get ez groups for dungeons!" to get more people into it

- - - Updated - - -

There should be a button that lets you join/leave the channel. I'd rather have an in-game feature than have everyone download an addon TBH.

And that's how things like LFG, modern questlog, modern map, modern boss notifications, etc were created - community wanted that and blizzard made it baseline instead of making people download addons

[SinR]

Classic isn't going to be Classic if its not running a MINIMALLY modified 1.12.1 Client.

Only modifications should be backend stuff like security updates, BNet integration, and x64 client support.

QOL changes do not belong on 1.12.1 Client.

[sef24]

Vanilla was so much fun! I loved not being able to play a fire mage in half of the raids. Who doesn't love "immune" attacks? If they make fire viable then wow sucks!

[GRAMMARAXIS]

Why not just play live if you enjoy the quality of life improvements?

Not sure if you read the whole post or my others. Though that's essentially been my point. I'm not going to usurp an idea that people have striven for just to make Vanilla Playable for me with the QoL enhancements that I want.

[Dreyen]

And that's how things like LFG, modern questlog, modern map, modern boss notifications, etc were created - community wanted that and blizzard made it baseline instead of making people download addons

Except... You can stop there? A worldwide LFG channel would keep the spirit of advertising in channels except without the pain of standing around in org for 1-2hours when we're all 30 years old with jobs and kids. Dungeon finder and the current LFG from legion does not match vanilla's spirit with how impersonal they feel and the general teleporting to the dungeon..

[Deleted]

I'd be all over the game if they made a "Chocolate" or "Mint Chocolate" version of it. Not even going to touch a Vanilla server without QoL enhancements. Though the goal as I understand it -- and what people have been working for for years -- was that they wanted Vanilla. I'm not going to usurp that and say, "Nah... let's just have chocolate with whipped cream and sprinkles." Without doing the work or the nagging or the hope for all these years. I always thought Vanilla servers were a horrible idea since I remember all of the things that were a pain to do -- that I don't have time to do anymore. I have other games including retail WoW that I can play over feeling nostalgic and wasting six months of a PvP grind or Raids and gearing others and getting attunements for them and such. But people wanted it, and friends wanted it, so I support it quietly.

If the goal is to release a 2018 version of 2004 -- and that turns out to be something people strived for ever since the Nost debacle -- then more power to it. I'd probably play that. It'd be a good business decision rather than chasing people who never played Vanilla and don't know what they're getting into away.

What I want and what I think is practical and right are two different things. I'm often at odds with my own self interests in these things when I look at it from what I view as the most pragmatic and fair way to do so.

You can make changes for the better, that will stay true to the spirit of Vanilla. Very few people actually says that wow:classic should be like retail.

You can't create a 2004 MMORPG, year 2018. This must be a new adaptions that stays true to the core principles, only making improvements that makes sense. Change does't equal retail version. It equals a better, Blizzard-quality game, that gives you a fun experience 2018.

[GRAMMARAXIS]

You can make changes for the better, that will stay true to the spirit of Vanilla. Very few people actually says that wow:classic should be like retail.

You can't create a 2004 MMORPG, year 2018. This must be a new adaptions that stays true to the core principles, only making improvements that makes sense. Change does't equal retail version. It equals a better, Blizzard-quality game, that gives you a fun experience 2018.

Like I said, I'd be all over a World of Warcraft remake. Which is essentially what these proposed changes will make it, and not a Vanilla server. Let's not fool ourselves in saying otherwise and say that we won't be screwing over people that did fight for the vanilla experience (as unlikely as it would be due to needing to rewrite some code that they said they lost). Though it will also harm the community as working to overcome a lot of the rough nature of the game back then is what formed a tight society. In addition to no server transfers and the like, as I remember it. Really making a reputation for helping or ninja looting and such.

[Deleted]

Like I said, I'd be all over a World of Warcraft remake. Which is essentially what these proposed changes will make it, and not a Vanilla server. Let's not fool ourselves in saying otherwise and say that we won't be screwing over people that did fight for the vanilla experience (as unlikely as it would be due to needing to rewrite some code that they said they lost). Though it will also harm the community as working to overcome a lot of the rough nature of the game back then is what formed a tight society. In addition to no server transfers and the like, as I remember it. Really making a reputation for helping or ninja looting and such.

Excuse me, who are you to speak for those who fought to get Vanilla servers to WoW? Everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a Vanilla server.

There is a difference in making changes in the spirit of Vanilla, and making changes that goes against it. You have made no argument what so ever to refute this fact.

What Blizzard has promised us is a Blizzard quality "wow:classic" server. That doesn't equal a private server vanilla adaption, or some purist imagination of how it was. It means making a vanilla server with the quality of Blizzard 2018. That means better graphics, animations and bug free. There is no argument to that.

[GRAMMARAXIS]

Excuse me, who are you to speak for those who fought to get Vanilla servers to WoW? Everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a Vanilla server.

There is a difference in making changes in the spirit of Vanilla, and making changes that goes against it. You have made no argument what so ever to refute this fact.

What Blizzard has promised us is a Blizzard quality "wow:classic" server. That doesn't equal a private server vanilla adaption, or some purist imagination of how it was. It means making a vanilla server with the quality of Blizzard 2018. That means better graphics, animations and bug free. There is no argument to that.

I very clearly said in this thread that if people who fought for this -- me not being one of them -- and those on Nost didn't want a Vanilla or Nost experience and instead wanted a remake, then more power to them. I'd join them with that and play. Won't play without quality of life changes. Though do not mistake a pragmatic or devil's advocate stance as anything other than such when beset by those who will say anything and do anything to usurp the perceived spirit of those that fought for Vanilla servers -- those that used Nost as a baseline. We cannot change history. What people used as a basis or what once was with classic WoW.

Likewise: Who are you to say anything? If an argument reaches this point where opinions reach a point of "you don't speak for me", then we're at an indefinite stalemate and neither side has anything to offer to refute the other. This is especially true if one side is clearly thinking of the big picture and not a self serving interest -- or at least visible attempts are done at such.

And I'm sorry if historical precedence and the quote "We want to produce the authentic classic experience... authentic game experience." Followed by, "taking feedback to see how we can do this" allowed for differing interpretations. Or if I value what other people think, even though I'd prefer a remake of the game and not a classic experience. Or how the term "Vanilla" and "Classic" have been interchanged over the years.

Though when I say "Let's not fool ourselves and say that we won't be screwing over people that did fight for the vanilla experience", then how is that me speaking for everyone? Just as you said, you can't refute that people who played on Nost and used Nost as a reference and said that "We want Vanilla", want Vanilla. Now that they have it (an announcement which likely was only possible due to that outcry), some in their came may think otherwise. It may be that they meant "Vanilla with all the toppings". Just shortening it just to get a bite. Then once you've got an inch, take a mile. There are many patches of Vanilla. But there are people. Your own words acknowledge this, yet you bring up this horrendous argument that I'm speaking for others when you're doing the same thing by extent if we want to throw basic logic and thought processes out the window.

You also contradict yourself by saying "There is a difference in making changes in the spirit of Vanilla, and making changes that goes against it." Stating further than I have made no argument against this. Who are you to say that? I thought everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a vanilla server. Suddenly these "Purists" and myself don't have a valid viewpoint? And I thought you were using classic as a word meaning other than serving as the standard or base. Or representing the highest point of a specific era, unaltered.

You see how poor arguments that go both ways serve no purpose?

We only have loose facts. And as there are many posters and many people, the most vocal are heard and noted. Especially if there is communication with Blizzard involved and notarized.

-Nost was a Vanilla server
-People made "We want Vanilla" posts over and over again.
-Blizzard asks what era of Vanilla and that recoding would take a lot of work
-People used Nost as a Base.
-Months and Months of "We want Vanilla chants"
-We get an announcement
-Suddenly people who have never talked about it before are saying "We Want Vanilla With X and With X and With X!" -- Some may be those that also just say "Vanilla".
-This has evolved into a "Vanilla" versus "Chocolate Chip With Sprinkles and Whipped Cream" debate. We can't turn a blind eye to this with poppycock and rhetoric.

So yes, I feel as though my assertions -- especially since they go against my own self interests -- are of a finer quality than someone just saying they want what they want. In fact, I feel quite justified with believing that this is a future project that only exists because of the above. Interpretation of Vanilla differs, but, again we're fooling ourselves if we call what some are advocating as anything but a remake of the 2004 and not the full experience. Which is, of course, the more likely thing since so much work has to be done on it to recreate some things. As well as our friend and community not just magically coming back. Or many of the tough things that existed potentially not being there to form a new one.

But I digress. Let's all just scream personal wants and hope someone hears us. Let's claim others don't matter and go on with what we want and then claim they're doing something that everyone is doing due to the nature of writing, debate and opinions. Even if the word "everyone" was never used and there was only mention that some people would be screwed. Which is then both validated by an opponent's own words despite contradicting themselves when saying people have differing opinions, yet somehow the articulation comes off as that meaning that some people won't get screwed. Or that there isn't precedence to show this.

[Deleted]

I very clearly said in this thread that if people who fought for this -- me not being one of them -- and those on Nost didn't want a Vanilla or Nost experience and instead wanted a remake, then more power to them. I'd join them with that and play. Won't play without quality of life changes. Though do not mistake a pragmatic or devil's advocate stance as anything other than such when beset by those who will say anything and do anything to usurp the perceived spirit of those that fought for Vanilla servers -- those that used Nost as a baseline. We cannot change history. What people used as a basis or what once was with classic WoW.

Likewise: Who are you to say anything? If an argument reaches this point where opinions reach a point of "you don't speak for me", then we're at an indefinite stalemate and neither side has anything to offer to refute the other. This is especially true if one side is clearly thinking of the big picture and not a self serving interest -- or at least visible attempts are done at such.

And I'm sorry if historical precedence and the quote "We want to produce the authentic classic experience... authentic game experience." Followed by, "taking feedback to see how we can do this" allowed for differing interpretations. Or if I value what other people think, even though I'd prefer a remake of the game and not a classic experience. Or how the term "Vanilla" and "Classic" have been interchanged over the years.

Though when I say "Let's not fool ourselves and say that we won't be screwing over people that did fight for the vanilla experience", then how is that me speaking for everyone? Just as you said, you can't refute that people who played on Nost and used Nost as a reference and said that "We want Vanilla", want Vanilla. Now that they have it (an announcement which likely was only possible due to that outcry), some in their came may think otherwise. It may be that they meant "Vanilla with all the toppings". Just shortening it just to get a bite. Then once you've got an inch, take a mile. There are many patches of Vanilla. But there are people. Your own words acknowledge this, yet you bring up this horrendous argument that I'm speaking for others when you're doing the same thing by extent if we want to throw basic logic and thought processes out the window.

You also contradict yourself by saying "There is a difference in making changes in the spirit of Vanilla, and making changes that goes against it." Stating further than I have made no argument against this. Who are you to say that? I thought everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a vanilla server. Suddenly these "Purists" and myself don't have a valid viewpoint? And I thought you were using classic as a word meaning other than serving as the standard or base. Or representing the highest point of a specific era, unaltered.

You see how poor arguments that go both ways serve no purpose?

We only have loose facts. And as there are many posters and many people, the most vocal are heard and noted. Especially if there is communication with Blizzard involved and notarized.

-Nost was a Vanilla server
-People made "We want Vanilla" posts over and over again.
-Blizzard asks what era of Vanilla and that recoding would take a lot of work
-People used Nost as a Base.
-Months and Months of "We want Vanilla chants"
-We get an announcement
-Suddenly people who have never talked about it before are saying "We Want Vanilla With X and With X and With X!" -- Some may be those that also just say "Vanilla".
-This has evolved into a "Vanilla" versus "Chocolate Chip With Sprinkles and Whipped Cream" debate. We can't turn a blind eye to this with poppycock and rhetoric.

So yes, I feel as though my assertions -- especially since they go against my own self interests -- are of a finer quality than someone just saying they want what they want. In fact, I feel quite justified with believing that this is a future project that only exists because of the above. Interpretation of Vanilla differs, but, again we're fooling ourselves if we call what some are advocating as anything but a remake of the 2004 and not the full experience. Which is, of course, the more likely thing since so much work has to be done on it to recreate some things. As well as our friend and community not just magically coming back. Or many of the tough things that existed potentially not being there to form a new one.

But I digress. Let's all just scream personal wants and hope someone hears us. Let's claim others don't matter and go on with what we want and then claim they're doing something that everyone is doing due to the nature of writing, debate and opinions. Even if the word "everyone" was never used and there was only mention that some people would be screwed. Which is then both validated by an opponent's own words despite contradicting themselves when saying people have differing opinions, yet somehow the articulation comes off as that meaning that some people won't get screwed. Or that there isn't precedence to show this.

In other words, you just guessed that all players on nost wanted a purist version and nothing else? It can't be that some players would indeed prefer, if the option is on the table, to make an adaption where sensible improvements that stay true to Vanilla are made? Personally, I don't claim to represent a group. I'm simply using arguments for my case, and the best way to meet them is to refute them, not argue about the debate. Neither you or I can claim that sensible changes is disrespecting the nost community.

If you have a problem with my argument, don't just dismiss it as "hypocritical". Instead, tell me how the logic is flawed. Sadly, you don't seem to want to have a debate about the actual arguments, but instead a debate about the debate, and who is justified to think what.

As a last note, people who "cry" for changes are just the same people who cried after vanilla servers in the first place. They're also people who did not do that. You speak about the vanilla community as it was an entity with a single mind, that is not the case.

[Charge me Doctor]

Except... You can stop there? A worldwide LFG channel would keep the spirit of advertising in channels except without the pain of standing around in org for 1-2hours when we're all 30 years old with jobs and kids. Dungeon finder and the current LFG from legion does not match vanilla's spirit with how impersonal they feel and the general teleporting to the dungeon..

Sure, now you will feel the pain of standing in AB, looking for group for RFD, finally getting one, traveling to STV, to barrens, walking down the barrens, just to see someone leaving, because "sorry gtg", or "brb dinner" or the worst of them - waiting for 20 minutes for a dude to come, ask him about what it takes him so long, get no reply, wait 10 more minutes, see him DCd, kick, go to capitol, find a replacement, move your ass to the dungeon, get a "omg you asshole i was just relogging noob all my guild ignore you now gl" message or something stupid like that. Yeah, a hour well spent indeed.
The only thing that "does not match vanilla's spirit" with modern LFG is lack of disappointment and rage-inducing situations when humans act like humans usually do. Honestly, current M+ system kinda fixed LFG, you still have to browse through players, you are encouraged to not give a fuck about your teammates and maybe add them to your regular M+ team, create bonds.
But when the case if "run this easy dungeon 20 times" - quickly assembled random group is far more superior.