I agree. No changes. Enjoy those borderline cheating addons.
I agree. No changes. Enjoy those borderline cheating addons.
What is to learn is that the only reason blizzard decided to make this is because of people who have been fighting for it since the shit hit the fan with legacy servers. Not a single mention of QoL changes were made until people realized classic servers could be popular but they are not able to handle what vanilla really was so they want it to change to cater to them and completely ignore the real people this should be made for. If it's not made for them, what they should do is stfu and move on instead of trying to take it away from the ones who should get it.
There's not one thing I said in this entire thread that referred to learning something in-game. What was your thought process to reach this conclusion?
you're not entitled to anything, sir. if blizzard does make QoL changes its because they kept the much more relevant "retailers" in mind over you, sooo don't be too disappointed.
oh, and your "point" is even less meaningful then I thought, that's my bad guys. gave credit where it's not at all due!
No, they're not identical examples. The first example deals with one person going against the already established nomenclature rule of plants. The second example is not going against any already established rule. QoL on classic WoW is identical, though, to pineapple on pizza. Some want it, some don't want it.
Ah the dictionary definition, the tool of the douche bag
7 seconds after they announced it by my count.
Would you like to try again? I honestly don't give a shit what your point was to be fair. You are arguing semantics and you look foolish doing so. Point being is you people wanted original WoW that's what you should get exactly what was there then no QOL changes. I've listened to you people bitch and whine about how everything was great back then and now you are getting it. Now the people who realized it wasn't that great have started with "oh but you should add dual spec and you should add this or that."
I was reading your post with moderate interest until you pulled that architect thing out of your ass. And completely destroyed your entire example, made it pointless.
You really need to take the B&W glasses off and accept that world has colors and at least 50 shades of grey (giggle).
I give you really simple example:
We have two PEOPLE - PEOPLES1 and PEOPLES2. PEOPLES1 say "I like blue color the most, this is the most beautiful color in the world". PEOPLES2 say "I like red color the most, this is the most beautiful color in the world".
What will you say, who is right and who is wrong, can it be so both are right or wrong?
Or simply each one have his own opinion and for himself each of them is right. However, for a bystander none of them is right or wrong.
Back to the topic - both purist and retailers are right for themselves in the things they wish for Classic, however the bystander (Blizzard) is not in the slightest interested in who is right and who is wrong in whoever's eyes. They are interested to present a product that will yield the most revenue for them, so one of the groups will be disappointed. There is also the risk that Blizzard try to appease both groups, deliver some sort of "in-between" product that will enrage everyone in the end. They have a track record of this kind of decisions.
- - - Updated - - -
Actually none of the definitions of Classic suggests that changes to the original takes away from the Classic status of a thing.
As a matter of fact, almost none of the classic literature, drama or music from the mid centuries or the Renaissance, that we know today, have made it in their original form. Most of them, to different extent, have undergone some sort of editing, appropriation and/or modernization so that present day audience can understand them. That said, i highly doubt that you will be able to understand much from original Hamlet if being handed a copy from the 18th century.
My point is - Classic does not equal Original, so if we talk semantics, the name itself does not guarantee we get the same WoW from 2004.
Since they'll likely use the current server/client for the base, and thus the current API, it's unlikely those addons (e.g., one-button mindless decursive) will be able to exist.
Unless they re enable some deprecated API elements specifically for Classic, but I don't think they'll need to - none of that content required the cheese addons, it just made it brainless.
And will remain that way until people stop asking to change Vanilla, you guys are doing this since the announcement.
People are way too clueless about the subject to have mature discussions. I facepalm at pretty much every threads I read...some posts are just completely ignorant to a point where it's frustrating to read.
Last edited by Warrax; 2017-11-30 at 09:34 PM.
Warrax, Fury Warrior
Silika, BM Hunter
No, and those two set of examples are different.
Apple is a fruit - but depending on definition it is or isn't a vegetable - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable When discussing with normal people you can make them understand that it is a matter of definition.
Now assume that you are right and those two examples are IDENTICAL. That suggests that you are saying it is the same for classic with and without changes - so we should have both classic with changes and classic without changes, right?
Those are totally not the same thing. The first sample is something factual - it has to do with a definition of fruit, vegetable, and apple. The second is an opinion - something that represents a person's feelings on a topic. You are right about one thing though, your inability to differentiate definitely "sounds crazy stupid" to use your words. And by the way, most geniuses were not considered crazy. Plenty of examples if you need them, but honestly, if you can't figure out that "apples are a vegetable" is not an opinion, I don't see much point.
I love that you're arguing over literally nothing. I think you need to take a step back and think before you post. I was taking the piss, figured that was obvious, I also never said I wanted any changes so no clue where you got that from. It seems you may just like arguing with "you people" for the sake of it!
These statements can all be called opinions. There are information behind some of these opinions that actually makes them facts as well, which in turn means an opinion can be right so the opposing opinion is inevitably wrong.
"But we all know an apple is a fruit that's not really an opinion." If you take 2 kids young enough to not know that information and ask them if it's a fruit or a vegetable and you get both answers, it's just their opinion, it's what they think. But one of them will be right, one will be wrong even if it's just opinions. It's possible to have enough information about an opinion to realize if it can be a fact and this can completely disregard the majority's preferences.