Just because you don't seem to understand what the word means.

[bryroo]

I agree. No changes. Enjoy those borderline cheating addons.

[Sky High]

I'm sure it can get more retarded seeing how no one wants to learn.

what the fuck are you on about? what's to "learn" in vanilla that we don't already know in every expansion since it? QoL changes don't remove mechanics from the game you know...

[Swalload]

what the fuck are you on about? what's to "learn" in vanilla that we don't already know in every expansion since it? QoL changes don't remove mechanics from the game you know...

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?

[Sky High]

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!

[Ielenia]

Here are 2 IDENTICAL exemples:

Exemple 1
Dude A: I think apples are fruits.
Dude B: I think apples are vegetables.

Exemple 2
Dude A: I think Classic shouldn't have QoL changes.
Dude B: I think Classic should have QoL changes.

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.

[Echocho]

Ah the dictionary definition, the tool of the douche bag

[vindicatorx]

You missed my point entirely, good job! That wasn't the announcement at Blizzcon FYI, that was shown AFTER the speaker said it.

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."

[Deleted]

Now let's try this with a different exemple to better understand what is really going on.
You have 2 people playing the same game, PLAYER1 one is a big time gamer, he loves it and plays a lot. He's playing this game and he says "this area looks cool, the buildings are so well made." Next to him is another guy, he plays games too but not as much, lets call him PLAYER2. So he's playing in the same area as PLAYER1 and he looks at him and says "nah this is all wrong, with the size of a normal floor there wouldn't be enough space to walk standing straight up in there."
Are both of their opinions right? No, absolutely not, like every other arguments, it's possible to find the truth. But in internet discussions like on this forum, people read and only assume the person on the other end is a braindead fucking retard spewing shit just to offend people like you were when you read my post. Now let's go back to PLAYER1 and PLAYER2, what if I tell you that one of them is actually an architect and he really knows his shit. It's easy to assume that it would be PLAYER2 as he provided more information in his comment. But maybe what he's saying is just bullshit, maybe PLAYER1 is the architect and simply made a comment about the buildings cuz he saw they were well made for real. Whichever situation is going on, one of them is right, the other one is wrong. But they can't both be wrong because one of them is an architect who knows how it's made. Maybe if none of them were architect they could both be wrong, or maybe one of their opinion is actually right without them even knowing it.

Now, is it still called an opinion if it's a fact? Can people just replace their opinions with facts? Can an opinion and a fact be the same thing for someone? Isn't that just what learning is? When you argue with someone, is it JUST opinions or could it be possible that someone is simply stating facts that you just don't know?

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 - - -

Nothing suggests changes. It actually points to the opposite of changes.

Discuss it, or don't. In the end it only means that if you want QoL changes even if it's "for the best" it implies that you don't understand.

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.

[Kolbjorn]

I agree. No changes. Enjoy those borderline cheating addons.

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.

[Warrax]

This is a toxic thread.

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.

[Forogil]

Here are 2 IDENTICAL exemples:

Exemple 1
Dude A: I think apples are fruits.
Dude B: I think apples are vegetables.

Exemple 2
Dude A: I think Classic shouldn't have QoL changes.
Dude B: I think Classic should have QoL changes.

These statements can all be called opinions.

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?

[DSRilk]

Almost as good as your passion for showing me how weak our ability to think really is.

Here are 2 IDENTICAL exemples:

Exemple 1
Dude A: I think apples are fruits.
Dude B: I think apples are vegetables.

Exemple 2
Dude A: I think Classic shouldn't have QoL changes.
Dude B: I think Classic should have QoL changes.

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.

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.

[Deleted]

There's no opinion bashing if the people who are wrong change their mind. Because that's what opinions are, someone is right, someone is wrong, the person who is wrong needs to learn.

that is not an opinion idiot.

alright here we go
you have a train going down a traintrack, it will kill five people if you do nothing.
but you can switch it to a track with one person on it and kill them.
what do you do?
now everyone has their own opinion on what is right and what is wrong choice. you cant go "NO YOU ARE WRONG I AM RIGHT AND THAT MY OPINION IS FACT


you sound like this


justr because you dont like chocolate does not mean ypour opinion is wrong

They changed that question to pushing a fat person on the tracks. Why? It makes a whole new ethical question.
A switch is nothing compared to pushing a person to he's death.

[Soisoisoi]

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 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!

[kingbaby123]

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.