Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Pann]

Blizzard says they aren't. I myself came with some pretty logical arguments as to why, though I can't claim they are 100% correct, and they are certainly not exhaustive.

Mark Kern supports them, but he is also known for spending recklessly on pointless vanity projects and generally getting his priorities all wrong in managing his own game. It's not so much that this means anything, but that his support shouldn't make you think it's a good idea.

But the main reason I brought him up was to tell people not to be hypocrites: if they're gonna bash the WoW team for making a design mistake with the Garrison, they can't praise this guy who crashed and burned his own game just because he agrees with them.

Blizzard have said and done a lot of things that they think are viable only to find out that they are not. Besides most of Blizzard's statements imply that they have not taken any more than a cursory glance at the issue.

Mark Kern's history, as poor as it is since leaving Blizzard, is not reason to discredit his points.

Mark Kern is a self appointed mail man for this petition, nothing more, I am not sure how his failures, which there are many, is relevant to the failures of the current WoW dev team. It would appear that your reason to bring him up was an attempt to discredit the idea behind legacy servers and had nothing to with pointing out supposed hypocrisy.

[Jeniwyn]

Coconut, given that WoW fans in general cannot agree on exactly what WoW should do then, by your logic, WoW itself shouldn't be profitable.

Surely you must realize that even if you cannot fulfill every individuals exact wishes you might be able to fulfill the needs and wants of the aggregate enough to be profitable.

- - - Updated - - -

What I'm saying is, maybe you should cut WoW devs a slack and have some hope in Legion, if you have no problems with him.

At this point in time Legion seems to be the first expansion that I will not buy and play. It looks far too much like WoD 2.0 for my taste.

[Coconut]

We already went through this, and you were wrong. You used your poll to say it would be a failure, good job though, all you proved, again, since you apparently didn't read it the first time, was there is a demand for something, not nothing.

Please provide a link to where I was proven wrong.

I used my poll to prove there is no unified vision of what Legacy Servers should look like among their supporters, and to prove that they won't have indefinite longevity, because players are interested in the progressive experience of old expansions (which should have been obvious tbh). I also showed that, if any, they would absolutely need to have in mind legacy servers for more expansions, not only Vanilla, and most respondents would want them opened at the same time.

This is important, because if Blizzard were to implement them, they'd need to have a solid plan and a projection for the future (unlike how Mark Kern runs his projects). They'd have to go into it knowing it will please an inflamed segment of their fans, only the data shows they wouldn't really be pleased, since they don't all want the same things. My poll pretty clearly paints Legacy Servers as a messy can of worms, and that's just deduction working on replies from you guys.

- - - Updated - - -

Coconut, given that WoW fans in general cannot agree on exactly what WoW should do then, by your logic, WoW itself shouldn't be profitable.

Surely you must realize that even if you cannot fulfill every individuals exact wishes you might be able to fulfill the needs and wants of the aggregate enough to be profitable.

WoW currently manages to do that by supporting a single version of the game, which people either agree to play as is, or don't. It doesn't have half a dozen legacy variants trying to please everyone.

[Eliseus]

Please provide a link to where I was proven wrong.

I used my poll to prove there is no unified vision of what Legacy Servers should look like among their supporters, and to prove that they won't have indefinite longevity, because players are interested in the progressive experience of old expansions (which should have been obvious tbh). I also showed that, if any, they would absolutely need to have in mind legacy servers for more expansions, not only Vanilla, and most respondents would want them opened at the same time.

This is important, because if Blizzard were to implement them, they'd need to have a solid plan and a projection for the future (unlike how Mark Kern runs his projects). They'd have to go into it knowing it will please an inflamed segment of their fans, only the data shows they wouldn't really be pleased, since they don't all want the same things. My poll pretty clearly paints Legacy Servers as a messy can of worms, and that's just deduction working on replies from you guys.

No it doesn't. Your poll not only isn't a large enough sample size, but has many factors missing. You painted part of the picture, but preach the entirety. This is where your assumption comes that you apparently think logically, when you don't, because if you did you would account for the missing factors and not conclude the results you are in the manner you are.

Oops misread the bottom, my bad.

[Jeniwyn]

Luckily we do not have to convince Coconut of anything. Just Blizzard. And at this point I actually think that might happen. Only time will tell. nn.

[Coconut]

Mark Kern is a self appointed mail man for this petition, nothing more, I am not sure how his failures, which there are many, is relevant to the failures of the current WoW dev team. It would appear that your reason to bring him up was an attempt to discredit the idea behind legacy servers and had nothing to with pointing out supposed hypocrisy.

I brought him up exactly why I said

- - - Updated - - -

No it doesn't. Your poll not only isn't a large enough sample size, but has many factors missing. IE, If you want a wotlk server, would you still play on a server that progressed from classic (which is the problem behind polls, the biased nature you represented to support YOUR argument). You painted part of the picture, but preach the entirety. This is where your assumption comes that you apparently think logically, when you don't, because if you did you would account for the missing factors and not conclude the results you are in the manner you are.

I do have that option in my poll. It' s called "Progressive server that gradually updates from Vanilla to TBC, Wrath, etc.".

The only missing factor here, which many of you either ignore or answer falsely or out of spite is "Would you play Legion instead of Legacy if it was the only option available". Because only players who say "No" would bring real profit if legacy servers were implemented.

And if players will try it, I'm pretty sure Blizzard would rather bet on Legion being good than on Legacy servers bringing more estranged players than they'd steal away from their new expansion (which has to sell boxes and all).

- - - Updated - - -

Luckily we do not have to convince Coconut of anything. Just Blizzard. And at this point I actually think that might happen. Only time will tell. nn.

The sad thing is you are only convincing yourselves.

[Normie]

Because he didn't share your opinion?

I don't get much of a thrill out of someone grabbing the sound bites out of what I've said and blending them into an "interview." If you can't say something that isn't just a repetition of what hundreds of other people have said over the years, then just stick to "^^ agree" or "this /10char" or whatever.

It was a totally content-free interview.

[Murictavis]

Luckily we do not have to convince Coconut of anything. Just Blizzard. And at this point I actually think that might happen. Only time will tell. nn.

Just curious, how exactly do you think you can convince blizzard?
By I-can-sign-as-many-as-I-want petition with names like fuckblizzard inside?
Or Soda/Reckful/ who has been banned in Blizzard game/ talk shit on blizzard's games/developers as a "leaders"? (no offense. I watch their streams too, but do you think Blizzard will take their opinion seriously? if you want to negotiate with blizzard, I would choose someone that has a better reputation within blizzard side. )
Or an ex-blizzard employee's support who doesn't known as a successful game developer.
I just don't see how it is convincing.

[NightZero88]

Several ways of dealing with that, from just being progressive with 1 realm that moves from vanilla to expansions, making a new server each expansion with being able to copy your chars from vanilla to BC to just making all expansions at once and making them seasonal like diablo, i would like all of these and the best way for deciding is to just make polls imo, even tho most would probably be in favor of a single progressive realm.

Yes but see now here's the conundrum. If you have multiple realms like that you just increased the cost. If you have multiple realms like that you need to integrate B.Net so friends can talk across realms which increases the cost. Now your X amount of supporters are divided across multiple realms which is much smaller, your costs have gone up and each realm requires code to be redone and developers/GMs on board and it is here that I say it most definitely is NOT cost effective for Blizzard.

[Reapocalypse]

Yes but see now here's the conundrum. If you have multiple realms like that you just increased the cost. If you have multiple realms like that you need to integrate B.Net so friends can talk across realms which increases the cost. Now your X amount of supporters are divided across multiple realms which is much smaller, your costs have gone up and each realm requires code to be redone and developers/GMs on board and it is here that I say it most definitely is NOT cost effective for Blizzard.

Definetly, if only a very small number of poeple is interested in vanilla realms who are spread all over the world then only one international realm that is constantly on vanilla is the best solution, but that purely depends on how many poeple will play on them, how much Blizzard wants to risk here and most importantly how much it will grow after it launched, as seen on the live version they added alot of Servers during WotLK and Cata and now many are just empty even with merging some, but all of these are future problems we can get to once Blizzard has started this project (if at all).
Besides, i have not seen Blizzard taking feedback at all when it comes to technical or financial decisions, thats why i dont really see a point in discussing this here when they will decide that on their own anyways.

[idunnowatdo]

So in vanilla how balanced was it? like where some specs never played? I enjoy feral but id rather not have to be forced into bumkin or resto just to be the innervate bitch. Thats the main thing I dislike about vanilla is certain specs where pigeon holed into a certain spec.

[Kolvarg]

Yes but see now here's the conundrum. If you have multiple realms like that you just increased the cost.

No need to worry about the cost, you can be sure Blizzard will worry about that

We don't have the data to determine (nor would our conclusion ever matter) if X or Y ways or doing are cost effective and/or how profitable each is, let Blizzard do that.

You can keep claiming it's not cost effective, it's not profitable, or it's not profitable enough, but you have about as much proof as anyone who says it is profitable. Educated or not, it's just guessing and predicting based on loose information. Keep at it all you want, but it's just prolonging the discussion with no true bearings other than extending the post count with bickering over "It's profitable! No it's not! Yes it is! It isn't, look at this logic I made! I call BS! etc".

All we should do honestly is discuss imho is things like:
- What the interest in Legacy realms can say about the current state of the game;
-- What exactly are the main reasons some players prefer legacy states of the game over the current;
- If and why you would play or not on a legacy realm;
- - If not, would you be ok with them being added either way?
- What kind of legacy realms could work;
- What kind of legacy realms would be more popular;
- How to market legacy realms disticntly as to not give misleading advertising to the main game;
- What alternatives are there to legacy realms that can satisfy this niche;

Really, put yourself in Blizzard's shoes. Would a bunch of players discussing how cost-effective adding somethign to your game do you any good? Even if they somehow were able to actually draw in to reasonable logic conclusions, wouldn't you still do your own internal investigations / analysis to know for sure?

Stuff like the above, however, can help them determine wether it's worth it or not to make legacy realms - or something else to please the legacy realm niche - And have a better idea of what exactly the players want from it, be it to know how exactly to go about it, or even just to keep in mind when developing new content even if not implementing legacy realms.

[Deleted]

Found great post here, WoW Vanilla Server Petition Hits Over 200,000 Signatures, Mark Kern's Thoughts,
http://www.gamertics.com/world-of-wa...ver-200-000-2/

[Kolvarg]

Definetly, if only a very small number of poeple is interested in vanilla realms who are spread all over the world

Mmm... It's not like players aren't already spread over 6 different in-game continents on over 498 different realms in multiple different locked regions.

Not to mention players that are "spread" outside the game because they simply don't like current WoW enough to pay for it.

[Heladys]

Oh look, an irrelevant petition fluffed and manipulated to look like a big number of signatures. Gosh, ain't nobody stuffed ballot boxes on the internet before.

[NightZero88]

No need to worry about the cost, you can be sure Blizzard will worry about that

We don't have the data to determine (nor would our conclusion ever matter) if X or Y ways or doing are cost effective and/or how profitable each is, let Blizzard do that.

You can keep claiming it's not cost effective, it's not profitable, or it's not profitable enough, but you have about as much proof as anyone who says it is profitable. Educated or not, it's just guessing and predicting based on loose information. Keep at it all you want, but it's just prolonging the discussion with no true bearings other than extending the post count with bickering over "It's profitable! No it's not! Yes it is! It isn't, look at this logic I made! I call BS! etc".

All we should do honestly is discuss imho is things like:
- What the interest in Legacy realms can say about the current state of the game;
-- What exactly are the main reasons some players prefer legacy states of the game over the current;
- If and why you would play or not on a legacy realm;
- - If not, would you be ok with them being added either way?
- What kind of legacy realms could work;
- What kind of legacy realms would be more popular;
- How to market legacy realms disticntly as to not give misleading advertising to the main game;
- What alternatives are there to legacy realms that can satisfy this niche;

Really, put yourself in Blizzard's shoes. Would a bunch of players discussing how cost-effective adding somethign to your game do you any good? Even if they somehow were able to actually draw in to reasonable logic conclusions, wouldn't you still do your own internal investigations / analysis to know for sure?

Stuff like the above, however, can help them determine wether it's worth it or not to make legacy realms - or something else to please the legacy realm niche - And have a better idea of what exactly the players want from it, be it to know how exactly to go about it, or even just to keep in mind when developing new content even if not implementing legacy realms.

Yes, I totally agree with you. My point is merely that people are saying we have 200k signatures, it is HUGE but when you look at how many people can't even agree with what they want it drastically reduces that 200k to a much smaller percentage of people per Vanilla realm and then it's not nearly as impressive. Or at least that what it seems like to me and given that I don't think it's worth it. But that's just my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Found great post here, WoW Vanilla Server Petition Hits Over 200,000 Signatures, Mark Kern's Thoughts,
http://www.gamertics.com/world-of-wa...ver-200-000-2/

This has been posted like 8 billion times already. We get that you have over 200k votes. We get that some 10 year ex Blizz is going to deliver it. You can seriously stop posting it now in all it's many forms.

[Deleted]

Oh look, an irrelevant petition fluffed and manipulated to look like a big number of signatures. Gosh, ain't nobody stuffed ballot boxes on the internet before.

You and your negativity #Conspiracy, You just wanna see the world burn!

[Reapocalypse]

Mmm... It's not like players aren't already spread over 6 different in-game continents on over 498 different realms in multiple different locked regions.

Not to mention players that are "spread" outside the game because they simply don't like current WoW enough to pay for it.

"if"

Theres simply no reason to have german, french, english, russian realms when only less than 500 poeple from each region would be interested in that service, i just mean they should adapt to the situation/demand there is, instead of splitting everything again.

[Kolvarg]

Yes, I totally agree with you. My point is merely that people are saying we have 200k signatures, it is HUGE but when you look at how many people can't even agree with what they want it drastically reduces that 200k to a much smaller percentage of people per Vanilla realm and then it's not nearly as impressive. Or at least that what it seems like to me and given that I don't think it's worth it. But that's just my opinion.

I agree overall, but it's also true that it's very likely the 200k signatures doesn't represent the actual potential paying customers for any kind of legacy realm. Honestly, it could go as high as million (especially at start), or it could be much, much lower than 200k - It's very unpredictable tbh, especially in the long run, and I think that's likely to be the main deterrent for Blizzard.

There are people with very specific tastes, and we can rest assured regardless if they implement or not legacy realms, the bickering will continue. Anti-legacy people will continue disapproving of it, and blaming anything they dislike in the game on it, and legacy players will ask for more - different expansions, different modes, pvp realms, pve realms, progression realms, you name it. But imho that should never truly be a deterrent to go ahead with anything, because honestly, with Warcraft anything they do will be criticized, and every good thing they do will never be enough for some of the players.

There could be an approach similar to legacy Runescape servers, where the paying customers can vote on regular polls of what gets added / edited in the game (with a need for over 75% Yes votes to go ahead with it), for instance. Or they could simply choose ignore and/or say no to specifics they don't want to make, just like they've been saying no to legacy and special realms in general for years despite constant demand and questions about it.


My main issue with the discussion in general is that honestly no one knows wether it would be profitable or not for sure, or how much money it would make, or how much money it would cost. What tickles me is that it's almost undeniable (though a few people seem to think otherwise) that it would make a bunch of players very happy, and would give a lot of players an alternative for when they're bored / out of content. And that is overlooked because, for some reason, this is the only issue where we should care about profitability. You don't often see people argue (to this scale at least) that Blizzard should only make 8 dungeons, because 10 dungeons costs more to make and is not cost effective. Or that they shouldn't add more content or features because we already have enough and that would waste their money. It's ridiculous imho.

- - - Updated - - -

"if"

Theres simply no reason to have german, french, english, russian realms when only less than 500 poeple from each region would be interested in that service, i just mean they should adapt to the situation/demand there is, instead of splitting everything again.

Well with that I agree =P Not entirely sure about an international realm, but defenitely shouldn't go past 1 US 1 EU 1 Eastern or so, at least for starters.

Thought you were going in the path of "Legacy realms divide the players" doomsaying, my apologies =P

[kubasniak]

People! Who cares about your damn vanilla and WoW overall? 95% of you are nasty and toxic so yeah """"""community""""" please die as quick as possible.