If they announce legacy servers at Blizzcon, would you play them?

[Ladyoftheforest]

But you understood i was talking about MGS5 for some reason.
Good game, still not a "Metal Gear Solid".

It's understandable. But this makes my point aswell. MGS evolved with every installment, putting emphasis on different aspects while Kojima injected his mind into the game. I really did not want to see another MGS1, just a better metal gear game. Maybe a remake of MGS1. How would you like Blizzard to remake Vanilla? Do you want to keep all the bad and good elements in tact? How much tweaking would it take to make it enjoyable for everyone? That would be a very tall order since a few 'broken' things are part of it's charm and some can't live with that. Remaking that same world with modern tweaking would not appeal the vanilla crowd. Im afraid there is no middle way when you look at it's form.

My idea would be to make leveling interesting again (because it's not now) by letting you level with an intrinsic story. Level to 1 ro 20 with plenty of lore and a dungeon/old raids like encounter when you hit 20. This dungeon would be related to the story and it's scope would be like modern Karazhan. Big enough to get enough meat on your plate to satisfy your apetite with story and gear (that matters). From 20 to 40 rinse and repeat. Endgame will be waiting after your tummy is full of lore and memorable dungeon/raid encounters.

[Teucer]

I'd probably play, but there is absolutely 0 incentive for them to do this unless they charge an additional subscription fee.

[Cainium]

Overused but it is valid. Vanilla was about the experience that people miss. Nostalgia is not a dirty word here, nor is it the sole purpose. I accept that some people prefer vanilla, but I also realize that the mindset in 2017 for gamers in particular has changed and so have I. The focus of the instant gratification generation for example will most probably have difficulty feeling at ease with vanilla in modern times.

I don't think so. WoW was always threated as a very addictive game during Vanilla/TBC.

The point of it was: EVERYTHING you did felt rewarding. Completing a challanging/group/instance oriented quest chain? Yeah, get the blue/epic reward you'll probnably NEVER unequip. Make 4 levels and you get "THIS SHINY NEW ABILITY", your class master told you so. Going to the capital city and finally learning that spell felt good. Every level you could spend a talent point and become stronger on paper, which went up until level 60, which was HARD to achieve, yet MORE satisfying. Having a rare recipe drop? NICE, you can sell thsoe enchants 'cause the amount of players on your server having that is small.

If you played just here and there or you've been a hardcore player the game ALWAYS had something to reward you. The problematic point has been raiding, and "EPICS", which weren't accessible to everyone. That changed during WotLK, and with many other QoL changes, the game got watered down to what we have now?

The most stupid grind ever, with basically NO rewards that are satisfying by any means, except if you roll THAT OP trinket titanforged with 945+ ilvl and a socket. BUT if you have such luck, you'll soon realize that with 6 tier parts, 2 legendaries, artifact weapon, and soon a 3rd legendary, there are basically NO item slots anymore that you would be able to get an upgrade for.

This is not just nostalgia, the game is just far worse in terms of how it rewards players for what they do.

[Deleted]

It's understandable. But this makes my point aswell. MGS evolved with every installment, putting emphasis on different aspects while Kojima injected his mind into the game. I really did not want to see another MGS1, just a better metal gear game. Maybe a remake of MGS1. How would you like Blizzard to remake Vanilla? Do you want to keep all the bad and good elements in tact? How much tweaking would it take to make it enjoyable for everyone? That would be a very tall order since a few 'broken' things are part of it's charm and some can't live with that. Remaking that same world with modern tweaking would not appeal the vanilla crowd. Im afraid there is no middle way when you look at it's form.

If Legacy servers of Runescape ended up with more players than retail that is proof that this can actually work.
History tells us Legacy servers can have success.

[ThrashMetalFtw]

Yes I enjoy Legion

Yes I would play Classic or TBC Legacy servers.

No it's not just rosetinted glasses, ppl play on privateservers because they enjoy that version of the game, unfortunately, there are no privateservers that even come close to retail WoW when it comes to stability. A Blizzard Legacy server with proper scripting and retail-like latency/lack of DCs, would be very popular, and probably bring back a few oldtimers who are no longer playing retail aswell.

[Ladyoftheforest]

I don't think so. WoW was always threated as a very addictive game during Vanilla/TBC.

The point of it was: EVERYTHING you did felt rewarding. Completing a challanging/group/instance oriented quest chain? Yeah, get the blue/epic reward you'll probnably NEVER unequip. Make 4 levels and you get "THIS SHINY NEW ABILITY", your class master told you so. Going to the capital city and finally learning that spell felt good. Every level you could spend a talent point and become stronger on paper, which went up until level 60, which was HARD to achieve, yet MORE satisfying. Having a rare recipe drop? NICE, you can sell thsoe enchants 'cause the amount of players on your server having that is small.

If you played just here and there or you've been a hardcore player the game ALWAYS had something to reward you. The problematic point has been raiding, and "EPICS", which weren't accessible to everyone. That changed during WotLK, and with many other QoL changes, the game got watered down to what we have now?

The most stupid grind ever, with basically NO rewards that are satisfying by any means, except if you roll THAT OP trinket titanforged with 945+ ilvl and a socket. BUT if you have such luck, you'll soon realize that with 6 tier parts, 2 legendaries, artifact weapon, and soon a 3rd legendary, there are basically NO item slots anymore that you would be able to get an upgrade for.

This is not just nostalgia, the game is just far worse in terms of how it rewards players for what they do.

I'm sorry, but some of us like this 'watered down' variant with all it's QoL benefits. Hardship can be rewarding, I agree. And though there is mythic+ and mythic raiding, that hardship while playing casually is not present now. The endgame have taken the stage and focus of many players, neglecting the journey that got them there. In an ideal world you can have both an exciting journey and enjoyable endgame, but it's clear where the emphasis lies then and now. For some people the long journey just can't offer them incentive to play just as the casual play now can be aversive. Like I said before, it's pure mindset that sets us apart.

If Legacy servers of Runescape ended up with more players than retail that is proof that this can actually work.
History tells us Legacy servers can have success.

It can work, I have no doubt about that. Unfortunately Blizzard is a business that has to distribute it's resources and find a way to increase their profit. Not sure how feasible it is for Blizzard from a business side. It's egotistical but I'd like Blizzard to focus on modern wow only in order to maintain the level of quality and constant flow of content.

[Ielenia]

At this point we pretty know that there's people who like Legacy servers and people who don't. One of the arguments is full-fledged Legacy servers are too much work, so I proposed what I thought was a cool way to incorporate Legacy concepts into Live servers - a compromise. You responded by saying that's too much work too.

It seems like, to you, anything would be too much work, so what's the point of discussion then? Instead of talking about the pros and cons of tuning old raids to let people play them in a challenging way, or some other alternate to Legacy servers you seem to be just dismissing the suggestion out of hand because it relates to Blizzard allocating resources to Legacy content.

Oh, I'm sorry that reality doesn't like to match up with your desires. I'm sure Blizzard is the kind of charity company that would slave themselves day and night on a project that will net them little to no reward, just to appease you. That was sarcasm, by the way, in case you can't comprehend the situation.

Instead of going like "why don't they do this, or do that, to appease me", why don't you actually sit down and think about what you're asking for, about the kind of work that would actually take to do what you ask for, and the consequences of such changes, before you decide to make a post?

I'm not here to argue, I'm here to discuss. If you want to just shut everything down immediately because you think it's a waste of time then there's really nothing to discuss. To be honest I'm not sure why you'd want to be part of a forum where nobody actually discusses anything.

"I'm not here to argue, I'm here to discuss. But let me "discuss" by making a mockery of your viewpoint because I'm here to discuss, not argue." Priceless.

Think about what you want to "discuss" about before you post. Think about what the options you're offering would really entail.

[jackofwind]

Oh, I'm sorry that reality doesn't like to match up with your desires. I'm sure Blizzard is the kind of charity company that would slave themselves day and night on a project that will net them little to no reward, just to appease you. That was sarcasm, by the way, in case you can't comprehend the situation.

Instead of going like "why don't they do this, or do that, to appease me", why don't you actually sit down and think about what you're asking for, about the kind of work that would actually take to do what you ask for, and the consequences of such changes, before you decide to make a post?


"I'm not here to argue, I'm here to discuss. But let me "discuss" by making a mockery of your viewpoint because I'm here to discuss, not argue." Priceless.

Think about what you want to "discuss" about before you post. Think about what the options you're offering would really entail.

Please show me where I made a mockery of your viewpoint. I treated it with respect, and addressed it. The only mockery that's appearing in our sub-discussion is coming from you, especially in this last post.

This is a thread to discuss the topic - which is a hypothetical question. As such its perfectly valid to throw out hypothetical situations or suggestions. My question to you is why you seem to be getting so agitated when you're being spoken to civilly. Your last post was dripping with sarcasm but no one is treating you with the disrespect you seem to be trying to reflect.

[Morbownz]

My question to you is why you seem to be getting so agitated when you're being spoken to civilly. Your last post was dripping with sarcasm but no one is treating you with the disrespect you seem to be trying to reflect.

This, sadly, is a trait of all the anti-legacy folk..........................................




This should easily get another 100 pages.

[Sastank]

Not happening. What if the world ended tomorrow? What would you do tonight!!!one

[Ielenia]

Please show me where I made a mockery of your viewpoint. I treated it with respect, and addressed it.

Are you for real? Seriously, how is "You responded by saying that's too much work too. It seems like, to you, anything would be too much work." not a mockery of what I wrote, since, y'know, what I wrote was much more than just that, and I explained why? Here's another summary: "probably it's too much work for little to no reward."

This is a thread to discuss the topic - which is a hypothetical question. As such its perfectly valid to throw out hypothetical situations or suggestions.

It's also perfectly valid to point out the flaws and/or impossibilities of said hypothetical situation or suggestions. But, for some reason, I guess you think that, maybe because they're hypothetical, they're somehow immune to criticism?

[Syfus]

legacy? WTF... why i should play a old content, if im playing at 2017... just players who didnt play on vanilla times; wants that drama legacy....

[Eleccybubb]

legacy? WTF... why i should play a old content, if im playing at 2017... just players who didnt play on vanilla times; wants that drama legacy....

Well that's the great thing.

If they did these servers you wouldn't have to play on them.

[Deleted]

Runescape did legacy servers and now they have more players than retail.

That's my new favorite thing and i will spam it until it gets old xD

It is fact that people actually enjoyed more vanilla runescape and it was NOT just "rose tinted classes". Let that sink in for a moment.
What a surpriese, people actually knowing what they want and it was not just "nostalgia" or "rose tinted glasses".

[jackofwind]

Are you for real? Seriously, how is "You responded by saying that's too much work too. It seems like, to you, anything would be too much work." not a mockery of what I wrote, since, y'know, what I wrote was much more than just that, and I explained why? Here's another summary: "probably it's too much work for little to no reward."


It's also perfectly valid to point out the flaws and/or impossibilities of said hypothetical situation or suggestions. But, for some reason, I guess you think that, maybe because they're hypothetical, they're somehow immune to criticism?

It wasn't a mockery because it didn't mock, and I certainly wasn't trying to mock you. You didn't really point out particular flaws or offer alternatives, you just said "it's too much work for too little reward", which to my mind isn't very constructive. If all you're interested in is completely shutting down conversation then that's one thing, but my assumption was that you actually wanted to discuss something on a discussion forum. Again, I'm not sure why you're being so confrontational here. There's no need for all the sniping and jabbing.

Let me ask you this: What, to you, wouldn't be too much work for too little reward?

[Ielenia]

Runescape did legacy servers and now they have more players than retail.

That's my new favorite thing and i will spam it until it gets old xD

It is fact that people actually enjoyed more vanilla runescape and it was NOT just "rose tinted classes". Let that sink in for a moment.
What a surpriese, people actually knowing what they want and it was not just "nostalgia" or "rose tinted glasses".

And Runescape was nearly on its last legs and releasing those legacy servers was its last attempt to still keep itself afloat. WoW is far, far away from even coming close to that point.

[Eleccybubb]

These numbers are from the time of my post at 8:05 PM.

http://www.runescape.com/community

90,389 online

http://oldschool.runescape.com/

57,824

Sorry but how are more people playing oldschool?

[Deleted]

These numbers are from the time of my post at 8:05 PM.

http://www.runescape.com/community

90,389 online

http://oldschool.runescape.com/

57,824

Sorry but how are more people playing oldschool?

https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/c...unter_include/

"Why does the Runescape.com player counter include RS3,OSRS,RSC,Forum users & Lobbiers when it is the only the RS3 website?"

edit: "Source battle" engage

[Ielenia]

It wasn't a mockery because it didn't mock, and I certainly wasn't trying to mock you. You didn't really point out particular flaws or offer alternatives, you just said "it's too much work for too little reward", which to my mind isn't very constructive.

I didn't point out particular flaws? So what's this, then?

Because old raids are exactly that: old. They're obsolete. If Blizzard hasn't done what you propose yet, it's likely that they believe that fine-tuning every single legacy raid to be just as challenging at their respective levels as they were when those raids were relevant is too much work for little reward. Because every class change would have to be done with those legacy raids in mind, making the process more complicated than it should be.

And you even quoted my entire post my quote above belongs to in this post of yours, so now I have to ask: selective reading, short memory, or just blatant dishonesty?

Let me ask you this: What, to you, wouldn't be too much work for too little reward?

I think such the answer to such a question is blatantly obvious to anyone with more than two cells to rub together: the rewards (or potential rewards) need to be proportionate to the investment. That is especially true to businesses. They're not going to invest millions into something that market analysis say it's unlikely to return barely triple digits rewards. Companies invest their money expecting to gain considerably more than what they invested. Blizzard wouldn't have made Diablo 3, for example, if they invested (random figures here) 10 million dollars, while expecting a return of only 10.5 million dollars.

[Thimagryn]

Well that's the great thing.

If they did these servers you wouldn't have to play on them.

Which is also Blizzard's biggest concern for why not to add them.