Balance the classes. Keep the content the same. Just stop.

[jackofwind]

Who are you to tell me or anyone else like me how we want to re-experience vanilla?


...we WILL get our way.

That's not re-experiencing Vanilla, that's experiencing something new. It's not inherently worse or better, but it is different.

If I replay Ocarina of Time with some of the nice mechanical/gameplay/UI aspects of Breath of the Wild implemented then I'm not re-experiencing Ocarina of Time. I'm experiencing something completely new.

When you read one of the newly released Harry Potter books that have illustrations and additional passages in them you're experiencing a new thing. You're not re-experiencing the original Harry Potter books unless you re-read those publications.

[jackofwind]

No, you are playing Ocarina of Time with some of the nice mechanical/gameplay/ui aspects of breath of the wild.
Do you really think that Skyrim remastered is different?

And your comparison with harry potter....are you playing new story in Vanilla?

We will be victorious.

The entire point is that Vanilla servers are not intended (as stated by Blizzard) to be a remaster. They're not remastering Vanilla like they did with SC and are doing with Diablo, they're re-releasing it so that people can experience it as it was.

Two inherently different things.

We will be victorious.

There's no battle being fought here.

[jackofwind]

I know that. And what do you mean by ONLY good way? Good for who? Special snowflakes or Blizzard?

One wonders why you demand an altered game when a company says it's going to re-release one of its classics.

It's like asking for a re-recording of the hit songs of a band instead of them releasing the greatest hits album they've announced.

[Hitei]

Realistically, the ONLY good way is to release Classic as Classic, without any modern conveniences. Because literally, the way Classic was meant to be played is not how you are trying to play it. And in trying to MAKE it played that way, you are actually ruining Classic.

If it wasn't meant to be played that way why were classes given three separate talent trees with distinct functions instead of a single tree dedicated to their assigned role? If druids were intended to be solely healers, why would they have feral and balance trees? If paladins were not intended to tank, why do they have a tree with tanking talents?

It's pretty obvious that these classes were meant to be played in various roles, not a single one. Vanilla was just bad at implementing this.

One wonders why you demand an altered game when a company says it's going to re-release one of its classics.

It's like asking for a re-recording of the hit songs of a band instead of them releasing the greatest hits album they've announced.

They probably would re-record if there was an audio problem in the original track that was causing problems.

[Ielenia]

They didn't have to 'in a meaningful way.' They COULD. That is ALL THAT MATTERED in Vanilla.

And that's the question: why couldn't those classes tank in a meaningful way? Why waste time and resources developing several specs that are so gimped to the point of near uselessness? If it was their intention to make those specs nigh-useless, then they're incompetent. If it wasn't their intention, then they were either inexperienced, or it was an oversight. Either way, it was a mistake.

Right, because Thrall sure didn't run in shooting chain lightnings in WCIII and whacking people with the Doomhammer.

Just because WoW portraits every NPC as useless, doesn't mean they actually are. It'd be terribly boring if the NPCs did everything for us.

Except we're not talking about the Warcraft III game, but the World of Warcraft game, so the first line is kind of meaningless. Especially since we were in control of Thrall, and not Blizzard's scripts. As for your second line, it's also meaningless, as I didn't say Malfurion is useless, it's just that, as a leader, he's not supposed to be in the very front lines, but more in the back, strategizing.

No, it doesn't, because that only matters when you're designing everything to be competitive, which Vanilla did not.

Vanilla was an RPG WAY before it was a competitive raiding game.

If you're designing something so gimped to the point of near useless then it's a waste of resources. There's no 'if's and 'but's about it. And saying "it's an RPG" does not excuse it. In fact, it makes it worse, because, in a role-playing game, don't you think it's a 'sin' to offer players a role, yet not allow them to properly play said role?

What's preventing you from doing that in Vanilla? You can absolutely be a paladin who wields a hammer and shield to protect the innocent - You just won't be as good as a warrior doing the same thing, since Warriors are designed to do that.

And that's the issue. Unless you treat WoW as a single-player game (which means no grouping at all), you won't be able to play your role, because no one would take you in place of a warrior.

Perhaps you need to realize that with the first expansion, their design ideas changed. Which is really not hard to see or know.

I'm not saying it didn't, so I don't know why you feel the need to mention this...

Vanilla's design was that every class had a strong class identity, strongly tied to their WCIII units. Which is not hard to see. Paladins were a support unit in WCIII that had healing and utility, what were they in Vanilla? Strong healers with lots of utility that COULD also be a tank or DPS as well. During this time, you did NOT see them buffing a spec if it went below a curve - They actively kept that curve and fought AGAINST changing that curve.

And yet... Shamans. Far Seers (the WC3 hero) was an offensive hero unit with no healing. The 'shaman' unit itself also had no healing ability. With Doctors (where the totems came from) have a healing totem. The Shadow Hunter has one healing spell (chain heal). So the "shaman" concept itself (including the Farseer) have strong DPS identities... yet they were pigeonholed into healing. Going against the WC3 units of the same name.

Then a better example: When Cata came out, they tossed the idea of all DK specs being able to both Tank and DPS. When the DK class was first introduced, one of it's selling points was that none of it's specs were tied down as specifically 'Tank' or 'DPS' specialization. Yet, when Cata came out, they completely scrapped this idea.

Does this mean they never intended for all three specs to be both Tank and DPS specs, despite them telling us that was the intention, or was that their intention and it changed between expansions?

Do you think the developers were right to make all three of the DK specs being able to both DPS or tank?

[jackofwind]

If it wasn't meant to be played that way why were classes given three separate talent trees with distinct functions instead of a single tree dedicated to their assigned role? If druids were intended to be solely healers, why would they have feral and balance trees? If paladins were not intended to tank, why do they have a tree with tanking talents?

It's pretty obvious that these classes were meant to be played in various roles, not a single one. Vanilla was just bad at implementing this.

They can be played in various roles and perform well in them. Vanilla was just not balanced or designed around raiding, which people coming from the modern game have a hard time wrapping their brain around. Vanilla was absolutely a RPG first and a raiding-based game second, that is inherent to the game experience.

[Asotcha]

I've said in another thread, there is no magic button to "balance" the classes, this button doesn't even exist now.

How do you "fix" certain specs even? Take Prot Pally for example, this spec needs a lot of love to be a "real" tank:

1.A Taunt, Pally didn't have one, so you need a new ability.
2.Way to generate threat while not having aggro, since most bosses were taunt immune.
3.Way to regenerate Mana.

It's obviously possible to do these things, but you enter dangerous territory.

Up until Cata, Hybrid specs were not super uncommon, especially if powerful talents were deep in another tree, some holy pallies specced deep into prot to get additional mana reg during Wotlk, Some PvP Resto Druids specced into Moonkin form during BC to get additional mana regeneration.

When in doubt, don't change it, that should be the rule of thumb for the Vanilla servers.

This deserves to be restated again and again. To ask for signifigant systems changes in vanilla servers is a fundamental 'No'.

[jackofwind]

What's the fucking point then? :O Re-releasing the game that already had a release and NOTHING DIFFERENT IN IT??? No than...I mean, fuck that shit. It's like "Lets re-release Max Payne 1". What the fuck seriously....



It's more a way for you to get that I am also a customer and I can also make requests for what ever I want. Good luck with trying to change that.

The point is that Vanilla WoW is not available officially anymore - that's the whole reason. That's why people have been asking for it for years, and going to private servers to play it - indeed, the original game with nothing different in it. Blizzard has never talked about this as a remaster, always as a re-release.

You can go out and play Max Payne 1 whenever you want, but you can't go out and play an actual legal copy of Vanilla WoW at all anymore.

It's more a way for you to get that I am also a customer and I can also make requests for what ever I want. Good luck with trying to change that.

I'm not trying to change that, and I'm also not showing you the same animosity that you're sending my way.

[Asotcha]

why am i the probleme?

i accept vanilla for how it was , that is was made it new... i dont expect to play there for 10 years.. but just to play something where evrything was not free...

i enjoy leveling a class that is not OP but at least it showed the motivation and the class poeple realy wanted to play , its not like today where poeple just play FOTM classes .

back in vanilla when you played ret pala you knew he wanted it and had fun with it... it was not because it was op it was about having fun with what we had , and that is exactly what poeple want


i think many poeple are sick of getting evrythign for free , i like to grind xp and know i earned my level and not oneshot evrything until 110 ... getting a mount at level 40? god damm it was fucking amazing why? cause walking was slow maps where big questr send you over all the maps even flying took 10 min +


if we start to want class balance this will only be the start and then it wont be vanilla anymore...


dont get me wrong vanilla was totaly broken and unbalanced... but i still had fun cause it was new and i am happy to get that old feeling back to have to earn my stuff

this also deserves to be restated.

[PenguinChan]

It'll happen eventually, I don't think anyone is naive enough to think Classic WoW will last without changes or additions to it. I mean, it's very possible Blizzard will just implement the game 'as is' and let it die in about 5 - 10 years with no changes -- but that will mean putting it on life support, and I'm sure they want to make money off of this - which means adding content (however minor) and changes to the base systems that players want.

I don't see anything changing outside of the traditional game for at least a year though.

[Hitei]

They can be played in various roles and perform well in them. Vanilla was just not balanced or designed around raiding, which people coming from the modern game have a hard time wrapping their brain around. Vanilla was absolutely a RPG first and a raiding-based game second, that is inherent to the game experience.

I mean, you can pretend that is the case, but every major content implementation past 1.5 is based on raids.

1.6 - BWL
1.7 - ZG
1.8 - World Raid boss dragons.
1.9 - AQ
1.10 - weather system implemented, recolored dungeon sets
1.11 - Naxx
1.12 - PvP changes

Let's also not pretend that specs were particularly effective at "performing well" outside of raids. Ret was still off, Subtlety was more like Assassination, Mut was a weird red-headed stepchild used for stunlocking, Elemental was just bad all around, Balance was not great besides its ability to abuse roots, the warlock trees are all over the place, etc.

I'm not asking for these to be changed, but c'mon... they were just poorly implemented. "roles had their place and did well" is basically a lie, and a poor reason not to do minor balancing changes like slightly reducing balance/shadow spell costs, and giving paladins/druids the ability to counter crushing.

[Soon-TM]

The problem with your statement is that literally everything you say is incorrect, so no, you won't.

Don't worry anymore with that troll, he's full of !@#$ to the point that he fancies himself a game developer. On the interwebz

[Mindark]

And that's the question: why couldn't those classes tank in a meaningful way? Why waste time and resources developing several specs that are so gimped to the point of near uselessness? If it was their intention to make those specs nigh-useless, then they're incompetent. If it wasn't their intention, then they were either inexperienced, or it was an oversight. Either way, it was a mistake.

Because raiding was never a focus and it didn't matter much in that big picture. Raiders had single digit representation. Outside of raiding, those classes could tank in a meaningful way. Specs were not designed around raiding. They were more of an added flavor to their vision of the classes. Paladins were not tanks. They were healers that could take a beating. Paladins were not DPS, they were healers that could wield a 2H weapon and could go on the offensive. Just because some specs were nigh-useless in raiding does not mean that those specs were nigh-useless. Or fun. Today, too much focus is on raiding and meters. 2004 was very different. You're applying today's world to the world in 2004.

[Mindark]

No animosity. Just mocking the hell out of it because you people rather sound like "AHA!! THEY BROUGHT THE AOE LOOT IN VANILA!!! BRING UP THE FORKS!!"

Blizzard's implementation of AOE looting killed farming for me. The yields were significantly less.

[Askyl]

I would love some balance, but not much in the beginning and then balance the classes out to be more close to TBC (with hybrids being jack of all trades, master of none).

Let's take Paladin as example, when Classic is launched they could just do very simple additions to balance all specs out to be more useful:

Give Prot Paladins a taunt. Either as a late game class ability or deep into the Prot tree.
Give Ret Paladins more sustainable DPS (better for PvE, but will be the same for PvP)
Holy Paladins are good as they are.

2 small changes, that was very needed and EVERYONE wanted (Yes, even you elitists who don't want it now for a "pure" vanilla experience.. Vanilla changed every month, so let it do the same now!). And those 2 small changes would make Paladins a great class with 3 useful specs. Prot Paladins would be able to do everything, but Warriors would be better. Ret paladins the same.

Then, balance it out a bit more over time. Change is good. I just want the core feeling of Vanilla. The fact that lvling is a part of the game, and exploring is fun. The thrill of World PvP. The time it takes to get something done, and the feeling of relief and happiness when you make it.

You don't need a total overhaul of every class. Just tiny changes, or adding one simple thing, would make the class and spec viable.

[Mindark]

Ornyx community manager already said that it's not really "copy-paste patch and be done with it" so I'll let you contemplate on that.

What that means is they can't just take the WoW architecture today, slap 1.12 (or whichever patch they decide) on it, and deploy it.

[PenguinChan]

Because raiding was never a focus and it didn't matter much in that big picture. Raiders had single digit representation. Outside of raiding, those classes could tank in a meaningful way. Specs were not designed around raiding. They were more of an added flavor to their vision of the classes. Paladins were not tanks. They were healers that could take a beating. Paladins were not DPS, they were healers that could wield a 2H weapon and could go on the offensive. Just because some specs were nigh-useless in raiding does not mean that those specs were nigh-useless. Or fun. Today, too much focus is on raiding and meters. 2004 was very different. You're applying today's world to the world in 2004.

Raiding and dungeons were the focus. Many of the specializations were designed specifically around doing their jobs in open world, dungeon, and raids. Ignorance or no, why do you think item sets were designed and made for certain specs that classes had? It wasn't because that is an 'after thought' and 'not a focus'. Raiding was and always has been a focus since the dawn of time in WoW - dungeons as well. Raiding had more than single digit representations, you're thinking of Naxxramas - which rightfully so had almost no reach.

ZG, MC, and BWL? Many casuals made it to those. Poor itemization and the absence of some key abilities (due to TBC being right around the corner) were a key factor in some specs being incomplete but half-way there.

[jackofwind]

That's fine I get that it's not available officially anymore.
What I don't get is that you want it literally the same when we already know that their system is evolving one and they can work whatever the hell they want on it.
Why not changing things that were shit?



No animosity. Just mocking the hell out of it because you people rather sound like "AHA!! THEY BROUGHT THE AOE LOOT IN VANILA!!! BRING UP THE FORKS!!"

Because we want to play the original game, because we liked it. I played Vanilla, I've played and raided on numerous private servers, and I, along with lots of others, love the game for exactly what it was. That's what we like to play, what we asked for, and what Blizzard finally said they would re-release.

I mean, that's not really a hard concept to grasp. People weren't clamouring for Classic + Changes, that wasn't even a conversation until Blizzard announced that they were going to re-release Vanilla.

I'm not as much of a stickler for keeping it pure as I'm sure some people are - I think they should implement a 64-bit client and have client-side toggled new graphics for those who want to play with them. I frankly don't care much about AoE loot either, but I don't think it makes much of a difference because you're rarely looting more than a couple mobs at a time.

What I don't want to see is the implementation of changes that will alter the landscape of Vanilla - that is to say the balance meta, the raid difficulty, the stat function, etc. All the things that make Vanilla to be recognisable as Vanilla.

[Mindark]

I would love some balance, but not much in the beginning and then balance the classes out to be more close to TBC (with hybrids being jack of all trades, master of none).

Let's take Paladin as example, when Classic is launched they could just do very simple additions to balance all specs out to be more useful:

Give Prot Paladins a taunt
Give Ret Paladins more sustainable DPS (better for PvE, but will be the same for PvP)
Holy Paladins are good as they are.

2 small changes, that was very needed and EVERYONE wanted (Yes, even you elitists who don't want it now for a "pure" vanilla experience.. Vanilla changed every month, so let it do the same now!). And those 2 small changes would make Paladins a great class with 3 useful specs. Prot Paladins would be able to do everything, but Warriors would be better. Ret paladins the same.

You don't need a total overhaul of every class. Just tiny changes, or adding one simple thing, would make the class and spec viable.

Except giving paladins a taunt would still make them a subpar tank. Bosses have taunt immune, and paladins would have to spend too many points itemizing. At end game, they'd need: spirit, mp5, hit, expertise, spell hit, spell power. Warriors need: hit, expertise. Taking a paladin without capping spell hit is a liability for resisted taunts. And they need sustained threat. Their mana pools are bad. So, while you've made paladins more useful, they're still going to be benched for warriors.

[Aquinan]

you can't have classes being useless and not being selected for vanilla content. that is just silly argument to want that the same.

That;s not vanilla then.