The Anti "No Changes" FAQ

[Deficineiron]

Why not just have different types of servers?
Some for the original, no changes vanilla type.
And one with QoL changes, more experience and stuff like new models.

I proposed this in some detail here, going to some extremes but the premise can be applied with any degree of tuning/grouping requirement changes. i think the broad idea (make retail-tuned funservers, and actual time-consuming, 'you-can-die-outside' servers for the vocal subset of players, makes a good bit of sense, especially if they find it viable to water down tuning/pacing.

In other words, rather than many of my ideas, just say 'an actual classic server in terms of pacing, tuning, etc. etc. etc. all the stuff they are going to be tempted to change in retail classic.'

short version - let blizzard make their retail-oriented fast-n-fun servers in classic themes so folks can kill KT and get the achievement and transmog stuff, and also give a 'real' classic server with some fancy name like 'hardcore' to shut up people like the ones who actually want classic (including me).
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...lassic-servers

[Paula Deen]

With all due respect, the original developers have all vanished (quit, retired, resigned, fired).

But they haven't? Several staff leads left, including Rob Pardo, but as demonstrated by WoD, which he was a lead on, leads mean jack shit.

[Deleted]

Rumours go that they will add garrisons into classic.

[Deficineiron]

Rumours go that they will add garrisons into classic.

whether true or not, the jokes write themselves.

as long as they preserve the 'classic game experience' and the end-product 'feels classic,' it is hard to see what people can complain about within those defined parameters.

[Deleted]

Why not just have different types of servers?
Some for the original, no changes vanilla type.
And one with QoL changes, more experience and stuff like new models.

I was advocating for differentiation via server types since they first introduced different difficulty modes in WotLK—instead of multiple difficulties on one server, you'd have multiple servers with different difficulty to choose from. The objection I kept hearing was that it will "fragment the playerbase", which of course makes no sense since the playerbase has been fragmented over dozens of servers with different rulesets since day one.

[garfeeld]

Are you that silly and belive the President of Blizzard Entertainment is doing grunt work on wow?

you said ""no one that created wow is working on it today" and I just proved you wrong,lol.

[ydraw]

Got a source for this?

Common sense.

They want people to play the game, they aren't going to release the buggy, broken version from 15 years ago. They are going to re-release the content while also modifying it to make sure it works and actually appeals to a large base of people (not a small minority of whiners who play on pirate servers and probably won't pony up $15 a month anyway).

[ydraw]

I believe those attunments were removed, at least before T6. I started raiding in BC when t5 was out, before t6 was released. I know we never had to to that, and we got up to twins in sunwell before our raid burned out.

No, they were removed in patch 2.4 (Sunwell Patch), which came out in March 2008, 10 months after Black Temple went live in 2.1.

[Deficineiron]

Common sense.

They want people to play the game, they aren't going to release the buggy, broken version from 15 years ago. They are going to re-release the content while also modifying it to make sure it works and actually appeals to a large base of people (not a small minority of whiners who play on pirate servers and probably won't pony up $15 a month anyway).

I think your ideas, when one gets on the outside of the bubble that is wow fandom, is obvious. The bigger question is how much will they nerf overall game tuning and pacing for those same reasons. I do believe I will be substantially vindicated on my Frankenstein server prediction - classic themes/map, modern tuning/ease/etc.etc. will they feel the need to 'improve' classic quests and make them 'tell a story' etc, maybe with some linear questing zones? this is just one example - as you know, there is a whole list of stuff in the game that, once the forum in aggregate admits blizz wants this to appeal to a large base of people, suddenly is on the chopping block for simlification, nerfing, or elimination.

[sixeph]

I can't believe people are clamoring away for changes before it's even out.

I don't care if you've been playing in private servers for the last 12 years or not - this needs to be released as closed to the original as possible.

I've post some similar before, but they are NOT trying to pull away from retail for this. They are trying to remove the reason to play private servers and capitalize on that market.

If you're think they are going to try and make it better to appeal to a wider audience, you're kidding yourself.

Yes, there are going to be backend changes that will make it more stable, but gameplay wise - it's going to be the same.

MAYBE, just maybe after a year or two they try and do some slight number tuning, but there isn't going to be abilities added so pallies can tank raids or the debuff limit removed.

[Deficineiron]

I can't believe people are clamoring away for changes before it's even out.

I don't care if you've been playing in private servers for the last 12 years or not - this needs to be released as closed to the original as possible.

I've post some similar before, but they are NOT trying to pull away from retail for this. They are trying to remove the reason to play private servers and capitalize on that market.

If you're think they are going to try and make it better to appeal to a wider audience, you're kidding yourself.

Yes, there are going to be backend changes that will make it more stable, but gameplay wise - it's going to be the same.

MAYBE, just maybe after a year or two they try and do some slight number tuning, but there isn't going to be abilities added so pallies can tank raids or the debuff limit removed.

replying to the bold comment - the bold comment, however, is what a/b does, it is their 'niche' (if mass-market video game design can be called a niche). accessibility is their watchword. I know blue says classic is classic, or at least feels classic, or is a classic game experience etc. blue is also bringing up tinkering with classes, probably because it is one tinker area they know will get a quick response either way. tinkering with outdoor mob damage levels isn't the same, they can just do it and pretend it is classic until it is too late. we are still in the early buzz/word-of-mouth phase so soothing blue comments don't mean that much, they just want the classic community supportive. classic wow is the antithesis of what today's blizzard makes. I don't believe this company can up-end their core values, and they won't.

lets see a real beta and start comparing numbers. I just don't think a dwarf lvl 9 is going to die to 2 troggs in gol'bolar easily, and if he does anyway, is going to have a shorter run back to his corpse.

[sixeph]

replying to the bold comment - the bold comment, however, is what a/b does, it is their 'niche' (if mass-market video game design can be called a niche). accessibility is their watchword. I know blue says classic is classic, or at least feels classic, or is a classic game experience etc. blue is also bringing up tinkering with classes, probably because it is one tinker area they know will get a quick response either way. tinkering with outdoor mob damage levels isn't the same, they can just do it and pretend it is classic until it is too late. we are still in the early buzz/word-of-mouth phase so soothing blue comments don't mean that much, they just want the classic community supportive. classic wow is the antithesis of what today's blizzard makes. I don't believe this company can up-end their core values, and they won't.

lets see a real beta and start comparing numbers. I just don't think a dwarf lvl 9 is going to die to 2 troggs in gol'bolar easily, and if he does anyway, is going to have a shorter run back to his corpse.

I think you're hoping that they change it and latching on to small slivers and stretching their worlds in hopes they make it more "accessible" because you want it that way.

I don't agree that they are going to change anything and I'm hoping that its true. The overall tone for everything they've done in interviews is that they want it to be the Classic experience.

I also believe they risk their stake in retail and alienate the private server crowd by changing anything for the "better".

[Jyggalag]

Great points OP. Agree with all of them

[Deficineiron]

I think you're hoping that they change it and latching on to small slivers and stretching their worlds in hopes they make it more "accessible" because you want it that way.

I don't agree that they are going to change anything and I'm hoping that its true. The overall tone for everything they've done in interviews is that they want it to be the Classic experience.

I also believe they risk their stake in retail and alienate the private server crowd by changing anything for the "better".

you are wrong on part 1, but this isn't a productive area to try to 'change your mind.' maybe this thread I posted on reddit will offer you better perspective on my thinking https://www.reddit.com/r/classicwow/..._an_interview/ these are things I am WORRIED that they will be tempted to do.

part 2 is opinion (from both of us). I will note that the interviews so far are geared towards managing community buzz, but that can be interpreted any way a poster likes, of course.

part 3 is where we likely differ - I think there is an a/b spreadsheet cerberus up there somewhere who will find that more accessible = more money overall.

[Orangetai420]

Blizzard is no longer capable of making decisions for retro fans. Keep it the same, or don't bother.

Just wanted to add my support for this statement. 100% agree.

[ydraw]

One of the most glaring and obvious tuning changes that will almost certainly happen is the level difference in dungeons. In dungeons like Uldaman you had level 36 mobs at the beginning of the dungeon, and level 45 boss at the end. It made no sense at all, and there's simply no way it's going to go live like that a 2nd time.

[Powerogue]

They would be insane not to make minor QoL changes. It's a 14 year old game and they've learned a lot over those years about what worked and what didn't.

I didn't think of the raid balance issue you brought up though. I'm not sure if anything short of completely redesigning classes (NOT ideal!) would prevent that issue. About the only thing they couldn't predict is if they added new raid tiers to classic, which I question whether that'd be a good idea (lore conflicts and the like).

MAYBE, just maybe after a year or two they try and do some slight number tuning, but there isn't going to be abilities added so pallies can tank raids or the debuff limit removed.

Until paladins complain their class is broken and DoT warlocks complain they can't get into any raids.

I always think back to the OSRS example where people clamored for nearly a decade for worlds EXACTLY like 2006-7, only to universally demand changes like the addition of the RS version of the auction house within a month. Now they have an entire new continent and raid tier, among other things.

[Deficineiron]

One of the most glaring and obvious tuning changes that will almost certainly happen is the level difference in dungeons. In dungeons like Uldaman you had level 36 mobs at the beginning of the dungeon, and level 45 boss at the end. It made no sense at all, and there's simply no way it's going to go live like that a 2nd time.

essentially the 2.3 dungeon level rationalization changes. SFK another good example - rethligore is 18? and arugal is 25 or 26?

obviously I don't have an issue with making these levels more compact for dungeons, but I adhere to the slippery slope premise - if I say i am ok in a forum with 1 change, i will be expected to be ok with everyone's '1 change' and I will be agreeing to retail.

[meian]

It boils down to my lack of belief that Blizzard has the expertise and insight to make changes that me, and the majority of the classic community will accept and enjoy.

During Blizzon 2005. The relation between the hunter and the pet is very much important to the developers. The loyalty mechanic, the happiness mechanic and the diet of your pet was not some side project. It was implemented, for the explicit purpose of differentiating the hunter class pets from the demon pets that the warlock has.

I loved killing your pets so much. You have no idea. The thought of killing more hunter pets actually makes me interested in playing Classic.

[Deleted]

you said ""no one that created wow is working on it today" and I just proved you wrong,lol.

on the contrary you just made yourself the biggest fool of mmoc that claims the ceo of blizzard would work on classic himself! muahaha
because thats what ceos do, grunt work. got any more of your jokes?