Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
12
13
... LastLast
  1. #201
    I am Murloc! FlubberPuddy's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    On the frontline
    Posts
    5,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Maudib View Post
    This isn't BfA we're talking about.. it's Classic. Anyone pulls that crap in Classic will be ploitely escorted to the main city of their choice to just sit around and twiddle their thumbs because we aren't going to have any of that.

    And Vanilla did just fine as it was. It'll do just fine again. Classes are not "competetive"... they are cooperative.
    Depends on the Classic team truly, do they consider: a Warrior being the only Main Tank for raids, Paladins/Ferals/ShadowPriests/Enh Shams to be side-lined and excluded from dealing damage compared to Rogues/Mages/Warriors, and classes who had healer trees to be cornered into healing raids - all to be successful or a failure in design. And the bigger question being regardless of if it's considered a failure, would they take the opportunity to fix it or not?

    As I've said, we've already heard from the Vanilla WoW Class Designer himself that certain classes didn't live up to the fantasy they imagined for them during Vanilla, that to me sounds like a failure in design, otherwise he would've said "class imbalance was meant to be the way it was in Vanilla, DPS Paladins should've been healing" or something to that effort.

    Truly I have no issue whatever the decision turns out to be, I will enjoy Vanilla for the experience itself. It's just the most interesting topic I'm wanting to see the answer on at Blizzcon.

  2. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonkaden View Post
    You are missing a very glaring detail.

    Vanilla wasn't just one patch bro. 1.12 was the most balanced. Thats why its used by private servers. That is why its being used by blizzard.

    Would you want 1.0 where using the spirit rez meant 100% durability loss or 11.1 where it was lowered to 25%? They also removed reagent costs for mark, fort, and ai. There was no maraudon. No option to hide cloak / helm. No Gurubashi arena. How about starting at 1.3 which added DM, Meeting stones, dungeon player caps? Good? Alright!!!

    Okay lets go with 1.3. Whoops, no Priest or Hunter quests. No honor system either. No? Sounds bad right? Fine fine, lets go 1.4 so we have these things. Oh shit. Guess what? if we go 1.4, we dont have battlegrounds! Nor do you have BWL, Darkmoon Faire, or the warrior / warlock talent revamps. You played a warrior? You really want 1.5 so your warrior is way more useful? You want to kill Nef in BWL? Sweet! Lets skip right to 1.6 so we have battlegrounds, new raids, AND a couple revamps. I play a hunter though. Why would I want to play a version of the game where im gimped in certain things when they did a revamp for my class in 1.7. I say we go with that one. I mean come on bro, Id love to experience ZG and Arathi Basin again. Good. 1.7 it is. Thats final!








    ... or is it?


    I just remembered something. AQ40 was probably my favorite raid. And my main was a Holy Pally. AQ was released in 1.9 along with the Paladin revamp. Id much rather that be the base for classic.



    On a more serious note. Do you see the problem with trying to decide on one patch or the other. Lets be real. Anyone with a 1/4th of a brain minimum knew that they were NEVER EVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER going to release cyclical patches. They were always going to pick a patch and roll with it. They without a doubt picked the right patch when it comes to picking one where things are the most balanced. As balanced as they could be anyways.

    The ball is in their court. They better re-tune content around 1.12 or just stop now.
    I meant they need to use 1.12 to get the game running and then artificially recreate the patches. Even if it's just done with balance patches that's fine. Obviously no one wants bugs but content was tuned to the game around the skills characters had available to them at the time. Yes, they re-tune or it's pointless. It would be infinitely easier to copy values and skills trees and talents from 1.1 and upgrade the skills with major patches (Raid/Dungeon unlocks) than to re-balance the game from the ground up. I don't think they will do either so I don't think we will get a very good game.

  3. #203
    I am Murloc! FlubberPuddy's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    On the frontline
    Posts
    5,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Fascinate View Post
    Ya its a hard decision, how long do we want them to work on this stuff to get it as close as possible? Its already been a year, i dont want it to take another.
    I mean, pretty sure the way they're integrating Vanilla systems into Modern client is what's taking them the longest. With that said, having a Demo for Blizzcon when I originally thought it'd take a couple years shows they've made a lot of progress within the short time frame.

    It's not like they're just getting servers up and turning it on as most private servers may be doing (i have no clue truly, never looked into them).

    A lot of people speculate Nov 2019 since that will be WoW's 15th anniversary.

  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by FlubberPuddy View Post
    I mean, pretty sure the way they're integrating Vanilla systems into Modern client is what's taking them the longest. With that said, having a Demo for Blizzcon when I originally thought it'd take a couple years shows they've made a lot of progress within the short time frame.

    It's not like they're just getting servers up and turning it on as most private servers may be doing (i have no clue truly, never looked into them).

    A lot of people speculate Nov 2019 since that will be WoW's 15th anniversary.
    The demo tells us the tech stuff is mostly done, its the really hard decisions that are keeping up the project as of right now i suspect (progressive itemization/sharding/what bugs to recreate etc).

  5. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by FlubberPuddy View Post
    Depends on the Classic team truly, do they consider: a Warrior being the only Main Tank for raids, Paladins/Ferals/ShadowPriests/Enh Shams to be side-lined and excluded from dealing damage compared to Rogues/Mages/Warriors, and classes who had healer trees to be cornered into healing raids - all to be successful or a failure in design. And the bigger question being regardless of if it's considered a failure, would they take the opportunity to fix it or not?

    As I've said, we've already heard from the Vanilla WoW Class Designer himself that certain classes didn't live up to the fantasy they imagined for them during Vanilla, that to me sounds like a failure in design, otherwise he would've said "class imbalance was meant to be the way it was in Vanilla, DPS Paladins should've been healing" or something to that effort.

    Truly I have no issue whatever the decision turns out to be, I will enjoy Vanilla for the experience itself. It's just the most interesting topic I'm wanting to see the answer on at Blizzcon.
    I think the very few jobs they actually hired for is telling... mostly infrastructure jobs. They are hammering the old code onto the new server structure and making it secure. Would it be cool if shadow was viable or paladins coudl tank? Sure, but then it wouldn't be Classic... it would be BC. (Which is coming next BTW)

  6. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by Coombs View Post
    I meant they need to use 1.12 to get the game running and then artificially recreate the patches. Even if it's just done with balance patches that's fine. Obviously no one wants bugs but content was tuned to the game around the skills characters had available to them at the time. Yes, they re-tune or it's pointless. It would be infinitely easier to copy values and skills trees and talents from 1.1 and upgrade the skills with major patches (Raid/Dungeon unlocks) than to re-balance the game from the ground up. I don't think they will do either so I don't think we will get a very good game.
    Asking them to recreate patches, bugs and all, is really unfair. Its an almost impossible task imo.

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by NihilSustinet View Post
    Honestly i dont even care at this point. with launching at 1.12 they have already killed any chance of having anything close to an authentic vanilla experience. Might asll well balance all the classes, put in LFR, make it BFA with vanilla content for all i care.
    This is such a stupid mindset lol. Do you really want Classic to release with literally nothing? 1.0 WoW had shit all in it. I think you could level to 60 and do some dungeons and that's about it. The game barely worked in its first iteration but you're right having weather and BG's in the game totally ruins the Vanilla experience.
    You're exactly the kind of person we don't want playing Classic because regardless of how it releases you'll be here on the forums bitching and moaning about how it's not running at 12fps and DC'ing 'cause your dad picked up the phone on your dialup modem like it did in 2004.

    OP; With 1.12 being the base release I think you'll find most of those specs are viable (Unless you group with morons like this quoted guy in which case if you're not a Warrior Rogue Mage or Priest you'll be berated and insulted for playing what you enjoy), and I wouldn't be surprised if there were minor tweaks here and there for any bad outlying cases of shitty specs.

  8. #208

  9. #209
    I have no exp in the matter, but read a lot of these forums, and it sounds like the only place balance should really matter is Naxx and Aq40. Otherwise, the content will be easy enough for a group of max level players with a smidge of gear to clear MC/BWL/AQ20/ZG with relative ease.

    Play what you want and if you ever hit max level and don't get burnt out from that, then either heal as going to be expected - or fight the predisposition.

  10. #210
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonkaden View Post
    Id rather them take a little bit, re-tune, and have the raids actually feel challenging. If they don't, we will be walking into MC with 10-12 players and clearing the place week 1-2 then twiddling our thumbs for weeks / months til bwl.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Why do people perpetuate shit that they never said. They said it would be 1.12. They haven't said fuck all of anything else about what it will or won't include.

    They never once said it would be bug fixes only. Please provide sources with your info. I must have missed this breaking news about the ONLY thing changing is bugs.
    what they actually said was they wanted to know if people wanted 1:1 classic or wanted some changes, and the discussion(s) on the forum would inform that decision (read - be used to justify whatever they decide to do).

    they also asked if class balancing would 'feel classic,' which in my opinion should clearly show their understanding of what 'feels classic' can encompass.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  11. #211
    Bloodsail Admiral Animalhouse's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Champagne Supernova
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonkaden View Post
    Id rather them take a little bit, re-tune, and have the raids actually feel challenging. If they don't, we will be walking into MC with 10-12 players and clearing the place week 1-2 then twiddling our thumbs for weeks / months til bwl.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Why do people perpetuate shit that they never said. They said it would be 1.12. They haven't said fuck all of anything else about what it will or won't include.

    They never once said it would be bug fixes only. Please provide sources with your info. I must have missed this breaking news about the ONLY thing changing is bugs.
    https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/ne...rcraft-classic

    I thought everyone was aware of the watercooler discussion. You just said it yourself "they said it would be 1.12". What the FUCK do you think that means?
    Certainly not changing gameplay. "we were confident we could deliver the classic WoW content and gameplay".

    They said everything it will contain. Battle.net integration, DB normalization, modern anti-cheat and bug fixes.
    “We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams.”

  12. #212
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by FlubberPuddy View Post
    Depends on the Classic team truly, do they consider: a Warrior being the only Main Tank for raids, Paladins/Ferals/ShadowPriests/Enh Shams to be side-lined and excluded from dealing damage compared to Rogues/Mages/Warriors, and classes who had healer trees to be cornered into healing raids - all to be successful or a failure in design. And the bigger question being regardless of if it's considered a failure, would they take the opportunity to fix it or not?

    As I've said, we've already heard from the Vanilla WoW Class Designer himself that certain classes didn't live up to the fantasy they imagined for them during Vanilla, that to me sounds like a failure in design, otherwise he would've said "class imbalance was meant to be the way it was in Vanilla, DPS Paladins should've been healing" or something to that effort.

    Truly I have no issue whatever the decision turns out to be, I will enjoy Vanilla for the experience itself. It's just the most interesting topic I'm wanting to see the answer on at Blizzcon.
    I think 2 things

    1) the demo needs to positively highlight actual changes from classic that they plan to implement where unavoidable, and simply skip over under-the-hood changes that won't be apparent.
    2) they have to thread the needle of selling high-profile and obvious changes while keeping the classic vocalist pacified and quiescent.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  13. #213
    I made an entire video on this last year. Its because they don't understand the difference between class DESIGN and class TUNING.
    Tuning NEVER stops. Ever. At any point in the game's development.
    It absolutely should be being considered here, because it only makes the game better.

    What does stop and should stop is class DESIGN. They should not be changing how classes function in Classic.

    They SHOULD be tuning classes so the ones that are outliers can be more balanced.
    If its done right you wouldn't even know it happened unless you have some hyper-complete collection of logs from classic or something.

    A few 10~ percent buffs or nerfs to certain spells could change the entire competitive element of the game without actually changing anything about class design.
    Owner of ONEAzerothTV
    Tanking, Blood DK Mythic+ Pugging, Soloing and WoW Challenges alongside other discussions about all things in World of Warcraft
    ONEAzerothTV

  14. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by Hey There Guys its Metro View Post
    I made an entire video on this last year. Its because they don't understand the difference between class DESIGN and class TUNING.
    Tuning NEVER stops. Ever. At any point in the game's development.
    It absolutely should be being considered here, because it only makes the game better.

    What does stop and should stop is class DESIGN. They should not be changing how classes function in Classic.

    They SHOULD be tuning classes so the ones that are outliers can be more balanced.
    If its done right you wouldn't even know it happened unless you have some hyper-complete collection of logs from classic or something.

    A few 10~ percent buffs or nerfs to certain spells could change the entire competitive element of the game without actually changing anything about class design.
    You still have that debuff slot that will make any changes not even worth the effort. The game is fine. Some specs you will be there for utility. Just play your spec and deal with it.

  15. #215
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Barnabas View Post
    You still have that debuff slot that will make any changes not even worth the effort. The game is fine. Some specs you will be there for utility. Just play your spec and deal with it.
    I would bet money the debuff limit is history and bosses will be retuned vs. that expectation.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  16. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by Hey There Guys its Metro View Post
    I made an entire video on this last year. Its because they don't understand the difference between class DESIGN and class TUNING.
    Tuning NEVER stops. Ever. At any point in the game's development.
    It absolutely should be being considered here, because it only makes the game better.

    What does stop and should stop is class DESIGN. They should not be changing how classes function in Classic.

    They SHOULD be tuning classes so the ones that are outliers can be more balanced.
    If its done right you wouldn't even know it happened unless you have some hyper-complete collection of logs from classic or something.

    A few 10~ percent buffs or nerfs to certain spells could change the entire competitive element of the game without actually changing anything about class design.
    That imbalance was part of what made vanilla vanilla.

    There are various reasons why they are not going to be retuning classes in classic, but the important one from blizzards viewpoint is they dont need to hire those people to do it.

  17. #217
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Hey There Guys its Metro View Post
    I made an entire video on this last year. Its because they don't understand the difference between class DESIGN and class TUNING.
    Tuning NEVER stops. Ever. At any point in the game's development.
    It absolutely should be being considered here, because it only makes the game better.

    What does stop and should stop is class DESIGN. They should not be changing how classes function in Classic.

    They SHOULD be tuning classes so the ones that are outliers can be more balanced.
    If its done right you wouldn't even know it happened unless you have some hyper-complete collection of logs from classic or something.

    A few 10~ percent buffs or nerfs to certain spells could change the entire competitive element of the game without actually changing anything about class design.
    You sound like one of those posters than thinks class design is done with a hammer, and tuning is done with a small set of pliers. This is where you are wrong. Blizzard knows a hammer works best for both !

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Fascinate View Post
    That imbalance was part of what made vanilla vanilla.

    There are various reasons why they are not going to be retuning classes in classic, but the important one from blizzards viewpoint is they dont need to hire those people to do it.
    they have very talented people in terms of class tuning already working for them, it would just be a weekend project to modernize and fix classic broken classes, right?
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  18. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    You could have bury those solutions deep down in tree to block potential hybrid builds, even then, a healer that does not oom as hard as a regular healer might be simply more valueable than a "true healer".
    Feral was actually kind of like that, as any time I healed I was mainly Feral spec. With HotW, I had a larger mana pool and much more intellect than as full Resto druid, which actually counteracted quite a bit of the talents I couldn't access being mostly Feral. With proper spell ranking usage, I was a much more sustained healer than my fellow Resto druids. Added bonus I could actually DPS while waiting for my mana to regen if there wasn't anything pertinent to heal, and I could be an emergency tank if things went to hell. The only thing I really lacked was reduced threat generation from heals and some burst healing talents.
    Last edited by exochaft; 2018-10-19 at 09:28 PM.
    “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”
    “It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

  19. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    You sound like one of those posters than thinks class design is done with a hammer, and tuning is done with a small set of pliers. This is where you are wrong. Blizzard knows a hammer works best for both !

    - - - Updated - - -



    they have very talented people in terms of class tuning already working for them, it would just be a weekend project to modernize and fix classic broken classes, right?
    I think you are more missing the gist of classic, and why they are doing it in the first place mate. More than anything they want classic to be a game that people can go back and play anytime they want, without having to deal with sketchy third parties.

    Scenario:
    Prot paladin in vanilla really enjoyed the spec and felt it was a more involved playstyle in which you really had to manage abilities in comparison to the "easy mode" warrior. Who are you to tell that guy you dont feel the spec was good and you are going to add additional threat modifiers on holy shield for example? The game play style that paladin misses is now gone from existence, just because you felt it was a good change.

    Situations like i describe above is why blizzard is going to stick to a strict no changes mentality, its the best way to do it from both sides.

  20. #220
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Fascinate View Post
    I think you are more missing the gist of classic, and why they are doing it in the first place mate. More than anything they want classic to be a game that people can go back and play anytime they want, without having to deal with sketchy third parties.

    Scenario:
    Prot paladin in vanilla really enjoyed the spec and felt it was a more involved playstyle in which you really had to manage abilities in comparison to the "easy mode" warrior. Who are you to tell that guy you dont feel the spec was good and you are going to add additional threat modifiers on holy shield for example? The game play style that paladin misses is now gone from existence, just because you felt it was a good change.

    Situations like i describe above is why blizzard is going to stick to a strict no changes mentality, its the best way to do it from both sides.
    lets see what they do. I think today's blizzard sees a spec underperforming similar spec's in other classes, and has an irresistable urge to fix them.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •