Changes

[Vorkreist]

Sorry i wasn't clear enough. I wanted a graphics overhaul, not just play a game in 2019 that looks like it came straight out of the 90s...because it actually did.

So classic is not something you're interested in then and clearly not for you.

- - - Updated - - -

People are excited about Warcraft 3 reforged because they remastered it. Not because they're re-releasing the same old game.

People wanted the real vanilla not a remaster when it came to wow. You still have the old warcraft 3 available to play today unlike vanilla wow

- - - Updated - - -

Actually incredible even after ion explained why they need to keep the debuff limit people STILL cant understand why no changes is important.

Everything ion said is what ive been trying to explain to people for months on end, well besides the sharding....that gets a big yikes from me.

Theres a lot of people who still don't get the idea behind classic and believe it needs some special improvements. Hey put sharding , Hey I want new models, hey I want new grafix , hey I want x.y.z I'm glad Ion highlighted clearly enough that they are focused on the right things instead of stupid changes like those.

[xcitng]

The good and the bad make vanilla what it is

That never happened in vanilla.

It happens when you have 10k server pop for the last 10 years and think you should have to stay in the 1-5 starting area for 6 hours like private servers.

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

You just don't get it, do you?

When he said class balance - he spoke about class balance as it was in Vanilla, it is part of the history that needs to be reserved.

Some people just don't understand what classic is supposed to be, apparently.

No I get the class balance thing, however there's no simulations or private server statistics that shows or even suggests that opening more debuff slots would make any difference in who's the best 2-3 dps specs. It wouldn't get easier to raid or do dungeons, all it would do is to let more specs/builds be viable. It was a technical limitation in Vanilla, Ion said it was bad for the design of the game (which I agree it is) but still they keep it. Which from a purist POV I can understand, however I'm not in the "keep it unchanged" group.

Mages (fire) being a bit inflated in his analasis because of how Ignite worked back then (which should also maybe be resolved?)
But anyways, there's no data or simulations that suggest that this damage list would change much- if any. All it would do is to allow more specs/builds to be represented in the list, which I don't see any downsides to. Only having 4-5 out of 21 dps specs being viable or even having the chance to play as intended isn't a good thing... Again, allowing more debuffs wouldn't make Boomkins or Rets more viable, neither Elemental Shamans and so on. However it would at the very least allow them (and others) to use their full class/spec rotations instead of just sitting in raids refilling your ammo bag or spamming Shadowbolt for the entire fight.



--------

I loved Vanilla for the realm communities, sense of acomplishment when you FINALLY got something done and the friendships and memories you made. However the actual game design of Vanilla? It wasn't good, sure some of it was good for the time but a lot of it wasn't. I'm not talking about quests taking an hour to complete because of low drop rates, that's fine. I'm talking about having so many Classes and specs not able to play or even take part in what they were designed or described to do.

Examples?
Balance Druids couldn't dps in raids because of mana regen being poor, limited debuff slots.
Protection Paladins couldn't tank in raids because they didn't have a taunt, there was no gear for them and so on.
Feral Druids couldn't dps optimally because of limited debuff slots, with debuff slots Feral is actually a really decent dps for raids.
Shadow Priests couldn't dps in raids for a number of reasons, debuff slots being one of them.
Hunters couldn't use Serpent Sting (I don't remember if it was calculated to be a dps loss or not?)
Warriors Deep Wounds would be removed constantly or not applied at all.
Fire Mages Ignite would be removed constantly aswell, or would only 1 fire mage be counted? I don't remember.
Warlocks couldn't use any of their dots or curses except one- which only 1 warlock could apply...


In a raid with 40 people, potentially hundreds of debuffs could/should be applied for optimal play. You had 16 (up from 8) because of technical limitations, now that they have the techincal power to do more debuffs they should. Same as healing over time effects shouldn't be limited, techincal limitations weren't fun then and it's not fun now.

(Obviously my opinion, don't get buthurt if my opinion differs from yours)

[Gaidax]

No I get the class balance thing, however there's no simulations or private server statistics that shows or even suggests that opening more debuff slots would make any difference in who's the best 2-3 dps specs. It wouldn't get easier to raid or do dungeons, all it would do is to let more specs/builds be viable. It was a technical limitation in Vanilla, Ion said it was bad for the design of the game (which I agree it is) but still they keep it. Which from a purist POV I can understand, however I'm not in the "keep it unchanged" group. I loved Vanilla for the realm communities, sense of acomplishment when you FINALLY got something done and the friendships and memories you made. However the actual game design of Vanilla? It wasn't good, sure some of it was good for the time but a lot of it wasn't. I'm not talking about quests taking an hour to complete because of low drop rates, that's fine. I'm talking about having so many Classes and specs not able to play or even take part in what they were designed or described to do.

Examples?
Balance Druids couldn't dps in raids because of mana regen being poor, limited debuff slots.
Protection Paladins couldn't tank in raids because they didn't have a taunt, there was no gear for them and so on.
Feral Druids couldn't dps optimally because of limited debuff slots, with debuff slots Feral is actually a really decent dps for raids.
Shadow Priests couldn't dps in raids for a number of reasons, debuff slots being one of them.
Hunters couldn't use Serpent Sting (I don't remember if it was calculated to be a dps loss or not?)
Warriors Deep Wounds would be removed constantly or not applied at all.
Fire Mages Ignite would be removed constantly aswell, or would only 1 fire mage be counted? I don't remember.
Warlocks couldn't use any of their dots or curses except one- which only 1 warlock could apply...


In a raid with 40 people, potentially hundreds of debuffs could/should be applied for optimal play. You had 16 (up from 8) because of technical limitations, now that they have the techincal power to do more debuffs they should. Same as healing over time effects shouldn't be limited, techincal limitations weren't fun then and it's not fun now.

(Obviously my opinion, don't get buthurt if my opinion differs from yours)

As a Warlock in Vanilla I can tell you this - if debuff limit is lifted, I'd totally get a shitton damage out of it because all DoTs had higher DPCT than Shadow Bolt.

I mean, it's not even a frikkin' question there that balance would change immediately with that - it's basic math.

People want Vanilla and this is what Blizzard is doing including all the issues, hybrid troubles and what not. That's how it is supposed to be, not some "fixed" version that has nothing to do with original game.

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

As a Warlock in Vanilla I can tell you this - if debuff limit is lifted, I'd totally get a shitton damage out of it because all DoTs had higher DPCT than Shadow Bolt.

I mean, it's not even a frikkin' question there that balance would change immediately with that - it's basic math.

People want Vanilla and this is what Blizzard is doing including all the issues, hybrid troubles and what not. That's how it is supposed to be, not some "fixed" version that has nothing to do with original game.

Which I agree and understand with, for the most part. I guess what I really want is the current standard of game design minus all the cross-realm, LFG/LFD/LFR, flying and all the other bullshit. Basically Vanilla game structure but with modern, optimized and balanced classes/specs and content. I think the framework of vanilla was good, the picture ...kinda shit.

Damage Per Cast Time, or whatever DPCT is short for, is only relevant to cast priority. Sure you'd cast Corruption or Agony before Shadowbolt because they do more DPCT- that's the entire design intent behind DoT effects, however it wouldn't spike your damage in a dramatic way.

A DoT effect can have the DPCT value of 1500 but if the DoT lasts for a long time the effective DPS wouldn't be high. There are obviously some exceptions like Shadow Priests who has most of their potential damage from DoT effects (and Mindflay) and they would certainly notice a power increase but why would that be a bad thing?

If I wanted to be a top DPS I'd still just play the best 1-3 spec/builds.
Just to be clear about this, I don't want class balance to make everyone equal. All I want is ALL specs/builds to be able to use their full spellbook as they see it fit, what's the fun in knowing you could do 100 more dps if you could apply Rip and Rake to the boss but never allowed to do so?

[Fascinate]

Which I agree and understand with, for the most part. I guess what I really want is the current standard of game design minus all the cross-realm, LFG/LFD/LFR, flying and all the other bullshit. Basically Vanilla game structure but with modern, optimized and balanced classes/specs and content. I think the framework of vanilla was good, the picture ...kinda shit.

As a no change fanatic, i can understand why someone would want this sort of game. The reality tho is that classic is being made to satiate nostalgia more than anything.

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

As a no change fanatic, i can understand why someone would want this sort of game. The reality tho is that classic is being made to satiate nostalgia more than anything.

Yep and that's also why I'll play Vanilla, for the community and good parts of the game. But I'm under no illusion or rose-tinted glasses that the raids were hard (mechanically), that classes were somewhat balanced or even viable, that there was good and interesting rotations and a whole lot of other things that got better as the expansions went on (except shit past MoP, MoP was the peak for me).

When all is said and done the good things of Vanilla far outweighs the bad things in my eyes, I can live with 16 debuffs but it means I can't play what I hoped for ...which is a bit annoying.

[Armourboy]

The good and the bad make vanilla what it is

Odd, I played Vanilla and didn't need to wait a week to be able to finish a Northsire Abbey quest, and I'm going to guess for the largest amount of players that was the case in Vanilla.

Sharding is happening because the servers are going to get hammered at launch. I'd almost bet my paycheck that if they didn't, the very same people fussing about sharding will be on here fussing about horrible Blizzard is because they can't play.

Blizzard is going with the lesser of two evils, and most players won't even care as long as its something that is removed in short order.

[CarlingBlackLabel]

Which is why classic won't release until summer 2019. I would give blizzard all the time in the world to improve stability and graphics as much as they can.

- - - Updated - - -



Good riddance. bye byayo!

Blizzard clearly said they will use sharding at launch to avoid server issues and downtime.

Well hold on there sunshine. I didn't say I wasn't going to play and they only confirmed that after the demo had been released so cool your jets. I understand the reasoning behind it, however, that doesn't mean I agree with it in my opinion but that is only my opinion and not one of everyone else.

[Chaelexi]

new bullshit!
Meeting Stone can summon players confirmed.

Just a reminder "Patch 2.0.1 (2006-12-05): Meeting Stones now function similar to a Warlock Summon spell."

remember that patch 2.0.1 was still vanilla. This was the pre Xpac patch that came out a couple weeks before BC

- - - Updated - - -

TBH i dont know the difference either, and ive been playing WoW since 06 lol.

Feel free to explain for us idiots.

Phasing is when you complete a quest and the world changes around you.

Sharding a server stability measure that will split a single server into "shards" of the server that allows the servers load be distributed over multiple servers to improve stability. Shards will be set at thresholds of active players in a zone and if the threshold is exceeded they will spin up another shard automatically and add new players entering the zone will be placed in that shard.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't crash, lag or have high queues, it's just a nightmare to tag stuff.

As I said, I would only be ok with it on launch for the first week, maybe 2.

It all depends on how they do servers and the size of the servers.

Say if each server has a 15k max pop, they could probably turn off sharding after a few days. We will have to wait and see.

edit: Thinking about it, I would not be ok with it after 1 week.

Sharding will likely be always on but what will happen is that the threshhold for activating a shard will be turned up higher. It will be on to handle one off events like AQ40 gate opening(which crashed the vast majority of server when it happened), things like when warriors crashed a server by all creating a characters at a certain time and marched on IF, etc. Things where server stability comes into question. But the threshhold will be set to a high limit so that it does not happen on a regular basis. I could also see for things like when raids first launch on the Tuesday.

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

So classic is not something you're interested in then and clearly not for you.

No, it definitely isn't.

[Kongnic11]

With the announced changes I am quite happy. I like the idea of sharding for the first couple of weeks, but it has to be lifted afterwards. Nothing better than seeing the world boiling with life

[Thunderball]

If sharding happens Classic is DOA. Simple as that. Helping with launch issues is not an argument, there are multiple other way you can go about it which are proven to work.

[Crick3t]

A question for vanilla purists/no-changers:

What good comes of the following?

• Login queues
• Server crashes
• Untaggable mobs (too many players trying)
• Incompatible Screen Sizes
• Locally stored macros (and keybinds iirc?)
• Old Raid Interface
• Unmovable Unit Frames

Those things where in Vanilla (correct me if I'm wrong). I want vanilla for the gameplay, the content and the community, but not that stuff...
So you've guessed it, I'm pro-changes.

Please convince me otherwise, I'm always up for a good argument.

[Xalvia]

A question for vanilla purists/no-changers:

What good comes of the following?

• Login queues
• Server crashes
• Untaggable mobs (too many players trying)
• Incompatible Screen Sizes
• Locally stored macros (and keybinds iirc?)
• Old Raid Interface
• Unmovable Unit Frames

Those things where in Vanilla (correct me if I'm wrong). I want vanilla for the gameplay, the content and the community, but not that stuff...
So you've guessed it, I'm pro-changes.

Please convince me otherwise, I'm always up for a good argument.

Sharding during the starting period is the best solution to this, the problem is that people don't trust them to remove it / reintroduce it the future. I understand both sides of the argument but still think that sharding, if removed striktly after it served it's purpose, is the best solution. After seeing everything so far, I will place my trust in them.

[Thunderball]

A question for vanilla purists/no-changers:

What good comes of the following?

• Login queues
• Server crashes
• Untaggable mobs (too many players trying)
• Incompatible Screen Sizes
• Locally stored macros (and keybinds iirc?)
• Old Raid Interface
• Unmovable Unit Frames

Those things where in Vanilla (correct me if I'm wrong). I want vanilla for the gameplay, the content and the community, but not that stuff...
So you've guessed it, I'm pro-changes.

Please convince me otherwise, I'm always up for a good argument.

I guess it's a sharding argument plus some extra. I'll bite.

In regards to sharding they've made it pretty clear with how they approached the demo that their main priority is making everything crash-free and smooth over gameplay. I agree that sharding is the best possible tool for that design philosophy but I completely disagree with the design philosophy. Seeing a player and having an ability to interact with them is far more important than having smooth and lag-free experience. In other words sharding being an available tool gives them an opportunity to ruin the game to achieve their design goals. Remember - Classic is not about your personal gameplay experience, it's about you interacting with the game world and other players, and sharding is going to kill that.

In regards to the rest of the bullet points - I dont see anything wrong with making widescreen available. The reality that existed back when the game was created was that most people had 4:3 monitors, and widescreen was really had to find. Reality of 2018 is that most people have widescreen monitors, a lot of people have ultra-widescreen monitors, and some people have 4K resolution available. The rest - it's quite simple: it wasnt in vanilla. You still have addons if you want to change that.

[Hottage]

Its all just an illusion guys, were not actually playing vanilla wow! were playing Legion!

An illusion? What are you hiding!

Oh, the unused LFR and Calender UI elements which people are getting freaked out about even though it's painfully obvious you're not supposed to be able to access them.

[Vorkreist]

A question for vanilla purists/no-changers:

What good comes of the following?

• Login queues
• Server crashes
• Untaggable mobs (too many players trying)
• Incompatible Screen Sizes
• Locally stored macros (and keybinds iirc?)
• Old Raid Interface
• Unmovable Unit Frames

Those things where in Vanilla (correct me if I'm wrong). I want vanilla for the gameplay, the content and the community, but not that stuff...
So you've guessed it, I'm pro-changes.

Please convince me otherwise, I'm always up for a good argument.

You will have a rough time with the game in general if you can't handle even those minor launch only issues.

[khalltusk]

Sharding during the starting period is the best solution to this, the problem is that people don't trust them to remove it / reintroduce it the future. I understand both sides of the argument but still think that sharding, if removed striktly after it served it's purpose, is the best solution. After seeing everything so far, I will place my trust in them.

Blizzard are being smart on this. My thinking and what I gathered from the blue post. On launch we will get some form of sharding and only in places where its needed. So a realm thats being hammered will get sharding when certain zones are overloaded. This way people get to play the content while not having to wait hours to get through. They have had years of experience with server launches (anyone remember TBC/Mop launches as how bad choke points can be).

This will be in at the start for sure due to the load, and perhaps on the AQ opening event if the population is that large in the given zone. Other than those extremes it would not be on as the player would be spread out enough and the servers able to handle more than they did back then.

Either way just give blizzard your feedback.

[Deleted]

So a realm thats being hammered will get sharding when certain zones are overloaded.

Thats the problem and thats my fear.

On the Q&A they said ONLY in starting zones and ONLY the first few weeks.

What i fear is if they use it everytime is "necessary".