Changes

[Deficineiron]

While the idea may sound interesting, and it does, first it would imply many more resources and second it would imply that the very same guys that brought us Cata, Wod and BFA would touch the game. These 2 make me lose insterest fast as interesting as it may sound.

those same guys apparently already touched health/mana regen in the demo, so bold is pretty much the key takeaway.

[dragnipur]

It's beta, say it with me, it's beta, it's beta it's betaaaaa

“It’s demo only”
"It’s just alpha"
"It‘s still in a beta"
“It's launch issues”
"It‘s a pre-patch issues"
"It‘s first patch issues"
"It‘s not even last patch"
"Next expansion will be better"

sure here you go.

[Simca]

those same guys apparently already touched health/mana regen in the demo, so bold is pretty much the key takeaway.

Pretty sure that's a mistake related to wrong values in a gametable; something that is extremely easy to fix.

[Thunderball]

those same guys apparently already touched health/mana regen in the demo, so bold is pretty much the key takeaway.

Do you realize that they're working from 7.3.5 values, not the other way around?

[Deficineiron]

Do you realize that they're working from 7.3.5 values, not the other way around?

Pretty sure that's a mistake related to wrong values in a gametable; something that is extremely easy to fix.

Simca, you make my point for me. it is something that should very, very easy to have fixed prior to showing their whole fanbase the demo.

numerically, is the regen rate in the demo the 7.3.5 regen rate, or something different?

regen buffing like the demo is the kind of stealth nerf I have been concerned about (the other being alteration of the player/mob power ratio in general).

did blizzard ever get asked about this, or spell out that the value was wrong and would be fixed? I haven't seen this anywhere.

My rule with blizzard is judge them by their actions, not their words, and the last 10 years have been full of actions trivializing leveling content (the 7.3 changes notwithstanding).

[Thunderball]

regen buffing like the demo is the kind of stealth nerf I have been concerned about (the other being alteration of the player/mob power ratio in general).

Buffing would mean changing the right value (i.e. 1.12 value) to something else (that we have in the demo). They never had a 1.12 value there.

[Simca]

I mean it's pretty clear the demo is very unfinished in several ways.

The reason that Wailing Caverns and Deadmines weren't available as dungeons to run was partially because water on WMO tiles in instances doesn't function properly at the moment (it's totally invisible). Both instances have a lot of water and would have looked pretty bad.

[Deficineiron]

Buffing would mean changing the right value (i.e. 1.12 value) to something else (that we have in the demo). They never had a 1.12 value there.

This is really picking at subject/verb/adjective/adverb agreement, and actually avoids the subject of the topic. @Simca seemed to understand what I was saying. Did you?

Please let me know what other syntax/grammar/etc. errors I have, i will try to fix them.

I assume most posters understand the context of the buff (e.g. vs. values from 1.12). additionally, I have seen zero evidence the regen rate used was the actual 7.3.5 rate and another another rate set by blizzard.

[voidillusion]

those same guys apparently already touched health/mana regen in the demo, so bold is pretty much the key takeaway.

Their compromise appears to be in fact to replicate accuratly the original experience, from what i know that regen issue isn't tweaked yet, so i'll just wait quietly until all is done and final to see if they can actually do what they say.

[Deficineiron]

Their compromise appears to be in fact to replicate accuratly the original experience, from what i know that regen issue isn't tweaked yet, so i'll just wait quietly until all is done and final to see if they can actually do what they say.

We'll see, right?

The demo overall was an interesting project. I wonder how much of it was motivated or pressured by wanting to have have a small revenue kicker for blizzcon tix.

[mehow2g]

There are available 1.12 private servers in a working order yet blizzard is taking two years to make classic?

Sure maybe the old code doesn't work on new systems or whatever the excuse is but it does not add up, I've seen this company screw over it's player base for ten years I personally don't think that is going to change, if they release it as it was in 1.12 I'll pinch myself.

This is activision were talking about the same company that gave us RMAH with fixed drop rates based off what class you're playing.

All we want is classic, that's all we ask nothing else.

[Relapses]

There are available 1.12 private servers in a working order yet blizzard is taking two years to make classic?

Sure maybe the old code doesn't work on new systems or whatever the excuse is but it does not add up, I've seen this company screw over it's player base for ten years I personally don't think that is going to change, if they release it as it was in 1.12 I'll pinch myself.

This is activision were talking about the same company that gave us RMAH with fixed drop rates based off what class you're playing.

All we want is classic, that's all we ask nothing else.

They're rebuilding Classic from the ground up to be its own unique property. If they wanted to use a private server as the basis for Classic we would have had it available a decade ago.

Additionally, PS players need to get out of this habit of speaking on behalf of every single ex-WoW player in existence when discussing what Blizzard is doing with their version of Classic. Just because PS players hate QoL changes doesn't mean literally every single player who ever quit WoW would also hate QoL changes. This is the reason I avoid this subforum altogether and was one of the biggest points of contention that I had before Blizzard even came out to say they were developing Classic.

The overall opinion of changes is not represented by this forum and if Blizzard is changing something -- regardless of how minor or major -- they're doing it with the correct intentions. PS players are not the target demographic for this version of Classic and this was made even more clear when they announced it would be included with a retail sub.

[Gaidax]

Private Servers are a pretty shoddy emulation full of issues - you don't want Blizz to do that crap.

[voidillusion]

PS players are not the target demographic for this version of Classic and this was made even more clear when they announced it would be included with a retail sub.

I don't understand that sentence, better yet i understand that you are trying to imply that the PS player base in its vast majority arent willing to pay for a sub, wich is wrong, i don't understand is why you willingly try to raise this issue.

PS playerbase arent the target demographic, but they sure as hell are a big chunk of it.

[Relapses]

I was perfectly clear with what I said. You're the one who misinterpreted it. PS players are part of the demographic but they're not the intended demographic. Blizzard's version of Classic will find an audience regardless of support from PS players. Blizzard intends for retail and Classic to support one another organically, not actively campaign against each other. (In direct defiance of the vitriolic "us vs. them" mentality you see pervasive on this forum.) I've said it before and I'll say it a million times again: If you don't like Blizzard's offering your perfectly free, perfectly illegal alternative will still be just as viable as it was before Classic was announced.

Moreover:

PS playerbase arent the target demographic, but they sure as hell are a big chunk of it.

...this is an example of a sentence that makes no sense.

Think about it like this: One of the most common arguments I see being made in favor of Classic is the "untapped potential" of the audience of ex-WoW players. If we assume the pool of ex-WoW players is in the 100 million range (which is likely an underestimate given this figure was quoted ages ago), then you're conflating the experience of say, maybe 1-200 thousand PS players with the far more numerous players who simply quit altogether. (And if you assume it was QoL changes which caused every one of those 100 million+ players to quit, well, I can't even begin to help you there because this defies any reasonable justification.)

Now, add onto that the fact that you have to actively seek out a PS and you have a community who is, by and large, attracted by the same goal: A 1:1 "authentic" Vanilla experience. Since quite a few players who play on PS servers actively participate in forum discussions (which you also have to actively seek out) it's not a stretch to imply that those players who are actively seeking out an authentic, zero-changes experience would be upset by Blizzard's intention of certain QoL changes to their version of the game.

Then you have the oh-so-common No True Scotsman logical fallacy which pops up in every one of these threads. "You're not a real Classic fan if you're okay with any changes." Nevermind the fact that the biggest change I've seen griped over is one which is by and large designed to foster a better experience overall, this is just poor argumentation.

You guys need to seriously get over the superiority complex you've developed and understand that Blizzard intends the Classic experience to be symbiotic for retail not adversarial.

[voidillusion]

One of the most common arguments I see being made in favor of Classic is the "untapped potential" of the audience of ex-WoW players. If we assume the pool of ex-WoW players is in the 100 million range (which is likely an underestimate given this figure was quoted ages ago), then you're conflating the experience of say, maybe 1-200 thousand PS players with the far more numerous players who simply quit altogether. (And if you assume it was QoL changes which caused every one of those 100 million+ players to quit, well, I can't even help you there because this defies any reasonable justification.)

You make several statements that don't resonate much with me so i won't coment on them but his caught my eye. One thing that you seem to forget or ignore in that statement, is that those 1-200 thousand PS players are the active ones. Obvisously an unknown number of the large fanbase will play, even if just for a bit for the tour, but those who are active and have been for the past years are the 1-200 thousand, and this is more significant than you make it seem.

[Relapses]

You make several statements that don't resonate much with me so i won't coment on them but his caught my eye. One thing that you seem to forget or ignore in that statement, is that those 1-200 thousand PS players are the active ones. Obvisously an unknown number of the large fanbase will play, even if just for a bit for the tour, but those who are active and have been for the past years are the 1-200 thousand, and this is more significant than you make it seem.

If your argument is that the number of ex-PS players rivals that of ex-WoW players, you're still making a fairly significant leap. WoW had 12 million active subscribers at its peak. It's almost impossible to gauge the "peak" for PS players (since there are so many different communities) but even if we're generous and say half a million, you're still comparing a much, much larger sample size to a smaller one.

[Holtzmann]

If your argument is that the number of ex-PS players rivals that of ex-WoW players, you're still making a fairly significant leap. WoW had 12 million active subscribers at its peak. It's almost impossible to gauge the "peak" for PS players (since there are so many different communities) but even if we're generous and say half a million, you're still comparing a much, much larger sample size to a smaller one.

Additional issue: most private servers aren't vanilla, or even just Blizzlike. So the private server community is split even further into smaller buckets of people who like straight vanilla, people who prefers 2x+ rates, people who prefer TBC servers...

That all makes PS and ex-PS "vanilla" player population numbers impossible to gauge.

[voidillusion]

If your argument is that the number of ex-PS players rivals that of ex-WoW players, you're still making a fairly significant leap. WoW had 12 million active subscribers at its peak. It's almost impossible to gauge the "peak" for PS players (since there are so many different communities) but even if we're generous and say half a million, you're still comparing a much, much larger sample size to a smaller one.

It's not my argument, PS players are a small part if you look at the entire potencial, still i repeat, they have been the active ones, those who have been playing even when a official version was just a mirage, it's easier to assume, i believe, that there will be a significant % conversion from those PServers to the official realms, just that. They have been playing, and they will keep on playing, this time on a legit platform.

[Relapses]

It's not my argument, PS players are a small part if you look at the entire potencial, still i repeat, they have been the active ones, those who have been playing even when a official version was just a mirage, it's easier to assume, i believe, that there will be a significant % conversion from those PServers to the official realms, just that. They have been playing, and they will keep on playing, this time on a legit platform.

This is just a thinly veiled No True Scotsman justification: "The 'real' Classic fanbase is playing on PS so Blizzard should kowtow to our expectations."