What's wrong with giving players options?

[Deleted]

You want that then you play classic, see it's easy.

You still haven't answered why only you should get what you want?

I never said only I should get what I want.

[Deleted]

What you really want is the option to disable the quest tracker in modern WoW, then. Actually, can't you already do that?

No, because that would give an advantage to those who have the quest tracker on. Furthermore, how would disabling the quest tracker bring back Vanilla gameplay? It's not like disabling the quest tracker would get rid of LFG from WoW.

[Jazzhands]

They are literally not there if you don't use them. They might as well be an addon that you don't have installed.

They are very much there, though. Whether they're there or not isn't subjective.

You also like to ignore like, every point people make.

Changes lead to other change. Changing a product meant for an intended audience to please the audience that ruined said game in the first place sucks, especially given we've been waiting over 10 years for this.

You need to explain why you feel changes don't do this. If all you say is "They don't effect you" then you aren't understanding the base idea that we feel they do regardless, because a change is a change. The contents of that change don't matter. If it's not a change required to make the servers work (Because otherwise this is all pointless), then it shouldn't happen.

Just saying over and over "they don't effect you so it doesn't matter" isn't going to sway anyone to see you side. We're showing you why we don't want changes, but you just keep saying they don't effect us, when we're saying they are. Because a change is a change, they don't need to directly effect us to effect us.

[Seranthor]

That's not an argument.

Vanilla should be as close to vanilla as possible. Your garbage 'options' dont belong. period. If that is a deal breaker for you then you dont belong in vanilla, Either.

[Deleted]

Changes lead to other change.

By that logic more changes will inevitably happen, cause changes already happened.

[Xilurm]

I am starting to believe that the so "hyped" vanilla community in the end is the most problematic of all and against any godamn change that happens in this game, good or bad doesn't matter, the negativity is always there.

That's why they're going to play Classic and stay away from retail. That way people who want Classic and play that and people who want retail can play that. But no, retail people trying to invade classic and add stuff just cause they can't live without the QoL features. When tbh they should just accept that maybe an old game like classic isn't the game for them.

I too, wouldn't bother playing Mario 64, but I know people who love it. That's just the way it is.

[Exeris]

I never said only I should get what I want.

It's all or nothing(depending of the type of suggestion), they have already spent years adding those types of suggestions to retail, I wish you good luck trying to get them to invest that amount of time again.

Maybe if you can go on their official forums and get enough support from their customers about specific changes, but I highly doubt you can. At least talking about it here won't change anything.

[Deleted]

They are very much there, though. Whether they're there or not isn't subjective.

You also like to ignore like, every point people make.

Changes lead to other change. Changing a product meant for an intended audience to please the audience that ruined said game in the first place.

You need to explain why you feel changes don't do this. If all you say is "They don't effect you" then you aren't understand the base idea that we feel they do regardless, because a change is a change. The contents of that change don't matter. If it's not a change required to make the servers work (Because otherwise this is all pointless), then it shouldn't happen.

Just saying over and over "they don't effect you so it doesn't matter" isn't going to sway anyone to see you side. We're showing you why we don't want changes, but you just keep saying they don't effect us, when we're saying they are. Because a change is a change.

Classic has already changed, so no changes is already an impossibility. The question is, what changes should be allowed? Certainly, some changes have to be made to create stable servers. Some changes, like better graphics, wouldn't change the gameplay at all. It is only changes that would change the gameplay that could be harmful.

[Deleted]

Vanilla should be as close to vanilla as possible. Your garbage 'options' dont belong. period. If that is a deal breaker for you then you dont belong in vanilla, Either.

It will be as close to Vanilla as possible. Just don't turn on new player models.

[Deleted]

The reason for No changes is that the player base doesn't trust blizz if they start touching things, that's all. It is the only guarantee that vanilla stays vanilla. They've already started opening pandora's box again with maybe sharding at launch, if they do sharding at launch, what says they won't be using it at the AQ event ? And wow quickly becomes a bland experience again.

[Deleted]

The reason for No changes is that the player base doesn't trust blizz if they start touching things, that's all. It is the only guarantee that vanilla stays vanilla. They've already started opening pandora's box again with maybe sharding at launch, if they do sharding at launch, what says they won't be using it at the AQ event ? And wow quickly becomes a bland experience again.

They will be using sharding when the stability of the servers is at risk. Which is perfectly reasonable, as the core aspect of Vanilla gameplay isn't server crashes. That wasn't part of the design vision.

That is entirely different than constantly sharding regardless of server stability.

[Xilurm]

By that logic more changes will inevitably happen, cause changes already happened.

And yet people are fighting for those to get removed, and you wanna add more.

[Jazzhands]

By that logic more changes will inevitably happen, cause changes already happened.

Changes required to make the server work are different. Without these changes, there is no Classic at all. 95% is better than 0%, once again the goal now is Classic with as few changes as possible. Your wants go against that goal. Once Blizzard opens the door to changes players directly want and request, it's all over. Leaving in the two hour loot window is shit and I don't want it, but they did it for resource reasons, not because people asked. But once player X gets their changes, Player Y sees this and uses it as a basis for his changes ect, it's what happened to live. Give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna ask for some milk, not be thankful for the cookie. Eat your damn cookie, then go somewhere else for the milk, we don't have any.

Blizzard has to have a firm no changes stance. If they add anything in simply to give players an option and not for a specific reason like above, it will have negative consequences.

[Seranthor]

It will be as close to Vanilla as possible. Just don't turn on new player models.

Why exactly should your options be added and not someone else's?

[Jazzhands]

Classic has already changed, so no changes is already an impossibility. The question is, what changes should be allowed? Certainly, some changes have to be made to create stable servers. Some changes, like better graphics, wouldn't change the gameplay at all. It is only changes that would change the gameplay that could be harmful.

I actually already answered this in the post this is hopefully attached to =)

Edit: It didn't, so here.

Changes required to make the server work are different. Without these changes, there is no Classic at all. 95% is better than 0%, once again the goal now is Classic with as few changes as possible.

Once Blizzard opens the door to changes players directly want and request, it's all over. Leaving in the two hour loot window is shit and I don't want it, but they did it for resource reasons, not because people asked. But once player X gets their changes, Player Y sees this and uses it as a basis for his changes ect, it's what happened to live. Give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna ask for some milk, not be thankful for the cookie. Eat your damn cookie, then go somewhere else for the milk, we don't have any.

[Deleted]

Changes required to make the server work are different. Without these changes, there is no Classic at all. 95% is better than 0%, once again the goal now is Classic with as few changes as possible. Your wants go against that goal. Once Blizzard opens the door to changes players directly want and request, it's all over. Leaving in the two hour loot window is shit and I don't want it, but they did it for resource reasons, not because people asked. But once player X gets their changes, Player Y sees this and uses it as a basis for his changes ect, it's what happened to live. Give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna ask for some milk, not be thankful for the cookie. Eat your damn cookie, then go somewhere else for the milk, we don't have any.

Blizzard has to have a firm no changes stance. If they add anything in simply to give players an option and not for a specific reason like above, it will have negative consequences.

Classic should preserve the vanilla gameplay, not the vanilla graphics. It should be for us who enjoyed playing the game, not looking at it.

[Deleted]

Why exactly should your options be added and not someone else's?

Who said someone else's options shouldn't be added? If they are good options and no one is forced to use them, I don't see the problem with it.

[Xilurm]

-snip-

"If you find this cool, then you should see a psychiatrist."

[Jazzhands]

Classic should preserve the vanilla gameplay, not the vanilla graphics. It should be for us who enjoyed playing the game, not looking at it.

Classic is to preserve Vanilla. That's Blizzards goal for Blizzards project. It's not to give you your vision of Vanilla. It's to give you what the game was back then. It didn't have good graphics back then, if graphics effect you that much then this clearly isn't the game for you.

[Seranthor]

Who said someone else's options shouldn't be added? If they are good options and no one is forced to use them, I don't see the problem with it.

Who gets to decide if they are 'good' or not?