Realistic ideas for future level 60 content

[Triceron]

So to verify the claim... i should ask the person making the claim? I think you need to think about that a bit more, and why that doesn't make sense.

You verify the article through the editor, the person in charge. What doesn't make sense?

How would you go about verifying sources? Direct line to Blizzard HQ?

[Clozer]

Who Doesn't want to see it? every noteable Classic content creator has toyed with the idea, where are u getting ur delusional warped idea of "People don't want it"?

#nochanges

That's basically it.

[Tekkommo]

If classic is a success, we don't need extra level 60 content, just move onto TBC.

What extra level 60 content is actually feasible? Heroic dungeons/raids, extra dungeons/raids?

[huth]

You verify the article through the editor, the person in charge. What doesn't make sense?

How would you go about verifying sources? Direct line to Blizzard HQ?

Yes, of course. Or some other independent source. Especially since we have interviews with opposing claims on the matter.

Asking the original source has a good chance of just reinforcing errors.

[Triceron]

If classic is a success, we don't need extra level 60 content, just move onto TBC.

What extra level 60 content is actually feasible? Heroic dungeons/raids, extra dungeons/raids?

There were no heroic dungeons in Vanilla. It would probably be in the form of quest chains, new zones/subzones, dungeons and raids.

I can even see a zone revamp since they did stuff like that for Silithus right before Ahn Qiraj. Nothing like Cataclysm levels of change, but enough to integrate a Vanilla-viable version of Hyjal or Grim Batol or Uldum. Even zones like Azshara didn't have any real use end-game, they could throw in an epic chain and a dungeon there for kicks.

[Tekkommo]

There were no heroic dungeons in Vanilla.

I didn't claim that...

[arkanon]

There were no heroic dungeons in Vanilla. It would probably be in the form of quest chains, new zones/subzones, dungeons and raids.

I can even see a zone revamp since they did stuff like that for Silithus right before Ahn Qiraj. Nothing like Cataclysm levels of change, but enough to integrate a Vanilla-viable version of Hyjal or Grim Batol or Uldum. Even zones like Azshara didn't have any real use end-game, they could throw in an epic chain and a dungeon there for kicks.

What does heroics not being in vanilla have to do with anything? literally talking about adding things in that were not there - so...........

[Carnedge]

Not the same thing. The OP is actually advocating for new expansions to be added to Classic WoW. And I'm not talking about "future TBC or Wrath classic servers". He's talking about actually new stuff. Look how he talks about adding the Hyjal zone, or the Grim Batol, Emerald Dream, etc.

Things like that should not and will not happen, because it's not what Classic WoW is about. It's about remembering and re-experience what the vanilla game was, not to "re-launch WoW in a completely different direction".

I don't think making a spin off game of Classic is a bad idea. Basically releasing all expansions in the same order but changing them to be "Classic" rules. Harder mobs, Level 60 cap, no flying, 40 man raid sizes, ect ect ect.

[Triceron]

Yes, of course. Or some other independent source. Especially since we have interviews with opposing claims on the matter.

Asking the original source has a good chance of just reinforcing errors.

Just to be clear, we're talking about verifying sources to clarify the questions and statements posed in the article, not verify sources for the purpose of validation and legitimacy. The context is clearing up ambiguity in the article, not finding out whether it was legitimate or not.

If you're talking about other interviews with opposing claims, then that's different, and taking my own statements out of context.

While what you bring up is a valid point, my statement was not aimed at resolving that.. I was directly replying to Ielenia, who said we had no direct transcript of questions and answers from the article. I was suggesting contacting the source to clarify the interview transcript. There isn't some erroneous claim being made that needs to be verified.

[huth]

There isn't some erroneous claim being made that needs to be verified.

Assumption.

We don't know if there is an erroneous claim being made. That's why the question of verfication came up to begin with.
Ielenia's question was not about clearing up ambiguity, but whether the interview is being correctly represented.
In that case, asking the interviewee makes more sense than asking the interviewer.
Besides, even if you want to clear up ambiguous statements, it's best to ask the person that made the statement if possible.

The other interviews are relevant in that they throw doubt at the interpretation made by the interviewers.

[Triceron]

Assumption.

We don't know if there is an erroneous claim being made. That's why the question of verfication came up to begin with.
Ielenia's question was not about clearing up ambiguity, but whether the interview is being correctly represented.
In that case, asking the interviewee makes more sense than asking the interviewer.
Besides, even if you want to clear up ambiguous statements, it's best to ask the person that made the statement if possible.

The other interviews are relevant in that they throw doubt at the interpretation made by the interviewers.

What other interviews? I havent seen any others mentioned here and none were mentioned in discussion.

I would be interested in seeing these reports

-Edit- I found it, the Gamereactor interview.

I think this is very relevant information in questioning the validity of the Den of Geek article. However, I still contend that my original argument with Ielienia was definitely about ambiguity.

This was Ielenia's original statement which I first replied to him on

Dawson's reply could have been given under the context of future TBC/Wrath servers, for example, and journalist interpreted it as "anything", as in, "every single possible idea no matter how outrageous" is on the table.

In context of the original conversation (before questioning the validity of the information itself), the issue was whether the journalist was misinterpreting the developer's answer as something applying more broadly. That is different than Dawson's statement conflicting with Hazzikostas. I agree with you that verifying this would be important.

If you're going to defend Ielenia's argument then you need to know the context of the original argument. It was not about whether the statement was true/false, it was about whether the journalist was interpreting the statement correctly in their article. If it was about conflicting news with another article, then I agree that it should be investigated and I would have had no problem with that statement. I wouldn't have argued otherwise. Yet that was not Ielenia's argument, and in context of our discussion, this conflicting interview was never brought up. The issue I had was with assuming Dawson's comment was directed at something more specific (ie TBC) and the journalist broadly applying it to post-60 content. Based on the context of the statement itself, that assumption wouldn't have disregarded the post-60 content option whatsoever.

Overall, we are on the same page that the conflicting statements between Dawson and Hazzikostas should be looked in to.

[Methodd]

I would like to see more content at 70 rather than 60. I think the classes are better designed and the game felt overall a bit more polished. Maybe have the content take place on Azeroth instead of Outland to avoid the flying problem, which I think is one big negative of TBC.

[Zantera]

I thought the whole point of people wanting classic was to get back how it was? So "new content" would contradict that. Either you keep it classic forever OR you go the TBC route but that would be incredibly stupid for a few different reasons.

[enigma77]

I thought the whole point of people wanting classic was to get back how it was? So "new content" would contradict that. Either you keep it classic forever OR you go the TBC route but that would be incredibly stupid for a few different reasons.

How it was doesn't just mean the old content. It extends to game design and philosophy. Vanilla isn't just different from the current game because you kill different bosses.

[Vladar]

How it was doesn't just mean the old content. It extends to game design and philosophy. Vanilla isn't just different from the current game because you kill different bosses.

Exactly classic is a different game and its not because of the content. TBC is pretty much retail without LFR and LFD.

[Zantera]

How it was doesn't just mean the old content. It extends to game design and philosophy. Vanilla isn't just different from the current game because you kill different bosses.

Re-releasing Classic as close to how it was in vanilla is one thing and as stupid as I find the idea of backtracking to be, I still think it makes sense when some people want it. But doing this and then branching off and adding to it, basically creating two separate WoW branches, is a clusterfuck in many ways.

[Unholyground]

More BG's for sure would be cool and re-imagined versions of the zones we cannot get to.

[Luxeley]

And this is where nerd heaven becomes corrupt...LOL

[Spicymemer]

So again, classic WoW but totally different. Every time I read a post already suggesting a change to the game that's still 3 months from release, the less convinced I am that this is going to be even a moderately enjoyable experience. I've hardly seen anyone saying they like it exactly how it is (and was).

You're a dumbass, i literally said, I dont want to see classic get changed and when i refer to cut content intended for vanilla, i would accept that, Azshara battleground being one, quest hubs/fp they added in bc/wotlk, kara.

[Eldryth]

How it was doesn't just mean the old content. It extends to game design and philosophy. Vanilla isn't just different from the current game because you kill different bosses.

This is the key here. A lot of people do just want to relive Vanilla exactly as it was, and no matter what, they'll get that. Even if new stuff is added, it won't happen before Classic runs through all the old content and people have time to enjoy Naxx.

But there's also people who legitimately enjoy the way MMOs were designed back then, and plenty of them would be interested in even more of that kind of gameplay. I may very well be one of them if I find a good community/guild. Sure, I don't for sure that there'd be enough of us for it to be worth it... but it would be foolish for Blizzard to not look into the numbers and at least consider it. It's not like there's anything big these days for that kind of audience (well, Everquest is still getting expansions, but I don't think it's popular anymore and don't know if it's anywhere near the same).

I guess Pantheon will probably release somewhat close to Classic finishing it's original Vanilla cycle, and it's the closest upcoming game to this kind of MMO... so if it turns out well and Blizzard doesn't expand Classic further then it could get a huge boost from all this.