If TBC becomes a thing, Blizzard needs to make "change" to prevent faction imbalance

[Kralljin]

But it wouldn't be...lol. They didn't release ZG/Naxx/BWL at the start right? Then why would they release SSC/TK/Hyjal

Because those were implemented in later Patches.
Vanilla initially only had MC and Ony as raid, any other raid was introduced in a later patch.

SSC, TK and Hyjal were open since Day one of TBC, your only limitation were the Attunements to enter them.

Also, the quests thing I'm talking about is quests like the warlock epic mount, the pally epic mount, the class specific quests in ST. If they went straight off of 1.12 all these things would have been there at the start, but they weren't. So there's no reason to think they would do something like removed attunments at the start just because they are basing it off of patch 2.4.3

Sure, but there also have been quests (or entire hubs) that were later implemented in Vanilla and still have been in Classic right off the bat.

[Naraga]

I don't think it has to do with them "understanding it", i think the primary issue was a technical one.
In their Blizzcon presentation they said that they only had a backup of a backup of their 1.12 state, which implies that Blizzard didn't have a lot of data of previous patch(es).

Next to that, it may have also been an economical decision, having a more progressive style would obviously been more work (disregarding the possibility of them not having the data).
Blizzard obviously did not expect the success of Classic that it had, the months leading up to Classic with Name reservation has shown that.
They didn't even want to launch with language specific servers in the EU, now Germany and France alone have like 10 Classic Servers in total.

In particular in regards to Attunements, they would be repeating the mistake of AV, except it's even easier to restore the Pre 2.4 state and cause a far bigger backlash, Attunements is one of the quirks why TBC has been such a famous time.
Same goes unnerfed Heroics, most of the time, Trash just had more HP and hit harder, that's about it, nothing fundamental or something that would need a lot of work to implement or might cause any problems once you transition to the 2.4 state.

I mean, it's entirely possible that they take the easy path but then they would be taking a lot of things away why TBC has become such a famous expansion, despite it being rather easy to restore (as opposed to similiar elements in Classic).
I think it would also be a decent marketing element, because it would be far closer to "how TBC actually happened", rather than "It's Classic but everything is already in its 1.12 state."

But you don't need backups, all patchnotes ever released are publicly available. You just work back through the patchnotes and make changes to revert whatever values those patches changed. Even for Classic that could have been done easily, despite only having the 1.12 client available.

Economically speaking compared to a new expansion Classic took no work at all while making them more money than such a new expansion, making a bit of effort to do patch progression wouldn't be too much to ask. It makes content harder and might lead to changes in gear requirements or spec changes keeping people engaged for longer and as such keep them subbed for longer.

But this is going pretty off topic now.

[Synical123]

But truth be told, i don't have high hopes that they implement the pre nerf state of Heroics / Raids.

Saw you edited this, just to touch on one more thing (which again is just hoping). They mentioned way before classic was released that prior to 1.12 they didn't save much patch info. So things like pre-nerfed dungeons or raids would have just been a crap shoot to guesstimate what they think it should have been. They mentioned that post 1.12 they have all the patch data.

So if they are being truthful, something like pre-nerf heroics and raids would be something that is 100% possible and plausible for something that we could see as the patch data is already made for them essentially.

Of course some people will say blizzard was lying about the 'lost patches' prior to 1.12 but that's just speculation and we can only go off of what they tell us.

[Akibaboy]

You're asking for Blizzard to protect you from yourself. They won't.

[Synical123]

Sure, but there also have been quests (or entire hubs) that were later implemented in Vanilla and still have been in Classic right off the bat.

Yes, but we can all agree we are now comparing apples to oranges here right? Allowing a quest hub to be open from the start that wasn't, simply just for questing, isn't anything comparable to allowing something like allowing anyone to walk into SSC/TK or epic mount chain to be available right?

- - - Updated - - -

You're asking for Blizzard to protect you from yourself. They won't.

Other people*

[Kralljin]

But you don't need backups, all patchnotes ever released are publicly available.

And Patchnotes are not good things to go on, because they are not always telling you any values.
I'm just flying over some Vanilla Patchnotes, take this one sample out of Patch 1.8:

Zul'Gurub
Reduced the damage of the Mad Servant's fireball

Or take this one out of 1.10:

Ruins of Ahn'Qiraj
Certain monsters have had their hitpoints reduced.

I don't think i need to be a Software engineer to figure out that these are rather inaccurate guidelines.
Not to mention that Blizzards Patchnotes aren't 100% complete.

Reverse Engineering via Patchnotes is a terrible idea.

Yes, but we can all agree we are now comparing apples to oranges here right? Allowing a quest hub to be open from the start that wasn't, simply just for questing, isn't anything comparable to allowing something like allowing anyone to walk into SSC/TK or epic mount chain to be available right?

We are comparing apples to Oranges because Blizzard isn't 100% accurate with their own implementation.
Outdoor questhubs are in their 1.12 state right off the bat but certain questlines (such as the Sunken Temple Class quests) are held off for [reasons].

The only silver lining i can find here is that they only go by release schedule of Vanilla if the implementation is easy enough.
Some guys suddenly offering a quest is probably easier to roll out than having a questhub appear out nowhere.
That's my guess at least.

The point is that SSC / TK / Hyjal being available right from the start is accurate with how TBC launched.
If Blizzards wants to follow that, fair enough, but then they need to hold off the removal of Attunements that happened with 2.4.

[Synical123]

We are comparing apples to Oranges because Blizzard isn't 100% accurate with their own implementation.
Outdoor questhubs are in their 1.12 state right off the bat but certain questlines (such as the Sunken Temple Class quests) are held off for [reasons].

The reasons being they were way more impact and easier to remove than whole npcs and hubs. Having a quest hub in that was in 1.12 doesn't really change much of anything at all... the only difference it makes is that instead of doing those however many quests, people would just grind or do quests somewhere else. The ones they left out actually DO have a stronger impact on the game as the items you receive would have been apart of pre raid BiS. If they removed them it would be going against what they did with classic.

[ONCHEhap]

I would ask for no changes usually,but Classic is full of metaslaves to a point where it could genuinely drive TBC straight through the ground,so some adjustements here could be justified

[korijenkins]

They would've been smart to force players onto servers 1 at a time, rather than letting players choose from a selection.

Lets make it so the hypothetical cap of players on each server was 10k for each faction. Until a server reached that capacity, the 2nd server would not open, or the third, or the fourth, etc.

Would've completely prevented the massive faction imbalances that most high pop servers have.

[Relapses]

They would've been smart to force players onto servers 1 at a time, rather than letting players choose from a selection.

Lets make it so the hypothetical cap of players on each server was 10k for each faction. Until a server reached that capacity, the 2nd server would not open, or the third, or the fourth, etc.

Would've completely prevented the massive faction imbalances that most high pop servers have.

Hello, Blizzazrd department? Yes, I would like to have a 6 month wait time to log into a server.

[Nfinitii]

I’ve seen this argument before. I think it’s fine to give Paladins both seals.

Blizzard should be willing to make changes for the good of the game.

[SkagenRora]

Because there is no way to do that. Forcing people to transfer, or telling them 'YOU WILL PLAY <name of underrepresented faction> AND THAT'S THAT' would not end well.

Much like how they are warning you from making characters on "Full" servers, they could just make a message saying "On this server you can only create X faction character"

[Tehterokkar]

All they need to do to force balance is to put faction based queues on PvP servers. If your characters are on Horde and the server is horde favored, it would put you in a queue while Alliance can get through without a queue and there would be an artificial limiter to keep balance to 60:40 on the server.

[Kralljin]

The reasons being they were way more impact and easier to remove than whole npcs and hubs. Having a quest hub in that was in 1.12 doesn't really change much of anything at all... the only difference it makes is that instead of doing those however many quests, people would just grind or do quests somewhere else. The ones they left out actually DO have a stronger impact on the game as the items you receive would have been apart of pre raid BiS. If they removed them it would be going against what they did with classic.

Those Trinkets also wouldn't changed much, i mean, the content at the time available is pretty much faceroll on both numerical and mechanical level.
I mean, some of the bosses in MC have about half HP what Bosses even in ZG will have.

It's not like they would have invalidated certain items based on the pure lack of alternatives.
That aside, the items from the Hinterlands quests for the Horde are pretty powerful (Looking at Rune of the Watcher).

[Synical123]

Those Trinkets also wouldn't changed much, i mean, the content at the time available is pretty much faceroll on both numerical and mechanical level.
I mean, some of the bosses in MC have about half HP what Bosses even in ZG will have.

It's not like they would have invalidated certain items based on the pure lack of alternatives.
That aside, the items from the Hinterlands quests for the Horde are pretty powerful (Looking at Rune of the Watcher).

I'm confused are they powerful or not? You say they wouldn't have changed much but then go on and say this random green trinket that's worse than the ones I'm talking about is strong.

[clevin]

Because there is no way to do that. Forcing people to transfer, or telling them 'YOU WILL PLAY <name of underrepresented faction> AND THAT'S THAT' would not end well.

Sure there is. If a server is becoming too dominated by one faction, simply close the ability to start new toons of that faction on that server until some conditions is met. If a server is, say, 70-30 one way, you can't roll on the side that's 70 until the balance is, say, under 60.

SHOULD they do this? Pros and cons. But if we think that extreme balance is bad for the game, then they should definitely think about it.

[Kralljin]

I'm confused are they powerful or not? You say they wouldn't have changed much but then go on and say this random green trinket that's worse than the ones I'm talking about is strong.

If the power of those items would have been an issue, then it's rather puzzling that Blizzard also implemented quests that gave Horde Melees a rather powerful trinket.
Rune of the Watcher was your to go Trinket if you struggled with Hit.

Like, if Rogue had the choice between the three Items they get from their Class quest and Rune of the Watcher, they would always take Rune of the Watcher.

So no, they didn't hold those trinkets back because of their power.

[Nobleshield]

Or you could just roll horde. Nothing blizzard can or will do will change people rolling horde

I've tried, my guild won't go Horde

Whatever though I think they need to throw no changes out the window since it was proven to be faulty memories at best or outright lies and misinformation at worst and nearly everything the #NoChangers spouted about vanilla was proven to be a load of bullshit.

[Mirishka]

Much like how they are warning you from making characters on "Full" servers, they could just make a message saying "On this server you can only create X faction character"

That sounds good until X player comes along with friends already playing Alliance toons on said server, and Blizz says to X player 'you can only make horde here'.

Faction populations are never going to be balanced and any attempt by Blizz to police it isn't going to end well.

[Synical123]

If the power of those items would have been an issue, then it's rather puzzling that Blizzard also implemented quests that gave Horde Melees a rather powerful trinket.
Rune of the Watcher was your to go Trinket if you struggled with Hit.

Like, if Rogue had the choice between the three Items they get from their Class quest and Rune of the Watcher, they would always take Rune of the Watcher.

So no, they didn't hold those trinkets back because of their power.

You must haven't been reading what I've been saying if you think I just said power. Also those class quests was just something I mentioned off hand I also mentioned things like the quests in DM but lets just completely ignore that right lol.