Proposed Compromise of Dungeon/Raid Revamps

[Tyrgannus]

Since WoW 3.0, our gaming community has dealt with a few dungeon and raid revamps of various forms. Whether it be simply shifting level and tuning (and location) like Naxxramas and Onyxia where the mechanics while much easier were in fact similar, or more dynamic revamps like Zul'Gurub and Deadmines that had entirely new bosses with completely new mechanics but shared the same old environment, players often have had mixed reviews about revamping in general. On one side, people are upset that it is rehashed content that they've already seen and they want something new, and on the other side people like that fact that the bosses they loved are now applicable in the modern age and even appreciate some of the "facelift" approach to the bosses. It is seemingly impossible to please everyone if some people never want revamps and others want many things revamped to experience it again (I've heard a few people even petition for a Karazhan revamp myself).

Well, I believe there IS a compromise, and the solution has been right in front of our noses since Wrath of the Lich King in all honesty. Different difficulty modes.

Now, many believe that difficulty modes are already over saturated with 10, 10 heroic, 25, and 25 heroic (not to mention LFR which is queue only), but I tend to see more options as not forcing you to do more content but merely freeing you up with more options. I think people like options especially when not flooded with gear, achievements, or other incentives that make things feel "mandatory". If Onyxia had 3 difficulties (10, 25, 40-lvl 60), most people may never care about the lvl 60 version of Onyxia and it wouldn't affect them, but a few legacy guilds could have that old experience at no real cost to the rest of the raid community. This would also work very well for future revamps (let's use Karazhan hypothetically), because it go 10-lvl 70, 10, 10 Heroic, 25, and 25 Heroic for difficulties. People could still farm Attumen, grind rep, or practice there 1337 solo chess dance on their own time if they want to while people could progress through a revamped raid at the same time. This seems like the best of both worlds to me as it preserves the old version (this is a common complaint against revamps) while still giving popular dungeons and raids a facelift (which you don't need to do if you don't like it because the old one is still there).

Thoughts?

[Kutartwo]

I've never been against the revamping of old raids. I for one have tons of nostalgia and it brings back nice memories (for the most part) doing some of the old content done up for current times. As long as it's not re-done half assed where its obvious the devs were lazy, I'm all for it. After all the QQ, it would seem I'm one of the only people that enjoyed redoing Naxx and Onyxia, and I would love to see them come out with Kara again.

I understand why people don't like doing old content because obviously people always want to see new and improved storylines, but sometimes its nice to dip your hand in that nostalgia.

[Deleted]

There's no nostalgia when the revamps are dumbed-down shadows of their original selves. The old ZA would've made a great 10-man scaled challenge mode someday (instead of a 5-man version with a totally ruined final boss), as would've the old ZG. And that's before you even mention dungeons...anyone who played the original SM/Scholo would understand what a mess they made of them. (and the potential for scaled challenge modes that the old versions would've had)

[Tyrgannus]

I somewhat disagree with a lot that you're saying Staticus, but you're entitled to your opinion. In my proposed set up, the original iterations would exist as a completely separate mode, though admittedly it doesn't change the problem you pointed out with challenge modes which for SM is a very viable argument. With Scholomance, not so much.

I played the old SM and Sholomance, and while the changes to SM seem far odder to me in why they did it, I completely understand why they didn't want a Dungeon with 11-12 bosses in it (depending on boss interpretation of whether classroom counted) for modern day dungeons. I tend to think 5 bosses is a pretty good number for dungeons in all honesty, and a challenge mode where gold would have been 35 minutes would have been pretty ludicrous.

[Ferocity]

WoW is p2p game, where you also have to buy actual game and all consequent expansions, and which features cash-shop.

There can be no compromise. Another difficulty mode =/= new dungeons. Rehashes =/= new dungeons. Expansion, featuring only 6 original and very short 5-men, is a new low. I understand OP, but the way to fix this problem is to stop rehashing, especially in current circumstances.

[Woceip]

WoW is p2p game, where you also have to buy actual game and all consequent expansions, and which features cash-shop.

There can be no compromise. Another difficulty mode =/= new dungeons. Rehashes =/= new dungeons. Expansion, featuring only 6 original and very short 5-men, is a new low. I understand OP, but the way to fix this problem is to stop rehashing, especially in current circumstances.

What does that even have to do with this thread?

Anyway, the problem comes down to what do you want? Something new, or something old renewed? The revamps still aren't the quickest thing in the world, especially when you scale them. Things that worked at one level can become broken when you scale them. Personally I think Blizzard will steer largely clear of them unless there is a lot of specific feedback otherwise.

[Tyraena]

I am OK with revamping old content if it significantly changes the important parts, I.E. the bosses, trash, and general flow. I don't like revamps in which nothing but level and tuning are done, however (Onyxia and Naxx).

[Ferocity]

What does that even have to do with this thread?

Next sentences in quote explain it.

There can be no compromise. Too many circumstances, which are entirely unfavorable to any rehash whatsoever.

People keep forgetting, that back in Naxx #2 times, there was small apology made by Blizzard, who said that they won't rehash anymore, they just wanted to make small exception with Naxx, which was barely seen by anyone. What OP suggested, should be done for "revamped" dungeons, but now it is too late :/ However, it doesn't mean that we should have more "revamps".

[Tyrgannus]

You say there can be no compromise, but what you really mean is that there is no suitable compromise by your standards or what you believe to be the standards of the majority of the WoW community. Some of your evidence points to the very low amount of new dungeons, but I think that is an unfortunate and separate problem entirely. Even if every dungeon in MoP was new and there wasn't any revamps, we would have 9 new dungeons, and that STILL would be a new low for new 5 man content.(Classic-20, BC-16, LK-16, Cata-10 due to 4 revamps). Cataclysm would have STILL had less new dungeon content than its predecessors even if all 14 dungeons were completely new dungeons.

Revamps may be a contributing factor, but the real problem stems from the fact that less traditional content seems to be coming out in the later expansions REGARDLESS of whether you include revamps or not. This is a serious problem and if it continues I very much would understand why you would be against revamps, but to me the core problem is the lack of content as a whole. This may be due to Blizzard focusing more on different franchises and thus is a somewhat complicated problem, but admittedly it does make each expansion feel smaller for the same amount of money. If we could go back to the 5-man heavy model in later pacs and have around 16 dungeons, I would not in any way feel cheated if 2 or 3 of them were revamps, but people (and rightly so) feel cheated because revamps became more popular in a time where there already were less dungeons leaving quite a bad taste in people's mouths. I think my compromise would work in earlier days (or at final end game as final patch when Blizzard states there will be no more xpacs), but I understand that my views may be controversial.

[Socialhealer]

WoW is p2p game, where you also have to buy actual game and all consequent expansions, and which features cash-shop.

There can be no compromise. Another difficulty mode =/= new dungeons. Rehashes =/= new dungeons. Expansion, featuring only 6 original and very short 5-men, is a new low. I understand OP, but the way to fix this problem is to stop rehashing, especially in current circumstances.

you must be a total scrub, moaning about cash shop and only 6 5mans, regardless of how many 5mans there are geared groups like my guild can destroy all of them in around 3-4 minutes, so it's not really content, it's a fun way to gear up for around 3 days on release, then its a boring vp source.

so i don't really care how many 5mans they add they all get aoe'd down in under 5 minutes for some valor for 99% of the expansion, the whole setup of 5mans need to be completely re-done and made epic to be worthwhile as content now, scenarios are the way forward imo also rewarding more valor.

the cash shop dig was really pathetic and annoying, leave out that crap for the proper cash shop QQ threads.

[Deleted]

I played the old SM and Sholomance, and while the changes to SM seem far odder to me in why they did it, I completely understand why they didn't want a Dungeon with 11-12 bosses in it (depending on boss interpretation of whether classroom counted) for modern day dungeons. I tend to think 5 bosses is a pretty good number for dungeons in all honesty, and a challenge mode where gold would have been 35 minutes would have been pretty ludicrous.

The point about bosses in modern day dungeons is true, but they didn't really need to touch one of the older 10+ boss instances in the first place. I don't know if you tried the strat baron 45 run back in vanilla, but that was the equivalent of a 45 min challenge gold and it was awesome. (and if they do introduce scaling stuff like was talked about a few months ago, I'd personally love to see some longer challenge modes in the vanilla instances alongside the TBC/WotLK etc. shorter ones)