Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Reapocalypse]

But what about moving to TBC and WotLK? Is it still ok? Do you stop? Do you wipe the server and start over?

Several ways of dealing with that, from just being progressive with 1 realm that moves from vanilla to expansions, making a new server each expansion with being able to copy your chars from vanilla to BC to just making all expansions at once and making them seasonal like diablo, i would like all of these and the best way for deciding is to just make polls imo, even tho most would probably be in favor of a single progressive realm.

[Darkeon]

Yeah... that'll make them take you seriously.

Yeah, people didn't mock the flying fiasco.. nor the lack of content in WoD - and countless other before..
Gonna blame the players, in the future, for Blizzard not introducing either of those, because some players mocked them?

[RickJamesLich]

Sadly the reason why the forums is more vocally negative is to even post or like someones thread you have to have an active sub, at least in the sections that most of this stuff gets posted in. Considering a lot of the vocal people who want this probably aren't playing the game, it's hard to use the official forums for accuracy imo. There is also the White Knight wannabe community reps who try to assert themselves everywhere on the forums. I mean you even had a guy here who tried to quote the wall of no, but that was torn to shreds, and that is why you don't see that much here, but thrown everywhere on the WoW forums.

Yeah the official forums is a wacky place. Especially at the end of the expansion, like these are the guy's that LOVE stuff like garrisons, hanging out in queues, etc. So they will defend that stuff to the death. I don't have an active sub but you can still post in areas like "customer support". I think a lot of these guys think if they support blizzard hard enough, they will be granted MVP status or something.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see the problem with progressive servers. You get people to experience things like MC and BWL before moving onto AQ before moving onto Naxx. Gives something to sink their teeth into. I mean, sure, I suppose they could release legacy servers with all the old raids and old world content.

Makes me wonder how people would progress. Would they try to do AQ 40 or Naxx off the start? or would they try and gear up in MC and BWL and Ony?

You pretty much *have* to do the order in which the raids came out. While it's possible for example, to do early parts of BWL or AQ40 without doing MC, you will eventually come across stuff that either one shots the tanks or damage that simply can't be healed through.

[RippedLife]

Yeah... that'll make them take you seriously.

they didn't reply when we asked them nicely, might aswell make fun of them now

[Marston]

And would they go to Wrath? Wrath was a high point for many, but I also feel BC was exceptionally strong and still old school. When did dungeon finder come out? Wrath?

The dungeon finder we currently have came out with the ICC patch. Which is why people only remember the "easy Wrath heroics", because their gear was 1-2+ tiers above the heroics when the Dungeon Finder was introduced. Funnily enough, in Halls of Reflection people left after zoning into it because it was "too hard". And remember how Blizzard had to add an additional bag with loot to Occulus?

[Jeniwyn]

But what about moving to TBC and WotLK? Is it still ok? Do you stop? Do you wipe the server and start over?

This is a non-issue.

If Blizzard after the vanilla server is 'done' wish to let players progress to TBC they can open up TBC servers with transfer or copy (they can even milk extra $ for the transfer/copy) at that point in time.

If they want a reset, they can just open up a new server with transfer/copy disabled and you have a reset.

This isn't rocket science.

[badzerath]

The one measurable standard to measure enthusiasm and interest in World of Warcraft (subscriptions) clearly show the result of changes made over time to the game philosophy.


My question is: Why does access to "legacy servers" hurt anyone? Why does it hurt anything?

This has always been the response when casuals are presented with the request to have LFR removed. "IF YOU DONT LIKE LFR DONT RAID IT IT DOESNT HURT YOU ELITIST SCUM". This is said despite the obvious impact on the player-base raiding in LFR has thanks to the little to no consequences suffered for playing......badly.

Why if I'm stuck in a content limbo....like right now......why can't I log onto a vanilla/TBC/WOTLK server, level a toon, and do content again as if it were still current/interesting/challenging.

WHY is that so god damn offensive.

Why is player choice a good thing when it comes to the cancerous term "accessibility" as applied to raiding, but if I want to choose to play old content from the past with the same level of difficulty it had - back then - WHY is that BAD.

[Eliseus]

The one measurable standard to measure enthusiasm and interest in World of Warcraft (subscriptions) clearly show the result of changes made over time to the game philosophy.


My question is: Why does access to "legacy servers" hurt anyone? Why does it hurt anything?

This has always been the response when casuals are presented with the request to have LFR removed. "IF YOU DONT LIKE LFR DONT RAID IT IT DOESNT HURT YOU ELITIST SCUM". This is said despite the obvious impact on the player-base raiding in LFR has thanks to the little to no consequences suffered for playing......badly.

Why if I'm stuck in a content limbo....like right now......why can't I log onto a vanilla/TBC/WOTLK server, level a toon, and do content again as if it were still current/interesting/challenging.

WHY is that so god damn offensive.

Why is player choice a good thing when it comes to the cancerous term "accessibility" as applied to raiding, but if I want to choose to play old content from the past with the same level of difficulty it had - back then - WHY is that BAD.

It's sadly just how life is. People will argue no just to argue no. This thread has been the largest example of this. I don't want you to have what you want because. I would like to just say it is the internet (which does make it worse since people can more easily hide behind anonymity), but you see this is real life all the time also. There is also a lot of blatant fear mongering that current WoW would die.

[Aleks0410]

The one measurable standard to measure enthusiasm and interest in World of Warcraft (subscriptions) clearly show the result of changes made over time to the game philosophy.


My question is: Why does access to "legacy servers" hurt anyone? Why does it hurt anything?

This has always been the response when casuals are presented with the request to have LFR removed. "IF YOU DONT LIKE LFR DONT RAID IT IT DOESNT HURT YOU ELITIST SCUM". This is said despite the obvious impact on the player-base raiding in LFR has thanks to the little to no consequences suffered for playing......badly.

Why if I'm stuck in a content limbo....like right now......why can't I log onto a vanilla/TBC/WOTLK server, level a toon, and do content again as if it were still current/interesting/challenging.

WHY is that so god damn offensive.

Why is player choice a good thing when it comes to the cancerous term "accessibility" as applied to raiding, but if I want to choose to play old content from the past with the same level of difficulty it had - back then - WHY is that BAD.

It's a good question. A lot of people will reply that there's no market for it, and that Blizz will lose $$$ if they try to implement Legacy servers.

[BuckSparkles]

The dungeon finder we currently have came out with the ICC patch. Which is why people only remember the "easy Wrath heroics", because their gear was 1-2+ tiers above the heroics when the Dungeon Finder was introduced. Funnily enough, in Halls of Reflection people left after zoning into it because it was "too hard". And remember how Blizzard had to add an additional bag with loot to Occulus?

Heroic Halls of Reflection was pretty hard if I recall @_@

BC heroics were brutal though.

[Jeniwyn]

As for the argument that this would take away from the development of the "current version" of WoW. That effect should be minimal since with the exception of a few server architecture people we wouldn't want any current wow devs anywhere close to this project. If they tried to "enhance" vanilla in any way, shape or form, the likely result is that they would ruin it.

This shouldn't take away from current WoW any more than Blizzards other games do. Even less frankly.

So you can keep all your devs. They can keep delivering all the new garrison missions/pets/mounts/hair styles you want/can stomach.

I'd rather see Blizz rehire Kern, a guy you seem to love to bash, and let him bring on a few of the Nost dudes and a server architecture dude or three from the current wow team and go to town. That would be awesome. Pardo would be the dream, but he is probably not interested.

[RickJamesLich]

It's a good question. A lot of people will reply that there's no market for it, and that Blizz will lose $$$ if they try to implement Legacy servers.

I think the thing is, legacy servers would be beneficial in the sense that blizzard would make money from people playing them. Of course the retort is "what if they don't stay for long"? There is only one way to find out of course, but compared to retail, the legacy servers would have a lot more content for players to do, as even the process of hitting max level is a massive journey. The real area it can help blizzard at is during content droughts - a problem blizzard has never been able to fix and from all indicators, will not be able to. Literally every expansion after BC has had year long content droughts at the end, legacy servers can help blizzard retain players by giving them something to do once they've seen the end of the expansion.

Some will be like "well don't legacy servers have content droughts since no new content is out" and while it is true that for example in vanilla, once you clear Naxx, you have in fact seen everything, it takes a massive amount of time to get to that point (I'm guessing like at least a year and a half to 2 years), so it's unlikely you'd see players on the legacy servers run out of things to do, compared to retail. Especially if they had servers for different expansions (like after you finish vanilla, you can graduate to BC).

[meira1111]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzT8UzO1zGQ

[Coconut]

As for the argument that this would take away from the development of the "current version" of WoW. That effect should be minimal since with the exception of a few server architecture people we wouldn't want any current wow devs anywhere close to this project. If they tried to "enhance" vanilla in any way, shape or form, the likely result is that they would ruin it.

This shouldn't take away from current WoW any more than Blizzards other games do. Even less frankly.

So you can keep all your devs. They can keep delivering all the new garrison missions/pets/mounts/hair styles you want/can stomach.

I'd rather see Blizz rehire Kern, a guy you seem to love to bash, and let him bring on a few of the Nost dudes and a server architecture dude or three from the current wow team and go to town. That would be awesome. Pardo would be the dream, but he is probably not interested.

It's truly hilarious that you hate the current WoW devs because they tried and failed with Garrisons, even though it was a mighty effort that they couldn't have abandoned without sinking WoD even further, but would totally get behind Mark Kern as long as it would get you what you want.

[Jeniwyn]

It's truly hilarious that you hate the current WoW devs because they tried and failed with Garrisons, even though it was a mighty effort that they couldn't have abandoned without sinking WoD even further, but would totally get behind Mark Kern as long as it would get you what you want.

I don't hate them. I just don't trust them to give me an enjoyable WoW experience. You might be projecting.

[Eliseus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzT8UzO1zGQ

Lmao this says it all.

[RickJamesLich]

I think you underestimate the resources people have now. Was vanilla harder for me, sure, because I was a horrible player. My first toon was a pally, I stacked armor and leveled as some terrible prot/ret build, with no addons and the blizz UI. Now lets say I pick up vanilla. I got to icyveins, check out dps builds and professions. DL my addons and make a UI and level. The content would be consumed much faster.

It really depends on the player. A lot of times people will say something like "Vanilla wasn't bad, just look at MC!" ignoring that MC actually got nerfed pretty early on.... and also neglecting pretty much every raid after it. On Nostalrius, there were more guilds that couldn't clear BWL as opposed to guilds that could do it. And to be fair, there were some people that were able to clear it on the first week (my guild had the 2nd quickest clear horde side, we cleared it on day 2), it's similar to the retail servers in the sense that you will have one or two top guilds that clear everything fast, a few guilds with good profession that clear it after a few weeks, and then some guilds that still struggle.

Also the later content ramps up REALLY fast. Stuff like Twins, C'thun, Patchwerk, 4 horseman, Loatheb, even if you know what you're supposed to be doing, these fights are very difficult.

[Coconut]

I don't hate them. I just don't trust them to give me an enjoyable WoW experience. You might be projecting.

Well, I suggest you read the link I gave you and decide who you'd trust more.

Just a tidbit from it:

Return on investment is something Mark cares very little about.

He thinks Legacy servers would be viable? Yup. He'd be just the designer to get behind that.

[Jeniwyn]

I know that Blizzard liked him enough to have him work on all their best games and that he had a fairly prominent position in the development of WoW and left the company before WoW went from what it was to what it is. I also know that the content of that reddit post is very disputed (https://twitter.com/Grummz/status/723189529381724160). And even if it isn't complete BS, I don't really care if he wasn't a good CEO.

[Deleted]

Well, I suggest you read the link I gave you and decide who you'd trust more.

Just a tidbit from it:


He thinks Legacy servers would be viable? Yup. He'd be just the designer to get behind that.

Well it's not about his past failures - he understands that some people want legacy servers. He notices a lot of people want them because they loved the old days. So what if he's a developer? He's just another guy that understands the love for the game. I mean, do you think that every one wants legacy servers are idiotic failures?