the possibility of Frankenstein Classic servers, and a possible solution.

[Uurdz]

I have certainly read it. I may have read more than you have, who knows? I just don't believe them. I do believe whatever they release will be called the 'classic game experience' because it is a phrase that means whatever they want it to mean.

i am not trying to say 'mean' things about Blue, or call them names. I think they are just doing their job. Part of the job for some is public relations - in this case, with their customer base. They start out promising 100% classic (aside from pesky minor issues like class balance), then can slowly spin whatever backtracks they need to let out before open beta.

What do you expect them to do, say 'well we think it should be classic in setting but more like retail in other ways.' ???

Essentially, what many new posters to this thread (from my link on a similar thread) are saying is that either 1) trust blizzard cuz they said so or 2) activision-blizzard is going to release what by modern standards is an extremely inaccessible game violating multiple (current) blizzard core values and pretty much activisions entire game design theory. There is a 3) which is to my mind the most rational responses I have seen which are that essentially blizzard can make more money not nerfing/qol'ing/retailing classic, which i am not in completely disagreement with (for that response, I think blizz would have done best with a 2.1/2.2 setup in terms of game pacing, tuning, which had pretty much left classic unchanged but made sure raiding was a major endeaero and heroic dungeons were non-trivial., but I think 3) is the last thing you will ever see Bobby Kotick's company do - they took on a lot of new debt from the King acquisition and he is going to use his winning formula on everything that goes out the door.

I simply don't believe 2 is correct, and 1) is of limited value at this point. '
classic game experience'
'classic means classic'
'how do you feel about class balance'

within weeks of each others? Does anyone see a disconnect between all these things?

- - - Updated - - -



I agree completely!!

Expecting a fortune 500 publicly traded company to do what it has been doing for 10 years, rather than act sentimentally and without primary regard for money, is paranoid and hysterical!!

We all know Bobby's products are all about sentimentality and video game history, right?

If what you were saying was correct, they wouldn't re-release World of Warcraft.

[Deficineiron]

If what you were saying was correct, they wouldn't re-release World of Warcraft.

I see nothing I have written that supports your interpretation/assertion. My beliefs haven't changed since the nost thing and I stated that I expected them to release some form of franken-classic even in that mega-thread. It is what they do, make very accessible games for as many potential players as possible, make all the content accessible by anyone, and most of the content insultingly easy when there is only one difficulty in a particular game area because everyone has to be able to finish it (and pretty quickly on a per-session basis).

they are releasing this classic, or frankenclassic, as the case turns out to be, to make money. I am saying I expect them do to it the a/b way. others (including you) are saying they will do it the old way. they are trying to say they are doing it the old way too, at the same time bringing up key concepts like 'class balance' which is pandora's box of homogenization potential.

I appreciate that people do and want to believe blizzard. I am just saying I think blizzard is not being completely open about their internal thoughts on it, and weasel phrases like 'does it feel classic?,' 'classic game experience,' should be a huge warning flag.

Also, finally, blizzard is not their own master, ultimately. how could anyone who watched the hard turn from 2.4 to 3.0.2 and what has come since then still think otherwise.

key things to watch (some of which will not be clear till beta I assume)

1) dungeon/raid difficulties?
2) default dungeon tuning/trash removal to speed up runs? (they really try to keep dungeon runs well below the avg. classic and bc time)
3) talent system maintained as-was, or any of the various overhauls they thought were good ideas brought in post 3.3.5?
4) alteration to ability training/spell levels, removal or introduction of key abilities, changed attain levels?
5) alteration of effective time/level curve rate?
6) alteration of average player power/mob power at level while leveling? this is code for can you aoe down whole zones pretty quickly while leveling like in retail without much damage risk?
7) alteration of battleground maps (wsg 4.1) and/or objectives, including introduction of later debuffs and timers?
8) what replaces classic honor system (and I am privately sympathetic to changing it, but what do they bring in? retail's winning system with seasons of gear?)
9) introduction of more graveyards, flight points, earlier mount attains, reduced effective mount costs (or tokens, to let players 'buy' their mounts)
10) this is just off top of my head in 5 minutes.
11) class balance!! this catchphrase opens all the doors to re-jiggering how classes work. wouldn't we like the folks who brought us retail's classes to help with classic?
12) modification of classic quest lines to a more linear/locked structure (maybe including whole zones as a single quest line), and alteration of quest storylines to promote the player character as something other than just some grunt out looking to do jobs. Making the player the hero is a core value iirc from pardo's presentation.
13) hunters had a lot of 'stuff' they had to deal with that blizzard in its later wisdom eliminated - pet loyalty and happiness, LEARN pet skills, then TRAIN pet skills on other pets, feed your pet, ammunition for weapons with associated quiver bonus options?

[Uurdz]

It is what they do, make very accessible games for as many potential players as possible, make all the content accessible by anyone, and most of the content insultingly easy when there is only one difficulty in a particular game area because everyone has to be able to finish it (and pretty quickly on a per-session basis).

This is the crux of your argument for which I believe it makes no logical sense to make Classic servers.

To paraphrase "Blizzard will not release games that are not in line with their current game mentality of open accessibility"

Which I disagree with.

Besides, WoW is simply a cash cow product and not their focus. Their focus is on Overwatch and, to a lesser extent, Hearthstone and the eSports environment where they can see those games really grow. They will likely also move in some way into the Mobile gaming market with a focus on micro-transactions.

Classic WoW is the attempt to extend the lifespan of their cashcow. That's it.
If Classic WoW was intended to meet the accessibility principle you assert, then it would far to similar to Retail WoW to justify any capital investment for which they will avoid as much as possible.

[deniter]

It's very simple, really. They release Classic servers, i pay the monthly fee and log in. If the game turns out to be another World of Hello Kitty Online i just quit and uninstall, go back to those bug-ridden crap servers and they won't ever see me again.

There's nothing else a consumer can do. You either pay for the product or you don't.

[digichi]

Yes the addition of classic servers is definitely going to satisfy that niche that the main game just can't do anymore without drastic, bumpy, and maybe game breaking changes (it's taken years of development to slowly get to where we are now in legion. It would've been weird to go from tbc straight to artefact weps and stuff among those lines, and the main game can't go from artefact weps back to tbc either.)

I have faith that whoever is part of the project KNOWS that a major draw to this version of the game WAS the tedious and slow levelling/class imperfections/grindy systems... They've specifically stated they know there will be a surge of players and then a large drop, and will continue running the servers for whoever is left around. They've made that decision, i don't think there will be any pressure on them to change what is in itself the draw of the game.

Whatever happens, some patch/version of vanilla will end up existing statically... Maybe new servers every two years that are progression... The discussion of additional diablo-like season servers or fun servers or whatever is all game, but it doesn't take precedence on delivering the initial product promised. I guarantee the grind will be there.

[Deficineiron]

This is the crux of your argument for which I believe it makes no logical sense to make Classic servers.

To paraphrase "Blizzard will not release games that are not in line with their current game mentality of open accessibility"

Which I disagree with.

Besides, WoW is simply a cash cow product and not their focus. Their focus is on Overwatch and, to a lesser extent, Hearthstone and the eSports environment where they can see those games really grow. They will likely also move in some way into the Mobile gaming market with a focus on micro-transactions.

Classic WoW is the attempt to extend the lifespan of their cashcow. That's it.
If Classic WoW was intended to meet the accessibility principle you assert, then it would far to similar to Retail WoW to justify any capital investment for which they will avoid as much as possible.

In a broad sense I agree with your premise that making a classic clone of retail is not a great business plan. I will add that making mmo content have either very little time-required (leveling, outdoor instances) or a very short period of relevance (raid tiers) never made sense from a business perspective to me, but that is what we saw post-merger, incrementally. I don't think the new owners really grasped why persistent content and a slower degree of progress were good things (hooks) for players in a subscription-model product - you don't want folks to run out of things to do. They have instead made sure everything is very easy and fast except that latest repetitive content you have to do over and over and over. I am betting we see this creep into classic.

In any event, we will see. Corporate history is full of stories of companies that release products or release them in a way that make no sense at all to a reasonable outsider. I can only imagine the disparate parts within blizzard jockeying to see if they can get their pet view inside classic, and then throw in the overlords from Kotick's team with their broader concerns showing up.

[Soon-TM]

The ideal solution would be that A-B recognized that Classic and retail are, for all intents and purposes, two very different games catering to very different audiences, with (presumably) little to no overlap between each other, and act accordingly. For those who can't live without WQs, legalized gold buying, 5786533568 raid difficulties and "balanced" classes, there is retail. For those who prefer a simpler, slower, more integrated, and grindy game, there is (or rather will be) Classic.

In other words, I'd like Blizz to be clever enough to see that hamfisting retail features in Classic would essentially be forcing square pegs in round holes, even if they think that it would make them more monies.

Edit: but that goes against everything A-B has done in the past, especially when considering "Bobby's Gift".

[Deficineiron]

The ideal solution would be that A-B recognized that Classic and retail are, for all intents and purposes, two very different games catering to very different audiences, with (presumably) little to no overlap between each other, and act accordingly. For those who can't live without WQs, legalized gold buying, 5786533568 raid difficulties and "balanced" classes, there is retail. For those who prefer a simpler, slower, more integrated, and grindy game, there is (or rather will be) Classic.

In other words, I'd like Blizz to be clever enough to see that hamfisting retail features in Classic would essentially be forcing square pegs in round holes, even if they think that it would make them more monies.

Edit: but that goes against everything A-B has done in the past, especially when considering "Bobby's Gift".

Gift of Kotick (debuff)

duration - until asset divested
Effect - applies a debuff to the target subsidiary of Activision (later Activision-Blizzard), causing all of their product releases to be afflicted with Accessibility. This debuff doubles in power with each iteration of the product, cannot be dispelled, and does not show up on normal debuff list. [In essence, each iteration of a product with this debuff must be twice as accessible as the prior iteration.]

[Soon-TM]

Gift of Kotick (debuff)

duration - until asset divested
Effect - applies a debuff to the target subsidiary of Activision (later Activision-Blizzard), causing all of their product releases to be afflicted with Accessibility. This debuff doubles in power with each iteration of the product, cannot be dispelled, and does not show up on normal debuff list. [In essence, each iteration of a product with this debuff must be twice as accessible as the prior iteration.]

It also pierces immunities

[Deficineiron]

It also pierces immunities

ah right, a good example of piercing an immunity was 'no pve to pvp server xfers ever.'