Realistic ideas for future level 60 content

[Ielenia]

What we have is clear enough. There's a difference between being ambiguous and outright lying, and as the post you quoted shows- in bold- they were very clear about this referring to all-new content and not TBC. The only way the answer wouldn't refer to that is if the interviewer is lying, which they'd have no motive for.

Just like the Borderlands 3 developer said "there will be no microtransactions, none of that F2P shit"... yet the game does have microtransactions? When he said "no microtransactions" he only meant "no content microtransations" but "cosmetic microtransactions" are allowed?

[Triceron]

Just like the Borderlands 3 developer said "there will be no microtransactions, none of that F2P shit"... yet the game does have microtransactions? When he said "no microtransactions" he only meant "no content microtransations" but "cosmetic microtransactions" are allowed?

Then thats a problem of you not trusting the words of the developer. Your aims at trying to validate a source wouldn't matter if you are already assuming they are lying to our faces.

[Eldryth]

Just like the Borderlands 3 developer said "there will be no microtransactions, none of that F2P shit"... yet the game does have microtransactions? When he said "no microtransactions" he only meant "no content microtransations" but "cosmetic microtransactions" are allowed?

A developer could have motive to lie like that if it makes the game look better, but in this case there's no reason for it. What would they even have to gain by saying "we'll decide in a few years"? It's not going to influence anyone who was considering playing this just yet, they're all watching for the Vanilla stuff so far. Regardless of what they said, they'd probably reconsider when it became relevant anyway. And the interviewer's the one who would have had to lie in this case (since this "confusion" is all about what their question was), and there's even less reason for that.

On top of all that, while I don't follow Borderlands or that developer in question, from what I've seen he seems to have a really infamous reputation. Assuming this is a lie because a completely unrelated person known for dishonesty lied about his game is a massive stretch.

[Ielenia]

Then thats a problem of you not trusting the words of the developer.

Except here it's not "developer words", it's hearsay from a journalist giving small quotes from an interview.

- - - Updated - - -

A developer could have motive to lie like that if it makes the game look better, but in this case there's no reason for it.

Oh, really? Really? No reason at all to lie for it, even though you just mentioned one reason?

What would they even have to gain by saying "we'll decide in a few years"? It's not going to influence anyone who was considering playing this just yet, they're all watching for the Vanilla stuff so far. Regardless of what they said, they'd probably reconsider when it became relevant anyway. And the interviewer's the one who would have had to lie in this case (since this "confusion" is all about what their question was), and there's even less reason for that.

Even though the way the article is worded in a way that implies the players are who decide the future of Classic, not Blizzard themselves? That wouldn't give them "anything to gain" in popularity and goodwill?

On top of all that, while I don't follow Borderlands or that developer in question, from what I've seen he seems to have a really infamous reputation. Assuming this is a lie because a completely unrelated person known for dishonesty lied about his game is a massive stretch.

Except I'm not assuming anything.

[schwank05]

Nothing, just release BC servers and let us copy our classic characters over to them.

[willtron]

but... classic is classic...

leave it alone.

OSRS is classic, but they continue to develop it and its a fantastic move.

OT:

I'd like to see Dragon Isles and the Emerald Dream they created back then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKcYAHg8g1o

[Halyon]

Most classic people wanted it exactly as it was, thus should get nothing that wasn't in vanilla at all.

[Triceron]

Except here it's not "developer words", it's hearsay from a journalist giving small quotes from an interview.

Hearsay:
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

What we have in the article is a quoted statement from a developer. You are being dishonest by referring to this as hearsay. This is literally the one and only thing you can't call hearsay, because it is a quotation and the journalist even names the person quoting it. How much more official does it get?

Hearsay is basically a rumor without a source, so I don't know why you are using that word. This is coming from a journalist published article. It is as far away from an unsourced rumor you can get. You can't call this hearsay. Do you actually understand the meaning of the word you are using?

[Ielenia]

Hearsay:
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

"Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate". You're describing the article.

The quotes in the article are way too vague, especially since do not have the entire quote, much less the question that was asked. How do we know Dawson wasn't talking about BC and Wrath classic servers in his original response but it was cut out to quote only those parts shown in the article?

[Triceron]

"Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate". You're describing the article.

The quotes in the article are way too vague, especially since do not have the entire quote, much less the question that was asked. How do we know Dawson wasn't talking about BC and Wrath classic servers in his original response but it was cut out to quote only those parts shown in the article?

Listen, no matter how vague or ambiguous the statement may be, you can not refer to a quoted statement from an article as a rumor. You can't call it gossip. You can't call it hearsay. That is what I'm talking about.

If you don't understand the difference, you should not be using that word. What we have is an official statement.

You think the official statement we have is too vague and ambiguous, and that is fine. It's yours to interpret. But you can't call it a rumor on that basis. This is a report with names and sources listed, whereas hearsay literally means undocumented, unsourced rumor.

How do we know Dawson wasn't talking about BC and Wrath classic servers in his original response but it was cut out to quote only those parts shown in the article?

The answer is clearly in the context of the question. I've literally bolded it for you and you haven't actually addressed the words being said.

- He brings up classicWoW subReddit asking for new content
- He talks about new level 60 content and new 40-man raids
- He mentions the latest content update before TBC
- He mentions how surprised they (Den of Geek) were to hear Blizzard says it is a possibility

For it to be talking about BC and Wrath, the reader would have to openly assume the journalist was being dishonest and lying and has an agenda to do so.

So I ask you - why are you assuming the journalist is lying about reporting the possibility for new 60+ content?

I have a hunch it has to do more with your inability to accept what's written in the article, and you are trying to defend your opinion, to the point of assuming that this journalist a liar, a rumor-monger and a fraud.

[enigma77]

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[Triceron]

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

You're right, this one ain't worth it.

[huth]

Hearsay:
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

What we have in the article is a quoted statement from a developer. You are being dishonest by referring to this as hearsay. This is literally the one and only thing you can't call hearsay, because it is a quotation and the journalist even names the person quoting it. How much more official does it get?

Hearsay is basically a rumor without a source, so I don't know why you are using that word. This is coming from a journalist published article. It is as far away from an unsourced rumor you can get. You can't call this hearsay. Do you actually understand the meaning of the word you are using?

So how would i go about checking the source, then?

[Triceron]

So how would i go about checking the source, then?

https://www.denofgeek.com/contact-us

Could start with messaging their editors and verifying the article, then if needed, getting direct contact of the freelance journalist. The guy has an active twitch stream so it's possible to contact them there too.

[Why Am I Here]

I would love to see them add new content/expansions with a vanilla design philosophy but do so via server transfers or character copies. It would be neat to see the direction the game goes from there, both lore wise and content wise. Imagine a classic Monk or DK or some new class entirely. How different was the class design philosophy of Classic compared to TBC and Wrath?

[Ielenia]

Listen, no matter how vague or ambiguous the statement may be, you can not refer to a quoted statement from an article as a rumor. You can't call it gossip. You can't call it hearsay. That is what I'm talking about.

Rumors are hearsay, but hearsay is not just rumors. "Hearsay" also encompasses second-hand information.

The answer is clearly in the context of the question.

Yeah. The question that is never shown in the interview.

I've literally bolded it for you and you haven't actually addressed the words being said.

- He brings up classicWoW subReddit asking for new content
- He talks about new level 60 content and new 40-man raids
- He mentions the latest content update before TBC
- He mentions how surprised they (Den of Geek) were to hear Blizzard says it is a possibility

Which is irrelevant when we're trying to assert either way. The article is not the developers' words. It's the journalist's. All we have are drips of quotes throughout the article, which is roughly 90% the journalist's opinions. The first quote from a developer only shows up 27 paragraphs down. In a 35-paragraph article.

So I ask you - why are you assuming the journalist is lying about reporting the possibility for new 60+ content?

I'm not assuming he's lying. But I'm also not assuming he's telling the truth.

[huth]

https://www.denofgeek.com/contact-us

Could start with messaging their editors and verifying the article, then if needed, getting direct contact of the freelance journalist. The guy has an active twitch stream so it's possible to contact them there too.

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.

[Exkrementor]

Everything that didnt fit into classic was put into BC basically, so I guess it would be really hard to make new classic content that feels like classic and not like new content.

Maybe they can do some BC content in a classic fashion. Karazhan, Caverns of Time, Uldum or Hellfire Peninsula.

[LionSinMaikeru]

I'm 100% for them going in a different direction with this version of the game.

We want Classic for the Classic experience, yes, but it is something to think about for the future when everyone has completed every thing possible.

Obviously TBC servers where you could transfer characters would be cool - but it might be even cooler to go in an alternate timeline route.

You already named Emerald Dream, Hyjal, Grim Batol, and Azshara as potential areas.


What we could also have:

Hellfire Penninsula was planned originally but didn't get added. Maybe they could do something with it? Also The Dragon Isles were planned content for max? level but didn't get added in the end. They could implement a hardmode raid where we raid Northrend and fight Arthas. Like a specific scenario would be really cool.

Kara was also planned for Vanilla, so maybe we could have a new type of Kara raid?

[Tumile]

Why would you put more content into classic if people never wanted that to begin with. They wanted classic the way it used to be - nothing else.

The most likely thing to happen is - if classic is still successful after nax(it kinda looks like it) we gonna see tbc.

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"?