Should they change bloodlust / heroism in BC?

[garicasha]

For reference, Bloodlust/Heroism increases haste of THE GROUP (e.g. raid group 2, not the whole raid) by 30% for 40 seconds. Spell had a 10-minute cooldown (which didn't reset after a wipe) but there was no exhaustion debuff.

Raid members could have their group number switched by a raid lead/assistant mid-fight. (I'll call this hot-swapping.) In practice this meant the four people that benefitted the most from heroism/bloodlust would be in a group and then different shamans would be hot-swapped in to cast heroism/bloodlust. This was also at "the expense" of other raiders who if they weren't one of those 4 people wouldn't receive the buff ever.

In BC only shamans had Bloodlust/Heroism.

Drums, a leatherworking item, increased the haste of the group (e.g. group 4) by 80 for seconds. This is roughly 5% haste and again had no debuff associated with it.

Bloodlust/Heroism and drums stacked.

.

My personal take is they should remove hot-swapping players mid-fight. I just don't think opening the Raid UI mid-fight is compelling gameplay.

It also adds guild drama for no real purpose. For example, a raid team with 4 players that get perma-bloodlust are always going to top the meters Especially because other players are Never going to get it. This tends to skew people's perceptions because what was maybe a 10% difference in DPS is magnified in to a huge one. Then when loot drops there's a subconscious bias to giving it to the "top" DPS making things even MORE skewed.

Plus there may be technical reasons that groups can't be swapped mid-fight now since that's the way the game has been coded the last 10 years.

I would be ok if hero worked the way it does on retail but it'd have huge implications in choosing which class to play if they do mess with it. Although if they don't change it you're going to see WAY more shamans in BC classic than we ever did during the actual thing.

[Tyrathius]

If that's how it worked they should keep it that way.

It's supposed to be TBC classic, not TBC minus the shitty parts of TBC.

[RobertMugabe]

IMO they should change it. I will play TBC regardless, but honestly... "TBC minus shitty parts of TBC actually sounds great" and more people would definitely enjoy the game more and stick around longer if they made some changes like this.

Classic has shown us that most players do welcome changes (not adding new features or major changes ofc) that fit the game well.

But yeah, srsly I don't see any good argument against changing bloodlust . Players will have more choices, the game will be much more fun in general and Blizzard gets to make more money... so it's a win win. And most people trust blizz at this point that doing some changes won't lead blizz to accept any suggested changes and add LFR or whatever to classic.

[csguba]

They should change it, but most likely won't in fear of negative feedback. The "No changes" mantra changed quite quickly in classic.

[anveena]

#nochanges

Heroism and bloodlust should work like how they did during TBC. We don't need TBC + <insert your personal changes here>.

[TrollHunter3000]

For reference, Bloodlust/Heroism increases haste of THE GROUP (e.g. raid group 2, not the whole raid) by 30% for 40 seconds. Spell had a 10-minute cooldown (which didn't reset after a wipe) but there was no exhaustion debuff.

Raid members could have their group number switched by a raid lead/assistant mid-fight. (I'll call this hot-swapping.) In practice this meant the four people that benefitted the most from heroism/bloodlust would be in a group and then different shamans would be hot-swapped in to cast heroism/bloodlust. This was also at "the expense" of other raiders who if they weren't one of those 4 people wouldn't receive the buff ever.

In BC only shamans had Bloodlust/Heroism.

Drums, a leatherworking item, increased the haste of the group (e.g. group 4) by 80 for seconds. This is roughly 5% haste and again had no debuff associated with it.

Bloodlust/Heroism and drums stacked.

.

My personal take is they should remove hot-swapping players mid-fight. Back in the day only a few guilds did it IMO, but nowadays you'd have moron casual raid leaders obsessing over their raid comp for 30 minutes and booting non-leatherworkers instead of just playing the d--- game. I just don't think opening the Raid UI mid-fight is compelling gameplay.

It also adds guild drama for no real purpose. For example, a raid team with 4 players that get perma-bloodlust are always going to top the meters Especially because other players are Never going to get it. This tends to skew people's perceptions because what was maybe a 10% difference in DPS is magnified in to a huge one. Then when loot drops there's a subconscious bias to giving it to the "top" DPS making things even MORE skewed.

Plus there may be technical reasons that groups can't be swapped mid-fight now since that's the way the game has been coded the last 10 years.

I would be ok if hero worked the way it does on retail but it'd have huge implications in choosing which class to play if they do mess with it. Although if they don't change it you're going to see WAY more shamans in BC classic than we ever did during the actual thing.

Only a few guilds did it? Wrong. Literally every guild that didn't have down syndrome did it.

[Azerate]

No.

If you want the better version of the game, with bug fixes and quality of life changes, there's an option for that already and it's called Shadowlands.

You play classic expansions for the close to original experience.

[Shadowdude]

I’m not a no changes guy, I would love tons of changes... but honestly I don’t think these things needs changes.

[Bigbazz]

Bloodlust in BC is fine, if you wanna group swap for fat logs then crack on it's part of TBC, just like drum groups.

[Gimlix]

If that's how it worked they should keep it that way.

It's supposed to be TBC classic, not TBC minus the shitty parts of TBC.

This is how the fanbois of Classic think "Classic" is suppost to be.
Making it like Classic, but remove all the bad parts so it will be the game they hoped it to be, so fits their "See this is why this xpac is better then the other"
That is like doing BFA and removing the parts that were bad and then claiming it as best xpac ever made.

[Warning]

Yeah that's annoying and dumb, should just change it. F nochanges lol you guys should stay in the hole you crawled in after the damage you've done to classic. Lots of stuff should have common sense changes like this, hope Blizzard does it earlier this time and doesn't leave us with shitshows like the honor system and AV were in classic.

[Shadowdude]

This is how the fanbois of Classic think "Classic" is suppost to be.
Making it like Classic, but remove all the bad parts so it will be the game they hoped it to be, so fits their "See this is why this xpac is better then the other"
That is like doing BFA and removing the parts that were bad and then claiming it as best xpac ever made.

I mean... you can think an expansion is the best while also fixing some of the downsides, that is possible to do without going nuts amd doing something like adding lfr...

I personally think tbc could use a couple of tuning here and there (alliance having seal of blood, dual spec maybe, don’t remove attunements in 2.4)

[Queen of Hamsters]

TBC is TBC, warts and all. I want to see it as it was.

[clevin]

This is the same debate we had before Classic and the issue is the same. If you start making functional changes (adding features, changing how features work) then there's really no reason to do deny Change X that you might not like. Everyone who asks a question like this wants their change because in their opinion it would be good for the game. But someone else might legitimately feel their change would be good for the game... and the first person would hate it.

There's also the issue of how a gameplay change would affect other things. For example, if the entire raid get lust, the encounter will be much easier to defeat. DO they then change the encounter? I know that's not the change being proposed but my point is that changes can often have consequences that raise the issue of whether other things need to change and then.... where does this all stop?

[Shadowdude]

This is the same debate we had before Classic and the issue is the same. If you start making functional changes (adding features, changing how features work) then there's really no reason to do deny Change X that you might not like. Everyone who asks a question like this wants their change because in their opinion it would be good for the game. But someone else might legitimately feel their change would be good for the game... and the first person would hate it.

There's also the issue of how a gameplay change would affect other things. For example, if the entire raid get lust, the encounter will be much easier to defeat. DO they then change the encounter? I know that's not the change being proposed but my point is that changes can often have consequences that raise the issue of whether other things need to change and then.... where does this all stop?

It stops where people believe it should stop.

I use to be no changes, but whether you want to admit it or not blizzard 100% changes classic multiple times, and for the better. The changes to black lotus, dungeon limits, and even spell batching. They could make some changes to tbc as well without going fucking nuts. If they started adding stuff like lfr the community would CLEARLY draw a line.

[RobertMugabe]

If the poll and comments prove anything, then it is that most of the #nochanges people nowadays are people who won't play TBC anyways and just want to prove to everyone else that the old versions of the game weren't good and should just suck it up then.... so basically just salty people that don't want others to have fun.

Either way, at the end of the day, "neither" side really dictates what TBC classic will look like, but it's Blizz and I am confident enough in them that when they do changes to classic, that they do actually know what they're doing and what is in the spirit of the old games (and also Blizz knows that they've won back the trust of most classic players in this regard).

- - - Updated - - -

This is how the fanbois of Classic think "Classic" is suppost to be.
Making it like Classic, but remove all the bad parts so it will be the game they hoped it to be, so fits their "See this is why this xpac is better then the other"
That is like doing BFA and removing the parts that were bad and then claiming it as best xpac ever made.

You're the problem and one of the reasons why this subforum is so toxic. All you're thinking about is what arguments you will have here with other people.
You don't want a good game, you just want to win arguments on MMOC lol

[clevin]

It stops where people believe it should stop.

Which people? The people here or over there? The ones you agree with or the other ones?

I use to be no changes, but whether you want to admit it or not blizzard 100% changes classic multiple times, and for the better. The changes to black lotus, dungeon limits, and even spell batching. They could make some changes to tbc as well without going fucking nuts. If they started adding stuff like lfr the community would CLEARLY draw a line.

None of those are gameplay changes and I have no issue with those; I'm nor hardcore nochanges. They could have changed more about Classic, esp QoL things like mail delivery etc and I'd argue that its fine because it doesnt affect how the game is played. Similarly, I think they could add dual spec to TBC and it would be fine. Healers and tanks could have a farming spec that let them be more efficient and it doesnt affect how the game is actually played. Changing talents or the effects of spells, does, though.

My point is that changes to talents, encounters and the like will ripple through the game. In some cases, the overall effect would be minor, but by altering gameplay things you open yourself up to all kinds of requests. "Change heroism/bloodlust so people can't swap groups dynamically" and someone else says "why not just make it raid-wide?".

PS: I also think that the stricter no changes thing in Classic was partly out of nostalgia since comparatively few people played classic early on especially. By TBC, the subs were about 10m and many more people experienced it, so I don't think that applies. That's another reason I'd be fine with more QoL changes like dual spec.

[Shadowdude]

Which people? The people here or over there? The ones you agree with or the other ones?


None of those are gameplay changes and I have no issue with those; I'm nor hardcore nochanges. They could have changed more about Classic, esp QoL things like mail delivery etc and I'd argue that its fine because it doesnt affect how the game is played. Similarly, I think they could add dual spec to TBC and it would be fine. Healers and tanks could have a farming spec that let them be more efficient and it doesnt affect how the game is actually played. Changing talents or the effects of spells, does, though.

My point is that changes to talents, encounters and the like will ripple through the game. In some cases, the overall effect would be minor, but by altering gameplay things you open yourself up to all kinds of requests. "Change heroism/bloodlust so people can't swap groups dynamically" and someone else says "why not just make it raid-wide?".

PS: I also think that the stricter no changes thing in Classic was partly out of nostalgia since comparatively few people played classic early on especially. By TBC, the subs were about 10m and many more people experienced it, so I don't think that applies. That's another reason I'd be fine with more QoL changes like dual spec.

Well here I agree with you to a certain extent. This change the OP presented I personally voted no, not because I’m a no changes, but because there really is no reason. But, I don’t think changes should just be limited to QoL like mailbox changes. I personally believe they should have done something with world buffs in classic, I think that not changing this actually “changed” the game dynamic more than it would have if they actually did something to stop them.

Something like seal of blood for alliance for example, is 100% a gameplay change, but I think it would be a gameplay change for the better. It isn’t something as crazy as someone asking for ally shamans in classic, but without this change it could realistically lead to even more faction imbalance than there already is, again changing the dynamic of tbc more than it would than if they just gave alliance the seal of blood.

Again, I’m not defending the actual OPs position on this certain change, because I think there’s no reason to change this whatsoever, but there are things that could realistically be changed to make the game better.

[SL1200]

This was before i raided, but didn't they just keep a leatherworker in each group? I though this why skins were such a good money maker back then.

[Shadowdude]

This was before i raided, but didn't they just keep a leatherworker in each group? I though this why skins were such a good money maker back then.

You didn’t make a lot of money off skins but it was for stuff like the cobra scale something or another.

The skins for drums were extremely cheap and easy to get. It was something like 5 skins of the comment leather and 3 or 4 of clefthoof specific leather, and each drum made was like 50 charges. Farming skins for like 30 minutes could supply you with a weeks worth of drums or something. This could be slightly off but not by much.