The “#nochanges” usually mean that changes are okay, as long as it’s in the scope of Vanilla. However, some changes during Vanilla really skip the whole experience that the earlier versions provided. AV 1.12 being one of them.
3 Likes
#nochanges but loot trading, 1.12 AV, no RP PVP servers, sharding, battle.net integration…
I wonder what happens if I have a friend on the horde and I feed him information on when a certain raid group will be leaving a certain dungeon with buffs… yes I understand that this is a thing regardless of battlenet integration but blizzard is literally giving you a platform in game for you to cheat lmao
3 Likes
1.12 and 1.5 AV both fall within vanilla’s timeline, so both conform to #nochanges. AV does not belong on that list.
Many of us have argued against every other point on your list except RP PvP servers, which is a new issue.
2 Likes
Switzy, I believe you and Shimy are actually on the same page.
#nochanges in vanilla could literally be referring to two completely different games… thats why it doesnt make any sense to say that. It’s literally like saying you want to play Legion #nochanges… the legion expansion was complete garbage at the beginning and over the course of a year and a half it was made PLAYABLE…
An example of this in classic is spell hit on gear… when you say #nochanges you could be referring to the classic where there is no spell hit gear or you could be referring to the classic where there was a plethora of spell hit gear.
Really, which is why we need some sort of re-tuning - based off of the gear and talents at the time. i.e. MC as of not necessarily 1.1, because that’s extreme, but maybe 1.5 or 6.
Take some difficulty version in the middle and compromise. But people seem to only want what they want. All this talk about wanting authentic Vanilla is just hogwash.
The #nochanges ideal is solely devoted to preventing non-vanilla changes to the game. It cares about sharding and loot trading. It doesn’t care about 1.12 and 1.5 AV.
The debate between 1.12 and 1.5 AV is a different conversation that has no bearing on #nochanges. If you think 1.12 is better or more authentic, that’s fine. Don’t obfuscate the debate by introducing a position that boils down to “Was it in vanilla? Yes: then it’s fine. No: #nochanges”
3 Likes
I think the definition has changed over time dude. Most the people in #nochanges have no desire to see Vanilla in its authentic form. And what I mean by authentic is some conglomerate of what it was throughout its lifetime. Like, MC as of 1.6 for example. Take a happy medium. Not 1.1, but not 1.12.
In the case of AV, make it as of I don’t know 1.7 and not 1.12, but not 1.5 either.
But people want what they want. They don’t are about authentic Vanilla anymore than Retailers asking for guild banks.
1 Like
you realize that it is possible to introduce a game-play aspect that was added later on in vanilla to an earlier version of vanilla which would essentially make it a non-vanilla experience? With your logic we could have Naxx in at launch but thats okay because #nochanges
I disagree. #nochanges was defined early as a defense against non-vanilla changes. We understood early that we likely weren’t receiving a truly authentic experience, which was 1.1 to 1.12 patch progression. Everything beyond that was some form of frankenpatch, or a specific patch like 1.12 encased in amber never to change. A frankenpatch conforms to #nochanges, and always has.
Stop trying to change its meaning after the fact.
4 Likes
It has been shown that 1.7 was the last patch prior to the landslide of removals and nerfs (besides shredder and mines). If folks can live without the shredder/mines, that may be the target that should have been chosen. But apparently blizzard’s “clarity” trumped providing something other than the iteration closest to what is already available in retail.
It’s dumb. This is not real Vanilla experience… it’s modified 2019 version. We will never get those days back, not really.
2 Likes
There was more BFA in 1.05 AV than there is in BFA.
![:face_with_raised_eyebrow:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/face_with_raised_eyebrow.png?v=6" ":face_with_raised_eyebrow:")
He is using BFA in the literal sense, not saying “elements of the newest expansion”.
That is, he’s saying “There was a better battle for the sake of Azeroth in 1.5 AV than there is in the newest expansion that has that in its name”
1 Like
Because people have jobs , kids , wives and other things to take care of . They have 3-4 hours a day max and wanna be done with things quickly
Ah.
I like it. ![:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye.png?v=6" ":stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:")
His point is that arguably AV was not originally intended to be digested in one large chunk of start to end. Many of us happily did it in chunks, making meaningful advancement of rep and honor without being there at the start or end. It did not need to get in the way of wife/kids/jobs/otherthingstotakecareof.
This is what the original design envisioned:
https://web.archive.org/web/20041223182307/http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/pvp/battlegrounds.html
We tried very hard to create a battle experience that felt like Warcraft; we want you to feel like you are part of a larger conflict, with the potential for lots of strategy and tactics beyond a simple mob of players crashing into each other.
Compare that with the weak justification in the Blue OP for 1.12.
“Hard” and “Gross”
If classic is to be a museum, then it should reflect the original intention of its elements, not a watered down lame mockery, only of value to those why want instant gratification and no respect for the thought and intent that went into the original design.
2 Likes
If they were freeloaders they would still be on their private servers.
1 Like
I’m still more interested in 1.5 as I’ve said on other such threads, but I thought I’d just share this clip. It’s funny nonetheless.
2 Likes