This is terrible. Even if we win, it feels hollow and too fast.
4 Likes
Is 1.12 AV not the version of Alterac Valley that best represents vanilla WoW?
Is 1.12 AV not the version that is not the pinacle of the improvements made throughout vanilla?
Is 1.12 AV not the verson that gives the most āclarityā for the developers?
Wouldnāt using 1.12 AV have saved a lot of resources and development time?
Why was AV 1.12 not used for the 15th anniversary version?
ROFL the youngest Boomers would have been almost 40 when WoW released, with the oldest nearly 60. Iām a Millennial and was already well out of high school by the time WoW came out.
Early WoW was primarily Gen-X and Millennials, with a lot of us coming over from EQ.
5 Likes
@kaivax āRandy Jordanā
https://twitter.com/Randydeluxe/with_replies?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Does anyone listen to you? Are you elevating our thoughts and opinions? What is your job? Does Blizzard read this?
1 Like
Do you get it now Luuni? 90% of AV is a zerg. You experienced the original epicness because players still did that a lot back then before everyone came to the awful realization that the entire BG could be ignored.
This is the thread that complaints should be posted in.
I just want to confirm that AV still blows.
4 Likes
Iām so glad Blizzard decided on the dumpster fire version I of AV I remembered from the tail end of vanilla, instead of the version that was used in most of it. /s
6 Likes
I am currently pointing and laughing at the 132 trolls who gave the blue OP a heart.
Took some time and began compiling the most cringeworthy pro 1.12 posters from earlier in the thread, only to have the page crash due to the horrible software this forum now runs. Seems fitting.
5 Likes
Play Alliance
Except itās not the 1.11 version existed for longer than the original version and just about as long as the middle version. So it was hardly the tail end.
1 Like
From 1.5 to the end of 1.7 with the 1.8 patch, the BG saw buffs and additions. That period of time (IIRC) was longer than the vanilla period that followed where the BG saw continuous nerfs and gutting.
Cherry picking specific versions to compare lengths of time is disingenuous as hell.
1 Like
1.5 through 1.7 lasted less time than 1.11 till 2.0.
And no itās not disenginuous when people are saying that the version we have was only a small part of what AV was in vanilla.
1 Like
I stand corrected. 1.5 through end of 1.7 spanned 4 months. 4 months of buffs and fixes.
And? What is your point? there were minor changes to AV during 1.5 through 1.7?
Great the major changes were at 1.8 and 1.11. Both of which lasted longer and addressed major issues not minor issues.
1 Like
Anyone who has the brainpower to read patch notes and then observe what state the BG is currently in can grasp my āpointā. But hey, reinforcements were not in till tbc, right?
And anyone who actually played in vanilla knows why AV was changed in the first place.
And no reinforcements are not in, which is why it is common for people to play D and for games to not just end up as zergs.
1 Like
And anyone who saw how the BG became the zerg and the subsequent decision to choose the most zerg friendly vanilla version possible, would have seen that a decade of zerg reinforcement (no pun intended) would lead directly to the hyper zerg that happens on a much larger scale than it did during vanilla.
I do have to laugh that you use the word common to describe how often non zerg games occur. I would love to see the average AV completion time during classic.
2 Likes
I would be interested in the average game lengths too.
Especially as the BG is aging more and people are both hitting exalted and realizing how terrible the honor system actually is so thereās no reason to zerg for most of them.
HK total per match as well.