Expand on that. We’ve given reasoning for 1.7, why do you feel 1.8?
1 Like
It may be so but I am going to continue to make this stance until we’ve seen a further update on this after all of the disappointment and so forth in response.
3 Likes
No reason in particular. I agreed with your entire post, but feel that part is something that gets overlooked when people drag out the rank grind rationale for nerfed AV.
So like are people getting their information from somewhere else? I know we discussed it before, but do they even have the data for the older versions?
I’d be less inclined to argue for 1.12 if someone can link a post where Blizzard said they have the data for 1.5 or 1.7. Everything I’ve read so far says they don’t have that data and I’ve argued on that point.
Fair enough.
And honestly I think there is nothing in the game that should be justified in the context of propping up the Vanilla Honor System.
1 Like
As stated last night a lot of this has been a difference of interpretation.
They never specified what data they do not have. They’ve only stated to not having full data of patches prior to 1.12.
This is why if they do not have the data it would be so freaking simple and easy to just say “Hey we don’t have it sorry, old patching system erased it 13 years ago” then most people like myself would accept that. In fact, I would argue pro-1.12 against those stating that they need to work in and write the coding to remake it as that’s not part of the project. That’d depend on how much is missing though. If just a tiny bit then let them just fill in small gaps. If everything 1.5-1.10 is gone then I won’t require them to have to remake it entirely.
4 Likes
I’d love to get a straight-forward answer to this too, but even if they had to re-create it from ‘best guesses’ I’d still be happier then a straight port of 1.12.
9 Likes
Oh my mistake, i meant 1.7, though this seems nice to have around
Patch 1.8.0 (10-Oct-2005):
-
In order to keep teams in Alterac Valley more numerically balanced, players will now enter Alterac Valley on a one-for-one basis (i.e. if there are 30 players in the battleground for each side with 10 players in the Alliance queue and 2 players in the Horde queue, only two players from each team will be added, bringing the total to 32 per side).
-
The minimum number of players required to start a battle in Alterac Valley has been lowered to 20 (the maximum is still 40).
-
Iceblood Graveyard has been fortified.
-
The Frostwolf Relief Hut now has appropriate guards
I am however against this
-
Due to the avalanche, Korrak the Bloodrager and a small band of surviving Trolls have made the Snowfall Graveyard their new home. Players will find that Snowfall is now under Korrak’s control and they must defeat Korrak and his Troll guards if they wish to take Snowfall.
-
NPC difficulty has been scaled down. All NPCs have had their power reduced by 15-30%.
The few arguments i’ve seen how here is people hate mine’s and the PVE part which as i’ve said a long time ago AV is a PVE mans BG those who want to zerg AV will do so anyway for there goodies and never look back.
I think the whole argument about a 1.7 frakenpatch is fair myself, but who know’s.
11 Likes
I’m convinced you don’t actually play this BG more than once a decade. And somewhat bewildered why you’re chiming in.
SFGY has tactical importance regarding IB and SH chokepoints. Both sides can bypass it entirely… dont know how it’s part of any zerg. Shortest route doesn’t go anywhere near it.
Reinforcements came way after Vanilla as a cheap way to shorten the game.
It’s easy to foresee zergs crashing against robust defenses of IB and SP chokepoints for days on end. And SH if it’s held by Horde. Though Alliance can always bypass chokepoints like the Island Hopping Campaign if stealth users can make it a few yards unscathed through IB. Jump down from SP, take the ridge through SH, get lucky through IB, jump the fence in FW, cap tower shadowmeld -> instantly despawn the archers. Those odds would eventually win out when I played Ally. It’s impossible to do that as Horde through SP. But then SP is also the only viable Ally choke… can do some screening actions elsewhere but they’re not effective if the other players have a clue.
I’m somewhat bewildered why you’re jumping back to a post from two weeks ago without reading the intervening ones. I was corrected within the same hour and accepted the correction.
This is Vanilla. Pretty sure you’re supposed to be using the 2h axe off KT to wingclip them.
Nah that’s Thunderfury.
You are just cherry picking statements to suit yourself. You know what else was said at Blizzcon: “You think you do, but you don’t”.
The whole reason we are here is because people wouldn’t settle for this dismissive nonsense that was foisted upon us by people who didn’t know diddley squat about vanilla.
Ion’s vision of what WoW is bears almost no resemblance to Vanilla WoW. It is why he needs to move away from making statements about the game and leave that to the people who are acually, actively developing it.
This is why people have been so on board with other statements they have made, and why they have garnered so much respect for making them. The announcement of this version of AV is the first misstep they have made, and the way in which it was made really caused a bit of a stutter in a lot of people’s confidence - not because it means we aren’t getting what we want, but because it denoted that maybe the developers really didn’t understand what so many of us, that have been fighting for years for this opportunity, found so magical and compelling about vanilla WoW.
It has been stated by multiple other posters, but I will reiterate here again: if they don’t have the data for 1.5-1.8 AV then tell us that. We will be disappointed and move on.
If they do have that data and have chosen not to use it because they want everything to be 1.12 then this is a large miscalculation on their part in the eyes of many fans of the whole idea of Classic.
Those of us fighting for an earlier version are doing so because we believe it is for the betterment of the entire game, to make Classic a more authentic and better representation of what vanilla was. We aren’t doing this because “it is the version I played and so I want to play what I played in 2006”.
Many of us played all versions, and many of feel that the earlier iterations were much better. You can see why they were complained about (people complain about everything), but if people playing 1.5 AV had 1.12 talents and gear, there would have been almost no complaints (there would have been some, because you know, people complain about everything - there are complaints in the general forum that levelling in BfA is too hard, and that it is too difficult to get gear!).
13 Likes
One thing I do not believe I have gotten a clear answer on and I have asked before because people just dismiss the question…
Let’s say they have 1.5 data or they try to recreate that version of AV. Since they’re going for a recreation here. Would you accept this timeline?
Phase 1: No AV
Phase 2: 1.5
Phase 3 1.7
Phase 4. 1.8
Phase 5 1.10
Phase 6 1.12
So if phases last three months. Av would progressively change like it originally did. While this seems like a massive amount of work for one batttleground (one reason why I think they’re not doing it. It’s a lot of work to go in and try to figure out exact data especially if they don’t have it or if they can’t access it.)
Would you accept that? As others have said. It would still lead us to the AV you guys don’t want. But for the first three months. You’d have your AV and it would be a fair and accurate representation of change in Vanilla.
I fully believe one of the reason they’re trying for a static patch with one version is because they don’t want to change things. That confuses players. It would make players upset halfway. And they don’t want that.
But to the question above. Would you accept that previous timeline of changing AV throughout Classic?
The fact that you are asking that question indicates, to me, that you haven’t absorbed a single argument that has occurred in this thread or paid any note to the viewpoints of the people who are asking for an earlier, more epic version of AV.
And to simply answer your question: NO.
I don’t want Blizzard progressing content and making changes over the course of Classic (I’ll revisit that stance 6 months after the final phase of content is released). They don’t want to do that for clear and well-grounded reasons, and I don’t think players want that.
I want a recreation, a static one, where talents and skills and the world doesn’t change every few months. I get releasing content in phases (might have been unnecessary but it makes sense and fits). Adding content over time is fine.
What you are proposing is the removal of game content. Why would we want this?
3 Likes
I have absorbed what you guys are saying. You want 1.5 AV. You want to relive those epic memories you had.
But this project is trying to faithfully recreate vanilla through unlocking content through a timeline similar to vanilla. And with the phases they’re trying to gradually release content as it was.
Would it it make sense to start at the early version of AV and then progressively make it into the final version. That’d be an accurate representation of what happened.
But it seems you don’t want that. If you don’t want that what is the difference between you and someone arguing for static 1.5 talent trees? I’d argue nothing. You both want the version you want to stay in game forever without acknowledging the changes that happened in Vanilla.
I think gradually changing AV would be a nice compromise so you could experience what you want and experience the change that happened, for better or worse. Since that is literally the most accurate thing they could do…
And if you think that, then all is lost.
Have a good one.
So because I don’t agree with you all is lost?
Why is getting a full accurate representation of Vanilla World of Warcraft a bad thing? Isn’t that what people wanted?
If Blizzard came out and said they were doing progressive AV, would you guys still be here arguing against that, despite it being the most accurate thing they could have done?
I’m trying to figure out your red line in the sand that if Blizzard crosses, you won’t play. Because I want everyone to play. But I also want it to be accurate.
I’ve seen several folks offer up 1.8 as a compromise. What if we started with that?
Right now we’re at 1.12 - 1.12 for Classic.
If we can get to X - 1.12 then that would be beneficial to you guys who are arguing against me.
Then just maybe, when they flip the switch to the older version, people will dislike it Blizzard will decide to keep the one of the older versions.
As I think Prufinnor has stated, I haven’t played the older version. So I can’t argue against it. And I haven’t been arguing against it. Never said it was bad. I’d prefer if they started with it and then progressed.
If a majority of people like the older version maybe they’ll stick with the older version.
But right now I think it would be best to do X - 1.12, if Blizzard can do it. If not, then well, we’re stuck with 1.12 because that’s what they have.
Also really surprised none of you have used the Epic Battlegrounds argument. Incase you aren’t aware… Blizzard actually buffed Alterac Valley a few months ago on live.
Here is the thread. Unsure why no one is throwing this in their faces, to show that the current live time is trying to go back to a time AV was harder. When that exact time is, I’m unsure.
I don’t think many people here read other forum sections than this because they can’t post elsewhere anyway ![:smiley:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/smiley.png?v=6" ":smiley:")
I for one don’t have any idea what is going on in retail.
Because it is a horribly flawed question. Also people are sick of your arguing against something which you’ve no experience with.
That as well.
1 Like