They are doing so due to gear progression and to add the content over time in order to reflect when those chunks of content and gear were added. That is not at all comparative to neutering a specific piece of content over the span of 7 patches, literal removal of content, to a static state it was in for the bulk of the next expansion. Content gating is opening up new content and does not remotely apply to taking a piece of content and removing chunk after chunk.
Please stop with the “they do not have accurate data”. You chose to entirely hop right over the part about many of us early AV fans being fine with an honest attempt at a restoration. If we are to pay the same amount as players of modern WoW, this is the least that we can get for our money.
I believe I stated I’d be fine with them trying to restore 1.5. But we disagree on the part where you want the wheel of change to stop at 1.5 AV and I want it to continue as it did in Vanilla.
And you are wrong about your comparison to the content roll-out phases. You’ve provided no reasoning and particulars about why it should be neutered over time, beyond “because that is what happened, and the last version is the version I played”. The content roll-out phases serve a specific function, and it is content added to the game over time.
The content phases are trying to replicate the changes that happened in Vanilla World of Warcraft.
We started with MC and ONY. Then DM came. Then BWL. Then ZG. So on and so forth. The content phases are unlocking those along the ways. Hence why I said I think it’d be cool to go through AVs content cycle as it happened in Vanilla.
Vanilla also removed content.
Using the Spirit Healer now results in a 25% loss in durability for a player’s equipped gear and items in inventory, instead of the previous 100% loss.
Patch 1.1.1. No one is complaining that Classic is removing that. Or this
Reagent requirements have been removed from the following spells:
Druid: Mark of the Wild
Mage: Arcane Intellect
Priest: Power Word: Fortitude
I can go through each patch and show people where they removed content. But it seems the only thing people cared that they removed was 1.5 AV. If you want them to restore old content, why not all of it?. You want one piece of removed content to be mashed back into the 1.12 data. So can’t others advocate for what they want? Where does it end? Are we going to have 1.12 talents, 1.1.1 spell costs, 1.5 threat? Where exactly does it end?
That’s why Blizzard said 1.12 provides clarity because if they didn’t go with 1.12. Well, we’d be arguing over every single patch and what should be included and what shouldn’t be included.
You dug pretty deep with that one, using that as an example is weak as most of us either don’t remember that or were not even on in 1.1.1.
False equivalency.
1.5AV to 1.12AV is a very large change compared to some of the changes that they did during Vanilla that are being overlooked. And taking those as a way to argue against 1.5 in the 1.5 AV argument? Who is to say that there are those not arguing against some of the more minor changes? This conversation is about 1.5 AV, not about the unarmored mounts or what have you.
The change between the two is much larger than most other alterations made during Vanilla and much more game affecting as well.
I was just pointing out that lots of changes happened during Vanilla. I understand this is about 1.5 AV. Im just saying that if they grant this request for 1.5 AV. People are going to ask for 1.5 talents, since they restored AV, why not talents?
Why not 1.5 itemization?
It’s going to open up Pandora’s box. Would it not? People are going to start asking for other things that existed in 1.5 because they saw that Blizzard catered to your requests, so why not theirs?
When they were discussing the 1.12 data they found, they said they didn’t want to just guess, and have rounds of rebalancing to get it right from people’s distorted memories. Recreating AV from memory would be guessing.
Those are not changes to those individual elements.
What difference does any of that have to do with AV specifically? Nobody has argued that things were not removed during vanilla or that changes occurred.
Why would you? Who are you arguing it with?
Reasons for which have been repeated and repeated and repeated, entire threads, polls, citations etc, have occurred over the past 10 years about Alterac Valley specifically. It is not simply “v1.5” but rather specific parts of 1.5 that were removed/nerfed. People care about it because people care about it. Seriously, the reason we are getting classic is because people cared about it.
Hell it was posted earlier that Mark Kern himself regretted the changes made to the BG out of ignorance.
Will you be this adamant a defender of “it happened because it happened and you should not seek to lock something at a certain state” if and when blizzard invites discussion about TBC? Will you at that point argue that vanilla classic should become TBC Classic, because that is what happened back then and it is how you remember it being?
As far as “why not all of it” is concerned, some of us lived through that history, and saw that both good changes and bad changes occurred throughout vanilla. I and others do not see the point of repeating the same bad changes of that history. I am not required to ask for every aspect of vanilla to be restored. What an asinine tact.
Give it a rest. You know just as little as any of us what they meant by “clarity”. We were invited to discuss what versions of aspects of vanilla we preferred by Blizzard themselves, but you choose to completely pretend that part never happened and instead wave the “blizzard said” banner just for the things you feel like arguing against.
I know what clairty means. I’m pretty sure others do as well.
I’m here discussing with you why I do not believe adding one aspect of patch 1.5 would be viable because then you open up arguments for others aspects of patch 1.5 to be added. People have already requested older talent trees when Classic was first announced.
You seem to take this hostile nature just because someone is disagreeing with you. I’m not hostile with you. So why are you so adament about not having a discussion?
Do you think people won’t ask for 1.5 talents if they give us 1.5 AV? I think they will, since it’s already happened with requests for older talents and itemization.
People have been begging for 1.1 -1.12 itemization. Streamers and youtubers have been asking for it. It’s been one of the most requested thing. From the looks of it, we may not be getting that.
It just seems odd that they would restore 1.5 AV and not have 1.1-1.12 itemization if they’re able to restore old content. Wouldn’t you say so?
I understand your argument – ‘If one thing gets changed, it will lead to requests for other changes’ – but I think in this case you’re missing why AV is different.
First thing we have to do is agree that there are different types of changes that people can look for. Talents are different from items, items are different from zones, etc. I’m going to assume we can agree on that.
What makes AV different from your other examples is this: AV is -content-. One could (and I guess I could, if you really want me to?) easily make the case that AV at its break-points (1.5, 1.8, 1.10, 1.11) are different content – in some cases they’re literally different maps. A spell is a spell – but it doesn’t change the content. When you raid Onyxia across different patches, at its core, you will still be raiding Onyxia. Same with every other raid zone / boss. Numbers may change, but the experience is, at its core, the same.
When people talk about 1.5 AV, or any version of AV that’s not 1.11’s (therefore, 1.12’s) version, the discussion revolves around the removal of -content-. What version of talent trees is hardly the same discussion as, literally, quests that had objectives completely altered or removed because the content was changed so drastically, it overhauled the foundations and mechanics of the battleground.
People are arguing over content that was removed, and that is why AV is such a hot topic. It is different than any other example you can reference. At no point in time was Onyxia – or any other boss’ – fight so drastically changed that it was no longer the same core encounter.
I’ve asked for pure patch progression in the past, and I would continue to push for it if there was any chance of it happening. Blizzard has provided solid reasons for not implementing patch progression, so I’ve dropped the issue.
AV, however, is a relatively small, self-contained environment that isn’t even being released on launch, and Blizzard has yet to say that they can’t implement an earlier version of AV. In fact, the reasons they gave for adopting 1.12 AV were that earlier versions of AV had more, tougher NPCs that were “too hard to kill”, and that the drops were “gross”.
If Blizzard just said that it wasn’t feasible to implement an earlier AV, many of us would move on.
I do think it would be a big win if they were to try and restore it and I’d like to see that happen. I’m just cautious because I’d expect the next day requests for more restored content would come in.
If those of us who felt that this was a bad decision decided that it wasn’t worthwhile to make our opinion known “because 1.12”, then Blizzard will definitely retain 1.12 AV. Blizzard does listen, to an unknown extent, to these forums.
Blizzard owes us nothing; they can cancel the project right now and would be within their rights to do so. We make our opinions known, and Blizzard either listens or ignores us. End of story.
I understand your sentiment but I do not believe that this will lead to a massive push for such ideas. Would it likely lead to more requests? Yes, but would they receive the kind of continued ongoing backing? I do not believe so.
I’d believe this argument, if not for the sudden rise in TBC or Classic+ posts over the last few weeks, as Classic comes close.
“We harassed them into giving us Classic, now we can have TBC or Classic+”
The “once the line is broken, everything is up for grabs” argument is being made constantly everywhere on these forums, and even justifying it with things that didn’t break the line.
While it is a ‘slippery slope’ argument, its becoming hard to claim that its not a valid argument. AV is the loudest post, but it’s by no means the only change with a vocal group of supporters. And AV 1.5 would be the first non-1.12 change Blizzard made because the players wanted it (as opposed to their technical and financial changes that no player wants).
Not necessarily.
It deviates back to the amount of work needed to perform such restorations, the coding that that would entail and the amount of customer opinion/push for said development.
Edit: To detail on coding. Such itemization would require much more work and be more likely to lead to bugs or other issues throughout the world whereas AV is within AV itself and is more controlled and easier(or faster) to debug.